More on Mayor Pete

This was farther down in the same comment thread cited in the last post, and again shows what the media is not telling us and, even more so, what the "activists" being featured are ignoring:

.@CNN @BrookeBCNN Don’t let the malcontents sway you. I am twice @PeteButtigieg age and spent my entire life in South Bend and worked 40 years in media. He has done more to try and mend our community than anyone I remember. https://t.co/9Pul3tM8h1

— Maureen McFadden (@MMcFaddenTV) June 22, 2019

It's worth following that whole thread to see how much support Buttigieg actually has in South Bend.

It's worth noting that, in addition to the media focusing on click-bait stories, the professionally offended are generating their own slant on events by the simple expedient of ignoring facts that don't fit their agenda. (Sound familiar?)

Today in Disgusting People: How Did I Miss Steve King?

The white supremacist congressman from Iowa's 95% white 9th congressional district waxes eloquent. From Tom Sulivan at Hullabaloo :

Except for bald-faced lying, it is not as if some of our politicians work all that hard at hiding the truth. It is just still a surprise when they speak it aloud, as Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa did ... again:

A New York Times piece on King is generating more controversy for the already embattled Republican. “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization—how did that language become offensive,” King wonders in the piece. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?

Note that he's conflating "Western civilization" with "white nationalist" and "white supremacist". I see it as another tactic to legitimize his racism -- after all, "Western civilization" is the basis of all that's good, right? If you ignore the destruction of the environment, the genocide, the obliteration of native cultures, and the like.

But he goes on:

King has drawn fire for the comments, but really, it is nothing new. In July 2016, King bragged of his white pride to MSNBC's Chris Hayes, saying, “Where did any other sub-group of people contribute more to civilization?”

Um, let me see: those anonymous people from, probably, Anatolia who started farming -- along with the Chinese and Indians in the Indus Valley. The Chinese in general. The Sumerians and Babylonians, the Egyptians, whom we claim as cultural ancestors. The Arabs, who gave us our number system and algebra (the latter being a mixed blessing, in my opinion).

Sullivan wonders:

Since the partial shutdown of the government for the last three weeks is over immigrants from largely Christian, Spanish-speaking lands to the south, one wonders just what defines western civilization in King's mind.

That's easy: white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, heterosexual.

Which is coming to mean anti-American.

Today's Must-Read: Pushing the Conversation: A Twofer

Two pieces from Hullabaloo this morning, back to back. First, via Digby, this piece by Adam Gopnik from NYT:

The point is not that what Obama did was necessarily always admirable, but that amnesia about even the very recent past has become essential to the most decent conservative politics; only by making the national emergency general and cross-party can it be fully shared rather than, as it should be, localized to the crisis of one party and its ideology. In plain English, it becomes necessary to spread the smell around so that everyone gets some of the stink on them.

Fottnote: The press has been more than complicit in this, and it hasn't been just Fox.

This piece by Tom Sullivan follows immediately:

Writing for the Irish Times, Fintan O'Toole agrees. He believes the sitting president's caging of toddlers is no mistake, but test marketing:

Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.

One conclusion from both articles: this is not something that's newly emerged with Trump: he's the prototype; it's what the right has been working toward since the days of the John Birch Society, the Moral Majority, and Ronald Reagan. Actually, come to think of it, there's always been an element in American society that doesn't love our foundational values. And now they've learned new techniques to control the discourse.

Here We Go Again

You may have heard that Matt Bomer was cast as a transgender woman in the film Anything.

As you can imagine, the trans community -- or at least, a vocal segment of it -- is up in arms. On social media, of course, because that way you don't actually have to think about what you're saying. This is one of the least hostile tweets:

Jamie Clayton Verified account ‏@MsJamieClayton

Jamie Clayton Retweeted Trans Hollywood

I really hope you both choose to do some actual good for the trans community one day. @MRodOfficial @MattBomer

Trans Hollywood @transhollywood

Making movies with transgender protagonists is not, on its own, progress. https://medium.com/@emilymaxima/making-movies-with-transgender-protagonists-is-not-on-its-own-progress-70ffe27c3086#.rbi203eop …

• Retweets 652
• Likes 803
• 

5:19 PM - 29 Aug 2016

652 retweets 803 likes

Bomer blocked her on Twitter, temporarily (apparently, he has now unblocked her). I would too -- this is the kind of condescending crap he doesn't need to put up with. Bomer, as a matter of fact, has been a strong supporter of trans rights, which makes Clayton's tweet even more offensive.

