Abstinence education is unsafe

A good engineering design is fault tolerant. A designer must realize that components are not always reliable and design accordingly. A suspension bridge shouldn't fail because a single cable breaks.

A good software design fails gracefully. In other words, when faced with unexpected or intelligible input, the program reacts in a predictable manner. The case of the USS Yorktown going dead in the water when a sailor left an unexpected zero in a database field is a great example of software that was not well-designed.

When it might be possible for a piece of equipment to be put in a state where injury or death could occur to the user, an engineer must take this into account. As a simple example, my coffee grinder can't be run with the lid off. There's an interlock that prevents it from turning on when it is possible for my hands to be near the blades.

Lastly, a good designer must take into the possibility of human error. Any potentially lethal piece of equipment, even any policy which could lead to damaging consequences, that does not take this into account is a poor one. This is why we mandate that truck drivers work at most eight hour shifts -- we acknowledge that a tired human being at the wheel is unreliable.

I guess this is why abstinence-only sex education pisses me off: it fails all these criteria. It is not fault tolerant, nor does it fail gracefully. If a kid screws up and has sex before being really ready for it, then it's more likely that he or she will wind up with an STD or a bun in the oven while still in high school (or earlier).

Abstinence education also doesn't acknowledge the possibility of human error. In my last blog post, I quoted the rather repugnant Jill Stanek where she said in a recent column decrying the HPV vaccine that she can't understand why a "virtuous young woman" would want to marry a man who wasn't a virgin. Really? She honestly can't fathom why? One can't help but wonder what Stanek's reasons for getting married actually are.

Abstinence educators are always quick to quote condom failure rates (they almost always use misleading and inaccurate information, when it's not outright falsehoods, but that's a blog post for a different day). What you never hear them cite is the failure rate for a vow of celibacy. Abstinence-only programs do not protect kids from STDs.

Not only do the religious conservatives that push abstinence-only education completely ignore the existence of gay kids, but they're pushing an unsafe agenda. There is no other activity in our society where we consider deliberate ignorance a safety strategy.

All of this is because these religiously-based programs aren't intended to stop STDs and unwanted pregnancy. They're intended to prevent sex. They're intended to prevent sin.

I her book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Michelle Goldberg tells of a speech given by celibacy advocate Pam Stenzel. Stenzel was appointed by President Bush to an abstinence task force at the Department of Health and Human Services. This is how Goldberg describes Stenzel's speech at the 2003 Reclaiming America for Christ conference:

Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she’d had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane. The man had asked about abstinence education’s success rate—a question she regarded as risible. "What he’s asking," she said, "is does it work. You know what? Doesn’t matter. Cause guess what. My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public schools’ job should not be to keep teens from having sex." Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, "Our job should be to tell kids the truth!"

"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you, to commit yourself to truth, not what works! To truth! I don’t care if it works, because at the end of the day I’m not answering to you, I'm answering to God!"

Later in the same talk, she explained further why what "works" isn’t what’s important—and gave some insight into what she means by "truth." "Let me tell you something, people of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy. I will not teach my child that they can sin safely."

These are the sorts of people Republicans want to turn our country over to. People who aren't interested in the actual effects of their policies, so long as they are consistent with their supernatural beliefs.

Do Christians really want women to die?

ArchPundit reads WorldNetDaily so I don't have to. Today, he linked to a column written by nutjob Jill Stanek, who in turn wrote about how horrible the HPV vaccine is. I'm almost starting to think that conservative Christians want there to be horrible consequences for sex, because it makes it dangerous. Stanek says:

Aside from the fact Winokur has no business telling other people's children about "precautions" to avoid pitfalls of promiscuous sex, her advice stinks. Let's not address the real cause. Let's try to avoid the ramifications of the cause.

Winokur or People magazine are fueling the exploitation and health demise of women by refusing to acknowledge the only full-proof [sic] way to avoid HPV or cervical cancer: abstinence.

Let's ignore the fact that she calls any sex before marriage "promiscuous." No, Jill, actually, that's not the only full-proof way to avoid HPV. Twenty percent of women are forced to have sex before they reach their twenties. So I guess you have to add "not getting raped" to that list of "full-proof" (dumbass) ways to avoid HPV.

Fig has pointed out that HPV can live on surfaces for a short while. It's possible to infect yourself by touching an HPV-laden surface, and then touching yourself. So we also have to add "not touching things" to the list of foolproof ways to avoid HPV.

Then Stanek gets into full-self-righteous mode and gets all judgmental on the slutties:

There is only one good reason a virtuous young woman should consider getting the HPV vaccination. That is if the man she plans to marry has had sex with other women, meaning he could be infected with HPV or an array of other STDs. I don't know why a virtuous young woman would want to marry such a man, but there you go.

Seriously, Stanek has absolutely no idea why a woman would want to marry a man who has had sex? "I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you. What, you're not a virgin? Get lost, tramp!" Is this really what goes through the mind of conservative Christians? Fewer than 10% of Americans are virgins when they get married. So when a woman meets a guy, she has a roughly 90% chance of picking one that has had sex at some point in his life. Those really aren't such great odds when we're talking about a disease that's (a) incredibly common, (b) easy to catch, (c) easy to prevent, and (d) can kill you.

UPDATE: Stanek shows up in the comments and largely apologizes for her attitude towards non-virgins at the end. What she doesn't mention is that many thousands of women are exposed to this virus, even though they do everything "right." This is a simple way to protect a woman from a virus that she is very likely to be exposed to during her life, possibly even against her will. Remember, even, that the adultery rate in American marriage is roughly 40%.

Doughnuts and people-watching

(This was originally written while I was away for Christmas. I'm only now getting around to posting it. Yes, I really am that lazy.)

I have a couple of hours here in Chicago's Union Station. So I'm killing time sitting in the food court with a cup of coffee and my first-ever Krispy Kreme doughnut. (Not bad, but over-hyped.)

There's a restaurant right next to my seat with an older Asian man and a younger Asian woman hawking their food in broken English. "Yummy, yummy, right here" is his line and he's been repeating it every thirty seconds for the past hour. "You try sample" is her cry to the passers-by, along with a proffered toothpick topped with some sort of meat.

I just watched a guy walk up and order an egg roll and something else that I don't know what it is because he only pointed to it. The name of the restaurant? Kelly's Cajun Grill. Now that's fusion cuisine.

Aren't you tired of all this HPV talk by now?

(This was written while I was traveling recently. I'm only now posting it.)

Matt brings up the issue of the HPV vaccine. (As always, the good discussions happen while I'm out of town.) There seems to be a sentiment among many of the commenters there that the vaccine should not be required to attend school, and I'm not sure I disagree. I am, however, confused about why any parent would not want their daughter to have this vaccine. So I'm trying to think of likely reasons.

1. Cost. The virus costs approximately $350. As a potentially life-saving measure, it's cheap at the price. I suppose for those genuinely just squeaking by, the cost might be prohibitive. For any middle-class family, the cost shouldn't be a significant issue.
2. Anti-vaccination hysteria. As Orac has long pointed out, there is a small, but very vocal, contingent of people crowing about how dangerous vaccines are. Usually, it is that the MMR vaccine causes autism. First it was mercury, and when that was shown not to be true, the cause is unnamed "toxins" in the vaccine. So there are probably a number of people averse to one of "Big Pharma's" treatments. Unfortunately, it's irrational behavior like this that has caused a recent surge in dangerous, yet preventable, diseases like measles.
3. A desire to avoid a perceived risk. I guess this is the reason I can understand the best. The vaccine is new, and that makes people uncomfortable. As I understand it, the vaccine is extremely safe -- to the point where no serious reactions were reported in the clinical trials for Gardasil.
4. Treating an STD. This is what I think is behind pretty much all the controversy about this vaccine, and it is the reason that distresses me the most. HPV is largely a sexually transmitted disease, and it seems that conservative Christians are opposed to it because it will remove one of the Lord's punishments for slutty women. This was abundantly clear when they were proclaiming how HIV/AIDS was God's punishment for gay men and His cure for homosexuality. As Michelle Goldberg pointed out in her book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, some abstinence-only proponents have made it clear that preventing unwanted pregnancy and STD's are not the goal of their movement, but rather their goal is preventing people from sinning by having premarital sex. I really do think that if this vaccine treated eyeball cancer rather than a cancer of the naughty parts, it wouldn't be even slightly controversial.

So let me point out that HPV:

• causes cervical cancer, the second most common cancer among women, worldwide (cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of death for women in the United States)
• causes anal cancer (while that may make you snigger, it is important for gay men to know; a man who has sex with men is five times more likely to get anal cancer than a woman is to get cervical cancer)
• causes penile cancer (fortunately rare)
• causes genital warts
• can be spread by sexual contact (by the time they reach college, one in five women have been forced to have sex)
• can even be spread by casual contact

In a private email to me (and I hope she will forgive me for sharing this here), Fig wrote:

I think Merck made a HUGE marketing error. What they should have said was:

Hey, guys - did you know that this year alone 1500 men will get penis cancer? It looks like this [horrible yucky picture]. And the only cure? Surgery. Penis and testicle off and scraped down to the bone. You will pee sitting down for the rest of your life. You'll never have sex again. People in locker rooms will sneak looks at your deformed body and missing maleness and be horrified.

But there is hope! If this vaccine is administered to all boys and girls, penile cancer rates will be slashed by 90%.

If I ever get off my lazy ass and see a doctor, I may have to get this vaccine myself.

UPDATE: This post was picked up by Buzzfeed, so welcome everyone coming from there. This was one in a series of posts I did on the HPV vaccine. (I don't normally harp on about things like this.) If you were interested in this, you may also wish to read:

1. School Boards and Vaccinations -- the post over at It's Matt's World that started it all
2. Vaccinations, Revisited -- the discussion continues
3. More vaccine talk -- where I jumped on the bandwagon (Long, but worth the read.)
4. Do Christians really want women to die? -- last in the series, about a local conservative who refuses to believe there's any reason a woman should get this vaccine unless she's a slut.

Local troublemakers

This is weird. While I was away for the holidays, John Bambenek's page was resurrected from it's deleted status at Wikipedia, then quickly put through the deletion process again. Weirdly, there were three sockpuppet accounts created during the process: JohnBambenek, ChrisPerardi, and Narciblog. Mr. Bambenek used to edit at Wikipedia under the userid Jbamb, but appears to have left early last year, so he does not appear to be the person behind the JohnBambenek account. The ChrisPerardi account was blocked because it was a sockpuppet of JohnBambenek. The Narciblog account was blocked for being a troll, though I suspect it was a similar sockpuppet.

I just wanted to state for the record that the Narciblog account at Wikipedia was not me.

Why Obama will not win

Obama has recently started to explore a run for the Presidency in 2008. I've always said that he seems like a smart guy and it's good to have him the Senate, but there is not a chance in hell he could ever win the Presidency. Here's an excellent example of why:

This morning, Fox News featured a segment highlighting a right-wing report that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended an Islamic "madrassa" school as a 6-year-old child.

Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy pointed out that madrassas are "financed by Saudis" and "teach this Wahhabism which pretty much hates us," then declared, "The big question is: was that on the curriculum back then?" Later, a caller to the show questioned whether Obama’s schooling means that "maybe he doesn’t consider terrorists the enemy." Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade responded, "Well, we’ll see about that."

The Fox hosts failed to correct the false claim that Obama is Muslim. One caller, referring to Obama, said, "I think a Muslim would be fine in the presidency, better than Hillary. At least you know what the Muslims are up to." Anchor Gretchen Carlson responded, "We want to be clear, too, that this isn’t all Muslims, of course, we would only be concerned about the kind that want to blow us up."

Well, that's nice of Carlson. I'm sure she's not "concerned" about all black men, either, just the ones that want to break into her house.

Raise your hand if you're surprised this aired on FOX News.

More vaccine talk

I'm back from traveling again. I didn't have reliable Internet access, but I do have some blog posts I'll put up soon. There is one the recent discussion over at It's Matt's World on the HPV vaccine, but Fig wrote this and asked me to post it here. As it's in better shape than what I've got, I'm putting this up forthwith. (The last time she asked me to post something here, it wound up getting published in a newspaper. Sure, the local community college newspaper, but at least someone is paying attention.)

I realize that I'm chiming in several days too late, I felt that as an MD with an MPH [Master of Public Health -N] who has been a sex educator I should clarify a couple of things and chip in my $0.02.

First let me say Mr Bambenek is correct. It is an HPV vaccine, not a cervical cancer vaccine. Merck markets the drug as "against cervical cancer" because of smart marketing strategy. They could market it "against genital warts" or "against penile cancer" (nearly 100% of penile cancer is caused by HPV). For a variety of reasons, including the fact that most people haven't heard of HPV, women die of cervical cancer, warts are yucky, and most men don't want to think about the fact that the treatment of choice of penile cancer is surgical removal, Merck made the decision to push the drug as "against cervical cancer." I would take strong objection, however, to his statement that "the medical community refuses to describe this vaccine by what it actually does." The medical community calls it the HPV vaccine and we discuss it with our patients as "a vaccine that offers protection from certain strains of the virus responsible for cervical cancer." We don't call it a cervical cancer vaccine. We also don't usually discuss "the stomach flu," "spinal meningitis," or "head colds" or any of the other odd names the lay press uses. Please do not assume that the medical community uses the same terminology as you see in the newspaper or in drug ads or that the medical community goes hand in hand with drug companies.

Cervical cancer is not to be taken lightly. In 2007 it will cause nearly 10,000 cases of cancer and more than 3,500 deaths. This comes at a considerable cost to the economy. There are approximately 3.5 million abnormal Pap results experienced by American women each year, most of which are caused by HPV infections. These abnormal Pap results require women to seek follow-up care which ranges from additional Pap tests (moving from once every 3 years to once every 3 months) to more invasive procedures such as colposcopies and biopsies. This additional care costs an estimated $6 billion in annual health care expenditures. We pay for that. We pay for it through higher insurance costs, higher hospital charges and higher taxes to pay for those without insurance, and loss of productive time at work for these women. One of the compelling reasons to consider getting this vaccine, based on cost effectiveness analyses covered in public health journals in the last year, is that even at $360 per person for a full course and even though it only is against four strains of HPV (two of which cause 70% of all cancers, two of which cause 90% of all warts) so it offers protection -not immunity- from cervical cancer, a significant decrease of the disease burden in the community would be cost saving within the foreseeable future.

While I understand Mr. Bambenek's point that abstinence would be effective in preventing HPV, so far abstinence programs have not be shown to be effective. If he has a great idea of a cost effective way to ensure that all children that are covered by the Unit 4 school board were not going to have sex at all I and all other public health professionals would be interested in hearing it. However, even if tomorrow we could enact a program that would ensure that all people were abstinent until marriage (leaving aside the issue of whether this is a good thing), there would still be an infectious pool of HPV. With the large reservoir of HPV in the population, even if a young woman was abstinent until marriage she still could contact HPV from her partner.

I met my close friend L in medical school. L strongly believes that there should be no sex before marriage. She abstained. She married a very religious man who had gone through a "troubled time" in his adolescence and then, as he described it, had "seen the light and been saved." At her next routine pap, L found that she had cervical dysplasia. 2 years later, at the age of 26, she had a hysterectomy to stop the spread of her invasive cancer. Here is a woman who did everything "right" by Mr. Bambenek's standards and she still suffered the results of HPV infection. L now has an adopted son and daughter - she is raising them with the belief that one should be abstinent until marriage...and getting them both vaccinated against HPV as soon as they are age eligible. Given her experience, she feels that the vaccine should be mandatory to save other people from what happened to her. I realize that anecdote is not data, but I find that to be a compelling story. Further more, as I'm sure Mr. Bambenek is aware, not all sex is consensual sex. A girl could be as pure as driven snow, but if she is raped she can contact a sexually transmitted disease. Some of these diseases can be treated with antibiotics, some of these diseases are fatal. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to assure the woman who was raped that, due to her immunized status, she has a far lower risk of contacting one of those diseases?

