Can I Get A Copy Of This Agenda?

So, in an abnormal week for me, I got my rage boner from a source other than Facebook. A bit of background is in order: my dad is in the market for a new job, and his net at his house has been out of service for a couple weeks. So he's asked me to check his email now and again when he can't get to it, to make sure he doesn't miss anything timely.

Second or third time I check, I'm greeted with an email from Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the United States. For those that don't recognize that innocent name, it's one of the far right groups listed by the SPLC as an anti-gay hate group.

Sigh. So yeah, I forwarded it to myself. And here, reproduced for your reading...pleasure, I suppose...it is:

Will Obama "payoff" the Homosexual Lobby?

Dear My Dad (yeah, that's what we're going with here,)

The Homosexual Lobby is lined up for their payoff.

Within days of Obama's reelection, the Homosexual Lobby is publicly reminded the President of all he owes them for his success.

And they have something very specific they want:

An Executive Order to force through major parts of the Gay Bill of Special Rights.

You see, Obama has been threatening to sign this order for almost a year.

It was a massive out-pouring of protest from Public Advocate and other pro-family supporters that stopped him before.

With your help, I was able to spread this story across the country, alerting pro-Family activists to Obama's disgusting scheme.

And he quietly backed down.

But now he has the second term he was craving -- and he knows he will never have to face voters at the polls again.

And the Homosexual Lobby is working hard to claim that he owes their radical activists for his success.

The legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, Allison Herwitt, announced to the press that the Homosexual Lobby expects the President to sign the Executive Order right away.

The Human Rights Campaign is the single largest arm of the Homosexual Lobby and has been actively trying to blacklist and silence Public Advocate since a showdown last year.

You see, the Gay Bill of Special Rights has been the cornerstone of the Homosexual Agenda since the 1980s.

Called the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" to disguise its purpose, it would really create a federally-protected and enforced employment status for homosexuals and transsexuals.

Businesses, daycare centers and even churches would be required to hire and maintain quotas of radical homosexual employees.

They would be practically forbidden to ever fire or even refuse to hire any sexual deviant.

And if they don't comply, they would be risking a federal lawsuit -- maybe even jail time.

Public Advocate has worked tirelessly to defeat this bill every time it has been brought up in Congress.

But an Executive Order would run right around the legislative process.

It would force every department of the federal government to give homosexual employees preferred treatment.

It could even be used to coerce any company with government contracts, which is a list that continues to grow.

The leaders of the Homosexual Lobby believe this Executive Order will pressure Congress to pass the entire Gay Bill of Special Rights.

Public Advocate stopped the Executive Order last March, but it will be so much harder this time.

The Homosexual Lobby is claiming that the results of the last election were a "mandate" for their radical agenda.

You and I know the majority of Americans have not turned their backs on the Family.

Major media has completely ignored the fact that three of the five Republicans who sponsored the Gay Bill of Special Rights will not be returning to Congress this year.

And numerous other pro-homosexual races were lost.

In fact, the pro-homosexual Super PAC American Unity PAC, funded by billionaire Paul Singer, lost 6 out of 8 races; a fact the media willfully overlooks.

But I can't spread this counter-message alone.

When I tell politicians in Washington how many pro-Family Americans actually support Public Advocate, marriage and morality, they just shrug their shoulders and turn away.

My words alone won't change minds.

That's why I need your help today.

I want to bury the White House and Congress in pro-Family protests.

Let the president know that you do not support the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act” and you insist he not sign the Executive Order authorizing it.

You can send an email by clicking here:
www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Or call this number to speak directly to White House staff:
202-456-1111

And then please take a moment to sign Public Advocate’s Marriage and Morality Petition for me to show to your Congressman and Senators.

Please take action today.

And be ready for future fights.

The War on the Family is entering a new phase... you and I have to be ready for it.

For the Family,

Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States

P.S. Please chip in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate fight for traditional values.

For the record, I have made the following alterations to the piece above: italicized it, changed the font, indented it, and cut out the massive image header and sig files. No content changes. All links intact. I can send you the original.

Sooo...aside from the fact that my Dad is on their mailing list, which makes me facepalm, let's take a look at this logically.

This is ENDA in it's latest form: H.R. 1755 and S. 815. Now those are summaries, but let's look at the relevant text:

Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 - Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims.

Prohibits related retaliation.

Makes this Act inapplicable to: (1) religious organizations, and (2) the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces. Declares that this Act does not repeal or modify any federal, state, territorial, or local law creating a special right or preference concerning employment for a veteran.

Well, that seems fairly clear. The whole thing is about preventing employer discrimination. It doesn't say "you have to hire so many gay people." It doesn't say, "you have to favor gay people." Oh, look, there's even an exception for churches! Hey, isn't that swell, no forced hiring of gay people for you!

Except, you know...well, again, there's the whole fact that no-one is being forced to hire gay people. So it's really just license to discriminate. Like, if your church had a thing against black people, this wouldn't make you hire them, but you could fire them for being black.

Oh, and that bit about making it impossible to fire gay people? Nope, you just can't fire them for being gay, unless you're a church. You can fire them for workplace performance issues, you can fire them for theft, you can, in fact, fire a gay person for anything that it would be reasonable to fire anyone over. The clincher here is that by making this argument, Delgaudio is arguing that simply being gay is reason enough to fire someone.

Let's step back and look at that in the cold light of day: would any sane person argue that you could fire someone for infidelity? Or for getting a divorce? Or getting an abortion?

Nope! But hey, those are all major threats to the Christian ideal of family. But we don't discriminate against people based on those reasons. 

To move back to ENDA, and let Delgaudio dig himself deeper, the bill explicitly allows only those claims which fall under disparate treatment. 

Here's the definition of disparate treatment, just in case you were wondering:

Disparate treatment, in the employment context, refers to when a person is treated differently from others. The different treatment is based on one or more of the protected factors and the different treatment is intentional. This is distinguished from the concept of "adverse impact", which may be unintentional and applies to a protected group rather than an individual. For example, disparate treatment occurs when a supervisor allows the majority of his/her employees to enjoy a particular job benefit but denies a single employee that same benefit.

 —USLegal.com

Welp, that pretty much douses my hopes of ruling the world through the fine art of buggery. All that means is that if I'm working for someone, they can't deny me equal treatment or fire me solely because I'm gay. That's it.

Oh, and the whole bit about the HRC taking credit for Obama's political success and calling for him to sign an executive order?

That looks like this:

Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said gay-rights supporters want to see movement from the president soon.


 "The push is to have them do it sooner instead of later," Herwitt said. "I do think it helps pave the way for a fully inclusive [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]. ... It is the way that the government puts its imprimatur on what's important and makes a difference in people's lives. The president would be saying it's important not to discriminate."

—TheHill.com 

 

Ummm...sounds like she's less wanting dictatorial law, and more wanting the president to show his support for a bill. You know, light a fire under Congress.

So...it would appear that Mr. Delgaudio outright lied about a lot of stuff, there. Anyone that feels like arguing with their hate group status, kindly note that fact: he is outright lying to prevent the passage of a bill that acts only to protect a minority group from employment discrimination. And not as a preventative measure, but as a provision for a narrow avenue of legal action in specific cases where discrimination has occurred.

Let's take on a few other things, shall we? I mean, we've already buried his primary argument, so let's pick at what's left.

Delgaudio leads off by with the question of whether or not Obama will "pay off" the homosexual lobby. There's a few problems here, but we'll jump right to the heart of things.

Damn skippy Obama's going to work hard to help the people who helped put him in office. And by "those who helped put him in office" I mean "liberals." 

That's politics 101. Bush helped the automotive and oil industries, Clinton helped the middle and lower classes and small businesses...although, honestly, he did that in such a way that we came out with a budget surplus, so he really helped everyone. 

Lobbyists exist because lobbying works. You can't bitch when you do your damnedest to keep a guy out of office and he then doesn't go out of his way to stomp on his voting constituency at your request. If you want a president to help you out, fighting him at every turn isn't the best way to do it.

So yes, there's a kernel of truth in this madness, if only that a sitting president would be dumb not to play nice with the people who helped him get elected. 

Which, again, would be "liberals" not "gay people." Cause we're only 10% of the population, folks. Sorry, but we're not the new Illuminati. Sadly, in my opinion. I mean, how awesome would it be to go to the annual "Rule the World" convention? But I digress.

Still, backslapping and hand ups generally should fall in the first term, wouldn't you think? You know, when a prez needs the support for the second term. Which, by the by, you'll note that Obama didn't play to his supporters wholesale during his first term. Because, and let's stress this, Obama was trying for bipartisanship for pretty much his entire first term. You know, compromise to allow the nation to move forward?

Which, I'd like to remind everyone, never happened. The president has been fought and stonewalled on nearly every issue from day one. We are in sequestration, because there has been a massive surge of partisanship. The two parties are flat refusing to work together on some of the biggest issues today, including the freaking budget.

So yeah, after being kicked into the dirt and stomped on while offering a handshake multiple times, why is anyone surprised that Obama might take the executive order route? He's tried everything else to pass legislation and advance the causes he believes in. And, before anyone screams "abuse of power" please a) reference the fact that ENDA isn't a special treatment bill, and b) that while they can be abused, they're part of the job, and c), they're an internal policy measure, not a law. A balance to Congress' check, if you will.

And that balance, in some situations, comes down to: "If you won't even talk about the issues I'm pointing out; if you've kicked and fought me for every inch of ground; if, in short, you've dicked with me for no reason for far too long: I can, and will, set policy for this administration as a way of publicly showing you up."

It's a way of knocking some sense into Congress. It's a way of reminding them that they sort of have to be effective at their jobs. It's used in concert with Congress usually, as a way of backing them up. And when used to go around them, it's used sparingly, because it's the nuclear bomb of presidential power. It's the one way the president can flat look at Congress and say, "Fuck you. You chose me to lead the executive branch, and then you fought me on how I do my job. This is what I want the government I lead to do within its own structures and organizations. Now what?"

And, while it may be treated as a license to go nuts, like when FDR created Japanese-American detainment camps as a side effect of trying to keep Japanese spies out of war zones (although I'd need more research to be sure he wasn't going for detainment camps. I can't research everything for you;) it's not a law. It's a dictate of policy. It doesn't magically create ironclad legislation. Seriously, if the president could just declare things to be so, and they were, we'd be a dictatorship.

Oh, and it can totally be overridden. As long as Congress has the guts to do it. Yeah, you read that right. A two-thirds super-majority can overturn an executive order. There just has to be enough congresspeople willing to put their reputations on the line.

So the bottom line, my friends, is this: Delgaudio is a liar, using fear and hate speech to whip up support for his view that is should be legal to discriminate against gay people in the workforce.

The president would be well within his powers and sanity to lend a hand to his supporters (again, liberals) over his most concerted opponents objections by influencing internal government policy in their favor because that's all politics ever.

And even if the president does sign an executive order, you have nothing to worry about. Again, it's a policy action, and besides: if you believe Delgaudio's statement, the majority of America opposes ENDA. If there is such a majority, then their duly elected representatives will have no trouble mustering the super-majority needed to shoot the prez down.

Unless, of course, you believe that the majority of Americans are for LGBT rights. In which case, you know, you're basically arguing for a minority privilege. Saying that regardless of what the majority of the voting population wants, what you want should prevail.

You know. Special treatment.
 Whatever way the wind blows, though, I have this one question: why let this guy, who is lying to his supporters to keep their support, continue acting as a leader? I mean, seriously? Do we celebrate that now?

Regardless of whether you believe Delgaudio's organization deserves its hate group label, can we at least agree that blatant lies are not good Christian behavior, and that supporting this organization as part of the fold is a bad idea?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?(Source.)

In Fear We Trust

Oy. So I'm doing a Wednesday special, because a post on Facebook caught my eye. This is not a regular thing, but I have plans for Monday's post, and this is too messy to pass up.

Apparently, a few months back (April 5-8, to be precise) there was a great huge hullabaloo about an Army Reserves Equal Opportunity briefing that contained a slide equating Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism with terrorist organizations.

Presented for your consideration, the leading salvo of said hullabaloo: Pentagon Classifies Evangelical Christians, Catholics as "Extremists."

Here's the kicker, and your first caveat: I can't find any independent sourcing on this. None. Which is not to say it doesn't exist, simply that I can't find it. And by independent sourcing, I mean any story that provides actual background, actual traceable information. But as near as I can tell, Todd Starnes is the point man on this. Many of the articles I've found cite Starnes as a primary source, and all of Starnes "source material" is self-referential. To clarify, aside from the attributed quotes, Starnes relies on his own articles as source material. Solely.

So yeah, there's my first problem. The second is that Starnes clearly states that the Army views this as an isolated incident and does not stand with or endorse the views espoused by this individual. Who, by the by, is left completely nameless. Yep. The one person in this thing who is clearly guilty of wrongdoing is never identified. Which is also a problem for me, I have to say.

Fourth problem, this paragraph:

The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.

 Wait...what? It leads off like it's going to say they uncovered something, but then goes on to describe a separate story about how the founding fathers are listed as examples of extremist behavior.From there, we jump to a bit about how the slide was uncovered, then jump back to a bit about how these documents show that the Southern Poverty Law Center was cited as a reliable source/sole source for a training briefing in South Carolina.

Then we jump back to a story about a slide that appeared in a briefing...in Pennsylvania.

Hold on, this gets better: Starnes indicates that this information came just days after Judicial Watch found out about the whole Founding Fathers bit. Judicial Watch posted their piece last week. You know, three months after the incident in question? 

And just for one more whack on that nail, I'd like to make you aware that Starnes is a fierce proponent of the theory that President Obama only supports LGBT civil liberty because he's gay.

(Source.)

Step back, take a moment, breath that in. The man leading the charge on this is the same guy that, rather than choose any one of the many viable options (political power, obfuscation, cultural reform, etc.) for a president to take up a cause that is felt to be morally ambiguous (or, you know, evil, if you swing that way,) chooses to just go with "the president must be secretly gay."

No, seriously. Check out these Tweets.

So, we've got this guy who can't source to save his ass, trying to wring some fear out of a four month old story. By, and I want to stress this, using a current story that at least has some paperwork and research behind it as a springboard for a sourceless story that misleads and confuses.

How does it mislead, you ask?

Well, I'd like to point out again that it claims the Pentagon is in on this. And then turns around and says this:

Last April, spokesman George Wright told Fox News the training briefing in Pennsylvania was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”

“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”

The Army said the slide was removed, the presenter apologized and they considered the matter closed.

So, the Army denied having anything to do with it, flatly stated that they neither condone nor support the beliefs espoused, and that they fixed it.

So why the hullabaloo? I mean, the Army, sure, but it's made of people. And people can be part of a good organization and still be idiots. Well, the hullabaloo comes from Starnes only source, Ron Crews.

Just for a little variety, here's Crews talking to the Army Times:

“Our concern is that everyone who attended that briefing should be given the corrected information,” Crews said. And he is concerned that the unit didn’t use chaplains as their source of experts on religious extremism. “We’re concerned there’s an environment in the [Equal Employment Opportunity] world that allows this to be presented to soldiers,” Crews said.

The problem could be more widespread, Crews said, because his organization has received information about briefings at other Army units and at least one Navy installation that labeled groups as “religious extremists” who were part of the Evangelical Christian community.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that Crews is worried that we didn't go to a religion to have religious extremism defined for us. Because, of course, a system that holds as a default belief that it is the one true way would be the perfect source for a clear and unbiased opinion. Beyond which, if you've read Starnes' story, you're aware that Crews has also gone on the record as stating that the Army has overstepped its apolitical stance. In this article, however, he would prefer that the Army ignore that same stance to get facts about religious extremism from religious people rather than a secular organization devoted to civil liberties and an end to hate speech.

What?

Well, you remember how the SPLC was mentioned waaaay back up there at the beginning of this post? Well, Crews doesn't like them. Those groups labeled as religious extremists who are "part of the Evangelical Christian Community"?

Those would be groups the SPLC lists as anti-gay hate organizations. Organizations like the Family Research Council. Seriously, read some of the quotes on that page. You can Google that shit. There's a difference between saying, "I have a religious objection to homosexuality" and saying, "Child molestation is a homosexual problem." One is a valid personal point of view, and yes it is valid. You're allowed to not like things in this country.

The other is scare tactics and hate speech. Flat out. So, and let's pause and clear this up, holding a belief or article of faith that conflicts with my beliefs or self-expression is fine. But insinuating that I must be a pedophile as a way of invalidating my existence is hate speech, not religious expression.

Oooh, how about the American Family Association? You know what, here's a quote:

"Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews."– Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis for government and public policy, 2010

And while that quote does appear on the SPLC page, I've actually taken that second step of sourcing it for you. I won't say you're welcome, because that link takes you to a blog post wherein Fischer passionately defends that comment. Yeah, that's good Christian thinking, right? Ban the homos, because otherwise we'll turn into a new Nazi state. That's not hate speech at allll...nosiree, them's the fine folks you want to be associated with.

Would it surprise anyone that the third anti-gay group profiled on the SPLC site is the Westboro Baptist Church? And would anyone seriously argue that they're a hate group? No?

Then why would you argue that a group which spews identical rhetoric isn't a hate group? Because the AFA and FRC don't protest funerals? So, for instance, if one kid punches other kids while calling them names, and another kid sticks to name-calling, we're ok with kid number two?

What's my bottom line, here?

For starters, I'd like to be clear that I am in no way saying this didn't happen. I absolutely believe that some idiot would try to sneak their personal bias into an EO briefing. Hell, I'll offer $5 to anyone who can prove to me that this particular incident did not happen. That's how low my faith in humanity is.

But that doesn't mean the government is out to take your religion away from you. It means that some people are absolute morons who think that a bit of authority gives them the right to cram their personal beliefs, void of any rational or logical thinking, down our throats.

Second, the Army isn't persecuting Christians of any stripe. Beyond, that is, forcing them to live in close quarters with us dirty homos. You know, like people are forced to live alongside us every day, but closer. Forcing them to eat and shower with us. You know, like when you go to a restaurant and there's gay people there. Or when you go to a gym...and there's gay people there.

So, since the only force here is that you can't discriminate or commit crimes against someone for being gay, I'm going to have to say that's not much like persecution.

Third summation, if the concern that the Army is persecuting Christians is rooted in the fact that they may or may not accept the SPLC labeling of prominent Christian organizations as "hate groups," kindly remember that they use much the same rhetoric and logic as the WBC, or racial supremacy groups. And if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, Imma go with it being a duck.

Finally, can we please all focus on something important now? I mean, yeah, I'm all for getting my full civil liberties as a gay man. I'd really like for hate crimes of all flavors, discrimination against anyone, and bigotry of all kinds to stop. Be it against gays, women, Christians (in certain circumstances, it still happens,) Muslims, racial minorities, you name it.

But frankly, I'm confused as to why we're still bitching about this. Let's get it done, and move on to cancer, hunger, poverty...you know, problems of circumstance that require attention, funds, and work to repair...as opposed to social issues that we haven't fixed yet because we're all too busy arguing about whether or not they're actually a problem and who has the moral high ground.

Pictures, Piercings, & Politics

A few days ago, I saw something on Facebook that started the ol' blood boiling. Arkansas is most of the way to passing legislation to limit body art based on what is socially acceptable!

Grrr! Rawr! Grah! And other Angrish phrases, and so on, and cursing, etc.

Ready the mind bullets! (Source.)

And then research ensued. Followed by facepalms. See, the average article on this looks like the following:

Bill to Ban Certain Tattoos, Body Piercings Passes Senate

The Arkansas Senate passed a bill to ban tattoos, piercings and other similar body modifications which it characterizes as “non-traditional,” recently.

Senator Missy Irvin of Mountain View, Arkansas sponsored the bill entitled ”An Act To Limit Body Art Procedures”. She says that body modifications should be limited to “traditional” tattoos and piercings. Her proposal was to essentially ban scarification procedures and dermal implants, as well as certain tattoos which remain yet to be defined as by the vague language of the bill she sponsored.

 —Political Blind Spot 

And that's one of the more temperate articles that actually mentions the fact that the bill specifically bans dermal implants. Most of them run straight to, "They're taking our freedoms, man!" I have yet to see a single article on SB 387 that runs under an accurate headline, like "certain body modifications banned" or "surgical body modification by non-medical professionals banned."

Not only that, but most throw in a reference to "vague language" and ominous portents that they could gasp BAN TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS!

I give you SB 387. Seriously, go take a look, it's only three pages. I'll wait. 

Doot-de-doot-de-dooo...

Confused? So was I, initially. Because, my dears, aside from the eminently clear language banning subdermal implants, those are definitions. Scarification isn't banned, it's defined as distinct from tattoos and branding. Tattoos, body piercings, etc. are all left perfectly alone.

In fact, SB 387 was a springboard, a proposal to change the specific wording of the Arkansas Health Code regarding body artists so that they could have a clear set of definitions while passing SB 388. You don't have to go read that one, it's fifteen pages. A hedgehog will slap a hypocrite if you do, however. 

