Sunday Morning: Shower-Nuts and Other Things in the News
Weird morning. It looks like it must have rained last night, the roads are slick and the newspaper was ruined, but there is not one cloud in the sky. The sun is shining in at a beautiful slant. It's cool out right now, but it's been warm all week, maybe spring is coming.
It is a weird week, too. Our local nuts are doing all they can to get a petition to allow the return of discrimination against transgender people. Somebody in our comments called them the "shower-nuts" and that's good, I like that. They stop people on the street and tell them that if they don't sign their petition, men will be able to go into the ladies shower rooms at gyms, pools, and other public places. And why would anybody want that to happen? This week they turned in fifteen-thousand-something signatures to the Board of Elections. They will need twenty-five thousand by next week. Can they do it? If they keep lying about the issue, it is possible they will have enough signatures to get this on the ballot.
Before the law went into effect (it hasn't yet) there was no law against men going into the ladies room. The fact is, men don't want to go into ladies rooms. You don't need a law against that. It's legal now, and it doesn't happen. Sometimes the line at the ladies room is long, and there's nobody in the men's room. You want to make a law that requires them to stand in that line when there's a perfectly good toilet available? Okay, go ahead. There may be twenty-five thousand stupid people in Montgomery County, I've lived a long time, I've seen some stuff, I won't rule it out.
The law they are campaigning against is simply a modification of an existing law. You already can't discriminate now on the basis of things like race and religion. In Montgomery County you can't even discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but it didn't bother them when that wording was adopted. The latest change is the addition of gender identity to the law. So when the law takes effect you won't be able to discriminate against transgender people -- that's about one tenth of one percent of the population, not a great inconvenience. The county council has just added a term to the existing law.
I went to the Giant a while back, it's not my usual grocery store but there was something I needed. Ah, I remember, my wife was out of town and there was a little problem between me and the teenagers about getting the groceries into the refrigerator, and I had to buy some meat there for Christmas dinner. And there was a transgender cashier. She rang up my purchase, explained to me how to use the card-swiper-thing (I can never figure those out, why do you press "cancel" and not "credit?"), bagged my stuff. She was exactly the same as any other cashier, it was not an issue. But imagine if she'd gone into the Giant, filled out an application, and the manager thought, this person is too weird, we can't have her or him or whatever they are facing the public. They could just as easily have said something like, sorry, we don't have any openings right now. I'm giving Giant credit here, because they hired this person even without a law. The point is, a person needs to work, and maybe they're different from you, they need to be evaluated in terms of their job qualifications, not the way they look. This person was fine for this job, but as it is it would have been perfectly legal for the manager to say, I'm not going to hire somebody who changed their sex. Pretty soon they won't be able to do that, and that drives our local nuts crazy.
For some reason, the shower-nuts find it unthinkable that a company would have to make hiring decisions on the basis of job qualifications. They are so upset that the county council says you can't just look at a person and decide, because they don't fit a gender stereotype, that you won't hire them, or you won't serve them at your restaurant, or you won't pick them up in your taxi, or whatever. The shower-nuts say they have "profound religious beliefs" against transgender people, but they don't mention anything in the Bible, and of course, you know as well as I do, Jesus advocated forgiveness and love, not bigotry, and there's nothing in the Bible about gender identity. It just makes them uncomfortable, that's all there is to it, and they think it needs to be against the law to be different from them. So they make up the hypothetical shower situation, even though it never happens except when they stage it for Channel Seven.
On election day, the shower-nuts plan to be at the polling places. This is their big chance to get people to sign their petitions. You can figure that people going to vote are legal citizens, and their signatures will be counted. If you go to vote and they're out there, say something to them, okay? If you see them talking to people, go over and say something. Explain what the deal is. Most people haven't given this a thought, and everybody is against creepy men going into ladies rooms, so if they think that's what this is about they'll sign the petitions. People in our county don't hate transgender people, most of us believe they should be treated fairly, but people will sign this petition out of ignorance, if they're told something scary.
Of course the news media aren't going to spell it out. They will quote people saying that men will go into the ladies room, but they'll only put the facts down in the story somewhere. You won't see an editorial saying, this law does not mean men will go into ladies rooms, but you will see articles about a citizens group opposing such-and-such. Any support for the county council's decision is going to have to be grass-roots and real, it's not going to come from the knee-jerk corporate press.
There were a couple of other news stories this week that I thought were interesting. A new government survey has found that nearly a quarter of American women have been victims of domestic violence.
That proportion hasn't changed much over the years, they say. Look, nobody is going to be hurt if the schools teach about sexual orientation, or if transgender people are allowed to get jobs, but when a quarter of women are being beaten by their partners there is a serious problem. "Turn the other cheek" is not advice for that situation, religious people should mobilize behind a real problem like domestic violence. This puts their freakout about the nondiscrimination law in perspective, it seems to me.
Hey, here's an interesting story from the UK. Sex may become obsolete.
Maybe this is why the Bush administration has been opposed to stem cell research. Every couple of years one of them wants to have sex with their actual spouse or somebody of the opposite sex, and of course they need a reason, and the only possible reason is procreation. So if these limey scientists can make sperm out of lesbian's stem cells -- what are you going to say?
I don't know, it just seemed interesting to me.
One last thing. You know I'm not political at all -- somebody this last week asked me if I knew who my senators were, and I failed the test. I'm not joking, I just trust that whatever hypocrites the people elect will do their job. At least I did until the last seven years, when I realized that this country really could choose absolute idiots, dangerous criminals and liars, to run things. I'm against that, but I still don't follow party politics at all. It's like a human-interest story to me.
When we were in Iowa over New Years, we took the kids to some campaign events, we saw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama up close. Hillary Clinton had her daugher and her mother at her speech, and it was kind of interesting to watch Chelsea Clinton through it all. Seemed like a nice enough young lady. She sat quietly, smiled at the humor, paid attention, whatever, my kids have come to work with me sometimes, too. They usually make noise, play games on the computers, you know, they don't sit quietly like little ladies and gentlemen. Of course, they're a little younger still.
I noticed a couple of weeks ago that Chelsea had given a speech for her mother's campaign. I thought, cool, the kid is learning the ropes. The news stories said she did a good job, that she spoke well, seemed well informed. Okay, I hope someday they'll say nice stuff about my kids, too. I thought it was a good thing, her mom is running for president, it makes sense.
But the guy at MSNBC compared her to a whore, said she was "being pimped out in some weird sort of way." Tell you the truth, that would've pissed me off if somebody said something like that about my kid.
Of course she's making a joke there. The discourse hasn't been "civil and appropriate" for twenty years. The corporate media know what they have to do, they get their talking points and read them, maybe change the words around a little. Especially when it comes to the Clintons, they are not going to be civil and appropriate, though you can't blame her for suggesting it.
Look, people, the Democrats are going to win. Twice as many people are turning out for their primaries as for the other party. Nobody wants any more of this, the people don't want torture, they don't want meaningless war, they don't want bigotry, they don't want the environment to go to hell, they don't want to be lied to, and they don't like the fact that the ordinary person can't afford to live while giant corporations are making record profits. I'm not taking sides here, that's just how it is.
And the Democrats have an interesting situation. In the primary races they have two good candidates. And to make it even more fascinating, one is black and one is a woman. We're a grown-up country, that shouldn't be an issue. It is not news if Hillary wears a v-neck blouse, and it isn't news if Barack eats a piece of chicken, for crying out loud. The press doesn't know what to do here, they don't know how to handle an election that is something besides old white men. I am suggesting they just report the news, how about that for a wild idea? Hillary's not a bitch, Chelsea's not a whore, Barack doesn't smoke crack. It's just not that hard.
Which brings me to the last interesting story. Obama has said he used some drugs when he was young, smoked some pot, snorted some coke. A whole lot of people did, but for some reason politicians are supposed to have been saints for their whole lives. Let's just say, I don't plan to run for any office. The New York Times though had a funny story this week about it:
In other words, maybe he didn't get high as much as he said he did. I can just see the other party using this against him: My opponent says he used drugs, ladies and gentlemen, but what drugs? Even the New York Times couldn't find anybody to corroborate his admissions... Whatever, the last two elections prove that the public doesn't really care if you had a drug problem, you can still get elected president. You just wonder if Obama has something really controversial he is trying to hide.
Our dog does the dumbest thing. If there's a sunbeam or a light is on, and you take your glasses off and the lenses make a spot of light move on the floor, he goes crazy trying to chase it. Okay, we play with him sometimes with that. But now he's gotten to where he stands around groaning -- that's the only word for it, this singing sound he makes -- and watching for any spot of light to move. We have a bird-feeder outside that's in the sun, and the light coming through the clear plastic makes a reflection on the floor, he's been standing there for an hour groaning and waiting to chase it. That is one dumb dog.
WPFW is playing a nice acoustic jazz guitar piece now. Did I hear this right? I think the guy on the radio just said something about fifty-mile-per-hour winds and "snow showers." Is that possible? I didn't even wear a coat when I picked up the paper, and there is not a cloud in the sky. Hmm, I am thinking I may have to go back to bed for a little while and see what it looks like when I get up again. How's that for an idea?
It is a weird week, too. Our local nuts are doing all they can to get a petition to allow the return of discrimination against transgender people. Somebody in our comments called them the "shower-nuts" and that's good, I like that. They stop people on the street and tell them that if they don't sign their petition, men will be able to go into the ladies shower rooms at gyms, pools, and other public places. And why would anybody want that to happen? This week they turned in fifteen-thousand-something signatures to the Board of Elections. They will need twenty-five thousand by next week. Can they do it? If they keep lying about the issue, it is possible they will have enough signatures to get this on the ballot.
Before the law went into effect (it hasn't yet) there was no law against men going into the ladies room. The fact is, men don't want to go into ladies rooms. You don't need a law against that. It's legal now, and it doesn't happen. Sometimes the line at the ladies room is long, and there's nobody in the men's room. You want to make a law that requires them to stand in that line when there's a perfectly good toilet available? Okay, go ahead. There may be twenty-five thousand stupid people in Montgomery County, I've lived a long time, I've seen some stuff, I won't rule it out.
The law they are campaigning against is simply a modification of an existing law. You already can't discriminate now on the basis of things like race and religion. In Montgomery County you can't even discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but it didn't bother them when that wording was adopted. The latest change is the addition of gender identity to the law. So when the law takes effect you won't be able to discriminate against transgender people -- that's about one tenth of one percent of the population, not a great inconvenience. The county council has just added a term to the existing law.
I went to the Giant a while back, it's not my usual grocery store but there was something I needed. Ah, I remember, my wife was out of town and there was a little problem between me and the teenagers about getting the groceries into the refrigerator, and I had to buy some meat there for Christmas dinner. And there was a transgender cashier. She rang up my purchase, explained to me how to use the card-swiper-thing (I can never figure those out, why do you press "cancel" and not "credit?"), bagged my stuff. She was exactly the same as any other cashier, it was not an issue. But imagine if she'd gone into the Giant, filled out an application, and the manager thought, this person is too weird, we can't have her or him or whatever they are facing the public. They could just as easily have said something like, sorry, we don't have any openings right now. I'm giving Giant credit here, because they hired this person even without a law. The point is, a person needs to work, and maybe they're different from you, they need to be evaluated in terms of their job qualifications, not the way they look. This person was fine for this job, but as it is it would have been perfectly legal for the manager to say, I'm not going to hire somebody who changed their sex. Pretty soon they won't be able to do that, and that drives our local nuts crazy.
For some reason, the shower-nuts find it unthinkable that a company would have to make hiring decisions on the basis of job qualifications. They are so upset that the county council says you can't just look at a person and decide, because they don't fit a gender stereotype, that you won't hire them, or you won't serve them at your restaurant, or you won't pick them up in your taxi, or whatever. The shower-nuts say they have "profound religious beliefs" against transgender people, but they don't mention anything in the Bible, and of course, you know as well as I do, Jesus advocated forgiveness and love, not bigotry, and there's nothing in the Bible about gender identity. It just makes them uncomfortable, that's all there is to it, and they think it needs to be against the law to be different from them. So they make up the hypothetical shower situation, even though it never happens except when they stage it for Channel Seven.
On election day, the shower-nuts plan to be at the polling places. This is their big chance to get people to sign their petitions. You can figure that people going to vote are legal citizens, and their signatures will be counted. If you go to vote and they're out there, say something to them, okay? If you see them talking to people, go over and say something. Explain what the deal is. Most people haven't given this a thought, and everybody is against creepy men going into ladies rooms, so if they think that's what this is about they'll sign the petitions. People in our county don't hate transgender people, most of us believe they should be treated fairly, but people will sign this petition out of ignorance, if they're told something scary.
Of course the news media aren't going to spell it out. They will quote people saying that men will go into the ladies room, but they'll only put the facts down in the story somewhere. You won't see an editorial saying, this law does not mean men will go into ladies rooms, but you will see articles about a citizens group opposing such-and-such. Any support for the county council's decision is going to have to be grass-roots and real, it's not going to come from the knee-jerk corporate press.
There were a couple of other news stories this week that I thought were interesting. A new government survey has found that nearly a quarter of American women have been victims of domestic violence.
The CDC said 23.6 percent of women and 11.5 percent of men reported being a victim of what it called "intimate partner violence" at some time in their lives.
The CDC defined this as threatened, attempted or completed physical or sexual violence or emotional abuse by a spouse, former spouse, current or former boyfriend or girlfriend or a dating partner. The CDC estimates that 1,200 women are killed and 2 million injured in domestic violence annually.
Many of these women have other long-term health risks and problems, the CDC said.
"It confirms ... that living in a dangerous and stressful environment has long-term health impacts. It's like living in a war zone," said Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, an advocacy group. Quarter of U.S. women suffer domestic violence: CDC
That proportion hasn't changed much over the years, they say. Look, nobody is going to be hurt if the schools teach about sexual orientation, or if transgender people are allowed to get jobs, but when a quarter of women are being beaten by their partners there is a serious problem. "Turn the other cheek" is not advice for that situation, religious people should mobilize behind a real problem like domestic violence. This puts their freakout about the nondiscrimination law in perspective, it seems to me.
Hey, here's an interesting story from the UK. Sex may become obsolete.
British scientists are ready to turn female bone marrow into sperm, cutting men out of the process of creating life.
The breakthrough paves the way for lesbian couples to have children that are biologically their own.
Gay men could follow suit by using the technique to make eggs from male bone marrow.
Researchers at Newcastle upon Tyne University say their technique will help lead to new treatments for infertility.
But critics warn that it sidelines men and raises the prospect of babies being born through entirely artificial means.
The research centres around stem cells - the body's 'mother' cells which can turn into any other type of cell.
According to New Scientist magazine, the scientists want to take stem cells from a woman donor's bone marrow and transform them into sperm through the use of special chemicals and vitamins. Death of the father: British scientists discover how to turn women's bone marrow into sperm
Maybe this is why the Bush administration has been opposed to stem cell research. Every couple of years one of them wants to have sex with their actual spouse or somebody of the opposite sex, and of course they need a reason, and the only possible reason is procreation. So if these limey scientists can make sperm out of lesbian's stem cells -- what are you going to say?
