links for 2008-01-27

Continue Readinglinks for 2008-01-27

Hillary is getting the bums rush

This go around, I decided to take some time to watch some of the candidates out on YouTube – listening to them speak versus what the media is saying. So for the past couple weeks I’ve been pulling up the Democratic candidates and watching what they say, then comparing to the news coverage of the same event. Here’s my conclusion:

The media are sexist, racist assholes with a (mostly right-wing) political agenda.

More sexist than racist, but they are both. The spin they put on stuff is bizarre, and completely subjective, and it’s the media pushing some sort of agenda, rather than letting candidates speak for themselves.

Especially the longer footage earlier in the same event, where there’s some utter jackhole with a big yellow sign that says “Iron My Shirt!” and he’s chanting “Iron My Shirt!” over and over at her. In 2008, for fuck’s sake. Why the fuck isn’t that the big story all over the news, rather than her crying? Come the fuck on – that’s the story. We have people in this country who are actually not afraid to go to a public event and act this way – tell me sexism isn’t alive and well in America. That should be shocking to anyone and everyone who sees it, but I see it getting almost no coverage at all.

Then watch the “crying” – she never actually cries at all. At worst, she’s getting choked up because she loves America. She’s not “having a breakdown” or “Too tired to campaign” – I’m sorry, but aren’t there times when you also get choked up about our country, because despite its flaws, this is truly a great experiment we are in. Hell, I get emotional every time I hear the friggin’ National Anthem. Hillary is made of iron compared to me, and I can kick your butt to Toledo.

Do yourself a favor, and spend some time watching the candidates themselves, rather than the “interpretation” of the news. You’ll have a lot more faith in the system and the potential than you have in the past, I tell you.

Continue ReadingHillary is getting the bums rush

Presidential facts in 2008

The stats, via Shakesville:

If you were ever in any doubt about the supremacy of White, Protestant Patriarchy in this culture, let’s do a quick review, OK?
232 Years as a Nation
42 Presidents
42 White Presidents
42 White Male Presidents
42 White Male Christian Presidents
41 White Male Protestant Presidents
1 White Male Catholic President (who was assassinated in office)
46 Vice-Presidents
46 White Vice-Presidents
46 White Male Vice-Presidents
46 White Male Christian Vice-Presidents
46 White Male Protestant Vice-Presidents

It’s definitely time for some change.

Continue ReadingPresidential facts in 2008

Rich white douchebags count on racism to win in 2008

During a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential election on the July 15 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, syndicated columnist Robert Novak asserted: “Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don’t see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, ‘OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.’ And it gives the Republicans hope.” Neither host Tim Russert nor any of Novak’s fellow panelists, Bloomberg News Washington managing editor Al Hunt, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum — all of whom are, like Novak, white men — commented on or challenged Novak’s assertion. As Media Matters for America documented, the four Sunday-morning talk programs on the broadcast networks, Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.

Yeah, they’re counting on racism and sexism to help them win next year. Nice.

Continue ReadingRich white douchebags count on racism to win in 2008

Kathy Sierra, hate comments, and women bloggers

I’ve avoided blogging about this because it’s very difficult to explain, really. I’ll try to keep it really short:

Kathy Sierra is a tech guru who got her start in Java, published some really popular books, and became well-known in the tech community for her ideas about technology and writing user-friendly web applications. She writes a popular blog called Creating Passionate Users, and speaks regularly at industry events. She was a keynote speaker at SXSW, a panel I attended. I’ve been subscribed to her site since last year, when Rich and Jerrod saw her at SXSW and raved about her when they got back.

Over the past several weeks, Kathy has, like several prominent female technogeeks before her, become the target of anonymous personal abuse that rose to the level of criminal threats of violence and murder. The reasons for why that occurred aren’t terribly clear, because Kathy’s about the closest thing to sunshine and puppies that you can get.

But the basic sequence of events seems to be this – some high-profile tech geeks who are more cynical and caustic got together and created a site called “meankids.org” to talk smack about their fellow wonks in the technology world. Kathy and some other women she knew were common targets of their cynicism and abuse, partly because they are women. This online sandbox for maliciousness bred more meanness in the forums and comments of the site as anonymous readers stepped up the abuse to increasing levels.

(Gee, that sounds familiar. I wonder where I’ve seen that happen before? Oh, yeah. I remember, we have our own version of this kind of virulent crap here in Indiana.)

When the women complained, the abuse increased even more, to the level of violent threats posted in anonymous comments on the abuse sites, and on Kathy’s site. The level of the threats were such that Kathy began to feel unsafe, and even canceled a prominent speaking engagement because of it. After she wrote about it on her blog, discussion of the whole incident has exploded across the internet.

One of the interesting things that has come out of this is discussion from numerous prominent women in the tech industry, who have come out with their own revelations of this happening to them. There is, it seems, a systemic problem in the industry.

I’ve been following the story for the last several days, mainly because all the big name web designers who’s blogs I read have weighed in, because either Kathy or the mean kids are their friends. But what made me actually decide to comment on the whole issue is this small quote from a BBC interview of Kathy on the threats she received:

She also thinks it could be time to re-examine whether the blogosphere needs to be completely uncensored.

“There is an unwritten rule in the blogosphere that it is wrong to delete nasty comments. It suggests that you can’t take criticism but now there is a sense that this is nonsense,” she said.

I happened to agree with that sentiment – I’ve practiced it for quite a while. I get 5-10 comments a day that are basically anti-gay trash directed at me. Most of the time, they’re caught in my spam filter (I have some unique keywords entered to catch them) and I simply delete them. Occasionally one or two will slip through live, but I usually delete them pretty quickly. Lately, though, the number of vitriolic posts and anti-gay comments has increased pretty drastically – it’s about double what it’s been in the past, so I have to monitor the comments more closely.

As far as I’m concerned, my website is my real estate. If you visit and decide to plant some flowers in my garden, that’s awesome; you’re always welcome back. If you visit and you graffiti my house, you’re not welcome and your contributions will be removed. Just like a newspaper that chooses not to publish every letter to the editor, I’ll choose to publish what I think adds substance.

It’s not a free speech issue as far as I’m concerned – you only have free speech in a public setting. My website isn’t a public space, it’s my space. No one’s stopping you from starting your own blog, or standing on a street corner preaching, or otherwise speaking out in public places. But you can’t come to my house and insult me and expect to stay.

For the past several weeks I’ve had a post rolling around in my head about my feelings about homophobia and anti-gay hatred and abuse, and how my feelings have developed and changed over the past 20 years that I’ve been “out of the closet.” Sometime soon I need to actually sit down and write that post, when I have a bit of extra time.

Continue ReadingKathy Sierra, hate comments, and women bloggers

In Defense Of Biblical Marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: “Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God’s Word and His standards will be honored by our government.”

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team’s admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) *

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Continue ReadingIn Defense Of Biblical Marriage

Against Their Will: North Carolina’s Sterilization Program

Reporters for the “Winston-Salem Journal” have obtained sealed records and are lifting the curtain on a horrifying truth: From 1933-1974, five members of the North Carolina eugenics board met every month and voted to sterilize up to 30 complete strangers in the name of the “greater good.”

Eugenics was the controversial practice of weeding out undesirable genetics by forced sterilization. Most of those sterilized were poor, illiterate, hypersexual, homosexual, promiscuous, or lazy — characteristics deemed “undesirable.” By the program’s end, 7,600 people had been sterilized against their will. About 60% were black, and 99% were female, including Elaine Riddick Jessie, who shares her traumatic story. Some board members admit to battling a crisis of conscience but say it was difficult to vote against the tide of prevailing ideas and the support of North Carolina’s medical and political elite. It’s a story of a program that began with high hopes and good intentions but quickly devolved into something tragic and troubling.

Continue ReadingAgainst Their Will: North Carolina’s Sterilization Program