GOP: military's study of DADT will be biased

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:30:00 AM EST

GOP lawmakers are likely to use the argument to try to chip away at the credibility of the assessment, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates envisions as the first comprehensive look at the policy in its 17-year lifetime.

Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and U.S. Army Forces Europe commander Gen. Carter Ham were expected to testify Wednesday before a House Armed Services subcommittee for the first time since being tapped to lead the study.

"Many of us on this committee have serious concerns with putting our men and women in uniform through such a divisive debate while they are fighting two wars," said Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the full committee's top Republican.

Assailing the vendor selected to conduct the study is now the tactic being pulled out of the cultural dungeon of the GOP. The RAND Corp will handle the work; the AP obtained an email from a McKeon staffer outlining the purported "significant shortcomings" of the company citing one RAND staffer's research (not on work time) with a pro-repeal org, The Palm Center.

"Given RAND's track record on this issue, there is no way that any study it produces can be called credible or objective," staffer John Chapla wrote.

RAND spokesman Jeffrey Hiday said the company did not work side by side with the pro-repeal group last year. A RAND researcher did some work on her own time" for the Palm Center, Hiday said, and is no longer doing so. "RAND has no ideological perspective. We approach every problem by focusing on the facts and analyzing the facts."

But here's the reality check: the point of the study (to be completed by Dec. 1), as Sec. Def. Gates has stated publicly, is not about asking permission from service members to repeal the policy. What it is specifically:

"it will focus primarily on three areas: changes to legislation, education and training and policy...and led by a senior civilian and a one- or two-star general. Air Force Maj. Gen. Greg Biscone has been appointed the group's executive director.

He is responsible for the development of Air Force policy, concepts, analysis and strategy for the next QDR. His organization continually re-orients the department's capabilities and forces to be more agile in times of war, prepare for wider asymmetric challenges, and mitigate risk against uncertainty over the next 20 years.

General Biscone is a 1981 distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. His assignments include combat crew instructor duty and wing command in the B-52; squadron, group and wing command in the B-2; advanced systems acquisition; and aide to the Commander, Air Combat Command. He also led the Joint Staff's Force Integration Branch, directed the Headquarters U.S. Executive Secretariat, and served as ACC's Assistant Director of Air and Space Operations. Prior to his current assignment, he was Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Central Command.

General Biscone commanded expeditionary forces and flew B-52 missions in operations Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom. He also commanded B-2 actions in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with strikes from both continental United States and deployed locations. He is a command pilot with more than 3,800 hours.

Rep. Murphy confident Congress will repeal DADT this fall; grassroots presser on Thursday

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 15:30:00 PM EST

In an interview with DC Agenda Tuesday, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) said he believed lawmakers would overturn this year the 1993 statute preventing gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military and that he's expecting Congress to take up the issue "legislatively in the next couple months."

Murphy said the upcoming defense authorization bill could be a vehicle for passing repeal legislation. He noted that passage as part of defense authorization would give the Pentagon time to complete the study currently underway on the law.

"We usually don't pass that into law until October of that year," Murphy said. "October is about seven months away. That's plenty of time for the folks to get ready to just put out to the troops that you need to respect not just one another's race, one another creed, but also one another's sexual orientation."

"This is a time when we need to make sure that we refocus our efforts on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda," Murphy said. "Now is not the time to have Chapter 15 investigations and hearing if someone is gay or straight in our military."

PRESS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

WHAT:  Press conference highlighting grassroots support for the repeal of DADT
WHEN:   March 4, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. ET
WHERE:  U.S. House of Representatives Triangle, Capitol Hill
WHO:  Press conference to feature remarks from:

• U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, Iraq veteran and lead sponsor of the bill to repeal DADT (HR 1283);
• Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign;
• Eric Alva, a former Marine Staff Sgt. veteran who was the first U.S. soldier wounded in the Iraq war and is now an HRC spokesperson on DADT;
• Jarrod Chlapowski, a former U.S. Army Korean linguist who opted to not re-enlist because of DADT and is a public policy advocate at the Human Rights Campaign; and,
• Kayla Williams, a straight OIF veteran and former Army Arabic linguist who is the author of the Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army.

***

On a related note, this just came in from The Palm Center:

STATEMENT BY SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS ON U.S. CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS

As scholars and experts on American civil-military relations, we are keenly aware of the critical balance that it is necessary to maintain between military and civilian leadership. We are concerned about a precedent reflected in the current debate about gays and lesbians in the military involving consultations by U.S. lawmakers of top uniformed personnel.

Civilian leaders must, of course, consult with the military before making decisions that affect the men and women who serve in our armed forces and which might affect the national security of the United States. The recent invitation by the Senate and House for the Service Chiefs to offer their best judgment about whether it is time to end the current ban on openly gay troops was therefore appropriate.

We are concerned, however, that political leaders seem poised to accept advice provided by the Service Chiefs uncritically, advice which does not seem to take into account considerable research that has emerged over the past fifty years about the impact of openly gay service on military effectiveness. Much of that research was conducted by the U.S. military's own experts.

In particular, we are perplexed by the Chiefs' claim that they have insufficient data to assess the impact of openly gay service; by their argument that the transition to inclusive policy will be an upheaval that will be difficult to manage; and by their suggestion that because the military is engaged in a two-front war, it is unable to manage that transition. (We note, for example, the recent recommendation to allow women on submarines).

Acting on advice which is not grounded in data would be inconsistent with the tradition of civilian control of the armed forces. We hope that the ongoing conversation surrounding this issue will take these concerns into account and that civilian leaders will properly exercise their Constitutional authority to govern the military, rather than the other way around.

