I'm the Ashleigh you're searching for. Tech writer ⌨️ Queer demi-ace & trans (she) 🏳️‍🌈 Happily autistic ✨ Unabashed love of justice ⚖️ Tying to do my part 💞
4589 stories
·
27 followers

Pope displays moral hypocrisy to world

1 Share

1popefluffy

While being credited as a reformer, Pope Francis has done nothing to ease any of the Roman Catholic Church’s draconian decrees and doctrines. Yet the pope has excelled in creating a public relations image of a “kinder, gentler” church hierarchy.

But the pope’s true colors were revealed yesterday, as he publicly accused victims of Chile’s most infamous priestly pedophile scandal of “slander.” Ironically, the pope’s purpose in visiting Chile was supposedly to help “heal” those survivors of priest abuse.

Chile’s most notorious priestly scandal has involved Fernando Karadima, who abused dozens of children under his care. Karadima’s decades-long crime spree was ignored — which is to say, covered up — by the church until the victims went public with the abuse in 2010. Karadima, then 80, was merely sanctioned in 2011 by the Vatican, which removed him from all pastoral duties and “sentenced” him to a “life of penance and prayer” for his crimes. Statute of limitations or decisions by fearful prosecutors and judges meant no criminal resolution.

In 2015, Pope Francis renewed Chilean anger over Karadima’s crimes and church complicity by making Juan Barros Madrid — a protégé of the abusive priest — a bishop. Even some of Chile’s church leaders opposed the appointment of Barros as bishop because of accusations from what they called “truthful and reliable” victims who charged Barros with personally knowing of the abuse, but doing nothing. It recently came to light that Pope Francis acknowledged the church leaders’ complaints in a letter in January 2015, but ignored their call not to promote Barros.

Pope Francis’ claim of “zero tolerance” seems to apply to victims, not the accused. When the pope said yesterday that “there is not one single piece of proof” of cover-up, that “It’s all calumny. Is that clear?” he is disregarding the sworn, reliable testimony of the victims, just as the church ignored their claims of abuse. In short, he’s calling those victims liars.

Earlier on his Chilean trip, Francis had hypocritically referenced “the pain and shame, that I feel at the irreparable damage caused to children by ministers of the church.”

Francis has done nothing to bring genuine justice to the victims or to their rapists and abusers. Nothing but talk. Francis could be directing his church, which frequently seeks to influence laws, to lobby and expend resources to extend statutes of limitations. Instead, here in the United States, the Catholic Church has spent millions fighting against legislation to extend statutes of limitation. Bribery has been alleged in such cases, too. The Catholic Church, as an early clerical whistleblower put it decades ago, remains an “organization preaching morality and providing sanctuary to perverts.”

The pope could turn over all accusations known to the Vatican and its diplomatic embassies to civil authorities. As the Catholic Reporter suggests, he has the power to change canon law and abolish the pontifical secret over allegations of sexual abuse committed by clergy and Catholic laity.

But he does none of that. Instead, his real interest is in protecting his church, which means protecting the abusers. Pope Francis is all talk.

For once, his talk matches his actions.

Photo Source: Shutterstock / giulio napolitano

Read the whole story
Technicalleigh
1 day ago
reply
SF Bay area, CA (formerly ATL)
Share this story
Delete

Fake-bomb TV crew held at New Jersey airport

1 Comment
The crew allegedly tried to get the device past security at Newark Liberty and film the response.
Read the whole story
Technicalleigh
1 day ago
reply
Bravo, bravo. (Except this was supposed to air on CNBC, not Bravo.)
SF Bay area, CA (formerly ATL)
Share this story
Delete

Happy Birthday Betty White!

1 Share

Game show queen Betty White turns 96 today! Walk down memory lane and relive some of Betty’s game show milestones and appearances.

Today television icon Betty White turns 96. Arguably the queen of the genre, Betty has appeared in hundreds of episodes of game shows, dating back to the 1950s and stretching to today. Celebrate Betty’s life as we take a look at some of her most important and interesting game show moments throughout the decades.

Make the Connection: Betty White’s first game show appearance was on 1955’s Make the Connection. The short-lived game featured a panel of four celebrities attempting to “make the connection” between two people who would sit on both sides of a host.

Password: The game Betty White is most associated with is the classic word game Password. Betty has appeared on every version of the show, dating back to the early 60s and up to the most recent incarnation (CBS’s Million Dollar Password). Betty married the show’s host, Allen Ludden, in 1963.

Just Men!: Despite being a panelist on dozens of game shows, Betty’s only hosting job came in 1983 with NBC’s Just Men!. A very unusual mix between a talk show and game show, each episode saw two female contestants attempt to predict answers to questions given to a panel of seven male celebrities. Betty White became the first woman to win the Emmy Award for Outstanding Game Show Host for this show.

Match Game: Betty White’s comedy has brought her countless fans over decades. She’s displayed it on sitcoms like The Mary Tyler Moore ShowGolden Girls, and Hot in Cleveland, but she really showed her quick wit and wicked sense of humor on Match Game. Betty regularly sat in the sixth seat, saved for the sharpest and funniest panelists who could bring the outlandish and hysterical.

To Tell The Truth: Betty White’s run on game shows has extended six decades. Her most recent appearance was on ABC’s revival of To Tell The Truth. The focal point of the first season, Betty proved she’s just as sharp and funny as ever.

Any favorite Betty White memories? Let us know!

Read the whole story
Technicalleigh
3 days ago
reply
SF Bay area, CA (formerly ATL)
Share this story
Delete

Night In The Woods Coming To Nintendo Switch eShop February 1st

1 Comment
Update: The developers have said it’s coming on February 1st. A recent Nintendo Switch eShop listing has revealed that Night In The Woods is coming to the Nintendo Switch this week. The indie title will be arriving to Nintendo’s latest platform on Thursday, January 18th and will cost $19.99. Night In The Woods coming to […]



Read the whole story
Technicalleigh
4 days ago
reply
Yay! I've been wanting to play this, but I want all the games on Switch. :)
SF Bay area, CA (formerly ATL)
Share this story
Delete

Nine charged for giving food to homeless in California

1 Comment and 2 Shares
The group oppose a rule in El Cajon, California, which prohibits food sharing in public places.
Read the whole story
Technicalleigh
5 days ago
reply
"You can go out there, pick them up, take them back to your house and feed them and board them and room them and have them take a shower if you're really wanting to help," [council member Ben Kalasho] said.

In other words, you're not _really_ trying to prevent the spread of hepatitis a, you're just using it as a smokescreen to further criminalize homelessness.
SF Bay area, CA (formerly ATL)
Share this story
Delete

The Government’s New Policy on Device Searches at the Border: What You Need to Know

1 Share
As searches of devices at the border rise, the government continues to conduct searches without getting a warrant first.

The government last week issued new rules governing its searches of electronic devices at the border on the same day that it revealed that such searches skyrocketed in 2017.

Until now, Customs and Border Protection claimed the authority to demand travelers turn over their phones, laptops, and other devices to be searched at border crossings, including airports, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. The new directive released Friday will require a heightened level of suspicion for certain searches, but it reasserts CBP’s authority to conduct other searches without any level of individualized suspicion whatsoever.

According to data released by the Department of Homeland Security, searches of electronic devices rose by about 60 percent in 2017 relative to 2016. A lawsuit we filed last year along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation challenges these warrantless searches as unconstitutional on behalf of 11 travelers who were subjected to them. (Their stories can be read here.)

The new CBP policy indicates that officers at the border should have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity or a “national security concern” before they can conduct an “advanced” search of the contents of an electronic device. An advanced search — sometimes called a forensic search — is any search involving external equipment connected to an electronic device to scan, analyze, or download the data on the device. The CBP directive also reaffirms that officers cannot search information located remotely — in the cloud, for example — and that they should place devices in airplane mode to avoid seeing such material. However, “basic searches” conducted on the spot — which can expose travelers’ photographs, contact lists, text messages, emails, and documents — can continue without individualized suspicion under the new directive.

This directive is a welcome development because it at least acknowledges the severe privacy invasions that occur when the government can search your device without any suspicion. Indeed, recently published accounts of complaints filed with the federal government powerfully illustrate the humiliation individuals have experienced when forced to surrender their personal devices to the scrutiny of border officers.

That said, the directive doesn’t go nearly far enough.

We have long argued that the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant before searching electronic devices at the border, and we support bipartisan legislation that would make that requirement law. The CBP directive only requires reasonable suspicion, a lower legal standard than the probable cause standard needed for a warrant, and it doesn’t require agents to make a case before a judge.

The new directive still requires no suspicion at all when an advanced search implicates a “national security concern” — which is not clearly defined in the policy and is potentially vague enough to cover a wide array of scenarios — or when a search is not considered advanced. But even so-called “basic” searches can be incredibly invasive, exposing the intimate details of a person’s life to government agents who never have to make a case for why they need to conduct the search.

Additionally, the directive does not apply to agencies outside of CBP that might conduct searches of devices taken at the border, and does not make clear that travelers should not be under an obligation to provide border officers with a password or other information to enable them to search their device.

Given this new policy, what do travelers need to know to protect their privacy at the border?

First, because the new policy confirms that border officers should not be searching information that is stored in the cloud, you should place your devices in airplane mode when arriving at the border for a customs inspection. Be aware, however, that even if you move content from your device to a cloud account, an advanced search of your device could still reveal deleted files and metadata.

Learn more: Can Border Agents Search Your Electronic Devices?

Second, consider your options when deciding whether to provide a password to unlock your device. CBP’s directive asserts that travelers are “obligated” to present electronic devices in a condition that allows inspection of the device and its contents, and notes that an officer may “request” assistance from the traveler in accessing the device’s contents.

If you are asked to provide a password, and you do so, you may wish to make clear that you are doing so without consenting to the search. We believe the government does not have the authority to prevent U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from entering the country solely for refusing to provide a device password, but be aware that if you refuse, you may be detained longer and your device may be confiscated and retained for days or weeks. Travelers who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents may risk being denied entry.

Finally, if you are an attorney or carrying information protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges, make sure to let the officer know. The CBP directive provides for certain procedures that must be followed before a search of such material can take place.

These measures are not constitutionally adequate because they still allow the government to search material without suspicion or a warrant. But until the courts settle the matter, it is nonetheless important for travelers to do what they can to trigger the procedures that do exist.

Read the whole story
Technicalleigh
7 days ago
reply
SF Bay area, CA (formerly ATL)
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories