Are We A Nation Of Child Abusers? Sadly, The Answer Is YES!

That headline may be shocking to many of you. But consider -- nearly 12 million children live in poverty in the United States (the richest nation in the world).

That is not true because we cannot afford to correct it. It's because we don't seem to want to fix that problem, or at least our leaders don't seem to want to fix it. They would rather gives tax cuts to the richest Americans instead of helping those children in poverty.

How can we call that anything but child abuse? Like me, you may say that's not what we want. But if it's not, then it is up to us to elect leaders that will solve the problem instead of ignoring it. Until we do, we will remain a nation of child abusers.

Here's just a part of an excellent article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times:

Imagine you have some neighbors in a mansion down the road who pamper one child with a credit card, the best private school and a Tesla.

The parents treat most of their other kids decently but not lavishly — and then you discover that the family consigns one child to an unheated, vermin-infested room in the basement, denying her dental care and often leaving her without food.

You’d call 911 to report child abuse. You’d say those responsible should be locked up. You’d steam about how vile adults must be to allow a child to suffer like that.

But that’s us. That household, writ large, is America and our moral stain of child poverty.

Some American children attend $70,000-a-year nursery schools, but 12 million kids live in households that lack food. The United States has long had one of the highest rates of child poverty in the advanced world — and then the coronavirus pandemic aggravated the suffering.

Now we could have a thrilling breakthrough: President Biden included a proposal in his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that one study says would cut child poverty by half. We in the news media have focused on direct payments to individuals, but the historic element of Biden’s plan is its effort to slash child poverty.

“The American Rescue Plan is the most ambitious proposal to reduce child poverty ever proposed by an American president,” Jason Furman, a Harvard economist, told me.

A couple of decades from now, America will be pretty much the same whether direct payments end up being $1,000 or $1,400. But this will be a transformed nation if we’re able to shrink child poverty on our watch.

So the most distressing part of 10 Republican senators’ counterproposal to Biden was their decision to drop the plan to curb child poverty. Please, Mr. President, don’t budge on this.

And senators, what are you thinking? Is the supposedly “pro-family” party battling to preserve child poverty? . . .

Maybe you think this is unaffordable? One prominent estimate suggests that child poverty costs the United States about $1 trillionannually in reduced adult productivity, increased crime and higher health care costs — so the question isn’t can we afford to help children, but can we afford not to? . . .

Now we can make it our priority, too, helping children and our country alike. As Furman says, “investments in children are not just a handout but a hand up.” Let’s empower our nation’s children, and stop abusing them.

QAnon Nuts Are Actually Hurting Efforts To Help Children

The QAnon conspiracy continues to grow. These are the people who believe that a cabal of Democrats and Hollywood people are stealing children for pedophilia and cannibalism. They have no proof of this, but that doesn't matter to them. They believe it because they want to believe it.

But while they claim to be trying to protect children, their actions are actually harming efforts to protect abused children.

The following is just part of an excellent article at CNN.com:

Child welfare organizations for months have felt the full weight of the coronavirus pandemic, navigating concerns about unreported abuse and ensuring their resources are available to at-risk children. 

But now, deeper into the outbreak, a new challenge is emerging that's complicating their critical outreach efforts: the QAnon conspiracy theory. 

The most basic QAnon belief -- entirely divorced from reality -- casts President Donald Trump as the hero in a fight against the "deep state" and a sinister cabal of Democratic politicians and celebrities who abuse children. It features an anonymous government insider called "Q" who purportedly shares secret information about that fight via cryptic online posts.

And it's the behavior of those who follow the conspiracy theory -- their supposed efforts to help abused children -- that's putting an increasing strain on the resources of actual child welfare groups. 

The problem has become so severe that one such organization, Childhelp, says it had to set up an auto-response message on its crisis hotline to filter out QAnon callers after their name appeared in a QAnon meme. 

"If you have a hotline counselor who is taking time to speak to someone discussing a debunked conspiracy theory, there may be a child holding on the next line," Daphne Young, chief communications officer for Childhelp, told CNN.

The rise of QAnon -- and its movement off the internet and onto the hotlines of child welfare organizations -- marks just the latest wrinkle in the effort to protect at-risk children during the pandemic. 

Figures provided to CNN from states across the country in the early months of the outbreak showed considerable drops in child abuse reports as social distancing measures kept kids out of school. While that would usually be welcome news, experts say the decline might really mean more cases are going unnoticed.

As a result, welfare groups like Childhelp have shouldered the burden of making themselves increasingly available for assistance, especially given the muted response from the US Department of Education.

But now the QAnon conspiracy theory is further straining their efforts, and Young says the damage is far more corrosive than people realize. 

Beyond the calls to their hotline, Young explains that QAnon does "psychic damage to our work, which is the crying wolf phenomenon."

"If you get people constantly crying about abuse day in and day out on social media that is not real -- that is, everybody in Hollywood is part of a mass cabal drinking the blood of children, which is literally one of the conspiracy theories, drinking from their adrenal glands to stay young -- this madness drowns out a child asking for help, a parent that needs resources," she said.

"It drowns out anyone that's a survivor who is trying to get in touch with us, and it's not only 'cries wolf,' but I think that it also gives -- in a strange way -- it gives predators a little protection, because if everybody's crying abuse, then maybe the guy down the street didn't do it either."

That message has been echoed by other child welfare groups, which have become increasingly vocal with concerns that QAnon supporters are blurring the difference between their conspiracy theories and the work of real welfare and advocacy organizations. 

The KidSafe Foundation, which aims to protect children from sexual abuse and trauma, now boasts a forceful statement on its website deriding QAnon promoters as "parasites" trying to "hijack the good names of organizations leading the fight" against real abuse.

"To grow their footprint, gain credibility, and spread misinformation, they associate their message of hate and bigotry with well-known, well-regarded organizations -- specifically those working to end child sexual abuse and sex trafficking. That strategy threatens to diminish our identities, tarnish our reputations and harm our good works," the statement says. 

Cherie Benjoseph, the chief program officer and co-founder of the foundation, separately told CNN that the rise of QAnon has become especially problematic because people are already "reluctant enough to accept the reality of child sexual abuse without being driven away by QAnon's despicable presence."

Epstein's Arrest Has Donald Trump Running Scared

Jeffrey Epstein is in a lot of trouble. He has been arrested again. Federal prosecutors have charged him with sex trafficking.

Epstein was known among his rich friends for throwing sex parties in Florida and New York, and paying girls as young as 13 or 14 to have sex with his guests.

Donald Trump was one of those friends. Trump attended at least some of those sex parties with underage girls, and he has been accused by some of those girls of having sex with them -- and then threatening them to keep quiet about it.

Let's be clear about the crimes we are talking about. Epstein is not the only person to have committed a crime at those parties. The age of consent in Florida is 18, and 17 in New York. Any person having sex with a girl under those ages committed a crime -- and that crime is RAPE OF A CHILD.

Trump was proud of his association with Epstein in the 1990's and early 2000's. He called him a "terrific guy", and bragged about both of them liking girls "on the younger side".

Now Trump has changed his tune. In a statement yesterday, he tried to make it sound like he and Epstein were only casual social acquaintances -- like everyone in Palm Beach. And he said they had not spoken in 15 years, because he was "not a fan of his".

It is likely that the "falling out" Trump said he had with Epstein was around 2008, when Epstein was convicted of having sex with an underage girl. Epstein got a sweetheart deal from then federal prosecutor Acosta (now Secretary of Labor). He received only 13 months in jail, and was able to get out of jail on weekdays so he could go to work.

Did Trump and other rich Epstein friends arrange for the deal, so Epstein would keep his mouth shut about who participated in those parties? There's no proof, but it's likely. Other people convicted of the same crime got much harsher sentences.

It may be different this time. There won't be another sweetheart deal for Epstein, and he could be looking at spending the rest of his life in prison (without daily releases to go to work). The publicity is just too great this time. The public wouldn't stand for it.

Will he spill the beans this time? Will he give up his rich friends to try and get a shorter prison sentence. A lot of Epstein's rich buddies (including Trump) must be quaking in their boots over the thought of that. They all (including Trump) committed crimes. Even if the statute of limitations has run out on some of them, the public exposure could be devastating. We are not talking about sexual groping this time -- it's rape of a child.

It is no wonder Trump is trying to distance himself from Epstein.

Trump's Immigration Policy Is Promoting Child Abuse

It is an undeniable fact that the population of the United States is made up mostly of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants. And most Americans are proud of that, and revere the poem inscribed on the base of our Statue of Liberty (see above) that welcomes immigrants.

But there have been periods throughout our history where the racists and xenophobes have gotten powerful and tried to stop immigration -- especially people of a different ethnicity or religion from the dominant white population.

We are currently in one of those periods. With a racist and xenophobe currently living in our White House, demonizing immigrants and refugees has become government policy. And that policy has led to the denial of human rights.

Trump would like Americans to believe that refugees seeking safety and a better future for their families are criminals. They are not. The latest refugees (from Central America) are trying to escape dangerous and horrendous situations in their home country. Most have not crossed the border illegally, but have turned themselves in at the border seeking asylum -- as they have the legal right to do.

But they have been met with hate and discrimination by the Trump administration. They have been denied both their human and legal rights. They have been separated from their children, and housed in camps that truly do seem to deserve the title of "concentration camps".

But worst of all is the treatment of the refugee children. After being unlawfully separated from their parents, they are being held in facilities that deny them adequate and decent food, proper medical care, beds and blankets, soap and toothbrushes, and other items required by common decency (and law). Trump has said he did not build these facilities and has tried to blame Democrats for them. But he is the one who filled those facilities and has denied even basic care to those his policies have detained. He must be blamed for promoting child abuse at our southern border.

The following is part of an article by Caitlin Dickerson in The New York Times detailing the horrendous treatment of refugee children in Trump's border facilities. It should shame all Americans.

A chaotic scene of sickness and filth is unfolding in an overcrowded border station in Clint, Tex., where hundreds of young people who have recently crossed the border are being held, according to lawyers who visited the facility this week. Some of the children have been there for nearly a month.

Children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears, are caring for infants they’ve just met, the lawyers said. Toddlers without diapers are relieving themselves in their pants. Teenage mothers are wearing clothes stained with breast milk.

Most of the young detainees have not been able to shower or wash their clothes since they arrived at the facility, those who visited said. They have no access to toothbrushes, toothpaste or soap.

“There is a stench,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, one of the lawyers who visited the facility. “The overwhelming majority of children have not bathed since they crossed the border.” . . .

Ms. Mukherjee is part of a team of lawyers who has for years under the settlement been allowed to inspect government facilities where migrant children are detained. She and her colleagues traveled to Clint this week after learning that border officials had begun detaining minors who had recently crossed the border there.

She said the conditions in Clint were the worst she had seen in any facility in her 12-year career. “So many children are sick, they have the flu, and they’re not being properly treated,” she said. The Associated Press, which first reported on conditions at the facility earlier this week, found that it was housing three infants, all with teen mothers, along with a 1-year-old, two 2-year-olds and a 3-year-old. It said there were dozens more children under the age of 12.

Ms. Mukherjee said children were being overseen by guards for Customs and Border Protection, which declined to comment for this story. She and her colleagues observed the guards wearing full uniforms — including weapons — as well as face masks to protect themselves from the unsanitary conditions.

Together, the group of six lawyers met with 60 children in Clint this week who ranged from 5 months to 17 years old. The infants were either children of minor parents, who were also detained, or had been separated from adult family members with whom they had crossed the border. The separated children were now alone, being cared for by other young detainees.

“The children are locked in their cells and cages nearly all day long,” Ms. Mukherjee said. “A few of the kids said they had some opportunities to go outside and play, but they said they can’t bring themselves to play because they are trying to stay alive in there.” . . .

Some sick children were being quarantined in the facility. The lawyers were allowed to speak to the children by phone, but their requests to meet with them in person and observe the conditions they were being held in were denied.

The children told the lawyers they were given the same meals every day — instant oats for breakfast, instant noodles for lunch, a frozen burrito for dinner, along with a few cookies and juice packets — which many said was not enough. “Nearly every child I spoke with said that they were hungry,” Ms. Mukherjee said.

Another group of lawyers conducting inspections under the same federal court settlement said they discovered similar conditions earlier this month at six other facilities in Texas. At the Border Patrol’s Central Processing Center in McAllen, Tex. — often known as “Ursula” — the lawyers encountered a 17-year-old mother from Guatemala who couldn’t stand because of complications from an emergency C-section, and who was caring for a sick and dirty premature baby.

“When we encountered the baby and her mom, the baby was filthy. They wouldn’t give her any water to wash her. And I took a Kleenex and I washed around her neck black dirt,” said Hope Frye, who was leading the group, adding, “Not a little stuff — dirt.”

Public Does NOT Support Trump's Inhumane Border Policy

Donald Trump's new policy of separating immigrant children from their parents at the border, and confining those children indefinitely in detention facilities, is not going over well with the American public. This is clearly shown in three new polls.

In the Quinnipiac poll, the public opposed the policy by 39 points. In the CNN poll, the opposition was by 39 points. And in the CBS News poll, the opposition was by 50 points. Those are some pretty overwhelming numbers.

