The other night, I turned off a DVD in frustration after about half an hour. In the movie, a woman had learned that she was pregnant, and she was pissed off. She was distraught, and went on about it as though this pregnancy had just ruined her career and hence, her life. I turned the TV off when I got tired of yelling, "Get an abortion, you idiot." "You know you don't HAVE to have a baby, for god's sake." And, "What the hell is wrong with you???" I was imagining an actual baby being born to this narcissistic stupid woman, and also the damage movies like this did to a woman's right to have an abortion, because it did not even consider that women had an actual choice. I must add that I assumed in the end she had the baby and magically turned into a warm, loving mother, maybe because the title of the movie was, "Mothers and Daughters." I may be wrong, in which case I apologize, but it truly wasn't worth another hour and a half of my life to find out.
On the other side, in one of the plot-lines in the brilliant television series, Shameless, fifteen-or-so year old Debbie intentionally gets pregnant, and battles the insistence of her oldest sister and parental surrogate Fiona to have an abortion. As the baby is lovingly accepted into the family, Debbie realizes that parenting is far more than she thought she wanted or could handle, and that she may have made a big mistake.
In Dr. Willie Parker's dynamic and personal account of the battle for women's right to abortion, he talks about how crucial it is to be sure a woman has actually decided that she wants to have an abortion independently and with certainty. In Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice he describes a heartbreaking incident in which he thought a woman had made that decision, only to learn after the procedure, that she had been coerced by her husband.
It's been a few weeks since I read that book, and the description of that incident has stayed with me.
One of the things that we pro-choice advocates tend to ignore is that pro-choice means that women -- and girls -- have the right to choose pregnancy as well as abortion. That is certainly my bias. I was truly fortunate that I never had to face that with my daughter, because it may not have been my shining moment as a parent. I know MY choice would have been for her to have an abortion, regardless of her choice.
We make quite a big deal, we liberals, about how pregnant girls should not be forced by parents to have a baby. About how it can ruin their lives. About how they will be hurt emotionally and financially. We know that raising a child on her own is an extraordinary hardship for most women. It is likely to impair relationships, with family, friends and potential partners. It will interfere with educational opportunity and career goals. The emotional stress of having a baby without adequate support will affect the health and well-being of the baby.
And of course, it just makes sense that they wait to have a baby until they are emotionally and financially ready.
But is that right? If I am to be truly honest here, is it more right to deny a teen the right to have a baby than to deny her the right to an abortion? And what about the pressures from husband, boyfriend, parents on adult women to end a pregnancy?
Let's take care of that latter question first. A woman should be in charge of her own decision regarding a pregnancy. Period. There are social mores, as with some religions, that put the decision in the hands of the husband, most often forcing a woman to bring the pregnancy to term. It may also happen the other way, as Dr. Parker described, in which the spouse has ordered his wife to end the pregnancy, and she complies. Which is why it is so critical that clinics have the ability and training to interview and assess whether the woman has independently chosen an abortion.
Far more difficult is the teenager's choice. Would you let your teenager really choose? When I was pregnant at age twenty there was no conceivable way I would have told my parents. My father, with whom I wasn't speaking on and off since I was fifteen, would certainly have stopped speaking to me. My mother, with many tears and recriminations, would never ever have approved of an abortion. And I would have been totally unable to care for a baby on my own. But had I decided to tell my parents and keep the baby, they surely would have loved it.
Decades later, had my daughter become pregnant, I would have assumed that she would have an abortion. Her teenage years had been rocky enough between she and I; I can only imagine the rage on both our parts as we each fought for what we thought was right. Her life as I wanted it to be would have been over. But her life as she might have wanted it to be....
The irony is that as parents it is up to us to make decisions about our children that affect their well-being. And as they grow older, at some point we lose control over those choices, even though we may know better. They may experiment with drugs and alcohol. They can choose to fail in school, drop out or refuse to go to college, take a low-paying job with no future. They can decide to date or live with someone who has himself made bad choices. And one of the things they may choose, even under our roof, is whether they become pregnant, and whether or not to have a baby.
Because we have needed to be so rabidly engaged in the fight to protect our right to reproductive freedom, i.e. contraception and abortion, we have let the right wing control the other side. We have let them talk about killing babies and how those who are pro-abortion would take away a woman's right to have those babies.
It is time to take this argument away from the anti-choice brigade. Because what they are proposing is not "pro-life" but anti: against both sides of "choice."
Pro-choice should mean certain rights to women and girls who choose to be pregnant. It should mean that the government will provide to them the safety net that will assure the well-being of both mother and child. A pregnancy should not mean hardship and punishment, difficulty finding work or even the need to find work while caring for an infant. Proposing that pregnant women and girls should be required to carry the pregnancy to term without financial security, health care, and emotional support services is not pro-life. It is punishment. Punishment for those who are pregnant, punishment for their families, and punishment for the child to come.
Those who are most rabidly in the anti-abortion league tend to be those who are most determined to cut away any safety net that would actually optimize life. That is why Texas now has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world. In a country that has no problem spending tax dollars on prisons, we are hearing Tea Party idiots like Mick Mulvaney talk about how taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for food stamps. While they are promoting fanciful lies about how abortion kills babies, they are cutting funding for clinics that would provide the care that would save the lives of women, infants and children.
If we honestly believe our stance is "pro-choice" we need to start talking about the right to have babies as well as the right not to. And then we can have the argument on our own terms. That is, that a woman or girl who chooses to be pregnant deserves the support of the government. Health care, housing, child care -- no one who claims to be pro-life should obstruct those rights.
It is time to own this side of women's right to choice.
Showing posts with label Food stamps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food stamps. Show all posts
Friday, June 16, 2017
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Why I Talk about Money
A few days ago, I wrote a blog post about my frustrating efforts to get information in anticipation of my upcoming switch to Medicare. In that post I talked dollars and cents regarding the costs of Medicare Part B, and specifically the way our Congress has increased the cost to new recipients, while avoiding the shitstorm they might have had if people already enrolled could see how much the premium and deductible had gone up.
My purpose in writing the blog was not just to describe how difficult it is to maneuver the complexities of Medicare, or even to expose all the unconscionable costs that seniors are now expected to pay for health insurance. I really wanted to leave readers with the awareness that this is very likely to be the future of Obamacare, which is currently affordable and comprehensive.
Since I wrote the blog, I have had a number of conversations with people where we have actually talked in dollars and cents. It is amazing how many intelligent and aware people do not know or understand all the various components of their health insurance, who just pay what they are billed and are thankful that they are covered. Which is just the way Congress and the health care industry want it.
I have found, in my life, that we are more comfortable talking about our sex lives than about money. I was told when I was in my twenties, by a far more sophisticated friend, that it is impolite to talk about money. We don't want to brag and we sure don't want to beg. We don't want sympathy, and we don't want scorn.
So we don't talk about our income. If we were more comfortable sharing information about money, Lilly Ledbetter might not have been in the dark about being subject to wage discrimination. We might all learn about bad financial deals and all those scams like car buying and loans. We might exchange good information about tax breaks and government programs to which we are entitled. We would be far more aware of how the republican right has worked with corporations and billionaires to manipulate our incomes and expenses.
Actually, not talking about money makes about as much sense to me as not talking about age. It makes a big secret out of something that should be merely a sharing of information. Really, who cares that I am 64? It doesn't mean I'm going to die sooner, or look younger. I believe people will judge me on far more than my age, and knowing how old I am is just a small piece of information that I provide.
Talking about costs is important to me, not because I need for people to know how much I personally live on, but because we all need to know more about how we all survive in this really bad plutocracy. Absence of information makes us all vulnerable. That is why corporations fight so hard to hide financial data; that is also why they are working so hard to collect data from all of us.
Here is another thing. Since the Post and Courier published an article about serious problems with well water on Wadmalaw Island, a number of concerned people asked me how I was faring. Fact is, I live in a relatively new development, the well is only about 25 years old, and there are people living with wells that were drilled in the 60's and 70's. But, I add, there is a low income grant that qualifies me for a new well, so I am fortunate on that account as well.
Most people, I think, are uncomfortable learning that I qualify for a new well based on my income. None of us really want to know that our friends are struggling financially, do we? And then there are probably those who get their backs up just a bit over their tax dollars paying for my well. If I end up with a new well and I am not obviously struggling, isn't that wrong? After all, it wasn't long ago that the right-wingnuts in Congress were saying that you weren't poor if you had a refrigerator.
It's okay for tax dollars to pay for Boeing's success, and it's okay for corporate farms and pharmaceuticals to get huge subsidies from the government. I recently heard a building contractor, when asked what he thought about Trump, reply, "If he becomes president, I'll be right there putting in a bid to build that wall." There are acceptable ways to take government money and having a low income just isn't one of them.
I wrestled with agreeing to have that new well built. I knew there were people far worse off than me. But I was also told that if something happened to my current system, it would cost $6,000 to drill that new well. So I agreed.
A businessman getting offered a good deal by the government would hardly turn it down. But we individuals are made to feel like beggars and sponges if we accept a good deal. Many, many people do not apply for financial assistance or food stamps because of the stigma, which our right-wing government is all too happy to magnify, by adding regulations from more frequent income checks to required proof of job-seeking to drug tests.
When the housing market collapsed not too long ago, hard working middle class people who believed in our capitalist system were thrown out on the street. Congress fought over whether people who were unsuccessful looking for jobs should have their unemployment benefits extended.
There is an enormous myth that persists that if you work hard you will not need to turn to the government for help. And yet those who are in government and trying to cut the benefits we deserve and depend upon are all to happy to take what the government gives them. Our right-wing majority in Congress, and in too many of our statehouses, insist that people should work two jobs, mothers should work rather than stay home with children. Meanwhile, members of the US House of Representatives, with full pay and benefits, are scheduled to work 111 days this year.
So let's not be polite about money. We may think we don't know anyone who is struggling, or we may just think we don't know anyone who is struggling as much as we are. Fact is, too many of us are in that same shaky boat, while the Koch brothers are in the yacht that is making all the waves.
My purpose in writing the blog was not just to describe how difficult it is to maneuver the complexities of Medicare, or even to expose all the unconscionable costs that seniors are now expected to pay for health insurance. I really wanted to leave readers with the awareness that this is very likely to be the future of Obamacare, which is currently affordable and comprehensive.
Since I wrote the blog, I have had a number of conversations with people where we have actually talked in dollars and cents. It is amazing how many intelligent and aware people do not know or understand all the various components of their health insurance, who just pay what they are billed and are thankful that they are covered. Which is just the way Congress and the health care industry want it.
I have found, in my life, that we are more comfortable talking about our sex lives than about money. I was told when I was in my twenties, by a far more sophisticated friend, that it is impolite to talk about money. We don't want to brag and we sure don't want to beg. We don't want sympathy, and we don't want scorn.
So we don't talk about our income. If we were more comfortable sharing information about money, Lilly Ledbetter might not have been in the dark about being subject to wage discrimination. We might all learn about bad financial deals and all those scams like car buying and loans. We might exchange good information about tax breaks and government programs to which we are entitled. We would be far more aware of how the republican right has worked with corporations and billionaires to manipulate our incomes and expenses.
Actually, not talking about money makes about as much sense to me as not talking about age. It makes a big secret out of something that should be merely a sharing of information. Really, who cares that I am 64? It doesn't mean I'm going to die sooner, or look younger. I believe people will judge me on far more than my age, and knowing how old I am is just a small piece of information that I provide.
Talking about costs is important to me, not because I need for people to know how much I personally live on, but because we all need to know more about how we all survive in this really bad plutocracy. Absence of information makes us all vulnerable. That is why corporations fight so hard to hide financial data; that is also why they are working so hard to collect data from all of us.
Here is another thing. Since the Post and Courier published an article about serious problems with well water on Wadmalaw Island, a number of concerned people asked me how I was faring. Fact is, I live in a relatively new development, the well is only about 25 years old, and there are people living with wells that were drilled in the 60's and 70's. But, I add, there is a low income grant that qualifies me for a new well, so I am fortunate on that account as well.
Most people, I think, are uncomfortable learning that I qualify for a new well based on my income. None of us really want to know that our friends are struggling financially, do we? And then there are probably those who get their backs up just a bit over their tax dollars paying for my well. If I end up with a new well and I am not obviously struggling, isn't that wrong? After all, it wasn't long ago that the right-wingnuts in Congress were saying that you weren't poor if you had a refrigerator.
It's okay for tax dollars to pay for Boeing's success, and it's okay for corporate farms and pharmaceuticals to get huge subsidies from the government. I recently heard a building contractor, when asked what he thought about Trump, reply, "If he becomes president, I'll be right there putting in a bid to build that wall." There are acceptable ways to take government money and having a low income just isn't one of them.
I wrestled with agreeing to have that new well built. I knew there were people far worse off than me. But I was also told that if something happened to my current system, it would cost $6,000 to drill that new well. So I agreed.
A businessman getting offered a good deal by the government would hardly turn it down. But we individuals are made to feel like beggars and sponges if we accept a good deal. Many, many people do not apply for financial assistance or food stamps because of the stigma, which our right-wing government is all too happy to magnify, by adding regulations from more frequent income checks to required proof of job-seeking to drug tests.
When the housing market collapsed not too long ago, hard working middle class people who believed in our capitalist system were thrown out on the street. Congress fought over whether people who were unsuccessful looking for jobs should have their unemployment benefits extended.
There is an enormous myth that persists that if you work hard you will not need to turn to the government for help. And yet those who are in government and trying to cut the benefits we deserve and depend upon are all to happy to take what the government gives them. Our right-wing majority in Congress, and in too many of our statehouses, insist that people should work two jobs, mothers should work rather than stay home with children. Meanwhile, members of the US House of Representatives, with full pay and benefits, are scheduled to work 111 days this year.
So let's not be polite about money. We may think we don't know anyone who is struggling, or we may just think we don't know anyone who is struggling as much as we are. Fact is, too many of us are in that same shaky boat, while the Koch brothers are in the yacht that is making all the waves.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Racism, Sexism or Cancer?
On March 10, the topic on the new Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore was women and power. He has a segment called "Keeping it 100" wherein he asks weird questions designed to put guests on the spot, and then decides whether their answers have been totally honest.
One question was "racism, sexism, or cancer" (minute 18) if you could eliminate two, and the other would proliferate, which two? And Wilmore helpfully suggested that one of them should be cancer.
Guest Chloe Hilliard had to agree, and then decided that the other would have to be racism, because that would affect generations. Or some such nonsense.
That, in a nutshell, is why women continue to be abused, neglected, used and mistreated. We are half of all those other subgroups yet, after generations of enlightenment, we continue to believe that every other interest group is more important than ours.
I wondered how refusing to keep women safe from abusive partners did not affect children and their futures. Or denial of a living wage, food stamps and health care did not reverberate into the community and the following years. Equal pay for equal work? How about privacy and freedom in deciding about whether to get pregnant, or remain pregnant? Is the humiliation and suffering brought upon women by social policy really less important than that of other groups (which, again, overlap with the group labeled "women").
There have been short periods -- the fight for suffrage, the women's movement of the 70's -- in which we stood up and proclaimed that we are as important as any other issue. And then we gained a few rights, thanked those with the power to grant them, and went back to being polite and grateful.
I wonder how bad things will have to get for women, how many women shot or beaten, how many women imprisoned for having abortions -- or killed by back alley ones, how many women sick, starving or homeless before we rise up again and say no to the arguments explaining why we should bow to higher priorities.
Time to stop compromising. Time to stop trying to prove how reasonable we are based on our moderate and rational requests for the right to abortion and birth control. Time to stop suffering.
This is how I would have answered the question of "racism, sexism, or cancer." I would have chosen eliminating racism and sexism. Because cancer cuts across the board; that means that everyone will be invested in doing something about it. And none of the rest of us should have to sacrifice our individual rights so other groups can enjoy theirs.
One question was "racism, sexism, or cancer" (minute 18) if you could eliminate two, and the other would proliferate, which two? And Wilmore helpfully suggested that one of them should be cancer.
Guest Chloe Hilliard had to agree, and then decided that the other would have to be racism, because that would affect generations. Or some such nonsense.
That, in a nutshell, is why women continue to be abused, neglected, used and mistreated. We are half of all those other subgroups yet, after generations of enlightenment, we continue to believe that every other interest group is more important than ours.
I wondered how refusing to keep women safe from abusive partners did not affect children and their futures. Or denial of a living wage, food stamps and health care did not reverberate into the community and the following years. Equal pay for equal work? How about privacy and freedom in deciding about whether to get pregnant, or remain pregnant? Is the humiliation and suffering brought upon women by social policy really less important than that of other groups (which, again, overlap with the group labeled "women").
There have been short periods -- the fight for suffrage, the women's movement of the 70's -- in which we stood up and proclaimed that we are as important as any other issue. And then we gained a few rights, thanked those with the power to grant them, and went back to being polite and grateful.
I wonder how bad things will have to get for women, how many women shot or beaten, how many women imprisoned for having abortions -- or killed by back alley ones, how many women sick, starving or homeless before we rise up again and say no to the arguments explaining why we should bow to higher priorities.
Time to stop compromising. Time to stop trying to prove how reasonable we are based on our moderate and rational requests for the right to abortion and birth control. Time to stop suffering.
This is how I would have answered the question of "racism, sexism, or cancer." I would have chosen eliminating racism and sexism. Because cancer cuts across the board; that means that everyone will be invested in doing something about it. And none of the rest of us should have to sacrifice our individual rights so other groups can enjoy theirs.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Beating Graham
Some of you may not know that Lindsey Graham does actually have an opponent in the upcoming election. Brad Hutto has been around and involved in state politics for awhile, and represents SC Senate District 40. I was so impressed with his strong stand on women's right to reproductive freedom and privacy that I hoped that he would be that candidate who is unafraid to really promise to make a difference.
Sadly, based on his website, this does not appear to be the case. Other than promising to fight for a woman's right to make her own health care decisions without government intervention, his statements on issues tend to be along the lines of trying not to say much that might be controversial. Getting people off food stamps, improving education and infrastructure (while making sure government tightens its belt). He's going to "fix" the Affordable Care Act, by allowing people to choose the best plan and at the same time not letting the insurance companies be in control. Granted, he promises to support alternative energy development, but even Exxon claims to do that.
I like Brad. And we all know it took guts to step up to run against Graham, who has been courting the biggest of the big money backers for a very long time. He doesn't have lots of billionaires who are going to be writing him checks because frankly, they have Lindsey Graham in their pockets. What he does have is lots of people who might make the effort to get out and vote for him if he is willing to take a strong and public stand for them.
I don't know anyone who is sponging off the government by collecting food stamps. That allotment is a pittance, and yet it helps to sustain more of us than you can imagine. I like that Hutto is speaking out in support of raising the minimum wage. But $10.10, by the time it gets passed in the Senate is still inadequate. It will still keep families living in poverty. By the way, those of us who are living with the help of food stamps -- you don't even know who they are, because they are embarrassed and afraid to admit it. In order to get rid of the need for food stamp assistance, our government needs to take a strong stand against employers who claim they are unable to stay in business if they give employees a living wage.
And here's more unsolicited advice to State Senator Hutto:
Don't be afraid to speak up for Obamacare. Honestly, if you're willing to campaign on all the great benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you will be doing a great service to the public, because you will be fighting the absurd and destructive disinformation campaign that idiots like Graham have been promoting, all in the name of fear-building in order to garner votes.
And by standing up to right wingnuts on women's reproductive health, you've gotten our attention and a lot of loyalty. Mention it every chance you get, and we'll actually get out and vote for you.
Here's something few politicians do in South Carolina: talk about the great work Elizabeth Warren is doing to curb the great and powerful Wall Street beast. And specifically talk about the bill that was recently defeated that would have allowed people to refinance older student loans at current lower interest rates, and Lindsey Graham's part in that defeat. And if you want students to get out and vote for you, talk about making college more affordable. Oh, go on, even talk about subsidizing education, the way we subsidize big oil and big agriculture.
For that matter, you might even get some hard-core republican farmers out to support you if you talk about how failure to regulate and large government subsidies have strangled the family farm, and small business in general. Because Graham and his gang have convinced voters that the enemy is government, where the enemy is actually the giant corporation with their lobbyists and lawyers that control people like Lindsey Graham.
So many issues, and it's just a matter of explaining to people how the current system, with Graham and Scott, have worked to keep us one of the poorest states, with bad roads, failing education, low-paid workers, inadequate health care, oh, and gun violence.
The issue that seems to have alienated more of us Dems than any other is that of gun control. Hutto voted for the ridiculous bill that allows guns in bars and restaurants, putting the onus of responsibility on the bar/restaurant owners. If you're afraid of the people here who are passionate about their guns, you should know that even gun owners understand that there is a time and a place for wielding that weapon. Here we are in 2014 making the country's top-10 list for gun violence.
I would give pause at the voting booth when I consider that you might be in the US Senate, voting on a bill that would require background checks and limit ammunition capacity. Such a reasonable law, adopted in states that recognize the need, a law that might actually make life safer on the streets and in our schools, I would have to say at this point you would vote against it.
All things being equal -- and in politics in 2014 they are not -- you just might win against Graham. But because all things are not equal, Brad Hutto needs to be a strong alternative to Lindsey Graham, not a lukewarm bunch of promises. My motto here in South Carolina is, if you're going to lose anyway, you might as well speak out. In fact, and in a wonderful irony, speaking out will get you the greatest chance of beating the odds and winning that election.
So, Brad, go out and defend us against the likes of Lindsey Graham.
Sadly, based on his website, this does not appear to be the case. Other than promising to fight for a woman's right to make her own health care decisions without government intervention, his statements on issues tend to be along the lines of trying not to say much that might be controversial. Getting people off food stamps, improving education and infrastructure (while making sure government tightens its belt). He's going to "fix" the Affordable Care Act, by allowing people to choose the best plan and at the same time not letting the insurance companies be in control. Granted, he promises to support alternative energy development, but even Exxon claims to do that.
I like Brad. And we all know it took guts to step up to run against Graham, who has been courting the biggest of the big money backers for a very long time. He doesn't have lots of billionaires who are going to be writing him checks because frankly, they have Lindsey Graham in their pockets. What he does have is lots of people who might make the effort to get out and vote for him if he is willing to take a strong and public stand for them.
I don't know anyone who is sponging off the government by collecting food stamps. That allotment is a pittance, and yet it helps to sustain more of us than you can imagine. I like that Hutto is speaking out in support of raising the minimum wage. But $10.10, by the time it gets passed in the Senate is still inadequate. It will still keep families living in poverty. By the way, those of us who are living with the help of food stamps -- you don't even know who they are, because they are embarrassed and afraid to admit it. In order to get rid of the need for food stamp assistance, our government needs to take a strong stand against employers who claim they are unable to stay in business if they give employees a living wage.
And here's more unsolicited advice to State Senator Hutto:
Don't be afraid to speak up for Obamacare. Honestly, if you're willing to campaign on all the great benefits of the Affordable Care Act, you will be doing a great service to the public, because you will be fighting the absurd and destructive disinformation campaign that idiots like Graham have been promoting, all in the name of fear-building in order to garner votes.
And by standing up to right wingnuts on women's reproductive health, you've gotten our attention and a lot of loyalty. Mention it every chance you get, and we'll actually get out and vote for you.
Here's something few politicians do in South Carolina: talk about the great work Elizabeth Warren is doing to curb the great and powerful Wall Street beast. And specifically talk about the bill that was recently defeated that would have allowed people to refinance older student loans at current lower interest rates, and Lindsey Graham's part in that defeat. And if you want students to get out and vote for you, talk about making college more affordable. Oh, go on, even talk about subsidizing education, the way we subsidize big oil and big agriculture.
For that matter, you might even get some hard-core republican farmers out to support you if you talk about how failure to regulate and large government subsidies have strangled the family farm, and small business in general. Because Graham and his gang have convinced voters that the enemy is government, where the enemy is actually the giant corporation with their lobbyists and lawyers that control people like Lindsey Graham.