• BG Hugh Aitken, USMC (ret.)
• Professor Deborah Avant, University of California Irvine
• Professor Aaron Belkin, University of California Santa Barbara
• Lt. Col. Allen Bishop, USA (ret.), former professor, U.S. Military Academy at West Point
• Professor James Burk, Texax A&M University
• Dr. Ralph M Carney, former researcher, Defense Personnel Security Research Center
• Professor Neta C. Crawford, Boston University
• Dr. Carol Cohn, Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights
• Professor Martin L. Cook, Admiral James Bond Stockdale Chair of Professional Military Ethics, United States Naval War College*
• Lt. Col. Edie A. Disler, USAF (ret.), former professor, U.S. Air Force Academy
• Dr. Lynn Eden, Stanford University
• Professor Mark Eitelberg, Naval Postgraduate School*
• Professor Cynthia Enloe, Clark University
• Eugene R. Fidell, Senior Researcher in Law and Florence Rogatz Lecture in Law, Yale Law School
• Professor Gregory D. Foster, National Defense University*
• Professor Hugh Gusterson, George Mason University
• Professor Elizabeth Hillman, University of California Hastings
• John D. Hutson, RADM, JAGC, USN (ret.), President and Dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center
• Professor Richard H. Kohn, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Professor Janice Laurence, Temple University
• Professor Catherine Lutz, Brown University
• Professor Diane H. Mazur, University of Florida College of Law
• Professor George Reed, University of San Diego, former Director of Command and Leadership Studies, U.S. Army War College
• Professor Steven M. Samuels, United States Air Force Academy*
• Professor David R. Segal, Director, Center for Research on Military Organization, University of Maryland
• Professor Mady Segal, University of Maryland
• Professor Michael S. Sherry, Northwestern University
• Professor David Vine, American University

* The views expressed by faculty at US Government Agencies are those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their Service, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government

Senate Armed Services chairman Levin queasy that a vote to repeal DADT will fail

by: Pam Spaulding

Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 20:29:28 PM EST

When asked about equality advocates' concern that a moratorium on enforcement of the military's ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy would put off a vote on repealing policy this year, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said on Thursday, ''That's not my concern. My concern would be that the vote on ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' gets defeated.''

When asked if that meant the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman had concerns that such a vote would be defeated this year, Levin's response was blunt:

''Yeah, darn right I do.''

Levin made the comments following testimony Thursday morning by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and top military chiefs with the Navy and Marine Corps.

The Palm Center makes a pointed statement -- the military doesn't need permission from those who are serving to effect change. Polling their feelings about the matter is in the end, irrelevant -- all they need to do is look at other countries where gays and lesbians already serve. It's a top-down institution that shouldn't be governed by the sensitivities or bigotries of those who are in the military -- it's a bad policy, get rid of it. But decisionmakers -- and apparently lawmakers -- are bunching their panties over this.

In a conversation with Dr. Nathaniel Frank today, Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, acknowledged difficulties with the plan to poll U.S. troops on their personal feelings about serving with gays. "We've never assessed the force because it's not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not," Admiral Roughead told Frank in a discussion immediately following the Admiral's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "That gets you into a very difficult regime."

Frank, Senior Research Fellow at the Palm Center, agreed with Admiral Roughead.  "The military is a top-down institution for good reason," he said.  "Acknowledging the concerns of the troops is important, but that's not the same as using an opinion poll as the basis for making policy." Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin has also said that, while it is important to remain sensitive to the concerns of service members, "An army is not a democracy."

This month, the Palm Center released a policy memorandum with eight research recommendations to the new Pentagon Working Group on gays in the military.  One of the recommendations supports Admiral Roughead's observation:

Consult troops for relevant information rather than to ask their permission for reform. It is important to be sensitive to the concerns and anxieties of military members as options are weighed about lifting the ban on openly gay service. Yet it is crucial that, when uniformed personnel are consulted on this matter, the purpose of the consultations be made clear: Polls or anecdotes about the personal preferences of enlisted personnel and junior officers should not be used as a basis to determine policy, and they do not constitute evidence about the critical question of what impact lifting the ban will have on cohesion, recruitment, and effectiveness. In Britain and Canada, approximately two-thirds of troops surveyed said that they would not work with gays, yet when inclusive policies were implemented, just a handful of service members actually retired.

Our "Fierce Advocate" Not Being Fierce Again

by: Autumn Sandeen

Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 00:21:06 AM EST

President Obama released a new health care reform bill Monday that he says incorporates work done in the House and Senate and adds ideas from Republican members of Congress. But there's no inclusion in this new proposed measure of any of the gay-related provisions in the original House bill.

But it's not all bad news. The president's proposal calls for $11 billion for "the operation, expansion, and construction of community health centers" around the country. And that money could help at least some LGBT and HIV centers around the country.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), the openly gay member of Congress who was a leader in adding pro-gay provisions to the House health reform bill, says she hasn't given up hope. She called President Obama's proposal Monday "an important step forward" that "helps to regain our momentum" on health care reform efforts.

But, she added, "it is not the final word." ...

It might not be the final word on healthcare reform, but the current healthcare reform proposal by President Obama and is yet another example of how the President is far from being the fierce, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community advocate he advertized himself to be in the 2008 campaign.

CNN Poll: Majority Don't Think President Deserves Second Term

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 10:00:00 AM EST

Do you think Barack Obama deserves to be re-elected, or not?

If you're like most Americans, your answer is "No," according to a poll released on Tuesday by CNN. The perception was even worse for members of Congress nationwide -- but respondents still indicated they were likely to re-elect their current Representative.

With identical numbers for all Americans as well as for just registered voters, 52 percent said the President does not deserve to be re-elected, while 44 percent said that he does. Four percent had no opinion.

Respondents indicated the lowest opinions of Congress dating back to the start of the poll in 1991.

It's just one poll, and you can try to toss it out as a one-off, but the fact is, coming into office, Barack Obama has been set up to be a one-termer from the start. Left with a flaming pile of cow dung economy and two failing military actions in progress by Dear Leader Bush II, the GOP was glad to hand over the keys to the WH so that they could quite wisely depend on the lack of attention-span American public to blame Obama for not fixing all of the Bush messes that took years to create. If Hillary won, she'd be in the same sorry position.

However, what we'll never know is what was going on inside the minds of President Obama's staff, who for some reason thought that 2008 win meant an automatic two terms. They clearly laid out a two-term plan, and sold that to LGBT leaders as a realistic goal of some kind. Given a two-term plan means a re-election bid, any person of average political intelligence should have realized that the window of opportunity to pass socially groundbreaking civil rights legislation was going to need to be addressed early on, and ducks needed to be in a row, with strong leadership to push the controversial elements forward. Now we see how the focus is on the mid-terms and the smell of Dem fear is in the air re: anything gay.

There wasn't a back up plan for one term, huh?

It's still his second term to lose; if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate a fringe candidate like Palin or some teabagger icon, President Obama may have a slam dunk re-election. However, as brain-dead as we often think the GOP is, they have a presence of mind and ability to focus on the end goal that Democrats seem to flounder time and again. One can only hope that a re-election campaign is run better than this governing administration.

Coverage of today's HRC/DADT blog swarm

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 16:53:15 PM EST

The bloggers are looking for the President to take a lead role in ensuring that Congress passes legislation to overturn the military's gay ban this year and to publicly call on Congress to do so. To that end, they are mounting what they called a "blog swarm" to compel HRC to advocate more vocally for the President to take a stand.

..."We truly believe that if HRC were to openly call on the White House to get DADT repealed this year, it would happen. Mostly because Democrats are rightly worried about the gay vote (and the support of our straight allies) months before a critical congressional election."

The post encourages readers to contact HRC and voice their concerns and provides the following information:

HRC front desk: (202) 628-4160
TTY: (202) 216-1572
Toll-Free: (800) 777-4723
HRC website comment page: http://www.hrc.org/12022.htm
General membership e-mail at hrc: membership@hrc.org

Many gay rights advocates have been frustrated, not only by the pace of change in the Obama Administration, but the muted response from the national organizations, who they feel should be more aggressive in advocating for those changes. This action against the HRC seeks to push them into the spotlight with public pressure on the White House and members of Congress, and bloggers note that their close working relationship with the White House would mean that public statements of the type they desire would send a powerful signal.

I think increased pressure from HRC is important, though what I'd really like to see is four-fold, and I've called for several for months now:

• Increased pushback in the media when items come out like the Pentagon considering segregated shower facilities or the Pentagon memo originally advising the President "now is not the time" (here)
• Increased pushback on the one-year "study", like Rep. Sestak did in my interview (here), and emphasizing that Congress must repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell this year while the Pentagon completes its study
• Increased pushback by warning, like the labor unions are doing, that angry and apathetic LGBT voters will stay home in droves during the 2010 elections (here)
• Mobilization aimed at the White House. The night of the State of the Union speech, HRC launched its Voices of Honor campaign around grassroots mobilization, media events and legislative pressure. This is all important, but what remains to be seen is presidential leadership on the issue. John is dead-on here:

  Unfortunately, we've reached a point with the Obama administration where allies have to publicly demand action, or promises are never kept. Just last week, the AFL-CIO was forced to send an action alert to its members, targeting the White House. If it's good enough for the unions, it's good enough for us.

  
  Just like I asked LGBT leaders and activists to take a page out of labor's book on media pushback, HRC could do the same on this front. I'm not going to be satisfied with an official HRC statement "calling" on the White House to ask Congress. I'd like to see grassroots mobilization to do the same.

John et al are right that the momentum is on our side. We don't just need legislative mobilization, we need strong leadership, both from traditional groups and from the Administration, to push this through, and I'd like to see it on multiple fronts.

Vice President Biden: "Dick Cheney's A Fine Fellow, But He Is Not Entitled To Rewrite History."

by: Autumn Sandeen

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 10:00:00 AM EST

Joe Biden: Let me choose my words carefully here. Dick Cheney's a fine fellow. He's entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to rewrite history. He's not entitled to his own facts.

The Christmas Day Bomber was treated in the exact way that he suggested that the shoe bomber was treated. Absolutely the same way.

Under the Bush Administration, there were three trials in military courts. Two of those people are now walking the streets. They are free.

There were three-hundred trials of so-called terrorists -- and those who have engaged in terror against the United States Of America -- who are in federal prison and have not seen the light of day...Prosecuted under the last administration.

Dick Cheney's a fine fellow, but he is not entitled to rewrite history without it being challenged. I don't know where he has been Where was he the last four years of the last administration?

And...

...I'm not going to guess about his motives.

All I know is he's factually, substantively, wrong on the major criticisms he is asserting.  Why he's insisting on that -- He's either misinformed, or he's misinforming.

But, the facts are that his assertions are not accurate.

And...

...Look, it's one thing to be outspoken. It's another thing to be outspoken in a way that misrepresents the facts. And, I just...again, it's almost like Dick is trying to rewrite history...

I guess Vice President Biden and the Obama Administration are not holding back in their direct critism of the former Vice President. Interesting, to say the least.

