Paul Ryan Admits He Was a Fraud All Along

I have never liked former House Speaker Paul Ryan who I always saw as a liar and a fraud. While in office, Ryan cared about only two things - actually three, the third being staying in office - cutting taxes for the wealthy and slashing the social safety net for the less fortunate, all the while pretending to be a good Catholic despite all his actions contrary to the Church's social gospel. Before retiring, Ryan accomplished one thing: passage of the Trump/GOP tax cuts which have exploded the federal deficit - something Ryan supposedly cared about, but like all else with Ryan that story line was a lie.  A piece in Vanity Fair looks at Ryan's new and disingenuous book which tries to rewrite history and rehabilitate Ryan's abysmal record.  Here are article highlights:

After the release of the Access Hollywood tape, which featured the future president bragging to Billy Bush about how his celebrity entitled him to sexually assault women, Paul Ryan canceled a scheduled appearance with Donald Trump and announced he would not campaign on behalf of the Republican nominee. “I am not going to defend Donald Trump,” then-House Speaker Ryan reportedly told his party at the time. “Not now, not in the future.” Ryan probably assumed he wouldn’t need to defend Trump in the “future,” as the prevailing wisdom was that Hillary Clinton would send him back to the bowels of reality TV from whence he came. But it was still a notable disavowal even if, in true Ryan form, it made no move to rescind his tortured Trump endorsement.

Of course, Ryan would break his promise after Trump’s shock victory. The self-styled wonk would, again and again and again, defend the president, enable him, and respond to his daily outrages with feeble handwringing. But the Wisconsin Republican is now trying to rehabilitate his doormat reputation. . . . Ryan tees off on the president, depicting him as a narcissistic, divisive loon and “uneducated about the government”—revelations that only further highlight how Ryan was knowingly complicit in Trump’s nightmare government.

“We’ve gotten so numbed by it all,” Ryan tells Tim Alberta in American Carnage, which examines how Republicans came to embrace Trump after an acrimonious 2016 race. “Not in government, but where we live our lives, we have a responsibility to try and rebuild. Don’t call a woman a ‘horse face.’ Don’t cheat on your wife. Don’t cheat on anything. Be a good person. Set a good example.”

Ryan, who tells Alberta that he viewed his retirement as an “escape hatch” to get away from Trump, plays up the “adults in the room” myth, suggesting his deference allowed him to steer Trump on a better course.

It’s a line Ryan has echoed before. . . . And of course, it’s intended to paint Ryan in the best possible light, similar to John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, and others who suggested they only stood by Trump out of some high-minded sense of duty to the country. Of course, none actually succeeded in serving as a real moderating influence. They may be better than the sycophants he’s surrounded himself with now, but Kelly, Tillerson, and Ryan consistently failed to keep the president’s impulses in check. Worse, they lent a veneer of normalcy to a president who was decidedly not.

That Ryan is now back to bashing Trump is, perhaps, a step above some of his former colleagues, who have turned into rabid, mindless supporters of the president. But it’s hardly courageous to point out Trump’s plainly obvious defects after the fact. So far, just one Republican—Justin Amash, who left the party earlier this month—has openly criticized the president. “These guys have all convinced themselves that to be successful and keep their jobs, they need to stand by Trump,” Amash tells Alberta in the book. “But Trump won’t stand with them as soon as he doesn’t need them. He’s not loyal. They’re very loyal to Trump, but the second he thinks it’s to his advantage to throw someone under the bus, he’ll be happy to do it.”

Hopefully, history will be very harsh to Paul Ryan.

The Silence and Moral Bankruptcy of Paul Ryan

Yes, Donald Trump and his Cabinet nominees to date are very frightening individuals. Never in my life time with the possible exception of Richard Nixon have such delusional and/or extreme individuals been about to take power in America.  I remain convinced that the results will be disastrous for many citizens, including the angry white cretins who voted for Trump and the GOP to protect their white privilege without realizing they were cutting their own economic throats.  But just as scary, in my view, is Paul Ryan who has cultivated a reputation with a press corps that is just as vapid and easily fooled as Trump's angry white voters.  The man often wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, yet other than his opposition to abortion and gay rights, Ryan's goals and policies are diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church's social gospel.  He wants to take away health care coverage for millions, he wants to gut Medicare into an inadequate voucher program, he wants to gut Social Security, and he's in bed with Christofascist extremists many of whom are anti-Catholic.  Yet the idiots in the media still project an image of Ryan as principled and thoughtful.  Compatred to what?  One of Hitler's henchmen?  A column in the New York Times rightly takes Ryan to task.  Here are excerpts:

Paul Ryan has long been cast as Congress’s Boy Scout: earnest, honest and brimming with the best intentions, whether you agree with his proposals or not.

Donald Trump is putting an ugly end to that.

Or, rather, Ryan himself is, with his example of utter submission to Trump. Other Republicans are looking to the speaker of the House for guidance on when to confront the president-elect and when to let his craziness go unchecked. And Ryan is charting the wrong course.

I’m referring to his recent “60 Minutes” interview, the apotheosis of all of his tongue biting and conscience snuffing to date. In particular I mean the part when he was asked about Trump’s reckless — and wholly unsubstantiated — tweet that millions of Americans had voted illegally for Hillary Clinton.

“I’m not really focused on these things,” Ryan said, all too blithely. Then: “I have no knowledge of such things. It doesn’t matter to me.”

Such things? Was he at a tea in the Cotswolds, discussing the pesky upkeep of the carriage house?

Doesn’t matter? No, I guess a president-elect’s effort to undermine Americans’ confidence in our political system — and, beyond that, his attachment to conspiracy theories — aren’t pressing concerns. My bad for assuming otherwise.

Ryan’s answer was marginally better than the one given on the ABC News show “This Week” by Mike Pence, who described Trump’s tweets as “refreshing.” An adjective’s connotations can change from era to era as a language evolves, but I still associate “refreshing” with lemonade and dips in the sea, not wild accusations of voter fraud.

Pence, of course, is Trump’s designated sycophant. That’s practically written into a vice president’s job description. Ryan has no similar duty, just a growing willingness to part ways with principle.

But they can’t afford to stay mum when Trump, merely to stroke his own ego and assert his potency, tells a lie about election results, calling Clinton’s advantage in the popular vote a sham. Certainly Ryan can’t, because he’s a role model and because this lie epitomizes Trump’s demagogic tendencies and legitimizes fake news, the dark consequences of which are becoming ever clearer.

The disregard for truth — and indulgence of fantasy — among people at the pinnacle of power right now is chilling. Beyond Trump there’s Michael Flynn, his nominee for national security adviser, who has tweeted pure bunk about Clinton’s ties to pedophilia and money laundering.

On the subject of Trump, Ryan has spoken out of so many sides of his mouth that it’s less an oval than an octagon at this point. Last spring he even affirmed his endorsement of Trump while calling him out for racism. Behold leadership at its most gelatinous.

Trump is giving a green light to kooks and the finger to the dignity that Americans rightly expect of a president and that Ryan should demand of him.

Ryan is sacrificing too much for too little, and it’s time he rummaged through his wobbly endoskeleton and made fresh acquaintance with his spine. 

Quote of the Day: Gavin Grimm - We Are Just People

As noted before, the husband and I are lucky enough to know Gavin Grimm and have hosted him in our home.  It is difficult to describe this articulate and thoughtful young man as anything short of amazing.  The same holds for his parents, especially his mother Deirdra, who have stood by their child unlike so many "godly Christians" who have thrown out their LGBT children as if they are inferior and akin to garbage.   It is also telling that Gavin's entire saga and the legal battle that now may be heard before the United States Supreme Court, in my opinion, stems solely from the desire of Christofascists in Gloucester County who seek to punish Gavin  - indeed, anyone who is LGBT - for failing to adhere to their poisonous religious beliefs and ignorant views on gender.  Gavin has a column in the Washington Post that explains his saga, but also notes the thing missed and/or ignored by the self-congratulatory "godly folk" - we are all just people, created by god, nature or whatever deity one believes in, who did not choose who we are. The self-satisfied and falsely pious crowd forget that they had NO role in deciding if they would be born white or black, Christian or Muslim, gay or straight or, like Gavin, transgender.  Here are to me the telling excerpts from Gavin's op-ed:

If you told me two years ago that the Supreme Court was going to have to approve whether I could use the school restroom, I would have thought you were joking. 

I was using men’s restrooms in restaurants and shopping malls, so I told the principal I would like to use the boys’ restrooms at school, too. I thought then, perhaps naively, that this common-sense “issue” would be resolved quietly and privately, as it should have been.

If only. Even though I used the restrooms for almost two months without any disturbance, a group of parents and community members heard that “a girl” was using the boys’ restroom and began complaining. Instead of supporting me and the decision of the school administrators, the school board convened two public meetings, inviting the community to discuss my genitals and restroom usage in front of reporters and television cameras.

What keeps me going is the knowledge that I am not the only transgender student out there, and I have the chance to make things better so other transgender kids do not have to go through what I am going through. With each step, my potential for positive impact has increased. First within my school district. Then within the federal courts, where a U.S. District Court ruling in my favor was stayed by the Supreme Court while it considers whether to take my case. And now potentially across the nation, depending on what the Supreme Court justices decide to do.

I did not choose to announce to the news media that I am transgender. My school board made that decision for me. But now that I am visible, I want to use my position to help the country see transgender people like me as real people just living our lives. We are not perverse. We are not broken. We are not sick. We are not freaks. We cannot change who we are. Our gender identities are as innate as anyone else’s.

If the Supreme Court does take up my case, I hope the justices can see me and the rest of the transgender community for who we are — just people — and rule accordingly.

In prior posts, I have identified the two-bit pastor who I believe put the entire issue into motion.  Like many of his ilk, he has no respect for the religious freedom rights of others and seeks to punish anyone who rejects his ignorance and bigotry based beliefs.  What I find so disturbing is that gutless and spineless elected officials continue to give deference to such people and their beliefs.  And as a side note, remember that if one scratches the surface of most of the leading :"family values" groups, you find a white supremacist lurking beneath the surface. These are not nice and decent people.  The sooner society as a whole recognizes this reality, the better off we will be as a nation.   

Trump's GOP Enablers Need to Be Held Accountable

As noted in several posts that have compared 2016 America with 1933 Germany, both Hitler and Trump have rose in power and respectability thanks to self-serving politicians who foolishly thought that they could control the demagogue that they believed would increase their own power and/or wealth.  The Germany enablers proved to be terribly wrong and Germany and the world paid a terrible price.  Here in America, there is still time to stop Trump and his racist and fascist agenda.  A column in the New York Times by a long time GOP apologist calls on Trump's enablers to take a stand and put the nation ahead of partisan ship and self-aggrandizement.  Would that this columnist and others would have condemned the GOP over the last 20 years for the hate, racism, homophobia and general misogyny that were used with great calculation to win elections.  Here are column excerpts:

Up through the convention there were all sorts of Republican officeholders who weren’t really for Trump, but they weren’t really against him. They sort of endorsed him implicitly, while trying to change the subject.

They had all sorts of squirrelly formulations about why it was O.K. to ride the Trump train: He can be tamed or surrounded and improved. Sure, he’s got some real weaknesses, but he’s more or less a normal candidate who is at least better than Hillary.

Over the past few days, Trump has destroyed this middle ground. He’s exposed the wet noodle Republicans as suckers, or worse. Trump has shown that he is not a normal candidate. He is a political rampage charging ever more wildly out of control. And no, he cannot be changed.

He cannot be contained because he is psychologically off the chain. With each passing week he displays the classic symptoms of medium-grade mania in more disturbing forms: inflated self-esteem, sleeplessness, impulsivity, aggression and a compulsion to offer advice on subjects he knows nothing about.

Trump insults Paul Ryan, undermines NATO and raises the specter of nuclear war. Advisers can’t control Trump’s brain because Trump can’t control it himself.

He also cannot be contained because he lacks the inner equipment that makes decent behavior possible. So many of our daily social interactions depend on a basic capacity for empathy. But Trump displays an absence of this quality.

Republicans are not going to be able to help the 70-year-old man-child grow up over the next few months. Nor are they going to be able to get him to withdraw from the race. A guy who can raise $82 million mostly in small donations has a passionate niche following.

But they can at least get out of the enabling business. First, they can acknowledge that they are being sucked down a nihilistic whirlpool. Second, they can acknowledge the long-term damage being done to the country and to themselves.

Amid the chaos, all sorts of ugliness is surfacing. See the video of the horrific things shouted at Trump rallies compiled by Times reporters. Moreover, Trump is permanently tainting the names of conservatism and the Republican Party and the many good men and women who have built and served it.

Events are going to force Republicans off the fence. For the past many months Republican leaders have been condemning Trump’s acts while sticking with Trump the man. Trump is making that position ridiculous and shameful. You either stand with a man whose very essence is an insult to basic decency, or you don’t.

Those who don’t will have to start building a Republican Party in Exile. They will have to tell the country what they honestly think of Donald Trump. They will have to build a parallel campaign structure that will survive if Trump implodes, a structure of congressional and local candidates.

There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you’re not in revolt, you’re in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in shame.

Sadly, I am not holding my breath to see what Brooks calls for to happen.  The GOP sold its soul long ago to Christofascist, racists, and white supremacists.  

4th Circuit Rejects Petition of Anti-Transgender Gloucester County School Board

After having been firmly bitch slapped by a panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, the spineless Gloucester County School Board petitioned the Court for a "hearing en banc" - i.e, a reconsideration by all the judges on the court - in the hope that the board's anti-transgender policies would be upheld.  Today, the 4th Circuit rejected the requested rehearing leaving the political whores on the board who have prostituted themselves to Christian extremists with nowhere to go except for the U. S. Supreme (the denial is here).  Given the current 4-4 split on the Supreme Court thanks to GOP obstructionism, there is a significant chance that an appeal to the Supreme Court would be refused.   The one down side is that to date, the school board members are not personally liable for the litigation costs.  The Augusta Free Press has details.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will not rehear the case of a Gloucester County transgender high school student suing his school board over discriminatory bathroom policies. 

The court today denied the Gloucester County School Board’s request for an en banc review of an April decision which held that Title IX protects the rights of transgender students to use school restrooms consistent with their gender identity.

“Now that the Fourth Circuit’s decision is final, I hope my school board will finally do the right thing and let me go back to using the boys’ restroom again,” said Gavin Grimm, the high school junior who is the plaintiff in the case. “Transgender kids should not have to sue their own school boards just for the ability to use the same restrooms as everyone else.”

In an en banc review, cases are reconsidered by every active judge, of which there are 15 in the Fourth Circuit. In April, a three-judge panel ruled two-to-one in favor of Mr. Grimm in his challenge to Gloucester High School’s discriminatory restroom policy that segregates transgender students from their peers by requiring them to use “alternative, private” facilities. In order to hear an en banc review, a majority of the judges must vote to do so; however, none of the judges in this case requested a vote, according to the court order denying the request.

The April ruling marked the first time a federal appeals court has determined Title IX protects the rights of transgender students to use sex-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to reevaluate Gavin’s request for a preliminary injunction under the proper legal standard.

Spineless Republicans Cower Before Trump

Perhaps it was my family upbringing where it was stressed that doing the right thing was more important that popularity or choosing the easy, non-confrontational course of action, but it is disgusting to watch as supposedly decent Republicans - admittedly a dying breed - keep their silence and refuse to confront the hate and misogyny embodied by Donald Trump and to a lesser extent, Ted Cruz.  Years ago, I resigned from the GOP when it became clear to me that the party's conflation of religion and the civil laws was nothing short of unconstitutional. I stated this specifically in my resignation from the City Committee for the Republican Party of Virginia Beach.  In perhaps her harshest attack on spineless Republicans, Kathleen Parker lays out the cost of gutlessness and maintaining silence.  Most tellingly, she applies the word "fascist" to what Trump and the GOP apologists are doing.  Here are highlights from her column in the Washington Post:

You know all the arguments pro and con by now. He [Trump] speaks plainly. So did Archie Bunker. His message of walled-in isolationism appeals to those tired of loose immigration policies. So was the case with Sen. Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip, the nativist demagogue in Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 cautionary novel, “It Can’t Happen Here.”

Windrip, like Trump, spoke of national greatness, though Windrip was more explicit, saying that Americans “must continue to be the greatest Race on the face of this old Earth.” Like Trump’s, Windrip’s base consisted largely of working-class white males, whom he called upon to help control dissent after he ascended to the Oval Office. Sound familiar? Punch anybody in the nose lately?

It’s called fascism by any other name and, yes, it does seem that it can happen here. That is, a demagogue can become president, as Lewis was trying to warn. And, yes, we do have checks and balances in this country, but does anyone really think that Trump should have the power to start a nuclear war? He’s mighty quick to rile.

No one is more familiar with the language of marginalization and authoritarianism than the Jewish community, causing one to wonder why Trump, whose rise has been spiced with bigotry and group-blaming rhetoric, was allowed in AIPAC’S door. The answer is that the nonpartisan organization traditionally invites all presidential candidates, among others, to speak to its annual policy conference.  Well, that’s an explanation, anyway.

The conundrum for Republicans is that though Trump may be the devil, he’s their devil. How can they condemn the guy that a near-majority of their own party prefers? If you’re, say, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), how do you say you won’t support your party’s nominee? Then again, if you’re a good man like Ryan, how do you support him?

That is the question of the moment, isn’t it? This is what we ask ourselves about the industrialists and “good Germans” who supported Hitler. This is what we ask our Southern grandparents about the time when blacks were being lynched. What we ask the World War II generation about rounding up Japanese Americans. And while we’re at it, what was your vote on Vietnam, Iraq? There’s a price to pay for silence.

That so few have shown the courage to deny Trump tells us how difficult it is to be brave — and how rare character is. But one can only pretend for so long not to hear the dog whistles of history, a skill at which Republicans have become too well practiced over the decades. Perhaps they’re no longer listening. Or they’re deluding themselves that Trump’s words don’t really mean what, you know, they mean.

“He won’t be that bad.”  No, he’s worse.

 [I]f you go back and look at Hitler, somehow you elect someone that you know is beyond the pale. But you do it because you’re afraid of someone else. And then later, you look closely. And it’s too late.”

The tiny flame at the end of this darkening tunnel is a contested convention, which depends on Ted Cruz and John Kasich starving Trump of the necessary 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination. It could happen . . . . if Kasich campaigns only in proportional delegate states, leaving winner-take-all states to Cruz, Trump’s chances of becoming the nominee are reduced from 90 percent to 50 percent,says Wang.  It’s a big gamble, but it beats losing your soul.

Gay Rights and Putin’s Olympics - A Growing Boycott of World Leaders?

1936 Berlin Summer Games - Hitler is top left of center

I've noted before that what Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia is doing to gays bears some parallel's to Hitler's campaign against the Jews.   It is important to remember that Hitler did not start out with the death camps and the outright extermination of the Jews.  No, it started on a smaller level that gradually built, in part because of the tepid response the rest of the world gave in reaction to what was being done in Germany.  Because of a meaningful international response, Hitler and the Nazis felt they could go forward with even more heinous policies.  Among those who failed to offer adequate condemnation of Hitler's Germany were, of course, the members of the International Olympic Committee which allowed Hitler to use the 1936 Summer Games to show off a supposed superior Germany.  Fast forward 78 years and we see the International Olympic Committee acting in precisely the same way with Vladimir Putin and Russia's anti-gay laws, proving the maxim that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Thankfully, some world leaders have not forgotten the mistakes of the 1936 Olympic Games.  As The Guardian is reporting, French leaders have not forgotten 1936 and will not be attending the Sochi 2014 Winter Games.  Here are highlights:

Neither France's president, François Hollande, nor any top French official will attend the next year's Winter Olympics in Sochi, the country's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, has said.

The decision to hold the Games in Russia has been criticised in France due to concerns over human rights abuses and a law passed in June that bans "gay propaganda", which critics say discriminates against homosexuals.

Fabius offered no explanation for the move. "There are no plans to attend," he told Europe 1 radio, referring to Hollande and himself. "Top French officials have no plans to be there."

Last week the office of the German president, Joachim Gauck, announced that he would not be attending the Sochi Games. The German government's human rights commissioner praised Gauck's decision as a "wonderful gesture".

Kudos to France!  Vanity Fair has a story that looks further at Putin's effort to reprise the dis-honor of the 1936 Games in February at Sochi.   It also reminds us of Putin's unsavory past as a KGB official.  Here are excerpts:

In Vladimir Putin’s Russia—official Russia—there is no controversy about the rights of gays and lesbians. Controversy suggests a serious clash of ideas and opinions; controversy suggests points of view that are in opposition and, potentially, subject to change. This is not the case when it comes to the human rights of homosexuals in Russia. In the Kremlin, in the parliament, in the courts, in the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, and on television there reigns a disdainful and intimidating unanimity: homosexuals are a threat to morality, to the family, and to the state.

Putin claims that the [anti-gay] law does nothing to infringe on the lives and rights of homosexuals (“They’re people, just like everyone else”); he insisted that the Russian people supported the legislation and, thus, must have it; he also says he is concerned that homosexuality is contributing to the country’s low birth rate.

Activists find this disingenuous at best. The law insures discrimination and provides a xenophobic regime with an Other to rally against. The activists also contend that the legislation is part of a larger ideological and legislative effort in Russia that seeks to stigmatize nongovernmental organizations as “foreign agents” and the West, in general, as a threat. The leadership invokes an anti-gay rhetoric reminiscent of the way Soviet leaders used to denounce Jews as “internal enemies,” the agents of foreign capital and spy services. Human-rights groups and L.G.B.T. organizations in Russia say that the law has opened the door to real misery: this year alone, they have documented hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, against gay men and women; workplace discrimination; and hateful (and sanctioned) rhetoric in the official media.

The Russian officials I meet always seem surprised that so many Westerners care at all about the rights of gay men and women. A few days ago, a senior official told me that such concerns were the inventions of the Western press. The reaction to questions about gay rights is usually either dismissive laughter or anger at what they view as self-righteous foreigners determined to embarrass Russia.  

[T]he general picture presented to the vast majority of the public through state television is miserable and threatening. Last month, on Rossiya 1, a well-known host named Arkady Mamontov devoted an episode of his show “Special Correspondent” to the topic of homosexuality. He and his reporters portrayed gay activists as Western-funded agents out to corrupt the moral foundation of the country.

Lest anyone think that Putin is not controlling the expressions of homophobia in the official Russian media, he just appointed Dmitri Kiselyov, a former television anchor, head of the new state news agency. In April, 2012, Kiselyov went on Rossiya 1 and said to a rapt studio audience:

I think that to fine gays for propagandizing homosexuality among teen-agers is not enough. They should be prohibited from donating blood or sperm. And their hearts, in the case of a car accident, should be buried, or burned, as unfit for extending anyone’s life.

All of this recent activity—the unpunished cases of harassment and violence, the ominous tone of the official press, the statements from the government and the Church—comes in the months and weeks leading up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi. (I’m planning to cover the games for The New Yorker and NBC.) 

[H]omophobic groups, some of them with nationalistic or Fascist ideas, feel free to harass gay men and lesbians, the activists said. In some cities, organized groups with names like Homophobic Wolf have posted pictures of gay men and lesbians online, the better for them to be identified and pursued on the street. Some have found placards plastered on the doorways of their buildings saying that a gay person lives within. Humiliation has become the stuff of everyday life.

There is much more that should be read.  The take away message?  Putin is doing to gays precisely what the Nazis did to Jews in the early 1930's.  And frighteningly, just as in the 1930's most of the world's governments are doing noting meaningful to condemn or punish Russia.  And the International Olympic Committee?  Just as in 1936 it is in bed with those guilty of bigotry and discrimination and encouraging hate and violence. 

I for one will NOT be watching the 2014 Games.  Moreover, I will be making a concerted effort to boycott products and services of advertisers who are in bed with Putin.  Again, I applaud France's leadership.  Where are the leaders of other advanced Democracies?  Will America refuse to send leaders like France?  Or will we prove that we learned nothing from the 1930's and the horrors that spinelessness allowed to take root?

Russian police abusing a gay rights protester

Russia: the Evil of Religious Based Hate on Full Display

As a Russian history major in college, I am fully aware that Russia has plenty of dark and evil events in its history.  In this modern age, one would think that a nation that claims to be modern the return of religious fueled evil would not be taking place.  Sadly, politicians eager to win the backing of the Russian Orthodox Church (which has a horrible history of siding with despots and whipping up anti-Jewish pogroms) have jumped fully on board the train to make gays and homosexuality scape goats to distract the Russian populace of the huge problems plaguing Russia.  With the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church spewing anti-gay statements and nasty individuals like Vladimir Putin taking advantage of the situation, gays are now open game for abuse, murder and criminal prosecution.  Things are so bad that Canada recently issued a tourism advisory recommending that gays not travel to Russia.  Perhaps worse of all is the fact that with the tacit blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church, those who torment, torture or even kill gays feel justified in what they do.  Religion - and the politicians who are only too happy prostitute themselves to extremists - proves itself again to be a great force for evil.  Here are highlights from a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle:

While we were initially hesitant to publish the video, the fact is that the video is everywhere now and it would be futile to try and hide it.

We reached out to Larry Poltavtsev, a U.S.-based tech entrepreneur who was one of the first people to bring the video to the attention of the English-speaking world, with the help of his Spectrum Human Rights Alliance. Poltavtsev helped explain why the video was so horrifying.

In the video, which appears to have been shot in the winter in the suburbs of a Russian city, a 15-year-old boy has been lured to a meeting place by the fictional online persona "Uncle Dima." However, once he is there he is met by a gang of young men and women. These young men and women apparently created a fake "Uncle Dima" account on VK, a Russian social network similar to Facebook, to lure the young boy to the meeting place.

Clearly under duress, the 15-year-old is then forced to "confess" to being a homosexual. He is forced to reveal his full name, the school he goes to, his parents' names, home address, etc.

Perhaps what is most remarkable about the video is that the gang that attacks the boy clearly feels proud of their actions. A number appear clearly in the video, and while one does wear a mask at one point, this may be more for intimidation. At another point an older lady comes into the frame, and she commends the gang for their actions, and tells the boy to be ashamed of himself.

According to Poltavtsev, the video is part of a wider problem. A former skinhead who has faced jail time for neo-Nazi crimes, Maxim Martsinkevich, has been the ringleader in two projects: "Occupy Pedophilyaj" and "Occupy Gerontilyaj." While these projects ostensibly have the aim of catching pedophiles, in reality, Poltavtsev says, fake VK profiles are used to find and publicly humiliate young gay men. The police do little to help, Poltavtsev says, and besides, most young men are too afraid to go public about the crimes. "Being outed in a small Russian town is like being killed," Poltavtsev said. "So, many resort to a suicide."

Poltavtsev says that largely the Russian media hasn't touched the subject, with a couple of notable exceptions.  Earlier this month Lenta.ru sent a reporter to the Urals, one of the places where the "Occupy Pedophilyaj" movement was strongest, to investigate. "If I had it my way, we would kill [homosexuals]," one member of the group tells the journalist. Another Russian story says that the victims are sometimes as young as 11 years old. 

It's hard to watch this video and agree with people who feel that Russia is being unfairly portrayed as homophobic. 

Meanwhile, the International Olympic Committee is too spineless to tell Russia that the 2014 Winter Games will be moved to another site if the laws are not repealed.  I am not saying the games need to be cancelled or boycotted.  The venue needs to be moved and Putin and Russia humiliated in the process.  Otherwise, the International Olympic Committee will be acting as it did in the 1930's when the Summer Games were held in Hitler's Germany.

 

Disturbing Facts About Gun Violence In America

While the NRA and its prostitute like apologists in the Republican Party continue to spew disingenuous lies and disinformation to blow a smoke screen to obscure the huge societal problem that firearms comprise, others are endeavoring to bring forth the truth.  One truth teller is Business Insider which shares these frightening statistics:

31 Mass shootings in the U.S. since Columbine in 1999.

70  People killed in mass shootings this year in the U.S. (not including the shooters who killed themselves). Seventy-two more people were injured.

19.5/1 Ratio of people killed by guns in the U.S. compared to other developed countries in the OECD. For 15-to-20-year-olds, firearm homicide rates in the U.S. are 42.7 times higher than in other OECD countries, according to a 2011 UCLA School of Public Health study.

80 Percent of all firearm deaths that occurred in the U.S., among the 23 developed countries looked at in the UCLA study. Eighty-seven percent of all children ages 0 to 14 killed by guns in these countries are U.S. children.

47,500 Murders from firearms in the U.S. between the years 2001-2005 alone – and nearly 8 in 10 of these murders involved a handgun, according to the FBI.

300 million The approximate number of firearms owned by civilians in the U.S. as of 2010, according to the book Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Some 47 percent of adults report having a gun in their home, according to an October 2011 Gallup survey.

2,000 – 5,200 Gun shows that take place in the U.S. each year.

99  The number of laws the NRA has pushed through in the past four years making guns easier to own, carry in public, and harder for the government to track. Eight states currently allow firearms in bars.

These are very disturbing statistics.  The question is whether or not the politicians in Washington will have the spine to do something to stop the madness.

 

Why A President Romney Would Govern From The Far Right

Once upon a time I suspect a number of voters believed that Mitt Romney was a moderate who would not become a puppet of the dark forces of the far right in the Republican Party.  In retrospect, that view seems to have been a fantasy.  Not only has Romney pandered disgustingly to the Christianists and Tea Party loons, but his willingness to do anything to further what he believes to be in his political interest is telling in terms of how the far right will hold the puppet strings during any Romney administration.  Having seen the fate of moderates like Senator Lugar, Romney will be beholden to the forces that might rise a primary challenge to his reelection should he win a first term in the White House.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this reality and why Romney would not govern even remotely as a moderate.  Here are excerpts:

For all of Mitt Romney’s talk of what he would do on Day One in the White House — Bomb Iran? Or was it Planned Parenthood? — there’s just as good a chance he would be tacking up two pictures on the wall. One would be of George H.W. Bush and the other of Jimmy Carter. They both became one-term presidents after they were challenged in the primaries. This is a lesson for Romney.

It is also a lesson for everyone who thinks that if Romney becomes president, he would govern from the center. This is a widely held belief, encouraged by the Romney camp itself and the supposed gaffe of Eric Fehrnstrom that the world would see a different Romney in the general election: “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.” This is not a gaffe but a feint. Romney would be able to restart nothing.

In the first place, Romney would likely have a Republican House, and maybe a Senate, too. This means he has to work with a party that has just recently punished Richard Lugar for excessive moderation and is willing, at this very moment, to bring down the country’s credit rating another notch rather than budge on the debt ceiling. To Romney, who made a fortune with the clever prestidigitation of debt, this has to make no sense, but he would go along because (1) he’d have to, and (2) he always does.

Congress, though, would be the least of President Romney’s troubles. The real threat will come from the Republican Party’s very core, which likes him little and trusts him less. The moment he shows the slightest moderate or rational tick, someone such as Rick Santorum will barrel out of the GOP’s piney woods, screaming oaths, and enter the 2016 Iowa caucuses that, you might remember, Santorum won in 2012.

[I]t’s hardly conceivable that, as president, Romney will become the Romney some think he is. The forces that shaped him in the primaries and caucuses will not go away. He has been clay in the hands of the political right, and this will not change. After Romney recently disparaged Carter’s political courage, Gerald Rafshoon, once Carter’s communications director, shot back with this via Bloomberg View: “Scour Romney’s record for a single example of real political courage .  .  .  . 

The widespread belief that Romney would govern from the center is supposedly supported by the equally widespread belief that he is a liar. .  .   .    The belief that he would revert is the desperate rationale of nominal Democrats who have had it with Barack Obama and want to be excused for abandoning ship. 

According to what a family friend told the New York Times, Mitt and Ann Romney decided he should run for president because they both “felt it was what God wanted them to do.” Having done just that, Romney has left it to others to define what sort of candidate he would be. Nothing would change if he were president. Weakness is his one consistency. 

Like Obama or not, there's simply no way that I believe Romney can be trusted.   He'd even sell his magic Mormon underwear for the right price.      

Chris Christie Proves He's Spineless and Calls for a Public Vote on LGBT Civil Rights

Earlier today I had hoped that Chris Christie might show some spine - and leadership qualities - in the context of the pending gay marriage legislation in New Jersey. To do that, of course, he would need to stand up for equality under the civil laws and "flip the bird" to Christianists, far right religious extremists and ignorance embracing "traditional Catholics" who want to trample on the religious freedoms of other citizens. That hope apparently was misplaced. Rather than exhibit leadership and desire to be on the right side of history when it comes to equality for all citizens, Mr. Christie has run in cowardice. How so? Rather than support religious freedom and equality for all citizens, Christies is trying to punt on the issue and today stated that the marriage rights of gays should be put to a public vote - something anathema to the Constitution's protections afforded to minorities. If Christie wants a vote on gay rights, then let's put all kinds of rights up to public vote. To start wit, how about a vote on the rights of the morbidly obese such as Mr. Christie himself. Or perhaps those of Jewish descent. Or maybe Mormons or evangelical Christians? The Star-Ledger has coverage on Christie's disgusting spinelessness. Here are some highlights:

Gov. Chris Christie called today for the Legislature to put on the fall ballot a voter referendum on whether to legalize gay marriage, which Democratic lawmakers have made a top priority.

If successful, the referendum would amend the state Constitution and trump the current civil unions law. He urged all Republicans in the Legislature to put the matter to voters, but promised to veto the measure if it came to him in the form of a bill.

In reaction to Christie's bombshell, State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a sponsor of the bill, said same-sex marriage is "a right that's guaranteed by the Constitution. It's up to us to implement it as legislators."

I sincerely hope that the New Jersey legislature drums up the vote to override Christie's likely gutless and spineless veto of the marriage legislation. Christie makes me want to vomit.

Is Barack Obama Prepping A Pitch to Gay Voters

While much of the Obama re-election strategy seems largely based on a hope/wish that the Republicans will nominate such a nutcase that by default Obama will be the only rational choice, there still is a need to mobilize progressive and minority group voters. With Bob McDonnell's win in Virginia in 2009, its clear that the Democrats cannot rely on a song and dance that "our candidate is not as bad as the other guy" to carry the day and move voters to get out to the polls. And many minority group voters are less than happy with Obama on many fronts. One such minority group, of course, is the LGBT community. While Obama delivered the repeal of DADT by the skin of his teeth at the 11th hour and has ceased to support DOMA in court cases, he still is dilly dallying on the issue of same sex marriage and nothing has been achieved on the passage of ENDA. Politico looks at what may be the Obama camp's effort to re-energize LGBT voters for 2012. Frankly, in my view, absent a shift in Obama's stance on marriage, his campaign's game plan will still fall short. Here are some highlights:

It seemed at first a major violation of message discipline: Shaun Donovan, President Barack Obama’s secretary of housing and urban development, “absolutely” endorsed same-sex marriage in an interview last month, a position in contrast with his boss, who famously declared that his own views on the issue are “evolving.” Perhaps more remarkable than Donovan’s statement is what happened in its aftermath: Nothing.

Donovan’s statement came in the midst of a series of high-profile gay rights initiatives. Taken as a whole, the moves fit well into the sales pitch Obama’s 2012 campaign is ready to make to the gay and lesbian community: We’ve done more for gay rights in our first three years than most administrations do in eight — and we’re not done yet.

The repeal of the ban on gays in the military and dropping the court fight to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act, Moulton said, were major items on the gay-rights agenda. And Obama also signed a tough new hate-crimes law, mandated equal treatment for gay patients in the health-care system and made big-dollar commitments to HIV-AIDS research and patient care.

“The initial question the president faces is, does he come out for same sex marriage now or after the election?” said Richard Socarides, president of Equality Matters, a gay rights organization. With polls trending toward public acceptance of gays and lesbians tying the knot, he said, “it may be riskier to wait.”

Endorsing gay marriage now, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote recently, could help Obama win back skeptical moderate voters and rekindle flagging enthusiasm among young people, who broadly support marriage equality. . . . Advocates argue that support for gay marriage could be Obama’s secret weapon for the 2012 election.

The president, a spokesman said, “is proud of the accomplishments he and his administration have made to advance the rights of the LGBT community, and we look forward to continuing to make progress on these important issues.”

