I know there is still a lot of time until November, but if you want a preview of how the electoral vote count for the presidential race is shaping up, there are several good sites out there. Here are the latest electoral counts up according to several, based on state-by-state polling:
Presidential Polls: Obama - 303, McCain - 235.
Electoral-Vote: Obama - 299, McCain - 239 (counting ties as half each).
Election Projection: Obama - 304 , McCain - 234.
FiveThirtyEight: Obama - 273, McCain - 265 (rounded).
Real Clear Politics: Obama - 272, McCain - 266.
Worse yet for Republicans, if we deduct the state where the polls are close, that widens Obama's lead. His lead on RCP goes from 6 to 38 when the toss ups are tossed out. The polls also show up to 9 Senate pickups for the Democrats. And in a final troubling fact for the GOP, if nothing changes, this will only get worse. People are more likely to go to the trouble of voting, or working to get their friends to go vote, if they think their side is going to win. So the longer it looks like a Republican defeat, the more likely Republicans won't bother.
Republican advisers no doubt understand this as well, which means if they have a few scandalous bombs to drop, they are likely to drop one soon. I'm pretty curious to see what they have. So far all anyone has really done is shoot down his associates, and most of them were pretty low anyway. No one has really taken a shot at him yet, and I think they are going to have to if they want anything to stick with independents.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
4th Grader Suspended for Shell Casing: Once Again Zero Tolerance Means Zero Intelligence
In yet another example of the stupidity of zero tolerance, and of the almost comical hoplophobia in some segments of American society, a 4th grader has been suspended for 5 days for, brace yourself, bringing to school an empty shell casing from a blank. It was given to him by an officer at a Memorial day service. The child is from a multigenerational military family, and was proud to have the souvenir. Now he gets this as a reward:
"According to the family, a school official said on Tuesday that the shell would not be returned to them. The family said they were also told that the next step might involve assigning a probation officer to Bradley."
Now isn't this a great moral message to send a child? This gift, which might have served as a reminder and an emotional connection to the service of his family and the military in general, was basically stolen from him by what is supposed to be an authority figure to be respected. And now that authority figure has given him a Draconian punishment for basically nothing. His mother summed it up nicely:
"Ordinarily, I try to think ahead about things, but to me, this was something good, not bad. It was just an empty shell, not even from a real bullet. A sharpened pencil would be more dangerous than this piece of metal."
Now, now, ma'am, what in the world are you thinking? Using logic when it comes to guns, or anything associated with them, is obviously pointless.
"According to the family, a school official said on Tuesday that the shell would not be returned to them. The family said they were also told that the next step might involve assigning a probation officer to Bradley."
Now isn't this a great moral message to send a child? This gift, which might have served as a reminder and an emotional connection to the service of his family and the military in general, was basically stolen from him by what is supposed to be an authority figure to be respected. And now that authority figure has given him a Draconian punishment for basically nothing. His mother summed it up nicely:
"Ordinarily, I try to think ahead about things, but to me, this was something good, not bad. It was just an empty shell, not even from a real bullet. A sharpened pencil would be more dangerous than this piece of metal."
Now, now, ma'am, what in the world are you thinking? Using logic when it comes to guns, or anything associated with them, is obviously pointless.
The New York Times on The Cons of Creation
How nice to see our beloved Texas Board of Education getting called out nationally by the New York Times for participating in the "strengths and weaknesses" denialist scam. It's brief and to the point, with a great finish:
"Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms."
"Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms."
Friday, June 6, 2008
Mike Gallagher: Another Fictional Chapter in Obama's Book
I continue to be amused by the flap over the sermon delivered unto Trinty Baptist Church by Father Pfleger. It was, dare I say it, boring. All we have here is a white priest who, for reasons unknown, has decided to parrot all the flawed white entitlement affirmative action arguments as fervently as might Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, who have uttered near identical words more often than I care to remember. Anyone who was shocked by this rhetoric needs to get out more.
Of course, desperate to get something, anything, horrible and mean and nasty to stick to Barak Obama, the right-wingosphere went nuts over this. But where is the substance of the argument? Some, like Mike Gallagher, seem intent to recreate the situation in his own fictional image:
"The only reason [Pfleger] referred to Hillary Clinton as basically a white supremacist is that he thought the cameras weren't working...Is it possible that Sen. Obama condones such ugly language?"
