hellish world

Posted on March 7, 2013 by greg

Yesterday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the proposed ban of some assault-style weapons, Senator Lindsey Graham conjured up the NRA’s most popular nightmare scenario. He asked Attorney General Eric Holder to imagine:

[A] lawless environment where you have a natural disaster or some catastrophic event and those things, unfortunately, do happen. And law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods. Can you envision a situation where if your home happens to be in the cross-hairs of this group that a better self-defense weapon may be a semiautomatic AR-15 versus a double-barrel shotgun?

Holder politely pointed out that his example posed a purely a hypothetical situation. To which Graham replied:

Well, I’m afraid that world does exist. I think it existed in New Orleans, to some exist in Long Island, it could exist tomorrow if there’s a cyber attack against the country and the power grid goes down and the dams are released and chemical plants are discharges…

Graham may think it existed, but he’s wrong. No, it didn’t happen on Long Island after Hurricane Sandy. And no, it didn’t happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. There was looting of commercial areas during each of those natural disasters, to be sure. Grocery stores and convenience stores were hard hit, as were shops selling electronic goods. Gun shops were also looted, as were stores selling high-end sneakers.

But armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods targeting individual homes? Nope, just didn’t happen.

Senator Lindsey Graham crushing an imaginary zombie’s skull

Could it happen? Sure, anything is possible. IF the power grid goes down and IF the dams burst and IF all the chemical and nuclear plants all go haywire and IF society totally collapses, then after every downtown shop and store has been looted, and after every strip mall has been looted, and after every suburban corner convenience store has been looted, then I suppose armed mobs might start roaming neighborhoods and invading individual homes. But that’s a scenario from a zombie apocalypse, not a logical basis for implementing public policy.

Nevertheless, that’s the argument the NRA keeps making and so it’s the argument offered by Lindsey Graham and other Republicans. Compare Graham’s comments to those of Wayne LaPierre:

After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.

It doesn’t matter that this “hellish world” didn’t exist. The NRA wants you to believe it did in the hope that 1) you’ll buy more guns and 2) you’ll buy still more guns.

What Lindsey Graham wants you to believe could happen in your neighborhood

It’s all about fear, isn’t it. Fear that somebody somewhere wants what you have, and is willing — even eager — to take it by violence. Fear that a segment of the population is just waiting and hoping for some sort of disaster to strike so they can take your stuff. Research has shown that fear of social disorder is related to fear of dark-skinned people, so basically the fear Graham and the NRA want you to experience is the fear that minorities will come to a white neighborhood and fuck things up.

What’s more likely to happen in your neighborhood

Here’s a true thing: civil disorder following a sporting event takes place more often than civil disorder after a natural disaster. The photograph above was taken in 2011, in Vancouver, British Columbia after the Canucks lost the seventh game of the Stanley Cup to the Bruins. This was in Canada, people. This happened in the most civil and polite nation on the entire fucking planet. Almost a hundred and twenty people were arrested during and after the riot — nearly three times the number of people arrested following Hurricane Sandy.

There are, in my opinion, some valid arguments to be made against the assault-style weapons ban. But self-defense and home protection in the event of civil disorder isn’t one of them.

You want to deter people from breaking into your home? You want to keep your family safe from intruders? Buy a dog with a loud bark. Better yet, go to the local animal shelter and adopt one. A dog will offer more protection and be more reliable than an firearm. And it will love you without reservation. Ain’t no gun will do that.

the questions we ask

Posted on March 4, 2013 by greg

Last week, while strolling down a relatively nice alley, I came across something peculiar written on a board covering a broken window. It said

Save the date
7•19•13

If you’re anything like me (and really, what are the odds of that?) you see something like that and you immediately start asking a whole series of completely unanswerable questions. What’s happening on that date? Why should I save it? Why would anybody put that request (if it is a request) on a board covering a broken window in an alley? Sure, it’s a relatively nice alley, but c’mon. For whom is this invitation (if it is an invitation) intended? Am I supposed to save the entire day? Just the evening? Is the event (assuming there is an event associated with that date) taking place in the alley? And finally, what the fuck, really?

There’s not much point in having questions if you don’t actually ask them, right? So I decided to ask them.

I packed some chalk in a pocket of my jacket, stuck my little Fujifilm X10 in the other pocket, took myself right back to the alleyway, and…and I stood there, realizing I couldn’t ask all those questions. For one thing, I didn’t have enough chalk. Nor enough space. So I had to satisfy myself with asking just one question. It’s a wee bit hard to see in the small version, but I left a little note asking:

WHAT AM I SAVING THE DATE FOR?

Leo Babauta says the questions we ask determines the type of people we become. If so, it seems I’ve become the type of person who stands in alleys and asks ‘What the fuck?’

I’ll check back periodically (it’s a relatively nice alley, after all) to see if I get an answer. If an answer arrives, I’ll be sure to let y’all know.

jeffersonian bullshit on a baseball cap

Posted on March 1, 2013 by greg

Just a quick (at least I hope it’s quick) note. You can’t do any research into the gun rights movement without coming across this quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

It’s repeated often — on placards, on right wing political cartoons, on posters, on t-shirts, on baseball caps, on coffee mugs and mouse pads. And like so many of the things claimed by gun rights advocates, it’s inaccurate and misleading.

That first line is sometimes given the following scholarly attribution:

Thomas Jefferson Papers, pg 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

It looks good, doesn’t it. But it just ain’t so. A scholar named Julian P. Boyd (not C.J. Boyd) did, in fact, edit the collected Jefferson papers — but the alleged quotation is a fraud. It doesn’t exist in Boyd’s Thomas Jefferson Papers.

In fact, it doesn’t exist anywhere except in the minds of gun rights advocates. There’s absolutely nothing to indicate Jefferson ever said or wrote that line. It’s not in any of his personal correspondence, not in any of his diaries, not in any of his speeches, not in any of his notes. Nor has that line ever been cited in any law journal by any Constitutional scholar.

Thomas Jefferson just flat out didn’t say it, no matter how many baseball caps claim he did.

However, Jefferson did write that second line. In fact, he wrote it three times. It was included in his various drafts of the proposed Constitution of Virginia.

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (From the first draft)
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]” (From the second draft)
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].” (From the third draft)

Let me first point out that while the line was included in each of Jefferson’s three drafts, it wasn’t included in the final draft. The line was dropped in the version adopted by the Virginia Constitutional convention.

But also note the term freeman. It’s usually written as free man when presented by gun rights advocates, but the two terms aren’t synonymous. At the time Jefferson wrote those words, freeman had a specific meaning in law. A freeman was, first and foremost, literally a man. Women couldn’t be freemen. A freeman wasn’t just any man, but a man who was “free of all debt, owing nothing to anyone except God Himself.”

It’s necessary to understand that a lot of people arrived in the American colonies as indentured servants. It’s estimated that in the 18th and 19th centuries, about 80% of immigrants to the colonies were redemptioners. Indenture wasn’t considered a social stigma; it was simply a way for people to pay their way to the new world, also learn a skill or trade, and maybe earn a meager wage while they were at it. After their period of indenture was finished, redemptioners were free to go where they wanted and to use their training to fend for themselves.

But being free didn’t make them freemen. After a sort of probationary period–generally a year or two–a man could be considered a freeman only if he owned real property (such as land or a building) or if he had sufficient wealth for taxation. Only freeman were permitted to vote. In many communities, only freemen could become members of a church (common folk could attend, but not be members).

When Jefferson talked about freemen, he wasn’t talking about common folks. He was talking about the Colonial version of landed gentry. That’s why he considered including the provision that freemen could use arms within his own lands or tenements. (it’s also worth noting that ‘tenement’ also has a specific legal meaning — basically it refers to real property a person holds or controls for somebody else).

What Jefferson was basically saying was that men who owned property shouldn’t be prohibited from using firearms on their own property or on the property they control for another person.

But that doesn’t look quite as catchy on a baseball cap.

return of the dimwitted sheriffs

Posted on February 28, 2013 by greg

A few weeks ago I nattered on about a group of dimwit sheriffs who hold a rather flawed understanding of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (their understanding of the Supremacy Clause, essentially, is this: What? There’s a Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution?). When I wrote about them, these folks claimed to have more than sixty county sheriffs who supported the belief that they are the final arbiters of the law in their county. Now they claim there are more than 200 sheriffs who support that position.

An organization called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association recently held their first conference (in Las Vegas, of course, because where else would ultra right wing Christianists hold a meeting?). The CSPOA conference was organized by this jamoke:

Former sheriff Richard Mack locked in mortal combat against Imaginary Obama

That’s Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona (population: 37,220). Mack was the National Rifle Association Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for 1994; he’s been inducted into the NRA Hall of Fame. He’s also the author of From My Cold Dead Fingers: Why America Needs Guns and THE NAKED SPY: His Mission Began the Day He Died.

The CSPOA conference was sponsored by the Gun Owners of America, the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, and the John Birch Society. And before you ask, I swear I’m not making that up — it was sponsored by the fucking John Birch Society. The folks best known for claiming the fluoridation of drinking water was a communist plot, the folks who claimed President Eisenhower was a “communist tool.”

But be assured, former-sheriff Mack also has support from equally reputable sources. Like has-been, draft dodging rock musicians with tendencies toward pedophilia.

Former sheriff Mack, former rocker Nugent, former deer

The purpose of the CSPOA conference was to instruct county law enforcement officers about their alleged constitutional powers. They maintain the Constitution of the United States and the 10th Amendment grant sheriffs supreme law enforcement power within their counties. This, by the way, is the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

According to former-sheriff Mack and his lunatic companions of the CSPOA, the Constitution essentially limits federal law enforcement powers to policing matters of treason, piracy, treaty violations and counterfeiting. That’s it — counterfeiters, traitors and pirates, that’s all the Feds can do. Therefore, the 10th Amendment necessarily confers all primary law enforcement power on the county sheriff. Seriously, that’s their claim. I’m not making this up. The CSPOA folks maintain the following:

The sheriff’s position overrides any federal agents or even the arrogant FBI agents who attempt to assume jurisdiction in our cases.

Yes, they claim the locally elected sheriff has more authority than the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They can only believe that if they ignore that pesky Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That clause prevents States (and therefore the individual counties of those States) from enforcing their local laws in a way that interferes with federal law. That’s why it’s illegal to own a bazooka in, say, Big Horn County, Wyoming.

Sheriff Dave Mattis, who just happens to be from Big Horn County, Wyoming (population: 11,668), attended the CSPOA conference. He told the other attendees that he’s issued an edict (an edict!) forbidding Federal agents from entering Big Horn County without his approval. Not only that, Mattis also told the conference the Wyoming District Court agreed with him.

Dave Mattis, dimwit liar and sheriff

But the court didn’t actually agree with him. In fact, after they learned of Mattis’ claim, the Wyoming District Court issued a statement (and note the court wouldn’t even agree that Mattis issued an edict; they dismissed it as a mere policy and even then they even put policy in quotes — that’s a tough court):

Big Horn County Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a “Policy.” In the “Policy,” the Sheriff purports to impose conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County. We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision.

This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming. Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.

Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.

In less legalistic terms, the court is saying Big Horn County Sheriff Dave Mattis is full of shit. So is Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky (population: 13,494). Peyman held a news conference in which he said this:

I am the highest elected official in this county…I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. [I]t doesn’t matter what [new laws] Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.

Dimwit Sheriff Denny Peyman and all of his deputies

It probably ought to be noted, though, that due to Sheriff Peyman’s misuse of county funds (County judge William Smith says the Sheriff’s Department owes the county nearly $300,000) county officials have formed an alternate Jackson County Police Department comprised of Peyman’s former deputies. Sheriff Peyman is now the entire Jackson County Sheriff’s Department; his staff is gone, his policing duties are gone, and he has nothing to do but call dimwitted news conferences. The FBI has apparently been called in to investigate the case. I guess Peyman forgot to ask them to leave.

Despite what these dimwitted sheriffs say, the law on this matter is pretty clear. Federal officers can’t be subjected to state criminal sanctions for carrying out their appointed duties. It doesn’t mean federal agents are above the law; but it does mean no dimwit sheriff can prevent them from fulfilling their lawful duty just because that dimwit sheriff disagrees with the laws written by Congress.

But don’t be too hard on these sheriffs for being dimwitted or telling lies. Lying seems to be part and parcel of the CSPOA approach. Earlier I mentioned that the organization is claiming to have more than 200 sheriffs as members. The operative term there is claiming. I noticed one of the sheriffs listed as members is Bill McCarthy, the sheriff of Polk County, Iowa.

I live in Polk County. I voted for Sheriff McCarthy. I based my vote on comments he made during a debate. McCarthy actually brought up the subject of the so-called constitutional sheriffs movement. His opponent in the election had demanded he join the Oath Keepers — another group of law enforcement officers who believe they get to define the Constitution. This is what McCarthy said:

“I had him and others come in my office and demand that I sign an Oath Keepers promise which is a sign that you support the Constitution. That would be the last thing I’d ever do is sign a Constitution for people like that. I took an oath when I joined the Marine Corps. I took an oath that caused me to do two terms in Vietnam. I took an oath in 69 when I joined the Sheriff’s office, and again in 70 with the Police Department, and then again when I was elected Sheriff. I’m not taking an oath for people who define ‘We the People’ [as those] who look exactly like them and think exactly like them.”

McCarthy won with nearly 60% of the vote. He’s not a member of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Claiming him as a member is a lie. But that’s how groups like the CSPOA operate.

Trial lawyers have a maxim: When the facts are against you, bang on the law; when the law is against you, bang on the facts; when both the law and the facts are against you, bang on the table.

These dimwits are banging on the table. They hope that by banging loudly enough, it’ll distract folks from the facts and the law. But the fact is, nobody in the government is planning to confiscate everybody’s guns. But there’s a chance the laws will change to require some minimal restrictions on firearms. If the law changes, all law enforcement officers — including sheriffs — will have a duty to uphold it.

Then former sheriff Richard Mack can resume his badly neglected writing career.

save the date

Posted on February 26, 2013 by greg

So I’m walking down this alley, right? Walking down the alley, minding my own business mostly, and in the back of this building–it looks like it might have been a garage space at one time, or maybe some sort of small manufacturing enterprise that went toes up–on one of the boarded-over broken windows, I see this:

Save the date
7•19•13

Sometimes I see things and they don’t quite register in my brain until a few seconds later. I took maybe five or six steps and then my brain belatedly kicks in. Dude, my brain says, did you see that? And I’m all ‘Yeah, I saw it.” And my brain says Well? And I say ‘Okay’ and me and my brain turn around and retrace those five or six steps.

And sure enough, my brain was right to insist we turn around. There it is. Save the date. (Okay, there’s also a cast-off blouse or jacket, stained with what appears to be blood; I didn’t examine it too closely because 1) I wasn’t about to pick it up without a pair of latex gloves and 2) I really do not want to be seen standing in an alley holding a bloody jacket in my hands.)

Save the date. I’m just taking it for granted that this isn’t like ‘Save the Whales.’ I don’t think the date is in any danger or is in any way threatened. I’m assuming whoever wrote that is suggesting I don’t make any plans for the 19th day of July because…because why?

Let’s just assume this (this what? Is it an invitation? an announcement? a command?) is a savvy niche marketing strategy, that it’s a direct approach targeting the ‘folks who wander down alleys’ demographic. And while we’re assuming, let’s also assume it’s not targeting a ‘folks who don’t mind standing in alleys holding bloody jackets’ demographic. That leads us inevitably to this question: Uhhh…what the fuck?

I realize this is a small broken window; there isn’t room to include a detailed account of what’s going to take place on that date. But a hint would have been nice.

So I go online to see if I can determine what’s happening on the 19th of July. There’s a Taylor Swift concert in Philadelphia. Wrong city, wrong demographic. Somebody named Tracy is getting married. But probably not in that alley (although that would be a wedding I’d definitely attend). There’s a synchronized swimming competition. Doesn’t sound like a likely candidate. There’s a bull riding event in Florida and a group called Train is appearing in Indianapolis on their Mermaids of Alcatraz tour. Nope, that’s not it. The Red Sox are playing the Dog-Ass Yankees at Fenway. That’s always a good time. And in Des Moines there’s a muscle car auction at the State Fairgrounds and the Civic Center is hosting a student performance of The Princess and the Pea. Probably not events you’d advertise in an alley.

I’m willing to save the date on my calendar (if I owned a calendar, which I don’t, but that’s not the point, is it–the point is this: ‘Why am I saving the date?’ A related point may be ‘Do you really think folks who wander down alleys are also folks who keep engagement calendars?’). I may have to return to the alley with a bit of paint and a brush and use one of the remaining boarded-over broken windows to request more information.

Okay but why am I
saving the date?

It wouldn’t be vandalism. It would just be an appeal for clarification. Right?

we’re still at war

Posted on February 24, 2013 by greg

It’s common knowledge that liberals hate America, right? We don’t support the troops, and the only reason we’re not burning the flag right this very minute is because we’re too busy queuing up in disorderly socialist lines for the privilege of spitting on wounded veterans.

At least that’s the litany we hear every fifteen minutes from conservative Republican outlets like FOX News. But thankfully, there exists a courageous news venue that unflaggingly keeps the troops in mind, that regularly reminds us that there are still men and women in uniform serving in a combat zone.

Spc. Andrew Harvey, a 1st Infantry Soldier, patrols along steep cliffs of the Korengal Valley’s surrounding mountains during Operation Viper Shake, Afghanistan, April 21, 2009. Photo courtesy army.mil.

Is it FOX News? No, it’s not. Is it the New York Times? Sadly, no. Maybe it’s TIME magazine? Nope.

It’s Mother Jones. That’s right, Mother Jones — the notoriously left-wing muckraking magazine. Since June of 2009, MoJo has been publishing We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day. It’s not published every single day, but several times a week they print a photograph of U.S. military forces either in a combat zone or training for deployment to a combat zone. It’s a small thing, but it serves as a constant reminder.

The sad thing is that the American public actually needs reminding.

COMBAT OUTPOST MIZAN, Afghanistan—US Army 1st Lt. Troy Peterson, right, platoon commander for 3rd Platoon, Fox Company, 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, assists his radio operator, US Army Pfc. Justin Cobbs, across a ravine during a dismounted patrol near Combat Outpost Mizan, Mizan District, Zabul Province, on Aug. 16, 2010. Photo via the US Army by Senior Airman Nathanael Callon.

It’s become shockingly easy to forget that we’re still at war. While we’re immersed in our daily lives–buying groceries, watching Downton Abbey, making fun of Justin Bieber–men and women are still fighting and killing and dying in Afghanistan. It’s easy to forget because most folks don’t have any meaningful connection to the war or the people fighting it.

There are about a million and a half active duty personnel serving in the U.S. military–the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard. That sounds like a lot of people to have in military harness, but it’s less than half of one percent of our population. Of that million and a half troops, around 70,000 are currently serving in Afghanistan. That’s still a lot of people, but the odds are you don’t know any of them.

There’s never been a point in U.S. history in which the American public has been so separate from its military. There’s a fairly good chance you (whoever you are) have a family member who served in the military at some point in the past–probably World War II, maybe Korea, maybe Vietnam. But the odds of you knowing somebody currently on active duty are pretty slim. The odds of you knowing somebody who has served in Afghanistan or Iraq are even more slim. The odds of you knowing somebody who is currently stationed in Afghanistan are remote.

The sun sets behind U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Jamie R. Johnson, a platoon sergeant from Bayonet Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, Task Force No Slack, in Afghanistan’s Kunar Province March 17. Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Mark Burrell, 210th MPAD

Last year 301 U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan. In 2011, 412 troops were killed there, and 496 were killed the year before that. That’s averaging more than one death a day for the last three years.

Unless one of those dead troops was a member of your family, it’s easy to ignore them. Their deaths were almost certainly not reported on the national news. They might have been given a solemn moment in the local news. But let’s face it–they were strangers. They are as distant from us as the murder of a drug dealer in Newark or the accidental shooting of a 13 year old girl in Ovid Township, Michigan. They are, in a very real and very sad way, nobody at all.

Spc. Jon Saladin, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, walks past an Afghan graveyard during a US–Afghan patrol on April 30, 2012, Ghazni province, Afghanistan. Saladin serves with Company A, 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. US Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod.

Except these nobodies volunteered to put on a uniform and take risks in the service of their country. Well, our country. It’s our country too, right? We pay taxes after all (though let’s be honest, we try to pay as little as we can). But the troops sometimes have to pay in a more fundamental way.

So they deserve our support and our attention. They deserve more than we give them. Much more. Mother Jones publishes a photo of the troops a few times a week–it’s not much. It’s not much at all. But MoJo’s We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day is more attention than most news organizations give to the troops. And Mother Jones gives them a name.

Lance Cpl. Cassidy Zacharyasz provides overwatch for International Security Assistance Forces as they conduct a district transition assessment visit with Nawa District officials at the Nawa District Government Headquarters, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Jan. 29, 2013. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. John R. Rohrer

Thanks to Mother Jones we know this:

In April of 2009, Spc. Andrew Harvey served in the Korengal Valley.
In August of 2010, 1st Lt. Troy Peterson and Pfc. Justin Cobbs served in Zabul Province.
In March of 2011, Sgt. 1st Class Jamie R. Johnson served in Kunar Province.
In April of 2012, Spc. Jon Saladin served in Ghazni province.
And just a few weeks ago Lance Cpl. Cassidy Zacharyasz was on duty in Helman Province.

These are real people. They have real families. They’re making real sacrifices. And we need to remember that, like it or not, we’re still at war.

self evident truths

Posted on February 20, 2013 by greg

I spent some time looking at the portraits from the Self Evident Truths project before I read the ‘About’ section. I like the photographs. They’re simple, unfussy, comfortable, direct, wonderfully relaxed portraits of ordinary people. I like them a lot.

On the landing page, the portraits scroll by at an unhurried pace — about the pace you’d expect if you were strolling through town and looked casually at the people coming toward you on the sidewalk. It’s pleasant and smile-making to just sit for a while and look at the faces that pass by.

Then I read the ‘About’ page. These are the first few lines on that page:

In 2010 iO Tillett Wright began a project called Self Evident Truths, photographing anyone that felt like they qualified to fall on some part of the LGBTQ spectrum, from bisexual, to transgender. Shot in simple black and white, in natural light, with no makeup or styling, the photos were intended to humanize the very varied face of gays in America today.

Intended to humanize. I read that and thought ‘We need to humanize gay folks?’ That notion seems so out of date. It feels like something activists would say in the 1990s.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the portraits. I love the foundational concept — I find something oddly pleasing about portraits of ordinary people categorized in some way. I’d love to see portraits of people who work in grocery stores, or people who are in bowling leagues, or people who frequent swap meets, or people who keep lists of the birds they see. I suspect they’d all look fairly similar to the people we see in the Self Evident Truths project.

But I can’t imagine shooting portraits of birders or bowlers or grocery store employees in order to humanize them. It’s 2013 — do we really need to humanize LGBTQ folks?

If the Montana legislature is any indication, then yeah, I guess maybe we do.

Yesterday the Montana legislature voted on a measure to strike an old Montana law that criminalized “sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex.” The Montana Supreme Court ruled that law was unconstitutional in 1997, but the law remained on the books despite regular attempts to have it removed. Why? Because some Montana Republicans apparently felt that if they voted to remove the law, they’d get some of the gay on them. And you know, that stuff is hard to wash out. Or something like that.

This year was different. This year Montana Democrats garnered enough support to have the unconstitutional law stricken from the criminal code. The vote was 38-10. That’s right, ten Republicans still voted to retain the law even though it’s unconstitutional and even though it can’t be enforced. Lawdy.

Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled them unconstitutional, there are still at least a dozen other states with anti-sodomy or anti-homosexual laws on the books. There are elected legislators in at least a dozen states who are so afraid of gay folks that they refuse to remove blatantly unconstitutional laws from their criminal codes.

But I still disagree with iO Tillett Wright and the Self Evident Truths project on this issue. I don’t think we need to ‘humanize’ gay folks. I think we need to humanize the people who hate gay folks.

Visit the Self Evident Truths site. Visit their shop. Buy prints of the portraits. Buy ‘We Are You’ t-shirts. Donate to the project if you can. But work to humanize bigots and assholes. Gay folks are already okay as they are.

Editorial note: When I say ‘gay folks’ I mean everybody in the LGBTQ mishpocha; I just get weary of the acronym. Also? It’s already totally fucking obvious, but for the record let me just point out that all the photos are from the Self Evident Truth project.

jackassery

Posted on February 19, 2013 by greg

I’m a big believer in academic freedom. I’ve managed to acquire a handful of degrees from various colleges and universities, and for a brief time I was actually an academic my ownself. When I heard the State of Oklahoma was considering legislation promoting academic freedom, I was understandably pleased.

I said to myself, “Yay Oklahoma!” I started to read HR1674, the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, with a song in my heart. The legislation begins like this:

[A]n important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens.

Who could argue against that? We totally want our students to develop mad critical thinking skillz. Yay Oklahoma! Yay critical thinking skills! The proposed legislation acknowledges that encouraging the development of those critical thinking skills can lead to controversy.

[T]he teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

So far, so good, right? Yay Oklahoma! Yay critical thinking skills! Yay controversy! Controversy is good. Controversy makes you think. Controversy requires you to…wait. Wait a minute. Wait just one fucking minute here, buddy. Biological evolution? The chemical origins of life? Global warming?

Are you crazy? There’s no scientific controversy about evolution. There’s no scientific controversy about the origin of life or anthropogenic climate change. Those are established scientific facts. What jackass wrote this proposed legislation?

This jackass.

Gus Blackwell (Jackass – Oklahoma)

This is Oklahoma state legislator Gus Blackwell. Would you be surprised to discover Blackwell is a Republican? Or that he’s a Baptist minister? Or that he’s spent the last two decades employed by the Oklahoma Baptist General Convention?

I’m not suggesting Blackwell is a jackass because he’s a Republican or a Baptist. There are lots of Republicans and Baptists who go through life without engaging in jackassery. No, Blackwell is a jackass because he’s introduced legislation that would give his Baptist theology the same credibility as science. Blackwell is a jackass because his proposed legislation goes on to say this:

[N]o student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.

What does that mean? In effect, it means if students were to write a report claiming climate change is a hoax or arguing that the Earth is only 6000 years old and women were created from the rib of Adam, they couldn’t be ‘penalized’ with a bad grade. In an interview, Blackwell said,

“I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks. A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”

Blackburn is a jackass, but he’s right about that. A certainly student does have the freedom to write a paper arguing against evolution. But if that paper was written for a science class, then the student should expect a failing grade. Not because the teacher may disagree with the student’s belief system, but because that student would be what we academics call ‘wrong.’

Blackwell and his ilk (yes, there is an entire ilk of jackasses like Gus Blackwell) propose this sort of legislation under the guise of promoting ‘academic freedom.’ I’m sorry to say they know as much about academic freedom as they know about science.

Academic freedom, like evolution or gravity or anthropomorphic climate change, is an actual thing. It has an actual meaning. It’s not a matter of opinion. And it’s got nothing to do with students having the freedom to write papers about humans cavorting with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.

Academic freedom doesn’t apply to students representing a personal point of view. Legally, it doesn’t even apply to teachers or college professors. In the United States, the courts have ruled that academic freedom resides in the university. Academic freedom gives the university the power to appoint faculty and set standards for their behavior.

All major universities in the U.S. abide by the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which insures that:

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

It was academic freedom that enabled Blackwell to attend Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theology Seminary and study Baptist theology. Yay academic freedom! But academic freedom doesn’t mean he can legislate that his theology be given equal credibility as science. Boo jackassery!

Happily for Gus Blackwell, though, nobody has proposed legislation limiting his freedom to be a jackass.

gregfallis.com

it's this or get a real job