The lesson I got from this is that the military will manage itself.  Implementing changes to it’s system takes time, whether the constraints are physical ones or “soft” people issues.  Perhaps by letting the military study group determine the plan for adopting repeal first, they will be more eager to follow “their own” plan.  By contrast, with segregation, LBJ acted first with a specific executive order, demanded implementation plans from the military and then fought with them over the details.  Obama and others will still have to sign off, but letting the military take ownership is smart management.

While I have listed selected milestones in the process below, there’s much more in the full timeline.

September 1945: Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson appoints a board of three general officers to investigate the Army’s policy with respect to African-Americans and to prepare a new policy that would provide for the efficient use of African-Americans in the Army. This board is called the Gillem Board, after its chairman, General Alvan C. Gillem, Jr.

January 1948: President Truman decides to end segregation in the armed forces and the civil service through administrative action (executive order) rather than through legislation

July 26, 1948: President Truman signs Executive Order 9981, which states, "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." The order also establishes the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services.

July 6, 1950: President Truman informs the Fahy Committee that, against the wishes of most of its members, it is being discontinued. "The necessary programs [to integrate the armed forces] having been adopted," Truman wrote the committee, "I feel that the Armed Services should now have an opportunity to work out in detail the procedures which will complete the steps so carefully initiated by the Committee."

October 1953: The Army announces that 95% of African-American soldiers are serving in integrated units.. 

http://www.fox.com/fod/play.php?sh=familyguy

In it, Quagmire’s dad, who’s a decorated war hero, get’s a sex change.

I was expecting the usual funny episode:  a bunch of funny moments that push the limit, followed by an ending which teaches the right lesson.  The setup of Quagmire’s dad, of all people was great.   I watched this episode and was surprised.  I’m a fan of family guy.  I am usually pretty flexible in appreciating their humor even when some of the jokes (if taken by themselves) are homophobic, racist or otherwise discriminatory.  Often they are funny representations of how people react in the real world to these situations.  However, what was different about this episode is that it was missing the usual part where they come around on the issue and show those responses to be unenlightened.  Instead the episode ends on a negative note, with Brian frantically washing himself in the shower to "wipe off" his experience of having sex with the transgendered person (Quagmire’s dad is now Ida).  The closing scene is him getting his ass kicked by Quagmire. 

Brian is usually the character most likely to see through phobia and see people and accept them for who they are.  That he didn’t makes me wonder where the heads of the creators of Family Guy.  I had to rewind and re-watch the end to check that there was no finale that I missed or at least a "to be continued".

The Other Side of the Rainbow writes:

I am making a complaint and setting up a facebook page to boycott Family Guy. The series used to be ok but over the last year or so has been getting more and more intolerant of all marginalized people.

The creators of Family Guy should be called on the carpet to be address this.  The boycott is our natural response to these kinds of offenses.  However, I hope that we can add some demands that can turn this into a positive experience.  Perhaps have the petition demand that the creators do something that helps the community.  Pulling the episode is one option.  Making a follow up episode where Brian comes around is another.  At the least, they should publicly help educate people in transgender issues, assuming they are teachable. 

From today’s release:

With that in mind, I’d like to announce an update to the Xbox LIVE Terms of Use and Code of Conduct which will allow our members to more freely express their race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation in Gamertags and profiles. Under our previous policy, some of these expressions of self-identification were not allowed in Gamertags or profiles to prevent the use of these terms as insults or slurs. However we have since heard feedback from our customers that while the spirit of this approach was genuine, it inadvertently excluded a part of our Xbox LIVE community

From the new Terms of Use for the English service:

You may use the following terms to express your relationship orientation in your profile or Gamertag:

• Lesbian
• Gay
• Bi
• Transgender
• Straight

Other terms regarding relationship orientation are not allowed. In addition you may not use these terms or any other terms regarding relationship orientation to insult, harass, or any other pejorative use against other users.

It’s great to see Microsoft moving forward on this and honoring their promise to address this.  Initially, there was discussion around the best way to solve this problem.  The key requirement was how to minimize the potential use of words like these, or the expression of them, to increase harassment.   Various options were explored over time, including changes to the service.  However, as is often the case, the simplest solution wins out.  KISS principle at work.

Todd wraps up his post with a broad description of my post and who I am says:

But I posit that there is more at work here than simple ignorance. Cohen is operating on a level I suspect even he is unaware of. There is a kind of blame the HIV-positives for their condition mentality involved. Thus, a public flaying, such as having to disclose HIV status, is warranted. It is a scarlet letter of the modern world, and Cohen, who is presumably negative since he has not hint at understanding HIV stigma, discrimination and the subsequent violence that attaches itself to such disclosures, wants us to continue to wear the scarlet letter.

According to Todd, because I agree with the majority opinion from the appeals court, I’m racially insensitive.  Because I find the defendant, a convicted burglar who met and infected the plaintiff while cheating on his wife, less credible than the plaintiff, I’m demonizing HIV positive people.   Because this is my first post on STI transmission, and that in an unrelated post about how the lack of democratic leadership in our movement starves non-big-ticket battles, I did not list HIV in a short list of examples, I’m HIV Phobic.

I don’t doubt that there are people that actually think and do what Todd is alleging. I suppose if all you know about me is from my blog, you might find what I have written on this topic to appear similar  enough to what those kind of folks would and assume that’s where I’m coming from.  It isn’t.  As Todd has expanded on his point, and related his person experience, so will I.

I’m not HIV positive, so I can’t truly claim to understand Todd’s perspective from a first hand point of view like he can. True, the dialog with Todd has caused me to learn more about the plight of HIV positive people.  However, HIV positive friends and lovers are not new to me.  As long as someone is open about it, honest, and is agreeable to precautions which minimize the risk of transmission, it’s not something I would necessarily discriminate by.   If there’s any discrimination I’m doing, its against deceptive and unethical behavior, especially when it puts me at risk.

However, as someone who’s been in a relationship situation where there was not appropriate disclosure of an STI (and that was not HIV), and some questionably deceptive and unethical behavior regarding it, I see the issue from a different perspective.  Just because I am not HIV positive, doesn’t mean I have to remain confined to a gulag of silence.

I’ll expand further on my opinions shortly. However, I’m not pushing all the responsibility to the other side, not am I focusing on HIV in particular.  To me, the holder case is just an example of the STI disclosure issue.  In truth, from our dialog and his other public statements, I don’t think we are really that far apart.  Is it unreasonable to expect a person who I am dating who has an STI to disclose that to me before we have sexual contact?

As evidence that we have some common ground:

in 2009, speaking at the Michigan Equality Rally at the capitol, Todd says

For those of us who are HIV positive, we help the gulag [of silence] . We are our own oppressors; we have to stand up and admit that we are HIV positive  each and every time we meet somebody.  We have to be honest if we expect honesty in return.  It’s that simple, and if we’re not, we’re killing ourselves and our brothers and our sisters.  It’s time to end the silence.

Perhaps he’s speaking in a broader context than just sexual relations.  However, if you advocate coming out as HIV positive to help the community and HIV people collectively, isn’t it kind of a contradiction that you wouldn’t also advocate telling those who you will have sex with?

I didn’t quote this solely to support my point about disclosure.  There’s a broader point in Todd’s words that I want to amplify.   There is a lot of ignorance and discomfort in the LGBT community about STIs like HSV, HPV, HEP, HIV and others.  People are being discriminated against because of this, when they needn’t be.  As long as people are honest with each other, there are reliable ways to mitigate the risks of transmission.  Just because one of these is present in a partner does not mean you can’t have a safe, loving and long term relationship.

We must combat the ignorance and discomfort society feels about LGBT people, we must come out.  We need society to experience us, to see us as human beings alongside them.  People often say that their opinions of LGBT changed significantly in a positive direction once a person they knew or family member came out.

I think Todd’s point is that by retreating into the closet, people with these kinds of health conditions are missing a critical opportunity to remedy this ignorance and discomfort.  Todd is one of the few who is taking the risk of outing himself as a leading example. I think that’s extremely brave.  I’ve only included an excerpt of his speech, but think watching the full version is worth your time.

The Holder Case

Just because I agree with the majority opinion from the appeals court, doesn’t mean I’m racially insensitive. 

As proof of the fact that this is a clear case of racial bias, He states  that because Judge Karen Nelson Moore says so, that establishes that that this is a clear instance of racial bias and that I am just racially insensitive.  However, Moore wrote her position as part of the Appeal’s minority opinion on Holder’s appeal.   Turns out that the majority did not agree.  The fact that this was a split decision among intelligent people, means that exactly that: reasonable people can disagree without being called names.

When I read through the judgment on the appeal, I examined the court transcripts in question.  I will agree that some things were said that merit additional examination.  In my post, I expressed support for the appeal.  However those transcripts show leading questions that I feel could walk a reasonable person into saying unreasonable things.  There’s also testimony from the potential jurors (who are accused of racial bias) stating that they found the original questionnaire’s wording slanted and confusing.  Normal people who get tapped for jury duty very rarely, can easily be confused by legalistically worded questions.  A few of them specifically called out clever use and placement of pejorative words, along with some fast reading on their part, caused them to answer in a way that did not represent how they really felt, given the further clarification.

Just because I find the defendant, a convicted burglar who met and infected the plaintiff while cheating on his wife, less credible than the plaintiff, doesn’t mean I’m demonizing HIV positive people. 

Todd writes:

In fact, the records and Holder’s own statements show that the victim was aware of this marriage and allowed Holder to move in with her anyway.

So much for the innocent victim of the cheating husband meme.

Hardly.   Much of this case, like many others, comes down to "he said, she said" and who’s the more believable witness.  It’s not that she’s a victim because he’s cheating on his wife.  The victim of that is his wife.   It’s the fact that he is cheating on his wife that makes him less credible to me.  It’s purely about him and his behavior that affects his credibility.   It’s just like the burglary conviction. According to Kosecki, who I believe, Holder not only failed to disclose, but lied and denied that he was HIV positive.

Just because this is my first post on contagious disease transmission, and that in an unrelated post about where I argued that the lack of democratic leadership in our movement focuses our resources on marquee issues like "Marriage" and starves others and did not list HIV in a short list of examples, doesn’t mean I’m HIV Phobic.

In an unrelated post where I was arguing (among other things) that perhaps because of less than democratic governance in our movement, we are so focused on the 100% solution of marriage in huge expensive battles, that we are starving other efforts like in smaller states for things like Employment Non-Discrimination or even basic forms of relationship recognition such as hospital visitation rights and smaller communities like Transgendered.  I suppose because I did not specifically list HIV, or forgot to include the words "including but not limited to", I am HIV phobic.

Reciprocally, if you watch Todd’s speech, it’s focused entirely on HIV, even though many of the same issues arise with other contagious diseases.  Would I like to see him include those other diseases in his public speeches?  Yes.  Because he didn’t include the others, does that mean he’s HSV-Phobic?  No, of course not.

It’s not just about HIV

To me, the "real" issue is not racism and demonizing HIV, or even the Holder case.  The real issue is STI transmission and the health of our community.    I appreciate that HIV is Todd’s personal connection to the issue and his bravery for sharing it and taking the actions he’s taken.  However, this isn’t just about HIV.    My personal connection to this issue has nothing to do with HIV.  It comes from a romantic experience with a guy who, ironically I met doing some progressive activism…

I was looking through some videos I found for a research project and found an interview with Matthew and then boyfriend from the mid nineties.  I remember when I first saw that video, thinking that I’d never seen anything but a picture of him.  Watching the video gives a much bigger picture of him, his voice, animations and, friendliness.

Have a look:

Update: h/t InterstateQ for pointing out the source of this interview.
There’s very little video of Matthew Shepard, this is the only one I’ve ever seen. It comes from a documentary called “Dear Jesse”, which is about Jesse Helms. This is such a case of chance; just by coincidence, when Tim Kirkman, the director, was interviewing students, Matthew happened to be one of them. At the time, he was just an average guy, and there was no way to know how significant he would become posthumously in our movement.
Check out the documentary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Jesse

After he finished his statement, Senators were permitted to ask questions.  The first one is Gerald Cardinale, a republican from District 34 in NJ.  He certainly sounds cranky enough to be a republican.  The agitation in his voice shows how well Prol made the case.  In his testimony, Prol, cites the body of evidence produced by the Civil Unions commission set up to examine the efficacy of the Civil Unions law.  During questioning, Cardinale has nowhere to go except make accusations that the commission was biased.  I guess that must be true if they disagreed with you, Cardy.

Cardinale asks if Prol, "with a straight face", can say that the commission was unbiased.  You know there must have been giggling in the room over "with a straight face", don’t these republicans keep up with humor?   Prol keeps it together and gives a straight up "Yes" that they were unbiased. 

Once again, Cardy stoops to the only low ground he can and accuses Prol of lying.  "You aren’t lying effectively", he says, noting that he knows it takes 3 years of learning to be a good liar.  Well, Cardinale is a republican, so I guess he’s qualified to judge lying skill. I’ll give him that. 

If your blood pressure needs a boost, listen to the exchange yourself. 

• Cardinale starts yakking at 5:00
• Sen. Nia Gill (D-34) speaks up to apologize for Cardy’s unprofessionalism at 7:20

Then visit Garden State Equality to find out how to help. If you can, click here to Donate.