Allowing felons to vote

Maine and Vermont are currently the only states which allow inmates to vote. A number of other states have laws allowing those convicted of felonies the right to vote after release or after probation is over. Still, several states don’t allow it no matter what. Commit a felony at 18, serve 3 years, and you still can’t vote at 85. The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution allows this in the 14th Amendment, but the scenario I just gave would seem to at least violate the 8th Amendment. But that may be changing in Washington based upon a federal decision.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane. That judge had ruled that Washington state’s felon disenfranchisement law did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.

The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state’s justice system “cannot be explained in race-neutral ways.”

I’m not sure I find the reasoning here very convincing. These laws do disproportionately affect minorities, but that would seem to be an issue of law enforcement in the first place, not voting rights. One could say bans on ex-cons carrying guns also disproportionately affect minorities, but that doesn’t mean the ban should be overturned.

There is one caveat to that, however. Some states (especially in the south, surprise surprise), specifically did institute these laws to disenfranchise black voters. I’m not sure how a court decision could tease everything out, but it would seem that the appellate court’s reasoning would apply to those states.

But under all this is a more important question: Why aren’t felons allowed to vote? Isn’t the goal to rehabilitate prisoners? Don’t we want to better integrate them into society? Even for lifers, don’t we want them to be a part of a process that isn’t self-destructive and destructive to the lives of other prisoners (and prison officials)? If anything, voting should be encouraged for felons. Disallowing their votes seems to be nothing more then petty revenge, not something remotely helpful to either the prisoners or society.

Federal same-sex marriage case to begin soon

A federal case is set to start in the coming days. At issue is the federal constitutionality of California’s Prop 8 bill that passed, damaging the lives of thousands of Californians and ignoring the rights of every last one of them. I’m sure it will be some time until this reaches the Supreme Court (where Scalia will not consider any legal issue), but it will certainly get there.

Interestingly, one of the opponents of equal rights has asked to be dropped from the lawsuit. Since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown correctly refused to mount a defense for California, others had to step in. One was Hak-Shing William Tam, an official bigot and proponent of Prop 8.

On Friday, Tam told the court that he was harassed and his property vandalized during the campaign, and feared similar retribution if he continued to represent gay marriage foes’ interest in the lawsuit and trial, which is scheduled to start Monday in San Francisco.

“In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8,” Tam said in a court filing. “Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase.”

While the guy is a scumbag, he doesn’t deserve that. Dare I say, the actions toward him represent, gasp!, bigotry! No one has to accept Tam’s beliefs, but tolerance is required.

Not that hard to believe

Chiropractors in Connecticut are fighting against a proposal that would require them to inform ‘patients’ about the link between cervical manipulation and strokes. The article here is more or less an op-ed, but it had one part that especially stood out.

I just can’t believe that chiropractors are against informing patients because they fear losing business.

Really? Really? They’re chiropractors. They range from offering vaguely effective physical therapy (which is a manner of non-chiropractic training) to being expensive masseuses to causing strokes. Maybe worst of all, they are always attempting to raise their status.

“This measure would be redundant,” Pagano said, because it would be “singling out” chiropractors. Under state law, all doctors must inform patients about potentially risky treatment.

Since chiropractors are not doctors, it would not be redundant.

Neglected point

One point I neglected about Tiktaalik is that its ability to walk on land was limited. Its limbs wouldn’t have been able to support it terribly well to do terribly much. Its life was likely spent more in the water than on land.

Coupled with the recent discovery of tetrapod footprints in a marine environment, the way to think of all this is that tetrapods did evolve at least 400 million years ago, but there were clearly still viable alternative lifestyles to go alongside fully terrestrial life (and still are). Nothing demands evolution be perfectly linear. (Neanderthals lived at the same time as our direct ancestors as recently as 30,000 years ago.) A further important fact is that while probably 90% or so of all fossils come from the ocean, they tend to be from the more settled sediments, i.e., not the shoreline, the evident habitat of these newly discovered tetrapods. That indicates a possible sampling bias. Just looking at Tiktaalik, it’s clear that its freshwater habitat lent itself to preserving fossils – aside from the area being targeted for its fossilizing properties, there were several examples extracted from the site.

Hubble, giver of blog hits

Thanks to a spike in hits today on Hubble posts, I’ve gone and found that NASA released more Hubble images taken since the telescope’s recent upgrade. The first is one of the most recent images (and may as well just be a close-up of a past release). The second is older, but not blurry and generally ugly.

Update: I’m not sure if this one has just been released, but it’s the best I’ve seen so far.

The criminalization of homosexuality

The wildly homophobic right-wing would love nothing more than to criminalize homosexuality. In 2005, 45% of Mainers voted against giving people equal rights simply for being gay. This was after three attempts where a majority voted to deny people rights. It’s astounding that so many people can be, frankly, so stupid. A moment’s pause: nearly half of Maine would prefer to have the right to fire people from their jobs at Home Depot, the fire department, Wal-Mart, the grocery store, etc simply for being gay. It’s absurd. This will be a hard one to explain to the grandchildren.

As late as 2003, there was laws on the books banning sodomy. Some applied to all sodomy, some to sodomy between unmarried people, and others specifically to male sodomy. At any rate, the vast majority of these laws were designed to criminalize homosexuality. In 1998, Houston police actually arrested two men (which then led to the 2003 Supreme Court case) for having anal sex. Oh, the horrors of consensual, adult sex! Of course, some conservatives actually maintained that the government had a right to invade the privacy of one’s home in this way. Antonin Scalia, the worst legal mind in the nation, actually wrote his dissent on the basis that it would be inconvenient for other law. That’s right: sodomy should remain illegal because other case law has already been built upon that notion. It’s a terrible legal argument, but it’s a worse lie. He’s just another known homophobe.

Scalia’s dissent represents the epitome of what the right-wing social movement wants (and really, Scalia makes almost all his decisions based upon his social views, not anything remotely related to law). It wants to make homosexuality illegal. Since there are constitutional protections in the United States, however, they’ve had to move on to Uganda.

Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

Rick Warren has also been involved in telling Ugandans evil lies about homosexuals, comparing them to pedophiles and other things more fitting for systematically sexually repressed priests. But it gets worse. Much, much worse.

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.

This is about one step further than what they want. They do want homosexuals to be viewed as far, far – far – less than human. I doubt most homophobes want death, but they do want to see homosexuals stripped of all rights, of all personal liberty. There is obviously no concern for rights among these monsters. The Ugandans pushing for this bill are just the next logical step in the systematic abuse of rights as they pertain to homosexuals: They aren’t human and they do harmful things. Kill them to stop them.

The three Americans who spoke at the conference — Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including “7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child”; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads “healing seminars”; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is “mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality” — are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

Lively, Brundidge, and Schmierer are scum. Pure scum. And, Christ, they are paranoid. Look at the Amazon description for Lively’s book.

A concise, practical guidebook for parents who wish to protect their children from pro-homoesxual indoctrination and the possibility of recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle.

He thinks there is some actual agenda to make more people gay. Despite what the fucked up right-wingers think, one does not just become gay, just as one does not just become straight. It doesn’t work like that. If religion didn’t offer such a childish view of sexuality, that would be a bit more clear to these people.

Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.

“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmother’s reaction was simply, “ ‘You are too stubborn.’ ”

When a nation starts treating part of its citizenry as somehow intrinsically less worthy, you get thousands of these Ugandan grandmothers.

The sensitivity of crybaby Muslims

A Somali man was shot after trying to murder a Dutch cartoonist.

A Somali man believed to have ties to terrorist groups was shot as he allegedly tried to enter the home of Danish political cartoonist Kurt Westergaard — known for his controversial depictions of the Muslim prophet Mohammad — on Friday, police said.

The man was only shot in the leg and hand and will survive, but it’s unlikely that his injuries have caused him more harm than the cartoon. Not real harm, of course. He’s just another crybaby Muslim who is demanding undue deference for his insane beliefs. He has no basis, no evidence, no good logic, no method by which to come to any sort of intellectual satisfaction for anything he seems to think (as is the case with Christians, Buddhists, Scientologists…), so he lashes out when anyone dares to confront his ideas. As is the case with those who crafted the Irish blasphemy law, he cannot handle any sort of religious criticism. He hates the idea of individual liberties and free speech. He’s a selfish, small man. The worst of it is that he’s just the cry – the whine – for religious respect embodied.

The biggest irony of this all is that Westergaard was actually criticizing people for exploiting Muhammad in order to legitimize terrorism.

The Irish Blasphemy Law

An Irish law against blasphemy goes into effect today.

It defines blasphemy as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted”.

It’s clearly absurd. Ireland is seeking to protect (bad) ideas and no individuals. It’s obvious that those who crafted this piece of abhorrent tyranny have no concept of personal liberty.

Fortunately, Atheist Ireland has published 25 blasphemous quotes. It seems they do have a good idea of what it means to have any liberty at all. Here are some of the better quotes.

I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists. ~Bjork

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. ~Richard Dawkins

(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other. ~Ian O’Doherty

Dirty mud-sucker!

Fossilized cetaceans provide for one of the more robust evolutionary records. Especially with whales, it is abundantly clear that it takes the fundamental underlying theme of all of biology – evolution – to explain all that pesky empirical evidence we have. Now some light has been shed on the origin of baleen.

The fossil whale, thought to be between 25 and 28 million years old, hints that mud sucking might have been a precursor to the filter feeding used by today’s baleen whales.

Many modern whale species use hair-like structures called baleen to filter tiny prey such as krill from seawater. Baleen species include the humpback, the minke, and the largest animal ever to have lived on Earth, the blue whale.

The newfound fossil whale, which measures just nine feet (three meters) long, shares the same distinct jaw and skull structures as today’s baleens.

But the tiny whale also had teeth, said study author Erich Fitzgerald, a paleontologist at Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia.

A real trend

Being an irrational person, Bill O’Reilly cited a single poll and claimed it was evidence for a trend. He’s genuinely dumb. He’s also wrong anyway.

A Gallup poll of Americans’ attitudes towards religion released on Christmas Eve found significant recent increases in those responding either that they have no religious preference, that religion is not very important in their lives, or that they believe religion “is largely old-fashioned or out of date.”

But it isn’t all good news.

57% still say religion has answers to most of the world’s problems.

What does religion say of HIV? Or cancer? Maybe it has some insight into how best to tackle global warming? Does Jesus say what we should do about the recession? I guess the poll must not have asked “Does religion have the correct answers to most of the world’s problems?”