So many issues, and it's just a matter of explaining to people how the current system, with Graham and Scott, have worked to keep us one of the poorest states, with bad roads, failing education, low-paid workers, inadequate health care, oh, and gun violence.
The issue that seems to have alienated more of us Dems than any other is that of gun control. Hutto voted for the ridiculous bill that allows guns in bars and restaurants, putting the onus of responsibility on the bar/restaurant owners. If you're afraid of the people here who are passionate about their guns, you should know that even gun owners understand that there is a time and a place for wielding that weapon. Here we are in 2014 making the country's top-10 list for gun violence.
I would give pause at the voting booth when I consider that you might be in the US Senate, voting on a bill that would require background checks and limit ammunition capacity. Such a reasonable law, adopted in states that recognize the need, a law that might actually make life safer on the streets and in our schools, I would have to say at this point you would vote against it.
All things being equal -- and in politics in 2014 they are not -- you just might win against Graham. But because all things are not equal, Brad Hutto needs to be a strong alternative to Lindsey Graham, not a lukewarm bunch of promises. My motto here in South Carolina is, if you're going to lose anyway, you might as well speak out. In fact, and in a wonderful irony, speaking out will get you the greatest chance of beating the odds and winning that election.
So, Brad, go out and defend us against the likes of Lindsey Graham.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Honoring Our Legislators
As the clown car pulls out of the Columbia station, I think we should all take a few moments to reflect on what I believe has been a year of astounding idiocy.
For example, who can ever get enough state symbols? Whenever we start to think there is nothing our legislators can agree on, we can always turn to choosing another state symbol. But wait! This year, we managed to turn a simple request to recognize the Columbian mammoth as state fossil into a battlefield. Just as we keep fighting the Civil War, this was yet another chapter of science versus the bible. Senator Kevin Bryant added an amendment that referred to the animal "as created on the sixth day with the beasts of the field." Not to be outdone, Senator Mike Fair then put a block on the bill based on his failure to grasp the theory of natural selection. These religious objections and aimless incursions into the realms of science are just another day of governing down here; my favorite objection, however, is that we have just too darned many state symbols.
Anyway, my personal opinion about the state symbol debate is that the more time they spend arguing about state-whatevers, the less time they have to do real damage. Like the way they mangled attempts to legalize medical marijuana. Our moral mediocrity members, by way of protecting us from relief of pain in our illnesses, whittled down what should have been a simple bill by creating complexities that Obamacare drafters could only have written in their dreams. Talking out of the other side of the mouths that they use to spout stuff about individual freedom, our legislators showed their concern that we not succumb to the evils of the wicked weed by narrowing the type of oil, its point of origin, the specific type of research, and I believe the hours of the day and days of the month it can be accessed. And probably a dozen or more other stipulations that will keep that plant out of the hands of those in need.
But no prizes to those who worked hard to make the bill meaningless; it's been done already. Right here in South Carolina, in 1980, the South Carolina Controlled Substances and Research Act had so many inclusions and exclusions that it has never actually been used. Not once. While we wait another 35 years for the next attempt at a law that would actually allow people to use medicinal marijuana, we'll just have to keep relying on that oxycodone, the stuff that will get you high and addicted, while PhRMA gets ever richer. Hey, it's legal.
Well, that was a little too heavy for a clown car award, especially if you start to think about the people you know who experience chronic pain, and/or the drug dependency and side effects of oxy use. So I'm not even going to talk about Wendy Nanney's work to become god's crusader for exposing (and controlling) women's medical decisions. But Wendy did give us a lighter moment.
It seems she was driving home one day and noticed a bicyclist do something dangerous. And in the time it took her to get where she was going, she had devised a bill that would require licensing and classes for cyclists. Except that the minute it went public, and to her surprise and consternation, friends of hers in the bicycling community were up in arms; two hours later, the bill went down. Wendy defended her bill by saying that it wasn't really about big government; only those over 15 years old would have to be licensed.
Now this to me is proof that Wendy sincerely cares about life before birth and after age fifteen. Any life falling in between is on its own.
Another heated battle that should not have been was about whether to bring sex ed into the twenty-first century, which for some of our legislators would have been too much too soon, as we never actually made it all the way into the twentieth century. Mike Fair, staunch defender of his own religious distortions, sees no need to bring any education, much less sex education, up to the level of "medically accurate." Seems to me he was back there complaining that "minimally adequate" was too high a standard for educating our children.
The problem may just be that Mike is uncomfortable with the thought that these young kids might end up knowing more than he does. So after months of serious legislators, organizations and constituents fighting to get it to the point of passage, he put a block on the bill. Proving that one idiot can move an entire Senate, and in fact, an entire state -- backwards.
In the final minutes of debate on another bill which attempts to provide much needed awareness to our children, one senator wakes up and rises to ask, "Why are we teaching sexual awareness to our four-year-olds?" The sponsor of the bill informs him that it is not "sexual awareness" but "sexual abuse awareness." Watching this debate, a wise friend commented, "Forget the kids; our legislators need sex ed."
And so it goes; another year down the tubes. If it's any consolation, these guys did approve a raise for themselves. Might be coming out of the savings from denying people food stamps and Medicaid, but it will be well worth it to keep these idiots off the street.
If you have a favorite moment from this year in South Carolina's legislature, please leave a comment and share it with us all. Sometimes you just gotta laugh.
For example, who can ever get enough state symbols? Whenever we start to think there is nothing our legislators can agree on, we can always turn to choosing another state symbol. But wait! This year, we managed to turn a simple request to recognize the Columbian mammoth as state fossil into a battlefield. Just as we keep fighting the Civil War, this was yet another chapter of science versus the bible. Senator Kevin Bryant added an amendment that referred to the animal "as created on the sixth day with the beasts of the field." Not to be outdone, Senator Mike Fair then put a block on the bill based on his failure to grasp the theory of natural selection. These religious objections and aimless incursions into the realms of science are just another day of governing down here; my favorite objection, however, is that we have just too darned many state symbols.
Anyway, my personal opinion about the state symbol debate is that the more time they spend arguing about state-whatevers, the less time they have to do real damage. Like the way they mangled attempts to legalize medical marijuana. Our moral mediocrity members, by way of protecting us from relief of pain in our illnesses, whittled down what should have been a simple bill by creating complexities that Obamacare drafters could only have written in their dreams. Talking out of the other side of the mouths that they use to spout stuff about individual freedom, our legislators showed their concern that we not succumb to the evils of the wicked weed by narrowing the type of oil, its point of origin, the specific type of research, and I believe the hours of the day and days of the month it can be accessed. And probably a dozen or more other stipulations that will keep that plant out of the hands of those in need.
But no prizes to those who worked hard to make the bill meaningless; it's been done already. Right here in South Carolina, in 1980, the South Carolina Controlled Substances and Research Act had so many inclusions and exclusions that it has never actually been used. Not once. While we wait another 35 years for the next attempt at a law that would actually allow people to use medicinal marijuana, we'll just have to keep relying on that oxycodone, the stuff that will get you high and addicted, while PhRMA gets ever richer. Hey, it's legal.
Well, that was a little too heavy for a clown car award, especially if you start to think about the people you know who experience chronic pain, and/or the drug dependency and side effects of oxy use. So I'm not even going to talk about Wendy Nanney's work to become god's crusader for exposing (and controlling) women's medical decisions. But Wendy did give us a lighter moment.
It seems she was driving home one day and noticed a bicyclist do something dangerous. And in the time it took her to get where she was going, she had devised a bill that would require licensing and classes for cyclists. Except that the minute it went public, and to her surprise and consternation, friends of hers in the bicycling community were up in arms; two hours later, the bill went down. Wendy defended her bill by saying that it wasn't really about big government; only those over 15 years old would have to be licensed.
Now this to me is proof that Wendy sincerely cares about life before birth and after age fifteen. Any life falling in between is on its own.
 |
| Wendy Nanney -- You have to be this tall to be required to get a bicycle license. |
The problem may just be that Mike is uncomfortable with the thought that these young kids might end up knowing more than he does. So after months of serious legislators, organizations and constituents fighting to get it to the point of passage, he put a block on the bill. Proving that one idiot can move an entire Senate, and in fact, an entire state -- backwards.