Wow. Ironclad innuendo there. It is an especially dismissible argument since Pfleger did not call Hillary a white supremacist. Again, if you watch the clip, all Pfleger did was say what practically every black activist in the 80's and 90's said when promoting affirmative action: that whites enjoy so many benefits of past racism that they've come to feel entitled to them, thus Hillary crying about Obama coming in and "stealing" the nomination from her.
That anyone thinks this is something Obama needs to explain shows just how warped our political system has become, and just how desperate the Republicans are to "get something" on Obama. They'll have to do a lot better than this.
As an aside, I have a simple solution for politicians who wish to avoid such situations. Stop aligning yourself with ministers. They all, at one time or another, say something completely absurd. That is, after all, the playing field they've chosen. Leave them to it, and get to the job of governing all of us, not just those that share your faith.
Of course, desperate to get something, anything, horrible and mean and nasty to stick to Barak Obama, the right-wingosphere went nuts over this. But where is the substance of the argument? Some, like Mike Gallagher, seem intent to recreate the situation in his own fictional image:
"The only reason [Pfleger] referred to Hillary Clinton as basically a white supremacist is that he thought the cameras weren't working...Is it possible that Sen. Obama condones such ugly language?"
Wow. Ironclad innuendo there. It is an especially dismissible argument since Pfleger did not call Hillary a white supremacist. Again, if you watch the clip, all Pfleger did was say what practically every black activist in the 80's and 90's said when promoting affirmative action: that whites enjoy so many benefits of past racism that they've come to feel entitled to them, thus Hillary crying about Obama coming in and "stealing" the nomination from her.
That anyone thinks this is something Obama needs to explain shows just how warped our political system has become, and just how desperate the Republicans are to "get something" on Obama. They'll have to do a lot better than this.
As an aside, I have a simple solution for politicians who wish to avoid such situations. Stop aligning yourself with ministers. They all, at one time or another, say something completely absurd. That is, after all, the playing field they've chosen. Leave them to it, and get to the job of governing all of us, not just those that share your faith.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Obama to Get Clinton Endorsement at Event on Friday
According to Reuters, Hillary Clinton is going to appear with and endorse Barak Obama for President of the United States on Friday, after an apparently very intense and hastily called conference call between Senator Clinton and eight senators. It looks like even Democrats can get balls if you push them far enough, and she did.
Now that Hillary has finally been set aside, as she should have been long ago, we should cogitate on the significance of what has happened. For the first time in American history (and that includes both the Northern and Southern varieties), less than 150 years after slavery ended here, less than 50 years since the civil rights act, a black man is a major party candidate for president. This is a rare gem these days for America in the eyes of the world. No longer can our talk of the freedom of movement in this country: politically, economically, socially, be ignored as just so much talk. Now we've put our votes where our mouths were, at least 40% or so of us, and nominated a black man for president.
This puts us ahead of many curves. Barak Obama shows, nay, proves, that behavior matters more than race in America. That's certainly not to say we are finished repairing race relations in America. We still have much work to do. But this is certainly a huge landmark of progress. Regardless of what one thinks of Barak Obama as a president, we can all celebrate this. It certainly has not always been true here, and it remains untrue in many places around the world. In that we can take pride.
Now that Hillary has finally been set aside, as she should have been long ago, we should cogitate on the significance of what has happened. For the first time in American history (and that includes both the Northern and Southern varieties), less than 150 years after slavery ended here, less than 50 years since the civil rights act, a black man is a major party candidate for president. This is a rare gem these days for America in the eyes of the world. No longer can our talk of the freedom of movement in this country: politically, economically, socially, be ignored as just so much talk. Now we've put our votes where our mouths were, at least 40% or so of us, and nominated a black man for president.
This puts us ahead of many curves. Barak Obama shows, nay, proves, that behavior matters more than race in America. That's certainly not to say we are finished repairing race relations in America. We still have much work to do. But this is certainly a huge landmark of progress. Regardless of what one thinks of Barak Obama as a president, we can all celebrate this. It certainly has not always been true here, and it remains untrue in many places around the world. In that we can take pride.
Texas Science - Here Come the Stealth Creationists!
