“You Have the Power”

Howard Dean was right.

According to the New York Times, the US Justice Department AND a grand jury in Florida will investigate the senseless killing of Trayvon Martin.

Trayvon Martin

We. Made. This. Happen.

NEVER forget that. We posted articles, signed petitions, talked with friends and who knows what else.

Just as we made Komen back down on de-funding Planned Parenthood.

Just as we made advertisers flee Limbaugh’s show.

The media have abdicated their responsibility for so long, that we have forgotten that we are players, the STAR players. They always tell us what’s wrong, and never tell us what we can do about it, thus delivering the inescapable message that there is NOTHING we can do about it.

Which we have proven to be a lie.

If there is justice done for Trayvon Martin, it is because we made the Justice Department and the grand jury do something long after the authorities thought the matter was settled.

Remember this victory.

Remind your friends when they are discouraged or cynical.

And then let’s keep reminding our media and public servants, until they stop assuming we are powerless.

Rest in peace, Trayvon. Your family and friends – and even we anonymous Americans everywhere – have your back. Rest in peace.

Conservationist Roots of Conservatism

Dr. James Hansen arrested at protest at the White House, August 2011

The entire 17 minutes of this video of Jim Hansen at TED is well worth watching. This is the preeminent climate change scientist in America, giving a brief situation report. But if you feel like you already are aware of most of this, or if you don’t have the time, please begin watching at 13:45, where he begins to talk about how easy it is to make the needed change to avert catastrophe. and what the costs are of doing something, and of doing nothing.

I care so much about women’s issues, war, financial corruption of politics, and other matters, as you know from my posts here. But nothing, nothing, nothing comes close to the importance of this issue. We have the ability to make the needed changes. We must summon the will to do the right thing. Everything we cherish – everything – depends on doing so.

And please, don’t accept the assumption that this is a partisan issue. It isn’t. Remember when we believed that we could either have a healthy economy or a healthy environment, but not both? That wasn’t true, either. Dr. Hansen quotes a member of Republicans for Environmental Protection. There are branches of this organization and its cousin, ConservAmerica, around the country. The website includes some wonderful quotations that harken back to a history of conservatism that includes conservation. Here are a few.

"Well, once you've been in the Canyon and once you've sort of fallen in love with it, it never ends...it's always been a fascinating place to me, in fact I've often said that if I ever had a mistress it would be the Grand Canyon." Barry Goldwater

"Nothing is more conservative than conservation." Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot

"Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation." President Teddy Roosevelt

"The great Error of our Nature is, not to know where to stop, not to be satisfied with any reasonable Acquirement; not to compound with our Condition; but to lose all we have gained by an insatiable Pursuit after more." Edmund Burke

And, more recently, from the President who once said trees cause pollution:

"A strong nation is one that is loved by its people and, as Edmund Burke put it, for a country to be loved it ought to be lovely." President Ronald Reagan

And more recently still:

"Some urge we do nothing because we can't be certain how bad the (climate) problem might become or they presume the worst effects are most likely to occur in our grandchildren's lifetime. I'm a proud conservative, and I reject that kind of live-for-today, ‘me generation,’ attitude. It is unworthy of us and incompatible with our reputation as visionaries and problem solvers. Americans have never feared change. We make change work for us." Senator John McCain

Senator McCain neatly illustrates that conservation is not outside of the perimeter of standard conservative values, but is actually integral to them. What is conservative about spending more than you earn or have on account? The principle is obvious when applied to economics, and should be no less so when applied to natural resources.

Just because the media are giving all the air time to climate change deniers, let us remind ourselves – and the media – that there are conservatives who still remember what it is to conserve, and for whom we do so.

Staff Sgt. Bales

My good friend Kevin has begun a Facebook page, Get Staff Sgt. Bales help, not a trial.

I’m all for a full investigation. See if he was the lone shooter or not. There is apparently some dispute in Afghanistan over our contention that Bales was the lone gunman.  I have a lot of respect for Kevin’s position, as it’s very compassionate, and seeks to put even this most heinous act in a context, seeks to make us slow down and replace our outrage and shame with the question, “Why?” This is always a good thing to do.

But for the moment (my mind might be changeable), I have to disagree. 16 people, including 9 children, died on this rampage. It wasn’t a crime of passion. He (alone, presumably) walked to two different villages as everyone slept, broke into various homes and killed people, and then took the time to burn their bodies before moving on. He caused incalculable damage to those (extended) families, those communities, our international relations with Afghanistan, and the reputation of the military and of gun-totin’ Americans. I have respect (with reservations) for our system of justice, mostly because I know nothing about any other and this is the one I’ve grown up with. I’m sure the Afghans have the same respect for theirs.

My inclination is to have Sgt. Bales stand trial in Afghanistan, where he did the damage. These are supposed to be our allies. To say the least we have, by Sgt. Bales’ agency, shown them disrespect. We would show them respect by allowing them to charge and try Sgt. Bales in their courts. The families of those he murdered should be “given help” – the opportunity to see justice done on behalf of their loved ones. Why should they respect or trust our justice system any more than they have reason to trust our military?

As for the help Sgt. Bales can receive, what would that be? If he is conscious at all, he will have the memory of those deaths in his mind the rest of his life. Can we remove those memories and restore him to peace? No, we cannot. Is there something he can do to make amends, and so restore him to peace? Some would say a religious conversion could work that magic. One of Manson’s acolytes made that claim, as I recall. Maybe, but I doubt it. I think his life will be a nightmare from here, regardless of what help is offered. I can’t imagine the torture of the soul that led him to do those acts, one after another, or how one could live with such a soul thereafter. I don’t think he can be helped, only prolonged. If anything, I think his soul/psyche needs to face its crimes in order to find peace, and the only comfort to be had for him is, as for everyone, to see justice done. The ones in the best position to define justice are those whom he harmed.

You know, when we thought Strauss-Kahn had raped a hotel maid in this country, we kept him here to stand trial. We put a French diplomat in jail. We would not let him leave the country before he faced our charges for the crime he allegedly committed here. If an Afghan soldier was here and killed 9 children, 4 women and 3 men, would we even consider the possibility of him facing trial at home, where we’re pretty sure there would be a contingent of his countrymen who would slap him on the back for his murders? Of course not. Why would Afghans think any differently?

The only peace to be had is by letting him face justice amongst those he harmed. Otherwise, it just smacks of us protecting the most harmful of our own. The time for us to help Sgt. Bales was before his most recent deployment. He and his family had evidently been told that he would not have to go back to the Middle East after three tours of duty. We should have stood by that decision. No one could know what the implications of not doing so would be: not Sgt. Bales, not his family, not his superior officers. But we missed the chance to help him. Now, I believe, we must let him find the peace that facing his accusers and giving an account for his crimes can give him. His is a tortured soul. I wish him, and the families of those he killed, and his own family, a peace that will be hard to find.

I am open to discussion.

Looking For An Honest Man? Meet Greg Smith of Wall Street

Diogenes, Meet Greg Smith

Oh, this is delightful! It turns out Diogenes, in his perpetual search for an honest man, may have been able to find one on Wall Street, of all places.

A former executive director of Goldman Sachs, Greg Smith, left the company because he was fed up with their sleazy corporate culture and business practices, and took them to task in an editorial in the New York Times. Goldman Sachs was one of the main culprits in Wall Street’s meltdown just a few short years ago. If the company was based in Japan, we’d no doubt have seen some of the executives resign in shame, or even commit seppuku, after dragging their company, their customers, and their nation’s economy over the cliff in a selfish pursuit of reckless profit for its own sake. But we’re not in Japan, and our Wall Street execs have no such sense of honor or shame. Smith says,

I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

And in what must surely be one of the most unexpected and welcome pronouncements from a Wall Street executive in 21st century Gordon Gecko- and Ayn Rand -worshipping America, Smith says,

I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.

And then he tops that one with

I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm.

What’s sad is that this kind of sentiment is so unusual.

But not only unusual: despised. As financial media giant Bloomberg demonstrates in a petulant unsigned editorial that paints Mr. Smith as a starry-eyed idealistic naif – the same Mr. Smith who, after 12 years at Goldman Sachs, had clients whose total net worth was over a trillion, with a tr, dollars. How big does one have to be to impress the editorial staff at Bloomberg? What part of Smith’s editorial comes in for the most dismissive attack from Bloomberg? His emphasis on serving the customer and putting their needs first. N.B., Goldman Sachs’ customers are not you and I with our little savings account in a credit union or our 401K. Goldman Sachs’ clients are the 1%, by and large: the average balance in an account there is over $18 million. Now, it might be fashionable to enjoy the prospect of the 1% getting reamed by their own bankers, but this corporate culture is obviously infectious and communicative, and the results affect us all. But no matter: Bloomberg thinks Smith is being unfair and unkind to his former employer, and they are prepared to step in and defend the beleaguered institution.

Bloomberg: "Leave Goldman Sachs Aloooone!"

What is delightful and refreshing to see is the response of Bloomberg’s readers. Phil ad wrote,

Wow what a vicious and childish article this is! Obviously the writer of this is angry with mister Smith and does not understand what it means to make money in a responsible, reasonable fashion.

RupturedToad wrote,

Pathetic.  An entire editorial attacking a straw man of your own creation—namely that Smith was against making money.  It is entirely possible—desirable even—to make money whilst acting ethically and regarding the interests of one’s clients as paramount.

And indigo144 wrote,

This article is as honest as a GS sales pitch — no wonder no Bloomerg editor would put his/her name to it. Mr. Smith pointed out that there is a difference between making money for clients and making money off clients. Apparently Bloomberg shares GS view that the former is a quaint notion for the very naive.

 Refreshing, yes? Smith says he is not aware of any illegal activities at Goldman Sachs. This may mean that the long hoped-for indictments of the people responsible for the sabotage of Wall Street and our economic system will not happen. Which means it is up to us, and to the 1%, even, to withdraw funds from anyone doing business with Goldman Sachs and their ilk. We also need to replace legislators who allow these crooks to write legislation to protect their immoral activities from being subject to the legal remedies of their customers and communities.
Money out of politics: it’s an old song, but not enough people have learned the chorus yet.

Get Kony! Get Assad! Get Busy Filming!

Roger Cohen wrote an excellent rumination in today’s NY Times on the whole Kony video and its backlash.

It made me wonder why this video became so popular – and why the dismissive backlash came so quickly.

My theory is that it catalyzed at least two things: The desire of people, especially young people, to do something to remedy injustice in the world; and the fact that the media often  fail to tell us What We Can Do.

So much of media coverage consists of scaring us – the “If it bleeds it leads” principle – and then giving us nothing to do about it, making us feel powerless every single day. I think the power of the video is in the message it begins and ends with: we can do something about this. Having led with that message, people stuck around for 30 minutes – in the age of Twitter, that’s an eternity – to find out how they could help.

Regardless of the concerns about Invisible Children’s fundraising or the accuracy or timeliness of the video’s content – all valid concerns – the medium is the message here: told that we can help, and what to do, we show up in incredible numbers. At least, we do in this case.

There must be more to it than just being given the opportunity to help. Perhaps it was 1) the project’s particulars (children in peril, the moving testimony of Jacob, etc.), 2) the fact that we would be joining an in-gear effort that already had some success to show, 3) the fact that helping was something we could do at our keyboards, 4) the fact that it had a do-by date of April 20, or a combination of these factors.

I have even seen critics refer to the Kony video and Invisible Children as a psy-ops campaign. It’s fascinating, isn’t it? How viral the video went, how enthusiastic everyone was, and how quickly others came in, first with reality checks, and then with conspiracy theories.

Cohen finishes his piece with a plea to roll out this kind of response in support of the Free Syrian Army, the opposition to the mass murdering head of state there, Assad. But a Twitter post and hash tag are not enough. Invisible Children taught us that we need something flashier to catapult us into action. Explications of the details in Foreign Affairs, or OpEds in the NY Times, are not enough – or even relevant, perhaps, for most people. We will respond. You just have to hit us in the right way. The Stop Kony video may have given us a very useful clue. Watch for imitators.

