Count Four

Calling a Spade a Spade

Maggie Gallgher has a piece over on Yahoo Opinions in which she decries same-sex marriage proponents’ use of the term “bigot” to describe those who oppose such unions. She quotes Senator Brownback in his (correct) assessment of the situation:

Same-sex marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who oppose interracial marriage. Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that understanding is likely to be controlling.

She then goes on to argue that:

[f]or the foreseeable future, Americans are going to live with some deep moral disagreements on the marriage issue. Conducting this debate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility would be a lot easier if gay marriage advocates stopped pretending that only fear, hatred or bigotry is at the root of these disagreements.

The only response I have for her there is to look to the propaganda from her own side first before condemning that coming from the other. “Bigot” is relatively easy when up against “disordered,” “morally corrupt,” and “disgusting,” to name a few of the terms fired off by opponents of anything related to same-sex relationships. Reasonable people may disagree on whether ‘marriage’ as a civil institution should be extended to same-sex couples (and, yes, to more than two persons of the same or opposite sexes), but when faced with rhetoric that denies the very humanity of the persons at issue, opponents of this change should not be shocked when proponents fire back with an equal amount of vitriol.

No Dentist Left Behind

My dentist is great! He sends me reminders so I don’t forget checkups. He uses the latest techniques based on research. He never hurts me, and I’ve got all my teeth. When I ran into him the other day, I was eager to see if he’d heard about the new state program. I knew he’d think it was great.

“Did you hear about the new state program to measure effectiveness of dentists with their young patients?” I said. ” No,” he said. He didn’t seem too thrilled. “How will they do that?” “It’s quite simple,” I said. “They will just count the number of cavities each patient has at age 10, 14, and 18 and average that to determine a dentist’s rating. Dentists will be rated as excellent, good, average, below average, and unsatisfactory. That way parents will know which are the best dentists. The plan will also encourage the less effective dentists to get better,” I said. “Poor dentists who don’t improve could lose their licenses to practice.”

“That’s terrible,” he said.

“What? That’s not a good attitude,” I said. “Don’t you think we should try to improve children’s dental health in this state?”

“Sure I do,” he said, “but that’s not a fair way to determine who is practicing good dentistry.”

Why not?” I said. “It makes perfect sense to me.”

“Well, it’s so obvious,” he said. “Don’t you see that dentists don’t all work with the same clientele, and that much depends on things we can’t control? For example, I work in a rural area with a high percentage of patients from deprived homes, while some of my colleagues work in upper middle-class neighborhoods. Many of the parents I work with don’t bring their children to see me until there is some kind of problem, and I don’t get to do much preventive work. Also many of the parents I serve let their kids eat way too much candy from an early age, unlike more educated parents who understand the relationship between sugar and decay. To top it all off, so many of my clients have well water, which is untreated and has no fluoride in it. Do you have any idea how much difference early use of fluoride can make?”

“It sounds like you’re making excuses,” I said. “I can’t believe that you, my dentist, would be so defensive. After all, you do a great job,and you needn’t fear a little accountability.”

“I am not being defensive!” he said. “My best patients are as good as anyone’s, my work is as good as anyone’s, but my average cavity count is going to be higher than a lot of other dentists because I chose to work where I am needed most.”

“Don’t’ get touchy,” I said.

“Touchy?” he said. His face had turned red, and from the way he was clenching and unclenching his jaws, I was afraid he was going to damage his teeth. “Try furious! In a system like this, I will end up being rated average, below average, or worse. The few educated patients I have who see these ratings may believe this so-called rating is an actual measure of my ability and proficiency as a dentist. they may leave me, and I’ll be left with only the most needy patients. And my cavity average score will get even worse. On top of that, how will I attract good dental hygienists and other excellent dentists to my practice if it is labeled below average?”

“I think you are overreacting,” I said. “‘Complaining, excuse-making and stonewalling won’t improve dental health’…I am quoting from a leading member of the DOC,” I noted.

“What’s the DOC?” he asked.

“It’s the Dental Oversight Committee,” I said, “a group made up of mostly lay persons to make sure dentistry in this state gets improved.”

“Spare me,” he said, “I can’t believe this. Reasonable people won’t buy it,” he said hopefully.

The program sounded reasonable to me, so I asked, “How else would you measure good dentistry?”

“Come watch me work,” he said. “Observe my processes.”

“That’s too complicated, expensive and time-consuming,” I said. “Cavities are the bottom line, and you can’t argue with the bottom line. It’s an absolute measure.”

“That’s what I’m afraid my parents and prospective patients will think. This can’t be happening,” he said despairingly.

“Now, now,” I said, “don’t despair. The state will help you some.”

“How?” he asked.

“If you receive a poor rating, they’ll send a dentist who is rated excellent to help straighten you out,” I said brightly.

“You mean,” he said, “they’ll send a dentist with a wealthy clientele to show me how to work on severe juvenile dental problems with which I have probably had much more experience? BIG HELP!”

“There you go again,” I said. “You aren’t acting professionally at all.”

“You don’t get it,” he said. “Doing this would be like grading schools and teachers on an average score made on a test of children’s progress with no regard to influences outside the school, the home, the community served and stuff like that. Why would they do something so unfair to dentists? No one would ever think of doing that to schools.”

I just shook my head sadly, but he had brightened.

“I’m going to write my representatives and senators,” he said. “I’ll use the school analogy. Surely they will see the point.”

He walked off with that look of hope mixed with fear and suppressed anger that I, a teacher, see in the mirror so often lately.
****************************
If you don’t understand why educators resent the recent federal NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT, this may help. If you do understand, you’ll enjoy this analogy,

Be a friend to a teacher and pass this on.

We All Have Choices

A-freakin’-men

Christian Persecution Complex

Christian Conservatives are now suing for the right to discriminate.

I think this was the most telling comment from the article:

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

“Think how marginalized racists are,” said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. “If we don’t address this now, it will only get worse.”

Well, yeah, duh, because they should be marginalized just like racists are because it’s the same prejudice, backed up by the same misused book that these same bigots tried to use to deny civil rights to non-whites and women. A shame that bit of self-discovery (that they’re being treated the same) hasn’t penetrated their consciousness to show them that they’re wrong.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: The Football Version

1. ALL teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the championship.

2. ALL kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren’t interested in football, have limited athletic ability, or whose parents don’t like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game. This will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. No child gets ahead, so no child is left behind. If parents do not like this new law they are encouraged to vote for vouchers and to support private schools that can screen out the non-athletes and prevent their children from having to go to school with bad football players.

My one comment on the Veep’s shooting incident

I think Tom Toles tells it best today.

Mrs. King on GLBT Rights

This came to me from one of my email lists and I thought it was important to share it.

—–
Soulforce Honors the Life of Coretta Scott King and Acknowledges Her Founding Influence

The staff and volunteers of Soulforce, a national social justice movement, express deep sadness at the news that Coretta Scott King has passed away at the age of 78. Her legacy will live on in the work of all of the advocacy groups founded on the principles of nonviolence taught by her husband, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The vision of Soulforce began in 1995 when our President and Founder, the Rev. Dr. Mel White, received a phone call from Mrs. King’s assistant, Lynn Cothren, introducing him to the principles of nonviolence taught and practiced by her husband, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At our first major direct action at a United Methodist Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, Yolanda King represented Coretta Scott King and the King family.

We honor the life of Coretta Scott King and her strong voice in reminding America that Dr. King would surely be fighting for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people if he were alive today. Some of her public statements include:

Coretta Scott King:
“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice… But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’…. I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”1

“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”2

“We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny… I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be,” she said, quoting from her husband. “I’ve always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy.”3

“Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.”4

“We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say ‘common struggle,’ because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.”5

“We have to launch a campaign against homophobia in the black community.”6

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”7

Sources:

1 Coretta Scott King, 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998

2 Coretta Scott King, speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, USA Today, March 24, 2004

3 Coretta Scott King, 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, quoted in the Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998

4 Coretta Scott King, 25th anniversary luncheon for\ Lambda Defense and Education Fund, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998

5 Coretta Scott King, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000

6 Coretta Scott King, Reuters, June 8, 2001

7 Coretta Scott King, a speech at the Palmer Hilton Hotel, quoted in the Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998

Foreign Aid, Redefined and Diminished

I agree with most of the tone of this editorial on the way the Rice State Department is changing the way we determine how to distribute foreign aid; Ms. Sanchez essentially calls the switch a bad idea for American diplomacy. The one critique I have of it is that she does not ever explicitly state the premise that alleviating poverty and promoting economic development overseas ultimately serves the US national security interest, and that the removal of that aid from developing areas which are not currently areas of security concern may serve to make them a security concern later down the road. The focusing of aid only on immediate hotspots is short sighted, and does not do enough to promote the US’ long-term security.

Rear Guard Action

President Bush continues to defend the indefensible

My favorite quote from Mr. Bush: “I’m mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process.”

• Mindful of them in what way? I’m not thinking it’s a positive one, given his track record.
• Yeah. all kinds of lawyers. Because we know lawyers never argue both sides, nor do the ever interpret the law in ways specifically designed to please their clients.
• And what kind of lawyers? Property law? Administrative law? (Moral) Bankruptcy attorneys?

Somehow I’m neither persuaded nor comforted by his words.

Amen, Sister

Molly Ivins kicks some Democratic ass.