Now that they've finished rewriting how we read, the State Board of Education aims its duplicitous rhetoric at the science standards, with the agenda of sneaking creationism into biology classes. But don't expect them to be honest about it. Board Vice Chairman David Bradley demonstrates:
“I hate to take the air out of their balloon. They're going to be very disappointed if they come for a fight. The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy. It's all going to be in the Texas anti-Freedom Network's mind. They are working themselves into a frenzy,”
Ah yes, a "frenzy", exactly the kind of scare word you apply to an opponent you wish to smear, not a tangential group completely off track worrying about a nonexistent problem. AS for accuracy, sure, and Pravda was really all about truth. It's all about accuracy, as long as you take "accuracy" to be something that only applies to biology, and accepts long-debunked ignorant nonsense. This is the new face of creationism folks. Ken Mercer demonstrates:
"We want our children to be able to think and understand the strengths and weaknesses of any theory. Some ultra-radical groups have not evolved to the point where they realize that the ‘theory of Evolution' is just that — a theory. Any real scientist understands there are major weaknesses in evolution...If we truly believe in intellectual debate, let's discuss those weaknesses."
There you have it, pure creationist canard first word to last. Allow me to translate the Creationese:
1) "understand the strengths and weaknesses" means "hearing debunked creationist arguments appearing nowhere in the scientific literature, and flawed either logically or factually as if they were legitimate scientific concerns". Take note that those promoting this position never ever elucidate the strengths of evolution, or the weaknesses of any other scientific theory. For people supposedly concerned only with accuracy, their focus seems a tad narrow.
2) "Some ultra-radical groups" means "people who defend and practice the scientific method." They are in a "frenzy" too. Again these are just smear words, intended not to enlighten, but to win points with a political audience.
3) "the ‘theory of Evolution' is just that — a theory" is simply a way to appeal to the ignorant. There is no kind way to put this one, because anyone who has taken a basic science course knows that "theory" in science does not mean "a wild-assed drunken guess", but rather "a hypothesis with broad explanatory power and evidenciary backing". It is equivocation, plain and simple, the same as if someone had asked "If Jesus is the lamb of God, then where is his wool?". Yet Mercer has a degree in biology from the University of Texas at Austin. Mistake or lie? You do the math.
4) "Any real scientist" means "a scientist, or at least someone who sounds like one to ignorant ears (ie Kent Hovind), who gives debunked creationist arguments credence". Creationists love the argument from authority, for it fits right in with the authoritarian religious viewpoint they are always denying. They parade around any PhD they can find who agrees with them, even if they don't really have expertise in the relevant field. Yet we are supposed to give their views credence because of the credentials. Yet when I raise the point that 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields think their hand-picked PhDs' views are a steaming pile, suddenly it is evidence, and not credentials, that are supposed to interest me.
5) "there are major weaknesses in evolution" means "there has not been a complete, detailed, step-by-step evolutionary explanation demonstrated for each and every biological circumstance", and that is when they are being honest and not holding evolution responsible for explaining gravity and time as well, things far outside it's purview. Again, letting their absolutist religious viewpoints show, creationists have a very hard time dealing with the uncertainty and step-by-step process of science. To them, any lack of knowledge implies total lack of knowledge. It's akin to dismissing any doctor as incompetent who cannot cure every condition.
6) "If we truly believe in intellectual debate, let's discuss those weaknesses" is another equivocation. The intellectual debate scientists promote is done in the scientific journals, not school-room debate teams, and for good reason. It takes far more knowledge to form a good case worth debating than it does to learn basic material. Good pedagogy has debate at the top of the knowledge food chain, instruction at the bottom. Tae Kwon Do students do not debate the master, they learn from him. Creationists want to turn this system on its head because they know they stand a far greater chance with an audience of ignorant and disinterested school kids than they do with people who will see through their nonsense.
One sees these arguments over and over again from creationists and their supporters. It is a rhetorical fingerprint. As they used to say about a certain dissembling president, ignore what he says, watch what he does. Thusly deal with politicians on the subject of biology when you hear them say something like this:
“There are issues in the evolutionary process that have been proven wrong...”
