Saturday, June 27, 2015

Snakes on the SCOTUS bench: My personal childhood experience as a reflection on the Kennedy SCOTUS decision

Image result for snake clipartI was mostly a pretty good kid except for those moments when I was creatively, spectacularly bad.  Not evil bad, not mean bad, but I was strong willed and.......horribly innovative, from the point of view of adults.  By which I mean I did things, took initiatives to act, that other children pretty much just did not do.  As a result, I had a childhood experience that provided me an insight into the reasoning of Justice Kennedy that I believe makes his explanation for the decision remarkable.  I understand from my own experience what he meant about protecting children from feeling their families were 'lesser', or in some way inferior, and from humiliation (or attempted humiliation) by bigots.

In contrast, the dissenting opinions asserted that so long as no one is prevented from being a gay unmarried couple by imprisonment, the couple and any children they may have are not adversely affected or damaged by being unable to marry, or the denial of any of the benefits that go with marriage.

Back in 2010, this is what those kids and the rest of their families were subjected to courtesy of conservatives trying to deny marriage equality, demonstrating exactly the kind of disrespect and humiliation that conservatives have heaped on those families, and NOT confined within the boundaries of religion.  From the newcivilrightsmovement.com:
While the name of the Catholic priest was not disclosed, the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, who sent the priest, is headed by the infamous Archbishop John Clayton Nienstedt (image, top,) who in 2010 began an anti-same-sex marriage campaign by producing and mailing to Minnesota residents 400,000 DVDs proclaiming the sins of same-sex marriage. Nienstedt has banned gay prayer services, “refused the Eucharist to students wearing rainbow buttons,” and has publicly banned “open dissension” from his priests on matters related to same-sex marriage.
That would be on top of the crap dished out by the likes of Santorum, Huckabee, Cruz, or Bachmann, as a few examples of incivility and abuse.

I beg to differ with the dissenters, and would point out in particular the incident at a Minnesota Catholic High School back in 2012 when the pedophile shielding Archbishop Nienstedt was busy actively and expensively involving the church in the politics of gay marriage, including the propagandizing and bullying of senior students.  The attempt to push through an anti-gay marriage amendment failed, and the following year same sex marriages became legal in Minnesota, but there remain those who actively try to stigmatize everyone in those families.  Likewise protestant evangelicals, of the extremist right, also demand as religious freedom the right to bully not only LGBT students, but those who have LGBT parents.

Here is an excellent example of what those kids who have same-sex parents have to contend.  From the STrib, back in April 2012:

Tevlin: DeLaSalle kids have a few words with archdiocese at marriage talk

..."The first three-quarters of the presentation were really good," said Bliss. "They talked about what is marriage and how marriage helps us as a society. Then it started going downhill when they started talking about single parents and adopted kids. They didn't directly say it, but they implied that kids who are adopted or live with single parents are less than kids with two parents of the opposite sex. They implied that a 'normal' family is the best family."

"When they finally got to gay marriage, [students] were really upset," said Bliss. "You could look around the room and feel the anger. My friend who is a lesbian started crying, and people were crying in the bathroom."

Bliss was one of several students who stood up to argue with the representatives from the archdiocese. One girl held up a sign that said, "I love my moms."
"We weren't being rude," countered Lydia Hannah, another student who spoke out. "But people were upset, and we weren't just going to sit there."

Hannah said students were anxious when they heard about the program and were suspicious because only seniors were required to go. "We put two and two together," said Hannah. "All of us will be able to vote next fall [on the constitutional amendment that limits marriage to same-sex couples]."

Hannah said the presenters briefly brought up the amendment but backed off when students got angry.

A priest and a volunteer couple presented the information. When someone asked a question about two men being able to have a quality, committed relationship, the couple compared their love to bestiality, Bliss said.

"Most people got really upset," said Bliss. "And comments about adopted kids, I found those to be really offensive. There were at least four kids there who are adopted."

Hannah, who is adopted, said one of the presenters said that adopted kids were "sociologically unstable." She called the comments "hurtful" and comparisons between gay love and bestiality upsetting.

"My friend said, 'You didn't just compare people to animals, did you?'" said Hannah. "I think everyone has a right to their opinion, and I don't judge them on it. But we don't force people to sit down so we can tell them their opinion is wrong."

Nothing quite like an authority figure, representing either the full authority of government or worse of God piling on to kids about how abnormal they are or how inferior or even evil their parents are.

From an adult perspective, looking at my childhood behavior, I now have enormously more sympathy for my own parents and for all parents than I did when I was a child.

I was adopted, and I credit my parents for having told me from as early as I can remember.  They did an excellent job of making me feel that made me special, telling me I was even MORE wanted and MORE loved than other children.  Perhaps in my case that might have been a dangerous thing, to feel so very confident of love and acceptance.

When I was around the age of 3, I took extreme objection to a babysitter hired by my parents.  I told them that I did not consent to being in the care of that babysitter, although I used more basic terms to express that the babysitter was not going to be staying.  My parents thought this was quite funny, and because they still thought of these sorts of declaration as coming from a more, shall we say ordinary, less initiative taking tot, they asserted that children did not have rights, and that I had to make the best of the situation, because THEY WERE THE ADULTS.  I tended not to be overly impressed by adults.

That sitter status quo lasted less than an hour before I drove the mean old bat out of the house by putting a small frog in her glass of.....whatever she was drinking.  It was nominally a soft drink, but I suspected that was not all that was in the glass.  And I stuffed her purse with garter snakes.  By stuffed, I mean filled to capacity with a significant quantity, like the snakes that appear in an Indiana Jones movie.

The sitter called me many names, including demon spawn. I remembered it carefully in order to ask my parents what that meant -- and they told me.  I suspect the concept was floating around in their minds at the time as well, when they had to return home after barely leaving.  When they demanded that I apologize to the sitter (they still harbored thoughts of persuading her to stay) I emphatically refused at the top of my lungs, and insisted that the only apology I would be making was to the snakes.  (Yes, I was on rare occasions a really spectacularly bad child.)

As a result of that altercation with the babysitter, I was dressed up and dragged off to an adult event where I was ordered to be on my best behavior on pain of death.  I was told that the only acceptable thing for me to say was "My mommy says children should be seen and not heard."  I was provided a half-full glass of ginger ale with a little grenadine to make it pink, and allowed to roam about whatever the heck the adult event was taking place.  Mostly I was patted on the head and ignored by lots of dressed up old people.

Except for one woman, who took a dislike to me.  She clearly knew who I was while I had no idea who she was (and still don't to this day). She called me a rotten kid, and I laughed at her.  I was feeling pretty cocky at that point in the evening, in spite of my parents displeasure.  That irked the old bag even more, prompting her to observe that I was only spoiled because I was adopted, so my parents had to buy me things to make me feel loved.  I considered that premise, and volunteered that I liked that, that it was a pretty good deal for me.  And yes, I had a sense that was the opposite reaction she was seeking, that she was hoping to hurt my feelings on some very deep and fundamental level. My failure to act as expected angered her much more, and she called me a 'red haired bastard child', before storming off.  (I had vividly red hair, so that part made sense to me.)

