A few days before her death on 8 December, 91-year-old human rights campaigner Lyudmila Alexeyeva sent her along a message to the members of the Moscow Helsinki Group. The organization was originally established in 1976 to monitor Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Accords. After being shut down after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was revived in the 1990s and continues to operate in Russia today.
In her letter, she reflected on the human rights movement in Russia and offered a few words of advice to the younger generations.
(This post was originally published on December 5, 2015.)
When the Founding Fathers declared that a government earns its true legitimacy from the consent of the governed, they hadn't counted on women taking it to the next logical step.
The 1850 Women's Rights Convention
Recently I uncovered this interesting quote by an early American reformer/activist named Frances Dana Gage. Ring any bells? Probably not. Her name isn't as familiar to the general public as it should be. Even among modern feminists, she is a largely obscure figure.
On November 6 of this new year, we could take back the Senate and the House – which means we could take back the country! November 6 is about 300 days from now. Will you pledge to make at least 10 of those 300 days count?
The story of this Turkish elementary school teacher illustrates the difference between true courage and hollow speeches by posers.
You've probably never heard of the "International Women of Courage Award" (IWOC). For the last 10 years, the US State Department has presented this prize to women " who have demonstrated exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, gender equality, and women’s empowerment, often at great personal risk."
The 2017 ceremony was hosted by Melania Trump on March 29 at the State Department in Washington. This year thirteen women were awarded from Bangladesh to Botswana, from Peru to Papua New Guinea. A young woman from Turkey was also honored this year.
With all that's been going on lately, you might have missed this story. As part of his Asia tour, Vice-president Mike Pence made a stop in tropical Indonesia.
There, he gave praise to what he described as the world's most populous Muslim nation's Indonesia's democracy and moderate form of Islam. It has been held up- as Turkey once was- as the champion of "a more tolerant and moderate Islam."
Agreeing to boost cooperation between the two nations to fight terrorist extremism, Indonesian President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo welcomed Pence.
The vice president, according to the AP story, was there to reinforce traditional U.S. alliances at a time when Donald Trump's presidency has raised questions about the strength of the U.S. commitment to the region.
Pence said:
"As the second- and third-largest democracies in the world, our two countries share many common values including freedom, the rule of law, human rights and religious diversity. The United States is proud to partner with Indonesia. It promotes and protects these values."
Every American- whatever his politics- has a right to question Pence about which shared values he might be referring to. When you take a close look to the reports of independent human right organizations, Pence's claims look much worse than the typical hyperbolical gloss of honey-coated diplomacy.
It is, in fact, the worst kind of misrepresentation. It is also a shame for any nation that has once held itself as a champion and defender of human rights around the world.
In Part One of this three-part series, we examined how the fall of the Soviet Union should have provided Russia with its best hope for liberal democracy.
In this part, we will look at how Vladimir Putin's autocratic tendencies and hi use of Russian nationalism was a wrong turn for the nation.
Stability, Nostalgia and Nationalism
In some sense, it was inevitable that Putin would make use of Russian nationalism to unify Russia. In the end, there are only two responses when you lose your empire: Acceptance or something else.
The "something else" in the Russian case was not gradual acquiescence and recognition that a new way of thinking had to emerge. What happened was a defensive surge in Russian nationalism, a return to stabilizing traditions and conservative values. After years that threatened to tear the nation apart, Russian citizens yearned for stability and something in return for lost prestige.
This reaction coincided with the rise of Vladimir Putin who promised security and stability. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev credited Putin with having "pulled Russia out of chaos."
That's probably not inaccurate. It was, however, a stability required some sacrfices when it came to civil liberties, transparency and human rights.
One hacker's explosive information leak revealed the dark side of surveillance software and companies that sell them. It sends a warning about authoritarian regimes using anti-terrorism software to target opposition and human right activists.
In early July last year, a hacker who went by the name of Phineas Fisher claimed responsibility for an astounding information dump.
The Hacking Team Dump
In all, 500 GB of client files, contracts, financial documents, and internal emails of Milan-based surveillance company called Hacking Team were made available to the public.
The company sells sophisticated computer surveillance software to countries around the world, some nations with very doubtful human rights records.
