“I won’t give my approval!”

This post title is increasingly one of the most common lines that anti-gay bigots use. “Why, I didn’t vote for equal rights for gays because that’s like asking for my approval of their ‘behavior’! It’s just absurd!” It’s little more than bigot talk and here’s why.

Imagine 38 states get together with Congress and the President and want to pass a constitutional amendment that says the KKK can no longer have parades or organize or do any of the things they legally do today. We all get an opportunity to vote in favor or against the amendment. If the bigots who hate gays – and come on, that’s all this is about for them – were at all consistent, they would immediately vote in favor of the amendment; I’m sure a few of them actually would. But I think an overwhelming majority would recognize that the question on the ballot isn’t “Do you approve of the KKK?” Only a fucking moron would think that. No, most people would realize that they hate the KKK, but that there are dire consequences when we take away one group’s rights. Most people would have to vote the proposal down.

And they would be right – without approving of the KKK in the least. In fact, most of today’s bigots do actually say they support X group’s right to free speech despite not liking the group. This is really basic, really easy, really obvious logic. It is a lie, a damn convenient lie, when a bigot claims not to have voted for a civil rights measure because he would then be approving of the group facing discrimination.

We have a huge number of states all across the country that still don’t have protections for sexual orientation in housing, education, work, and other areas of daily life. Think about that. Gays can fire straight people for being straight. Straight people can deny gays home loans simply for being gay. It is absurd. And the bigots want us to believe that it’s all because fixing the problem and protecting civil rights would be the same as giving moral approval for a group? Puh-lease.

It would be nice if the bigots of the world could stop lying and just come clean: They hate gays because 1) their religion, not reason or rationality, tells them it’s wrong to be fair, 2) they don’t understand them, 3) they’re ignorant and unwilling to learn, 4) gays are different and they find that yucky, and 5) they are sexually immature little infants.

Welcome to Maine

Ode to the Brain

This one is a little better than the last couple of Symphony of Science videos.

Happy birthday, Richard Dawkins

The good doctor is 70 years old today. Here’s to many more fruitful years of destroying all the weak* arguments Christians have for their evil little god.

*There aren’t any strong arguments.

Oh, corporate America

You’re so silly:

A piece in today’s New York Times by David Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010–in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

Bank of America also is paying nothing.

U 2 CORPORATE AMERICA

Y?

Target makes things worse

Target donated money to a group that then supported a bigoted candidate for governor in Minnesota this past election cycle. (The guy lost.) This caused problems with non-bigots, especially the ones who are being actively denied rights. As a result, many pro equal marriage protests have been taking place against Target stores across the country, including in San Diego. Now Target has decided to make things worse for itself:

Target Corp. is suing a San Diego pro-gay marriage group to get it to stop canvassing outside its San Diego County stores, alleging its activists are driving away customers.

Yeah, that’s kind of the point of protests. Now expect a lot more of them, Target.

Morons.

Answers from John Mather

Nobel prize winner John Mather has a small series on YouTube where he answers various questions people have about physics. It’s all quite fascinating and eloquent. I recommend watching it all.

Here is a link to the playlist.

Thought of the day

It never ceases to amaze how many people think Reagan was a great president.

He wasn’t.

Fighting in hockey is appropriate

Except for soccer moms:

For some parents of the thousands of children at the Portland Pirates’ annual School Day game Tuesday, a fight that ended with the ejection of four players was too much.

“We were horrified by what we witnessed,” said Catherine Anderson, who attended the game with her 6-year-old son’s kindergarten class from Reiche School in Portland. “(My son) said, ‘Mommy, what’s happening?’ and I said, ‘These men are acting out of control and they’re making bad choices.’ And he said, ‘Why isn’t it stopped?’ “

It isn’t stopped, Child Who I Presume Must Be Named Quaint Little Timmy, because fighting is one of the ways in which hockey players police themselves. The refs can’t see everything; if a player is playing like an ass, he’s going to get punched. In 99% of the cases, a few scratches will be the biggest result. But without fighting, people like Matt Cooke would get away with stuff like this more often:

And that isn’t the first time.

Those sort of plays are extreme – Cooke should be suspended for no less than a year – but dirty hits are kept in check with clean fighting. That doesn’t mean fighting goes unpunished – it always results in a penalty. And that’s fair. These teachers just need some perspective: a self-policing action which usually results in a scratch or two at best is a good tool for keeping the actual gameplay as clean as it is.

Thought of the day

Even though I bought it in the small building with holes for toilets airport, this African tea only makes me yearn for a return to that wonderful continent.