Judecorp.

What scares me is that there are all of these little things going on that no one ever hears about, or we hear about them days, weeks, or months later. I realize that there is a lot of news out there, and that some of it will be lower priority, but there is so much happening that isn't a big headline. Ugh.

From:

bobbo9.livejournal.com

Go get her girl! You have that sex... rock! YEA! YEA! YEA!
eat a dick, Bush! HA! Just try to stop the lesbian action!

From:

Rowr!

From:

I think the website named "misleader.org" is very, very appropriately named, given the horribly misleading spin it attempts to put on the subject.

You read the footnotes, right? The full articles. Like the Washington Post, who reports that "Bloch said he did not clear his decision to alter the agency's Web site with the White House." Yet 'misleader' shouts, "Bush Allows Gays to Be Fired for Being Gay". What part of the article did they fail to read or notice? Oh yeah, the part I quoted.

The Federal Times (cited by the 'misleader') reports in the second paragraph:

This is new Special Counsel Scott Bloch’s initial reading of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions taken against them for reasons unrelated to their job performance. In his interpretation, Bloch is making a distinction between one’s conduct as a gay or lesbian and one’s status as a gay or lesbian.
"People confuse conduct and sexual orientation as the same thing, and I don’t think they are."

Read both articles for a history of the law from which the controversial OSC policy is derived. It's far more complicated than the 'misleader' would like their readers to believe (which I believe is a disservice to those who read it).

Since the Post says Bloch didn't clear it with Bush and the Federal Times says there is concern of semantics regarding behavior and class of people, why don't we rewrite the 'misleader' headline to be a little less misleading?

Scott Bloch Allows Gays to Be Fired for Acting Gay (http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03202004.html)

It's accurate. It should raise concern about expressing orientation at the OSC and spark debate and discourse about what's constitutes behavior. It should start conversations about whether the OSC can fairly represent employees at other federal agencies if their own rules differ from those who they assist.

Why didn't the 'misleader' use that title and similar verbage within their article? Because it wouldn't fit their agenda of Bush-bashing, wouldn't be as misleading as what they ended up publishing, and ultimately fall short of their namesake.

(and why the heck did it take the "daily misleader" nearly 40 days to report this? it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to churn out bad spin like that.)

From:

I read all of the articles. I am not that stupid. I am, however, thrilled to know that you think I would be.

Thank you, drive through.

From:

I'm sorry. When I read the title of your post that simply echoed the 'misleader', and your closing remarks, which fly in the face of the opening sentence of the Federal Times, it honestly didn't seem like you had.

From:

I use my journal for a variety of things, one of which is to store information for myself. I link to a lot of articles on a number of issues, and the easiest way for me to keep track of which issues/articles I'm quoting is to use the subject line. This way, when I look back weeks or months later, I will know which post dealt with which stuff.

Regardless, I think the title of the post adequately reflects the basic undertone of this situation. The title isn't about firing workers for /acting/ gay, it's about people's worries that this strict interpretation of old law could allow for the firing of workers for /being/ gay. This is exactly what the title says.

As for the rest of the post, since I started with an explanation about how I like to find humor in distressing situations, I think it's only appropriate that I end said post with a tongue-in-cheek comment about having sex last night.

What I /do/ find offensive, however, is the way you seem to (in the past and in this current example) be quick to assume that "liberals" are uneducated, unlearned, unread, and unwilling to amass information from many sides. While it may be true that some people choose only to regard sources that support their beliefs (right and left alike), you as a friend of mine for several years should be confident in the fact that I am not such a person.

From:

oxlahun.livejournal.com

Senior White House staff have come down on other functionaries for going against the party line. Anyone remember about a year and a half ago when Colin Powell said publicly that he didn't see a reason to invade Iraq, then it was announced he had a meeting with Prince George and Don Rumsfeld, then the next week he was at the UN hyping WMDs?

In this case, it's the White House's lack of action that is telling. If Bloch's statement was any kind of problem at all, Scott McClellan would've said something to that effect. This administration is very very good at keeping a consistent message, and anyone who deviates from the core is punished or removed.

