1
By Erich Vieth on October 17th, 2009
iPhone apps for modern-day Republicans
Are you a modern-day right-wing Republican needing some new apps for your iPhone? If so, this video is for you:
Tag: "Bigotry"
By Erich Vieth on June 26th, 2009
How and why to repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell.
How and why should we repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell? Everything you need to know is here, in this presentation by Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan, and Laura Conley of the Center for American Progress. Here’s the pdf. Here are some of the facts worth considering:
More than 32,500 gay and lesbian service men and women have been discharged from military service since 1980.
This policy may have cost the U.S. government up to $1.3 billion since 1980.
“No reputable or peer-reviewed study has ever shown that allowing service by openly gay personnel will compromise military effectiveness.”17
Twenty-four countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. None of these have reported “any determent to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality,” according to the Palm Center, and “in the more
than three decades since an overseas force first allowed gay men and lesbians to serve openly, no study has ever documented any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality in foreign armed services.”
Even the British, whose military structure and deployment patterns are most similar to ours—and who fiercely resisted allowing gays to serve in the military—were forced to do so by the European Court
What is step ONE for ending the deplorable status quo? “Issue an Executive Order banning further dismissals on the basis of DADT and send a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress.”
We’re waiting, Mr. Obama.
By Erich Vieth on June 25th, 2009
Why was Jeff Gannon (Jeff Guckert) spending so much time at the Bush White House?
Back in 2005, I was intrigued when the story broke that a fake reporter supposedly named “Jeff Gannon” somehow got access for White House press briefings. His real name turned out to be Jeff Guckert, and he had no credentials as a reporter. He didn’t even qualify for a press pass. Really strange stuff. Actually, the story got much much stranger:
Investigative bloggers at Daily Kos and AmericaBlog.org discovered that Guckert owned male escort sites, and was himself a male prostitute.
I just ran across this 2005 Raw Story piece that goes into a lot more detail about Guckert/Gannon. Not only did he not belong at the White House at all, but it turns out that he was almost always there.
[D]ocuments obtained by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal Guckert had remarkable access to the White House . . . Guckert made more than 200 appearances at the White House during his two-year tenure with the fledging conservative websites GOPUSA and Talon News, attending 155 of 196 White House press briefings. He had little to no previous journalism experience, previously worked as a male escort, and was refused a congressional press pass.
If you read this Raw Story story, you’ll be amazed at the many anomalies regarding Gluckert’s White House visits. According to the linked Wikipedia and Raw Story articles:
The Secret Service Records appear to show that he checked in, but never checked out on many occasions, and visited the White House on several days during which no press conference or other press events were held.
You’ll see all of the data regarding Gluckert’s many visits at Raw Story. I don’t remember this story (of the extent of Gluckert’s White House access) ever getting covered by the mainstream media.
I’ll end with a question. It seems as though a huge percentage of gay bashers are conflicted closet gays. It was also clear that there were a LOT of gay-bashers in the Bush White House. To connect the dots, it would appear from Gluckert’s real profession and his extensive White House access that he was visiting the White House to provide sexual services to someone who also spent a lot of time at the White House. So who was it that Gluckert was spending so much time with at the White House. Which of the Bush Administration anti-gay bigots was spending so much time with Gluckert?
And one more question: Whenever a politician takes a strong anti-gay stand, shouldn’t we immediately and automatically remove them from political office and require them to go to therapy so that they can work out their conflictedness regarding their sexual attractions toward members of the same sex?
By Dan Klarmann on May 27th, 2009
Mormons Win in California, For Now
Anyone who has been following the 2008/2009 contest of California’s Proposition 8 (constitutional prohibition of marriage between people of the same sexual preference or same sexual identity) knows that it was submitted and promoted by Salt Lake City. The paper trail is clear. Arguably, Salt Lake City isn’t even in California. But that was not the issue, because the Utah money did persuade California voters.
Recently, the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment. But Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta posted Am I a Bad Person If I Think The Prop 8 Ruling Was Correct?. His point is that this ruling will make it harder for anti-gay activists the next time around.
States are beginning to domino into accepting marriage between those of same gender much like they did for those of different races in the mid 20th century. Conservatives have a valuable role to play; they fear and resist change. They function as a drag anchor to force those who would move ahead to work out iron-clad methods before change is implemented. Our legal system therefore resists implementing anything new from the grass roots direction until it is acceptable to at least half of the voting population. Very frustrating, but a historical necessity. When the process is short-circuited, we get embarrassments such as the 18th and 23rd amendments to our Federal Constitution.
American Culture • Bigotry • Civil Rights • Communication • Current Events • Law • Politics • Religion • Reproductive Rights • Sex • ignorance
By Erich Vieth on April 19th, 2009
What are the teabag protests really about?
What are the teabag protests really about?
Their message is so incredibly incoherent, that it’s clear that these sparsely-attended “protests” weren’t really about what they were supposedly about, at least for many of the protesters. Therefore, we need to explore the subterranean reasons. On Keith Olberman’s show, Janeane Garofalo suggests that what really upsets the teabaggers is that there is a black man in White House. With her theory, Garofalo is echoing one of my suspicions. And check out the blogger who took the microphone at one of the protests and had the protesters eating out of his hand, to demonstrate the incoherence.
By Erich Vieth on April 04th, 2009
Varnum vs Brien: the abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage
What follows is an abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage: KATHERINE VARNUM vs. TIMOTHY J. BRIEN, Polk County Recorder. Decision date: April 3, 2009.
Who would have thought that the next state to recognize gay rights was going to be Iowa? Right out here in the heartland, neighbor of Missouri, where I live? Many these states in the Midwest have taken pains to amend their laws to forbid gay marriage.
I am highly impressed by the Court’s ruling and opinion in the case of Varnum vs. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage (here’s the full text of the opinion).
Here’s Des Moines Register’s brief description of the holding. It is an extraordinary opinion, extremely well-written and well-reasoned. It is extraordinary for both the legal analysis and for the emotional and social insights expressed by the court. This Court really gets what is at stake in this case, and did hide from any of the arguments asserted by the County.
It’s amazing what happens when you carefully lay out all of the arguments for the world to see, and I do believe that the Court covered all of the arguments expressed by those who are opposed to gay marriage, even a big argument that the anti-gay-marriage forces didn’t have the courage to raise in the courts (religious objections). Because the Court took the time to carefully lay out all of those anti-gay-marriage arguments, we can all see how empty and paranoid they sound in the abstract. When we see the anti-gay-marriage arguments calmly on paper, without the angry faces and the megaphones, we see them as the specious arguments they truly are.
Today, I took the time to read the entire 70-page opinion by the Iowa Supreme Court. It occurred to me, though, that many people (especially non-lawyers) might not want to work their way through the entire opinion. Therefore, I have created this “abridged” version, preserving the significant points, but redacting the citations and technical points. This actual words of the Court’s opinion are truly worth your while. Don’t settle for the simplified news media stories on this decision. This court’s opinion is professional and inspirational. In it’s thoroughness and directness regarding a tumultuous subject, it reminds me of the Pennsylvania decision of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., (full decision of the Dover decision here).
In this legal decision, the Iowa Supreme Court takes the long view of history, as you can see at page 16, where the Court points out that it prohibited slavery more than 15 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of slave-owners in the Dred Scott case. This discussion is on the mark, given that any legislation curtailing the rights of gays is based on bigotry. The Court has a long analysis ready for those who would argue that homosexuality is a choice, starting around page 41 in the “immutability” section. The also Court slams the concept of “civil union” as a second rate version of marriage (for example, see page 9).
What was at stake in this case was Iowa Code section 595.2(1), which ostensibly provides:
“[o]nly a marriage between a male and a female is valid.”
The Court considered a mountain of evidence and reviewed dozens of amicus briefs (briefs from interested individuals and organizations who are not direct parties) before rendering its opinion.
By Erich Vieth on March 31st, 2009
Richard Nisbett: Intelligence mostly varies due to the environment, not genes
The dominant hereditarian view of intelligence holds that intelligence is mostly fixed by the genes. Richard Nisbett has dismantled the evidence on which the hereditarian theory is based. In his new book, Intelligence and How to Get It, Nesbitt argues that the twin studies on which the hereditarian view is based are deeply flawed. The main problem is that the adoptive homes in which those separated twins often find themselves are uniformly enriched learning environments. Nisbett’s book was reviewed by Jim Holt of the NYT Book Review:
Nisbett bridles at the hereditarian claim that I.Q. is 75 to 85 percent heritable; the real figure, he thinks, is less than 50 percent. Estimates come from comparing the I.Q.’s of blood relatives — identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings — growing up in different adoptive families. But there is a snare here. As Nisbett observes, “adoptive families, like Tolstoy’s happy families, are all alike.” Not only are they more affluent than average, they also tend to give children lots of cognitive stimulation. Thus data from them yield erroneously high estimates of I.Q. heritability. (Think: if we all grew up in exactly the same environment, I.Q. differences would appear to be 100 percent genetic.) This underscores an important point: there is no fixed value for heritability. The notion makes sense only relative to a population. Heritability of I.Q. is higher for upper-class families than for lower-class families, because lower-class families provide a wider range of cognitive environments, from terrible to pretty good.
What does Nisbett’s book have to say about race and intelligence? That the differences among the “races” are not genetic. Evidence in point: The “racial” IQ gap has been shrinking. “Over the last 30 years, the measured I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped from 15 points to 9.5 points.”
By Erich Vieth on March 07th, 2009
Color-coded history
Consider this description of a significant and tragic event in American history:
[Occurring in May and July 1917, this event] was an outbreak of labor and racially motivated violence against blacks that caused an estimated 100 deaths and extensive property damage in [an American industrial city]. It was the worst incident of labor-related violence in 20th century American history, and one of the worst race riots in U.S. history. It gained national attention. The local Chamber of Commerce called for the resignation of the Police Chief. At the end of the month, ten thousand people marched in silent protest in New York City over the riots, which contributed to the radicalization of many.
[paraphrased from Wikipedia]
Do you know anything about the event described above? The above passage describes the East St. Louis race riot that occurred on Monday, July 2, 1917. I learned about this riot for the first time tonight when I had the opportunity to hear a talk by Harper Barnes, a St. Louis journalist who has recently written a book called Never Been a Time: The 1917 Race Riot That Sparked the Civil Rights Movement.
[caption id="attachment_5419" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Harper Barnes - Photo by Erich Vieth"]
[/caption]
In 1914, the first world war was heating up and so were the heavy industries. East St. Louis, Illinois, located right across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri, was the home of large aluminum and steel plants.
To backtrack, through the 1910s, one-half million blacks who had resided in the rural South moved up to northern cities. Employers made use of these blacks as strikebreakers. The blacks certainly wouldn’t have felt much loyalty toward the unions, because the white unions banned black workers.
By Erich Vieth on March 06th, 2009
Should science study race and IQ?
Should science study race and IQ? A recent article in Nature (”Should scientists study race and IQ“) says yes, as long as the research is done carefully and kept free of outside influence and premature application by social scientists and politicians. Science did not give rise to bigotry. After all, scientific studies of race and IQ began in relatively modern times, only after long centuries of “pernicious folk-theories of racial and gender inferiority predated scientific studies.” The authors believe that first-rate scientific research will, in the end, dispel much of the racial bigotry that still exists.
Some scientists hold more ‘acceptable’ views, ourselves included. We think racial and gender differences in IQ are not innate but instead reflect environmental challenges. Although we endorse this view, plenty of scholars remain unpersuaded. Whereas our ‘politically correct’ work garners us praise, speaking invitations and book contracts, challengers are demeaned, ostracized and occasionally threatened with tenure revocation.
Acts of censure edge close to Lysenkoism. They also do a disservice to science. When dissenters’ positions are prevented exposure in high-impact journals and excluded from conferences, the dominant side goes unchallenged, and eventually its rationale is forgotten, forestalling the evolution of crucial ideas.
