The lawsuit in Nebraska references four beer stores in Whiteclay, a Nebraska town near the reservation’s border. The town only has about a dozen residents but reportedly sold nearly 5 million cans of beer in 2010. Either the residents have the world’s biggest beer guts or they are making huge profits by selling alcohol to the local indians. The town lies less than 250 feet from the reservation border.

However, beer sales are perfectly legal and these indian customers are adults who have a right to purchase alcoholic beverages — and the citizens of Whiteclay have a right to sell the beer so long as they have the required permits. Notably, as this picture represents, taverns have existed in Whiteclay (or Pine Ridge) for many decades. (This is from the 1940s)

Tom White, the tribe’s Omaha-based attorney, “[y]ou cannot sell 4.9 million 12-ounce cans of beer and wash your hands like Pontius Pilate, and say we’ve got nothing to do with it being smuggled.” Actually, you can. It is called retail sales. The question is not whether the lawsuit will succeed but whether it could generate sanctions. The legislature has thus far declined to impose limitations on beer sales around the reservation. Absent such measures (which could be challenged in court), there is a conspicuous absence of legal authority to support such a claim. The tribe is offering policy arguments that are quite compelling but they are inviting a court to function as a super legislature in the imposition of such liability.

It is certainly true that state law prohibits drinking outside the stores and the nearest town that allows alcohol is over 20 miles south (alcohol sales are banned on the reservation). However, the tribe would be best served by taking up the matter with tribe members rather than suggesting that stores should not be able to sell beer to indians.

None of this questions the good-faith goals of the tribe, only its means. One in four children on the reservation reportedly suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and the average life expectancy is estimated between 45 and 52 years.

The state is considering a ban or limitation on beer sales in Whiteclay — though I would question the constitutionality of such a law in designating certain areas to be “alcohol impact zones.”

The complaint is long on narrative and short on legal authority or claims. This is the sole claim:

PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT
43. Plaintiff restates each and every previous allegation in support of this Cause of Action as if fully set forth herein.
44. As part of a common enterprise, the Defendants and each of them, have knowingly acted in concert to manufacture, distribute and sell beer through the Whiteclay retail outlets in amounts that cannot be legally sold, consumed or possessed under the laws of the State of Nebraska and the OST.
45. The Defendants and each of them, know or should know that the Retail Defendants’ conduct in the sale of the vast amount beer which is smuggled into and resold in the Reservation is in breach of their duties under the law of the State of Nebraska and the OST.
46. The Defendants and each of them give substantial assistance and encouragement to the Retail Defendants by supplying and transporting volumes of beer far in excess of an amount that could be sold in compliance with the laws of the State of Nebraska and the OST. The Defendants and each of them, also give further substantial assistance and encouragement to the Retail Defendants through advertisements, marketing materials, and other business accommodations to promote the consumption of beer in the PRIR.
47. The Defendants and each of them have the duty to make reasonable efforts to ensure their products are distributed and sold in obedience to the laws of the State of Nebraska and the OST. The Defendants and each of them have breached that duty by cooperating and engaging in a common enterprise which is focused on assisting and participating in the illegal sale of alcohol.
48. The Defendants and each of them have thereby caused the OST to suffer massive
damages in an amount yet to be determined.

The claim of working in concert reflects the common purpose of selling a legal product.

Here is the complaint: Sioux Suit
Among the defendants are Jason J. Schwarting who runs the Arrowhead Inn in Whiteclay; Stuart J. Kozal who runs the Jumping Eagle Inn and Clay M. Brehmer and Daniel J. Brehmer who run the State Line Liquor in Whiteclay.

Here are the corporate defendants:

Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc.
SAB Miller d/b/a Miller Brewing Company
Molson Coors Brewing Company
Miller Coors, LLC
Pabst Brewing Company
Pivo, Inc. d/b/a High Plains Budweiser
Dietrich Distributing Co., Inc.
Arrowhead Distributing, Inc.
Coors Distributing of West Nebraska d/b/a Coors of West Nebraska
Jason Schwarting d/b/a Arrowhead Inn, Inc.
Sanford Holdings, LLC d/b/a D&S Pioneer Service
Stuart Kozal d/b/a/ Jumping Eagle Inn
Clay Brehmer and Daniel Brehmer d/b/a State Line Liquor

Source: SF Gate

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood at Ain Shams University were at the heart of the protest. It is distressing to see academics participating in such an attack on free expression and the literary arts.

In the wake of the “Arab Spring,” there is a cold wind blowing across countries like Egypt where Islamic parties have used their new freedom to deny the rights of others. As is often the case, artists and journalists are the first to be targeted for their free speech and art. Recently, famed Egyptian actor, Adel Imam, was sentenced to three months in jail for “defaming Islam” in several roles on stage and screen.

Citizens in Egypt can expect more of the same (and less of free speech): the Muslim Brotherhood is demanding the right to form the next government after sweeping election victories.

Source: Egypt Independent

You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”

The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.

The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.

Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”

Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Source: Washington Post

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), provides:

The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in [**8] their ability or inability to work….

The question is whether breast feeding is an affect or medical condition linked to pregnancy.

Hughes adopted a narrow view of discrimination on the basis for pregnancies: “Discrimination because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is illegal. Related conditions may include cramping, dizziness, and nausea while pregnant.”

The opinion, however, does not offer a full explanation of distinction and is fairly conclusory. He cites however earlier cases finding lactation claims to be outside of the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.” A more substantial treatment of the subject is found in cases like Fejes v. Gilpin Ventures, 960 F. Supp. 1487 (D. Colo. 1997) (which was the basis for the decision in the first case cited by Hughes). The court held that

“In appending the PDA amendment to Title VII, Congress considered the statement that “if a woman wants to stay home to take care of the child, no benefit must be paid because this is not a medically determined condition related to pregnancy.” H.R. No. 948, 95th Cong. 5, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 5, 4749, 4753. Nothing in the PDA, or Title VII itself, obliges an employer to accommodate the child-care concerns of breast-feeding workers. If Congress had wanted these sorts of child-care concerns to be covered in Title VII by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it would have said so in plain language”

Likewise, in in Wallace v. Pyro Mining Co., 789 F. Supp. 867 (W.D.Ky.1990), aff’d without opinion, 951 F.2d 351 (6th Cir.1991), the court ruled:

Nothing in plaintiff’s case states a claim under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act…. While it may be that breast-feeding and weaning are natural concomitants of pregnancy and childbirth, they are not [**9] “medical conditions” related thereto. Admittedly, the act does not define what constitutes “related medical conditions.” However, the substantive references to “related medical conditions” within that legislative history are all in the context of the extent to which female employees can be denied medical benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance coverage, arising from pregnancy and childbirth. Further, Congress’ express intent was to codify … EEOC guidelines that required “employers to treat disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, child-birth and recovery therefrom as all other temporary disabilities.” H.R. No. 948, 95th Cong. 2, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 4749, 4750.

Courts will often decline to “gap fill” an ambiguous statute in favor of leaving the question to Congress — particularly when an argument would impose consider costs on either the country or employers. It will be interesting to see if this is an issue upon which Congress will want to be heard as courts bar such claims. I view the nexus between lactation and pregnancy to be closer than these courts suggest. Certainly, some law professors in the field strongly contest the view of these courts. Regardless of how one comes out on the issue, it would seem worthy of congressional hearings.

Here is the opinion: Employment Opinion

Source: ABC as first seen on ABA Journal

In 2006, the NCAA called on 19 schools with American Indian nicknames, logos and mascots to drop them as “hostile and abusive” to local tribes.

I must confess that I have never been convinced that some of these team names are disrespectful or racist. To the contrary, the team names often idealize the fighting spirit of the tribes. While I strongly believe that these universities have to take active steps to guarantee that the depiction of the tribes are respectful, I do not see why there should be sanctions for the use of all such names or images. I do not doubt that some mascots can be hostile or culturally abusive, but I do not believe that any use of such a name or image is inherently hostile, abuse, or disrespectful. For example, the decision to bar the use of “Chief Illiniwek” by the University of Illinois killed a long tradition at the school that honored that image. I realize that many would disagree with me on this and I am concerned that some Native Americans do take offense at the use of such images. However, I am not convinced that they should have a veto on the use of names and images that are closely connected to these areas. Under the NCAA rules, the schools must get permission from any tribe to use such images. However, the opposition to such symbols has extended to even generic symbols of American Indians. The question is whether a name or image like the Sioux should be treated as essentially proprietary or exclusive for the current members of the tribe or whether it is an image that part of the entire community and its history.

From the Vikings to the Cowboys to Packers to the Fighting Irish, local communities often select powerful images connected to their communities. These tribes are idolized in American culture and inspire people with their strength and dignity. They are selected for those positive elements and the schools often make students playing roles like Chief Illiniwek study the culture and adopt authentic elements to their outfits and dance. Critics of the use of the image make some very good points. It is also true, as some advocates have argued, that “In the time when the mascots were created — the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s — the United States populace did not have a positive view of people of color.” However, that does not mean that they are used today in negative way or cannot be used in a positive, even educational, way.

Some Native Americans do support the use of the symbols though many do not. These views should be given great weight but they are not determinative in my view. I felt the NCAA should have left this matter to the individual communities to hash out whether the use of such images are disrespectful or abusive. I might support the elimination of some images or practices, but it should be done on a case-by-case basis. If a tribe opposes such use of its name, that would weigh heavily in my own judgment. The makes the use of Sioux a close question for me, but I do not believe that the decision to eliminate Chief Illiniwek was warranted.

UND President Robert Kelley noted that the issue will be placed on a state referendum and that the school should wait to see the results of that legal and political process. A law requiring the school to use the nickname was repealed eight months after it was enacted to avoid NCAA sanctions. However, there has been a demand to put the issue to a statewide vote. The State Board of Education has suggested that it may fight the move to reinstate the law.

Of course, I come from a city that roots for the Blackhawks. Putting aside the legal questions of North Dakota state law, what do you think about the ban on any use of Native American names or images?

Source: ESPN

Harvard notes that the country is still listing its building as an official embassy site and says that the problem is clearly the result of renovations at its large embassy building going on longer than expected.

Harvard filed papers stating that “[t]he Court (should) issue a Writ of Restitution directing the U.S. Marshals Service to execute the eviction.” This came after Harvard offered a three-month extension but did not hear back from its tenants. Thus, “[b]ecause the Embassy has improperly held over after the end of the Lease Term, (Harvard) is entitled to a judgment for possession of the Premises.”

Just wait until Harvard finds out about Cameroon having cats under the no-pets lease.

The country may wish to be careful on challenges. The Supreme Court has six justices who either graduated or attended Harvard. The three Yale graduates (Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor) do not even have enough to grant cert.

So if you are a country looking for a cool crib near Dupont Circle, this property may soon be available though it has limited storage and excess Cameroonians.

Source: Fox

The ruling can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it is likely to be first appealed to the full en banc court of appeals.

The three-judge panel is composed of Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Carter; Michael Daly Hawkins, an appointee of former President Clinton; and N. Randy Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush. During oral argument, the questions appeared to favor those challenging Proposition 8. The panel, however, did raise procedural concerns.

Walker’s status as a gay man in a same-sex relationship became part of the appeal with Proposition 8 backers arguing that he had a potential conflict-of-interest. They insist that he did not properly reveal his relationship before declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional in August 2010. On April 6, 2011, Walker disclosed that he is gay and has been in a relationship with a male doctor for about ten years.

The panel held “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

The court notably found standing for the parties to sue — a major question in the case. Even in his partial dissent, Smith still agrees with the majority that the parties had standing and that the motion to vacate should be denied. However, he believes the law satisfied the rational basis test and should have been upheld.

I expect an en banc challenge in the case, particularly with a divided panel decision.

Both opinions are well-reasoned, though I agree with the majority. Reinhardt is viewed as one of the most liberal judges in the country and he seems an attractive foil for some of the conservative justices. Many have said that in the past these justices appeared to be gunning for the Ninth Circuit and particularly Reinhardt. Justices like Scalia are likely to favor cert in the case. However, it is to the advantage of the challengers to try their hand at the en banc first. There is always the danger that one of the four most reliable conservative justices might not want to take the risk of granting cert. As it stands, this is precedent controlling only in the Ninth Circuit.

The matter could not be more central to a nation built on both the rule of law and pluralistic values. If discriminatory views are enough to satisfy the rational basis test, a host of insular minorities would face majoritarian harassment and abuse. Quoting an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Moreno, the court ruled that “[j]ust as a ‘desire to harm . . . cannot While race and religion trigger strict scrutiny, sexual preference is not treated as a suspect classification for the purposes of the constitute a legitimate governmental interest,’ . . . neither can a more basic disapproval of a class of people.”

Here is the opinion: Prop 8 ruling

Source: LA Times

Once again, Obama supporters are blaming the GOP for the flip-flop — arguing that Obama had to lower himself to their level. Two former Obama aides are organizing the effort just as a former aide organized Romney’s controversial SuperPac. For about a week, I have noticed leaks going into the press about how Obama staffers are warning about the expected dirty attacks that will come from the Romney SuperPac. It now appears that those stories may have been placed in anticipation of this flip flop.

What is interesting is that Obama is not lacking funding. He is hauling in huge contributions. Yet, principles seem to be the first to go in this Administration when it is not politically convenient. What they have lost (beyond credibility) is a campaign issue. They could have run on the corporate influence on our political process. What is left is the cult of personality surrounding the President: it is not the principle, just the person.

Source: CNN

DeSantis also wanted factual references to Gingrich’s ethics charges removed. It seems that DeSantis does not believe Gingrich’s prior ethical violations would be relevant to people wanting to learn more about his background as he seeks the highest office in the land.

DeSantis made 60 adjustments to entries as well as the page of Gingrich’s wife, Callista. For example, DeSantis removed from Callista’s site that “She met her husband met while he was in the House, and had an affair while he was conducting the impeachment investigation for President Bill Clinton.”

One editor noted “I’ll raise the question in the appropriate place, but I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even here on Talk.” Ironically, the elimination of references to things like Gingrich’s ethical violations is viewed as violating the site’s conflict of interest guideline that individuals should not edit “on behalf of clients,” or on subjects to which they have “close relationships” or “financial interest.”

They better be careful or the latest ethics controversy may be added to the Wikipedia page for Gingrich.

Source: CNN

The Post notes one U.S. Senator pushed through more than $100 million in federal earmarks to renovate downtown Tuscaloosa near his own commercial office building while a Georgia congressman grabbed $6.3 million in taxpayer funds “to replenish the beach about 900 feet from his island vacation cottage.”

I have previously written (here and here) about the sordid ethical rules and procedures in Congress, including the lack of serious conflict of interest rules. This is due to how the ethics rules are written by the members themselves to allow for such self-advancing bills.

Source: Washington Post

In an interview with the ABC affiliate in Harrisburg, McFadden was objecting to the lack of school vouchers in Pennsylvania and the lack of choice for many parents: “In the totalitarian government, they would love our system,” McFadden said. “This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish — a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.” The Anti-Defamation League has condemned the statement and said “he should not be making his point at the expense of the memory of six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust.”

I understand the sensitivity to such a comparison, but I do not think that the Bishop was referring to the Holocaust. People should be able to make comparisons to aspects of prior totalitarian regimes without fear of being call insensitive to the Holocaust. The Nazi regime was a worldwide tragedy with many aspects and precursors that are the subject of historical and political discourse.

Where McFadden is wrong is that the comparison is wildly misplaced. First, Hitler was raised by a devout Catholic mother and many Nazis were taught in religious schools. Indeed, the Vatican was criticized by some for not doing more to confront the Nazi regime. Second, the fascists sought to use schools to indoctrinate children to accept narrow values to the exclusion of other values and the objectification of other people. American public schools do the opposite. They are motivated by pluralistic principles to help shape citizens who are tolerant and well-rounded. They are the antithesis of what fascists want from education.

Finally, this is about vouchers and whether the people of Pennsylvania should subsidize alternative schools, such as Catholic schools. With the church experiencing severe shortfalls in attendance and donations, they need more from the state more than ever. However, there are very good reasons for opposition to vouchers. I attended Catholic schools for part of my earlier education and I am very thankful for the education that I received in those schools. However, Leslie and I are committed to the model of public education. While we can afford a private education, we have kept our children in public schools where they are taught in a more diverse class. I have long been an advocate for public education, particularly in the elementary and middle school levels, as a critical part of shaping good citizens. While I have often been critical of the curriculum particularly on civics, I believe that the public schools have always been the key to maintaining a citizenry that is educated and tolerant.

The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini reflects less disrespect on the part of Bishop McFadden than it does a lack of understanding of the fascistic agenda on education: dogma and exclusionary learning. While I believe Catholic schools are excellent choices for learning, it is outrageous to compare fascistic systems to our public schools. Hitler and Mussolini would find our current curriculum in public schools to be a threat to their type of indoctrination model for children.

Source: ABC

Rove lashed out at the commercial yesterday: “I was, frankly, offended by it. I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

I can hardly improve on that statement, so I won’t.

Rove however may have gotten lost in the excitement. I suggest he watch this clip before giving another interview:

There are many good-faith reasons for such measures to be criticized, including the encroachment of federal authority on state rights. For many years, there have been objections over the practice of Congress collecting taxes with the sole purposes of returning the money to the states with federal mandates or conditions. The Supreme Court has upheld the practice while preserving a very limited (and unused) exception in extreme cases. I have previously testified against the expansion of these federal bills with conditional funds. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act contains $493 million for federal highway safety grants.

However, this law does not deny highway or transportation funds to states unwilling to pass the laws. It simply offers $25 million per year to states that require the devices to be installed for anyone convicted of driving under the influence — even first-time offenders.

This should be the last group to be arguing against drunk driving provisions. The group representing more than 8,000 U.S. restaurants insists that these laws do not distinguish between cases of high and low alcohol levels. As such, they argue, the law denies judges to make tailored sentences.

Fifteen states require all convicted drunk drivers to use ignition interlocks and studies show a sharp decline in drunk driving deaths, with Oregon and Arizona experiencing a fall of 52 and 51 percent, respectively. I am not sure of the cause and effect but it would seem that such laws would have an obvious impact on drunk driving. I actually do favor giving judges more discretion in such matters. However, the ABI shows little judgment in ignoring its obvious conflict of interest in such matters while publicly campaigning against the measures. It leaves the impression of bars and restaurants working to ensure that drunk drivers will be able to return to their establishments. The optics are perfectly horrible and it is hard to see why these 8000 businesses pay to create such a public relations disaster.

Yet, the ABI has previously fought these measures despite the bad press. Like many industry groups, there is little fear that customers will blame individual members for the actions of their lobbyists or think tanks — particularly when there are over 8000 of them.

Source: Fox News

The flier states “Communism stands for equal sharing of the work according to the benefits and the ability, but in capitalism an individual is responsible for his works and if he wants to raise the ladder. While the profit of any enterprise is equally shared by all in Communism, the profit in the capitalist structure belongs to the owner only.” That is clearly a distorted view and would be a serious problem if offered as a true account in the history class. Travis for example was shocked by the depiction on a personal level: “I took great offense. I don’t smoke big stogies. I don’t have a big gut. My employees are not shackled. If this was a fair representation, where is the fence around the workers on the communist side? Where is the guy holding a gun to their heads saying either comply or die? Where are the bodies that Stalin and Mao put in the graves.”

However, in a posted statement, the school is saying that the flier is indeed propaganda and was distributed as an example of such historical depictions:

“[T]he class, 20th Century History, was studying the Cold War and propaganda, looking at some of the arguments both sides made about why their system was best on a range of topics, including their economies. The handout simply highlights the differences between capitalism and communism, and some of the arguments made during the period of the Cold War.”

Here is the actual lesson plan and material that encourages students to think critically of such material. Yet various conservative sites are not accepting that rational for the distribution of such material.

Academic freedom is more often discussed in college and graduate schools but it is also necessary in high schools. Teachers must be given some sense of freedom in challenging the preconceptions and perceptions of students. The materials discuss how capitalism is based on a concept of individual rights transcending society and government. While I would have modified the material to point out other sharp differences, including the political aspects of the economic system in Communist countries, such issues may also have been addressed more fully in class. My concern is over a lesson plan and material that is being attacked in such a public way without greater consideration of the intent of the teacher and actual class discussion.

What do you think?

Source: Examiner as first seen on Reddit.

Possible nuclear weapons capability, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, a threat to Israel, economic sanctions, fears of links to al Qaeda, and a compliant news media. Sounds like the hype leading up to war with Iraq, but this time it’s Iran.

Israel has been threatening to strike Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants unilaterally. Obama dispatched General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to tell the Israelis that the US wouldn’t participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel unless Washington had given its prior agreement.

On the map on the left, each star indicates the location of a US airbase.

The fear mongering about Iran building nuclear weapons may not work this time. From McClatchy, “The 16 U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran’s covert nuclear weapons work remains suspended for now, but could be restarted if the Iranian regime decides to do so.” Bloomberg is reporting that Gill Tudor, spokesman for the IAEA, said “All nuclear material in the [Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant] remains under the agency’s containment and surveillance.” According to the AP, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran “is not yet building a bomb.”

The Wall Street Journal is playing up some new freedoms given to five “top” al Qaeda operative who have been under house arrest in Iran. The trouble is that al Qaeda just doesn’t generate the same fear it once did. The Washington Post is pushing the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by a used-car salesman with a conviction of passing bad checks as an indication that Iranian terrorists are operating inside the US. Of course the Washington Post would not consider the assassination of Iranian scientists, by either Israeli or US operatives, as an act of terrorism.

It also appears that intelligence analysts are not going to be pushed around this time. A retired senior intelligence officer said “the guys working on this are good analysts, and their bosses are backing them up.” A Defense Intelligence Agency analyst summed it up by saying “if Iran is not a nuclear threat, then the Israelis have no reason to threaten imminent military action.”

The logic of using economic sanctions to force Iran to stop a nuclear-weapons program that does not exist eludes me. The real reason for sanctions appears to cause, illegally, the collapse of the current Iranian regime. Such was the initial report from the Washington Post before a sharp sequence of phone calls compelled a “revision” to the article.

I’m the last person who wants to see anyone live under religious tyrants, but these wars seldom help those who need it the most.

H/T: Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole, IPS News, Seymour M. Hersh, Hamid Serri, Juan Cole.

Last Sunday, most U.S. Catholics heard a letter read from the pulpit imploring them to oppose the Obamacare provision requiring most healthcare plans to cover contraceptive services for women. The reason given was that Catholic hospitals and universities would have to “shutter their doors”  in order to avoid heresy and be true to the faith. As part of the concerted effort, the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty announced that the Obama administration’s requirement goes against “the mandate of Jesus Christ.”  Even though the earthly mandate contains an exemption for purely religious organizations, the all-male U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly on the offensive in this politically charged debate about women, privacy, and the right of families to decide for themselves the number of children they can support.

Since the 1930s, most denominations have left the issue of contraception up to the conscience of the parishioners. The Catholic Church has stood virtually alone since 1951 by requiring its adherents to use only the “rhythm method” as a means to prevent pregnancy.  All other forms of contraception were deemed an interference in God’s Plan and hence heretical.  In the early 1960s with the reforms of Vatican II in full swing, the Pope appointed a 90 person committee to evaluate the Church’s position on contraception. 75 of the 90 recommended the Church allow contraception by means other than the rhythm method.

Disregarding the recommendation, Pope Paul VI issued his famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s solitary position. The Pope reasoned that, “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”  The Pope then waxed philosophic about the danger of government mandated contraception akin to that seen in China:

Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.

That textual cudgel has now been taken up against Obamacare.  Catholic apologists like Jennifer Brinker in the St. Louis Review have argued that the Pope was right and the government is now in the business of  pushing contraception for political reasons. Brinker even argues ironically that the mandate is a “dissolution of freedom.” Brinker reminds Catholics that disapproved contraception is a “sin” and that most Catholics don’t understand the reason for the ban.

What do Catholic women think about the Church’s unyielding stand on artificial birth control? In April of  last year, Reuters reported that a Guttmacher Institute poll showed that 98% of sexually active U.S. Catholic women used contraception methods outside of the Church’s teachings.  The numbers held up for women who regularly attended Catholic services as well as those who didn’t. In fact, the findings showed American Catholic women were just as likely to use artificial contraception as those in other denominations.

“In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” said the report’s lead author Rachel Jones.  Catholics overwhelmingly rely on the most common methods of birth control. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.

What then are we to make of the schism between Church’s dogma and the reality of its followers?  Are 98% of the Church’s women sinners and heretics? Can a religion be viable if one of its fundamental tenets is  ignored on a daily basis by almost all of its “faithful”?  Can a male dominated authority maintain credibility in the modern world when it dictates to women on issues that are overwhelmingly that gender’s concern?

These questions do not seem to be troubling Church fathers.  In fact, they appear to be looking for a testosterone fueled showdown. As one recently said, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” They may do well to look over their shoulders as they climb up that political hill, theological banners flying. A cursory view of their ranks will likely find few honest Americans and almost no honest women.

Source: CNN

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Last September, the EPA released a statement about its plan to ban the sale of “the most toxic rat and mouse poisons and “rodenticide products that use loose bait and pellets.” Its reason for doing so was “to better protect children, pets, and wildlife.” The EPA had previously announced in 2008 that “rodenticide manufacturers would have three years to adopt limits on the sale of the products” after the agency had gone through “thirteen years of studies, hearings, reports and legal battles.”

According to PRWatch, the EPA became aware that rodenticides “were finding their way into the food chain” by the early 1980s. Poison control centers in this country had been receiving 12,000 to 15,000 calls annually regarding the exposure of children under the age of six to rat poison.

From PRWatch:

In 1998, the Clinton administration’s EPA deemed that rodenticides had to taste bitter, so kids wouldn’t eat the products, and be colored with a bright dye, so it would be obvious if they did. The EPA backed down from these requirements in 2001 after George W. Bush took office and made the measures “voluntary,” reportedly due to industry pressure.

After seeing no drop in the number of children being poisoned by rodenticides, in 2004 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit to force the EPA to take action, and a New York district court criticized the agency for reversing itself and caving to pesticide manufacturers. The court wrote, “the EPA lacked even the proverbial ‘scintilla’ of evidence justifying its reversal of the requirement it had imposed, after extensive study, only a few years before.” In response, the EPA took steps to regulate the products. Those rules were intended to go into effect this year, but were delayed by the resistance of Reckitt Benckiser and two other rodenticide manufacturers, Liphatech and Spectrum Group.

The EPA estimates that the unreported child exposure rate may be four times as high as the 12,000-15,000 calls to poison control centers each year, and some believe the number to be ten times as high. Poisoned young children can experience internal bleeding, bloody urine, bleeding gums, and blood coming from their ears. African-American and Hispanic children living below the poverty line have been disproportionately affected. A New York study found that 57 percent of children hospitalized for eating rat poison between 1990 and 1997 were African-American and 26 percent were Latino.

Known as anti-coagulants, the chemicals in the rodenticides prevent blood from clotting or coagulating. In addition to the ill-effects of rodenticides on young children mentioned above, poisoned children can suffer coma, anemia, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, and bloody stools. For decades, many thousands of young children have become ill “after touching or ingesting rat poison that was applied ‘loose,’ in pellet form.” According to MSNBC, the EPA reported that rat poisons “are, by far, the leading cause of (pesticide-related) visits to health care facilities in children under the age of 6 and the second leading cause of hospitalization.”

The poisons have also had deleterious effects on wildlife.  Wild animals—including bald eagles and bobcats— “have been found dead with lethal levels of a super-toxic rodenticide in their systems.”

One would have hoped that the three manufacturers of rodenticides who have delayed implementation of the new EPA regulations, would be terribly concerned about the ill-effects that their products have had on both children and animals…and maybe have felt a responsibility to comply with the new requirements. Reckitt Benckiser, the maker of d-CON®, doesn’t appear concerned at all. The company, a member of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), filed suit in federal court to prevent EPA’s new rules from going into effect. Reckitt Benckiser claims the restrictions on use of rat poisons would probably lead to “potentially significant public health consequences.” Todd M. Wynn, the director of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force spoke out in defense of the companies who have not complied. He said, “There are certain levels of acceptable risk in society.”

Aaron Colangelo, who is an attorney for the NRDC, said, “It is outrageous to say it is ‘acceptable’ for tens of thousands of kids to get poisoned each year.” He told the Center for Media and Democracy that “there is not an undue economic burden associated with reformulating these products.”  Colangelo pointed out that the rest of the industry had complied with the new rules without adverse economic impact and that “the health care costs for treating these kids certainly outweigh the economic costs of reformulation.” He added, “Kids find it everywhere. Outside their apartment complex, or in public parks, or in schools, or in public housing. Little kids will put anything in their mouth.”

Colangelo thinks it disgraceful that “a few ‘hold-out bad actors from the chemical industry’ are further delaying EPA regulation of the rodenticides, despite decades of evidence of harm.” Said Colangelo, “It should not take this long to do something simple like protect toddlers from rat poisoning.”

AFTERWARD

From ThinkProgress:

 For years, ALEC has successfully killed these kind of regulations on environmental toxins and pollutants on behalf of corporations. At their annual conference in New Orleans this year, ALEC distributed a pamphlet titled “The Many Benefits Of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment,” complete with pictures depicting happy wildlife and a healthy environment. Companies like Koch Industries, BP, WalMart, and others join forces to fund this little-known organization that works behind the scenes to fight the dirty battles that no corporation would want to be publicly associated with.

SOURCES

Pesticide News Story: EPA Seeks Independent Scientific Review on Banning Certain Mouse and Rat Poisons (EPA)

Cancellation Process for Certain Rodenticide Products (EPA)

Kids Eating Rat Poison Is an “Acceptable Risk” for ALEC (PRWatch/Center for Media and Democracy)

ALEC Deems Kids Eating Rat Poison An ‘Acceptable Risk’ (ThinkProgress)

to ALEC – Your Safety is a Non-Issue (Daily Kos)

Corporate Education Reform and ALEC’s Definition of Acceptable Risk (Huffington Post)

On the News With Thom Hartmann: President Obama Denounces “Trickle-Down Economics,” and More (Truth-Out)

Decades on, EPA on verge of curbing use of rat poisons: Activists hope new rules will slash number of U.S. kids being sickened each year   (MSNBC)

FYI

The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA (Turley Blawg)

Smart ALEC: The Organization That May Be Helping Corporations Write Legislation for Your State (Turley Blawg)

Judge Waddoups wrote:

“The entirety of actions by the Utah County prosecutors tend to show either an ill-conceived public-relations campaign to showboat their own authority and/or harass the Browns and the polygamist community at large, or to assure the public that they intended to carry out their public obligations and prosecute violations of the law. Without any evidence to the contrary, the court assumes that these are consummate professionals making announcements of criminal investigations to apprise the public that they are doing their duty and seeking to enforce the law.”

The court did grant dismissal of the state governor and attorney general as parties because the Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman is the relevant government official for the purposes of the challenge. We sued all three officials, but the dismissal of the two other parties will not affect the arguments in the case.

Since I am lead counsel in the case, I must remain somewhat circumspect in what I can say publicly. I have informed the Brown family of the decision. They are both deeply thankful to the Court and appreciative of the opportunity to present their case against this statute. The state has long insisted that this law is constitutional and that it may criminalize consensual private conduct between adults. It will now have the opportunity to make that case to the Court. We remain confident that this law cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny and we are eager to reach merits in the case.

I also want to recognize and thank our esteemed local counsel (and my former student) in this case, Adam Alba.

Here is the decision: Memorandum & Order-Sister Wives

Here is the complaint filed in the case: Brown Complaint

In speaking before the Colorado Christian University, Santorum referred to the sirens of disaster and warned “Go back and read what the sirens did once you arrived on that island. They devour you. They destroy you. They consume you.” In other words, if you want to avoid being devoured, vote Santorum.

The problem is that the description by Homer would appear to give an edge to Gingrich in his experience dealing with three sirens:

“He will not see his lady nor his children
in joy, crowding about him, home from sea;
the Sirens will sing his mind away
on their sweet meadow lolling”

Fortunately, with his other call to “Just Say No To Education,” it is doubtful that anyone would be in a position to challenge the reference. Indeed, Santorum appears to be fashioning himself as Odysseus who notably stuffed his followers ears with beeswax. That fits.

That frees the faithful to act on the warning: “Ladies and gentleman we cannot listen to the siren song. We cannot listen to President Obama and we can’t listen to those in our party who want to be just a little bit less than what the Democrats and the left is doing to our country.”

Source: CBS

Here is her statement:

I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children. I allowed myself a period of civic complacency, for a short time I unplugged myself from media reports from Slovenia, I took a break from Avaaz and its inflation of petitions, quite simply I allowed myself a rest. In my defence, I want to add that I very much needed this rest and that I am still having trouble gaining enough energy for the upcoming dragon year. At the same time, I am tackling a workload that increased, not lessened, with the advent of the current year. All in line with a motto that has become familiar to us all, likely not only diplomats: less for more. Less money and fewer people for more work. And then you overlook the significance of what you are signing. And you wake up the following morning with the weight of the unbearable lightness of some signature.

First I apologised to my children. Then I tried to reply to those acquaintances and strangers who expressed their surprise and horror. Because there are more and more of them, I am responding to them publicly. I want to apologise because I carried out my official duty, but not my civic duty. I don’t know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats.

She has called for protests against ACTA and joining the growing number of people demanding action to protect free speech. To her credit, as opposed to most politicians, she had the courage to admit her mistake and call for the protection of Internet free speech.

Source: Boing Boing

Frankly, I am not sure the police officers spotted the image, but it is now being removed from cruisers with about 30 vehicles that have already been changed.

It may be a bit easier to spot on the 16-inch door decals and there is an investigation afoot. I am not sure what would happen to the inmates. While they could allege destruction of property, it would be a rather novel charge since the inmates created the property in the form of the design. They could, however, cite the costs to the vehicles which will now have to be stripped of the decals. The other provisions of the Vermont criminal code do not appear to fit this criminal Rorschach exercise. Of course, the inmates would clearly face correctional charges and loss of privileges.

Answer: look at the spots on the cow.

Source: Boston

In this case, reports state that at least one Gingrich supporter encouraged staff and supporters to block Dillard and assault him. The report below states that “Gingrich aides and security personnel swarmed Dillard” and began to stomp him, including an aide who screamed “Just block him!. Everyone step on his toes!”

The description raises a straightforward case of assault and battery. The question is whether such tortious conduct would extend to the campaign and Gingrich. In addition to a claim of vicarious liability through respondeat superior, there is also the possible claim or negligent hiring or training. Island City Flying Serv. v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 585 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla. 1991). Like other states, an employer in Florida is liable “if the wrongful act is done while the employee is acting within the apparent scope of his authority as such employee to serve the interests of the employer, . . . unless the wrongful act of the employee was done to accomplish his own purposes, and not to serve the interests of the employer.” Gowan v. Bay County, 744 So.2d 1136, 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 94 So. 656, 657 (1922)/

Often intentional torts or crimes are ruled as falling outside of the scope of employment. However, there are exceptions, particularly when security staff are involved.

Assuming that these were campaign aides or staff, the question would become whether they were engaged in a “frolic or detour.” This act, if proven, was committed as part of a campaign event to facilitate the campaign activity. This would appear to fit the model of a respondeat superior case. That could add a new dimension to Gingrich’s promises for “tort reform.”

Source: Yahoo

It is the latest incident of an increasing number of confrontations between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities over dogs. In Catalonia, Spain, the large Muslim community is demanding the regulation of dogs to prevent them from “offending Muslims” in public areas. In England, Muslim taxi drivers have refused to take seeing eye dogs accompanying blind people. Blind citizens in England have been barred from restaurants and buses so their companion dogs would not offend Muslims. Even the use of a picture of a dog was opposed as offensive.

The Dutch confrontation was triggered by a measure by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly. Küçük responded by demanding that the keeping of a dog be made a crime.

Muslims make up more than 12% of the city’s population of 500,000.

The campaign against dogs pits principles of religious accommodation against principles of pluralism. In this case, the Islamic value would require the loss of freedom for non-Muslim citizens by restricting or banning their dogs in public. Bans should be an easy question in that there are many public displays that may offend religious sensibilities. Families may raise their children according to their faiths but must accept that they live within a pluralistic community. Just as many of us objected to be ban on Burqas in France (which were viewed as offensive to women), these bans are equally wrongheaded. The more difficult questions come in areas of contact. For example, in England, police have been told that bomb sniffing dogs can come into contact with luggage but not the persons of Muslim passengers.

I view these proposals as inimical to a pluralistic society and also contradict principles of separation of church (or Mosque) and state. It will be interesting, however, as the anti-dog views of some Muslims become more known, whether there is an increase in tort actions based on the negligence of businesses or agencies in allowing contact with dogs by Muslims.

Source: Stonegate as first seen on Reddit

The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall that it would investigate Planned Parenthood’s funding. The organization often becomes a hot button issue during election periods due to the abortion controversy.

Komen has been targeted in a campaign to defund Planned Parenthood. Last year, it hired a vice president who had previously advocated for the group’s defunding in her run for Georgia governor.

Source: Washington Post

Ruiz insisted that they were taking the cash simply because the work had to be done quickly. Opponents allege that it was an effort to circumvent campaign finance laws by the Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Given the corruption in Mexico, one would think that (even if this claim is true) it would be scandalous that any official would withdraw almost $2 million cash for work to be done for the government. Last time I checked, Mexico had bank transfers and other electronic forms of transfer. One would think that the Treasury officials would be particularly familiar with such systems and insistent on their use in payments.

Source: MSNBC

Trimmer appears to be listening to Brenda Moore of the South Central Kennel Club and for good reason. Moore is the “Obedience chairwoman” of the club and wants the breed officially adopted. She is quoted as saying “I’ve lived in Kansas all my life. I am a middle-aged woman and would like to say I’ve done something great for my state before I am dead and gone.”

Moore went to Trimmer no doubt because of his Terrier like tenacity and his Cairn-like beard. He will also likely receive the support of those dogged and shadowy powerbrokers over at the Cairn Terrior Club of America. The CTCA is not shy about heralding the noble features of the dog, including its ability to kill rats and other vermin (an added plus for some Kansan farmers):

Over 200 years ago, on the ancient Isle of Skye and in the Scottish Highlands, the ancestors of today’s Cairn Terrier earned their keep routing vermin from the rock piles (called cairns) commonly found on Scottish farmland. . . . The Cairn (the last to be formally named) remained the closest to the original small working terrier, bolting the fox, otter and weasel, sharing the meager fare of the crofter’s household.

Trimmer’s Toto bill is House Bill No. 251 and will now go to House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. However, this will not be a pushover like the recent bill declaring Little Bluestem to be the the official state grass.

Trimmer will have to overcome the expected opposition from the State Rep. Almira Gulch from the Western part of the state:

Source: Kansas

Public interest groups showed reporters how, when filled with water, the condoms notably leak. Some witnesses said that the condoms will burst.

All of the 1.35 million condoms bear the South African Bureau of Standards stamp are were distributed in guesthouses, hotels, restaurants and bars.

The government has recalled the condoms but has not confirmed that they are defective.

This of course would make for an interesting torts lawsuit if it were allowed in South Africa against the government or the ANC. Just five years ago, 20 million condoms were recalled as defective in South Africa. The difficulty in such legal actions is factual causation. In a country with one of the highest rates of infection, the question is the cause of the exposure — particularly when there remains a high level of unprotected sex in the country.

Source: BBC

The United States fell from 20th to 47th in the ranking.

The organization noted an increase rate of arrests of journalists around the world, including U.S. journalists during “Occupy” protests.

The nation at the top of the ranking of press freedom is Finland followed by Norway and Estonia, the Netherlands, and Austria.

The worst is Eritrea which just nudged out North Korea as the least free place on Earth for Journalists.

The most deadly place for journalists last year was Pakistan.

As discussed in the earlier column, we often treated the United States as obviously the most free nation of Earth despite objective standards that contradict those assumptions. The result is a type of collective delusion as our protections from government abuse and power fall. A free press is critical in those protections, as repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court. Most of the abuse by the government in the last decade were disclosed not by the Congress or the courts. They were disclosed through the free press. Perhaps at the next presidential debate we can get the candidates to pledge to fight to pass Comoros in this year’s competition.

Source: Daily Mail

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

In his Washington Post article titled 10 Reasons The United States Is No Longer The Land Of The Free (January 15, 2012), Jonathan Turley addressed the issue of indefinite detention of American citizens. He wrote:

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion.

The next day on this blog, Professor Turley said that he had been heartened by the response to his column. He added, “a few commenters continue to suggest that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) does not allow for the indefinite detention of citizens.”

Even people who believe that NDAA does not allow for the indefinite detention of citizens should be concerned about a proposed amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that would give our government “the authority to strip a person of their American citizenship if that person is accused or suspected of supporting ‘hostilities’ against the U.S.  The amendment, known as the Enemy Expatriation Act (EEA), was introduced, in October, by Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa., and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Scott Brown, R-Mass.

According to ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’ Could Compound NDAA Threat to Citizen Rights, an article written by Ashley Portero that was published in the International Business Times, EEA “would allow the government to revoke Americans of their U.S. citizenship if they are accused or suspected of ‘engaging in, or purposefully or materially supporting, hostilities.’ The sparse amendment, which defines ‘hostilities’ as ‘any conflict subject to the laws of war,’ does not say which government body — say a military tribunal or a congressional panel — has the power to brand suspected persons as hostiles.” If EEA becomes law, our government “could potentially revoke the citizenship of anyone deemed to be supporting hostilities against the U.S., thereby subjecting him or her to the indefinite military detention provision of the NDAA.”

Devon Chaffee, who is a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “Fortunately, it’s unlikely that Congress would pass something like this. If it did, the law would probably be found unconstitutional since the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot revoke U.S. citizenship without a citizen’s consent.” He added, “The theory behind this is citizenship is a core civil liberty. That’s why the right to nationality is recognized by the global community as a fundamental human right.”

Portero wrote that under regulations that were “set by section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, American citizens can only be stripped of their citizenship if they renounce it ‘in some way…’” She added that “joining the military of a foreign state or engaging in ‘a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force’ the U.S. government are actions that can be interpreted as voluntarily renunciations of citizenship.”

Govtrack.us claims that the purpose of H.R. 3166 and S. 1698 is to “add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.”

The sponsors of the legislation argue that the Enemy Expatriation Act is constitutional. Their contention is that “citizens who engage in hostilities against the U.S. perform those acts with the intention of relinquishing their nationality.”

Now, one has to ask what our government might construe as “engaging in or supporting hostilities against the U.S.” Is this something we citizens should be concerned about?

SOURCES

‘Enemy Expatriation Act’ Could Compound NDAA Threat to Citizen Rights (International Business Times)

The Enemy Expatriation Act and the NDAA: Due Process Destroyed? (The New American)

Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation Act (RT)

Enemy Expatriation Act (Examiner)

Enemy Expatriation Act and the subsequent media blackout (Daily Paul)

The Enemy Expatriation Act (S.1698/H.R.3166) – Anonymous (Open.Salon)

H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act (govtrack.us)

S. 1698: Enemy Expatriation Act (govtrack.us)

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles director Kevin Shwedo testified before a House hearing that more than 950 dead people had voted. Shwedo and his staff used records from the State Election Commission, the state Department of Vital Statistics, and the Social Security Administration to calculate the number of zombie voters. Shwedo forwarded his list of names to state law enforcement.

The South Carolina Attorney General’s office gave the State Election Commission only 6 names from the list of 950. Of those six, one had died after casting an absentee ballot and the other five were very much alive and eligible to vote. State Election Commission director Marci Andino has been trying to get her hands on the entire list but the Attorney General’s office has not been forthcoming. With a record of 0-6, it would not be surprising if the Attorney General’s office found some excuse for not turning over the complete list.

The Attorney General, Alan Wilson, has been a guest on Fox News claiming that 37,000 dead people were registered to vote. Of those 37,000, the DMV is claiming 950 voted in recent elections. The State Election Commission researched the 37,000 voters whom the DMV identified as deceased and discovered that 10 voters in 8 different counties had applied for absentee ballots for the upcoming Republican primary. In every case, those 10 voters were confirmed to be alive and eligible to vote.

The recent South Carolina Republican primary drew 602,000 voters.

The list, which has remained something of a state secret, is viewable only by Republicans claims Senate Democratic Caucus director Phil Bailey. Apparently it’s more advantageous, politically, to have a list of 950 possible fraudulent voters than to subject the list to the scrutiny of the State Election Commission that has already found a 100% error rate in the six names they received.

The Justice Department recently rejected South Carolina’s new law that required photo identification be shown before voting, saying it was discriminatory.

H/T: Kevin Drum, Columbia Free-Times, MediaMatters, Washington Post, FITSNews.

With apologies to Archbishop of Canterbury John Morton, I’m offering this version of his famous “fork”:

You’re a young idealist standing for the highest office in the land. Against many odds you’ve offered a candidacy of hope and change to an electorate tired of both war and the prior Administration that got them into those wars. There are rumors of widespread atrocities committed by that Administration in response to a horrific terrorist attack on American soil where thousands of your countrymen died. In your capacity as an US Senator, you’ve been briefed on several of these and you see a pattern developing. You’re a Constitutionalist;  a lawyer; and a principled man, but you recognize the nation faces a real threat of nuclear holocaust at the hands of committed, well-funded terrorists supported and protected by renegade states and even some of our allies. These terrorists have a fanatical zeal and value martyrdom above self-preservation. You believe that if they acquire weapons of mass destruction the question will not be if millions of people will die, but which millions of people will die.

Riding a groundswell of promise and belief in your promises to restore American values, the electorate sends you to the nation’s capitol to change the way things have been done. During the course of the election, it has become clear that the drain on the economy caused by war, corruption, and old-fashioned greed has left the country in dire financial straits.

On January 16th you are briefed by the nation’s intelligence communities. You are told definitively that the intelligence community has engaged in extraordinary measures to fight America’s enemies which you conclude amount to torture, illegal renditions, detaining innocent people, and even Executive Orders approving the killing of persons deemed enemy combatants. You’ve inherited a Gulag within sight of the American coast and during the campaign you’ve vowed to close it. You are told that many senior members of the permanent intelligence community were aware of and approved the illegal measures employed in defense of the country. Losing these people would severely cripple efforts to defend the country as they form a sizable amount of the intelligence community’s  institutional knowledge and memory. You’re also told that these senior intelligence  officers have been promised immunity for their actions by the earlier Administration.

You convene your economic advisors who explain to you that the emergency measures adopted by your predecessor and designed to prop up the failing economy may well work but it will take time,and any shock to the nation could disturb this fragile trust building process. If the stimulus fails, the resulting shock could send the nation and Europe into a full-blown depression crippling the efforts to fight terrorism.

Moderate governments in the Mideast have come to you seeking aid to fight the fundamentalist movements that are fueling terrorist recruitment and sponsorship. They tell you that to continue the fight means more money and intelligence from the US or their efforts will be severely handicapped.

What do you do?

A.  Continue the illegal policies of the past Administration reasoning that this is war and that your primary goal is to defend the nation at all costs. These repugnant policies seemed to have had some effect in curtailing the terrorist threat and your calling off the dogs is a real risk to your viability as a leader if you’re wrong and another deadly attack occurs on US soil. Another successful attack could throw the markets into a death spiral and the recovery might not occur for decades. You continue with the stimulus program and avoid any investigation of earlier illegal acts concluding that any shock to the fragile economy caused by the turmoil will reap more evil than it alleviates. You also avoid any investigation to eliminate the possibility of crippling the intelligence community. You share money and both illegally obtained and legally obtained intelligence with the friendly Arab states.

B. You reason that principle trumps expediency and stop all illegality. You immediately  order investigations into the prior Administration’s handling of the war. You make public the results and bring indictments against wrongdoers. You do so even in the face of prior pledges of immunity reasoning they are void ad initio given our treaty obligations and on principles of international law. You make Herculean efforts to replace the intelligence officers lost to the investigations and you build morale by explaining your policies as being in the nation’s long-term best interest. You do what you can to stabilize the economy but you will not compromise in your efforts to prosecute those who have violated the law. You tell friendly states and Europe you understand their concerns about such a policy but you adhere to the adage that “let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

C. You adopt a middle ground approach reasoning it is best for the country that the economic recovery not be affected by criminal investigations of the American intelligence community and the prior Administration. You believe any move otherwise could lead to a weakening of American strength at the worst time and make that nuclear holocaust against an American city more likely. You change the illegal policies of the prior Administration to stop torture, curtail renditions and if absolutely necessary only to countries that will not use torture. You employ death warrants abroad and only against those your intelligence agencies tell you present a clear and present danger to the US. You fully support friendly states abroad against extremists and provide intelligence to them as well as cash.

D.  Your Choice.

Now, the tough part: Defend your choice — and no changing facts that you don’t like in our “hypothetical situation.”

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

In the past year at the Turley Blawg, we’ve cast a spotlight on the GOP’s “war on women”—as well as on the low esteem in which some members of the Republican Party seem to hold women. (Note: At the end of this article, you’ll find links to a number of the previous Turley Blawg posts on the subject.)

In order to keep you updated on this gender war that appears to have no end in sight, I have a story out of New Hampshire that should make women who live there shudder. Members of the Republican Party have proposed legislation that would change the state’s domestic violence laws—which are said to be some of the toughest in this country.

According to the Concord Monitor, “New Hampshire has been a leader in the effort to make domestic violence a cultural taboo.” The Monitor reported that “House Bill 1581 would turn back the clock forty years to an age when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed the crime.” As the NH law now stands, the police can arrest an abuser based on probable cause.

The Concord Monitor provided a possible scenario to consider—one that was outlined for lawmakers by Tim Russell, a retired police chief from Henniker:

An officer is called to a home where she sees clear evidence that an assault has occurred. The furniture is overturned, the children are sobbing, and the face of the woman of the house is bruised and bleeding. It’s obvious who the assailant was, but the officer arrived after the assault occurred. It’s a small department, and no one else on the force is available to keep the peace until the officer finds a judge or justice of the peace to issue a warrant. The officer leaves, and the abuser renews his attack with even more ferocity, punishing his victim for having called for help.

An arrest is not mandatory when someone alleges domestic assault. Under New Hampshire law an officer must first have probable cause and corroborating evidence. Under existing law, officers have the discretion to decide when an arrest is warranted, with or without corroborating evidence, but most police departments have a policy that presumes an arrest will be made when evidence is observed.

It’s impossible to say how many lives the policy, in place since the 1970s, has saved or how many injuries it’s prevented. If they adopt House Bill 1581, lawmakers might find out, but the price paid could be extraordinarily high.

House Bill 1608 would also almost certainly cost lives. It removes judicial discretion by severely restricting when someone who has violated a domestic violence protective order can be arrested to three offenses: committing an act of abuse or an offense against the person named in the protective order, or engaging in prohibited contact.

The bill would also, law enforcement believes, remove a judge’s ability to order a defendant in a domestic violence case to relinquish weapons or prevent him or her from purchasing a gun. It would also eliminate law enforcement’s ability to arrest a defendant who threatens to use physical force against a victim or her children. All are changes that could have deadly consequences and make life more frightening for abuse victims and their families.

The Huffington Post has reported that the law enforcement community in New Hampshire—including the Department of Safety, Attorney General’s office, Chiefs of Police Association—and domestic violence workers are all “vehemently opposed” to House Bill 1608.

A number of law enforcement leaders claim that the legislation would set them back. Franklin Police Chief David Goldstein said, “It’s taken twelve years to at least get on the books what we have, which is a model for the rest of the nation. And this proposed legislation would in fact send us back to the 1970’s which in domestic violence terms would be the Stone Age.” Amanda Grady of the New Hampshire Coalition against Domestic Violence said that she had “never seen a bill so directly aimed at dismantling the domestic violence statute.” Grady added, “The passage of [these laws] will likely result in further injuries and could possibly have lethal consequences for victims and their children.”

According to New Hampshire state statistics, 38 percent of the homicides committed in 2011 were domestic violence-related—and the vast majority of the “domestic violence cases were perpetrated by men again women.”

Maggie Hassan, the Democratic candidate for governor in New Hampshire, was quoted as saying: “New Hampshire women are like citizens everywhere — they just want to be able to participate in economic and civic life. When you deny them basic health care or basic public safety protections, you really turn your back on them as citizens.”

One has to wonder why such legislation is being proposed in the Granite State.

Afterward: I do have some good news to report. It seems good judgment prevailed in New Hampshire recently when the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted 13-0 to recommend killing House Bill 1608.

SOURCES

Leave domestic violence laws alone (Concord Monitor)

New Hampshire Republicans Propose Bills That Prevent Police From Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims (Think Progress)

NH Republicans Back Pro-Wife Beater Laws. UPDATE: Died in Committee (Daily Kos)

New Hampshire Considers Defunding Planned Parenthood, Weakening Domestic Violence Laws (Huffington Post)

Committee Rejects Domestic Violence Bill: Bill Would Have Limited Police Enforcement Of Protective Orders (WMUR)

NH panel rejects domestic violence bill (Boston Globe/AP)

Domestic violence protections at risk (Nashua Telegraph)

House committee says kill bill limiting arrests for violations of protective orders (Union Leader)

Passing of domestic violence bills could set NH back 40 years (My Fox Boston)

From The Turley Blawg

Rape Redefined and Brought to You by Members of the US House of Representatives

The Right’s War on Women

The Right’s War on Women Continues…at the State Level

GOP Indiana Rep Warns That Women Will Fake Rapes In Order To Get Free Abortions

Roadside Rape Kit? Kansas Legislator Compares Rape To Flat Tire

Redefining When Life Begins: A Post about Personhood USA and Legislative Bills That Could Make the Use of Some Contraceptives Illegal

The GOP Continues to Wage War on Women with H. R. 358

  I’d actually halfway finished a blog on a different subject today, when I was spun in a different  direction. Thursday night I had done something I never do and watched the Republican Debate in Florida. It was frighteningly enlightening to say the least, but what stood out for me was Newt commenting that our President was a disciple of Saul Alinsky. I thought then “How many people today know who Saul Alinsky was and what he represented?” On last nights Bill Maher’s show, Bill asked the question “Who was Saul Alinsky?” as part of his New Rules segment. This morning in HuffPost, Frank Mankiewicz addressed a variant of the same question: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-mankiewicz/america-meet-saul-alinsky_b_1238953.html

The idea of following heroes to me has always seemed silly, yet there are people whose lives and work I deeply admire and to some sense try to emulate. My first was Clarence Darrow and it is therefore no coincidence that I am a denizen of this blog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Darrow .  Clarence Darrow’s picture is used above because it is in the public realm, while mysteriously Saul Alinsky’s isn’t. Obviously, Saul Alinsky is another person whose life I admire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky  Alinsky was a radical in his methods, but one who eschewed the doctrinaire self assurance of an ideologue. When asked if he ever considered joining the Communist Party he famously replied”

“Not at any time. I’ve never joined any organization—not even the ones I’ve organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as ‘that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right.’ If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”

His was a belief that has resonated with me since those radical days in the 60’s, with the Movement, when I was surrounded by and courted by various ideologies, mostly Marxist whose rigidity of thought and party line belief, actually disgusted me. Yet there was Alinsky, the man who literally wrote the book on community organizing, who felt similarly towards ideological rigidity. He was truly an America Patriot, whose guiding idea was to assist downtrodden people to gain power over their lives and give them a chance to decide their fates. Alinsky was a man who achieved great success, if you define success as achieving ones goals. The disdain and demonization again being heaped upon him today comes from the very real threat his methodology has towards the 1% elite and curiously that aim of his was the reinstatement of “The American Dream” of freedom, equality and social justice.

The current conservative obsession with Alinsky comes from the fact that Barack Obama was supposedly an Alinsky disciple because of his community organizing work in Chicago:

“Biographer Sanford Horwitt has claimed that U.S. President Barack Obama was influenced by Alinsky and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. Horwitt furthermore has asserted that Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by Alinsky’s teachings.”

Adding to their “Alinsky disdain” is that:

“Hillary Clinton‘s senior honors thesis on Saul Alinsky, written at Wellesley College, noted that Alinsky’s personal efforts were a large part of his method.”

Thus we see two villains of the extreme Right Wing of the Republican Party, being linked somewhat to Alinsky, makes bringing him back into play as a “bogeyman” fitting. In truth one of the things that swayed me to support Obama in the first place were his ties to Alinsky, via his community organizing work in Chicago. For these extremists, however, the fact that Alinsky died when Obama was ten years old, is irrelevant. The President and Hilary, to their minds, have been polluted by Alinsky’s teachings. Why one would ask are the teachings of someone who was not a Marxist, not specifically anti-capitalist and believed that people should have the freedom to make up their own minds politically, be so damned threatening to the Extreme Right?

My take on the “why” is twofold. The first is that Alinsky believed in “empowerment” of those like Blacks, Stockyard workers and the poor in general. His methods, though non-violent, were disruptive of the status quo. He became so effective in organizing protests that sometimes just the threat of a protest led to negotiation with “the powers that were”. Take a look at this particular tactic and smile:

“After organizing FIGHT (an acronym for Freedom, Independence, God, Honor, Today) in Rochester, New York, Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which, according to author Nicholas von Hoffman, “FIGHT’s increasingly gaseous music-loving members would hie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds.”^[9] Satisfied with the reaction to his threat, Alinsky would later threaten a “piss in” at Chicago O’Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O’Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table. According to Alinsky, the threat alone was sufficient to produce results.^[9]”

The elite of his time were infuriated that he had the temerity to disrupt their privileged existence. They insisted that by his not working through the “system” he was destroying our ordered way of life. The fact for instance that Blacks in the South had no system to work through, was irrelevant to those conservative forces reaping the “systems” benefits.

“In Alinsky’s opinion, new voices and new values were being heard in the U.S., and “people began citing John Donne‘s ‘No man is an island,’” he said. He observed that the hardship affecting all classes of the population was causing them to start “banding together to improve their lives,” and discovering how much in common they really had with their fellow man.^[4] He stated during an interview a few of the causes for his active organizing in black communities:

“Negroes were being lynched regularly in the South as the first stirrings of black opposition began to be felt, and many of the white civil rights organizers and labor agitators who had started to work with them were tarred and feathered, castrated—or killed. Most Southern Democrat politicians were members of the Ku Klux Klan and had no compunction about boasting of it.”^[4]”

The second reason Alinsky is anathetimized is because his tactics work so damn well that people actually gain empowerment from them. This works in tandem with the fact that it is non-ideological, so it works to blur divisions between class, race and religion. The American Elite has always made its’ mark by sowing division among the 99%. This is in fact the entire operating structure that has kept the power structure in place. It to me it is little coincidence that the real opposition to MLK  outside the South, came at a point when his organizational effort went beyond Black Civil Rights and began to display opposition to poverty and the Viet Nam War. In the South post-bellum, the average White, while still suffering under the economic oppression of the South’s Elite, under a deeply unfair economic system, nevertheless could be comforted in their poverty by the fact that their status was higher than Blacks.

