The British Medical Journal reviewed 2.500 modern medical treatments and found only 36% to be either effective or "likely to be effective." Instead of health-care "reform," maybe we should reform medicine first.
British Medical Journal Findings
Apr 20, 2010
Apr 19, 2010
Idiot Ayatollah Wannabe Limbaugh Knows God: Meanwhile, God's PR Problems Persist
It is time for Rush to untie that half of a brain he keeps behind his back. What he is using is in a dark and very severely oxygen-deprived environment. The college dropout propaganda whore suddenly knows the mind of God and declares that the volcanic eruptions in Iceland are God's answer to the passage of health-care reform (such as it is) in the US. I am surprised he did not throw in something about a homosexual agenda for good measure.
In the meantime, God continues to have His own problems as Mexican priest Alberto Athie tells why he left the Catholic church, largely because of Ratzinger's complicity in protecting pedophiles.
And while the Nazi-deserter now claims he will bring pedophile priests to justice, Gerhard Gruber, Ratzinger's general vicar when he was Archbishop in Munich, reveals that he was pressured to take the heat for mishandling the case of Peter H. when that sordid story broke last month, in order to shield His-Holy-Perfection-By-Committee.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the Associated Press--that bastion of homosexual left-wing radicals---reveals its discoveries of child-abusing priests being shuffled around the world.
God's answer to health-care passage
Ratzinger Refused to Defrock Child-Molester For Nine Years
Taking The Rap For The Pontiff
Pedophile Shell Game
In the meantime, God continues to have His own problems as Mexican priest Alberto Athie tells why he left the Catholic church, largely because of Ratzinger's complicity in protecting pedophiles.
And while the Nazi-deserter now claims he will bring pedophile priests to justice, Gerhard Gruber, Ratzinger's general vicar when he was Archbishop in Munich, reveals that he was pressured to take the heat for mishandling the case of Peter H. when that sordid story broke last month, in order to shield His-Holy-Perfection-By-Committee.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the Associated Press--that bastion of homosexual left-wing radicals---reveals its discoveries of child-abusing priests being shuffled around the world.
God's answer to health-care passage
Ratzinger Refused to Defrock Child-Molester For Nine Years
Taking The Rap For The Pontiff
Pedophile Shell Game
Apr 18, 2010
More Church Dirt
This appears on the Daylight Atheism Blog.
Every time I think we've seen the worst of what the Roman Catholic church and this pope are capable of, they come up with a way to sink lower still. Back in January, when Benedict reinstated a misogynist, Holocaust-denying bishop, I could never have imagined that that would be the least offensive and disgusting thing they'd have done this year - yet it seems like that may very well be the case.
The newest evidence of this comes via this story from the AP. I previously detailed a case where the current pope, back when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, assigned a known child molester to therapy and then washed his hands of the matter; and another case where Ratzinger ignored urgent letters from an archbishop requesting an ecclesiastical trial for a priest known to have molested as many as 200 deaf boys. But this story is the most direct evidence yet of Ratzinger's culpable neglect and stonewalling over cases of child rape.
Back in 1981, the diocese of Oakland wrote to Ratzinger, who was then head of the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urging him to begin proceedings to defrock Rev. Stephen Kiesle, another confessed priestly pedophile. Kiesle had previously pleaded no contest to tying up and molesting two children in a church rectory, and the diocese wrote to Rome asking that he be defrocked (in fact, Kiesle himself requested to be defrocked). Ratzinger ignored multiple letters for four years. Finally, in 1985, he wrote back - but said that the case needed still more time, and that proceedings had to be slow and deliberate in order to safeguard "the good of the universal church" (!)
This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner. (source)
The young age of the petitioner - that is, the pedophile priest! Incredibly, Ratzinger was more concerned about the harm defrocking a child molester would do to the Church's public image than he was about the harm that the molester had already done and might still do to vulnerable children. As multiple commenters have pointed out, the young age of the molester (he was 38 at the time) might well have been a factor also. Ratzinger must be aware of the aging and dwindling priesthood and the paucity of new recruits; it's likely that he wanted to hang on to every ordained man as long as possible, regardless of the price.
Andrew Sullivan, himself a conservative Catholic, calls this outrageous letter "the third strike" for this pope:
It is a document designed to prevent dismissing a priest as young as 38. Perhaps the fast-aging priesthood was a concern and dismissing such a young priest was to be avoided. But it's clear that the age of the priest is of far more importance to Ratzinger than the age of the minors he raped. All the sympathy and concern is with the rapist, not the raped. This is a document about protecting the powerful even when they rape the powerless.
So far, the typical Vatican apologist defense has been to claim that Ratzinger was an ivory-tower type, so concerned with ponderous matters of theology that he couldn't stoop to deal with such mundane trivia as a man in his employ raping and molesting children. But in 2006, when an archbishop openly defied the Vatican's rule on celibacy by ordaining married men as priests, Pope Benedict excommunicated him six days later. Again, this is the same man who took four years even to respond to a letter pleading with him to do something about an active pedophile.
All of this has led to this announcement, by a British human-rights lawyer seeking to have the Pope put on trial for crimes against humanity the next time he visits the U.K. It's a good idea, although I'm not yet convinced that the Pope's culpability rises to the level of the criminal. Despicable as they were, it seems that his sins were of omission rather than commission - failing to do anything about pedophiles preying on children, rather than actively assisting them in doing so - though given the steady trickle of new details, I may have to retract that statement in the near future. And in any case, I'm sure the U.K. government would do everything in its power to preempt any criminal investigation (conservative Catholics are still an influential voting bloc). However, I think a civil lawsuit is a very real possibility and a legal avenue that should be explored.
Lastly, and in case there was any doubt in your mind remaining about the Catholic church's intentions, there's this story from Connecticut. The state legislature has proposed a bill that would lift the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases, and the bishops ordered a letter to be read during Mass urging their parishioners to lobby against it. This shows, more clearly than anything else possibly could, that the Catholic church is still concerned first and foremost with protecting itself, rather than seeing that justice is done. If they truly wanted to be sure that no molesters were left in their ranks, they'd welcome this bill - and the fact that they oppose it can only mean that they know of more cases of molestation that haven't yet come to light.
But if I had to pick one quote to sum up the depths of wickedness and hypocrisy displayed by this church, it'd be this one from the columnist Libby Purves, a former Catholic turned deist. She beautifully turns their own words against them by quoting the Penny Catechism she learned as a child:
Numbers 328 and 329 refer, making it clear that we are "answerable for the sins of others" when we share the guilt "by counsel, command, consent, provocation, by concealment, by silence..."
Forget the lordly authoritarianism which speaks of the "good of the Universal Church": that Church itself plainly states that concealing crime by silence is wrong, and that it is worse still to counsel and command others to commit the same sin of silence and concealment. Yet this crime, this sin, was being regularly urged on children, parents and parishioners by men in authority: the solemn clerical authority which purports to draw its privilege direct from the eternal Truth and to see into the depths of the heart. It is an all-male authority, too, in which the greenest young priest outranks an experienced nun or devout mother. It has been the perfect screen for wickedness.
Every time I think we've seen the worst of what the Roman Catholic church and this pope are capable of, they come up with a way to sink lower still. Back in January, when Benedict reinstated a misogynist, Holocaust-denying bishop, I could never have imagined that that would be the least offensive and disgusting thing they'd have done this year - yet it seems like that may very well be the case.
The newest evidence of this comes via this story from the AP. I previously detailed a case where the current pope, back when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, assigned a known child molester to therapy and then washed his hands of the matter; and another case where Ratzinger ignored urgent letters from an archbishop requesting an ecclesiastical trial for a priest known to have molested as many as 200 deaf boys. But this story is the most direct evidence yet of Ratzinger's culpable neglect and stonewalling over cases of child rape.
Back in 1981, the diocese of Oakland wrote to Ratzinger, who was then head of the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urging him to begin proceedings to defrock Rev. Stephen Kiesle, another confessed priestly pedophile. Kiesle had previously pleaded no contest to tying up and molesting two children in a church rectory, and the diocese wrote to Rome asking that he be defrocked (in fact, Kiesle himself requested to be defrocked). Ratzinger ignored multiple letters for four years. Finally, in 1985, he wrote back - but said that the case needed still more time, and that proceedings had to be slow and deliberate in order to safeguard "the good of the universal church" (!)
This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner. (source)
The young age of the petitioner - that is, the pedophile priest! Incredibly, Ratzinger was more concerned about the harm defrocking a child molester would do to the Church's public image than he was about the harm that the molester had already done and might still do to vulnerable children. As multiple commenters have pointed out, the young age of the molester (he was 38 at the time) might well have been a factor also. Ratzinger must be aware of the aging and dwindling priesthood and the paucity of new recruits; it's likely that he wanted to hang on to every ordained man as long as possible, regardless of the price.
Andrew Sullivan, himself a conservative Catholic, calls this outrageous letter "the third strike" for this pope:
It is a document designed to prevent dismissing a priest as young as 38. Perhaps the fast-aging priesthood was a concern and dismissing such a young priest was to be avoided. But it's clear that the age of the priest is of far more importance to Ratzinger than the age of the minors he raped. All the sympathy and concern is with the rapist, not the raped. This is a document about protecting the powerful even when they rape the powerless.
So far, the typical Vatican apologist defense has been to claim that Ratzinger was an ivory-tower type, so concerned with ponderous matters of theology that he couldn't stoop to deal with such mundane trivia as a man in his employ raping and molesting children. But in 2006, when an archbishop openly defied the Vatican's rule on celibacy by ordaining married men as priests, Pope Benedict excommunicated him six days later. Again, this is the same man who took four years even to respond to a letter pleading with him to do something about an active pedophile.
All of this has led to this announcement, by a British human-rights lawyer seeking to have the Pope put on trial for crimes against humanity the next time he visits the U.K. It's a good idea, although I'm not yet convinced that the Pope's culpability rises to the level of the criminal. Despicable as they were, it seems that his sins were of omission rather than commission - failing to do anything about pedophiles preying on children, rather than actively assisting them in doing so - though given the steady trickle of new details, I may have to retract that statement in the near future. And in any case, I'm sure the U.K. government would do everything in its power to preempt any criminal investigation (conservative Catholics are still an influential voting bloc). However, I think a civil lawsuit is a very real possibility and a legal avenue that should be explored.
Lastly, and in case there was any doubt in your mind remaining about the Catholic church's intentions, there's this story from Connecticut. The state legislature has proposed a bill that would lift the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases, and the bishops ordered a letter to be read during Mass urging their parishioners to lobby against it. This shows, more clearly than anything else possibly could, that the Catholic church is still concerned first and foremost with protecting itself, rather than seeing that justice is done. If they truly wanted to be sure that no molesters were left in their ranks, they'd welcome this bill - and the fact that they oppose it can only mean that they know of more cases of molestation that haven't yet come to light.
But if I had to pick one quote to sum up the depths of wickedness and hypocrisy displayed by this church, it'd be this one from the columnist Libby Purves, a former Catholic turned deist. She beautifully turns their own words against them by quoting the Penny Catechism she learned as a child:
Numbers 328 and 329 refer, making it clear that we are "answerable for the sins of others" when we share the guilt "by counsel, command, consent, provocation, by concealment, by silence..."
Forget the lordly authoritarianism which speaks of the "good of the Universal Church": that Church itself plainly states that concealing crime by silence is wrong, and that it is worse still to counsel and command others to commit the same sin of silence and concealment. Yet this crime, this sin, was being regularly urged on children, parents and parishioners by men in authority: the solemn clerical authority which purports to draw its privilege direct from the eternal Truth and to see into the depths of the heart. It is an all-male authority, too, in which the greenest young priest outranks an experienced nun or devout mother. It has been the perfect screen for wickedness.
Mar 25, 2010
Sean Hannity Defrauds Public
Yep. Sean Hannity's "Freedom Concert" charity turns out to be a big scam, with very little of the money raised going to the injured troops and children they claim to be raising money for. What a surprise.
Hannity Scam
Hannity Scam
Mar 22, 2010
Mar 15, 2010
Texas Curriculum Determined By Religious and Racial Bigots
The Texas "Board of Education" is being held hostage by a faction of rabid fundamentalist bigots who seek to whitewash the racial prejudice that fueled much of the Texas revolution against Mexico and delete the murder of thousands of Hispanics by the Texas Rangers from textbooks and the classroom. They see the founding fathers' struggles over religious freedom and separation of church and state as "interpretation" by "liberal professors." They are driven by political favoritism and bigotry, as well, eliminating Dolores Huerta—co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America—from textbooks because she was a socialist. Artists are being eliminated from the curriculum because board members find some of their works "questionable." Is it coincidence that Hispanic artists are being replaced by white ones?
The article below ends abruptly, seemingly in mid-thought. Maybe that is where author Jeremy Binckes passed out from sheer disgust.
How The Texas Textbook Revision Came To Be
The article below ends abruptly, seemingly in mid-thought. Maybe that is where author Jeremy Binckes passed out from sheer disgust.
How The Texas Textbook Revision Came To Be
Mar 14, 2010
Oklahoma Challenges Texas For King Of Bigot Hill
Gee, just when Texas seems to have a decent lead in the race to see which state is most bigoted, Oklahoma steps up. By golly, they passed a nifty state law that allows them to sequester or destroy evidence of hate crimes investigated in Oklahoma if the red-neck police and courts don't convict their brethren of wrongdoing. How convenient for them. Maybe we should arrange for an old-fashioned tag-team cage match to determine the top bigots.
Oklahoma Opts Out Of Federal Hate Crimes Laws
Oklahoma Opts Out Of Federal Hate Crimes Laws
Mar 13, 2010
Shake Your Head In Wonder
A selection of delicacies emerge today as the world gets saner and smarter...NOT!!
The US government cares about your health and well-being. Right. That's why they are selling—at bargain prices, of course—trailers that are known to be seriously contaminated with formaldehyde. Does the Consumer Protection Agency know about this?
Feds Sell Contaminated Trailers
Israel, our great ally, staunch friend and defender of freedom; the Jewish homeland that was created out of the goodwill and sympathy of the world for what the Jewish people suffered at the hands of Hitler's minions—let's not mention the Zionist terrorism that paved the way for it, that would be politically incorrect—in its zeal for God and justice, might have to (reluctantly, I'm sure) exterminate Europe if it feels threatened. Historian Martin Karfeld points out that his wonderful, compassionate country is capable of destroying the whole world. Isn't God good? His Chosen Ones are so loving and full of God's grace and care for His creation that they are willing to kill off the rest of the planet because they have no faith that their Lord will protect them. We can only presume that Israel has a super-secret plan for surviving the nuclear holocaust they will inflict on the entire world. They must have vast stores of radiation-proof water and food and air and who knows what else stored under the sands of their blood-soaked "holy land."
Israel Will Exterminate Europe
This one is just for fun, but really, how far off are we from this becoming reality?
PR Firm To Run For Congress
The US government cares about your health and well-being. Right. That's why they are selling—at bargain prices, of course—trailers that are known to be seriously contaminated with formaldehyde. Does the Consumer Protection Agency know about this?
Feds Sell Contaminated Trailers
Israel, our great ally, staunch friend and defender of freedom; the Jewish homeland that was created out of the goodwill and sympathy of the world for what the Jewish people suffered at the hands of Hitler's minions—let's not mention the Zionist terrorism that paved the way for it, that would be politically incorrect—in its zeal for God and justice, might have to (reluctantly, I'm sure) exterminate Europe if it feels threatened. Historian Martin Karfeld points out that his wonderful, compassionate country is capable of destroying the whole world. Isn't God good? His Chosen Ones are so loving and full of God's grace and care for His creation that they are willing to kill off the rest of the planet because they have no faith that their Lord will protect them. We can only presume that Israel has a super-secret plan for surviving the nuclear holocaust they will inflict on the entire world. They must have vast stores of radiation-proof water and food and air and who knows what else stored under the sands of their blood-soaked "holy land."
Israel Will Exterminate Europe
This one is just for fun, but really, how far off are we from this becoming reality?
PR Firm To Run For Congress
Mar 12, 2010
Texas: Grand Marshal of the Bigot Parade
I won't comment on this one. You have to read it for yourself.
Texas Wants to Rewrite History
But that's not all, folks.
Texas Bigots Change School Curriculum
Texas Wants to Rewrite History
But that's not all, folks.
Texas Bigots Change School Curriculum
A Few Words About the Gazette
It occurs to me that, given the level of "education" in this country and the current nature of our culture to jump on anybody who criticizes the status-quo and the official line about almost anything, some explanation might be necessary for what the Gadfly Gazette is about. This should have been the first post. Mea culpa.
The offerings here are not "just" some postings by a jerk-wad being negative. There is a purpose. More than one, really, but they wind up being the same in the end. First, as long as we are pretending to still be a free country, it is the duty of those who can to point out that things are far from perfect. The perpetual-happy-and-positive virus is a very dangerous thing, indeed, and one (if not the only) antidote is to present truth and arguments that demonstrate that all is not great in happy-bunnies-and-lightville.
One of the duties of free people is to ask what we mean by "freedom." And to point out where our definition of freedom does not apply to current reality. It is the critics who keep the system honest. In theory, anyway. The constructive purpose of criticism is to make people think. I know, that's a tall order in America these days. Sometimes criticism needs to be harsh and in-your-face instead of cocktail-party polite and genteel. Sometimes it is necessary for somebody to point out that the emperor is naked. Or that there is a turd in the punch bowl.
What the Gadfly Gazette criticizes most of all is the sheeple's acceptance of almost anything that drips down on us from above, be it from our "leaders" or our so-called spiritual mentors. Sinclair Lewis said that when (notice he did not say if) fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a bible. Think about it.
One of our supposedly cherished freedoms is freedom of religion. The right-wingnuts seem to believe that means freedom to practice their religion, and to bash everybody else with it and try to force it down our throats in every conceivable way, while whining when anybody resists the erosion of separation of church and state and objects to the decidedly uncivil attitudes and actions of those "good" people. They will give public lip-service (though some do not) to your right to have your religion, but they turn around and try to end the freedom of pagans in the air force, for example, to have a place to hold their ceremonies. Does anybody really have to point out the gross hypocrisy there? Well, apparently so. The mainstream media sure won't. And is it appropriate for supposedly educated people to passively claim the Bible is good without examining its contents and answering basic questions about its goodness when there is so much in there that violates every notion of morality? Is it wrong to challenge the idiotic claim that the bible is perfect and infallible when even the tiniest scratch on the surface of genuine scholarship reveals this to be utterly stupid? So why do we call the ranting bigots who hide behind the legal shield of their religious freedom good people while they actively promote hatred, bigotry, unnecessary and illegal wars, murder and state-sponsored oppression of chosen targets?
I don't have to be gay to support the efforts of gay people to simply enjoy the same—not special—rights and protection under the law everyone else has. If a gay couple down the block gets married, I fail to understand how that threatens my relationships. Gay people are being lambasted with exactly the same lies and bigotry that blacks were before the civil rights movement forced society to change its attitudes about segregation, mixed-race marriages, employment policies, etc. Of course, the wingnuts on the right are trying to dismantle some of that, too.
Although it is tempting to paint many of the realities that threaten the tatters of what remains of our freedom in terms of left-wing/right-wing politics, it really isn't about that. It is about truth, honesty, integrity and yes, morality. Is it moral to value power and dollars over people and life? Is it moral to start, and continue, wars based on lies and fabricated "intelligence"? And to support those wars when the false basis for them has been exposed? Is religion always good? Are our leaders honest and capable and true to their duties to us? Or do they have agendas and alliances that are detrimental to the citizens of this country, who they are sworn to protect, to the constitution, which they are sworn to serve and defend, and to any sane concept of freedom?
For example. The former administration, under the excuse that it is necessary in our fight against terrorism, "suspended" habeus corpus for those who are rounded up as suspected terrorists. With no debate, no challenge from the authorities who are supposed to protect our freedom. In order for this power to deny habeus corpus to be invoked, the government only has to assert that the prisoner is a terrorist suspect. They don't have to show evidence, establish probable cause or respect any standard of due process. In addition to the prisoners at Gitmo, more than 200 American citizens have been held by the government for years. They have been denied legal representation or consultation. They have not been charged with anything. They are simply prisoners without rights because the government decided--with or without evidence, we don't know--that they wanted to arrest them. Shades of Stalin. But, this is not simply a right-wing agenda. Obama is continuing this policy. As he has adopted and declared the right to have American citizens killed if he deems--no evidence or due process necessary--that they are "enemy combatants." Both parties support this crap.
It is not about the politics. It is about the threats to freedom and democracy. It is about the attitudes of way too many people, and the passive complicity of more, that allow this kind of totalitarian shit to go on. It must be challenged. But first, it must be exposed. So much hides in plain sight. So many questions go unasked, much less unanswered. It is not about being a negative jerk-wad. It is about making you aware; making you, hopefully, think.
The offerings here are not "just" some postings by a jerk-wad being negative. There is a purpose. More than one, really, but they wind up being the same in the end. First, as long as we are pretending to still be a free country, it is the duty of those who can to point out that things are far from perfect. The perpetual-happy-and-positive virus is a very dangerous thing, indeed, and one (if not the only) antidote is to present truth and arguments that demonstrate that all is not great in happy-bunnies-and-lightville.
One of the duties of free people is to ask what we mean by "freedom." And to point out where our definition of freedom does not apply to current reality. It is the critics who keep the system honest. In theory, anyway. The constructive purpose of criticism is to make people think. I know, that's a tall order in America these days. Sometimes criticism needs to be harsh and in-your-face instead of cocktail-party polite and genteel. Sometimes it is necessary for somebody to point out that the emperor is naked. Or that there is a turd in the punch bowl.
What the Gadfly Gazette criticizes most of all is the sheeple's acceptance of almost anything that drips down on us from above, be it from our "leaders" or our so-called spiritual mentors. Sinclair Lewis said that when (notice he did not say if) fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a bible. Think about it.
One of our supposedly cherished freedoms is freedom of religion. The right-wingnuts seem to believe that means freedom to practice their religion, and to bash everybody else with it and try to force it down our throats in every conceivable way, while whining when anybody resists the erosion of separation of church and state and objects to the decidedly uncivil attitudes and actions of those "good" people. They will give public lip-service (though some do not) to your right to have your religion, but they turn around and try to end the freedom of pagans in the air force, for example, to have a place to hold their ceremonies. Does anybody really have to point out the gross hypocrisy there? Well, apparently so. The mainstream media sure won't. And is it appropriate for supposedly educated people to passively claim the Bible is good without examining its contents and answering basic questions about its goodness when there is so much in there that violates every notion of morality? Is it wrong to challenge the idiotic claim that the bible is perfect and infallible when even the tiniest scratch on the surface of genuine scholarship reveals this to be utterly stupid? So why do we call the ranting bigots who hide behind the legal shield of their religious freedom good people while they actively promote hatred, bigotry, unnecessary and illegal wars, murder and state-sponsored oppression of chosen targets?
I don't have to be gay to support the efforts of gay people to simply enjoy the same—not special—rights and protection under the law everyone else has. If a gay couple down the block gets married, I fail to understand how that threatens my relationships. Gay people are being lambasted with exactly the same lies and bigotry that blacks were before the civil rights movement forced society to change its attitudes about segregation, mixed-race marriages, employment policies, etc. Of course, the wingnuts on the right are trying to dismantle some of that, too.