But skeptics believe the administration’s promotion of its accomplishments edges close to “fair-weather advocacy,” cozying up to a core constituency just before a tough election.

Others complain that, while Obama’s list of gay-rights accomplishments are many, the whole isn’t greater than the sum of the parts — particularly because Democratic Govs. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, the latte a close friend of the president, both signed gay marriage into state law.

Still, even his critics agree that Obama has done more for gays and lesbians in one term than any recent two-term president — for example, hiring a record number of gay administration staffers along with ending sexual-identity discrimination in federal hires and in publicly subsidized housing. Just months before his reelection campaign begins in earnest, the president and his surrogates have highlighted significant new initiatives aimed at promoting equality.

And in a Geneva, Switzerland, speech commemorating Human Rights Day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “gay rights are human rights” and that no one deserves mistreatment “just because of their sexual orientation.”

Overall, Obama’s first-term strategy was “to try and do as many of these noncontroversial, small-scale initiatives as possible and hope that they would collectively build up,” as accomplishments “that wouldn’t offend anybody in the process,” Socarides said.

That strategy, he added, has largely paid off:Gays “have fared much better” under Obama than any other president, doubt has subsided about whether he put his muscle into the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and his support in the community is strong.

But Socarides and others suggest Obama could galvanize the base and overcome “a little bit of an enthusiasm gap” among gays if he stood for same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue that excites a lot of voters, particularly with young people, and it can be a good issue for [progressive] Democratic voters,” he said.

In April, The New York Times reported, a CNN poll showed 51 percent believe marriage between same-sex couples “should be recognized by the law as valid.” It was the fourth credible poll in two years to show an outright majority of Americans untroubled by gay marriage.

One political activist and Obama supporter said the president’s empathy and support for the gay community is sincere, but his reluctance to stand for same-sex mariage — the holy grail in gays’ decades-long quest for equality — hints at a missed emotional connection.

“The fact that you can’t go that extra step is frustrating and is hard to sell to some people,” said the activist, speaking on background because of the sensitive nature of his work. “They’ve got themselves twisted in knots over this” because of aversion to controversy, a sensitivity that risks overshadowing their accomplishments and puts them behind rapidly shifting public opinion.

Will Obama Sell Out to the Bishops on Contraception Coverage ?

While Barack Obama - at least temporarily, and I'm not holding my breath as to how long the newly found spine will last - has shockingly shown backbone and said he will stand up to efforts by Republicans to rewrite the automatic spending cuts that will kick in in January 2013, there are fears that he will show no such backbone in standing up to the Catholic bishops who want to gut requirements that health insurance plans cover free contraception. As noted in a post yesterday, the USA has a embarrassingly high teen pregnancy rate compared to any other developed industrialized nation, the reason being, of course, that contraception is not freely available to many women and that failed Christianist backed abstinence only sex education is still too widely used in many areas. A post in Religion Dispatches looks at Obama's likely sell out to the bitter (and generally porcine) old men in dresses. The result, if this happens, will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. Here are some highlights:

If the Administration does the Bishops' bidding, employers could choose to exclude from insurance coverage the free contraception, mandated by HHS guidelines issued under the Affordable Care Act, based on "religious conscience," even if the employer isn't a church.

Kristen Day issued a statement predicting that the administration would indeed decide to expand the exemption, so that even nominally religious employers could refuse to cover contraceptives. Note the confidence, from her statement: The Administration has no intention of forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs. It does not make any sense from a public policy perspective and it certainly is not smart politically to alienate Catholic voters.

[P]ro-choice advocates worry that Day's confidence (however out of step her views are with rank-and-file Catholics) is well-placed. They say they expect imminent action from the Obama Administration to broaden the exemption beyond churches and other houses of worship. That action could come as early as tomorrow[today].

David Nolan, a spokesperson for Catholics for Choice, told me today, "Obama's definitely listening to the bishops. . . . . The archbishop, Nolan emphasized, does not represent American Catholics, but rather is "the leader of 271 active bishops, and that's who he represents."

Catholics for Choice has launched a campaign urging its supporters to call the White House and express that "Catholics overwhelmingly reject the bishops’ views on contraception" and that it "is discriminatory to deny these women and men access to this important provision simply because the institution where they work or the school they attend is religiously affiliated." The ACLU has launched a similar campaign, arguing that religious freedom "does not mean that we get to impose those beliefs on others."

[I]f Obama does allow them to declare victory, it will set a dangerous precedent for the "religious liberty" claims of certain religious figures to stand in the way of people who do not share their religion, and in this case, even their co-religionists who challenge the leadership's orthodoxy. Like Catholic women over the age of 18 who are just as likely to have used contraception as the general population. All 98% of them.

Rather than kissing the bishops' very broad asses, Obama ought to be looking for ways to have those who were involved in sex abuse cover ups criminally prosecuted.

Why There’s a Debt Stalemate - A Lack of Leadership

As it looks more and more likely that the Super Committee will fail to reach an agreement, Robert Samuelson has a column in the Washington Post that looks at the real underlying cause: a lack of leadership, particularly in the White House. I've noted time and time again over the last almost three years how rather than be a leader and rather than use the pulpit of the presidency to rally public support for on issues, Barack Obama merely punts the problem to Congress in the hope that someone will find a solution. And time and time again, what we've seen is a continued mess rather than a path to moving the country forward. This lack of leadership is one of the reasons I'd rather not see Obama re-elected unless the alternative is one of the knuckle draggers from the current GOP crop of would be nominees. Things might be so very different if we had leadership in the White House. But sadly, we do not. Here are highlights from Samuelson's column:

We haven’t had the robust democratic debate about the role of government that lies at the heart of America’s budget stalemate. The truth is that most Democrats and Republicans want to avoid such a debate because it would force them into positions that, regardless of ideology, would be highly unpopular. This does not mean that the congressional supercommittee, charged with making modest cuts in deficits, need fail. There is a basis for honorable compromise. Squandering it — as seems increasingly likely — would confirm politicians’ preference for fighting over governing.

How big a government do we want? What’s the balance of fairness between young and old? How much should other programs be reduced or taxes raised? Many Democrats duck the fundamental policy questions and reject any benefit cuts.

Only President Obama can start such a debate. He has the bully pulpit, but he hasn’t used it. . . . Noncommittal gibberish. There is no leadership from the nation’s “leader.”

The president won’t talk specifics, but government consists of specifics. The reason we cannot have a large budget deal is that Americans haven’t been prepared for one. The president hasn’t educated them, and so they can’t support what they don’t understand. Left or right, there are no comfortable positions. No one relishes curbing Social Security or Medicare benefits. But without changes, taxes will go way up, the rest of government will shrink dramatically or huge deficits will persist.

Toomey’s concession created a basis for a negotiation, if both sides wanted an agreement. Small successes today could rebuild trust, leading to larger successes tomorrow. Failure will further corrode the public’s already rock-bottom confidence in its political “leaders.”

DNC Faith OutReach Director Throws Gays Under the Bus

I swear that there are days that it seems like the Three Stooges are running the White House and the DNC. In a political climate when one would think that the DNC would want to re-solidify the support LGBT community as a part of the Democratic base, instead things are done that seem aimed at alienating LGBT Americans instead. A case in point, the new head of the DNC Faith Out Reach director. In what would seem to be yet another attempt to kiss the bigoted asses of conservative Christians - who will not be voting Democratic regardless of what the DNC may do - the appointee to the position, Derrick Hawkins, is engaging in gyrations claiming that he does not support and never has supported same sex marriage. Never mind that much of the country has reached a tipping point on the issue. Hawkins would rather act as if LGBT Americans are the lepers the Christianists want to paint us to be. This is precisely the type of bullshit that is leaving Virginia Democrats apathetic even in the face of a real threat of severe religious extremism should the GOP win control of the Virginia Senate. The Democrat "gang that can't shoot straight" time and time again gives the impression that they are either (i) so hapless and spineless or (ii) so willing to surrender that it makes no difference as to which party is in charge. A disgusted John Aravosis vents at America Blog Gay. Here are highlights:

We reported recently that the DNC's new faith outreach director, Rev. Derrick Harkins, had signed a pledge in favor of same-sex marriage in 2009, only to state his adamant opposition to marriage equality earlier this year

[R]ather than get back to those of us reporting on this, and back to the gay community itself, and explain what's going on, the DNC decided to clarify things to Billy Graham's magazine. (That should tell you something.) They explained to Billy Graham's magazine that Harkins's name on the pro- marriage equality statement was a mistake, he supposedly never put his name on it.

Well, that's convenient. And sounds awfully familiar. Remember the runaround we're still getting from the White House on President Obama having signed two different questionnaires in 1996 affirming his support for marriage equality? Yet another signed statement that no one knows where it came from.

The Democrats are masters when it comes to alienating their base and then wondering why they lose elections.

The GOP and the Supercommittee Debt Impasse

Will the Democrats let themselves get rolled by the GOP yet again as the so-called supercommittee works to come up with a debt reduction plan? My bet - and that of Michael Thomasky at The Daily Beast - is yes. The Democrats seem to only know how to be played for fools and how to prematurely surrender. With leadership like that now coming from the White House and Democrats back during WWII, we'd all be speaking German now. As a previous post indicated, the USA is rushing towards a third world style society of a small group of "haves" and the rest in the "have not" category, yet the GOP continues to want to give more to the obscenely wealthy while flushing more and more Americans down the economic toilet. Here's Thomasky's analysis of the coming Democrat surrender:

[P]olitically, it would be nice to see Washington function for a change. Hard experience suggests to us, however, that when all the smoke clears, there will be no deal. What will happen then? The Republicans will then go in for even emptier posturing than they’re engaging in now, this time with regard to defense cuts. You think things can’t get worse? Just wait.

But eventually and inevitably, the negotiators had to start talking numbers. And as soon as they got to specifics, two things happened. First, they realized how far apart they were. Second, the leaks started, at which point the rest of us realized how far apart they were.

Let’s compare the plans. The Democratic proposal, released by senator and committee member Max Baucus the other day, looks to cut $3 trillion from the budget. The Republican plan, leaked in parts to The Wall Street Journal and Politico after Baucus moved, cuts just $2 trillion. If it seems odd to you that Democrats are proposing more deficit reduction than Republicans, you aren’t alone. The reason is that the Republicans—surprise, surprise—are doing it all by cuts with no tax revenue, while the Democrats include $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion in new revenue.

The GOP plan says the government will raise $200 billion by cutting corporate and individual taxes. You know, the way the Bush tax cuts increased revenue, which is to say, not in the real world, but in the minds of Mitch McConnell and other delusionals who think the Bush tax cuts raised revenue.

It bears noting, once again, that the Democrats have said with the Baucus plan that they’re ready to deal if Republicans will. Their plan includes $500 billion in entitlement program cuts. . . . . But the Republicans are staying in the dugout. They aren’t even bothering to take the bus to the stadium. A trillion in taxes, one dollar in taxes, it doesn’t matter; Republicans will not permit a tax increase of any kind.

[T]he Democrats should not and cannot accept a deal in which there are no tax increases, because they have two-thirds of the country with them and because it’s the right thing.

Assuming no deal, here’s what I’m told is likely to happen after everyone has acknowledged the collapse. The Republicans will, as John McCain and others have suggested, turn up the heat on the question of defense cuts. They will introduce legislation to exempt the Pentagon from cuts. . . . .
Republicans, being the clever dialecticians that they are, will decide that the course of history has changed, and that deal will mean no more to them than one of those secret treaties Lenin routinely abrogated back in the day.

So they’ll advance a bill saying: cuts to domestic social programs, sure; cuts to Pentagon, nyet. It will pass the House. It will go to the Senate, and all the Republicans will be for it, and they’ll need 13 Democrats. So then the questions will be: will the Democrats be willing to hold the line and risk the silly accusation of being “soft on defense”? And will the White House also hold the line . . .
I think we know the answer.

So the Republicans will have killed another deal with their indefensible and immoral position on taxes, and then, having stuffed that carcass in the trunk, they will retroactively work to kill the deal they agreed to last summer . . .

Once again, the current GOP makes me ashamed that I was ever once a member of that party. Truth, honesty, and fair dealing, and the best interest of the nation as a whole mean nothing to today's Republican Party. It's all about greed on the part of a few and demagoguery.