Obviously requiring HPV vaccinations in public schools raises questions about the scope of parental autonomy and the role of political advocacy in determining how preventive health measures are implemented. All 50 states allow parents to opt out of vaccinating their children for medical reasons, 48 states allow opting out for religious reasons, 20 states (including Michigan, where I currently live, but not Illinois) allow opt out for philosophical reasons. Unlike what Mr. Bambenek states in his article, however, mandatory vaccines are to prevent easily communicable diseases or even to protect against the disease itself. Mandatory school vaccines further society's interest in ensuring that people are protected from disease throughout their lives; they are a highly efficient means of eradicating disease in the larger community. Tetanus has been mentioned several times earlier in these comments and is an excellent point. It is non communicable, we require the vaccine. Why? Because it is cheaper to vaccinate everyone than to pay for the health care costs associated with tetanus infection. Why do we mandate it (and have the state pick up the cost for those who can't pay) as opposed to just encouraging people to get it? Mandatory vaccination address the issue of income disparities - the people who are least likely to get the vaccine are also the people who are least likely to be able to afford to pay for their intensive medical care. Nobody objects to the MMR vaccine. What's it for? Measles. That makes sense, they can cause a horrible encephalitis and kill you. Mumps. Also makes sense - mumps can leave men sterile. Rubella. Also known as 3 day measles - a time limited mild viral infection that gives you a rash, conjunctivitis, swollen glands, and a low grade fever. Not fatal, not even particularly debilitating. So why do we immunize against rubella? Because if a pregnant woman becomes infected the fetus is at huge risk for growth retardation; mental retardation; malformations of the heart and eyes; deafness; and liver, spleen, and bone marrow problems. Again, it's a cost effectiveness issue. Much cheaper to jab all kids with an immunization than to have society providing life long care for terribly damaged individuals. Chicken pox is vaccinated against for similar reasons. 47 states, including Illinois, require Hepatitis B vaccination. Hep B isn't spread by casual contact, only sexually and by injectable drug use/needle sharing. But there is no cure and a new liver is an expensive and rare commodity. So, again, it's cheaper to immunize everyone to prevent the spread of the disease and for cost saving in the future.

I'm a little unclear as to why Mr. Bambenek feels that the HPV vaccine requirement is a more burdensome invasion of privacy than any other vaccine or, for that matter, required school sports physicals. More lives are at stake here *each year* than all the lives lost on 9/11. We have suffered ridiculous and far reaching invasions of privacy due to that. Why is asking parents to be aware that a vaccine exists so onerous? I could be wrong but I doubt that anyone other than the school nurse knows who has been vaccinated and who has not. In Ann Arbor there are many parents who choose not to immunize their children. Their children are not ostracized, the teachers and other parents have no idea which children are vaccinated and which aren't, there is no secret registry of un-immunized children As I understand it, Jakobsson's bill would require the parents of girls entering 6th grade to present an immunization form or a form that stated had been informed about the connection between HPV and cervical cancer and still declined to have their child vaccinated. You don't have to get your kid immunized, you just need to prove that you are aware that the vaccine exists and you don't want it. From reading the language of the bill, it doesn't change your medical decision making capacity, it just forces parents to be aware. There is a case to be made that asking to know if a child has been immunized at all to anything is an untenable breach of medical privacy but I'm not sure why someone would care. If your daughter is immunized it doesn't mean she's sexually active and it doesn't mean she's *not* carrying the virus; if she isn't immunized it doesn't mean she is either a horrible pit of disease or abstinent. It means that she received the vaccine or not. Why is this inappropriate for schools to know? Why do parents care if schools know it?

There is the argument that if girls receive the HPV vaccine they will promptly feel that they are free to have sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere. This seems specious. I think - prior to the advertising blitz by Merck - awareness of HPV was so low that fear of contracting HPV did not stop anyone from engaging in sexual activity. Most children have no idea what they are immunized against. Most girls/women are far more worried about contacting HIV or getting pregnant than anything else. And if finding out that they are somewhat protected against a virus that may or may not cause them cancer many years down the road undoes all their teaching that they should only have sex with the person they are married to/someone they love/someone who can prove they are disease free (or whatever else they have been taught at home, at school, or at their religious institution) it seems that the teaching wasn't very effective in the first place.

This would be the "anti-harlot" platform

Back from vacation. Leaving again soon. No time to blog, but I'll make some.

Thanks to Archpundit, I've found out that John Bambenek is running for school board. This is the same John Bambenek that recently published an anti-feminist screed in the Daily Illini. When asked to produce evidence for some of the ridiculous claims he made, he quoted a conservative think tank's unscientific "study," then distorted the research of nine actual scientists.

Bambenek complained in the DI earlier this year that UIUC doesn't teach creationism in its science classes. That's not particularly surprising; crystal healing isn't taught at medical schools, either. To be fair, he has said that creationism will not be part of his platform, which he hasn't decided on yet. On the other hand, if he pushes his religious ideology into the schools, I don't care if it was part of the platform he ran on or not.

Not surprisingly, Bambenek is against any sex ed other than demanding celibacy. In an absolutely stunning display of boneheadedness, he also seems to be against the HPV/cervical cancer vaccine. How someone can be against something that can have such horrifying consequences yet is so easy to prevent (or at least protect against) is simply beyond me.

Couldn't we just put lead in the water? It would be so much more efficient.

UPDATE I: Run! The feminists are invading. Err, um, that is I mean to say: Greetings, Feministingers!

UPDATE II: OK, to be fair, Mr. Bambenek comments that he isn't against the HPV/cervical cancer vaccine, just against calling it a "cervical cancer vaccine." Frankly, I think it's a distinction without a difference, since no one really cares much about HPV infection itself, but rather about the fact that it causes cancer. I bet if you asked random people on the street if they would get an "HPV vaccine," they'd give you a blank look. If you asked them if they would get a "cervical cancer vaccine," they'd answer in the affirmative. "Vaccine against the virus that causes cervical cancer" is a bit of a mouthful, anyway.

Merry freaking Christmas

... and a happy winter soltice, too.

As you've figured out by now, posting will be basically non-existant while I'm away over the holidays. In the meantime, go take a look at this Mallard Fillmore cartoon (scroll down). The "War on Christmas" silliness is just getting out of hand. I'd ask the author of Mallard Fillmore to produce a single example of someone being disciplined for wishing someone a Merry Christmas, except he's probably busy right now dealing with yet another of his drunk driving arrests.

Anti-gay news OK, pro-gay news not OK

Ex-Gay Watch reports that Florida's Palm Beach County School District is blocking access to a number of gay websites like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, while simultaneously allowing access to anti-gay sites like National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and Focus on the Family.

The district uses Blue Coat Systems's WebFilter software to filter out websites. It seems that Blue Coat lumps any site having anything to do with being gay as part of their "Sexuality/Alternative Lifestyles" which consists of:

Sites that provide information, promote, or cater to gays, lesbians, swingers, other sexual orientations or practices, or a particular fetish.

So being gay is now the same as having a fetish.

A 365Gay.com article says that "[The District's] computer security manager, Bob LaRocca, says the filtering software being used comply with the Child Online Protection Act and the Children Internet Protection Act." That makes no sense. COPA was blocked by the courts in 1998, ruled likely to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and went back under trial in October, 2006. CIPA, which has been found constitutional, is very specific about protecting children from porn, not GLAAD. Therefore, the district is applying this web filtering software to comply with laws that aren't relevant.

Blue Coat has a page where you can check on the filtering category for a website. I plugged a few in. Any pro-gay site falls under Sexuality/Alternative Lifestyles. Focus on the Family falls under Religion, Education, and Health. The vehemently anti-gay Illinois Family Institute, run by Porno Pete, is classified only as "Education."

Most objectionably, Love in Action is classified as Health. You may recall from a year or so ago when a teenager named Zach was forced his parents to attend their program, which claims to turn gay teens straight. The head of the program has said that, "I would rather you commit suicide than have you leave Love In Action wanting to return to the gay lifestyle." After Tennessee sued LIA, claiming they restricted LIA's patients captives access to their own medication, LIA countersued, claiming religious discrimination. The suit was settled. LIA, whose slogan is "Finding freedom in Jesus Christ," continues their anti-gay programs, but does not need a license as a mental health facility. Clearly, their classification as a Health website by Blue Coat is inaccurate.

A crazy thought

Just before the November elections, President Bush lied about keeping Secretary Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense for the rest of Bush's term. The very day after the election, Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation. The conventional wisdom seems to be that this was a tacit acknowledgment that the Iraq war is not exactly going swimmingly well, and that a change was needed.

It looks like Rumsfeld reported to Bush before the election that the Gulf War II was going poorly and that something needed to change:

Prior to his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld presented a classified memo to the White House acknowledging that the administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and suggesting a major course correction.

Everything about this administration has shown that it is incapable of admitting error. After all, Bush says God Himself told him to fight this war. (If the we don't win the war, was God wrong?) Bush has also said that the conclusions from the Iraq Study Group are crap.

So is it crazy to think that maybe it was this memo that made Bush give Rumsfeld the boot? He was actually fired, rather than retired?

UPDATE: David says in the comments:

I never thought Rumsfeld voluntarily resigned. I've always believed Bush told Rumsfeld he had to go, but allowed him to say he resigned/retired. That allowed Rumsfeld to save face...

Maybe I wasn't clear. I agree with David; I don't doubt Rumsfeld was given the boot. Joe Solmonese says in this week's Advocate:

Rumsfeld is gone. So [Bush has] shown a willingness to change course based on the election results."

What I was trying to say was that there seems to be a prevalent attitude, like Solmonese's, that Rumsfeld was fired because the election went so well for the Democrats and that it was a signal that Bush accepted the need to change his attitude on Iraq.

I think it was the exact opposite. I think Rumsfeld told Bush in this memo that things needed to change and that Bush fired him for daring to do so. They just lied and conspired so that he would leave after the election. That may have been deliberate, so people took this very impression from Rumsfeld's departure, or just so he could save face. Everything we've seen is consistent with this administration being unable to admit error. After all, Bush has said God Himself told him to go to war, so how could it fail?

Polyester being the tool of the devil, of course

Fig over at Sing a Song of Sixpence warns of a looming theological schism:

The Episcopal Church, along with the Presbyterian Church, and the United Methodist Church are probably experiencing the greatest amount of conflict over equal rights for their members who choose to wear cloth of blended fibers. More liberal Christian denominations have already largely accepted cotton/poly blends as simply another normal, natural, and morally neutral clothing choice. More conservative denominations have retained the historical Christian belief. They condemn all mixed fiber clothing, regardless of the stylishness or comfort of the garment.

A dumptruck full of stupid

This is really making the blogger rounds, so I'm probably the last person to weigh in on it and you're already probably tired of hearing about it. But, just in case you live under a rock, here it is: Jim Rutz, a columnist at World Net Daily, has written a column about how soy-based foods make you gay. Seriously. I am not making this up. The title of the article is, "A devil food is turning our kids into homosexuals." After reading it, I'm honestly surprised such a short piece of writing can contain such a high level of weapons-grade stupidity.

There has got to be at least one factual error, stereotype, or just flat-out fabrication in every sentence, if not every word of this article. His thesis is that soy products contain estrogens, and those are "feminising" and that's bad. This is basically the money quote:

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products.

Oh, Stupid, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.

1. Rise in homosexuality? There are really more gay people now than previously? Based on what, he doesn't say. Maybe it was all those studies on gay people done in the 1880s that he's referring to. If there's been such a big rise in queers, that just makes it doubly frustrating that I can't find a date.

2. Note the implication that gay men are feminine. Fags lack masculinity. We all walk around lisping, bending our pinky fingers when we drink tea, and carrying a purse. A pink purse. With sequins. Good God, someone get this man to a leather bar, quick.
3. So soy leads to femininity, which leads to small dicks and all the faggotry, huh? The only study I've been able to find suggests that gay men have bigger dicks, not little ones. (Bogaert and Hershberger. "The Relation Between Sexual Orientation and Penile Size." Archives of Sexual Behavior. 28. 213 (1999).)

I could go on, but I'm trying not to. (Did you notice I didn't mention his claim that childhood leukemia has increased by more than one-fourth in a single year? One-fourth! Argh.) There is so much stupid in this article, it burns on contact.

This was published on World Net Daily, and there's a reason it's sometimes referred to as World Nut Daily by people with a functioning cerebellum. What I fear, is that there are people that use it (and probably FOX News) as a primary source of information, and will read this, internalize quite a bit of it, and never begin to suspect the yawning chasm of stupid that lies within it.

Others, smarter than me, have already weighed in: Sing a Song of Sixpence, Feministing, Ex-Gay Watch, Americablog, Pam's House Blend, Wayne Besen, and Pharyngula are a few.

(Just no one tell John Bambenek about this article, please. He likes to quote studies done by the Heritage Foundation and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and calls it "research.")

Anyway, Jim Rutz is a putz.

Yeah, but what about Chip?

Wow, that was quick:

Lance Bass and his boyfriend, Reichen Lehmkuhl, have called it quits, People magazine reported on its Web site Monday.

Bass, who was part of the boy band 'N Sync, revealed earlier this year that he is gay and was in a relationship with Lehmkuhl, a former Air Force captain and winner of season four of CBS' "Amazing Race."

An orgy of studies

An alternative title for this post could be "Slutty feminists, chapter III: In which my chair at the adult table is permanently revoked." For background information, there was my first response to John Bambenek's letter in the Daily Illini, and then a look at the data he used to support his statement that "99% of abortions are for sexual convenience."

Last time I showed why Bambenek's claim in his recent Daily Illini silliness that "99% of all abortions are for 'convenience'" wasn't supported by the very Institute he cites. Now, I'll take a look at the three studies he finally cited on his blog that (he says) show sex causes depression in women. He cites three studies:

• Rector, Johnson, and Noyes. "Sexually Active Teenagers Are More Likely to Be Depressed and to Attempt Suicide." The Heritage Foundation, Center for Data Analysis Report #03-04.
• Jennifer Warner. "Depression Often Follows Risky Teen Behavior." WebMD News. Sept. 20, 2005.
• Grello, Welsh, Harper. "No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual Sex in College Students." J. Sex Research. 43. 255. (2006).

The first of these, the Heritage study, I just don't find credible. This study was never anything other than vanity published and was never peer-reviewed. Furthermore, the Heritage Institute is a conservative think tank. Their very mission statement says that they "formulate and promote conservative public policies." Of course, this study is going to reflect bad on sex; it's the job of Heritage employees to produce such studies. If the study had shown otherwise, it probably wouldn't have seen the light of day.

Because this study is so useful to conservatives, even if it is unscientific, it has been cited often in the conservative media, including World Net Daily and TownHall.com. More importantly, it caused fellow conservative Joseph Sabia to publish an actual peer-reviewed study examining their results: "Does Early Adolescent Sex Cause Depressive Symptoms?" J. of Policy Analysis and Management. 25. 803 (2006). It's a long study and I won't bore you with the details. Here are the juicy bits from the conclusion:

[Recent] claims about the causes and consequences of early teen sex have been overstated... This study presents consistent evidence that early entrance into sexual intercourse is not the cause of depression, but rather is an observable indicator of depression... it is inappropriate to infer a causal link between early teen sex and depressive symptoms.

Turning to Bambenek's second study, actually it's a news article on the actual study, which I assume is Hallfors, et al. "Adolescent Depression and Suicide Risk." American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 27. 224 (2004). This study looked at the incidence of depression and suicidal ideation in boys and girls 16 ± 5 years old. This study did show an increase in the rates of depression and suicidal ideation in boys and girls having sex. "Ah ha," you say? "Bambenek was right, you say?" Well no. From the study's abstract:

Although causal direction has not been established, involvement in any sex or drug use is cause for concern, and should be a clinical indication for mental health screening for girls;

And from the study's conclusion:

There was some indication that substance use ... led to depression rather than the reverse, but there are other studies indicating that adolescents may become involved in risk taking in response to preexisting depression.

In other words, these fact that these teens were having sex may well have been a symptom of their depression, not the cause of it.

Furthermore, this was a study on teenagers, not the slutty college-age-and-up feminists Bambenek was berating. The study included girls and boys down to age eleven, which I don't think tend to be avid readers of Gloria Steinem.

(Also, the study showed that having highly educated parents led to a slight decrease in depression, but a large increase in suicidal ideation. Go figure.)

On to the third study. This is the most relevant study to Bambenek's assertion, in that it studies casual sex among college students and a possible link to depressive symptoms. At first glance, it seems to support what Bambenek is saying, that sex causes depression. Except that's only true for the women studied. In the case of men, casual sex actually correlated with a decrease in depressive symptoms. But the authors of this study specifically do not draw the conclusion Bambenek claims:

Perhaps depressed females may be seeking external validation from sex. They may be maintaining a vicious depressive cycle by unconsciously engaging in sex in doomed relationships. Possibly, these females' negative feelings of self-worth or isolation may increase their desire to be wanted by or intimate with another... Furthermore, the more depressive symptoms females reported, the more partners they had. We speculate this may be associated with either little sexual satisfaction or increased efforts to fill an internal void.

So, again, we see speculation from the researchers involved that sex may be a symptom of existing emotional problems, rather than being the cause of the problems themselves. The Grello study was done at a "university located within the Southern Bible Belt with a fairly conservative student population." If this university had attitudes like Bambenek's, referring to women as sluts and harlots, I don't think it's a big leap to suspect engaging in sex could lead to feelings of guilt and shame which could lead, in turn, to depression.

I wonder why Bambenek didn't find this in these studies, if he was using them to support his position. After all, the Hallfors study says that they did not find a casual link between sex and depression right in the abstract. Perhaps it's unfair of me, but I suspect it's because Bambenek started out with his conclusion, and cherry-picked studies that supported it. For an intellectual study of any subject -- and a scientist should know this -- that's exactly the bass-ackwards way to go about it.

Of course, all this analysis on my part was pretty much a waste of time, because Bambenek's main assumption, that feminists think women should be slutty, is ridiculous. Just to check that my belief was correct, I went looking. At the website for the National Organization of Women (and what bigger group of man-hating, inner-slut-mentality-having feminists could there be?). I couldn't find anything relevant when searching on "sexuality," "casual sex," or "hooking up." Unable to think of any more search terms, I went to their "Issues" page, where there really isn't any information about sex. Economic equality, women's health, rights for mothers, sure, but nothing about living in slut-dom. The closest thing I found was in their Health section, on how to prevent STDs. What's the first method they suggest for not contracting an STD? "Do not have sex."

Obviously, they're not very good harlots.

(Wow, you read to the end. I'm impressed. Hope you're not too bored.)

Update (2007-10-30): Added BPR3.org icon.

Finally, some data

After insulting the intelligence of anyone who dared question him, John Bambenek has updated his anti-feminist tirade at his blog to include the studies he used in his DI editorial. So lets take a look at what he's basing his opinions on.

His first point was that "99% percent of all abortions" are for "sexual convenience." Unfortunately, the link he posted is broken, so it's hard to judge that. But, he said that he used the Guttmacher Institute for his data. Instead, lets take a look at an article they list in their Abortion section: Lawrence Finer, et al. "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2005, 37(3):110–118. The reasons that women have abortions are varied and complicated, but the largest reasons are that a child would interfere with the mother's education, job, or their ability to care for their current children. Seventy-three percent said they wouldn't be able to afford to care for a child. (Respondents could select more than one answer.)

Bambenek wraps all of these up in the petty-sounding description of "convenience," as this reason is not listed anywhere in the study. It's a term that he's invented, he's defined, and which he can use to over-simplify this complicated into a nice, tidy sound bite. I'm not sure how in anyone's mind "I can barely feed the children I have now, and I'll get fired if I have to take off time from work to have another baby" can reasonably be called a matter of "convenience." Obviously, Bambenek concern here is to trivialize the reasons women have abortions to make them sound petty and selfish.

The Guttmacher paper also says that 25% of women cited concerns with their health or the health of the fetus as a consideration. Bambenek casually disregards these concerns with:

Now I don’t regard "health" of the mother as particularly indicative of anything because pregnancy is, by definition, a HUGE factor for the health of the mother and comes with no small share of risk. It’s used flippantly in debates and I have no reason to see the same crowd doesn’t use it flippantly in research.

Wait, what? First he says that pregnancy is a "huge factor for the health of the mother" and then disregards these concerns as "flippant." In other words, there's this huge issue, which one in four women consider when having an abortion, and Bambenek is just going to ignore it because he finds it inconvenient.

Well, next time my cousin in lying in the hospital with pre-eclampsia, pumped full of steroids to where she looked like a balloon so that the baby's lungs would develop enough that he would be able to survive when they delivered him prematurely, I'll make sure to tell her to stop whining because she's being "flippant."

Actually, it looks like Bambenek's choice of the word "convenience" may be part of a tactic of the anti-choice movment as a whole. Quoting from the Guttmacher paper:

Yet some broad concepts emerged from the study. A crosscutting theme was women’s responsibility to children and other dependents, as well as considerations about children they may have in the future. Most women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision to have an abortion. In contrast to the perception (voiced by politicians and laypeople across the ideological spectrum) that women who choose abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and life endangerment do so for "convenience," our data suggest that after carefully assessing their individual situations, women base their decisions largely on their ability to maintain economic stability and to care for the children they already have.

(I was also going to look at the studies he offers showing how women become emotionally "devastated" if they have sex, but I just don't have time tonight. More later.)

Excuse me, your knuckles are dragging

Every once in a while, I check out what John Bambenek has written for the Daily Illini, and every time I regret it. He writes with this bizarre combination of seething anger, pompous self-righteousness, and Freeper-esque zealotry. His letter published in today's DI is no exception. Today he's blathering on about some very odd concept of feminism, one that seems to bear no resemblance to real feminism.

He begins reasonably enough:

Originally, feminism was about changing attitudes, particularly that women are of equal dignity as men. Women can be just as capable to become doctors, lawyers, CEOs or politicians. Far from being merely sperm receptacles, they are people entitled to the full balance of human dignity. The rallying call of these feminists was "love me for my mind, not just my body."

It's hard to disagree with most of that, though I would suggest the origins of feminism largely originated with the radical request of "Hello, may I vote too, please?" However, though I haven't studied the history of the movement in great detail, I don't think feminism was much about "being loved" so much as the idea that women should be allowed to take part in society just as much as men.

Then we find out that feminism has been hijacked by ... those damn, evil, feminists:

Enter groups such as the Feminist Majority at the University of Illinois. The motto of this group and those like it can be described as "love me for my body ... PLEASE!" The slogans they chose to put on their T-shirts revolve around sex toys and genitalia. In psychology this would be called a "fixation."

No, I think in psychology, this would be called a T-shirt. They usually have short, witty, and often slightly provocative sayings on them. Quickly glancing at some available T-shirts at cafepress.com, I found such slogans as, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," "I'm not a gynecologist ... but I'll take a look," and "You say potato ... I say fuck you." Now, these T-shirt slogans and those wearing them are not actually supporting schizophrenia, medical malpractice, or overdoing it with carbs. They're just trying to be funny. It's not a good idea to attempt to analyze a whole movement based on what's printed clothing handed out on a college campus.

It's not even clear what shirts Bambeneck was referring to. He doesn't say. But I did check out the Feminist Majority at UIUC's webpage, and I couldn't find anything about sex toys or genitalia, much to my inner straight man's disappointment. I did, however, find a mission statement saying that they make their "best efforts to inform the student population about the issues related to women's rights and equality in society." I also found information on women's health issues, and links to other sites, at least two of which are dedicated to stopping domestic violence. Links to the sellers of dildos and vibrators? Not a one. Not even a measly French tickler.

Then the gloves come off and the real derangement begins:

Women traditionally have been looked upon as sexual objects. So what do these neofeminists do? ... They've gone one step further from the prostitution of women to preaching harlotry. The difference between a prostitute and a harlot is that the prostitute at least has enough self respect to demand payment for services rendered.

Wow. I can almost see the flecks of foam at the corners of Bambi's mouth now. On a thou-shalt-not-judge scale of 1 to 10, where Preacher Dan is a 5 and Fred Phelps is a 14, that rates about a 7.

Now he gets to what evil, evil feminism has cost us:

It has lead to the rejection of the biggest trait distinctive of women - motherhood.

For you women readers ... and who the hell taught you to read anyway? A waste of perfectly good time that could have been better used teaching you to cook and sew, if you ask me. Anyway, for you women readers we now see what your options in life are:

1. Madonna.
2. Whore.

You may pick only one. You can be a raving feminist slut that spreads her legs for any man that comes along, or you can be an innocent chaste virgin that thinks babies are left under cabbage leaves who is gently deflowered on her wedding night to the sound of harpsichord music and the fluttering of angels' wings.

Seriously, this apparent inability of Bambi's to visualize a woman as anything other than the Whore of Babylon or an automated progeny cannon seems positively unhealthy.

(And what's up with this being printed as a "letter," anyway? Has his tenure as a DI columnist ended, or does this have something to do with the fact that the DI suspended all staff-written editorials a few weeks ago for an unstated reason?)

UPDATE: Bambenek himself visited and comments:

Argumentum ad hominem. I win.

First of all, Bambenek doesn't get to call women "sluts" and "harlots" and them complain about ad hominem attacks. It's a rule. There's even a word for that. Hippo-something...

Secondly, mine wasn't even an ad hominem argument. That's when someone ridicules the arguer rather than the argument. I was pointing out, in a biting, witty, and sarcastic manner, that Bambenek's argument was one giant false dilemma. Namely, that the only possible options he presented were that women are all raving whores or vestal virgins. That's it. Nothing in between. I didn't even get around to pointing out the false statement about the Guttmacher statistics (they don't even list "sexual convenience" as one of the reasons women have abortions, 25% do so because of concerns for their health or the health of the fetus). Then there's the fact that his whole letter is a straw man argument that feminism (oh, excuse me, "neo-feminism") tells women to hump anything even slightly pointy. He also vaguley quotes "studies" which I can't seem to find. I did a Google Scholar search for "inner-slut mentality" and came up with no hits. I suspect that, even if he did find some sort of study, it doesn't say what he thinks it says.

Need I even mention how he portrays women as the Guardian of the Temple of Chastity, while men are simply slathering, mindless slaves to their urges that bear no moral responsibility of their own? It's a mild form of the same attitude that forces women to wear the burqua in Middle Eastern countries: men are unable to control themselves when it comes to those "feminine wiles," so it's the women who are to be blamed if they have sex.

UPDATE II: Feministing also has a good slap-down of Bambenek's "argument."

UPDATE III: Bambenek also posted this over at Blogcritics.org, where there has been a few interesting comments. The first commenter is skeptical asks John to explain what studies he was talking about that inspired his "devastation from the inner-slut mentality" line. John responds with:

How fundamentally unamerican for you to tell me what I can and cannot say. This is America, you don't tell me what I can and can't say, you don't pre-select who gets to talk about issues, and you don't get to stack the deck.

Um, no. Someone asking you to put your money where your mouth is when you spout off about dubious "facts" isn't censorship.

It's not easy being purple

Sigh. I had one idea for a blog post, found a better one, then found this. I need more hours in the day.

Last night, I was having a conversation about the past election, and I remembered that, after 2004, there were a number of red and blue maps going around showing how red the country was. Somewhere, someone had made similar maps, by county, but colored them different shades of purple, showing how false the red-vs-blue divide really is. Here are the maps for the 2004 Presidential election.

He also adjusted the map to shrink or enlarge each district based on its population, which makes for a really bizzare looking image, but gives better insight into voting patterns. Looking at that image reinforces why I don't think it's a good idea to eliminate the Electoral College: candidates would basically ignore every place other than the Eastern seaboard, California, Chicago, and Florida.

He's now done the same thing for the 2006 election, for both the House and the Senate. Here's the image for the House:

One thing that's surprising about this image is how there are pockets of blue running through the South (and there are similar pockets of purple for the 2004 Presidential election). A commenter elsewhere claims that these are the counties with largely black populations, and they tend to vote Democratic, while Southern whites are overwhelmingly Republican.

The West looks incredibly red, until you realize that states like Montana are only a single district because they have about 3 people living there. He does another chart that adjusts all the counties so they have the same area (since all districts elect exactly one Representative), and those states are less imposing.

Via Pam's House Blend.

Tased and confused

I assume everyone has seen the video of the UCLA student getting Tasered multiple times, even after he's been fully incapacitated. It's difficult to watch, to say the least; it took me three days to make myself go past the first minute or so. In case you're not the blog addict I am, a UCLA student forgot his ID, became unruly when either asked for it or was asked to leave, the campus police came, and as he was leaving the library Tased him. Not just once, but multiple times, demanding he stand up and comply with their instructions.

A Taser fires and electrical shock which is extremely painful, and robs you of the ability to control your body. From what I've been able to find online, recovery from a single Taser strike varies with the individual, but can take up to several minutes. So these cops demanding he stand after multiple strikes were being unreasonable.

What I find really disturbing is their demands that he "stand up or be Tased again." The cops are using it as a form of punishment and discipline, which is not appropriate for a potentially lethal weapon. There's not a lot online but police policy in Hawaii states:

...that the drive stun feature is used "where an officer or someone else is physically confronted, serious bodily injury is imminent and no other alternative exists except for the use of the drive stun."

Obviously, an incapacitated student poses little threat to several security officers.

The thing that really disturbs me is that, toward the end of the video, some of the crowd of students are asking the campus cops for their badge numbers. One of the cops tells a student to stand to the side "or you'll get Tased too."

UCLA appears to be in damage-control mode, rather than ensure-the-safety-of-students mode. From Talking Points Memo:

...the officers involved have not even been put on administrative leave pending completion of the internal and external reviews of the incident. Why not? It's not clear from the article.

But to hear UCLA's acting chancellor talk, it looks like the university is managing the perception of a problem rather than the problem itself: "Norman Abrams said he ordered the probe after the university received numerous calls and e-mails from parents and alumni raising concerns about the officers' actions during the videotaped Tuesday night arrest, which has been widely seen on TV news and the YouTube website."

The video itself apparently didn't prompt an outside review, but concerns from alum (i.e., donors) and parents did. Nice.

One thing this incident shows is the power of the Internet. A student with a cameraphone, YouTube, and the blogosphere have given this story nationwide attention, when, only a few years ago, it might have made only the local newspaper or might possibly have been completely ignored.

Archpundit and Americablog have more.

Update: It looks like the campus cops in this case were using the Taser in "drive stun" mode. That may be less incapacitating than the mode where the Taser shoots too electrodes into the skin of the target. Again, there's not much online, but this was reported in the case of a Florida police department:

A recent amendment to the DeLand Police Department's Taser policy is clearer, saying that the "drive-stun" mode can be used only under exceptional circumstances

Only a few months left to protect traditional marriage

Now that we only have a few months left with a Republican-controlled Congress, they need to act now to protect traditional marriage. Namely, Britney and K-Fed's. Jon Swift (not dead, as previously reported) says that it needs to be done for the sake of the children:

One of the arguments opponents of gay marriage make is that every child needs exactly one mother and one father to grow up to be a healthy adult. Isn't it clear that Britney's and K-Fed's children also need a mother and a father? They need a mother who can provide them with all of the material goods they require, which their father can't provide, and they need a father who can pick them up without dropping them. I think it is clear that neither of them alone can provide the care essential to the well-being of these children.

If Republicans really want to protect the institution of marriage, and were not simply trying to ban gay marriage to use it as a wedge issue in the campaign, then they should prove their dedication to this cause by introducing the Defense of Britney's Marriage Act as the first order of business in the lame-duck session of Congress and President Bush should sign it.

Please, won't someone think of the children?

Maybe not so tradtional, after all

Stephanie Coontz has an editorial in todays New York Times about how our fixation on marriage as a deep and overriding emotional bond may be misplaced. She makes the argument that it is not the historical view of marriage, and that it may be costing us other relationships, traditionally viewed as more important than one with a spouse:

Until 100 years ago, most societies agreed that it was dangerously antisocial, even pathologically self-absorbed, to elevate marital affection and nuclear-family ties above commitments to neighbors, extended kin, civic duty and religion.

Weirdly, the change in our view of marriage that began in the 1950s may actually be detrimental to society as a whole:

By the early 20th century, though, the sea change in the culture wrought by the industrial economy had loosened social obligations to neighbors and kin, giving rise to the idea that individuals could meet their deepest needs only through romantic love, culminating in marriage. Under the influence of Freudianism, society began to view intense same-sex ties with suspicion and people were urged to reject the emotional claims of friends and relatives who might compete with a spouse for time and affection.

The right-wings fetishization of "traditional" marriage isn't about returning to some historically accurate version of a bond that has been changed by the homosexual activists. If that were the case, they'd be arguing in favor of arranged marriages, which were the standard in the Western world for thousands of years, and exist in more traditional cultures to this day. Rather, it's about being holier-than-thou.

Shoot 'em if they can't take a joke

When I heard the "controversy" surrounding Kerry's recent botched joke, and how Republicans were demanding he apologize for "insulting the troops," it pissed me off. It is not possible for any reasonable person to listen to what Kerry was saying and think he was talking about the troops. Remember, he used to be one. He's actually seen combat, unlike Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, and of course, George W. Bush. They know that. So all the Republican shock and outrage is just a cheap fucking political stunt. Crocodile tears. Republican tears.

The most frustrating thing is that, the moment that I heard about this whole nonsense, the very first thing that came to mind was George W. Bush's joking a few months ago about not finding the WMDs in Iraq. Bush actually mocked the very reason he has sent those 3000+ men and women to die in Iraq, yet no demands for his apology are forthcoming.

Here's his mockery:

Somehow we've entered a time when those in power make light of those they've sent to die, and feign outrage against their opponents, who stood up and fought when called.

Tomorrow, please vote.

Sexual harassment is illegal!

I've never tried posting a Google Video, um, video here, but this one cracked me up so much I have to try. I think I may have ruptured something.

It's hard to argue with this

Billy writes:

I pay my fucking taxes, I have job, I don’t sponge off the Government, I contribute to society and yet I am not allowed to have a recognized union that affords me rights equal to my, so called, heterosexual counterparts. I don’t ask that I be allowed to perform my ceremony in a Church that does not agree with it. I don’t want special treatment. I just want the chance to live my life as it was handed to me without someone else’s religious beliefs getting in the way.

Those don't sound like "special rights" to me at all.

Geez

I go out of town for a couple of days, and it's revealed that a major evangelical, gay-bashing minister is a screaming queen. I miss all the good stuff.

Hi ho, hi ho...

Posting will be light lighter than usual, as I have to go out of town for a few days. I will leave you with this thought about the upcoming election:

I worry that the Democrats will take back the House, and possibly the Senate, and things will get worse. Iraq will further quagmireify. There will be another possible terrorist attack in this country. Then, come 2008, the Republicans will sweep the House, Senate, and Presidency again.

David is less optimistic, thinking that this will be another 2004. Things will be very close, but the Republicans will eke out another win. Boy, are we in for it then.

Remember, these people vote

There is, apparently, a actual discussion going on over at Christian Forums about whether Barack Obama is the Antichrist. Not a tongue-in-cheek discussion. Not sarcasm. Actual discussion about whether a U.S. Senator is a demon from hell sent by Satan. I can't get to the discussion yet, because registrations at that forum require administrator approval. But here are some tidbits over at apostropher.net,Cynical-C Blog, and kynns LiveJournal page:

While I was watching him, the VERY FIRST thought that came to my mind was asking the Lord if I was looking at the AC. I don't have a big opinion either way, but man, that was pretty scary. Even my life is good and no where neare to over husband was transfixed. I turned off the tv, it was just too much. This in not paranoia, it's actively waiting for prophecy to be fulfilled.

No, crazy lady, that is paranoia.

This is just the type of person that the antichrist is.......A BIG DECEIVER!!!!!!! Do you expect the antichrist to come on the scene and be the biggest jerk imaginable, and immediately order everyone to take the mark? Half the world would tell him "where to get off"!!!! The AC has to be the kindest person in the world in the beginning, so he can draw people into his web of deceit. I already know that there are going to be tons of people who are going to fall right into his trap, just by reading the type of replies on this topic. I find THAT a tragic worldview.

Hey, it could be worse. He could be perceived as an aw-shucks, God-fearing, down-to-earth Texas boy that then demands laws that allow him to imprison and torture people without cause, warrant, or oversight. But, naw, that would never happen.

I just found a post on Obamas website from a Jewish girl. Barak (different spelling) means "lightening" in Hebrew. Luke 10:18 ~ And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Good God! Conclusive proof!

The scary part is that this really isn't unreasonable, given the apocalyptic nature of fundamentalist Christianity. They truly believe the world is going to end within their lifetimes, and that a great evil force will bring it about. So discussing who and who is not demon-spawn is predictable.

Now many of these good Christians are not absolutely convinced that he is the Antichrist, just that there is clearly something demonic about him. Perhaps we should try to come up with some sort of test to determine who has been seduced by the Devil and who has not. I have no doubt they would be difficult to perform, so they should probably be done only by trained professionals. And, if they do manage to find the Evil Ones among us, the souls corrupted by the Beast should be dealt with by those who are right with the Lord. I hear that fire is very cleansing.

I do love a cowboy...

Americablog was having a fund drive for Scott Kleeb, a candidate for a Congressional spot in Nebraska. After looking over his website, I figure it will be a good thing if he wins, not just because he seems like a sane person, but becuase he is smokin' hot. The one picture of him with his horse is so Brokeback Mountain, it isn't funny. Unfortunately, he's wasted on Nebraska.

OK, so I'm shallow. Sue me.

The "moral values" voter?

I've just had three people in the past two days come to my site after Googling for "studds the fag death", "fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor", and "gerry studds fag". I just thought y'all should know.

Go, Wayne

Wayne Besen, author of Anything but Straight, has been named the Sexy Gay Blogger of the Day. Congratulations to Wayne. And with that picture, I can see why.

(OK, it was Sexy Gay Blogger of the Day, September 29th. Sue me, I'm a little behind on my sexy gay bloggers.)

I am not a "moral floor"

John Emerson has a post over at Seeing the Forest (it's short so I'm just going to steal the whole thing:

The big reason for the anti-gay fervor within the hard right is that it puts down a moral floor. Normal sleazy backsliding Christians can always say "I'm a sinner, I've succumbed to temptation many times and I probably will do so again -- but I've never done anything as disgusting as that. And I never will."

Sleazy Christians think of Jesus the way they think of their connection at the county courthouse -- a get-out-of-hell-free card. "I may not seem like a believer, but Jesus is there when I need him", one scuzzbag told me.

One day the real Christians (wrong-headed as they are in some respects) are going to understand how badly they've been used, and how their combination of self-righteousness, ignorance, and political cynicism (politics is the fallen world, so anything goes there) has caused them to become evil.

Christians will be judged too.

I think he's got a good point, and I'd never thought of the anti-gay platform that way before. It has occurred to me that the lifelong celibacy they're always trying to push on anyone not like them must always sound so easy when it's someone else that has to do it.

My worry is that this day of reckoning, when Christians discover what patsies they have been, and how they have been used by the Republicans to gain power will only push them to become more extreme, to become more doctrinaire, and things will just get worse.

Pardon my language

You may wish to remove small children, your grandmother, and potted plants from the room before continuing.

Monday, on MSNBC's Scarborough Country Pat Buchanan said this:

Look, Kolbe is gay. He is an out-of-the-closet gay. Foley was gay. The House clerk who was in charge of the pages was gay. Foley's administrative assistant, Mr. Fordham, The New York Times tell us, was gay. You hear about a lot of others. What's going on here, Joe, is basically these, this little mafia in there looked upon the pages, I guess, as their -- sort of their personal preserve. And it stinks to high heaven what was done. And it stinks to high heaven that it was not exposed and these types of people, thrown out by the Republican Party

This is not a statement deserving of a calm, rational, and well-researched refutation. Here is what it is deserving of:

Fuck you, Mr. Buchanan.

Fuck your insinuation that being an "out-of-the-closet gay" is something to be ashamed of.

Fuck your idiotic and paranoid claims of a secretive gay cabal lurking in the corners of Washington D.C.

Fuck you for saying "these types of people" should be thrown of of the Republican Party. How do you even throw someone out of the Republican Party, anyway? Stop them from ever voting?

But most of all: fuck your dirty and vile insinuation that gay men are sexual predators of children. Fuck that disgusting lie that you and your cohorts in the Christian Right have been spreading for years, backed up by no evidence, and contradicted by mountains of it.

You are a man without honor, Mr. Buchanan.

Fuck you.

Ice spikes

Ever open your freezer to get some ice out, only to find your ice cube trays have strange spikes of ice sticking up from them? I've finally found an explanation of why those things occur.

Materials science at work, in your freezer.

Who they're not talking about

The Foley scandal continues to dominate the media. The right-wing response has been simultaneously dismissive of it and misleading about it, as expected. All facilitated by the "liberal media." Matt Drudge and the revolting Michael Savage have started the meme that the sexually charged IMs were a "prank" perpetrated by these boys. It's now being repeated by none other than James Dobson. Hastert and the White House are pushing the idea that Hastert forced Foley to resign, which is a flat-out lie. Foley resigned before the IMs were made public, and Hastert has said he found out about them was in the press. Truly laughable is the idea being put forth by many Republicans that there was a Democratic plot to hold the information back until it was convenient to release it. Yeah, that's why CREW sent the emails to the FBI in July.

There's a more disturbing trend, as well. Since Foley sent the emails and IMs to young men, his behavior is being blamed on the fact that Foley is gay, and that's what queers do. Predictable for the Right, it's still despicable.

Lou Shelden of the Traditional Values Coalition:

To understand Rep. Mark Foley's attraction to teenage boys, one must realize that pederasty, the act of a homosexual to engage in sex with a teenage male is part of the overall homosexual lifestyle... Foley's attraction to teenage boys is not considered abnormal within the homosexual activist community.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

it appears clear that Foley is a homosexual with a particular attraction to underage boys. While pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two.

I will assume that it is unnecessary for me to find the citations on the web that show Perkins' statements aren't based in fact, just his own bigotry. (Why is it that any organization with "family" in its name is so disgusting?)

Porno Pete of American for Truth (now there's irony):

[B]ut even his homosexuality, as we know Martha -- we want these guys to get out of this lifestyle. It's not a healthy lifestyle. It does tend toward promiscuity. There is a higher element of this...the word is "pederasty," which is adult...ah...sexual contact, or wanting of these...ah...adolescent male boys. We've...we've seen this throughout the world of homosexuality

But I'm getting off-topic, the whole point of this post is that numerous people are talking about the Foley scandal, and citing the Gerry Studds scandal from 1983 to show how out of control these evil homosexuals are and how they can't be trusted around young boys. Ann Coulter did it on Bill O'Reilly's show last week, and again in her column last week, and Charles Krauthammer did it in a column this week. Both Coulter and Krauthammer say that the fact that Foley (Republican) resigned and Studds (Democrat) didn't is proof that Republicans are honorable and do the right thing, and Democrats don't. But there's something that they're both not saying, and it's significant because they both leave it out.

Yes, in 1983 Gerry Studds was censured by Congress because he had had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male page ten years earlier. Studds was about 35 during the relationship. (Mind you, having sex with anyone 16 years or older was legal in D.C. then and remains legal to this day.)

What both Coulter and Krauthammer don't mention is that on the very same day that Studds was censured for his relationship with a male page, Dan Crane, a Republican, was censured for having sex with a female 17-year-old page. Not only was Crane having sex with this 17-year-old, he was having adulterous sex with the 17-year-old, since he had a wife. (Studds was unmarried.) Yet Coulter and Krauthammer both say that this shows the hypocrisy of the "left." Crane did not resign, but did not win reelection the following year.

I suspect that they are both ignoring the Crane affair largely because it was (a) heterosexual and (b) because it involved a Republican and so wouldn't allow them to sound quite as holier-than-thou. But it is disturbing that two different right-wing columnists are able to distort the situation without any response from anyone. (Other than over at CounterCoulter.org, of course.)

Some other Republican sex scandals that did not result in the resignation of the Republican:

• Don Sherwood is accused of trying to strangle his mistress. He has since been reelected.
• Henry Hyde carries on a four-year, adulterous affair. He dismissed the affair, which began when he was 41, as a "youthful indiscretion." Hyde is currently chairman of the House International Relations Committee
• Newt Gingrich carries on an adulterous, three-to-five year affair with a House aide twenty-three years younger than himself. He was cheating on his second wife.

For some reason I don't understand, both Coulter and Krauthammer also make the claim that Studds "turned his back" on the other House members when the censure was read. This is also false. Studds walked to the front of the room and faced the Speaker who was reading the censure resolution. See "House censures Crane and Studds for sexual relations with pages." New York Times. July 21, 1983.

Welcome to the b-sphere

Possibly because all the cool kids are doing it, Dr. Manya has decided to join us in the blogosphere. So every one skooch over and make room. Her blog, Sing a Song of Sixpence has been added to the blogroll over on the right. I'm guessing the design is a template (?) but it looks really nice. I especially like the little icon-things that may have a significance I'm unaware of. Even with getting married, and being an ER resident, she's already out-blogging me. It's just not fair.

It's the first blog over at Livejournal I've blogrolled, or even read regularly. I feel so ... dirty. But, you know, in the good way.

How not to design a website

The other day, I was listening to random music I've burned to my computer, and a Monte Montgomery track came up. He's a fairly unknown artist from Austin, but I think a remarkably talented one. I realized that the two albums I had by him were rather old, so I went to his website to see if there were any new ones.

So this is a guy that makes his living (presumably) making and selling music. He's apparently quite popular on the Austin live music scene, and has won a few awards. Yet on his website, there's no discography! There's no way to find out what albums he's put out. You can find mention of a few spread in various pages over the site, but there's no central location. For the website of a professional musician, that's inexcusable.

There's a little information about him and his music, and even a small gallery of photos. The largest of which is 100 by 70 pixels. It's not even a clickable thumbnail. (And he doesn't seem hard on the eyes at all.) Again, for a performer, for whom presentation to the public is vital, this is a bad idea.

I won't even discuss the (shudder) text crawl that's on the main page that goes by so fast it's nearly unreadable. Hint to the web designer: when you are displaying a single line of text, you don't need to have it scroll on and off the screen. Especially when it's a mention of how to buy your product.

Oh great, and now I found out he was just playing in Champaign a few weeks ago.

A minor point on Foleygate

Glenn Greenwald brings up an interesting point. What Foley did is creepy in the extreme, but what he's accused of is just talking. I'm aware of no allegations that Foley actually did anything with these pages, just that he talked about doing stuff over IM and through email. That's illegal because of a law Congress passed recently. But had he actually gotten together with the page, and fucked around? That's probably legal.

[Greenwald] argued that the "pedophile" rhetoric being righteously hurled at Mark Foley was not really appropriate, given that many (if not most) Americans live in states where it is perfectly legal for an adult of any age to have sex with a 16-year-old. The notion that an adult who has sex with a 16-year-old is a "pedophile freak" who deserves to be imprisoned with the key thrown away is (independent of whether it's right or wrong) inconsistent with the values enshrined in the laws of many (if not most) states, which provide that 16-year-olds are capable of consenting to sex (and even getting married).

I didn't see the pun in the title of this post until just now, honestly. But I'm leaving it in place.

UPDATE (2006-10-05): In the comments, MFN points out that (a) the timing is questionable and (b) because of the age difference, any relationship between Foley and the pages might still be illegal.

First, this is a story that seems to have been building for some time. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) received some of the emails in question back in July, and forwarded them on to the FBI, where they were ignored. CREW is now calling for an investigation into why. The FBI's reponses have been contradictory.

Second, the age of consent in DC appears to be 16. According to the District of Columbia Criminal Code (isn't the Internet great?), child sexual abuse has to be between a child and someone at least 4 years older. However, the code defines "child" to be "person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years." There doesn't appear to be any other relevant statute. So the Republicans have made it illegal to talk about something that it's perfectly legal (if unethical and creepy in the extreme) to do.

I need more hours in the day

Ugh. There's a half dozen or so things I want to blog about. I just don't have time to sit down and write. Then my Internet connection goes down for a day. Argh. I just need, say, a 28 hour day. Is that so much to ask?

Shiny!

Via David:

You scored as Kaylee (Kaywinnet Lee) Frye. The Mechanic. You are a natural mechanic, and you are far too sweet and cheerful to live out here. How you can see the good in everyone around you boggles the mind occasionally. Still you don't seem to be any crazier than that, and it is a nice kinda crazy. Kaylee (Kaywinnet Lee) Frye 75% Simon Tam 63% Shepherd Derrial Book 56% River Tam 50% The Operative 50% Hoban 'Wash' Washburne 44% Zoe Alleyne Washburne 44% Inara Serra 38% Capt. Mal Reynolds 38% Jayne Cobb 31% Which Serenity character are you? created with QuizFarm.com

If you read this, you will burn in hell

Austin Cline at About.com has made a series World-War-II-like propaganda posters for the Christian Right. They're actually pretty funny in a "wow, that's really creepy" sort of way. This one is my favorite. This one is great, not only because it mocks Ann Coulter, but because it points out the violent threats thinly veiled under a lot of what the right wing does. See, for example the intimidation and actual death threats a group of college undergraduates got after Michelle Malkin posted their personal information to her blog, and her minions reacted to it.

UPDATE: Cline is guest posting over at Jesus' General, and has a new one up. Boy, is it wrong, wrong, wrong. But oh so funny!