Low Country Boil

Take ears of corn, hot sausage links, plenty of shrimp, and large doses of seasoning. Throw in a big pot and let it boil. You will have some good coastal Carolina eating, or in the case of Susan Boyer's book, some good reading.

Liz Talbot, an attractive female private investigator with a penchant for trouble inherits her grandma's home on the beach near Charleston, SC. and with the home comes an array of problems, not the least of which is the discovery that Grams was murdered.

As in similar stories, the conflict is between developers hoping to make small fortunes and the locals who want to keep Stella Maris from becoming another Myrtle Beach, but it is the characters with their peculiar flaws that engage the reader.

And perhaps no character is more interesting than Colleen, the ghost of Liz's childhood friend, who appears and disappears at will.

Low Country Boil was justifiably a finalist for the Daphne Du Maurier Award in the "Mainstream/Mystery/Suspense" category.

Unhappy Season for Tea Party

"Bah, humbug"

In this Christmas season, we are hearing a vitriolic mean-spirited, hate-filled diatribe by a variety of Tea Party Republicans. One is tempted to ask, "Where do they find these clowns?" but everyone knows that they are lurking around in our very midst. On top of that, thanks to the GOP gerrymandered districts, they even get elected to public office. Then, once elected, the Koch Brothers' group, ALEC, writes legislation for them and the Tea Baggers try to get it passed.

And that is the dangerous part. If they just ran around saying stupid things, the majority could put up with that (a bit of comic relief), but shutting down the government and preventing the appointment of judges and other nominees is unacceptable.

It's unacceptable because their perspective is contrary to American values. This is their creed:

1. Poverty is a crime; poor people are criminals.
2. Wealth is a sign of God's blessing; the wealthy are the "Chosen Ones."
3. Pope Francis is Marxist and a threat to our hallowed "Greed-is-good" way of life.
4. Guns are necessary for the wealthy to protect themselves from the unwashed masses.
5. A fetus has more rights than a poor young rape victim.
6. Government cannot provide contraception, but government can, against her will, probe a woman's body with an ultra-sound device. Orwellian logic.
7. The homeless should be removed from city streets ("They are bad for business.")  and relocated under railroad viaducts where they belong.
8. Non-documented immigrants should be sent back to where they came from. After all, they work harder, study harder, open new businesses, and pay all their taxes. They are making our affluent children look bad.
9. Foreign policy is simple. Forget diplomacy. Tell other countries what to do and if they don't do it, bomb them and invade. Sure, many Americans will die in war, but they are the children of the "47% who are freeloaders."
10. And then there is education. The government has to stop educating the poor, unwashed masses. We have to divert those public funds to unregulated and quasi religious Charter Schools. We can't have the children of the 47% showing up our affluent, privileged children.
11. The environment. We have to eliminate the "tree huggers." Environmentalists are a threat to unfettered capitalism.
12. Unfortunately all votes count the same, including those of the freeloading 47%. Therefore we need to institute a whole arsenal of ways to suppress the vote. What a sad state of affairs it would be if everyone in a democracy was given an opportunity to vote!

I feel sorry for my Tea Party friends at this time of the year. Burdened by all that hate and bigotry, they are not able to participate in the spirit of the season. However, all is not lost; they can, like Sarah Palin and Fox News, rant and rave about the perceived "War on Christmas" -- yet another way of stirring up community discord and religious division.

The Cuckoo's Calling -- J.K. Rowling

J.K Rowling's Mystery

When The Cuckoo's Calling was first released, the author was identified as Robert Galbraith, but many readers suspected that to be a pseudonym for some famous author. And they were correct. This is J.K Rowling's entry into the mystery genre. Although worlds away from Harry Potter and Hogwarts, The Cuckoo's Calling will delight not only her established fans, but also entice all of us mystery aficionados.

The story begins with the apparent suicide of a world famous model, Lula Landry, but as you already suspect, it's murder. The task of solving this case falls into the lap of a down-and-out private investigator, Cormoran Strike. And, he has several strikes against him before he becomes involved in this case. His girl friend has just dumped him -- for the umpteenth time. He is homeless; he sleeps on a cot in his office. He has only one client, and he has no money to pay the office rent. In addition, he has lost part of his leg in Afghanistan and gets around with the aid of a prosthesis. He has a temporary secretary, Robin, who plans to leave and get a "real job."

The two main characters and the array of the rich and famous as well as the down-and-out are one of the strengths of the novel. In addition, most readers will appreciate Rowling's ability to describe the often over-looked detail of ordinary life and crime scenes.

It appears that many times in the face of a complicated mystery, the author will throw in details to mislead the reader, and then at the end leave those details hanging with no explanation. In this case, the ending accounts for all of those twists and turns.

J.K. Rowling has created two characters, Cormoran and Robin,  whom I suspect we will be following in a sequel. 

Seeking the Historical Jesus

The historical Jesus is quite elusive. His contemporaries seem to have been unaware of his existence. Josephus Flavius makes a brief reference to him, but most scholars agree that the reference was added years later. Therefore we are left with the conflicting Gospel accounts (written many years after his death) as to his existence and teachings.

Given that derth of historical information, there are many other theories as to the origins of Christianity, and one of those is that it sprang from the Caesar Augustus cult which tried to incorporate beliefs and ideas from throughout the Roman Empire. Although some historical facts; the use of the term, Pontifex Maximus, to refer to the Pope; and the three-tiered papal crown fit into that theory, I find Dr. Atchity's premise a bit of a stretch.

On the other hand, The Messiah Matrix, is an entertaining novel and not an historical treatise.
A renowned Jesuit scholar is murdered on the streets of Rome, and his protege, Father Ryan, seeks to understand the motive since the killer told him he was hired by a monsignor. He soon finds himself involved in a conflict between the Jesuits and the Roman Curia of a conservative Pope.

In the course of of his investigation Father Ryan crosses paths with a famous iconograher and archaeologist, Emily, who is pursuing a rare Roman coin that was stolen from her and apparently is in the hands of people who want to keep the coin hidden from the world.  Father Ryan and Emily soon join forces since it appears their existence is being threatened by the same interests.

In the course of telling a good story, Dr. Atchity provides the reader with considerable history and research -- interesting in itself. In addition, he surprisingly predicts the resignation of a conservative Pope who is replaced by a Jesuit Pope.

Christian readers who are uncomfortable with questions about the origins of Christianity may be reluctant to deal with this novel, but they will be missing out on an engaging mystery.   

Heisman Hijinks and Jordan Lynch

Jordan Lynch
Northern Illinois Quarterback

At this time of the year Heisman hysteria dominates college football.  Will Johnny Manziel repeat after being the first freshman in history to win the trophy? Or will Florida State's accomplished quarterback, Jameis Winston, join the ranks of Archie Griffin and Bo Jackson? And what about my favorite, Jordan Lynch, Northern Illinois' record-setting quarterback?

Perhaps the more important question is: will the Heisman voters follow the intent of Heisman Foundation's mission statement, or will they vote as though this is just another Most Valuable Player award?

At the very least, voters should remind themselves of what the trophy stands for.
"The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance and hard work."

With that in mind one would hope the Heisman voters want to find the one college football player who not only excels on the field, but whose "integrity" can be emulated by high school players. Such has not always been the case. In 2010, Auburn quarterback, Cam Newton, received the trophy in spite of the fact there had been evidence that his father was "auctioning off" his son's services.

Back to the present and two top contenders. Even if the prosecutor chooses not to file rape charges against Jameis Winston or if he waits to do so until after the Heisman voting, voters already know enough about his character and what has occurred in Tallahassee to know that he is deficient in the "integrity" aspect of a Heisman candidate.

And then there is Johnny "Football" Manziel. Last year many felt that in spite of his outstanding season, the Heisman should not be awarded to a teenager. As it turned out, the skeptics were vindicated thanks to Johnny's adolescent off-season shenanigans. Among other problematic behaviors, there was evidence that Manziel was selling autographs. As a slap on the wrist, the inscrutable NCAA punished him by making him sit on the bench for the first half of Texas A&M's first game. It would appear that, after all this, no Heisman voter could vote for Johnny with a straight face.

On the other hand there is no shortage of excellent college players who have great numbers and also seem to possess integrity, "diligence, perseverance and hard work." Among those is Jordan Lynch of Northern Illinois. Although is a bit smaller (6ft, 216 lbs.) than today's quarterbacks, his numbers are among the best in the NCAA. His problem, however, is that he plays in the Mid American Conference, and the supposition is that his numbers are so good because of the lack of quality opponents. Skeptics will question how he would fare in the revered SEC, and will refer to his lack-luster performance in last year's Orange Bowl against Florida State. That is a valid point, but one also has to wonder how well he would do if he were surrounded by a team full of five-star athletes as are Jim McCarron at Alabama or Jameis Winston at Florida State.

Although the Heisman mission statement does not mention that the winner has to be from one of the so-called power conferences, the voters seem to have made that an important aspect of their thinking. Such was not always the case. Jay Berwanger of the University of Chicago, Larry Kelley of Yale and Dick Kazmaier of Princeton were all Heisman winners. Today,  Heisman voters would not even consider Superman if he played at one of these schools.

Getting back to Jordan Lynch, here are some facts to consider:

• Northern Illinois, like Alabama, Florida State, and Ohio State, is undefeated this season. 
• NIU defeated two Big Ten teams.
• Lynch was intercepted only 6 times in 394 attempts
• He completed 60.2% of his passes.
• At this point he has over 3000 career rushing yards and 5000 passing yards  - all-time, only 8 other quarterbacks have done as well.
• he has 8 career 150 + rushing/150+ passing yard games.
• he has 4 NCAA records for rushing yards by a quarterback per game.

Realistically, I doubt that the voters would choose Jordan, but it would be unthinkable that he was not invited to New York  for the Heisman ceremony.

The Exorcist: Bishop Paprocki

Bishop Thomas Paprocki
Springfield, Ill.

Today I find myself confronting a dilemma: to write about Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford; Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Ill., Thomas Paprocki; or those who invested large amounts of money collecting Beanie Babies. (Contemplating dilemmas always reminds me of George Farquhar's dilemma: I must commit murder or commit matrimony.)

Since Mayor Ford has already received too much attention, I will pass on him. I don't want to get a penalty for "piling on." As for those sorry souls who "invested" in Beanie Babies, I can't bring myself to heap scorn on them. I have purchased high tech stocks that make Beanie Babies look good.

That leaves me with Bishop Thomas John Paprocki.

But, where to begin? Perhaps most recent events are a good start. Pope Francis has recently advocated practicing tolerance for gays. and attempting to make the Church more inclusive. Apparently Bishop Paprocki missed that memo. He has been lashing out against gays and same sex marriage. When the state of Illinois voted to allow same sex marriage with some of the legislators quoting Pope Francis, Bishop Paprocki went ballistic. In his mind, such equality legislation was the work of the devil and an exorcism was required. Therefore when Governor Pat Quinn, a Catholic, signs the bill today (11/20 2013), Bishop Paprocki is going to do an "exorcism" to drive the devil out of Illinois. ( In Ohio, we have a few devils in political office. Perhaps we could find a Catholic bishop who could drive them out of Ohio and back to Pennsylvania. But perhaps that's why they're here. Someone performed an exorcism in Pennsylvania, and Ohio is stuck with John Kasich.)

In November of 2010, Bishop Paprocki organized a conference of exorcism. Perhaps the good bishop has watched "Rosemary's Baby" too often.

No doubt, the poor man is obsessed with the devil. When asked about who was responsible for the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, he said the devil was responsible for the lawsuits against the Church. That's right: that's what he said. Thus, the pedophile priests who abused children were not responsible; the problem was the devil bringing lawsuits on behalf of the abused victims. That's a warped scenario.

Then there is the issue of women religious. Perhaps the  term, "women religious" bothers males like Bishop Poprocki. After all, is not religion and Catholicism reserved for males? Why do we superior beings have to be concerned about the heretical views of American Catholic nuns?  Why don't they get back to their job of  housekeeping and scrubbing the floors?

