If A Picture's Worth A Thousand Words...

...how much do you get for a caption?

[/pol] # (posted at 16:21)

How Much is the Iraq War Costing, again?

This counter comes from The National Priorities Project:

[/pol] # (posted at 11:49)

Dear President Bush

I cannot claim authorship...

[/pol] # (posted at 16:02)

Ashes and Sackcloth

I'm stunned and horrified. Of course, it's not over yet, Ohio's too close to call, blah, blah, blah. Even if Kerry pulls this election out of his ass, I'm still stunned. And horrified. Half of voting Americans support Preznit Chimpy. Half. Over 50% of voters - by the latest count - live in such a radically different reality that they voted for Bush.

When I left work yesterday, I was heartened by the exit polls, and confidently predicting that the only republican celebrating four more years of Bush would be Mary Cheney. I wish it were so. When I went to bed at about 3:00am, it was looking bleaker than I imagined possible. It's at times like this that I wish I lived in the faith-based world that half the country lives in. Sadly, I'll have to make do with reality, go nuts, or find somewhere else to live.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:12)

This is not a civilised country

As I walked to work yesterday, minutes after looking up online where Andrew is going to vote on Tuesday, I thought briefly about the last time I voted in the U.K., and struggled to remember the minutiae of the process. I'm looking forward to accompanying Andrew to his polling station and getting a first-hand look at what Americans - increasingly laughably - call their process of democracy.

It's not just the 'Florida Effect' of the 2000 election that bothers me, not merely the tens of thousand of lawyers mobilised for November 2nd, but it's the actual process that is so unutterably miserable that the USA should frankly hang its collective head in shame and go stand in the corner.

Voting in the UK is really not that tricky. You get mailed a card telling you where you should vote. If you forget the card on the day, it takes you a bit longer to get your ballot, but your name is on the voter registration rolls, so you can anyway. You get given a long piece of paper, with the candidates' names, their party affiliation, and to the right of each name a black box. You go in to a curtained booth, where you find a pencil, which you use to put an 'X' next to the name of anyone you want to vote for, fold the paper, and emerge from the booth to put the paper in the slot of a ballot box. Later, when the box is full, it's taken to a center where volunteers count the ballots. Physically. It takes most of the night, but even complete recounts of a contituency are completed within days. It's simple, low-tech, and it works.

The design of the ballots is clarity itself. No numbers, no chads, no butterflies. No bogus electronics with switchable memory, poor security and no paper trail. No high-maintenance Victorian-era difference engine type arcana. Short of actually conspiring to falsify large numbers of ballots, stealing a ballot-box, or replacing it, it's almost impossible to rig. Let me restate that. More or less the only way to cheat is by gross physical means - the sort that it is practically very hard to do and very hard to get away with.

Oh, and one more thing. Election officials are neutral. They're not party-appointed lackeys.

I look around me, read the news reports and am horrified that this country that so vociferously espouses liberty, equality and trumpets its freedom and democracy has 50 or so different, broken electoral systems. Systems that are broken on fundamental, simple, practical levels. Never mind the Electoral College, it's the actual process of voting that is so ridiculously broken in America. If Americans really want to regain the respect of the world, they could start by making their electoral process look better planned than the elections in Afghanistan. Unless they do so, they will continue to be the laughing-stock of the democratic world.

[/pol] # (posted at 10:15)

Pssst. It's a Secret Ballot.

Andrew was playing piano in a Kerry/Edwards fundraiser at the Canal Room last night, for sundry singers, songwriters and the excellent Judy Gold. Somebody (maybe Bobby Lopez and Jeff whatnot - Tony winners for Avenue Q) made the point that it's still a secret ballot. That's a point that really could play well, although it's hard to see how to get it across. Still, spreading that meme into the heartland might not be a bad idea... or even into Missouri today. In public, a lot of the opponents of gay marriage, for example, are a lot more fire-and-brimstone than in private. Maybe.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:19)

Likely Voters

Pollsters are starting to analyse the post-convention bump, and many of them are talking about "likely voters", for example, ABC's website has this: Aug 2, 2004. John Kerry took a tepid bump in support out of his nominating convention, gaining an advantage over President Bush among registered voters - but not so among those most likely to vote. I was reminded of part of Nancy Pelosi's commentary after Kerry's convention speech, though, and her assertion that 'likely voters' are not who they used to be. Granted, she's not exactly unbiased (she is, after all, the House Minority Leader), but I think she's got a point, and that the polls may therefore be more than usually skewed.

