Quote of the Day

THIS.

As some of you may know, I live in North Carolina.  This bill is a travesty.  It not only denies protection by the state, it legally strips away all local laws created to protect and assist LGBT (particularly trans) citizens.  If you follow me on twitter, I made it very clear how unacceptable this is to me.

North Carolina voted Barack Obama into office and elected a female governor and senator from the democratic party eight years ago and since then the Republican party has gerrymandered districts, passed a law requiring state id's to vote, and passed every anti LGBT bill that's come across their desks.

It's time to fight back.  If you are not a bigot, you have eight months to get your state id and voter registration sorted out, because no single person who voted for this bill should be allowed to keep their seat.

Let me make a few things very clear:

If you do not vote in this election in North Carolina, you are implicated in the ruining of the lives of LGBT people.  You are a party to the discrimination against and assaults on trans people in NC.  You are the one holding the gun.

And if you decide not to show up at the election because you are unhappy with the democratic presidential candidate that the DNC chooses, you are guilty of bigotry and hypocrisy.  I know there are some of you out there that are very salty that it looks like Hillary is going to win and I'm no huge Hillary fan, but if you've been telling every person you meet about how Bernie Sanders supports the LGBT community and you don't show up to support the LGBT community, you are a hypocrite." ~ Princeless

This law was pushed through in an "emergency" session yesterday because the city of Charlotte, NC passed local ordinances supporting trans and LBGT+ rights.

This law was introduced, voted on, and passed in 12 hours in direct response to the largest city in North Carolina wanting to do right by its community.

"Bathroom defense" is bullshit. There have been no reported incidents of assault being perpetrated on women in restrooms by trans men ever. The more I read, the more infuriated I become, and at this point I'm convinced that—as usual—the republicans are projecting again. Projecting about sex in bathrooms? Yes. Because I would venture to say that a vast majority of those fucksticks know all about bathroom sex, and it doesn't involve women at all.

Vote. In. Your. Goddamn. Local. Elections.

Thankfully major corporations who are on the side of equality are speaking up. Can Atlanta really afford to lose Coca Cola or The Walking Dead?

What these sad "religious liberty" laws are pointing out more than anything else—much like what happened with marriage equality itself—is the need for Federal LGBT protections—and ironically that may be the unintended consequence that comes from all this, proving if nothing else that the Christianists' invisible friend in the sky has one wicked sense of humor.

And speaking of unintended consequences…

Quote of the Day

Sorry, guys, but the right spent decades blowing dog whistles. Now that you've got a candidate who has graduated from a dog whistle to a bull horn, you shouldn't be surprised when some of his supporters decide that thank God it's time to stop being politically correct and fling out fascistic symbolism in this new, accepting environment. Disavowal is difficult when the difference between Trump's tactics and the ones the right has been using for numerous election cycles is in degree, not kind. You get to own this one. Enjoy it." ~ John Scalzi

Like A Tweeker High on Meth, Furiously Masturbating…

…but just can't cum:

A Florida congressman has introduced a new bill that would forbid federal agencies from purchasing Apple products until the company cooperates with the federal court order to assist the unlocking of a seized iPhone 5C associated with the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

In a statement released on Thursday, Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) blasted Apple.

"Taxpayers should not be subsidizing a company that refuses to cooperate in a terror investigation that left 14 Americans dead on American soil," he said. "Who did the terrorist talk to? Who did he message with? Did he go to a safe house? Is there information on the phone that might prevent a future attack on US soil? Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, every citizen and every company was willing to do whatever it took to side with law enforcement and defeat terror. It's time Apple shows that same conviction to further protect our nation today."

Last month, Apple was given a controversial court order to create a customized firmware that would enable investigators to brute force a seized iPhone 5C and get past its passcode. Apple has vowed to fight the order in court, and the company is set to appear before a judge later this month.

At least for now, Jolly's bill is unlikely to advance very far in a Congress that can barely agree on the time of day; GovTrack gives it a 1 percent chance of passage.

[Source]

Quote of the Day

How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion—mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, and an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with woman and healthcare. I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?"

Frightened, Ignorant and Cowardly is No Way to Go Through Life, Son

From John Scalzi:

So, this week.

The last few days are a reminder that a large number of Americans are in fact shrieking, bigoted cowards, and that's a sad thing, indeed.

Seriously, I don't think the bedwetting about Muslims has been this bad in a very long time, which is saying something, and the panic on Syrian refugees is particularly ridiculous. Here's a nice, juicy quote from a just released essay on the subject:

Of the 859,629 refugees admitted from 2001 onwards, only three have been convicted of planning terrorist attacks on targets outside of the United States and none was successfully carried out.  That is one terrorism-planning conviction for a refugee for every 286,543 of them who have been admitted.  To put that in perspective, about 1 in every 22,541 Americans committed murder in 2014.  The terrorist threat from Syrian refugees in the United States is hyperbolically over-exaggerated and we have very little to fear from them because the refugee vetting system is so thorough…

The security threat posed by refugees in the United States is insignificant.  Halting America's processing of refugees due to a terrorist attack in another country that may have had one asylum-seeker as a co-plotter would be an extremely expensive overreaction to very minor threat.

What horrifyingly liberal commie soviet came up with this load of codswallop? The Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch, i.e., the fellow who with his brother is currently trying to buy the entire right side of the political spectrum for his own personal ends. When the Cato Institute is telling you to maybe take down the pearl-clutching over the Syrian refugees a notch or two, it's an indication that you've lost all perspective.

It's been particularly embarrassing how the mostly-but-not-exclusively (and thankfully not all-encompassing) GOP/conservative politician freakout about the Syrian refugees points out that, why, hello, bigotry really is a thing, still. From small-town mayors declaring that FDR had it right when he put all those US citizens of Japanese descent into camps to presidential candidates alluding that might not actually be a bad idea to make special IDs exclusively for Muslims here in the US, to the House of Representatives passing a bill to piss on the Syrian refugees, it's been a banner week for bigotry here in the US, enough so that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum took the extraordinary step of issuing a statement of concern with reference to the Syrian refugees. And as many have noted, there is irony in the freakout about Syrian refugees coming into a season which celebrates a notable middle eastern family who famously were refugees at one point in their history, according to some tales.

But as this asshole politician said this week, "Mary and Jesus didn't have suicide bomb vests strapped on them, and these folks do." Well, no, they don't. Leaving aside that the perpetrators on the attacks in Paris all appeared to live in Europe to begin with, the actual process for placing refugees in new countries is so long and arduous and so selective, with just 1% of applicants being placed, that (as the Cato Institute astutely notes) there's a vanishingly small chance that someone with ill intent will make it through the process at all — and an even smaller chance that they would be assigned to the US when all the vetting is done. To worry about terrorists in the refugee pool is, flatly, stupid — no terrorist organization is going to pour resources into an avenue with such a small chance of success, especially when it's easier to apply for a friggin' visa and get on a plane (they can buy their guns when they get here, don't you know). The reasons why so many people are voiding their bowels about it are simple: Ignorance, racism, xenophobia and bigotry.

"But people are scared!" Okay, and? Being scared may be the excuse for abandoning all sense and reason in the moment one is actively under attack; it's not even close to a reasonable excuse for, thousands of miles away from an attack and with no immediate threat on the horizon, vilifying innocent co-religionists of the attackers and plotting to slam the door on refugees running from the very people who claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks. Taking the Paris attacks out on Syrian refugees is security theater — it doesn't make us safer, it'll just make the most ignorant among us feel safer. It's the TSA of solutions to the Daesh/ISIS problem.

This has been a bad week for the United States, folks. France was directly attacked by terrorists and its response was to promise to house 30,000 Syrian refugees; we weren't and one branch of our government fell over itself to put the brakes on accepting a third of that number. France is defying the very organization that attacked it while we, on the other hand, are doing exactly what that organization hoped we would do. We're being the cowardly bigots they hoped we would be, and as loudly as possible.

So congratulations, America. We've successfully wrested the title of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" from France. Enjoy it.

I am Reminded…

…of a certain Calvin & Hobbes strip from long before any of this Middle East bullshit was even a gleam in Dick Cheney's eye, but it seems even more relevant today than when it was published in 1995:

In the most deadpan voice I can muster, "Oh no. We are all going to die."

Oh No He Di'n't!

Oh yes he did. What an fuckin' ASSHOLE.

From AMERICAblog:

In a lengthy interview with Yahoo News, Trump promised to deport Syrian refugees who are already in this country, doubled down on his promise to monitor mosques and, when pressed by Yahoo News as to what other drastic actions he would take, expressed an openness to warrantless and widespread surveillance on the general Muslim population:

Donald Trump's historical precedent, via Wikimedia Commons

"We're going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule," Trump said. "And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we're going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn't rule it out.

Trump didn't elaborate on whether the "form of special identification" could be, say, a yellow crescent that every Muslim would be required to sew into their clothing. But he may as well have. I'm a big proponent of reserving Hitler comparisons for the most extreme circumstances, but this is one of them. Donald Trump just pulled a policy proposal straight out of the Nuremberg Laws.

What's more, unless he's called on it, he's going to say something worse tomorrow. Since the attacks in Paris, Trump has been inching further and further toward advocating for open fascism. First he said we should "seriously consider" closing mosques associated with extreme clerics. When that claim didn't hurt him, he went a step further, saying we have "absolutely no choice" but to close them. He's going to keep going back to the anti-Muslim bigotry well until the Republican base signals for him to stop. And they've shown no intention of doing so.

Yesterday, we heard an elected official say that Japanese internment wasn't actually that bad of an idea. Now we have the frontrunner for the Republican nomination seriously considering a policy that was one of the defining characteristics of pre-war Nazi Germany. All over a contrived threat and an irrational bout of Islamophobia.

America needs to chill the hell out. This is going south fast.

Quote of the Day

Religious pluralism in U.S. foreign policy predates our own Constitution. Which, by the way, makes no reference to God.

There is no doubt that the Islamic State poses a threat to the Western world, including the U.S., its allies and global interests. Still, we needn't turn this campaign against terrorists into something that it isn't—a holy war. Doing doesn't just go against the First Amendment, but it also runs counter to everything our founders tried to establish.

Cruz, Bush, Kasich and others that would have American foreign policy end with "in Jesus name amen" are foolish and, as President Obama would correctly say, un-American.

Suffice it to say that they either don't understand America's history with regards to religious pluralism here and abroad, or they've chosen to ignore it." ~ Chris Walker at AMERICAblog

Apple Is Right To Stand Firm On Encryption However Much Terrorist Attacks Ramp Up The Pressure

From 9to5Mac:

Nobody who watched the news coverage of the terrorist attacks in Paris could fail to be moved by the scenes and the stories emerging from it. It was undeniably a horrific series of events, and it's only human nature to want action to be taken to reduce the likelihood of future such atrocities.

But there is always a danger at such times that emotion, rather than rational thought, will drive government policy-making. I won't get into the broader theme there, as there are more appropriate forums for that, but there is one aspect that is very much on-topic for us: the battle between Apple and governments over encryption.

There have already been unattributed reports that the terrorists in Paris used encrypted communication. I have no idea whether there is any specific evidence for that, but it would hardly be damning were such evidence to emerge: it would be frankly astonishing if they hadn't.

There are three reasons why Apple is right to maintain that it will continue to offer end-to-end encrypted communication no matter how much governments in the USA, UK and elsewhere may protest… 

But let's begin with a reminder of Apple's position. Apple uses end-to-end encryption for both iMessages and FaceTime. As Tim Cook told Charlie Rose last year, this means that it would be impossible for it to decrypt the messages even if a government insisted.

"We're not reading your email, we're not reading your iMessages. If the government laid a subpoena on us to get your iMessages, we can't provide it. It's encrypted and we don't have the key."

The company also introduced strong encryption for iPhones and iPads in iOS 8 so that it would againbe impossible for the company to break into the device locked with a passcode.

So Apple is going further here than most companies. It is not just saying it would push back against government pressure to reveal user data, it is saying that it has deliberately arranged things so that it is completely unable to do so.

That's a strong position, and there's some pretty heavy-duty opposition to it – including the United States Attorney General, the FBI, the DOJ and other law-enforcement agencies. Among the claims you'll find in those links are that Apple is putting people beyond the law, risking the life of a child and that the iPhone would be the terrorists' "communication device of choice." Since the Paris attacks, the Homeland Security Committee and CIA have joined in.

So what are the three reasons that I still think Apple's position is right?

First, there is nothing new about having to balance out the conflicting demands of freedom and security. Or, to use Benjamin Franklin's terms, liberty and safety.

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We live in a world where it would be technologically feasible to ensure that virtually no crime could go undetected. We could fit CCTV cameras on every street, in every home, in every building. We could all have trackers embedded beneath our skin. We could force everyone to provide both fingerprints and DNA samples to hold in a global database. We could make it illegal to fit curtains or blinds to windows. And so on.

We don't do any of these things because we value freedom and privacy, and we consider that the risks involved are a price worth paying for the ability to live our lives free from tyranny and surveillance.

The Snowden revelations woke the world to the extent to which we'd already headed down this slippery slope, and the general view of the population has been that indiscriminate mass surveillance is a step too far. We take the view that wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance will of course be necessary to facilitate investigations by police and security services, but that such surveillance should be both targeted and subject to judicial oversight.

Second, Apple is absolutely right to say that the moment you build in a backdoor for use by governments, it will only be a matter of time before hackers figure it out.

You cannot have an encryption system which is only a little bit insecure any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. Encryption systems are either secure or they're not – and if they're not then it's a question of when, rather than if, others are able to exploit the vulnerability.

Couple a deliberately weakened form of encryption to laws requiring Internet service providers and telecoms companies to stockpile large volumes of user data and you'd create the biggest goldmine the world has ever seen for criminals to commit identity theft and other forms of fraud. Not just private enterprise criminals, either, but rogue nations too.

Think how cautious we have to be today. We've all received convincing-looking phishing emails in amongst the laughable ones. Most of us these days, when we receive a phone call claiming to be from a bank, take their name, hang up and then call them back on the main switchboard number. Just imagine how much more paranoid we'd have to be if a fraudster could 'prove' that they are the claimed bank or other company by providing some transaction data.

A world in which all of our data is 'protected' by encryption systems with loopholes would be a nightmare.

Third, it won't work. It's technological illiteracy to imagine that breaking encrypted messages is any kind of solution.

Do governments seriously imagine that if we pass laws banning fully-encrypted communications that terrorists would suddenly abandon them and use the new, deliberately weakened versions? Or if doing so drew too much attention to them that they wouldn't find other ways to hide their communications?

Steganography, for example. It's technically trivial to embed hidden messages inside what appears to be a perfectly ordinary family photo in such a way that it's almost impossible to detect. There are literally scores of apps to do that, and that's just a single method. There are almost endless numbers of ways to disguise messages.

As Tim Cook has said:

"We shouldn't give in to scare-mongering or to people who fundamentally don't understand the details."

So weakening encryption would mean sacrificing core principles of civilized societies in the name of security. It would provide not just our own government but foreign governments and criminals with access to our data. And it would do absolutely nothing to prevent terrorists from communicating in secret.

There is not one single reason for Apple to give in to government pressure to abandon its stance on customer privacy, and three very good reasons for it not to.

Do you agree? Or do you think that governments are right to insist that security must take precedence over privacy?

[polldaddy poll="9185497"]

How to Fight Terrorism

From Skeptic Ink:

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, many are asking how we should fight terrorism. I think this is an important question and I have a really good answer for it.

First, let us be clear here. While obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, the fact is that the terrorists that attacked Paris were Muslims and when we think about terrorism around the world today, most people are thinking about Muslim terrorists (i.e. terrorists claiming to be inspired my the religion of Islam). Republicans and hawkish Democrats want to wage war on the Arab world. The conventional wisdom is to use drone strikes, train foreign fighters, put boots on the ground, and create no-fly zones. Some have even promoted the idea of torturing Muslims for information (Dick Cheney, I'm looking at you).

I think all of those things are bad ideas. They are strategies that have proven not only ineffective, but counter-productive. Those courses of action have only created more extremists and have pushed moderates into joining the cause of extremism. These are the very strategies that created the Islamic State (ISIS) and have allowed them to recruit less extremists to their extremist cause.

What I am suggesting is to take the gloves off. I don't mean that we should let loose with military might, but instead to let loose with the might of logic and reason. We can't be afraid to spread the reality that Allah is imaginary and that Mohammad was not a prophet. Instead of dropping bombs, we should be dropping facts about reality. We should be out there pointing out the scientific and logical problems with the Muslim religion.

But we can't do that because if we point out the absurdity of the Muslim religion, we would also be pointing out the absurdity of the Christian and Jewish religions. I'm fine with that, but most of the people in our country are not. As a result, we are forced to wear kid gloves and not offend our own population. This prevents us from using our best weapon against terrorism.

The fact is that terrorists around the world would be far less likely to be terrorists if they were no longer religious. In fact, atheism is the cure not just for terrorism, but for a lot of social problems here in America too. There would be far less homophobia and bigotry in America if Christians stopped being Christian. Issues like Climate Change, women's rights, etc. are all propagated by religion. We could drastically reduce the opposition to these issues if we just got religious believers to stop believing in religion.

So here we have a cure not only for many of society's problems but also the current wave of terrorism around the globe. All we have to do is convince people that their deity of choice is imaginary and that their ancient superstitions don't match up with reality. Unfortunately, because of the superstitious beliefs of many in our own country, we are prevented from even trying.

Susie Bright on the Sex-Obsessed Paris ISIS Manifesto

From Towleroad (emphasis mine):

Voila, the "manifesto" of the Paris suicide bombers, in their own words.

Their obsession with sexual revenge, the revenge of the sexually rejected, is intense: They referred to the Bataclan nightclub as a place where where hundreds of "apostates" had gathered in a "profligate prostitution party"—that means a rock concert.

Bohemian Paris is on top of ISIS' target list because it is the country of "obscenity and perversity." Again, it's Paris' mythic reputation for the libertine, for free sexual exchange, for romance and unashamed ecstasy.

This "faith army," this death cult built on sexual repression masked as religious purity—has a detailed manual about how to run a sex-slave market of their war captives, including rules of inheritance. Essentially, you can't be a soldier in their army unless you buy into the faith that beautiful women everywhere are taunting and rejecting you, but you will teach them all a lesson by enslaving and raping them all day long—same with young boys. Everything "depraved" is holy when you're inflicting it upon a slave—makes perfect sense, right?

At some point your Grand Wizard arranges a marriage with an appointed virgin your parents picked out for her dowry. She is of no erotic interest; she is a nonperson except as your baby-receptacle and income source. Siring sons is her husbandry.

Meanwhile, you monitor all the women's menstrual cycles and the puberty of the young boys and girls in your slave pen so you can be sure to rape the right person on the most advantageous day, repeatedly shouting God's name when you come.

VOMIT. Vomit. Vomit.

Every fundamentalist religion today is running on the fumes of sexual psychosis. They are huffing and huffing and huffing until they annihilate everything including themselves.

Terrorism Works

From Gawker:

Terrorism persists because terrorism works. Terrorism works because we let it.

It takes a great deal of violence to wipe out an army. But it only takes a tiny bit of violence to instill a sense of fear in a population. Terrorism is not meant to conquer through force; it is meant to conquer through fear.

How did you feel when you heard that men with machine guns had murdered a dozen people at a French newspaper because they did not like its political content? Angry. Afraid. Those of us in the media felt these twin emotions most of all. "I am shaking with rage at the attack on Charlie Hebdo," wrote the New York Times' Roger Cohen. "It's an attack on the free world. The entire free world should respond, ruthlessly."

Rage and fear. These are the twin goals of terrorists. And terrorism is wonderfully effective at achieving these goals. All of our rhetoric about bravery and freedom and honor and Settled Determination to Push Forward After This Tragedy rarely adds up to anything more than rage and fear. Our responses to terrorism are based on rage and fear. Because of this, terrorism works.

The attacks of September 11 were a spectacular success. Is there any other honest interpretation? They were a success not because of the Americans they killed that day, but because we chose to spend the next decade mired in hopeless, counterproductive global wars that cost us trillions of dollars and killed thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Terrorists wanted to show the world that we were brutal and unjust, and we did our best to help them do that. Terrorists wanted a war, and we gave them one. And we lost. We lost by giving them the stupid, fearful, angry response that they wanted.

Two men with a rifle paralyze Washington, DC for weeks. Two men with a couple of homemade bombs paralyze Boston for days. One man on a plane witha dud bomb packed inside his boots has an entire nation taking off its shoes at the airport for years to come. A small group of religious zealots send three U.S. presidential administrations down a nightmarish rabbithole of drone war, torture, and total surveillance of the citizenry.

Terrorism works. Against us, terrorism works very, very well. Our collective insistence on treating terrorist acts as something categorically different than crime—as something harder to understand, something scarier, something perpetrated not by humans but by monsters—feeds the ultimate goals of terrorists. It makes us dumb. It makes us primitive. It is our boogeyman, and no amount of rational talk will drive it out of our minds.

Terrorists who despise freedom of speech shoot up a satirical magazine. How do we respond? We respond with fear, by censoring ourselves and refusing to showthe very images that prompted the attack in the first place. (Nothing new about that—the free press has demonstrated its cowardice on this issue for years now.) We respond with rage, by condemning all of Islam and instinctively calling for a response violent enough to dwarf the violence of the initial attack. We cower in fear and cry for war. We countenance any countermeasure as long as it will keep us safe. We let the ideal we once proclaimed so strongly sink into a pool of terror, and drown.

Sound familiar? It is always the way. We are richer, and mightier, and far more deadly than any of our terrorist foes could dream of being. And yet we happily play into their hands. We declare a "War on Terror" of our own making, an absurd construct with no possible victory. We overreact so harshly to every injury that our reputation as bullies and savages is confirmed. We allowourselves to be cowed by fear. We allow ourselves to be rendered senseless by rage. The terrorist lays the bait, and we give him the terror he seeks. The terrorist may be the criminal, but we are the hapless suckers who make his act worthwhile.

Terrorism works. But it does not have to. Terrorism reduces us to the sort of society that we claim to despise. But it does not have to. The ideals we espouse when times are calm—justice, understanding, rationality, proportionality, a love of peace—are the ones that we must cling to most tightly when things get scary. If we discard them, we have lost the game from the start.

We cannot control the terrorist. We can only control our response. Let that response be just, and wise, and proportional. Let that response embody the best of who we are, and not the worst. Terror is momentary. A loss of our ideals can last forever.

(Another) Quote of the Day

So when people like Huckabee and Cruz come to Davis's defense, they're not standing for religious liberties. They're advocating for someone's ability to use her role as a government official to impose her religion on others, including people on her own staff, in a way that discriminates against same-sex couples. If that doesn't violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution, I'm not sure what does." ~ German Lopez

Quote of the Day

No one is being jailed for practicing her religion. Someone's being jailed for using the government to force others to practice her religion." ~ Rachael Held Evans