The idea that trans characters must be played by trans actors is, on its face, ludicrous. These are actors. They make their living pretending to be someone else and if they make us believe they are that other person, we consider them good actors. As for what considerations go into casting a role, I've been there: you're looking for the actor who is a fit for the character. You're not thinking of the actor's real-life sexual orientation or gender identity -- those are irrelevant; you're looking for the actor who is capable of moving into this character and making the character real. When I was in college I was routinely cast as old men; I was skinny, had an angular face that would take age makeup well, and I could move the way an old man moves. I was nineteen or twenty. Hollywood has the added burden of name recognition: they have to have something to draw the audience, and casting a high-profile actor is one of those somethings.

But back to the core complaint: visibility of trans people. The fact that the film is being made at all, or that other films with trans characters have been made and been successful, seems to elude this group. They're not registering on what this actually means. I realize that at this stage of the game, when the trans community is coming under attack from the "Christian" right (now that gays and lesbians are pretty much mainstream), they want real trans people to be more visible. But this set of circumstances shows us that we're dealing with a two-pronged issue: resistance and inertia.

When I was a kid -- and I knew from a very early age that I liked boys -- there's wasn't even such a thing as a "gay man." There were only "queers," who were shady, diseased, and dangerous, and universally despised. You never saw gay characters on TV and seldom in films, and when you did, they fit the stereotype: sick, pathetic, and just barely people. I was hungry enough for any representation of people like me that even that was a plus: at least we existed. It took fifty years, but that's changed a lot. And it was the same process: overcoming first inertia, and then overcoming resistance.

And I have to say, these representations of trans characters are a lot more sympathetic than the early representations of gay characters in film. I can't stress how important that is: it means that the inertia of the status quo -- the stereotypes -- is already a thing of the past. So in that regard, Trans Hollywood's tweet is flat out wrong.

So, however much you may hate it, changing people's perceptions of marginalized groups takes time. It means you have to overcome the inertia of the status quo and the resistance of those who need someone to hate to justify their own existence. Having a very public snit because it's not happening the way you think it should doesn't help -- in fact, it's as likely to damage your cause as anything else, because you've shown yourself to be immature and not ready for prime time.

When we have trans actors and actresses playing cis characters in major motion pictures, then we're there.

They Don't Give Up

There's a new "study" out that purports to debunk the "liberal" narratives on sexual orientation and gender identity. David Hart, at the Slowly Boiled Frog, points out some of the problems:

 Ryan T. Anderson writes at Heritage Foundation's blog:

A major new report, published today in the journal The New Atlantis, challenges the leading narratives that the media has pushed regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

Co-authored by two of the nation’s leading scholars on mental health and sexuality, the 143-page report discusses over 200 peer-reviewed studies in the biological, psychological, and social sciences, painstakingly documenting what scientific research shows and does not show about sexuality and gender.

Back the fuck up.

There is nothing new about this and it is not a major report. Major reports are published to peer reviewed scholarly journals. The New Atlantis is not peer reviewed and it is a project of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. EPPC is a conservative Catholic organization headed by Ed Whelan with an assist from  George Weigel. The authors did not engage in an independent investigation of anything. Rather, this is a cherry picking of existing research to suit a predetermined ideological conclusion.

Those two “leading scholars” are Lawrence S. Mayer (who is out of his depth on sexuality — he is a biostatistician-epidemiologist) and Paul R. McHugh. McHugh insists that transgender people do not exist. Everyone involved in this, … paper is a Defender of the Faith™, as is Ryan Anderson.

Hart's points, although rather vehemently stated, are valid: The New Atlantis is not a scholarly journal -- it doesn't seem to publish origina research, it is not peer reviewed, there seems to be no mechanism for vetting submissions other than ideology: It is an organ of the Catholic Church, ultimately, through several layers. Just skimming through on my own, it appears that the authors have followed the path so beloved of anti-gay "Christian" voices -- cherry-picking data and using it to support their predetermined conclusions, while ignoring any data that doesn't. I call it "Faith-Based Science." It's the sort of thing that got Paul Cameron (remember him? He's the guy whose work is still being cited by the likes of Tony Perkins, although they no longer mention him by name -- he's that radioactive) kicked out of every professional organization he belonged to.

Anne Hilt has a more detailed rebuttal. She concludes:

In the end, we must ask why McHugh and Mayer went to such lengths to produce such a long and deeply flawed paper for a journal that isn’t even peer reviewed. First and foremost, it provides a scientific veneer for the public policy goals of their church. Ultimately this paper is about using cherry-picked science to justify religious views rather than an actual review of what the research suggests should be best practice. This public policy work was put in to practice when much of this same paper was used in a deposition in support of HB2. They have somehow contorted themselves to twist the commonly accepted answer of , “it’s complex” into “there’s no evidence.”

In this they have gone against all current medical wisdom, standards of care, and practice. There does not appear to be any awareness or concern that such a contrarian position which could cause so much harm to so many people requires an extraordinary level of proof.

This paper does not suffice as such when it cuts so many corners, resorts to logical fallacies, and claims without either evidence or citation. A solution of “more reparative therapy” is far less supportable than their claims about the biological origins of gender identity. In the end, they have forgotten their vow to “do no harm,” while advocating against both civil and human rights for highly vulnerable minorities.

I have to confess, I simply don't understand the motivations of people who do things like this. I really can't find a point of entry on that. I can understand it better on the part of the Church: it's a matter of power and influence, and the Church has been losing ground steadily over the past few decades, as more and more people come to see that reality and Church doctrine have very little to do with each other. And the Church's behavior during the sexual abuse scandals did nothing to help: it's hard to take seriously as a moral arbiter an institution that is so obviously morally bankrupt.

I am, as it happens, deeply offended by anyone calling this sort of garbage "science." I big portion of my education has been in science, specifically psychology, and this kind of thing is one of the worst perversions there can be, in my book. Not to mention the complete lack of ethics involved.

At any rate, this "study" is now being touted everywhere by the right wing, and as Hilt notes, has already been used in an amicus brief. One only hopes that the opposing counsel can lay hands on someone who knows what they're talking about to rebut it.

There Is No Bottom: Today in Disgusting People (Update)

If you're lucky, you've never heard of Charles C. Johnson, a/k/a "Chuck C. Johnson," who blogs at GotNews.com (not to be confused with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, who is an entirely different order of person). However, I'm sure you've heard about the Rolling Stone article on the University of Virginia gang rape, which caused quite a splash. Now it seems that there are some discrepancies in the story, and Rolling Stone has issued a statement detailing the background.

As is usual in a case like this, the victim was identified only as "Jackie" -- none of her personal details have been disclosed, neither by Rolling Stone, nor by the Washington Post, which published a follow-up that cast doubt on some parts of the story. (In fact, WaPo has published a host of articles on this in the past week or so, many of them seemingly more oriented toward taking a swipe at Rolling Stone than anything else.) Among the denials, the fraternity named says it held no date night or party on the evening in question, and the man named as the orchestrator of the rape belongs to a different fraternity and says he doesn't know "Jackie."

OK, so Rolling Stone screwed up, even though the screw-up was on the side of protecting the safety of their source.

Enter Charles C. Johnson, who published what he claims is the name of the victim (without any sort of outside confirmation, aside from claiming "multiple sources" -- yeah, I know, he found it on the Internet, so it must be true) and is now threatening to publish details about her and her family is she doesn't step forward.

As you might imagine, the reaction has been less than positive. The New Civil Rights Movement has an overview of some of the responses. Johnson is even getting a negative reaction from the right:

DanRiehl @DanRiehl

Let me just say it plainly, this type of bullshit makes me sick and we don't need it on our side @ChuckCJohnson

12:16 PM - 7 Dec 2014

About the only response I can think of for Riehl is to say: He's yours. That's the side of your movement you try to sweep under the carpet, but it's the motivating force of the right: unrestrained id.

Does this all make Johnson a piece of shit? Actually, it seems that he'd already pretty well established that; it's just that the high-profile nature of this story takes Johnson's actions outside the realm of Twitchy or Red State and paints it in big strokes across the Internet for all to see.

I hope the woman he named, whether or not she actually is "Jackie" -- and that's not been confirmed at all -- sues his ass for everything he ever hopes to have.

(Sidebar: You know, looking at the news lately, I could make "Today in Disgusting People" a daily feature. No, that's just too damned depressing.)

Update: And once again, we have the reporting becoming the news.

Today In Disgusting People

Pat Robertson is one of the most appallingly ignorant people with access to broadcast media, and that's saying a lot. This one has been all over the gay blogosphere, and the more I see it, the more disgusting it is.

On today's 700 Club, televangelist Pat Robertson responded to a question from a mother who asked what she should do with her 16-year-old son who recently came out as gay.

Said Robertson:

"I think you need to counsel with him and see, you know, is there really a biological thing going on or has he been influenced, has a coach molested him?...[gay youth] don't know what they're doing, they're teenagers."

"Has a coach molested him"? What, every coach is Jerry Sandusky (who is straight, by the way)?

Robertson is one of the most consistently ignorant anti-gay voices around in a field that derives a major portion of its support from those credulous enough to believe what these charlatans are saying. (I have faith enough in humanity to believe that if most people are given accurate information, they'll see the light, so to speak. It's people like Robertson that shake that faith.)