Apparently the pool of actual voters demonstrably grew in the three special elections the Democrats have won this year (gaining two from Republicans). The growth was into demographic groups that do not favour the Bush/Pinochet ticket, and is not being measured. Since polling organisations take their samples from known demographic 'likely voters', if the Bush administration has offended sufficient numbers of entire communities that whole new pools of likely voters come out, the pollsters won't be reflecting that yet. Given the ire being expressed at Bush, it wouldn't surprise me at all if, say, large numbers of people who thought there wasn't much point in turning out to vote, suddenly and surprisingly did. In Florida, for example.

We live in hope. In the meantime... tee hee hee:

[/pol] # (posted at 17:45)

Words to Live By?

Nice op-ed headline in the NYTimes today: "What Would Macchiavelli Do?". Start rolling those WWMD bumper stickers.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:22)

If I had a vote...

Unsurprisingly the upcoming US Presidential election is of some interest to me. On a personal level, the incumbent's cheap politicking with the Constitution, and his repeated attacks on me and mine would make me vote against him. Last night, I was glad to watch John Kerry's acceptance speech, and would be proud to vote for him. Of course, I can't, but I'll do what I can to see his is elected this year. Coincidentally, I thought today's Words of the Buddha are appropriate:

Overcome the angry by non-anger;
overcome the wicked by goodness;
overcome the miser by generosity;
overcome the liar by truth.
- Dhammapada 223

[/pol] # (posted at 08:09)

Electoral Vote Predictor

This Electoral Vote Predictor aggregates poll results and predicts the election result based on the number of Electors the polled state sends to the College. Neat stuff (and I'm glad to note that today, the Kerry/Edwards ticket leads 280 to Bush/PinochetCheney 247. w00t.)

[/pol] # (posted at 09:58)

The Bush family profits ... again

I'm not sure how much to believe of this account of George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott, dealing with Nazis. It's ugly either way.

[/pol] # (posted at 10:33)

I didn't vote.

One of my colleagues - in New York City - mentioned that he didn't vote in New York. After all, what's the point - NY's a democrat state anyway, isn't it? Idiot. Now, more than ever, he should be voting - because his voice should be raised, heard and counted. If the coming election is a close-run thing, it's going to be all the more important to demonstrate that the clear majority of Americans want Bush out.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:56)

There is Light amid the Darkness

Here's a nice op. ed. piece from a Methodist, who "stopped hating homosexuals as a class, and started seeing them as people." He's right - America's got a lot more to worry about than gay marriage. Torture, for one.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:58)

More on the 'slippery slope'.

I got caught by that one. It's a purely diversionary tactic, and utterly irrelevant to the argument for treating consenting, adult same-sex couples equally. The moment when polygamists, polyandrists paedophiles or hippophiles actually ask for marriage it the time to object. Not when a totally different set of circumstances is being raised.

The tricky part to countering this argument is that it's all too easy to race off and object to the obvious differences with paedophilia and bestiality - there's not equity of consent - and then get caught up in the less easy ground of, say, three sane, consenting adults wanting to get married. The best approach is to dismiss the 'slippery slope' argument utterly irrelevant to the question of whether two loving, consenting, same-sex adults should be able to get married.

[/pol] # (posted at 10:04)

10 Reasons Fat Florida Baptists are Idiots

A porcine worthy by the name of James A Smith Jr. has written a convenient summary of ignorant misinformation, non sequitur and bigoted nonsense in his article on "10 reasons to oppose 'gay marriage'." (Note, of course, that he's providing quotes around the phrase gay marriage, because naturally those legal marriages performed in Massachussetts this week are somehow less real than, say, Britney Spears' Vegas Adventure. Never mind that, though; it's a good place to analyse the lies, half-truths, and rampant illogic. So here goes:

10. Many homosexuals are on our side. While the homosexual lobby has pushed for the 'right' to 'marry' as part of its broader public policy strategy to gain acceptance and endorsement, it's clear that many homosexuals really don't want to marry. Indeed, homosexuals see marriage as a key feature of the heterosexual culture which they wish to demolish in their attempt to radically change sexual morality in our society. Well, this is the usual nonsense about a 'homosexual lobby' with an agenda to 'demolish' heterosexual society. Sure, a few homos don't want to marry. But no sane ones don't want equality, which is what this particular struggle is all about. In reality, same-sex couples don't think they have a right to marry, per se, but we continue to maintain faith in the constitutional right to equality. It is, after all, a truth held to be self-evident by the founders of this nation. (I'm in the USA as I write). This will involve a change to the apparently prevailing cultural mores of American society - but 'demolish' is enough of an overstatement to be a falsehood. Nobody sane wants to demolish society. The vast majoriy of homosexuals want to be allowed to join society fully, if only we'd be given the chance. Finally, when it comes to this level of prejudice, I think James will find that very few homosexuals are 'on our side'.

9. America is on our side. Especially after last summer's U.S. Supreme Court ruling which overturned Texas' law against sodomy, American public opinion has been galvanized against 'gay marriage' with significant majorities opposed. This is an out-and-out lie. No statistician worth the name would claim a 'significant' majority opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. The statistics increasingly show an evenly divided society that is becoming more and more tolerant as months go by. As people have a chance to see scenes of ordinary gay and lesbian couples getting married in much the same way as straight couples get married, and to compare them with the continued outpourings of bilious spite from charmers like James, the polls are showing a trend towards the liberal. The statistics also clearly show that younger demographic groups are weighted significantly (really) in favour of marriage equality, so as time goes by, more of those bearing irrational prejudices will shrivel up and die. The future is bright for America.

8. History is on our side. Never in human history has marriage meant anything other than the union of a man and a woman. Further, no society - at least until very recently - has recognized the legitimacy of same-sex 'marriage'. This, again, is a lie. Marriage has meant bigamy and polygamy in many cultures, some of them originating in the American Christian tradtion. Historically, it's been arranged for the transfer of assets, (from empires and kingdoms to olive trees and goats), pure diplomatic convenience, for the shoring up of bloodlines and for little more than ceremony. In recent American history, it's meant very, very little (cf. Britney Spears, et al.) Furthermore to claim that 'History is on our side' in this debate is specious at best. History is on the side of slave-traders and genocidal maniacs, but that doesn't make history right. If we don't learn from history, we're fools.

7. Language is on our side. The words 'homosexual' and 'marriage' cannot be combined logically to mean anything; they are oxymoronic: two words that are contradictory. It is literally a redefinition of language to suggest marriage can mean anything other than the union of a man and a woman. This is a textbook circular argument, James, you idiot: your definition of marriage precludes marriage between people of the same sex. So from your limited perspective the phrase 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron, so of course your language is on your side. On the other hand, in my language, marriage is the union of two people, and gay marriage is a (rather unnecessary) distinction defining a subset of all marriages. See how it works both ways, James?

6. Religious liberty is on our side. America's First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Nevertheless, homosexuals who now lobby for same-sex 'marriage' will not stop at mere governmental endorsement of their immoral activity; one day they will insist that all society - including evangelical churches - condone, protect and even bless these 'marriages'. Far-fetched? Look at the numerous examples of the deterioration of religious freedom of those with politically incorrect, biblical convictions. A nice bit of rabble-rousing that conveniently overlooks several interesting facts. First, same-sex couples have been receiving religious sanction for their unions for a long, long time. That's one of the things that religious liberty protects. Unitarian Universalists, for example, have been happy to provide religious marriage to same-sex couples for years. Not until now, however, in Massachussetts, have they finally been able to include the civil side in their ceremonies. The claim that any gay rights activist would force James' church to perform (or even recognise) a marriage between a same-sex couple. Most of us would wish you would grow up and start thinking for yourselves, instead of relying on the mass of archaic contradictions you claim as religious authority. But hold on a second - 'politically incorrect, biblical convictions'? What's that about? I can think of a couple of things in the Bible that are frowned on these days: polygamy, prostituting your daughters, incest, genocide, and slavery to name a few. Most people consider their 'deterioration' a good thing. Perhaps James doesn't.

5. The 'slippery slope' argument is on our side. Those who demand that same-sex 'marriage' must be legalized have an obligation to explain why marriage is not appropriate for any other deviant sexual pattern adults and/or minors would wish to enter into. If homosexual 'marriage' must be permitted, why shouldn't polygamy, incest, pedophilia and other sexual immorality? Indeed, how will these practices be denied if 'gay marriage' is granted? Aaaah. At last, an argument that's not completely idiotic, only invidiously stupid. Incest, pedophilia, and bestiality (you missed that one, James) are prohibited in the main because of the inherent power imbalance between the two parties. It is obviously immoral to coerce sexual relations on the basis of a power imbalance between parents (or other adults) and children, just as it is between adults and animals. The child, animal, or coerced party can't give consent. Leaving aside the fact that there's at least one biblically sanctioned instance of a father abusing his daughters, and look again at incest, it's also prohibited on the grounds of consanguinity, and the ill-advisedness of inbreeding any species, including our own. It will continue to be prohibited for same-sex couples, on the grounds that it's mentally (not just genetically) unhealthy. Polygamy's less obvious, but again typically comes back to a question of viable consent, and equality. The rationale behind these prohibitions, however, escapes James, who is merely making an appeal to the old "they're coming for your children" myth. Happily, most of the same-sex married couples so far seem to be middle-aged lesbians who've been exclusive partners for years, which will provide real evidence to contradict the lying inference that there's any such thing as a slippery slope to bestial, incestuous pedophile marriage.

4. Nature is on our side. One need not hold to any particular religious convictions to understand from common sense that men and women are different. Same-sex relationships are contrary to the natural order. "Gender distinctions are not simply an artificial social construct," Focus on the Family's Glenn Stanton has written. "Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally and spiritually." Quoting a bigot does not help your argument struggle its way onto the field of reason or rationality, James, and if you had done your biology homework, you would know that homosexuality occurs frequently in nature. Yes, 'men and women are different', and so are gay men and straight men, lesbian women and straight women; biologically, unchangeably, different. Of course, science is not your friend, otherwise you would understand about the scientific method, and applying logic to your view of the 'natural order'. This argument is hollow, and demonstrably false. See the government-sponsored research into ovine sexuality for the most conclusive evidence yet.

3. Children are on our side. A primary reason for marriage is procreation - bringing children into the world. Children need both mothers and fathers. "Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest," Stanton notes. Research demonstrates the critical value of both fathers and mothers in the formation of children. Yes, strictly speaking a mother and father are necessary in the 'formation' of children. Biology makes it so. But research has shown that in the development of children, father-figures and mother-figures are important. The specific biological relationship isn't. So the factual premise of this 'sound argument' is bogus. 'Deliberately depriving' a child of a parent is obviously detrimental to the child. But wait a moment - what has this to do with same-sex marriage? Do all same-sex couples get awarded a kid plucked from a straight home? No. This is a total non sequitur, and relevant to a discussion about adoption and parenting. If anything, marriage promotes (or is intended to), cohesive family units, and they are the best environments in which children can develop. Denying a same-sex couple their marriage therefore is more likely to harm the child. On a personal level, the many (straight) children of gay couples would probably tell James to go forth and multiply when confronted with this spurious twaddle.

2. The restoration of the family is on our side. Even before the current campaign for .gay marriage,. it.s clear that America is in the midst of a massively dangerous, destructive experiment with marriage at severe cost to families and our society. Between 1960 and 2000, U.S. households with married couples declined from 78 to 52 percent, with the total number of households with unmarried partners increasing by 72 percent just between 1990 and 2000. The explosion of no-fault divorce and serial marriages is further undermining the biblical ideal for marriage. Same-sex .marriage. will accelerate these damaging trends. This is nonsense. Same-sex couples want to get married. You could, perhaps, argue that the increasing visibility of successful long-term same-sex relationships eroded the value of marriage while marriage was denied to same-sex couples. But James is suggesting that now that same-sex couples can (and obviously want to) get married, suddenly married couples will decide marriage is a bad thing? How? This sort of argument sounds good, if you already think that same-sex couples are an inherently bad thing. If you're not burdened with that prejudice, however, it sounds more like: letting same-sex couples marry is bad for marriage. Why? Because. No, seriously, why? Because. Isn't it obvious?. <sigh>

