Skip to main content

View Diary: New Information Emerges on Pope John Paul II (308 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If a Pope dies after a month, (14+ / 0-)

    there is going to be CT. And as with most CT, the lack of evidence is viewed as "evidence" supporting the theory. For some reason, CT is extremely attractive to many people, whether it is the JFK assassination, 9/11 CT, or the death of an obscure Pope.

    •  I'm sorry you're not well-read on the subject (36+ / 0-)

      There is so much information which supports Yallop's theory and Martin Lee's conclusions. I could not fit a library full of books and articles written on the subject in the space of this reply.

      •  Yeah, but if the quantity of (6+ / 0-)

        Books on a subject determined its validity, every CT would be true. I have no doubt that there are a ton of books on this subject. I am not impressed. And it is the express policy of this site to avoid discussion of CT, despite however many books are sold supporting the theory.

        •  The point was that YOU have not read any of the (28+ / 0-)

          material and therefore, are not competent to judge whether or not this is CT or not.

          •  So I gotta read every book that (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hey338Too, liberte, Anak, TimmyB, caul

            comes out on every CT imaginable, so that I am qualified to say whether I believe them? Do you read every 911 Truther book that comes out, or read all of Orly Taitz's court briefings, so that you can have an educated view as to the merits of their claims? Are you serious that we should all read books on various conspiracy theories, that this is a good use of our time?

          •  What Evidence of Murder Do You Have Other Than (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pollwatcher, native, TomP, caul

            No autopsey and no testing of his medicine for poison?

            Simply put there are hundreds of millions of people who die each year on this planet who neither have autopsies conducted nor are their medicines tested for poison.  Are we to conclude they too were all murdered?  

            •  I wrote there was only "circumstantial evidence" (10+ / 0-)

              available. But since the Vatican is not subject to any law and has immunity from all civil law enforcement, that's as good as it's going to get. The rest has to be a presumption that since Calvi, Sindona, 2 bank employees, a reporter, a lawyer and two Italian law enforcement officials were also killed to cover up the scandal, the possible then becomes probable.

              •  Not "Circumstantial Evidence" (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                native, Hugin, TomP, caul

                "Circumstantial evidence" would be if the Pope JP's medicine container was found, tested  and the test showed there was poison present inside the container.  Instead, what we have here is no medicine container located and no autopsey showing that the Pope was poisoned.  

                That isn't circumstantial evidence of poison.  That's zero evidence supporting the conclusion the Pope was poisoned.  

                The deaths of the others?  I don't know how they died.  However, let's take a great leap on logic and assume they were killed to cover-up Vatican corruption.  That fact that the Vatican is corrupt would not prove the Pope were poisoned.  The Vatican can be corrupt and the Pope still could have died from something other than poison.

                •  No, his medicine testing positive would be (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KenBee, Ginny in CO, The Walrus, WB Reeves

                  physical evidence.  I think you need to go review what different types of evidence mean.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 09:40:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Where Did You Get Your Law Degree? (0+ / 0-)

                    The place where I got mine taught me in a class entitled "Evidence" that there are two types of evidence, direct and circumstatial.  Direct evidence is when someone testifies that they either performed an act or witnesses an event.    

                    Circumstantial evidence is all other types of evidence.  Thus, physical evidence is circumstantial evidence.  

                    To use an example from law school, in a case where  cookies were stolen from a cookie jar, if I saw you take a cookie from my cookie jar and eat it, that would be direct evidence you stole cookies.  If I heard a crash, entered my kitchen and saw you there, with cookie crumbs around your mouth and my cookie jar broken on the floor, that would be circumstantial evidencen you stole cookies.


                    •  Um, we aren't talking about a court case (0+ / 0-)

                      To use the cookie jar example.  If there are cookies missing from the jar then we know, because of physical evidence, that someone has taken a cookie.  If someone destroyed the jar and there were people who would benefit from destroying the jar then there would be a small bit of circumstantial evidence that one of them destroyed the jar.

                      There has never been a court case about whether someone has been murdered, only over whether a specific person murdered them.  If you were going to have a court case over whether someone was murdered then I'd say poison in their medicine jar would be pretty damning physical evidence.

                      Not that they found that.  They didn't find anything. That's why there is circumstantial evidence of murder.

                      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:35:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Right---You Claimed I was Wrong When I Stated (0+ / 0-)

                        that a medicine bottle would be circumstantial evidence.  

                        However, I was actually correct.  Now that I have politely pointed out your error, in an old diary that no one will be reading, you continue to repeat the same error.

                        Let me be clear, most all physical evidence is circumstantial evidence.  (Note that I say most because, as an experienced lawyer, I know that there may be some exceptions that I am not aware of.)  

                        Circumstantial evidence is evidence that we must draw inferences from.  Missing bottle--the inference you seek to draw from that fact is that the bottle was intentionally destroyed because it contained poison which was used to murder the pope.  

                        If the bottle were located and found to contain poison that would produce symptoms consistent with the pope's death---the inference to be drawn is that the pope was mudrered by the poison contained in the bottle.  

                        So actually the bottle, if never found, or if found and proven to have contained poison, would be circumstantial evidence.  

                        What we are really discussing is whether the inferences drawn from the circumstantial evidence are weak or strong.  I think we would both agree that the inference would be very strong if the pope's medicine bottle were located and shown to contain poison.  Here, we have no dispute.

                        However, I do have a dispute with those who claim that a missing medicine creates an inference that the pope was poisoned.  Nor do I think that the fact the medicine bottle is missing, even when combined with the fact there was no autopsey performed, allows one to infer that the pope was poisoned.

                        Missing medicine bottle combined with no autopsey does not allow reasonable, rational people to infer murder via poisoning.  To the extent that some people are making this claim, they are simply being unreasonable and irrational.  There are many reasons that a medicine bottle might go missing after its owner dies that don't include murder by poisoning.  There are also reasons why a religious leader like a Pope would not have an autopsey performed on his corpse, that don't point to poisoning. And that a religious leader may also have enemies isn't a suprise either.  

                        Let's look at how weak or how strong the inferences are that we can draw from the fact that the Pope's medicine bottle went missing.  To me, the strongest inference is that it was thrown away after the Pope died.  Medicine isn't recycled. Instead, people are told to discard old medicine.  If you were told to clean the Pope's quarters after he died and the body was removed, what would you have done with the bottle?  Me, I most likely would have thrown it in the trash.

                        The inference you seek to draw--that the murderer or murderers came back after the pope was dead and took the bottle to dispose of it, hoping that it would not be missed, is very weak.  Can we say this every time a bottle of medicine is missing and the someone who was taking the medicine dies?  Objects that are lost, misplaced or , inadvertaintly throw away are common occurances, while those stolen by poisoners to cover up their tracks, I think we can both agree, are very unlikely.    

                        What I think happened is that the author of the poison medicine bottle theory picked the bottle as the method of administration because it was missing.  If it were not missing, then a water glass would have been picked, or the prior day's meal, or any of thousand ways poison could be administered.  However, there still would be any evidence supporting the inference that poisoning killed the pope.    

            •  Penny Lernoux (15+ / 0-)

              in her 1990 book People of God, the late Penny Lernoux also went into considerable detail about why she believed the evidence pointed to murder. Lernoux was the longtime Latin American correspondent for The Nation.

              Reasonable people may come to different conclusions, but the death was very suspicious and it is far less than reasonable to assert otherwise.

              •  What "Evidence" Did She Have of Murder? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Other than none?  Because that's exactly what no autopsey and no medicine container leaves you with, no evidence.  No evidence of murder, and certainly no evidence of poison.  

                •  Pehaps you should read her book (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, DvCM, SeaTurtle, native, G2geek, KenBee

                  and judge for yourself. I knew the author a bit, and trust her journalism, but it has been 20 years since I read it so you will have to forgive me for not remembering the details and choosing not to debate them here.

                  I wonder what knowledge, evidence and sources you bring to the conversation?

                  •  No Evidence Required by Anyone (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    native, Hugin, caul

                    You have no evidence and you can't recall any inside the book you recommend,.

                    Sorry, but why should I read it if you can't recall anything in addition to no autopsey and no medicine container?  

                    I'll tell you what I bring to the conversation, too.  I am a rational, open-minded reader of this diary.  I have reached the conclusion that the diary claims the pope was poisoned based on zero evidence.  As a rational, logical person, I can point out the simple fact that all the supposed "evidence" of poisoning presented, no autopsey conducted and no test for poison, does not come close to proving poisoning.

                    If the author of a diary makes a claim, that author is obligated to present evidence supporting his or her claim.  Here, the author has failed to meet this burden.  And I and anyone else can point this out.  

                    •  thank you (7+ / 0-)

                      for acknowledging that all you bring to the table is a persistent argumentative style and absolutely no knowledge of this or any related matter whatsoever.  

                      I don't recall what Penny Lernoux said that she believed was the cause of death but she is a reputable source. If you actually cared about the matter, you would say thanks, maybe I'll check that out.

                      I carry no brief for the diarist. But I have read Yallop and Lernoux, and for that matter historian Garry Wills (See his book Papal Sins), who thinks that the Curia at the time was a gang of liars, but does not believe that Pope John Paul I was murdered.  You, however, don't even know enough to be able to say that there are highly reputable scholars who have looked into it and not found murder.  

                      •  I'm Sorry--I Guess I Should Accept as Fact Every (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        absurd thing I read on the internet, without question.  Oh wait a minute, no I won't.  I'm not so stupid I'll ever do that.  

                        However, you unintentionally make a very good point.  

                        If the author wished to make the argument the the Vatican is a cesspool of rightwingers, corrupt bankers, and pedophiles, there is actually plenty of evidence supporting those claims.  However, she wastes her time, my time, and your time by making the unsupported claim the Pope was poisoned.  

                        So we all waste time discussing her unsupported claim, instead of focusing on what is actually supported by the facts, and what we should do about them.    

                        It's the same thing with the "9/11 Truthers."  The facts show Bush was warned of a terrorist attack, did nothing, and then used 9/11 for propaganda to march for war against Iraq.  Also, the attack was masterminded by Ossama bin Ladin, a CIA asset who we previously used to organise a international Moslem religious insurgency in Afganistan.    

                        Instead of discussing these facts and what to do about them, we discuss how whether or not explosives were planted in the buildings.  Just another distraction and   waste of time.  

                        •  that you waste your time (8+ / 0-)

                          on these things is your business. When you become obnoxious in a comment thread, that is the community's business.

                          The diarist made clear that her main source Yallop only has circumstantial evidence regarding the poison issue, so your demand for "evidence" from the diarist suggests that you did not actually read the diary before objecting to it.

                          The authors who have written about the matter demonstrate that a number of people had motive, means and opportunity to kill the pope, even if there is, and may always be, insufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  

                          That you object so mightily to something about which you know nothing says a great deal more about you than it does about anything the diarist has written.

                          •  Making Up Stuff is WRONG (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            There isn't any "evidence," direct or circumstantial, that Pope JP was poisoned to death.  That's the point.  

                            Motive, means, and opportunity to kill someone, when you have zero evidence that person was murdered, means nothing.  For example, many people had the motive, means and opportunity to kill Queen Elizabeth I of England, but we have no evidence she was poisoned to death, nevermind murdered.  

                            Many people had the motive means and opportunity to kill our first president, George Washington, but that doesn't show he was poisoned to death, nevermind murdered.

                            You see, I do know quite a bit about logic, evidence, critical thinking and reasoning.  That's why I object to this nonsense.  Here, the claim the Pope was posioned to death is unsupported by any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.          

                          •  You opine vociferously (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            SeaTurtle, G2geek, KenBee, Ginny in CO

                            on matters about which you know nothing, apparently less than nothing.

                            Nuff said.

                          •  Same as You, Concerning the Pope's Death (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:

                            However, unlike you, I can tell shit from Shinola.  

                          •  no, you can't: you just stepped in it. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ginny in CO

                            You just succeeded in making yourself out to be aggressively ignorant on the subject matter.

                            If I were you I'd at least scrub the poo off my shoes before going back inside.

                            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                            by G2geek on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:39:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It isn't always about what is known or specific (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Frederick Clarkson

                            memories of significant ideas or information from all authors. Usually it started with wondering, a question, some knowledge that raised more questions. Because the answers are not readily available does not automatically disqualify the questions. Waiting for new information, often from documents obtained thru FOIA or declassification, may be the only option.

                            Making people aware of what is known  and questionable may be useful for some, not others. The overwhelming reality of forensic, intel and other investigative work is it can involve sifting through mounds of useless stuff before you find the useful.

                            You will never convince the questioners to quit. If you don't care to join, fine. Trying to get a small determined group of people not to pursue knowledge that may reveal important actions to take is quite useless.

                            Please do find something else you are informed on to apply your knowledge of logic, evidence, critical thinking and reasoning.

                            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                            by Ginny in CO on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:02:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree, making stuff up is wrong (0+ / 0-)

                            so kindly point out where the diarist made a positive claim that John Paul I was poisoned. While you're at it, how about pointing to where the diarist "made up" anything, as opposed to simply reporting on actual events and what others have written about them.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 12:48:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Persons close to the Vatican (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Ginny in CO, lotlizard, SeaTurtle

                        have written me and stated that most definitely Luciani was murdered. Infact, it is a settled matter for Italians and other Europeans.  The enduring problem with Vatican affairs is that, other than the source for Nuzzi's book, "Vatican SpA", all negative information comes from anonymous sources.

              •  thanks for the ref to Lernoux's book, FC, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Frederick Clarkson, G2geek, KenBee

                this is it?
                People of God

                I have not run across her before, so thank you for introducing me to her and her work.

                I belong to the “US” of America, not the “ME,$,ME,$,ME,$,ME,$” of America!

                by SeaTurtle on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 03:40:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that's the one (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SeaTurtle, G2geek, KenBee

                  He book Cry of the People is also a must read.

                  •  thanks, I think! :-) (4+ / 0-)

                    today I was tidying my bedroom and the several piles of books on one side table was really high ..... I was wondering if it was going to fall over!  A lot relate to these topics and although read are still there for reference!  Oi Vey!  

                    Anyway, you now have given me some new resources to add to the pile! tx.

                    I belong to the “US” of America, not the “ME,$,ME,$,ME,$,ME,$” of America!

                    by SeaTurtle on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 04:28:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've had that pile in the bedroom, plus (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      bigger ones in the living room and study...Those are just the ones I'm trying to read. The ones I've read and keep for reference are usually on the book shelves. In April they all got packed for the move and are waiting patiently to be unpacked.  ; )

                      Excuse the rant here, just have to observe that I learned from my very intelligent father not to trust people who won't read books.  He does read a lot of weekly magazines and the paper. Since the internet became available, he doesn't even check out any foreign papers or magazines.

                      Mostly, he doesn't read or trust books. I often have read 2 or 3 carefully selected books (I love Amazon's features and reviews - gives me an idea of what my knowledge gaps are and if the book/s can fill them) that are always noted for the amount and quality of sources, references, etc. while he has read none and just scoffs at the information. PhD who did Corp R & D not Ivory Tower. When he said just because a person had a PhD in the field didn't mean much, I looked at the doctor of physical chemistry, nodded and changed the subject from financial history going back 2000 years to the lunch menu.

                      IMHO, the real proof of obstinate ignorance, despite intelligence, is when you are asked to condense the knowledge gleaned from several complex, lengthy and well resourced books into a blog comment. One of these days I'm going to make a doc with all the search engines :)

                       I remember a comment in some article about an editor for a NY publication who had earned a year sabbatical. Caribbean? Rockies? Pacific? Nope, the NY public library main branch. I still fantasize. Although today, with Kindle and other download options you could have the books and the beach :)

                      Ok, I feel better, hope you don't mind the venting.

                      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                      by Ginny in CO on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:39:05 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Frederick is one of the most knowledgeable people (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee, SeaTurtle

                .... in America on the subject of the religious right.

                He's a careful scholar who does not jump to conclusions.  His books and articles are foundational for anyone studying the religious right, and his analyses are a core part of the overall analysis of the religious right.

                So, word to the wise:  If you want to argue with him about this stuff, "good luck," and be sure to take out "look like a fool insurance" because you'll need it.  

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:36:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Vatican and Catholic affairs have a distinct (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ginny in CO, Frederick Clarkson

                  set of journalists with access to high Church officials. Frederick Clarkson, although knowledgeable about the Religious Right, is not one of them.

                  •  i'm sure the Vatican screens journalists... (0+ / 0-)

                    .... pretty closely before granting them access to high Catholic officials.   In which case I would not expect that someone who is a ferociously capable critic of the religious right, would get access.  

                    Not having access to powerful people does not disqualify someone from analyzing their behaviors.  

                    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:04:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  If the person is a person of power, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TimmyB, caul

              with natural enemies, then yes, each of those deaths spawns a CT following.

              •  All You Need is a Well Known Person (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                caul, doc2

                When a well known person dies, you can make some cash by claiming they had one or more enemies who murdered them in an undetected way.  

                On the other hand, you can also make money by claiming they faked their deaths and are still alive and roaming the Earth.  

                No evidence of either claim is required.

            •  At least in most states, an autopsy is required .. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TimmyB, G2geek

              when an apparently healthy person dies unexpectedly.  I would imagine that the same is probably true in most developed countries.  That certainly doesn't prove that he was murdered, but it seems somewhat curious that the Vatican refused to have an autopsy, or even a toxicology screen, performed, since that would have prevented the controversy.

              Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

              by leevank on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:32:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Healthy' Person Who Takes Medicine? (0+ / 0-)

                The missing evidence is claimed to be a medicine bottle.  The fact that there is a medicine bottle suggests the person wasn't healthy, but was sick instead.    

                •  Oh, come on! (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SeaTurtle, Nowhere Man, G2geek, lotlizard

                  Lots of healthy people take medicine.  Believe me, the fact that you take one or two pills doesn't mean there won't be an autopsy if you die in your sleep some night.  I expect that most 65 year olds take some kind of medication for something or other, but that doesn't mean that if they die in bed, there won't be an autopsy.

                  Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

                  by leevank on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 04:02:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  If it was the Vatican's practise to autopsey Popes (0+ / 0-)

                then I would agree with you that not doing an autopsey would be suspicious.  However, we don't know that.

                Instead, as the Catholic Church believes the Pope is God's chosen representative on Earth, I'm willing to bet the Church has never had an autopsey for a pope, and most likely never will.  The pope is the most God like person on Earth and having a doctor mutilate him after death would not be part of the long established religious rituals.

                These guys are guided by religion, not by what Western countries do.

        •  Just what kind of doc are you? huh?! (20+ / 0-)

          Let me connect the dots;

          1)You claim to be a doctor.
          2) Pope JP1 was killed by poison.
          3) The poison was in his medicine.
          4) The medicine was prescribed by a doctor.
          5) John Paul 1 was followed by JP2 and you are doc2!

          You'll never get away with it!  The Illuminati will hunt you down and make you pay!

      •  No Evidence Pope JP was Murdered Unless (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doc2, Tonga 23, ivorybill, caul

        we are to believe that everyone who dies without an autopsy being conducted and all of that deceased's medicine bottles were not tested for poison were also murdered.  So using the same evidence presented showing the Pope was murdered, we can conclude that there are millions of people being murdered in this country every year who's deaths were officially listed as being caused by natural causes.  Either that, or the facts presented are extremely weak evidence of murder.      

        Shit, if every one of Pope Pj's medicince bottles were tested for poison, and none was found, one could switch the posion claim to one of his favorite foods or claim poison gas was pumped into his bedroom at night.  Or why don't we go full absurd and claim aliens from another planet, or maybe the Easter Bunny killed him?  

        In sum, you can make up anything you wish, because there is no evidence a rational person could use to conclude the Pope was murdered.  

        •  There aren't millions of apparently HEALTHY ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, G2geek

          people who die unexpectedly in bed at the age of 65 who don't have autopsies, at least not in the United States, and I don't expect in most of Europe either.  So it's not terribly relevant that lots of people die without being autopsied.

          Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

          by leevank on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:38:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Healthy People Don't Have Missing Medicine Bottles (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, caul

            Because "healthy" people don't take medicine.  Instead, sick people take medicine.  

            However, the fact that no autopsey was taken is, as you write, "not terribly relevant."  I agree, it isn't relevant to proving poisoning.  It neither proves or disproves poisoning.  Same with a missing medicine bottle.  The fact that there is a missing medicine bottle neither proves nor disproves poisoning.  Again, it isn't relevant.

    •  yeah, doc2, and those who thought that there (29+ / 0-)

      were no WMD's in Iraq were CT, too?  It depends on what you want to see and how hard others don't want you to see it.  Valerie Plame and her husband certainly suffered a lot because they had the courage to deny the BushCorps lies about this, didn't they.  But truth has come out about that now, hasn't it?

      So, in order to sift through what is CT and what is truth that has been covered up, you need to inform yourself of the facts.

      You are dismissing something without understanding the facts that are being presented to you.  If this diary did not have links to credible sources, then I would agree with you.

      See my comment upthread with plenty of links to credible research on the whole issue.

      I belong to the “US” of America, not the “ME,$,ME,$,ME,$,ME,$” of America!

      by SeaTurtle on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:11:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A government lying to further its (5+ / 0-)

        War aims is not unprecedented, and hardly qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". Whenever a politician or person in power dies suddenly, a cottage industry of CT promoters is born. It was 100% predictable that these books on the death of the Pope would be written. Why you guys insist on talking about it here, in a community devoted to electing more and better Democrats, is the question.

        •  A pope being assassinated is far from (21+ / 0-)

          unprecedented, and for large chunks of the history of the church was the norm.  The church is a highly secretive organization, it's far from CT to look at reports of a secretive organization committing crimes.

          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:30:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And popes being poisoned (Borgias, Medicis et al) (27+ / 0-)

          is not unprecedented either. The "homeoffice" of the Religious Right is the Vatican. No other group in the Religious Right gets the media attention, has the clout, and has almost unlimited financial resources as the U.S. episcopate. Since the Vatican controls the bishops and the bishops are busting their butts to elect Republicans is the only reason I write.

          •  If I may I would like to offer some comments that (10+ / 0-)

            may clarify this is issue a bit. First Karol Wojtyla was not an obscure bishop in a poor country. He was the Price Archbishop of Krakow and the top Catholic prelate in Gdansk the industrial heartland of Poland. Second because of the Polish thing he was widely known in Chicago, which has a huge Polish population and was politically very well connected in the US in the 1970s. He was an observer at Vatican II and a critic. As for Opus De his political connections with American congressman and the polish american political organizations would be more important.

            The Religious Right in this country is a protestant thing. It conflicts with the social teaching of the catholic church ay every level. Read what JPII and Benny the 16th have to say about capitalism and trade unions and feeding the poor. Paul Ryan's budget proposals are denounced in Rome by theologians conservative and liberal as are Republicans thinking on climate change and immigration. The only room for agreement between the two are on abortion and education funding.

            I read Yallop's book and I want to be convinced. But there is a lot of stuff about secret masonic orders and Italian banking scandals fro it to be more than just CT. I would welcome more research into this because the death of John Paul I and the circumstances surrounding it stink to high heaven. John Paul I was a holy man who believed that church teachings needed to be more pastoral, more focused on the lives of regular folks. And he knew from the example of his own family the toll taken by the churches teaching on birth control. He would have been a quieter gentler John XXIII. He would have supported and built upon Vatican II. The Roman Catholic church would be very different.

            Growing up in Chicago you see the Catholic Church get a lot of media attention. Chicago is a Catholic town. Chicago is also an immigrant town and most immigrants to Chicago are Catholic. John Paul II was a known quantity and when he visited he was welcomed as an old friend. Not that I was a supporter but many people in Chicago knew him before he was an bishop. And they loved him even when they disagreed with him. But to conflate even conservative catholicism with the religious right is a mistake.

            •  On the world stage, Wojtyla was an obsure (12+ / 0-)

              churchmen and Poland was an impoverished nation, certainly too poor to provide a prelate with the resources for travel to the Pacific rim, multiple tours of Europe and U.S.

              During the Communist occupation, the Communist Party had final say over who would become a bishop. The Church proposed names which were rejected or accepted. Wojtyla became metropolitan archbishop of Krakow after six other names were rejected because, according to the Polish journalist Kwitney, the head of the Communist Party wanted Wojtyla precisely because of his reputation of "going along to get along."

              Wojtyla was only one of hundreds of prelates in attendance at the Second Vatican Council and none of the histories written about the council say he played any notable role.

              The Religious Right in this country is not a "protestant thing." No group of protestants could have gotten, earlier this year, legislation introduced in both the House and Senate, a congressional hearing, many states attorneys general filing suit on their behalf and three of the four GOP candidates back the bishops' position on something as banal and acceptable to the U.S. population as contraceptives being covered by health insurance.

              Forget all the "pretty" words. Pope Benedict invited Ettore Gotti Tedeschi to co-author his encyclical Caritas in Veritate concerning financial ethics. When as president of the Vatican Bank Gotti Tedeschi tried to implement the pope's own words in the Vatican, he was brutally ousted.

              Does it matter that the bishops write a critique of Ryan's budget proposals when they compare Obama to Hitler and Stalin and call him a despot among other names? (See my diary:

              •  Well first of all (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP, G2geek

                Wojtyla was appointed bishop by a cardinal who worked with the Soviet authorities Cardinal Wyszyński. It was and is common practice in Europe to give the government power of approval over appointments. This tradition dates back to the Dark Ages and cause many bloody disputes and wars. But as I indicated before he had a lot of powerful friends and allies in America, especially in the Polish American community. They were quite generous and in fact funded his extensive travels. But to write off Poland as weak and insignificant in Eastern Europe is to fundamentally misunderstand the history of the 20th century. Poland was a breadbasket for Eastern Europe as well as a heavy industry powerhouse. The Gdansk shipyards built much of the Soviet navy and was one of the largest producers of steel in the world. Poland's border with Germany was a constant source of worry to the leadership of the Soviet Union after WWII. Poland has been hotly disputed territory since the 1500s and for good reason.

                And yes there is a  difference between the bishops criticizing Ryan's budget proposal and a single bishop calling Obama a Nazi. I did not say that the church was right, just more complicated than you seem to understand. Just because some conservative lay Catholics cooperate with the Religious Right does not mean that the Religious Right is run be the Catholic church. For one thing the Church believes that most of those in the religious right should become catholic. Second the church does not recognize many of the rights enshrined in the constitution and would prepare to write one for us. Like they did in Ireland in the 1930s.

                The President is trying to force Roman Catholic institutions to do things they do not want to do. Like many times in history the argument is "Is the Church subject to secular control?" And the churches answer is no. like when priests refused to sign an oath of loyalty to the French government during the French Revolution. The church is looking out for what they see as their own interests. Like when they made an agreement with Hitler to keep quiet as long as they could run their own schools and continue to receive taxpayer subsides.

                •  Your command of history is wide (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and accurate.  I don't agree, however, with all your conclusions.    It's not just some Catholic secular leaders in our country cooperating with the religious right.  A number of the Bishops have pushed the exact same agenda.  The Church does not run the religious right, but they are on a parallel track heading in the same direction, cooperating with each other when necessary.   (Of course, the religious right does not consider Catholics as Christians, and Catholic leadership maintains that only members of the Catholic faith in good standing will have eternal life. But each group serves a purpose presently for the other.)

                  Yes, priests resisted the government in France, as some did in Germany and in most worn torn countries.  Priests end up on the winning and losing sides of political conflicts, and on the side of the people and others on the side of power.  But more often than not, the Church sides with a right wing type of power.

                  "Since when did obeying corporate power become patriotic." Going the Distance

                  by Going the Distance on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 11:14:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The only reason protestant evangelicals (6+ / 0-)

                Wouldn't have lobbyists putting up a bill against the ACA contraception provisions is that they don't run hospitals or universities that employ/serve the public at large.

                The religous right in this country is most definitely a Southern/rural thing, it is based in states traditionally hostile to Catholicism. The fact that the Catholic Bishops have so much influence in Congress is that they have formed alliances with evangelical antiabortion groups and the Fox News crowd.

                "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                by Alice in Florida on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:57:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And now both (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Don midwest, G2geek, KenBee

                  Catholics and Southern Baptists believe God Commands they vote for a Mormon to be POTUS just because God has to hate the half-black guy. My God, that's some seriously twisted-up theological porridge from notable child abusers, polygamists and wife-beaters!

                  •  prez candidate santorum catholic (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    just sayin...

                    From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!...Langston Hughes

                    by KenBee on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 11:34:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, sure they (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Alice in Florida

                      tried to go for the gold. Deal is, Santorum didn't make it to the finals. Nor did Bachmann or anyone else from the mainstream theocratic wannabes. Apart from Paul and Gingrich the R field was a fine collection of religio wingnuts vying for the title of Most Likely To Abolish The Constitution.

                      Mitt bought the nomination as just another punch in his Mormon ticket to Planetary Godhood, so the rest of the ostensibly Christian contenders have to swallow their revulsion and trust him to make good on their shared goal to abolish the US of A and institute the Holy Mammon Empire [rhymes with Mormon, but more specific].

                      And to me, the creepiest part of it is that Mitt - while as sleazy-slick and full of lies as any politician ever - is probably the sanest of the bunch.

                •  I guess you never heard of Utah? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  The fundy right has joined the Catholic right big time on many issues and they've buried the hatchet on old rivalries just like they did with the Israeli far right and conservative Mormons. They're all of a piece now, joined at the hip to defeat liberals of all pursuasions.

                  America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

                  by cacamp on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 09:44:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Regarding the religious right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              You are absolutely correct that the Religous right arises from protestant evangelical sects that have traditionally been quite hostile to the Catholic church, except that they are now more and more often joining forces to fight abortion, birth control and marriage equality. While it's wrong to say the Bishops are part of the religous right, they have become close allies in recent years.

              "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

              by Alice in Florida on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 11:58:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's incorrect (11+ / 0-)

                If you're old enough to remember, evangelicals had little interest in political activism before Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. It was the Catholic neocons, let by Paul Weyrich, who hired Falwell, chose the name the "Moral Majority" and set down his agenda and methods.

                Also, if you're old enough to remember, evangelicals had little interest in abortion and birth control (marriage equality wasn't even a subject back then) before the organization of the Religious Right.

                You're correct that there was a mutual animosity between Catholics and evangelicals before the 1970s. The creation of "issues" such as abortion were carefully selected and engineered to bring both Catholic and Protestant conservatives into a single voting bloc.

                The bishops are not only members, but are the leaders of the Religious Right since they expound the chosen "issue(s)" of each election year e.g. "Religious Freedom" in 2012.

                •  Evangelicals had little interest in politics (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TomP, G2geek

                  untill they understood that Jimmy Carter was a liberal. They were late to the antiabortion movement in part because they believed that evangelicals should stay out of politics and concentrate on preparing for the Lord return. Why did Paul Weyrich recruit jerry Falwell. Because he could not find any priest to head the movement. The Catholic hierarchy in America at the time was more attuned to the reforms and values of Vatican II. Protestants did not want to be told they could not use birth control. Evangelicals focus was on American politics, Catholics more concerned globally.

                  Reagan appealed to blue collar workers Catholic and Protestant alike. But he never really embraced either side. People like Weyrich (a lay Catholic) were only interested in furthering a conservative revolutionary movement. I think you fail to understand that over the past 35 years the political and social attitudes of the bishops has swung further right. But when the religious right was created the leadership of the Catholic church was pretty liberal, at laest in Catholic terms.

                  The entry of Catholic bishops into American electoral politics is a very bad thing. But it is also a very new thing. And I think you will find that it is driving many catholics from the church. If the bishops are not careful they will find that American Catholicism has turned into French Catholicism where less than 5% consider themselves catholic.

                  •  Weyrich recruited Falwell because the neocons (7+ / 0-)

                    needed conservative Protestants to vote Republican. There were never enough Catholics to carry a national election.

                    Catholic bishops appointed by Roncalli and Montini were politically active but in the cause of labor, civil rights, anti-nuclear and for peace especially in Latin America during the Reagan administration. JPII changed the U.S. episcopate from liberal to tea party.

                    •  As a former Catholic it saddens me to see what (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SeaTurtle, G2geek, cacamp, KenBee

                      has happened to the Catholic Church. In Chicago there was a cardinal named Joseph Bernardine. He was tolerant open and kind. He also faced the beginning of the child abuse scandal head on. He pursued a policy of openness and asked for forgiveness for the Church. He also instituted a policy that any priest accused of abuse be turned over to the authorities. Instead of denying the problem he worked with groups like SNAP. And he was over ruled by Rome. They stopped him cold in his tracks. He was also the president of the US Conference of Bishops when they publicly denounced Reagan's nuclear weapons policy.

                      Of course after he died he was replaced by an arch conservative Francis George who has made a mockery of Bernardine's legacy.

                •  Exactly! (7+ / 0-)

                  The BBC's estimable documentarian Adam Curtis wrote on his blog about how and why Weyrich ginned up the religious right on his blog. There's video at the link as well.

                  One of the leaders of the New Right was a man called Paul Weyrich, and in the wake of the student revolts of 1968 he infiltrated the meetings of left-wing grassroots organisations. He was astonished by the amount of planning and tactics that he saw and he realised that the conservative movement in America was completely unaware of all this. The right, he said, were still trapped by the belief that people would simply vote for them because they were right.

                  So the New Right set out to organise a new grassroots movement that could counter the left's success. They had all sorts of discussions and during one of them Weyrich pointed out that there were millions of Americans who were socially and culturally very conservative but who never voted. They were the religious fundamentalists and the evangelicals - a vast segment of the population who believed that they should never get involved in politics.

                  Weyrich realised that if you could activate the fundamentalists and the evangelicals then the New Right could create an incredibly powerful force


                  "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

                  by cotterperson on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:41:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the trick is to spot today's young Weyriches... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lotlizard, cotterperson

                    ... and do whatever it takes to neutralize them and prevent them becoming tomorrow's grownup and dangerous Weyriches.

                    Think of how different the world would be today if someone had managed to get the original Paul Weyrich stoned on pot and turned him into a hippy, or persuaded him to join the Hare Krishnas instead, or ... (fill in the blanks: add your own scenarios here).

                    For that matter think of how different the world would be today if someone had managed to get to Newt Gingrich when he was young, and persuade him to take enough LSD to dissolve his narcissistic ego before it metastasized into a national tumor.

                    Early intervention works!  

                    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 09:00:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  evangelicals had little interest (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  in politics from the '20's to the 80's. Prior to that they were a major force. They weren't created out of whole cloth by the catholics, or Reagan, or Wayrich.

                  Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                  by nickrud on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:50:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  this disease runs in waves. (0+ / 0-)

                    The rabid religious right is a national affliction that apparently comes and goes in waves.  

                    We may be nearing the end of the current wave, or it may be that there are further steps needed to take before it recedes again and goes back to its dormant phase.  

                    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 09:01:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I think you have it backwards (0+ / 0-)

                  If it was a Catholic who joined forces with Fallwell to create the religous right it must have been because he understood that he needed Baptists, not Catholics, to  be the foot soldiers of the movement.

                  And the movement would have gone nowhere if there hadn't been an audience for it. The religous right was based on the "Southern Strategy" and the antiabortion movement found a receptive audience on white southerners afraid of being out-reproduced by black people.

                  The Bishops alliance with the religous right is mostly recent.

                  "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                  by Alice in Florida on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:15:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Yes allies, but only as long as suits the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hillbilly Dem

                Catholic church. They could just as easily change sides when it suits them.

            •  Conservative Catholicism often enough teams up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Don midwest

              … with the evangelical Right and the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) when it comes to politics.

              Happened (and is still happening) in Hawaii in a very blatant way regarding same-sex marriage.

              The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

              by lotlizard on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:59:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Why? For the same reasons you wrote about (17+ / 0-)

          in your excellent diaries on Santorum:
          Santorum wants our porn now.  Do these people even know what it means to be an American?

          I knew that they'd eventually go after porn. But I thought that they would stay with the War on Women a little longer.  I thought that they would go after women wearing pants in the workplace, and then start talking about repealing the 19th Amendment (which gave women the right to vote).  I thought porn had more time.  I was wrong.

          In terms of how many people look at it, porn is America's most popular product. You fuck with our porn, you are fucking with the wrong people.  If Rick Santorum hadn't crossed the line before, he certainly has now.  We are proud Americans. We masturbate, and we vote!*

          *Not at the same time, of course.

          (funny last two lines, btw.)

          Rick Santorum uses own dead child to slander the pro-choice movement

          Keep in mind, his son was born during the second trimester, so would have been in the Roe v. Wade abortion window.  Santorum took a stupid statement made by one guy - a guy who works for Fox News! - and spinning it as representing pro-choice people who think that dead second-trimester fetuses are just peachy. He turned his own personal tragedy into a lie, and then ran with it in order to score points in the culture wars and gain more support among the more extreme anti-abortionists.

          He took the most personal thing, and is using it as chum in the hunt for a friggin' political office.

          I agree with both of your diaries.  However to truly understand Santorum's 'culture wars' you have to understand that he is an uber conservative member of Opus Dei and is promoting AT EVERY TURN in Congress the Vatican's very regressive culture war perspective.  

          So, these discussions about what is happening in the Vatican and what happened have immediate impact because the Vatican has people here, Santorum a prime example, who are following their uber conservative culture wars philosophy.  Not only no abortion, no contraception, for example.  And forget about it if you are gay.

          If we are willing to have our abortion, voting, and even porn rights taken away from us by this sharia like movement, then don't make the connection.  For those of us who want women to continue to have the freedom that has been earned and other rights, it is crucial that we inform ourselves with what we are dealing.

          You ask:

          Why you guys insist on talking about it here, in a community devoted to electing more and better Democrats, is the question.
          Because we are fighting the literal representatives of the Opus Dei faction of the Vatican in our presidential and congressional races.  

          THAT'S WHY.

          I belong to the “US” of America, not the “ME,$,ME,$,ME,$,ME,$” of America!

          by SeaTurtle on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Movements to support conservatives and to destroy, (19+ / 0-)

          attack, defeat, eliminate liberals are not limited by national borders.  

          The Catholic Church has a long history of supporting conservative politicians within the USA and right-wing dictators elsewhere.  The church opposes liberal policies and politicians in many ways.  The church has been shown to be involved in shady financial dealings and the sex scandals are by now well-accepted as fact.

          The sex scandals show that the church is not morally opposed to more liberal policies - like choice or marriage equality - but only politically motivated to continue to push conservatism while going to great lengths to protect true moral degenerates while exposing ever more children to dangerous life-ruining predators.  These actions extended to the highest levels of the church.

          How anyone can claim that this information is not pertinent to a site dedicated to electing "more and better Democrats" is beyond me. . . .  

          The Catholic Church is an enormous political entity and influence throughout the world.  It would seem obvious why such things are pertinent here.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:07:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yucatan Man, you said it better than I did. (7+ / 0-)
          •  Catholicism is political and has been since (12+ / 0-)

            Constantine. The Catholic church believes religious freedom is bad because "error has no right". The Catholic church believes that taxpayers should fully fund roman catholic schools and ban all others. The catholic church believes freedom is speech is harmful and you should not be able to criticize your political leadership. They believe in a state religion as long as it is Roman Catholicism.

            Here in the United States they accommodate themselves to the realities of life in a multicultural society. But if they got the chance the would ban Protestantism in a heartbeat. In their perfect world only catholicism would be allowed. And elected officials would submit themselves to church authority. I am a former catholic who is now an agnostic. I am not hostile to religion even Roman Catholicism. But if you want to know how Catholic leaders really feel when they are in a position to do things their way just look at the modern history of the Republic of Ireland. The Catholic church stopped a program in 1948 that was mean to provide health care to mothers and children because it was seen as interfering with the role of the church to give advice to families.

            •  YucatanMan and kmackle know what happens in (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan, cotterperson, G2geek, KenBee

              countries where the Catholic Church has great influence and power and should be read by Americans, especially Republicans, who think that theocracy is a desirable form of government.

              •  Thank you for that kind comment (6+ / 0-)

                I remember my mother and father telling me stories about how stifling the church was on daily life in Ireland. At the dances the priest patrolling the outside of the hall looking for young people kissing. The corporal punishment handed out by school teachers. The condemnation and humiliation of the poor. And to then as an adult find out about the horrors of the Magdalena schools and the interference of bishops in Irish politics. The interference in referendums on divorce. The condemnation of Irish TV host Gay Burne when, on late night TV he showed the Irish nation what a condom was and how to use it. And the continued arrogance of the top cardinal in Ireland Sean O'Brady and his refusal to resign despite being in over his head in a number of child abuse cases where he personally assisted in the cover-up.

                •  The church was a vital part of the corraling of (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  SeaTurtle, Noelle in MPLS, G2geek, AoT, KenBee

                  the Mayan people in Yucatan, herding them into disease spreading "reductions" (villages) and greatly contributing to the 90% loss of population after the Spanish invasion.  

                  The Inquisition came to the Yucatan as well and resulted in the wholesale destruction of every Mayan codice (book or scroll) that the friars could put their hands upon, along with the torture, crippling and murder of thousands upon thousands.  With the priests forbidden to draw blood or break skin, they devised horrific bone-breaking, socket-popping, muscle-tearing tortures that left victims to starve since they couldn't even feed themselves afterwards.

                  The carnage was so great that local Conquistadores complained to the king that the Church was reducing the number of slaves available to work.  Go figure.

                  The last of the revolutions was a peasant rebellion against the church and it's role in subjugating native peoples for nearly 4 centuries.

                  As recent actions have shown, the church is ready and willing to stomp down kindness and charity whenever possible (censure of the American nuns' org, persecution of the indigenous priests who meld Catholic rite with historic ritual, etc).   Anything that brings comfort to the poor is strictly eschewed by the male hierarchy.

                  Ratzinger was head, after all, of the Office of the Inquisition (no lie).  The irony is that he's not as popular as the pope who knew about, and made deals regarding, the murder of a pope and his political ambitions for various nations.  

                  It wasn't so much that JPII wanted to bring Christianity to Communist nations, but that he wanted to bring Catholicism to conservative peoples to refill the organization's fundraising abilities and need for warm bodies. (IMHO)

                  "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                  by YucatanMan on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 03:22:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  It appears to be an agent of evil also (0+ / 0-)

            The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

            by a2nite on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Because the Pope installs Bishops and (5+ / 0-)

          Cardinals in this country who are bent on destroying our liberties.

          "Since when did obeying corporate power become patriotic." Going the Distance

          by Going the Distance on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "An obscure Pope" who was only obscure (4+ / 0-)

      because he didn't live to have much of a name. Sort of like condemning the dead for not living, isn't it?

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 09:54:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site