“That’s When The Whores Come In”

My Senator, David Vitter, just a few years ago:

Louisiana Senator David Vitter, speaking at a Lafayette Parish Republican Executive Committee luncheon, referred to hurricanes Katrina and Rita coming through the same areas as a same-sex marriage.

In his statements at the luncheon, Vitter referred to the impact of both hurricanes on the Lafayette area. “Unfortunately, it’s the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita,” said Vitter. “I always knew I was against same-sex unions.”

And again, this time speaking in the U.S. Senate about the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment:

“I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one,”

Those statements, like similar ones made by other idiots, are patently ridiculous. But they are even more astoundingly moronic in light of today’s news:

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, whose telephone number was disclosed by the so-called “D.C. Madam” accused of running a prostitution ring, says he is sorry for a “serious sin” and that he has already made peace with his wife.

“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said Monday in a printed statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”

Remember now, gay folks who want to marry are assaulting marriage and destroying America; conservative Christian right wing Republican straight white American males who go out whoring it up while wifey is oblivious at home, well, they’re just defending traditional values. Oh, and gay love is such a matter of public concern that we need a constitution amendment to prevent it’s public recognition. When married elected officials use their tax payer paid salary on whores, well, that’s a matter solely between the sinner and God.

“I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.”

O.k., now that I’m done puking, let me make a few points.

One, this would be a really dumb reason for anyone to vote against Vitter in the next election. Sorry, but my only concern is how well he represents Louisiana. What he does in his own time matters only in so far as it affects his representation. I don’t see how picking up a whore is relevant.

While the general principle in point one remains true, it doesn’t apply to Vitter. Why not? Here’s why not:

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) first got his start in Congress after replacing former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA), who “abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs” in 1998. At the time, Vitter argued that an extramarital affair was grounds for resignation:

“I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess,” he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

Two, even for people who would take this into account, when it comes time to vote, I don’t think it will matter. I mean, it’s not like it was a male crack whore, or a teenage kid. Heck, Vitter can’t even hold a candle to his fellow Louisianans when it comes to scandals. The standard has been set too low; compared to the Haggards, Foleys and Jeffersons of the world, Vitter is an angel.

Third, I can respect an honest fundamentalist, for folks like Vitter, though, I have nothing but disdain. He’s out cheating on his wife with a f**king whore while at the same time telling committed and loving gay couples across this country that their love is more dangerous than a Category five hurricane? That’s some serious chutzpah. And the guy is Harvard educated; he can’t be so stupid that he actually failed to see the hypocrisy. He just didn’t care. Honesty? Integrity? Wisdom? Hell, basic human decency? He traded ‘em all for a chance to pander to ignorant a**holes.

Wait, who’s the whore, again?

Now he says the issue is between him and God. Well, I hope God introduces him to a few of the committed gay couples he feared, so that they can explain to him what marriage is really about.

“God Hates Jerry Falwell”

Really:

Nothing I can add to that. But here’s a list of his life’s work if you’re wondering what led to Falwell’s condemnation.

Oh, and if you want a different perspective, here’s Tinky Winky’s Falwell eulogy.

UPDATE: Jesus’ General links here with “The Lord Works in Mysterious Ways.” And so to does the blogosphere. Act in mysterious ways, that is, as this post – one absent any commentary or insight (and needing none; the insanity speaking for itself) - had already become my all time most visited, even without all the guests referred by the General.

Afternoon Updates

First, the Decatur Daily reports today:

Three former Alabama Supreme Court justices are asking the country’s highest court to hear the case of Alabama death row inmates who say they don’t have adequate legal representation, but the state is arguing the inmates’ claim is “a work of fiction.”

I explained here that Alabama does an extremely bad job of providing attorneys to convicts on death row. Basically, if those folks want an appointed attorney, they have to first convince a judge that they have a valid claim. Stating a valid claim, though, requires extensive investigation, legal research and writing; in other words, stating a valid claim requires a lawyer. So, as the Tuscaloosa News put it today:

Inmates who are condemned to die have to convince a judge that they need legal representation to protect their rights and to prove that they have a substantial claim for an appeal.

But a suit filed by six death row inmates says they can’t make those cases effectively without an attorney. There’s a circular quality to their argument. They need a lawyer to convince a judge that they need a lawyer.

