Facebook Apology Misses the Point

So, Facebook has taken it upon itself to police identities and decide who is real and who is not allowed to exist. Yes, they only have domain over their social sphere but with Facebook being THE defining social media platform of our era, it's a huge handicap to be excluded from it.

Summary of the worrying news (along with my commentary):

Facebook's Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, defends the name policy that "affected" our LGBT community. Yes, we've been "affected" by their uneven enforcement of the policy that bans names they deem unreal or "not real enough." Facebook chose to support those who report non-gender-conforming accounts, or people who report someone's account as unreal in response to them not liking what their opponent said in an online debate. Meanwhile, plenty of fake-named accounts that look like everyday gender-conforming men and women and don't post controversial topics will never get banned from this policy.

Cox stood by the original "real name" policy — which Facebook says is not synonymous with requiring "legal" names. He said the rule helps Facebook stand out amid all the anonymity online and helps keep users safe from anonymous cyberbullying.

"With this input, we're already underway building better tools for "authenticating" the Sister Romas of the world while not opening up Facebook to bad actors." (Sister Roma is the famous Drag Queen shown above. When her Facebook account was threatened, she got her friend San Francisco City Supervisor David Campos to complain to Facebook, which is probably the only reason Facebook is even pretending to listen to the queer community on this issue.)

You heard it here first, folks. The way Facebook enforces their new name policy is meant to KEEP USERS SAFE FROM BULLYING.

It's not like any of us use aliases to protect ourselves from bullying, right? It's not like any women, transgender people or LGBQ folk have ever been threatened over something we published on the internet. It's especially not like people like Anita Sarkeesian are all over the news for exactly this sort of trouble.

Meanwhile, Ello is gaining 4,000 users per hour...

Some Facts About the Michael Brown Incident

While Michael Brown was deemed too dangerous to live, another man in Dallas set fires so that he could shoot police and firefighters who responded, and HE was taken into custody unharmed and perfectly alive. Spoiler alert: he was white. (source)

Fox News jumped to paint Michael Brown as a criminal for allegedly stealing cigars in this video, meanwhile the man who terrorized Dallas and shot multiple officers was given a chance to defend his reasons as NBC published an article painting him as a human who was making a respectable political statement.

The town of Ferguson, Missouri is 67 percent African-American. Their police force is over 96 percent white. (source)

This sort of thing happens often; 4 other unarmed black men were killed by police this month in the USA: Eric Garner(NY), John Crawford(OH), Ezell Ford(CA), and Dante Parker(CA) (source).

Black women and girls are also regularly killed by police, see the stories of Yvette Smith(TX), Eleanor Bumpurs(NY), Aiyana Stanley-Jones(MI), and Tarika Wilson(OH).

It happens even in "nice places": police officers have shot unarmed black men and women in Hollywood, Riverside (California), and Prince Georges County—a Maryland suburb known as the most affluent US county with an African-American majority. (source)

The ACLU sued to get a copy of Ferguson's police report covering the shooting, but it was "mostly blank" and did not contain any info like a description of the scene, quotes from eyewitnesses, names of the officers involved, or any other pieces of information normally found on such documents. (source)

German reporters covering the protests afterwards (it's international news) said that Ferguson officers were worse to deal with than covering conflict zones in Georgia, the Gaza strip, Kaliningrad/the Soviet Union, Iraq, Vietnam, China, and Cuba. Police here would not let them take any pictures and they got arrested. (source)

Ferguson police also threatened to kill American journalists covering the protests. (source)

Though the Grand Jury is not even sure they will charge Darren Wilson with anything, Darren Wilson has raised over $234,000 for his legal defense at Gofundme. Michael Brown's family has raised only $168,000. (source)

Our police force now has so much military gear that you can play the Cop or Solider? guessing game online.

A 14-year old in Lilburn, Georgia, was so bothered by our epidemic of police violence that he designed an app for it.

After that, Obama decided he also was alarmed and ordered a review of our militarized police system. Racism or race was not mentioned even once in the 1,382 word New York Times article covering his statement.

UPDATE: All men have AIDS

UPitt warns us that any man you sleep with could have HIV--not just men who've slept with other

men!  In fact, bisexual men are no more likely to give HIV to their girlfriends than heterosexual men are, despite all the public hoopla regarding MSM (Men Sleeping With Men, this "handy" term coined by the CDC).

"The number of HIV positive men who have sex with both men and women is likely no higher than the number of HIV positive heterosexual men, according to a U.S.-based analysis by University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health researchers. The finding challenges a popular assumption that bisexual men are responsible for significant HIV transmission to their female partners."

"The analysis also estimates that there are approximately 1.2 million bisexual men in the U.S., of whom 121,800 are HIV-positive. That estimate aligns with CDC estimates for HIV infection in male heterosexuals and intravenous drug users."

(more from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health)

> So, yes. Maybe now we can end this harmful stereotype that queer men give everyone AIDS, and stop wasting blood donations...?

"“The HIV infection risk that bisexual men pose to their female partners has likely been overstated,” said Dr. Friedman. “However, that doesn’t mean that HIV-prevention campaigns targeting bisexual men and their male and female partners aren’t needed. HIV does exist in the bisexual community, and national, bisexual-specific data collection, research, and HIV prevention and care delivery are necessary to ameliorate this population’s HIV burden.”"

> Really? Why do we need targeted campaigns if all men who sleep with women are equally likely to have HIV?? Did I miss something??  It's not like reminding women that a subset of men are likely to have HIV with these "targeted campaigns" is especially stigmatizing, or anything...

For suggesting than we need HIV-prevention campaigns that "target" bisexual men, when we ALREADY HAVE THOSE, instead of suggesting that we need HIV-prevention campaigns that target straight men and their partners, you win a GOLD STAR AWARD, Dr. Mackey R. Friedman from the Pittsburgh School of Public Health.

How the USA Shutdown Killed Science

An anonymous scientist talking to Wired tells us how shutting down the United States government even for 1 day destroys most live biomedical research experiments:

"Scientists are hardworking people. They work long hours, on weekends, and they do that because it’s necessary. The schedules they follow aren’t like an industrial plant’s. If you interrupt them, they can’t pick up and start again. It’s an enormous waste of money and resources to interrupt this and have it abandoned."

Then he goes on to talk about "mercy killing"  their lab animals and it gets a bit creepy, but he ends with this gem:

"It’s ironic that factions with names like Tea Party and Patriot engage in anti-American behavior: shutting down the government because they don’t agree with a vote passed by the majority."

Ironic?  I'm not sure that's the right word.

Ethics? Not Here!

House leader Eric Cantor just said we could solve the USA deficit problem if only we could cut those icky "entitlement programs."  You know, like Social Security and Medicaid, which are "unfunded liabilities" leaving a burden on "this generation and the next." Screw public entitlement (which used to be called social support and benefits, by the way), we need to save that money for more important things, like corporate wealthcare!

MyMy asks a good question; "what is government for except for 'promoting the general welfare' rather than protecting blind and stupid private interests?"

Well, besides ensuring the rich stay rich, it's also important to have government around to keep the trouble makers down.  Like these two woman in Texas, who desperately needed to be assaulted by two cops (for littering) and have dirty rubber gloves shoved inside their private orifices.

We might as well be ruled by Cthulhu...


“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.”
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Goodbye Right to Remain Silent

And today's episode of "Which USA Right is Dying Now?" is...

The right against self-incrimination! (5th Amendment to the US Constitution)

 In this case, Salinas v. Texas, Salinas remained silent when questioned and the judge used that as evidence of his guilt: "He had remained silent, and the Supreme Court had previously made clear that prosecutors can’t bring up a defendant’s refusal to answer the state’s questions. This time around, however, Justice Samuel Alito blithely responded that Salinas was “free to leave” and did not assert his right to remain silent." 

Why? Because Salinas didn't use the correct legal term when deciding to remain silent: "He was silent. But somehow, without a lawyer, and without being told his rights, he should have affirmatively “invoked” his right to not answer questions." 

 And that's not even the worst part..." Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia joined the judgment, but for a different reason; they think Salinas had no rights at all to invoke before his arrest (they also object to Miranda itself)."

I thought the courts were supposed to enforce the US Constitution...not destroy it?

Bradley Manning not "in" this year, says SF Pride

Bradley Manning, the brave soldier who exposed US war crimes to Wikileaks, just had his honored hero status revoked by San Francisco Pride. In 2011, many marched in the SF parade showing support for Manning, and demanding that he be freed. But this year, it seems he has been rejected as "too-controversial," and marchers are carrying Verizon and Bank of America banners instead.

"I and many other LGBT Manning supporters are deeply disappointed by this sudden change in position on the part of the committee," supporter Rainey Reitman said. "Bradley is a gay American hero who sacrificed a great deal so we could learn the truth about our government, and he was fairly elected to serve as grand marshal in the parade."

Manning, who is still in custody at a military prison in Kansas, was notified of his selection earlier this week. It was only an honorary distinction, since he would not be released from prison in time to appear in the parade on June 30. However, SF Pride President Lisa Williams revoked that honor from Manning, saying the nomination was "a mistake" and "as an organization with a responsibility to serve the broader community, SF Pride repudiates this vote." She gave no specific reason why, but SF Pride's partnerships with wiretapping giant Verizon and Rush Limbaugh's radio station Clear Channel might give us some insight which "broader community" Lisa was talking about.

Toy Drones: Ages 3+

Look what's for sale at Amazon.com...

"This is the best toy ever. Finally, I can pretend that I'm a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!
It's like I'm sitting right there in the White House with my very own kill list!"

Ah, yes.  Teach your child how to do an airstrike by age 3, and then by the time he's 18 he can be moving onto bigger and better things, like holding up 5 billion in relief funds to Haiti. Yes, along with the United Nations and good old World Bank, "relief" workers there have managed to build toxic school trailers, infect the water supply with cholera, and put a military dictator in power by banning the most popular party and 13 others from the last democratic elections in 2010. 

Why is this the kind of relief that Haiti gets after the earthquake that left 300,000 homeless and destroyed infrastructure across the nation? Well, the new president's "pledge to make Haiti business friendly made him the clear choice for U.S. interests."  And those school trailers weren't meant to poison the children, they were probably just cheaper since their producer got terrible press after using formaldehyde-laden trailers in United States relief efforts after hurricane Katrina.  Clearly Bill Clinton, President Bush and the United Nations are just worried about economic efficiency here.

Why, their economic efforts have been so efficient that the relief team built an amazing luxury hotel.  At this Royal Oasis Hotel it costs $142-$342 for a night's stay, far more than any of the hotel employees earn in a whole month!  Now that's the kind of luxury that could only be brought to you by professionals like the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund!

Freedoms are no Longer Free, AKA American Fiscal Theory

You thought your 1st Amendment freedom was free? Think again.

Scott Walker, governer of Wisconsin, already enacted a policy that charges protesters money to protest.

American government: Ohohoho, yes! We spent all this money on the military and corporate handouts, and then we tried to cut money from social programs to fund this, but then we got all these annoying protestors, so now if we can just charge the protesters money we can kill two birds with one stone! *evil cackle*

Gosh. I don't even have to try to make fun of the government anymore. They've made a caricature of themselves before I even got there..

American Military Politics

The US seems to be planning to deploy 20,000 troops for "defense" against protesters.

This group is supposed to "quell civil unrest."

American government: Hmmm, yes. We have too much civil unrest, because we are spending insane amounts of money on our military and corporate handouts, while the working class gets poorer every year and social programs keep getting cut. How should we solve this "civil unrest?" Oooooh, let's spend MORE money on the military so we can squash the protesters!

Great strategy..

Health Benefits of Protesting

I haven't been writing much here lately, but I have been visiting and helping out with the Occupy movement in Pittsburgh, PA. It's come a LONG way since the first week when the NYC protesters were being ignored by mainstream media.

Last month, while I was working at Occupy Pittsburgh, a reporter asked me about my views on the protest as a health psychologist. "Do you think it's healthy for these people to be protesting, out here in the cold weather?" she asked. I was pretty amazed by this question, since I have never been consulted as a scientist at a political event before. Well, not since my work on climate change anyway; this was the first time I've been consulted as a psycho-physiologist.

So, do I think it's healthy for the occupiers to be protesting out in the cold? There's a lot of levels to this question, but I would answer yes on most counts:

1. Socially: Protesters are angry about our government, and the protests give them a public forum to express that discontent. It's very important to be able to express anger in a constructive fashion, otherwise it can raise blood pressure, contribute to negative emotions and cause chronic stress. So yes, it's much healthier emotionally for the protestors to do their thing. Just think, if you could make signs and march around with a group of people shouting about what most upsets you in life, wouldn't you feel better?

2. Biologically: Protestors "out there in the cold" usually take care to prepare for the weather. Medic tents at most Occupy sites distribute blankets and warm clothes as needed, and can protect against other health crises that come up. If you wear warm clothes and stay active, being in cold weather is actually good for you. It raises your energy levels and the fresh air is good for your mood as well. A researcher who used to work in my office at Pittsburgh (Jeanette Garcia), actually reported that fresh air gives people "increased mental clarity, helps strengthen the immune system and helps your body establish its circadian rhythm," along with increasing metabolism, and being good for your skin!

Back in October, I would have said protesting was healthy for the mind and body of the Occupiers. But now, given the police brutality doled out with pepper-spray, evictions and tear-gases, I would say the protesters are taking a health risk. Not all the Occupy sites have experienced such a violent response; but Oakland, Seattle and NYC have reported the worst, and it looks like the trend may continue to spread. So overall, peaceful protesting is a healthy way to express your opinion, until the police attack protestors.

