Thursday, August 08, 2013
Russia’s War on Gays - Haunting Lessons of Nazi Olympics
The condemnation of Russia and its new anti-gay laws continues to mount. Not that newspaper editorials and petitions and boycotts will miraculously provide a spine to the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") which seems destined to reprise its embrace of dictators and regimes that audaciously engage in human rights abuses as was the case in 1936 when the IOC jumped into bed with Adolph Hitler. An op-ed in the New York Times, an editorial in the Washington Post and an opinion piece at CNN all rip Russia and by extension condemn the IOC if it continues to follow it appeasement approach with Russia and/or retaliates against athletes who engage in pro-gay activities. Here are telling excerpts from the CNN piece:
Usually when we talk about the 1936 Olympics in Berlin we focus on two men -- Adolf Hitler and Jesse Owens -- and rightfully so. They are the two with an undeniable impact on history, albeit in vastly different ways.But in light of President Barack Obama's recent remarks on "The Tonight Show" denouncing Russia's new anti-gay laws, laws that have led to bloodshed in the streets, it is important that we remember Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller.They too were at those games. They too left a mark. You see, the day before they were scheduled to run in the 400-meter relay, their coach, Dean Cromwell, replaced them.
They were not injured. They did not break any team rules nor were they disqualified for any violations. They were, however, Jewish, and this was Nazi Germany, which had adopted the Nuremberg laws limiting Jewish citizens' rights a year earlier. Apparently, Cromwell, along with leaders from the U.S. Olympic Committee, decided it would be best if Glickman and Stoller did not compete.
Today we know better. Today we look at that decision and lower our heads in shame, understanding that it made us complicit with something that evolved into a far worse crime than unjustly replacing a pair of sprinters. In the moment when we should have spoken up, we remained silent.And so here we are again: an Olympics on the horizon, another host country with recently legislated laws persecuting a group of people, and for a while, we were silent. And then Tuesday happened.Last month Buzzfeed provided the world photos of LGBT people being violently beaten by anti-gay protesters and police in Russia.There are reports of LGBT teens being kidnapped, bullied, tortured and killed.
Russian officials have said they don't condone the attacks, but police have stood by while they happened and then arrested the battered victims for being gay.
I just want to remind you that the Holocaust did not happen overnight. It was subtle. Surgical. In silence.These new anti-gay laws are disturbingly similar to the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws Hitler passed before the 1936 Olympics. And with the Pew Institute finding 84% of Russians believe society should reject gay people, perhaps some saying they object to gays for fear of arrest, the world should question how far Russia intends to go.We should question how far Russia, our lukewarm ally, intends to go and what our participation in the 2014 Olympic Games will look like generations from now.In one of his final interviews before passing away in 2001, Glickman told the San Diego Jewish Press-Heritage that there had been some talk of boycotting the 1936 Olympics because of Hitler, but no one foresaw what would happen to the Jews a short time later.
Well said. And here are highlights from the Washington Post's editorial:
While Russia and the Soviet Union before it have generally been hostile to gay people, the recent intensity of Mr. Putin’s war is part and parcel of his lapse into xenophobia, religious chauvinism and general intolerance as the urban middle class increasingly questions the legitimacy of his authoritarian rule. But if Mr. Putin believed that persecution of gay people would be a domestic issue of little interest to the world, he miscalculated. As Mr. Obama rightly highlighted, the dignity with which gays are treated has been recognized as a fundamental human rights concern in much of the world. No country, especially not one on the cusp of hosting the Olympic Games, should expect such bigotry to go unnoticed.
Mr. Obama, speaking on the eve of his cancellation of a summit meeting in Moscow, said he felt Mr. Putin would surely understand “that for most of the countries that participate in the Olympics, we wouldn’t tolerate gays and lesbians being treated differently.” The International Olympic Committee (IOC) should understand that as well. On Wednesday the committee received a petition with more than 300,000 signatures urging it to boycott Sochi as the host city.
That may be unlikely, but the IOC will have to take some definitive stand in the weeks ahead, especially after Vitaly L. Mutko, Russia’s minister of sports, pronounced that Olympic athletes of all nationalities would be subject to the “propaganda” law. Those words stand in contrast to the IOC’s commitment that “the Games themselves should be open to all, free of discrimination, and that applies to spectators, officials, media and of course athletes.” The Olympic spirit is not compatible with a gag order on expressions of human freedom.
All these years after the 1936 Berlin Games, the IOC still hasn't grasp the concept that bad things happen when good people do nothing. The IOC needs to either move the games - which would be a PR disaster for Putin - or allow athletes to act as suggested in the New York Times op-ed. This would likewise be a very public and stinging rebuke to Putin and the Neanderthals in the Russian Orthodox Church whom he is courting. As noted in prior posts, the Russian Orthodox Church has a very ugly history of siding with tyrants and betraying both the Gospel message and the general citizenry.
Iowa ethics board will investigate National Organization for Marriage
The anti-gay bigots and self-enriching hate merchants at the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") like to congratulate themselves on their piety and godliness even as they lie through their teeth, seek to breed discord between blacks and gays, and violate campaign finance laws wherever they operate. The latest state to launch an investigation of NOM is Iowa where NOM bundled money and participated in a campaign to oust Iowa Supreme Court justices who had joined in the Iowa Supreme Court opinion striking down Iowa's ban on gay marriage. Here are highlights from the Des Moines Register:
A national organization that opposes same-sex marriage may have violated state law by not disclosing its donors in its fight to oust Iowa Supreme Court justices, ethics officials said today.
The Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board voted unanimously to investigate the National Organization for Marriage, saying that if the allegations against it are proven true, the marriage group’s actions would violate state law.
The decision to investigate is a triumph for Republican former presidential candidate Fred Karger, who filed the complaint against the National Organization for Marriage on June 13.
Karger said the D.C.-based group spent $635,000 in 2010 and about $100,000 in 2012 to try to oust four of the justices who were part of a unanimous 2009 decision that allowed same-sex marriage in Iowa.
Megan Tooker, the ethics board’s lawyer and executive director, noted that the National Organization for Marriage was “absolutely wrong” in several of its interpretations of state law.
Tooker said if the marriage organization solicited and received donations for the purpose of defeating the Iowa justices, by state law, the names of those donors should have been disclosed.
One piece of evidence in the complaint is an email the National Organization for Marriage sent out on Sept. 21, 2012 that asks for cash donations specifically for the fight against the Iowa justices, Tooker said.
In its written response, the marriage organization argued that the release of donors isn’t required if funds are raised through phone calls and emails. “That’s absolutely false,” Tooker said.
The folks at NOM make tawdry whores look virtuous in comparison. I continue to believe that NOM's goal is to hide the fact that a handful of big donors - e.g., the Roman Catholic Church and/or other religious denominations - are its principal contributors.
Nancy Boy: Lindsey Graham Gay-Baited in South Carolina GOP Primary
I certainly have no love for GOP Senator Lindsey Graham who I frequently refer to as the "Palmetto Queen" because he strikes me as a closet case. Apparently, I am not the only one to get the gay vibes from Graham who is facing a primary challenge from the wingnut far right. As David Mixner notes, the primary is getting nasty and Graham has been gay-baited and called a "Nancy boy," an old derogatory term applied to gays/effeminate men. While I do not like Graham, a far right Christofascist/Tea Party backed candidate would be even worse if elected. Here are some post excerpts:
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who faces a tough primary from a number of challengers who believe he is too 'liberal' has been 'gay-baited' by one of his opponents. Rumors have been flying for years about the fifty-eight year old Senator has been a 'confirmed bachelor' all his life.
Nancy Mace called the Republican Senator a 'Nancy boy' in a tweet which she then attempted to quickly delete not knowing that once a tweet is sent out it is out there for the public. She should have consulted with Anthony Weiner!
The rumors of Graham's sexuality had become so strong that in 2010 he had to publicly deny that he was gay.
The Carolina Conservatives United says that Graham is too progressive for the folks of the South. Graham has over six million dollars in the bank and at this moment has a comfortable lead in the polls.
A conservative political action committee outs Graham in this video at a speech in Greenville, South Carolina:
Gay Marriage Issue Entangles Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett
With the State Attorney General of Pennsylvania stating that she will not defend Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage and some county clerks issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples and one mayor conducting marriages, the hot potato issue of gay marriage has landed firmly in the lap of Pennsylvania's GOP governor, Tom Corbett (pictured above). It's an issue that is probably a lose-lose situation for Corbett, whose popularity has plummeted, but the Christofascists in the GOP base will be screaming for his head on a pike if he does not defend the law. Politico looks at Corbett's unwanted position. Here are highlights:
Defending a divisive gay marriage ban is probably not the fight Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett would have chosen 15 months ahead of an election he’s widely expected to lose. A majority of Pennsylvanians now support same-sex marriage, a dramatic shift from just a few years ago. But the issue has been thrust in the first-term Republican’s lap — and the politics may not be all bad for him.
