Praise: Ohio State University Research on Sex Education

Politicians periodically poke their noses into education with demands based on ideology and not on the realities of science or education.  In 1996, the did so to implement abstinence-only sex education classes at schools around the country.  The idea was to reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and reduce the number of children having babies.  Both are reasonable goals and it initially looked like it might be working.

It took a while to realize that it did not work.  A lengthy 2005 report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) goes into many of the initial findings.  Students were more aware of abstinence but not more likely to abstain.

What researchers at Ohio State, the University of Kentucky, and George Mason University found is that students need to be in more discussion and less testing.  This is very different than the continued calls we hear for evidence that education is working.  Professor Eric Anderman, the lead on this research, is quoted in the news release:

When students focus on tests, they are thinking about what they need to remember to get a good grade, he said.  They are not taking the time to think about why they are learning this information, and why it is important in their life.

“Ideally, in the perfect world, I would say students shouldn’t be tested in health classes.  Tests are important in a lot of areas, but health is not one of them,” he said.

“But if you have to have tests, make them minimal and low-pressure.  This is not about separating students in terms of ability.  It is about getting students to adopt healthy habits.”

This is what we need to know when approaching education, not what some religion or some politician takes on faith.

Repudiation: Liars Defending DOMA

Paul Strand of the Christian Broadcasting Network wrote an article today that brings together a number of the Southern Poverty Law Center's certified hate groups and their lies.

Efforts are underway in nation's capital to wipe out the Defense of Marriage Act -- the federal law that defines marriage the traditional way.

Technically this is not correct, though that would be the effect.  The full text of the proposed legislation does change title 1 and title 28 of the United States Code to remove the discrimination of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  However, it must be pointed out that "the traditional way" marriage is defined was not what DOMA enshrines until fairly recently.

DOMA also protects states from having to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and ensures federal benefits only go to married heterosexual couples.

This is correct.

Opponents question why the government is allowed to descriminate (sic) against homosexual couples.

But DOMA supporters say throughout history, governments have found it crucial to promote marriage as between one man and one woman.

Funny that the Bible has frequent passages that record the history of marriage between one man and two or more women.  As I mentioned above, DOMA's definition of marriage is a fairly recent construction.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Nov. 10 move a bill forward that would get rid of DOMA.

"It really stops a pernicious discrimination," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said.

Supporting lawmakers also blasted those who want to preserve traditional marriage without allowing gay marriage.

"They know they're wrong in their hearts," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Good!

To challenge the fight against traditional marriage, the Family Research Council released a 30-minute DVD titled, "The Problem with Same Sex Marriage."

The video claims that in states like Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legalized, schools are pushing the homosexual agenda on children through literature and lessons.

"The homosexual agenda" is in fact an agenda of acceptance and tolerance, not pushing sexuality on anyone.  The implied message here is that Massachusetts will work through the schools to make children gay.  This is an absurd notion, but frightening to those who are not aware that medical science proves otherwise.

"Our children are being indoctrinated on same-sex marriage and the rightness, the correctness of homosexuality," Kris Mineau, with the Massachusetts Family Institute, said in the short documentary.

There is no indoctrination.  Homosexuality exists and children are being asked to be tolerant of others who are not like themselves.  Homosexuality is correct for homosexuals as heterosexuality is correct for heterosexuals.  Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and five other states and the District of Columbia (as well as ten other countries).  No one should ever be coerced into a marriage ... the concept is gross.  If someone does not like same sex marriage, they should not marry someone of the same sex.

"I even put this concern to the chairman at the time of the school committee," added local parent David Parker. "A little girl saying, 'I love my girl friend; I must be gay.' And [the chairman] said, 'David, I have no problem with that whatsoever.'"

Why should the school care whether any child is gay or straight.  The school is not able to make a gay child straight or a straight child gay.  "Efforts to try to force an individual to change his or her orientation are very likely to be unsuccessful and in the end can seriously damage the self-esteem of people who fail."

"'The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century' -- it tells kids how to perform homosexual sex acts," said Brian Camenker, president of MassResistance.org.

This is a booklet that Mass Resistance claimed to have found after a GLSEN meeting in Massachusetts and has used as propaganda every since.  It is a real booklet, largely consisting of warning and guides to how to avoid dangerous situations, but the claim that it had anything to do with Boston schools or GLSEN is a lie.

Leading traditional marriage proponents told CBN News that condemnation is pouring down on their heads.

"It's becoming increasingly clear that the gay rights movement, the gay marriage movement, really does believe you're like a racist if you think marriage is the union of husband and wife," explained Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage. "They want to rip Genesis out of our Bibles."

No.  A racist is a particular kind of bigot.  Those who favor marriage equality are calling Ms. Gallagher a bit, but not a racist.  And no to the second allegation.  No one seeks to rip Genesis out of the Bible.  This is silliness.  What we want Ms. Gallagher to do is to stop cherry-picking the Bible for the verses that she likes to impose on others while ignoring others that might make her uncomfortable.  She can believe whatever she wants, but is not welcome to use her bigotry to limit my God-given rights.

"But marriage wasn't invented in the 1950s by a bunch of southern fundamentalists or something like that," added Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

That is correct.  In the Bible we see many marriages.  How many wives did Solomon have again?

"I think many of the 'elites' -- and I've been in many debates with them -- do view this as sort of like they do have a more heightened understanding, a more advanced moral sensibility than 'the masses,' than the 'ignorant masses,'" Lorence explained.

So Mr. Lorence sees this as a war of the elites versus the common man?  Most us are common men.  We are neither superior nor inferior, simply different in sexual orientation.

DOMA supporters say there's a reason governments have continuously favored and promoted traditional marriage.

"Marriage really matters in itself," Gallagher said. "It's the way we teach the next generation that we need to bring together male and female so that children have a mom and dad."

Marriage does really matter.  It matters because it is a fundamental right according to the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia.  It matters because it is a way for a loving couple to extend their commitment to one another.  It matters because children of same sex couples deserve to have all of the protections of marriage.  The fact is that there are a lot of children who have same sex parents and they do just as well as those who have opposite sex parents.

"A child has the best potential for emotional, physical, financial well-being if they're raised by one man and one woman committed in the institution of marriage," added Bishop Joseph Mattera, with the New York Christ Covenant Coalition. "And that's sociological data. We're not even talking about the Bible."

This is simply a lie.  The Bishop is bearing false witness.