Guest Post: A Taxing Question of Medical Necessity

by: Autumn Sandeen

Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:00:00 AM EST

By Kelley Winters

Many trans and especially transsexual Americans were relieved this week by the U.S. Tax Court decision to reverse earlier IRS positions and allow costs of hormonal and surgical transition care to be deducted as medical expenses. The ruling concluded:

Petitioner has shown that her hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery treated disease within the meaning of section 213 and were therefore not cosmetic surgery. Thus petitioner's expenditures for these procedures were for "medical care" as defined in section 213(d)(1)(A), for which a deduction is allowed under section 213(a).

However, this recognition of the legitimacy of medical transition came  at a cost to the dignity of transsexual women and men. It relied on the  flawed diagnostic nomenclature of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in  the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and  its implication of mentally "disordered" gender identity. Paradoxically, this case fueled opposition to medical transition access, based on the current wording of the very same GID classification and its more virulent companion diagnosis of Transvestic Fetishism. While the Tax Court decision underscored the utility of some kind of diagnostic coding for those who need access to hormonal or surgical transition care, it also illustrated the urgency of reforming the GID diagnosis and removing the Transvestic Fetishism category in the next revision of the DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

Ms. Rhiannon O'Donnabhain underwent corrective genital surgery in 2001 and claimed a tax deduction for surgical and hormonal treatment expenses as well as the cost of a breast augmentation procedure. Her courageous nine year battle with the IRS to affirm the medical legitimacy of her transition care took a tortuous off-again, on-again path among the potholes of politics and prejudice.

Although the IRS initially issued a full refund to Rhiannon, a tax examiner denied her deduction in July, 2002. He declared her surgical and hormonal care to be "cosmetic" and therefore excluded as a deductible medical expense under section 231(d)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code. She appealed, represented by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). Attorney Karen Loewy argued that,

Any notion that medical treatment for a transgender person is purely cosmetic is based on misunderstanding and prejudice, not medical science.

In November, 2004, the IRS reversed the examiner's decision and allowed Rhiannon to deduct her surgical expenses as medically necessary and professionally prescribed. However, political extremist groups responded by pressuring the Bush Administration to deny tax deductions for all medical transition care. They based their arguments on the same psychiatric classification of GID that GLAD cited to win the appeal. The following month, Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), wrote IRS Commissioner Mark Everson:

[More below the fold.]

Tanya Domi: Historic Hearings on DADT Begin Today As Pentagon Pushes Back

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 09:30:00 AM EST

The White House offers up its version of 'Expanding Opportunities for the LGBT Community' in FY11

by: Pam Spaulding

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 21:39:37 PM EST

Expanding Opportunities for the LGBT Community

Having steered the economy back from the brink of a depression, the Administration is committed to moving the Nation from recession to recovery by sparking job creation to get millions of Americans back to work and building a new foundation for the long-term prosperity for all American families. To do this, the 2011 Budget makes critical investments in the key areas that will help to reverse the decline in economic security that American families have experienced over the past decade with investments in education, clean energy, infrastructure, and innovation.

But even as we meet the challenge of the recession and work to build an economy that works for all American families, we must also change the way Washington does business - ending programs that don't work, streamlining those that do, cracking down on special interest access, and bringing a new responsibility to how tax dollars are spent. The President's Budget takes the steps to help jumpstart job creation, works to strengthen the economic security of American families, and makes the tough choices to put our Nation back on the path to fiscal responsibility.

To support the needs of the LGBT community, the Budget will:

Strengthen Anti-Discrimination Efforts. To strengthen civil rights protections for all citizens, the Budget includes a 11 percent increase in funding to Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. This investment will help the Division handle implementation of a historic new hate crimes law, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Support Federal Employee Domestic Partner Benefits. The Administration supports the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, which provides the same benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees as those provided to married heterosexual partners of Federal employees. These benefits include health insurance, survivor annuities, compensation for work-related injuries, travel and relocation benefits, life insurance, and vision and dental benefits.

Expand and Focus HIV/AIDS Treatment, Care, and Prevention Activities. The Budget expands access to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment activities consistent with the President's pledge to develop a National HIV/AIDS Strategy that will focus on reducing HIV incidence, increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes, and reducing HIV-related health disparities. It focuses HIV testing among high-risk groups, including gay and bisexual men, African Americans, and Hispanics. The Budget also includes specific appropriations for new HIV prevention programs. The Budget increases resources for the Ryan White program to support the care and treatment needs for an estimated 10,000 additional persons living with HIV/AIDS who are unable to afford health care and related support services, and directs resources to reduce HIV-related health disparities by expanding HIV/AIDS medical services within populations disproportionately impacted by the epidemic. Finally, the Budget enhances funding for collaboration and integration activities to improve overall health outcomes for those with HIV/AIDS and co-infections with tuberculosis, hepatitis, and sexually transmitted diseases.

Execute a National AIDS Awareness Campaign. The President's budget continues a 5-year, $45 million dollar, multi-faceted "Act Against AIDS" campaign launched April 2009. The campaign will be driven by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) with the goal of reducing HIV incidence in the United States. The first phase of the campaign seeks to counter complacency about HIV/AIDS through online, transit, and radio ads. In an effort to more effectively reach and educate African-Americans about HIV/AIDS, CDC has developed partnerships with 14 African-American civic organizations that will integrate HIV prevention into each of their existing outreach programs. CDC will also partner with the Kaiser Family Foundation to establish a coalition of entertainment, print, online, and other media organizations that will place campaign ads in support of the "Act Against AIDS" campaign.

