From the Los Angeles Times' Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected; Insiders say Atty. Gen. Eric Holder is close to naming a prosecutor to look into reports of excessive waterboarding and other unauthorized methods. Convictions could be hard to get:
U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects, current and former U.S. government officials said.A senior Justice Department official said that Holder envisioned an inquiry that would be narrow in scope, focusing on "whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized" in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws.
...Some cases have not previously been disclosed, including an instance in which a CIA operative brought a gun into an interrogation booth to force a detainee to talk, officials said.
Other potentially criminal abuses have already come to light, including the waterboarding of prisoners in excess of Justice Department guidelines, and the deaths of detainees in CIA custody in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003...
As a military veteran who served for a couple of decades in the U.S. Navy, I hope some sort of investigation goes through, and at least some are punished for torturing detainees prisoners held in camps, such as Gitmo. To do nothing is to send the message to the world that it's okay to torture Americans to the same level we tortured War On Terror prisoners.
Basically, America needs to engage in behavior towards people we hold as prisoners in a way that we want others peoples and states to behave towards American they might hold as prisoners. Not prosecuting CIA or U.S. servicemember who tortured prisoners seems unacceptable to me.
As someone who realizes I could have been one of those prisoners when I was serving in the military...well, it's not difficult for me to put myself in the place of American servicemembers who may in the future become prisoners of war, or prisoners of militant organizations that are warring with A with America. Having America be a moral force in the world seems a idealistic, I know, but I see it as necessary if only from the perspective of setting a standard we can hold others to.
Seems to be quite a bit of dissatisfaction with the Diocese lately...
Two lifelong Catholic couples who are parishioners at St. Raphael's Church in Kittery, Maine, are saying they find legal, moral and ethical problems with efforts of the Portland diocese to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. Yet they say when they have brought their concerns to the church's hierarchy, they have been ignored.
Jack and Rose Dougherty and Armand and Ann LaSelva, all of Eliot, say they are not involved in the efforts of gay marriage proponents such as Equality Maine, but are merely Catholics who are deeply concerned about the overt political tone taken by their church in recent months.
Their issues range from what they say are essentially dictates from the pulpit, to the fact that diocesan staff are on loan to pro-repeal organization Stand for Marriage of Maine, to legally questionable contributions to Stand for Marriage by the diocese.
And, they say, these efforts are testing their resolve to remain church-going Catholics.
This is a fascinating read of the current local situation within the Catholic church by these couples, who further describe their experiences as churchgoers the past few months:
Shortly after passage of the law, the diocese began what the couples say was an "overtly political" campaign to convince parishioners at churches statewide to sign the repeal petition. For six weeks, included in the church bulletin was an insert from the Maine Marriage Initiative (a group under the Stand for Marriage umbrella organization).The insert stated it was intended "to inform parishioners about the issues surrounding same-sex marriage and why the Diocese of Portland is opposed to this idea." Each detailed court cases, claims by proponents the diocese felt were unsubstantiated and potential loss of religious freedom.
Each of those six weeks, said the couples, the priest was to make reference to the insert and the petition, and at the end of the Mass parishioners stood at the back of the church, petitions in hand.
"I resent getting a bulletin and in it, it takes a stance against gay marriage. That's not the church's place. Then you walk out of the church and you have the Knights of Columbus standing there getting people to sign the petition," said Armand LaSelva.
Wow. To quote Mel Brooks: "The Inquisition, what a show..."- nothing like demanding and continually hounding one's members repeatedly, week after week!
BTW, Mr. LaSelva is described in the article as having been a past target of the Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. That in itself is an interesting story...
One wonders what the lo the long-term backlash will be against the Diocese after November's refendum is finally settled. Sounds like they are burning their bridges with many of their followers here in Maine...
Recently, I thought I addressed pretty directly how Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality was being used as a tool of the insurance industry when he engaged in wrote about how "sex change operations" were allegedly going to be a big portion of the "Obama Tranny-Care" plan for healthcare reform. Mr. LaBarbera continued his attacks on the "Obama Tranny-Care" plan on Thursday -- still based on the drummed up worry that the healthcare reform will include some form of allowance for "sex change operations." This time, instead of going after me directly, or explaining the Peter LaBarbera plan for insuring 47-million uninsured Americans, he goes after the larger target of Rachel Maddow in his piece Maddow Stumbles on Obama-Care and Transsexual 'Sex-Change' Surgeries: Barber (this time we saved Mr. LaBarbera's red, white, and blue formatting):
Maddow Misinformation: MSNBC's resident lesbian activist Rachel Maddow (left) lied about Matt Barber's press statement regarding the potential of Obama-Care to become "Tranny-Care" by mandating coverage for body-disfiguring transsexual "sex change" operations.Folks, we hope that Rachel Maddow (left) -- the lesbian MSNBan MSNBC talker who is as "out" in her homosexuality promotion as in her left-wing activism -- takes up the offer of my good friend Matt Barber and lets him appear as a guest on her show. That seems only fair after Maddow lied about Barber's statement on Obama-care and "sex-change" operations.
We understand that liberals don't want to talk (rationally, anyway) about Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual "sex-change" procedures as "health care." That is why we must discuss these awful possibilities. (By the way, even before Barber's column, below, the conservative Heritage Foundation's blog noted that President Obama's favorite think tank, the liberal-left Center for American Progress, was beating the drums for adding "sex change operations to the list of medical procedures that all health insurance policies in the nation must cover.") -- Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com
Mr. LaBarbera continues on to include a piece by his friend Matt Barber, but not before including a call to attend his Americans For Truth About Homosexuality fundraiser that's right in the middle of his piece on 
sex change operations. It's the "First let's hear a word from your sponsor moment...
BANQUET REMINDER: Culture warrior and former professional boxer Matt Barber (right) is coming to Chicago on Saturday, Oct. 24 to keynote the AFTAH fundraising banquet. The dinner is being held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL, and tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online (just note "AFTAH banquet" in the Paypal or Credit Card form) or mail your check (designate it "AFTAH Banquet") to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Please spread the word and make plans to come! E-mail aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.
Good gravy boat, so to speak. In all that coomentary, no apology from Mr. LaBarbera for his previous use of defamatory language? And hey -- What does this dinner have to do with health care reform or "sex change operations"?
Certainly, I appreciate that Peter LaBarbera references an article here at Pam's House Blend when he states "liberals" are not wanting to "rationally" (see his link related to his article's rationally, anyway phrase) discuss "Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual 'sex-change' procedures as 'health care.'" 
Really. And when we're discussing 47-million Americans without healthcare, compared to the perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 transsexuals who annually obtain genital reconstruction surgery -- or should I more correctly say 1,170 transsexuals a year -- we're talking serious money, correct?
The Liberty Council, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, and the general public should be interested in regarding the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery (also referred to as sex reassignment surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and "sex change operations"). I've linked here to two research papers by Mary Ann Horton, PhD, that goes to the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) entitled The Incidence and Prevalence of SRS among US Residents, and The Cost of Transgender Health Benefits. A summary of the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery from the website tgender.net:
The research study was undertaken fromen from 2001 through 2008 by Mary Ann Horton, Ph.D. The goal was to measure the frequency and cost of sex reassignment surgeries [SRS], and to use this information to project the total cost of Transgender Health Benefits for the employees of large companies. This data could be used to help employers estimate what it would cost if they chose to include coverage of THBs [Transgender Health Benefits] in their employee health benefit plans...
[More below the fold.]
...Dr. Horton sent surveys to all surgeons who perform SRS and related surgeries on US residents, asking how many surgeries were performed in the year 2001, and how much they cost. Both Male to Female (MTF) and Female to Male (FTM) data were collected. An excellent response rate permitted the creation of high quality data about surgeries.Approximately 1170 (all figures rounded) US transsexuals had their primary SRS in 2001. (Many went to other countries for their surgery, but the study was restricted to US resident patients, having the SRS in any country.) The average MTF cost was about $10,400, and the average FTM surgery (including top and, for those who had it, bottom surgery) was about $17,900. MTF surgeries outnumbered FTM surgeries 740 to 430, leading to an average combined cost for SRS of $12,900.
The annual cost per resident US resident for SRS was 5.3?. Combined with the cost for hormones, doctor's office visits, and therapy, the total annual cost per resident for all THBs was 17.3?. Of this, 8? or more is likely to be currently covered, and with full coverage, the employee share averages 2.6? therefore, the added cost to an employer to cover all four transgender health benefits is projected at 6.6?/year/resident or less.
Let's assume that if the US Government mandated that insurance companies covered GRS (or if you prefer, SRS), and that Dr. Horton's cost figures were now off by even a factor of 10. 
Even if the cost were off by a factor of 10, we would still be talking about $1.73 per United States resident per year . And put into an inflation calculator, that factor-of-10 cost of $1.73 per American per year in 2001 dollars would translate to $2.11 per American per year in 2008 dollars.
This is the kind of rational discussion material that we need to have when we discuss the cost of covering genital reconstruction surgeries. This is the kind of rational discussion that apparently Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, and the rest of the Liberty Council don't apparently want the American public to have. Instead, they want to try to portray the United States Government's alleged "mandating" of "sex change operations" as some sort of massive fraud, waste, and abuse. Instead, they want to stoke the fears of Americans by discussing how "Obama Tranny-Care" is going to fund "sex change operations" in the scariest and most defamatory terms possible.
Let me be blunt: Apparently, having a "rational discussion" with a conservative "Christian" -- such as Peter LaBarbera, Matt Barber, or the rest of the Liberty Council -- means "discussing" issues in the most fact free way possible. Conservative "Christians" don't need to engage in real analysis of actual available study data; those don't need to be referenced or addressed. And more broadly, we don't need to come up with a solution for what to do with 47-million uninsured Americans.
I guess when Mr. LaBarbera feels uninhibited in using defamatory language against a minority group, he doesn't have to consider the actual people he dle he directs that kind of language at as actually being human. Let me put it this way: if Peter LaBarbera used a term like the n-word to describe African-Americans with regards to healthcare, or used the other f-word to describe gay men with regards to healthcare, how Peter LaBarbera used the term tranny in his recent description of healthcare reform would be in the same vein.
Using defamatory language is apparently what a conservative "Christian" Peter LaBarbera believes a "rational" discussion of healthcare reform, "sex change operations," and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community includes. Call me crazy, but I don't agree.
I said it last Wednesday (August 5, 2009) in my piece ObamaCare Is Apparently "Obama Tranny-Care," And I'm Apparently The Poster Child Of It, and I'll repeat it here again:
Let's keep in mind what those who are bringing up "sex change operations" don't really care that much about whether or not I personally get genital reconstruction surgery paid for by the government; what these folk really want to do is derail all healthcare reform -- and if badmouthing trans people like me is how they believe they can derail it, then they're going to badmouth trans people like me.Peter is just being a tool, but what's new.
And I'll even add that I believe that Peter, Matt, and the Liberty Council are functionally tools of the Republican Party and insurance industry in trying to gin up social conservatives to work towards killing healthcare reform.
And hey, I'm sure that blindly working for the Republican Party and insurance industry is something that Jesus would do, don't you think?
~~~~~
Further, reading:
* Roger Hedgecock at WingNutDaily: Crossroads for health insurance 'reform'
* Matt Barber at Canada Free Press: Sex-Change-apalooza
* Audio from Concerned Women For America: Taxpayer Funded Sex-Change Operations Likely Under Obamacare:
(Interview of Matt Barber)
* The Right Perspective: Free Sex-Swap Ops Under ObamaCare Plan
* Parents And Friends Of Ex-Gays (PFOX): Will taxpayers pay for sex-change surgeries?
* Morgan County Citizen: Be Careful What You Wish For
From the less scary side of the issue:
* Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Norman: Mandatory sex change and other sides of healthcare reform
* />* Mercedes Allen at Bilerico: Why "Sex Change" Surgery is Medically Necessary
.
www.GayTalkRadio.org
No comments:
Post a Comment