The internet is spying on you

From The Week
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2010, AT 10:32 AM

Every time you go online, sophisticated data miners are tracking your every move. What do they know about you?

How frequently am I followed online?

Constantly. Your computer leaves a unique digital trail every time you visit a website, post a comment on a blog, or add a photo to your Facebook wall. A growing number of companies follow that trail to assemble a profile of you and your affinities. These profiles can contain shocking levels of detail—including your age, income, shopping habits, health problems, sexual proclivities, and ZIP code—right down to the number of rooms in your house and the number of people in your family. Although trackers don’t identify their subjects by name, the data they compile is so extensive that “you can find out who an individual is without it,” says Maneesha Mithal of the Federal Trade Commission.

How does the technology work?

The moment you land on a website, it installs a unique electronic code on your hard drive. Owners of websites originally placed “cookies,” the simplest such codes, on computers for users’ convenience, in order to remember things like the contents of online shopping carts. But a cookie placed by one site can also serve as a tracking device that allows marketers to identify an individual computer and follow its path on every Web visit. It’s like a clerk who sells you a pair of jeans at one store, then trails you around the mall, recording every store you visit and every item of clothing you try on. “Beacons” are super-cookies that record even computer keystrokes and mouse movements, providing another layer of detail. “Flash cookies” are installed when a computer user activates Flash technology, such as a YouTube video, embedded on a site. They can also reinstall cookies that have been removed. Such “persistent cookies,” says Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, make it “virtually impossible for users to go online without being tracked and profiled.”

Who’s doing the spying?

Marketers, advertisers, and those whose businesses depend on them. Most websites install their own cookies and beacons, both to make site navigation easier and to gather user information. (Wikipedia is a rare exception.) But third parties—advertisers and the networks that place online ads, such as Google and iAds—frequently pay site hosts to install their own tracking technology. Beacons are even sometimes planted without the knowledge of the host site. Comcast, for example, installed Flash cookies on computers visiting its website after it accepted Clearspring Technologies’ free software for displaying slide shows. Visitors who clicked on a slide show at Comcast.com wound up loading Clearspring’s Flash cookies onto their hard drives, which Comcast said it had never authorized.

How is personal data used?

It’s collected and sold by companies like Clearspring. Such information can be sold in large chunks—for example, an advertiser might pay $1 for 1,000 profiles of movie lovers—or in customized segments. An apparel retailer might buy access to 18-year-old female fans of the Twilight movie series who reside in the Sunbelt. “We can segment it all the way down to one person,” says Eric Porres of Lotame, which sells these profiles. Advertisers use the profiles to deliver individualized ads that follow users to every site they visit. Julia Preston, a 32-year-old software designer from Austin, recently saw how this works firsthand when she started seeing lots of Web ads for fertility treatments. She had recently researched uterine disorders online. “It’s unnerving,” she says.

Is all this snooping legal?

So far, yes. While an e-commerce site can’t sell to third parties the credit card numbers it acquires in the course of its business, the legality of various tracking technologies—and the sale of the personal profiles that result—has never been tested in court. Privacy advocates say that’s not because there aren’t abundant abuses, but because the law hasn’t kept pace with advancing technology. “The relevant laws,” says Lauren Weinstein of People for Internet Responsibility, an advocacy group, “are generally so weak—if they exist at all—that it’s difficult to file complaints.”

Can you avoid revealing yourself online?

Aside from abandoning the Internet altogether, there’s virtually no way to evade prying eyes. Take the case of Ashley Hayes-Beaty, who learned just how exposed she was when The Wall Street Journal shared what it had learned about her from a data miner. Hayes-Beaty’s computer use identified her as a 26-year-old female Nashville resident who counts The Princess Bride and 50 First Dates among her favorite movies, regularly watches Sex and the City, keeps current on entertainment news, and enjoys taking pop-culture quizzes. That litany, which advertisers can buy for about one-tenth of a cent, constitutes what Hayes-Beaty calls an “eerily precise” consumer profile. “I like to think I have some mystery left to me,” says Hayes-Beaty, “but apparently not.”

How to fight back against data miners

There are ways to minimize your exposure to data miners. One of the most effective is to disrupt profile-building by clearing your computer browser’s cache and deleting all cookies at least once a week. In addition, turning on the “private browsing” feature included in most popular Web browsers will block tracking technologies from installing themselves on your machine. For fees ranging from $9.95 to $10,000, companies like ReputationDefender can remove your personal information from up to 90 percent of commercial websites. But it’s basically impossible to eradicate personal information, such as property records and police files, from government databases. “There’s really no solution now, except abstinence” from the Internet, says Lt. Col. Greg Conti, a computer science professor at West Point. “And if you choose not to use online tools, you’re really not a member of the 21st century.”

The GOP's rude awakening on health-care repeal

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, January 21, 2011

Wednesday's vote to repeal President Obama's health insurance reform law was supposed to be a crowning triumph. We heard confident GOP predictions that cowed Democrats would defect in droves, generating unstoppable momentum that forced the Senate to obey "the will of the people" and follow suit. The Democrats' biggest domestic accomplishment would be in ruins and Obama's political standing would be damaged, perhaps irreparably.

What actually happened, though, is that the Republican majority managed to win the votes of just three Democrats - all of them Blue Dogs who have been consistent opponents of the reform package anyway. In terms of actual defectors, meaning Democrats who changed sides on the issue, there were none. This is momentum?

The unimpressive vote came at a moment when "the will of the people" on health care is coming into sharper focus. Most polls that offer a simple binary choice - do you like the "Obamacare" law or not - show that the reforms remain narrowly unpopular. Yet a significant fraction of those who are unhappy complain not that the reform law went too far but that it didn't go far enough. I think of these people as the "public option" crowd.

A recent Associated Press poll found that 41 percent of those surveyed opposed the reform law and 40 percent supported it. But when asked what Congress should do, 43 percent said the law should be modified so that it does more to change the health-care system. Another 19 percent said it should be left as it is.

More troubling for the GOP, the AP poll found that just 26 percent of respondents wanted Congress to repeal the reform law completely. A recent Washington Post poll found support for outright repeal at 18 percent; a Marist poll pegged it at 30 percent.

In other words, what House Republicans just voted to do may be the will of the Tea Party, but it's not "the will of the people."

"The test of a first-rate intelligence," F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." By this standard, House Republicans are geniuses. To pass the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," they had to believe that the work of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is both authoritative and worthless.

The CBO, which "scores" the impact of proposed legislation, calculated that the health-reform law will reduce federal deficits by at least $143 billion through 2019. Confronted with the fact that repeal would deepen the nation's fiscal woes, Republicans simply claimed the CBO estimate to be rubbish. Who cares what the CBO says, anyway?

Er, um, Republicans care, at least when it's convenient. Delving into the CBO's analysis, they unearthed a finding that they proclaimed as definitive: The reform law would eliminate 650,000 jobs. Hence "Job-Killing" in the repeal bill's title.

One problem, though: The CBO analysis contains no such figure. It's an extrapolation of a rough estimate of an anticipated effect that no reasonable person would describe as "job-killing." What the budget office actually said is that there are people who would like to withdraw from the workforce - sometimes because of a chronic medical condition - but who feel compelled to continue working so they can keep their health insurance. Once the reforms take effect, these individuals will have new options. That's where the "lost" jobs supposedly come from.

The exercise in intellectual contortion that was necessary for the House to pass the repeal bill will be an excellent tune-up for what's supposed to come next. "Repeal and replace" was the promise - get rid of the Democrats' reform plan and design one of their own. This is going to be fun.

It turns out that voters look forward to the day when no one can be denied insurance coverage because of preexisting conditions. They like the fact that young adults, until they are 26, can be kept on their parents' policies. They like not having yearly or lifetime limits on benefits. The GOP is going to have to design something that looks a lot like Obamacare.

Meanwhile, Obama's approval ratings climb higher every week. Somebody change the subject. Quick!

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

Bill Maher on Jon Stewart's Rally

Bill Maher took on Jon Stewart for claiming during his rally that there are extremists on both the Right and the Left.

Just Libertarianism?

from Talking Points Memo

TPM Reader SW wrote in this morning cautioning that we make clear that opposing all civil rights legislation on libertarian grounds doesn't mean you don't support civil rights. I think this is far from an uncontested claim. And since the Rand Paul situation is going to be raising it to such high salience I wanted to share SW's email with you and give you my thoughts on the underlying question.

First here's SW's email.

You write that Rand Paul is "...against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act and supporting abolishing the Department of Education..."

It's worth noting that Libertarians are against the Civil Rights Act, but not against civil rights. Indeed you'll find no stronger defender of civil rights of any type than libertarians. For us its a matter of approach. A different means to the same end. But the means does matter both in principal and practice. I think you understand this, but the way you characterize Paul's policy positions gave me pause.

He's not against civil rights, people with disabilities, or against educating today's youth.

Let's start the conversation by agreeing that as a technical matter, this is true. Libertarianism is a political philosophy rooted in a belief in radical limitations on state power. And I'm inclined to follow my friend Mike Lind's argument that unlike a lot of mishmash conservative claptrap libertarianism is a political philosophy I can disagree with but still recognize as internally consistent and rooted in important principles. As Mike wrote once, I simply think its assumptions and understanding of human nature are off. But this is hardly the end of the story.

Political philosophy can never be free of history. And there is no denying that similar states rights or libertarian arguments have been the arguments of choice for those who want to defend racial discrimination since avowed defenses of racial prejudice and subordination became publicly unacceptable outside some parts of the South in the early second half of the last century. That's simply a fact. In principle, it doesn't delegitimize libertarian political philosophy. But we don't live in classrooms or treatises. We live in an actual world where history and experience can't be separated from philosophy.

When he ran for President in 1964 Barry Goldwater ran on opposition to federal Civil Rights legislation on what he claimed were states rights grounds. And there's some reason to believe that for him that really was what it was about. But it is entirely clear that his political punch came from supporters in the South who wanted to keep Jim Crow in effect. Again, that's just a fact.

So that's the history.

Then there is the simple matter of priorities. To a degree the argument Paul is making is something like saying that I don't like rape or murder, I just don't believe in a police force to prevent it or a judiciary to punish the offenders. The reason we, albeit imperfectly, have equality before the law and in the society at large (in terms of public accommodations and so forth) on racial grounds in the whole of the United States is because of federal legislation that forced that to be the case. The reason we don't have white and colored drinking fountains or pools for whites only, etc. You can say you think all those things are awful and you may be telling the truth. But what are you going to do about it? The variant of libertarianism which Paul espouses, while internally consistent in theory and separate from race, has you saying, I wouldn't do anything about it -- though I'd decry it as an individual.

Folks who espouse this kind of philosophy deserve to be held to account for that fact, whatever their inner beliefs about race and equality may be.

And having said all this, I'd be remiss not to say that an awful lot of folks in the South seem to have these views and theories of the constitution that are completely divorced from history that end up bringing them to these conclusions. As one observer said in a totally different context about the Nation of Islam, they may not be looking for trouble, but they sure do seem to find it.

S.C. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer Compares Helping Poor to Feeding Stray Animals

South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, who hopes to succeed fellow Republican Mark Sanford as his state's governor, drew a comparison between government help for poor people and "feeding stray animals" – who, he noted, "breed."

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer said during a town hall meeting, as the Greenville News reported over the weekend. "You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

As the Greenville News notes, more than half of the students in South Carolina participate in a program that allows them to get their lunch for free, or at a reduced cost.

Bauer later said he wasn't saying those who receive government help "were animals or anything else."

He added that his metaphor was taken out of context, WSOCTV reports, and added that "maybe the stray animals wasn't the best metaphor."

Bauer made the comment as part of an argument that people should lose government benefits if they fail drug tests or don't attend parent-teacher conferences or PTA meetings.

"Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits," he said. In a follow-up story, the Greenville News reports that Bauer said "he would penalize only adults and that he never advocated taking away a child's free or reduced-price lunch. His speech was about breaking the cycle of dependence on government aid, he said."

During the town hall meeting, Bauer said he "can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina." He added: "So how do you fix it? Well you say, 'Look, if you receive goods or services from the government, then you owe something back.'"

South Carolina Democrats responded harshly to the comments, and there were calls for Bauer to apologize and to drop his gubernatorial bid. Some in his own party were also critical, with Republican state Rep. Harry Cato saying Bauer "has gone overboard."

"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do." - William Blake

Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. - Ernest Hemingway

Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it. - Unknown

LAPD drops ties with the Boy Scouts

from Box Turtle Bulletin
by Timothy Kincaid

In 2000, the Boy Scouts of America went to the US Supreme Court to defend their right to exclude members based solely on their sexual orientation. And since that time, they have insisted that all scout troops – even those in which the community, the scout leaders, and the parents wish otherwise – expel and exclude gay scouts and leaders. They also exclude atheists and agnostics.

I support their right to do so. Generally, I believe that membership based social organizations should be free to grant or deny membership based on whatever arbitrary or ridiculous reason they wish, even if it be odious and hateful. Even if I believe the policy to be ill conceived and harmful.

But they should not do so with my tax dollars.

