Pedantic Political Ponderings

18 May 2012

Humor: The Atheist Pig on Religion and Same Sex Marriage

Oh my! Icky. One doesn't need to be an atheist (I'm not) to appreciate humor from The Atheist Pig.

17 May 2012

Praise: International Day Against Homophobia

I had not heard of the International Day Against Homophobia until seeing it this afternoon on Joe My God. This is the 10th year of it. About time I learned more.

Few minority groups have been as discriminated against as the gays and lesbians. But major breakthroughs have occurred, and homosexual people are stepping out of the shadows. From the outside, it could be construed that all problems have been solved. The media are sympathetic, public personalities come out, television shows feature lesbian and gay characters in scenes of everyday life. Nevertheless, the reality is quite different. Many individuals are unable to live their sexual orientation, encounter difficulties if they do, or end up role-playing to protect themselves.

Despite these dire situations, the implementation of the International Day Against Homophobia should not rest on a “victimization“ philosophy. In fact, the Day may be seen as a great opportunity to highlight positive aspects of homosexuality and celebrate the contribution of lesbians and gays to society.

Now I need to spend more time reading.

Praise: University of Washington on Gaydar

One of the arguments that is sometimes made against including LGBTQ people in hate crime legislation is that we are not really discriminated again. After all, unlike most who are Black, we can "pass". But, then again, maybe we cannot.

Back in January, there was a study out of Albright College that indicated that homosexuals may have less symmetrical facial features than heterosexuals. This week we are learning about a study out of the University of Washington that indicates that people's gaydar, the ability to discern whether someone is gay or straight, may be real particularly at discerning lesbians.

After seeing faces for less than a blink of an eye, college students have accuracy greater than mere chance in judging others’ sexual orientation. Their "gaydar" persisted even when they saw the photos upside-down, and gay versus straight judgments were more accurate for women’s faces than for men’s.

The findings, published May 16 in the open-access online journal PLoS ONE, suggest that we unconsciously make gay and straight distinctions.

From the discussion section of the full paper:

[I]t would appear that minority sexual orientation is not the concealed stigma that many argue it is. Indeed, the need to protect gay people from discrimination would seem increasingly urgent to the extent that minority sexual orientation is tacitly inferred from aspects of personal appearance that are routinely available for inspection (e.g., faces).

Discrimination is real and we now know a little more about how that occurs. We also know that heterosexuals may be discriminated against because of false impressions that they are homosexual. Important for all in society to consciously endeavor to avoid discriminating against the LGBTQ Community.

Praise: Minnesotans United for All Families campaign

The endeavor to write discrimination into the Minnesota Constitution might go the same way as it did with the North Carolina Constitution. This ad makes the same argument that was made to give those eighteen years old the right to vote. Corporal Andrew Wilfahrt was not the first LGBTQ to serve in Afghanistan and he was not the first to die for his country. He died a second class citizen. Thank you Representative Kriesel for your words of support.

Here are links for the Minnesotans United for All Families:
www.mnunited.org
www.facebook.com/mn4allfamilies
www.twitter.com/mn4allfamilies
www.pinterest.com/mn4allfamilies

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

15 May 2012

Praise: James Clyburn on Marriage Equality

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Representative Clyburn of South Carolina, number three in the minority leadership, is spot on regarding marriage equality. On the other hand, I suspect that national equality will only be possible through the courts, similar to what happened with interracial marriage as resolved by the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia.

The legislative route is easier if there is a Democratic Congress. If we can simply see the overturning of DOMA, then marriages between people of the same gender may still not be possible in forty-four states, but those states would have to recognize marriages performed in the six states where marriage equality is the law (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) as well as the District of Columbia. Without DOMA, that recognition of marriages would be required by Article IV, Section One of the United States Constitution.

Either way, thank you to Leader Clyburn. Well said.

Praise: 2012 Living Planet Report

The World Wildlife Fund has been working for half a century to keep our planet healthy for us. I last mentioned them regarding Earth Hour. Their 2012 Living Planet Report is disheartening, but important information. The summation of chapter one says a lot:

2012 Living Planet Report, page 12.

The ongoing loss of biodiversity is frightening. We don't know how much more loss can be sustained without a collapse to the system ... a collapse that could include our species. As we continue to grow our population far beyond the numbers where we don't harm our environment, something is going to give. Some of that is seen in loss of species and diminished fresh water supplies.

The report is not all doom and gloom. Chapter four includes sixteen points for sustaining our world.

Significantly expand the global protected areas network
• Protect 20 per cent of representative land, freshwater and
marine areas, including areas key for ecological processes
necessary for biodiversity, food, water and energy security,
and climate change resilience and adaptation.
• Implement adequate funding mechanisms for effective
protected area management.
Halt loss of priority habitats
• Achieve Zero Net Deforestation and Degradation by 2020 and
maintain thereafter.
• Halt fragmentation of freshwater systems.
• Increase the area of effectively managed marine protected areas
from 5 per cent to at least 20 per cent.
Restore damaged ecosystems and ecosystem services
• Prioritize restoration of ecosystems and ecosystem services
necessary for food, water and energy security, and climate
change resilience and adaptation.
Significantly reduce inputs and waste in production systems
• Increase total food supply-chain efficiency.
• Maximize energy, water and material efficiency.
• Maximize recycling and recovery.
• Minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
Manage resources sustainably
• Eliminate overfishing by commercial fleets, including the
indiscriminate capture of non-target organisms.
• Eliminate water over-abstraction.
• Implement policies to secure water quality.
• Minimize further habitat conversion through maximizing
the sustainable use of productive land by improving
genetic selection, adopting best practices, increasing
efficiency, improving soil organic matter and rehabilitating
degraded lands.
Scale-up renewable energy production
• Increase the proportion of sustainable renewable energies in
the global energy mix to at least 40 per cent by 2030 and 100
per cent by 2050.
• Increase the share of renewable energy in the overall energy
mix, along with ambitious energy demand management,
especially in sectors with limited renewable options that are
likely to be dependent on bioenergy. (Aviation, shipping and
high heat industrial applications are likely to be among these.)
Change energy consumption patterns
• Decrease energy demand by 15 per cent by 2050 compared
to 2005.
• Increase the proportion of electricity produced using
renewable energy to cover all global energy needs by 2050.
• Provide sustainable energy to everyone in “off-grid” areas.
Promote healthy consumption patterns
• Balance protein intake per capita as recommended by the
World Health Organization (WHO).
• Minimize retailer and consumer food waste in high- and
middle-income countries.
Achieve low-footprint lifestyles
• Minimize resource consumption and waste by high income
individuals.
• Maximize market share of certified sustainable products.
• Transition urban areas to “smart” cities with low-footprint
solutions for meeting urban housing, food, water, energy, and
mobility needs.
Value nature
• Implement an inclusive and globally accepted system
for measuring the economic and non-economic value of
natural capital.
• Fully integrate this value into mainstream economic
development policy and decision-making.
Account for environmental and social costs
• Integrate social and environmental costs of production and
consumption over long timeframes into standard national
and corporate accounting and reporting methodologies.
• Ensure that social and environmental costs are reflected in
the market price of all commodities and products, and in
environmental impact assessments.
Support and reward conservation, sustainable resource management and innovation
• Eliminate all subsidies that undermine sustainable resource
use and conservation, particularly those underpinning fossil
fuel use and unsustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
• Develop/implement new financial mechanisms that redirect
public and private investment to support sustainable practices
and new technologies for sustainability, and provide new
additional financing for conservation and restoration of
natural capital.
• Improve policy for increased investments and large-scale
deployment of innovations and new technologies that
can enable sustainable development in both public and
private spheres.
Share available resources
• Implement natural resource governance built on inclusive
processes and broad participation by communities dependent
on natural resources.
• Minimize the footprint of high-income populations and urban
areas (see “Consume more wisely”).
• Promote the transition toward sustainable, resource-efficient
cities and reduce the direct impact of cities on water and land
by limiting urban sprawl, promoting urban agriculture and
sustainable waste (water) management.
Make fair and ecologically informed choices
• Implement policies and tools for analysing, resolving and
managing competing land use and water use claims.
Measure success “beyond GDP”
• Include social and environmental indices in national indicators
to measure and reward success.
• Implement economic policies with targets and indicators to
monitor the impact of economic governance on natural capital
and human well-being.
Sustainable population
• Explicitly integrate population dynamics (size, growth
rate, composition, location and migration) and per capita
consumption trends into national planning policies to support a
better balance between population and available resources.
• Ensure universal access to gender-sensitive reproductive health
services and information, reduce child mortality and support
the empowerment of women and young girls through greater
access to higher education and employment opportunities.

Most of this is common sense. A few points are political triggers (#13 smacks of socialism, #15 smacks of anti-capitalism, and #16 will grate against religious fundamentalists who think that there are not enough humans ever). Still more is based on science that some will be eager to deny. Nonetheless, this report needs to be taken seriously. We don't have a control group for the experiment we are running with our ecosystem.

14 May 2012

Praise: Audra McDonald on Obama and Marriage Equality

While the hyperbole of "superhero" is at first hear a bit extreme, Ms. McDonald may be entirely accurate. If President Obama's words stop a teen in North Carolina from committing suicide, he is a superhero. Saving a life is what heroes do. Thank you, Ms. McDonald. Your prescience may also be saving lives.

Thank you, Freedom to Marry, for sharing this video.

14 May 2012: Marriage News Watch

13 May 2012

Praise: Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison take on Big Oil

From Senator Sanders' website:

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Keith Ellison on Thursday introduced legislation to end billions of dollars in oil, coal and gas subsidies. "We are here today not just to announce new legislation, but to send a message that it is time to end the absurdity of taxpayers providing massive subsidies to hugely profitable fossil fuel corporations," Sanders told a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol. "In these difficult economic times, it is imperative that we support the taxpayers of this country and not the fossil fuel industry - one of the most powerful special interests in the world," he added.

Joining Sanders at a news conference, Ellison noted that big oil companies make more than $300 million every day. "Why should Americans prop up these companies with tax dollars and have to pay ridiculous fuel prices?" he asked. "We need to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon that keeps us dependent on oil and contributes to climate change. The $113 billion in taxpayer handouts that oil, gas, and coal companies receive should be used to invest in green jobs. It's time for this corporate welfare to end."

The measure would do away with tax breaks, financial assistance, royalty relief, direct federal research and development and many loopholes that benefit the fossil fuel industry. Under current law, more than $113 billion in federal subsidies would go to oil, coal and gas industries in the coming decade.

Doing a little quick research online, I found the following: The net profit for the first quarter of 2012 for Chevron was 6.471 Billion Dollars. The net profit for the first quarter of 2012 for Exxon Mobil was 9.45 Billion Dollars. This was not the gross profit, it was net.

I did not find the quarterly report for BP, but for the full year of 2011 the net profit for BP was 26.097 Billion Dollars. Again, this is net not gross. In all three cases it is billion with a B.

I do not object to companies making money. If they can make a lot of money, that's good too. But, subsidizing their profit is where I have a problem. They should be taxed like small companies are.

Speaker Boehner and the House GOP are sure to block this legislation. But it is good that Senator Sanders of Vermont and Representative Ellison of Minnesota are offering the legislation. Better would be seeing it pass.

FollowUp 30: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

For over a year the Democratic Party of Wisconsin has been saying that Governor Scott Walker was lying about his goal to destroy unions. Here's the letter that they released on Friday.

To: Interested Reporters
Date: Friday, May 11, 2012
From: Melissa Baldauff, WisDems Research Director
Re: Memo to Reporters: Divide and Conquer: Scott Walker’s Agenda Revealed

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is out with a breaking video, obtained by a documentary filmmaker in January 2011, which shows Scott Walker’s “bomb” was just the beginning of his “Right-to-Work-For-Less” agenda.

In the damning video, Walker talks about his plan to employ a secret "divide and conquer" strategy against unions, despite publicly stating that he would not push so-called “right-to-work” legislation.

Even more damaging for what remains of Scott Walker’s credibility with Wisconsinites, his confession came in response to a request from Diane Hendricks, a billionaire Koch Brothers strategist with a long history of supporting "right-to-work-for-less" legislation and financing ultra-conservative Wisconsin Republicans, who is Walker’s top campaign donor with $510,000 in contributions.

Scott Walker tells his corporate benefactor, “The first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer.”

The bargaining bill, Walker said, would “open the door” for “Right-to-Work-For-Less” legislation.

This video exchange, like Scott Walker’s call with whom he believed to be David Koch, highlights Scott Walker’s propensity for saying one thing in public and doing another in private. Walker’s call with the phony Koch brother revealed that after he dropped “the bomb” on Wisconsin with his elimination of collective bargaining for public employees, he even considered inciting acts of violence in a peaceful crowd, all to divide the people and advance his special interest agenda.

Despite pursuing “Right-to-Work-For-Less” legislation while serving in the state legislature, and his history of opposing prevailing wage laws, Walker has repeatedly denied in public his present intent to turn Wisconsin into a low-wage, low-benefit state.

Speaking to Wisconsin Public Radio in April 2012, Walker said, "I have no interest in a Right to Work law in the state. We're not going to pursue that in the remainder of our term and we're not going to pursue it in the future." [“Walker denies wanting to make Wisconsin a right to work state,” Wisconsin Public Radio, April 26, 2012]

As reported in February 2012, by The Atlantic, "In our case, we've opted to address [unions] on the public sector level," Walker said. "You look at private sector unions by and large have been our partner in economic development. They haven't been an obstacle to that. So that's not anything we're pursuing." I asked if that meant he would oppose a right-to-work law for Wisconsin. "Not oppose it, it's just not something we're pursuing right now," he said. "When I was in the legislature, I supported it. It's not something I'm pursuing right now, nor have any plan of pursuing. Again, private-sector unions have been our partner in the economic revival we've had in this state. A bigger issue is the impact the public-sector unions have had on the taxpayers. And that's essentially what we have in Wisconsin -- right-to-work in the public sector." [“Wisconsin, One Year Later,” The Atlantic, February 24, 2012]

