Taking my boi for some much needed R&R, back when I feel like it.
Ulf
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Anti-Gay General Mills Protesters Mistake Hospitality For Bullying
All week, anti-gay activists are “dumping General Mills”
outside the company’s headquarters in Minnesota to protest its
opposition to the state’s marriage inequality amendment. The protests
have been dismal, with only two or three dozen people bothering to show up — even less without counting their children.
Jeremy Hooper points out now that the Minnesota for Marriage protesters
are pretending to be victims as an excuse for their small numbers. Andy
Parrish, Deputy Campaign Manager for the anti-equality coalition, tweeted the following today:
It’s unclear from this random picture who the vice president and head
of security are or what it is they are doing to “intimidate” anybody.
Perhaps they are sitting on the bench — how very off-putting. A
legitimate group of corporate protesters would be grateful for the
access and opportunity to engage with individuals in leadership
positions, but apparently not Minnesota for Marriage.
Further, General Mills employees have actually taken very good care of their dissenters, offering the best in Midwestern hospitality:
@generalmills VP and Head of Security’s presence at our rally to intimidate their employees from joining us #stribpol pic.twitter.com/FCGs9aeM
Further, General Mills employees have actually taken very good care of their dissenters, offering the best in Midwestern hospitality:
Employees of General Mills responded to protesters by offering them coffee or ice water with slices of lemon. There would have been cookies too, except the protesters said they’d accept them only to add to the smattering of ‘dumped’ food they had collected. “It’s the neighborly thing to do,” Tom Forsythe spokesman for General Mills explained the unexpected hospitality. “I was raised as a Minnesotan, and when people drop by your house, you put on coffee, so that’s what we did.”This is how the anti-gay movement works. They attempt to intimidate a company, and then claim that they are the ones being intimidated because they didn’t want cookies. It doesn’t get much pettier.
Aha...Facebook, Not Gay Marriage Is Ruining Het Marriages
Conducted by the Internet firm Divorce-Online, which bills itself as “the UK’s original and most trusted online divorce service,” the 2011 results represent a significant jump from 2009, when Divorce-Online found 20 percent of behavior petitions mentioned the world’s largest social network.
According to Divorce-Online, the three top reasons Facebook is cited in divorce petitions are:
- “Inappropriate messages to the opposite sex.”
- “Separated spouses posting nasty comments about each other.”
- “Facebook friends reporting spouse’s behavior.”
The network had 500 million users worldwide in July 2010, according to its own statistics; by the end of March this year that figure had ballooned to 901 million users. Meanwhile, a 2008 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 22 percent of adults used Facebook to flirt. With 901 million users out there, that’s a lot of potential flirting opportunities.
If Facebook is all about sharing your life with others, one's emotional health can be impacted by over-sharing. “I think social media right now really draws on people giving too much information," says Scott Bea, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist at the Cleveland Clinic, "and until they experience the consequence of that, it may be hard for some people to really pull back.”
And it’s more than just flirting, Bea points out. When a relationship goes sour it’s all too easy to vent online, forgetting that even if you’re not face to face with the person you’re talking about, your comments can get back to her or him. “It’s hard for people, I think,” Dr. Bea says. “Our shame and humiliation now can be publicized. One statistic says 20 percent of people think it’s okay just to change your relationship status in order to breakup. So breakups may be occurring in kind of cold and callous ways, but they’re also very public and humiliating ways as well.”
For a taste of just how curdling the Facebook/love combination can be, surf to FacebookCheating.com, a blog founded in 2009 by Ken Savage after he discovered his wife was having an affair largely facilitated through Facebook. The site’s anonymous posts (with titles like “It Can Ruin You” and “Affair from High School”) paint a wrenching portrait of the intersection of social networking and heartbreak. Of course, FacebookCheating.com also has its own Facebook page — proof perhaps that social networking can help heal broken hearts in addition to causing them.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Republican Party of Texas Really Hates Gay People
Homosexuality
We affirm that the practice of
homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the
breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the
fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God,
recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of
Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable
“alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be
redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be
no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status
for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally,
we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose
homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
Family and Defense of Marriage
We support the definition of marriage as a
God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and
a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society,
and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on
the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the
sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority
under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding
jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law,
especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on
Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage
amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of
and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural
woman.
Neither the United States nor any state
shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or
status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of
benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without
being legally married. We advocate the repeal of laws that place an
unfair tax burden on families. We call upon Congress to completely
remove the marriage penalty in the tax code, whereby a married couple
receives a smaller standard deduction than their unmarried counterparts
living together. The primary family unit consists of those related by
blood, heterosexual marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for
its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.
Judicial Activism in Marriage
We support marriage and oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists.
Enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act
We support the enforcement of the State
and Federal Defense of Marriage Act by state and federal officials
respectively, and oppose creation, recognition and benefits for
partnerships outside of marriage that are being provided by some
political subdivisions.
Marriage and Divorce
We believe in the sanctity of marriage
and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all
levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no-fault
divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.
Family Values
We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.
Kraft's gay pride Oreo draws 20,000 comments, some flak
The post pictured an Oreo filled with six layers of frosting in the colors of the rainbow flag that symbolizes diversity in the gay community. The picture is headlined "June 25 | Pride," and an accompanying text reads "Proudly support love!"
Basil Maglaris, Kraft's associate director of corporate affairs, said the graphic was in recognition of Pride Month in the United States.
More than 150,000 Facebook users "liked" the post and 22,463 had commented as of Tuesday afternoon. Not all the comments were supportive.
One comment read: "By (sic) Oreo. I'll do my business elsewhere!"
Another said: "No thanks Oreo. We don't want this unhealthy sinful lifestyle flaunted," and a third read: "thought Oreos were a family cookie."
Maglaris said positive comments have "far outnumbered" negative ones.
One read: "Very glad to support a company like Oreo that joins the campaign for civil rights!"
"As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the Oreo ad is a fun reflection of our values," Maglaris said.
The ad was part of Oreo's 100th birthday celebration, he said. The company posts new online content daily.
Don't look for the rainbow cookie in stores. Fine print under the picture reads: "Made with creme colors that do not exist."
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
SPD Pepper-Sprays Protesters and Pride Revelers
As reported on Slog:
We have several reports this morning of the Seattle Police Department's use of pepper spray around the pride celebrations last night. The first comes from Capitol Hill Seattle blog:
And another tipper describes the scene:
UPDATE: The SPD Blotter has posted a new entry that chronicles the events of the night from the officers' perspective, saying that "anarchists" had dragged garbage cans into the street, used verbally abusive language, and, at one point, kicked a commander in the knee. So that explains the use pepper spray, they claim. (Readers may also recall that Pride-weekend demonstrations in the past have resulted in some property damage.)
But to state the obvious for a second, pepper spray is a weapon. And an imprecise weapon at that, which the SPD has a record using egregiously and sloppily in crowded environments. In its critical report last December, the US Department of Justice blasted the SPD's pepper-spray use as an example of excessive force in numerous cases. In particular, police officers used pepper spray in instances where lesser force would suffice. Now the DOJ is pressing the city into a court agreement specifically to temper its longstanding pattern of excessive force.
Was pepper spray an appropriate use of force in this instance? I can't say. But it appears as hair-trigger and slapdash as the SPD's awful record.
We have several reports this morning of the Seattle Police Department's use of pepper spray around the pride celebrations last night. The first comes from Capitol Hill Seattle blog:
Using a heavy presence of uniformed officers on the street and with SWAT teams at the ready, Seattle's East Precinct clamped down on an annual Pride weekend demonstration early Sunday morning, putting an end to the Capitol Hill march by hitting the crowd with pepper sprayand taking six people into custody on E Madison.