Since neither Bradley nor anyone else claiming to have disproven an aspect of evolutionary theory has won the Nobel Prize lately, as such an accomplishment would warrant, it is safe to assume the statement is just more hogwash. And if all that fails to persuade, consider Bradley's Freudian significance in this choice of words:
“Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions.”
Yes, that is exactly what these guys want. They want students to jump to conclusions on the subject of evolution, because those conclusions are liable to be wrong, as most such conclusions are. A studious, patient, evidenciary approach is the last thing these guys want. Why in world have we put people so antagonistic to good science in charge of science education, I will never understand. But that's no reason we should allow them to get by with all this deceptive language. Make no mistake, the agenda is to get creationism into science classes, one tiny step at a time. Don't let them get away with it.
“I hate to take the air out of their balloon. They're going to be very disappointed if they come for a fight. The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy. It's all going to be in the Texas anti-Freedom Network's mind. They are working themselves into a frenzy,”
Ah yes, a "frenzy", exactly the kind of scare word you apply to an opponent you wish to smear, not a tangential group completely off track worrying about a nonexistent problem. AS for accuracy, sure, and Pravda was really all about truth. It's all about accuracy, as long as you take "accuracy" to be something that only applies to biology, and accepts long-debunked ignorant nonsense. This is the new face of creationism folks. Ken Mercer demonstrates:
"We want our children to be able to think and understand the strengths and weaknesses of any theory. Some ultra-radical groups have not evolved to the point where they realize that the ‘theory of Evolution' is just that — a theory. Any real scientist understands there are major weaknesses in evolution...If we truly believe in intellectual debate, let's discuss those weaknesses."
There you have it, pure creationist canard first word to last. Allow me to translate the Creationese:
1) "understand the strengths and weaknesses" means "hearing debunked creationist arguments appearing nowhere in the scientific literature, and flawed either logically or factually as if they were legitimate scientific concerns". Take note that those promoting this position never ever elucidate the strengths of evolution, or the weaknesses of any other scientific theory. For people supposedly concerned only with accuracy, their focus seems a tad narrow.
2) "Some ultra-radical groups" means "people who defend and practice the scientific method." They are in a "frenzy" too. Again these are just smear words, intended not to enlighten, but to win points with a political audience.
3) "the ‘theory of Evolution' is just that — a theory" is simply a way to appeal to the ignorant. There is no kind way to put this one, because anyone who has taken a basic science course knows that "theory" in science does not mean "a wild-assed drunken guess", but rather "a hypothesis with broad explanatory power and evidenciary backing". It is equivocation, plain and simple, the same as if someone had asked "If Jesus is the lamb of God, then where is his wool?". Yet Mercer has a degree in biology from the University of Texas at Austin. Mistake or lie? You do the math.
4) "Any real scientist" means "a scientist, or at least someone who sounds like one to ignorant ears (ie Kent Hovind), who gives debunked creationist arguments credence". Creationists love the argument from authority, for it fits right in with the authoritarian religious viewpoint they are always denying. They parade around any PhD they can find who agrees with them, even if they don't really have expertise in the relevant field. Yet we are supposed to give their views credence because of the credentials. Yet when I raise the point that 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields think their hand-picked PhDs' views are a steaming pile, suddenly it is evidence, and not credentials, that are supposed to interest me.
5) "there are major weaknesses in evolution" means "there has not been a complete, detailed, step-by-step evolutionary explanation demonstrated for each and every biological circumstance", and that is when they are being honest and not holding evolution responsible for explaining gravity and time as well, things far outside it's purview. Again, letting their absolutist religious viewpoints show, creationists have a very hard time dealing with the uncertainty and step-by-step process of science. To them, any lack of knowledge implies total lack of knowledge. It's akin to dismissing any doctor as incompetent who cannot cure every condition.
6) "If we truly believe in intellectual debate, let's discuss those weaknesses" is another equivocation. The intellectual debate scientists promote is done in the scientific journals, not school-room debate teams, and for good reason. It takes far more knowledge to form a good case worth debating than it does to learn basic material. Good pedagogy has debate at the top of the knowledge food chain, instruction at the bottom. Tae Kwon Do students do not debate the master, they learn from him. Creationists want to turn this system on its head because they know they stand a far greater chance with an audience of ignorant and disinterested school kids than they do with people who will see through their nonsense.
One sees these arguments over and over again from creationists and their supporters. It is a rhetorical fingerprint. As they used to say about a certain dissembling president, ignore what he says, watch what he does. Thusly deal with politicians on the subject of biology when you hear them say something like this:
“There are issues in the evolutionary process that have been proven wrong...”
Since neither Bradley nor anyone else claiming to have disproven an aspect of evolutionary theory has won the Nobel Prize lately, as such an accomplishment would warrant, it is safe to assume the statement is just more hogwash. And if all that fails to persuade, consider Bradley's Freudian significance in this choice of words:
“Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions.”
Yes, that is exactly what these guys want. They want students to jump to conclusions on the subject of evolution, because those conclusions are liable to be wrong, as most such conclusions are. A studious, patient, evidenciary approach is the last thing these guys want. Why in world have we put people so antagonistic to good science in charge of science education, I will never understand. But that's no reason we should allow them to get by with all this deceptive language. Make no mistake, the agenda is to get creationism into science classes, one tiny step at a time. Don't let them get away with it.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Why Conservative Arguments on Gay Marriage Fall on Deaf Ears: Kevin McCullough Demonstrates
Obviously the social conservatives are up in arms about the gay marriage ruling. But their arguments don't seem to have any effect on those who don't already agree with them. The reason for this is simple: they refuse to deal with reality, and instead insist on basing their views on premises that are laughably ridiculous to anyone who actually knows anything about gay people, or the animal kingdom at large. Garbage in, garbage out. If you refuse to deal with people as they are, and treat them instead as you wish they were, it is easy to see that results will be poor. Ironically, that is the very argument conservatives throw at liberals on issues like reform of prisoners, and here it comes home to bite the conservatives on the ass on the issue of gay marriage.
Enter Kevin McCullough, to give us a nice walk-through of all the fictions and inconsistent reasoning social conservatives hide behind when it comes to gay marriage. Right out of the chute McCullough hits us with a cornucopia of confusion.
"The sexual behavior that one chooses to engage in, will never be equal to the status of a person's race. Confusing these two truly different concepts is dishonest. And those who claim otherwise do so for manipulated outcome to redesign society.
Normal people have understood this since the beginning of time."
It is a testimony to the resistance social conservatives have to acknowledging facts that conflict with their ideology that someone in 2008 could still think gayness is based on chosen sexual behavior. One could make quite an effective case that homosexuals were all insane based on such a premise, given the drawbacks of such a choice. Oh, but then there's that little problem of a complete lack of evidence for that.
It is also a testimony to their logical deficiencies that they'd think it matters. The issue at hand is the attributes society decides should be off-limits with regard to discrimination in the law. There is nothing about this that requires said attributes to be immutable. After all, religion is another trait deemed so off limits. It would seem it is McCullough and his crew that are dishonestly confusing different concepts for a manipulated outcome.
And as if to cement the case that McCullough's is an ignorant, almost childish description of the issue, we get his "normal" crack at the end of paragraph one. I confess I don't think I've seen an appeal to "normal people" since the 3rd grade. Needless to say, McCullough and his cohorts have had no better luck over the years in defining such a term as my cohorts on the playground did. It's use is a confession of a lack of intelligent argumentation. The rest of McCullough's ill-thought out article follows in similar regard, using Coulteristic histrionics and worn out social conservative canards.
We get the civic court canard, as we are told the California court is an activist one, tyrannically forcing its view on society. Earth to Kevin: that's what courts do in a constitutional democracy. That's what the "constitutional" part means: limiting what the majority can do. McCullough and crew no doubt know this, since they never scream "activist court" when the courts rule in their favor. It's pure politics.
We get the "preventing my force is force" argument. McCullough would use force to prevent homosexuals from being married. The court now said this is not allowed. Thus, in typical theocratic style, McCullough and crew interpret this as inflicting force on them. The way he talks, one would think the ruling said that all people MUST enter homosexual unions. The idea of just leaving people alone to enter unions of their choice is anathema to McCullough.
We get the slippery slope canard, where this decision is going to lead to polygamy and/or group marriage. The questions never answered are "why, and what would be the harm?" Over and over again people like McCullough jump up and down about the horrors of having marriages other than one-man-one-woman, yet they are never, ever, able to objectively describe what those horrors are. Don't expect any different in this article, he never gets there either.
We get more of the lack of understanding of what it means to be a homosexual:
"Choosing to act on those urges - defines the individual's sexual orientation."
No, no, a thousand times no. It is the desire, the urge, the attraction to others of the same sex, that makes one homosexual, just like it is the attraction to those of the opposite sex that makes one heterosexual. A priest who is attracted to women but stays true to his vows of celibacy is just as much of a heterosexual as I am. On the other hand, an actor (say Heath Ledger) playing a gay character in a movie may make some of the choices in question, but that doesn't make him gay. This really is very simple, but again, the dishonesty abounds on the right side of the debate, simply for political purposes.
We get the immutability-from-god argument, with the usual scientific ignorance we've come to expect from the crew that thinks Intelligent Design is science:
"A woman who is African American, can no more be a white woman the next day regardless of how much she wished to (if she even would). Likewise a Latino man could not go to bed one night at 5'8" and wake up the next morning to find he was black, 7'2'', and the starting center for his local NBA franchise. Race and other truly genetic based parts of life - skin color, height, shape and forms of features are pieces of ourselves that only God Himself had the choice in determining."
McCullough, as he's shown in other articles, is completely DNA ignorant. The fact that it is conceivable that a black woman would undergo genetic manipulation and be a white women the next day is unfathomable to him, as is the medical operation done to potentially 8 foot tall people to keep them at a more common height. McCullough still lives in the dark ages, where animals have divine essence, and any tinkering with them is "playing god".
"Yet one overwhelming fact stares them in the face at every turn. God designed it so that only the sexual union of a man and a woman can create a life - and therefore extend society and civilization."
Ah, the ignore-reality canard. I guess McCullough has missed all the medical advances in the last, oh, 50 years or so that allow people to produce children with a variety of sexual unions, or none whatsoever. Or perhaps it is just another case of ignoring them because they run counter to his ideology. All it takes is an egg and a sperm and a warm place to grow, and even those barriers are liable to come down in the near decades.
Even granting the premise, perhaps McCullough forgot the fallacy of composition, that what is true for individuals is not necessarily true for groups, and vic versa. Human society only needs SOME people to form egg-sperm unions to extend society and civilization. Having some couples form that cannot bear children does not impede that, and given the problems with overpopulation the earth has, having more such couples might be optimal to the survival of the species.
And finally, in the spirit of Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggert, and the many other rabid anti-gay proponents who turned out to be gay themselves, we get the ubiquitous "down the throat" analogy:
"Ultimately the citizens of California are smarter than the four arrogant black robes who sought to push an agenda down the throats of the voters."
I note with great interest the frequency of such vivid analogies in anti-gay screeds. It ranks right up there with Ann Coulter's obsession with anal sex and sex with animals. Perhaps they need to be told that if someone with an attraction to the same sex pretends it doesn't exist and instead chooses to engage in heterosexual activity, that does not make one a heterosexual. It makes one a homosexual in denial of reality. They've certainly got the latter down.
Enter Kevin McCullough, to give us a nice walk-through of all the fictions and inconsistent reasoning social conservatives hide behind when it comes to gay marriage. Right out of the chute McCullough hits us with a cornucopia of confusion.
"The sexual behavior that one chooses to engage in, will never be equal to the status of a person's race. Confusing these two truly different concepts is dishonest. And those who claim otherwise do so for manipulated outcome to redesign society.
Normal people have understood this since the beginning of time."
It is a testimony to the resistance social conservatives have to acknowledging facts that conflict with their ideology that someone in 2008 could still think gayness is based on chosen sexual behavior. One could make quite an effective case that homosexuals were all insane based on such a premise, given the drawbacks of such a choice. Oh, but then there's that little problem of a complete lack of evidence for that.
It is also a testimony to their logical deficiencies that they'd think it matters. The issue at hand is the attributes society decides should be off-limits with regard to discrimination in the law. There is nothing about this that requires said attributes to be immutable. After all, religion is another trait deemed so off limits. It would seem it is McCullough and his crew that are dishonestly confusing different concepts for a manipulated outcome.
And as if to cement the case that McCullough's is an ignorant, almost childish description of the issue, we get his "normal" crack at the end of paragraph one. I confess I don't think I've seen an appeal to "normal people" since the 3rd grade. Needless to say, McCullough and his cohorts have had no better luck over the years in defining such a term as my cohorts on the playground did. It's use is a confession of a lack of intelligent argumentation. The rest of McCullough's ill-thought out article follows in similar regard, using Coulteristic histrionics and worn out social conservative canards.
We get the civic court canard, as we are told the California court is an activist one, tyrannically forcing its view on society. Earth to Kevin: that's what courts do in a constitutional democracy. That's what the "constitutional" part means: limiting what the majority can do. McCullough and crew no doubt know this, since they never scream "activist court" when the courts rule in their favor. It's pure politics.
We get the "preventing my force is force" argument. McCullough would use force to prevent homosexuals from being married. The court now said this is not allowed. Thus, in typical theocratic style, McCullough and crew interpret this as inflicting force on them. The way he talks, one would think the ruling said that all people MUST enter homosexual unions. The idea of just leaving people alone to enter unions of their choice is anathema to McCullough.
We get the slippery slope canard, where this decision is going to lead to polygamy and/or group marriage. The questions never answered are "why, and what would be the harm?" Over and over again people like McCullough jump up and down about the horrors of having marriages other than one-man-one-woman, yet they are never, ever, able to objectively describe what those horrors are. Don't expect any different in this article, he never gets there either.
We get more of the lack of understanding of what it means to be a homosexual:
"Choosing to act on those urges - defines the individual's sexual orientation."
No, no, a thousand times no. It is the desire, the urge, the attraction to others of the same sex, that makes one homosexual, just like it is the attraction to those of the opposite sex that makes one heterosexual. A priest who is attracted to women but stays true to his vows of celibacy is just as much of a heterosexual as I am. On the other hand, an actor (say Heath Ledger) playing a gay character in a movie may make some of the choices in question, but that doesn't make him gay. This really is very simple, but again, the dishonesty abounds on the right side of the debate, simply for political purposes.
We get the immutability-from-god argument, with the usual scientific ignorance we've come to expect from the crew that thinks Intelligent Design is science:
"A woman who is African American, can no more be a white woman the next day regardless of how much she wished to (if she even would). Likewise a Latino man could not go to bed one night at 5'8" and wake up the next morning to find he was black, 7'2'', and the starting center for his local NBA franchise. Race and other truly genetic based parts of life - skin color, height, shape and forms of features are pieces of ourselves that only God Himself had the choice in determining."
McCullough, as he's shown in other articles, is completely DNA ignorant. The fact that it is conceivable that a black woman would undergo genetic manipulation and be a white women the next day is unfathomable to him, as is the medical operation done to potentially 8 foot tall people to keep them at a more common height. McCullough still lives in the dark ages, where animals have divine essence, and any tinkering with them is "playing god".
"Yet one overwhelming fact stares them in the face at every turn. God designed it so that only the sexual union of a man and a woman can create a life - and therefore extend society and civilization."
Ah, the ignore-reality canard. I guess McCullough has missed all the medical advances in the last, oh, 50 years or so that allow people to produce children with a variety of sexual unions, or none whatsoever. Or perhaps it is just another case of ignoring them because they run counter to his ideology. All it takes is an egg and a sperm and a warm place to grow, and even those barriers are liable to come down in the near decades.
Even granting the premise, perhaps McCullough forgot the fallacy of composition, that what is true for individuals is not necessarily true for groups, and vic versa. Human society only needs SOME people to form egg-sperm unions to extend society and civilization. Having some couples form that cannot bear children does not impede that, and given the problems with overpopulation the earth has, having more such couples might be optimal to the survival of the species.
And finally, in the spirit of Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggert, and the many other rabid anti-gay proponents who turned out to be gay themselves, we get the ubiquitous "down the throat" analogy:
"Ultimately the citizens of California are smarter than the four arrogant black robes who sought to push an agenda down the throats of the voters."
I note with great interest the frequency of such vivid analogies in anti-gay screeds. It ranks right up there with Ann Coulter's obsession with anal sex and sex with animals. Perhaps they need to be told that if someone with an attraction to the same sex pretends it doesn't exist and instead chooses to engage in heterosexual activity, that does not make one a heterosexual. It makes one a homosexual in denial of reality. They've certainly got the latter down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