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in January 2012, “Cullen Werwie, Walker's spokesman, said the governor would not be introducing any right-to-work legislation in Wisconsin.” [“Walker won’t push right-to-work legislation,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 25, 2012]

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in March 2011, “The bill does not apply to unions in the private sector. Walker called those unions partners in improving the state's economy and indicated he was not seeking "right-to-work" legislation that would let private-sector employees opt not to join unions and pay dues. Asked Friday if that meant he would veto such legislation, he said no, without elaborating.” [“Walker signs budget bill, legal challenges mount - Democrats immediately file suit to halt changes,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 11, 2011]

As reported by the Sawyer County Record in February 2011, “Gov. Walker was asked specifically about charges by some labor leaders that he wants to turn Wisconsin into a right to work state, where no one could be required to join a union as a condition of employment. When asked by a reporter if the ultimate goal is to turn Wisconsin into a right to work state, Walker said it wasn’t.” [“Wausau labor leaders believe governor is targeting all labor unions,” Sawyer County Record, February 18, 2011]

Wisconsin is upset because of Governor Walker's bait and switch tactics. Wisconsin is upset because Governor Walker is undermining protections for middle class laborers across the state. Wisconsin is upset because Governor Walker is giving the impression, if not the reality, that those who support him will get special deals (as was the case with several unions). Wisconsin is upset because Governor Walker is limiting aid to women and to poor families. Wisconsin is upset. Governor Walker is shown to be a liar.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
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.

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.

12 May 2012

Praise: Steny Hoyer on Marriage Equality

Following the endorsements of marriage equality by Vice President Joe Biden and then President Barack Obama, there have been quite a few people making statements for and against equality. The Minority Whip of the House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, is the latest to call for equality.

WASHINGTON, DC – House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today after President Obama’s comments yesterday in support of marriage equality:

“One of the first votes I cast as a member of the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was to repeal the anti-miscegenation statute that remained Maryland law. It was a legacy of a discriminatory history of prejudice and segregation. It was my feeling then and now that individuals have a right to choose their partners, and society must accord them that freedom.

“We now confront a variation of that miscegenation issue, and that has been what to call the relationship between two people of the same gender. The word ‘marriage’ has held a specific meaning for centuries as the union between a man and a woman. But it has also meant, in a broader sense, a commitment of one person to another, recognized by each of them and by society.

“I have believed that the phrase ‘civil union’ was an appropriate definition of a relationship that is both different and the same between two people of the same sex. And I have believed strongly that such couples must be treated equally under the law.

“Because I believe that equal treatment is a central tenet of our nation, I believe that extending the definition of marriage to committed relationships between two people, irrespective of their sex, is the right thing to do and will not, in any way, undermine the institution of marriage so important to our society nor impose a threat to any individual marriage. It will, however, extend the respect due to every one of our fellow citizens that we would want for ourselves and our children.”

###

Well said. Thank you Mr. Hoyer.

10 May 2012

FollowUp 29: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

So, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker now has a clear target, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who won Tuesday's primary. And the distortions and lies are ramping up. There are six claims made in this new ad, with varying amounts of accuracy.

"Walker has focused on creating jobs"

Not exactly. As a new Governor, Mr. Walker called a special session of the Wisconsin legislature in January of 2011 to focus on tax breaks for the wealthiest people in Wisconsin. These tax breaks also went to businesses, which may be where Mr. Walker is claiming he focused on creating jobs, but it didn't work. The new tax breaks resulted in a budget deficit which he later claimed to have inherited.

"and balanced the budget without raising taxes"

Well, it is true that he didn't raise taxes. Instead he cut programs and eliminated collective bargaining for public sector employees who had not supported him in his 2010 election. The budget which had been brought into balance by former Governor Jim Doyle was now out of balance.

"Scott Walker eliminated Wisconsin's deficit."

No. Mr. Walker created that deficit.

"Under the Barrett administration, Milwaukee ranked 4th worst in the nation in poverty"

This is true.

"3rd worst in employment"

Also true, but let's put this into some perspective. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explored the issue of unemployment in Milwaukee and in the state of Wisconsin. Perhaps a graphic from them will help.

The truth is that the Great Recession, becoming evident at the end of the Bush years, clobbered everyone. The City of Milwaukee, as Wisconsin's largest urban center, naturally got hit hard. That hit to Milwaukee was proportional to the hit to the State of Wisconsin and the rest of the United States. Neither Mayor Barrett nor Governor Walker are responsible for the Great Recession.

"and property taxes skyrocketed."

As Governor Walker cut back on services, Mayor Barrett attempted to keep up. Local taxes are the only response to the state pulling back resources or things would have been worse still.

These arguments are distortions and distractions. Governor Walker would not be facing a recall election next month if he really had focused on creating jobs. Instead, he focused on destroying unions, undermining social programs, and removing access to women's health care. That is why he is facing a redo of the November 2010 election less than two years later.

Mayor Barrett has a somewhat mixed record, as was discussed clearly by his biggest primary opponent, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk. That record is nowhere near the disaster described by Mr. Walker. But Mr. Barrett has not been a disaster as Governor of Wisconsin as Mr. Walker has. If the Democrats of Wisconsin are wise, they will focus on Scott Walker's real record. In a sense, the June election is placing Mr. Walker on trial. No matter how wonderful or less than wonderful Mr. Barrett, it is Mr. Walker who lied to Wisconsin about his stand on unions and undermined decades of fairness in Wisconsin.

I was going to close the discussion here, but just received a link to Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, a candidate to replaced the retiring Herb Kohl for the United States Senate this November, on MSNBC with Chuck Todd this morning. Her discussion goes far beyond just the gubernatorial race but is germane. The discussion of the recall begins at the 5:50 mark.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Late evening update: Channel 3000 reports that a series of reports at WISC-TV finds the Walker ad misleading. They go through a number of the details, including that Mr. Walker was Milwaukee County Executive for seven of the eight years that Mr. Barrett was Mayor of the City of Milwaukee, which does imply some degree of joint responsibility for the problems in Milwaukee. Read their short article, please, for yourself.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
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.

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.

10 May 2012: Marriage News Watch, 2012's Biggest Marriage Milestones So Far

09 May 2012

Praise: Evolution of Barack Obama on Marriage Equality

I can't get an embed code, so here is the ABC/Yahoo link.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Update: Thanks to Think Progress for an embeddable link.

08 May 2012

Praise: Tom Casady and Ben Gray of Nebraska on LGBTQ Legislation

Mr. Casady, who served seven years as the Chief of Police, is now Safety Director of Lincoln, Nebraska. He is the first two and a half of testimony and another two minutes is question and answer.

The rest of the seventeen minute video is Mr. Gray, a city councilman of Omaha, Nebraska. He is largely responsible for the similar legislation in Omaha. Mr. Gray's testimony begins at 4:17 and runs for about five minutes with the rest of the clip being question and answer.

This discussion of why the LGBTQ Community should have legal protection from harassment is something that I wish could be heard by those who continually claim that they are "protecting the family". This was an important part of more than seven hours of a public hearing yesterday in Lincoln.

Part of the discussion involves a decision made a few days ago by the Attorney General of Nebraska, Jon Bruning, that local municipalities "are not authorized to expand protected classes beyond the scope of the civil rights provided for in state statute." The question was asked by Nebraska State Senator Beau McCoy, the author of LB 912, a bill that failed in committee, that would have prohibited local communities from creating hate crime laws.

Brilliant and well thought out answers by both Director Casady and Councilman Gray. Many thanks to Aksarbent for making this available.

07 May 2012

7 May 2012: Marriage News Watch

06 May 2012

FollowUp 28: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

A letter from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker:

Dear Conservative,

Obviously, he doesn't know to whom he is writing.

As the duly elected Governor of Wisconsin I have been steadfast in my beliefs that limited government and fiscal responsibility should be the cornerstone of putting my state back on the road to prosperity.

Mr. Walker was "duly elected" and he may really believe that he has been working toward "limited government and fiscal responsibility". His actions indicate otherwise.

I am facing a recall by the big-government public employee unions and their minions who are threatened by the voters actually being in charge of where their tax dollars are being spent.

If "their minions" includes over half of the state who dislike being lied to, having their rights limited, and being on the losing end of the GOP "war on women", then this is still wrong because those minions are the voters.

In November of 2010, the majority of Wisconsin voters resoundingly said enough-is-enough to the status quo and put me in charge of a state that had been beholden to big government special interests with a tax-and-spend mentality that created a $3.6 billion deficit.

No. Former Governor Jim Doyle did not leave office with a huge debt. The debt was caused by huge tax breaks that happened under Governor Walker. I covered a few of the details in FollowUp 13 and FollowUp 25.

In less than a year we were able to eliminate this deficit and provide the freedom of choice for public employees . Our reforms are allowing them to decide if they would like to spend more than a thousand dollars a year in union dues or keep their money. We put a stop to the unions’ railroading of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

See my links, just above, to look at the redistribution of wealth in Wisconsin under Governor Walker. Unions were not "railroading" tax dollars. That is absurd. I covered a great deal of what really happened, including the courts overturning part of Mr. Walker's attacks on unions, in FollowUp 19.

What we need now is your help in telling the unions we do not want another tax-and-spend liberal at the reins of power in Wisconsin. You can do this by contributing $20, $50, $100, or whatever you can afford by clicking here .

Sorry, I have disabled that link. Mr. Walker seems to be getting plenty of money from out of state without my helping him.

I have been a man of my word to the voters of this state and have always led by putting the interests of Wisconsin taxpayers first.

No. Mr. Walker is a liar. He has put corporations first, not taxpayers.

Since taking office, I have eliminated a bureaucratic and bloated budget mess left by the previous administration without raising taxes or laying off state workers . Thousands of Wisconsinites are back on the job, and statewide property taxes have decreased for the first time in years. Stand with me today with a generous contribution of $20, $50, $100, or whatever you can afford .

Really? Let's see how unemployment looks when compared with neighboring states.

Graphic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

It looks like Wisconsin is doing slightly better than Illinois and Michigan and not as well as Iowa and Minnesota. Wisconsin is not doing horribly, but Mr. Walker's brag seems a bit shallow.

The people of Wisconsin deserve to see the bold and courageous choices I have made come to fruition. It is time to stop these out-of-state special interests in their tracks and let them know that our conservative values will not be taken lightly .

The choices made by Mr. Walker were certainly bold. In fact, they had little to do with his campaign promises. The out of state special interests are favoring Mr. Walker, not opposing him. He has the biggest money. Two days ago, Time Magazine did a story on Mr. Walker's fundraising windfall. "Since mid-January, Walker’s campaign has raked in more than $13 million, according to financial disclosure statements released this week. During that time, two-thirds of his cash came from outside the Badger State."

With your help, I will be the first Governor of Wisconsin elected twice in my first term.

Thank you for your support,

Scott Walker
Governor

Too many lies. It is my hope that Wisconsin's Democrats come together after the primary on Tuesday and turn out their voters in June.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
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.

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: Vice President Biden on Marriage Equality

This is the first time that I have heard Joe Biden in full support of marriage equality. His explanation on this morning's Meet the Press makes sense. Thank you, Mr. Vice President!

6 May 2012, Afternoon Update: Apparently there has been backtracking by the White House and by Mr. Biden. My guess is that the Vice President spoke what he really thinks on Meet the Press and is now modifying that statement so that it is more politically expedient for November's ballot. Not really surprising.

05 May 2012

Praise: The Royal Society on Population

Late last month the Royal Society, a British and Commonwealth organization of scientists and engineers, published the People and the Planet Report.

This very careful report comes to some conclusions that environmental groups have shied away from for far too long. The report has the following Key Recommendations.

The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.
The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.
Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.
Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.

These recommendations are common sense if one has not been involved in politics, either within the environmental movement or government. The politics of "population control" is a bit complicated and, sadly, was embraced by racists as well as scientists. As an example, the Sierra Club members voted in 1998 against consideration of immigration as part of population control and a squabble over control of the board of directors in 2004, which ended up steering that core environmental group away from consideration of population impact on our environment. They were arguing over a single precondition to the causal end of the problem and ended up running from that larger cause to address symptoms.

The problem is that our population has continued growing despite human politics (and sometimes because of political decisions) and our population has a huge impact on our environment. Yes, human migration affects our population growth in addition to affecting locations of population, but the degree of affect of migration is not sufficient to address our planet's burgeoning population. The new report from the Royal Society does so.

One thing that gives this report some additional credibility is that it was not written in isolation. Among the authors are biologists, climatologists, ecologists, economists, environmentalists, ethologists, sociologists, theologists, and zoologists. There are professors and scientsts from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Regarding the Sierra Club controversy, the report addresses migration in a way that makes sense from all of the included fields; from the Summary on page 7:

Population is not only about the growing numbers of people: changes in age structure, migration, urbanisation and population decline present both opportunities and challenges to human health, wellbeing and the environment. Migrants often provide benefits to their countries of origin, through remittances, and to their host countries by helping to offset a workforce gap in ageing populations. Current and future migration will be affected by environmental change, although lack of resources may mean that the most vulnerable to these changes are the least able to migrate. Policy makers should prepare for international migration and its consequences, for integration of migrants and for protection of their human rights.

Here are the nine Recommendations, as summarized on page 9 (all highlighting as in the original).

Recommendation 1
The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.

Recommendation 2
The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.

Recommendation 3
Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.

Recommendation 4
Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.

Recommendation 5
Governments should realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants.

Recommendation 6
In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world’s young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys.

Recommendation 7
Natural and social scientists need to increase their research efforts on the interactions between consumption, demographic change and environmental impact. They have a unique and vital role in developing a fuller picture of the problems, the uncertainties found in all such analyses, the efficacy of potential solutions, and providing an open, trusted source of information for policy makers and the public.

Recommendation 8
National Governments should accelerate the development of comprehensive wealth measures. This should include reforms to the system of national accounts, and improvement in natural asset accounting.

Recommendation 9
Collaboration between National Governments is needed to develop socio-economic systems and institutions that are not dependent on continued material consumption growth. This will inform the development and implementation of policies that allow both people and the planet to flourish.

The report sees and addresses "two critical issues" (page 11), increasing human population and increasing per capita consumption. Again, the impact of each on our environment should be obvious. The combined impact is disastrous. We need to move beyond debates over racism and over Rev. Malthus and focus on the science of what we are doing to our world.

For example, historically (at least since the writings of Rev. Mathus) we have been concerned with having sufficient food to sustain our growing population. As it turns out, food has not been an insurmountable problem (the report does address food in Chapter 3 starting on page 52), although the politics of food distribution has resulted in large numbers of people suffering and starving. Water, however, particularly fresh water, is a problem that we are going to face as our population continues to grow. From page 49,

Over the last few centuries global aggregate water use has grown exponentially (MA 2005a) and has been closely linked to economic development and population growth. A fifteen-fold increase in global water withdrawals occurred between 1800 and 1980 (Lvovich and White 1990) when population increased by a factor of four (Haub 1994): a 3.5 fold increase in average per capita consumption. Since 1980 per capita water use rate has dropped a little from 700 to 600 cubic meters per year although the aggregate global withdrawal continues to increase (Shiklomanov and Rodda 2003). Between 1960 and 2000 world water use doubled from about 1800 to 3600 km3 per year (MA 2005a). Water use is dominated by agriculture (roughly 70% of withdrawals are for agricultural use (FAO 2010b), followed by industrial (19%) and then municipal (including domestic) applications (11%).

A child born in the developed world consumes 30 to 50 times as much water as one born in the developing world (UNESCO 2003). In 2008 it was estimated that 884 million people were still without access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion were without access to basic sanitation (WHO and UNESCO 2006) exposing them to preventable infectious diseases. The fresh water requirements for meeting basic human needs gives a total demand of 50 litres per day, which equals 18 m3 per capita per year (Gleick 1996). This is based on a minimum drinking water requirement, basic requirements for sanitation, bathing and food preparation (Gleick 1996).

The world’s natural water resources are distributed unevenly around the world. Among inhabited areas, at the continental level America has the largest share of the world’s total freshwater resources with 45%, followed by Asia with 28%, Europe with 15.5% and Africa with 9% (FAO 2003). Central Asia has just 0.6% of the world’s total freshwater resources. There is therefore wide variability in the total renewable freshwater resources available between countries; for example Kuwait has 10m3 per inhabitant while Canada has more than 100,000m3 per inhabitant (FAO 2003).

Even where the phrase "renewable freshwater resources" is used, it should be kept in mind that our aquifers require time to generate fresh water. In many cases we are depleting our aquifers faster than they can recharge. We are polluting our groundwater. The number of superfund sites in the United States is appalling.

There is an explanation of some of the debates over population and consumption on page 60.

The sustainable development debate has, over recent years, been typified by those who argue that population growth is the source of current unsustainable trends, and those who believe that consumption is the primary culprit. This artificial distinction is unhelpful as it can lead to argument over whether policy should focus on reducing population growth or on improving the sustainability of consumption, while both are clearly important.

Continuing on page 62.

Consumption and demography are closely inter-twined. Every person must consume, and each additional person on the planet will add to total consumption levels. Other than population size, demographic factors such as ageing or urbanisation can also influence consumption levels. Policies should not treat population and consumption as separate issues.

The nature of our closed ecosphere is discussed quite well in chapter 4, including a discussion of how finite our resources are in section 4.5. This should be required reading for students. The politics of healthcare, currently a huge issue in the United States, is part of the discussion in 5.4. Family planning is crucial to getting human population under control. A bit from chapter 6, page 101:

[H]uman impact on the earth raises serious concerns. This report has explored the interactions between population, consumption and the environment. Humans are consuming resources and producing waste at an unprecedented rate. Population and consumption are both important: what matters is the combination of increasing population and increasing per capita consumption. Both global population and global consumption continue to rise and signs of unwanted impacts, interactions and feedback are growing – for example climate change reducing crop yields in some areas – and of irreversible changes – for example the increased rate of species extinction.

If you can make the time, read the Report on People and the Planet. This is extremely important.

03 May 2012

Praise: EEOC on Transgender Discrimination

Around 20 April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued a decision stating that discrimination based on transgender status or gender identity constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII. The decision allows transgendered individuals to file workplace discrimination charges with the EEOC.

Joanna Grossman provides an excellent analysis at Justia. In part, she wrote

In a recent adjudication, the EEOC concluded that discrimination against a transgendered individual is sex discrimination. To many readers, this conclusion may seem obvious, but in fact, most courts that have considered the anti-discrimination rights of transgendered employees have taken a narrower approach.

Under that narrower approach, transgender discrimination is only actionable if the employer acted on sex stereotypes to punish gender non-conformity. But the EEOC takes the position that any sort of transgender discrimination is sex discrimination, because it inherently involves taking gender—and therefore sex—into account. This is true even if the employer takes an action that simply reflects animus against transgender individuals or a desire to exclude them from the workplace, rather than a concern, specifically, about gender non-conformity.

In her article, Ms. Grossman gives a good description of the case.

The case that led the EEOC to reach its result is that of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who worked as a police detective in Phoenix. In 2010, she relocated to San Francisco and began seeking employment. At the time of the move, Mia was still presenting as a man, but had plans to transition to a female identity. Her supervisor in Phoenix told her that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had an opening for a ballistics expert in a crime laboratory near San Francisco, for which she was well-qualified.

Macy spoke with the Director in that office by telephone around January 2011 about her credentials for the position, as well as the position’s salary and benefits. According to Macy, the Director told Macy that she would get the position so long as no problems were identified in her background check, and that the position would be filled via a staffing firm, Aspen of DC. After that initial conversation, there were a variety of back-and-forths among Macy, the Director, and Aspen, during which time her background check was underway.

On March 29, 2011, Macy informed Aspen via e-mail that she was in the process of transitioning from male to female and asked Aspen to share this information with the Director. On April 3, Aspen informed Macy that the information about her gender transition had been passed along to the Director. Five days later, Macy received an e-mail from the staffing firm stating that, due to federal budget reductions, the position in the ATF lab was no longer available.

On May 10, 2011, Macy contacted an EEO counselor within the federal government to discuss her concerns. The counselor revealed that, in fact, the lab had not cut the position, but instead had filled it with someone else.

On June 13, 2011, Macy filed a formal discrimination complaint with the federal agency at issue, ATF. On a preprinted form, she checked off “sex” and “female,” and typed in “gender identity” and “sex stereotyping” as the basis for the complaint. In a narrative portion of the form, she wrote that she was not hired on the basis of “my sex, gender identity (transgender woman) and on the basis of sex stereotyping.”

So this discrimination is complicated with lies and an apparent attempt to bury the discrimination in time and paperwork. Not a big surprise, but still disappointing in the twenty-first century. Also not a surprise is backlash from the usual bigots. Fox News quotes one notorious hater.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said the EEOC's decision is misinterpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

"Those who are discriminated against because they are transgender are not discriminated because they are male or female, it is because they are pretending to be the opposite of what they really are, which is quite a different matter," he said.

Mr. Sprigg is, no surprise at all, wrong when he characterizes those who are transgender as "pretending to be the opposite of what they really are." To understand what transgender people are, let's look at the glossary of the 2011 edition of Transgender Standards of Care.

Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth (Bockting, 1999).

There is nothing about pretending in this description. One's identity is not what one pretends to be but who one intrinsically is. If the discussion was of actors, then Mr. Sprigg would have a valid point. It is not.

And we also have a response from prolific liar Eugene Delgaudio, via e-mail.

A major plank in the Gay Bill of Special Rights has just been enacted by Federal bureaucratic decree!

That’s right -- the Homosexual Lobby has found a way around the Constitution and the U.S. Congress to give special employments privileges to transsexuals.

Just a few days ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided to redefine the rules already on the books to make it nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person.

Of course there is no "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and there are no "special employments privileges to transsexuals" and it is not "nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person."

In particular, someone who is transgender (what Mr. Delgaudio calls transsexual) can be fired for cause. Being transgender is not cause.

The EEOC has taken an important step. While no one is ever guaranteed employment, who one is should not be a deciding factor. On the home page for the EEOC, the categories for discrimination are:

Discrimination by Type

Still missing is protection by the EEOC from discrimination because of sexual orientation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do.

Organizations like Mr. Sprigg's Family Research Council and Mr. Delgaudio's Public Advocate are working on the federal, state, and local levels against laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is important that we raise all American citizens to first class status by barring such discrimination.

Various Direct Links