Those who do so from ignorance or an excess of passion are deserving of only a slightly lesser degree of scorn.

In some era’s one group or another is more influential or turns up a winner to a greater extent than others. Frequently achieving that is not accomplished through the distribution of fairy dust and exhibition of noble character – history is a tale of chicanery, violence, tragedy, and tears interspersed with brief moments of triumph of the human spirit and even more rarely of virtue.

Trying to use history to validate or denigrate any particular group deprives us of histories most important lessons – the “gee, that was a good idea” or “hrm, we should NEVER EVER do that” moments that history offers so we may advance as a species and perhaps avoid the worst of our moments as a species.

To only tell part, or to disproportionately emphasize or deprecate of any part of history is to steal that knowledge and experience from us all.

Having run across this report over at Slashdot, I then ran across a poster who seemed determined to play the ad hominem game. Given that I favor LGBT folk having the same rights as everyone else, and object to ad hominem and name calling as argumentative techniques…a fisking seemed called for – enjoy.

As a gay man, I find the very concept of barring such anti-discrimination policies offensive. However, before we really get the bandwagon rolling, what say we ask a couple of questions:

1) What have past Virginia AG’s advised cities, towns, and political subdivisions regarding non-discrimination policy generally and LGBT affecting law specifically? What was their reasoning? What is Cucinelli’s?

2) Do, in fact, any provisions exist in Virginia statute or state constitutional provision that a competent attorney would be compelled to advise his client (the Universities and colleges) that such a policy (and thus they) are in violation of, or potentially might reasonably to be argued to be in violation of?

3) Given the increasing evidence that at least some portions of the “Global Warming” theory are based on spurious or manufactured evidence (without addressing in any way whether or not anthropogenic global warming valid as a theory or in any way a verifiable phenomenon), is it not the duty of a sitting AG when the question is raised about whether the science and research paid for on the public dime might be fraudulent, to then investigate such questions – and if a preponderance of evidence shows that fraud was committed on the public dime, is it then not the duty of said Attorney General to prosecute the perpetrator of the fraud and misuse of state funds to the full extent of the law?

(For the newbs, in most instances this would mean an affirmative answer to : Did Mann knowingly publish false or misleading results? If so, were state funds used in producing/creating/obtaining such false data?)

4) Aside from Cucinelli as a common factor does the University policy issue have anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of the investigation of Mann and his global warming work?

To address our first question, we have but to look at Cucinelli’s advisory letter itself . He cites a number of relevant prior Virginia Attorney Generals opinions, yet notably fails to cite either constitutional or statutory provision – instead basing his reasoning on the theory that unless it is specifically permitted, that a University or other subordinate political division (from governor to rural village) may not extend or expand civil rights beyond those enumerated by the Virginia General Assembly, a body that as recently as a few weeks ago (and on 26 other occasions) has declined with varying degrees of vehemence to add sexual orientation or expression to the list of protected classes (i.e., list of things forbidden to discriminate based upon).

The actions or lack thereof of the Virginia General Assembly, notwithstanding the opinions of the current and several prior Attorney Generals of the State of Virginia, are simply irrelevant. Our fundamental legal tradition is not “whatever is not specifically permitted, is forbidden” – rather, it is “whatever is not specifically forbidden, is permitted” which undermines a basic argument of Cucinelli and his predecessors.

Further, as demonstrated in a long line of prior cases, subordinate political divisions may extend MORE civil rights protections, but never less than those extended by their respective superior bodies, subject to the provisions of the prior paragraph.

Since the Virginia General Assembly has, to the best of my knowledge, never barred subordinate bodies from extending such protections to allege such a bar is mistaken at best, and in my opinion, malicious bigotry at worst.

To address our second question, I return to the reasoning addressed in the first. Any competent attorney would, given the opportunity, to cite clear statutory law would do so – as it would substantially strengthen their legal argument. I find the absence of such citation telling, to put it mildly and the “public policy” argument weak on the face of it. If public policy barred any action not specifically authorized by the Assembly, the various bodies and subordinate bodies would be paralyzed between legislative sessions and require constant legislative guidance.

Clearly, this is not the case. Cucinelli himself cites, in the fourth paragraph of his letter, the broad authority of Universities and Colleges to do “that which is needful” to provide for the education, safety, and welfare of students. Inarguably, allowing either favoritism towards or discrimination against faculty, students, or staff of the relevant institutions based upon their non-criminal sexual orientation or expression does not enhance the safety, welfare, or educational prospects of the students whose interests the various regents are responsible to protect.

Again, Cucinelli and his predecessors appear to stray from both common legal practice and logic when they advise their clients to refrain from enacting policies prohibiting discrimination based on lawful behavior and may, in fact, place their clients at risk of both federal and state litigation. Neither Cucinelli or his predecessors appear deserving of plaudits or rewards in their conduct in issuing such opinions. I would personally favor reprimands administered either the Virginia State Bar or the voters of the State of Virginia, or both to those still among the breathing.

Moving on to our third question, if Cucinelli or his staff are presented with reasonable cause (and at that point, little more than curiosity is required) to suspect that state funds were used for fraudulent purposes or to perpetrate a fraud, they have an obligation to investigate to the best of their ability whether such acts have taken place, and if in the face of the evidence produced by their investigation they then reasonably believe that such fraud occurred and that they have a reasonably chance of satisfying a court and jury of such, they then have an obligation to prosecute unless they can reasonably argue that such a prosecution would be contrary to the interests of the State of Virginia. An investigation of Mann seems reasonable; only time and the eventual filing (or not) of charges will demonstrate whether such an investigation was justified, specifically if those charges are affirmed before a judge and jury resulting in conviction(s).

Addressing our final question, whether or not the two issues are reasonably related as the poster implies, the answer is relatively obvious – No. The issues of LGBT Discrimination Policies and Scientific Fraud paid for with state funds are fundamentally separate from each other and the poster in question is simply engaging in an ad hominem attack – alleging that because Cucinelli did one thing that he and others (including myself) might find bad, that all things Cucinelli does are bad per se, and then goes on to engage in high-brow name-calling by referring to Cucinelli as a known espouser of conservative views.

Now, as a gay man and a conservative (Libertarian variant, small “l”) myself, I suspect I and many others on Slashdot do not find “conservative” the epithet that the poster intends. The emotive ranting of those on the right or the left bears little resemblance to reason, and merits only scathing contempt – with extra helpings of vitriol when it descends into ad hominem and name calling. Happily, Slashdot posters are usually logic and fact based and avoid such foolishness. Regrettably, in this instance, a poster failed to evade that painfully obvious intellectual trap.

I am not an attorney, and do not under any circumstances pretend to be one. No person should rely on the above as legal advice, and should consult a licensed attorney qualified to practice in the relevant state(s). The above represents only my opinion and not that of any other person or organization.

2) Exploring education (where and how well does it transfer are critical concerns).

3) Got the new battery in the truck. Have high-beams now, no low-beams. Checking fuses tomorrow.

4) Mom’s car is croaked. May stay that way, may not, but it’s time to move her to something more traditional.

5) Teaching Mom to drive a stick shift after a 50yr vacation.

6) Am hoping the “decade of excessive entertainment” is winding down.

That is all for now. Texas looks ever more charming. Bill Gates Sr is pushing for an Income Tax in WA. 800 million in new sales taxes and tariffs. And a projected 2011 deficit (again) for the state and its’ subordinate counties and municipalities – and an inability to comprehend that cuts, deep painful cuts, are necessary.

More later.

Dear Lord –

This year you took my favorite actor, Patrick Swayzie.

You took my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett.

You took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson.

I just wanted to let you know my favorite President is Barack Obama.

Amen

Seriously, if he does pass (no great loss edit. to the body politic; I am sure he has friends and family who would miss him, and did he not hold elective office, he would be essentially harmless despite his beliefs…and he’d probably even be a pleasant, if deeply misguided, conversationalist), may it be in some fashion that is utterly and undeniably of natural causes – and may the good Lord protect us all from the likes of Biden and Pelosi.

My Condolences to the families and the people of Poland for their loss. May they weather the storm, growing ever stronger in their all-to-recently renewed national identity.

GC

Thank god for Rocky Horror Picture Show, Long May It Wave!!!

And for the virgins and the veterans…find a Rocky Near You…

Regrettably, eldest niece is persuaded that vegetarianism is somehow virtuous (we all hope for her recovery), thus a great big liverwurst would likely not be appreciated by her next year.

After determining her father was likely to be the bane of her future potential boyfriends, her mother suggested that she could instead be picked up by said boyfriends over here – at which point elder niece nearly imploded with horror, as she is fully aware I’m a wee tad protective and have a far broader range of material with which to terrify a teen-aged boy into good behavior than even her rather dreadful father can summon.

In the comments section I responded to various forms of vitriol.

First, it’s a grand thing when a group of folks can come together to save a treasured community tradition such as the July 4th Fireworks and speaks well of the underlying spirit of uncompelled generosity amongst Seattle’s corporate and private citizens.

Second, *it’s their money*, whether they are private persons or corporate entities, and they can and should decide to spend it on causes, events, and priorities they support.

Third, sometimes, when you disagree or take exception, the best policy is to just shut up and either be elsewhere or take it like a grown-up – in the interests of letting others take some joy which has no great surplus thereof. Those sufficiently small of heart and mind as to be unable to see or accomplish this relatively simple task are worthy of condemnation as prigs, spoilsports, and killjoys.

Fourth, many of us, even in Seattle, do celebrate Independence Day in the traditional spirit – thankful for the nation we have (or have had, depending on your viewpoint of the current administration and the historical comparisons you may or may not draw), and grateful for the sacrifices of Lexington, Concord, Gettysburg, Doughboys and GI’s, and the seldom sung warriors of the Civil Rights movement.

Fifth, before you protest, remember it was those sacrifices that bought and kept your right to protest, to free speech, freedom of the press, and the rest of the panoply.

Just once, let us be gracious and thank the assorted donors for gathering together the necessary funds in a community spirit seldom seen since the divisive Vietnam era, and helping to keep the lights on in Seattle.

Note, I didn’t say that I don’t believe our system is fouled up to some extent. I am stating that I think that our current direction takes us from bad to worse, and that single-payer simply accelerates the process. I worry that, unsupervised, “efficiency” and “saving the taxpayer money” folks (recall that elected sorts, who’ve done so very well at other things, will be the ones allocating the funds and making the rules) will triumph over caregivers and individual patient interests..

I’d really much rather see us go from bad to better, but that doesn’t appear to be in the cards at the moment. Small steps, letting each state find its’ own way, seem the best bet to develop a system that works better…rather than putting all our bets on one option and hoping that we got it right. 50+ chances to get it right, rather than one big bet.

Some level of malpractice reform might be a good start. A subsidized catastrophic coverage policy for folks below a certain income level (both the income level and the threshold for “catastrophic” are separate discussions). A modification to EMTALA such that ER’s aren’t such huge money pits that hospitals are closing them. More community clinics, locally run and funded, operating on sliding scale. Legalizing shopping for insurance across state lines. Implementing high-risk pools for the uninsurable. Separating (as has one of my doctors) the practice of medicine from the practice of paperwork (he refuses ALL payment other than cash up front, but is happy to make records available to patients wanting to make claims with second or third parties – says he spends more time with patients, at lower cost, and is able to provide better care as a result than he could if he was running a paper mill.…

I want to keep the gov’t well out of it, though, because I count on government to keep an eye on both practitioners and insurers – and however limited they are in competence at that project, they will do far better than supervising themselves. Folks seem capable of EITHER “regulator” OR “regulatee” – but not both at the same time.

We have a lovely T-Shirt idea expressing our deep admiration for ObamaCare. Want.

I don’t make any money from it either, but a good idea is worthy of sharing.