As long as I'm on the topic, a nod to Rep. Karen Awana of Hawai'i, who came out with one of the most ignorant and vicious screeds on record during the debate on the now-passed-and-waiting-for-the-governor's-signature marriage bill.

Claiming that “civil unions and reciprocal benefits was [sic] the ‘great compromise’ just a few years ago in 2011,” Awana told her colleagues, “we were told that if we provide these options to the GLBT community, they would be satisfied. Have the people of Hawai’i not done enough? We gave you your civil unions. We gave you your reciprocal benefits.”

(Actually, Rep. Awana voted against that bill.)

It gets worse. It's long -- watch it only if your stomach can take it.

Just as a footnote, again from Hawai'i, this guy doesn't seem to be vicious so much as -- well, he's obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

"Neutrality," and a Comment on Codes

NOM, in light of the dismal failure of its "Dump Starbucks" campaign (something like 60,000 supporters world-wide, last time I looked), has a new friend: Jitters and Bliss Coffee, which NOM is touting as an alternative to Starbucks. It's coming down around J&B's ears, apparently:

Jitters & Bliss has shown just what a scam NOM is trying to pull under the guise of this “neutrality” through the astounding mismanagement of its Facebook page today. Earlier today, J&B was censoring pro-equality comments, blocking posters who added such comments, and ultimately shut down its page for a period of time. The page rebooted this afternoon with the following message and comment, which have also since been deleted:

In light of Jitters & Bliss Coffee paid advertising on NOM website, our position has not changed. Like many companies we are NEUTRAL on the gay marriage issue. We respect our customers’ diverse views on it as with the many other issues facing our nation today. Yes, we are paying advertising on NOM, and would do so on gay sites too (with a NEUTRAL, inclusive position). Our nation is diverse as is our customer base. “God Bless you, and the USA!”

Please, no posts!

Jeremy Hooper has a couple of comments on this whole thing, here and here. (If you follow Hooper's blog at all, Good-As-You, you know he's about the most inoffensive person alive.)

Timothy Kincaid has a good take on the viability of J&B as an alternative to Starbuck's:

Now when you feel an urge for a caramel macchiato, instead of dropping in to a Starbuck you can instead go online and order a tin of coffee (comparably priced to Starbucks), wait for it to be delivered (shipping free with $50 purchase), brew it up, and enjoy a delicious cup of coffee free from the guilt of supporting the homosexual agenda.

As for Jitters & Bliss' "neutrality" -- get this (click to embiggen):

Via HRC/NOM Exposed.

Most of the coffee purveyors I've checked out emphasizes their "free trade" operations. J&B apparently does work on a free trade basis, but it emphasizes its "Christian" mission. Draw your own conclusions.

So, "neutrality" is code for acquiescence to the status quo -- that is, discrimination. It's instructive that the right feels the need to express itself in codes -- we hear code words and phrases for all those people and ideas that the right doesn't like (which is just about all of them). My own thought on that is, if what you're saying is likely to be acceptable to the public at large, you don't need to use codes.

Two Significant Things (Updated)

These stories are all over right now, but no one -- at least no one commenting on them -- seems to have picked up on the most significant thing about them.

First, a report from MSNBC on the First Lady's military families event:



And then via Joe.My.God., the report on Kobe Bryant's gaffe:

While Bryant acknowledged the outburst earlier today and said in a statement it did “not reflect my feelings toward the gay and lesbian communities,” he failed to apologize or to take full responsibility for the homophobic slur. This afternoon, the NBA and Commissioner Stern issued a strong condemnation of Bryant’s action and in an unprecedented move, fined the Lakers’ superstar $100,000. “We applaud Commissioner Stern and the NBA for not only fining Bryant but for recognizing that slurs and derogatory comments have no place on the basketball court or in society at large, “ said Joe Solmonese, HRC President. “We hope such swift and decisive action will send a strong and universal message that this kind of hateful outburst is simply inexcusable no matter what the context.”

What's significant about the first report is that it happened, and the treatment was, subliminally at least, somewhat critical of the administration. The significance of the second is that the NBA moved so quickly and decisively against Bryant -- they get it, even if he doesn't. I don't think his apology is insincere, but it's obvious he doesn't understand the ramifications of the incident.

It's things like this that reveal how much the views of society have changed, and that support my contention that the only thing anti-gay referenda prove is that if you run a well-funded campaign based on lies and distortions, you can scare a lot of ignorant people into going to the polls. Maybe the most significant part of this is that MSNBC didn't call Tony Perkins to comment.

Update:

Here's a third story that's been around -- a good summation by Lawrence O'Donnell:



Not only is this being reported on the MSM, it's a real body-blow to the folks at NOM. I certainly hope they treasure it.

Jeremy Hooper at Good As You really broke the story and has done a lot of follow-up. Here's one of his posts, including the first interview with Marinellli. The significance of this is that NOM is being shown for the shell game it is.

I < 3 Bill Maher

Watch this. He's right on top of it.

The Point

I want to make it clear to anyone not familiar with this blog that I'm not claiming that Jared Loughner, the shooter in the Giffords assassination attempt, was part of the Tea Party movement or in any way allied with the extreme right. I think his mental condition makes such suppositions irrelevant.

What I am saying is that it's the right, and particularly the teabaggers, who have repeatedly and shamelessly made this kind of hate speech part of their repertoire -- and it goes beyond any specific remarks or graphics by Sharron Angle or Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. Start with Rush Limbaugh, add in Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, Laura Schlesinger, Pam Geller, and, yes, Matt Barber, Tony Perkins, Mat Staver, Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher, Elaine Donnelley -- it's almost a cast of thousands. These people make their livings spewing lies and hate.

That's what I'm saying.

A Footnote: I got an e-mail from Alan Grayson this morning about the Giffords shooting in which he says this:

I know nothing about the man who shot Gabby, and what was going through his mind when he did this. But I will tell you this - if he shot Gabby out of hatred, then it wasn't Gabby he was shooting, but rather some cartoon version of her, drawn by her political opposition.

And that's it. The people I mentioned above deal in cartoons, and their followers buy it. I read a lot of comics, and I love manga and anime. I can still tell the difference between cartoons and real people. Apparently, I'm exceptional in that regard.

Update: Digby, of course, has some cogent comments on this phenomenon.

Update II: Digby links to this piece by James Fallows, which draws pretty much the same conclusion that I do, but without pointing fingers. I do have one disagreement, however:

It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be. At a minimum, it will be harder for anyone to talk -- on rallies, on cable TV, in ads -- about "eliminating" opponents, or to bring rifles to political meetings, or to say "don't retreat, reload."

Don't ever think it. You can call these people on their hateful rhetoric, their lies and misrepresentations, their demonization of Muslims, gays, immmigrants, whoever is in their sights at the moment, and they will do it again, no matter who gets killed or maimed. They don't seem to have anything that we'd recognize as a conscience. (You'll remember that Tony Perkins has been called out a couple of times on national TV over his completely false statement that "Social science has proved that children do better with a married mother and father." And on his next appearance, he repeats it. Of course, no one's been shot over that one, so I guess that makes it OK.)

Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This final bit is the icing on the cake:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm Appalled (Updated)

I'm not taking this as an expression of bigotry so much as an indication of the degree to which the ravings of lunatics like Sarah Palin drive public discourse in America. This is the ADL on the proposed Muslim community center a couple blocks away from Ground Zero. (I would link directly, but the link is broken.)(Update: Here's a working link.)

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

Eric Martin dissects the logic of the release (which is almost nonexistent) pretty effectively in his post, but I want to call attention to one thing: "The controversy which has emerged" is another "controversy" created by the bigots on the right because they can use things like this to fire up their base. It's deliberate race-baiting.

I won't bother to go into the arguments against this sort of racist campaign, but they're pretty simple to summarize:

1. The site of the community center is not visible from Ground Zero, and vice-versa;

2. The group owns the land and has gotten approval from the city for the expansion plans;

3. There were Muslims killed in the collapse of the towers -- it was a pretty multicultural affair;

4. New Yorkers support the community center -- we're talking about outside agitators here.

Y'know what? In spite of everything that Sarah Palin and Newt Gringrich and their ilk can do, it's still a free country. The ADL should take another look at the "controversy" and maybe come to its senses.

Update: It gets worse:

In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.

I question the legitimacy of those questions. Everything I've seen smacks of smear tactics and fabricated concerns. The "connections" are simply that they are all Muslims, and, like Christians and even Jews, there is a broad spectrum of interpretations within that faith. The ADL here is playing along with the Palin/Beck wing of the so-called "conservative" movement -- the wingnut fringe.

And then it goes right down the toilet:

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

Ultimately, this is not about the ADL's opinion of what building the community center will cause to victims. This is about caving into the terrorists, which the right has been doing ever since 9/11.

I have to revise my opinion of the basis for this statement: it's espousing bigotry while pretending not to. Where have we seen that before?

Here's the post that provided the link above. Eli sums it up rather nicely:

Look, it’s very simple really: You don’t oppose bigotry by tut-tutting it and then siding with the bigots.  You oppose bigotry by opposing bigotry.

Follow that link.  That's what the ADL's statement should have said.

When I Can't Even Think of a Title. . .

you know it's bad.  This post from Sarah Robinson at Orcinus is a very good analysis of a trend in American politics that I've noticed and that I find deeply disturbing.  I can't do better than she has done on it, so read it.

What You Expect to See -- More Comments

A couple of posts at Balloon Juice on the Iraq tape from Wikileaks. A bit of meta-analysis, if you like, here, from John Cole, and here, from Mistermix. From Cole, on the question of the Iraqi reaction:

We’re issuing death threats to congressmen and half the nation has been whipped into a frothing mob and wants to secede because… we expanded health insurance coverage after a legitimate legislative process that was the result of open, free, and fair elections. Can you imagine what would happen if foreign helicopters were gunning down our neighbors in the streets?

(I don't want to be snarky, but I think it would depend on whether Beck/Limbaugh/Palin identified them as Democratic helicopters or not. No, wait: that crew would ID them as Democrats no matter where they came from: "Obamacopters," for sure.)

And via Mistermix, from James Fallows:

We could not know that this episode would occur. But we could be sure that something like it would. It's not even a matter of "To will the end is to will the means." Rather the point is: You enter these circumstances, sooner or later you get these results.

I can't see this as such a far remove from the point I brought up the other day: when we're granting moral waivers to racists and violent criminals, and awarding no-bid contracts to independent forces who are staffed by men (mostly, I believe, if not exclusively) trained to kill and who have no accountability for their actions, what the hell does anyone expect? Aside from the combat priorities (and frankly, in this instance that argument sounds a little lame -- begging a wounded man to pick up a gun so you can shoot him again?), you've got a problematic attitude already endemic among the troops. And the Army says no one did anything wrong.

What the hell do you do when your country has lost its mind?

Students 1, Phelps 0

This is self-explanatory:



Pass it on.

Via AmericaBlog

But That's Why They Do It

From Marc Ambinder:

Great job by the folks at the CBS News and New York Times polling department. They've uncovered a classic example of how language influences perceptions in polling. 59% of Americans agree that "homosexuals" ought to be able to serve in the U.S. military. But 70 percent believe that "gays and lesbians" ought to be able to serve in the military. So what are we to make of these confused Americans? "Homosexual" has become a pejorative term, too clinical, associated with a medical condition. But "gays and lesbians" are our friends -- all around us, part of the community.

I mentioned the "choice" mantra in connection with this -- if it's just a behavior, we choose to do it and it's nothing to do with genetics or identity -- but this is, I think, even more relevant: it's dehumanizing to refer to a person as a clinical condition. But then, for the anti-gay, "criminalize hommasectionals" right wing, that's the whole point. Wouldn't do for Americans to think we're actual people.

What's even more interesting is that, no mater what term is used, clear majorities favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. For Bam Bam Barber and Porno Pete: how does it feel to be a loser?

In the Land of the Clueless

Peggy Noonan stands head and shoulders above the rest. In what is rumored to be her last OpEd for WSJ, that bastion of fairness and equality, Noonan proves once again that she just doesn't get it.

But we are concerned about other things, too, and there are often signs in various polls that those things may dwarf economic concerns. Americans are worried about the core and character of the American nation, and about our culture.

It is one thing to grouse that dreadful people who don't care about us control our economy, but another, and in a way more personal, thing to say that people who don't care about us control our culture.

She offers no support for this -- is this a majority who are concerned about "people who don't care about us" controlling our culture? Or is this an extension of polls reflecting concern about torture, unaccountability, greed in high places, a Congress that seems to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of (insert favorite corporate complex here), and a president who doesn't seem to believe in anything that actually requires action.

No, actually, it's all about Adam Lambert.

For years now, without anyone declaring it or even noticing it, we've had a compromise on television. Do you want, or will you allow into your home, dramas and comedies that, however good or bad, are graphically violent, highly sexualized, or reflective of cultural messages that you believe may be destructive? Fine, get cable. Pay for it. Buy your premium package, it's your money, spend it as you like.

But the big broadcast networks are for everyone. They are free, they are available on every television set in the nation, and we watch them with our children. The whole family's watching. Higher, stricter standards must maintain.

This was behind the resentment at the Adam Lambert incident on ABC in November. The compromise was breached. It was a broadcast network, it was prime time, it was the American Music Awards featuring singers your 11-year-old wants to see, and your 8-year-old. And Mr. Lambert came on and—again, in front of your children, in the living room, in the middle of your peaceful evening—uncorked an act in which he, in the words of various news reports the next day, performed "faux oral sex" featuring "S&M play," "bondage gear," "same-sex makeouts" and "walking a man and woman around the stage on a leash."

