Hopefully that clears a few things up for us all.
Glenn Grothman loves the closet, also bullying
Speaking of animals, West Bend's Republican state Sen. Glenn Grothman has been busy racking up his ass-hat points lately. You almost have to admire his total dedication to being an amoral dink. I say "almost" because statements like those he made recently concerning the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, while almost comically out of touch from those of thinking people, can also be incredibly dangerous.
Grothman vehemently opposes a recently passed state bill that would ensure that sexual education classes actually include information about contraception, and that neither the teachers nor the curriculum should promote "bias against pupils of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic or cultural background or against sexually active students or pupils with disabilities."
Apparently the bit about not discriminating against gay students is what really got Grothman's goat :
Back when he went to high school in Mequon, he recalled, the issue never, ever came up. "Did people even know what homosexuality was in high school in 1975? I don't remember any discussion about that at the time. There were a few guys who would make fun of a few effeminate boys," he said, "but that's a different thing than homosexuality."
"Homosexuality," Grothman remembered, "was not on anybody's radar. And that's a good thing."
That's also how it should be today, he said. Grothman has long insisted that sexual orientation is a choice, not a matter of genetics. "Why sit down with 7th graders and say to some you will be heterosexual, some homosexual? Part of that agenda which is left unsaid is that some of those who throw it out as an option would like it if more kids became homosexuals," he said.
Putting aside the breathtaking ignorance inherent in his claim that no one knew what homosexuality was back in '75 (um…disco anyone?), there is so much wrong with this guy's attitude and ideas that I hardly know where to start.
I happen to associate with, and count myself among, a large and diverse queer population, and I can safely state that not a one of them, not even those who hold teaching positions, "would like it if more kids became homosexuals." You know why? Because no one becomes homosexual. You either are or you aren't, and no amount (or lack) of education on the subject is going to stop someone who was born one way from continuing to be that thing. No amount of praying, ridicule, suppression, or anything else will change your sexuality. A person can certainly choose not to act on it, but that kind of repression almost always leads to bad things. Just ask Ted Haggard.
Haggard might have been able to lead a happy, healthy, meth-and-lying-free life if he'd been brought up to accept and be proud of all of his God-given attributes. Instead, exposed to a deeply intolerant and oppressive culture and convinced that his natural urges were evil and sinful, Haggard turned to deceit and desperation.
Folks like Grothman, who apparently see no harm in bullying "a few effeminate boys" and actively encouraging, if not outright forcing, gay youths to stay in the closet, only serve to perpetuate an extremely unhealthy environment for all of us. Gay teen suicide rates aren't so high because being gay makes you suicidal; they're high because being gay in a society that is so nasty toward you for it can really suck .
Plus, bullying (for any reason) is still a big problem in our grade schools, and we need to make every effort to see that trend stopped in its tracks.
It's time we stopped electing bigots like Grothman to public office. It's one thing to simply be ignorant of what it is to be gay; it's an entirely different and far more serious thing to be actively hostile toward a significant number of your friends, neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens simply because they love a little differently than you.
Animals we should care more about
The debate over the appropriate and ethical use/treatment of research animals at the UW-Madison has been heating up in recent months. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this kind of discussion should be a welcome one .
After years of pushing the university to more fully address the issue, college lecturer Rick Marolt finally convinced the All-Campus Animal Care and Use Committee to officially take up the question. In a somewhat unsurprising move, however, the group decided that the school's current primate research practices are ethical.
The half-hour debate that went into the decision wasn't quite enough to satisfy many of those interested in the subject, including the Dane County Board of Supervisors. The board recently sent a letter to UW Chancellor Biddy Martin asking that she directly involve herself in the problem of whether or not the practice is truly ethical.
Martin responded just a few days later by admitting that it was a contentious issue, but also a necessary one that the AACUC had sufficiently addressed.
Don't expect the whole thing to die there, of course. A thorough debate, in an open setting and including members of the community as well as researchers, professors, ethicists and philosophers, will be necessary if we ever want to even come close to a satisfactory decision.
The university is hosting a "Primate Research Debate" at 7 p.m. on March 15 at the Memorial Union-which is a good start. But the only two featured speakers will be someone directly representing the pro-research end of the spectrum, and someone else representing Alliance for Animals . While they should certainly enjoy spots at the table, wouldn't a more diverse and somewhat less directly invested line-up be more appropriate?
Alec S. over at The Sconz agrees , and points out that the UW's philosophy department is "one of the best in the English speaking world." Indeed, when it comes to something as controversial and morally ambiguous as the use of non-human primates in scientific and medical research, why half-ass it?
The UW should, if they're confident in their practices, welcome such rigorous questioning and debate. Especially after the program was cited last year for multiple federal animal welfare violations and ordered to fix several other related problems by the National Institutes of Health, you'd think transparency and due-diligence would be the keys to their plan of action in the future. C'mon UW, step it up.
Worth watching
I'm in the process of doing some research on this for the next installment of Emily's Post, due in this Thursday, but in the meantime it's more than worth taking a look at recent efforts by AT&T and other telecom companies to further deregulate themselves . They're being aided and abetted, so far as I can tell, by several state Democratic legislators. The whole thing smells terrible.
On a somewhat related note, Madison is currently vying to be one of the first cities to get Google's new ultra-high-speed fiber optic internet project. If we got this, it would be great for both business and the population in general. Mayor Dave is already on it from the city level, but you can also nominate Madison as a regular citizen. Everyone loves a diet high in fiber.
