Only One And One-Half To Five Percent

From a story in the Guardian from a couple of days ago.

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

He added that sexual abuse was far more likely to be committed by family members, babysitters, friends, relatives or neighbours, and male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children.

In a nutshell: There aren't that many, it's not just us and it's more likely to happen elsewhere.

I feel better already.

Let's see, there are something like 400,000 priests in the world. If you apply the numbers to today's population, does that mean anywhere from 6,000 to 20,000 could be involved in child sex abuse? Probably not because we've seen how well the church has been "busy cleaning its own house"--well after the fact.

Proposition 4 - Community Bill Of Rights

Rather than go through the remainder of the rights, I'm going to leave it that Proposition 4 creates more problems than it solves. It expresses some wonderful ideals and most of it is better suited as guiding principles as opposed to being codified in the city charter.

Section 74.5 wouldn't be necessary if we took a clue from Mark Fenton and considered growth management, ped/bike/auto traffic, store locations, landscaping and building design, etc., as a whole in order to make neighborhoods attractive as well as profitable.

But I'm not a lawyer nor a city resident.

Proposition 4 - Right To Affordable Preventive Healthcare

SECOND. RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE PREVENTIVE HEALTHCARE.

Residents have the right to affordable preventive healthcare. For residents otherwise unable to access such care, the City shall guarantee such access by coordinating with area healthcare providers to create affordable fee-for-service programs within eighteen (18) months following adoption of this Charter provision.

From the Envision Spokane FAQ on this right:

PREVENTIVE HEALTHCARE

Isn’t this just Socialized, Government-Run Healthcare?

No. This Right only applies to those residents currently unable to obtain healthcare from any other source, and only applies to preventive healthcare. Under the Right, the City would be tasked with working with area healthcare providers to create a program that would provide affordable fee-for-service preventive healthcare to all residents of the City. How the City creates that program in cooperation with area healthcare providers would be left up to the City Council, but it would be area healthcare providers providing that healthcare, and not the City – with the requirement that such care be affordable.

Wouldn’t this Bankrupt the City?

No. The fee-for-service provisions would enable the City to capture all of the administrative costs associated with the program.

Isn’t this Unenforceable Because “Preventive” is Not Defined?

No. The Right was drafted to give maximum flexibility to those designing the program, and thus, if the City engages in a good faith effort with area healthcare providers to define “preventive care,” then the standard within the Right will have been satisfied. In addition, the City Council would have the option to adopt implementing ordinances, which would further define the program and the standards used within that program.

***

I think another key issue here is the definition of "affordable". What is that based on? Also, there is nothing in the text that states "This Right only applies to those residents currently unable to obtain healthcare from any other source..." It specifically states "affordable preventive healthcare."

What determines a good faith effort on the part of the city? While establishing ordinances to define the program and standards used may be an option, the text states "the City shall guarantee such access by coordinating with area healthcare providers". Coordinating doesn't necessarily mean legislating. The city is not only being told what it must do but is also given the specific method for doing it. Coordinating with area health care providers satisfies the requirement of the law as to what the city must do even though such action may not guarantee access to affordable preventive health care. It's possible that the city and the health care providers may not be able to come up with an affordable fee-for-service program even if they act entirely in good faith. What happens if this is not economically feasible?

What will be the basis for determining the fee for the "affordable fee-for-service programs"? If we're talking about people who can't afford it in the first place, how do we make it affordable without the city or the health care provider(s) taking a loss?

Proposition 4 - Right To A Locally-Based Economy

I haven't paid much attention to Proposition 4--a Community Bill of Rights--since I'm not a city resident. Then a friend of mine asked, "What's up with that?" So I downloaded the complete text from the Envision Spokane site and perused the "Me", "We", "FAQ" and "Info" links for each right. Here's the first right:

FIRST - RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO A LOCALLY-BASED ECONOMY.

Residents have the right to a locally-based economy to ensure local job creation and enhance local business opportunities. The right shall include the right to have local monies reinvested locally by lending institutions, and the right to equal access to capital, credit, contracts, incentives, and services for businesses owned by Spokane residents.

From the Envision Spokane FAQ on this right:

LOCAL ECONOMY

Don’t Residents Already Have This Right by Choosing to Buy Locally?

No. Everyone can choose to purchase goods and services from local businesses, but no one can exercise that choice if there are no locally produced goods and services. An individual’s right to decide where to spend money, therefore, may become meaningless unless an environment is created in which locally-owned businesses can exist and flourish. This Right seeks to create that environment by requiring a re-circulation of local capital locally, and by providing an equal playing field for competition by locally owned businesses.

Wouldn’t the City be Required to Enforce this Right?

No. Under these Charter changes, the City could choose to take action to guarantee this right, but is not mandated to do so. City government, however, would be forced to respect this right, and if City officials violated the right by creating an unequal playing field for locally-owned businesses - by establishing conditions through contracting, bidding, or tax incentives that favor non-locally owned businesses - then owners of locally owned businesses could force the City to eliminate those policies by using this provision.

Doesn’t this Require Banks to Loan Locally?

Yes. The Right would require lending institutions to reinvest “local monies” into the local economy. What constitutes “local monies” and “local investment” would be determined if a dispute arose over a refusal by a lending institution to keep local capital local. Those terms have been left vague in the Charter provisions so that their definitions can be determined on a case-by-case basis in concrete disputes, and so that those definitions can change to keep pace with economic developments. The Right would not require banks to abandon existing lending requirements – such as ability to pay and credit worthiness – but it would require banks to place an emphasis on local re-circulation of local capital.

Would a Private Business Have to Ask for Bids from Locally-Owned Businesses?

Yes, but only if there were locally-owned businesses that satisfy the needs of the private business. This provision wouldn’t require the private business to re-design their request for bids, or request for proposals, just to qualify locally-owned businesses for the bidding process, but it would require that the private business open their bidding and proposal process to locally-owned businesses that would satisfy their needs. The Right establishes an equal opportunity playing field, which enables locally-owned businesses to compete openly, equally, and fairly with non-local businesses.

***

While the idea being promoted here is a wonderful sentiment, there are some serious flaws. First of all, "the right to a locally-based economy to ensure local job creation and enhance local business opportunities" is not mandated but "the right to have local monies reinvested locally by lending institutions" is? That is an arbitrary position with no basis in the text of the proposition.

What conditions need to be in effect so that "owners of locally owned businesses could force the City to eliminate those policies by using this provision"? Since Proposition 4 does not create a commission, body, council, or some type of determining authority, it will be left up to the courts. Is it unfair when the city gives a big box store a tax break to build an unsightly parking lot and store? I think so and when it happens every owner of a locally-owned business should go to the city council meetings and demand the same tax break. They should use their membership in the Chamber of Commerce to apply pressure. They should band together and let the city and people know they're getting screwed. Is the big box store tax break illegal? No. Does Proposition 4 make it illegal? Yes...no...maybe. The only way to find out for sure will be to bring a lawsuit.

The statement "Those terms have been left vague in the Charter provisions so that their definitions can be determined on a case-by-case basis in concrete disputes, and so that those definitions can change to keep pace with economic developments." raises all kinds of warning flags. Laws of any kind should not be purposely vague so that definitions can be determined on a case-by-case basis. Where does that determination take place? Again, this will be left up to the courts. Do you want a judge to legislate from the bench? Just pass a vague law that's open to interpretation as it tries to "keep pace with economic developments." A smart judge will entertain and grant any motion to dismiss from the defendant(s) because the law is written so vague she cannot possibly determine what constitutes “local monies” and “local investment” based on the text.

Glenn Beck Gets His Own

glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com is a parody site that came into existence on September 1st--thanks to an Internet meme--and Glenn Beck is trying to shut it down. He can't sue because it is a valid parody site and protected free speech. (You can read the essential background here.)

Instead he filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization stating that the domain name incorporates the "Glenn Beck" trademark.

The domain owner has a great response (PDF) to the complaint in which he not only picks apart Beck's legal arguments, but puts a little mustard on as well.

There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to confuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck’s own website, nor that anyone was unintentionally confused – even initially. Only an abject imbecile could believe that the domain name would have any connection to the Complainant.

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We do not have a declaration from the president of the international association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the Respondent’s website wondering “where did all the race baiting content go?” We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent’s website shut down. He wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s very rhetorical style. Beck’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent’s constitutional rights.

And so the question remains. There's a vicious rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I don't claim to know the truth -- only that the rumor floating around saying that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 should be discussed. So I'm going to do my part to try and help get to the bottom of this.

Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations? I'm not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990 - in fact, I think he didn't! But I can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?

The truth is out there. Somewhere.

Weirdness In Montana Feeds The Conspiracy

I came across this report of some strange happenings in Hardin, Montana. To me it looks like a shady outfit is trying to take advantage of a situation and hopes to land a lucrative government contract, but I've been wrong before.

BILLINGS - The Two Rivers Detention Center was promoted as the largest economic development project in decades in the small town of Hardin when the jail was built two years ago. But it has been vacant ever since.

City officials have searched from Vermont to Alaska for inmate contracts to fill the jail, only to be turned down at every turn and see the bonds that financed its construction fall into default. They even floated the idea of housing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay at the jail.

So when Hardin officials announced this week that they had signed a deal with a California company to fill the empty jail, it was naturally a cause for celebration. Town officials talked about throwing a party to mark the occasion, their dreams of economic salvation a step closer to being realized.

But questions are emerging over the legitimacy of the company, American Police Force.

Government contract databases show no record of the company. Security industry representatives and federal officials said they had never heard of it. On its Web site, the company lists as its headquarters a building in Washington near the White House that holds "virtual offices." A spokeswoman for the building said American Police Force never completed its application to use the address.

And here's more.

BILLINGS - Public records available from state and federal courts and from Web site registrations have raised new questions about a company contracted to operate a detention facility in Hardin, as well as a potential supplier of police equipment to the venture.

Local officials have released almost no details on American Police Force, and company representatives have been tight-lipped, leaving everyone from Hardin residents to a New Zealand blogger turning to the Internet for answers.

Separate research efforts by The Billings Gazette and others turned up connections and similarities between the APF Web site and sites for other little-known defense procurement companies.

All of the Web sites share similarities in design, and some include exactly the same phrases, which was a red flag to Kevin Flaherty, an American blogger living in New Zealand who writes about private military contractors.

Flaherty, owner of the Cryptogon blog, said that plans by APF to provide Hardin with a homeless shelter, computers for schools, free meals for the needy and an animal shelter "read like something out of The Onion," a satirical newspaper.

Flaherty said his online research revealed "a lot of weirdness to chase down."

Public records show that the APF Web site, americanpolicegroup.com, was first registered on May 15, about two weeks after an effort by the Two Rivers Authority to pursue prisoners from Guantanamo Bay made national headlines.

And to cap it off, it turns out Barack Obama is manning one of his many secret FEMA concentration camps with his Nazi SS Storm Battalion. (Make sure you have the comments on.)