« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
May 23, 2005
The War Against Legal Drugs
I usually don’t talk much about personal things on here, but in this case I feel it’s my responsibility to get this out. My husband and I have had severe problems with a class of drugs called SSRIs over the past few years. They are the reason that my husband was manically banging his head against the shower wall a year ago. They necessitated me going into the ER in the middle of the night because of an anxiety attack. They are the reason that life is hell for us right now. I believe they are a case of the cure being worse than the disease.
SSRIs are a class of antidepressant drugs that include paxil, prozac, effexor, cymbalta, celexa, zoloft, and many others. The abbreviation stands for “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.” Serotonin is one of the neurotransmitters that help to regulate mood. It is released by neurons and activates receptors on other neurons, then is reabsorbed, (a process which is called reuptake.) SSRIs work by preventing serotonin from being taken back up from the synapse, which increases serotonin levels in the brain and makes serotonin signals stronger. This helps people with depression because they generally have lower serotonin levels. (Some of the drugs also work on other neurotransmitters, such as Norepinephrine.) A similar thing happens when you take cocaine.
Over time, the brain chemistry adjusts as the body tries to go back to what it sees as “normal.” The neurons actually produce less serotonin than they did originally. This means that the body develops a tolerance to the drug: the same amount no longer works as well and more of the drug must be taken to have the original effect.
This also helps explain the effects of withdrawal. If the user all of a sudden stops taking the drug, reuptake will no longer be prevented but the brain will still be making less serotonin, meaning that the serotonin levels will actually be lower than they were before the user started taking the drugs. In some people this causes severe side effects, ranging from flu like symptoms to more “mental” problems such as nightmares, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, hallucinations, and just a general sense of being “f’d up.” This can often be worse than the depression was in the first place.
I can’t even begin to describe how scary it is to go through this. The first time it happened to me, it was because I had missed a few doses. I was having dreams about raining blood and I felt disconnected from reality. I had no idea that missing a few doses of your antidepressant could cause this, so I thought it was all me. I seriously thought I was going crazy.
The second time it happened, I had run out of my medication on a weekend and had no way to get any more. I knew what was happening and I thought I would be able to handle it, but after a few days I just couldn’t hold out anymore and had to go to the ER and pay them exorbitantly amounts of money just to get a few pills. This time I felt like a drug-seeking junkie.
The ER docs didn’t have the foggiest clue what I was talking about. They wanted to pump me full of all sorts of other interesting drugs for anxiety when I kept saying “all I need is one of my antidepressants.” In fact, for some asinine reason, doctors in general don’t really know much about the phenomena and most of the ones who do don’t really know how serious it can be in some people. They often prescribe the drugs much too easily for mild depression. They either don’t mention withdrawal at all, or mention “that you should be sure not to miss any doses” but don’t really stress the importance of why. This means that when people go off the drug (or miss a dose or two) and have a bad reaction, they or their doctor assume that their depression is worse and coming back full force and go back on the drug. This often results in people who really aren’t all that depressed taking expensive drugs and enduring their side effects for way too long, rather than just getting some good therapy in the first place.
The part of all this that really upsets me is the instance of the drug companies that SSRIs are not addictive. The addiction may be different than an addiction to cocaine, alcohol, or barbiturates; but it’s still an addiction and I think it’s very misleading for doctors to tell their patients that there is absolutely no risk of addiction or dependence. If some people have such a hard time stopping the drug, I don’t know what else it should be called!
After my two terrible experiences, I was determined to quit the drug. I did some research and decided to do it by tapering, which means taking successively smaller portions of the pill for at least several weeks. By reducing my dose by an 1/8th of a pill every 4 days or so, I was able to get off the medication with few problems.
My husband also had a bad reaction to one of these drugs last year, and so asked his psychiatrist to put him on a non-SSRI. She said “oh, ok” and gave him another drug. Turns out the drug isn’t an SSRI, it’s a SSNRI – which is like a SSRI times two. Now he’s quitting this drug because of all the other side effects and going through the withdrawal for it, all because we listened to his stupid psychiatrist.
