Prop8TrialTracker Day 2 Summary of Perry v. Schwartzenegger

[UPDATE August 4, 2010:  Here's a post on the decision of Judge Walker today]

Here's Day 2 coverage of the Perry v. Schwartzenegger at Prop8TrialTracker.  This is a pro gay marriage site.  If you know of an anti-gay marriage site that is live blogging the trial, let me know.  It would be interesting to hear that take too.

Here's part of the summary.  I've taken a pretty big chunk, but they've been asking people to pass it on, so I don't think they'll mind.  The details as the trial was going can be found on this Day 2 page. (Well, this gets to the website.  If you do it tonight you'll get Day 2.  I suspect if you do it tomorrow, you'll get tomorrow's coverage. 

Wrapping Up Day 2

By Rick Jacobs
Well, that’s it for day two. The pattern looks pretty clear. Our side is saying that gays and lesbians have been harmed for a really long time, that there has been institutional discrimination, that they are a suspect class (meaning they should be covered by the equal protection clause). Our side is also showing that marriage will be strengthened by permitting loving same-sex couples access it, that society will be more stable with same-sex marriage and that there is no harm done at all by opening marriage to same-sex couples.
The Prop. 8 side wants to show that marriage has always (in the US) been a Christian institution between a man and a woman, that heterosexual marriage is really good for kids and that in fact homosexual marriage will “hurt” kids and will degrade the institution. Ultimately, they are trying to show that it will lead to less stability as people abandon the institution of marriage.
They are having a hard time with that because so far the evidence shows that by seeking access to marriage, groups previously excluded, such as slaves, interracial couples, certain classes of “foreigners” and in some cases women, have actually strengthened the institution by obtaining access.
There’s another theme here which is about tradition. Remember the Fiddler on the Roof song? The Prop. 8 side appeals to their concept of tradition. The only problem is that their idea of tradition either never existed or only existed when women and people of color had fewer rights than white men.
There’s so much more, but you all can probably see more patterns than can I because I have been so close to it. What do you see? What do you think? Share it, will you? One big purpose of this trial is to have a national conversation based on a huge body of evidence. Homosexuality and America are on trial here. The Prop. 8 folks do not want you to see what’s going on and they don’t want a conversation outside of the carefully controlled media buys they that are all based on fear. So start talking, start writing.
Courage Campaign Institute started our Courageous Conversations (check it out here). Sooner than later, we need to stories of the plaintiffs out there. That will start to change hearts even as this trial changes minds.
The hard part is living through this. That Anita Bryant segment, the ads, the analysis of the ads by Prof. Chauncey, it is all upsetting. Last night, Cleve Jones and Lance Black showed me Harvey Milk’s Castro Street. Cleve’s mind is a bit scary: he remembers every name and face and place that he has ever been. He’s a walking history book who can translate and apply that history today’s politics even while he designs the strategy for the future. We all know that Lance is a wildly talented writer, but he’s way smart. He lived MILK for ten years before the movie became MILK.
I had never spent any time in the Castro. The truth is that I was afraid to as I was maturing because in my twenties, when I was not out and hated being gay, I was afraid to come to San Francisco because I did not want people to think I was gay. So there I was yesterday listening to how those two couples had gotten mauled by prejudice and how all they want to do is marry and then that night I was walking through gay history with two of the people I most respect. Cleve knew lots and lots of people still even last night. .  .

There's a lot more here.

Teddy Partridge Live Blogging Prop. 8 Court Challenge Now

[UPDATE August 4, 2010:  Here's a post on the decision of Judge Walker today] 

Here's  a link if you want to follow the trial in San Francisco which is challenging the constitutionality of the November 2008 California proposition that banned same sex marriage.

[UPDATE 6:39pm Alaska Time:  Here's Day 1 from a different live blogger.
It too is a gay-marriage friendly site.  I've tried to find conservative bloggers who are blogging the trial.  I'm sure they're out there, but I went through several pages of Google without success.  There are conservative posts, but not bloggers providing details from the court.]

This trial, which has the opposing attorneys from Bush v. Gore working together, is controversial on various levels.  People who supported Prop. 8 believe that the voters have spoken and the courts overturning that vote would be anti-democratic.  People challenging that vote believe the right to marry whom you choose is a constitutionally protected civil rights issue that would take a Constitutional amendment, not a simple majority vote to prevent.

Gay groups disagree about the strategy of direct Federal court challenge when the majority of the US Supreme Court is so conservative, fearing a negative Supreme Court will set their cause back.  On the other hand, should this Supreme Court affirm the right to same sex marriage, it would be a far more powerful decision than if a liberal court did.

And then there is the debate over televising this trial.  The judge originally agreed to allow parts of the trial to be shown on YouTube.  This morning the US Supreme Court, as you can read below, has stayed that plan.

Having attended the Alaska political corruption trials here in Anchorage, I have to say actually being there and hearing what is actually said, means one can judge for oneself and not be dependent on the news folks who interpret six to eight hours a day into a 30 second sound bite.

Here's the beginning of the second blog post at FiredogLake.  Click here or on the title for the rest of the post and the next posts as the appear. 

Prop 8: Liveblogging Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Pt. 2)

By: Teddy Partridge Monday January 11, 2010 9:17 am

Phillip Burton Federal Building and Courthouse in San Francisco

[Ed. note: Teddy is live on scene in San Francisco. Part one of his liveblog can be found here.]
Lawyers are settling into their places; it’s 8:38 here. Perhaps the SCOTUS stay has delayed our start here? Twitterers casting the SCOTUS stay as “the first loss for the Olson/Boies team.”
Counsel table camera is now having a little earthquake of its own.
Court personnel setting papers up for Judge Walker.
We still don’t have sound; I sure hope that the AV team remembers to turn it up when they start.
We are reminded not to use any cameras or recording equipment in the overflow courtroom. There is a judge standing by ready to issue contempt orders! A couple of people put away cameras.
This room we’re in is very 1960s ceremonial, lots of wood paneling and not-very-impressive portraits on the wall, perhaps of retired judges? There is a huge plate at the center of the front wall with a large eagle done in gold leaf, the entire wall is grey marble. The room where the trial is actually going to be held looks very similar, except there’s room on the dais for only one judge, while in this room there are fifteen judges’ chairs.
The court recorder just sat down at her seat. . . [for the rest click here.]

Houston Elects Gay Mayor, Anchorage Falls Behinder and Behinder

From today's Sunday New York Times:

Houston Is Largest City to Elect Openly Gay Mayor

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

Published: December 12, 2009

HOUSTON — Houston became the largest city in the United States to elect an openly gay mayor on Saturday night, as voters gave a solid victory to the city controller, Annise Parker. . .

With all precincts reporting, Ms. Parker, the city controller, had defeated Mr. Locke 53 percent to 47 percent.

A month ago Salt Lake City ok'd a gay rights ordinance.  

But Anchorage is still being bullied by Jerry Prevo.  When will we catch up with the 20th Century? 

AIFF 2009 - Prodigal Sons (Wow!)

I'd more or less decided to go to see Adopt a Sailor after Birthday.  But I hadn't counted on the fact that the filmmakers (director and co-producer/lead actor) were there and would talk about the film using up all the spare time we had to get to Out North. (That's not a complaint, just an explanation why we didn't go to Adopt a Sailor which started at 7:45,  Prodigal Sons didn't start until 8.)  I'll talk about Birthday in the next post.  Right now I'm waiting for the video of their after film discussion to download from the camera. 

But all that is preface to our decision to follow our friend C over to the Alaska Experience Theater to see Prodigal Sons.  When I quickly copied from the description earlier today, I did wonder why it was Prodigal Sons since it was about a daughter returning to her high school reunion in Montana.  I should have read the whole description. 

We were a few minutes late, but it quickly became clear that the daughter, Kim, had left this town as a son, Paul, years earlier and this was her first trip home as Kim.  It took me a while to unravel the other relationships (and since very few of you are likely to ever see the movie, I'll take the liberty to discuss more about the story than I normally would, BUT it does play again on Saturday at 1pm at the Alaska Experience theater and it was a really interesting story.  So, if you think you might go, and you should, stop now, and read this later.) Actually, knowing all this doesn't matter.  It's just the skeleton.  The film itself fills in the flesh. 

So I sit back thinking ok, this is going to be about this transgender woman dealing with the people from her life as a male.  The friends at the reunion seemed to be accepting. (She was the high school football quarterback.)  But, of course, that's just me trying to label it, compartmentalize it, and move on to other things.  It soon becomes clear that there are a lot more identity issues.  Younger brother, Todd, came out in high school, but it seems he still has some issues with the third brother Mark. 

Mark, who was adopted and who had a severe head injury in a car crash at 21, has to deal with the different identities that reside inside his damaged brain, trying to ressurrect the Mark that died in the crash by living in the past when that Mark was still alive, and warding off the newer, violent Mark with meds he hates to take. There are the identity issues from not knowing his birth parents and why he can play the piano beautifully, but can't read a note.  All this on top of normal adult sibling reconciliation challenges.  There's also Mom.  Lucky Dad has already passed away.  No, these are all good people, and Dad's presence may well have helped.   

There's a lot here in this documentary to mess with everyone's ideas of normal and abnormal and to tear holes of doubts in our well constructed stereotypes.  And to raise questions about our own unanswered issues.  Good stuff.  

Kimberly Reed, you made a really outstanding film.  This is one more amazing movie in town because Tony Sheppard and some others decided Anchorage needed a film festival.  People are filling up the venues.  50% full for an 'obscure' documentary on a Monday night is pretty good I'd say.   The Bear Tooth was pretty much full for Birthday and we walked past a long line of folks waiting to see Paddle to Seattle. 

Christian Support for Gay Rights

I used to wonder why Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam were attractive to many people in the US and why people in China and Korea were attracted to Christianity. My hypothesis is that when we grow up in a particular religion we see how many of the people profess their faith at the place of worship, but don't live it in their lives. We see people using religious functions to show off their new clothes and use religious rites of passage as a way to compete to see who can throw the most extravagant party. We also learn that some of the religious leaders aren't as perfect as we thought and we learn about cases of financial frauds and sexual abuse among clergy and many people are turned off by that.

But when we get to know an 'exotic' religion, we tend to learn about it more abstractly. We learn about the ideals, the principles, the definitions of good behavior, etc. Long distance, we see other religions in their best light, we don't see the actual practice of it by imperfect human beings.

In any case, yesterday, I read an opinion piece in the Anchorage Daily News entitled, "Prevo is wasting resources fighting gays". Geneva Walters wrote:

I am a heterosexual, conservative, Christian woman and am not threatened by two men or women who love each other and wish to live together and live an openly gay lifestyle. Furthermore, I am horrified at the thought that they would be denied fundamental civil rights based on their sexuality. . .

Then she lists her Christian bona fides

I believe in a triune God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I believe that God created the earth and man in 6 days and rested on the 7th. (However, I do believe that dinosaurs did, in fact, roam the earth, a very long, long, time ago.) I believe in the deity of Christ Jesus, that He was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified on a cross, died, and rose again on the third day. I believe that He ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father, Almighty.

Then her conservative bona fides:

As far as the term "Conservative" goes, I wait patiently each week for Ann Coulter's column, I am a staunch defender of the rights of the unborn, and the only problem I have with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is that we didn't go in sooner.

When I first read it, I was quite surprised, but pleased. But the more I thought about it, the more puzzled I became. The letter was written in a very reasonable and rational tone. How could someone like that be an Ann Coulter fan? Was this really some liberal posing as a conservative?

I could just post my suspicions, but I really didn't have enough to go on and I could be totally wrong. And I wouldn't want to raise doubts about what, on the surface, was the kind of conservative we need more of.

I would also note that sometimes people write of an opposing political persuasion, "Why do you only concentrate on issues on our side? You never talk about problems that you guys have." On the one hand that's a valid point. But on the other hand, why should conservatives give liberals free fodder and vice versa? Each side should get the dirt on the other side and they have no obligation to serve up juicy stories about their own heroes. But on the other hand, a balanced source of information ought to give praise when it is due and criticism when it is due. If this article in the Daily News is a fake, wouldn't it be better if a progressive blog said so first?

I don't think there are any easy answers to those questions. If my side is wrong, I should acknowledge that. If I find a story about people I support which may tarnish them, but ultimately isn't a big deal, why should I post it? And I might not post something about people I don't support if it's only outcome would be to hurt them personally. It's not easy to figure this all out, and I reserve the right to make mistakes.

In this case, I emailed my questions to the author of the piece. And she responded in a way that put my questions to rest. (I did tell her I was a blogger and that I wouldn't put up anything from her if she didn't want me to, but that if she said OK, she didn't have approval rights. She had no problem with that and said ok.)

Essentially she said, "Hey look, people aren't black or white. Just cause someone has certain characteristics doesn't mean she's a certain 'type' and that you can predict everything else about her."

It's so easy to place someone in a box because they hold a certain viewpoint and not allow them to express their opinion on an issue by issue basis. As long as America is content with a two party political system, we will continue to place people on one side or the other. We don't bother to try and understand them, it's just easier to dismiss them as Liberal or Conservative. It's silly to me, it's like we're all lining up for a game of Red Rover. While I may be pro-life, I'm quite liberal when it comes to environmental issues. Believe it or not, I have a few gay friends that are pro-life and a bit "Hawkish" when it comes to national defense.

I believe it. She goes on:

There were really two issues that were weighing heavy on my conscience. One of course was the issue of gay rights. I have several gay friends and colleagues and have been given an opportunity to interact with them and seek to understand what they are really fighting for. I don't pretend to understand all of the aspects to the gay rights movement, after all, I'm not gay. I just refuse to deny them their basic rights or allow other Christians to speak for me on this issue. The response I have received has been overwhelmingly positive and much of that response has been from Christians who have basically said "thank you for saying what I've been feeling for a long time." It's also worth pointing out that not all Christians are from the "main-stream evangelical" or "fundamentalist" background which is pervasive with legalistic rule following. I am a product of the Christian Reformed faith and differ on many points with fundamentalists (Baptists).

There's lots in that paragraph.

1. She has gay friends and so she's had a source of information on this topic that is different from the church. Besides some Christian churches are taking stances in favor of gay rights.
   
   
2. She's trying to take back the label Christian, or at least not let one group claim to be the only true Christians and the only people who can speak as Christians. I had to go look up Christian Reformed and I'm still not sure I got it right. I did find this on Religionfacts:

   "Presbyterian
   Presbyterian and Reformed churches share a common origin in the 16th-century Swiss Reformation and the teachings of John Calvin."

   They aren't listed in many comparisons of Protestant groups such as this page at ReligiousTolerance, on Divisions within Protestant Christianity. (Beware, I found one point that seemed to be in serious error. Their chart says that Conservative Christians favor "Special rights for heterosexuals; e.g. marriage" which would seem a rather major error.)
   
   My point here was to try to figure out whether her religious background would have any credibility at all with Fundamentalists. I have no idea.
   
   

I'm also glad to hear about the positive response she got to the piece. But all groups can be nasty when one of their own speaks out like this publicly. So day two might not be as positive. But I guess it depends on where, actually, the Reformed Christians fit in the liberal - conservative continuum. Finally, she wrote:

The second issue was the homeless. It breaks my heart to see these folks on street corners and living in our parks. We could do so much more for them. It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I saw the correlation between these two issues.

Steven, I grew up in a Christian home and can honestly never remember discussing the "gay" issue. I never saw my parents attempt to address this issue on behalf of the church. Instead, I remember my parents, and the other members of the church, taking over our kitchen on Sunday afternoons to make sandwiches for the Brother Francis Shelter. This was the image of the Christian faith that I grew up with, not the finger wagging and shallow platitudes that are handed down from the pulpit in many modern churches

So, from what I can tell, she's a genuine Christian and she's conservative on the issue that Christian conservatives made pivotal - abortion. And conservative Christians are getting more concerned about the environment.

So, it appears that this was the real thing. A believing Christian who doesn't want the Jerry Prevos speaking on behalf of all Christians. She sounds a lot more like my vision of what a Christian sounds like.

I've been trying to tell some of my progressive buddies that we shouldn't look at all the 'conservative Christians' as a monolith. Just as we aren't all the same. And if we talk to each other with respect and decency, they are more likely to approach us when the time is right. Geneva, thanks for standing up for your convictions - both the ones I agree with and the ones I question. You still need to explain Ann Coulter to me, but it sounds like we can have that discussion.

Does Idaho Exist? Why Everyone Should Study Philosophy

This blog is called "What Do I know?" because I think this is one of the fundamental questions that people should be constantly asking themselves. And occasionally I address the topic head on. This is one of those times.

I'm not a trained philosopher, but I found that I had to teach philosophy to my graduate students because the vast majority had never seriously considered the basic questions that still keep philosophers busy:

• What is real?
  
• What is true?
  
• What is good?

(As you'll quickly see in the examples below, the three questions are often intertwined.)

If we look at what the citizens of the United States are debating, we see that all the really contentious fights are related to these questions. Let's look at three examples:

What is real? Debate over marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage say things like (this is from biblestudies.suite101) :

God declared them to be "one flesh" (Genesis 2) and established the pattern of marriage to be a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife (Genesis 2).
From this model, it can be inferred that:

• Marriage was instituted by God;
• Marriage involved one man and one woman;
• The marital union is intended to bring children into the world, and;
• Children are raised to enter into their own marriage unions -- and repeat the cycle.

One of the key questions in the field of ontology (What is real?) is whether social reality exists external to humans or whether it is socially constructed. Don't give up here. Force yourself to keep reading. This is understandable. And critical.

Let's assume here, for this discussion, that the so called 'natural' world of rocks and trees and water does exist independently of human beings. If we fall head first into a rock from a ways up, there will be damage. We can't legislate or will that away. What we're talking about here is NOT that physical world, but the social world - the world of human meaning. (There are philosophers who will take on the physical world too, but that's for another day.)

So, a mountain exists independent of whether humans are there or not. The socially constructed part is its name. Should it be called Mt. McKinley after an Ohio born US President or should it be called by the traditional Athabaskan name, Denali? That's where the social construction comes in. Is a hill an obstacle to be bulldozed for more rational roads or is it a sacred mountain? Is the Mona Lisa just a piece of canvas with paint on it or a great work of art?

Is marriage then a 'natural phenomenon' that exists independent of human construction or is it something that humans have created? We certainly have evidence that it is socially constructed (from the Washington Post):

Vermont Legislature Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
By Keith B. Richburg Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; 2:23 PM

NEW YORK, April 7 -- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to recognize gay marriage, and the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. The two actions give same-sex marriage proponents new momentum, following a similar victory last week in Iowa's Supreme Court.

This is a clear example of social construction. The body of people designated by law to represent the people of Vermont has decided that two men or two women can, in the State of Vermont, be legally married.

The opponents of gay marriage might say, "Exactly, this is socially constructed, it isn't 'natural' law." Clearly, no matter how creative they are, two men cannot have a child together. I would accept, in terms of 'what is real' that to have a child, you need a man and a woman. (I'm excluding all sorts of fertility interventions here.)

But I doubt that the people who claim that marriage is between a man and a woman only, would accept then, that any man and woman living together and having sex, even a child, are "married."

This is because marriage is more than simply a man and woman living together. It is a recognition, by the community in which they live, that they are married. It is, in fact, a socially constructed situation. In some cultures, simply living together and having a child might be recognized as a marriage. In others, a marriage may include one man and more than one woman. It is all socially constructed.

What is true? Where was Obama born and death panels.

Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury yesterday illustrates the problem of determining what is true.

(Double click to enlarge)

Is there any way that people who claim that Obama wasn't born in the US could be convinced that he was? What sort of proof would they have to have? If the birth certificate were sent to all 50 states in a glass case, they would just claim it was a fake.

Epistemology is the area of philosophy that examines how we determine what is true.

• Western natural science demands an exacting set of experiments that can be repeated by independent scientists. (Social scientists have different requirements.)
  
• Our legal system requires that a jury listen to the opposing sides and come to a determination whether the defendant violated the law.
  
• Some Christians use the bible as their source of truth, though different Christians interpret the bible differently which causes even more problems.

If everyone studied epistemology - what is true? (a very simplified characterization to be sure) - in school, at least we would all be able to recognize that underlying the 'debate' over Obama's birthplace, is a disagreement over how we prove what is true.

We see the same issue in this current silliness covered by Yahoo on the facts over death panels:

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill. Palin stands by 'death panel' claim on health bill
AP
By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writer – Thu Aug 13, 5:56 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin refused to retreat from her debunked claim that a proposed health care overhaul would create "death panels," as the growing furor over end-of-life consultations forced a key group of senators to abandon the idea in their bill. . .

In a Facebook posting titled "Concerning Death Panels," Palin argued Wednesday night that the elderly and ailing would be coerced into accepting minimal end-of-life care to reduce health care costs based on the Democratic bill in the House.

But there will be no "death panels" under the legislation being considered. In fact, the provision in the bill would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

This article is all about 'what is true?' The writer tells us what Palin said, then tells us his version of what is true.

Does Matthew Daly think that Sarah Palin disciples will be convinced by " her debunked claim" or "But there will be no "death panels" under the legislation being considered. In fact,. . ." and "there will be no "death panels" under the legislation..."?
I doubt it.

