Gay U.S. Soldier Wants to Serve OpenlyI have an idea. Rather than ask America to accept your abnormal behavior, why don't you look inward and see if you can overcome your deviant tendencies.
By MALIA RULON, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that's bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.
"I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open," Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it's just not worth it."
Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May. (link)
Friday, April 08, 2005
A DODD-AWFUL DEED
By IAN BISHOP, New York Post Correspondent
WASHINGTON — A seething Sen. Charles Schumer charged yesterday that fellow Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd's brazen attempt to derail a big New York contract for the Marine One helicopter is one of the worst stunts he has ever seen.
"The bottom line is what he did was a sneak attack, and I haven't seen it in all my years in the Senate," an angry Schumer told The Post.
The New York Democrat was referring to Dodd's slipping a last-minute amendment into the State Department budget bill on Wednesday night that pulls Marine One work out of New York and into Connecticut, where Sikorsky, the losing bidder on the chopper contract, is based.
Schumer, who was caught off guard on the Senate floor, quickly blocked Dodd by placing a hold on the entire State Department budget.
Schumer said he doesn't intend to lift the hold until Dodd backs off.
"I think we did a good job of blocking him — and I think he's kind of stuck," Schumer said.
Dodd's amendment, which sailed through the Senate by voice vote, would kill the $6.1 billion contract awarded to an international partnership led by Lockheed Martin because it bans any company that has done business in Iran from working on it. (link)
Vicious bunch, aren't they? But I think we already knew that.
Anyway, the New York Times, in an editorial this morning, comes out in vehement opposition to John Bolton being our next ambassador to the United Nations. I suppose if we must have one, this is a ringing endorsement of the man.
Any person opposed by the Times must be a great nominee.
The Worst of the Bad Nominees
When a president picks his administration officials, the opposing political party can't expect to be thrilled with the selections. Right now, Democrats in the Senate are trying to block the nominations of three men chosen by George W. Bush for important posts: John Bolton for United Nations ambassador, Stephen Johnson for head of the Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Lester Crawford for commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. They have excellent reasons for opposition in each case, but some reasons are more excellent than others.
Mr. Bolton stands out because he is not only bad in a policy sense, but also unqualified for the post to which he's been named. At a minimum, the United States representative to the United Nations should be a person who believes it is a good idea. Mr. Bolton has never made secret his disdain for the United Nations, for multilateralism and for consensus-seeking diplomacy in general. (link)
Like I said.