ABC must be trying to boost the ratings of 20/20.  Here are the titles of the most recent segments:

• The Real Lives of Polygamists
• When Sex Is Not as Private as You Expect
• Why We Cheat: Is Evolution to Blame?
• Sex Sells, but at What Cost?

Sounds more like the Friday night lineup on Cinemax.

The “Not as Private as You Expect” piece included a segment about Huntsville’s own Sherri Williams, who runs Pleasures, the “One-Stop Romance Shop.”  She was discussing Alabama’s ban on sex toys and how she exploits a loophole.

From the Golden Gate City:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A measure that aims to keep prostitutes from facing criminal charges has qualified for the November ballot in San Francisco.

The measure, which qualified Friday, would bar authorities from spending money to investigate or prosecute prostitutes for engaging in prostitution.

The prostitution advocacy group pushing this change is called the “Erotic Service Providers Union.”  I guess that is about as delicately as you could word it.

After some of the more unreliable Alabama blogs recently propagated rumors that a state official - a Republican state official - is gay they frequently defended their rumor mongering by proclaiming that, if true, the claims would be a sign of hypocrisy.  You see, this official has made statements in the past that were certainly not gay friendly.  Therefore, he was deemed a hypocrite, although the rumors have been neither confirmed nor denied as of yet.  Being a hypocrite apparantly gives some people considerable motivation to shout loudly about your lack of consistency.  Or does it?

I’ve found that it isn’t purely hypocrisy that sets these individuals (and by these individuals I’m referring to leftist Democrats) off.  It is a specific subset of hypocritical behavior pertaining to homosexual activity involving (or even allegedly involving) Republicans that really excites them.  For example, when it was widely reported that the high priest of the global warmitarian movement, Al Gore, used 232 times more power than the average home there was a deafening silence from left wing Democrats.  Why?  That was a prime example of rank hypocrisy.  Gore has made millions lecturing us about how our excessive energy usage is going to destroy the planet, but he doesn’t feel that he should restrict his own energy consumption.  Try finding examples of liberals deriding 2003 Cesar Chavez award winner Nancy Pelosi for using non-union labor to harvest grapes at her vineyard.  Anything you might find (there were no posts at Daily Kos) certainly will not be written with the same zeal as with an allegedly gay Republican story.

So why the infatuation with connecting Republicans with homosexuality?  I find the obsession and propensity to broadly disseminate any allegations is at odds with their (liberal Democrats) belief structure.  I say this because they clearly aren’t interested strictly because of hypocrisy.  Otherwise there would be more consistency.  No, they particularly enjoy the gay Republican stories because they like to use them as an opportunity to rid themselves of political adversaries by playing on bigotry against gay people.

As a parallel, consider the recent U.S. Senate campaign of Harold Ford, Jr.  During the campaign an ad was ran against Ford that included a white, faux Playboy Playmate.  The ad was lambasted by liberals who said that it played on racial fears.  Merely insinuating an interracial relationship, the logic follows, is tantamount to bigotry since some in the target audience might harbor latent (or even overt) prejudices.

In the case of “outing” gay Republicans liberals are using basically the same tactic.  Their target audience is not fellow liberals, but rather Republican voters who may harbor prejudices against gay people.  By “outing” a Republican they can erode his support and make the position vulnerable to Democrat takeover.  The problem is that this method requires the same stoking of fears that they found so objectionable when Republicans were the ones accused of engaging in such tactics.  The Democrats aren’t “outing” Republicans to enhance acceptance of gays, which is one of their stated political goals, they are stirring up a fervor of anti-gay sentiment for polticial gain.

Liberals like to mask their tactic by proclaiming that they are just pointing out hypocrisy.  If that were the case we would expect them to point out all hypocrisy with similar glee.  The sad fact is that they are perpetuating anti-gay feelings in order to vanquish political opponents.

Personally, I also enjoy pointing out hypocrisy and I admit that anti-gay people who get caught in gay scandals presents an easy target that I have not shied away from (when the facts support it).  But without a measure of consistency ones motives come into question.

Aside: I’m watching The Birdcage on AMC as I type this post - entirely by coincidence.  One of my favorite movies that also deals with homosexuality and amusing political hypocrisy.

From Time.com:

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies-more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. Some adults dismissed the statistic as a blip. Others blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers. But principal Joseph Sullivan knows at least part of the reason there’s been such a spike in teen pregnancies in this Massachusetts fishing town. School officials started looking into the matter as early as October after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, “some girls seemed more upset when they weren’t pregnant than when they were,” Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. “We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” the principal says, shaking his head.

A pact to get pregnant.  Among girls younger than 16.  Holy cow.

The article then brought up whether or not the town, which is heavily Catholic, should provide easier access to birth control.  I would like someone to explain to me how easier access to birth control would prevent girls who are hell bent on having a baby from getting pregnant.  It may help prevent accidental pregnancies, but if someone wants to get pregnant they won’t use birth control.  You can pass around bowls full of condoms in homeroom in that case and it will not prevent anything.

Near the end of the article the author hits on what may be the real cause.

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. “We’re proud to help the mothers stay in school,” says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

The high school has effectively taken away the stigma of having a child out of wedlock while still in high school.  That these girls would recklessly put their futures at risk is not terribly surprising since the negative consequences have been obfuscated.

From the Tuscaloosa News:

The Alabama House has approved a bill to add crimes against people because of their sexual orientation to the state’s hate crimes law.

The bill by Rep. Alvin Holmes, a Montgomery Democrat, generated heated criticism last year and did not get enough votes to come up for passage. The bill passed Tuesday by a close 46-44 vote with no discussion.

The bill now goes to the Senate where passage is doubtful with only two days remaining in the regular session.

Holmes said the state’s current hate crimes law, passed in 1994, includes crimes against people for race, color, religion and national origin, but left out sexual orientation because of a technical mistake.

I wasn’t even aware that Alabama had its own “hate crimes” laws.  I’ll state up front that I fundamentally disagree with laws that punish people for thoughts.  At least federal hate crimes serve an ostensibly more virtuous purpose as they enable federal prosecution in cases that would otherwise be purely within the state’s jurisdiction.  I suppose the thought is that some locales might be reluctant to prosecute crimes committed against certain minority groups and that the federal government should be able to sweep in and right the situation.

The Alabama law, however, doesn’t serve such a purpose.  It merely lumps on additional punishment because of your thoughts or beliefs.  That is asinine.  If someone burns down my house for fun they should be eligible for the exact same punishment as someone who might burn down someone else’s house who might belong to a state sanctioned protected group.  In either case the criminal is prosecuted for the actual crime, but due to “hate crimes” laws the “hateful” person gets punished further because the state didn’t approve of their thoughts.

Here is Alabama’s hate crime law as it is currently written:

Section 13A-5-13

Crimes motivated by victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity or physical or mental disability.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(1) It is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, to be secure and protected from threats of reasonable fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by activities of groups and individuals.

(2) It is not the intent, by enactment of this section, to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of Alabama or the United States.

(3) The intentional advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected when violence or civil disorder is imminent, and poses a threat to public order and safety, and such conduct should be subjected to criminal sanctions.

(b) The purpose of this section is to impose additional penalties where it is shown that a perpetrator committing the underlying offense was motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability.

(c) A person who has been found guilty of a crime, the commission of which was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, shall be punished as follows:

(1) Felonies:

a. On conviction of a Class A felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than 15 years.

b. On conviction of a Class B felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than 10 years.

c. On conviction of a Class C felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than two years.

d. For purposes of this subdivision, a criminal defendant who has been previously convicted of any felony and receives an enhanced sentence pursuant to this section is also subject to enhanced punishment under the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, Section 13A-5-9.

(2) Misdemeanors:

On conviction of a misdemeanor which was found beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the defendant shall be sentenced for a Class A misdemeanor, except that the defendant shall be sentenced to a minimum of three months.

If I read that correctly any misdemeanor, regardless of how trivial it may be, that was deemed to be committed based on “the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability” will guarantee the offender no less than three months behind bars.

Holmes’ proposed modifications would add “sexual orientation” to the list of protected characteristics, with “sexual orientation” defined as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.”  I’m only half surprised they didn’t include transgenders.

The bottom line is that in Alabama you should be punished for committing a crime against anyone.  Period.  Additional punishment for your state of mind is unnecessary and, quite frankly, unfair to victims whose assailants receive less punishment because their assailants didn’t single them out for some state approved reason.  The legislature should not waste time with this particular bill and should instead take efforts to repeal Alabama’s existing hate crimes law.  Alternatively, they could just go ahead and make everyone a protected group and therefore amplify the punishment for all criminals.

The Huntsville Times published a column written by Lukata Mjumbe as the lead editorial in the “Forum” section of today’s Sunday paper.  The column is entitled “Middle Class and Broke in Alabama.”  Mr. Mjumbe tries to make the case that there is an expansive group of people he deems “working poor” and “so-called middle class” and that, among other things, the government should give them - I kid you not - food stamps.  The Times didn’t include Mjumbe’s column on-line, but you can read a nearly identical version from 2006 on the Tuscaloosa News website.

Mjumbe begins by lamenting the percentage of Alabamians who are “officially” poor by federal guidelines, which he says is nearly 17%.  He continues:

[T]he paradox of poverty reveals that the majority of Alabama’s “de facto poor” may be those who are stereotypically defined as apart [sic] of the “middle class.”

Most people would define “middle class” as someone who has a job, went to college and owns their own home. Using these standards and definitions, about 90 percent of the people in Alabama who will file for bankruptcy this year will be middle class.

The definition of middle class that Mjumbe suggests most people use is quite broad indeed!  George W. Bush would be middle class and so would Warren Buffett.  Bill Gates kind of would because Mjumbe only said people who “went to college,” although I suspect that Mjumbe intended to set the threshold at actually receiving a diploma, which would leave Gates excluded due only to dropping out of Harvard.  The soft definition of middle class is a favored ploy by people, typically politicians and others interested in influencing policy and public opinion.  At one point the Democrats set the definition of middle class so loosely that depending on which metric you used you might be both poor and wealthy at the same time!  Mr. Mjumbe doesn’t explicitly state what his own definition of middle class is, so we’re left to assume he shares the definition that he claims “most people” use.

So-called middle class people lead the nation in foreclosures and repossessions. Yet, these families find themselves in a dilemma not even faced by the poorest of poor. These families are ineligible for most state and federally funded poverty programs because they officially “make too much money.”

That “so-called” middle class people lead the nation in foreclosures and repossessions is something of an unavoidable result since Mjumbe defined the “so-called” middle class as people who are employed, went to college, and own a home.  With home ownership as a pre-requisite for admission into the middle class is it at all surprising that this group of people would lead in foreclosures and repossessions?  It’s kind of like boldly stating that pilots lead the nation in airplane crashes.

Let’s give Mjumbe the benefit of the doubt and briefly assume that his own definition of the middle class isn’t the same as what he says is held by “most people.”  He appears to eschew income based definitions, but I presume he does not think highly compensated CEOs and professional athletes - despite satisfying the generally accepted requirements - are in the middle class due to their extreme incomes.  Again, is it at all surprising that people with lower incomes would lead in foreclosures and repossessions?

The federal formula fails to factor in the contemporary realities of the growing number of single parent homes, expanding costs related to childcare, health care, transportation, geographic differences, access to food stamps and other forms of public assistance denied to the so-called middle class.

I agree with Mjumbe that poverty guidelines should take geographic differences into account due to cost of living differences.  The federal poverty guidelines list individual values that apply to the entire contiguous 48 states.  I’ve long been critical of this method because it makes Alabama seem more impoverished than other, higher cost of living states.  Mr. Mjumbe, though, seems to revel in the skewed perception of poverty caused by not including geographic differences; he did include the “official” poverty statistic in his opening sentence.

I can’t help but be amused, though, at Mjumbe’s suggestion that middle class people, however broad the definition, should have access to food stamps and “other forms of public assistance.”  I have a slightly better idea.  How about cutting government funding - and the accompanying taxes - for groups that exist to tell us how poor we are.  I’d rather the government just let us keep more of what we earn instead of taking it from us, telling us how little we have left, and then giving it back.

You can read the balance of Mjumbe’s column yourself.  It is laden with emotional pleas, but is void of any hard statistics defining the size of the poor middle class individuals he talks about.  His proposed solutions include raising the minimum wage and “investing in community action programs” (like the one he runs!).  He doesn’t suggest what might be an appropriate amount for the minimum wage.  How about $50 an hour? Or maybe $100?  Surely people could live on that.

Mjumbe’s piece struck me as quite absurd and his conclusions seemed to lean heavily towards collectivism.  If he thinks that government aid should be expanded up the income ladder it is not a long trip out on the proverbial limb to the conclusion that “the rich” should foot the bill.  Increased income redistribution!  What a great idea.  Surely that wouldn’t mollify the desire to work hard and achieve.  Everyone gets an equal slice of a smaller pie.  Sounds fantastic!

I don’t dispute an element of Mjumbe’s argument.  I do believe that there are a startling number of people who are in desperate financial situations, but I vehemently disagree with the implication that their situation is arrived at innocently or that government “safety nets” are an appropriate response.  The top two reasons, which are tightly coupled, most “middle class” people end up living paycheck to paycheck are poor consumption choices and lack of saving.  I’ve seen this situation personally more than I care to admit.  Working couples, both of who make approximately what I do if not more (i.e. twice my family’s income), who complain about how tight things are.  But they miraculously always seem to be driving new cars, have the most extensive cable TV packages, and are meticulously well dressed in clothes I don’t even bother shopping for.  It is not shocking to find out they aren’t saving.  They choose to live beyond their means - voluntarily living paycheck to paycheck.  Similar observations can be made at all income levels.  Just go to Costco or Sam’s Club on Saturday and see how many people walk out with enormous, expensive flat panel televisions.  If you think all those people are paying cash for the TVs and are caught up on their savings please raise your hand.  I didn’t think so.  It’s hard to feel bad when the rainy days come.  Certainly a knowledge that there was a government “safety net” for them wouldn’t do anything to rectify their bad decision making process.

You can read another of Mjumbe’s editorials, published today, in the Montgomery Advertiser.  He also penned a column that appeared in a Head Start newsletter.  That column is particularly amusing because he suggests that Alabama could have used the $400 million in corporate welfare used to attract ThyssenKrupp to build 4,000 homes that would simply be given to poor people.  That seems like a brilliant idea.

He is quite an interesting individual.  Born Lawrence Jefferies, Mjumbe legally changed his name in 1995 “to make a connection to my heritage and my history and who I am.”  He spent ten years working on a degree from Morehouse in Atlanta, where he graduated summa cum laude, and claims to have been homeless for a brief period.  Apparently while in Atlanta he also was the “political director of a community-based group in Atlanta called the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement” according to The Farrakhan Factor by Amy Alexander (I suppose there is a fleeting possibility there were two Lukata Mjumbes in Atlanta at that time, but I’ll take my chances).  According to the MXGM’s website:

We understand that the collective institutions of white-supremacy, patriarchy and capitalism have been at the root of our people’s oppression. We understand that without community control and without the power to determine our own lives, we will continue to fall victim to genocide. Therefore, we seek to heighten our consciousness about self-determination as a human right and a solution to our colonization. While organizing around our principles of unity, we are building a network of Black/New Afrikan activists and organizers committed to the protracted struggle for the liberation of the New Afrikan Nation - By Any Means Necessary!

Maybe that explains Mjumbe’s obvious skepticism about capitalism and his name change.

Since coming to Alabama, Mjumbe spent about two years as a staffer for U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (I wonder if Davis would hire a former activist in a “White/New European” organization?) and is now the executive director of the Community Action Association of Alabama.  He is also a supporter of Barack Obama for president.

John Stossel dedicated a goodly portion of this week’s column to the topic of whether or not individuals should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys.  It is a question I’ve raised here before (along with thoughtful dialog in the comments) and placed into the context of how pro-choicers frame their argument by saying government shouldn’t tell a woman how to control her body.  Why is acceptable for those same people, Al Gore spearheaded the anti kidney selling law, to tell everyone, including women, what they cannot do with their body?

Another way to view the comparison is this.  The government has no compunction allowing a person to control their body if it means preventing live.  However, if the individual wants to engage in a potentially live saving procedure along with monetary compensation for their risk and suffering then the government says no.  Preventing live good, saving life bad.  I don’t understand the logic.

From The Politico:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, surging in Iowa polls in the Republican presidential race, wrote on a questionnaire while running for U.S. Senate in 1992 that homosexuality is “aberrant” and “sinful.”

“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk,” Huckabee wrote in the questionnaire for The Associated Press, which reported the answer on Saturday.

The media and pundits have largely credited Huckabee’s amazing surge in Iowa polls to his appeal to evangelical Christians.  Last time I checked, these individuals are very Biblically oriented and the Bible doesn’t exactly speak favorably of homosexuality, although I think modern Christians blow what text is dedicated to the subject way out of proportion.  So why exactly should the revelation that Huckabee, who is a Baptist preacher after all, thinks (or thought) that homosexuality is sinful harm him?  It will put off some voters in the general election (cart, horse), but I don’t see it costing him a lot of GOP primary voters.  In fact, it might even benefit him in the primary.  In case you weren’t paying attention the GOP isn’t the most gay friendly party in the country and has staked many an election over the past few years to the wedge issue of gay marriage.

In another answer that could damage his standing in the presidential race, Huckabee wrote on the questionnaire that AIDS research was receiving an unfair amount of federal money. Instead, he said celebrities should pay for the research themselves.

“In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified,” Huckabee wrote, according to the AP.

“An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research.”

Again, I don’t see this harming him all that much.  Although it is most certainly not always the case, many people in this country view AIDS as a disease of homosexuality or drug use - both of which are considered deviant by those same evangelicals.

I actually share Huckabee’s ultimate conclusion on this point, although for substantially different reasons.  It isn’t the federal government’s place to use taxpayer funding to fight an illness or to conduct other such medical research best left to the private sector.  Same goes for embryonic stem cell funding.  Additionally, the fact that nearly all cases of HIV are contracted as a direct result of the behavior (read: poor choices) of the afflicted person (there are rare exceptions like blood transfusion errors) makes it is even harder to justify federal funding.

Huckabee also wrote that he wanted to quarantine AIDS patients, according to the AP:

“If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague…. It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.”

It would be interesting to hear what his response to the same question is today.  Granted I was a wee little lad at the time, but as I recall there was not widespread understanding among the public about exactly how HIV was and was not transmitted.  Opinions like the one Huckabee had were not altogether rare.

There was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times yesterday that neatly summarized a discussion that I frequently have with my wife.  The column suggests that government should get out of the marriage business in the U.S.

The problem I see is that the institution of marriage was whored out to the government in exchange for inheritance protections and economic benefits.  Certainly, the government set up rules, often unseemly by today’s standards, as to who could get married, but when the government started using marriage “as a way of distributing resources to dependents” it was entirely their domain.  And that leads into the reason I am not opposed to same sex marriage, or even “plural” marriages between consenting adults.  When an institution like marriage is run by the government then all Americans should be eligible for the benefit.

What would be preferable is for the government to get out of the marriage business.  Allow private citizens to form legally binding “unions” - or whatever you want to call them - in order to establish inheritance rights and have proper legal grounds for other purposes.  Let the churches handle marriage.  That move would effectively defang all of the gay marriage controversy in the country.  If the Southern Baptists don’t want to marry two gays that’s just fine.  It is their right as a private organization to discriminate if they so desire.  The two men, or women, in question can become Episcopals.  Alternatively, they could choose to not get married, but formalize their relationship through a government approved union.  Marriage, at least within your chosen religious denomination, is preserved as a sacred institution unsoiled by those you view as unclean.

The Tuscaloosa News criticized Alabama’s congressional delegation for voting against a bill that would have made it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.”

The News specifically called out Alabama’s two Democrats, Artur Davis and Bud Cramer, while stating that it expected such votes from the Republicans.  They called it a “bow to bigotry.”

I have a different take.  We live in a free country.  That freedom includes the right to discriminate against others.  No one has a Constitutionally protected right to work a particular job and the federal government has no place telling private employers who they may or may not hire.  I don’t personally agree with such discrimination, but I’m confident that market forces will punish offenders over time without any government intervention.