Dead Racists Society

"It's the only gum with the breath-freshening power of ham"

2008-12-21T14:03:00.003-05:00

Burger King has come out with a cologne. Now I can attract hungry, feral cats anywhere I go. (Maybe I should insert a "pussy" double entendre here? Naw, let's not.)

The way to a man's heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman's heart — according to Burger King — may be through a new meat-scented body spray.

While fast-food chains aren't exactly best known for selling signature fragrances, on Sunday The Home of the Whopper rolled out a men's body spray called Flame by BK. The 5-ml bottles are available for sale in Ricky's stores in New York City and on a dedicated Web site, firemeetsdesire.com.

If you're salivating for a chance to marinate yourself in flame-broiled flavor, relax: The experience can be yours for just $3.99 — a small price to pay for some seriously mouthwatering mojo.

And if you're thinking "Hey, Burger King isn't exactly sexy", well then, you couldn't be more wrong:

You can see him beckoning you hither at their website.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: This Probably Doesn't Deserve My "Language" Tag Edition

2008-12-19T20:37:00.002-05:00

It was common for racists to take anything they could conceivably associate with race and claim that this tenuous connection was certain. Race, for instance, defined not only skin color and other physical features, but also culture, civilization, thoughts, morality (or lack thereof), religion, etc. And for any of these, they also had to demonstrate (at least to their own satisfaction) that that of whites was superior to that of blacks.

So it was with language:

Another important influence came to the blacks through their contact with the English language. The peculiar richness of this speech, the call it institutes upon the mind for contextual thoughts makes it to the savage perhaps the most educative of tongues. It cannot be compassed by any lowly people without a decidedly developing effect. The negro has mastered this language in a very remarkable manner, and without deliberate instruction by any form of schooling, and by so doing has given better proof of his natural capacity than by any other of his accomplishments in this to him very new world. . . .

The struggle of the African with the difficulties of our incompleted [sic], open-structured English speech is one of the most interesting features of his history. His inherited habits of mind framed on a very limited language, where the terms were well tied together and where the thought found in the words a bridge of easy passage, gave him much trouble when he came to employ our speech where the words are like widely separated stepping-stones which require nimble wits in those who use them. It would require a separate essay to deal with this interesting subject, so I can only note a few of the most instructive examples of the devices to which the negroes have resorted in their difficult task. . . . Our verb with its imperfect denotation of time and number gives them at first much trouble; to help themselves they have adopted some new but imperfectly defined tenses; "gwine done," "gone done," "done gone," seem to me to be natural efforts to give clearness to our indices of action, which we are able to supply from our grasp of the context,--a mental habit to which the lower races with difficulty attain. . . .

--From Nathaniel Shaler, "The Nature of the Negro," Arena, Vol. III (December, 1890). Reprinted in I. A. Newby, The Development of Segregationist Thought, pp. 58-59. Ellipses are Newby's.

I also recall reading something about how black languages were inferior because they didn't have many words in them--not enough to properly translate the Bible into. I can't recall who said it, but I think it might have been Charles Carroll.

Intelligence failure = voting for Bush

2008-12-19T20:20:00.002-05:00

Once again we find that Bush's assertions that he invaded Iraq on the best intelligence available at the time are shameless, odious lies.

During an interview with the Committee, John Gibson, who served as Director of Speechwriting for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council (NSC), stated that he tried to insert the uranium claim into this speech at the request of Michael Gerson, chief White House speechwriter, and Robert Joseph, the Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense at the NSC. According to Mr. Gibson, the CIA rejected the uranium claim because it was "not sufficiently reliable to include it in the speech." Mr. Gibson stated that the CIA "didn't give that blessing," the "CIA was not willing to clear that language," and "[a]t the end of the day, they did not clear it."

...

According to Ms. Miscik, the CIA's reasons for rejecting the uranium claim "had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts" before the call, and Dr. Rice was "getting on the phone call with that information." Ms. Miscik told Dr. Rice personally that the CIA was "recommending that it be taken out." She also said "[i]t turned out to be a relatively short phone call" because "we both knew what the issues were and therefore were able to get to a very easy resolution of it."

Once again the Bush administration reveals it has something else in common with the Muslim extremists it supposedly hates

2008-12-19T10:53:00.007-05:00

Remember that U.N. resolution that the Vatican refused to be a part of? The one that called on nations to decriminalize homosexuality?

Well, apparently the U.S. is of the same opinion as the Vatican:

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

...

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction.

The hell? How is our twisted notion of federalism an issue? Because several states don't have measures banning discrimination against sexual orientation (nor does the federal government, for that matter), that somehow means that we need to accept other countries throwing gays in jail or slaughtering them? I can't even fathom how this makes sense.

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the U.S. — despite its unwillingness to sign — condemned any human-rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Except that it apparently doesn't. It seems just fine with letting countries sentence people to death or imprison them based on their sexual orientation. Or is that just not a human-rights violation? It's not like gays have rights or are human or anything.

"Woo! Hooray for science!"

2008-12-19T10:47:00.003-05:00

The Obama administration might get it:

In a sign that President-elect Barack Obama intends to elevate science to greater prominence, John P. Holdren, a Harvard physicist widely recognized for his leadership on energy policy and climate change, will be appointed White House science adviser this weekend, the Globe confirmed yesterday.

...

The news, coming in the same week as Nobel laureate physicist Steven Chu's appointment as secretary of energy, was heartening for the scientific community.

Many scientists have objected to the Bush administration's policies, from restrictions on embryonic stem cell research to the pace of action on climate change.

"I think they'll be restoring the role of science in the federal establishment," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Cambridge-based advocacy organization. "We've got a bunch of people across the [new] administration who get it."

In 2004, Holdren joined other prominent scientists to sign a letter accusing the Bush administration of undermining and censoring scientists.

"When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions," the letter said.

Holdren, who was an adviser to the Obama campaign and a member of a scientific advisory committee to President Bill Clinton, is a specialist on energy, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.

Recognizing reality is un-American

2008-12-18T15:55:00.002-05:00

I'm pretty sure that's what Dobbs is trying to say:

No matter what the fearmongers tell you, however, we are not -- and I've said it, and I've said it, and I've said it -- we're not going to fall into recession into this -- in this country. We are going to probably go through one of the most painful recessions in our country's modern history, but we are not going to fall in depression, and you and I and all independent thinkers have got to keep our heads up, our eyes clear, avoid the nonsense and the herds, and deal with reality as it comes at us. That's what made this country great. It's what will maintain its greatness, and that is you and I sticking to our nation's founding ideals, and making certain that we are "can do" in our outlook, and not just going along with the crowd and the nonsense.

Ah, yes, the ostrich theory of economics. As long as we blind ourselves to any problems, we can't fail!

Well, you know, we're all concerned. We're all worried. Anyone paying attention is concerned and worried, but are you scared? Are you afraid? No. That's un-American.

Is it now? Somebody ought to tell the Republicans that so they can stop with their fear-mongering.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Social Stigma Edition

2008-12-12T02:32:00.005-05:00

I couldn't come up with any better title. Anywho, a few days ago Greg Laden blogged about a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled "How social status shapes race". The abstract mentions,

We show that racial perceptions are fluid; how individuals perceive their own race and how they are perceived by others depends in part on their social position. Using longitudinal data from a representative sample of Americans, we find that individuals who are unemployed, incarcerated, or impoverished are more likely to be seen and identify as black and less likely to be seen and identify as white, regardless of how they were classified or identified previously. This is consistent with the view that race is not a fixed individual attribute, but rather a changeable marker of status.

Though it's a new paper, this certainly isn't news--at least, the idea that "how they are perceived by others depends in part on their social position" isn't new. We've known that since before the Civil War. In fact, it was the basis of court decisions trying to decide people's race. From an 1835 South Carolina case, State v. Cantey:

We cannot say what admixture of negro blood will make a colored person, and by a jury one may be found a colored person while another of the same degree may be declared a white man. In general, it is very desirable that rules of law should be certain and precise; but it is not always practicable, nor is it practicable in this instance, nor do I know that it is desirable. The status of the individual is not to be determined solely by the distinct and visible mixture of negro blood, but by reputation, by his reception into society, and his having commonly exercised the privileges of a white man. But his admission to these privileges, regulated by the public opinion of the community in which he lives, will very much depend on his own character and conduct; and it may be well and proper that a man of worth, honesty, industry, and respectability, should have the rank of a white man, while a vagabond of the same degree of blood should be confined to the inferior caste. It will be a stimulus to the good conduct of these persons, and security for their fidelity as citizens.

Emphasis mine.

A 1914 case, Tucker v. Blease, quoted the above section and gave it this introduction:

The law recognizes that there is a social element, arising from racial instinct, to be taken into consideration between those with and those without negro blood. The statutes and provisions of the Constitution hereinbefore quoted show that the law not only recognizes a classification, but makes it mandatory, and provides a penalty for failure to observe the laws in this respect, in the instances therein mentioned. The decisions prior to the abolition of slavery show that the classification between white and colored persons did not depend upon the extent of the mixed blood.

Again, emphasis mine.

So a person's legal race, which was supposedly defined in terms of blood and ancestry, was recognized to actually be based (in part at least) on social status. Two people with the same amount of black "blood" could be legally assigned to different races based on whether they exhibited particular good traits or were considered to be in good social standing, his "reception into society."

Separate but equal isn't equal? Who would've thought it!

2008-12-10T16:09:00.005-05:00

New Jersey's Civil Union Review Commission has released their final report, entitled "Consequences of New Jersey's Civil Union Law." The result?

In its final report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the state's Civil Union Review Commission concluded that the state's two-year-old civil union law doesn't do enough to give gay couples the same protections as heterosexual married couples.

"This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," the report says. The findings of the commission's 13 members were unanimous.

The commission found that the rights afforded to those in civil unions were not always well understood, and that allowing gay couples to marry would alleviate the problem. For example, there have been instances when people in civil unions have been prevented from visiting their partners in hospitals and making medical decisions on their behalf, the commission found.

It's not like we couldn't have seen that coming. Still, opponents of gay marriage were outraged.

Gay marriage opponents criticized the report, saying the commission was made up of members who favored gay marriage and calling its recommendations predetermined.

"If you look at the membership of that committee, they're all advocates. It's an advocacy group," Pat Brannigan, the executive director of the anti-gay-marriage New Jersey Catholic Conference, said Tuesday. "It doesn't mean that that is the conclusion that society and people in general will come to."

People advocating for gay marriage after finding that civil unions don't work? People advocating for equal treatment of all their citizens? What a nefarious, conspiratorial plot! I'm sure they concocted all the evidence that civil unions aren't equal to marriage, and since only 10 of the people testifying before or writing letters to the committee were opposed to gay marriage, clearly the committee must have stifled all the opposing views that Brannigan assures us are there! Is there no evil to which proponents of equality won't stoop?

Oh wait... no. The committee

specifically solicited the testimony of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, the New Jersey Catholic Conference, the League of American Families and PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays). Of these groups, only the New Jersey Catholic Conference provided testimony in response to the invitation.

The report is available here (click on the graphic at the top--I overlooked it at first).

Skipping to the happy ending, the unanimous recommendations are these:

(1) The Legislature and Governor amend the law to allow same-sex couples to marry;

(2) The law be enacted expeditiously because any delay in marriage equality will harm all the people of New Jersey; and

(3) The Domestic Partnership Act should not be repealed, because it provides important protections to committed partners age 62 and older.

The opening section gives an illustration of some of the troubles involved with civil unions: one woman had trouble getting medical information on her partner while she was in the emergency room, because the doctor "did not understand, and hadn't heard of civil unions before". But, one might argue, wouldn't that go away with time? Surely people will come to understand civil unions and that they are "equal" to marriage. Probably not. The report points out that Vermont, which has had a civil union for eight years now, still has the same problem as New Jersey with people not treating civil unions as equal to marriage. So, they conclude, it's unlikely that this will lessen with time. As they quote later, "Time cannot and does not mend the inequality inherent in the two separate institutions."

But even if it would become truly equal (at least legally) with time, that still wouldn't be good enough. Echoing what we've been saying all along and agreeing with my pithy title, they say:

Even if, given enough time, civil unions are understood to provide rights and responsibilities equivalent to those provided in marriage, they send a message to the public: same-sex couples are not equal to opposite-sex married couples in the eyes of the law, that they are "not good enough" to warrant true equality.

This is the same message that racial segregation laws wrongfully sent. Separate treatment was wrong then and it is just as wrong now.

Bravo! This isn't hypothetical, either. The commission cites "mental health experts" who have demonstrated "the significant psychological damage caused by not recognizing marriage for same-sex couples." Treating certain people as inferior and not good as the rest of the population has damaging consequences. That was true 54 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, and it's true today. As one portion of testimony put it,

The socially sanctioned right of gay marriage which is qualitatively different than civil unions, the right to choose one's spouse, has a positive impact on self-esteem, sense of being validated in the eyes of the community, and on the internalization of ideas of commitment and responsibility to others, something that is sorely needed in our society currently.

In addition to psychological damage caused by being treated separately, there are tangible inequalities involved here (which of course only exacerbates the psychological damage from being discriminated against). For instance, even though 20 months have passed since this, insurers haven't gotten any better about offering insurance to people in civil unions. In fact, it may have gotten worse:

Since its first report, the Commission has gathered evidence that employers' invocation of ERISA has not lessened with the passage of time. If anything, the worsening economy seems to be encouraging employers to cut corners wherever they can, with equality for LGBT employees and their same-sex partners being among the casualties.

ERISA, the federal Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act, says that self-insured "companies which create their own insurance plans but may hire outside agencies to administer them are governed by federal law rather than state law." That means many of these companies invoke DOMA to deny benefits and insurance to people in civil unions. So one could logically ask, would allowing gay marriage in New Jersey change this? The committee says yes:

The Commission concludes that a marriage law would provide that remedy, despite the existence of a federal prohibition on the recognition of same-sex relationships.

As the Commission reported in its interim report, the marriage law in Massachusetts has led many employers in that state to ignore the ERISA loophole and provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands. The Massachusetts experience dispels any notion that so long as federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships, it would make no difference whether a particular state uses the term "marriage" or "civil union" to describe a same-sex couple's relationship. In fact, the word "marriage" can and does make a difference to employers, even within the constraints of federal law.

The report cites one person's testimony:

Adding civil union partners is virtually impossible to do at this time in this climate at the bargaining table. However, we already have benefits for married couples in our agreements. The key here, as is often in contracts, as you all know, is the language. Simply calling the joining of two people 'marriage' rather than 'civil unions' means we don't have to negotiate or rewrite the contract language....

The fact is that just changing the language 'civil union' to 'marriage' changes the situation, because everyone agrees that married people and their spouses are entitled to health insurance and pensions. It's already in our agreements.

Wanting something called "marriage" rather than "civil union" is not just nitpicking on our part. People understand marriage--it has huge cultural and social significance. This is not the case with civil unions. The Supreme Court for Connecticut recognized this:

Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means 'equal.' As we have explained, the former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the
latter most surely is not.

And of course, since most people don't really understand the concept of civil unions, they aren't going to treat them the same even though the law says they should, as was demonstrated by the woman who couldn't get information on her partner while she was in the ER. Nor was this an isolated incident:

In another case, a witness from Plainfield testified that when he was admitted to a New Jersey hospital for emergency surgery in April 2007, his civil union partner was not allowed to see him, and was removed by hospital security.

The report concludes this section,

This testimony demonstrates that the civil union law has resulted in economic, medical and psychological harm for a number of same-sex couples and their children. This Commission believes that as long as New Jersey maintains two separate systems to recognize the unions of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples and their children will face a challenge in receiving equal treatment. Under a dual system, these and future families will suffer economic, medical and psychological harm.

The Commission finds that even if all employers in New Jersey were suddenly to provide benefits to employees in civil unions equal to the benefits provided to married employees - an unlikely proposition in itself - such compliance would not cure much of the inequality perpetuated by the civil union law.

Further, even if some employers were to continue to invoke the federal ERISA loophole under a prospective marriage statute - notwithstanding the evidence from Massachusetts that fewer employers would invoke that loophole - a marriage statute would cure much of the harm perpetuated by the existing civil union law as reflected in the collected testimony.

The report also includes a section on the financial impact allowing gay marriage might have in New Jersey. While I don't disagree, and it might sway some people who otherwise would be unmoved (especially with today's economy), it feels degrading to have an issue of civil rights, equal treatment, and justice for all boil down to "it's profitable." Still, the legislature set this as one of their tasks, so I can't hold it against the committee. Actually, they pointed out something that I hadn't considered. I've heard some people argue against gay marriage because giving benefits to gay couples will raise expenses for the state, so it'll cost more, and that would result in higher taxes. But the report points out that just letting gays marry would probably be cheaper than setting up civil unions:

[M]arriage may lead to reduced costs in some instances. Joseph A. Komosinski, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, testified that money would be saved because there would be no need to print alternative forms, and there would be one standard procedure for the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Dr. Gabel-Brett noted:
In these financial times, ... why or how can we waste state money, taxpayers' money, making forms, making changes, making a separate structure that has to be administered, for no other purpose than to set people apart?....

Every time you change a state program, whatever it might be, some benefit, some program, some eligibility requirement, you are going to have to change it in two parallel structures. You are going to have to spend more time sending out notices, changing websites, changing computer forms. So it is not going to end."

Finally, the report gets to a section examining the opposition to gay marriage. In response to the old "marriage must be between a man and a woman", they raise this point:

The Commission believes that it is precisely because marriage has a meaning in society beyond the legal concept of marriage that it should be offered to same-sex couples. The Commission has heard time and again how permitting same-sex couples to marry would make a qualitative difference in their lives and the lives of their families and has heard no testimony that allowing these couples to marry would harm opposite-sex couples who are married.

Indeed.

Via Pam's House Blend.

Uh, wow

2008-12-10T13:44:00.002-05:00

Matt Yglesias highlights a single paragraph of an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

What Democrats have done, in essence, is to insert an unelected judiciary into the wartime chain of command. As Mr. Kelly notes, this is producing a "lack of accountability" and "the lack of transparency into the inner workings of the FISA process." If some faceless FISA judge denies a surveillance request from Mr. Kelly and New Yorkers die as a result, that judge will answer to no one. Under current FISA rules, we won't even know who that judge is.

I'm not sure I can even count the number of levels on which this is wrong or bone-headed. It's saying that unelected judges are bad in wartime, apparently unaware that the military itself is not elected. The people setting these wiretaps are unelected and faceless, and now so are their victims, since they don't even have to say who they're spying on. None of that seems to bother them.

And the idea that having judicial oversight--any judicial oversight, no matter how watered down now--means a "lack of accountability" is just... it's mind-boggling. Apparently letting unknown and unaccountable people spy on anyone they want for no reason whatsoever leads to more accountability and transparency than having a judge oversee requests to spy on people. How the hell could this possibly make any sense to anyone?

Iowa case

2008-12-09T22:26:00.004-05:00

I had thought about live-blogging the oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court today, but that didn't pan out--I had some errands to do around that time. Fortunately, KatRose at Pam's House Blend did it herself. And for anyone interested, there's video of the proceedings here.

This article kinda suggests that some of the justices (they don't really indicate how many) were hostile to the idea of same-sex marriage, because, they queried, wouldn't it lead to polygamy?

An attorney for six same-sex Iowa couples insisted that allowing gay marriage would not open the door to polygamous marriages, despite challenges from several Iowa Supreme Court justices.

Dennis Johnson, a Des Moines lawyer, said marriage would remain an institution of two people even if the high court allowed gay couples to wed. The assertion came in response to questions from several justices that gay marriage would open the door to other types of marriage.

"How do you stop?" asked Justice Mark Cady. "How do you stop more than two people from getting married?"

Johnson said a marriage "has always been well defined within the concept of two people," and that polygamy would change its historic meaning. Same-sex couples, by contrast, should have the right to marry because they meet all other requirements to wed, he said.

"This right is a time-honored right and tradition in this society," Johnson said. "What you see is that people have always had a fundamental right to marry. The court has made it clear. With more than two people, you would change the meaning of marriage."

Oh, swell. Looks like he botched it; that'll just lend strength to the people saying the exact same thing about same-sex marriage. And no, marriage has not "always been well defined within the concept of two people", you twit! Polygamy was the norm in most cultures on earth!

In my view, there's a fairly simple distinction (at least legally) between same-sex marriage and polygamy. Banning same-sex marriage means that gays can't get married at all, forever. This is not the case with banning polygamy--it's absurd to say that you're barred from the fundamental right to marry someone when the bar is that you're already married. It's the difference between a store giving out coupons that stipulate one per person per visit, and that store barring blacks from buying there at all.

Not to say that I'm really opposed to polygamy, mind. Frankly, I think the whole slippery-slope argument is absurd. If there's a reason to ban polygamy, then that should stand whether or not gays can get married. If there's no such reason, then why should it matter if gay marriage leads to polygamy?

