To former Bucks County Congressman Patrick Murphy for the child safety measures he’s proposed in the wake of the Penn State child sexual assault scandal.And for those looking for parallels to the Penn State and Archdiocese of Philadelphia scandals, this tells us the following…
That still-unfolding mess centers on former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, who faces 40 counts of sexually assaulting eight boys over a 10-12 year time line. In addition to Sandusky, two college officials face prosecution for allegedly covering up the attacks and lying to a grand jury. While not charged, legendary football coach Joe Paterno and the university president have been fired.
Murphy’s proposal has four parts: establishing a secure, statewide criminal intelligence database for sex crimes against children; adopting stricter mandatory reporting laws; eliminating the statute of limitations on the sexual assault of children; and expanding and strengthening Child Advocacy Centers across Pennsylvania.
Murphy’s comprehensive approach deserves state lawmakers’ attention; in particular, his proposal for a mandatory reporting law. Fortunately, legislation already exists that would obligate anybody who witnesses a sex crime involving a child to report what they saw immediately. If nothing else, this measure needs to be on the books. It’s unconscionable that state law does not now require a witness to such an abominable act to do the right thing.
Both are managed by male dominated-hierarchies. Both are revered by millions of people. And both allegedly dealt with accusations of sexual abuse of children internally, without going to law enforcement authorities.Maybe not, but there has been progress, as noted in the Philadelphia Inquirer story from here…
To many victims’ advocates, commentators and others, the parallels between this week’s allegations about how Penn State dealt with reports of sex abuse and decade-old revelations about sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church are uncanny.
“It is really a striking and almost identical factual pattern that has emerged in the Catholic Church cases and at Penn State,” says Jeffrey Anderson, a lawyer who has represented hundreds of American abuse victims in lawsuits against the Catholic Church.
“The only difference is that two people have been fired at Penn State who were in revered positions,” says Anderson. “That’s in contrast to every diocese in the U.S where a cover-up has been revealed.
“Not one bishop, archbishop or cardinal has been fired or disciplined.”
Investigating clergy sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia was an exercise in frustration for the 2005 grand jury.The Inquirer story also tells us that the new language in the endangerment law “won’t hold up” in court against Lynn (we’ll see).
It identified 63 current and former priests credibly accused of molesting minors and lambasted the hierarchy for an "immoral cover-up" of the alleged crimes.
Yet no one was indicted.
The reason: Pennsylvania's statute of limitations had expired on assaults dating back to the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. "We surely would have charged them," the hamstrung panel wrote, "if we could have."
Since then, laws have changed - enough to crack open the church door to five criminal indictments.
(In February) following a new grand jury's recommendations, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office charged two priests, a defrocked priest, and a parochial-school teacher with raping and sodomizing two altar boys in the 1990s.
Even more surprising was the indictment of Msgr. William Lynn. Once Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua's secretary for clergy, he was charged with two felony counts of child endangerment for allegedly putting known abusive priests into contact with minors. Lynn had been excoriated at length in the 2005 grand jury report for similar actions, but was not charged.
No sane person would ever believe that the Penn State and Catholic Church scandals were positive in any way. But as long as the Penn State scandal has occurred anyway, kudos to Murphy for proposing steps to deter such a scandal from ever occurring again (hopefully to prevent one also, but we’ll see), particularly ending the statute of limitations (opposed by the new head of the Philadelphia archdiocese, of course, as noted here).
Also, in the matter of the Penn State scandal, I thought this was a good post (h/t Atrios).
While we should have long since been pursuing regime change against the Assad family tyranny (in Syria), the unhappy reality today is that ousting Assad—or even aiding the dissidents with U.S. military force—is not something we should entrust to Barack Obama. The stakes are too high, the opposition too formidable, and the risks too great to allow him to exercise the commander-in-chief responsibilities in a possible confrontation with Iran. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we go to war with the president we have, and the incumbent is not fit for duty in the Syrian theater.Got that? To take out Syria, we need to go after Iran. Hell yeah! U-S-A! U-S-A!
In response, I give you the following from that noted political pragmatist, George W. Bush, here (removing my tongue from my cheek)…
In order to express his contempt for the institution of the United Nations, (Dubya) revoked the ambassador to the U.N.’s Cabinet rank and then gave the job (with a recess appointment) to Bolton, the world’s angriest mustache. Bolton has so little respect for the U.N. that he refuses to even admit that it exists. (He also supports the removal of ten stories from the U.N. building. Despite this, he is on no terrorist watch lists that I know of.)“The world’s angriest mustache” – a veritable laff riot (and here is another Bolton gem).
He is best known, among people who don’t spend their spare time endlessly rescreening Pamela Geller’s TV appearances on YouTube, as the guy who once angrily hurled a stapler at an underling’s head, just one of many examples of his incredibly unprofessional behavior.
He eventually turned out to be too much of a right-wing true believer for even the Bush administration, and by the end of Bush’s second term, Bolton and his ousted neo-con allies were sniping at their president in the press. “I don’t consider Bolton credible,” Bush said, which probably caused Bolton to contort his mustache into a comical frowny shape. (What was the president’s first hint that his U.N. ambassador wasn’t credible? His creepy, flirty relationship with Pamela Geller?)
In addition to voting to overturn Net Neutrality rules (failed), Pat Toomey was also responsible for the following…
Republican economic plan. Voting 40-56, the Senate on Thursday defeated a 28-point Republican jobs bill that would, in part, institute a balanced-budget amendment; reduce the top corporate and individual tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent; repeal the 2010 health law and the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill; bar the federal government from regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming; close an array of tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy and others, and give presidents a line-item veto. The plan was offered as an amendment to HR 674 (above).And I think that deserves a viewing of the following video once more...
A yes vote backed the GOP plan.
Voting yes: Toomey.
Voting no: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.
Clean-air rules repeal. Voting 41-56, the Senate on Thursday defeated a measure (SJ Res 27) that sought to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's newly implemented Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The rule limits emissions from coal-fired power plants in 27 states that contribute to smog and soot pollution in downwind states.
A yes vote was to nullify the rule.
Voting yes: Toomey.
Voting no: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.
Oh, and I wonder if Toomey ever met with this person (though I’m sure I know the answer…here is a link to his Senate web site that was supposed to show a “slew” of constituent meetings based on the TP post, but I couldn’t find them...Update: And more Toomey deficit peacockery (word?) is on display here).
Many of the people at Occupy Bucks County were the same people who participated in Occupy Doylestown last month: Democratic activists, Quakers, practiced protesters. They carried signs that said “People before profits,” “We R the American Dream,” “Name 1 corporation that ever earned a Purple Heart.”And from here…
Among the new faces on Thursday was Jesse Goodrich, a 60-year-old retired engineer from Souderton. He said he found out about the rally through MoveOn.org and joined because “I’d like to be counted in one of millions of voices that have to be heard by Congress. The Republican Party does not speak for me.”
“They don’t speak for anyone but themselves,” Jean Mallock added.
Mallock, a 57-year-old unemployed mechanical assembler and forklift driver from New Britain Township, said she joined the rally — her first, she said — because she “believes it’s time for the common people to have a voice. Our government is controlled by millionaires and billionaires. The middle and lower classes have no power.”
Salaries are dropping and work conditions are getting worse, Mallock said, “and the Tea Parties and Republicans in Congress are blocking attempts to improve the situation.”
Is the American Dream dying?In spite of that, I give you the following from the Courier Times (a boneheaded “Thumbs Down” which, I suppose, had to balance out their smart “Thumbs Up” for Patrick Murphy)…
For Barbara Likens it is.
“I have children. My children are in their 20s. And I know they aren’t going to have the lifestyle that I’ve had. I’m blessed that my children are working, but my husband has not been working for three years. My husband works in the IBM mainframe universe, which is a dying art. It’s hard for him to find work. There are just not a lot of jobs out there and a lot are being outsourced. It’s about the American dream dying,” said the Lower Makefield resident.
She, like many who rallied at the Trenton Makes Bridge on Bridge Street in Morrisville as part of the “We Are the 99 percent” day movement on Thursday are appalled by the greed demonstrated by the wealthy and the lack of leadership from Congress with the economy.
With days until the Nov. 23 statutory deadline for the Congressional supercommittee to unveil its deficit reduction plan to trim at least $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, Americans are taking to the streets. They are encouraging the committee to think about the working class, and less about the remaining 1 percent when formulating cuts.
“I do believe that those who have, in many cases, want to hold on to what they have,” Likens said. “That’s not to say that’s true of all. I mean, you have millionaires coming out saying, ‘I want to pay more taxes.’ Maybe it’s time that our elected officials listen to that. The underlying issue is greed. The best sign I’ve seen at a rally is: ‘Live the Golden Rule — Do unto others.’ And this day and age, many of us are too selfish to do that. I went and broke up with Bank of America because there were two executives who were getting $12 million for leaving, while that bank was laying off 30,000 people. That’s just not right.”
To the bedraggled Occupy forces in cities across the nation who are defying official orders to pull up stakes, fold up their tents and give the public spaces they’d commandeered back to the public. In some cities the Occupy protesters have tangled with police, leading to arrests and injuries.I would first say in response that protests are supposed to be inconvenient; even with that said, the various Occupy groups around the country have given thought to this matter, with many applying for permits to peaceably protest. Here is a site providing information on how to do so in California.
The Occupiers made their point weeks ago. Their camps since have turned into tented slums that are attracting homeless people and criminals — if not rats. They’re a blight and they need to go. Said one judge in ordering the Occupiers to leave: People have a right to assemble, but not a right to camp out on public property. See ya.
(Also, let it be known that the “Occupy” movement helped people at The Daily Tucker here, even though that hack site has had not one good word to say about them. On top of that, I think this is another indirect endorsement of the group.)
However, after reading this, I have to admit that I’m concerned about the future of the group also. I have a feeling this is a minority opinion, but I believe the Occupiers are going to have to coalesce a bit more and become something of a political force, fielding candidates in local elections to start (I would love to see some “Occupy” candidates go after the “Bush Dogs” in Congress, but that may be too big of an initial step).
Yes, politics is a dirty, seamy business. Yes, the deck would be stacked against an “Occupy” candidate. Yes, there will probably be some “impurity” entered into the movement as a result. But like it or not, that is how you effect change for real in this country.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: the Repugs as they are now constituted represent virtually nothing that I believe in, but in 1964, they were flat on their backs in terms of presidential politics (I’m talking about the movement conservatives). However, they organized, getting their acolytes into academia, graduating law schools and ultimately into politics, to say nothing of into broadcasting and organizing through direct mail. It took them 16 years to kick off the ruinous conservative ascendancy, but they did it (helped in no small part by the candidate they were looking for at long last). And we are definitely the worse for it.
I don’t know if it will take that long for “Occupy” to become a political force (I hope not), but that is surely the next step. If we can’t get people into voting booths clicking those levers in accordance with the principles of the “Occupy” movement as whole, then it will all be for nothing.
Update: OK, I like where this is going (and big-time kudos to Ted Deutch for this).
No comments:
Post a Comment