Paedophile moves from Catholic Church to the TSA

Thomas Harkins, a Catholic priest who was removed from the ministry after sexually abusing two young girls, is now working for the TSA at Philadelphia International Airport. Seriously, when you have lower standards than the Catholic Church for hiring paedophiles, you should not have carte blanche to strip-search children.

'Course the Neo-Cons would say that you have to give up your children's right not to be patted down by a known paedophile in order to guarantee your freedom...

The era of intelligent adults disagreeing over US politics is over

Once upon a time, Democratic- and Republicans-supporters could have an intelligent debate over politics in America. The aims of both parties were more-or-less aligned – increased prosperity, increased personal freedom, increased security – and the debate was merely over the philosophical strategy in how to pursue these goals. Yes, Republicans wanted to support the rich, while Democrats wanted to support the poor, but the public justification of both positions was the same – it would result in increased prosperity for all – and thus the argument could be addressed in an evidence-based manner. Likewise on the other key policy areas, Democrats and Republicans could have diametrically opposed strategies, but they could at least be debated in an intelligent manner. 

No more. The Republicans have completely lost the plot. It is no longer possible for an intelligent debate to occur between Republicans and Democrats, because Republicans have left the intellectual marketplace. It is no longer a matter of debating policy strategy, the Republicans are advocating positions that no thoughtful adult could possibly defend. Is there any other way to characterise the position of Virgina Republicans in mandating the rape of any woman who wants an abortion? Passing a law to require a trans-vaginal ultrasound for any woman who wants an abortion is, in the words of this doctor, rape: "If I insert ANY object into ANY orifice without informed consent, it is rape. And coercion of any kind negates consent, informed or otherwise."

Or look at the law recently passed by Arizona Republicans. It allows any doctor to lie to a woman about the health of their foetus if they think that the information could lead to an abortion. So if a woman goes to a maternity clinic for a check-up and the doctor finds that the foetus has gross abnormalities and will be severely retarded or have gross physical abnormalities, the doctor is allowed to lie to the woman and tell her that the foetus is perfectly healthy. Could there be any worse violation of the doctor-patient relationship?

It doesn’t stop at the rape of vulnerable women and the destruction of medical ethics. Republicans are publically advocating the virtue of torture, previously antithetical to the ethics of all developed nations. Republican crowds are cheering Republican legislators when they say that sick people without health insurance should be allowed to die, and they are booing gay soldiers who are serving to protect their nation. They vow to repeal guarantees of every child having access to health care, and have financially incoherent policies.

Obviously not every Republican supports these obscene positions, but they are voting for politicians who do. Republican voters are choosing insane Republicans over conservative Democrats, and need to be held accountable for that choice. Republicans who are conservative and also sane have been purged from the party. Even if there are a few legislators like Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chafee left, they caucus for Republicans – so a vote for them puts the most rapid of the Republicans into a position of power. In the past I have been able to argue with Republican voters, but for the last three years I haven’t encountered a single voice who can articulate a sane reason to vote for the current Republican party.

Well, we all knew that Republicans hate women...

To the rest of the developed world, the stir in America on contraception is completely mystifing. The health care system in the US is archaic and a hodge-podge, but the most common pathway is this: as part of your work contract your employer will purchase an insurance policy in your name, which you can then use at third-party health care providers. Until Obamacare, these insurance policies were practically unregulated, and could be gold plated or completely useless, and typically the employee doesn't get a choice, putting them at the whim of the employer.

One of the measures of Obamacare is to mandate the minimum of what must be included in an insurance policy, which includes contraception. This is not "taxpayer" paid contraception, it is mandatory inclusion of contraception coverage in private insurance packages. The employer is not really in the equation, technically they buy the insurance package, but the interaction is all between employee and insurer. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church hit the roof, screaming that Obama was taking away their right to overrule the right of their employees. Nasty and illogical, with a bitter anti-woman streak. Their complaint just makes no sense anyway, they paid salary and insurance as a condition of working, what the employee does with that money is their own business. They complain that the employee can get contraception from their insurance, guess what, they can also get it from their salary. Maybe all Catholic employees should get paid with special dollars that won't buy anything non-Catholic? "Sorry Madam, you can't buy a copy of Victor Hugo's Les Misérables with Catholic dollars", "Sorry Sir, I can't let you order a steak, it is Friday".

