A Skepic and A Hypnotist Walk Into A Bar...

So I recently watched Mark Irish, a stage hypnotist, perform here at Old Dominion. After the show, I was pretty darn curious about this whole hypnosis thing, so I did some quick research on the subject, specifically about stage hypnosis.

For some kinds of hypnosis, the jury is still technically out, but when they left the jurors were all smirking to each other and winking suggestively. For things like hypnotherapy to get you to stop smoking or lose weight, it's either a giant placebo effect or there is no observable effect.

Stage hypnosis is another beast entirely. It's a combination of factors that add up to the subjects playing along. What I'm going to do is write a description of the show, and below each part I'm going to add an explanation in bold of what I saw happening as far as acting and trickery. I may get things slightly out of order after the first couple of points, and I may have forgotten a routine or two, but the important stuff is the trickery at the beginning and the obvious stuff that I saw anyway.

The show (Irish's, that is) starts with the hypnotist telling the audience to put their hands out in front of them, and to imagine a balloon tied to one and a bucket in the other. The audience closes their eyes and Irish tells them to add balloons to the balloon hand and wet sand into the bucket. After adding sand and balloons for a while, he has the audience open their eyes. Those whose hands are far apart (and those who have been hypnotized before) are allowed to volunteer to be the hypnosis subjects for the show.

The balloon and bucket routine is just a quick measure of suggestibility using the ideomotor effect. From those people he asks for volunteers, but gives priority to those who have been hypnotized before. This ensures that his first draft of subjects is likely to be compliant to the show.

He then spends a few minutes relaxing the subjects, getting them all apparently sleeping. He goes to each one, getting them individually deeper into the trance. He tells them they can't say their names, and individually asks each one. About half of them say their names. Once he's done everyone, those who answered leave the stage as the audience applauds.

It's important to note how Irish does this bit. Once he's got everyone in their relaxed position (with their hands on their legs, sitting down) he engages in a bit of showmanship and very probably some sleight of hand. He goes to each subject individually and picks up their hand, saying that they're "Ten times as relaxed" as he drops it in their lap, then again, "A hundred times as relaxed." Then he takes both hands at once and pulls them between the subject's knees. At this point he is using both of his hands, one of which contains his microphone. This is where he whispers to them; from the front row of the audience what exactly he says is indistinct. This is the point where he is most likely simply telling them to play along. I suspect that he says it so that more than one person can hear it at a time, which then gives him room to say "Sleep" more audibly for the audience to the people who have already received his instruction. He also may have used a plant; one girl on stage had apparently driven him from the airport to campus. Plants are apparently used mostly to help suggest (by example) what the other subjects are supposed to be doing.

When he starts asking the subjects their names, it's basically his last screening to see who's going to play along to fool the audience. We're meant to believe that it just didn't work on some people, and it adds to the illusion if it doesn't appear to affect everyone. Those who remain on stage are now in on it, and Irish doesn't have to whisper to them individually from this point on. Also, now when he wants them to sleep he snaps his fingers and lowers his hand down as they follow it instead of doing anything that would require moving the microphone away from his mouth, and he clearly tells them to sleep. His actual sleight of hand work is done, so there's no need. It might also look a bit suspicious if he kept saying things to them that the audience couldn't hear.

For the next bit, Irish told the subjects that when he said "red" (also read, because they're phonetically the same) their favorite body part would get bigger, and when he said "blue" it would get smaller. Most of the subjects picked something like their leg or an arm, but one girl mimed growing cleavage and one guy just stared at his lap so they were the ones that got the attention.

By this point all the trickery on Irish's part is done and it's up to the subjects to act convincingly. All Irish does now is stall for a little bit of time after he gives them their instructions while "asleep" so they can think of what they're going to do, thus allowing more complex routines. The girl who mimed expanding breasts (known henceforth as Boob Girl) started out acting very convincingly but as the bit went on it started to break down a little. When she started moving her hands in a clearly intentional way (jerking them several inches forward or back) at the "red" and "blue" cues, Irish moved on. The guy staring at his lap was more convincing.

For the next bit, Irish told the subjects that he'd brought a whole bunch of hundred dollar bills, but that he'd taped them together. He produced a roll of toilet paper and had them take the "money" and hide it where no-one could find it. Some of the hiding places were funny, others boring.

