tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3762421926209401822024-02-19T09:10:35.592-08:00That Chris Guy's BlogThe gayest medical blog ever.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-29016469632436772372011-05-09T11:40:00.000-07:002011-05-09T14:00:01.403-07:00The Dizzying World of DietingI received a really interesting series of questions from a good friend of mine today. A common friend of ours had adopted a low-carb diet with apparently great results, and now my friend has a bunch of questions, largely concerning how insulin relates to our bodies' metabolism. I nearly started hyperventilating from the prospect of a captive audience interested in biochemistry ;)<br /><br />Specifically, my friend had been directed to an author, whose main thesis is...well I can't seem to find a coherent thesis to summarize <a href="http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/why-we-get-fat/">his post</a>, but I want to make a few observations about it.<br /><br />I will confess that he articulates a lot of potentially difficult information in a way that any reader can understand. He's good at providing real world analogies, and he uses descriptive terms and simple ideas that summarize his points well. The world can definitely use more people who are good at making these things easier to understand. Also, the basic physiological and biochemical ideas he's describing are pretty sound.<br /><br />HOWEVER...<br /><br />He rambles, a lot (I admit, I'm just as bad), and took a billion words to state the same concept a million different ways. He also has an odd habit of standing up for fat people who are undeservedly maligned, while in the same post accusing people who don't agree with his views of being fat and ignorant. wtf?<br /><br />Most importantly, this guy is basically saying that he's solved the problem of overweight/obesity. Trust me, people, if someone ever tells you that they know the answer to a question that has been plaguing science for decades, feel free to pat them on the head and go find an adult to talk to. This is probably not a problem that's going to have a simple solution. Even if it does, you're not going to find it on some guy's blog--even if he's an MD. After all, I'll be an MD in two weeks, and sometimes I wear my shirt inside out without realizing it. LAWL<br /><br />SO! What were those questions my friend (let's call him Tim) was asking? They are thusly:<br />1. How does fat get stored in our cells? Is it indeed insulin which triggers it?<br />2. Given 1, Is it true that even if there is fat available in the bloodstream, it won't be stored in our body without insulin? (ie without insulin, the body will flush out the excess fat without storing it)<br />3. What is insulin resistance?<br />4. Does insulin resistance actually affect liver cells before other cells? And does our liver actually secrete sugar into the bloodstream?<br />5. Does consumption of sugar and carbohydrates trigger an increased production of insulin?<br />6. Do obese people tend to have elevated insulin levels? (even when not eating)<br />7. Does glucagon actually counteract the effect of insulin?<br />8. Given 7, and given the rest of the low carb theory, why can't an injection (or pill) be created for glucagon to be administered after eating? That way as I understand (in my limited reading), wouldn't insulin levels reduce, allowing the body to consume the stored fat, providing energy between meals?<br /><br />Amazing. Delicious. The thought of answering these questions makes me salivate. Let's dig in.<br /><br />We need to start with a very cursory overview of basic nutrition. Our energy comes from 3 different macronutrients: carbohydrates, fat, and protein. Carbohydrates are sugars of varying complexity. You can make complex carbohydrates from combinations of the basic sugars. The fundamental basic carbohydrate in the human body is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose">glucose</a>. Fructose is another basic carb. A glucose molecule attached to a fructose molecule makes <a href="https://bioap.wikispaces.com/file/view/sucrose.gif/163528271/sucrose.gif">sucrose</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen">Glycogen </a>(which is almost the same thing as starch) is a huge molecule of hundreds of glucose molecules attached together. Glucose is stored as glycogen in the liver. Fats consist of different types of fatty acid chains and are stored in adipose (fat) tissue. Protein is made up from amino acids, and is the major structural component of all our cells, including muscle. The body can bascially turn any macronutrient into either of the other two (except certain amino acids, which we can't make on our own).<br /><img src="file:///C:/Users/cshea065/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png" alt="" /><img src="file:///C:/Users/cshea065/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png" alt="" /><img src="file:///C:/Users/cshea065/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png" alt="" /><a href="http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/images/jun2004_report_diabetes_04_l.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 597px;" src="http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/images/jun2004_report_diabetes_04_l.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 can all be answered this way: yes. lol. To be more specific, refer to the image with all the blobby stuff. Basically, in fasting states, when you're hungry and your blood sugar is low, the pancreas releases a hormone called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucagon">glucagon</a>. This acts on the liver to release stored sugar and to create new sugar from scratch. That way, you don't die in between meals. <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/">Evolution </a>win!<br /><br />In "fed" states, after you've consumed a meal, your blood gets flooded with all the sugars from the food you ate. Blood glucose levels rise, which tones down glucagon and turns up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin">insulin</a>. Insulin promotes sugar uptake into the liver (and all cells, really) for storage, and promotes fat intake and storage in fat cells. Your body is always producing both insulin and glucagon, but their levels are balanced so as to keep your blood glucose levels at a constant level. (NB question 2 will be discussed in more detail with question 8 at the end of the post.)<br /><br />Questions 3 and 6 get a little more complicated. It is based on a cellular molecular process called down-regulation. It's a negative-feedback process. The best example would be topical nasal decongestants. When someone is suffering from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2011/03/tolerance_isnt_easy.php#more">allergies</a>, the blood vessels in the membranes of their nose get "leaky". Fluid seeps out and drains out the nose, producing some of the symptoms of allergy. Nasal <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decongestant">decongestants </a>work by spraying a drug into your nose that constricts the nasal blood vessels and stops the leaking. BUT! If you continue to use the spray regularly for a few days, the cells in the blood vessels get tired of being bombarded with drug. They then start to get rid of the receptors on their cell surface that bind the drug. So you end up needing more of the drug to get the same effect!<br /><br />Insulin works the same way, but the response is much slower--it takes years, rather than just days. People who run their blood sugars high all the time (presumably by eating too much unhealthy food) have constitutively high levels of insulin in their blood. Eventually, the cells in their body get sick of listening to insulin's constant nagging, and they stop listening--by decreasing the expression of insulin receptors, so the insulin has less effect. So the body has to produce more insulin to keep glucose levels under control. Which leads to more down-regulation of insulin receptors. Eventually, the body can no longer produce enough insulin to keep up, and glucose levels go through the roof, leading to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, and blindness. This process is referred to as <a href="http://www.diabetes.ca/diabetes-and-you/living/just-diagnosed/type2/">Type II Diabetes Mellitus</a>, and it's one of the biggest medical problems facing our society today.