PDA

View Full Version : Another Zealot That Needs to Go Down



Arizona Bay
09-03-2015, 08:57 PM
A Judge that cannot look out for the rights of others, or follow the law, has no business being a judge.


By Bryan Denson | The Oregonian/OregonLive (http://connect.oregonlive.com/staff/bdenson/posts.html)
Email the author | Follow on Twitter (http://twitter.com/Bryan_Denson)
on September 03, 2015 at 5:21 PM, updated September 03, 2015 at 6:21 PM











Oregon judge refuses to perform same-sex marriages, cites First Amendment right to religious freedom

Marion County Circuit Judge Vance Day (http://courts.oregon.gov/Marion/GeneralInformation/pages/judges.aspx), a former chairman of the Oregon Republican Party, took steps Thursday to create a legal defense fund in an apparent response to his decision not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Day took action because of what he described as "deeply-held religious beliefs," KGW reported (http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2015/09/03/marion-county-judge-refuses-perform-same-sex-marriages/71665314/).
"It's an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment," Day spokesman Patrick Korten told the news station.
In recent months, Day has not performed any marriage ceremonies, KGW reported. His courtroom is in Salem.

The Oregon Government Ethics Commission (http://www.oregon.gov/ogec/Pages/index.aspx) voted unanimously Thursday to approve Day's request to establish a legal defense fund.
Day noted in an affidavit signed Aug. 19 that he was seeking to establish the fund to defray legal expenses in connection with inquiries by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability involving allegations of violations of the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct and the Oregon Constitution.

"These legal expenses arose by virtue of, and were related to, my service as an Oregon Circuit Judge," Day wrote in the affidavit.
He acknowledged in the affidavit that he is bound by provisions of state law that spell out the establishment, administration and termination of legal expense trusts.

State law allows public officials to set up such trusts to collect money for their legal defense in a variety of circumstances, including investigations brought by public bodies.

It was not immediately clear whether Day was under investigation.

Oregon law allows a wide range of officiants at marriage ceremonies. Among those allowed to conduct such proceedings, known in legal parlance as "solemnizing" the marriage, are state judges, federal judges (including magistrates), court clerks and religious congregations.

The judge didn't return messages from The Oregonian/OregonLive for comment.

The Marion Circuit Court website lists six judges available to perform weddings: four Circuit judges among the current roster of 14, one retired Circuit judge and a Municipal Court judge.

It also includes this disclaimer: "This list is informational only and does not guarantee that a particular judge will be available to perform any particular wedding ceremony."
-- Bryan Denson

Sky Blue
09-03-2015, 09:06 PM
Another zealot

Who? You?

James McMullen
09-03-2015, 09:15 PM
No reason for you to draw a government paycheck if you can't do your government job.

I would have thought more "conservatives" would be insistent that taxpayers get their full value from the money they give to government employees in exchange for services. But now all of a sudden there's a class of public employees with a "get out of work free" card who can pick and choose which duties they are willing to perform? Bizarre.

Keith Wilson
09-03-2015, 09:15 PM
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/11990589_486656291513111_5208416970100180128_n.jpg ?oh=76f246cebf7ab99e4f597a38cc1ec6d2&oe=56782534

Garret
09-03-2015, 09:17 PM
If you are on the public payroll, you need to obey the law - period. If you can't do your job you need to quit & do one you can. This man should be kicked off the bench now - just like the dip in Kentucky should've gone to jail.

If you are running your own private company, different story.

This ain't rocket science!

LeeG
09-03-2015, 09:19 PM
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/11990589_486656291513111_5208416970100180128_n.jpg ?oh=76f246cebf7ab99e4f597a38cc1ec6d2&oe=56782534

Hallelujah!

Garret
09-03-2015, 09:21 PM
No reason for you to draw a government paycheck if you can't do your government job.

I would have thought more "conservatives" would be insistent that taxpayers get their full value from the money they give to government employees in exchange for services. But now all of a sudden there's a class of public employees with a "get out of work free" card who can pick and choose which duties they are willing to perform? Bizarre.

It's selective thing. Dontcha know that spouting Christian BS actually is a get out of jail free card to these bigots? The behavior we're seeing is sickening. Think how they'd react to Keith's sign...

