Progress and Bigotry

So President Obama has appointed Amanda Simpson to the position of senior technical adviser for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security.  She's also transgendered.  You can just imagine how violently right-wingers and evangelicals are filling their pants over this.

There's the real fringe nutjobs, like the folks at WorldNetDaily, who pointedly refer to Simpson as a "he" throughout the entire article, or this nugget of enlightened wisdom from Pamela Geller at the hilarious blog Atlas Shrugs;

Does Obama know anyone who isn't wacky, radical, militant, judeophobic, socialist, marxist, pedophilic? ...... Does he chill with anyone who is normal? Isn't there one Marilyn Munster in the family? What a freak show this presidency is.

David Brody at Christian Broadcasting Network chimed in:

The transgender thing doesn't play well with millions of conservative Evangelicals. Sorry if Biblical absolutes offend you or are so "1950 ish" but don't think conservative Evangelicals are apologizing for it.

Then there's the big players, who refuse to be out-bigoted.   Focus on the Family released an article that consists almost entirely of statements by Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, and Matt Barber, associate dean at Liberty University:

"We should consider what transgender activism is about," he (LaBarbera) said," which is essentially recognizing civil rights based on gender confusion."

"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he (Barber) said.  "This is about political correctness."

I caught a portion of Laura Ingraham's show just the other day, on Tuesday, Jan. 5th.  She ranted about Simpson's appointment for a solid twenty minutes, with two main points.  Firstly, that she's sick and tired of our deep need to shove our opinions and lifestyles down her throat (this from a woman who literally gets paid to rant about her opinion on the radio and had just discussed how we need to worship Jesus in our schools more).  Secondly, she echoed some of the religious right named above in basically claiming that Simpson was only selected because the Obama administration is pandering to the left.

Obviously, I take issue with these folks.  It's entirely possible to discuss this appointment along the lines of, "Hm.  Transgender person.  Appointed directly by the President.  Very interesting."  That is obviously NOT what the above talking heads are doing; they are specifically saying that she is a Bad Choice.  It's very simple:  A rational discussion of this appointment might bring up her experience, or her politics.  If one is going to avoid being a completely bigoted fuck, the one, single issue that will be completely immaterial to your criticism of her is the fact that she happened to have been born with a penis.

Now, I'll bet you readers can never guess, but what's the single unifying theme of EVERY SINGLE criticism of Simpson that I've read or heard?  That's right - all of the above quoted column, articles, and radio shows, as well as all the others you can read online that I've seen, every one of them completely ignores whether she would be good for the job based on her experience.

Not one of them has tried to argue, in even the most superficial way, that she isn't well-qualified for the position.  She has worked for 30 years with Raytheon Missile Systems, a defense contractor company, as a test pilot, and her degrees include an MBA from the University of Arizona, Master of Science in Engineering from the California State University, Northridge, Bachelor of Science in Physics from the Harvey Mudd College.  She has some limited experience in politics as well, having run unsuccessfully for Representative of District 26 in the Arizona House of Representatives in 2004.  So yeah, she's qualified.

It's very simple.  You absolutely cannot claim that a person is not qualified for a job, and that they were only hired as a superficial political gesture, if you don't even bother to discuss that person's qualifications.  How can the miss something so painfully obvious?  If you whine and bitch about a person getting tapped for an appointment entirely and exclusively on the basis of then being transgendered, you are a bigot.

Obama's Faith-Based Funding

Yeah, it makes me cringe to hear it.  I like Obama.  I think he's a step in the right direction for our country.  Many of his goals (in fact, his highest priorities) are noble ones, like health care reform.

But separation of church and state is really damn important.

Obama's often-quoted line from July 2008:

If you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion.

That was the promise:  Federal tax dollars will be used to get people food, shelter, medical care, etc., not to print gospel tracts.  Federal tax dollars won't go to groups or programs that only hire workers of their own religion, or that fire people of other religions.  Simple, right?

Well, Obama renewed Bush's Faith-Based Funding Initiative back in February of this year, and, basically, all he changed was the name.  All the original above complaints were still occurring.  It would be bad enough that secular groups are not receiving this funding, giving religious groups unconstitutional access to taxpayer money, but even more telling is that under Bush, almost every single one of these groups receiving funding were a Christian group, despite numerous other religious and spiritual groups that have applied for it.  So far, this hasn't changed under Obama.

Mr. President, I don't expect you to monitor this initiative personally, but it really doesn't seem that hard.  Fix this program, by allowing access to these funds by all groups that provide such services (read:  both religious and secular groups), and with provisions that such money must go to fund material, secular services.  Do this, or drop the program.

Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act hubbub

I was listening to the local Christian radio station when I heard an announcement about the introduction of a bill called the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents act. The announcement pointed me to this site, where I found a nearly word-for-word transcript of the radio broadcast. 

“Democrats in the U.S. House have introduced a bill purportedly aimed at reducing abortions, but which would, in fact, increase funding of sex education without a major abstinence component.

You can find the bill here.

Well yes, because comprehensive sex education works to reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. I’ve never heard of a sex-education program that did not have a major abstinence component. All of them (and I’ve read the details of about 30 or so sex-education programs) promote abstinence as the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy. In Title I, the bill states explicitly that grants will give preference to those that encourage teens to delay sexual activity and provide information about contraceptives but are only available to programs that agree to provide age-appropriate, factually and medically accurate and complete, science-based education. Pardon my sarcasm, but how dare those evil democrats try to propose funding for sex education programs based on *gasp* evidence.

Also, this bill was introduced in 2006, so while reporters seem to imply this bill is new and sudden, it’s not as if it was produced last week.

“The bill, the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, also calls for increased access to contraceptives and expanded Medicaid family-planning coverage.

It seems fairly obvious that one would want to increase access to contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent unwanted pregnancies. If you don’t have an unwanted pregnancy, you have a 0% chance of deciding to have an abortion.

"It's about death, and it's about spreading Planned Parenthood's philosophy and getting millions of dollars into their coffers," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League.

I fail to see why this bill is all about death, but let’s look through it and see what the bill actually intends to do:

1.    Gives preference to pregnancy prevention programs that are science-based.

2.    Reauthorizes after school learning programs. (to keep those kiddies busy with activities other than bonking)

3.    Gives grants to states that submit a plan to reduce teen pregnancy rates and actually accomplish reducing teen pregnancy rates.

4.    gives a grant to establish a national center to enlist parents in preventing teen pregnancy.

5.    Reverses the decision of the Deficit Reduction Act, which allowed states to avoid Medicaid coverage for family planning services.

6.    Expands family planning services for low-income women to include prenatal, labor, delivery and postpartum care by increasing income ceilings for funding.

7.    Authorizes increased funding to Title X of the “Prevention First Act”.

8.    Authorizes grants which require accurate and complete contraceptive information for teen and new mothers being visited by a nurse home visit program.

9.    If a woman seeks an abortion, the act requires that she receive informed consent, including nonjudgemental and science-based information about adoption or carrying her pregnancy to term.

10.    Provides states with the option to cover pregnant women under Medicaid.

11.    Close gaps in coverage of pregnant women by not allowing insurance companies to count pregnancy as a pre-existing condition.

12.    Grants for ultrasound equipment to offer pregnant women an ultrasound.

13.    provides for treatment and an awareness campaign of women who are pregnant and victims of domestic abuse.

14.    Provides grants to research pregnant students who decide to carry their pregnancies to term and parenting students.

15.    requires that federally-funded group homes for pregnant women provide adoption and parenting skills counseling (on request).

16.    Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable.

17.     Increases support for new parents by providing support through food stamps and nurse home visits.

Saying that this bill is “all about death” is sort of like saying the pro-life movement is “all about owning women”. Your credibility is seriously diminished when you demonize your opponent like this. I would really like to see pro-life advotes use stronger arguments in support of their position.

“Sedlak described the bill as one that helps fund the wish list Planned Parenthood gave the Obama administration in its earliest days.

"And that wish list, if you added everything up, comes out to $4.6 billion going into Planned Parenthood and their friends," he said.

