Happy Labor Day!
Greetings, fellow Dot Calm Readers, Freedom Fighters, and Truth Crusaders!
Happy Labor Day!
This is the day we celebrate our workers and unions who fought hard for rights like safe work-places, 40-hour work-weeks, paid leave and holidays, and a host of other benefits that the corporate right wants to strip away from us. We celebrate heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr., who fought for labor rights as a civil right. We celebrate all the hard work that went into building this country--which includes the violently forced, unpaid labor of Black slaves who, as Michelle O'Bama so poignantly pointed out, built the White House she is now living in.
There's an AlterNet article (headlined below) that gives a brief history of the holiday along with some recent labor triumphs we can all celebrate (which I'll just summarize, so click through to the article to read the details):
The holiday was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland in 1894, days after members of the United States Army and the United States Marshall Service had killed 30 workers during the Pullman Strike. The legislation was something of an attempt to win hearts and minds: unions were justifiably skeptical of the government and the holiday was seen as a way to win some support. May 1st was floated out, but people already celebrated International Workers' Day on that day, commemorating the workers killed during the Haymarket Affair. Cleveland thought celebrating Labor Day on May 1st would encourage more protests, strikes and riots. The first Monday of September was selected to avoid further unrest.
This Labor Day is a particularly great opportunity to remember the holiday's history as 2016 has featured some major victories for workers. With the media, and many Americans, focused on the presidential election it's possible that they've slipped under your radar. Here's a roundup (as summarized and, as noted, editorialized by Dot Calm's shadow):
1. The Obama administration gave overtime pay to more workers by doubling the eligible earning limit to $47,476.
2. President Obama defied Republican objections to implement the Fair Pay & Safe Workplaces Executive Order, which will punish federal contractors for repeatedly cheating on wages and/or violating worker safety. By requiring companies to report previous violations when bidding for new contracts of $500,000 or more, the new order makes it harder for companies that cheat or endanger their workers to do business.
3. The National Labor Relations Board ruled that graduate students at private universities may unionize. Here's where I'll editorialize: graduate students are frequently and accurately described as the glue that holds universities together. They teach, grade papers, perform research, and support professors and institutions so ubiquitously that higher education as we know it would indeed fall apart without them. Did you know that government research relies on graduate students? The reason is that graduate students make academia a superior value for the money over industry for doing the research that the government pays to have done. The reason is that graduate students' wages (by way of stipend) are so low. Average graduate student stipends run around $25-28k for the academic year with another $5-8k for the summer. Compare that rough maximum of $36k/year with an industry professional scientist or engineer making upwards of $150k/year, and it's easy to see why graduate students are a good deal. However, it's often a very tough deal for the grad students themselves. It costs an average of $13k/year to rent a one-bedroom apartment and $15.6k/year to rent a two bedroom apartment, which can be shared by two grad students for a more manageable $7.8k/year each. For a benchmark, consider a rule of thumb in subsidized housing that housing should cost no more than a third of one's income. That puts a one-bedroom apartment out of reach for most grad students, and sharing a two-bedroom apartment is still so close to that one-third limit that they have to be quite thrifty to make ends meet if a stipend is their only income. I remember when Ronald Reagan started taxing graduate student stipends, much to the dismay of my graduate student friends (I was an undergraduate at the time). They were packed into apartments and struggling to scrape by, and Reagan made their lives that much more difficult. Not only was it a slap in the face for such low earners, but it was also a slap in the face of higher education. That was my introduction to Reagan's priorities in practice. The combination of that plus how Reagan treated women, Blacks, and other minorities is why I have never voted for another Republican since.
Even for those of us who are reasonably happy in our jobs (my threshold of boredom is so low that it's really difficult for me to be truly happy in any job for very long), a day off and a three-day weekend is greatly appreciated. I only want the same level of sanity and comfort for my brothers and sisters working multiple part-time jobs just to scrape by.
People are worth something, my friends. Everyone has something to contribute, and we as a nation need to honor everyone's contributions and pay them enough to live on instead of looking down our noses at them as unskilled and therefore undeserving, as Republicans like my Tea Party Christian friend do. It's the same argument they've used against paying women equally for decades--it is as if they think that their desire not to pay people somehow compensates for said people not having enough to live on. Do they really think that "unskilled" people need less food, shelter, clothing, or medical care than the fat Republican elites do?
This Labor Day, let's all work to pay everyone enough to live on and to have safe working environments and reasonable workloads--not just here but around the world.
Meanwhile, I was only waiting for today's "Democracy Now!" headlines to come in before posting. Figured I'd give yas a jump on the blawg so's you can get on with enjoying this beautiful day of rest.
Don't forget to read Dot Calm's shadow's favorite independent sources of news and information:
Daily Kos
AlterNet
Peas, friends. Please and thank you for being good to yourselves and for looking out for your elderly friends, neighbors, and rellies. I luvs ya madleh!
- Dot Calm's shadow
Consider the preemptive Blogger phuqued-up phormatting disclaimer to be in effect. Grrr.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
********************************************
********************************************
No choo-choo time today, so here are some articles for you!
Which party is better--and worse--for Blacks in America?
I'm posting this discussion because my Tea Party Christian friend swears that only Republicans have ever done anything to help Blacks. That's not the most ridiculous statement he's ever made, but it still calls for setting the record straight. To do that, I'm posting two articles from TheGrio featuring which presidents were best for Blacks and which were worst. The original articles omit party affiliations, so I've added them for clarity.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
TheGrio: The 10 Best Presidents for Black America
February 16, 2016
America has had 44 presidents, each of whom has had varying degrees of influence, for better or worse, on the lives of black Americans.
Some presidents have been transformational for black Americans: Lincoln led the Union into war against the slaveholding Confederate states; Harry Truman integrated the military; and Lyndon Johnson signed historic civil and voting rights legislation. Others have been destructive: Andrew Johnson’s refusal to carry out Reconstruction after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination set the stage for the failure of equal protection for America’s black citizens for 100 years; and Woodrow Wilson not only failed to act in the face of record lynchings (including of World War I veterans) under his watch, he screened the pro-Ku Klux Klan film The Birth of a Nation in the White House.
Historian, professor and author Blair L.M. Kelley says it’s hard to evaluate presidents, particularly recent ones, until the full impact of their policies can be absorbed. For that reason, she hesitates to place President Obama in a “best” context. “I think he’s not done,” Kelley says, but she adds, “he’s had a tremendous impact on the question of black possibility. He’s changed our minds about what we could believe could happen — about the possibilities of black citizenship. So I think he’s impactful.”
Kelley says that a “best” presidents list, to the extent one can create one, should include Franklin D.Roosevelt, because he had “such a tremendous impact on Americans, and African-Americans long term, in terms of changing what’s really possible for government to do.” And she’d include Lyndon Johnson, about whom she says, “if he didn’t have Vietnam, I think he would have been what he wanted to be — which was the fruition of FDR’s vision for antipoverty programs. He brings it full circle, to make [those programs] really inclusive of African-Americans. And he passes all of the substantive civil rights legislation of the modern era; he puts Thurgood Marshall on the court.”
As for the worst? Kelley says that list could include the presidents who failed to carry out Reconstruction, along with Richard Nixon, who brought the surveillance state to bear on black leaders.
With all of that as a backdrop, below are theGrio’s picks for the presidents whose policies made a difference for African-Americans, for the better.
- 10. Bill Clinton, D (1993-2001): Though he was dubbed the first black president by writer Toni Morrison in 1998, Clinton had a complicated relationship with black America. Still, Clinton presided over record prosperity, the lowest level of black unemployment ever (7.2 percent), and historic reductions in poverty. But perhaps more than anything, it was Clinton’s unprecedented, comfortable approach to black people that earned him points.
9. John Quincy Adams, Democratic-Republican (1825–1829): The sixth president of the United States (and son of the second) made much of his impact on black America after he left office. Having run successfully for Congress, the former president was a strong abolitionist voice and even represented a group of Africans who had staged a revolt on the slave ship Amistad in their successful bid for freedom before the Supreme Court.
8. Ulysses S. Grant, R (1869–1877): Elected president as the heroic commander of Northern troops who sealed the surrender of the Confederacy, and following the disastrous presidency of Abraham Lincoln’s vice president, Andrew Johnson, Grant is considered the strongest advocate for African-Americans of any 19th century president, even fighting for the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave black Americans the right to vote.
7. Franklin D. Roosevelt, D (1933–1945): FDR was no crusader for African-American civil rights and tolerated segregationist policies in order to secure passage of the New Deal. But Roosevelt did sign a pair of 1941 executive orders that set the stage for generations of economic opportunity for black Americans by barring discrimination in hiring by federal agencies and contractors.
6. John F. Kennedy, D (1961-1963): Though he was elected with 70 percent of the black vote in 1960, JFK was initially cautious on civil rights. Still, he made historic black appointments to his administration and sent federal troops to protect the Freedom Riders, to aid James Meredith in integrating Ole Miss, and to confront Bull Connor in Alabama. It was Kennedy’s vision for civil rights legislation that was ultimately signed by Lyndon Johnson.
5. Harry Truman, D (1945–1953): Truman was the first president since Ulysses S. Grant to directly address civil rights. Although known to have expressed racist views, Truman nonetheless created a civil rights commission in 1946 that issued a report, “To Secure These Rights,” that finally examined violence against African-Americans within the U.S. He issued executive orders that ordered the integration of the armed forces and banned discrimination in the civil service.
4. Dwight Eisenhower, R (1953-1961): The Texas-born war hero signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which created the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Eisenhower sent federal troops to help the Little Rock Nine integrate Central High School, and though he came to civil rights reluctantly, Ike swiftly made the armed forces fully implement the racial integration ordered by Harry Truman 15 years earlier.
3. Barack Obama, D (2009-Present): If it’s possible to be transformational simply by “being,” President Obama has done so. The nation’s first black president made history by winning the presidency in 2008, giving African-Americans a true sense full inclusion in the fabric of the country. He is still building his legacy, but the stimulus, education reform, saving the Detroit auto industry, his signature Affordable Care Act, his executive action on immigration and other programs have benefited black Americans, despite a slow recovering economy.
2. Lyndon Johnson, D (1963–1969): Johnson broke a southern Democratic filibuster to push through the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and his War on Poverty produced such programs as Head Start, which gave millions of children a chance to escape poverty. Not to mention signing Medicaid and Medicare, which lifted millions of blacks out of poverty.
1. Abraham Lincoln, R (1861-1865): Though his personal views of blacks were no different than most other whites of his time, Lincoln’s opposition to slavery, and his decision to go to war against the states that seceded from the nation to protect their “peculiar institution,” made him the liberator of the country’s former slaves.
I count six Democrats to three modern-day Republicans, four if you count John Quincy Adams (click through on the link I added to read the party description and see where you think he falls on the spectrum). I don't think it's a stretch to say that presidents reflect the values of their respective parties, meaning that, if more of the presidents who've helped Black America were Democrats, then it's safe to say that Democratic policies are more helpful to Blacks than Republican policies are. My Tea Party Christian friend refuses to understand the shift that his beloved party has undergone since Lincoln. TheGrio's article on the 10 worst presidents for Blacks that makes the point clearly: Democrats used to be worse for Blacks but have come to be best for Blacks; in recent decades, Republicans have become worse for Blacks. The trend here is important, friends--Republicans have been openly hostile and actively harmful to Blacks from Nixon forward, which includes today. Since the article is a slideshow, I've compiled the list. Some of what these men said and did is appalling. Yikes!
-- Dot Calm's shadow
The 10 Worst Presidents for Black America
Richard M. Nixon, R (1969-1974): Despite his conservative reputation, Nixon actually had a decent record on civil rights. But he embraced racial fear tactics as a candidate (“the Southern Strategy”) and in private recordings revealed sick racial views. In one tape he said, “there are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white.”
Ronald Reagan, R (1981-1989): Reagan alienated African-Americans as a candidate, launching his 1980 campaign in the same town where civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 (where he declared support for “states’ rights”). As president he largely turned a blind eye towards the outbreak of HIV/AIDs, the crack epidemic and a massive rise in inner-city poverty.
George W. Bush, R (2001-2009): His policies helped hasten the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, putting millions of African-Americans out of work. He was also openly hostile towards the NAACP. Still, it was this president’s initial indifference to the fallout of Hurricane Katrina that will forever leave a black mark on his presidency.
Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican (1801–1809): As a Founding Father, Jefferson railed against the institution of slavery yet he hypocritically remained a slaveowner his entire life (and never freed his slaves). As president he continued to believe in white racial superiority.
Andrew Jackson, D (1829-1837): While Jackson’s cruelty to Native Americans is well documented (“The Trail of Tears”) he also fought abolitionists at every turn. He accused them of “wicked attempts” to incite slave rebellions and suppressed their publications.
Millard Fillmore, Whig (1850–1853): While Fillmore’s brief presidency was hardly memorable, his authorization of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 had painful and terrifying consequences for 19th century blacks.
Franklin Pierce, D (1853–1857): The undistinguished Pierce installed the future leader of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, as secretary of war. He sided with pro-slavery advocates throughout his presidency and authorized the expansion of slavery into new territories with the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
James Buchanan, D (1857–1861): Consistently ranking among the worst U.S. presidents of all time, Buchanan tried to straddle both sides on the slavery issue and wound up being more sympathetic to the South, setting the stage for the Civil War.
Woodrow Wilson, D (1913-1921): Wilson institutionalized segregation in Washington D.C. He infamously hosted a screening of the pro-KKK The Birth of a Nation at the White House and praised its authenticity. He believed “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit,” and presided over one of the deadliest eras for African-Americans.
Andrew Johnson, National Union (1865-1869): "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men," Johnson once said. And unfortunately, he kept his word. One of America's most unpopular presidents, he set about undoing much of the progressive Lincoln initiatives on behalf of freed slaves.
Again, as the last six Democrats have been among the best for Blacks, the last three Republican presidents have been among the worst for Blacks. "What have you done lately?" counts here, folks--which now includes institutionalized BLACK VOTER SUPPRESSION in many Republican-run states, as we saw gain popularity in the 2000 election. It's unfortunate that my Tea Party Christian friend would rather twist history than face facts because he knows he's on the wrong side. What a shame.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
------------------------------------------------
Corporations willfully hiding data on their harmful products? That's nothing new!
I've seen recent articles saying that Exxon has known the relationship between fossil fuels and global warming for decades now, obstructing public access to the truth (below). Here's an earlier example of the same: cigarette makers knowing but denying the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The original article is lengthy, so I'm posting excerpts below. Click here to read the whole thing.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
Tob Control 2012;21:87-91 doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050338
-
The shameful past
The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll
- Correspondence to Dr Robert N Proctor, History Department, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA; rproctor@stanford.edu
- Received 5 July 2011
- Accepted 22 November 2011
What this paper adds
- This paper reviews the converging lines of evidence that led to the recognition that smoking is the major cause of lung cancer.
- It also shows that the non-scholarly public was slower than scholars and medical professionals to recognise tobacco harms.
- The point is made that part of that lag can be traced to campaigns mounted by the industry to manufacture doubt.
- The point is also made that global tobacco use would be declining were it not for China, which now accounts for about 40 percent of all cigarettes sold (and smoked).
- Deaths caused by some of the world's largest tobacco factories are calculated, and the value of a human life for a cigarette manufacturer is shown to be about $10 000.
Abstract
Lung cancer was once a very rare disease, so rare that doctors took special notice when confronted with a case, thinking it a once-in-a-lifetime oddity. Mechanisation and mass marketing towards the end of the 19th century popularised the cigarette habit, however, causing a global lung cancer epidemic. Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular pathology and chemical analytics. Cigarette manufacturers disputed this evidence, as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to salvage cigarette sales. Propagandising the public proved successful, judging from secret tobacco industry measurements of the impact of denialist propaganda. As late as 1960 only one-third of all US doctors believed that the case against cigarettes had been established. The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation. Cigarettes cause about 1 lung cancer death per 3 or 4 million smoked, which explains why the scale of the epidemic is so large today. Cigarettes cause about 1.5 million deaths from lung cancer per year, a number that will rise to nearly 2 million per year by the 2020s or 2030s, even if consumption rates decline in the interim. Part of the ease of cigarette manufacturing stems from the ubiquity of high-speed cigarette making machines, which crank out 20 000 cigarettes per min. Cigarette makers make about a penny in profit for every cigarette sold, which means that the value of a life to a cigarette maker is about US$10 000.
What is a human life worth to a cigarette manufacturer?
Cigarettes cause about one death per million smoked35 with a latency of about 25 years, which is why the 6 trillion smoked in 1990 will cause about 6 million deaths in 2015. That's one death every 5 seconds. One-third or one-quarter of those deaths will be from lung cancer; about one every 15 or 20 s.
This relationship is fairly consistent in different parts of the world, given the homogeneity of cigarettes and how similarly they are smoked. It also means we can generate some interesting equivalences. Cigarettes typically come in 20 sticks per pack, with 200 sticks per carton, 10 000 sticks per master case and 10 million sticks per container. A 12 m (40 ft) container of the sort shipped overseas or trucked by highway houses 10 million cigarettes, which means that each container will cause about 10 deaths.
We can also think about this in terms of the rate at which cigarettes are smoked. A total of 6 trillion cigarettes are smoked every year, and if each cigarette is about 60 mm (counting only the part that is smoked), this means that 360 trillion mm of cigarettes are smoked per year. Converting this, 360 trillion mm is 360 billion m, or 360 million km. Imagined as one long rod, this means that cigarettes are smoked at a rate of 360 million km per year, which is more than 10 km/s. Cigarettes are smoked at a rate equal to the speed at which satellites orbit the earth.
We can also think about the deaths caused per unit weight of stuffing. Cigarettes contain about two-thirds of a gram of tobacco, which means that if it takes 3 million cigarettes to cause one lung cancer, it takes about 2 million g—or 2 metric tonnes—to cause one lung cancer. A typical tobacco farm yields about 2 tonnes per hectare, so a 10-hectare field will cause about 10 lung cancer deaths/year. And 20 additional deaths from heart attacks, gangrene of the feet, cancers of the bladder and oral cavity, etc.
Finally, we can also think about this in terms of the value of a life as assumed by tobacco manufacturers. Cigarette companies make about a penny in profit for every cigarette sold, or about US$10 000 for every million cigarettes purchased. Since there is one death for every million cigarettes sold (or smoked), a tobacco manufacturer will make about US$10 000 for every death caused by their products. Otherwise put: a cigarette manufacturer will not forgo US$10 000 in profit, even if this means the death of one of their customers. The value of a human life to a cigarette manufacturer is therefore about US$10 000.
Hey, at least you're worth more to cigarette makers than you are to God:
1 month-5 years old:
males = $50, females = $30.
5-20 years old:
males = $200, females = $100.
20-60 years old:
males = $500, females = $300.
Over 60 years old:
males = $150, females = $100.
As I said in that post, "Don't tell the insurance companies that this is all people are worth!"
------------------------------------------------
From Scientific American
Again, I'm only going to pop a few excerpts here. The full article is well worth reading.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
By Shannon Hall on October 26, 2015
Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.
In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.
One thing is certain: in June 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that the planet was already warming, Exxon remained publicly convinced that the science was still controversial. Furthermore, experts agree that Exxon became a leader in campaigns of confusion. By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty. At that point, “a lot of things unraveled,” Oreskes says.
Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”
Experts agree that the damage is huge, which is why they are likening Exxon’s deception to the lies spread by the tobacco industry. “I think there are a lot of parallels,” Kimmell says. Both sowed doubt about the science for their own means, and both worked with the same consultants to help develop a communications strategy. He notes, however, that the two diverge in the type of harm done. Tobacco companies threatened human health, but the oil companies threatened the planet’s health. “It’s a harm that is global in its reach,” Kimmel says.
To prove this, Bob Ward—who on behalf of the U.K.’s Royal Academy sent a letter to Exxon in 2006 claiming its science was “inaccurate and misleading”—thinks a thorough investigation is necessary. “Because frankly the episode with tobacco was probably the most disgraceful episode one could ever imagine,” Ward says. Kimmell agrees. These reasons “really highlight the responsibility that these companies have to come clean, acknowledge this, and work with everyone else to cut out emissions and pay for some of the cost we're going to bear as soon as possible,” Kimmell says.
Again, click the link to read the full article. Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" interviewed InsideClimate News--the organization that performed the investigation--later that year (December 2015). The full transcript for the interview is here.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
------------------------------------------------
Woman who viciously beat her child with a coat hanger cites Indiana's religious freedom law
Most of us here remember vice
presidential candidate Mike Pence as Governor Mike Pence the wicked
homophobe who signed one of the most discriminatory and backwards laws
into Indiana’s books—the anti-LGBT “religious freedom” law. The
law was such a perfect example of terrible phobic and awful thinking
and fear, that it’s been very difficult to express how far-reaching
and punishing this law can be. Unfortunately, a troubled woman has been able to add to the reasons this law is so perfectly terrible.
Trigger warning: Before you go below the fold the image you will see is of someone’s back that’s been “religiously” and “culturally” punished.
An Indianapolis woman who beat her 7-year-old son with a coat hanger is citing Indiana's religious freedom law as a defense against felony child abuse charges, saying her choice of discipline comes straight from her evangelical Christian beliefs.Guess what? Your evangelical beliefs are criminal and you need counseling and probably jail time. A doctor who checked out the little boy counted 36 bruises, including hook marks on his face, arms, and back. Thaing is a Burmese refugee and is also arguing that there are major cultural differences between the United States and Burma as a defense.
The woman quoted biblical Scripture in court documents. She said that a parent who "spares the rod, spoils the child," and: "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol."
Elaisa Vahnie, executive director of the Burmese American Community Institute on the south side, expressed regret for the injuries suffered by Thaing's son while noting that what might be seen as a crime in Indiana may be considered typical parenting in Burma, which is now known as Myanmar.Elaisa Vahnie might start by saying that the criminal act of abusing your children is “culturally accepted” in Burma, but it is criminal—this is abuse by any standard. The real question here is what to do. If there is indeed a census amongst the Burmese community that this activity wasn’t beyond the pale, then how do you educate this new community before every single family is separated and all of the parents are in jail? Personally, I have my suspicions about this case—the woman by all accounts did not think about beating her child, she just started beating him in a fit of frustration. Complicating matters is the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision to make child abuse kind of legal in Indiana, from back in 2008:
"It's a matter of cultural practice," Vahnie said. "Sometimes you use a stick to correct them (in Burma). That's very normal."
The religious freedom claim is half of a one-two defense offered by Thaing's lawyer. The other half leans on a 2008 Indiana Supreme Court decision that affirmed the parental right to discipline children in ways parents consider appropriate, even when others could deem that behavior as excessive.It seems as if the defense is hedging its bets because the beating was so clearly severe.
In 2008, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled 3-1 to overturn the felony conviction of Sophia Willis, who used a belt or an electrical cord to discipline her 11-year-old son. (The mom said belt, the son said cord; the court ruled it did not matter.)
Trigger warning: Before you go below the fold the image you will see is of someone’s back that’s been “religiously” and “culturally” punished.
AlterNet has a great article on this case, too: click here to read it.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
------------------------------------------------
From AlterNet
Again, another great, detailed article but some excerpts here. I've bolded some points for emphasis.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
Noam Chomsky's 8-Point Rationale for Voting for the Lesser Evil Presidential Candidate
Critics of "lesser evil voting" should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted.
The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.
A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.
Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the Lesser-Evil Voting (LEV) choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.
1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.
5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.
6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.
7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.
8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.
------------------------------------------------
From AlterNet
Poor? Female? Trump wants to revoke your right to vote. That's right, folks...Donald J. Trump would actually revoke the rights of his biggest base: whites on the dole. If that's not ironic, I dunno what is.
-- Dot Calm's shadow
Voting Rights for Women Should Be Revoked According to How They Obtain Their Birth Control, Says Author of ‘Handbook for the Trump Revolution’
September 2, 2016
Photo Credit: Skyhorse Publishing
When Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump needs an emcee for a rally in Nevada, he turns to radio personality Wayne Allyn Root, author of the recently published book Angry White Male: How the Donald Trump Phenomenon is Changing America—and What We Can All Do to Save the Middle Class, who has graced the podium of at least three Trump events in the Battle Born State. On Monday, reports Right Wing Watch, Root called for the disenfranchisement of broad swaths of the electorate, notably anyone on Medicaid, or who receives food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or who gets prescription contraception via the no-copay feature of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
As I write this, the Trump campaign had yet to repudiate Root’s proposed unconstitutional rollback of voting rights. Yet the book jacket of Angry White Male features a blurb from the candidate himself, and a foreword by campaign adviser and dirty-trickster Roger Stone, who seems responsible for those elements of Trump campaign messaging drawn from and disseminated in the right’s fever swamps. Stone’s function in the Trump campaign appears to be to facilitate the nominee’s alliances with conspiracy theorists such as 9/11-truther Alex Jones and Root, who complements Trump’s birtherism with a companion false narrative that Obama never attended Columbia University. (Apparently, there is no long-form diploma.) During the 2014 midterm election cycle, Root labeled Obama “a Manchurian candidate” who Root said was seeking to foment a race war.
Now, Root has entered a new phase, deciding who should and shouldn’t be allowed to vote. In an error-filled rant flogging his new Trump book with Virginia radio host Rob Schilling on August 29 (flagged by RWW’s Miranda Blue), Root said of the competition faced by those of his ideological persuasion: “[I]f the people who paid the taxes were the only ones allowed to vote, we’d have landslide victories.” He continued:
"People with conflict of interest shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If you collect welfare, you have no right to vote. The day you get off welfare, you get your voting rights back. The reality is, why are you allowed to have this conflict of interest that you vote for the politician who wants to keep your welfare checks coming and your food stamps and your aid to dependent children and your free health care and your Medicaid, your Medicare and your Social Security and everything else?"Then Root appeared to catch himself, perhaps realizing that a sizable number of Trump supporters—perhaps as much as one-third—are on Medicare and Social Security. So he “amended” his statement, according to Blue, saying:
"Social Security should not, Medicare should not [disqualify you from voting], because you paid into the system. But all the other stuff, all the other goodies, free Obama phones, free contraception, you know what, you can get them but you shouldn’t be allowed to vote; it’s a conflict of interest. Take that away, we’d win every single election in this country."
The point Root was apparently attempting to make was that anybody on government assistance should not have the right to vote. But even in that noxious formulation, the inclusion of women who obtain prescription contraception via Obamacare without paying a copay would appear to be a special punishment, since the women themselves pay for that prescription via their insurance premiums.
The federal program he appears to reference called Aid to Families with Dependent Children hasn’t existed for 20 years. (The program that replaced it, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, almost never provides direct financial assistance, depending on how individual states administer the program.) Oh, and that “free Obama phone”? No such thing. Never existed.
But in Trump World, facts don’t matter. All that matters is the resentment piled up by a certain portion of the white electorate whose members feel threatened by societal changes such as civil rights law and the empowerment of women. Perhaps presaging his patron’s potential failure at the polls in November, Root is obviously trying to do his part to set the false narrative that, should Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton win in November, it will be because the system was somehow rigged against Trump in favor of the candidate of non-white people (never mind that most people on government assistance are white) and licentious women.
In his book-jacket praise for Root, Trump writes: "Wayne Allyn Root knows how to be tenacious and relentless." But the real riches for Root, aside from the Trump branding he was so generously provided, are in Stone’s foreword, where, in the first sentence the campaign adviser describes Angry White Male as the "Handbook for the Trump Revolution.” Stone goes on:
Now, in Angry White Male, Root provides a manifesto for Donald Trump’s silent majority, and outlines how immigrants and non-Americans flood here by the millions to sign up for America’s generous taxpayer-financed welfare state.But don’t hold your breath waiting for Trump or his spokespeople to condemn Root or to take any responsibility for the utterances of the author of a book with Trump’s name in the title and Trump’s blurb on the publisher’s praise page. He’s Trump’s Number One fan.
-----
Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's senior Washington editor, and a weekly columnist for The American Prospect. Follow her on Twitter @addiestan.
********************************************
********************************************
Mailbag
|
||
| ||
-----------------------------------------------
| |
| Tell the Department of Justice: Stop voter suppression in 2016 | |
| Sign the petition to the Department of Justice:
“Take all necessary measures to stop Republican voter suppression in 2016. Investigate the Trump campaign’s ‘Trump Election Observers’ program and do everything in your power to stop Republican voter intimidation and suppression efforts.”
Add your name:
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
------------------------------------------------
You thought Apple owed a lot of back-taxes in Ireland? Well, Apple owes $60 BILLION in taxes HERE! U.S. multinationals have $2.4 TRILLION in untaxed profits offshore--most of it in tax havens. They owe up to $700 billion in back taxes on those profits. It's time to fight these bloated corporate giants and get OUR money back!
-- Dot Calm's shadow
|
|
||
| ||
------------------------------------------------
 |
But Senators still support him!? Tell Republicans: Denounce Trump NOW >> We’re used to divisive and hate-filled statements from Donald Trump, but his recent comments in Arizona were OVER THE LINE (even for him). Here’s what he said:
“It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here… Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include an ideological certification.”
The Chicago Tribune called it “a hate speech,” and even Trump’s own advisors are leaving! Yet GOP Senators continue to embrace him -- and if we don’t speak out now, they’ll get ANOTHER free pass!Not on our watch! Add your name to tell Republicans that they must denounce Trump’s dangerous rhetoric NOW. |
------------------------------------------------
From Daily Kos--Help Get Out The Vote!
Chris Bowers here. I oversee Daily Kos's email and activism program. Now that we're just 66 days out from Election Day, I want to share with you some details about our Get Out The Vote program and how Daily Kos is uniquely situated to put Democrats running for House and Senate over the top this fall:
- Traffic to the website broke records during our coverage of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions this summer, with 13.6 million and 10.4 million unique readers in July and August, respectively. We expect site traffic to surge again after Labor Day, as Daily Kos is the go-to place for progressives to get their news on the internet.
- Our email list has hit an all-time high of 2.05 million active subscribers.
- Our Facebook audience is one of the largest and most active on the internet, with 1.14 million fans.
- Combined, this gives Daily Kos a deeper reach into the progressive base of the Democratic Party than almost any other organization in the country, and an astonishing 181,278 Daily Kos readers have signed up to help Get Out The Vote for Democrats.
Can you chip in $5 right now to help Daily Kos Get Out The Vote for Democrats?
Engaging the base is the key to winning this fall. Polls show that Donald Trump is hurting Republican enthusiasm, meaning that many traditional GOP voters may stay home. That means getting Democrats to the polls might not just give us a win—it could give us a landslide.
Daily Kos' top priority in this election is build the Democratic wave forming behind Hillary Clinton to take back the House and Senate. With more than 180,000 volunteers identified so far, we have the people power to make a huge difference this fall.
We will be plugging these Daily Kos volunteers into canvasses of swing states and districts, knocking on doors to talk to voters face to face. For volunteers outside of swing states, we’ll have ways for them to make calls and texts from their homes to contact voters in areas that could decide which party controls Congress next year.
Please chip in $5 now to help Get Out The Vote.
Thank you,
Chris Bowers, Daily Kos
------------------------------------------------
Friends, this is just too good to miss! Throw in your buck o' five like I did!
-- Dot Calm's shadow
From UltraVoilet Action--Billboard by FOX HQ in NY: Fire Bill O'Reilly
For 20 years, Fox News has pushed a rabidly right-wing, anti-woman agenda. Now Fox News is in deep, deep trouble.
Here's the situation: Fox News is being engulfed in a sexual harassment scandal that has already taken down CEO Roger Ailes. Over 25 women have come forward so far, and now Bill O'Reilly, the host of their most highly rated show, has been named in a lawsuit filed by former host Andrea Tantaros.1
This scandal has the potential to do irreparable damage to Fox News and its culture of sexism. And if we can raise enough money, we'll turn up the heat even more with a "Fire Bill O'Reilly" billboard near Fox News headquarters in New York City. Will you chip in $5?
Yes, I'll chip in $5 to help put up a "Fire Bill O'Reilly" billboard near Fox News headquarters in New York City.
For all the horrible things that Fox News has put on TV, who would have guessed that things were even worse behind the scenes?
Some of their most well known on-air personalities have come forward, including Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly. The latest is Andrea Tantaros, a former Fox host who describes the culture at Fox as a "Playboy mansion-like cult" filled with "intimidation" and "misogyny."2
Fox News, no surprise, has responded by attacking the women who have spoken out, questioning their honesty and calling Tantaros an "opportunist" and a "wannabe."3
It's clear Fox News is hoping to sweep all this under the rug and use character assassination to intimidate women into silence. We're not going to let that happen.
Our billboard is the latest strategy to hold Fox News accountable, and if we can raise enough money, we'll put it up right near Fox's headquarters, we will make it impossible to miss. Will you chip in $5?
Yes, I'll chip in $5 to help put up a "Fire Bill O'Reilly" billboard near Fox News headquarters in New York City.
Thanks for speaking out.
--Nita, Shaunna, Kat, Karin, Adam, Holly,
Kaili, Kathy, Onyi, Susan, Anathea, Audine, Shannon, Megan, Libby, and
Emma, the UltraViolet Action team
Sources:
1. Andrea Tantaros of Fox News Claims Retaliation for Sex Harassment Complaints, The New York Times, August 22, 2016
2. Ibid.
3. Fox News says Andrea Tantaros is not a 'victim' but an 'opportunist', USA Today, August 30, 2016
------------------------------------------------
From Just Foreign Policy via MoveOn--Demand consequences for Saudi extremism
Last December, Farah Pandith of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was the first State Department special representative to Muslim communities, called for Saudi Arabia to face consequences if it did not stop promoting extremism. She wrote in the New York Times:
"I traveled to 80 countries between 2009 and 2014 as the first ever U.S. special representative to Muslim communities. In each place I visited, the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence, changing the local sense of identity; displacing historic, culturally vibrant forms of Islamic practice; and pulling along individuals who were either paid to follow their rules or who became on their own custodians of the Wahhabi world view. Funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams…We should expose the Saudi financing of extremist groups masquerading as cultural exchanges and 'charity' organizations and prevent the Saudis from demolishing local Muslim religious and cultural sites that are evidence of the diversity of Islam. If the Saudis do not cease what they are doing, there must be diplomatic, cultural and economic consequences." [1]
Eight months later, the New York Times reported:
"Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump don’t agree on much, but Saudi Arabia may be an exception. She has deplored Saudi Arabia’s support for 'radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.' He has called the Saudis 'the world’s biggest funders of terrorism.'" [2]
But neither Clinton nor Trump has yet addressed the conclusion of what Farah Pandith wrote eight months ago: there must be consequences for the Saudis if they do not cease what they are doing.
Instead of sanctioning the Saudis, the U.S. government now plans to reward them. On August 8, the administration notified Congress of intent to sell $1.15 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia. But Senator Murphy and Senator Paul are expected to introduce a bipartisan resolution to disapprove the administration's Saudi arms deal. [3]
Urge Congress to support the Paul-Murphy resolution to disapprove the Saudi arms deal by signing our petition at change.org.Thanks for all you do to help make America more just,
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
------------------------------------------------
From ATTN: Brock Turner was released after 3 months--and he was one of the MORE severely punished rapists! Are non-violent marijuana offenders really so much more dangerous to themselves and society that they deserve 21 YEARS by comparison?!
Hi there: Happy Labor Day.
This week, an ATTN: video is going viral comparing Stanford rapist Brock Turner's three months behind bars to the 21 years that a man named Jeff Mizanskey spent in prison for marijuana-related offenses. While the scope, nature, and era of these criminal cases are very different, the disparity of incarceration time cannot be ignored. During his more than two decades locked up for a non-violent drug offense, Mizanskey, who was finally released last year, saw murderers, child abusers, and sex offenders leave prison far sooner.
Turner, meanwhile, never left a county jail and, despite national outrage over his case, was actually one of the more severely punished (yes, you read that correctly) sex offenders in America. According to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, "out of 1000 rapes, only 334 are reported to the police, only 13 see a prosecutor's desk, and only 6 of those rapists will spend time in prison." Whether or not harsher prison sentences for sex offenders are the solution here (and that's up for debate), it's unquestionable that we need to reexamine the priorities of our justice system.
You can watch our video here.
Other stories worth your attention this week:
+ The Big Change in Donald Trump's Immigration Plan
+ Pres. Obama Makes Criminal Justice History with Only Months Left in Office
+ How Much We Spend on Prisons vs. Education
+ Why will.i.am Is Remaking "Where Is the Love" 13 Years After It Came Out
+ 12 More States Where Marijuana Could Be Legalized This Year
+ The French View Eating as a Social Experience, Not a Chore
Talk to you soon,
Matthew
------------------------------------------------
From Daily Kos--Sign if you agree: Obama must stop auctioning public lands and waters to fossil fuel industry
People are still reeling from last month's historic flooding in Louisiana. It may be the worst U.S. climate disaster since Superstorm Sandy.
But instead of addressing the problem, the Obama administration came to New Orleans and auctioned off a huge area for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Sign to tell President Obama: Keep the fossil fuels from our public lands and waters in the ground.
At this point, helping the fossil fuel industry worsen climate change is unconscionable.
Thousands of people's homes and lives have been devastated by climate change along the Gulf coast, and across the country. And Obama has plans to continue auctioning off our public lands and waters for fossil fuel development.
On September 20, the administration is planning another oil and gas lease sale -- this time, holding it online. This will make it harder for people to voice their concerns, and easier for oil and gas corporations to take our public resources for their profit.
We must stand with the the frontline communities that have been resisting the fossil fuel industry for years, and who are facing climate injustice. It's time Obama stands with them, too, and cancels future lease sales. This needs to stop now.
Sign the petition to Obama: “Stop auctioning off our public lands and waters for corporate profit!”
Keep fighting,
Mara Schechter, Daily Kos
------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| Tell Congress: Don’t block overtime pay | |
| Petition to Congress:
"Oppose any attempts to delay or undermine badly needed overtime reforms that will benefit millions of Americans."
Add your name:
|
********************************************
********************************************
Democracy Now!
Stories |
Chris Hedges vs. Robert Reich on Clinton, Third Parties, Capitalism & Next Steps for Sanders Backers
During
the Democratic National Convention, Juan González and I hosted a fiery
debate between the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and
former Labor Secretary Robert Reich about the presidential race. Hedges
has endorsed ... Read More →
|
We
continue this holiday special with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
David Cay Johnston, who's been reporting on Donald Trump for decades.
Johnston first covered Trump in the 1980s while he was working as bureau
chief for the ... Read More →
|
The legendary folk singer and activist Billy Bragg performers "There is Power in a Union" in our Democracy Now! studio. ... Read More →
|
********************************************
Don't forget Trump's "charitable" giving
and his grifting campaign funds
to enrich himself and his children!
********************************************
Daily Kos
********************************************
Republicans and Teanderthals,
we're looking at you!
********************************************
AlterNet
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
********************************************
********************************************
Movies!
How about a little science?
Dr. Richard Feynman--one of my heroes!
Boys 'n' girls, this is why biblical literalism causes so much cognitive dissonance...
And now...back to Mr. Deity vids...mostly "Way of the Mister"...
Mr. Deity sez that Donald Trump is helping the "Religious Right" commit suicide. Hehe!
Friends, I can't replay these enough. This is what a Trump presidency would bring--with Pence as VP, these monsters would feel emboldened.
The hypocrisy of the right regarding killing gays
Absolutely brilliant video on Atheist "Fundamentalism"
Mr. Deity sez, "Some people missed the irony of my last video regarding Fundamentalism. This video is to set them straight."
Atheism is NOT a religion because science relies on evidence, not faith...
Mr. Deity takes Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson to task, pushing my snark meter to 11. Hehe!
For those of us reared Christian but not Mormon, the Mormon theology Bri Bri presents in this video sound totally off the wall. Then...we consider the theological tenets of our own religions...and cringe.
...a-a-a-a-and some funnies!
'Til next time, check out these great channels:
...or, if you just want something mindless and fun, try Tested
********************************************
Bring it, baby--I WANT those taco stands!
Bring it, baby--I WANT those taco stands!
posted by Dot Calm @ 7:25 AM
<< Home