Rad Geek People's Daily

I got this story by email from a private correspondent. Right now, most of the news stories on this terror-murder, and the homophobic victim-blaming by the government police’s investigator on the case, are printed in Spanish. So I’ve translated the story into English, below.

Jorge Steven L?@c3;b3;pez Mercado was an openly gay 19 year old, well known in the local gay community in Cayey, Puerto Rico. R.I.P.

Solicitan relevo de agente investigador en asesinato de joven homosexual en Cayey

Portavoces de Puerto Rico Para Tod@s y la Fundaci?@c3;b3;n de Derechos Humanos exigieron hoy una investigaci?@c3;b3;n libre de prejuicios por el asesinato de Jorge Steven L?@c3;b3;pez Mercado, un joven homosexual de 19 a?@c3;b1;os, que se presume fue víctima de un crimen de odio y cuyo cuerpo fue encontrado el viernes calcinado, decapitado y desmembrado de brazos y piernas en el área de Guavate, en Cayey.

El líder activista y portavoz de Puerto Rico Para Tod@s, Pedro Julio Serrano, denunci?@c3;b3; que el agente investigador del caso, Ángel Rodríguez Col?@c3;b3;n, realiz?@c3;b3; expresiones inconcebibles, inmorales y antiéticas, referentes al homicidio.

“Este tipo de personas cuando se meten a esto y salen a la calle saben que esto les puede pasar”, expres?@c3;b3; el agente Rodríguez a un noticiario televisivo (Univisi?@c3;b3;n).

“Es inconcebible que el agente investigador aduzca que la víctima bus?@c3;b3; ser asesinado. Es como el abusrdo y falaz argumento de que una mujer se busc?@c3;b3; ser violada por llevar falda corta. Exigimos la renuncia al caso de este agente investigador y que el Superintendente Figueroa Sancha ponga en su lugar a alguien capacitado que investigue este vil asesinato, por prejuicios de clase alguna”, manifest?@c3;b3; Serrano.

Por su parte, la licenciada Ada Conde, presidenta de la Fundaci?@c3;b3;n de Derechos Humanos, le solicit?@c3;b3; a Figueroa Sancha y al Secretario de Justicia, Antonio Sagardía, que cumplan con la ley y establezcan mecanismos para que se investiguen este tipo de casos y que se procesen como crímenes de odio.

— Bárbara J. Figueroa Rosa, Primera Hora (2009-11-15): Solicitan relevo de agente investigador en asesinato de joven homosexual en Cayey

Translated into English:

They call for relieving the agent investigating the murder of a homosexual youth in Cayey

Today, spokespeople from Puerto Rico Para Tod@s [Puerto Rico for Everyone] and Fundaci?@c3;b3;n de Derechos Humanos [the Foundation for Human Rights] demanded a prejudice-free investigation into the murder of Jorge Steven L?@c3;b3;pez Mercado, a homosexual youth of 19, who is presumed to have been the victim of a hate crime and whose body was discovered Friday burnt, decapitated, and dismembered of arms and legs in the area of Guavate, in Cayey.

The activist leader and spokesman for Puerto Rico Para Tod@s, Pedro Julio Serrano, denounced the fact that the investigating agent for the case, Ángel Rodríguez Col?@c3;b3;n, made unthinkable, immoral and unethical statements referring to the homicide.

When this type of people get involved in this and go out in the street they know this kind of thing can happen, Agent Rodriguez told a TV news program (Univisi?@c3;b3;n).

It’s unthinkable that the investigating agent would allege that the victim was looking to get murdered. It’s like the absurd and fallacious argument that a woman is looking to get raped by putting on a short skirt. We demand that this investigating agent get off the case and that Superintendent Figueroa Sancha replace him with someone capable of investigating this vile murder, without any kind of prejudice, said Serrano.

For her part, the lawyer Ada Conde, president of Fundaci?@c3;b3;n de Derechos Humanos, called on Figueroa Sancha and the Secretary of Justice, Antonio Sagardía, to comply with the law and establish mechanisms for investigating this type of case and processing them as hate crimes.

— Bárbara J. Figueroa Rosa, Primera Hora (2009-11-15): Solicitan relevo de agente investigador en asesinato de joven homosexual en Cayey

• Like maggots to carrion. John Markley, The Superfluous Man (2009-10-27). Ever find yourself in a position where you think most of the people who share your opinion on the proper course of action are utterly repulsive? Watching the response to the arrest of Roman Polanski, as his apologists rally to defend him against the unsophisticated flyover country types who think… (Linked Sunday 2009-11-15.)

Happy Sunday, everyone. Time to get Shameless.

What have you been up to this week? Write anything? Leave a link and a short description for your post in the comments. Or fire away about anything else you might want to talk about.

• This Is the Modern World. Jesse Walker, Jesse Walker: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts. (2009-11-06). This month's edition of Cato Unbound tackles one of the most interesting questions historians have: Where did modernity come from? Stephen Davies leads off with a revision and synthesis of several classical liberal theories about the issue; his essay has attracted a friendly critique from Jack Goldstone, one of the… (Linked Friday 2009-11-13.)
• Queer Victorians. Jesse Walker: Reason Magazine articles and blog posts. (2009-11-13). It turns out that there was far more public discussion of same-sex conduct in the early Victorian period than previously thought. Perhaps not surprising that so much was missed: the earlier studies were based on press indexes and keyword searches. But most of the words that we use to describe homosexuality (among them, “homosexuality”) date from the medicalizing discourse in the late Victorian period. It’s not that it wasn’t being talked about; it’s that researchers were searching in the wrong language. (Linked Friday 2009-11-13.)
• Uncle Sam Goddamn by Brother Ali. Kelly W. Patterson, Las Vegas Anarchoblogs (2009-11-12). This might just be the most kick ass song ever recorded. It’s a show tune, but the show ain’t been written for it yet. Hopefully, a team of writers somewhere is working on that. (Linked Friday 2009-11-13.)
• Re: Daddy Issues. cherylcline, der Blaustrumpf (2009-11-02). In "Daddy Issues," Dennis Perrin wonders why we offer our presidents not merely obedience but also filial piety: What is it that makes Americans feel a family connection to the presidency? Yes, we are indoctrinated from birth about our unique goodness, our special qualities; and yes, the president is viewed… (Linked Friday 2009-11-13.)

From GT 2009-08-20: Tonight, in News of the Obvious:

And in breaking news from NARAL Pro-Choice America, it turns out that government provision of healthcare means that women's healthcare will be allocated through a political process, and when women's reproductive healthcare is allocated through a political process, women's reproductive healthcare ends up being subjected to the vicissitudes of political debate over abortion.

NARAL may not draw the conclusion from its report, but the editorial board here at News of the Obvious will: setting aside outright political prohibitions, which aren't likely to pass in the near future, a broad expansion of political control over women's healthcare is the single worst thing that could possibly happen towards undermining women's access to abortion and reproductive medicine.

— GT 2009-08-20: Tonight, in News of the Obvious

The House of Representatives just recently passed an omnibus health insurance bill which includes extensive new government involvement in health insurance and a strong public option of broad-based government-provided health insurance. The explicit purpose of this bill is to expand political control and political funding in the health insurance industry — to expand government’s role and responsibility in directly paying for healthcare and medical procedures, and to shift more of the money coming in to for-profit health insurance companies away from private sources, and towards government funding sources.

So-called Progressive While so-called Progressive organizations on the male Left — groups like MoveOn and SEIU and the AFL-CIO — have been celebrating the passage of the House bill as a great big win. MoveOn.org calls it historic health care reform and headlines their front page Victory!; now they are staging Countdown to Change rallies to thank those representatives who stood with the American people (by this, they mean those that voted for expanding the scope of the American government). In an e-mail circulated to their mailing list, the AFL-CIO called it a truly historic movement and called on supporters to pressure their Senators to pass a similar bill in order to ensure final victory.

Well, wait.

Just one little problem about this Huge Step Forward: turns out that, if it passes the Senate too, it will strip millions of women of access to abortion, by using strings attached to the new government funding to stop both the public option health insurance plans and plans offered by existing insurance companies from covering abortion procedures.

Oops.

From the National Organization for Women:

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women’s fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women’s health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman’s fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women’s constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women’s access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

—Terry O’Neill, National Organization for Women (2009-11-08): NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access Says Bill Obliterates Women’s Fundamental Right to Choose

Once again, this should come as no surprise. Government health insurance means political allocation for women’s healthcare — for any and every one of the women who is moved over to public options and public-private partnerships on the public health insurance exchanges.

Political allocation of women’s healthcare means that women’s healthcare will be subjected to political debate and sacrificed in the name of political compromises — which, in this country, means being subjected and sacrificed to the Gentleman’s Agreement between anti-choice partisans, on the one hand, and, on the other, the doughface politicos, who just don’t give much of a damn about women’s lives or health or freedom, and are happy to treat them as optional as long as they’ve got a bill to pass or a Democrat to elect.

This healthcare bill, authored by Democrats, pushed by Democrats, and supposedly a key aspect of the male liberal’s agenda for Progressive social change, will almost certainly mean a massive government-sponsored assault on women’s access to abortion. Women’s bodies are not public property; women’s health should not be subject to public controversy or dependent on the approval of the public (which means, in fact, the loudest and most belligerent voices in politics). But as long as government is calling the shots on women’s healthcare, women’s healthcare is always going to be compromised and sacrificed in the name of political agendas. The only way to make sure that women’s healthcare will no longer be treated as public-optional is real radical healthcare reform — not by preserving the government-regimented corporatist status quo, but rather by getting government out of healthcare entirely — by cutting the government strings that always come attached to government money — by getting rid of government subsidy and government regimentation and replacing them with grassroots mutual aid, abortion funds, community-supported free clinics, and other forms of low-cost healthcare free of political control because they are supported by free association and community organizing, rather than taxation and political allocation. That is to say, by taking the funding for women’s healthcare out of the hands of politicians, and putting in the hands of women themselves.

Expanding government control of healthcare funding is anti-choice, anti-woman, and would represent the single biggest assault on women’s access to abortion in the last 30 years.

See also:

• GT 2009-08-20: Tonight, in News of the Obvious
• GT 2007-10-25: Radical healthcare reform
• GT 2005-11-03: Goodbye to all that. Again.