Skip to content

Month: January 2013

Roe vs Wade wasn’t the reason they organized against abortion

Roe vs Wade wasn’t the reason they organized against abortion

by digby

On the 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade, Pew reports that the country is status quo. A healthy majority still does not want the ruling overturned:

White evangelical Protestants are the only major religious group in which a majority (54%) favors completely overturning the Roe v. Wade decision. Large percentages of white mainline Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be overturned. Fully 82% of the religiously unaffiliated oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.

In fact, “white evangelical” is the only category, whether male female, race, demographic or any other permutation of American, in which a majority believes it should be overturned. Even a majority of Catholics are in favor of Roe vs Wade.

This seems like a good time to revisit this one little piece of history, which doesn’t exactly explain this division but does shed light on it:

[F]or Falwell, the “questions of the day” did not always relate to abortion and homosexuality–nor did they begin there. Decades before the forces that now make up the Christian right declared their culture war, Falwell was a rabid segregationist who railed against the civil rights movement from the pulpit of the abandoned backwater bottling plant he converted into Thomas Road Baptist Church. This opening episode of Falwell’s life, studiously overlooked by his friends, naïvely unacknowledged by many of his chroniclers, and puzzlingly and glaringly omitted in the obituaries of the Washington Post and New York Times, is essential to understanding his historical significance in galvanizing the Christian right. Indeed, it was race–not abortion or the attendant suite of so-called “values” issues–that propelled Falwell and his evangelical allies into political activism.

As with his positions on abortion and homosexuality, the basso profondo preacher’s own words on race stand as vivid documents of his legacy. Falwell launched on the warpath against civil rights four years after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate public schools with a sermon titled “Segregation or Integration: Which?”

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,” Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. “The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

Falwell’s jeremiad continued: “The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.” Falwell went on to announce that integration “will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city,” he warned, “a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”

As pressure from the civil rights movement built during the early 1960s, and President Lyndon Johnson introduced sweeping civil rights legislation, Falwell grew increasingly conspiratorial. He enlisted with J. Edgar Hoover to distribute FBI manufactured propaganda against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and publicly denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act as “civil wrongs.”
[…]
For Falwell and his brethren, private Christian schools were the last redoubt. Rather than continue a hopeless struggle against the inevitable, through their schools they could circumvent the integration entirely. Five years later, Falwell christened Liberty University, a college that today funnels a steady stream of dedicated young cadres into Republican Congressional offices and conservative think tanks. (Tony Perkins is among Falwell’s Christian soldiers.)

In a recent interview broadcast on CNN the day of his death, Falwell offered his version of the Christian right’s genesis: “We were simply driven into the process by Roe v. Wade and earlier than that, the expulsion of God from the public square.” But his account was fuzzy revisionism at best. By 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe, the antiabortion movement was almost exclusively Catholic. While various Catholic cardinals condemned the Court’s ruling, W.A. Criswell, the fundamentalist former president of America’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, casually endorsed it. (Falwell, an independent Baptist for forty years, joined the SBC in 1996.) “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell exclaimed, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” A year before Roe, the SBC had resolved to press for legislation allowing for abortion in limited cases.

While abortion clinics sprung up across the United States during the early 1970s, evangelicals did little. No pastors invoked the Dred Scott decision to undermine the legal justification for abortion. There were no clinic blockades, no passionate cries to liberate the “pre-born.” For Falwell and his allies, the true impetus for political action came when the Supreme Court ruled in Green v. Connally to revoke the tax-exempt status of racially discriminatory private schools in 1971. At about the same time, the Internal Revenue Service moved to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, which forbade interracial dating. (Blacks were denied entry until 1971.) Falwell was furious, complaining, “In some states it’s easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school.”

Seeking to capitalize on mounting evangelical discontent, a right-wing Washington operative and anti-Vatican II Catholic named Paul Weyrich took a series of trips down South to meet with Falwell and other evangelical leaders. Weyrich hoped to produce a well-funded evangelical lobbying outfit that could lend grassroots muscle to the top-heavy Republican Party and effectively mobilize the vanquished forces of massive resistance into a new political bloc. In discussions with Falwell, Weyrich cited various social ills that necessitated evangelical involvement in politics, particularly abortion, school prayer and the rise of feminism. His pleas initially fell on deaf ears.

“I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.”

In 1979, at Weyrich’s behest, Falwell founded a group that he called the Moral Majority. Along with a vanguard of evangelical icons including D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye, Falwell’s organization hoisted the banner of the “pro-family” movement, declaring war on abortion and homosexuality. But were it not for the federal government’s attempts to enable little black boys and black girls to go to school with little white boys and white girls, the Christian right’s culture war would likely never have come into being. “The Religious New Right did not start because of a concern about abortion,” former Falwell ally Ed Dobson told author Randall Balmer in 1990. “I sat in the non-smoke-filled back room with the Moral Majority, and I frankly do not remember abortion ever being mentioned as a reason why we ought to do something.”

As I said, it’s not fair to attribute the current evangelical opposition to abortion to this shady history. It’s been a long time and I assume their feelings are sincere. But I also think it’s important to realize that this evangelical opposition was conceived as a purely political strategy to organize in the wake of desegregation. These ancient fault lines are all connected.

.

The Right Going Deeper into a Scarier Place, by @DavidOAtkins

The Right Going Deeper into a Scarier Place

by David Atkins

The Beckster is eager for civil war:

Meanwhile, rightwing conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook school massacre are starting to take serious hold, leading to serious harassment of a man who helped six of the children at Sandy Hook. And the conspiracy theories don’t end there. Here’s a small taste of a Free Republic thread about yet another shooting at a St. Louis college:

Menemenetekelupharsian:

This stuff has to be coming from some special ops group conning guys into doing this. The timing couldn’t be more perfect. Can’t be coincidence.

SarahBarracuda:

How convenient that this happens a day before Obama’s big propaganda speech surrounded by children..somehow I am beginning to think that these shootings are all orchestrated by the left so that they can abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Struggle (whose wordpress blog is called “killthegovernment”):

Wow, betcha Obama’s cheering for the gunman in this one. We’ll find out AFTER the power grab that he was a psychotic atheist.

rarestia, whose tagline is “It’s Time to Water the Tree of Liberty”:

Military-grade psyops! There’s NO WAY LEOs are going to be in on something like this. If they are, we have a serious, SERIOUS problem at all levels of government in this nation. To the point that an armed rebellion and reinstitution of the basic tenets of the Constitution would be necessary.

This is live-action, real-deal theater being orchestrated by Obama and his minions. I really cannot wait for it all to come to a head. I want to either get the shooting started or die at the hands of Obama’s stormtroopers.

I WILL NOT LIVE ON MY KNEES!

jsanders2001:

And we’ll find out that the gunman was given a fat envelope stuffed with several thousand stuffed in it by a mysterious man wearing a suit with a pin on his lapel shortly before the shooting incident…

SecretAgentMan:

they are orchestrated false flags using a combo of sleeper patsies – drugged up – probably with scopolamine – and a small team of shooters. hence the two-three shooters the police caught in fatigues at sandy hook, but somehow nbever talked about and the media stopped asking about.

soycd:

Not the brightest dirtbag in the dump. Now torture him for information on who put him up to it.

Charles Martel:

Once = happenstance
Twice = Coincidence
Three or more times = Enemy action.

No doubt in my mind.

We are quickly moving to a period where large sections of the country are functionally unable to even speak to each other and prepared to do violence. It’s not a good place to be.

.

They’re cutting off one finger at a time in hostage negotiations

They’re cutting off one finger at a time in hostage negotiations

by digby

If you thought that Obamacare was a sacred item for Democrats in any budget negotiations, think again:

When Congress struck a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, it also dealt a quiet blow to President Obama’s health overhaul: The new law killed a multibillion-dollar program meant to boost health insurance competition by funding nonprofit health plans.

The decision to end funding for the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans has left as many as 40 start-ups vying for federal dollars in limbo. Some are considering legal action against the Obama administration, after many spent upwards of $100,000 preparing their applications.
[…]
The Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, or CO-OP, program was aimed at spending as much as $6 billion to help launch nonprofit health insurance carriers. It came into favor with Democrats when it became clear that a government-run plan, known as the public option, could not gain enough political support.

Why did they do it? Nobody knows. It seems to have been part of the Biden McConnell agreement. But I’m sure it helped that this was the last thread of hope for public option proponents who had thought that these non-profits could end up operating as it might have. It had to feel good to drive a stake into that idea once and for all.I’m sure Biden and McConnell shared a toast afterward.

But apparently the lamest GOP hissy fit on record had more of an impact than anyone could imagined:

In theory, nonprofit health plans could offer lower premiums, which would put pressure on private insurance companies to cut their rates. But over the past three years, the program has come under congressional investigation as Republicans questioned whether the nonprofit plans would make good on their loans, or go belly-up like the solar panel company Solyndra. That manufacturer borrowed more than a half-billion in federal loans, only to go bankrupt in 2011.

Jayzuz is there any silly tantrum these people don’t get rewarded for?

And no, there are obviously no programs that are off limits for budget cuts. None.

.

QOTD: Rupert Murdoch, by @DavidOAtkins

QOTD: Rupert Murdoch

by David Atkins

If you haven’t heard, this is the story he’s talking about.

This is the man who runs half of American media, and has the other half scared to cross him because they may need to cross him.

It hardly needs to be said that poor people in a country with a halfway decent safety and easy availability of cheap, processed low-nutrition calories wind up being disproportionately obese. In fact, the availability of these cheap, unhealthy calories is one of the reasons it’s harder to mobilize against income inequality.

No word yet on Rupert Murdoch’s opinion of Chris Christie’s likely 350-pound weight with a foot less in height than 6’5″ sidewalk crasher Ulanda Williams. If he is 350 pounds, that would put him at a higher body mass index than Ulanda.

All of which is interesting for mocking the Australian psychopath but ultimately irrelevant, because judging someone on the basis of their weight, rich or poor, is an utterly asinine thing to do.

.

Immigration tango

Immigration tango

by digby

This strikes me as pretty good news for the prospect of real immigration reform:

Rubio, who is widely considered to be a strong contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, hasn’t introduced actual immigration reform legislation, or gone beyond the broad strokes outlined in his interview with the Journal. Nevertheless, in the days following the interview’s publication on Saturday, conservative pundits have showered Rubio with praise. The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin called Rubio’s proposal “bold,” and the Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis writes that “although there is opportunity here, this is still an act of political courage.” Rubio also drew approval from 2012 GOP vice-presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who wrote on Facebook that “I support the principles he’s outlined.”

Conservatives hailing Rubio may not realize how close to President Barack Obama he has moved on immigration, but opponents of reform, such as the Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian, certainly noticed. “There’s nothing substantive in Rubio’s proposal that wouldn’t immediately be agreed to by President Obama,” Krikorian says. “This is the Rubio-Obama immigration plan.” In fairness, Krikorian notes, it’s also broadly similar to the George W. Bush immigration reform plan conservatives derailed in 2007.

It’s pretty clear that the GOP leadership understands that it’s important to stop demonizing the Hispanic community if they ever expect to win another presidential election. If the parties are fairly close on this they might be able to get it done.

On the other hand, it was only six years ago that one of their own tried it and this was the result:

Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”


At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, welcomed the president’s support for more spending on border security, but said, “There’s no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it.”

Mr. Bush said the $4.4 billion would “come from the fines and penalties that we collect from those who have come to our country illegally” and apply for legal status.

Representative Duncan Hunter of California, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, scorned such linkage.

“The idea that we will have border security only if it’s paid for by illegal immigrants is unacceptable,” Mr. Hunter said.

Matthew A. Towery, a political analyst in Atlanta who was once a campaign chairman for Newt Gingrich and is now chief executive of a polling firm, Insider Advantage, said: “Having George W. Bush come out and speak in favor of the immigration bill does not do any good for Republican senators. He just irritates the conservative base of the Republican Party, which has abandoned him on this issue.”

But maybe they’ve had a change of heart. Let’s hope so.

But in any case,  the Obama administration might want to put a stop to this unnecessary harassment. If the right does wise up, these smug Democrats will regret this callous behavior.

.

Comedy from the dark ages

Comedy from the dark ages

by digby

So a kid writes a letter to Maxim Magazine:

“I’m 17 years old and I’ve noticed that there has been a change in my father’s behavior. He spends too much time at the computer playing a war game. I’ve noticed how alone my mom feels. I just want my father to spend more time with my mom. What should I do? How can I talk to my father? I feel shame for him. Please help.”

And Pat Robertson, apparently a big reader of the Lad Mags, replied to the poor boy on his show:

“The romance is obviously going out of the marriage …You know, it may be your mom isn’t as sweet as you think she is, she may be kind of hard-nosed. And so, you say it’s my father, he’s not paying attention to mom, but you know mom…..”

“A woman came to a preacher I know—it’s so funny. She was awful looking. Her hair was all torn up, she was overweight, and looked terrible…”

“And she said, ‘Oh, Reverend, what can I do? My husband has started to drink.’”

“And the preacher looked at her and he said, ‘Madam, if I were married to you, I’d start to drink too.’”

This is the crap I remember hearing when I was growing up, the joke inevitably being told by some less than perfect looking man with a far higher opinion of his sexual appeal than was warranted. The women were always to blame for “letting themselves go” or otherwise … usually … just getting older. It’s time for this attitude — and Pat Robertson — to be retired once and for all.

Update: Ok, this really is funny, and I’m the butt of the joke:

.

The ECB is purging the rottenness out of the system

The ECB is purging the rottenness out of the system

by digby

Matt Yglesias notes that while all the VSPs seem to be thrilled that “crisis” across the pond is over, the people are suffering more than ever:

One of the odder trends this winter is the widespread sense that the eurozone crisis is “over” and Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” speech saved the day.

It’s not that I think the conventional wisdom is wrong, exactly. But the eurozone has slid back into recession over the course of 2012 and if anything the recession seems to be getting worse. Not only are Greece and Spain in tatters and Ireland basically treading water, but German GDP shrank 0.5 percent in the forth quarter. That’s hardly the worst recession on the record books. And if Germany improves a little in Q1 they may even avoid technical recession altogether. But Germany, you’ll recall, is the country that’s supposed to be doing well. And that’s not a “doing well” number. It’s not even close. Things are so bad that EU officials are touting Latvia as a success story even though Latvian GDP is still 16 percent below peak level.

I’ve actually been confused by what I’ve been reading and Yglesias explains it well. The elite consensus is that the crisis has passed and they must “stay the course” to avoid another one. What that means is that they believe the banking crisis has passed and that’s all that matters:

[T]he European Central Bank seems to have entirely washed its hands of the situation, deciding that as long as there’s no acute banking crisis they don’t need to care about anything else.

A bracing triple dip recession, on the other hand, is not something they seem to care about. Indeed, one can only suspect at this point that they believe it is a necessary a character building exercise. Or, as a very famous American Republican banker once said:

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.

He also thought that the “weak” banks needed to be weeded out, and I’m guessing the European Central bank feels that job has been accomplished. The rest will be taken care of in the long run. But you know what they say about that …

.

Shift on guns

Shift on guns


by digby

Greg Sargent offers up some reason to hope that this latest push for reasonable gun control isn’t going to devolve into yet another disappointment:

The new polling comes from the Post/ABC News survey out last night. The toplines show that Americans support an assault weapons ban by 58-39. I asked the Post polling team for a detailed demographic breakdown:

* White non-college men are by far the least supportive, at 43-55.
* Meanwhile, white college educated men support a ban, 57-41. White college educated women are even more supportive, 73-25.

* Nonwhites overall are also very supportive, at 63-33.
* Americans from the ages of 18-39 support a ban, 52-46.

Non-college white men are the only constituency that opposes a ban. 

As Ron Brownstein has written, the coalition that powered the Dem victory in the last election — the “coalition of the ascendant” that will increasingly comprise the core of the Democratic Party’s support as demographic shifts continue — is made up of nonwhites, young Americans, and white, college educated voters, particularly women. These latter groups all overwhelmingly support a ban. This finding is also backed up by a new National Journal poll, which finds that these constituencies are markedly supportive of stricter gun laws in general.

He points out that some of the early 2016 contenders like Cuomo and O’Malley are changing their tune on guns, which he attributes to this changing demographic.  And if that’s true it does portend a bigger shift on culture war issues in general for the Democratic coalition.

I’m not much of a fortune teller so I’ll reserve judgment as to whether this polling means what it seems to mean. over the long term.  I think that the political and cultural divides in this country are well worn grooves that people tend to fall back into after a while, regardless of demography. But this is certainly a hopeful sign that the hysterical culture war of the last 25 years or so may be slowing down.

And what that means is that the voters may finally shift their focus to the elite bipartisan consensus on economic and national security issues. That could present some unique opportunities. It’s amazing what people find they agree on once they set aside the culture war. There are a good many family arguments that have resolved in the end around the mutual agreement that both parties are screwing the working man and wasting blood and money on unnecessary military adventures. It doesn’t always fall out that way, especially in moments of high patriotic emotion, as it was after 9/11.  But it happens more often than you might think.  Maybe we’re going to see a window within which to make some progress.

.

Pedophilia and the failure of libertarian ideology, by @DavidOAtkins

Pedophilia and the failure of libertarian ideology

by David Atkins

The L.A. Times takes a fascinating look at the causes of pedophilia (also the subject of a similar if even more radical Guardian article) and points out the current scientific majority consensus: pedophilia (defined as attraction to prepubescent children) seems to be an innate phenomenon for about 1-5% of the male population, and is usually not caused by childhood trauma or sexual abuse. Incredibly, this is quite literally how anywhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 20 men are wired in their brains, and there’s nothing they can do about it:

The best estimates are that between 1% and 5% of men are pedophiles, meaning that they have a dominant attraction to prepubescent children.

Not all pedophiles molest children. Nor are all child molesters pedophiles. Studies show that about half of all molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims. They often have personality disorders or violent streaks, and their victims are typically family members.

By contrast, pedophiles tend to think of children as romantic partners and look beyond immediate relatives. They include chronic abusers familiar from the headlines — Catholic priests, coaches and generations of Boy Scout leaders.

Other pedophiles are “good people who are struggling,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist who heads the Johns Hopkins Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit. “They’re tortured souls fighting like heck not to do this. We do virtually nothing in terms of reaching out to these folks. We drive it underground…”

In searching for causes of pedophilia, researchers have largely dismissed the popular belief that abuse in childhood plays an important role. Studies show that few victims grow up to be abusers, and only about a third of offenders say they were molested.

Scientists at the Toronto center have uncovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots.

And it turns out that pure impulse control prevents sexual abuse of children from being more commonplace:

More evidence of brain involvement comes from scattered examples of men with brain tumors or neurological diseases affecting inhibition.

In one case, a 40-year-old teacher in Virginia with no history of sexual deviance suddenly became interested in child pornography and was arrested for molesting his prepubescent stepdaughter.

The night before his sentencing, he showed up at an emergency room with a bad headache. An MRI revealed a tumor compressing his brain’s right frontal lobe.

When the tumor was removed, his obsession faded, according to Dr. Russell Swerdlow, a neurologist on the case. A year later he again became sexually fixated on children. The tumor was growing back.

Swerdlow and others said the case suggests that the man’s attraction to children may have always been present — the tumor simply took away the man’s ability to control it.

Strong impulse control may help explain why some pedophiles never break the law.

If this is true, it presents an enormous challenge for society and the justice system. Pedophilia is not the only condition to create such a quandary: other studies have shown that the difference between a criminal spending a lifetime behind bars and a law-abiding citizen is often less a matter of intrinsic goodness and more a matter of pure impulse control. The problem with apportioning blame on the basis of impulse control is that brain wiring can be affected by a wide variety of factors, ranging from genetics to tumors to lead poisoning. It turns out that our free will isn’t nearly as free as we thought, and the neurology of pedophilia is just another nail in free will’s ever-closing coffin.

So now what? Obviously, forgiving (much less allowing) sexual abuse of children isn’t an option. Pedophiles cannot be allowed to act on their urges, and must be punished if they offend. And yet there they are.

This isn’t just a medical or legal problem. This is a political problem. Conservative and libertarian politics depends on a system of free will combined with cosmic and earthly punishments for those who misbehave. Rather than regulate corporations that spew toxins into the air or play fast and loose with safety standards, conservative philosophy dictates that consumers will punish after the fact those corporations whose behavior offends. The same principle goes for individuals. Rather than provide real help for the underprivileged and the mentally ill, and rather than regulate the sorts of firearms that can turn a mere murder into a massacre, the conservative and libertarian impulse is to wait an offender to strike, then mete out the harshest possible punishment in the vain hope of deterring the next offender. It’s barbaric, but that’s the basic principle involved.

The conservative and libertarian answer on pedophiles would seem, then, to do nothing. Already the backlash against this scientific consensus from the Right is in full force. The ideology remains the same regardless of the science. Conservative philosophy insists on the pretense that pedophiles have free will to change, or that they must have been turned by abuse, or that they are possessed of demons and must turn to God (for a loving God would not and could not create them so!) The conservative approach is to wait for them to strike, and then to kill them or lock them up and throw away the key. Understanding or compassion isn’t a prerequisite. They’re just “bad people.”

Saner and more empathetic cultures, on the other hand, are already stepping up to take regulatory and preventive action to treat the issue as the immutable mental disorder it appears to be:

In an attempt to change that, sex researchers in Germany launched an unusual media campaign in 2005.

“You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behavior,” said billboards urging them to contact the Institute of Sexology and Sexual Medicine in Berlin. “There is help! Don’t become an offender!”

More than 1,700 men have responded to the print, television and online ads for Project Dunkelfeld — literally “dark field.” As of August, 80 had completed a one-year program aimed at teaching them to control their impulses. Some received hormone shots. Compared to men still on the waiting list, those who received treatment were deemed less likely to molest children, according to an analysis of risk factors.

The German researchers promise patients confidentiality. About half of those assessed admitted to having already molested a child.

Though extolled by many researchers, the same program could not be conducted in the United States or many other countries, where clinicians and others are required by law to notify authorities if they suspect a child has been or could be harmed.

There are many abundant proofs of the failure of conservative and libertarian ideas. But neuroscience’s steady chipping away at the notion of free will and the blurring of the line between what constitutes a “good person” and a “bad person” is one of the biggest threats to the conservative edifice. It’s too obvious that, difficult as it may be for liberals and conservatives alike, the best approach to the pedophilia problem is early identification, treatment, compassion and active steps to integrate them safely into society to prevent them from going underground and actualizing their desires by abusing children.

That in turn will require a significant social investment in mental health services and public education. It’s exactly the sort of thing conservatives can’t stand, and exactly the sort of “liberal wasteful spending” that would immediately be misused in campaign attack ads by unscrupulous conservative candidates more interested in getting elected to pass tax cuts for rich people than in solving real social problems and saving children from becoming victims.

And it’s just one more way in which the dominance of retrograde libertarian ideology fails each and every one of us, condemning generation after generation to face the same cycles of misunderstanding, abuse and misery.

.

The prize for creepiest right wing Governor goes to …

The prize for creepiest right wing Governor goes to …

by digby

This just well… just read it:

Shortly after winning the GOP nomination in 2010, Rick Scott announced to the world through Facebook that his family had rescued a Labrador Retriever.

And, with help from his Facebook friends, Scott gave it a name: Reagan.

“The Scott family is proud to announce that the name (chosen by you) for their newly adopted pup is Reagan! Thanks to everyone who participated in the fun contest,” read Scott’s announcement on his Facebook page.

Commenters were ecstatic, congratulating Scott for getting a rescue dog instead of a pure bred like Bo, the Portuguese Water Dog President Barack Obama adopted in 2009. And friends saluted the dog’s name, an homage to former President Ronald Reagan.

“What a great looking dog! Glad you rescued him. Reagan will like the Governor’s Mansion!” wrote Christine Haut of Fort Myers.

“Welcome Reagan! What a great family,” wrote Debbie Wiest, a friend of Ann Scott’s for 40 years.

But where is Reagan today?

The last time Reagan made the newspapers was the day before Scott was sworn in as governor in January 2011. John Kennedy, then a reporter for the News Service of Florida, reported seeing the governor-elect walking Reagan in Tallahassee.

Asked last week what had happened to the dog, Scott’s current and former communications directors refused to answer.
[…]
On Monday, the Times asked the governor to clear up the mystery.

“He was a rescue dog,” Scott said, “and he couldn’t be around anybody that was carrying anything, and so he wouldn’t get better.”

Scott said Reagan never bit anyone but “scared the living daylights” out of people at the mansion. He said one kitchen employee threatened to quit and photographer Eric Tournay was frightened when the dog “barked like crazy” every time he saw him with a camera.

So the Scotts gave the dog back to his prior owner, Scott said, about a month after the family moved to Tallahassee. The governor’s office on Monday told the Times it was trying to find Reagan and its new family.

Sure they are …

I have to say that while Scott Walker is clearly the meanest of all the GOP wingut Governors (and Jan Brewer is clearly the dumbest) Rick Scott has got to be the weirdest. And that is saying something.

Florida, what were you thinking?

.