The latest tactic of the far right is apparently to try to use the rhetoric of inclusion against any one they would normally want to oppress. The latest example is an attempt to force public libraries to stock books about and by members of the so called ex gay movement
There is a report here from lgbt news:
http://lgbtnewsblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-tactic-from-burning-books-to.html
My favorite quote from this report is from a member of a group called PFOX (parents and friends of ex gays) who reportedly said:
"Apparently, the West Bend Community Memorial Library is not interested in diversity," said a PFOX person claimed. "We urge Michael Tyree, the library's director, to be inclusive of the ex-gay community and accept our donation of ex-gay books. According to its own policy, the Library has a 'professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in developing collections.'"
Oh right, like these people are really interested in diversity. These are after all the same people who oppose basic civil rights for LGBT people at every turn. Why am I not impressed with their argument?
By the way this group bandies about a new term: heterophobia which they claim is on the rise!
See...http://pfox.org/HETEROSEXUALS_VICTIMIZED_BY_HOMOSEXUALS.html
What do these idiots think we are, stupid? OK, don't answer that.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Saturday, August 01, 2009
At the garden store
Our local garden store got a shipment of orchids. Unfortunately the shipment consisted of hybrids such as this one that really haven't grown well for me. But I love the patterns.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
An important transgender victory...
See this article about Diane Schroer who was refused a job at the library of congress when she revealed her desire to transition from male to female.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/40092prs20090701.html
The Bush administration had argued that transgendered are not protected by existing discrimination laws. The federal court ruled that they are and IMHO their reasoning could have far reaching implications for transgender rights issues. According to the ACLU article the court argued in the following way:
“Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.” The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female."
The Obama administration has refused to appeal the decision of the court.
If other courts follow this reasoning, then the need for explicit anti discrimination laws covering GLBT people could become moot. But I am skeptical that other courts will follow this reasoning. Were this case to reach the Supreme Court, I would be really surprised if the Supremes bought this argument.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/40092prs20090701.html
The Bush administration had argued that transgendered are not protected by existing discrimination laws. The federal court ruled that they are and IMHO their reasoning could have far reaching implications for transgender rights issues. According to the ACLU article the court argued in the following way:
“Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.” The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female."
The Obama administration has refused to appeal the decision of the court.
If other courts follow this reasoning, then the need for explicit anti discrimination laws covering GLBT people could become moot. But I am skeptical that other courts will follow this reasoning. Were this case to reach the Supreme Court, I would be really surprised if the Supremes bought this argument.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Gasp!
Now that Sonia Sotomayor's papers have been released, conservatives have been ransacking them for juicy incriminating tidbits. For example,David Brody over at the Christian Broadcasting Network has uncovered a letter she cosigned in condemning the ransacking of a dorm room of two gay activists back in 1976.
The letter says in part:
"No matter how much one may disagree with the Gay Alliance or the policies they are advocating, no matter how repugnant one may find homosexuality, the manner of expressing this opposition should be intellectual. At this university we are dedicated to persuasion by reason, not by brute force"
Conservative Brody felt his CBN readers should read this letter. He's right especially since academic freedom has co-opted by conservative Christian groups who feel "oppressed" when they think their rights are being trampled on. But I suspect his conservative readers will cluck and see the letter as confirmation of Sotomayor's radical leftist leaning and not see the hypocrisy in their own position!
A tip of the antennae to GayNewsBlog for calling Brody's discovery to our attention.
The letter says in part:
"No matter how much one may disagree with the Gay Alliance or the policies they are advocating, no matter how repugnant one may find homosexuality, the manner of expressing this opposition should be intellectual. At this university we are dedicated to persuasion by reason, not by brute force"
Conservative Brody felt his CBN readers should read this letter. He's right especially since academic freedom has co-opted by conservative Christian groups who feel "oppressed" when they think their rights are being trampled on. But I suspect his conservative readers will cluck and see the letter as confirmation of Sotomayor's radical leftist leaning and not see the hypocrisy in their own position!
A tip of the antennae to GayNewsBlog for calling Brody's discovery to our attention.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Conservatives try the reverse racism ploy again...
I really should write more about conservative rhetorical tricks because they are the current masters. Take their offensive about Judge Sotomayor where conservative bloggers and pundits have been virally quoting this line from one of Judge Sotomayor's speeches:
"First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Now on the surface it sounds like some of those insufferable comments that people on the left used to make in the late 60's when they would romanticize people of color but the problem is that the comment is taken completely out of context-sort of like what's done by the left and right with the Bible.
And as so often the case, the whole point of the narrative is missed and often close by in the narrative a key paragraph is missed, either intentionally or because of some sort of filtering going on in the reader's brain. Here for example is the very next paragraph of the the Judge's speech:
"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."
Clearly she is talking about something else entirely than racism, something closer to an appreciation of diversity than FOX's news commentators and Newt Gingrich care to recognize.
Here is the complete speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html
Maybe conservatives ought to read the whole thing rather than look for little snippits. They might even find something to like about the judge. But hey maybe they have gotten so hooked on phonics that they have forgotten that reading rquires more than pronouncing the words.
"First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Now on the surface it sounds like some of those insufferable comments that people on the left used to make in the late 60's when they would romanticize people of color but the problem is that the comment is taken completely out of context-sort of like what's done by the left and right with the Bible.
And as so often the case, the whole point of the narrative is missed and often close by in the narrative a key paragraph is missed, either intentionally or because of some sort of filtering going on in the reader's brain. Here for example is the very next paragraph of the the Judge's speech:
"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."
Clearly she is talking about something else entirely than racism, something closer to an appreciation of diversity than FOX's news commentators and Newt Gingrich care to recognize.
Here is the complete speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html
Maybe conservatives ought to read the whole thing rather than look for little snippits. They might even find something to like about the judge. But hey maybe they have gotten so hooked on phonics that they have forgotten that reading rquires more than pronouncing the words.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Diversity Conservative Style
Some conservative religious groups complain about the alleged "oppression" of their point of view in secular universities. Well it seems they don't mind suppressing view points on their campuses that don't match their own. First we had the flap about Notre Dame giving Obama an honorary degree and now we have a flap over campus Democratic club at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.
Seems that the University's Student Democratic Club cannot be recognised any more by the school because of the Democratic party's alleged support of positions antithetical to the religious teachings endorsed by the private University.
Reverend Falwell is quoted here as saying:
“They are good, Christian kids who sit with me at ball games. I just hope they find a pro-life family organization to affiliate with so they can be endorsed by Liberty again.“
An e-mail to the leaders of the University's Democratic club allegedly explaining the reasoning for the ban says:
“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”
As a private school, the University may well be within its rights to do this, but it strikes me as a bit extreme. After all Democrats are hardly uniform about the above issues, and the student leaders claim to have views in line with the University's. Plus this is a bad strategy on the part of the University-after all if Falwell wants to change the Democratic party and insure representation of conservative religious tenets, then what better way to do so than to promote conservative Democrats.
Seems that the University's Student Democratic Club cannot be recognised any more by the school because of the Democratic party's alleged support of positions antithetical to the religious teachings endorsed by the private University.
Reverend Falwell is quoted here as saying:
“They are good, Christian kids who sit with me at ball games. I just hope they find a pro-life family organization to affiliate with so they can be endorsed by Liberty again.“
An e-mail to the leaders of the University's Democratic club allegedly explaining the reasoning for the ban says:
“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the “LGBT” agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)”
As a private school, the University may well be within its rights to do this, but it strikes me as a bit extreme. After all Democrats are hardly uniform about the above issues, and the student leaders claim to have views in line with the University's. Plus this is a bad strategy on the part of the University-after all if Falwell wants to change the Democratic party and insure representation of conservative religious tenets, then what better way to do so than to promote conservative Democrats.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Susan Stanton lands a job!
Susan Stanton who lost her job as Largo FL. City manager when her plans to transition from male to female were leaked, has been hired as City Manager of Lake Worth Fla by a 4 to 1 vote.
According to this article in the Palm Beach Post:
"The national discussion that followed Stanton's firing led the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council to persuade West Palm Beach, Tequesta, Lake Worth and Palm Beach County to add provisions to their codes that prevent discrimination based on gender identity."
I would love to think that in 10 or 15 years the whole controversy about Stanton in Largo will seem as both mean spirited and curiously quaint.
According to this article in the Palm Beach Post:
"The national discussion that followed Stanton's firing led the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council to persuade West Palm Beach, Tequesta, Lake Worth and Palm Beach County to add provisions to their codes that prevent discrimination based on gender identity."
I would love to think that in 10 or 15 years the whole controversy about Stanton in Largo will seem as both mean spirited and curiously quaint.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)