Support a Fair and Accurate 2010 Census. For the first time, the Census Bureau will be releasing counts of same-sex marriages reported on the relationship question from the decennial census short-form. In previous decennial censuses, the Census Bureau re-coded any individual who reported being in a marriage with someone of the same sex. Under this new policy, in 2011 the Census Bureau will make available to researchers and the public the unedited (that is, not recoded) data on same-sex marriages. Following that, the Census Bureau will release a special report on what the unedited data reveals about measuring same-sex marriages. Concurrently, the Census Bureau, working with the Office of Management and Budget, will be engaged in an inter-agency process to develop recommendations for how all Federal statistical agencies can better measure marriages and other family relationships. The Budget provides $1.3 billion to the Census Bureau to process, tabulate, and release 2010 Census data, conduct extensive evaluations of the census, improve the data collection methods of the American Community Survey, and begin a continuous update process of the Census Bureau's geospatial and address data, which is expected to produce long-run cost savings.

The Pray In Jesus Name Project: 'defending our troops against open homosexual aggression'

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:00:00 AM EST

Look at this batsh*t crazy Human Events ad on the pending repeal of DADT.  Well, clearly this is the kind of crap that the Obama administration and Congress fear -- and what is causing them to call for more study and to say it will be "several years" before implementing the repeal of DADT in the WaPo:

The Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.

A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced Tuesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While the review is likely to take the better part of this year to complete, and even more time to implement, its initiation will advance President Barack Obama's goal of repealing the ban and bring a divisive issue for the military back to the fore.

 More crazy below the fold.

We told you so, Dems - so can the Netroots play ball now that the smart folks fouled out?

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 22:48:13 PM EST

I won't go into a long diatribe about how LGBTs were warning our progressive peeps that the flares had gone up early on in the Obama admin that our issues were going to be backburnered, and not just because the man and his team had a full plate.

• We watched as Robert Gibbs stood up at the podium and repeatedly had a case of amnesia or inability to be fully briefed on what the plan was to repeal DADT or to even give a timeline or idea of whether the President was discussing it.
• We saw the DOMA brief and its unabashed homophobic language.
• But we were told, "He's only been in office __ months" by our friends.
• We saw our LGBT leaders scream, clap and coo as the President invited select members of the community to stand for photo ops, toast to success and promises uttered about action yet to come.

The storm was brewing and it wasn't just the National Organization for Marriage belching out the hot air of professional political homophobia.

Then the worm turned. The President started screwing with other parts of the progressive agenda, selling out, in bed with the very health care institutions in need of reform that are currently screwing us over to keep the cash flowing into their coffers. Dems in Congress showed how 60 seats isn't 60 seats when you bed down with Blue dogs and come up with fleas. And that, apparently, was the progressive wake up call, and the rage rose.

But, we saw it all coming, and our leaders didn't see it, and too many loyal progressives, many LGBT, watched the clock being run down in obvious fashion by this Admin and a spineless Congress.

And then the bill came due and we had an election to give this party a grade. Overconfidence and incompetence in Coakley's campaign has resulted in the election of a teabagging Cosmo centerfold taking Ted Kennedy's seat.

Peter Daou has a spot-on essay up at Huff Post, "Liberal Bloggers to Obama and Dems: We Told You So." He takes a look at the possible theories why Democrats, with control of the House, Senate and the Presidency, have managed to make themselves impotent, but I want to zero in on the one portion of his essay that we've discussed here about the role of progressive bloggers and the inability of those in power to realize the game has changed, and that to ignore these voices (or to try to blunt their impace) only exacerbates communication and strategy problems.

I'd like to suggest an additional explanation for the demise of Democratic fortunes, namely, that Democratic leaders made two crucial miscalculations in early 2009. A quick glance at the news a year ago today offers clues. On January 19th, 2009, CBS published the "Obama-Lincoln parallel." The Washington Post wrote about a "bear market for Republicans leaving the Hill or the administration." The same day, techPresident discussed "How the Obama Transition is Using Tech to Innovate." Elsewhere that day, LGBT bloggers were complaining that gay Bishop Gene Robinson's prayer was left out of HBO's live broadcast of the inaugural concert.

In that small selection of stories, key themes emerge: a) Obama is the next Lincoln; b) The Obama online revolution continues; c) Republicans are finished; d) a handful of progressives aren't buying it.

Looking back, it's not that difficult to see how the seeds of today's Republican resurgence were planted in those early days:

1. Democratic leaders and strategists, high on victory and awed by the Obama campaign's online prowess, underestimated the dormant power of the old rightwing message machine.

With a sense of invincibility and of history, and believing that the GOP had been mortally wounded, they engaged and legitimized Rush Limbaugh from the White House podium in the belief that it would further marginalize Republicans. It was a mammoth mistake, since it was Rush, Hannity, Drudge, Fox, rightwing blogs, town hall protesters and old-fashioned chain emails that permanently defined the health care debate. Obama's vaunted online army was outgunned and outmaneuvered, while a much-ridiculed Tea Party came out of nowhere to transform the political landscape.

2. Democratic leaders and strategists, privately disdainful of the netroots, underestimated the influence of progressive bloggers.

Nothing should have been a bigger red flag to the new administration than the growing complaints by established progressive bloggers that Democrats were veering off track on the stimulus, the health care bill, civil liberties, gay rights, and more. But scoffing at the netroots is second nature in many quarters of the political establishment, even though they laid the groundwork for Obama's victory. The single biggest reason Obama's hope bubble burst is because of the unintended convergence of left and right opinion-making. The cauldron of opinion that churns incessantly on blogs, Twitter, social networks, and in the elite media generates the storylines that filter across the national and local press, providing the fodder for public opinion. Stalwarts of the left, dedicated to principles not personalities, hammered the administration; couple that with the partisan criticisms from conservatives and libertarians, and the net effect was to alter conventional wisdom and undercut Obama's image and message.

