Mess within Texas - Sandra Bland's arrest

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

I don't know how Sandra Bland died, but I do know how she ended up in jail on a $5,000 bond, and it's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Actually, it's criminal. We have a serious problem in America, and this is just another demonstration of that. (Really, do we need any more? Seriously?)

America's 150-year-old war on activist women

From TPM, here's another interesting column, this time by Ben Railton, on America's 150-year-old war on activist women.

Before I quote from that, let me note that this continues - to a surprising extent - even today. Women who speak out on the internet are hounded mercilessly, threatened at home and online (rape threats are particularly common), intimidated in all sorts of ways, with the intent of making their lives so miserable that they don't even want to go online anymore.

Blogs and YouTube channels of people like Rebecca Watson, for example, who become the targets of hysterical lunatics for the slightest of things, are filled with trolls who seemingly spend all their time waiting for another post or another video, so they can be the first to spew their venom and vitriol.

It's not criticism; it's trolling. If you've spent much time online at all, the difference is clear. The topic of their post or their video doesn't matter in the slightest.

Admittedly, most of these trolls - inevitably men, I'm sorry to say - don't post rape threats. But what they do is almost worse. They laugh at rape. They make jokes about rape. They minimize the threat from lunatics, and make fun of women who worry that some of these lunatics - including those who actually track them down at home - might really mean it.

Meanwhile, of course, they comment on the woman's appearance in the most degrading, sex-obsessed, slimy sorts of ways. Well, as I say, this isn't criticism. It's intimidation. Their goal is to make the woman so weary of experiencing the worst of humanity that they just give up - stop posting, stop reading emails, stop using the internet at all.

Activist women are targets, pure and simple. There are men who get absolutely incensed that a woman might speak out about,... well, anything. This isn't a matter of legitimate disagreement, but about hysterical anger, sexual frustration, and primate breast-beating, all in complete anonymity. (With obsessive determination, they'll 'out' any woman who attempts to remain anonymous, herself - even posting her address and other personal details online - but they usually stay safely anonymous themselves.)

As a man, I find it incredibly disgusting and extremely embarrassing. But I see here that it's not new. How dare women think that they should be allowed to vote, or that they should be otherwise considered equal to men!

Take the Grimké sisters, for example. Born to a prominent South Carolina family, Angelina and Sarah Grimké became two of the 19th century’s most committed activists: for women’s rights, as in Sarah’s Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women (1838); for the abolition of slavery, as in Angelina’s Appeal to the Christian Women of the South (1836); and for other social causes and reforms. They were consistently condemned and vilified for those efforts, most especially for speaking in public and to “promiscuous” (i.e. mixed-gender) audiences. At one such event, at an 1838 anti-slavery convention in Philadelphia, Angelina spoke for more than an hour while stones and other objects were hurled against the windows and walls by a hostile mob—a mob that returned the next day and set fire to the convention hall.

Hostility toward abolitionists was, of course, interconnected with attacks on public women in that particular case, although the broader critiques of their public speaking efforts focused entirely on the Grimkés’ gender. But there were no such mitigating factors in the late 19th and early 20th century attacks on women’s suffrage activists. When thousands of suffrage activists marched to the White House to protest Woodrow Wilson’s March 1913 inauguration (scheduled for the next day), they were cursed, spit upon and even physically attacked by hostile crowds. Even when they weren’t being physically assaulted, suffrage activists were consistently belittled and demonized in media and cultural texts, such as the 1910 children’s book Ten Little Suffergets, which depicted the activists as silly little girls fortunately dissuaded from their cause by everything from cake and a “DEAD dolly” to drowning and a whipping.

Such longstanding historical attacks, physical as well as cultural, provide an important context for the late 20th century “backlash” against feminism identified by Susan Faludi and other scholars, as well as for our contemporary debates over birth control, wage equality and other issues. But along with the overt attacks, it’s important to consider another ongoing side of these American histories: the effects they had and continue to have on talented and innovative women in all walks of life. Illustrating those effects is the frustrating story of Sophia Hayden Bennett, the first woman to graduate from MIT with a degree in architecture and the architect chosen (only three years later, at the age of 23) to design the Women’s Building at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Despite this honor, Hayden Bennett’s design was criticized for “revealing the limitations” of its creator’s gender; the American Architect and Building News went further in its review, arguing that “as a woman’s work it ‘goes’ of course … it is simply weak and commonplace … The roof garden is a hen-coop for petticoated hens, old and young.”

Fed up with such responses, and likely extremely limited in her opportunities, Hayden Bennett never designed another building, and retired from architecture less than two years after the Exposition. When we see men follow Hillary Clinton around during her 2008 presidential campaign with signs ordering her to “iron their shirts,” witness the bullying and threats directed at female video game designers and scholars in the ongoing Gamergate controversy, it’s important to ask whether these longstanding histories have changed—and how many other talented American women might be forced out of their chosen professions and public activisms.

In the 19th Century, hostility towards women commonly had a Biblical basis. As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in 1897, "In the early days of woman-suffrage agitation, I saw that the greatest obstacle we had to overcome was the bible. It was hurled at us on every side."