Arizona Bay
09-03-2015, 09:35 PM
I think some of these folks are just looking cash in on Money Jebus bigot bucks.

WI-Tom
09-03-2015, 09:39 PM
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfl1/v/t1.0-9/11990589_486656291513111_5208416970100180128_n.jpg ?oh=76f246cebf7ab99e4f597a38cc1ec6d2&oe=56782534

Exactly!

And also:


I would have thought more "conservatives" would be insistent that taxpayers get their full value from the money they give to government employees in exchange for services. But now all of a sudden there's a class of public employees with a "get out of work free" card who can pick and choose which duties they are willing to perform? Bizarre.

Exactly!

And also:


This man should be kicked off the bench now - just like the dip in Kentucky should've gone to jail.

She's in jail right now, I believe. So some judges do get it right.

Tom

Sky Blue
09-03-2015, 09:49 PM
This gentleman too will face justice as he seeks it for himself. The "hunting" mentality that I see directed toward recalcitrant public officials is unseemly and counterproductive. The battle has been won. Let us bring those grudging officials along as may be necessary, peaceably, if possible. They will present themselves to society, as has been the case, in apparently very low numbers. Let them litigate their claims, if necessary, and let us not be excessively punitive. They will lose.

Keith Wilson
09-03-2015, 10:09 PM
Mr. Blue has a point. Anyone who defies the courts deliberately like these folks are doing probably wants to be a martyr for the cause. It might be better strategy, as well as kinder to those on the wrong side of history, to not indulge them too much. They can't do much damage; this particular battle has indeed mostly been won.

Gerarddm
09-04-2015, 01:08 AM
I respectfully disagree Keith, if what you are advocating is ignoring them. I say break them all, hard. This flouting of duly constituted authority leads to anarchy. The pic in #3 proves that a religious test is utterly bogus. I bet they'd squeal like stuck pigs if a Quaker clerk declined to issue gun permits due to deeply held religious conviction.

Garret
09-04-2015, 05:48 AM
This gentleman too will face justice as he seeks it for himself. The "hunting" mentality that I see directed toward recalcitrant public officials is unseemly and counterproductive. The battle has been won. Let us bring those grudging officials along as may be necessary, peaceably, if possible. They will present themselves to society, as has been the case, in apparently very low numbers. Let them litigate their claims, if necessary, and let us not be excessively punitive. They will lose.

I don't see it as hunting at all. If a person will not do their job as required by law, fire them. If an elected official, do what happened in Kentucky - except put the person in jail right off. These are public employees/officials. They do not get to decide, the law of the land does. If they used another reason for not doing their job, no one would one talking about it.

How is this any different than saying "I won't give you a marriage license because you are black"? That was a rhetorical question...

If the judge or the woman in Kentucky had any ethics, they would quit on their own - as they know they are unable to perform the job for which they were hired. But ethics seems to be missing in the lives of many hard-line fundamentalists.

George Jung
09-04-2015, 06:32 AM
The public benefit of such folks recalcitrance - besides the opportunity to 'bring them along' - is the public discourse. Lots of folks trying to 'catch up', if you will, with a new, to them, paradigm. Not everyone gets it; not everyone accepts these new laws, this acceptance of others different from their norm.

It all actually serves a purpose. 'Ignore it', and we miss out on that valuable service.

Norman Bernstein
09-04-2015, 07:07 AM
Did anyone consider that this judge might not have any actual obligation to perform marriages? This might be a tempest in a teapot. Different, I think, from a county clerk who IS obligated to issue marriage licenses. Perhaps his job responsibilities don't include performing marriages, since there are countless other individuals in that state and county who are authorized to do so.


The Marion Circuit Court website lists six judges available to perform weddings: four Circuit judges among the current roster of 14, one retired Circuit judge and a Municipal Court judge.

It also includes this disclaimer: "This list is informational only and does not guarantee that a particular judge will be available to perform any particular wedding ceremony."

RonW
09-04-2015, 07:32 AM
Did anyone consider that this judge might not have any actual obligation to perform marriages? This might be a tempest in a teapot. Different, I think, from a county clerk who IS obligated to issue marriage licenses. Perhaps his job responsibilities don't include performing marriages, since there are countless other individuals in that state and county who are authorized to do so.

Norm beat me.. It is a judges duty and obligation as a public servant to sit on the bench and rule on cases as to existing law, period.

Judges have the authority to perform marriages, but are not required to do so, and some judges don't and won't, some won't perform divorces.
So it is strictly the judge's choice, but not so for the county clerk, who her and her staff that worked under her are the county officials that issue the marriage licenses.

Keith Wilson
09-04-2015, 07:41 AM
I respectfully disagree Keith, if what you are advocating is ignoring them. No I don't advocate ignoring them. The best would be to quietly fire them. You won't do your job according to the law? Fine; go find another one.

And in this case, I'm not sure that marriages are a required part of the judge's duties. There are plenty of other places one can get married. It may not be the same as Ms. Davis the county clerk, where marriage licenses are part of her job.

Tom Wilkinson
09-04-2015, 07:41 AM
Judges won't perform divorces?? If it comes to their bench in court I don't see how they can refuse. Marriage ceremonies are not performed in a courtroom generally so i could see where they may have some latitude there. Divorce is a different story altogether.

Do you have any specific examples?

Norman Bernstein
09-04-2015, 07:43 AM
... and some judges don't and won't, some won't perform divorces.

Not the same thing. A divorce is a civil matter that may end up in court, and a judge cannot arbitrarily decide that he won't preside over an actual civil action like a divorce. Litigants in a divorce do not have the option to pick what judge will hear the case, unlike people looking to get married, who can pick and choose who officiates.

RonW
09-04-2015, 07:49 AM
Not the same thing. A divorce is a civil matter that may end up in court, and a judge cannot arbitrarily decide that he won't preside over an actual civil action like a divorce. Litigants in a divorce do not have the option to pick what judge will hear the case, unlike people looking to get married, who can pick and choose who officiates.

Good point and I won't argue it, but still there are judges that won't hear and put divorces on their docket.........and that is the way it is....

Arizona Bay
09-04-2015, 09:50 AM
There are many Judges that practice quiet discrimination, and they will continue to get away with it as long as people remain silent. They need to be exposed and removed from positions of power. If this is 'hunting' then so be it.

In this case, however, a Judge has publicly stated that he will not follow a constitutional law, and has set up a legal defense fund. This Judge is also the ex- head of the Oregon GOP. He has declared himself to be a target, and should dispatched quickly and publicly.

If he had any integrity he would simply step down, rather than attempt to play the martyr in a situation that he, himself, created.


... and that's my opinion for the moment. ;)

CWSmith
09-04-2015, 09:56 AM
Judges won't perform divorces?? If it comes to their bench in court I don't see how they can refuse.

Be grateful. If they feel themselves conflicted, they should recuse themselves. If they do it for all divorces, then maybe they are doing society a favor.

CWSmith
09-04-2015, 09:58 AM
I think those of us who are disgusted by this sort of behavior by public employees who won't follow the law should adopt a new attitude of pass the popcorn. They will go down by their own actions. It will be fun to watch. We should relax and be entertained by it instead of getting upset by the predictable minority of people who perish by their own stupidity and arrogance.

Keith Wilson
09-04-2015, 10:12 AM
. . . a new attitude of pass the popcorn.
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hardI agree. :D



http://foodnetwork.sndimg.com/content/dam/images/food/fullset/2008/12/23/0/FNmag_Movie-Theater-Style_s4x3.jpg.rend.sni12col.landscape.jpeg

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 10:14 AM
There is also the issue of partisanship that makes the "purge" mentality somewhat dishonest in my view. The Left is very good at selective outrage for officials not performing their legal obligations.

An example: we have not heard any outcry here regarding sanctuary policies, which policies mandate that federal laws not be respected. This has directly resulted in persons' deaths. Officials are blatantly ignoring laws and requests, yet no one seems to mind much, even though the policies are contributing to deaths.

I submit that a person's life is of greater constitutional moment than marriage equality, but not, apparently, to the Left, if their selective outrage is any guide.

This selectiveness, coupled with purge demands, is a bit much for honest, serious people. The law is the law and these people will be dealt with accordingly and in due course.

Paul Pless
09-04-2015, 10:17 AM
This selectiveness, coupled with purge demands, is a bit much for honest, serious people. did you say this with a straight face? :D

Keith Wilson
09-04-2015, 10:21 AM
. . . even though the policies are contributing to deaths. At the risk of derailing the thread,this is bullsh!t, pure propaganda. You know better. You are not entirely ignorant of statistics, and you know that the crime rate among those here illegally (with the obvious exception of immigration violations) is actually lower than that of the general population. Now sanctuary polices may be a good idea or a bad idea, but the idea that they increase the rate of crime, much less the rate of murders, is nonsense.

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 10:33 AM
Sorry, Keith, you need to know better. We aren't talking percentages here. We are talking selective outrage on the issue of public officials refusing to comply with law.

The family of the woman allegedly murdered in San Francisco, by an illegal immigrant 5 time deportee, has filed a federal civil suit against the San Francisco Sheriff and various federal officials. Their suit will stand and fall on the merits, but the notion that they are pursuing justice for their daughter for propaganda reasons, or the idea that San Francisco's officials did not engage in conduct that resulted in the death of the woman, well, tell it to her family, Keith.

Keith Wilson
09-04-2015, 10:45 AM
We aren't talking percentages here. We are talking selective outrage on the issue of public officials refusing to comply with law.We are talking artificially-generated outrage, inspired by one case, Willie Horton all over again. Single data points make good propaganda, but bad reasoning and bad policy. Again, you know better. Sanctuary policies might be a good or a bad idea, but they do not result in an increase in crime rates. That is a lie.

Arizona Bay
09-04-2015, 10:52 AM
Sorry, Keith, you need to know better. We aren't talking percentages here. We are talking selective outrage on the issue of public officials refusing to comply with law.

The family of the woman allegedly murdered in San Francisco, by an illegal immigrant 5 time deportee, has filed a federal civil suit against the San Francisco Sheriff and various federal officials. Their suit will stand and fall on the merits, but the notion that they are pursuing justice for their daughter for propaganda reasons, or the idea that San Francisco's officials did not engage in conduct that resulted in the death of the woman, well, tell it to her family, Keith.



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Sky Blue http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4642135#post4642135)
This selectiveness, coupled with purge demands, is a bit much for honest, serious people.


did you say this with a straight face? :D


and demonstrated it here. :D

leikec
09-04-2015, 11:04 AM
This selectiveness, coupled with purge demands, is a bit much for honest, serious people.


did you say this with a straight face? :D

I wondered the same thing. Somehow I think he did--the Force is strong in this one... :D

Jeff C

Todd D
09-04-2015, 12:18 PM
The particular case of the judge is a bit different from the case of the clerk. My understanding is that judges may perform marriages, but are not required to. If a judge chooses to perform marriages, then it would seem that the judge cannot legally discriminate as to who is being married. If a judge chooses not to perform any marriages, then a refusal to marry any particular couple is moot. From the story above, the judge in not at present performing any marriages, so it appears he is simply grandstanding. Should he start performing marriages, then his refusal to marry gay couples will become an issue.

I was married by a judge. He did it outside his normal duties and charged a fee ($40 as I recall).

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 12:28 PM
Sanctuary policies might be a good or a bad idea, but they do not result in an increase in crime rates. That is a lie.

I don't recall saying this. Why are you raising this strawman, Keith? Everyone knows why liberals do not object to sanctuary. Their outrage is selective.

John of Phoenix
09-04-2015, 01:13 PM
Their outrage is selective.As opposed to reds and your Universal Outrage.

CWSmith
09-04-2015, 01:19 PM
The particular case of the judge is a bit different from the case of the clerk. My understanding is that judges may perform marriages, but are not required to. If a judge chooses to perform marriages, then it would seem that the judge cannot legally discriminate as to who is being married. If a judge chooses not to perform any marriages, then a refusal to marry any particular couple is moot. From the story above, the judge in not at present performing any marriages, so it appears he is simply grandstanding. Should he start performing marriages, then his refusal to marry gay couples will become an issue.

I was married by a judge. He did it outside his normal duties and charged a fee ($40 as I recall).

At least in larger municipalities there are often multiple judges. So if one judge does not want to do marriages, there are others to go to. My understanding is that this clerk is the one and only. As such, she is a real bottle neck to the flow of marriage licenses.

John Smith
09-04-2015, 01:21 PM
I don't see it as hunting at all. If a person will not do their job as required by law, fire them. If an elected official, do what happened in Kentucky - except put the person in jail right off. These are public employees/officials. They do not get to decide, the law of the land does. If they used another reason for not doing their job, no one would one talking about it.

How is this any different than saying "I won't give you a marriage license because you are black"? That was a rhetorical question...

If the judge or the woman in Kentucky had any ethics, they would quit on their own - as they know they are unable to perform the job for which they were hired. But ethics seems to be missing in the lives of many hard-line fundamentalists.

Only part of this I disagree with is the public part. Where do we let private businesses not follow the law?

Would we let a private apartment refuse to rent to a same sex couple? Actually, that might still be legal, but if it was not legal to discriminate, that would be true for private businesses too, no?

John Smith
09-04-2015, 01:25 PM
Not the same thing. A divorce is a civil matter that may end up in court, and a judge cannot arbitrarily decide that he won't preside over an actual civil action like a divorce. Litigants in a divorce do not have the option to pick what judge will hear the case, unlike people looking to get married, who can pick and choose who officiates.

I suspect a judge could recluse himself based on personal history. He may have gone through a divorce and feel he cannot judge fairly. If he's authorized to do weddings, I less sure he'd have the right to pick and choose.

Garret
09-04-2015, 01:37 PM
I suspect a judge could recluse himself based on personal history. He may have gone through a divorce and feel he cannot judge fairly. If he's authorized to do weddings, I less sure he'd have the right to pick and choose.

That's just it - he needs to "recluse" himself - then we wouldn't have to see/deal with him! ;) Sorry - just had to...

Arizona Bay
09-04-2015, 05:23 PM
Self deportation would be even better! ... and very Republican.

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 05:32 PM
If you are just seeking to drive people out of public life for being "wrong" on an issue, that is, otherwise honest, sincere people that have known no conscious discrimination before and with their families are otherwise pillars of their communities, recognizing that some are struggling with everything they've known, everything they've been taught, everything they've taught their own children, well, it seems to me that some of them can be forgiven, with limits, for not being as so quickly accepting as others and let us be patient and accepting as we all try and move forward together.

It is going to happen. Let us understand that we are a good but not perfect people, and that there is a difference between haters and dissenters on this issue. Failing to be honest about this distinction will set the movement back. Haters should be rejected; dissenters should be engaged. Their dissent will be overcome, but to the extent it is not, it will be softened.

Osborne Russell
09-04-2015, 05:33 PM
Remedial education ?

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 05:37 PM
diversity, but not sensitivity, training

Osborne Russell
09-04-2015, 05:45 PM
diversity, but not sensitivity, training

Optional. The policy debate is over, the immediate goal is to keep straight with the law, and, if you wish, re-start the policy debate in the proper form, i.e. Constitutional Amendment.

"Civics for Dummies"

Arizona Bay
09-04-2015, 05:48 PM
If you are just seeking to drive people out of public life for being "wrong" on an issue, that is, otherwise honest, sincere people that have known no conscious discrimination before and with their families are otherwise pillars of their communities, recognizing that some are struggling with everything they've known, everything they've been taught, everything they've taught their own children, well, it seems to me that some of them can be forgiven, with limits, for not being as so quickly accepting as others and let us be patient and accepting as we all try and move forward together.



That is one long sentence, well done.

In this case, his stated intention is to not do the job he is employed to do. In his actions as an official of the Gov., it's much broader than that.
When he is serving in his official capacity, he is the Govt..
The Constitution says that the Government cannot force anyone to follow any particular religion, which is what he is trying to do, just like the Clerk in KY.
They are attempting to use the power of the Gov. to force others to follow his and hers particular religious beliefs.

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 05:59 PM
I'm sorry for my snark early in this thread, Arizona Bay. You have been generous and patient and I appreciate that. We are together on this cause, but it is a complex and painful thing for many families, including my own, about who is getting where and why and how quickly. I struggle to keep up with it. This is compounded by the fact that I live in California where notions are ordinary and common, but then not so much among persons elsewhere, who are angry, without really understanding why. I have always supported the movement, well not entirely, always, but I dream of saying that with honesty one day long into the future to a young grandchild or great-grandchild who might wonder what all the fuss was about, hoping with innocent eyes that I might be someone worth believing in.

For the record, I support the jailing of the Kentucky clerk, as I would support the jailing of this judge if performing civil state marriage is part of his employment contract and he refused to do so. At the same time, I support that his 1st amendment claims might be examined. Let's do that too. If we will have one, it seems that we must have the other.

Keith Wilson
09-04-2015, 06:09 PM
Ms. Davis's First Amendment claims have already been examined and rejected, and I expect that the judge's will be as well. I wish there were a simple way to just remove her from office, since she obviously refuses to do her job according to the law. As much as she might deserve it, putting her in jail seems neither kind nor particularly effective, and may generate more backlash than progress. We don't need more polarization.

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 06:13 PM
we don't need more polarization

That's right. It has been entirely resolved as a legal matter, and so let us move on, quietly, especially in an age of conservative ascendance. Let us bring in the outliers as peaceably as possible and let us condemn any of those political candidates who might support civil disobedience in this case. It should not be countenanced.

Keith Wilson
09-04-2015, 06:20 PM
especially in an age of conservative ascendance.Oh, you are a funny, funny man, Mr Blue. :D

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 06:24 PM
Keith, I know you have been struggling emotionally a bit right now with these changes, and I am sympathetic. I guess I can say that it is going to be all OK. :)

John Smith
09-04-2015, 06:27 PM
I suspect that a portion of our population will have to be dragged kicking and screaming over this issue, but all have to follow law.

What I still can't understand is if Tom and Bill are living together, aside from next of kin benefits, what to they get out of marriage, and why does anyone else care that they get married?

Do they think gay men don't have sex with each other if they're not married?

S.V. Airlie
09-04-2015, 06:28 PM
especially in an age of conservative ascendance! Yup, that does go along with fewer educated people who seem to gravitate to the Rep. party, you are correct SB.

Garret
09-04-2015, 06:37 PM
That's right. It has been entirely resolved as a legal matter, and so let us move on, quietly, especially in an age of conservative ascendance. Let us bring in the outliers as peaceably as possible and let us condemn any of those political candidates who might support civil disobedience in this case. It should not be countenanced.

More proof we all create our own realities?

Sky Blue
09-04-2015, 07:23 PM
More proof we all create our own realities?

Well, alright. But let us try and do it anyway. We could party and eat and drink. In fact, Middlebury is my first choice (for her). Stay tuned.

Arizona Bay
09-04-2015, 08:31 PM
I'm sorry for my snark early in this thread, Arizona Bay. You have been generous and patient and I appreciate that. We are together on this cause, but it is a complex and painful thing for many families, including my own, about who is getting where and why and how quickly. I struggle to keep up with it. This is compounded by the fact that I live in California where notions are ordinary and common, but then not so much among persons elsewhere, who are angry, without really understanding why. I have always supported the movement, well not entirely, always, but I dream of saying that with honesty one day long into the future to a young grandchild or great-grandchild who might wonder what all the fuss was about, hoping with innocent eyes that I might be someone worth believing in.

For the record, I support the jailing of the Kentucky clerk, as I would support the jailing of this judge if performing civil state marriage is part of his employment contract and he refused to do so. At the same time, I support that his 1st amendment claims might be examined. Let's do that too. If we will have one, it seems that we must have the other.

What, someone is being snarky on the internet??? ;) :)


Thanks, I appreciate your saying this. I do my best not to take anything personally... so no worries.

There is a lot I'm in agreement with. Many people are angry without knowing why, which makes the vulnerable to manipulation by the first convincing voice they hear. And there are many pros in the field of manipulation.
However...
To balance that, there are a lot people who aren't angry or fooled by it at all. Many (but not all) are young, and are often watching awe struck by the selfish, shortsighted, madness taking place in the US and the world. There are also those that have tuned it out completely, and are busy creating a new world.

Kindness and compassion are the only way through.