It’s unclear exactly how much the hackers got their hands on, but judging from the size of the files, it’s certainly a large collection of internal files. A source who asked to speak anonymously due to the sensitivity of the issue, told me that based on the file names and folders in the leak, the hackers who hit Hacking Team "got everything."
So basically, a hacker hacked the Hacking Team. In doing so, he walked away with vital and incriminating information including emails between employees, a list of customers, which included the FBI.
He or she also managed to find the source code of the surveillance software itself. The whole kit and caboodle.
The lowest percentage of the respondents (19%) said that abortion should be illegal under any and all circumstance. Ordinarily, this absolute limit refers to conditions where the mother's life is in danger or pregnancy following a rape or incest.
That absolutist restrictive poition has always been the extremes of the pro-life movement. In fact, the SCOTUS' Roe vs. Wade decision originated from a rape case. (The ruling, however, did not revolve around that particular circumstance.)
On Sunday, the GOP establishment's latest hope, Marco Rubio revealed that, if elected- he would only very reluctantly sign a anti-abortion bill that provided an exception for rape and incest cases.
His position pits the candidate against a full 81% of the American electorate.
There's no question that ISIS is an embodiment of barbarity and a perversion of Islam. However, some critics of Western foreign policy in the Middle East might ask: Is Saudi Arabia- an ally- really all that much better?
One of the most perplexing and exasperating problems for anybody trying to create a sensible approach to the Middle East has been determining who your foe and who your friend actually is.. at any given moment.
For Western policy makers, absolute impartiality is not an option. Attempting to please implacable enemies, like Israel and Iran, is an exercise in futility. And this, in turn, forces countries to choose based on criteria that seems as unstable as the shifting desert sand.
Concessions have to be made to keep everybody happy but with the rise of the brutality of the ISIS caliphate, the US and the West, in general, are forced to confront its irreconcible double standard. Does being a Western ally entail nothing more than shared self-interests? What happened to shared core values and principles that defines "us" from "them"?
By the use of tighter travel restrictions and fear tactics, The Russian government may have a few very good reasons for trying to spoil its citizens' vacations abroad.
The Freedom of Movement St. Augustine once said:
“The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page.”
The liberating effects of leaving your native land and seeing how others live -if only for a short time- are well-known.
The freedom of movement is, in fact, a human right, recognized in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This right to travel covers not only inside one's own country but to other countries. Furthermore, the right pertains not just to visiting and holiday-making but, if desired, the right to change one's residence permanently.
The provision in the UDHR states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
In that respect, internal borders should be as limited as possible and external borders should act as a regulator of the flow but not a block.
Like a lot of things in the UDHR, there are quite a few limitations to the real-life applications. It's is, indeed, hard to imagine how this freedom of movement could be applied strictly or even in a practical way.
Immigration and emigration will always be considered a part of national sovereignty. There will always be zones in every country where people cannot travel. There will always be costs imposed that in themselves limit this freedom.
Moreover, persons charged with or convicted of crimes are denied this right.
With so many exceptions, you might even wonder about the wisdom of including such a right in the first place. Why was this article deemed necessary you might ask?
Russia's English-language daily newspaper, The Moscow Times, has this insight in how the Russian government, with state-owned media at its side, is using controversial legislation to intimidate NGOs and hush dissent.
Human rights activist Nadezhda Kutepova had spent decades fighting for the rights residents of Ozyorsk in the Chelyabinsk region, some 600 miles south of Moscow. Today, however, Kutepova is living in Paris. She fears retaliation by Russian authorities if she ever dares to return.
Today marks the seventieth anniversary of the death one of America's greatest presidents. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's passing left the nation not only struck dumb with grief but also a world poised on a new and dangerous age.
Shock and Disbelief
On this day seventy years ago, one of America's most beloved president died suddenly at the "Little White House," his Warm Springs, Georgia retreat since the 1920s.
Shortly after lunch, the care-ridden president had sat in the living room of his cottage, signing letters and reviewing documents. He was sitting for his portrait, reportedly engaged in a lively conservation.
Then, without warning, he was seized by a sharp pain in his head and collapsed. He slumped backward in his chair in an apparent coma. His staff carried him to his bedroom. Doctors were summoned but there was very little that could be done.
In a few hours- at about 3:30 p.m- the 63-year-old president would be dead from a massive cerebral hemorrhage.
After 30 years in prison in Belgium, Frank Van Den Bleeken will take his own life with the blessing of the court. The unusual use of the euthanasia laws has opened up a lot of important questions, such as the purpose of incarceration without parole.
The case of Frank Van Den Bleeken has not attracted too much attention in the American press. The serial killer and rapist has spent that last 30 years of his life behind bars in Belgium. In September, Bleeken applied for and won permission by the state to be euthanized
This unusual application of the 2002 euthanasia laws was based on the convict's claim that his incarceration constituted “unbearable” psychological suffering.
Three decades ago, Van Den Bleeken was convicted of a series of rapes and the rape and murder of a teenage girl including the assault on an 11 year old girl. In a documentary, he told Belgian TV
"I am danger to society. What am I supposed to do? What’s the point in sitting here until the end of time and rotting away? I’d rather be euthanized."
He went on to say:
“If people commit a sexual crime, help them deal with it. Just locking them up helps no one: not the person, not society and not the victims. I am a human being, and regardless of what I’ve done, I remain a human being. So yes, give me euthanasia.”
End of the Fight
The court decision to grant Van Den Bleeken's wish marks the end a long battle which began in 2011 when the prisoner made his first request. He alleged that he had been denied psychiatric help and was suffering unbearably.
At that time, his plea was rejected by the Federal Euthanasia Commission on the grounds that every possible treatment had to be considered first.
How can human rights be upheld when so few people are even aware of what they actually entail?
How can governments be held accountable when they have convinced their citizens that there may be certain times and certain situations when humans don't deserve their inherent rights?
Ideals that Bind Us Together
What with the revelations of last week, most people in the US might have missed the fact that last Wednesday was an important date. In 1950, the United Nations designated October 10 "Human Rights Day." Admittedly, every day should be a human rights day, this particular day is meant to remind us
"that each one of us, everywhere, at all times is entitled to the full range of human rights, that human rights belong equally to each of us and bind us together as a global community with the same ideals and values."
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called upon member nations
"to honour their obligation to protect human rights every day of the year. I call on people to hold their governments to account. "
Only the day before, the Senate released a demoralizing and shocking report on CIA practices during the Bush Administration. It revealed to the American people and to the whole world even a superpower could justify the shocking forms of torture.
So, these allegations of violations of human rights could not possibly have come at a worse time.
American exceptionalism is a useful tool when it comes to claiming the higher moral ground. However it comes with serveral pre-conditions and mandates. One of those is a higher sense of moral development. We must be -at least in some way- a bit better.
However, when it comes to our treatment of the homeless, the elderly, the sick and the need, where is our moral superiority?
The great can protect themselves, but the poor and humble require the arm and shield of the law.
Back then, it was like stating the obvious.
Over a hundred and fifty years later, in November 1977, former Senator and vice-president. Hubert Humphrey said:
"..The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life- the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
If, as one philosopher said, compassion is the basis of morality, then what does it say about the present state of morality in government today.
Has our government passed that moral test?
Is that even a criteria for public policy anymore?
When did it stop being important?
When Charity is a Crime
Thirty-three US cities have enacted policies banning the feeding of homeless. Daytona Beach, Florida, Raleigh North Carolina, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and Birmingham Alabama have all recently fined, removed or threatened individuals and private organizations found breaking the laws.
As one source notes:
According to a report co-released by the National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, during the past seven years Gainesville, Fla., began “enforcing a rule limiting the number of meals that soup kitchens may serve to 130 people in one day;” Phoenix, Ariz., “used zoning laws to stop a local church from serving breakfast to community members, including many homeless people, outside a local church;” and Myrtle Beach, S.C., “adopted an ordinance that restricts food sharing with homeless people in public parks.”
In a Daytona Beach incident, a couple who ran a Christian outreach group for over a year were fined for giving free food to the homeless.
In all, police officers ticketed six people, including four volunteers who helped the Jimenezes on Wednesday – one of them, a man in a wheelchair who recently escaped homelessness and participated “to pay it forward,” Debbie Jimenez said. The fines levied by authorities total $2,238.
Police officers also warned that all members involved were permanently banned from the park. If they ignored the warning they would be arrested for trespassing — on public property, no less. As one reporter said, "The right to peaceably assemble has been declared null-and-void for charity workers."
The excuse the officials gave was that not all of the homeless people are mannerly or clean while in the park. Living on the street tends to take the GQ and Gucci out of its victims. They also point out that some homeless people have mental health issues and substance abuse problems and criminal records.
It's an ironic statement, as we shall see.
Charity has always been considered one of the fundamental virtues of the Christian faith. Famously, the New Testament in the Gospel of Matthew relates the parable of the good King who admonished his ministers for their pettiness and selfish.
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
The punishment for helping only the well-off and powerful to the determent of the needy? The King cursed them, "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Pretty harsh.
Both St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas wrote that charity united us to God and that the habit of charity extends not only to the love of God but also to "the love of our neighbor."
Many Christians would say that love for your neighbor- whether rich or poor- is the key principle of the religion and any law that forbids individuals from assisting the needy is, in fact, anti-Christian.
However, it appears that the same people who claim that America is a Christian nation are quite comfortable with outlawing feeding the hungry and helping the needy. They must be too busy fighting for their religious liberty not to bake cakes for same-sex couples.
Criminalizing the Homeless
If that were the only laws that made things difficult for the homeless, it would be shameful enough. But sadly, that's only the tip of the iceberg.
In Houston, it has become illegal to search in dumpsters for food, as so many homeless people are forced to do. One 44-year old homeless man was ticketed by a Houston police officer for." disturbing the contents of a garbage can in (the) downtown business district."
In the Houston area, the most recent statistics indicate that more than 6,300 people are without a home on any given night. Nearly half of the unsheltered homeless population have a mental illness and/or substance abuse disorder. (There is good news too. Since 2011, there has been a 37% decrease in homelessness in Houston and in the past year, an impressive 16% decrease, according to the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County.)
In San Francisco, arrests for illegal lodging, or sleeping outside are increasingly common citywide. According to one source,
The number of such citations of homeless people jumped sharply in the last two years: Illegal lodging charges increased from 85 to 219; maintaining a public nuisance, from 134 to 240; and obstructing a sidewalk, from 317 to 677.
Said Elisa Della-Piana, director of the Neighborhood Justice Clinic in Berkeley explained to T.J Johnston, writer for Street Spirit:
“A tired homeless man faced up to three years in prison for dozing off on a milk crate. Prison. For sleeping while sitting up — an act that anyone who has ever been on a plane ride can attest is torture in and of itself.”
Increasing the penalties against the homeless only punishes the ones who need help, especially after deep cuts in affordable housing and "other poverty-abatement programs starting in the 1980s."
Origins of Our Contempt
According to the nonpartisan think tank, The Urban Institute, between the years 1981 and 1989, the homelessness rate tripled.
One reason for this was the lack of affordable housing. Available housing for the low-income household became harder and harder to find. There was a reason for that.
In the effort to limit government responsibility- a prime directive for conservatives- the budget for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was cut by a staggering $65 billion, going from a budget of $83 billion in 1978 to only $18 billion in 1983.
In effect, as one source put it, the federal government under Reagan "relinquished its responsibility for developing affordable housing for low-income families."
For an explanation of the full effects of the policies, you can go to this informative site.
Consider that during the same years, Congress was debating the Reagan budget of the B-2 stealth bomber. At $2.4 billion each, Congress cut its initial purchase of was 132 bomber to just 21.
If nothing else, this gives some indication of the moral priorities.
Another of Reagan's policies which contributed to the rise of homelessness concerned the governmental responsibility of the mentally ill (including substance abuse.)
Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness.
Betraying our Duties
Upon closer inspection, we can see that the movement that put more and more mentally ill patients on the street did not begin with President Reagan.
It was actually a part of the 60s and 70s reforms that gave more rights to patients with treatable mental illness. Drugs were seen as the panacea for mental illness and policy-makers with doctors decided that the best course was to put the less severely patient back into the community. It was a major mistake.
The range of patients who could be released into the community - so long as they were not a threat to others- broadened considerably.