Ziztur said, "if you add up all the grants given out in the Faith-Based initiative, it comes out to $65 Billion. Isn’t the faith-based initiative all about spreading religious philosophy and getting billions of dollars into their coffers?" You could make this argument about any organization that receives any government funding. If the argument can be applied to all, it loses any validity.

"Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, noted the House Energy and Commerce Committee has rejected Title V abstinence-education funds from going to states and replaced it with a $50 million program for teen pregnancy prevention.

Yes, that’s because the abstinence education funds could only go to programs which, among other things, barred teachers from discussing contraception and required them to say that sex within marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity. The title was rejected because the program was not proven to be effective.

"And that ," she noted, "is just code for more contraceptive education, explicit sexual education in the schools across the country."

It’s not a “code”. We want sex education that has evidence of providing reduced pregnancy rates and increased contraceptive use without increasing sex among teens. Comprehensive sex education has been shown to be effective at this. Saying that it is a code implies some sort of deceit. Once again - demonizing your opponent only make you lose credibility.

Sedlak doesn't buy the claim that the bill has support from some pro-lifers. 

"There is no major pro-life organization in this country that would support this kind of a bill," he said, adding that the bill's mention of adoption promotion is simply the other side "throwing us a bone."

“Support from some pro-lifers” is not equivalent to “support by a major pro-life organization”.  The bill is also known as the Ryan/DeLauro bill, named for its sponsors by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) a nd Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). Ryan used to be on the national advisory board of Democrats for Life of America, a pro-life organization. He is a strong pro-life advocate and was booted from his position on the board after sponsoring the bill. Apparently the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good organization doesn’t count as a pro-life organization because they support funding a common ground.

Halfway there..

I just spotted this bumper sticker at Evolvefish:

 

 I can't help but notice that we're halfway there! Gobama?

The Fairness Doctrine, it's alive?

The blogosphere and newspaper editorials are up in arms as apparently the FCC is proposing a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. DCexaminer writes:

As free speech advocates gear up to oppose revival of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” another Orwellian-named government effort to dictate the content of radio and TV news and opinion has been hatched by the Bush administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC). So far, there’s been much less focus on the “localism rule” – even though it would have a similar chilling effect on First Amendment rights.

Under the FCC’s proposed regulations, owners of radio and TV stations would become subject to permanent advisory boards whose members – aka “community organizers” - would be chosen according to politically correct multi-cultural nostrums requiring representation of all “stakeholders.” These boards would be empowered by the FCC to decide if stations were airing a “sufficient amount of community-responsive programming”- with neither “sufficient” nor “responsive” defined. A negative advisory board finding could mean loss of a station owner’s broadcasting license.

The proposed regulations would also require broadcasters to maintain a 24/7 physical presence at broadcasting facilities, limit their use of celebrity “voice tracking” and network programming, require them to fund journalism schools, and give their music playlists to the FCC. Whatever else might be the FCC’s intention with this proposal, it is clear its application would vastly increase the cost of operating a station, while reducing the economic and editorial freedom of the owner. To what end? Experts warn that such rules will kill talk radio – one of the few mass media that favors conservatives. But more is at stake here than protecting the right of 12 million Americans to continue tuning in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

If this proposed regulation is adopted, political activists with ideological agendas on advisory boards will be able to dictate content by producing allies to complain that their interests are not being considered. Christian radio stations will be forced to air programs advocating abortion and gay marriage, which they oppose as a matter of religious conviction. Conservative talk radio stations will be forced to subsidize liberal programming that can’t attract commercial support. Failing to do so would mean loss of the broadcast license. This proposal is clearly antithetical to the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and religion. It will undermine an uncensored, independent press in a free society as a tool for holding politicians and bureaucrats accountable, and make government the arbiter of acceptable religious doctrine.

Are you kidding me? Not only does this doctrine not pass constitutional tests, President-elect Obama opposes it. No one is going to make Christian radio stations air programs advocating abortion, and no one is going to force you to write blog posts supporting liberalism. Before you get your panties in a bunch with an imaginary free-speech stifling schenario, read what FCC commisioner McDowell actually said:

“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that,” McDowell said. “So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else and I think it’ll be intertwined into the net neutrality debate.”

Basically, he said a whole lot of nothing. It's not going to happen. We don't need to organize a grassroots campaign just yet, or probably ever. Stormtroopers are not going to knock on the door of your radio station and arrest you for being a conservative.

If you think I am being sarcastic about the stormtroopers comment, you should listen to Dave Glover on 97.1 FM talk radio of St. Louis.

I actually like conservative talk radio - it is highly, highly entertaining to listen to these guys spout their conspiracy theory, Bible-driven nonsense. Sometimes they literally erupt into a fit of rage and screaming on air. They are constantly harping about how democrats are going to take away our right to free speech and gun ownership.

Even if I don't agree with conservatives, fundamentalists, and other people who tend to be hateful and irrational, I would fight to the death to defend their right to say what they think, so long as they are not deliberately inciting violence toward others. But it seems like this FCC thing is overblown, and there won't be a fight.

There are three principal arguments supporing the FCC Fairness Doctrine:

1. Radio waves are scarce and conservative dominance of radio waves distorts the national debate on public policies. The govornment should therefore intervene if the debate is out of balance.

- Airwaves are not scarce, and even if they were, the govornment should not intervene. Radio shows are on the air becuse there is a demand for them. Only 7% of Americans consider the radio to be their primary source of information. People can thusly get national news information from radio, TV, internet, paper publications, etc.

2. Some voices are being shut out or thwarted, and deserve equal airtime.

- There is no evidence of this, and even if there were, the govornment should not intervene. Once again, breadcast programming is largely related to supply and demand.

3. Public interest: The fairness doctrine would increase the availability of opinions to the public.

- It is not the job of the govornment to increase the availability of opinions. and, there is no evidence that opinions are being silenced. Furthur, when the Fairness Doctrine was in affect in the earlier part of this century, radio shows were so afraid to voice any controversial opinion that they just stuck to general talk and advice. So it actually worked to suppress opinions rather than free them.

Priest: Obama voters get no communion

From the Pew forum:

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.
"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.
"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Well, at least you're not totally screwed, you just have to confess first.  Supporting Obama is supporting "intrinsic evil"? Wow. I had no idea.

I think it is pretty interesting that people use the Bible to justify anti-abortion claims. Clearly, the God of the Bible is an evil baby-killing jerk who makes any serial killer look like a boy-scout. Even when he isn't killing innocent people and babies directly, God thinks that if two men get in a fight and accidentally cause one man's woman to abort her fetus, it's a civil matter:

    "And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

        Exodus 21:22-25

Plus, this brings up a totally different point. In the extended story for this piece, the priest can be quoted as saying:

"It was not an attempt to make a partisan point," Newman said in a telephone interview Thursday. "In fact, in this election, for the sake of argument, if the Republican candidate had been pro-abortion, and the Democratic candidate had been pro-life, everything that I wrote would have been exactly the same."

How is this not an attempt to make a partisan point? The reason people choose to align themselves with republican, democrat, or any other political party is a function of what that party believes about social and economic issues. Arguing that the name of the party in question does not matter and therefore one is not making a partisan point is like saying, "If heterosexuals had been the ones having same-sex sexual relationships, and the homosexuals had been the ones having opposite-sex sexual relationships, everything I wrote would have been exactly the same." By telling people they have sinned because they voted for Obama is making a partisan point, even if you attempt to mask your partisan opinion with a goofy play on words.

Atheists for Obama!

I know that proclaiming that atheists were (for the most part) pro-Obama would only hurt his chances for candidacy. So we were largely silent. Not anymore.

I am so incredibly, incredibly happy that we've elected an official whose mother was an atheist, whose father was an atheist who actually understands the meaning of "separation of church and state"

To all of you fundies out there who loudly proclaim that we are a "Christian" nation, I salute you. I salute you with the idea that the policies and ideals of this country might actually be influenced by science rather than superstition.

Oh and, this guy sums up my feelings on the issue with much more flair than I can: RudePundit . Scroll down to the 11/05/2008 post.

...,bitches!