Embryo of Philosophy

( Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure )



Now, there are a lot of fear-mongering myths out there about hate crimes legislation. Let's put those myths to rest.

( Preaching the Gospel Would be Against the Law! (And Other Hate Crimes Myths) )



Perhaps the most pervasive objection is that of the "thought crime." It shouldn't matter why you kill someone, just the crime itself. That's exactly right. That's why we always judge murder on the exact level. It doesn't matter if it was premeditated, accidental, or in self-defense. Everyone who kills someone else gets judged the exact same way.

Except that's not true.

If I'm ever arrested for murder, if anyone argues that it was premeditated I'm going to scream "thought crime". Why does it matter what was going through my head when I did it? My civil liberties are being violated!

And I'd like to say that hate crimes do terrorize an entire group of people. When I learned that Angie Zapata had been murdered not far from where I live, it scared me. When I hear that transgender people have a one in 12 chance of being murdered (the national average is about a one in 18,000 chance of being murdered), that scares me. When two Boulder citizens were gay bashed within days of each other, it scared me. ate crimes are bigger than the one person attacked. They send a message: if you are Black/gay/disabled/Jewish/whatever we will hurt you.

Of course, as mentioned in the last article, hate crime laws have been on the books since 1969. It's only now that they're being expanded to include GLBT people that there's an uproar. Hmm, I wonder why that might be?

There's just one more step before this becomes law, and Obama has previously said that he supports the bill.

Oh, and can I just congratulate the Democrats on actually using their brains to get this thing passed? And I thought they had forgotten how to do that!

I've been putting off this post for too long.

On May 28th, two of the hosts of a Sacramento morning radio show called Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning spent over half an hour encouraging and promoting the physical and emotional abuse of transgender and questioning children. No, seriously.

( Read more... )

Well, it feels good to get that off my chest.


EDIT: Carl's Jr/Hardee's and Verizon have also pulled their sponsorship! Yes!

EDIT AGAIN: Well's Fargo is also no longer advertising on KXRQ!

EDIT TAKE THREE: Nissan's pulling their support as well!


RETURN OF THE EDIT: AT&T and McDonald’s are gone too! That's ten big name corporations so far.

I came a cross a very interesting article the other day. Apparently, Keith Olbermann offered to make a donation to Sean Hannity's charity of choice, if Hannity would undergo waterboarding. Hannity didn't take him up on the offer, but another Fox commentator did.

The article is also under the cut. It's short.

( Olbermann's offer to Hannity off the table )


I think this clears things up. People who have been waterboarded consider it torture. And one of those people is a probably-Christian white guy, so his opinions actually count, unlike those Islamic brown people. (EDIT: Er, that last sentence is heavy sarcasm. I think that's obvious, but...)

I think it's time to round up members of the Bush administration and change their minds. And plenty of people in the current government. (No, I am not serious advocating that we round people up and torture them. I'm a Liberal.)

But a good percent of the American people need a wake up call too. Slacktivist AKA Fred Clark is my favorite blogger. He's a liberal Evangelical Christian (no, seriously) who writes about economic inequality, civil rights, and how very crazy the current Evangelic movement is in the U.S. His running critique of the Left Behind book series is one of the most fascinating things on the internet. His latest post is about a recent poll stating that 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants said torture of a suspect could be often or sometimes justified, while 40 percent of the "religiously unaffiliated" held the same stance. Now, while the "religiously unaffiliated" stats are nothing to brag about (Almost half? My god.), they're a damn sight better than the white evangelical Protestants. (For white, non-Hispanic Catholics the rate was 51 percent, and for white mainline Protestants it was 46 percent.) I find this both horrific and darkly amusing. See, plenty of people have defended religion by saying that we need it to define morality. This implies that people without religion must be somehow less moral. But, as it turns out, in the United States, being a white Christians makes you more likely to be a horrible person. So, the next time someone tells me that we can't have morality without God, I'm going to tell them to shove it.