<br /><br />Questions 2 and 8 are sort of plausible/true in theory, but impractical for a number of reasons. Low insulin levels lead to high glucose levels, which is a trigger for insulin release. The only way to avoid a compensatory surge in insulin is by having a defective pancreas that can't produce insulin. Unfortunately, that's the pathological basis for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_diabetes">Type I Diabetes Mellitus</a>. People who can't make insulin get impossibly high blood levels of glucose, but the glucose can't get into their cells, so they actually think they're starving. This causes the body to synthesize ketones from stored fat, which eventually turns the blood to acid and causes death. :(<br /><br />Conversely, giving a person an injection of glucagon might indeed lower their insulin levels, but it will still cause an increase in blood glucose levels. That's the stuff that leads to the cardiovascular disease and kidney failure and blindness :(<br /><br />Now, the whole point of all these questions, I think, is probably related to the very common question: will the Atkins diet make me look like Megan Fox? I've done a little research into it, and I'd like to write about it, but I did promise my fiancé I'd clean the bathroom today. So let me get to that, and I'll see if I can extrapolate some of this sciencey stuff into practical stuff later.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-12584282986894769352011-04-22T04:37:00.000-07:002011-04-22T07:20:10.477-07:00Tories in the Lead...The Tories are leading the polls and appear likely to finally take home a majority in early May. This bothers me for a number of reasons.<br /><br /><ul><li>By far the key theme to much of the legislation passed by the Conservatives over the past years has been focused around their "tough on crime" agenda. This despite the overwhelming evidence that "tough on crime" <a href="http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/634550">doesn't work</a>--and might actually make things <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/779886--tough-on-crime-policies-don-t-work-study-finds">worse</a>.</li><li>The "tough on crime" agenda is supposedly justified by the Conservatives perceptions of Canadians' perceptions of crime rates. They're dependent on that kind of hearsay because the <a href="http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57">actual data</a> shows a decline in crime rates from 1990 to 2004. It's obvious from the data in the previous link that Canadian crime is much worse in very particular regions, and therefore is likely more related to local socioeconomic factors than national crime policy. The Conservatives claim that the crime rate is actually increasing because people are not reporting crimes to police; this is provably false, since StatsCan shows that reporting to police <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm#a18">actually increased</a> from 2004 to 2009. (NB the most common reason for not reporting was that the event was "not important enough.")<br /></li><li>The Conservatives are going to be a lot more dependent on hearsay now that they've scrapped the utility of the <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/census/article/839660--why-the-long-census-mattersCanadian">Canadian census</a>. They claimed their reason was that forcing people to participate on pain of jail was wrong. A sensible Government would have just done away with the threat of jail; but they threw the baby out with the bathwater, causing the head of StatsCan to <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100721/stats_can_resign_100721/">resign in protest</a>.</li><li>While championing a program to improve maternal health worldwide, the Conservatives have cut funding from the International Planned Parenthood Foundation completely. The <a href="http://www.ippf.org/en">IPPF </a>is one of the world's largest providers of maternal and sexual health care to underprivileged women in the world. Anyone who thinks this decision isn't <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html">really about abortion</a> needs to get real.</li><li>People who support the Tories for their fiscal policies should give their heads a shake. Harper's governments have <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/02/28/13062106.html">spent money</a> like spoiled teenagers with Daddy's credit card. Then, when Canadians were truly beginning to suffer from the global recession, the Conservatives came up with a brilliant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute#The_dispute">plan</a>: cut spending, deny pay equity, and cut funding to political parties. The Opposition essentially <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aiy4MbuwfIog">revolted</a>, causing Harper to freak out and prorogue Parliament. Only after proroguing in the middle of a recession did his government do anything to help Canadians (i.e. <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/09/harper-interview.html">stimulus</a>).<br /></li><li>Despite the deficit from that stimulus, these so-called fiscal conservatives plan on spending <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/01/10/tories-prison-infrastructure.html">billions of dollars</a> on bigger prisons, and their "tough on crime" agenda is <a href="http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/Costs-bulge-for-feds-tough-on-crime-agenda.html">outrageously expensive</a> but still being pushed forward in spite of all the evidence (see above) that it's counterproductive. They wasted <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/05/25/summits-security-cost.html">hundreds of millions of dollars</a> on security for the G8/G20 summits (Britain did the same thing for a fraction of the cost just a couple years prior, and all our security did was <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/g20-related-mass-arrests-unique-in-canadian-history/article1621198/">illegally detain</a> a bunch of hippies and bystanders.)</li><li>All that talk of Senate reform that conservatives used to love to talk about? What <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/22/senate-harper.html">reform</a>?<br /></li></ul>Then there are the ideas of principle:<br /><ul><li>Harper prorogued parliament TWICE, once in the middle of a recession, and the other because of <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/15213212">charges </a>of complicity with torture in Afghanistan. He also <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20080907/election_call_080907/">called </a>an election, violating his own <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/05/02/fixed-elections.html">law requiring</a> 4-year terms. </li><li>This whole election is because of the Conservatives' <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-government-falls-in-historic-commons-showdown/article1956416/">contempt of parliament</a>.<br /></li><li>This government muzzles <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/29/federal-scientists-media-government.html">scientists and distorts</a> facts.</li><li>Harper kicks his own cronies <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/15/cv-election-day21.html">out of cabinet</a> without any justification.</li><li>Harper constantly pretends the other parties are on the verge of taking over Canada via a coalition, despite the fact that he proposed the <a href="http://www.nupge.ca/news_2008/n02de08d.htm">same friggin thing</a> when he was opposition leader.</li><li>Harper actually circulated an <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.thestar.com/article/215532">instruction booklet</a> to Conservative MP's on how to disrupt and obstruct Commons committees.</li></ul>There are probably other things I could include, but my blood is already boiling. Conservative policies don't work, and they're going to harm our economy and social well-being. Harper is a shrewd leader who cares not a lick for the Canadian people, or even reality for that matter. Say what you will about the other parties or leaders, no one has shown such utter contempt for our country as Harper and his governments.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-73395508314745221692010-02-28T18:08:00.000-08:002010-02-28T18:59:51.271-08:00I'm so PROUD to be a CANADIAN!!!!!Tonight<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/hockey/story/2010/02/28/spo-olympic-hockey-gold-can-usa.html"> we did it</a>! We beat the USA in Olympic men's hockey! And I swear, all of Canada was there with them, sharing in their fight. All I could see all over FB were people's status updates about how they were watching the game. It was like the whole country's attention was finely tuned onto this one issue! Never before have I seen a whole nation come together in solidarity to cheer for something they hold dear.<br /><br />I mean, it was just so much more exciting than following the <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/727879--canada-shamed-on-torture">Afghan </a><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16559">detainee </a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afghan_detainee_issue">fiasco</a>--and I bet you'll be hard pressed to divert our attention from this win as quickly as we were <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/09/natynczyk-detainee.html"></a><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12/the-documents-weve-seen.html">diverted </a>from that! I'm so glad that our Prime Minister <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/proroguing-is-for-children-and-stephen-harper/article1420026/">unnecessarily shut down our government</a> for months; that way, we had saved up enough energy to really root on our team to the win!!!<br /><br />And man, people are so proud now! Everyone's talking about how proud they are to be a Canadian, and how awesome we are as a country. And that's exactly what we need right now, cuz people were starting to feel a little low about themselves when they found out that their brothers and sisters are dying overseas just to prop up a <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/karzais-power-move-disturbing-cannon-says/article1478960/">sham</a>, <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/01/concerned_about_oath_of_office.html">theocratic </a>dictatorship. But now we can sleep a little easier at night because we <a href="http://www.ownthepodium2010.com/">OWN THE PODIUM</a>!!! :D<br /><br />Sure, the euphoria will pass, and Monday morning will shake us all out of bed and nudge us out the door to work. But this Monday will be different. Because now, we don't have to feel bad that our Minister of Science and Technology is a <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/science-minister-wont-confirm-belief-in-evolution/article320476/">freakin' creationist Chiropractor</a>, that our governing party is focused on passing <a href="http://www.prisonjustice.ca/starkravenarticles/csc_toughoncrime_0107.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">counterproductive legislation</span></a>, and that the Prime Minister is <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/763033--conservatives-accused-of-hiding-information">secretive as hell</a> and thinks it's cool to shut the government down whenever he <a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212">damn well pleases</a>.<br /><br />That's right. Tomorrow will be different. Because now, we have something we can be really proud of!!!! Something we can all get excited about! GO CANADA!!!that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-35788068070457398332010-01-04T16:35:00.000-08:002010-01-10T09:05:32.754-08:00Get Off the Cross, Honey. Somebody Needs the WoodIn a piece of news that I'm sure will surprise you, a Christian group (Christian Anti-Defamation Commission) is lying about persecution it claims to have faced during the year of 2009. <a href="http://www.towleroad.com/2010/01/christian-antidefamation-commission-releases-top-10-instances-of-christianbashing-in-2009.html">Towleroad reports</a> the group's "Top 10" instances of anti-Christian persecution.<br /><blockquote><p>10. Pro-life Pastor Reverend Walter Hoye of Oakland, CA was jailed for exercising peaceful, pro-life speech.</p><p>9. Rev. Fred Winters was murdered while preaching in his pulpit in Maryville, Illinois.</p><p>8. HBO's program "Curb Your Enthusiasm" aired an episode where the main actor urinates on painting of Jesus. When confronted HBO would not apologize.</p><p>7. The overt homosexual participation in Obama's presidential inaugural events by "Bishop" Vickie Eugene Robinson, the Gay Men's Chorus of Washington D. C., and a homosexual marching band. </p><p>6. Police called to East Jessamine Middle School in Lexington, Kentucky to stop 8th graders from praying during their lunch break for a student whose mother was tragically killed.</p><p>5. Pro-life activist Jim Pullion was murdered in front of his granddaughter's high school for showing the truth about abortion.</p><p>4. An activist judge ordered a home school mom in New Hampshire to stop home schooling her daughter because the little girl "reflected too strongly" her mother's Christian faith.</p><p>3. The Federal Department of Homeland Security issued a report entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate" that labeled conservative Christians extremists and potential terrorists.</p><p>2. President Obama's appointment of radical anti-Christians like homosexual activist Kevin Jennings as the "safe school czar;" pro-abortion advocate Kathleen Seblius made Secretary of Human and Health Services, and Chai Feldblum, pro-homosexual and anti-religious liberty judge nominated for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.</p><p>1. The Federal Hate Crimes Bill that attacks religious liberty and freedom of speech. For the first time in our history ministers are vulnerable to investigation and prosecution for telling the truth about homosexuality.</p> </blockquote>Right of the bat, #7, 2, and 3 are pure lies or exaggeration. I mean, come on, in #7 they're complaining that gay groups merely participated in Obama's inauguration. Apparently the mere acknowledgment of gay people as contributing members of society counts as Christian persecution. Cry me a river. (PS did you notice their inclusion of quotation marks around Bishop Robinson's title, and the inclusion of the name "Vickie" to make him sound more effeminate? How transparently patronizing.)<br /><br />#2 is also an example of the mere inclusion of openly gay people as being seen as persecution. One might notice that the group makes no mention of Jewish, Buddhist, or atheist appointees as causing Christian subjugation (i.e. they really just don't like gay people). I have been following the actions of some of those appointees and to my knowledge they have done nothing that could be seen as anti-Christian other than advocate for the rights and safety of LGBT adults, children, and allies.<br /><br />Finally, #1 is an affront to the reader's intelligence, since anyone with Google access knows that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">1st Amendment</a> would make such a law unconstitutional. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes_in_the_United_States#Matthew_Shepard_Act">Hate Crimes Bill</a> does nothing other than provide federal funds to local authorities for investigating crimes that appear to be motivated towards a victims sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. A violent crime has to have been committed in order for the law to come into play. It has nothing to do with speech. Also, these categories were simply added to the already existing categories including race and religion.<br /><br />Aside from what follows, I leave the dissection of the other instances of "persecution" to you. It's quite possible that some of the others are true (and if so, should be condemned), but if I could find 3 out of the top 10 of 2009 without even trying...<br /><br />I would though, like to briefly mention #8. When I first read it, I pictured some dude deliberately urinating on a Jesus painting to make a point, or to be deliberately insulting. I'll have to admit, I didn't really care. But then I tried to flip the situation, and so I wondered how I would have felt if the character had urinated on a pride flag, or a poster of a pink triangle. How would I feel if a deliberately anti-gay act of vandalism was portrayed on TV for millions to see?<br /><br />Truth be told, I know that would hurt me. I know that that would make me anxious about the anti-gay sentiment it would help to propagate. Still...I'm not sure about hate speech laws, and I dislike the idea of censorship in any way. So in the end, I think I would have to side with the principle of free speech, and not try to take any action against HBO, as some Christian groups apparently did.<br /><br />Of course, then I went and actually <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36EBi5tQQrg&feature=player_embedded">watched the clip</a>, and in reality the character only accidentally urinates on the painting, and seems rather embarrassed about it. Showing someone feeling bad about accidentally peeing on a painting of Jesus isn't reeeeeally what I would call persecution...