And, increasingly, the Scouts have been discovering that the cost of their exclusionary policy is not an inconsequential one. There has been a steady stream of cities that have severed ties or revoked special privileges which the organization had enjoyed. No longer does the City Berkeley provide free berthing to the Sea Scouts. The City of San Diego revoked its $1 lease on a portion of Balboa Park, and the City of Philadelphia evicted the Scouts from a city owned building.

Of course, those who demand their right to discriminate often are outraged and indignant when they think that they are on the other side of the equation. So the Boy Scouts have sued in each of these cases, claiming that revoking their special privileges and taxpayer sponsored handouts is (you saw it coming) discrimination against them.

Yet with each passing year, they are discovering that local governments and institutions give less leeway to the Scouts. Their blind insistence on defining themselves as a religious organization free to disassociate the ungodly also puts them at conflict with establishment of religion issues.

And, frankly, more and more, their pigheadedness is seen as distasteful. Civic institutions don’t want to put gay elected officials or employees in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with a group that considers them not to be “clean” or “morally straight”. And it feels burdensome of the Scouts to put them in this position.

So this organization, once revered and considered an integral part of American youth, is increasingly give the heave-ho. And the latest to sever connections with the Scouts is the Los Angeles Police Department (Daily Breeze).

Since 1962 the Explorers, a program for youth who wish to become police officers, has been affiliated with the Boy Scouts. That will end on Friday; the Police Commission has voted to change the name of the program and cease using the Scout affiliated insurance service (the LAPD has administered the program itself for the past decade).

Commissioner Robert Saltzman, who is openly gay, said that because he cannot support the Boy Scouts, he has invested a lot of time to ensure the new youth program is “as good or – I’m confident – better than the program it replaces.”

“The Boy Scouts are clear that they discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity and religion, and the result of that is I could not be active on the Boy Scouts,” Saltzman said.

None of this is a happy resolution. The Scouts are weaker, the program is less respected, ad hoc solutions are pasted about in attempts to keep programs operating, and children are now less connected to their local governments. All the good that comes from connecting with nature, teaching values by example, efforts for self improvement and a call to selflessness has now been tainted by exclusion, discrimination, and recrimination.

All so that some ultra-religious administrators can self-righteously declare that only good god-fearing heterosexuals can be associated with their organization. Oh, and all this sadness and destruction is justified because their bigotry is “for the children”.

VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas, decries Maddow, defends Cohen

by Patrick Fitzgerald

Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.

Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.

Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:

MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.

COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.

MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”

This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?

COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.

MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.

COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.

“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”

That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.

But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.

Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]

In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.

Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:

“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]

(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)

That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312

As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:

A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…

…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”

And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.

Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:

We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.

That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.

(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)

Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”

Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:

…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]

And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.

It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.

Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.

gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view

The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.

Further:

She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…

…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.

As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:

a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?

VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas, decries Maddow, defends Cohen

by Patrick Fitzgerald

Building on David Robert’s post on the Richard Cohen portion of The Rachel Maddow Show, Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, had some things to say about the exchange.

Randy Thomas: I am going to share a review of the actual interview and then move into how I believe she, and some other militant gay activists, are missing the point with regard to Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.

Transcript, edited for brevity, emphases mine:

MADDOW: But you have told them, particularly in your book, “Coming Out Straight,” which I understand you donated multiple copies of to this organization that‘s promoting this bill. You‘re telling them exactly what they need to hear in order to justify the kill-the-gays bill. I mean, your book portrays gay people as predators who must be stopped to protect the innocent.

COHEN: Oh, no, no, no.

MADDOW: Let me ask – I‘ll just read from your book, OK? Page 49, “Homosexuals are at least 12 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Homosexual teachers are at least seven times more likely to molest a pupil. Homosexual teachers are estimated to have committed at least 25 percent of pupil molestation; 40 percent of molestation assaults were made by those who engage in homosexuality.”

This is the claim that you make in your book that exactly feeds these folks who want to execute people for being gay, what they need in order to justify that. Do you stand by what you said in your book?

COHEN: Actually, you know, that one particular quote, when I do republish it, reprint it, we will extract that from it, because we don‘t want such things to be used against homosexual persons.

MADDOW: That quote is cited – you cite somebody named Paul Cameron as the source of that book.

COHEN: I see that they‘re using it, but you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book.

“you took that one little quote out of a 300-page book”

That “one little quote” may be edited out of Cohen’s next revision, but it’s a paltry excision in light of the other “little” quotes in his book.

But first, a bit of context. Cohen cites Dr. Joseph Nicolosi—co-founder of the anti-gay organization, NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality)—repeatedly, in the effort to demonstrate (simplified) that same-sex attraction can be “overcome,” and that it all boils down to distant same-sex parenting, or clingy opposite-sex parenting.

Much of Cohen’s book is dedicated to promulgating the concept that gays can become straight–a key factor in justifying the passage of anti-gay laws, and the non-passage of pro-equality laws.

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: NARTH conducted a survey of 860 respondents and found that those who want to change their sexual orientation may succeed. [p24]

In addition to the Paul Cameron “research” that Cohen asserts he will take out of his next reprint, there are several other cases of misused studies that were not mentioned in the interview.

Included are some of the anti-gay industry’s favorites to show that gay men are unfaithful sluts at heart (you monogamous lesbians, as usual, are safe on this front).

Richard Cohen, Coming Out Straight: The Gay Rights Movement, the media, the educational system, and the mental-health profession tell use that homosexuality is normal and natural. Let us observe some of the statistics about homosexual behavior and see if this condition is, in fact, normal:

“The Kinsey Institute published a study of homosexual males living in San Francisco which reports that 43 percent had sex with 500 or more partners, 28 percent had sex with 1,000 or more partners, and 79 percent said that over half of their sex partners were strangers.” [p48]

(Ergo, all gay men are male nymphomaniacs.)

That “particular” quote is footnoted as: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978) , 308-312

As Alvin McEwen of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters reports:

A citation of the book Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg as a correct generalization of lgbt sexual habits despite the fact that it was written in 1978 and was not meant by the authors to be a correct assessment of the lgbt community in general…

…“. . . given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals.”

We then get the claims that gays and lesbians are more prone to drug and alcohol abuse, that gay teen suicides are over reported, and that gay men are “six times more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual men.”

And then, on cue, we are given one of the anti-gay industry’s most famous misused study from the 1984 McWhirter and Mattison book, The Male Couple, to show that 95% of male couples are unfaithful.

Yet, from the first page of the Introduction, we find this disclaimer:

We always have been very careful to explain that the very nature of our research sample, its size (156 couples), its narrow geographic location [San Diego], and the natural selectiveness of the participants prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community. Stricktly speaking, the sample is neither large enough, randomly selected nor geographically dispersed enough to represent necessarily the majority of male couples. As behavioral scientists we cannot report our conclusions as being derived from a representative sample.

That is then compared with a survey boasting of a “93.6 percent” fidelity rate among married heterosexual couples.

(Or, in reality based terms: Only 6.4 percent of married heterosexual couples surveyed were willing to admit that they were adulterous cheaters.)

Only THEN do we get to the Paul Cameron child molestation quote that Rachel Maddow confronts Cohen with. And to Randy Thomas’ credit, he does denounce Paul Cameron as “debunked” and “quite hateful.”

Immediately after that litany of slander, Mr. Cohen has this to say:

…Members of the homosexual community argue that social intolerance and prejudice cause these destructive behaviors. I believe there is some merit to this argument. However, the deeper reason for these unhealthy behaviors is the emotional brokenness that caused the homosexual condition in the first place. The social prejudice merely exacerbates the already-existing pain lodged deep in their souls. [p49]

And exacerbate that social prejudice he does.

It remains to be seen whether these defamatory claims will be redacted from the next revision of his book, but the damage is done and his message received; same-sex attraction can be reversed, therefore it is a choice, and gay men are super-slut child molesters.

Randy Thomas: But here’s the point I really want to make; saving Ugandan lives doesn’t appear to be Maddow and friends top priority, bashing alternate views does.

gay men are sex-fiends = alternative view

The exposition of this tawdry laundry list of anti-gay hate-speech would seem to be what Randy Thomas, Vice President of Exodus International, would have us believe is responsible for the ‘victimization’ of Richard Cohen by Rachel Maddow.

Further:

She did not use any of that precious air time in actually helping the Ugandan people defeat this bill…

…In her very long segment, Rachel didn’t change a thing in her world, our world or help save Ugandan lives.

As a “militant homosexual activist,” Mr. Thomas, need I remind you of Ecclesiastes 3:8:

a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

This is one of those times, Mr. Thomas. To hate lies and to war against them. If you can’t see that, might I suggest you move into a non-glass house?

A culture war cease-fire

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Thursday, December 24, 2009

It is 2009's quiet story -- quiet because it's about what didn't happen, which can be as important as what did. In this highly partisan year, we did not see a sharpening of the battles over religion and culture.

Yes, we continued to fight over gay marriage, and arguments about abortion were a feature of the health-care debate. But what's more striking is that other issues -- notably economics and the role of government -- trumped culture and religion in the public square. The culture wars went into recession along with the economy.

The most important transformation occurred on the right end of politics. For now, the loudest and most activist sections of the conservative cause are not its religious voices but the mostly secular, anti-government tea party activists.

Especially revealing is the re-emergence of former House majority leader Dick Armey, a prime mover behind the tea parties and a longtime critic of the religious right. He once said that James Dobson of Focus on the Family and his allies were a "gang of thugs" and "real nasty bullies."

Armey and his supporters speak a libertarian language that contrasts sharply with the message of Christian conservatives. "When Republicans are fighting against the power of the state, we win," Armey told the New York Times recently. "When we are trying to advance it, we lose."

At the same time, President Obama has been unabashed in offering his views on religious questions. Two of the most important speeches of his first year -- his addresses at the Notre Dame graduation in May and in Oslo this month when he received the Nobel Peace Prize -- were suffused with the language of faith. At Notre Dame, the president lavishly praised the Catholic social justice tradition. In Oslo, he spoke as a Christian realist clearly conversant with the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr, the great 20th-century theologian.
ad_icon

On President Bush's faith-based initiative, Obama has made reforms but largely avoided or postponed dealing with the most controversial questions.

Even the cultural and religious conflicts that have persisted were debated at a lower volume. Going into the health-care skirmishes, both supporters and opponents of abortion rights pledged that they would not try to upset current arrangements that bar federal funding of abortion. Although they feuded bitterly over what this meant in practice, their opening positions reflected a pulling back from the brink.

The Senate compromise on abortion negotiated by Sens. Ben Nelson, Bob Casey and Barbara Boxer did not fully satisfy either camp in the abortion struggle, and there will be fallout in the new year. ("Imagine, we Democrats managed to make both sides on the abortion issue unhappy," one House member said wryly but accurately.) Nonetheless, those who expected the abortion controversy to sink health-care reform have, so far, been proved wrong.

And while gay marriage continues to roil politics at the state and local levels, this argument has now become part of the routine of American politics. Republican politicians have shown a limited appetite for nationalizing the issue, something they did eagerly before the 2004 election. Judging by the closeness of some of the referendum votes -- notably this year in Maine, where the measure lost narrowly -- support for gay marriage has grown, although its backers are still short of a majority in most places.

In the meantime, religious progressives are mobilized to a degree not seen since the civil rights years. They weighed in regularly on health care, providing energy for the compromises on abortion that would otherwise have won little organized support.

Of course, it was inevitable that cultural and religious issues would at least partially recede during a sharp economic downturn. Such matters also declined in importance during the Great Depression of the 1930s, and none more so than the previous decade's struggle over the prohibition of alcohol.

At the time, historian William E. Leuchtenburg reported, a Missouri Democrat told James Farley, one of Franklin Roosevelt's top lieutenants, that it was "ridiculous for a jobless wet Democrat to wrangle with a jobless dry Democrat over liquor when neither could afford the price of a drink."

The paradox for Obama is that if the economy continues its comeback in 2010, his overall standing will improve, but the risk of renewed conflict over religion and values will also rise. It's a trade the president will happily take, even if he would then face a much tougher test of his credentials as a cultural peacemaker.

Go Forth and Steal, Says English Priest

LONDON (Dec. 22) For some 3,500 years, the 10 Commandments have included the easy-to-follow instruction, "Thou shalt not steal." But one British Anglican priest thinks that ancient command is now out-of-touch with our recession-hit world and has suggested it be changed to something more flexible, such as: "Thou shalt not steal, unless you're short of cash."

The Rev. Tim Jones issued his new religious edict on Sunday, while addressing worshippers at the Church of St. Lawrence, in the northern English city of York. He told parishioners that poor people struggling to survive should steal food and other essentials from shops, rather than raise money through prostitution, burglary or mugging.

"My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift," he said, as originally reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post. "I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither."

The Rev. Tim Jones says the 10 Commandments could use tweaking during a recession, like maybe some stealing is acceptable for those otherwise going hungry.
Keen to make sure that independent retailers wouldn't fall victim to a holy shoplifting spree, Jones set down strict guidelines for would-be Christian criminals. "I would ask that [people] do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices," he said. "[And] I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need."

Local police condemned his sermon as sinful, telling the BBC that "shoplifting or committing other crimes should never be the solution" for people in difficult circumstances. If everyone in poverty stole from stores, the police added, "this would make the downward spiral even more rapid, both on an individual basis and on society as a whole."

U.K. storeowners -- who pay out $5 billion each year on stolen stock -- were similarly unimpressed. "You'd expect a vicar to appreciate the difference between right and wrong," says Krishan Rama, a spokesman for the British Retail Consortium. "It's the job of our welfare system, which retailers support with the billions they pay each year in tax, to help vulnerable people. There are no excuses for stealing."

Jones also received a telling off from his boss -- no, not that one, but the more temporal Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed. "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way," the Archdeacon announced. "Father Tim Jones is raising important issues about the difficulties people face when benefits are not forthcoming, but shoplifting is not the way to overcome these difficulties."

The controversial vicar later appeared on British television to clarify his position, and claimed that he had "never said it is OK to steal. It is a dreadful thing to steal." The sermon, Jones said, was in fact only meant to encourage worshippers to give more to charity, not incite them to snatch cookies from the corner store.

Obama vs. Fox News

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says Fox is an arm of the Republican Party
 
Best opinion: Nation, Hot Air, Baltimore Sun, Crooks and Liars

The Obama administration has finally declared war on Fox News, said Ari Melber in The Nation. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn went on national television over the weekend to "blast Fox," saying that the cable news channel "often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party." It's about time Democrats started treating Fox as the "hostile force" it obviously is. (watch the White House's Anita Dunn criticize Fox News)

Sure, Fox News offers viewers an alternative to the "Obama Hosannah Hours" on rival cable networks CNN and MSNBC, said Ed Morrissey in Hot Air. But that's why the "ill-advised" strategy of publicly attacking the network is bound to "backfire." The White House is just conducting what amounts to a free marketing campaign that will drive up Fox's ratings.

This isn't just an attack on Fox, said David Zurawik in the Baltimore Sun. It's an attack on "press freedom" that would make Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew proud. "You have to wonder who else is on this administration's enemies list."

Please, Anita Dunn merely stated the obvious, said John Amato in Crooks and Liars, when she pointed out that Fox News is a "propanda" organ for the Republican Party. Can anyone deny that Fox spends an inordinate amount of time and effort reporting on Bill Ayers and ACORN? Obama didn't declare war on Fox—Fox declared war on him.

Obama and gay rights

President Obama renewed his vow to end "don't ask, don't tell," but some activists are getting impatient.

Gay rights advocates rally in Washington D.C. on Oct. 11, 2009.

Best opinion: NY Times, New Majority, Wash. Post

President Obama's renewal of his promise to end "don't ask, don't tell," said Sheryl Gay Stolberg in The New York Times, got a roar of approval from the 3,000 people at a Human Rights Campaign black-tie fundraiser on the eve of Sunday's big gay-rights rally in Washington. "But outside the room, the president's words got a chillier reception," because some activists think the president isn't moving fast enough to lift the ban on gays in the military.

There's good reason for gay-rights activists to be impatient, said Jeb Golinkin in New Majority. Gay rights is yet another case where Obama "speaks big words" but offers little action to back them up. The "real fight for change" is in the courts, where constitutional lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies are challenging California's Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban. If Obama wants to do his part, he'll have to go beyond words and spend some of his "rapidly diminishing" political capital to end "don't ask, don't tell."

Sure, the pace of progress on gay rights is slow, said Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post, but don't pin the blame on President Obama. Obama has made it clear he would sign bills repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. The huge crowd that rallied Sunday for faster action on gay rights served as a reminder that it's time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get Congress to step up and do its part.

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee on Friday awarded President Obama its annual peace prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." (The New York Times)

What the commentators said

"This is completely bizarre," said Iain Martin in The Wall Street Journal. "Traditionally it has been standard procedure that winners of the prize do their peacemaking first." With whom has Obama made peace—Hillary Clinton? (watch the Obama Nobel Peace Prize announcement; watch Obama give a statement)

What President Obama has done, said Maria Farrell in Crooked Timber, is make peace possible again. The Bush presidency created a "tidal wave of bad faith" that discouraged international cooperation. Obama has "changed how the world feels about America. He’s lifted the planet’s mood. This guy is global Prozac."

Even the president's fans must admit, said Matt Lewis in Townhall.com, that the Obama Nobel peace prize was, "at least, a bit premature." The award couldn't have been based on accomplishments—Obama has "zero"—but on "lots of 'hope' for the future."

The hope is that Obama will advance "diplomacy rather than confrontation around the globe," said Jacob Heilbrunn in The Huffington Post, and he has already done that. He has improved U.S. relations with Europe and the world; focused on global warming; started talks with Iran ... "it would be hard to think of a more electrifying and deserved recipient of this year's Nobel Peace prize."

This kind of puts the whole Chicago Olympics rejection in perspective, said Rachel Sklar in Mediaite, "eh?" The Nobel Committee said it wasn't rewarding Obama for future achievements but trying to enhance his current diplomatic efforts. "No doubt the cries of 'USA! USA!' will be emanating from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show very soon."

Best opinion: Slate, Wash. Monthly, Sun-Sentinel

President Obama should "politely decline" his Nobel Peace Prize, said Mickey Kaus in Slate, saying he's honored but hasn't had time to accomplish his goals. He'll get "the same amount of glory," and chip away at his "narcissism problem" by showing that "he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it."

It's fair to say Obama's Nobel is premature "given his fairly brief tenure," said Steve Benen in Washington Monthly. But there's a legitimate defense for giving him the award—it is, after all, reserved for those "who've shown great leadership in advancing the cause of international peace," which Obama undeniably has. And Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is worth having—it could have "meaningful, and positive, impact," by giving him the "high ground in international settings."

Obviously, this was a symbolic message meant to repudiate "the go-it-alone, reckless cowboy mentality of George W. Bush’s administration," said Michael Mayo in the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Sun-Sentinel, "and a validation of Obama’s more conciliatory approach and his overall message of hope." But "I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around a sitting U.S. president—commander-in-chief of the world’s most sophisticated military machine—winning a peace prize amidst two wars." If Obama doesn't turn down the prize, he should at least "make sure the $1.2 million prize money goes to a darn good cause (helpful advice: probably not a donation to ACORN)."

Why I'm Grateful for Joe Wilson and the Fury of Racists

By Keli Goff
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff

I'm not sure when it first hit me, that the future of our country, particularly when it comes to race relations, is really looking up. Perhaps it was when a member of the Boston Police Department referred to Professor Henry Louis Gates as a "banana-eating jungle monkey." Perhaps it was when an angry town hall protester ripped up a poster of Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks -- while others in the crowd applauded. Or perhaps it was when Congressman David Scott was greeted with a swastika spray painted outside of his office and hate mail calling him the N-word all in the same week. Or perhaps it was when Congressman Joe Wilson demonstrated such a lack of respect for our president when he shouted "You Lie," at him during a presidential address.

You've probably assumed that I am being sarcastic in my premise that these incidents are proof that our country is on the verge of significant racial progress but I'm not. During a recent conversation with my mother she expressed fear that Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be right, that the current vitriol being exhibited at town halls and elsewhere is not only uncivil, but down right scary and could soon boil over into violence. We then began to reminisce about the Civil Rights Movement, which my mother lived through, a time when racist rhetoric turned deadly. That's when it hit me: People turn angry when they feel that they are losing ground.

Racist domestic terrorists did not bomb the church that killed four little Black girls in Birmingham, Alabama because they knew those little girls would never attend high school with their children, but because they knew that one day they would. The Ku Klux Klan murdered three civil rights workers, not because they were confident that Blacks would never get the right to vote, but because they were terrified that they would -- and were on the verge of doing so. (It is worth noting that this year the town in which the workers were murdered elected its first Black mayor.)

There are plenty of Americans -- good, fair-minded people -- who do not support the President's proposed health care reform, at least not yet. I consider myself among them. But there are others, who as former President Carter asserted, are simply unhappy that a Black man is president.

And that gives me hope.

Because the reason some people's racism has been brought to the fore is because the America they thought they knew and loved is becoming a different one before their very eyes; an America in which a Black man can get elected president and a Latina can become a Supreme Court Justice. But most of all an America in which their very own children applaud both. This is what really has racists in a tizzy. Every study shows that most of their children do not share and will not pass on, their legacy of intolerance and hate, but instead may end up dating or marrying an Obama or Sotomayor of their own one day.

You know what else gives me hope? The fact that even in a state like South Carolina where the Confederate battle flag still flies near the entrance to the capitol, citizens have seen fit to punish Congressman Wilson in the polls for the lack of respect he showed our president, who as we all know, is Black. If that's not proof of progress then I don't know what is. So let the racists wail. Let freedom ring and let progress come.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/why-im-grateful-for-joe-w_b_297514.html

The National Conversation on Race

Just as America was starting to pat itself on the back for coming a long way on race issues, America is closer to having an honest conversation about race than ever before. Some have cautioned against using the "racism card" to describe the vitriol that Republicans the Birthers and the Schoolers have slung toward President Obama. Yet, during this season of disrespect toward the President, we have seen more than ideological disagreement. From a Congresswoman calling for a Great White Hope to save the Republican Party (isn't Michael Steele the leader of the Republican National Party) to parental hysteria about the President's back to school speech, people who are not used to having a black leader are finding tacit ways to revolt.

South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “you lie” at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. Few would doubt this was a sign of disrespect that most Americans would find objectionable. But beyond Wilson's callous disdain for the office of President, it is important to understand the racial connotations involved, and the climate that gave rise to them.

Contemporary racism is not largely about lynching or legalized segregation. Rather, we must be reflective about the myriad ways in which we are tacitly socialized to believe stereotypes about persons of color. Those beliefs reside in our subconscious and affect our attitudes and behaviors in ways that we often do not recognize. All Americans who are attentive to our potential for prejudice have been in situations where we “catch” ourselves with a racially insensitive thought that surprises us. Other times, those thoughts drive our actions without our knowledge. If we only define “racism” as overt bigotry, we ignore the most important elements of a system that continues to perpetuate it.

I am not saying Joe Wilson is a bigot, Rather, the consistent branding of President Obama as “other” by his opponents has created a context within which it is perceived that Obama need not be treated as other presidents have been treated. The creation of that “otherness,” while possibly motivated by racial animosity, is certainly rendered more effective as a result of deeply held negative predispositions about African Americans.

For at least two years, his political opponents (including Democratic opponents during the primary) have attempted to portray Barack Obama as “not one of us.” He has been, at various times, referred to as communist, elitist, corrupt, a terrorist sympathizer, foreign, fascist and even racist. In short, he is everything that we believe America is not. He is not “one of us.” He is “other.”

It is no surprise, then, that some parents felt it dangerous to let this stranger talk to their children on Tuesday, and it is no surprise that at least one member of Congress believed that it was appropriate to hurl an insult at him during a formal address. Keeping in mind that there is a small but vocal group of Americans and conservative leaders who continue to perpetuate the story that Obama is not a legitimate president because of his birth status, perhaps we should not be surprised that this president, then, does not command even the most minimal level of respect from some of his elected political opponents.

By and large, Americans go out of their way to excuse such behavior as being impolite and not at all related to race. If one believes that the threshold of what is to be considered to be “racist” is that an epithet must be hurled (e.g., if Wilson would have yelled, “You lying nigger!”), it is comfortable to believe that in a “post-racial” nation, such behavior is divorced from the nation's rich history of oppression and White supremacy.

Attacks on President Obama are not, in and of themselves, racist. They might be made without racist intent; they can even be made without racist effect if they do not find greater results because of ingrained stereotypes about African Americans. Criticizing the president for being willing to push for a clean energy bill, for example, is likely to be devoid of racial effects. However, arguing that he is lying when the evidence contradicts you, is corrupt when there is no reason to believe so, or has friends who are criminal when he does not does have a racist effect because it is easier for us to believe such claims about a black man.

Some of the folks who make racist appeals may be aware that they are doing so, but others very well may not. Irrespective of intent we must be aware that a context of “otherness” has been established around this president that set the stage for him to be treated differently than other presidents.

Obama School Speech Sends the Right Message to Many Who are Usually Tuned Out

By Dan Brown

Deep into the presidential campaign last year, I was stunned to learn that a significant number of my high school students had never heard Barack Obama speak. They'd heard of him, but had no clue about anything he stood for. This was shocking to me; I listened to the guy and his surrogates practically every night on TV. I knew the Obama brand inside out. My D.C. pupils, living in a news vacuum, had had no exposure to him.

I set to work on filling this void by introducing campaign-related reading and activities in my class. However, there is no doubt that, for all sorts of reasons, many students across the country are simply tuned out.

That's why Obama's back-to-school speech matters. It probably won't make a significant imprint on kids who read the paper everyday, with parents discussing current events. They've already heard the president discuss personal responsibility. They know how their president speaks.

However, the back-to-school speech does have a real chance to touch the typically disconnected students, and that is a substantial upside. These kids are not absorbing the most basic civics information at home; school has to pick up the slack. There is a psychic cost to not knowing a larger world beyond your immediate day-to-day life; American kids need to know their president, whether they support his policy agenda or not.

They don't need to back his healthcare agenda or weigh in on his military spending, but they do need to know what he's about. That's the barest minimum that a responsible, participatory democracy should settle for.

In the actual speech, the messages Obama offered were all positive, non-controversial, and framed in ways that students could understand. My favorite snippets:

On discovering talent through schoolwork:

Every single one of you has something you're good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That's the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a good writer -- maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper -- but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor -- maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine -- but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a senator or a Supreme Court justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life -- I guarantee that you'll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can't drop out of school and just drop into a good job.

On embracing challenges and failure:

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject you study. You won't click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That's OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who've had the most failures.

On effort:

You're not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don't hit every note the first time you sing a song. You've got to practice. It's the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it's good enough to hand in.

Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don't know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust -- a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor -- and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

I look forward to showing the speech to my students when they return to school tomorrow. It's sad that a ludicrous kerfuffle launched by Glenn Beck lemmings has precluded many kids from hearing their president's ideas--- from horse's mouth. There's a substantial benefit in taking a few minutes in one school day for all students to listen to their chief executive address them.

President Obama delivered an excellent speech; here's hoping America's students listened. Now the real work begins again to support and drive our nation's youth to realize their profound potential.

You can’t pray gay away

By Andy Birkey

The world’s largest professional association for psychologists released a report last week criticizing attempts to turn gay people straight. The American Psychological Association (APA) found that such efforts — variously called reparative therapies, sexual orientation change plans or “ex-gay” movements — typically demonize the “homosexual lifestyle” and use religious programming to “change” a person’s sexual orientation. In Minnesota, there are at least three such organizations working to alter people’s sexual orientation.

The APA’s report, “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation,” (pdf) found that change therapies, both religious and secular, failed to change clients’ sexual orientation — and in some cases caused further harm. It also concluded that religion is a strong factor in individuals’ difficulty with being gay or lesbian and that therapists should work to help people reconcile their sexual orientation and religion.

“Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose,” said Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, chair of the task force that released the report, in a statement. “Contrary to the claims of [sexual orientation change effort] practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.”

Glassgold acknowledged in an interview with the Associated Press that religion can be a strong motivator for gays and lesbians to want to change their sexual orientation.

“There’s no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don’t work, they feel doubly terrified,” Glassgold said. “You should be honest with people and say, ‘This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.’”

One ministry in Minneapolis which works with “ex-gays” acknowledges that some people cannot change — even if they want to. Dave Rasmussen, co-director of Simon Ministries, says their operation doesn’t do change therapy but merely exists to provide support for “married men who have unwanted same-sex attractions.” His wife runs a similar group for women.

“I don’t feel compelled to tell these men they need to change, and I am honest with them and say up front that some of their marriages may end in divorce and some will go into the lifestyle.”

“Our group time is for encouragement, understanding, prayer and to draw closer to God. Through intimacy with Him sometimes change does happen. I have seen it,” he said. “Sometimes it does not.”

Two other religiously affiliated “ex-gay” programs, Outpost Ministries in Robbinsdale and UpStream Ministries in St. Cloud, did not respond to a request for comment.

The former has an interesting past. Jeffrey Ford, Outpost Ministries’ director for most of the 1980s, has since renounced change therapy and spoken out about the harms associated with it. A therapist living in Minneapolis with his partner Kent, he recounts his struggles as Outpost’s director:

Even as a married man and director of an ex-gay ministry, I privately struggled with temptations. Unless you’ve been there, it is hard to explain how you can call yourself ex-gay and still have strong homosexual feelings. The denial is supported and encouraged by all those around you. You are taught that to be “tempted” has nothing to do with orientation. You take on Christ’s identity and can honestly say that, in Christ, I am whole and complete and heterosexual.

It became clear to me that I was living and perpetrating a lie. I knew that, for me, the road less traveled involved accepting that I was not a former homosexual and that I needed to resign my position with OUTPOST.

The APA report concluded that such therapies as those practiced by Outpost can be dangerous.

“[S]tudies … indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts.”

Glassgold said that it is important that clients know that.

“[W]e recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality.”

Debunking gay-to-straight therapy

The American Psychological Association has condemned gay-to-straight therapies.

The American Psychological Association just “officially debunked” the validity of gay-to-straight therapies, said Joel Schwartzberg in the Newark, N.J., Star-Ledger. This is a “refreshing triumph of science over willful ignorance,” not to mention a big step toward the acceptance of gays in America. It’s too bad “evangelists” of so-called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy “don’t give a hoot about what the larger psychological community does or says.”

Those ethically or religiously “conflicted” gay men are the whole point of the APA’s report, said Stephanie Simon in The Wall Street Journal. And while the new APA guidelines stress that there is “no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation,” they also—in a “striking departure”—say it’s ethical for counselors to promote rejecting gay attractions, even if that means embracing celibacy.

Such “repression” might work for some struggling gays and lesbians, said Wayne Besen in The Huffington Post, but most of us would find it “destructive to self-worth and psychological well-being.” In fact, the most important point of the APA report is that it “smacks down the absurd notion, pushed by charlatans,” that “ex-gay” therapies do anything but leave a trail of “psychological casualties.”

Having a Beer

Henry Louis Gates Jr. and James Crowley "did not link arms," said Joseph Williams in The Boston Globe, "and there were no public apologies." But their chat at a White House beer summit "appeared to achieve President Obama’s goal of encouraging a deeper dialogue on race" between Gates, a prominent African-American Harvard professor, and Crowley, a Cambridge, Mass., police sergeant who arrested him after a report of a possible break-in at Gates' home. Crowley held a news conference after the chat and said that he and Gates were "two gentlemen who agreed to disagree" about the arrest, and Gates' statement was "similarly ambiguous."

Barack Obama's beer diplomacy worked—at least for him, said David Swerdlick in the New York Daily News. "Obama put those beers on his tab so he could get right with voters after saying that the police acted 'stupidly'" by arresting Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his own home. "And it did the job." At least Gates and Sgt. Crowley say they'll keep talking to each other.

One thing we learned from Obama's beer summit, said Peter Baker in The New York Times, is that "President Obama has yet to always find sure footing when it comes to race." The Gates controversy "shows that he has the capacity to inflame, intentionally or not, partly just by virtue of who he is, and that he has an instinct to try to mediate, as with this beer at the picnic table, something I can’t picture any previous president doing. How he will reconcile these in the future is something to watch."

Can Prejudice be Justified?

By Etan Thomas

By now everyone has heard of the incident that occurred with Professor
Henry Louis Gates and officer James Crowley of the Cambridge Police
department. Just to recap, a woman calls the police to inform them
that two black men are breaking into a house. The police end up
arresting a Harvard professor at his own house for disorderly conduct.
At his own house. President Barack Obama calls the actions taken by
the Cambridge police "stupid," the officers apparently get offended
and return with criticism that the President commented without knowing
all of the facts. As if there was a missing piece of evidence that
supported arresting a man for breaking into his own house and citing
the reason for the arrest as disorderly conduct.

President of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives Joseph McMillan stated:

Once Gates was identified as the lawful resident of the house, the
police contact should have ended.
Sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Officer
Crowley, in describing the chain of events, explains that Professor
Gates was arrested after he proved to him that it was indeed his
house, showed the proper identification, and began to become in
Crowley's words "disorderly." I guess he expected bygones to be
bygones, and to receive an invite for some donuts and maybe a good
laugh at the absurdity of being detained or even questioned for
breaking into one's own house. Or maybe Crowley expected Gates to say
something along the lines of, "Oh, that's O.K. Mr. Police Officer, I
know you were just doing your job and the fact that you treated me
like a common criminal despite the fact that I am a Harvard Professor
with numerous honorary degrees, widely considered one of the nation's
foremost authority on black culture, didn't even bother me. Thank you
for keeping our streets safe."

To add insult to injury, Crowley has proclaimed that he will not
apologize because he feels he did nothing wrong. This father of three
(not sure why articles keep pointing that out so I decided to
reiterate) and police academy instructor on the dangers of racial
profiling, who the Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas describes
as "a stellar member of the department," who Academy director Thomas
Fleming calls "a good role model," described by his colleagues as an
overall wonderful human being, told the Herald, "I just have nothing
to apologize for, it will never happen."

My four-year-old son Malcolm knows that saying you're sorry for
something you have done to offend another person is what you are
supposed to do. He knows that even if it was an accident and you had
no intention of disrespecting or affronting the person, the correct
thing to do is to offer a sincere apology. Oh, if we could all have
the mentality of a four year old.

But to make matters worse, Crowley brings up the fact that he tried to
save basketball star Reggie Lewis with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,
as if that proves that he couldn't possibly be a racist. What is he
going to say next, that he enjoyed watching every season of The Cosby
Show? Michael Jackson was one of his favorite entertainers? He has
black friends?

President Obama has invited them both to the White House to sit down
and iron out whatever happened. I'm sure they will shake hands, maybe
even apologize to each other for their parts in the incident and take
a picture together or something. However, there is a bigger issue that
this incident has sparked.

An article on CNNPolitics.com called "Obama's Rush to Judgment on
Police" by Maria Haberfeld, professor of police science at John Jay
College, offered a very interesting perspective. In the article she
says:

Police work is about sub-cultural contexts, war stories, about
suspicion, about unpredictability, about danger and fear of one's
life. Police make their decisions based on not just a given situation
but also based on their prior experience, the experience of those they
have worked with and the stories they have heard about incidents that
happened in the past... Police officers hear about these stories and
unlike the members of the public who forget a story no matter how
sensational within a day or two, police carry these stories as their
secret weapons. This is part of their armor. An officer responding to
a burglary in progress arrives at the scene with a heightened sense of
danger, anxious and ready to fighting mode.
Sounds a lot like she is justifying prejudice. So would I be well
within my rights to utilize the same method of thinking that was
described by Professor Haberfeld? Would I be justified in thinking
that every police officer I see is a racist pig? I mean, I have "prior
experiences and the experience of those I have worked with and the
stories they have heard about incidents that happened in the past."
Personal experiences such as being stopped and dragged out of my car
while I was in high school by members of the Tulsa Police Department
and made to lay on the ground while on my way to one of the biggest
games of the season because the officers thought they saw my face in a
lineup or on a mug shot. It turned out they had just seen me in the
papers playing basketball, but I definitely didn't receive an apology.
Or while I was in college being put in handcuffs by the Syracuse
Police Department, in the snow mind you, my freshman year along with
one of my teammates because they thought we had stolen the car we were
in. They actually had the audacity to tell us to stay out of trouble
afterward, but no apology. Or after I was drafted by the Dallas
Mavericks, being stopped by the Dallas Police Department and told that
my Navigator would be impounded if I could not provide proof of a job
that would allow me to purchase a car of that magnitude. Again I
received no apology. Or driving through Virginia on my way to one of
my teammate's house and being stopped by the Virginia Police
Department and asked what business I had in that neighborhood,
detained for hours and later told that I "fit the description" of
something that happened. Still no apology.

As far as "war stories, unpredictability, danger and fear of one's
life," just in the past 5 years there has been an abundance of horror
stories of police brutality. Events that seemingly are forgotten about
by the general public within a day or two that I could carry around as
"secret weapons." Accounts such as the NYPD shooting Sean Bell fifty
times on the morning of his wedding day on November 25th of 2006; the
image of half a dozen Philadelphia police officers beating, kicking
and punching three men while holding them on the ground on May 7,
2008; Oakland transit officer Johannes Mehserle executing 22 year old
Oscar Grant while he was handcuffed and lying face down on the
pavement in January of 2009. Unfortunately I could go on and on with
example after example.

I'm not alone in having personal accounts of "war stories" that could
shift the entire way I look at all law enforcement. President Barack
Obama wrote in his book The Audacity Of Hope:

Although, largely through luck and circumstance, I now occupy a
position that insulates me from most of the bumps and bruises that the
average black man must endure -- I can recite the usual litany of
petty slights that during my 45 years have been directed my way:
security guards tailing me as I shop in department stores, white
couples who toss me their car keys as I stand outside a restaurant
waiting for valet, police cars pulling me over for no apparent reason.
I know what it's like to have people tell me I can't do something
because of my color, and I know the bitter swill of swallowed-back
anger.
So my question is, would I or any other black man who shares "war
stories" involving the police be justified, utilizing Professor
Haberfeld's method, in immediately going into "a heightened sense of
danger, anxious and ready to go into fighting mode" type of a
mentality every time I see a policeman? Would I be justified in
prejudging them before knowing anything about them? Do the isolated
incidents in my past and what I have seen justify an overall prejudice
toward all policemen? The answer of course is no.

My Grandfather told me a long time ago that he couldn't put all white
people in the category of devils because he had to judge each person
as an individual. Now, if they prove themselves to be devils, then
that is a different story, but they have to prove that first. He had a
long list of previous experiences that I couldn't even imagine living
through or being able to deal with, but he always concluded that there
are good white people and there are bad white people, just as there
are good black people and bad black people. This is my point: no
matter what our past experiences are, it is not intelligent, nor is it
fair not to see people as individuals. Furthermore, if a policeman is
to prejudge a situation and not have the ability to view it on a case-
by-case basis, he has no business being a policeman.

If not responsibly honed, their power can become catastrophic,
dangerous, destructive and corrupt.

Sent from my iPhone
www.mtravers.com