I wrote about these problems while they were occurring, as did many other progressive bloggers, some of whom have been ostracized and attacked, even by their peers.

It seems so clear in hindsight, of course, but what is the solution? More below the fold.

Kerry Eleveld on the 'Coakley effect' and David Mixner on Obama's damaging silence

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EST

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples. And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That's what I'll do as president.

-- Candidate Barack Obama, in an interview with ABC's Jake Tapper, June 16, 2008

Turns out the Coakley race is not only key to bagging health reform so Democrats can finally pivot toward other legislation, but it also might serve as a bellwether for Dems on social issues. That reality was apparently a point of discussion at the emergency meeting called by major donors and the LGBT lobby groups last week in order to strategize about repealing "don't ask, don't tell."

Many in the room lamented that the political climate is not good for pushing a pro-equality agenda right now. "If she loses, all bets are off," said one attendee of the meeting. "The Democrats will stay away from social issues, and focus like a laser beam on jobs.

One of the most telling conversations I had with an attendee of that closed-door LGBT meeting centered around fact that the community doesn't have a high-level adviser in the White House who feels LGBT issues to the core of their being. Because of that, this person noted, there's no overarching architecture for passing LGBT legislation amid the intricate web of White House planning. Thus, every gay item is essentially a one-off, and once it's passed, the community has to start from scratch to find a new opening for the next item.

"Did we as a community do something wrong when we gave lot of money, made demands about very specific legislation, but we didn't get ourselves a power broker on the inside?" the person questioned, betraying a hint of regret inside players sometimes display upon realizing the limits of their influence. "We may have won some battles but lost the war because we didn't get a powerful passionate advocate at the upper levels."

::crickets chirping::

David Mixner hits the nail on the head about the silence, saying "Obama's Silence Is Hurting Us Now":

Isn't it about time that President Obama find a way to help us instead of sitting quietly while his words are used against us time and time again? Not being for marriage equality is hard enough for us to stomach but now to remain totally silent while is words "marriage is between a man and a woman" have been used against us everywhere. Is he really content to allow his words to be used against us in elected bodies, in the courtroom and on the ballot? Doesn't such systematic use of his quote demand that he stand up by our side?

His silence is killing us.

The latest to use in full force his words against marriage equality are the lawyers fighting the Olson/Bois case before the Federal Courts...How much longer is Obama going to remain silent while the bigots use his own words against our struggle for freedom?  

UPDATE: Howie Klein has an idea about where gay donors should go...

Blue America has embarked on a Better Democrats campaign for this cycle, starting with this ActBlue page, Send The Democrats A Message They Can Understand. Please take a look. We are targeting bad Democrats and trying to assist grassroots progressives who are opposing them.

The Democrats who voted against the Matthew Shepard bill-- again, all Blue Dogs-- are serial homophobes who oppose gay fairness at every opportunity, just the way Republicans do. Blue America opposes and hopes to defeat each and every one of them -- Dan Boren (OK), Chris Carney PA), Travis Childers (MS), Lincoln Davis (TN), Joe Donnelly (IN), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Parker Griffith (AL, who has since left the Blue Dogs to officially join the Republican Party), Baron Hill (IN), Frank Kratovil (MD), Mike McIntyre (NC), Charlie Melancon (LA, a candidate for the U.S. Senate in a state with a lot of gay people), Walt Minnick (ID), Mike Ross (AR), Heath Shuler (NC), and Gene Taylor (MS)-- not with a worse or equally bad Republican but with a better Democrat.

If you donate any money at all the the DCCC, most of it will go towards bolstering anti-gay Democrats in trouble with the Democratic base. Your money will go to make sure dedicated and relentless homophobes like Chris Carney, Frank Kratovil, Baron Hill, Walt Minnick, Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth and Travis Childers are re-elected so they can continue voting against gay families.

And the DCCC has already started trying to destroy progressive candidates like Doug Tudor in favor of conservative shills like Lori Edwards in Florida. At the very least, we hope to eviscerate the power of their Blue Dog caucus and make it less able to work against the interests of gay people and other Americans who are not part of the corporatocracy conservatives seem to believe should get all the breaks.

Again, if you'd like to help, this is a very good alternative to donating to the DNC, DCCC or DSCC: Blue America.

Rep. Ike Skelton opposes DADT repeal, says it would 'create disruption' and cause 'serious problems

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 15:58:31 PM EST

Yeah, there's no plan, so this is no surprise either.

The leading House Democrat on military policy said Friday that he opposes repealing the law that bans openly gay people from serving in the military.

Seventeen years ago, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) played a major role in crafting the controversial law known as "Don't ask, don't tell." When President Bill Clinton wanted to lift the ban preventing gay people from joining the military, Skelton opposed the move. The end result was a compromise under which gay service members would conceal their sexual orientation.

"I am personally not for changing the law," he said during a C-SPAN "Newsmakers" interview that will air Sunday.

Because the military is engaged in two major conflicts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, changing the law would create "disruption" that can cause some "serious problems," Skelton said during the interview.

The President's speech on recovery efforts in Haiti

by: Pam Spaulding

Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EST

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                      January 14, 2010

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON RECOVERY EFFORTS IN HAITI

Diplomatic Reception Room

10:10 A.M. EST

    THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  I've directed my administration to launch a swift, coordinated and aggressive effort to save lives and support the recovery in Haiti.

    The losses that have been suffered in Haiti are nothing less than devastating, and responding to a disaster of this magnitude will require every element of our national capacity -- our diplomacy and development assistance; the power of our military; and, most importantly, the compassion of our country.  And this morning, I'm joined by several members of my national security team who are leading this coordinated response.