"The experience of all these cultures [is] they say, 'We'll just leave people alone, let them do whatever they want when it comes to marriage and sex and children' ... Over time, the men act irresponsibly, they exploit the women, they neglect the children," Lorence explained.

"So the people who run these societies say, 'You know what? We're not going to sustain ourselves as a community if we continue doing this,'" he said.

There is absolutely no evidence of marriage equality leading to irresponsible behavior, exploitation of women, or abandoned children.  Mr. Lorence is delusional.

The FRC documentary pointed out that gay couples raising children are "somewhere from five to 15 times as likely to be homosexual or bisexual as the general population."

These numbers are made up, fictional.  The truth is that children of same sex couples are no more likely than children of opposite sex couples to be homosexual or bisexual.

Gallagher warned society is playing with fire when it condemns those who insist on one man, one woman marriage.

"And to have the government step in and redefine that view as a form of bigotry has immense consequences for every single human being living in a culture," she said.

Bigotry is inherent in those, like Ms. Gallagher, who discriminate, using their made-up "facts" that have no basis in reality as the reason to legislate hatred.  The bigot calls those who notice her bigotry bigots.  Absurd.

There are probably more lies in the CBN article that I did not challenge.  For a religious organization, a group that claims to follow the Ten Commandments, to so blatantly break the 9th Commandment is disgusting.  That they are hurting fellow human beings, their relationships and their children, in the process is despicable.

Thanks to Joe My God and Good As You for the heads up.

FollowUp 3: Discrimination Upside Down

Victoria Childress is an Iowa baker who has been in the new for refusing to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple.  As reported by KCCI on Saturday,

Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers, who are engaged to be married, said planning for their June wedding took an unexpected turn during a taste-testing appointment Thursday afternoon.

"It shouldn't be a gay or straight issue. It's a people issue," Sievers said."They came in and she introduced herself, and I said, 'Is this your sister?' (She said,) 'No, this is my partner.' I said, 'OK,' and I asked them to sit down and I said, 'We need to talk,'" said Victoria Childress, who runs her cake baking business from home. "I said, 'I'll tell you I'm a Christian, and I do have convictions.' And I said, 'I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not going to be able to do your cake."

According to Fox News Radio yesterday, Ms. Vodraska and Ms. Sievers did call Ms. Childress a bigot in a statement that they released.  A boycott was called for on Facebook.  Ms. Childress was acting in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act,

216.7   Unfair practices — accommodations or services.  

1.  It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any owner, lessee, sublessee, proprietor, manager, or superintendent of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof:
  a.  To refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges thereof, or otherwise to discriminate against any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability in the furnishing of such accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges.

Ms Childress was quoted by Fox News Radio as saying

“I’m being attacked because of my beliefs – my convictions to their lifestyle,” she said.

So, once again the bigot is complaining that she is the victim. The pattern of discriminators thinking that they are the ones being discriminated continues.  Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

6 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article

10 October 2011, FollowUp 1

11 October 2011, FollowUp 2

Repudiation: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Since Governor Walker took the oath of office, Wisconsin has been in turmoil.  The Republicans, led by Mr. Walker, endeavored to undo decades of progressive Wisconsin laws leading to huge protests back in February.  In response, this Summer Wisconsinites recalled some of their state senators.  But, it was not without some underhanded moves by Republicans.

Now, a year after Scott Walker was elected to office, it is legal to begin a move to recall him.  It has begun.  This isn't just dissatisfaction with the political success of the Republicans.  It is anger at a bait and switch tactic of numerous lies curing his campaign for governor.  From the One Wisconsin Now page:

#OccupyWalker will flood social networks with the truth about every aspect of Scott Walker's disastrous agenda, with the scores of facts uncovered by the One Wisconsin Now reseach team and the individual stories of working Wisconsin families personally harmed by Walker's anti-middle class schemes.

It's been over two years since Scott Walker stepped into the spotlight and started laying out his Koch-funded, pro-corporate agenda. The list of Walker's failures seems endliess: from his early failure to report information on $500,000 worth of his top campaign contributors, to spending 20 minutes on the phone with who he thought was billionaire David Koch talking about stripping away the rights of 175,000 Wisconsin workers, to his most recent decision to cut 65,000 of our state's most vulnerable residents - including 29,000 children -- off health care.

Then there's this latest piece we just uncovered. In 2006 during first run for governor, Walker made some pretty bold campaign promises, including this one:

"Scott Walker will not accept any campaign contributions (from any source) from the time he takes office (January 3, 2007) until the state budget is signed into law. (100 Day Agenda)" [Link to source]

Now consider this: from the time Scott Walker took office on January 3, 2011 to the time the budget was signed on June 26, 2011, Walker received $2,174,501.39 in campaign money. That would be a $2 million broken promise to the people of Wisconsin. This is all not to mention the latest campaign finance scheme, where a GOP donor nefariously filed recall petition, allowing Walker to begin raising unlimited campaign money.

Before looking at the future lies and dirty tricks, I want to mention that it took me a while to accept the title "Occupy Walker".  Normally a person is not something that one occupies (unless one is a demon that needs to be exorcised).  However, the timing of the Madison WI sit-ins as a prelude to the Occupy Wall Street movement is not coincidental.  In many ways the good people of Wisconsin inspired OWS.  The name fits.

So, after the campaign lies and the fake candidates during the senatorial recalls, it should not surprise anyone that Wisconsin Republicans plan to continue in the same vein.  Mother Jones had an article last Friday about plans to destroy recall petitions, a felony offense in Wisconsin.

These plans, discussed in Facebook posts that were first reported by the blog PolitiScoop, entail posing as recall supporters and gathering signatures, only to later destroy the petitions. They also include telling Wisconsinites that they can only sign one recall petition (which is false—they can sign different petitions as long as they each correspond to a different organization) and directing signature collectors to the homes of registered sex offenders.

Surprised?  No, I'm no longer surprised.  Offended?  Absolutely.  This is an affront to our democratic republic.  Such endeavors to interrupt legal petitions and elections are unAmerican.

Thanks to Care2 for the heads up.

30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Praise: The Devotion Project

Last week I wrote about the importance of emphasizing commitment as suggested in a report by the Third Way.  As I have thought about this more, it makes more and more sense.  Then, today, I was sent a link to the Devotion Project.

The Devotion Project is intended to document devotion and commitment of loving couples.  The first video is ten minutes that will require a tissue when viewed.  It is beautiful.  I hope that there will be subsequent films.