<br /><br />UPDATE (07/01/2010): hehe, someone totally <a href="http://isitluck.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/persecution-in-america-is-fake/">takes apart</a> much of the rest of the "persecution" h/t Dispatches<br /><br />UPDATE (10/01/2010): and now <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/christian_martyr_complex_on_a.php">PZ Myers</a> has covered it too.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-42282469939414041982009-12-17T19:20:00.000-08:002009-12-17T19:22:43.911-08:00I need to post more gay stuff......because all this <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/democracy-canadian-style-how-do-you-like-it-so-far/article1403148/">politics is making me depressed</a>.<br /><br />h/t <a href="http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/">CC</a>that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-16783882724870177092009-12-15T19:33:00.000-08:002009-12-15T19:39:05.351-08:00Karma's a bitchWhile the name Michael Geist rings some bells, I'll admit I had no idea that this guy was a Law professor at Ottawa University. Anyway, his article from a little while ago makes for a very <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/">interesting read</a>.<br /><br />Apparently, the recording companies that whined and cried for years that internet file sharing was a violation of copyright laws were, themselves, violating the copyright laws. In a BIG way.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-14472313189081273262009-12-08T14:51:00.000-08:002009-12-08T15:04:48.195-08:00Two years later, a report tells us something everyone already knewThe whole idea of tasers was that they were supposed to provide a less lethal <span style="font-style: italic;">stand-in</span> for the use of guns. Since they do pose a moderate risk for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/us/as-shocks-replace-police-bullets-deaths-drop-but-questions-arise.html">serious harm</a> or death, users are only supposed to use them as they would use a gun.<br /><br />Now, if you noticed a few RCMP officers shoot an unarmed man, then shoot him some more while he's on the ground, you might wonder if they were being a little over-zealous. That's what 4 RCMP officers did to a Polish man in Vancouver in 2007. Now a report is out saying that the officers used their weapons irresponsibly, that they did not follow proper protocols, and that the RCMP as an organization didn't respond properly either.<br /><br />Response from RCMP Commissioner William Elliott? "<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/08/bc-kennedy-vancouver-airport-taser-report.html?ref=rss">No comment.</a>"<br /><br />Forgive me for thinking that RCMP Commissioner William Elliott is a jerk.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-25159977422618078972009-12-01T19:11:00.000-08:002009-12-01T19:16:54.244-08:00Sweden Moving in a Positive DirectionAre you <a href="http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/12/01/Sweden_Partially_Lifts_Gay_Blood_Bans/">listening</a>, Canadian Blood Services?<br /><blockquote>Sweden joins countries including Russia that have already changed their laws to allow gay men to donate blood. Meanwhile, the United States and England still bar men who have had sex with men from donating.</blockquote>So does <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article681195.ece">Canada</a>, but it's time we opened our eyes to the fact that our ban on gay blood donors is ridiculously overbearing.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-86525456305991550792009-11-28T12:36:00.000-08:002009-11-28T12:44:36.067-08:00"Thinking people need not apply"Just yesterday I wrote a couple exams that required more preparation, blood, sweat, and tears, than any other exam of my life. They made the MCAT look like a 2nd grade spelling bee.<br /><br />Now that that's all over with, I'm hoping that I can get back to blogging a little bit. Today we'll start things off easy (by letting someone else to all the writing). ;)<br /><br />Via <a href="http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/">Canadian Cynic </a>(who just recently linked to this blog, nearly making me crap my pants with excitement), Kathleen Parker of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Washington Pos</span>t <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR2009112702325_pf.html">elaborates </a>on how today's Republicans are more concerned with their outdated principles than adapting to the times.<br /><br />My favourite part:<br /><br /><blockquote>Most of us know that decisiveness isn't always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude both dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style? </blockquote><br /><br />Touchéthat_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-75125610623511528602009-10-08T07:49:00.000-07:002009-10-08T07:51:00.842-07:00HeheheheheZOMG <a href="http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-bling-for-saturn-galileos-revenge.html">this </a>is funny.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">When Galileo told the Pope</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Here, look into my telescope—</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">You’ll see much beauty there, I hope.”</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">His Holiness, the Pope, said “Nope.”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“Now kiss my ring, instead, and swear</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">That nothing of the sort is there—</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I know you think it is not fair,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But I’m the Pope, as you’re aware.”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Pope’s command was quite absurd,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But Galileo gave his word,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Though some report him undeterred:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">“E pur si muove” overheard.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In hindsight now, with great delight,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">We know, despite his Papal might,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">That evidence would come to light</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To prove the heretic was right.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">With Urban’s ring already kissed,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The chance to get it right was missed,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Just one more error on the list—</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But now, we find another twist!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What wonders will the cosmos bring?</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Now Saturn sports another ring!</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Much bigger than the Pope’s, this thing</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Is interplanetary bling!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Four centuries have come to pass</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Since Galileo ground his glass;</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Far too much time for him, alas,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">To tell the Pope to kiss his ass.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But now, the kids will learn in school:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">That Saturn sports another jewel;</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">That telescopes are really cool;</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">One may be Pope, but still a fool.</span>that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-76047150549784191992009-09-28T17:47:00.000-07:002009-09-28T17:49:18.132-07:00Not that it's surprising anymore......but it never hurts to mention that gay couples make absolutely <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE58O3MK20090925">FABULOUS</a> parents. ;)<br /><br />H/T <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/frontPage.do">PHB</a>that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-7467242881462637962009-09-22T15:49:00.001-07:002009-09-22T16:04:38.088-07:00Won't somebody think of the CHILDRENZ!?!???!1!A favourite scare-tactic among anti-gay activists is the idea that gay rights are detrimental to children. For example, when dissing gay marriage, they often argue that children to better "when raised by a mother and father." This is a sneaky trick, since the research that this is based on actually compared <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0913healthymarriage13.html">two-parent vs. one-parent</a> families.* That's not the same thing as saying that being raised by both biological parents is better than being raised by same-sex parents (or remarried parents or adoptive parents for that matter--but anti-gay activists never seem to consider those...).<br /><br />This information should be considered by Mainers who will be asked to <span style="font-size:78%;">approve </span>or <span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://mainefreedomtomarry.com/">REJECT</a></span> Proposition 1 this November, barring gays and lesbians from marrying in that state.<br /><br />In a much-appreciated memo today, the Maine chapter of the American Academy of Pediatricians urged voters to <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13122/press-release-from-no-on-1-maine-pediatricians-support-marriage-equality">reject the ban</a>. Cuz, you know, that's what would ACTUALLY be good for the children of Maine. From the press release:<br /><blockquote>"As pediatricians, we see how supportive parents -- whether gay or straight -- positively impact the development of children. That is why we oppose the referendum that would rescind the law that allows same sex couples to marry." </blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">*Please note that there are also studies that suggest that single-parents can do <a href="http://www.cupblog.org/?p=742">just as well</a></span> raising children.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-51794361025082836232009-09-22T07:16:00.000-07:002009-09-22T07:22:36.487-07:00Sinead's HandThis is a fantastic PSA from Ireland that is particularly poignant given the vote that will be taking place soon in Maine. It shows just how demeaning it is for gays and lesbians to have to grovel for the basic right to have their relationships recognized.<br /><br />Maine's gay marriage law is being put up to a public vote this fall because of the workings of anti-gay activists who simply couldn't accept that the Maine legislature passed the law fair and square. If you live in Maine, or know anyone who does, spread the message: <a href="http://mainefreedomtomarry.com/">NO ON 1</a>!<br /><br /><object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ULdaSrYGLQ&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ULdaSrYGLQ&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object><br /><br />Hat tip to <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/">Sandwalk</a>--a fantastic Canadian science blogger based out of Toronto.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-24148705242688513822009-09-10T18:30:00.000-07:002009-09-10T18:44:51.470-07:00Queer thoughtsUnsurprisingly, yet another team of researchers has <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813190932.htm">found </a>that gay people are more likely to seek treatment for mental health disorders. This is not exactly news (in that it's not new information) but it bears repeating for two reasons.<br /><br />First, the plight of homosexuals with regards to mental health bears the double taboo of homosexuality and mental illness. Both of these topics tend to make people skiddish, particularly when speaking in public. But this issue <span style="font-style: italic;">needs </span>to be discussed publicly, not least because LGBT people have <a href="http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/alert53.pdf">higher rates of suicide</a> and suicide attempts than the general population.<br /><br />Secondly, the old mistake of equating correlation with causation plays into the hands of anti-gay activists. They consistently take these types of findings and twist them to make it seem as though being gay is inherently detrimental to one's mental well-being. This will likely also happen with this study, despite the authors' own statement that:<br /><blockquote>"The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems."</blockquote><br />The truth needs to be trumpeted, loud and clear.<br />Alvin McEwan does an excellent job of cataloging and dismantling these anti-gay attacks at his blog <a href="http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/">Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters</a>.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-7844186329217500272009-09-05T12:13:00.000-07:002009-09-05T12:14:35.767-07:00Science educationSo if you're of the opinion that science education in North America is A-Ok...watch this:<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_c6HsiixFS8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_c6HsiixFS8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-2538142891309816892009-08-28T07:42:00.000-07:002009-08-28T08:01:56.745-07:00This is not my kind of medicineJust this week, I had a patient who checked himself out of the hospital early in order to pursue "traditional healing" at home. I honestly don't know what that specifically entails, but presumably something of the Inuit tradition. I've also had lots of other patients in the past tell me that they will or would rather pursue X treatments (where X = "natural," "homeopathic," etc).<br /><br />These treatments are usually benign. <em>Usually</em>. How, you might ask, could something like homeopathy (which is really just water) be unhealthy? Well, sometimes the practitioners of ACM (alternative and complimentary medicine) are very critical of real medicine. Frankly, I'd hate to lend my credibility to a practitioner that is just going to diss me behind my back and possibly convince my patient they no longer need my help. Also, some ACM/natural treatments actually are harmful, or can decrease the efficiency of proven medical remidies. St. John's wort, for example <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John%27s_Wort#Adverse_effects_and_drug_interactions">decreases the efficacy</a> of anti-retrovirals (used in the treatment of HIV infection) and oral contraceptive therapy. Even grapefruit juice can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapefruit_juice#Drug_interactions">alter the metabolism </a>of certain drugs.<br /><br />So even though "alternative treatments" usually don't hurt, I still cringe when my patients say they use them, and I never recommend them.<br /><br />But some other people in the world are soooooo certain that their unproven, hokey, primitive, might-as-well-be-called-magic treatments are the only way to go, they let people die instead of taking them to a real doctor. Like <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/shame_on_washington_state.php">this kid</a>. Washington really, really needs to fix their legislation.<br /><br />...SRSLYthat_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-79555049188383661212009-08-06T08:16:00.000-07:002009-08-06T08:32:57.094-07:00In Totally Unsurprising News...The APA has adopted a resolution declaring that sexual reorientation therapy (aka "ex-gay" therapy, "reparative therapy") is bunk. Colour me shocked. ;) You can find the press release <a href="http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html">here</a> and the guidelines in PDF form <a href="http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf">here</a>.<br /><br />The short story is that the APA set up a task force to review the (admittedly scant and old) literature concerning efforts to change peoples' sexual orientation. They did manage to find about 80 old studies, and after reviewing them, found no evidence to suggest that sexual "reorientation" is possible. In fact:<br /><blockquote>"Contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates, recent research studies do not provide evidence of sexual orientation change as the research methods are inadequate to determine the effectiveness of these interventions." Glassgold added: "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."</blockquote><br />That paragraph made me smile ;)<br /><br />This resolution is extremely important, because there are still a large number of organisations that run or support programs that claim to cure homosexuality.* If someone you know tells you that they're considering patronizing one of these types of programs, please direct them to this resolution, so they at least know what they're getting into.<br /><br />Many of these programs cost thousands of dollars, not to mention the psychological trauma of being "treated" by someone with no psychological credentials and the guilt of being systematically told that you're sick in some way.<br /><br />Another reason this resolution is so important is because it was recently found that many therapists in the UK are still under the impression that sexual orientation can be changed in some way, and many have actively helped their patients to try to become straight. Hopefully this consensus will bring an end to this ridiculous practice.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">*Actually, a lot of these programs only claim to help you "leave homosexuality" or claim that "change is possible," whatever that means. It's probably just so they don't get sued for false advertising.</span>that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-51661994150727851222009-07-26T13:16:00.000-07:002009-07-26T14:13:40.769-07:00The Gay Gene?I had a discussion with two friends recently about the genetic nature of homosexuality. This topic is often terribly misunderstood, so today I'll try to sum up all the information as concisely as possible.[1]<br /><br />First, though, it's important to distinguish the difference between the terms "genetic," "developmental," and "in-born." When we say that something is genetically inherited, we mean that a quality is determined by one's genetic code. A good example would be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease">sickle cell anemia</a>. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin">hemoglobin</a> (Hb)in your red blood cells is coded for by a handful of genes; a particular mutation in one of these genes results in misshaped Hb, which then deforms your red blood cells and makes you sick. Sickle cell anemia is entirely genetic in origin.<br /><br />To say that something is developmental is to mean that a quality is determined by the the environment an organism is exposed to during development. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Determinants_of_growth_and_height">Your height</a>, for example, is partially determined by what kind of foods you eat while growing up, your level of exercise, and other factors.<br /><br />However, we still refer to one's height as something that is "in-born;" that is to say, a personal quality that is outside one's control. Something determined by one's own nature. Keep this in mind for later in the post...<br /><br />Now, homosexuality poses a bit of an evolutionary <a href="http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html">paradox</a>. If <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms">evolution</a> favours traits that improve a species' reproductive success, how could a trait like homosexuality become so common?[2] Surely any gene or genes for homosexuality would decrease the likelihood of its' possessor's reproduction, and be lost from the gene pool.<br /><br />In a June 2008 paper, Andrea Ciani et al.[3], propose an evolutionary mechanism called "sexually antagonistic selection" that could account for the prevalence of homosexual behaviour. To sum up (to the best of my abilities), their paper suggests that sexuality is determined by two genes, one of which is located on the X chromosome. Having the "gay" version of these genes (we could say "gay alleles") makes males gay <span style="font-style: italic;">but makes females more likely to reproduce</span>. The gay alleles could be said to simultaneously decrease male fitness but increase female fitness. This provides a solution to our paradox, assuming that the advantage for females outweighs the disadvantage to males.[4] Indeed, this genetic model is also compatible with other data, such as the fact that homosexual males' maternal aunts and grandmothers are found to be more fecund than baseline. [3]<br /><br />This model adds to the growing data that support a natural cause for homosexuality. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality is at least <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm">35% genetic in origin</a>, and various other theories are being researched to understand the developmental components (handedness, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107170741.htm">brain anatomy</a>, and hormonal exposure in the womb, for example).<br /><br />However, as my friend and I agreed, while all this information is interesting from a basic sciences perspective, it serves almost no purpuse in terms of informing public opinion or policy concerning homosexuality. ...Or, rather, it shouldn't.<br /><br />Public interest in the genetic/developmental origins of homosexuality center around the debate about whether or not being gay is a choice. While all the evidence so far points to a substantial "in-born" component to sexual preference, it doesn't matter anyway. There is nothing unnatural, immoral, or harmful about homosexual behaviour, so there should be no public recourse against it. And even if it were a choice to be gay (can you imagine choosing to be gay!?), lots of other life choices (such as religion, most notably), receive widespread public support. People who advance the "it's a choice" argument are either lacking integrity or honesty.<br /><br />1. My apologies for the long time since my last post.<br /><br />2 It is, in fact, quite common. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals">here </a>for some examples of homosexuality observed in the Animal Kingdom.<br /><br />3. Camperio Ciani A, Cermelli P, Zanzotto G (2008) Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2282. doi:10.1371/<br />journal.pone.0002282<br /><br />4. This paper uses a LOT of wacky mathematics that make my head spin. I leave it to my more "numbered" readers to judge the merits of the authors' work.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-27369915431902994952009-06-17T17:20:00.000-07:002009-06-17T18:06:37.066-07:00Two-faced AND incompetent + utterly transparentIn an effort to stem the tide of upset in the LGBT community after his Department of Justice denigrated them in a defense of DOMA (see my <a href="http://thatchrisguysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/total-betrayal.html">previous post</a>), Obama today signed a memo that will allow the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11526/crumby-memo-the-video">some of the benefits</a> that heterosexual spouses receive.<br /><br />...The condescension is so patronising it boils my blood. For the following reasons:<br /><br />1. Same-sex partners and their children <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/17/politics/main5094529.shtml">will not receive Health Care benefits</a>, which is one of the most devastating aspects of marriage discrimination.<br />2. These benefits will only apply to Federal employees, i.e. very few people.<br />3. The only reason the LGBT community is being offered even this *<span style="font-style: italic;">scrap</span>* of dignity is so that they<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17gays.html?_r=2"> won't make a fuss</a> at the Democratic National Convention's big fund-raiser on June 25th.<br /><br />LGBT's were thrilled at the prospect of a President who would treat them with dignity. ...Looks like their elation was premature.<br /><br />For any Americans who might read this: I think you should tell Obama and the entire DNC--loudly--that your cash won't go to support "leaders" who have done nothing to stand up for your rights or dignity.<br /><br />PS Another thing that just occurred to me is that this happened with the stroke of a pen. It was a ship-shod quick response to try to quell the LGBT community...and as such, it could have been done MONTHS ago. Obama has been sitting on this for 5 months, and is only now putting pen to paper.<br /><br />So, once again to my American friends: If Obama's been able to grant you these rights (however limited they may be), <span style="font-style: italic;">what else is he holding back</span>? What else can you pry out of the Democrats' terrified little paws? I suggest you yell, write, call, email, protest, and above all let them know you won't give them one pink penny until you get the civil rights you deserve! *HUG*that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-47340353355332546432009-06-14T10:55:00.000-07:002009-06-14T11:21:48.332-07:00Total BetrayalThe Obama administration has officially thrown queer people <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11427/the-obama-admin-defends-doma-in-a-brief-comparing-marriage-equality-to-incest">under the bus</a>.<br /><br />Background: In the few states that do allow gay marriage, those marriages only entail rights at the state level (no federal recognition for tax purposes, for example) and the rights they do have end at the state border (once a couple enters another state, they are legal strangers). This stunning example of second-class citizenship is made possible by DOMA--the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act">Defense of Marriage Act</a>--that was enacted in 1996 under the Clinton Administration. DOMA ensures that:<br /><ol><li>No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.</li><li>The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.</li></ol>So, in reality, when we talk about states that have achieved "marriage equality," it's really not equal at all. Gay people don't get federal recognition and lose whatever protections they do have as soon as they leave the state.<br /><br />However, Americans have this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">pesky Amendment</a> in their Constitution that guarantees equal protection for all citizens under the law. So someone had the bright idea of taking DOMA to court since it's a pretty obvious case of discrimination and denial of civil rights at the federal level.<br /><br />Since this lawsuit is challenging a federal law, it's up to the President's Department of Justice to try to defend it. One would think that the DoJ for a President who has described himself as a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights and has actually argued that DOMA needs to be repealed would take a fairly soft stance in defending this blatantly anti-gay law.<br /><br />One would be gravely, slap-in-the-face-ingly wrong.<br /><br />Not only did Obama's DoJ defend DOMA, they went so far as to claim that the law is totally constitutional, that it's ok cuz we also don't let adults marry kids, that gay people aren't a suspect class that can be discriminated against, and that it's not really discrimination since gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite gender.<br /><br />WHHAAAAAAAAA?<br /><br />Calling this a slap in the face is an understatement. This is the legal equivalent of a solid kick between the legs. Obama's administration has officially argued that gay people do not deserve to marry. They did this by completely dehumanizing gay people. It's disgusting.<br /><br />Obama can go suck a lemon. I'm done supporting this two-faced liar.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-45293514674660803392009-06-01T20:53:00.000-07:002009-06-01T20:58:38.968-07:00Ummm....WHAT?I seriously don't know what to say about <a href="http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid87594.asp">this</a>.<br /><br />Under normal circumstances I'd say "too little, too late." But this is just so...shocking. I mean, can you think of anyone more Conservative than Dick Cheney? He's second only to Steven Colbert in being a parody of conservatism. And yet here he is, supporting marriage equality. It's like hearing a vegan say "You know what? Eating venison is no big deal..."<br /><br />Whatever. If it can help convince a few more people that gay marriage isn't the end of the world, I'm all for it. :)that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-54616006127631233952009-06-01T08:51:00.000-07:002009-06-01T09:00:43.929-07:00Yay, Nevada!It's not quite marriage equality, but it's the next best thing.<br /><br />The State legislature and senate of Nevada have <a href="http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/31/veto-override-domestic-partners-bill-becomes-law/">overridden their governor</a> to pass a domestic partnerships bill. For those not familiar with these types of things, domestic partnerships (or civil unions) are legal contracts that can be entered into by same-sex or opposite-sex couples. They confer varying degrees of legal rights upon the two parties, depending on the state law. I believe the Nevada bill bestows all the legal rights of marriage, just not the name. This truly is a huge win for Nevada's same-sex couples, as voters outlawed gay marriage years ago.<br /><br />Nevada's LGBT's and allies should not stop there, though. It's become more and more clear over the years that domestic partnerships and civil unions <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html">aren't as good as marriage</a>, probably largely due to the fact that they are not recognized federally. Upwards and onwards, American neighbours!that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-64485855793013138972009-05-21T15:16:00.000-07:002009-05-21T15:18:53.571-07:00Some Heathen HumourI have a b*%$! of an exam tomorrow, so to cheer myself up, here's some "free speech." Enjoy :)<br /><br /><h3 class="post-title entry-title"> <a href="http://lolgod.blogspot.com/2009/03/top-ten-reasons-why-beer-is-better-than.html">Top Ten Reasons Why Beer is Better Than Jesus</a> </h3> 10. No one will kill you for not drinking Beer.<br /><br />9. Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.<br /><br />8. Beer has never caused a major war.<br /><br />7. They don't force Beer on minors who can't think for themselves.<br /><br />6. When you have a Beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.<br /><br />5. Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his brand of Beer.<br /><br />4. You don't have to wait 2000+ years for a second Beer.<br /><br />3. There are laws saying Beer labels can't lie to you.<br /><br />2. You can prove you have a Beer.<br /><br />1. If you've devoted your life to Beer, there are groups to help you stop.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Stolen from lolgod.blogspot.com</span>that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-19828285226116202372009-05-17T08:38:00.000-07:002009-05-17T09:05:42.554-07:00What's a Little Historical Revisionism?The Pope recently ended a pilgrimage through the Middle East, which is already churning with controversy. This particular Pope's presence in the Middle East is most notable because as a teen he participated in the Hitler Youth. This doesn't necessarily mean much; it was a long time ago, and it does not suggest that the Pope still carries Nazi sympathies. Plus, many Jewish people are still upset at Pope Pius XII for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#The_Holocaust">not taking a stronger stance</a> against Jewish persecution during WWII. However, when addressing the nation of Israel, apparently, the Jews were looking for a little more sympathy than the pontiff <a href="http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/NATL-Pope-Faulted-in-Israel-for-Holocaust-Comments.html">had to offer</a>.<br /><br />Word must have gotten back to Pope Benedict, though, because he followed up with another statement--and it's with this one that I take issue. <a href="http://www.canada.com/news/Pope+ends+pilgrimage+condemns+Holocaust+denial/1599900/story.html">He said that</a> "the brutal extermination of Jews by the "godless" Nazi regime would never be forgotten or denied."<br /><br />Ummmmm... exsqueeze me? I have 3 words for the Pope: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns">Gott mit uns</a>.<br /><br />I think there could be a genuine debate on Hitler's faith, and whether he actually believed in a god or just used religious rhetoric to inspire loyalty. But it simply cannot be denied that Christian faith was an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_Christianity#Nazi_Attitudes_towards_Christianity">integral part of Nazism</a>. The Pope blatantly shifted the blame from Christians to atheists for Nazi anti-Semitism, which is a disingenuous lie. The people who committed the crimes of the Holocaust were Christians, and the Pope disrespects Judaism by simply passing off the blame to others.that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-376242192620940182.post-6557799458749960732009-05-09T11:55:00.000-07:002009-05-11T10:40:37.782-07:00On the catholic church<span style="font-style: italic;">This is an open response to a family friend of mine, who posted this comment on my Facebook page: </span><br /><h3 style="font-family: times new roman; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic;" class="UIIntentionalStory_Message"><blockquote>I just had a heated conversation with my husband about how warped the catholic church is. He maintains that if the church has said sorry it's enough...my question is when will the church mean it?</blockquote></h3><span style="font-style: italic;">Comments on my response are welcomed by anyone.</span><br />------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Carole,<br /><br />I was raised as a Catholic, but was lucky enough to attend a very progressive Church. Also, as you know, my parents are very open-minded people. I enjoyed being part of my Church growing up, and I believe that my experiences there helped me learn how to be a better person. Even since I stopped believing in god, I still have a very strong emotional attachment to the Church in which I was raised. That attachment, however, no longer extends to the Catholic church as an institution, for reasons I will now elaborate on.<br /><br />The lessons that I learned in Church while growing up included going out of your way to help others, spending more time with your family, the vacuity of being judgmental, and the power of forgiveness. Humility, love, compassion.<br /><br />While these ideals might be the stated aims of the Catholic Church, they are certainly not values that I see displayed regularly.<br /><br />Instead, I hear about <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml">institutionalised cover-ups</a> to protect child-assaulting priests from being prosecuted. I hear about the Vatican protesting <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/02/vatican-gay-decriminalization/">against a UN resolution</a> to denounce violence against homosexuals. I hear their continued <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/30/vatican.women.priests/">misogynist refusal </a>to allow women to hold positions of authority.<br /><br />It has become clear to me that the Catholic Church, as an institution, is more concerned with promoting adherence to it's own dogma than it is with the relief of human suffering. It is more concerned with maintaining power than with maintaining integrity. It has consistently failed to uphold the dignity of human existence, and for that I can no longer associate myself with it.<br /><br />Take for example, the recent case of a 9-year-old Brazilian girl who <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/4960546/Brazilian-girls-abortion-sparks-Catholic-row.html">became pregnant with twins</a> after being repeatedly sexually assaulted by her step-father. After determining that, due to her young age and low weight, the girl's life would be put in danger if the girl took the pregnancy to term, two doctors medically ended her pregnancy. Despite the medical necessity of the abortion, the Brazilian Chruch excommunicated the two doctors and the girl's mother--but not the step-father, who is also accused of sexually abusing the girl's 14-year-old handicapped sister.<br /><br />Another brazen example of the Church's indifference to the human condition lies with it's stubborn refusal to condone the distribution of condoms in Africa to stem the spread of AIDS, the world's leading cause of death by infectious disease. This is despite the fact that condom use has been shown to <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2902326">decrease the transmission of HIV</a>, and that abstinence-only programs have been shown to be <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806152436.htm">ineffective</a>.*<br /><br />And then, of course, there's the Church's outdated, dehumanizing view on <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/23/pope-speech.html">gay relationships</a>. It never ceases to amaze me how they can take a few (<a href="http://www.godmademegay.com/">highly interpretable</a>) passages from the Bible and use them to denigrate healthy, loving relationships. One would think that with all the claims they make about promoting love and companionship, they wouldn't make such a fuss about two men's relationship being recognized by the government.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the Chuch's massive resistance to gay marriage is second-only in fervor to its opposition to abortion. However, it is not alone in its denial of gay people's humanity. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzTx0lbwi8A">Pat Robertson recently said</a> that legalizing gay marriage will result in the legalization of pedophilia and bestiality (one wonders how children or animals, who can't give legal consent, would sign a marriage contract). <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10814/daddy-d-crawls-out-of-the-crypt-for-lieridden-hate-crimes-hysteria-video">James Dobson</a>, of Focus on the Family fame, recently said that a bill in the US House that would basically make gay-bashing a hate crime would also give protections to pedophiles and necrophiliacs (because the bill does not explicitly define "sexual orientation"). This is a lie, and Dobson knows it becuase he's a psychologist. "Sexual orientation" includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality; pedophilia and necrophilia are defined as "paraphilias."<br /><br />Rick Warren, one of the most popular evangelical leaders in the US and head of an enourmous mega-church, also <a href="http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/04/video-rick-warren-is-bearing-false-witness-period.html">equated gay relationships to pedophilia and incest</a> (though apparently he later apologised). He then went on to lie about his support for Proposition 8 (which took gay marriage away from Californians) on national TV, despite <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10284/rick-warren-lies-about-his-homobigotry-on-larry-king-live">video proof of the contrary</a>.<br /><br />It seems like the people who say the worst things about gay people are actually the religious devout. Religious instituions are the major impediment to respect for gay people. Historically, they have also been the source of major resistance to almost every progressive social advancement in the past few centuries (women's rights, abolition of slavery, interracial marriage, etc.).<br /><br />Lest my message be misconstrued at this point, let me say that I don't think all religious people are homophobes. Nor are all Catholics cold-hearted. What I'm trying to prove with the above anecdotes are the following:<br /><br />1. While claiming to be on higher moral ground than the rest of us, religious people and their leaders often take positions that are completely inhumane and often detrimental to their fellow man. This includes countless recent examples of outright lies being spread to keep gay people from gaining equal protection and rights under the law.<br /><br />2. While I have no problem with people choosing to live by whatever personal beliefs they choose, I do not believe that they have a right to force their religious beliefs on others. By denying gay people the right to marry or to be protected from discrimination without any secular reasoning, that's exactly what they are doing.<br /><br />3. Perhaps my biggest disappointment is with "moderate" religious people, who claim that the outspoken homophobes "don't speak for them." News flash: the homophobes are speaking loud enough for everyone, but the voice of opposition from moderates is not being heard. It sounds an awful lot more like silent consent.<br /><br />I haven't heard of any recent apology from the Catholic Church, but even if I did, it would take a lot more than that to make up for the hurt they've caused gay people everywhere (not to mention other minorities and women). I'll start listening to them again once they show that they're more concerned with helping their fellow man than getting their own way.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">*Clarification: the best type of education is one that includes information on both </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9605896">abstinence and safer-sex practices</a><span style="font-style: italic;">, not necessarily just one or the other.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Update (11/05/09): The Catholic Bishop of Maine has just issued a statement in response to the Maine legislature's legalization of gay marriage. The good Bishop claims that gay <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10914/maine-bishop-richard-malone-same-sex-marriage-is-dangerous">marriage is "dangerous."</a> However, I'm starting to think that maybe the Catholic Church is dangerous:<br /></span></span><b></b><blockquote><b>[In Maine] 63 priests and other diocese employees had been accused of sexual abuse over the previous 75 years</b></blockquote>that_chris_guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12769650459017988956noreply@blogger.com0