def shepherd

Supporters of Child-Sexualizer-in-Chief outraged by film about sexualization of children

2020-09-14T18:48:00.010-04:00

The Right's firestorm over Netflix's acquisition and streaming of the French film, "Cuties" ("Mignonnes") would lead one to believe that they have a zero tolerance policy regarding the sexualization of children.

Donald Trump Jr has called Netflix's hosting of the film the "normalization of pedophelia and the sexualization of our children." He said of the Democrats who defend the film: "Not a good look!"

Ted Cruz and Tammy Bruce have labeled it "child porn."

The outcry about the film (which I have not seen), has led to calls for a boycott of Netflix, and several members of Congress have called for a Justice Department investigation.

According to Netflix, the French indie film is actually “a social commentary against the sexualization of young children. It’s an award-winning film and a powerful story about the pressure young girls face on social media and from society more generally growing up — and we’d encourage anyone who cares about these important issues to watch the movie.”

The film's director, Maïmouna Doucouré, has stated that the movie pulled from elements of her own childhood in its portrayal of 11-year-old Amy’s struggles between "two distinct modes of femininity: one dictated by the traditional values of her Senegalese and Muslim upbringing, the other by Western society."

So, we have a national uproar over a female-directed French film that grapples with society's sexualization of young children. Make no mistake -- this is a film that, otherwise, would have debuted on Netflix with little fanfare, and would have found a modest viewership among fans of international cinema and films that address social issues such as Pihu or The Florida Project --not exactly a broad demographic.

Let's be clear. There is a very big difference between defending the sexualization of children and defending a film about the sexualization of children. It's fair to say that "Leaving Las Vegas" features intense, challenging scenes depicting substance abuse. It's not fair to say that "Leaving Las Vegas" is pro-substance abuse.

We can certainly chastise Netflix for their misleading and admittingly inappropriate marketing of the film, but if the Right were truly concerned about the sexualization of children, why have they been so silent about, say, Dance Moms, or Toddlers & Tiaras -- massively popular actual shows about the actual sexualization of actual children?

Why are they not outraged by Donald Trump sexualizing his own 1-year old daughter by openly discussing the future development of her breasts and legs?

Where is the petition to remove Trump from office for sexualizing a 10-year old girl -- on camera -- by stating, "I'm going to be dating her in ten years?"

How do they feel about the filed affidavit alleging Trump and Epstein raped at 13-year old girl at a party in New York City?

Or what about the times that Trump has admitted to walking in on naked Miss Teen USA contestants?

("I'll go backstage before a show and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything else...And you know, no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant. And therefore I'm inspecting it...You know they're standing there with no clothes...And so I sort of get away with things like that.")

Or what about the allegations that one of Epstein's victims was recruited at Mar-a-Lago where she worked as a spa attendant?

What about when Trump sexualized another daughter when asked what he had in common with her? (He replied, "Sex.")

The female director of "Cuties," who wrote and directed the film to shine a light on the sexualization of children, has received death threats as an outflow of the controversy -- a controversy largely fuelled by Trump, GOP figureheads, and conservative commentators.

Meanwhile, a great many of those outraged are supporters of Trump, an admitted sexual predator with a well-documented and long history of very real (and very public) sexualization of children, including allegations of child rape.

Not a good look.

Content for dark times: Streaming my way through the chaos

2020-09-02T07:00:00.005-04:00

Turn it off. That's what I've been told by colleagues, my doctor, friends, and family. The news and social media are designed to keep us outraged and glued to the incessant stream of breaking news and chaos. We wake up in the night, pick up our phones, scan the headlines. Doomscrolling, they call it. Webster has taken note.

The privilege of being able to turn any of this off is not lost on me, as so many don't have the luxury of frivolous escape or self-care. Purposefully turning away from injustice, a public health crisis, and the undermining of American democracy, even for an evening, can feel like acquiescence.

Many of us, however, benefit from getting out of our own heads for a bit, to interrupt the constant stream of chaos. Like the flight attendants say, "Secure your own oxygen mask before helping others."

Hobbies, meditation, exercise, cooking, home improvement, or just being with family are great ways to disconnect. I'm sure most doctors would not recommend television as the best way to disconnect. However, for folks like me whose thoughts and worries tend to remain somewhat present during the above unplugged activities, there's nothing like getting lost in a narrative, another world, or to view life from another perspective to take us out of my real-world worries for a little while.

Thankfully, during this time when scripted film and television production has largely come to a halt due to COVID, there's an abundance of riches at our fingertips due to the explosion of streaming platforms and the race to amass deep catalogs of original programming. Never in history has there been so much quality content available to us.

The following are a few of the shows that have served as an oasis of sorts during this period of darkness, providing much-needed laughs, wisdom, enlightenment, or sheer distraction for a moment.

Stath Lets Flats:
A hidden gem currently streaming on HBOMax (two seasons), this British comedy import's premise feels derivative of The Office and Parks & Rec (incompetent but lovable cast of employees shot in documentary style), but the writing and the ensemble cast are so good and so funny that you won't care. The show stars real-life brother and sister Jamie and Natasia Demetriou (you know the former from Fleabag and the latter from What We Do In The Shadows), as Greek-Cypriot transplants working in their father's struggling apartment rental agency. It's consistently gut-bustingly funny, cringe-inducing, and ultimately sweet. And it just took home two BAFTA awards, in case those kinds of accolades help to sell you.

What We Do In The Shadows:
I initially resisted this show, which is based on the 2014 mockumentary movie of the same name. I loved the movie, and its characters so much, that I feared the show (featuring different actors in the central roles) might pale in comparison. If you have resisted it for any reason, I can assure you that this is the funniest, smartest, most satisfying and absurd show show on the planet right now. Give it two or three episodes for its characters, its aesthetic, and its world-building to sink their teeth into you. As it turns out, the mostly British starring cast is absolutely perfect, and after two seasons, I can't imagine anyone else in the roles. This has quickly vaulted into my top 3 all-time favorite list.

Brassic:
Another British import, Brassic is an incredibly funny, and surprisingly heartfelt comedy-drama about a ragtag bunch of friends stuck in a dead-end Northern town with little opportunity. The main character, Vinnie, is bipolar, and the show is smart (and funny) in its handling of mental health, just as it is with its exploration of class and privilege. The show does a great job of making this madcap pack of ne'er-do-wells, petty criminals, and goofballs completely human and likeable. It's a gem.

Euphoria:
If you've seen the ads, you might dismiss it as yet another teen drama. It *is* a teen drama, but there's something really special about Euphoria. Sure, it's incredibly graphic -- nudity, sex, violence, substance abuse, profanity, you name it -- but it's also very real, incredibly honest, and thoroughly compelling, with a top-notch ensemble cast. The characters feel real, and they’re navigating real-world problems: high school, sexuality, gender identity, peer pressure, body image, social media, addiction, abuse, trauma, etc. It's messy, profane, and shocking, much like teen life. But the show treats its characters with great care and authenticity.

I May Destroy You:
Like 'Euphoria,' HBO's 'I May Destroy You' is graphic, honest, and authentic, with a stellar cast. Like Euphoria, it unflinchingly explores modern societal issues, mostly relating to consent, sexual assault, and the complex intersectionality of race, class, sexuality, and gender. It's an ambitious show, deftly examining the nuances -- and messiness -- of #MeToo from an array of perspectives. Like Euphoria, it's consistently compelling storytelling with the power to open minds, to educate, and to inform. At times, 'I May Destroy You' and 'Euphoria' get a little heavy, and may not be the escape from reality you might be seeking right now, but I feel like I needed both of these shows. Both have the power to impact how we perceive those who are different from us. Both are reminders that everyone is fighting battles we know nothing about. Both illustrate the importance of looking out for one another, persevering, and questioning even our deepest held convictions.

Undone:
Amazon's genre-bending animated series is one of those shows that most people explain by saying, "you just have to see it." According to Amazon, 'Undone' explores "the elastic nature of reality through its central character, Alma. After getting into a near fatal car accident, Alma discovers she has a new relationship with time and uses this ability to find out the truth about her father's death." That's not a bad elevator pitch, but it leaves out the fact that it's visually stunning, using an animation technique called rotoscope to produce the mind-bending visuals necessary to tell this interdimensional time-travel story. Similar to the style of Richard Linklater's 'A Scanner Darkly,' these are real actors (including Rosa Salazar and Bob Odenkirk) playing the roles, but it's as if each frame has been painted over by hand, giving it a dream-like quality, in which characters can float or be transported to another time, space, or dimension. It's a lovely, thought-provoking, and thoroughly engaging meditation on mental illness, loss, grief, family, and heritage.

Raised by Wolves:

This Ridley Scott-produced HBO Max sci-fi serial has to be the most pleasant TV surprise of 2020. I'm not a huge sci-fi nerd, although I do count Brazil, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Blade Runner among some of my favorite movies. I like my sci-fi dystopian, aesthetically stunning, intellectually stimulating, and I prefer to do some work rather than be constantly spoon-fed every detail or plot point. Raised by Wolves is all of this and more, exploring the nature of belief, morality, and free will (and so much more). Like Blade Runner, it also explores the nature of artificial intelligence -- at what point is an artificial life human, and can we trust artificial intelligence to make the most ethical/moral choices?
While there are many shows that compel you to binge, to devour as much as you can in one sitting, Raised by Wolves is a show to savor. While it moves at a brisk pace, and is never dull, there is so much to take in, and lots to think about. It's a show that rewards repeat viewings, and you may find yourself spending time reading critical analysis of each episode, or brushing up via the show's Fandom wiki. It's a show that takes place in its own unique speculative universe, with its own history, and much of the first season is spent acclimating you to its world-building. Four episodes in, and I'm hoping that the show continues for years -- it's that good.

Trump's uncanny knack for hiring only the very best worst people

2018-08-17T13:13:00.023-04:00

They were the best of people, they were the worst of people.Trump promised excellence. “I’m going to surround myself with only the best and most serious people,” he said in a 2016 interview with The Washington Post. “We want top of the line professionals.”

The rate of turnover in the Trump White House is wholly unprecedented, exceeding that of any other administration in a century — interesting, given Trump’s 2012 tweet ridiculing President Barack Obama for his (much lower) turnover rate:

3 Chief of Staffs in less than 3 years of being President: Part of the reason why @BarackObama can’t manage to pass his agenda.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2012

Reviewing the history of Trump hirings and firings, a pattern emerges. Like some kind of reverse King Midas, every Trump hire is turned from the best person in the world to the absolute worst person ever, in a very short amount of time.

Let’s have a look at some of Trump’s most jarring 180s of the past several months:

Trump on George Papadopoulos
March 2016: “An excellent guy.”
October 2017: “Low level volunteer…who has already been proven to be a liar.”

Trump on Omarosa Manigault Newman
2016: “She’s a wonderful woman…She has done so much for me…she is a fine person…you are amazing. She works so hard, she feels so strongly.”
2018: “Wacky Omarosa…She was vicious, but not smart…nasty…a loser…nothing but problems…a lowlife.”

Trump on Steve Bannon
October 2017: “I have a very good relationship with Steve Bannon. Steve’s been a friend of mine for a long time. I like Steve a lot.
January 2018: “Sloppy Steve Bannon…a dog.” “Poor…a liar.”

Trump on Michael Cohen
April 2018: “A fine person with a wonderful family.”
July 2018: “Unethical…scumbag. He’s a horrible person.”

There are only a few conclusions we can draw from Trump’s pattern of hiring only the best people who are also really terrible people that he must fire:

He’s a bullsh**ter
He’s an absolute terrible judge of character

Science tells us that those who are most susceptible to bulls**t are less analytic and less intelligent. (I will leave it up to readers to make any inferences here about Trump’s base.)

Science also tells us that intelligent people are better judges of character. Trump insists he’s a “stable genius” with a high IQ, but, as Stephen Hawking said, “People who boast about their IQ are losers.”

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,it's not your fault
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 9, 2013

Trump’s public adulations of several notorious dictators also lends credence to the notion that he’s not very good at judging character. (After all, this is the guy who trusts ex-KGB agents more than he trusts US intelligence.)

Of course, it’s entirely possible that Trump is both a bullsh**ter and a terrible judge of character. Either way, not the qualities you’d want in, say, the treasurer of your homeowners association, or your pet sitter.

Yet, these are the qualities of the man entrusted to make crucial decisions on the behalf of 322 million American citizens. We have a bullsh**ter, who is also a terrible judge of character, sitting in closed-door meetings with a hostile foreign power.

We may not be able to fire him, exactly, but perhaps those who thought Trump was the best person for the job now see that he is, in fact, the worst. Like so many Trump hires, maybe Trump will be sent packing, disparaged by the once-fawning masses as he walks out the door — a fitting return to civilian life for a man who bullsh**ted his way into the White House.

Becoming Nicole: The story of a quintessentially Maine family

2015-12-01T14:57:00.000-05:00

I grew up in the American South ("from away," as Mainers say), an area not often characterized as tolerant or progressive. In my mind, Maine, along with the rest of New England, was a relative oasis of reason and liberal-mindedness. This characterization was partly due to stereotypes about the Northeast, and partly due to actual statistics.

I remember reading about the Nicole Maines case, in which the Orono school district was sued in 2009 for not allowing the transgender fifth-grader to use the girls’ bathroom. (As most readers will know, Maine’s high court ruled in 2014 that the school administrators violated anti-discrimination laws, ensuring equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation or gender identification.)

As a North Carolinian who had just seen a hateful same-sex marriage ban enshrined in the state constitution, two things struck me about this case. First, it seemed incredibly brave for a fifth-grader to identify openly as transgender (and for her family to support her). Secondly, it seemed so very un-Maine for a school to discriminate against a transgender fifth-grader.

The story of Nicole Maines’ (and her family’s) struggle for acceptance (wonderfully told in Amy Ellis Nutt’s Becoming Nicole: The Transformation of an American Family) is a similar to many stories of civil rights struggles we have seen over and over – a struggle to change attitudes that are often rooted in the fear of otherness. It is the story of combatting ignorance about a very real human condition through education, determination, and outreach. Ultimately, however, it is about persevering, standing for what is right, and staying true to who we are – and doing anything and everything possible to protect our own.

While the Maineses are "from away," their surname seems incredibly apt in the context of their story, their perseverance, and their commitment to leading the way. Dirigo, indeed.

“The hardships of life in Maine have made many of the state’s communities very close-knit. People there are ready to help when a neighbor has a problem.” – Maine, Terry Allan Hicks
Nicole Maines’ story could not be a better example of “taking care of one’s own,” a phrase that resonates strongly with Mainers. While the Maineses had to fight a protracted legal battle over discrimination, it's important to note that there were many helpful Mainers along the way who were supportive of the family and of Nicole's gender identity -- including some school administrators, neighbors, and friends. After Nicole (Wyatt, until she publicly began asserting her gender identity) finally wore a dress in 5th grade, classmates said "It's about time."

Nicole’s twin brother Jonas was as protective of his sister as a brother can be. He kept an eye on Nicole at school, always at the ready in the case that Nicole was bullied. When the family was forced to move to King Middle School, where they did not initially disclose Nicole’s transgender status (going stealth, as Nicole called it), Jonas actively protected Nicole's history, often at the expense of his own social life. (Jonas even got into a fight over his sister.) When their father was still not quite accepting of Nicole’s gender identity, it was soft-spoken Jonas who said to his father, “Face it, Dad, you have a son and a daughter.”

Kelly, Nicole’s mother, was the quintessential Maine grizzly mama, taking the lead in ensuring Nicole’s well-being no matter the cost, eventually uprooting Nicole and separating the family so that Nicole could attend school in Portland. It was Kelly who researched gender issues exhaustively, soaking up every bit of information she could to aid in her protection of Nicole (and of the family). Kelly was a problem solver. Early in Nicole’s life, Kelly knew that she needed to devote herself to ensuring the safety of her family, and she was relentless in this devotion.
“Perseverance is a great element of success. If you only knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody.” - Henry Wadsorth Longfellow

Wayne Maines, like many Maine fathers, was devoted to supporting his family financially, and ensuring that no matter what, they always had a roof over their heads, clothes to wear, and food to eat. Although he was reluctant to accept that Nicole’s gender identity was nothing more than a phase for quite some time, he listened, he learned, he evolved, and finally accepted that his son was indeed a daughter. Nowhere along the way did he love her any less, and his vow to keep her safe never faltered. In a state that has long tradition of rugged masculinity, strength, and resilience, Wayne proves that strength can be exhibited in many ways, whether it be a Republican Air-Force veteran dancing with Nicole at the school father-daughter dance, testifying before the Maine Legislature, or becoming a voice in the effort to protect other trans youth.

As Maine goes, so goes the nation.

"I had to live this journey for 10 years to understand it," Wayne told The Associated Press. "Putting ourselves out there...is important so other parents don't have to take 10 years to understand it."

Describing the book in his own words at Bowdoin College this past October, Wayne Maines said the book “is not just about Nicole Maines, it’s about a family, a blue-collar family that tried to do better.”

That's Maine for you.

Kim Davis and Religious Freedom: A Slippery Slope

2015-09-09T09:33:00.000-04:00

From the Dept. of Careful What You Wish For:

Ted Nugent: Death To Sharia, Unless Its My Sharia

2015-01-15T09:12:00.000-05:00

Ted Nugent, never one to mince word salads when it comes to Islam, has proposed a 'final solution' for Islamic extremists in his column at WorldNutDaily:

Radical Islam is a global cancer. Shariah law should be seen as the hate speech that it is. Its very essence is a criminal act of sedition, advocating the overthrowing of the U.S. government, punishable by hanging. It must be dealt with now, not tomorrow or next week, or surely this religious cancer will consume the host and darkness will indeed cover the Earth.

This rabid, voodoo threat is very real and right in front of us. We must not shoot just one or two rabid dogs, but to save the human race, we must kill them all.

We don't really expect anything different from The Nuge. He is, after all, the guy who wrote "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang."

But Nugent, in justifying the extermination of the Islamic threat, also voices his deathwish for other "rabid dogs" and "vermin":

I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. Let the victims defend themselves in a timely, efficient manner. Double tap center mass. No court case. No plea bargaining, no parole. No time off for good behavior, no early release. I want ‘em dead.

Their victims know who they are and what they are doing. Blow ‘em away and let the crows pick their carcasses clean.

Sounds a little like Sharia there, Ted.

And remember, this is the guy the GOP trots out regularly to rally the troops. They'll do it again in 2016.

I Am Charlie -- Even If Charlie Is Vile and Unfunny

2015-01-09T10:03:00.001-05:00

I have been seeing several comments, blog posts, and articles pointing out the racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, xenophobic nature of Charlie Hebdo's content over the years. From what I've seen, I wouldn't disagree.

Here's the thing, though. It shouldn't matter. If this had happened at the offices of Barely Legal or the Westboro Baptist Church it would have been equally as tragic and unacceptable. We should fight for the rights of even the most vile individuals to express themselves, tastelessly or not. We have Larry Flynt to thank, remember, for making The Onion and South Park possible.

Many have gone out of their way to say "I am not Charlie" because of the type of content for which Charlie was responsible. This strikes me as not too different than saying "I am not Mike Brown" because I wouldn't have stolen a cigarillo, or wearing an "I can breathe" shirt because I'm not overweight selling loose cigarettes on the street corner for extra bucks. None of these people deserved to die.

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't call out those who peddle in racism, xenophobia, and misogyny. The French satirical magazine has been around for decades. To call out Charlie Hebdo right now for their content feels too much like telling a rape victim that she shouldn't have dressed so provocatively.

The Commencement Address No One Asked Me To Give

2014-06-04T12:44:00.000-04:00

The below guest post was written by Matt Shipman, a science writer and father of three who lives in Raleigh. You can follow Matt on Twitter at @ShipLives or connect with him here on Google+.

Driving home from work recently, I heard a story on the radio about commencement addresses.

This made me wonder what sort of commencement address I would give, in the unlikely event that anyone asked me to give one. I think it would go something like this---

Greetings, graduates!

I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about whether you are special.

Some of you are probably special, or will be; most of you, by definition, aren’t. But (and here’s the thing), even if I said that none of you are special, every single one of you would think that you were the exception. See how normal you are?

Your class is also diverse: men and women of different races, cultures, religions, sexual orientations, and fields of study. What on Earth can I say that’s relevant to all of you?

Here it is: don’t be an asshole.

I am entirely sincere when I say that.

It sounds obvious, yet every day an astonishing number of people fail to follow that simple advice. So allow me to suggest some useful tips.

Be kind. Say please and thank you. Do nice things for people. (But don’t expect anything in return, or get in a snit if no one thanks you – if you do those things, you’re being an asshole.)

Now, being nice can be tricky. If you start running up to strangers and offering to help them, they may assume that you are planning to mug them.

So here’s an example of something nice you can do that will rarely scare other people: if you’re ever in line at the grocery store and the person behind you has a screaming child on their hands, offer to let them go ahead of you. They may not take you up on the offer, but they’ll probably appreciate it.

That’s about it.

Oh, and you should also work hard, engage in critical thinking, appreciate the roles of innovation and scientific research in economic development, and try to understand (though not necessarily admire) the perspectives of other people.

But mostly, don’t be an asshole.

One of those Inevitable Facebook Debates: Religion, Agnosticism, Time & Space

2014-05-12T14:10:00.001-04:00

I recently had one of those inevitable FB discussions with some right-wing conservative Christians in which I was lumped in with atheists. I tried to explain that my lack of religion is no more a rejection of a deity than an independent voter's lack of party association is a rejection of government.

Here's part of that discussion in which I explain how my appreciation for the vastness of time and space tends to make it difficult for me to accept any form of religion as we know it:

Many people don't quite understand why people make a conscious decision to not identify with or follow a particular religion -- or no religion at all. Most of us did not reach this point without a great deal of contemplation. Many of us simply can't reconcile any of the existing religions with our understanding of the cosmos -- not with good conscience, anyway. We are not bad people. Morality can and does exist outside of religion.

13.8 billion years condensed into a calendar year

There have been many belief systems throughout time (and possibly throughout the cosmos by other intelligent beings millions of light years away from us), and there will be many other belief systems, possibly arising long after our likely inevitable extinction.

To discount such an acknowledgment is to deny the realities of the history of the cosmos and any and all life within it. We're a tiny blip on the timeline of the cosmos, as well as on the map of the cosmos, which contains at least 300 sextillion suns. That is a 3 followed by 23 zeros.

Perspective is a good thing.

I don't deny the existence of a deity. I simply acknowledge the reality of the vastness of time and space, and logic dictates that one religion which has only existed for a very brief sliver of time on one of billions (trillions, more?) of potential life-supporting planets, is probably not the one 'true' brand of religion. If it is, it's a very strange thing for a deity to do -- to drop a needle in an infinite haystack -- the one needle that will guarantee eternal life -- yet it is only available to the tiniest sliver of living beings (and only a portion of those, since many of them follow another religion due to geographical and historical influences, heritage, etc.), who happen to live on this one very extra-special planet (one of sextillions, likely many more) during an incredibly minuscule sliver of time -- also, let's drop this nugget on a small group of isolated desert-dwelling people who don't (can't) write things down.

If you were a deity, that would maybe be the absolute worst way possible to inform a cosmos (which you created) about your existence. It's hard to imagine that a deity, if he/she/it exists, would be that short-sighted, or that bad at marketing him/herself.

And if a deity made it possible for me to think logically about these things and it led me to being open-minded about the possibility of other paths of being a moral creature in this world, and I honestly gave it a good go for a good decade and a half, and continue to be as moral and ethical as I was then, why would he/she/it punish me eternally? Wouldn't he/she/it appreciate a well lived life of philosophical contemplation, empathy, and a determination to reduce suffering?

Duck Dynasty: No, Tolerance Doesn't Have To Go Both Ways

2013-12-20T10:53:00.003-05:00

Sorry. Duck Dynasty again. It's always the stupid shit that forces a dialogue, it seems.

There's a lot of whining going on about there being no tolerance for people of faith in America anymore.

Here's the thing about tolerance. Tolerance (which I've posted about before here) does not require that one be tolerant of social injustice. When we denounce beliefs which cause harm to others (and yes, denigrating LGBT folks and equating homosexuality with bestiality is indeed harmful), we are in no way in conflict with the concept of tolerance. Tolerance, in a global declaration by the UN, is defined as "the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments...The practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions."

When people state that they stand with Robertson because he has the right to speak freely about his faith, they're right -- he does have that right. But it begs the question -- are Christians required by their faith to malign human beings for their natural traits? (If so, that's a horribly flawed morality.) And are those who disagree required to tolerate it?

The reason why it has become "politically incorrect" to denigrate gays and lesbians is not because society no longer tolerates religious belief or family values. It's because this view of sexuality and gender is as unethical and as harmful as the Taliban belief that women should stay at home rather than go to school. It is quite simply archaic and discriminatory thinking that has no value in modern society -- thinking that is morally dubious at best. While those who embrace reason, science, and human progress are moving on and leaving behind naive and outdated views from ancient texts, others remain kicking and screaming, believing that others are being intolerant of their Bronze Age ideas about sexuality and gender (or about the origins of the cosmos and life).

If we must tolerate religious views of LGBT-condemning fundamentalist Christians, then we must also tolerate the religious views of women-stoning fundamentalist Muslims. We can't say that one is any more or less correct. They are both morally unsound and archaic views that cause harm to others.

Why aren't people tolerant of those who wish to cure epilepsy or mental illness by drilling holes in the skull? (This was a common early medical practice.) Well, mostly because we learned more about biology, realized that we were mistaken, and we changed our approach.

There is nothing about tolerance that requires someone to tolerate the mistreatment or maligning of other human beings because of their natural traits. So crying foul on this one and saying it's an attack on faith and family values is to miss the point. Because anti-LGBT sentiment is not a value. Any faith that dictates that it is, is morally flawed. Acquiescing to such ideology is not a virtue.

The Duck Dynasty Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Free Speech

2013-12-19T12:52:00.000-05:00

The creator of this image doesn't get it.

So this whole Duck Dynasty/A&E thing. I've been seeing a lot of comments in the blogosphere/Twittersphere, and petitions being passed around on Facebook, and one thing seems clear: Too many Americans have no idea what the First Amendment does and doesn't do.

Robertson has all the rights in the world to believe and say what he wants about LGBT folks. Nobody can take that right away from him. However, his employer, A&E, has no obligation whatsoever to pay him for making comments which they feel are not aligned with their values. They are in no way compelled to continue to provide a forum for a guy who has offended a significant number of their viewers.

I imagine if an employee of Fox News (or any other network) made comments on or off the air that equated Christians with swine, that individual would be suspended. And I imagine that the same people who are backing Robertson and boycotting A&E, would applaud the suspension of this employee. And if he were to remain, I assume they would boycott the Network.

You have the right to say whatever crazy, hurtful, or morally dubious thing you want (short of hate speech, which is not protected). You don't, however, have the right to keep your TV job after you say it.

8 Things I Don't Get About Evangelicals Leaving Nasty Notes (And No Tip) For Homosexual Waitpersons

2013-11-18T12:36:00.002-05:00

Here's what I don't get about Christians leaving nasty notes and no tip for homosexual waitpersons (see here and here for a few recent examples):

If homosexuality is a choice (as so many misinformed Evangelicals believe), and if acting upon homosexual urges is 'an abomination,' then I have a whole lot of questions:

1. How do these Evangelical diners know that their waitperson is having sex, or with whom they have having sex? Maybe their waitperson is a virgin?

2. Why are they so sure that their waitperson is gay? Did they talk about all the gay sex they're having and then list the specials for the day?

3. Do Evangelicals think about the sex that every waitperson is having? Maybe that's a problem?

4. Do they leave similar judgmental notes for seemingly straight waitpersons who might be having sex for reasons other than procreation? Or who might be divorced? Or having an affair? Or who might have a tattoo? Or who might be judgmental assholes?

5. WWJD?

6. Maybe sexual orientation is not a choice?

7. Maybe who cares if it is a choice?

8. Maybe gratuities are for services rendered and not for the display of specific human traits?

MONSTERS OF THE COSMOS - Symphony of Science

2013-08-27T14:37:00.001-04:00

'Gangnam Style' Prophesies Death Of Pope Benedict

2013-02-16T11:29:00.000-05:00

'The Face of Creation' - Higgs Remix

2012-12-27T13:13:00.002-05:00

Celebrate 2012's greatest scientific discovery with a remix by melodysheep:

Thoughts On The Sandy Hook Shootings

2012-12-19T17:42:00.002-05:00

This was vomited out in a ranty, knee-jerky fashion without edits or revisions. Please forgive my sloppiness and lack of references.

