Friday Night Fun and Culture: Rene Marie

Funny how things work out I sort of had plans to put up something tonight by one of my favorite Jazz ladies, a rarity because she plays an instrument (the piano) rather than being a vocalist.

Then Tina and I went out to run some errands and Chet Baker was on the XM Real Jazz station singing, “Funny Valentine” in that mellow as codeine cough syrup voice of his and blowing some warm full honey golden horn.

On the way home after dinner Real Jazz had:  A Night At Dizzy’s Club Coca-Cola: Rene Marie

Prior to this I was unfamiliar with Rene Marie.  She is someone who should be better known, a real gem in a world of shiny plastic baubles.

As for the lady I was going to feature… Maybe some Saturday night jazz piano is in this Blog’s future.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Friday Night Fun and Culture: Rene Marie

A Lesson in Spin: Minimizing the Issue

From Dented Blue Mercedes:

By Mercedes Allen
March 13, 2012

Reposted with permission

I’ve been thinking on doing a few brief posts on seeing through spin, considering the growing escalation of techniques in Canada, which mirror an epidemic of it in the U.S.  While my examples tend to look at the far-right, no one side of the social discussion is entirely innocent of spin — although in my experience, some far right sources are guilty of deliberate total obfuscation in a way that few other news and media sources can parallel.

Anyone who writes generates spin. The moment you write, you’re selecting the words you use in order to maximize their effectiveness.  I do it, although I hyperlink everything relentlessly (whether the source is from the right wing or left), so that readers can make up their minds for themselves whether they agree.  But some deliberately omit, manipulate, relabel, cherry-pick, distort and change facts to try to make them fit a specific perspective is another issue entirely.  This was seen vividly recently in one pseudo-news outlet’s attempt to brush off LGB people as comprising 1.5% of the population.

A Lesson in Spin: Minimizing the Issue.

One technique a social group will use to manipulate perceptions about a debate is to minimize the issue by making the people negatively affected sound so marginal as to be “unimportant” — which is dubious in itself, but it tends to resonate with those readers who aren’t directly impacted in some way, and seduces people into viewing marginalization as inconsequential.  It’s especially expedient for anti-gay groups to minimize the number of LGB people lately, in order to excuse their opposition to anti-bullying initiatives that are inclusive of sexual orientation, with the reasoning that it doesn’t really help kids to discourage anti-gay bullying, anyway, and instead might somehow indoctrinate them to become gay like an inoculation gone awry.

The 1.5%

A stark example is LifeSiteNews’ favorite recent statistic that pegs the prevalence of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as being one and a half percent of the Canadian population.

They cite Statistics Canada, and when you hear Statistics Canada, you immediately think “census.”  That would seem to make it authoritative, wouldn’t it?  The only problem is that most heterosexual Canadians (those who don’t barricade themselves in predominatly LGB-hostile environments, anyway) know far more than that among their own circles of friends, family and acquaintances… so something’s obviously skewed.

Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 and 1953 publications provided the first comprehensive data gathering on LGB men and women, concluding that:

  • 37% of males and 13% of females had at least some overt homosexual experience to orgasm;
  • 10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. For females, Kinsey reported a range of 2-6% for more or less exclusively homosexual experience/response.
  • 4% of males and 1-3% of females had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of the interview.

Several reassessments of that data have been made (a number of them discussed at the above link), with most results ranging from 4% of men and under 1% of women up to 35% of men and 20% of women.  Conclusive statistics have proven impossible to gather, due to variances in the environment in which questions are asked, the changing social climate within which they’re asked, whether the survey sample is an accurate cross-section of society or skewed by those participating.  There are also usually problems with the question which results in apples-versus-oranges comparisons of data: for example, the differences between “do you identify as gay” (i.e. self-selection) versus “have you had sexual experiences with a partner of the same sex” (pleasurability optional, i.e. incidence), versus “have you experienced attraction to someone of the same sex” (i.e. prevalence), versus using a benchmark of orgasm and/or attraction (both of which can change over a person’s lifetime), versus “do you consider yourself exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual” (i.e. value judgement that may vary from one respondent to another) — and that’s before getting into the really muddled range of bisexual, pansexual and/or omnisexual experience that is sometimes erased altogether or alternately annexed into one side of the question or another.  Add to this the fear of being branded gay or lesbian (or even accepting oneself as gay, lesbian or bisexual) that some still experience, and data becomes a quagmire.  Some of these surveys also attempt to include transsexuality and transgenderism, which aren’t sexual orientations at all, and can raise questions for researchers about who is the same sex or the opposite sex.

People tend to accept the idea that gay and lesbian populations range around ten percent of a population, although it tends to vary whether or not that is a figure that includes bisexual people.  Subsequent statistics have tended to be near that number (ranging from 6 to 14 percent), but because of the stigmas associated with sexual minorities (witness the number of anti-gay public figures who turn out to be gay), it’s suspected that the actual number could be higher.

In using their 1.5% number, LSN likes to undermine Kinsey’s and any other derivative research this way:

“Dr. Judith Reisman, a professor at Liberty University School of Law, debunked the 10% myth first proposed by psychologist Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey, she found, drew heavily on prison inmates and frequenters of homosexual bars for his surveys, though he presented them as indicative of the general population.  Moreover, evidence suggests Kinsey’s research on infants subjected the children to sexual torture.”

For the moment, we’ll need to overlook the fact that the Liberty University School of Law is the theological institution founded by Jerry Falwell as Lynchburg Baptist College in 1971 and has a long legacy of anti-gay activism.  There was some inflated numbers of prisoners and frequenters of gay bars in some of Kinsey’s original work.  What is being omitted here though is that Paul Gebhard poured through Kinsey’s data to remove these respondents, and in 1979 with Alan Johnson published The Kinsey Data, which reduced Kinsey’s original numbers slightly, but not dramatically (i.e. Kinsey’s original 37% number was revised down to 36.4%).  Non-theological sources have tended to favour a ten percent number, which they usually find more consistent with their own research.

Here’s LSN’s assertion of the number, most recently in an article attacking The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P, which LSN regularly tries to assert authority over) for agreeing with the generally-accepted 10% statistic:

The figure, according to experts, is a gross exaggeration pushed by homosexual activists with a view to normalizing homosexuality.  Statistics Canada reports the prevalence in the country of homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals to be 1.5% of the population.

If you follow the link you arrive at a Statistics Canada page not about census data, but about a 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) on victimization, which looked at the intersection between sexual orientation and victimization (sexual assault, physical assault, armed robbery, personal theft, vandalism, break-and-enter).  In a footnote, we learn that 5% of respondents to the GSS declined to state their sexual orientation.  A second footnote acknowledges the difficulty in deriving accurate numbers with a smaller survey (the GSS was voluntarily answered by 362,000 Canadians).

It’s also worth noting that in 2004, Canada’s social climate toward gays and lesbians was not as open as it is today — in fact, it was in the year leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage, which (while a win) was preceded by several anti-gay campaigns to “defend marriage” and portray LGB people as a terrible threat to mainstream society.

Nevertheless, the 2004 GSS provides what is probably the lowest-appearing number available from an authoritative body in Canada, so it’s ripe for cherry-picking.  This is just one way that a majority can use a minority’s fear and invisibility to further marginalize that minority.

In the meantime, if you’re given statistics that are markedly different from your own experiences in everyday life, don’t be afraid to dig a little deeper.

(crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on A Lesson in Spin: Minimizing the Issue

Mitt Romney: Wrong for Women & Wrong for Illinois

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Mitt Romney: Wrong for Women & Wrong for Illinois

An Unethical Alliance? Catholic Bishops Behind Susan G. Komen Foundation Fiasco

From RH Reality Check:

by Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief, RH Reality Check
March 15, 2012

On February 8th, during the height of the controversy that erupted when the Susan G. Komen Foundation suddenly decided to cut ties to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on “Religious Liberty, Politics and Women’s Health Care.”  Among the guests was Anthony Picarello, General Counsel of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Though I listened carefully to the entire program, my ears perked up particularly when Picarello made a comment on breast cancer in response to a question raised by Rehm about the Komen-PPFA fiasco to all three guests on the show:

Basically, what’s happened is the health care reform law provides for preventive services. That includes preventive services for women. The idea is to get out ahead of diseases with prevention, things like mammograms.

Picarello was doing two things here. One was to continue the Bishops false and medically- inaccurate claim that contraceptive care is not “preventive health care.” The other was to claim that mammograms are a breast cancer prevention strategy. They are not. In fact they are no more a prevention strategy than an x-ray is a prevention strategy for a broken bone. They are a diagnostic tool. Having a mammogram won’t prevent any breast cancer; it can however detect it.

But the reason that this comment caught my attention was that this was the exact argument Komen was making about its decision on Planned Parenthood… because it wanted to go back to focusing on “mammograms.”  I wrote about the false mammogram excuse here.

Continue reading at:

Sign-ups for Fort Worth Komen race lag after Planned Parenthood flap

From The Dallas Morning News:

Published: 14 March 2012

Registrations for Fort Worth’s annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure are lagging well behind the normal pace, a fact Komen officials attribute in part to the recent flap over the breast cancer fundraiser’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Only 2,100 people have signed up for the April 14 race, down 43 percent from 3,700 at this point last year, officials said. If the trend continues, the Fort Worth affiliate would lose out on nearly $360,000 used for screenings, treatment and education.

“If it stays slow, it translates into fewer mammograms,” said Jennifer Wersal, the Fort Worth affiliate’s race and communications manager. “It’s a huge impact, and it really will affect people who already have trouble affording mammograms.”

The sluggish sign-up rate is one of the first public signs of lingering fallout from Komen’s emotional and high-profile dispute with Planned Parenthood, a nationwide provider of women’s health services, including abortions.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on An Unethical Alliance? Catholic Bishops Behind Susan G. Komen Foundation Fiasco

Woman Hating Republican Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Governor, On Ultrasound Mandate: Just ‘Close Your Eyes’

From Huffington Post:

Posted: 03/15/2012

During a discussion of a far-reaching mandatory ultrasound bill, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) on Wednesday dismissed off-handedly the insinuation that the measure goes too far, saying, “You just have to close your eyes.”

Corbett reaffirmed his support for the “Women’s Right to Know” Act, which would require doctors to perform an ultrasound on a patient, offer her two personalized copies of the image and play and describe fetal heartbeat in detail before she can have an abortion — “as long as it’s not obtrusive.”

He did not indicate whether or not he considered a transvaginal ultrasound to be an intrusive procedure, which the bill would require doctors to perform on a woman whose fetus is not developed enough to be visible by a regular, “jelly-on-the-belly” ultrasound.

Asked if he thinks the bill goes too far to make a woman look at the ultrasound image, Corbett responded, “You can’t make anybody watch, okay? Because you just have to close your eyes. As long as it’s on the exterior and not the interior.”

Pennsylvania’s ultrasound bill, unlike the revised version passed in Virginia, does not specify a type of ultrasound, so the doctor will have to use an “interior” procedure for most first-trimester abortions in order to meet the requirements of the law.

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Woman Hating Republican Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Governor, On Ultrasound Mandate: Just ‘Close Your Eyes’

Woman Hating Republican Bob McDonnell: Turning Back the Clock on Women’s Health

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Woman Hating Republican Bob McDonnell: Turning Back the Clock on Women’s Health

GOP led Wisconsin legislature votes to ban private abortion coverage

From Raw Story:

By Andrew Jones
Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The Republican led Wisconsin assembly voted to ban private insurance coverage for abortions and mandate abstinence-only sex education classes Wednesday morning, according to The Green Bay Post Gazette.

The Assembly voted 61-34 Tuesday evening to ban abortion coverage from a health insurance exchange set up by the Affordable Care Act in 2014. The federal law allows states the option to prohibit abortion coverage under the exchange, set up primarily by individuals and small businesses to buy health insurance coverage. Plans offered in the exchange would only cover abortions under the terms of the Hyde Amendment (rape, incest or when the health of the mother is at risk).

Rep. Donna Seidel (D) chastised Republicans for not focusing on the economy and creating jobs, feeling Wisconsin’s residents would be disappointment with the assembly’s focus.

“They feel let down,” Seidel said. “And what are we doing in these last hours to get that important work done? We are arguing about advancing an extreme social agenda that is nothing about that.”

Continue reading at:

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on GOP led Wisconsin legislature votes to ban private abortion coverage