As the political battle for full equality for all citizens continues, I am going to be looking for more documentation of commitment like this.  My relationship with my partner (marriage is not legal where we live) started in 2005.  I can imagine fifty-four years together, although if I live that long I would be quite elderly by that time.  It is a lovely goal.  Every loving couple should have the opportunity to have legal recognition of their love and commitment.

Thanks to Care2 for the heads up.

10 April 2011, FollowUp 1.

Repudiation: Bishops of Illinois Choose Bigotry instead of Helping Children

As of June, Illinois allows Civil Unions for same sex couples.  While the usual bigots complained, the law was enacted in January and has been in effect for about half a year as of this writing.

"We are showing the world that the people of Illinois believe in equality for all," [Governor] Quinn said January 31. "We look forward to individuals and businesses from across the country choosing to move to Illinois where we believe that everyone is entitled to the same rights."

The law includes a number of areas where homosexuals are granted equal rights.

These rights include automatic hospital visitation rights, the ability to make emergency medical decisions for partners, the ability to share a room in a nursing home, adoption and parental rights, pension benefits, inheritance rights and the right to dispose of a partner's remains, the governor's office said.

One problem, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, is equality for adoption and parental rights.  The Roman Catholic Church has been paid by taxpayers for decades as a contracted provider of foster care services and adoption services.  Allowing a loving family who are gay to be foster parents or adoptive parents was impossible for them to tolerate.

So far, so good.  They have the right to believe what they want to believe.  They also have the right to provide adoption services without taxpayer subsidies if they choose to not follow the law.  But, by July they chose to file a lawsuit instead, claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated.  This was silly, of course, as the law meant that they either had to stop being bigots or they could continue their bigotry without taxpayer money.

Today they withdrew the lawsuit and wrote a lengthy complaint about the attack on faith-base agencies and "traditional" marriage.  I will rebut parts of their sob story.

“The decision not to pursue further appeals was reached with great reluctance, but was necessitated by the fact that the State of Illinois has made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Bishop Edward K. Braxton of Belleville, and Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Joliet.

“Since we now need to close offices and lay off employees, further appeals would be moot,” the bishops said.

Translation:  They were not going to win this lawsuit.  The Church says it is financially impossible to continue to help children on the same day that they are bidding a huge amount of money for the Crystal Cathedral in California.  Is it really about the money?

The [Department of Children and Family Services] told the agencies that it was ending their contracts over their alleged refusal to obey the 2011 Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, which established legal privileges for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in civil unions.

The Church could have accepted the equality of Illinois citizens, but chose to not do so.

In a Nov. 14 statement, Breen said the situation “stands as a stark lesson to the rest of the nation that legislators promising 'religious protection' in same sex marriage and civil union laws may not be able to deliver on those promises.”

In their remarks, the bishops noted how the Church has “successfully partnered with the State for half a century” and lamented the fact that the “the losers will be the children, foster care families and adoptive parents who will no longer have the option of Catholic, faith-based services.”

The Roman Catholic Church did not lose any religious protection.  They still have the right to worship as they see fit.  They still have the right to include or exclude whoever they wish from their religious activities.  The services that they contracted with the state of Illinois to provide were not religious services.  The Church made choices which were not necessary for them to maintain their religious integrity.

“We are sad to lose the dedicated employees who have served our Catholic foster care and adoption services so faithfully for so many years,” the bishops added. “We are grateful to them and reluctantly bid them farewell with our prayers and best wishes.”

Bishop Paprocki clarified that despite the loss of foster care and adoption services in his diocese, “our Catholic Charities in the Diocese Springfield in Illinois will continue to address the basic human needs of the poor in central Illinois in other ways.”

“The silver lining of this decision is that our Catholic Charities going forward will be able to focus on being more Catholic and more charitable,” he said, “while less dependent on government funding and less encumbered by intrusive state policies.”

Their former employees will find work taking care of children who are still very much in need of foster and adoptive services.  The employer will simply no longer be the Roman Catholic Church.  That silver lining is a move to what should be the case, religious work should not be subsidized by taxpayers.  That which is subsidized by taxpayers should not be discriminatory.

The news of the decision to close the programs follows the Nov. 11 announcement by the Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois that will it separate from the Belleville diocese and offer adoptions and foster-care services to same-sex couples.

The Catholic Social Services agency, which had been operating at the Belleville diocese since 1947, said that it will now be called Christian Social Services of Illinois.

This is interesting.  Some Catholics care enough about the children that they will abide by civil law, even if it means a formal split with the Roman Catholic Church.  Not all Catholics are happy about this.  They write, in part

[P]erhaps the leaders of what is now “Christian Social Services” never really believed the Church’s teachings regarding the damage done to children raised in homosexual households. The Vatican says that placing adoptive children with same-sex couples is a form of violence against those children.

Let's clear this up right away.  Children tend to do as well with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex parents.  The Vatican is telling a big lie.  Back to the original article.

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Conference, summarized what he believes to be the underlying problem in remarks to CNA on Nov. 11.

What “you're seeing at the state level in Illinois, what you're seeing at the national level in Washington, D.C., is a consistent promulgation of policies and laws that are making it very difficult for faith-based agencies that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Gilligan said.

Isn't it funny that the Bible is filled with marriages of one man and many women.  I suppose that the Roman Catholic Church hasn't read their Bible in a while.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

FollowUp 4: Voting Rights

Talking Points Memo, today, posted a video to YouTube of Mr. and Mrs. Lee and Phyllis Campbell of Tennessee testifying before Congress.

 They described the ordeal of obtaining a free voter photo ID, now necessary to vote.  As Mr. Campbell describes, the DMV tried to convince them to pay for identification that was supposed to be free.  Please watch the video.

A poll tax is prohibited by the United States Constitution.  The Republican efforts to deny citizens their legitimate right to vote is simply wrong.

3 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article.
14 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
22 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
6 November, FollowUp 3.

14 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
8 March 2012, FollowUp 6.
2 April 2012, FollowUp 7.
3 June 2012, FollowUp 8.

Repudiation: Speaker Boehner defends DOMA

I had written earlier about President Obama's decision to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the administration believes to be unconstitutional.  The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, early this year authorized the expenditure of up to half a million dollars in defense of DOMA.  Later, that amount was tripled.  It may now be going up again.