Bishop Paprocki, Bishop Blair of Toledo, and Bishop Sartain of Seattle were charged by Pope Benedict XVI with conducting a multi-year investigation of the U.S. Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Although these women have adhered to their mission as defined in the Gospels, they have had the temerity to question why the priesthood is reserved for males.

And then it was our friend Bishop Paprocki who decided that the Catholic Church could deny individuals  the freedom to follow their own conscience in matters of contraception and turn the tables to say that health care plans offering contraception were a violation Catholics' freedom of religion rights. Although the truth of the matter is that Bishop Paprocki and his kin want to dictate to the rest of us what is right and wrong, therefore imposing their religious views on others. And that is exactly what our Founding Fathers  fought so hard to avoid.

And, speaking of separation of church and state, Bishop Paprocki crossed that line again in the 2012 election. Although he did not directly endorse Mitt Romney, he issued a letter, using the tax-exempt status of the church, which suggested that  voting for an evil candidate could endanger your personal salvation. And of course, he pointed out that the Democratic Party embraced objectionable doctrines. 

No one wants to prevent Citizen Thomas Paprocki from speaking his mind. He is entitled to freedom of speech as we all are. What is objectionable is a Bishop Paprocki using his religion in an attempt to influence an election. If Citizen Paprocki wants to distribute that letter on his own dime without invoking his religious "authority," so be it.

(Sources for above are: Wikipedia, MINNPOST(12'19'12), LifeSiteNews (6/5/13), TTCblog (11/18/13), Americablog (11/14/13). 

Sycamore Row by John Grisham

John Grisham

Storytelling is an art , and although we all tell stories, few of us have mastered the art. John Grisham has.

With his latest bestselling novel, Sycamore Row, Grisham returns to the fictional town of Clanton, Mississippi, the site of his first novel, A Time to Kill. A few year have passed, and Jake Brigance, the young lawyer who won the historic Hailey trial, has not fared well since. Disgruntled racists burned his beloved Victorian home to the ground and the insurance company is refusing to agree to an equitable settlement. Jake, his wife, Carla, and daughter, Hanna, are living in a cramped apartment, and to make matters worse, his clients are often not able to pay their fees.

On a Monday morning, Jake receives a letter from a mysterious millionaire who committed suicide over the weekend after he had written this letter and the accompanying hand-written will. Because the will and its terms were bound to be contested, Jake finally has a case that could pay some considerable fees. On the other hand, the case presents significant obstacles.

Although a civil case centered around a contested will does not sound too interesting, in the hands of a gifted storyteller like Grisham, the reader will become immersed.

In truth, Sycamore Row, is a sequel to A Time to Kill and is a return to the legal mystery that has fascinated Grisham fans and has made his name synonymous with "best seller." Although he tried other formats and genres over the years, he is back doing what he does best -- the legal mystery.

Personally, I tend to shun bestselling authors and seek out good authors who fly below the radar, but there are a few exceptions -- Johm Grisham , John Irving and Gillian Flynn are among them.

The Edmund Fitzgerald Remembered

The Edmund Fitzgerald

Today, November 10, is the 38th anniversary of the disappearance of the SS. Edmund Fitzgerald -- affectionately known as " The Mighty Fitz."

The 729 foot carrier with a cargo of 26,116 tons of taconite iron ore left Superior, Wisconsin, and was headed to Detroit when it encountered a severe storm on northern Lake Superior. In the late afternoon  the winds were gusting to 70 knots (81 mph)  creating 25 foot waves. About 7 P.M. the Edmund Fitzgerald disappeared from radar.

All 29 men aboard apparently went down with their ship. Captain Ernest McSorley and a number of the crew lived in the Toledo area.

The sunken freighter has since been located on the bottom of the lake under 530 feet of water. The site has been explored and photographed and it appears the huge vessel broke in half  as a result of the high waves generated by the storm. A smaller ship nearby, the Arthur M. Anderson, survived the storm and had hoped to rescue survivors. There were none.

The disaster is remembered every year in the Mariners Church in downtown Detroit  and has been memorialized by Gordon Lightfoot's haunting ballad, "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald."

Rand Paul and the End of Responsibility

Rand Paul

Whether it is in politics, business, sports, media or academia, it is becoming more and more difficult for individuals to admit they made a mistake and are responsible for wrongdoing or dishonesty. Corporate types, e.g.  CEOs of huge financial institutions, have this down to an art form. In fact, think about it: the reason we have corporations is to avoid individual responsibility.

In the case of politicians, one would think that based on their oath of office and their responsibility to their constituents, they would have to assume President Harry Truman's dictum: "The buck stops here."

Well, apparently politicians of today have another dictum: "Deny as long as possible, and when that is no longer viable, blame someone else."

Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, is the latest to adopt this strategy. After he could no longer deny that he was guilty, on several occasions, of plagiarism -- "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person," (Miriam-Webster Dictionary), Senator Paul blamed his wrong-doing on his staff and those "haters" out there trying to bring him down. Apparently Rand Paul can't "man up." He's not accepting responsibility for what he did; he's blaming it on others. Obviously, he will never qualify as "A Profile in Courage."

In addition, Mr. Paul said, "To tell the truth, people can think what they want. I can go back to being a doctor anytime, if they're tired of me. I'll go back to being a doctor, and I'll be perfectly content." (Translation: I don't need you people. I'm a doctor and I can make big bucks without your constant questions.)

And that presents another problem for Doctor Rand Paul. a Libertarian, who has a problem with certification. Although he was an officially certified ophthalmologist, when his 10-year certification expired, he chose not to re-certify  Instead he founded his own certification program, the National Board of Ophthalmologists, in his hometown of Bowling Green, Kentucky. He appointed himself president, and his wife (not a doctor) vice president.  He in effect re-certified himself. Although no one knows what criteria this organization uses to re-certify, Rand Paul claims to be a certified eye-doctor.

I am thinking that if I lived in Kentucky and needed an ophthalmologist, I would be checking his/her "certification" very closely.

The bottom line, however, is that Doctor Rand Paul created his own certification organization which in turn re-certified him. I'm not confident with a doctor who re-certifies himself; but, if you are a Tea Party type, that may work for you. If so, I'll be seeing you although you may not be seeing  me.

The most frightening aspect of Rand Paul is that he aspires to become the next president of the United States. If the people do not elect him, will he organize his own electoral college which then chooses him?

Vatican Disrespects American Catholics

Swiss Guard Protecting the Vatican

With the arrival of Pope Francis a spirit of renewal appeared to be taking place in Catholicism and particularly within the Vatican. Granted, most of the changes were a matter of style rather than substance, but Catholics were hopeful their church would focus on the message of the Gospels rather than it's own man-made teachings.

Even more encouraging was the news from the Vatican that it was going to ask Catholics their opinions on a variety of issues including same-sex marriage, contraception, communion for divorced and remarried couples. This is a real step forward for a monarchical organization. The Vatican is actually asking for the opinion of its members. Has this ever happened before? I think not.

But hold on a minute. If you are an American Catholic, the Vatican does not want your opinion. Although Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, secretary general of the Vatican's Synod of Bishops asked them to distribute the poll "immediately as widely as possible," when the poll was sent to American bishops it was accompanied by a second letter which does not ask them to seek the opinions of American Catholics. Instead the letter asks the bishops to provide their own observations. We know that the American Catholic faithful and the U.S. Bishops Conference disagree on many issues. Apparently the Vatican does not care what the parish priests, the women religious, or the Catholics on the street think; they care only for what the the U.S bishops think. Why even send the poll to the US; the whole world knows what the US bishops think.

What value will this Vatican survey have? If a large portion of Catholics are excluded, the survey
 will tell us very little about what Catholics think. And, perhaps this maneuver is typical of a Vatican that is suspicious of democratic principles. For example, the United States allows women to vote and participate in government. That scares the you-know-what out of a Vatican Patriarchy. Therefore they are content to accept our financial support, but they do not want to know our opinions.

Questioning minds have to ask whether this Vatican move to disrespect American Catholics is part of a pattern. It was only a few years ago that the Vatican was close to calling American Nuns heretics. In addition the Vatican insists on appointing (some call it, "shoving down our throats") bishops who are clearly conservative fundamentalists who are out of touch with American Catholics.

(For details of the Vatican survey, consult article by Joshua J. McElwee in the National Catholic Reporter, October 31, 2013.)

The Petulant Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin
"Let's go shoot us sumthin."

Who is this guy, Ted Cruz,  who forced the US government to shut down and cost the country approximately $24-26 billion? He is the same guy who threatened to force the US government to default on its debt. Have to wonder what he was thinking when he took the oath of office. Is he really committed to promoting "the general Welfare"?

Well, "Ted" Cruz is really Rafael Edward Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada, the son of a Cuban immigrant and an American mother. And you are thinking, since his father was an immigrant and little Teddy was born in a foreign country, he would be in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. You would be wrong. As an old Polish friend once suggested, "The last immigrant to get into the country is the one who wants to close the door behind him."

Like other Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Rafael Edward Cruz prefers to be called Ted rather than the name they received from their parents. What's wrong with Rafa Cruz? The tennis star, Rafael Nadal is quite proud of his name. Is it perchance that "Rafa Cruz" has the ring of being Spanish? God forbid that a Tea Party poster boy's name sounds too Spanish. The right wing is quite comfortable with Rafael becoming Ted, but if President Barack Hussein Obama had tried to change his name, Fox Network, Donald Trump and Michelle Bachmann would be screaming day and night that the president  was trying to conceal something.

And since Teddy is already campaigning to become the Republican presidential candidate in 2016, the question arises as to whether Mr. Cruz is "a natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution. If not, he would not be able to be president.  But since the Republicans were able to justify the candidacy of John McCain (born outside of the country), they would have no problem with this issue -- unless of course, the candidate had black skin like President Obama. (For the record, Mr Trump etc., there is no question Mr. Obama's mother was a citizen and he was born in the USA. Therefore his status fits the constitutional requirements whereas those of  McCain or Cruz are more questionable.)

Mr. Cruz is a freshman senator from the state of Texas -- the state whose governor talks about seceding from the Union. Is it a surprise that he comes to Washington and tries to strangle and bankrupt the government?  A violation of his oath of office?

And then there is is the issue of health care. Mr. Cruz and his allies in the House shut down the government in an attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act. He and his GOP allies did not want poor Americans to have health care insurance. During his grand-standing quasi filibuster, he was asked about his personal health care insurance. Everyone presumed that he had the "Cadillac" insurance plan that Congress had granted itself. He hesitated and then admitted that he "probably" was not on that plan. Very, very interesting. Was he purchasing his own health insurance? You gotta be kidding. He was on his wife's super health insurance policy paid for by Goldman Sach's. Very interesting! Goldman Sachs was the company who was able to profit from the collapse of prime mortgage rated bonds in the summer of 2007. This company employs Cruz's wife as a manager in Houston and pays for Teddy's deluxe health care insurance. But I'm sure we all can be positive that Teddy will be objective on any legislation that Goldman lobbyists send to the Senate.

Teddy Cruz, once described as "a charming sociopath" (Jason Stanfird,1/30.13), recently commented: "I believe in Jesus who died to save himself, not enable lazy followers to be dependent on him." An interesting take on Christianity, more in line with the gospel of selfishness and greed proposed by the atheist Ayn Rand who is so popular among Republicans than it is with the Gospels of the New Testament -- love thy neighbor and such. Is he suggesting a selfish Jesus? Please Ted, spare us from your attempt to remake Christianity in an effort to justify your unchristian policies. 

In the interest of brevity, I will simply list items that speak to the character of the Junior Senator from Texas:

• Ann Coulter who describes herself as a "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative" refers to Ted as "my love."
• Cruz is trying to hold up the nomination of Tom Wheeler to the FCC until Wheeler agrees not to enforce the law which demands disclosure of the real funders of "dark money" groups who run salacious attack ads.*
• He informs us that it is their own fault that the poor live in squalor.
• He suggests that God told him to force a government shutdown. God talks to Republicans. He told George W. Bush to start the Iraq War.
• He compared his attempt to defund the Affordable Care Act with the fight against Nazi Germany.
• He opposed FEMA aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy although Texas collects the more FEMA aid than any other state.
• Ken Cucinelli, Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, did not want to be photographed with Cruz.
• Cruz' father supported the Communist dictator, Fidel Castro, who overthrew the democratically elected Cuban government. He later parted ways with Castro and immigrated to this country.
• Cruz and Palin protested the closing of the WWII Memorial in spite of the fact that he and House Republicans caused the shutdown.

For the sake of the country and common sense, let's hope Mr. Cruz was prophetic when he predicted: "Twenty years from now if there is some obscure trivial pursuits question, I am confident I will be the answer."

* Mr. Cruz  later agreed to the nomination after, according to him, he had received assurance that Mr Wheeler would not press for full disclosure of funders. 

The Psalter, A Novel

Michael Romano, a Catholic priest, paleographer, and archivist, learns that various people or groups are intensely interested in a medieval Psalter -- a book of psalms and prayers. In fact, someone is so interested that they killed the Pope's secretary to get it.

After some study, Michael discovers the Psalter is not what it appears to be. An original Aramaic text had been erased in the ninth century and the parchment was used for a Psalter. But, of course, it is the original, erased text, that is of interest.

Is it the Vatican that is trying to prevent Michael from finding and revealing apocryphal accounts of Jesus' life written by 1st century disciples? Perhaps, but there is another group who is willing to murder in order to get their hands on these parchments.

An interesting aspect of the novel is that the author switches back and forth between the present and ninth century Rome at the time the documents were being erased and used for Psalters. Galen Watson's account of medieval history may be questioned by some, but his version makes for interesting reading. And, one must remember this is a novel.

Many may want to compare The Psalter to Dan Brown's novels; and although it may have the same tension between fact and fiction, it lacks the polish of a DaVinci Code. It will, however, appeal to Brown's readers. 

Time to Stop Religious Encroachments

       


"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment to the US Constitution. 

"The next time believers tell you that 'separation of church and state' does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word 'trinity.' The word 'trinity' appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin.

If they are still unfazed (or unphrased), by this, then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Immaculate Conception, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, Sunday School, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Apostasy, Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible." (FFRF Co-President Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith)

The Founding Fathers, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were all clear that, "Church and State are and must remain separate."

Today, however, there are increasing pressures to break down the wall of separation. Recently church pulpits have been used for political propaganda. For the most part, the IRS has done little to remove tax-exempt status form churches who have crossed the political line. This lack of enforcement may have resulted in the following ridiculous situation. When Tea-Party- affiliated non-profits (501C3s) were scrutinized by the IRS for forfeiting their tax-exempt status because they were in fact a front for a political party, they and their right-wing allies attacked the IRS for doing their job of preventing fraudulent tax-exempt status abuse. A classic case of the law-breakers attacking the enforcers.

It seems the churches are all in favor of freedom of religion, but only if it is their religion that is free. If you happen to be be Native American, Hindu, or Muslim. that's a whole different story. Some Catholics, Rick Santorum and Mike DeWine for example,  want to impose Catholic beliefs on non-Catholic citizens (cf. the contraception issue as it relates to the Affordable Health Act), but they decry the Taliban's effort to impose Sharia law. It frequently comes down to this: "Don't mess with my religion, but let's get rid of those other guys." Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to prevent such nonsense.

Also, recently there was a Pew Research attempt to gauge Protestants' attitude toward the separation of church and state;

"Forty-two percent of black Protestants and 37 percent of white evangelical Protestants say houses of worship should endorse candidates, according to the Pew Research Center. Among Americans overall, that figure has been in the 20s for a decade.

The report focuses on faith groups but would apply to secular 501c3 nonprofit organizations as well." 

Over one-third of those two Protestant groups are in favor of using the pulpit to promote a political candidate . In terms of the First Amendment, that is pretty scary. But of course, if their church's pulpit was used to promote a Middle-Eastern Muslim candidate who wants to institute Sharia Law in Texas, they would be be invoking the First Amendment.

And that's why the Founding Fathers in their wisdom insisted on separating Church and State! To prevent the "Religion of the Day" or the "Religion of the Majority" from ruling the country. Our Founding Fathers were aware of the abuse that had resulted from such a system in Europe, and wanted to do better in this country.

And, on the darker side, there is the use of religion to discriminate against women.

Dozens of companies are challenging the federal contraception mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act on religious grounds. They argue that because of the company owner's religious  beliefs, their companies should be exempt from covering the cost of contraceptives. Recently a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that a for-profit, secular corporation cannot seek to impose the owners' religious beliefs on its employees.* As The Toledo Blade editorialized, "No one seeking employment should have to worry about the religion of the boss." (9/23/13)

Another area of religious encroachment is in the field of education. Conservative Republicans have been been pushing the Charter School option. In spite of the fact that these schools are under-regulated and have produced sub-standard results, the number of such schools increases each year. And the dirty little secret that is so-often overlooked is that so many of these schools are organized around a particular religion. Result: public tax dollars supporting a religious-oriented charter school.

 Some Americans fail to realize that  pursuing "the free exercise" of religion does not mean imposing those beliefs on the rest of the citizens.   If Jehovah's Witnesses believe it's wrong to receive a live-saving blood transfusion, they have no right to think the rest of us should agree. It's time to remember that a "belief" -- religious or otherwise -- is just that, a "belief." It is not a proven fact; it is not a law of nature; it has not been proven. If one has a particular, deeply-held belief, the rest of us should respect his/her right to hold such a belief, but we should also expect you to respect our belief or dis-belief.

* This is one of three such cases that have the federal appeals level. Two have upheld the contraception mandate. A Denver Appeals Court disagreed and ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide the benefit.  At some point, one of these cases has to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Financial Benefit of Clerical Celibacy

Since Pope Francis, unlike his predecessors, seems to be allowing a real discussion of the possibility of a non-celibate priesthood, many are considering the practical consequences of married priests.

Some have felt that the Church was hanging onto celibacy simply because it has had a deep-seated tendency, in spite of its protests to the contrary,  to consider sex as evil. And in fact, such maybe the case considering the Church's irrational position on the use of contraceptives. Their position on contraceptives makes sense only if one argues that sex in and of itself is wrong, unless it is directed toward procreation. In other words, sex without the possibility of procreation is evil.

Granted that Catholicism, or at least institutional Catholicism, is nervous about human sexuality, there may be another factor, according to some,  in the priestly celibacy issue.

And it has little to do with sex itself.

It is, they speculate, about money. Most Catholic priests could not afford to be married and raise a family on what they are paid at the present time. The Church, to its credit,  has been an advocate of a "fair wage," and would therefore have to increase the salary of married priests in order for them to support a spouse and raise a family.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. the 2011 median salary for for US clergy was $48,490 per year. On the other hand, the median salary for Catholic priests was $33,100.* At that rate, a dedicated married priest may find himself applying for food stamps.

The question then becomes: can the Catholic Church in the United States afford married priests? Of course, it can; but it may choose not to do so. It has become so fascinated with flexing it's political muscle that it may be reluctant to divert some of that campaign money to its priests.

Parish priests are the face of the Church for most Catholics. Those priests are the ones who serve the needs of their congregations. They make Catholicism work. Certainly the Church could invest more of its assets in its clergy, married or not. The priests deserve better.

Let's hope that the leaders of the Catholic Church are not clinging to celibacy merely in an effort to save money.   

*as reported on "Chron" Houston Chronicle, Dana Severson.

NCAA Treats SEC with Kid Gloves-Again!

Johnny Party Boy

The NCAA is an embarrassment to its member institutions and their student athletes. Its enforcement of the bylaws has become a joke. The Johnny Manziel decision yesterday is just one in a long line of blunders and inconsistencies.

This troubled organization suspended Heisman Trophy winner, Texas A+M quarterback, Johnny Manziel, for one half of the team's first game against a four-touchdown underdog, Rice.  Johnny was suspended for violating NCAA rule 12.5.2.1 which says a player "cannot permit their names or likenesses to be used for commercial purposes." Although there is ample evidence that Johnny's 4000+ autographs were "used for commercial purposes," the NCAA had no paper trail to prove that Johnny received money for autographs. However, he was still guilty of breaking the rule -- the autographs were indeed used for commercial purposes. The NCAA says he is only partially guilty because he denies having received compensation. Is being partially guilty similar to being partially pregnant?

Perhaps "Johnny Football" can use that 30 minute suspension to sign more autographs.

Face it, everyone knows he was guilty, and the NCAA invited him into the confessional and asked him to confess. He and his family lawyered up and refused to confess and the NCAA said: "Johnny you have sinned and your penance is missing thirty minutes of a 'walk-over' game. Go thy way, my son,  and sin no more."

What makes such a resolution so disturbing is that it is not consistent with other cases. Dallas Cowboy receiver, Dez Bryant, was suspended a full season because he lied about having dinner with Deion Sanders. (The dinner itself was not a violation.) Terelle Pryor, Oakland Raiders quarterback, was suspended 5 games for trading memorabilia for tattoos. A.J. Green, a wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals, was suspended for four games for selling his Independence Bowl jersey for cash.

But in a perverse way, the NCAA is consistent. They are chary of leveling meaningful suspensions against high profile quarterbacks from the South Eastern Conference. Although Cam Newton's father offered to have his son play for Mississippi in exchange for a considerable amount of money, the NCAA cleared Cam to play for the Auburn Tigers. Cam also became a Heisman trophy winner.

Apparently, the NCAA is quite willing to give a free pass to high-profile football players from the SEC. I have to wonder what would have happened if instead of Johnny Manziel, the player had been Terrance Owens, the quarterback of the Toledo Rockets. A half game suspension? Get real. The NCAA would throw him under the bus and sanction the University of Toledo as well.

So why is the NCAA reluctant to hand out a meaningful suspension to a high profile football player from the SEC? It is my opinion that the the NCAA fears the SEC may bolt and become its own governing body. If that happens, other leagues might follow suit and the NCAA would unravel. It is in their best interest to keep the SEC happy. 

The Testament of Mary

   

Those who, with a patriarchal perspective,  refer to the biblical Mary of Nazareth as the "Co-Redemptrix" and view her in terms of Renaissance iconography will probably find Colm Toibin's portrayal of  Jesus' mother as something approaching blasphemy.

Those who view Mary as a young Jewish girl who gave birth to a boy child who would eventually propose a new world-view will find The Testament of Mary to be a thought-provoking and disturbing portrayal of a confused old woman reflecting back on her son, his strange behavior, his death, and her feelings of guilt. 

The Gospels  refer to Mary by name on only 17 occasions and 12 of those are in the Gospel of Luke. In addition, the Gospels of Mark and John together refer to "Jesus' mother" three times, but not by name. In addition there are various references to Mary Magdalene, and Mary, sister of Lazarus. In the light of so few New Testament references, many are perplexed by the the central role the  patriarchal Roman Catholic Church has given Mariology. Unfortunately for this long-held position of the Church fathers, their portrayal of Mary as the subservient, submissive woman does not resonate with this generation of women who have proven themselves to be equal partners with their male friends and spouses. 

In this fictional account, Mary in her old age is living in Ephesus in a home provided by her son's disciples. Often Mary considers  this arrangement to be incarceration. "They" are watching and do not want her talking to others. In addition, these disciples are trying to convince her to support various theories they are proposing, e.g. her son being the "Son of God.."; the story of the "virgin birth".  She cannot agree, much to their consternation.

Doctrinal issues aside, the story is that of a mother who loses her first-born son at an early age to a humiliating, torturous execution. . She is confused and worried as he begins a public life with a rag-tag group of  followers whom she considers to be dangerous, unbalanced radicals. He ignores her pleas to distance himself from his followers and go into hiding to escape the notice of the authorities and the  almost certain consequences.

The Gospels tell us that upon Jesus' arrest the disciples disappeared into the woodwork, and Peter denied any association with Jesus. Mary, however. observes her son's ordeal by hiding within the mob that was following his journey to crucifixion, but she too flees near the end to keep from being discovered. And this, the abandonment of her son in his final hour, haunts her existence, especially in old age.

Although The Testament of Mary is a work of fiction, like all good fiction, it provokes the reader to reread the Gospels and speculate on all those details the Evangelists were not able to provide. If this book succeeds in making us more careful, and critical, readers of the Gospels, it serves everyone's best interests. 

Notes:
1) Colm Toibin is an Irish writer and this book was among those considered for the prestigious Man Booker Prize. 
2) In keeping with the fictional nature of this work, I purposely did not use capital letters for pronouns referring to Jesus. 

What a GOP Congress Does on Vacation

The US Congress, at the beginning of August, took another vacation; this time for two months. Some may wonder how one can take a vacation from doing nothing. If one has been grossly unproductive, what happens when she/he goes on vacation? Although they did nothing in Washington, they surprisingly become quite active on their two-month-long vacation.

While on vacation, GOP congress people:
1. pay homage to the NRA in exchange for money
2. ask ALEC (Koch Brothers) to write new legislation to eliminate unions, make it more difficult for citizens to vote, and privatize the functions of government.
3. play golf at exclusive country clubs with their favorite lobbyists.
4. go on  "fact-finding " missions to resorts in the south of France.
5. fly to Alaska to sit on Sarah Palin's front porch and enjoy a view of Russia.
6. travel to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to participate in a wolf hunt.
7. search for those elusive "death panels."
8. take their families to Hawaii to investigate President Obama's birth certificate.
9. visit a large agri-business and offer to increase their government subsidies.
10. become certified as "gynoticians" -- politicians who decide they are more qualified than women and their doctors to make healthcare decisions.

While on vacation. the GOPers do not:
1. go hunting with Dick Cheney. (After all, they do have an instinct for self preservation.)
2. explain why they want to deny affordable health care to 40 million Americans.
3  dine at restaurants that serve halal food.
4. visit areas where they may encounter the "other 47%" of Americans.
5. explain why they allow banks to use our federally insured savings on risky investments.
6. convince us that miscarriages are a crime.
7. make clear to us why they are so offended that a black family is living in the White House.
8. campaign at a gay/lesbian pride parade -- those people will try to seduce a God-fearing homophobe. 
9. admit that they have undocumented immigrants caring for their children and manicuring their lawns.
10.  watch or listen to PBS. It rattles their brains if forced to consider two sides of an issue. Rush Limbaugh understands them and does not confuse them with the facts.

And, just for the record, these are some of the issues the GOP- House refused to take action on before they left for their two-month vacation. And, they have indicated they will probably not take action on any of them before the November elections.

1. Immigration reform
2. The Violence Against Women Re-authorization
3. American Jobs Act
4. Veterans Job Corps Act
5. Tax cuts for working families
6. The Farm Bill
7. Wind Tax Credits
8. Ending the so-called "Sequestration" debacle

On the other hand, they cast votes 41 times to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, although the votes were meaningless.

I hope they enjoy their two-month vacation because we are paying dearly for it.

Cardinal Dolan: Off the Hook?

Political Anima

Catholic Cemetery

Chances are that unless you live in Milwaukee or read the Catholic press, you were not aware that a federal judge, Rudolph Randa, let Cardinal Dolan, former archbishop of Milwaukee, off the hook for moving $57 million dollars into a cemetery fund in order to protect the church's assets. Specifically, Dolan moved the money to prevent 575 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases from accessing that money. Apparently, in Dolan's view, the church's money was more important than clergy sex abuse victims. On the other hand, according to reports, the Archbishop had paid cash to some abusive priests on the condition they leave the priesthood.

Archbishop Dolan has since become Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Arcbishop of New York and head of the U.S. Catholic Bishops.

Later, after the Archdiocese of Milwaukee filed for bankruptcy, it invoked the concept of  "religious liberty" in order to keep the transferred money from being available to the Church's creditors. Citing the Catholic belief in the resurrection of the body, Judge Randa agreed to protect the cemetery funds. Decaying bodies trump living humans.

Given this decision,  I expect the Catholic Church to become even more aggressive in claiming a "Catholic Exemption" from rules they don't like by appealing to "religious liberty." U.S Catholic bishops have been attempting "to exempt themselves from 'secular' obligations like non-discrimination or giving employees access to contraceptives." (Kilgore, 8,1,'13) One would think that a religion based on the Gospels would promote non-discrimination and the freedom of employees to follow the dictates of their own consciences; but, like all monolithic monarchies, the preservation of power and authority takes precedence.

Although the Church's money appears to be protected in the cemetery fund at present, the abuse victims are questioning whether Judge Randa, a Catholic, may have a vested interest in the cemetery business.

Others are simply perplexed by Judge Randa's decision and its justification. "Judge Randa's decision was so indefensible in so many ways that we suspected there was reason to investigate any involvement he might have with the cemeteries," said Marci Hamilton, a First Amendment scholar who is representing the creditors' committee on the issue.

If, after all is said and done, the Church is able to hang onto its precious money and stiff its creditors, it will have lost the battle in the eyes of the many who simply ask, "What would Jesus have done in a situation like this?"

Archangels: Rise of the Jesuits

In the Vatican Museum, Helena Visconte and her young son discover the dead body of a Jesuit priest who is the victim of ligature strangulation and mutilation. Her husband, Michael, a member of the "Specialists" police unit, is asked by the Jesuits to find the killer.

In the course of his investigation, Michael discovers more than he wants to know about the Vatican and its financial connections, but most importantly he learns  the victim was a very successful hedge fund manager for the Vatican.

The problem for Michael and the reader is: who can be trusted?  As a reader, I continually suspected the wrong character(s).

Perhaps the real interest of this book is that, although it is fiction, having seen so many Vatican financial debacles, one is tempted to confuse fact and fiction. In addition the reader is left to wonder about the author's portrayal of the Jesuit community and the closed society that is the Vatican. Interesting, but peculiar.

Janet Tavakoli, who is a renowned financial expert, has created two characters, Michael and his wife, whom readers will want to encounter in a sequel.  Looking forward to more Vatican shenanigans.

“There is an old saying: In America everything is allowed, except that which is forbidden. In Germany everything is forbidden, except that which is allowed. In Italy everything is allowed, especially that which is forbidden. But in the Vatican, everything is forbidden, even that which is allowed.” (A quote of one of the Jesuit characters.)

Major League Baseball, Really?

Monday, August 5, 2013, Major League Baseball suspended thirteen players for using PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs, probably HGH - Human Growth Hormone). Twelve of the players agreed to a 50 game suspension. Alex Rodriguez is appealing his penalty of a 211 day suspension. Prior to this, Milwaukee Brewers's Ryan Braun agreed to a 65 day suspension. At this time, MLB has 13 players who have admitted cheating.

Yesterday and again today, I am hearing baseball players, managers, front office personnel, league officials, and some sports writers and commentators trying to put a positive spin on this by saying: "This is a great day for major league baseball. We caught the cheaters and with these suspensions players will not dare use PEDs in the future."

That is bull excrement! It was not a good day for baseball. Thirteen players admitted to cheating and they will all be playing next season, or if their teams make it to the playoffs, they will be participating. What is so "great" about that?

In fact, we heard similar garbage back in the days when McGuire, Sosa, Clemens, and Bonds were charged with using steroids. In fact we were hearing baseball's talking heads pointing to Alex Rodriquez as an example of the new baseball player who was doing it the right way. Oops! It was bad for baseball then and it still is now.

Another fact which no one mentions is that MLB did not catch these guys cheating. Players and team management did not call out the cheats. They were caught by the press and a disgruntled employee of Biogenesis. All MLB did was to say how shocked they were and hand out penalties when all of this evidence was dropped on their desk. If it had been up to MLB, these guys would not have been caught.

And that raises another good question: how many more players are using HGH? Only those doing business with Bosch's Biogenesis company were caught. I find it difficult to believe that his establishment is the only one pushing PEDs. If there are other players with other sources, what are the chances MLB will catch them?

Not one of the thirteen suspended players tested positive on a MLB drug test. Apparently the test is only useful for baseball's propaganda purposes. Obviously the players have figured out a way of beating the test. How many players who use PEDs will be playing in the playoffs and the World Series?

As a fan I will never be able to believe a baseball player who speaks of "those of us who do it the right way."

Yesterday was not a "great day for baseball."

And then there is the National Football League which does not even bother to test for HGH. Are we to believe that those giants who can lift a mobile home and run like a cheetah have done it "the right way"?

GOP's Putinesque Attack on Democracy

"Smells Familiar"

They refer to the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but the current Republican politicians (and that includes the Republican justices on the Supreme Court) are attempting to dismantle our democracy. And make no mistake about it; theirs is an all-out, extremely well financed assault. They are attacking in local and national media outlets, city governments, state legislatures and courts, federal agencies, the House of Representatives, the US Senate and federal courts.

As our country was being created, the founding fathers were careful to protect a minority from being steamrolled by the majority, but back then they did not foresee a corporate-financed minority party attempting to abuse those precautions. Quite frankly they probably could not imagine future Americans attempting to curtail the basic tenets of democracy. True, the founding fathers made compromises to create a new independent,democratic United States, but in the first sentence of the Constitution, they laid out lofty principles to guide us through the years ahead. Unfortunately, most current Republicans have ignored that first, most important sentence. They get the part about providing "for the common defense," but few remember the very next phrase, "promote the general Welfare." As  my good friend, Buck, has said: "When they read that phrase, they interpret 'general Welfare' to mean General Electric and General Motors."

The most obvious Republican attacks on democracy are their blatant attempts to suppress the vote. One would think that the more people who participate in the voting process, the better the democracy. Apparently the GOP has decided that as a minority party representing some specific vested interests, they cannot win if democracy is all inclusive. In a moment of honesty, Mitt Romney admitted as much when in the 2012 election he made his famous 47% remark.

In that 2012 presidential election, Republican governors and legislatures tried to cut down the number of days set aside for early voting, reduce the number of Saturdays and Sundays available in order to keep people working two jobs or long hours from voting, require IDs that poor and elderly citizens do not have. and intimidate Latino voters.

And there is no question that these maneuvers were designed to skew the election in the GOP's favor. In Pennsylvania, the Republican House Majority leader, Mike Turzai,  admitted that the voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania...."

And then SCOTUS chief justice John Roberts and and his fellow Republicans on the court threw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, "which subjected the voting laws in states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to Justice Department scrutiny..."(Dionne). Republican politicians in these states were giddy with the possibilities that this decision offered them.

Shortly thereafter, the most egregious attack on voter rights occurred in North Carolina where the Republicans are passing a laundry list of voter suppression measures that Vladimir Putin would be proud of.

In addition to prohibiting the use of student IDs as a recognized form of identification -- an attempt to keep college students from voting, they have added the following:

• The end of pre-registration for 16 & 17 year olds
• A ban on paid voter registration drives
• Elimination of same day voter registration
• A provision allowing voters to be challenged by any registered voter of the county in which they vote rather than just their precinct
• A week sliced off Early Voting
• Elimination of straight party ticket voting
• A provision making the state’s presidential primary date a function of the primary date in South Carolina
• A provision calling for a study (rather than a mandate) of electronic candidate filing
• An increase in the maximum campaign contribution to $5,000 (the limit will continue to increase every two years with the Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
• A provision weakening disclosure requirements for "independent expenditure” committees
• Authorization of vigilante poll observers, lots of them, with expanded range of interference
• An expansion of the scope of who may examine registration records and challenge voters
• A repeal of out-of-precinct voting
• A repeal of the current mandate for high-school registration drives
• Elimination of flexibility in opening early voting sites at different hours within a county
• A provision making it more difficult to add satellite polling sites for the elderly or voters with disabilities
• New limits on who can assist a voter adjudicated to be incompetent by court
• The repeal of three public financing programs
• The repeal of disclosure requirements under “candidate specific communications.”

Not only are such laws an affront to our democratic principles, it smacks of racism. These voter restrictions remind one of what segregationist Southern lawmakers did in the past, and now the Roberts' Supreme Court has given current Republican lawmakers the go-ahead.

It's not just a matter of voting rights. The GOP positions on a variety of issues follows the same anti-democratic path: immigration issues, student loans, the corporatization of the media, and breaching the separation of church and state.

It is no surprise that many throughout the world disregard our calls for democracy and equal rights. We have a major political party doing their best to restrict democracy and limit equal rights here at home.