Connect with us

Opinions

Bradley Manning: gay soldier as role model

Shame on nat’l advocacy groups for ignoring his plight

Published

on

By PHILIP FORNACI

During the second week of July 2012, Pfc. Bradley Manning endured a sixth round of pretrial evidentiary hearings in preparation for his eventual trial for allegedly leaking information to Wikileaks. The most famous gay soldier in the U.S. military, Manning faces a possible life sentence, or even execution. Physically unimposing — standing barely five feet tall and 100 pounds, this young gay soldier was joined in the hearing room by a handful of committed supporters, but shamefully, no one from any LGBT advocacy organization.

Manning was arrested in Iraq in May 2010, after a government informant reported a series of Internet chats with someone he identified as an American soldier in Iraq, “BradAss87.” The military has asserted, without verifiable evidence, that Manning is BradAss87. In chats with the informant, BradAss87 indirectly took credit for leaking the so-called “Collateral Murder” video to the whistleblower website Wikileaks.

The graphic video footage shows American soldiers in Iraq laughing while gunning down civilians on a Baghdad street — including two Reuters reporters and several children. Based on these chat logs, Manning was taken into custody while on duty in Iraq. Subsequent leaks to Wikileaks of thousands of politically embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables were later attributed to Manning. Despite administration statements that the cables and the video had no national security impact, Manning was charged with aiding the enemy, among other offenses.

Manning has remained incarcerated for the ensuing two years, with months of further imprisonment before he will be tried. For the first 10 months of incarceration in 2010-11, the military subjected him to torturous conditions in a maximum-security brig. Manning was held under constant video surveillance, 23 hours per day in solitary confinement. For much of this time, he was forced to appear naked at “parade rest” in front of his cell for morning “inspection,” his legs spread and genitals displayed in full view of officers. This sexually humiliating treatment, rife with homophobia, is similar to reported practices in the infamous American prison camp in Iraq, Abu Ghraib.

The military’s treatment of Manning is undeniably a hate crime. He has been singled out for abuse — what the United Nations has characterized as “cruel and inhuman treatment” — for his alleged whistle blowing, yet the perverse sexual humiliation and degradation inflicted upon him is inextricably linked to his sexual orientation. In an attempt to “break” Manning, to get him to divulge information about Wikileaks (which he likely does not possess), the specialized torture regimen focused on isolation and sexual humiliation.

When the mainstream media cover the Manning case at all, reports tend to highlight his sexuality and paint him as unstable and weak. PBS’s “Frontline” special on Manning devoted significant time to Manning’s coming out struggles. Similar reports appeared in the New York Times and The Guardian. New York magazine emphasized Manning’s gender identity struggles, describing him as “disturbed” and unstable. The link between Manning’s sexual orientation and his alleged offenses is presented in virtually all mass media accounts as pathological. It is somehow inconceivable that Manning could have any motivation beyond psychological weakness for releasing to the world massive evidence of the U.S. military’s lawlessness.

While the national LGBT advocacy organizations shamelessly shower President Obama with praise for allowing openly gay men and lesbians to enlist in the military, their complete silence on the Manning case is indefensible. This is particularly true in light of Obama’s repeated endorsements of the brutal and homophobic treatment doled out to Manning. But the persecution of Manning is a “gay issue” not simply because his abuse at the hands of the military and the mass media has been decidedly and viciously homophobic. If Manning did in fact leak information to Wikileaks as he is accused, he has displayed enormous courage. He is a role model for how gay and lesbian service members should behave in the face of violations of the U.S. Constitution by the government entrusted with defending it.

As more gay men and lesbians enter the military, they will encounter the same kinds of horrors Manning saw in Iraq, witnessing episodes of torture, murder and unchecked violence against civilians. Their responses will reflect their own moral principles, in part shaped by a heightened sensitivity to oppression as a result of their own experiences. In the new era beyond “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Manning is a model of what a strong and proud gay soldier should be, but he has yet to receive the support of the broader LGBT community he deserves.

Beginning Aug. 27, Manning will have another series of pretrial hearings at Ft. Meade, Md. At long last, the Washington-Baltimore LGBT community should show up in force to support him and demand justice for one of our own.

Philip Fornaci is a D.C.-based civil rights attorney who has attended many of the Manning hearings at Ft. Meade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading
Advertisement
26 Comments

26 Comments

  1. Steven Roth

    August 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    This is the most disgusting piece I have ever read in the Blade. As an initial matter, Manning is not gay. He is self-identified trans. The ever-so politically correct Mr. Fornaci misgenders his “hero.”

    More importantly, Manning betrayed the trust of everyone with whom she served. She is a liar. She released hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables without even having read them. This wasn’t a case of a leak of specific information to right some specific injustice. It was a data dump to cause injury and chaos. 99+% of the cables had nothing to do with any war or any wrongdoing.

    Manning made it more difficult for this nation to practice diplomacy. His act was not anti-war; it injured the best alternative to war. Whether the leak caused informants be put at risk we don’t know, but it doesn’t matter to Manning’s guilt or innocence. If a criminal shoots at his victim, he gets prosecuted even if he misses.

    Even if this self-absorbed buffoon had been gay, he would in no way represent the tens of thousands of active duty LGB servicemembers or the millions who have served honorably since 1776. The Blade should be ashamed of itself for printing this garbage.

    • Brecht

      August 7, 2012 at 7:40 pm

      Your comment ‘If a criminal shoots at his victim, he gets prosecuted even if he misses.’ couldn’t be more cynical, considering the actual killers in the Collateral Murder video were never punished for their actions, killing innocent people as if they were playing a video game. The US military could have had a much better response to the outside world than capture and torture the man who (supposedly) leaked the video and then set the actual killers free. If this video caused (more) anti-Americanism around the world, it is mostly due to the fact that the US prefers cover-ups than to persecute its own war criminals. The world desperately needs more Bradley Mannings, people for whom morality prevails over blindly following an order.

    • michael

      August 8, 2012 at 6:03 am

      Yes, Manning betrayed the trust of people, they trusted him to be quiet, to conform, to hide evil and protect evil doers. It seems to be unthinkable to Americans that the day is coming when some of them might one day be charged with war crimes. History will view him as an hero.
      Those who argue or bring up his sexuality just show how lost and superficial they are

  2. laurelboy2

    August 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Steven Roth, you receive a gold medal for your comment.

  3. Ijpe dekoe

    August 6, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Manning failed the test of being a Soldier. As far as being a role model for how “gay and lesbian service members should behave”. I have no way of responding to that since there are no adjectives to the noun “Soldier” when it comes to military service. The word is a standalone description of a person who has chosen to do more then their neighbor. To say one is a “black Soldier”, a “latino Soldier”, a “straight Soldier”, or a “gay Soldier” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the concept. To make this a gay vs straight issue is a slap in the face of all service members, gay or straight, who put on their uniform each day to defend drivel like the article Mr. Fornaci chose to produce.

  4. John Fiorentine, LCDR USCG

    August 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    Mr. Roth I unequivocally agree with you. I am proud of the fact that Servicemembers United, OutServe-SLDN and HRC have not characterized PFC Manning as a hero. I’ll go even further to say I question the judgment of any military member, gay or straight, who does. As a gay military officer I am insulted by Mr. Fornaci’s frivolous use of the term. I’ve met gay military heroes …PFC Manning isn’t one of them…not even close.

  5. Mike

    August 6, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    Manning does not identify as trans. Therefore I stopped reading the first comment after that line. See also the Blade piece on this point: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/02/23/feminist-trans-advocates-should-support-bradley-manning/

  6. Philip Fornaci

    August 7, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Thanks for your comments, but I respectfully disagree. A “good soldier” is not one who blindly follows orders but is rather one who respects the U.S. constitution and the laws he is bound to protect. The proper response to torture, to murder of civilians, to blatant war crimes, is not to obey illegal orders but to respect our laws. What would you do in the face of criminal conduct up the chain of command, when no one in that chain will respond or stop the murderous conduct? Your version of patriotism is authoritarianism. Watch the “Collateral Murder” video and decide which orders one must follow under the circumstances. Gay men and lesbians (and trans-people) know oppression, and we hope for better from our community when faced with war crimes. Sorry you feel otherwise. Finally, the State Department, the CIA and numerous government officials have testified that no one was injured or killed by the release of diplomatic cables. If you have real information, you might want to produce it. What has resulted is massive embarrassment for U.S. State Department officials. Why did Hillary Clinton demand that her staff steal credit card numbers and other personal data from diplomats at the UN? Why did the State Department prop up autocratic dictators and generals across the globe under the guise of “diplomacy”, as documented by Wikileaks? These are questions that should be considered by the American people, not hidden away in the name of “patriotism.” Openness in government is democracy. Blind obedience to authority if fascism.

    • Ijpe dekoe

      August 7, 2012 at 6:38 pm

      Philip, your entire argument is based on the assumption that Manning was acting for the greater good. The counter point is that he was a messed up kid who should have been pulled from his job long before he started dumping, without forethought, information he was privy too. (Something his chain of command has to answer for). That his information may have caused little or no harm is besides the point. That’s like arguing that a drunk driver shouldn’t get a DUI if they make the drive home without hitting anyone. He’s no hero. He’s a kid who made a stupid move with very adult consequences. Tying all this to his sexuality, and then making him out to be an example for others to follow is insulting at best.

      Your real beef is with what you feel is a lack of transparency in government. If this is something you wish to affect then perhaps you should consider a better cause célèbre. Manning is a tragedy, for many reasons, but he is no hero.

  7. Dr. J Stanley

    August 7, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Manning is a hero AND a role model Exposing war crimes is not a crime, its an obligation of a US soldier. It is the US military that should be ashamed of their behaviour including the war crimes Manning exposed and their torture of Manning in Quantico.

  8. Justin

    August 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Bradley Manning is stronger and has more,”guts” than any of the, “I was just following orders” dupes in uniform.

  9. michael

    August 7, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Manning is a true modern day hero. He exposed evil and was punished for it. How many otther pussies and wimps in the armed services saw the evil and didn’t have the courage to expose it? Thousands. Thousands and thousands of service men and women saw what was going on and turned a blind eye.

  10. michael

    August 7, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Manning is a true modern day hero. He exposed evil and was punished for it. How many otther men and women in the armed services saw the evil and didn’t have the courage to expose it? Thousands. Thousands and thousands of service men and women saw what was going on and turned a blind eye.

  11. Casey Daniel

    August 7, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Steven Roth,

    Those backing Manning (from the perspective of his sexual orientation) are the LGBT community, which has notoriously banded together in a unified fight for equality. Splitting hairs over someone’s gender identity in no way…means anything here, although I appreciate your transparency in exposing your intolerance for the LGBT community by pointedly and repeatedly referring to HIM – he is a him, increasingly twisted knot in your undies notwithstanding – as “she.”

    Then, later, you switch sides, attempting to side with the LGB(T) community at the bottom of your comment, when you suddenly think it serves you at that instant. Be consistent in your values if you want people to seriously consider your assertions.

    If you, Steve, are “AGAINST ‘injury and chaos,'” yet are a firm advocate of the United States military, I don’t know what to think. You either believe everything your TV tells you without investigation, or you are a few sandwiches short of a full picnic. You may oppose injury and chaos, or you may support it, but you may not both oppose and support it, picking and choosing at which times you find it conducive to the furthering of your own inconsistent views.

    Additionally, you never even reference the video (one of the hardest forms of evidence) of American soldiers gunning down civilians – and, in a sudden burst of genius brainpower, 2 Reuters reporters – while laughing on the streets of Baghdad. I daresay it was far more important to you to take a jab at someone’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity than to look at the facts, clarify that you DO (somehow???) find such acts reprehensible despite opposing Manning’s whistle blowing, or accept the truth about our military’s agenda, which is, at this point, tough to miss.

    Incidentally, this speaks volumes about your own agenda in life, as well as your inability to see to the heart of the issue. What matters is that THESE HORRIBLE THINGS ARE HAPPENING. I haven’t the foggiest how anyone could possibly miss that for a nanosecond – much less issue an entire misguided, muddled, intolerant, and inconsistent rant about how 1) no one should tell on the military no matter what it does, and 2) how you’re magically the authority who chooses the gender with which each transgendered individual must identify….all without even mentioning the tragic incident spurring the whole debate. You, sir, have missed the point by several light years.

    Since you feel Bradley Manning doesn’t represent the LGB members of our military, and I feel there’s no reason to make distinctions between “LGBT” and “all non-LGBT individuals” except when actively endeavoring to equalize everyone’s rights, I’ll leave you with some thoughts from someone who probably CAN speak on behalf of most of our servicemen and servicewomen. That someone is Smedley Butler, U.S. Marine Corps Major General, who was the most decorated U.S. Marine in history at the time of his death, and he said:

    “If only more of today’s military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elites as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad.”

    KUDOS TO THE WASHINGTON BLADE FOR A BRILLIANT ARTICLE!

  12. Sigmund Shen

    August 7, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    As we can see from Reitman’s essay, the issue of orientation is obviously arguable here, and I don’t pretend to hold the perfect answer. But Mr. Fornaci deserves our thanks for having the courage to speak up for Bradley. The disparaging comments are predictable, even understandable. I don’t blame people for feeling angry after reading an essay that tackles such a controversial topic. I do blame the administration for the cruel treatment of a soldier who was shocked by outrageous human rights abuses and decided that the information he learned was too terrible and too important to keep hidden from the rest of us. I am a Democrat who canvassed for Obama in 2008 and will most likely vote for him again this year, but the handling of Manning’s case is an embarrassment at best and responsible citizens need to know about it. You don’t need to agree with every article, but Mr. Fornaci and the Washington Blade are performing a public service by doing what they can to make sure more people are learning, thinking, and talking about Bradley Manning’s ordeal and trial.

  13. glen

    August 7, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Manning isn’t a gay soldier, he is a soldier, period, and a real one at that too at least in my eyes.
    IF the phrase ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’ is true, then what does these powers that be have to fear?

  14. intlmike

    August 7, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    I do not understand how Bradley Manning’s sexuality has anything to do with his crimes or treatment by the military authorities. The OP is also discounting Manning’s behavior in the comments by saying that he needed to vomit national secrets indiscriminately to protect the Constitution per his enlistment oath. The OP neglects to read the part of the oath which says “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

    The bottom line. Manning broke the law. He did not break the law to protest GLBT injustice in the military, and even if he did, it wasn’t relevant to the fight against DADT and DOMA. It was simply a cheater’s shot at glory.

    I think we, as a community, would do more service by challenging the mass media’s assertion that Manning did any of this because he is fighting for GLBT rights, rather blindly support a criminal because he is gay.

  15. Steve Howe

    August 7, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Philip Fornaci: I completely agree. The Nuremberg defense is highly suspect.[URL REMOVED] gives a reasonable summary of the situation where soldiers are told to commit war crimes. Very difficult area.

  16. Tsukiko

    August 7, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Bradley Manning is a hero. He had the courage to take a stand against evil rather than blindly following orders – I’d rather have soldiers like that fighting for our freedom than soldiers who gun down innocent children (those should be the ones on trial, but where are they? probably lauded with medals).

  17. T Andrews

    August 7, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Gay or not he exposed an ugly truth that no one wants to, or even really can, admit. That America is just as vicious, deceitful, and psychotic as the “terrorists” we fight. These documents showed just how horrific our soldiers are acting when they are supposed to be protecting the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Acts so degrading that our government has to persecute US citizens in order to cover it up. And as far as being a good soldier, he stood up for the rights he has been entrusted to live and die for. If the documents referenced acts on Americans how would you all feel? Doing the RIGHT thing and the easy thing defines a person, and Bradley Manning has defined himself as “leader”.

  18. Caz

    August 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    What have all the remarks and opinions on Bradley Manning sexual preference got to do with anything of relevance? The hatred espoused in comments here is palpable and offensive. I thank Bradley Manning for his integrity and humanity in exposing the crimes carried out by American Forces in Iraq (assuming it was him who released that video footage of the air crew who not only mowed down unarmed civilians, they laughed about it showing absolutely no respect for human life at all, and what also shocked me is the appalling exchange of `info` over the speakers … disjointed, uncollaberated, decisions made to take live with out any checks and balances … appalling to think that that is the standard of command in the forces). And finally, WIKILEAKS is very mindful not to make public any document or information to anyone that will put others in the field in danger or compromise national security. Bradley, you have my heartfelt thanks.

  19. john

    August 8, 2012 at 5:42 am

    I support Bradley Manning!

    He is ROLE MODEL , because he exposed our government`s war crimes against humanity

  20. aspiecelia

    August 8, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Bradley Manning a hero. He actually did something to try and help his country. He was successful.
    It takes courage to expose the truth considering how dangerous it is to be a whistleblower in this country. It is a shame more organizations and individuals have not come forward to support him. They are afraid of being harmed themselves by ignorance and hate.

  21. Peter Rosenstein

    August 8, 2012 at 9:43 am

    “If Manning did in fact leak information to Wikileaks as he is accused, he has displayed enormous courage. He is a role model for how gay and lesbian service members should behave in the face of violations of the U.S. Constitution by the government entrusted with defending it.”

    Based on this Mr. Fornaci has a very different view of courage than I do. Clearly Manning’s behaviour is no model for either gay or straight soldiers. He is no hero! He should get a fair trial but beyond that our LGBT advocacy groups are correct to have nothing to do with him.

    Mr. Fornaci has a right to his beliefs but he shouldn’t claim they have anything to do with someone being gay or not.

  22. John Smith

    August 8, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    I’d like to state one cold fact. Every soldier here has taken an oath to uphold a few principles. One: You are innocent until proven guilty. Get that into your thick military heads. Two: You have the right to a speedy trial under the UCMJ – that should be no more than 180 days. Bradley Manning has been in jail for 2 years. Three: You had better report WAR CRIMES. If you don’t, you are the traitor. GET THAT?

  23. Matt

    August 8, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    Manning has made a positive change in the world forever. Exposing war crimes is a BIG deal. Manning is a hero of liberty, and he has given us all a little more of that due to his actions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Commentary

Sondheim’s art will be with us for the ages

Iconic work explored sadness, rage, irony, and love of humanity

Published

on

Stephen Sondheim (Screen capture via CBS)

“The only regret I have in life is giving you birth,” his mother wrote in a letter to Stephen Sondheim.

The only regret so many of us feel now is that Sondheim, the iconic composer and lyricist, died on Nov. 26 at his Roxbury, Conn. home at age 91.

He is survived by Jeffrey Romley, whom he married in 2017, and Walter Sondheim, a half-brother.

F. Richard Pappas, his lawyer and friend, told the New York Times that the cause of death was unknown, and that Sondheim had died suddenly. The day before he passed away, Sondheim celebrated Thanksgiving with friends, Pappas told the Times.

“Every day a little death,” Sondheim wrote in “A Little Night Music.”

This isn’t the case with the passing of Sondheim. Whether you’re a Broadway star or a tone-deaf aficionado like me, you’ll sorely miss Sondheim, who the Times aptly called “one of Broadway history’s songwriting titans.”

Like multitudes of his fans, I don’t remember a time in my life when a song from a Sondheim musical hasn’t been in my head.

When I was a child, my parents repeatedly played the cast album of “Gypsy,” the 1959 musical with music by Jule Styne, lyrics by Sondheim and book by Arthur Laurents. My folks loved the story of the show, which was loosely based on the life of the burlesque artist Gypsy Rose Lee. You haven’t lived until you’ve heard Ethel Merman belt out “Everything’s Coming Up Roses!” When I need to jumpstart my creative juices, I remember that “You Gotta Get a Gimmick.”

In college, I felt that “Company,” the 1970 musical with music and lyrics by Sondheim and book by George Furth, spoke to my generation. 

As was the case with Sondheim’s musicals, “Company” didn’t have a conventional plot, happy ending, or tidy resolution. It takes place during Bobby’s 35th birthday party. Bobby, who is single, is celebrating with his friends (straight, married couples). Bobby likes having friends but doesn’t want to get married.

Sondheim didn’t come out as gay until he was 40. Yet, even in the 1970s, it was hard not to think that Bobby in “Company” wasn’t gay.

Once you’ve heard Elaine Stritch sing “The Ladies Who Lunch” from “Company,” it becomes indelibly etched in your brain.

Who else but Sondheim could have written, “And here’s to the girls who play/smart-/Aren’t they a gas/Rushing to their classes in optical art,/Wishing it would pass/Another long exhausting day/Another thousand dollars/A matinee, a Pinter play/Perhaps a piece of Mahler’s/I’ll drink to that/And one for Mahler!”

In September, I, along with legions of other theater lovers, were thrilled when Sondheim told Stephen Colbert on “The Late Show,” that he was working with David Ives on a new musical called “Square One.”

In his musicals from “Follies” to “Sweeney Todd” to “Sunday in the Park with George,” Sondheim, through his lyrics and music, revealed the internal depths of his characters and the sadness, tenderness, bitterness, rage, irony, wit, and love of humanity. Sondheim’s wordplay was so brilliant that he did crossword puzzles for New York magazine.

Over his decades-long career, Sondheim won every award imaginable from the Pulitzer Prize for “Sunday in the Park with George” to the Presidential Medal of Freedom (awarded to him by President Barack Obama in 2015). He received more than a dozen Tony Awards for his Broadway musicals and revivals as well as a Tony Award for lifetime achievement in 2008.

Thankfully, Sondheim’s art will be with us for the ages.

A remake of “West Side Story,” directed by Steven Spielberg with a screenplay by Tony Kushner, premieres this month.

Sondheim is a character in the Netflix film “tick, tick BOOM!,” directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda. The movie is based on an autobiographical posthumous Jonathan Larson (the composer of “Rent”) musical. Sondheim is supportive of Larson’s work.

Thank you Stephen, for your art! R.I.P.

Kathi Wolfe, a writer and poet, is a regular contributor to the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Publish trans employment stats

Not enough corporations that march in Pride are hiring non-binary staff

Published

on

On Nov. 10, the top-tier consulting firm McKinsey published a report on discrimination toward trans people in the workplace. The report came out with numbers that we have all known true for a long time and lead to one conclusion: Trans people have a harder time finding jobs, holding them down, and advancing in their careers. 

Specifically, McKinsey cited the fact that cisgender people are twice as likely to be employed as trans people, and that more than half of trans employees are uncomfortable being out at work. Meanwhile, cisgender employees make 32% more than trans employees in the workplace, even if those trans employees hold the same positions or higher positions. 

On top of this, trans people are 2.4 times more likely to be working in the food and retail industries, which pay entry level wages that are much less than decent pay. 

These statistics are true based on a number of factors. For one, many trans people have a harder time passing at work, and people who don’t pass well face worse job prospects. (As a side note, on top of that, the study pointed to the fact that many trans people exert undue emotional and psychological energy into trying to pass really well and not be discriminated against, which takes a toll on their mental health.) 

So what is a concrete step that corporations can take to make the trans experience in the workplace better? It’s time that corporations step up their game by publishing and making transparent the number of trans employees that they actually hire. Such numbers can be published in any kind of company document: a pamphlet, online report, or even annual shareholder’s report. As it is, most corporations do not publish numbers on LGBT employees. 

“Rainbow capitalism” is a term we know all too well: major corporations and multinationals flaunting a rainbow and trans pride flag during the month of June, but seemingly doing little to hire more trans people or give back to the community during other months. 

Every corporation surely has the time and company-wide infrastructure to get statistics on their trans employees. All they need to do is implement a company-wide survey to new hires. This takes extremely little effort and time in the grand scheme of company workings. 

If major corporations like McKinsey, Bain, Deloitte, defense contractors, and hundreds of other huge companies published statistics on trans employees, they would be held accountable for their actions and words.

If these statistics were to be published today, we would probably find out that not enough corporations that march in Pride parades are hiring trans and gender nonconforming employees. 

Turning the numbers against corporations will ensure that these same corporations finally live up to their words about workplace inclusion and diversity. It won’t cure everything about the issue of being trans in the workplace, but it’s a step in the right direction. 

Isaac Amend (he/him/his) is a trans man and young professional in the D.C. area. He was featured on National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ in 2017 as a student at Yale University. Isaac is also on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Find him on Instagram @isaacamend.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Should we be scared of Omicron?

A reminder to stay vigilant against latest mutation

Published

on

It’s Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend when I sit down to write this column. The craziness in the world continues but other than the scare of the new COVID mutation, which has been named Omicron, there isn’t one headline to grab attention. Instead, there are many, including some manufactured by the news media to gain viewers or sell papers. Some like the car rampaging through the Christmas parade is frightening but incidents like this seem to be happening all too often.  

The stock market went down 1,000 points on Friday because market players freaked out about the new COVID mutation coming out of South Africa. However that didn’t seem to stop people from spending their money on Black Friday. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) was again on the attack this time against fellow Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) accusing her of being a Muslim terrorist. She apologized, or pretended to, but again the Republican leadership wouldn’t condemn her statements. These things seemed to be grist for the news media with no one else unfortunately really voicing concern. 

Boebert’s comments were taken as old hat. They are disgusting, offensive, and dangerous, but as long as her constituents reelect her we will have to live with them. She is joined by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.),  Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), and Paul Gosar  (R-Wyo.) who represent the worst in Congress and the worst of the American people. Yet again until their constituents throw them out we have to live with their stupidity and the absurdity of their being where they are. 

The new COVID mutation out of South Africa is potentially a game changer. But it will be important for scientists to look at this carefully to determine how quickly it spreads and whether or not the current vaccines will offer any protection against it. Countries around the world, including the United States, have quickly instituted travel bans for South Africans and those in countries surrounding it. The World Health Organization at this time has suggested this should not be done as it will have limited impact on its spreading and could have severe and detrimental economic impact on countries whose people are being banned. One thing we must learn from this is how important it is to ensure everyone all over the world has access to vaccines as we know the more people who are inoculated the harder it is for the virus to mutate. It is not time to panic yet and by Sunday there was some reporting this new mutation may not be any more difficult to deal with than the current ones and not lead to any more severe illness. The takeaway from all this is we need to keep vigilant, get vaccinated and get booster shots, and make sure we vaccinate our children. Continue to wear masks indoors and wash our hands. 

Now the other interesting stories last weekend were about what will happen in the Senate in the weeks leading up to the Christmas holidays. Remember the House of Representatives passed President Biden’s Build Back Better bill as a reconciliation measure, which means it can pass the Senate with a simple majority. That would mean every Democratic senator and the vice president. The focus is on two senators: Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sinema (D-Ariz.). In reality we need to look at a number of others who will fight to either take out or put something into the bill the House passed. It is clear it will not pass in the current form and then it has to go back to the House again. 

Another issue that will be taken up is the debt ceiling. It may be a little easier than thought because as recently reported, “After taking a hard line and refusing to negotiate with Democrats during the last standoff over the debt limit, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is quietly looking for a way to get the issue resolved without another high-profile battle.” Then there is the budget and since none is passed Congress will have to pass another continuing resolution since the one they passed in September expires on Dec. 3. 

So for the next few weeks there will be a focus on the Senate to see what they do and how obstructionist Republicans want to be. Seems while things change, they somehow remain the same.

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular