another infuriating curriculum war

how's this for a recommendation for k-12 american history curriculum: "Replace references to America's "democratic" values with "republican" values"
justification: "We don't pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands."

is this an onion headline? nope. is this a fox news anchor? nope. is this a republican talking head with no power? nope.

this is a david barton, who is 1 of 6 reviewers appointed by the texas board of education to review k-12 american history curriculum. (barton real job is run a conservative christian org devoted to promoting american's christian heritage.)

the texas board of education has appointed 3 conservative (read: religious right organizers) reviewers and 3 liberal (read: academics) reviewers to look over their curriculum. one of the actual board members said this:

"America is a special place and we need to be sure we communicate that to our children," said Don McLeroy, a leading conservative on the board. "The foundational principles of our country are very biblical.... That needs to come out in the textbooks."

arg. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, PLEASE! and having only caught wind of the idea of this concept of "american exceptionalism" before this article. i went ahead and looked it up. i can see absolutely no difference between this and nationalism. the wiki page is worth reading, if only to get your blood boiling.

article on texas board of ed recommendation (definitely check out the end of the article where the recommendations are listed, including dropping thurgood marshall out)
wiki page on american exceptionalism

Damn Straight! An Orgasm a day probably does keep the doctor away!

The National Health Service in Britain clearly has all of its ducks in a row and is looking to finally bring some truth and sexiness back into the world of taking care of yourself. They have recently sparked some controversy with their new educational campaign which promotes the importance of having an enjoyable sex life and regular orgasms. They even go so far as to promote the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away", further saying, "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?" Naturally there are all sorts of people who are now up in arms about this campaign saying that it is going to promote teenage sex and lead to an increase in STDs.

First, YAY!!! Thank God someone is realizing that sex is a good thing, orgasms are great for you, and sexual activity is actually quite good for both your cardiovascular, mental, and muscle health. Second, seriously what the hell is wrong with people that they are not willing to understand that teenagers are going to have sex whether we tell them about it or not, and maybe, just maybe, it is actually better for them to have a positive outlook about sex and its connections to health, then repressing all notions of sex and making it a taboo subject. I mean how much research does there need to be showing that countries that have an open attitude towards sex actually have the lowest STD rates and the least amount of teenage pregnancies? I can see nothing but good things coming from this campaign, and if they promote safe sex along side it, all the better!

Thanks AG for pointing this campaign out to me!

Huffington Post Article on the subject

sometimes it really is that simple...

a little birdy (who happens to be a liberal-minded lawyer) remarked to me that the only reason the supreme court heard the CT firemen case was to make sotomayer "look stupid" prior to her congressional hearings. i didn't exactly believe it at the time... but now i'm starting to think either she was right, or the world is full of very interesting coooooincidences.

for those you that didn't keep up with this case, the short of it is, there was a test given to new haven firemen for promotion. the top scorers were all of white race (though by ethnicity, one was hispanic, but who's counting...) for fear of being sued for discrimination the new haven-ite higher-ups decided to scrap the exam. the lower court (with sotomayer presiding) ruled in favor of the city. the supreme court ruled in favor of the fireman whose exams were scrapped. however the majority ruling was muddled as discussed in this article and my favorite justice ever wrote a strong minority opinion (see this absolutely awesome interview of her from the nyt mag)

i want to be clear here, i'm not expressing an opinion on the case and neither was the little birdy. instead, i'd like to point out that is an interesting coincidence that one of these firemen will now be called during the congressional hearings. yes, and i mean that in the way fox new anchors use it... interrrresting...
article about calling the fireman

is palin going crazy or was she always nuts?

i know it may be painful to some of you, but if you haven't seen the palin's resignation speech it's worth watching (with nyt article here), if only to be perplexed.... what is she talking about? if you really can't stand it without commentary, watch the keith olberman vid below.

i think i've come to the conclusion that sarah palin was really just in over her head... and perhaps a little off her rocker. what do you think? i know a lot of people are thinking a scandal is ready to hit the press, but i don't think so. well, other than the boyfriend's tell-all book... or perhaps we'll soon get sarah's tell-all too. wahoo.

also, she is a bit of a liar. check out this list in the atlantic

Fox is at it again! More to love can only mean less to like about Fox!

If the caption "LARGER-THAN-LIFE SINGLE MAN LOOKS FOR 'MORE TO LOVE'" isn't enough to tell you the many ways that this new TV show is infuriating to me, then I don't know what would. So Fox (yes the people who bring us Fox News) is starting a new reality show based off of the bachelor called "More to Love". The premise is that people are sick of seeing all these uber "skinny" people on TV and want people that are "normal" sized up there, because as the announcer says "normal sized people deserve love too". As their website says:

"FOX is setting out to prove that love comes in all shapes and sizes with the new inspirational dating competition series MORE TO LOVE. Executive-produced by Mike Fleiss ("The Bachelor," "The Bachelorette"), the unscripted series follows a single average guy with a big waist and an even bigger heart as he romances several confident and secure plus-size women. Each week, the husky hunk will wine and dine a group of curvy women to determine if they have more love to give or if they are truly more than he can handle. When the size of competition narrows, he will have to decide if one full-figured lady will become his true love."

As if it wasn't clear from the description above, this is a show about exploiting the husky hunk and his trove of curvy ladies for their size. The concept of the show has some merit in the idea that yes their are many wonderful people in this world who are not a size 2, are beautiful nonetheless, and able to have love in their lives, but the idea that we need a show to tell us that they "deserve love" and that plus-size people only find love with other plus-sized people is ridiculous. Additionally, Fox is clearly more then willing to point out that these people are "larger then life", "husky", "curvy", "plus-sized", "full-figured", etc. at every chance they get. Thus instead of just letting these people be "normal" and fall in love, they are making it clear that these people are not actually "normal" but instead exotically different different from everyone else on TV and should have their weight pointed out and exploited at every available moment. For Fox to really achieve what they are purportedly putting out as their goal, they should consider just putting some average sized people on one of their typical shows without all the hoopla and spotlight on the contestants weight. I mean god forbid that a "skinny" man fall in love with a "curvy" lady or a "skinny" girl fall in love with a "husky" man. We wouldn't want to promote that now would we???

thank the good lord almighty for hotstuff

it would be impossible for her to be more awesome.

Humans: The straightest in the animal kingdom?

Guest blogger Hotsauce writes:

Apparently, science ("Yes!" w/ fist pump) is confirming a belief long held by those who proudly wave a rainbow flag (or PFLAG): God is just a little bit gay. Or, maybe s/he's just gender neutral, or sex positive, or doesn't give a damn one way or another. This conclusion is based on the mounting (sorry 'bout that one) evidence that gay sex is rampant in the animal kingdom and is, in fact, more the rule than the exception. Although it is nice to hear this from peer-reviewed sources, I didn't really need any extra convincing. Just ask anyone whose grown up on or around farms. My father, who grew up in tiny towns in the rural south during the 50s and 60s (for chrissake!), has always known about gay animals. Ocassionally, a sow would be much more interested in mounting her female penmates than being mounted by the local boar. Dogs hump eachother all the time. We assume they're just expressing dominance, but we don't know what's going on in their little doggy brains. Yep - bonobos, penquins, dolphins, fruit flies, pigs, dogs, locusts, albatrosses, etc. Name any animal you want. There is a very good chance that it would lose to you at a game of Never Have I Ever, at least as long as you stay away from things that require opposable thumbs. ;^D

So, if God thinks gay sex is perfectly natural, why are humans so uptight about it?

Peace
HotSauce

SF Gate Article on the Science of Gay Animals