From Pharyngula, this story about a Queensland teenager who performed her own abortion. Now she is facing seven years in prison and has been personally attacked, her home firebombed.
This is something that abortion opponents rarely consider. Aside from do-it-yourself abortions, what abortion laws would lead to generally is young women in prison. And the anti-abortion movement means to impose these penalties in all cases including rape and incest. (Thanks Radioactive Quill for the link) Not only that, but Personhood Florida also wants to outlaw oral contraceptives. They assassinate doctors inside churches. They firebomb houses in Quesnsland. They push their agenda through intimidation and violence. They punish the victims of rape. They oppose aborting anencephalic fetuses. Everywhere they try to limit, restrict, criminalize, harass, intimidate, attack. Vocal opponents of abortion rights support domestic terrorism and are enemies of women's rights.
This isn't a choice issue. Women don't have the right to choose an abortion the same way I have a right to buy the cheapest pair of tube socks from Wal-Mart. It's a personal freedom issue. I can't take away someone's reproductive health rights, and you can't, and the government certainly cannot.
Pam Gellar: Small-Minded Hatred
So, thanks to an e-mail discussion among some friends and family members I got to see an e-mail version of this article by Pam Gellar. The Blogspot version of the article doesn't convey the degree of fanatical shrieking as well as the e-mail did, which was full of underlining, font size changes and font color changes, not to mention the exclamation points in the title, used apparently without an appreciation of the irony.
By e-mail, I weighed in with my $0.02:
She is willing to toss in everything, including the kitchen sink.
Anyway, it all sounds so awful! Who's going to come along to change all this?
What do you mean, why? You just spelled out why we need radical change! Sure, your criticisms of America were largely overblown and inaccurate, but you scared me enough to convince me that we need change!
But seriously, yes, change is coming. During all of Pam Gellar's lifetime, no matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won the election, the one thing she could count on was a white guy in the White House. Change is coming, Pam. Get used to it. And lay off the Hitler comparisons, you're killing rational debate and the democracy that depends on it.
By e-mail, I weighed in with my $0.02:
[I agree that] this is crazy person talk that isn't worth responding to. Except that I can't really let the Nazi comparison pass without comment, since it is so poisonous.I'd like to take a moment to respond to Gellar's article in even more detail here. Other than an accusation that the bank bailout was two trillion instead of 750 billion (without citation) and some vague scary talk about the economic stimulus and health care, Gellar make NO POLICY COMPLAINTS about the Obama administration. Seriously. She has "never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now" but she can't list any action taken by Obama that she disagrees with.
Pam Geller's recounting of Nazi Germany's history is seriously screwy. Hitler didn't accomplish what he did because the media liked him, or because he was charismatic, or because of his economic policies. These things helped him, but they could also be said of almost any politician. Hitler was able to whip his countrymen into a racist, jingoistic fury by portraying Germans as superior and other groups as inferior and evil. Comparisons between Hitler and Obama are particularly offensive considering that if Obama had lived in Hitler's Germany he would have likely been murdered or forcibly sterilized.
Comparing Obama to Hitler is hate speech. Before I take anything Pam Gellar says seriously she'll have to leave the racist rhetoric behind.
Also, how dare the right wing talk about stifling dissent? We're six years into a war that was waged on false pretenses. When people from any part of the political spectrum pointed out how thin or inconsistent the case for war was they were called a traitor and accused of giving aid and comfort to terrorists.
On a second point, Daschle didn't say, "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/ apr/03/chain-email/daschle- didnt-say-seniors-seniors- should-accept-ra/
She is willing to toss in everything, including the kitchen sink.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?1929 x 10?!?! That's almost (*gasp*!) 19,290!!!!11oneone
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago? We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke... (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
Anyway, it all sounds so awful! Who's going to come along to change all this?
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word:? Change...radical change. Why?
What do you mean, why? You just spelled out why we need radical change! Sure, your criticisms of America were largely overblown and inaccurate, but you scared me enough to convince me that we need change!
Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same Nation of Freedom, again.No, we don't want that kind of change!
But seriously, yes, change is coming. During all of Pam Gellar's lifetime, no matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won the election, the one thing she could count on was a white guy in the White House. Change is coming, Pam. Get used to it. And lay off the Hitler comparisons, you're killing rational debate and the democracy that depends on it.
Facts About Healthcare
Writing about David Sirota's comment on the trigger option made me thing about something. I didn't know that a trigger is a method of killing a bill. This is well known inside the Washington elite, but probably poorly understood in the country as a whole. This got me to thinking, how many other things about this issue have I been poorly informed about? I pay a lot of attention, but I'm not willing to read the 1000-page House bill. Even if I did, I'm not a medical or legal expert and there are likely things that I might have a tough time coming up with the correct interpretation.
The media coverage on the health care has focused on mainly superficialities: who's winning, who's losing, who's screaming loudest. Where are the in-depth newspaper and magazine articles that concisely and accurately explain what the various proposals are actually going to mean to a person like me? What are the important figures that are being debated? What's the size of the proposed hardship exemption?
Why can't newspapers and TV stations hire teams of doctors and lawyers without partisan bias (or as a balanced team) to read the bills and tell the reporters what I need to know about the proposals? It's easy to point a camera at people shouting at town halls, harder to read a 1000-page bill and lift the essentials out of it for your readers. But just because it's hard doesn't make it an excuse for shoddy journalism.
I understand that print journalism has taken quite a few hits recently, which unfortunately leaves TV to dominate the coverage. Olbermann and Maddow do their best, but their format doesn't lend itself to the type of in-depth coverage I'm looking for. They can interview experts and give them five or ten minutes to make a case, but I'm more interested in getting the numbers, in black and white, impartially.
The media coverage on the health care has focused on mainly superficialities: who's winning, who's losing, who's screaming loudest. Where are the in-depth newspaper and magazine articles that concisely and accurately explain what the various proposals are actually going to mean to a person like me? What are the important figures that are being debated? What's the size of the proposed hardship exemption?
Why can't newspapers and TV stations hire teams of doctors and lawyers without partisan bias (or as a balanced team) to read the bills and tell the reporters what I need to know about the proposals? It's easy to point a camera at people shouting at town halls, harder to read a 1000-page bill and lift the essentials out of it for your readers. But just because it's hard doesn't make it an excuse for shoddy journalism.
I understand that print journalism has taken quite a few hits recently, which unfortunately leaves TV to dominate the coverage. Olbermann and Maddow do their best, but their format doesn't lend itself to the type of in-depth coverage I'm looking for. They can interview experts and give them five or ten minutes to make a case, but I'm more interested in getting the numbers, in black and white, impartially.
"Trigger Mechanism" a Joke
Tonight Rachel Maddow talked to guest David Sirota about the trigger mechanism, the latest meme to bubble up from the depths of the health care debate. Sirota in his column and on the Rachel Maddow Show clarified for me exactly what a trigger mechanism actually is: it's a way to kill a bill while pretending that you're not killing a bill. For example, the prescription drug bill included a trigger mechanism that ostensibly would have allowed Americans to buy prescription drugs from overseas once the HHS secretary judged them to be "safe". The problem is that no HHS secretary has pulled the trigger. Once a trigger gets put into place, the corporacy just needs to make sure that the trigger doesn't get pulled, by bribing or intimidating bureaucrats. The trigger mechanism will appeal to obstructionist Democrats who want to appear to their constituents that they are in favor of reform, while not endangering industry contributions.
As much as 'trigger mechanism' is actually a way of killing a proposal while looking like you're in favor of it, it's funny that conservatives still oppose it.
As much as 'trigger mechanism' is actually a way of killing a proposal while looking like you're in favor of it, it's funny that conservatives still oppose it.
"YOU LIE!" (Updated)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) has no respect.
Update:
Wilson issued a non-apology apology, stating that his outburst was spontaneous. However he stood by his assertion that Obama was in fact lying. At a cabinet meeting today Obama said that he accepted Wilson's "unequivocal" apology. I beg to disagree, Mr. President. Representative Wilson's apology was not unequivocal, he stands by his nonsense statement, and you should not accept an apology which is neither unequivocal nor truly an apology.
Tonight Keith Olbermann issued a Special Comment wherein he explains that the problem with Rep. Wilson's outburst is not its incivility but rather its stupidity. Indeed the GOP seems to have reached a point where being wrong - not just a little bit wrong, but completely wrong - and being wrong at the top of your voice has been elevated to a virtue, a strategy, and a way of being.
The bedrock of democracy is honest debate, but without honesty debate just devolves into a shouting match. We saw it during the 2008 campaign, we saw it at the tea parties, we saw it during the August town halls, and now we're seeing it on the floor of Congress. I'm open to an honest, earnest, even strident debate with the other side but how is that possible when the other side only has distortions, lies, and anger to offer?
Update:
Wilson issued a non-apology apology, stating that his outburst was spontaneous. However he stood by his assertion that Obama was in fact lying. At a cabinet meeting today Obama said that he accepted Wilson's "unequivocal" apology. I beg to disagree, Mr. President. Representative Wilson's apology was not unequivocal, he stands by his nonsense statement, and you should not accept an apology which is neither unequivocal nor truly an apology.
Tonight Keith Olbermann issued a Special Comment wherein he explains that the problem with Rep. Wilson's outburst is not its incivility but rather its stupidity. Indeed the GOP seems to have reached a point where being wrong - not just a little bit wrong, but completely wrong - and being wrong at the top of your voice has been elevated to a virtue, a strategy, and a way of being.
The bedrock of democracy is honest debate, but without honesty debate just devolves into a shouting match. We saw it during the 2008 campaign, we saw it at the tea parties, we saw it during the August town halls, and now we're seeing it on the floor of Congress. I'm open to an honest, earnest, even strident debate with the other side but how is that possible when the other side only has distortions, lies, and anger to offer?
We'll know you are Christians how, again?
Opposition to Health-Care Reform Revives Christian Right
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ -Matthew 25 NIV
Criminalizing Poverty
Via the AP, we get more details about the Max Baucus health care "plan" that his Gang of Six have been working on.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
I'm Reading: Doubting Darwin? by Sahotra Sarkar
“Sahotra Sarkar lucidly and comprehensively dismantles Intelligent Design creationism in the most powerful way: by explaining the biology. This book summarizes the theory and philosophy of evolution with depth and insight, and in a way that sharply refutes the objections of creationism.”
–P. Z. Myers, PhD, University of Minnesota, Morris, and author of Pharyngula Blog
PZ Myers' quote appears on the back cover of Doubting Darwin. This is a concise, somewhat technical book. I recommend it for readers who have at least a little knowledge of science already. Sarkar cogently and fearlessly wades into controversial waters, taking Behe, Dembski and their ID colleagues to task for their dishonesty, inconsistency, and bad science.
In the first half of the book Sarkar explains and illuminates the theory of evolution and how is has been challenged since Darwin and Wallace first introduced it. Sarkar explains how several serious scientific objections to evolution have been raised in the past and have been given their fair airing. In some cases the criticism was ultimately disproven and rejected, but in others the criticism has helped shape and expand the theory. The theory of evolution today differs in many important respects from Darwin's original idea, so much so that to call it "Darwinism" may be little more than a distracting and pejorative term when used in certain contexts. For example Darwin knew nothing about the work of his contemporary Gregor Mendel whose work on pea plants laid the foundation for modern genetics.
The second half of the book takes on specific arguments that have emerged from the ID movement. The arguments from irreducible complexity, teleology, information theory and others are confronted and shown to be no serious threat to evolutionary theory. Sarkar also discusses the anthropic principle and methodological and metaphysical naturalism.
Intelligent Design is little more than old-fashioned Creationism, dressed up in a lab coat and goggles. It attempts to revive the argument from teleology but has less force and honesty today than it did when Paley made the argument originally. What Darwin's theory did was essentially to dispense with the design argument. The ID proponents seem to be trying to call for a do-over by introducing more modern examples into the argument (like the bacterial flagellum), but these new examples do little to rescue the argument.
This week I'm lecturing my students on evolution. I will probably not talk very extensively about the ID arguments, but I will bring them up as an example of how scientists take new proposals seriously, and toss them out when they have no merit.
The Politics of the Possible
So just today Max Baucus' finance comittee's health care reform plan is out. It's as disappointing as I expected it to be. It includes no public insurance option. The centerpiece of the Baucus plan is a tax on the most expensive insurance plans. It's hard to tell from the kos coverage or the Times article, but basically I think the government will guarantee premium payments to insurance companies for low-income Americans. Under the Baucus plan health insurance will be extended to more people, and it will be regulated slightly more than it is now, imposing caps on deductibles and co-payments. This bill looks exactly like the industry windfall I was afraid it would be. We'll get slightly more people covered, under slightly tighter regulation, at a massive increase in cost.
It's hard to tell where Obama stands on all of this right now. Lately he's been doing head-fakes, preferring to talk about how the current system is broken as opposed to how he'd like to fix it. I mentioned how disappointed I am with Obama, and I'm not alone. But then I listened to this audio essay, which I highly recommend. Go listen to it. Bill Reznik provides a little perspective on just how entrenched corporate interests have become in this country.
Paul Krugman points out the same thing and he wishes he had Nixon to negotiate with instead of Chuck Grassley. The fact is that over the last 30 years America has been a corporacy. No politician can stay in power or advance any agenda without first gathering support from powerful corporations. We've come to think of wealthy lobbyists handing millions of dollars directly to politicians as normal instead of the rank bribery that it is. The power of the people to affect change through elections is almost completely buried beneath the power of corporate campaign contributions.
In any event, Krugman and Reznik have given me a little perspective. It may not be possible for Obama to pursue an openly progressive agenda, to actually do things right away that really help people like guarantee the right to health care. But that doesn't mean that progressives can give him a break. If we're to win "years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system" as Krugman puts it, we'll have to push hard at every opportunity.
What do you think? Has Obama given in to a Clintonite mindset, triangulating and giving up before he starts? Or is he deftly positioning himself for as much reform as he can possibly get, given the state of the American corporacy? Let me know in the comments.
It's hard to tell where Obama stands on all of this right now. Lately he's been doing head-fakes, preferring to talk about how the current system is broken as opposed to how he'd like to fix it. I mentioned how disappointed I am with Obama, and I'm not alone. But then I listened to this audio essay, which I highly recommend. Go listen to it. Bill Reznik provides a little perspective on just how entrenched corporate interests have become in this country.
Paul Krugman points out the same thing and he wishes he had Nixon to negotiate with instead of Chuck Grassley. The fact is that over the last 30 years America has been a corporacy. No politician can stay in power or advance any agenda without first gathering support from powerful corporations. We've come to think of wealthy lobbyists handing millions of dollars directly to politicians as normal instead of the rank bribery that it is. The power of the people to affect change through elections is almost completely buried beneath the power of corporate campaign contributions.
In any event, Krugman and Reznik have given me a little perspective. It may not be possible for Obama to pursue an openly progressive agenda, to actually do things right away that really help people like guarantee the right to health care. But that doesn't mean that progressives can give him a break. If we're to win "years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system" as Krugman puts it, we'll have to push hard at every opportunity.
What do you think? Has Obama given in to a Clintonite mindset, triangulating and giving up before he starts? Or is he deftly positioning himself for as much reform as he can possibly get, given the state of the American corporacy? Let me know in the comments.
The Most Offensive Frakkin Thing I've Seen in a While
I've been having a flame war on my facebook status for a couple of days now. Just today the bloke I've been arguing with posts this over-the-top propaganda image as his profile picture. That's right, this douchebag is now representing himself with an image of Obama-as-Nazi.
A little bit of history: during the Third Reich Hitler regarded Africans and African-Germans as a threat to Aryan racial purity. He accused the Jews of bringing Africans to Germany intentionally in order to dilute white bloodlines. The Gestapo forcibly sterilized many of them. "Mulattoes" were particularly offensive to the Nazi party, a symbol of undesirable racial mixing.
How does somebody make this comparison with a straight face? Obama would likely have been murdered or sterilized if he lived in Hitler's Germany. I'd like to propose a new corollary to Godwin's Law: anybody who posts an image of Obama-as-Hitler, except to point out how ridiculous or offensive it is, is an asshole.
A little bit of history: during the Third Reich Hitler regarded Africans and African-Germans as a threat to Aryan racial purity. He accused the Jews of bringing Africans to Germany intentionally in order to dilute white bloodlines. The Gestapo forcibly sterilized many of them. "Mulattoes" were particularly offensive to the Nazi party, a symbol of undesirable racial mixing.
How does somebody make this comparison with a straight face? Obama would likely have been murdered or sterilized if he lived in Hitler's Germany. I'd like to propose a new corollary to Godwin's Law: anybody who posts an image of Obama-as-Hitler, except to point out how ridiculous or offensive it is, is an asshole.
Public Option More Popular than Obama
The public option: 58 in favor 34 oppose 8 undecided
Obama: 52 favorable 43 unfavorable 5 unsure
Why is this? The public option helps sick people. Obama's just the president. (Turn it around Mr. President!)
By the way, all of Obama's slipping numbers lately are from Independents and Democrats. The Republicans already hated him as much as they could. Pundits who say that Obama's slipping numbers are a signal for him to move to the right are talking nonsense.
Obama: 52 favorable 43 unfavorable 5 unsure
Why is this? The public option helps sick people. Obama's just the president. (Turn it around Mr. President!)
By the way, all of Obama's slipping numbers lately are from Independents and Democrats. The Republicans already hated him as much as they could. Pundits who say that Obama's slipping numbers are a signal for him to move to the right are talking nonsense.
Small-Town Cops Shoot Up Courtroom
You've got to check out this AP story about the tiny town of Jericho, Arkansas. What do you do when you're a small-town police department that's unable to pay the loans on your police cruisers? Set up a permanent speed trap in the center of town and nab motorists who don't slow down to the town's depressed speed limit quickly enough for $150 each.
What do you do when the town's fire chief shows up in court to complain to the judge about the speed trap? Shoot him. Since the shooing, the police force has been disbanded, the city hall shut down, and the county sheriffs are looking for where all the cash from the traffic fines disappeared to.
Certainly there are a lot of well-trained professional officers out there, but some of them are just thugs with badges.
What do you do when the town's fire chief shows up in court to complain to the judge about the speed trap? Shoot him. Since the shooing, the police force has been disbanded, the city hall shut down, and the county sheriffs are looking for where all the cash from the traffic fines disappeared to.
Certainly there are a lot of well-trained professional officers out there, but some of them are just thugs with badges.
Town Hall Protesters Hate on Disabled Woman
Featured on Countdown tonight, a crowd of protesters heckled and booed a woman who was trying to frame her question by relating her medical and financial struggles. "The copay for one of my medications is $389 every two weeks" the woman said as idiots behind her shouted, "What's your question?"
Later one of the protesters said, "I don't know how a handicapped woman in a wheelchair has more rights than I do."
For a long time now the town hall protesters have shown a lack of civility and respect for honest discussion and the democratic process. Now they've reached a new low, revealing a depressing and infuriating lack of humanity. Clearly they don't give a shit about how much suffering their fellow Americans have to endure as long as their ideological purity is maintained. Anything the government might actually do to make life easier for its citizens is called as socialism or even tyranny.
Can we please stop listening to the stupid people now?
Later one of the protesters said, "I don't know how a handicapped woman in a wheelchair has more rights than I do."
For a long time now the town hall protesters have shown a lack of civility and respect for honest discussion and the democratic process. Now they've reached a new low, revealing a depressing and infuriating lack of humanity. Clearly they don't give a shit about how much suffering their fellow Americans have to endure as long as their ideological purity is maintained. Anything the government might actually do to make life easier for its citizens is called as socialism or even tyranny.
Can we please stop listening to the stupid people now?
Here Comes Science!
Just now via Pharyngula I learned about the new They Might Be Giants album, Science is Real. This looks awesome, I must have it for my students (and for me). Fun, catchy music about science and it includes a DVD with videos for all the songs.
Obama Should Stop Chasing Republican Votes
Next week President Obama plans to give a speech to a joint session of Congress on health care reform. 538.com's Nate Silver expects that this may be the biggest moment of Obama's presidency, barring some unforeseen crisis in the future. He may be right. Obama's political future may very well depend on how well he is able to gather votes to pass a health care bill.
The public option remains popular among the public. However, there has been some suggestions by David Axelrod and others that Obama's speech is likely to outline a plan for reform that does not necessarily include a public option. This would be a mistake, particularly if the final bill includes an individual mandate without a public option. This would be a terrible result, forcing people into private plans or co-ops that are unlikely to be large enough to have significant bargaining power with healthcare providers.
Obama's mistake from the beginning has been to seek a "bipartisan" solution to this legislative puzzle. Time and time again the Republicans have made it clear that they will not vote for any bill, no matter how many concessions it contains. We should be talking about compromise in the sense of getting together the progressive and the Blue Dog wings of the Democratic party. Progressives also have the option of running strong primary challengers against Blue Dogs in the next election, and that fact should not be left out of the negotiation process. Max Baucus has a 'gang of six' that includes three Democrats and three Republicans. The 'gang of six' should have included three liberals and three Blue Dogs, since these are the only two parties that matter right now.
The strength of the Blue Dog caucus because of triangulation. I blame Bill Clinton.
The best thing Obama could say at his speech next week is, "on the issue of health care reform, several Republicans and a few Democrats have not been negotiating in good faith. That's okay. We can get this thing done without them. And the voters can let them know what they think about that at the next election."
But it doesn't seem like Obama's ready to play hardball.
The public option remains popular among the public. However, there has been some suggestions by David Axelrod and others that Obama's speech is likely to outline a plan for reform that does not necessarily include a public option. This would be a mistake, particularly if the final bill includes an individual mandate without a public option. This would be a terrible result, forcing people into private plans or co-ops that are unlikely to be large enough to have significant bargaining power with healthcare providers.
Obama's mistake from the beginning has been to seek a "bipartisan" solution to this legislative puzzle. Time and time again the Republicans have made it clear that they will not vote for any bill, no matter how many concessions it contains. We should be talking about compromise in the sense of getting together the progressive and the Blue Dog wings of the Democratic party. Progressives also have the option of running strong primary challengers against Blue Dogs in the next election, and that fact should not be left out of the negotiation process. Max Baucus has a 'gang of six' that includes three Democrats and three Republicans. The 'gang of six' should have included three liberals and three Blue Dogs, since these are the only two parties that matter right now.
The strength of the Blue Dog caucus because of triangulation. I blame Bill Clinton.
The best thing Obama could say at his speech next week is, "on the issue of health care reform, several Republicans and a few Democrats have not been negotiating in good faith. That's okay. We can get this thing done without them. And the voters can let them know what they think about that at the next election."