SUPER CONGRESS

It's becoming more nightmarish to follow the U.S. Budget Negotiations. The August 2nd "doomsday" deadline is rapidly approaching. (Doomsday is when the Treasury loses borrowing ability and we risk a budget default.) And since bratty Congress hasn't been able to agree enough to pass anything, the "debt ceiling negotiators" have a new solution:

MAKE A SUPER CONGRESS !
What's so great about Super Congress? Well, they will be able to pass laws super-fast without having to be too accountable to the public. "This 'Super Congress'...isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers." Any new laws they approve will be fast-tracked through both chambers of "Little Congress" (our current House + Senate), where regular "little" lawmakers could not amend their laws, only give each an up or down vote. And those "little" votes are less powerful than today's votes. The proposed Super Congress only ever needs 51% to pass any law, and they don't need presidential approval (i.e. vetos have no effect on them).

So, does this sound like a good idea to you? It's not like the the regular Congress we have now is particularly heroic. I mean, Republicans want to extend the debt ceiling just long enough to have it fail pre-election season, while Democrats want to extend it just a little bit longer, till post-election. That's why they can't agree to pass something before financial doomsday. So now we're being held hostage to create a Super Congress to save us from disaster?

It feels more like a Super-Villain Congress. And I'm not the first person to think lawmakers with unlimited power would be dangerous. You've heard the saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Well, this whole message board seems to agree that "any new branch of government, especially one with 'extraordinary new powers' scares the hell out me. No thanks!"

America is Pro-Life...and Pro-Unplanned Pregnancy?

LifeNews has a wonderful way with statistics. They can take data that shows 76% of Americans support legal abortion, 50% of Americans favor the current legal status of abortion, and come back with a headline that says AMERICA IS PRO-LIFE.

How do they do this? Well, it's all based on a Gallup poll that can be viewed directly here. Originally Gallup asked people to support 1 of 3 categories; abortion legal in any circumstances, abortion legal in some, and abortion legal in none. When split this way, 27% favored legal in all, 49% favored legal in some, and 22% favored legal in none. So only 22% were for banning abortion.

Gallup then fixed the stats by splitting the middle category into those who wanted abortion legal in most circumstances, and those who wanted it to be legal in only a few. In this way they got 10% of voters wanting legal abortion "under most circumstances," and 39% wanting it to be legal in "only a few circumstances." So now they can say that 39% + 22% = 63% of Americans support no or severely limited abortion.

Does this mean America really is Pro-Life? Well, you can split the stats anyway you want. You can say that only 22% of Americans favor banning abortion completely. 50% of Americans DO want to allow abortion in "some circumstances." And this is what we already allow (our circumstance being abortions up until the third trimester.) So half the country wants NO change to our abortion policy.

Even when looking only at the extreme views, MORE (27%) Americans favor always allowing abortion rather than never allowing abortion (22%). So any way you cut it, most Americans don't favor a change to our abortion policy. But Gallup biased the results by splitting up the middle group. The lesson: If you split up the majority of a group, you can transform their consensus into a series of conflicting categories, hiding the true majority opinion.

So most Americans want to allow abortion under some circumstances. But most Americans also support severely limited abortion. Can all of this be true while America is still Pro-Life? Rest assured, it can all be true. It's just that we have to really think about what "Pro-Life" means.

Remember, we can hide the true majority opinion if we split up a group into conflicting categories. In America, we have "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" categories. Both positive sounding terms. But they're not really that clear and distinct, because pro-choice people could also be pro-life in many circumstances. The difference is that pro-life on a political level means everyone has to be pro-life, all the time, or be criminally responsible and morally wrong. So really, we might rename the Pro-Life position "Pro-Forced Birth" or "Pro-Unplanned Pregnancy."

I wonder how THAT would bias the statistics? If Pro-Life means abortion is NEVER legal, under any circumstances, that would mean only 22% of America supports it (according to this poll). America is not THIS kind of pro-life. But if we allow pro-life to mean allowing abortion only under a few circumstances, without defining exactly WHAT those circumstances are, it's much easier to include the majority of Americans as pro-life.

So it seems no one really wants to have abortions, but most people feel it should be allowable in certain circumstances. There is our general consensus. Now if we could just leave the law to allow for that, American could move on from this whole issue.

Honduras Saves Money by Cutting Education

Honduras, in the grasp of a new military power since 2009, has followed through on it's promise to cut the country's education budget.

How did it do this? Well, first take $100,000,000 from the teachers' pension fund, then lower salaries for all your teachers. If the teachers complain or protest, take away their right to unionize and strike. See? It's easy.

Even when those pesky teachers keep protesting, you can just threaten to end the entire public school system and use charter schools instead.

After all, no good government wants free-thinking, successful teachers, do they? Honduras teachers are referred to as "the only working class that ever truly developed."

Where is the Money Going?
Well, since the education cuts, salaries for both the military and the police have increased. But, that's understandable after all the extra work the Police are having to do while fighting these protestors. The Honduran teachers will not give up, even when they are being teargassed, killed and beaten by the Police.

And IMF, the organization that gave the Honduras government $200 million in exchange for their promise to cut education, says this sequence of events is "broadly in line with expectations."