Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Something to Know - 9 December


This is an interesting story in today's LA Times.  It is about a hysteria involving hatred of Catholics in Aurora, Missouri, one century ago.   As we go about today, observing fascist and hate on our political stage, one has to wonder if we as a nation ever learn from out past, or if even knowing about our history is a non-starter for many.  Note - you need to open up the link below to see the actual newspaper "The Menace" to get the full effect of this story:


A century ago, a popular Missouri newspaper demonized a religious minority: Catholics

The Menace
A 1915 edition of the Menace, a virulently anti-Roman Catholic newspaper published in Aurora, Mo. At its height, it had 1.5 million weekly subscribers — a circulation that dwarfed the largest daily newspapers in New York and Chicago. (Library of Congress)

The year was 1915, and the strange new newspaper in Aurora, Mo., had grown so quickly in its first four years that rail officials had to build extra tracks for all the paper and printing materials suddenly rolling into town.

The Aurora post office, according to one account, more than tripled its staff to handle mail to and from the publication's astonishing 1.5 million weekly subscribers — a circulation that dwarfed the largest daily newspapers in New York and Chicago.

Hatred had become big business in southwestern Missouri, and its name was the Menace, a weekly anti-Catholic newspaper whose headlines screamed to readers around the nation about predatory priests, women enslaved in convents and a dangerous Roman Catholic plot to take over America.

NEWSLETTER: Get the day's top headlines from Times Editor Davan Maharaj >>

"The cowardice of a Roman thug has no parallel in either the human or animal kingdom," the newspaper frothed in one 1914 edition, calling for "men with red blood in their veins" to defend women and children from Catholics. "If we are compelled to live in this county with Romanists, as our weak-kneed Protestant critics say we are, the Romanists will have to be taught their place in society."

America's deep and widespread skepticism of Catholics is a faint memory in today's post-Sept. 11 world. But as some conservative politicians call for limits on Muslim immigration and raise questions about whether Muslims are more loyal to Islamic law than American law, the story of Aurora's long-ago newspaper is a reminder of a long history of American religious intolerance.

Menace newspaper

The Menace, a weekly anti-Catholic newspaper, screamed to readers about predatory priests, women enslaved in convents and a Roman Catholic plot to take over America.

 (Library of Congress)

Today, there are calls for federal surveillance of mosques in the name of preventing terrorist attacks; a century ago, it was state laws that allowed the warrantless search of convents and churches in search of supposedly trapped women and purported secret Catholic weapons caches.

"I see huge parallels," said Sharon Davies, executive director of the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University. "I think we haven't seen anything quite like this since the beginning of the 20th century, when we passed laws that permitted the Catholics to be treated in ways that no other religious group was treated."

Anti-Catholicism stretches back to the nation's colonial times, when some states barred Catholics from holding office, and continued through the mid-1800s, which saw the Know-Nothing party's campaign against Catholic politicians. Lynch mobs killed Italian immigrants and arsonists burned down Catholic churches.

Perhaps no publication captures the animus toward Catholicism at the start of the 20th century as vividly as the Menace, launched in an old opera house in Aurora in 1911, when the city's population was only a little over 4,000.

The Menace wasn't the country's first anti-Catholic newspaper, but it quickly became one of the biggest, eventually selling anti-Catholic books and launching a lecture series. Its editor, the Rev. Theodore C. Walker, claimed its target was not rank-and-file Catholics but the Catholic Church itself.

"It begins a kind of tidal wave, a journalistic explosion that sweeps the entire country," said Justin Nordstrom, an associate professor of history at Penn State Hazleton who has studied the Menace. "There are people paying attention to this newspaper — urban settings, rural settings — all across the country."

On its banner, the Menace sometimes bore the logo of skull and crossbones wearing a papal hat, as well as a drawing of a public school, which is described as "the antidote for papal poison."



"OPEN ROME'S PRISON HOUSES IN AMERICA!" blared one headline for a December 1911 story that claimed the church was murdering the babies of nuns and throwing the infant corpses into a pit.

In the same issue, the Menace urged its readers to vote against all Catholic political candidates regardless of party or platform, describing the church as "the most dangerous power that threatens our government today." It added ominously, "A defeat at the polls today is far better than a defeat at arms tomorrow."

"There was a widespread belief that Catholics were waiting for the day the pope would put into motion a campaign to make the country Catholic, and in the meantime amassing [stockpiles] of weaponry that would be used when that day came," Davies said.

Not everyone bought what the Menace was selling — which was a year's subscription for 50 cents.

"It is a menace to decency — a menace to peace and order — a menace to tolerance — a menace to true Americanism — a menace to the spirit of fraternity," Chicago journalist Charles A. Windle wrote in one broadside against the weekly. "It breeds bitterness and strife between neighbors and converts life-long friends into enemies. Its columns reek with slander. Every page is a seething cesspool, in which writhe and wriggle hell-born lies."

Catholic leaders also mobilized against the Menace, clipping out accounts asserting lewd behavior by priests to prompt federal prosecutors to indict the paper's editors on suspicion of mailing obscene materials, according to Nordstrom's book on the anti-Catholic press, "Danger on the Doorstep."

When the Menace won the federal obscenity trial in Joplin, Mo., in 1916, one sympathizer wrote that Aurora celebrated, with "an immense crowd comprising more than half the population gathered at the depot, headed by the band, and when the defendants stepped from the train they were royally welcomed." The Menace described its home base as "The World's Headquarters for Anti-Papal Literature."

"It was a black page in Aurora's past," said Mary Strickrodt, president of Aurora's historical society. "I wish everyone had been aghast and run them out of town, but it seems to have hired a lot of people. We have postcards [showing] a huge amount of train cars being loaded with the newspaper to be shipped out."

The paper's immense popularity Strickrodt finds baffling.

"Why did it get big?" she wondered. "Why are people so quick to find people to hate? To be bigger than?"

The paper's circulation declined as the nation turned its attention to the First World War, and soon after the newspaper's printing plant burned down in 1919, the Menace sputtered out, along with other anti-Catholic publications.

Anti-Catholicism lived on in the Ku Klux Klan, but after the country elected its first Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, in 1960, the worst of the hatred seemed to fade.

Rick Hinshaw, a spokesman for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the group's biggest concerns today are anti-Catholic depictions on TV and in movies and the federal government's healthcare mandates.

"Today, it's more the cultural elite that we feel we run into," Hinshaw said.

Little trace remains of the Menace in Aurora, except when new homeowners tear down walls or explore attics and find copies, like the man from Rhode Island who moved to town and called local Chamber of Commerce director Shannon Walker to tell her about a strange discovery in his home.

"You'll never guess what I found," Walker recalled the man telling her.

"The Menace?" she replied.

-- 

****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story




Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Andy Borowitz


(The Donald is working real hard to be kicked out of the GOP so that he can make a run with a 3rd party - my opinion)

TODAY 7:46 AM

Trump Supporters Disappointed He Only Wants to Ban One Religion

BY 

CREDITPHOTOGRAPH BY SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—The billionaire Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States has sparked deep disappointment among his supporters, many of whom had hoped he was planning to ban a sizable number of other religions.

In conversations with likely Trump voters across the country, reactions ranged from disenchantment to a sharp sense of betrayal as supporters tried to make sense of his decision to ban members of only one faith.

"I heard him on TV talking about banning Muslims and I was kind of like, 'Is that it?' " said Carol Foyler, a Trump supporter from South Florida. "I mean, banning Muslims is a good start, but I thought a smart businessman like him would be a lot more thorough."

Harland Dorrinson, a Trump supporter from San Antonio, Texas, agreed. "Saying you're only going to ban Muslims when there are so many other religious groups to ban just feels like politics as usual," he said. "I'll give him a chance to explain himself on this one, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel burned."

But Tracy Klugian, a Trump supporter from Bismarck, North Dakota, said that voters who were upset with the billionaire for banning members of only one religion were "freaking out over nothing."

"People need to understand that he's banning Muslims first because they're the most obvious religious group you'd want to ban," she said. "I'm sure once he's President he'll get to all the other ones."


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Monday, December 7, 2015

How Europe (Germany) Looks at Us



--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Sunday, December 6, 2015

Something to Know - 7 December




The dialog on guns and violence will always be ongoing.  I noticed a comment by a gun owner, who is very adamant on following the 2nd Amendment NRA line that nothing can violate the sanctity of owning any kind of firearms, while keeping unrestricted anonymity on anything that pertains to weapons (who owns them, who buys them, who sells them, and anything about the ammunition).   The comment made was that one cannot infringe on anything to do with HIS owning of guns.  That to me is a very selfish attitude.  It is his guns that he is worryied about.  Not one word is mentioned about the ownership by those who should not have anything to do with having weapons.  "Those people" are not his problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/opinion/sunday/hysteria-about-refugees-but-blindness-on-guns.html?emc=eta1

SundayReview | OP-ED COLUMNIST

Hysteria About Refugees, but Blindness on Guns

DEC. 5, 2015

Photo



LESBOS, Greece — For three weeks American politicians have been fulminating about the peril posed by Syrian refugees, even though in the last dozen years no refugee in America has killed a single person in a terror attack.


In the same three weeks as this hysteria about refugees, guns have claimed 2,000 lives in America. The terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs were the most dramatic, but there's an unrelenting average of 92 gun deaths every day in America, including suicides, murders and accidents.

So if politicians want to tackle a threat, how about developing a serious policy to reduce gun deaths — yes, including counterterrorism measures, but not simply making scapegoats of the world's most vulnerable people.


The caricatures of Syrian refugees as jihadis who "want to kill us," as one reader named Josh tweeted me, are unrecognizable to anyone who spends time with these refugees. I think some of the harshness might melt if readers could stand with me on a beach here in Lesbos and meet the refugees as they arrive on overloaded rubber rafts after a perilous journey. The critics would see that Syrian refugees are people like us, only wet, cold, hungry and exhausted.

If you think me naïve, meet a 16-year-old Syrian boy here whom I'll call Ahmed. He lived in a part of Syria controlled by the Islamic State and decided to flee to the West after, he says, he was flogged by ISIS bullies.

Ahmed had to leave his family behind, and he can't contact them directly for fear of getting them in trouble. I'm not sharing his real name or hometown, to avoid harming his family, but his relatives who have also fled confirmed his account.

Schools have been suspended since ISIS moved into the area, so Ahmed found a job in a pharmacy. When he ran out of a medicine one day, he went to borrow some from another pharmacy — but that was run by a woman, allowed to serve female customers only. Ahmed was arrested.

"They wanted to chop my head off because I spoke to a woman," Ahmed explained.

Eventually, he was released, but Ahmed has seen more beheadings then he can count. The executions take place every Friday in the town square, and all the people are summoned to watch the swordsman do his work. The bodies are left on public display, sometime in a crucifixion position.

"If someone didn't fast during Ramadan, they put him in a cage in public to starve for up to three days," Ahmed added. Ahmed himself was accused of skipping prayers and sentenced to 20 lashes. A Saudi man administered the flogging with a horsewhip.

After that, Ahmed's family members gave their blessing to his flight because they feared that he might be forced into the ISIS army.

So what should I tell this 16-year-old boy who risked his life to flee extremism? That many Americans are now afraid of him? That the San Bernardino murders may only add to the suspicion of Syrian refugees? That in an election year, politicians pander and magnify voter fears?

Advertisement



Here in Lesbos, the fears seem way overdrawn. Some of the first aid workers Syrian refugees meet when they land on the beach are Israeli doctors, working for an Israeli medical organization called IsraAID. The refugees say they are surprised, but also kind of delighted.

"We were happy to see them," said Tamara, a 20-year-old Syrian woman in jeans with makeup and uncovered hair. The presence of Jews, Muslims and Christians side by side fit with the tolerance and moderation that she craved.



Iris Adler, an Israeli doctor volunteering with IsraAID, said the refugees were often excited to receive assistance from Israelis. "We are still in close touch with many of them," she said, including a mother whose baby she delivered on the beach after landing. Hostility to Israeli aid workers, she said, came not from refugees but, rather, from some European volunteers.


Historically, we Americans have repeatedly misperceived outsiders as threats. In 1938 and again in 1941, one desperate Jewish family in Europe tried to gain refugee status in the United States but failed, along with countless thousands of others. That was Anne Frank's family.

So while it was the Nazis who murdered Anne, we Americans were in some sense complicit.

"We're facing a great threat from Islamic extremists like ISIS, and we need to be smart about how we confront it," said Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch, who has focused on refugees. "By humiliating and rejecting those who are fleeing from ISIS, we create a sense of anger in much of the Middle East. The ultimate outcome of rejecting Syrian refugees is a propaganda victory for ISIS."

If politicians want to tackle a threat to our safety, they might cast an eye not far off on desperate refugees but closer to home — on potential terrorists and also on guns. It's absurd that the Senate refused to block people on the terror watch list from buying guns; suspected terrorists can't easily board planes but can buy assault rifles? Presidential candidates and governors should stop fear-mongering about refugees: After all, 785,000 refugees have been admitted to the United States since 9/11 and not one has been convicted of killing a person in a terrorist act in America.

"We, too, are human, and we have a right to live," an 18-year-old woman named Rahaf, who wants to be a lawyer, told me on a drizzly day in a camp here. "We're not terrorists. We're running away from war. I just want to have children who can grow up in peace.


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Saturday, December 5, 2015

Something to Know - 5 December

Tom Toles

Enough is enough.   What I have to say,  I have now permanently stated at the bottom of this page.   Change will not happen over night.  It will be a slow uphill battle.  This will include taking down the biggest obstacle we face:


The Opinion Pages | CONTRIBUTING OP-ED WRITER

No More Thoughts and Prayers

DEC. 4, 2015

Photo
A Muslim man prayed during a vigil at a mosque in Chino, Calif., on Thursday. CreditJustin Sullivan/Getty Images

Advertisement




We never had enough time to rationalize, in the uniquely American way, why that middle-aged white man killed a cop, a mother of two and an Iraq war veteran in Colorado Springs, when the latest slaughter of human life intruded. He was — what, pro-life? Screaming something about "baby parts" while he unloaded in a Planned Parenthood clinic?


Slow down, slow down, the mind wants to say — one absurd mass murder at a time. They all "make sense," eventually. Don't they?

In Colorado Springs, the man arrested in the killings, Robert L. Dear Jr., fit a profile. Here was another bearded introvert who lived at the edge of modernity, his head stuffed full of hate and half-truths. "He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic," his ex-wife wrote in a court document. "He is obsessed with the world coming to an end." And of course, he had a semiautomatic rifle to go with his delusions.

Well, that's the Colorado Springs story. Got it. The Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympic Park killer, that guy in Tennessee who shot up a church while kids performed a musical — they were domestic crazies of a certain type, the rugged individualist gone mad.How did this malcontent become a domestic terrorist? We'll never know for sure if his withdrawal — to a shack in the South, then a trailer in Colorado — led him further down the path to savagery. But we do know that isolation can breed ignorance. And when people with abhorrent views are not challenged, their hatred only hardens.



But what about San Bernardino? A young man and his wife drop off their 6-month-old baby at Grandma's, and then go mow down a room full of people at a workplace holiday luncheon. His workplace. With their assault rifles, they killed 14 people in several minutes, left another 21 injured. Makes no sense.

I thought, initially, this had to be an anti-government wacko. You know, getting revenge against the system, as represented by all those county workers at a facility for people with disabilities. A Timothy McVeigh type. Except, the co-workers were known to one of the shooters. The victims 


were friends with lives and families of their own, not just targets. That makes no sense either.

So, workplace violence? A personal slight that became a seething that metastasized into a commando-style raid at the Inland Regional Center. It happens all the time.

On the surface, the homicidal couple were living the American dream. One, the son of immigrants, with a degree from a California state college, the other, his bride from overseas. Had a good job. But this suburban couple was making pipe bombs and assembling an arsenal to murder people in the country that took them both in, educated one of them, provided him with a good job. The surface life was a mirage.

When we heard the identity of the homicidal couple, Syed Rizwan Farook, and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, another explanation immediately came to mind. They're Muslim. Too much of the most deadly, inexplicable violence in the world today is committed in the name of this religion, and its strain of radical Islam. The shooters are people like Farook, kneeling at prayer in the back of the mosque, kindly and devout. Oh, we never suspected a thing, the imam says. The explanation is tiresome, and increasingly implausible.

Advertisement

Advertisement

What religion would direct a young married couple to shoot up a room that would include members of their own faith? Farook was "radicalized," we are told. And his wife, officials say, had pledged allegiance to the barbarians of the Islamic State. With that information, it made sense. Once a radical, no longer a human being.


And politicians of another cowardly type will refuse to see that hundreds, maybe thousands of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims find justification for mass murder of innocent people in their holy book.
The village of victims, their best friends, the children who lost parents, the parents who lost adult children, they can clench their fists and cry. We all know the ritual by now. Politicians of one cowardly type will say their "thoughts and prayers" are with you. What garbage. Better to say nothing at all.

"Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage," tweeted Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. "Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing — again."

A day after the California carnage, the Senate decided to do nothing, again, voting down a measure that would have made it more difficult for people on the terror watch list, felons and the mentally ill to buy guns.

By next week, with the professional football playoff picture starting to take shape, and the holiday festivities in full swing, we'll have this San Bernardino thing figured out. And we'll hope that it doesn't happen again tomorrow. But it will happen tomorrow — on average, one multiple-victim shooting a day. Every day. It will make sense in the only country where mass killings make sense.


--
****
Juan
 

The National Rifle Association aids and abets gun violence.

- An American Story



Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Climate Change is Very Real

The reality of rising oceans is upon us now.  This article, along with some beautiful pictures, shows how the Marshall Islands are disappearing.  Among many of the obvious problems that result, think about what is to become of the people who populate these islands in the Pacific.   Do you think ISIS is just a theological group to impose the Caliphate?  - most likely it is partly caused by many years of drought in the Middle East, which has created political instabilities, and ruined any hope of growing any food, causing migration of millions to cities and other countries.   Climate Change is real, and we are already in the midst of its effects.  Meanwhile, political demagogues and dirty political money would have you believe that it is either a hoax or subject that needs to be researched more.   Is it too late?  Some say yes, others say maybe.   You may want to take this very seriously:


--

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Something to Know - 1 December (Decembernie ?)

Rob Rogers

Devoting attention to the issue of the existing climate, more information is useful.  The rhetoric coming from those in Washington D.C., who claim to be striving for cleaning things up, does not match what our government is actually doing.  The Bureau of Land Management is actually in the business of mining coal.  Does this make sense?   No:



The Financial Page DECEMBER 7, 2015 ISSUE

Money to Burn

BY 



CREDITILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTOPH NIEMANN

These are tough times for the coal industry. Coal-burning plants generate less than forty per cent of the electricity in the U.S., down from more than half just a few years ago. At least twenty-six coal companies have gone bankrupt since 2008. The Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan requires power companies to cut carbon emissions, which almost certainly means using less coal. And if this week's climate-change summit in Paris succeeds in establishing firm goals for cutting emissions coal will undoubtedly be the biggest loser. So it's no surprise that congressional Republicans, who cast a symbolic vote last week to scuttle the Clean Power Plan, complain of a "war on coal." But if there really is a war the U.S. government doesn't seem to know what side it's on.

Consider, for instance, the Powder River Basin—an immense area of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana, which contains the richest coal deposits in the U.S. In the past few decades, Powder River has become our most important coal-producing region. More than forty per cent of the coal we burn is mined there—nearly five hundred million tons every year. According to the Center for American Progress, that makes Powder River responsible for thirteen per cent of America's energy-related greenhouse-gas emissions.

Unlike the Appalachian coal fields back East, almost the entire basin belongs to the government, which leases the coal rights to mining companies. You might think that regulators would manage this land with an eye toward the coal's impact on the environment in the U.S., or at least would insure that the government was getting a fair price for its assets. But you'd be wrong. Back in 1990, the Bureau of Land Management declared that the Powder River Basin was not a "federal coal-production region." That decertification meant that, instead of the government's picking which tracts of land it would lease and then putting them up for bid, coal companies could effectively do the picking themselves. As Mark Squillace, a professor of natural-resources law at the University of Colorado, told me, "This turned a program that was supposed to be proactively managed by the government into one that is entirely reactive to the demands of the coal industry." And while the law stipulates that all mining leases are subject to competitive bidding, the Center for American Progress found that, since 1990, nearly ninety per cent of federal coal leases have had just one bidder. That's held down the price of leases, in effect handing the coal industry a giant subsidy. A study released in September by a coalition of research groups found that production subsidies in the basin amount to nearly three billion dollars a year.

Besides costing the taxpayer billions, these subsidies have had a dismal impact on the environment: by artificially holding down the price of coal, they've encouraged utilities to use more of it than they otherwise would, slowing the transition to natural gas and renewables. The September study concluded that simply making coal companies in Powder River pay fair-market value for their leases would lead to a substantial reduction of carbon emissions. But we should go further than that. The federal coal program doesn't consider what economists call the "social costs" of burning coal—most obviously, its impact on air pollution and climate change. These costs may be hard to quantify—though the Center for American Progress estimates them at sixty-two dollars per ton of Powder River coal—but they're plainly real. "We've known for a long time that emissions from coal burning were a serious problem," Squillace says. "Yet we have never tried to account for those social costs when we think about how much coal we're going to lease."

What this means is that we've ended up with a coal policy that's totally incoherent. The Clean Power Plan aims at getting U.S. power plants to use less coal, but we're still subsidizing coal companies to produce more of it. And though the Bureau of Land Management has taken steps to reform the bidding process, it continues to lease coal rights to companies at the same old rates. Meanwhile, with U.S. demand for coal steadily declining, companies are hoping to ship Powder River coal abroad to satisfy demand from India and, especially, China, where coal prices are significantly higher. In other words, even as we're trying to cut our use of coal at home, we're planning to send it off to pollute the world's atmosphere from China or India instead. And while the Obama Administration is killing the Keystone XL pipeline, it is letting mining in Powder River proceed apace.

What's needed is a fundamental transformation in the government's relationship to the coal industry. Instead of trying to maximize the amount of coal mined on federal lands, we should be trying to minimize it. That means not just charging more but leasing less. And it means taking the social costs of coal seriously. Last week, the British government announced that it planned to phase out all coal-burning plants by 2025. That's more than we can reasonably expect in the U.S., where coal will likely remain a part of the energy mix for many years. But the British decision makes clear that we can, and should, be doing much more than instituting competitive bidding. In the end, the best plan for a lot of the coal we own is also the simplest: just leave it in the ground. ♦


--