View from the Loft

Hell No!

In light of the recent court decision regarding a public school's prayer banner that had been hanging in the gym illegally since the 1960s, my son's experience with the imposition of religion--specifically Christianity--in his school came to mind.

In objecting to the posters put up by an after-school bible club, he did not experience vilification, threats of assault and even death, ostracism, and elected officials spewing vitriol, as did Jessica Ahlquist, who acted as plaintiff in the lawsuit. (See here, here, here, and here, just for starters--there's much more.)

Jessica Ahlquist ran into trouble from day one. And the school administration was dishonest, claiming that the banner (which began with the words "Our heavenly father" and ended with "Amen") was not a prayer, just a "tradition." This fooled no one, certainly not people speaking at a public meeting about the issue last February. Speakers invoked god and insulted atheists openly.

Here's what happened in my son's case: the Hell No! club hung posters in the hallways featuring bible quotes, quotes such as "only a fool does not believe in God," and threats of eternal punishment for nonbelievers. Our son felt that these were inappropriate in a public school and wrote letters to the principal, superintendent, and school board. While I'm sure that some people thought we put him up to this, we did not. Ethan asked me to check the letter for spelling and formatting, which I did. I had no other input.

A few days later he was called to the principal's office. The school's attorney had been informed of the situation, and some of the school board members contacted a local college to see how such matters were handled there. The attorney  considered that featuring a cross on posters advertising a bible club was legal, but that posters suggesting superiority of a particular religion and containing arguably harrassing statements had to come down. About half the posters were removed.

As Ethan reminded me in an e-mail, "A few people were irritated about the signs coming down, but once I exposed myself as the 'squeaky wheel,' no one was really mean about it and some people congratulated me." I recall running into the superintendent and a few of the board members at a restaurant shortly after this happened and being complimented on our son's letter.

But as my husband pointed out, the religionists have gotten much uglier in the past couple of decades, so who knows what might have happened to him if the events that transpired then were to happen today? Whether it's the political clout of the rabid religious right or fears about a secularist minority that's becoming more vocal and less inclined to stay closeted that's causing such vile behaviors as Ms. Ahlquist has had to suffer, the godbotherers have gotten nastier and nastier.

There is a reason not to tolerate such expression of religion in a public school: as the courts have decided again and again, it violates the separation of church and state. Yes, I remember singing a little song in first grade that started with "Oh, the Lord's been good to me," but that doesn't mean it was right, and subsequently such religious artifacts in state-funded schools were ruled illegal. As they should be. The majority of Americans may believe in god, and particularly a Christian god, but the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority.

We were very proud of our son for taking this action, as I assume Jessica's parents are of her. It isn't easy to stand for what's right when the majority of your community is against you--even without name-calling and death threats.

To all those religious believers and promoters who tell the rest of us to shut up, I can only say, "Hell, no!"

 

Is anybody really surprised by this?

As many of us have long suspected, those who spout off about morality, "family values," the virtue of eschewing masturbation, etc., are not the pure spiritual beings they would have us believe them to be (link):

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Utah was the biggest consumer of on-line porn. Hah!

A few more interesting observations from the study:

• Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

• Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

• States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

I'd feel rather sad about the sexual repression this suggests, but I really can't spare any sympathy for these hypocrites. They condemn the very actions they themselves engage in, and not only in terms of on-line porn as investigated by this study. Look at the behavior of closeted gays in the GOP and among its allies: Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, and more--people who condemn homosexuality, who fight the very idea of equal rights for gays, yet who themselves engage in homosexual behavior. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies and divorce rates are also higher in these more religious, conservative states.

How do these people succeed in deluding themselves about their moral superiority over the rest of us fallen, sinful beings? How do they deal with the cognitive dissonance?

Beats me. I don't care how much porn they view, how many kids they have outside marriage, how many divorces they have, whether they're gay or straight, whether they live together without the formality of marriage, or any of that. All I ask is that they return the favor and keep their noses and their laws out of MY personal life and decisions. But that, apparently, is something the religious right is not willing to do, even if, when it comes to sexual matters, they have to lie, deny, and ignore their everyday reality.

We're number 53! (Worse than Mozambique)

Yes, that's right--the US is now ranked at number 53 in the world, along with Botswana, Croatia, and Tonga, when it comes to freedom of the press.

The press is freer in Mozambique than it is in the United States, according to the latest Worldwide Press Freedom Index, published by the Paris-based press freedom body, Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF - Reporters without Borders).

The RSF index gives each country a score, based on the degree of freedom for journalists and media organisations. . . .

But the United States has been falling steadily. In the first year the index was published it was in 17th position. Last year the US was in 44th position, and this year it is ranked as number 53 alongside Botswana, Croatia and Tonga.

RSF explains that this decline arises from the deterioration in relations between the Bush administration and the media "after the President used the pretext of "national security" to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his "war on terrorism".

RSF also points out that US federal courts refuse to recognise journalists' cherished right not to reveal their sources. This includes "even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism."

RSF notes, in particular, the cases of freelance journalist Josh Wolf, imprisoned by the US authorities when he refused to hand over his video archive; of Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj held without trial at the US military base of Guantanamo since June 2002; and of an Associated Press photographer, Bilal Hussein, held by the US in Iraq since April this year.

Let me remind you that we have heard calls for charges of treason against the New York Times and its reporters for publishing facts that the Bush administration finds inconvenient, and that, for the first time ever, the Justice Department (make that "Justice") is mulling over the possible use of the Espionage Act against journalists.

Yes, it's come to this. We're jailing people for telling the truth, because that truth casts the Emperor in a bad light.

Remember, under the recently passed Military Commissions Act, Bush has the power to call anybody he wants an "unlawful enemy combatant" and to arrest and detain said combatant forever, with no charges being brought and no right to legal representation, cut off from all help and subject to torture. Does anyone doubt that such power can be brought to bear against journalists? Um, make that, does anyone doubt that such power has already been brought to bear?  We know it has.

According to CPJ, at least eight journalists have been detained for weeks or months by Iraqi and coalition forces. They include employees of CBS News, Reuters, the AP and Agence France-Presse among others. At least four of the detentions have exceeded 100 days, Campagna said.

Freedom of the press is crucial to maintaining any semblance of a democracy. I'd say that here in the US, we've lost any claim to being one. Just as horrifying is the fact that the media have been willing, even eager, to surrender their independence and become, instead, propagandists. They barely protest when their own reporters and photographers are threatened or detained.

American democracy, R.I.P.

DoD's database on antiwar protests

I doubt if any of us are too surprised at the news that

The Defense Department acknowledged last year that its analysts had maintained records on war protests in an internal database past the 90 days its guidelines allowed, and even after it was determined there was no threat.

In Bush's America, this sort of thing has become expected. Not that it's without precedent: think of the lists that were kept in the 60s. But it's clear that, like all such activities, such a database is meant to have a chilling effect on dissent.

The documents indicated that intelligence reports and tips about antiwar protests, including mundane details like the schedule for weekly planning meetings, were widely shared among analysts from the military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security.

“There is simply no reason why the United States military should be monitoring the peaceful activities of American citizens who oppose U.S. war policies,” said Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U.

Joyce Miller, an official with the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group that learned that information on some of its antiwar protests was in the military database, said she found the operation to be a “chilling” and troubling trend.

Indeed.

Save the Internet

I wrote a brief plea yesterday for action on proposed legislation that would end the Internet as we know it. Today I'd like to be a little more detailed on just what this legislation would do to our beloved 'net.

Check out Steve Gilliard's post on the issue:

Also, there's been a lot of talk about blocking and slowing sites.

Think that's a small deal? Try reaching WebMD and not get it, when your kid is sick. Or being blocked from paying your Time Warner bill on a Verizon DSL line. Or being fired because your company is now paying millions to send interdepartmental e-mail and they have to make cuts.

The Telcos want to not only change the internet, they want to change your life. All of the things you now take for granted, like sending a text message via e-mail, or checking your mail on any computer, or seeing your kids homework assignment from pre-k to college course syllibuses. or that nanny cam or home security you set up.

This is not just about laws and computers, but your life.

Think about how we use the internet for the daily functions of our lives, banking, keeping in touch, dealing with distant workmates, ordering hard to find items.

Yes, that's right: an end to Net Neutrality will be the end of the Internet as we know and love it. Still not convinced? Okay, how about this, via Kos:

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. . . .

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control -- deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without net neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without net neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether people can choose the content and services they want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for them.

Save the Internet also points out that big companies have, in a few cases (the tip of the iceberg, indeed) already discriminated against content and competing services they don't like:

• In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
• In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
• Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers who want to use a competing Internet telephone service.
• In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

Please, please, read more about this and make haste to write to Congress and sign the petition.

Harry Taylor shows that the chimperor has no clothes!

Yep, Harry Taylor is the man of the hour.

Why? Because he spoke truth to power:

"While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice... about whether I can abort a pregnancy... What I wanted to say to you is that--in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened, by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency. And I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of youself... I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak... That is part of what this country is about."

WOOOOO! The Emperor has no clothes!

Go here to give Harry Taylor some love and gratitude. Now if only our elected Dems would show such boldness ...  Ahh, what am I thinking? Sigh.

Early warning signs of fascism

[For a fuller description of each of the characteristics Laurence Britt found to be warning signs of fascism, go here .]

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism. (Check.)
2. Disdain for human rights. (Check.)
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. (Check.)
4. Supremacy of the military. (Not yet there in all aspects, but growing.)
5. Rampant sexism. (Check.)
6. Controlled mass media. (Check.)
7. Obsession with national security. (Check.)
8. Religion and government are intertwined. (Check.)
9. Corporate power is protected. (Check.)
10. Labor power is suppressed. (Not violently--yet.)
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts. (Check.)
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. (Unless it's the president who commits crimes--check.)
13. Rampant corruptions and cronyism. (Check.)
14. Fraudulent elections. (Check.)

Add to that the lack of an independent judiciary, the declaration that laws don't apply to the head of state, and the gutting of the Constitution, and it's pretty damn scary.

"It can't happen here"? Think again

In an amazing piece,  "Who Will Save America?", Paul Craig Roberts stops just short of calling the Bush administration fascist.

Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. He worked for the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. What does that tell you about how far we have fallen?

You really need to read the whole piece, but here's an excerpt:

We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party (my emphasis).

[snip]

The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.       

The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself.

[snip]

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition.

[snip]

Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are not our protectors. They undermine our protection by trashing the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. Those with a tyrannical turn of mind have always used fear and hysteria to overcome obstacles to their power and to gain new means of silencing opposition.

He goes on to give as an example the no-fly list, notorious for its seeming senselessness--unless you believe that most likely, it's Bush opponents who are on the list. He wonders whether one day all members of the opposition party, "should there be one," will be on the no-fly list. And, he notes wryly, "If you can have a no-fly list, you can have a no-drive list."

He even questions the veracity of the official version of what happened on 9/11, something that usually brings on cries of tinfoil-hattism:

There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.

It's about time someone of some stature said these things aloud. But it scares the living daylights out of me. All I can think is, "Is it too late?"

The Bush Youth

  Frankly I'm too demoralized to even comment on this, so I'll let it speak for itself.  From the BBC:

A significant number of US high-school students regard their constitutional right to freedom of speech as excessive, according to a new survey.

Over a third of the 100,000 students questioned felt the First Amendment went "too far" in guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, worship and assembly.

Only half felt newspapers should be allowed to publish stories that did not have the government's approval.

. . .

The two-year, $1m survey across US schools - in which 8,000 teachers were also interviewed - suggested students held a number of misconceptions about the First Amendment, and were more censorious on some issues than their elders.

Some 83% of students polled felt people should be allowed to express unpopular views, as opposed to 97% of teachers.

Roughly half the students polled wrongly believed the US government had the right to censor the internet, while two-thirds believed it was illegal to burn the US flag - another misconception.

Take Action: Fox news

Okay, today's the day. I've wanted, and intended, to blog every single day for several days, but something else always seems to come up, something more compelling, like the fact that I didn't even know there were onions in that garden row until I started pulling weeds!

But today I'm taking up my old habit, never mind the dinner and weekend guests who will show up tomorrow. They can just plow their own trail through the cat hair, and I'll warn them not to open the refrigerator while inhaling.

Let's start with an action you can take to help fight the rank bias of Fox news. MoveOn and CommonCause want the FTC to stop Fox from misleading viewers with its "Fair and Balanced" slogan. They are collecting signatures for a petition to be delivered to members of Congress:

The timing of this petition is perfect, because Congress is beginning to take up the issue. This afternoon, dozens of members of Congress will be viewing Outfoxed in a special showing. Several members of the House have drafted a letter asking Rupert Murdoch to come before them to discuss how he'll correct the partisan bias at Fox.

Please go and sign the petition!

If you haven't yet ordered your copy of the DVD Outfoxed, which, according to MoveOn is the number one selling DVD at Amazon.com, you can get one by donating $30 to AlterNet.