Immigration law: U.S. sues Arizona

Posted on July 7, 2010 by Michael

In an excellent move, the federal government has sued Arizona over its bad immigration law.

The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don’t belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down.

Instead, the suit lays out why the government believes that immigration laws passed by Congress and enforced by a range of federal agencies must take precedence to any passed by a state Legislature.

This all seems so straight forward. The bill takes what is obviously federal authority and usurps it. Legally, it sounds like a very solid case. Arizona ought to lose this one.

What I find most objectionable about the law is that it so poorly defines what constitutes “a reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country illegally. Does the person have shifty eyes? Is there really traumatic music playing in the background? In all the defenses the mooks like Sean Hannity and co put up about this not being racist, they never say what might be “reasonable” here.

The law itself actually offers some definition, such as hanging out where illegal immigrants tend to also hang out. Yeah, I get that. I mean, sure, the law is assuming the guilt of others as being illegal in the first place, but why not? Most brown people are illegal, so all assumptions are okay, right? Or how about speaking poor English? It’s completely fair to the new, legal immigrants to be forced to show their papers, right? Especially when there’s no criteria for what constitutes “poor English”. Again, this bill so poorly defines “a reasonable suspicion”.

The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents.

I take back what I said earlier: this is probably the most objectionable piece of this awful law. It only serves to treat some citizens as second-class. Naturally born U.S. citizens are not required to carry their licenses or state ID’s with them at all times. Why make things so drastically different for other citizens? This is what happened after the Emancipation Proclamation: freed slaves were made to carry documentation proving their freedom since not all slaves had been freed. In other words, the legals and the illegals had to prove their full citizenship (“full” being relative for blacks at this time) based upon the color of their skin. The only difference with the law in Arizona is that it might cover a slight minority of whites – a minority which will not be targeted in enforcement.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

No equality in Hawaii

Posted on July 7, 2010 by Michael

There’s a common argument that bigots will put forth in their defense of the privilege* of marriage: marriage is a sacred vow before God that is meant to better secure a happy family, complete with children. Gay people cannot naturally have children with each other, so they ought not have marriage. However, they do deserve many of the same rights. So long as they have marriage by another name, it is far less objectionable.

This argument is still bigoted, ignorant, disrespectful, and asinine, but at least it acknowledges that gay people do have rights. (It has been a struggle just to be sure employers are unable to fire people for something as irrelevant as sexual orientation in many states. Other states still refuse to accept that a gay person shouldn’t be fired from her cashiering job at Wal-Mart.)

But even this not-as-far-right-wing-as-it-could-be argument wasn’t good enough for the governor of Hawaii.

Hawaii’s governor ended months of speculation by vetoing contentious civil unions legislation that would have granted gay, lesbian and opposite-sex couples the same rights and benefits that the state provides to married couples.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle’s action on Tuesday came on the final day she had to either sign or veto the bill, which was approved by the Legislature in late April.

This comes after Lingle sought advice from two unqualified jokes (otherwise known as rabbis). I suppose it isn’t surprising that someone who believes religion has anything to offer on this subject would also make a terrible decision with awful consequences for human beings.

Lingle said voters should decide the fate of civil unions, not politicians.

“The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day,” she said. “It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials.”

A year after the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, a majority of Americans still believed it was morally wrong for two people of different races to marry. The masses are not to be trusted with the rights of minorities.

*It is actively a right in 5 states and D.C.

Filed under: News, Rights | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Major blow for homeopathic ‘medicine’

Posted on July 4, 2010 by Michael

Doctors in the UK have called for a ban on homeopathic medicine, the cessation of the NHS paying for it, and they have demanded that over-the-counter homeopathic medicine be labelled as having no proven worth.

Dr Tom Dolphin, from the BMA’s junior doctors committee, said that he had previously described homeopathy as witchcraft but now wanted to apologise to witches for making the link.

“Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it is nonsense on stilts,” he said.

“It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method.

“We risk, as a society, slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse and wishing for something to be true passes for proof.”

I love the unapologetic tone.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Bob Emrich and Uganda

Posted on July 2, 2010 by Michael

Uganda has been well established as a good place for bigots to visit. In October of 2009 it introduced an Anti-Homosexuality Bill which would have made being gay punishable by life in prison or even death. This was on top of the already strong anti-gay laws in Uganda, one of which already made homosexuality punishable by 14 years in prison.

Several Evangelical Christians visited Uganda at this time, some of them specifically being involved in encouraging the bill. Bob Emrich, a pastor and one of the sexually immature leaders of the anti-equality movement in Maine last year, was in Uganda for two weeks just after the bill was introduced. He sent an email to his faith-heads in which he expressed support for a Ugandan article which said this:

This whole concept of human rights grates my nerves. It has made people un-african, mean and self-centered.

One can now shamelessly stand up and tell you: “I do as I please. You have no business in my affairs.” A sodomist can now swear to you that what they do in the privacy of their bedroom does not concern the public.

No wonder when a brilliant MP comes up with a Bill against homosexuality, the human rights activists baptize him an enemy of the people.

It is high time politicians, religious leaders, cultural leaders and all concerned Africans woke up and defended the African heritage against the moral confusion of Western civilization. This civilization is eroding African moral pride.

The so-called human rights activists have hijacked the driver’s seat and are sending nations into the sea of permissiveness in which the Western world has already drowned.

Emrich later said he was against life imprisonment and the death penalty for gays, but he had also already noted what “a refreshing change of pace” it was to be in Uganda. Uganda – a country known for its imprisonment of gays, something which was being discussed in an article Emrich was quoting and lauding.

Fast forward and now someone has called Emrich out on his bigotry.

It’s time to remind people about Emrich. In the fall of 2009, Emrich spent several weeks in Uganda working alongside anti-gay activists.

Presumably at that time, Emrich thought it was a good idea to remind people in Uganda about the evils of gay people.

Since gay marriage in Uganda was nowhere in sight, the activists’ motivation was to marginalize gays in general.

In October 2009, amidst the anti-gay activity in Uganda, a bill was introduced in the Ugandan Legislature that criminalized gay activity in Uganda, including the death penalty for a number of gay “crimes.”

It might seem hard to believe that Emrich would approve of the death penalty for gays, but shortly after his return to Maine, he sent an e-mail to his supporters about his trip.

Emrich’s e-mail included text from an article published in Uganda that condemns gays and their supporters and lauds the “brilliant” person who introduced the anti-gay bill.

Concerning the article, Emrich says “I think it speaks for itself.”

He was conspicuously silent about the death component of the Ugandan bill.

There’s some wiggly truth in this. First, Emrich claims to have been there to help build schools, train pastors, feed children, and conduct medical clinics, not working alongside anti-gay activists. But who isn’t an anti-gay activist in Uganda? I believe Emrich when he says he was not expressly working alongside any particular, organized political groups, but “expressly” is key. The building of schools and training of pastors fits is the method Emrich was choosing to indoctrinate children into a sea of ignorance, hate, and sexual immaturity. As he said, one of his favorite sentiments in Uganda was that “in order to have a healthy village, there must be a strong and healthy church”. This reflects the ideas of hate in the article Emrich loved so much which urged for a rejection of human rights in favor of maintaining small, heritage-based (read: anti-gay) villages in Africa. Emrich’s actions and subsequent email reflect what his whole mission was all about: he was trying to strengthen religion in a country which enthusiastically condemns gays, going so far as to praise an article which called that death penalty bill for gays “brilliant”.

But let’s hear from Emrich himself.

As for Uganda, the people still need help. Thousands live in remote villages, without access to clean water, sufficient food and medical care. Without transportation, electricity or newspapers, they have no time for political activism. They appreciate the help some Mainers have provided, and they are finding great hope and strength in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I skipped the opening and body of his response since I’ve already summarized some of his contention, but this conclusion is indicative of the sort of sexually immature, bigoted person Bob Emrich is. He’s pretending like his concern is purely for the people of Uganda, but he belies his claim when he goes on to imply the need for political activism in Uganda. He knows exactly what an increase in a focus on social issues means for gays in Uganda. He may disown parts of the article he lauded before he got caught, but he has never said he disagrees with the criminalization of homosexuality. In fact, in another email (some people are just too old to handle this stuff, I think), he clarified his position by saying this:

Personally, I agree that these (acts of sexual consent between two people of the same sex) are serious and grievous offenses but I do not believe they should be punishable by death or life imprisonment. The homosexual activists and bloggers are claiming that Ugandan officials, with the endorsement of American Christian leaders, are calling for the execution of all homosexuals. They are not to be believed. But deception and confusion serves their purpose.

Actually, it’s true that Ugandan officials and some Christian leaders in America have called for the death penalty, but that’s besides the point. What I’m wondering is why Emrich is so unwilling to homosexuality should not be a crime. But then, just like with the article he loves so much, maybe human rights really grate his nerves.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social, Religions, Rights, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Jack gets it wrong again

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Michael

In another bigoted tirade, Jack Hudson has said some genuinely stupid things. Specifically, he talks about the recent Supreme Court ruling against a bigoted Christian group.

It is notable that certain Christian beliefs would be contrary to the tenets of a gay advocacy group as well, and for such a group to exclude Christians who didn’t agree with the purpose would be exactly the same. Just as avowed Republicans could be excluded from a student Democrat group, or an avowed capitalist from the Young Communist League. Diversity on campus derives not from forcing every group to admit members who oppose the primary purpose of a group, but from allowing all sorts of groups to advocate on behalf of their own beliefs and interests. Forcing a Jewish organization to accept Neo-Nazi’s or a feminist group to be taken over by men is not to enhance ‘diversity’ but to subdue the messages and purposes of those groups. In the same way the policy of Hasting’s Law College abrogates the fundamental rights of CLS to express and advocate on behalf of a particular point of view – which incidentally is exactly the precedent held by previous Supreme Court rulings like Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Both these decisions affirmed the right to association and its importance in preserving our 1st amendment rights.

This is all about making fine distinctions, something Jack and most Christians are unable to do, so I understand why he would make the mistakes he does.

This recent ruling was based upon Hasting Law school’s policy of non-discrimination. That policy said every group must allow everyone to join up if it wants funding and other school-based benefits. Jack points out that this could result in the message of any group being subdued by a bunch of individuals hostile to a particular group’s message joining up. This is true, it could. But that isn’t relevant. The Supreme Court wasn’t ruling on the effectiveness of Hasting Law’s policy, but whether it was constitutional or not.

Jack next points out that the school’s policy prevents the Christian group from expressing its views. This is blatantly false. The group can express its views all it wants, wherever it wants, for however long it wants. It just can’t get funding.

Finally, Jack points to two cases where the Supreme Court held that groups could exclude members who held contrary views. Again, with the lack of distinctions. Both of those cases dealt with private organizations. This recent case deals with forcing a public school to offer special treatment to a religious group. In other words, the conclusion of the first two cases is that the KKK can exclude black people all it wants. The conclusion of this recent case is that bigoted groups are allowed to organize, but a public institution is under no obligation to offer it funding or other benefits. But then people like Jack probably like the idea of funding bigoted, racist, or otherwise discriminatory groups because LIBERTY! LIBERTY! LIBERTY!

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Defacing an atheist sign

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Michael

An atheist group in North Carolina had a billboard which read “One Nation Indivisible”. Some meat heads decided to deface it.

Unknown vandals unhappy about atheists’ billboard in Charlotte, N.C., spray-painted “Under God” on the ad, the city’s atheist association discovered Monday. The defaced message will remain in place until after July 4, the group reports, which is the soonest that workers can furnish a fresh billboard image. Here’s how the vandalized billboard now looks:

Acts like this aren’t so uncommon. A few believers will get angry about being forced to actually think and use logic, get frustrated, and take out their aggression. And don’t they just always love to do it in a way that ignores the secular history of the United States?

The attacked group is taking this pretty well, I think.

“It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation,” Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics spokesman William Warren said. “It does show how needed our message is. As atheists, we want to let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.”

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News | Tagged: , , , | 8 Comments »

Supreme Court ruling on Christian group

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Michael

The Supreme Court has made one of its seemingly rare decisions that isn’t a load of crap.

The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a San Francisco law school did not violate the First Amendment when it refused official recognition of a Christian student group that restricted its membership to those who shared a belief that homosexuality is immoral.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court said the University of California’s Hastings College of Law was under no constitutional obligation to recognize the Christian Legal Society (CLS) as an official student group.

Basically, every student group at this law school had to comply with a non-discrimination policy in order to receive any activity funds or other benefits from being an organized group. But, being arrogantly religious, the CLS group thought it ought to be exempt from this policy. One reason was to prevent those icky gays from obtaining leadership roles. Another was the forced promotion of the sexually immature position of abstaining from sex until marriage (students who didn’t adhere to that position were excluded from certain rules, possibly membership). Clearly not the brightest group.

This is a no-brainer. If a group wants funds, it needs to follow the same rules as everyone else; no special rules for religion. Don’t want to be remotely fair to someone because you’re sexually immature? Fine and dandy. But no funds.

Other analysts praised the high court decision. “Religious discrimination is wrong, and a public school should be able to take steps to eradicate it,” said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“Simply stated, the Christian Legal Society sought to ignore rules that every other group complied with,” he said. “The organization sought preferential treatment simply because it is religious. I am pleased that the court said no to that.”

The whole basis of the massive anti-science, anti-equality, anti-sexual maturity, anti-rationality, anti-common sense movement is the Christian religion. (Not that any religion is innocent in most of these matters.) Any steps which help to eradicate its corrosive ability is a good thing.

Filed under: News, Religions | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Australia is led by an atheist

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Michael

Australia’s new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has confirmed she is an atheist.

This morning during a Melbourne radio interview, the new Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard was asked point blank:

“Do you believe in God?”

Her reply:

“No I don’t, John”

And if all the lies Christians loved to tell were true, Australia would quickly be led into genocide, eugenics, and all sorts of other nasty consequences. But atheism is not a philosophy. Nothing normative concludes from atheism. It’s a descriptive position. And Australia is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Gillard is going to be led by the politics of her party, her own ethical system (which I’ll hazard is somewhat libertarian, but maybe someone from Australia will read this and be more specific and/or accurate), and – thankfully – not religion. In other words, reality is firm in her mind.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Supreme Court ruling on gun laws

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Michael

The Supreme Court made a ruling today which orders a lower federal court to reconsider its previous ruling regarding Chicago’s ban on handguns. It’s likely that ban will fall.

I don’t so much have a problem with extending certain gun rights to more owners. My passion on the issue isn’t as strong as, say, that of kooks like John Lott, but it does bother me how the purely political right-wing justices have routinely been ruling on these issues. This is how the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The spirit of the law is in the regulation of a militia, something relevant and needed in the time the amendment was written. The only way it should be applied today is insofar as there is a need for gun ownership. It can be argued that the Chicago ban on guns runs counter to a genuine need for protection, even outside the existence of a militia, but the purely political right-wing of the Supreme Court never argues that. They simply ignore the opening clause. Under their misunderstanding of both the spirit of the law and basic grammar, there should eventually be a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons for the average citizen under the constitution.

It’s often a problem that people think we ought to be beholden to the times and wishes of the framers, but in this case just the opposite is true. The purely political right-wing of the Supreme Court is ignoring the common sense of the framers while outright discarding the context of their times. The consequence of this obvious mistake may not be grave, but their argumentation is weak and embarrassing.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , | 11 Comments »

The end of homeopathy?

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Michael

Probably not, but one can hope.

British homeopaths are celebrating Homeopathy Awareness Week, yet it seems to me there is very little for them to celebrate.

Earlier this year, a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the principles of homeopathy are implausible and that the evidence fails to show that it works better than placebo. The MPs also criticised homeopaths for trying to mislead the public by providing inaccurate information. Their recommendation to government was to stop funding homeopathy on the NHS.

Then the Prince of Wales’s Foundation for Integrated Health, a staunch supporter of homeopathy in the NHS, folded in the midst of a police investigation for fraud and money laundering.

Last month, the British Medical Association described homeopathy as “witchcraft” and called for an end to all funding on the NHS.

A streak of bad luck? Not really. Homeopathy’s fortunes have been crumbling for quite some time. The evidence to suggest that it has effects beyond those of a placebo has become less and less convincing. In 2005, The Lancet even pronounced “the end of homeopathy”.

I suspect there will come a time when homeopathy becomes far less significant in society, but I believe that day to be very far off. People are just too willing to believe the snake oil salesmen out there – and the snake oil salesmen are all too happy to oblige that will to believe.

But there is some immediate good news. (In fact, so immediate, it’s in the past.)

As a result, one of the five NHS-funded homeopathic hospitals had to close. After assessing the science, its NHS trust found that the evidence did not justify any further funding.

Of course, even the homeopaths knew their junk had no evidence. They aren’t interested in any real science. And just to prove that point, they became bold and made their lying all the more public.

Faced with increasing criticism, UK homeopaths become more and more desperate. My team has found that the Society of Homeopaths even appears to have been in breach of its own code of ethics in attempting to promote homeopathy. On the society’s website, numerous statements about efficacy were made that were not backed by science and so were not allowed under its own regulations.

The society’s chief executive commented at the time, in November 2009, that she was grateful to me for highlighting these issues and that the society would investigate and make amendments where appropriate. The website has since changed but many, perhaps even most, members of that organisation continue to make claims that violate their society’s ethical standards.

I don’t for a moment expect the ethical standards of a fundamentally dishonest organization do anything significant with all these violation. Even if they do manage to clean up some of their act, their basis is still magical thinking that has no roots in science. The only way they could ever be called ethical sans a smirk is if shut down their whole operation.

Filed under: News, Pure bullshit | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »