Evans Liberal Politics
May 22, 2010
The Rachel Maddow Show: The Volker Rule
“Change the culture of Casino-Capitalism…”
![]() | Evans Liberal PoliticsThe Best in Liberal Christian News and US Politics | Loading |
Froma Harrop | Superb Tuesday: The Right People Won, Truthout, May 19, 2010, by Froma Harrop, quoted verbatim:
Guess Mitch McConnell’s charm wasn’t enough. The Senate minority leader’s anointed man lost the Kentucky Republican Senate primary to Rand Paul, son of tea party toastmaster Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
Click the Class War |
|---|
The Tuesday races went well for Democrats, less well for Republicans and still less well for McConnell. The GOP leader, who confidently keeps telling us “what the American people want,” didn’t even know what fellow Republicans wanted in his own state.
A predicted Republican wave failed to materialize in late Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s district in southwestern Pennsylvania. This is one of those blue-collar districts that, according to much punditry, is ripe for Republican plunder in the November midterms. There, voters chose to replace Murtha with a former Murtha aide, Mark Critz. Furthermore, Critz won by a wide margin over Republican businessman Tim Burns. (So much for election eve polls showing the two candidates virtually tied.)
Americans of many political stripes were gratified by Rep. Joe Sestak’s knockout of Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary. Folks at the State Department, who’ve long suffered Specter’s famously bad manners during his visits to U.S. embassies, are positively giddy.
Party activists are of course delighted to rid themselves of the opportunistic Specter. The five-term senator became a Democrat as polls showed him trailing Rep. Pat Toomey in the state’s Republican primary race.
The one person not celebrating Sestak’s win is Toomey, who once headed the “fiscally conservative” Club for Growth.” Sestak is the more formidable candidate. A former admiral who saw action in Afghanistan, he can remind patriotic voters that Americans have borne far heavier burdens than paying their taxes.
In Arkansas, Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln failed to secure more than half the vote in a three-person primary race and so must face state Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a runoff. Angry at Lincoln’s cozy corporate ties, unions and liberals in Arkansas strongly backed Halter.
So what does it all mean? Is anti-incumbent fever running wild? There may be some of that. But more than new faces, the electorate is demanding new ideas.
Note that Rand Paul’s 11-term congressman father was his biggest draw as he campaigned in Kentucky — and for congressional term limits. One does not have to be a tea partier to appreciate the Pauls for their original thinking. Some of their ideas may be off the wall, but some of them are very much not. And they fearlessly speak against conventional wisdom and moneyed interests.
How refreshing to hear the younger Paul argue for ending farm subsidies. Another promise was to close the U.S. Department of Education and send the money to states to spend as they see fit.
Rand’s combo platter of proposals was not entirely appealing. And his tireless flattery of the tea party ruined many an appetite. The result was such loopy vows as requiring that every section of every new law explain which part of the Constitution lets Congress do that. If everyone agreed on what the Constitution says, there would be no need for a Supreme Court — which, by the way, the Constitution established (Article III).
I don’t understand all this fuss about incumbents. Some politicians serve for a long time because the voters think they’re doing a good job. Getting rid of one’s rep because Congress passed something you didn’t like makes sense only if the rep voted the wrong way.
Super Tuesday did wound the myth that incumbents are invincible. That notion has discouraged many fine people from running for office – thus turning the belief in the power of incumbency into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That accomplishment alone made for a superb Tuesday.
Copyright 2010 The Providence Journal Co. Distributed by Creators.com
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top.
We know, if you come here repeatedly,
you like Evans Liberal Politics. So, all we ask is that you
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Confirming Elena | ||||
| ||||
*****
One billion barrels of ‘oil’ found on the sea, Daily Kos, May 20, 2010, by Jerome a Paris, quoted verbatim:
While you guys are facing the worsening-by-the-day consequences of the BP spill, some interesting news came out of the European “oil patch” – ie the North Sea:
UK’s offshore renewable energy could match one billion barrels of oil, report shows
The UK’s offshore renewable energy sector could generate electricity equivalent of one billion barrels of oil annually, matching North Sea oil and gas production, according to a new report.
(that would be roughly 3 million barrels per day, ie about double current Gulf of Mexico production)

(hat tip: JekyllnHide)
The research, published by the Offshore Valuation Group and welcomed by industry body RenewableUK, said the offshore renewable energy industry could ensure the UK becomes a net electricity exporter by using less than a third of the total available resource.
At the same level, it would result in cumulative carbon dioxide savings of 1.1 billion tonnes by 2050 and create 145,000 new jobs in the UK with additional tax revenues of £28bn.
What is most interesting here is that this is not just a grand claim by a dismissable NGO – the working group includes the UK government (and Scottish and Welsh authorities), the main power utilities in the country and a couple of large North Sea oil & gas companies, ie Serious People.
I am hopeful that as more such reports get published, and the utilities put an ever growing chunk of their investment budgets into offshore wind, the industry will finally take its rightful seat at the table, and be taken seriously as a large scale part of the solution, and not just a greenwashing gadget.
And note as well that this covers only the UK waters. Germany is expected to invest about the same, and the rest of Europe the same again. There have been studies showing that there is similar potential in the US off the Northeast coast, and again in the Great Lakes.
And, just for once, let me quote approvingly Thomas Friedman:
In the wake of this historic oil spill, the right policy – a bill to help end our addiction to oil – is also the right politics. The people are ahead of their politicians. So is the U.S. military. There are many conservatives who would embrace a carbon tax or gasoline tax if it was offset by a cut in payroll taxes or corporate taxes, so we could foster new jobs and clean air at the same time. If Republicans label Democrats “gas taxers”� then Democrats should label them “Conservatives for OPEC”� or “Friends of BP.” Shill, baby, shill.
Why is Obama playing defense? Just how much oil has to spill into the gulf, how much wildlife has to die, how many radical mosques need to be built with our gasoline purchases to produce more Times Square bombers, before it becomes politically “safe”� for the president to say he is going to end our oil addiction? Indeed, where is “The Obama End to Oil Addiction Act?” Why does everything have to emerge from the House and Senate? What does he want? What is his vision?
The Serious People are now telling us officially that this vision is feasible? Why hesitate?

Part of my series on Wind power
Full disclosure: I advise wind developers on their financing needs.
See First Offshore Wind Farm in U.S. Is Approved, Evans Liberal Politics, April 28, 2010, by Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times.
See Blanket of Oil Invades Louisiana’s Delicate Wetlands, Fox News, May 20, 2010, by the Associated Press:
A chocolate-brown blanket of oil about as thick as latex paint has invaded reedy freshwater wetlands at Louisiana’s southeastern tip for the first time, prompting the governor to call for emergency action.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top.
We know, if you come here repeatedly,
you like Evans Liberal Politics. So, all we ask is that you
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
The ‘Mad-As-Hell’ Party Scores as the Anxious Class Stews, RobertReich.org, May 18, 2010, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
Kentucky Tea Party hero Rand Paul scores a knockout victory over Republican Trey Grayson. Before that, Utah Senator Robert Bennett loses to a Tea Party-fueled Republican insurgent. Is the lesson here the rise once again of the Republican right?
![]() |
|---|
Not so fast. Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln is also in a tough fight – threatened from the left by Lt. Governor Bill Halter. In Pennsylvania, newly-minted Democrat Arlen Specter lost the primary race to Joe Sestak. Meanwhile, thirteen-term Democratic representative Paul Kanjorski is challenged by 36-year-old Corey O’Brien – who’s waged a spirited campaign from his RV, accusing Kanjorski of being too tied to Wall Street.
Okay, so maybe all this signals increasing strength on both political extremes?
Not really. To the extent these races represent anything at all (and it’s easy to read too much into early races), it’s a swing against the establishment.
Kentucky’s Trey Grayson was handpicked by Mitch McConnell, who campaigned vigorously for him, as did Dick Cheney. The President and other Democratic notables came to the aid of Blanche Lincoln’s and Arlen Specter.
It’s the economy, stupid. American politics is turning anti-establishment because so many Americans feel screwed by the economy and they blame the establishment. If there’s a trend here, it’s not left-wing Democrats versus right-wing Republicans. It’s the “Mad-As-Hell” Party against both.
Unemployment continues to haunt the middle class – the anxious class of America. There are still more than five jobless workers for every job opening.
But it’s also low wages. The much-vaulted first quarter of this year produced zilch in terms of wage growth. Private-sector hourly earnings rose at a .4 annual rate while prices climbed at about a 1 percent – leaving most workers with less purchasing power than they had when the quarter began. The only reason weekly earnings showed any growth at all is because some workers put in more hours.
| |
|---|
What does all this portend for November’s midterm election? Unless the economy moves into high gear, and unless America’s anxious class feels substantially better, incumbents are in trouble.
But the probability of the economy moving into high gear between now and then is not great. Consider that almost eighty percent of the increase in GDP in the first quarter was due to the growth of consumer spending. Where did consumers get the money if their real hourly wage dropped? From drawing down their savings. Obviously, they can’t continue to do this. Had consumers not spent their savings, the GDP would hardly have grown at all
In fact, if you exclude temporary boosts like the government stimulus and the restocking of company inventories, the U.S. economy would not have grown in the first quarter. As these temporary boosts fade later this year, consumer spending is the only thing that will keep the economy going. But consumers won’t be able to spend what they don’t have.
Some economic cheerleaders predict employers will increase wages as their profits grow. That’s nonsense. With five jobless workers for every job opening, employers are under no pressure to raise wages.
Other cheerleaders say the stock market’s rise will boost consumer spending and confidence. That’s nonsense, too. How many consumers feel richer because the Dow is up from what it was at the start of the year? They may see a bit of a rise in their 401(k)s, but their biggest asset is their homes, and housing prices are going nowhere. One out of four Americans with a mortgages now owes more than their house is worth.
The real lesson from today’s political races is the economy still stinks for most people. And the real lesson from the economy’s first quarter is the recovery is so weak that the anxious class is likely to remain anxious through November. Incumbents beware.