The guy at the end in the blue shirt was probably the worst actor of the bunch for this bit, but it was amusing. Whenever he got some "money" he dashed off the stage and hid it in or behind some plants in the corner of the room. When he sat back down after the first or second time, he winked and gave an "OK" sign to the audience.

The next bit was an improvised Jerry Springer show, for which two engaged couples and a security guard were chosen. The fiancees were leaving their fiances (that's the women and the men, respectively) for clown shoes (one each). They were also pretending to be rednecks when they introduced themselves.

This one was pretty straightforward acting and nobody did anything obviously fake, but Irish did give them longer to come up with their redneck names and jobs than he did for the other bits.

The next bit was for the subjects to make faces at the substitute teacher. Funny faces and middle fingers abounded.

Also pretty straightforward and one of the funnier bits of the show.

For the Martian translators bit, Irish assigned some subjects to be translators and others to be Maritans. He had the Martians answer questions about Earth, Earth men, and Earth women. It was only very slightly dirty.

One girl cracked up in the middle of her "translation" and her take on the Martian language was much different than the others because it sounded an awful lot like she was trying not to laugh. After the microphone went to somebody else she cracked up completely and took a minute to regain her composure while the others continued the bit.

For the Raining Men bit, the song played while the (female) subjects imagined that it was literally raining men (around them, not on them). Irish asked them how they felt about it, etc. to some funny responses.

The bits where the subjects imagined external objects around them tended to be less convincing than the other ones, presumably because it's a bit difficult to be a good mime. It also makes sense that these acts were done toward the middle and end of the show, because if Irish had started with this stuff he wouldn't have fooled the audience. It's only once you've bought into the hypnosis act that these things cease to arouse suspicion, which would make it less entertaining.

After the raining men, Irish told the male subjects that they were pregnant, and told the female subjects to coach them. He also told them that at the "labor" signal, they were to go into labor. One guy got really into it and actually went into "labor" before the cue was given. After they gave birth and were holding their babies, Irish asked each guy whether his was a boy or a girl and what they were going to name it.

That the one guy started his "labor" early is a pretty big giveaway that he was acting. Otherwise he was pretty convincing through the show, but he must have missed part of the instructions when they were given. I think it would have looked a little suspicious and been confusing for the other subjects if Irish had told him to wait for the cue ("Wait until I say 'labor,'"), so he let it slide.

The next bit wasn't nearly as funny as the rest of the show. Irish had the subjects asleep and told them that when they woke up, the audience would be holding their heads. He instructed the audience to put their hands up next to their heads, palm-up, and mime doing funny things with them (throwing them around, etc.). When he woke the subjects up they reacted, and Irish also had them catch some thrown heads and then make out with them.

This was the single least convincing bit of the night, probably because it was the most mime-intensive. Again, realistic miming is difficult. The make-outs ranged from confused to overacted. Blue Shirt Guy just held his awkwardly for a moment, awkwardly kissed it, and pretended to be disgusted (he even mimed brushing his teeth afterward). At least one guy basically ignored the imaginary head and made out with his hand. It was pretty hokey.

For the last full-fledged bit, Irish told the subjects that when they woke up, they would be watching a funny movie that kept getting funnier and funnier until the channel changed to a scary movie, and then to a channel that they didn't remember buying (i.e. a porno). When he woke them up, they all laughed at their imaginary screens, then when Irish said the channel changed, they acted scared. Boob Girl even hid behind her chair. When Irish changed the channel to the one they didn't remember buying, reactions varied from confused to disgusted to extremely interested. But he kept narrating the channel and finally said "wait...those people look familiar!" which elicited a cry of "that's my mom!" to much laughter from the audience. He turned the screens off and asked some of the subjects how they felt about it, which got some more laughs.

This was one of the funnier bits, and was pretty straightforward easy acting again. It was also more convincing than the other bits.

For his final instruction, he gave the subjects a so-called gift of focus. He told them that they would be able to pinch their thumb and forefinger together to get "laserlike focus" on anything they wanted. He also told them that when they walked back to their seats, they would strike a bodybuilder pose every three steps. He woke them up after telling them to forget everything they'd done on stage except the focusing thing, and asked them how long they'd been on the stage and would they like to be in a hypnosis show. They answered to the effect that they hadn't been on stage for very long and that they would like to be in the show. He told them to go back to their seats for the show and, sure enough, they struck bodybuilder poses every three steps. The girl who cracked up during the Martian Translator bit even struck a pose right in my face and stared at me for a moment before continuing behind me to her seat.

I'm not sure of the rationale behind that whole focusing thing, but it seems like the kind of thing where the person might already focus just fine but might attribute it to the hypnosis when their friends ask them about it. They (and their friends) also might just forget it completely, or they might still have trouble focusing and also forget it completely. When he woke them up, only one or two subjects commented on or seemed confused about the number of people that had left the stage, remembering that when they "went under" there were a lot more people up there. The poses were a nice touch too. On the way out, we heard some of the subjects talking to their friends, apparently oblivious to everything that happened. The friends, of course, were eager to tell them all about the show, so any future memories of the show won't be suspect to those who believe something mysterious actually happened.

So I've outlined what I think happened, and I may be very wrong about the specifics, but I think it's safe to say that the effect of stage hypnosis is achieved by selecting participants who are extroverted and eager to play along and are suggestible and probably fairly convincing actors. There's pressure from the hypnotist and from fellow subjects to play along, and there's the allure of being able to act all sorts of crazy with virtually no social consequences because, after all, you were hypnotized while you were doing it.

It's still a very entertaining show, except for one or two individual routines, and I recommend going to see stage hypnotists in action if you can because they can be quite funny.

[Editor's note: I switched tenses a few times in here, but it was already taking a long time to write this so I didn't bother to fix it. It's the internet, my writing doesn't have to be impeccable.]

British People Offended By Video Game

My history with Medal of Honor is limited. They used to be World War II games, and they were fairly good until Call of Duty arrived on the scene and made World War II games interesting again. Now it seems WWII is basically played out, at least for now, and MoH is following CoD in shifting its focus to modern warfare.

Video games have, for a long time, depicted violence and aroused controversy. But games are just that: games. They are there for entertainment just like films and books are. And in this particular game people can play as Taliban fighters and kill American soldiers. Being that some of this game is set in an area currently occupied by British troops, I can see how some would assume that the troops are British instead of American even though they are clearly not. It's really beside the point.

The point is that British Defense Secretary Liam Fox wants to ban the new Medal of Honor game. Why? Because it's insensitive to the dead soldiers. Because you can play as a terrorist. In the multiplayer mode.

Uh, hello?

You can play as a fucking NAZI in Call of Duty's multiplayer!

Why the hell is it controversial to kill an American soldier as an angry Arab but not as an angry German? Is CoD multiplayer insensitive to those who served and died in Europe? Of course not! The Wehrmacht fought the Allies, and when you've got players fighting each other they can't both be Allies or it loses its realism. And you can't have players fighting each other in Afghanistan both playing as American Special Forces because, as a general rule of thumb for most situations, THEY DON'T SHOOT EACH OTHER. In fact, they actually go out of their way to avoid friendly fire. Imagine that!

You can literally use his exact words to describe WWII games and it makes the same amount of sense.

Dr Fox said: "It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban [Nazis]. At the hands of the Taliban [Nazis], children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.

"I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game.

"I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."

Fox is probably not the kind of person who plays video games. He probably spends his free time doing things like reading. I suspect that some ignorant jackass brought this to his attention because they were offended when they saw footage of a player detonating a bomb with a cell phone, and that he subsequently did absolutely no research (and didn't have any of his staff do any, either) before he condemned this game and called for it to be banned.

If he had done some research, he would have found that the single-player campaign not only doesn't have British troops in it, but is entirely about fighting the Taliban. That's the part of the game that has a story and conveys a message. And so far that message seems to be "The American Army shoots terrorists in the face. They shoot terrorists during raids on their hideouts, they shoot terrorists while rescuing hostages, they shoot terrorists from helicopters, and they shoot terrorists from jeeps. What we are getting at is that they shoot a lot of terrorists."