I'll leave the discussion of 'What is Good?" for another day. These two concepts are more than enough for one post. And this is barely an appetizer for these topics.

Personally, I believe that some people do truly believe that Obama was born in Africa and there is nothing anyone could do to change their minds. Some people also believe that Elvis is still alive. But I suspect that some of the birthers and many who claim that Elvis is alive know the truth, but they just prefer to believe their versions.

But this issue is NOT trivial. In a democracy, if enough people are hoodwinked by purveyors of falsehoods, we are all in trouble.

I realize that some people argue against referencing the Holocaust because it turns people off. But it is a major reference point in my life. I never met any of my grandparents because of the Holocaust. Nazi Germany holds many lessons we shouldn't forget. Making comparisons to a particular aspect of the Holocaust does NOT mean that I am saying that someone is a Nazi who wants to murder everyone.

But if there are useful comparisons, we should use them. The German people after WW I went through a period of great hardship. (Again, this is a something I know from my parents telling me about their childhoods.) The Treaty of Versailles

required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231-248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers.

This was seen as humiliation by many Germans and contributed to their being ripe to the exhortations of a leader who promised to restore Germany's former greatness for 1000 years. I think that the current economic conditions in the US, plus social change that challenges many people's views of the world, cause many Americans to feel, if not humiliated, certainly less than they were individually and less than we were as a nation.

This makes us ripe for demagogues who have no regard for truth. Thus, it is particularly important that we spend time learning about the nature of 'truth' and how to test it. And how to challenge blatant untruths.

An example of one attempt to fight untruths - the claims of Holocaust deniers - resulted in (among many other things) a tract that questions the existence of the the State of Idaho.

People at the Simon Wiesenthal Museum [UPDATE 8/9/13 Alan Lustiger (see comments 8/8/13] developed this fact sheet which 'proved' that the State of Idaho does not exist. They did this to demonstrate the ridiculous logic that Holocaust deniers use. Here's how that discussion starts. (From KUOI)

The "State" Of Idaho: The Case For Open Debate

If you would ask any schoolchild how many states there are in the United States, you will get the same answer: 50. Fifty states in the Union. It is simply an accepted "fact." If you would disagree with this supposed "fact," you would be branded insane or worse.

However, mounting evidence shows that there are in fact only 49 states in the US, and the "state" of Idaho is a baseless myth.

We have been trying to distribute and publish this information for over *two years*, but our scholarship has not been given any respect. We have been censored, vilified, ridiculed and spat upon by the "traditional" geographers and historians, but WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!

All we ask is that the existence of the state of Idaho be debated, as every other historical and geographic "fact" can be debated. Time after time, our opponents have refused to debate us on the FACTS. This alone should tell you something about the people who support the "existence" of this "43rd state."

Please read the following evidence VERY CAREFULLY, and you will be astonished at the veracity of our cause.

The Population Myth

Do you know anybody from Idaho? Do you know anybody who knows anybody from Idaho? According to the 1990 "census," there are over one million (1,000,000, or 1 x 10^6) people living in Idaho. But if there are so many Idahoers, where are they?

Some people have come forward and claimed that they were born and raised in "Idaho." But every single person who made this claim have been shown to be frauds and charlatans. These "Idahoan wannabes" are invariably inconsistent with each other about the size (in square miles or square kilometers) of "Idaho," about various town and village names, and even about the names of "Idaho's mighty rivers."

The Size Farce

According to traditional geographic sources (created entirely by people who believe in the existence of Idaho, and probably the Tooth Fairy, also) the "State" of Idaho is more than twice the size of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts combined. Isn't it strange that a state with such vast land resources has so few people? And even of [sic] you look at a map (created by the Idaho-centric cartographers) the "State" of "Idaho" is dwarfed by its much larger neighbor, Montana.

Satellite Evidence

Recently declassified weather satellite information, showing the entire continental United States, shows absolutely *no evidence* that there is any state where "Idaho" is supposedly located. Noted experts in the field of interpreting these pictures unanimously agree that, from outer space, it is impossible to determine the borders of this elusive "state." Yet meteorologists and cartographers routinely overlay these satellite pictures with the outline of states that would seem to indicate Idaho's existence. . .

You can get the rest of this from KUOI. [Update July 30, 2010: It appears the Idaho story is no longer on KUOI's website.  For the time being you can find it here at Fantasymaps.] I couldn't find anything that linked the arguments with Wiesenthal, but I know (do I know anything for sure?) about that, because I was given copies of this by one of the people who developed it many years ago. The intent was to show how ridiculous the logic of Holocaust deniers was.

Perhaps one option for confronting the truth denying fantasizers is to use their words and logic, as in this example, to demonstrate things they believe simply do not in fact exist.

But in the long run, we need to get philosophers to stop spending as much time as they do on needle heads, and get into high schools and show the teachers there and the students the practical uses of philosophy.

[Disclaimer: Although my daughter is studying philosophy, this is not simply an attempt to increase the number of positions for philosophers so she can get a job when she graduates.]

British Quakers conclude a long and profound process of discernment about the way forward for Quaker marriage and approach to same sex partnerships

Jay sent me a link to the Quakers in Britain website which has a news bulletin discussing their decision to proceed to acceptance of same sex partnerships. Here are a couple of excerpts. Note how respectful the language is of all who might read it.

Further to minute 17, (attached) a session was held on Tuesday afternoon at which speakers shared personal experiences of the celebration and recognition of their committed relationships. These Friends had felt upheld by their meetings in these relationships but regretted that whereas there was a clear, visible path to celebration and recognition for opposite sex couples, the options available for couples of the same sex were not clear and could vary widely between meetings. Friends who feel theirs to be an ordinary and private rather than an exotic and public relationship have had to be visible pioneers to get their relationship acknowledged and recorded.
This open sharing of personal experience has moved us and added to our clear sense that, 22 years after the prospect was first raised at Meeting for Sufferings we are being led to treat same sex committed relationships in the same way as opposite sex marriages, reaffirming our central insight that marriage is the Lord’s work and we are but witnesses. The question of legal recognition by the state is secondary.
We therefore ask Meeting for Sufferings to take steps to put this leading into practice and to arrange for a draft revision of the relevant sections of Quaker faith and practice, so that same sex marriages can be prepared, celebrated, witnessed, recorded and reported to the state, as opposite sex marriages are. We also ask Meeting for Sufferings to engage with our governments to seek a change in the relevant laws so that same sex marriages notified in this way can be recognised as legally valid, without further process, in the same way as opposite sex marriages celebrated in our meetings. We will not at this time require our registering officers to act contrary to the law, but understand that the law does not preclude them from playing a central role in the celebration and recording of same sex marriages.
We have heard dissenting voices during the threshing process which has led to us this decision, and we have been reminded of the need for tenderness to those who are not with us who will find this change difficult. We also need to remember, including in our revision of Quaker faith and practice, those Friends who live singly, whether or not by choice.

Midnight Soapscum Climaxes with Year 2 Episode 5

Everything worked tonight as all the loose plot ends were tied up and lots of people and even an alien got married in the final scene. (There were so many loose plot ends, I could have missed a few. It was only tonight, my third of this year's five episodes, that I noticed a major historical juxtaposition - Obama is already the president in the runup to the 2008 election. Poetic license I guess. Too good a character to leave out just because he hadn't yet been elected.) The cast had as good a time as the audience which whooped it up every now and then. I'll just post some pictures and let you make up your own story. It can't be as bizarre as the one at Out North. (Can you spot Caribou Barbie and Todd, and Obama?) I suspect this five week production will be remembered in Anchorage theater history. A lot of outstanding - much of it young - local talent got to do some way out stuff. Five different episodes - same characters mostly - in five weeks. But you could tell that the cast and crew had bonded early on and I think a lot of future theater greats in Anchorage (and beyond) will be connected forever because they 'worked' together in this production. There were no duds in the cast and most played their roles so well, I can't imagine them as anyone else. Mama Rose Mary is only 18 years old and was the narrator whose huge presence pulled everything - including the audience - together. Tonight she even sang as part of the play. I didn't get a program again tonight and I'm not sure I can find the one from Episode 3. But this is an actor we're going to hear more about. And you can catch a bit of her persona in the bit of video at the bottom.











(It's only 30 seconds.)

Click for posts on previous episodes and other soapscummy things.

Midnight Soapscum Year 2 Episode 2 - Live Original Stage Serial in Anchorage

[If you want to avoid my way too long and highly tangential intro, you can go straight to my comments on the performance.]

Where else can you see live stage serials? I'm sure they must be out there, but Google didn't help. I did find videos of Pakistani stage shows - the Urdu language shows didn't work, but the Punjabi ones did. But I'm not sure these are serials or television or live stage.

I found a blog post about writing in serial form, even writing a serial on her blog, but despite the post title "Writing on Stage: Coming to terms with serial writing" I couldn't find any stages in the post.

And then I got this:

STAGE 4: CREATING A SERIALS PREDICTION & ISSUE
Now that Horizon knows how many copies of a serial you take, how often the serial should be claimed and who your vendor is, you can now create a prediction pattern and set an issue to begin the prediction pattern with.
1. Use Item Search/F2 to bring up the item search box and search for the relevant journal.
2. Send to/F10 the title to ‘Serials Control’.
3. Ensure the correct copy for your location has been selected and click the Prediction button located along the bottom of the window

Then there's Todd's Serial Blog and his other blog Todd Gault's Serial Experience. Both seem to be about movie serials.

I found a post by a young Indian actor looking for work on Cinechance that seems to be an electronic classified section for actors to find work in India.

About Myself :

hi guyz ,m vikram frm delhi.m 21 yrs of age nd graduating. i hav worked in serials for dd "do behne" , & "kabhi dhoop kabhi choan" both directed by reputed director "mr shiv kumar".also done one ad film for india tv. i love to act nd travel..........[emphasis added][And before you make fun of his written English, his bio says he also speaks Hindi and Punjabi]

And I learned from StageNews that

The BBC’s drama production department has announced a restructure of its senior staff, with head of series and serials Kate Harwood promoted to the role of controller of series and serials.

But that's television and radio.


I also learned that there is a software called live theater:

Live Theater 1.2 description
Live Theater - with the help of the software Live Theater TM you will be able to arrange the live broadcast from theater, TV etc. to a wider range of the Internet audience.

It is highly recommended to use broadband Internet connection for using Live Theater.

Here are some key features of "Live Theater":

· Broadcasting of live streaming video over Internet from any possible external video signal sources (video camera, web camera, video capture card etc.).
· Re-broadcasting over Internet of any source of TV signal, digital and analog.
· Broadcasting of the prerecorded video files.
· The areas of use are not restricted by the above mentioned. Live Theater can be used for any other purpose of brodcasting [sic] streaming video over Internet.
· The main advantage of Live Theater is ability of broadcasting of high-quality video without purchasing the expensive hardware and password protection from watching by an unauthorized user.

One problem I had with 'live theater' was that it monopolized the google hits for that search term.

So why all this esoteric trivia? Because I was trying to find out how unique Christian Heppinstall's Midnight Soapscum production at Out North is. Just because I can't find anything about live theatrical serials doesn't mean someone isn't doing them. After all, I didn't find Soapscum googling variations of stage/theater/serials/ etc. either. But given the obstacles to producing a play a week, I bet it's not happening too many places.


Christian's first run of Midnight Soapscum was a live, theatrical serial about a centenarian Russian emigre and her porn studio empire in San Francisco and it first ran over a couple of months in Spring 2007.

And now it's back - five new episodes of Midnight Soapscum. This time the subtitle is: Goes To Hell.

Just the idea is pretty amazing. Live, original episodes, performed weekly, with local talent. Christian's cranking out an hour and a half of material a week! And it's good! It moves along, it's funny, and the acting is first rate.

Think of this as Saturday Night Live as a political sitcom performed on stage before a live audience. No broadcasting. No huge budget.

Christian not only writes and directs Soapscum, he also stars as Svetlana Smirnov. That's him as Smirnov in the poster. He uses the episodes to comment on a wide variety of current issues and personalities. [Update: Christian emailed me to say that he's not directing this time. Jon Minton is. Sorry Jon.]

This year's incarnation takes place days before the 2008 election and the focus is on whether Smirnov is going to support Proposition 8. Characters include, besides various porn actors from the studio, Marie and Donny Osmond, Todd and Sarah Palin, a terrorist chained in the basement who turns out to be Osama Bin Laden, Barack Obama, four amazing aliens, and a slew of others.



Here, the Palins are plotting. . . well, I can't quite remember what they were plotting. The script takes so many twists and turns. The guy in the tie is Obama.









The cast is so big they could have a full house even if there was no audience. And I suspect they'd have almost as good a time without an audience. The second person in red with the two story blond wig, sitting above the cast on the right[left - somewhere between third grade and a couple of years ago I knew the difference between left and right], is NOT Svetlana, but the narrator who keeps the audience appraised (and well behaved) of what all is happening between scenes. She also had the list of all the characters and named them before and after the show. But I didn't write them all down and there was no program.


But is it any good? The acting is good and considering they didn't have a lot of time to learn the script - and they have a new one next week - I don't remember any flubs. The jokes would be funny to liberals but it might get tedious for conservatives. The people we were with thought it was a bit too long - partly, I think because it doesn't start until 10:30pm and it ended just past midnight. Considering what they were trying to pull off and their low budget, I thought it was amazing. (I have two standards. One is an absolute standard. The other is based on quality/cost. This one did pretty well on the absolute standard and would have swept the Tony's on quality/cost.)

And we have it here in Anchorage at Out North (you can buy tickets online) for three more episodes. And don't worry if you missed the first two episodes, it doesn't matter, trust me.

Christian has a pretty strong background in theater. I met him when he took some public administration classes with me. But he already had a masters in theater and had performed and/or directed in San Francisco, New York, and Budapest where he lived for several years. He's also the director for the Anchorage Theater of Youth and has been active in HIV/AIDS education. He's bright and aware and it shows in Soapscum.

Bent Alaska has the details of when the other episodes will be presented.

Anchorage as an Abusive Family

Jay left a comment on one of my LA posts. I've been relatively quiet in the last two weeks on the debate over gay rights in Anchorage mainly because I've been out of town and had other things on my mind. And other bloggers were covering the issue in depth.

But Jay's comment was like the shaft of sunlight that just broke through the clouds onto my computer screen.

As I watch Anchorage's shame this third time, over 33 years, from thousands of miles away, I just shake my head and wonder how I could have ever loved such a place. But I understand now. My love for my former home was like that of the abused child to an abusive parent. [emphasis added]

I had to leave. As to others, I think I understand. It doesn't hurt.

While other states are starting to allow gay marriage, we in Anchorage are still allowing our bully evangelical Prevo to foment hate towards those of our family whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual.

We can argue forever about the role of religion in human life. There are a number of indisputable facts about religion:

1. Different religions, different factions of the same religions even, believe they know the absolute 'truth.' And they all have different truths. And somehow they are privy to the only true truth. (And they all just 'know' they are right. Faith, not proof, is their standard.)

2. Sunni and Shia Muslims, Orthodox and Reform Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, all have adherents who find comfort in their religious beliefs.

3. Many of the first colonists to the New World from Europe came because another religious group, with power connected to the government, was persecuting them. Once they got to the new world, many of them began persecuting people of other religions.

4. Many of the world's religions including Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, and Buddhism have traditionally given more value and power to men than to women. Men could vote, but women couldn't. Men were the head of the household and had the right to make important decisions. Men could be priests or rabbis or monks, but women weren't good enough.

5. Slave owners justified slavery using the Bible. They argued as fervently about how the Bible supported slavery as Prevo says the Bible supports his abuse of gays.

6. Religious leaders also were advocates AGAINST slavery and FOR civil rights and women's liberation.

7. The unscrupulous have taken advantage of the protected place of religion in American life (and in all other countries as well) to gain the power to fulfill their own twisted needs in the guise of religion. (Such people have used whatever legitimate front was most convenient to gain power on all sides of the political and religious and corporate spectrums.)

8. Many of the restrictions on Blacks and Women that once were biblically justified, have been legally overthrown in the United States and elsewhere.

9. Today that tradition of using the Bible to harass and dominate a particular class of people continues in the US as religion is used to justify the demonization of gays and lesbians. While religious leaders say, "This is different from race. This is different from gender" it is NOT different. It is people perverting religion to promote their own prejudices.

Jay's comment puts this into perspective. He was the target of this sort of hate all his life. Jay's a strong willed person who fought all his adult life against this tolerated, and, in some circles, exalted, form of hate. He and his partner Gene set up Out North Theater and made it into a vibrant and rich cultural oasis in Anchorage that dared to present ideas that were taboo in much of Anchorage. They did this in the face of hate and abuse. They did this in the face of people who denied they had the simple right to be themselves, who said that they were an abomination.

But his exile from Anchorage and his comments the other day on this blog remind us of his daily fight for his dignity, even his basic right to be himself. We have all, at some time, had someone humiliate us. Tell us we were no good, we didn't belong, we were less than others. Even if it was simply that we did poorly on an exam. We know that such shaming stings, burns, destroys part of our humanity.

Jay's comment about abuse reminds me that he lived with that humiliation every day of his life in Anchorage. Every day he lived among people who denied that he had the right to exist and be himself. And he stood up to that and convinced himself that he really was ok, good even. I know that Jay didn't always manage to control the anger that must have churned in him all the time. I know that this internalized hate broke loose at times and stunned the people around him. But for the most part he was able to channel it in constructive ways, ways that brought examples of his personal reality to Anchorage. Using Out North as their medium, he and Gene, with the help of others in the community, brought actors, performers, musicians, artists, and movies that expressed in often painful, often funny, sometimes shocking, and always enlightening ways, a reality that he knew - that he was ok, that being gay wasn't evil.

I take the last part of his comment to mean that he understands that many people don't feel the hate as he did here because they weren't the direct target of the hate. And so it is more an intellectual problem than a searing nightmare to most of us.

I understand that well right now, because of my son's recent accident. I think humans have a built-in protective device that deflects others' pain, because we couldn't survive if we didn't. I know that I normally don't react viscerally to stories of people hurt in accidents. But when I read the stories of the two bicycle accidents in the local paper this week, my body twinged and I even thought about writing a note to the families. One victim died, the other is in serious condition. And I wonder why I was so relatively lucky that my son's injuries were not life threatening and appear that they will have little lasting damage. And I hurt for the families that weren't so lucky, because that could have been us.

And all of us not the targets of Prevo's hate, need to wonder why we are so lucky and reach out to those who aren't so lucky. We must get Anchorage to recognize Prevo for what he is. A bully. A predator who is abusing members of the Anchorage family. Who is heaping hate and abuse by insisting they are abominations so evil that he must feed this garbage to his congregation and must indoctrinate young children that homosexuals are evil and that it is ok to abuse them. He may not be directly physically abusing homosexuals as some of his other religious brethren, but he most assuredly is abusing them mentally as Jay's short comment documents. And he's giving potential bullies the justification to physically abuse their gay school mates.

My understanding is that his tactics of delaying the vote on the ordinance by stuffing the assembly public testimony with people bussed in from outside of Anchorage may have worked. It seems that the Ordinance will not pass in time for Acting Mayor Matt Claman to sign it and it appears that incoming Mayor Dan Sullivan will be an accomplice to Prevo's abuse by vetoing any ordinance that is passed. I understand that the ordinance may even be withdrawn and that a different approach to protecting gays and lesbians and transgendered folk will be attempted.

My hope is that if things go in such a direction, more people can come to understand that this is simply one more attempt - in a history of such cases in the US and elsewhere - to use religion to justify the denigration of one group of people to meet some sort of perverted need by others to dominate and humiliate other human beings. I hope that while the rest of the world is moving toward allowing gay marriage, that Anchorage can, at the very least, say that discriminating based on sexual orientation will no longer be acceptable. Just as we already say it is no longer acceptable to discriminate based on race or gender.

Basically, the main goal is to say it is not acceptable to discriminate based on personal prejudice, whether it be against overweight people, people with pimples, people with tattoos or piercings. If a landlord wants to evict someone it should be because the tenant hasn't paid the rent, or has made too much noise, or has damaged the apartment. People should lose jobs because they do not perform the job at the standards specified, not for non-job related reasons.

Anchorage, let's show our better side on this issue now. Let's make Anchorage a place that will welcome Jay and Gene home warmly when they come to visit.

Bloggers, Ethics, and Photos of Children

I started commenting in a blog discussion at Progressive Alaska on whether it was appropriate to post a picture of one of the red shirted kids who protested at the Assembly meeting over the ordinance to add gays and lesbians and transgendered folks to the Anchorage anti-discrimination ordinance. My response was getting long so I decided it would be easier to put it together here. Below is the first comment that started this discussion of posting pictures of kids.

Anonymous said...
Do you ask for permission from your subjects before you publish their image ?

How about if the subject is a minor ?

Have you ever considered that this minor child, or perhaps his parents may not want his image published on your website ?

For all of the crass behavior our Governor has shown over the past few months, there are times when the gang of liberal bloggers have matched that crass behavior.

This is one of them.

Anon, you bring up a legitimate question. Blogging is a new technology and we're exploring how to do what we do, so your question, with this example, is a legitimate one. But it appears to be a rhetorical question. Instead of exploring it, you immediately shut the door on discussion and start making moral judgments. On the other hand your tone hints that perhaps you've had some experience related to this issue which makes you particularly sensitive. If that's the case, then it would helpful if you mentioned it. It might even make others better understand your point.

I've asked people for permission when there was only one or two people in a picture, or if I thought being seen in the situation could potentially cause someone harm. But it's clear that you couldn't document a large crowd if you had to get permission of all the people in the picture. (Yes I know that isn't the kind of picture you are complaining about.)


In any case, let's explore the legitimacy of Anon's complaint.

1. Is it ok to take people's pictures and publish them without their permission?
How should we even try to answer that one? One of the comments attributed to an "Anon" (I realize that these may not be same people) suggested:

Do yourself a big favor and read the Blogger's Code of Ethics and then ask yourself if publishing this child's picture is kosher.

I did look up blogger code of ethics and what I found was a modified version of the Society for Journalists' Code of Ethics. So let's look at the original. I checked the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. Mind you, bloggers don't claim to be 'professional journalists' for the most part so they aren't covered by these rules, but it's a reasonable place to start. The section that seems most appropriate is the section called Minimize Harm:

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. [This seems to be a problem on many blogs, but I don't see how the picture is particularly problematic here. And in this section of the post, Phil was pretty neutral.]

Journalists should:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. [There's a slightly out of focus picture of a kid. The text next to it says nothing about the kid and speaks in pretty neutral terms about coverage of the protests. There's nothing negative here unless you automatically assume posting kids' pictures is taboo.]
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. [The subject of the photo is not someone affected by tragedy or grief in the traditional sense of that word. His family may feel passage of the ordinance would be a tragedy, but others might think that the reason for the ordinance is to prevent tragedies and grief coming to gays and lesbians.)
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. [Again, I don't see this being violated by the posting of the picture or the text associated with it.]
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy. [This kid was exercising his Constitutional rights to free speech by publicly protesting a political action with which he disagreed. He was out in public. Phil was exercising his Constitutional rights to free speech by publishing the picture. He did not use a telephoto lens to take a picture of the kid in his house. The kid is not in a compromising position. And there is far less likelihood that anyone will do harm to this kid for his protest than there is for those demonstrating in favor of the ordinance. That's why, some would argue, we need the ordinance.][Added later: Furthermore, the kids would fit the category of "others who seek power, influence or attention" who are less entitled according to this. And if you say the kids aren't, then the people who brought them are responsible for this.]
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. [Again, unless you think that any picture of a kid without the parents' permission is pandering, I'd have to say there is nothing remarkable or embarrassing about the picture or the text next to it.]
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes. [The kid is neither a suspect or victim of a sex crime to my knowledge.]
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges. [Again, not applicable.]
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed. [Again, not applicable.]

There is nothing I see in this Journalists' Code of Ethics that Phil has violated. But it doesn't discuss getting permission for publishing pictures, of adults or children.



I looked further and found these guidelines for media dealing with children at the International Federation of Journalists website:

Children's Rights and Media: Guidelines and Principles for Reporting on Issues Involving Children

These guidelines were adopted by journalists' organisations from 70 countries at the world's first international consultative conference on journalism and child rights held in Recife, Brazil, on May 2nd 1998.

All journalists and media professionals have a duty to maintain the highest ethical and professional standards and should promote within the industry the widest possible dissemination of information about the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and its implications for the exercise of independent journalism.

Media organisations should regard violation of the rights of children and issues related to children's safety, privacy, security, their education, health and social welfare and all forms of exploitation as important questions for investigations and public debate. Children have an absolute right to privacy, the only exceptions being those explicitly set out in these guidelines.

Journalistic activity which touches on the lives and welfare of children should always be carried out with appreciation of the vulnerable situation of children. Journalists and media organisations shall strive to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct in reporting children's affairs and, in particular, they shall

1. strive for standards of excellence in terms of accuracy and sensitivity when reporting on issues involving children;
2. avoid programming and publication of images which intrude upon the media space of children with information which is damaging to them;
3. avoid the use of stereotypes and sensational presentation to promote journalistic material involving children;
4. consider carefully the consequences of publication of any material concerning children and shall minimise harm to children;
5. guard against visually or otherwise identifying children unless it is demonstrably in the public interest;
6. give children, where possible, the right of access to media to express their own opinions without inducement of any kind;
7. ensure independent verification of information provided by children and take special care to ensure that verification takes place without putting child informants at risk;
8. avoid the use of sexualised images of children;
9. use fair, open and straight forward methods for obtaining pictures and, where possible, obtain them with the knowledge and consent of children or a responsible adult, guardian or carer;
10. verify the credentials of any organisation purporting to speak for or to represent the interests of children;
11. not make payment to children for material involving the welfare of children or to parents or guardians of children unless it is demonstrably in the interest of the child. [emphasis added.]

Numbers 4, 5, and 9 seem to be the only ones that are directly relevant. And I would once again remind readers that some bloggers consider themselves journalists and others do not. And those that do may have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with the rules for mainstream media journalists.

#4 - While the Anonymous poster doesn't like the idea of Phil posting the picture without permission, he (or she) doesn't identify any particular harm that might come to the child because of the posting of his picture.

I wonder if this Anonymous commenter has protested the pictures of Iranians demonstrating over the election. While those are crowd pictures with many people and getting permission would be difficult, the consequences of being identified from a blowup of any of those pictures, are probably far more ominous than those that might result from posting the picture of this kid.

#5 - One could argue that posting the pictures of the demonstrators in Iran was important news to document the unrest in Iran. But one could also say that posting pictures of kids at the Anchorage demonstration documents the reports that many of the demonstrators were just kids. That they are just kids of an age where they are highly unlikely to have made their own, personal, informed judgment on the morality of homosexuality and of denying homosexuals protections against discrimination.


#9 - Phil used fair, open, and straightforward methods for obtaining the picture. The kid is looking right into the camera.

The only slightly questionable part is "where possible obtain them with the knowledge and consent of the children, responsible adult, guardian, or carer."

Clearly the child knew his picture was being taken and I'm assuming that he didn't protest. We don't know whether his parents were there since many kids were allegedly brought to the meeting in church buses. And I assume the child didn't know that the picture would be on Phil's blog - I doubt Phil was wearing press credentials.

So, assuming that all I've said is accurate, then Phil could have gone further and asked for permission to post the picture - either from the kid himself or a 'responsible adult.'

Given that this is a close-up of one specific child, the ethically cleanest thing to do would have been to get permission to post the picture. Minimally, bloggers can just ask, "Do you mind if I post this on my blog?" I do that all the time for adults as well as kids. One can even document the permission with a video, found on most digital cameras today, or get written permission. A pain in the neck? Maybe. But if bloggers are going to hold politicians to high ethical standards and harass them for skipping steps, then they ought to make sure they don't skip steps in their own guidelines. As one of the anonymous posters wrote -

You sir, have no integrity and you lose any moral high ground that you have.

I think the poster compromises him(her)self by denying Phil any integrity altogether, but posting a child's picture - even one as innocuous as this one - does make it harder to take the high ground when calling others to task for ethical violations.

On the other hand, bloggers are not journalists, but it seems to me in gathering the news, we should also abide by the do no harm ethic. Mere technicality? Well, Sarah Palin would argue the same thing about her Arctic Cat jacket. And it's not that hard to stay clean here. If you get home without permission, there are easy ways to blur or block enough of a face to hide the identity of the subject. It may not have the same impact, but you'll try harder next time.

Warm Lazy Sunday Shots

A lazy run in the warm weather today. Caught at the light, took a picture of this poster for the ordinance scheduled to be voted on Tuesday at the Assembly meeting. At least that was my assumption. I sent an email to one of my Assembly reps last week - Dan Coffey - asking how he planned to vote and whether he was still listening to constituents on it. Haven't heard anything back. My other rep is supporting it.
Then on to the bike trail.

This evening we biked over to meet friends for dinner and passed the fence that surrounds Mcglaughlin Youth Center. Sounds so wholesome, but if it were that wholesome, it wouldn't have this razor wire to keep the youth inside.

Men Jerry Prevo Would Ban from Anchorage Schools

[Note: The pictures in this post are NOT mine. To see the source of the picture, click on the picture.]

In his ADN letter opposing the addition of "sexual orientation" to Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinance, Reverend Jerry Provo wrote:

Maybe, worst of all, this ordinance would allow a man who teaches a second grade class or any grade to show up as a woman in the classroom and the School District could do nothing because of this ordinance.

I confess that I laughed when I read this letter last Friday. Phil had an overview of some of the blogs that showed how each point in the letter was dead wrong. The letter is ludicrous. His biggest worry was about men dressing like women. Where are his public crusades against drunk drivers? Against redlight runners? Against heterosexual adulterers? It seems to me that murder and adultery are both prohibited in the Ten Commandments, not in some obscure passage in Deuteronomy along with other obscure prohibitions that we no longer observe. After all, what is the big deal about men who want to dress like women?

Men have a long tradition of wearing clothes that are more like women's clothes than the "pants of the family" we associate with men in the US.

Religious men, particularly, seem to like to wear gown like clothing. Probably foremost is the Pope who wears some of the most elaborate clothing of anyone in the world. But this trend of dressing in garments more like women's clothing isn't confined to Catholics. Protestants also find this appropriate for the leadership.


Like these Episcopalians.



















And Russian  Orthodox.









Muslims clerics don't wear trousers either.

Nor Buddhist monks. They wear robes.

Nor Hindu priests

Even rabbis.

All the religious leaders I know of are also considered teachers. Would Rev. Prevo protest any of these people teaching in an Anchorage school wearing their work clothes? (I know some people are thinking "separation of church and state," but it's ok. If they are teaching ABOUT their faith and NOT teaching their faith, it's ok. And most such religious leaders also have expertise in other areas they might teach.)

And it's not just religious leaders who wear clothing that would be more closely associated with women than men.

Surgeons wear gowns at work.

And academics also have a tradition of wearing gowns. Even our former President whom Rev. Prevo supported so strongly.






And would Rev. Prevo prevent these two gentlemen from coming to class dressed this way to talk about Scotland?


OK, these men aren't exactly dressed as women, but my assertion that what they wear is more like women's garments than men's is much closer to the truth than Prevo's various assertions about the 'horrible' things that would happen if the ordinance passed.

And what should we do about all the women teachers who come to school already wearing pants? Prevo doesn't raise this 'serious' problem. My belief is that in our society it's less of a problem for a woman to dress like a man, because it's natural for people to want to be mistaken for the people who have the most power. But it seems perverted, to some people, for people with power, to try to be like those with less power. So men shouldn't dress like women. It's giving away their male based privilege.

Sorry I can't let go of this quite yet. I suspect Prevo knows this is ludicrous, and he probably knows that those who introduced the ordinance did so because they think they have the votes to pass it. Last December, Frank Schaeffer was interviewed on National Public Radio. You can hear the interview at the link. From the NPR page:

Frank Schaeffer's parents, Francis and Edith, were best-selling authors who were instrumental in linking the evangelical community with the anti-abortion movement.

But after coming of age as an evangelist and helping to organize religious fundamentalists politically, Schaeffer had a crisis of faith: Though he is pro-life, he decided that abortion should remain legal.

One of the things he says in the interview is that abortion and gay issues were no big deal with his father when Frank (the son) was little. They became big issues for evangelicals because whenever they talked about them, they got lots and lots of donations.

So, I'm guessing that Prevo has a knee jerk reaction to the word 'gay'. It's less about stopping the ordinance than it's about raising money. This letter isn't aimed at the vast majority of people in Anchorage. It's far too silly. It's aimed at the rabidly ignorant who will open their wallets to fight the 'perverts.' So when Prevo writes:

It would allow any man to dress like a woman and use any public women's restroom. Ladies, do you want that to happen?

it's to alarm those folks who don't think into supporting Prevo's high lifestyle.

Of course, thinkers would shake their heads in disbelief. What's to stop men from dressing up as women now and going into women's bathrooms? The law? It's illegal to go through red lights, to litter, to beat up women, yet people do these things every day. And when the ordinance has passed and is law, I promise you that it won't prevent the police from arresting men who dress as women to get into women's restrooms.

First, the ordinance says:

The assembly finds that invidious discrimination in the sale or rental of real
property, financing practices, employment practices, public accommodations, educational institutions, and practices of the municipality, based upon race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, marital status, age, veteran’s status, or physical or mental disability, adversely affects the welfare of the community. Accordingly, such discrimination is prohibited.

Only the bold is new language. It is already illegal based on sex. So using Prevo's logic, men already can't be prevented from using the women's room. But simple practical logic tells us that since men already have an equal, alternative place to wash their hands, they aren't being discriminated against. In fact at big events, the lines are usually longer at the women's restrooms, not the men's. Sexual orientation doesn't change the fact that gay men are still men. So the same logic that applies to "sex" will apply to "sexual orientation." If it didn't happen when 'sex' became a protected class, it won't happen now.

Second, even if the ordinance did what Prevo asserts, the sexual orientation clause wouldn't save men who dress up as women to get into the women's room. Why not? Simple. Gay men aren't sexually interested in women. It is only straight men who would try to see women's private parts exposed. And they couldn't claim they were being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

There is one serious issue here though. Transgender folks. Despite what we've been taught, the distinction between men and women is not as clear cut as we tend to believe. This topic is far too complicated to start after I've already written so much here. My advice is for people to read Eugenides' Middlesex. Wikipedia says:

Middlesex is a novel by Jeffrey Eugenides. It was published in 2002 and won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2003.
The narrator and protagonist, Calliope Stephanides (later called "Cal"), an intersexed person of Greek descent, has 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. The bulk of the novel is devoted to telling his coming-of-age story growing up in Detroit, Michigan in the late 20th century.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but this novel gives at least one view of the topic in a way that makes the issue understandable to people who otherwise might dismiss people having a sex change as crazy. And it is a well written and interesting story. I would say this is the easiest way to get a good understanding of the topic.

I raise this because there are people who, as they are transitioning from one gender to another, will be using new restrooms. (I notice that Prevo isn't worried about women coming into men's rooms.) If someone reads Middlesex, and their mind isn't totally shut down, they will understand that these people pose no threat at all to women in the restroom.

I'm not satisfied with what I've found on the topic online for those who want to know more, but are not ready to get Middlesex from the library. Here's the Mayo Clinic's take on ambiguous genitalia.