From:

I remember Powell advising Bush to work through the framework of the UN, and and I recall Powell imploring upon the UN to support Bush. But I don't remember what you have said. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I've done several google searches to see if it had slipped my memory, yet haven't come across anything. If you have any sources that support that, please let me know.

If Bloch's statement was any kind of problem at all, Scott McClellan would've said something to that effect.
Isn't Bloch's statement something to effect of, 'I don't believe the OSC policy is reflective of the 1978 law upon which it is supposed to be based, so we've removed the language from the policy while we review it.' ?? I don't think anyone one in any sector, private or public, would step in and criticize a peer for taking that sort of pragmatic action.

Isn't it a good idea to make sure federal policies are consistent with federal laws? And if a policy is more forward thinking than a law, that the law be updated to include what the policy attempts to cover? A policy that shares a dissonance with the actual law is more of a legal hinderance than help to those who would use it for protection, as it inherently provides a false sense of security, complete with loopholes through which they can be attacked.

I personally would rather see the law updated, and an unsubstanciated policy is not an adequate substitute.

From:

I think it's really easy for you to take a lacksidaisical approach to this issue because it doesn't affect you in any way. With all due respect, it's really easy to say, "This was done with the best of intentions! Really!" when /any/ intentions, good or bad, don't jeopardize your livelihood.

I mean, this doesn't even directly affect /me/, since (as I stated) I don't have a Federal job, but you and I both know that the policies of the Federal government have a lot of sway on the policies of states and private enterprises. If the Federal government says something like, "Firing someone on non-work conduct is wrong and we have a policy against it, but if that conduct is gay in nature, we're not sure it counts," I find it hard to believe that this a) doesn't make an Administrative point and b) won't affect other non-Fed workplace decisions.

From:

tandex.livejournal.com

Basically, Bloch is using a stricter interpretation of the law than has been used since 1980. My interpretation of the articles is this... Blotch told senators he would uphold the law regarding discrimination during the confirmation process.

"During the confirmation process, you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation," the senators wrote. "We are concerned that the recent changes to OSC publications might give federal employees the opposite impression and we ask that you reaffirm your previously stated commitment and advise us of steps you will take to inform federal employees of their rights and remedies under the law."

He saw that nothing in the "law"- specifically- used the words "sexual orientation" when dealing with discrimination – only dealt with the concept of behavior – i.e. one couldn't be fired or demoted for attending a gay pride parade.

"he ordered the material removed because of uncertainty over whether a provision of civil service law applies to federal workers who claim unfair treatment because they are gay, bisexual or heterosexual."

The Senators had asked about the Gay Pride parade example and was given the following:

"Conduct such as being at a Gay Pride event, by itself, would not, in my view, affect job performance, and employers would not be able to say that being at such an event will discredit the agency or established a basis to discriminate because it makes other people uncomfortable. The federal workforce is not a place for selective discrimination," he wrote."

He chose his words carefully and he's choosing them from the law very carefully. He said the following:

“People confuse conduct and sexual orientation as the same thing, and I don’t think they are,” Bloch said in a March 10 interview with Federal Times."

The article from the Federal times started with:

A gay employee who is fired or demoted for attending a gay pride rally would receive protection from the Office of Special Counsel. But the same employee would have no recourse at OSC if he was fired or demoted simply for being gay.

I'm not certain how one could interpret that as anything other than what is says. It tells me that, if I were a federal employee, the simple fact that I'm gay – regardless of whether or not I'm married to a woman and I don't have sex with men – would exclude me from any recourse were I to find my job in jeopardy because of the fact that I'm gay.

I mean, c'mon, let's put this in a perspective we don't get too often. What he's saying is that I have no legal protection under the law regarding my sexual orientation. Therefore, if someone at my job decided to demote/fire me - simply because my orientation was homosexual – they could. I would be able to do nothing because of the specific wording of the law.

He said: “When you’re interpreting a statute, you have to be very careful to interpret strictly according to how it’s written and not get into loose interpretations,” Bloch said. “Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different. One is a class . . . and one is behavior.”

Hmmmm... I wonder if it has anything to do with the idea of being Jewish or following the Jewish faith. One is behavior, another is a class...

Just my two cents.

From:

Thank you, Jared, for saying things much more eloquently than I could in my ire, or in my off-the-cuff statements from last night.

<3

From:

"Firing someone on non-work conduct is wrong and we have a policy against it, but if that conduct is gay in nature, we're not sure it counts,"

But see, that's not what he is saying... His concern isn't about non-work conduct, gay or otherwise. According to what he has said, you could have sex with Jen without fear of being fired. But you couldn't have sex with Jen in your office during business hours without fear of being fired. The same policy holds true for heterosexuals. I do believe such logic to be fair.

You could go to a gay pride rally on your own time. But could you go to a gay pride rally during the workday, leave your work behind, and expect to be protected because you're gay if confronted by your boss? No. And hetersexuals are held to the same standard, regardless of the rally topic.

I dunno, you're right, I am not directly affected from the issue. But it doesn't mean I'm too removed from the issue to address it with a critcal, objective eye.

From:

tandex.livejournal.com

I'm sorry, Steve, that's not what he's saying at all... see my other response on why I disagree with you. You're coming from a perspective that says it's wrong to discriminate, period – and that Bloch is only being practical. I think you're being very naïve by not admitting that there is a very real group of people who simply hate gay people and will use any method at all to discriminate against them.

Look at the specifics of the things he's said. Someone could not be fired for going to a gay pride parade because of what the law specifically states. He's taking the law down to a narrowly defined line in order to make sure that the words "sexual orientation" are not within protected laws. Under his interpretation, one would not have protection from any discrimination based upon sexual orientation. That is a very broad brush... under that fact, if course, someone could be fired simply for being a heterosexual. I don't see how this is clear.

From:

Yeah, as I was reading your post, I realized that my interpretation wasn't nearly as accurate as it could be.

For what it is worth, here is what Bloch and the OSC has to say (http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2004/pr04_01.htm) about the matter.

From:

Thanks for the link.

Bloch says: The Office, and I personally, remain committed to enforcing all prohibited personnel practices, including discrimination, as the statute says, ‘on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the job performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others[,]’ regardless of an individual’s orientation.

While I agree with you that the EEOC should definitely have a part to play in this situation, I was under the impression that the EEOC deals most significantly with hiring practices. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) I can see the EEOC regulating the possibilities that sexual orientation could be used when deciding to hire someone, but what happens once someone is working? Is the EEOC still involved?

If Bloch is indeed regulating all "prohibited personnel practices, including discrimination," why then would he only mention discrimination on the basis of conduct? Clearly his MAIN duty is to prevent things like firing whistleblowers, but I have to assume that there have been instances in the past of people being released from employment for discovery of sexual orientation, otherwise it wouldn't have been added to the OSC's list of protections in the first place. An Administration, even the Clinton Administration, is not going to just randomly add the words "sexual orientation" willy-nilly into a bunch of offices and programs.

Still, it's the fuzzy interpretation possibility that has some people (myself included) nervous.

From:

But Steve, that's not what they're saying!

They are saying (you're right) that if I have sex with Jen or attend a Gay Pride event, I cannot be fired for that conduct. Yes.

But they are also saying that they are only protecting firing based on /conduct/. Basically, that I can't be fired for attending a Gay Pride event but that I can be fired for being gay WITHOUT PROTECTION OF LAW. Bloch is saying that he is "checking" to see if the law covers sexual orientation.

Please read what

tandex said in this thread, because I'm currently too ired to form a thought more coherent than his.

From:

yeah, I read his reply... I'm really tired of trying to figure it out too. I found a link to what Bloch himself has to say (see my short reply to tandex), and Bloch makes it sound like handling sexual orientation discrimination falls under EEOC, not OSC, jurisdiction. That makes sense, since OSC usually investigates conduct issues (think Ken Starr), while EEOC handles employment issues.

But the more I think about it the more my head hurts.