I don't know, it just seemed interesting to me.
One last thing. You know I'm not political at all -- somebody this last week asked me if I knew who my senators were, and I failed the test. I'm not joking, I just trust that whatever hypocrites the people elect will do their job. At least I did until the last seven years, when I realized that this country really could choose absolute idiots, dangerous criminals and liars, to run things. I'm against that, but I still don't follow party politics at all. It's like a human-interest story to me.
When we were in Iowa over New Years, we took the kids to some campaign events, we saw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama up close. Hillary Clinton had her daugher and her mother at her speech, and it was kind of interesting to watch Chelsea Clinton through it all. Seemed like a nice enough young lady. She sat quietly, smiled at the humor, paid attention, whatever, my kids have come to work with me sometimes, too. They usually make noise, play games on the computers, you know, they don't sit quietly like little ladies and gentlemen. Of course, they're a little younger still.
I noticed a couple of weeks ago that Chelsea had given a speech for her mother's campaign. I thought, cool, the kid is learning the ropes. The news stories said she did a good job, that she spoke well, seemed well informed. Okay, I hope someday they'll say nice stuff about my kids, too. I thought it was a good thing, her mom is running for president, it makes sense.
But the guy at MSNBC compared her to a whore, said she was "being pimped out in some weird sort of way." Tell you the truth, that would've pissed me off if somebody said something like that about my kid.
Calling herself a "mother first," Sen. Hillary Clinton blasted MSNBC Saturday and demanded further disciplinary action against a correspondent who suggested 27-year-old Chelsea had been "pimped out" by her presidential campaign.
Clinton penned a letter to NBC corporate headquarters insisting correspondent David Shuster pay a higher price than his temporary suspension for his inflammatory comment.
"Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient," Clinton wrote in a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus.
"There's a lot at stake for our country in this election," Clinton wrote. "Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate." Hillary Clinton blasts MSNBC over Chelsea 'pimp' comment
Of course she's making a joke there. The discourse hasn't been "civil and appropriate" for twenty years. The corporate media know what they have to do, they get their talking points and read them, maybe change the words around a little. Especially when it comes to the Clintons, they are not going to be civil and appropriate, though you can't blame her for suggesting it.
Look, people, the Democrats are going to win. Twice as many people are turning out for their primaries as for the other party. Nobody wants any more of this, the people don't want torture, they don't want meaningless war, they don't want bigotry, they don't want the environment to go to hell, they don't want to be lied to, and they don't like the fact that the ordinary person can't afford to live while giant corporations are making record profits. I'm not taking sides here, that's just how it is.
And the Democrats have an interesting situation. In the primary races they have two good candidates. And to make it even more fascinating, one is black and one is a woman. We're a grown-up country, that shouldn't be an issue. It is not news if Hillary wears a v-neck blouse, and it isn't news if Barack eats a piece of chicken, for crying out loud. The press doesn't know what to do here, they don't know how to handle an election that is something besides old white men. I am suggesting they just report the news, how about that for a wild idea? Hillary's not a bitch, Chelsea's not a whore, Barack doesn't smoke crack. It's just not that hard.
Which brings me to the last interesting story. Obama has said he used some drugs when he was young, smoked some pot, snorted some coke. A whole lot of people did, but for some reason politicians are supposed to have been saints for their whole lives. Let's just say, I don't plan to run for any office. The New York Times though had a funny story this week about it:
Nearly three decades ago, Barack Obama stood out on the small campus of Occidental College in Los Angeles for his eloquence, intellect and activism against apartheid in South Africa. But Mr. Obama, then known as Barry, also joined in the party scene.
Years later in his 1995 memoir, he mentioned smoking “reefer” in “the dorm room of some brother” and talked about “getting high.” Before Occidental, he indulged in marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine as a high school student in Hawaii, according to the book. He made “some bad decisions” as a teenager involving drugs and drinking, Senator Obama, now a presidential candidate, told high school students in New Hampshire last November.
...
Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs, though, significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use. That could suggest he was so private about his usage that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.
In more than three dozen interviews, friends, classmates and mentors from his high school and Occidental recalled Mr. Obama as being grounded, motivated and poised, someone who did not appear to be grappling with any drug problems and seemed to dabble only with marijuana. Friends Say Drugs Played Only Bit Part for Obama
In other words, maybe he didn't get high as much as he said he did. I can just see the other party using this against him: My opponent says he used drugs, ladies and gentlemen, but what drugs? Even the New York Times couldn't find anybody to corroborate his admissions... Whatever, the last two elections prove that the public doesn't really care if you had a drug problem, you can still get elected president. You just wonder if Obama has something really controversial he is trying to hide.
Our dog does the dumbest thing. If there's a sunbeam or a light is on, and you take your glasses off and the lenses make a spot of light move on the floor, he goes crazy trying to chase it. Okay, we play with him sometimes with that. But now he's gotten to where he stands around groaning -- that's the only word for it, this singing sound he makes -- and watching for any spot of light to move. We have a bird-feeder outside that's in the sun, and the light coming through the clear plastic makes a reflection on the floor, he's been standing there for an hour groaning and waiting to chase it. That is one dumb dog.
WPFW is playing a nice acoustic jazz guitar piece now. Did I hear this right? I think the guy on the radio just said something about fifty-mile-per-hour winds and "snow showers." Is that possible? I didn't even wear a coat when I picked up the paper, and there is not a cloud in the sky. Hmm, I am thinking I may have to go back to bed for a little while and see what it looks like when I get up again. How's that for an idea?
posted by JimK at 9:59 AM
44 Comments:
Jim Said,
"Our dog does the dumbest thing. If there's a sunbeam or a light is on, and you take your glasses off and the lenses make a spot of light move on the floor, he goes crazy trying to chase it."
Jim- you should try having the dog chase after one of those laser-pointers (I use one in class sometimes to explain things on the white screen). My cats go crazy and , when they are feeling it, can jump over five feet into the air and climb up the wall trying to catch that little red dot. They get their exercise and it's fun for everyone (entertaining, at least).
Thanks for the week wrap-up. Very well written.
He loves those laser pointers.
JimK
Maybe pointing a laser-pointer in the direction of the CRGs (or whoever they are this week) would distract them from some of their more naughty undertakings and also give the rest of us some surcease from their unrelenting whininess. LOL
RT
Andrea- not anon
I am very political but all I will say here is please vote. It is a privilege that much of the world does not have(or does but only if you vote for the correct person). You can ask for a paper ballot, vote for someone not on the ballot, not vote for every position being elected. I am proud that I have voted in every election(primaries too) since I was old enough except for the eyar Iwas overseas and someone else must have taken my absentee ballot from Poste Restante in Rome
RT said
Maybe pointing a laser-pointer in the direction of the CRGs (or whoever they are this week) would distract them from some of their more naughty undertakings and also give the rest of us some surcease from their unrelenting whininess. LOL
RT
****
Even more interesting is the constant change in their CRW(hich one this week) leadership.
I guess all that bigotry and hate wears them out and they have to rotate.
It has been a while...still, I can not resist this...
Jim writes,
Maybe this is why the Bush administration has been opposed to stem cell research. Every couple of years one of them wants to have sex with their actual spouse or somebody of the opposite sex, and of course they need a reason, and the only possible reason is procreation. So if these limey scientists can make sperm out of lesbian's stem cells -- what are you going to say?
LOL...oh Jim, I sense that you are not only smart, but that you fancy yourself smart. Pity, as that is only half of the equation, the other half being wisdom.
Ciao for now.
Oh…yes…Pity poor you Jim.
Wisdom being the result of pain, clearly you have never experienced pain.
(not that I don't love ya Jim, but for the sake of sarcasm...)
Thank you Orin for alerting us to this golden messiah in our midst.
This jumped out at me.
"and the only possible reason is procreation."
--
So…
When they say Creation
What they imply is Procreation
What they mean is Recreation
--
“Homosexuality goes against God’s creative intent…”
“God’s creative intent” = Sex for Procreation
-Ergo, homo-sex = exclusively recreational = Sex for destruction.
Now, there’s just the matter of officially connecting that "2%" of the GLBT sex that may or may not be occurring on the planet with everything that’s wrong with society…
Andrea- not anon
Orrin- Jim is not just smart and wise- he is quite intelligent. I know that in this current administration and with some rightwingers- actual scientific knowledge is not valued. The substitution of popular feelings, religious belief and political leanings should never be substituted for knowledge.
Give us a break, Andreary.
Scientific knowledge is only valued to you guys to the extent it supports your radical lunatic fringe political positions.
Jim wouldn't know truth if it kicked him in the arse.
Andrea- not anon
Well, Dumb anon- we know you people don't value science at all. Some of us actually know something about science- and we know real knowledge scares the shower nuts.
Education and knowledge throws light on bigotry - and speaking of lunatic fringe- Ruth Jacobs, Bianca, Ben Patton, Susan Jamison- they can't even act normal.
Oh, AnonFreak.
I suppose if you were to go to the hospital becuase you are bleeding to death after being in a car accident... you would rather have your doctors carry a Bible than a medical degree to help you. Good luck with that!
Everyone go to Lobby Day today and lobby for marriage equality!
My Gay-Straight Alliance students and their parents as well as myself will be there!
"Jim wouldn't know truth if it kicked him in the arse.
Well, Dumb anon- we know you people don't value science at all. Some of us actually know something about science- and we know real knowledge scares the shower nuts.
Education and knowledge throws light on bigotry"
Yeah, you know something about it. Like how to abuse it for political purposes. The idea that you bunch of nuts decided to read up on the scientific research with an open mind and follow where the path of knowledge led is a farce. You have a preconceived notion formed by a radical conception of civil rights which you have decided extends to not just physical characteristics but also to psychic characteristics like desires. Any fact that doesn't fit is ridiculed. Any scientist who does research which doesn't support your radical agenda is personally attacked.
Here's an example of Jim's ignorance of truth:
"Before the law went into effect (it hasn't yet) there was no law against men going into the ladies room. The fact is, men don't want to go into ladies rooms. You don't need a law against that. It's legal now, and it doesn't happen. Sometimes the line at the ladies room is long, and there's nobody in the men's room. You want to make a law that requires them to stand in that line when there's a perfectly good toilet available?"
What a great argument against making it illegal for you to use a bathroom other than the one assigned to your gender. Except that it is based on a deception by Jim. CRC is not trying to pass a law, it's trying to overturn a new one. To say they are trying to pass a law is a lie by Jim. Ironic when every reference to CRC by a TTFer begin with an accusation that CRC is lying and, in truth, TTF is lying.
The referendum will be on the ballot. The bill will be overturned.
Stop whining!
Red Baron said "The referendum will be on the ballot. The bill will be overturned.".
Yeah, right, and "president Huckabee's" going to do this and "president Huckabee's" going to do that. We've seen your preposterous overconfidence before.
Red Baron said "You have a preconceived notion formed by a radical conception of civil rights which you have decided extends to not just physical characteristics but also to psychic characteristics like desires.".
Yeah, to bigots like you the idea that everyone should be treated equally is radical. You don't think anyone should have civil rights that aren't based on physical characteristics unless its the choice of religious behavior. You demand special rights for religionists, everyone else should follow anti-discrimination laws except bigots like you.
"Yeah, to bigots like you the idea that everyone should be treated equally is radical. You don't think anyone should have civil rights that aren't based on physical characteristics unless its the choice of religious behavior. You demand special rights for religionists, everyone else should follow anti-discrimination laws except bigots like you."
Religion, like speech and press, is a special right granted by our Constitution. Being a resident of one of our more confused de facto colonies, you may not understand appropriate constitutional democracy. We all understand it here and you won't find many Americans wanting to take away our constitutional rights.
No society can survive long without a religious basis. There is nascent evangelical movement in Western Europe, for example, but unless it catches fire, in a generation from now, France, Spain and Portugal will be Muslim countries ruled by sharia.
And what is wrong with being Muslim, AnonFreak?
Red Baron said "Religion, like speech and press, is a special right granted by our Constitution.".
In the modern justice system rights are granted to all peoples, not just to some. You're confusing the two. You are demanding special rights for some people to the exclusion of others - the unjust exclusion of religious people from anti-discrimination laws.
Clearly you are ignorant of your ninth amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.".
That means that the people retain all rights not specifically otherwise enumerated in your constitution.
Red Baron said "No society can survive long without a religious basis.".
The best functioning societies are those with the least religion
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.
If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).
And Yet AGAIN! Another anti-gay Republican turns out to be gay and cheating on his wife:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=B9CC14D97752C4DA5472EBB0D1ADBBA4?diaryId=4408
Wouldn't be surprised if this was also true of the anti-gay religionists Red Baron/anonymous
Randi,
IF the US is so bad, how come so many people want to come here?
Why do we have to build a fence to keep them out?
How come the US helps your county?
How come the US is the greatest county in the world!!!
Too bad you live in Canada!
Of course you love the US, AnonFreak... it's the only country where people like you can make up loaded science to support hate and discrimination.
Red Baron, in Canada I am the equal of all other citizens. With the possible exception of Masachusetts, in the U.S. I'd be a second class citizen behind religionist bigots like you. I most certainly would NEVER trade Canada for the U.S. I am extremely proud and happy to be living here. The U.S. has a considerable ways to go to catch up to Canada. Its no coincidence that Canada is rated far above the U.S. as one of the best places in the world in which to live.
And I might add that as a percentage of population Canada takes in more immigrants than any other country in the world.
Anonymous:
You said, I guess in reference to TTF's efforts to fight for equal civil rights for all of our citizens, that that is "a radical conception of civil rights". Tell me...what is radical about civil rights? Perhaps a rereading of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would give you a better understanding of "civil rights", but I doubt it as you appear to thumb your nose at the rights that are guaranteed to all of our citizens.
I am sure there would be no "civil rights" in the ideal theocratic country you want this country to be. As you said in your rant: "There is nascent evangelical movement in Western Europe, for example, but unless it catches fire, in a generation from now, France, Spain and Portugal will be Muslim countries ruled by sharia"....instead of the Christian sharia you so fervently want I would guess.
Andrea- not anon
YO, nutty anon- wake up -wake up- this is Montgomery County Maryland. The law will not be overturned. I know the Shower nuts think that they are in MC, Va but this is MC, MARYLAND.
I saw that the Republicans are going to put up candidates for County Council(BWHAHAHAHA). think it will be Steve "I'm a democrat now" Abrams or Adol "Heil Hitler" Williams? Steve and and Adol got in a fist fight last time over the position that neither of them could win anyway. Maybe Chuck "I love to lose" Floyd? It will be more fun to look forward to after the primary tomorrow.
"The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health."
Measures of the best this or that "measure of societal health" are subjective. Truth is, the dynamism of the U.S. is the envy of the world. The disdain is a function of the envy.
It's a rhetorical question though. The secularism of any country won't survive, as we've explained to you, because of demographics. Secularists don't value life and don't reproduce.
"You said, I guess in reference to TTF's efforts to fight for equal civil rights for all of our citizens, that that is "a radical conception of civil rights". Tell me...what is radical about civil rights?"
This fellow is either a liar like Jim or a complete moron. No one said civil rights are radical. The poster said extending civil rights to desires and feelings is radical.
Not only is it radical but it wouldn't be practical to extend it to all feelings and desires so it would also ultimately be unfair.
Anonymous said...
"The poster said extending civil rights to desires and feelings is radical.
Not only is it radical but it wouldn't be practical to extend it to all feelings and desires so it would also ultimately be unfair."
--
You might have a point, except for the hypocrisy that you think that your “pulled out of the air” religious beliefs should be protected as a civil right. Those beliefs being namely that certain American’s amount to nothing more than “feelings and desires.”
--
Does Religious Liberty Protect a Right to Treat Gays as Unequal?
Acceptance of gays continues to grow in America, but for many there remains a strong conviction that homosexuality is abhorrent, that gays are violating some of God’s most basic commandments for humanity, and even that the presence and acceptance of gays in America is abhorrent to God. Some conclude that the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty protects both their right to believe such things and a right to act on these beliefs. They are wrong.
Promoting vs. Preventing Harm
The most fundamental purpose of a government is to protect us from harm, especially at the hands of each other. A government which protects those committing the harm rather than those who are being harmed is no real government at all. Obviously not every possible government act can be justified on the basis of protecting us from harm, but we are looking more specifically at whether individuals harming others can justifiably be protected under “free exercise” of their religion.
The constitutional guarantee of religious liberty provides absolute protections of belief, but not absolute protections for acts.
--
Essentially, you and your CRW ilk claim that you have a “civil right” to determine the civil rights of minorities. And that you have the “equal” right to impose your supremacist beliefs upon fellow (equal) Americans.
As the article elucidates, just because your supremacist beliefs are religious in nature, doesn’t make them American, or even worthy of protection. In fact, such a view is as anti-American, and thus, as unfair as it gets.
For your information Mr./Mrs./Ms./It Anomymous: I am neither a liar nor a moron nor a fellow! Get your head out of your behind.
"Get your head out of your behind."
How else would they talk out of their asses?
You lied when you said the poster called civil rights radical. They didn't. They said applying them to a new category, feelings and desires, is radical.
It's a common TTF technique like the other day when Jim said the CRC referendum was to pass a law. It isn't. It's a referendum to overturn a new law.
Anonymous: Why do you waste our time and your time coming here to spout your stupid, irrelevant, and bigoted crap? Get your own Blog and make your appeals to those who share your psychoneurotic idea! You spend entirely too much time in your life spreading hatred, ignorance, and bigotry...perhaps a little more time in the religious establishment of your choice will enable you to find happiness in your life.
Sorry if it angers you but the TTFers here are constantly decrying the lies of CRC. From where I stand, it looks like TTF tells lies to rally their troops.
As far as I know, this blog is for discussion. Without opposition, discussion is pretty uninteresting.
Red Baron said "Measures of the best this or that "measure of societal health" are subjective. Truth is, the dynamism of the U.S. is the envy of the world.".
LOL, Red Baron, rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion are not subjective, those measurements are as objective as it gets and all those things are correlated with higher levels of religiosity. Now, your statement that "the dynamism of the U.S. is the envy of the world", that's subjective and given the crash of the U.S. economy under Bush, a decidedly false view as well. You're living in a dream world, take the blinders off and look around you, the world doesn't stop at the U.S. border.
Red Baron said "The secularism of any country won't survive, as we've explained to you, because of demographics.".
Secularism is growing faster than any religion, the trend is clear and irreversable.
Red Baron said "Secularists don't value life and don't reproduce.".
False. Nonbelievers value life far more than religionists do because we know this is the only life we get. Religionists operate under the false pretense that they get a second eternal life after they die and this causes them to undervalue life as they think it is secodary to an eternal afterlife - they discount injustices in this life because they are under the delusion that people treated unfairly in this life will be rewarded in the next. Christianty, Islam, Judaism are all death cults, they all value the emptyness after death more than life itself.
Red Baron said "The poster said extending civil rights to desires and feelings is radical...Not only is it radical but it wouldn't be practical to extend it to all feelings and desires so it would also ultimately be unfair.".
Gayness and transgenderism are innate characteristics, not desires and feelings like the choice of religion is. We extend civil rights to people based on changeable behavior like religion, there certainly is nothing radical about extending those same protections to people based on who they innately are.
Randi Schimnosky said...
"Gayness and transgenderism are innate characteristics, not desires and feelings like the choice of religion is. We extend civil rights to people based on changeable behavior like religion, there certainly is nothing radical about extending those same protections to people based on who they innately are."
--
Gayness (sexuality) and transgender (gender) are innate characteristics precisely because they are human characteristics.
--
To clarify further,
Sexuality is an intrinsic part of one's humanity, just as gender is an intrinsic part of one's humanity.
To claim that one’s religious beliefs are based on the idea that homosexuality is nonexistent or changable, or that transgenderism is merely “feelings” of confusion, is to claim that one’s religious beliefs are in a position to define the humanity of others.
The shower nuts are literally claiming the “civil right” to define the humanity of others.
The sad thing about all of this is that the shower people have chosen to be willfully ignorant. I saw it with Steina today, and it contrasted very clearly with the views of her pleasant and engaging husband. These are people with no evident scientific or medical background who lie to others out of fear. Every time I challenged her she had no response, yet I was ablt to have a very civil conversation with her husband. He learned something today, and while he left believing that somehow the existence of this law will encourage pedophiles to use cross-dressing as a subterfuge, he also learned he was wrong about that as well as a number of other things.
What things? That he can't really tell a man from a woman except based on the way she presents. That there can certainly be no possibility of a bathroom police performing strip searches. That there are only about 1000 trans persons in MoCo, equally split between men and women. That somehow forcing people to use bathrooms based on their genitals would force legions of trans MEN --people who look and act like MEN --into the ladies room. That there is currently no law that sex-segregates bathrooms -- he acknowledged he's used the women's bathroom before when necessary. That his potential scenario of a pedophile has never occurred in the 38% of the US already covered by such legislation.
So basically he got an education; I bet he sleeps better tonight, even if his wife doesn't.
Anonymous:
Excuse me, but I thought this was the Teach the Facts blog site; people who come here generally agree with and accept the purposes, goals, and activities of TTF. I think you are terribly confused...this is NOT the CRC blog or website. You do not come here to DISCUSS anything; you come here to excoriate and belittle and lie and whine like a child when nobody agrees with your wild rants.
And because of your various guises, most here have no idea of who the phantom poster is...it's like having a "discussion" with the kitchen sink.
RT
"...it's like having a "discussion" with the kitchen sink."
Or the price of milk. Try having a discussion with that sometime...
“So basically he got an education; I bet he sleeps better tonight, even if his wife doesn't.”
And I’m sure she’ll let him know it too. “Honey, how can you sleep? There might be a transgendered person catching a cab right now!”
I just went with my fiancé (who is also a man) and my transgender friend to vote. No sign of the Shower-Nuts!
"That he can't really tell a man from a woman except based on the way she presents."
Depending on how you define the term. You are a word bender in addition to a gender bender.
"That there can certainly be no possibility of a bathroom police performing strip searches."
AND no one is suggesting that. Your suggestion that the referendum would support that is a lie worse than the one you accuse CRC of telling.
"That there are only about 1000 trans persons in MoCo, equally split between men and women."
Who said there weren't?
"That somehow forcing people to use bathrooms based on their genitals would force legions of trans MEN --people who look and act like MEN --into the ladies room."
CRC hasn't, somehow, suggested forcing anyone to do anything. Your statement here is another lie by insinuation. You and your addled boss have pushed through legislation forcing your own desired restroom policies on business owners. You are the ones forcing something on somebody.
"That there is currently no law that sex-segregates bathrooms -- he acknowledged he's used the women's bathroom before when necessary."
And CRC wants to keep it that way. Your peeps interpreted this bill that way until CRC shone a light on your legislative bed. Then, and only then, did you disavow that the accomodations provision would apply to bathrooms. Given that, better to get it off the books than trust those whose intentions are clear.
"That his potential scenario of a pedophile has never occurred in the 38% of the US already covered by such legislation."
Few jurisdictions, even in the most tripped precincts of our land, have a law this sweeping.
This law is going down.
The law isn't going anywhere.
This is one of the most restrictive of the laws that currently cover 38% of the US population. There has never been a case of the hypothetical I heard so much of yesterday.
Theresa and Ruth have made it clear on several occasions that what is at root of their fear is that individuals who once had a penis are accepted by society as women, legally and socially, and are, therefore, able and free to use women's facilities. The corollary is that individuals who have vaginas must use those same women's facilities. The problem is, as I pointed out to Steina's husband yesterday, is that those trans men look and behave no different from him. He could never tell them apart. And I think he would not want those men in the women's room. Time for a new petition, guys.
If there is no strip searching to be done, hwo do you propose to implement anything?
I never denied the law applies to bathrooms or locker rooms. All that has been said is the county attorneys believe this law does not change the existing law, which is that those facilities may be regulated by the owners. Theresa and Susan simply don't believe the county attorney and exec and have called them liars.
Underlying this is something that Ruth told Maryanne yesterday, which is that she doesn't want anyone telling her how she must accept them in their social role based on their "feelings." Sorry, Ruth, that's how this society works. You expect people to call you, "Doctor," so out of respect for you they call you so. I have friends who choose to be called "Ms." and others who prefer "Mrs." My legal documentation and social expression is female, so regardless of what any of you believe, you are obligated in a civil society to recognize me as such. You don't have to like it, agree with it, have me over for dinner, whatever. But it is the social contract we all have with one another.
So, finally, Anon, you still haven't gotten to the point -- what exactly do you want? All these issues are out there -- what is it that bothers you, and what should Maryanne and Ruth discuss the next time they meet?
Post a Comment
<< Home