I am sympathetic to the need to for scientists to carefully examine everything, no exceptions. I’m concerned, though, that we need to look extra-closely at the concept of “race,” which I consider to be virtually useless in daily matters. Nor should we allow the simplistic concept of “IQ” to serve as a variable, given much more expansive ways to measure intelligence (see, for example this post on Howard Gardner’s work). For more on the dangers of misusing “IQ,” see Steven J. Gould’s 1996 book, “The Mismeasure of Man.”
In sum, we should do good science and I believe that good science would suffocate bigotry. The article points out several examples of this. Good science should be done on only after kicking out the clumsy, pernicious concepts of “race” and “IQ,” reframing the debate as the relationship between fine-grained genotypic variation and competence in each of the many ways in which humans display competence. Because genotypic variation within “races” is at least as wide as genotypic variation among “races,” a meaningful scientific exploration would not amount to a simplistic survey of how people with different colors of skin do on standardized intelligence tests. That would not be good science. Good science will always take into account the convoluted ever-changing environment, and that is not easy to do when we are dealing with basic concepts that are vague.
I’m not convinced that we are prepared to begin the necessary research on this general topic, because too many of us, including many well-trained scientists, have not done their ontological homework (consider the incoherent and clumsy stumblings of DNA co-discoverer James Watson, described in the article). Are “race” and “IQ” useful constructs with which to do this sort of research? Time will tell if we are intelligent enough to sharpen our constructs before running off to demonstrate our “truths.”
By Erich Vieth on February 19th, 2009
Powerful images from the White House
Sometimes, when I see videos of President Barack Obama, I think of how important it might be for Americans to see photos and videos of highly-accomplished African-American role models. For decades, television has too often portrayed African-Americans as dysfunctional, lazy or violent criminals. The onslaught of these abnormal images has been terrible and relentless. I assume that these media caricatures have damaged and even destroyed some lives by encouraging young African-Americans to think that they are worth less because their physical appearance is different than those TV characters who are more often portrayed to be capable or admirable.
There was a time in my life when I didn’t believe that media images could be so powerful. It’s not that my attitude completely changed on one particular day, but I do recall one especially memorable day. In 2001, my wife (Anne) and I traveled to China to adopt our second daughter (our first daughter is also Chinese). While we were staying in a hotel in Changsha, Hunan Province, I decided to carry my new 9-month old daughter to a nearby department store to get some baby supplies. At that department store, I was surprised to see so many Caucasian mannequins. I took a photo of one of these displays. Back at the hotel, I asked two English-speaking Chinese tour guides why there were so many Caucasian mannequins, rather than Chinese mannequins. They both told me, without hesitation, that Chinese women think that Anglo women are more beautiful. I was incredulous when I heard this. But after it sunk in, it became a sad idea, indeed. I had just adopted my second daughter from China. She was a startlingly beautiful little baby. Back in Changsha, hoped that it would never occur to my daughter that she was not “pretty” because she was not Anglo.
By Mindy Carney on January 03rd, 2009
So Much Bigotry, So Little Time to Banish it . . .
Just when I think we’re making progress, we go and pull the one-step-forward-ten-steps-back trick. First, a friend tells me about how her daughter was treated recently in a suburb of New York City. The daughter is 17 and African-American, although my friend is Caucasian. Her daughter was adopted from Sierre Leone in West Africa as [...]
By Hank on December 01st, 2008
Bostonians - help Fred Phelps!
Wait, what?
Yeah, you heard right. Help Fred Phelps & his Westboro clan of deluded, life-wasting, really-shitty-sign-writing hate-mongers (and their hapless children, for whom I have the greatest sympathy). Joe Brummer has the scoop:
Fred Phelps’ clan is coming to Boston! The “God Hates Fags” Westboro Baptist Church is coming to picket the Laramie Project at the Boston Center [...]
By Erich Vieth on November 08th, 2008
The Bible and homosexuality: a vew from West Wing
Here’s a not-so-subtle reference to “Dr. Laura” by West Wing. I’m posting as my personal protest to the passing of Prop 8 in California.
I suspect that all of those California Bible-thumpers who successfully voted in favor of bigotry are resting content tonight. And no, you don’t have to be consciously and intentionally bigoted to be [...]