Meanwhile, #StopAssadinSyria and #StoptheWarOnWomen. See the following videos.

Republican Lawmaker: GOP ‘Would Take Women Back Decades’

Teresa Sayward is only an assemblyman, but she’s a Republican telling the truth. It’s a start.

Questions about women and womens’ health have dominated the political debate over the past weeks, and at least one female Republican lawmaker is unhappy with her party’s record. New York Assemblyman Teresa Sayward (R), who is retiring after serving a decade in Albany, told the New York political program Capital Tonight that she does not support any of her party’s presidential candidates, because of their stances on women.

She also took an apparent shot at Republicans’ opposition to President Obama’s birth control mandate, saying, “It’s disheartening for me to see our party move away from what it was always about and that is to stay out of people’s lives, let them live their lives, don’t impose their religion on anybody else.”

Asked which Republican candidate she supports, Sayward replied:

SAYWARD: I do not have a favorite in the presidential race, if I had to vote today, I’d vote for Obama.

INTERVIEW: Really?

SAYWARD: Absolutely… Because I really, truly think that the candidates that are out there today for the Republican side would take women back decades.

via New York Republican Lawmaker: GOP ‘Would Take Women Back Decades’.

Limbaugh Is Just Batting Practice: State Legislatures Are Ground Zero For Women’s Rights

The least of women’s worries in 2012 is Rush Limbaugh calling them names.

Women are waking up and preparing to rise up all across the country, thanks to Mr. Limbaugh and to state legislatures passing laws restricting women’s rights at an unprecedented speed and level.

We thought all was well so long as Roe v. Wade was not overturned. We are like a woman leaning on her cane and not noticing that the ground has been eroded: as she goes over the cliff, she swears that her cane was fine just a moment ago. It’s not the cane that let her down. A woman can still choose to have an abortion – but good luck finding someone qualified to do it. Nationwide, 88% of counties have no abortion service provider. Fewer than half of ob-gyn residency programs offer training in the procedures required for a first trimester abortion.

Opponents of abortion have drawn the line against contraceptives and sex education – the very things most effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. You may have just begun to hear about this, but it is not new.

Eleven states have given doctors and pharmacists – who may not know the patient or her situation – veto power over women’s health care decisions, because state legislatures value the moral and religious considerations of doctors and pharmacists over those of every woman.  National and state legislatures want to give employers, who know nothing about medicine, the same veto power. Who gets it next – the local police? Your dry cleaner?

It’s hard to keep track of all the fronts of this war on women. Personhood bills give a fertilized egg the full rights of personhood from the moment of conception, effectively making hormonal contraception and abortion illegal. Transvaginal ultrasound bills require a doctor, against medical advice, if necessary, to insert an instrument into a woman’s vagina, with or without her consent – an action that in every other circumstance would be considered rape. A bill just passed by the Senate in Arizona protects doctors who withhold information from a pregnant woman if that information might be used to justify a decision to abort the pregnancy – even if the situation threatens the life of the woman or her fetus.

The weapons of misogyny are not restricted to Limbaugh and legislatures.

• In 2010 alone, 19,000 sexual assaults were perpetrated in the military – to which newscaster Liz Trotta said, “What did they expect?
• In 2012, women earn only 77% of what men earn for the same work.
• In 2011, only 12 of the Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs.
• In 2012, women comprise only 17% of the members of the US Congress and, on average, only 26% of state legislatures.

And on and on.

We are the daughters (and sons) of Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth, Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi. We must do as they did: we must speak out in public, we must march, and we must be prepared to fight to reclaim the rights that women inherited from their struggles.
There will be a march, a first step in reclaiming the inalienable rights of women, on April 28. It will take place in every state capital in the country. Join us, and tell your friends, sisters, mothers, daughters, and pro-woman men to join us, too.

Whom did they choose to mace? The Woman, of course.