And they said that it couldn't be done.

So, this is where I go fishing through my inbox to find interesting articles.

First off, something I agree with so, so very much.

( 'I Was Raped' Should Horrify -- But Our Culture Has Stripped the Word of Its Power )


And this next article for a healthy daily helping of rage, along with a bit of hope. I disagree with Obama on some things; I'm not always satisfied with his decisions, but thank god we have him instead of another Republican.

( How Bush and Co. Broke the Law to Keep Women from Using Birth Control )

Now, maybe you thought that I was too harsh with that last comment. Just because Bush and his cronies were immoral morons when it came to sexual health doesn't mean that all Republicans are, right? And it's not like I'm impartial. I'm a liberal who believes in equality, and personal liberties, and the First Amendment, and all those other pinko commie things. But if you won't take my word for it, would you listen to Meghan McCain, who's not just a Republican, but John McCain's daughter?

( The GOP Doesn't Understand Sex )

But, I do have some unabashed good news.

( Washington, D.C., Council Approves Recognition of Out-of-State Gay Marriage )

And

( N.Y. Assembly Passes Gay Marriage Bill )

And now I feel slightly less guilty about all of my fandom posts. And we are all so edified, aren't we?

Yesterday, my mom called me up.

Her: We have a problem.

Me: We do?

Her: Yes. Not only did you kill Jesus*, you're also destroying the rain forest.

Me: I am?

Her: Yes. The Pope has said that "saving" gays is just as important as saving the rain forest. "Saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rain forest from destruction." He also said that "The Church should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed." And "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

Me: I see.

Her: Yes, "behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations" is "a destruction of God's work."

Me: Right then.

We talked a little more, and laughed about my role in the destruction of the rain forest. I should explain, that my mother is joking. She does not actually believe that I killed Jesus, nor does she think that I'm destroying the rain forest.

Anyway, today I found an actual article on the Pope's statement.

( Pope likens 'saving' gays to saving the rainforest )


*A few years back, my mom and I were waiting in line at the grocery store, and we saw a magazine that had some headline about Jesus. My mom whispers in my ear "Jesus died because you're gay." We both crack up. There we are, cackling like loons in the grocery store, and no one else has the first clue what's so funny. If we were a more religious family, this would probably be my big homophobia related trauma. However, since we're not, it's just a continuing inside joke.

( Bush-Era Abortion Rules Face Possible Reversal )

This article actually cleared some things up for me that I didn't previously fully understand. For instance, "For decades, federal law has said that doctors and nurses can't be compelled to perform abortions. The new regulation broadens that to make clear that all health-care workers may refuse to provide information, such as a referral, to patients looking for an abortion."

And abortion isn't the only issue here. From the National Center for Transgender Equality:

( Newly Released 'Provider Conscience' Regulations and Their Affect On Transgender People )

A few people may be wondering why I'm so worried. After all, isn't Obama going to simply get rid of that despicable junk? Wasn't that the point of the first article? To you, I say that my faith in President-Elect Obama has been sorely shaken.

( A Bigot, Anti-Choice Pastor Picked for Obama's Inauguration )

After insisting that his agenda was "broad," and holding himself out as an impartial arbiter of the Forum, he declared that voting for a "Holocaust denier," (i.e., someone who is pro-choice) is a "deal-breaker" for many evangelicals.

It drives me really, really nuts when anti-choice people compare abortion to the Holocaust or genocide. For one thing, it's a sickening trivialization of the Holocaust. For another thing, it reveals that these people do not understand basic dictionary definitions. A genocide is "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" (from dictionary.com). Fetuses are not a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Even if you believe abortion is morally wrong, it's no more genocide than it is arson.

Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."

Okay, not only does he not understand dictionary definitions, he also doesn't understand genetics or evolution either. There is no one "gay gene." And recessive genes can be in your genetic makeup without being active. And evolutionary biologists have hypothesized that homosexuality is actually evolutionarily beneficial because it creates adults that are unencumbered with offspring of their own, allowing them to help with community child care.

