Prop 8 Repeal Initiative Can Begin Signature Gathering

The organization Love Honor Cherish announced this week that it has been given the go-ahead by the Attorney General of California to begin circulating ballot petitions to repeal Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment which purports to ban people of the same sex from marrying in California.

The text of the amendment is:

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution.  Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type.  Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1.  To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2.  To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The ballot summary is:

Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 12/15/11 | Circulation Deadline: 05/14/12 | Signatures Required: 807,615

Proponent: Thomas B. Watson

Repeals the current provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Clarifies that the initiative shall not be interpreted to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person to perform a marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (11-0058) (Full Text)

Of course, Love Honor Cherish also went forward with a signature-gathering campaign in two years ago in Winter 2009-Spring 2010 to repeal Proposition 8 which failed miserably. Gathering enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot in California is a resource-intensive task, not one that has been achieved by a mainly volunteer or unpaid effort in years.

This effort does not have the backing of any of the state's major LGBT organizations (like Equality California and the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center). The proponents have until May 14, 2012 to gather well over a million signatures, in the hopes that 807, 615 will be valid.

I agree that Propsition 8 should be repealed but I do not think that the LGBT community of California has had a discussion about what it would take to repeal Proposition 8 and I think it is incredibly naive and presumptious of one organization to think that they can make the decision for all LGBT Californians to put our rights up for a public vote.

I will not be signing the petition and I urge you not to as well.

Map of Status of Gay Rights in Africa

Joe.My.God links to this interesting map about the state of the law towards homosexuality throughout Africa, provided by ILGA.

Interestingly, friend of MadProfessah.com, Rod McCollum is currently in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia for an international AIDS conference and is posting some amazing first person reports of his trip on his blog, Rod 2.0. Check it out!

Godless Wednesday: NYT Covers Black Irreligiosity

Praise Allah! No less an important media outlet than the New York Times has recognized that African American Atheists exist! SentientMeat brought this article to my attention and suggested it would be a good subject for a Godless Wednesday post. He reads more things than Cactus and Succulent websites after all.

In a piece published this week titled "The Unbelievers" the Paper of Record examines the (ir)religiosity of Black people in this country:

RONNELLE ADAMS came out to his mother twice, first about his homosexuality, then about his atheism.

“My mother is very devout,” said Mr. Adams, 30, a Washington resident who has published an atheist children’s book, “Aching and Praying,” but who in high school considered becoming a Baptist preacher. “She started telling me her issues with homosexuality, which were, of course, Biblical,” he said. “ ‘I just don’t care what the Bible says about that,’ I told her, and she asked why. ‘I don’t believe that stuff anymore.’ It got silent. She was distraught. She told me she was more bothered by that than the revelation I was gay.”

[...]

African-Americans are remarkably religious even for a country known for its faithfulness, as the United States is. According to the Pew Forum 2008 United States Religious Landscape Survey, 88 percent of African-Americans believe in God with absolute certainty, compared with 71 percent of the total population, with more than half attending religious services at least once a week.

[...]

According to Pew, the vast majority of atheists and agnostics are white, including the authors Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Seeking a public intellectual of their own, some black atheists have claimed the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, interpreting his arguments against teaching intelligent design in the classroom to be an endorsement of atheism. But Dr. deGrasse Tyson is loath to be associated with any part of the movement. When contacted last week by e-mail, he noted a Twitter exchange he had in August, in which he told a follower, “Am I an Atheist, you ask? Labels are mentally lazy ways by which people assert they know you without knowing you.”

Methinks Dr. Tyson doth protest too much, don't you? Anyway, it's cool that there are blogs like Godless and Black and Words of Wrath as well as organizations like African Americans for Humanism and facebook pages like Black Atheists of America. Hopefully MadProfessah's Godless Wednesday will join this list of Black Atheist resources.

Ha-Ha! Author of SB-1070 Gets Recalled

Ha,ha! This was the most encouraging election result in a night full of heart-warming election results (rejecting Mississippi's zygote personhood amendment, repealing Ohio's anti-union law and rejecting Maine's voter suppression law): the xenophobic author of multiple pieces of immigrant-bashing legislation (but most notably SB 1070), Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce was recalled by voters on Tuesday night.

KPHO reports:

Voters have ousted state Sen. Russell Pearce in an unprecedented recall election, a first for an Arizona legislator.

With a majority of the precincts reporting, the top vote-getter, Republican Jerry Lewis, steps into the District 18 legislative seat for the second year of a two-year term.

Lewis claimed victory at 9 p.m.  "Our opponent was the most powerful politician in Arizona and one who had deep-pocketed and powerful interests from outside our district backing him, as well as the entire muscle from our state Republican Party," Lewis said.

Lewis, 54, a charter school executive, has been a resident of Mesa for nearly 30 years.  His victory now forces the Senate's majority Republicans to pick a new leader for the chamber.

People on both sides of the debate said that removing Pearce would send a powerful message to the Legislature that uncompromising stances on immigration and other issues will not be tolerated by voters.

Pearce, a 64-year-old conservative Republican from Mesa, outspent his challenger by more than a 3-to-1 ratio and painted the recall advocates as liberal outsiders who targeted him because of his immigration stance.

Pearce was unabashedly racist and an asshole and it's a good riddance of bad rubbish. However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Governor Jan Brewer are still elected officials in Arizona and should be removed from office by voters as well.

Herman Cain Leads Latest NBC Poll

Black Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is now leading the polls for the Republican nomination, breaking out of the single digit pack.

Cain also leads putative frontrunner Mitt Romney in recent polls in Florida, South Carolina, and Iowa..  Surely, a Black man could never be elected President of the United States, right?

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

Celebrity Friday: Roland Fryer

Professor Roland Fryer

The 2011 MacArthur Foundation Fellows were announced a few weeks ago. These fellowships are commonly known as "genius"grants. One of the winners this year was Roland Fryer, an Economics Professor at Harvard.

From the official announcement:

Roland Fryer is an economist illuminating the causes and consequences of economic disparity due to race and inequality in American society. Through innovative empirical and theoretical investigations, Fryer has opened up a range of topics to quantitative analysis, offering new insights on such issues as the cognitive underpinnings of racial discrimination, labor market inequalities, and, in particular, the educational trajectory of minority children. In an examination of the longitudinal trends of testing gaps among elementary schoolchildren, Fryer and a collaborator determined that, after controlling for background characteristics, black and white children enter kindergarten at parity, but their achievement gap widens through higher grade levels; in addition, they found that traditional socioeconomic metrics could not account for this gap. In other work, Fryer posited that social network structure could be a contributing factor. Having constructed an index of social status based on a large, national set of demographic data, his analysis suggests that peer-group loyalty sometimes competes with academic performance, particularly in ethnically heterogeneous environments. Recently, Fryer led a randomized experiment with well over 20,000 students from more than 200 schools in three cities, testing several models of financial incentives to see if they improve children's academic performance. Results collected to date indicate that incentives payments alone have no statistically significant impact on subsequent state test scores. These studies, among many others, demonstrate Fryer's propensity to tackle difficult, often sensitive, social questions with scientific rigor. His research is informing the work of academics and policy makers alike, and he is playing a singular and influential role in ongoing discussions about the effects of racial differences in America.

I love seeing Black men officially recognized as "geniuses"! Don't you?Maybe this should become a regular feature of MadProfessah.com, let me know in the comments.

Correlation Of Bigotry With Religious Belief?

Donald Young Beats Monfils To Reach 1st ATP Final

Donald Young celebrates during his semifinal win against Gael Monfils

(photo credit: AP)

22-year old African-American Donald Young came back from 1-4 down in the 3rd set to win his first career ATP tour semifinal match 4-6 7-6(5) 7-6(5) against Gael Monfils of France at the PTT Thailand Open. Young, six years ago was the top junior tennis player in the world but had generally struggled on the ATP tour until this year's U.S. Open where he made the quarterfinals, losing to Andy Murray.

Unfortunately for Young, his opponent in his first tour final will be Andy Murray, who won his semifinal match against Gilles Simon in 3 lopsided sets. Interestingly, this will be the third time Young and Murray have played each other this year, splitting matches.

This is only the second time Murray has played the Thailand tournament, reaching the final both times. Very few players actually win their first tour final, it is doubtful Young will. However, by just reaching the final he shall probably be ranked #43 in the world on Monday, more than 80 places higher than he started the year.

Celebrity Friday: First African Miss Universe Fights HIV

Leila Luliana da Costa Vieira Lopes,
Miss Angola, was crowned Miss Universe

Leila Lopes, Miss Angola, became the first winner of the Miss Universe beauty pageant from Africa this week. I believe she is the first "dark-skinned" woman to win the most famous beauty pageant in the world.

Nigeria's Vanguard newspaper reports:

This is the first time a beauty queen from Angola has been crowned as Miss Universe. She is first black African to win the 60 year-old pageantry. Nigeria’s Agbani Darego won the 51st Miss World pageant in Sun City, South Africa, on 17 November, 2001.


[...]

The brand new Miss Universe, Leila Lopes said she wants to help her native Angola escape a history of war and impoverishment and work towards combating HIV.

Being crowned at the ceremony in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the 25-year-old said that “as Miss Angola, I’ve already done a lot to help my people.”

“I’ve worked with various social causes. I work with poor kids, I work in the fight against HIV. I work to protect the elderly and I have to do everything that my country needs,” she said. “I think now as Miss Universe I will be able to do much more.”

Obama Diversifies Federal Judiciary

Bernice Donald has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the
first  Black woman on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Now this is a lovely feel-good story! According to the Huffington Post, the nation's first President who is not a White male has become the first President to have a majority of his federal judiciary nominees be non white males, or "non-traditional."

More than 70 percent of Obama's confirmed judicial nominees during his first two years were "non-traditional," or nominees who were not white males. That far exceeds the percentages in the two-term administrations of Bill Clinton (48.1 percent) and George W. Bush (32.9 percent), according to Sheldon Goldman, author of the authoritative book "Picking Federal Judges."


[...]

Of the 98 Obama nominees confirmed to date, the administration says 21 percent are African-American, 11 percent are Hispanic, 7 percent are Asian-American and almost half – 47 percent – are women. By comparison, of the 322 judges confirmed during George W. Bush's presidency, 18 percent were minorities and 22 percent were female. Of the 372 judges confirmed during Clinton's terms, 25 percent were minorities and 29 percent were women. In these figures, some judges fit into more than one category.

Last week, the Senate confirmed the first African-American woman to sit on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Bernice Donald. Earlier, she was the first African-American woman elected as a judge in Tennessee, the first appointed as federal bankruptcy judge in the nation and first confirmed as a U.S. district judge in Tennessee.

Obama also has doubled the number of Asian-Americans sitting on the federal bench, including adding Denny Chin to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York as the only active Asian federal appeals court judge. There currently are 14 Asian-American federal judges on the 810-judge roster.


[...]


For more than 140 years, there were no females or minorities among the nation's federal judges.

Read that last line again. For the first 140 years (of the 220 years they have been in existence) the federal courts had zero racial or gender diversity. And I'm pretty sure that's just the way Republicans would prefer it to be!

US OPEN 2011: Playing Tennis While Black? #PTWB

The first video above shows the soon-to-be notorious incident which happened at 2-6, 30-40 with Serena Williams serving to Samantha Stosur during the 2011 U.S. Open Women's Final (won by Stosur) for which Serena was assessed a point penalty for deliberate hindrance for shouting "come on" before the point was over. Darren Cahill first posted on Twitter a link to this video of an identical "hindrance" incident with Serena playing Svetlana Kuznetsova two years ago, bizarrely with the exact same referee Eva Asderaki officiating last night. Then it had no more than 600 views. Now it's up to 13,000 and rising LOL. The comments on the second video claim that because Doha 2009 and US OPEN 2011 were played under WTA and ITF rules, respectively, the umpire was correct in awarding a point (and thus a game) penalty to Serena Williams.

Let's go to the text shall we?

The ITF rules on "hindrance" state (Rule 26):

"If a player is hindered in playing the point by a deliberate act of the opponent(s), the player shall win the point. However, the point shall be replayed if a player is hindered in playing the point by either an unintentional act of the opponent(s), or something outside the player’s own control (not including a permanent fixture).”

The WTA rules (pdf) on "hindrance" state:

If a player hinders her opponent, it can be ruled as either involuntary or deliberate. 

1. Involuntary Hindrance 

A let should be called the first time a player has created an involuntaryhindrance (e.g., ball falling out of pocket, hat falling off, etc.), and the player should be told that any such hindrance thereafter will be ruled deliberate. 

2. Deliberate Hindrance 

Any hindrance caused by a player that is ruled deliberate will result inthe loss of a point.

My issue is with the interpretation of the rule. In what way did Serena's scream hinder Stosur in returning the ball? How do Azarenka's and Sharapova's shrieks not hinder the player on the other side of the net? If grunting is not involuntary hindrance than neither should screaming "come on!" If one takes the position that screaming out a word right before one's opponent is going to hit the ball is involuntary hindrance then a let should be played. It was very clear that Serena had hit a winner and was screaming out "come on!" as almost all tennis players do at that point. No human in that position was going to get that ball back in the court. Stosur happened to get her racquet on the ball before it bounced twice but no way was she going to get the ball back into play. If it had been some other event which had interrupted play the umpire should rule that Stosur had no play on the ball and give the point to Serena. But umpires often do interpret the rule (wrongly, in my view) that if the player gets a racquet on the ball (or is even in the vicinity of the ball when the incident happens) then the entire point needs to be replayed.


So the ruling by the umpire was the Serena deliberately hindered Stosur by screaming "come on." This is absolute bovine excrement and must be reported as such. Why is it deliberate hindrance to scream out "come on!" before an opponent hits an unreturnable ball? If the ball WAS returnable, then I think one could rule it was a deliberate hindrance. Because, the player was deliberately hindered from returning it into play. But the ball was not playable so regardless of what Serena said or did that ball was not coming back into play. The bigger question is, why did the same umpire rule differently at the US Open than two years ago at the Doha 2009 tournament, under essentially the same rules in an identical situation? That umpire, Eva Asderaki like the notorious Marina Alves, should never be allowed to referee a Serena Williams match again.


But the bigger issue is with the ability of umpires and officials to make calls which videotape allows the fans and observers to know are incorrect. That is what used to happen with line call and now (thanks to the 2004 U.S. Open quarterfinals match with Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams when repeated, obvious line calls were made against Serena by Referee Marina Alves) we have electronic line calling. And tennis is much better for it. Ask Maria Kirilenko!

What drives us observant followers, fans and players of the game insane is that there are a LOT of these subjective interpretations of the rules in the game of tennis and more often than not they seemed to be interpreted arbitrarily (or to the detriment of Serena at the U.S. Open). My point is that there should be an increased attempt to REDUCE subjectivity in tennis and have all umpire calls appealable by going to an objective source such as videotape (where available) and then a ruling by the tournament referee using the objective source.

Incidents such as "not up," "foot faults," "non-racquet contact with the ball" are all examples of situations which could be resolved by going to the videotape. You can also find multiple examples where umpires have made questionable (and incorrect) rulings against Serena Williams, Venus Williams and James Blake where the video shows pretty clear that the umpire was in error. What do these players all have in common? Hmmmmm.

There are video cameras in the cars of police officers all around the country to prevent incidents of what is known as "Driving While Black or Brown)." 

All players need the ability to review video of incidents on the tennis court to substantiate umpire rulings!

Until that time, anyone playing in an official match, especially if they have "dark" skin may be subject to an incident of "Playing Tennis While Black"!

Likability Perceptions Vary With Sexual Orientation

Zack Ford over at the LGBT Think Progress blog calls attention to an interesting academic article which explores how the perceived sexual orientation of strangers changes their perceived likability.

The results in "Impressions at the intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay + Black = likable?" are published in Journal of Experimental Psychology:

In one study, 22 women and nine men viewed 104 photos of straight and gay black and white males and rated their likeability on a scale of one (not likable) to seven (extremely likable). Participants were not informed that some of the men pictured were gay. While overall, white straight men were rated as more likable than white gay men, black men were rated in the opposite manner: gay blacks were more likable than straight black men.

"We observed that people judge others based on sexual orientation even if they are not consciously aware of whether someone is gay or straight," said doctoral student Jessica Remedios, lead author. "By understanding how sexual orientation affects the rapid evaluations we form about others, we can learn more about predicting and minimizing the negative consequences of homophobia."

In a second study, 36 women and 14 men were divided into groups to view the same 104 photos. One group was instructed to approach whites and avoid blacks by pulling a joystick toward them when a white face appears and pushing the joystick away when a black face appears; the other group was instructed vice versa, to approach blacks and avoid whites. Among participants approaching whites, the responses were faster for the straight men than for the gay. Among participants approaching blacks, however, responses were faster for gay than straight men. "Given that faster approach responses indicate greater positivity toward stimuli, the second study is consistent with the liking expressed in the first study," says Remedios.

"These findings suggest that sexual orientation, despite lacking explicit perceptual markers, infiltrates the automatic impression that is formed. Further, our judgment of gay men depends on whether they are white or black."

Curious result, eh?

WATCH: Black Gay Group Ejected From Church

The black gay group Jordan Rustin Coalition (which MadProfessah co-founded in 2006) went to the Southern Missionary Baptist Church to have  a dialogue about the Church being a site for petition signing to repeal the FAIR education act and was rebuffed by the Pastor and told to leave the premises. JRC Program Director Milton Davis (Occidental College graduate of 2009) and EQCA Executive Director Roland Palencia are featured in the clip.

Take A Virtual Tour Of New MLK Memorial

Today there's a new National Monument in Washington, D.C., and it celebrates the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. The official dedication will be Sunday, August 28th, the 48th anniversary of King's "I Have A Dream" speech, attended by our nation's first President of African descent, Barack Obama.

You can take a virtual tour of the monument online.

Hat/tip to Bill in Portland at DailyKos.

LA County Settles Police Brutality Case For $650K

The 5-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a settlement of $650,000 to Erick Hoxey and his girlfriend Shatwan Smith in response to a civil lawsuit which charged outrageous behavior by Los Angeles County Sherriff officials during an April 2008 incident in Compton.

The Los Angeles Times covers the story:

On trial for allegedly assaulting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, Erick Hoxey took the witness stand in his own defense and told jurors it was the other way around.

He said he was waiting in his car outside a Compton apartment building where his girlfriend was making an appointment to braid a little girl's hair, when deputies pulled up. After asking him a few questions, Hoxey said they inexplicably yanked him out of the car, punched him and struck him with a flashlight before pepper-spraying his eyes and inside his mouth.


Then, he said, one grabbed him by the hair and slammed his head twice against the pavement.

The prosecutor, troubled by the young man's testimony, cut him off suddenly and asked the judge for a recess. When he returned an hour and a half later, the prosecutor announced that all charges were being dropped.

On Tuesday, two years after the criminal case fizzled, the county agreed to pay Hoxey, now 24, and his girlfriend $650,000.

The payout comes despite the Sheriff's Department defending the deputies' conduct in arresting Hoxey, his girlfriend, Shatwan Smith, and a bystander who came to their aid during the April 2008 altercation.

According to Deputies Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles, they were on patrol when they spotted Hoxey driving with his seatbelt off. The deputies said Hoxey was immediately aggressive, cursing at them, before reaching under his leg for what they believed was a handgun. The deputies unlocked the car door and pulled Hoxey out of the vehicle. The young man then spun around and took a swing at them, according to the deputies' account. Hoxey continued to fight back, the deputies said, while his girlfriend ran out from the apartment building and began hitting them too.

Although the deputies said they believed Hoxey was armed with a gun, no weapon was recovered. Deputy Orozco testified that a woman at the scene, who did not identify herself because she feared retribution, told him that she saw a man run and grab something from the car, presumably the weapon.

The couple, and the bystander who interceded and pleaded with the deputies to stop, denied the deputies were assaulted.

After hearing the conflicting testimony about the incident, the L.A. County district attorney's office abandoned its prosecution of Hoxey and Smith.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Eric Siddall said in a deposition that Hoxey's testimony "made me think that there was reasonable doubt in the case."

The couple's civil attorney, Glen Jonas, accused the deputies of framing Hoxey on charges of resisting arrest and drug possession and Smith of resisting arrest and assault. Giles said he found a cocaine rock in Hoxey's car, while he and other deputies were searching the vehicle.

"It ruined their lives," Jonas said of the ordeal. He said Smith, who was a student at UC San Diego at the time, "was so distraught over being falsely prosecuted that she couldn't concentrate in school…her grades fell and ultimately she wasn't able to stay in school."

During the trial, Orozco's past on-duty behavior was also scrutinized in testimony from residents in the area who said they had run-ins with him. One woman said he used the N-word against her. Another testified that she'd also been roughed up by Orozco, booked and was eventually acquitted.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore declined to comment on specific allegations but said the department maintains the couple was resisting arrest. "This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing," he said. "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is, and we contend they did not fabricate anything."

I don't usually include such an extensive excerpt from a newspaper story but one really needs to see all the paragraphs that I have included in order to draw your own conclusions about what really happened*. Two Sheriff deputies see a Black guy sitting in a car and decide to rough him up for some bizarre reason only known to themselves. They start beating the crap out of him, then his girlfriend and a bystander come to the guy's defense.  Then the deputies have the gall to claim that the person that they assaulted was "resisting arrest" AND they claim the existence of a gun which is not found AND attempt to plant drugs in the vehicle. It reads like something out of FX's The Shield!
(That was a show starring Michael Chiklis as a rogue cop who basically takes the law into his own hands.)

The real hero of the piece is the Deputy District Attorney Eric Siddall who refused to condone the cops lying and when he realized what was going on, declined to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. I'm not convinced that $650,000 is enough money for the two people who were attacked by the very same people their own taxes pay to protect them and keep them safe. What is a reasonable price for violation of the public trust?

Another question is why do Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles still have jobs with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and why hasn't the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged them with perjury?
Even the Sheriff's Department spokesperson says "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is." Really? Do you think this is some kind of joke?

 It is incredibly damaging to how all police officers are viewed and public safety overall if it appears that some officers of the court are getting away with activities that if they were just regular people would result in jail time. Police officers and sheriff's deputies (and elected officials) who are presumed to have the public trust should be held to a higher ethical standard than the general public. Even the appearance of hypocrisy is unacceptable.

*DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this blog posting should be construed as claiming any individual of having committed any criminal or civil offense.

CDC Releases New Data on HIV Infections 2006-2009

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their latest analysis of HIV infections from 2006-2009 today. The full report (pdf) is available online. This is the first time the CDC has been able to estimate HIV infections from actual HIV test data, thanks to the passage of HIV names reporting legislation which has been enacted by several states (including California) in recent years. 2009 is the most recent year for which data is available so far.

A key excerpt from the press release:

According to the new estimates, there were 48,600 new HIV infections in the United States in 2006, 56,000 in 2007, 47,800 in 2008 and 48,100 in 2009.  The multi-year incidence estimates allow for a reliable examination of trends over time.  They reveal no statistically significant change in HIV incidence overall from 2006 to 2009, with an average of 50,000 for the four-year period.  In 2009, the largest number of new infections was among white MSM (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).  Hispanic MSM (6,000) and black women (5,400) were also heavily affected.   

“While we’re encouraged that prevention efforts have helped avoid overall increases in HIV infections in the United States, and have significantly reduced new infections from the peak in the mid-1980s, we have plateaued at an unacceptably high level,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention.  “Without intensified HIV prevention efforts, we are likely to face an era of rising infection rates and higher health care costs for a preventable condition that already affects more than one million people in this country.”

Some of the key take-aways from the report are:

• Overall HIV incidence in the U.S. has been relatively stable, with approximately 50,000 annual new infections

• New infections among young men who have sex with men (MSM) increased 34% between 2006 and 1009

• Young, black MSM (aged 13-29) is the only subpopulation in the U.S. to experience a statistically significant increase from 2006 through 2009
• New HIV infections increased 48% – from 4,400 in 2006 to 6,500 in 2009

• The new data confirm that HIV continues to disproportionately affect MSM of all races/ethnicities
• MSM represent 2% of the total U.S. population, but accounted for 61% all new HIV infections in 2009
• Among MSM in 2009, white MSM represented the greatest number of new HIV infections (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000)
  

Read that line again: "MSM represent 2% of the total U.S. population, but accounted for 61% all new HIV infections in 2009." People who says HIV/AIDS is not a "gay" issue don't know what the heck they are talking about!

Black Man Perceived To Be Gay Barred From Donating Blood

Aaron Pace, a self-described effeminate straight man, was prevented from
donating blood due to his perceived sexual orientation

I have previously blogged abuut the ban on gay people from donating blood in the United States and have expressed my opinion that the ban should be lifted. The alleged rationale by the Food and Drug Administration is that a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1979 has blood which is riskier than other people's despite the fact all blood that is donated is tested by the American Red Cross for the presence of HIV antibodies and other STDs.

Now a heterosexual man named Aaron Pace, who happens to be Black and describes himself as "effeminate," has been prevented from donating blood in Gary, Indiana.

The story was first published in the Chicago Sun-Times:

“I was humiliated and embarrassed,” said Pace, 22. of Gary. “It’s not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can’t. And I’m not even a homosexual.”

Pace visited Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, which pays for blood and plasma donations, up to $40 a visit. But during the interview screening process, Pace said he was told he could not be a blood donor there because he “appears to be a homosexual.”

No one at Bio-Blood returned calls seeking comment, but donation centers like it, and even the American Red Cross, are still citing a nearly 30-year-old federal policy to turn away gay men from donating.

The Food and Drug Administration policy, implemented in 1983, states that men who have had sex — even once — with another man (since 1977) are not allowed to donate blood.

The policy was sparked by concerns that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was tainting the blood supply. And, back then, screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not yet been developed.

Today, all donated blood is tested for HIV, as well as for hepatitis B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases, before it can be released to hospitals. This is why gay activists, blood centers including the American Red Cross, and even some lawmakers now claim the lifetime ban is “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

I should repeat what the Los Angeles Times said last year in an editorial that "there were 4 known cases of HIV transmission out of 122 million units of blood donated between 1999 and 2007." Is that infinitesimal risk worth the discrimination against all gay men in the light of a nationwide blood shortage?

I wonder if Marcus Bachmann would be allowed to give blood at Bio-Blood?

D.C., "Chocolate City" Now White Chocolate?

A curious result from the 2010 Census (which generally showed how America in general is becoming less white) is that Washington, D.C., a city which was nearly 71% Black is now only plurality African-American.

The Washington Post reports:

The number of African Americans residing in the District plummeted by more than 11 percent during the past decade, with blacks on the verge of losing their majority status in the city for the first time in half a century.

According to census statistics released Thursday, barely 50 percent of the District’s population was African American in 2010 — a remarkable shift in a place once nicknamed “Chocolate City.” 

The black population dropped by more than 39,000 over the decade, down to 301,000 of the city’s 601,700 residents. At the same time, the non-Hispanic white population skyrocketed by more than 50,000 to 209,000 residents, almost a third higher than a decade earlier. 

The census statistics showed a steeper change for both blacks and whites than had been estimated. With the city ‘s black population dropping by about 1 percent a year, African Americans might already be below the 50 percent mark in the city.

In a city that prides itself on being a hub of black culture and politics, a majority of residents have been black since whites began moving to the suburbs en masse at the end of World War II. By 1970, seven out of 10 Washingtonians were black.

The loss of blacks comes at a time when the city is experiencing a rebound, reversing a 60-year-long slide in population and adding almost 20,000 new residents between 2000 and 2010.

I wonder if the change in racial demographhics will make it more likely that D.C. will finally become  a state and get actual representation in Congress? It has a larger population than Wyoming, which of course is overwhelmingly white. It's within striking distance of Vermont and North Dakota's population in size as well.
Of course the bigger question is "Does it matter if the racial demographics of a city (or country) change over time?" And, what is race, anyway?

Speaking of race, you MUST read this Daily Kos article on the nature of race which ran yesterday. Here's a small excerpt:

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.

As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

I strongly encourage you to read the piece (which includes a quiz!), which was written by Denise Oliver Velez.