Amp interviewed on a right-wing website

Posted on June 1, 2005 by Ampersand

Michael of the blog Christian Conservative has recently published an interview with me, the first in a projected series of interviews with lefties: Part 1 and Part 2. Michael’s idea, I think, is to give his mostly right-wing readers a sense of what sort of world leftists hope for.

It’s odd but fun (in an egotistical sort of way) to be interviewed. Of course, I doubt any of my opinions will be news to “Alas” readers (and I state them more carefully and accurately on “Alas” than I was capable of doing in a real-time interview format), but it’s enjoyable to read Michael’s readers reactions to me. Some of the reactions are pretty friendly, and some are not – like this fellow:

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 53:1)

This man is a fool, and his views are foolish and evil. I appreciate your exposition Michael as an educational tool, but seriously, what a wicked wretch.

That was the most extreme comment (and hence the funniest), but there were other, more open-minded comments, too. And Michael, whose views I do not agree with (to put it mildly), was very nice to me.

Posted in Whatever | 58 Comments

We're back online!

Posted on June 1, 2005 by Ampersand

For now, at least, we’re back online. It was a server load too high issue again – something is causing the entire database to be copied to a “tmp” file, over and over again. I wish I knew how to fix it.

For now, I’ve turned almost all the plug-ins off (I’ve left the plug-in that enables the “recently commented posts” thingy on the right running), in case it’s a bug in one of them. Meanwhile, until this problem is fixed, my server retains the option of shutting “Alas” off at any point.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 2 Comments

Pro-life leaders defend system of forced abortion

Posted on May 30, 2005 by Ampersand

“Alas” reader Glaivester emailed me a link to this item on Clarkstooksbury.

Officials on Tuesday also confirmed what an ABCNEWS 20/20 investigation had found–that pregnant garment workers on Saipan are forced to have abortions to keep their jobs.

“When I told them I was pregnant, they told me to have an abortion,” said Tu Xiao Mei, a woman who lost her job after refusing an abortion.

“With 11,000 Chinese workers here, I have never seen a Chinese garment factory worker have a baby,” said human rights worker Eric Gregoire.

Saipan, by the way, is an American territory. We own it. But a loophole in the law gives Saipan the right to set its own labor laws. The result is a system that’s hard to distinguish from slavery.

Most of the workers are “young women from China who have been promised by recruiters that they are going to good jobs in America,” Ross reported.

“Instead many find themselves kept behind barbed wire, in rat-infested labor camps, and put to work in huge Chinese- and Korean-owned garment factories–often under sweatshop conditions–making clothes for the American market,” he said.

The clothes can legally be labeled “Made in the USA.”

Okay, so let’s consider Tom DeLay. This is a man who can’t stand the idea of “Plan B,” because he thinks it’s abortion. So why does he passionately defend a system in which pregnant women are forced to get abortions against their wills?

Saipan has spent millions on Washington lobbyists and given top Republicans in Congress free trips to the beautiful Pacific island, including one over Christmas for House Majority Whip Tom DeLay.

“You represent everything that is good about what we’re trying to do in America,” he told outgoing Governor Froilan Tenorio, a distant cousin of the current governor, at a dinner in Saipan this past New Year’s eve.

DeLay and other Republicans have vowed to fight to keep the laws the way they are on Saipan.

As far as I – and I suspect all pro-choicers – are concerned, it’s cause for horror for any woman, anywhere, to have reproductive decisions forced on her. That’s true regardless of if it’s a woman being forced to give childbirth because her government has banned abortion, or a woman being forced to abort because she’s been tricked into a job in a US territory with no labor rights.

Do pro-lifers see anything wrong with this situation? I’m sure the pro-lifers who occasionally post on “Alas” (hi, Glaivester! hi, Robert! hi, Emily!) will find it objectionable. Maybe they’ll even send an outraged letter to DeLay’s office.

But will the pro-life leadership care at all? Will the pro-life leadership organize to pressure “pro-life” Republicans to take a stand against forced abortions in a US territory? I’m not holding my breath. They’ve pushed policies that increase abortion in the past, and I’m sure they’ll keep doing so in the future. If they can be judged by their actions, it seems that pro-life leaders are actually comfortable with increased and forced abortions, so long as it’s happening to women who aren’t from the first world.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 46 Comments

NARAL's Endorsement of Lincoln Chafee

Posted on May 30, 2005 by Ampersand

Bigwigs in the Rhode Island Democratic party backed Jim Langevin, an anti-abortion Democrat, in the primary race to run against pro-choice incumbent Republican Lincoln Chafee. NARAL made it clear that it would strongly support Langevin’s pro-choice opponents in the primary race, and Langevin dropped out. NARAL then endorsed the pro-choice Republican for the general election.

In response, Kos and Ezra, among others, threw a shit-fit. Both of them take the position that NARAL should have supported the pro-life Democrat. Kos:

Nevermind that Langevin would’ve crushed Chafee and gotten us one seat closer to a Democratic-led Senate. And a Democratic-led Senate wouldn’t ever let any abortion legislation see the light of day. But NARAL, myopic fools that they are, think Chafee is a better bet, despite his vote for Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and their allegiance to the James Dobson, American Taliban agenda.

NARAL, and many people here, whined and cried about Langevin, the way they whined and cried about Harry Reid, because of those Democrats’ personal opposition to abortion. Didn’t we know, they demanded, that choice was a core principle of the Democratic Party?

To which I have a simple answer: The hell it is.

So Choice isn’t a core principle for the Democrats, but NARAL – for whom choice is very nearly the only core principle – nonetheless should give the Dems 100% support, regardless of circumstance. Riiiight.

Ezra’s argument is similar to Kos’:

I see where NARAL’s coming from on this, but by cutting pro-life Democrats off at the knees they’re keeping some Republicans in power, by doing that, they’re helping to sustain the Republican majority, and by doing that, they’re striking a grievous blow against their cause.

True, it’s in NARAL’s interest to have Democratic majority in the Senate. It’s also in NARAL’s interest for Bill Frist to suddenly become a pregnant single mother. Unfortunately, neither of these things will happen soon. Until Democrats demonstrate an ability to win elections,, NARAL would be reckless to put all its eggs in the Dem-majority basket.

Against NARAL’s interest in helping to secure an unlikely Democratic majority in the short term, NARAL has to balance:

  • NARAL’s interest in showing the Democratic party that NARAL’s support is conditional on the Democrats supporting choice, rather than automatic.
  • NARAL’s interest in showing pro-choice Republican politicians – and pro-choice Republican donors – that NARAL is serious about supporting pro-choice candidates, and not just a front for the Democratic party. (Apparently in return for NARAL’s endorsement, Chafee is turning up the volume of his pro-choice advocacy; he’ll be a featured speaker at a NARAL convention later this year).
  • NARAL’s interest in supporting pro-choice incumbents, who as a general rule are more useful allies than pro-choice newbies.
  • NARAL’s interest in maintaining credibility among pro-choice activists. If NARAL starts endorsing pro-life candidates, it will lose support from its base – which is not people like Kos, but people like the folks who read “Alas.”

If only 1 or 2 votes separated the Democrats from a Senate majority, then on balance it might have made sense for NARAL to stab Chafee in the back, ignoring its other interests. But since it’s very unlikely the Dems can win a majority in the short term, it made sense for NARAL to decide as it did. Certainly, the arrogant and condescending comments from Ezra and Kos (“stupid, stupid, stupid”), implying that no one intelligent could have decided as NARAL did, are unwarranted.

Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money has written a more reasonable critique of NARAL. Unlike Kos and Ezra, he doesn’t demand that NARAL lick the Democratic Party’s boots even when the Dems favor pro-life candidates. But Scott ignores NARAL’s interest in maintaining their credibility with pro-choice Republicans, and in having incumbent allies.

Scott also argues that the Democrats will decide from this that there’s no point in courting NARAL’s support, since Langevin dropping out didn’t cause NARAL to endorse the pro-choice Democrats who can now win the primary. This is a more credible argument than Kos’ or Ezra’s, but I’m not sure it’s correct. First of all, it’s not clear that either of the Democrats now running are really pro-choice (as Acbonin at Kos points out, one has an anti-choice record, the other has remained silent), and certainly neither one is a proven pro-choicer like Chafee is.

Secondly, Scott’s argument implicitly assumes that NARAL wants to create an incentive for Democrats to run any old candidate who claims to be pro-choice, regardless of record or credible chance of winning. However, what I think NARAL really wants to do is create an incentive for Democrats to run strong candidates with strong commitments to choice; if that’s NARAL’s goal, then they were correct to not endorse any of the Democrats running in this race, because none of them met this standard.

In other words, had the Democrats put forward a candidate with a credible chance of winning and a pro-choice record as impressive as Chafee’s, it’s quite possible that NARAL would have stayed out of this race rather than endorse Chafee.

(Will Baude makes an argument similar to what I’ve written here. Also, Matt Singer – here and here – and, in a particularly excellent post, David Sirota. Unfortunately, this debate so far seems to be dominated by male voices on both sides, at least as of yesterday when I searched Technocrati.)

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics | 84 Comments

More anti-women-having-sex and anti-comprehensive sex-ed from the Rightwing

Posted on May 27, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

I’m beginning to loose track of all the hysterically anti-woman-having-sex, anti-comprehensive sex-ed, and anti-contraception rhetoric we’ve heard from the Radical Rightwing, which is now being taught to young people in schools and has supplanted reason and science. Most of this rhetoric is outright contemptuous towards women’s sexuality, women’s reproductive rights, and the Queer Community–our three favorite scapegoats for all of society’s ills. Anyway, here’s more Rightwing zaniness in the sphere of sex-education (or lack thereof) via Feministing. And of course, it’s all directed towards young women who are solely to blame for STDs, teen pregnancy, and expenses. Never mind hormonal adolescent males as they are–as usual–absolved of any responsibility by the Rightwing for any of this.

Republicans don’t favor comprehensive sex ed for high school students, but apparently it’s a-OK by the time you’re a Capitol Hill staffer. That must be why Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma sponsored a “Star Wars”-themed STD slide show yesterday for young Congressional aides.

At the event, Coburn hypocritically advised staffers to use condoms. He has long been an anti-condom crusader.

Coburn’s STD presentation even contained a special message for the ladies. Apparently, it’s up to us alone to stop the spread of STDs:
“What would happen in this country if the young women would say no [to sex] until they’re 20?” [Coburn] asked. “Disease would go down, the pregnancy rate for unwed mothers would go down, the social costs for the next two generations would go down.”

What else can we learn from Coburn? The death penalty should be applied to abortion providers. Women with breast implants are healthier. And “rampant lesbianism” is ruining Oklahoma high schools. Plus, it’s a good idea to serve pizza to accompany a graphic STD slide show. Ewwww.

Um, copyright infringement anyone? Does George Lucas know about this? Darth Vader, my favorite villain of all time, would be very displeased with Coburn abusing the Dark Side of the Force for this kind of stupidity. And Vader’s sex-ed classes would probably be much more informative for young people. After he gets done choking them with his mental powers. But at least young people would learn something, unlike in Abstinence-Only courses.

So if all girls refrain from sexual activity until they’re in their twenties, boys and young men will have to a.) masturbate, b.) ask the twenty-something-year-old women to have sex with them, c.) refrain from anything sexual themselves, or d.) “experiment” with homosexuality…or find out that they were Gay to begin with anyway. But hey, it’s not boys’ and young men’s fault for STDs, teen pregnancy, sexual “promiscuity”, or the costs that come with it. Females’ are the sexual “gatekeepers”, so let’s just look in the mirror and blame ourselves (for the millionth time), ladies. Gotta love all those gender prescribed burdens we have…

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Anti-feminists and their pals, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues | 24 Comments

I need to renew my domain… recommended companies?

Posted on May 27, 2005 by Ampersand

I need to renew my ownership of “amptoons.com” very soon. Does anyone out there know of a company they’d recommend for domain renewal? Please let me know.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 10 Comments

Storytime For Sinners!

Posted on May 27, 2005 by Ampersand

A Pennsylvania school district is being taken to court for allegedly violating the free-speech rights of a parent who came to her sons kindergarten class to participate in Storytime during “me week” which gives the parents a chance to come to the classroom and read stories to the children from their own childs favorite book. Principal Thomas Cook of Rutherford Institute, a conservative christian oriented non-profit, has taken up her cause.

The school board has defended Principal Cook, stating that the law prevents advocacy or teaching of religion.

Here is the passage that she wished to read to the children (Psalm 118):

1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.
2 Let Israel say: “His love endures forever.”
3 Let the house of Aaron say: “His love endures forever.”
4 Let those who fear the LORD say: “His love endures forever.”
5 In my anguish I cried to the LORD, and he answered by setting me free.
6 The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?
7 The LORD is with me; he is my helper. I will look in triumph on my enemies.
8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.
9 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.
10 All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.
11 They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off.
12 They swarmed around me like bees, but they died out as quickly as burning thorns; in the name of the LORD I cut them off.
13 I was pushed back and about to fall, but the LORD helped me.
14 The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.
15 Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: “The LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!
16 The LORD’s right hand is lifted high; the LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!”
17 I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the LORD has done.
18 The LORD has chastened me severely, but he has not given me over to death.
19 Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter and give thanks to the LORD.
20 This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter.
21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation.
22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone;
23 the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.
24 This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.
25 O LORD, save us; O LORD, grant us success.
26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. From the house of the LORD we bless you.
27 The LORD is God, and he has made his light shine upon us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar.
28 You are my God, and I will give you thanks; you are my God, and I will exalt you.
29 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.

Posted in Free speech, censorship, copyright law, etc. | 18 Comments

This is What An Activist Judge Looks Like

Posted on May 27, 2005 by Ampersand

Well, great, because I’ve come across a truly bizarre case of judicial activism. It would seem that Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion County Superior Courts has decided he needed to prohibit exposure to the Wicca faith to a nine year old boy, whose parents are divorcing. After learning that Thomas Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie Bristol were Wiccans that sent their child to a Catholic school – according to the judge:

There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages.

Both parents protested the decision heavily, but the court has kept the provision regardless. Now the Indiana Civil Liberties Union is helping out with an appeal, that as the reporter of the article states is a ‘slam dunk’ of a case. Lets hope so – I’m personally stunned that it got this far.

Posted in Families structures, divorce, etc | 22 Comments

The pain that comes with denying same-sex union/marriage protections and benefits

Posted on May 26, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Same-sex couples especially those with children face all kinds of problems within the social and legal spheres of life. Same-sex couples are denied access to their partners while their ill in hospitals. Same-sex parents must deal with hostile and bigoted school systems. Same-sex couples who dare display affection and their love towards one another in public may face venomous slander and violence (though never mind it’s okay for hetero folks to swap-spit and practically dry-hump each other in public). Then there’s our oh so pro-civil-rights and “justice for all” legal system which goes out of its way, certainly in specific parts of the country, to routinely restrict and deny the civil rights and liberties of same-sex couples and the Queer Community in general. All to the appeasement of the Radical Right and their fundamentalist dogma. Families headed by same-sex parents are especially endanger of having their rights trampled by the courts and those *gasp* activist judges. Here’s an article from Planned Parenthood illustrating the legal hardships faced by same-sex parents and families should they split up much like hetero-parents and their families. But minus the denial of civil rights, based solely on the bigotry toward same-sex relationships.

Five years ago, Janet Miller-Jenkins and her partner, Lisa, traveled from their home state of Virginia to Vermont, where they could legally secure their relationship via civil union, and, where, later, they would move to raise their child.

But the legal stability they sought in Vermont was shattered when, in the wake of their separation, Lisa Miller-Jenkins returned to Virginia and used that state’s Affirmation of Marriage Act … one of the country’s most extreme state laws against the rights of same-sex couples … to rob Janet of the right to see their only child.

The resulting court case … Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins … pits Vermont law against Virginia law and illustrates the human cost when same-sex couples and their families are not given the same legal protections afforded their heterosexual peers.

Filing Suit

In 2001, a year after Lisa and Janet Miller-Jenkins were joined via civil union, Lisa was artificially inseminated with sperm from a donor whose physical characteristics matched Janet’s. Isabella Miller-Jenkins was born in Virginia on April 16, 2002.

That July, Janet, Lisa, and Isabella relocated to Vermont, where the laws were more amenable to same-sex couples and their families. In 2003, however, the couple split up and Lisa filed for dissolution of the union in Vermont. The court, recognizing both women as Isabella’s parents, granted Lisa custody and Janet visitation rights.

“The fight among the states is not merely about jurisdiction but about drastically differing versions of family, marriage, and good citizenship.”
Far from ending the custody case, the Vermont court decision proved to be just the beginning. Lisa returned to Virginia, claiming she was no longer a lesbian, and filed a claim for sole custody of Isabella, who was then two years old.

Quick comment; I’m pretty sure that I can “stop” being heterosexual, especially if I wanted to hurt my ex-partner in the most malicious way just to deny them visitation rights. But anyway…

Virginia has some of the strictest laws against same-sex unions in the country: in addition to a 1997 law that bans gay marriage, the 2004 Affirmation of Marriage Act bans same-sex civil unions and any other legal contracts or partnerships that might bestow marriage-like rights on same-sex couples. In August 2004, the state court, relying on those laws, declared Lisa to be the sole legal parent of Isabella and denied Janet all visitation rights.

Outraged, Janet decided to fight back. She appealed the Virginia court’s ruling, with support from legal advocacy organizations, including Equality Virginia, Lambda Legal, and the Virginia American Civil Liberties Union. Now, she is in the midst of a complicated legal battle … one that will not have a quick resolution.

Who Is a “Parent”?

Vermont recognizes Janet as Isabella’s parent; Virginia does not. Traditionally, courts have defined “parent” biologically.

Oh well then, if my parents and I lived in Virginia (or a state with a like-minded family court system) then both of them would be screwed because they adopted me. None of them would be my parents by Virginia’s narrow definition of what makes you a parent.

But as non-traditional families have become more common, advocates have pushed for a definition of a parent based on nurture, not on nature. Such a definition would recognize parental rights for women like Janet who, although not biologically related, is considered, in the eyes of many, Isabella’s other parent.

In the Miller-Jenkins custody battle, Virginia follows the purely biological definition of a parent. Vermont, following Judge William D. Cohen’s decision to award Janet visitation rights in the initial custody case, recognizes parental rights as stemming from the civil union and the couple’s intent to have and raise the child together. Vermont’s decision can be seen as a victory for same-sex couples, since it adds parenthood to the rights that same-sex couples gain through a formal union.

Federal Law

Although the legal conflict lies between the states of Vermont and Virginia, the Miller-Jenkins custody fight also invoked two potentially conflicting federal laws … the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Parental Kidnapping Protection Act (PKPA).

DOMA allows one state to reject a same-sex marriage or civil union formed in another state. PKPA, designed to protect children at the center of what are often vicious custody battles, requires a state court to refuse to grant a new custody order when one has already been issued by another state.

The Virginia state court invoked DOMA as a basis for ignoring PKPA in the Miller-Jenkins custody case. It held that, because Virginia law did not recognize the couple’s civil union, it would not recognize the parental rights granted to Janet from the union.

The Virginia decision, if upheld, would prevent PKPA from protecting children born to same-sex couples from being kidnapped by one parent.

All to prove how much they (Virginia) despise same-sex relationships and will do everything in its power to destroy same-sex headed families. To you know, just prove a point. So ‘family-oriented’ aren’t they?

Whose Best Interests?

Greg Nevins, Janet Miller-Jenkins’ lawyer at Lambda Legal, says that the true purpose of PKPA, to protect the best interests of all children in custody disputes, is at the heart of the case. “There is no gay exception to this rule,” he says. “It applies to everyone.”

[…]

The outcome of Miller-Jenkins will be a powerful indicator of where this country stands on the treatment of lesbian and gay parents and their children. Ruthann Robson, professor of law at City University of New York Law School in Queens and an expert in lesbian and gay legal theory, says, “The fight among the states is not merely about jurisdiction but about drastically differing versions of family, marriage, and good citizenship.”

[…]

The Future

In a society in which more than 1,100 federal benefits and legal protections are reserved for couples who are legally married, bans against gay marriage and same-sex civil unions leave thousands of lesbians, gay men, and their families defenseless. And as more and more states seek to ban gay marriage and same-sex civil unions outright, it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict how the rights of same-sex couples and their families will be protected.

[…]

Unless those with a particular agenda out to destroy and even prevent same-sex families from becoming have anything to say about it. And they do and they’re working ever closer to return us to the times when ‘family’ and ‘parenthood’ were defined by the narrow views of certain individuals in power, prejudiced against “non-traditional” families and people.

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Same-Sex Marriage | 77 Comments

Men's Egos are *that* frail?!…really?!

Posted on May 24, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Since the time they were little girls, women have been conditioned to pet the male ego and never dare threaten or bruise it. So as some of these girls become young women, enter college–ambitious to excel in the academia, then go off to the profession of their dreams, they might want to be careful. Especially if they have a longing for a hubby someday, because he might not be interested in a woman who earns more than him. Via Feministing and this study.

Early starts, late nights and endless meetings may be good for the bank balance, but professional women beware. You could be making your husband sick.

Research will this week say that the more committed and successful a woman is at work, the worse her partner feels. The findings blame a syndrome called “unfulfilled husband hypothesis” for making men feel inadequate when women stray too far beyond their traditional roles. The man of the house, it seems, is still not cut out for domesticity.

But never mind the “unfulfilled wife hypothesis,” because if she dares to express nothing but joy over her role as the traditional never male-threatening wife, then she’s a bitch. So unless you’re making less than him, you’re crushing his ego and dooming your relationship to failure. Though, never take into account how you feel about the whole higher-lower income situation because you’re always supposed to be the constant self-sacrificer, not him. He just has to give up having sex with other people.

…Men’s physical and mental health is “significantly poorer when their wives work full-time”, say the authors of the study.

And there’s nothing wrong with wives who have husbands who work full time? Tell that to my sister-in-law and other women. But that’s right, just don’t complain ladies. It’s okay for you to feel inadequate and unfulfilled, but never your hubby.

The report also contends that men are healthier when they earn more than their wives. Wow.

Is men’s health so fragile that it’s dependent on feeling superior to women? If that is the case, it seems to me that the problem isn’t that women work, but that men are massively insecure. Not to mention, I don’t know that feeling inadequate counts as a serious health problem.

Neither do I. But it sounds like a classic case of a guy feeling the sense of lose for his privileges. And the whole emasculation thing which is practically a crime in this culture. So put aside your aspirations for a high-profile career, ladies! Think about that possible Mister Right and his feelings about a woman’s place and proper amount of income. Spinsterhood here I come, because I could care less about some insecure guy’s feelings and ego about how much I make.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Feminism, sexism, etc, Gender and the Economy | 106 Comments