NYT Editor John Swinton and The Truth about the Independent Press

by Nomad

The American journalist, orator, and fighter for progressive causes, John Swinton (1829-1901) has long been forgotten by the public but his comments on the Independent press of his day seems strikingly familiar to our own.

To Fawn at the Feet of Mammon

In 1880, newspaper publisher, New York Times chief editor and orator John Swinton was the guest of honor at a banquet for the press. When a toast was raised to the independent press, Swinton reportedly had this rather surprising announcement:

THERE is no such thing in America as an independent press, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write his honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with—others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things—and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread.

You know this and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an "Independent Press." We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.

We are intellectual prostitutes.

Call It Irony: Mormon Leaders Oppose Re-Defining The Concept of Marriage

by Nomad

The official opposition of the Mormon Church to same-sex marriage reveals an amusing paradox, unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
Given its history with polygamy, what authority does the Mormon Church have to dictate what is and what is not a traditional marriage?

A few days ago Neil L. Andersen , a well-respected leader of the  Church of the Latter Day Saints,  had an announcement to make on the official position of the Mormon Church on same-sex marriage.  The opinions of Andersen, as a member of of the Quorum of the Twelve, carry a lot of weight. He declared:

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not. He designated the purpose of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults, to more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared and nurtured."

One can scrutinize the position and point out its flaws, such as the fact that, while the Church gives its stamp of approval on all traditional marriage, it doesn't dare claim that every marriage is an ideal setting for children. So why does it do so in this case?

Apart from some manufactured evidence from special interests, there is no actual proof that same-sex marriage is any better or any worse for child rearing and nurturing. At least that's what qualified doctors tell us:

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

Nevertheless, Andersen knows because .. well, he just knows because God told him so. Yet, Church leaders have been wrong in the past. And they have had to suddenly reverse their formerly rock-solid positions on marriage in the past.

The Evolving Republican View on Obama's Affordable Care Act

by Nomad

Musical Sanity Break: Austin Criswell

by Nomad

One of the best things about the Net is that gives people a stage where they can shine. Take the example of Austin Criswell, a singer-songwriter from Pennsylvania. 

Not your typical pop idol type, but what a fantastic voice. 

By the way, although Adele made this song a hit it was actually written by Bob Dylan from his 1997 album Time Out of Mind .It was first recorded and released commercially by none other than Billy Joel.

Sarah Palin and Protege Lizbeth Benacquisto Play Magic Trick on Florida Voters

by Nomad

In an effort to show how Tea Party conservatives really (REALLY) are not waging a war on women, Sarah Palin has been been showing up throwing her weight behind female conservative candidates. 

It didn't take long for the giggles to start.

Wherever the shadow of Palin falls, something turns rotten, it seems. According a local news report- A Fox News outlet nonetheless- Florida Senate Majority Leader Lizbeth Benacquisto from Florida's District 30 played an impressive magic trick with the help of Sarah Palin's witchery.

Benacquisto was able to make a simultaneous appearance at two places at the same time,  campaigning in southwest Florida with Sarah Palin, while voting on the Senate floor in Tallahassee.

Senator Benaquisto said she left the capitol early Thursday, though we confirmed business did not conclude that day until 6 p.m. She spent that evening at a barbecue fundraiser for her Congressional campaign with Palin in Naples.
Yet, the voting record showed she stayed in the Senate to continue to vote -- indicating someone voted in her place (in violation of legislative rules.)

Hardly a high crime but it does provide proof- as any more were required- that politicians are much more interested in fund-raising and campaigning for their esteemed position than actually doing the required tasks. A fundraiser is a like a party with a purpose whereas the responsibility of actually voting is dull, dull, dull.

Apparently this sort of absentee voting goes on quite a bit despite the rules. But then a rule never stopped Palin so why should it stop her protege? You can almost hear Palin saying "Ah, rules, schmules! Trust me, girlfriend!"

Police Brutality: Is This The Price of Empire?

by Nomad

Recent cases of police overreaction have led to public outrage. But the question is: Is this the inevitable consequence of imperial war? If so, it shouldn't surprise anybody. One politician from an earlier age warned us that this would happen.

A few recent news stories about the  police caught my attention. Here's one from the Chicago area:

A suburban police officer has been charged with reckless conduct, in the death of a 95-year-old World War II veteran who was shocked with a stun gun and shot with beanbag rounds at a Park Forest nursing home last year.

Park Forest Police Officer Craig Taylor was charged with one count of reckless conduct in the death of John Wrana. at the Victory Centre nursing home on July 26, 2013.

The Cook County Medical Examiner’s office said Wrana died from internal bleeding from blunt force trauma caused by the bean bag rounds. Cook County prosecutors said Wrana was struck five times with beanbag rounds fired from a shotgun.

According to one source, police misconduct has cost the City of Chicago over $500 million in legal settlement, fees and other costs. People are quite rightly starting to ask questions about the training and oversight of the force. 

In 2013 alone, the city shelled out $84.6 million — the largest annual payout in the decade analyzed by the Better Government Association (BGA), and more than triple the $27.3 million the city had initially projected to spend last year.

That's a lot of taxpayers' money being needlessly shelled out. Moreover, events like this seem to be happening more and more. Or maybe they are just getting reported more.  

Blaming the Victim: Republicans and America's Rape Culture

by Nomad

Recent remarks by a Wall Street Journal commentator reveal that there are still people who are confused about the subject of rape. A high level of intoxication of both the victim and the rapist, he claimed, makes them both responsible for the crime. 

The Sheikh and the Outrage

Let us start in another country and another culture, not to pass judgement but to reveal a widespread mentality in its most obvious expression.

For hundreds of years, the West has always held a peeve with the way strict Islam deals with its female followers. This is particularly true when it comes to the burka or the scarf-like hijab.
When a prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly made a remark about immodestly dressed women were inviting trouble. During a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque, Sheik al-Hilali implied that a group of Muslim men recently jailed for many years for gang rapes were not entirely to blame. 

According to one article:

There were women, he said, who 'sway suggestively' and wore make-up and immodest dress "and then you get a judge without mercy and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."Women, he told his followers,  who do not cover themselves are like 'uncovered meat' who attract sexual predators.

So, by the Sheikh's reckoning, it is the men who are prey to those predatory temptresses with their pretty naughty traps. Women, the Sheikh also stated,  were 'weapons' used by Satan to control men.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat."

As soon as these words hit the tabloids, there was the predictable outrage throughout Australia and eventually the globe. It was tainted with that kind of attitude we often hear when discussing other cultures.
It runs something like: "It's an outrage! At least, we are better than that!"

In any case, it also sold lots of newspapers. And while the Sheikh eventually apologized but it's hard to believe he thought what he said was absolutely wrong. And why should he apologize, it is after all a standard teaching of the religion.

(It is normally not stated in such graphic terms.)

In the Islamic publication, "Could Not Answer" it says:

The harm given to youngsters, to people and to the State by women who go about naked, and with strong smells of perfume, and wanton ornaments is worse and more threatening than that of alcohol and narcotics. Allah has commanded that women and girls to cover themselves lest His born servants fall into disasters in this world and vehement torments in the hereafter.

Many Islamic scholars have an elaborate (some would say labored) rationale. Women, they would say, are precious that they must be protected. Putting their bodies on display for all the world to see is a form of disrespect for women. 

For example, another cleric in Copenhagen created his own storm by carrying the teaching to the next level when he told his followers:

“Women are not entitled to respect when they walk around without a Hijab. They are to blame for it when they are attacked”

He also said:

“All the crimes that occur against women is because they are not covered. When they are not covered, you have no respect for them.”

It is the West that disrespects women by allowing them to prance around, swaying and all, revealing their bare midriffs, or wrist, or chins. 

It is probably not all that shocking to learn that this particular cleric was reportedly later arrested for sexual assault, accused of pulling his penis out and chasing a 23-year-old woman around in a park in Sweden. I wonder how this woman brought this attack upon herself. (That's sarcasm, by the way. )

In any case, according to this line of thinking, women who do not cover themselves reduce themselves to irresistible temptations for hapless men who are unable to control themselves.
As I said, that's another culture and does not represent mainstream Muslim culture. But what about American culture? Are there really some people who still hold women responsible when they become victims of rape?