And another tipper describes the scene:
I was near the intersection of E. Pike St. and E. Madison when I saw excessive force used by the Seattle Police Department against an unarmed white female sitting on top of a male's shoulders. Pepper spray was used against this woman from a short distance covering, until this point, the entirely nonviolent crowd as well as the police officers in an oxygen smothering burn. She then was grabbed and pulled to the ground while covering her face. The officers pulled the woman off of the sidewalk and into the street and handcuffed her. She was placed into a a vehicle and ultimately driven away. I am not sure what happened to her. If she was let go? If she was arrested? If she is unable to communicate with any of her people?
I do know that what I saw tonight is unlike anything I have ever seen before. I went through Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. I have seen violence over my life. But what I saw tonight is egregious. It was crazy to see this tiny girl with her pink stockings on with a mini skirt laid out on the ground having physically protected police drag her across the concrete to handcuff her, while no other violence was taking place. What? This little fucking girl was such a threat you had to spray her off one of her friends shoulders, and drag her into handcuffs?
What took place tonight was unnecessary. I understand that these cops were somewhat provoked by a group walking down the middle of the street after hours. However there was no traffic around. No matter what the media may say, there was no traffic impended by this group. They swooped their cars in and pinched the group from the front and rear. Tensions were obviously high on the law enforcement's side, hastily they pointed everyone to the side walk. The resistance the cops encountered when they opened their car doors to a group of protesters would get anyone's adrenaline pumping. However, by singling out and attacking a small girl is uncalled for. I wonder if it was a 'let's make an example out of her sort of thing'.An e-mail to the SPD this morning was not immediately returned.
You should have seen them after. The blocked off the street from sidewalk across to sidewalk. Waiting for a move. This one cop was one of only a few with his billy club drawn. He would occasionally hit it into his other hand with a snide look on his face. Almost like he was hoping someone would make a false move.
UPDATE: The SPD Blotter has posted a new entry that chronicles the events of the night from the officers' perspective, saying that "anarchists" had dragged garbage cans into the street, used verbally abusive language, and, at one point, kicked a commander in the knee. So that explains the use pepper spray, they claim. (Readers may also recall that Pride-weekend demonstrations in the past have resulted in some property damage.)
But to state the obvious for a second, pepper spray is a weapon. And an imprecise weapon at that, which the SPD has a record using egregiously and sloppily in crowded environments. In its critical report last December, the US Department of Justice blasted the SPD's pepper-spray use as an example of excessive force in numerous cases. In particular, police officers used pepper spray in instances where lesser force would suffice. Now the DOJ is pressing the city into a court agreement specifically to temper its longstanding pattern of excessive force.
Was pepper spray an appropriate use of force in this instance? I can't say. But it appears as hair-trigger and slapdash as the SPD's awful record.
Homosexuality Leads To Cannibalism
A street preacher at Cleveland Pride
used the case of Luka Rocco Magnotta to equate being gay with
cannibalism.
Magnotta is the Canadian porn actor
suspected of murdering his boyfriend. He was arrested earlier this
month in Berlin. Police have extradited Magnotta to Canada, where he
is expected to stand trial next year.
Kevin Deegan preached through a
bullhorn at revelers making their way to Cleveland's annual festival.
“Why did Luka up in Canada eat his
boyfriend?” Deegan rhetorically asked. “Why did Luka eat his
boyfriend and then ship the body parts all over? What is it about
sodomy and cannibalism? What is it about cannibalism and sodomy?
Why are seven of the top ten mass murders sodomites and cannibals?
John Wayne Gacy, he liked to eat his boys.”
“You're not fooling anybody. It's
not about love. You hate God. … That's why you eat your
boyfriends,” he added.
One girl shouted back in response: “I
don't eat my boyfriend. I eat my girlfriend's pussy!”
None of the top 10 mass murderers
ranked by verifiable murder count and working alone were known to be
gay and most targeted women or young girls. Gacy, who identified as
bisexual, ranks 15 on the list, having killed 33 young men in the 70s.
America's most prolific serial killer, Gary Ridgway, exclusively
targeted female prostitutes. He is suspected of killing over 90
women.
Gay Couple Hold First Civil Union Ceremony On Military Base
A gay service member in the Air Force
and his partner entered a civil union on Saturday at Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in Wrightstown, New Jersey.
The civil union of Tech. Sgt. Erwynn
Umali and Will Behrens is considered the first same-sex ceremony held
on a military base since repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell.”
According to the AP, dozens of friends
and family members attended the ceremony.
“We are so honored to be a part of
this historic moment to be one of the first gay couples allowed to
unite in a civil union on a military base,” the couple said in a
statement.
“We hope to be an inspiration to
others in the LGBT community that struggle with the challenge of
marriage equality. And that this issue is not just about the
military, but the equal sacrifice and shared burdens of our loved
ones who are civilians.”
Kay Reeb, a Navy chaplain with the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America who also serves at Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, presided over the ceremony. She said she was
delighted to participate in her first civil union.
“I told them the same thing I tell
every couple – love each other and trust in each other and in God,
that's what keeps us together,” Reeb is quoted by the AP as saying.
Former Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva was
among those attending the event. Alva lobbied Congress to repeal
“Don't Ask, Don't Tell,” the law which for 18 years banned gay
and bisexual troops from serving openly.
“It's a blessing for me to be here
today,” Alva said. “A historic event like this shows that
progress is being made.”
Monday, June 25, 2012
Here's What's Happening With Gay Marriage In The UK
Posted By Sawyer on Autostraddle
If I were to explain the gay marriage situation in the UK by comparison to US states, I would say we're like Illinois: second-parent adoption is legal and the laws governing discrimination are pretty good, but we're still working on the gay marriage front. Gay marriages conducted abroad are recognised as civil unions within the UK, but that's as far as it's gone… and then Prime Minister David Cameron actually did something I approve of, and announced his support for gay marriage in October 2011, with the planned legislature coming into effect in 2015. So, PARTY TIME! Right?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong.
The structure of the UK political system actually means that it's
very easy for Prime Ministers to pass whatever legislation they want. A
prerequisite of becoming the PM is having a majority of the 650 seats in
the House of Commons, as determined by the general election. Cameron's
Conservative party won 305 seats in the 2010 election, and thus had to
form a coalition with the 57 Liberal Democrats (who are a bit like
liberal Democrats, but not) in order to create a majority. Thanks to
well-enforced party discipline, members of Parliament will almost always
vote with their parties or else fear the wrath of the party Whips-- who sadly don't use actual whips.
The Lib Dems are the only party who unequivocally support the measures, and it's probably their leader, deputy PM Nick Clegg, who has caused Cameron to announce the plans. Unfortunately, some MPs decided that they were morally opposed to gay marriage. Not just some. A sizable number. And they had the Church on their side. And therefore, Cameron decided that there could be a free vote on the issue, allowing politicians to vote with their conscience without fearing being reprimanded by the party. As most of the opposing Labour party also support gay marriage, in theory this shouldn't be a problem. In reality though, the dissenters are making a lot of noise.
Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, called the proposed marriage law "completely nuts" and insisted that marriage is between a man and a woman. Though Bone himself seems like a total bonehead, a lot of other Tory MPs share his view. According to Coalition for Equal Marriage, 62 MPs have confirmed their plan to vote against the actions, with 50 of them coming from the Conservative party. More worryingly, 326 MPs — just over 50% of the House of Commons — are yet to announce their intentions.
There has been a public consultation on the proposed plans, but the responses gathered from 100,000 people have been overwhelmingly negative. This can mainly be attributed to the Church of England. Because, my dear friends, the UK has an official state religion, i.e. the Anglican Church. The top 26 Bishops in England sit in the unelected House of Lords as the ‘Lords Spiritual,' with the most important being the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. Surprise surprise, he opposes the government's proposed legislation:
Due to the integration of church and state, the Church of England
genuinely do have a political presence; unlike the Evangelical support
of Republicans in the U.S. though, this is institutionalised. The
Church's main fear seems to be that churches would be forced to conduct
same-sex marriages in church. It is a legal right of UK citizens to get married in an Anglican church,
even if they aren't believers. If gay couples can get married, they
might want to get married in church and this would be terrible and cause
the zombie apocalypse! As you might expect, the Church in Wales also holds this position which is disappointing.
Therefore, the game of political ping-pong begins. If political ping-pong was an Olympic sport, we might actually stand a chance of a medal. The government's proposals are for "civil marriage:" there is no compulsion for Anglican churches to conduct ceremonies. Actually, they might not be allowed to at all, even though some Christian denominations — like the Quakers — would be totally down with it.
The Anglicans have countered this by claiming that if a same-sex couple sued for discrimination over not being allowed to get married in church, the European Court of Human Rights could theoretically order the government to change the law. See, the UK is about 200 years behind America in that we don't have a written constitution or Bill of Rights. There is no golden standard by which other legislation can be judged; the ECHR is the best we have, and many Euro-sceptic Conservatives hate it on principle for taking sovereignty away from Britain. Despite what the ECHR says though, the British government wouldn't force churches to allow gay people to marry there. Churches already have the right to refuse to marry previously divorced people, and no successful legal challenges have been made to this.
But alas, all this concession isn't enough for the Church, who are threatening something pretty radical. Senior bishops say that if the Government push ahead with these plans, it will culminate in the Anglican Church losing their special position within the UK, and may even herald disestablishment. A disagreement over gay marriage could see the Church and the State divorcing. To quote Cole Morton of The Daily Telegraph, who seems to sum it up pretty well:
If I were to explain the gay marriage situation in the UK by comparison to US states, I would say we're like Illinois: second-parent adoption is legal and the laws governing discrimination are pretty good, but we're still working on the gay marriage front. Gay marriages conducted abroad are recognised as civil unions within the UK, but that's as far as it's gone… and then Prime Minister David Cameron actually did something I approve of, and announced his support for gay marriage in October 2011, with the planned legislature coming into effect in 2015. So, PARTY TIME! Right?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But you'd be wrong.
David Cameron gives marriage equality the green light
The Lib Dems are the only party who unequivocally support the measures, and it's probably their leader, deputy PM Nick Clegg, who has caused Cameron to announce the plans. Unfortunately, some MPs decided that they were morally opposed to gay marriage. Not just some. A sizable number. And they had the Church on their side. And therefore, Cameron decided that there could be a free vote on the issue, allowing politicians to vote with their conscience without fearing being reprimanded by the party. As most of the opposing Labour party also support gay marriage, in theory this shouldn't be a problem. In reality though, the dissenters are making a lot of noise.
Peter Bone, Conservative MP for Wellingborough, called the proposed marriage law "completely nuts" and insisted that marriage is between a man and a woman. Though Bone himself seems like a total bonehead, a lot of other Tory MPs share his view. According to Coalition for Equal Marriage, 62 MPs have confirmed their plan to vote against the actions, with 50 of them coming from the Conservative party. More worryingly, 326 MPs — just over 50% of the House of Commons — are yet to announce their intentions.
There has been a public consultation on the proposed plans, but the responses gathered from 100,000 people have been overwhelmingly negative. This can mainly be attributed to the Church of England. Because, my dear friends, the UK has an official state religion, i.e. the Anglican Church. The top 26 Bishops in England sit in the unelected House of Lords as the ‘Lords Spiritual,' with the most important being the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. Surprise surprise, he opposes the government's proposed legislation:
"If it is said that a failure to
legalise … same-sex marriage perpetuates stigma or marginalisation for
some people, the reply must be, I believe, that issues like stigma and
marginalisation have to be addressed at the level of culture rather than
law."
This argument is clearly flawed. Culturally, gay people already have
all of the same rights as straight couples, but there are still pockets
of discrimination: namely, we don't have the right to call ourselves
"married." If the law categorically states that people of all
sexualities are equal, then society will acquiesce. Importantly, making
marriage equal means that asking someone about their relationship status
will not automatically reveal their sexual orientation: everyone with
that official commitment will be married. Furthermore, if a trans*
person transitions after marrying their beau, they will still be legally
married rather than having their relationship transmuted into a civil
partnership. Not that the Church cares about that. You can turn this
post into a drinking game: take a shot every time I mention "the
Church." You can start apologising to your liver now.
These guys are not having it
Therefore, the game of political ping-pong begins. If political ping-pong was an Olympic sport, we might actually stand a chance of a medal. The government's proposals are for "civil marriage:" there is no compulsion for Anglican churches to conduct ceremonies. Actually, they might not be allowed to at all, even though some Christian denominations — like the Quakers — would be totally down with it.
The Anglicans have countered this by claiming that if a same-sex couple sued for discrimination over not being allowed to get married in church, the European Court of Human Rights could theoretically order the government to change the law. See, the UK is about 200 years behind America in that we don't have a written constitution or Bill of Rights. There is no golden standard by which other legislation can be judged; the ECHR is the best we have, and many Euro-sceptic Conservatives hate it on principle for taking sovereignty away from Britain. Despite what the ECHR says though, the British government wouldn't force churches to allow gay people to marry there. Churches already have the right to refuse to marry previously divorced people, and no successful legal challenges have been made to this.
But alas, all this concession isn't enough for the Church, who are threatening something pretty radical. Senior bishops say that if the Government push ahead with these plans, it will culminate in the Anglican Church losing their special position within the UK, and may even herald disestablishment. A disagreement over gay marriage could see the Church and the State divorcing. To quote Cole Morton of The Daily Telegraph, who seems to sum it up pretty well:
"The Church of England is unique in
seeing gay marriage as a threat to its existence. It was built to care
for every soul in every parish, with priests who automatically become
agents of the state. They have a legal duty to marry anyone in the
parish who wants it and is eligible. Now, for the first time in 500
years, there could be a difference between the Church definition of
marriage and the way it is defined in English law. The Church leadership
believes this will undermine its unique position, rights and privileges
as the established church-- deeply ironic considering it was only
created so that [King] Henry VIII could defy the Pope and remarry."
Ultimately, looking at the numbers, it seems hopeful that gay
marriage legislation will be passed. Deputy PM Clegg is determined,
calling it a matter of "when not if", and MP Andrew Mitchell claims that gay marriage has a majority in every age group save for the over-65s.
Cameron will not back down from the one sensible decision he's made
while in power: if that results in the separation of Church and State, I
will be among the first in line to raise a glass and say "about f*cking
time". And then make out with my girlfriend, knowing that if we wanted,
we could be wife and wife some day.
Officer fired over hazing of gay sailor on nuclear submarine
A gay sailor on a Navy nuclear submarine was hazed for months about
his sexuality, including being called "Brokeback" in reference to the
movie about homosexual cowboys, according to a news report.The sailor endured the hazing, believing it would get better over time. But it eventually led him to contemplate suicide and he feared he could snap and hurt someone else or himself, he wrote in a note, The Associated Press reported, citing an investigative report it had obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
The hazing occurred in 2011 aboard the Kings Bay, Ga.-based USS Florida. The vessel's top enlisted officer, Master Chief Machinist's Mate Charles Berry, was fired over the case due to dereliction of duty, the Navy said on March 30. In his role as chief of the boat, Berry had to consult the commanding officer of issues surrounding enlisted sailors.
The sailor who was targeted for abuse was well-liked, and his fellow sailors did not realize the toll that the remarks -- including being called a derogatory name for someone who is gay -- were having on him, AP reported.
While docked at the Diego Garcia port in the Indian Ocean, another man attempted to rape him and threatened him with a knife, the report said.
Several junior officers involved in the hazing were subject to disciplinary action, such as loss of pay and rank. There was a culture of hazing and sexual harassment on the vessel and not enough knowledge about Navy policies to prevent the abuse, the Navy report said.
"The Navy's standards for personal behavior are very high and it demands that sailors are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve," the Navy said in a March 30 statement. "When individuals fall short of this standard of professionalism and personal behavior, the Navy will take swift and decisive action to stop undesirable behavior, protect victims and hold accountable those who do not meet its standards."
Hank Nuwer, who has done decades of research on hazing in schools and the military, said it was "a significant and positive response by the Navy in regard to requiring a chain of command to take responsibility in the event of a substantial hazing allegation."
However, he said, the Navy might consider moving up its timetable when an allegation of hazing is reported aboard such a vessel since victims were stuck in the close quarters with nowhere to go nor hide.
" ... getting a culture of change with regard to Navy hazing is going to take many years, if at all," he wrote in an email to msnbc.com. "Such 'traditions' as having Navy people crossing the equator or reaching a certain petty officer rank were winked on by Navy brass so long that completely eradicating hazing stands about as much a small chance as there is eradicating hazing in college fraternity life.
When I first heard about this story, it was reported that a gay sailor had tried to rape another sailor aboard the sub and was *proof* that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, that *we* were warned this kind of thing would happen.
It's nice too know it was the other way around, tho I doubt it's now as news worthy as it was originally presented.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Daily Porn... Big Dick Fuckin'
Nothing but a Booty Call! brought to you by PornHub
Cameron Jackson sex in the Gym brought to you by PornHub
Bigger is Better
Spritzer: Has He Really Changed His Mind?
How to Ex an "Ex-Gay" Study
by Alice Dreger:
Gabriel Arana has published an excellent first-person account of so-called “reparative” therapy of sexual orientation in The American Prospect. I highly recommend “My So-Called Ex-Gay Life.” It’s a beautiful account of the horrific damage that can be done to a young gay man or lesbian who is subject to claims that he or she is mentally ill or defective by virtue of being homosexual.In reading the article, though, something struck me as off. So I checked it, and sure enough, it’s off.
Arana reports speaking to Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who played a critically important role in the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association. It's fair to say that without Spitzer's efforts in the early 1970s, it would have taken longer (maybe much longer) to end the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
But then in 2003, Spitzer published an article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior
that purported to show that reparative therapy “worked” much of the
time. The abstract of Spitzer’s 2003 article reported, “The majority of
participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively
homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively
heterosexual orientation.”
This is the thing that struck me as off. I know the Editor of Archives, Ken Zucker, and I know from my own experience publishing in Archives that Zucker is not one to shy away from controversial back-and-forths. It didn’t sound right to me that Zucker would publish such a politically incorrect article only to then suppress a politically correct revision of it by the author himself.
So I asked Zucker to tell me, for the record, what happened. Zucker began by explaining to me that he and Spitzer go back over 25 years in terms of professional association, even publishing an article together, so it’s not as if they are strangers. Zucker had accepted Spitzer’s 2003 article only on the basis that it pass peer review and then be open to commentaries, so that it could be openly criticized by those who might disagree. In fact, Spitzer’s 2003 article went through numerous rounds of review, and was then published with 26 commentaries, to which Spitzer formally responded (as required in the “target article” system).
A few months ago, Zucker told me, Spitzer had called Zucker wanting to talk about the latest DSM revision. During that call, according to Zucker, Spitzer “made some reference to regretting having done or publishing the study, and he said he wanted to retract it. My recollection of the conversation was something like this: I said, ‘I’m not sure what you want to retract, Bob. You didn’t falsify the data. You didn’t commit egregious statistical errors in analyzing the data. You didn’t make up the data. There were various commentaries on your paper, some positive, some negative, some in between. So the only thing that you seem to want to retract is your interpretation of the data, and lots of people have already criticized you for interpretation, methodological issues, etc.’”
Zucker went on: “Did he ask me whether, if he submitted a letter to the editor, I would say no? No. I didn’t say no, I didn’t say yes. I basically think that, in the conversation, I was pushing back in terms of what exactly he wanted to say.” In other words, Zucker was trying to get Spitzer to articulate exactly what he wanted to say now, publicly, about his 2003 article. “And that was the end of the conversation. Now had Spitzer a week later submitted a letter to the editor saying ‘I no longer agree with my own interpretations of the data,’ would I have published it? Of course. Why not?”
Which is exactly what I said to myself when I was reading Arana’s article: Why would Zucker not be perfectly happy to publish such a letter from Spitzer? To be frank, it would only bring attention to the journal and make science look the way scientists like it to look: open to revision.
What about Arana’s claim that “attempts to contact the journal went unanswered”?
Zucker told me that Arana “called me on March 27, but I’ve been out of town most of the last two weeks, and I’ve not yet called back a lot of people. He only called me once and left one message. I think the journalist should have made a more concerted effort to reach me, by email. If he had emailed, which he didn’t, he would have gotten an automated message that said I was out of town. And it would have given him my cell phone number. In the internet era, you can find anyone’s email address within a few minutes.”
Zucker concluded, “If Spitzer wants to submit a letter that says he no longer believes his interpretation of his own data, that’s fine. I’ll publish it.”
But a retraction? Well, the problem with that is that Spitzer’s change of heart about the interpretation of his data is not normally the kind of thing that causes an editor to expunge the scientific record. Said Zucker to me, “You can retract data incorrectly analyzed; to do that, you publish an erratum. You can retract an article if the data were falsified—or the journal retracts it if the editor knows of it. As I understand it, he’s just saying ten years later that he wants to retract his interpretation of the data. Well, we’d probably have to retract hundreds of scientific papers with regard to re-interpretation, and we don’t do that.”
All Spitzer has to do is put in writing that he no longer believes what he said about the interpretation of his data, and Zucker will publish his revision.
And here’s the thing: Spitzer is a real scholar. He ought to know that you don’t retract an article, or otherwise formally revise an article, with a casual phone call. If you want to change something in your publication record, you write to the editor to state what you want done, and why.
And Robert Spitzer should now do that.
To date, Spritzer has only issued an apology for his part in this study, he hasn't provided his reasons or what he now finds at fault with his research, so one must wonder, is he sincerely retracting his studies findings or is he just trying to ease the professional pressure's his study has placed on him and is now grown weary of having to defend it's findings?
Color me skeptical.
Stephen Hill Refuses To Lie About Name Change
Stephen Hill and his husband Joshua
Snyder are fighting for the right to change their names to
Snyder-Hill after being told they could not under Ohio law.
Hill made headlines last year during a
Republican presidential debate when he submitted a YouTube video
question answered by then-candidate Rick Santorum.
“Do you intend to circumvent the
progress that has been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the
military?” Hill asked, referring to the repeal of “Don't Ask,
Don't Tell,” the military policy that banned gay and bisexual
troops from serving openly.
Hill's video question was booed by the
audience, who were clearly delighted when Santorum
said DADT repeal was a “tragic social experiment” and that he
would work to reinstate the policy, if elected president.
Hill and Snyder, who married last year
in Washington D.C. but live in Columbus, were pulled aside when they
submitted their application to hyphenate their last names together.
Appearing on cabler Current TV's The
War Room, Hill said the couple were told to lie about the reason
for the name change.
“If you had gone in there and said
that you wanted to combine your names and change your names because
you belong to a hip-hop group and that's how you wanted to brand
yourselves and lied, that would have been fine. But because you told
the truth and said that you were married you may be denied,” guest
host John Fugelsang said.
“That's correct,” Hill said. “When
the magistrate pulled us in there, she said that you can put any
other reason on this application. … I'm not going to lie. That's
one thing I have told myself since 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was
repealed. The Army accepts me. I'm not going to lie to anybody
else.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)