It may turn out that part of the campaign mode does involve playing as Taliban fighters. I don't know because the game hasn't been released and I probably won't get to play it until some time after it is. But seriously, this outcry about the "Taliban game" is just ignorant political posturing on the level of the idiots protesting the "Ground Zero Mosque" in New York. Which is to say they should both get a fucking clue and shut the fuck up about shit they know nothing the fuck about about, pardon my goddamn French.

Catholic Leaders "Refute" Judge’s Ruling Overturning Proposition 8

A while back, California voters banned gay marriage with ballot Proposition 8. On 4 August, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional after two gay couples challenged it.

The Catholic Church is well-known for being anti-gay and for thinking they're really smart, so it's no surprise that they've come out with a statement supposedly refuting the judge's decision. I don't think they realize that their "refutation" is basically everything that the defendants of Prop 8 presented in court.

When asked for comment on the judge’s ruling, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said in an e-mail to CNSNews.com that, “Judge Walker, in his decision, backed his bigotry with errors, including the misstatement that the ‘Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.’ The fact is, the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, an inclination in a person, something not intrinsically sinful.”

“The church calls for pastoral support, not condemnation, for people with this inclination,” said Sister Walsh. “The Catholic Church makes clear that it is homosexual activities it deems sinful, because it holds that all sexual activity belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.”

Sr. Mary Ann defended the Church against the judge’s claim that its religious teachings “harm” gays and lesbians, saying, “the Catholic Church opposes all unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and abhors violence against them.”

So the Catholic Church doesn't think being gay is a sin, they just think that having gay sex is a sin. See, you can't have non-sinful sex unless you're married, but marriage is between a man and a woman. And you can't change the definition of marriage, because...well, just because.

Fr. Francis de Rosa, parochial administrator of two parishes in Virginia, responded to the judge’s ruling in an e-mail to CNSNews.com. “We are not opposed to the human rights of someone with same-sex attraction,” he wrote. “Rather, we assert that there is no such thing as a special category of ‘gay’ rights. Why? Because homosexuality is a pyscho-sexual disorder that harms the person and society.”

“Condoning such behavior and encouraging people to engage in it by the passage of permissive and protective laws does the real harm, not the position that warns people of the destructive consequences and nature of homosexual acts,” wrote Fr. De Rosa.

Citation needed.

In response to Judge Walker’s statement that, “A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature,” Donahue said that the state does indeed have an invested, secular interest in upholding traditional marriage.

The traditional family is the anchor of society and teaches children citizenship, said Donahue. “All the psychological data show that children need a father and a mother.”

Blatantly false. A recent study suggests that children of lesbian parents might actually be better off than other kids. Besides which, I don't see how "anchor of society" is in any way a meaningful phrase or how your parents' genitalia are involved in teaching you citizenship. I suspect Bill Donahue is full of shit. Who knew?

And Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, who chairs the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, joined Cardinal George in his statement and added, “Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot.”

First of all, bullshit on the uniformly voted thing. Five states allow same-sex marriage. In two of those states and in Washington, DC, this is the result of a vote.

Second of all, the majority's opinion doesn't matter when it comes to people's rights. The majority could be wrong.

Fr. de Rosa, also addressed this, saying, “Vaughn Walker’s ruling asserts that the Catholic argument against homosexual acts is without a ‘rational basis,’ yet that teaching is not based solely upon principles of faith. It is certainly possible to argue from pure reason that it is against the nature of the human person to engage in homosexuality.”

“One very obvious point is the manifest lack of bodily and sexual complementarity in homosexual acts,” said Fr. De Rosa. “Furthermore, there is plenty of clinical psychological data to show that same-sex attraction is the result of a developmental disorder. Were one to make an argument from the theory of evolution, homosexuality is most certainly an inferior, dead-end phenomenon.”

Uh, yes it is without a rational basis, yes it is based solely on principles of faith, no it isn't possible to argue that from pure reason, no there isn't evidence that it's a disorder (it was specifically taken off the list, actually), and no it isn't necessarily an inferior or dead-end phenomenon in evolutionary terms. All that aside, this is the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something isn't natural (which, by the way, homosexuality actually is) doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition,” states the letter. “Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. … Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. … If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible for of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good.

1. What the hell "biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family" are they talking about?

2. Why would such things be the basis for granting same-sex marriages recognition anyway? This is actually much more about a host of other legal rights that come with marriage, not the least of which are hospital visitation and power of attorney.

3. If not being able to contribute to procreation is a legitimate criterion for barring same-sex marriage, why can old people get married? Why can infertile couples get married? Why can normal couples get married and not procreate? Could it be that marriage actually isn't just about pumping out babies?

4. Did you know that the definition "marriage" once precluded interracial marriages? That's right, it used to be illegal for black people to marry white people. Now it's perfectly legal, and they had to change the definition of marriage to make it that way. Can you sort of see the parallel between the two arguments, there?

The Catholics, or at least these Catholics, are just bigoted assholes trying to keep things the way they are because they thrive on the idea that human nature is bad, something that you have to be forgiven for.

Mormons: Upon Further Consideration, Still Weird

A while back a friend of mine had a visit from some Mormon missionaries. And, for some reason, he invited them back to talk with him again. He also invited me, but I missed that day. So, in the past two weeks we've met the missionaries at the local Mormon church twice to discuss things.

Frankly, I still think Mormons are weird.

The first meeting was standard fare; introductions followed by a few readings from the Book of Mormon. They gave me a book and one of the missionaries (they call themselves "Elders" but I find that weird, especially when they're not much older than me) recommended a chapter for me to read. I was unimpressed after the first meeting; it was a bunch of "wouldn't it be really cool if..." and "we believe that..." talk, interspersed with bits of the Book of Mormon. I was interested in the same way that I might be interested in any other mythology, but they did nothing to convince me that it was anything more than mythology.

The thing that struck me the most was when I brought up their seeming reliance on the Book of Mormon as an authority of some sort. I told them that they seemed to be relying on the book too much when I hadn't accepted the book yet, and the missionary doing most of the talking responded with an enthusiastic "that's an excellent point!"

A point which he promptly ignored. No attempt to bolster the credibility of the Book of Mormon or anything.

The second meeting was even less productive. We talked about prayer, which for my money is one of the dumbest things to discuss with someone who doesn't believe that there's anything out there to pray to. There's a story in the Book of Mormon about a bunch of people who make a big show of it when they pray, and emphasize their belief that they're going to Heaven and everyone else is going to burn in Hell. And then the good guy promptly prays for the strength to show them that they're wrong. I guess the point was to teach us how to pray.

I raised the same point I did in the last meeting, and I summarized the Star Trek Rule for them (in short, don't quote the Bible unless that quote would carry the same weight if it had been Captain Kirk who said it instead). They said it was a good rule. Then the one missionary drew a diagram that amounted to some bastard love child of circular argumentation and appeals to emotion, the point of which was something about if you read the Book of Mormon and seriously pray about it the right way you'll realize that it's the word of God. I think.

They invited us to a noon church service on Sunday, and at first I wasn't sure whether I wanted to go to it. For one thing, I hate getting up that early during the summer, and for another I don't see how going to church is going to do anything but further convince me of the weirdness of Mormons. Luckily (sort of), I'm going to be with my dad this weekend, and we're going to West Virginia for a pig roast. I'm not at all looking forward to that because I dislike such social events and I don't particularly care for pig meat. I can't leave my sister to suffer through it alone, though, so I'm going. And I'll probably choke down some pork, wishing it were chicken. Maybe a couple boring hours at church isn't so bad, after all...

Texas GOP Platform: An Excersise In Stupid

To be clear, I'm cherry-picking in this post. There are several things about this platform that I haven't considered enough to form an opinion on, so I won't comment on them. There are, however, things that you'd expect a bunch of idiot rednecks to support, which I know exactly why nobody should.

4. The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death. [translation: no abortion! death penalty: fine by us!]
...
6. Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a natural man and a natural woman. [translation: arrest teh gays! details below.]
7. Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of choice for the education of their children. [translation: more homeschooling, fewer requirements that they actually learn facts that might offend their sincere belief that God made everything in 6 days about 6000 years ago.]

My translations haven't just been pulled out of my ass; this is based on Texas's track record so far. The Republicans have always opposed abortion, and they still want to outlaw it despite a Supreme Court ruling (Roe v. Wade) that protected abortion rights. They also execute a lot of criminals, which would seem a bit contrary to that "natural death" thing.

Number 6 there is blatantly religiously motivated and should be a non-starter because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This is still Texas, though.

Number 7 is an attempt to protect the rights of homeschooling parents to teach their kids whatever the fuck they want without being held to any standard of being right about things like evolution. The vast majority of homeschoolers are creationist Christians who don't give a damn about science and still want their beliefs to be respected.

But wait! There's more!

Free Speech for the Clergy – We urge change of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send government any personal information about their contributors.

The problem with this is, again, the Establishment Clause. The government has to remain neutral with regard to religion, because to do otherwise would be favoring one religion over another (or religion generally over nonreligion) would be religious favoritism, which violates the rights of those not being favored. The way the government stays neutral is by not giving money to religions, and by this logic churches should not be tax-exempt in the first place (not paying taxes is basically free money that the government would otherwise have). They still are, because they are listed as 501c3 nonprofit organizations. Such organizations lose their tax-exempt status if they show political bias. The Texas GOP want to allow churches to keep their 501c3 status and be politically active, which would either allow all such organizations to be politically active or grant an unconstitutional exception for churches. There's more to say about this, but in the interest of brevity (ha!) I'll save it for another day.

Ten Commandments – We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.

Establishment Clause. Unless you'd like to have everyone be allowed to put up similar crap right next to it, including a Buddha, a Shiva statue, that nifty American Atheists atom thingy, some Islamic symbol, etc.

Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the definition of marriage as a God–ordained,

Hold it! Establishment Clause, dipshits.

legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married.

Wow. In short: If we can't git them fags outta the state, we might as well make 'em miserable if they decide to stay!

Seriously, that is fucked up. But that's just the opening of this section. It goes on to say:

Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

So if you even try to help out a gay couple trying to get married, it's a felony. Which usually means jail time. I wonder if you could get away with it by claiming that you had no idea they were a same-sex couple.

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

They're trying to paint this as protecting society, using absurd excuses that any jackass who sits down and thinks about it for five minutes could debunk. "Tears at the fabric of society?" A meaningless phrase used to create fear. "Contributes to the breakdown of the family unit?" Demonstrably false; homosexual couples raise kids just as well as straight couples in the same circumstances. "Leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases?" They say that like straight sex doesn't spread diseases! In short, it's a bullshit excuse for a bullshit position.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

They want to keep teh gayz from having sex, and they want to keep the federal government from keeping them from keeping teh gayz from having sex.

There follows a lengthy anti-abortion section; the particulars are boring but there's one thing that stood out:

Morning After Pill – We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”

Dangerous? It'd be nice if they could describe how it's dangerous rather than simply asserting that it is. It's not like it even kills anything. Ethically speaking, it's the same as a condom. PZ Myers can explain better than I can.

Conscience Clause – We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including but not limited to abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration.

In other words, if you don't want to do your job because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, go ahead and not do your job.

Controversial Theories – Realizing that conflict and debate is a proven learning tool in classrooms, we support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories, including evolution, Intelligent Design, global warming, political philosophies, and others. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as challengeable scientific theory subject to change as new data is produced, not scientific law. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

There's no such thing as "scientific law" in the sense used here; only facts and those who refuse to accept them. I'd have no objection to this bit if they meant it honestly, but all they want is to launch what are actually baseless attacks on evolution in the classroom. Republicans hate science, pure and simple.

Private Education – Parents and legal guardians may choose to educate their children in private schools to include but not limited to, home school, parochial schools, without government interference, be it through definition, regulation, accreditation, licensing, or testing. We encourage competition and cooperation between public and private schools in academic and athletic extracurricular activities.

I'm not sure about this one, but it looks like "without government interference" includes testing, which would mean that they want to exempt homeschoolers from being tested. Again, I'm not sure about this one.

Tenure – We support the removal of the system of tenure in Texas state colleges and universities.

What? Why?

Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice.

Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties – We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state. We urge the Legislature to increase the ability of faith-based institutions and other organizations to assist the needy and to reduce regulation of such organizations.

A big, steaming pile of bullshit. Just buzzwords and bullshit here.

Equality of All Citizens – We deplore all discrimination. We also deplore forced sensitivity training and urge repeal of any mandate requiring it. We urge immediate repeal of the Hate Crimes Law. Until the Hate Crimes Law is totally repealed, we urge the Legislature to immediately remove the education curriculum mandate and the sexual orientation category in said Law.

"We don't discriminate! Unless you're gay! Then we're going to prosecute you for sodomy!"

And I guess that's all I care to comment on for now. Texas sure is one fucked-up place. And I'm going to move there in three years!

Jack-Assery In My Backyard

It seems that a couple nights ago, a group of nine- and ten-year old kids in Norfolk, Virginia (the same city where I go to school) broke into a church and vandalized it. Why? Well, they didn't say. Presumably for the same reason people vandalize other places, whatever that reason may be. Personally, I think they're probably just a bunch of assholes. It certainly doesn't appear religiously (or anti-religiously) motivated.

What strikes me about this story are the comments on the article. Some of them are along the lines of corporal punishment followed by a massive dose of church-going, and I have problems with both of those. I'm much more in agreement with those saying the kids should have to clean up the mess they made and the parents should be held financially responsible. Hopefully, the parents will squeeze that money back out of the kids somehow.

Forcing the kids to go to church more? I think that runs the serious risk of making them actively hate the place, which seems counterproductive. I know if I were forced to sit through church services as punishment for something, I'd seek retribution. I can handle the occasional thing, where I'm bored for a while and only stay out of politeness, but being compelled to go against my will is another story entirely. Now that's child abuse.

Corporal punishment, though. It seems to be an old stand-by of self-righteous assholes with a "back in my day" mindset. "Get out the ol' belt and whup some sense into them there kids," they seem to think, and they always come off as assholes. The thing is, corporal punishment has several things going against it, and only one thing going for it, i.e. immediate compliance. In the short term, sure, a good smack will get a child to do what you want. In the long term, corporal punishment is actually associated with less compliance, and it can lead to things like more delinquency. Of course, if you try to tell Joe Red-Blooded American that, you're likely to get a haughty remark about the "proper" way to raise kids, sissies, liberals, or some combination thereof ("You sissy liberals don't know how to raise kids to be anything but sissy liberals!"). Because Joe Red-Blooded American is, generally speaking, a complete asshole whose parents also thought corporal punishment was a good idea.

Of course if you say something, you also run the risk of being smacked by a redneck, and then it'll take weeks to get the stench of stale beer and housewife tears (Did I mention that kids who receive corporal punishment are more likely to beat their spouses? They are.) off of you. And nobody wants that.

A Good Freshman Year

I've been lazy with the posting because the semester is finally drawing to a close here at Old Dominion, and I'm gearing up to get out. I've got exams coming up to study for, and I've been caught up somewhat in Eve Online, where I've just purchased a really pretty spaceship to pew-pew pirates in.

My Freshman year at college has gone well. I made the Dean's List (should that be capitalized? I don't know) last semester, and we'll see how things pan out this semester grade-wise. I must admit I did slack off more than I should have this time around; I now have to take my final exam in Math because I didn't do any of the work for the chapter on statistics and skipped the test because the F wasn't worth my time. The good news there, though, is that I can get a 50% on the final and still get a B in the class.

Both of my English classes went relatively well, which is good considering my major. Despite some setbacks in my composition class I think I'm doing well. The fact that my classmates have complained about the assignments and grading tells me that whatever my grade, I will have done very well overall. I also seem to be the only person in my Literature class who could identify Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night as a villanelle, or at least the only one who cared to speak up as we went over that particular quiz.

Art History is where I really slacked off, but luckily I can afford it; it's extremely easy to do well on the tests with just an hour or so of studying the night before. There's a test in there on Friday, and the final is sometime after that. I haven't checked my final exam schedule.

Asian History was a great class; it's interesting material but there is a lot of it to cover. It doesn't help that we only have two tests, two quizzes and a paper to be graded by, but I think I'll do well enough on the final that I'm not worrying about my grade.

Next semester, I'll be finishing up my general education requirements so that the semester after that I can start on my major requirements, which means English, English, English. In the meantime, however, I've got summer vacation. Except I'll probably have to find a job, which I'm not looking forward to.