Frankly, I think it is sick that employees depend on their employers for health care in the first place, it is even more sick when employers can use that power to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone else. Sandra Fluke, a law student at a Catholic University, testified in Congress that students are forced to buy the "Catholic" health care plan which does not cover contraception: so female stuents have to pay $1000 out-of-pocket if they need contraception. Rush Limbaugh came out swinging:

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Okay, this is no news to anyone, we all knew the Republicans and Religious Right hated women. But did you know just how little Republicans understood about reproductive biology? "She's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth-control pills that she needs. That's what she's saying." Limbaugh honesty doesn't seem to realise that you have to take the pill once per day, regardless of how much sex you have. The $1000 bill is the cost of one year's prescription, regardless of whether she is taking it for non-contraceptive purposes, is happily married and just doesn't want children, or whether she is really "having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk". Of course it is none of his damn business, and it is none of the Church's damn business, they should keep their hateful bigotry to themselves. This just seems like such a typical example of the Republican modus operandi: take an issue, proclaim yourself morally superior, twist the facts to appeal to the base instincts, and then just lie about the science.

Europe for Americans

For Americans travelling to Europe it is sometimes hard to remember what all these little countries are like. Luxembourg vs Liechtenstein, which is which? So we've put together a country-by-country guide to Europe especially for Americans, pointing out which American state corresponds to each country in Europe.

The Mid-Atlantic

England is European New York. London is the original NYC, just ask the inhabitants and they'll tell you it is the most important city in the world, and truth be told they can't be that far off the truth. Upstate England is more conservative, apart from a few bigger industrial centres. Wales is European New Jersey. At times it just feels like the flow-over from NY, but actually there are some very pretty parts. Northern Ireland is our Pennsylvania, kind of a more working class Catholic version of New York.

New England

It is cold and dark in northern Europe, but just like your New England the inhabitants have turned it into a progressive icon, showing the rest of the continent how to do health care, welfare and education. Compact Denmark is European Connecticut. Sweden is European Vermont, socialist yet independent, while Finland is European Maine. Scotland is European Massachusetts, closely linked to the Mid-Atlantic states but with a distinct northern socialist flair and some top universities. Switzerland is our New Hampshire, taking that "Live Free or Die" thing a little too seriously. We even have a state that we mock as being too small, Luxembourg, just like your Rhode Island. Then there is Norway, Europe's Canada. Colder than the rest of Europe, but somehow their society just works better. We'd like them to be part of our Union, and usually treat them as if they are, but they are staying out until we lift our game. 

Mid-West

Germanic Europe is the heart of the European Mid-West, the industrial core of the continent. Germany, the European Illinois, is the centre of gravity for the region. Austria is Minnesota, similar to Illinois but a lot more white and a bit more racist; Hungry is Indiana, similar to Illinois but a lot more white and a lot more racist. Poland is European Kansas, a little bit too fond of screaming "blasphemy". The Czech Republic and Slovakia are European North Dakota and South Dakota, except the Dakotas kept sharing a name after they split up. Hardworking, Catholic and poor, Ireland is European Ohio. Bulgaria and Wisconsin have famous cheeses that aren't actually that great. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are European versions of Missouri, Nebraska and Iowa, in orbit around Illinois, but far from the action. European Michigan, or as we call it, Greece, feels like its glory days were thousands of years in the past, and now quite frankly it is broke.

South Atlantic

The Balkans is the core of the European South Altanic. Serbia is European Georgia, Montenegro is European North Carolina, Albania is European South Carolina, Bosnia and Hertzogovenia is European West Virginia, Croatia is European Virginia and Slovenia is European Maryland. We've let our Maryland into the Union, and our Virginia shows a lot of promise, but for the rest of the region sometimes it seems like they are hung up on long-past wars, just a little bit too poor (and to be honest, a little bit too racist). Look, one day we'll let them in, but they have a lot of learning to do first. Oh, and just like America we have a small enclave that not everyone recognises where we put the people we've dumped on for centuries. Only our disparaged minorties are Muslims and DC is called Kosovo.

