unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
A calm political protest quickly turned chaotic as anxious Denver police surrounded protestors peacefully marching toward the Democratic National Convention Center. After trapping the crowd between two buildings, hundreds of officers used pepper spray, batons and unwarranted aggression. After being surrounded for 20 minutes, two ANP producers managed to escape after recording the whole affair.
At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Iraq Veterans Against the War marched with thousands of peace activists amid high police presence to bring a message to Obama - pull out of Iraq now.
AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party

Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. Matt Stoller has one of the listings for the party here.

Armed with full-scale Convention press credentials issued by the DNC, I went -- along with Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Stoller and others -- in order to cover the event, interview the attendees, and videotape the festivities. There was a wall of private security deployed around the building, and after asking where the press entrance was, we were told by the security officials, after they consulted with event organizers, that the press was barred from the event, and that only those with invitations could enter -- notwithstanding the fact that what was taking place in side was a meeting between one of the nation's largest corporations and the numerous members of the most influential elected faction in Congress. As a result, we stood in front of the entrance and began videotaping and trying to interview the parade of Blue Dog Representatives, AT&T executives, assorted lobbyists and delegates who pulled up in rented limousines, chauffeured cars, and SUVs in order to find out who was attending and why AT&T would be throwing such a lavish party for the Blue Dog members of Congress.

Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests. MORE



ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors

Denver Police Arrest 91, Fire Pepper Spray & Pepper Balls at Protesters

Its not THAT you're protesting. Its WHAT you're protesting


Pepperspraying protestors,

If you are a New York Times photog, try not to be mistaken for an anarchist,

What the Free Speech Zones looked like (most people completely ignored them)
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
The Republican War on Voting


Sharrard's cautionary tone was a response to the Republican Party's ongoing nationwide campaign to suppress the low-income minority vote by propagating the myth of voter fraud. Using various tactics -- including media smears, bogus lawsuits, restrictive new voting laws and policies, and flimsy prosecutions -- Republican operatives, election officials, and the GOP-controlled Justice Department have limited voting access and gone after voter-registration groups such as ACORN. Which should come as no surprise: In building support for initiatives raising the minimum wage and kindred ballot measures, ACORN has registered, in partnership with Project Vote, 1.6 million largely Democratic-leaning voters since 2004. All told, non-profit groups registered over three million new voters in 2004, about the same time that Republican and Justice Department efforts to publicize ?voter fraud? and limit voting access became more widespread. And attacking ACORN has been a central element of a systematic GOP disenfranchisement agenda to undermine Democratic prospects before each Election Day.
 
Revelations that U.S. attorneys were fired for their failure to successfully prosecute voter fraud have revealed how fictitious the allegations of widespread fraud actually were -- but the allegations haven't gone away. They live on in all the vote-suppressing laws and regulations that will likely affect this year's election, in GOP rhetoric and, most recently, in the arguments presented by champions of Indiana's restrictive voter-identification law in a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
...

Voter fraud is actually less likely to occur than lightning striking a person, according to data compiled by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. As Lorraine Minnite, a Columbia University professor, observed in the Project Vote report, The Politics of Voter Fraud, "The claim that voter fraud threatens the integrity of American elections is itself a fraud." In October 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft launched an intensive "Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative" that required all U.S. attorney offices to coordinate with local officials in combating voter fraud. Yet even after the Justice Department declared the war against voter fraud a "high priority," only 24 people were convicted of illegal voting in federal elections between 2002 and 2005 -- and nobody was even charged by Justice with impersonating another voter. (The Justice Department declined to answer questions about more recent fraud prosecutions.) And despite the anti-immigrant frenzy fueling photo-ID laws, only 14 noncitizens were convicted of illegally voting in federal elections from 2002 through 2005 -- mostly because of their ignorance of election law.

Unfortunately, the public hasn't heard just how nonexistent the voter fraud epidemic actually is. While progressives have successfully challenged some of the most restrictive laws in court, they're still playing catch-up when it comes to combating the glib sound bites of voter-fraud alarmists. Republicans and the Bush Justice Department have cloaked their schemes under such noble-sounding concepts as "ballot integrity." The GOP's vote-suppression playbook features everything from phony lawsuits to questionable investigations to authoritative-seeming reports, all with the aim of promoting restrictive laws. These tactics were first perfected in the hotly contested swing state of Missouri.

The roots of John Ashcroft's passion on this issue go back to the chaos of Election Day 2000 in St. Louis, when hundreds, if not thousands, of mostly inner-city voters were turned away from polling places because their names were not on voting rolls. The resulting last-minute court battle kept some polling places open for 45 minutes after their scheduled closing time of 7 P.M. Ashcroft, then the Republican U.S. Senate nominee, lost his race to the dead Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan, whose name stayed on the ballot weeks after he died in a plane crash. At an election-night party, an infuriated Republican Sen. Kit Bond pounded the podium and screamed, "This is an outrage!" -- and subsequently charged that Republican losses were due in part to dogs and dead people voting. As one local government official observed, "In St. Louis, 'dogs and dead people' is code for black people [voting fraudulently]."

That election night gave birth to the new right-wing voter-fraud movement, while Missouri became a proving ground for the vote-suppression campaigns that later spread to other key states. Missouri's then-Secretary of State Matt Blunt, now governor, launched a trumped-up investigation that concluded that more than 1,000 fraudulent ballots had been cast in an organized scheme. A Justice Department Civil Rights Division investigation, started before Ashcroft shifted the department's priorities, found no fraudulent ballots, however. Instead, it discovered that the St. Louis election board had improperly purged 50,000 voters from the rolls

More

The War On Voting Rights: Voter Fraud Smears, Voter ID And Corruption At DOJ


Corruption and Politicization at the Department of Justice
In the wake of the scandal opened up with inquiries into the firing of David Iglesias, which eventually cost Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez his job, the full scale of the politicization and corruption at the Department of Justice came into view. Congressional oversight hearings examined the Department's role in voter suppression activities, including allegations of voter fraud, voter caging, and voter intimidation. Representative John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has tackled the voter caging issue and has started hearings on this and related issues through his Committee and its various sub-committees.
Hearings held recently in front of one of those House Judiciary subcommittees revealed how the Department, through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, "failed to investigate illegal mailers sent to African-Americans in Dallas" that threatened criminal punishments if they registered to vote through ACORN in the run-up to a 2006 Congressional election, Levine wrote.

"The FBI's decision not to investigate, critics say, is the latest sign that politicization appears to have compromised the nominally non-partisan law enforcement agency," Levine wrote. "That intimidation is a violation of the Voting Rights Act," said "former 21-year veteran of the Civil Rights Division" and election law expert, Gerry Hebert. Levine further notes that "President Bush's Justice Department hasn't brought a single prosecution or lawsuit in more than seven years on behalf of any African-American voters who faced direct voter intimidation threats and challenges – despite receiving, by some estimates, roughly 12,000 criminal civil rights complaints of all kinds annually." But the VRA is not the only federal law the Department failed to enforce as partisan political operatives such as Hans von Spakovsky took over key parts of the Department’s voting rights enforcement apparatus

"Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s Voting Section has not enforced other federal laws, such as the requirement that state welfare offices offer public aid recipients a chance to register to vote," wrote Steve Rosenfeld in the Fall 2007 issue of Social Policy, referring to Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act. Instead, the Department has had a heavy hand at pushing detrimental voter purges, a procedure loosely mandated by another NVRA section. At a House hearing on equal enforcement of NVRA Tuesday, Project Vote deputy director, Michael Slater testified that "All Americans deserve an equal opportunity to register to vote and participate in our democracy...Many states, however, are undermining that promise and furthering inequalities."
Levine recounted the number of voters disenfranchised as a result of these purges and voter caging policies:
"In Ohio in 2006, 303,000 voters were purged in three major urban counties, while the Brennan Center reported that Pennsylvania's rigid database rules, later loosened, had excluded up to 30 percent of eligible registrants. Karl Rove aide Tim Griffin played a major role in state GOP voter 'caging' operations (that is, challenging the eligibility of registered voters) in such states as Ohio and Florida. These schemes, Project Vote reports, challenged the right of 77,000 mostly minority voters to cast ballots between 2004 and 2006, under the pretext that non-forwardable letters sent by GOP activists to their addresses were returned as undelivered."
States fail to offer Voter Registration to Millions of Low-Income Voters


Millions of low-income and minority voters are being denied opportunities to register to vote by state agencies that are violating a federal voting law, according to members of Congress and voting rights groups.
The ongoing failure has led to a nearly 80 percent drop-off in registering low-income applicants at state social services agencies over a decade, according to a recent report by the non-partisan voter advocacy research groups Project Vote and Demos.
"This noncompliance means the disenfranchisement of millions of low-income citizens, and a widening of the gap between the registration rates of high and low-income individuals," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the chairwoman of a House elections subcommittee that held hearings this spring on the widespread violations of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The under-enforced 1993 law is better known the "motor voter" law. Minority citizens lag behind white voter registration by as much 10 percent for blacks, and roughly 20 percent for Hispanics and Asian-Americans, in part because they are disproportionately low-income.

...

These disparities are worsened by other state and federal actions that limit access to voter registration and voting.
Battleground states such as Florida also impose draconian restrictions on voter registration groups seeking to register low-income voters. VA hospitals bar on-site voter registration drives of wounded soldiers. And states have toughened voter ID requirements, led by Indiana's photo ID law that was upheld by the Supreme Court in April.
In addition, some states, including Louisiana, are facing challenges to their efforts to hastily purge many thousands of often minority voters from their rolls. In response to these alarming trends, Project Vote declared last week, "Voter purges are one of several problems in the administration of elections that could not only bar legal voters from the polls, but could potentially influence the outcome of close races," including the tight Presidential race.


More



Michigan, Louisiana and Kansas accused of Illegally purging Voters Lists

Election officials in a handful of states appear to be ignoring the federal law dictating the way registered voters may be purged from voter rolls, civil rights attorneys say.

National voting rights groups have contacted officials in Kansas, Michigan and Louisiana in recent weeks because those states appear to be purging registered voters after election officials found duplicate names and birthdays of people on their voter lists and in out-of-state databases, such as driver's license records.

The states are assuming that a more recent driver's license or voter registration in another state indicates that the voter has relocated, meaning the voter registration tied to their prior address is no longer valid. While purging voters who move, die or are imprisoned is a routine part of managing elections, the federal law governing purges -- the National Voter Registration Act -- lays out a multiyear process of trying to contact voters to confirm a change of address before deleting them from voter rolls.

The election attorneys say the NVRA process seeks to err on the side of protecting voting rights and cannot be circumvented by what appears to be a duplicate voter registration.

"The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) limits the circumstances in which a state may cancel a voter's registration," the Fair Elections Legal Network, a Washington-based voting rights consortium, said in a June 24 letter to Kansas Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. "The NVRA does not permit cancellation based on a match alone."
...

Last week, Project Vote, which is working in two dozen states to register voters in 2008, sent a letter to Dardenne saying his state appeared to be ignoring sections of the NVRA that require that voters be notified by mail over two federal election cycles before being removed. Project Vote's attorney said Louisiana Commissioner of Elections Angie LaPlace was treating apparently duplicate database listings as "cases of suspected fraud or some other irregularity."

Last year, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund sued Louisiana over the purging of registrations of refugees from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many people who applied for a driver's license in a neighboring state -- to quickly acquire an ID after losing their belongings in the storms -- also were registered to vote without their knowledge, NAACP attorneys said. Those new voter registrations resulted in 21,000 voters being removed from Louisiana voter rolls last August, the group said. While the NAACP suit was dismissed, Project Vote's recent letter suggests the state's voter list maintenance practices have not changed. Project Vote also wrote to the U.S. Department of Justice about the matter, as the agency oversees federal elections in most Southern states as a result of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Louisiana election officials disagreed with Project Vote's assessment, saying the state has its own voter purge process that "supersedes" the federal law. Berry, the secretary of state's spokesman, explained that Louisiana updates its voter roll annually with multiple mailings to voters so the lists are accurate in state elections -- not just federal contests. He said that process is more rigorous than that outlined in the federal NVRA, requiring, for instance, that voters reaffirm their Louisiana voter registrations in person after receiving a final state notice. Berry said the process was approved by the Department of Justice. (THIS Dept. of Justice!!!)

"What we find is in the vast majority of cases the voter has moved out of Louisiana and registered in another state, not realizing that they will not automatically cancel their voter registration," he said.

The issue of whether states are heeding the National Voter Registration Act reveals how the implementation of the nation's election laws often turns on a patchwork of local or state policies. In the absence of litigation, whether a state or election jurisdiction is following the NVRA often remains a question of local interpretation.


More




(From April this year)House Panel Launches Probe: Did FBI Ignore Threats To Jail Black Voters?


Moreover, the Justice Department's response was part of a striking pattern of indifference to alleged intimidation violations. In fact, The Huffington Post has learned, President Bush's Justice Department hasn't brought a single prosecution or lawsuit in more than seven years on behalf of any African-American voters who faced direct voter intimidation threats and challenges -- despite receiving, by some estimates, roughly 12,000 criminal civil rights complaints of all kinds annually.

Indeed, part of what amounts to a wide-ranging GOP disenfranchisement strategy is attacking the non-partisan low-income advocacy group ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The organization has been a favorite target of Republicans promoting the myth of widespread voter fraud because of its success in registering Democratic-leaning minority voters since 2004, according to reports by McClatchy Newspapers, The American Prospect, and other outlets. The drumbeat of voter-fraud hype is then used to justify a host of GOP-backed laws and policies, from restrictive photo ID voting laws to the Justice Department' promotion of mass purges of registered voters. Yet voter fraud, in fact, is so rare that even an intensive, four-year anti-fraud initiative by the Justice Department couldn't even find one person in the country to charge with impersonating another voter -- out of nearly 215 million votes cast in federal elections.


The Dallas incident, it turns out, perfectly symbolizes the no-holds-barred Republican politics of voter fraud. The intimidating flier was part of a brazen vote-suppression and smear campaign designed to undermine a Democratic candidate, Harriet Miller, in a tight local race in 2006 to challenge Texas House Rep. Tony Goolsby in a racially mixed North Dallas district.
The frightening and deceptive mailer, highlighted with ACORN's trademark red and black colors, was sent to thousands of black residents a few days before the election: "Beware: A national political group suspected of voter fraud [i.e., ACORN] is currently working in your neighborhood to bring people to the polls on election day...Don't be a victim of voter fraud -- it could result in jail time for you."
The flier appeared to have its intended effect of intimidating some black voters. Lawrence Jones, a 63-year-old retiree and an active ACORN member, vividly recalls how it affected registered voters and other ACORN members. "They were dumbfounded and shocked," he says. It caused some members to doubt the group's integrity, while other residents, he says, "just feared to vote." He adds, "A lot of people said they don't think ACORN is powerful enough to protect them -- I'm not going to fool with the federal government."
That anonymous mailer followed a spate of public attacks, ads, and mailers by the Goolsby campaign -- and even a letter to the local district attorney by the county Republican chairman -- all accusing Miller of engaging in voter fraud during her first campaign against Goolsby in 2004. The Republican smears, now the subject of a pending defamation lawsuit aimed at Goolsby and other local Republicans, also claimed she had illegally "retained the services of ACORN," while tarring the organization with flimsy claims that it deliberately engaged in voter fraud.


The district attorney never responded to the Dallas GOP's allegations, but the local CBS affiliate, CBS 11 News, jumped on the story to ballyhoo the bogus charges filed by Republican County Chairman Kenn George with the D.A.
The real fraud involved George's inflammatory letter to the prosecutor, which blatantly misrepresented election returns from 2004 in order to file the false voter fraud complaint against Miller. The letter claimed that as a Democrat running for a state House seat, she suspiciously won more votes than the Democratic candidate for Congress in black districts, when, in fact, there was no Democratic congressional candidate opposing the Republican, just an obscure independent.

"Republicans then used the [CBS] news coverage as a prop for mail to Anglo voters alleging Harriet Miller was engaged in a criminal enterprise," says Matt Engle, director of the pro-Democratic legal advocacy group, the Lone Star Project, which supports Miller's lawsuit against local Republicans. "Another part of the Republican effort was sending the illegal fliers to black neighborhoods to convince African-American voters not to show up."

After the CBS 11 News story ran, the Republicans' specious claims of voter fraud became the basis of at least four pieces of direct mail and one doorhanger charging that Miller was "under investigation" for voter fraud. The mailers cited as a source the same CBS story that Kenn George himself had generated with his fake voter fraud claim to the D.A. All this, in turn, was followed by the menacing flier warning black voters who registered with ACORN that they'd be arrested at the polls.

....


Harriet Miller and her district's black voters, though, are hardly the only people victimized by false voter fraud claims and intimidation schemes. For instance, as chronicled by leading civil rights groups in an "Election Protection" coalition, such threatening incidents include black-shirted, gun-toting thugs thwarting Latino voters in Tucson, Arizona in 2006, and fliers from a fake "Milwaukee Black Voters League" distributed during the 2004 election in Milwaukee inner-city neighborhoods warning people that if anyone in their family had been convicted of a crime, "you can get ten years in prison" if you dared to vote. Unfortunately, such cases don't seem to have been deemed worthy of serious investigation by DOJ, and certainly no prosecutions or lawsuits have resulted.

More


Needed Now: A Constitutional Amendment Ensuring the Right to Vote

Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that there is no provision of the Constitution or federal law that affirmatively guarantees all citizens the right to vote. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the 1965 Voting Rights Act nor any other federal law explicitly ensures such a right. Even the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution do not explicitly guarantee the right to vote to all citizens.

Now is an ideal time to ensure the right to vote for people of color, who are disproportionately disenfranchised, and all Americans. In this heated election season, state legislatures throughout the nation are considering bills that would complicate the process by requiring photo identification and citizenship documents in order to vote.

...

The absence of an explicit federal provision conferring this fundamental right has left Americans at the mercy of state constitutions, state legislatures, local bureaucrats, and the judiciary. The states determine who is qualified to vote and establish the rules and conditions for holding elections. Not surprisingly, the combination of unduly burdensome procedures, underfunded bureaucracies and partisan officials has created a patchwork of arbitrary practices tending to contract, rather than expand the franchise. The result, as documented by scholars, is that more than nine million Americans are known to be disenfranchised by idiosyncratic legal restrictions on who is qualified to vote. Millions more are excluded by unnecessary hurdles to registration and voting and by election administration errors.

According to one academic researcher, the U.S. is one of only 11 democratic countries that do not explicitly provide the right to vote in their constitutions. According to Professor Jamin Raskin, one of the leading academic authorities on voting rights, constitutional silence on a basic right to vote leaves the United States in miserable, backward company with such regressive nations as Iran, Libya, and Singapore ... "

More
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
From The Religious Freedom Page

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments

James Madison
[1785]







To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments


We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
  1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
  1. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

  2. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

  3. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

  4. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

  5. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

  6. Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

  7. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

  8. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.

  9. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms

  10. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

  11. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

  12. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

  13. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

  14. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Vriginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.

    We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.


  15. Comment:

"Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance was written in opposition to a bill, introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions. The assessment bill was tabled, and in its place the legislature enacted Jefferson's Bill for Religious Liberty." ( Source: Hensel, Jaye B., Ed., Church, State, and Politics Washington D.C. Final Report of the 1981 Chief Justice Earl Warren Conference on Adovcacy in the United States)

Thomas Jefferson had drafted The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1779 three years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence. The act was not passed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia until 1786. Jefferson was by then in Paris as the U.S. Ambassador to France. The Act was resisted by a group headed by Patrick Henry who sought to pass a bill that would have assessed all the citizens of Virginia to support a plural establishment. James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was, and remains, a powerful argument against state supported religion. It was written in 1785, just a few months before the General Assembly passed Jefferson's religious freedom bill.

Both the final version of the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom and the 1779 draft are available on this site.


unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Fear and Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are many problems facing the United States today: a faltering economy, a health-care crisis, and the continuing war in Iraq, to name a few. But viewers of some of the most prominent cable news programs are presented a different reality, one in which one issue stands above all others: illegal immigration.

Media Matters Action Network undertook this study in order to document the rhetoric surrounding immigration that is heard on cable news. When it comes to this issue, cable news overflows not just with vitriol, but also with a series of myths that feed viewers' resentment and fears, seemingly geared toward creating anti-immigrant hysteria.

There are two types of myths we discuss in this report. The first type is the large and most common myths, about crime and undocumented immigrants, and the costs of illegal immigration in social services and taxes. These topics are complex, and there are sometimes legitimate points buried within the arguments immigration opponents make. The second type of myth is the urban legend: that there is a conspiracy to take back the Southwest United States for Mexico; that there is a secret plan to construct a "NAFTA Superhighway" running from Canada to Mexico; that the U.S. is well on its way to surrendering its sovereignty to a "North American Union" (NAU); that Mexican immigrants are infecting Americans with leprosy; and that undocumented immigrants are responsible for a wave of election fraud. These myths are discussed less often, but are notable for their sheer ludicrousness. The North American Union and NAFTA Superhighway are closely related, and indeed are often discussed in tandem (the building of the Superhighway being posited as a step on the road to the creation of the NAU), but since each is also often discussed alone, we examine these two myths separately.

We focus our analysis on a trio of cable commentators: Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck. While hosts on other cable programs regularly discuss illegal immigration (particularly on Fox News, where it is a frequent topic on Hannity & Colmes and Special Report with Brit Hume), these three are the most notable for a number of reasons. On their eponymous programs, Dobbs, O'Reilly, and Beck serve up a steady diet of fear, anger, and resentment on the topic of illegal immigration.

Dobbs is the one most obsessed with the topic; indeed, instead of Lou Dobbs Tonight, his program might be more properly called Lou Dobbs Crusades Against Illegal Immigration Tonight. Fully 70 percent of the 2007 episodes of Lou Dobbs Tonight contained discussion of illegal immigration. The O'Reilly Factor is not far behind; 56 percent of 2007 episodes discussed illegal immigration. And though Glenn Beck was less consumed with the issue (28 percent of his 2007 programs discussed it), his show is the one on which viewers often find the most inflammatory claims.
Graph 1

Among the study's findings:

During 2007, the alleged connection between illegal immigration and crime was discussed on 94 episodes of Lou Dobbs Tonight, 66 episodes of The O'Reilly Factor, and 29 episodes of Glenn Beck.

During 2007, the allegation that undocumented immigrants drain social services and/or don't pay taxes was discussed on 71 episodes of Lou Dobbs Tonight, 13 episodes of Glenn Beck, and eight episodes of The O'Reilly Factor.

Dobbs and Beck have perpetuated two related myths, that there are plans to construct a "NAFTA Superhighway" running from Mexico to Canada, and that there are plans to join Mexico, Canada, and the United States in a "North American Union" similar to the European Union. Dobbs has discussed the fictional North American Union on 56 separate programs during the past two years. (These two myths were also given a boost by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who pushed the ideas on the campaign trail.)1

All three programs have presented as fact the "reconquista" myth, which states that there is a movement afoot for Mexico to take over the American Southwest.

Lou Dobbs Tonight has also been the show on which viewers are told about a mythical explosion of leprosy cases due to illegal immigration, and a mythical epidemic of voter fraud due to illegal immigration.

An examination of the rhetoric on immigration on these programs reveals the subtle and not-so-subtle ways these myths find their way into mainstream discourse and are validated by figures like Dobbs, O'Reilly, and Beck. On some occasions, the hosts repeat a myth's key elements in explicit terms; at other times, they mention some of those elements but not others; and sometimes they bring up the catchphrases associated with those myths without elaborating. Through sheer repetition, they help propagate the myths. For instance, by airing dozens and dozens of segments on individual cases in which an undocumented immigrant committed a crime, Dobbs, O'Reilly, and Beck feed the misperception that these immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate share of crime in America, even if their comments about the specific case in question don't stray from the facts. Finally, these programs, particularly Lou Dobbs Tonight, have hosted some of the most radical immigration opponents, offering them a national platform to disseminate extremist views.

The result is that those opponents -- seeking to foster misunderstanding about immigration and promoting views often tinged with hate -- gain critical assistance from cable news. Though on any given night Dobbs or O'Reilly may not repeat the most egregious deceptions of the nativist right, they are a critical link in the chain that keeps anti-immigrant sentiment moving forward.



MORE
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)


Full details here

Ah, America, land of the free, except when money is to be made. Champion of human rights, except when money is to be made. By what right do we criticse China, again?
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
The Republic of T brings a kickass essay addressing the 3 or 4 big cases of discrimination against gays that have been highlighted over the past couple of weeks:

[Example Number One:]The Pentagon at first blocked Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s domestic partner from traveling on a military plane with a congressional delegation on a trip to Europe but gave in after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intervened.

The Pentagon said it was merely following House rules, which do not define domestic partners as spouses. Pelosi’s office countered that the Pentagon has its own rules about who can go on its planes.

Both sides agree that Defense Secretary Robert Gates reversed the decision to keep Azar off the plane after getting contacted by Pelosi, D-Calif.

…Morrell said that Pelosi asked Gates to honor her decision to waive House rules to allow Azar to travel and that Gates asked her to put that request in writing.

“She did so, and he — in this one case only — agreed to it,” Morrell said. “This is not a precedent by any means. This does not open the doors for life partners to travel on congressional delegations.” But Gates has agreed to review future requests, Morrell said.


Dear Presidential candidates,
Civil Unions are NOT ENOUGH. When the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE has to intervene on behalf of a member of Congress, civil unions are a fucking insult. Clinton, states have more often than not REFUSED to progressive on any issue that I can think of right now, and you know that. Obama, whatever your religious objection, the bottomline is this...ALL AMERICANS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS. Regardless of what your God has to say about it. Otherwise, what you are saying is that all Americans are NOT EQUAL. That gay people are second class citizens. And that is a VERY ironic message in light of the fact that both of you represent constituencies who know what's its like to be second-class citizens and have been fighting that BS for years. Is this what feminism and the entire history of Af-Americans in the US has led us to? Do you realize that you are harming a subset of your own people by kowtowing to bigotry? Do you realize that you are betraying the progressive cause, that you are ignoring the Human Rights Charter of the UN, and that you are making a mockery of the US' claims of being a progressive civilized country? Oh hell, do you realize that what you are doing is fucking WRONG?


Sick and tired of the BS
A disgusted voter
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
From the Avalon Project at Yale Law School

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School
Constitution of the United States : Bill of Rights

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
II - Right to keep and bear arms
III - Conditions for quarters of soldiers
IV - Right of search and seizure regulated
V - Provisons concerning prosecution
VI - Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
VII - Right to a trial by jury
VIII - Excessive bail, cruel punishment
IX - Rule of construction of Constitution
X - Rights of the States under Constitution

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


II - Right to keep and bear arms

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

III - Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV - Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V - Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI - Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII - Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII - Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX - Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Via:The Ohm Project

From:The Avalon Project at Yale Law School


The Avalon Project at Yale Law School
Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
Articles:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
From the Ohm Project

The Ohm Declaration
Saturday, 08 March 2008

Again and again through the course of human history it has become necessary to declare that which is instinctive to every man and woman who draws breath--that human beings possess certain fundamental and inalienable rights. Repeating these truths in the language of each generation is required because tyrants and tyrannical institutions are forever seeking to bury these rights so that they can pursue wealth and power unfettered by the troublesome limitations imposed by a respect for the individual.

In this 21st century, the greedy and the power-hungry again seek to subordinate the rights of human beings. This era's incarnations of Pharaoh and King are especially perverse compared to their predecessors because they employ the very language of rights and freedom as an excuse to advance their authoritarian cause.

So acknowledging our heavy debt to our predecessors, we make a declaration of the human rights that we insist survive and persist even until this day. We make no particular claims as to the source of these rights. Some will find a divine origin for them. Others will see them as a natural product of human evolution and civilization. We see no need to go further than to invite every person to ask of him- or herself whether they feel in their heart and acknowledge in their mind that they were born to be nothing more than slaves whose lives depend upon the whim of the powerful. If the answer to that question is "no," then we offer this list of 21st century rights as a starting point for discussion.

1. Human beings are free to do everything which injures no one else.

This bold statement is not new but is taken from the Declaration of the Rights of Man adopted by the French Assemby in 1789. It constitutes the fundamental presumption that underlies all other rights and seeks to strike a balance between the autonomy of the individual and the fact that, as social beings, consideration must be taken for the impact of our actions on others.

2. Human beings are free to express themselves, especially on matters of public interest.

Without this right, all others are in jeopardy.

3. Human beings are free to engage or not engage in religious activity.

The religious impulse of our species is widespread, but no single one of its many manifestations has authority to impose its point of view on anyone else, nor can the religious demand a profession of faith from the non-religious.

4. Human beings are free to associate with one another.

We are social and sexual beings who desire relationships with our fellow humans. No ruler or institution can prevent voluntary associations nor interfere with them as long as no harm is done.

5. Human beings are free to maintain their privacy.

All of us seek a private space for ourselves and our families into which no one can enter without invitation. This private space can exist in three dimensions, as manifested by our homes, or be essentially dimensionless as exists in our right to choose whether to disclose or not disclose information about ourselves.

6. Human beings are free to travel.

Our instinctive desire to travel has been the cause of our dispersal from the heart of Africa across towering mountains and vast oceans until we occupy the entire planet. To use national boundaries, the mere creation of human beings, to suppress this basic right, is absurd.

7. Human beings are free to resist oppression.

It is not the resisters but the tyrants who are the real lawbreakers in human society, and people have a right, even a duty, to engage in non-violent resistance against those who would deny them their fundamental rights.
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
From TerranceDC at Pam's House Blend Blog

I knew instantly what he was about. Late last year, Montgomery County passed legislation prohibiting discrimination against transgender persons in housing and employment. We're proud to live in such a progressive community, and chose it specifically because we want our children to grow up in a progressive community. I was particularly proud when, after the bruising battle over an inclusive ENDA, Montgomery County showed that some Americans are more than "ready" for transgender equality. And here is this guy outside our grocery store, spreading fear and misinformation as part of an effort to repeal the bill, by the same group who attempted to stop our schools from implementing a gay-friendly sex-ed curriculum, that also addressed anti-LGBT harassment and bullying.
I saw red. Some people actually laughed at the guy, but at least one man remarked, "There are more important things to worry about. People are dying, and this is what you're concerned about?"
"People are dying." That's why I saw red. That's why my immediate reaction was anger. People are dying. More specifically, people are being killed.

Maybe I was angry because I'd been reading about the murder of Lawrence King all weekend.

King was shot in the head Tuesday morning during a class at E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard, police said. More than 20 other students were in the room at the time....King sometimes came to school wearing makeup and high heels, eighth-grader Nicholas Cortez, 14, told The Associated Press. Another eighth-grader, Michael Sweeney, said King's appearance was "freaking the guys out," the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
"He would come to school in high-heeled boots, makeup, jewelry and painted nails the whole thing," Sweeney told the Times.
King was pronounced brain dead at St. John's Regional Medical Center on Wednesday, said Craig Stevens, senior deputy medical examiner in Ventura County. Doctors planned to remove some of his organs for donation Thursday, Stevens said.

Maybe it's because I just read about Cameron McWilliams, the gender variant youth who committed suicide in the U.K.
A BOY of 10 has been found hanged at his South Yorkshire home after telling his mum he wanted to be a girl.
Tragic Cameron McWilliams had already asked for permission to wear make-up, and been teased after he was found wearing his half-sister's knickers.His desperate mum Kelly McWilliams told a Doncaster inquest she had bought him girls' underwear to wear in private, but had refused his requests to be allowed to wear make-up. ...He had been teased after once being found in his half-sister's knickers, and had asked if he could wear make-up. His mum told him he would have to wait until he was older.
Mrs McWilliams found her son hanging, with a black leather belt around his neck, in his half-sister's bedroom at the family home in Montrose Avenue, Intake, Doncaster.
"When I got in the room he was not asleep, he was standing by the window with a dressing gown on," she said.
"His head was down and I realised something really serious had happened and I screamed."
The court heard Cameron was a lonely boy with no friends outside school. He spent all his time at home listening to music, playing on his XBox and using a laptop computer.

Maybe it's because I just read about the uproar over a school in Colorado accommodating a transgender student, in a news article that revealed just enough information to out the student. Maybe it's because I read about Laura Ingraham's idiotic remark about a transgender conference "killing the culture." Meanwhile Shanesha Stewart was, an actual person, was killed for being transgender. Maybe it's because I've researched the murders other transgender women, like Bella Evangelista and Emonie Spaulding, many of whom were driven to sex work as a means of survival due to employment discrimination that made it impossible for many of them to get "straight jobs."

Maybe it's because I just read that the murder of Rashawn Brazell remains unsolved after three years despite the efforts of bloggers and activists.



Rest here



Tell me, how many more people will we kill with our fear and hate? How many more lives will we stunt and destroy? How much more blood will we bathe in while we turn up our noses, selfrighteously? When will we stop? Will we ever stop?
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
If you really want to get the full measure of the man and his message, then check out this post:Martin Luther King Reference List

hattip field negro for pointing the direction.
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Go here for video to see what exactly she was wearing: http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=67297&provider=top

http://www.charlotte.com/nation/story/449146.html

Muslim athlete disqualified over uniform
The Associated Press
School Athlete Muslim Clothing
AP Photo
Juashaunna Kelly recovers from a 5K race during a cross-country meet Oct. 5, 2007, in Washington. Kelly has been disqualified from an indoor track and field meet because officials said the custom-made outfit she wears to conform to her Muslim faith violated competition rules.

* Video from the Associated Press Muslim athlete disqualified over uniform

WASHINGTON --
A high school track star has been disqualified from a meet because officials said the custom-made outfit she wears to conform to her Muslim faith violated competition rules.

Juashaunna Kelly, a senior at the District of Columbia's Theodore Roosevelt High School, has the fastest mile and 2-mile times of any girl runner in the city this winter. She was disqualified from Saturday's Montgomery Invitational indoor track and field meet.

Kelly was wearing the same uniform she has worn for three seasons while running for Theodore Roosevelt's cross-country and track teams. The custom-made, one-piece blue and orange unitard covers her head, arms, torso and legs. Over the unitard, she wears the same orange and blue T-shirt and shorts as her teammates.

The outfit allows her to compete while adhering to her Muslim faith, which forbids displaying any skin other than her face and hands.

Read more... )
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Dear Ms. Clinton,


Please don't insult my intelligence.

From Talking points Memo http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_spokesperson_asks_is_there_something_bigger_behind_bill_and_hillarys_race_comments.php#comments

sue wrote on January 11, 2008 6:29 PM:

The Trend:
(1)The “Obama is a radical Muslim” chain email smear – in Iowa in December, it seemed like every week it was revealed that another Clinton staffer was caught spreading that email. Of course, the Clinton camp made a big show of “disavowing” the behavior and asking them to step down, but of course it kept happening.

(2)Billy Shaheen (Hillary’s NH campaign chair) raised Obama’s teenage drug use and implied he may have been a drug dealer (he wasn’t). Obama wrote about his teenage years in his memoir and spoke to high school kids about the ills of drug use on the campaign trail.

(3)Another Clinton surrogate then gave CNN an interview in which he started talking about Obama’s “Muslim background”

(4)This week in NH, one of Hillary’s supporters criticized Obama’s references to JFK and MLK and indicated that like them he was also an “inspirational” speaker (i.e. in line with Hillary’s new “he’s a talker, not a doer” theme), only unlike them he hadn’t been assassinated yet. Hillary did not apologize for or disavow this comment.

(5)Hillary then gave several TV interviews in which she brought up the same comment mentioned above in (4), only sans the “assassination” part. She added that it took LBJ to get the civil rights act passed, MLK only gave great speeches – AND DIED!

(6)In NH this week, Bill referred to Obama as a “kid” (he’s f**cking 46 years old – nearly 50). Are they trying to call him “boy”? He graduated from two ivy league colleges, was the head of the Harvard law review, was a civil rights lawyer, has 11 years experience in elected office (4 more than Hillary and 5 more than Edwards), and isn’t try to ride to the presidency on his spouse’s coat tails.

(7)In NH this week, Bill implied Obama’s campaign was a “fairy tale”.



To say nothing of the "vote for Obama if you want the hip young black friend" comment in the Guardian by an advisor of yours, as well as the BET founder trying to obliquely bring up the cocaine deal and then, when challenged backtracking by saying that he was referring to Obama's track record in community organizing (which makes absolutely no sense in the context. If that was what you were referring to, why didn't you just say it, instead of pulling a Bill Shaheen?) Obama has responded to your bullshit twice, so far, first a spokesman asks if there is a pattern in this, and secondly when you went on Meet the Press to say that all of this was his fault.

Now, Ms. Clinton, unless you are telling me that all these "slips of the tongue"  were performed by Obama operatives in your campaign in order to make you look bad, that argument will not work. It's black bloggers that have been raising holy hell about this, as well as some mainstream black pundits and some white liberals as well. Most of the people I seen raising Cain are not even Obama supporters! Some were YOUR supporters, Ms. Clinton, until you and your husband started to blow the dog-whistle.

You see, you think that you are being smart. Obama is basically running as a raceless candidate, as such. Unlike Jesse Jackson and the rest, he is running as the quintessential American, a position that, until now, has only been held white people. (Have you ever seen a character that is Asian, Native American, Black or Latino being described as All-American? Or even, the girl next door? Or anything else aside from "exotic"?) You are pricking at his campaign, trying to prod him subtly in coded language that is likely to fly right over the head of many typical white observers (Christ, people have such a hard time explaining to to general populace why dressing up in black-face is not funny, to say nothing of that idiot woman making a lynching joke at Tiger Woods,  exactly how many typical people who are desperate to believe that racism has disappeared will recognize the racism inherent in a supposedly antiracist icon such as Cuomo claiming that Obama is "shucking and jiving"?) If Obama brings this into the open and points out that what you are doing is race-baiting, he will alienate the white people who were tentatively getting around to poking their toes into the water of "voting for a black man". They will go "oh, he's too sensitive" and, you hope, will go running into your arms. Not funny, Ms. Clinton. Not funny, not tolerable, especially for the wife of a  man who prided himself on the designation of being the first "Black President".

You see Ms. Clinton, what you are doing is alienating people who have the eyes to see. I'm a Democrat. I didn't care who gets into power in 2008, as long as its a Democrat. I was basically thinking that we could have the best of both worlds, Ms. Clinton, with you or Obama President and running mate, however it worked out. But then, you started to use Karl Rove Republican strategies, Ms. Clinton, and, in doing so, you lost my support. Totally. You see, I expect the extremist Republicans to be disgusting. I do not expect the Democrats to be so. In stooping that low, Ms. Clinton, you lost my respect and you lost my vote.

Its about honour, Ms. Clinton. There are some things that Democrats are not supposed to stoop to regardless of their need to win. There are some things that Democrats are supposed to stand for. It seems however, that ever since you all saw the success that the extremists have had in muckraking, being authoritarian, being racist, sexist, warmongering, anti-poor, religiously-domineering, power-mad, homophobic hypocrites, jerks (and the case of pundits like Ann Coulter) noxious vermin and contagion upon the land; the Democratic Party has been slowly but surely abandoning its mandate to the people
and has been gradually becoming the second Republican Party.  This development has been a worry to me for a very long time. I don't like having to choose the lesser evil, Ms. Clinton, because, as someone whose name I forget pointed out, what you are getting is STILL EVIL. But I was willing to let things slide. No more, Ms. Clinton. I hereby draw my line in the sand.  It stops, right here, right now. You do not represent me or my views. I will not tolerate the bullshit. No misogyny, Ms. Clinton, and no racism either. The I-S-S-U-E-S are what matter.


Much annoyance and upbraiding
A pissed off voter

Profile

unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
unusualmusic_lj_archive

February 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 23rd, 2025 01:59 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios