Dammit New York!

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.
Read more...

Zombie racist of the day

(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.

Read more...

Return of denialism kills

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.

Read more...

You wouldn't think this would be constitutional

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.
Read more...

Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Goldilocks Origin Myth Edition

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.
Read more...

I wish I'd checked my e-mail sooner

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.
Read more...

Interesting

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.

Read more...

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

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.
Read more...

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

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.
Read more...

Denialism kills

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.

Read more...