From:

oxlahun.livejournal.com

Hmm. Searching for Powell, Iraq, and UN for sometime around late 2002 presents me with quite a few more articles than I really wish to weed through to document my point. A friend of mine found this recently, though: "Misoverestimated", in American Prospect. Sure, AP tends liberal, but I think it's a good analysis of Powell (i.e. it's not as one-sided as I'd hoped).

I could make a similar statement about the USGS contractor who was dismissed because he published maps of caribou breeding grounds in ANWR that overlapped the proposed oil exploration area. Or, if I thought about it and asked some friends, probably a dozen other cases where the administration has been quick to silence dissent from within.

So, I believe my claim stands: lack of action on the part of this administration is implicit acceptance of policy.

Policies are consistent with interpretations of laws. Ideally, the laws are fairly clear, and there is little debate over how to interpret. When policy shifts and the law doesn't, however, that's a reminder that we need to periodically question—openly, honestly, and realistically—which was out of line. And if it's the law that's the problem, the Congress has proven that they can act quickly to change that when they're motivated by GOP leadership. They were not so directed, and reasonable odds are that they will not be by this administration.

No member of Congress is going to stand up and say "I voted for discrimination!", even if they believe in it. Look what happened to Trent Lott with that gaffe at Strom Thurmond's birthday last year. My challenge to those seeking to unseat the incumbents (in both the legislative and exectutive branches) is to paint discrimination all over them anyway. I hope the case with Bloch will be used as evidence.

From:

There's no argument that there have been differences between the Secretary of State and the rest of the cabinet. It's by nature, his job to work diplomaticly, just like it is Rumsfeld's to address things militarily. It's how people paint the sequence of events that I often question. This particular article reads to be about 1/3 fact, 1/3 speculation, 1/3 spin. The leftist tilt is there, and I'm not sure the imagery of Powell willingly grabbing his ankles is as accurate as it is sensational.

When policy shifts and the law doesn't, however, that's a reminder that we need to periodically question—openly, honestly, and realistically—which was out of line. And if it's the law that's the problem, the Congress has proven that they can act quickly to change that when they're motivated by GOP leadership.
Not to sound contrary for the sake being being so... But, GOP leadership or otherwise, I think a "quick to change" legislature it's a bit of an overly optimistic notion. Using your logic, let's allow Bloch to review the law and the policy, reach necessary conclusions, and let the administration and legislature react, if necessary, before accusing the entire administration of being anti-gay.

Shouldn't we wait until Bloch concludes his review and observe subsequent incumbant reaction before "painting discrimination all over them anyway"?

From:

Ultimately the buck stops with Bush, and he did nothing to stop the firing of 7 gay translators, which meant that chatter re: a possible attack on the USA that was sent *before* 9-11 lay unread on a desk for 3 months... you can excuse him and blame Bloch if you wish, but this administration is decidely unfriendly to gays, and in 2004 that isn't just discrimination, it's appalling.

BTW, why do these comments show up one word at a time?

From:

BTW, why do these comments show up one word at a time?

Are you using a Mac? I'm starting to think that Macs are having a problem with my LJ style.

p.s. I agree with you on the other stuff.

From:

Yep I'm using a Mac... I avoid the monolithic globalism of Windows and I *still* get screwed by them LOLOL

From:

Heh - Windows will get you no matter what! ;)

From:

a) the translators were discharged after 9/11, not before.
b) they were dismissed from their studies at the national training center, not intelligence desks.

So to say we missed intelligence reports Jan 20 through Sept 11 because gay translaters were disharged in December is silly.

c) "don't ask don't tell", the policy under which was they were discharged is a CLINTON policy. (bonus funfact: Clinton and Gore both signed DOMA into law).
d) the 8 years before 9/11 were administered by CLINTON and 9/11 was a successive attack on the WTC by the same organization, the first occuring under CLINTON's first term.

Why would you hold Bush accountable for what are clearly Clinton's policies and inactions?

From:

Ah, another subscriber to RNC talking points...
And it's not Clinton's fault. Don't ask don't tell was IGNORED in this case.
And how is what Bush signs into law NOW anyone's fault or responsibility but HIS?

From:

Ah, another subscriber to RNC talking points
I have no idea what "RNC talking points" are, or how one could become clairvoyant enough to identify "subscribers." Let's refrain from making personal judgements or attacks.

And it's not Clinton's fault.
You mean him signing the policies into law wasn't his fault? Or people being discharged on grounds of the poilicies he signed into law isn't his fault?

Don't ask don't tell was IGNORED in this case
Completely "ignored," which is why the policy was only mentioned three times in this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2479777.stm), as well as almost every other article on the issue.

And how is what Bush signs into law NOW anyone's fault or responsibility but HIS?
I never he wasn't accountable for what signs into law. But what, specifically, has he signed into law that supports your assertations (http://www.livejournal.com/users/smurfchick/507525.html?thread=6886277#t6886277)?

From:

The party line is obvious in your reply. It doesn't take a psychic to spot it.

a. As in - It's 2004 not 1994 and what Bush signs into law NOW has nothing to do with what Clinton did a DECADE ago.

b. Unless you can provide "every other article" then you cannot say it was included.Yes the BBC did mention "don't ask don't tell" in the context that the Army CLAIMED that the interpretors came out. I note that the people fired were not asked whether they had in fact done that... oh well... Either way, it was a bad move.

c. It was a rhetorical comment based on your assertion that Clinton is resonsible because of DOMA. Nowhere in DOMA is a plan to exclude gays from discrimination included: in fact, it contains the opposite. The current administration plans to REVERSE that. But eh, IF (when) he signs this law then HE is responsible for mass discrimination against gays, not Clinton.

And you know, I suspect you disagree and that's fine. I spend enough time arguing with rightwingers and anti-gay bigots elsewhere (not saying that you're either, but given the subject matter, it ranges in that territory) so you'll excuse me continuing this here.

From:

It's 2004 not 1994 and what Bush signs into law NOW has nothing to do with what Clinton did a DECADE ago.
Au contrare. Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to enforce legislature enacted by the previous administration with DOMA. I don't agree with his proposal, but I cannot deny the two are related. DOMA wasn't a decade ago, it was in 1996, less than 8 years ago. Does the elapse of 7 years and some change make it okay? Is that what we expected of our contemporary Democratic stewardship? So we turn a blind eye now, because it was waaaaay back in the latter half of the 1990's? I ask again, what has Bush signed into law that has been nearly as anti-gay as Clinton's DOMA and "don't ask don't tell"? And who are you to accuse me of adhering to any "party line" when you're so eager to bash Bush about what can't possibly pass, yet dismissive of what Clinton (and Gore) already passed?

Unless you can provide "every other article" then you cannot say it was included
Sure I can... because I used the word "almost", which you carefully ignored. Regardless, here are 888 articles, essays, and other writings (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22don%27t+ask+don%27t+tell%22+linguists) to which you can refer.

I note that the people fired were not asked whether they had in fact done that
You're right. Because the Army is not allowed to ask under Clinton's policy. Likewise, the soldiers are not allowed to tell. Each of them knew the rules before enlisting, yet they broke them, and were discharged per Clinton's policy. You can suggest with your capital-lettered "CLAIMING" that it is an conspiracy against gays, employed by the Army... But if you're going to speculate, I will assure you it is more far likely that at least some of those individuals were not actually gay, but rather using the policy as a relatively easy-out of an arduous military contract.

Nowhere in DOMA is a plan to exclude gays from discrimination included
You're right, there is nothing in DoMA to protect gays from discrimination.

in fact, it contains the opposite.
You're right, DoMA violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection [and] creates second-class status for legally married same-sex couples (http://www.buddybuddy.com/doma.html).

The current administration plans to REVERSE that.
Negative. Bush clearly said "Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.transcript/index.html)" I'm curious as how you interpret his statement of support as a reversal.

When all is said and done, I took issue with your assertion that "he did nothing to stop the firing of 7 gay translators, which meant that chatter re: a possible attack on the USA that was sent *before* 9-11 lay unread on a desk for 3 months" ... Such a comment is illogical and inaccurate on so many levels, not the least of which includes policy accountability and the timeline, that I could not such absurdity to go un-addressed.

From:

Having now read the rest of your replies, I'm of the mind that yours won't be changed. You take 3 issues and meld them into a lil doll that says whatever discrimination this administration puts through is OK, and that if and when Bush signs it into law, that's OK too. And I've decided I don't need to talk to people like that. Have a nice life.

From:

You [...] say [...] if and when Bush signs it into law, that's OK too.
Actually, I clearly and concisely wrote "I don't agree with his proposal." I can see why you missed it, being buried in the first part of the second sentence and all.

Why do you insist upon labeling me as someone who I'm not, accusing me of making comments that I clearly do not? Is it easier for you to debate with me if you pretend I fit your prejudiced assumption of who you would prefer me to be?

You're really doing yourself a disservice, if for no other reason than the act of blatantly ignoring what people write opens the door for people to legitimately label you as ignorant.

From:

"So to say we missed intelligence reports Jan 20 through Sept 11 because gay translaters were disharged in December is silly."
No. It was mid-November. And in the two years prior to 9-11 there were 37 linguists and translators fired. And apparently all of them were fired because they were gay. This led to a critical shortage of translators, which is why the department was behind on deciphering the chatter.
"Why would you hold Bush accountable for what are clearly Clinton's policies and inactions?"
Because that was about the CURRENT thread. I used the translators as an example of Bush's CONTINUING anti-gay stance. You mean you didn't understand that?

From:

I thought you were going to let it go with "have a nice life" but obviously your irrationality overrides your better judgment.

It was mid-November
Wait a second, it was "three months prior to 9/11" according your previous post. You must be taking lessons from Richard Clarke, given the consistency of your assertions. And the fault clearly lay with Bush, according to your first post... but now you're bringing up "2 years," 17 months of which fell under the Clinton administration. Yet it's all Bush's fault?

37 linguists
And how many of those 37 spoke Farsi or Arabic? Yeah.

This led to a critical shortage of translators
Actually, the shortage has existed for years. Regardless of whether you choose to recognize that long-standing shortage, both cum hoc, ergo proctor hoc and post hoc, ergo proctor hoc are fallacies... therefore your argument isn't valid and you cannot conclude the firing of gay linguists "led to a critical shortage." There is certainly correlation, but definitely not causation.

apparently all of them were fired because they were gay
No, all of them were discharged because they violated Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If you equate "being gay" with "violating Clinton's policy," that's your shortcoming, not mine. A soldier can be gay and serve quite a long time; I know more than a few people who have.

And just so you know: the Army hates Clinton's policy, as they would rather let gays serve out of the closet and close the loophole that is, more than often not, exploited by malingerers looking for a way out of service.

used the translators as an example of Bush's CONTINUING anti-gay stance
"Continuing" what? Clinton's policies? Bush didn't discharge those translators, he played neither a role in the discharge nor the creation of the policy under which the soldiers were discharged. So those incidents cannot be held against him as examples that he is anti-gay.

Now if you would like to criticize Bush for not repealing Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a policy which many people view to be anti-gay, I would stand right next to you with the same criticism.

From:

folkyboy.livejournal.com

yeah that's the way i was feeling too... like trying to be light hearted about the matter to prevent myself from worrying about the seriousness of the situation. i just don't understand how one man could be so evil...

From:

Well, it's not just one man. One man, even the "evilest" of men, would not have the sort of effects we're seeing. We're talking about a LOT of people with a LOT of power and a LOT of money.

From:

folkyboy.livejournal.com

yes...true. :(

From:

tetonkid.livejournal.com

3 cheers for jude!! it's extra scary for me because technically i do work for the feds (in a weird state university government kind of way) and i am (or was) protected by that law. luckily, i work in a fairly tolerant environment. but still, it's unsettling knowing that one day i could show up for work and just be fired because i have a girlfriend. it's enraging, actually.

From: