Thought of the day

Follow-up: Clay Greene, Harold Scull

Clay Greene and Harold Scull were an elderly gay couple that was separated by the state under false pretenses. They had all the possible paperwork they could in order to be sure they had all the rights they deserved. But that was unimportant to Sonoma County in California. The two were forced to live out Harold’s last days in separate nursing homes; Clay shouldn’t have even been placed in a home. Their property was stolen and sold by the county, gone forever except in Clay’s memories. It’s a tragedy that ought to move everybody.

Clay soon brought a lawsuit against the county. I’m reporting this late, I know, but a settlement was reached back in July.

A case of reported domestic violence involving two elderly Sonoma County gay men that led to a lawsuit claiming discrimination by the Public Guardian’s office which assisted them was settled today when the County agreed to pay $300,000 for property that belonged to the men which was sold for less than its full alleged value at auction.

What’s unfortunate is that the only source I can find is the one I’ve given here, and that’s a press release from the county. Everyone knows a settlement usually means the defendant knows a loss was guaranteed. But that doesn’t stop the lying.

“This is a case about the County doing the right thing and stepping in to assist an individual, Harold Scull, who made claims of domestic abuse against Clay Greene,” said attorney Greg Spaulding, representing the County in the settlement. “It is everyone’s right—no matter what their sexual orientation—to have a relationship that is not abusive.”

Except charges were never filed. No steps were taken to prove beyond any doubt, much less a reasonable one, that Clay had ever abused Harold. All that happened was the county stole property from two men, placed one in what was effectively a prison, and then lied. Now that it’s obvious to everyone that they were lying, they’re doubling down on the lies. Take a look at the first quote I put up. It sounds like the county only paid for undervalued property. In fact, it was stolen property, but putting that aside, here’s what they really paid.

This settlement, in which the County agreed to pay $300,000 for attorney fees, $275,000 to Clay Greene and $25,000 to the estate of Harold Scull for allegedly undervalued sold property, allows the County to avoid costs associated with a lengthy trial.

The real cost is $600,000, not $300,000. And does anyone believe that the county is merely paying the difference in the stolen undervalued property? They’re giving a massive chunk to Clay while only a small portion to Harold’s estate. How plausible is it that the two men had such unequal shares of property after living together for 20 years? Clearly the county is paying $25,000 to Harold’s estate for the sake of undervalued property, but it’s paying Clay so much because they know they would face a humiliating and just loss at trial that would result in a far bigger payment. It’s that inevitable loss they mean when they talk about “costs associated with a lengthy trial”.

It’s good that Clay has effectively won his case, but none of this changes the fact that he was forced to miss the majority of the last few months of Harold’s life.

GE Salmon may gain FDA approval

The FDA is considering allowing a company to market a fish that has been genetically engineered.

If the FDA approves the sale of the salmon, it will be the first time the U.S. government allows such modified animals to be marketed for human consumption. The panel was convened by the agency to look at the science of the fish and make recommendations on its safety and environmental impact.

Ron Stotish, chief executive of the Massachusetts company that created the salmon, AquaBounty, said at Monday’s hearing that his company’s fish product is safe and environmentally sustainable.

FDA officials have largely agreed with him, saying that the salmon, which grows twice as fast as its conventional “sisters,” is as safe to eat as the traditional variety. But they have not yet decided whether to approve the request, saying there is no timeline for a decision.

One of the chief concerns most people have about genetically altered food is that it contains DNA. I kid you not. That concern is more prevalent where cloned animals are in question, but it’s just as incoherent.

But there are more reasonable concerns.

Critics have two main concerns: The safety of the food to humans and the salmon’s effect on the environment.

Because the altered fish has never been eaten before, they say, it could include dangerous allergens, especially because seafood is highly allergenic. They also worry that the fish will escape and intermingle with the wild salmon population, which is already endangered.They would grow fast and consume more food to the detriment of the conventional wild salmon, the critics fear.

There’s really no reason to suspect any extra allergies. These fish are being caused to grow faster through the use of hormones they already regularly produce; they’re just producing more hormones than they would without the inserted gene and regulator. If someone doesn’t have an allergy as a result of these hormones now, they won’t have an allergy to these new salmon.

As far as contamination is concerned, I doubt there will be any intermingling, but if it does happen, it seems unlikely the new fish will out-compete the current wild population. Natural selection could act to increase the frequency of hormone production relatively easily. It hasn’t. It’s unlikely the new population would be more fit in the given wild population’s environment.

I foresee this getting approval, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the FDA acquiesced to critic’s demands and forced a ‘warning’ to be placed on the fish listing it as genetically altered. This would be unfortunate since there is no effective difference between eating a wild population salmon and a genetically altered salmon. But it’s the FDA. There will be an unnecessary warning added; it’ll probably be removed in 5-10 years when it becomes even more clear that this fish is very safe to eat.

Lady Gaga comes to Maine

I’m not a fan of terrible music, but Lady Gaga made a lobbying trip to Maine that makes her worthy of a mention on this blog.

The world’s biggest pop star came to Portland on Monday as part of a last-minute lobbying effort to encourage U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine to vote to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that calls on service members who are gay to remain closeted and prohibits recruiters from asking. It also calls for outed soldiers to be discharged.

Of course, Collins voted with the other Republicans to knock down the bill, but she did it out of a desire to be allowed to present other amendments, not because she hates gays; Collins has voiced her opposition to “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

But I’m not mentioning Lady Gaga merely because I agree with what she’s saying. She actually gave a pretty good speech from the account in the local paper:

The pop star, who eschewed her usual outrageous style in favor of a simple black suit and glasses, proposed a new policy to replace “don’t ask, don’t tell” — one that would flip the equation.

“Our new law is called, ‘if you don’t like it, go home,'” she said. “If you are not committing to perform with excellence as a United States soldier because you don’t believe in full equality, go home. If you are not honorable enough to fight without prejudice, go home. If you are not capable of keeping your oath to the armed forces, to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to do the same, unless there’s a gay soldier in my unit, then go home.”

Her point is a powerful one and should effect anyone not blinded by a hatred of gays. The soldier who cannot fight next to a soldier who may be gay probably isn’t a soldier mature enough to handle his or her responsibilities.

Bigots defeat bill containing anti-bigotry

The GOP/Tea Party/Bigots prevented the passage of a major defense spending bill because they’re sexually immature.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights’ groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

As usual, the party of hate and ignorance is advancing an agenda which is actively harmful to the lives of fellow humans. The worse part, I think, is that (with very few exceptions) this isn’t being done with the plausible explanation that the Republicans honestly think their policies will be good for most people. They just hate gays.

Thought of the day

I don’t much get into debating Obama’s policies because the political environment is so polarized and thus not conducive to discussion with most people, but I do rather hate the FOX Noise-driven rhetoric I constantly hear. From “socialist” to “death panels”, there’s a lot of lying. There’s certainly plenty of the same from Democrats, but the Republicans are just better at it. They demonstrate as much in the way they’ve convinced people that the stimulus bill failed. In fact, without the stimulus unemployment would be another 2 points higher. But the Republicans aren’t going to mention that figure.

Dawkins’ speech at Pope protest

Thought of the day

A key definition of delusion is that one holds beliefs not based upon evidence. There’s more to it than that, but that is a key component. It’s also a key component of faith.

I’m not saying I’m a genius

…but I really can’t help but feel a bit like Will when it comes to explaining some things to people. And I don’t mean the sort of complicated things that are so basic to him. I mean legitimately basic things, especially as they pertain to philosophy.

Thought of the day

Republican policies have traditionally increased the income gap.