Although it is tempting to paint many of the realities that threaten the tatters of what remains of our freedom in terms of left-wing/right-wing politics, it really isn't about that. It is about truth, honesty, integrity and yes, morality. Is it moral to value power and dollars over people and life? Is it moral to start, and continue, wars based on lies and fabricated "intelligence"? And to support those wars when the false basis for them has been exposed? Is religion always good? Are our leaders honest and capable and true to their duties to us? Or do they have agendas and alliances that are detrimental to the citizens of this country, who they are sworn to protect, to the constitution, which they are sworn to serve and defend, and to any sane concept of freedom?
For example. The former administration, under the excuse that it is necessary in our fight against terrorism, "suspended" habeus corpus for those who are rounded up as suspected terrorists. With no debate, no challenge from the authorities who are supposed to protect our freedom. In order for this power to deny habeus corpus to be invoked, the government only has to assert that the prisoner is a terrorist suspect. They don't have to show evidence, establish probable cause or respect any standard of due process. In addition to the prisoners at Gitmo, more than 200 American citizens have been held by the government for years. They have been denied legal representation or consultation. They have not been charged with anything. They are simply prisoners without rights because the government decided--with or without evidence, we don't know--that they wanted to arrest them. Shades of Stalin. But, this is not simply a right-wing agenda. Obama is continuing this policy. As he has adopted and declared the right to have American citizens killed if he deems--no evidence or due process necessary--that they are "enemy combatants." Both parties support this crap.
It is not about the politics. It is about the threats to freedom and democracy. It is about the attitudes of way too many people, and the passive complicity of more, that allow this kind of totalitarian shit to go on. It must be challenged. But first, it must be exposed. So much hides in plain sight. So many questions go unasked, much less unanswered. It is not about being a negative jerk-wad. It is about making you aware; making you, hopefully, think.
In the Land of Freedom
Some people have odd notions of what freedom is. I am sure this school likes to promote the Party Line about how the USA is the "best" country in the world, and how "free" we are. Those boys killing Pakistani civilians with their remote-controlled drones are heroes, by golly. Never mind that one of those heroes might be the gangster who raped your neighbor's sister and got away with it because she was too terrified to testify.
Here is the story of a girl who wanted to go to the prom, and because the bigots who run the school didn't like the date she wanted to bring, now there will be no prom. That's fair, right? Isn't this the freedom our heroes are fighting for?
No comments:
Here is the story of a girl who wanted to go to the prom, and because the bigots who run the school didn't like the date she wanted to bring, now there will be no prom. That's fair, right? Isn't this the freedom our heroes are fighting for?
No comments:
Mar 10, 2010
Criminal Hypocrisy
A few weeks ago the Nazi-deserter "pope" expressed his personal disgust with reports of sexual abuse by church clergy. Of course, we are supposed to somehow conveniently forget that he was installed into the office by child-molester Bernard Law. Now we discover (why should we be surprised?) that Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (the re-named Department of the Inquisition) issued an edict instructing the church's bishops to "encourage" abuse victims, families and witnesses to keep their mouths shut lest they face excommunication. Wouldn't Jesus be proud?
here is the link to the story.
here is the link to the story.
Mar 8, 2010
Catholic Banality and Hypocrisy
Here are a couple of pieces from the National Secular Society web site. The first exposes the sham of the upcoming papal excursion to the UK, which is being called a state visit, even though the itinerary is chock-full of religious services, and only token "state" functions. Given the Church's decidedly un-Christian actions as detailed in the second story, it is intriguing that part of the agenda for the final day of the UK visit is a ceremony marking the beatification of homosexual cardinal John Henry Newman.
How The Pope Intends To Spend Your Money
We'll Spite Everybody
How The Pope Intends To Spend Your Money
We'll Spite Everybody
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