What is too madly ironic to be funny is that we see today the Ultra Conservatives utilizing Alinsky’s techniques to further their ends:

“Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization’s tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, “his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective.” Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.^[19]”

Below you will find a link to an illuminating debate between Alinsky and William F. Buckley. There are only five minutes video to be seen of this hour long “Firing Line” episode, but it is highly instructive. From this link you can also obtain a PDF link to a transcript of the entire debate. In both the Buckley salvos and the Alinsky responses you can see the essece of the men. Buckley, limited in tangible argument turning again and again to his huge vocabulary to throw up the smokescreen that he is actually making telling points. Alinsky, surprisingly (for political debate), honestly exposing himself as a human being, while demolishing Buckley’s false charges that would make Alinsky a threat to American Democracy.  http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingline/programView2.php?programID=99

Looking at the Occupy Wall Street Movement I have no proof, but little doubt, that its organizers have been highly influenced by Saul Alinsky. In my opinion we all need to brush up on the Alinsky methodology today as our only way out of the dawning of an age of Corporatist Fuedalism. Voting can only be used to stave off the potential disasters that await the 99%, if the direction of this country doesn’t change. So in answer to my posed question: “Who in Hell is Saul Alinsky”, he is one of the great minds of the Twentieth Century, when it comes to finding non-violent means of developing a more humane society. I believe that putting his concepts into use by those who truly love this country can finally bring about the changes that will save America from becoming just another Third World Nation under the rule of a monied elite.

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.

]]> http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/who-in-hell-is-saul-alinsky/feed/ 53 jonathanturley 433px-Clarence_Darrow http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/27/a-response-to-senator-carl-levin-part-ii/ http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/27/a-response-to-senator-carl-levin-part-ii/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:20:00 +0000 jonathanturley http://jonathanturley.org/?p=44545 ]]> After my recent column on “Ten Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free,” I ran a response to claims made by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) who was the main sponsor of the legislation including the indefinite detention provisions. Levin has now run a letter to the editor in response to my column that I believe is highly misleading and leaves readers with a false impression of both the law and my column.

Here is letter by Sen. Levin this morning:

In his Jan. 15 Outlook commentary, “Ten reasons we’re no longer the land of the free,” Jonathan Turley mischaracterized a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 that reaffirms the authority of the military to detain individuals who join al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, and who attack the United States.

Mr. Turley disputed the Obama administration, which said that, with regard to U.S. citizens who fall in that category, “this provision only codified existing law,” i.e., it does not add new law to that issue. But Mr. Turley omitted the language in the act itself, which expressly states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Carl Levin, Washington

The writer, a Democrat from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

There are a number of problems with this objection. First, the column that was printed noted that “While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court.”

Second, the language cited by Levin has been ridiculed by civil libertarians as meaningless rhetoric designed to give members political cover after various members denounced the legislation as allowing indefinite detention of citizens. Without repeating the prior analysis, Levin (who assures that the law will be followed “whatever it is”) personally noted that the Administration demanded that there be no exception for citizens from indefinite detention. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

The fact that the Senate put a clear exemption in the mandatory detention provision for citizens but opted not to simply include the same provision in the discretionary detention provision reinforces this meaning. Moreover, the same Senators who voted to deny any exemption proceeded to vote for this language — clearly indicating that it did not offer such protection for citizens.

Most importantly, Levin and others are seeking to deny the authority that the President just acknowledged in his signing statement. Obama stated “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He does not deny that he has such authority . . . only that he does not intend to use it.

The only thing more disturbing than the provision itself is the effort of members to avoid responsibility for the provision — arguing that the civil liberties community and a wide variety of experts (as well as dozens of members of Congress) simply did not read the bill. The power, he suggests, was not given to the President despite the President’s assurance that he will not use it.

Notably, the earlier version of the column did not quote Levin on this point. I added the language before it went to print because Levin donors sent me a fax sent out by his office advancing this argument. The entire premise of both the early version and published version is that the effort to protect citizens was defeated by the Senate.

As I mentioned earlier, I often agree with Levin. However, the letter continues an effort to suggest to readers that this question is expressly answered in the bill. The clear effort is to dismiss the view of civil libertarians and members as ill-informed and portray the concern over civil liberties as baseless. I am not sure what is worse: exposing citizens to indefinite detention or misleading citizens that they need not be concerned because the Congress has their back.

The bill states that “[t]he governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.” The language appears to be an effort to circumvent the holding in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), where the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools in 1987. The Court stressed that “[w]e do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” The Court added that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” (emphasis added)

This law could force a reexamination of that caveat and the overwhelming view of scientists that creationism is a religious not a scientific theory. Notably one of the two dissenting justices was Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Other states like Tennessee have moved to re-introduce creationism in schools as a “controversy” in science. Louisiana itself has used this approach to circumvent the precedent that it created in Edwards.

This legislation could lead to another major decision if it were to get to the Court, though Scalia would find new allies in jurists like Clarence Thomas. The Court held that it was unconstitutional when “pre-eminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind.” On his official legislative site, Kruse has highlighted his work with such groups as “Child Evangelism Fellowship of Northeastern Indiana,” “The Gideons International,” “Northeast Indiana Youth for Christ Board, Chairman,” “County Line Church of God,” and other such groups.

Another supporter, Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, said that “many” scientists agree with creationism and asked “[w]hat are we afraid of? Allowing an option for students including creation science as opposed to limiting their exposure?”

Just to be clear, the fear is not that evolution could not hold its own as a scientific theory but that we are suggesting to students that creationism has a scientific basic. Beyond the “Creation Science boards, “many” scientists are not supportive of creationism and that suggestion by Schneider shows how “facts” are invented to suggest a scientific basis for creationism. According to a 1991 Gallup poll, only 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists. However, even this small number was questioned since it included those with training outside biology.

Notably, these schools could take the lead from Governor Romney who has stated that evolution is a scientific theory while creationism is a philosophy. In Iowa, he explained:

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class.”

For academics in Indiana, this must be a particularly low moment. Indiana is a state with terrific institutions of higher learning. This bill looks like an appeal from The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes — 87 years too late.

Source: Courier Journal

Santorum explained to an enraptured audience in Naples, Florida how “the left” long ago took over universities to indoctrinate young people for the purpose of “holding and maintaining power.” It was all part of the plan of the liberal overlords, he suggested, and “we’ve lost our higher education, that was the first to go a long time ago.” Now, Obama is pushing college which Santorum portrays as a type of entry drug to liberalism:

“It’s no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college,” said the former Pennsylvania senator. “The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure that there wasn’t one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right? . . . If they taught Judeo-Christian principles in those colleges and universities, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it.”

Santorum, therefore, called on true Republicans to stop giving money to colleges:

“I’ll bet you there are people in this room who give money to colleges and universities who are undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids with left-wing ideology. And you continue to give to these colleges and universities. Let me have a suggestion: Stop it.”

It was a truly Palinesque moment of attacking those who would challenge GOP positions with facts or history. Now the race to the bottom is complete with a call to just say no to education and to embrace doctrine as truth. Of course, this is not a new idea. Mao Zedong launched a Cultural Revolution based on the same notions:

Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds, and endeavour to stage a comeback. The proletariat must do just the opposite: It must meet head-on every challenge of the bourgeoisie in the ideological field and use the new ideas, culture, customs, and habits of the proletariat to change the mental outlook of the whole of society. At present, our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority . . . and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic “authorities” and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure  . . .”

Now this is not meant to accuse Santorum of plagiarism: you would only learn about the Cultural Revolution in those colleges that he wants us all to avoid. I can deal with the re-education camps, but I am a bit afraid of what Santorum will select as his Little Red [State] Book. If it is Sarah Palin’s America by Heart : Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, I will be the first to turn in my colleagues hiding in the attic.

Source: CBS

Republican leadership is calling out ranking establishment figures to question everything from Gingrich’s electability to his morality to secure the nomination for Romney. Elliott Abrams, however, shows how deep they are going in the GOP bench. You may recall Abrams from a little criminal affair called the Iran-Contra scandal. Abrams ultimately pleaded guilty to crimes of withholding information from Congress which included two years probation. He was then pardoned by President George H. W. Bush, in December 1992. Then on February 5, 1997, Abrams was censured by the D.C. Court of Appeals publicly for giving false testimony on three occasions before congressional committees. At the time, three judges wanted to not just impose the censure but to suspend him from practice.

As previously discussed in a column, many of these dark figures from the Reagan years were brought back into government by President George W. Bush, an early indication of the Administration’s approach to the rule of law. Abrams considers himself so rehabilitated in the public eye that he feels entirely comfortable in denouncing Gingrich for statements against Reagan that include criticism over . . . yes guessed it . . . Iran-Contra.

Abrams offers a rather cheerful account of his role, which led to his criminal plea. He accuses Gingrich of saying mean things about Reagan and “predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.” Of course, Iran-Contra was not exactly a roaring success.

Yet, Abrams notes that he and others were fighting “vicious criticism from leading Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts.” You may recall that Congress limited funds to the Contras through the Boland Amendment. Abrams notes the Gingrich did in fact vote for the Administration, but said negative things about Reagan. His “best” example was on March 21, 1986.

“This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: ‘Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.’ Why? This was due partly to ‘his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail’; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which ‘have no strategies to defeat the empire.’ But of course ‘the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.’ Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were ‘pathetically incompetent,’ so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan ‘contra’ rebels ‘are fundamentally right.’

So, Gingrich is unacceptable because he criticized a criminal conspiracy that ultimately landed the Reagan administration into a quagmire of criminal investigations and convictions, including Abrams’ own admission of criminal conduct. This is a lot like a bank robber singling out a witness as unreliable and disrespectful for not remaining silent.

I previously called Abrams part of the Bush Bada Bing club – men who earned their bones by showing their willingness to violate the law. I am no fan of Gingrich, but this pile on is becoming truly Felliniesque.

Next I am waiting for James Watt to come out with his anti-Gingrich column on how Gingrich was not sufficiently supportive of his efforts to influence peddle at the Department of Housing and Urban Development — leaving to his own guilty plea.

It is hard to see how a Republican can purge himself of having spoken ill of the Gipper. The secret purging ceremony has only been witnessed by the Republican National Committee members. It involves the Souix ritual of having one’s pectoral muscles pierced and eagle’s talons are drawn through the wounds and tied to leather thongs from which the Republican hangs until purified. That may take a bit longer for Gingrich . . . at least until after the Florida primary.

Update: Other Republicans are now challenging Abrams on his account.

Source: National Review

The good news is that 90 percent of Germans recognized the name but the shocker came with the polling of the 21 percent of 18-29 year olds.

Moreover, nearly a third of the 1,002 people questioned did not know that Auschwitz was in today’s Poland.

The anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops is on January 27, 1945.

Source: Hurriyet

Here is the exchange:

John King, CNN: “You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: “Let me just say this. That will never happen.”

King: “Why?”

Pelosi: “He’s not going to be President of the United States. That’s not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn’t going to happen.”

King: “Why are you so sure?”

Pelosi: “There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that’s their prerogative. I don’t even think that’s going to happen.”

Once again, it should be Democrats who denounce this type of politics. It should not fall to either Gingrich or Republicans. What is really astonishing is that I would think that the Democrats would be dying to have Gingrich nominated and offering Obama a target-rich environment. Regardless of the political wisdom, it is wrong to constantly claim to have dirt on a politician . . . while promising to reveal it later.

Update: As on the earlier occasion, Pelosi has sent out aides to say that she was merely referring to things in the public record. After the prior incident, I was contacted by Pelosi aides who wanted to make the same point. Yet, here again, Pelosi comes forth and makes the same type sinister suggestion. She is not a stupid person and she knows how such comments will be interpreted — particularly after being criticized on the earlier occasion. This is precisely why Congress is now as unpopular as ebola.

Source: RealClearPolitics

Shortey has yet to come up with an example of the growing cannibal problem in U.S. food supply or a study that supports the need for a prohibition. Indeed, he admits “I don’t know if it is happening in Oklahoma, it may be, it may not be.” Well, that seems pretty solid to me.

In one interview, Shortey says that he found “suggestions online.” There is a great deal of suggestive material online of course, but U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Pat El-Hinnawy responded to questions by saying that the “FDA is not aware of this particular concern.”

Featured today on the Oklahoma GOP site, Shortey is described as someone who “worked as an oil and gas production consultant . . . he and his family have been living on savings since he filed for office in June.” Before cannibalism, his main issue was illegal immigration: “[The voters] want something done about illegal immigration and they want something tough.” This may be related in that companies could be smuggling in illegal immigrants through our food supply.

Of course, the cannibal apologists are all over Shortey. Powerful restaurants like Big Boy and Kenny Rogers Roasters, of course, are staying behind the scenes despite their obvious advertising enticing customers with human food symbology. What are you eating when you order a Jack in the Box, I ask you.

Shortey is one of the few who will stand firm and say “you want a piece of me? Come and try.” Thank you Senator Shortey and God’s speed.

Source: Think Progress

Notably, the town council disbanded the Norway police department last year. In January, Preacher told the city that he should be paid $32,000 a year as constable but that he would not demand the payment.

Preacher says that he was pursuing a car that he thought was involved in a burglary when pulled over.

He also says that his son Jamie is working for $400 a month to assist with the water and sewer department for the town, which is in obvious financial distress.

Previously, Preacher was accused of breaking into the town hall but insisted that he had a smaller man go through a window when he found he could not get in — but declined to identify the man. He took the action after winning the office but having a dispute with the outgoing mayor — who called the police on the break in and demanded a charge of burglary. Cindy Williams insisted that she had more time to serve a mayor.

It appears that Norway, South Carolina is a previously unknown treasure trove of controversies. We are considering opening a satellite office in Norway for the blog. I am looking at who among our guest bloggers will be dispatched to the location.

Germany took the same approach to denying the Holocaust as the display of Nazi symbols. I have always disagreed with that approach. It has not stopped the existence or extremism of Nazi groups. Instead, it gives them a claim to be victims of government coercion. The best way to be rid of extremist and racist ideas is with more not less speech.

While the sponsors insist it is meant only “to honor the memory of genocide victims and struggle against hate speech,” it does so dishonoring a basic civil liberty. Other sponsors are a bit more honest. Critics have charged the that drafter Valerie Boyer, the senator from Sarkozy’s UMP party, is just playing for votes among the 500,000 Armenians who live in France. Boyer responded simply “That’s democracy.” Perhaps but it is not liberty. Indeed, a pure democratic model was rejected by James Madison in writings like Federalist No. 10 in this country due to the need to temper passions through a representative democracy. Madison noted “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.”

Various respected academics have supported the claim of genocide by Turkey despite the denials of that country. However, this debate is not won by forcing those who disagree into forced silence. It is anti-intellectual. It is anti-free speech. It is wrong.

We previously heard of Boyer in her campaign against airbrushing of photos as a way to safeguarding history. Yet, it appears that shutting down speech entirely about history is fine.

Source: CBS

What is fascinating is the change in the language of intolerance. I have been critical of the Obama Administration’s work with Middle Eastern countries on establishing the basis for prosecution anti-religious speech. Recently the Administration got these extremist countries to adopt the Brandenburg standard as the basis for such prosecutions. These cases show the mentality of countries pushing for a “balance” between free speech and religion. It also shows why the use of the Brandenburg standard is so dangerous in the hands of such officials who view free speech as the cause of imminent violence. Here Latif insisted that prosecution is necessary because such readings may “provoke people,” warning “it is responsibility of police, administration and organisers to ensure that no such things happen in the event but it is unfortunate that the banned book was read.”

That is how imminent “imminent lawless action” plays out in nations enforcing blasphemy values.

Source: Outlook India as first seen on Reddit.

Adler listed three options for Israel to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons in his weekly newspaper last Friday. The first is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah. The second is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Then there is the third option:

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.

A bit hard to peddle back from that. The readers of the Atlanta Jewish Times will hopefully use this disgraceful column as a vehicle to reexamine the rhetoric and extremism displayed by Adler and others in today’s political discourse. An apology for such a hateful and extremist column falls a bit short of convincing. It comes off as an “I should not have put it in print” apology.

Source: Gawker

“Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director for the New York-based group has warned that “Despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy (in Iraq), the reality is that it left behind a budding police state.” This includes the torture or abuse of dissidents, journalists, and activists. It also included secret detention centers where people are tortured or simply disappear without access to the courts. Of course, we were accused of the same practices so they may have learned too well from the mentors in the creation of democratic free society. It appears that they have mistaken American exceptionalism to Iraqi exceptionalism.

Source: Washington Post

For those of us critical of the faith-based politics of both parties and the erosion of the separation of church and state, Dozier is a perfect nightmare.

Dozier previously announced (below) that “The Tea party is a Godly ordained party.” He added “[i]f not for the Republican party, and the Tea Party, the Negro would be a slave. The best thing to happen to the Negro, is the Tea Party”-

I can live with the sermon on God’s view of the tax code and the Tea Party. However, I assured that that is a Cincinnati Reds hat and not a Bears hat. This season has been bad enough. We don’t need to add Dozier.

Dozier has been a guest of George Bush at the White House and says that he was previously under contract with NPR.

When he is not rallying people to join “God’s party,” he is attacking homosexuals whom he declared as responsible for “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.”

While most people would not want to be in the same room with such a person, Santorum was not satisfied with just an endorsement and instead made him his honorary Florida campaign chairman. He is now campaigning by Santorum by reminding Christians that Romney is a Mormon and is thus unacceptable for faith-based voters. Now, I cannot speak for God, but such an association would challenge the intestinal fortitude of many voters.

Source: Mother Jones

The vote in South Carolina has propelled the lazy paced Republican race for its presidential nomination into high-gear. Gingrich’s convincing win against Romney has made what appeared just a few days ago as a Romney coronation into a two-horse race. Written off for dead last summer when his staff unceremoniously quit and the money dried up, Gingrich supporters are justifiably giddy by winning this ultra-conservative state, which has an undeniable track record of picking the eventual Republican candidate for the nation’s biggest political job. What makes this an even more impressive win is Gingrich’s lack of boots on the ground in these primary races and an almost indifferent attitude toward campaign infra-structure. Gingrich did say he was running a new kind of campaign, but what candidate hasn’t?

What accounts for this win against all odds?  Many surmise it’s Gingrich’s appeal to the firebrand tea party-types disenchanted with  the perceived socially moderate politics of Mitt Romney.  They also assume it’s Newt’s snarling antagonism against the left  proven by his stance against liberal intellectuals and particularly those in the media. CNN’s John King’s provided Gingrich a crucial chance in the most recent Republican debate to flex his intellectual populism with a searing attack on the media when questioned about charges of “open marriage” made by his ex-wife. But is Gingrich really a combatant in the war against thinking or is he simply unflichingly opposed to what he considers the wrong kind of thinking and committed to perservering against any obstacle to ovecome it?

The record is mixed. Gingrich himself says that ideas are the essence of his campaign.“One of the Republican weaknesses is that we rely too much on consultants and too much on talking points, and we don’t rely enough on actually knowing things,” he said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network. “If you’re going to lead the country and change history, you better know a heck of a lot before you start, because there’s not much time for learning on the job.” He finds an endorsement for his intellectualism in no less a person than liberal icon (and another apparent serial philanderer), Bill Clinton. “The one thing that makes it very hard to count him out is he’s always thinking. He’s always got a bunch of new ideas and some of them are pretty good.”

Columnist Kathleen Parker, herself a victim of Palin-inspired anti-intellectualism, agrees with Clinton’s assessment.

[T]here are signs that the GOP is recognizing its [anti-intellectual] weaknesses and is ready to play smarter. To wit: The sudden surge of Gingrich, who, whatever his flaws and despite the weight of his considerable baggage, is no intellectual slouch. Whether he can pull off a victory in Iowa remains to be seen, but a populist professor — a bombastic smarty-pants Republicans can call their own — may be just the ticket.

But as we all know, in politics talk is cheap and, to bastardize another popular cliché, past performance really is an indicator of future success. Steve Benen, writing in the Washington Monthly, notes that Gingrich has led a consistent and aggressive attack on scholars and intellectuals.

We’ve seen this with Gingrich’s attack on the federal agency in charge of medical effectiveness research and the elimination of Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment in the 1990s, and last week, we saw it again when Gingrich announced his intention to eliminate the Congressional Budget Office. The Republican presidential hopeful described the non-partisan budget office as a “reactionary socialist institution” — and he wasn’t kidding.

Many believe the antipathy stems from Gingrich’s desire to remove objective information from the public debate on issues, and to substitute Republican numbers justifying its positions. There is some historical evidence for that position. When Gingrich took over the Speaker’s job in 1995, he slashed the budgets and staff of committees that employed many professionals and policy wonks that comprised much of the institutional memory of the House. There’s nothing new about taking the prerogatives of the victor and firing opposing party staffers. What makes Gingrich’s spoils system approach unique is his failure to replace the Democrats with Republicans. The net effect was to deprive members of professional and objective information in the judgment of legislative issues.

In my judgment, Gingrich is no enemy of ideas. In fact he seems to relish his adherence to them. He recently told the New York Times, “The Republican establishment is anti-intellectual and anti-change. They’re for winning as long as it’s meaningless. But meaningful victory would mean really big risks. I’m running because I want to change the old order.” To that extent the new Newt is merely a poished version of the old bomb throwing Newt. He is a “true believer” as Eric Hoffer might say, in the far right-wing ideology that was mouthed by Bush & Co. to his base but rarely put into practice.

Hoffer postumiously offers an opinion on the Gingrich attitude:

It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence.  (True Believer, 1951, p. 78)

What makes Gingrich attractive to the far right is not his hostility to ideas, but his utter adherence to them and the perception that he would follow them no matter the cost or the countervailing evidence. The far right seems to recognize only one capital offense — flip-flopping. Or ,as I might say, changing your mind in the face of new information. In this regard, Newt is pristine. He appears to be a true believer and willing to simply ignore or stifle information contrary to his confident ideology.

It is sometimes said that “it takes a lot of man not to know when to quit.” That is what accounts for Newt’s sudden rise, and what makes Gingrich so thoroughly dangerous.

Source: Washington Monthly

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Last December, the NAACP released a report titled Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America. The report reveals “direct connections between the trend of increasing, unprecedented African American and Latino voter turnout and an onslaught of restrictive measures across the country designed to stem electoral strength among communities of color.”

Benjamin Jealous, NAACP President and CEO, said, “It’s been more than a century since we’ve seen such a tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote. Historically, when voting rights are attacked, it’s done to facilitate attacks on other rights. It is no mistake that the groups who are behind this are simultaneously attacking very basic women’s rights, environmental protections, labor rights, and educational access for working people and minorities.” He added, “Voting rights attacks are the flip side of buying a democracy. First you buy all the leaders you can, and then you suppress as many votes as possible of the people who might object.”

I should add that African American and Latino voters aren’t the only people who are being targeted by the “block the vote” effort. Young people and the elderly in some states may also face hurdles if they hope to exercise their right to vote in the November elections.

From the NAACP report:

 “The heart of the modern block the vote campaign is a wave of restrictive government-issued photo identification requirements. In a coordinated effort, legislators in thirty-four states introduced bills imposing such requirements. Many of these bills were modeled on legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—a conservative advocacy group whose founder explained: ‘Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.’”

In a Nation article titled The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy, John Nichols addresses the issue of ALEC’s involvement in the “block the vote” effort:

For the Koch brothers and their kind, less democracy is better. They fund campaigns with millions of dollars in checks that have helped elect the likes of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Ohio Governor John Kasich. And ALEC has made it clear, through its ambitious “Public Safety and Elections Task Force,” that while it wants to dismantle any barriers to corporate cash and billionaire bucks’ influencing elections, it wants very much to erect barriers to the primary tool that Americans who are not CEOs have to influence the politics and the government of the nation: voting.

That crude calculus, usually cloaked in bureaucracy and back-room dealmaking, came into full view in 2011.

Across the country, and to a greater extent than at any time since the last days of Southern resistance to desegregation, voting rights were being systematically diminished rather than expanded.

ALEC has been organizing and promoting the assault, encouraging its legislative minions to enact rigid Voter ID laws and related attacks on voting rights in more than three dozen states.

With their requirements that the millions of Americans who lack driver’s licenses and other forms of official paperwork go out and purchase identification cards in order to cast ballots, the Voter ID push put in place new variations on an old evil: the poll tax.

Some states are becoming extremely selective about the types of voter ID’s that they will accept at the polls. Take Texas, for example: In the Lone Star State, you’ll be allowed to vote if you present a military ID or a concealed-gun license—but not if you present your college ID.

Democrats have argued that the enactment of these new restrictive voter laws was politically motivated.  They have claimed that groups that tend to vote Democratic—the elderly, the young, minorities, and the poor—include many people who lack photo ID’s.

Last October, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University released a report about the new voting laws and how they could affect the 2012 elections. Here is an excerpt from the report’s summary:

State governments across the country enacted an array of new laws making it harder to register or to vote. Some states require voters to show government-issued photo identification, often of a type that as many as one in ten voters do not have. Other states have cut back on early voting, a hugely popular innovation used by millions of Americans. Two states reversed earlier reforms and once again disenfranchised millions who have past criminal convictions but who are now taxpaying members of the community. Still others made it much more difficult for citizens to register to vote, a prerequisite for voting.

These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities. This wave of changes may sharply tilt the political terrain for the 2012 election. Based on the Brennan Center’s analysis of the 19 laws and two executive actions that passed in 14 states, it is clear that:

• These new laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.
• The states that have already cut back on voting rights will provide 171 electoral votes in 2012 – 63 percent of the 270 needed to win the presidency.
• Of the 12 likely battleground states, as assessed by an August Los Angeles Times analysis of Gallup polling, five have already cut back on voting rights (and may pass additional restrictive legislation), and two more are currently considering new restrictions.

Is this what our legislators and others who have been elected to represent us should be working on—writing and enacting laws that will make it more difficult for some citizens to vote?

From the ACLU’s Oppose Voter Registration Fact Sheet:

VOTING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE

• Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote.
• The right to vote is protected by more constitutional amendments – the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th – than any other right we enjoy as Americans.
• There are additional federal and state statutes which guarantee and protect voting rights, as well as declarations by the Supreme Court that the right to vote is fundamental because it is protective of all our other rights.

We have heard a lot about voter fraud in the past couple of years. So…one has to ask: “How big a problem is voter fraud in this country?” An editorial that appeared in the New York Times last fall says that there is actually little voter fraud in America—and that “none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases.” The Times editorial also suggested that Republicans are passing these restrictive voter laws in order “to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes”

Would you describe these attempts by politicians to disenfranchise voters in this country as un-American? Do you think it’s an attack on democracy?

SOURCES

Defending Democracy: Confronting Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America (NAACP)

A Report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. & the NAACP (PDF)

Block the Vote: How the Koch-Backed American Legislative Exchange Council Aims to Keep You from Voting (AFL-CIO)

NAACP Denounces Role of ALEC in “Jim Crow, Esquire” Voting Laws (PRWatch)

Voting Law Changes in 2012 (Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law)

The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the Savage Assault on Democracy (The Nation)

ALEC Exposed: Rigging Elections (The Nation)

The GOP War on Democracy: How Conservatives Shamelessly Disenfranchise People Who Vote Democrat: Across the country, state legislatures and governors are pushing laws that seek to restrict access to the voting booth (Alternet)

New Hampshire GOP Speaker Discourages Students From Voting Because They’ll Vote ‘Liberal’ (ThinkProgress)

Students hit by voter ID restrictions (Politico)

GOP War on Voting: AG Holder Joins the Fight (Rolling Stone)

The Myth of Voter Fraud (New York Times)

“There Is Almost No Voter Fraud in America.” (ACLU)

Oppose Voter ID Legislation – Fact Sheet (ACLU)

Who Stole the Election?: Dominating many state legislatures, Republicans have launched a full-on assault on voting rights (Prospect)

This week I’m presenting something a little different as a blog. I’ve just read an incredibly interesting book that I was turned onto by either or both, Dredd and Anon Nurse. This book has added scientific clarity to a phenomenon that I’ve noticed for many years, with dismay. Why is it that some people, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, doggedly hold onto beliefs that they can’t logically defend? We can all agree that there are some issues that simply do not lend themselves to being categorized into absolutes of right and wrong. However, I will let the reader catalog those issues mentally, since there will be some who would no doubt take umbrage from any examples I would personally present. Yet I assert that there are some issues where despite probable protests, are not open to rational dispute. One of these is the age of the Earth and the Universe. The Earth is far older than Creationists/Intelligent Design advocates would set at six or seven thousand years. This is proven fact. I note that there are many religious people who accept this scientific fact and yet still believe in a creator and while not by any means a fundamentalist, I do believe that there is a creative force that informs the Universe. Whatever that force may be, it did its thing multiple billions of years ago.

I presented the above to illustrate the difference between a proven fact and an as yet, if ever, provable belief. The book “The Authoritarians” was written by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Professor Altemeyer has spent more than forty years doing research as a Social Psychologist into the parameters and root causes of authoritarian behavior in human beings. John Dean, of Watergate renown, made Bob semi-famous by using Bob’s work as a framework for his book “Conservatives Without Conscience”. I call Professor Altemeyer “Bob”, not out of personal familiarity, but because one of the joys of this book is that though it is a serious socio-psychological work, it is written by a man who doesn’t take himself too seriously, while presenting a very serious subject. My original intent in writing this piece was to present my conclusions, using the book as backup. However, the book, though well-documented, is only 262 pages and at the end of this piece will be a link that allows you to download it for free and read it. Bob presents this important topic far better than I could ever condense it. I’ll just give you a taste, hopefully whetting your appetite and then let you read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

This book was written before the 2008 elections and yet it is even more current today as we see the Republican Party in the hands of the most radically conservative factions of the last 80 years and the Democratic Party decidedly right of center. Bob writes this:

“But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you’ll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack–and by the American government no less!

The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence.

The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling. How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How can they go on believing things that have been disproved over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established? How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark?”

Though this book was written more than five years ago, how descriptive of the Campaign of 2012 is it? I think it sums up what we have been seeing politically and presents reasons for this phenomenon of seeming insanity that has overtake our politics. Incidentally, this book in describing the effect of the authoritarian personality on politics, does not limit the authoritarian personality to Republicans and/or Conservatives. An authoritarian personality is one that submits to authority in both thinking and actions. As we have seen in this past century communists, creatures of the far left, also share authoritarian personalities. I believe that a percentage of Democrats also have authoritarian personalities, but to a lesser degree than their political opposites.

“Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:

 1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in their society;

2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and

3) a high level of conventionalism.”

I can immediately see an objection raised in the minds of some readers regarding Authoritarians supporting established authorities including government officials. They might well think well the ultra-Conservative Movement is anti-government, so how could they be Authoritarian in personality? The answer is I think easy. ”Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders.”  To many Authoritarians FOX News represents an established authority. The whole movement about Obama’s birth certificate was at base a means to reject the legitimacy of his authority as President. The power of fundamentalist religious leaders in Republican politics and politics in general is undisputed.

 “[A] right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey. 

 You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other”

Like Professor Altemeyer, in the 60’s and 70’s I was quite familiar with Left Wing Authoritarians of this sort. They were every bit as wrong and as exasperating as their counterparts on the Right. In fact should they ever gain control of a society, such as happened in the USSR and China, the results would be equally disastrous as anything produced on the Right. As to whether this book is a partisan screed I would submit that John Dean, is a lifelong Republican Conservative and Professor Altemeyer considers himself middle of the road. This is about the kind of submission to “authority” that has allowed unscrupulous leaders throughout human history to turn masses of people into pitiless killers.

 “Not only do authoritarian followers uncritically accept conclusions that support their religious beliefs, they have a problem with evidence in general. They are more likely than most people to think that, since airplane crashes sometimes occur when the pilots’ “biorhythms” are at a low point, this proves biorhythms affect our lives. They buy the argument that if skeptics have introduced controls against cheating in ESP experiments, and no ESP appears, that proves skepticism interferes with the ESP powers. They think that any time science cannot explain something, this proves mysterious supernatural forces are at work. True, they are less likely to believe in Bigfoot than in the Shroud of Turin. But they do not in general have a very critical outlook on anything unless the authorities in their lives have condemned it for them. Then they can be extremely critical.”

This book spends a good deal of time discussing the effects of religion onto Authoritarian Personality types. By accepting fully the preaching’s of their religious leaders, millions of people have been killed in the name of one God or another. Via documented experiments this book documents these tendencies and even supplies well grounded reasoning on how they begin in individuals. Bob links fundamentalist religious belief to ultra-conservative beliefs via persuasive studies. Most astounding of all his finding to him and to me is that perhaps 20% of the religious fundamentalists he’s studied have read their entire bible.

“The Most Amazing Discovery of All (to me, anyway). Isn’t there something profoundly strange about the fact that so many fundamentalists have apparently skipped over so much of the Bible? Wouldn’t you read the Bible, cover to cover, over and over, until the end of your days, if you really thought this was the revealed word of God? Let’s remember who that is: GOD, damn it all, the almighty, eternal, omnipresent–not to mention all-knowing–creator of the universe. What else could you read that would be as important as God’s message, if you believed that’s what the Bible is? What could be one-zillionth as important? What on earth is going on? Don’t the fundamentalists themselves believe what they preach to everyone else?”

Religious Authoritarians apparently don’t read their holy books for themselves but accept the words of their leaders and read only the passages that their leaders direct them to. It is so easy for many of us to decry the “insanity” of Islamic Fundamentalists following their Mullahs. Indeed, I would think that if Bob studied Muslim’s he would find equally that many have never fully read the Koran. To be Authoritarian is to unquestioningly accept the preaching of those one sees as their “legitimate leaders”.  The certainty that pervades their thinking, often is not eve backed up intellectually by a full familiarity with the holy books proclaimed as “God’s Truth”.

Two psychology professors Felicia Pratto of the University of Connecticut and Jim Sidanius at UCLA, developed the Social Dominance Orientation Scale in 1994. This was a test to measure which individuals tend to dominate in social situations, or who crave to dominate.  Sam McFarland at the University of Western Kentucky followed up using that scale and others to show the scales’ validity. Professor Altemeyer followed up on their work adding in the years of research he had done. It turs out that people who tend to dominate and lead those with authoritarian personalities are much less than “true believers”. They are in fact imbued with one basic belief and that is to get to the top of the pyramid.

“Persons who score highly on the Social Dominance scale do not usually have all the nooks and crannies, contradictions and lost files in their mental life that we find in high RWA’s [Rightwing Authoritarians]. Most of them do not show weak reasoning abilities, highly compartmentalized thinking, and certainly not a tendency to trust people who tell them what they want to hear. They’ve got their head together. Nor are most of them dogmatic or particularly zealous about any cause or philosophy. You have to believe in something to be dogmatic and zealous, and what social dominators apparently believe in most is not some creed or cause, but gaining power by any means fair or foul. The “soundness” of their thinking hardly means you can believe them, however”

If the above studies are valid, doesn’t America’s currently insane political situation begin to make some sense? In this respect can’t we see how Newt Gingrich could proclaim himself a champion of “family values” or in fact our President who ran on “change” having changed so little? Mitt Romney, a formerly “Centrist” governor, now proclaims himself the “true” conservative in the race for the nomination. And please don’t get me started on Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

It’s my hope in this highly favorable “review”, more aptly exhortation, that you will click on the link below, download this book and read it. There are solutions offered and there is far more content condensed in this book than I could have done justice to in this rather long blog post. I believe that this book contains information vital to us all if our vision of America is to survive, along with our freedom and that of our descendants.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger.

The program New Star was informed of the decision this week and barred from holding the competition. One of the complaints is that women appeared in sleeveless dresses. That’s right, sleeveless.

It does appear however that there was a Biblical Idol show that was also a problem back in the day. After all Abraham busted up idols and asked “why worship idols?”

However, “Hamas permits male barbershop style singing groups that do not use musical instruments and sing of the glory of Islam and to fighting Israel.” The image of a barbershop quartet singing about destroying Israel is a bit hard to imagine. Of course, those signing barbers are subject to arrest if they cut female hair.

However, the dark side of barbershop quartets has been seen in this country. Indeed, this act might play well at the Hamas political convention:

Source: Washington Post