Slate: Ken Cuccinelli’s Sodomy Obsession
Ken Cuccinelli's obsession with sodomy continues to make Virginia a laughing stock around the country and also shows the way Kookinelli would govern if Virginians are stupid enough to allow him to be elected to the Governor's mansion by the right wing extremists that nominated him for governor in the first place. Time and time again, Cuccinelli has demonstrated that laws and mean what he wants them to say, not what their plain language states, and that he thinks he is above the rulings of the highest courts in the land. In his frivolous appeal the the United States Supreme Court, Cuccinelli asks the Court to utterly ignore the plain, unequivocal wording of Virginia's "crimes against nature" law which as written applies to EVERYONE, gay or straight, adult or minor, married or unmarried. Who is guilty and who can be prosecuted is left purely to the whims of prosecutors. Policing every bedroom across Virginia is not what I'd call an example
of smaller government. But then again, a smaller government less intrusive government is not what Cuccinelli wants. He wants a theocracy. An article in Slate looks at Cuccinelli's insane and very dangerous arguments for making all sex outside of the so-called "missionary position" illegal. Here are excerpts:
Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s attorney general, has garnered more than his share of national attention over the years, with high-profile legal crusades against global warming researchers, Obamacare, and abortion clinics. But it’s his recent war on consensual sodomy in the commonwealth that has raised the most eyebrows as the gubernatorial candidate has made the issue a centerpiece of the final months of his campaign.
His critics, including the ladies of The View and Jay Leno, have responded to Cuccinelli’s quest to reinstate Virginia’s anti-sodomy or, “Crimes Against Nature” law, with snickers and winks. The law is plainly unconstitutional—according to both a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision and a federal appeals court—and giggling about the attorney general’s creepy preoccupation with Virginians’ consensual oral sex makes for an easy comic target. But that focus obscures the real—even original—sin undergirding Cucinelli’s latest legal push: It’s a call for judges to read statutes to mean what they don’t say; a call for outright judicial activism, for freewheeling judicial interpretation—qualities legal thinkers on the right usually deplore.
It has long been the mantra of Republican politicians that judges—especially elitist federal judges—should never, ever legislate from the bench. Now consider Attorney General Cuccinelli’s approach to Virginia’s sodomy law. The anti-sodomy statute, 18.2-361, applies to “any person” that “carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth.” Yes. It bans all oral and anal sex. And for those who partake, the legal consequence is a felony conviction, possible imprisonment, and lifelong status as a sex offender.
In March, the federal court of appeals struck down the Virginia sodomy law and threw out MacDonald’s conviction for reasons clear to anyone who’s ever watched Ally McBeal. Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision about Texas’ anti-sodomy statute, held that states can’t regulate private consensual sexual activity amongst adults. The court of appeals’ position, that state anti-sodomy laws simply do not survive post-Lawrence, is the same position taken by attorneys general in other states, including the prior Virginia attorney general. That should end it, right?
But even with the tide of legal authority against him, Cuccinelli decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that Virginia’s anti-sodomy statute has no constitutional problem, if—as he concedes, and only if—the high court would just interpret the terrifyingly broad sodomy law to apply only to sex involving 16- and 17-year-olds.
The legal position Cuccinelli pushes creates truly bizarre results, which is normally a sign for reviewing courts that something smells funky. Asking a federal court to turn a state anti-sodomy law into an anti-statutory rape law means that if MacDonald had engaged in ordinary intercourse with a 17-year-old girl every day for a month, he would not face a felony conviction or be a sex offender. He’d just be that guy. But his decision to solicit oral sex, even his decision to just phone her and ask for it, under the imaginarily rewritten law, requires both.Cuccinelli’s proposed revision to Virginia’s sodomy law would also mean that those older than 15 can legally consent to sex, yet, have no right of sexual privacy in actually having sex. Or, to put it differently, Virginia could charge any 16- and 17-year-old with felony sodomy simply because they happened to choose oral or anal sex over vaginal sex. That’s a scary prospect for all parents in Virginia, but especially for those parents raising gay teens. Leaving a statute of that sort on the books doesn’t protect children over the age of consent. It criminalizes their choice of conduct and leaves the state to decide when it’s benign.
For what possible reason should we give Cuccinelli, or the federal courts, open-ended discretion to go after some acts of consensual sodomy, but not others—when he’s made plain that he thinks one particular class of sodomy is “intrinsically wrong?” And in light of that fact that exactly such back-from-the-dead “crimes against nature” statutes are being used right now in states like Louisiana by overzealous and vindictive police officers to openly harass gay couples, what possible reason could there be to reinstate them?
It’s hard to tell whether Cuccinelli is now begging federal courts to legislate from the bench because he needs a campaign boost, or because he really does want them to police—on an ongoing, “trust me”—basis, the private sex lives of all Virginians and the sexual conduct of all its teenagers. The first scenario is an example of the sad state of Virginia politics. The second is just plain scary. Either way, begging out-of-touch, elitist, liberal federal courts to make ad hoc decisions about which private sex acts are “unnatural” could not be a less conservative goal.
When all is said and done, Kookinelli's ultimate target is gay Virginians. He is a zealot who cannot be trusted and, in my view, is down right insane. We do not need someone like him in the governor's mansion. We don't need him in any elected office whatsoever. The Constitutional Daily, after asking whether or not Kookinelli has ever committed sodomy with his wife gets to the real issue plaguing Kookinelli:
But we will speculate about Ken Cuccinelli. There's a good chance he's had a little bit of sodomy at some time. And maybe it was a bad experience for him. In fact, it's quite likely it was a bad experience for him, because anyone who's ever followed the story of an ardent anti-gay advocate knows how the story always ends. Ken Cuccinelli is probably gay.
His anti-gay campaigning is probably a manifestation of his own internal struggle. Most people don't feel that strongly about gays, even your typical redneck who will agree with the most homophobic stuff you can think of at the end of the day really doesn't care. The people who do care are the ones fighting their nature because for them homosexuality is an issue that dominates their own lives, and so they think the rest of the world is as concerned as they are.
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Failed GOP Policies: Mothballing Aircraft Carriers A Distinct Possiblity
 |
| Aircraft carries at the Norfolk Naval Base |
No one blathers more about supporting - dare we say worshiping - America than the Republican party, including the blithering idiots in the Tea Party. Yet because of GOP intransigence and the budgetary sequester that has occurred because the Congressional GOP refused to conclude a deal with the Democrats and the Obama White House, very real threats to national security and military readiness are looming. Virgina could be hit very hard, especially because under the dominance of the GOP controlled House of Delegates and Messrs. McDonnell and Cuccinelli, Virginia has made itself anathema to many progressive and innovative businesses. A vote for the GOP is a vote for economic suicide in Virginia and Tidewater in particular. A piece in the Virginian Pilot looks at the growing possibility that air craft carrier battle groups could be mothballed. Here are excerpts:
Really? Mothballing aircraft carriers? The idea floated last week by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed particularly shocking in this Navy town – home to half the nation’s fleet of nuclear flattops, where carrier deployments and homecomings routinely lead evening newscasts.
But defense analysts say people shouldn’t roll their eyes at Hagel’s warning or other drastic changes described last week in the Pentagon’s first formal attempt to detail the long-term effects of sequestration.
If Congress does nothing to mitigate $500 billion in across-the-board defense cuts planned over the next decade, several analysts say, reducing the number of carrier strike groups from 11 is more than just a possibility – it’s almost assured.
“Given the size of the cuts, it’s hard to imagine a scenario that wouldn’t involve cutting carriers,” said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
[A]nalysts from three other Washington-based think tanks developed plans for how they would deal with sequestration. Every group said it would eliminate at least two carrier strike groups; one analyst said he would cut four. Even if Congress reduced the budget cuts by half, each team of analysts still recommended cutting at least two carrier strike groups.
Aircraft carriers are widely considered America’s best weapon for projecting force across the globe. They’re also the most expensive piece of military equipment ever – one that typically deploys with seven squadrons of multimillion-dollar aircraft, a cruiser, two or three destroyers or frigates and about 5,500 sailors.
“It’s not that carriers aren’t important, it’s that perhaps other systems in the force, even in the Navy, are of a higher priority and deliver more bang for the buck,” said Harrison, noting that he would rather invest in stealthy Virginia-class submarines and unmanned aircraft. “You can try to maintain 11 carriers, but if you don’t have money to deploy them, they won’t be very useful.”
[W]ould aircraft carriers be decommissioned and destroyed, or would the plan involve defueling the nuclear reactors and placing the ships in long-term storage? Huntington Ingalls Industries CEO Mike Petters addressed the hypothetical question Wednesday during a quarterly conference call with Wall Street analysts. The most efficient way to cut the fleet, Petters said, would be to inactivate the next few carriers slated to come into Newport News Shipbuilding for their midlife nuclear refueling.
That would place the aircraft carriers George Washington, John C. Stennis and Norfolk-based Harry S. Truman in the crosshairs.
However you slice it, said retired Vice Adm. Peter Daly, the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute, fewer aircraft carriers is bad news for Hampton Roads and for national defense.
“Given the level of cuts, I’m not surprised they’re looking at this,” said Daly, the former deputy commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk. “That doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea.”
The irony is that the GOP leaning voters in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake would see the local economy pummeled and their property values drop significantly. But for the fact that others would be harmed in the process, I'd almost like to see it happen. Then these cretins and bigots would be reaping what they had sown.
Instead of Punishing Russia, International Olympic Committee May Punish Pro-Gay Olympians
My opinion of the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") is dropping by the second. And my parallels of the current anti-gay pogrom in Russia to events in 1930's Germany when the IOC prostituted itself to Adolph Hitler for the 1936 Summer Games seem increasingly on target. Now, there are rumors that rather than move the 2014 Winter Games or demand that Russia safeguard gay athletes and tourists attending the Games, the IOC may be planning to take action against athletes who display any type of pro-gay support claiming that such actions would constitute engaging in "political activities". I'm sorry, but a tawdry whore has more scruples and integrity than the IOC. A piece in Huffington Post looks at these disturbing developments. Here are excerpts:
Controversy is swirling around the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia -- scheduled to start six months from today -- due to a shocking and barbaric crackdown against the basic rights and freedoms of that country's LGBT community.
In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a draconian law that labels any public acknowledgement of the LGBT community as "gay propaganda." It is now a crime in Russia to advocate for LGBT equality, publicly say that gay relationships are equal to non-gay ones, organize an LGBT pride parade, or even simply hold a rainbow flag. Violators face jail time or fines of up to 1 million rubles. . . . . And Putin's regressive policies are fueling and legitimizing an alarming surge in hate-motivated beatings, torture, and murders of LGBT people across Russia.
There are calls for the Games themselves to be boycotted, most notably from Harvey Fierstein, and actor George Takei argued yesterday that they should be moved to another host city entirely. Conversely, gay Olympians Johnny Weir, Blake Skjellerup, and Greg Louganis have come out against a boycott, saying that athletes should instead show up at the Games and express support for LGBT people.
But according to a shocking New York Times report by Jeré Longman, showing up and expressing support may not be a feasible option at all. That's because instead of punishing Russia for its brutal and indefensible assault on LGBT human rights, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) may punish athletes who wear pro-equality pins, patches, or T-shirts.
Longman reports that the Olympic Charter "prohibits athletes from making political gestures during the Winter and Summer Games," and that this prohibition could be used to "banish" Olympians who choose to protest, even silently, against Russian homophobia.
Since when is human rights advocacy a "political statement"? If the persecuted group in question were women, Jews, or a racial or ethnic minority group, would protesting their mistreatment still qualify as "political"? Or do things only become political when it's LGBT people -- a minority group it's still OK to hate in many parts of the world -- who are being terrorized?
Equally outrageous is the utterly impotent position that the IOC has taken on Russia's anti-gay laws from the beginning. According to The New York Times, "All the indignation the I.O.C. could muster about Russia's new antigay law was a statement saying the Olympic Committee would 'oppose in the strongest terms any move that would jeopardize this principle.'"
And the United States Olympic Committee isn't any better:
What contemptible cowardice. Have they learned nothing from the Berlin Olympics of 1936?The United States Olympic Committee could have joined with Olympic committees from other nations and said they would not tolerate such a discriminatory law.
But that did not happen. And American officials decided not to speak out unilaterally. Scott Blackmun, the U.S.O.C.'s chief executive, sent a note to American Olympic officials saying, 'While we strongly support equal rights for all, our mission is sustained competitive excellence' and not political advocacy.
By silencing pro-LGBT athletes, the IOC will be actively complicit in Russia's egregious human rights violations. They will have blood on their hands.
If the Games are held in Sochi, I for one will not watch ANY of the media coverage despite my love of figure skating (one of my daughters was a competitive skater). I hope others will join me in boycotting all things Olympic if the Games are not moved from Russia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)