The effect was predictable: Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. As reported back in 1984, the policy was not working and something needed to be done:
Dr. Frank R. Lipton and Dr. Albert Sabatini of Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital in Manhattan, who have done research on the problems of the homeless, say one of the major flaws in the concept of deinstitutionalization was the notion that serious, chronic mental disorders could be minimized, if not totally prevented, through care provided within the local community.
The neo-conservative mandate under Reagan to slash government programs all but ensured that Federal funds for community mental health programs would begin to dry up, shifting the burden to the states. The states, in turn, followed the federal government's lead and legislators too cut their budgets on mental health programs.
It was more than any single Reagan policy. It was a general attitude that homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, and even diseases like AIDS, were all personal problems and that governments had no mandate to seek resolutions. In short, social problems could and should be resolved without any cost to government.
It may surprise a lot of the young whippersnappers that at one time when it came to helping the homeless, it was a matter of national pride. Edward Kennedy in his 1980 concession speech at the Democratic convention said:
Our commitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society.." On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies and refreshed our faith.
And that was the historical pivoting point.
By electing Ronald Reagan in 1980, Americans decided by popular vote to turn their backs on the poor, the drug addicts and the mentally ill. The road to prosperity had to have its scapegoats, after all. The humblest members of society didn't deserve our attention. There had to be winners and losers.
What was the joy of success if prosperity was to be universally shared to all members of society?
When Compassion Became a Joke
Nobody can claim ignorance about Reagan's record. His sense of empathy had been made clear for years, well before he was elected president. In 1966, before a TV audience he said:
"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."
Hunger in America, for many, was just a joke.
When heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped and the SLA- the group that abducted her- initially demanded that free food for the poor and elderly be distributed in the poor neighborhoods of San Francisco. It was, they said, a condition of beginning negotiations for the release of Miss Hearst. In three days of distribution, over 75,000 resident received food through charity organizations.
What was Governor Reagan's response?
Reagan told reporters that people who accepted the food were "aiding and abetting" felonies. (I am sure he meant felons, not felonies.) He said he "deplored the fact that these people are accepting the food."
Fuming at the hostage-takers' demand, Reagan reportedly told Republicans at a luncheon (a luncheon!)
"It's just too bad we can't have an epidemic of botulism."
(He later claimed the botulism remark was just a joke.)
Joke or not, sometimes an off-hand remark can reveal so much about the character and the moral standards of the teller. President Reagan and the party that has always held him in high regard- indeed idolized him- set the path that would today lead to laws making the poor and the sick and the homeless criminals.
For a nation that takes so much pride in its Judeo-Christian roots, -with a moral code that demands we treat others the way would expect to be treated, that teaches us to care for the needy and the helpless as a glory to God- you'd think we could treat the homeless just a little bit better than this.
Turkey's long-standing headscarf ban has been the bane of conservative religious groups for years. The ruling party has just issued a new dress code for public school students which will finally see the end of the ban. Here's why a lot of people aren't very happy about the new dress policy.
To understand the news about Turkey's headscarf controversy,
it is helpful to realize how important symbolism can be. Especially the religious kind.
Back in the 1920s, when Mustafa Kemal established the modern Turkish Republic from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, he was determined to break with the theocratic tendencies of the past.
The so-called "Father of the Turks" believed the excessive influence of religion in all aspects of life, but especially in politics and in state affairs had led only to backwardness. Secularism, Kemal believed, was the solution.
In his effort to set up a secular forward-thinking republic, he banned most of the articles of religious symbolism, like the wearing of the fez and beards for men and the Islam-mandated covering for the women. In all public buildings and government schools, fezzes and headscarves were formally banned.
(If that sounds incredible or high-handed, remember this is a man who changed the Turkish alphabet from Arabic script to Latin letters practically overnight.) Until the religious-based AKP party took the reins of government, that ban had gone unchallenged.
The Headscarf Cultural War
Like all government workers, public school teachers and students were forbidden to wear headscarves in school. In the private sector had for the most part followed suit with its employees.
For religious conservatives this headscarf ban has long been a thorn in the side. They have successfully defeated the ban. And they couldn't have done it without the help of Europe.
If the War on Drugs has been a failure, it's time to ask what exactly went wrong. That's a question we will be taking a closer look at next week. Firstly, in this post, we will look at the scale of the problem.
I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal.
Of course, Friedman ignores the very serious consequences of drug addiction, such as wasted lives and destroyed families, the increase in crime and poverty. and generations of young people who might have contributed to society being turned into veritable zombies. Doing nothing, no matter what Uncle Milt might thing is not an viable option. In that light, Friedman's notions strikes one as being cold and pitiless.
Still there is a tiny kernel of truth buried in the idea.
If wars are ever moral in any sense, the War on Drugs was depicted in its opening salvos, as a battle of good against the evils of addiction. In fighting this particular war, however, one of the problems was understanding exactly who the enemy was and who were its victims.
Of course, it was clear something had to be done. However, at some point after President Nixon officially kicked off the War on Drugs in 1971, the anti-drug policy jumped the tracks and then coasted along with nobody at the wheel.
Today after four decades of fighting, the drug war has, at least according to one source, cost the taxpayers over $1 trillion dollars.
Does the silence from the Obama Administration about Brunei's decision to enact Sharia laws against homosexuality reveal a disturbing double-standard of the US government? Or could this just another example of the kind of CIA miscalculation that has plagued the agency for decades?
When Existence Is Illegal
On April 22 2014, some of the most extreme anti-gay laws came into effect in the tiny Sultanate of Brunei. The Southeast Asia nation has enacted punishments mandated by Sharia law for a number of offenses, including same-sex-activity. For crimes of a sexual nature, stoning to death- as well as slicing selected parts of criminal anatomy- will be a newly adopted method of punishment under the new laws. These laws will be gradually phased in over the next few years.
"Rape, adultery, sodomy, extramarital sexual relations for Muslims, insulting any verses of the Quran and Hadith, blasphemy, declaring oneself a prophet or non-Muslim, and murder are the other offences for which the death penalty could be applied under the revised code."
Although tiny country
is predominantly Muslim (67%) there are also Buddhists (13%), Christian (10%)
who will from now on be obliged to live under Sharia laws.
In point of fact, the Koran has this to say about the law when it comes to homosexuality.
If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful (Sura al-Nisa' 4:16)
So, it would seem laws that require punishment are, strictly speaking, interpretations of the Sharia law and not based on what the religion actually dictates anyway. (But that's a matter for Koranic scholars to argue about.)
“Application of the death penalty for
such a broad range of offences contravenes international law.”
Colville pointed out other problems with the new laws.
"Stoning to death, under international law, constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment and is thus clearly prohibited,”
Additionally, he noted that the "criminalization and application of
the death penalty for consensual relations between adults in private also
violates a whole host of rights, including the rights to privacy, to equality
before the law, the right to health and freedom from arbitrary arrest and
detention."
Shaking the Limbaugh family tree and something amazing falls out.
Here's a story to brighten your mood a little. The satirical news site, The Daily Currant, has this hoax-story about Rush Limbaugh was denied service in a Mexican restaurant (due to his history of racial slurs against minorities) and was asked to leave the premises. In the fictional story, Rush lost his cool. According to the story, Limbaugh bellowed to the owner how..
"My ancestors built this country while yours were sacrificing 10-year-olds to the Aztec gods. This isn't your country. It's our country. You're a guest here in America..."
Unfortunately, although it might sound plausible, the event never actually took place. Yet, there's always hope that somebody will have to courage to confront this man in such a way.
The Other Rush
Still it did get me curious about the Limbaugh family history. It was interesting to see how little in common Rush Limbaugh III has with his more honorable origins.
Rush Limbaugh, Sr., Limbaugh's grandfather and namesake, served on the Missouri Commission for Human Rights (MCHR) back in the late 1950s. The Commission was established in 1957, but was originally meant to gather information about discrimination and publish a report and recommendations after a two-year period and it is still in operation. (Last year, the commission investigated and closed nearly 1500 cases of employment discrimination in Missouri.)
Roger was arrested last year for sending another man a text message that said, "I'm very much in love w/u." He was charged and convicted under Cameroon's law that criminalizes "homosexual behavior" and sentenced to three years in prison. He's spent more than a year in jail, while being subjected to abuse in custody, but is now finally appealing his conviction. Roger's hearing is scheduled for Monday, Sept. 17.
