The Mainstream Media: A Reality Check

 

Background Information: The Media

In his book, Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity, ABC reporter John Stossel tells us about “truths often distorted — or disregarded — by the media”. Mr. Stossel speaks to this on the his ABC News web page:

 

We know that the scarier and more bizarre the story, the more likely it is that our bosses will give us more air time or a front-page slot. The scary story, justified or not, will get higher ratings and sell more papers. Fear sells. That’s the reason for the insiders’ joke about local newscasts: “If it bleeds, it leads.”

 

What about child abuse stories, again we will let Mr. Stossel speak from his web page:

MYTH: “My teacher molested me.” Kids wouldn’t make up stuff like that!

TRUTH: Yes, they would.

This trendy media scare sent people to jail. Many were innocent of any crime, but they were convicted by the court of public opinion. The witnesses against them were children who testified to horrible events-events which, in many cases, never happened. But when the media express gets rolling, people get run over.

 

One victim was Kelly Michaels, a New Jersey preschool teacher convicted in 1988 of molesting twenty children in bizarre and sadistic ways. She spent five years in prison before an appeals court ruled that prosecutors had planted suggestions in the minds of the children who testified against her.

I don’t blame the kids; I blame the prosecutors and the media. Reporters’ imaginations and keyboards were fired up in 1983 by accusations of sodomy and satanic abuse at a California day-care center called the McMartin Preschool. The woman who started the barrage of charges was later discovered to be a paranoid schizophrenic. Her claims of devil-worship and sadism were outlandish on their face, but never mind: It was “good copy.” Headlines blared, prosecutors roared, and seven people were charged in a total of 135 criminal counts.

It was nonsense. But the defendants had their lives ruined. The case against them was cooked up by therapists and social workers who planted suggestions in the minds of impressionable children, who then told horrendous tales to prosecutors. The prosecutors also listened to the drumbeats of the media, which stirred a different witches’ brew for every news cycle.

Kids are highly impressionable. We know that, but psychology professor Stephen Ceci proved it in a study at Cornell University. He told me, “We are now discovering that if you put kids who were not abused through the same kind of highly leading, repetitive interview, some of those children will disclose events that seem credible but, in fact, are not borne out in actuality.”

Ceci set up an experiment where he and his researchers asked kids silly questions like:

RESEARCHER Have you ever had your finger caught in a mousetrap and had to go to the hospital?

GIRL No.

RESEARCHER No?

At first, the kids say no. Then, once a week for the next 10 weeks, the researchers ask the question again.

RESEARCHER You went to the hospital because your finger got caught in a mousetrap?

BOY And it- RESEARCHER Did that happen?

BOY Uh-huh.

By week four or six or ten, about half of the kids say, “Yes, it happened.” Many give such precise information that you’d think it must have happened.

RESEARCHER Did it hurt?

BOY Yeah.

RESEARCHER Yeah? Who took you to the hospital?

 

BOY My daddy, my mommy, my brother.

 

RESEARCHER Where in your house is the mousetrap?

BOY It’s down in the basement.

RESEARCHER What is it next to in the basement?

BOY It’s next to the firewood.

By the time I met that boy, weeks after the experiment was over, he still “remembered” convincing details about things that never happened.

STOSSEL Was there a time when you got your finger caught in a mousetrap and had to go to the hospital?

BOY Uh-huh.

STOSSEL Who went with you to the hospital?

BOY My mom and my dad and my brother Colin, but not the baby. He was in my mom’s tummy.

What he told me was even more remarkable because just a few days before, his father discussed the experiment with him, explained that it was just a test, and that the mousetrap event never happened. The boy agreed-it was just in his imagination.

But when he talked to me, the boy denied the conversation with his father, and insisted the mousetrap story was true.

STOSSEL Did your father tell you something about the mousetrap finger story?

BOY No.

STOSSEL Is it true? Did it really happen?

BOY It wasn’t a story. It really happened.

STOSSEL This really happened? You really got your finger caught? This really happened?

BOY Yeah.

Why would the boy lie to me? I said to Professor Ceci that I assumed he wasn’t intentionally making up the story. Ceci said, “I think they’ve come to believe it. It is part of their belief system.”

Some molestation “experts” thought they’d come closer to the truth by giving kids anatomically correct dolls. With dolls, the social workers wouldn’t have to ask so many questions. They could just say, “Imagine you are the doll; what did the teacher touch?” Lawyers argued that kids “wouldn’t make up” what had been done to the doll. But Ceci’s colleague Dr. Maggie Bruck conducted tests that showed that they would.

Bruck had a pediatrician add some extra steps to his routine physical examination. He measured the child’s wrists with a ribbon, he put a little label on the child’s stomach, and he tickled the child’s foot with a stick. Never did the doctor go anywhere near the child’s private parts. Then, a few days after the exam, using an anatomically correct doll, Bruck and the child’s father asked leading questions about the doctor’s exam. We caught it on tape.

FATHER So what did he do?

GIRL He put a stick in my vagina.

FATHER He put a stick in your vagina?

GIRL Yeah.

[Then the girl claimed the doctor hammered the stick into her vagina. And she said the doctor examined her rectum.]

DR. BRUCk He was where?

GIRL In my hiney.

None of it was true. But when dolls were used, half the kids who’d never had their private parts touched claimed the doctor touched them. The tests made Dr. Bruck question her prior faith in the testimony of children. She told me she thinks dozens of innocent people are in jail.

Dr. Ceci told me their leading questions were mild compared to what the investigators asked: “What we do . . . doesn’t come close, for example, to what was done in the Kelly Michaels case.”

The appellate court decision that set Kelly Michaels free garnered just a smidgeon of the media attention her trial and conviction got. After she was freed, she told me about her nightmare.

MS. MICHAELS One day you’re getting ready for work and making coffee, minding your business, trying to get along as best you can, being a reasonable, decent, honorable citizen, and the next minute you are an accused child molester with the most bizarre – I’d never even heard of such things even being done.

STOSSEL They say you inserted objects, including Lego blocks, forks, spoons, serrated knives into their anuses, vaginas, penises- MS. MICHAELS And a sword. It was in there.

STOSSEL -and a sword-

MS. MICHAELS Yeah.

STOSSEL -that you made children drink your urine, that you made kids take their clothes off and licked peanut butter off them. It’s very hard to believe, yet the jury believed it and not you.

MS. MICHAELS No one was willing to doubt a child.

The media certainly wasn’t. Professional skepticism took a holiday in the face of “good copy.”

 

The media likes bad news, and tend to believe it.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1898820

 

 

 

Reality Check:

In the effort to increase readership or viewers, improve ratings and the bottom line, the media is in FACT making children less safe. We will say this again, so there is no mistake as to our position on this subject.

In the effort to increase readership or viewers, improve ratings and the bottom line, the media is in FACT making children less safe.

How is it that surveys showed most teen-agers are more afraid of the “imagined boogie-man” hiding in the bushes, than real dangers that could kill them, like riding in a car with a friend who is driving drunk.

Because of media myths and misinformation, fear-mongering, sensationalizing and trying the accused in the court of public opinion, the media has contributed significantly to children being less safe.

The simple fact is that children are more likely to be abused by a family member, a friend of the family, a trusted clergy member, or someone trusted by the child, like a teacher, or coach; than by a stranger. By focusing our children’s fears on imaginary dangers, we are leading them to believe the real dangers cannot hurt them. How is this making children safer?

Even a recent FBI report stated the problems with media myths and fear-mongering. However, it seems that corporate profits and Neilsen Ratings are more important in the boardrooms and management offices of today media outlets, than the safety of children.

The media continues their misguided concept of interchangeably using words like “sex offender”, “child molester”, “pedophile”, and “predator”. These are yet another way they are making children less safe.

A “sex offender “can be anyone who committed an offense, that state and now some federal laws, determine to be “sexual in nature”. This includes, urinating in public, mooning someone, consensual sex between teen-agers.

(This is the image the media wants you to have when you hear the word “sex offenders”.)

A “child molester” label is, in most states, now given to anyone who has sexual contact or has a sexual advance toward a person under 18, even teen-age consensual sex. In other words, a 17 year old boy, who has sex with a 15 year old girl is now charged and labeled a “child molester”.

 

A “pedophile” is someone who is attracted to a pre-pubescent child. Someone who has an attraction to a teen-ager is an Ephebophile, and it is not considered the same as pedophilia, by psychologists, unless it interferes with attraction to adults. Labeling all sex offenders as a “pedophile” misinforms parents and children, making the child less safe.

 

A true “predator” is someone who obtains or tries to obtain, sexual contact with another person, in a metaphorically predatory manner. Former Congressman Mark Foley’s actions could be described as “predatory”. Nevertheless, it would be very inaccurate to describe him as a “sexually violent predator”. When we ascribe “predator” and “sexual violent predator” to all forms of sexual abuse, we dilute their meaning, rendering the terms meaningless, again, we are making children less safe.

Why would the media do all this?

Follow the money trail and it will lead people with the most average of intelligence, to the same conclusion we draw here.

FEAR SELLS!

Here is the REALITY of the matter. NOT ALL SEX OFFENDERS ARE CHILD ABUSERS, SO IS YOUR CHILD REALLY SAFE by portraying this image to them? The FBI does not think so, Psychologist and other experts do not think so. Only media personalities like Nancy Grace, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, or Chris Hansen think so!

Nevertheless, we have to remember, it is TELEVISION, and they are NOT JOURNALIST, EXPERTS or even currently involved in the day-to-day issues of prevention, treatment, and justice. Therefore, why would ANYONE put his or her CHILDREN AT RISK and pay attention to a media personality?

Parents, isn’t time for COMMON SENSE?

 

No 1st Amendment Problems Here

Seems like some Republicans, can you say Sen. John McCain, think like the nice folks in Egypt. A place where First Amendment protections do not exist for it’s citizens. Read below and ask yourself, why would a man who fought against a totalitarian form of government, and was a POW, be so afraid of a Blog or two, much less honest open discussion.

From the Washington Post:

 

 

Egyptian Blogger Gets 4 Years in Prison

 

By NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD

The Associated Press

Thursday, February 22, 2007; 2:40 PM

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt — An Egyptian blogger was convicted Thursday and sentenced to four years in prison for insulting Islam and Egypt’s president, sending a chill through fellow Internet writers who fear a government crackdown.

Abdel Kareem Nabil, a 22-year-old former student at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University, had been a vocal secularist and sharp critic of conservative Muslims in his blog. He often lashed out at Al-Azhar — the most prominent religious center in Sunni Islam — calling it “the university of terrorism” and accusing it of encouraging extremism.

Nabil’s lawyer, Ahmed Seif el-Islam, said he would appeal the verdict, adding it will “terrify other bloggers and have a negative impact on freedom of expression in Egypt.” Nabil had faced a possible maximum sentence of nine years in prison.

His conviction brought a flood of condemnations from international and Egyptian human rights groups, as well as fellow government critics on the Internet.

“I am shocked,” said Wael Abbas, a blogger who writes frequently about police abuses and other human rights violations in Egypt. “This is a terrible message to anyone who intends to express his opinion and to bloggers in particular.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based media rights group, said Internet writers and editors are the fastest growing segment of imprisoned journalists, with 49 behind bars as of December.

“With this verdict, Egypt has opened up a new front in its efforts to stifle media freedoms,” said Joel Campagna, the group’s senior Middle East program coordinator.

In Washington, Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he had no specific comment on Nabil’s case, adding the U.S. is always concerned when freedom of expression is infringed.

Judge Ayman al-Akazi sentenced Nabil to three years in prison for insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and inciting sectarian strife and another year for insulting President Hosni Mubarak.

Nabil, sitting in the defendant’s pen, did not react as the verdict was read and made no comments as he was led to a prison truck outside. Seconds after the door was closed, an Associated Press reporter heard a slap from inside the truck and a scream.

Egypt, a top U.S. ally in the Mideast, arrested a number of bloggers last year, most of them for connections to the pro-democracy reform movement. Nabil was put on trial while other bloggers were freed — a sign of the sensitivity of his writings on religion.

Nabil, who used the blogger name Kareem Amer, was an unusually scathing critic of conservative Muslims. His frequent attacks on Al-Azhar, where he was a law student, led the university to expel him in March, then push prosecutors to bring him to trial.

The judge said Nabil insulted the Prophet Muhammad with a piece he wrote in 2005 after riots in which angry Muslim worshippers attacked a Coptic Christian church over a play deemed offensive to Islam.

“Muslims revealed their true ugly face and appeared to all the world that they are full of brutality, barbarism and inhumanity,” Nabil wrote in his blog. He called Muhammad and his 7th century followers, the Sahaba, “spillers of blood” for their teachings on warfare — a comment cited by the judge.

In a later essay not cited by the court, Nabil clarified his comments, saying Muhammad was “great” but that his teachings on warfare and other issues should be viewed as a product of their times.

In other writings, he called Al-Azhar the “other face of the coin of al-Qaida” and called for the university to be dissolved or turned into a secular institution. He also criticized Mubarak, calling him “the symbol of tyranny.”

Alaa Abdel-Fattah, a pro-reform blogger who was detained for six weeks last year, said Nabil’s conviction will “have a chilling effect on the rest of the bloggers.”

“We (the Egyptian people) are enduring oppression, poverty and torture, so the least we can do is insult the president,” he said.

Associated Press Writer Maggie Michael contributed to this report in Cairo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022200269_pf.html

© 2007 The Associated Press

### End WP Report ###

On the Net:

Nabil’s blog, in Arabic: http://karam903.blogspot.com/

Iraq’s Other Surge

How can we win the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East, let alone the people of Iraq, if we fail to step up to the plate and do the right thing?

I offer you the following report, found the other day on the Internet.

From Human Rights Watch

By Bill Frelick, published in The Wall Street Journal

February 15, 2007

Najah worked as an interpreter for the U.S. military at the Falcon base in Baghdad. One day as he left base, a car sprayed him with bullets, hitting him in both legs and his abdomen. Najah left the hospital after two days, fearing insurgents would find him there and kill him: “After the shooting, everyone knew I was working for the Americans.” After recovering sufficiently, he fled to Jordan, where he is stuck without papers, and could be deported at any time.

While Washington debates the surge of troops to Iraq, it has only recently begun to acknowledge the surge in refugees leaving Iraq. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 50,000 per month are fleeing Iraq and that their numbers in neighboring countries may soon reach two million. Yet last year the U.S. admitted only 202 Iraqi refugees, and has done next to nothing since the war began to assist neighboring countries to bear the refugee burden. Condoleezza Rice unveiled a new plan on Wednesday to resettle 7,000 Iraqi refugees. After three years of ignoring the refugee fallout from the war, this is a welcome first step. But will it be enough to convince Syria and Jordan to keep doors open?

While America has a special obligation to rescue Iraqis who have been specifically persecuted because they helped U.S. troops or Americans working in Iraq, it is central to U.S. interests to address the destabilizing effects and humanitarian needs in the region of a much larger group of refugees — Sunnis and Shiites fleeing mixed areas, members of the professional classes, religious minorities, and people perceived as Western in orientation.

This week the crisis worsened when Syria tightened residency rules for a million Iraqi refugees there, raising fears that mass deportations will begin. Jordan has started barring single men between 17 and 35 at the border and is unwilling to recognize 700,000 Iraqis living there as refugees. Neither country has received more than token assistance from the international community that might convince them to keep their doors open. International donors provided only $14 million of UNHCR’s $29 million request last year for refugees in the region. The U.S. provided 27%.

First, the U.S. needs to make sure that neighboring countries have resources to provide for the refugees’ basic needs. The total UNHCR request of $60 million for this year is what the U.S. spends every five hours to fight the war. The U.S. shouldn’t waste precious weeks quibbling with the Europeans on their contributions. The sum is modest, part of the price of the war: Just pay it. Second, assistance should have strings attached. Jordan and Syria must keep their doors open to refugees. They must allow Iraqi children to go to school. Humanitarian aid should enable refugees to stay in the region in conditions of safety and dignity until it is safe for them to go home.

Finally, the U.S. needs to move quickly to resettle significant numbers of Iraqi refugees, particularly those who risked their lives to help Americans, who cannot go home. Resettlement not only fulfills a moral responsibility with deep roots — Hungary, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam. It also shows the Middle East that the U.S. is committed to helping with the most difficult part of any refugee emergency — where to put the people themselves. Resettlement ultimately shows solidarity both with the people who put their lives on the line in the U.S. war effort and with the countries who need to be convinced that they will not be left to bear the burden alone.

Mr. Frelick is the refugee policy director for Human Rights Watch.

8 Steps to Protect Children

While we are assaulted daily by politicians and the media on the dangers of a stranger abducting your children, the real fact is stranger abduction accounts for five (5) percent of children age 12 and under in the United States each year.  Child abuse or maltreatment takes many forms, many children are subjected to multiple abuse.  The breakdown for 2001 by American Humane is as follows:

 

* Neglect 59.2%

* Physical abuse 18.6%

* Sexual abuse 9.6%

* Emotional/psychological 6.8%

* Other 19.5% (unknown, abductions by parents or relatives, etc.)

 

Notice, sexual abuse, regardless of what the media and politicians try to tell us, is not the number one abuse type.  Additionally, according to ALL reports, there has been a steady decline of all types of reported abuse since 1995.

 

The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, has been tracking these statistics.  Let’s make sure we are clear on the facts regarding child fatalities.  These statistics vividly show the extent of the problem.  They categorically refute the claim by politicians and the media that child sexual abuse is the number one problem facing our children.  Even if we combine “Multiple Mistreatment Types” and “Sexual Abuse”, we arrive at 31%.  This is still less than “Neglect” alone and the combined “Neglect” and “Physical Abuse” categories, which are the most common types of abuse.

 

Here is a real solution, PREVENTION.  Protect your own children.

 

1.  Provide positive information that is based on truth, not myths.  This instills the value of honesty and openness and shows you trust your children to know the facts.  Check out the STATISTICS.

 

2.  Teach appropriate boundaries.  Tell them under no circumstances is ANYONE, family member, friend, trusted authority figure, etc. allowed to touch them inappropriately or talk to them in an inappropriate manner.  Teach them to say the following:

 

“I know what you are trying to do is wrong, and if you continue, I WILL tell my parents, the police, or someone who will listen and you will go to jail.”

 

3.  Tell them that they should not have any secrets from you and that you will never blame them for something an adult does to them.  Also, teach them to respect themselves and others.  Boys should respect girls and girls should respect boys.  When children respect themselves, it is easy for them to respect others.

 

4.  Have them walk in groups of three or more to school, or the playground, or to friend’s house.  Identify SAFE places for them and tell them to scream and run to the nearest SAFE place, when approached by a stranger.

 

5.  If a sex offender moves in to the neighborhood.  Find out what the charge was, most times, you would find out it was not an offense against a child.  Go and talk to the person.  Remember, some people are falsely accused and are pressured into taking a plea bargain.  If they admit wrongdoing, listen for indicators they have been in treatment and have complied with all the terms of the court.  Likewise, listen for indicators they are in denial, or are minimizing or rationalizing; these are typically red flags of more serious problems.  If they live alone, find out what their support mechanism is.  Point them to the SO-Solutions Help page.

 

6.  If necessary, tell you children to walk on the other side of the street, or find another route to their friend’s house, tell them to inform you or another parent if the offender approaches them.  Don’t instill fear in your children; this will NOT make them safe, it will only add to childhood insecurities.  Use common sense and your children will use common sense as well.

 

7.  Keep your child’s computer in a common area of the house, NOT in their bedroom.  While we recommend computer-monitoring programs to help, don’t rely on them exclusively, most children are computer savvy enough to defeat these programs.  Instead, set ground rules and reasonable expectations for Internet usage and monitor your child’s computer usage.  Make sure children NEVER give out, or post personal information.  Do NOT allow your child’s friends to access your computer without your knowledge and make sure they are aware of your rules.  Remember, ONLY YOU, AS A PARENT, can insure your child’s safety online.

 

8.  Use what you have learned here to educate family members, and other parents; fear mongering will not protect anyone’s child and will only lead them to mistrust people.

Statistics and resources:

Sex Offenders Solution Network – Child Neglect Facts

Jacob Wetterling Foundation

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families

American Humane

Hidden Holocaust, USA

Politician Lies and Media Myths Hurt Women and Children

The following article appeared yesterday, Feb. 16th, in The Macon Telegraph, (Macon, Georgia). It is followed by my letter to the Publisher, Editor and Reporter.

### ### ###

 

 

The Macon Telegraph, Macon, Georgia

Posted on Fri, Feb. 16, 2007

Peach sheriff launches sexual offender tracking

By Becky Purser

TELEGRAPH STAFF WRITER

FORT VALLEY – A new feature of the Peach County sheriff’s Web site offers an e-mail notification when a sexual offender moves within a one-mile radius of your home, child’s school or day care center.

The e-mail notification is part of a $2,500 Watch Systems computer software program that tracks sexual offenders in Peach County, Sheriff Terry Deese said.

The service is free to the public and is accessible at peachcountysheriff.com.

“It’s a little peace of mind,” Deese said. “This Web site isn’t going to to prevent offenders from re-offending but I think as parents, we have a right and an obligation to know who are neighbors are. … It’s just another way to let us know when someone who has a history of committing sexual crimes moves into our community.”

The public may sign up for multiple e-mail notifications of when a sexual offender moves within a mile of a residence, school, park or whatever address where your child may frequent and that you wish to enter into the system, the sheriff said.

The sheriff’s Web site offers an online presentation on how to use the public registry and tracking system.

Offenders may be tracked by name or address.

The registry includes the offender’s name, age, address, physical description, the crime committed and a photograph.

A map of registered addresses of sexual offenders may be displayed as well as a list. There were 39 registered sexual offenders listed on the site as of Wednesday.

The Web site also features safety tips and warning signs for parents and children.

State law requires sheriffs to keep a list of sexual offenders on a public Web site, Deese said.

Some sheriffs’ Web sites refer to other sites, such as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Sex Offenders registry or the Georgia Sex Offenders registry. On the Houston County sheriff’s Web site, there is a link that sends visitors to the Georgia Sex Offenders registry.

Deese decided to use Watch Systems after reviewing information about the software and talking with other sheriffs about what has worked well for them.

The Peach sheriff has a staff person who is responsible for entering offender information into the system. Sexual offenders are required by state law to register with the sheriff’s office in the county in which he or she lives.

A feature of the system that Deese likes is that the software automatically tells his staff whether or not a sexual offender’s address meets a state law mandate that prohibits a sexual offender from living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park or other location where children gather.

There were a few wrinkles in the system when it first went online last month that had to be ironed out, including GPS tracking, he said.

The sheriff found that simply entering an address into the system may have resulted in the location being off.

“With any GPS system, there are going to be some places here or there that aren’t exactly right. Most programs have a pre-set GPS, and we had to work that out. For example, if we sent them an address, we had a couple living out in the ocean or in Atlanta or in Crawford County.”

So, the sheriff sends a deputy out to get the exact GPS location and has that mapped into the system.

Also, sheriff’s deputies physically check the addresses of sexual offenders on a random basis, Deese said.

Last week, a sexual offender was arrested because he wasn’t living at a relative’s address that he gave the sheriff’s office as his home address, Deese said. That violation of law led to his probation being revoked, the sheriff said.

Something that popped up right away when the new system went online was multiple offenders listed at the same address, which turned out to be a Fort Valley motel, Deese said.

Several offenders were living at the same motel while looking for permanent residence, the sheriff said.

The 1,000 feet law displaced some sexual offenders living in more densely populated Houston County, and those offenders relocated to more rural Peach County, the sheriff said.

Feedback from the public about the registry has been positive, the sheriff said, although one person complained that it doesn’t do anything to prevent sexual offenders from committing future crimes.

Deese says he likes being able to tell the public where sexual offenders are located in the county.

He added that he would like to eventually get a software program that would allow him to inform the public of localized crime trends, such as burglaries plaguing a certain neighborhood.

“If there’s something going on in their neighborhood, they would know to be a little more alert,” the sheriff said. “This is just a step in that direction.”

To contact Becky Purser, call 923-3109, extension 243, or e-mail bpurser@macontel.com

© 2007 Macon Telegraph and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.macon.com

 

### ### ###

 

My Reply to Macon Telegraph Publisher P.J. Browining, the Editor and Ms. Purser:

Dear Ms. Purser,

Thank you for the report on this subject, it shows great courage and journalistic fairness. What should scare parents even more is there are no restrictions on people who could do real damage to their children, like drunk drivers and “meth lab operators” or drug dealers.

Sheriff Deese is using unsupported facts to justify spending tax dollars on 39 sex offenders, only 20 of which were charged with a crime against a child and 5 of which are incarcerated. What he is not saying is this system is a subscription program, not a one time computer application purchase, meaning more money will have to be spent again next year. He states sex offenders will re-offend, however all recent studies show that sex offenders, who have successfully completed treatment, are less likely to reoffend than other types of criminals.

On looking at the Watch Systems web site, their sales brochure misrepresents the facts as well. They quote “statistics” offering no supporting documentation. Example, they say that 45 percent of sexual assault victims are under age 12. However, the FBI-UCR, National Crime Victimization Survey reveals that 23 percent of sex crimes are against someone under 18. They say that 75 percent of crimes against children are committed by someone known by the victim. The fact is 90 percent of the sex abuse cases are committed by relatives or someone trusted by the victim and family and 95 percent of that is by a FIRST TIME OFFENDER, NOT A REPEAT OFFENDER. This begs the question, which woman or child is being protected?

We need to get past the myths and misinformation and speak to the truth and facts. Perhaps you would consider part of the following missive for an editorial comment or better yet, a follow up report.

Let’s consider the merits of our current state and national sex offender registry system, along with all state and local proximity (safety zone) laws.

When Megan’s and Jacob’s Laws were originally passed, there was a decided lack of empirical evidence to support or question the effectiveness of these laws. Now, state and local governments, for easy political gain and against the advice of experts in criminal justice, behavior therapy, and law enforcement, are attempting to a write harsher laws than their neighboring cities or states.

This trend is now banishing an entire class of people as we find new laws that exclude EVERYONE on the registries, regardless of charge, along with their wives, children, parents, and siblings, from living within in these supposed safety zones.

The overwhelming evidence and statistics, as provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, state correctional studies, local law enforcement, and treatment experts, show that residency restrictions or safety (proximity) zones have not proven to enhance public safety and in fact have let to unintended consequences for communities and the innocent family members of intra-familial offenders.

In a statement regarding the effectiveness of Iowa’s Sex Offender Registry and Proximity laws, Sgt. Bryce Smith, who has charge of monitoring the registry in Scott County said; “If the 2,000-foot rule had been in effect 10 years ago, I can’t think of a single case from our files that would have been any different.”