Drug companies and doctors do wonderful things. They make it possible for us to live longer, healthier lives. But they are also human and are as prone to human foibles as the rest of us. Drug companies often downplay side effects and risks. Doctors often throw out prescriptions like candy without exploring milder but more time consuming options.
The best medical advice I can give is to know your body and research everything your doctor tells you before you choose a path of action. Weigh your options and seriously consider things like lifestyle changes before popping a pill. If your doctor won’t address your concerns, find another doctor. It’s hard work in the short term, but you could save yourself a lot of pain and suffering.
(Note: I’m not suggesting that no one should ever use SSRIs, just that fewer people should and those who do should be aware of potential problems.)
Linked at Outside the Beltway.
Posted by illuminaria at 03:12 PM | Comments (2)
May 19, 2005
911 For Cell Phones
Web phones ordered to provide full 911Regulators Thursday ordered Internet telephone carriers to provide full 911 emergency calling services to customers later this year, after hearing from people who were unable to get through during life-threatening crises.
The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to require carriers to ensure that 911 calls from Internet phones will reach live emergency dispatchers instead of being connected to administrative lines. In addition, the carriers will have to provide callers' numbers and addresses.
The FCC approved the order at an open meeting attended by families who had trouble reaching 911 operators when they dialed for help with Internet phones.
This is good news. Of course I'm sure this will mean one more random charge on my cell phone bill that helps to practically double the contract price...
Posted by illuminaria at 06:02 PM | Comments (1)
Pregnant Student Walks
Pregnant student defies graduation banA pregnant student who was banned from graduation at her Roman Catholic high school announced her own name and walked across the stage anyway at the close of the program.
Alysha Cosby's decision prompted cheers and applause Tuesday from many of her fellow seniors at St. Jude Educational Institute.
But her mother and aunt were escorted out of the church by police after Cosby headed back to her seat.
"I can't believe something like this is happening in 2005," said her mother, Sheila Cosby. "My daughter has been through a lot and I am proud of her. She deserved to walk, and she did."
...
"I worked hard throughout high school and I wanted to walk with my class," she said.
If I were making the decision for the school, I probably would have gone the other way with this one, depending on other circumstances. I certainly have respect for their decision though. It is a private religious school, and preventing public flouting of their morals is not something all that outlandish, discriminatory, or unexpected. I mean come on, it's a Catholic school! If I were the student or the student's family I surely would have respected the decision.
On the other hand...
Cosby was told in March that she could no longer attend school because of safety concerns, and her name was not listed in the graduation program.The father of Cosby's child, also a senior at the school, was allowed to participate in graduation.
I have a lot less respect for the school for not coming out and saying their reasons and instead coming up with some crap about "safety concerns." What, were they afraid she'd trip and fall down the stairs on the way up to the stage?
And I damn well have a lot less respect for the school for allowing the other culpable party to walk when his partner was not. He may not have a big pregnant belly, but he's just as responsible and should recieve the same punishment.
Number 2 Pencil has more.
Posted by illuminaria at 05:45 PM | Comments (1)
Whoops
I just called up to cancel my home phone service using the line in question.
Customer Service Representative: All right then, I've put that into the computer and the line should be deactivated sometime today. Now I just need to...
Phone: *click*
Me: Ha ha! That sure was quick.
(And yes, the phone had just been shut off, it was not a disconnect or anything.)
Posted by illuminaria at 04:39 PM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2005
Gay Marriage - Asking the Wrong Questions
Recently on the local talk radio station, one of the desk jockeys, Jason Griffin, who supports gay marriage was asking callers if gay people getting married had personally affected their marriage in particular. His callers said no.
Griffin’s approach is interesting and effective, but I’m afraid it’s logically flawed for two reasons.
First of all, people calling in to a conservative leaning talk radio show who are already resistant to gay marriage are probably not going to be the ones who would feel the effects of society’s redefinition of marriage. They most likely already have a clearly defined definition of marriage in their heads that is not so dependant on society’s whims as others’ may be. Obviously they are willing to defend that definition, both against Griffin and against things that happen around them.
Secondly, the question assumes a rather simplistic view of peoples’ objections to gay marriage. No opponent to gay marriage who is saying it would affect marriage as an institution is seriously suggesting that once two gay people get married, other marriages across the country will immediately drop dead for that reason and that reason only.
That would be like a doctor reading a study that says rheumatoid arthritis suffers are 10% more likely to have consumed lots of red meat, and then telling each patient that comes in that they got the disease because they ate lots of red meat. Diseases of the body are a little more complicated than that, and so are diseases of marriage.
Can you imagine someone objecting to the doctor telling people to eat less red meat because the doctor can’t come up with an example of someone who ate a steak and then woke up with rheumatoid arthritis the next day? There may be other reasons to not agree with that plan of attack, but the one given here ain’t one of them.
Any societal occurrence that affects traditional marriage, for good or for bad, takes years to show its effects in any statistically significant way and even then it’s going to be pretty hard to measure because of all the other factors that also have influence. Does this mean that we, as a society, should stop asking ourselves what possible effects, subtle or not, any change might have? I think not.
Marriage as a societal institution isn’t a right, it’s something society has around to benefit itself. If gay marriage supporters actually want to change peoples’ minds, they need to stop insisting that marriage is a right and refusing it to them is outright discrimination, and instead try to convince the public that gay marriage helps society. And “well, it doesn’t really hurt anyone” just isn’t going to cut it. It’s absurd to say that gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on marriage itself. Indeed, the only question that should be up for debate here is “how.”
This all reminds me of the flurry of commentary from supporters of gay marriage after Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage.
We will lose marriage in this nation," without constitutionally limiting it to heterosexuals, warns Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. The Traditional Values Coalition, meanwhile, sees "same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether."It would be far easier to take these claims seriously if gay-marriage critics spent as much energy denouncing irresponsible heterosexuals whose behavior undermines traditional marriage. Among prominent Americans, such misdeeds are increasingly ubiquitous.
Exhibit A is musical product Britney Spears's micromarriage to hometown pal Jason Allen Alexander. The 22-year-olds were wed on January 3 in Las Vegas. Clad in sneakers, a baseball cap, ripped jeans, and a navel-revealing T-shirt, the vocalist was escorted down the Little White Wedding Chapel's aisle by a hotel chauffeur. Spears and Alexander, who wore baggy pants and a zippered sweater, soon were wife and husband.
Almost as soon, their marriage was annulled. Clark County Judge Lisa Brown accepted Spears's request and ruled that "There was no meeting of the minds in entering into this marriage contract, and in a court of equity there is cause for declaring the contract void."
The revolving-door couple's 55 hours of marital bliss were based neither on love nor shared commitment, but because "they took a joke too far," explained Spears's label, Jive Records.
I hardly think that any social conservative was happy or even ambivalent about this, or the hundreds of other daily examples of the denigration of marriage in this society. But to suggest that gay marriage is a-ok because at least it’s not as bad as a 3 day Vegas marriage is ridiculous. Should the parent of a child with brain cancer stop making him wear his seatbelt?
It's also a logical fallacy to suggest that because someone is not as vocal about subjects similar to their pet causes, that their arguments can just be dismissed out of hand. In fact, there is actually legimate reason for conservatives to object more to gay marriage than Spears' marriage. Spears is actually admitting to the public that her marriage was a mistake.
I note that this commentator and his peers didn’t go around asking people if Spears’ marriage affected their own marriage before assuming that it would affect traditional marriage. Some things are just obvious.
Posted by illuminaria at 12:33 PM | Comments (5)
May 16, 2005
Worth a Thousand Words.
Captain’s Quarters published a comment comparing Newsweek’s reckless running of the unsubstantiated Koran desecration story with the media’s seeming consensus to ignore the story of the 9-11 jumpers.
I did some research on it, and was amazed to find that the estimate for the number of people who jumped to their deaths from the World Trade Center on 9-11 runs from 50 to 200 people. I knew that there were some jumpers, but I didn’t realize that there were so many. I certainly didn’t know that the media under-reported that story. (Obviously they did a good job.)
I have a hard time understanding the objections of those who didn’t want the pictures to be published. From what I’ve found, none of them were ever positively identified, although (somewhat insensitive) attempts were made, so it’s not as though the death of any specific person is being capitalized on.
Apparently another reason given was that pictures would lead to violence against Muslims.
Some seem to think it was merely sick voyeurism for the papers to print them.
I would think, though, that the reason people really objected was that they are just too disturbing to deal with, especially with the wound so fresh. The image of the towers collapsing combined with the words that thousands of people died is nothing compared to the image of even one of those people falling to their deaths. The first is academic, the second forces me to wonder what it must have been like to have to choose between two deaths, one long and agonizing; one immediate but requiring a step over the edge.
Likewise, the pictures of starved and abused holocaust victims stacked like so much refuse bring home the realities of the horror in a way that the words “millions dead” never can.
I suddenly find myself thinking more about the people who died and were injured this week.
Posted by illuminaria at 04:29 PM | Comments (0)
Affirmative Action in the Classroom
Via Number 2 Pencil, I saw this story about the University of Oregon offering classes
that reserve the first 10 slots in an 18-student class for minority students, while requiring others who want to get into the class to arrive on the morning of the first day of class and meet with an adviser before being allowed to register for the remaining eight slots. The OMAS pays for and controls three lower-division math and three lower-division English classes that allow fewer enrolled students and provide more individualized instructor attention. While other sections of Math 242 and Math 243 this term have an average of 115 students for lectures, 29 students for discussions and 35 students for integrated classes, the OMAS classes had a maximum of 18 students. The general Writing 121 and Writing 122 sections had an average of 25 students per class, and the OMAS sections were again restricted to 18 students.Linda Liu, advising coordinator and academic adviser for OMAS, said the classes are meant to offer a safe haven for minority students and give struggling students a chance to work more closely with professors.
This issue was brought to the forefront when a white student attempted to enroll in one of these classes because it was the only one available. This certainly seems like blatant racism to me. What’s the reason given for these classes?
University Senior Instructor Michel Kovcholovsky, who teaches the OMAS's math classes, said the classes were created to foster a comfortable environment for minorities. "That was the basic idea, so that they don't feel afraid to raise their hand and ask something."
Ahhh, the same condescending claptrap you always hear from these sorts of people. Minorities might feel afraid to raise their hands to ask a question if there are too many white people in the class. (This makes me wonder what they are going to do if they get a job in the real world where less than half of the workforce is non-white.) Let me just say, as a female engineering student I attended many a class where I was one of 2-3, if not the only, female in the class. It never caused me a moment of trouble.
I might also point out that, seeing as how American engineering programs attract a lot of students from different countries, there were also times when white students were in the minority in my classes. And yet no one ever made any concessions for us. Indeed, see my article from last month about unintelligible foreign instructors. On that subject many were saying that this problem was the fault of the white American students who just weren’t willing to suck it up and learn “worldly listening skills.” So what if it took them half the semester to learn how to understand the instructor and they were unable to catch up?
He said students enjoy interacting with him one-on-one.
Gee, you think other struggling students would enjoy interacting with you one-on-one?
The course material he teaches is exactly the same. "To lower the standards for people of color would be racism," Kovcholovsky said.
That last sentence there is pretty darn funny.
Senior psychology major Kady-Ann Davy, who identifies as Jamaican American, said she took an OMAS Writing 122 class her sophomore year, and she liked the class because it covered diverse cultures and provided time to free-write about her own experiences with diversity.
So the class material isn’t the same.
She said the enrollment policy is fair because coming from a smaller high school, she liked the opportunity to study in a smaller class and that the remaining slots still give everybody a chance to enroll.
Apparently the white students who come from small high schools or struggle with large classes just have to suck it up.
The comments on the article are filled with the sort of stuff you always hear from supporters of affirmative action. It’s ok because it’s just making up for past racism, white people have it better so it’s ok to discriminate against them, you’re a racist if you object to this, etc.
This is my favorite comment.
What does it mean to be white? Please think about that. Why do I have to go to a class and be the only person of color in my class? Do you know what that feels like? So what students of color have 5 classes designated for them, you have all the rest of the 1,000 or whatever amount of classes where you are the majority. You are right, this campus is racist, the fact that we are even contesting the validity of the classes is a joke.
Yes, because the school has more whites than blacks enrolled, even though there are more whites than blacks in the population, the school is racist. Obviously, America should ship over 100 million black people from other countries so that everything will be “fair.”
You know, I do sympathize with these people who have a hard time coming into an unfamiliar culture. I’m very shy, and I have trouble in many situations where there are lots of people who are substantially different from me in any one of many ways. I think anyone of any race would have trouble being in a school where the majority of the population is a different race with a different culture. But that’s just life, and dealing with those situations is how you learn tolerance and respect for people who are different from you and how you learn to function in the real world. These courses may be just as academically rigorous as the other classes, but they aren’t as socially rigorous and “people of color” don’t need to be protected from that anymore than a person from a rural area needs classes with only FFA members in them, or a Jew needs a class with no Christians allowed.
Linked at Outside the Beltway and Mudville Gazette's open post.
Posted by illuminaria at 01:22 PM | Comments (0)
Unexpected Hiatus
To all who care, sorry about my unannounced hiatus over the past several weeks. There have been “interesting” legal matters going on in my family-in-law as of late, and while they ended a week ago, I was too busy deciding whether the world was a terrible place to feel much like writing. But all is resolved now, so I’m back to writing.
On a happier note, I see that I hit 10,000 hits while I was gone. Not all that special compared to some blogs, but I'll take it.
Posted by illuminaria at 12:39 PM | Comments (1)
TV Unrealistic? Never.
Forensic classes give budding CSIs a reality check.In one hand, he holds a blood-smeared cotton swab over a beaker. In the other, he delicately clasps a dropper filled with a chemical solution.
Matthew Forneris pauses and looks to his forensic science professor for instructions. Very carefully, he's told, he must squeeze a drop of the liquid onto the tip of the swab.
But the college junior squeezes a bit too hard and the solution squirts onto the table, onto his hand -- everywhere but onto the swab.
"Whoops," Forneris mutters with a sheepish grin as the liquid dribbles down his fingers.
Professor Marilyn Miller gives him a sideways glance and says, "Did I tell you it was a carcinogen? No -- just kidding."
It's not exactly the slick and glamorous image of crime scene investigators portrayed on the "CSI" TV shows or "Crossing Jordan." But that's fine with Miller. The Virginia Commonwealth University professor began her career as a forensic scientist in 1979 -- long before it became trendy.
While such shows have boosted enrollment in forensic science classes nationwide, many in the field say they give budding crime scene investigators an unrealistic view of what the job is all about.
I have to say that I love CSI, but I have no illusions about its reality or lack thereof. I think anyone who has taken more than one chemistry lab class would be a fool to think otherwise. (If you want a better idea of the reality of forensics, watch the FBI Files on the Discovery Channel.)
My favorite thing on CSI is when they have a picture from some security camera that has an image of the suspect’s car where the license plate is about two pixels big, and they magically sharpen the image so that they can read the license.
I also really like the realistic morgue. Everything is all gray and dark, and they use super cool blue lights. The perfect environment for doing medical work, I’m sure. Also, the chambers for the bodies have translucent doors and there are blue lights inside the chamber so that you can see shadows of heads in each of them. (Unfortunately I was not able to find a picture of this, but believe me, it’s hilarious.) I’m sure the forensic budget for most police stations has a large chunk set aside for dramatic lighting.
Posted by illuminaria at 12:33 PM | Comments (0)
May 06, 2005
Is Jim West Really a Hypocrite? I'm Not Convinced.
Note for people from liberal blogs surfing in today: I don't know anything about West, other than what I've read in these stories about him. I find his soliciting 18 year olds, while not illegal, creepy, and certainly a reason to not vote for him. I find some of his past legislation stupid beyond words and definitely a reason to not vote for him. The only issue I am writing about here is if it is possible for his sexuality and his political record given in the Spokesman-Review to not be at odds. I think it is, and I think people are jumping to conclusions in that regard. Typically these seem to be people who think being conservative and gay is an oxymoron. That doesn't mean I'm "readying the smokescreen to protect one of [my] own," affirming his opinions, or expressing my "latent homosexual tendencies." Seriously, people, you can think someone's an ass and still not believe everything said about him. Try actually respectfully reading something and taking it at face value for once.
Over at Wizbang they have the story of Spokane, WA mayor Jim West who has recently been outed by the Spokesman-Review. In one part, they compare his supposed homosexuality with the legislation he’s supported over the years, seemingly to imply that he’s a hypocrite. Is he? Let’s take a look.
In February 1998, West voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, a ban on gay marriage. Gov. Lowry vetoed the measure, but the veto was overridden and Washington became the 27th state to enact such a ban.
First of all, I’d like to point out that West has said that he’s not gay, and in fact it was revealed that one of his chat room nicknames was “RightBi-Guy.” That does change things somewhat. Depending on where he falls on the “Kinsey scale,” it may not be that he’s more attracted to women than men, meaning that he wouldn’t care much about marrying a man. Even if he was completely gay, it doesn’t make him a hypocrite to not support gay marriage.
In 1986, he supported a bill allowing criminal background checks for jobs involving children. The measure was necessary because child abusers “often try to gain a position of trust and authority,” West said in a Spokesman-Review interview at the time.…
Their 1986 bill, which failed, would have barred gay men and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. It called for screening prospective employees for sexual orientation and firing employees whose homosexuality became known.
The implication is that this is hypocritical because West himself is a state employee. However, even if true, this isn’t hypocritical because West is not a state employee who works with children. (Update: some people seem to think this point isn't terribly important. I don't see why. There's many people, especially in the 80's, who may not have cared if someone was gay, but didn't want openly gay people working with children. My mother is a strong liberal, but she herself has expressed this opinion to me before. Also, I'll point out that it's presumably talking about openly gay people here, not closeted gays like West.)
I'm suspicious as to whether the summary is accurate or not. Try as I might, I can’t find a single story on this on Lexis-Nexis, search engines, or Washington newspaper archives. I think the story is just too old for a lot of the smaller newspaper archives to go back that far. You’d think if it really was outright calling for the firing of homosexuals working with children, there’d be some mention of it in one of the bigger newspapers, or even a national newspaper. The “criminal background checks for jobs involving children” part is obviously not hypocritical, and indeed sounds like a great idea. I will continue to look, but I remain suspicious of Spokesman-Review’s summary. Especially considering this next gaffe.
In an April 9 Internet chat, West sent his photo to “Moto-Brock,” the person he believed was an 18-year-old Spokane high school senior. Instead, Moto-Brock was a forensic computer consultant hired by the newspaper to verify the mayor’s identity and presence on Gay.com.…
During a 1990 hearing on AIDS education, West proposed that teen sex be criminalized.
The bill, written by the abstinence group Teen Aid, would have made sexual contact – not just sexual intercourse – a misdemeanor for unmarried teenagers 18 or younger. It defined sexual contact as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person.”
Since he was hitting on supposed 18-year old boys, which he doesn’t deny, this would indeed be hypocritical, if true. Let’s go to Lexis-Nexis…
The Seattle Times January 19, 1990, Friday, Final EditionIn what many are calling a misguided effort to prevent the spread of AIDS, some influential state senators have proposed making "sexual contact" illegal for anybody younger than 18.
There would be an exception for minors who are married.
Ok, so it’s younger than 18, not 18 and younger. Nice job, Spokesman-Review. Sorry, afraid this isn’t hypocritical either, even if it is pretty stupid.
In 1986, West voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS during sex. He said such instruction “is something people go buy at dirty bookstores.”
I’m afraid this isn’t hypocritical either. It is possible, and indeed quite understandable, for a gay person to want to keep sex out of the public sphere as much as possible.
In 1995, when allegations of sexual harassment involving Democratic Gov. Mike Lowry and a female aide were published in an independent counsel’s report, West called on the House to launch impeachment proceedings against Lowry.“The governor should not be held to any lower standard than anyone else in our society. Governors cannot and should not flout the law,” West said
This would indeed be hypocritical if the allegations that West had molested two boys over twenty years ago were true. However both of the men making accusations are convicted felons and there’s no corroborating evidence. Plus, people who molest boys usually don’t stop. If he was a child molester, you’d think they’d have been able to find something more recent. I’m sure they looked. However, it is possible, so we’ll put this one into the maybe category.
If it was true, though, he's a bastard and I don't care whether or not he's a hypocritical and a bastard. One's enough for me.
As Spokane’s mayor, West recently said he’d veto a proposal to extend city benefits to unmarried domestic partners at City Hall, citing its cost. But the City Council last month approved the measure on a 5-2 vote, enough to withstand a mayoral veto.
Again, it’s legitimately possible to be gay and not care about gay marriage. Plus West cited the costs, not the sexual issues. Again, not hypocritical.
There’s also several small snippets about West’s opposition to abortion “rights.” I really fail to see how that’s hypocritical. What about being gay would require someone to support abortion? Heck, unplanned pregnancies are not even something gay people often have a problem with.
So in summation, we have 1 “maybe-depending-on-the-uncorrobrated-testimony-of two-felons" and 6 “no”s to the question as to whether West is a hypocrite. Not quite enough to get in a tizzy about. I do agree that some of this stuff was pretty stupid and I wouldn't be jumping around to elect him if I lived in Washington, but I’m not convinced that he’s a self-hating closeted gay. (Update: Just to clarify, I think West is a stupid creepy guy. I wouldn't vote for him. The only issue being discussed here is whether or not his record proves that he is a hypocrite, especially well enough for the newspaper to be writing the story that they did. I think not.)
Read the rest of the story. It’s chock-full with your typical liberal rhetoric that any gay conservative must be a conflicted, angry, and hate himself and that it’s their right to out him because “It’s really hurting a lot of people, especially gay youth." This comment is also really great.
“For a politician to be (privately) gay and to be so anti-gay is an abuse of power,” Reguindin said.
Um, OK. An abuse of power…sure. Them gay-outin' liberals sure are smart.
More at Say Anything, who also isn't impressed with West in general.
Update: Success! The Seattle-Post Intelligencer has archives going back to 1986 (registration required). In May of 1986 Rep. Glenn Dobbs proposed Initiative 490 which “would prohibit knowingly employing homosexuals and other "sexually deviant" people in schools, day-care centers, foster care programs and other government employment that involves contact with children, the elderly, people in detention and mentally or physically handicapped people.” It needed 151,133 signatures to put it on the ballot, which it failed to get, so it never even got close to passing. Not a single one of the 10 stories that mentioned the Initiative mentioned Jim West in any way shape or form.
The reason given for the bill was that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters. (This was presumably in response to a story I found several months earlier about a day care worker accused of abusing 5 children.) Of course the old meme that most child molesters are heterosexuals was pulled out. This is of course true, but most people are heterosexual so that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. If we take the number from the article that 20% of child molesters are homosexual and 4% of the population is homosexual (which may be a slight overestimate is anything), then we can calculate what your chances are that you’ll be a child molester if you are gay. Let’s take the population of the US as 296 million and the number of child molesters as 4 million. In that case, if you’re heterosexual, you have a 1.1% chance of being a child molester, whereas if you’re homosexual, you have a 6.8% chance of being a child molester. Therefore, you’re over 6 times more likely to be a child molester if you’re a homosexual. Of course the numbers overall are low enough that I don’t think homosexuals should be banned from working with children for that reason.
Now as to the question about whether this proves West is a hypocrite, it’s still up in the air. We have determined that such an animal exists, (although, Spokesman Review, it was an initiative, not a bill) but we haven’t determined exactly what West said about it. I would at least like to see his entire quote to the Spokesman Review. More later, perhaps, as I look at more newspapers. (There’s only one webpage in all the internet that mentions the initiative, and then only in passing with no details.)
Just as a reminder, the Spokesman Review says
In 1986, he supported a bill allowing criminal background checks for jobs involving children. The measure was necessary because child abusers “often try to gain a position of trust and authority,” West said in a Spokesman-Review interview at the time.
So did West just support the background check part, or was he in favor of the whole thing? We'll see.
Posted by illuminaria at 02:48 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack