Hillary Clinton passes the buck

"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.

In an interview with the UK Guardian, Hillary Clinton claims that immigration "lit the flame" of right wing extremism in Europe.

Fascism always rises when the ruling elite is revealed as corrupt and dangerously out of touch.

Yes, sometimes the arrival of immigrants who are fleeing violence or seeking a better life for their families serves as the perfect scapegoat to "light the flame". The Other is always the most popular villain. But it only works if there is kindling to light.

Western Europe is governed mostly by centrists, like Mrs. Clinton herself. Many large countries are run by grand coalitions that cannot or will not make tough decisions for fear of the government falling.

Europe could've found a way to accommodate the migrants in a way that respected international law without undermining national societies. But this coordination required the leadership that Europe's centrist coalitions were lacking.

It's no surprise that as Europe's non-leaders dithered, the far right seized power in places like Poland and Hungary and is rapidly expanding in places like Sweden and Germany. Politics abhors a vacuum.

And that's how the far right seized power in the US. The ruling elite was revealed as corrupt and out of touch and a charismatic demagogue filled the void. Who was the standard bearer of the ruling class when this happened? Centrist Hillary Clinton.

Much of what African migrants are fleeing to Europe about are economic morasses and wars created or exacerbated in large part by European neo-colonialism. Just like much of what migrants are fleeing from in Mexico and Central America are similar collapses caused by American neo-colonialism... including those helped by Barack Obama's first secretary of state.

Hillary Clinton giving a nod to xenophobia is really just her making excuses for her own role in the rise of the US far right. The fascists needed a shady, out of touch ruling class member to vilify and the DNC obliged them. Hillary Clinton was hardly unique in that but just happened to be in that role at the wrong time. But it does make her supremely unqualified to lecture others about how to combat right wing extremism.

Pro-civil rights senator's defeat sends wrong messages

You often hear people whining that elected officials have no independent thought, that they merely vote the party line, that they just stick their finger in the wind rather than do what's right. And yet when a politician does show independent thought, bucks the party line and does what he thinks is right, the public too often punishes him. The situation of New York state Sen. Roy McDonald is a case in point.

McDonald was one of four Republicans senators who voted in 2011 to approve a marriage equality law in the state. Without those four votes, the measure would have failed in the GOP-controlled chamber.

As a result, McDonald, who'd never faced a primary challenge to his re-election, was opposed by Kathy Marchione. As Saratoga County clerk, Marchione once pulled a George Wallace, threatening not to apply the same-sex marriage law if it passed.

Marchione very narrowly won the Republican primary. McDonald decided he wouldn't contest the general election, despite having a slot on the Independence Party line.

The most common criticism of his vote in favor of civil rights for gay people seemed to be that he went against the will of the majority of his constituents. This is debatable. But even if that was true, his vote was to respect his oath of office which demanded that he respect the New York and US constitutions, both of which contain equal protection clauses.

Another, more stupid, criticism was that McDonald only did this to get 'gay money,' after the revelation that gay rights groups had donated to his campaign. In reality, if he'd taken the easy way out and voted against gay marriage, he never would've had a far right primary opponent and wouldn't have needed the 'gay money.' Needless to say, much 'anti-gay money' was funneled to Marchione's campaign as well.

The general election will be interesting since Marchione, whose campaign was almost entirely based on her opposition to civil rights for gays, will face openly-gay Democrat Robin Andrews.

It was surely unpleasant for someone with such a conservative voting record as McDonald's to be so crucified by the neo-Taliban for a single vote. Still, it's unfortunate that he choose to not contest the general election. Instead, he let a tiny fringe kick him out of office.

Civil rights opponents are crowing about McDonald's primary defeat. But they should be careful to overestimate their victory. All three other Republican legislators who voted for civil rights and contested primaries won those elections, though some were subjected to some disgusting bigotry as well. Secondly, McDonald was rejected by only a tiny minority of his constituents, all from one party. We'll never know how he would've fared had he subjected himself to the entire electorate.   

Each New York senate district contains around 311,000 people.  About 14,500 people voted in the GOP primary. Thus, his fate as an elected representative was decided by fewer than 5% of his constituents, all from a single party, and only a razor thin majority of that rejected him. The other 95% won't even have a say. This is democracy?

Sen. McDonald lost his job because 2.4% of his constituents, all from a single party, didn't like the job he was doing. There's something about this that fundamentally doesn't sit well.

He should've stayed in the race. His job as senator was given to him by everybody in the district; his service shouldn't be taken away from everyone else just because 2.4% of them didn't like one of his votes.

Periodic Twitter update

Note: This is a series highlighting selected stories from the Twitter feeds for my blogs Musings of a (Fairly) Young Contrarian and Black Star Journal. The Twitter feed contains not only links to original pieces from my blogs but also links ("re-tweets") to diverse stories from other media outlets. 129 people presently get their updates this way. Those interested are encouraged to subscribe the Twitter feed to get all stories by going to Twitter.com/mofycbsj and clicking 'follow'.



-Poll: [NYS] Voters Say No To Raises, Yes To Taxing Rich (The Journal News)

-EU to sanction Cote d'Ivoire (al-Jazeera)

-How Glenn Beck's Twisted Worldview Goads Disturbed People into Acts of Violence (AlterNet)

-Australian Media's Finest Defend Wikileaks [unlike craven American journalists] (The Wakely Foundation)

-TX GOP Official Opposes Jewish House Speaker: Christians ‘Are The People That Do The Best Jobs’ (Think Progress)

-Indoleaks launched [Indonesian answer to WikiLeaks] (Jakarta Globe)

-Rwandan genocide finds release in photos (NPR)

-Julian Assange, like Daniel Ellsberg and Joe Wilson, Feels the Heat (The Progressive)

-Howie Hawkins says the Green campaign continues (GPNYS)

-Phone Companies' $100 Billion Rip-off -- Where Is That Hidden $6 a Month Going in Our Phone Bills? (Alternet)

-Guinea's [President-elect Alpha] Conde plans truth commission on violence (Reuters)

Homophobia today, homophobia tomorrow, homophobia forever!

"Heresy is just another word for freedom of thought." -Graham Greene

For a long time, I used to be fairly tolerant of people who were 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality or gay rights, so long as they weren't overtly hateful or malicious. I'm finding I'm less and less tolerant of that.

I had a 'Eureka' moment in that regard thanks to a family friend.

Recently, there have been a spate of highly publicized suicides by gay teens who were mercilessly bullied. There were other incidents such as repeated anti-gay comments by New York's GOP gubenatorial candidate as well as a savage hate crime in New York City against two people suspected of being gay.

Someone posted a column on Facebook in which a reader wrote to Dan Savage, politely explaining that he didn't hate gays, he just felt that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights. Savage gave him an appropriately angry and dismissive response.

I reposted it on my Facebook saying something like, "Bigotry, politely expressed, is still bigotry."

A family friend wrote back claiming that it wasn't bigotry and then went to explain that the guy's objections probably had something to do with his religious beliefs. And that's it. Nothing else.

And that was my "Eureka" moment. There really is no 'reason' for homophobia, except 'religious beliefs.' In other words, there is no rational reason.

It wasn't new observation but I guess it just hit me in a different way.

At its best, religion is a guide for how to treat one another. Much good has been done in the world due to the impetus of religious people. The black civil rights' movement in the US, being one of many examples.

But at its worst, religion is an excuse to forfeit independent thought. There are countless examples, both historical and contemporary, of this as well.

People who oppose homosexuality or gay rights do not have a rational, thoughtful reason for doing so. At least, I've never heard one. They simply hide behind the 'religious beliefs' argument as though it's a protective cloak that exempts them from having to come up with a real argument and exempts them from criticism. Being gay is not a choice. Being a bigot is.

Some people are under the mistaken impression that you are not a bigot if you aren't hateful or malicious or wish death up them. Some think that as long as you don't take the route of Fred Phelps or Bull Conner or the people who assassinated Matthew Shephard.

This is simply wrong.

In the old south, some lynched black people and launched hateful invective at them. Other people supported segregation but tried to be nice (within the context of society) toward blacks.

Yes, the latter group were a bit less violent and nasty about it, but they were still bigots because they supported a bigoted system and held bigoted beliefs. In fact, these 'nice' bigots were instrumental in upholding Jim Crow. They were the 'respectable' face of segregation. They weren't keen on violence, so long as blacks kept 'their place.'

Both of these groups of people were racists and bigots for one simple fundamental belief: that being black was inferior to being white and that the law should reflect that.

Similarly, even people who express their anti-gay or anti-gay rights position in a 'polite' way are still homophobes and bigots. Many of these people can tolerate the existence of gay people so long as they aren't gay in public, so long as they keep 'their place.' They think this is being generous. But no matter how they rationalize it, they fundamentally believe that being gay is inferior to being straight and that the secular law should reflect this.

In the civil rights struggle, Alabama governor George Wallace became a star of bigots by declaring, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Later in life, Wallace recanted his racist views. We can only hope that, 25 years from now, large numbers of people will similarly recant their homophobia.

Brainwashing children into being civilized... or scumbags

I don’t particularly care what Carl Paladino thinks or says (and I use the word ‘think’ quite generously), even when he’s pandering to one of the most socially conservative groups in the country. Maybe if I swore a lot and insulted everyone I could think of, that might make me qualified to fix the world’s 16th largest economy.

Carl may think ultra-orthodox Jews should set the political agenda, but most of the rest of us believe in freedom and the Constitution. Though admittedly that group doesn’t include the Bronx gang that savagely and methodically brutalized and sodomized a 17 year old they suspected of being gay.

Carl and others seem to forget that while being gay is not a choice, being bigoted certainly is.

I don't want children to be brainwashed into thinking that being a hateful, anti-American scumbag is an equally valid or successful option compared to being a civilized human being.


Update: One of Paladino's opponents, Howie Hawkins, rightfully denounced Paladino's scapegoating and bigotry. Hawkins compared Paladino's comments and the general mood within the GOP to the old Know-Nothing Party of the 1840s and 1850s. Their politics of fear and division scapegoated Catholics and immigrants. Today’s Republicans target Muslims instead of Catholics and people of color, gays, and Latino immigrants instead of Irish and German immigrants.

Barbarian demands to dig up Muslim cemetery... and other musings

"If fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." -Sinclair Lewis

Religion is a strange thing. It seems to bring out either the absolute best in people and the absolute worst in people. For example, it was Christians who were instrumental in pushing the black equal rights movement. And it was also Christians who perpetrated the Inquisition and the Holocaust and, on a less severe scale, are the most vocal opposition to the gay equal rights movement.

I found interest a survey by the Pew Forum concluding that atheists and agnostics in America know more about religion than the religious. It reinforces my suspicions that organized religion discourages intellectual curiosity by its insistence on deference to a central authority.

But this isn’t that surprising. My experience as a Catholic growing up depended greatly on the priests at any given time. The good clerics drew out the religion’s humanity. The mediocre ones never went beyond the realm of theory and scolding. Though this variation was counterintuitive to the principle of a universal church.

I wonder why anti-Semitism is (rightly) considered vile and repugnant but Islamophobia is increasingly socially acceptable... if not mandatory in some circles.

And speaking of Islamophobia, I don’t think you can demand the desecration of cemeteries and call others barbaric and uncivilized.

Apologies to Muslims

New York Times' columnist Nick Kristof published an apology to Muslims for all the hateful, defamataory and vitriolic generalizations directed at them by far too many citizens of the so-called 'home of the brave.'

Kristof begins: Many Americans have suggested that more moderate Muslims should stand up to extremists, speak out for tolerance, and apologize for sins committed by their brethren.

That’s reasonable advice, and as a moderate myself, I’m going to take it. (Throat clearing.) I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.

He laments that a Maine newspaper caved in to hysterical hatemongers by apologizing for an innocuous article that portrayed Muslims as... (insert menacing music)... civilized human beings. In 2010, that's apparently something to apologize for.

The Post-Star ran a similar, innocuous story earlier this month on the religious practices of a Muslim gentleman in Queensbury, which also provoked filthy invective. I'm no fan of the paper's managing editor Ken Tingley, but to his immense credit, he refused to apologize for a piece which portrayed a decent human being as a decent human being and as well as for denouncing the vile bigots.

I applaud Tingley for standing by the article and standing against the mindlessness. I also echo Kristof's apology to Muslims.

Bigotry today. Bigotry tomorrow. Bigotry forever!

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action." -Tom Smothers

Today’s Post-Star ran a seemingly innocuous piece on the religious practices of a Muslim gentleman in Queensbury.

But since the Park51 (the misnamed ‘Mosque at Ground Zero’) project has brought hatemongers out of the closet, there’s no such thing anymore as an ‘innocuous piece’ related to people of the Islamic faith... no matter how far away from lower Manhattan.

The comments on the article are pretty disgusting... especially considering how mild the article’s topic really was. Can you imagine the furor if defamation like this were directed at Jews or Christians?

I was raised as a Catholic. I was also raised as an American in a country founded by those fleeing religious bigotry. I can’t remember anything in my religious or civic upbringing that could possibly justify the sort of filth being spewed.

I’m not sure which fraud disgusts me more: that these bigots call themselves lovers of freedom, that they call themselves Christians or that they call themselves Americans.

Muslims around the world should know that the majority of Americans reject this barbaric hatred.

The triumph of hate: the US plunges further into the Dark Ages

”There’s nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.” –Tom Smothers

There’s was a lot of optimism that the inauguration of a not completely regressive (in rhetoric at least) president and administration might reverse the Dark Ages the United States has been in for most of this decade. Sadly, it’s seemed to embolden bigots and other retrograde forces.

It’s clear that Muslims are welcome to build a mosque and community center ANYWHERE* in this great and free land of America.

(*-This offer is not valid in the lower 48 states, Hawaii or Alaska)

Opposition to the fraudulently named* Mosque at Ground Zero was supposedly motivated only by (hold hand over heart) the fact that it was “too close” to Ground Zero... without ever quite specifying what distance away from Ground Zero would be tolerable.

(*-The community center would not be at Ground Zero. And the multistory building would have a mosque but only as one of many components. Calling the whole project a mosque is like referring to a YMCA as a swimming pool)

Subsequent events have laid bare the real agenda of these people.

Some news items you may have missed...

-Bigots torched the site of a proposed Islamic community center in Tennessee... this was after NPR reported on the controversy. The chief opponent of the TN mosque proudly displayed his ignorance by declaring, “We're Christians and this religion represents people that are against Christians.”

-The New York Times reported on opposition to similar Islamic community center projects in places as diverse as Florida, Tennessee and southern California. Apparently, San Bernadino, CA, is also “too close” to Ground Zero.

-Former House speaker Newt Gingrich recently compared supporters of the “Ground Zero Mosque” to Nazis.

-The Associated Press quoted the vile Gingrich as again fanning the flames of hatred with his comment that “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.” The AP also reported that Days ago, a brick nearly smashed a window at the Madera Islamic Center in central California, where signs were left behind that read, "Wake up America, the enemy is here," and "No temple for the god of terrorism." This past week in New York, a Muslim cab driver had his face and throat slashed in a suspected hate crime.

-Because of his refusal to fan anti-Islamic hatred (and perhaps his failure to invade any Islamic countries), an increasing number of Americans now believe the falsehood that President Obama is a Muslim. It’s not just that 20 percent of the entire nation’s population believe this lie, but that most would view this lie, if true, as an evil, horrible state of affairs.


The overwhelming majority of Muslims in America are peaceful, law abiding. They are respectful of the communities they live in. They serve on school boards and coach youth sports and serve in the armed forces of the United States. They consciously chose to live in a secular republic with a secular Constitution, rather than in a theocracy. They chose to live in America because they felt it had some appeal, not because, as the despicable Gingrich suggests, they want to undermine.

It’s clear that the far right and forces of Christian extremism are hell bent in alienating moderate Muslims, in pushing them into the extremist camp, solely to advance their own political ambitions. This is truly sickening and disgusting. It is against everything the Real America (if not Sarah Palin’s America) is supposed to stand for. This is not what my country is about. These divisive hatemongers ought to read the Pledge of Allegiance. “...indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL.”

It’s quite clear that the domestic forces of darkness and hatred and bigotry are a far greater threat to American values and civilization than some Muslim version of the YMCA.

Terrorism works by provoking self-destruction

There's been a lot of controversy about the mosque and community center to be built several blocks away from the Ground Zero site in Manhattan. Apparently, some people truly believed the line that 'they' hate us for our freedom so they're trying to remedy this problem by eradicating the freedom part.

Do opponents of the project object to its services for the elderly? Its day care program? The 9/11 memorial that it will house?

The religious bigotry underpinning the controversy has been whipped by venal, self-serving politicians, who are behind most forms of bigotry. The issue was first seized upon by Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino. These Republican candidates for governor are light years behind in the polls to Democratic front-runner Andrew Cuomo and they fabricated this issue in a pathetic attempt to get people to pay attention to them.

The hypocrisy was amplified when both of these 'men' proposed using eminent domain to stop the project. So these conservatives, who brag about supporting 'limiting government,' proposed using the government bludgeon to suppress both freedom of religion and private property rights.

Of course, the usual cacaphony of hatemongers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck didn't miss their chance to stoke the fires of ignorance.

Some claim that their opposition is not to any mosque/community center but only to the location of this particular one. Those this page shows some of the other things that are even closer to sacred site.

There are no doubt some who oppose the project solely because its location. Perhaps in an ideal world, it would not have been built so close to the former Twin Towers' site. However, as the project's spokesman pointed out, real estate in lower Manhattan is neither abundant nor cheap.

But the reality is that much of the opposition is really based on religious bigotry. This article in The New York Times points out that opposition has arisen mosque building projects in places like Tennessee, Wisconsin and California.

As a representative of a California mosque/community center project pointed out, local Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council. "We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.”
For some, 'too close to Ground Zero' for an Islamic site really means 'anywhere in America.'

If this is what Sarah Palin's sickening 'real America' is all about, then I'll stay here in the 'fake America' that was founded as a haven for religious tolerance and believes in freedom and other civilized values.

A good part of our foreign policy is based encouraging moderate Muslims to stand up for themselves against the violent, extremist strand of their faith and to support them when they do. So what's our strategy at home? To tar them all with the same brush. To act like all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and that they should all face the collective punishment of being allowed nowhere even remotely near the site.

Yogi Berra famously said the secret of baseball management was to keep the guys who hated you away from the guys who were undecided.

It's a good national security strategy too, one that conservatives would be wise to follow.

'Patriots' claim that freedom is for Afghans and Iraqis, not for us Americans

Earlier this week, a federal judge in California ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. This decision was not unexpected although welcome, as I've never heard a rational, compelling reason why the state should be allowed to discriminate against gays. The case will no doubt go up the judicial food chain.

However, some on the far right are so pissed off because of this ruling by a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan that they want to impeach him. They want to impeach him for deciding that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was still valid and should finally, if belatedly, be applied to this group of American citizens. A judge should be impeached for UPHOLDING the Constitution? Bizarroworld indeed.

Apparently, these self-appointed "patriots" believe that freedom (said breathlessly) is for Afghans and Iraqis, not for us Americans.

The Ayatollah Huckster riffs on 'less than ideal' gays

Social conservative Mike Huckabee recently likened gay marriage to incest and polygamy. Unlike some bigots, his argument was (only slightly) less absurd by his gracious omission of bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia.

In earlier comments, the former and presumably future GOP presidential candidate declared, "Marriage doesn't mean any and everything we want it to mean. In all the recorded years of human history it has only meant one thing."

Huckabee's misrepresentation of history is either deceitful or a manifestation of shocking ignorance.

For many years, humans in some parts of this country defined civil marriage as the union of two people of the same 'race' (skin color) while humans in other parts of this country did not.

In this country at this time (though not necessarily in the past), the idea of a man marrying a 9-year old girl is generally considered repulsive; it other societies, it's accepted practice.

Civil marriage is an institution of man (ie: humans), by man and for man and can be changed by man at his whim.

Civil marriage means exactly what we the citizens want it to mean which is why it's defined by man's law.

And in all the recorded years of human history, acceptable norms of marriage have changed countless times and, to this day, remain very different across different societies.

According to many people, 'God's law' may have a very different notion of marriage. But Huckabee would do well to remember that since we're not a theocracy, the United States of America is governed by the laws of man not the laws of his or anyone else's deity.

I've read that every species of mammal has been observed to exhibit homosexual tendencies except pigs. So basically what the Ayatollah Hucksters of this country want is for humans to act more like... swine. And I thought man did a pretty good job of that already.

A dream for Independence Day

I've always been an ardent opponent of all forms of bigotry and supporter of human rights. I hope one day that most of the African-American community will feel the same way.


Note: Commenter George Glastris opines: The excuses I just heard were almost the same as the white clerics in the South used to stand in the path of the civil rights moverment. If it weren't sad I'd be laughing.

I am so tired of gay and lesbians being part of other groups' struggles but when we want help we get slapped in the face. I wonder if black preachers would say "we want help with our struggle, but only from straight people."

Irrationality, bigotry and politics

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

North Country Public Radio ran an interesting piece about Democratic state Sen. Darryl Aubertine and the gay marriage bill that the chamber will hopefully vote on.

Aubertine stated that he was opposed to the bill. This is not that shocking, considering that he represents a conservative district; though it's worth noting that all four of the region's Assembly members (three of whom are Democrats) felt comfortable enough to vote in favor of the bill in that chamber.

Aubertine's opposition matters because the Democrats have a mere 32-30 vote in the state Senate and the potentially tiebreaking lieutenant governor's seat is vacant. So with the opposition of Aubertine and a couple of conservative Democratic Latino senators from NYC, the Democrats will need a few Republican votes to pass the bill.

Aubertine stated that he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But what's revealing is Aubertine's reaction when asked how he came to that conclusion.

He couldn't answer it.

The senator said that his belief was "not necessarily religious" but after several minutes of parrying the question, he never really stated what was the basis of his belief.

He also stated repeatedly that he's always been opposed to gay marriage and wasn't going to change his mind, even if that's what his supporters or constituents wanted.

I think the interview was very revealing. He basically admits that he can't justify his belief in any coherent or rational way but is closed-minded about it anyway... even to friendly persuasion from people who support him.

He admits that he can't really explain why gay couples don't deserve equal rights but that lack of a reason isn't enough to make him reconsider his position (assuming he actually thought about it in the first place).

I can't think of anything that more clearly embodies both the degree to which gut feelings and emotions, rather than rationality, control our political discourse and what exactly prejudice means.

Note: Many people describe their opposition to gay marriage in terms that are vitriolic and/or borderline hysterical. Some can give more-or-less coherent reasons why they object. Based on the interview, Aubertine really doesn't seem to fit into either category. The definition of bigotry I found was "an obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions." He didn't really give a reason for his belief, hence he was unreasoning. He openly admitted that he'd never change his mind no matter what. Hence he was obstinate. He may not be hateful or vile and that's not irrelevant. But the politically incorrect truth is that according to the dictionary, unreasoning plus obstinacy makes bigotry. If he objects to being called a bigot (even a civilized one), then I'd encourage him to stop practicing bigotry.


Update: Bob over at Planet Albany disagrees.

Sigh...

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Homophobia in action...

Gay teens treated as humans by their families less likely to commit suicide

For years, religious fundamentalists in this country have contended that the fact that suicide and drug use were relatively higher among gay teenagers is "proof" that homosexuality is some sort of mental illness.

New research reveals the rather unsurprising finding that gay children whose parents are accepting of them are far less likely to commit suicide, fall into depression, have unprotected sex or become drug addicts. The risk of such problems is also dramatically lower for kids whose parents don't force them into a bogus 'cure' for their non-illness. Notably, research found that these kids had fewer problems even if members of their family were mildly uncomfortable with their sexual orientation, just so long as they weren't belligerently abusive.

Researchers found experienced high levels of rejection were nearly 8.5 times more likely to have attempted suicide. They were nearly six times more likely to report high levels of depression and almost 3.5 times more likely to use illegal drugs or engage in unprotected sex. That was compared with adolescents whose families may have felt uncomfortable with a gay kid, but were neutral or only mildly rejecting.

So basically, scientists found that kids who are treated by their families as human beings, rather than human garbage, do better in life.

It's sad that this will come as news to some people.

The Pope's vile bigotry

People wonder why the Catholic Church is hemorrhaging both practicing members and clergy. Certainly, the Church's steadfast protection of pedophile priests severely tarnished its reputation in many western countries. Another part of it is that while the world and its inhabitants are entering the 21st century, the Vatican is stuck in the 17th.

Most recently, the Church's leader, Pope Benedict XVI, actually said that saving humanity from homosexual and transexual behavior was as important as protecting the environment.

I understand the Church continues to follow ancient Jewish law that stipulates that both sex and marriage should be done strictly for pro-creation. Got that all you childless married couples out there!

To be say that non-heterosexual behavior was a threat to humanity is both absurd and vile.

I am just one example of someone who was born, raised and confirmed as a Catholic but has consciously after much reflection (not accidentally or because of laziness) stopped practicing because of the Church's moral decrepitude. If you're a man who has consensual sex with another man, you're a threat to humanity. But if you're a man who rapes a young boy, you merit protection. This has been the Church's de facto stance for some time.

The Pope even said that words like gender identity and sexual orientation "create serious uncertainty in the law."

Worse yet were his pathetic weasel words at the end lamely trying to defuse the inevitable controversy. He said that of course "unjust discrimination" against gays should be avoid.

But if gays are the serious threat to humanity that Benedict claims, then shouldn't this threat be eradicated at all costs? What sort of punishment or restriction can possibly be unjust against something as serious as a threat to humanity?

Thanks for your warm inclusiveness this holiday season, Mr. Ratzinger.

A historic victory for... bigotry

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world. I would not violate my principles for God, much less for a crazy kaiser, a savage czar, a degenerate king, or a gang of pot-bellied parasites." -Eugene Debs

Tuesday's election was a historic victory for equality with the election of Barack Obama as the first black president of the United States. But there was a bittersweet footnote to the election that made it a not-as-great day for equality under the law.

The decisive margin in the narrow passing of a gay marriage ban in California was provided by blacks. According to The Los Angeles Times, 70 percent of African-Americans voted to enshrine this bigotry into the state constitution.

In fact, blacks backed this constitutional bigotry even more strongly than people who identified themselves as Christians, only 2/3 of whom supported it.

Blacks who supported this should be ashamed of themselves. It's shocking that equality was blocked by one of the group of Americans that's suffered the most from inequality over the centuries. How can you claim Obama's election was slap in the face to bigots while support a bigoted gay marriage ban? Blacks deserve human rights but gays don't? Disgraceful!

Being a bigot is like being pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. There's no somewhat about it. You have NO right to whine about veiled racism in society if you support government-mandated homophobia.

Anti-racism and anti-homophobia are not part of some sort of zero sum game where the success of one imperils the success of the other. There's plenty of room in society for everyone to be granted equal human rights.

Are we civilized or not?

If you support a progressive agenda, then support a progressive candidate.

I was interested to see that Gen. Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for president. A BBC report on the story interviewed one McCain supporter contemptuously dismissing the endorsement because "Powell was a moderate."

Perish the thought!

Perhaps the former secretary of state feels this is part of his penance for complicity in the Iraq Aggression, when he was the main mouthpiece for Cheney's and Bush's deceit. A mouthpiece whose utterings were made all the more credible precisely because he was the only respected senior figure in that administration.

As a moderate with a preference for diplomacy and multilateralism, he fit uneasily into the extremist Bush administration. Contrary to popular belief, there are moderates and multilateralists within the Republican Party. Susan Collins, Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel come to mind. However, their influence inside the national party has dwindled to almost nil. Some Americans believe that we are part of the world. The corporate militaristic cabal running the national Republican Party wants us believe that we are apart from the world.

While the moderate Powell may have little influence within the immoderate national party, his endorsement is likely to hold some sway with undecided moderate Republicans uneasy with divisionism and hatemongering, as well as conservative Democrats and the independents and smaller party voters who make up around a third of the electorate.

I still fault Powell for his complicity in help launch the most disastrous US foreign policy decision and one of the worst humanitarian crises in decades. I feel he should have kept his honor and resign rather than promote a course of action which, I'm sure, he knew in his bones would be tragic for America and even more so for Iraq.

His endorsement of Obama, who isn't quite a True Believer in the Gospel of Permanent War, isn't nothing, but it's too little, too late for the former secretary of state's reputation.

But Powell did do one thing for which he deserves enormous credit. Not the endorsement of Obama but his denunciation of the bigotry that has been whipped up by so many of McCain's supporters. There is the far right whispering campaign spreading the lie that Obama is secretly a Muslim. Powell took head on not only the libelous nature of the accusation but more importantly, the defamatory nature of its implication.

"[Obama's] always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is [a Muslim]?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?"

Good for Powell.

There's been plenty of hatemongering whipped up by the far right in this campaign. In addition to the religious bigotry inherent in the "Obama's a Muslim" smear, you also have bad old-fashioned racism.

Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan dismissed Powell's endorsement not because Powell's a moderate, a line which you might expect from the extremist yapping heads. They dismissed his endorsement because Powell was black.

I suppose the only solace is that as the hatemongering has increased, McCain's poll numbers have fallen.

For years, Republicans portrayed Powell as a true American hero. Especially when he was a shill for Bush's Aggression. But now that he's endorsed a Democrat, they've changed their tune.

Not that anyone should be surprised.

The McCain campaign and a good chunk of its supporters seem to believe (or at least want you believe) not just that Obama is wrong on the issues. They want you to believe that he's un-American, that he's a terrorist, that he wants America to implode, that he wants to hand the keys to the White House to bin Laden.

And to them, this applies not just to Obama but to his supporters too. The left-of-center doesn't belong the 'real America' that Sarah Palin said she was happy to be a part of. The 'real America' votes Republican, or at least conservative.

This faction views enemies everywhere. Not just political opponents, but enemies. They view the half or so of the country that will vote for Obama or another left-of-center candidate not just as misguided, but as traitors to America.

It is for this reason, more than any other, that you should not vote for them in November.

There are many decent people who have decent reasons for supporting McCain. But this sentiment being whipped up is extremely dangerous for our democracy, even if it's a minority of the pro-McCain crowd.

American civilization can not survive if half the country is demonized as traitors simply because of who they support politically. If you think otherwise, just ask people in Kenya or Cote d'Ivoire how that worked out for them.

I may not be an Obama supporter but the extreme right is extremely wrong. We are all American.

How can you claim to love America if you hate half of it?