I was unfamiliar with the term bastard, so I asked my parents what it meant. I described my interaction with the mean lady, and tried my best to identify who she was, absent having her name.  I found the whole thing funny, like being called demon spawn; and was laughing;  but my father was enraged.  I don't think I had ever seen him that angry.  My mother was not worried about me - I was clearly unphased by the conversation, but she was very worried what my father might do. The only explanation provided for the word bastard was that it was a bad word; so I thought my father was going to wash out the mean old lady's mouth with soap.

He sought out the woman, and told her off in a particularly heated and rude rant that - I'm told - created a bit of a scene.  That was also fine with me, because now my parents were angry with someone else instead of me.  I was an unusually pragmatic child in that respect; nothing was going to dampen my delight in getting rid of that babysitter.

On the way home from that big social event, whatever the heck it was, my parents revisited the "You know you're adopted" narrative, concerned that someone had attempted to make me feel badly about it.  I think they were surprised, both that I did fully understand that someone had tried to belittle me for that facet of my existence, but even more that I was perfectly happy and confident in spite of the attempt.  I remember repeating what I had said to her - about being spoiled because of being adopted being ok with me, and that she got angry, and that when I laughed at her she got really angry, and I thought her head was going to explode, so I walked away smiling, after telling her I put snakes in the baby sitter's purse. 

It might have been the release of nervous tension, but I remember my mother starting to laugh, and  she kept on laughing for what seemed like a very long time.  My parents lightened up considerably after that in their concerns over how I felt growing up, dealing with the world knowing I was adopted.  I remember my parents laughing when they overheard me telling my younger sibling about my adventures with garter snakes, and how if someone tried to make you feel bad, you should just think about the snakes while looking them in the eye, that it worked like teflon -- their hurtfulness would just slide right off of you.

Being adopted has far less potential stigma attached to it for being different than other families than having two mommies or two daddies.  While there are religious entities that treat families of adopted children as inferior to biological children,  it is nothing like the rants by politicians that the nation is going to be punished by god or that having two mommies or two daddies is an abomination, hateful to God, or akin to bestiality and pedophilia.  It is nothing like being told your parents had to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court to be able to have both their names on your adoption papers either.

My younger sib for a time while growing up was fascinated by herpetology, and kept pet snakes.  Reading about the offensive dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS justices, I thought about them individually, and   I thought about snakes. 

Maybe it's just me, but it seemed a perfectly appropriate pairing of thoughts.  Justice Kennedy had it right, and not for the first time, the political right has it wrong.

Only winning by cheating = GOP

Friday, June 26, 2015

21st century

So, Bristol Palin is preggers outside of wedlock, AGAIN -- and Sarah Palin says it is Obama's fault?

Conservatism is an epic failure in EVERY area of human sexuality and reproduction.



I'm betting a DNA test will show that Obama had nothing to do with this pregnancy, and that the only people who are responsible in any way, shape or form all have the last name of Palin.  And there is no way in which Obama is causally associated with pot and porn, or with individual decisions relating to sex and pregnancy either.

MORE CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY!

It is an unwholesome and irrational notion that sex is ever going to remain exclusively within the bounds of marriage.  It is undeniable that the worst states for porn use, including the greatest consumption of gay porn, are red / conservative states.  It is an undeniable fact as well that it is conservative states that have the worst record for out of wedlock pregnancies, cheating on spouses, and frequency / rate of divorce.  Alcohol abuse tends to be worst in red states as well.  Sadly we don't have any reliable or conclusive stats on pot use, but there is zero evidence that it has any connection, much less a causal one, to the current president.  I'm not suggesting that it is applicable in this pregnancy specifically, but according to answers.com, the worst states for the incidence of incest are Alabama, followed by Alaska.  Given the recent news from the Duggar household in Arkansas, we can reasonably question that state joining the list as well, perhaps alphabetically.

So let us not pretend that the holier than thous are anything but freaking liars and hypocrites.

That goes double for Bristol Palin who has taken a six figure salary to be the spokesperson for abstinence, and who insisted to Oprah when appearing on her show that she would NEVER EVER have sex outside of marriage again.

Yeah........how is that prudish puritanical rubbish working for you Palins?  The religious precepts relating to sex as a sin are a failure.  It promotes a sick and unwholesome, and utterly irresponsible attitude towards sex.

And when are we going to hear Mike Hucksterbee whinging on and on about parenting skills, the way he criticized the president and first lady for being bad parents because he disagreed with the choice of music they allowed their daughters, while at the same time palling around with his pedophile buddy Ted Nugent.

And does anyone else remember the drunken brawling involving a number of the Palin family last September?  I seem to recall it occurred at a party they crashed... 
From the New York Times:
ANCHORAGE — It began as a birthday party that drew local snowmobile racers, construction workers and other longtime Alaskans last Saturday night. It turned into a brawl with members of Sarah Palin’s family in the center of it, according to witnesses at the party.
The police are still investigating, and the Palin family is not commenting. But the episode is already adding some more atmospheric notes to the background noise surrounding Mrs. Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate and the former governor of Alaska.
Guests said the event began as a birthday party for twin brothers, Matt and Marc McKenna, the latter a well-known snowmobile racer. Most of the party was outside with dancing and a live band. But then things appeared to get out of hand.
According to a statement from the Anchorage Police Department, officers responded to “a report of a verbal and physical altercation taking place between multiple subjects outside of a residence located on the 900 block of Harbor Circle.”
The report said that a preliminary investigation by the police revealed that “a fight had broken out between multiple subjects outside of the residence.” It said that none of the people involved wanted to press charges, that no arrests were made and that an investigation was continuing. The police chief, Mark T. Mew, said Friday that even if the victims did not decide to press charges, the municipal prosecutor could still file charges.
The police statement concluded: “Alcohol was believed to have been a factor in the incident. Some of the Palin family members were in attendance at the party.”
But several witnesses said the trouble started when Track Palin, Mrs. Palin’s son, confronted a former boyfriend of his sister Willow and a fight broke out. Before long Mrs. Palin’s husband, Todd, who also races snowmobiles and was also celebrating a birthday (his 50th), was said to have gotten involved in the fighting.
Later, according to witnesses, Bristol Palin, one of Mrs. Palin’s daughters, threw several punches at the owner of the house where the party was being held.
The result was a brawl said to involve about 20 people. In the end, the Palin family was ordered by the homeowner to leave, witnesses said.
Witnesses said the Palin family members climbed back into their stretch Hummer limousine. Before they left, however, Mrs. Palin unleashed several rounds of profanity and Track Palin made a vulgar gesture toward the crowd, according to one participant at the party who declined to be identified out of fear of reprisals. (One participant, Eric Thompson, an employee of the firm whose office manager hosted the party, said he was fired after speaking to ABC News.)
The Palin family was not available for comment. But Mrs. Palin, in a Facebook post on Sunday, said that she had been traveling “yesterday” — the day the party was held — so she wanted to post a birthday greeting to her husband one day late. Mrs. Palin made no mention of the party.
“It was a really nice, mellow party,” Mr. Thompson said in an interview on Thursday night. “Then it turned into ‘The Jerry Springer Show.’ ”

Must be all that riding around in chauffeured stretch Hummer limousines is giving the Palins a false sense of entitlement, to behave badly and above the law.

Yup - once again, conservatives struggle with decency, hypocrisy, and apparently with the concept of cause and effect involving FACTS. i don't care if Sarah Palin got pregnant before she got married and I don't care that her daughter is repeating those behaviors. But neither one of them has any legitimacy lecturing other people on any of this.

Time for the entire Palin family to sit the hell down, to shut the heck up, and to take remedial classes in comprehensive sex ed, anger management, and drug and alcohol use and abuse.

Hooray for the SCOTUS decision in favor of freedom, equality, and justice for ALL

We have not seen any of the claimed harm from recognizing the rights of LGBT people.  Our armed forces have not collapsed because of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Our country has not collapsed with same sex marriage either.

With the exception of Ben Carson, the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination have consistently shown themselves to be against freedom, INCLUDING religious freedom and against justice and equality. They show themselves to be against the rule of law, in challenging the clear provisions of the Constitution which establish the SCOTUS (right or wrong) as the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional at all levels of government.

And once again we see the use of dog whistle politics from the right, with the argument of states rights, which is the means the abusive and the oppressors rely on to violate rights, violate freedom, violate justice when it is upheld at the federal level.  States Rights mean nothing more and nothing less than the whine of those who wish to behave badly, who seek to be dickish toward others; it is the pout of those nasty bullies who were prevented from harming others.  Had the states that opposed same sex marriage not been so oppressive that they refused to recognize the marital status of people who married in other states (or countries), but instead tried to obstruct them, and to vilify them with lies about the validity and effectiveness of same sex parenting and family.

We now need the remaining legal change, the protection of ENDA, the protection of people from discrimination for their gender or sexual orientation, in hiring and employment, in housing, and in all other areas of daily public life, such as public accommodation, that should apply to everyone.

As President Obama gives the Eulogy in Charleston, South Carolina, I expect that his words will include a mention of this decision.  State Senator Rev. Clementa Pinckney was a strong advocate for same sex marriage.  His loss is a great sadness, but it is especially poignant that he was deprived of the joy of this decision being handed down as one more accomplishment for this nation in the 21st century.

That would include the Republican leadership, every time they open their lying mouths...

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

No honor for the Confederate flag,
NO RESPECT for Conservative bigots,
no more elective office for racists!

In discrediting and removing the vile symbols of the failed confederacy, it is time for some plain, hard honesty.

There is no honor or  valor of treason or the acts of traitors, regardless of individual heroism.  There is no justification to respect the worst atrocities and failures in our heritage just because they are 'ours', but instead we should call them out for the evil they were.  There is no merit to celebrate in a tradition of oppression, and no decency in a history of violent intimidation and exploitation, no matter what words you employ to try to put lipstick on the Confederacy pig, or on any atrocity for that matter committed by the United States. The celebration of the Confederacy is as wrong as the premise of U.S. supposed "exceptionalism" when it denies anything bad was ever done by or on behalf of the United States.  Wrong is wrong, bad is bad, and putting on a lying label does not alter that reality. Pretending wrong is right or good only compounds the original wrong, in some instances, exponentially.

Senator Lindsey Graham is totally and shockingly wrong when he and others on the right make the claim that there has long been an acceptable, valid justification for venerating or respecting ANY of the confederate flags.

The removal of confederate image merchandise from a growing list of national retailers is NOT only a response to the tragedy of the right wing domestic terrorist attack that killed 9 people in a South Carolina church.

The growing pressure to remove the Confederate flag, from South Carolina, from Mississippi, from EVERY place it flies, especially in the old 'rebel' south, is not new.  The fight against the confederate imagery is as old as the flag and the civil war itself.

Too many on the right, including our own former member of Congress from Minnesota Michele Bachmann, have made excuses to justify slavery, and have misrepresented slavery as less evil and vicious than it actually was.  The symbols of the Confederacy are nothing more or less than an attempt to white-wash the black heart of White Supremacy, Jim Crow, and over-reaching, abusive southern government.  Jim Crow, the brutal and systematic trampling and obliteration of civil rights IS the worst government overreach in our history.

From Addicting info, back in August of 2011 - a relatively recent attempt to glam up, validate, and legitimize the brutal, horrific, immoral, and obscene, representative of old style southern conservative racism generally:
One of the more interesting tidbits to be discussed about GOP presidential front-runner Michelle Bachmann in the current issue of the New Yorker is that one of the books she kept listed on her website as a “must read” was a biography of Robert E. Lee by  J. Steven Wilkins. Wilkins is a revisionist historian that seeks to downplay or even glorify the Souths’ tradition of slavery. From the book:
Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.
Got that? Because Africans were forcibly converted to Christianity, they didn’t mind being slaves at all but rather worked extra hard to enrich their white owners. For Jesus.
It is a conservative 'meme', like right wing talking head Michael Medved at the conservative Townhall.com, via fear of ignorance,  in his appalling and grossly inaccurate  "Six Inconvenient Truths about the US and Slavery", for example claiming that :

THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.
Really?  Seriously?  No long-term harm, no foul, is that the idea?  Apparently it is when you are an apologist for racism, past AND PRESENT.

And that conclusion is based on .....what?  NOTHING factual is involved, only the purest animus.  But it is part and parcel of the offensive beliefs of conservatives, and of those who embrace the confederacy, including all of its symbols.

Apart from ignoring, for starters, all of the people who were never born because of the high percentage of deaths in the passage from Africa, and ignoring all of the pain and suffering and social breakdown that continued long after the end of slavery due to families having been separated and sold off from each other, the enforced lack of education, etc., this is merely adding insult to injury, and promoting the conservative meme that black people are somehow inferior, and are lucky to be in the United States where they have been fortunate to be converted to Christianity?  Who can assert what would have been different in the continent of Africa without the evil of slavery and the pattern it contributed to of European exploitation that later characterized European intrusion into that continent.

I recently saw a comment about African Americans on a right wing facebook site that argued black people were inferior because they did not invent the kind of recorded language that white Europeans did.  That seemed strikingly to omit from contributing to world culture the many accomplishments of the Egyptians, as well as the many accomplishments, both linguistic and mathematical and in the sciences of the Muslim world, including the African continent.  What a disgustingly racist and intellectually dishonest view of world culture -- as if even if the assertion were true (and it is not) then any abuse, exploitation, or brutality is excused and excusable?

That is unacceptable.  There is no difference between that revisionist history and claiming that Hitler wasn't that bad for the Holocaust or worse, that the Holocaust did not occur, with the notable exception that slavery tortured many more, stole the labor through brutal coercion from many more, and killed many more than the Holocaust -- roughly 20 million slaves died in the United States before slavery was abolished.

The BEST response to the claims about honor, duty, heritage and the rest of the claptrap came from South Carolina state senator Paul Thurmond, son of notoriously racist Senator Strom Thurmond.  Those on the right, from Reince Preibus, RNC chair, to former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Governor Haley, ad nauseum are ALL wrong about this symbol. 

Paul Thurmond Via Slate:
“Our ancestors were literally fighting to keep human beings as slaves, and to continue the unimaginable acts that occur when someone is held against their will,” said State Senator Paul Thurmond, a Republican, explaining that he would vote to remove the flag.
“I am not proud of this heritage,” said Mr. Thurmond.

“We must take down the Confederate flag and we must take it down now. But if we stop there, we have cheated ourselves out of an opportunity to start a different conversation about healing in our state,” Thurmond continued. “I am ready.”

Here is the video of State Senator Thurmond:

Everyone should be proud of their heritage, where they come from and the culture of the people from whom they descend.  But that is not the same thing as being proud of the bad things done by people who preceded us, and the bad things done in the name of the confederacy and the principles for which it stood and affirmed were bad principles. This does not, as claimed by Fox News liar and buffoon Bill O'Reilly, mean we honor all war dead because they "fought hard".  Nazi soldiers fought hard in WW II; British soldiers and mercenary soldiers fought hard in the American Revolution.  The Swastika is not flown in Europe (although the confederate flag IS flown as a proxy for it) and we do not fly the Union Jack to honor our British heritage and those who fought on the side of the loyalists either.  There are plenty of other, better ways to deal with the challenges of mixed good-and-bad heritage, better and less oppressive and less offensive ways that do not constitute engaging in hate symbolism. No matter how you try to spin the Confederate flag, it represents sedition, disloyalty, violence, domestic terrorism, sabotage, assassination, and treason against the United States.  And it continues to embarrass us all world wide.  For example, in the Ukraine, we have our heritage, our southern white supremacist, racist, brutal and abusive national stain displayed to our very current shame:

Why are Nazi & Confederate flags on display in Kiev?

When Kiev’s City Hall was seized with guns and Molotov cocktails, one of the first acts of the Euromaidan street fighters was to unfurl a number of flags and insignia. Prominent among the flags were swastikas, Iron Crosses, Nazi SS lightning bolts, the Celtic cross used by the Ku Klux Klan, and the Confederate “stars and bars” flag of slaveholders in the United States. (tinyurl.com/ltfu4vq) This is no accident. The flag of the U.S. Southern slaveholders and the Klan cross are symbols understood around the world. They stand for racism, reaction, lynchings and mass terror, for keeping oppressive institutions intact and for beating down people of color and all those who struggle for a better world. Racists from across Europe have traveled to Kiev. Wearing these symbols on their helmets and jackets, these thugs roamed Kiev and defaced the homes of Jews. They destroyed memorials to those who fought the Nazi invasion and occupation of the Ukraine in World War II.
Here is a Ukraine Confederate flag, and a Ukraine Naziee flag: Feel the pride NOW, Senator Lindsey, Governor Haley?  THIS is that ol' Confederate Heritage you revere so dearly. No matter how much you try to pretend that states rights was a legitimate cause, it was a wrong cause in the civil war, and has been a wrong cause in every iteration since the civil war.  There is a reason we have the supremacy clause in the U. S. constitution; it is because when states try to deviate from that federal supremacy it has been consistently contrary and disloyal to that constitution, and has consistently been an attempt to justify the indefensible -- slavery was just one of many bad things that support for states rights has attempted to make appear valid or legitimate. Nullification has been another. The same has been true of attempts to suppress voter rights, to legislate segregation, anti-miscegenation, and the rest of Jim Crow, and to behave in bigoted ways towards the LGBT community, and to promote the pseudo-science of creationism.  And last but not least, it has been used to try to justify even more stupid proposals such as individual states currency.  That is far from a complete or encyclopedic list; states rights is what bad people, conservative bad people, fall back on to try to force through evil and foolish laws. It is imperative we do not continue the LIE about the Confederacy, the civil war -- an aggression STARTED by the south, or about the symbols of hate that represent an evil stain on our nation. It is impossible to defend the indefensible, and it is made worse by those who keep trying.  Own the bad, repudiate the bad ALL OF IT) and then, and only then, can we move on in something other than a vicious circle of more evil and further stain on our nation.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Dear Governor Haley, about that Confederate flag that is still flying on your state house grounds

About those confederate flags, and images of flags -- ANY confederate flags -- NO, pretending they are innocently ONLY about southern pride or heritage is not a compromise, it does not work, it is not EVER acceptable (with the exception of historic re-enactment). 

On Monday June 22, Haley held a presser where she apprehensively called for the S.C. state legislature to take down the flag -- if they want to, kinda sorta.  If they don't want to do so, she offered no alternative to get that flag out of the faces of people oppressed by it.

If she had actual courage and conviction, Governor Haley, would take it down by executive order, and let happen as a result whatever needs to happen, including legal challenges -- and there are plenty ready, willing and able to make those challenges to get the flag down and keep it gone.

Moreover, I thought  Haley looked scared to death making her little speech, and probably she should be scared; scared of the political fall out from voters and donors, scared of the possibility the next white racist bullets are shooting at her. 

Let's be candid shall we, about Haley's ties to the same White Supremacists who are still claiming that alleged mass shooter Dylann Roof had justifiable grievances.  She has been in state politics too long not to know who these people were.  The only real 'compromise', to use a word that has flown around this controversy like the confederate flag in a high wind, has been with integrity and support for civil rights.  The following certainly shows how bad those people Governor Haley calls good really are.

From the Charleston City Paper back in late May of 2013, just two short years ago:

Nikki Haley appoints member of white power organization to campaign


Roan Garcia-Quintana is board member of Council of Concerned Citizens

The Post and Courier just dropped a doozy of a story: Gov. Nikki Haley has appointed an alleged member of a white supremacist organization to her campaign. The man in question: Roan Garcia-Quintana. The group: the Council of Conservative Citizens.
The P&C reports:

Gov. Nikki Haley is under attack from the National Jewish Democratic Council because one of her campaign co-chairs has ties to a hate group. Haley appointed a tea party activist named Roan Garcia-Quintana of Greenville as one of her 164 campaign co-chairs.
The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a recent report noting Garcia-Quintana is a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens. National Jewish Democratic Council executive director Aaron Keyak said the council has links to anti-Semitism.
Now, how did Tim Pearson, Haley's one-time chief of staff and current campaign manager, respond. Did he say that Garcia-Quintana had been given the boot? Did he apologize to the National Jewish Democratic Council, the NAACP, and, well, anybody who hates racist assholes? Did he admit that the Haley campaign had unwittingly appointed an alleged member of a hate group to the team? Nope. Pearson did what those in the Haley camp always do: He pointed the finger at someone else.
The P&C reports:

Asked about the National Jewish Democratic Council’s criticism, Haley campaign manager Tim Pearson said it “is clearly ginned up by some outside group.”
Well, Tim, this is more than a controversy ginned up by some outside group. It's a real fucking controversy. See, if the Council of Conservative Citizens had their way, Nikki Haley wouldn't be living in the United States, much less in the South Carolina governor's mansion.
According to the CofCC's Statement of Principles, written by former Washington Times columnist and racist Sam Francis:


We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.
Yeah, there's nothing to see here, but Tim Pearson and the Haley campaign trying to wipe egg off their faces.
Oh, and one more thing. S.C. Democratic Party chair Dick Harpootlian is a douchebag too. Seriously, Dems. Do you really want a guy who says that Nikki Haley should go “to wherever the hell she came from” as your leader? It's about time you gave this intolerant, homophobic asshole the boot.
Update: The Southern Poverty Law Center first broke this story two days ago. Here's what they have to say:
In anticipation of her 2014 re-election campaign, the Tea Party darling [Nikki Haley] has put together a 164-member steering committee comprising folks from all 46 of her state’s counties. And on that list is one “Republican leader” and Tea Party activist named Roan Garcia-Quintana of Greenville.
The name won’t ring many bells outside of the South Carolina political world. But he’s better known in white nationalist, anti-immigrant and neo-Confederate circles.
Garcia-Quintana is a lifetime member and current board member of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which is listed as a white nationalist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The CCC is the linear descendant of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South, and has evolved into a crudely racist organization. Its website, for example, has published pictures comparing pop singer Michael Jackson to an ape and referred to blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity.”
The SPLC adds:
Garcia-Quintana is also a rabid nativist, even though he’s a naturalized citizen who was born in Havana. He’s executive director of the anti-immigrant group Americans Have Had Enough, based in Mauldin, S.C., where he lives. At the 2008 CCC conference held in Sheffield, Ala., Garcia-Quintana referred to Latino immigration as an “illegal alien invasion.” In September 2006, Garcia-Quintana’s nativist organization received proceeds from a barbecue fundraiser featuring former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Tancredo, who was one of the most virulently anti-immigrant members of Congress, was listed as honorary chairman of Americans Have Had Enough and is currently listed on the group’s website as the “Past Honorary Chairman."...
Although Cuban by birth, Garcia-Quintana does not consider himself Latino. His ancestors, he says, were Spaniards and this makes him white. He refers to himself as “Havana born, Savannah raised” and as a “Confederate Cuban.”

When YOU, Governor Haley claim that electing an Indian American woman, somehow FIXES or changes the history of that flag, you were wrong, desperately wrong.  It is incomprehensible how you think your personal experience somehow negated or rewrote the rest of much more significant history.  That is too low a bar for considering racism resolved.  Especially when your own opposition from your own conservative party engaged in racial slurs against you and against black Americans, notably the President, without any apparent consequences for his bigotry.  This is symptomatic of your state party, governor.  These are the people you are defending for flying the confederate flags.

From 'the State' back in June 2010:
Knotts' slur stirs the Haley storm
Lexington state Sen. Jake Knotts called political rival and Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley a “raghead” on an Internet political talk show Thursday evening.
The term is a slur typically used against Arabs or other ethnic groups who wear turbans or headdresses. Haley, a state representative from Lexington, is the child of Indian immigrants.
“We already got one raghead in the White House,” Knotts said. “We don’t need another in the Governor’s Mansion.”
According to those present and watching the show, “Pub Politics,” Knotts also talked at length about Haley’s parents’ religion and her family. Haley was raised as a Sikh, but converted to Methodist and has said she attends both services. “Pub Politics” host Wesley Donehue said the video will be posted today.
Haley’s religion was raised as an issue during her first S.C. House run in 2004, when anonymous fliers claimed — inaccurately — that she was a Hindu.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article14385950.html#storylink=cpy

ead more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article14385950.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article14385950.html#storylink=cpy
Pretty much what Haley's statements asserts is that you and a few others like Governor Jindal got yours, so screw anyone else. 

You got yours, governor...but for how much longer?  How long until these racists throw you under the bus as their enemy, as the evil 'other' for forcing the issue of the confederate flag and for not upholding or giving cover to their racism?

Apparently Haley expects us to pretend that there is no continuing discrimination against immigrants, like your family, in America who have become citizens.  What that tends to represent is not so much that you are genuinely accepted fully as it represents a lack of political talent in those respective states as alternatives. 

Neither of Haley or Jindal are actually very popular, even with your own narrow political colleagues; but conservative efforts at voter suppression prevented a full and successful participation in the election process.

Apparently Haley expects us all to selectively forget that, for example, when an Indian American woman who was Miss New York, Nina Davulari, became Miss America?  Did Haley somehow MISS the headlines like this one?

From NPR:

Is Nina Davuluri 'American Enough' To Be Miss America?

...It was the 87th year of the competition, and Davuluri was one of two Asian-Americans in the final round. Although she's just a few days into her reign, Davuluri has already made history. She's the first Indian-American Miss America.
Her win highlights how far the U.S. has come, but also how far the country has to go: Racist tweets flooded in on Twitter right after her victory.
It's not like the NPR piece is the only one to address the racism that erupted.  Gawker had a piece as well, as did other media like Jezebel.  They not only underline the continuing anti-Indian American racism (as distinct from Native American racism, that continues as well) but the ignorance of the hatriots when it comes to geography and comparative religion, an ignorance they often display in their failure to master literacy in English spelling.

Racists Are Being Hella Racist Because Miss America Isn't White

...Idiot racists got so mad, they started mixing up Indian, Indian-American, Arab, Muslim, and everything in between. It's (literarily) a most impressive display of dumb mixed with intolerance and even more stupidity. USA! USA! USA!
and to cover how inclusive the 'n' word is when it comes to your own ethnicity, Gov. Haley:
Sand nigger is up #missamerica
             — Chris Black (@ChrisBlack57) September 16, 2013
Well we all know Obama bought that pageant! — ♔♚TyAnn♚♔ (@tyann_m) September 16, 2013
and from the perpetually offensive and inaccurate conservative pandering Fox News talking head:
toddstarnes ✔ @toddstarnes
The liberal Miss America judges won't say this - but Miss Kansas lost because she actually represented American values.

So, other than establishing "you got yours", Governor Haley, please show us how your election in any way represents a deficiency of racism such that NOW it's ok to fly a symbol of historic through to PRESENT day racism?  You can't, because like a typical conservative, facts are not your friend.

I have to say, I'm particularly offended at ugly white racism towards children because when you can work up a good sweaty hate against children, then you really have some powerful hate going on.
That children from Indian families have dominated the National Spelling Bee for the past 15 years, give or take, is beyond dispute, MPR News reports. An Indian-American child has won every year for the past 7 years, and 11 of the past 15 years.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to sit very well with certain social media users, who have made racist posts — directed at children — about the Indian dominance of the Bee.

Grab a comfy ringside seat, pop some pop corn and sit back to watch the under-the-bus-throwing that is likely to take place next. Governo Haley is an inferior outsider to the racist GOP, and she is no longer being their good little token woman, toen minority puppet, so she will have to go; the only questions left are when and how. Apparently the local media have contacted every member of the South Carolina legislature, the folks Haley is expecting to 'do the right thing' -- and they are refusing to answer, much less declare they will accede to her request.  Reality is about to collide with pretend in the south.

Conservative policies - the policies of wealth and income disparity and the uneven playing field

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Friday, June 19, 2015

S.C.- take down that confederate flag of TREASON and RACISM NOW!

Editorial cartoon from the Boston Globe:

Embedded image permalink

150 Years Ago Today, President Abraham Lincoln Issued the Emancipation Proclimation

It continues to be celebrated, even as forms of racism survive in this nation. Celebration is winning, freedom is winning, no matter how deep the residual racism runs.

Red Neck, Red-state Racist
Southern Gun-Worshipping Old-Style Segregationist Is another Mass Shooter

As  the right wing propaganda machine jerks and contorts their message to control the sheep, we see them trying to hijack the narrative of this tragedy so they can trot out another false claim of victimization, asserting this was an attack on Christians and Christianity.

The right wants to deny any racism exists, ever, especially when it is their own racism they're trying to pretend doesn't exist -- when it clearly does exist.