See Rand Paul’s meltdown on TRMS, Daily Kos, May 19, 2010, by snowman3, excerpt quoted verbatim:
I’m not sure if someone else has diaried this yet (I didn’t see a diary on the list), but tonight on The Rachel Maddow Show, newly minted Kentucky Rebublican senatorial candidate Rand Paul refused to say whether or not he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He repeatedly said he was not a racist and said he abhorred institutional racism (I wonder if this is a dog whistle to the Tea Party about affirmative action) but he said he could only support 9 of the 10 Titles of the Civil Rights Act, saying he could not support the Title referring to private institutions. Presumably he was talking about Title VII which “prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin”.
Rachel repeatedly pressed Paul on the issue, in fact the entire interview was about this issue, but Paul refused to budge. He said he would have tried to change that Title if he had to vote on the Civil Rights Act. Rachel correctly pointed out that without government enforcing non-discrimination at private businesses, businesses could refuse to serve people based on their race or sexual orientation or on any other basis the business decided. Paul was unmoved and called the issue a red herring, while saying he was personally against discrimination and institutional racism. Rachel pointed to the concrete example of Walgreens refusing to serve blacks at lunch counters back in the 60s, yet Paul stuck to his guns.
Commentary by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: I am somewhat troubled by Tea Partiers’ ubiquitous claims that they are not racist juxtaposed with statements by them which ARE racist. Not only do these people use the “N” word with no compunction, they are belligerent towards blacks and also towards the sub-species of human scum know as — liberals. That’s right, for Tea Partiers, liberals are the new blacks… They don’t like us, they are certain God doesn’t like us, and they vigorously shun us in public. To tell the truth, I don’t feel completely safe when I park my car, which has a few prominent liberal bumper stickers, in a public lot. I know that the public always HAS been “a great beast” and that you are kidding yourself if you think you are safe “out there” but my two housemates were robbed at gunpoint last week at a gas station.
I don’t quite get why society has to be this way. I know that the poor situation of our economy is just making it worse, too. People are really hurting, and if you venture in to the old parts of our major cities, you’ll see what economic devastation looks like. What is absolutely appalling to me is a conclusion I have reached intuitively about our government and jobs and the economic plight of the poor and the middle class. I don’t think they care beyond propping up the economy just a little – just enough so that they barely get re-elected. I don’t think they care about someone hurting, losing their house, living on the streets, or wasting their life’s savings just to get by. Our government, I fully believe, is quite capable of pouring resources into the economy and fixing it so regular people can once again get decent jobs. But they are not doing this, are they? Our leaders are so insulated from what it is like to be poor right now, that I really don’t think it resonates with them at all. I always believed in the Democratic Party, and I know some few Democrats ARE caring. But mainly they’re politicians. And they do NOT care about the little guy. I wish I hadn’t discovered that, but there it is. Politicians largely don’t “get it” and they basically don’t care. Somebody convince me otherwise – I dare you.
See Why The President’s Next Big Thing Should Be Jobs, RobertReich.org, March 25, 2010, by Robert Reich.
Highly Recommended: 13 Bankers: The American Oligarchs And The Systemically Dangerous Institutions (SDIs) They Rule, The Huffington Post, April 27, 2010, by William K. Black (who is the nation’s premier authority on banking fraud), excerpt quoted verbatim:
We know that Simon Johnson and James Kwak have hit a nerve because Larry Summers, the administration’s principal economic adviser and the man that carries water for what the authors rightly call the financial “oligarchs” — has been forced into an open defense of the oligarchs’ rule. Summers has kept a low profile and protected the oligarchs from substantive reform by using his power as gatekeeper to minimize the presentation of views by those that support effective financial regulation. Summers’ ability to marginalize Paul Volcker demonstrates his power and success — and the harm he causes the nation.
The issue that has caused Summers to publicly carry water for the oligarchs is the inherent insanity of allowing systemically dangerous institutions (SDIs) to continue. The oligarchs are all SDIs. Under the administration’s own logic, if any SDI fails it creates a serious potential of causing a global financial crisis.
Check this out: Glenn Beck and Rep. Anthony Weiner: A Fight for the Gold, Politics Daily, May 19, 2010, by David Corn, excerpt quoted verbatim:
The end is near, buy gold.
That’s been right-wing talker Glenn Beck’s advice to those who listen to his syndicated radio show and watch his Fox News show. You need to “think like a German Jew in 1934, maybe 1931,” he has said — and that means loading up on the yellow, shiny stuff, so that when economies and currencies collapse, you’ll be able to buy food (or letters of transit).
Beck is free to give whatever economic advice to his fans, but he has blended his analysis with self-serving commerce, promoting a particular gold coin retailer called Goldline, which has too often ripped off customers by peddling coins at much higher prices than their true value and selling them as solid financial investments. Not coincidentally, Goldline is a major sponsor of Beck’s radio and TV shows. My Mother Jones colleague Stephanie Mencimer has written a thorough exposé of Goldline and the Beck connection, and the story has hit at a propitious moment: just as Beck has attacked a Democratic congressman who has investigated Beck and Goldline.
On Tuesday, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) released a report noting that Beck and Goldline have together used fear tactics to bilk investors. As Mencimer puts it, Beck has been “recommending a company that promotes financial security but operates in a largely unregulated no-man’s land, generating a pile of consumer complaints about misleading advertising, aggressive telemarketing, and overpriced products.” Her article details instances when Goldline reps swindled folks into buying gold coins as an investment — when there was no way such a purchase could be considered a reasonable financial move. One fellow looking to buy gold bullion from Goldline was sold $10,000 worth of 20-franc Swiss gold coins at a price of almost double what was then the current rate for gold — meaning he was deep in the hole at the get-go.
Goldline, Weiner said, “rips off consumers, uses misleading and possibly illegal sales tactics, and deliberately manipulates public fears of an impending government takeover — this is a trifecta of terrible business practices.” He declared that Beck “should be ashamed of himself” for aiding and abetting the company. Weiner noted he would introduce legislation forcing Goldline and other precious metal dealers to disclose all relevant information to its customers — such as the melt value of the coins being sold and how much the price of gold would have to increase to produce a profit for the buyer. Weiner blasted other conservative talkers — including Fred Thompson, Dennis Miller, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, and Mike Huckabee — for also advocating the buying of gold on programs supported by Goldline ads. Weiner has called for the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission to investigate.
Beck, naturally, didn’t take kindly to all this. He accused Weiner of being a modern-day Joe McCarthy, and he claimed that Weiner’s investigation was part of an anti-Beck conspiracy mounted by the Obama White House.
*****
Robert Reich was the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations. In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century. He has written eleven books, including “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages. His latest book is “Supercapitalism.” For Professor Reich’s book page for Supercaptialism at Amazon, go here. The above article is from Reich’s new blog, and can be viewed here.
Thanks to Professor Reich for permission to publish his articles on an ongoing basis.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top.
We know, if you come here repeatedly,
you like Evans Liberal Politics. So, all we ask is that you
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
Straight Talk: Abstinence-only sex education, Evans Liberal Politics, May 19, 2010, photo © PunditKitchen, compilation and commentary by Paul Evans.
Here we examine sex education, concentrating on “abstinence-only” sex education, and examining programs, funding in the new health care bill, and such evaluators as the teen pregnancy rate. We start from a Christian and also a scientific perspective, and try to evaluate the evidence fairly and objectively. The fact that I am a strong Christian yet was trained as a scientist gives me the tools to look at both sides of the debate fairly.
From the Wikipedia article on abstinence only sex education:
![]() |
|---|
Abstinence-only sex education is a form of sex education that emphasizes abstinence from sex, and often excludes many other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex. This type of sex education promotes sexual abstinence until marriage and avoids discussion of use of contraceptives. Comprehensive sex education covers the use of contraceptives as well as abstinence. Proponents of abstinence-only education argue that comprehensive education encourages premarital sexual activity, while critics argue that abstinence-only education constitutes religious interference in education, distorts information about contraceptive methods, and does not provide adequate information to protect the health of youths.
Proponents of abstinence-only sex education argue that this approach is superior to comprehensive sex education because it emphasizes the teaching of morality that limits sex to that within the bounds of marriage, and that sex before marriage and at a young age has heavy physical and emotional costs.[1] They suggest that comprehensive sex education encourages premarital sexual activity among teenagers, which should be discouraged in an era when HIV and other incurable sexually transmitted infections are widespread and when teen pregnancy is an ongoing concern.
Opponents and critics, which include prominent professional associations in the fields of medicine, public health, adolescent health, and psychology, argue that such programs fail to provide adequate information to protect the health of adolescents. Some critics also argue that such programs verge on religious interference in secular education. Opponents of abstinence-only education dispute the claim that comprehensive sex education encourages teens to have premarital sex.[2] The idea that sexual intercourse should only occur within marriage also has serious implications for people for whom marriage is not valued or desired, or is unavailable as an option, particularly homosexuals living in places where same-sex marriage is not legal or socially acceptable. Abstinence-only sex education has also been accused of distorting information about contraceptives, including only revealing failure rates associated with their use, and ignoring discussion of their benefits.
Paul Evans: This topic took on special significance when Obama’s health care reform bill included $250 million over five years for state programs teaching abstinence only sex education. I don’t quite see how you can even say you’re teaching a program in sex education when there is nothing in the program for teenagers about safe sex, how to use a condom, avoiding STD’s or anything like that. I DO understand the moral questions involved, the sanctity of marriage.
|
|---|
I am not alone in my positions over the literal truth of the Bible either. A lot of Christians believe that the Bible could not be literally true, including former President Bush. Even the Catholic Church no longer swears by the literal truth of the Bible. Look, God gave you a brain people, I suggest that reading practices which do not involve evalutation of context and interpretation are a poor way to read. In fact I would assert that reading is impossible without personal interpretation of what is read. Words and phrases and sentences are necessarily interpreted on the basis of other prior knowledge about their meaning that we have or acquire. One cannot read a given sentence without understanding the context of what you are reading and without interpreting it with your mind and its experiences. Not that the Bible isn’t inspired by God, but is sure isn’t all literally true. IMHO.
The Old Testament has a LOT of passages which teach sex as only between a man and a woman in a marriage and basically, just for the purpose of procreation. Any desire involved is looked at as sinful and even Satanically inspired, at least that’s the way some fundamentalists teach it. I don’t buy any of that at all. To the extent that the Bible says enjoying sex is sinful, the Bible is simply a representation of an ancient nomadic people’s view on sexuality, and I’m having none of it. If you don’t like that, sorry but I make no apology.
