Photos Guaranteed to Put You off Your Feed for a Week

Going back to the Texas FLDS child-rape cult for a moment, if I may. I caught the ooo-weeeee exclusive closeup with an FLDS family report on the execrable Situation Room on CNN a few weeks back (available here) and was struck at the time by Wolf Blitzer's reaction of "Wow, great reporting," which I suppose was accurate if what he meant by that was wow, great reporting of exactly what the family in question told you, with no probing followup questions or, apparently, any critical thought at all.

The reporter, Gary Tuchman, marveled at the "children who seem very happy, even joyous... they were polite, smiling..." over footage of a half-dozen blond kidlets bouncing on the trampoline and eating dinner. The father, Chris Wyler (who was 16 when he married; the mother was 17), scoffs wonderingly at allegations of abuse.

"People here are taught that we're never ever supposed to yell at our children. When the children do something wrong, we're supposed to not, you know, even raise our voice any more than this... and there's no way anybody I know would ever abuse their wife."

Well, then, glad that's settled. That's the convenient thing about defining your own terms, I suppose; if abuse only equals spanking and yelling, then heaven no, there's no abuse here. At least not in this family, and at least not while the camera is rolling. The reporter might have inquired whether Mr. Wyler considers forcing an underage girl into sex toy/brood mare status constitutes abuse. Amazingly, he didn't take that opportunity.

Tuchman: If he married another woman, and she was right for the family, would that be okay with you?
Lydia: [silent]
Chris, jumping in: Well, it's part of our culture.
Lydia, snapping back to awareness and shrugging: Well, it's what we believe.

No word on what Chris and Lydia's reaction would be if their eldest daughter, who appears to be in the prime 12-to-14-year-old marrying range, were given to some older guy on orders of the prophet. And with that we're back to scenes of the happy family intercut with shots of Warren Jeffs, who Lydia is certain has been unjustly convicted. Asked what she thinks of him, she smiles her vague smile and says, "I know he's our prophet."

Something else she should know is that he, and all the people who follow him unquestioningly, are pedophile fucktards. Click over to The Smoking Gun for some of Warren Jeffs' myriad wedding photos, if you have the stomach, and then try to tell me with a straight face that this group's religious beliefs really ought to be respected and accommodated.

I would really have loved for CNN to have included even one of those snapshots in its breathtaking coverage of the Wyler family. Had one of the details been flipped, say making FLDS a cult centered on the rape of young boys by creepy older guys, would the network have gone to such pains to portray the "normalcy" of the family and marvel about the kids' good dispositions and flawless manners? I rather think not.

Who Benefits?

I was wrapping up my last trip up to Mesa to visit the grandparents before they chug back to Colorado for the summer, the mental Offensive Comment Bingo card refreshingly under-blotted, when my grandmother said, "You know, I really don't have any idea what you do in your job." That's fine, not many people do. So I launched into my well-practiced spiel about the cultural resource management field, touching on Arizona's historic preservation laws, the rich history and prehistory of life in the Tucson Basin over the past four thousand years, outlining the process we go through in order to get artifacts out of the ground and onto my desk, describing briefly how I look at them and the kinds of behavioral inferences I can squeeze out of them, tooting ever so softly the little horn that plays the song about me managing to have achieved a decent reputation in the field and respect as an expert. It took a few minutes. She absorbed it and paused for all of two seconds before asking the ultimate question.

"But who does it benefit?"

That one stumped me. It's been stumping me for years, as I watch my relatives build meaningful careers in education and health care, as I have watched those same grandparents kick back and enjoy the very comfortable retirement my grandfather accrued through a lifetime of working his ass off. "Uh... I guess it mostly benefits people who are curious about how people lived in the past," I finally managed to sputter out. "So, nosy people, then." Yeah, something like that.

Does that do anything to better the world? I kinda have my doubts. My officemates agree that archaeology mainly functions to keep marginally socially incompetent riffraff like us off the streets. If we occasionally satisfy someone's curiosity about what might have been going on in their back yard in 1800 B.C., I suppose that's nice. But earth-shaking revelations about human behavior that actually benefit modern people are pretty few and far between. Ancient people used tools and generated mounds and mounds of trash. They remodeled their houses and ate dinner. They wore jewelry. They cared enough to bury their dead relatives and even, sometimes, their dogs too. They did things one way until someone came up with a better idea, and then they did them the new way until the next innovation came along.

In short, ain't a whole lot changed in four millennia. Does knowing that benefit your life? I hope so. Otherwise I'm squandering a lot more here than just time.

In Which We Are Just Too Tired

Too tired and cranky and hot, Jesus god, so hot, to string together the kind of insightful, astute analysis you've come to expect. Not today.

Life in Tucson tip: if you need plumbing supplies and advice in a hurry, say on a Sunday afternoon, Naughton's is your place. Just make sure you get there before three. Sunday was the first really hot day to hit so far this sun season, so I wasn't too surprised when I walked in through their wide open doors and saw half the lights were off. All the lights at Home Depot had crashed briefly not an hour earlier, what with all the air conditioners in the city suddenly being turned up to eleven at the same time, so yeah, just another cramp in the grid. The Naughton's lights sprang back to life as I puzzled over J-traps, and then all went dead. Ah, no worries, no need to panic. I dallied another minute or so before deciding to break down and ask for some guidance.

Boy, was the last guy in the store with the front door keys in his hand surprised to see me come around the corner. Oh, I didn't know you were here. Uh... we're closed.

At three in the afternoon? Seriously, who the fuck closes at three in the afternoon? When all my pipes are disassembled and strewn across the kitchen floor? Naughton's, apparently. Moral of the story? If it's Sunday, Ace is open until the scandalous hour of five.

Boltgirl v. US Soccer, Part Three

The good news: they finally cranked out a new National Team commercial. Unfortunately, since they only put the games on TV once in three or four blue moons, you're not likely to see it. The oh-Christ-here-we-go-again-news: well, just watch for yourself and see if you can find the innocuous two-second sequence that had me throwing stuff at the monitor.

Hint: it just might be the portion of the video accompanying the intonation of "real values..." which just might show a wedding set on a hand manicured with red, white, and blue fingernail polish, which maybe kinda sorta hints that US Soccer believes (or at least thinks their target fanbase believes) that Real Values(TM) for women mean the holy trinity of femininity, patriotism, and heterosexuality.

Commenters on BigSoccer are pretty sure it wasn't intended to mean anything, really, that they used the wedding ring to symbolize loyalty in contrast to that skanky ho Paris Hilton (who gets mentioned over and over and over and...). Uh huh. The Fed haven't evidenced the brightest minds in the business, but do you honestly think they "didn't mean anything" by sticking the ring footage in there? Like, now, in the age of consumer and media research databases that rival anything held by the NIH? I think they knew exactly what message that would send, as surely as they've breathlessly hyped every engagement and wedding among the players, as they still desperately cast about for the next fresh face to sell the team to the country.

Here We Go

The fallout from yesterday's California Supreme Court decision invalidating the state's ban on same-sex marriage started pretty much immediately, with half the country flinging confetti and the other half howling that the world is about to end.

Slate has some interesting commentary (passed along by Top!Secret G-woman) here and here and here. And also here. This last one, by Doug Kmiec, particularly intrigued me with its unusually non-inflammatory and almost plaintive presentation of probably the most common religious objection to marriage equality. That said, it still sent my blood pressure through the roof. The recurrent theme is the necessity of accommodating religious belief in public policy. To a certain degree, I won't argue against it. But when the argument is presented in the contexts of these three statements:

it would be prudent for Senator Obama and supporters of same-sex marriage to note that, for the most part, those who opposed that affirmation did so not out of acrimony or dislike, but out of a like appreciation for the family as an irreplaceable cultural building block and often sincere religious belief that deserves respect and accommodation.

and

It is often asked... how the acknowledgment of same-sex marriage harms marriage between a man and a woman. The inability to give a simple, secular answer to this explains the California victory in favor of same-sex marriage more than the reasoning of the opinion. That doesn't mean there is not an answer. There is a religious answer and it is anchored in the creation story recorded in the book of Genesis.

and

The end of sexual orientation discrimination has much to commend it, as again Marty nicely illustrates in his quotation from the opinion, but again, there are interwoven religious beliefs that are not based on stereotype and that do deserve accommodation.

it falls apart for me. The first point, that it's not personal when people vote to deny you the right to marry who you choose, it's just that, well, your marriage doesn't look like what they're used to and doesn't match one of the several models for marriage presented in their holy book, in which they profess a sincere belief? Too fucking bad. The FLDS church has a sincere religious belief that serial child rape is a prerequisite for entry into heaven, but no one outside Colorado City thinks that belief should be respected and accommodated in civil law. Do I need to bring up the sincere religious belief that was used to justify miscegenation laws prior to 1967?

Point two, that the Genesis creation story somehow provides the answer to how same-sex marriages harm straight ones, turns out to be woefully unsupported--unless simply stating that the answer is religious and comes from Genesis, QED, is all that needs to be said. Well, okay. If you find a religious proof in there, that's between you and your bible, but it is precisely the lack of a compelling secular explanation that makes this one a non-starter. Secular laws require secular foundations. QE fucking D.

And then we come to the last bit. Let's look at it just one more time.

The end of sexual orientation discrimination has much to commend it, as again Marty nicely illustrates in his quotation from the opinion, but again, there are interwoven religious beliefs that are not based on stereotype and that do deserve accommodation.

The end of discrimination has much to commend it, as if it were even a question that's still up for debate. Nondiscrimination? Pretty good, has a lot going for it, but... But there are some religious beliefs that aren't stereotypes, really, they aren't, and since they are religious beliefs and not, like, bald-faced bigotry or anything, well, they deserve accommodation. Sorry about your civil rights and all, but by "accommodation" I mean that if I don't get to exercise just a little bit of discrimination against you--say, maybe getting to determine who you can marry, since they already took away my ability to kick you out of your apartment or fire you from your job, although in most places I can still beat you bloody for asking me for a smoke--I just don't get to fully express my solidarity with Jesus, who loves you.

I was going to say I try to be empathetic to the mindset that considers that a legitimate foundation for argument, but I really don't any more. I will agree that religious beliefs may be accommodated by public policy so long as that accommodation does not abrogate the civil rights of, cause harm to, or, at this point, even fucking inconvenience anyone who does not share those beliefs. And accommodating your beliefs on marriage only means that the state cannot compel you to enter into a marriage contract against your will. It does not mean the state has to guarantee that all marriages conform to the religious model you have adopted for your own.

My life is not beholden to someone else's fairy tales. No one's life should be.

Happy Dance

California. 'Nuff said.

The language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Backlash in 3, 2, 1...

Science Thursday

Today, a nifty tidbit about the mantis shrimp. 400 or so species within the order Stomatopoda are known, but researchers working on specimens from the Great Barrier Reef have discovered that one variety, the technocolored Gonodactylus smithii, have the ability to see a complete range of polarized light no other creature on the planet can, effectively opening up an entire world to them that is invisible to the rest of us.


Is that four linear and two circular polarizations,
or are you just happy to see me?

Sharp-eyed, gutter-minded readers will likely notice that the order name "Stomatopoda" means "mouth-footed" and genus "Gonodactylus" means "genital-fingered." I can't be the only one here having visions of thumb-wrestling with that special someone whilst strolling barefoot across a field blooming with chocolate chips and Twinkies. And the occasional stretch of neatly manicured pad thai lawn.

Remorse Is Great and All, But a Little Ineffectual at This Point

Marian McClure is having a crisis of conscience. My e-mail to her this morning, and her response, below:

Dear Rep. McClure,

You're certainly being deluged with e-mails at the moment, but I hope you find the time to read this one. I do not live in your district (I'm in Tucson 28) but I feel compelled to register my extreme disappointment with your decision to vote for a redundant, intentionally punitive and discriminatory constitutional amendment, one that you freely acknowledge is unneccesary, solely on the basis of your personal religious beliefs.

I do not discount the tension between those beliefs and the reality of operating within a pluralistic, nominally secular society, but being a legislator requires you to consider the needs of all of your constituents and make decisions that do not cause unneccesary harm to even the least-regarded among them. Those decisions have to be made on the basis of good law, not on the teachings of one particular congregation within one particular sect of one particular religion. To do otherwise, as you did with your vote on SCR1042, is to compel all Arizonans to abide by the rules of your personal religion, whether they share it or not.

As for how you could possibly face your pastor and fellow congregants on Sunday, here are a few suggestions. You might start by asking how many of them have had their marriages destroyed by the committed gay couples living around them every day. How many have decided to get a divorce because gay couples are allowed to marry in Massachusetts. How many have decided to have affairs since their vows don't mean anything if a couple of women can make the same vows in Canada. Then you might ask how many feel their Judeo-Christian God-ordained marriages are diminished because non-Abrahamic religions conduct weddings. Or because atheists can get married too. Or because the straight couple in the pew behind them might have five previous marriages racked up between them.

The answer, if they are honest, will be "none." Marriage is not a zero-sum game where the status of an existing relationship is determined by that of the other relationships, where adding additional relationships to the pool damages all the others. And the state sanctioning of all committed couples under the umbrella of marriage does not force anyone to "accept" homosexuality any more than the current sanctioning of all straight adult couples forces you and your brethren to "accept" atheism, or paganism, or sexual practices that make you uncomfortable. Many, many marriages in Arizona do not conform to the traditional Christian model of man+woman+Jesus+lifetime. Same-sex couples are singled out for discrimination on religious grounds simply because they are the most visible examples of nonconformity. Specifically barring gay couples from marrying because they do not conform to God's ordained plan is an immoral stance when every nonconforming straight couple is given a pass simply because they are straight, simply because their public appearance meshes with your own.

You are free to believe as you wish and follow the tenets of your faith in your personal life. Enshrining your religious beliefs in civil law, however, encroaches on the ability of other people to live their lives as they see fit. I would not seek legislation that regulates the teachings and practices of your church (provided they do not harm unconsenting people). I do not wish to force your church to conduct same-sex weddings or to force straight people into same-sex unions. I firmly support your pastor's right to rail against gay people every Sunday from the pulpit if he wishes. I will, however, never support an attempt to change the constitution of the state of Arizona to reflect religious objections to full civil rights for all Arizonans.

I do not wish to diminish any spiritual struggle this issue has raised for you. I simply implore you to consider the issue as a legislator for all of your constituents and all the people of Arizona, and to think about the real reasons behind your religious objection to same-sex marriage and whether they truly pass logical and ethical muster.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear [Boltgirl],

I have had a few emails. I must admit I feel a great sadness in my heart. I did not and do not believe this measure belonged in the Legislature. I have always worked very hard to do everything you state in your email. In one fell swoop, I forgot everything.

Such crises hurt, particularly when they're incurred by very public fuckups. I'm sorry for that, really, I am. Her brain cramp at voting time didn't make or break the amendment, although it helped the 8-vote margin by which it passed, but her failure to stand up and fight against a ballot measure she admits the Legislature had no business considering has the potential to come back and bite a hell of a lot of gay Arizonans in the ass. I'm sorry you're sad, Marian. But I have a great sadness in my heart today too. You get to go on and live your life as you please. The amendment you voted for will impact the rest of my life so long as I stay in Arizona, and every one of these goddamned things that passes makes it easier for other states to write discrimination into their own constitutions.

Please Help

Found this awesome trippy little game from the BBC via Chaotic Utopia. Very basic third-grader level questions, but the graphics are delightful and the music works just fine after a couple of glasses of wine. Ahem. Please, please, WTF are you supposed to do on level 3? I've clicked the owl and bird until my finger's gone numb.

A level I am sure would be wonderful if I could get off the goddamn
animal planet.

Well, Thank Goodness for This

Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

We are relieved to know that our infatuation with a certain Corellian freighter captain may proceed without peril to our mortal soul.

The only thing that
might make us entertain
notions of going back
to teh menz.

The Crux of the Problem

The restricted marriage amendment squeaked through the Arizona statehouse yesterday, partly (how large a part? I won't hazard a guess) on skids greased by this kind of thinking.

Also supporting the move was Rep. Marian McClure, a Tucson Republican, who said she thought a constitutional amendment was unnecessary because same-sex marriage already is banned by state statute. But ultimately she voted for sending it to the ballot because of her personal religious beliefs.

"If I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, how do I go into church next Sunday and try to explain to my pastor and to my Christian community that I voted saying that marriage was not between a man and a woman?" she said.

And with that, the measure trots off to the November ballot, keeping the hope alive that all Arizonans will be compelled to live in accordance with Marian McClure's personal religious beliefs. People who share those beliefs won't notice, and, when they vote to carve them into the state constitution, likely won't think about it all except possibly for a moment's delicious frisson of knowing their vote paves one more step on their road to heaven. People who don't share her beliefs but have lives that conveniently match up with the outward appearance of her vision of What Marriage Is won't be materially affected. And if an issue doesn't directly impact people, they tend to not actively participate in changing it.

Proponents of the amendment claim that "Arizonans deserve the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage,"(Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler), and that whatever definition they come up with (presumably as long as it goes along the lines of no gays ever) must be made permanent in the constitution now to prevent the ever-convenient activist judge bogeyman from ruling the existing statute unconstitutional in some undefined future. If Mr. Yarbrough and Mrs. McClure have any concerns about regular Arizona citizens in that future time being annoyed at finding their hands tied by their idiot ancestors, requiring them to go through the amendment process again to undo the travesty perpetrated in 2008, they have kept them well hidden.

I wish I believed in Jesus. Because I would pray for him to come back and personally slap each and every one of these homo-obsessed shitbags upside their sanctimonious heads for paying more attention to passages from the Old Testament and the rantings of Paul than to the admonishments from Jesus himself to love, to give a hand to those in need, and to treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself.

Comment of the Day

The finest summary of the problem, ever, from commenter Interrobang on PZ Myers' post recounting the repulsive story of an "honor" killing in Iraq:

People don't act this way because they are men.

Half right. They act that way because the culture has told them that because they're men, they're entitled to police what women do with their bodies, and that women aren't really human the way they are, so killing them carries approximately the same moral weight as getting rid of a malfunctioning machine.

This is seriously not an Islam-specific thing. We simply don't hear about the cases that happen every single day where women are tortured, raped, beaten, and killed by men for not conforming to the men's arbitrary standards. In our culture, we don't hide it behind a religious euphemism; we call it "domestic violence," and most people insist that it's a personal problem, rather than the inevitable, cultural result of a society that continually others and dehumanises women, and places men in the role of enforcing women's gender conformity.

When "honour killings" happen in Western society, we shrug our shoulders and call it "child abuse" or wonder what she was doing marrying that abusive loser in the first place, and asking "Why didn't she just leave?" Pointing this up as though it's specifically to do with Islam is misleading and mendacious; Islam simply provides a different sort of cover story to the standard Western narrative(s).

Incidentally, fundamentalist Christians would openly do this -- and claim it was part and parcel of their religion -- if they thought they could get away with it. They've been working hard, actually, to try to change the laws so that they can. (For a really scary time, look up "Christian discipline" and "voluntary slavery.")

I have nothing to add.

Product Review Monday

The girlfriend told me that since I had to replace the beloved BoltTruck, it had to be with something I would love. The prospects of that happening seemed really dim, since I loved the truck and hadn't driven a car for something like nine years. Aside from fuel economy and reliability, I do have this big bad lesbian persona to maintain, after all, and the ability to chuck large interesting things I might find at the side of the road on Brush 'n' Bulky Day was a large component of that.

This just might work out after all

After a week of tooling around town and a weekend zip up to Phoenix and back, well... I may be smitten with the Matrix.

It helps to not think of it as a car so much as a silver flash that can hit highway speeds before the bottom of the on-ramp, rather than the previous 45 mph and a prayer, with these interesting features called bucket seats that do not have large chunks of foam rubber falling out of the sides and hug portions of my spine that before did not understand the concept of lumbar support, a responsive clutch that does not threaten to overtax my already compromised meniscus, and, uh, a jack where I can plug in the iPod. And anti-skid plastic-backed rear seats that fold flat for decent hauling capactity. And one of those cute little antennas that look like a pintail.

Sorry, truck. I still love you. But I think we need to just be friends now.

That Did Not Take Nearly As Long As We Expected

Commenter Anonymous points out that a few "homosexual activist" publications--such cachet; I must remember to add that to my blog tagline one of these days--have admitted that reactions to the Michigan Supreme Court domestic partner benefits such as those in the previous post are just trumped! up! hysteria! over! nothing!

"'The Michigan Court of Appeals decision never said that public employers could not provide health care coverage to domestic partners of employees,' Kaplan wrote in an e-mail. He said that employers can provide health insurance coverage for domestic partners as long as they do not specifically recognize the domestic partner relationship — by filing domestic partner benefit forms, for example — when determining criteria for insurance eligibility."

Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality, a homosexual activist group, said last June in a news release: "The Michigan Court of Appeals did not say that health insurance coverage for domestic partners is illegal. The court said that public employers cannot use criteria that recognizes the domestic partner relationship."

Well, I guess that settles that. Or does it? Let's take a look at how the city of East Lansing and Michigan State U are trying to work around the state constitution in order to continue extending benefits to same-sex partners without explicitly calling it extending benefits to same-sex partners.

MSU’s Other Eligible Individual program, which takes effect next month, is a pilot endeavor designed to provide benefits to individuals selected by employees. That will, in effect, allow same-sex couples to keep domestic partner benefits as well as extend benefits to unmarried opposite-sex couples for the first time.

When MSU approved domestic-partner benefits in 1997, opposite-sex couples were specifically excluded from benefits on the grounds that they could marry. According to the program’s guidelines, an MSU employee who has not specified a spouse may select an individual to receive health and dental coverage. This individual cannot be related to the employee by blood. The two must have shared a residence for 18 months on a non-tenant basis.

While this may prove to be a workable end-run around the constitutional prohibition on state recognition of non-straight marriages, it's somewhat disingenuous and seems, on its face, to be open to equal-protection challenges. Leave aside for a moment the wink-wink, nudge-nudge quality of a rule that prohibits you from claiming a beneficiary on the basis of a committed romantic relationship, but requires you to have shared a residence with your beneficiary for a year and a half before that person becomes eligible for coverage. And try to ignore the differential valuation of your relationship when married partners get coverage from day one, while your relationship is required to demonstrate the potential for longevity for a year and a half--be sure to brush well and floss twice a day in the interim--a period of time during which your straight colleague could divorce and re-marry three times, each time with the option of immediately signing his blushing bride onto his healthcare package, no questions asked.

Attempting maintaining benefits for domestic partners with just a bit of semantic sleight-of-hand doesn't fly with the Michigan branch of the AFA. In response to the Jay Kaplan e-mail (cited by Anonymous in the original post's comments), which concludes , “the new criteria developed by MSU address this issue. All public employers can provide coverage for (domestic partnerships) using these criteria,” we get this:

Not necessarily, says Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn, who co-wrote Proposal 2, is unsure whether the MSU program violates the state Constitution.

“If MSU is just trying to cleverly restrict eligibility only to your unmarried sex partner, then I think the courts would eventually find this policy to be unconstitutional,” Glenn said.

Curiously, Glenn has no problem with an expanded benefits program adopted over in Ann Arbor, even though it includes gays too.

Glenn cited a similar proposal by the University of Michigan’s graduate employees organization that would allow a staff or faculty member to select any individual as a beneficiary. He said this program would be constitutional.

“Any employee could put a sick grandmother on health insurance, or a next door neighbor, or a homosexual partner,” Glenn said. “Those benefits would have nothing whatsoever to do with U of M, as a government employer, recognizing a homosexual relationship as being equal or similar to marriage as a basis for providing benefits.”

So admitting gay couples to the dental plan party unacceptably destroys the sanctity and specialness of marriage--and is generally cited by anti-gay howlers as them being forced to subsidize a perversion that squicks them out--but throwing the doors open and recognizing a grandmother-granddaughter relationship or platonic roommate relationship or next door neighbor relationship or single guy-homeless guy in the culvert relationship "as being equal or similar to marriage as the basis for providing benefits," while also incidentally recognizing gay relationships the same way, doesn't diminish the special sacred juju of marriage in their eyes? An institution is only wrecked when the gays are the only ones let inside the velvet rope?

News flash to Gary Glenn: even the blanket plan still treats gay couples as equal beneficiaries to straight couples. Are you really okay with that, or do you just enjoy forcing institutions to jump through multiple complicated, expensive hoops in order to get things back to exactly the way they were before you poked your nose into other people's business?

Of course, this whole thing may have been a wicked clever ploy by the American Family Association to force public institutions to formally divorce healthcare coverage from "marriage," thus forcing employers to support families in all forms, whether that means traditionally married straight couples, gay couples, single guys and their ailing grandmothers, two elderly sisters, whatever. While I would love to believe that last one, it stretches credulity.

Oh, and Anonymous? Don't pretend that the Michigan lawsuits didn't really mean anything in the end for the gay couples in that state who have either had their benefits summarily yanked or will have them yanked when their current contracts expire. If they didn't have the effect of punishing same-sex couples for failing to adhere to your personal beliefs, they would not have been filed, nor would they have been appealed up to the state supreme court, nor would the state universities and municipal school districts be scrambling now to formulate policies with language even an AFA attorney won't be able to weasel into a Deny Coverage directive. You can have domestic partner benefits as long as you don't call them domestic partner benefits has a short version, and it goes something like get back in the closet, faggots, and that's a message that tends to ring out loud and clear, no matter how many layers of equivocation you try to layer over it.

Arizona Voters, Please Pay Close Attention

As the newest version of the no-gay-marriage state constitutional amendment waits for enough right-wing douchebags to be present in the Arizona statehouse at one time to be appended to a completely unrelated bill and passed over to the senate, please refresh your memory of what the screw-the-gays legislation is allegedly about this time:

This amendment is not about disagreements about benefits or domestic partnerships. This amendment simply is about defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now turn your attention to the latest bit of fallout from Michigan, where their 2004 ballot referendum on amending their own state constitution to recognize only one man-one woman marriage as a legal union was simply about defining marriage too. In fact, it was so much about only protecting the definition of the word against appropriation by anyone but straight couples that its proponents repeatedly went out of their way to assure voters that the change to their constitution wouldn't prevent any employer from extending health benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. Heck, they asserted repeatedly that employers could even cover their employees' cats if they were so inclined, with no interference from the law.

Uh, yeah. Not so much.

In a long-awaited and very disappointing ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that any partnership benefits granted to gay couples, even those as part of negotiated union agreements, are unconstitutional under the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposal 2, passed in 2004...

The district court ruled that Proposal 2 did not affect such benefits, but that was overturned by the appeals court and the supreme court upheld the appeals court ruling. The tragic irony of this is that despite the "save the children" rhetoric from the anti-gay crowd, the first people affected by this ruling will be the children of gay couples who may lose health care and other protections as a result.

It's never just about the definition of marriage, never just about preventing gay couples from trundling over to the courthouse and slapping down fifty bucks like any straight couple can do--something state statutes already prohibit. It's purely about opening the door to a multitude of interpretations that will be used to strip away hard-won rights and benefits. It's about one particular strain of self-proclaimed Christians bald-facedly bearing false witness in order to enshrine their religious beliefs into civic policy, so that they can immediately turn around and lay waste to the lives of people who have done nothing to harm them beyond having the temerity to simply exist.

In Which We Add Dan Piraro to the Blogroll

'nuff said.

Personal Economics

Three-forty-three was my personal tipping point, the tick mark that shifted my thinking from wow, these high prices suck to Jesus Tapdancing Christ, how the fuck am I going to stay solvent? It had been a halcyon three or four months there. I had finally wrestled the personal debt to a manageable size and place*, finding myself at the end of the pay period with double and sometimes even triple digits--if barely--in the checking account. The ability to breathe easily rather than holding it and paddling furiously toward payday was in itself an extravangance I hadn't had since my first year out of college, when I had a tiny, cheap studio over a bakery and no expenses beyond my next beer.

So in the face of eternally mounting repairs and the continuing failure of the MPG fairy to both materialize and sprinkle magic more-than-20-miles-per-gallon dust on the engine, it was finally time to replace the beloved truck with something that sips at gasoline and only occasionally puts in a polite request for some new oil. To do that at all, I had to borrow a down payment. And to have any hope of keeping the new buggy, I will have to make major slashes in discretionary spending. Which I suppose is why it's called "discretionary" rather than "willy-nilly."

Gas in Tucson has plummeted to a dizzying $3.35 since I made the decision to buy, but it will certainly fly back up to and well past that price point in the next month or so. Meanwhile, everything else that requires gasoline to be delivered continues to climb in tandem with fuel prices. The paper last week carried the story of increasingly desperate people unloading their possessions on eBay and Craigslist so they can buy gas and groceries, including a woman who sold her grandmother's tea kettle for $6. Six dollars. Family heirlooms are being let go for less than two gallons of gas. For a jug of milk that will be gone a day later. And then what?

$3.43 pushed me over the line from hmmm to worried. The line for many, many more people was a hell of a lot lower than that. As more and more of us start making choices we couldn't have imagined ten years ago, or even a year ago--keep that doctor's appointment for a nagging injury, or save for a fillup? throw money you don't have at repairs on the beater or throw even more at something new that gets better mileage, playing the odds that the savings on gas will balance the monthly payment before the next unforeseen disaster wipes out the bank account?--we get the tiniest glimpse of how bad things can be, how bad they have been for so many for so long. And we think about how much worse they are likely to get, and it's fucking scary.

*not including the $800 I still owe the girlfriend for the faux-wood floor. Hi, honey!

We Are Simply Humorless and Dour

Brian Fairrington draws pictures for the Arizona Republic, the rabidly right-wing rather conservative Phoenix newspaper. His cartoon below was printed in the Daily Star today. For this morning's Humorless Boner-killing Feminazi Quiz, identify the basic concept that eludes Mr. Fairrington. Bonus points for style commentary.



If you rolled your eyes and said, duh, "consent," you win. Bonus style points if you pointed out the juxtaposition of the FLDS people, carefully depicted as neatly dressed ladies gently shepherding their lovely, teddy bear-clutching charges, with the ambiguously gendered S&M couple in the foreground; the stippling on the asscheeks and legs of the figure facing away from the viewer suggests just a little that they're not only into masks and cattle prods but are gay too for good measure.

I'm sure if Mr. Fairrington had just a little more space on his canvas, he would have shown the inbred 50-year-old men marching the little girls into the temple bed for their ceremonial first banging while the rest of the gomers stand around watching, portraying the contradiction between appearance and substance within that FLDS culture and the disconnect between the same within our mainstream culture--and the irreconcilable friction between the two, and the immense difficulty faced by children raised within one sphere who will now have to navigate the other--with nuance and sensitivity, rather than going for the easy knee-jerk kink-bashing and gay-bashing fallback.

Or maybe not.

National Day of Arrrrgh

The economic chickens haven't quite come home to roost yet, but they're clucking ominously in the distance, so I'm too depressed to crank out an original entry this morning. I see it's the National Day of Prayer, though. Take it away, PZ.

I can scarcely believe my country is officially pandering to such willful stupidity — elevating evangelical kooks to positions of prestige, trumpeting the virtues of sectarian religion, and actually crediting the successes of America to the fact that a subset of deluded, demented fools sit on their asses and beg an invisible man to protect us and help us kill people in foreign countries. What a waste, and what an encouragement of further waste.

On that note, anyone have any opinions about the Toyota Matrix? Anybody want to buy a loved-almost-to-death Toyota pickup with 210,000 miles and five times that many memories on it? The MPG sucks too hard for me to justify keeping it much longer. And since the grief that stirs in my heart is unbearable, I just can't wait to find out what it will feel like when old age catches up with my dog as well.

Tuesday, No Less Muddled Than Monday

I don't even pretend to understand what's going on any more.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. drives to the basket against North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough during a basketball game in Chapel Hill, N.C., on Tuesday. AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

My love for the Tarheels makes me go squeeeeeee when I see this photo and immediately start wondering exactly how far Psycho T rejected that well-meaning layup, as well as how fucking honored Obama would have to be to have had the opportunity for his offering to be so impressively swatted away. Unless T took pity on an old dude and let him score, that is.

But Obama taking it to the hole! Who can't love that?

Many people, apparently. Today's AP/Ipsos poll shows Obama in a dead heat with McCain, while Clinton beats Bomb Bomb by a non-sweat-inducing nine-point margin. Well, okay; she's my third choice of the original Democratic Big Three, but if she spanks McCain, that's all that matters, right?

But wait. Richard Mellon Right-Wing Conspiracy Scaife endorsed her in the Pennsylvania primary, and Rush has been exhorting his minions to switch parties for the duration of their states' primaries in order to vote her into the nomination, so is this a reality poll, or a poll of the reality righties are attempting to trowel into existence, or a poll reflecting how they've already managed to do that within the brains of actual Democrats?

Meanwhile, payday is resolutely refusing to come any sooner than Friday, completely disdainful of the fact that I'm already pushing $500 in the hole, borrowed against my tax refund, for no more entertaining reasons than gasoline, groceries, medical bills, and truck repairs. The stimulus check may or may not have been direct-deposited today, and it seems to matter less and less in the grand scheme of things. Initial ideas about keeping it in reserve along with the tax refund, to be parceled out month by month to pay for the boy's school tuition and occasional mechanical necessities, have been blasted into shreds.

What's important today in the world of presidential politics, once Obama's toweled down? Whether he's honestly repudiating Jeremiah Wright or just doing it out of political expediency. Wright flapped his yap repeatedly over the weekend, which is suspected to have contributed to Clinton's little surgelet in the polls. Please. Let. It. Go. I don't give a shit whether Wright's a harmless crazy uncle or an advance scout for the legions of Satan. I want the Democrats to hammer McCain on this crap-ass economy and incomprehensible national debt that's yet another legacy of this fucked up war the administration has tried to downplay as surely as it's insisted that the bodies of fallen soldiers come home in the middle of the night with no press coverage.

Oh, and while you're at it, Democrats? Just pick somebody already, yeah? You had this one in the bag, have had it in the bag since 2004, and you're pissing it away again. And John McCain's flying around in his wife's jet, laughing all the way to the inauguration.

Random Noise Friday

Yesterday was borderline surreal for no better reason than the combination of a nearly empty office and a nearly fully stuffed head. Thanks, palo verde trees! Your pollen is Teh Awesome!







The prime culprit.

The office was empty because, as Homer noted, we have the best boss in the world, who occasionally takes us on paid all-day field trips. This one was to the Coyote Mountains, and it sounds like it was lovely (it looks lovely, too; Homer's pictures here), but I didn't go due to parenting obligations. That was probably a good thing, since the aforementioned palo verde allergies had my brain so nonfunctional I repeatedly typed "discussion" as "dicsuccion" throughout the day. Which is really not something I'm all that into.

Item the first: Extra Sugar-Free Gum is pushing itself as "the five-calorie snack" to help you lose weight. Excuse me? Gum is a snack? A five-calorie snack? Jesus. There are probably more calories than that in the drool I produce thinking about actual snacks such as tacos and cheesesteaks. Maybe swallowing the gum clogs your stomach and nauseates you to the point that you don't feel hungry any more.

Item the second: OMG, Lost.

Item the third: The Olympic torch hasn't been put out by protesters for nearly three weeks now. Step it up, Indonesia!

In Which We Just About Give Up

Wow, so much good news in the Daily Star this morning. Where shall we begin?

How about with this headline? Dems glum over Clinton win. The paper's website inexplicably fails to link to the print story, instead shooting you to an AP piece about Clinton still being an underdog, so I am for the moment unable to provide precise quotes detailing the ways the Democrats are eating each other alive, or how Obama failed to capture the support of "certain kinds of voters," which apparently means the kind of white Democrats who told exit pollsters that they'll either vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination (25%) or not vote at all (15%), which, in this election, are the same thing. Unless they're Catholic, of course, at which point the crossover voting jumps to fifty percent. Awesome, white Pennsylvanians! Enjoy your Miracle Whip sandwiches under the McCain administration!

If that doesn't depress you face-down into your Wheaties, we can move on to further stories of how the adminstration supports the troops, with this one: Senators want VA official out; suicide cover-up try is alleged.

Two Democratic senators on Tuesday called for the chief mental-health official of the Veterans Affairs Department to resign, saying he tried to cover up the rising number of veteran suicides.

Sens. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Patty Murray of Washington state said Dr. Ira Katz, the VA's mental-health director, withheld crucial information on the true suicide risk among veterans.

A number of Democratic senators said they were appalled at e-mails showing Katz and other VA officials apparently trying to conceal the number of suicides by veterans. An e-mail message from Katz disclosed this week as part of a lawsuit that went to trial in San Francisco starts with "Shh!" and contends 12,000 veterans a year attempt suicide while under department treatment.

Shh.

And with those three little letters, Dr. Katz sums up the Bush administration's view of the armed forces. Soldiers sure are handy props to trot out when Democrats need shaming in the eyes of the voters, but when they are physically or psychologically injured to the point that even the Army is leery of sending them back for a second or third or fourth rush into the breach, they need to be stuffed under the bed or hidden behind the curtains. Fixing people takes money--far less money than, say, nation-building among sworn blood enemies groups of people that have no interest in forming a nation together, but why split hairs?--and money can't be spent on people. Awesome, VA!

In the face of the US being led finally and irretrievably into hell by Bomb Bomb McCain and US troops being swept under the rug when they try to kill themselves, the third item this morning might look not so significant, but it is. House gives initial OK to bid to ban gay marriage, again. This one goes beyond the usual why the fuck are they bringing this up again because of the procedural crap Phoenix Republicans pulled to get it through the Arizona House and into the Senate.

The procedure maneuver used by supporters of the new version of the gay-marriage ban effectively blocks opponents from trying to amend the measure in the Senate.

The verbiage is attached to an unrelated bill that already has been approved by the Senate. That means senators have only two choices: Approve the House-passed version of the measure or reject it, with no opportunity to amend it.

What unrelated bill is it attached to? SCR1042, which would establish March 29 (the date in 1973 of the withdrawal of the last US troops from South Vietnam) as Vietnam Veterans' Day in Arizona. How many state senators will want to vote against that one solely to keep the utterly unrelated gay-bashing rider off the ballot in the fall? Uh huh. Thought as much. Hey, Arizona Republicans: fuck you. Just fuck you. And any Democrats who vote for this? Fuck you too.

And with that, the day can only look up from here.

4-0! Ha Ha Ha! Wanna Buy a Car?

Well, I guess I'm glad they can laugh about it now.

On Flag Pins

Yes, the debacle that was the ABC Democratic presidential debate has been thoroughly shredded, Gibson and Stephanopolous flogged, the spectacle decried as the absolute nadir of American electoral media coverage to date, ever, in the whole entire history of the country. Word.

One small thing has continued to bother me, a literally small thing. That would be the roughly half-inch by half-inch cloissone mouse that roared, the American flag pin whose conspicuous absence from Barack Obama's lapel has had the power to completely derail conversations about policy and voting records and reduce the debate before two pivotal primaries to why do you hate America?

Obama's response to the inane videotaped question from a Latrobe, PA voter was impressively long, and hit salient points such as him actually, in fact, being pro-America, but he missed a huge opportunity to tell the flag idiots to STFU. A recap, in case you missed it the first time:

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

What his answer should have been, short version: Wearing a Stetson doesn't make you a cowboy. Next question.

What it should have been, long version:

I do not wear a flag lapel pin on a regular basis because I believe doing so creates an unnecessary and foolish distraction from the substance of our work as policymakers.

Good policy is not negated by the absence of a flag pin on its authors' lapels, any more than the authorship of bad policy is exonerated by the presence of a pin. What matters more? That I spoke out against the Iraq war, or that I did so with unadorned lapels? That I voted to increase funding for veterans' healthcare, or that I did so with unadorned lapels?

What matters more? That George Bush led our country into an unjustified war that has claimed the lives of over four thousand of America's best and brightest, and sent tens of thousands more home with grievous injuries, and sent hundreds of thousands home with emotional and psychological wounds the VA refuses to acknowledge, much less treat, or that he did so with a flag pin on his lapel?

What matters more? That the national security adviser, attorney general, and vice-president of the United States of America held meetings in the White House during which they discussed the specific techniques of torture they would authorize for use against our prisoners, in open defiance of both the Geneva Conventions and basic human decency? Or that they were wearing flag pins on their lapels while they did it? What matters more?

I do not wear a flag pin because I believe fervently in representing the country and constitution that flag stands for on a daily basis. I do not wear a pin because I believe it is far more important to live the flag you ask if I "believe in" than wave it in a charade not backed up by the substance of my actions.

Patriotism is not empty window dressing. Patriotism is a behavior. And a preoccupation with window dressing to the exclusion of real issues when you're picking a presidential candidate is the antithesis of patriotism.

How much longer is this crap going to continue? Actually, the real question--assuming Obama does get the nomination, if he and Clinton haven't gnawed each other to tiny piles of bone dust before then--is whether he's going to finally have a STFU moment and put this ridiculous question to rest the very first time the McCain camp raises it, or if he's going to continue to attempt to talk it out with reason and reserve. Since neither of those attributes resonate well with the electorate in general, I'm hoping for a mini explosion.

Arizona Legislature Notices Differences Between US and Turkey, Springs Into Action

Academics and artists in Turkey have been having so much fun with their country's laws prohibiting the denigration of Turkey or Turkishness that the Arizona statehouse decided to jump on that hot bandwagon, passing a bill yesterday that eliminates state funding for schools whose courses "denigrate American values and the teachings of Western civilization."

SB 1108 also would bar teaching practices that "overtly encourage dissent" from those values, including democracy, capitalism, pluralism and religious toleration. Schools would have to surrender teaching materials for review by the state school superintendent, who could withhold state aid of districts that broke the law.

Mercy. Could there possibly be more to this, some undercurrent that might explain the rush to adopt such convoluted language that simultaneously lauds pluralism and tolerance whilst quashing dissent? Why, yes. Yes there is.

Another section of the bill would bar public schools, community colleges and universities from allowing organizations to operate on campus if they are "based in whole or in part on race-based criteria." Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said that provision is aimed at MEChA — Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán — a student group he described as racist.

And there it is. Bye-bye, American Indian Studies Graduate Student Council! Later, Armenian Student Association! Never mind that nondiscrimination policy you're required to have in your club constitutions! You just happen to be in the way of us getting rid of the Mexicans!

The stunning thing, really, isn't so much that Pearce crafted this legislation with the sole aim of eliminating a Hispanic-pride student group and TUSD Raza studies coursework he and his Tucson allies find distasteful, as that they're being so amateurishly open and klutzy about it. Even their quote mining sucks.

Tucson resident Laura Leighton read lawmakers sections of some books used in classrooms. She said the sections promote hatred...

Leighton had specific problems with a text titled "Occupied America," a book touted by its publisher as examining Chicano history from the coming of the Spanish in 1519.

She read one line that said "kill the gringos." Another talked about a plan to take back the U.S. Southwest and deport all the Europeans. A closer look at the book, though, showed the line about the gringos was a quote from someone who was referenced. And that plan to take back the area was not urging current action but instead describing one pushed by Mexico in 1915.

Feh. 1915? Details, details! I wonder if Laura Leighton equally opposes teaching the history of the US westward expansion, particularly the bits about the federal policy of exterminating Native Americans, or that whole African slave trade thing, or if "promoting hatred" only counts when it's done by people who are not European-Americans. Of course, that begs the question of whether anyone pushing this dreck has given it a second's critical thought. Another Valley of the Sun Republican weighs in with the answer:

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said lawmakers are entitled to regulate the use of tax money taken from Arizonans and "demand that our publicly funded education teach and inculcate our youth, our children, with the values that make America what it is, the greatest and most free nation in the world."

So long as you don't try to talk about issues not on the approved Free Thought List, that is. Or run a club based in part on race-based criteria, of course. Keep it classy, Repubs!

Clinton, Obama Attempt to Out-Jesus Each Other at Faith Forum

The inanity is summed up nicely in a single sentence.

Earlier in the day, Clinton seemed frustrated when a reporter asked when she had last attended church or fired a gun.

Because you gotta do both for Jesus, Malchus be damned. She sputtered in response that she'd gone to church on Easter, and "that is not what this is about." But she calls Obama "elitist" for voicing the simple truth that lots of disaffected small-town flyover voters consistently and demonstrably vote against their own economic self-interest, choosing instead to cling to religion, guns, and the gays. And she went on to compare Obama to the last two Democratic nominees, who she called "out-of-touch" with ordinary Americans and their concerns. It would probably be just a little too catty to bring up that $109M tax return at this juncture, so I'll restrain myself.

The forum itself appears to have been designed to tease out how often the candidates read the Bible and how their beliefs will inform policy decisions. Given this, it's unclear why Clinton agreed to show up at all. In the personal witnessing category, Obama pretty clearly outperformed her.

"Religion is a bulwark, a foundation when other things aren't going well," Obama said. "That's true in my own life, through trials and tribulations." ...

Clinton declined repeatedly to describe her personal faith and how it informs specific decisions, citing "the way I was raised" and implying that she keeps such matters to herself.

Those were just the opening acts, though. On the real money question, the best answer probably depends on the camp you're in, and if you're in my camp you're not thrilled with either. When, pray tell, does life begin? Short doomed-to-be-sound-bite answers first:"

I believe the potential for life begins at conception," Clinton said.

Asked whether life begins at conception, Obama said he did not know the answer.

On sound bites alone, Clinton has the anti-abortioneers salivating. Obama has them rolling their eyes. Put the money quotes in context, though, and there is a reversal of sorts. Clinton:

"For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved. . . . I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years . . . that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society."

The New York senator added that abortion should remain legal, safe and rare.

Obama:

"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? . . . What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

The full answer is much better for Clinton, although I do appreciate Obama at least giving lip service to that thing we call "science" in referencing cell division. What I wish both candidates had said runs along the lines of clearly differentiating conception from implantation. Actually, what I really wish is that they had each said, "Imagine your twelve-year old daughter has been raped and impregnated by her grandfather. Do you want her to carry that fetus to term and deliver it? If your answer is no, then your arguments about the sanctity of life and life beginning at conception are empty noise. If you do not believe abortion is murder when the circumstances of conception are loathsome to you, then you cannot argue abortion is murder when you find the circumstances of termination distasteful. If you believe that an embryo can be terminated with a clear conscience when it happens to implant in the fallopian tube rather than in the uterus, then you cannot argue that all products of conception are equally inviolable human life. Oh, and if you do believe the 12-year-old incest victim should carry to term and the woman with an ectopic pregnancy should lie back and celebrate her early ticket to heaven, fuck you."

That last phrase needs a little work, but that's what I want the Democratic candidate to say and fully believe. Until that happens, Clinton gave the padded answer pro-choicers have had to settle for. Obama, perhaps mindful of both his physical surroundings at Messiah College and the framing of his "bitter voters" comment as elitist, shied away from his solid pro-choice voting record and played up the moral dilemma caused by the question of when life begins. In other news that may or may not be related, career anti-choice Democrats Bob Casey and Tim Roemer endorsed Obama today,

promoting the Democratic presidential candidate to their antiabortion allies as someone who could achieve a new consensus on the issue. ...

Obama did not mention abortion in his controversial remarks, made last week at a fundraiser in California, though he noted other divisive social issues. But last week in Indiana, he said that both sides of the abortion debate are guilty of hyperbole.

"The mistake pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization . . . has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved," he said. "And so the debate got so polarized that both sides tended to exaggerate the other side's positions. Most Americans, I think, recognize that what we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, making this difficult choice. That nobody is pro-abortion -- abortions are never a good thing."

The endorsements were timed to provide Obama inroads with conservative Democratics who will be voting in the Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries. Whether they will help or sow confusion is to be seen.

Week Goes By Without New Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Proposal in Arizona, Legislator Acts to Correct Situation

Oh, for fuck's sake . Give it a rest already, will ya?

Advocates of a measure to enshrine the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage in the state Constitution have another chance.

Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, has authored a strike-everything amendment that resurrects the marriage proposal, which he and other supporters hope will make the November ballot. Check out SCR 1042 here.

Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, derailed the last amendment attempt by adding what the Center for Arizona Policy called "hostile language" and what rational people might call "safeguards for basic rights such as designating medical power of attorney" to the language of the bill. Here's hoping she still has our back in the statehouse.

Things That Trouble Me Friday

Little bites from interviews that have given me pause in the past 24 hours...

From the latest update on the Texas branch of the FLDS child-fucking church:

"We are aware that this group is capable of" sexually abusing girls, Sheriff David Doran said. "But there again, this is the United States. We are going to respect them. We're not going to violate their civil rights until we get an outcry."

No, no, I know that's not what he meant, and while it infuriates me that it took four whole years worth of child rape for law enforcement to get their ducks unimpeachably in order on this one, I'm gratified that it appears to be an ironclad bust that leaves zero wiggle room for these fucktards to slither out on a technicality. And it's reassuring to hear a Texas sheriff put it out there that his department isn't going after a particular group of people simply because he thinks they're capable of sexual abuse. I just wish he had chosen words that didn't have the slight ring of conflating "respect for religious beliefs" with "required to ignore the abuse of children until other people notice and raise a ruckus."

Let's check the Boltgirl scorecard on religion this morning. Religious beliefs require you to feed the hungry and clothe the poor? Awesome. Religious beliefs require you to fast and flagellate yourself? Totally not my scene, but if it does it for you and no one else suffers in the process, well, go for it. Religious beliefs require you to enslave women and impregnate as many freshly pubescent girls as possible? While your fellow geezers stand around and watch? Drop dead, asshole.

Meanwhile, what is the already overtaxed Texas CPS going to do with 400+ kids who have never set foot outside the compound and have had the belief drilled into them that the outside world is a hostile one-way express elevator to hell? Maybe some nice non-polygamous Mormon families would like to adopt them. Uh-huh. Nobody wins in this one.

From Barack Obama's interview with The Advocate:

Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental -- now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name -- Lawrence Golden, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Oh, no, girlfriend. No. You. Di'n't.

Wow. Just wow. He wasn't proselytizing all the time, you know, like gay people normally do. Wait. Seriously? You seriously give an interview to The Advocate and then you let that fall out of your mouth? Barack Obama. Just a terrific guy. Not blasting Fiddy on a boombox all the time. See how that works? Obama praising a gay man for his lack of "proselytizing" in an interview with a gay magazine is not far off from Bill O'Reilly being amazed that black people at a soul food restaurant in Harlem used forks and knives and didn't sit there screaming "more iced tea, motherfucker!" It's Huckleberry Finn being amazed to see that the escaped slave Jim bleeds blood that is red, just like his own. It's Joe Biden praising Obama for being "articulate and bright and clean." Come on, Barack. Are you fucking kidding me?

Yes, I voted for him in the primary, and I've already foamed at the mouth about Clinton's gee, aren't we lucky that the states are addressing gay marriage on their own statements, and I recognize that Obama was the first politician to call out black churches on their homophobia, but I'm sick of having to wade through puddles of crap from both candidates so I can get to the other side and say, well, at least the shit isn't quite as high up above my knees as it would be with McCain. Step it up, people!

Bomb Bomb's Greatest Hits, March Edition

Just in case anyone's forgotten that John "Better on the War than Anyone" McCain is actually either functionally clueless or too distracted to care that he's coming off that way, a few reminders.

Mid-March, to CNN:

His [Sadr’s] influence has been on the wane for a long time.

March 18, Jordan:

Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.

March 31, to the New York Times:

Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire, declared a cease-fire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire.

From the hearings with General Petraeus, April 8:

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain did not appear to make any major mistakes in the hearing, although Mr. McCain did seem to get momentarily tangled over Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

It happened just after Mr. McCain asked General Petraeus if he still viewed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni group, as a major threat, and elicited the response, “It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago.”

Mr. McCain responded, “Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites over all ... .”

To which General Petraeus replied, “No.”

Mr. McCain continued, “Or the Sunnis or anybody else.”

Reality check? Al Qaeda wants to keep coming after us. And, should we bomb bomb Iran and somehow cede supremacy in the region in the aftermath, AQ will go after Iran.

John McCain. Because war not only means never having to say you're sorry, but also never having to really understand who you're at war with in the first place.

Aha!

The most excellent side-of-zen helpfully pointed out a free workaround that allows you to bypass Air America's misadventures in web design, courtesy of Green 960 AM, KKGN in San Francisco. Podcasts here.

Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk

I tried to come up with a more appropriate post title, but it's hard to get choke and hit a fuckin' free throw already to rhyme with Tiger. Way to piss away that nine-point lead in the last two minutes, Memphis! I particularly enjoyed watching you execute the shot-clock modified Four Corners offense with 1:17 to go, you know, the one where Douglas-Roberts stood rooted in place holding the ball, managing to burn four whole seconds off the clock before the Kansas defenders shook off their befuddlement--wait... oh, he's not going to pass? or even move? well, okay--and went ahead and fouled him. And he promptly missed the front end of the one-and-one, and the two following that on Memphis' next possession, and then Kansas hit only their third three of the game with seven seconds left to send it into overtime, and Memphis folded and that was that.

And Boltgirl lost her office pool as a result. Way to go, assholes!

Swoon!

Air America updated their website, rendering it moderately more aesthetically pleasing and utterly nonfunctional. So I have been Maddow-less for weeks, and am getting progressively more grumpy. Friday, however, provided the opportunity for massive Maddow mainlining, as she guest-hosted Countdown on MSNBC so Olbermann could get a jump-start on his weekend:

*boltgirl dies*

Give this woman her own show, already, and I promise to not only glue myself to the screen but also buy every product advertised, twice.

Triple Threat Friday!

Goodness me, so much in the paper this morning that needs responding to right now. Because that will fix it. Forthwith, the gays, the immigrants, and the terrorists!

Item the first: Gay Marriage Amendment Dies in Committee.

The House gave preliminary approval Thursday by a 28-27 vote to put the question on the November ballot. But that OK came only after Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, lined up enough votes to tack on a provision to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together, whether gay or straight.

That move effectively tied the two issues together as a single ballot question, meaning voters who want to make same-sex weddings unconstitutional would be voting for some constitutional rights for gay couples. A spokesman for House Speaker Jim Weiers, sponsor of HCR 2065, said that is unacceptable and that the Phoenix Republican will now kill his proposal.

Senate President and Karl Rove fanboy Tim Bee had another version ready to go, this one limited solely to keeping Teh Gayz out of the wedding market, but after HCR 2065's summary execution no longer "sees the point" in bringing it to a floor vote. You might hope that this would be the anti-marriage-equality camp's last gasp on this issue, given their referendum defeat in 2006 and the governor's recent approval of domestic partner benefits (justified in great part by the need to prevent brain drain and make Arizona more attractive to both companies that might relocate here and the young professionals they employ).

You might also reasonably hope that Alfonso Soriano and the rest of the guys at the top of the lineup might quit swinging at the first pitch unless they can actually make contact. Ain't neither one likely to happen anytime soon.

"We're looking at all options," said Ron Johnson who lobbies for the state's three Catholic bishops. And Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy said she still believes that there is a way to resurrect the measure.

Ron, Cathi? Tell you what. Take it down and stick it in a hole and come back in three days to see if an angel has rolled back the stone. If there is not an empty tomb but, lo, a stench instead, walk away and turn your considerable energies toward something else. Want it to be biblical? Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me. You can start with that one.

Item the second: Pledge Spoken in Spanish; Flag Threatens to Burst into Flames.

For years, Gale Elementary School teacher Anne Lee has had her students recite the pledge in three languages — English, Spanish and American Sign Language — as a learning exercise. The kids start with English.

Do you see a problem? No one had until the son of a Minuteman Mexican Huntin' Squad Civil Defense Corps loon patriot hit second grade. Dad posted the story on multiple message boards and the e-mail barrage began. TUSD's response has been, quite reasonably, wtf?

"It's really not a story," said Cheryl Hill Lander, the district's spokeswoman. "They recite the pledge in English every morning, and they recite the pledge in Spanish. After they recite it in Spanish, then they sign the Pledge of Allegiance."

And Governing Board President Alex Rodriguez, who served in the military, said "it was clear … there was no patriotic disrespect intended."

It doesn't matter to American Dad.

But to Altherr, a 34-year-old landscaper, the disrespect has been made, and the e-mail campaign will continue.

"It's nothing against Spanish," he said. "I would be just as upset if they were making my son say the Pledge of Allegiance in German."

Uh huh. That's why you set up your lawn chairs at JFK every spring, to make sure the NSA folks are checking the German tourists' passports with the rigor befitting a True Patriot.

Item the third: Daily Star Unwittingly Installs Astroturf, One Letter at a Time. Two letters in two days isn't much, but, well, we have two letters in two days with this lovely reminder:

Remind public why we're in Iraq

Re: the March 29 letter "How to end the Iraq War."

I think the idea has merit.

As a supporter of the war, I think that would be a great service provided that just after the information on the soldier is given the media profiles one of the individuals killed on Sept. 11.

The in-your-face approach to the war is needed to remind everyone why our brave soldiers are required to be placed in harm's way. Maybe we could also remind some of your readers what started the entire situation.

Wow, thank you for this! What with the 9/11 Commission Report and the Joint Forces Command's report and St. Rudy of 9/11 dropping out of the race and all, I had completely forgotten that the Iraq war is necessary retribution for Saddam planning September 11 and flying one of the planes himself by remote control while sitting on a copy of Mein Kampf personally signed by Barack Hussein Obama and getting blown by Osama bin Laden. Who was wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt at the time.

Final score, for those keeping it at home: Arizona 2, Rational Thought 1. Better luck today, Rational Thought! Hope the wind's blowing out!

Le Sigh

Those little moments of absolute clarity can suck. When they hit in the express checkout lane at Albertson's, they totally suck even more. I had some time to kill between getting groceries and picking up the boy from volleyball practice, so, after casting about for cheap reading material, I grabbed a Gourmet. And then proceeded to stack on the conveyor belt, behind said Gourmet... some PowerBars, a couple of bottles of Propel, and a box of instant oatmeal.

Just in case the dissonance wasn't lost on the checkout woman, I prepared to mumble something about guys with regular girlfriends probably not buying Playboy, but, luckily, she was distracted by her conversation with the bagger, leaving me to slink out under my own private cloud of oh what the fuck.

When I got home, the mailbox helpfully disgorged an Estes Park vacation guide, giving me two nice additions to the growing monument of futility that was previously composed of back issues of National Geographic Adventure and a Mountain Hardwear tent catalogue. The Gourmet turned out to be filled with useful tips for my next trip to Italy. Fuck.

At some point it becomes time to... well, if not quite give up, then perhaps to recalibrate the goals-and-dreams generator, to scale it back to a framework that is more compatible with the life that's unfolded. And that's not a pleasant process. At some point the reality of being 40 and pudgy starts to edge out the dewy notions of mountaintops and whitewater and romantic cabins in the woods that have been crowding the brain since adolescence, despite the fact that my parents are in their early 60s and still live dreams like that on a regular basis. They also made slightly different career choices than I did. Maybe I'll get there someday, when I grow up, the recording starts, and then I blink and realize I've already grown up and this is pretty much it.

Maybe someday.

Huh.

Proof that the Blog-Cuss-O-Meter is seriously fucked up:


Created by OnePlusYou

In Conclusion, All I Got to Say

The bullshit factor is too high today for serious discussion. We have Michael Mukasey either (1) lying through his teeth or (2) inadvertently exposing the utter incompetence of US intelligence gathering whilst (3) manufacturing a emotion-choked moment during a speech about FISA and the evil liberals who don't want telecoms permanently immunized against any repercussions for helping shred the Constitution. We have, finally, the full text of John Yoo's remix of the old-skool Nixon hit, "When the President Does It, That Means It Is Not Illegal." We have the Center for Arizona Policy proclaiming the end of the world because the governor decided to extend taxable healthcare benefits to unmarried partners of state employees.

In the face of that, I finally remembered something that's been bugging me since yesterday. I hate it when women refer to their breasts as "the twins" or, especially, "the girls." It seriously fucking makes my skin crawl. Not sure why. Just stop it. Now.

Oh No They Dint

The Cubs finally paid Ernie Banks the homage he deserves, with a statue outside Wrigley Field. It's very nice. It looks a lot like him. One small problem.

What? It's Banks' catchphrase, perfectly summing up his enthusiasm and love of the game. Do we see the problem? How about now:

Oh. It's not Banks' catchphrase, "Let's play two" after all. It says lets play two. With no apostrophe. Way to go, Cubs!

The sculptor says he wrote it phonetically, is all. He'll fix it. Jesus.

Archaeology is Fun

This is the kind of archaeology I used to do, in exotic places fraught with danger, with occasional sprints away from armed grave robbers during weekend hikes, driving hands-up through military checkpoints, searching native markets for cold beer, eating guinea pigs. My old undergrad adviser and buddy Mark has always done excellent work in Peru and, more recently, Tibet, and now he's hit the big time since the wire services noticed he found a nifty necklace high in the Andes:


Awesomeness from Lake Titicaca.

Granted, we never found any gold back in the day when I was working for him in Peru, but we did find one of the earliest mano-and-metate sets known in the Andes and some very interesting early ceremonial features. He taught me how to wield a trowel and draw trench profiles, and taught us all to work as hard as we played.

Good show, Mark. You're buying the beers next time.