Rubio redux: Guest Post by Steven Jonas.

Posted on by
1

Longtime Loyal Reader™ Steven Jonas, MD, MPH sent the Palace effusive praise on Don Ardell’s latest post, Marco Rubio’s Highest Value: Nonsensical, Disturbing and Dangerous. The good Dr. Jonas pointed us to his own column for BUZZFLASH at TRUTHOUT from September on the subject of the very same doucheweasel. He invited us to repost it here as a companion piece to Don’s, noting:

I think that mine on the same subject (Rubio) and yours complement each other very well, mine more political-historical, yours more humanistological (yes, a neologism, I think, intended as the opposite of “theological”).

We are delighted to take him up on his kind invitation. (The bad news, I’m afraid, is that Loyal Readers™ will now have to wait a day or two for my masterful and comprehensive treatise on the finger sandwiches I made for Mothers Day.)

Please give a warm Palace welcome to Dr. Steven Jonas.

__________

Marco Rubio, “Faith,” and the Coming Religious Wars

Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) gave a speech on the last night of the Republican National Convention. The GOP loves him because he is one of those relatively rare Latino politicians who call the GOP home. He of course rigorously supports GOP policies, except when it comes to illegal immigration. On that one, if you listen carefully, he takes no position, except that whatever President Obama has done (and he has presided the deportation of more undocumented aliens [mainly Latinos] than any other President) is wrong. Another little problem for Rubio has been that for years we were told that his parents were “defectors” (otherwise known as “emigrants”) from “Castro’s Cuba,” until it was discovered that they actually left the US-supported dictator Batista’s Cuba four years before the Cuban Revolution.

At any rate, there was one particular paragraph in Rubio’s speech that caught many ears. It came when he was talking about the US people, and what is “special” about us:

“We are special because we’ve been united not by a common race or ethnicity. We’re bound together by common values. That family is the most important institution in society. That almighty God is the source of all we have. . . . Our national motto is ‘In God we Trust,’ reminding us that faith in our Creator is the most important American value of all.”

Fascinating stuff, especially for someone who was born Catholic, as a teenager, when his family was living in Las Vegas, converted to Mormonism, and then converted back to Catholicism upon their return to Florida (1). Presumably, he made some changes-in-values on that trip. Nevertheless, let’s see just what might be the “common values” he referred to in his speech.

It’s certainly true that we are not united by “race or ethnicity.” The European settlers virtually eliminated the original inhabitants of what became the United States, enslaved members of another ethnic group brought here against their will, some of the descendants of those European settlers still practice discrimination against both, and some of the same have added Latinos, both those whose ancestors were here long before the Euros arrived and more recent arrivals, to that list. So in that he is quite correct.

Now what about “common values” by which we might be “bound together?” Well, I for one, for example, don’t share any of, for example, the most basic values held by Mitt Romany (2). As for family, while mine is central in my life, there are plenty of people who either A) don’t have one with which they relate much at all or B) can’t stand theirs if they do.

But then we come to the “God” thing. First of all, there are plenty of us who don’t believe that there is a deity or even a group of them. (An increasing number of us secular humanists are “coming out of the closet” on this one; as for me, coming from a secular household I’ve been out of it for as long as I can remember.) Second of all, as for the “In God we Trust” thing, that slogan, hardly a “national motto” adhered to by all of us, was adopted by Congress in 1952, at the height of McCarthyism and the domestic/international campaign against “godless Communism.”

Just for Sen. Rubio’s information (and he should know this; having been to law school he presumably has read the Constitution, and maybe even studied it in a Constitutional Law course), the word “God” does not appear anywhere in that one document that could be considered to establish the common values for our nation and our people. In its only references to religion, in Article VI and Amendment I, the Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religious qualifications for elected office, and ensconces the principle of the separation of church and state in our national polity.

Finally, Senator, “faith in our Creator” is hardly the most important value of all, for many U.S. citizens. Among other things, it is a pretty undefined term, even for those of the theistic persuasion. Let’s see what that kind of policies taking that position can lead to. Why in your party it leads to the religion-based homophobia, misogyny, and religious authoritarianism on abortion rights that now dominate your platform and political agenda. “God” itself is a pretty undefined concept. A personal God, who is in one’s life at all times? A general guider of things? A force that established the world and then left it to its own devices, the concept at the center of the Deism adhered to by many of the founders? Or perhaps there is more than one, as the Hindus hold. A being with whom one can have conversations, as the Presidential nominee of your party apparently thinks that he does (2)?

And then we can get to a banner seen outside the RNC (selected elements): “Why do you love the devil? Homos, Feminists, Mormons, Buddhists, Catholics, Atheists, Democrats, Environmentalists, Racists, Scientologists, Muslims, Loud Mouth Women, Liberals, Sophisticated Swine, and Sports Nuts (Hey, I’m one of those; how did we get included?): Repent and Believe in Jesus.” This is not, of course, (current) GOP policy. But European Christians slaughtered each in the hundreds of thousands in the 16th and 17th centuries over disputes about who “really believed in Jesus” and who was, or was not “repentant,” (disagreeing too over what that word meant). “Jesus?” Just who’s Jesus is this person talking about? The Catholics’? The Mormons’? The Presbyterians? (To say nothing of the Jews’ or the Muslims’.) Very dangerous territory is being approached here.

Rubio talked about “God” and “faith.” But his concept of “God” is, for example, one that would sanction the criminalization of any religious belief about when life begins other than his. Yes indeed, if this kind of thinking is allowed to spread, indeed if it allowed taking over our country, look out, everyone. Indeed, a modern version of religious war, much more lethal even than its historical predecessors, could well be just around the corner.

One observer recently put it very well: “The Founding Fathers knew the only way to insure religious freedom and to maintain democracy is to keep religion and government separate. We cannot allow our government to endorse religion even slightly for it’s a thin line from endorse to enforce” (3). Mark Marco and his party well on this one, my friends. Mark them well.

-

References:

1.       Avlon, J., “Who is Marco Rubio?’ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/18/who-is-marco-rubio-life-story-revealed-in-manuel-roig-franzia-s-biography.html

2.       Jonas, S., “Mitt Romney’s Core Values,” BuzzFlash@Truthout on Thu, 07/19/2012, URL: http://www.buzzflash.org/node/13613

3.       Cottle, B., “Myths and Truths About Atheism,” http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20120902/OPINION04/309030008/Myths-truths-about-atheism?nclick_check=1

__________

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books. In addition to being a columnist for BuzzFlash/Truthout (http://www.buzzflash.com, http://www.truth-out.org/), he is the Managing Editor of and a Contributing Author to TPJmagazine.net. His most recent book, The 15% Solution, is available at online retailers Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.  (See Palace review here.)

Marco Rubio’s Highest Value: Nonsensical, Disturbing and Dangerous

Posted on by
Reply

There are so many absurdities in our day-to-day political life related to religion. We have become inured to new standards of idiocy set by theocratic pols seeking to outdo each other sucking up to religious crazies.

The result of our collective hesitancy is that things keep getting worse. That is, the intrusion of religion in varied forms becomes more pervasive, and our drift toward theocracy increasingly pernicious.

The Pledge of Allegiance (“under God”) is bad, prayers at the start of government meetings, inaugurations, football games and so on are an abomination, Catholic Cardinals obstructing health benefits for all women (not just members of their “flock”) grates and a National Day of Prayer all boggle the mind. You would think these kinds of offenses against the Constitution would be the worst of it, as all get plenty of attention. Occasionally, there is successful resistance, as in a court case challenging the prayer proclamation last year when Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote: “The same law that prohibits the government from declaring a National Day of Prayer also prohibits it from declaring a National Day of Blasphemy.” The judge noted that Congress may no more declare a National Day of Prayer than it “may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic. It is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence any individual’s decision whether and when to pray.”

But such bright spots of secular sanity are overwhelmed by a thousand little cuts that sap the vitality of the secular state of these United States. When secular people resign themselves to religious intrusions, things get much worse. Religion-related events take place that are not only ridiculous in the extreme but allow further sectarian encroachments precisely because so few notice anymore. When that happens, there is no or too little push back in a timely manner.

Which brings me to Marco Rubio.

Rubio, the freshman senator from the state of Florida, gave a speech at the Republican National Convention last summer. At one point, he said: “Our national motto is, ‘In God We Trust,’ reminding us that faith in our creator is the most important American value of all.” The Republicans loved it. But please – let’s get a grip here – what percentage of Americans truly believe that “faith in our creator” (never mind what such faith encompasses or what creator Rubio had in mind) is the most important American value of all? Is a religious belief in an imaginary friend more important to Americans than personal integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence and fairness? The late philosopher Paul Kurtz described these four as moral decencies, expressions of general principles and rules that provide general parameters that guide our conduct. They are independent of and in no way associated with faith in a creator, though most religions support such standards. They are a lot more directive as behavior guides than a meaningless bromide like faith in a creator. What a steaming pile of doo doo – U.S. senators and other public figures should be challenged when they make crazy claims, not given standing ovations, as Rubio enjoyed from the GOP (God’s Own Party) faithful.

Why should we suffer politicians who profess something as offensive as the idea that belief in a creator is more important than common decencies? Suppose the next senator to speak at that convention was a Muslim and said, “faith in Allah is the most important value of all?” How would that have gone over? Yet, what did those delegates, or anyone for that matter, really know, based on evidence, about the practical difference between faith in one god or another? How can anyone with any sense not view a claim that the highest American value is faith in a vague, invisible and ill defined creator is nothing but babble at best, more more likely either delusion or insanity? (More of Paul Kurtz’ discussion of common decencies here - http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_23_1_1.htm.)

Does Rubio really consider such a value more important to Americans than “telling the truth, not lying or being deceitful, being sincere, candid, frank, and free of hypocrisy, keeping one’s promises, honoring pledges, living up to agreements and being honest, avoiding fraud or skullduggery?” Do we want a politician who is first and foremost focused on faith in a creator or one who is loyal, dependable, who can be counted on, who is reliable and responsible?

Do we want god-talkers like Rubio or representatives whose moral values elevate goodwill and noble intentions, a positive concern for others?

Does Rubio hold faith in his creator to be a moral value superior to any personal conviction he possesses to not kill or steal, inflict injury, be cruel, abusive, or be vengeful?

Is faith in a creator more important to Rubio than values that lead him to be kind, sympathetic, compassionate, lend a helping hand, do what he can to decrease the pain and suffering of constituents and otherwise contribute to the welfare of society?

We wisely devote a lot of attention to the grave dangers posed by militant Islamic fundamentalism. Muslim fanatics use religion to teach hatred of Western moral values and to wage jihad against infidels. This usually means those whose most important value is faith in the creator. Not the same creator Rubio had in mind, but when you’ve dealt with believers in one creator, you’ve dealt with them all. The creators are all the bloody same – figments of imaginations, one and all, with consequences sometimes benign, sometimes not.

Rubio’s nonsensical slogan reminds us of something Dawkins wrote, namely, that religion welcomes free inquiry, science and reason about as much as Dracula enjoys sunlight.

Major Award: Federal Judge of the Week, Possibly the Decade.

Posted on by
4

Loyal Readers™ may recall our most recent Coathanger Lobby update, in which we reported that federal Judge Edward Korman called the Obama administration’s decision to override its own agency’s recommendation to make Plan B One-Step emergency contraception available over-the-counter without restriction, “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” Judge Korman ordered the administration to make it as available as, say, toothpaste. Or condoms.

The Obama administration appealed that decision. But on the eve of the appeal deadline, it approved over-the-counter sales of Plan B One-Step for those age 15 and above provided they produce proof of age with photo ID. I wrote then:

In a noxious bit of lawyering befitting the sleaziest of the profession (and that is saying something, my friends), the administration relied on its brand new 15+ approval rule to argue in its appeal that the case is moot because the plaintiffs — who happened to be 15 or older —”now have access without a prescription and without significant point-of-sale restrictions to at least one form of emergency contraceptive…”

This was, of course, in direct defiance of the Judge Korman’s order.

I also noted of the new 15+ with ID policy:

It’s bad enough that this leaves girls 14 and under to their coathangers and friendly neighborhood Gosnells, but it isn’t even true. 15 year olds — particularly urban and/or poor 15 year olds — typically have no drivers licenses or access to other forms of state ID, and thus will not be able to purchase Plan B. FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said in an interview, “If a 15-year-old is unable to verify their age, they will not be able to purchase Plan B One-Step.”

Well. In an appeal hearing this Tuesday morning, Judge Korman did not exactly take to kindly to the administration’s disingenuous poo-flinging and rained down righteous scorn upon it — along with some primo mockery. It is truly a thing of beauty to behold.

Via Irin Carmon at Salon in a piece titled Judge rips Obama’s right-wing Plan B stance:

Korman repeatedly slammed his hand down on the table for emphasis, interrupting the government counsel’s every other sentence with assertions like, “You’re just playing games here,” “You’re making an intellectually dishonest argument,” “You’re basically lying,” “This whole thing is a charade,” “I’m entitled to say this is a lot of nonsense, am I not?” and “Contrary to the baloney you were giving me …”

As an aside, and as a public service to my Many Tens of Loyal Readers™, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is rarely, if ever, a good idea to lie to a federal judge.

Anyway, there was more:

He also accused the administration of hypocrisy for opposing voter ID laws but being engaged in the “suppression of the rights of women” with the ID requirement for the drug.

…

Korman made clear why he found that to be an inadequate compromise: “You’re using these 11- and 12-year-olds to place an undue burden on women’s ability to access emergency contraception. If it’s an impediment to voting, it’s an impediment to get the drug.”

This last point unequivocally reveals that the administration is acting here on something other than any sound principle: if ID is a barrier to voting — and of course it is — then ID is a barrier to purchasing Plan B One-Step. Judge Korman pointed out that in a speech to the NAACP regarding various villainous voter ID laws, Attorney General Eric Holder himself cited statistics “showing that 25 percent of African-Americans of voting age don’t have a photo ID.”

Voting age, as you may recall, is 18.

Korman did not say, “You lying hypocrites cannot have it both ways,” although he might as well have. Judge Korman also dismissed out-of-hand the suggestion that 15-year-olds could simply use a birth certificate to purchase Plan B One-Step, and on such painfully obvious grounds that I cannot even believe the government made such a stupid argument: a birth certificate is not a photo ID. Irin Carmon also points out that although the Judge did not note it, immigrant women would also be adversely affected by the ID requirement. Korman said:

”You’re disadvantaging young people, African-Americans, the poor — that’s the policy of the Obama administration?”

Why, yes. Yes it is. Unless, like other right-wing misogynists, the Obama administration next plans to make the case that young, African-American, and/or poor women are not really people. You know, with actual human rights, and stuff.

Oh, but there was still more:

The government has said it put the age cutoff at 15, because [Plan B One-Step manufacturer] Teva had asked them to in their petition. But Korman said that in previously unreleased correspondence between the FDA and Teva, the government had specifically instructed the company to reapply in that fashion after rejecting its first attempt to lift all age restrictions. When he tried to read aloud from one of those documents, a tense standoff resulted, in which Teva’s representative cut in and insisted that the correspondence was confidential. But Korman did get as far as, “We are amending our application to address the Secretary’s stated concern …” In other words, the new restrictions were apparently initiated by the Obama administration as a compromise move.

And he wasn’t done yet:

[Lawyer for the government Frank] Amanat argued that making a hormonal drug like Plan B over-the-counter was unprecedented, and that the public interest was served “when the government acts deliberately and incrementally.” Korman cut in sarcastically, “Tell me about the public interest. Is there a public interest in unplanned pregnancies? Some of which end in abortions?”

Korman also took a shot at Teva over the pricing of Plan B One-Step, which runs about $50, pointing towards Teva’s representative and referring to “Those price gougers over there.” Hahaha. Awesome.

Perhaps Judge Korman’s most astute — and most damning — observation is this one:

“It turns out that the same policies that President Bush followed were followed by President Obama.”

Would that the members of the federal judiciary were so inclined to take on Obama’s DOJ in matters of torture, war crimes, state secrets, drone assassinations, illegal wars and indefinite detention, instead of getting the vapors at the mere utterance of the words “national security” or “terrorism.”

Regardless, for all of the reasons noted above, Perry Street Palace is pleased to bestow its highly coveted Major Award for Federal Judge of the Day, Possibly the Decade, to

Hon. Edward R. Korman*
United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York.

awardjudgekorman

Congratulations, Your Honor. We know of no one more deserving today of this form of address: you truly do honor to justice.

__________

* Judge Edward R. Korman was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, which would ordinarily disqualify candidates for the prestigious Perry Street Palace Major Award for Federal Judge of the Day, Possibly the Decade. But in light of the above, the Palace cannot hold that against him.

Karla Porter and Shirley Phelps-Roper: BFFs 4EVAH.

Posted on by
21

[TRIGGER WARNING: discussion of rape, abuse and death threats.
misogynist language. weapons-grade mockery.]

WIS2

The Palace is pleased to be sending a small contingent to the Center for Inquiry’s Women in Secularism 2 conference next weekend in DC. The speakers include many writers and activists we greatly admire, including Ophelia Benson, Greta Christina, Vyckie Garrison, Susan Jacoby, Amanda Marcotte, Maryam Namazie, Katha Pollitt and Rebecca Watson (see more details here). Here is CFI’s blurb for the conference:

We find ourselves at a crossroads.

Around the world, the forces of religion and superstition are reasserting themselves, working to contain and even reverse the progress made in the cause of women’s basic human rights.

And within the freethought movement, nonbelievers and skeptics are passionately debating the role of social justice, particularly in regard to gender equality and incidences of hostility toward women.

Which is the best path forward? How can we best advance both women’s rights and secularism? How do we set priorities? What changes can be made to the secular movement to ensure true gender equality?

A powerful roster of speakers and panelists will tackle these questions and much more at the second Women in Secularism conference, presented by the Center for Inquiry.

I mean, if you were a godless feminist with a Palace, wouldn’t that sound absolutely fucking amazing?

Well, not so fast there, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. See that part up there that says “within the freethought movement, nonbelievers and skeptics are passionately debating the role of social justice, particularly in regard to gender equality and incidences of hostility toward women”? That’s a rather…nice way of saying that atheists and skeptics — both prominent individuals and groups — have been engaged for some time in a virtual war over the equitable and decent treatment of the women in these movements.

For some background, including details of the abuse, harassment, doxxing, violent rape fantasies and death threats to which prominent atheist feminist women and their allies are relentlessly subjected — by other atheists, of every gender — see How I Unwittingly Infiltrated the Boy’s Club & Why It’s Time for a New Wave of Atheism by Jen McCreight, and Atheism Plus, and Some Thoughts on Divisiveness by Greta Christina, in which she says:

A significant stream in the atheist movement — a minority, but not a trivial minority, and a very visible one — is actively devoted to driving feminists out of atheism.

…

And the reality for me — a reality that makes me sick and sad, a reality that I can hardly bear to talk about — is that, as a public figure, the people I fear the most, the people I am most genuinely concerned about doing me physical harm, are not religious extremists. The people I fear most are other atheists.

See also Melissa McEwan (This Female Atheist, and Where She Is):

I would say I felt exactly as welcome in movement atheism as I did at my Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, but that would be a lie. No one at St. Peter’s ever called me a stupid cunt because I disagreed with them.

Of course skeptics and atheists are a subset of our larger society, so it really should surprise no one that there are vicious misogynists and virulent anti-feminists among us. After all, an estimated 4% of Americans are sociopaths, and the vast majority of them are not in jail. The question from the godless feminist point of view, and a focus of the Women in Secularism conference, is what to do about it.

Over at PZ’s Palace, there has been a heated discussion going on about what would and would not constitute appropriate, ethical and effective tactics to use in response to reprehensible actions by nasty shitheads in our movement. The particular context for the discussion is that some flaming @$$hole named Karla Porter attempted to sic the Westboro Baptist Church on next weekend’s Women in Secularism conference. That would be the military-funeral-protesting, gay-bashing, Jew-hating, Westboro Baptist Church:karlaportertweets

Karla Porter tweets
@wbcshirl Have u heard of Women in Secularism 2 and if so, will u grace it with your presence? http://womeninsecularism.org #wiscfi

Shirley Phelps-Roper tweets
@karla_porter Where do they show themselves? Is there a schedule?

Karla Porter tweets
@wbcshirl schedule not up yet May 17-19 wash DC

When called out on her shittiness, Porter wrote a weaselly blog post, and later said this:

Some people are really bad at understanding tongue in cheek. Today I was accused of trying to sic WBC on WISC2 – let’s get real.

Okay. By all means, let’s get real. Karla Porter directly tweeted to Shirley Phelps-Roper, spokesperson of the fucking Westboro Baptist Church, to alert her to the conference. She sent her a link to its web page. And when Phelps-Roper inquired about further details, Porter replied to her with the dates and location. How that can be interpreted in any way other than “trying to sic WBC on WISC2″ is clearly beyond the capacity of my inferior ladybrainz to comprehend. Further, as the proprietress of a blog specializing in mockery, I am fairly certain that I understand “tongue in cheek.” I also understand that when typical shitheads do something typically shitty and are rightly called on it, they frequently attempt to evade responsibility by claiming they were, you know, just joking. YOU HUMORLESS FEMINISTS! YOU JUST DON’T GET IT.

If Porter were indeed joking, perhaps she might have tweeted to her own followers “wouldn’t it be funny if WBC protested the uppity feminists at the Women in Secularism 2 conference? hahaha #iamsofunny.” And if she were any good at joking, someone would think that was funny.

Now at this point, you are probably asking yourself the same thing I did: who the fuck is Karla Porter?

Well, according the online bio on her professional web site, Karla Porter is a self-employed “New Media Strategies,” “Diversity” and “Recruitment Strategy” consultant, with one of the top 1% most viewed LinkedIn profiles of 2012. Among her clients are several veterans groups, including Pennsylvania Women Veterans.

None of PZ’s commenters disagree that Porter is a flaming @$$hole for siccing WBC on the Women in Secularism conference. However, there is fierce disagreement on whether anyone would be justified in contacting her clients to alert them to her shitty behavior. Taste of her own medicine, and all that. I must admit I relish the thought of Porter’s shittiness coming back to bite her. And were I part of a veterans group, and particularly a women veterans group, I think I would very much want to know that the person I’m hiring is perfectly okay with siccing the military-funeral-protesting Westboro Baptists on a gathering of feminists. As I have said before, I believe that striking back against bullies using their own tactics is not in the same moral category as the bullying itself: it is somewhat more akin to self-defense.

Still, something about this course of action troubles me: by contacting her clients, one would be engaging in the same shitty tactic we condemn when done by her — namely, JAQing off to an organization whose actions in response may cause her direct harm — regardless of whether we are on the side of the (metaphorical) angels when we do so. But you know what also troubles me? Doing nothing. That is precisely how bullies get away with shit.

Ultimately, I agree with PZ’s co-blogger Chris Clarke:

Karla Porter is an amoral shithead, and if it becomes impossible to search on her name without finding that out, that’d be a marvelous thing. And I’m not an absolutist here: I think it’s fine to try to get, say, Rush Limbaugh fired — by a coordinated campaign waged on a transparent basis.

But people who set themselves up as vigilante employment enforcers do not speak for me. They’re legitimizing a tactic that has made my life much more stressful for decades.

On the thread I said that maybe I come out in the middle. I think mockery and ridicule fired in Porter’s direction is more than justified, and that perhaps I would spend the day pasting pictures of Porter’s head into pictures of Westboro Baptist protests while I thought about it, just in case I felt like posting them later. So I did. And I do. To paraphrase Chris Clarke, if it becomes impossible to search on her name without seeing these pictures, that’d be a marvelous thing.

karlaporter4

Karla Porter and some of the people she wants to sicc on a feminist conference.

karlaporter1

Karla Porter and one of her new associates who she hopes will bully and intimidate people she disagrees with.

karlaporter2

Karla Porter and her new BFF Shirley Phelps-Roper.

karlaporter3

New BFF Shirley Phelps-Roper and Karla Porter share a moment in the sun.

karlaporter5

Aww! The Littlest Bigot! Karla Porter attempting to get the kid to protest at a preschool full of kids she disagrees with.

karlaporter6

Karla Porter, viewing a selection of Westboro Baptist signs to select her favorites for the Women in Secularism conference.

Karla Porter and Shirley Phelps-Roper: BFFs 4EVAH!!11!!!

Just joking. You know: tongue in cheek.

Is America A Christian Nation? Not Yet, But According to a New Book, It Could Be – and Sooner Than You Think

Posted on by
3

[UPDATED] The ability of American secularists to maintain good mental health requires an uncommonThe 15% Solution capacity to resist the stresses and exasperations occasioned by a growing number of irrationalities. Daily, the people of this country are urged to think and act in ways that flaut reason and critical, evidence-based thinking. A few examples that come to mind include the gun fixation as expressed on behalf of weapons manufacturers by the NRA, a proliferation of deceptive advertising for medications, lunatic single issue campaigns by conspiracy buffs (e.g., the anti-vaccine movement), the threats to public schools from pseudoscience and pseudo-history, federal and state legislative initiatives that oppress women (e.g., anti-choice initiatives), movies and broadcast offerings that lend credence to psychic babble (and rabble), nearly everything communicated on Fox News or promoted by Republicans and, of course, the granddaddy of all schlock, religion. The latter can annoy in endless ways, from manifestations somewhat harmless (e.g., media coverage of all things Pope-related) to those that dismay (calls for prayer associated with tragedies and disasters) to the scarier cases that flaut Constitutional First Amendment safeguards and threaten our personal liberties.

In this context along comes Steven Jonas’ fictional non-fiction novel, The 15% Solution. Jonas describes how the Republican Religious Right, over a period of several decades, transformed America into a fascist Christian nation. Horrific stuff, but plausible enough based upon factual events commencing with the Reagan Administration in 1981 to the present time. Prophetically, this book was released before the North Carolina Legislature passed two thoroughly unconstitutional bills of a religious nature in 2013, one almost laughingly rendering prayer and fasting as state policy and the other explicitly declaring North Carolina a Christian state. (It was not signed into law.)

The 15% Solution employs the public record of theocratic statements, pledges and policies from leading Republicans and their allies on the Right to support details of a post democratic America after a theocratic coup. It seems a not-unlikely worst case scenario of off-the-rails religion-based government, a descent into totalitarian Christian rule. One overwhelming sense the reader gets from this book is that we are much closer to such a tragedy than most Americans realize.

While The 15% Solution has elements of the grim futures seen in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and George Orwell’s “1984,” the future that Dr. Jonas presents is most unnervingly closest to the dystopian order presented by Margaret Atwood in “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

This is a scholarly book with twenty chapters in three sections, extensive footnotes, a very lengthy preface, an extensive afterword and, oh yes, seven appendices.

Features of the 15% Solution that I found most captivating include:

  • The actual statements, pledges, threats and promises of Right-Wing religious zealotry over many decades. Those quoted include Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Patrick Buchanan, Antonin Scalia, John Kasich, Robert Dornan, J. Danforth Quayle, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, David Duke, Paul Weyrich, Randall Terry, George F. Allen and David Barton, among others. I believe we tend to dismiss comments such as the following from Pat Buchanan: “We’re on the verge of taking [the Republican Party] back as prelude to taking back our country – as prelude to taking back the destiny of America, and when we get there, my friends, we will be obedient to one sovereign America and that is the sovereign of God himself.”(The Nation, D. Corn, 3/11/96). Maybe The 15% Solution will lead more Americans who don’t want the kind of country that theocrats like Buchanan view as heaven on Earth.
  • The repetition of an “author’s note” at the bottom of numerous pages to the effect that “there is no indication or evidence that …” the parties quoted would have supported or approved of any of the events” described. Wink wink! The hell they wouldn’t. Steven Jonas knows they would, I know they would and readers will know they would love it. But, I suppose it’s wise in a legal sense to cover one’s posterior, particularly if everyone can have a good laugh about such notes while reading along. And goodness knows—the grim situation depicted needs humor. I don’t think there would be much of it in a theocratic, Taliban-like America.
  • The progression of the Republican Party into the American Faith Party, then the Republican Christian Alliance and finally the American Christian Nation Party.
  • The new national flag—a blend of the Christian cross and the old Confederate flag.
  • An extensive discussion of the nature of fascism in Appendix II. This word is tossed around a lot, often in ways that extend the word’s reach beyond recognition by an dictionary as well as out of line with good sense. Dr. Jonas makes it quite clear what it means and why he uses it judiciously and intentionally in this book.
  • The journal notes describing events by a concerned citizen showing how fascism arose in the U.S., the “national ancestor” of the fascist Christian state.
  • The inaugural addresses by theocratic presidents. If you think God-talk is bad now, watch out if the Christian state comes to pass.
Steven Jonas

Steven Jonas

There are a couple features of The 15% Solution that might diminish the prospects of the work becoming a best seller and wake up call for America. This is unfortunate because the widespread adoption of the work might promote the chances that this grim future will not come to pass. One is that it seems more suited as required reading for students in political science classes than casual reading for entertainment. It is scholarly and rich with substantiation for every major point advanced, including 30 or so amendments to the constitution outlined in detail that show the nation’s descent into religious fascism. Another is that it describes what happened in the past two decades that did NOT happen—yet. We all know that there has been no establishment yet of the apartheid state of the New American Republics in 2011. I wish Dr. Jonas had set the dates for these dreadful developments at least a decade or two into the future. But, that’s just a minor quibble—all the concerns remain and the assault on separation of god and government grows by the month. If The 15% Solution remains a fictional good read rather than an unerring secular prophesy of a fascist Christian takeover, I’ll be relieved and delighted.

Like a cancer, theocratic fascism is well on its way to being a serious possibility in America, and this book just takes the process a bit further than it has already traveled. There are no guarantees that our Constitutional democracy, our remarkably successful experiment of government of the people, by the people and for the people could not fail, as so depicted in The 15% Solution. Most of us have no idea how, exactly, to do what we are asked by political speech makers with the best of intentions (i.e., exercise “eternal vigilance” to safeguard our Constitutional democracy). People in the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court, and powerful institutional forces whose objectives are essentially fascist in nature, already have significant power in our struggling democracy. It is not impossible that there could be secessionist (Christian) states and even a civil war, once again. I’m quite vigilant already—how can I be even more vigilant, and effective?

The more we know about how easily it could happen, little by little and bit by bit, the better our prospects for defeating it before it gets too far along.

Kudos for Dr. Steven Jonas—three cheers for The 15% Solution.

__________

UPDATE [by Iris]:  The 15% Solution by Steven Jonas is available at online retailers Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.

Primo Krugman.

Posted on by
4

Today’s column by Paul Krugman in The New York Times is especially tasty. It’s well worth reading the whole thing, but I pulled a few quotes from it for the Palace’s long-neglected quote collection:

[I]n America, at least, we have a pretty good record for behaving in a fiscally responsible fashion, with one exception — namely, the fiscal irresponsibility that prevails when, and only when, hard-line conservatives are in power.

[I]f you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Barack Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes.

[D]ebt increases that didn’t arise either from war or from extraordinary financial crisis are entirely associated with hard-line conservative governments.

The funny thing is that right now these same hard-line conservatives declare that we must not run deficits in times of economic crisis. Why? Because, they say, politicians won’t do the right thing and pay down the debt in good times. And who are these irresponsible politicians they’re talking about? Why, themselves.

Here are a couple more Krugman gems I found lying around in the library, collecting dust:

America’s political landscape is infested with many zombie ideas — beliefs about policy that have been repeatedly refuted with evidence and analysis but refuse to die. The most prominent zombie is the insistence that low taxes on rich people are the key to prosperity. [source]

[T]he next time you hear serious-sounding people explaining the need for fiscal austerity, try to parse their argument. Almost surely, you’ll discover that what sounds like hardheaded realism actually rests on a foundation of fantasy, on the belief that invisible vigilantes will punish us if we’re bad and the confidence fairy will reward us if we’re good. And real-world policy — policy that will blight the lives of millions of working families — is being built on that foundation. [source]

He isn’t always right: the good Mr. Krugman was way off base regarding the effect of global trade on American wages, for example. But he is almost always right. And when he dishes out cold, hard facts to make a case for Keynesian economics, the conservatives in his narrative always seem to end up mocking themselves.

[h/t SJ]

Dropping like a stone.

Posted on by
Reply

[Cross-posted at The Political Junkies for Progressive Democracy.]

“[A]ny degree of ‘flexibility’ about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone — the rare exception fast becoming the rule.”
-Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, former commandant of the Marine Corps and former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, respectively.

The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment recently issued its report. Charged with “providing the American people with a broad understanding of what is known — and what may still be unknown — about the past and current treatment of suspected terrorists detained by the U.S. government,” the Task Force conducted a two-year investigation into detainee treatment under the most recent presidential administrations. In her preface to the report, Constitution Project president Virginia E. Sloan issues a bold statement: “We believe it is the most comprehensive record of detainee treatment across multiple administrations and multiple geographic theatres yet published.” The claim is all the more extraordinary given that the Task Force is a nongovernmental body working with no legal authority, no subpoena power, and no obligation on the part of the government to provide access to classified information. In addition to analyzing vast amounts of information already made public, the Task Force conducted dozens of interviews, noting in its report that with the passage of time many people have become more willing to speak candidly about their experiences.

The eleven members of the bipartisan Task Force were drawn from high-ranking former officials in the judiciary, Congress, the State Department, law enforcement and the military, as well as a few respected experts in law, medicine and ethics.  Its website states that the Task Force includes “conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats” — yet one would be hard-pressed to find a single lefty in the bunch. The Republican co-chair, Asa Hutchinson, was a Bush appointee to DEA Administrator (2001-2003) and then to the Department of Homeland Security (2003 to 2005), where he was responsible for thousands of federal employees in the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (%#&@!). It doesn’t get any more right-wing-law-&-order than that. Hutchinson’s Democratic counterpart, co-chair James R. Jones, served under Clinton as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, successfully steering the passage and implementation of NAFTA and overseeing new initiatives in the War on Drugs; previously he was Chairman and CEO of the American Stock Exchange (1989-1993).  It doesn’t get any more right-wing capitalist than that. If the word liberal is to have any meaning in our current political discourse, Drug Warriors and Free Marketeers do not get to claim it just because they slapped a “D” after their names.  Thomas Pickering, Special Assistant to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, merits an equally withering assessment.

Another member is Dr. Azizah Y. al-Hibri, a professor emerita of law and the founder and chair of KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. Dr. al-Hibri is an impressively accomplished person, but it is difficult — to put it mildly — to reconcile Islam with human rights, much less with leftism.

Then there is Dr. David P. Gushee, a professor of “Christian Ethics” at some faith-based operation in the State of Georgia called Mercer University. Without knowing exactly which Christian ethics Dr. Gushee espouses — executing gay people? murdering women’s healthcare providers? worldwide pedophilia coverups? — it is nigh impossible to ascertain what his political views might be. Regardless, I remain warily suspicious of theologians, mainly because for the life of me I have never been able to figure out what it is that they do. As best as I can determine, the word “theology” comes from the Greek logos, meaning knowledge, and theos meaning imaginary beings. I cannot imagine how this knowledge might apply to detainee treatment, but for all we know Dr. Gushee was appointed to the Task Force merely to serve as a cautionary tale.

Still, it can be considered a strength more than a weakness that the Task Force comprises people with whom lefties would generally disagree, for it is the centrist and conservative makeup of the Task Force that renders its two primary findings all the more remarkable — and believable:

Finding #1:  U.S. forces, in many instances, used interrogation techniques on detainees that constitute torture. American personnel conducted an even larger number of interrogations that involved “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment. Both categories of actions violate U.S. laws and international treaties. Such conduct was directly counter to values of the Constitution and our nation.

…

Finding #2:  The nation’s most senior officials, through some of their actions and failures to act in the months and years immediately following the September 11 attacks, bear ultimate responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of illegal and improper interrogation techniques used by some U.S. personnel on detainees in several theaters. Responsibility also falls on other government officials and certain military leaders.

The report details a litany of revolting abuses, including the barbaric deaths of detainees in U.S. custody, and much of it will be familiar to those who have followed reports on detainee abuse since 2001.  Nor will anyone likely be surprised at the actions of the Bush Administration, whose contributions to the U.S. torture regime range from blundering incompetence (e.g. Bush) to glib indifference (Rumsfeld) to enthusiastic sadism (Cheney).  After conspiring to engineer a dubious legal loophole for CIA interrogators to escape the grasp of the Geneva Conventions and rewriting the Army Field Manual’s section on detainee treatment to render it deliberately vague, the administration’s subsequent lack of consistent guidance or indeed any meaningful oversight made the worldwide horror show that followed virtually inevitable.  But where the report particularly excels is in tracing the pernicious ways that systematic detainee abuse — originally sanctioned only for CIA interrogations and only for a few high-level Al-Qaeda operatives — went viral.

John Sifton of Human Rights Watch is quoted with respect to detainee abuse in Iraq:

There’s been spontaneous abuse at the troops’ level; there’s been more authorized abuse; there’s been overlap — a sort of combination of authorized and unauthorized. And you have abuse that passed around like a virus; abuse that started because one unit was approved to use it, and then another unit which wasn’t started copying them.

There were, of course, many who raised objections, even very early on.  Such concerns fell on deaf ears, or worse:  in Iraq, a senior intelligence officer interceded to stop the brutal interrogation of a detainee by Army Rangers.  Another Ranger heard that he was “coddling terrorists,” and responded by sharpening a knife in his presence and warning him not to sleep too soundly.  In a statement to the Navy’s inspector general, Alberto Mora, the Navy’s general counsel, recounted concerns with “force drift,” which NCIS chief psychologist Michael Gelles had voiced with alarm:

[Gelles] believed that commanders [at Guantánamo] took no account of the dangerous phenomenon of “force drift.” Any force utilized to extract information would continue to escalate, he said. If a person being forced to stand for hours decided to lie down, it probably would take force to get him to stand up again and stay standing. … [T]he level of force applied against an uncooperative witness tends to escalate such that, if left unchecked, force levels, to include torture, could be reached.

It seems the Bush administration did excel at one thing:  dismissing anything that contradicted what they wanted to hear.  (See, e.g., WMD in Iraq, response to Hurricane Katrina, global warming denial, abstinence-only sex education, etc.)

It is chilling to ponder how easily abusive practices spread, becoming “standard operating procedure” very, very quickly.  In light of this, it is also chilling to consider the militarization of domestic police forces, the disappearing boundary between law enforcement and the CIA, and the undercover monitoring of liberal groups — particularly in the wake of the police brutality we witnessed against peaceful Occupy protesters, and their designation as “terrorists.”

The most disturbing statement in the report may be the Task Force’s third conclusion:

Finding #3: There is no firm or persuasive evidence that the widespread use of harsh interrogation techniques by U.S. forces produced significant information of value. There is substantial evidence that much of the information adduced from the use of such techniques was not useful or reliable.

All for naught.

Coathanger lobby update: the Obama administration, redux.

Posted on by
Reply
obamalogocoathanger

Hahaha. I crack myself up.

Loyal Readers™ may recall that in 2011, Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, overrode the FDA’s recommendation that Plan B One-Step — the so-called “morning after pill” that prevents pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse —be made available over-the-counter without a prescription for women and girls of all ages. The move was completely unprecedented in the history of the agency. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D., said at the time:

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step.  Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.

It is our responsibility at FDA to approve drugs that are safe and effective for their intended use based on the scientific evidence…Our decision-making reflects a body of scientific findings, input from external scientific advisory committees, and data contained in the application that included studies designed specifically to address the regulatory standards for nonprescription drugs.  CDER experts, including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential.

Despite FDA’s recommendations based entirely on sound scientific evidence, Secretary Sebelius hung her hat on the fact that ten percent of girls in the U.S. reach puberty by the age of 11.1 years, and noted that “the product would be available, without a prescription or other point-of-sale restrictions, even to the youngest girls of reproductive age.” (pdf.) For some reason she said that like it’s a bad thing, when it is, of course, the very point of eliminating age restrictions and other barriers to access in the first place. The Washington Post summarized her position this way:

Sebelius said she reversed the FDA’s decision because she had concluded that data submitted by the drug’s maker did not “conclusively establish” that Plan B could be used safely by the youngest girls.

I wrote at the time:

To which I can only retort:  hey Secretary Sebelius, do you know what cannot be used safely by the youngest girls?  The birthing process.  However, young girls need neither a prescription nor parental consent for that.

Flash forward to April of this year: in ruling on a lawsuit brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, federal Judge Edward Korman called Sebelius’s decision “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent,” and ordered the agency to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter without restriction.

Late yesterday, the administration appealed that decision. In the meantime, on Tuesday the Obama administration approved over-the-counter sales of Plan B One-Step for those age 15 and above — in defiance of Judge Korman’s order. In a noxious bit of lawyering befitting the sleaziest of the profession (and that is saying something, my friends), the administration relied on its brand new 15+ approval rule to argue in its appeal that the case is moot because the plaintiffs — who happened to be 15 or older —”now have access without a prescription and without significant point-of-sale restrictions to at least one form of emergency contraceptive…”

It’s bad enough that this leaves girls 14 and under to their coathangers and friendly neighborhood Gosnells, but it isn’t even true. 15 year olds — particularly urban and/or poor 15 year olds — typically have no drivers licenses or access to other forms of state ID, and thus will not be able to purchase Plan B. FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said in an interview, “If a 15-year-old is unable to verify their age, they will not be able to purchase Plan B One-Step.”

Let us briefly consider some facts:

Adolescent pregnancy is associated with higher rates of illness and death for both the mother and infant.

Death from violence is the second leading cause of death during pregnancy for teens, and is higher in teens than in any other group.

Pregnant teens are at much higher risk of having serious medical complications such as:

It is also worth noting that here in the Greatest Ever Country Ever in the World Ever, 10-year olds give birth. (pdf.)

The Palace stands by and hereby reiterates its previous pronouncement on this matter:

IF A YOUNG GIRL HAS THE GOOD SENSE TO SEEK OUT
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION WHEN SHE NEEDS IT,
WE SHOULD FUCKING GIVE IT TO HER.
(FOR FREE.)

The Palace also stands by and hereby reiterates its theory on the Obama administration’s otherwise inexplicable actions in this matter:

obamarepublican

Barack Obama: “NOW can I be a Republican? PLEASE?? Aww, come on guys!”

Austerity killz.

Posted on by
Reply

Kate Kelland at Reuters reports on a new book by Oxford University political economist David Stuckler and Stanford University epidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine Sanjay Basu, entitled The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills. The authors track the health effects of austerity policies in Europe and North America, and conclude that they are “devastating.”

Shocking, I know!

Incredible as it sounds, it turns out that government policies that vastly enrich plutocrats at the expense of ordinary citizens increase rates of suicide, depression and infectious diseases while reducing access to health care.

Look at Greece, for instance:

In Greece, moves like cutting HIV prevention budgets have coincided with rates of the AIDS-causing virus rising by more than 200 percent since 2011 – driven in part by increasing drug abuse in the context of a 50 percent youth unemployment rate.

Greece also experienced its first malaria outbreak in decades following budget cuts to mosquito-spraying programs.

But seriously, who cares about a 200% increase in HIV rates among Greeks, amirite? Most Americans couldn’t find Greece on a globe if their very bootstraps depended on it. Perhaps this might closer to home:

And more than five million Americans have lost access to healthcare during the latest recession, they argue, while in Britain, some 10,000 families have been pushed into homelessness by the government’s austerity budget.

Oops, I’m sorry — most of the fine citizens of The Greatest Country in the World probably couldn’t find the UK on a map, either. Maybe the coming malaria outbreaks and shortages of essential medicines will sharpen their geography skills. They might have to immigrate to Mexico or something. For, you know, health care.

David Stuckler’s previous studies published in The Lancet and the British Medical Journal linked austerity measures to rising suicide rates and HIV epidemics, but the central message of the new book is that public health need not suffer, even in a financial crisis. It’s a matter of government policy.

“Ultimately what we show is that worsening health is not an inevitable consequence of economic recessions. It’s a political choice,” Basu said in the statement.

Well. Apparently some people did not get the Bootstraps Memo. Rather than take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!11!!! and work hard at a well-paying job with fantastic health benefits down at the local bootstrap factory, some people would evidently prefer to be homeless, acquire HIV and/or malaria, and kill themselves at alarming rates.

NOTE: This post may contain lethal levels of sarcasm.

Lazing around on the Internetz.

Posted on by
2

Via the awesome Abby Martin, we learn that as the pernicious CISPA bill stalls in Congress, it turns out that the Obama administration has already secretly authorized and put into effect the worst of the bill:

Well, knock me over with a feather. On the plus side: Abby Martin is a badass.

__________

Speaking of badasses, Melissa McEwan at Shakesville has written one of the most succinct, well-expressed and devastating takedowns of the “principles” of economic conservatism I have seen anywhere. I was going to quote from it liberally (see what I did there?) but I will just urge you to go read it.

__________

If you are so inclined, please go sign this petition by navy Veteran and rape survivor Trina MacDonald,  urging Congress to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to move the prosecution of military sexual assault out of the chain of command.

According to estimates from the Department of Defense, 19,000 service men and women are sexually assaulted while serving in the United States military every year. But 86% of them never report their assault—too often because seeking justice threatens their safety, their job security, and their future.

One really shouldn’t have to report one’s rape to one’s rapist—or their enablers. Go do your good deed for the day and sign the petition.

__________

Without endorsing all of it, this is an excellent analysis of Why Things Happen that I mostly agree with. Short version: wars, lies and corruption are not the result of a “conspiracy” per se, at least not in the typical way we think of it. They are the inevitable emergent properties of a system: global capitalism.

Do powerful forces attempt to control events? Yes, they do. But these forces, in this day and age, are political representatives of a class—the capitalist-imperialist class. And they do not have total control.

__________

Irin Carmon has an interesting and provocative piece at Salon, in which she reflects on the intersection between toxic masculinity and terrorism in the case of the Boston bombings. Does it surprise anyone that friends of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s wife Katherine told NPR that he “flew into rages, calling her a slut and a prostitute and throwing things at her”? Or that he was arrested for domestic violence against another woman in 2009?

“Large public acts of terrorism are very public displays of masculinity, making a statement in the biggest way possible,” says Abby Ferber, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who has studied white supremacist groups and masculinity. In her work, she said, she often encountered a “vulnerability to their sense of masculinity whether it’s their relationship with their father, their culture. And there are a limited number of ways in the culture to show your masculinity.” In the absence of the traditional forms of masculinity — including financial or social power — “you’re more likely to see extreme means. They’re showing that they’re real men, man enough to do something like this.”

This is problem #423,752 with traditional cultures — i.e. conservative cultures: gender roles are distinct and narrowly limited. Where Real Men™ are defined by their status in a hierarchy and dominance over others, masculinity becomes synonymous with power and strength, and femininity with submission and weakness. This dynamic isn’t good for anyone in a healthy and diverse society. It’s a cultural meme that is self-perpetuating. It won’t die easily.

__________

Last but certainly not least, Glenn Greenwald has a revealing post about the San Francisco Gay Pride parade’s decision to ban any mention of Bradley Manning, while marching under the banner of some of the most corrupt corporations on the planet.

Yes, there will undoubtedly still be exotically-dressed drag queens, lesbian motorcycle clubs, and groups proudly defined by their unusual sexual proclivities participating in the parade, but they’ll be marching under a Bank of America banner and behind flag-waving fans of the National Security State, the US President, and the political party that dominates American politics and its political and military institutions. Yet another edgy, interesting, creative, independent event has been degraded and neutered into a meek and subservient ritual that must pay homage to the nation’s most powerful entities and at all costs avoid offending them in any way.

Budding fascists in the Democratic Party running the San Francisco pride parade: this is what authoritarianism looks like in the age of Obama.

__________

I think I’ll have a refreshing cocktail. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, you godless heathens.