So the state is just wrong when it says that Alabama provides indigent capital defendants lawyers for post-conviction proceedings. That said, the state is going to win the lawsuit. No way is Scotus going to force the state to set up some kind of indigent program for post-conviction proceedings.

Second, the B’ham City counsel - only a few weeks after several members proudly declared their ignorance and homophobia - has just voted to adopt a new version of a resolution condemning, among other things, homophobia. An official declaration that gays are something other than the cause of the end of the world? Jerry Falwell must be spinning in his grave. Or wherever he is.

Third, once a terrorist, always a terrorist:

Victims of Eric Rudolph, the anti-abortion extremist who pulled off a series of bombings across the South, say he is taunting them from deep within the nation’s most secure federal prison, and authorities say there is little they can do to stop him.

Apparently, he’s writing nasty stories and sending them to fans who publish them on the web. He’s been doing so for quite a while; here’s my post on a similar report from a few months ago. Whether or not the prison authorities can prohibit the letters, like I said in the earlier post, the letters certainly justify Rudolph’s continued stay in a SuperMax prison.

Finally, a case I mentioned here is about to climax:

The owner of an adult store in Decatur launched her final appeal Monday against a state ban on selling sex toys, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the law as an unconstitutional intrusion into the bedroom.

Free Speech? Fine By Me.

Wednesday, I said that I agreed with Roy Moore that a public school in California acted unconstitutionally when it banned a student from wearing a shirt that said “Homosexuality is shameful.”

Today, via Bessemer Opinions, I read this story about Elizabeth Esser-Stuart, a student at the Alabama School of Fine Arts here in B’ham, and to whom the ACLU just awarded a $4,000 college scholarship in recognition of her work to protect civil liberties:

Elizabeth and 14 other students wore T-shirts to school that said, “Gay? Fine by me.” The shirts had come from a diversity program started by students at Duke University.

Deciding that the shirts might be offensive, the principal began pulling the students aside and telling them they could no longer wear the shirts. Elizabeth, only a sophomore at the time, did copious legal research on the students’ constitutional right to free expression. She met with the principal several times, urging him to lift the ban. She spent her days, nights, and early mornings working in support of the issue, despite confronting apathy from friends and peers.

In December 2004, Elizabeth contacted the ACLU of Alabama which, with the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, notified the principal that the censorship was unconstitutional. The principal lifted the ban.

Three points.

One, good for her. This country needs more people like that.

Two, consider how her actions undercut any argument that schools somehow need to protect the young minds of students from pernicious and offensive ideas. As Ms. Esser-Stuart demonstrated, students are perfectly capable of rationally judging ideas. In fact, she showed a whole lot more wisdom than did the ostensible protector: The school principal. 

Three, there is absolutely no fair way to distinguish an anti-gay shirt from a pro-gay shirt. Every argument in favor of banning one also supports banning the other. I think the much better practice – constitutional requirements notwithstanding – is complete freedom of speech. Let ideas succeed or fail on their own merits, not based on what some state official thinks is offensive.

Even When Roy Moore Is Right, He’s Wrong

Here’s his latest column.

First, he is dead right that the recent Ninth Circuit case Harper v. Poway Unified School District is a really, really, really bad decision.

Basically, the court held that a local school was allowed to prohibit a student from wearing a t-shirt because the message on the shirt might have caused other students “to question their self-worth and their rightful place in society.”

What was the message, you ask? It should not matter, like I said here, schools ought have no power whatsoever to regulate the content of student speech absent some concrete disruption. But if you must know, it was this:

Appellant in this action is a sophomore at Poway High School who was ordered not to wear a T-shirt to school that read, “BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED” handwritten on the front, and “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL” handwritten on the back.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that my views on homosexuality are about as far from Roy Moore’s as can be. But I agree with him that in this case the school acted unconstitutionally. The possibility of psychological harm does not justify eliminating free speech.

So how is he wrong? Two ways.

First, according to his disciples, he’s wrong to suggest that the school acted unconstitutionally. Here’s Roy’s take (emphasis added):

Obviously, the liberal judges on the court cared little for traditional rights of free speech

And here’s a statement by his underlings on the Roy Moore Blog. Speaking about the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case (in which a principal disciplined a student for waiving a banner with those words on it) the mini-Moores say (emphasis added):

If one follows the original interpretation of the Free Speech Clause, there is no need to side with Frederick in this case.  The clause states, in pertinent part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”  Take the analysis a step at a time.  In the first place, the government actor involved here is not “Congress,” but rather a local school administrator.  Thus, from a traditional standpoint, the First Amendment has no application in this case. 