Warren protests that he's not a homophobe

OH, OF COURSE NOT. HOW COULD ANYONE THINK THAT HE IS?

He thinks his AIDS relief efforts represent an elevated form of Christianity over those non-evangelical do-gooders whom he compares to "Marxists" because they're more interested in good works than salvation.

Because the main tenet of Marxism is... doing good works without being concerned about personal salvation?

Things that Rick Warren has absolutely no understanding of:

The Holocaust
Genocide
Genetics
Evolution
Marxism

Seriously, does this man just throw out random words to see if they stick?

After I first told my mother about this Rick Warren guy, she was skeptical. You may be too. So, I present a second article from cnn.com.

( Obama's inaugural choice sparks outrage )

"There were all kinds of threats that if [Proposition 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech."

...The only thing that Prop 8 was concerned with was whether or not same-sex couples would retain their legal right to marry. These claims that that right would have made speaking out against homosexuality (and god, look how it's phrased "he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships." How sweet and innocuous.) hate speech or that it would have forced kindergarten teachers to discuss homosexuality in their classes are such despicable lies that it shows just how detestable the religious right is. These people are scum. That's all there is to it.

Today in Abnormal Psych, we went over Gender Identity Disorder. It went better than I was anticipating. (The section of the book on GID is horrid. The case study is a man who thinks he's a woman, but actually turns out to be just only confused, and he simply needed the therapist to talk some sense into him! And very little attention payed to the fact that that's not normally how it goes, damn it.) The teacher had some pronoun issues, but it was clear that he knew what pronouns he was supposed to be using, he just kept slipping up. And he'd correct himself. As unofficial transgender ambassador to the cisgender world, I filled in blanks in his knowledge, and he was grateful for it. (I was worried that he'd see me as a stuck up know-it-all. Which, okay, I am, but that's beside the point.) And none of the students said anything stupid or offensive! I was pleasantly surprised.

I am under massive stress, but I'm dealing quite well. I'm firmly convinced that the world is a horrible, evil place, but it's a relaxed, matter-of-fact sort of opinion. And I think it should largely dissipate once I a) get more of my mood stabilizers and b) am finished with finals.

Stupid NextRX. All I want to do is order more drugs. Why are you making it so difficult?

Just for the hell of it, some articles. First, something cheerful.

( Obama critized for using complete sentences )

Now, not so silly.

( Red Sex, Blue Sex. Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant? )

In the spirit of the discussion in psych class:

( Atlanta's Intersex Police Officer Seeks Awareness )

I wanted to post this yesterday, but I was working.

So, as many, if not most, of you already know, yesterday was the anniversary of Mathew Shepard's death. It was also National Coming Out Day. I did not come out to anyone, but I would have had the topic arose. (At this point in my life, all the people who really need to know that I'm queer have been told. Now, it's on a need to know basis.)

I really don't think that there's much I can say here that hasn't been said better by others, so this is mainly a gathering of other content. After all, what should I say? I'm not eloquent enough or smart enough to put all of this into words.

bitterfig has a really eloquent post here.

An article from 365gay:

( Why the Shepard murder was different )

If you choose not to read that, at least know this: "[Barack Obama's website] says: 'Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Section.' There isn’t even a 'Civil Rights' section on the McCain site under 'issues,' much less a statement of support for specific hate crimes legislation."

The Bilerico Project has this to say:

( Matthew Shepard found, let's find the others now )

Hey, want to hear some good news? No, seriously.

( Connecticut’s Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage on the 10th )

Honestly, I'd rather see a stronger hate crimes act, or better housing and employment protection, but this is good too. (And I think that my thoughts on the way marriage takes center stage in the fight for GLBT rights would be better saved for another post.)

Today's armchair activism opportunity is brought to you by Tyson Foods.

"Hunger is a serious problem in the Bay Area…
• Nearly 1.2 million people in the Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma and Santa Cruz counties) are living near the poverty line, at risk of going hungry. According to census figures, these people are making less than $26,000 for a family of 3.
• The California Budget Project estimates that a family needs to make more than twice that amount - at least $53,000 - in order to make ends meet in the Bay Area. People who can’t get by often give up food to pay for vital expenses like medicine, or fixed expenses like rent.
• 50% of the people Bay Area food banks serve are children – and many live in working poor families."

Food prices are going up, and government help for needy families is going down (after all, to the republicans, if a government is actually serving its people, it's clearly to big).

How is Tyson helping? For every comment to this post the company will donate 100 pounds of high-quality protein (up to a total of 200,000 pounds) to the six Bay Area (that's in California) food banks.

How can you help? Comment on the post! Seriously, it takes, like, a minute. Don't you love it when doing good is so easy?

Let's make this a feel good post all round, shall we? I have some serious problems with Google, politically speaking. They worked with the Chinese government to censor and restrict what the Chinese people could search for. That's bad, to say the least. But this latest statement from them...well, I can only approve and applaud it.

( GOOGLE takes a position on California's No on 8 campaign )

Go Google. More power to you.

( Protections Set for Antiabortion Health Workers )

"People should not be forced to say or do things they believe are morally wrong." That sounds good doesn't it? Reasonable. Except that people also need to do their fucking jobs.

I don't like large corporations. It seems that 9 times out 10 they're evil. I consider a lot of the tactics that corporations use to be morally wrong. And yet, Blockbuster still expects me to do my job. What would happen if I refused to check people out because it violated my conscience? They'd fire me, that's what they'd do! And rightly so. Or say that I thought violent video games were a source of evil. I don't get to refuse to rent them. I have a job to do, and renting violent video games is part of it.

I'm seeing articles like this more and more, and it's beginning to drive me crazy.

Normally when I post articles, they're political in nature. World or national news, or commentary on whatever sexual sub-culture has caught a reporter's eye. Today is slightly different. Today is an article on money and finances. It's not very useful. Why am I posting it, then? Because never before has one article summed up what's so very, very wrong with American's--without even realizing it.

Middle-class reality check: The 'essential' indulgences

( Or read it here )

The premise of the article seems sound enough, at first glance, if more than a little obvious: it's the extra things we buy, that we assume we need, that tend to cause money problems for otherwise well off people. The problem is in phrase "we assume we need." The article never challenged that. The author says that Starbucks coffee and manicures aren't necessities once in the article, but the more you read, the more you realize that in her heart, she believes otherwise.

The article does present the blindingly obvious conclusion: stop buying shit that you don't need. But the tone of the article makes it clear that this "expert advice" (what kind of expert do you have to be?) isn't practical. You can't stop buying your four dollar latte, because you need it. It's like saying, "You shouldn't hit someone unless the really deserve it... but everyone deserves it." The article is also without purpose. "Too bad, so sad, but what can we do? This is just the way things are now."

The part I really hate, the part that comes close to making me physically ill, is the last part.

On a recent run to the drugstore (Band-Aids, paper towels, dental floss) Harper spied a battery-powered Hello Kitty toothbrush and brought it to me with a breathless catch in her voice that I recognized from my own.

"Mama, please!"

I took a close look at this candy-colored cartoon character, a dual-headed number that promised to clean my child's teeth in a whirling vortex of bliss. It was $7.99. Then I glanced at the much more practical, soft-bristled, sad little substitute, which had the unfortunate luck of being stocked next to its superstar cousin. It was perfectly adequate and $2.99.

Harper saw me hesitating and saw she had but one moment to make her case.

"Mama, I have to have this."

I knew exactly what she meant.

What the fuck are you teaching your child, woman!? Your daughter does not have to have some flashy toothbrush. I was under the impression that the difference between want and need was one the most important early lessons to teach a child. Then again, the line between the two is so blurred in the author's mind that I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised. But, god damn it. No wonder we live in a nation of such rising debt.

It's not as if I don't understand the desire to own, to have more. It's not as if I don't buy plenty of shit that I don't need. I'd be loathe to give up my monthly manga purchase. But I don't think my precious comic books are a necessity. I'm not so deluded, not so mind-numbingly stupid.

I talk about spending too much; I talk about how money burns a whole in my pocket. The chilling truth seems to be that I'm a model of fiscal responsibility. And it's not that I cut back on luxuries. I just bought an anime artbook that I'm having shipped from Japan. That ain't cheap. But, I wouldn't buy it if I didn't honestly think that I could afford it. I could go without fancy ebay stuff, and, yes, if I had to, I could even stop buying manga. (Let's hope that it never comes to that.) Plus, I'm careful other places. I make a serious effort to never spend more than ten bucks on a haircut. I buy my clothes at thrift and discount stores. (With the exception of t-shirts. Witty/cool t-shirts are one of the luxuries that I allow myself.) When grocery shopping, I look for sales, and never buy name brand over generic unless there's a marked difference in quality. (And I'll look at a generic brand from a different store before I do that.) And when I get things that I in no way need, I try and be reasonable about it. If I'm getting special snacks at the grocery store, I make sure that I only get what's on sale. If I'm downtown and want to buy lunch, I'm still not going to spend ten bucks on a sandwich.

None of this is particularly amazing. However, this society is so blinded by greed and entitlement, that it begins to sound practically radical.

Next time one "stuff that gets Veleda really, really fucking pissed off:" People who can't even make the most basic effort to sort their recyclables.

I really hate lj cuts. I always screw them up when making big posts.

Here we have a very interesting book review/interview. I need to look into this book.

( Survival Guide for Life in a Sexist Society )

Finally, a little good news. (That's a month old. Sorry.)

( Canada Law Hinders Focus on the Family’s Deceptions about Sexual Orientation )

Take that, ya bunch of bigots!

And one more. (I have more to post, but I think that this enough for one day. You don't have to read all of these at once. Come back over several days, and take you time, if need be.)

( Anti-Choice and the Woo Factor )

Article post time. (Aren't you just so excited?)

Honestly, I'm a bit tired of "politicians cheating on their spouses" stories (except for homophobic queers--that will always be amusing), but this article raises some interesting points.

( How’s That ‘Rule of Law’ Work Now? )

I'm also posting this for another reason, and that's because I have something to say. Ready?

How hard is it not to cheat?! How hard is to not have sex with someone?! I, mean really! So, the spark has gone out of your relationship? That's why god gave us hands. (Well, it's probably not the only reason, but it's a good one.) If you're horny, jerk off. Or, here's a novel concept, you could talk to your partner. What can you do to liven up your relationship? Vacation? Sex toys? Exciting new sexual practices?

Every time one of these scandals comes out, the sexual freedom mailing list that I belong to explodes with articles about how humans just aren't meant for monogamy. Well, that's fine. And I have no problem with polyamory. But, if you're in a monogamous relationship, don't cheat. Honeslty, I'm not sure that I want anyone who can't figure that out serving as my elected official.

Next up, something people should know about.

( Verizon Shareholders Vote Down Protections Based On Gender Identity And Expression )

I am genuinely glad about the outcome of this next article, though it did make me want to shout, "Stop being into BDSM! You're making us look violent and stupid!"

( People can't invite violent sex acts, judge rules )

Like I said, I am glad that the judge ruled against this guy. Any idiot should be able to figure out that a person can't consent to sex while unconscious, and sex without consent is rape. This is very simple. I'm uncomfortable about the blanket statement that "individuals cannot voluntarily invite violent acts against themselves." That could lead to charges against people who truly are doing something consensual.

Next up, the continued story of abstinence only education vs. "Hey, teenagers have sex, get used to it."

( Hearing Highlights Ab-Only Industry In Peril )

You know what really jumps out at me? The line, "Representative John Duncan, a Republican from Tennessee, said it was "rather elitist" that those with public health degrees thought they knew better than parents what type of sex education works." Now, the article did a good job of pointing out just what's wrong with Mr. Duncan's thinking. (Jon Stewart also had a hilarious bit in which he described how those elitist airplane pilots think they know how to fly a plane for his family better than he does.) However, it's the word "elitist" that really jumps out at me. If people in this country it's elitism. Obama has been accused of being elitist constantly in these last few weeks. It was lobbed against Kerry when they media wasn't calling him flip-flopper. American's, we were told, wanted a president that they could sit down and have a beer with.

I don't want a president that I can have a beer with! I want a president who knows what the fuck he or she is doing! I don't elect people to be my buddy. I elect them to represent my interests in complex, difficult, ever changing political system. I want them to be intelligent and knowledgeable. I want the people who design health care programs in schools to be up to date on the latest studies and information. There's a reason that we don't let parents teach classes and develop programs solely on the virtue of being parents.

Okay, I'm calm. The next article is bad news.

( Michigan Court Sends Warning to Florida )

It's a little eery that this anti-gay amendment is called amendment 2. Here in Colorado, amendment 2 was the name of the amendment that attempted to strip queer people of all protection under the law. It passed, but was overturned by the state supreme court.

This next article is interesting, but well, kind of obvious.

( Transgender Rights Run Into Bathroom Politics )

The thing is, this is old news. The right to a safe, comfortable place to pee is a battle that trans people have been fighting for for years. Cisgender people take it for granted. And the objections that the article quotes are just as old. I've heard them years ago from someone I once respected. It's certainly important, but I'm having this feeling of, "Where have you been." Then again, it seems that every other month there's an article coming out about, "Gasp! These people think that they're the wrong physical sex! How bizarre!" or "Gasp! These people like to tied up during sex! How titillating!" Yeah, yeah, the freaks will be here all night for your enjoyment.

Speaking of kink and queers:

( The ABCs of sexual orientation )

http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr_050708?tr=y&auid=3650933

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force mourns death of Mildred Loving

May 07, 2008

MEDIA CONTACT:
Roberta Sklar, Communications Director
(Office) 646.358.1465
(Cell) 917.704.6358
rsklar@theTaskForce.org

WASHINGTON, May 7 — The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force mourns the death of Mildred Loving, whose challenge to Virginia's ban on interracial marriage led to the landmark 1967 Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide. Loving died May 2 at the age of 68.

Loving issued a statement last year on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which she wrote: “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others.”

Statement by Rea Carey, Acting Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

“The Task Force mourns the death of Mildred Loving, a woman who never asked to be in the spotlight, but who courageously stepped forth in the face of overwhelming injustice to help right an egregious wrong.

“Mrs. Loving and her husband, Richard, did so despite enormous personal sacrifice — they were arrested, convicted and exiled from their home state of Virginia because she was black, he was white, and their marriage was prohibited by law.

“With tremendous strength and grace, the Lovings challenged the immorality of anti-miscegenation laws that sought to deprive Americans of one of the most personal decisions they would ever make: whom to marry. In doing so, the Lovings altered history for the better.

“Even in her later years, Mrs. Loving continued to speak for marriage equality, stating that ‘all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.’ We are deeply saddened by her passing. Our community has lost a courageous ally.”

Sometime after finals, I'll get around to doing a big article post (And aren't you just so excited for that?), but I couldn't rightly wait on this one.

( Today In History: The Love That Dares Not Speak Its Name Gets A Name )

( CHEERS AND JEERS OF THE WEEK )

( GLAAD’s The Best and Worst of National News )

Now, I have to go write a drabble. I vowed to write one every day this week.