In the three polls, about 36% to 58% of Republicans approved of the policy. That's not enough to offset the overwhelming disapproval of Independents (66% to 68%) and Democrats (90% to 92%) -- and it could signal a real problem for Republicans in the coming election.

In spite of the intense public backlash, Trump has made it clear he's not going to change the policy. And so far, only a few Republicans have said they disapproved of the policy and none have said they would support a law changing that policy. If the policy is still in effect in November, it could turn the blue wave into a blue tsunami -- and sweep many Republicans out of office.

The Quinnipiac University Poll was done between June 14th and 17th of a national sample of 905 voters, with a margin of error of 3.9 points.

The CNN / SSRS Poll was done between June 14th and 17th of a national sample of 1,012 adults, with a margin of error of 3.7 points.

The CBS News Poll was done between June 14th and 17th of a national sample of 1,100 adults, with a margin of error of 3 points.

A Plurality Of GOP Supports Taking Children From Parents

Donald Trump has instituted a new policy that mandates separating children from their parents at the border, and locks the children up in detention facilities -- some of them in tents in the Texas desert under temperatures that exceed 100 degrees. Why is he doing this? To play to his deplorable base and to use those children as hostages to get the unneeded border wall he promised that base.

The American people are not happy about Trump's policy to abuse immigrant children as a political ploy. The general public opposes the policy by 28 points, Independents oppose it by 27 points, and Democrats oppose it by 61 points. Only Republicans have more supporting the policy than opposing it. They support the policy to abuse immigrant children by 14 points.

I don't know how they justify supporting the horrendous policy. Trump doesn't have a conscience, but the Republican base has always claimed that they are the defender of family values. They seem to have abandoned those values. When has separating children from their parents and causing them psychological trauma been a family value?

The Republican base (and their elected officials) have only two values today -- justifying greed, and promoting hate against those who do not look and think like them. Morality is not a consideration.

Republicans must be voted out of power in November -- and they must be kept out of power until they somehow develop a moral compass.

The chart above shows the results of a new Daily Beast / Ipsos Poll -- done on June 14th and 15th of a national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

Trump & Sessions Have Painted Themselves Into A Corner

 (These caricatures of Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions are by DonkeyHotey.)

One of Donald Trump's biggest promises to his xenophobic base was to build a war between the United States and Mexico. But he has been unable to get Congress to fund the unneeded $25 billion dollar wall.

So Trump decided to change U.S. policy. He told Attorney General Sessions to start separating children from their parents at the border -- for both economic immigrants and asylum-seeking refugees. And Sessions happily complied. In effect, he is now holding these children as hostages to force Congress to give him his wall. And many of those children he is abusing are now being kept in a tent camp in the Texas desert under 100 degree temperatures (making his actions even more inhumane than it already was).

But Trump and Sessions miscalculated. They vastly underestimated the anger that ripping children away from their parents would create among the American public.

Trump has tried to mollify the public anger by claiming he is just following the law -- a law passed by Democrats. But that lie has been exposed by the media across the country (except for Fox News). There is no such law -- passed by Democrats or anyone else. If there was, past presidents would have had to separate children from parents, but none of them did. The barbaric action is not by law, but is a policy initiated by the Trump administration.

Sessions also lied about just following the law, and tried to hide behind religion by quoting the Bible. That outraged many religious leaders (including evangelicals). They made it clear that the Bible could not be used to justify the Trump administrations abuse of children.

By trying to blame Democrats for a nonexistent law and claiming to have god's support for their action, Trump and Sessions have waited themselves into a corner. They have put themselves between a rock and a hard place.

If they continue the horrific policy of separating children from their parents, they run the real risk of turning a November blue wave into a blue tsunami.

If they stop the policy, it would be an admission that they have been lying to the American people.

Trump (and his racist lackey) have done many horrible things since being sworn into office, but this abuse of children may be the worst -- the stupidest and most immoral.

Trump's Border Policy Is Inhumane & Immoral Child Abuse

(This NBC News picture, by John Moore/Getty images, shows asylum seekers near Mission, Texas being taken into custody.)

For the last six weeks or so, the United States government has been following a new policy that Trump and Sessions say will deter undocumented immigrants from trying to enter the U.S. -- taking children away from their parents and locking them up in separate facilities. This immoral practice amounts to nothing less than child abuse, and experts say could serious damage these children psychologically. It is inhumane and indefensible.

Trump is evidently starting to feel the heat over his new policy, because he is now trying to blame it on Democrats. He says he's just following the law -- a law passed by Democrats. THAT IS AN OUTRAGEOUS LIE!

There is NO law that mandates taking children away from their parents. If there was, then the last few presidents (of both parties) would have had to do it -- but none of them did. The Trump administration is the only administration to do this. Neither Obama, Bush, Clinton, nor any other president has done such a terrible thing as to take children from their parents. And the Trump administration is doing this to both economic immigrants and asylum-seekers fleeing for their lives.

In the past, presidents have rightly understood that entering the country without proper documentation was a civil offense, and the only penalty for it was deportation. But the Trump administration, in an effort to appease the racist trumpistas, have decided to charge these immigrants (both economic and humanitarian) as criminals, and take their children away from them.

There is some criminal activity going on, but it is not by the immigrants. It is by the Trump administration. Child abuse must always be considered a criminal activity.

Trump is trying to act like he is just obeying a law he doesn't like, and would like the "law" to be changed. As I said, there is no such law. It is just a policy imposed by Trump and Sessions, and if Trump wanted to change it, he could immediately do so. And if the congressional Republicans wanted to end it, they could rush a law through Congress to stop it -- a law Democrats would happily support. But Trump, and his Republican cohorts, won't stop the child abuse because they don't want to stop it. They are cold-hearted and must be voted out of power in November.

Is this the kind of thing you want government doing? If not, then remember, you are the government -- and by voting you can make a change!

Why Does The United States Still Allow Child Marriages ?

(This cartoon is by Dooa Eladl and was found at counterpunch.org.)

It's not uncommon to see cartoons and articles on social media condemning the fact that other nations (especially muslim nations) allow child marriages. But that is more than a little disingenuous, since most states in this country also allow child marriages.

Just a few days ago, politicians in Kentucky blocked a law that would ban marriages of children under 17. And Kentucky is far from the only state that refuses to ban child marriages.

The truth is that over 200,000 children were legally married in the U.S. in the last 15 years -- and that is probably an undercount, since not all states reported those marriages.

The following is part of an article on this by Chris Baynes in The Independent:

More than 200,000 children were married in the US over the past 15 years, new figures have revealed.

Three 10-year-old girls and an 11-year-old boy were among the youngest to wed, under legal loopholes which allow minors to marry in certain circumstances.

The minimum age for marriage across most of the US is 18, but every state has exemptions – such as parental consent or pregnancy – which allow younger children to tie the knot. . . .

At least 207,468 minors married in the US between 2000 and 2015, according to data compiled by Unchained At Last, a group campaigning to abolish child marriage, and investigative documentary series Frontline.

The true figure is likely to be much higher because 10 states provided no or incomplete statistics. . . .

Eight-seven per cent of the minors who married across the country between 2000 and 2015 were girls, with the majority either 16 or 17. 

The youngest wedded were three 10-year-old girls in Tennessee who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001. The youngest groom was an 11-year-old who married a 27-year-old woman in the same state in 2006.

Children as young as 12 were granted marriage licences in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina, while 11 other states allowed 13-year-olds to wed.

More than 1,000 children aged 14 or under were granted marriage licences. . . .

Child brides usually come from poor backgrounds, said Dr Nicholas Syrett, author of American Child Bride.

He added: "Almost all the evidence indicates that girls in cities don’t get married young, that girls from middle class or wealthy families, don’t get married young. This is a rural phenomenon and it is a phenomenon of poverty."

Do These GOP Candidates Now Regret These Pictures ?

The man in these pictures with Republicans presidential hopefuls (Bush, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal, Paul, Perry, Santorum, and Walker) is Josh Duggar. At the time, Duggar (along with his parents and siblings) was the star of the TV "reality" show 19 And Counting, and the executive director of the christian hate group Family Research Council. The candidates were obviously trying to score points with christian bigots.

Duggar was flying high for a while there, but an expose by intouchweekly.com has ended that. They revealed that Duggar was guilty of molesting several children (including some of his siblings) a few years ago -- and they had the proof to prove their allegation. Allegations that his "christian" parents helped to cover up.

The parents said they had sent him to a facility so he could receive counseling to overcome his "problem". That was a lie. They actually sent him to stay with a friend of the family out of town, and he received no counseling at all. They also said they reported his criminal behavior to the police, but they did that only after being sure the statute of limitation on his crimes had expired. In other words, they made sure he got no negative action because of his molesting children.

Duggar has now confessed his crimes to People Magazine. And he has resigned his position with the Family Research Council. He is trying to pass off his crimes as something in his past, which has been now magically cured through prayer. I have to wonder though -- can child molesters really be cured through nothing but prayer?

I also wonder if the presidential hopefuls pictured above with Duggar regret having their picture taken with him -- a self-confessed child molester. At least one doesn't -- Mike Huckabee. Huckabee said Duggar made a mistake, and has been forgiven. I beg to disagree -- it wasn't a mistake, but a criminal acts (and repeated several times).

Will any of the other candidates be willing to make a statement about Duggar, or these pictures. I doubt it. I think they'll just remain silent (and be thankful they weren't the only one to make this mistake).

(NOTE -- All of these pictures were found at Addicting Info.)

----------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE -- Ted Cruz has now spoken -- and proved that he is not just a fool, but a dangerous fool. He would have us believe that consensual and loving acts between gays are worse than molesting children (a crime). We must make sure this idiot never lives in the White House.

The American Public's View On Corporal Punishment

Several days ago, the police in Montgomery County (Texas) arrested Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, and charged him with Injury To A Child. The pictures above show the results of the "spanking" he gave his 4 year-old child (and these pictures were taken a few days after the incident). He admits to using a switch to discipline the child.

In my opinion, this is inexcusable behavior -- and Peterson should be severely disciplined himself. Unfortunately, this kind of thing still happens far too often in this country. While I deplore Peterson's action, I am glad this has become so public -- because we need to have a discussion on what is proper in disciplining a child.

This did make me wonder just what most Americans think about corporal punishment for children. And the folks at the YouGov Poll did a survey to answer that question. Their survey was done between September 15th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, and has a margin of error of 4.1 points. Without further comment, I give you the results of that survey in the charts below:

French Case Delayed For World Cup

There was a very troubling story coming out of France yesterday. Two French soccer players were arrested and charged with having sex with an underage prostitute. That is bad enough, but it has been learned that the men were questioned first back in May by a French magistrate. That magistrate then delayed the investigation for two months so the players could compete in the World Cup. One of the players did play in the World Cup, while the other did not make the final team that traveled to South Africa to compete.

I have to wonder if this French magistrate is truly qualified to do his job. His actions have told his countrymen and the world at large that sports are more important than child sex abuse -- and make no mistake, this is a case about child sex abuse, regardless of whether that child was acting as a prostitute or not.

It seems that this magistrate (and many other people in many countries, including the United States) have their priorities completely out of whack. I can see this same thing happening in the United States, so a player could participate in the Super Bowl, the World Series or the NBA championship, and it would be just as wrong. There is just something terribly wrong with the idea that sports of any kind are more important than child abuse, especially that of a sexual nature.

The readers of this blog will know that I love sports. I have made no secret of my love for my Dallas Cowboys, and I'm a faithful fan of the Mavericks, Stars and Rangers too. And my blogging this month has exposed my obvious love of the Tour de France. I can understand how disappointed a fan would be to find a sports star has gotten into trouble. But I will never condone hiding and putting off a criminal investigation, especially one involving child abuse, just so that sports star can compete in any athletic contest.

I'm not concerned about the two soccer players. A court of law will determine their guilt or innocence. The troubling part of this story is that the investigating authorities would delay their investigation and/or the charging of the offenders to allow their participation in a sporting event. We can debate whether they should have been allowed to compete after being charged, but the charges and investigation should never have been delayed.

It's a matter of priorities, and child abuse should always be considered more important than a sports event -- regardless of what that sports event is.

Pope's New Guidelines Change Nothing

Once again the Pope and the Catholic Church are trying to paint a good face on the church scandal involving priests who sexually abuse children and the church hierarchy that protects them. The church has announced "new" rules which it says would make it easier to defrock priests convicted of child sexual abuse and would extend the canonical statute of limits in such crimes.

There is a slight problem with the scenario painted by the church with this announcement. It seems that these are not really new rules since the church is already operating under these "new" guidelines, and has been for a while now. This is little more than another feeble attempt at public relations. The church wants to be patted on the back for doing something it has been doing for a while (and should have been doing for many decades).

Worse still is the fact that the church's self-congratulatory new guidelines still don't include two real changes that are needed if the church is to get serious about eliminating child sexual abuse among priests. The guidelines still don't require the church to notify civil authorities of a sex abuse accusation against one of its priests. It only says notification must be made if civil law requires it. In areas where notification is not required by civil law, it is still perfectly OK for church authorities to keep the accusation a secret from the police and other civil authorities.

The guidelines also do not require that Bishops or other higher-ups in the church be punished for covering up and keeping secret the heinous crime of child sex abuse. This comes as no surprise since the Pope himself is guilty of covering for at least one German priest accused (and later convicted of) child sex abuse. Those who cover up these sort of crimes should be punished, but if they made that a policy then they would have to start the punishments with the Pope himself.

The church is trying to pass the new rules off as reform, but it isn't. It's just more of the same and falls far short of any real reform. I get the distinct feeling that the church hierarchy still doesn't think they have done anything wrong. They still think their efforts to protect the reputation of the church was more important than the children who were being sexually abused or punishing the criminals doing that abuse. That view robs them of any moral authority.

One of those left without any real moral authority is the Pope himself. If he was an honest person he would have resigned months ago.

The guidelines do one other thing. It makes the ordination of a woman as serious a crime according to canonical law as sexually abusing children. That is a slap in the face not only to Catholic women but to all women. The church is still willing to relegate over half the world's population to the status of second-class personhood.

Candidate For "Worst Dad Of The Year"

There are all kinds of fathers in the world -- some good, some bad, and a whole lot of us doing the best we can. But if we licensed parents, this is a jerk that should lose his license immediately. I can't believe what he did to his children just for a little of his own self-gratification.

Michael Galloway of McKinney (about 30 miles north of Dallas) evidently felt an unshakable desire to go to a strip joint, so he drove to Dallas and did just that. Normally, I wouldn't care about anyone going to a strip joint. It's not my cup of tea, but each to his own. The problem is that Galloway was babysitting his two children -- a 3 year-old and a nine month-old.

So what does this mental midget do? He locks the very young children in his car and goes on in the strip club! It's bad enough just to leave two children that young locked in a car, but to do it in a part of town where strip clubs are located (almost always a seedy area rife with undesirables) is inexcusable.

Fortunately, this idiot parked his car illegally and a tow truck was called to remove it. The tow truck driver found the children and called the police. The police went into the strip club, found the father and arrested him. He was taken to the county jail, where he awaits posting a $10,000 bond after being charged with Child Endangerment.

The man claimed he had only been inside the strip club for twenty minutes (although I can't see how that lessens his crime). However, club employees said he had been drinking inside the club for at least an hour. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted at this fools stupidity and lack of interest in the welfare of the children.

It's probably a good thing I don't live in Dallas, because this a-hole wouldn't want me on his jury! I can only hope the court comes down on him hard enough to make sure this never happens again.

Vatican Issues New Sex Abuse Rules

The Catholic Church's leadership has been getting a lot of bad publicity lately, ever since it was learned that the pedophilia of some of its priests was not restricted to the United States (where the scandal first became know). It seems that the same types of sexual crimes against children was also happening in Ireland, Germany, Switzerland and many other countries.

That would have been bad enough, but instead of reporting the pedophile priests to the proper law enforcement authorities, the church tried to hide the crimes. They did this by moving the priests to new dioceses. Of course this didn't solve the problem -- it just provided the pedophiles with a new start and a lot of fresh unsuspecting victims (and it made the church liable for the abuse of these new victims).

Sadly, this was not the work of one or two in the church hierarchy but the coverup involved many in the Vatican -- including the current Pope. Although his subordinates have tried to cover for the Pope by falling on the sword themselves, a letter uncovered by the AP containing the signature of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) shows that he was directly involved in the cover-up of the pedophile priests.

But the church still won't admit its culpability in the cover-up. Instead, they are trying to float some counter-publicity to attempt to blunt the criticism of the Pope and the church. As part of that effort, they have released to the press some "new" rules regarding child abuse accusations against priests. Here they are:

1. The local diocese will "investigate every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric."

2. If the allegation "has a semblance of truth" then the diocese will report it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the organization formerly headed by the current Pope that was guilty of covering up for pedophile priests).

3. The local diocese should report the allegation to local civil authorities if it is required by local law.

That sounds a lot better than it actually is. First of all, these are not new rules. They have been in effect for years (and obviously have not worked). All they did was gather these rules into one document and release it to the press in the hopes of making it look like they were actually doing something. How can the release of rules that have not worked in the past possibly solve the church's problems? It can't. This just shows that the church thinks its problem is just a public relations problem, and not a real problem of protecting and covering up for pedophile priests.

Secondly, ALL allegations of child abuse by clerics should be reported to law enforcement authorities -- not just in those localities where the law requires it. With its history of covering up for and protecting child abusers, the church simply cannot be trusted with these important investigations. All of the allegations must be investigated outside of the church by a law enforcement agency (just like it would be with any other organization).

Finally, the releasing of these "new" rules does nothing to absolve the Pope or any other church officials of their past crimes (and hiding allegations of child sexual abuse is a crime). The only way for the church to put these crimes behind it is for all those guilty of covering up the crimes to resign -- including the Pope.

Good publicity is not going to solve this problem. The resignations are an absolute must.

Pope's Letter Is Smoking Gun

As you must know by now, the Pope has been accused of trying to hide child abuse by pedophile priests rather then kicking those priests out of the church and turning them over to the proper authorities -- both as a Cardinal and later as head of the church's agency to discipline priests for unacceptable conduct. Until now, his underlings in the church have been trying to shield the Pope by claiming that he knew nothing and the wrongdoing was by those working for him.

That is an ridiculous argument since he should have known what his subordinates were doing if he was even mildly competent. Be that as it may, the AP has now come into possession of a letter from the Pope with his signature clearly on it, in which he comes down on the side of not firing a pedophile priest because it might mean bad publicity for the church. This is the smoking gun that proves his knowledge of and participation in the cover-up of pedophile priests.

In 1978, Priest Stephan Kiesle pled no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct and received three years probation. That was a good deal for the pedophile priest, because he had tied up two young boys and molested them in a San Francisco church rectory. When his probation was over in 1981, the diocese submitted papers to the Vatican to defrock the priest and kick him out of the priesthood.

Now this should have been a cut-and-dried case. The priest was known to be a pedophile and had already pled guilty and completed his sentence. I would think that common sense would dictate that the church would want to disassociate themselves from this criminal as soon as possible -- but that was not the Vatican's reaction.

It took the Vatican four years to respond to the diocese's request, and that response came in the form of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope). That letter, written in Latin in 1985, did NOT give the diocese the authority to defrock the pedophile priest. Instead, the Cardinal outlined reasons why this should not happen.

The future pope said that although the arguments for removing the priest are of "grave significance", they must consider the "good of the universal church". He went on to say they must also consider the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful , particularly the young age (of the priest)." The priest was 38 years old at that time.

In plain language, Cardinal Ratzinger said the fear of bad publicity for the church was more important than kicking the pedophile out of the priesthood. That was an amazingly unethical and immoral decision for a high-ranking church official to make. It took another two years and repeated appeals from the American diocese before the priest was finally defrocked in 1987 -- after he had resumed duties as a youth minister.

This letter, which the Vatican admits bears the signature of Cardinal Ratzinger, should remove any doubt as to whether the current Pope was complicit in protecting pedophile priests to avoid bad publicity for the church. The attempted cover-up of the Pope's actions by his subordinates will no longer pass the smell test.

This Pope does not have the ethics or morality to be the moral guide for millions of christians. It is time for him to resign (and we know that is possible by canon law because two past Popes have resigned). Delaying his resignation any further is nothing short of a slap in the face to all the victims of the pedophile priests.

Church Puts Foot In Mouth

Someone needs to tell the Catholic Church that when you find yourself in a very deep hole, the best thing to do is stop digging! After years of allowing child abuse to thrive, protecting the abusers, blaming the victims, and then electing a Pope who was complicit in the cover-up, I didn't think the church could make things any worse. I was wrong.

The church seems to be incredibly talented at bad publicity, because they found a way to make the situation worse. What did they do? They compared the current criticism against the Vatican and the Pope to anti-Semitism. That's right. According to the Vatican's own preacher, Father Raniero Cantalamessa (pictured), criticizing the church reminds him of hundreds of years of anti-Semitism and pogroms (not to mention the murder of millions during the reign of Hitler).

I have to wonder what this idiot was thinking. Could he really be stupid enough to think that was a valid comparison? Well, others weren't buying it. A spokesman for SNAP, the Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests, called the comparison "reckless and irresponsible" and "morally wrong".

Then Stephan Kramer, head of Germany's Central Council of Jews, called the comparison "repulsive, obscene and most of all offensive towards all abuse victims as well as to all the victims of the Holocaust."

In fact, the outrage was so strong and widespread that the Vatican is now backing away from the words of it's own preacher. Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said Cantalamessa's remarks do not represent the Vatican's official view and that his comparison "could lead to misunderstandings." You reckon?

Making matters even worse, the preacher's remarks came as the embattled Pope is trying to arrange a trip to Israel. I can't wait to see what the church will do next to dig that hole even deeper.