The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is now pointing to a recent government study in an attempt to provide proof that children living in non-traditional households are more likely to be abused than those who live in the nuclear family with both biological parents. A 10 minute perusal of the document only serves to demonstrate that once again NOM missed the point, and, worse yet, grossly over exaggerated their case. In their effort to discredit gay parents and tear down these families, this is an excellent example of this countries need for better education in basic math. Let's examine a couple points.
(1) This study is of primarily heterosexual relationships. Doesn't it seem somewhat intellectually dishonest not to recognize that gay and lesbian parents are purposefully denied access to a supposedly stabilizing institution (Marriage) and then punished them because they fall into the less stable category? Of course they do! If gay people could get married there would be no point to be made here because some would fall into each category, so really, this has nothing to do with homosexuality and shouldn't be used as a referendum on anything other than family structure. IF ANYTHING, this is proof that gay people should be allowed to marry so their children would have a more stable household (since any kind of married parents are better than single with partner apparently).
(2) The problem is Single parents who live with their partner (what might be considered the only gay relationship category on here), but the problem is that there is another problem to be noted here. The number of incidents of abuse in these relationships is about 33 per 1,000. BUT here is a wrinkle, most of those incidents are perpetrated by the BIOLOGICAL parent, and not the partner. In fact, in EVERY type of relationship 87% of the time it is the biological parent who is the perpetrator of abuse. So, I guess that means the whole biological aspect of this argument doesn't hold much water. So that really only leaves the married part. Further support for gay people getting married!
(3) Now, lets talk about some statistics. Children living with single parents and their partners are about 8 times more likely to be abused (33.0 incidents as opposed to 4.0 per 1,000). However, those of you with half a brain already picked up on the HUGE omission in this argument. 33/1000 = 3.3%. Translation. Only 3 in every 100 children in these relationships are abused. In strict statistical terms, this means there is probably a HUGE probability that this correlation isn't very strong and that there might be other factors.
For example, The same study finds that children with unemployed parents are about 2 times more likely to abuse their children, and three times more likely if they are not even in the labor force. Why isn't this a referendum on unemployed parents? Children in low SES families are 5 times more likely to be abused. Why isn't this sparking a war on poor parents? Children in families with 4+ children are twice as likely to be mistreated than those in families with 2 children. Why aren't we talking about limited the number of births? This is just three examples that I could find in 5 minutes.
(4) Finally, if you look at basic statistical scores (Appendixes), it looks pretty clear that half the stuff they are reporting isn't statistically significant by even the more relaxed research standards. This begs the question, why is this being reported at all when it might not even be significant? and why aren't people up in arms about this stuff? (because they don't understand any of what I just said most likely)
Common Sense
Friday, January 29, 2010
Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Pro-Gay Dating Site Super Bowl Ad Rejected only Weeks after Anti-Choice Ad Accepted
You know, I'm all about the freedom of networks to decide what commercials it will air, and the Super Bowl should be no different, but this is getting kinda rediculous.
Just a few weeks after deciding it would allow advocacy ads, CBS rejects a Pro-Gay dating site advertisement, while accepting an anti-choice advertisement sponsored by the hate filled group, Focus on the Family. Lets remember NBC rejected a PETA advertisement just last year. Now, I'm not fan of PETA, but what happened to the "liberal media" bias?
So, basically anti-choice ads are ok, but animal protection and pro-gay ads are bad?
That doesn't sound right.
Common Sense
So, basically anti-choice ads are ok, but animal protection and pro-gay ads are bad?
That doesn't sound right.
Common Sense
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell: Drawing the Battle Lines!
Less than 24 hours after President Obama the battle lines are being drawn in the media.
The immediate response was quite clear:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff snubbed the president by neither standing nor applauding as they had done for previous military related statements in the State of the Union. Think Progress points this out in one of their posts. What is truly troubling is that the joint chiefs broke with tradition to applaud and even stand for any of the statements made during the speech. Traditionally, the "non-political" branches of government (military and judicial) never even move during the entire speech, much less applaud or stand. The rareness of the constant standing and sitting of the JCOS made it even more embarrassing when they sat completely still during the one sentence regarding DADT.
Human Rights Campaign immediately launched the "Voices of Honor" campaign in response to the presidents call to end DADT. The campaign will be expanding their field and legislative efforts in anticipation of a House and Senate vote on the issue sometime this year.
Here's an example of the hysterical DADT opposition:
Apparently, in defending DADT an advocate blamed the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison on the admission of women into the military. WOMEN! not gays, women! So not only are we not going forward, we are going backwards. wow...
So, here's where we are today.
Common Sense
The immediate response was quite clear:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff snubbed the president by neither standing nor applauding as they had done for previous military related statements in the State of the Union. Think Progress points this out in one of their posts. What is truly troubling is that the joint chiefs broke with tradition to applaud and even stand for any of the statements made during the speech. Traditionally, the "non-political" branches of government (military and judicial) never even move during the entire speech, much less applaud or stand. The rareness of the constant standing and sitting of the JCOS made it even more embarrassing when they sat completely still during the one sentence regarding DADT.
Human Rights Campaign immediately launched the "Voices of Honor" campaign in response to the presidents call to end DADT. The campaign will be expanding their field and legislative efforts in anticipation of a House and Senate vote on the issue sometime this year.
Here's an example of the hysterical DADT opposition:
Apparently, in defending DADT an advocate blamed the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison on the admission of women into the military. WOMEN! not gays, women! So not only are we not going forward, we are going backwards. wow...
So, here's where we are today.
Common Sense
Tea Baggers: Signs of a Tea Party Implosion?
We all hoped for the day that the Tea Party would fall apart before our very eyes. Well that day might soon be upon us. I have noticed a couple interesting signs in the media.
(1) January 13, 2010 - The Washington Independent reported that the American Liberty Alliance, a "gold" level sponsor, had bailed on the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN citing financial "controversy." The details were vague, but apparently many of the high level organizers of the Tea Party Nation had left for the same reason. hmm... that's weird.
(2) January 25, 2010 - The New York Times reports that controversy has sprang up surrounding the Tea Party Nation's National Convention. Apparently, some of the more grassroots organizations were accusing the Tea Party Nation of profiteering off the convention. A number of sponsors including the extreme right organization National Precinct Alliance (an organization bent on taking over the GOP from the "bottom" up). uh oh, they might be in trouble.
(3) January 28, 2010 - The Star Tribune (Local newspaper of my beloved twin cities of MN) reported that Michelle Bachmann, a key teabag enabler, has backed out of the National Tea Party Convention. Politico further reports that Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will also not be attending the event anymore.
Oh dear, what a tragedy! I hope they will be able to find people to replace those two! but I guess they still have Sarah Palin. Who knows maybe we'll all get lucky and it'll be a huge flop, and she will destroy the entire movement under the weight of her sheer stupidity. Not that we'd ever know because apparently only hand-picked journalists will be allowed inside for her speech (I wonder which ones those will be? The "Fair and Balanced" variety, perhaps?). She killed an entire presidential campaign, you'd think she'd at least have the decency to destroy this movement while she's at it.
Common Sense
(1) January 13, 2010 - The Washington Independent reported that the American Liberty Alliance, a "gold" level sponsor, had bailed on the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, TN citing financial "controversy." The details were vague, but apparently many of the high level organizers of the Tea Party Nation had left for the same reason. hmm... that's weird.
(2) January 25, 2010 - The New York Times reports that controversy has sprang up surrounding the Tea Party Nation's National Convention. Apparently, some of the more grassroots organizations were accusing the Tea Party Nation of profiteering off the convention. A number of sponsors including the extreme right organization National Precinct Alliance (an organization bent on taking over the GOP from the "bottom" up). uh oh, they might be in trouble.
(3) January 28, 2010 - The Star Tribune (Local newspaper of my beloved twin cities of MN) reported that Michelle Bachmann, a key teabag enabler, has backed out of the National Tea Party Convention. Politico further reports that Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will also not be attending the event anymore.
Oh dear, what a tragedy! I hope they will be able to find people to replace those two! but I guess they still have Sarah Palin. Who knows maybe we'll all get lucky and it'll be a huge flop, and she will destroy the entire movement under the weight of her sheer stupidity. Not that we'd ever know because apparently only hand-picked journalists will be allowed inside for her speech (I wonder which ones those will be? The "Fair and Balanced" variety, perhaps?). She killed an entire presidential campaign, you'd think she'd at least have the decency to destroy this movement while she's at it.
Common Sense
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Neo-Con Agenda: Louisiana Watergate!
Remember the guy and gal who decided it would be a good idea to dress up as a pimp and a prostitute so they could trick ACORN into helping them get money to start a brothel? That embarrassingly obvious example of neo-con entrapment and political theatre resulted in a GOP witch hunt against this organization. One can imagine the GOP needed someone on whom to take out their anger after being squashed in the 2008 elections, so they took it out on this grass-roots organization, and even managed to go so far as to cut their federal funding (a matter which the courts will no doubt take issue with).
Since then Mr. James O'Keefe (the Pimp) has become a conservative media darling, making appearances on Fox News (sometimes even dressed in his pimp outfit) and is a regular contributor to the ironically named "news" site, Big Government.
Well Mr. O'Keefe got himself into a little bit of trouble recently when he entered the Louisiana offices of Sen. Mary Landrieu and attempted to bug her phone. For those individuals old enough or educated enough, yes, this should ring eerily familiar to another neo-con attempt at political espionage at a certain hotel in Washington D.C. No one is really sure what they were looking for or why they chose to pull such a stupid stunt, but the results in the media are hardly surprising.
The neo-con noise machine at fox news and their surrogate neo-con contributors on MSNBC and CNN seem down right melancholy over the whole ordeal. They have managed to come up with only stall tactics and innuendo where they were so eager to hang ACORN out to dry only a few short months ago. My the right has a short memory, or perhaps its another example of political favoritism/cronyism that we have come to expect from the fringe of the american right-flank.
On Fox News, Fox and Friends couldn't bring themselves to mention anything about this incident other than "This story probably needs a lot of context." This after immediately dubbing O'Keefe their "power player of the week" for his actions at ACORN and anointing him an "investigating journalist." Perhaps next time they wont be so quick to commend faux-journalists for damn near criminal activities. They might end up being criminals.
On MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan even went so far as to blame Mary Landrieu. Mr. Buchanan openly wondered why James was there in the first place if there was nothing suspicious going on, as if the attempt of criminal neo-con political espionage was reason enough to conclude that Mary Landrieu must be doing something bad. He suggested that people should be looking into Sen. Landrieu to find out what James was seeking to find in her phone conversations.
As far as I'm concerned this guy got what was coming to him. He pushed his brand of vigilante, entrapment faux-journalism too far and he got nailed for it. I hope he gets a hefty fine and I wouldn't be opposed to seeing him get a few months in prison. Maybe someone can find a chalk board on which he can write "I will not commit illegal political espionage."
Common Sense
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
On Education: Elitism Within the Tower
Thoughts on My Philosophy of Education...
Recently I had the opportunity to experience academic elitism second-hand. You see, some of the administrative assistants and other staff members like to have lunch together in a make shift break room. This break room is adjacent to three faculty offices and one can imagine that these faculty might want to close their doors around 12:00PM so as to not be distracted by the laughter and conversation of these staff members as they enjoy the lunch hour.
The reality of the situation could not be more shocking. One of the faculty from the adjacent offices decided then rather than approach the situation with some dignity and poise, to burst from her office and throw a nearly violent temp tantrum. To this, the staff members responded by rightly admonishing the faculty members behavior. Unfortunately, this would not be the end of it. The staff members were first disciplined for challenging a faculty member and then denied further use of the "break" area. Where were they to eat their lunch? that question remains unanswered. To my knowledge the faculty faced no repercussions for her incredibly inappropriate behavior.
This smacks of one of Higher Educations most embarrassing realities: Classist elitism is alive and well on the university campus. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of elitism, but there is a difference between elitism that glorifies learning and seeks to uplift society, and classist elitism that perpetuates societal dysfunction, the suppression of the less learned to second class citizens, and the insulation of the elites to a status of near infallibility. This is clearly the latter.
When I say that I support elitism, I mean it in the strictest sense. I believe that academics, intellectuals, and the highly learned should enjoy the same, if not greater, praise, respect, and admiration as celebrities, political figures, and business tycoons. If for no other reasons this should be because without academics, intellectuals, and the highly learned, all the rest of these figures would not exists. The contributions to society made by these intellectual elites overshadows anything and everything ever done by a celebrity, government, or business. How could business function without the computers, market theory, or even intellectual training gained from an MBA programs, all of these things provided by the academics in engineering, economics, and business administration? The answer is that we would advance exponentially slower, if at all, without these intellectuals.
However, this does not give these individuals the right to mistreat those who have not yet reached such a place, in fact, quite the opposite is true. Intellectual elites have a unique responsibility to encourage and lift up the rest of us, especially those who provide them with support, ensuring that they are able to dedicate themselves fully to the task of creating new knowledge for the future of society. Further, Deans have a responsibility to ensure that this happens.
In the situation outlined at the beginning of this entry, the Dean chose to placate the faculty member, most likely because he saw this as the best way to keep that faculty from leaving. What he does not realize is that now, he has cost himself the productivity of his entire administrative support network, not to mention he has ensured that the faculty member in question will continue to act inappropriately in the future. Both the dean and the faculty member have forfeited their right to the moral high ground here and acted in a way that goes against their call to educate. They should not be counted among the truly elite, and instead represent a classist elitism that is poisoning higher education and sapping it of its credibility both publicly and internally.
The only cure for this is for faculty to begin to ACT beyond reproach instead of being afforded that right by edict of the deans. We are better than this, and it is our responsibility to provide it once again.
Common Sense
Recently I had the opportunity to experience academic elitism second-hand. You see, some of the administrative assistants and other staff members like to have lunch together in a make shift break room. This break room is adjacent to three faculty offices and one can imagine that these faculty might want to close their doors around 12:00PM so as to not be distracted by the laughter and conversation of these staff members as they enjoy the lunch hour.
The reality of the situation could not be more shocking. One of the faculty from the adjacent offices decided then rather than approach the situation with some dignity and poise, to burst from her office and throw a nearly violent temp tantrum. To this, the staff members responded by rightly admonishing the faculty members behavior. Unfortunately, this would not be the end of it. The staff members were first disciplined for challenging a faculty member and then denied further use of the "break" area. Where were they to eat their lunch? that question remains unanswered. To my knowledge the faculty faced no repercussions for her incredibly inappropriate behavior.
This smacks of one of Higher Educations most embarrassing realities: Classist elitism is alive and well on the university campus. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of elitism, but there is a difference between elitism that glorifies learning and seeks to uplift society, and classist elitism that perpetuates societal dysfunction, the suppression of the less learned to second class citizens, and the insulation of the elites to a status of near infallibility. This is clearly the latter.
When I say that I support elitism, I mean it in the strictest sense. I believe that academics, intellectuals, and the highly learned should enjoy the same, if not greater, praise, respect, and admiration as celebrities, political figures, and business tycoons. If for no other reasons this should be because without academics, intellectuals, and the highly learned, all the rest of these figures would not exists. The contributions to society made by these intellectual elites overshadows anything and everything ever done by a celebrity, government, or business. How could business function without the computers, market theory, or even intellectual training gained from an MBA programs, all of these things provided by the academics in engineering, economics, and business administration? The answer is that we would advance exponentially slower, if at all, without these intellectuals.
However, this does not give these individuals the right to mistreat those who have not yet reached such a place, in fact, quite the opposite is true. Intellectual elites have a unique responsibility to encourage and lift up the rest of us, especially those who provide them with support, ensuring that they are able to dedicate themselves fully to the task of creating new knowledge for the future of society. Further, Deans have a responsibility to ensure that this happens.
In the situation outlined at the beginning of this entry, the Dean chose to placate the faculty member, most likely because he saw this as the best way to keep that faculty from leaving. What he does not realize is that now, he has cost himself the productivity of his entire administrative support network, not to mention he has ensured that the faculty member in question will continue to act inappropriately in the future. Both the dean and the faculty member have forfeited their right to the moral high ground here and acted in a way that goes against their call to educate. They should not be counted among the truly elite, and instead represent a classist elitism that is poisoning higher education and sapping it of its credibility both publicly and internally.
The only cure for this is for faculty to begin to ACT beyond reproach instead of being afforded that right by edict of the deans. We are better than this, and it is our responsibility to provide it once again.
Common Sense
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What should we take away from the Massachusetts election?
So here's my take on what we should take away from the MA election.
(1) It really didn't have that much to do with health care. This was articulately presented by Think Progress. Basically, the number of people who cared about health care doesn't make up for the giant shift in votes from Democrat to Republican.
(2) Just because it's a blue state doesn't mean you can take it for granted. Coakley wasted her lead by allowing Brown to slander her for weeks without response. Then when her political machine finally woke up, it was too late to beat the momentum.
(3) The masses are NOT political animals. They believe what they are told and their vote is influenced by ridiculously stupid things. Brown appealed to their ignorance and their anger, Coakley appealed to... well... nothing. Independents (ignorant swing voters) liked the pretty guy who validated their anger and shifted their focus from bad business practices and deregulation to the politicians trying to fix the mess. Anyone who pays attention knows that Brown essentially lied.
(4) Voters have a three month memory. Republicans screwed up our economy for 8 years, so lets get rid of the people trying to fix it and give the republicans another shot. Morons...
(5) Democrats have no spine.
Common Sense
(1) It really didn't have that much to do with health care. This was articulately presented by Think Progress. Basically, the number of people who cared about health care doesn't make up for the giant shift in votes from Democrat to Republican.
(2) Just because it's a blue state doesn't mean you can take it for granted. Coakley wasted her lead by allowing Brown to slander her for weeks without response. Then when her political machine finally woke up, it was too late to beat the momentum.
(3) The masses are NOT political animals. They believe what they are told and their vote is influenced by ridiculously stupid things. Brown appealed to their ignorance and their anger, Coakley appealed to... well... nothing. Independents (ignorant swing voters) liked the pretty guy who validated their anger and shifted their focus from bad business practices and deregulation to the politicians trying to fix the mess. Anyone who pays attention knows that Brown essentially lied.
(4) Voters have a three month memory. Republicans screwed up our economy for 8 years, so lets get rid of the people trying to fix it and give the republicans another shot. Morons...
(5) Democrats have no spine.
Common Sense
You Might Be a Racist: Whites Only Basketball League
Here's a fun one!
Remember the old days, when all the basketball players were big slow white guys? well in a climate defined by racial reactionaries and tea bagging bigots, we might get to enjoy the slow paced side of basketball once again. A number of news outlets including Huffington Post and Think Progress are reporting on a plan to create a league of 12 white-only basketball teams.
The commissioner, Don "Moose" Lewis, claims that although it would be whites only, it's not because they "hate" anyone. On the contrary, they just don't like the way "people of color" play the game. Apparently, now that white, american-born people are the minority (they actually aren't unless you live in CA), there is a need for a league in which these people can play fundamental basketball, because thats the kind of baseketball white people play.
ok, so he's not hateful (or presumably racist), but Blacks are profane, violent, crotchgrabbers and are clearly wrong because they don't play basketball they way you want it to be played? Sorry buddy, you might be a racist.
Remember the old days, when all the basketball players were big slow white guys? well in a climate defined by racial reactionaries and tea bagging bigots, we might get to enjoy the slow paced side of basketball once again. A number of news outlets including Huffington Post and Think Progress are reporting on a plan to create a league of 12 white-only basketball teams.
"would you want to go to a game and worry a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch?" he said. "That's the culture today, and in a free country we should have the right to move ourselves in a better direction."
ok, so he's not hateful (or presumably racist), but Blacks are profane, violent, crotchgrabbers and are clearly wrong because they don't play basketball they way you want it to be played? Sorry buddy, you might be a racist.
Common Sense
Tea Baggers: Second Civil War?
It's a sad state of affairs when I find an idea advocated by the teabaggers to be at least moderately desirable, although I doubt I would enjoy it for the same reasons.
Apparently, the tea baggers have created flags for a movement called the "second" revolution. As seen in this article about the Brown victory in MA.
This second revolution involves splitting the United states into 2 countries: 24 Democratic States and 24 Republican States. Apparently California and New York (Notorious bastions of liberalism) will be split in half and each half free to pick whichever side they want to join. How nice of them to split let the republicans in the liberal states choose, but I have to wonder about the liberals in Texas.
So, as far as I'm concerned this doesn't sound like too bad an idea. I would love to live in a country where everyone is as liberal as I am and I would never have to deal with another ignorant neo-con again. So, for my part, I say lets do it. Let's split the country up. All the blue states can be the Democratic States of American (DSA). We'll have the best schools, the best art, the best health care, better pay for women, affirmative action for minorities, and the freedom to live our lives without government or religious intervention. Why would any liberal object to this idea????
Common Sense
This second revolution involves splitting the United states into 2 countries: 24 Democratic States and 24 Republican States. Apparently California and New York (Notorious bastions of liberalism) will be split in half and each half free to pick whichever side they want to join. How nice of them to split let the republicans in the liberal states choose, but I have to wonder about the liberals in Texas.
So, as far as I'm concerned this doesn't sound like too bad an idea. I would love to live in a country where everyone is as liberal as I am and I would never have to deal with another ignorant neo-con again. So, for my part, I say lets do it. Let's split the country up. All the blue states can be the Democratic States of American (DSA). We'll have the best schools, the best art, the best health care, better pay for women, affirmative action for minorities, and the freedom to live our lives without government or religious intervention. Why would any liberal object to this idea????
Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