Anywho. The state seemed mostly to be arguing a couple things: (1) that this shouldn't be decided by the courts--that is, they should defer to the legislature. Why, I can't understand (well, the legal rationale for that, I can't understand). The legislature isn't allowed to pass laws that contravene the constitution, no matter whether or not marriage laws are generally their jurisdiction or whether people really, really, hate gay marriage. (2) They were claiming that marriage is about procreation (snicker) and if gays can get married, then soon people won't believe that marriage is about procreation, and then they won't get married at all!

"We're saying that, after a generation, maybe two, people will see or could come to believe that if it's not necessary to have its biological father, or its biological mother, then what's the need for getting married?" Kuhle said.

...

Kuhle said that state support of same-sex marriage would teach future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation, one of its historic tenets.

How that works, I don't know. Most people don't enter into a marriage thinking "this is all about procreation" anyways. We let infertile couples and opposite-sex couples who have no intention of having children marry. And yet people still get married. Letting gays get married will just lead to more people marrying.

And if you're worried that parents should be married, for the kids' sakes, then let gay people get married! Gay people have children--the couples involved in this case have children! How can you say that you want them to be raised in a household with a married couple when you're fighting against that very thing!?

And what about foster homes or adoptive parents? Eh? Are they going to prevent people from marrying because they're not the biological mother and/or father? This is all absurd!

And (3), they were arguing that the trial court erred by not allowing the state to field some expert witnesses. They may have a point here. Or, on the other hand, the judge may have been doing them a favor, not listening to some of their expert witnesses. In fact, according to KatRose's transcript, the witnesses were "3 religion experts, an economist and one historian". Why any of their specialties should be needed, I've no idea... well, maybe the historian.

Also, according to her transcript, the attorney for the state at one point said (paraphrasing): "How can a woman teach a boy to be a man? How can a man teach a girl to be a woman?"

So we should take away the sons of single mothers, and the daughters of single husbands? Bah.

I should hope the court could see through all this vapid nonsense, but so few courts have before. Here's hoping.

Gay marriage case coming up

2008-12-08T00:28:00.002-05:00

In Iowa:

The gay marriage debate moves to the Midwest this week as the Iowa Supreme Court hears arguments in a challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

If the high court rules in favor of the half dozen gay couples who filed the lawsuit, it would make Iowa the fourth state behind Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to uphold the right of same-sex couples to legally marry. In California, however, voters have negated the courts by amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Iowa case has been moving through the legal system for more than three years, and it could take a year or more for the state Supreme Court to issue a ruling after hearing oral arguments Tuesday morning.

You may recall that District Judge Robert Hanson found the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional last year, which seems reasonable enough to me. No idea what the Iowa Supreme Court will think.

Anyways, you can listen to a live stream of the oral arguments tomorrow, 10 a.m. Iowa time, if you are so inclined.

Double standards becoming a two-edged sword

2008-12-07T22:58:00.002-05:00

Or something like that.

I have occasionally mused that a working definition of homophobia would be "pretending that every word you just said does not apply equally well to straight people." Double standards, of course, are not unique to homophobia. Racists were full of them: if whites didn't cry from pain, they were stoic, whereas if blacks didn't cry from pain, they didn't actually feel pain; if blacks committed suicide, they would be declared insane, but if whites commit suicide they're just curious; if whites slaughter people, they're bold and noble conquerors, but if blacks kill other people, they're barbaric savages; etc.

So it was with relish that I read part of the book Challenge to the Court: Social Scientists and the Defense of Segregation, 1954-1966 by historian I. A. Newby. Here Newby is discussing the book Race and Reason, A Yankee View by Carleton Putnam, which was widely and enthusiastically received by racists and segregationists (and is in fact still being sold by such organizations as American Renaissance). Newby's book was published originally in 1967, six years after Race and Reason.

One test of the cogency of Putnam's logic is to take his admonitions concerning Negroes and apply them to segregationists in Mississippi, among whom Race and Reason was well received. "The capacity for a free civilization involves many attributes," Putnam wrote, "self-control (which, among other things, includes resistance to emotionalism), self-reliance, self-responsibility, willingness to bear the burdens of others without casting upon others the burdens on should bear one's self, willingness both to accept the verdict of majorities and to concede the rights of minorities, willingness to obey the law even when it hurts, willingness to support rather than to raid a treasury, emphasis upon the importance of the individual." Judging by the recent history of race relations in Mississippi, most Mississippi segregationists are not notable for "self-control" or "resistance to emotionalism." Nor is "self-reliance, self-responsibility, [and] willingness to bear the burdens of others without casting upon others the burdens one should bear one's self" the best way to describe their exploitation of Negroes. The reference to a "willingness . . . to accept the verdict of majorities and to concede the rights of minorities" is even more to the point. Mississippi segregationists have shown little concern for the rights of the Negro minority in their midst, nor are they willing to accept "the verdict of majorities" in those areas of the state where Negroes outnumber whites. Like John C. Calhoun before him, Putnam forgot that there are several kinds of majorities and minorities, and to be valid a defense of majority rights must be applicable to all majorities and consistent with the rights of all minorities. The admonition to Negroes "to obey the law even when it hurts" is particularly ironic in view of Putnam's defense of Mississippi, a state which has systematically subverted or ignored not only the Brown decision but the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments and the civil rights acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965. Finally, it should be noted (according to the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service) that for every $218 paid by Mississippians in federal taxes, the federal government spent $327 in the state in 1959-61. And of every $1,000 in Mississippi income, $286 came from the federal government. It would seem that Mississippians do not always live up to Putnam's admonitions to support rather than raid the public treasury.

A great take-down.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Blaming the Victim Edition

2008-12-05T21:19:00.002-05:00

Plessy v. Ferguson allowed "separate but equal" to remain the law of the land, and so for the decades that followed we had segregated facilities and institutions under the premise that they would provide equal comfort and utility to each race. This of course was a fantasy--facilities for blacks were regularly inferior to those for whites. Why did this happen? Let's ask Congressman Frank Clark of Florida:

While on this phase of the subject, Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer to the unsupported, bald declarations of gentlemen that negroes are not supplied with accommodations equal to those furnished to white people upon railroads in the South. Why gentlemen will persist in these statements I can not understand. Let me suggest something here that in all probability these gentlemen have never thought of. On our Florida railroads--and I presume it is the same in other Southern states--the cars furnished for negro passengers are just as good as those furnished for white passengers. I am free to admit, however, that they do not long remain as good, as comfortable, and as clean as do those set apart for white passengers. You will not have to search long for the reason of this change. The average negro is perfectly happy when he finds himself eating a watermelon or going on a railroad excursion. The railroad companies in the South cater to this weakness of the negro for riding on trains, and scarcely a week passes in the summer time that a negro excursion is not "pulled off" in every neighborhood. They flock to these excursion trains by thousands and of course the cars set apart for the negroes on the regular passenger trains are used for negro excursions.

Imagine a nice, new passenger coach, packed with dirty, greasy, filthy negroes, down South, in midsummer, and you can readily understand why that car does not long remain as good, as clean, and as desirable as a similar car occupied exclusively by white travelers. It is said of Sam Jones, the great Georgia revivalist, that on one occasion a certain Northern gentleman asked him if there was very much difference in the instincts of a "nigger" and a white man. Sam replied that he didn't know as to that, but of one thing he was absolutely sure, and that was that there was a vast difference in the "out stinks" of the two.

--Quoted in I. A. Newby, The Development of Segregationist Thought, p. 94

It was commonplace for whites to blame blacks for the discriminations whites inflicted on them, but it was rarely so blatant and so unabashedly declared.

Any bets on whether the Supreme Court will now reverse their decision?

2008-12-04T18:54:00.004-05:00

Recall last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that women must be protected from making decisions, based on... well, nothing at all?

"While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained," Justice Kennedy wrote, alluding to the brief. "Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

Given those stakes, the justice argued, "The state has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed."

No reliable data, but we're gonna rely on this fantasy to write the laws anyways. Well done.

Well, once again, we find that there's no reliable data to support the existence of post-abortion depression.

No high-quality study done to date can document that having an abortion causes psychological distress, or a "post-abortion syndrome," and efforts to show it does occur appear to be politically motivated, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

A team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women and found the high-quality studies showed no significant differences in long-term mental health between women who choose to abort a pregnancy and others.

"The best research does not support the existence of a 'post-abortion syndrome' similar to post-traumatic stress disorder," Dr. Robert Blum, who led the study published in the journal Contraception, said in a statement.

"Based on the best available evidence, emotional harm should not be a factor in abortion policy. If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas," added Vignetta Charles, a researcher and doctoral student at Johns Hopkins who worked on the study.

Of course, if the goal isn't to help women, then everything makes sense.

Via Feministing.

A Christmas tradition I can get behind

2008-12-04T16:45:00.002-05:00

Or maybe I shouldn't be behind it.

In Catalonia, as well as in the rest of Spain and in most of Italy and Southern France, traditional Christmas decorations consist of a large model of the city of Bethlehem, similar to the Nativity scenes of the English-speaking world but encompassing the entire city rather than just the typical manger scene. The caganer is a particular feature of modern Catalan nativity scenes, and is also found in other parts of Spain and southwestern Europe, including Salamanca, Murcia (cagones), Naples (cacone or pastore che caca) and Portugal (cagöes). Accompanying Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the Shepherds and company, the caganer is often tucked away in a corner of the model, typically nowhere near the manger scene. There is a good reason for his obscure position in the display, for "caganer" translates from Catalan to English as "pooper", and that is exactly what this little statue is doing — defecating.

Insert South Park reference here.

Via Pandagon, who takes glee in the fact that Bill Donohue is apoplectic over these little shitter boys.

It was bound to happen

2008-12-04T14:16:00.002-05:00

Representative Ros-Lehtinen received a phone call from President-Elect Barack Obama. And hung up on him.

When President-elect Barack Obama called Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen at her South Florida district office Wednesday, she hung up on him.

"I thought: 'Why would Obama want to call a little slug on the planet like me?' " Ros-Lehtinen said.

A short time later, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's designated chief of staff, called. Ros-Lehtinen hung up on him, too.

"I thought it was one of the radio stations in South Florida playing an incredible, elaborate, terrific prank on me," Ros-Lehtinen said. "They got Fidel Castro to go along. They've gotten Hugo Chavez and others to fall for their tricks. I said, 'Oh, no, I won't be punked'."

...

A man, who Ros-Lehtinen said sounded like Obama, got on the line and congratulated her on her reelection and said he was looking forward to working with her as the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs committee.

The conversation lasted just a minute when Ros-Lehtinen cut Obama off, telling him she wasn't falling for the hoax and that he was a better impersonator than the guy on Saturday Night Live.

Then Emanuel called, and she hung up on him. It finally took Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to persuade Ros-Lehtinen that the president-elect indeed wanted to talk to her.

"I asked Howard to tell me a private joke we share about colleagues in the House to make sure it really was him," Ros-Lehtinen said. "When he did, I realized it was the real deal."

Ros-Lehtinen said she then told Berman: "I know this sounds very presumptuous, but please tell President-elect Obama he can call me now and I will take his call."

That's some papal bull right there

2008-12-03T18:14:00.005-05:00

France recently has decided to propose a U.N. resolution that would call on governments to de-criminalize homosexuality, which every member of the European Union has signed onto already.

The Vatican, however, objects. Because if you can't turn gays into criminals, that discriminates against people who don't want gay marriage.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would "add new categories of those protected from discrimination" and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

"If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations," Migliore said. "For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," Migliore said.

...

Human rights groups say homosexuality is still punishable by law in more than 85 countries and by death in a number of them, including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said "no-one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals" but defended Migliore's comments, adding that the Vatican was in the majority on the issue.

"It's not for nothing that fewer than 50 member states of the United Nations have adhered to the proposal in question while more than 150 have not adhered. The Holy See is not alone," Lombardi said.

Uh-huh. They "don't want the death penalty or jail or fines" for gay people, but will object strenuously if you suggest doing away with them, and say that their position is correct because more countries than not do criminalize homosexuality.

This isn't about gay marriage. This is about people that hate gay people and want to deny them their rights, their freedoms, and their very lives. The Vatican apparently approves, and any objection to this is somehow discriminating against them.

Via Think Progress.

The gift that keeps on giving

2008-12-02T22:19:00.003-05:00

Remember George Rekers? The guy who practically single-handedly destroyed any case Florida might have had for banning gay people from adopting, despite ostensibly being on their side? It turns out this wasn't even the first time he's done that.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in an excerpt of proposed findings to the court, criticized the state of Florida for using Rekers as an expert witness even after he had been discredited in a similar Arkansas case involving gay adoption.

In 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children.

The Arkansas court specifically said that "Dr. Rekers' willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court" and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues."

Maybe he really is a sleeper agent on our side?

Probably hate puppies, too

2008-12-02T11:44:00.004-05:00

I'm sure this will be shocking to no-one, but it seems that people who oppose gay marriage are not fond of the recent ruling that banning gay people from adopting is, in the court's professional opinion, "completely fucking nuts" (okay, so she just said "irrational", but hey).

The former Miami-Dade County coordinator for the state's gay marriage ban amendment will meet with area pastors Tuesday to voice opposition to a recent court ruling allowing adoption by a gay man.

...

Advocates for gay rights and foster children praised the ruling while opponents blasted it, calling the ruling an attempt at judicial lawmaking. The state has said it will appeal the ruling.

Do you know why this is? Because these people hate happiness, love, and families.

What the hell was Florida thinking!?

2008-12-01T21:30:00.004-05:00

Ed Brayton has posted some excerpts from the court decision, and commenter noncarborundum provided a link to a PDF of the decision. It's a good read, and I'll post lengthy excerpts myself. It really is flabbergasting--I have no idea what Florida was thinking when they got their expert witnesses. Were they just the best the state could get? Probably; there doesn't seem to be any rational basis for banning gay people from adopting, so they have to resort to irrational witnesses to justify it.

Ed already posted the section about the state of the two children when they arrived at the household of their would-be adoptive parents, which is heartbreaking and monstrous. If I had read some of that in a work of fiction I would think the author were laying it on a bit too thick, but this is real--the elder brother, at four years old, would not speak, and was the one responsible for taking care of his four-month old younger brother (evidently because no-one else in their household cared to). So when people insist that children develop best when brought up by their biological mother and father, they are saying that gay parents are automatically worse than that.

But are they? Let's see what horrific neglect and abuses the boys were subjected to in this den on iniquity. Oh, before that, I should note that "Petitioner" is the man petitioning to adopt the boys, "John Doe" (the now eight-year old boy) and "James Does" (his younger half-brother). "Tom Roe, Sr." is the partner of Petitioner, and "Tom Roe, Jr." is his biological son, who's been living with them.

On weekdays, the household wakes up at about 6:30 a.m. Petitioner usually prepares breakfast, permitting each child to assist with an assigned kitchen duty. Each morning, the family eats together without distraction from the television. As each child finishes his breakfast, he puts his dish in the sink and proceeds to the bathroom to brush his teeth and hair. Petitioner and Roe purchased a Ford minivan, which Petitioner jokes was not his dream car, however, to accommodate the family size, is the most feasible. Tom Roe, Jr. is dropped off at school first. Afterwards, Petitioner takes John and James to school, walking them into their classrooms and usually speaking to their respective teachers. In the afternoon, after Petitioner picks the boys up from school, they generally go to the park for tennis lessons. At the conclusion of their lessons, the family heads home for dinner. At mealtime, the family blesses the food together and takes turns sharing the highlights of their day. Phones are not answered and the television is off during dinner. After the children are excused from the table, the older children load the dishwasher.

After dinner, the children spend one hour doing their homework. Although James does
not have homework, he spends time at the table pretending to do homework. John requires more supervision and one-on-one interaction to complete his homework. If a child finishes his homework early, the remaining time is spent reading. After homework is completed, the children are allowed to watch television. At bedtime, the boys retreat to their separate beds. By morning, however, James seems to always find his way into John's bed.

The family attends a non-denominational Christian church and have as pets, a dog, rabbit and kitten. John and James refer to Petitioner and Roe as "papi" and "daddy" respectively. John and James have lived in the same neighborhood, attended the same school, day care and aftercare since their arrival in the Petitioner-Roe home. As a result, each child has created friendships from school and in the neighborhood. John and James are closely bonded to Tom Roe, Jr., and their extended family. The boys consider Petitioner and Roe's parents, brothers and sisters their grandparents, uncles and aunts. The extended family sends the boys gifts for their birthdays and the holidays. Roe's mother, who lives in Tampa, visits the family regularly.

Here we see the nefarious gay agenda revealed: raising their kids, pets, going to church, going to work, taking kids to day care and school, etc. How depraved.

The ruling, after comparing expert testimony on both sides, concluded that same-sex parents are no worse than opposite-sex ones, despite what all the opponents of gay marriage would have you believe.

According to Dr. Lamb, there are three important factors that are predictors of healthy adjustment for children. One well recognized predictor of healthy adjustment is a child's relationship with his parents: a child is more likely to be well adjusted if he has a warm, harmonious relationship with committed, involved, sensitive parents. The second predictor is the relationship between the adults in the child's life. Children are more likely to be adjusted when the relationship between the parents is harmonious and positive. The third widely recognized predictor of adjustment is the resources available to a child. Children tend to adjust and better when they have adequate resources available and children who grow up in less well resourced homes are more likely to have issues with maladjustment. Providing additional insight into the development of the field in this area, Dr. Lamb points out that researchers once believed that traditional families provided the best environment for children. As the research developed, however, the notion was proven to be flawed, because the quality of the parenting itself is more important.

The witness testified that based on his 30 years of research and experience in the field, he can say with certainty that children raised by homosexual parents do not suffer an increased risk of behavioral problems, psychological problems, academic development, gender identity, sexual identity, maladjustment, or interpersonal relationship development.

Dr. Lamb's work is consistent with other studies of same sex parents indicating their
children are not more likely to be maladjusted. As such, pursuant to the witness' testimony the assumption that children raised by gay parents are harmed is not a reliable finding. In fact, it is contrary to the consensus in the field.

This, of course, anyone who really follows the subject would know. I was a little surprised to hear this, but it does make sense:

With regard to social relationships and peer adjustments, Dr. Lamb reports that children raised by gay parents develop social relationships the same as those raised by heterosexual parents. The research shows that children of gay parents are not ostracized and do not experience discrimination any more than children of heterosexual parents. According to the witness, children have always and will continue to tease and bully their peers about their parent's appearance, employment, ethnic background, parenting style, or sexual orientation. A child that
is teased views one reason no less hurtful than another. Therefore, Dr. Lamb concludes that the exclusion of homosexuals from adoption does not shield a child from being teased by his/her peers.

It's true. Children are vicious bastards, and that they're susceptible to teasing or bullying is not something unique to children of same-sex couples.

When the decision gets to discussing the 'expert' witnesses for the state, things get interesting. For starters, Rekers doesn't just have a theology degree, he's an ordained Baptist minister. There were also a number of interesting admissions.

Regarding relationship stability, Dr. Rekers proffered that homosexually behaving individuals have a substantially and significantly larger number of lifetime partners and maintain fewer relationships over a long period of time, partly due to the lack of recognizable legal unions and social support.

So they at least tacitly admitted that their own prejudices against committed monogamous same-sex relationships result in fewer committed monogamous same-sex relationships. And of course they use the fact that there are fewer of these to argue against allowing more of them. How this makes sense to them I don't think I'll ever figure out.

During Dr. Rekers' testimony, attention was drawn to his authorship of a St. Thomas Law Review article entitled "An Empirically Supported Rational Basis for Prohibiting Adoption, Foster Parenting, and Contested Child Custody by Any Person in a Household that Includes a Homosexually-Behaving Member" wherein the doctor heavily cited to the conclusions of a colleague who is sharply criticized as distorting data and was censured and ousted by the American Psychological Association for misreporting evidence regarding homosexual households. Although the American Psychological Association, has concluded that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual parenting, Dr. Rekers believes the Association's stance is political and not based on science. Dr. Rekers' much contested and hardly empirical article also cited to journals from authors who were neither psychotherapists nor social scientists.

When a judge is able to point out the deficiencies of your poorly-written article, you might want to reconsider your major.

Dr. Rekers astounded the Court when he testified that he favors removal of any child from a homosexual household, even after placement in that household for ten years, in favor of a heterosexual household. To this Court's further astonishment, the witness hypothesized that such a child would recover from the removal from his family of 10 years after one year in a heterosexual household. The Court finds this testimony to be contrary to science and decades of research in child development.

I shall consider "Dr. Rekers astounded the Court" to be judge-speak for "WTF!?"

The opinion also quotes in footnotes some excerpts from old books that Rekers wrote in his role as a minister. All these, I feel I should note, were from the early '80s (1981 & 1982), so maybe his views evolved some in the last quarter-century? But anyway, they include such titles as The Christian in an Age of Sexual Eclipse:

Within which, Dr. Reker's states, "Non-Christian psychologists often encourage their clients to do form their own values regarding sexual expression. In doing so, they mistakenly assume that they are providing the most appropriate and sensitive counsel. In reality they are tacitly creating an impression that the universe was constructed with no moral law inherent to the system, but God has spoken. God has given us explicit instruction as to what his moral laws are. The psychologist who recommends that a person simply define his own sexual values ends up not being an advocate of human freedom, instead he becomes a revolutionary, attempting to overthrow the moral laws of God. Instead of being helped, the client is therefore led down a fanciful path of alleged morality called, quote, liberation." p. 14;

"An honest scholarly search for the truth about homosexuality should not stop with psychological or medical information alone. Wise professionals should also consider evidence for moral truth as well. The bible teaches that people are foolish if they deny God's reality and live their lives as though he were not there…. What happens when psychologists and psychiatrists search for truth about homosexuality, but close the door to any possibility of information from the creator of the human race? What happens if scholars deliberately discard all moral evidence as irrelevant to their professional judgments? Roman's describes the consequences in suppressing truth revealed by the creator.... Those verses indicate that the existence of God is evident within each person, so psychologists and psychiatrists who proceed as though he does not exist are deliberately suppressing truth. To search for truth about homosexuality in psychology and psychiatry, while ignoring God, will result in futile and foolish speculations." p. 54-56;

Stating, "In my clinical training, as well as my experience as a university psychologist, I've been impressed by the devastating radical changes in sexual roles, which have occurred in America over the past 30 years. In the push and shove of these social changes, many kinds of individual problems have cropped up for men, women and children. Some unresponsive and insensitive husbands have failed to provide their problem masculine leadership in the home. Some women have allowed themselves to be sucked into the resulting vacuum, overstepping a more natural and supportive role in the home. This domestic upheaval has been labeled by many psychologists as the dominant wife syndrome. In other cases I've seen emotional or merely materialistic motives woe many mothers of preschool children out of their home and into the job market. This functional desertion has often caused serious emotional conflicts for their children.... Those who counsel people in distress have to be impressed by the clear correlation between the acceleration deterioration of the family unit, and the major changes that are taking place in our society's conception of the male and female roles. Could it be that the wholesale American abandonment of the God ordained male and female roles has brought upon our families a destructive force that will ultimately disintegrate marriage and family, if not soon reversed. I believe that the family will self destruct in direct proportion to its retreat from the biblically defined male and female roles." p. 12

So he's homophobic, racist (remember this is the same guy who supported banning Native Americans from adopting), and sexist. Bigotry trifecta!

There was also Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality:

Including chapters entitled, "The Truth About Homosexuality" "The Trap of Homosexuality" "Liberation from Homosexuality" "The Search for Truth About Homosexuality."

Within which Dr. Reker's states, "wise professionals should seek God's answer as well. When scholars disregard divine law, they deliberately suppress truth and result in foolish and futile speculations." p. 54.

"As a psychologist who has counseled scores of homosexuals, I have observed the pain suffered by individual homosexuals who have been manipulated by leaders of the homosexual revolt. Alone the homosexual seizes the deviance of other types of homosexuals, and he can even feel the need to change himself. But the homosexual leaders use the manipulative techniques of classic revolutionary strategies to achieve their own diabolical objectives, to the detriment of the individual suffering the effects of sexual perversion." p. 38.

"Homosexual activists seek to lure our children into a deceptive and destruction fantasy world that ignores the obvious physical, social and moral boundaries of sexual expression. Everything that the gay activists are working for stands diametrically opposed to everything concerned the parents stand for in seeking future family fulfillment for their children. Parents who are more aware of the tactics of homosexual activists will be better prepared to protect their own children, from the ploys of these enemies of normal sexual development." p. 40

And Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity:

Within which, Dr. Reker's states, "The gay liberationists have taken the deliberate ploy of pressing first for legislation to legalize the sexual behavior between two consenting adults. After they had succeeded in winning the emotional war of soothing the public's queasy feelings about homosexuality activity among adults, the next planned step of the gay liberationists is to press for an elimination of laws of age discrimination, (in the terminology of the rhetoric of revolt). This means that the Gay activists are now beginning to press for the rights of the children to engage in homosexual behavior with adults. This will be their battle to legalize pedophilia!" p. 89.

In a subsequent section the court also quoted from a law review article Rekers wrote:

In homes with a homosexually behaving adult, children are more likely to experience the stress and associated harm of an ill-timed sex education that is not timed to match the psychosexual development needs of the child, but instead exposes the child to information about males engaging in oral sex, and inserting penis' into rectums, at formative ages, when those mental images can become strongly associated with sexual arousal patterns, predisposing the child to developing anxiety about sex, a confused sexual identity, or homosexual behavior. Knowledge of specific abnormal or deviant sexual practices is more safely introduced after the child has had the opportunity to develop a stable and secure gender identity and psychosexual identity.

Given all this, the court rendered its verdict: a judicial "EPIC FAIL".

Dr. Rekers' testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers' beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.

Having scornfully dismissed Rekers, the opinion turns its searing gaze to the other expert witness for the state, Dr. Schumm--who, I find, apparently co-authored a piece with Rekers:

In another paper that he co-authored with Dr. Rekers concerning the authors' disagreement with homosexual practices, he wrote:
Within the limitations imposed by context, errors in translation and errors of individual interpretation, we prefer to accept the authority of the Bible as the best guide for sexual decision making, as well as for many other areas of life. We consider Scripture to be important, not because of tradition or institutional affiliation, but because after reasoned study, we make the assumption that they contain the wisdom of the Creator regarding the human condition and effective ways of relating to others interpersonally. In particular, we turn to the life of Jesus as a guide for our own value system.

And... oh my god, this is... well, just read:

When reanalyzing studies on outcomes of children raised by gay parents, he found some differences in outcomes as a factor of parental sexual orientation where the original researchers reported no differences (the null hypothesis). He suggests that his reanalyses, mostly unpublished, should be accepted over the analyses of well respected researchers in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Schumm admitted that he applies statistical standards that depart from conventions in the field. In fact, Dr. Cochran and Dr. Lamb testified that Dr. Schumm's statistical re-analyses contained a number of fundamental errors.

So, we've got shoddy methodology in unpublished papers performed by someone who's not a psychologist and distorts statistics "to highlight the truth of the Scripture", that's supposed to override well-done research that has made it into peer-reviewed journals done by actual psychologists. Is it just me, or does the judge sound less than impressed in this passage?

Oh my. And this is rich:

[Schumm] concedes to the possibility that some gay parents may be beneficial to some children. He does so despite his objection to allowing homosexuals in the military due to the ease with which they can have oral sex and his belief that, since homosexuals violate one social norm, they are likely to also violate military rules.

Uh, how does that work? Because gays "violate one social norm"--i.e., people don't like them--they're also criminals? Does this only apply to the military, or to other rules, too? Should we ban them from getting jobs because they'd break rules? Should we just round them up and throw them into the penitentiary because they're likely to violate the law?

All the evidence finally led the judge to conclude, in the section "Summary of Findings of Fact", that gay people and couples are no more likely to be horrible parents than straight ones, that this was supported by hundreds of methodologically-sound, peer-reviewed studies, and that this conclusion is the position of numerous professional institutions, such as Child Welfare League of America. In fact, the judge said outright that it was simply crazy to maintain otherwise:

As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.

Some of my favorite portions are in the section Conclusions of Law, though:

The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect. Both the state and federal governments recognize the critical nature of adoption to the well-being of children who cannot be raised by their biological parents. There is no question, the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing dependent children a permanent family through adoption. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to meet their needs.

Hear, hear!

And later, when examining whether Florida's reasons for supporting the ban pass the rational basis test, the court finds that they don't:

The Department argues Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) is rationally related to Florida's interest by protecting children from the undesirable realities of the homosexual lifestyle. However, as thoroughly summarized in the Findings of Fact section of this Final Judgment, the foregoing is, frankly, false.

Obviously, in order to be considered rationally related to a governmental interest, the distinctions between individuals may not be based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Based on the statistics, there are no set of facts for which such a stated interest can be reasonably conceived of to justify the legislation. Fortunate for the Department, the government has no obligation to produce evidence to sustain the rationality of the statutory classification. Here, the two witnesses proffered by the Department failed to offer any reasonable, credible evidence to substantiate their beliefs or to justify the legislation. Viewing the statute from this point of view clearly renders it "illogical to the point of irrationality."

...[H]omosexuals are no more susceptible to mental health or psychological disorders, substance or alcohol abuse or relationship instability than their heterosexual counterparts. Accordingly, such governmental interest does not justify the legislation.

Ouch.

The Department next claims that best interests of children are served by placing them in an adoptive home which minimizes the social stigmatization they may experience. Again applying rational basis review, this Court rejects the Department's attempt to justify the statute by reference to a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children. ... In this regard, the professionals and the major associations now agree there is a well established and accepted consensus in the field that there is no optimal gender combination of parents. As such, the statute is no longer rationally related to serve this interest.

I like it.

It would've been nice if the judge had decided that gays were a suspect class (at one point she mentions that she found California's argument that they were "compelling", but was bound by her state's precedents). On the other hand, it's even nicer that the law was considered on a rational basis level and still overruled. They couldn't even muster that much.

Remember

2008-12-01T14:56:00.002-05:00

53 years ago today, Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. She wasn't the first, though she may be the most famous, but this was a truly pivotal moment in American history.

A rare follow-up

2008-12-01T02:21:00.003-05:00

Some more articles related to this post.

Race, genes, and illness:

Does a "genetic component" cause a higher rate of premature births among black mothers? Do black people carry certain gene variants that give them weaker hearts? Do Asians have special genes that enable the drug Iressa to fight non-small cell cancer better in their lungs?

Yes, indeed, authors of several recent medical studies claim. More and more, researchers are holding out the hope that genetic differences may finally explain a good part of the troubling health disparities among races. Perhaps then, the reasoning goes, the powerful tools of molecular biology may help solve them.

...

So far, the claims about race and medical genetics remain disturbingly fuzzy. What's meant by a "genetic component," for instance? The team at Washington University in St. Louis that studied early births accounted for other known variables, such as lack of prenatal care, and found that the higher rate among black women persisted. Based on the trends they saw, the group concluded there were racial differences at the genetic level - despite lack of any data on genes.

The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine researchers studying heart function had used magnetic resonance imaging to compare heart muscle contractions in Chinese-Americans, whites, Hispanics, and African-Americans. They also pointed to genetic differences as a likely cause. But they hadn't yet looked at any genes, either.

Genes explain race disparity in response to a heart drug:

Doctors in the United States who treat patients with heart failure have long been puzzled by a peculiar observation. Many black patients seem to do just as well if they take a mainstay of therapy, a class of drugs called beta blockers, as if they do not. It is almost as if they were immune to the drugs.

Now researchers at Washington University and the University of Maryland have discovered why: these nonresponsive patients have a slightly altered version of a gene that muscles use to control responses to nerve signals. People with this altered gene are making what amounts to their own version of beta blockers all the time. As many as 40 percent of blacks and 2 percent of whites have the gene variant, the researchers report.

The findings, heart failure specialists say, mean that people with the altered gene might be spared taking what may be, for them, a useless therapy. And since patients with heart failure typically take multiple drugs, which can interact and cause side effects like fatigue, getting rid of a drug that is not helping can be a huge benefit.

Of course, race doesn't exist... somehow.

No! Oh good god, no!

2008-12-01T00:54:00.004-05:00

My brother and I (whole family, really) are big fans of zoos. In fact, when I was in England, of all the places I could have gone for a day I chose to go to the London Zoo--that didn't pan out, but it was my first choice instead of, say, Buckingham Palace or Big Ben. We've talked about expanding our repertoire of zoos from the local one to others that are... kinda close. Couple hours away. One of them was the Cincinnati Zoo.

That may not happen now.

The Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden and the Creation Museum have made a joint marketing agreement and are selling "combo tickets" to get into both attractions for one price.

From the Cincinnati Zoo's website (link available from PZ's article):

This holiday season, save more by visiting two of the areas fantastic attractions. Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation Museum. Ticket is valid for one day regular admission to each attraction plus the holiday events PNC Festival of Lights (Nov. 28-Jan.4) and Bethlehems Blessings featuring a live Nativity scene(Dec 12 Jan. 4)

Save more with our new Combination Attraction Ticket:
Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden and Creation Museum The Creation Museum, located seven miles west of the Cincinnati Airport, presents a walk through history. Designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director, this state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life.

I am truly distraught.

[Edit] Whew! Looks like that's been scuttled. Now I can go there with a clean conscience.

Dammit New York!

2008-11-29T18:08:00.003-05:00

I shouldn't be surprised when a politician decides not to follow up on a campaign promise, but this really irks me:

After a pledge from New York Democratic leaders that their party would legalize same-sex marriage if they won control of the State Senate this year, money from gay rights supporters poured in from across the country, helping cinch a Democratic victory.

But now, party leaders have sent strong signals that they may not take up the issue during the 2009 legislative session. Some of them suggest it may be wise to wait until 2011 before considering it, in hopes that Democrats can pick up more Senate seats and Gov. David A. Paterson, a strong backer of gay rights, would then be safely into a second term.

..

Mr. Smith, speaking about same-sex marriage at a fund-raiser for the Empire State Pride Agenda last year, was emphatic, saying, "We're going to make sure that happens in '08, when we take over the majority." He now avoids questions on the topic and instead gives a standard reply about the need to focus on the economy when asked about it.

Asked about when Mr. Paterson would like to see the Senate vote, the governor's communications director, Risa B. Heller, said, "For now and the immediate future we are focused on the state's fiscal situation."

Some people think it might not be feasible to pass the law now, rather than just be politically unwise to try:

Some Democrats are not even confident they have the 32 votes necessary to pass a same-sex marriage bill in the Senate.

The Democratic-led Assembly passed the measure last year by a sizable margin, but the Republican-controlled Senate declined to bring it to the floor for a vote.

And with a messy fight under way over who should be Senate majority leader — a fight threatening to fracture the thin Democratic Senate majority — even typically outspoken supporters of gay rights have become more measured about the issue.

...

Despite the fact that Democrats will hold 32 of the 62 Senate seats in the next legislative session, three dissident Democrats have not pledged their support for the would-be majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith. One of those senators, Rub&eacut;n D&iacut;az Sr., has specifically said he would not support a majority leader who would allow a same-sex marriage bill to come to the floor.

Grumph.

Zombie racist of the day

2008-11-29T14:43:00.004-05:00

(Well, technically zombie racist of nearly four months ago)

The Virtuous Woman, who informs us that "Slavery Is Not Wrong".

The Bible tells her so, you see:

With the issue of Slavery Christians are often put in a corner because they are trying to defend God and at the same time the bible nowhere directly attacks slavery. The bible does not condemn slavery. So Christians try to act like Job's friends and try to defend God in a rather foolish way by condemning slavery, as if God forgot to do it Himself in the bible. I think this is a very unwise thing for a Christian to do because if slavery was wrong, God would have said so himself. But He doesn't say its wrong.

It's true, the Bible doesn't say slavery is wrong. That should be a good indication that the Bible is an antiquated product of barbarians, and it should be treated as such rather than as the quintessence of morality and virtue. But no, Christians like her start with their conclusions ("the Bible is the word of God, and God is the arbiter of morality"), and try to fit fit everything else into that. Ergo, atrocities like slavery, genocide, and child murder are good because God says so, and God is good. Well, those trying in any way to be consistent say so... the others just ignore all the horrible things God commands in the Bible. Or they don't know about it.

But I wonder if she just lifted her arguments straight from John Fletcher's Studies on Slavery. Compare this:

I understand that there is so much evil in slavery, when masters abuse their slaves. That is wrong. The bible condemns treating others in an evil way. So this is not the issue. But slavery in itself is not wrong. Just as husbands can abuse wives, does it mean marriage is evil? Or parents can abuse their children, does it mean parenting is wrong? Because masters can be evil to their slaves, it doesn't mean that slavery is wrong. Just as wives are to be submissive to their husbands, likewise slaves are to be submissive to their masters.

...If the bible would have condemned slavery then the gospel itself would have been robbed of its meaning on some way. If slavery is wrong, then wives should not submit to their husbands, children should not obey parents, women should became equal to men and preach in churches ( which is forbidden in the bible by the way), and mostly no one should call Jesus their master or submit to the authority of God.

with this:

Or will he venture to extend his argument, and say that the command of marital and filial obedience proves nothing in their favour; since we are commanded to yield a like obedience to the king, although that king be the wicked Phocas? The fact is, the mere character of chief magistrate, of husband, of parent or slaveholder, is quite distinct from the character which their acts may severally heap upon them. It is, therefore, quite possible for us to reverence and obey the king, yet hold in contempt the person who fills the throne.

Civil government, the relations of parent and child, husband and wife, and slavery itself, are all ordinances of Divine wisdom, instituted for the benefit of man, under the condition of his fallen state. But because these relations are in accordance with the ordinances of God, it by no means follows that the abuses of them are so.

Suppose those who wish to abolish the institution of marriage should present the same argument in their behalf which Dr. Wayland has in this case, it will surely be just as legitimate in the one as the other. But will not Dr. Wayland readily say that there is no parallel between the particular relations compared? We doubt not, he would consider it too stupid to even require refutation.

See? Slavery is okay, because if we had to treat all humans equally, that might also apply to women.

Or how about this?

Such men would fashion the traffic to suit themselves, and would, doubtless, make their business an exceedingly wicked one. But none of the enormities named, or that could be named, constituted a necessary part of the institution of slavery, or necessarily emanated from it. What enormities have wicked men sometimes committed in the transportation of emigrants from Germany and Ireland? Wicked men, intrusted with power, have, at least sometimes, been found to abuse it. Is it any argument against the institution of marriage, because some women have made their husbands support and educate children not their own? Or, because some men murder, treat with cruelty, or make their wives totally miserable and wretched? None of these things were any part of the institution of marriage, but the reverse of it.

Christian morality: stuck in the nineteenth century. Or earlier.

Via Pharyngula, via Evolved and Rat/i/onal.

[Edit] I am reminded of something else. The Virtuous Slaveholder says "I have had disagreements with some Christians as they say slavery is wrong, its as if they are implying that God forgot to put that in the bible, but i disagree."

Indeed! Well, let's not leave it at that--what else do people do that suggests God might have made a mistake? Oh, right: they believe in racial equality.

If God Almighty had intended these two races to be equal, He would have so created them. He made the Caucasian of handsome figure, straight hair, regular features, high brow, and superior intellect. He created the negro, giving him a black skin, kinky hair, thick lips, flat nose, low brow, low order of intelligence, and repulsive features. I do not believe that these differences were the result of either accident or mistake on the part of the Creator. I believe He knew what He was doing, and I believe He did just what He wanted to do.

We believe in God, and we are willing to accept His work just as it fell from His hands. But these people who profess to believe that "a white man may be as good as a negro if the white man behaves himself" are not satisfied with God's work in this regard. They are quite sure that they can make a better job of it than did the Creator, hence we find them attempting to remove the black man from the menial sphere for which he was created, and where he may be useful, to a higher circle for which he is entirely unfitted and where he is perfectly useless.

Return of denialism kills

2008-11-29T01:19:00.001-05:00

Not just AIDS denialism, either. Vaccine denialism can kill. As can homeopathy and/or naturopathy:

A healing therapist died after a minor injury went gangrenous because his 'inner being' told him not to see a doctor, an inquest has heard.

Russell Jenkins shunned conventional treatment for his foot injury after he trod on an electrical plug at home.

...

Mr Jenkins, who ran the Quiet Mind Centre from his home in Southsea, Hampshire, injured his foot in December 2006 and developed an 2cm-long ulcer.

In April 2007, Mr Jenkins, a diabetic, sought alternative advice from homeopath Susan Finn, who suggested he treat it with Manuka honey.

You wouldn't think this would be constitutional

2008-11-28T22:21:00.003-05:00

Oh, Kentucky. What are we to do with you?

Under state law, God is Kentucky's first line of defense against terrorism.

The 2006 law organizing the state Office of Homeland Security lists its initial duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."

Specifically, Homeland Security is ordered to publicize God's benevolent protection in its reports, and it must post a plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center with an 88-word statement that begins, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister, tucked the God provision into Homeland Security legislation as a floor amendment that lawmakers overwhelmingly approved two years ago.

As amended, Homeland Security's religious duties now come before all else, including its distribution of millions of dollars in federal grants and its analysis of possible threats.

The time and energy spent crediting God are appropriate, said Riner, D-Louisville, in an interview this week.

"This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky," Riner said. "Government itself, apart from God, cannot close the security gap. The job is too big for government."

So we should hope that God will do it for us? If he wanted to, wouldn't he do it whether or not we passed a law saying he would?

And really, why is protecting our state too big a job for the government? What is included in that duty that is beyond them? Just because you're too incompetent to do your job, and therefore have to leave it to your fairy god father, that doesn't mean that nobody is capable of doing it.

Anywho, I went on to Kentucky's website and did a search for "Almighty God" in the revised statutes, and got these two hits (warning--both PDFs): this appears to be the legislation referred to in the article. Entitled "Kentucky Office of Homeland Security executive director -- Duties -- Delegation of duties -- Notification of disaster or emergency", it states in part that

The executive director shall:

(a) Publicize the findings of the General Assembly stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth by including the provisions of KRS 39A.285(3) in its agency training and educational materials. The executive director shall also be responsible for prominently displaying a permanent plaque at the entrance to the state's Emergency Operations Center stating the text of KRS 39A.285(3)

This is the first duty listed.

The other hit I got was from 2002, and reads in part:

The General Assembly hereby finds that:

...

(3) The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln's historic March 30, 1863, Presidential Proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: "For as was written long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.' "

I think this is just a feel-good declaration rather than a law, but still--why are Kentucky's legislators so incompetent that they can't even protect their state by themselves?

Maybe because you can't take office in Kentucky if you've fought a duel? They don't have any experience in killing people / defending themselves! Quick, get these legislators a gun! We can let Kathy Stein and Tom Riner duke it out.

Via Pharyngula.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Goldilocks Origin Myth Edition

2008-11-28T21:41:00.002-05:00

I was planning on posting something else today, but since it's Native American Heritage Day, let's post something about Native Americans. But what? Hmm.

Well, to celebrate Native American heritage, let's post a racial myth of theirs:

Earthmaker made the world with trees and fields, with rivers, lakes, and springs, and with hills and valleys. It was beautiful. However, there weren't any humans, and so one day he decided to make some.

He scooped out a hole in a stream bank and lined the hole with stones to make a hearth, and he built a fire there. Then he took some clay and made a small figure that he put in the hearth. While it baked, he took some twigs and made tongs. When he pulled the figure out of the fire and had let it cool, he moved its limbs and breathed life into it, and it walked away. Earthmaker nonetheless realized that it was only half-baked. That figure became the white people.

Earthmaker decided to try again, and so he made another figure and put it on the hearth. This time he took a nap under a tree while the figure baked, and he slept longer than he intended. When he pulled the second figure out of the fire and had let it cool, he moved its limbs and breathed life into it, and it walked away. Earthmaker realized that this figure was overbaked, and it became the black people.

Earthmaker decided to try one more time. He cleaned the ashes out of the hearth and built a new fire. Then he scooped up some clay and cleaned it of any twigs or leaves, so that it was pure. He made a little figure and put it on the hearth, and this time he sat by the hearth and watched carefully as the figure baked. When this figure was done, he pulled it out of the fire and let it cool. Then he moved its limbs and breathed life into it, and it walked away. This figure was baked just right, and it became the red people.

From this page, in theory originally from the book Indian Fireside Tales by Dorothy Moulding Brown, which was also cited in Race: The History of an Idea in America.

I like to think of this as the Goldilocks theory of human creation. Blacks were cooked too long; whites were cooked too little; but Indians were cooked just right.

I wish I'd checked my e-mail sooner

2008-11-28T20:38:00.002-05:00

Then I would've known that today is Native American Heritage Day!

It may be a small step, but a day meant to honor American Indians' contributions acknowledges a history and culture that many say is often overlooked.

For the first time, federal legislation has set aside the day after Thanksgiving — for this year only — to honor American Indians in the U.S. Few celebrations are planned this year, but backers say they hope to make the commemoration annual.

Frank Suniga, 79, of Salem, Ore., a descendant of Mescalero Apache Indians, said he and others began pushing in 2001 for a national day that recognizes his and other tribes' heritage.

...

Congress passed legislation this year designating the day as Native American Heritage Day, and President Bush signed it last month.

There's a bit of a question, though, of which day would be best. I think the day after Thanksgiving is a poor choice, myself, in that it would get overshadowed by everything else. But some advocates say that linking it with Thanksgiving, which is supposedly about European-Native American relations, is a good idea.

The Portland and D.C.-based organizations said they would support an annual commemorative day. It isn't certain, however, that all tribes would agree that the fourth Friday in November is the best day to recognize their contributions and traditions.

"The question is, should it be the day after Thanksgiving?" said Joe Garcia, director of the National Congress of American Indians. "Thanksgiving is controversial to some people."

...

Recognizing American Indians the day after Thanksgiving, the Native American Heritage Day Act of 2008 says, emphasizes the nation's relationship with tribes now.

"I think the recognition is important," Garcia said. "The most important thing it does is give a little more perspective from the American Indian side."

I hope they succeed in making this an annual thing. That would be great.

Interesting

2008-11-27T22:56:00.002-05:00

This is old news, but I only just found out about it:

Interestingly, in September 1999, right around the same time as the Human Genome Project a retrospective study was published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure by Carson et al titled, "Racial differences in response to therapy for heart failure: Analysis of the vasodilator-heart failure trials." In this study, they analyzed data from two previous trials studying the use of ACE inhibitors, isosorbide, and hydralazine in the treatment of congestive heart failure. When the data was split apart by race, there was a statistically significant decrease in the response of African American patients to the drug enalapril, and a statistically significant decrease in the effectiveness of hydralazine/isosorbide in white patients. The conclusion of the analysis was that certain drugs respond better for some races than others. In response to this study, the drug carvediol was studied specifically in the African American and white populations to say conclusively that it benefited both groups equally, and this became a marketing point for the pharmaceutical company that manufactures carvediol.

This Wikipedia article has a little more info:

Isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine is a fixed dose combination drug treatment specifically indicated for black people with congestive heart failure. It is a combination of hydralazine (an antihypertensive) and isosorbide dinitrate (a vasodilator). It is the first race-based prescription drug in the United States. The combination preparation is marketed in the United States by Nitromed under the trade name BiDil.

Originally rejected by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1997, the combination preparation was approved by the FDA in June 2005 for black use only based on the results of a clinical study. It was already known that black individuals with congestive heart failure (CHF) respond less effectively to conventional CHF treatments (particularly ACE inhibitors) than Caucasians. The study by Taylor et al. demonstrated that isosorbide dinitrate with hydralazine reduced mortality by 43%, reduced hospitalizations by 39%, and quality of life markers in black patients with CHF.

"What did you learn in school today, dear little boys of mine?"

2008-11-26T20:02:00.003-05:00

I learned that Robert Stacy McCain is a racist wanker. After recounting a "joke" about how all kids learn about today is Rosa Parks (I don't recall my math classes going this way, though: "What's the square root of 36?" "Rosa Parks?" "Good!"), McCain has to jump in with this:

The Historic Victimhood Narrative is virtually the only history or civics taught in American public schools today. "America The Beautiful" has been replaced by "America The Oppressive." Parents who send their offspring to these government-run indoctrination camps should be prosecuted for child abuse.

Apparently, teaching about people that were involved in movements that fundamentally and radically altered political and legal systems in this country that had been standing for nearly a century is bad. Why? Because telling kids about Jim Crow and slavery, that America did reprehensible things, amounts to "indoctrinating" them. Instead, we should completely gloss over anything bad that America has ever done so that kids get a completely non-biased education of how America is perfect and good and made of candy. Frankly, we do that all too much already. Sure, kids learn that there were slaves, and then there weren't, but then there was Jim Crow, until the '50s and '60s, but how much attention is paid to, say, the Philippine-American War, Manifest Destiny, and pretty much every other horrible atrocity committed by their country? Almost none, I'd wager.

Amusingly enough, McCain continued with an update:

Children are taught to reverence a pantheon of symbolic personalities whose biographies are didactically rendered in such a way as to ignore whatever fundamental reality might contradict their function as symbols.

Indeed! For instance, they're not informed that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slaveowners. They're not informed that Abraham Lincoln wanted to colonize the slaves in Africa. They're not aware that one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence thought that black skin was a form of leprosy. They're not aware of any of the racist attitudes all of our presidents held. But of course that's not what McCain had in mind, and the irony inherent in his words probably didn't occur to him.

Via LG&M.

Although I loves me some schadenfreude, this actually makes for a better birthday present

2008-11-26T14:59:00.003-05:00

Remember that case I blogged about a few days ago? Well, the ruling came down yesterday, and the judge declared it unconstitutional:

Lederman, who overseas Miami's juvenile and child welfare courts, is the second judge this year to declare the state's blanket ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians unconstitutional.

In August, Monroe Circuit Judge David John Audlin Jr. wrote that Florida's 1977 gay adoption ban arose out of "unveiled expressions of bigotry" when the state was experiencing a severe backlash to demands for civil rights by gay people in Miami.

"Disqualifying every gay Floridian from raising a family, enjoying grandchildren or carrying on the family name, based on nothing more than lawful sexual conduct, while assuring child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, rapists and murderers at least individualized consideration," Audlin wrote, was so "disproportionately severe" that it violates the state and U.S. Constitutions.

In her ruling, Lederman said children taken into state care have a "fundamental" right to be raised in a permanent adoptive home if they cannot be reunited with birth parents. Children whose foster parents are gay, she said, can be deprived of that right under the current law.

"The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and, in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect," Lederman wrote.

The judge added: "There is no question the blanket exclusion of gay applicants defeats Florida's goal of providing [foster] children a permanent family through adoption."

In a ruling that, at times, reads more like a social science research paper, Lederman dissected 30 years worth of psychological and sociological research, concluding that studies overwhelmingly have shown that gay people can parent every bit as effectively as straight people and do no harm to their children.

"Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad," Lederman wrote, "it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic.

"The most important factor in ensuring a well-adjusted child is the quality of parenting," Lederman wrote.

The state is appealing, so this isn't fully settled yet, but it's still nice.

Via Feministing.

Denialism kills

2008-11-26T08:36:00.002-05:00

Gee, you ignore overwhelming scientific consensus on an important issue and things turn out badly. Who'd've thunkit?

A new study by Harvard researchers estimates that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.

The Harvard study concluded that the policies grew out of President Thabo Mbeki's denial of the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of AIDS and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.

Coming in the wake of Mr. Mbeki's ouster in September after a power struggle in his party, the African National Congress, the report has reignited questions about why Mr. Mbeki, a man of great acumen, was so influenced by AIDS denialists.

...

For years, the South African government did not provide antiretroviral medicines, even as Botswana and Namibia, neighboring countries with epidemics of similar scale, took action, the Harvard study reported.

The Harvard researchers quantified the human cost of that inaction by comparing the number of people who got antiretrovirals in South Africa from 2000 to 2005 with the number the government could have reached had it put in place a workable treatment and prevention program.

They estimated that by 2005, South Africa could have been helping half those in need but had reached only 23 percent. By comparison, Botswana was already providing treatment to 85 percent of those in need, and Namibia to 71 percent.

The 330,000 South Africans who died for lack of treatment and the 35,000 babies who perished because they were infected with H.I.V. together lost at least 3.8 million years of life, the study concluded.

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians who reviewed the study for The New York Times said the researchers had based their estimates on conservative assumptions and used a sound methodology.

"They have truly used conservative estimates for their calculations, and I would consider their numbers quite reasonable," James Chin, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley's School of Public Health, said in an e-mail message.

Best birthday present ever

2008-11-25T15:52:00.002-05:00

Not only has Ann Coulter pretty much disappeared from view lately, but it turns out she won't be opening that hate-filled mouth for some time:

WE HEAR...THAT although we didn't think it would be possible to silence Ann Coulter, the leggy reactionary broke her jaw and the mouth that roared has been wired shut...

Next up: America

2008-11-24T21:28:00.003-05:00

For federal gay rights legislation, that is. After all, Australia did it:

The Australian government has passed legislation recognizing same-sex couples under a large number of laws, but the measure falls short of granting either marriage or civil unions.

The omnibus bill mounted its final hurdle Monday, winning approval in the Senate. The legislation passed the House in September. It still requires the signature of the Governor General, a formality, before going into effect.

The Same-Sex Entitlements Bill removes discrimination against same-sex partners in areas such as immigration, taxation, veterans' pensions and aged care. It also abolishes discrimination against children of same-sex couples by granting equal rights to both parents.

In total, it amends 68 Commonwealth laws.

The word marriage has always been about unity, not gender

2008-11-24T17:12:00.005-05:00

Alan Colmes, announcing that he's leaving the show Hannity and Colmes:

In announcing his decision, Colmes said, "I approached Bill Shine (FNC's Senior Vice President of Programming) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network. Although it's bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I'm proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years."

See? 12 years they were gay married, and nothing happened!

I'm glad the panda is recovering

2008-11-23T16:14:00.002-05:00

D'awww... that's adorable!

A man has been attacked by a panda at a park in southern China, after he climbed into its enclosure hoping to cuddle the creature.

The 20-year-old student had ignored warning signs and scaled a two-metre (6.5ft) barrier to get into the pen.

State media say the panda bit him on his arms and legs, and he had to be rescued by the animal's keepers.

Speaking from his hospital bed, the injured man said the panda had looked so cute he had just wanted to hug it.

...

"Yang Yang was so cute and I just wanted to cuddle him," he told Xinhua from his hospital bed.

"I didn't expect he would attack... I don't remember how many bites I got."

People should really learn that animals are not teddy bears.

Via Greg Laden.

Political hesitation to do the right thing irks me

2008-11-23T15:06:00.003-05:00

More retired admirals and generals are asking for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.

...

"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.

...

The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.

Larson, who has a gay daughter he says has broadened his thinking on the subject, believes a generational shift in attitudes toward homosexuality has created a climate where a repeal is not only workable, but also an important step for keeping talented personnel in the military.

"I know a lot of young people now — even people in the area of having commands of ships and squadrons — and they are much more tolerant, and they believe, as I do, that we have enough regulations on the books to enforce proper standards of human behavior," Larson said.

The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military.

Really, who could possibly think that preventing gays from being in the military--or rather, preventing the gays who are already in the military from being open about it--is a good idea?

Oh, right.

Via Ed Brayton.

Family values in action

2008-11-22T21:05:00.001-05:00

I love it.

I feel so left out

2008-11-22T19:22:00.004-05:00

Ed Brayton is so lucky... somebody sent him some racism! The KKK mailed some fliers in response to Obama's election, and a blogger scanned their copy. Now you can see that the "Marxist/Communist" includes equality for blacks, women, and gays, and that's why they have to be stopped!

(I wonder which Marxists / Communists they're fighting nowadays, anyway. Cuba? China?)

Why paranormal research isn't science

2008-11-22T15:39:00.004-05:00

A group of "ghost hunters" want to search the Salem Witch House to find out if it's haunted--the name "Witch House" apparently being enough for ghosts to haunt it, despite the fact that the only relation it had to the Salem Witch Trials was that one of the judges lived there. I suspect any pagans still reading this blog are going to whip themselves into a frenzy of head-desking upon learning about one of the article's main proponents of the idea:

"I'm firmly convinced this house is absolutely haunted," said the Witch King of Salem, also known as Eric Fraize, a self-described warlock and "one of the highest-priced psychics on eBay."

Fraize suggested the Witch House to Spirit Finders as a likely hunting ground. Even the tenuous connection to the witch trials could mean restless souls still roam the place, he said, then, there was the exorcist who said the spirits of the witches followed him after he visited.

"Any 370-year-old house is bound to have generational memories," said Fraize, dressed in black and framed by the odd array of items on his mantel: skulls, statuettes of demons, a dagger, an oath to Satan signed in his blood, and a portrait of his deceased mother.

Indeed. A "witch" who signs an oath to Satan, and whose qualifications to talk about hauntings are that he prostitutes himself on eBay. Well, I suppose that's about as much qualification as one needs to talk about made-up fantasies.

Do they expect to find anything?

Fraize plans to accompany Spirit Finders to the Witch House, which the ghost hunters say they will investigate without charge. Andrews says that they've recorded electronic voice phenomena - that's "ghosts talking," to you and me - in other buildings. But Fraize is not promising that they'll find anything.

"If the ghost doesn't want to present itself, it won't," quoth the Witch King. "That doesn't mean it's not there."

In other words, if they find anything, the house is haunted. If they don't, the house is still haunted. Way to achieve falsifiability, there.

Invasion of the Booty Snatchers?

2008-11-21T23:30:00.003-05:00

Apparently, the AFA has a new DVD out, entitled They're Coming to Your Town. "They" being gays, who apparently are not born naturally and grow up in towns all across the country (and indeed, the world)--one can only imagine that they spring up out of the cracks of the earth fully grown, in leather, and sporting a bad mustache. Or perhaps they have to climb out of the Stygian depths on their own, and in so doing sprain their wrists so that they are forever limp. Or perhaps they're reptilian aliens descending from the stars, infiltrating our cities to force gay people on an unwilling and otherwise completely heterosexual nation, thereby weakening our defenses and leaving us open to an invasion.

Feministing has put up a transcript of their commercial (as has the Friendly Atheist, with a few minor tweaks). They also have the YouTube video, so visit them if you want to watch it.

Man: They've come out of the closet.

AFA presents a look at how a handful of homosexual activists infiltrated the Eureka Springs, Arkansas government and changed the very moral fiber of the city.

Man 2: They're taking over a place that has been known for its Christianity.

Man 1: They branded us as fundamentalists, as Christian hate bigots -

Man 2: Once homosexual activists get into power, they're not too tolerant toward other people.

Learn the strategies used by gay activists and don't let this happen to your city. This DVD is a must-teaching tool - watch, and learn how to fight a well-organized gay agenda to take over the cities of America, one city at a time.

Man 3: If it hasn't happened in your town, get ready, because it is going to happen.

Show it at home, in Sunday schools, Bible studies and community groups. Purchase your copy, or a 5 pack to share with others today, and spread the news - They're Coming To Your Town.

Yes, once those evil homosexual activists get into power, they strip you of all your rights. How dare they! Don't they know that that power is reserved for Christians to exercise on them? They're getting it all backwards!

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Heartless Doesn't Even Begin to Cover It

2008-11-21T14:32:00.002-05:00

And we here beg leave to remark that we shall, in all instances, draw our proofs from the enemies of the institution. We quote from Berbick's Notes on America, page 20, and reported in vol. xvi. of the Christian Observer, published in London, May 10th, page 109:

"I saw two female slaves and their children sold by auction in the street; an incident of common occurrence here, though horrifying to myself and many other strangers. I could hardly bear to see them handled and examined like cattle; and when I heard their sobs and saw the big tears rolling down their cheeks at the thought of being separated, I could not refrain from weeping with them."

This may have been very cruel in the white man; but who has ever heard of a negro in Africa displaying such a strength of tenderness and sympathy as here manifested? And how are we to account for it in this instance, if not by the regenerating influence of a few generations in American and Christian slavery? However slow the action, the condition of the mental faculties was improved and the moral condition ameliorated.

--John Fletcher, Studies on Slavery, pp. 156-7

...I've read some pretty heartless, callous, and frankly evil things from dead racists, but I really think this takes the cake. Slavery, according to Fletcher, is a net plus because it gets blacks to cry when we tear apart their families.

Coincidentally, I also mentioned the Hottentot Venus two years ago today

2008-11-21T00:10:00.005-05:00

Providentia has a sobering post up about the "Hottentot Venus", Saartjie Bartman.

Via Greg Laden.

It only took them 8 years

2008-11-20T23:40:00.003-05:00

But Congress might finally be ready to stop some of Bush's insane policies:

With the Bush administration on the verge of relaxing regulations protecting endangered species, Democratic leaders are looking at ways to overturn any last-minute rule changes.

The Bush administration has until Friday to publish new rules in order for them to take effect before President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in. Otherwise, Obama can undo them with the stroke of a pen.

A rule eliminating the mandatory, independent advice of government scientists in decisions about whether dams, highways and other projects are likely to harm species looked likely to meet the deadline, leaving the only chance for a quick reversal to Congress.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the House will be looking at ways to overturn the final endangered species rules and other one-minute-to-midnight regulations.

...

The rules eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself whether the project is likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants.

Current regulations require independent wildlife biologists to sign off on these decisions before a project can go forward, at times modifying the design to better protect species.

Yes, let's let the company decide for themselves whether or not to go ahead with their project--obviously they'll have the best interests of the environment and animals at heart. I'm glad that Congress is looking into ways to undo this madness.

Your liberal media at work

2008-11-20T21:41:00.001-05:00

CNN: "Bush has cooties"

Via Bob Harris

Gobama

2008-11-20T20:43:00.002-05:00

When it first released, there was some disappointment that Obama's policy website had very little to say about LGBT issues--nothing much beyond trying to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Well, it's certainly there now. The proposed policies are:

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes

Fight Workplace Discrimination

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell

Expand Adoption Rights

Promote AIDS Prevention

Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS

The third one there proposes to repeal DOMA and institute civil unions federally. It's not perfect, but it would be a damn sight better than what we have now.

I've heard this stuff a lot; it galls me

2008-11-19T18:58:00.002-05:00

Michael Savage says something racist--no-one is shocked:

During the presidential campaign, Savage repeatedly described Obama as an "affirmative action" candidate. For instance, Media Matters for America noted that on his October 27 broadcast, Savage said that Obama "benefited from affirmative action, stepping over more qualified white men, I actually lost as a result of affirmative action, many times in my life. ... [W]e have America's first affirmative action candidate about to become president."