The Speaker is using the so-called Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a panel consisting of the Speaker and the leader and whip of each party, as the means of defending DOMA in the courts.  I say "so-called" because the BLAG is split along party lines.  This is not bipartisan, what is happening is entirely Republican.

In August, Paul Clement, the attorney hired by BLAG, filed briefs on why Edie Windsor's marriage should not be recognized by the federal government when her partner of 44 years, Thea Spyer, died and she was laden with much higher estate taxes than married couples pay when one dies.  The couple had wed in Toronto and resided in New York.  Think Progress had an excellent article on Mr. Clement's briefs at the time.

It isn't over.  A similar case is now in Pennsylvania, except that this time it is a suit between family members.  As reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

David and Joan Farley, the parents of the late Sarah Ellyn Farley, are fighting with Ms. Farley's wife, Jennifer Tobits, about who should get the $41,000 or so left from Ms. Farley's profit-sharing plan with Cozen O'Connor. The parents argue the ERISA-qualified plan implicates federal law, meaning DOMA would not allow the term "spouse" in the plan to be considered a person of the same sex.

Ms. Tobits argues that because ERISA doesn't define the term "spouse," the parties need only look to the plan itself and don't have to reach whether DOMA applies.

As written in the Legal Intelligencer

The case has picked up steam since first filed, with both the Farleys and Tobits changing counsel midstream. The Farleys are now represented by Chicago-based Thomas More Society and Tobits is represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The House advisory group said Cozen O'Connor and the Farleys told the group they did not oppose its motion to intervene and Tobits said she would take no position on the matter. The DOJ also said it would take no position on the motion, according to the group's filing.

In its memorandum in support of its motion to intervene, the advisory group said the DOJ would not be intervening to defend DOMA, but rather to "attack the statute," as it has done in a number of other cases. As part of the DOJ's policy shift moving away from defending DOMA, it has been advising the House of cases where the constitutionality of the law is at issue in case the House wanted to defend the law. The DOJ alerted the House to Cozen O'Connor on Sept. 23.

Because the DOJ will almost certainly look to attack the statute rather than defend it, the group said, the legislative body should be given the opportunity to step in to defend the law. The group also argued that the Farleys do not have the expertise to defend DOMA like the House does.

How many more taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted in attacking widows?  DOMA is blatant discrimination.  It is to for full equality and recognition of the love and commitment in every marriage.

Repudiation: "FRAC! Baby FRAC!"

Hydraulic Fracturing is the use of high-pressure fluids with particulate matter to break up underground rock and shale formations to release oil and natural gas.  The positive side to doing this is that it allows access to fuel that had been otherwise impossible to reach.  The down side is that there are risks to fresh water aquifers, risks to surface vegetation, risks of greenhouse gas emissions, and risks to the stability of natural faults.

In 2005, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from being covered by the Safe Water Drinking Act.  This was, in my opinion, a huge mistake.  We have seen numerous questions raised about the side effects of hydraulic fracturing since then.  Early this year we learned of reports of tremendous amounts of wastewater produced in hydraulic fracturing.  In the middle of the year we learned of surface devastation to part of the Monongahela National Forest.  In August Public Citizen called for consideration of all pertinent data before allowing further hydraulic fracturing.  The industry says that the risks can all be easily managed.

The National Academy of Sciences calls for greater regulation and monitoring because of methane getting into drinking water.  We have recently learned of hydraulic fracturing causing small earthquakes in England.  France is the first country to ban hydraulic fracturing outright.  And now Bette Grande, GOP Congressional hopeful from North Dakota, says "FRAC! Baby FRAC!" and offers a Halloween treat of a video in opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency.  As with the Republican Denial of Climate Change, Ms. Grande is looking to her political base and not to the facts.  We may all suffer as a result.

10 December 2011, FollowUp 1.
2 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
26 May 2012, FollowUp 3.

Praise: Gay Neighbors

A new study, There Goes the Neighborhood: How and Why the Bohemians, Artists and Gays Effect Regional Housing Values, finds that it is good for the price of one's house to have such neighbors.  Prof. Richard Florida, of George Mason University, and Charlotta Mellander, a doctoral student at Jönköping International Business School, created a Bohemian-Gay Index to explore the impact on housing values.

The findings indicate that the Bohemian-Gay Index has substantial effects on housing values across all permutations of the model and across all region sizes. It remains positive and significant alongside variables for regional income, wages, technology and human capital.

A BusinessWeek article discussed how this can have a real difference on housing values based on the attitudes of those in a particular market.

Gay couples may lift real estate prices by enhancing cultural amenities, housing stock and the vibrancy of neighborhoods, according to a 2010 study by Richard Florida, director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto, and Charlotta Mellander of Jonkoping International Business School in Jonkoping, Sweden.

Perhaps the anti-gay hate groups should reconsider the cost of eradicating those they so fear from their neighborhoods.

Thanks to Care2 for the heads up.

Repudiation: Personhood Amendments

It would have been difficult to miss the news from Tuesday that Mississippi's Personhood Amendment failed at the polls.  It failed by a considerable margin and many think that the issue is now over and done.  That is, many who are outside the anti-abortion movement.

There are national and state-based efforts to get Personhood Amendments (the plural in the title was not a typo) like Mississippi's Initiative 26 in states including Nevada in 2014, Alabama perhaps in 2012, Ohio in 2012, Florida in 2012, Wisconsin in 2012, and more being pushed by a national organization based in Colorado.  It isn't over.

There are a few reasons that this is a bad idea.  The science behind the Personhood Amendments is wrong and the theology is flawed.

The Personhood Amendment does not allow for any abortions, including those needed for medical reasons.  So, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy would be prohibited from getting the medical care that she needs to save her life.  In other words, the attempt to prevent her from aborting a doomed zygote (by definition, there is a conception resulting in a zygote, but not a properly implanted embryo) would not save the zygote but would kill the woman.

The Personhood Amendment does not allow for hormonal contraceptives (such as "the pill"), as these allow for two cells to join before washing them out of the woman's system.  The most common forms of birth control would be outlawed.

A woman who is raped and conceives would be forced to carry and give birth to the child of her rapist.  In a sense, she would be raped a second time and not be allowed to leave the rape behind her short of giving the child that she did not choose away for adoption.

Aside from those very real issues, there is a theological dichotomy between religions that should have these Personhood Amendments fail as unconstitutional because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  There is no agreement as to when a cluster of cells becomes a person.

Those in the anti-abortion movement claim that as soon as the sperm and ova combine, there is a human person deserving of all rights of any citizen.  They base this claim not upon science but upon the Bible.  In particular, Psalm 139:16 speaks of how God knew David while his body was unformed.  They interpret this to mean that the spirit is formed immediately upon creation of the zygote.  An alternate interpretation is that the spirit, separate from the physical body, is known by God long before it is part of any human flesh.

Similarly, Jeremiah 1:4-5 talks of how God knew Jeremiah before he was in the womb.  Note, this does not mean in the womb, but prior to conception.

There are additional passages in the Prophetical Writings that have a similar vein.  In Judaism, these are not part of the Bible.  These are written by humans, not by God.

The writings of God, for Jews, consist of exactly five scrolls or books.  The germane verse is Genesis 2:7, where God breathed the spirit into Adam.  The spirit is associated with birth, not with conception.  The two Hebrew words that may help understand this distinction are ruach and nephesh.  The Christians think of the soul in terms of ruach.  The Jews think of the spirit in terms of nephesh.  Click on the links for some details.

The debate is also fueled by the first commandment in Genesis 1:28, where God tells Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.  We have done so.  Their descendents include more than seven billion alive today.  We exceed the number of stars that can be seen with the naked eye.  We exceed the number that our planet can sustain without environmental degradation.

The point is that the Personhood Amendment is based on dangerous theories that may harm the lives of women.  It is based on religious dogma that is not universal.  And those who want to see this pass are not about to stop trying.

4 December 2011, FollowUp 1.

19 January 2012, FollowUp 2.

Repudiation: Rena Lindevalvdsen Objects to Occupy DC

Rena Lindevalvdsen is a Liberty University law professor, Liberty Counsel attorney, and the author of a book about and in support of baby kidnapper Lisa Miller and blog, both by the name Only One Mommy.  This caught my attention because of how far off Ms. Lindevalvdsen is from reality.  Of course, I expect that from one involved with one of the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate groups.

She complains about the guidelines adopted by the general assembly of Occupy DC.

Rule 1: “Respect each other, each others’ stuff and space.”Hmm, the irony of this one speaks for itself: a group of illegal squatters on publicly-owned property are demanding respect for the stuff and space of others. Well, then, get off property that does not belong to you and go home and go to work. Then you won’t find yourself in the situation of the occupier in New York who threw a hissy fit in a McDonald’s restaurant after they refused to give her free food.

It is public property.  In the United States of America we have the right to assembly and the right to access our public property.  Many who are party of the Occupy movement do not have jobs.  They would like to.  We have a system in place that rewards malfeasance among the richest (with notable exceptions like Bernie Madoff who stole from others who are rich).  Without reasonable oversight, many corporations run roughshod over individuals.  We hear in the news that corporations are sitting on a lot of money but not hiring.  Where are the jobs?

Rule 5: “We consider working class police officers a part of the 99%. However we will not carry out or enforce their orders that jeopardize the safety of other residents of McPherson Park. We will strive to maintain each other’s safety without relying on the police.” The working class reference immediately reminded me of the Communist Manifesto with its reference to the plight of the working class who needed to rise up against the oppressive bourgeois class.

There is a similarity.  That similarity does not mean that the Occupy movement is a facade for Communists.  Looking out for the safety of one another is not a Communist ideal, it is a human ideal.

Rule 10: “Don’t assume anyone’s gender. When possible go with gender neutral pronouns and nouns, such as friend/comrade instead of brother/sister.” After quickly highlighting the good communist reference to “comrades,”I’d like to point out the wholesale adoption of the idea that gender is fluid –you are what you think you are. I guess it should come as no surprise in today’s culture that those seeking to further entrench socialistic ideas in America also seek to legally sanction a view of human sexuality that is directly contrary to the binary nature of sexuality created by God. All forms of lawlessness travel together and work hand in hand to destroy the true meaning of liberty.

Those of us blessed with gender certainty have difficulty understanding that it is not so for everyone.  Ignorance can be cured with some education.  Given the religious nature of Ms. Lindevalvdsen's group, one might think charity would be in order instead of animus, except that religion is their excuse for hate.  God creates us in far more diversity than the "Liberty" folk are ready to accept.

Rule 13: “Be an ally. Take care of yourselves and your friends/siblings/homies in the struggle.” I had to include this one for two reasons. First, the “ally” language reminds us yet one more time of the socialistic tendencies of this group. Second, I’m a bit surprised that the best the “Guidelines Super Committee” could come up with is a rule that refers to taking care of one’s “homies.”

Allies was the term used for those who fought against the National Socialist party of Germany called the Nazis.  There is nothing wrong with the word ally.  Unlike ally, homies is not part of normal academic discourse.  Some in the Occupy movement are academics, but most are regular people.  Many regular people say homies.

Perhaps you have struggled as I have with understanding the purpose of the group or, even more so, the mentality that would cause a group of people to pitch tents on public property for more than a month.

I am among those who were initially unsure about the Occupy movement.  A group having no explicit platform of demands is difficult to categorize.  With time, I have come to see that there is a common set of complaints without a common set of solutions.  Even without agreement as to the solutions, the complaints must be addressed for the sake of our culture and economy.

Their signs only further confound me. Here’s one: “Cancel All Debt.” It specifically lists student loans, electricity bills, and mortgages. The facebook page for Occupy DC K Street states that the occupiers allegedly represent the 99% of the people in the nation who pay the taxes and maintain the economy. Without even turning to statistics – how can I possibly believe that people who sit around all day carrying signs asking that the government cancel all their debt somehow actually pay 99% of the taxes. I do believe you’d have to work in order to pay taxes.

There are numerous misconceptions here.  First, taxation is not limited to employment.  I pay taxes on my home, on products that I purchase, on capital gains and dividends, and in various other ways such as on my continued ownership of a car.  Second, we used to have affordable higher education.  That was a large part of what built a great economy in the United States after World War II.  Student loans are too onerous for many to repay.  This needs to be addressed.  Third, a large part of our Great Recession was caused by the sub-prime mortgage market.  There are too many Americans who have homes underwater and no prospect for financial recovery while they have been doing their best to follow all of the rules and be good citizens.  The American dream of home ownership became a nightmare based on the lies and cheating of too many in the banking industry.  This third point is a large part of why the Occupy movement exists.  Without government intervention, people are carrying signs because they feel they have run out of possibilities for other recourse.

Putting aside the obvious error in their position statement, statistics further disprove their point. A number of sources restate the statistic that the top 5% or the rich in America actually pay 50% of the taxes. So – how is it that the occupiers lay any claim to paying 99% of the taxes and therefore demanding that government use the tax money to forgive all of their debt?

No, the premise is incorrect.  The Congressional Budget Office has real data that shows what is happening.

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

• 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
• 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
• Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
• 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

• The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
• Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
• All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

The disparity in income growth is counter to the American ideal of a growing middle class.  The solution is not, as Ms. Lindevalvdsen alleges, Communism.  The solution is complicated but needs to include reparations for those stolen from by cheaters and liars, the point of the sign to which Ms. Lindevalvdsen objects, and regulations to prevent future cheating.  Back to her blog article

At its core, we are watching the results of mankind’s sinful nature: we’d rather have a handout than to have to work for our keep; we’d like to have someone come along behind us and clean up our mess (our debt); and we believe that others owe us something (rather than realizing that we deserve absolutely nothing and that anything we have is purely a gift from God).

No.  The majority of those in the Occupy movement are not seeking handouts.  They are seeking a fair playing field in which they are able to earn their keep.  Those who are responsible for the debt need to repay it (particularly fraudulent mortgage dealers on that part of the problem).  God did not force big banks, mortgage firms, and parts of Wall Street to lie and cheat.  God told us to not bear false witness.  Perhaps Ms. Lindevalvdsen should listen more to God.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of First Amendment rights. But, these occupiers have as their goal to destroy the very fabric of this nation.

Wrong.  The Occupy movement seeks to rebuild this nation from the damage wrought by some of the 1%.

During a week honoring all those who have died protecting our God-given unalienable rights, I find this movement particularly offensive because they seek to eradicate the Biblical principles upon which our nation was founded and put in its place a socialistic system that attempts to make big government the savior of all.

Removal of government watchdog systems during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in too many among the 1% ignoring the messages of God to tell the truth and to not cheat one's neighbors.  Ms. Lindevalvdsen and the Liberty Counsel work to prevent equality for all American citizens, all of whom are children of God.  The messages of the Bible are far more socialistic than the Occupy movement.

Why is it people will look every place for a savior yet reject the One who came to save mankind from its sins? Perhaps it’s the same pride and arrogance that leads people to refuse to work, ask me to pay their debts, and squat on land not belonging to them.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution prevents me from being forced to worship your "savior".  The United States is a nation with a majority of Christians which is not the same thing as a Christian nation.  We are a nation that claims to ensure the rights of minorities.  It is pride and arrogance that has Ms. Lindevalvdsen mischaracterizing the Occupy movement's nature, goals, and aspirations.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up and to the Rachel Maddow blog for the link to the CBO.

Praise: Veterans and Geeks

Veterans Day in the United States, once known as Armistice Day and known elsewhere as Remembrance Day, originally celebrated the signing of the agreement to end the War to end all wars.  As we know, it failed to do so.  The Great War, ending at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, had to be renamed World War I when it had a successor far too soon after.

All of those who serve and who did serve should receive a simple thank you.  That is both deserved and appropriate.  We made the mistake of blaming the soldiers of the war in Viet Nam.  It is the leaders who deserve credit and blame for going to war.  Those who serve deserve thanks.

11-11-11 is auspicious because of the symmetry of the date.  A perfect palindrome is unusual.  Numerologists are having a field day.  The cities of Reno, Las Vegas, and Niagara Falls are expecting a lot of weddings, both planned and last minute.  Anyone marrying on this date who forgets their anniversary deserves to be in the dog house for a long time.

Some women are trying to give birth on 11-11-11.  Some psychics have some extreme predictions.  There are too many to link here, just go and play with Google or Bing if you are curious.

Math and computer geeks are having fun with the numbers themselves.  111111 can be a binary number, the equivalent of 63 in our usual decimal way of counting.  Mathematicians would point out that 111111 is a valid number in any regular base, not just base two.

111111 base 3 is the equivalent of 364 base 10

here are a couple more

111111 base 11 is the equivalent of 177,156 base 10

for the computer geeks

111111 base 16 is the equivalent of 1,118,481 base 10

and for the real math geeks

111111 base 111111 is the equivalent of 16,935,155,549,712,959,237,333,656 base 10

Try to get that answer with your calculator!

Happy Binary, Geeky, Veterans Day.

Repudiation: Liars and "Reparative Therapy"

This is a little complicated.  First, we need to start with a group called the International Healing Foundation (IHF) founded by Richard Cohen to counsel homosexuals and do "reparative therapy" to convert them to heterosexual.

Before going further, let's be clear that this does not work.  The American Psychiatric Association has taken a strong stand against reparative or conversion therapy because

Firstly, they are at odds with the scientific position of the American Psychiatric Association which has maintained, since 1973, that homosexuality per se, is not a mental disorder.  The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15).  In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18).

The earliest scientific criticisms of the early theories and religious beliefs informing "reparative" or conversion therapies came primarily from sexology researchers (19-27).  Later, criticisms emerged from psychoanalytic sources as well (28-39).  There has also been an increasing body of religious thought arguing against traditional, biblical interpretations that condemn homosexuality and which underlie religious types of "reparative" therapy (40-46).

Further, the American Psychiatric Association is concerned about potential harm from such therapies.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.  Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction.  The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Similar positions have been taken by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

In late October, IHF issued an "apology" to the LGBTQ community.  The wording is

IHF apologized to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) community for years of unknowingly fueling anti-gay sentiment by simply stating, “Change is Possible.”

“We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community,” said IHF founder and director, Richard Cohen. “I apologize and ask forgiveness to those who were hurt by our message.” Cohen, a leading expert in the field of sexual orientation and married father of three, knows first-hand how it feels to be ostracized having lived a gay life.

Perhaps I am missing something, but it looks like the apology is only for the wording of their message, not for the message itself.  The websites that IHF, either under its old name or its new, do not appear to be a real change.  The apology is offered at www.changeispossible.com which maintains the line for which the apology is offered.  Weird at best.

Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor, wrote a blog article giving me the heads up about the new face of IHF and expressing some additional opinions.  While Dr. Throckmorton is dubious, he seems to be giving Mr. Cohen some room for real change.

To be frank, I don't trust that Mr. Cohen has changed anything other than his marketing.  He has a long history of being part of the religious establishment that makes homosexuals doubt their self-worth as part of trying to get them into lucrative, for the "therapists", conversion programs.

Peter LaBarbera, head of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), a group recognized for its anti-gay propaganda by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has now asked Professor Throckmorton to apologize.  Let's break down his letter to the Professor.

I certainly don’t think Richard Cohen or anyone needs to apologize for stating the obvious truth that “Change [away from and rejecting homosexuality] is possible.” If we were to apologize for everything that “offends” hardened LGBT activists, we’d be apologizing 24/7.

What offends us are lies that you tell and perpetuate.  Stop lying and there is no need for apologies.  As indicated above, written by the American Psychiatric Association, that change, in the form of so-called therapies, can be harmful.  That's the problem and it must stop.  Apologies are in order.

The question is, when will YOU apologize for affirming homosexuality as an acceptable (or innocuous) identity — while claiming (falsely) to uphold biblical orthodoxy? When will YOU repent for working hand-in-hand with “gay” activists who are diametrically opposed to the Christian worldview on homosexuality as an overcomable sexual sin (and an abomination) — by actively discrediting the need AND potential for wholesome change away from same-sex behavior and indulging same-sex desires?

Homosexuality is acceptable because that is how God created a minority of the population.  One does not choose to be homosexual any more than one chooses to be heterosexual.  There is more than one way to interpret the Bible.  It is a shame that Mr. LaBarbera is so limited and bigoted.

You should either publicly apologize for undermining Scriptural (and observable) Truth — or renounce your claims to be faithful to historic Christian sexual teachings. This request is made more urgent by your employment with an evangelical institution, Grove City College, which purports to be “authentically Christian” — something few biblically-faithful observers of your recent flirtation with pro-”gay” advocacy would accuse you of being.

The scriptures say many things.  I doubt that Mr. LaBarbera follows all of the tenets of the Bible.  Some are impossible and most are disregarded by those who pick and choose which are most important to them.  Regarding "observable" truth, one only needs to look to nature to see that homosexuality is natural in hundreds of species.

I can document all the above statements concerning your conduct and “gay”-affirming advocacy, which has caused widespread consternation and confusion in Christian circles, and within the pro-family movement. You (or anyone) may publish this if you wish.

Mr. Cohen and Mr. LaBarbera are both liars about the nature of change of sexual behavior.  To put this in religious terms, they are bearing false witness (the 9th of the Ten Commandments).

Regarding Dr. Throckmorton's conduct and advocacy, given Mr. LaBarbera's focus on Christian teachings, may I suggest that Mr. LaBarbera read Matthew Chapter 7.

Repudiation: Pending Clear-Cutting of Redwoods for Vintners

When I first heard about two vintners seeking to put in more acreage for their wine grapes, I was not concerned because they were promising to do a great deal of tree planting and other eco-friendly measures.  As reported at Newser

Two large wineries in northern California are petitioning the state for the right to clear 2,000 acres of redwood trees. If the request is approved, it would be the largest woodland-to-vineyard conversion in California history, Sonoma County officials tell the Los Angeles Times. In exchange, the wineries promise to plant a million redwoods elsewhere, restore waterways, and donate 200 acres to a public park.

At first blush, this looks like a reasonable effort to balance commerce and the environment.  However, there are three more factors that need to be considered.

First, there is a social consideration for the Pomo Native American Indians.  The lands slated for clear-cutting includes a large heritage site, as reported by Friends of the Gualala River.

The zone in which the forest conversion is proposed by Artesa Winery (owned by the Spanish winery Codorniu, one of the largest corporate wineries in the world) was once densely populated by Pomo ancestors. We know this from early anthropological studies done by Barrett and Kroeber, both famous UC Berkeley anthropologists who studied the Pomo and other northern California Native Americans.

Second, there is immediate concern for the land.  As reported by the Sierra Club

Third, is the long term concern about loss of forest and its relation to climate change.  A study out this month, as reported by Oregon State University

“Ecosystems are always changing at the landscape level, but normally the rate of change is too slow for humans to notice,” said Steven Running, the University of Montana Regents Professor and a co-author of the study. “Now the rate of change is fast enough we can see it.”

The introduction to the study begins

Over the last three to four decades, forests throughout much of western North America
have been subjected to disturbance at a scale well beyond that previously recorded over the last century (Raffa et al., 2008). Although some disturbances may be attributed to fire suppression policies, which have resulted in fuel accumulation and denser stands prone to insect attack (Coops et al., 2009a), climate change is more likely the cause, based on recent surveys and analyses of natural mortality caused by drought (Allen et al., 2010), bark beetles (Raffa et al., 2008; Bentz et al., 2010), needle blight (Woods et al., 2005), Swiss needle cast (Manter et al., 2005), a reduction in protective snow cover (Beier et al., 2008 ) and an increased frequency and intensity of wildfires (Westerling et al., 2006). Recent changes in climate are well documented in the Pacific Northwest Region of North America and the rates are predicted to accelerate (Mote et al. 2003;Mote and Salathe, 2010).

This does not take into account forest loss due to clear cutting.  From the discussion section of the study

Because climatic warming trends are projected to continue under a range of greenhouse gas emission scenarios (IPCC, 2007), new equilibrium conditions may not soon occur (Thuiller 20 et al., 2008; Jackson et al., 2009). We would expect additional disturbance in those ecoregions
with substantial subalpine zones and well as those where drought is becoming more frequent and intense. The exception is those ecoregions within the maritime influence of the Pacific
Ocean, which seem well buffered against climatic alterations that would favor replacement of the current mix of native tree species (Coops & Waring, 2011).

Disrupting the old-growth redwoods of the region is likely to be a recipe for long-term disaster.

Thanks to ForceChange for the heads up.

Repudiation: Accusation of Fake New Tax Hurts Christmas Tree Farms

Several years ago, during the administration of President Bush (43), the National Christmas Tree Association decided that they should endeavor to promote themselves as the dairy industry does with the "Got Milk?" campaign.  The way the dairy campaign works is that milk producers chose to contribute three cents for each gallon of milk that they produced to jointly market their product.  One could call this a voluntary tax; it was certainly not imposed on any dairy farmer.

David Addington wrote a blog article on 8 November at the Heritage Foundation decided to blame President Obama for a new tax, which resulted in undermining the efforts of the National Christmas Tree Association and hurting farmers of Christmas trees in the long run.  Here are the lies of Mr. Addington and my responses to parts of his lies.

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

Nope.  There was not going to be a tax "imposed".  It was to be voluntary, like dairy producers.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board.  The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)).  And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).

That's right, a "Christmas Tree Promotion Board" like the Milk Processor Education Program. This was to be an effort supported by the Christmas tree farmers to help market Christmas trees.  What a radical notion.

To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52).  And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees.

Imposed is the wrong word.  It was what Christmas tree farmers requested.  Yes, that fifteen cents would probably have been passed on to consumers, despite what was said in a Fox News article today, The industry itself further rejected the claim that the fee would be passed onto consumers. The National Christmas Tree Association said in a statement that the program "is not expected to have any impact on the final price consumers pay for their Christmas tree." 

Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee “is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government” (76 CFR 69102).  The Federal government mandates that the Christmas tree sellers pay the 15-cents per tree, whether they want to or not.  The Federal government directs that the revenue generated by the 15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Christmas tree program established by the Secretary of Agriculture.  Mr. President, that’s a new 15-cent tax to pay for a Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

The Acting Administrator had the temerity to tell the truth!  Guess what?  The Christmas tree industry wanted to do this!  This was not a proposal of President Obama, who the Heritage Foundation would love to accuse of creating new taxes.  This was from the tree farmers.

Nobody is saying President Obama doesn’t have authority to impose his new Christmas Tree Tax — his Administration cites the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.  Just because the Obama Administration has the legal power to impose its Christmas Tree Tax doesn’t mean it should do so.

The Obama Administration was not going to impose anything.  Mr. Addington is lying.

The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs.  Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President Obama can do?

This is nonsensical.  President Obama is not trying to place a tax on anyone here.

And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government.

Please, Mr. Addington, explain that to the National Christmas Tree Association who felt that they did.  If you look at their blog entries, they are waging a quiet war against fake trees.  They want to do a better job of marketing their trees.

Following Mr. Addington's lies, Congressman Steve Scalise of Louisiana decided that he had to stop the imposition of this supposedly unwanted tax.

"It is shocking that President Obama tried to sneak through this new tax on Christmas trees. He might have thought nobody would realize what he did, but I will fight to prevent President Obama from becoming the Grinch who taxed Christmas,” Scalise said. "At a time when hard-working families are struggling in a tough economy, it is hard to believe that President Obama would single out Christmas as a time to break his promise that he would not raise taxes on middle class families. This new tax is a smack in the face to each and every American who celebrates Christmas, and may be the best example to date of President Obama's obsession with taxing and regulating hard-working American families.  A new tax on Christmas trees is something not even Dr. Seuss' Grinch could imagine, yet now it exists on the books in America unless we can reverse it quickly.  President Obama has pledged repeatedly not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000, but this multi-million dollar tax does just that - hitting hard-working middle class families squarely in their wallet at the peak of holiday season.  I'm calling on President Obama to stop acting like the Grinch and repeal this absurd tax."

Thank you, Mr. Addington and Mr. Scalise.  You have told lies that make each of you a real grinch for the Christmas tree industry.  Shameful lies that hurt business.

Thanks to Talking Point Memo for the heads up.

Praise: Third Way on Gay Marriage Commitment

Third Way, a centrist think tank, has written a study, Commitment: The Answer to the Middle's Questions on Marriage for Gay Couples.  They look at the facts from polling and have some interesting conclusions.

They note at the start that things are changing.

For the first time, national polls indicate that a majority of Americans now support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

They then proceed with a series of very important lessons.  (Boldface as in the original).

In this report, we unravel the mysteries of the middle and set out a series of lessons gleaned from our qualitative and quantitative research—all aimed at moving the middle from supporters to solid and sustained allies on the path to marriage. And the most important lesson is that advocating for marriage in terms of commitment, not rights, is paramount.

The first lesson is that moving to marriage equality is not a done deal.  Support is growing, but not solid enough to relax.  They break down the data from recent polling to get some interesting numbers.  The full report is only ten pages and worth reading. 

The second lesson is that people need to understand marriage as commitment, not rights.

Most Americans think that marriage is about commitment, obligation, and responsibility. That is why the solemnity of the ceremony and vows are so important—because they represent a one-of-a-kind promise of lifetime commitment and fidelity, made publicly in front of family and friends.

The second lesson concludes

The importance of lifetime commitment and fidelity to the middle’s idea of marriage cannot be overstated. It is the central way they view the tradition of marriage—a tradition which they see as very important in organizing their own lives and society at large.

The third lesson is that we need to explain why we want to wed.

For years, advocates have often focused on rights and benefits, not commitment, when talking about why gay couples want to marry. This mismatch may have exacerbated an existing disconnect in the minds of the middle, perpetuating the notion that gay couples want to marry for different reasons than other couples, or worse, implying that gay couples don’t truly understand what marriage is about.

In a sense, this is a catch-22.  How can one who is denied marriage explain that one understands that which is denied.  Back to the importance of commitment in the explanation.

The theme of commitment continues in the fourth lesson.  Commitment is the message that those in the middle need to hear.

The rights frame appeals to our base supporters, but at this point in the evolution of public opinion, we can already count on them. To move the middle, we must convince them that gay couples want to marry for similar reasons that other couples do—to make a public promise of love and commitment.

The fifth lesson is a little different, people are looking for excuses to do so before changing their minds.

The middle is looking for permission to change their minds about why gay couples marry.

From the beginning, our research showed that Americans are on a journey when it comes to acceptance of gay people, gay couples, and ultimately, marriage.
 
Using a third party testimonial to model that journey resonates with the middle and helps to further their own journey—especially when that journey speaks directly to why gay couples want to marry. Marriage supporters can use a messenger with whom the middle can identify to deliver the information that we know changes their minds: gay couples want to marry for commitment, not rights.

The sixth, and last, lesson is that religion is not a permanent blockage to marriage equality.

Another crucial reassurance marriage supporters must provide to the middle is the notion that allowing gay couples to marry is about making a commitment—not changing religious institutions.

Very religious voters are a long way from supporting marriage. However, for much of the middle faith is important, but it is not the only internal compass in their lives.

As a writer, I have been focusing on equality, civil rights, and human rights.  Third Way is proposing a different tack.  The full study is worth reading.  I did not quote any of the supporting data that they present, just looking at their approach.  Lots of useful data and more detailed conclusions.

Thanks to Care2 for the heads up.