Category: ZT & PC

Because it’s bad enough that there are bad and offensive words out there, kids, but imagine the unmitigated and insensitive gall to think that you could use one of them in (gasp) a Scrabble tournament!!! Oh, the humanity!

It wasn’t a four-letter word, but it was close enough to cause a stir at the National Scrabble Championship Thursday. In the final round, eventual champion Trey Wright played the word “lez,” which was on a list of offensive words not allowed during the tournament.
Normally, no word is off-limits, but because the games were being taped for broadcast on ESPN, certain terms had been deemed inappropriate, including the three-letter slang for lesbian.
“There are words you just can’t show on television,” Scrabble Association Executive Director John Williams said.

Ah. Well, as long as it was just because it was on TV, that makes it all better …

Eric Chaiken, a tournament participant and director of “Word Wars,” a documentary about the Scrabble championship, said the definition of “offensive” was open to interpretation.
“The ultimate absurdity is that you can’t play the word ‘redskins’ on ESPN,” he said.

The only silver lining here was that Wright eventually won the championship, despite being forced (after drawing new tiles) to retract the move.

Great little journalistic stylebook here from News Watch as to what you can/can’t/should/shouldn’t call people/races/religions/groups/regions/etc. Something to offend or outrage everyone here, no doubt. My favorite:

religious zealots
Avoid. Stereotypical term generally referring to Arabs.

Which is all fine and good when it comes to what should show up in the newspaper, but I can’t say that I’ve usually — if ever — heard this used to refer to Arabs (or, more properly, since the book points out that “Arabs” is not synonymous with “Muslims,” to Muslims). At least in the crowds I read, it’s almost always used to refer to Christian fundamentalists.

But, then, the list of contributors …

It was compiled with the help of the Asian American Journalists Association; National Association of Black Journalists; National Association of Hispanic Journalists; National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association; the Native American Journalists Association; the National Center on Disability and Journalism; the South Asian Journalists Association; and “100 Questions and Answers About Arabs: A Journalist’s Guide” by the Detroit Free Press.

… doesn’t seem to focus on that particular interest group.

(via J-Walk)

The civil libertarian in me — who believes in punishment for the crime at hand, and that being the end of it — deplores the “Scarlet M” that sex offender databases (often life-long) represent.

The parent in me, though, did indeed check our ZIP code here.

(via Doyce)

I suppose it’s difficult to read into the Constitution the right to own a sex toy — which is why it’s a lot easier in Alabama to buy and own a gun than a dildo. Which may seem bass-ackwards (at least when it comes to insuring domestic Tranquility, if not promoting general Welfare), but blame a Constitutional Convention that was more interested in establishing a stable political order, not a pleasant place to live. While the 9th Amendment notes that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” establishing a right of “sexual privacy” seems to disagree with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (as reported here).

In this case, the American Civil Liberties Union (‘ACLU’) invites us to add a new right to the current catalogue of fundamental rights under the Constitution: a right to sexual privacy. It further asks us to declare Alabama’s statute prohibiting the sale of ‘sex toys’ to be an impermissible burden on this right. Alabama responds that the statute exercises a time-honored use of state police power — restricting the sale of sex. We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU’s invitation.

The law in question was passed in 1998:

Alabama’s Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act prohibits, among other things, the commercial distribution of ‘any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value.’

In other words, you can’t sell vibrators or dildos (or anything else of that ilk), at least not designed or marketed as such. Which seems, personally, ridiculous. The law doesn’t say anything about ownership or possession,

On the other hand, I can certainly agree with the court’s finding that:

If the people of Alabama in time decide that a prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter.

Indeed. Should the prudery of the majority (or their representatives, or the political/social delicacy of the question) be allowed to dictate the sexual pursuits of the citizens of Alabama? Not directly, perhaps, but, again, are those pursuits (which the Supremes have declared are a privacy right) infringed upon by commercial restrictions? And is that infringement unconstitutional?

I don’t know. But I don’t plan on moving to Alabama any time soon.

(via BoingBoing)

The role of religion in the thinking and philosophy and actions of the Founding Fathers is a very complex one. Attempts to portray them all as freethinking atheists is vastly oversimplifying matters (as would any blanket description for dozens of strong-minded activist individuals from across several states).

Of course, attempts to portray them all as “orthodox, deeply religious Christians” — particularly as the term is meant today — is equally simplistic. And, to be perfectly blunt, doctoring quotes to make it look that way is itself hardly in keeping with Christ’s teachings.

(via Cronaca)

The pendulum swings …

While this country was founded out of protest, the Founders themselves decided it was necessary to add an amendment to the Constitution — the first — that read (emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Government types often hate that, since it means a lot of people saying unpleasant things in front of them, often with the press corps busy taking their pictures.

The country has gone back and forth on this sort of thing. Certainly calling out the police, or the national guard, or the army to deal with protesters has a long (and often dark) heritage. Yet, at the same time, we still see it as a fundamental right.

In the last decade or two, under the not-entirely-dismissable aegis of “security,” we’ve seen the development of “free speech zones” being set up in conjunction with with major political events, especially as regards the president. It started (or first became publicized) during the Clinton years, but has increased during the Bush II era. Essentially, protesters (peaceful or otherwise) are told that protest is fine, and Constitutionally protected … but for security reasons, you can only do it over here, which is usually someplace lockable, away from the site of the speech/event, and away from the cameras.

It’s a tough call.

• There are, in fact, security concerns. And while someone “professional” planning on menacing the president is unlikely to be starting off holding up a sign saying, “I HATE BUSH,” it’s also not logical to simply dismiss angry protesters as a possible threat (especially in numbers).
• Are protesters there trying to get a “redress of grievances” from their government representatives, or trying to get air time on the nightly news? Is the latter as protected as the former? Given that I can stage a protest anywhere else I want, is the fact that the media aren’t going to visit my front yard mean that I have a constitutional right to go where they are visiting?

• Folks are generallly considered innocent until proven guilty in this country. Assuming that all, or even any, protesters will become violent is the sort of mind-reading/excuse-gathering that civil libertarians of all stripes should abhor.

• Do protesters have the right to disrupt a speech (regardless of whether it’s the president or not) by drowning it out or otherwise causing a ruckus? If so, does the president (or his reps) have the right to disrupt their “speech” by having them removed beforehand?

National presidential conventions have been at the forefront of protest (and suppression) for years (see Chicago, 1968). And this year is no different.

Cement barriers, 8-foot-tall chain-link fencing, and heavy black netting have been installed around the protest zone outside the FleetCenter, angering protesters who say they will be penned in and closed off from Democratic National Convention delegates.
Much of the area is located under abandoned elevated Green Line tracks that slope downward. The setup, which one netting installer called ”an internment camp,” will force tall protesters at the southern end of the zone to lower their heads to avoid banging them on green metal girders.
Furious that protesters are being shoehorned into an enclosed space, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild said they will ask a federal judge to open up or move the zone.

The netting, and “clear” plastic sheeting is to keep protesters from throwing things at the delegates who will be arriving by bus nearby. Tables for leaflets and other material will also be banned from the site, since the tables could be used “as weapons.”

The GOP has also come under similar fire:

On Monday, a federal judge in Manhattan issued an order that blocked New York police from using pens made of interlocking metal barricades at demonstrations outside the Republican National Convention without ensuring that protesters can get in and out. The judge also said that police cannot close streets and sidewalks leading to protest sites without informing the public of other ways to get to the demonstrations.

I’m not sure what the answer is. It’s far too seductive for those in power to be able to shunt off protest and dissent out of sight (or further). Give an inch, and there will be some folks who will gladly push you away a mile.

On the other hand, some level of security is obviously necessary. My right to peaceably assemble and petition doesn’t mean I get to wander into the White House any time I want and chat up the president. My desire to exercise my free speech in front of the press doesn’t mean I get to run up onto the podium and grab the mic from John Kerry.

Where does the line get drawn? My inclination is to lean most toward those First Amendment rights, but that doesn’t answer the question, just influences where to draw that hypothetical line.

(via InstaPundit)

If a particular type of baby food were found to be substantially more toxic than other types, you’d expect Swift Government Action — warning labels at the very least, outright recalls and bans and possible criminal actions quite possibly as well.

Well, unless we’re talking about organic baby food. At least in the UK.

In all, four of the top 10 foods with the highest levels of toxins [dioxins and PCBs] carried the organic label. Meanwhile, none of the 10 most toxin-free products was organic. In one example, an organic shepherd’s pie had 90 times the level of the chemicals of its non-organic equivalent.
In addition, while fish products have recently been the focus of considerable criticism over their levels of PCBs and dioxins, the only non-organic fish product tested had the lowest level of toxins, while the organic fish products were among the most affected by the chemicals.
Even within the same brands, organic products fared no better than ordinary foods. Although two organic products from Cow & Gate had high concentrations of toxins, two of their conventional baby foods were among the top 10 cleanest.

Okay, so the levels were all safe. But, still, it’s kind of amusing. And it makes you wonder what similar testing would show over here …

“Dude, this is great stuff.”

“Yeah. Whatever, man.”

“Dude, what’sa matter?”

“I dunno. I just — I got this feelin’ I forgot something.”

“Like what, dude?”

“No idea, man. Ah, well, gimme that back, lemme take another toke. I mean, how important can it be?”

“Righteous, dude.”

(via Hit & Run)

I get personally irked by graduation speeches that get turned into a bully pulpit to discuss political postures outside the bounds of the academic, graduate, etc., experience.

But it seems to me that a speech that is critical of the school itself and how it’s run is perfectly appropriate — but even though many of the listeners seemed to agree, the administration of this school doesn’t.

A top student who’s going to Smith College on a full scholarship this fall, Schley was brutally honest about the High School of Legal Studies during Thursday’s graduation ceremonies in Bushwick.
Among her gripes: The school has had four principals in four years, overcrowded classes, a shortage of textbooks and other basic materials, unqualified teachers, unstable staffing and uncaring administrators who refused to meet with students to discuss the school’s problems.
“They always want to keep the problems hush-hush, but what goes on in this school is real,” said Tiffany, who was also the editor of the school newspaper, yearbook chairwoman and a member of the student council.
One teacher who attended the graduation said the audience was shocked by the speech. “The administration was very nervous, but the students were definitely in support of her,” the teacher said.
When Schley came to school yesterday to pick up her diploma with the rest of her classmates, she and her mother were told they had been disrespectful and were escorted out of the building.

Hey, now there’s a lesson to teach people — especially in a magnet school for Legal Studies. Guess they never quite made it to Constitutional Studies …

“We feel that her schoolmates are deserving of an apology,” said Education Department spokesman Stephen Morello. “It was a celebratory day for all of them.”

Has anyone asked the schoolmates? Or is it someone else who thinks they “deserve” an apology.

Unless there were particular conditions placed upon the speech’s content, seems to me like this sort of thing ought to fall under whistle-blowing laws …

(via Les)

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Pledge of Allegience suit by deciding that the gent who brought it on behalf of his daughter doesn’t have proper standing.

Regardless of whether this was ducking the issue, or a reasonable desire to wait until a better, more ruling-worthy case comes along (or both), everyone pretty much agrees that this isn’t the end of debate over the issue of “Under God” in the Pledge.

A bigger question, perhaps, is whether the justices knew that they were making the ruling on Flag Day …

School kids in Britain no longer have to worry about whether their field trip is being called off because of rainy weather. Now they have to worry whether it will be called off because of sunny weather …

Derby City Council issued the guidelines because of the link between sunburn when young and increased risk of skin cancer in later life. It said teachers should consider “postponing or cancelling events… in periods of excessive sun”.
The guidelines also advised to teachers to “try to plan external activities, for example, short duration trips, external lessons and sports days, for times when the sun is likely to be at its lowest strength – and the temperature at its lowest”.

All right everyone, let’s cue the Morlock scene …

Of course, we worry about sun here in Colorado, too — being in Denver means being a mile high (hey, that’s catchy), so the UV risk is even higher. But Katherine’s pre-school gives parents the option — if they’re not of the sun-block-slathering sort like us — to allow the teacher to lotion the kid up. That option’s available in Derby, too, evidently, but with a different twist …

Teachers should also consider keeping a supply of maximum factor suncream to spray onto pupils, although they are told not to rub it in for fear of being accused of inappropriate contact.

And, just to make it a genuine trip into Wonderland, this BBC story shows it can get even more rules-bound-Zero-Tolerance-complicated than that …

An eight-year-old boy has been banned from taking sun cream to school. Joseph Marshall’s mother Helen sent him to school in Bristol with a bottle of factor 60 sun block to protect his pale, freckly skin from sunburn. She was angry when staff at Hillcrest Primary in Totterdown confiscated the cream, saying they were endangering his health.
Head teacher Norma Watson said pupils were not allowed medication at school because of the risk to other children. She said instead teachers encouraged them to wear long-sleeved clothing and hats.

(via Daimnation)

In this age, it is difficult to avoid giving offense in some fashion or another (people being so eager to search it out), so coming up with “art that does not offend anyone” is probably an impossible task, short of abstract designs (perhaps classical Islamic art had something there).

But is it okay to censor stuff just because it’s frickin’ ugly? Or for someone to make an aesthetic judgment not to publically fund an art project, or, at the very least, to decide that a rather unsightly “reaction … to 9/11” is probably not an proper subject for public art at an international airport?

Frankly, I don’t think that’s censorship. That’s just good sense.

“Ladies Night” bar discounts are unconstitutionally discriminatory. At least in New Jersey.

The state’s top civil rights official has ruled that taverns cannot offer discounts to women on “ladies nights,” agreeing with a man who claimed such gender-based promotions discriminated against men.
David R. Gillespie said it was not fair for women to get into the Coastline nightclub for free and receive discounted drinks while men paid a $5 cover charge and full price for drinks.
In his ruling Tuesday, J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, director of the state Division on Civil Rights, rejected arguments by the nightclub that ladies nights were a legitimate promotion. Commercial interests do not override the “important social policy objective of eradicating discrimination,” he ruled.

What’s interesting is that similar suits in Pennsylvania and Iowa have reached the same conclusion, but courts in Illinois and Washington have ruled the opposite way (claiming that the discrimination is not intentional, but merely an effort to get women into bars).

I don’t know. If I claimed I wanted to get more white people into my bar by offering them an occasional discount not available to blacks, I suspect someone might (rightfully) object.

(via Hit&Run)