Bullying, Suicide, and Murder -- Update, Update II, Update III

As is so often the case, this post started out as a response to a post by Andrew Sullivan. He's worried about an anti-gay backlash, which is not unreasonable -- history is a series of reactions.

I do not believe we will ever live in a world without homophobia, nor do I believe it will ever be as easy to be a gay kid as a straight kid, even in the most liberal of societies and cultures, if only because the desire to be like everyone else, to belong, is strong in everyone, but especially among the young. And few adults are as cruel as children. One of the core anti-liberal arguments in Virtually Normal is that politics can and should establish certain basic formal rights, that laws can and do have an effect on social attitudes, but in the end,

politics cannot do the work of life. Even culture cannot do the work of life. Only life can do the work of life.

Politics solves none of the deepest issues of the human condition, which is why I continue to see myself as a classical conservative (with intermittent bursts, in the tradition of Burke, of moral passion about manifest injustice). Politics, in my view, is a necessary evil. As gay people in this time and place, we have to deal with it because we are denied basic rights most others take for granted, and have always taken for granted (like the right to marry).

He comes close in this passage. I don't agree that politics is a necessary evil. For those at all familiar with studies of our closest relatives, it seems that politics is a basic social mechanism, that, as the band gets larger and turns into a country becomes an institutionalized mechanism that, at its best, works to keep the society functioning. What Sullivan's really talking about here is the legal structures that are the end result of politics, and in one regard he's perfectly correct: the law can't make things perfect. But it provides in clear form the boundaries of what is acceptable. We have laws against discrimination on the basis of race, and there are still racists -- they're just very quiet about it because it is now socially unacceptable to express it openly (or was until January, 2009). Being non-Christian, I can, unlike Sullivan, believe that people are basically good. They just need to be taught the limits. It's called "growing up."

In the case of gay kids and bullying, which is, after all, what this post is about, I find a concept from my last post on banned books relevant: one of the ideas that those on the so-called "Christian," anti-gay right try to ban is that same-sex attraction is perfectly normal. That strand started with this post on the attempt to scrub the book Revolutionary Voices, created by gay teens for gay teens, from the Burlington Country, NJ, library system. That's just one of too many examples of how the anti-gay right tries to brush us under the carpet. Take Sullivan's reference to the pope:

I think of this Pope's phrase "intrinsically disordered" toward "an objective moral evil" to describe his fellow humans, something one simply cannot imagine Jesus of Nazareth ever saying of anyone.

That's official Church doctrine, at the root of the hierarchy's blatant attempts to influence voters against equal rights for gays which again are too numerous to mention. It's reflected in episodes such as the video of Candy Cushman of Focus on the Family I posted here, in which Cushman maintains that specific causes of bullying need not be addressed, under the camouflage that "all children need to be protected." Yes, they do, but if you don't address specific motivations, you might as well just not say anything. (Update II: On this point, see also this post by Michael Hamar at Bilerico on the privileged place of (certain forms of) religion and how religious bigotry contributes to the whole problem.)

And when we have a rash of suicides such as have been reported recently, the first response of the right is to blame the kids. The one that seems to be getting the most attention is Tyler Clementi, and eighteen-year-old student at Rutgers whose roommate live-streamed him having sex with another man.



Joe Jervis quoted Theodore Beale, also known as "Vox Day" (nudge, nudge -- get it? A little bit of an ego problem there?) from this disgusting little screed:

The body count of the gay rights movement grows by one. Despite literal decades of preaching about the morality of homosexuality, despite the pansexual propaganda of the public and private schools, the knowledge that what he was doing was shameful and wrong still managed to penetrate Mr. [Tyler] Clementi's mind. A normal man being forced to confront his immorality in such a public way might have reacted with anger, irritation, embarrassment, or amusement, but only one who is both psychologically disturbed and appalled by his own actions will destroy himself over it. [Snip]

"So it was not a juvenile prank that killed the unfortunate Mr. Clementi even though it served as the proximate trigger for his lethal actions. If anyone other than Mr. Clementi should be blamed for his suicide, it is those who repeatedly encouraged him to behave in a way that would fill him with such guilt, remorse, and shame.

See, it's all the fault of gay people demanding to be treated as human beings. (Sorry, but Beale ranks in my book as human garbage, no ifs, ands or buts.)

And FoF jumps into the fray by blaming GSLEN.

Truth Wins Out I think hits the nail on the head:

Through their annual “Day of Truth” campaign and TrueTolerance.org web site, Focus on the Family and the “ex-gay” group Exodus International actively and continuously obstruct anti-bullying programs in schools across the country. Instead of opposing violence, both organizations remain dedicated to pretending the problem of anti-gay bullying does not exist, or downplaying the deadly results.

“The goal of Exodus International and Focus on the Family is to purge LGBT people from society, although they disingenuously frame the issue as eliminating homosexuality, which is not possible,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “When you target homosexuality, the result is persecution and punishment of LGBT people, and in many cases it leads to gay bashing or suicides. The anti-gay industry should dismantle these despicable programs and work towards creating solutions instead of suicides.”

Some on the right are backing off -- or dodging, I guess, would be more accurate. As Jeremy Hooper reports, Maggie Gallagher has expressed her grief over Clementi's suicide, while trying to cover her ass as a major anti-gay player. I don't doubt that her sympathy is sincere, just as I don't doubt that she's suffering a major disconnect between her anti-gay campaign and its consequences. As Hooper notes:

But here's the thing: It doesn't matter what Maggie personally thinks about what will or will not resolve tragedies like the ones we've seen this week. It doesn't matter how heartfelt her personal condolences may be. What matters is the body of her professional work with NOM and elsewhere, and the fallout that we gay folk all-too-well know can stem from these "culture war" activities! Because it is this bias cultivation that changes the molecules in the air. It's this anti-civil rights work that puts heterosexism into everyone's psyches. It's this fear-fostering that foments a world where LGBT people are viewed as different, wrong, or in some extreme cases -- unworthy of life.

(Interestingly enough, Tony Perkins has been strangely silent on this issue -- he hasn't even attacked the victims. He must be in the hospital.)

Evan Hurst at Truth Wins Out notes that this issue does cross partisan lines. This quote from Dan Blatt pins it down:

The students who posted the video did not mean to push this young man to take his own life. They probably didn’t even consider the consequences. They were entirely indifferent to his feelings.

"Entirely indifferent" -- because it's OK to be indifferent to gay people's feelings. (Like Hurst, I've had my differences with Blatt, but this is something we can agree on.)

And Jim Burroway brings it full circle, in this post:

But of course, we know the problem exists precisely because the specific problem isn’t being addressed in schools. The problem exists because school administrators turn a blind eye to gay kids being bullied. It exists because very public people give a green light to bullying. And it exists because people create an atmosphere — administrators, teachers, parents, preachers, and ex-gay program vice-presidents — only speak of gay people as problems to be dealt with, struggles to be cured, “choices” to be condemned, and any notion of positive futures to be denied.

I think it is time to turn the question to a declarative: Opposition to anti-bullying programs and suicide prevention equals murder.

And finally, some pushback. First, Ellen DeGeneres:



Some resources:

Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project -- videos from survivors.
The Trevor Project has a hot line and live chat.
GLSEN Resource Page -- provides access to local chapters.
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Hotline, English and Spanish.

If you know of other resources, local or national, please leave links or phone numbers in the comments. I'm going to try to set up a page in the sidebar for this, so by all means, contribute.

Update: just ran across this at LiveJournal, where I've reposted it to my own page 

Originally posted by neo_prodigy at Spirit Day 


It’s been decided. On October 20th, 2010, we will wear purple in honor of the 6 gay boys who committed suicide in recent weeks/months due to homophobic abuse in their homes at at their schools. Purple represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality. Please wear purple on October 20th. Tell your friends, family, co-workers, neighbors and schools.

RIP Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh (top)
RIP Justin Aaberg, Raymond Chase (middle)
RIP Asher Brown and Billy Lucas. (bottom)

REBLOG to spread a message of love, unity and peace.

Update III:  From Towleroad, a round-up of coverage and commentary.

It's Banned Books Week

And I, of all people, should have something to say.

Let me start off by pointing you to this piece by Steven D at Daily Kos.

Usually when I think about freedom, perhaps the one I cherish the most is the opportunity to read what I want regardless of whether someone else approves or disapproves of my choices. The public library was as much a sacred place for me growing up as church. Yet for a "free country" the United States has a well known history of banning or restricting access to books, even in recent times. . . .

It seems everyday someone makes a complaint about why certain books should not be available because they find something about it that doesn't agree with their most cherished beliefs or prejudices. But isn't the entire point of freedom that we get to make those decisions for ourselves? That we don't turn away from books with ideas that we don't hold, but engage them and their ideas and make up our own minds?

This leads more or less automatically to a series of posts from last month about censorship, libraries, and the role of partisan interests, here, here, and here. That led to quite a debate with someone calling him/herself "SafeLibraries" who apparently wants libraries to be safe for everything except books. What is most interesting about S/L's comments is not their content, which was minimal, but the style of argument, which seems composed of equal parts of deflection and the sense that any resistance to the proponent's agenda is necessarily ideological, when, in fact, it's the proponent (in this case, "SafeLibraries") who is operating from ideology.  (The giveaway in these exchanges is S/L's insistence that objections to "ex-gay" literature, or other things advocated by "conservative Christians" are passed over because of ideology, although I pointed out a couple of times that the "ex-gay" movement is founded on pseudo-science and quackery and has been demonstrated repeatedly to be harmful.)

Banning books is simply banning ideas, as Steven D points out.  To me, that's a direct attack on the First Amendment, which I consider the cornerstone of everything that comes after (the lock-and-load contingent notwithstanding).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Think about the sense of that sentence:  it's all about access to ideas and the liberty to express them freely, which is exactly what the Gail Sweets and SafeLibraries of the world are trying to take away from us, under the guise of "preserving community values," the community being those they can stampede into agreeing with them by application of that old scare mantra, "Save the Children!"

(A note:  Yes, I'm fully aware that children need to be guided and that they can't be thrown headfirst into a bunch of ideas that they're not yet equipped to deal with.  There is an answer:  it's called "teaching" and it makes use of books,  many of which the Guardians of Morality (TM) would like to see banned.)

I'm not confining my condemnation to the right, by any means.  I remember not so long ago that there was a movement to "clean up" The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, one of the great classics of American literature, because of its portrayal of race, including prominent use of the "n" word.  The same mechanism is at work:  blinkered vision, intolerance of other viewpoints, and an amazing inability to see other possible approaches.  (And for those who might be inclined to quibble that Huck Finn was only being brought into line with modern sensibilities, or some such bullshit, a one-word response:  No.  Censorship is censorship, whether it be banning or "editing.")

My immediate response to someone who objects to a book is simply "Don't read it."  Unfortunately, it's a somewhat more pernicious phenomenon than that:  ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills are how we wind up with phenomena such as the teabaggers, who are so easily manipulated by the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Newt Gingrich.  And don't expect any politicians to buck the trend, at least not on the national level:  their corporate pals don't want a populace able to think for itself.

I think the next censorship battle is not going to be over books.  It's already taking shape in net neutrality, and it's going to be interesting to see which politicians will be falling over themselves to sell us out.  I figure it will be the so-called "moderates" on both sides of the aisle lining up behind the corporate tools on the right.

We're going to have to come up with a way to implement a "Banned Websites Week."

In the meantime, read something that's been banned.  And share it with your kids.

Stick It To 'Em

Stuff like this makes me very happy. It's the sort of thing I'd like to shove down the throats of those stuffed shirts on Capitol Hill. Do you suppose they get it?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Truthiness to Power
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

"Hero of Truth?" Puh-leeze!

Ran across an interesting video at Crooks & Liars about the controversy over the "Ground Zero mosque," which is not at ground zero and is not a mosque.

Pay attention to Pam Geller, the lunatic who bears the most responsibility for the mess.

(I can't embed the video -- for some reason, Blogger won't accept the embed code and I can't figure out how to fix it. Follow the link above to see the clip.)

I can't do better than Nicole Bell's comment about Geller: "You should shut up simply because you wouldn't know the truth if it sat shiva for your integrity in your apartment."

What struck me is the expression on Geller's face: I've seen it on middle-class Jewish girls, WASPs from Long Island, Polish girls from Chicago's southwest side. I think it must be something the pick up in Princess school: they're being bitches, they know they're being bitches, and they know they're going to get away with it because they're Princesses.

Overall, I think this must be the most intelligent and fair bit of coverage I've seen in any medium of this whole thing. It's worth the twelve minutes.

Recovery

is sometimes worse than being sick. It's more annoying, at any rate.

I'm still dealing with residual congestion and the consequent lack of energy and focus. Bear with me.

I mean, it's not like the news is any different. The Republicans are still against everything and the Democrats still haven't grown spines. What's to say?

Bullying: It Gets Better

I've been meaning to link to this for a couple of days, but the cold has been short-circuiting my brain.  From Dan Savage:

I’ve launched a channel on YouTube— www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject —to host these videos. My normally camera-shy husband and I already posted one. We both went to Christian schools and we were both bullied—he had it a lot worse than I did—and we are living proof that it gets better. We don’t dwell too much on the past. Instead, we talk mostly about all the meaningful things in our lives now—our families, our friends (gay and straight), the places we’ve gone and things we’ve experienced—that we would’ve missed out on if we’d killed ourselves then.

And here's the first video, from Dan and his husband Terry:



It does get better. I had my share of hassles in school, and haven't been back since I graduated. But I'm really happy with who I am (although I do wish I could find a way to cram an extra day into the week). And thinking back, I've had a lot of support and friendship from people who are much cooler than the people I went to high school with.

At any rate, check out the YouTube channel.

Where Do They Find These People?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This has to be a spoof. It has to be. Doesn't it?

Mmpff

I was working on a rather substantial post about the Muslim community center proposed for a couple blocks away from the WTC site -- the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" -- based on a post by Elizabeth Moon (yes, that Elizabeth Mooon) brought to my attention by Will Shetterly (yes, that Will Shetterly) and Doctor Science.

I have to say that I admire Shetterly for his patience and forbearance -- he's much more forgiving of logical lapses than I.

However, I am now fighting a cold and my focus is kind of blown -- have a horrible sore throat and have been gulping vitamin C and echinacea for the past day. (And I want you to know that this is entirely against the rules -- I have one cold a year, and that's it, and I've already had this year's cold, so this is not even a legitimate cold.)

Maybe I can get to it. And then again, maybe not.

Bullying and The Christianist Right

I promised a follow-up to my posts on "Contemptible People" and "FoF Thinks This Is A Good Thing".

Here's Candy Cushman, of Focus on the Family, along with Eliza Byer of GSLEN, and Rosalind Wiseman, who works on bullying issues across the country.



Cushman gets creamed -- you'll notice she never actually answers any points brought up by Byer or Wiseman. She just keeps repeating herself until she finally brings up the "kids being taught homosexuality in kindergarten" mantra, a sure sign of desperation on the right.

But think about what she's saying here: it doesn't matter why kids are being bullied. Even Cooper's disbelief is obvious on this one. And the rebuttals ring true: if you can't discuss why kids are being bullied, how easy is it to talk to someone about it? You have nothing to say: "They're pickin' on me!" "Stop picking on him." Problem solved -- at least, according to Focus on the Family. And of course, the causes go unexamined and unresolved, but I suspect that's part of the strategy. It's instructive to note that in their eyes, "gay" outweighs "children" every time. This is the reasoning behind my comment that Focus on the Family believe kids should be protected from bullying, except it's OK if they're gay. The other leg of that statement is her whole thing about "politicizing" the issue. Can you say "projection"? "Displacement" will do just about as well. If anyone has politicized school bullying, it's been FoF and the Christianist right because they seem to think that when a gay kid commits suicide, that's a good thing. (And no, I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion, given how much they've fought against including sexual orientation in anti-bullying programs and hate crimes laws.)

Oh, and Cushman's remark that 30% of children report being bullied. Time for a reality check: for GLBT students, it's nearly 90%. I would think that even someone as intellectually stunted as Cushman would see that and maybe, just maybe, think we have a special problem there.

This costs. The cost is just too damned much. I noted a couple of suicides of high-school students when I originally posted on this subject. The one that's gotten the most follow-up is Billy Lucas', in Greensburg, Indiana. Box Turtle Bulletin has been doing major follow-up on this one. This horrible report is the most recent. Jim Burroway, quoting from this story:

Homophobic hate messages were left Thursday on a memorial page set up for Billy Lucas, a Greensburg High School student who killed himself last week after being mercilessly bullied, friends said. Numerous images were uploaded to a Facebook group, giving visitors a taste of the kind of hate Lucas endured, friends said.

The messages chided the teen about defending himself and made attacks on his presumed sexuality, 6News' Joanna Massee reported.

This is the aftermath of the "solution" to bullying that Cushman and FoF are peddling. Billy Lucas didn't seem to have anyone to go to, even though the school had an anti-bullying policy in place.

When looking at this whole thing -- Cushman blindly reiterating her talking points and never even acknowledging other's points in rebuttal, the insistence that talking about gay people is completely out of line, the total disregard of the real human cost of what they are proposing -- I realize what it is that bothers me the most: it's the complete lack of anything even remotely resembling compassion or empathy, or even simple humanity, in their position.

A good parallel, although it's not about bullying, is this clip of Mike Huckabee talking about health care, particularly the ban on refusing insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Same mindset, same tactics, different topic.



Do you begin to see why I despise these people?

Update: In support of my contention that the Christianist right is lacking humanity, see this post at Politics Plus.

I really meant to

do a follow-up to the bullying posts today, but it was a scary day.

Probably tomorrow.

In the meantime, I'm reading a critical/philosophy anthology that is an excellent example of how close contemporary writing in philosophy comes to Newspeak.

The Greeks were right not to trust sophists.

For Those Who Throw Rocks

Specifically, at gay Republicans: this lengthy profile on Matt R. Salmon, son of a conservative Mormon politician from Arizona. It focuses a lot on family conflicts, but Salmon's comments about what he went through before he was able to accept himself are worth the read.

FoF Thinks This Is A Good Thing

A follow-up to this post on Candy Cushman, "education analyst" (whatever the hell that is) for Focus on the Family and her "bullying is good" tour.  Just a few highlights of the week:

Yet another teen suicide in the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota, bringing their total for the past year to five.  Yes, Five.  The school district's response?

"It's very difficult. We have a community that has widely varying opinions, and so to respect all families, as the policy says, we ask teachers to remain neutral," said District Spokeswoman Mary Olson.

Here's an example of the school district's "neutrality":

Two Anoka-Hennepin School District teachers were accused last year of tag-teaming a student whom they harassed, insinuating that he was gay and embarrassing him in front of his classmates. The student, who was not gay, eventually transferred to another district and brought suit against Anoka-Hennepin. The district settled with him for $25,000. The teachers in the case were placed on leave, and remain on leave currently, the WCCO report said.

This is from a very good, thorough article at Edge.  (Which covers most of what's in this post, but I only found it as I was writing.)

Someone's going to have to explain to me how respecting all families means letting some families' children be driven to suicide.

Another teen suicide, in Indiana this time.

In a heartbreaking irony of circumstance, 15-year-old Billy Lucas killed himself during National Suicide Prevention Week. Billy was the victim of merciless bullying. While he never self-identified as gay, he was cruelly harassed for being different, and many of the taunts accused him of being gay. Last Thursday, a student pulled a chair out from under Billy and told him to go home and kill himself. And Billy did, hanging himself in the family barn.

The principal comes up with the astonishgly novel "blame the victim" defense:

This time the ‘I Don’t Give A Damn Award’ goes to Principal Phil Chapple, who had no idea that Lucas was being bullied. Nope, no clue.
But he did say this:

“Sometimes he created that atmosphere around him,” Chappel said. “Kind of like a little tornado because he went around doing things that made dust fly, I guess.”

So Chappel saw dust fly, but never noticed that kids were threatening Billy every day. Un-huh. And he admits that his problems were because “people found out who he was.”


And according to GLSEN, things aren't getting much better:

The 2009 survey of 7,261 middle and high school students found that at school nearly 9 out of 10 LGBT students experienced harassment at school in the past year and nearly two-thirds felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation. Nearly a third of LGBT students skipped at least one day of school in the past month because of safety concerns.

An analysis of National School Climate Survey data over 10 years showed that since 1999 there has been a decreasing trend in the frequency of hearing homophobic remarks; however, LGBT students' experiences with more severe forms of bullying and harassment have remained relatively constant.

So I guess Candy Cushman and her paymasters at FoF can rest assured that they are successful in doing God's work by helping to drive vulnerable teenagers to their deaths.

Did I mention how much these people disgust me?

There will be more on this, but not until I gather my thoughts. News like this, in light of the smug self-satisfaction of creeps like Cushman and her bosses, really pisses me off.

A New Interest

in economics.  In part, it's because it's an overwhelmingly important issue right now, with Republicans and Democrats (I mean real Democrats) making diametrically opposed statements as to what we need.

Here's Austan Goolsbee talking about John Boehner's (R-pick a country club) statement that he would vote for ending the tax cuts for the rich if he had to:



It's nice to see someone from the White House on the tube actually pushing back.

There's actually another reason for my interest in economics:  Austan Goolsbee is really cute.

Take That, Sarah Palin!

The best headline I've seen on the "Ground Zero mosque" tempest is this one, from this post by Eric Martin at Obsidian Wings:

It Was Insensitive that the Twin Towers Were at Ground Zero

To A "T"

Ran across this site at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Some of them are really funny, some not so much, but it's worth checking out.

We Knew That

From this story at NYT:

Republicans, and a few Democrats, assert that the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, warning that a tax increase right now, even if limited to the highest income bracket, would hurt small businesses and choke off an economic recovery that is already gasping.

Given the economy’s persistent weakness and an unemployment rate hovering above 9.5 percent, those arguments have gained traction. And because another round of government stimulus spending is considered politically unviable even if it were warranted, the debate over the tax cuts will be laced with promises to spur economic activity and reduce unemployment. The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters that many embrace them as an economic cure-all.

But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest “bang for the buck,” because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.

Point 1: The top 2% already have more money than they know what to do with.

Point 2: Nobody's spending money now because nobody has any. The dribble you get for "extra" in your paycheck ain't going to change that.

Point 3: The Bush tax cuts are a big part of why we have this great honkin' deficit to begin with. How the hell is extending them going to make it better?

Everyone seems to get that except Washington.

LCR vs. U.S. Note

A brief profile of Judge Virginia Phillips, who wrote the opinion this week trashing DADT.

With, of course, the obligatory "judicial activist" quote from Tony Perkins. Doesn't the man have any idea how tired that little mantra is?

Avoiding the Mirror

This is what passes for soul-searching in the media. I find it less than penetrating.

Especially since there's another story on Jones on the front page.

You Have to Wonder

When the major progress on GLBT rights is being made by Republicans -- in this case, LCR.

A federal judge in Riverside declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional Thursday, saying the “don't ask, don't tell” policy violates the 1st Amendment rights of lesbians and gay men.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the policy banning gays did not preserve military readiness, contrary to what many supporters have argued, saying evidence shows that the policy in fact had a “direct and deleterious effect’’ on the military.

Like anyone doesn't know that.

Here's the ruling:

Decision finding DADT is unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to stall.

Update: Here's some analysis from Ari Ezra Waldman at Towleroad. Jason Mazzone has this comment at Balkinization; without going into detail, whatever the precedential basis of his comments, the reasoning strikes me as a little strained.

The Way It Should Be

This is the way it should be, in contrast to the politically inspired brouhaha over the sogenannte "Ground Zero mosque" -- the one behind all the sex shops and bars on the teabaggers' "sacred ground" of the week.

BERWYN, Pa. (AP) — A new mosque recently opened in this well-to-do suburb of Philadelphia, but not many people noticed.

That was fine with leaders of the Islamic Society of Greater Valley Forge. Amid a tense national climate for U.S. Muslims, they did not seek publicity for the happy occasion, only continued peace with their neighbors: a Jewish synagogue next door and Baptist church across the street.

Funny thing about all the controversy -- you know what I haven't heard from any of the religious freedom opponents so far? "Some of my best friends are Muslims."

Contemptible People

This week, as is so often the case, it's Focus on the Family, who support driving teenagers to suicide.

Three teens at a Minnesota school district have committed suicide over the past year after enduring anti-gay bullying. The Anoka-Hennepin School Board claims that they take bullying seriously, but they’ve refused to implement anti-bullying education programs aimed specifically at anti-gay bullying — which is precisely the issue that has led to three deaths this year. A group of anti-gay parents have formed a pressure group to support the board’s anti-gay stance, and they have the full backing of Focus On the Family:

Focus' so-called "education expert" Candy Cushman has been making the rounds to say that FoF is supports anti-bullying programs -- unless they include gay kids, because that's  "sexualizing" the issue.  (I don't know any gays who think about gay sex as much as the spokespersons for the Christian right.  I really don't.)  From the looks of things, I know more about education than Cushman does -- the difference being, I suppose, that I'm actually educated.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a good look at Cushman's little campaign and come out swinging:

For the last few days, an “educational analyst” for Focus on the Family has been getting a lot of press. She’s been suggesting that anti-bullying efforts that draw attention to the harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students are part of a “gay agenda” to “sneak homosexuality lessons into classrooms.”

One can argue, as some have, that Focus on the Family is a fringe group that doesn’t represent the majority of Christians in the United States. That’s true. But it’s also true that Focus on the Family has an outsized impact on conservative thought in this country. And by using deception and spin, the group has managed this week to grab the media spotlight. The goal is apparently to make schools less safe for LGBT students and more safe for their harassers. That cannot be ignored.

That's just the first two paragraphs.  Read the whole thing -- it's pretty tough, especially the part where author Maureen Costello lays out FoF's agenda.  Jim Burroway has a similar take on what they're after:

The best way not to solve a problem is not to talk about the problem. And since Focus’ position is that we should not talk about the problem, at some point you have to wonder if, in some unspoken dark corner of their collective souls, they see these suicides as serving their purposes. Focus consistently portrays the “homosexual lifestyle” as synonymous with abject misery — rampant drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide. And, coincidentally or not, they consistently oppose efforts to constructively address drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth. After all, if we really were to address drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth by actually talking about drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth with an eye toward identifying solutions to these problems instead of using those problems as a hammer, then drug abuse, ST’s, depression and suicide among gay youth might actually go down. And the “homosexual lifestyle” won’t seem so full of misery, will it?

Groups of professional bigots, armed with a full arsenal of lies and distortions, cost us.  They cost us a lot, and it's not just LGBT youth I'm talking about here.  Read this very moving post by Betty Greene Salwak about the lifelong aftermath of her father's suicide. Now imagine it's your kid.

And thank Focus on the Family.

Star Guts

It's also been called a stellar "pearl necklace." Rather awesome, don't you think?

Obama's Labor Day Speech

didn't say much about labor. It was a good speech, though.

But we already knew he can give good speeches. He seems to think that's the whole job.

Labor Day Thought

In spite of what you may have heard from (insert favorite Rahm Emanuel clone here), we don't owe our standard of living to the captains of industry. We owe it to organized labor.

Don't ever forget that.

Misplace Assumptions, an Addendum

Another thought concerning this post, which occurred to me in reading the further comments on Susie Madrak's original post, and in this post by Michael Hamar at Bilerico.

Well, OK, a couple of thoughts.

One thing that struck me about the comments from the Crooks and Liars post -- not so much at Bilerico -- was the tone of moral indignation in many of the comments, summed up most neatly in the comment of one person that "abuse of children is wrong under all circumstances," to which my response -- if I had made one -- would have been "Define 'abuse' and define 'children'." It's this sense of moral superiority couched in broad generalities that offends me, simply because it reeks of judgment based on near or complete ignorance, something that we seem to find both on the right and on the left.

Secondly, my real point in all of this, which I probably didn't state clearly enough, is simply that yes, there are abuses, obvious from the accounts of abduction and rape. To call for eliminating the institution on that basis is, I think, a grave mistake. Eliminate the abuses, to be sure, but before you demand that the institution itself be eliminated in toto, be damned sure you know what you're doing.

Evolution in the Widest Sense

A couple of fascinating essays by Susan Blackmore at NYT, here and here -- a transposition, if you will, of the evolutionary idea of "copying" and how it plays out in memetics, with particular reference to what Blackmore calls "temes" --- that is, technological memes, a way of describing the information explosion.

I haven't really digested these essays yet, but they're fascinating reading.

And, under the category of "first thoughts," what Blackmore is describing echoes quite strongly the mechanisms of folklore as described by Joseph W. Campbell in The Flight of the Wild Gander -- a tribal story travels to a neighboring tribe, is embellished with elements of their own history by the members of that tribe, and finds its way back to the original tribe with the embellishments. A sort of cultural equivalent to the way that genetic variation travels through populations in biological evolution.

Misplaced Assumptions

This post by Susie Madrak sort of rocked me back on my heels this morning. Sadly, it seems that once again I'm proven correct: the PC left is just as blinkered and judgmental as the rabid right. It also demonstrates that "Save the children!" goes straight to the lizard brain, bypassing all higher cognitive functions.

Madrak's headline gives a good idea of the thrust of her post. (And frankly, I expected something more intelligent from Madrak.)

In Afghanistan, We're Looking The Other Way As Police, Tribal Leaders Commit Child Rape

After a brief nod to this article, which introduces the "abduction and rape of teenage boys"" mantra in passing as part of a broader group of abuses by the national police, Madrak focuses on this highly inhlammatory article by Joel Brinkley. The gist of the "scandal" is this:

Western forces fighting in southern Afghanistan had a problem. Too often, soldiers on patrol passed an older man walking hand-in-hand with a pretty young boy. Their behavior suggested he was not the boy's father. Then, British soldiers found that young Afghan men were actually trying to "touch and fondle them," military investigator AnnaMaria Cardinalli told me. "The soldiers didn't understand."

All of this was so disconcerting that the Defense Department hired Cardinalli, a social scientist, to examine this mystery. Her report, "Pashtun Sexuality," startled not even one Afghan. But Western forces were shocked - and repulsed.

For centuries, Afghan men have taken boys, roughly 9 to 15 years old, as lovers. Some research suggests that half the Pashtun tribal members in Kandahar and other southern towns are bacha baz, the term for an older man with a boy lover. Literally it means "boy player." The men like to boast about it.

"Having a boy has become a custom for us," Enayatullah, a 42-year-old in Baghlan province, told a Reuters reporter. "Whoever wants to show off should have a boy."

Madrak's framing gives it away:

So our troops are fighting and dying for child rapists in a warped fundamentalist theocracy. And we're protecting them? This is too much for my mind to comprehend. . . .

Don't look for any sort of rational discussion here. What we have is the lizard brain in full control, fueled by the assumption of cultural superiority.

The commenters, with one exception, are no better. The one exception at least had the wit to ask

So what I'm wondering is: what happens to the boys? Obviously they don't die from these relationships. Are they ostracized, or do they have a separate place in the society as they grow up, or do they just take on the other role when they themselves are men?

Now, I don't normally expect a lot from the comments on blogs (except here, of course, where the commenters are perspicacious and well-spoken, or if not, entertaining in their ineptitude), but the comments at that post are spectacularly ill-informed and injudicious.

However, to the substance. My own comment brought up the fact that we are dealing with another culture with its own standards and mores. (And I have to confess that I am basically dismissing both articles that Madrak cites -- the first made a passing reference to the "abduction and rape of teenage boys" as part of the list of abuses perpetrated on the civilian population for no reason that I can detect other than a deliberate attempt at titillation --the article is basically about political corruption and the drug trade -- the second is so horribly slanted and smugly superior that I can't credit any conclusion the author draws.) Brinkley's article cites it as a centuries-old tradition; it may, in fact, be far older. The best-known example of similar relationships is, of course, among the ancient Greeks, but there is evidence of similar practices among the ancient Albanians and Irish (the hero Cuchulainn took a male lover, and it's good to remember that in spite of his prowess as a warrior, at that point he was still a boy), and possibly even the Vedic Indians, to the extent that some researchers have posited that such relationships were a pan-Indo-European cultural institution.

And nowhere in either of the articles, or in Madrak's post, is there any investigation of the attitudes of the Afghanis, other than to note that they are accepting of this practice. I would assume so -- traditions that do not meet with acceptance never have the chance to become traditions. One aspect that is notably missing is any revelation of the actual forms of the practice and the degree to which the boys have autonomy. (This is something I touched on my my review of the anime series Loveless: the automatic labeling of this phenomenon as "child rape" is, aside from being inflammatory and prejudicial, a means of avoiding any real examination. And it's worth noting that Japan, at least in pre-Meiji times, is another one of those cultures in which it was common practice for a man to take a younger man or youth as a lover.) There is also the question of what constitutes a "child" in this sense. The age of consent varies widely throughout the world -- as low as 13 or 14 years -- but does someone want to try to convince me that a thirteen-year-old is somehow more capable of what one commenter called "enlightened consent" than a twelve-year-old? By what criteria? And quite honestly, when dealing with other cultures with different traditions, and particularly different attitudes toward sexuality, that kind of question, founded on a concept that is solely the fruit of Euro-American legal practice, becomes pretty much irrelevant.

There is also the question of the quality of the relationship, which Madrak and most of her readers automatically assume is exploitive and/or abusive, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. That's merely assertion, and of no value. I would not be at all surprised to find out that the boys involved are the recipients of gifts and that there is a degree of affection involved, even if the participants are not willing to call it "love" -- that's much more likely than the image called up by characterizing them as "rape."

I did find a link to the study by AnnaMaria Cardinalli, "Pashtun Sexuality", noted in Brinkley's article. The document itself is somewhat problematic, particularly in its somewhat loaded terminology and the conflation of circumstances that are objectively classifiable as "rape" with those that may not be. There is a strong cultural bias (and more than a little underlying homophobia, but the study was, after all, done for the U.S. military, which, true to form, selected a woman to do a study among Islamic men) that is quite blatantly obvious throughout, leading me to question the study's value for any purpose other than propaganda. There's also the not-so-deeply-buried homophobia in Madrak's characterization of this whole thing as a "toxic stew." And, interestingly enough, in the child abuse column, no one brings up the question of the age at which Afghani women are considered ready for marriage, leaving the whole issue in the realm of that favorite scare mantra of the far right: Teh Gays are going to steal your sons!

Yes, I'm disappointed in the articles, the blog post, and the comments, but not for the obvious reasons: I'm sadly disappointed in the intellectual flabbiness and assumption of superiority displayed by almost all concerned, not to mention the complete insensitivity to the cultural traditions of other peoples.

Does this practice need to be stopped? Based on the evidence presented to date, who knows?

Note: read the follow-up to this here.

Another Day, Another Right-Wing Lie

The "unemployment benefits encourage people not to work" argument is a major crock, but it really just registered this morning when I ran across this post from Karoli at C&L, commenting on this piece by Robert Barro. From Barro:

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment. A further inefficiency concerns the distortions from the increases in taxes required to pay for the program.

Aside from the fact that it's bullshit on its face ("loss of efficiency"? Are you serious?), it's also fact-free.

I suspect most states are like Illinois, where you are required to present proof that you have been looking for work in order to continue to receive benefits.

Karoli's piece is a little more vitriolic than necessary -- or maybe not. This guy sounds like a real cheap date, if you know what I mean.

Social Security Basics

An interesting article by economist Dean Baker, in response to Alan Simpson's intemperate and ill-informed (read "stupid and inflammatory") comments about Social Security.

Once again, class: there is no Social Security crisis. The only "crisis" is the Grover Norquist faction of the right wing that wants to dismantle it so that retirement savings will become to sole province of their buddies on Wall Street -- and we've seen how that works out. Oh, they also want to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, veterans' benefits, roads, bridges, public transportation, and probably the U.S. Mint. You know, all those pesky government intrusions into daily life.

Anyway, read Baker's piece -- it's good basic information that you need to have.

I'm So Tired of Glenn Beck

He's a circus clown, and I'm appalled that so many people are taking him seriously.

Gods, what's happened to my country?

My Bad

I've been too lazy this summer. I have to do some clean-up work here, like updating the yaoi reviews at Epinions (which are going to their own page, when I get around to it) and going back and updating the indexes at a/k/a Hunter. (Although on that one, I'm still debating setting up a site under my own domain. We'll see.)

And there's other work to be done on the sidebar -- new sites I want to link to, etc.

Patience. Summer's coming to an end and I'll go back to being a nerd. Eventually.

Must Read

This post.

Ken Mehlman

I haven't weighed in on Ken Mehlman's coming out, except for one comment at Pam's House Blend. I'm willing to take him at face value, with the caveat that my estimation is contingent on future actions. As for personal journeys, well -- you know, I never "officially" came out. I just appeared, gradually. I'm not going to judge how others deal with that.

This piece from Kerry Eleveld, although concerned mainly with marriage and how it's become the signature issue -- sort of a "where we are now" commentary -- does pretty accurately encapsulate my feelings on Mehlman:

Of course, Mehlman is just beginning to put his money where his mouth is on marriage, and I agree with people like Pam Spaulding who are pushing him to do the same with antigay politicians, where he could have considerable influence.

I fully understand that Mehlman’s revelation this week picked the scab off a wound that runs deep throughout the LGBT community, and I’m not absolving anyone of anything. But nor do I think it’s my place to stand in judgment.

Every morning newsprint slaps my coffee table with a mountain of injustice that often rims my eyes with sadness and occasionally rushes my heart with rage. And I would much rather train my sights on creating a future of fairness than stay mired in yesterday’s despair.

So instead of crucifying Mehlman, let’s hand him a pickax and a shovel and let him get to work on dismantling the hate he and his cronies helped heap upon a vulnerable and undeserving minority.

One additional observation -- both Mehlman and California state senator Roy Ashburn mark a distinct shift in the way closeted politicians are handling the public recognition of their sexual orientation. It's no longer a matter of denial, stonewalling, or a "cure." It's acceptance and a willingness to do a one-eighty on matters of gay civil rights. Ashburn's been working hard. Mehlman, with his greater resources, should work twice as hard. I'm not sure he will, but I'm waiting to see.

And if he does, that's going to make a big difference. The Democrats, and especially the current administration, have largely been a failure on our issues in terms of meeting expectations that they themselves have created. One thing that Obama has done, though quite unintentionally, I'm sure: he's created a crisis in which we as a community are no longer willing to let the Democrats and their appendages such as HRC and GLAAD get away with inaction. I've been hoping for a more activist activism in our community, although I'm ill-equipped to spark anything like that myself -- I'm not an activist, I'm a gadfly.

But I'm encouraged.

And You Thought We Had Problems

Nice little bit from BBC:

Previously, scientists had identified a huge impact crater in the Gulf of Mexico as the event that spelled doom for the dinosaurs.

Now evidence for a second impact in Ukraine has been uncovered.

This raises the possibility that the Earth may have been bombarded by a whole shower of meteorites.

Life is a crap shoot, and the dice are loaded.

"Evil Done in God's Name is Not God's Work" (Updated)

That's a quote from, believe it or not, a fantasy novel by Tanya Huff, one of her Summon the Keeper series. I found it apropos for today's subject, which I'm finally feeling able to tackle now that I have less nasal congestion and, consequently, the return of some cognitive function.

It all grows out of this post, about Gail Sweet's attempt to scrub an "offensive" book from the Burlington County, NJ, library system on the sly. (That post was a follow-up to this one on the same topic, which became a separate post because of the lengthy and somewhat hysterical comment left by "SafeLibraries." I won't comment on the irony in that moniker.)

The bottom line in that story is that Sweet, acting on her own and without following regular procedures that would have left her decision open to public debate, tried to remove Revolutionary Voices, a collection of essays, stories, poems and art by GLBT teenagers, from the library shelves because of a complaint by a wingnut Beck-worshipper lodged with a high school library in the county. Note that the complaint was not lodged with the county system, but one high school. SafeLibraries' defense of Sweet was shrill and didn't really hold up to scrutiny, but was in a way quite revealing of a mindset that I think I captured in my response to a comment in the second post:

The real issue in this case is not whether Revolutionary Voices is, in fact, appropriate for a school library. That question was never open for discussion or review and was instead decided on the basis of one woman's judgment. (Frankly, the assertion that a collection of works by teenagers is not appropriate for teenagers is itself somewhat suspect.)

The issue so far has been Sweet's method of removing the book, not just from a school library, but from an entire county library system. Has she now appointed herself the arbiter of what's permitted for adults to read as well as "impressionable youth"?

The more I look at this story, the more it becomes obvious to me that Sweet has engaged in a naked attempt to impose her values on the community at large, and to do so undercover. Offside quotes about inappropriate material in a situation where the designation of "inappropriate" rests on one woman's questionable judgment are not going to change that.

Believe it or not, that's related to this post from Pam's House Blend covering two counseling students who let their religious objections to homosexuality get in the way of their desire to help people. First, Jennifer Keeton:

Professors asked Keeton to complete the remediation plan after she said she opposed homosexuality and would tell gay clients "their behavior is morally wrong and then help the client change that behavior," according to an affidavit filed in the case.

And Julea Ward:

"The university had a rational basis for adopting the ACA Code of Ethics into its counseling program, not the least of which was the desire to offer an accredited program," Steeh said in a 48-page opinion.

"Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.

"In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs -- including homosexual relationships."

The judge said Ward's "refusal to attempt learning to counsel all clients within their own value systems is a failure to complete an academic requirement of the program."

The link in these examples is one that is a fundamental characteristic of the Christian right in this country: the attempt to impose one set of values and standards on those who don't adhere to them. That last quote from the article on Julea Ward is the key, and it's a concept that carries over to the Gail Sweet controversy: libraries, like counselors, are not in the business of imposing one set of sectarian values on the general populace. It's particularly reprehensible when they position themselves to do so with a vulnerable population: those in need of help and support in general, and particularly teenagers who may be trying to come to terms with their sexuality.

There also seems to be a cognitive deficit in these people, revealed by their utter inability to recognize that there are other points of view and other value systems in play. There are over three hundred million people in this country, who come from all sorts of different cultures, religious backgrounds, and social contexts. It's arrogance beyond belief to take it upon oneself to dictate what they must believe, particularly in the context of a secular society founded in part on the guarantee that no one has that right.

And they will always paint themselves as victims, when in reality, they are the greatest danger to our way of life.

Update: As a pendant discussion to the above, see this post at Mahablog:

But “rights” according to Rep. Fleming is the right of the majority faction to maintain tribal dominance by erecting its totems in government buildings (the Ten Commandments in courthouses) and to force everyone to participate in its religious rituals (prayers at graduation ceremonies and football games).

I think too many Americans have no idea what “rights” are. They throw the word around a lot, but they have no idea what it means. As in the Park51 controversy, even people who pay lip service to the rights of a Sufi congregation to build an Islamic center on their own property seem to think that others have a “right” to stop them by force, either legal or physical. In this context, “right” seems to mean “power.”

It's this Alice-In-Wonderland approach to discourse that makes the religious right such a threat -- they have no compunctions about turning history, current events, and even the Constitution on their heads to get their way. It's a natural outgrowth of the idea that only their point of view (values, beliefs, what have you) has any legitimacy, because they simply can't recognize any other.

The Basic Economic Problem

Here's a very good post from Nicole Bell at C&L on some economic observations from Fareed Zakaria -- good, basic, core stuff that tells us a lot. I recommend it, but here's the key observation:

As Fareed Zakaria describes it, it's is because Germany is investing in its own long-term economic success, by focusing on strengthening their manufacturing base, educating future employees, and offering social safety nets to keep the workforce happy and secure.

I've talked to people in my private life who question whether we could actually adopt Germany's policies here, given that our GDP is exponentially much larger. I don't think it's an issue of GDP so much as it is a willingness to stop structuring all of our economic policies for the short-term benefit of corporations over everything else. (Emphasis mine.)

There are examples of what the Germans have been doing -- made possible, I suspect, because German corporations are not running the government the way American corporations do -- or maybe it's just that German CEOs are smarter than ours.

I have some fairly strong ideas about things like this, and I'm running into this Wall Street corporate think on a daily basis: staff is your key element in any business. Without staff, you're screwed, and if you don't value them, you're screwing yourself. The movers and shakers don't get it -- they think staff are like gears or something -- if upkeep gets to be too much, you get rid of it and get a cheaper one. (Although Zakaria has some good thoughts on that aspect, as well.) So now we're in a situation where the upper reaches of management are populated by frat boys with MBAs who have no idea what they're doing because anyone with experience and solid judgment (not to mention common sense) has been put out to pasture.

I have a history of successful staff management because my staff always knew that I supported them and would back them (although they also knew I would haul them into my office and rip them a new one if they really screwed up -- as soon as we got the screw-up fixed) and they also knew that they could talk to me. And I ran a couple of very efficient, productive and successful offices because of it.

Yeah, it's old-fashioned -- but it works.

Yes, I'm Still Alive

but still a little disconnected. What is it about a stuffy nose and higher cognitive functions? Some sort of inverse relationship there, for sure.

Anyway, I just wanted to pass along this bit from Barbara O'Brien, who has been running the best commentary on the so-called "Ground Zero mosque":

I had a let’s-bang-heads-against-the-wall moment this morning when I found an editorial in the Joplin (Missouri) Globe written by some guy who lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He wrote of the builders of the Islamic Center: “These folks should not expect a neighborhood welcoming party.”
Excuse me? Where the bleep does somebody who lives in Tulsa Bleeping Oklahoma get off talking about the “neighbohood welcoming party”? Clue, dude: Manhattan ain’t your neighborhood.

I can't really add to that.

Down for the Count

Really bad head cold, and of course the highs are in the 80s and humidity too high to discuss (right now it's 60%). This morning I am able to sit in front of the computer for 15 minutes for the first time since Friday.

I did some surfing. Nothing registers.

Later.

Dodging and Weaving

And changing the subject. This is the anti-gay right in a nutshell -- an extended version of Tony Perkins' reaction when David Boies hit him with actual facts (and called him a liar to his face).

Tom McCluskey of Perkins' outfit, seems to have learned his leader's lessons well.





Pity we didn't get McClusy on video -- I wonder if he's also learned Perkins' reptilian blink.

I didn't vote for John McCain

because I didn't want George W. Bush's third term. It seems that was the only option available. From Raw Story:

In one of the first military commissions held under the Obama administration, a US military judge has ruled that confessions obtained by threatening the subject with rape are admissible in court.

I've always been leery of the military commissions idea anyway -- they have proven to be ineffective, since so much of the evidence is tainted -- unless, of course, the judges ignore the taint, as in this case. This is the fifteen-year-old boy captured in Afghanistan 8 years ago, so it's worse than just abusing a prisoner -- he was a kid.

Read the whole article -- it's a disgusting example of the executive run amok.

Via Shakesville.

Irony du jour

From Glenn Greenwald's post titled "Imperial Ironies", my choice is this one from Politico:

Odierno: Troops staying in Iraq to prevent foreign interference

U.S. forces are staying in Iraq to prevent foreign powers from meddling with the new government, Gen. Ray Odierno said Sunday.

Clarification

This post by Scott Lemieux points out some of the obvious bullshit in Steve Chapman's post about "backlash". I was actually just going to make an additional point about the quote that Lemieux cites, but when I followed the link (which you should do from here, not there -- it's seriously messed up there) and started to read Chapman's piece, I discovered a bonanza of ignorance and misinformation. The subhead sort of says it all:

Voters should decide the future of same-sex marriage—not federal judges.

Now, granted that Chapman didn't write that himself, but one only need start reading to hit the dogsquat.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8 because it "fails to advance any rational basis for singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." But it's silly to believe only nut jobs and bigots could rationally oppose same-sex marriage, or that millions of Californians who accept other laws protecting gays were acting irrationally.

They might reasonably fear that in some subtle way, the legalization of gay marriage may gradually weaken the appeal of marriage among heterosexuals. They might think it will modestly increase out-of-wedlock childbearing. They might believe our understanding of the possible repercussions is so limited that we shouldn't tinker with an age-old institution in this way.

Are those concerns persuasive? Not to me. But they are plausible enough to contradict Walker's assertion that the only real justification for the ban is "the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

Those very notions were addressed head-on by the plaintiffs in Perry and in Walker's opinion, beginning at Par. 79 on p. 107:

79. The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child. . . .

80. The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. . . .

and on to the Conclusions, beginning on p. 123, which I am not going to insert here because they are long and legal and, all else being equal, the court has dealt with those issues quite thoroughly, but according to Chapman, that's not good enough because everyone knows that vague, unfounded fears trump reality and form a legitimate basis for limiting others' rights.

Chapman goes on to the Biblical right's favorite slippery slope: but what about polygamy?

What about it? That's not the question under discussion. If you want to sue for the right to marry your friend's 14-year-old niece and her sisters, go right ahead. We'll talk about it then.

This final bit is the icing on the cake:

The decision may very well lead the Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. If so, it would be the most polarizing decision since Roe v. Wade in 1973, which we are still fighting about.

It would spark a furious backlash from Americans who, whatever their views about homosexuality, think such decisions belong with them and their elected representatives. It could even lead to a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.

Thanks to Judge Walker, the debate is no longer about whether gays deserve protection from the law, a debate they were steadily winning. It is more about whether democratic processes should be trusted to resolve the question. That's a debate they are likely to lose.

1. Yes, Roe vs. Wade has been, although a consistently popular decision, polarizing because a minority on the right have chosen to make it so. They are well-funded and indefatigable and won't take "No" for an answer because God said so, or something.

2. No, it's not going to spark a furious backlash from Americans in general. It's going to spark a furious backlash from the wingnuts (see #1 above).

3. The courts are part of the democratic process in this country, a valuable and necessary part. Because of their unique and critically important role in upholding the rights of minorities, they have become a favorite target of the right, particularly those who have no love for our democratic institutions. Chapman seems to want to be counted among that number. The only way gays are going to lose the debate as Chapman frames it is if writers like Chapman continue to lie in print about the way our country really works for an audience that doesn't know any better (although it should).

Oh, and ignore the repeated protestations of Chapman's social liberalism. I'm calling bullshit of the Obama school: I believe in equal rights for all, but. . . .

Semantics

A great post from Andrew Sullivan on the meaning of the word "marriage":

My in-laws have always been supportive and loving and tolerant. They accepted me at Christmas and other occasions and were glad their son had found a partner. But it was not until we told them that we were "engaged" that something suddenly clicked. They finally had a way to understand us and our love because they had the linguistic architecture to make sense of it. I was going to be their son-in-law! With those words. I became family - not Aaron's friend, or roommate or boyfriend or lover or what-have-you. But his husband. And thereby their family as well.

That's the whole point.

Spin (Updated)

For an excellent example of how the corporate media legitimizes right-wing nutjobs, see this story by Anne Barnard from NYT:

Clearly, the idea that Ms. Khan and her partners would one day be accused of building a victory monument to terrorism did not come up — an oversight with consequences. The organizers built support among some Jewish and Christian groups, and even among some families of 9/11 victims, but did little to engage with likely opponents. More strikingly, they did not seek the advice of established Muslim organizations experienced in volatile post-9/11 passions and politics.

The first question to Ms. Barnard: How is this an oversight? You have to be traveling with a lot of baggage for that to be a primary consideration, but Barnard swallows the mantra and spits it right back out. If it weren't for the Becks and Palins who are looking for every opportunity to demonize someone (and frankly, it doesn't have to be Muslims -- look at the right-wing/Republican positions on immigrants and gays), this wouldn't be a consideration.

How Ms. Khan’s early brainstorming led to today’s combustible debate, one often characterized by powerful emotions and mistaken information, is a combination of arguable naïveté, public-relations missteps and a national political climate in which perhaps no preparation could have headed off controversy.

Blame the victim.

This article is pandering garbage. Nowhere does it mention the role of right-wing agitators such as Beck and Palin and goes out of its way to make it sound as though the opposition to the community center had been self-generated.

This is your free press at work.

Update: Adam Serwer goes at it.

Everybody Else Gets It

Via Pam's House Blend, this little item:

OMG. What IS going on in Latin America! Just a couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court in Costa Rica ruled that a referendum scheduled for December 1st which would have banned marriage rights for same-sex couples was unconstitutional.

The article does not give the vote total but says that the majority determined that the issue of marriage rights was a judicial issue and not an electoral issue and that the rights of minorities should never be subjected to a referendum process where they might be subjected to the wishes of a majority. (My emphasis.)

There's a link to the article (Spanish language) at the post.

As to how that applies here, I refer you to the video of Ted Olson and Chris Matthews in this post.

An update, via AmericaBlog:

Mexico's supreme court has ruled that same-sex marriages in Mexico City must be recognised throughout the country.

I also just learned that Uruguay recognizes same-sex civil unions.

It's Only Censorship When They Do It

This post from last week brought this comment from SafeLibraries:

I support your efforts to oppose violations of rights. However, what has been reported by most sources is not what the actual facts are. For a little balance, take a look at what I wrote, after actually speaking with Gail Sweet, at "Et tu, Mary Minow? Then Fall, Gail Sweet!"

It wouldn't hurt to take a peek at this:

WILL UNWOUND #193: “Why do Librarians Hate Conservatives?” by Will Manley. (Or this by the same recognized library expert.)

I've been avoiding this one. Not that it's hard, not that I'm stumped for a response, simply that I'm tired to death of hysterical, dishonest rants against godless liberals and how they're the ones who are really trying to censor everything.  I get fed up, to be quite frank about it.  However, since I feel committed to a response, I am going to hit some of the most egregious misrepresentations in the posts SafeLibraries (hereinafter "S/L") recommended.

First, the post from the SafeLibraries blog.  The second sentence of the second paragraph starts to indicate the direction in which this is going:

Gail Sweet is the library director of the Burlington County Library System.  She removed a book from her library for failure to meet its book selection policy—a picture from the book is included at right.  For this she has been misrepresented in the media, e.g., "NJ Library, Citing Child Pornography, Removes GLBT Book," by Lauren Barack, School Library Journal, 27 July 2010, and criticized on partisan blogs—what a sin it is to be "active in the tea party movement"—e.g., "NJ Library Removes LGBT Book, Calling It 'Child Pornography,'" by Jim Burroway, Box Turtle Bulletin, 28 July 2010.  The comments are particularly egregious.

OK, first -- she removed a book from the collection for failing to meet the selection policy.  My question is, if it didn't meet the selection criteria, why was it in the collection?  Next question, if the book had been placed in the collection properly, why didn't Sweet follow the regular procedures to have it removed?

Next we have this:  "'[D]irect calls to Sweet were not returned.'  So you go ahead and publish false information uncritically?"  S/L is trying to make this look like a smear campaign against Gail Sweet, and this seems like the opening salvo:  there's no evidence that the information published was false, only S/L's say-so, which I regard as less than reliable.  My take is simply that Sweet had an opportunity to defend her actions and chose not to.  There may be any number of reasons for that, one of which may be that her actions are indefensible.

S/L makes great capital out of the "child pornography" quote and how it was "shorthand" between colleagues.  What S/L doesn't give is the context, which we can get from this story in the Courier-Post:

The county system's decision to remove "Revolutionary Voices," an anthology of first-person works by gay youths, was made quietly in the spring. But it's now stirring an online furor with the release of e-mails on the issue by the county's library director, Gail Sweet.

"How can we grab the books so that they never, ever get back into circulation?" Sweet asked in one e-mail to a library employee. "Copies need to totally disappear (as in not a good idea to send copies to the book sale)."

And when another librarian asked why the award-winning book was being removed, Sweet responded with two words: "Child pornography."

One could take the "child pornography" comment as a joke, until one sees the rest of the story.

I'm going to let the next two paragraphs speak for themselves before I comment:

Gail Sweet applied the library's selection policy initially due to the high school issue and before any patron complained.  This frees the library from the need to use the materials reconsideration policy designed for patrons.  I note the ALA article did report some accurate information that corroborates my findings based on my discussion with Gail Sweet, namely, "We were aware of the challenge at Rancocas Valley High School and took a look at the book…."  In other words, she was doing her job the taxpayers pay her to do.  This is partly why Gail Sweet is a model library director.

Everyone seeking to reverse the decision, on the irrelevant issue of homosexuality by the way, is complaining she should not have applied the selection policy and instead should have followed the policy designed for patrons.  What a double standard.  When people seek to add ex-gay books to the public library, in others words books that explain how to leave homosexuality, patron input is ignored and the selection policy is used to weed out such books, not the patron policy.  Read the Annoyed Librarian on how selection is used to censor certain materials sought by "conservative Christians."  Gail Sweet is guilty of refusing to follow a double standard that is used nationwide to block ex-gay material from public libraries without even a whimper from the national groups who are suddenly strident in Burlington County.

On the woman who complained about the book in the high school:

The book was pulled from the county library and from the library at Rancocas Valley Regional High School in Mount Holly after objections from Beverly Marinelli, a Lumberton woman and a member of the 9/12 Project, a conservative group founded by Fox News Channel pundit Glenn Beck.

OK, let's take this in order:

1: Sweet was trying to do this on the down-low and got caught. It's a pattern that we've seen again and again, as witness this comment from Patricia Tumulty of the New Jersey Library Association:

About 500 book challenges are reported annually to the American Library Association, said Angela Maycock, who oversees the group's Office for Intellectual Freedom.

In most cases, the book is retained, she said. But Maycock said libraries often do not publicize a book's removal.

"The reason they get removed is it's done under cover of darkness," she said. "When public attention is brought to the situation, that's when the books remain on the shelves." (My emphasis)

2: Homosexuality is not, as S/L claims, irrelevant to this case, it is the motivation for the book's removal.

3: The "ex-gay" double-standard: Frankly, I think it is perfectly legitimate to resist the inclusion of books that present junk science and junk theology and prescribe dangerous and often harmful therapies under the supervision of perverts, with a strong dose of disapproval, to kids who may very likely be vulnerable.

This seems to be an appropriate place to note the state library association's statement:

Patricia Tumulty, president of the New Jersey Library Association, did not address the county library's action directly, saying it was not clear how the removal took effect.

But she noted her group had issued a statement after the Rancocas Valley decision, saying books should not be removed "because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval."

"Libraries do not discriminate against unpopular or controversial ideas," it said. "To the contrary, they select resources so that the library collection meets the needs of everyone in the community it serves."

S/L insists that everyone involved (except, of course, S/L, Gail Sweet, and Beverly Marinelli) is misrepresenting events, but does not manage to support that contention in any way. (Sorry, S/L, mere assertion doesn't work here.)

I do agree that children do need to be protected and their reading should be supervised. I do not agree that some Beck-worshipper is the person who should decide what everyone's children have access to. Maybe S/L should think about the appropriate role of parents in all of this, in determining what their own children will have their permission to read. Just maybe we can all figure out that parents should stop ducking their responsibilities.

I'm not going to bother with the two posts from Will Manley, which you can read yourselves if you follow the links. The first is a comment from one of Manley's readers along the general lines of "I was a liberal, but I was saved!" (See "ex-gay" above.) The second is a straw man argument based on the idea that the ALA does the Devil's work.

(A Note: S/L takes an opportunity to denigrate Box Turtle Bulletin, which I have found to be a reliable online source for issues of gay civil rights. Jim Burroway is an extraordinarily thorough and careful writer and is always ready to admit a mistake -- which he seldom has to do. His two posts on this controversy are here and here. After comparing his analysis with S/L's -- well, you can make your own decision on who to believe. As for the comments that S/L objects to: y'know, comments on blogs are comments from just anybody. Get over it.)

Another WTF? Moment (Updated, Updated Again)

This Op-Ed from Ross Douthat, who reveals himself to be an up-and-coming non-thinker on the right. It's a David Blankenhorn-type piece that boils down to "Hetersexual marriage is better because." I'm not going to bother to dissect it -- Glenn Greenwald did a fine job of that here.

TBogg, in his own inimitable way, summed it up pithily:

Shorter Ross Douthat:

I will concede the inevitability of gay marriage if we can all agree that a bland sterile heterosexual marriage like mine is, in the final tally, say, 3% more awesomer. Deal?

Tristero isn't quite so kind.

Update: I just ran across this from David Frum. It's even more incoherent than Douthat's piece. It's like, you should read this before brain surgery -- you won't feel a thing.

Update II: Amanda Marcotte is elegantly bitchy.

I < 3 Boies and Olson

Two videos. First, Ted Olson telling Chris Matthews (why does this man have a higher-level job and errand boy?) how the country actually works:



And then David Boies sticking it to Tony Perkins (and why the hell is Perkins, who's a demonstrated liar, wind up on these shows?):



Boies doesn't stick to Perkins as strongly as he could, but I think that's because the host wouldn't let him. One question I wish he had asked: Mr. Perkins, if you have so much definitive research available, why didn't you offer yourself as an expert witness?

(Apropos of nothing: it's really sad when I have to correct the embed code on these things -- I am not an HTML whiz at all.)

"Appalled" Is Too Mild

There are groups of people in this country that are too stupid to walk and breathe without close supervision. From this story at NYT, here's this gem:

Recently, a small group of activists became alarmed about the mosque. Diana Serafin, a grandmother who lost her job in tech support this year, said she reached out to others she knew from attending Tea Party events and anti-immigration rallies. She said they read books by critics of Islam, including former Muslims like Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan and Manoucher Bakh. She also attended a meeting of the local chapter of ACT! for America, a Florida-based group that says its purpose is to defend Western civilization against Islam.

“As a mother and a grandmother, I worry,” Ms. Serafin said. “I learned that in 20 years with the rate of the birth population, we will be overtaken by Islam, and their goal is to get people in Congress and the Supreme Court to see that Shariah is implemented. My children and grandchildren will have to live under that.”

“I do believe everybody has a right to freedom of religion,” she said. “But Islam is not about a religion. It’s a political government, and it’s 100 percent against our Constitution.”

Point 1: I doubt this woman has any idea what's in the Constitution.

Point 2: Sorry, but Islam is a religion in the same tradition as Christianity.

Point 3: If you don't want to live under Sharia law, just say no.

The really scary part is that they let this woman breed.