Apparently Savage never heard about the last President we have. Bush was a legacy admission to Yale, gaining admission in part because his father and grandfather had attended, in spite of mediocre grades and SAT scores. He got into the National Guard, avoiding service in Vietnam, because of political favors from family friends, because he was white and rich. And though he of course denies asking for such favors, other accounts recall him boasting about them. His life was a long line of mediocrity and failure, but despite this he managed to climb higher due in large part to family connections. The notion that affirmative action is bad because it will push aside talented white people in favor of lackluster minority candidates is a joke, ignoring that mediocre, inexperienced, and untalented white people are given preferential treatment all the time.

Opposition to affirmative action like that Savage spouts stems mostly from the idea that jobs belong inherently to white people--that it is their birthright. Anything that dismantles such notions of white privilege must be attacked bitterly.

And this isn't even going into the rest of what Savage said, that because of Obama's election "there's gonna be a wholesale firing of competent white men in the United States government up and down the line, in police departments, in fire departments." Which completely ignores the picks Obama has made so far, but reality is anathema to people like Savage.

I won't be holding my breath 'til then

2008-11-19T18:16:00.001-05:00

CalLaw reports that the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenges to Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up the cases challenging the validity of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state. The court announced it will not stay the proposition pending its decision.

The court will address the following three questions in the cases: Is Prop 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? Does Prop 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution? And if Prop 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Prop 8?

The court called for briefs to be completed in January, and reported that oral argument may be held as soon as March.

Gay rights aren't civil rights because gays apparently don't have rights

2008-11-19T15:56:00.004-05:00

Well, this is a poorly-reasoned, vile screed attacking people who believe in equal rights. Let's take a look:

Homosexual marriage is not a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are.

Oooh, a bad start. She's confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

In fact, traditional marriage isn't even a civil right.

At least she's trying to be consistent, but she's only succeeding in being consistently stupid. Just because marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution doesn't mean that it's not a civil right. The Supreme Court itself has many times said otherwise--marriage is a fundamental right. To say otherwise is to prove how grossly ignorant you are--or that you're just lying for the sake of discriminating against people. Either way, it doesn't make for a good argument.

In San Francisco, signs of protest read: "Marriage is for everyone." No, it is not. With that logic, we could marry off children (say 8 or 10 years old) or "kissing cousins."

Apparently this writer's ignorance of the issue is worse than I thought. For starters, cousins can marry in certain states. Also, gay marriage wouldn't allow children to marry, because--the sign's literal meaning aside--all we want is to allow two consenting adults to have the same rights that other consenting adults have. Children can't marry because they aren't capable of consenting to something like that; nor can animals. [Edit] I couldn't think of the word before--I was thinking of "informed consent." [/Edit]

Marriage, as clearly defined through the ages, is between one man and one woman. You don't need a constitutional amendment for that - it is inherently implied commonsense.

No, it's inherent nonsense. Marriage throughout the ages has mostly been polygamous, when there has been marriage at all. Calling it "one man and one woman" is itself redefining marriage.

Another protest sign read: "No on Hate." Disagreement does not equate to hate.

True, but discrimination against a group usually does imply hatred of that group.

Opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with discrimination and activists need to stop mixing the two. Whether a person's rights are violated based on discrimination is a wholly separate issue and should be handled that way.

This doesn't even make sense. Taking away a person's rights has nothing to do with discrimination? Since when? Oh, right--since gay people wanted their rights. See above about hatred.

Black civil and religious leaders - rightfully - have expressed outrage at the gay community's co-opting "civil rights" to include gay sex.

Hoo boy, here we go.

Blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged for their constitutional right to "sit at the table." Whites - gay or not - already had a seat at that table. There is no comparison.

Um, what? It wasn't until recently that laws were passed in many states preventing people from being fired for being gay--in some states that's still okay. Gays aren't allowed to serve in the military; they're not allowed to get married; it wasn't until five years ago that they were allowed to have sex. This writer is basically just trying to justify discriminating against gays on the basis that they haven't been discriminated against.

And adding in that "blacks were stoned, hung, and dragged" to obtain their rights... well, what of it? It's not as though gays haven't been killed, either (perhaps I'm being too hasty--given Wall's ignorance of everything else, she might not know about those). But let's think about this: she (among others) is basically saying that if you're not getting killed, you don't deserve your rights. So obviously, taking away black people's rights would be just fine, as long as you don't hurt them in the process.

Activists argue that, like skin color, gays don't choose their lifestyle. Even if, for the sake of argument, that were so, homosexuals are still "choosing" to get married. To compare voters denying what is not a right to blacks dying for what is - is beyond the pale.

Just like blacks were "choosing" to get white jobs? Or go to white schools? Or live in white neighborhoods? The exercising of civil rights is always a choice, and the civil rights movements were fought precisely to give people that choice, you insipid twit.

Since when could news articles describe people as "crotchety"?

2008-11-19T00:57:00.001-05:00

Happy Birthday, Stevens.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a Washington political power and Alaska icon who couldn't survive a conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat by Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats within two seats of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

Stevens' ouster on his 85th birthday marks an abrupt realignment in Alaska politics and will alter the power structure in the Senate, where he has served since the days of the Johnson administration while holding seats on some of the most influential committees in Congress.

The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history. His involvement in politics dates to the days before Alaska statehood, and he is esteemed for his ability to secure billions of dollars in federal aid for transportation and military projects. The Anchorage airport bears his name; in Alaska, it's simply "Uncle Ted."

Tuesday's tally of just over 24,000 absentee and other ballots gave Begich 150,728, or 47.76 percent, to 147,004, or 46.58 percent, for Stevens. There are about 2,500 overseas ballots yet to be counted.

A recount is possible. If the vote differential between the two candidates is more than 0.5 percent, either side can seek a recount if it posts a bond of about $15,000 to pay for a new tally.

"All Barack Obama proved is that racism never existed!"

2008-11-18T23:29:00.003-05:00

Thank god Obama was elected! That surely proved that there's no more racism in the U.S.

Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama." Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.

Incidents around the country referring to President-elect Barack Obama are dampening the postelection glow of racial progress and harmony, highlighting the stubborn racism that remains in America.

From California to Maine, police have documented a range of alleged crimes, from vandalism and vague threats to at least one physical attack. Insults and taunts have been delivered by adults, college students and second-graders.

There have been "hundreds" of incidents since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes.

A related article notes that this election appears to have done wonders for the recruitment efforts of white supremacist assholes:

One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, "I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed."

God loves gay marriage!

2008-11-17T23:01:00.002-05:00

It's conclusive now. California rescinds the rights of gays to get married (so much for rights being "inalienable"), and it immediately catches fire. Proof that God loves gay marriage!

Some, of course, have other ideas... but he also blamed the last one on gays, too.

Although... wait. Let's look at what Hartline is actually saying this time:

Each time homosexual activists attempt to force their agenda on California, there have been raging, massive, incinerating fires sweeping across the California landscape.

So God hates freedom of speech? If gays open their mouths, he'll burn down the state? Yes! We have blackmail material! Give us what we want or Elton John will serenade a swath of fiery destruction across the land!

I don't know if I'm starting this blog back up or not

2008-11-17T21:51:00.004-05:00

But I found that I couldn't resist commenting on this story. It's about a court case going on in Florida now over whether a same-sex couple can adopt a child--that's currently against the law in Florida. But, uh, they're having quite the time trying to justify that. To do so, the state has got two expert witnesses to testify that same-sex parents don't make as good parents, or that the environment is bad for children, or some such similar crap. As the state puts it:

Florida law bans gays from adopting. Valerie J. Martin, a Florida assistant attorney general who defended the statute, said same-sex couples are at far greater risk of many social ills, and "putting children who are already at risk into such a household would increase the stressors that these children already experience as a result of their placement in foster care."

Yeah. Being adopted by a same-sex couple is clearly worse than being in foster care or an orphanage or something. Those naughty, naughty gays.

Of course, at first blush, it looks like the expert witnesses might actually be experts in this area. They have impressive, and almost relevant, credentials in this area, at least:

At trial, the state's defense of the adoption law rested on the shoulders of two scholars -- George A. Rekers, a retired professor from the University of South Carolina, who taught neuropsychiatry and behavioral science, and Walter R. Schumm, an assistant professor of family studies at Kansas State University.

Impressive, no? And they were all saying that a household headed by gays would just be awful:

Rekers and Schumm argued that lawmakers were justified in excluding gay people from adoption because research shows that they are at greater risk of developing a host of impairments that can harm children, such as mental illness, alcohol or drug abuse, and the virus that causes AIDS.

Schumm testified that, based on research involving 2,847 children, the children of gay men and lesbians are far more likely to also become gay -- about 19 percent of children raised by gay parents, compared with 4 percent of children with straight parents.

Schumm said he was also concerned by a study that said that 47 percent of gay teenagers had seriously considered suicide, and that 36 percent had attempted it. "If a child is gay, lesbian or bisexual, this is, in some sense, a life-threatening issue," he said.

(As an aside, I'm not sure how that helps his case any... unless he's arguing in favor of banning gay teenagers, which he may be)

Gay men and lesbians have two to four times the likelihood of suffering from major depression, anxiety or substance abuse, based on several national studies, Rekers testified. Gay men, he said, are four times more likely than straight men to attempt suicide.

Depressed people, Rekers said, "are less consistent in their parenting, less positive [and] have higher rates of neglecting child needs." Gay people, he added, "would have less capability of providing the kind of nurturing and secure emotional environment for children."

The lives of gay people can also be stressful to children, Rekers testified. The children may experience teasing and bullying from other children who don't approve of their parents' orientation. And children with gay parents are likely to suffer from repeated separations because gay people are more likely to have multiple failed relationships.

Well, that's all technically true (except the idea that being raised by gay parents makes you almost five times more likely to be gay--I've never seen anything like that before, although it's true that kids of gay couples are more likely to experiment), but it also applies to people other than gays (recall my old definition of homophobia?). Groups that face institutional and society-wide discrimination are going to have more stresses than those that don't, and it wouldn't surprise me if studies indicated they had a higher incidence of mental illness, either. Are you going to ban blacks or other racial minorities, for instance, from adopting?

He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. "They would tend to hang around each other," Rekers testified. "So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are . . . doing the same sorts of things."

Oooooh....

Well, that's... um... at least he's consistently horrible. Or consistent horribly.

You may also be wondering, since every reputable study shows that same-sex couples make just as good parents as opposite-sex ones, who these guys are that they came to conclusions that no-one else does. Your cynicism shall not go unrewarded!

Under cross-examination, Rekers, who also has a theology degree, acknowledged that he taught and practiced psychology from a Christian perspective, and had written books condemning social science that doesn't recognize "the moral laws of God."

"To search for truth about homosexuality in psychology and psychiatry, while ignoring God, will result in futile and foolish speculations," Rekers wrote in a 1982 book.

In 2003, Schumm also said in a scholarly article that social science could be used to spread the word of God. "With respect to integration of faith and research, I have been trying to use statistics to highlight the truth of the Scripture," he wrote.

One of Gill's experts, Susan D. Cochran, a professor of epidemiology and statistics at UCLA, accused Schumm of cooking some of the data he used to bolster his argument. "This is taught in first-year statistics," Cochran testified. "I was surprised he would do that."

And one of Gill's attorneys, James Esseks, criticized Rekers for relying on the scholarly work of Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute, who was dropped from the American Psychological Association in 1983 after he declined to cooperate with an investigation into whether he had distorted research on gay people.

Uh, yeah. If someone relies on Paul Cameron, that's a good indicator that they're completely insane.

I should think this would be a very, very simple case for the judge.

It's a sad day when I'm speaking out against cynicism

2008-11-05T16:22:00.002-05:00

I don't really feel like starting this blog up again, but I didn't feel I had anywhere else to post this, and I really wanted to share it somehow.

Indiana went for Barack Obama--the first time it's gone for a Democratic president in 40 years--by a margin of around 26,000 votes (1,367,264 - 1,341,101).

As of writing this, North Carolina was still undecided because Barack Obama was leading by only 12,000 votes (2,110,322 - 2,098,452).

Missouri went for John McCain by fewer than 6,000 votes (1,442,613 - 1,436,745).

Ted Stevens is currently holding on to his Alaska Senate seat by fewer than 3,500 votes (106,351 - 102,998).

Norm Coleman is eking out Al Franken for Minnesota's Senate seat by fewer than 500 votes (1,211,629 - 1,211,167).

Gordon Smith may hold onto Oregon's Senate seat as he's currently beating Jeff Merkley by almost 12,000 votes (623,882 - 612,003).

And among the Representatives elected to Congress last night, or still struggling...

Bobby Bright of Alabama's 2nd district beat Jay Love by fewer than 1,800 votes (143,997 - 142,231)

California's 4th district is still undecided, with Tom McClintock beating Charlie Brown (no, really) by only 450 votes (155,771 - 155,320)

Walt Minnick became the Representative for Idaho's 1st district, beating Bill Sali (and thank the non-Christian god that Bill Sali so dreaded) by a little over 4000 votes (175,567 - 171,324)

Maryland's 1st district is still undecided, with Frank Kratovil edging out Andy Harris by 900 votes (160,915 - 160,000)

Eric Massa beat Randy Kuhl to become the Representative of district 29 for New York by around 4000 votes (131,646 - 127,232)

Virginia's 5th district is still undecided, with Virgil Goode ahead of Tom Perriello by 350 votes (158,466 - 158,103)

Washington's 8th district is also undecided, as Dave Reichert's lead over Darcy Burner is not even 1,500 votes (70,935 - 69,489)

Colorado's Amendment 46, which would forbid state government discrimination based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, is still undecided with a margin of a little over 14,000 votes (990,156 - 975,898).

In 2004, Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi to become Washington's Governor by only 133 votes.

One vote would not have tipped the election in any of these cases, it is true. But how many people do you think didn't vote in these elections because they believed that their "one vote wouldn't make a difference"? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Only a few hundred? That still would've been enough to turn some of these elections

The only vote that doesn't matter is the one that isn't cast.

I would not be surprised if someone put this forth in all seriousness

2008-07-06T00:41:00.002-04:00

Watermelons have Viagra-like effects:

A slice of cool, fresh watermelon is a juicy way to top off a Fourth of July cookout and one that researchers say has effects similar to Viagra _ but don't necessarily expect it to keep the fireworks going all night long.

Watermelons contain an ingredient called citrulline that can trigger production of a compound that helps relax the body's blood vessels, similar to what happens when a man takes Viagra, said scientists in Texas, one of the nation's top producers of the seedless variety.

Found in the flesh and rind of watermelons, citrulline reacts with the body's enzymes when consumed in large quantities and is changed into arginine, an amino acid that benefits the heart and the circulatory and immune systems.

"Arginine boosts nitric oxide, which relaxes blood vessels, the same basic effect that Viagra has, to treat erectile dysfunction and maybe even prevent it," said Bhimu Patil, a researcher and director of Texas A&M's Fruit and Vegetable Improvement Center. "Watermelon may not be as organ-specific as Viagra, but it's a great way to relax blood vessels without any drug side effects."

So now we know the truth: blacks are sex maniacs because of all the watermelon they eat. It's all coming together.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Why Won't Jesse Helms Just Hurry Up and Die? Edition

2008-07-04T16:51:00.003-04:00

Alternate title: Ding Dong the Witch is Dead Edition.

I was planning on posting something else for today's DRB (well, actually, I was planning on just saying "fuck it" and shutting the blog down). But with the news of Jesse Helms' passing, I feel obligated to post, as have so many others (and there's a big round-up here).

I was unprepared for this development, so I'm basically just cribbing the same quotes as on all those pages, and some earlier stuff, too. So here goes:

While working on the primary campaign against Frank Porter Graham, Helms helped create an ad that read, "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man.

Wikipedia summation of the portion of the FAIR article citing the Charlotte News and Observer article "To Mold a Nation - Part 1", 26 August 2001.

Here are some of Jesse's more fair-minded quotes:

On homosexuals: "degenerate, morally sick wretches."

On blacks: "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced."

On black civil-rights activists: "communists and sex perverts."

His record on race is, in fact, a step below deplorable. In his 1990 U.S. Senatorial campaign, in which he ran against a black man named Harvey Gantt, he eagerly used the politics of race to his advantage.

Helms' campaign ran this television ad: On the screen a pair of white hands appears. The hands crumple up a rejected job application while a voice-over intones, "You needed that job ... but they had to give it to a minority."

"Prehistoric Republicans bid adieu", Daily Nebraskan, 10 September 2001

Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced.

New York Times Magazine, 8 February 1981

She's a damn lesbian. I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that [assistant secretary at the Department of Housing and Urban Development]. If you want to call me a bigot, fine.

Part of that can be found in this MSNBC article.

I was a senior when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Roughly 2,000 of us joined a vigil on the quad for several days. The vigil was an instrument of our grieving and a voice for racial justice on Duke's campus. Higher wages and union recognition for the non-academic employees—cooks, food-servers, maids, and janitors, most of whom were black—became the focal issue. We sat peacefully and largely silent day and night, studying for finals, listening to Dr. King's speeches and singing "We Shall Overcome" every hour. To this day I count it as a major event in my spiritual formation.

Jesse Helms came on the television and said that all of the students sitting on the quad at Duke should ask their parents if it would be all right for their son or daughter to "marry a Negro" (Duke students were practically all white in those days). Unless the student's parents approved of that prospect, Helms advised, he or she should go back to class. We all took the words as vindication for our cause.

From this article.

And this is just skimming the surface; that man had a lot more hate he shared with the world.

Don't ask why I posted this; I don't know either.

2008-07-02T01:42:00.002-04:00

[The scene is the inside of a house, in a living room. It's a cold winter night, and snow falls softly outside the window. A solitary figure, GRIEVING MAN, sits slumped in a chair, staring at a frame.

A knock at the door disturbs him, and as he moves towards the door he sets the frame down on a table, next to a bottle of Coke. The camera pauses to let us see the frame, holding a picture of JEAN, and the Coke.

GRIEVING MAN opens the door to reveal ZOMBIE JEAN. It's clearly the same woman as in the picture, but her movements are stiff and sluggish; her head remains stuck at an angle; her skin has a grayish, dead hue. When GRIEVING MAN sees her, he is aghast, and quickly begins sobbing in joy]

GRIEVING MAN: Oh my god... Jean? I thought I'd lost you...! The car crash--how did you--?

ZOMBIE JEAN: [eyes flickering past GRIEVING MAN to the Coke on the table, moaning in zombie fashion] Coookkkeee....

GRIEVING MAN: [ushering ZOMBIE JEAN into the house] Oh, yes! Of course! Come in. [ZOMBIE JEAN begins chugging the Coke, while GRIEVING MAN rambles and weeps uncontrollably] I've missed you so much. I can't believe you're still here; I could've sworn the doctors said you were DOA. Maybe I'll sue them, what do you think, dear? Oh god, it doesn't matter, now that you're here, now that you're back. [ZOMBIE JEAN finishes the Coke, turning the bottle upside down to verify that there's not a single drop left, and her eyes turn towards GRIEVING MAN] Everything's going to be all right now!

[CUT to the outside of the house, the snow still dusting the lawn and the house. We can see GRIEVING MAN and ZOMBIE JEAN's silhouettes through a lit window, with ZOMBIE JEAN advancing on GRIEVING MAN. GRIEVING MAN's voice is low and muffled, just a background noise, since we're outside the house now]

GRIEVING MAN: [suddenly unsure] Jean? What're you...?

[The silhouettes move past the window, as Coke's logo appears on the screen, over the roof of the house, and the NARRATOR speaks in a voice-over, reading the words on the screen]

NARRATOR: Coke!

GRIEVING MAN: [panicking, shrieking, though still a muffled background noise] Oh god, no! Jean! Stop!

[What can only be blood splashes the inside of the living room window, as the next line of text appears under the Coke logo on the screen, and the NARRATOR reads those lines, too]

NARRATOR: We'll bring your loved ones back from the dead.

[The scene is a warm spring day, outside in a park. People are walking their dogs, or taking a stroll, or sitting on the benches feeding the birds, or some--like HEALTHY MAN--are jogging down the track. The camera follows HEALTHY MAN as he goes on his route, leaving the park and jogging down the sidewalk, occasionally jogging in place when he gets caught at a light.

The scene cuts to the inside of HEALTHY MAN's apartment, staring at the inside of his door, which soon opens as HEALTHY MAN enters. The camera follows him as he strides over to his refrigerator and picks out a nondescript bottle]

HEALTHY MAN: Ahh... nothing like vegetable juice after a good morning's jog!

[HEALTHY MAN tilts his head back to drink, raising the bottle to his lips slowly. The liquid is about to reach his lips, when suddenly the camera cuts to his door as it is broken down and three HIRED GOONS charge into his apartment]

HEALTHY MAN: Hey, what the--? Who the hell are you? What are you doing?