People were offended, and they complained.

I think what upset people was not that such actions occurred, but that they occurred publicly and without shame. It's one thing to participate in these sorts of things in private (even as a voyeur), is the thinking, but to be open and honest about it is unforgivable. And to be quite honest, most people could care less. She cites 1500 calls to ABC about the show. My first question is, out of how many viewers? Answer that, and if the percentage is significant, I might listen to you.

And then the Great Conflation:

All these things—plus Wall Street and Washington and the general sense that most of our great institutions have forgotten their essential mission—add up and produce a fear that the biggest deterioration in America isn't economic but something else, something more characterological.All these things—plus Wall Street and Washington and the general sense that most of our great institutions have forgotten their essential mission—add up and produce a fear that the biggest deterioration in America isn't economic but something else, something more characterological.

A few things apparently haven't occurred to Noonan. These people are participants in this culture. They watch these programs, they buy the newspapers and magazines that trumpet the latest indiscretions of celebrities -- indiscretions that are only indiscreet because "journalists" are busily digging up dirt to publish for the voracious appetites of the moralists in Middle America. Nothing is being forced on anyone, but it's a good excuse to avoid taking responsibility for watching what you watch and reading what you read. This stuff is happening, being broadcast, being written up in newspapers and magazines, because there's a market for it.

The purpose served by the bread and circuses is simply to draw attention away from Wall Street, away from Washington, away from the bullshit that is passing for governance in this country these days. And it's because of these distractions that the bullshit has become so firmly entrenched. (And let me point out that Peggy Noonan is part and parcel of this endeavor, making her as big a hypocrite as anyone else in the media. The alternative explanation, of course, is that she really is an idiot.)

Let's give Ms. Noonan some other numbers to work with: the parts of the county with the highest divorce rates, the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, the highest consumption of pornography, are the areas that are most "offended" by Adam Lambert.

Maybe Peggy Noonan should open her eyes, find the last shreds of her integriy, and write a piece about that.

In the Kingdom of the Blind. . .

. . . the one-eyed man still doesn't see very well.

Found this post by Marc Ambinder via Andrew Sullivan, whose sole comment, in a post titled "Palin: The Dumber Kind of Creationist," is "Ambers explains."

Ouch. "Ambers," as he is known in that collegial collection of the almost-profound who inhabit The Atlantic, manages to screw up from the first sentence. Time to parse.

Much more so than abortion, the issue of life's origins wedges itself between the scientifically literate elite and everyone else.

Frankly, the idea that the scientifically literate form an elite is scary. It also makes me wonder what happened to all that money we spend on education in this country? Oh, and given that this is a post about creationism and evolution, let me just point out that evolution, at least, does not deal with life's origins. Evolution starts with the statement "life exists" and takes it from there.

This is the Big Question, and it has implications for politics: what is humanity? What do we owe each other? From where do we derive our ethics? How do we solve irreconcilable value claims?

Can someone explain to me what any of these questions have to do with evolution? These are large philosophical and theological questions, and don't really have much to do with the ways in which life achieved the rich variety that we see around us. It doesn't seem to have occured to Ambinder that those are questions we answer for ourselves, and we don't really need to rely on evolution to do it for us. We can, if we want to, but we don't have to, and we're probably better off not making that connection.

Its acceptance in the years after Charles Darwin popularized the concept fundamentally established science as the foundational text of modernism. Most biological scientists don't believe in God. Those who do, like the new chair of the NIH, Francis S. Collins, are Christian Deists; they accept that "progress" in evolution seems random, but they believe that, somewhere beneath the quarks, the God spark is slowly directing this complicated process - or that God created the laws of the universe in such a way so as to lay favorable conditions for evolution. But they don't reject the evidence.

There's no basis for saying that most biological scientists don't believe in God. As one of Ambinder's commenters points out, there is a full range of belief among the scientific community, from the devout to the atheistic. You probably won't find a lot of Biblical literalists among biologists, but I doubt that you'll find them in any branch of knowledge that relies on curiosity and understanding the importance of evidence.

Evolution, the change over time of species by various unguided (but not always random) selection pressures, is as close to a fact of science as there is. It is as much of a historical fact as the Holocaust.

Two points here: natural selection, the driving mechanism of evolution, is a double-layered event. First comes meiosis, the process by which gametes divide, and in so doing, mix up the organism's genetic heritage. This is pretty random -- mistakes happen, sequences get duplicated or lost, genes get recombined. Once a new organism is created -- i.e., the egg is fertilized and development begins -- the selection criteria are not random at all. The requirements of the environment are the deciding factor in the survival of the individual. (And I might point out that this is a life-long requirement.) He's sort of right in saying that evolution is as close to a factof science as possible, but calling it a "historical fact" on the order of the Holocaust is pushing it, I think. The existence of the theory, and its acceptance, is certainly historical fact, but the theory itself cannot be, by definition. This is where we get into the phenomenon of sliding definitions. Biologists take evolution as a fact and will until the unlikely event that some piece of evidence disproves it -- and eventuality which becomes more and more remote. But to translate this into the common parlance as a fact is risky: it doesn't mean the same thing. (The parallel is the different meanings of "theory," which the creationists have so much fun manipulating.)

The American people are finicky about their creation/evolution debate. Even though a majority of Americans clearly believe at least a thin form of "intelligent design," about a majority staunchly opposes something called "creationism" -- even though it is, in the real world, indistinguishable from creationism in its animating principles and aims. What this means is that Americans accept the chronology of evolution without accepting the science of evolution. Disproving evolution to scientists would mean finding a rabbit fossil in the Burgess Shale. Disproving "intelligent design" to most Americans would mean disproving the existence of God.

Granted that he's talking about the popular perception here, I still have to object to the idea of "disproving" intelligent design. You can't -- that's why it's not science. (Well, that's only one of many reasons, but it's the one that's germane here.)

One thing that I find very interesting about this post is what Ambinder doesn't say. Granted, he's talking about Sarah Palin, who's an outlier, but nowhere does he point out that most mainstream Christian denominations -- starting with the Roman Catholic Church -- accept the theory of evolution as valid. One of the commenters even quotes Pope Benedict XVI:

"Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance."

And yet Ambinder just blindly follows the idea that belief in evolution precludes belief in God, at least to the extent of accepting it as a valid view simply because it's held by a certain percentage of Americans. Sorry, but that doesn't make it true.

Fortunately, Ambinder's readers are on the ball, and several of him ripped him a new one for this piece. I'm reminded of a lesson I learned early on: if you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet.

If All Else Fails, Let's Try the "N" Word

I ran across this story in a post by Andrew Sullivan this morning (several posts, actually), but I think Publius has the best insight:

So here's the basic dilemma. On the one hand, there's nothing ambiguous about this. It's straight-up George Wallace-style race-baiting. It's an intentional attempt to stir racial prejudices.

Limbaugh & Friends took a random fight and immediately tried to pin it on Obama (some less directly than others). And after the police quickly backed off claims that it was racially motivated, the corrections either didn't come or were merely one-liner updates inappropriate to the gravity of the previous charges.

But even if it was racially motivated, what on earth does Obama have to do with it? The answer is nothing other race. The only goal here was to stir up racial resentment and then pin it on Obama. I'm sorry, but this is infuriating. We shouldn't be putting up with this in 2009.

And yet, not only are we putting up with it, but a significant proportion of us are eating it up. I'd say Limbaugh and Malkin, et al., should be ashamed of themselves, but if someone has no integrity, no honesty, and no morals, you can hardly expect them to feel shame.

One thing that leapt out at me, that no one else has noted in any post I've seen, is that the police chief also immediately jumped to the conclusion that the beating was racially motivated. That just points up how deepl" y the prejudices that Limbaugh and his ilk appeal to are ingrained in some people. (And frankly, "any" in that case is too many, although to be honest, it seems as though it's impossible to get rid of all racial bias -- the habit of identiying "us" and "them" is probably harfd-wired.) Of course, he's also man enough to retract it and admit his initial statement had no basis -- it was just his assumption.

This is not something you're going to see from Limbaugh, Malkin, or any of that brood. In fact, Sullivan quotes Malkin's response:

She refuses to remove or correct the post that says baldly that the attack was racial and her correction amounts to:

The police are backing off the racial motive claims. Given the explosive consequences of candor about such matters, this is not surprising.

No: one police chief said he had jumped to the wrong conclusion. But Malkin insists that the real reason was racial and the the chief is bowing to political correctness.

The problem with the right in this country (and, to be "fair and balanced" about it, it does crop up on the left as well, but seems not to be as prevalent) is that they "know" certain things, and mere facts are not going to affect their reactions at all. This is not necessarily an ideological thing, but a human personality thing. It just seems that that type of personality tends to gravitate toward a world view that relies on received wisdom -- "wisdom" in this case being the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin.

And tell me -- should we take either of those worthies as an example of white superiority?