Click the pretty lady |
|---|
OK, to get back to the point of this article, abstinence-only sex education…. Here are some good resources I have found around the web which may help you to see that the teaching about sex (or actually, NOT teaching about sex), in such programs, is basically misguided and is in fact a failure and the wrong way to proceed. I know this is a big deal for fundamentalists. I respectfully disagree, and this is still a free country.
See Thanks Health Bill for the $250 Million Back to Abstinence-Only Education, AlterNet, March 30, 2010, by Ellen Friedrichs, excerpt quoted verbatim:
No, not to real health care reform–though that would have been nice– but to the end of abstinence-only-until-heterosexual-marriage education.
This is the federally funded program that since 1996 has been teaching kids in schools across the country that the only way to avoid teen pregnancy, STDs and emotional ruin, is to just say no to any sex that isn’t maritally sanctioned. To further this goal, programs were barred from discussing everything from birth control and condoms to abortions and non-hetero sexual orientations–except to stress the dangers of such things.
Countless studies, not to mention our recent rise in teen pregnancies and STDs, demonstrated that this tactic didn’t work. In light of this mounting evidence of failure, the number of states accepting abstinence funding had been steadily decreasing over the past few years. Another sign that abstinence was on it’s way out? The Obama administration cut federal funding for such programs, set to go into effect September 2010.
Looks like things have changed.
Within the thousands of pages that make up the health bill, is nestled a $50 million a year line item for, yes, those very abstinence-only programs.
As the Washington Post reports,
“The bill restores $250 million over five years for states to sponsor programs aimed at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by focusing exclusively on encouraging children and adolescents to avoid sex. The funding provides at least a partial reprieve for the approach, which faced losing all federal support under President Obama’s first two budgets.”
I guess that parents across the country can breath a sign of relief that their teens won’t be learning about condoms and birth control, because apparently, despite legitimate science proving otherwise, these things don’t work. And the unplanned pregnancy option that isn’t parenting or adoption? Why would a country with a teen pregnancy rate twice as high as Canada’s, and seven times as high as the Netherlands need to tell teens about that?
See Unprotected Sex: Abstinence Education’s Main Accomplishment, AlterNet, July 2, 2009, by Marie Cocco, excerpt quoted verbatim:
July 2, 2009 | WASHINGTON — It hardly seems worth mentioning that the search for role models of sexual rectitude has gone pretty badly lately. That famous poster of Farrah Fawcett — her golden locks tumbling around her shoulders and her gleaming smile offering a girl-next-door counterpoint to the suggestiveness of her red swimsuit — sure makes it look as though, by comparison, the 1970s were an era of wholesomeness. They weren’t.
It was about then that social conservatives — fed up with sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll, divorce, Roe v. Wade, women surging into the work force and who knows what else — began organizing politically to stamp out all this threatening change. They failed. But eventually they did succeed in imposing their prescription — abstinence-only sex education that studies have repeatedly shown doesn’t work — on the one group of sexually active people most in need of hard information and least likely to respond to harangues: teenagers.
It is widely known that teenage birth and pregnancy rates, which dropped dramatically between 1991 and 2005, are now climbing. By tracking changes in reported contraceptive use among sexually active high-school students, researchers at Columbia University and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which studies sexual health, have identified as the leading culprit a drop in the use of birth control — specifically condoms. The team studied trends in teen sexual activity and contraceptive use between 1991 and 2007. During most of this period, the level of sexual activity reported by teenagers in routine surveys overseen by the Centers for Disease Control remained largely unchanged. But during a crucial period — identified in the study as between 1991 and 2003 — the use of condoms rose dramatically, climbing from 46.2 percent in 1991 to 63.0 percent in 2003. Then a perceptible decline in the use of condoms began, with 61.5 percent of students reporting condom use in 2007. “These behavioral trends are consistent with the 2006 and 2007 increases in the teen birth rate,” the study published in the July issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health says. “They may well portend further increases in 2008.”
The decline in contraceptive use may cheer those who have promoted faith-inspired school curriculums that refuse to even mention birth control and, in some cases, specifically emphasize that condoms can fail. True enough.
But now we have sad and clear evidence that political foolishness among adults is leading to foolish and harmful behavior among kids. Who could reasonably want more teen pregnancies, more abortions among teenagers, more unmarried mothers, more babies born with greater health risks and with the sorely limited economic prospects that burden the children of young, single mothers? No one would dare promote such a policy. Yet these are the results of our recent national sex-education policy, which was based on religious faith, not science, and put political gamesmanship ahead of public health.
See Rise in teenage pregnancy rate spurs new debate on arresting it, The Washington Post, January 26, 2010, by Rob Stein.
See Mississippi: More Abstinence Education Proposed for the State With the Highest Teen Pregnancy Rates, AlterNet, March 3, 2010, by Ellen Friedrichs.
Watch GOP congressman records pro-abstinence video…with his mistress!, Daily Kos TV, May 18, 2010, by Jed Lewison.
See Bristol Palin Speaks the Truth on Fox: Abstinence ‘Is Not Realistic at All’, AlterNet, February 2, 2009, by Ali Frick, excerpt quoted verbatim:
In 2006, as a gubernatorial candidate, Sarah Palin filled out a questionnaire emphasizing her support for abstinence education. She wrote that “the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.” Alaska does not require sex ed to be taught in schools; Anchorage schools teach “Abstinence Plus,” which emphasizes abstaining from sex.
Palin’s views came under fire when it was revealed that her then-17-year-old daughter Bristol was pregnant. In her first public interview, Bristol told Fox News’ chief Palin cheerleader Greta Van Susteren last night that abstinence is “not realistic at all”.
Of course, now, Mummy Dearest has got her hooks into Bristol and she is a touring spokesperson for abstinence, charging $30,000 for one of her talks on abstinence. She had it right when she spoke the truth on Fox. For teenagers, abstinence is not a terribly realistic goal. It is an attempt to impose fundamentalist Christian morality on all of society. And I doubt that two teenagers in a car on a Friday night are thinking all that much about what actions constitute Christian morality. Thus the recent increase in teen pregnancy rates. ~ Paul Evans
See Michelle Gillett Abstinence-only is only a failure, The Berkshire Eagle quoted on All Business, May 17, 2010, by Michelle Gillett.
My own position as a dedicated Christian, in the final analysis, resembles that of Goshin over at DebatePolitics.com:
Probably the best results will be had when you teach both abstinence, as the preferred solution to teen sex and STDs, and the use of protection as the “backup plan”, as in “if despite everything we’ve told you about how you ought to wait, you decide to do this anyway, here’s how you put a condom on a cucumber…”
See Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs,Final Report, Department of Health and Human Services, April, 2007, by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
For an opposing view and study, see Study: Teaching Abstinence Works Better Than Sex Ed, AOL.com, February 2, 2010, by Mara Gay.
Would YOU place much credence in the fair-mindedness of conclusions coming out of a conservatively owned entity such as AOL, or for example one of Rupert Murdoch’s mouthpieces such as Fox News? I approached the question of abstinence only (sex) education without any preconceptions, but AOL, FOX News and Rupert Murdoch’s news outlets START OUT from a religious position which has already begun by their being in favor of this kind of so-called sex education. Abstinence only sex education in reality is not true sex education at all. That is to say, if most scientific studies I had found on the web proved the efficacy of abstinence only sex education, Evans Liberal Politics would have come out in support of it. That simply isn’t the case.
See What’s wrong with abstinence education?, American Journal of Health Studies, Summer, 2004, excerpt quoted verbatim:
To summarize the results of the abstinence education research, there are some published evaluations which show that certain abstinence education programs have produced positive behavioral results. For the most part, however, there is little evidence that abstinence education programs, especially some of the more popular programs for which the a-h definition was designed, help young people postpone sexual involvement or reduce sexual risk-taking behavior.
See How Abstinence-Only Programs Perpetuate Dangerous Stereotypes, AlterNet Sex and Relationships on Evans Liberal Politics, November 12, 2009, by Martha Kempner, RH Reality Check.
What’s Really Behind the Catholic Church’s Sexual Abuse Problem?
Evans Liberal Politics
May 22, 2010
What’s Really Behind the Catholic Church’s
Sexual Abuse Problem?
What’s Really Behind the Catholic Church’s Sexual Abuse Problem?, AlterNet, May 19, 2010, by Harriet Fraad of Tikkun Magazine, excerpt quoted verbatim:
Why has the Church been plagued by so much pedophilia – predominantly homosexual? And why has a scandal regarding this situation erupted only now?
The global Catholic Church is confronting an extraordinary crisis not faced since the Reformation, which began with sharp criticisms of the Church and ended with a schism out of which emerged the establishment of a separate Protestant Church.
Today, sexual abuse allegations against priests are surging in a startling array of nations: the United States and Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France, Italy, Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Bolivia, Mexico, Brazil and Chile. New abuse scandals erupt daily. The John Jay School of Criminal Justice estimates that, in the U.S. alone between 1950 and 2002 hundreds of thousands of children have been sexually abused by Catholic Clergy.
In fact, the Catholic Church has a 2,000 year history of sex abuse. In their acclaimed book, Sex, Priests and Secret Codes (2006), Father Thomas Doyle, with former monks Richard Sipes and Patrick Wall, used its own documents to confirm the Church’s 2,000-year problem with clerical sex abuse.
Why has the Church been plagued by so much pedophilia – predominantly homosexual? And why has a scandal regarding this situation erupted only now?
Why Pedophilia?
As to the first question, the sheer extent of homosexual pedophilic abuse within the Church prompts my speculation that an extremely patriarchal institution, combined with the all-male hierarchy’s repudiation of women as equal partners in service and governance, perhaps engenders a homoerotic internal culture that attracts homosexual men to the priesthood. However, those factors alone cannot explain the predominance of homosexual pedophilia. After all, a high proportion of nuns operating in Catholic all-female environments tend to be lesbians — but not lesbian pedophiles (See Lesbian Nuns: Breaking Silence by Rosemary Curb, LibraryThing).
A therapist who treats abuser priests, Leslie Lothstein, proffers another possible explanation. Lothstein implicates the sexual immaturity of priests, who by entering the seminary often as young as 14, miss a critical passage of maturation — first-time sexual experimentation — that is accessible to their non-seminarian peers. Caught in a bind of stunted sexual growth, such men may be driven emotionally to claim and possess their past unexplored adolescent territory that the rules of a celibate priesthood had placed out of bounds.
My own complementary explanation derives from working with two active priests, two former priests, and several ex-seminarians, who quit their studies partly out of disgust with the sexual abuse to which their teachers subjected them. My work demonstrated, sadly, that sexual abuse at the seminary can simultaneously initiate youngsters into homosexual pedophilia and impart the lesson that Catholic institutions tolerate pedophilia. Moreover, such abuse can also cause a victim to later appropriate his former abuser’s predatory/aggressive behavior as psychological compensation for the shame he had felt during the time he was being abused at the seminary.
Let us take note, however, as we consider these issues, that, yes, homosexual pedophilia predominates behind the Church’s walls. Priests do have greater access to males than to females within Catholicism’s sex-segregated communities — there are no altar girls. Priests take boys, not girls, on retreats and camping trips. And yes, solid evidence invites speculation that the generational reproduction of homosexual pedophilia within the Church is partly attributable to a role-reversal syndrome playing out among officials — from priests to bishops — who themselves had been child victims of abuse. All that being as it may, equally solid documentation exists to show that female children, too, are sometimes the victims of sexual abuse within the Church. In fact girls are one quarter of the victims and they are disproportionately under eight years old.
Why Now?
The second and, I think, more crucial question, is why has this long history of a major church’s institutional practice of pedophilia been exposed only now? Why has silence about an explosive open secret persisted for millennia among a leading church’s Faithful, yet been fully exposed within a single decade? What is happening in the world that is prompting Catholics to expose the criminal behavior of numerous “Godly” and “infallible” custodians of their faith?
1. Feudal relationships under attack by the Reformation and capitalism
For an answer, we must return to Christianity’s last great rupture — the Reformation — which ensued as the economic system known as feudalism began to crumble. Under feudalism, serfs labored on the estates of lords, keeping no more than meager amounts of the food and goods needed for their subsistence and reproduction of the next serf generation. Lords of the Manor were entitled to appropriate almost all of the fruits of their serfs’ labor. Both lords and serfs swore love and fealty to each other, but the one party in power — the lords — determined the content of, and enforced, this commitment.
Medieval Catholicism justified this system, holding that God had decreed the lord/serf arrangement. Not coincidentally, the feudal model was compatible with the interests of the Church itself, which was in effect a feudal lordship that owned vast lands.
The Catholic monk, Martin Luther, counted himself among the many who saw and abhorred the extensive corruption existing within the Church. Particularly offensive were the Church’s sale of religious pardons, called “indulgences,” whereby a sinner could purchase exemption from specific penalties and, thus, gain entry into Heaven. Indulgences amounted to the proverbial last straw of corruption that inspired Martin Luther to nail his writ of protest and demands for reform on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. Luther’s example spurred the mobilization of a Protestant movement, which grew in spite of the Pope’s excommunication of Luther and attempt to belittle and suppress his criticisms.
This rise of Protestantism was integral with the emergence of new capitalist formations that would spell the beginning of the end of feudalism. The Protestant Church dismissed the concept that salvation depended on obedience to a Catholic hierarchy. And it disdained the feudal laws of birth on which social position and the near enslavement of serfs were predicated.
Consonant with the needs of an ascendant capitalism and its emerging elite, whose status was based on making money, not on birth, an ideology of personal, individual communion with God arose to replace feudalism’s more cumbersome, hierarchical, and expensive constructs.
Historically, turbulence marks periods of momentous change, and the period under discussion here is no exception. As capitalism pressed its economic reorganization of the production of goods and services in the larger economy, pressure came to bear on the rigidly patriarchal extended families that still populated the feudal estates but would not remain there for much longer. As the lords converted to more profitable forms of production, such as sheepherding, evictions of serfs from the lands their families had farmed for centuries accelerated. Other serfs ran away and migrated to cities in search of employment.
The customs and laws of the past could not hold. Families were falling apart. Pregnant women were left unprotected in suddenly undefined and unproscribed circumstances. Children were abandoned. Faced with various social and economic dislocations, people organized and began to make revolutionary demands — demands that proved frightening to both the new elites and the old church.
2. Feudalism resurrected as a model for the family under capitalism
What happened in France just after the French Revolution illustrates the problem. The most radical and youngest elements among the rebels were demanding state assistance to families, including financial support for all children. The new capitalists strongly opposed such state support for the public since they, the remnants of the aristocracy and the Catholic Church, were the only sectors of society wealthy enough to be taxed to pay the bill.
How, then, to lighten the burden of the commoners’ devastated lives and, thus, hold at bay the threat of more revolution? Ironically, feudalism would provide the solution. The French historian, Jacques Donzelot, documents the invention of the “nuclear” household: how a feudalism-inspired model for the organization of household labor and family relationships was facilitated and reinforced.
In the world of serfdom, the father was the autocratic head of the family, who controlled the lives of his wife, his children and his children’s families. The eldest son was second in command, heir to the father’s rigidly patriarchal role. Replication of this model in the world of nascent capitalism elevated the importance of every married man. It conferred upon an ex-serf the role of feudal lord, a wielder of absolute power over his own home — his castle — wife and children. Women enjoyed the “protection,” in pregnancy and child rearing, of a wage-earning male dictator.
The French nation born of the 1789 revolution reinforced “nuclear” families by giving employment and benefits exclusively to men with dependent wives and children. For eligible families, that state support spelled survival — but survival at a price. The new nuclear model reinforced lines of dominance and subordination, teaching children and women alike absolute obedience to a male paternal authority. Birth control in the 17- and early 1800s included abandoning or killing children one did not want. See The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance: By John Boswell. The children who survived learned absolute obedience, as well as many other strategies for pleasing their parents.
In sum, power elites forged, out of feudal concepts of domination, submission, authority and obedience, instruments of social control that have served them well to this day in sustaining their elite power and wealth. Largely ignoring people’s cries for help from the state, they shifted onto the nuclear family the cost of raising future generations.
….
(Skipping about 5 pages): Examples Worldwide
Click the Contrite
Puppy to Visit Paul’s Playlist
for Great Rock & Pop Sounds!
Similar examples, far too numerous to cite, exist wherever officials of the Catholic Church have had unfettered access to children, whether in orphanages, programs for troubled youngsters, small group homes, parochial schools, choir academies, etc. Currently, there are cases of sexual abuse in Ireland, Malta, Germany, Austria, The Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, France, Belgium, Italy, Chile, Mexico and Spain. These cases are marked by the same sordid program of protection for the abusing Church official, and lifelong torment for the victims.
Holy Fathers have appropriated unto themselves the rights of lords in a feudal world, a world of their — not God’s — creation. As in olden days, the rights of serf-children in their custody within this world are non-existent.
What are the effects on children of crimes committed against them by “men of the cloth”? Priests tend to elicit from the faithful the love, trust and respect one associates with family. And like family, they have special access to children, including the opportunity to influence children’s development. In residential facilities, authorized by the state, they are substitute parents. Perceived as messengers of God whose duties supposedly include hearing confessions, giving advice, giving comfort, moral support and a hand of friendship — priests enjoy power rivaling that of biological fathers. And priests, too, are called “father.”
The sexual crimes committed against children by men addressed officially as “father” are crimes of incest, betrayal, emotional and physical harm. When a child is confronted with the invisibility of his suffering to the protector/abuser, or the man’s indifference to that suffering, the wounds inflicted are as deep as the ocean. The scars left — emotional, relational and sexual scars — never heal completely in the victim’s lifetime. Because children’s egos, intellects and personalities are still in formation, they tend to feel they have perpetrated the crimes of which they are actually the victims. They feel guilty, ashamed, unprotected and helpless, especially if and when they summon the courage to report the abuse and nothing is done. They are vulnerable to repeated abuse because they’re afraid to recognize what happened to them. Feeling powerless to stop it, they dissociate if and when the abuse repeats. They psychologically refuse conscious knowledge of their own experience. Their sex abuse remains as an unconscious, guilty wound. They are prone to depression. They are disproportionately dysfunctional and, as they grow up, may not be able to enjoy their sexuality. They are disproportionately suicidal The Dark Life-Altering Effects of Incest – Associated Content… Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research.
The Church long ago ceded to secular government the realms of foreign policy and corporate business practices. The Church has no comment on the practice of usury with regard to credit card bills, or on the fact that the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” exempts governments from its reach. The Church’s influence has noticeably shrunk. The last, bastion it can claim is a personal/family life paradigm of medieval design. But even in that realm, although feudalism lives with the blessing and encouragement of the Holy Fathers, the days of their rule may be numbered.
An end in sight
The oppressed faithful — male and female — have found their voices, which are blending with voices outside the walls of institutional Catholicism. For example, a new generation of reflexively feminist women, who seem to have come by their self-assurance and determination via a different route than the feminist movement of yesterday, are challenging their partners to renegotiate domestic contracts — and a lot of partners are “getting it.”
Perhaps when more people in the U.S. recognize that their “American dream” has been robbed; that vast wealth is accumulating every minute at their expense; that they are being used and abused; that they are not personally to blame for the disintegration of life in their homeland …. perhaps, they too, will lose their shame and call for justice. The men and women whose adolescence and human rights were violated by callous and hypocritical men may show us the way.
Read the whole article, here.
See Church in worst credibility crisis since Reformation, theologian tells bishops, Irish Times, April 16, 2010, by Hans Kung, author of On Being a Christian, excerpt quoted verbatim:
See Pope Ratzinger and the Bushes: Two Peas In a Pedophile Protection Pod, Evans Liberal Politics, April 5, 2010, by Lori Price and with additional reading by Paul Evans, excerpt quoted verbatim:
See Pope Implicated in Cover-Up Of Wisconsin Sex Abuse Case, Huffington Post on Evans Liberal Politics, March 24, 2010, by Huffington Post/AP.
Visit Tikkun Magazine
Harriet Fraad is a psychotherapist-hypnotherapist in practice in New York City. She is a founding member of the feminist movement and the journal Rethinking Marxism. For forty years, she has been a radical committed to transforming U.S. personal and political life.
*****
ABC: Pope still protecting pedophile bishops
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share, print or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top.
We know, if you come here repeatedly,
you like Evans Liberal Politics. So, all we ask is that you
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
85 Great Electronic Rock and Pop Tracks
#1 Rated by Google
[Translate]