That's still the case to some extent (as with every issue, Christians are on both sides, since their god is completely inept at communication, apparently). However, there's also an embarrassing strain of misogyny in the atheist community these days.

Sure, atheism is just the disbelief in gods, nothing more. It's a very narrow label, and tells you nothing about what an atheist does believe. But it's still embarrassing. I came by my atheism from skepticism, but not all atheists are skeptics. Not all atheists are even decent human beings.

Mike Huckabee: gay marriage just like bacon-wrapped shrimp in a Jewish deli

(image source)

Mike Huckabee, Southern Baptist minister, ex-governor of Arkansas, former Fox 'News' star, and Republican presidential candidate (before and after his Fox News stint), is one of the crazier people in the GOP. Of course, that's not much of a distinction.

But he's personable. If you don't listen to what he says, he comes across as a pleasant, easy-going kind of guy. He's not a wild-eyed, crazy-looking, right-wing Christian nutbag. He's just a right-wing Christian nutbag.

Now, Huckabee has said crazy things before, certainly, but I want to focus on his latest comment about gay marriage:

Huckabee said that for him, same sex marriage is a religious issue.

"This is not just a political issue. It is a biblical issue. And as a biblical issue, unless I get a new version of the scriptures, it’s really not my place to say, ‘Okay, I’m just going to evolve.’ It’s like asking somebody who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped-shrimp in their deli. ... or asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him or to have dogs in his backyard," he said. "We’re so sensitive to make sure we don’t offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can’t have the convictions that they’ve had for over 2,000 years."

The former governor also affirmed his view that the Supreme Court cannot change states' laws on gay marriage.

"We don’t change law because some people in a black robe just decide they don’t like the fact that 70, in some cases 80 percent, of a state’s population have affirmed natural law marriage," he said.

First of all, this is exactly - exactly - what right-wing Christians said about the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, racial integration, and allowing people of different races to marry. All of those things were Biblical issues to them, and the Bible was always on their side - the wrong side.

We couldn't have blacks and whites intermarrying, because scripture told them that was wrong. Of course, no one was going to force Christians - or anyone else - to marry someone of a different race, but that wasn't good enough for them. No, if their god didn't like it, no one should be allowed to do it.

And keep in mind that that didn't change until 1967!

Second, as with every issue, 'God' is on both sides. Huckabee apparently needs a "new version of the scriptures" before he'll accept gay marriage (or the abolition of slavery, or equal rights for women, or interracial marriage, I assume?), but the old version doesn't stop other Christians from vehemently disagreeing with him.

As I've noted before, God, if he exists at all, must be the world's worst communicator. Even Christians (after 2,000 years, still only 30% of the world's population) can't agree among themselves about anything, even when they base their arguments on the same 'holy book'!

This isn't a religious issue or even a Christian issue, but an issue of Huckabee's own interpretation of his own Southern Baptist version of Christianity. This is why we have freedom of religion in America - so that religious nuts can't force everyone else to obey whatever it is they happen to believe.

Would you prefer the Taliban way of doing things? Apparently, Huckabee would.

(image source)

Third, let's look at the specifics of Huckabee's argument: "It’s like asking somebody who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped-shrimp in their deli." Is it? Really?

Obviously, no one is going to force a Jew to eat bacon or shrimp. No one is going to force a Muslim to drink alcohol. No one is going to force a Mormon to drink coffee. We've come that far, at least.

But you are going to prevent two consenting adults from getting married, because your own interpretation of your own particular religious text tells you that people of different races of the same sex shouldn't marry? What business of that is yours, in a free country?

No one is going to force Baptist minister Huckabee to marry people of different races or of the same sex, either. No one is going to force his church to hold the ceremony, no more than forcing his Christian church to hold Muslim or Hindu services. That's his right in a free country.

But suppose a Jew gets a job in a deli, while refusing to sell pork or seafood products? Suppose a Muslim gets a job in a liquor store but refuses to handle alcohol? Suppose a Mormon gets a job checking out groceries, but refuses to check out coffee?

Suppose you open a grocery store, but refuse to serve black people? Suppose you open a furniture store but refuse to serve Jews? You're not required to approve of Jews. You're not required to like black people. I'm sure that neither Jews nor black people give a crap whether you approve of them or not.

But we live together in a society which requires a certain minimum of minding your own business. If you don't want to deal with the public, don't start a business and don't get a job which requires dealing with the public. (It's your choice. Many jobs don't.)

Of course, no one is going to tell a deli owner that he has to sell bacon-wrapped shrimp. But if he sells bacon-wrapped shrimp, he'd better sell them to every customer who wishes to buy. No one is going to tell a Muslim that he has to get a job in a liquor store. But if he does get a job in a liquor store, he has to be willing to do his job.

If you're a Mormon, no one is going to force you to drink coffee. But it's none of your business if other people want to drink coffee, and if you choose to work in a grocery store, you have to be willing to sell people coffee. If not, work somewhere else.

Huckabee, and Christians like him, are generally on board with that. They just want special privileges for their own religion.

They'd be aghast at letting Muslims get a job in a liquor store while refusing to handle alcohol. If a Mormon in a restaurant refused to let them drink coffee, they'd be the first to complain. But they want to let Christians get a job in a pharmacy while refusing to dispense birth control. They want to let Christians work in a county clerk's office - being paid by the government, no less! - while deciding on their own which complete strangers should and shouldn't be allowed to marry.

This is the kind of thinking that's widespread in the Republican Party - especially within the GOP base. For the 2016 campaign, every Republican candidate for president will have to demonstrate to the base that he's just as crazy as they are (because those are the people who reliably vote).

But many of the candidates, including Huckabee, don't have that problem. Huckabee is already a darling of the extreme right, so he just has to demonstrate that he can appear harmless enough to everyone else. Remember how people supposedly voted for George W. Bush because he seemed like a nice guy, the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with?

Mike Huckabee's words matter. But given our current profit-driven media and profit-driven political system, will they?

(image source)

One similarity between America and North Korea

I don't mean to imply that America and North Korea are identical, certainly not. (Does North Korea torture prisoners of war?) But this essay makes a good point.

He's talking about North Korea's response to The Interview. Whether or not North Korea hacked Sony, they were still outraged by the film, even arguing their case at the UN!

But is America all that different?

Remember March 2003? That’s when Natalie Maines, lead singer of the popular country music group The Dixie Chicks, told a British audience, “We don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.” Compared to The Interview’s extended, ribald parody of North Korea’s leader, one that culminates in a slow-motion shot of his exploding head, Maines’ critique of America’s president was brief and mild. Moreover, Maines hails from a nation that prides itself on nothing more than its freedoms, and indeed consistently deploys those freedoms to contrast itself with dictatorial or repressive nations around the world. It was Bush himself who argued that “they hate us for our freedoms,” an argument that has been rehashed in response to The Interview controversy.

Yet the response to Maines’s comments from millions of her fellow Americans was as outraged, as extreme and as violent as anything out of North Korea. North Korea may indeed have been responsible for what amounted to a boycott of Sony’s film, although the decision to pull the film was the company’s own. On the other hand, numerous country music radio stations and millions of country listeners boycotted The Dixie Chicks themselves, refusing to play their music, destroying piles of their albums, labeling them “Saddam’s Angels,” the “Dixie Sluts,” and so on.

Similarly, North Korean hackers may well have made vague threats of violence against movie theaters that chose to show The Interview. But Maines and the Dixie Chicks received much more overt and widespread death threats, to the point where the singer and group were forced to withdraw from the public eye for some time out of fear for their own safety and that of their families. Such attacks were egged on, if not orchestrated, by the nation’s most prominent conservative voices, as exemplified by Rush Limbaugh’s multi-day tirade against the group. And they were undoubtedly tied to rhetoric emanating from the highest levels of American government, such as Bush’s “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” remark.

Remembering the response to Maines in this moment would serve as a glass houses moment for Americans,...

Moreover, the Maines response illustrates how quickly we can abandon our ideals of freedom if they contrast with such passionately held perspectives. Bush’s public statement on the attacks on and threats against Maines and the Dixie Chicks was that “Consequences are the price we all have to pay for our freedoms.” Yet it’d be more accurate to say that Maines’ millions of critics were happy to see her freedoms abridged when they conflicted with their beliefs about their leader and nation. In such moments, the gap between America and North Korea seems all too slight.

Hell yes, I'm a feminist

Here's a great post by John Scalzi:

Hell yes, I’m a feminist.

Mind you, I don’t think this declaration comes as much of a surprise. I think people are aware of my general feelings on feminism, and I’ve not been shy about the topic before, when it’s suited me. ...

I don’t think feminism has been waiting for me. It doesn’t need me as a spokesperson or a leading voice. I don’t believe any woman has been wanting for me to be her “white knight.” As I’ve said before, it’s white knighting to assume women can’t defend themselves; it’s not white knighting to stand with them against the shit thrown their way.

But: I do think it’s important to let women know you do stand with them. I think it’s useful for other men to see it being done. To the extent that I have influence and notability, I’d like to use it standing with, and for, women. At the very least, 2014 showed me that it’s where I want to be standing, and to the extent that it’s useful, be seen standing.

Hell yes, I'm a feminist, too. If you've been here much, you'll already know that. But as Scalzi says, it's still important to say.

These days, the internet seems to be positively infested with sexism and misogyny - a minority of men, yes, but very, very vocal about it. We need to be vocal in opposition to that, too.

Marriage

(xkcd)

No, I'm not going to blog about marriage! :) But I thought this graph was interesting.

I remember reading that, at the time, only 15% of Americans approved of the Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriage (and that was in 1967!). Heck, some people still don't approve of it.

But civil rights don't depend on majority support. Well, as a practical matter they do, since as a people, we still have to believe in minority rights. But in modern democracies, "minority rights" is the flip side of "majority rules,"... and arguably even more important.

But look how badly popular approval of interracial marriage lagged - and still lags - its legalization. It's different with same-sex marriage, probably because, as gay people have left the closet, most Americans have come to realize that they have friends, co-workers, and even family members who are gay.

That makes a huge difference. Given our legacy of racism and segregation, most Americans - most white Americans, certainly - don't have friends, co-workers, and family members of another race. Coming out of the closet, as difficult as that was for many homosexuals, was hugely important to the LGBT community.

And to change the topic a bit here, that should provide a lesson for us atheists, too. Note this quote from the latest Pew Research study on How Americans Feel about Religious Groups:

Knowing someone from a religious group is linked with having relatively more positive views of that group. Those who say they know someone who is Jewish, for example, give Jews an average thermometer rating of 69, compared with a rating of 55 among those who say they do not know anyone who is Jewish. Atheists receive a neutral rating of 50, on average, from people who say they personally know an atheist, but they receive a cold rating of 29 from those who do not know an atheist.

I'm not particularly concerned at the low rating of atheists, even from people who know one of us. Partly, that's because we really have nothing in common, except just that we don't believe in any gods. That's really a very minor detail, nothing to hold us together in any positive sense. (Atheists aren't even, necessarily, skeptics.)

But also, atheists are threatening to Christians and other believers in a way that members of other religions will never be. After all, if you're a Christian, you're not going to convert to Judaism or Hinduism or Islam. Yes, converts do happen, but very rarely. The whole idea would be laughable to most people.

No, the risk to believers is that they'll just stop believing the religion they were raised to believe. By and large, they're not at risk of switching to some other superstition, but they do fear losing their faith entirely. There's a reason why they fear atheists, and it has nothing to do with what kind of people we are.

But as with homosexuals, it still matters that they know an atheist. Well, they do know an atheist, almost certainly. But most atheists remain in the closet. You might have a good reason for that. I'm not urging anyone to out themselves if it's going to cause them problems.

But for the rest of us, it's important that we be open about our non-belief. We should learn that from the struggle for gay rights.

OK, I'm getting a bit off the subject here, huh? But you're not actually surprised by that, are you? Heh, heh. It certainly happens often enough!

Why George Takei loves the country that once betrayed him

OK, one more video to celebrate the Fourth of July. In this one, George Takei explains why he loves the country which imprisoned him and his whole family in a concentration camp when he was five years old.

Are your liberties being violated?

(Andrea Gatley, via Pharyngula)

That might be too small to easily read, but just click on the image to enlarge it.

It's a handy little guide. Maybe people who have trouble with this kind of thing should carry it in their wallets.

Anti-suffragette cartoons

(all images from The Week, except as noted)

My brother sent me this link to "12 cruel anti-suffragette cartoons," and 93 years after women won the right to vote, I'm struck by how much has changed,... and how little.

You see, I'm still still seeing this kind of thing, though the details might be different. Take this cartoon:

Right. If we grant equal rights to other people, that means losing those rights ourselves, huh? Now that women can vote, we men can't?

Obviously, that's ridiculous, but I've actually heard right-wingers claim that allowing homosexuals to marry will mean the end of marriage for heterosexuals. That didn't make any sense a century ago, and it still doesn't. So why are we still hearing it?

Here are some other examples:

Maybe you don't think that's insulting? Well, try this:

Ooh, ankles! Can you see the expression on the faces of those men? I think I'm insulted by that one. But it gets worse. I found this cartoon at another website:

(History of Feminism)

Yeah, only ugly women want equal rights, huh? But I frequently hear similar comments today from those loony 'men's rights' advocates. If a woman dares to speak up, you can bet you'll hear negative comments about her appearance (which doesn't, unfortunately, stop the threats of rape, either).

Here's another which could be taken directly from modern misogynists:

(History of Feminism)

Why would women even want to vote? Well, clearly it's just to tear down men, right? Ask any 'men's rights' advocate today and he'll tell you the same thing.

There are lots more of these. A common theme is that families will suffer:

(BuzzFeed)

"America When Femininized"? That sounds like Rush Limbaugh! And it's the "suffragist-feminist ideal family life" to abandon their families? Oh, we poor, poor males who have to take up the slack...

This might be the worst of these, though:

If you can't read that, it says:

For a Suffragette.

The Ducking — Stool and a nice deep pool,

Were our fore-fathers plan for a scold;

And could I have my way, each Suffragette to-day,

Should "take the chair" and find the water cold.

What kind of person would think that's appropriate? Seriously, how sick would you have to be?

But I hear the same kinds of attacks on feminists even today. The style might be different - and they're definitely cruder - but the sentiment hasn't changed.

Judgment Gay

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

This is progress - major progress - but note that the vote was 5 to 4 (again). This time, Anthony Kennedy sided with the four Democrats on the Court.

But note that he joined the right-wing crazies just the day before in striking down the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And he was part of that terrible majority decision in Citizens United, too. It's that close at the Supreme Court.

The far right-wing justices tend to be young, too. They'll be with us for a long time. And all it would take is just one more Republican president picking one more justice. That's how close this remains for America - not just for this particular issue, but many others. It's scary.

There was more on the Daily Show last night that was pretty good (here and here), but I did want to post the following brief video clip. This is exactly the right response to Michele Bachmann:



Who cares what Michele Bachmann thinks? Only the media.

Warren Buffett is bullish on women

Here's Warren Buffett (originally in Fortune magazine):

In the flood of words written recently about women and work, one related and hugely significant point seems to me to have been neglected. It has to do with America's future, about which -- here's a familiar opinion from me -- I'm an unqualified optimist. Now entertain another opinion of mine: Women are a major reason we will do so well.

Start with the fact that our country's progress since 1776 has been mind-blowing, like nothing the world has ever seen. Our secret sauce has been a political and economic system that unleashes human potential to an extraordinary degree. As a result Americans today enjoy an abundance of goods and services that no one could have dreamed of just a few centuries ago.

But that's not the half of it -- or, rather, it's just about the half of it. America has forged this success while utilizing, in large part, only half of the country's talent. For most of our history, women -- whatever their abilities -- have been relegated to the sidelines. Only in recent years have we begun to correct that problem.

Actually, that's far less than half of it, since, for most of our history, it was only about white men, too. It's odd that Buffett doesn't mention that, because the same arguments could be said about race, not just gender.

And this, too, easily applies to both situations:

Resistance among the powerful is natural when change clashes with their self-interest. Business, politics, and, yes, religions provide many examples of such defensive behavior. After all, who wants to double the number of competitors for top positions?

But an even greater enemy of change may well be the ingrained attitudes of those who simply can't imagine a world different from the one they've lived in. What happened in my own family provides an example. I have two sisters. The three of us were regarded, by our parents and teachers alike, as having roughly equal intelligence -- and IQ tests in fact confirmed our equality. For a long time, to boot, my sisters had far greater "social" IQ than I. (No, we weren't tested for that -- but, believe me, the evidence was overwhelming.)

The moment I emerged from my mother's womb, however, my possibilities dwarfed those of my siblings, for I was a boy! And my brainy, personable, and good-looking siblings were not. My parents would love us equally, and our teachers would give us similar grades. But at every turn my sisters would be told -- more through signals than words -- that success for them would be "marrying well." I was meanwhile hearing that the world's opportunities were there for me to seize.

If you're young, you may be surprised at this, but it was very much the case when I was a kid, too. There were a number of very bright girls in my high school, but none of them were on the "major college" track. They were encouraged to take classes in home economics, for example, rather than classes which would help more in college.

And even if they planned to continue their educations - almost always in such traditionally female areas as nursing or school-teaching - that was mainly for finding a better class of husband. I thought that was very old-fashioned myself, even back then, but that was their society's expectation. That was, in general, their teachers' expectation and that of their parents, too (and so, their own expectation).

Fellow males, get onboard. The closer that America comes to fully employing the talents of all its citizens, the greater its output of goods and services will be. We've seen what can be accomplished when we use 50% of our human capacity. If you visualize what 100% can do, you'll join me as an unbridled optimist about America's future.

Yes,... well, there's certainly reason for optimism. And Warren Buffett is exactly right about the potential here. But let's look at the backlash, which is becoming more and more evident every day.

You see, it used to be that white men were just automatically on top - or, at least, not at the bottom. No matter how much of a loser you might be, your status as a white man still put you ahead of more than half the country. You could still call a black man 'boy,' and you were still the unquestioned lord of your household.

You might not have any education at all, but you didn't have to compete with black or Hispanic men, or with women of any race. You might be far down the pecking order, but you could still lord it over plenty of other people. Sure, you'd have to take crap from your boss and pretend to like it, but then you could do the same to other people, if you wanted.

Of course, I'm talking about complete losers, but the benefit wasn't restricted to them, not at all. White men had to compete against other white men, but that still left them - us - with a huge, built-in advantage.

But what happens when black people become your equals? What happens when Hispanics become your equals? Suddenly, you have to compete against everyone. Now, you still have a huge advantage - your boss is still white, your political leaders are (mostly) still white, our entire economy is still run by white men - but it's not what it was, and you can see that advantage slipping away more and more.

I worked with plenty of white men who were convince that white men couldn't get a break these days, that white men faced tremendous discrimination with everyone favoring minorities. These were people whose bosses were white men, who'd been hired by white men - often someone they or their families had known socially, often in their church, which was also overwhelmingly white - and whose co-workers were also white men with the exact same experience.

When the boss hired or promoted his nephew, that was considered normal. But if he hired someone who wasn't white - or hired a white woman, for anything but a secretarial position - that was clear evidence of discrimination against white men (even though the boss was a white man with opinions very like theirs). Of course, such a thing didn't actually happen, not to them, but they were still somehow convinced that they faced discrimination. After all, now that could happen, right?

Obviously, the only reason Barack Obama was elected president - twice - was because he's black, right? Oh, 'those people' get all the breaks! Remember when Mitt Romney bemoaned the fact that he wasn't the son of a Hispanic migrant-worker? Gee, if only he could have chosen his father. But no, he was stuck with being the son of an extremely wealthy, politically-connected white man, born with every advantage in life, including lots and lots of money. Poor guy.

This is how many white men think - Republican white men, at least. As you can see from Romney's comments, even the most powerful of them tend to think that way, as crazy as it seems. The least powerful? They join those white supremacist groups. No, they're not racists,... but someone has to stick up for white people, right?

We're seeing the same thing when it comes to women, too. I told you how it was when I was a kid. Attitudes were starting to change, but only just starting. Still, that was unsettling to men. It used to be that you didn't have to worry about knocking up some woman, because that was her problem. But when they started demanding child support - especially when DNA testing became available - well, that was just too much. Why should you have to pay out the nose for the next 18 years or so, just for one night of fun?

The sexual revolution was great,... but women began to learn they could do without men. By and large, they still wanted a husband, they still wanted a loving partner, but that wasn't absolutely required in order to have a family, so they didn't have to pick the first loser who came along.

And soon, there were good jobs out there for a woman with an education. You didn't have to settle for nursing or secretarial school. Women were still paid less than men, but they didn't have to settle for the lowest-paid jobs, or jobs that traditionally went to women (which was pretty much the same thing).

These days, even more women are going to college than men - and not just to get husbands. Women are getting a better education than men, and so they're getting the better jobs, too. You'd better not slap that waitress on the butt, because it's likely to be a man now, earning $3 an hour, plus tips. Women have better things to do. More men are dropping out of school, dooming themselves to poverty - and now they're finding that they can't even attract a woman desperate enough to find them attractive.

Suddenly, you don't just have to compete with racial minorities, you have to compete with women, too! And in many ways, women are harder to compete against. Your white boss might feel uncomfortable around blacks or Hispanics, since he's never had much contact with them, but he's been around women all his life. And he likes them - young, pretty ones, especially (yes, that's still an issue).

And now, we're seeing an incredible backlash against women. I've been shocked at how common it is online - even among atheists (which shouldn't have surprised me, I suppose, but it really did). Often, these are young men, too. But they're very unhappy at losing their privileged position.

Videos that criticize the 'men's rights movement' (like this one) or which feature feminists or support feminist concerns, tend to receive a torrent of complaints from angry men. Atheism Plus is vigorously denounced. Women who dare to speak up are inundated with threats of rape or other sexual violence. These are from a minority of men, of course - especially the threats - but they're a very angry and very vocal minority.

Some men are unhappy about real issues, of course. We're in a period where attitudes are changing, but not yet fully changed. And thinking that a woman's place is in the home, with her children, can actually benefit a woman who wants to keep custody of her children, though it will hurt her when looking for a good job.

Likewise, some feminists go completely overboard - just like some of every group go completely overboard. Note that there are complete loons on the left, as well as the right. The big difference is that the loons on the left have no political power at all, while the loons on the right pretty well control the entire Republican Party. But let's not deny the presence of loons... everywhere (and yes, that includes the atheist community, too).

But most of this is just backlash. The men's rights movement and the white supremacist movement are similar in being a backlash against social changes that are causing a privileged minority to lose their automatic privileges. Well,... tough! Face it like a man, why don't you? (And no, I don't mean by whining.)

Warren Buffett is right. For most of our history, we've accomplished great things with one hand tied behind our back. No matter how capable, no matter how accomplished, non-white men and nearly all women were kept from contributing fully to our society. That's not to say they didn't contribute, of course. But they weren't allowed to contribute to their full potential.

Well, now things have changed. Now things are changing, at least. For us white men, that means we have a lot more competition, and that's making some white men unhappy. But not all of us. And unhappy or not, this is a big advance for our society as a whole.

This will benefit all of us - white men, too. You may not like being a little fish in a big pond, but that pond is likely to be a far better place to live. And that will benefit you, your friends, your family - everyone. I may not be as bullish on America as Warren Buffett, but in this respect, at least, we're very definitely moving in the right direction.

Support the Constitution by gutting it

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Weak Constitution
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

This reminds me of those über-patriots who are constantly pushing secession. Yeah, that's really the way to show your patriotism, isn't it? How better to show support for your nation than your eagerness to secede from it?

Likewise, how better to show your support for our freedoms under the U.S. Constitution than to seek to end all those freedoms? Oh, sorry, not all of our freedoms, obviously. But, apparently, the only part of the Constitution these right-wing loons want to keep is the Second Amendment.

Yeah, get rid of the rest of that stuff, huh? Who needs it? And Jon didn't even mention the religious right's attempt to abandon freedom of religion and the strict separation of church and state. Heck, they even want to create official state religions! (Guess which one?)

But this is also a matter of our hysterical fear of terrorism. And it's an irrational fear pushed by Fox 'News' not just for political advantage, but also for commercial advantage. They work hard to keep their viewers hysterically fearful, because that pays off for them financially, as well as politically.

Combine this with the need for right-wing political pundits to say increasingly insane things - just to get noticed, among all the other right-wing political pundits - and you get some really crazy opinions. And these are crazy, aren't they?

Jon Stewart does a great job demonstrating that, don't you think? Well, if you don't agree, feel free to secede, you patriot, you. :)

The perils of gay marriage

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I thought Jon Stewart did a good job with this. Of course, it's everywhere in the news right now (Stephen Colbert covered it last night, too - here, here, and here), but I thought this was particularly funny,... and informative.

The right-wing simply has no rational argument with which to oppose equal rights for homosexuals, not one. They've got nothing. In a rational America, this would be a slam-dunk at the Supreme Court.

But thanks to past Republican presidents, our Supreme Court has been packed with far right-wing ideologues. There are five Republicans on the court, and Justice Anthony Kennedy - who joined with his fellow Republicans to create such terrible decisions as Citizens United - is the only one who seems like he might be sane enough to look past his own political and religious leanings to see the justice in this case.

Republicans have already lost on this issue. Public opinion is changing dramatically, such that even Bill O'Reilly is throwing in the towel. Well, Fox 'News' is concerned about nothing more than electing Republicans, and this is becoming a losing issue for them.

So the word at Fox has come down from on high (not God, but near enough). Sorry, social conservatives, but when you cease to be useful in getting tax cuts for the rich, you'll be thrown under the bus. Well, it couldn't happen to a more deserving people, huh?

But this Supreme Court decision is still important. Indeed, future Supreme Court decisions will likely be critical in this issue, too (as those clips from The Colbert Report point out), since any decision in this case is likely to leave a messy situation. And although the right-wing has already lost, they can still do a lot of damage to innocent Americans.

Hmm,... that kind of sounds like the Republican Party in general, doesn't it? They've been thoroughly repudiated by the American people, but they can still do a lot of damage before they end up in the dustbin of history. And they seem more determined than ever to continue doing that damage, right until the bitter end.

The horrific consequences of gay marriage

Discriminating against Christians

From TPM, here's an Illinois Republican arguing that allowing gay marriage discriminates against people who want to discriminate against them.

Illinois State Senator Kyle McCarter's Facebook page:

To redefine marriage is discriminatory towards those who hold the sincerely held religious belief that it is a sacred institution between a man & a woman.

I'm reminded of L. Sprague de Camp's 1939 story, Lest Darkness Fall. It's a classic alternate history science fiction tale of a man who suddenly finds himself transported to 6th Century Rome, a man who single-handedly tries to prevent the coming Dark Ages.

How is this pertinent? Several times in the book, local Christians complain that they're being discriminated against because they're not allowed to persecute other Christian sects. It's just not fair!

I remember thinking that was funny, and clever, but I never realized I'd be hearing the same thing in the 21st Century - especially not from an elected political leader in America! (Of course, at my most pessimistic, I never imagined today's Republican Party.)

But I must admit that McCarter has a point. When we eliminated slavery, we discriminated against people who had the sincerely held religious belief that owning people was part of God's plan. Make no mistake, those people knew their Bible, and it was abundantly clear that God approved of slavery.

When we let women vote, we discriminated against people who had the sincerely held religious belief that women should remain subservient to men. Again, they pointed to the Bible to oppose women's suffrage. Doesn't letting women vote discriminate against them?

(Here's Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1897: "In the early days of woman-suffrage agitation, I saw that the greatest obstacle we had to overcome was the bible. It was hurled at us on every side.")

When we legalized interracial marriage, we discriminated against people who had the sincerely held religious belief that the races should not mix. Heck, polls show that a large proportion of Southern Republicans still think that interracial marriage should be illegal. (They don't just say they wouldn't marry someone of another race, or even that it's wrong, but that it should be illegal.)

And you can bet that those people point to their sincerely held religious beliefs, too. After all, the South is very definitely part of the Bible Belt in America. So aren't we discriminating against them when we don't allow them to discriminate against other people?

You know, we could use this argument for pretty much... anything, couldn't we? You can't let other people have civil rights, because doing so will discriminate against the bigots who want to keep persecuting those people. And yes, it's invariably because of "sincerely held religious beliefs."

I laughed at this in Lest Darkness Fall, but I thought it was just fiction. How little I knew, huh? Today's Republican Party really is stranger than fiction.

The uprising of the young atheists

This is Hemant Mehta at FreeOK2012, the 2012 Oklahoma Freethought Convention.

Frankly, I'm still a little blown away by the fact that there is an Oklahoma Freethought Convention. Indeed, just the fact that many atheists are 'out,' all across the nation, is pretty encouraging. Certainly, my own experience, up through high school, at least, was very different.

And yes, this is about young atheists. After all, there's nothing worse as a kid than being different - than being seen as different by your classmates, certainly. We're social animals, and we generally want to fit in. If you don't, you're likely to be the perpetual target of bullies.

But you don't have to fit in with everyone in your school or your town. As long as you have some social support, some community, some niche, it's OK. So, for atheist students, who're almost certainly going to be a minority, these groups are very important.

It's encouraging to see such progress, don't you think?

Happy Martin Luther King Day

I thought this was great - and quite appropriate for Martin Luther King Day. :)

Actress Nichelle Nichols tells the lovely story of how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. convinced her to remain on Star Trek after she had decided to leave the series for Broadway:

I was going to leave “Star Trek,” and [creator] Gene Roddenberry says, “You can’t do that. Don’t you understand what I’m trying to achieve? Take the weekend and think about it.” He took the resignation and stuck it in his desk drawer….

As fate would have it, I was to be a celebrity guest at, I believe, it was an NAACP fundraiser in Beverly Hills. I had just been taken to the dais, when the organizer came over and said, “Ms. Nichols, there’s someone here who said he is your biggest fan and he really wants to meet you.”

I stand up and turn and I’m looking for a young “Star Trek” fan. Instead, is this face the world knows. I remember thinking, “Whoever that fan is, is going to have to wait because Dr. Martin Luther King, my leader, is walking toward me, with a beautiful smile on his face.” Then this man says “Yes, Ms. Nichols, I am that fan. I am your best fan, your greatest fan, and my family are your greatest fans…. We admire you greatly ….And the manner in which you’ve created this role has dignity….”

I said “Dr. King, thank you so much. I really am going to miss my co-stars.” He said, dead serious, “What are you talking about?” I said, “I’m leaving Star Trek,” He said, “You cannot. You cannot!”

I was taken aback. He said, “Don’t you understand what this man has achieved? For the first time on television we will be seen as we should be seen every day – as intelligent, quality, beautiful people who can sing, dance, but who can also go into space, who can be lawyers, who can be teachers, who can be professors, and yet you don’t see it on television – until now….”

I could say nothing, I just stood there realizing every word that he was saying was the truth. He said, “Gene Roddenberry has opened a door for the world to see us. If you leave, that door can be closed because, you see, your role is not a Black role, and it’s not a female role, he can fill it with anything, including an alien.”

At that moment, the world tilted for me. I knew then that I was something else and that the world was not the same. That’s all I could think of, everything that Dr. King had said: The world sees us for the first time as we should be seen.

Come Monday morning, I went to Gene. He’s sitting behind that same dang desk. I told him what happened, and I said, “If you still want me to stay, I’ll stay. I have to.” He looked at me, and said, “God bless Dr. Martin Luther King, somebody knows where I am coming from.” I said, “That’s what he said.” And my life’s never been the same since, and I’ve never looked back. I never regretted it, because I understood the universe, that universal mind, had somehow put me there, and we have choices. Are we going to walk down this road or the other? It was the right road for me.

TV’s first interracial kiss—between Nichols and William Shatner—also occurred on Star Trek.

America has really changed since then, hasn't it? That didn't just happen. It took brave people like Martin Luther King, Jr. - and many, many others - to make it happen.

I have to wonder about that "God bless" comment from Gene Roddenberry (who was one of us), but it's a great story. There's a video there, too, if you want to hear Nichelle Nichols tell it in a little more detail.

PS. I think I was in love with Nichelle Nichols when I was a kid. I used to think that Captain Kirk was crazy to overlook the beautiful lieutenant who worked right alongside him on the bridge. But then, I suppose there were strict Starfleet regulations about that, huh? :)

Sometimes, good things happen...

Frequently, there's so much bad news that it's easy to become discouraged. Well, the fight isn't going to be easy, no matter what kind of change you're looking for. That's just the way it is.

But we need to acknowledge our successes. We need to see that change does happen, so we don't become discouraged - and apathetic.

So here's some good news, from Joel Diaz, on Facebook:

Something incredible happened last night. After a fun night out Ethan and I were in line at the Mikey's Late Night Slice Truck (surprise!) in the Short North. It was really cold so we were holding hands and standing close together laughing and joking about all the fun we'd had. The guy in front of us turns around and tells us to cut our gay shit out. I didn't expect what happened next but almost every single person in that line made it known to him it was not ok for him to speak to us like that. Granted he was caught between two homos so John Warner and I let him know this was our city too and let him have it but the straight people who spoke up were so awesome. The best part though was as he grew more irate and vocal the guys who work the truck told him they would not serve him because he was spewing hate and that he should get out of line. As I walked away with my pizza all I could think about was THAT'S IT! Every person who spoke up to defend us including the pizza guys representing their business was doing their part to make hate a thing of the past.

Neat, isn't it? The owners of the pizza shop expressed pride in their workers there, too.

America is changing - rapidly, when it comes to gay rights, more slowly in other ways. But I think we hit rock bottom during the Bush administration, the ultimate result of the Republican Party's 'Southern strategy.' Now, we're heading back up again.

Congratulations, Maine!

This is from Portland, Maine, where city hall opened at midnight to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples when it was finally legal to do so, Dec. 29, 2012.

Note how normal this is. Everyone is happy, filled with love, just like every other marriage ceremony you've ever witnessed. How could you presume to judge for someone else, telling other adults who they can and can't marry? How could you imagine that it was even any of your business?

I'm not going to marry a man. I'm not going to marry anyone, in fact. But I'm always happy to see other people being happy. Some of these marriages won't last - many marriages don't - but so what?

And the craziest thing about this, the absolute craziest, is that the right-wing claims to be "defending marriage." Isn't that just the looniest thing ever? All of these people want to get married. They want to join that institution, not destroy it. If anything, this strengthens marriage. And it strengthens civilization, too.

Congratulations, Maine. I wish Nebraska was this civilized.

Charlie Chaplin - Let us all unite!

I suppose I have a minor quibble with this, since I don't think our problem is too much thinking! In fact, it's just the reverse. We have too much feeling - and too much believing without evidence - and not nearly enough thinking.

People don't hate because they think too much. People don't fly passenger planes into buildings because they think too much. People don't believe in Bronze Age mythology because they feel too little and think too much.

Of course, he makes up for that with "a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness." And it's a very minor quibble, anyway, isn't it? :)

Note that this is the guy - John D. Boswell, or melodysheep - who gave us that Al Gore "This Earth" remix and who does those Symphony of Science videos (like this one about the dinosaurs).