It was not a victimization of Christians. It is the old traditional Southern White Christians, of the far right "hatriot" variety, that are bent on attack. The kind that in the past burned down black churches and lynched black civil rights advocates.

It is the right wing extremists that are the greatest threat, more so than Islamic extremists, within our borders.  It is also the largely conservative vigilante gun culture, the gun culture which promotes the notion that everyone should have a gun so that everyone can individually shoot it out with whomever they have a conflict.  We also see that in the narrative hijacking from the right, including one particularly offensive black token asshat who is now insisting that black churches (or perhaps all churches) should be armed because of this incident -- and legal abortion, gay marriage, or because it is a day of the week that appears on a calendar.  We see THAT hijacking of the tragedy narrative with lies about violence like the notion that gun free zones should be blamed for mass shootings.  The factual evidence shows the opposite, but the right never lets facts get in the way of their narrative hijacking.  It is essential to their identity and to their emotional status that they FEEL like they can shoot someone else if they want or need to do so ---- and THAT is arguably a part of this tragedy in so far as the shooter also felt that he could and should go shoot up the people in this church  "for a good reason - the whole bullshit rape our women, taking over our country" pretext.  THAT is straight up gun culture right wing nut thinking.

We do NOT live, in the 21st century, in a frontier shoot-your-food world anymore, other than for hobbyists.  We do live in the 21st century, in a world of law, not vigilantism.  Make no mistake, this was an act of terrorism, but it was also an act of vigilantism - taking individual violent action for what appeared to this individual to be legitimate grounds. 

We will not end mass shootings by trying to understand individual motivation; that motivation is emotional and the reasoning behind it is not driven by fact, and operates on murky thinking.  We will end mass shootings, and for that matter other kinds of shootings like murder suicides, by ending the premise that everyone should have a gun and shoot people when they feel justified in doing so.  Our so-called gun culture is not culture at all, it is not civilized, it is not rational, it has no place in our world any longer. 

During the shooting in the church, Dylann Roof was reported by survivors to have said:
"You rape our women, and you're taking over our country. And you have to go," [and that he was there] "to shoot black people."

Roof's motive seems pretty clear, and unambiguous, and not anti-Christian.  It does reek of that far right hubris that this country is a white conservative religious entitlement, something to take away from others - as are women, another kind of owned property that belongs to them.

Roof (pronounced like cough)was known to be a pill-popper who frequently went about armed, wearing clothing with the flags of previously racist African nations, the South African flag from their apartheid era, and the flag of segregationist Rhodesia between 1965 and 1994, eras ending before his lifetime. Those flags are a modern symbol of 21st century white supremacists.

From the New York Times
Dylann Roof, Charleston Suspect, Wore Symbols of White Supremacy
CHARLESTON, S.C. — The Facebook profile picture chosen by Dylann Storm Roof in May is thick with symbolism. It shows Mr. Roof, a scowling young white man, against a distinctly Southern backdrop: a swamp dripping with Spanish moss. His black jacket is adorned with two flags — one from apartheid-era South Africa, the other from white-ruled Rhodesia — that have been adopted as emblems by modern-day white supremacists.
From the same NYT article:
“He used drugs heavily a lot,” Mr. Mullins added. “He was like a pill popper, from what I understood. Like Xanax, and stuff like that.”

Mr. Roof “had that kind of Southern pride, I guess some would say — strong conservative beliefs,” Mr. Mullins said. “He made a lot of racist jokes, but you don’t really take them seriously like that. You don’t really think of it like that.”
Racism should NOT be something we blow off as normal, no big deal.  Too often it is, as evidenced by right wing so-called editorial humor, and also by right wing very serious voter suppression against people of color.



 A drop out, apparently unemployed, racist pill popper? Among conservatives too often that is no disqualification for gifting someone with a gun.  They're just 'good ol' boys', 'you don't need education', 'one of us', we NEED a gun, appears to be the thinking, however badly flawed.

I personally, from my experience traveling in the south, have a problem with the Southern notion that kind of joke is 'ok', something to blow off as 'not serious', when it is ugly and racist. Too many conservatives in the south (and elsewhere) do not. Which all seems to me of a piece with white far right conservative South Carolina governor Nikki Haley supporting flying the confederate flag, a symbol of pride in traditions of white supremacy, and a symbol with which Roof posed for photos, apparently in support of the original use of the confederate flag, as push back in South Carolina against civil rights and as a gesture of opposition to segregation.  It is associated with the worst excesses of slavery and racist persecution.  It gives social cover, normalcy,tolerance and acceptance to things that should be anathema.

As Jon Stewart noted, even the roads on which people drive in South Carolina are named for confederate generals.  It is time to stop glorifying racists, and to stop pretending that is an era of southern history that deserves honoring or respect.  It does not.  But so long as the south pretends it does, expect to see it contribute to racism among the right wing domestic terrorists with their guns.

Don't act surprised when it happens again, either racism or another mass shooting.


The Confederate flag is only PART of the problem; we have a racism problem AND a gun violence problem


Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Colbert Stomps & Tromps all over '"the Donald's" announcement:
Trump is the King of Tacky, but NEVER, EVER will Trump put his name anywhere on or in the White House as President.


All Hail to the great satiric mind of the one and only Colbert!



Dear Nienstedt: No, YOU DID NOT LEAVE because "you were a distraction"

an outcome
devoutly to be wished

Let's not pretend that the Archbishop resigned willingly.  He was forced out, he had no choice -- and he left because he did an excruciatingly bad job.

From the STrib timeline of Nienstedt's failures to do right by anyone other than himself:
September 2010: Archdiocese launches battle against same-sex marriage, issuing 400,000 DVDs to state Catholics and campaigning for constitutional amendment that fails in 2012.
Instead of involving himself in the privacy of people's bedrooms, I have to wonder if the archbishop ever heard the parable about the man who had a post jammed in his eye but instead bothered with the tiny speck in someone else's eyeball.
Nienstedt devoted far more energy, attention and resources to THIS insertion into politics, instead of paying attention to an acknowledged crisis -- a failure of priorities and values, and an exercise of poor pastoral stewardship.  It reflects a greater desire to coerce non-Catholics and other people of different conscience to submit and conform to Roman Catholic dogma and an indifference to protecting children and others from predatory clergy, in my opinion- DG)
 May 2013: A new state law extends the statute of limitations on sex-abuse lawsuits, opening the door to potentially dozens of additional lawsuits, witnesses and depositions.  
This was opposed by Nienstedt and the church, arguing that they did NOT want accountability for crimes. - DG
September 2013: Former archdiocese canon lawyer Jennifer Haselberger goes public with allegations that church officials ignored concerns about the Rev. Curtis Wehmeyer for years before he was convicted of abusing two boys.  
Imho, Nienstedt engaged in WILLFUL ignorance; it was his JOB to know what was going on, and to correct and prevent abuse, and the decision to ignore it was a choice, not an accident, and a dereliction of his duty and of basic human decency. - DG
December 2013: Ramsey County District Judge John Van de North orders the archdiocese to release a list of 30 priests considered “credibly accused” of child sex abuse.
Nienstedt and the archdiocese lawyers fought this as well and cooperated only to the degree they were coerced into doing so imho, which argues a lack of cooperation with civil authorities, and also a lack of concern for justice for the victims. - DG

December 2013: At Sunday mass, Nienstedt apologizes and says the archdiocese overlooked allegations of clergy sex abuse.    

This apology comes after we have been given extensive assurance that the archdiocese will NOT overlook allegation of clergy abuse -- and not for the first time, but as part of a recurring pattern.  Given that recurring pattern of assurance and continuing abuse, as demonstrated by the UN Panel above, I don't see any reason to consider Nienstedt's words, here in this apology, or any other apology, or in any assurances, to be sincere.  My opinion - DG
February 2014: A Ramsey County judge orders Nienstedt to give a sworn deposition to lawyers in lawsuits against the church, addressing whether the archdiocese followed its own policies in investigating sex abuse allegations. 
 What I recall from the depositions was a lot of "don't knows", "don't remembers, and other weasel words that frankly struck me as insincere and dishonest/untruthful, and every effort being made to obstruct the investigations against the church.  It was Nienstedts JOB to know, and if he did not know, to find out.  He failed in the job and in the trust he demanded from others in his commitment to doing his duty. My opinion, when he refused to quit, he should have been fired. - DG
March 2014: St. Paul police reopen investigation into the archdiocese’s handling of allegations against Wehmeyer.   
April 2014: Nienstedt gives a sworn statement that he knew little about the allegations against Wehmeyer and was not aware that known child sex abusers worked at the archdiocese during his tenure.  
And yet we have been assured this kind of error won't continue to occur, that these cases have been studied and reviewed  and examined? When does this become too much failure, and when is Nienstedt to be called out on apparent dishonesty, and at best disinterest?  This underlines that Nienstedt's resignation not about "distraction", this is about far worse job failures on the part of Nienstedt and his subordinates - my opinion, DG

April 2014: Internal archdiocese task force issues a report saying that poor oversight led the church to do an inadequate investigation of clergy sex abuse allegations.   

But this was exactly what Nienstedt and friends assured us, the public, was 'fixed' 'corrected', 'changed' and that they 'got it'.  This simply proves that no one can or should put any faith in statements from the Roman Catholic church generally, or Nienstedt and his subordinates specifically under any circumstances.  Why did this man continue in his position? WHY? That he did argues institutionalized cover for these crimes. - my opinion - DG
July 2014: Nienstedt announces that he will not resign, saying the church has turned the corner on the abuse allegations and he is working to regain support.   
Where have we heard THAT line of rubbish before? How can it be promoted with a straight face? Nienstedt should have been thrown out, and defrocked in the process, before now, if the church was serious and sincere -. my opinion - DG
October 2014: Archdiocese reaches landmark settlement with victims of clergy sex abuse and announces major changes in the way it will address future allegations.   

Blah blah blah, same old same old, but nothing changes -- and the same people continue in positions of power, influence and authority.  REAL changes would have included Nienstedt LEAVING involuntarily, imho, and if Nienstedt really cared about anything but himself, he would have left voluntarily. - DG

January 2015: Archdiocese files for bankruptcy protection, citing in part legal costs from clergy sex abuse litigation.   
Even if you only care about the church hanging on to its property and money, this should have been grounds for Nienstedt and his sidekick to be kicked to the curb then, not six months later. - my opinion, DG

June 5: Ramsey County Attorney John Choi files criminal charges against the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis for “failing to protect children” stemming from the Wehmeyer case. It’s the first time a U.S. archdiocese has been criminally charged with such offenses. 
 Like the big banks with money laundering and crooked deals, including in both respective quantity of wealth and attitude, it will take jail time for the people who are responsible to bring about any real change.  I can only hope that those who failed to protect children spend time behind bars for it, but I will in fact be surprised if that happens, or if Nienstedt is tried by the Vatican and punished criminally either. But I live in guarded hope so long as Francis remains pope.  It would not seem unfair or unjust to me in the least if the Vatican made an example of Nienstedt.- my opinion, DG)I have long felt the Archbishop of the Diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis was an arrogant jerk who put himself and his ambitions ahead of the welfare of children and the Minnesota church. 

It is not as if Nienstedt is the only RC clergy at fault, or as if other faiths don't have some similar problems, but I think it is fair to posit Nienstedt is one of the worst among many bad clergy.  This UN Panel  from a little over a year ago seems to have pretty fairly summed up the problems that have never been addressed despite apologies and assurances and law suits, and the size, wealth, and both historic scope and geographic scope make their problem one of the worst.

Its Nienstedt, but it's not ONLY Nienstedt



From the NY Times (large/ bold type emphasis mine - DG) a year ago February:

U.N. Panel Criticizes the Vatican Over Sexual Abuse

In a hard-hitting report applauded by victims as a landmark in the Roman Catholic Church’s clerical sexual-abuse scandal, a United Nations committee on Wednesday called on the Vatican to remove all child abusers from its ranks, report them to law enforcement and open the church’s archives so that bishops and other officials who concealed crimes could be held accountable.
The report, issued by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, is likely to put pressure on Pope Francis to make concrete changes in the way the church handles abuse cases and put some muscle into the commission on abuse that he announced in December, whose members and mission have not yet been specified.
The Vatican responded on Wednesday that it had already made many of the changes called for in the report, and that the report’s conclusions were out of date.



The report, however, was sharply critical of the church’s current practices, not just those of the past. “The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by and the impunity of the perpetrators,” the report concluded.
The criticism came from a panel that examined the Vatican’s compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international agreement signed by 140 sovereign entities, including the Vatican. The panel held a hearing on the issue last month, the first time the Vatican faced public examination by an international body of its record on sexual abuse,
But the Vatican press office said in a statement that it regretted to see the United Nations committee “attempt to interfere” with Catholic teaching and the church’s “exercise of religious freedom.”
On the many pressing problems related to child welfare, the report recommended specific steps it said the Vatican should take: stop obstructing efforts by victims’ advocates in some countries to extend statutes of limitations, which now allow most abusers to escape prosecution; stop insisting that victims sign confidentiality agreements swearing them to silence as a condition for receiving compensation; help birth parents locate children who were taken from them for adoption out of Catholic institutions like the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland; and identify, count and financially support children fathered by Catholic priests without imposing confidentiality agreements on the mothers.
Kirsten Sandberg, the chairwoman of the United Nations panel, said Wednesday at a news conference in Geneva that tens of thousands of children around the world had suffered abuse by priests. “We think it is a horrible thing that is being kept silent both by the Holy See itself and in the different local parishes,” she said.The panel rejected the church’s key contention that the Vatican has no jurisdiction over its bishops and priests around the world, and is responsible for putting in effect the Convention on the Rights of the Child only within the tiny territory of Vatican City. By ratifying the convention, the panel said, the Vatican took responsibility for making sure it was respected by individuals and institutions under the Holy See’s authority around the world.“It is wonderful that the U.N. has spoken so clearly about what the Vatican has done — and what it has failed to do,” said Ms. Dorris, who is based in St. Louis. “To us, it is a call for the civil authorities to step in. Church officials have proved they cannot police themselves.”
The above appears to be a detailed indictment of the church as macrocosm that also fits perfectly the church here in Minnesota as microcosm.

Nienstedt's apologies have, in my opinion, presented at best a shallow and superficial concern for others, and instead focused on his own experience, representing himself as the victim, not the person who is responsible for contributing to the ongoing pattern of abuse.  This has seemed to me to be his chronic message, especially in his so-called apologies.  To paraphrase what I see and hear from Nienstedt:
"Poor me, that these priest-abused children are complicating my life and obstructing my desire to advance.  Doing my job badly and then being held accountable for it when I don't want to be accountable is painful to me.  Shame on those victims for attacking the church after being harmed.  We clergy, especially me, are above the law and consequences."
Nothing could be a better demonstration of the serious intentions to better of the larger Roman Catholic church than if Nienstedt is the first in the dock, prosecuted in the new Vatican tribunal, in addition to the criminal charges here in Minnesota.

I will pray for Nienstedt, that he truly sees the error of his ways and that he receives actual justice.

Ah, the stink of conservative hypocrisy!

Conservatives, one standard for them, and a far harsher, more hate-driven standard for others.

Obama was of course born in America, and it does not matter if his father was American or not.

This is dishonest, this is lacking in principles, morality, ethics, integrity, fairness and decency.

This is the radical religious right.

Monday, June 15, 2015

Conservatives Make up Stuff, Lie about it being in the Bible

On June 3, 2015 the Charlotte Observer reported on this law suit where the state attempted to deny freedom of the exercise of religion by Christians and Jews:
The Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) and the Alliance of Baptists have made it official that they are joining as plaintiffs in a Federal District Court lawsuit opposing North Carolina’s same-sex marriage ban.
The United Church of Christ filed the lawsuit in April, challenging North Carolina’s state ban on same sex marriage. The suit is said to be the nation’s first faith-based challenge to same-sex marriage bans.
As it stands, North Carolina law makes it illegal for rabbis, priests, ministers and other religious officials to solemnize the marriage of same-sex couples on an equal basis with opposite sex couples without fear of criminal prosecution and civil penalty.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article9127277.html#storylink=cpy
North Carolina and other states, and many conservatives across the nation (including those who want to be president after the 2016 election), support denying this exercise of the freedom of religion involved in this suit.  And now North Carolina is attempting to bring back a ban of sorts on interracial marriage as well.

June 12, 2015 marked the 48th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia.  When the Lovings were refused marriage licenses in Virginia, the justification for doing so -- not once, but twice, was that it was prohibited in the Bible.  The Lovings were lectured by the bureaucrats in Virginia, actual BIBLES IN HAND, on how they believed God intended the races to be separate.

Chief Justice Warren wrote (my bold emphasis added):
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

There were more other states in the US that DID allow interracial marriage, and there were other branches of Christianity that allowed it also, then, just as religious groups and  other states permit same sex marriage, now. 

That did not matter to the conservative racist bigots of the Virginia state bureaucracy.  They instead chose to impose THEIR religious beliefs on all other citizens.

This is part of the wording of the unanimous decision, authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren:
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/images/LovingvVirginiaQuote.jpg


Recently we have ol' racist bigot and notorious homophobe Pat Robertson claiming that we shouldn't interfere with the racist policies of institutions like Bob Jones University when they try to ban inter-racial dating, as an exercise of freedom (or, in this case free-dumb) of religion.

And recently we have the state of North Carolina passing legislation that permits their bureaucrats to refuse to issue marriage licenses or to refuse to perform marriages as exercising freedom of religion.  Like Bob Jones University, that encompasses both freedom of the bureaucrats to refuse interracial marriage, which was found to be illegal and unconstitutional in the SCOTUS decision, Loving v. Virginia or same sex marriage.  But North Carolina doesn't give a tinker's damn about legality or the Constitution or freedom for 'other' people.

Not of course, YOUR freedom of religion -- no, the only thing they want to exercise is THEIR limited and narrow freedom of religion.  They have NO problem whatsoever curtailing YOUR freedom or MY freedom of religion. 

The proffered reasoning of candidates like Ben Carson represent what is faulty and unethical about the conservative position - so far held by every declared or thinking-about-declaring conservative candidate for president, and by most conservative candidates for other office, and by every conservative policy platform.  The right wants to define and coerce how everyone else lives, based on their narrow religious beliefs.  Like the beliefs of many conservatives about race, which is not a real 'thing', but rather a factually false artificial construct, sexuality is not as conservatives believe EITHER.

Facts matter in setting public policy and our laws.  Factually erroneous beliefs should not matter, in that specific context.

Conservatives do not care one whit if they insult, degrade, or defame anyone who disagrees with them in the process, or how dishonest they are in doing so.  But no one else gets to disagree with them, because to do so is to bully good conservatives and make them victims and to attack religion --- up to and including false claims that those seeking civil equality will criminalize Christianity (or maybe Judaism).

We have presidential candidate wannabe Ben Carson wailing and moaning about how anyone who supports gay marriage equality is curtailing HIS freedom of religion.
“Well, a lot of people say ‘Ben Carson’s a homophobe because he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.’ That’s ridiculous.”
“Yes, I do believe that it’s between a man and a woman, but I don’t believe that anybody gets to change the definition of something that is a societal pillar.”
This is the same argument used to prohibit the marriage of Richard and Mildred Loving.  Richard and Mildred Loving were sentenced to prison for daring to oppose this narrow racist religious view of their freedom of choice that conservatives attempted to impose on them.

You see, Ben Carson wants people to be civil and to follow a double standard, one standard for HIM, and another standard for those terrible 'others'. 

We have had Ben Carson claiming that homosexual orientation is the result of a choice.  It is clearly not, and while he is free to believe the moon is made of green cheese if he so desires, or any other factually inaccurate thing, his believing it does not make it so, and is not a basis for other people's civil rights to control and order their lives, especially their family decisions.

In the past, notably at a NOM meeting, Carson called the efforts for equality for LGBT people an attempt to destroy America and to impose a "New World Order".  In the past he has equated any sexual orientation or gender identity that differs from heterosexual normative to bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia.  We have Carson claiming:
“When we talk about liberty and justice for all, doesn’t that mean that people can be left alone, that no-one else gets to change definitions on them and change life for them?” he asked. “They have no right to say to me that I must change the way I think in order to accommodate what they believe,” he said. “That’s where the injustice comes from, and we have to understand that.”
No one is saying Ben Carson must change the way he thinks.  He - like the racist people of Virginia back in the days of miscegenation laws - can BELIEVE anything he likes.  What he, and other conservatives, may NOT do is force others to conform to those beliefs, and he and other conservatives may not unreasonably restrict the freedom of individuals to marry whom they choose on that religious basis. 

Monogamy is not in fact the definition of marriage in the Bible, and the Bible is not the law of the land. 

Monogamy is not in fact the pillar of society, either, as it has not been the norm for humans across the course of history around the globe.  For that matter, neither is the so-called nuclear family.  Rather polygamy, concubinage and sex slavery, and tribal or clan organizations of extended family raising children has in fact been far more frequent and common.

Carson and the other conservatives are wrong.  We can and do change the definition of marriage so as to recognize the rights and freedom of individuals, and conservatives are NOT supporting freedom of religion or civil equality.  Conservatives are doing the OPPOSITE of what they claim they want.  Freedom of religion is the freedom for same sex marriage, just as it is for interracial marriage.