But it doesn't seem like Obama's ready to play hardball.
Jessica's Law
In 2005 Florida passed the Jessica Lunsford Act after the brutal rape and murder of a white girl by 47-year-old John Couey. Despite the fact that existing law was sufficient to give John Couey the death penalty in this case, legislatures around the country have decided that existing laws against sex offenders were not stringent enough, and many states have passed the JLA or versions of it.
What the Act primarily does is enforce lifelong monitoring for sex offenders and assign mandatory minimum sentences for lewd and lascivious acts against children under 12 and for sexual battery and rape against young children. I have two problems with this law. First, 'sex offender' may be too broadly defined, including acts such as urinating outside or consenual sex with a minor in some cases. It seems unfair to me to condemn a homeless person to a lifetime of electronic monitoring because they don't own a home with a bathroom to pee in.
Second, mandatory minimum sentences tie judges' hands. The whole point of having the system of judges, juries and trials is that not every circumstance can be adequately anticipated by legislation, hence judges have (or should have, they increasingly have less) the power to interpret the law in the light of the facts of any particular case.
In any event, the upshot of all of this is that, in order to take a job where I'll be tutoring through the public school system, I have to go downtown on a weekday during a very narrow range of business hours (8:30-12 and 2-4, Monday through Friday) and pay over 80 bucks to get fingerprinted and run a criminal background check.
John Couey wasn't a certified teacher, he never applied to work at a day care or tutoring company or as a teacher's aide. He worked at a freaking truck stop and grabbed a child out of her own home at 3am and because of that I have to pay 80 freaking bucks? I'm a broke young professional just out of college who is working hard to scrape together rent on a part-time teacher's pay. We have a shortage of good teachers in this state. Why am I and every other educator in this state penalized for the actions of one monster? Next time the FL legislature decides to throw a hissy fit over sex offenders, could they at least pay for the fingerprints themselves?
What the Act primarily does is enforce lifelong monitoring for sex offenders and assign mandatory minimum sentences for lewd and lascivious acts against children under 12 and for sexual battery and rape against young children. I have two problems with this law. First, 'sex offender' may be too broadly defined, including acts such as urinating outside or consenual sex with a minor in some cases. It seems unfair to me to condemn a homeless person to a lifetime of electronic monitoring because they don't own a home with a bathroom to pee in.
Second, mandatory minimum sentences tie judges' hands. The whole point of having the system of judges, juries and trials is that not every circumstance can be adequately anticipated by legislation, hence judges have (or should have, they increasingly have less) the power to interpret the law in the light of the facts of any particular case.
In any event, the upshot of all of this is that, in order to take a job where I'll be tutoring through the public school system, I have to go downtown on a weekday during a very narrow range of business hours (8:30-12 and 2-4, Monday through Friday) and pay over 80 bucks to get fingerprinted and run a criminal background check.
John Couey wasn't a certified teacher, he never applied to work at a day care or tutoring company or as a teacher's aide. He worked at a freaking truck stop and grabbed a child out of her own home at 3am and because of that I have to pay 80 freaking bucks? I'm a broke young professional just out of college who is working hard to scrape together rent on a part-time teacher's pay. We have a shortage of good teachers in this state. Why am I and every other educator in this state penalized for the actions of one monster? Next time the FL legislature decides to throw a hissy fit over sex offenders, could they at least pay for the fingerprints themselves?
Personal News
Now that I've taken a job with a company that does tutoring through federal NCLB funds, I've got three jobs. I'm a part-time teacher, part-time freelance tutor and part-time tutor through a company. My calendar for the next few weeks and months is rapidly filling up, which is not making my girlfriend entirely happy. On the other hand, soon I won't have to be in a perpetual state of fear over paying for rent and groceries.
Meanwhile, at the school my first week went well (I lectured on the scientific method and skepticism) and my second week is looking good (I bought new math books for two of my middle-schoolers. I started using Google Calendar which should help me and my girlfriend keep track of each other's schedules, particularly because mine is so variable. Who knows when I'll find time to sit down and play a game of D&D again?
Meanwhile, at the school my first week went well (I lectured on the scientific method and skepticism) and my second week is looking good (I bought new math books for two of my middle-schoolers. I started using Google Calendar which should help me and my girlfriend keep track of each other's schedules, particularly because mine is so variable. Who knows when I'll find time to sit down and play a game of D&D again?
Disappointed and Disillusioned with Obama
Paul Krugman's op-ed from ten days ago describes my feelings about Obama fairly well. Obama seems to be stuck in a fantasy where some sort of post-partisan middle ground that he can stand on actually exists. For the past couple weeks now Obama's (and the Democrats in Congress's) popularity numbers have been taking a nose dive (although from a very high place so his numbers are still very high overall).
When Obama makes concessions to conservatives it gains him nothing - they aren't going to support him no matter what he does, and half of them think he wasn't born in the US anyway. These folks are too busy getting excited over the latest fake Kenyan birth certificate to care that Obama is sacrificing his principles in order to win their support.
Krugman also mentions the bank bailout. It seems like a lot of people are confused over the difference between the bank bailout and the stimulus package. Just so everyone's clear the bank bailout was $700B to rescue the financial industry while the economic stimulus package was $700B to help the rest of the economy. I think the bank bailout was too big, and the stimulus too small. The line we were given about the banks was that they were too big to fail, that their failure would have led to much worse problems in the rest of the economy.
Perhaps that was the case at the end of 2008. However even if it was true it should have represented a terrible outcome to everyone. Our entire economy is dependent on the health of a handful of banks? And these banks have to award their executives millions of dollars in bonuses, even when they fail miserably? Obama's unwillingness to take a harder line against bank executives receiving millions was disappointing to me. Also maybe some of those banks should have been broken up into smaller, non-too-big-to-fail companies.
On the bank bailout, on health care, on accountability for torture, and on the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Obama is going to have to start to walk the walk if he expects to hang on to the support of progressives like me. I know that it's not realistic to expect that we'll get everything done right away, but, as Krugman writes, "there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line." Aim big, Mr. President. Don't shy from the fights that need to be fought. Follow the example set by the late Senator Kennedy. That way if you only achieve half of what you wanted to, you'll still have accomplished a lot of positive change. That would be change I can believe in.
When Obama makes concessions to conservatives it gains him nothing - they aren't going to support him no matter what he does, and half of them think he wasn't born in the US anyway. These folks are too busy getting excited over the latest fake Kenyan birth certificate to care that Obama is sacrificing his principles in order to win their support.
Krugman also mentions the bank bailout. It seems like a lot of people are confused over the difference between the bank bailout and the stimulus package. Just so everyone's clear the bank bailout was $700B to rescue the financial industry while the economic stimulus package was $700B to help the rest of the economy. I think the bank bailout was too big, and the stimulus too small. The line we were given about the banks was that they were too big to fail, that their failure would have led to much worse problems in the rest of the economy.
Perhaps that was the case at the end of 2008. However even if it was true it should have represented a terrible outcome to everyone. Our entire economy is dependent on the health of a handful of banks? And these banks have to award their executives millions of dollars in bonuses, even when they fail miserably? Obama's unwillingness to take a harder line against bank executives receiving millions was disappointing to me. Also maybe some of those banks should have been broken up into smaller, non-too-big-to-fail companies.
On the bank bailout, on health care, on accountability for torture, and on the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Obama is going to have to start to walk the walk if he expects to hang on to the support of progressives like me. I know that it's not realistic to expect that we'll get everything done right away, but, as Krugman writes, "there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line." Aim big, Mr. President. Don't shy from the fights that need to be fought. Follow the example set by the late Senator Kennedy. That way if you only achieve half of what you wanted to, you'll still have accomplished a lot of positive change. That would be change I can believe in.
Government Bureaucracy Sometimes Sucks; Corporate Culture Much Worse
This story over at Pandagon says many of the things I've been thinking about the health care debate recently. She talks about recently proposed legislation that would legally limit the amount of time that an airline can force you to sit on a tarmac waiting for your flight to be able to leave. This legislation has been proposed before. The airlines killed it. What's interesting about this story is just how clearly it illustrates corporate culture: they're willing to allow their customers to suffer a lot if it will squeeze just a little bit more profit out.
Take this lesson to the health care debate. All the fictional horror stories that health care opponents are making up about the public option are in fact happening now. They're happening because the corporations that bring you health care care more about their bottom line than they do about you. Government can be annoying and inefficient, but at least their stated goal is not "maximize profit no matter the cost in human misery." A corporation's only responsibility is to the bottom line, and we hardly ever comment on how evil this system is.
Take this lesson to the health care debate. All the fictional horror stories that health care opponents are making up about the public option are in fact happening now. They're happening because the corporations that bring you health care care more about their bottom line than they do about you. Government can be annoying and inefficient, but at least their stated goal is not "maximize profit no matter the cost in human misery." A corporation's only responsibility is to the bottom line, and we hardly ever comment on how evil this system is.
A Million Texans in Tinfoil Cowboy Hats
So, I've asked my readers a couple of times now if anyone knows what sort of 'tyrrany' the teabaggers and wingnuts have been complaining about specifically. Finally, thanks to a blog post over at Think Progress, I get a few answers. Apparently they define tyrrany as:
The part that really gets under my skin is the fact that there's nothing new on this list. Nothing that has been enacted more recently than Medicare back in the 1960s. Suddenly and with vigor a movement arises to oppose... changes that have been in effect for decades.
Are we really supposed to believe that these secessionists actually give a shit about the constitutionality of Social Security? Is any reasonable person fooled by this so-called list of grievances to think that this movement is anything other than a bunch of racists pissed off that they lost the election to a black dude?
- Social Security
- Medicare
- The federal highway system
- Federal currency
- Not being on the gold standard
- Enforcing the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause
- Health care reform
- Federal education spending
- Almost all federal spending
The part that really gets under my skin is the fact that there's nothing new on this list. Nothing that has been enacted more recently than Medicare back in the 1960s. Suddenly and with vigor a movement arises to oppose... changes that have been in effect for decades.
Are we really supposed to believe that these secessionists actually give a shit about the constitutionality of Social Security? Is any reasonable person fooled by this so-called list of grievances to think that this movement is anything other than a bunch of racists pissed off that they lost the election to a black dude?
Teaching Science
Starting this week, I'm teaching a science class at a small private school here in Orlando. My students are middle and high school students of various ages (it's a very small school). This week my students are reading and commenting on a recent Michael Shermer column from Scientific American. In addition to lessons on skepticism, I'll soon be diving into one of the most contentious issues in modern American education: evolution. Depending on how you ask the question, about half of all Americans don't accept evolution. Also, I'm reading Doubting Darwin? just now. So this should be good times. Wish me luck!
Nation's Best Senator Dies
I'm sure everyone's heard the news about Ted Kennedy's death by now. I've been watching and listening to some of the commentaries about him and his life. One thing that stuck me is thinking about his career in the Senate is just how prepared he was, all the time. Ted Kennedy was a man of principle, a man who knew every issue inside and out, and a man who knew the politics of the Senate very well. He knew the meaning of sticking to your guns, and the meaning of compromise - the sort of compromise that brings your opposition on board while not sacrificing your principles.
Ted Kennedy's death is a tragedy, and America won't be the same without him. I do hope, however, that his death may have at least a silver lining. If some of the Democrats in the Senate meditate on Ted Kennedy's life and his career, then I hope that a few of them will be moved to follow his example. I'd like for the Senate Democrats to know their material better, be better prepared for their jobs, understand the political environment better, and do a better job of standing up for ordinary Americans.
Health care was Kennedy's issue for 40 years. In lieu of flowers, let's pass health care reform.
Ted Kennedy's death is a tragedy, and America won't be the same without him. I do hope, however, that his death may have at least a silver lining. If some of the Democrats in the Senate meditate on Ted Kennedy's life and his career, then I hope that a few of them will be moved to follow his example. I'd like for the Senate Democrats to know their material better, be better prepared for their jobs, understand the political environment better, and do a better job of standing up for ordinary Americans.
Health care was Kennedy's issue for 40 years. In lieu of flowers, let's pass health care reform.
Hey Orlando Residents!
Thursday September 17 Christopher Hitchens will be debating Dinesh D'Souza at the UCF Arena. The tickets are free, and I'll be there! For a little perspective on Hitchens, see him passionately defending the right to free speech in the face of violent threats here. If you want to know something about D'Souza you should check out the quotes at the end of this article.
Inadequate Hardware
So, thanks to a generous gift/loan from my girlfriend's stepdad, our household now has two computers. I'm now posting to the Gripping Hand on a desktop computer. When I set this machine up the other day, I was excited to install and play my copy of Team Fortress 2 which I haven't played on PC for over a year owing to not having a computer up to the task of running it. I spent a fair amount of time installing and setting it up in order to find out... I still don't have a computer up to the task of running TF2. So, up until I can save up enough cash to buy a new video card, no game.
I'm Reading: What to Look For in a Classroom
Next week I'm about to start teaching classes part-time at a small private school. One of the things I've been reading in preparation is Alfie Kohn's book What to Look For in a Classroom. It's a collection of essays and articles on various topics, written in the late '80s to early '90s. Kohn writes about classroom discipline, cooperative learning, grading, ADHD, the effects of television, school choice and other topics.
Kohn keeps coming back to the idea of intrinsic rewards versus extrinsic motivations. It seems that the more extrinsic rewards that exist for a particular task, the less intrinsic motivation a student is likely to have. Kohn cites the psychological literature extensively and repeats this point in several of the chapters of the book. The presence of external punishments or rewards warps the student's perception of the school, the teacher, and the task. Positive reinforcement is better than punishment, but either one tends to have the opposite of the intended effect in the long run. In addition, tests, scores, and grades may be counterproductive to learning. Any time spent on the question of how well students are learning is time taken away from actually learning things, and in addition students come to see tests as the whole point of the experience instead of the learning itself.
The other section that really struck me was Kohn's discussion of self-esteem. This book was published in the mid-90s so his assessment of the popular debate may be a little out of date. In any event, Kohn summarizes how both the self-esteem movement of the early '90s as well as its critics are missing the mark. Self-esteem proponents may be targeting internal factors to the exclusion of external ones. How might an authoritarian classroom structure or pointless busywork in class contribute to low self-esteem? Trying to raise someone's self-esteem through mantras or positive praise while ignoring the systemic problems that might exist may be missing the mark. On the other hand, opponents of self-esteem programs seem to think that students do not deserve to have a positive opinion of themselves unless they have already proven their academic or athletic success. These critics sometimes talk about how 'failure is a motivator' while completely ignoring the evidence to the contrary.
It's not a book without flaws, but it has set me to thinking about some fundamentals of being a teacher. How do I nurture students' intrinsic motivation for learning and prevent obsessions about tests and grades? How do I build an environment that encourages students to have a positive self-image that is actually helpful, instead of just encouraging braggarts? And how do I pay attention to these questions while thinking about my subject material at the same time? I imagine that most first-time teachers feel this way, but that's hardly a comfort. I know enough about math and Biology to teach it, but do I know enough about educational and developmental psychology to do it well? We'll see!
Kohn keeps coming back to the idea of intrinsic rewards versus extrinsic motivations. It seems that the more extrinsic rewards that exist for a particular task, the less intrinsic motivation a student is likely to have. Kohn cites the psychological literature extensively and repeats this point in several of the chapters of the book. The presence of external punishments or rewards warps the student's perception of the school, the teacher, and the task. Positive reinforcement is better than punishment, but either one tends to have the opposite of the intended effect in the long run. In addition, tests, scores, and grades may be counterproductive to learning. Any time spent on the question of how well students are learning is time taken away from actually learning things, and in addition students come to see tests as the whole point of the experience instead of the learning itself.
The other section that really struck me was Kohn's discussion of self-esteem. This book was published in the mid-90s so his assessment of the popular debate may be a little out of date. In any event, Kohn summarizes how both the self-esteem movement of the early '90s as well as its critics are missing the mark. Self-esteem proponents may be targeting internal factors to the exclusion of external ones. How might an authoritarian classroom structure or pointless busywork in class contribute to low self-esteem? Trying to raise someone's self-esteem through mantras or positive praise while ignoring the systemic problems that might exist may be missing the mark. On the other hand, opponents of self-esteem programs seem to think that students do not deserve to have a positive opinion of themselves unless they have already proven their academic or athletic success. These critics sometimes talk about how 'failure is a motivator' while completely ignoring the evidence to the contrary.
It's not a book without flaws, but it has set me to thinking about some fundamentals of being a teacher. How do I nurture students' intrinsic motivation for learning and prevent obsessions about tests and grades? How do I build an environment that encourages students to have a positive self-image that is actually helpful, instead of just encouraging braggarts? And how do I pay attention to these questions while thinking about my subject material at the same time? I imagine that most first-time teachers feel this way, but that's hardly a comfort. I know enough about math and Biology to teach it, but do I know enough about educational and developmental psychology to do it well? We'll see!
Only the Christian Right Could Take Down the Family
And that does appear to be what is happening. Alerted to the existence of the secretive group by Jeff Sharlet's book and by the recent media reporting on the Family connections of several Washington politicians caught up in sex scandals, World Magazine has been doing its own reporting on the group. Right-wing politicians participating in sex scandals is nothing new, and would not particularly raise the ire or attention of Christian groups. Indeed Republicans seem to have no innate sense of hypocrisy when it comes to things like sex scandals, particularly when individuals who once called for Bill Clinton's resignation during the Monica Lewinsky scandal do not seem particularly inclined to do so when their own misconduct surfaces.
It is my opinion, having watched how these episodes unfold, that the Republican base does not particularly care whether or not Republican politicians maintain the same standards in their own lives as they advocate. In the book of Romans, Paul maintains that all have sinned and fallen short of grace. This provides a ready-made excuse: the temptations of the flesh are sometimes too much for even the most righteous of men. The only unforgivable sin in their eyes is to be the sort of person who thinks (as I do) that it isn't particularly the job of office-holders to advocate for or uphold a biblical morality. In short, the Republican voters don't care if you cheat, as long as you are still their man and you frame your apology in appropriately religious terms.
So what finally brings the Family to World's attention? It is, of course, the realization that this group does not really follow a mainstream theology at all. Some Christians may not agree with the Family that Jesus brought two messages, one for the common people and a secret message for the rich and powerful. The secretive nature of the Family has allowed its members to maintain the appearance of being religious people (they talk about God and Jesus a lot) while at the same time remaining outside of and unaccountable to any church. World writes that the Family is, "a 60-year-old, globally reaching organization that has muddy theology and a disdain for the established church."
The day of reckoning for the Family is finally here: more so than any amount of stink that I could raise the attention and questions of the larger religious right will be attention and questions that the Family cannot bear. I predict that soon we will begin to see a cascade effect as politicians begin to distance themselves from Doug Coe and his Christian Mafia bretheren. I'm specifically looking at you to get the ball rolling, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Florida Senator Bill Nelson.
It is my opinion, having watched how these episodes unfold, that the Republican base does not particularly care whether or not Republican politicians maintain the same standards in their own lives as they advocate. In the book of Romans, Paul maintains that all have sinned and fallen short of grace. This provides a ready-made excuse: the temptations of the flesh are sometimes too much for even the most righteous of men. The only unforgivable sin in their eyes is to be the sort of person who thinks (as I do) that it isn't particularly the job of office-holders to advocate for or uphold a biblical morality. In short, the Republican voters don't care if you cheat, as long as you are still their man and you frame your apology in appropriately religious terms.
So what finally brings the Family to World's attention? It is, of course, the realization that this group does not really follow a mainstream theology at all. Some Christians may not agree with the Family that Jesus brought two messages, one for the common people and a secret message for the rich and powerful. The secretive nature of the Family has allowed its members to maintain the appearance of being religious people (they talk about God and Jesus a lot) while at the same time remaining outside of and unaccountable to any church. World writes that the Family is, "a 60-year-old, globally reaching organization that has muddy theology and a disdain for the established church."
The day of reckoning for the Family is finally here: more so than any amount of stink that I could raise the attention and questions of the larger religious right will be attention and questions that the Family cannot bear. I predict that soon we will begin to see a cascade effect as politicians begin to distance themselves from Doug Coe and his Christian Mafia bretheren. I'm specifically looking at you to get the ball rolling, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Florida Senator Bill Nelson.
No Public Option: No Bill
The prospects for a strong public option being included in a final bill have been looking weaker lately, especially as the White House is backing off the necessity of a public option. If it is the case that President Obama is giving up on Candidate Obama's pledge to work for a public health care option, then the onus is upon progressive congresspeople to refuse to vote for any "compromise" which does not include a public option.
And as for Obama, he should respect his words of barely a month ago when he said any attempt at reform must include a public option. To my mind, that means that he vetoes any legislation on this topic that crosses his desk that does not at least reach that mark of good policy. Incremental and half-assed change is not the sort of change I can believe in and it's not what I voted for last November. If the Democrats with huge majorities in the House and Senate cannot accomplish even this, then there may be little to recommend them over a third-party protest vote.
Finally, readers, I know that a lot of the content of this blog has been about health care recently and you may be getting tired of the same topic all the time. I apologize if it's been getting boring, but bear with me as there may still be a little more news about this in the future.
And as for Obama, he should respect his words of barely a month ago when he said any attempt at reform must include a public option. To my mind, that means that he vetoes any legislation on this topic that crosses his desk that does not at least reach that mark of good policy. Incremental and half-assed change is not the sort of change I can believe in and it's not what I voted for last November. If the Democrats with huge majorities in the House and Senate cannot accomplish even this, then there may be little to recommend them over a third-party protest vote.
Finally, readers, I know that a lot of the content of this blog has been about health care recently and you may be getting tired of the same topic all the time. I apologize if it's been getting boring, but bear with me as there may still be a little more news about this in the future.
Creation Museum Debriefing
Last week I mentioned the then-upcoming visit by PZ Myers and the SSA to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Today Pharyngula linked to the video of Myers' keynote address at the SSA event later on that weekend. The video is 35 mins long, and only talks briefly about the museum, but is still very worth watching if you've got a few minutes free.
On the topic of the museum, Myers showed a slide which was a photo of a display that the museum had. This large sign titled "Where did Cain get his wife?" was basically a long apology for why it is that Cain got to marry his sister, and how this is okay with God. Hilarious.
On the topic of the museum, Myers showed a slide which was a photo of a display that the museum had. This large sign titled "Where did Cain get his wife?" was basically a long apology for why it is that Cain got to marry his sister, and how this is okay with God. Hilarious.
Obama's Mistake
Obama's mistake in the health care debate was to not open the discussions up by pushing a single-payer bill out of the White House. So far Obama has been content to give Congress only a bare outline of what he'd like to see in a final bill and let the representatives and senators wrangle over the details. This has been a huge handicap for those of us who favor health care reform. When the teabaggers and industry astroturf people start saying crazy untrue things, the only response that Democratic congresscritters have is to say, "no bill currently proposed has that provision." What does it say, the protesters ask? "Well, there is no it, there are a lot of different bills under consideration, the details are still being worked out in committee etc etc."
It would be a lot easier to be simply for something at this stage, rather than simply for the generic promise of reform. Furthermore, the protesters already call the proposals for reform "Obamacare." Obama hopes to escape the blame/credit for specific provisions in the bill coming from congress, but it's not going to happen. He's the president, so everyone will assume that he approves of any and all portion of any bill he finally signs.
The other issue is single-payer health care. From the rhetoric coming from the teabaggers, we know that they assume they are protesting against single-payer health care. I saw one video where a congressman said to the crowd, "this isn't single-payer!" and the crowd responded in unison with a shout, "we don't believe you!" What does it benefit us to adopt a compromise position (a public option) when the other side assumes that the compromise is in fact single payer in disguise? The discussion needs to be about single-payer, not this mash of weaker proposals.
I've talked about bipartisanship before. Now I think that not only has the bipartisan ship sunk, it's sitting at the bottom of the ocean growing coral. While Senator Grassley was pretending to be working on a bipartisan compromise, he was he now admits only working to delay a bill appearing before the Senate before the August recess. Not only that, but the politicians who are perpetuating the lie about 'death panels' know better. They know that the proposal for end-of-life counseling does not in any sense constitute death panels and in fact they have been on the record in favor of end-of-life counseling in the past.
Obama should send a new bill to the congress and the senate, something that is much shorter than 1000 pages and includes single-payer health care. Once he does that we progressives will have something we can really be for. It isn't too late to reboot this conversation by pushing a new White House bill! In the meantime, all we can do is keep on pointing out the lies and logical fallacies and inconsistencies of the the opposition.
It would be a lot easier to be simply for something at this stage, rather than simply for the generic promise of reform. Furthermore, the protesters already call the proposals for reform "Obamacare." Obama hopes to escape the blame/credit for specific provisions in the bill coming from congress, but it's not going to happen. He's the president, so everyone will assume that he approves of any and all portion of any bill he finally signs.
The other issue is single-payer health care. From the rhetoric coming from the teabaggers, we know that they assume they are protesting against single-payer health care. I saw one video where a congressman said to the crowd, "this isn't single-payer!" and the crowd responded in unison with a shout, "we don't believe you!" What does it benefit us to adopt a compromise position (a public option) when the other side assumes that the compromise is in fact single payer in disguise? The discussion needs to be about single-payer, not this mash of weaker proposals.
I've talked about bipartisanship before. Now I think that not only has the bipartisan ship sunk, it's sitting at the bottom of the ocean growing coral. While Senator Grassley was pretending to be working on a bipartisan compromise, he was he now admits only working to delay a bill appearing before the Senate before the August recess. Not only that, but the politicians who are perpetuating the lie about 'death panels' know better. They know that the proposal for end-of-life counseling does not in any sense constitute death panels and in fact they have been on the record in favor of end-of-life counseling in the past.
Obama should send a new bill to the congress and the senate, something that is much shorter than 1000 pages and includes single-payer health care. Once he does that we progressives will have something we can really be for. It isn't too late to reboot this conversation by pushing a new White House bill! In the meantime, all we can do is keep on pointing out the lies and logical fallacies and inconsistencies of the the opposition.
Racist and Threatening Right-Wing Reactions
Cenk Uygur at The Young Turks covers the story of the man who showed up at an Obama rally with a visible gun strapped to his thigh and carrying a sign that reads, "It is time to water the tree of Liberty." This is in reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote which reads,
Timothy McVeigh also referenced this quote on the t-shirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The sign and the gun taken together send an unmistakable message: this man advocates advancing his political agenda through violent means, possibly even assasination. I cannot understand how he was not arrested. A commenter (padlok47) on the YouTube video writes, "and now everyone who quotes jefferson is a mcveigh?"
No. Everyone who shows up at a political rally packing heat quoting Jefferson or anyone else about the right to political violence is advocating the sort of political violence that McVeigh committed and should probably be arrested on charges of incitement and threatening the president.
Meanwhile Georgia Rep. David Scott's office sign was vandalized with a large swastika. I'm not quite sure of the intent here, but I assume that it means one of two things, both of which aren't good:
One more time I'd like to put the question out there to any teabaggers who might be reading this. When the left accused the former president of tyrrany we pointed to specific examples such as the suspension of habeas corpus and the declaration of unilateral and preemptive war and the ordering of torture as acts of tyrrany because they threatened the republican institutions of this country. You shout 'tyrrany' at the top of your lungs but I don't understand what it is that Obama has done that you think counts as tyrrany! Which of Obama's specific actions taken since he took office do you view as tyrranical, and why? Quick caveat: proposing to extend medicare-type benefits to essentially everyone over 18 doesn't count.
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Timothy McVeigh also referenced this quote on the t-shirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest. The sign and the gun taken together send an unmistakable message: this man advocates advancing his political agenda through violent means, possibly even assasination. I cannot understand how he was not arrested. A commenter (padlok47) on the YouTube video writes, "and now everyone who quotes jefferson is a mcveigh?"
No. Everyone who shows up at a political rally packing heat quoting Jefferson or anyone else about the right to political violence is advocating the sort of political violence that McVeigh committed and should probably be arrested on charges of incitement and threatening the president.
Meanwhile Georgia Rep. David Scott's office sign was vandalized with a large swastika. I'm not quite sure of the intent here, but I assume that it means one of two things, both of which aren't good:
- David Scott is being accused of being a Nazi. This makes no sense. Is David Scott the first black Nazi in history?
- The vandal is a Nazi and is putting this black elected official "on notice". Apparently David Scott should stop provoking the Nazi party?
One more time I'd like to put the question out there to any teabaggers who might be reading this. When the left accused the former president of tyrrany we pointed to specific examples such as the suspension of habeas corpus and the declaration of unilateral and preemptive war and the ordering of torture as acts of tyrrany because they threatened the republican institutions of this country. You shout 'tyrrany' at the top of your lungs but I don't understand what it is that Obama has done that you think counts as tyrrany! Which of Obama's specific actions taken since he took office do you view as tyrranical, and why? Quick caveat: proposing to extend medicare-type benefits to essentially everyone over 18 doesn't count.
Busy News Day
There's too much happening this week to cover all of it in much depth, so here are some more quick news stories.
- An city bus ad run by Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers got pulled by DART. This is a clear-cut case of religious discrimination and unconstitutional an illegal censorship. The existence of atheists and atheists groups is offensive? Get a hold of yourself, Iowa governor Chet Culver.
- Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to the Supreme Court after a noticeable period of relative quiet from the Republicans on this issue. Apparently after the confirmation hearings were over they decided they had ridden that horse as far as it would take them, but that didn't stop them from taking a few parting shots at her as she sailed through the Senate.
- Teabaggers think that the proposed health care reform plan really really is single-payer even though it's not. If they believe that this really is single-payer, so we're having to fight for it as if it were, why wasn't single-payer put on the table to begin with? I'm sick of Democrats pre-compromising things, it doesn't help.
- Right-wing protesters at health care town hall meetings are being supported aggressively by health industry companies and incited towards violence by the right-wing media. Once again we hear accusations of tyrrany and comparisons to Nazis but very little policy discussion. The teabaggers have a lot of anger, and little else.
- Over two hundred freethinkers led by PZ Myers and the Secular Student Alliance will gather to tour Ken Ham's creationist theme park tomorrow morning. I wish I could be there, I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures and reading the blog posts about it.
- George Sodini is a terrible human being who walked into a Pennsylvania gym and murdered three women and wounded ten more before ridding the world of his disgusting existence Wednesday. This is a clear case of violence motivated by mysoginy. Sodini targeted women specifically, blogging about his hatred for women before the attack. Pandagon writes,
George Sodini was angry at the entire world of "desirable" women for not up and volunteering to have sex with him, and every day anonymous men around the country and world beat, rape, and even kill women because said women were also considered insufficiently compliant, often to unstated demands that women were supposed to just anticipate and fill without complaint.
- Unscientific America is on the bookshelves now, and serious scientists are ripping it apart.
A Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Armada
I really enjoyed the recent Star Trek film, and I saw it twice in the theaters. Both times that I saw it, a particular line really caught my imagination. It's just after Kirk got in a bar fight, and Captain Christopher Pike is trying to convince Kirk to join up with Starfleet. About Starfleet he says,
This sentence has really stuck with me ever since then. This hasn't always been the vision of Starfleet that comes forward in Star Trek. Most of the time the emphasis is on science exploration, as in the opening monologue.
This was from TOS, Picard recites it without the sexist language for TNG. The monologue, combined with the constant reference to the Prime Directive, makes it clear that the old Starfleet was uninterested in political action. Pike's line about a humanitarian armada is a new vision for Star Trek, and an exciting one as far as I'm concerned. As much as I think of myself as a scientist and value exploration and discovery, the idea of a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada really appeals to me.
And I'm not alone. In Orson Scott Card's Shadow series (Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, Shadow Puppets and Shadow of the Giant) he describes a similar idea. Hegemon Peter Wiggin forms the Free People of Earth, an international government and alliance of member states. What's important about the FPE is not just that it is an international government that guarantees democracy and human rights protection within member states, but importantly that it was willing to extend direct military aid - soldiers, not weapons sales - to oppressed peoples who asked for help. In Shadow of the Giant the FPE recognizes oppressed minorities of existing countries and allows them to apply for FPE membership. In the book the Thai and Rwandan soldiers of the FPE defeat the armies of Peru and Sudan.
So I've been asking myself, what if the world really did have a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada? I'm not really thinking of a quasi-governmental organization like the FPE or the UN. I'm thinking something more along the lines of the Red Cross, with guns. In March of this year Sudan expelled international aid groups from their borders. In 1994 the international community failed to respond to the genocide in Rwanda. What if there was somebody who could actually do something about it when things like this happen?
Any country could do it. Take a small European country with a reputation for human rights, like Sweden for instance. Announce the intention to form a humanitarian aid military force and start accepting donations. Come up with a good name, something like International Fleet (another nod to Card). When a country like Sudan boots the international aid groups out, the Fleet can step in to protect the International Rescue Committee and bolster their efforts.
Of course there are challenges and pitfalls to this idea. Mainly they fall into financial, political and ethical concerns. How would an International Fleet secure funding? Existing aid groups barely get enough cash to continue their missions in many cases nowadays. I think that a small demonstration of success might go a long way to opening the floodgates from wealthy investors.
Political hurdles concern questions of legality and interference from large powers. Suppose our Fleet has a procedure whereby oppressed groups within a nation can apply for aid. This may be enough to sidestep questions of treading upon national sovereignties, especially when you consider that some of these nations in turmoil essentially have no government at all. In addition the Fleet might need to be careful, especially at the outset, to avoid the appearance of disrupting resource flows in areas that China or Russia have interests.
Ethical concerns should remain the highest priority for the Fleet at all times. The Fleet may be dependent on the goodwill of generous donors and ideally would maintain a reputation for unimpeachable moral character. Above all I am not interested in seeing another group of muderous mercenary thugs like Blackwater.
There has never in the history of the world been a military force founded with a humanitarian purpose in mind. I think it might be time to give it a try.
"It's important, a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada."
This sentence has really stuck with me ever since then. This hasn't always been the vision of Starfleet that comes forward in Star Trek. Most of the time the emphasis is on science exploration, as in the opening monologue.
"Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before."
This was from TOS, Picard recites it without the sexist language for TNG. The monologue, combined with the constant reference to the Prime Directive, makes it clear that the old Starfleet was uninterested in political action. Pike's line about a humanitarian armada is a new vision for Star Trek, and an exciting one as far as I'm concerned. As much as I think of myself as a scientist and value exploration and discovery, the idea of a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada really appeals to me.
And I'm not alone. In Orson Scott Card's Shadow series (Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, Shadow Puppets and Shadow of the Giant) he describes a similar idea. Hegemon Peter Wiggin forms the Free People of Earth, an international government and alliance of member states. What's important about the FPE is not just that it is an international government that guarantees democracy and human rights protection within member states, but importantly that it was willing to extend direct military aid - soldiers, not weapons sales - to oppressed peoples who asked for help. In Shadow of the Giant the FPE recognizes oppressed minorities of existing countries and allows them to apply for FPE membership. In the book the Thai and Rwandan soldiers of the FPE defeat the armies of Peru and Sudan.
So I've been asking myself, what if the world really did have a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada? I'm not really thinking of a quasi-governmental organization like the FPE or the UN. I'm thinking something more along the lines of the Red Cross, with guns. In March of this year Sudan expelled international aid groups from their borders. In 1994 the international community failed to respond to the genocide in Rwanda. What if there was somebody who could actually do something about it when things like this happen?
Any country could do it. Take a small European country with a reputation for human rights, like Sweden for instance. Announce the intention to form a humanitarian aid military force and start accepting donations. Come up with a good name, something like International Fleet (another nod to Card). When a country like Sudan boots the international aid groups out, the Fleet can step in to protect the International Rescue Committee and bolster their efforts.
Of course there are challenges and pitfalls to this idea. Mainly they fall into financial, political and ethical concerns. How would an International Fleet secure funding? Existing aid groups barely get enough cash to continue their missions in many cases nowadays. I think that a small demonstration of success might go a long way to opening the floodgates from wealthy investors.
Political hurdles concern questions of legality and interference from large powers. Suppose our Fleet has a procedure whereby oppressed groups within a nation can apply for aid. This may be enough to sidestep questions of treading upon national sovereignties, especially when you consider that some of these nations in turmoil essentially have no government at all. In addition the Fleet might need to be careful, especially at the outset, to avoid the appearance of disrupting resource flows in areas that China or Russia have interests.
Ethical concerns should remain the highest priority for the Fleet at all times. The Fleet may be dependent on the goodwill of generous donors and ideally would maintain a reputation for unimpeachable moral character. Above all I am not interested in seeing another group of muderous mercenary thugs like Blackwater.
There has never in the history of the world been a military force founded with a humanitarian purpose in mind. I think it might be time to give it a try.
King David and The Family
In my earlier post on Jeff Sharlet's book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism At the Heart of American Power I briefly mentioned that King David is someone that the members of the Family sometimes talk about. I wrote,
A reader e-mailed me about this, saying,
That interpretation of King David is the Family's, not mine. Jeff Sharlet went to the Family's 'Ivanwald' house on C street undercover and sat in for a conversation about King David. To quote from Sharlet's book (p.36)
Yes, these folks have a different understanding of the bible than you do. Yes, I agree with you that they are wrong and that they do not have divine authority to make up their own laws and rules. But the Family doesn't see it that way, they think that the common morality in the bible is only for the commoners and that they are exempt because they are God's chosen. These men are wrong and they are evil. This is why I encourage you to do what you can to learn about them and expose them. I also encourage you to be skeptical when you hear a politician say, "God has chosen me to do this."
This is why Mark Sanford referenced King David during a press conference about his recent affair. Remember that David was not at all a nice man - he had an affair and had his mistress's husband murdered, but God did not condemn him for that.
A reader e-mailed me about this, saying,
I just read your blog post about “The Family.” It seems clear to me that like many groups throughout the world (religious or not) they have misinterpreted some fundamental truths about the values that they claim to adhere to. I have one serious issue with what your wrote about the book. You mentioned that Mark Sanford referenced King David and that David was not condemned by God for his affair and the murder he committed. This is completely false.
“7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'
11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' " 2 Samuel 7-12
If you continue to read after this point God does bring about the things that He promised to David because of his sin. It is clear in the Bible that God does not allow the rulers that He puts in positions of authority to make up their own laws and rules. David is just one of many (nearly all) of the Kings of Israel who were immoral and were punished by God because of that immorality.
And I replied:
That interpretation of King David is the Family's, not mine. Jeff Sharlet went to the Family's 'Ivanwald' house on C street undercover and sat in for a conversation about King David. To quote from Sharlet's book (p.36)
"King David," David Coe [Doug Coe's son] said. "That's a good one. David. Hey, What would you say made King David a good guy?" He giggled, not from nervousness but from barely concealed delight.
"Faith?" Beau [a pseudonomyous Ivanwald resident] said. "His faith was so strong?"
"Yeah." David nodded as if he hadn't heard that before. "Hey, you know what's interesting about King David?" From the blank stares of the others, I could see that they did not. Many didn't even carry a full Bible, preferring a slim volume of New Testament Gospels and Epistles and Old Testament Psalms, respected but seldom read. Others had the whole book, but the gold gilt on the pages of the first two-thirds remained undisturbed. "King David," David Coe went on, "liked to do really, really bad things." He chuckled. "Here's this guy who slept with another man's wife - Bathsheba, right? - and then basically murdered her husband. And this guy is one of our heroes." David shook his head. "I mean, Jimminy Christmans, God likes this guy! What," he said, "is that all about?"
"Is it because he tried?" asked Bengt [another Ivanwald resident, fake name again]. "He wanted to do the right thing?" ...
"That's nice, Bengt," David said. "But it isn't the answer Anyone else?"
"Because he was chosen," I [Jeff Sharlet] said. For the first time David looked my way.
"Yes," he said, smiling. "Chosen. Interesting set of rules, isn't it?" He turned to Beau. "Beau, let's say I hear you raped three little girls. And now here you are at Ivanwald. What would I think of you, Beau?"
Beau, given to bellowing Ivanwald's daily call to sports like a bull elephant, shrank into the cushions. "Probably that I'm pretty bad?"
"No, Beau." David's voice was kind. "I wouldn't." He drew Beau back into the circle with a stare that seemed to have its own gravitational pull. Beau nodded, brow furrowed, as if in the presence of something profound, "Because," David continued, "I'm not here to judge you. That's not my job. I'm here for only one thing. Do you know what that is?"
Understanding blossomed in Beau's eyes. "Jesus?"
Yes, these folks have a different understanding of the bible than you do. Yes, I agree with you that they are wrong and that they do not have divine authority to make up their own laws and rules. But the Family doesn't see it that way, they think that the common morality in the bible is only for the commoners and that they are exempt because they are God's chosen. These men are wrong and they are evil. This is why I encourage you to do what you can to learn about them and expose them. I also encourage you to be skeptical when you hear a politician say, "God has chosen me to do this."
Results Are Better Than Bipartisanship
A while back I posted a conversation that I had with a friend about political compromise. Today my girlfriend and I were having a conversation about how the Obama Administration has been disappointing us lately. On the topic of health care in particular, the best position of single-payer health care (not health insurance) was taken off the table by the Democrats before the negotiations even began. Therefore the conversation has been between a weaker position (a public option) and the far-right crazy idea (do nothing).
In 2010 and in 2012 the public will not judge the Democrats based upon how many GOP or Blue Dog votes they managed to secure during the debate on health care. In 2010 and 2012 the voters will judge the Democrats based on whether or not we got change for the better. Obama was elected on a platform of change and change is what we expect.
Last night on Countdown Keith Olbermann outlined the issue: the American people overwhelmingly support health care reform while the health industry overwhelmingly supports the election finances of our members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. I share his outrage. The GOP and the conservative wing of the Democratic party are the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the health industry. No reasonable compromise is possible with the folks who are making money hand-over-fist under the current system.
There is only one path to reelection for the Democrats. Follow through on your campaign promises. Start showing real leadership and a real spine and get things done. If you show up to the 2010 election as the party that lost the health care debate twice then the progressive base that got you elected will not turn out for you again. In particular we will not show up to vote for obstructionist Democrats whose interests are transparently driven by corporate lobbying dollars. You weren't elected in order to build a Democratic majority, you were elected to get things done that help ordinary Americans. Gaining the White House and majorities in the House and Senate aren't the real victory, they're just the entry ticket to start working on it.
Wrapping things up, I'd like to mention a couple of the outright lies and distortions that have been thrown into this debate by the corporate interests and the do-nothings:
The government wants to take over medicare/medicaid. False. The government already runs these programs.
The government is going to kill senior citizens and ration medical care. False. The proposed public option extends coverage similair to medicare and medicaid to more Americans. Substantial changes to existing programs are not being seriously discussed right now. The government will no more ration care under the proposed plan than medicare does now (it doesn't now).
The government cannot run a safe and efficient medical system. False. Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all currently government run. They have lower costs and better outcomes than private insurance plans. Veterans are overwhelmingly happy with their VA plans and want to extend the benefits to their families. The proposed public plan extends this type of system to more Americans.
In 2010 and in 2012 the public will not judge the Democrats based upon how many GOP or Blue Dog votes they managed to secure during the debate on health care. In 2010 and 2012 the voters will judge the Democrats based on whether or not we got change for the better. Obama was elected on a platform of change and change is what we expect.
Last night on Countdown Keith Olbermann outlined the issue: the American people overwhelmingly support health care reform while the health industry overwhelmingly supports the election finances of our members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. I share his outrage. The GOP and the conservative wing of the Democratic party are the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the health industry. No reasonable compromise is possible with the folks who are making money hand-over-fist under the current system.
There is only one path to reelection for the Democrats. Follow through on your campaign promises. Start showing real leadership and a real spine and get things done. If you show up to the 2010 election as the party that lost the health care debate twice then the progressive base that got you elected will not turn out for you again. In particular we will not show up to vote for obstructionist Democrats whose interests are transparently driven by corporate lobbying dollars. You weren't elected in order to build a Democratic majority, you were elected to get things done that help ordinary Americans. Gaining the White House and majorities in the House and Senate aren't the real victory, they're just the entry ticket to start working on it.
Wrapping things up, I'd like to mention a couple of the outright lies and distortions that have been thrown into this debate by the corporate interests and the do-nothings:
The government wants to take over medicare/medicaid. False. The government already runs these programs.
The government is going to kill senior citizens and ration medical care. False. The proposed public option extends coverage similair to medicare and medicaid to more Americans. Substantial changes to existing programs are not being seriously discussed right now. The government will no more ration care under the proposed plan than medicare does now (it doesn't now).
The government cannot run a safe and efficient medical system. False. Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are all currently government run. They have lower costs and better outcomes than private insurance plans. Veterans are overwhelmingly happy with their VA plans and want to extend the benefits to their families. The proposed public plan extends this type of system to more Americans.
I'm Watching: Big Love
My girlfriend and I went to the local library and borrowed the first two seasons of the HBO series Big Love on DVD. We've been watching them at a fairly quick pace, and we're about halfway through the second season now. For those of you who've seen more of it NO SPOILERS in the comments please.
In any event, the show follows the family of Bill Hendrickson, a polygamist from Utah. Bill was booted off his family's compound when he was 14. After living on the streets for a while, Bill eventually became successful and got married to his first wife Barb. Years later, when Barb was sick and nearly died Bill also married Barb's nurse Nicki who lived at the polygamist compound. Three years before the time of the first episode Bill married Margene, his newest and youngest wife. Bill bought three houses next door to each other, one for Barb, one for Nicki and one for Margene. Bill spends time in the three houses according to a set schedule.
Drama unfolds as this strange family struggles to fit in with a world that they have to hide their true relationships from. Bill tries to run his hardware-store business and the wives and children try to lead as normal lives as possible. Bill's family and Nicki's family live back at the polygamist compound, a quaint pastoral community rife with corruption and abuse. The protagonist family tries to hold on to their bonds to the compound while not being sucked into the nasty side of things there.
I can't stop watching Big Love with horrible fascination. The writing is excellent and the dialogue crisp and engaging, but that's not the only reason to watch. Some of the time you want to watch with revulsion (especially when the scenes show life inside the compound) but mostly you just want this family to succeed at trying to make their bizarre lives as normal as they can be.
Also, as normal as the Hendrickson's life seems compared to life inside the compound, the institution of polygamy as practiced by these folks still revolves around male ownership of women. The relationships among the sister-wives are sincere and really seem to work well for the characters in many scenes. Yet all of the true authority stays with Bill. He is free to date and look for additional wives but of course the same is not true for the women. Bill gets three sexual relationships at the same time, but the wives have no similar perk.
It occurres to my girlfriend that these folks are trying to destroy the communities that might actually be accepting of them. If they just moved to San Fransisco and said, I'm married to this woman but I also consider this woman and this woman my wife nobody would harass them about it. But the reality of polygamy as practiced by LDS splinter groups in this country nowadays is scary and evil.
In any event, the show follows the family of Bill Hendrickson, a polygamist from Utah. Bill was booted off his family's compound when he was 14. After living on the streets for a while, Bill eventually became successful and got married to his first wife Barb. Years later, when Barb was sick and nearly died Bill also married Barb's nurse Nicki who lived at the polygamist compound. Three years before the time of the first episode Bill married Margene, his newest and youngest wife. Bill bought three houses next door to each other, one for Barb, one for Nicki and one for Margene. Bill spends time in the three houses according to a set schedule.
Drama unfolds as this strange family struggles to fit in with a world that they have to hide their true relationships from. Bill tries to run his hardware-store business and the wives and children try to lead as normal lives as possible. Bill's family and Nicki's family live back at the polygamist compound, a quaint pastoral community rife with corruption and abuse. The protagonist family tries to hold on to their bonds to the compound while not being sucked into the nasty side of things there.
I can't stop watching Big Love with horrible fascination. The writing is excellent and the dialogue crisp and engaging, but that's not the only reason to watch. Some of the time you want to watch with revulsion (especially when the scenes show life inside the compound) but mostly you just want this family to succeed at trying to make their bizarre lives as normal as they can be.
Also, as normal as the Hendrickson's life seems compared to life inside the compound, the institution of polygamy as practiced by these folks still revolves around male ownership of women. The relationships among the sister-wives are sincere and really seem to work well for the characters in many scenes. Yet all of the true authority stays with Bill. He is free to date and look for additional wives but of course the same is not true for the women. Bill gets three sexual relationships at the same time, but the wives have no similar perk.
It occurres to my girlfriend that these folks are trying to destroy the communities that might actually be accepting of them. If they just moved to San Fransisco and said, I'm married to this woman but I also consider this woman and this woman my wife nobody would harass them about it. But the reality of polygamy as practiced by LDS splinter groups in this country nowadays is scary and evil.
I'm Reading: "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet
I've been chugging away at Jeff Sharlet's The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power for a couple of weeks now. It was difficult for me to read more than a bit of it at a time. I would read a little, then put it down for a couple of days to let it sink in. I wouldn't have thought that American fundamentalism required a conspiracy - everyone already knows they're out to run the country and they're not shy about saying so.
However, Sharlet's scholarship is unimpeachable. Behind the scenes a brotherhood of powerful men, sworn to secrecy, operate a network of cell groups. The largest and best known is the National Prayer Breakfast, which every US president has participated in since 1953. But the National Prayer Breakfast is just the public face. Family members also operate Senate and Congressional prayer beakfasts where powerful members meet to talk about God first and politics second. Hillary Clinton during her time in the Senate attended one of these. Now that The Family is in print, I do think it's time people start asking her questions about her connections. It does seem strange that the woman who coined the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" would be a member of it.
But who is the Family, and why is it scary? Founded in the 1930s by Abram Vereide and later run by Doug Coe up to the present day, the Family reinvented American revivalist fundementalism for the wealthy elite. In the '30s and '40s they ministered to corporate CEOs engaged in strikebreaking, telling the CEOs that they were doing God's will and that God wishes for the workers to be subservient. After World War II they helped ex-Nazis escape public criticism and criminal charges. During the '50s and '60s they really hit their stride, organizing anticommunist groups and setting national policies during the Cold War. In 1954 they added 'In God We Trust' to the currency and 'Under God' to the Pledge. During this period they also arrived at their strategy of secrecy.
In the '70s and '80s the Family built an international network of foreign diplomats and dictators who owed their American connections to Coe and his organization. Indonesian dictator and mass-murdered Suharto secured American weapons and funding through his Family connections. Conservative estimates put Suharto's death toll as at least 600,000.
Reading about the Family is a study in contrasts. Their causes are trupeted by their visible members, but the machinery of the organization gets the deals done in secret. They stress their subservience to God's will but shamelessly seek individual self-promotion. They talk about the love of Jesus, but cast him as a relentless warrior.
There is a lot that has happened in the history of this country over the past 75 years that only makes sense in light of these recent revelations about the Family. The truly scary thing is not that they want to turn America into a Taliban-style theocracy, the scary thing is the extent to which they have already succeeded. In order to understand the Family, you have to understand their reading of Romans 13 "The powers that be are ordained of God" and "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
The Family approaches the question of authority backward. Whoever has gained power must have done so by the grace of God, so any acts that were done to attain or maintain power were sanctioned by God. In this way any sort of injustice can be justified. To the members of the Family, ethics or morality are only for the weak and the poor. Members - those in power - have recieved the blessings of authority and therefore mundane ethics cannot apply. This is why Mark Sanford referenced King David during a press conference about his recent affair. Remember that David was not at all a nice man - he had an affair and had his mistress's husband murdered, but God did not condemn him for that.
What do we do? Reading this book is likely to throw secular readers and kindhearted Christian readers into a sucking despair. How do we counter the corrupting influence of the Family?
The fundamentalist movement has captured the public imagination by reinventing the meaning behind the stories of Jesus and the stories of American history. Biology is not the only academic subject under attack by fundamentalism - history also requires a vigorous defense and is in many ways the more important battle. We need a new narrative which can start to rebuild Jefferson's wall of separation. In the last chapter Jeff Sharlet recommends talking about the concept of exodus as a way of moving out of the old ways and into an unknown but promising future. Contrast this with the Family's salvation which requires submission to the order imposed by these self-proclaimed key men.
I mentioned Hillary Clinton earlier, but we can also ask our FL Sen. Bill Nelson about his participation in the Senate prayer breakfasts. One by one the questions can chip away at the veil of secrecy around this group.
Money that should go to the poor through welfare and medicare and head start is being funneled through many hidden channels to religious and fundamentalist groups. These organizations give preferential treatment to believers when they distribute aid. Unlike government agencies they are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices.
The Family operates a house on C Street which is now categorized as a church. This house provides housing for members of Congress at below-market rates and operates as a center of operations for lobbying and political contacts. They should have to pay taxes and submit to the same rules as every other lobbying group.
However, Sharlet's scholarship is unimpeachable. Behind the scenes a brotherhood of powerful men, sworn to secrecy, operate a network of cell groups. The largest and best known is the National Prayer Breakfast, which every US president has participated in since 1953. But the National Prayer Breakfast is just the public face. Family members also operate Senate and Congressional prayer beakfasts where powerful members meet to talk about God first and politics second. Hillary Clinton during her time in the Senate attended one of these. Now that The Family is in print, I do think it's time people start asking her questions about her connections. It does seem strange that the woman who coined the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" would be a member of it.
But who is the Family, and why is it scary? Founded in the 1930s by Abram Vereide and later run by Doug Coe up to the present day, the Family reinvented American revivalist fundementalism for the wealthy elite. In the '30s and '40s they ministered to corporate CEOs engaged in strikebreaking, telling the CEOs that they were doing God's will and that God wishes for the workers to be subservient. After World War II they helped ex-Nazis escape public criticism and criminal charges. During the '50s and '60s they really hit their stride, organizing anticommunist groups and setting national policies during the Cold War. In 1954 they added 'In God We Trust' to the currency and 'Under God' to the Pledge. During this period they also arrived at their strategy of secrecy.
In 1966, with the Christian Right just starting to emerge as a visible front for fundamentalism, Coe decided to go in the opposite direction. "The time has come," he instructed the Core, "to submerge." Thereafter, the Fellowship would avoid at all turns any appearance of an organization, even as Coe crafted ever more complex hierarchies behind-the-scenes.
In the '70s and '80s the Family built an international network of foreign diplomats and dictators who owed their American connections to Coe and his organization. Indonesian dictator and mass-murdered Suharto secured American weapons and funding through his Family connections. Conservative estimates put Suharto's death toll as at least 600,000.
Reading about the Family is a study in contrasts. Their causes are trupeted by their visible members, but the machinery of the organization gets the deals done in secret. They stress their subservience to God's will but shamelessly seek individual self-promotion. They talk about the love of Jesus, but cast him as a relentless warrior.
There is a lot that has happened in the history of this country over the past 75 years that only makes sense in light of these recent revelations about the Family. The truly scary thing is not that they want to turn America into a Taliban-style theocracy, the scary thing is the extent to which they have already succeeded. In order to understand the Family, you have to understand their reading of Romans 13 "The powers that be are ordained of God" and "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
The Family approaches the question of authority backward. Whoever has gained power must have done so by the grace of God, so any acts that were done to attain or maintain power were sanctioned by God. In this way any sort of injustice can be justified. To the members of the Family, ethics or morality are only for the weak and the poor. Members - those in power - have recieved the blessings of authority and therefore mundane ethics cannot apply. This is why Mark Sanford referenced King David during a press conference about his recent affair. Remember that David was not at all a nice man - he had an affair and had his mistress's husband murdered, but God did not condemn him for that.
What do we do? Reading this book is likely to throw secular readers and kindhearted Christian readers into a sucking despair. How do we counter the corrupting influence of the Family?
- Develop a new mythology of religious freedom.
The fundamentalist movement has captured the public imagination by reinventing the meaning behind the stories of Jesus and the stories of American history. Biology is not the only academic subject under attack by fundamentalism - history also requires a vigorous defense and is in many ways the more important battle. We need a new narrative which can start to rebuild Jefferson's wall of separation. In the last chapter Jeff Sharlet recommends talking about the concept of exodus as a way of moving out of the old ways and into an unknown but promising future. Contrast this with the Family's salvation which requires submission to the order imposed by these self-proclaimed key men.
- Ask your politicans about their Family connections.
I mentioned Hillary Clinton earlier, but we can also ask our FL Sen. Bill Nelson about his participation in the Senate prayer breakfasts. One by one the questions can chip away at the veil of secrecy around this group.
- Shut down the offices of the faith-based initiatives.
Money that should go to the poor through welfare and medicare and head start is being funneled through many hidden channels to religious and fundamentalist groups. These organizations give preferential treatment to believers when they distribute aid. Unlike government agencies they are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices.
- End the Family's tax-exempt status
The Family operates a house on C Street which is now categorized as a church. This house provides housing for members of Congress at below-market rates and operates as a center of operations for lobbying and political contacts. They should have to pay taxes and submit to the same rules as every other lobbying group.
The JREF Million-Dollar Challenge
The James Randi Educational Foundation at this year's The Amazing Meeting (TAM 7) conducted a preliminary test with dowser claimant Connie Sonne. The video of the test has 4 parts and is 40 minutes long altogether. I don't recommend watching the whole thing, it's fairly dull. More interesting is the press conference afterward, which also appears on YouTube. This test had the largest live audience in the long history of the million-dollar challenge so it's unusual mainly in the amount of visibility it has gotten. The other details of the test are fairly typical of Challenges.
Why is this important? To the extent that people's individual beliefs remain personal and private experiences, they may comfort people and help them gain insight into their own mind and their own life. It is not the role of skeptics to disabuse people of their own private beliefs, and James Randi does not demand that people give up their beliefs in their own supernatural powers unless they subject them to testing.
On the other hand, supernatural and pseudoscientific claims are often used for more public purposes. When a person asks you for your belief in an unusual claim, you should be skeptical unless there is good reason or evidence in favor of the claim. You should be particularly skeptical if the person is asking for your money through book or ticket sales. You should also be especially skeptical if your own experiences might predispose you to believe the claim. For example, if your son or daughter has died and someone says that they can connect you to the lost person you should be especially careful precisely because you might be particularly emotionally vulnerable.
The Million-Dollar Challenge is a useful tool not because it disproves the claims of honest believers like Connie Sonne. The Challenge is a useful tool because the professional hucksters won't come close to it. The John Edwards, Uri Gellers and Sylvia Brownes of the world know that they are putting on a show and that their supposed powers would fail any sort of controlled test. They often say that it would be wrong to accept a million dollars for demonstrating a power that should be used for the benefit of humanity, but if that were the case why do they accept salaries or royalties for what they do? If their powers were real they should earn a million dollars from an afternoon of work and donate it to a charity that works for the good of mankind.
Oh, and one final thing. If you're a detective and a psychic calls to say they have seen the location of a missing person in a vision, you should just hang up the phone and go back to doing serious detective work.
- The claimant and the Foundation agreed on the rules in advance.
- The test as conducted was double-blind. Neither the claimant nor the tester knew the location of the card that was being sought.
- The claimant failed to move past the preliminary test.
- Before the test the claimant said the skeptical audience would not affect her powers.
- After the test the claimant said the skeptical audience affected her powers.
- Before the preliminary test the claimant did not subject her own abilities to a similar type of test. She didn't need to, because she knows they work.
- The outcome of this test did not change the claimant's belief in her own powers. There is no test that, if failed, would cause her to change her belief in her own powers.
Why is this important? To the extent that people's individual beliefs remain personal and private experiences, they may comfort people and help them gain insight into their own mind and their own life. It is not the role of skeptics to disabuse people of their own private beliefs, and James Randi does not demand that people give up their beliefs in their own supernatural powers unless they subject them to testing.
On the other hand, supernatural and pseudoscientific claims are often used for more public purposes. When a person asks you for your belief in an unusual claim, you should be skeptical unless there is good reason or evidence in favor of the claim. You should be particularly skeptical if the person is asking for your money through book or ticket sales. You should also be especially skeptical if your own experiences might predispose you to believe the claim. For example, if your son or daughter has died and someone says that they can connect you to the lost person you should be especially careful precisely because you might be particularly emotionally vulnerable.
The Million-Dollar Challenge is a useful tool not because it disproves the claims of honest believers like Connie Sonne. The Challenge is a useful tool because the professional hucksters won't come close to it. The John Edwards, Uri Gellers and Sylvia Brownes of the world know that they are putting on a show and that their supposed powers would fail any sort of controlled test. They often say that it would be wrong to accept a million dollars for demonstrating a power that should be used for the benefit of humanity, but if that were the case why do they accept salaries or royalties for what they do? If their powers were real they should earn a million dollars from an afternoon of work and donate it to a charity that works for the good of mankind.
Oh, and one final thing. If you're a detective and a psychic calls to say they have seen the location of a missing person in a vision, you should just hang up the phone and go back to doing serious detective work.
Beware the Spinal Trap
(Note: this is the infamous article on chiropractic that got Simon Singh sued. It is being reposted all over the web today by multiple blogs and online magazines.)
Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.
Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.
You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.
In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.
I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.
In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.
More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.
Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.
Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."
This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.
If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.
Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Bill Kristol: Veterans have first-class government run health care; ordinary Americans don't deserve same
On the Daily Show episode from Monday, July 27 Jon Stewart catches Bill Kristol in an accidental admission that our veterans have the best health care system money can buy. Kristol later tries to close the barn door, but I'm pretty sure the cows have already left.
Big Government
One of the ideas that conservatives turn to very consistently when you ask them what they have to offer is the assertion that they are in favor of small government. Of course the reality is more complicated than that. On some issues they are in favor of smaller government, but on many others they are in favor of larger government. Let's take a look at how this tends to break down.
Conservatives want more government:
military spending
lots of military spending (worth mentioning twice)
war
interventionist foreign policy
government secrets/less transparency
domestic wiretapping
prisons
suspension of habeas corpus/indefinite denention
police departments
banning gay marriage
criminalizing abortion
criminalizing homelessness
state executions
immigration enforcement
prescription drug coverage (handouts to pharmaceuticals)
Conservatives want less government:
social security
medicare
health care reform
unemployment insurance
SCHIP
environmental protection
market regulation
consumer protection
science and research investment
international aid (the kind that doesn't go to dictators)
corporate tax exemptions
taxes on wealthiest 1%
rescuing people from hurricanes
The really irritating part is that I hear this meme repeated by even smart moderates and liberals, people who should know better. Conservatism does not represent small government, at least not the thread of conservatism that has come to completely dominate the Republican party. What is the theme of these two lists, the thread that links them all?
Kos points it out for us: it's compassion. The 'compassionate conservatism' line was a political victory for W precisely because it was a giant lie.
Conservatives seem to think that any problem that can't be ignored should be solved by force. And that ordinary people don't deserve the protection of the government, they have to save themselves. While on the other hand, the wealthy and powerful are important and vital to the country and should be promoted and bailed out when they get into trouble.
One more thing: large budget deficits and national debt accumulated during Republican terms in office are not an accident. Long-term government bankruptcy is a GOP strategy intended to generate excuses to do nothing in terms of helping ordinary Americans. If you point out that money could be easily saved from the military budget with no adverse effect on national security then of course you are called all sorts of names.
Conservatives want more government:
military spending
lots of military spending (worth mentioning twice)
war
interventionist foreign policy
government secrets/less transparency
domestic wiretapping
prisons
suspension of habeas corpus/indefinite denention
police departments
banning gay marriage
criminalizing abortion
criminalizing homelessness
state executions
immigration enforcement
prescription drug coverage (handouts to pharmaceuticals)
Conservatives want less government:
social security
medicare
health care reform
unemployment insurance
SCHIP
environmental protection
market regulation
consumer protection
science and research investment
international aid (the kind that doesn't go to dictators)
corporate tax exemptions
taxes on wealthiest 1%
rescuing people from hurricanes
The really irritating part is that I hear this meme repeated by even smart moderates and liberals, people who should know better. Conservatism does not represent small government, at least not the thread of conservatism that has come to completely dominate the Republican party. What is the theme of these two lists, the thread that links them all?
Kos points it out for us: it's compassion. The 'compassionate conservatism' line was a political victory for W precisely because it was a giant lie.
Conservatives seem to think that any problem that can't be ignored should be solved by force. And that ordinary people don't deserve the protection of the government, they have to save themselves. While on the other hand, the wealthy and powerful are important and vital to the country and should be promoted and bailed out when they get into trouble.
One more thing: large budget deficits and national debt accumulated during Republican terms in office are not an accident. Long-term government bankruptcy is a GOP strategy intended to generate excuses to do nothing in terms of helping ordinary Americans. If you point out that money could be easily saved from the military budget with no adverse effect on national security then of course you are called all sorts of names.
The Time is Now for Health Care Reform
I've been meaning to do an extensive post on this topic. It's been very much in the news lately with bills appearing before Congress and the Senate and Barack Obama's press conference tonight. However, I don't think I can say it any better than Massimo Pigliucci. Except to add, as Rachel Maddow did, that there is no such thing as moving too fast on an issue that has been in the works for over 60 years. It's also worth noting as Nate Silver did that money from the health insurance industry has a huge effect on the voting patterns of Congressional and Senate Democrats.
This has been one of the moral failings of our country for too long. We can definitely do better.
This has been one of the moral failings of our country for too long. We can definitely do better.
Talking About Compromise
A buddy of mine and I were chatting on IM about the meaning of political compromise the other day. Before posting it here I fixed some but not all punctuation and spelling. In particular over IM I tend not to use capitalization or periods. I also cut bits out to make it more interesting and readable. MONSTRTRKMAN is not his real IM name.
Read more >>
Read more >>
Quick News Stories
Lots of little stories today.
- Reposted from my girlfriend's blog, Radioactive Quill:
So apparently you can be arrested for not appreciating it when a police officer shows up at your house and demands proof that you live there.
Provided you're a Black man, of course. I rather suspect that very few police officers would have the stones to do this to a white man.
Here is the statement by Professor Gates' lawyer. I'm really not sure why he didn't include a threat along the lines of, "I'm going to sue the city for $100 million." I would.
- Reposted from a friend's facebook page, a UF law student:
It's truly amazing that the erosion of racial and sexual bigotry is being accompanied by a revival of religious bigotry. Do people have an innate need to exclude and suppress the "other" that isn't being met now that racism and sexism have become fringe?
If we're discussing founders' intent, why did we include guarantees of religious equality in the First Amendment, while we didn't get around to race until the Fourteenth, or sex until the Nineteenth?
If we're discussing founders' intent, why did we include guarantees of religious equality in the First Amendment, while we didn't get around to race until the Fourteenth, or sex until the Nineteenth?
- A congressman from a district not far from where I live is a crazy birther.
- Good news: Obama is turning up the heat on obstructionist Democrats.
- Molecular developmental biology!
Jimmy Carter leaves Baptist church, condemns oppression of women
Those of us who grew up in the '80s may not know it, but at the time of his presidency Jimmy Carter was known as a very religious Southern Baptist guy. So it came as somewhat of a surprise to me to learn that he's left the church apparently some time ago. His statement makes it clear why: the church discriminates against women and contributes to a culture that makes oppression and cruelty to women acceptable. He points out that long-held religious tradition has justified discrimination against women and girls as if it were prescribed by a deity.
The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.I recommend the same course of action to anyone out there who notices the same thing in their own religion's teachings: stop supporting sexism and simply leave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
