Monthly Archives: January 2012

Why are some atheists such a**holes?

From a billboard in Boulder:

Billboard with text "God is an Imaginary Friend.  Choose Reality.  It will be better for all of us.  Colorado Coalition of Reason."

Right, because making fun of other people’s beliefs has done so much — throughout history — to promote peace and understanding.

How about “Choose Mutual Respect:  It Will Be Better for All of Us.”

Shit Walkies Say

Having thoroughly enjoyed Shit Sighted People Say to Blind People, Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls, and Shit White Girls Say to Arab Girls, I decided it would be hilarious to make a video out of some of the stupid shit people have said to Tim* over the years.  Only problem, of course:  I have no video production skills, not to mention equipment.  So — as with a couple of previous posts — I relied on the cartoon people over at xtranormal and created this.   I’m sure it doesn’t measure up to the videos that inspired it, but on the upside, I only wasted three hours on it.

*  Yes, it’s weird that it’s me (a walkie) and not Tim who made this little video, but he’s busy actually practicing law, or possibly (we can only hope!) drafting his first guest blog post.  Stay tuned!!

In which my friend Susie does good things for my brain.

Expand & protect.

Lunch yesterday with my awesome friend Susie Greene, who has just produced/published this multimedia investigation into solitary confinement.  Extra bonus awesomeness, it features ass-kicking DU clinical professor Laura Rovner.   The video will expand your brain into the toxic arena of solitary confinement.  You thought it was just a few days “in the hole” for bad behavior.  Think again.

And, um, protect.  After lunch — at the (perfectly appropriate) prodding of Susie and Tim — Susie took me ski-helmet shopping.   I have been trying to convince myself that having skied for 40ish years without a helmet, I was somehow grandfathered (grandmothered?) in.   But even I had to admit, finally, that this made no damn sense.  So now I’ll look like this when I ski:

Lindsey Vonn skiing at top speed

Or more realistically:

Amy in a red ski helmet

It shouldn’t be about choice; it should be about respect.

Cynthia Nixon has spurred an interesting dialog by embracing the concept that being gay or lesbian can be a choice.  In the civil rights world,the it’s-not-a-choice-it’s-an-inborn-trait position is an attempt to connect being gay with other protected classes defined by immutable characteristics, such as race, gender, and disability.   It’s also embraced as a counter to the common homophobic position* that if you can choose to love people of your own gender, you can equally easily — like choosing a different flavor of ice cream — choose to love people of the other gender.   Or perhaps choose to live a celibate life.

But Nixon makes I think the precise right point:

I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not. . . .  It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate.

It has always seemed bizarre to me that religious folks stress that this protected class — gays and lesbians — is based on choice, when the most mutable, chosen-not-born protected class is religion.  You don’t choose your race, disability, or national origin, and most people don’t choose their gender.  But if you can choose to be Christian, you can just as easily choose to be Jewish or Muslim, right?  Why on earth should we protect Christians against all that discrimination** they face when they could simply elect to be Jewish or Muslim and get away scot-free?***

Seriously, we shouldn’t be discussing choice vs. innate; we should be discussing respect.   And in the discrimination context, relevance.  What on earth relevance does it have to someone’s ability to do their job who they sleep with?  What faith they practice?  Their gender?  Their race?

***********

* Did you know there is something called Conservapedia?  Me neither.  It’s precisely as informative as the name suggests.  For example, this is the only substantive information it provides on the ADA:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a broad federal law that requires places of public accommodation to comply with numerous regulations relating to access by persons having disabilities. The Act encourages lawsuits against restaurants, schools, retail stores, hospitals and other small businesses by providing for the recovery of attorneys fees by successful plaintiffs.

Go forth and be informed, young conservatives with homework projects!

** Clearly Conservapedia is going to be my go-to source for links to straw-man conservative arguments.  They make it so easy!

*** Can I say that?  Does that discriminate against Scottish people?  Or is it OK because I’m a Jewish-Scottish-American?

Yes, we have a voting problem.

Republicans spend a lot of time these days trying to protect the vote against nonexistent threats and potential non-Republican voters, like students and poor people.  But if you gave Michael Moore psychedelic drugs he couldn’t have parodied the GOP’s voting problems better than they have on their own.

For example, you thought Romney won Iowa, right? At least that’s what Fox News announced the next day.

Hold on!

The certified numbers: 29,839 for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney.

Oh, then Santorum won by 34 votes, right?   Um . . .

THE RESULTS: Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes
MISSING DATA: 8 precincts’ numbers will never be certified
PARTY VERDICT: GOP official says, ‘It’s a split decision’

Except the 8 precincts’ votes that the GOP regards as “missing” are online for non-Republicans with ordinary math skills to analyze.

If those results are added to the certified results, Santorum’s 29,839 votes would become 29,920, and Romney’ 29,805 would become 29,851 — for a “final” result of Santorum winning the caucuses, by a margin of 69 votes.

And then there’s the very democratic process by which a bunch of evangelicals got together and decided to endorse Santorum.

It was not until the third ballot, after some of Gingrich’s supporters left, that Santorum cleared the three-quarters threshold, receiving 85 votes, to Gingrich’s 29.   . . . [A]ll the participants had been bound by an agreement not to speak for 24 hours.  . . . “It wasn’t a consensus and it wasn’t an endorsement,” added former representative J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), who was also at the session and also expressed concern at how the outcome was being portrayed.

And these guys are asking us to trust them to run the country?