Let’s look at a five-tiered risk level system, which allows offenders to earn the right to return to society. (The U.S. Congress is now doing this,) It separates risk level in an understandable fashion, making enforcement more efficient and community notification more understandable. It allows jurist to consider the merits of each individual case and rule appropriately. Additionally, parents (notice the onus is on the parents not the government) will know how safe their neighborhoods are and better able to educate their children who to avoid.

Let us return control of criminal justice to the courts, correctional officials, and therapists, and support amending current laws that go beyond the original intent of monitoring the most dangerous and high-risk individuals. We need to set right these egregious laws that obviously usurp the Constitution and provide additional punishment for a single group of people as well as their families. We need to recognize these laws are morally, ethically, and legally wrong, and put us on a very slippery slope by banishing an entire class of people along with their wives, children, parents, and siblings from our cities, towns, and villages, making them pariahs. We need to acknowledge we are creating a group of second-class citizens and this alone is dangerous ground.

Join me in calling for a National Sex Offender Policy Forum. This would help state and local governments formulate workable, cost effective laws that protect the rights of all citizens. Forums should include mental health professionals, jurist, law enforcement and corrections personnel, victims and their families, offenders and their families.

I invite you to read The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review; by Marcus Nieto, Senior Research Specialist and Professor David Jung, Public Law Research Institute, Hastings Law School. Additionally, pick up a copy of Failure to Protect – America’s Sexual Predator Laws and the Rise of the Preventative State, by Eric S. Janus, Vice-Dean, William Mitchell College of Law.

At the end of the day, it is up to parents to educate themselves, and protect their children. For the sake of their future, let’s support real solutions, and not depend on the government to do it for us.

As watchdogs for our society, I pray the media steps up to this challenge. For more information, visit: sosnet.bravehost.com

 

### ### ###

 

He Had the Universe

I ran into an interesting article yesterday in the New York Times about a new book from Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s widow and collaborator. The article, very well written I might add, by Dennis Overbye; speaks to the legacy Dr. Sagan left.

The new book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God, is about Carl’s beliefs in God, war and peace, the future of mankind, and as Overbye states is “based on a series of lectures exploring the boundary between science and religion that Dr. Sagan gave in Glasgow in 1985”.

I blog about it here, under the Sustainable Growth section, because as Sagan said, “I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship”. Sustainable Growth is at its core a human issue and at the pinnacle a religious issue. For the novice, sustainable growth is about “establishing a sound ethical foundation for the emerging global society and to help build a sustainable world based on respect for nature, diversity, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace¹”. These issues are both humanistic and spiritual and will determine if we as a species survives our headlong rush toward self-destruction.

Overbye writes in his article, “Never afraid to venture into global politics, Dr. Sagan warns at one point of the danger that a leader under the sway of religious fundamentalism might not try too hard to avoid nuclear Armageddon, reasoning that it was God’s plan”.

If Carl only knew that today, we face a world with the Nuclear or Doomsday Clock sitting at 5 Minutes to Midnight, he would indeed be sounding the alarm as loud as he could. Again, for the newbie to the world of Democratic information, that is these Blogs on the World Wide Web, I offer the quick and simple explanation. There is an actual clock sitting at the University of Chicago, which has its hands pointed at some time before Midnight. Midnight being the time the human race ceases to exist because of Nuclear war and annihilation.

Introduced in 1947, it has seen its hands pointed at a range from 2 minutes to midnight (1953) to 17 minutes to midnight (1991). In 1953, the old Soviet Union had already detonated its first atomic bomb and the U.S. had detonated its first hydrogen bomb; it appeared we were on the fast track toward mutual assured destruction (MAD). In 1991, both the Russians and Americans had begun dismantling part of their nuclear arsenal, so it looked like the human race would be saved.

Today however, the clock stands at 5 minutes to midnight. To quote from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist Doomsday Clock web site, “The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb. Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property.²”

Back to Carl, in the Overbye article, he states, “Almost in the same breath, Dr. Sagan acknowledges that religion can engender hope and speak truth to power, as in the civil rights movement in the United States, but that it rarely does. It’s curious, he says, that no allegedly Christian nation has adopted the Golden Rule as a basis for foreign policy. Rather, in the nuclear age, mutually assured destruction was the policy of choice. “Christianity says that you should love your enemy. It certainly doesn’t say that you should vaporize his children.”

He goes on to say, “Ever the questioner, Dr. Sagan asks at one point in his lectures why the God of the Scriptures seems to betray no apparent knowledge of the wider universe that “He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is” allegedly created. Why not a commandment, for instance, that thou shalt not exceed the speed of light? Or why not engrave the Ten Commandments on the Moon in such a way that they would not be discovered until now, à la the slab in “2001: A Space Odyssey”?

Continuing with Overbye’s review, “The search for who we are does not lead to complacency or arrogance, he (Sagan) explains. “It goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predispositions on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us. Dr. Sagan was many things, but shrill was not one of them. The last word may as well go to Dr. Dawkins himself, who in a 1996 book nominated Dr. Sagan as the ideal spokesman for Earth. In a blurb for the new book, Dr. Dawkins said that the astronomer was more than religious, having left behind the priests and mullahs. “He left them behind, because he had so much more to be religious about,” Dr. Dawkins wrote. “They have their Bronze Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the universe.”

We may not have to worry about Sustainable Growth; we may just succeed in our seeming less endless quest to destroy the human race after all. We do however possess the ability to turn this all around, but it will take courage to do the right thing, not just the political advantageous thing. It is time we look at where we are heading as the leader of the society of nations. It is time we take back our political system from special interest and their corporate donors. It is time we tell our leaders, both private and public, that we are like Carl said, “If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further, to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H. G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing”³.

 

 

Click here to read the entire NY Times article.

 

 

¹. Mission statement of the Earth Charter, see http://www.earthcharter.org/

^{2. http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/timeline.html}

^3. Cosmos, pg. 339

An Rx for U.S. Healthcare

The United States is the ONLY industrialized country WITHOUT any kind of health care insurance or provisions for ALL of its citizens. WHY is that?

Two words. Money and HMO’s and Pharmaceutical companies.

O.K. that is four words.

My point is that according to the Physicians for a National Health Program, “The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.¹”

Again, like many other issues in America, it appears that truths and facts are subjugated to myths and misinformation and the media once again is bowing to pressure from corporate advertisers (in this case, pharmaceutical companies and HMO’s) and not giving us the real story.

I would like to quote from the Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care web site, in an effort to separate fact from myths².

The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D.

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

· Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

· Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

· Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

· Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

· Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.

· Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

· Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

· Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

· Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

· Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.

· Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

· Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US

· Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

· Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)

· Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.

· Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%

· Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.

Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

· Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits

· Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer

· Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind

· Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.

· Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public

· Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.

· Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)

· Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country

Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient

· Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.

· Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more

· Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care

· Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).

· Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.

· Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised

· Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.

Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

More information can be found at their web site.

Contact your elected representatives today and demand they start working for YOU, and YOUR FAMILY. Tell them you support a Universal Health Care Plan.

^1. http://www.pnhp.org/

². http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Hope4Hearts

More soon on this subject….

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine

We get bombarded daily by biased news reporting. True or False? Unless you have been living in a cave somewhere, with no contact to the outside world for the past 25 years, you know the answer to the question is unequivocally, TRUE.

This missive is entitled, Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and since many of the readers here are younger than 30, here is a brief history. Quoting from the Museum of Broadcast Communications, “The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees”, and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine. ¹”

“The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy. ¹”

“By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. ¹”

The Congress voted to enact the Fairness Doctrine into law; however, it was vetoed by President Regan. The second attempt ran out of support with a threatened veto by President Bush the First. Today, we find, “there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. ¹”

Currently, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced to support legislation that would reverse the 1987 FCC ruling.

 

Why do we need a Fairness Doctrine? 1. to level the playing field in public discourse. 2. to provide a medium for alternative points of view. 3. to stop the use of airwaves and cable casting as a means to dispense only one side of an issue and more importantly, 4. end the flagrant use of misinformation to support ill-conceived public policy.

Steve Randall, a co-host of CounterSpin says, “For citizens who value media democracy and the public interest, broadcast regulation of our publicly owned airwaves has reached a low-water mark. In his new book, Crimes Against Nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probes the failure of broadcasters to cover the environment, writing, “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

“What has not changed since 1987 is that over-the-air broadcasting remains the most powerful force affecting public opinion, especially on local issues; as public trustees, broadcasters ought to be insuring that they inform the public, not inflame them. That’s why we need a Fairness Doctrine. It’s not a universal solution. It’s not a substitute for reform or for diversity of ownership. It’s simply a mechanism to address the most extreme kinds of broadcast abuse.²”

We need to bring back the Fairness Doctrines, to insure that the citizens of this country hear, not only fair and balanced reporting, and all sides of the issues. Additionally, it will end fear mongering by the media and politicians, who are attempting to placate their corporate sponsors or appear to be doing something useful for society. Without the Fairness Doctrine, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and all other news and information outlets cannot, nor will not be held responsible to provide accuracy and non-biased facts. Until then, the citizens can expect more of the same; propaganda, and misinformation, in place of facts and truth.

¹ http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

^{2 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm}

A Clear and Present Danger?

Since 9/11, we have been told, time and again, about a clear and present danger facing the citizens of the United States. We are told this danger is from outside our borders. We are told this danger is religious fundamentalist who want to either convert all the non-believers among us to their faith, or eliminate these non-believers from the planet.

While this may be true to some extent, it is only half-true at best. The real danger comes from within the borders of the United States. Is this threat, drug dealers, or gangs, or sex offenders, or some other marginalized segment of our society? No. Is this treat, corporate greed and the politicians in the corporate special interest pockets? Close, but not really. So, what is this clear and present danger?

According to Chris Hedges, a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University, there is a very clear and present danger to freedom in the United States. Hedges, is a former foreign correspondent, reporting from Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he spent fifteen years.

His latest work, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, elucidates the fact that today’s Right Wing of the American Evangelical movement shares much in common with well-known totalitarian regimes through out history.

A review in Publishers Weekly had this to say about the book and its author. “As a Harvard Divinity School graduate, his investigation of the Christian Right agenda is even more alarming given its lucidity. Citing the psychology and sociology of fascism and cults, including the work of German historian Fritz Stern, Hedges draws striking parallels between 20th-century totalitarian movements and the highly organized, well-funded “dominionist movement,” an influential theocratic sect within the country’s huge evangelical population. Rooted in a radical Calvinism, and wrapping its apocalyptic, vehemently militant, sexist and homophobic vision in patriotic and religious rhetoric, dominionism seeks absolute power in a Christian state. Hedges’s reportage profiles both former members and true believers, evoking the particular characteristics of this American variant of fascism. His argument against what he sees as a democratic society’s suicidal tolerance for intolerant movements has its own paradoxes. But this urgent book forcefully illuminates what many across the political spectrum will recognize as a serious and growing threat to the very concept and practice of an open society.¹“

Hedges tells us that this movement, which had it beginnings around twenty-five years ago, has many parallels with the early ideology of the National Socialists in Germany, namely, rampant nationalism, intolerance for anyone who does not agree with their ideology, desire for apocalyptic bloodshed, attack on open dialogue and progressive thinking. Additionally, there are similar laws to protect society from a perceived danger (the Nuremburg Laws and the Patriot Act 1 and 2), disenfranchisement and demonization of entire groups of citizens, disinformation of facts and indoctrination of young people.

Better yet, these Neo-fascists, like their forerunners, will tell us that anyone who does not believe as they do, are evil incarnate, a sub-human, and will be wiped off the face of the earth by the righteous believers. There is no room in the world in the Christian Right for discourse, intellectual research, or disagreement.

In the conclusion, Hedges writes, “”The radical Christian Right calls for exclusion, cruelty and intolerance in the name of God…”Its members do not commit evil for evil’s sake. They commit evil to make a better world. To attain this better world, they believe, some must suffer and be silenced and destroyed. The worst suffering in human history has been carried out by those who preach such grand, utopian visions, those who seek to implant by force their narrow, particular version of goodness. This is true for all doctrines of personal salvation, from Christianity to ethnic nationalism to communism to fascism. Dreams of a universal good create hells of persecution, suffering and slaughter.²“

Could it be that Hedges seeing something, that is not there? Let’s look at what happened in 2006 at the “War on Christians Conference”. I take my text here directly from a post on Salon.com by Michelle Goldberg (Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Nationalism) who attended the conference along with Hedges. “In the face of lassitude, speakers repeatedly cautioned against giving in to disillusionment and apathy. They reminded the audience that they are one judge away from overturning Roe v. Wade. They warned that Christianity is on the verge of being criminalized in America, and they harped on the manifold dangers of the “homosexual agenda.”

Michelle goes on to say, “These issues are nothing new on the religious right, of course — anti-gay and antiabortion politics have been central to the movement for decades. But the sense of crisis among the speakers was especially acute, and the calls to go on the offensive seemed urgent. Many proclaimed that America‘s very survival is at stake. Some suggested that if the country doesn’t purify itself soon, it might not deserve to survive at all… At one point, speaker Herb Titus held up a copy of Kevin Phillips’ “American Theocracy,” offering it as evidence of the putative war on Christians. It was an audacious move, given that Sara Diamond, the preeminent scholar of the Christian right, reported in a 1998 book that Titus was forced to resign his post as dean of the law school at Pat Robertson’s Regent University because he refused to renounce Christian Reconstructionism. Christian Reconstructionism is a theocratic sect that advocates the replacement of civil law with biblical law, including the execution of homosexuals, apostates and women who are unchaste before marriage. Christian Reconstructionists used to be politically radioactive, but a new generation of religious right leaders like Scarborough have embraced them, and some members of today’s GOP apparently see no problem associating with them. This does not mean that America is on the verge of theocracy, but it signals an important shift. The language of religious authoritarianism has become at least somewhat politically acceptable…

Consider Rod Parsley, Pentecostal pastor of the World Harvest megachurch in Columbus, Ohio, a broad-shouldered, suntanned man who, like Scarborough, is emerging as one of the new generation of leaders of the religious right. When he speaks and shouts, his words building to alliterative climaxes as his arms wave in the air, sparks seem to fly off him.

“A spiritual invasion is taking place,” Parsley roared to the packed banquet hall on Tuesday morning, drawing out the “a” in invasion. “The secular media never likes it when I say this, so let me say it twice. Man your battle stations! Ready your weapons!” He paused to take a preemptive jab at his critics, his voice going soft and scolding: “They say, ‘his rhetoric is so inciting.’“ Then he nearly screamed, “I came to incite a riot! Man your battle stations! Ready your weapons! Lock and load!” ³ “

We need to be clear on what we are reading, and seeing in the media. Christian Reconstructionism is nothing more than changing our way of life to one that is centered on a Christian ONLY State, in other words, subordination of American Civil and Criminal Law to Biblical Law, as Biblical is defined by the Reconstructionist Christians. They believe in a version of history that teaches the Constitution was founded on the Bible. They believe that the separation of church and state, as stated in the Constitution and defined by the courts is a “lie brought by Satan” and defended by abortionist, homosexuals, liberals, progressive free thinkers, and all other sinners.

Christian Reconstructionism believes that power rests at the local or county level. It calls for the option of the death penalty for homosexuals, abortion doctors, women who are unchaste before marriage and a host of other MORAL crimes. They call the Ten Commandments the “original source” of the Constitution. Just a small amount of research will tell you this is nothing more than a fairy tale. The Constitution contains not one mention of the word God, nor did its authors invoke the power of God for its creation. The majority of them were anything but religious, they were in fact, rebellious.

All Americans, regardless of religious beliefs need to heed this wake up call. A wake up call that is, telling us the clear and present danger to our democracy is not from a foreign enemy, radical clerics, or undocumented workers. It is from within our own borders. It is from the people who would have you lose your freedom for the sake of salvation and safety. It is from the people who would deny you your First and Fourteenth Amendment rights; the right to worship freely or choose not to, the right to keep your government separate from your church, the right to freely post a blog and the right to due process protections for you and your family.

 

For more information on this subject, visit Theocracywatch.

Click here for a speech by Bill Moyers on the takeover of the Republican party by the Religious Right.

 

 

¹ (Jan. 9) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

² American Fascists page 205

³ http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/03/29/waronchristians/index.html