John Corvino on Marriage, Plus

John Corvino has done an excellent series of videos addressing the arguments against marriage equality, which you can find here. They are concise, clear, and rational, and go a long way toward illustrating just how empty those arguments are.

Here's the one on marriage as a threat to religious freedom:

My one objection to this one is that I think he should have stressed the fact that clergy who perform weddings do so as agents of the state -- their authority is secular, not religious.

And here's the Plus: one of the clearest and most sensible opinions on the limits of "religious freedom" I've seen from anyone. Via Think Progress:

The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. [It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own. . . .

[T]he health care plan will offend plaintiffs’ religious beliefs only if an [] employee (or covered family member) makes an independent decision to use the plan to cover counseling related to or the purchase of contraceptives. Already, [plaintiffs] pay salaries to their employees—money the employees may use to purchase contraceptives or to contribute to a religious organization. By comparison, the contribution to a health care plan has no more than a de minimus impact on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees.

Here's the full decision.

I Almost Forgot

It's Banned Books Week.

What are your favorites?

The Swamp

I'm finally ready to dive into the swamp muck that came out of various and sundry Catholic bishops last week. It's pretty stinky.

Let's start off with my own home-town atrocity, Cardinal Francis George. He's been relatively quiet lately, compared to someone like Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, but he couldn't resist using a celebratory mass honoring couples who have been married fifty years to slam gay couples:

Without mentioning gay marriage specifically, George also spoke briefly about the Catholic Church’s opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage, saying the institution of marriage is something that “comes to us from God,” not from the church or from the government. . . .

George said, “There must surely be ways in our civil society, where we can honor friendships, where we can respect other people, without destroying the nature of marriage. It is very important, for your whole lives, give witness to what marriage truly means. And while civil laws might change – if they do – then society will be the worse for it.”

OK, first point: I require some evidence that "marriage comes to us from God," and I'm afraid that quoting from the Bible won't do it. What the evidence says is that marriage is and always has been a human institution, created by societies as a means of recognizing families, or, to put it in more basic terms, the establishment of new households. Coming from a church that didn't even recognize marriage as a sacrament until the thirteenth century, claiming ownership of the institution is a bit much.

Second, the utter contempt in which George holds gay people and our relationships is evident in his reference to "friendships."

If I thought the man understood the nature of marriage at all, I might be inclined to listen, but he obviously doesn't have a clue, any more than the Church seems to have a clue as to the true nature of morality. Remember, this is the man who said that Chicago's Gay Pride parade could "morph into" a KKK gathering. Classy, that one.

And I'm sure the 400 couples celebrating their fifty years of marriage were more than delighted to have their celebration hijacked for some not-so-subtle politicking.

(Via HuffPo.)

And how about the Bishop of Springfield, Thomas John Paprocki, as long as we're talking about politicking?

Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.

This is just to blatantly cynical that even I'm aghast. Of course he's telling people how to vote, but I'm sure he's got a fleet of lawyers who told him exactly how to phrase it so he can keep his 501(c)(3).

(Footnote: I notice the Catholic hierarchy is really big on "intrinsic" this and that -- as in, abortion is intrinsically evil, gay people are intrinsically disordered, and on down the line. As someone whose religion stresses that one is individually responsible for making moral choices, and who knows that those moral choices are made in a fluid milieu, this "intrinsic" bullshit is just that. Althoughj I might note that raping children is intrinsically sick.)

Mistermix at Balloon Juice has an on-point summation of Bishop Paprocki's little homily.

Moving farther afield, the Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, came out with a "pastoral letter" that turns out to be little more than sixteen pages of gay bashing. This is just a sample:

If our society enshrines in law a “civil” right to “marry” someone of one’s own sex, then any persons or groups that believe otherwise will be seriously disadvantaged in law and in fact. Already we hear public officials and news organizations refer to those of us who hold the conjugal view of marriage as “bigots.” States such as Illinois and Massachusetts have made it impossible for Catholic Charities to provide adoption services. Hotel managers, photographers, owners of reception halls, etc. who hold to the view of marriage as a conjugal partnership have had legal or civil actions taken against them. How long would the state permit churches, schools or parents to teach their children that homosexual activity is contrary to the natural law if homosexual marriage were a civil right? Already in Canada and other democratic nations “hate speech” laws have been used to harass or even arrest clerics who preach the Biblical message about marriage.

It's just one distortion and fabrication after another. Let's just take a quick run-through: 1) recognizing the right to marriage for same-sex couple disadvantages no one. People call you a bigot for expressing your desire to continue discriminating? That's called "the free marketplace of ideas," and your ideas aren't selling so well. Catholic Charities in Illinois and Massachusetts chose to close their adoption services rather than comply with long-standing anti-discrimination laws. Same holds true of hotel managers, photograpers, et al.: they are providing services to the public and fall under anti-discrimination laws as well. As for teaching children that homosexual behavior is contrary to natural law, it's not. At least, not any real natural laws, as opposed to the fantasy "natural law" promulgated by the Church. And the hate speech laws of foreign countries have no relevance here -- we don't have them, and we have fairly robust protections for free speech in this country.

Bottom line: total bullshit.

There was another story that I ran across, but my link was to the post at AmeericaBlog Gay, which is undergoing server transfer, and I can't retrieve the story. Fear not, though -- it's just as disgusting as those above.

Reviews in Brief: Joss Whedon's The Avengers

I saw The Avengers when it was in the theaters, and came right home and pre-ordered the DVD, which arrived Thursday. I have now watched the DVD three times, from you which you might infer that I love this movie. You'd be right.

If you have somehow avoided knowing anything about the film, the basic set-up is as follows: S.H.I.E.L.D. is working with the tesseract, a mysterious artifact retrieved from the depths of the ocean during the search for Captain America when he was being an icicle, trying to a) figure it out, and b) use it as a source of unlimited sustainable energy. However, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), still smarting from his exile from Asgard, has another use for it: he's going to conquer Earth, using the tesseract to create a portal to bring his army through from another dimension. So he manages to transport himself to the lab where the work is being done and steals the tesseract, magically coopting Dr. Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Agent Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), director of S.H.I.E.L.D., needs a response team, and starts to put it together: Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Dr. Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). They capture Loki and are transporting him back to headquarters when Thor (Chris Hemsworth) inserts himself into the picture, intent on taking Loki back to Asgard to face judgment there.

Then the fun begins.

This is Whedon's show, and it's terrific: he co-wrote the story, wrote the screenplay, and directed. It's hard to explain the appeal. (Well, aside from Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth running around in tights, and Robert Downey, Jr., being cute as all get-out, and Jeremy Renner's shoulders, and Mark Ruffalo naked in an abandoned warehouse -- you get the idea.) It's tight, focused, starts moving even before the opening titles and doesn't slow down (not much, at least). Visually, it's a treat as well --- even aside from the aforementioned eyecandy.

The actors are all in top form -- there's a lot of spiky back-and-forth and outright confrontations between Captain America and Iron Man, between Bruce Banner and Nick Fury, between Thor and everyone. And yet they somehow make themselves into a team, and the final battle scene -- which lasts about an hour -- is absolutely no holds barred. (The effects are, as you might guess, spectacular.)

The prize, I think, goes to Johannson as Black Widow -- not only is she a superb physical actress, but her character is multi-faceted and very subtly drawn.

Oh, and it's funny. There's some great throw-away lines sprinkled throughout the movie.

So, yeah, this is my movie of the year.

Marvel Studios/Paramount Pictures, 2012. Running time 143 minutes, rated PG. Full credits at IMDb, and a full review at Sleeping Hedgehog.

Period of Adjustment

It's been a weird couple of months, and I'm still adjusting to new routines. Plus, I got a cold, which puts my brain into sleep mode. There's been a lot to be outraged about, and I may try to catch up on some of it, but this one just hit me today. The story's around, but this report, via Balloon Juice, caught my attention. From the LA Times report:

Strategic Allied Consulting was hired to do voter registration drives in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada, and had been planning get-out-the-vote drives in Ohio and Wisconsin, according to Sproul.

Sproul owns another company, Lincoln Strategy Group, that was paid about $70,000 by the Mitt Romney campaign during the primaries to gather signatures. He said he created Strategic Allied Consulting at the request of the Republican National Committee because of the bad publicity stemming from the past allegations. In 2004, there were allegations in states such as Nevada and Oregon that employees of his firm -- which had a similar contract with the RNC -- registered Democratic voters and then destroyed their forms. (Sproul noted that no criminal charges were ever filed.)

Strategic Allied was set up at an address in Glen Allen, Va., and Sproul does not show up on the corporate paperwork.

“In order to be able to do the job that the state parties were hiring us to do, the [RNC] asked us to do it with a different company’s name, so as to not be a distraction from the false information put out in the Internet,” Sproul said.

(Emphasis mine.)

Two things about this: You'll note that the RNC and the state party organizations did not decline to do business with Sproul because of past allegations of fraud and other improprieties -- they just asked him to change his name, which is pretty revealing: they have no problem doing business with shady characters if it gets the results they want, and they haven't figured out that this is the Information Age -- you can't hide shit like this.

Also, too, the stress on the fact that no criminal charges were ever brought: It's a sad statement on the degree of cynicism in this country about our justice system that this carries no weight whatsoever. Perhaps I'm more cynical than most, but my first question was, "Were the state Attorneys General, or the DAs in charge of the investigations, Republicans?" If they were Democrats, then maybe there's no fire, in spite of the smoke. If they were, big whip.

And "distraction"? Yeah, I guess if you're going back to the same shady character and it's public information, it might be a distraction -- that is, it would distract from your own distractions about "voter fraud."

The mindset here is staggering.

Now that I'm feeling better, maybe I'll go after the Catholic bishops -- they've been in rare form lately.

Reviews in Brief: Brian Michael Bendis et al: Avengers vs. X-Men, #0-3

Well, my two favorite superhero teams have finally crossed swords, thanks to Brian Michael Bendis and the folks at Marvel.

Hope Summers is the only mutant born since M-Day. She's with the X-Men, where her life is just one long bout of training. She's a young woman now, and like young people in general, is feeling the restrictions imposed on her activities by her elders.

The Avengers have discovered that the Phoenix Force, a cosmic-scale energy pool that it capable of destroying whole worlds, is headed toward Earth and figure out that it's headed right at Hope. In the first of a series of remarkably stupid moves, Steve Rogers (Captain America) goes to Utopia, home of the mutants, to demand that Hope be handed over for safe-keeping. Unfortunately, Scott Summers (Cyclops) can be just as stupidly stubborn as Captain America, particularly when faced with not onlyl a confrontation, but a whole shipload of Avengers. The ensuing pitched battle is no real surprise, but Wolverine, compounding the stupidity in ready supply on both sides, takes off on his own to capture Hope. Apparently, no one told him that she's already very powerful. Spooked, she sets off on her own while Wolverine is busy regrowing his skin -- among her other attributes, Hope can generate fire out of pretty much nothing.

In spite of all the arrogance and idiocy demonstrated on both sides, particularly by two men who should know better, this is turning out a to be a lot of fun. Needless to say, there's lots of action, and both teams are seeing a chance to settle some old scores. This, happily, is not at the expense of some strongly drawn characterizations -- Cyclops, in particular, reveals himself to be a shrewd leader who always has a back-up. The main responsibility for the scripting has fallen on Brian Michael Bendis, and he's holding up his end quite well.

Frank Cho penciled #0, then John Romita, Jr., picked it up for the next three numbers, ably supported by Scott Hanna's clean, incisive inks and colors by the incomparable Laura Martin.

This one's a lot of fun -- I feel like a fan boy, running up to the comics store every two weeks to pick up the next number. I'm not sure yet whether I'm going to continue reviewing them in chunks. We'll see.

Compare and Contrast

Reactions to the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi and the embassy in Cairo:

From the citizens of Benghazi:

More pictures at the link.

And now, Mitt Romney, via AmericaBlog:

The gunfire at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, had barely ceased when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney seriously mischaracterized what had happened in a statement accusing President Barack Obama of "disgraceful" handling of violence there and at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

"The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said in a statement first emailed to reporters at 10:09 p.m. Eastern time, under the condition it not be published until midnight.

In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached. In her statement, issued minutes before Romney's, Clinton had offered the administration's first response to the violence in Libya, explicitly condemning the attack there and confirming the death of a State Department official.

This is from an AP fact check, which you can find complete here. And Romney can't even get his own party behind him on this.

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice ignores him entirely with a gracious statement, including thoughts of Ambassador Chris Stevens, "a wonderful officer and a terrific diplomat who was dedicated to the cause of freedom." Republican congressional leadership has also been muted and responsible in their responses, none of them—Paul Ryan included—even referencing Romney's action, or using the attacks as an opportunity to attack the administration. House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed their sympathy for the families and their resolve for unity, with McConnell saying, “We honor the Americans we lost in Libya and we will stand united in our response.”

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain was actually quite classy.

Just watched an excellent and moving stmt by Sec. Clinton- just the right message and tone.

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 12, 2012

And it wouldn't do to miss the pictures:

That expression is henceforth to be known officially as "The Romney Smirk."

There are people who actually want this man to be president.

This Could Be Big

Ir probably will be -- computers that operate on light:

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have made an important advance in this frontier of photonics, fashioning the first all-optical photonic switch out of cadmium sulfide nanowires. Moreover, they combined these photonic switches into a logic gate, a fundamental component of computer chips that process information.

The nano-wires can manipulate light to make switches, the basic component of computers. Did you get that? Nano-switches. As in really, really, really tiny.

Vernor Vinge wrote a novel a few years ago, Rainbow's End, that postulated people being able to access the Internet through their clothes. Sony, I think, has already debuted a prototype of a computer built into eyeglasses. With this, they could build computers into contact lenses.

It's an amazing world. It's sort of sobering to realize that we're living in a science-fiction novel.

Wow

One hell of a speech from Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver II.

Reviews in Brief: Andrew Stanton's John Carter

So John Carter arrived from Amazon, and I watched it.

John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a Civil War veteran who has lost everything, and has gone West to seek his fortune. Somehow, he's gotten wind of a "cave of gold," and that's what he's after. He finds it, but after killing a man -- a Thern, a race who have a strange and fairly unwholesome involvement in the decline and fall of civilizations -- who's trying to kill him, he finds himself transported to a strange place where he is taken captive by a race of very tall, skinny, green four-armed people, the Tharks. He is given a drink of something by a woman named Sola (Samantha Morton) that enables him to understand the language. He soon falls in with Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), a princess who is fleeing an unwanted marriage with Sab Than (Dominic West), the ruler of Zodanga, a rival city that has been engaged in a civil war with her home city of Helium for a thousand years and is about to win. The marriage is the price of peace. Turns out Carter is on Barsoom (Mars), and winds up inextricably involved in the civil war, in spite of starting out just trying to get home. Things are complicated by the interference of Matai Shang (Mark Strong), the leader of the Therns who has his own plans for the people of Barsoom.

And that is a really bare-bones summary. It's a complex milieu and a very intricate plot. After that, where to start?

OK -- the Martians, in their infinite variety. The Tharks, who are humanoid but certainly not human -- physically, at least -- are very well executed. The animatronics are of a very high order, very lifelike, and this carries through to the native animals. The voice actors, who in addition to Morton include Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas, Sola's father and the "emperor" of the Tharks, bring them to life.

The actors who portray the humans are equally good, but in some places they're fighting a script that veers into bombast and is sometimes incomprehensible. (Although I didn't find as many WTF? moments as some writers have claimed.)

Yeah, it's not the greatest heroic fantasy film out there, but it's worth watching. Of course, one reason I like is probably this:

For full credits, see IMDb.

Thirty-Five Years

Voyager 1 and 2 were launched roughly thirty-five years ago. They're still working.

Unlike some who are writing about the anniversary, by the time the Voyagers launched I was old enough that space exploration had become a norm for me -- I was an adult when Neil Armstrong made the first moon walk. It was still exciting, though. And the pictures they sent back! (The space program has been part of my life since childhood -- I remember my father taking me out into the back yard about 4 am one morning to see Sputnik. I was in sixth grade. Now it seems sometimes as though half the stars you see at night are actually satellites.)

Here's a close-up of Ganymede by Voyager 1:

And the clouds on Jupiter look like an artist's rendering, but this is actually a photograph:

We didn't know until Voyager got there that Jupiter had rings; they're very faint, and pretty unstable. Saturn, on the other hand:

And now Voyager 1 is getting ready to leave home, so to speak -- it's headed out of the solar system, into interstellar space.

That's exciting.

You Have to See It to Believe It (Updated)

It all started out when a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, Brendan Ayanbadejo, expressed his support for same-sex marriage (which, as you'll remember, is on the ballot in Maryland this year).

Apparently, Maryland Delegate Emmett C. Burns, Jr., thought this was going too far and wrote to the owner of the Ravens demanding that he shut Ayanbadejo up:

Rob Tisinai points out the problem with this:

This is a state legislator…writing on official Maryland House of Delegates letterhead to a man’s boss asking him to shut down his employee’s free speech.

It's not a matter of criticizing Ayanbadejo's stance on the issue. It's a matter of using one's public office to attempt to quash a private citizen's freedom of speech by demanding that his boss shut him up. That, to me, says "government interference in fundamental rights."

Well, Burns got a response from another football player, Chris Kluwe of the Minnesota Vikings:

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words)[.]

That's just the beginning. Read the whole thing -- it's perfect.

Here's an appearance by Kluwe on The Ed Show discussing the whole flap. Ayabadejo has been fairly quiet about it, but maybe that's the best strategy -- he's got a lot of supporters.

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

Oh, and as Tisinai points out, Burns really put his foot in it with his remark about no other NFL players having expressed an opinion on marriage equality. The list includes:

Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, Houston Texans linebacker Connor Barwin, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, New England Patriots safety Bret Lockett, New York Jets cornerback Antonio Cromartie

And where, you might ask, are those stalwart defenders of "free speech" Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Peter LaBarbera, and the whole crew? Yeah, exactly. Update: Kluwe published a "cleaned up" version of his letter that is, if anything, even funnier. Read it at his blog.

Finally, Something Exciting in the News

No, it's not about the DNC, or the RNC, or any of our favorite hate groups -- it's much more important. From NYT:

Among the many mysteries of human biology is why complex diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure and psychiatric disorders are so difficult to predict and, often, to treat. An equally perplexing puzzle is why one individual gets a disease like cancer or depression, while an identical twin remains perfectly healthy.
Enlarge This Image

Now scientists have discovered a vital clue to unraveling these riddles. The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches.

I remember reading about "junk" DNA years ago, back when I was reading Scientific American on a regular basis. Nobody knew what it did, and most people figured it was just leftovers -- stuff that was still hanging around after it had lost its original use. We should have known better -- evolution is notorious for finding new uses for things. (We can no longer use our big toes for grasping branches -- well, most of us can't -- but it's much harder to keep our balance without them.)

This also goes a long way, I think, toward explaining things like sexual orientation and all the other phenomena in human behavior that partake of that "stair-step" pattern: There are probably thousands, if not millions, of gene switches that influence how things like sexual orientation are established and how they manifest. Eventually someone will get around to researching the behavioral influences here, but i'm betting that's at least part of what they find.

(As a footnote to that, check out this article from The Age on how oxytocin is related to behavior.)

My mood is much better now -- I was really getting sick of the convention coverage.

Reviews in Brief: Gavin Hood's X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I've been watching movies. Many, many movies. It occurs to me that I could reinstitute "Reviews in Brief" with the movies I've been watching and comics I've been reading. So here goes:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is basically the life story of Logan (Hugh Jackman), from his childhood in Canada to the time he falls in with William Stryker (Danny Huston), first as part of a special ops force composed almost entirely of mutants and then as one of Stryker's "experiments" at Weapon X: Wolverine is Weapon 10. When the final treatment is completed -- laminating his skeleton with adamantium -- he escapes and manages to find some sort of peace working as a lumberjack and living with Kayla Silverfox (Lynn Collins).

Then he gets news that the members of his old team are being killed off -- by none other, as it turns out, than his brother, Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber). Then Victor kills Kayla and the die is cast.

This one is more engaging than I had expected it to be. Although it's not a particularly fast-paced film, it's tight enough that it's easy to stay engaged. Performances are more than capable, especially Schreiber as Victor: he has the particularly thankless task of portraying a character who is mostly a homicidal maniac, except for the parts that still recognize some feeling for his brother, and he delivers.

Special effects, compared to the later (chronologically) X-Men films are somewhat restrained, but then, the whole story is less comic book than the later films. It's a much more human story. Fortunately, people will always take precedence over gimmicks, at least for me.

I've sort of avoided the Wolverine spin-offs, even though X-Men are one of my favorite superhero teams, mostly because of the fan noise. I may reconsider.

Small bonus: Taylor Kitsch has a small but pivotal role as Gambit, which prompted me to order John Carter. We'll see it was justified.

For complete credits, see the listing at IMDb.

I Have to See "ParaNorman"

Not only because it looks like fun, but because it has the "Christian" right up in arms. From William Bigelow at Breitbart, Via Towleroad:

"ParaNorman" has a character named Mitch, who is, of course, a heavily-muscled jock who seems heterosexual until the end of the movie, at which time a girl named Courtney asks him if he wants to see a movie.

Sure, he says, you’ll just love my boyfriend, who’s into chick flicks.

It’s a time-honored technique of the gay community to hide the fact that a character is gay until the audience has developed a real affinity for him/her, then catch the audience off-guard by divulging that the character is gay.

It'a all a nefarious plot, you see, to pass off "hommosectionals" as -- gasp! -- human. Gods forbid anyone should have any "real affinity" for a gay person.

(By the way, according to some who have seen the film, Mitch is quite obviously not interested in Norman's sister, who keeps making advances.)

This article at National Review by Nancy French is illuminating.

However, parents who take children to the new movie ParaNorman might have to answer unwanted questions about sex and homosexuality on the way home from the movie theater.

If you read the post -- it's short -- one thing comes through loud and clear: it's not about her children, it's all about her.

One reason I haven't been posting this week is because, with the Republican convention in full swing, this sort of crap has been all over the place. It wears you down, after a while.

It's Not a Glitch. . .

it's a feature. The whole complex of abortion/rape has hit the news after the remarks of Todd Akin, Republican candidate for the Senate from Missouri. Here's a timeline from NYT. The key point, if you want to call it that, is this:

KTVI-TV posts to its Web site an interview with Mr. Akin in which he is asked whether he believes abortion is justified in cases of rape and replies that rape does not result in pregnancy. Twitter soon erupts with outrage and links to the interview.

“It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

He's not alone. The first one to come to his defense was Mike Huckabee, whose viciousness is masked by his down-home manner.

The latest flap on this issue is from another Republican candidate (surprise!), Tom Smith of Pennsylvania:

MARK SCOLFORO, ASSOCIATED PRESS: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?

SMITH: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.

SCOLFORO: Similar how?

SMITH: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.

SCOLFORO: That’s similar to rape?

SMITH: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.

The idea of a woman actually giving consent doesn't seem to enter Smith's mind at all. The cherry on top is his "clarification":

A life is a life, and it needs protected. Who’s going to protect it? We have to. I mean that’s, I believe life begins at conception. I’m not going to argue about the method of conception. It’s a life, and I’m pro-life. It’s that simple.

(Emphasis added.)

There's a knock-out post from Karoli on this one at Crooks and Liars. Read it.

And lest you think these guys are beyond the Pale, here's Paul Ryan on "methods of conception":

This is being widely reported as Ryan saying that "rape is just another method of conception," which, while not literally true, certainly captures the sense of his remarks. One wonders what his attitude is toward IVF and artificial insemination, both of which the Republican party opposes -- they are, after all, "methods of conception."

These are not outliers. The 2012 Republican platform contains the following language:

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday, which was first reported by CNN. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

No exceptions.

One thing is missing from this: women. Apparently, they don't matter.

Disgusting People: Fox News

There's no justification for this. From NBC:

Fox News on Thursday identified the author of the book, which is titled "No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama bin Laden," as a 36-year-old former SEAL from Wrangell, Alaska. The Associated Press later said it had confirmed the author’s identity. (NBC News is not identifying the former SEAL.)

Penguin Group (USA)'s Dutton imprint, the publisher, asked news organizations Thursday to withhold his identity.

"Sharing the true story of his personal experience in 'No Easy Day' is a courageous act in the face of obvious risks to his personal security," Dutton spokeswoman Christine Ball said in a statement to the AP. "That personal security is the sole reason the book is being published under a pseudonym."

The book is a first-hand account of the raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. You might guess that the reaction from al Qaeda has been -- well, not positive.

Users on several militant Islamic websites affiliated with al-Qaida have posted the name and photo of a former Navy SEAL identified as the author of an upcoming book on the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The posts called for his "destruction" in revenge for the al-Qaida founder’s killing.

"We pray to Allah for his destruction sooner rather than later," said one of the posts.

"Oh Allah, make an example of him for the whole world and give him dark days ahead," read another.

Among the website publishing the death threats was the "Al-Fidaa" web forum, which al-Qaida uses to distribute its media and public communications, said Evan Kohlmann, an NBC News consultant and a terrorism analyst at Flashpoint Partners, a global security firm.

This is the journalistic ethics of Rupert Murdoch and his whole organization. And there's no real purpose behind it -- there's nothing to be gained by revealing the man's name, although Chris in Paris at AmericaBlog has an interesting surmise (although it may be from John Aravosis -- the post isn't clear):

This time, Romney and the GOP are mocking the killing of Osama bin Laden and how President Obama handled it (apparently, killing OBL, a few years into office, when GWB couldn't pull it off (and basically gave up shortly after 9/11 - Bush actually called off the hunt for bin Laden only six months after September 11) is a "bad" thing).

Keep in mind that Mitt Romney, following in George Bush's footsteps, said he would have never ordered the successful raid against bin Laden in Pakistan.

The only problem? This Navy SEAL, who led the raid on bin Laden, was writing a book about the raid that most likely would have shown the world exactly how President Obama handled the raid (excellently, per the admiral who oversaw the operation). So the Navy SEAL, this American hero, had to be stopped at all costs, lest he undercut Mitt Romney's apparently embarrassment over the US - over President Obama - having killed bin Laden when Romney said he would have let bin Laden go.

So what happens next? Fox "magically" gets the name of the SEAL and leaks it, knowing full well that Al Qaeda would threaten to kill this man and his family. And voila, only 24 hours later, Al Qaeda has now threatened him.

Do I think that's a credible supposition? Not really: the book is going to come out, unless the Pentagon holds it up for some reason, and there's nothing to be gained by revealing the real name of the author. (Unless Fox is counting on the DoD quashing the book, although they could have done that without knowing the author's real name if there are security breaches in the text.)

I think it's just Fox, the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, doing what Fox does best -- being disgusting.

The guy should sue, for billions.

(There's an assumption in the comments at the AmericaBlog post that the author wrote the book to be critical of Obama. I don't know one way or the other on that score. And one commenter reminded us that the right has a history of outing covert operatives for political gain -- remember Valerie Plame?)

"One giant leap for mankind."

Neil Armstrong is dead at 82.

We watched the moon walk on TV. My cat kept trying to catch the astronauts, and then would run around to the back of the TV to see if they were back there.

Nonsense du Jour

This "opinion" piece by Greg Hampikian, from NYT. Titled "Men, Who Needs Them?" it attempts to make the case that women don't need men for bearing or raising children. You can tell he's operating from Neverneverland:

If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead).

Um, excuse me -- where does he think the sperm came from? Alpha Centauri?

He also tries to make the case that single-parent households are just fine and dandy -- noting that "the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents." And how many single mothers are wealthy? (Note, he provides no link or citation for McLanahan's work.) I'm going to have to come down on the side of those studies that indicate that two parents are better for children than one, if only because they are less subject to the stresses that result from trying to go it alone. (I have known more than one woman who elected to raise a child without a father. It was hard on them.)

This is a fairly frivolous piece. I wish I could say I'm surprised to see it at NYT, but you know what? I'm not.

The Power of Words

From my friends at Nick's Place:

Today's Must-Read

Apparently, the inhabitants of the lower depths of the anti-gay right are exercised (exorcized?) because Bill O'Reilly regularly has Wayne Besen on his show and doesn't shout him down. So they've sent a letter to O'Reilly's producers demanding that the calm and rational discussions cease immediately. Besen, not known for being the most reticent man in the public sphere, has responded.

I have never been more proud of my career accomplishments than I am today. It has been said that the friends and foes accrued over a lifetime can be used as a measure of the man. Given the coalition of homophobes and hate groups that viciously attacked me today, I feel my life’s work has been vindicated and validated.

When I woke up this morning, I was greeted with a pernicious press release headlined, “Family Groups Urge FOX NEWS to Stop Providing Unchallenged Prime Time to Agitator.” The sub headline read: “Bill O’Reilly ignores repeated requests to drop SPLC’s Wayne Besen from show.” (Note: I don’t work for SPLC. I am the founder of Truth Wins Out)

And he goes on to give names and some of the highlights of the signers' careers.

Read it.

(Here's most of the press release from the right-wingers. Can you say "projection"?

The Unhinged (Updated)

That seems to sum up this group.

First, of course, is Todd Akin, who is still, by all reports, the Republican candidate for the Senate from Missouri. It's not that Akin said something totally off the scale -- it's that he said publicly what is -- and has been -- the Republican position on rape/abortion/reproductive rights, based, as is so often the case, on nonsense from a "doctor." And while major GOP figures have been calling on Akin to drop out, the platform committee has written even more extreme language into the proposed platform.

Here's Rachel Maddow on the history of this strand of Republican thought:

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

(Footnote: Here's one of the right's intellectual giants on the whole flap -- I'm not sure if she's channeling Mama Grizzly or Annie Oakley:

And on to another choice example to today's conservatives. This is a judge who is also head of the Lubbock County, Texas (of course) Office of Emergency Management. This is what he's planning for:

Earlier today, ThinkProgress reported that Texas Judge Tom Head told a local television station that President Obama would turn over American “sovereignty” to the United Nations if reelected, that Obama’s actions would potentially trigger “civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war,” and that such a conflict would culminate with “UN troops” led by President Obama invading Lubbock, Texas. We swear we are not making this up. There is video. Today, Judge Head clarified his remarks, explaining that it is his obligation to prepare for an Obama-led United Nations invasion as Lubbock County, Texas’ Director of Emergency Management:

I’m not saying we’re going to take [newly hired law enforcement officers] and stand in front of the UN. I have to think of, as emergency management director I have to think of worst case scenario, and I used that as an example yesterday. Okay, in my opinion, the worst case scenario politically and financially right now is if Obama and the Senate Democrats stay in power. Okay, because I have some opinions what they’re doing and what they’re trying to do if they stay in power. And I have to prepare for that, okay.

What possible reason could anyone have for invading Lubbock?

U.S. Congressman Steve King (R-Some Cornfield Someplace) is always good for a laugh -- or would be, if it weren't for the fact that people actually voted him into office. You could guess that his thoughts on multiculturalism would be choice:

I went to the Iowa State website and [...] I typed in “multicultural” and it came back to me, at the time, 59 different multicultural groups listed to operate on campus at Iowa State. It started with Asians and it ended with Zeitgeist, so from A to Z, and most of them were victims’ groups, victimology, people that feel sorry for themselves and they’re out there recruiting our young people to be part of the group that feels sorry for themselves. [...] And then, you’re brought into a group of people that are–have a grievance against society rather than understand there’s a tremendous blessing in this society.

I really don't understand how treasuring your own heritage translates into "feeling sorry" for yourself. But then, I'm not Steve King. And finally, from more intellectual giants of the right, GOProud has endorsed Tommy Thompson against Tammy Baldwin for the Senate from Wisconsin. GOProud claims to be a conservative gay group -- here's what they're endorsing:

OK -- that's all I can take of these loons this morning. Update: This one is so over the top that I had to include it. It sort of reflects the whole right-wing belief system: simplistic, when that's not too difficult for them. Oh, and money rules.

There are good people in this world

Today's feel-good story:

It's more than feel-good, though: most of the people in this country are decent people who want to do good. (Don't miss the part about ten other companies chipping in to help cover the cost of the repairs.) It's the assholes like Paul Ryan and Todd Akin and Brian Brown and the teabaggers who get the news coverage.

You see why I still have faith in humanity.

(Via)

The Tony Perkins Award

To Brian Brown, of NOM, via Joe.My.God.:

Starbucks supported same sex marriage, saw their support from Republicans dwindle, missed sales projections, and watched the company lose $4.4 billion overnight and over $10 billion from their 2012 high. While executives of publicly traded companies have had a wonderful time claiming that not supporting same-sex marriage hurts their employee recruitment and retention efforts, we now have a case study in how alienating millions of customers can directly affect the bottom line of a public company and damage shareholder value."

As Joe points out, Starbucks missed their forecast, but sales increased 7% in the U.S.
And their stock price has soared.

No Comment

Because no comment is necessary. Via Box Turtle Bulletin from NOM:

“Bachelorette” star Ryan Bowers tweeted his support for Chick-fil-A and the “sanctity of marriage” on the Appreciation Day:

“Everyone is eating at chik fil-a today to support the Kathy family and their stand for the sanctity of marriage!!! Lv it!”

And if, like me, you don't watch much TV:

For those who are not familiar with the series, Bachelorette is a television show on which a couple dozen men compete for the privilege of marrying a woman.

By all means, let's preserve the sanctity of marriage. I mean, what could be more in line with "traditional marriage" than making it the prize in a game show?

(OK, so I made a comment -- I really couldn't resist.)

Update to "Hate Groups"

John Aravosis has come out with another excellent post showing up Tony Perkins' frantic accusations of everyone else for the D.C. shooting incident. Read it.

Note: Digby came to the same conclusion the other day, which somehow I missed.

But Tony Perkins' crocodile tears about "hate speech" are just a bit hard to take considering the kind of profit he makes at it himself. Of course he doesn't deserve to get shot at for it. But blaming the SPLC is an attempt to deflect attention from their own hate speech. Certainly, if it's "irresponsible" for the SPLC to accuse the FRC a hate group, it seems to me that it's doubly irresponsible for the FRC to accuse them of attempted murder.

I don't really have anything to add to that, except to note that, while the right is constantly harping on taking "personal responsibility" for one's actions, they seem more than a little reluctant to do so themselves. I think that's called "hypocrisy." As I recall, Jesus had something to say about that.

"Hate Groups"

Dana Milbank wrote a column at WaPo that has to be seen to be believed. (Well, if you're one of the Villagers, I suppose it makes perfect sense.) It's nothing more than a white-wash of FRC and a call for everyone to "be nice" and stop labeling hate groups as hate groups. It starts off badly and goes downhill from there:

Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization, posted an alert on its blog Tuesday: “Paul Ryan Speaking at Hate Group’s Annual Conference.”

The “hate group” that the Republicans’ vice presidential candidate would be addressing? The Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative think tank founded by James Dobson and run for many years by Gary Bauer.

FRC is not mainstream. It is an extremist political organization using the Bible as a weapon.

Other bloggers, when commenting on this post, always start off by claiming that they respect Milbank. I have to confess I don't read him regularly, and if this is an example of his commentary, I don't really see any need to. He quite obviously has not done any research on FRC, he quite obviously has not read the SPLC's statement in which it details the reasons for declaring FRC a hate group -- or any of the numerous statements issued thereafter -- nor, apparently, has be bothered to inform himself what the issue really is. It's just another out-of-touch Beltway condemnation of anything that might be construed as "the left." Oh, and both sides do it.

Human Rights Campaign isn’t responsible for the shooting. Neither should the organization that deemed the FRC a “hate group,” the Southern Poverty Law Center, be blamed for a madman’s act. But both are reckless in labeling as a “hate group” a policy shop that advocates for a full range of conservative Christian positions, on issues from stem cells to euthanasia.

"Policy shop"? You've got to be kidding me.

Here's the cherry on top:

Those who support gay rights will gain nothing by sticking inflammatory labels on their opponents, many of whom are driven by deeply held religious beliefs.

Yes, and sincerely held religious beliefs gave us the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, the drive to exterminate American Indians, slavery, genocide, and gods know what other glories of Western civilization. And ultimately, so what? Believe what you like, and base the law on reason.

(I actually spent a couple of hours last evening scrolling through the comments and leaving a couple of my own. As one commenter pointed out, there is a group of repeaters, obviously hard-core right-wingers who are impervious to logic and fact, and there there are a number of unique commenters who actually do document their statements with links and quotes. Most of those are strongly against Milbank's column, probably because they know what they're talking about.)

Pam Spaulding wrote a good, solid analysis of the column on Friday.

My assumption is that Mr. Milbank doesn’t read or see any news reports of the continuing struggle in much of the U.S. for LGBTs to have even the most basic of civil rights he takes for granted — equal accommodation, the right not be fired for sexual orientation or gender identity — oh, and not to be killed or maimed for simply existing. His overall message is the inaccurate, pathetic, lazy zero-sum argument that, in his mind, the LGBT community has not suffered as much violence or deprivation of civil rights as, say, blacks. Please. Like I said, he doesn’t bother to even bone up on recent incidents of horrid violence[.]

Apparently, Milbank feels that it isn't legitimate to label FRC a hate group until they start burning gay men on their front lawns.

John Aravosis also did a piece on the column -- or at least, sparked by the column -- that lays it all out, beginning with the header: "Why the Family Research Council is a hate group."

Because they lie.

And they know they lie.

And they don't care.

And they've been doing it for twenty years.

And when I say "lie," I dont' mean the standard Washington, DC version of a "lie," which is basically calling a lie anything you disagree with (aka, your facts hurt me so I'm simply going to call you a liar). I mean, an organization that decided early on that "the gay menace" was such a threat to American life that if it had to deceive the American people in order to convince them that gays were the anti-Christ, then so be it.

And for any journalist, like the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, who claims otherwise, suggesting that the Family Research Council is simply a "mainstream conservative" group, I'd ask them to do some original research on the anti-gay literature that the Family Research Council publishes, and the anti-gay pseudo-science that FRC "cites" on TV, before weighing in on a topic about which they know very little.

Aravosis'post is exhaustive and worth reading. There's also a good discussion in the comments.

For reference, here's the page on FRC from SPLC's Intelligence Files. (Note to Dana Milbank: it wasn't that hard to find. All you have to do is google "Southern Poverty Law Center" to get to the site, and go on from there. It's pretty user-friendly.)

One final thought on this: it was Peter LaBarbera who brought up the idea that the shooting was staged. I don't really believe it, but given the methods and tactics of the FRC, and that fact that as they lose ground they get more extreme, it starts to sound credible.

The Tony Perkins Award

Lots of contenders this week. Let's get right to it, with the man himself: Tony Perkins is going for the gold:

Well I think as we witnessed this past week at the Family Research Council, clearly linked to that same atmosphere of hostility that’s created by the public policies of an administration that’s indifferent or hostile to religious freedom and groups like as I mentioned the Southern Poverty Law Center that recklessly throws around labels giving people like this gunman who came into our building a license to take innocent life.

It's all Obama's fault. This from the man who used to think that open racism was the way to go. I guess it doesn't pay as much as gay-bashing, but old habits die hard, they say.

I'm not sure if Andrea Lafferty qualifies for this award -- she maybe should be a contender for the Through the Looking Glass Award, since she's as delusional as her father, Lou Sheldon. But she's in rare form this week:

The head of the Traditional Values Coalition, an anti-gay group that is equally as vile as the FRC, is claiming that shooter Floyd Corkins was arrested while carrying their address. . . .

Lafferty claims she's gotten no response to requests for federal protection: "Under this Justice Department, Christians are a very low priority on their lists of concerns."

I suspect the DoJ considers "Christians" a fairly high priority and is keeping an eye on the TVC and similar groups (as much as they are allowed under the teabagger Congress, which is firmly wedded to the principle that only brown people commit terrorist acts), since they or their followers are responsible for most of the violence.

Here's an example of the TVC's "Christian" message:

Ever hear of Michael Heath? He's the anti-gay stalwart in Maine who was eased out of the anti-marriage fight a couple of years ago because he was extreme enough to embarrass the extremists. Well, he's back:

"If Maine doesn't end this decades long conflict over the evil of sodomy with an overwhelming NO vote in November we can expect to see this sort of violence in Maine in the near future. Homosexuality can lead to the most horrific and violent consequences in individuals and society. The twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of it."

Heath is awaiting receipt of his concealed weapons permit from the Maine State Police. He claimed it is the responsibility of all good men to be prepared to protect innocence from evil. Force must be met with force so that innocent people are not harmed.

Given Heath's own words, we can guess where the violence will come from. Oh, and about Sodom and Gomorrah -- another "Christian" who apparently doesn't read the Bible.

And maybe Heath's another one who should be in the running for the TLG Award -- he sounds crazy enough.

The FRC Incident -- Today's Round-up

It's interesting that the FRC incident is causing a fair amount of introspection in the gay blogosphere. In the "Christian" blogosphere, not so much. Here are some of today's commentaries.

First, a very good post from Pam Spaulding on FRC's statement (which boils down to "It's all somebody else's fault") and SPLC's response -- because, of course, Tony Perkins blamed SPLC.

Sadly, Family Research Council’s honcho Tony Perkins took to the media today in an attempt to discredit the Southern Poverty Law Center’s accurate assessment of FRC as a hate group, charging that the organization gave shooter Floyd Corkins a license to shoot the security guard at its building in DC.

Isn't it sort of fascinating that the right insists that everyone else take responsibility for their rhetoric? Does anyone remember the rending of garments and the "mea culpas" from Perkins, or Bryan Fischer, or Peter LaBarbera, or Brian Brown, or any of them over the rash of teen suicides because of bullying over the past year or two? I thought not.

Digby, as usual, is very much on point on this one.

I left a rather lengthy comment on that one, which will serve as my commentary on that post.

A thoughtful commentary from Timothy Kincaid on words and consequences, although I think he's perhaps shouldering too much of the blame.

I know that most people who read here would never ever see anything that might cause them to think that violence towards Perkins, or any of our adversaries, is in anyway encouraged or acceptable. Most people know that “it goes without saying” that such a response would condemned without exception.

But for some people, it doesn’t go without saying. For some people, it has to be said. Some people have to be told that we will not see them as heroes if they take – or even threaten – the life of someone else.

Do I say it enough?

I left a comment there to the effect that we need to divorce the words from the people. Tony Perkins, in and of himself, is nothing. It's his words that are damaging and hateful, and that is what we need to respond to. In his case, it's easy -- just start hauling out facts. He has no answer for that, except to change the subject. Don't let him.

Shifting focus to NOM, for a moment -- you'll remember that Brian Brown was first out of the gate with accusations that the shooting was the fault of SPLC, "the left," and "the vast homosexual conspiracy" -- Joe Jervis has reposted Rob Tisinai's summary of some of NOM's "civilized" discourse. I like Joe's comment, though:

Regarding the first item, I was there in the Bronx that day last year when NOM's invited speaker declared that gay people should be put to death, first in Spanish, then in English via the onstage translator. When I heard the translation, I whipped my head around to see Brian Brown smiling and rocking his heels as he nodded in approval.

Jervis has another one, this time from conspiracy theorist Dana Loesch. This time, we're at war with religion, which is a concept that I find ludicrous in the extreme. It's really nothing more than pandering on Loesch's part, in a particularly cheap manner. (For my own part, I'm admittedly not terribly observant, but I am very devout -- I can honestly say that my religious beliefs form the basis of my behavior. I'm just not a "Christian" -- or even a Christian.)

At any rate, that's enough to give you the drift: Perkins is projecting like crazy because he sees a way to capitalize on an unfortunate incident, and like his comrades in the anti-gay industry, is demanding that someone else take responsibility for the climate he has created. It's his usual tactic -- blame somebody else. But he does get the quote of the day on this one:

Asked by reporters why he thought the shooter was motivated by his distate for the group rather than mental incapacity, Perkins quipped, “How many unhinged individuals walk around with 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches?”

I would think the answer to that one would be obvious.

As Expected

While the reaction from gay groups to the shooting at FRC headquarters in Washington has been to condemn the violence, the reaction from the various anti-gay "Christian" groups has been to condemn -- gays.

David Badash has collected the comments at The New Civil Rights Movement. Here's just a few of the more outrageous:

First, Bryan Fischer (the public face of recognized hate group American Family Association), gets a Through the Looking Glass Award for this one:

If SPLC is right, that using irresponsible language re: homosexuality causes violence, then they to blame for FRC shooting.

— Bryan Fischer (@BryanJFischer) August 15, 2012

Talk about turning things on their heads. That doesn't even make sense.

And here's a good example of psychological projection, from none other than Matt Barber:

Efforts by @splcenter & @glaad to dehumanize Christians & equate biblical truth to “hate” are working. You have blood on your hands #FRC

— Matt Barber (@jmattbarber) August 15, 2012

That's Matthew Barber, head of Liberty University Law School, which has been named in a RICO suit filed by Janet Jenkins over the kidnapping of Isabella Miller-Jenkins.

And of course, you can't malign the gays without Peter LaBarbera:

Shooting at Family Research Council: now how long will it take homo’l zealots like Joe Jervis to blame FRC for staging its own hate crime?!

— Peter LaBarbera (@PeterLaBarbera) August 15, 2012

Does LaBarbera know something we don't? Just asking.

These guys must love Twitter -- they can just do sound-bites without ever having to back anything up with facts. Not that they ever do anyway.

Compare and Contrast

In the wake of the shooting at the FRC offices in Washington, D.C. this morning, it's instructive to look at the responses. Via Metro Weekly, we get a good look.

First, about two dozen gay advocacy groups have issued a joint statement:

We were saddened to hear news of the shooting this morning at the offices of the Family Research Council. Our hearts go out to the shooting victim, his family, and his co-workers.

The motivation and circumstances behind today’s tragedy are still unknown, but regardless of what emerges as the reason for this shooting, we utterly reject and condemn such violence. We wish for a swift and complete recovery for the victim of this terrible incident.

Of course, then there's Brian Brown of NOM:

"Today's attack is the clearest sign we've seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as 'hateful' must end," said Brown. "The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Family Research Council a 'hate group' for its pro-marriage views, and less than a day ago the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement calling FRC a 'hate group'—they even specified that FRC hosts events in Washington, DC, where today's attack took place."

Brown said that for "too long national gay rights groups have intentionally marginalized and ostracized pro-marriage groups and individuals by labeling them as 'hateful' and 'bigoted.'"

I must point out that the SPLC was quite clear that it did not label FRC a hate group for its "pro-marriage" views. It labeled FRC a hate group because of its consistent pattern of using lies, misrepresentations and distortions to demonize LGBT people.

And can you say "projection"?

What About Medicare?

The Romney/Ryan budget turns it into a voucher system -- and the vouchers cover less and less of the premiums as time goes on. So how are R&R pitching it? They're lying about it.

If you want to look at the reality of the Obama Medicare "cuts," check this article by Sara Kliff:

It’s worth noting that there’s one area these cuts don’t touch: Medicare benefits. The Affordable Care Act rolls back payment rates for hospitals and insurers. It does not, however, change the basket of benefits that patients have access to. And, as Ezra pointed out earlier today, the Ryan budget would keep these cuts in place.

The Ryan budget would keep the cuts in place, but would use them to lower tax rates for billionaires.

And for a good analysis of the R&R plan in general, check this post from Mahablog. It's mostly a link dump, with quotes. But then, she's done it so I don't have to.

Word Salad

Or a reasonable facsimile thereof. There really ought to be an award for this, but I can't think what to call it. The Sarah Palin Award?

From NOM's very own Ruth Institute:

REI is the latest corporation to take a stand against biological parenthood by supporting redefining marriage. Any company and any individual who supports redefining marriage is opposing your right as a biological parent. Biological parenthood says your rights come from God. REI, Starbucks, Best Buy, Nike, Microsoft, Google, Proctor & Gamble… the list is quite extensive and they are all in opposition to the biological status of parents. They may or may not know this. But that is the what will happen if marriage is redefined. And they will be responsible for the resulting harms.

WTF? "Biological parenthood says your rights come from God"? What does that mean?

Via Joe.My.God. Joe also points out that the Ruth Institute post concludes by "glumly" linking to this Wikipedia entry on corporate support for same-sex marriage. It's quite an impressive list, headed by a disclaimer that it's not complete.

It seems to me that anyone who didn't have her head firmly planted up her ass would figure that she's missing something.

Why Societies? And How Should They Work?

This article by Benjamin Hale is worth reading. It touches on my basic question: "Why do people form societies?" It's a slightly different angle of approach, but it forms a good working basis to answer the question.

Rawls charged his readers to design a society from the ground up, from an original position, and he imposed the ignorance constraint so that readers would abandon any foreknowledge of their particular social status — their wealth, their health, their natural talents, their opportunities or any other goodies that the cosmos may have thrown their way. In doing so, he hoped to identify principles of justice that would best help individuals maximize their potential, fulfill their objectives (whatever they may happen to be) and live a good life. He called this presumption the “veil of ignorance.”

The idea behind the veil of ignorance is relatively simple: to force us to think outside of our parochial personal concerns in order that we consider others. What Rawls saw clearly is that it is not easy for us to put ourselves in the position of others. We tend to think about others always from our own personal vantage; we tend to equate another person’s predicament with our own. Imagining what it must be like to be poor, for instance, we import presumptions about available resources, talents and opportunities — encouraging, say, the homeless to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and to just get a job, any job, as if getting a job is as simple as filling out an application. Meanwhile, we give little thought to how challenging this can be for those who suffer from chronic illnesses or disabling conditions. What Rawls also saw clearly was that other classic principles of justice, like the golden rule or mutual benevolence, are subject to distortion precisely because we tend to do this.

It's long and needs your attention, but if you're interested in the basis of the dichotomy in our political discourse these days, it'll give you some good grounding.

Via.

Footnote: This post from John Rogers sort of puts the whole question in a very immediate perspective.

Paul Ryan's family fortune was based on being paid by the government to build highways, he's never had a job other than "Congressman", none of his budget numbers add up -- at all -- and he's trying to push a budget that would raise taxes on the middle class, hand giant tax breaks to the rich, gut the country's infrastructure, and end Medicare -- which no matter what shit they sling at you is the plan because strangely, his plan doesn't apply to anybody over 55. Why not, if it's so awesome? Because old folk know bullshit when they smell it, that's why.

And why is he pursuing these policies? Because, well, "job creators."

You know what? I type for a living, and my stupid little typing creates a couple hundred jobs. I'm an actual job creator, which was the last damn thing anybody (including my perpetually surprised father) expected when I started telling jokes in bars. And I don't think that raising my tax rate by 3.4% (back the bad old Clinton Socialism Rate) so you, my fellow citizen, won't lose your fucking house when your kid gets cancer, or maybe we get a functioning power grid or roads that wouldn't be substandard in ZIMBABWE is "socialism". It's basic. Goddam. Decency.

When the hell did we get talked out of that?

Wow.

Just "Wow."

Check this out.

You know, there's a lot more to "nature" than we realized.