Understand that there will be resistance. This is why it must be a movement of all of us, not just a few. Sojourner Truth and Susan B. Anthony may have been the leading lights of their time, but they were backed up by thousands of others. If you think the authorities are not threatened by women when they assemble, look at the abuse riot police in Virginia recently gave to peaceful women who protested the transvaginal ultrasound bill there. Women have power; it’s been much too long since they unsheathed it.

Finally, consider this: resistance to women’s rights has always been a problem at the state level. When Tennessee ratified the 19th Amendment in 1920, it gave women across the land the right to vote. Do you know how long it took other states to ratify?

Georgia (23.7), North (22.4) and South Carolina (9.4) and Louisiana (16) did not ratify it until the 1970’s. And Mississippi (14.9) did not ratify it until 1984. The numbers in parentheses are the percentages of women in the legislatures of those states in 2011.

The march is just the beginning. Women must be better represented in legislatures throughout the country. Run for office, or press other qualified women to do so. Run, or prepare to be run over, again and again.

We still have some choices in America. But the most fundamental one in 2012 is this: do we take over, or do we take cover? Our freedom and dignity depends on each other’s answer.

[See also my article, Will Women Rise Up in 2012?]

Apparently, In Arizona, They Will Gladly Take Your Baby When They Pry It From Your Dead, Cold Hands

Let’s call it what it really is: the “Let The Woman Die” Bill.

It’s called a “wrongful birth” bill and it’s all about preventing women from having an abortion, even if it kills them. The Arizona Senate passed a bill this week that gives doctors a free pass to not inform pregnant women of prenatal problems because such information could lead to an abortion.

In other words, doctors can intentionally keep critical health information from pregnant women and can’t be sued for it. According to the Arizona Capitol Times, “the bill’s sponsor is Republican Nancy Barto of Phoenix. She says allowing the medical malpractice lawsuits endorses the idea that if a child is born with a disability, someone is to blame.” So Republicans are banning lawsuits against doctors who keep information from pregnant women so as to prevent them from choosing to have an abortion.

This bill is actually more disturbing than the Republicans seem to realize. Giving doctors such a free pass risks the lives of both the expectant mother and the fetus she carries. Prenatal care isn’t just for discovering birth defects and disabilities. It is also for discovering life threatening issues such as an ectopic pregnancy which often requires an abortion to save the life of the mother. With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable anyway, but Republicans are allowing anti-abortion doctors to keep life threatening information from pregnant women all because they are obsessed with stopping any and all abortions. Women may not know they have a life threatening condition until they die on the emergency room table. And the doctor couldn’t be sued.

This is an egregious bill that will lead to higher mortality rates for infants and mothers. Doctors should be held accountable for not disclosing information learned from prenatal examinations. Pregnant women have the right to know if their future child is going to have a disability or if the pregnancy may require an induced abortion to save their lives. Any decision that is made as a result of the information is the mothers own. Doctors should not be allowed to make decisions for pregnant women as a way to prevent abortions. Women have the right to make their own health decisions and hiding critical information is irresponsible, unconscionable, and risks lives. In the end, Republicans are only putting more lives in jeopardy. They might as well call this the ‘let women die’ bill.

via Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Doctors To Not Inform Women Of Prenatal Issues To Prevent Abortions | Addicting Info.

I’m thrilled to see the outcry over the hatred towards women that these politicians and their supporters are trying to make into law. I also think there should be more outrage, a lot more; I’m surprised women aren’t rioting in the streets. Yet the more calculating side of me is glad that the furor hasn’t reached the point where the Christian Right realizes they’ll lose – and waits till after the election to properly finish fucking over the women in America. Vote Santorum in the your primary to expose the war on women for what it is.

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State ‘Makes Me Want To Throw Up’

I’m starting to really enjoy watching political batting practice with Rick Santorum these days. No matter what pitch they think he’ll lay off on, Rick just keeps swinging for the fences. So if you were expecting him to try to give a good safe political answer on the separation of church and state question on Sunday, you watched him drive another soft pitch deep into the the Christian rights’ bleachers.

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute,” he told ‘This Week‘ host George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country…to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up.”

The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he “almost threw up” after reading JFK’s 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was “not the founders’ vision.”

via Santorum: Separation Of Church And State ‘Makes Me Want To Throw Up’.

Well, gee, Rick, you know what makes me want to throw up?

Chris Christie’s Gay Marriage Veto: We’re Going to Override It

Now this IS good news. Now, who can use this to their best political advantage: ignorant haters or the folks who deserve their rights?

Governor of New Jersey at a town hall in Hills...

Image via Wikipedia

New Jersey nearly made it to the finish line. Unfortunately, a governor driven by national ambition derailed the fight for equality and fairness. But Governor Christie’s veto only delayed the day and time when we finally establish marriage equality in the Garden State — because it is going to happen in New Jersey, and we are going to override his veto.

Two weeks ago, the New Jersey State Senate and Assembly passed legislation that would establish true equality in the way we treat same-sex couples. It would officially recognize same-sex couple unions for what they are: marriages. Along the way, we encountered the usual hysteria that pops up anytime this issue is mentioned. We heard the same old claims, all of which are based either on fear, hatred, or simple misunderstanding. We heard the ridiculous statements about this opening up a Pandora’s Box that would allow people to marry their dogs. We heard all the inane observations from those who in no way, shape, or form would have been impacted by this legislation.

In the end, my colleagues proudly stood up and rejected those arguments. They stood with those whose only request is to be treated like everyone else. It was an enormous accomplishment, particularly in the Senate, where just two years ago a similar bill failed by a vote of 14 in favor vs. 20 against (it required 21 votes in favor to pass). At the time, I abstained from voting, unfortunately — a decision I immediately regretted.

In two years’ time, however, I and many of my fellow colleagues came around to see this issue for what it was: a matter of equality, fairness, and justice. In the end, the Senate passed marriage equality by a 24-16 vote, with two courageous Republicans defying their governor and voting for what was right. The enormous shift between this latest vote and the one we took two years ago clearly spells out that the days of treating same-sex couples as second-class citizens in New Jersey are numbered.

Unfortunately, Governor Chris Christie refuses to be part of the solution to this problem of inequality. Driven by national ambition that would rather see him be president (or vice president) than do what is right, the governor first tried to deflect his position on the issue by calling for a public vote on whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Anyone who is a student of history knows that you never, ever put the rights of the minority up for a vote of the majority; the majority will almost always vote it down. Not only was Governor Christie clearly ignorant of history on this issue, but his newfound sense of populism (the governor never seems to ask for a public referendum on any other issue) was also a way to relieve his Republican colleagues in the Legislature of their duty to serve the people. Our job as legislators is to act. If we are going to simply punt on every difficult issue that comes up, we might as well pack our bags and head home.

Luckily, the majority of legislators were able to see the governor’s action for what it was, and we passed marriage equality. Unfortunately, the governor last week vetoed the bill. As if the veto weren’t bad enough, the governor also called for an ombudsman to oversee the state’s current civil unions law. It was shocking. Governor Christie was actually advocating for a taxpayer-paid position whose main function would be to continue our state’s failed policy of discrimination. The governor would have been better off simply vetoing the bill — his new conditions are frankly an embarrassment.

The governor’s actions are disheartening, but they certainly do not represent the will and determination of the people of New Jersey. We want to join the ever-growing number of states that recognize that two people who love one another and want to be in a committed relationship should have the same rights as everyone else, regardless of gender. We don’t want New Jersey, which has led the way on so many other progressive issues, to be stuck in neutral while a country like South Africa, which only a generation ago had state-sanctioned racial discrimination, has already moved ahead on this issue.

I know many of my Republican colleagues believe marriage equality is the right thing. Unfortunately, Governor Christie has put political pressure on them to keep them from voting how they wish. I know we can change their mind. I know they are good people who want to do the right thing. And I know that in the end what is right and fair will ultimately win out. Though the governor has placed his feet firmly on the wrong side of history, he simply cannot stop the tide of fairness and equality that is rising not just in New Jersey but across the country. We are going to get this done.

via Stephen M. Sweeney: Chris Christie’s Gay Marriage Veto: We’re Going to Override It.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 475 other followers