[The HIRED GOONS don't speak. Instead, the first one to reach HEALTHY MAN snatches the bottle of vegetable juice from his hand and smashes it over his head.]

HEALTHY MAN: AAAH! Oh god! Oh my god, what the fuck did you do that for? Ahh! I need to go to the hospital!

[HEALTHY MAN begins to stagger away, towards the phone, but instead HIRED GOON 1 and HIRED GOON 2 ambush him and begin beating on him, and he cries out in pain at each of their blows. The camera cuts to HIRED GOON 3, who opens the fridge and takes out the rest of HEALTHY MAN's vegetable juice, then pours it down the sink. The muffled sounds of HEALTHY MAN's cries ensure us that his beating is still taking place.

Finally, the camera cuts to a clear tabletop as HIRED GOON 3 slams a bottle of Coke onto the surface. The bottle remains in focus as HIRED GOON 3 retreats into the background of the camera, joining HIRED GOON 1 and HIRED GOON 2. The three HIRED GOONS continue to kick HEALTHY MAN, who is now curled into a fetal position; the ongoing beating is out of focus as the camera focuses on the bottle of Coke]

NARRATOR: [voice-over] Coke: don't make us come down there.

Now I just need to figure out who to pitch these to.

Sunday Dead Racist Blogging: Comics Edition

2008-06-29T17:36:00.003-04:00

Apparently in the early '60s, George Wallace had a mini comic printed during his campaign for governor of Alabama. Mostly it's about how he's such a swell guy, his background, and how he'll fight for the people of Alabama against that horrible federal government who wants to meddle in their affairs.

It kinda glosses over all the black people of Alabama that he would not be fighting for, of course.

You can read it here.

We've got science on our side; we win

2008-06-24T21:29:00.003-04:00

A new study continues to tell us that the brains of gay people are different from those of straight people. In fact, the brains of gay people are more similar to those of straight people of the opposite sex than to straight people of the same sex.

Some scientists say the new findings are part of an increasingly convincing body of evidence that suggests sexual orientation results from fundamental developmental differences that are probably caused by hormonal exposures in the womb.

"This research is pointing to basic differences in the brain between homosexual and heterosexual people that are likely there right from the beginning," said Sandra F. Witelson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Ontario. "These could be reflecting some genetic or hormonal factors that predetermine your sexual orientation."

...

Several earlier studies have found what appear to be differences between the brains of gay and straight people. In 1991, brain scientist Simon LeVay reported that the hypothalamus, which is involved in sexual behavior, tended to be smaller in gay men. Other researchers subsequently showed that the brains of gay and straight people appeared likely to respond differently to sexual images. The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

...

"The next question was 'If there is a difference, could there be differences in parts of the brain that have nothing to do with sexual behaviors?' " said Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, who led the new research published online last week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So Savic and her colleague Per Lindstrom first used magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, to compare the symmetry of the brains of 25 straight men and 25 straight women with those of 20 gay men and 20 gay women.

Gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size, the researchers found. Gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

Next, the researchers used positron emission tomography (PET) scans to examine how a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- was connected to other brain regions. Again they found that gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.

...

LeVay and other researchers said the findings fit with studies that found gay people tended to have different ratios in the lengths of their fingers and in the frequency of imperceptible clicking sounds in the ear.

"There's this cluster of interrelated findings," said Richard A. Lippa, a professor of psychology at California State University at Fullerton, who has found evidence that in gay men, the hair on the back of the head is more likely to curl counterclockwise than in straight men. "These are all biological markers that something must have gone on early in development."

These findings also fit with studies showing gay men tend to choose professions that typically attract women, such as teaching and social work, and have verbal and other cognitive skills that tend to be more like women's, he said.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Secret Negro Presidents Edition

2008-06-20T22:37:00.002-04:00

With Obama as the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, this November could bring about the election of the first African American president in history.

Unless you're of the opinion of John McLaughlin.

You make it sound as though this was the first time we've had a black president. ... Warren G. Harding was a negro!

McLaughlin is hardly alone in believing that Warren "Awesome Middle Name" Harding was black (or rather, that his great-great-grandfather was). This rumor surrounded Harding and his siblings throughout his life, and was published in newspapers nationwide just a few days before the 1920 presidential election. Douglas Daniel wrote in his essay "Ohio Newspapers and the 'Whispering Campaign' of the 1920 Presidential Election" (citations omitted):

Francis Russell reported in his Harding biography that a spiteful neighbor began the rumor after Harding's great-great-grandfather caught him stealing from his corn crib. Historian Robert K. Murray noted Hardings' ancestors lived near blacks after migrating in 1826 to central Ohio from Pennsylvania, which might have generated stories of intermarriage. Regardless of its validity, the rumor followed Harding throughout his life. As children growing up in the Ohio hamlet of Blooming Grove a few years after the Civil War, Harding and his brothers and sisters were taunted at times about being black.

The racist jeers continued even after he reached adulthood and began publishing the Marion Daily Star. A rival editor blasted Harding in print in May 1887: "We have no desire to draw the color line on the kink-haired youth that sees fit to use his smut machine only as a receptacle for a low order of adjectives--as nature did it for him." An editor at another Marion newspaper reportedly published the allegation of mixed blood while Harding was courting Florence De Wolfe, the daughter of a prominent Marion businessman. Nonetheless, they were married in 1891.

Harding's political career began in 1898 when he was elected to the first of two terms in the Ohio Senate. He was elected lieutenant governor in 1902 and later defeated for governor in 1910. He was concluding his first term in the United States Senate when he won the presidential nomination on the tenth ballot. The allegation that the Harding family was part black had surfaced in every Harding campaign for public office. However, Daugherty, his political ally, contended it had no impact, with the possible exception of the gubernatorial race that he lost in 1910, because voters considered it a lie. Harding rarely talked about the rumor, once telling a friend: "How do I know, Jim? One of my ancestors might have jumped the fence."

Several of the circulars that appeared during the 1920 campaign were linked to William Estabrook Chancellor. Once a superintendent of schools in Washington, D.C., he taught economics, politics, and social science at the College of Wooster, which is located about fifty miles south of Cleveland. In favor of Wilson and the League of Nations and against blacks and Jews, Chancellor wrote and distributed circulars and posters about Harding's genealogy. One circular stated that Harding's father was a mulatto and his grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-grandmother were black. Harding biographer Samuel Hopkins Adams contended Chancellor printed the circulars because he "had an obsession on the Negro question."

So there you have it. If you're a senile old loon like McLaughlin, you may believe that Obama will be our second black president, not our first.

Of course, if you're like J.A. Rogers or Auset Bakhufu, you might even believe that Obama'd be our sixth or seventh black president. And that's not even bringing Clinton into it.

I can't wait to tell all my Chinese friends that they're black.

2008-06-19T23:26:00.002-04:00

In South Africa, at least.

A high court in South Africa ruled on Wednesday that Chinese-South Africans will be reclassified as "black," a term that includes black Africans, Indians and others who were subject to discrimination under apartheid. As a result of this ruling, ethnically Chinese citizens will be able to benefit from government affirmative action policies aimed at undoing the effects of apartheid.

In 2006, the Chinese Association of South Africa sued the government, claiming that its members were being discriminated against because they were being treated as whites and thus failed to qualify for business contracts and job promotions reserved for victims of apartheid. The association successfully argued that, since Chinese-South Africans had been treated unequally under apartheid, they should be reclassified in order to redress wrongs of the past.

I heard about this and had to Google it to find the article. Which was disturbing, because American Renaissance and Color of Crime are some of the top results. The latter takes this occurrence as proof that whites are being discriminated against. But of course, he also thinks that inserting extra letters into "racist" will fool everyone.

The article also mentions that this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened in South Africa--which the long-time reader of this blog would already know, eh?

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Guilty Until Proven... Well Actually, Just Guilty Edition

2008-06-13T19:51:00.003-04:00

This week's DRB is actually not worthy of mentioning so much because of the racism but because of another aspect of the man's thought. Thomas Nelson Page, in The Negro: The Southerner's Problem (1904), as part of his discussion of the problem of lynchings, wrote:

The charge that is often made, that the innocent are sometimes lynched, has little foundation. The rage of a mob is not directed against the innocent, but against the guilty; and its fury would not be satisfied with any other sacrifice than the death of the real criminal. Nor does the criminal merit any consideration, however terrible the punishment. The real injury is to the perpetrators of the crime of destroying the law, and to the community in which the law is slain.

Of course! Only guilty people are lynched, because being lynched is a sure evidence of guilt. Hence, all blacks who were lynched were guilty of raping white women, or some other atrocity, merely by virtue of the fact that they were lynched.

The parallels between this and the modern belief that anyone accused of a crime is guilty (a la Edwin Meese) or that anyone in Guantanamo must be an American-hating terrorist are disturbing.

Woo-hoo!

2008-06-13T02:11:00.003-04:00

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that denying Guantanamo inmates the right of habeas corpus is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected for the third time President Bush's policy of holding foreign prisoners under exclusive control of the military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruling that the men have a right to seek their freedom before a federal judge.

The justices, in a 5-4 vote, said the U.S. Constitution enshrined the "privilege of habeas corpus" — or the right to go before a judge — as a safeguard of liberty. And that right extends even to foreigners who are captured in the war on terrorism, the court said, particularly when they have been held up to six years without charges.

"Within the Constitution's separation of powers structures, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said for the court. "The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing."

You'd think that habeas corpus wouldn't be a "just by one" vote, but apparently Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas think that habeas corpus isn't all that important. Scalia even thinks that it'll kill people: "It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," he said. How fair trials and due process will kill Americans is anyone's guess.

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, praised the ruling. "This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus." He said the court had rejected Bush's "attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, said he had not had a chance to read the opinion but questioned its reasoning. "These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens," he said. He added, however, that he favored closing the prison at Guantanamo.

The justices said the detainees are entitled to a lawyer to represent them, and they will get a chance to rebut the evidence against them. But the court stopped short of deciding the law on whether militants can be held for as long as the government believes is necessary.

"It bears repeating that our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs (their) detention," Kennedy said of the prisoners. "That is a matter yet to be determined."

To celebrate, go and get interracially married

2008-06-12T20:55:00.002-04:00

Happy Loving Day, everybody!

Yet more evidence that the Bible was written solely by old men

2008-06-12T20:23:00.002-04:00

Why else would there be a story whose moral is, "If you make fun of bald men, you will be mauled to death by bears"?

It's true!

They even have woodcuts of it, although those have to be the most poorly-drawn bears I've ever seen outside of an elementary school.

Kucinich to Congress: Impeach Bush!

2008-06-10T23:45:00.002-04:00

About damn time.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record.

...

Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the "War on Terror" following the 9/11 attacks.

Well, it's an acknowledged fact--or at least, it ought to be acknowledged, but tragically isn't by most of our media--that the Bush administration lied everyone into an unnecessary war. But the charges don't stop there!

Interestingly, those articles (63-page PDF via Coral CDN) include not just complaints about signing statements and the war in Iraq, but also charges that the President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' 'Direct[ed] Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens,' and 'Tamper[ed] with Free and Fair Elections.'

You can see the full list on Kucinich's website, here (not in PDF format!). Some other articles of impeachment include "Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives", "Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy", and "Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to 'Black Sites' Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture."

Of course, this will go nowhere, since the rest of Congress--including the Democratic leadership--have no interest in holding the Bush administration accountable for its actions and lawlessness. Harrumph.

Just when you thought it was safe to ignore this blog... I post!

2008-06-10T15:31:00.003-04:00

Christmas is the one time of year when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ.

--Bart Simpson, and possibly George W. Bush, too

Today is Jesus Day! So happy Jesus Day, everybody!

What, don't believe me? See for yourself:

Four months ago in Texas, Gov. George W. Bush signed a proclamation declaring June 10 to be Jesus Day, and urging all Texans to "follow Christ's example by performing good works in their communities and neighborhoods."

Yeah, that article is back from 2000, so it's not exactly recent. But we shouldn't forget about it. And it really should have given people an idea of what a Bush administration's feelings towards separation of church and state would be.

The proclamation, which Ms. Edwards said was written by the governor's staff, begins: "Throughout the world, people of all religions recognize Jesus Christ as an example of love, compassion, sacrifice and service. Reaching out to the poor, the suffering and the marginalized, he provided moral leadership that continues to inspire countless men, women and children today.

"To honor his life and teachings, Christians of all races and denominations have joined together to designate June 10 as Jesus Day," it reads. "Jesus Day challenges people to follow Christ's example by performing good works in their communities and neighborhoods."

Yes, people of all religions love Jesus. Like the Jews, who killed him--I mean, you always hurt the ones you love, right?

The phrase in the proclamation signed by Governor Bush that "people of all religions recognize Jesus" was proposed by the March for Jesus, said Mr. Pelton, particularly to avoid offense. But it is this assertion that seemed to most outrage observers.

"With the exception of Islam," said Bruce Lincoln, the Caroline E. Haskell Professor of History of Religions at the University of Chicago Divinity School, "all the major religions emerged before Christianity, so there is no place for Jesus in their original foundations and scriptures.

"They carefully worded this thing to make it look like they've just got a good guy here, and so the state of Texas can have a party for him without running into church-state problems," Mr. Lincoln said. "It's patently fraudulent."

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: You Won't Find That in the Declaration of Independence Edition

2008-06-06T16:49:00.003-04:00

Thomas Jefferson... didn't have that high an opinion of black people. But it could've been worse! Imagine if the Declaration of Independence went something like this:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to abolish the Negro race, proper methods should be used. Among these are guns, bows and arrows, sling shots and knives.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all whites are created equal with certain human rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of dead niggers.

In every stage of the bus boycott we have been oppressed and degraded because of black, slimy, juicy, unbearably stinking niggers. The conduct should not be dwelt upon because of dead niggers. The conduct should not be dwelt upon because behind them they have an ancestral background of Pigmies, head hunters and snot snot suckers.

My friends it is time we wised up to these black devils. I tell you they are a group of two legged agitators who persist in walking up and down our streets protruding their black lips. If we don't stop helping these African flesh eaters, we will soon wake up and find Rev. King in the White House. LET'S GET ON THE BALL WHITE CITIZENS

This text was found in the Montgomery Advertiser, as well as on leaflets distributed around the State Coliseum on February 10, 1956. That's when James Eastland gave a speech for the White Citizens Council before 12,000 people; those words were also part of his speech, although the order was apparently switched around.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Lurking in the Bushes Edition

2008-05-30T21:10:00.004-04:00

But the social intercourse between the races in the South, which was so helpful to the blacks, has now practically ceased. The children of this generation no longer play and frolic together. White ladies no longer visit Negro cabins. The familiar salutation of "Uncle" or "Auntie" is no longer heard. The lady's maid sleeps no more by the bedside of her mistress. The Southern woman with her helpless little children in solitary farm house no longer sleeps secure in the absence of her husband with doors unlocked but safely guarded by black men whose lives would be freely given in her defence. Bat now, when a knock is heard at the door, she shudders with nameless horror. The black brute is lurking in the dark, a monstrous beast, crazed with lust. His ferocity is almost demoniacal. A mad bull or a tiger could scarcely be more brutal. A whole community is now frenzied with horror, with blind and furious rage for vengeance. A stake is driven; the wretched brute, covered with oil, bruised and gashed, beaten and hacked and maimed, amid the jeers and shouts and curses, the tears of anger and of joy, the prayers and the maledictions of thousands of civilized people, in the sight of school-houses, court-houses and churches is burned to death. Since the abolition of slavery and the growing up of a new generation of Negroes, crimes that are too hideous to describe have been committed every month, every week, frequently every day, against the helpless women and children of the white race, crimes that were unknown in slavery. And, in turn, cruelties have been inflicted upon Negroes by whole communities of whites, which, if attempted during slavery, would have been prevented at any sacrifice. I do not hesitate to say that more horrible crimes have been committed by the generation of Negroes that have grown up in the South since slavery than by the six preceding generations in slavery. And also that the worst cruelties of slavery all combined for two centuries were not equal to the savage barbarities inflicted in retaliation upon the Negroes by the whites during the last twenty years.

--George T. Winston, "The Relation of the Whites to the Negroes", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 18, July 1901, pp. 108-09. Originally an address at the fifth annual meeting of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Gee. Why on earth would white women be afraid of blacks after being told that they lurk in the darkness in order to snatch up and ~~devour~~ rape women? Blacks just served as a bogeyman for grown-ups.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: They All Look Alike Edition

2008-05-23T21:26:00.003-04:00

Londo: I don't know how they see out of them anyway. Tiny, beady, squinty little things aren't they?
Drazi Ambassador: Ambassador...
Londo: No the Maker has not been kind to you. Must be terrible trying to fly at night without running into entire planets.
DA: Are you saying the Centauri do not know what ships are patrolling their borders.
Londo: No, of course we know. The Maker has gifted us with great big eyes, and great big scanners, and great big, ah ... well that is no concern of yours.

Babylon 5, "Rumors, Bargains and Lies"

White people must have terrible eyesight. That's because they can't seem to tell apart people of any other race. Not Chinese:

The Chinese seem to be incapable of understanding our religion; but still less are they capable of understanding our political institutions. To confer the franchise upon them would be to put the balance of power on the Pacific into the hands of a people who have no conception of the trust involved, and who would have no wish to use it rightly if they had--would be to give so many additional votes to the employers of Chinese, or put them up for sale by the Chinese head centers in San Francisco. At least one Chinaman has already been naturalized, and though none of them have any intention of remaining here permanently, if it would pay them to acquire votes and they could be protected in voting, there are none of them who would object to being naturalized every hour in the day. The swearing required is nothing to them, and as for identification, all Chinamen look alike to the unpracticed eye.

Not Puerto Ricans:

For voting, the law requires one year in the state, four months in the county, one month in the district. But it is impossible to check, even if the holdover handout officials would want to. The Puerto Ricans all look alike, their names all sound alike and if an inspector calls in one of the swarming flats in the teeming tenements, nobody speaks English.

And not blacks:

The features reflect the inner nature, and they are more or less distinctly developed as we ascend or descend in the scale of being. The features of the white reflect all the higher and nobler as well as baser qualities of the mind. The negro has more or less of a dead conformity. On visiting a plantation of them at the South, it is difficult to tell one from another. The flat nose, enormous lips, and protuberent jaws, together with his flat, indistinct and shapeless features, strikingly approximate to the lower animals, and they are as utterly incapable of reflecting certain emotions as so much flesh and blood in any other part of the body. If the Creator, therefore, gave the negro the higher capacities that the Abolitionists claim, it is very evident that He denied him all opportunity to reflect them in his countenance.

It's a wonder that whites managed to do much of anything when they apparently can't see a damn thing.

Good job, England

2008-05-21T23:39:00.003-04:00

The British government made some changes yesterday to their Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which will improve gay rights in the country:

BRITAIN has forged landmark new rights for homosexual parents after the House of Commons unexpectedly threw out proposals that would have required fertility clinics to consider a child's "need for a father" before providing treatment.

The father's role will now be replaced by the "need for supportive parenting" and both partners recognised as parents on birth certificates when lesbian couples conceive with donated sperm, or gay men use surrogacy. At present, as in Australia, only the natural mother or father is automatically considered to be a parent when homosexual couples have fertility treatment.

...

Fertility clinics will now be banned from refusing lesbian or single women treatment if they cannot provide a male paternal model. This reason has often been used by clinics that choose to refuse treatment to lesbian or single women.

The article mentions how the vote was rather unexpected, and that the large margins by which it passed "surprised the Labour Government, which had been prepared for a big defeat on the issue."

Clearly my presence in the country had a profound impact on them.

More on the California ruling

2008-05-16T08:56:00.002-04:00

If you want to read more on the California ruling, the Legal Pad has several posts up already.

Panning for gold in the gay marriage ruling
Nuggets from the concurrences & dissents

And apparently CNN was completely mistaken and was reporting for several minutes that the court had upheld the marriage ban.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Tom Brady is a Racist! Edition

2008-05-16T00:00:00.002-04:00

I chose that title just to see how many hits I'd get from people Googling Tom Brady of the New England Patriots to see if he's a racist. So for those of you who do find this page because of that search, you can stop reading now--I wouldn't even know that Tom Brady existed were it not for Family Guy. The person I'm actually going to discuss is Tom P. Brady, and his pamphlet Black Monday: Segregation or Amalgamation ...America Has Its Choice. This was originally an address before the Sons of the American Revolution in Greenwood, Mississippi, the author informs us in a prefatory note, and later transcribed and published by the Association of Citizens' Councils.

But what is "Black Monday"? Well, in this pamphlet at least, it refers to Monday, May 17, 1954--the date the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Brown v. Board of Education. Since tomorrow is the 54th anniversary of the decision, I felt it would be worthwhile to look back at what certain people thought of it at the time. Let's start with the appellation, Black Monday. In the foreword, Brady writes:

"Black Monday" is the name coined by Representative John Bell Williams of Mississippi to designate Monday, May 17th, 1954, a date long to be remembered throughout this nation. This is the date upon which the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its socialistic decision in the Segregation cases on appeal from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware.

"Black Monday" is indeed symbolic of the date. Black denoting darkness and terror. Black signifying the absence of light and wisdom. Black embodying grief, destruction and death. Should Representative Williams accomplish nothing more during his membership in Congress he has more than justified his years in office by the creating of this epithet, the originating of this watchword, the shouting of this battle cry.

Black Monday ranks in importance with July 4th, 1776, the date upon which our Declaration of Independence was signed. May 17th, 1954, is the date upon which the declaration of socialistic doctrine was officially proclaimed throughout this nation. It was on Black Monday that the judicial branch of our government usurped the sacred privilege and right of the respective states of this union to educate their youth. This usurpation constitutes the greatest travesty of the American Constitution and jurisprudence in the history of this nation.

Not much for hyperbole, is he? Yes, the Supreme Court "usurped the sacred privilege and right of the ... states ... to educate their youth" by commanding that they actually educate all their youths, and not just the white ones. Strange, that. You'll notice also that he keeps calling the decision "socialistic"--this is because he was rather unabashedly trying to tie it to Communism and say "See? This is what Stalin would have wanted, so it must be bad. Because Stalin was evil, because he was an atheist and evil."

No, really. The inside cover bears this bit of text underneath portraits of Jefferson and Stalin:

Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Stalin were both instrumental in the establishing of secular governments. Both men made mistakes and both men are dead. Their respective governments survive them.

Jefferson's government is founded on a firm belief in God, the dignity of the individual and on the institution of capital. Stalin's government is based on atheism, the absolute sovereignty of the State, and collectivism. Jefferson's government is the father of freedom and liberty. Stalin's government is the master of regimentation and slavery. Jefferson's government symbolizes light, truth, peace and life. Stalin's government represents darkness, deceit, war and death.

The principles upon which these two governments are founded are irreconcilable. They cannot be fused any more than can day exist in night. The twilight of the martyrdom of man will result. They are now engaged in a mortal conflict, and only one can survive. "Choose you this day whom ye will serve."

The United States of America had nothing at all to do with slavery, no sir! That's what commies do.

There's that much insanity, and we haven't even actually started the speech yet.

The pamphlet's main portion starts with a section labeled "The Three Species of Man". I can't be sure if he was a polygenist or just was stupidly using the word 'species' in place of 'race', but I'm kinda leaning towards the former given this passage:

So, at some time in the distant past, we need not be concerned about the exact date, during the earth's eternal pilgrimage about our sun, the insurgence of vertebrates and mammals took place. Man was created last, and it was then that the origin of all our problems occurred. This creation, as detailed in "The Conquest," by Dr. Breasted, took place in the "Great Northwest Quadrant." This territory embraced "All of Europe, all of Africa north of the Sahara. Its eastern boundary extended to the Ural M1ountains, which divide Europe and Asia, and a line parallel to the 60th Meridian east of Greenwich, extended from the Ural southward into the Indian Ocean. In addition, it includes the Near East, which embraces Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Persia and Arabia. This is the original home of the Great White Race, Homo Caucasius."

"On the east of and adjoining the Northwest Quadrant, in the secluded plateaus of high Asia, there arose and developed a man with straight and wiry hair, round head, almost beardless face, and a yellow skin, Homo Mongoloideus."

"South of the Northwest Quadrant, separated from the Great White Race by an impassable desert barrier and to the west by unconquered seas, lay the teeming black world of Africa, the home of Homo Africanus. Isolated to themselves, their evolutionary development was very homogeneous. They are wooly-haired, long-headed, dark-skinned Negroids."

He seems to be quoting someone (Charles Wallace Collins and his book Whither Solid South to be precise) to say that people sprung up fully-formed in their respective habitats, and hence are members of different species with different taxonomies. Or he could just be butchering biology, or both. He certainly thoroughly butchers biology and evolution in the following paragraphs, where he discusses how far the white and Asian "species" had progressed in history, describing it as an "evolutionary march" and a "marvelous and complex evolutionary development." Then he goes on to discuss blacks in his made-up evolutionary context, spouting nonsense like "the negroid man ... evolved not", and "he did not evolve simply because of his inherent limitations."

Brady then spent several pages trying to show that amalgamation with blacks had destroyed Egypt, India, the Mayans, and he does so by quoting James Densons Sayers' Can the White Race Survive? solely and repeatedly. Nothing shows your mastery of history like quoting a man who thinks that only blacks and whites exist and everyone else is just a product of black-white couplings.

Brady's abhorrence of miscegenation and its supposed consequences is hard to overstate. He refers to it as "the white man [drinking] the cup of black hemlock", and countries which he believes are in a dilapidated state because of such miscegenation as having "the mark of the beast":

The mark of the beast is apparent today, even to the most casual observer, in the various types in Mexico, the Yucatan Indians, the Hondurans, the North Central Americans and Caribs. The Proto-Negro sign withs its accompanying destruction cannot be disputed.

This might also be Sayers' influence, as in the following section ("Purity of Jewish Blood", where he continues quoting Sayers), he writes

The word negro does not occur in the religious writing, but the word Ethiopian (negroid Egyptians) is present and later came to mean negro. Frequently "the beast" is referred to. To lie before the beast was prohibited and punishable. The beast too was required to sit in sack cloth and ashes and repent. (Jonah, 3rd Chapter; Exodus, 22:19; Leviticus, 18:23; 20:15, 16.)

And we already know that Sayers thought 'the beast' meant 'Negro'.

Much later he returns to the topic of miscegenation in a seemingly-random two paragraphs, which have no relation to the preceding or following paragraphs:

The loveliest and the purest of God's creatures, the nearest thing to an angelic being that treads this terrestrial ball is a well-bred, cultured Southern white woman or her blue-eyed, golden-haired little girl.

The maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relationship, which have been conducive to the well-being of both the white and negro races in the South, has been possible because of the inviolability of Southern Womanhood. Cases of moral leprosy and degeneracy have produced sporadic instances of amalgamation of whites with negroes. It is such instances as these which produced the negro hybrids of America.

This of course explains the whole real reason behind his, and many others', resistance to Brown--they didn't want whites and blacks mingling, or at least not white women and black men. Their supposed peace and harmony was based on white women not having sex with black men... however that works. So by providing black schoolboys access to white schoolgirls, the Supreme Court threatened the peace and harmony of the South. Generally because the white men would then kill the black men.

Of course, Brady had to include a masturbatory, self-congratulatory paean to whites in the midst of his nonsense (separate from the above paragraph on white women), so he talks about Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Milton, Galileo, and so on, and gives a special nod to the biologists whose works he so thoroughly and unabashedly mangles to support his preconceived notions of how the world works. "The true miracles," he says, were not the discovery of the New World by Columbus but were those which "were to be discovered by Darwin, Huxley, Hall, Mendel, and their contemporaries." Maybe if he actually read Darwin, though, he wouldn't have been talking about "three different species of man" in the next paragraph, since Darwin was a monogenist. Or maybe he did read Darwin and just dismissed him when he felt like it, since he had a higher authority to rely on for his racism--God!

The Supreme Architect of the Universe saw fit that there should be, and are today, on this planet, three distinct species of man. If God had deemed it wise and just that there should be only one specie of man on this earth, the laws of heredity and the stimuli of environment would have produced this uniform man. There are those today who would improve upon the handiwork of the Divine Architect and would cause the amalgamation of all races if they had the power to do so. If the Omnipotent Creator had willed it, this single specie of man would have been located over all the face of the earth. The three species of man would not have been placed in different locales.

Of course, by this logic, if God had intended to prevent people of different races from having kids, he would have made it so that they couldn't, so clearly God's plan is for everyone to go out and have a multiracial baby, and Brady was being blasphemous for trying to stop that. Right?

The next bit is your typical racist claptrap. Blacks are incompetent savages who are unable to do anything; slavery was good for them but I don't support it but really the abolitionists were the evil ones and hey the South wasn't responsible for slavery anyways because all we did was keep buy and keep slaves, we didn't sell them; whites like me are so awesome, just look at how many accomplished whites I can list off the top of my head, and the fact that I don't know of any accomplished blacks means that they must not exist; Reconstruction was hell brought to earth because Negroes had civil rights and we hadn't taken them away yet. And finally, he gets to the court case in question, starting his discussion of it by essentially accusing the court of being 'judicial activists':

The Supreme Court does not possess the legislative power. When a case comes before the Court, as does a case before any court, the issue is joined, arguments are made and a decision rendered. That decision binds the parties to that particular case. The legislative power of the Federal Government is vested in the Congress of the United States. The Supreme Court has no power to make a decree which could have the effect of an Act of Congress. The Supreme Court can, of course, exceed its powers and violate the Constitution and invade the province of Congress and that of the state legislatures--as has frequently been the case. Has the Supreme Court the power to establish by decree a national segregation policy which would bind all of the forty-eight states--a power which Congress itself does not possess?

This is the true question which "Black Monday" actually decided.

Yes, there's nothing in the case itself about constitutionality of state's actions at all.

He starts out by quoting some from the Attorney General's brief, mocking most of what he quoted, and then turns to the opposing briefs and several other sources for "warnings" of what would follow the decision:

In addition to giving the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the
amendment, and the enactment of the constitutional provisions and statutes of South Carolina, they also point out the grave dangers which are attendant upon the abolition of segregation in the schools of that State. These warnings the Supreme Court completely ignored.

These warnings basically consisted of the fact that whites would riot in the streets if blacks were allowed in their schools, so if you want peace and safety you'd better not rule against us. Brady quotes one of the briefs describing the testimony of a superintendent, putting in bold the conclusions

that there would not be community acceptance of mixed schools at this time; that there would be a probability of violent emotional reaction in the communities; that it would be impossible to have peaceable association of the races in the public schools; and that it would eliminate the public schools in most, if not all, of the communities in the State

I wonder how people think this is a compelling argument before the Supreme Court? "This law must be constitutional because we really, really, really wouldn't like it if you found it wasn't." Yet Brady laments that "The Supreme Court's mind was impervious to the pathos of this appeal and these arguments."

Later he says that while the Supreme Court should be respected, you shouldn't actually abide by what it says. In fact, if you do think that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law and hence its decisions should be followed, then you're unpatriotic.

The Supreme Court should be accorded all the deference and respect possible because of the nature of the office. It should be given at least the esteem accorded Pontius Pilate. It should, however, be borne in mind that it is not infallible, and it is not clothed with "the divinity which doth hedge a king." To blindly submit to an erroneous decision which breaks all long established rules of law, violates the principles of stare decisis, and adopts sociological assertions instead of laws as its guide is not loyalty or patriotism. It is simple folly or ignorance. Since when has a fallacious opinion of the Supreme Court been above review or censure? There are those who confuse freedom of thought and criticism with subversiveness. Each decision stands on its own legs and if it is unsound, is not based on solid rules of law which have been in force and effect it should be so classified. If the result of the decision will be harmful to the bulk of the people of this country, will be calculated to foster those forces which seek this country's destruction, then to fail to resist the decision is morally wrong and the man who fails to condemn it and do all that he can to see that it is reversed is not a patriotic American.

Hm. If "each decision stands on its own legs and if it is unsound, is not based on solid rules of law which have been in force and effect it should be so classified", then why are you making such a big deal about stare decisis? Maybe he's saying that he can decide if a decision is unsound and thus should be ignored, but the court itself cannot. He later repeats the sentiment that the decision should be resisted because it's un-American, it's communistic.

Communism disguised as "new democracy" is still communism, and tyranny masquerading as liberalism is still tyranny. The resistance of communism and tyranny, irrespective of whatever guise they may adopt, is not treason. It is the prerequisite
of freedom, the very essence of liberty.

And then he continues quoting people who chastised the court for not realizing that the decision was wrong because it pissed off a lot of white people. One was an editorial from the Jackson Daily News in Mississippi:

"Human blood may stain Southern soil in many places because of this decision, but the dark red stains of that blood will be on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court building.

"The Supreme Court is responsible for our being bloodthirsty savages, because surely we're not responsible for our own actions."

Brady also quotes Senator James Eastland, who seems as confused as he is:

"Let me make this clear, Mr. President: There is no racial hatred in the South. The negro race is not an oppressed race.

If it weren't so tragic that he actually believed that, that statement would be hilarious.

Free men have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, free from governmental interference and to build up their own culture, free from governmental interference.

Gee, if Eastland actually believed that, he would probably have approved of Brown v. Board because, well, it just concluded that yes, "free men have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing, free from governmental interference." But of course Eastland doesn't believe that black people are free, or have rights, or that it's governmental interference when the state governments interfere with the right of black kids to go to school, or however the fuck he rationalized this in his own mind.

And he goes on and on about Communism, ranting about how "Marxian Christianity" and "Marxian Education" (the headings of two sections) are to blame for people thinking that blacks actually have rights. And they're to blame for miscegenation, which blacks go along with because they all recognize that they're stupid, inferior trash, and want to improve themselves by fucking whites. So some of his suggested solutions are "I. We must stop the influx of Communists in our country", "II. We must teach our children the truth about Communism, its infiltration of our country, and the facts of ethnology", "III. The Neo-Socialist and Marxian Christians should be exposed".

YES!!

2008-05-15T13:39:00.002-04:00

The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriages!!

I'm so excited I'm nearly shrieking with joy, but one of my colleagues is on the phone, the bastard. According to a notice from CalLaw.com,

The California Supreme Court has cleared the way for same-sex marriages. In a 121-page ruling, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote that the state laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violate the California constitution.

The court applied strict scrutiny to the laws, finding gays and lesbians a suspect class. "We conclude that to the extent the current statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional," George wrote.

Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno concurred. Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan dissented.

This is fantastic! Not only did they overturn the law, but they found gays to be a suspect class, which most courts have said they aren't, and used that to justify denying them equal rights. I am giddy.

You can check out the decision itself here, if you're into reading 172-page court cases.

I know I said probably no posting, but...

2008-05-15T03:50:00.003-04:00

How could I resist posting about this?

The publishing company that owns the Curious George image says it is considering legal action to stop the sale of a T-shirt depicting Barack Obama as the monkey from children's books.

The T-shirts are being peddled by Marietta bar owner Mike Norman at his Mulligan's Bar and Grill in Cobb County. They show a picture of Curious Georgie peeling a banana, with the words "Obama '08" underneath.

...

Norman has said he got the T-shirts from someone in Arkansas. He started selling them at his bar -- known for the provocative, ultra-conservative political slogans often posted on signs out front -- in April but said he has no plans to mass market them.

The sales came to light this week when a loose coalition of local groups called a protest of the T-shirts.

About a dozen protestors rallied against the shirts Tuesday afternoon, condemning them as racist and asking Norman to stop selling them.

Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey.

"We're not living in the (19)40's," he said. "Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears -- he looks just like Curious George."

Of course! We're not in '40s, therefore racist imagery isn't racist anymore! Because everyone knows that all racism ended in the '40s!

And a picture of the shirt:

By the time you read this I will already be dead on my plane

2008-05-12T16:30:00.001-04:00

I'm being banished to England for a week, so there probably won't be any posting.

There will, however, be a Dead Racist Blogging post up on Friday as always. I have already blogged it into the future.

"Republicans Vote Against Moms; No Word Yet on Puppies, Kittens"

2008-05-11T23:21:00.002-04:00

That's an actual headline from the Washington Post:

It was already shaping up to be a difficult year for congressional Republicans. Now, on the cusp of Mother's Day, comes this: A majority of the House GOP has voted against motherhood.

On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.

"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt's request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.

It has long been the custom to compare a popular piece of legislation to motherhood and apple pie. Evidently, that is no longer the standard. Worse, Republicans are now confronted with a John Kerry-esque predicament: They actually voted for motherhood before they voted against it.

Republicans, unhappy with the Democratic majority, have been using such procedural tactics as this all week to bring the House to a standstill, but the assault on mothers may have gone too far. House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

By voting against it?

Via LG&M.

Defending marriage, Republican style

2008-05-09T02:24:00.002-04:00

That means having an affair and, in this case, another child as a result of it.

Representative Vito J. Fossella, a Staten Island Republican who was arrested on May 1 in Alexandria, Va., and charged with drunken driving, issued a statement on Thursday acknowledging that he had had an extramarital affair with Laura Fay, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, and that the two of them had a 3-year-old daughter together.

It should surprise no-one that Fossella voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment twice:

Rep. Fossella voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in both 2004 and 2006. It's always so important to protect marriage from the horrid threats posed by Teh Gay, which are much, much scarier than the threats posed by drunken husbands who have entire second families.

He also voted to ban gay adoptions in DC. And that makes sense: the damage caused to a child by being adopted by two loving people of the same gender vastly exceeds the damage caused to a three year old by having a father who can only drop by now and again, when his real family isn't paying attention, or to his three other children by growing up in a home where there are secrets no one can talk about.

Via LG&M.

Go Pennsylvania! Preferrably to Michigan, to teach them a thing or two

2008-05-09T01:27:00.002-04:00

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania is likely dead:

A bill that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage is in a deep coma and is probably dead, at least for the rest of this session.

Faced with staunch opposition to the measure in the Democrat-controlled House, the main sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, asked the Senate last evening to table the bill indefinitely, and it agreed.

That almost certainly means it won't be acted on in the 2007-08 session, which ends Nov. 30. Mr. Brubaker said he's not giving up on the bill, though he didn't say when he might push for it again.

The bill would have amended the constitution to define a legal marriage in Pennsylvania as a union only of one man and one woman. Pennsylvania already has a law doing that, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, but some religious groups and social conservatives want to put the one man-one woman definition into the constitution, to make it stronger and prevent "liberal judges" from allowing gays or lesbians to try to get married or to join in "civil unions," as they can in several other states.

...

He said the bill isn't bigoted, as some critics have charged.

"Marriage between one man and one woman is what we've had for the history of our commonwealth," he said.

The history of Pennsylvania started in 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act? That can't be right.... Well, maybe their law said one man & one woman before that, and the article just didn't think it worth mentioning.

But anyways. While Pennsylvania won't be enshrining bigotry against gays into its constitution right now, Michigan's courts have decided that its anti-gay amendment precludes giving partnership benefits to same-sex couples, despite the fact that the people pressing for the amendment promised that it wouldn't. But, hell, they were almost certainly lying, because it's not about marriage, it's about hurting gay people and their children.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Pearly Gates Edition

2008-05-09T00:00:00.000-04:00

What if the pearly gates weren't so pearly? What if they were more... jet?

So intense is the aversion even of many humane and educated persons in this city [Philadelphia] to the colored race, that apparently they would shrink back from the gate of Heaven, if it were opened by a coloured man shewed coloured people within.

--George Combe, Notes on the United States of North America, 1841, vol. II, pp. 63-64. Cited in William Stanton, The Leopard's Spots, 1960, p. 36.

Not a terribly insightful look into the minds of dead racists, I just liked the quote.

Santorum says Christians hate freedom!

2008-05-08T22:20:00.004-04:00

Rick 'man on dog' Santorum doesn't like Muslims. Figures:

Our government in this memo is teaching us a politically correct version of the truth. For example, it tells us that democracy and Islam are compatible. But Islam is less compatible with democracy than is Christianity.

I choose to read that as Santorum admitting that Christianity is incompatible with democracy, but saying that Islam is even less so.

He also apparently wants to "abandon the word terror and replace it with Islamic fascism." Because we know that all terrorists are Muslims.

[Edit] Also, Santorum brays "From Islam's inception there has been one realm. Islamic law (sharia) is the law of the government." (And we should trust him because he's an expert on Islam, its history, and its political influences, right? Right)

But what do actual Muslims think about that?

Experts in Islamic law and religion who are based in the U.S. said they agreed with the court's ruling. Abdullahi An-Na'im, a Muslim scholar and law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said "there can only be one law of the land."

An-Na'im, who wrote Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a, said that "if Muslims wish to influence what the law of the state says, they must do so through the normal political process and in accordance with civic discourse that is equally open for debate by all citizens, and not on the basis of religious beliefs."

Why, it's almost as if they abide by democratic rule after all! How can that possibly be??

Go me!

2008-05-08T19:01:00.002-04:00

I'm a member of the Culture of Death! Woot!

After deciding to create a campaign to tell people that birth control pills kill babies, the people who came up with this lunacy were shocked that people were getting angry at them and mocking their totally insane ideas! I mean, all they want to do is rob people of their civil liberties and maintain tight control of the sexuality and sexual actions of one-half of the population, and all they're doing to accomplish it is spreading lies and slandering their would-be victims as murderers. What on earth is everyone getting so upset about?

Just to give you a sampling of who is saying what, I am sending you a "short" list of Culture of Death bloggers talking about The Pill Kills website. I don't recommend wasting too much time reading their nonsense, but it is worth noting their overt hostility to anything that "just might" change their worldview of "promiscuity-made-safe."

And little old me made their list!

And it's rather telling that they object to "promiscuity-made-safe." See? They don't give a damn about safety--especially not for women who have sex. How much clearer could it be that they want nothing more than to punish people who dare to yield to natural impulses?

Return of Soon gamers won't even have to give their thumbs a workout!

2008-05-07T13:01:00.002-04:00

Awesome!

An Australian company is gearing up to release a computer headset that allows people to control video games using only the power of their minds.

Emotiv Systems, founded by four Australian scientists in 2003, will release the $US299 ($315) EPOC headset on the US market this year. Australians will be able to order it online.

Featuring 14 sensors that measure electrical impulses from the brain, the headset - which plugs into the PC's USB port - will enable games to register facial expressions, emotions and even cognitive thoughts, allowing players to perform in-game actions just by visualising them.

The headset works in a similar way to voice recognition, in that it must first be calibrated using Emotiv's software to recognise patterns in the user's electrical brain impulses, which are used to perform 30 preset actions.

When the player performs those same thoughts in the game the software knows to associate them with the correct action, such as rotate object or push object.

The ability to control what your character is doing just by thinking about it is interesting. But perhaps the coolest part of the article discusses the possibility of the mood-reading part of the hardware:

The headset could also detect the players' emotions - whether they're bored, angry, engaged, happy, stressed, etc - and adjust difficulty levels, in-game music and the game environment accordingly.

Characters could also react to a player's emotional cues.

In horror-themed games, enemies could intelligently select the perfect time to startle a player based on how they feel, rather than having opponents in the same positions every time a mission is reloaded.

Wouldn't that be awesome?? Tell me it would not be, and I will ban you for being a filthy liar!

Election results

2008-05-07T03:43:00.004-04:00

So Clinton won Indiana, but only barely: 51%-49%. She got either three or four more delegates than Obama, depending on which source you ask. It was interesting to watch--the early results had Clinton in a rather commanding lead, 57-43 the first time I checked. But it kept dropping over time.

But Obama won North Carolina much more handily, 56%-42%, and got either eleven or sixteen more delegates than Clinton in that state.

All in all, a net gain for Obama.

Can't wait to see how the Clinton camp will try to spin this as a win for themselves.

And, of course, we had some 1.2 million people vote in the Democratic primary here in Indiana... nearly four times as many people as in 2004. Heck, that's nearly 300,000 more people than voted for Kerry in the November election. I think that's a good thing either way.

But at least he's got a magnetic yellow ribbon on his car, right?

2008-05-06T21:17:00.003-04:00

You can just feel the love for the troops, can't you?

At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb's proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.

It's awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don't deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.

...

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.

Who wouldn't support an effort to pay for college for G.I.'s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?

We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?

Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.

...

Senator McCain's office said on Monday that it was following the Pentagon's lead on this matter, getting guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Under pressure because of his unwillingness to support Senator Webb's effort, Senator McCain introduced legislation with substantially fewer co-sponsors last week that expands some educational benefits for G.I.'s, but far less robustly than Senator Webb's bill.

That's almost as cute as Bush pretending to worry about how much it would cost. He'll throw trillions of dollars away in a war that has killed over four thousand of our troops, but can't find the money to spend on improving the lives of the soldiers that live through it.

Life imitates art

2008-05-05T23:23:00.005-04:00

A scene from Simpsons is particularly relevant:

Moe: *spray-painting a sign that reads UNITED STATES FOR UNITED STATESIANS* You know what really aggravateses me? It's dem immigants. Dey want all the benefits of livin' in Springfield, but they ain't even bothered to learn themselves the language.

Homer: *painting a sign that says HOMER SAY "GET OUT!"* Yeah! Those are exactly my sentimonies!

Barney: *incoherent, drunken vocalizations*

Moe: Ah, you said it, Barn.

Via Orcinus.

Who's more progressive than the U.S. this week?

2008-05-05T22:52:00.002-04:00

I dunno, but it doesn't seem to be Australia--or at least not Kevin Rudd.

The Australian Capital Commonwealth--kinda like the District of Columbia for the U.S.--was going to pass a bill that would bestow legal recognition of same-sex couples. Since the ACT was granted autonomy in 1988, they're able to do this... but the federal government can override any legislation they want, and threatened to do so in this case. So the ACT had to scrap the idea.

ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell announced yesterday the Territory had abandoned its civil partnerships legislation and would instead settle for a system of relationship registers virtually identical to the ones operating in Tasmania and Victoria.

...

The legislation, which was quashed by the Howard government in 2006, would have allowed gay couples to have their relationships recognised in a legally binding ceremony.

It was the issue of the ceremony that prompted objections from the commonwealth, which said it would mimic marriage.

The ACT's amended scheme will allow for an "administrative ceremony", but Mr Corbell said it would have no legal weight.

He said the federal Government had not compromised at any point during negotiations, even when the ACT offered to remove licensed celebrants from the scheme.

Mr Corbell said representatives of Mr Rudd made it clear to him last Thursday the commonwealth was prepared to override the legislation if the ACT enacted it.

Via Evolving Thoughts.

Unless contained inside each pill is a tiny embryo which is killed during consumption

2008-05-05T19:05:00.004-04:00

Pro-forced pregnancy people are organizing a protest planned for June 7, the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut. What are they protesting? If you thought 'abortion', you'd be wrong! They're protesting birth control pills, claiming that "The Pill Kills Babies."

How this could happen when the pill prevents ovulation, and hence fertilization, is anyone's guess. But it hardly matters, since they're only concerned with controlling the sexual activity of women.

Mildred Loving dies

2008-05-05T14:24:00.002-04:00

Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia, died today:

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Peggy Fortune said Loving, 68, died Friday at her home in rural Milford. She did not disclose the cause of death.

"I want (people) to remember her as being strong and brave yet humble — and believed in love," Fortune told The Associated Press.

It would be good to remember that she believed in love for everyone, too.

R.I.P., Mrs. Loving.

That straight-talking maverick!

2008-05-03T00:54:00.002-04:00

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

So John McCain is admitting that the Iraq war is all about oil? Is that why he wants us there for the next hundred years, then?

Via Atrios.

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Biogenetic Edition

2008-05-02T00:14:00.003-04:00

You may be wondering what the hell that title is about. Well, it's a reference to Ernst Haeckel and his (false) biogenetic law. You can read about it here.

I was just amused because I found a quote from someone who was arguing basically the same thing, and using the idea to rank the different races.

The probability may now be assumed that the human race sprung from one stock, which was at first in a state of simplicity, if not barbarism. As yet we have not seen very distinctly how the various branches of the family, as they parted off, and took up separate ground, became marked by external features so peculiar. Why are the Africans black, and generally marked by coarse features and ungainly forms? Why are the Mongolians generally yellow, the Americans red, the Caucasians white? Why the flat features of the Chinese, the small stature of the Laps, the soft round forms of the English, the lank features of their descendants, the Americans? All of these phenomena appear, in a word, to be explicable on the ground of development. We have already seen that various leading animal forms represent stages in the embryotic progress of the highest--the human being. Our brain goes through the various stages of a fish's, a reptile's, and a mammifer's brain, and finally becomes human. There is more than this, for, after completing the animal transformations, it passes through the characters in which it appears, in the Negro, Malay, American, and Mongolian nations, and finally is Caucasian. The face partakes of these alterations. "One of the earliest points in which ossification commences is the lower jaw. This bone is consequently sooner completed than the other bones of the head, and acquires a predominance, which, as is well known, it never loses in the Negro. During the soft pliant state of the bones of the skull, the oblong form which they naturally assume, approaches nearly the permanent shape of the Americans. At birth, the flattened face, and broad smooth forehead of the infant, the position of the eyes rather towards the side of the head, and the widened space between, represent the Mongolian form; while it is only as the child advances to maturity, that the oval face, the arched forehead, and the marked features of the true Caucasian, become perfectly developed."* The leading characters, in short, of the various races of mankind are simply representations of particular stages in the development of the highest or Caucasian type. The Negro exhibits permanently the imperfect brain, projecting lower jaw, and slender bent limbs of a Caucasian child some considerable time before the period of its birth. The aboriginal American represents the same child nearer birth. The Mongolian is an arrested infant newly born. And so forth. All this is as respects form; but whence colour? This might be supposed to have depended on climatal agencies only; but it has been shewn by overpowering evidence to be independent of these. In further considering the matter, we are met by the very remarkable fact that colour is deepest in the least perfectly developed type, next in the Malay, next in the American, next in the Mongolian, the very order in which the degrees of development are ranged. May not colour, then, depend upon development also? We do not, indeed, see that a Caucasian fetus at the stage which the African represents is anything like black; neither is a Caucasian child yellow, like the Mongolian. There may, nevertheless, be a character of skin at a certain stage of development which is predisposed to a particular colour when it is presented as the envelope of a mature being. Development being arrested at so immature a stage in the case of the Negro, the skin may take on the colour as an unavoidable consequence of its imperfect organization. It is favourable to this view, that Negro infants are not deeply black at first, but only acquire the full colour tint after exposure for some time to the atmosphere. Another consideration in its favour is that there is a likelihood of peculiarities of form and colour, since they are so coincident, depending on one set of phenomena. If it be admitted as true, there can be no difficulty in accounting for all the varieties of mankind. They are simply the result of so many advances and retrogressions in the developing power of the human mothers, these advances and retrogressions being, as we have formerly seen, the immediate effect of external conditions in nutrition, hardship, &c., and also, perhaps, to some extent, of the suitableness and unsuitableness of marriages, for it is found that parents too nearly related tend to produce offspring of the Mongolian type,--that is, persons who in maturity still are a kind of children. According to this view, the greater part of the human race must be considered as having lapsed or declined from the original type. In the Caucasian or Indo-European family alone has the primitive organization been improved upon. The Mongolian, Malay, American, and Negro, comprehending perhaps five-sixths of mankind, are degenerate. Strange that the great plan should admit of failures and aberrations of such portentuous magnitude! But pause and reflect; take time into consideration: the past history of mankind may be, to what is to come, but as a day. Look at the progress even now making over the barbaric parts of the earth by the best examples of the Caucasian type, promising not only to fill up the waste places, but to supersede the imperfect nations already existing. Who can tell what progress may be made, even in a single century, towards reversing the proportions of the perfect and imperfect types? and who can tell but that the time during which the mean types have lasted, long as it appears, may yet be thrown entirely into the shade by the time during which the best types will remain predominant?

--Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the Natural History of Mankind, 1844.

To wit: whites are the most advanced, perfect race, and so they progress in the womb from Negro to Malay to Indian forms, being born sort of Mongoloid, until finally they grow up to be white.

Of course, it's probably unfair to describe this as similar to Haeckel's idea, since Haeckel published thirty years after Vestiges' first edition.

Karl Rove must hate America. And freedom.

2008-05-01T15:08:00.006-04:00

Just look:

Rove writes, "Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours." So, wait, now putting prisoners in stress positions is torture?

No, then it was torture. Just like how when Japanese waterboarded American soldiers in World War II, then it was torture. But not now. Now it's being done by Americans, not to Americans, and therefore it's not torture, because everyone knows Americans don't torture.

Either that or 9/11 changed everything, including what torture is. I expect either rationale will work for the sociopaths who support this stuff.

Via Matt Yglesias.

Their last name isn't even spelled the same!

2008-04-30T20:03:00.004-04:00

Well, we knew that Fox can't distinguish between two black people, and now we find out that they can't even distinguish between two people with similar last names.

When discussing that Clinton has challenged Obama to what she styled a "Lincoln/Douglas" debate, Fox flashed an image on the screen to illustrate (in a Lord Privy Seal kinda manner). On the right-hand side was Abraham Lincoln. On the left-hand side was... Frederick Douglass.

Granted, it's hard to tell Stephen Douglas and Frederick Douglass apart. One was an ardent supporter of slavery who claimed that blacks were inferior to whites and that the Declaration of Independence's statement "all men are created equal" did not apply to them, whereas the other was a leading abolitionist and one-time vice-presidential candidate for the Equal Rights Party. But they're both dead.

Via This Modern World, which has a screen capture if you don't want to watch the video clip at Huffington Post.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2008-04-29T17:21:00.002-04:00

Just as creationists have attempted to redefine science and evolution to mean "creationism", so now we have anti-choice politicians redefining what "consent" means:

Missouri doctors would be forced to give women seeking an abortion pertinent information 24 hours before the procedure if a bill that passed through the state House on Monday also gains Senate approval.

The bill also would require doctors to offer a woman the opportunity to view an ultrasound of the fetus and feel the fetus' heartbeat without cost to her. In addition, it would make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion and would steepen criminal penalties for any criminal conduct associated with the coercion of an abortion.

Coercing women not to get an abortion, however, is not only perfectly fine but the raison d'être of this bill. At least this one doesn't force women to pay for the ultrasound themselves, unlike some others. The article also says later that the woman has the option of refusing the information, although that doesn't justify this.

Rep. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, said he proposed the bill to allow for a more informed decision-making process regarding abortion. Onder said he thinks the bill would "give the state one of the stronger informed consent laws in the country."

Because all those stupid sluts who want an abortion just have no idea what they're doing, right? They don't know that there's an embryo inside them until you show them an ultrasound of it.

Now, here's where the redefining consent comes in--if you look at the text of the bill, they say that abortions can only be performed if the woman has given her "voluntary and informed consent, given freely and without coercion." Sure, but then they proceed to redefine what that means, so that "consent given freely and without coercion" means "saying yes even after being coerced not to":

Consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed and given freely and without coercion, if and only if, at least twenty-four hours prior to the abortion:

There follows a long list of requirements, including such banalities as this:

(2) The licensed physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed materials provided by the department or an informational video provided by the department, which describes the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from conception to full term, including color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments. Such descriptions shall include information about brain and heart functions, the presence of external members and internal organs during the applicable stages of development and information on when the unborn child is viable;

You know, for a group that generally foams at the mouth about the need to protect the sanctity of the dictionary when it comes to preventing gays from marrying, conservatives seem pretty willing to rob other words of any meaning whatsoever.

Via I Blame the Patriarchy.

Behold, the next Uri Geller!

2008-04-29T17:08:00.001-04:00

Via the JREF.

Looks like we'll have to change the rules for Nevinyrral's Disk

2008-04-29T14:48:00.004-04:00

Well. Larry Niven is apparently bugfuck insane.

Now a fixture at Department of Homeland Security science and technology conferences, SIGMA is a loosely affiliated group of science fiction writers who are offering pro bono advice to anyone in government who want their thoughts on how to protect the nation.

The group has the ear of Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Jay Cohen, head of the science and technology directorate, who has said he likes their unconventional thinking. Members of the group recently offered a rambling, sometimes strident string of ideas at a panel discussion promoting the group at the DHS science and technology conference.

...

Niven said a good way to help hospitals stem financial losses is to spread rumors in Spanish within the Latino community that emergency rooms are killing patients in order to harvest their organs for transplants.

"The problem [of hospitals going broke] is hugely exaggerated by illegal aliens who aren't going to pay for anything anyway," Niven said.

Let's not forget that his fears are completely unfounded--undocumented immigrants don't receive a disproportionate amount of health care, and they do pay taxes into the system. But also, perhaps Niven is completely unaware that there are Spanish-speaking citizens of the U.S. who might also hear about these rumors? Wait, no. To Niven and his ilk, that's the whole point; despite directing all their rants towards "illegal aliens", they really mean that they just don't want any Latinos in the country at all.

And of course he's saying that he wants us to spread rumors that we're killing patients in order to drive away Latinos so that they'll die somewhere else. In short, he wants to kill Latinos without actually doing anything--although he might take up the direct approach later if the indirect way of killing them isn't effective enough.

What does any of this have to do with protecting the nation anyways? Oh no, we must kill off the sick and elderly before they topple our military and take over the Pentagon!

Via Sadly, No!

Your ironic statement of the year

2008-04-28T20:01:00.002-04:00

Today is Confederate Memorial Day, commemorating the surrender of General Joseph Johnston to General William Sherman. Mostly it's an occasion to remember the people who died in the Civil War, which is fine.

Up to a point:

"That's important because we are where we are today. We have the rights and freedoms that we do because our ancestors were willing to stand up and fight for what they thought was correct, and for the right of us to decide our own futures," said Adele Whitlock, president of the Robert E. Lee chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Yes, that's right. The Confederacy was fighting for rights, freedoms, and the right to decide your futures. Specifically, the right to keep slaves, the freedom to do so without Northerners butting in, and the right to decide not only your future, but also the future of four million black people, who couldn't be trusted to do that for themselves.

I know that "they died to give us freedom" is the knee-jerk eulogy for any deceased soldier, but can't these people at least think about it for a second first?

A conservative bigot who hates Arabs? Shock!

2008-04-28T19:20:00.001-04:00

The New York Times has a fairly lengthy article up today that highlights the disgusting religious bigotry of the conservative movement after 9/11. Oh, of course they don't phrase it that way, and in fact rely on the hate-mongers as putrid "balance" in this story of how a bunch of bigots forced a woman out of her job as principal of an Arabic school that she founded. The reason they did so is because, in their vapid and xenophobic minds, anyone who would learn Arabic is an Arab, who is a Muslim, who is a terrorist (and never you mind that the school was named after a Lebanese Christian pacifist).

In newspaper articles and Internet postings, on television and talk radio, Ms. Almontaser was branded a "radical," a "jihadist" and a "9/11 denier." She stood accused of harboring unpatriotic leanings and of secretly planning to proselytize her students. Despite Ms. Almontaser's longstanding reputation as a Muslim moderate, her critics quickly succeeded in recasting her image.

The conflict tapped into a well of post-9/11 anxieties. But Ms. Almontaser's downfall was not merely the result of a spontaneous outcry by concerned parents and neighborhood activists. It was also the work of a growing and organized movement to stop Muslim citizens who are seeking an expanded role in American public life. The fight against the school, participants in the effort say, was only an early skirmish in a broader, national struggle.

"It's a battle that's really just begun," said Daniel Pipes, who directs a conservative research group, the Middle East Forum, and helped lead the charge against Ms. Almontaser and the school.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, critics of radical Islam focused largely on terrorism, scrutinizing Muslim-American charities or asserting links between Muslim organizations and violent groups like Hamas. But as the authorities have stepped up the war on terror, those critics have shifted their gaze to a new frontier, what they describe as law-abiding Muslim-Americans who are imposing their religious values in the public domain.

It's not enough to go after terrorists, now they have to harass and intimidate perfectly law-abiding Muslims who just want to practice freedom of religion. It's like they think that's enshrined in the supreme law of the land, or something!

Mr. Pipes and others reel off a list of examples: Muslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis who have refused to take passengers carrying liquor; municipal pools and a gym at Harvard that have adopted female-only hours to accommodate Muslim women; candidates for office who are suspected of supporting political Islam; and banks that are offering financial products compliant with sharia, the Islamic code of law.

Muslim cabdrivers who refuse to take passengers carrying liquor... well, I agree that's stupid--pretty much as stupid as saying a pharmacist can refuse to give out birth control because they're Christian. But I suspect Pipes wouldn't agree. Nor would he give a damn about political candidates who support political Christians, like Dobson or Hagee, nor would he care if an institution went out of its way to accommodate Christians. He also probably wouldn't recognize that it is due to Christians demanding accommodations for their religion that set the precedent that allows Muslims to do so, as well. But that's because he's a misanthropic twit.

Muslim leaders, academics and others see the drive against the school as the latest in a series of discriminatory attacks intended to distort the truth and play on Americans' fear of terrorism. They say the campaign is also part of a wider effort to silence critics of Washington's policy on Israel and the Middle East.

"This is a political, ideological agenda," said John Esposito, a professor of international affairs and Islamic studies at Georgetown University who has been a focus of Mr. Pipes's scrutiny. "It's an agenda to paint Islam, not just extremists, as a major problem."

That portrait, Muslim and Arab advocates contend, is rife with a bias that would never be tolerated were it directed at other ethnic or religious groups. And if Ms. Almontaser's story is any indication, they say, the message of her critics wields great power.

Of course. Because these people don't see any difference between "Islam" and "extremists".

Another update

2008-04-27T20:11:00.003-04:00

This post at Pam's House Blend has a first-hand account of the rallies outside Mount Si High School--the poster was with the supporters of the gay students, of course. The post mostly just describes what their actions were throughout the day (silent support, along with flag-waving and sign-holding), but she mentioned some of how Hutcherson's mob was behaving, which just confirms my fears.

There were protesters yelling at students--yes, you heard that right--grown adults yelling intimidations at children. There were insulting and offensive signs, and political messages that probably many of the students either didn't care about or didn't even understand.

I don't have much to add to that... I mean, adults are out there yelling at high school students because the kids have ideas that the adults don't like. I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised, though--these are Christians, after all. Their theology is based on intimidating people into doing what they say.

(By the way, one of commenters there has a link to a YouTube video of the protests. I particularly like the sign one person had that said "Is Hutcherson Another Ted Haggard & Larry Craig?" And of course we have Hutcherson himself babbling that "They can change, so it's a choice." Sure, Ken--so howsabout you change and be gay so that everyone will know it's possible?)