Slapmaster Spiky, standing by. (Photo by TBurgey)

But it's essentially a clarification and simplification of existing health laws regarding body art. The new stuff it does is to make the laws simpler and more transparent, as well as setting some minimum age requirements. 

On a side note, I did find a decent article on 388, that ran under an accurate headline and reported clearly. Here you go.

So what does 388 do for public health and safety? Well, as a for instance, it specifically makes it illegal to brand anyone under 18, without exception. It makes it illegal to tattoo or pierce anyone under 16 without parental consent. It clarifies the penalties for those, and changes some of the licensing requirements. To be clear, it changes them in favor of the artists in some cases, not against them wholesale.

How would you like to have to go through college again every time you change states? That would suck. So, instead of forcing artists through a re-certification course, SB 388 sets up a one time $500 license transfer fee. You show proof of licensure and operation in another state, pay your money, and you're done. Now that seems a bit high to me, but honestly? It's better than going back through training, or taking a state certification course.

I mean, you still have to take a blood borne pathogens course. However, it used to look like this:

(b)(1)(A) The department shall promulgate rules to establish standards for the blood-borne pathogens course required under this section.

(B) The course shall require a minimum of two (2) hours of direct instruction.
 

(2) The course may be taught by providers approved by the department, including without limitation:

(A) The American Red Cross;
(B) Any nationally recognized body art organization;
(C) Any institution of higher learning; and
(D) Any other individual or group approved by the department.

 Now? You take it through OSHA. And you can take it online. That's it, that's the whole thing, nice and simple.

So, let's get to the one thing that is actually banned. Dermal implants.

Now, I'm all for self-expression through body modification. I've had my ears pierced, my nips pierced, I have three tattoos, one constantly visible, a brand, and four scarifications. I have more tattoos planned, and am currently searching for jewelry I'm not allergic to so I can get permanent piercings. But the thing is, I totally understand where Sen. Irvin is coming from on this one.

Subdermals are installed surgically. By non-surgeons. Without anesthetic.

Is it possible for someone to get good at this and do it safely? Ayup. Obviously, because there are people that do it. But is it possible for a state to allow licensing and training for this, safely, effectively, and within national medical practice laws? Not without a hell of a lot of changes to what constitutes a surgical procedure. Which would cause all sorts of problems.

At the core, subdermals are being banned because there's no way to enact legislation that allows them to be performed by body modification artists without mucking about in some fairly serious pieces of legislation that work quite well and should not be fucked with in ways that muddy them up.

And that makes sense.

Health codes are there to protect people. And the sucky thing about subdermals is that to pass legislation allowing them would be to basically say, "No-one may practice plastic surgery without extensive training and licensing...unless it's a body artist, who, you know, is going to...uhhhh...implant things...um...surgically...but that's ok, because...um...freedom of expression?"

Now for everyone that just screamed at me, I'm not saying subdermals aren't cool, or that we shouldn't explore ways to make them safely legal.

What I am saying is that there's a thing called legal precedent that no-one wants to play with. If a body artist can implant a small piece of silicone under your skin, or several pieces, or a plate, or a ball...well, at some point, you're looking at a procedure that is indistinguishable from plastic surgery. Nose jobs, boob jobs, butt implants, certain kinds of reparative surgery...those involve implanting a measure of silicone under the skin, for cosmetic or medical purposes.

And if someone sticks a boob implant in a someone illegally, but it's legal for a body artist to stick a silicone ball in someone, eventually some fucker somewhere might get the bright idea to use that as a defense for practicing medicine without a friggin' license. Is that certain to happen? No. But do lawmakers want to open that door? Probably not.

All of this leads here: fear tactics suck no matter who's using them. The laws, as they read, are a set of definitions with a single bit of CYA inserted and an overhaul of a section of the health code for clarification and further regulation to protect kids and artists.

And honestly, if you have to obfuscate the issue to create a fight against a law while claiming to protect freedom of expression, you've sort of missed the point. 

Living La Vida Asok

As most of you know, Uncle Jere completed an associates degree this year. And, despite all attempts to convince me that an internship would be an amazing addition to my life, I refused to participate. Why? Well, because internships are horrible, horrible things.

It's funny because it's true! Wait... (Source.)

Ah, there it is. The sweet smell of outrage. Bear with me, y'all. We'll get there.

First up, lets look at paid internships. Obviously, these are the gold standard. Unfortunately, a golden turd is still a turd. Why is this turdish? Well, since they can pay you far less than most employees (i.e., you can end up getting minimum wage for professional work) and since you work part-time during regular semesters, you're likely to end up making less than if you took a job at McD's.

"But valuable work experience!" calls out Strawman Schmoe.

Well, yes. Sure. And networking. But did you know that colleges aren't obligated to offer you college credit for paid internships? In fact, most won't, because you are being compensated for your time. When my college prof was trying to set me up with an internship, she straight up told me that she couldn't offer full credit on a paid internship.

So, in addition to taking a grunt job that pays birdseed and sucks out as much of your time as a full time class load, you still have to carry a class that will take up the slot an unpaid internship would. Oh yeah, and if they pay you? They can absolutely demand a full workload concomitant to a normal entry level employee. I knew several students who saw their houses when they slept and showered, and spent the rest of their time bouncing between internship and school. Because they took up equal time and effort.

Ok, but what about unpaid? I mean, you have to have an internship on the books for your grade, and your field is all about networking.

Welp, that's a turd's turd. On top of not getting paid to do whatever work they can convince you to do, you're also not protected under sexual harassment laws. Oh yeah. If you're not "technically" employed, employee protections don't apply. Oh, and that's still a 10-20 hour drag on your schedule.

But hey, at least you get college credit, right?

Well, here's the rub. That counts as a class. And at my college at least, and most colleges I've checked, you pay for it just like a class. Yep. You pay the college for the credits gained by working a part time job.

Does this sound like a wage scam to anyone else yet? To recap: unpaid = high workload, no legal employee protections, and you may have to pay your school for credit.

Paid = usually entry level or lower for a high workload, no credit, a significant drain on your time, oh, and if you want to keep a full course load, you'll be running at least 22-55 hours between school and internship depending on how many hours your internship runs.

Now, all of the above info? That's reality in a vacuum. That's excluding social and family commitments, bills, drive time, gas, health issues, homework load, sleep, eating. That's just the internship and time spent in class.

At the bottom of all this, I'll hit my point. If your prof is pushing an internship, do look into it. But outside of "high networking" fields like politics, law, and medicine, or fields where internships can pay extremely well (petroleum engineering and investment banking are apparently the best) or fields that call for security clearances to work, you should probably see what your school has in your field. Lab assistants make good money, as do tutors.

As an example, I worked at my school paper, gained real life experience in a news room, and got paid decently well for it. I did everything but online editor and advertisement over a period of three years, and was the editor for close to a year and a half. And that counted as work experience I could have touted should I have chosen to advance in journalism as a career. It's not the path for everyone, but it worked for me.

Which, of course, is the same argument I would apply to internships. Again, barring networking being a barrier to entry in your field, internships should be a personal choice that you make knowing that they have an excellent chance of sucking Lucifer's monstrous wang.

So you really need or want an internship, for the love of gods, look at it very closely. Because a little research can be the difference between being an unpaid or underpaid slave, and gaining valuable life experience and networking while not working yourself into the ground.

Xenophobiaphilia

Hello sports fans. So yeah, I've been sporadic of late. Sorry bout that. I'm not promising anything, as depression and exhaustion suck donkey hide, but I'm going to try to get back to my Monday update schedule.

Today's pile o' crap comes to us via email, in the form of a lovely chain letter:

This is a heads up/wake up call for the average American citizen. If the manner and way this country and states within it are being governed is upsetting and you want change to occur, then get up and let's stand together and do something about it... 

Are we prepared  for this revolution within our own  beloved  USA?

Pic came with the email.

"You  old white people.   It is your duty to  die."
HISPANIC  LEADERS SPEAK OUT
 
Augustin  Cebada,  Brown Berets; "Go back to  Boston!   Go back to  Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims!  Get out!  We are  the  future.  You are old and tired.  Go on.  We   have beaten you.  Leave like beaten rats. -you  old white people.  It is your duty to  die.  Through  love of having children, we are going to take   over.
 
Richard   Alatorre,  Los Angeles City Council. "They're  afraid we're  going to take over the governmental  institutions and other  institutions.  They're  right.  We will take them over . .  . We are here to   stay."

Excelsior, the  national  newspaper of  Mexico , "The American Southwest seems  to  be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of  Mexico  without  firing a single shot."

Professor  Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of  Texas; "We have an aging  white  America.  They  are not making babies.  They are  dying.  The  explosion is in our population . .. . I love  it.  They  are shitting in their pants with fear.  I love  it."

Art Torres, Chairman of the  California Democratic Party, "Remember 187--proposition to deny taxpayer  funds for services to non-citizens--was the  last gasp of white   America in  California .."

Gloria  Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "We are politicizing every  single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this  country..... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are  saying, "I'm  going to go out there and vote because I want  to pay them  back."

Mario Obledo,   California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and  California State  Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare  under Governor Jerry Brown,  also awarded the Presidential  Medal of Freedom by President Bill  Clinton, " California is going to be a Hispanic state.  Anyone who  doesn't like it should leave."

Jose  Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General, "We are practicing 'La  Reconquista' in  California."

Professor  Fernando  Guerra,  Loyola  Marymount    University ; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by  Latinos . . .  "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHEN I WAS YOUNG:

When I  was young, I  remember hearing about the immigrants that came   through Ellis Island ..  They wanted  to learn  English.  They wanted to breathe free.   They wanted to become  Americans.  Now too many  immigrants come here with demands.   They demand to be  taught in their own language.  They demand  special  privileges--affirmative action.  They demand ethnic   studies that glorify their  culture.

~~~~~~~~~~~

HOW CAN  YOU  HELP?:
Send copies of this email to at least ten  other people, 100 would be even better.  Help  us get the word  out.

Remember  when  you vote that we need someone in the  White House who will balance the  budget and control  illegal immigration.  If we make all  illegals legal, then we have lost our country forever.    Liberalism will have won and you will have a one party  system  forever.  Redistribution of wealth will be  the law.  It is  called socialism.  Our  country is heading in the wrong direction  and we are  doing it to ourselves without serious   protest.     

ALL  AMERICANS SHOULD BE DISTURBED, VERY DISTURBED  BY  THIS.  WHAT A SHAME, THAT NOT ENOUGH  AMERICANS HAVE THE  BACK BONE TO STAND UP AND  SAY,  "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH".  IT IS  TIME  WE TOOK OUR COUNTRY   BACK!

If you are too Politically Correct  to pass this on -Then you, my friend, are Americas biggest  problem.

Well, wasn't that a fun bit of fear mongering?  The first thing to be aware of is that this list was compiled in 2006. So it's easily 7 years out of date. The second thing to be aware of is that the various quotes are largely out of context, or false. Which is not to say that these people didn't say these things, but, as I've mentioned before, context is everything.

Third, if you'd like a complete break down, have some Snopes. Yeah, that's the ever wonderful site taking this point by point like I usually do, providing context for all and disproving some.

Due to the awesomeness of Snopes, I will not be taking this point by point. Suffice it to say that this is essentially fear for its own sake, playing off extreme views and highlighting the most inflammatory bits.

So if I'm not breaking it down, what's the point of this?

To knowledge-ify! (I can make up a word if I want. Yes, yes I can. If Barney Stinson can do it, then a journalism major can.)

First off, here's the 2010 census results, emphasis on race. Hit up page six. It can be a bit confusing, because they changed the way it works for the most recent census. Here's how it works: There was two sets of boxes, one for those claiming Hispanic or Latino origin, one for those who weren't. To be clear, that means that in the set for "Hispanic or Latino origin" 53% were white. Full stop.

In both category, those who self-identify as what we think of as Hispanic or Latino fall under Other Races. So in the Non-Hispanic or Latino Origins category, white folks are sitting at 76%.

But hey, lets straight up compare: ~50.5 million respondents claimed Hispanic or Latino origin. And remember, of those, only 37% are what we think of as Hispanic or Latino.

258 million responded as not having a Hispanic or Latino origin. That's more than five times as many people. So no, we're not exactly in danger of Latinopocalypse.

Stepping over to the other side of the question, what about illegal immigrants? Well, there's between 8 and 11 million. And, as the Council on Foreign Relations notes, most of those won't seek to naturalize. The CFR believes that it will be 2030 before the voting population of Hispanics and Latinos doubles. That's almost two decades.

Where does that sea of numbers leave us? Well, for starters, the fear mongering crap can go blow. There's nothing up there to indicate that them damn fererners are going to take over the country anytime soon. Now, by 2050, the white population is projected to be less than half the total population, but that's 37 years away.

"Oh Jaysis, save us!" whimpers Strawman Schmoe.

If you agree with the Strawman, shame on you. Not to play a tired old card too hard here, but we're a nation of immigrants. All of us (except the Native Americans) came from somewhere else originally. And I've mentioned before that shutting down or more tightly restricting legal immigration is a horrible idea.

Bottom line, here? Yep, there's a decent sized population of Hispanic/Latino peoples around these here parts. And yeah, that number's going to get bigger in the future. But frankly, the only reason to be afraid of that is if you happen to be a white supremacist.

Off The Deep End We Go

Greeting programs! Blah blah Facebook, blah humor, blah angry. Seriously, I was thinking of joining Reddit to get a steady stream of things to write about, but Facebook keeps me hopping so much I'm surprised I don't have an aneurysm whenever I see the logo.

Pictured: Rage boner Viagra. (Source.)

Now, I'm going to do something I almost never do. I'm going to warn you, up front, that this post is highly controversial and in-depth. I'm going, in the next few lines, to give you massive spoilers by way of offering you the opportunity to run screaming. Mark your calendar.

I'm going to be talking about pedophilia, child molestation, and a bit about rape. A friend posted this article on Facebook a few days ago. It is filled with lies, sensationalism, and attacks on people who are actually doing some fairly decent things. But!

I understand that this is one of those topics that is nearly impossible to view objectively long enough to see the value of their work. I understand that these topics are bad triggers for some of my readers. So, with no rancor and no name-calling on my part, stop reading if you need to. I will not have panic attacks on my conscience. Have a kitten to see you on your way.

(Source.)

If you're still here, onward.

I'm going to ease into this by first apprising you of Minor's credibility. The article in question was written for/published by WND.com. For those who don't know, WorldNetDaily is a "news source" focused on "neoconservative news." Also, conspiracy theory. 

Yeah. It's a tabloid that occasionally reports news. Remember all those crazy "Obama needs to release his birth certificate to prove he's American" stories running around? WND led the charge. Their ticker on their site, when I looked just now to get the link up there, listed a story about Christian persecution, two Ben Ghazi stories, a 9/11 story, a "defund Obamacare" story...you get the idea. So, to be clear, this is not a reputable news source. If you want some deeper analysis on why I hold WND to be less than reputable, here's an article about this same general area, from ConWeb, a blog/news analysis site that focuses on conservative alternative news sources. To be clear, it's critic site, not a news source in itself. But at least the guy who edits it comes right out and says that. So, YMMV.

Next up: Minor's writing style. Minor does a number of things that make me cringe, not least of which is that he does not cite his sources consistently. In print, short citing or "common knowledge" claims can be used validly and sparingly, because print has limited space available. But when you're writing online and making serious claims of value and intent, I should not have to hunt your sources down for myself. Seriously, go look at a CNN online story sometime. You can barely read for the links taking you to reams of fact-checked evidence they're covering their ass with. And they rarely use content that isn't immediately available in archives accessible to the public. 

Why would you short cite in an online story? Well, in this case, so you can lie outrageously and twist your sources words to make them fit your story. At no point, and this is my next squick with Minor, does he present full and accurate quotes. 

In fact, Minor does the opposite. He writes around the quotes to create a misleading context so that the bits he quotes come off as having a new meaning. That's yellow journalism, plain and simple. 

Alright, we've sufficiently caught our breath. Let's get into the uncomfortable part.

The article in question makes a variety of claims, and does so by smearing a number of reputable and intelligent people who are actually working in the opposite direction of the "let them have the children" scare tactics being spouted by Minor. We'll take them in no particular order here. 

B4UACT.org —

Of this organization, Minor says the following:

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA. 

B4U-Act  calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

The implication is that B4UACT is seeking the decriminalization of child molestation. This was, by the by, one of the first moments I realized that Minor's article was seriously hinky, but for the wrong reasons. At the time, I took the implications at face value, and assumed the organization was akin to NAMBLA. And the APA agreeing with such an organization on anything definitive strikes me as ludicrous.

NAMBLA, for those that don't know, is the North American Man Boy Love Association. They are the butt of many jokes, none of them funny. Because those jokes are also mostly accurate. NAMBLA believes that child molestation should be legalized. Full stop, no joke. And we're going to leave it at that because taking NAMBLA apart is another article entirely.

Here's a link to B4UACT's mission statement, which I will paraphrase:

They want to make mental health care available to pedophiles for the purpose of helping these individuals to control their urges. They want to remove the stigma of seeking that help, because pedophiles who fear seeking assistance are more likely to become child molesters. They do not want to decriminalize child molestation. They want to increase availability of the help pedophiles need to prevent them from harming children. 

That's a freaking laudable goal. That's something I think we could all get behind. When someone consistently suffers from suicidal or homicidal urges, we make therapy available to them post-haste. When someone has pedophile urges, we promptly vilify them and tell them to fuck off and die. How does that help anyone?

Scaring people who need help away from therapy does not help them or their potential victims. It does nothing but force individuals who are at risk for harming children to live in secrecy and fear, which in turn increases the potential that they will tip over into actually harming kids.

So spouting vitriol at an organization that seeks to get these people help earlier, more openly, and in a way that does not send them fleeing from therapy is disgusting and vile. 

Next up: IASHS —  

The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality is exactly what it says on the tin. They study sex. As a way of discrediting one Milton Diamond, who we will get to in a moment, Minor paints them in the following light:

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of  age.”

Taken together and presented without context, this seems fairly damning. Unfortunately for Minor, here's the actual "basic sexual rights" list.

The ethical guidelines for the Institute are based on the belief that sexual rights are human rights.

1. The freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire. 

2. The right to sexual entertainment, freely available in the marketplace, including sexually explicit materials dealing with the full range of sexual behavior. 

3. The right not to be exposed to sexual material or behavior. 

4. The right to sexual self-determination. 

5. The right to seek out and engage in consensual sexual activity. 

6. The right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud. 

7. The right to be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior. 

8. The recognition by society that every person, partnered or unpartnered, has the right to the pursuit of a satisfying consensual sociosexual life free from political, legal or religious interference and that there need to be mechanisms in society where the opportunities of sociosexual activities are available to the following: disabled persons; chronically ill persons; those incarcerated in prisons, hospitals or institutions; those disadvantaged because of age, lack of physical attractiveness, or lack of social skills; and the poor and the lonely. 

9. The basic right of all persons who are sexually dysfunc-tional to have available nonjudgmental sexual health care.

10. The right to control conception.

That's so heavily sprinkled with CYA and references to consent, there's very little way to take it wrong. You'd literally have to be obtuse to miss the fact that they're very much against rape, molestation, and abuse in all forms. I made the part that Minor drew most of his quote from bold, just to draw your attention to the fact that in context it makes perfect sense. It refers not to youth, but to age as a sexual handicap. Since youth is a driving sexual force in our culture (legal youth, not minors) age as a handicap means an older person.  "Disadvantaged by age" doesn't mean "my partner is a minor" it means, "I'm getting older and no one wants to have sex with me."

So no, the IASHS isn't a ravening den of hedonistic barbarians lolling about in their debauchery, it's a group of scientists and researchers that happen to study sex, and want to advance cultural and social understanding and acceptance of said topic.

"Oh, but think of the children!" says Strawman Schmoe. "We can't have kids learning that sex is ok! Abstinence is the only way!" 

Welp, I'd like to point out that according to third party studies, abstinence does jack shit for teen pregnancy rates, as opposed to comprehensive sexual education. Given that, as my sister is fond of screaming about, the current platform of the loudest voices on the conservative side advocates a strict limitation of women's reproductive rights and a cut to services for those who are in financial need (like, say, single teen moms) I'd have to say that IASHS is thinking of the children. As in, doing their best to prevent instances of pregnancy that lead to abortion, by advancing understanding of policy based on teaching kids how not to get pregnant.

"But that will lead to sexual permissiveness!" Schmoe wails. 

Wake up. It's already here. You want to reverse the trend? Stop preaching hellfire, and start preaching commitment, personal responsibility, an open approach to sex that makes it less taboo (and therefore less appealing to a rebellious kid that wants a way to exercise control outside the boundaries of parental relationships.) In short, stop demonizing and glorifying sex. If it's just something that can happen, instead of this dark and mysterious rite of adulthood, we might make some headway towards teaching kids that "hey, maybe you should hold off on this."

But I digress. Mostly because we're about to get into the parts that will take some serious splainin', Lucy.

Milton Diamond —

Ahh, Dr. Diamond. Your positions, they make my life so hard. Here's what Minor has to say about Diamond:

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Oy. Ok, here's the part that's going to make you scream: Diamond actually did say that, although it was taken out of context to make it far more inflammatory than the actual statement as printed in the study Minor is quoting. 

Here:

Issues surrounding child pornography and child sex abuse are probably among the most contentious in the area of sex issues and crime. In this regard we consider instructive our  findings for the Czech Republic that have echoed those found in Denmark (Kutchinsky, 1973) and Japan (Diamond & Uchíyama, 1999) that where so-called child-pornography was readily available without restriction the incidence of child sexual abuse was lower than when its availability was restricted. As with adult pornography appearing to substitute for sexual aggression everywhere it has been investigated, we believe the availability of child porn does similarly. We believe this particularly since the findings of Weiss (2002) have shown that a substantial portion of child sex abuse instances seemed to occur, not because of pedophilic interest of the abuser, but because the child was used as a substitute subject. 

We do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography but artificially produced materials might serve. As it is, with restrictions on even materials for the scientific study of the phenomenon forbidden to all but police enforcement agencies, these real life studies are the only way to begin to understand the phenomenon. Unfortunately, we do not have a breakdown by age of the perpetrators or victims of sex abuse. With the new Czech Republic law against child pornography, however, analysis of  findings over the next 5-10 years could show if this new prohibition against child pornography is correlated with an increase or decrease in sex crimes against children or without any noticeable effect. 

— Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic.

Diamond,  Jozifkova, Weiss. 2009. (Emphasis inserted.)

What Milton is saying is that availability of non-harmful sources of pornography, like Poser renderings, drawings, aged adjustment software applications that reverse-age an adult, text stories, etc, that adhere to the law and do not involve actual children in the production, but depict wholly artificial creations that appear childlike may provide a release valve that could potentially decrease instances of child abuse. 

 If there's a lot of weasel words up there, it's because it's a very, very, very hypothetical proposition. Is it still disturbing? Yes. But is Diamond advocating the wide spread availability of real kiddie porn? No. He is, at the most, stating that his study suggests that artificial alternatives to harmful child pornography could, maybe, lower child abuse instances. 

Breathe, people. Scientists are supposed to push the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding. And in this case, the question was, "is pornography increasing or decreasing sexual violence?" And, having determined that it seems to cause an overall decrease, Diamond points out that this may apply to all forms of pornography. He then, however, states clearly that there is no way in hell he will get behind kiddie porn as a solution to child molestation and abuse. So yeah. Breathe.

Moving on.

Drs. Vernon Quinsey and Hubert Van Gijseghem —

We're going to take these two together because Minor does. Both argue that pedophilia is an inherent sexual orientation. Full stop, no holds barred, yes they really mean it.

And I heard a great cry of fury arise from across the land.

Bear with me, ok?

Here's Van Gijseghem testifying to the Canadian Parliament as an expert witness on the treatment of pedophiles:

When we speak of therapy or when individuals get therapy and we feel as though everyone is pacified, the good news is often illusory. For instance, it is a fact that real pedophiles account for only 20% of sexual abusers. If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small [offense] from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person's sexual orientation.

Notice, please, that nowhere in there does he advocate acceptance of this behavior. In fact, here's Van Gijseghem himself, on his own website, addressing the controversy surrounding his statements:

In response to the article of columnist Brian Lilley “«Experts» running the asylum in Canada” (Toronto Sun, February 25), I would like to make the following statement. 

M. Lilley may have been acting in jest when he wrote that Van Gijseghem “showed up (at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights) to tell MPs pedophilia was a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality or homosexuality” 

Now, if this may look funny, this misquote got around the country and people interpret it as if Van Gijseghem is trivializing pedophilia and treating it like, as on hate-mail stated, “a normal human function” 

My argumentation before the Committee was exactly the opposite 

What I said, in sum, is the following: Real pedophiles (about 15 to 20 percent of all child sexual abusers) would better be incarcerated rather than referred to some therapy program as an alternative. The reason: they are untreatable. Why are they untreatable? Because a sexual orientation (an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children is a sexual orientation) is irreversible. 

Unlike the way Lilley’s quote was interpreted, I affirm that pedophilia is definitely a pathologic attraction and acting out this attraction is a very serious crime.

 So...what?

Well, let's take on Quinsey as a way of addressing what the hell this means. Quinsey sat down for an interview in the wake of the Sandusky/Penn State nightmare, and responding with the following when asked if rehabilitating pedophiles was even possible, given his view that it is an unchangeable sexual orientation:

As far as we know there is no cure for pedophilia, but people can learn to control their urges, they can avoid high-risk situations. The evidence of treatability — that is, that clinicians can lower the likelihood these guys will re-offend — is controversial. If you look at the field as a whole, there is no consensus on how effective these programs are at helping these guys control their urges. From the social policy side, you have to do something. And one of the things we can do—and do quite well, in fact—is to assess the risk that pedophiles have of re-offending  And that risk varies substantially. Some guys are very likely to re-offend and some guys are not, and we can measure that. So that gives us a tool that allows us to determine what kind of supervision people might require to avoid re-offending, and how much attention we should pay to their risk.

Short story short? Quinsey and Van Gijseghem are not of the opinion that pedophilia should receive widespread acceptance; they are of the opinion that we're treating it wrong. By treating it as a "curable" condition, the need for the kind help that B4UACT advocates is obscured. Basically: pedophiles suffer from a serious, non-alterable condition, and slapping a palliative on it so we can be seen to be doing something helps no-one.

Are you angry right now? Are you thinking some variation of, "just burn the fuckers and let god sort it out. What kind of sick bastard would want to have sex with a kid?"

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the sick kind. As in, the brain is not wired right. As in, this is a hard-wired condition that we have been treating wrong all along. So put your vitriol down for a second and consider the following:

Most pedophiles don't ever touch a child in an abusive way. Most, not some, not a few, most. Look back up at Diamond's study for a clue:

We believe this particularly since the findings of Weiss (2002) have shown that a substantial portion of child sex abuse instances seemed to occur, not because of pedophilic interest of the abuser, but because the child was used as a substitute subject.

What?

That means, in plain English, that many child abusers abuse children because children are vulnerable, not because the abuser is a pedophile. Remember how rape isn't about sex, it's about power? Well, it's harder to find a more powerless victim than a child.

To make this absolutely clear: pedophile does not always equal child molester.

What it does mean is that there are people who spend every day of their lives actively working not to hurt children. In the face of biological imperative. It also means that when such people reach out for help, they get slapped down for being "evil."

To put that in perspective, again, if I'm having severe homicidal rage issues and I go to a psychologist to get help controlling it, I will be lauded for accepting that I have a problem and need help. If a pedophile admits he needs help controlling himself, we, to say this again, tell them to fuck off and die.

How, precisely, does that protect anyone?

Onwards, then.

Rep. Alcce Hastings (D-FL) —

Minor's words:

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term. 

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

Right, then. First off, it's entirely possible Hastings said this. I can only find non-creditable sources reporting this story. And by non-creditable, yes, I do mean far-right-wing. Before anyone yells, you'll note that I don't use ThinkProgress or similar super-liberal/far-left sources. If I'm citing news, that article sure as the hell better come from a news source.

Let's just take this one as pure analysis, then. First off, the declaration that the Shepard-Byrd Act grants protected status to pedophilia, by way of listing sexual orientation as a protected class.

I give you: the Americans With Disabilities Act, which lays out the law for discrimination on basis of disability (including mental disability):

ec. 12211. Definitions

(a) Homosexuality and bisexuality

For purposes of the definition of "disability" in section 12102(2) of this title, homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments and as such are not disabilities under this chapter.

(b) Certain conditions

Under this chapter, the term "disability" shall not include

(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;

(2) compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or

(3) psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.

Ayup. The foremost piece of anti-discrimination legislation in the US today specifically excludes pedophilia. Now, that's not Shepard-Byrd up there, I know. And that's because Shepard-Byrd is hate crime legislation. That is, it codifies that crimes committed due to perception or actuality of sexual orientation or gender identity are to be prosecuted as hate crimes.

What does that mean for pedophiles? Well, essentially, if (big if) pedophilia were to be recognized as a sexual orientation under the law, it would be illegal to beat up or harm a pedophile for the sole reason of their being a pedophile. It would not, and I want to stress this, not make child molestation legal.

Look at it this way: I'm gay. Being gay is protected under Shepard-Byrd in that if someone attacks me for being gay, they get charged with a hate crime, rather than a regular assault.

It doesn't mean I can rape people with impunity. Because that's ridiculous, right?

On that note, it is physically and psychologically impossible for a child molester's victim to give informed consent. Definitively speaking, that means that sex with a child is always rape. Always.

Rape, in case you've failed to notice, is wildly screamingly illegal, and will never be legal because it involves the act of violating a person through coercion or force, expressly without their consent.

Bluntly put: kids can't consent to be raped. So it will never be legal. Period.

One last source to address:

Linda Harvey, Mission America —

Minor uses Harvey as a supporting quote for his side, printing the following:

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Mission America. No really. That's his supporting source. A far-right Christian Supremacist activist who penned the following short article:

If You Support "Gay Marriage," You Also Support...

• The aggressive promotion of homosexuality and gender change as good and worthy to our children, and any opposing views in schools, community groups, and children's media falsely portrayed as evil and eventually banned by law. 

• The continued rise in the numbers of people living with HIV as 25,000 or more people are infected each year (the current trend) through male/male homosexual sex, with a particular spike among younger males, because our politically-correct public health system won't take aggressive action to discourage it, since it will be part of "dating." 

• An immediate increase in incidents where Christians or conservatives are threatened or sued for expressing any disagreement with homosexuality or "gay marriage" in the workplace, in schools, in the press, or eventually, in churches. 

• Younger and greater numbers of youth claiming a "gay" identity, and then acting on that identity. 

• Churches silencing themselves on the sin of homosexuality, then the opposite: being encouraged to sell their congregations, including youth, on the idea. 

• Resisters who continue to speak out will eventually be prosecuted, perhaps serve jail terms. 

Is this what you want? Most people can see how harmful and unjust all these outcomes would be if they happened. Yet these trends are already starting. So isn't it time to start trusting God and believing His word, that homosexual behavior is never beneficial but always a sin?

Let those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, believe the truth.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Harvey is not an authoritative source on legal matters. Harvey is, to be blunt, a social commentator in the vein of Falwell, Robertson, and Coulter. She has a specific agenda, and her comment falls right in line with it. Harvey is not reporting a trend, or analysing a legal point; she's stating her opinion, based on a belief that the inherently sinful nature of homosexuality equates it to pedophilia.

Alright then. We've come this far, and now, down here at the bottom of all this analysis, let's have some conclusions, shall we?

Conclusion the first:

Lying, distorting the truth, and using scare tactics to achieve a political goal based on pure personal belief divorced from reasonable accounting for legality and the actual intent and opinions of one's sources is a vicious and disgusting way to avoid the knowledge that the basis of our legal system and society is a secular median point under which non-harmful behavior that your code of faith objects to may one day be legal.

Short version: this is a bastard way to try and use fear to attack LGBT rights, because religion is not and cannot be a part of the political process.

To clarify, no I'm not saying Christians have no right to vote for their beliefs. I'm saying that we have a secular legal system that recognizes freedom of religion, but because of that, cannot be shaped by religion. If you wouldn't accept Buddhism, Islam, or Neo-Pagan values as being the guiding principles for society, you can't argue that Christian values should either. So yes, in cases where those values are the main opposing force for a legal recognition of a secular value, the non-secular values are probably going to lose eventually. I'm not attacking your beliefs, but for the system to be fair, that's how it has to work.

Conclusion the second:

Pedophilia may be a non-alterable sexual orientation. If that's the case, then the model for helping these people, and I mean helping them not to hurt kids, needs a vast overhaul. I've covered this extensively here, so I'm moving on.

Conclusion the third:

It's going to be pointed out that I'm advocating abstinence in the face of sexual orientation for pedophiles, should it be clearly shown that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It will be further shouted from the rooftops that I am a huge hypocrite for advocating such, while arguing against it in the case of homosexual and bisexual individuals.

<ludicrous precision>

I have sex with adult, consenting males. I further, just to drive in on this, have a mandatory dating policy; a mandatory STD testing policy for all parties involved including me; and a mandatory policy that sexual acts will not occur under the influence of mind altering substances, including alcohol. My having sex is not harmful to my partners, and as my having sex with my partners does not affect anyone but myself and my partners, it is possible for me to ethically say that there is no reason to insist on abstinence as a "solution" to my not having a heterosexual orientation. I can further state that consenting acts between informed adults can be ethically engaged in regardless of the genders, sexual identities, or gender identities of the individuals involved.

Anyone that takes the above statement to include incest will be shot at dawn by mind bullets fueled by rage. Incest is a complex issue that cannot be fully and responsibly addressed by a single-paragraph claim of definition. While I personally believe that incest is psychologically damaging and therefore non-ethical behavior, I lack a grounding in research to make that statement qualitatively.

Should it be shown that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, then pedophiles who have sex along the lines of their orientation would be raping children. There is no correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality, beyond the fact that they may both be considered orientations at some point, should pedophilia be shown to be an orientation. One can be ethically acted on, the other cannot.

</ludicrous precision>

So bite me.

Final conclusion:

A claim that pedophilia as sexual orientation is a valid reason to avoid pursuing LGBT civil rights is vile on a number of levels. It presupposes a 1:1 correlation between the urge to have non-consensual sex with children, and the urge to have consenting sex with an adult of one's own gender.

It relies on misinformation and distortion of the truth to function, usually by smearing the work of those who are seeking to achieve a deeper understanding of how to help pedophiles deal with their urges safely.

It draws vilification to pedophiles, and obscures a potential need for a new system of treatment and support that may be necessary to aid pedophiles with their control, thus obscuring a strong possibility to further help and safeguard children.

And finally, it shows the worst kind of mind: the kind of mind that will threaten your children, even if only by proxy, to intimidate you into agreeing with them.

Bottom line, folks:

When you hear the slippery slope argument applied to pedophiles, stop and think. That person isn't warning you about a possible dark future. That person is threatening you, lying to you, and standing in the way of help that might one day protect your children.

And that, dear readers, is the kind of "agenda" we should fear and oppose.