Five Brits Shot Dead In Afghanistan …

… by a rogue Afghan policeman:

Five British soldiers have been shot dead after a rogue Afghan policeman turned a heavy machinegun against a British training team inside a checkpoint in Helmand Province. The soldiers, three from the Grenadier Guards and two from the Royal Military Police, died in the village of Shin Kalay in Nad-e’Ali district of Helmand Province yesterday afternoon. Six British soldiers were injured in the same incident, several of them seriously.

One of the Grenadier Guards who died was named this afternoon as Sergeant Matthew Telford, from the Grimsby area. A veteran of several operational tours of duty, Sgt Telford had arrived in Afghanistan two weeks ago. He leaves a wife, Kerry, and two sons aged four and nine.

This is the kind of story that will further undermine public support for the war at home.

Map Of The Day

Chicago1000ftmap1

Explained by Elizabeth Pisani:

On this fantastic map, which comes from Yale University’s Dr. Russell Barbour by way of Stop the Drug War, the red areas are the parts of town where it would be illegal to operate a federally funded needle exchange  under new rules proposed by Congress.

The Drug War Chronicle provides an interesting history of the needle exchange shenannigans. Essentially, Obama did not remove the ban from a budget bill because he thinks policy shouldn’t be made through sub-clauses in budget bills. Democrats on the committee discussing the bill disagreed, and dropped the ban. Then Republicans, not willing to give up the idea that the availability of clean needles would have us all racing to start shooting up smack, decided to protect the innocent by forbidding needle programmes within 1,000 feet of “a public or private day care centre, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college, or university, or any public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade, or youth centre, or an event sponsored by any such entity”. That’s the red bits on the map of Chicago above.

A Gay Catholic Now?

After Maine, where the Catholic church actually organized a second collection to raise money to prevent gay people from having civil rights, the situation shifts again. Using a tax-exempt church to raise money to defeat the civil rights of fellow citizens is not too shocking in the age of Benedict. It is shocking if one believes in a separation of politics and religion, and if one believes that the church of Jesus should stand in solidarity with the marginalized, rather than seeking to marginalize and demonize them still further.

It is time to acknowledge that the Catholic church hierarchy can no longer pretend that it isn't the active enemy of gay people and our families. That this church hierarchy – especially in its more conservative wing – is disproportionately gay itself and waging war against their fellow gays through the cowardly veil of the closet, is not new. But it is, as we flinch with the sting of defeat, harder to take than ever.

It is time to demand that gay priests who are actively fighting against the dignity of gay people own their enmeshment in injustice, stigmatization and cruelty. It is time to reveal them in this respect as the enemies of the Gospels, not the champions. Here is a letter many people – straight and gay – will soon be writing to their parish priests. It rings with the heart-ache that gay Catholics and gay people in many other faith traditions still feel. And it is, in a deep way, simply true:

Dear Father Andrew:

We have shared the celebration of Mass of universal inclusion for 18 years.  Homeless, doctors, addicts, plumbers, prostitutes, trash collectors, gang members, elderly, boomers, young adults, teens, babies of all colors, races, genders gathered in common purpose — to give thanks for blessings and rejoice in the goodness that can come from humanity.  You provided a unique sanctuary for us all — rich or poor, educated or not, gay or straight.  No one had any fear; none were rejected.  

It is with the deepest sorrow that I must write you that I no longer can join you at Mass.  After 59 years, I am no longer a Catholic.

You will be distressed at my decision, but not surprised.  We have spoken about this possibility for some time now.  In fact, I suspect you would join me if you did not have such a valuable mission in this vibrant community.  I will still volunteer for the children's programs, and remain involved in activism, but I can no longer participate in the one rite that binds me to the Catholic Church.  I cannot swallow the bile another day.  I cannot look up at the altar when you read the gospel, give a homily that is so beautiful, it makes me weep, raise the chalice we believe is to be shared by everyone.  I cannot bear the thought of you being driven from your ministry when the bishop discovers you are gay.

Hatred fueled by the resources of hundreds of thousands of parishes will be the central reason why the Church will eventually wither and die.  I can no longer bear the stench of the rotting body and hierarchical ignorance.  I can no longer embrace what has become a menace and money machine to support evil.  We are all tainted by what happened in Maine.  We are all lesser citizens because our brothers and sisters are lesser citizens.

We remain joined in friendship and common cause, my dear friend.  I will need your counsel in this dark time because I feel hatred bubbling in my thoughts.  I do not want to be them.  Bless you, dear Andrew.

With great affection,

M.

The Sarah And Levi Show, Ctd

A reader writes:

I’m surprised you haven’t figured it out. About Levi, that is.

Who had the power, before she left office, to spring Levi’s mom from an inconvenient meth possession and sale case? Sarah Palin. Who didn’t spring Levi’s mom? Sarah Palin.

Who was the attorney in the case involved with defending Levi’s drug trafficking mother? None other than Rex Butler, a Democratic operative from way back. Who’s representing Levi now? Same same.

Butler is basically killing two birds with one stone. I suspect that the dumbfuck kid is interested in payback because the Palin wouldn’t spring mommy (she couldn’t, that would have been leapt on by the Democrats and Obamist fellow travelers like you…) and he’s also interested in making what money he can by showing the world his Johnston.

Palin will make a statement about what Levi does once in a while but has been pretty studious in ignoring the young man since she left office. Basically, Sarah is smart enough not to stop a man from staging his own hanging. She’s also not happy about it, because the kid is, technically, “family”. He’s a dirtbag, but he’s “family”. The notion that she’s been getting down in the mud with Levi lately is the kind of shitty observation that passes for wisdom on your blog and others. She’s been ignoring Levi, and that’s not good for Levi and his people at all. Thus, the recent article and the clamoring to get on TV.

And you actually believe that Palin has legal standing to “keep” Levi from seeing Bristol’s kid when Occam’s razor suggests that it’s a device to get attention for his 16th minute?

If Sarah Palin has been "ignoring Levi" she has a very funny way of doing that. She has immediately and viscerally responded to almost every TV appearance he has made. I don't know whether Palin is grieved for family in the way my reader suggests, because, unlike my reader, I cannot know what's in her head (and am a little frightened to find out). But accusing the father of her grandson of selling his body for money does not seem like someone who is trying to keep her family together.

I repeat that I don't know what to believe about all this tit-for-tat – except that there's something out there we don't yet know about. But my money remains on Levi.

Italy Convicts US

A big event:

An Italian judge sentenced 23 former CIA agents to up to eight years in prison Wednesday for the abduction of a Muslim cleric in a symbolic ruling against "rendition" flights used by the former U.S. government.

The Americans were all tried in absentia after the United States refused to extradite them. But the verdict, the first of its kind, was welcomed by rights campaigners who have long complained the renditions policy violated basic human rights.

The Pain In Maine II

A reader writes:

My straight son worked for the marriage equality campaign in Maine. I just got off the phone with him. He is sad and started crying. Not for himself but for those whose rights have been taken away and those who have been fighting for those rights for years. I have seldom been so proud as a Mother. I told my son that we should be satisfied. People like us who work hard for our ideals and follow our hearts have nothing to be ashamed of.

I also don't believe that the campaign has anything to be ashamed of. I was worried about the early ads, but they improved. The campaign organization, by all accounts, was superb. The money was there. The enthusiasm was there. The turnout was spectacular in an off-year.

The hard truth is: people are still afraid of this, and our opponents knew how to target their fears very precisely. They have honed it to an art – their prime argument now is that although adults can handle gay equality, children cannot. And so they play straight to heterosexuals whose personal comfort with gay people is fine but who sure don't want their kids to turn out that way. One way to prevent kids turning out that way, the equality opponents argue, is to ensure that they never hear of gay people, except in a marginalized, scary, alien fashion. And this referendum was clearly a vote in which the desire to keep gay people invisible trumped the urge to treat them equally.

The truth about civil marriage – why it is the essential criterion for gay equality – is that it alone explodes this core marginalization and invisibility of gay people. It alone can reach those gay kids who need to know they have a future as a dignified human being with a family. It alone tells society that gay people are equal in their loves and in their hearts and in their families – not just useful in a society with a need for talented or able individuals whose private lives remain perforce sequestered from view. 

This is why it remains the prize. And why our eyes must remain fixed upon it. In my view, the desperate nature of the current tactics against us, the blatant use of fear around children (which both worries parents and also stigmatizes gay people in one, deft swoop) are signs that what we are demanding truly, truly matters.

You can always tell what matters because it is the one thing our opponents are desperate to prevent. That is why, even in Washington State, even when they dilute marriage into "domestic partnership", the Christianist right is already promising to mount another referendum to repeal it again. They know that once civil marriage is accepted, the bigotry toward gay people has been dealt a terminal blow.

But guess what? Civil marriage is already here. It exists in several states already, it exists in the consciousness of an entire generation. It exists abroad in America's closest neighbor and in America's closest allies. The speed of the movement towards it is unprecedented in modern civil rights movements, even as it may seem crushingly slow to those who live under discrimination's weight. These defeats – even narrow defeats as in California and Maine – should not discourage us. The desperation and fanaticism of our opponents proves they know that this is the crucial battleground. And they're right.

But civil rights victories, the final and enduring ones, are always built on the foundations of defeats. Sometimes, the defeat of a minority's sincere aspiration to equality helps reveal the injustice of the discrimination and the cruelty of the marginalization. Sometimes, it helps show just how poorly treated we are, and galvanizes a community to fight back more fiercely as we saw in that amazing march on DC last month. That has certainly been true of previous civil rights movements. It is just as true of ours.

So congrats, Maine Equality. You did a fine job. Congrats, HRC. You helped. No congrats to Obama who is treating this civil rights movement the way Kennedy first treated his. But we don't need Obama.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. And we will win in due course, with a good spirit and keen arguments, and with passion and conviction in our hearts. We will win.

The Pain In Maine

A reader writes:

I wouldn't put it on the Catholic Church in Maine.  First of all, the Church in Maine is far more relevant with the voters who would have voted to repeal the law in the first place.  Secondly, the Church is far from relevant in the socially liberal areas of southern Maine which is where one finds the majority of the state's voters. Socially, southern Maine is far more like an extension of Massachusetts than what people traditionally think of when they envision Maine.  The Diocese might be housed in Portland, but the majority of Catholic voters can be found north of places like Bangor, in the lumber towns.

This doesn't exonerate the Church, but it does call into question your causal theory.  I think the stronger force here is social stagnation.  Most people in central and northern Maine live and die there, and rarely travel beyond it's boarders (with the exception of an occasional trek to the similarly rural areas of Canada).  These are simply not Colbert Nation type voters.

Yes, but when the church makes its priests urge parishioners to deny people civil rights, it does make a difference.