If you are going to the South Atlantic for the weather, we also have a long peninsula full of retired people, only instead of calling it Florida we call it Italy. For European Delware we also have a microstate where all the companies are headquartered for tax reasons - it is called Liechtenstein over here. Even smaller is San Marino, the European Virgin Islands, both frequently forgotten from the list of states. Finally, you have Puerto Rico, the state that you don't give any voting rights to because, you know, they are not really American what with that darker skin colour and funny language. Well, we have that too! Say hello to Turkey.

South Central

You have Texas. We also have a vast state taken over by corrupt oil-men and a population a little too fond of Hitler's birthday. We call it Russia, and we were smart enough not to let it in the Union. Just saying. On the great plains near European Texas we have the Ukraine, European Oklahoma and just as conservative. Similar to European Oklahoma, but with a French accent and a fun capital city is Romania, European Louisiana, and wedged inbetween our Louisiana and Oklahoma is our Arkansas, the poor state of Moldova. The plains of Kazakhstan are even more endless than those of Kentucky, and like Mississippi, Belarus does seem to have progressed for the past fifty years. You have Tennessee, we have Malta, a country so conservative abortion is illegal and they are still on the fence about divorce. Europe doesn't have an Alabama, which is just one of the things that makes Europe better than America.

Pacific West

It couldn't be any other way, France is European California. Self-proclaimed capital of culture, fine wines and famous beaches, the centre of fashion and the socialist heartland. The Netherlands is European Washington, a laid-back cafe culture that is simultaneously an economic powerhouse. Sandwiched between the European California and Washington is Belgium, European Oregon. Often overlooked due to its more famous neighbours, this beautiful little country has some of the most liveable cities, and unswimmable beaches, in Europe. In north-west limits of Europe, famous for its glaciers and vast uninhabited wilderness is Iceland, European Alaska. And in the far north-east is Portugal, European Hawaii, with a liberal attitude and more sun than the rest of Europe. European Guam, a rock with a military base and uncertain legal status, is called Cyprus.

Mountain West

Andorra is European Colorado, where our rich go to ski. The European New Mexico is situated in a desert, and is also full of Latinos - welcome to Spain. Macadonia would officially be named Arizona, if Michigan would just stop acting like a jerk. A state that is pretty much just a casino? Monaco is the European Nevada. Way out off the beaten track are Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, respectively Idaho (doing their religious thing), Montana (guarding its northern border) and Wyoming (which almost no one from Europe has ever visited). Europe even has its own theocracy, and just like Utah, the Vatican City considers itself the centre of Christianity.

And that has surely insulted every individual on two continents.

Hey Republicans, I thought the debt was America's main problem?

Do you remember when the US debt was the most urgent problem in American politics? When the Republicans broke all convention by grand-standing on raising the debt ceiling to cover the deficit that they passed themselves?

Yeah, apparently the debt problem must be solved, because now all Republicans care about is cutting taxes for the rich. Look at Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the repulsive Rick Santorum: each one has an explicit platform of cutting taxes on the richest Americans. In the US the top income tax rate is a very low 35%, cutting in at ~$380,000 for singles. Romney and Santorum want to cut this to 28% while Gingrich wants to cut it to 15%. "But", I hear you ask, "Won't a massive tax cut create much more debt?". Ah, silly, you are forgetting the Republican's magic wand, which you just have to wave, say "Supply side economics" three times and bam! any tax cut becomes revenue neutral.

So with the Republicans in favour of tax cuts to the richest and tax hikes to everyone else (either explicitly, for Gingrich and Santorum, or implicitly, by Romney's removal of certain deductions used mostly by the working class), I have to ask again, why can't Americans see the GOP hates them?

Officer Berry

Santorum is a filthy liar - even by Republican standards

This is Santorum discussing the health care system in the Netherlands:

Well in the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you are elderly. And the bracelet is ‘do not euthanise me’. Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands. But half the people that are euthanised every year, and it’s ten percent of all deaths, half of those people are euthanised involuntarily at the hospitals, because they are older and sick.

And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country. Because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, that they will not come out of that hospital to [unaudible].

Look at what has happened just in our tolerance of abortion. Fifty years ago, people who did abortions, sixty years ago, people who did abortions were, you know, in the shadows, or people who were considered really bad doctors. Now abortion is something that is just accepted. Well, of course people do abortions, it’s legal, it’s fine, there are no moral and ethical problems. This is the erosion, and it happens in the medical profession, and it can happen very fast, and I think Obamacare will lead us down that road.

Almost every single sentence he uttered is a filthy lie. Not shades of gray, an alternative interpretation or statistical slight-of-hand - just a complete lie. The elderly in the Netherlands do not wear bracelets saying "do not euthanise me". All euthanasia in the Netherlands is voluntary, can only occur following multiple independent consultations and even then only in the case of unbearable pain. Euthanasia accounts for ~1% of total deaths in the Netherlands, not 10%. Health care provision to the elderly is higher in the Netherlands, not lower, and there is no shadow health-care system of Dutch fleeing over the border because they are afraid to go to Dutch hospitals. Abortion rates in the US are lower than they were 50 years ago, thanks to contraception, and abortion-related deaths are much lower, thanks to safe provision of medical services. "Obamacare" will not increase the number of abortions provided.

This is the man the majority of Republicans want to be the next President of the United States. And that says a whole lot about Republicans.

Obscene (lack of) taxation for the ultra-rich

We have all heard how multi-millionaire Mitt Romney pays less than 14% tax on his income. Well, it gets worse for the billionaires. 

Consider Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs owned $2 billion worth of Apple stock, and he never once had to pay a dollar's worth of tax on it. How could that possibly be true, you may ask? Well, the increase in stock value is not considered to be income until the stock is sold, using the quaint notion that only banknotes have real value. Everyone apart from the IRS understands that Apple stock has some value, so Steve Jobs could take out loans for anything he could ever want. No bank would refuse to lend Jobs $100 million for a luxury house, knowing that he had $2 billion in Apple stock. So these cashed up billionaires can still live the billionaire lifestyle without selling the stock and without ever paying tax. Oh, and now that Jobs is dead, his family get the $2 billion in stock and even if they sell it they won't have to pay any tax on it, because the clock will start ticking from the 2012 share price not the 1997 share price that he was given it at.

These are the people who actually make iPhones
I know, I know, Jobs was the greatest inventor since Leonardo Da Vinci and you really love your iPhone. Still, the guy is worth $2 billion and doesn't pay tax? Isn't that just sick? And for anyone who protests that "job creators" need to be tax-free because otherwise they will get stroppy and either refuse to work or will flee the country: do you really think that Jobs wouldn't have been amply rewarded with a "mere" $1 billion? A 50% tax rate still would have left him with far more money than he could ever spend. Mark Zuckerberg is even worse, with $28 billion worth of stock that he hasn't paid tax on. I'm joining the call for a Zuckerberg tax.

Mandatory rectal exams in Virginia

My new hero in American politics, Janet Howell. When the Virginian Republicans put up a vote requiring mandatory ultrasounds for any women who wants to get an abortion, Democrat Janet Howell added an ammendment requiring a rectal exam for any man who wants to get viagra tablets. 

"We need some gender equity here. The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?"

Love it, hit the Republicans where it hurts - erectile dysfunction. And a fantastic message she is sending: your body, your choice; my body, my choice. It is just a shame that her ammendment failed (it won 6-1 among women state senators, failed 13-20 among male state senators), and unfortunately the ultrasound bill looks like it will pass. Shows we need fewer Republicans and more women in American politics.

Promoting universal human rights is not cultural imperialism

In the past few months have heralded a titanic shift in international gay rights. In October, advancing international gay rights was a topic of conversation at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, with UK Prime Minister David Cameron stating that gay rights in Africa is a major concern, and that respect for gay rights should influence foreign aid decisions. Then in December the US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a statement indicating a similar shift in US foreign policy, that the US would use all of the tools of American foreign diplomacy to promote international gay rights and fight criminalisation of sexuality. 

These statements were aimed squarely at Africa, where gay rights have lagged behind the rest of the world, and in particular countries like Uganda, where gay rights are actively being destroyed. In Uganda there has been a major backlash in response to these comments, such as from John Nagenda, a senior Presidental advisor, who said in response "Homosexuality here is taboo, it’s something anathema to Africans, and I can say that this idea of Clinton’s, of Obama’s, is something that will be seen as abhorrent in every country on the continent that I can think of.” One Ugandan commentator summed up the response: "It is unfortunate that Uganda is now being judged on the actions of opportunists whose ideas are based on violence and blackmail and even worse, on the actions of aid attached strings. It is regrettable that government is pretentiously expected to observe their 'human rights', yet, by their own actions, they have surrendered their right to human rights."

Persecutors of homosexuality, both in Africa and in developed nations, commonly shout "cultural imperalism" or "ex-colonial mentality" to defend their "right" to kill gays. Cultural imperalism is a major problem, and leaders like David Cameron do show signs of a deep-seated racism in their policy decisions. However defending gay rights in Africa does not met any of the criteria for cultural imperalism, for three reasons.

Firstly, universal human rights is not a "Western construct". It is too easy for non-Western governments to claim that the human rights agenda is simply an import of Western values. This is a cop-out, and disgracefully ignores the non-Western contribution to the concept of human rights. To understand the basis of universal human rights we need to accept the contribution of multiple historical strands, which independently derived universal rights and built on each other. Ancient Greek philosophy, Zen Buddhism and Confusionism all sewed the seeds for individual rights. Early Islamic scholarship, the European enlightenment, the American Revolution and the labour movement all built on these foundations. The leading figures in the modern human rights movement were global - from Gandhi in India, Mandela in Africa, and Martin Luther King in America. Today if you are looking for beacons of gay rights you can include countries from South Africa to Argentina to Nepal. In fact, only half of the people who live in countries allowing gay marriage are in Europe or North America; universal rights has been a global collaborative venture. 

Secondly, African homophobia is actually the cultural import. Ironically, those people who scream "cultural imperalism" when they are asked not to kill gays in Africa are actually defending a cultural import. The virulent anti-gay culture is based on the British import of Christianity and the recent evangelical campaign from America. In fact, African leaders such as Nelson Mandela have been among the bravest politicians in the world in standing up for gay rights. In short, there is nothing authentically "African" about wanting to kill gays. 

Thirdly, Gay rights is (sadly) not "Western culture". Western countries do not have a long history of accepting homosexuality. As previously mentioned, they actively exported homophobia; sexuality equality is a recent development that has grown from the concept of universal human rights. In the case of Uganda, the two main imperial players have been the UK and America. Both have a long history of persecuting people based on their sexuality. Removal of persecuation of homosexuality started in 1967 in the UK, with equal sexual rights only achieved in 2003. The US was even worse, with laws against homosexuality standing until 2003 and discrimination laws still in place in parts of the country today. Neither country today provides for full equity. 

When conservative thugs try to excuse their thuggery by citing "culture" it is tempting to simply echo the sentiment of Charles Napier, the British General who stopped the practice of suttee in India: "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." With both telling and pithy, we can come up with a better attack than this. Mrs Clinton is exactly right when she argues that gay rights are like other universal human rights, transending cultural, religious and national boundaries. Afterall, "universal" does not mean "everyone but the gays".

Most people would argue that the right to maintain your culture is also a universal right. This I would agree with, and for example I have actively defended the right of Islamic women to wear the headscarf or burqa, even though I disagree with the practice. So how is wearing a burqa different from imprisoning gays? Quite simply, the right to maintain your culture is a personal right. If you want to wear a burqa or a kippah based on your culture, go ahead. If you want to hate gays or women based on your religion, that is your right. But, and this is a big but, everyone else also has the right to maintain their own personal culture and rights. Cultural rights do not only go to straight male bigots. Women have the right to wear a burqa if they chose; no-one has the right to force them to wear a burqa against their will. A gay evangelical can chose to punish himself for violating his own religion, or even seek out punishment from his church, or he can chose to accept his sexuality - it is a personal decision.

Conservative thugs always invoke their culture or tradition when defending their right to persecute others. Whether it is slave owners invoking culture for keeping slaves, men invoking culture for dominating women or heterosexuals invoking culture for persecuting homosexuals, we can't let them get away with it. Their personal right to culture and tradition does not over-ride everyone else's rights to their own free choice in culture and tradition. If an Islamic woman wants to say that she is making a cultural choice to wear a mini-skirt, or a Ugandan woman decides to live openly as a lesbian, then that is her choice, and her choice alone. We are ethically bound to support those choices.