    I've made it clear to each of these leaders that Haiti must be a top priority for their departments and agencies right now.  This is one of those moments that calls out for American leadership.  For the sake of our citizens who are in Haiti, for the sake of the Haitian people who have suffered so much, and for the sake of our common humanity, we stand in solidarity with our neighbors to the south, knowing that but for the grace of God, there we go.

More below the fold.

U.S. Government Adds Gender Identity Protections To USAJobs Website

by: Autumn Sandeen

Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 11:00:00 AM EST

The Obama administration has inserted language into the federal jobs Web site explicitly banning employment discrimination based on gender identity.

The protection is expected to apply to the small transgender population -- people who identify their gender differently from the information on their birth certificates -- and it merely formalizes what had been increasingly unchallenged government practice over several years...

...Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said, "The largest employer in the country is doing what all the other large employers in the country are doing, so that's really great news." ...

Of course, a conservative "Christian" is on the record as objecting.

"We at the Family Research Council oppose including gender identity as a category of protection," said Peter S. Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies.

Mr. Sprigg said his group believed that what it calls "gender identity disorder" should be "treated with therapy to help people be comfortable with their biological sex rather than affirming and celebrating and protecting those who want to deny their biological sex."

Great. The FRC wants to give my peers and me reparative (conversion) therapy for being a transsexuals.

So, does Sprigg he want this reparative therapy to be covered in Healthcare Reform? If trans people don't have the kind of workplace protections Sprigg and the FRC is arguing against, trans people often are not going to be hired; trans people are often going to get fired; trans people wouldn't be able to self-fund the FRC's horrid solution. Oh yeah -- a solution the APA says isn't effective therapy.

So, without jobs, conservative "Christians" want trans people to pay for a type of therapy that isn't effective. Well, that's almost logical! Almost!..er,..Right?

Oh. And, I'm absolutely sure this policy plan of the FRC is exactly what Jesus would advocate.

But hey -- thank goodness that Peter Sprigg and the FRC doesn't get to dictate whether or not the federal government is going to provide equal opportunity protection based on gender identity for potential federal employees. This is good news, that this relatively new policy has been written down in one more place in the federal government's antidiscrimination documentation.

Amanda Simpson Appointed Senior Technical Advisor For The U.S. Bureau Of Industry And Security

by: Autumn Sandeen

Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 13:30:00 PM EST

I'm truly honored to have received this appointment and am eager and excited about this opportunity that is before me. And at the same time, as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, it demonstrates a commitment to hire the best qualified for a position and thus this appointment is symbolic of future opportunities for many others.
~Amanda Simpson

Brian Bond, speaking as the White House Office of Public Engagement (aka the LGBT liaison), recently answered a question regarding visibility and role models of trans-identified people in the Obama Administration, and whether a trans-identified person would be appointed to Obama Administration in the first round of appointments. His answer to the questions:

You will definitely see that in the first round...[The] appointments are an ongoing process, as you know, but I can stand here with both feet on the ground and tell you that it will be LGBT in the Obama Administration.

So, perhaps it should be no real bit of news that back in late November, Amanda Simpson facebooked this bit of news:

Amanda Simpson: I have accepted an appointment by the Obama Administration to take the position of Senior Technical Advisor to the Bureau of Industry and Security. I will be working directly with the Under Secretary of Commerce and though the BIS dealing with the intersection of international trade and national security.

Ms. Simpson begins her new job in the Obama Administration this coming Tuesday. She's going to be a presidential appointee at the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security; her job will encompass the managing exports of dual use technology, as well as press and media liaison work for the agency.

Politically, she's been publicly involved as a Democrat for awhile. As an example, she ran as a Democrat for the Arizona House of Representatives back in 2004.

Amanda Simpson was the first transgender candidate I'd ever communicated with personally. We ended up emailing each other after I donated $35 to that 2004 campaign. Hey, as a then poor trans woman, $35 was a whole lot of money for me at the time -- as I recall, it was the first political campaign I'd ever contributed to. I donated to her campaign not only because I liked her politics, but her candidacy and her life story were inspiring to me. And, for the record, she graciously treated me with respect and kindness in her emails when I was completely unknown with in the trans community, and definitely was an unknown person in the broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

Ms. Simpson is highly qualified for this position at the Bureau of Industry and Security. Just from the technical side of things, she actually is a rocket scientist; she was a Deputy Director in the advanced programs organization at Raytheon Missile Systems. She also is an accomplished pilot -- holding a Certified Flight Instructor's License -- as well as having worked as a test pilot for nearly 20 years.

Ms. Simpson wasn't appointed to the Obama Administration because she's transgender -- the Obama Administration isn't, for example, appointing horse stable managers to head departments like FEMA because they check the right political or demographic boxes. The Obama Administration has been looking for qualified people with the skill sets and character required to fill specific positions. Ms. Simpson was appointed because she has the right skill set for the job; she has the right character for the job; she's actually the right person for the job. Her being transgender is a nice, checked box for those of us who track identity politics and diversity issues, but her appointment speaks more to how Ms. Simpson wasn't disqualified from the position for which she is so highly qualified, simply for identifying as transgender.

I believe we can safely say Amanda Simpson's appointment would not have been possible under the Bush Administration.

So, Amanda Simpson's appointment says something wonderful about just how far trans-identified people have come in the past decade. Ms. Simpson is highest level appointee to a presidential administration in our country's history; her appointment is actually historic.

As the mother of a young ten year old trans girl and the President of TransYouth Family Allies, Inc. (TYFA), Amanda's appointment makes for a wonderful New Year's gift. Parents encourage their daughters to be their best and strive to reach new heights, always mindful of the bias that some women receive in the work place. Parents of trans girls fear that the bias will be twofold for their daughters. Amanda has shattered that fear with her bravery and willingness to be in the public eye. Today begins a new era for trans women. I publicly applaud Amanda for her achievements, successes and her courage to be who she is. She has set a wonderful example for my daughter and for thousands of girls just like her.
~Shannon Garcia, President of TransYouth Family Allies, Inc.

I like the idea that Amanda Simpson, a trans-identified woman with an incredible resume, is becoming an inspirational figure for trans youth. Amanda Simpson's appointment speaks to a new reality: The next generations of trans people can dream much bigger dreams than trans people in generations past.

Hedda Lettuce: A White House Ornamental Xmas "Controversy"

by: Autumn Sandeen

Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 15:00:00 PM EST

An ornament featuring well-known celebrity drag performer Hedda Lettuce has the right-wing outraged the night before Christmas.

A blog posting on Andrew Breitbart's right-wing BigGovernment.com Web site entitled, "EXCLUSIVE: Transvestites, Mao And Obama Ornaments Decorate White House Christmas Tree," reports this latest "controversy" facing President Barack Obama.  

The Christmas ornaments in question are part of a design by openly-gay Simon Doonan, creative director of Barney's New York, and are displayed on the White House Christmas tree in the Blue Room.  

The three ornaments in question show an image of Hedda Lettuce, which is signed by the performer...

From the source BigGovernment.com article, entitled EXCLUSIVE: Transvestites, Mao And Obama Ornaments Decorate White House Christmas Tree:

Why let a holiday season come between the White House and making some political statements? The White House pegged controversial designer Simon Doonan to oversee the Christmas decorations for the White House. Mr. Doonan, who is creative director of Barney's New York has often caused a stir with his design choices. Like his naughty yuletide window display of Margaret Thatcher as a dowdy dominatrix and Dan Quayle as a ventriloquist's dummy. For this year's White House, he didn't disappoint...

...And, of course, it wouldn't be Christmas without an ornament of legendary transvestite Hedda Lettuce.

He/She even signed it:...

Oh, nice! -- The anti-trans pejorative he/she used against a drag performer! Super!

Seriously, I'm a trans woman. I'm also a disabled, U.S. Navy veteran, who served 20-years and honorably retired; my 100% VA disability rating is service connected. What Andrew Breitbart seems to be implying with his commentary on the ornament is that gender variant people of all stripes aren't American citizens. And, aren't American citizens who can be recognized as by their government. If there were a litmus test for "true American" -- for which thankfully there isn't -- I certainly have paid my "true American" dues. So have many other LGBT Americans that have served their country; they've served in the military, as well as serving in other ways (such as in the Peace Corps, or in federal, state, and local police forces).

The President is the President of the entire country, and this disabled military veteran -- this disabled military veteran who is also sociopolitically identifies as transgender -- is happy to see we have a President who at least recognizes that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people exist.

In other words, the President is the President of all Americans, including gender variant blogging Americans like me, and drag performing Americans like Hedda Lettuce. That's something to celebrate about the United States, not denigrate.

Newsweek's 2010 Prediction: Obama Does Nada on Gay Rights

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 16:30:00 PM EST

Patience became the 2009 mantra of the gay rights movement, which generally supports Democrats. Many activists believe that in his heart Obama supports their flagship issues: the ability to serve openly in the armed forces, to be protected from employment in the workplace, and the right to marry (even though he's on record as favoring civil unions over marriage). But they've received almost nothing for their troubles. What the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community has learned this year is that the president is ultimately a pragmatist. Although his very presence in the White House is the stuff of culture wars, Obama himself is reluctant to wade into one. Moreover, if socially divisive policies have the potential to compromise his legislative agenda, Obama has proven that he simply won't pursue them. Expect this tension to become more acute as the 2010 elections loom-and for gay rights to be shunted aside again. The last thing this pragmatist president will do is hand election-year ammunition to an already energized conservative base that's venomously opposed to gay marriage.

White House finally weighs in and specifically condemns Uganda's 'execute gays' bill

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 16:31:57 PM EST

Hey, do you think the White House read my guest post on the web of horror related to Uganda's bill that threatened life in prison or the death penalty for gays and those with AIDS over on DKos?

Seriously, this is a step that the White House and the President needed to take a long time ago. It's one thing to leave condemnation of this kind of action to your Secretary of State -- you don't wait until the hate is so obvious, even to some Republicans (and Rick Warren) before you speak out on this human rights issue, particularly as a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights. (The Advocate):

In its strongest statement yet, the Obama Administration condemned a homophobic Ugandan bill that would carry a death sentence for acts of homosexuality in some cases.

“The President strongly opposes efforts, such as the draft law pending in Uganda, that would criminalize homosexuality and move against the tide of history,” read the White House statement that came late Friday in response to an inquiry from The Advocate.

But according to reporting by Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin, the tide may be starting to turn on the bill. A senior advisor to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni penned an opinion piece Friday in the state-run newspaper that referred to the measure as "draconian" and concluded "...hunting down people for same-sex love, I believe to be a sin, against Love, one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind. (I say all this without being a homosexual.) Parliament should not pass this Bill."

Cynically speaking, the tardiness and timing of this appropriate response almost makes you believe there was a target level of opposition to this bill that needed to be reached before the President's statement would be deemed not a political risk.

However meaningful this statement may be, a real test of this President related to human rights in Uganda would be to call for a halt to aid until the institutionalized homophobia is stopped. After all, our taxes are going to fund bigotry.