I'm getting pretty tired of hearing the following comments regarding the Sandy Hook shootings:

1. Things like this didn't used to happen.

Yes. Things like this have always happened. People have killed other human beings for little or no reason for as long as humans have existed.

2. People might have killed other people in the past, but they wouldn't take out groups of innocent children and then kill themselves.
Yes. They have. Do some research.

3. This was an act of hatred.
No. This was not an act of hatred. It was the act of a mentally ill man with access to large quantities of ammunition and assault weapons.

4. This was due to the decline of morality in our society.
No. Mental illness doesn't care about morals. An individual with a normal and healthy brain with the capacity for empathy will not commit an act like the one in Sandy Hook.

5. If we had more religion in our societies and in our schools, we wouldn't see things like this happen. Mental illness does not discriminate. No amount of religion (or lack thereof) will keep a mentally ill individual from acting on violent ideation.

6. In the past, if someone was crazy, they'd maybe kill a few people at most -- they'd never enter a school and kill 27 people.
In the past, schools were smaller, our cities and towns were not as densely populated, and assault rifles (and associated rounds of ammunition) were not available on the internet. The internet is only a recent phenomenon. One room school-houses existed just a generation ago. Do the math. If a psychopath had walked into a schoolhouse with an ax or a musket in centuries past, they might get away with killing or maiming a handful of children. And you better believe that psychopaths did kill women and children in the past. We are often blinded by our own lack of appreciation of time and history.

7. This person was pure evil.
We love to exculpate ourselves from culpability. Evil is a human construct. There is nothing at all supernatural about a school shooting.

Let's be honest and admit that what makes these horrible recent events seem so unimaginable is the fact that in all of history, the recipe for such events has not been possible. Mental illness + easy access to assault weapons + densely populated cities, towns, schools, malls = unprecedented fatalities caused by lone actors.

This wasn't an act of evil. It is not a sign of a decaying morality. It cannot be attributed to a lack of religion. These kinds of incidents have always happened -- Americans simply live in a time characterized by a) easy access to assault weapons online 24/7 and in neighborhood stores in every town in America, b) a widespread lack of understanding about mental illness, the stigma associated with it, and the failure of parents, families, co-workers, and neighbors to identify the signs of serious mental illness, c) densely populated cities, towns, and buildings.

It's time we stopped making excuses, accept the realities of our time and place in history, and work to improve the contributing factors that we actually can control.

Our Story In One Minute

2012-11-05T21:49:00.001-05:00

A tapestry of footage tracing the cosmic and biological origins of our species, set to original music. Another great mash-up from Melodysheep.

Watch:

The Bible As A Voting Guide

2012-10-24T11:09:00.001-04:00

Over at Christian Post, there's an interesting opinion piece entitled Why the Bible Is the Best Voters Guide.

Here are a few of the key takeaways from the piece, along with quotes from the op-ed:

Don't Vote For The Kenyan

Civil leaders should be selected from among their own people. People must know the candidate. This is why the Constitution of the United States requires the president must be naturally born in the U.S.

Don't Vote For The Black Guy Who Supports Equal Pay, Women's Rights, And Equality

He must execute justice without respect to race, gender, and national origin, or any other categorical distinction made in society.

Don't Vote For Women

The Scriptures require that we "choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men." The word men used here is not the generic term for "mankind" but rather the word for "male." Everywhere the qualifications for civil leaders are mentioned in the Bible, males – not females – are identified.

Don't Vote For the Guy Who Endorsed Gay Marriage -- But The Mormon Still Makes Us Nervous

The Bible is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman, since "the two shall become one flesh"...This definition excludes multiple wives.

Never mind The Establishment Clause

So before you consult all the other voting guides, make sure you have rightly prioritized the words of Scripture above all the other voices for how you analyze the candidates.

AFA's Bryan Fischer: I Am A "Prophetic Voice" Warning Against The Gay Agenda

2012-10-23T12:26:00.002-04:00

On yesterday's program, Bryan Fischer claimed to be a "prophetic voice," stating that America is "going to have to choose between the homosexual agenda and liberty, because we cannot have both."

Watch:

Bill Hicks & George Carlin, Auto-Tuned, Share Their Views On Life

2012-10-16T12:07:00.001-04:00

"The big electron -- it doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all, it just is."

Watch:

LifeWay Drops Rachel Held Evans' 'A Year of Biblical Womanhood' Over Content, Continues Selling Bible

2012-10-16T10:10:00.000-04:00

LifeWay Christian Resources has dropped A Year Of Biblical Womanhood, by award-winning Evangelical author Rachel Held Evans, over her use of the word 'vagina.'

Meanwhile, LifeWay will continue selling a book that condones murder, acts of genocide, slavery, and contains acts of drunken incest, oral sex, and the collection of 200 dead men's foreskins.

That book would be the Bible, LifeWay's number one seller.

Evans' book is an entry into the 'do something for a year and write about it' genre. In 'A Year of Biblical Womanhood,' Evans writes of her experience living as a woman under the Bible's strict guidelines, including "growing out her hair, making her own clothes, covering her head, obeying her husband, rising before dawn, abstaining from gossip, remaining silent in church, and even camping out in the front yard during her period."

What's LifeWay's beef, then, if Evans is simply describing her womanly allegiance to the Bible?

Here's the passage (emphasis mine) that severed her ties with LifeWay (Evans refused to change the manuscript after requests to do so):

I signed my first abstinence pledge when I was just fifteen. I’d been invited by some friends to a fall youth rally at the First Baptist Church, and in the fellowship hall one night, the youth leader passed around neon blue and pink postcards that included a form letter to God promising to remain sexually abstinent until marriage. We had only a few minutes to add our signatures, and all my friends were signing theirs, so I used the back of my metal chair to scribble my name across the dotted line before marching to the front of the room to pin my promise to God and to my vagina onto a giant corkboard for all to see. The youth leader said he planned to hang the corkboard in the hallway outside the sanctuary so that parents could marvel at the seventy-five abstinence pledges he’d collected that night. It was a pretty cheap way to treat both our bodies and God, come to think of it.

Evans wrote about the Christian bookstore "chokehold" on her blog:

Christian bookstores have developed a reputation for producing a highly sanitized customer experience, purging from their shelves any language, content, or theology that doesn’t meet their uber-conservative standards. Walk into your local LifeWay and you will find plenty of Precious Moments statues, specialty Bibles, Veggie Tale movies, and Thomas Kinkade prints...but little trace of art or literature that intrigues, agitates, and inspires—as true art should! The Christian bookstore experience is, in a word, safe. Butsafe is not how Christians are called to live, and safe is not what artists who are Christians are called to create. In fact, based on LifeWay’s own standards, the Bible itself—which includes profanity, violence, and sex—should be banned from the shelves.

What most people don’t realize, however, is that the problem of sanitized Christian bookstores extends far beyond the inventory on the shelves to create an entire Christian subculture that is so sanitized and safe it often fails to produce art that is relevant to our culture or our lives.

Later in the post, Evans writes candidly about her own experience with LifeWay, saying that she was asked to take out words like “hell,” “damn,” and “kick-ass.”

I'm reminded of Daniel Radosh's funny and insightful expose on Christian pop culture, Rapture Ready!, which contains a wonderful passage in which Radosh discusses Christin publishing taboos with bestselling Christian authors Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti.

I showed them the list of taboos for Christian romance novels.

Peretti shook his head at the prohibitions against dancing, nudity, and words like 'whore.' "They'd never publish The Bible!" He recalled a complaint he'd heard from another Christian writer: "You can kill and stab and shoot, as long as you have all your clothes on when you do it, and don't swear."

Race 2012: Our First 'Post-Racial' Election?

2012-10-15T11:14:00.001-04:00

This post is part of PBS's Race 2012 Blogging Project. Race 2012: A Conversation About Race and Politics in America, a PBS election special, uses the current presidential election as a lens through which to explore America’s rapidly changing racial landscape. The film premieres on PBS Thursday October, 16th at 8p.m. (Check local listings)

Post-Racial America?
When Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on November 4, 2007, many started throwing around the phrase "post-racial America." While we certainly had reached a historic milestone -- much quicker than many of us would have predicted -- we are nowhere near such a theoretical society devoid of discrimination and prejudice.

The political rhetoric of this election cycle has mostly revolved around jobs, the economy, and federal spending, but there is an undeniable anxiety about race. To be clear, most issues surrounding the 2012 election aren't really about race -- at least not on the surface -- but we can't ignore race's strong undercurrent in this so-called "post-racial" election.

Romney's 47%
By now, everyone has heard (or heard about) the audio tape of Romney discussing the "47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

As we have come to learn, the 47% who don't pay taxes are actually comprised of the super-wealthy, college students, senior citizens, and service members deployed in combat zones, among those who are down on their luck.

Let's not fool ourselves, however. Romney's comments were the epitome of dog whistle politics.

Imira Jones, writing for Colorlines:

Mitt Romney’s comments on “those people” uttered in a video released yesterday are the missing link in the candidates views on race and economic justice.

[His] heartfelt riff was stunningly wrong and counterfactual in almost every way. Frighteningly it was grounded in over 500 years of racial stereotypes about people of color, particularly those of African descent. The former governor didn’t use the word “black.” He didn’t have to. The nature of his economic smear did it for him.

Of course, by claiming that Romney's comments were racial is to risk being accused of playing the "race card" by the right. And so it goes.

Same-Sex Marriage
What does same-sex marriage have to do with race? Quite a bit, actually.

When Obama's stance on same-sex marriage finally evolved (or was forced to evolve by a trigger-happy Biden), many declared that this pro-equality stance would cost him the election. The loudest voices decrying Obama's pro-equality stance came from African-American clergy.

Rev. William Owens, head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors:

“He has not done a smart thing and it might cost him the election,” Owens said during a press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington. “There are more people that want marriage to be right than there are homosexuals.”...“[Obama] has ignored the black community because he thinks we are in his pocket because he’s black. We refuse to give him a pass.”

While the majority of African Americans have historically been opposed to same-sex marriage, polls taken after Obama's announcement seemed to indicate that opposition is waning.

Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee?
For those not following the story, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has leveled accusations that his challenger Elizabeth Warren claimed Cherokee heritage in order to benefit her Harvard law career. The accusations have prompted a series of inflammatory remarks from Republicans, pundits, and Native American organizations.

John McCain reacted to the allegations by stating, "I’m entertained. I just think it’s bizarre...I know lots and lots of Native Americans, they have a very huge presence in my state and I’ve yet to meet one of them who claims to be related to Elizabeth Warren.”

While Brown's accusations have boosted his chances against his Democrat opponent, his own camp didn't score any points when staffers were caught on video making tomahawk gestures towards a group of Warren supporters.

Voters are left deciding which is the worst offense: allegedly ginning up minority status for career advancement, or making racially charged gestures in public.

'You're Racist If you Vote For Obama Just Because He's Black'
This is not just something you might hear from your Tea Partying uncle at Thanksgiving. It's something you also hear from African Americans. Not many, but some, including Ben Kinchlow, minister/broadcaster/author and founder of the organizations Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition.

Kinchlow, writing in World Net Daily:

Let me state unequivocally: If you are a black person, and you are voting for Obama solely “because he is black,” then you are by default placing your imprimatur on racism. You are, albeit unknowingly, saying the Klan is right to demand a vote for a candidate solely “because he is white."...Has “the land of the free and the home of the brave” turned into a Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) or South Africa where only race matters?

It's important to note that Kinchlow seems to have a beef with Obama regarding his stance on same-sex marriage.

Magic Johnson, on the other hand, recently stated on CNN:

One thing African-Americans are going to do: They’re either go to vote for President Obama or they’re going to stay home and vote for nobody.”

This race stuff isn't so black and white, is it?

At Least You Know Where They Stand
I grew up in North Carolina, in the shadow of Jesse Helms, a man who didn't mince words when it came to race. Jesse Helms was so blatantly racist (and homophobic) that his own staff coined a slogan that would more or less define his career: "You may not agree with Jesse, but at least you know where he stands."

The past four years have provided us with countless examples of blatant political sentiment. It doesn't take much to know exactly where these folks stand.

In California, there was the empty chair hanging from a noose, with a watermelon and a sign stating, "Go back to Kenya."

In New Jersey, a shop-owner displayed a picture of Obama in witch-doctor garb.

In Ohio, a caller left a highly offensive post-debate message on the voice mailbox of a local labor organization.

In California, a professional rodeo clown told spectators a racist joke about Michelle Obama.

Also in California, a GOP official send an email depicting Obama's parents as monkeys.

In Arizona, radio host Barbara Espinosa said of Barack Obama, "I don't believe in calling him the first black president," she said, "I voted for the white guy myself. I call him a monkey." When told this was a racist comment, Espinosa replied, "with a last name of Espinosa I'm anything but racist."

There seems to be an awful lot of that going around these days -- people unaware of their own racism who are very quick to blame the president himself of playing the race card. Many whites will will cry "reverse racism," a claim utterly disingenuous, if not laughable. Whites can hardly understand what true racism entails given their status in America over the past few hundred years.

Guilty of Being Black
One of the strangest racial phenomena of the past four years is the determination of some on the right to paint Obama as blacker than he actually portrays himself when in the limelight.

Take the 'leaked' video of then-senator Obama speaking at Hampton University in Virginia. In the video, it is purported that Obama speaks in a "racially-charged tone" -- in other words, he sounds more black.

Obama also speaks of the inequality exhibited in the government's response to Katrina. In other words, Obama is "favoring" African-Americans over the rest of America. It has been remarked that the release of this video was timed to counter Romney's "47% video."

It was baffling to hear talk show hosts remark about Obama sounding "more black" in this video, as if we were getting a glimpse of the "real Obama," an obvious tactic to associate Obama with the bogeymen of the 2008 election: Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, the Black Panthers, and Islam.

This charge is about boring as the fact that I often slip back into my Appalachian drawl when I am around my NC relatives at Thanksgiving.

And when people accuse the president of exhibiting signs of his allegiance to the interests of black people, I can't help but think about the past 40+ presidents and their laser-focus on the interests of white folks.

Birtherism, Immigration, and The Fear of Otherness
What does the Birther movement, voter ID legislation, and the draconian immigration laws of Arizona, Utah, Alabama, and South Carolina have in common? The GOP will tell you it's all about preserving the integrity of the constitution and the vision our forefathers had for America. While we can't deny that there might be a bit of truth to that, it comes down to xenophobia and otherness anxiety.

And while xenophobia can be found in all cultures, can be observed in primates, and most likely was crucial to the survival of our ancestors, as modern humans, we are (or, should be, anyway) civilized enough to suppress any unfounded anxieties associated with otherness.

This is difficult to accomplish when you have the propaganda machine working 24 hours a day to validate any anxieties one may have. Too many Americans will readily parrot AM radio talking points that paint African Americans, Latinos, and Arab Americans as threatening to the American way of life.

This xenophobia-stoking propaganda comes in the form of anecdotes, crude internet memes, forwarded emails, conservative pundits, bloggers, and talk radio hosts. They tell us that non-whites are living the dream on welfare (whites actually form the largest racial group on welfare). They tell us that blacks and hispanics are prone to violence and crime (whites commit the vast majority of crimes in America). They tell us to fear Arab Americans, who want to kill us (the fact is that America sees more Jewish acts of terrorism than Islamic terrorism).

However, we humans are not only prone to fear otherness, we are also prone to believe things that 'feel' true to us. It is often through personal experience and education that we overcome. Yet, so many never gain the experience or education necessary to do so. Propaganda, as we have seen throughout history, is designed to appeal emotion, not intellect. And so it goes.

Are We There Yet?
The fact that we have an African-American man sitting in the White House is a clear indicator that America has come a long way since the days of slavery and segregation. Something definitely happened on November 4 of 2008. We witnessed something truly wonderful that day -- a sign that we had fulfilled -- in part at least -- the elusive dream of Martin Luther King, Jr.

But like most important social causes, progress is often followed by temporary setbacks. As we have seen recently in the marriage equality fight, a step forward is often followed by a few steps back.

Those of us living today will likely never see a true 'Post-Racial' America. It is worth asking if such a thing will ever exist. 'Post-Racial' is as utopian as 'Post-Sexist,' or 'Post-Homophobic.' The arc is bending in the right direction, but it is much longer than any of us had ever anticipated.

GOP Volunteer Tells Voter Obama Is Muslim, Socialist

2012-10-03T08:51:00.000-04:00

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

In audio picked up by an answering machine, a volunteer for the Republican Party of Clay County can be heard calling President Barack Obama "a Muslim" and saying he wants to "get rid of your Medicare" while reaching out to voters in support of Mitt Romney's campaign.

The call was made as part of a statewide phone bank for Romney's campaign being conducted by the Clay County GOP. The volunteer, who was not identified, did not hang up before moving onto her next call.

Her pitch to the next person was picked up on the first person's answering machine.

The Higgs Boson, A Cappella Style

2012-09-27T22:20:00.001-04:00

Enjoy:

American Family Association's New Anti-Choice Video 'Aaron'

2012-09-27T21:55:00.000-04:00

What? I don't even.

Watch:

The American Family Association presents - Aaron from American Family Association on Vimeo.