1. America must be on God's side. All truth is God's truth, which is why all the foregoing reasons against homosexual 'marriage' are valid. God's Word explains why they are true. Every reason to oppose 'gay marriage' is secondary to the fact that God has spoken. Starting in the Bible's first book with the creation of man and woman, which as the pinnacle of creation He calls 'very good' (Gen. 1:31), and continuing through the last book, God's plan for marriage is abundantly clear. This is supposedly the strongest of the 'sound arguments' against same-sex couples enjoying the same civil rights that marriage affords opposite-sex couples. An appeal to God. I can't argue against the appeal - you're welcome to make it, James. But you're forgetting that this is a secular argument and a secular state. After all, you haven't forgotten your own point 6, are you? I won't bother to refute the Biblical specifics, but you might wan't to have a look at this set of biblical references requiring action. Eaten any shrimp lately, James?

Blech. What a waste of time. I can't imagine why anyone would read through all this - if you're reading the site, this is probably all pretty obvious. Oh well. It's nice to start to articulate this crap - even if rather poorly. I'll write something more fun next time.

[/pol] # (posted at 20:54)

So, did the world end yet?

Andrew and I stayed up to watch the news at midnight Sunday night, so we could catch the scenes from Cambridge, Mass. where state approved marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples for the first time in the United States.

And the world didn't end.

No fire. No brimstone. Cambridge still stands. Civilisation did not come to an abrupt and unpleasant conclusion in a frenzied orgy of barbarism, rapine and looting.

Since then, a bunch of same-sex couples who got their ordinary marriage licenses went and had their ordinary marriages, and still the world is intact. Wow. If it wasn't so thrilling it would be a let-down.

It's been gratifying that the images of couples and weddings that I've seen in the press have all been less outré than they might have been. Perhaps we're going to get to show people that "we're just regular folks, too", and watch the hatred die away as Massachussetts fails to get hit by a meteor, showered with blazing sulphur, or fall into the ocean.

I have more thoughts about how the LGBT community will survive the equality movement, but they're for another time.

[/pol] # (posted at 18:19)

A Justice speaks

I like this, from Justice Louis Brandeis in 1932, which I found in a Newsday op. ed on marriage in Mass.:"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system, that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." I started a blog entry Monday about marriage, but have been swamped with my birthday, Andrew's most excellent movie, his Rodgers Award ceremony today, and more. Fear not, though... I'll write something soon.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:52)

Slogan du Jour

It seems apposite to use the Sloganator once more to issue a thought for the day.

[/pol] # (posted at 10:30)

The Big Lie.

The big lie - like all the best ones - is a short one: Homosexuality is a choice. When it comes down to it these days, that's the lie they're using to disenfrachise a minority and to make a significant proportion of the American population second class citizens. Easy to believe, easy to say, easy to build a tower of prejudice on its humble foundations.

So what's wrong with it?

The first, obvious counterargument is the truth - that for most homosexuals, myself included, there's no choice in the fact of my sexuality. I could - if I was a sociopathic lunatic - choose to hide my gay light under a bushel and pass as straight. I could pretend to be straight, then extend my consequent misery to some unfortunate woman, marry her and share a life of frustration, fear and deceit. That would be a choice; but I'd still be just as gay. Gay and unhappy, but still bent as a spring, still queer as three dollar bill, and still bat consistently for the other team.

Beyond my fervent belief based on self-observation (sorry ladies, but none of you has ever got a rise out of me - I really think I'm not wired that way,) there's real scientific evidence to support this thesis. A government sponsored study has shown that some rams, given a choice of ewes in heat and other rams will consistently pick the rams. Further, they identified that there were biological differences in brain physiology. This study correlates with others that have shown differences between gay and straight human brains. One of the scientists was quite explicit in a TV interview (for the rather squirm-inducing Channel 4 show "The Truth About Gay Animals"). She said (and I paraphrase from memory) 'these are normal adult sheep. The only difference between these and other rams is their sexuality and the brain difference that correlates with their sexuality. Whether the cause of the difference is genetic, environmental or both, these gay rams brains are fixed - nothing can change them.' Oh, and in the press release from the Oregon Health and Science University, announcing some of the results: "we do have some evidence that the nucleus is sexually dimorphic in late gestation," in other words the rams were born that way.

Of course, rational argument is not often a winner with the pro-gay-choice brigade.

So let's try a Swiftean thought experiment. Let's find another chosen behaviour to discriminate against. Let's say that, textual fundamentalism is abhorrent. Reliance on any archaic 'holy' text is revolting amoral behaviour. I'll go with that. Obviously, it's a choice to believe in words of people who've been dead for thousands of years, mistranslated and misinterpreted ever since, and used as justification for crusades, holy wars, and genocide on several occasions. That sort of anti-social behaviour is unacceptable in a moral society, so anyone practising it should be barred from the state-sponsored benefits of marriage. Sure, go and do your wacky religious thing in the privacy of your own homes, but don't you dare preach it, or practise it in public, and don't expect me to give you any special privileges on the basis of your choice. We'll let you set up a sort of pseudo-marriage, let's call it 'holy matrimony', and you can do that in your churches and bible study groups or whatever.

Pick any group of textual fundamentalists - the Southern Baptists, say - and you'll find that, although they're one of the largest faith traditions in the country, they're a numerical minority in the US. Now suggest that we're going to forbid them to have real marriages because they've chosen to believe the Bible is the word of their God. The unconsitutionality - and downright unfairness - of that position is pretty self-evident.

Let's start attacking not just the fundamental fallacy (which is essentially an ad hominem attack against any pro-gay pundit,) but also the nonsensical implication that chosen behaviour should not be constitutionally protected. Regardless of whether ones sexuality is a choice or not (for most, it's not), all sorts of behavioural choices are protected - being a religious bigot is one of them. Caveat protestor.

[/pol] # (posted at 10:35)

Vote for Nader and Kerry... if Nader plays ball.

This interesting op-ed (NYT, reg. req.) by Bruce Ackerman is a cunning plan to help Nader not spoil the election. In essence it allows him to get his 2-7% of the vote counted, but have those votes also count for Kerry, and defeat the anti-christ.

All Nader's got to do is nominate the same slate of electoral college voters as Kerry does. It's win-win. He has no chance of getting elected president, but a decent chance of putting that vicious loon Dubya back in office, to do even more damage to the world. If Nader really cares about the economy, the environment, America, and the world, he'll give this a try.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:08)

Save our BioGems

The Natural Resources Defense Council (they're the folks that get Robert Redford to send you letters) have an excellent website for targetted action to save our 'biogems'. If you ever feel powerless to affect the course of decision-making in this country, then this gives you the opportunity to speak your mind. It's free, easy, and sometimes effective. Every small voice helps.

[/pol] # (posted at 10:06)

More good Jew-Jew

Once again, the struggle to send JewWatch down the charts remains, with a new challenger... Jew-Jew. Oy.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:48)

Un-bombing a hate site.

Recently, an email circulated about a poisonous, dishonest, anti-semitic website, full of inaccuracies, lies, spite, and hate, that ranked highly in Google's search engine for the word 'Jew'. I support Google's decision not to censor these spineless, corrupt, vicious, sneaky, hatemongering anti-semites, and would much rather see searches for 'Jew' point to an informed and informative, educational interesting website about Jews, Judaism and Jewish beliefs.

Google uses a (top-sekrit) algorithm called PageRank™ to determine what results show up first in a search. The precise details aren't known outside of Googlevania, but it's widely understood that one of the major factors is the words people use in links to a particular site. This is what 'Googlebombing' is all about. You choose a set of words, like 'miserable failure', and create a link to Dubya's White House bio, for example, so that the words you've chosen are the actual link. (Here's how: miserable failure). Then (and this is the most important bit), you get as many people as possible to create the exact same link on their pages, and make sure they're all in the list of sites and pages that Google checks every few weeks. This leads to a massive correlation between the words and the site, and our glorious leader ends up the target of an accurate barb.

With that in mind, there are three things I can think of to influence the search to un-Googlebomb. Two manipulate Google, one manipulates Google personnel:

1. Bomb another link. If enough people link the single word 'Jew' to ONE OTHER SITE on the search results, JewWatch will lose its top spot. The difficulty here, of course is getting all the non-anti-Semites to agree on one link. If the second link on the page is unoffensive, then it would clearly be a good choice… and it's the one I've used. Incidentally, this is where hate sites have an advantage: it's very easy to agree on bile, if you're a bilious sort. It's a bit harder to get everyone in as diverse a community as the great family of Judaism to agree that a site is universally inoffensive. www.jewfaq.org seems about as close as one is likely to get, and looks like a useful resource.
2. Bomb JewWatch with a different set of words. This is unlikely to affect the 'Jew' search results, but would be useful if someone, say, searches for the word, explicitly excluding "anti-semitic".
3. eMail Google. As I suspected it turns out this isn't terribly effective. Google believe they have an obligation to stand by the impartiality of their algorithm. Removing sites from their engine is tantamount to censorship.

The most effective response would seem to me to be to bomb www.jewfaq.org with the word 'Jew', and bomb www.jewwatch.org with sundry illustrative words. So here's some HTML to do just that:

<p>Recently, an email circulated about a
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">poisonous</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">dishonest</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">anti-semitic</a> website, full of
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">inaccuracies</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">lies</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">spite</a>, and 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">hate</a>, that ranked highly in 
Google's search engine for the word
'<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">Jew</a>'. I support Google's decision
not to censor these
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">spineless</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">corrupt</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">vicious</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">sneaky</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">hatemongering</a> 
<a href="http://www.jewwatch.org">anti-semites</a>, and would much
rather see searches for
'<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">Jew</a>' point to an
<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">informed and informative</a>,
<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">educational</a>, 
<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">interesting</a> website about
<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">Jews</a>,  
<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">Judaism</a> and 
<a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/">Jewish beliefs</a>.</p>

…which renders as the first paragraph of this blog. Self-referential much? Don't forget to submit your page with the links to Google for indexing.

[/pol] # (posted at 17:32)

The Sloganator is Back!

The most excellent Sloganator is back. Come up with good slogans for the dastardly duo. Or just mean ones. I've been having a lot of fun.

[/pol] # (posted at 10:27)

A Letter to Friends and Family

The Advocate has an article including a lucid email written by a gay man to all his family and friends, on the subject of same-sex marriage and Dubya's support for a constitutional amendment.
I often contemplate something similar, but usually hold off - mostly because it would be preaching to the choir - but perhaps there's room for putting many personal faces on the issue.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:18)

Real Men...

Real men support gay marriage.

[/pol] # (posted at 12:47)

In Defense Of Biblical Marriage

Some suggestions for enhancing the definition of marriage along Biblical lines. I wish congresscritters and senators had the collective gonads to propose constitutional amendments along these lines.

[/pol] # (posted at 09:48)

Rules of (Dis-?) Engagement

As the backlash against same-sex civil marriage starts in earnest, following Tuesday's ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court in Mass., I've been thinking about how proponents (like me) of gay civil marriage can argue our case better. It strikes me that we're losing ground, not just because the 'religious right' (a misnomer for "hard-core Christian fundamentalist extremists") is better at mobilising hordes of drones, but also because they're setting the tone and terms of the debate.

This is fatal.

So I've started to draw up a list of 'rules' to abide by when fighting the good fight. In could be seen to be contradictory to my earlier assertion that we need to stand up vocally to the religious bigots, but it's not. We need to put that violent resistance aside for a little while, and win the voices and votes of rational moderates all over the country, and the only way we can do that is to take charge of the debate in a reasonable and calm way. We urgently need to change the agenda from "gay activists attacking the institution of marriage" to "religious fanatics attacking the constitution", or "religious fanatics creating second-class citizenship".

I hope this is a start.

[/pol] # (posted at 11:39)

Fighting the not-so-Good Fighters

This article articulates quite well one of the biggest challenges facing gays in the USA, particularly, but all over the world. It seems we've lost the courage to get upset about this sort of bigotry, now that we're more able to live comfortable lives. I find I'm less inspired to fight the good fight, now that I'm somewhere I can walk down the street holding hands with my boyfriend without qualms.

One of the big problems is that it requires a fair amount of subtlety to refute the easy sledgehammer of Leviticus. Compelling as messages of tolerance and understanding are to tolerant, thoughtful people, they don't hold much sway with the Bible-as-Word-Of-God set, who are still rather selective about which bits of Leviticus to observe. I find the irrationality of selecting bits and pieces of the Old Testament while ignoring the fundamental messages of the Gospels deeply frustrating.

[/pol] # (posted at 14:24)