So which is it guys? Does the first amendment apply to schools, or not? Or does it apply when kids want to condemn gay students, but not when kids want to question drug policies?

Second, he is wrong about the Ninth Circuit. Moore uses the Harper case for a broader argument:

The United States Supreme Court properly vacated their opinion, which is nothing new for the high court, as it has reversed all eight of the other 9th Circuit cases that have come before it this term, an appalling reversal record for any circuit court of appeals. Since 1978, no other circuit court of appeals has had more decisions overturned. In the 1995-96 term of the Supreme Court, 27 of 28 cases from the 9th Circuit were reversed, and in the 2003-04 term, 19 of 25 cases were reversed, most by unanimous decision of all nine justices of the Supreme Court. . . .

The solution to the problem is simple. Rather than burden our high court with wrong decisions by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Congress has the authority to abolish that court altogether and create a new court in its place or divide the circuit into two smaller circuits, thus reducing the reach of its radical decisions. In the alternative, Congress can impeach a few judges for their irresponsibility, holding them accountable for their wayward rulings. Our respect for law and reverence for the Constitution demand that we no longer tolerate the behavior of the judges of the 9th Circuit!

For starters, I can’t be the only person scratching my head trying to figure why Roy Moore - Scotus basher extrodinaire - now thinks an appellate court’s worth depends on how often that court pleases Scotus.

More to the point, if the problem is burdening the high court with wrong decisions, then congress is going to have to get rid of much more than just the Ninth Circuit. 

It is probably accurate that the Ninth is reversed more than any other court. But that is because it covers a much bigger area than any other court. Hence, more cases to appeal. So the real question is how the reversal percentage of Ninth cases taken by Scotus compares to other jurisdictions.  

Roy is correct that in 03-04, Scotus reversed 19 of twenty five Ninth cases, or 76%. What he does not tell his readers is that the average for all the circuit courts in that same year was . . . 77%.

Roy is also correct that the Ninth had a few bad years in the mid-nineties. But consider the long view.

Over the last fifty years, Scotus reversed 57% of Ninth Circuit cases. For comparison’s sake, the Eight’s rate is 55%; the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth are at 56%; D.C is 62% and none are below 46%. That’s just federal cases. 25 states have a higher reversal rate, among them Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In fact, the state average is the same as the Ninth Circuit’s: 57%.

Things don’t change much when the period of comparison is the last 12 years. The Ninth, at 61%, comes in behind the Second, at 62%, while 16 states have higher reversal rates.

In short, with the exception of a few crazy years in the mid-nineties, the Ninth gets reversed at a perfectly normal rate. There may be reasons to split the Ninth, but the reversal rate is not one of them.

Disney World More Dangerous Than Iraq

In the world of Spencer “allowing gay marriage would be worse than losing Iraq” Bachus, anyway:

Same-sex couples who want to exchange vows in front of Cinderella’s Castle now have the chance.

The Walt Disney Co. had limited its Fairy Tale Wedding program to couples with valid marriage licenses, but it is now making ceremonies at its parks available to gay couples as well.

“We believe this change is consistent with Disney’s long-standing policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment,” Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker said Friday. “We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected.”

What dastardly villains! Making people feel loved and respected! That’s outrageous.

Oh, and I guess that Southern Baptist boycott really got Disney’s attention, huh?

Spencer Bachus Is A Complete Moron

My congressional representative, speaking yesterday in Shelby County: 

Bachus also condemned homosexual marriage as the worst threat to the nation. “We could lose Iraq and survive; we lost Vietnam and survived, but if we lose this battle over gay marriage, we are doomed,” he said.

Hey Spency, how about you get your head out of your a** and join the real world? My God, if we’re doomed, it’s because our country is run by people who believe this kind of ridiculously stupid crap. That statement is patently idiotic, and the lunacy is only highlighted when considered in light of what people who have actually studied the issue have to say:

Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or “man-on-dog” unions.

Geez. After the last election, there was a lot of questioning about how the Republican party managed to lose their majorities in congress. I can not speak for anyone else, but the big reason I did not vote Republican, and do not see myself voting Republican any time in the near future, is absurd statements like this beauty from Bachus.

Iraq? Whatever. Never should have gone over there, but now that we’ve screwed up the country, maybe we ought to remain long enough to put it back together. But I really don’t have strong ideas one way or the other.

No, it’s what Digby recently called the “Faith Based Straight Jacket” that really bothers me. These are the canonical conservative ideas; ideas that are true no matter what the facts, reason, or the law might say. Here’s how they made me vote in the last election. In this case, Bachus attacks the gays. But whether it’s a belief that gay people are going to destroy American, or that there is no such thing as global warming (not that it is too expensive to fix it, or that we can’t fix it, but that it does not exist), or that there were WMD’s in Iraq, or that activist judges are trying to make America a communist Gomorah, or that intelligent design is science, I could never vote for a person who is willing to assert as an undeniable truth of the highest importance a proposition that has no support in either abstract logic or empirical observations. 

In other words, if you as an individual think gay marriage is going to cause the country to collapse, that’s fine. But don’t try to make your personal belief the basis of public policy unless you can point to some reason OUTSIDE YOUR OWN HEAD that supports your position.

Bachus’ statement is nothing but demagoguery; an appeal made purely to the basest kinds of emotions. And if the Republican party ever wants to succeed again, they’d do well to replace their emotional appeals to ignorance with solid reasoning about legitimate problems.    

I Agree With B’ham Councilor Roderick Royal

This is what he said yesterday in voting to reject a non-binding resolution that would have condemned discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation:

“I’m concerned with the lobby for gay and lesbian rights that somehow or another this group insists on equating their movement with the movement for civil rights,” he said. “This is not to say that their movement is not legitimate, but it is to say that to equate it with the noble movement of civil rights does not compare.”

No it does not compare. It was never a crime to be black. Blacks could at least marry each other. And if the argument is that gay people choose to be gay, and therefore bring their problems on themselves, well, then, black people chose to remain in the segregated south and so brought their problems on themselves. Idiot.

Not just an idiot, but an ungrateful, selfish, hypocritical idiot. I am sorry, but I would much prefer an across the board bigot to a person who intones about principles of equality when his own group is being attacked, but then tosses those principles aside the minute anyone tries to apply them to a new context.

(Get more reports on the resolution here, and here.)

Update: Even though Roderick Royal, Joel Montgomery, Miriam Witherspoon, and Steven Hoyt are ignorant homophobes, and this resolution was just a non-binding statement of principles, I still think they should have supported it. Why? Two reasons.

First, Even if you think homosexuality is an “objective disorder” you cannot deny the positive impact gay people have made to communities. I know my neighborhood would not be anything close to the wonderful place it is today were it not for the large number of gay urban pioneers who began renovations during the 1990′s. No matter whether being gay is good, bad or indifferent, these folks are generally a benefit to their cities. Yet our City just told them they are second-class citizens.

Second, we all know about the so-called creative class, a group B’ham has actively tried to recruit:

The distinguishing characteristic of the creative class is that its members engage in work whose function is to “create meaningful new forms.” The super- creative core of this new class includes scientists and engineers, university professors, poets and novelists, artists, entertainers, actors, designers, and architects, as well as the “thought leadership” of modern society: nonfiction writers, editors, cultural figures, think-tank researchers, analysts, and other opinion-makers. Members of this super-creative core produce new forms or designs that are readily transferable and broadly useful—such as designing a product that can be widely made, sold and used; coming up with a theorem or strategy that can be applied in many cases; or composing music that can be performed again and again.

Beyond this core group, the creative class also includes “creative professionals” who work in a wide range of knowledge-intensive industries such as high-tech sectors, financial services, the legal and healthcare professions, and business management. These people engage in creative problem-solving, drawing on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. Doing so typically requires a high degree of formal education and thus a high level of human capital. People who do this kind of work may sometimes come up with methods or products that turn out to be widely useful, but it’s not part of the basic job description. What they are required to do regularly is think on their own. They apply or combine standard approaches in unique ways to fit the situation, exercise a great deal of judgment, perhaps try something radically new from time to time.

These are the folks who will make the money, write the books, sing the songs, and do all the other things that make a community a great place to live.

And the four juvenile a**holes on the council who rejected the resolution just told the members of this class that B’ham does not want them:

Talented people seek an environment open to differences. Many highly creative people, regardless of ethnic background or sexual orientation, grew up feeling like outsiders, different in some way from most of their schoolmates. When they are sizing up a new company and community, acceptance of diversity and of gays in particular is a sign that reads “non-standard people welcome here.”

So what does our sign now read?

Sure it was a non-binding resolution. And sure some of the councilors were scared they might have gotten AIDS if they had voted for it. But supporting it would have been a wonderful way to dissasociate Birmingham from our past and from Alabama stereotypes. It would have been a way to declare to the creative folks in the world that this is a town that values everyone, that hopes to be a place where people accept each other, that new ideas are welcome here.

Instead, we just told the world that gay folks do not matter. That’s bad enough by itself. But it also alienated a whole lot more than just gay people.

Udate II: I apologize for calling the opposing councilors “juvenile a**holes.” Most juveniles would have behaved in a much more respectful manner, and reached a much more sensible conclusion, than did Royal, Hoyt, Witherspoon and Montgomery.

John Edwards And Ann Coulter

[Updated below] 

With which of the following statements do you agree?

1) Former John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte ought to be anathemetized for writing “the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.”

2) Amanda Marcotte ought not be anathematized for that statement.

3) Ann Coulter ought to be anathematized for calling John Edwards a faggot.

4) Ann Coulter ought not be anathematized for calling John Edwards a faggot.

I’m Catholic and straight, but I’m strongly inclined to pick 2 and 3.

It isn’t that I agree with Amanda Marcotte, but you can at least defend her statement. First, with people like Bill Donahue as standard bearers for the Church, I’m really not surprised that folks attribute ill-will to the Church. Second, the statement is at least an attempt to discuss a position taken by the Church: Opposing a law in Chile that would have allowed the distribution of contraceptives to teenage girls.

Go read all the “anti-Catholic” posts by the two defrocked Edwards bloggers. I posted what I saw as the worst of the lot. For the rest, sure they use some, uhh, colorful language, but they concern specific issues, issues on which certain Catholics have taken very public positions. If you’re going to make an argument about some public policy, I don’t know why you ought to get a pass on criticism just because your argument has a religious basis. A dumb idea is a dumb idea, whether or not it’s religious. If your religious faith can’t handle criticism, than don’t try to make your faith the basis of public policy.

Again, I’m not saying I agree with them, or that the way they expressed their disagreements with Catholics is a good way to have debates. I’m not even denying that underneath their vehement disputes over policies might be some real anti-Catholic hatred. I’m just saying that what they wrote is at least defensible.

But calling John Edwards a faggot? Patent bigotry, that.

[Update]

Two more issues here.

First, the party line post-Coulter craziness is always the same: “Not representative of conservatism, improper, unwise, yada yada yada.” But check out the response to her comments when she made them at a gathering billed as an event “where thousands of conservative activists and leaders from across the country join together for a three-day event to discuss current issues and policies and to set the agenda for the future of the conservative movement.”  

Now, I’ve heard it said that character is what you do when no-one is looking. And what were all those conservative activists and leaders doing in response to Coulter’s statements before the press, the bloggers and the rest of the country began looking them? They began with a few laughs, and proceeded to clap and cheer, requiring Coulter to pause for several seconds and bask in their approval. There were no awkward silences, no condemnations, just hearty approval. It was as if the audience members each thought momentarily “she can’t say that” before realizing no-one in the room would object and then fully revelling in their angry ignorance.

Second, she made the comments about John Edwards on the same weekend that other Democratic candidates were in Selma for the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. I can’t help but notice a few similarities between Ann Coulter and the scum beating the marchers on that day.

Faggot and Nigger are words of the same species. Neither tells anyone anything about the group they are supposed to describe, but they do reveal the user as an ignorant, hateful p-o-s. Black, negro, gay, queer: These all may be inappropriate. But Faggot just as much as Nigger says “I don’t know you, but I hate you, you are not worthy of life, nor a place in my society.” These aren’t just impolite words, words that go beyond what’s “politically correct,” these are words designed to degrade, humiliate, and if they could, kill.  

Just like the words are the same, so are the people who use them. There’s no difference between Ann Coulter, the cowards who laughed at her “joke,” and Fred Phelps, just like there was no difference between White Citizens Councils and the KKK. Bigotry dressed in a nice suit is still bigotry. MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail forced respectable folks to make a choice: Bull Connor and George Wallace or Justice? The same choice is before us today: Justice or Fred Phelps and Ann Coulter? The video reveals what the conservatives at CPAC chose. I’ve got  more faith in the rest of us.

That’s my view, anyway. But I’m a middle class white guy who only knows about the civil rights movement from books. It sure would be nice to hear someone who experienced it make these connections.

Hyperventilating Overreactions 101

Normally, when I read A Bama Blog I just shake my head and laugh. Occasionally, though, when the rhetoric gets too overblown I may make a comment in an attempt to bring the discussion back to reality. For instance, I had to respond to this post:

Today marks the 514th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s arrival in the New World. It’s fashionable these days to be down on Columbus and other Western explorers and colonists, but those who wallow in the mire of such political correctness always seem more than happy to reap (or sometimes, to plunder) the benefits of what those brave men of the West accomplished. Columbus and those who followed in his wake brought the gifts of Western civilization and Christianity to formerly savage and heathen lands.

I don’t know who the ungrateful fashionistas are, but I think my comment summed up the likely response to that post from all of us who not only value cars, air conditioning and democracy, but historical accuracy as well:

“Columbus and those who followed in his wake brought the gifts of Western civilization and Christianity to formerly savage and heathen lands.”

did you really write that?

i’m not going to dispute that 1) pre-Columbus America was “savage and heathen” or that it is now 2) western and civlilized, though both are very debatable. but to call the change a gift is silly indeed. a conquest yes. a gift? by no sensible definition of the term.

our ancestors did not “give” western values to the natives, they slaughtered the natives and then continued to live as westerners but in a new location. 

Today, though, I decided that instead of a chuckle or a comment, I would actually respond to one of Lee P.’s ridiculous posts with a post of my own.

Initially, I wanted to critique this one, in which he freaks out over a recent lawsuit that argued Alabama’s method of funding its colleges was unconstitutional. He’s gotten himself into a tizzy about this case in earlier screeds. Today’s does not add anything of substance, only including a list of Alabama academics who supported the plaintiff’s and then stating:

Maintaining the proper constitutional balance between the federal government and the states is essential to the Republic’s survival under the present Constitution. That these seven respected and influential professors of law and history would have us deviate so radically from that balance – while caring not a whit for the consequences – is really quite disturbing.

What I wanted to say was “Well, thank the Lord we have knowledgeable folks like Lee – who have studied at the feat of historical and legal scholars like Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’souza, Ramesh Ponnuru and Ann Coulter - to save us from the silly mistakes made by people like Charles Gamble, Wayne Flint and Howard Walthal.” But that would just be snarky.

I also wanted to take him to task for the overall tone of the post (and his previous one on the same topic). Basically, what the lawsuit was arguing was that Alabama’s method of funding education perpetuated racial segregation. I agree with the court, and Lee P., that the allegation was not true. Or at least the evidence was not strong enough to justify relief.

Lee, though, following in the footsteps of George Wallace, Roy Moore, and Tom Parker, seems to think that even if the allegation was true, no federal court could do anything about it. Alabama, in his view, would be perfectly free to violate the constitution. That’s where I get off the boat. If Alabama was using its tax structure to perpetuate segregation, then I agree wholeheartedly that Alabama’s funding system would have to be radically changed, even if that meant changes in the tax code. Alabama is subject to the law just like you and I are subject to the law.

But I’m not going to discuss that, either, because someone beat me to it.

The post I will discuss is entitled “Indoctrination 101.” I could not possible summarize the post in way that makes it sound any more idiotic than does Lee’s own introductory paragraph:

To find the latest example of leftist ideology masquerading as scholarship, we don’t have to go very far. Undergraduates at the University of Alabama had an opportunity this semester to register for a new class called “Modern Gay America.”

Why is Lee so upset about this class? He offers two pretexts for his opposition.

First:

it should be a subject reserved for graduate or post-graduate work. The focus of undergraduate education should be exposure to a broad-based curriculum in the humanities, the sciences, mathematics, and history. For college students to be familiar with the text of the U.S. Constitution is essential. For them to be familiar with the subtexts of the Wizard of Oz is optional.

Again, good thing we have Lee P. to let all those silly academics know what a college education ought to include. Lee would even have to teach the class about the constitution, seeing as how he just told us that no-one in the state but him, and maybe some judges on the Eleventh Circuit, really understands it. 

Seriously, though, this class is just what Lee says an undergrad curriculum ought to include: history. From the syllabus:

Date Topic

Wed. 10/1 Introduction to the 20th century: The Early Years of Gay Life . . . 

Mon. 10/6 Gay Hollywood and the 1940’s- Kaiser Ch. 1

Wed. 10/8 The 1950’s: Early Gay Struggle and Liberation- Kaiser Ch. 2, . . .

Fri. 10/10 The Beginnings of Community: Gay Cities and Workplace Culture-Kaiser Ch. 2 Continued.

Mon. 10/13 Nature vs. Nurture: Science and Religion in Gay Life- Kaiser: pg. 52-58, [Handout]

Wed. 10/15 The 1960’s: Gay Rebellion, Stonewall 1969- Kaiser Ch. 3, (pg. 192-202), first assignment due.

Fri. 10/17 The 1970’s: Mainstream Culture and Gay Club Life- Kaiser Ch. 4 (pg.253-265)

Mon. 10/20 The 1980’s: In the Shadow of Death- Kaiser Ch. 5 (pg 275-325) . . .

That does not sound any different than, for instance, the modern south class I took as an undergrad, or the history of the Supreme Court class I took in law school. It’s just a study of how a particular group of people have lived during a particular period in history. One of the affects of the study will be a better understanding and appreciation of the group. If that group was anyone but “the gays,” I really can’t imagine anyone complaining.

Here’s the second pretext:

In fact, this course has little to do with the scholarly study of history, but is instead entirely devoted to the advocacy of a very narrow view of history in which truth is less important than dogma.

Lee P., of course, makes this judgment without having been to this class, or, I assume, talking to anyone who has. Instead he quotes the syllabus:

EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES

1) To acquire an appreciation of the diversity of American identities and experiences, particularly the lost history of Gay and Lesbian history, identity, and growth in a culture that ignored, or forget them.

2) To understand a range of cultural artifacts: novels, plays, autobiographies, memoirs, photography, film, painting, and music that one can utilize in the study of the development of an individual and unique Gay and Lesbian community during the 20th century.

3) To understand the connections between such diverse cultural spheres as popular entertainment, consumer culture, the fine arts and broader American cultural values. We also want to look at how Gay and Lesbian people working in secret helped to shape the different emerging American cultural moment that was the 20th century.

To me that course description sounds like the usual meaningless mumbo-jumbo found in any course description, and like any other course description is pretty much useless if what you want to know is what will actually happen in class.

So let’s click the mouse a few more times than did Lee P. and see what the actual subjects of this nefarious plot by the left to subordinate America to their radical homosexual agenda think about the actual class. From the Crimson White:

The class was scheduled to have 30 students, but was expanded to 40 because of the interest from students, [the teacher, Josh] Burford said.

“The most unexpected thing about this class is that I’ve had to turn away at least a dozen students,” Burford said. “It hurts me to have to tell them no, but we have limited space.”

Burford said this is the first class where most of his students never miss class, are excited about his lectures and stay after class ends to ask questions.

“What’s really nice about the class is that they’ve formed a little community,” Burford said. “I see them helping each other and hanging out together.”

Wow. Sure looks like students are voluntarily taking this ELECTIVE and benefitting from it, too. How can the students in this classroom not realize – like Lee P. in Huntsville realizes – that though they think they are using their own free will and critical thinking abilities, they are in fact being manipulated by the radical homosexual leftist communistislamofascists? Outrageous, really. Here’s the view of another young victim:

I for one am in the class and one of the straight people and also from the south. I can honestly say there is no homosexual agenda especially in this class. the class is simply trying to teach about a culture, it is no different than women studies, african american studies, or any of the other cultural studies that exist. An LGBT major is no different than any of the other new college majors and just because he isn’t a science or math major doesn’t mean his life is useless and we should cast him (and the entire community that wishes to know about gay culture) out of society.

Well, then, so much for the pretexts. I won’t speculate about the real source of Lee’s disgust. I will just offer another student’s view:

The Good Book says Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve. There is enough sin on this campus with the Frats and Sororities. What we don’t need on this campus is a class that will sanction a sinful and disgusting agenda.

I will be praying for this university and all the sodomites today.

Maybe that guy ought to run for Attorney General. I bet Lee P. would vote for him. Unless he wants higher taxes.