Category: ZT & PC

Folks who think the UK’s union jack has racist overtones are proposing a revised version that would include black stripes.

A campaign is being launched to modernise the red, white and blue flag by adding a touch of black to reflect multicultural Britain in the 21st Century. The proposed new flag is the work of Nigel Turner, an enthusiastic fan of the UK’s transformation into a multiracial society over the past 50 years.
Mr Turner, who has called his campaign Reflag, believes his plan would reclaim the union jack from its negative associations, and silence that old skinhead chant: “There ain’t no black in the union jack.”
“If I flew the union jack from a flagpole in my garden, many people would see it as a racist statement,” he says. “I’m a glass half-full, rather than half-empty sort of person. It’s time we made a positive statement about the progression of a multicultural and multiracial society.”

Riiiiiight. Because changing the official flag will stamp out racism and silence skinheads (it’s done so much in the Southern US, after all). And adding some black stripes is all that’s necessary to reflect a “multiracial” nation.

The current union jack dates back to the 17th Century, and was formed of the crosses of Sts. George, Andrew and Patrick, the patron saints of England, Scotland and Ireland. (Wales, evidently, missed out.)

As one commenter on the site observed:

The idea is fine in principle but the design is all wrong. As far as I can see the blue and red people of this country are still massively over-represented. Perhaps we could use a system of proportional representation and update the flag at each census.

Here’s hoping this is one of those ideas that makes a brief flutter, then just blows away.

(via GoaF)

Think workplace drug testing is invasive of privacy? Try it in the military. Heh.

Tracy has some fine thoughts on Gay Pride events, and both the benefits and drawbacks to them.

Here’s the thing though…the argument is that Pride is a time when we can educate the public, be visible among the masses and march down the street declaring our pride and freedom with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work, not when you’ve got a float decorated with multi-colored condoms toting around men dressed like Cher, Barbra, Tina Turner and Liza…and especially not when those are the only images that any TV crew ever cares to film. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with Drag Queens–they’ve got great style and apply make-up better than I ever could. I’m saying that when that is all that makes it to the public eye, the gay community is doing itself more harm than good.

Good stuff.

Smith College is an women’s college.

But the Smith College student government is changing their student constitution to be gender neutral in language.

Well, I guess that’s nice enough. I mean, sauce for the goose and all that.

But they’re not doing it because it’s aesthetic or civil reasons. They’re doing it because some of the women are, ah, uncomfortable with gender-specific references to themselves as women.

Lindsay Watson, who recently ended her term as Student Government Association president, said she introduced the initiative as a way to attract a wider range of students to student government.
Watson said she was thinking particularly of students who identify themselves as transgendered, and therefore may be uncomfortable using female pronouns to describe themselves.
“One of the things I spent some time looking into is what is discouraging people from getting involved (in student government),” said Watson. “This was something that screamed really loudly.”

Right. People weren’t getting involved in student government because it referred to “she” and “her,” and they weren’t sure that’s what they wanted to be referred to as.

Well, actually, it seems that way.

Toby Davis, a senior who is co-chair of what is called the “T” committee, a transgendered students group on campus, expressed approval of the vote.
“When Watson came and talked to us about it, we were of course pretty psyched this would come from the head of the SGA,” Davis said. “It is making the SGA to me personally feel like a more welcoming organization.”

Which might raise the issue of why a transgendered person would be going to a single-sex college.

According to Mencher [a Northampton psychotherapist who was recently hired to serve as transgender specialist at the college], most of the students she counsels do not see themselves as transsexual – that is, they are not necessarily interested in using medical means to change their bodies so that they appear as the opposite sex. Rather, she said, they are exploring their gender.
“There are a lot of students here who identify as transgender but don’t identify as male. They identify in a more gender-ambiguous way,” explained Mencher. “They have come to a campus where that’s very much supported.

No word yet no whether Smith will be identifying itself as a women-and-ambiguous-others college.

(via Ad Orientem)

An alternately amusing and disturbing tale of “socially acceptable bigotry” … against Republicans.

“Actually, Suzi,” I explained as gently as possible, “I’m one of those asshole Republicans.”
She dropped her chopsticks and stared at me as if I had just announced that I was a convicted child rapist.
Then she smiled, as she finally grasped the situation. “Oh, you’re kidding, right?”
“No, I really am a Republican.”
“What? Nobody told me.”
I tried to blunt the blow. “I’m actually not terribly interested in politics.” This is, in fact, true.
No matter.
“Well, look,” she said as she pulled her purse out from under her seat. “I’m sorry but I can’t deal with this. Please don’t think me rude, but I really think it would be best if I just left.”

Of course, one can hear much the same knee-jerk bigotry against Democrats — just amongst different crowds.

(via Ad Orientem)

Eric Muller recounts a bit of unexected discrimination at (of all places) Colonial Williamsburg. Weird.

Even as school textbooks are banning the word “obese” from their vocabulary, some lawmakers want to put it back — The state of Maine recently introduced legislation requiring all restaurant chains with 20 or more franchises to print nutritional information for all items listed on menus. The state of New York is considering similar legislation.
Now comes Texas, with a menu labeling bill sponsored by Rep. Dennis Bonnen, which just passed the Texas legislature’s Public Health Committee. Rep. Bonnen’s bill would require all restaurants with three or more locations in the state to label every menu item with its fat, calories, cholesterol, carbohydrates, fiber, sugar, and protein content – on every menu. It would also require every item on every menu that gets more than 1/3 of calories from fat to print the warning: “Eating Fatty Foods May Lead to Obesity.” Failure to comply would result in a $100 fine and up to six months in jail – for each offense.

Okay, aside from the offense (or aesthetic displeasure) one may take at being nattered at by Big Mother as to how many french fries you’re eating, what’s the harm?

Well, for one thing, it means that any time a restaurant wants to change a menu, or try a new item, or even let the chef go hog-wild with an entree du jour — it all has to go out for testing first. Add that to the cost of the meal out, of course, not to mention the reduced chances of seasonal or other menu changes.

And heaven help you if you don’t get the serving proportions correct, or try to guesstimate the calories that new creation Chef George whipped up has, or if one of the help spoons an extra ladle of gravy on or smears a bit too much mayo on that sandwich.

The perennial fat police at the Center for Science in the Public Interest – one of the key interest groups behind the labeling legislation in Maine – just recently filed a lawsuit against McDonalds Corporation for mislabeling the serving size of its reduced-fat vanilla ice cream cone. CSPI based its suit on the serving sizes McDonalds publishes on its national website versus portions CSPI researches measured at two, isolated Washington, D.C. franchises.

That’s right — get too much food, and you can sue the sous-chef out of the restaurant. Or, more likely, its deep-pocket corporate masters.

Most people kind of like getting extra. But not, I guess, the CSPI.

Do we really need this?

An writer in the Arab News laments American prejudice and “shameful unfairness” in denying his granddaughter a car she won in a local contest.

My granddaughter, Mashael, a student at King Fahd Academy in Washington, recently won a prize in a local competition. The prize was a luxury car, but her happiness was short-lived. When she went to collect the prize, the organizers refused to give it to her because, according to them, prizes were only intended for those who hold American nationality. The news was devastating. Mashael was not prepared for such a shock. Imagine an excited girl, eagerly awaiting a prize she won fairly in an open competition being told she could not win because of her nationality! The machine that sorted the entries and selected the winners did not differentiate between an American and someone from another country.

Now, it may be that this is in fact an example of bias, that there were no such rules in the contest, nor local or state regulations about who was eligible for winning a prize in such a contest. On the other hand, there well might have been — one might ask, for example, if residents of other US states were eligible to win, either. Anyone who’s tried to sift through the fine print for such contests (or run one) knows the legal and regulatory hassles involved.

On the other hand, assertions that outrages like this demonstrate that Arabs and Muslims in the US are dealt with “as if they were not humans” and that this is “why American Muslims are treated unfairly while American Jews enjoy more rights than ordinary Americans” are goofy enough to make you wonder about the whole factual premise of the article.

But one has to wonder what Mashael was planning on doing with the vehicle if she ever had to return back to her country-of-citizenship. After all, women in Saudia Arabia are not allowed to drive cars.

I haven’t heard of a story like this in the US — yet — but the sentiment and logic behind it is sadly familiar in these days of shooting-finger-suspensions and nailclipper-confiscations.

Police officers have reprimanded a mother-of-two for allowing her seven-year-old son to leave his plastic toy sword in her car.
Karen McFarlane, 38, has been told she could face charges for having an offensive weapon after two officer spotted the toy while her car was parked in Swindon.
Police told her the 30-inch sword might cause panic if it was spotted by a passer-by, reports the Daily Mail.
[…] A Wiltshire Police spokesman said they had no record of the incident, and admitted anything can be adapted into an offensive weapon, “even a rolled-up newspaper, depending on how you use it.”

Well, we have freedom of the press here, so it’s not likely that rolled-up newspapers will make the confiscate-or-arrest list. Soon, at least.

(via Sgt Stryker)

At Lancaster High School in California, a school assembly was held for white students alone. Only white students were invited, and non-white students (and a non-white staff member) who tried to enter the auditorium were turned away (administrators later said that was a misunderstanding).

“The meeting we had Thursday (April 17) was not meant to be exclusive and to shut doors,” Lancaster High Principal Bill Appleton said. “It was meant to be inclusive, to be sure we address the needs of a subgroup on campus [whites].
“There was a misperception of the meeting and that’s unfortunate,” the principal added. “The purpose was to address issues that are specific to a cultural group [whites], so they would be able to hear without feeling any degree of intimidation from anyone else [non-whites]. … I don’t think we ever anticipated that anyone else wanted to attend.”

Oh, wait. My mistake. I got the race wrong. The morning assembly was a meeting of the Black Students Union, for its members and other black students at the high school to “address issues specific to black students.” But it does make you wonder what the reaction would have been if it was a whites-only assembly. As it is, it certainly seems to have raised at least some fuss.

A number of die-hard states with blue laws related to Sunday alcohol sales are beginning to loosen up and allow you to buy beer and wine and liquor on Sundays.

A sudden rise in drunken debauchery? A reasoned realization that preventing liquor sales on Sundays doesn’t actually instill moral fiber into the community? A principled effort to separate church and state?

Nah. They’re just strapped for sales tax revenue.

Now, if only Colorado would join that list.

A lawsuit (in California, natch) seeks to prevent Nabisco from selling Oreos to minors. That’s because it’s full of partially hydrogenated oil (trans fat), which is known to be particularly dangerous.

But, jeez — does anyone out there think that Oreos are good for you? Or that they’re even health-neutral?

If trans fat is really dangerous, then petition (or sue) the FDA or the Dept of Agriculture to ban it. Don’t take this sort of back-door approach to the whole thing.

Or try to educate the public. Though, ironically, that might make the product lawsuit-safe, since the California law under which it’s filed exempts ingredients generally known to be dangerous, and (the filer claims) most people don’t know about the dangers of trans fat.

Feh.

(via BoingBoing)

Colorado Rockies relief pitcher Todd Jones has apologized for embarrassing the team with remarks he made last week about how he “wouldn’t want a gay guy being around me” on the team. (He did not apologize for the remarks themselves, mind you, only for making them in public.)

Best rejoinder to the whole affair, however:

Jones said he wouldn’t want a gay teammate “rubbing it in his face.”

Quoth JillMatrix: “We usually don’t do that unless you ask real nice.”

The Alabama legislature has just voted down a law that would have legalized sex toys. The sex toy ban was included at the last moment in a 1998 obscenity bill.

Question is, was this an example of Alabama’s prudishness, or a clever tactic to get around it? Because it’s the sex toy provision of the law which has gotten it into constitutional trouble:

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. John Rogers, D-Birmingham, said because of the court ruling, the obscenity law is unenforceable as long as it contains the ban on sex toys. “All this does is make our obscenity law constitutional,” Rogers said.
With little serious discussion, the House voted 37-28 to leave the sex toys ban in state law, leaving Rogers standing at the microphone shaking his head. “What you just did is make our obscenity law illegal. You voted for obscenity,” Rogers shouted at lawmakers.

Well, a person’s gotta vote for something in this crazy world …

(via Plum Crazy)

Never, ever, ever, whatever you do, get together with coworkers and “brainstorm” an idea.

You might offend epileptics.

Trainee teachers are being told to avoid the word for fear of offending pupils with epilepsy. Instead they are being advised to use “word storm” or “thought shower”.

Should I ever find myself suffering (if I can use that word) from a condition like epilepsy, I expect I’ll have bigger things to worry about than whether people are mistaking “brainstorm” (getting together and throwing around a lot of ideas) with “brainstorm” (a misfiring of neurons characteristic of an epileptic attack fit episode.

Of course, this may be a “word tempest” in a teapot:

However, charities working with epilepsy say “brainstorming” is not offensive. “We had several inquiries from teachers about it so we did a survey of our residential home,” said Gemma Baxter from the National Society for Epilepsy.
“We also contacted people with epilepsy in the community and the overwhelming response was that ‘brainstorming’ implies no offence to people with epilepsy, and that any implication that the word is offensive to people with the condition is taking political correctness too far.”
People found it more offensive that the question was being asked of them, she said.

Now that I like.

(via Volokh, who has some other info on “Native American” and “handicapped“)

The Supremes have turned down (without comment) an appeal by Kentucky of an appeals court ruling which forbade erecting a Ten Commandments monument on the state capitol grounds.

The governor in 2000 signed into law a resolution adopted by the state legislature that required placement of the monument, which is more than six feet tall and almost four feet wide, outside the Capitol.
At the top of the monument are the words, “I AM the LORD thy God” followed by the commandments, a sacred and religious text for Jews and Christians. At the bottom are two small Stars of David and a symbol representing Christ.
The monument was given to the state in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles group. It was displayed until 1980, when it was removed to make room for construction. It has remained in storage since then.

I somehow think the piety of individual Christians and Jews in Kentucky will survive the loss.

It looks to me (reading between the lines) that the 2000 law was meant to be an end run around Establishment Clause issues.

Kentucky Attorney General Albert Chandler appealed to the Supreme Court. He said the 2000 law required an overall public display of historic documents that included the Ten Commandments, a religious symbol.
He said the display was proposed under the law, but it had not yet been designed or installed. He said the appeals court should not have made a constitutional decision based on “speculation and conjecture” over the display’s appearance.

Which is an odd comment, since it sounds like there already was such a display, but that it had been taken down for construction.

I don’t think the Decalogue-as-historical-foundation argument holds up very well, but since the Supreme rejected the appeal without comment, we’ll have to wait for a better test case to see what they think.

While I’m opposed to erecting new Decalogue monuments (what I’d call Reactionary Religious Architecture), I’m much more of a mixed mind when it comes to existing monuments and the like. At some point (probably a much more nebulous point than the courts would like), such things take on an historical interest of their own. Knowing that people in the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, even Twentieth Centuries had certain beliefs or perspectives, even when those show a different sensitivity or sense of the Constitution than what we have today, is valuable. Sandblasting the word God from every public monument, for example, would be closely akin to the Taliban blowing up ancient stone Buddhas.

Still, new attempts to overtly or covertly spray “I AM the LORD thy God” into the public forum deserve to be challenged.

I’ll be interested in seeing the perspective of some of the legal minds of the Blogosphere over the next several hours.

(via Rich)

Eugene Volokh had an interesting thread last Friday on the topic of vibrators.

Continue reading “While we’re on the subject …”