While the latest outbreak of scandals surrounding sexual abuse in the Catholic Church system is only the most recent of a long line of such atrocities, stemming back decades. Specificities of the many incidents aside, the Catholic Church has demonstrated an attitude and behaviors of significant consequence in their response. Alleged abuse is handled internally; even priests who turn themselves in, admitting guilt, go to their superiors, not the police. Why is this? It's because these people believe their preferred sacred book is of higher authority than the 'the laws of man.' In their eyes, they are responsible to a 'higher power' than the authority of our civilian law and government. Such thinking is detrimental and a threat to society. Possible consequences for this mindset are far-reaching, but we can already point to two macabre results: conspiratorial sexual abuse & terrorism. 

Faith in itself is not necessarily responsible for this arrogance, nor even is organized religion. While I have my qualms with both, it's important to recognize that neither requires this superior mindset. But we can point to individual systems and persons as guilty of malfeasance, and the Catholic Church and Pope are front and center. 

The Pope's claimed infallibility and rule by divine right is equivalent to a monarch's "above the law" status. It is anti-democratic (not that the Catholic Church makes an efforts to be democratic) and immoral, in particular by claiming such status on the basis of his own belief. At least an old monarch was placed above his/her own laws within his/her own domain. But for the Pope or any part of the Church to claim any authority whatsoever over the laws of sovereign nations is not only unfounded, but unenforceable to the extent of any individual or group making claim to whatever divine authority they have based on whatever fantastic system they choose to believe. 

It is not to a bishop or archdiocese to judge and punish priests. That is the duty of a civilian court. Every alleged case of abuse by a priest in the US should be investigated by DoJ and handled accordingly. These men are NOT outside of the law, regardless of whatever claims to be responsible only to some higher being.

This inevitably relates to the Pope's supposed "diplomatic/legal immunity" within certain states. Geoffrey Robertson outlines the absurdity of this idea in The Guardian:

"The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state – and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action – cannot stand up to scrutiny. . .

. . . In 2005 a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (ie head of state) immunity on the pope's behalf. Bush lawyer John B Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict the XVI was immune from suit 'as the head of a foreign state'."

And Hitchen's on the origin of the Pope's supposed immunity: 

"The UN at its inception refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality."

I strongly agree with both Hitchens & Dawkins in their supporting Robertson's and Mark Stephens's efforts to have the Pope arrested for "crimes against humanity" during his visit to Britain. Rather than point you to the UK's Sunday Times's misleading article, I suggest Richard Dawkins's clarification of the matter here. 


Here's a very good NPR story (~9 min) on the handling of a US case. 

Here is a BBC article on campaign to arrest Pope Benedict XVI. 

Post Script: I'm hopping on the bandwagon

I've decided that I'm no longer beholden to the U.S.'s Muggle laws, for I am a wizard according to my belief in the 7 Holy Texts. I am only responsible to the UK MoM's American counterpart: The U.S. Department of Magic. 

Sustainable Value - WSOM, CWRU, NEO, and Beyond

*Originally written April 9, 2010*

At this afternoon's Public Affairs Discussion Group, organized by the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), Dr. Roger Saillant was to speak about Business and Sustainability. In the end, the discussion encompassed far more. centering around his vision for the Fowler Center for Sustainable Value, Weatherhead School of Management (WSOM), Case Western Reserve University, the Greater Cleveland Area, and beyond.

Dr. Saillant spoke hopefully about efforts to incorporate sustainability into all of its offered courses. The University itself is worker on a similar goal to coordinate curricular and research activities on sustainability. Meanwhile, collaboration on ideas abounds, from the city-wide Sustainable Cleveland 2019 vision, to  region-wide cooperation with Oberlin College, to larger efforts to exemplify a sustainability-centered system of values for the nation as a whole.

The talk was riddled with interesting information, views, and issues. Particularly striking was Dr. Saillant's metaphor for changing today's societal mentalities as a critical long-term goal. He described how centuries ago, when beginning work on a massive Cathedral, the lead mason knew he likely would not live to see the final building in all its glory. But he nevertheless dedicated himself to building the best quality foundation he could. Because without the proper foundation, the entire building could not survive, and no generation could enjoy it.

Short term goals of the Dr. Saillant and the Fowler Center include significantly raising Weatherhead's rank of #33 in the Aspen Institute's Global Top 100 business schools and boosting Case Western Reserve's grade of B- on the College Sustainability Report Card, which he believes can largely be accomplished by re-organizing the endowment information that CWRU already makes available (CWRU's Endowment Transparency grade was an F, two years running).

A good Q&A session followed, with recommendations to read Slow Death by Rubber Duck and to watch Janine Benyus's TED Talk on "Biomimcry in Action" (careful, TED Talks are addictive). The event ended with a poignant reminder of the stark truth: that the Earth's changing climate is already past tipping point. But Dr. Saillant's aim is to motivate through a positive focus, one of an achievable sustainable world. And he does a good job inspiring others to believe (and to act), too.

Long Time, No Post

Well. It's been a while. My last post was over two months ago. Sure, I could list off excuses, but hell, nobody cares. I've just been busy; that's life. So a couple things that came to mind:

It is ok to wish harm to someone if you feel your reasons are just enough. After a crazy lady flew by me on 33, weaving through traffic, I thought Jeez, she could really hurt someone driving like that. It wasn't actually that clean or concerned, but we'll keep it like it is. After the few minutes of deliberation in line at Subway, I concluded that it's ok to hope she gets injured in an accident, hoping she may t hen realize the dangers of driving like she does and she'll pose less of a risk to others. :-D Where's my halo?

A note on some of the not-so-good, not-so-bad, just really, really annoying parts of having Tourette's Syndrome:
A. Having a pen in your mouth while driving because you needed to write something on your hand at the last/next red light, and you twitch your head around and the pen flies off into the back of the car. Now you lose.

B. Chewing. Any questions, ask to look at my cheek and/or lip at any given time.

C. Clumsy + involuntary motor tics = many things, but particularly spilling water on one's
shirt. That can be good, though, in some circumstances. ;)


Has anyone tried suing the RIAA for privacy invasion? I don't know much about IP addresses and how they track people and whatnot, but hell, if you're being sued for $25,000, you might as well try and sue back. It's the American judicial system! Can't do it anywhere else!



And finally a couple notes/thoughts on Strickland's State of the State Address, of which I only heard the first half-hour, then I got bored and went inside.
-Regarding education, he plans to eliminate vouchers. Ignorant as I am, I've heard from a couple credible sources that vouchers are beneficial. For those unknowing, a voucher is a chunk of money from the state that a student can take with him/her to a different school, should he/she wish to leave, but it has specifically to do with charter and private schools. That's all I know.

-I want to make it plain and clear: there is no such thing as "clean coal" any more than there is a free China. Now you know my position on social oppression. In fact, thought I am a supporter of Barack Obama, I'm debating withdrawing my support because of his pathetically weak stance on the environment. "Clean" or "liquid" coal is in many cases far worse than oil. Obama supports clean coal usage. He also supports ethanol and E85. Keeping it brief and trying not to rank, E85 is, like clean coal, a propaganda tool by corporations to appear evi-friendly. If you want to cut dependence on foreign oil, sure, go for the ethanol. If you give a damn about the environment, take the ethanol and shove it. Edwards, however, has a very pro-environmentalism stance. It's intriguing.

-A quote Strickland used from Edison: "Opportunity is missed by most because it's dressed in overalls and looks like work." I just like that.

-He mentions health care for those below poverty and those under 21, which I like, yadda yadda, and now I've bored myself. How sad.

I'm not really saying anything that's worth being said, so I'm going to go enjoy some Salmon.

What? Louder, please.

I just have to comment on the hilarity of the dedication to tradition in politics. To this day, matters are voted upon by saying "aye" or "no" at the appropriate time and the Speaker at the time decides who won. It's pretty much standard proceedure for someone to object and demand an electronic vote, which they always do, but it's still funny to observe those passionate issues such as the stem cell bill today where the congresspersons yell surprisingly loud 'NO!' rather than a simple declaration, as is usual. Of course, the Speaker, in my observation, calls it in whatever manner he is in favor, and it's put to electronic vote. Maybe our most effective politicians would be those with plenty of strong experience in a student section, like myself. Heck, we can yell for, depending on the sport, up to 90 minutes straight at the top of our voice. ;) Something I'm very proud of.

Ah, C-SPAN, you bring to light our most embarrassing realities of governmental proceedure.

Empty Promises and Soon, Empty Fishing Boats

While the approval ratings dwindle, the rest of America has already woken up accepted the painful reality: we elected a monkey. From a purely environmental standpoint, a "monkey" is a terrible comparison; monkeys make up a very necessary part of many ecosystems and generally benefit the region. Ours is more like that monkey in the black and white film washing a cat in a sink: rather entertaining, but truthfully good for nothing.

Think Progressive has even compliled a list of of the "president's" previous rhetorical promises for cleaner energy and independence from oil. This year the Financial Times said that Bush will be giving a State of the Union address (Jan. 23) centered around energy. Al Hubbard, constucting this new energy policy, foresees “headlines above the fold that will knock your socks off in terms of our commitment to energy independence.” For some reason, I'm yet to get out the champagne.

Additionally, Bush recently opened a large area in Alaska's Bristol Bay up to drilling. Bristol Bay is one of the most important fishing areas in the world, home to salmon, cod, red king crab, halibut, and herring. What's worse, the site where they intend to dig is right on top of the feeding grounds of one of the most endangered whales in the world: the North Pacific Right Whale. This basically puts this administration in a nutshell: selfish interests without the slightest care for consequences. Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, worked in 2003 to convince Congress to lift a moratorium on drilling there and succeeded, which goes to show that even the state's own Congressman doesn't give a damn about protecting one of the states strongest industries and their oldest tradition.

What a happy day.

Words of Iraqi Children

From CNN.com, Carl Perry writes:

It was just an idea – talk to kids. Find out what they think of the war. When you interview adults here in Iraq – you often get a filtered view of reality. On the other hand, kids can’t lie. They will always tell you the truth – and really, it’s the truth we’re interested in.

So, one morning I set out in the neighborhood looking for kids to talk to. With me, the over talented cameraman Dominic Swann – neither of us had a clue if anyone would talk to us. Our fixer kept smoking – shaking his head, letting us know that this in all likelyhood would be a failed mission. Of course, it’s Baghdad so our other options were try this, or sit in the office and wait for the violence and live shots to begin.

It took over three hours of talking to people before we found a 16 year old boy who was willing to tell us his thoughts. His first one, “Saddam was better than the Americans.” We’re off to a great start – I thought. “Any hope for Iraq” I asked. “None,” he said.

“This is going to be a very uplifting piece” our stringer said immediately. Such is Iraq.

Kids in Iraq are wonderful. They run the same routine anytime they see a foreigner. First they send a scout. He appears from no where – checks out the situation, then disappears. Depending on his report to the others, flocks of kids start to arrive. In this case, there were at least a dozen.

One became the leader. He pointed out everything that had changed – the trash, the blast walls – the western security. He told us he wished he could play football without fearing for his life.

I asked one final question to the group that had arrived. “How many of you have lost family members in this war? Everyone raised their hand.

“Welcome to Iraq,” said my stringer.

From Net to Chains

For those who don't know, the freedom of the internet is at risk. A hotword lately has been "net neutrality," though few know what it means. In a bad summary, net neutrality is the protection of the internet from corporations that want privledge in its use. Congress currently has a bill (H.R. 5252 / S. 2686) the would eliminate the internet's protection. The Daily Show explained it best, I think.

When you get on the internet, you send "packets" of information out and receive "packets" back. This is how you get your pictures, graphics, text, all the good stuff you enjoy so much. Net neutrality ensures your packets and Verizon's packets are treated equally. Without net neutrality, the corporations that pay the most money get privledge, and your packets... well, they may get there eventually, they may not. Of course, if you paid more money, then those corporations would like you better. Then your packets have a better chance of getting where they're going. Maybe a site isn't so nice to Comcast, so maybe no packets end up getting to of coming from that site. Oops. Oh well.

Now that's really a rather gross explanation. For a better one, check the link in my Links Collumn to the right of the page; they provide a much better explanation.
Anyway, I just felt like putting something to do with the subject up here.