Comments on: Test your skills: catch the errors in this USNews article, win a prize

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:58:17 +0000

Ben

You’re the winner. (Sorry, I got caught up in the holidays and the marriage rush and forgot to announce you or send your Major Award).

Email me your address and a beautiful BTB mug is on its way.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:15:49 +0000

Preciousssssss. Precioussssss.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:42:49 +0000

There are a few more days left.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:29:28 +0000

I believe I won the contest.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:44:18 +0000

Denguy….
I suppose you’re right, but I’m still ahead.

Precioussssssss. Precioussssss.

By: DenguyFL

DenguyFL — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:12:03 +0000

Ben and Nicholas, you both missed “DOMA expressly states that the United States government does not recognize the legality of gay marriage.” DOMA does no such thing. it expressly (literally) states that only a marriage between one man and one woman will be recognized by the federal government. It implicitly states say marriage is not recognized with the literal(express) wording. I have a hang up with “literally”and by extension “expressly” so that one jumped out at me.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:00:59 +0000

I didn’t know you had BTB coffee cups! After I recouperate from Christmas I’m going to buy myself one!

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:03:19 +0000

Nicholas, I’m going to get that mug. I can knock one of yours off. Please was considered black because he had negro blood in any amount. Tats the way the laws were written then. You can’t apply today’s standards to it.

By: Nicolas

Nicolas — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:26:55 +0000

On my own, here are the factual errors I found:

-Doma became law in 1996.
-That’s not the prop 8 defense at all.
-Ashcroft does not represent DOMA supporters, and that was not his argument at all (probably because it doesn’t even make sense).
-Nullification in California would likely be on very narrow grounds that would only affect California.
-Way more than tax and healthcare: immigration, burial rights, etc.
-The Lawrence v Texas decision was decided on privacy basis, not discrimination, though the note about Kennedy is important.
-Justice Kennedy didn’t just “rule” that way, he wrote the opinion.
-Calling Plessy a black person is a stretch by today’s standards, since he was 7/8th caucasian.
-Plessy was in a railway car, not a trolly car.
-Plessy was not arrested by the company, but by a private detective hired specifically to arrest him, in order to create a test case.
-Public opinion on segragation had not turned by 1954.
-”Edith Wilson” should be “Edith Windsor”
-”Mike Hais”, not “Mike Haas”

Also, a grammar mistake: “It took blacks years for black Americans to…”.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:58:30 +0000

Well, I found a few more. Dammit, it want that mug.

Washington and Maryland did not have the voters legalize it. The legislature legalized it, and the voters voted against an attempt to counter that via referendum. That’s two more.

The sentence beginning with “the defenders of prop. 8″ is also incorrect. They believe the voters have the ultimate say. The Feds can of course nullify an unconstitutional law, which means the sentence re the q10th amendment is also incorrect. That’s 2 more.

Thelawrence case did not give gay couples the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. It had nothing to do with couples, but acts, and at least four of the states that still had sodomy laws on the books appliedhemto heterosexuals as well. That’s two more.

The “ruling in Brown” was not the beginning of that long road. The 14th amendment was log before that, and military desegregation came at least four years before that. There’s 1 more.

Brown v. BOE. Nominally Oliver brown, not Linda brown, plus 13 other sets of parents. I’ll count that as two more. Linda was Oliver’s daughter, not the plaintiff. BTW is a plaintiff the same thing as a commonquarrel?

So that’s 9 more on top of my previous total.

DAMMIT, I WANT THAT MUG!!!!!