Grrasping at Straws

Gregory T. Angelo, the head of Log Cabin Republicans, thinks that Trump is the most LGBT-friendly president ever. Seriously. You want to know why?

“This president is the first president to enter the White House who believes that marriage equality is settled law of the land,” Angelo said, referring to a “60 Minutes” interview from over a year ago in which Trump was asked about his views on same-sex marriage. He didn’t actually state his own position on the matter, but said that the issue was “settled law.”

“Barack Obama didn’t believe that when he entered the White House,” Angelo said. “Hillary Clinton only came around to that position in 2013.”

But Trump never changed his stated position from the presidential campaign, and he doesn’t actually support marriage equality. Obama and Clinton both have supported same-sex marriage for several years.

Now, Angelo isn't the brightest porch light on the block, but really -- how desperate to you have to be? Yes, he's phrasing it very carefully, but really.

Via Joe.My.God.

Insight

This story offers a good insight into the thinking, in some quarters at least, on immigrants:

West Frankfort, Illinois, overwhelmingly voted for President Donald Trump last fall, but now some residents are upset after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested and detained a beloved local Mexican restaurant owner. . . .

While residents in the town said that they were still supportive of the president’s moves to deport undocumented immigrants, they told the Times that the president should make more exceptions for people like Pacheco, who have not only been exemplary local businessmen, but also pillars of the community who take part in local charity events.

The comments by residents in the town are illuminating: "Our immigrant is different."

I wonder if any of these people stop to think about the fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants, legal or not, are hard-working, law-abiding people who just want a decent life and would like to fit in.

You get what you vote for

Happy Thanksgiving

Unfortunately, the day started out overcast, which always makes it hard for me to get started. And then one of the first stories I ran into this morning was this:

Renowned indigenous historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz explained this week that the Thanksgiving holiday was “never about honoring Native Americans” as many children are taught in U.S. schools.

In an interview with Democracy Now’s Nermeen Shaikh on Wednesday, Dunbar-Ortiz addressed misconceptions about the holiday.

“Actually, it’s never been about honoring Native Americans,” she remarked. “It’s been about the origin story of the United States, the beginning of genocide, dispossession and constant warfare from that time—actually, from 1607 in Jamestown—until the present. It’s a colonial system that was set up.”

It should only be that simple.

OK, by now we all know that the story of the first Thanksgiving we were taught in school was pretty much bogus. At this point, it's guesses for grabs what really happened, but I doubt it's as villainous as Dunbar-Ortiz makes it out to be.

Yes, Europeans have an appalling history vis-a-vis native peoples, not only in the Americas but everywhere else they wound up. (One of the great ironies of the fight over the Ugandan "Kill the gays" bill was the insistence in some quarters that practices that their pre-Colonial ancestors found perfectly acceptable were "not truly African." This while holding desperately on to the worst aspects of the Colonial regimes.)

But, to dig a little deeper, every society that practices agriculture has a harvest festival. Thanksgiving, although it comes a little later than most, is ours. It's gotten tied into a creation myth about the founding of the country -- one of many, as it happens -- but it's still basically a harvest festival.

So why can't we just be grateful for that?

(And, for a completely irreverent and off-the-wall aside, do you suppose that's why the white working class is, we're told, so afraid of undocumented immigrants? In light of what the first wave of undocumented immigrants did to those who were already here?)

Giggle du Jour

You may know that the creationists/IDers figure their crushing argument against evolution is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Their argument, from this post by PZ Myers.:

One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Offhand, I'd say everyone knows about it.

 

There Are Limits

The idea that "my rights are unlimited" seems to be spreading from the "Christian martyr" set across the political spectrum:

An attorney was removed from court and taken into custody after a judge declared her in contempt for refusing to take off a Black Lives Matter pin.

Youngstown Municipal Court Judge Robert Milich said Attorney Andrea Burton was in contempt of court for refusing to remove the pin in his courtroom as instructed. Burton was sentenced to five days in jail, but she has been released on a stay while an appeal is underway.

Burton will stay out of jail during the appeals process as long as she obeys Milich’s order not to wear items that make a political statement in court. If she loses her appeal, she will have to serve the five days in jail.

Milich said his opinions have nothing to do with his decision.

“A judge doesn’t support either side,” he said. “A judge is objective and tries to make sure everyone has an opportunity to have a fair hearing, and it was a situation where it was just in violation of the law,” he said.

On the face of it, this seems to me like a reasonable action on the judge's part: political statements in court, especially by an attorney for either side, can unduly influence a jury -- we've all seen how juries can be influenced by extraneous matters. And a judge has considerable leeway in determining what is potentially disruptive to the trial process.

Here's where it becomes dicey:

The Youngstown branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) said its legal counsel is monitoring the case closely as it may violate Burton’s civil rights.

General principle: all rights have limits. That's a necessity if we hope to have a workable society. "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Trite, but true.

And especially for an attorney, an officer of the court, there are constraints on free expression, especially if that free expression has no bearing on the matter at trial. The article is lacking on specifics on that score. It doesn't mention whether Burton was a defense attorney or a prosecutor. If the latter, there are real constraints: as a government official, a prosecutor must be extremely careful about putting the weight of his or her position behind a political expression in the court room.

And as it turns out, Burton knew exactly what she was doing, and it was deliberate:

"He indicated to me he didn't know if I was trying to seek attention from the news or whatever the case was, but that legally I wasn't allowed to wear it and I deferred and said that I'm respecting my First Amendment right. That I'm not neutral in injustice, and to remain neutral becomes an accomplice to oppression, Attorney Burton said. . . .

"It's an act of civil disobedience I understand that. I'm not anti-police I work with law enforcement and I hold them in the highest regard, and just to say for the record I do believe all lives matter. But at this point they don't all matter equally, and that's a problem in the justice system," Burton said.

Yeah, we all understand the idea of civil disobedience to unjust laws, but to my way of thinking, this is beyond the Pale: She's gotten carried away with herself and is really doing more damage than good to her cause. As an officer of the court, she has a responsibility to her client to focus on the matter at hand and not do anything that could disrupt the proceedings or call into question her own professionalism.

And of course, one of the basic tenets of civil disobedience is that if your going to break an unjust law, you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences. Ask Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi about that.

(Sidebar: I don't argue the fact that there is gross racial bias in our justice system, from the cop on the beat on up, and I'm sympathetic to her cause, in spite of some of the stunts BLM has pulled. But there's a time and a place.)


Here's a key point:

Attorney and community activist Kim Akins said she is worried about what happened.

“No one wearing an American flag button, no one wearing a crucifix or a Star of David would be removed, so why this particular statement bothered him so much is bothersome,” she said.

It's a sentiment echoed in the comments, both from the article itself and from the post at Crooks and Liars, which is where I ran across it: there's some impaired reasoning going on here, if people can't tell the difference between a US flag pin or religious symbol such as a cross or star of David and a pin that overtly advocates for a particular cause. Someone like Akins should know better -- she's an attorney, for crying out loud. (Not that that implies a lot of brain power. Trust me on that -- I worked for a law firm for years.)

There's a strain of incipient paranoia running throughout the comments to these articles that leads the to believe the right wing has been at least partly successful in at least one of its goals: no one trusts the courts any more. This one is a prime example:

Would the judge have thrown her in jail if she wore a "blue lives matter" pin? If not, then I smell a discrimination lawsuit against the judge to have that judge fired and jailed.

This is standard right-wing (hmm -- it almost came out as "white-wing" -- I wonder why?) reasoning: ask a hypothetical question, answer your own question with the most prejudicial answer, call for blood.

I hate to say this, but this is a prime example of political correctness run amok. It seems that looking at a matter dispassionately (which is hard, I know, but it's necessary if anything is going to be resolved) and using reason to work through to a solution is completely off the table. What I'm seeing is a bunch of people all yelling "Hey! Look at me! Me, me, me!"

(Footnote: "Political correctness" has become another right-wing dog-whistle, which is why I'm loathe to use the term: to them, it stands for "common decency," which is, apparently, a bad thing.)

Idiot du Jour

via Digby, this moron:

Trump Voter: We are young, urban, and have a happy future planned. We seem molded to be perfect young Hillary supporters. But we're not. Both of us voted Libertarian in 2012, and ideologically we remain so. But in 2016? We're both going for Trump.

For me personally, it's resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it's almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. There is no saying “Hey, I disagree with you,” it's just instant shunning. Say things online, and they'll try to find out who you are and potentially even get you fired for it. Being anti-PC is not about saying “I want you to agree with me on these issues.” It's about saying, “Hey, I want to have a discussion and not get shouted down because I don't agree with what is considered to be politically correct.”

Let's start with the most obvious, not to dismiss what may be this person's own experience (there are idiots on the left, as well): Having tried to have rational discussions with right-wingers, the shouting down and name-calling seems to originate with those who can't support their positions any other way. What I'm getting from this is more regurgitated right-wing propaganda about the "fascist left" -- on the same order as the religious extremists who are screaming about being "persecuted" when they're not allowed to pick and choose which laws to observe. The fact that he voted Libertarian should tell you a lot.

And I can't help but wonder how many times this person has just tuned out when someone disagrees with him. I've run into a couple of commenters at blogs who don't seem to be able to respond to what I actually wrote -- they just repeat the same flat statements, without substantiation, as though that were some sort of argument.

It goes on, and gets more and more bizarre. Digby summed it up nicely:

It's all about him having to defend the fact that he's a raving asshole. Yep. I can see why he loves Trump so much. Having to show good manners in public is just too much.

Today's Must-Read

This post, from Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo. This part struck me:

Eli Saslow reports for the Washington Post on the decline of manufacturing in northeast Indiana where the American Dream is proving to be just that. Chris Setser stands to lose his $17/hr production line job at United Technologies Electronic Controls (UTEC) in Huntington. . . .

Setser leaned into the table and banged it once for emphasis. “They’re throwing our work back in our face,” he said. “China is doing better. Even Mexico is doing better. Don’t you want someone to go kick ass?”

Globalization. Financialization. Greed, one of the deadly sins. Nothing a little ass-whupping won't fix.

It occurs to me that people like Setser are, quite deliberately, being pointed in the wrong direction for the ass-whupping. Mexico and China didn't come over here and steal our jobs. The bosses figured they'd make more money by shipping the jobs to sweatshops in China or Mexico -- American workers are just too darned expensive.

The Hairpiece, being of the class that ships jobs overseas (check out where the clothing in his clothing line is made) is blaming all the wrong people. Of course. And people like Setser are buying it.

Here's the story as WaPo. It's worth reading, too.

Today's Must-Read

Let's just privatize everything! (I have to admit, I've made the comment more than once that I'm expecting to hear any day now that the mayor is selling off the Chicago Park District to Disney. I'm only half joking.)

But, on a more fundamental level, the push to privatize municipal water systems has been pretty much ignored by the press. Granted, the press in this country has given into a fascination with shiny things, but someone, somewhere, should be dealing with some real issues, right? Well, some are:

City leaders and a group of organizers here have been fighting state efforts to take over our city's water system for several years. City of Asheville v State of North Carolina, et al. goes before the state Supreme Court next month. The originator of the bill (an ALEC board member before he lost his state House seat) insisted transferring control to a regional authority was not the first step towards privatization. You know, we just didn't believe him. The water situation in Flint, Michigan is sure to come up in oral arguments on May 17.

This is just one effort; there are others throughout the country. What's really sobering is just who is involved:

[Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI)] is not happy about the International Finance Corporation, a branch of the World Bank, promoting water privatization and profiting from it. She wrote a letter to Dr. Jim Young Kim, President of the World Bank Group:

The letter, addressed to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, describes the failure of a World Bank-backed water privatization project in Manila, Philippines—the “success story” the IFC uses in marketing around the world—as the foundation of her concern. In Manila, the IFC advised the government to contract with two private corporations to manage the city’s water system, which it did in 1997 in a concession deal that favored one corporation, Manila Water Company, with less debt and better infrastructure. The IFC subsequently took part ownership in MWC only.

Since taking over, MWC has raised rates nearly 850 percent, and has even brought the Manila regulator—and the Philippines Department of Finance—into arbitration in an attempt to hike the cost of water even higher.

As part owner of MWC, the IFC is now in direct opposition to the government’s efforts to keep water affordable for its people. And while the IFC has stood by MWC, it has made $43 million from its initial investment.

Yes, those wonderful people who destroyed the economy of Greece are now investing in private water management companies while they push local governments into selling their water systems to those very companies.

This is, as I noted above, a trend -- charter schools/school vouchers, municipal water systems, city parking (in Chicago, you now pay for parking 24/7 -- you used to be able to park on streets free on Sundays and overnight -- but they do make it really easy to pay), you name it, it's being privatized, or someone's trying to.

Of course, these efforts are all being touted as leading to greater efficiency and lower costs, but that's patently ridiculous. I mean, you start by introducing another layer in the cost structure and introducing the idea that, for example, city services should be profitable. For someone. Like the World Bank. And frankly, anyone who thinks that non-government corporations are necessarily more efficient than government-run services has never worked in the private sector.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it just seems to be that some things should not be subject to the profit motive -- like the things we're paying taxes for.

In an emailed statement, Moore connected the issue to U.S. water issues:

“Yes, we’ve just now started shedding light on this local and national issue in the United States, but there are global implications to think about as well,” Moore added, pointing to the World Bank’s investments in private water companies. “It has become clear that there are those in positions of great power who are all too willing to prioritize profits over public safety.”

The people of Flint would agree. As I've said for years, we are dealing with the kind of people who would sell you the air you breathe if they could control how it gets to your nose. And if you cannot afford to buy their air, well, you should have worked harder, planned better, and saved more.

Capitalism is not a human-oriented system. It is a commodity-oriented system; people are just consumers. When you stop to think about it, it's pretty immoral.

Duh!

I have to hand it to the "Christian" right -- even though they're doing as much damage as they can to human rights worldwide, they do provide some entertainment.

You may have heard about Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar's invitation for married couples to post pictures of themselves kissing on their Facebook page. Apparently they didn't realize that people other than good "Christians" get married and also have access to the Internet -- you can guess who posted pictures:

Fans quickly responded to the challenge with photos of themselves and their spouses smooching for the camera. According to John Becker, however, some of those photos were deleted — because they featured same-sex couples.

Becker, who runs the LGBTQ blog The Bilerico Project, wrote on Tuesday, Nov. 11, that the picture he posted of himself and his husband was deleted from the comments section, along with other shots of same-sex twosomes.

"Oh no, I think I've been banned from the Duggar Family Official Facebook page! (I'm crying into my coffee cup right now, I assure you)," he shared on his own Facebook page, and on The Bilerico Project. "I posted this photo of Michael and me with the following comment: 'Happily married for nearly nine years; working hard for #MarriageEquality for all loving couples."

He continued: "It was getting lots of likes, but the Duggars must not have liked it very much — they pulled it down and blocked me from posting, liking, or commenting on the page altogether. How sad that they feel so threatened by other loving marriages."

I'm sure the Duggars see those responses as persecution, because we all know that if you disagree with "Christians," you're suppressing their religious freedom.

Well, it seems that the Duggars are a little more vicious than I had realized. So someone started a petition at change.org asking TLC to cancel their "reality" show (in sarcasm quotes because, after all, what do the Duggars know about reality?). Needless to say, the American "Family" Association jumped in with a Twitter campaign to Save the Duggars! You can imagine what happened:

At the core of the issue is not whether or not the Duggars should have their TV show, which reportedly has netted them millions of dollars. At the core of the issue is that TLC and the show's producers aren't being honest with the Duggar family's practices and beliefs. Also at issue is the outrageous hypocrisy that conservatives are claiming liberals have no right to boycott or petition a company about their beliefs, but conservatives claim they do.

So Twitter made sure that those lapses in transparency are being corrected.

Click through to read the tweets -- for some reason, I can't copy them from The New Civil Rights Movement.

The lesson is plain: If your mind is stuck in the early 19th century, avoid social media.

Today In "Christian" Self-Absorption

OneMilion(minus 999,000)Moms is outraged at a Guinness ad because it uses a Christian hymn as background. Via Joe.My.God.:

Guinness & Co. is currently airing a commercial for its beer with a popular gospel hymn as background music. The song "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" is played during the entire ad and even though there are no lyrics it is unmistakably the beloved hymn Christians know and love. The cherished "Everlasting Arms" hymn has no place in a beer commercial. Christian music should not be associated with an advertisement promoting drinking. The choice of including this hymn in the ad disrespects the Christian faith.

If you actually watch the ad, you get a very different -- and arguably very Christian -- message. (Although I don't know that it's specifically Christian -- it's very human, and approaches the very best of very human.) Maybe if the OMM could realize that the universe does not revolve around them, they wouldn't have so much trouble keeping their blood pressure down. (I use the plural only as a matter of grammar -- I had heard that their membership is something like 40,000, but I remain convinced that the active arm is composed of one intern with an Internet connection.)

Judge for yourself:

I confess to getting a bit misty-eyed at this one.

And thanks to commenter "b" at Joe.My.God., I was reminded of this one:

Do you suppose OMM missed it somehow?

Faith-Based Reality: The News Media At Work

Here's an article that points up a major failing of the news media in this country. The subject is the reporting on the controversy around the birth-control mandate of the ACA, but the problem extends to just about everything the media touches:

When it comes to women’s health issues like contraception and abortion, why does the press so often present opinion and fact side by side? Recent pieces in Reuters, the New York Times and SCOTUSblog, to name just a few, made an attempt at “balance” by presenting what they see as “both sides of the issue” on contraception. But do facts have two sides? When reporting on medical issues, weighing a religious belief as equal to scientific and medical evidence is disingenuous and confusing to the reader.

The Reuters piece is egregious, but what can you expect from a piece titled "U.S. top court case highlights unsettled science in contraception"? As Lin-Wang Fang points out in the main article, the science is very clear:

FACT: The ACA requires new health insurance plans to cover the full spectrum of FDA-approved forms of birth control. It does not require coverage of abortion or abortifacients.

FACT: No FDA-approved forms of birth control – including emergency contraception pills or the IUD – cause abortions. Emergency contraception pills and IUDs prevent pregnancy, not disrupt pregnancy.

FACT: Pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants into the uterine lining. After implantation, that’s when a pregnancy test turns positive. Even among women not on birth control, not every fertilized egg implants. Therefore, the possibility that the copper IUD could inhibit implantation does not make it an abortifacient. This is not an opinion. This is the shared consensus of the medical and scientific community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In light of the facts, it's worth taking a look at the NYT piece, which is really an op ed by the director of a "pro-life" organization -- the comments really rake her over the coals.

Another group that is constantly trying to conflate religious belief with scientific evidence is the creationist contingent:

Creationists are accusing astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's reboot of "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" of being scientifically unbalanced because it doesn't represent their beliefs.

Right Wing Watch posted audio of Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum speaking Thursday on "The Janet Mefford Show,” in which he blasted deGrasse Tyson for ignoring the creationist point of view.

"Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all," Faulkner told host Janet Mefford.

"But when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution, it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there," Mefford said. "You know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed."

OK, it's Janet Mefferd's show, so we know we're dealing with the fringe, but notice the bald assertion that "there are so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution." That's at best a misrepresentation -- I have no doubt that Mefferd is including engineers, mathematicians, what-have-you as scientists. They have no chops when it comes to evolutionary theory.

And it's the "equal time" mantra again, and of course, the real question is Why should a program devoted to science be including religious belief? RightWing Watch sums it up:

Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

But you won't find the mainstream news media pointing that out. Blame Fox News, with its specious "fair and balanced" meme, which it seems just about everyone has bought into. News flash: "balanced" is not necessarily "fair," and these days it's seldom accurate.

Footnote: It's worth looking again at Judge Bernard Friedman's take-down of Mark Regnerus' "study" in the Michigan marriage ban trial. That's called "critical thinking" and it's another thing that the religious nuts want to do away with -- for good reason.

Dangerously Crazy

A couple of notes this morning. First, a rant by Rush Limbaugh. You can listen to the rant here at Crooks and Liars (for some reason, I can't copy the embed code), if your stomach is up to it. Unfortunately, there's no transcript, but let's just take a few points:

He claims that Mayor Rahm Emanuel, whom he calls a "potential Democrat [sic] presidential candidate" (which anyone with two brain cells to rub together will find hysterically funny) is going to double property taxes for the state of Illinois. I think the governor and legislature might have something to say about that.

No, neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago are facing bankruptcy because of pension liabilities. We're not facing bankruptcy at all.

But this is the cherry on top:

"...and what are those pensions? Those are payments to people who are not working!"

As Karoli points out at C&L, that's absolutely correct: retirees, by definition, are no longer working. Duh.

Now, I don't think for a minute that Limbaugh is stupid enough not to get it. But it's evident that his listeners -- and I'd guess a fair proportion of them are retirees -- are that stupid. Or at least, have never developed the habit of actually thinking.

There are five retirement pension systems in Illinois; employees of the state university system, public school system, police and firefighters, judges, and members of the General Assembly to not pay into Social Security. Their pension is it. Oh, and they do contribute to their pensions -- it's not a free ride.

Side Note: I've never actually listened to one of Limbaugh's rants before. I had no idea he's such an over-the-top, hysterical drama queen. I'm sort of surprised he didn't drag in the Third Reich, which seems to be the favored comparison by "conservatives" these days. I don't think I even need to link to examples -- well, maybe one or two -- like here, or here. Josh Marshall has a post that provides a good analysis of this phenomenon, featuring one of the right's latest high-visibility tokens, Dr. Ben Carson.

People say lots of crazy stuff. Particularly right-wingers struggling to find analogies that might explain why their present day indignities, would-be oppressions or efforts to be understood place them in the descent of history's inconic victims - enslaved Africans in the Americas, gassed Jews in the Holocaust, to name only the most frequent examples.

I got to thinking about this more after I heard right wing star Dr. Ben Carson claim that 'political correctness' and its paramilitary enforcement arm, "the PC police", have made America "very much like Nazi Germany", so much in fact that we're living in a "Gestapo Age".

It's worth reading the whole thing.

It strikes me that these tactics -- high drama, Nazi comparisons, race baiting -- are the refuge of those who don't have a cogent argument to support their position. Those are all diversionary tactics, meant to obfuscate. It appears that's all the right has.

Words Fail Me

You may know that the series "Cosmos" has been rebooted featuring Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Well, the first segment got a review from none other than Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. If you've never heard of her, she's a physician -- and a researcher for Answers in Genesis:

A creationist has reviewed the new “Cosmos” reboot, featuring astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, and it may come as no surprise that she wasn’t terribly impressed.

“If the first segment is any indication, [“Cosmos”] will attempt to package unconditional blind faith in evolution as scientific literacy in an effort to create interest in science,” said Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, a physician and Answers In Genesis researcher.

She praises some aspects of the program, such as its “colorful” graphics and “charismatic” storytelling, but Mitchell complains that the program spent too much time describing phenomena that contradict biblical teachings.

I don't what to comment on the level of intellectual development involved in liking colorful graphics and charismatic storytelling as opposed to information -- I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that score.

One also has to wonder about the mindset that leads to characterizing acceptance of evidence as "unconditional blind faith."

This is undoubtedly one of the best examples I've ever run across of the blinkered mindset of the religious right:

Mitchell said Tyson had overlooked the only relevant source to the universe’s origins by scanning the galaxy and studying its physical properties.

“Drawing correct conclusions about the unobservable past requires evaluating ideas about the past within the framework of the Creator’s history,” she said. “Drawing correct conclusions about our own nature, how we should live our lives, and what will happen to each of us when we die also requires that we get our information from the Word of the Source of life, the One who created the cosmos.”

There you have it -- If you're trying to understand the universe, actually investigating the universe is irrelevant.

There's more in the article that only underscores the self-centered arrogance of the "Christian" right. I just find it astonishing that anyone who's in the least aware of the world outside their own head can come up with comments as patently ridiculous as those.

And this woman's a doctor? Don't want her anywhere near my body.

Footnote: One of the commenters at the article made an astute observation: Doctors aren't scientists, they're engineers.

Backbiting

I don't really know any other way to title this post. It's something I've noticed a lot lately in the comments threads on gay blogs, maybe more lately than before. I guess it's true of just about any group, but frankly, it gets on my nerves. Think back, those of you who follow particular gay blogs, to, for example, the reaction to Tom Daley's coming out video, and then the news that the relationship that was making him so happy was with Dustin Lance Black, a man twenty years his senior. Black caught most of the flak, but the pattern is there -- I don't understand what it is with some people who can't seem to refrain from criticizing people they don't know for things that have nothing to do with them. I'm afraid my reaction is fairly simple: Congratulations. Now you sound just like any other bigot. Of course, in their minds they're not bigots -- they're just criticizing people for doing something they don't approve of.

Now it's Jared Leto's turn. His big error? He won an Oscar for his portrayal of a trans woman in Dallas Buyers Club. The reaction from some quarters is just about what you'd expect:

Several trans people reacted to Leto winning the Oscar.

‘If you thought Jared Leto's performance was anything other than an exaggerated, stereotyped, cliché damaging to trans people, f off,’ one said on Twitter.

‘One small step for Jared Leto One giant blow for the trans movement,’ another added.

Another Twitter user said: ‘The fact that every trans person on my [timeline] found Jared Leto's portrayal of a trans person offensive makes me not really want to see that film.’

British trans activist Paris Lees, writing in The Independent, said it was not an Oscar-worthy performance as she did not recognize in Rayon any trans woman she knows.

‘For truly accurate portrayals of trans people, cast trans actors, I say,’ she said.

Paris Lees' reaction is probably the most brainless. Excuse me? They're actors. Do you know what that means? They make their living pretending to be other people.

It's not just the trans community, of course. (Although I will say that, having had my own run-ins with trans activists in comment threads, they can be just as rigid and judgmental as anyone else. That was the same site where someone insinuated that I'm a racist, which anyone who actually knows me would find more than ludicrous.) I've noticed it most in what we'll call the LGBT community (which is a term I hate and avoid whenever possible), but if you read the comments on news articles or opinion pieces in "mainstream" publications, you realize that it's a phenomenon you can find anywhere.

But whoever you are who's doing it, rest assured you've earned by contempt.

I haven't seen the film -- it's been on my "maybe"list, but I haven't been to the movies lately. I may this week if it's still playing anywhere local.

Here's Leto's acceptance, which I found quite affecting:

I Never Even Suspected

that the Republicans were this far out of touch with this country: from Paul Waldman at Vox Pop:

Last week, congressional Republicans got together at a Chesapeake Bay resort to contemplate their political fortunes. In one presentation, House Minority Leader Eric Cantor delivered a bit of shocking news to his colleagues: Most people are not, in fact, business owners. It would be a good idea, he suggested, if they could find a way to appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans who work for somebody else. Their aspirations don't necessarily include opening up their own store or coming up with an amazing new product, so the prospect of lowering the corporate tax rate or slashing environmental regulations may not make their pulses quicken with excitement. They're more concerned with the availability of jobs, the security of health care, and the affordability of education.

I mean, seriously? They didn't realize that? And as Waldman points out, this is the same Eric Cantor (R-Wall Street) who in 2012, devoted his Labor Day comments to praising -- business owners. I wonder what caused the epiphany -- do you suppose it was anything like with Saul on the road to Tarsus?

Read the whole thing -- it's a nice thoughtful look at why the Republicans have ceased to be relevant.

Hmm -- do you suppose anyone's told Paul Ryan?

Today In Disgusting People

Wouldn't you know, it's the head of a major pharmaceuticals company:

Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers

In 2005, the FDA granted approval for a promising new cancer-fighting drug called Nexavar. Bayer took it to market shortly thereafter, and it is currently an approved treatment for late-stage kidney and liver cancer.

That is, so long as you live in the developed world. In a recently published interview in Bloomberg Businessweek, Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers said that his company’s drug isn’t for poor people.

“We did not develop this medicine for Indians…we developed it for western patients who can afford it,” he said back in December. The quote is quickly making its way across Indian news outlets.

And such a good head for positive PR, too.

It seems that India has what's called a "compulsory license":

Under Indian patent laws, if a product is not available locally at a reasonable cost, other companies may apply for licenses to reproduce those products at a more affordable price. Nexavar costs an estimated $69,000 for a full year of treatment in India, 41 times the country’s annual per capita income.

In 2012, Indian pharmaceutical company Natco Pharma Ltd. applied for just such a license, and it was granted. The company began reproducing the drug at a 97 percent discount, offering it for just $177.

We should have a system like that.

By the way, how much do you suppose Dekker's makes a year?

It's the Real Thing

The corporate sponsors of the Sochi Olympics haven't been, shall we say, overly concerned with the Soviet -- oops, with Russia's anti-gay campaign. Coca-Cola is really making a name for itself right now -- and it doesn't look like it's a good name. They, along with other corporate sponsors of the Sochi Olympics, are basically taking the IOC's stance of "Don't rock the boat. There's too much money involved for human rights to be a factor." They've been only too happy to buy into Putin's "assurances" as long as it gives them an out, even to the point of defending the arrest of protestors. If you saw the recent interview he gave on ABC, it's obvious he's lying through his teeth.

So far it's been more a matter of what they haven't done than anything they have -- until now. From AmericaBlog:

It seems that Coke’s social media campaign, “Share a Coke,” is only designed for heterosexuals.

The site, which permits Coke fans to enter their name (or a message) on a virtual can of Coke, bans the word “gay.” It does not, however, ban the word straight.

When you type in the word “gay,” here’s the message that Coke gives you:

“Oops. Let’s pretend you didn’t just type that.”

Yes, wouldn’t Coke like to pretend that the gay didn’t exist at all, considering the backlash Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and other Olympics sponsors have been facing over their refusal to speak out against increasing Russian human rights violations. McDonald’s, for example, just saw gay rights advocates, led by Queer Nation NY, steal and neutralize its new “Cheers to Sochi” Twitter hashtag.

(Ed.: That's the image that leads off this post.)

It's not only censoring the word "gay," it's the truly offensive "error" message -- "Let's pretend you didn't type that"? WTF?

It's Coke's ham-handed reactions that are giving it a place of honor in the rogues' gallery of corporate sponsors of the Homophobic Olympcis. Queer Nation, which has been in the forefront of the protests, made this video, which I think speaks for itself:

One wonders what Coke will come up with next.

(PS: Click through and read the comments, or at least skim them, at the AmericaBlog story. People are getting very creative with the virtual Coke cans.)

A Little Catch-up

It's been a busy week. Here are a few things I didn't get to:

India:

You may have heard that the Indian Supreme Court has recriminalized homosexuality. What they did was to overturn the decision of the Delhi High Court from a couple of years ago that found Section 377, from the old British Colonial penal code, is unconstitutional. The decision has not been met favorably, either outside of India or within. The government has filed a petition with the Court for review of the verdict. One Indian actor, Imran Khan, has answered some of the myriad of questions that have arisen in the wake of the decision:

Utah:

It looks as though things in Utah are stalled. The courts -- both Judge Shelby of the District Court and a panel of the 10th Circuit -- have refused to order a stay on Judge Shelby's decision overturning Utah's anti-marriage constitution amendment. The state has said it will petition Justice Sotomayor, who oversees the 10th Circuit, but they seem to be in some disarray and haven't, as of this writing, filed yet. Josh Marshall has a good recap of the events and their implications.

And Utah has had a record number of marriages in the past week.

Uganda:

The Ugandan Parliament has passed the "Kill the Gays" bill, without the kill part. President Musveni has said he will examine it carefully before he decides whether to sign it into law. Jim Burroway has an analysis of the sneaky tactics of the proponents of the bill, which sounds about right for the anti-gay "conservatives" of any country. Burroway also has a look at the reaction of Ugandan religious leaders. I advise you to read it on an empty stomach.

Papa Duck:

That millionaire nonentity from that A&E "reality" show has been reinstated -- yes, A&E, like Cracker Barrel before them, has caved. Joe Jervis has a series of posts on the reactions this morning, which I'm not going to link to here -- just go to his blog.

Ender's Game:

A flop, no matter how you look at it:

Note that box office as of Thursday is $88,065,750 worldwide. Note also the budget figure. I don't think a sequel is in the offing.

OK, this turned into a link dump -- sorry about that, but like I said, it's been a busy week. This should serve to catch you up on anything you've missed.

Short and Sweet

This gets my vote as best post of the day:

Click through to read David Atkins' comment.

I Honestly Feel Sorry For Him

But not for the reasons he thinks. Robert Oscar Lopez:

The LGBT lobby has warped my relationship with students, my relationship with gay friends, my relationship with the press, my relationship with bosses at the university, my relationship with readers, and saddest of all, my relationship with my own family.

I'd suggest that if your relationships with the people you know are warped, it's not the fault of some third party, especially one as abstract and formless as "the LGBT lobby," whatever that is.

This little screed points up something I've noticed more and more about the anti-gay right, and the "Christian" right in general: it's all about them. It's always about them, and only them. That strikes me as pretty immature, at best. I'm reminded of the story about the NOM intern who went to a marriage rally and was disheartened at the preponderance of pro-SSM demonstrators, and the meager showing by anti-marriage groups. She also took the opportunity to opine that same-sex marriage devalued her own (at that point, entirely hypothetical) marriage vows and her relationship with her god. I'm afraid the only response I could think of was "What ever led you to believe that someone else's marriage is about you?"

Same syndrome: "I'm a total loss as a human being, and it's someone else's fault." These people need some serious intervention.