Category: ZT & PC

I believe that animals should be treated as humanely as possible. I acknowledge that there are aspects to the meat industry, and the fur industry, and the animal products industry, that are troubling, and that should be reformed.

All that said, these folks are nucking futs.

Animal rights advocates will single out small children at performances of “The Nutcracker” in the next few weeks by handing out fliers saying “Your Mommy Kills Animals” to youngsters whose mothers are wearing fur.
“Children can’t look up to a mom in a battered-raccoon hat or a crushed coyote collar,” said Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “Maybe when they’re confronted by their own children’s hurt looks, fur-wearers’ cold hearts will melt.
The fliers include a color drawing of a woman plunging a large bloody knife into the belly of a terrified rabbit. The fliers urge kids to “ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes.
“And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner the animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy – she’s an animal killer.”

Come near my daughter, and I will frickin’ deck you. I am serious.

I am flabbergasted that PETA (who is the organization behind this) could imagine that this will do anything other than hurt their organization, and thus its cause. Are they that blind, that self-righteous, that clueless?

I guess so.

The warning stands. Violate it at your own risk.

UPDATE: Here’s an image from the flier, courtesy of the Denver Post. Amazing.

(via Brian)

Well, in Texas at least.

Joanne Webb, a former fifth-grade teacher and mother of three, was in a county court in Cleburne, Texas, on Monday to answer obscenity charges for selling the vibrator to undercover narcotics officers posing as a dysfunctional married couple in search of a sex aid.
Webb, a saleswoman for Passion Parties of Brisbane, faces a year in jail and a $4,000 fine if convicted.

Aside from what sounds like the remarkable (and oddly intriguing) innovation of home parties centered around, not food storage containers or cooking gear or cleannig materials, but “marital aids” …

For the past year, Webb has sold the company’s line of vibrators, gels, lubricants, strawberry-flavored nipple cream and “edible passion puddings.” The merchandise is offered for sale in private, Tupperware-style parties to women who may be reluctant to visit an adult novelty store.

… does anyone else think it must have been an extremely slow crime day (week, month) in Cleburne? I mean, so slow that they could allocate a couple of narcotics officers (guess there’s no narcotics to buy there, either) to case like this?

Webb suspects she got in trouble because she ruffled feathers in town by daring to join the Chamber of Commerce with her sex toy business.

Ah. There’s no politics like small-town politics.

Volokh notes two interesting bits of Texas state law on the matter:

Texas is one of only three states (Colorado and Kansas are the others) that actually has the word “dildo” occurring in its state statutes.

That would be Penal Code sec. 43.21, where we learn that “‘Obscene device’ means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” Per se.

(It’s worth noting that the Colorado version of this, which hits a bit closer to home, is in Title 18 (Criminal Code), Article 7 (Offenses Related to Morals), Part 1 (Obscenity Offenses), 18-7-101, Definitions, Section 3. It reads identically to the Texas definition.)

We also find out:

Texas also provides that “A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same.” (Penal Code sec. 43.23.) If you’ve got six or more, you’re not just a user — you’re a pusher!

As opposed to, say, someone who prefers a bit of variety, or has generous friends.

(Interestingly enough, Colorado, too, has the same six-items-or-more restriction, in 18-7-102.)

It’s worth noting that you can duck out from under these laws if you have “a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose.” Personal preference for what you do in your own bedroom, with nobody presumably being forced to view the proceedings (that’s already covered by other laws), or selling items to that end to folks who ask for them, evidently does not count, according to the state of Texas. (Or Colorado. I blame all the Texans who’ve moved here.)

I’m sure someone can explain this all to me, but why would the US Humane Society and the Free Willy-Keiko Foundation, among others, pay to have the deceased Keiko, the Killer Whale … buried?

Keiko, the killer whale star of the “Free Willy” movies, was buried Monday in a snow-bound pasture during the deep darkness of Nordic winter in a ceremony kept secret from the public.
The roughly six-ton whale died Friday in a Norwegian bay where his team was trying to reintroduce him to the wild. His trainers said the likely cause of death was pneumonia.
Richards said the burial in a pasture just yards from where Keiko, about 26, died was done in secret to avoid a media circus. Despite the whale’s size, the burial went smoothly, Richards said. Machines dug a hole near the waterline, under cover of darkness, and then slid Keiko slowly a few yards across the snow into his grave, he said.
“It was beautiful. He went to the grave quietly, quickly and peacefully, just like he died,” said Richards. Only seven people — including his team and the machine operator — were present.

Well, yeah — because he was dead. I mean, I wouldn’t expect him to put up a struggle.

But, honestly, doesn’t that represent a measure of artifice and anthropomorphism that animal rights organizations would ordinarily oppose? Doesn’t that break the Circle of Life? Or, even more metaphysically, doesn’t that mean that he’ll never be free again?

The grave site, a lush and grassy field during the summer, was covered with snow and barely visible by daylight Monday.

Both of which are, of course, an orca’s natural habitat. Doesn’t anyone else find it ironic that the people who worked so hard to send him back to the wild removed him from it for his final resting place?

Normally, Norwegian fisheries authorities would order the remains of a large sea mammal towed to sea and sunk in deep water.

I mean, I suppose it might have been a bit embarrassing if the rotting remains of Keiko washed up on the beach outside Oslo. But …

“We wanted to let him be at peace,” said Dane Richards, one of his caretakers. “He’s free now and in the wild.”

Well, no, now he’s landlocked and beached for eternity. That’s just swell.

(via BoingBoing)

The superintendant for the school where a kid was allegedly harrassed — by his teacher and the principal — for talking about his mom being gay … denies the whole thing.

I have investigated a news report recently published that indicated that an elementary student in one of our schools was disciplined as a result of this student telling another student that the first student’s parent was gay.
I have reviewed the documented records on this matter, as well as have met with the school principal and have concluded that the student’s discipline was unrelated to any judgment by school officials regarding sexual orientation or practices, or the student’s discussion of that particular topic. However, I have concluded that the discipline was related to ordinary student disturbances, which were hindering the classroom learning process and which were addressed in an appropriate fashion by the teacher and school administrator.

Which would boil it down to a he-said/she-said, except … well, except for the disciplinary report and the behavior contract the kid had to fill out. Which, if they are to be believed, don’t mention anything about “student disturbences,” but do mention the kid saying his mom was gay.

The school board is officially reserving judgment — but is also claiming that the school did nothing wrong — but can’t talk about it any further because it’s a child disciplinary matter, and to do so would violate the child’s privacy. Though the School Board president did note:

“I feel like any discussion by a child of a parent’s sexual orientation is inappropriate for children that age,” School Board President David Thibodaux said. “I would not want my children discussing sexuality with their friends.”

Given that the kid claims another child asked him about his “mommy and daddy,” it doesn’t sound like a conversation that he could (or should) have ducked. And there’s no indication in the documentation that he started going on about intimate sexual practices or other material that might have warrented a call home to a parent.

The fact is, by saying that you have “a mommy and daddy,” you are talking about your parents’ ostensible sexual orientation. That the school board doesn’t realize that is really kind of interesting, isn’t it?

(via Volokh)

You don’t have to approve of it. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to consider it moral. You don’t have to associate with any of Them outside of your professional responsibilities.

But you do not take it out on a seven-year-old kid.

LAFAYETTE, Louisiana (AP) — A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write “I will never use the word ‘gay’ in school again” after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged Monday.
Second-grader Marcus McLaurin was waiting for recess November 11 at Ernest Gaullet Elementary School when a classmate asked about Marcus’ mother and father, the ACLU said in a complaint.
Marcus responded he had two mothers because his mother is gay. When the other child asked for explanation, Marcus told him: “Gay is when a girl likes another girl,” according to the complaint.
A teacher who heard the remark scolded Marcus, telling him “gay” was a “bad word” and sending him to the principal’s office. The following week, Marcus had to come to school early and repeatedly write: “I will never use the word ‘gay’ in school again.”

Here’s the full ACLU press release on the matter, which goes into even more gory detail. There’s also a copy of the school incident report and the “behavior contract” that the kid had to fill out and sign; it’s simply appalling.

The teacher’s official description of the dire offense:

Marcus decided to explain to another child ni his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in their own way.

For his sins, Marcus had a conference wit the principal, his mother was contacted, he was formally reprimanded, and had to attend a “behavior clinic” for an hour before school the following week.

So remember, folks, in the ever-increasing realm of Things You Aren’t Allowed to Say, be sure and teach your child never to explain anything when asked, or talk to any other kids, since you never know when someone will throw a hissy fit and punish your kid for talking about something they feel is offensive.

The mind reels.

(via Volokh)

A University of Virginia Medical Center employee is in hot water over use of the N-word. The N-word (delicately referred to as a “racial epithet”) is, in the interest of reporting honesty, “Nigger.” (I know it’s okay to use the word in a reporting context because the university student paper did so. Phew!)

So, you might ask, did this Neanderthal call someone a Nigger? Did he refer to co-workers as Niggers, or students, or some other group? Was he one of any of a number black people who refer to each other joshingly as “Nigger”?

No. He was condemning racially insensitive terms. And, in so doing, used “Nigger” as an example. And so is now himself condemned as racially insensitive.

Each person interviewed recounted a conversation between employees about football teams they each favored, Howell said. The conversation later turned to a discussion of controversial team names, including the Washington Redskins.
Howell reported that the offender “said something like this: ‘I can’t believe in this day and age that there’s a sports team in our nation’s capital named the Redskins. That is as derogatory to Indians as having a team called Niggers would be to blacks.'”
Though Howell said no staff members said they were personally offended by the remark, they said they would have preferred if the word had not been used.

I’ll bet. They knew that once word got out, there’d be a huge foofoorah.

I mean, has the whole world gone mad?

Here’s a guy talking about how words can hurt people. He’s hopped up on the bandwagon against naming sports teams after Native Americans, especially in a slang fashion. And he’s the one being crucified for being “offensive” and “insulting” because of the word he used as an example. Nobody seems to be upset that he used the word “Redskin.” And no Native American groups have come to his defense in defending their sensibilities.

Instead, the campus seems to have gone bonkers.

In response to the alleged remark, the Staff Union at U.Va. is sponsoring a “Protest Against Racism at U.Va. and the U.Va. Medical Center After a Recent Racial Incident” today at noon.

One guy uses one word, not as an epithet, but as an example of epithets people find upsetting — and that constitutes racism and a “racial incident?”

“It doesn’t really matter in what context this word was used,” Staff Union President Jan Cornell said in a statement, adding that employees have reported other similar incidents.
“I will continue to inform the U.Va. administration about racism, discrimination, mistreatment of employees by managers and retaliation issues until U.Va. is a safe place to work for everyone of every race,” she said.

Never mind this incident had nothing to do with discrmination, mistreatment of employees, or retaliation issues. Oh, wait, except for retaliation against the poor schmuck who uttered the Most Profane of Terms.

And why, one wonders, isn’t the student newspaper being lambasted for printing the word, even as a quotation? If it makes no difference the context the word is used (and there’s an assertion that should have everyone in the English Dept. pitching a fit, conservative as well liberal), then printing it in the paper should be at least as verboten.

In an e-mail sent to a black faculty e-mail list, History Prof. Julian Bond, national chair of the NAACP, called for the employee to make a public apology and take sensitivity training.

He was frickin’ complaining about how insensitive others are. Yeesh. It sounds like he’s plenty sensitive.

(We’ll leave aside the question of whether there’s a white faculty e-mail list. I suppose that would be considered de facto racist, while a black faculty e-mail list is merely considered group solidarity against The Man. But I digress.)

“My first impulse is that this should be a dismissible infraction — but free speech protections I hold dear tell me that shouldn’t be so,” Bond wrote …

Yeah — a real booster for free speech you are, Julian. The word wasn’t used in malice, nor even in negligence — it was, in fact, picked because it is a hurtful (in context) word, and was used in comparison to another word some consider hurtful. But I guess some hurtful words are considered more equal than others.

“The University expects all members of the University community to be alert to the rights and dignity of all our people and also alert to racial and other insults,” [Casteen] said, adding that all members of the community should feel comfortable in reporting any “demeaning” incidents.

Nobody reported being offended or demeaned. I guess everyone should feel comfortable about reporting any possibly demeaning incidents, then. If in doubt, assume someone could feel demeaned and report it.

“We share and ought to welcome the responsibility for making the University community a welcoming environment for everyone,” he said.

Including, I guess, “redskins.”

I repeat: Yeesh.

(via David Bernstein, who notes the similarity to a Life of Brian routine.)

Yeesh. The Master/Slave controversy just gets better and better.

More details here on the whole origin of the matter:

Sandoval said a Probation Department employee complained to the Office of Affirmative Action Compliance that video equipment had the terms “master/slave” written on it. As a result of the investigation, the affirmative action office said he should see whether the county could stop buying electronics with those labels on them.
[…] Dennis A. Tafoya, director of the affirmative action office, said an African-American employee who filed the complaint felt it was employment discrimination because the employee was working on video equipment with the label written on it. The office investigated and determined that the complaint did not involve employment discrimination, but the official recognized that the term could be perceived as offensive.
“The issue was the employee had to operate this equipment and look at the term ‘slave and master,’ and given their background as an African-American person, I imagine they had different feelings about it,” Tafoya said. “We found the terms were antiquated and offensive to individuals and that a more reasonable term could be used. I think that’s what we should do. If it means culture change, then we have to begin someplace.

So. One person — one county worker — sees a term, and makes some bizarro claim that this is “employer discrimination.” The county office responsible for such complaints finds no such discrimination — but decides that, well, someone could be offended by it, so let’s not worry about whether it makes any sense, let’s just coddle any possibility of anyone being in the least bit offended by anything that we do (especially if they might sue us) and just do away with the term.

Well, as a computer geek, I feel that my culture is being denegrated, and that complaints about such a reasonable, very descriptive, and not-at-all antiquated technical term are prejudicial against IT types, and probably constitutes discrimination against the IT employees of the county. I demand that attacks on such terms be ended. “If it means culture change, then we have to begin someplace.”

I mean, really. How many people need to be offended before we decide that a term is unacceptable? It seems that the answer is “1” — if, I might add, the complainer is of a group that is allowed to be offended and have action taken up on their behalf.

Tafoya continues,

“This has got some people’s hair up on the back of their neck. They believe it’s a question of being politically correct. It’s not that at all. It’s an issue of valuing diversity, respect and dignity for the individual who comes to work here every day. The issue that resonates in different people’s minds is a very negative connotation.”

We are therefore removing the following terms from all LA County publications, buildings, and equipment to be purchased: “South,” “Civil,” “Property,” “Cracker,” “Crow,” “Black,” “Whip,” “Cotton,” “Factor,” “Passage,” “Triangle,” “Chains,” and “Gone with the Wind.”

And what does the Joe Sandoval, division manager of purchasing and contract services in the Internal Services Department, have to say?

“What we are doing is soliciting vendors who regularly do business with the county to look at their equipment and help us where they can,” Sandoval said. “It’s not a policy decision or mandate, but that’s what folks took it as.”

Well, maybe this terminology made it look like a “mandate”:

[T]his is not an acceptable identification label. We would request that each manufacturer, supplier and contractor review, identify and remove/change any identification or labeling of equipment or components thereof that could be interpreted as discriminatory or offensive in nature before such equipment is sold or otherwise provided to any County department.

If I were selling equipment to the county, I’d sure take that as a mandate.

(Mutter mutter mutter …)

(via Volokh)

An e-mail purportedly from the Los Angeles County Purchasing and Contract Services Director urging technology vendors with county contracts to avoid “unsensitive” technical terms.

The County of Los Angeles actively promotes and is committed to ensure a work environment that is free from any discriminatory influence be it actual or perceived. As such, it is the County’s expectation that our manufacturers, suppliers and contractors make a concentrated effort to ensure that any equipment, supplies or services that are provided to County departments do not possess or portray an image that may be construed as offensive or defamatory in nature.
One such recent example included the manufacturer’s labeling of equipment where the words ”Master/Slave” appeared to identify the primary and secondary sources. Based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable identification label. We would request that each manufacturer, supplier and contractor review, identify and remove/change any identification or labeling of equipment or components thereof that could be interpreted as discriminatory or offensive in nature before such equipment is sold or otherwise provided to any County department.

So, for example, all those references to attaching a subordinated hard drive to another, the former traditionally (like for a decade or two) called a “slave” and the latter a “master”? Right out. Labels on hard drives that indicate how to change the jumpers to make a drive a “master” or “slave,” as has been standard industry terminology (and well-descriptive terminology) for years? Don’t go there. In fact, scrape off those labels and put on new ones — perhaps “manager/staff,” or “suggester/considerer,” or “fuzzy bear/cuddly bunny.” Don’t want folks to get emotionally traumatized by their computer upgrades, or file a racial harrassment suit against the IT group …

It’s not 100% clear that this is real. The BoingBoing article‘s link is malformed — SOCALWUG is here — and I don’t see the letter in question posted at the site anyway. But it’s certainly believably bizarre in its PCness, which means that even if there’s no such e-mail, there’s certainly a bureaucratic zeitgeist that would let one exist.

In either case — yeesh.

While eschewing Scott’s obligatory Evil Warmongering Cowardly Dubya rhetoric, I have to agree with him that it’s disgusting that the National Guard would go ahead and deploy troops overseas to Iraq who tested positive for drug use, despite the Army’s “zero tolerance” policy. I certainly can’t support illegal drug use, but a policy touted with such moral righteousness during peacetime in order to winnow out the unfit and scofflaws shouldn’t hardly be set aside in wartime.

And in response to the idea that at least some of these guys were doing drugs in order to avoid deployment — well, screw ’em. Forget about the dishonorable discharge — throw in some serious brig time for both drug use and dereliction of duty in wartime, and show that it’s not behavior that’s “rewarded.”

The Guard’s actions here comes across as highly cynical — especially as there are plans to prosecute the offenders after they return from Iraq. The cynicism can only be increased by statements like this, from a Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, spokesperson:

A positive on their drug test is not going to keep them here, unless there’s a dependency issue. These units have to have so many people to go overseas.

If it makes ’em unfit in peacetime, it makes ’em unfit in wartime, quotas or not. And if it doesn’t, then change the policy, and don’t file charges after they’ve done their service.

Granted, with great sadness (and disgust), that there remains sickening bigotry and race prejudice here in the US (a recent example, via Scott, can be found here). But, granting that, fabricating racist incidents to make a point (or worse) only lends comfort to the enemy, as it both reduces the moral high ground of those who fight racism, and it discredits-by-association authentic incidents.

Indeed, one wonders whether falsely reporting such incidents — especially targeting a neighbor as the probable suspect — is not just as pernicious, and deserving of as dire consequences.

Dictionaries describe language as it is used, balancing the tensions of “rules” and “reality.” McDonald’s needs to consider that, as it has a conniption over the McJob entry in the new Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

McJob (mek jäb’) n. a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement

McDonalds huffs and puffs that this is an unfair characterization of their employees and job training and opportunities for management and shift supervisor positions and stuff like that.

In an open letter to Merriam-Webster, McDonald’s CEO Jim Cantalupo said the term is “an inaccurate description of restaurant employment” and “a slap in the face to the 12 million men and women” who work in the restaurant industry.
Cantalupo also wrote that “more than 1,000 of the men and women who own and operate McDonald’s restaurants today got their start by serving customers behind the counter.”

That may all very well be true. But the popular opinion and usage of the term seems to indicate otherwise, and that’s what McDonald’s needs to combat, not the dictionary that reports it.

Not satisfied with looking like overly-sensitive jerks, the McDonald’s folks are also waving around the threat of law suits.

Walt Riker, a spokesman for McDonald’s, said the Oak Brook, Illinois-based fast-food giant also is concerned that “McJob” closely resembles McJOBS, the company’s training program for mentally and physically challenged people. “McJOBS is trademarked and we’ve notified them that legally that’s an issue for us as well,” Riker said.

Must – not – make – obvious – joke – here …

(via BoingBoing)

The Casper City Council is trying to take the middle road regarding its own Ten Commandments monument and a proposed Fred Phelps monument condemning Matthew Shepherd to hell.

Bully for them for standing up to Phelps, though he and his kin are more than willing to back up their threats with law suits. The council seems to be planning to create a new public plaza of historic legal documents, which would include not only the Decalogue, but also the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and other documents. Whether this will (or should) withstand scrutiny is debatable (and will, no doubt, be debated in court).

I’m mixed on this one. On the one hand, anything that pokes Phelps and his cult of hatred in the eye is prima facie a good thing. On the other hand, I’m not a supporter of the Ten Commandments as public decor, certainly not in a vacuum, and questionably in the context of other founding legal documents.

But I’ll recommend the ACLU stay out of this one for the moment. Let Phelps spend his money on legal maneuvers; maybe it will keep him out of other peoples’ hair.

Naomi Wolf writes an interesting but, ultimately, unconvincing essay here on how bad porn is for people — not, as was once thought, because it turns men into ravening and depraved beasts, but because it turns them into decadent porn addicts who aren’t interested in Real Women.

Continue reading “Myths indeed”

A 68-year-old couple on a cul-de-sac in baby-booming Highlands Ranch has been dealt a setback in their campaign to keep kids from playing in the cul-de-sac.

It seems that it’s illegal for kids to be playing in the street, so faced with hordes of annoying children in this bedroom community, the Zickerts were spending their day calling the sherriff and getting the parents of about two dozen families cited. Over and over again. Complete with surveillance cameras.

“I don’t understand why they need to play in the street. Streets are for cars,” Fran Zickert says.

In turn, the Zickerts claim, they’ve been subjected to curses, scrawled “I hate you” messages in their driveway, and moonings.

Douglas County commissioners, who have to have been wondering if there were some real county business to work on, have ended up identifying the cul-de-sac as a “play street,” which means that kids can legally play in it, so long as they clear the way for cars in 20 seconds, and keep equipment (backboards and street hockey nets) by the curb.

Now, maybe I’m an unusual freak of nurture. I grew up on a cul-de-sac. I played in a cul-de-sac. I, for one, assume that when driving through a residential neighborhood, there will likely be kids playing in the street, and I adjust my speed and attention accordingly. I don’t look on this as some sort of Lord of the Flies scenario, but as, well, part of life, something to expect, something natural and even to be encouraged. Aren’t we always ragging on our kids for sitting in their rooms watching TV or playing video games?

Not that it’s a license to run out into the freeway or anything, and not that I expect to not verbally lambaste Katherine over her street-playing behavior. But that’s part of the tension and education of growing up: learning that rules are not absolutes, but that you’re expected sometimes to use your judgement. While the results sometime aren’t pretty, and, yes, can be tragic, the results of not teach that lesson are even worse.

The Zickerts aren’t impressed by the decision. Too bad. They claim that they have ten grandchildren, and love spending time with them.

I wonder if they’ve polled their grandkids about the matter. Or their kids, for that matter.

More commentary on both side of the dispute here and here. I have to say I find the “The Law is the Law, Dammit” attitude very illuminating; it’s part and parcel of the whole “Let’s exercise no discretion and judgement, let’s just set rules and then zap the hapless types that step over them” idea behind Zero Tolerance legislation in general.

Y’know, if Cruz Bustamante had won the California recall, and someone had cartooned a big picture of him wearing a “Por La Raza Todos” t-shirt, shouting “Vamanos, muchachos!,” with Pancho Villa in the background, and a little side editorial comment about how “You can take the boy out of Mexico, but …” … well, I’ll bet you there would be a lot of folks who would be offended.