In the final minutes of debate on another bill which attempts to provide much needed awareness to our children, one senator wakes up and rises to ask, "Why are we teaching sexual awareness to our four-year-olds?" The sponsor of the bill informs him that it is not "sexual awareness" but "sexual abuse awareness." Watching this debate, a wise friend commented, "Forget the kids; our legislators need sex ed."
And so it goes; another year down the tubes. If it's any consolation, these guys did approve a raise for themselves. Might be coming out of the savings from denying people food stamps and Medicaid, but it will be well worth it to keep these idiots off the street.
If you have a favorite moment from this year in South Carolina's legislature, please leave a comment and share it with us all. Sometimes you just gotta laugh.
Friday, May 23, 2014
A Premature Victory Lap
Yes it is thrilling that South Carolina is coming out of its financial slump, with low unemployment and lots of money sitting in the treasury. In fact, some of our legislators are so excited at having money to spend that they've forgotten that they blanch at the thought of funding food stamps and medical care, and are ready to start refunding things like (I am not making this up) the college pigskin all-star bowl, according to Bill Davis of Statehouse Reports.
But before Nikki Haley starts to do her victory laps, I think we should take a look at the bigger picture.
A fight on the federal level for jobs programs, educational funding, better medical care, improvements to roads, bridges and ports, has allowed people to get back on their feet after the financial disaster. Republicans may snort at helping people who are underpaid or unemployed, but those food stamp dollars get put right back into the economy, so that grocery stores can hire and profits can grow. When there is better and more affordable health care, people tend to take care of problems before they end up in an emergency room, costing taxpayers far less.
Here's something for South Carolina: our huge boost in tourism often comes from people who often come from other states, and often from those blue states, where their lives have become secure enough that they can begin to vacation again. We have a beautiful state and a great tourism industry, but let's not give our governor credit for all those tourism tax dollars. That could not have happened unless the tourists came to spend the money.
If it was the South alone that was booming, I might be inclined to say, keep on going with those corporate giveaways and the "right-to-work-cheap" philosophy.
But we continue to be in a sorry state as far as the working poor, and they can't spend money they don't have. Let's not forget that one of the big problem areas that our budget windfall is not fixing is the cost of Medicaid -- and that our governor has refused to take the federal dollars that would not only provide health care to the poor, but would save us lots of money. So we could put more into education, roads and bridges, oh, and what the hell, even funding those pigskin games.
But before Nikki Haley starts to do her victory laps, I think we should take a look at the bigger picture.
A fight on the federal level for jobs programs, educational funding, better medical care, improvements to roads, bridges and ports, has allowed people to get back on their feet after the financial disaster. Republicans may snort at helping people who are underpaid or unemployed, but those food stamp dollars get put right back into the economy, so that grocery stores can hire and profits can grow. When there is better and more affordable health care, people tend to take care of problems before they end up in an emergency room, costing taxpayers far less.
Here's something for South Carolina: our huge boost in tourism often comes from people who often come from other states, and often from those blue states, where their lives have become secure enough that they can begin to vacation again. We have a beautiful state and a great tourism industry, but let's not give our governor credit for all those tourism tax dollars. That could not have happened unless the tourists came to spend the money.
If it was the South alone that was booming, I might be inclined to say, keep on going with those corporate giveaways and the "right-to-work-cheap" philosophy.
But we continue to be in a sorry state as far as the working poor, and they can't spend money they don't have. Let's not forget that one of the big problem areas that our budget windfall is not fixing is the cost of Medicaid -- and that our governor has refused to take the federal dollars that would not only provide health care to the poor, but would save us lots of money. So we could put more into education, roads and bridges, oh, and what the hell, even funding those pigskin games.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
U.S. Economy's Worst Kept Secret
I just learned that America is no longer a democracy, but an oligarchy, wherein the country is controlled by a few. Well, you could have blown me over with a feather. In fact, Paul Krugman warns us of this very thing. What is amazing is that he warned us of this in 2011. So why are we surprised?
Not only that, we've become a plutocracy, which is government by the wealthy. I know, this is another shocker.
Day after day, as the rich get richer and even more of a controlling interest in the United States of America, we continued to be astonished that this could happen -- in a democracy!
I'm looking at this as a kind of a snowball in hell: the more wealth and power, the greater the wealthy and powerful become. And the greater they become the faster they become more wealthy and powerful.
Unlike the rest of us, the wealthy and powerful know how to form a union and then they know how to strategize to get what they want (more wealth and power). They don't really care whether or not you get an abortion just as long as the folks they elect to office keep us distracted by fighting about it while also, that's right, legislating greater wealth and power for the wealthy and powerful. And as long as they can keep us fighting amongst each other over whether to feed the hungry they figure we aren't going to much notice that they are growing the national debt by: giving more to the wealthy and powerful.
I'm not much into history; after all, I am an American. But of late I am learning an awful lot about the Gilded Age, wherein the cruelty and excesses of the wealthy and powerful actually led to the great reforms of the Progressive Era.
And I am being told that we are in the midst of a new gilded age. One of the things that concerns me though is that we seem to be unable to move ourselves into the new progressive era that, according to history, should follow. Are we that much better off? Are perhaps not enough poor children dying? Will Obamacare and food stamps cause us to survive just enough to keep those billionaires going while not giving us the strength to fight for more? Are we like the frog who is put in a pot of water at room temperature and then the heat is turned up so we die so gradually we don't even notice?
I'm not suggesting that things should get worse so that we can decide we need to fight to make it better. But it seems that that is the way it's going. The gains are too small, too few, too far apart. By the time we get an increase in the minimum wage, it will already have been shrunk by the increases in the cost of living. Hail Obamacare, but the insurance industry has made sure that it's the middle class and the government that are getting gouged with rate increases, and the poor will still have to struggle with co-pays, deductibles, and all those other economic creations that have made health care in the U.S. unattainable by so many. The insurance industry will continue to be, that's right, wealthy and powerful.
My father was a tool-and-die maker. I never really knew what that was, but he earned a living. He had job security. And the rise of the unions was recent enough that he understood their importance. That generation would have gone on strike, picketed, and risked imprisonment or worse if there was a threat to their livelihoods, because they were close enough to know what it would be like if they did not.
But my generation lacked that knowledge. We had always known job security, a living wage, benefits, overtime, health care coverage, sick pay, retirement benefits. We grumbled about having to pay dues. And I believe this is why, when the economy hit that big rough patch in the 70's and the big businesses began to ask unions for concessions, they began to concede. And it hasn't stopped yet. We first caved because we thought if we were reasonable, our employers would as they promised, make the concessions temporary. Blue skies ahead. Then we caved because we could lose our jobs. Then we caved because some of us had already lost their jobs. Then our employers screwed us anyway.
And like a bully who is angry that nobody likes him, capitalists continue to have tantrums because their great profits are not great enough, that they are expected to contribute to the society without which they would not have that wealth. And they are angry because anger works. We are intimidated. Afraid of losing what little we have. And those of us who are still making it are terrified of the time when they might join those long-term unemployed, the uninsured, the homeless. And terror has made us powerless to fight the bullies, so we fight those with even less than us.
Unions? We gave ours up while corporate America was growing theirs. They have PhRMA making sure drug prices stay high while government regulation shrinks. Then there is the agricultural lobby, that this year assured that big farms would continue to receive subsidies (although they are apparently calling it crop insurance now) while cutting food stamps for the poor. The oil industry has been strangling us with increased gas prices, and the environment with its careless drilling practices. And then there are the "pan-unions," like American Legislative Exchange Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Enterprise Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. The latter is owned and operated by those uber-plutocrats, Charles and David Koch, whose father was one of the original members of the John Birch Society, and whose oily hands are into every aspect of our lives.
And all the while all these big fat capitalists who rise in fury at the thought of a mandated living wage are spending fortunes in advertising and in political campaign funding to convince us that all those things that are good for the country will take food out of our own mouths. That the price hikes since Obamacare are not just more of the same profit game but are caused by those deadbeats who don't pay for insurance.
I don't know what it will take for us to look out and see who the real bad guys are. I don't know if I will see a new Progressive Era in my lifetime. I do know that things change, they have before and they can change again. Against all odds. Because we have done it before.
Not only that, we've become a plutocracy, which is government by the wealthy. I know, this is another shocker.
Day after day, as the rich get richer and even more of a controlling interest in the United States of America, we continued to be astonished that this could happen -- in a democracy!
I'm looking at this as a kind of a snowball in hell: the more wealth and power, the greater the wealthy and powerful become. And the greater they become the faster they become more wealthy and powerful.
Unlike the rest of us, the wealthy and powerful know how to form a union and then they know how to strategize to get what they want (more wealth and power). They don't really care whether or not you get an abortion just as long as the folks they elect to office keep us distracted by fighting about it while also, that's right, legislating greater wealth and power for the wealthy and powerful. And as long as they can keep us fighting amongst each other over whether to feed the hungry they figure we aren't going to much notice that they are growing the national debt by: giving more to the wealthy and powerful.
I'm not much into history; after all, I am an American. But of late I am learning an awful lot about the Gilded Age, wherein the cruelty and excesses of the wealthy and powerful actually led to the great reforms of the Progressive Era.
And I am being told that we are in the midst of a new gilded age. One of the things that concerns me though is that we seem to be unable to move ourselves into the new progressive era that, according to history, should follow. Are we that much better off? Are perhaps not enough poor children dying? Will Obamacare and food stamps cause us to survive just enough to keep those billionaires going while not giving us the strength to fight for more? Are we like the frog who is put in a pot of water at room temperature and then the heat is turned up so we die so gradually we don't even notice?
I'm not suggesting that things should get worse so that we can decide we need to fight to make it better. But it seems that that is the way it's going. The gains are too small, too few, too far apart. By the time we get an increase in the minimum wage, it will already have been shrunk by the increases in the cost of living. Hail Obamacare, but the insurance industry has made sure that it's the middle class and the government that are getting gouged with rate increases, and the poor will still have to struggle with co-pays, deductibles, and all those other economic creations that have made health care in the U.S. unattainable by so many. The insurance industry will continue to be, that's right, wealthy and powerful.
My father was a tool-and-die maker. I never really knew what that was, but he earned a living. He had job security. And the rise of the unions was recent enough that he understood their importance. That generation would have gone on strike, picketed, and risked imprisonment or worse if there was a threat to their livelihoods, because they were close enough to know what it would be like if they did not.
But my generation lacked that knowledge. We had always known job security, a living wage, benefits, overtime, health care coverage, sick pay, retirement benefits. We grumbled about having to pay dues. And I believe this is why, when the economy hit that big rough patch in the 70's and the big businesses began to ask unions for concessions, they began to concede. And it hasn't stopped yet. We first caved because we thought if we were reasonable, our employers would as they promised, make the concessions temporary. Blue skies ahead. Then we caved because we could lose our jobs. Then we caved because some of us had already lost their jobs. Then our employers screwed us anyway.
And like a bully who is angry that nobody likes him, capitalists continue to have tantrums because their great profits are not great enough, that they are expected to contribute to the society without which they would not have that wealth. And they are angry because anger works. We are intimidated. Afraid of losing what little we have. And those of us who are still making it are terrified of the time when they might join those long-term unemployed, the uninsured, the homeless. And terror has made us powerless to fight the bullies, so we fight those with even less than us.
Unions? We gave ours up while corporate America was growing theirs. They have PhRMA making sure drug prices stay high while government regulation shrinks. Then there is the agricultural lobby, that this year assured that big farms would continue to receive subsidies (although they are apparently calling it crop insurance now) while cutting food stamps for the poor. The oil industry has been strangling us with increased gas prices, and the environment with its careless drilling practices. And then there are the "pan-unions," like American Legislative Exchange Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Enterprise Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. The latter is owned and operated by those uber-plutocrats, Charles and David Koch, whose father was one of the original members of the John Birch Society, and whose oily hands are into every aspect of our lives.
And all the while all these big fat capitalists who rise in fury at the thought of a mandated living wage are spending fortunes in advertising and in political campaign funding to convince us that all those things that are good for the country will take food out of our own mouths. That the price hikes since Obamacare are not just more of the same profit game but are caused by those deadbeats who don't pay for insurance.
I don't know what it will take for us to look out and see who the real bad guys are. I don't know if I will see a new Progressive Era in my lifetime. I do know that things change, they have before and they can change again. Against all odds. Because we have done it before.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Saving the Future -- for Paul Ryan's Kids
I had the misfortune to happen to turn on the television, which for some reason I can't fathom, I have tuned to C-Span. They were pounding out rhetoric about that twit Paul Ryan's budget, but at the moment it was the Democrats' turn so I left it on while I looked at the Guide, so I could see what movies I could watch during the weekend's free HBO preview. But then, as would happen, it became the republicans' turn at the podium, and that hot-airbag Louis Gohmert stepped up.
You certainly can't accuse Gohmert of not enjoying hearing himself speak, because he seems to be on the floor spouting nonsense most of the time I turn the TV on. I imagine he does not have much of a home life.
Anyway, who knows why I didn't immediately turn the volume down, so I had the great bad luck to hear him thanking -- profusely -- his friend on the other side of the aisle for agreeing with him. His "friend" had been talking about the future of our children, and how we need to provide the foundation for our children to build on (my words, but you know what I mean, or, I mean, he meant). Gohmert of course was talking out of the seat of his pants. He was not at all in agreement, but was twisting the words around so bad that they were not recognizable. Gohmert was saying that it is irresponsible for the government to spend money to help people by providing them with social services. That this was actually denying our children a future. By "our children" of course, he meant his children -- his and Paul Ryan's.
This is the way it works. If the government does not spend money on social services, like education, health care, nutrition, unemployment benefits, then my kids and maybe yours, will have less with which to get a fair start in their lives. But Louis Gohmert's kids will do great. And so will his grandkids. And that's what he and Paul Ryan are talking about it.
I wish I could say that even that was at all accurate. Most of our Senators and Representatives are pretty well off, in fact, the majority are millionaires. So unless they take a family member out of their will, or figure out how to take it with them when they go (always a possibility), their kids will do just fine even if they pay a lot more in taxes than the amount they are currently whining about.
On the other hand, the kids whose parents have to sacrifice to provide a college education will have to count on some good fortune as well as brains and hard work. Even more so for those living in poverty, where hard work often doesn't even result in a living wage. And when parents have to work two jobs to make ends meet and aren't there with the kids when they get home from school, or lose a job and have to scrape by on a miserly amount of food stamps, and a child goes to a "minimally adequate" school without the books, technology, or extracurricular activities that would motivate a kid to hope for college and a future, well, I don't think we have to worry about spending their future wealth.
And that's just it. You could go into how spending money to improve lives now improves everybody's future, but you can't convince Paul Ryan that spending any of his "hard-earned" income so that our kids will have a chance at a good future makes economic sense for the country. Because his rationalizations don't go any farther than his wallet. And his own kids' future. He can't hear your worry about paying your bills, or about your child's health. And he doesn't have to.
You certainly can't accuse Gohmert of not enjoying hearing himself speak, because he seems to be on the floor spouting nonsense most of the time I turn the TV on. I imagine he does not have much of a home life.
Anyway, who knows why I didn't immediately turn the volume down, so I had the great bad luck to hear him thanking -- profusely -- his friend on the other side of the aisle for agreeing with him. His "friend" had been talking about the future of our children, and how we need to provide the foundation for our children to build on (my words, but you know what I mean, or, I mean, he meant). Gohmert of course was talking out of the seat of his pants. He was not at all in agreement, but was twisting the words around so bad that they were not recognizable. Gohmert was saying that it is irresponsible for the government to spend money to help people by providing them with social services. That this was actually denying our children a future. By "our children" of course, he meant his children -- his and Paul Ryan's.
This is the way it works. If the government does not spend money on social services, like education, health care, nutrition, unemployment benefits, then my kids and maybe yours, will have less with which to get a fair start in their lives. But Louis Gohmert's kids will do great. And so will his grandkids. And that's what he and Paul Ryan are talking about it.
I wish I could say that even that was at all accurate. Most of our Senators and Representatives are pretty well off, in fact, the majority are millionaires. So unless they take a family member out of their will, or figure out how to take it with them when they go (always a possibility), their kids will do just fine even if they pay a lot more in taxes than the amount they are currently whining about.
On the other hand, the kids whose parents have to sacrifice to provide a college education will have to count on some good fortune as well as brains and hard work. Even more so for those living in poverty, where hard work often doesn't even result in a living wage. And when parents have to work two jobs to make ends meet and aren't there with the kids when they get home from school, or lose a job and have to scrape by on a miserly amount of food stamps, and a child goes to a "minimally adequate" school without the books, technology, or extracurricular activities that would motivate a kid to hope for college and a future, well, I don't think we have to worry about spending their future wealth.
And that's just it. You could go into how spending money to improve lives now improves everybody's future, but you can't convince Paul Ryan that spending any of his "hard-earned" income so that our kids will have a chance at a good future makes economic sense for the country. Because his rationalizations don't go any farther than his wallet. And his own kids' future. He can't hear your worry about paying your bills, or about your child's health. And he doesn't have to.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Will the Democrats Stand Up?
West Wing spoke to many of us over a decade ago. I was so in thrall to its message that I actually went out and bought the entire series, and determined that someday I would start from the beginning and do it again.
About a year ago, I decided the time was right. I have been watching one episode a week now, and find to my surprise/dismay, the same political games and the same attacks on the same groups, with the exception of the recent gains made in marriage equality and marijuana legalization. Women are still fighting to keep our reproductive freedom and privacy; African Americans' right to vote is still under attack; the same programs that make some small dent in the struggles of the poor are being picked at by corporate and right-wing vultures.
So when Bruno Gianelli, campaign organizer for Bartlett's
re-election campaign said this:
In spite of the fact that the republican party has become more destructive with each passing year, and in spite of the fact that the goal of these right-wingnuts is to take from the poor and middle class to make the wealthy even richer and more powerful, I am hearing Democrats talk about the possibility -- no, the likelihood -- that we could lose the US Senate.
Even as more of us benefit from the Affordable Care Act, democrats, rather than take this as the cue to turn moderate republican voters (most republicans) to our cause, are tip-toeing around the fact that this program just might be a success.
Here in South Carolina, we support democrats who do not support women's reproductive rights or LGBT freedom, who do not openly support President Obama, or the Affordable Care Act, or Food Stamps, who incredibly vote in favor of allowing guns in bars. Our candidates will continue to force us to live in a right-to-work-cheap state because they just have no clue as to how anyone could be helped by a union.
That's it, really. Too many democrats running for office that appear to be clueless about what it is to be a Democrat. It's almost as though the thought process is, "Gee, there's already a republican running, and I really want to win this election, so I may as well run as a democrat."
I'm with Bruno Gianelli on this. I've had it with politicians expecting me to vote for them because I'm a Democrat and, well, they are running as democrats. Not good enough. If you want my vote, start now by acting like a Democrat. That means fighting for individuals who may not have the financial clout, or may be in the minority, or may be too beaten down to get out and vote for you.
You never know. If our candidates fearlessly run as the opposing party, they may actually be heard by young men and women who really haven't seen a reason to turn out and vote -- yet. Those poor people that are so easily dismissed may be staunch supporters if they think you might honestly make a difference in their lives.
Our state and county democratic party needs to try a lot harder to invite people in, and to get them heard. They need to stop looking for the safe candidate and begin to look for real Democrats. They need to stop thinking that cheerleading is going to convince voters that their candidate is going to make a difference.
Barack Obama has had a tough uphill slog. I have been among his critics. But I have to say that, once he decided to talk and act like a Democrat he began to get things done. If he were starting his presidency today, knowing what he knows now, he just might be pushing for universal health care. He is not equivocating about raising the minimum wage, although shamefully, some congressional democrats are starting to do that dance. His eventual support for marriage equality has helped in the progress that has been made. He is fighting for the vast numbers of people who have been imprisoned for minor drug possession.
He's not perfect, but he's certainly given our politicians some coattails that they can hold on to. They just need to stop cowering in the corner. As Bruno Gianelli said:
"No more. Let's have two parties."
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
April 1 Breaking News
On this day each year, I like to highlight important breaking news. Here are today's likely headlines:
Anti-gay activists promise to mind their own business.
In related news, anti-abortion radicals say: If we don't believe in abortions, we won't have one.
On the 2014 campaign front, since learning that Lindsey Graham may be "ambiguously gay," his four primary opponents have vowed that in a run-off they will join together to support him.
Finally, due to the popularity of the decision by the state budget committee to censor college assigned reading by withholding funds, our legislators have decided to also withhold food stamps from those who read foreign language books.
Enjoy your April Fool's Day.
Anti-gay activists promise to mind their own business.
In related news, anti-abortion radicals say: If we don't believe in abortions, we won't have one.
On the 2014 campaign front, since learning that Lindsey Graham may be "ambiguously gay," his four primary opponents have vowed that in a run-off they will join together to support him.
Finally, due to the popularity of the decision by the state budget committee to censor college assigned reading by withholding funds, our legislators have decided to also withhold food stamps from those who read foreign language books.
Enjoy your April Fool's Day.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
DON'T Let Them Eat Cake!
I can't help it, whenever I think of Nikki Haley (and I try not to, really) the word "brat" comes to mind. I imagine her stuck in adolescence, flirting with the guys, saying "no" when she means "yes" just to prove she can.
I wish this was just my imagination run amok, but she has certainly carried that attitude into the Governor's office. For example, in 2012 Haley vetoed a bill that would have provided HPV immunization to girls, with an opt out provision for parents not wanting the immunization. This even baffled republicans, since in 2007 she had co-sponsored a bill MANDATING the immunization. This doesn't confuse me at all. I think it's just Nikki being Nikki, in other words, letting us know that if she can't force us to follow her rules, she's going to take her vaccine and go home.
And then we have Medicaid. In a career where she is competing with Mark Sanford for the stupid award, she has determined that under no circumstances will she support a no-cost Medicaid expansion. In a totally humiliating segment on The Daily Show, SC Policy Council President Ashley Landess got to play patsy for Nikki Haley. She first attempts to explain how we can't afford "0 dollars," and then follows it up by saying government has never had a good idea. It kind of reminded me of Miss Teen South Carolina back in 2007 trying to field a tough question about why so many American students can't find the US on a map:
...and also leaves me wondering where the former Miss Teen was when the Policy Council President job opened up.
When it comes to food stamps, Nikki wants to make sure poor people aren't having too much fun. In 2013, she wanted to limit food stamp purchases to "healthy foods," in other words, no cake for you. However, when she was informed that families on food stamps couldn't afford healthy foods, she shifted gears and now supports an initiative to make poor people prove that they are looking for jobs.
The food stamp program is fraught with conflicting messages, but Nikki brings her own stern mama attitude to the mix. No precooked roast chickens and no birthday cake for the kids. We're not going to support the unemployed, and we're not going to help the working poor.
The bottom line is Nikki and her pack don't like people getting something for nothing, and they are going to make sure what they've got isn't easy. So if you were planning on pinching your food stamps so you can afford a birthday cake for your nine-year-old, expect to get dirty looks from your elected officials. At least Marie Antoinette was willing to let the poor eat cake.
I wish this was just my imagination run amok, but she has certainly carried that attitude into the Governor's office. For example, in 2012 Haley vetoed a bill that would have provided HPV immunization to girls, with an opt out provision for parents not wanting the immunization. This even baffled republicans, since in 2007 she had co-sponsored a bill MANDATING the immunization. This doesn't confuse me at all. I think it's just Nikki being Nikki, in other words, letting us know that if she can't force us to follow her rules, she's going to take her vaccine and go home.
And then we have Medicaid. In a career where she is competing with Mark Sanford for the stupid award, she has determined that under no circumstances will she support a no-cost Medicaid expansion. In a totally humiliating segment on The Daily Show, SC Policy Council President Ashley Landess got to play patsy for Nikki Haley. She first attempts to explain how we can't afford "0 dollars," and then follows it up by saying government has never had a good idea. It kind of reminded me of Miss Teen South Carolina back in 2007 trying to field a tough question about why so many American students can't find the US on a map:
...and also leaves me wondering where the former Miss Teen was when the Policy Council President job opened up.
When it comes to food stamps, Nikki wants to make sure poor people aren't having too much fun. In 2013, she wanted to limit food stamp purchases to "healthy foods," in other words, no cake for you. However, when she was informed that families on food stamps couldn't afford healthy foods, she shifted gears and now supports an initiative to make poor people prove that they are looking for jobs.
The food stamp program is fraught with conflicting messages, but Nikki brings her own stern mama attitude to the mix. No precooked roast chickens and no birthday cake for the kids. We're not going to support the unemployed, and we're not going to help the working poor.
The bottom line is Nikki and her pack don't like people getting something for nothing, and they are going to make sure what they've got isn't easy. So if you were planning on pinching your food stamps so you can afford a birthday cake for your nine-year-old, expect to get dirty looks from your elected officials. At least Marie Antoinette was willing to let the poor eat cake.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Here's to the New Year, Just Like the Old Year
Don't be afraid to leave your laptops and TV's for awhile; nothing's going to change. Just as before the holidays, our president is imploring our Congress to do the right thing by the long-term unemployed, and extend their benefits. And Congress is being the stern daddy, saying we aren't going to give them a thing unless somebody pays for it.
I think that's a great idea. And I think we should start with Congress. They don't work too many more hours than a part-time Walmart employee, so we could start there. Do you know just how many dollars it costs to support a member of Congress? They have aides and aids so they don't have to read bills and follow the news; we give them time off so they can take care of their "families;" i.e. their political campaigns. We pay for their meals and health care, their transportation -- limos and drivers, their communications and communications staff, and if you don't believe their time on the golf course is coming out of our pockets, well, you're probably going to vote them back into office in November. Of 2014.
Imagine if a McDonald's worker, going to school or raising a family, had all those benefits. Our communities would thrive because they'd be spending that money on good things like college and food and clothing. They surely wouldn't be putting it into financial assets (whatever they are) that employ no one but some 25-year-old cocky Harvard MBA who gets paid even more than the Congressman he sets up financially.
And how about that farm bill those yahoos in Washington are still fighting over? It's not that they can't see the relationship between growing food and being able to afford to buy food. It's just that they don't see Big Agriculture as food, and that's because it isn't. Those big farms don't grow food for people. They grow corn for fuel because that's where the big bucks are. The fields are deteriorating because of lack of diversity and overfertilizing, but that's because it's all about profit. They sells seeds that can't be reproduced in the fruit that they produce because there is less profit if a farmer can collect seeds for next season. If it can't be thrown out, if it can be reused, it's just not profitable.
Yet there are real farmers in this country and sadly, they also tend to oppose "handouts" for food stamps. They work hard, they don't make the fortunes that the big corporate farms make, they are honest and believe in their work. But many are also willing to use undocumented workers so they can pay them less. You might say they need to do this to compete with corporate farms, and it is so. But they are fighting the wrong battle. Easier to pay desperate hard-working people lower wages than fight Monsanto and ConAgra, who will easily wipe out your farm with their lawyers.
And that takes us back to Congress and food stamps. As long as they can get us fighting about those folks that can't afford to put food on the table without assistance, they not only have friends for life in the world of big agriculture, but they can pretend to be sticking up for the struggling local farmer. Which local farmers would not be struggling without government throwing its weight behind the gigantic agricultural corporations. And the other thing about keeping this "debate" about food stamps going, is that those folks we elected to serve us don't have to. Serve us, I mean.
And that brings me back to the argument that we need to lower costs in the federal budget before we can fund food stamps. Not including big agra, which is too big and powerful to defund. So again, I say that the place to cut is Congress. Not just the subsidized cafeteria, but the salaries that are frankly too big for someone who claims to represent the people. We need a special committee to look at all the perks our members of Congress receive and start slashing them. No perk is too small, because there are lots of them, and they add up.
Considering the way Congress whined in the spring over the inconvenience of closed and cutback airport services after their self-imposed sequestration, and the way certain of them talk about how those folks on food stamps have the easy life, I'd like to see how, say, Paul Ryan would deal with having to take a lunch hour and clock out and go buy a lunch that he doesn't have time to sit down and eat. Granted it's not like having to skip a meal, but not having a staffer to fetch for him and not being able to take a couple hours to entertain wealthy constituents at lunch just might bring him to his knees. And I would pay to see that.
Which is another way we can fund government services for the poor.
I think that's a great idea. And I think we should start with Congress. They don't work too many more hours than a part-time Walmart employee, so we could start there. Do you know just how many dollars it costs to support a member of Congress? They have aides and aids so they don't have to read bills and follow the news; we give them time off so they can take care of their "families;" i.e. their political campaigns. We pay for their meals and health care, their transportation -- limos and drivers, their communications and communications staff, and if you don't believe their time on the golf course is coming out of our pockets, well, you're probably going to vote them back into office in November. Of 2014.
Imagine if a McDonald's worker, going to school or raising a family, had all those benefits. Our communities would thrive because they'd be spending that money on good things like college and food and clothing. They surely wouldn't be putting it into financial assets (whatever they are) that employ no one but some 25-year-old cocky Harvard MBA who gets paid even more than the Congressman he sets up financially.
And how about that farm bill those yahoos in Washington are still fighting over? It's not that they can't see the relationship between growing food and being able to afford to buy food. It's just that they don't see Big Agriculture as food, and that's because it isn't. Those big farms don't grow food for people. They grow corn for fuel because that's where the big bucks are. The fields are deteriorating because of lack of diversity and overfertilizing, but that's because it's all about profit. They sells seeds that can't be reproduced in the fruit that they produce because there is less profit if a farmer can collect seeds for next season. If it can't be thrown out, if it can be reused, it's just not profitable.
Yet there are real farmers in this country and sadly, they also tend to oppose "handouts" for food stamps. They work hard, they don't make the fortunes that the big corporate farms make, they are honest and believe in their work. But many are also willing to use undocumented workers so they can pay them less. You might say they need to do this to compete with corporate farms, and it is so. But they are fighting the wrong battle. Easier to pay desperate hard-working people lower wages than fight Monsanto and ConAgra, who will easily wipe out your farm with their lawyers.
And that takes us back to Congress and food stamps. As long as they can get us fighting about those folks that can't afford to put food on the table without assistance, they not only have friends for life in the world of big agriculture, but they can pretend to be sticking up for the struggling local farmer. Which local farmers would not be struggling without government throwing its weight behind the gigantic agricultural corporations. And the other thing about keeping this "debate" about food stamps going, is that those folks we elected to serve us don't have to. Serve us, I mean.
And that brings me back to the argument that we need to lower costs in the federal budget before we can fund food stamps. Not including big agra, which is too big and powerful to defund. So again, I say that the place to cut is Congress. Not just the subsidized cafeteria, but the salaries that are frankly too big for someone who claims to represent the people. We need a special committee to look at all the perks our members of Congress receive and start slashing them. No perk is too small, because there are lots of them, and they add up.
Considering the way Congress whined in the spring over the inconvenience of closed and cutback airport services after their self-imposed sequestration, and the way certain of them talk about how those folks on food stamps have the easy life, I'd like to see how, say, Paul Ryan would deal with having to take a lunch hour and clock out and go buy a lunch that he doesn't have time to sit down and eat. Granted it's not like having to skip a meal, but not having a staffer to fetch for him and not being able to take a couple hours to entertain wealthy constituents at lunch just might bring him to his knees. And I would pay to see that.
Which is another way we can fund government services for the poor.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Merry Christmas, Congress
Just as Congress made sure it would not be inconvenienced by airports delays they caused by allowing sequestration, they have for the first time in many years stopped fighting to block legislation in order to not delay their holiday vacation. Both sides of the aisles have suddenly learned the art of compromise, Boehner has brought bills to the floor despite Tea Party ire, and all are heading home for what Bill O'Reilly would insist on calling "Christmas break."
In this season of warmth and giving, it matters not that our Congressional leaders have performed a slight-of-hand with the budget deal which we did not believe they were clever enough to accomplish. We are all just happy they did it.
Beyond the holiday cheer, however, is a grim look at what this new era of compromise heralds for us. The new budget reinstates the full funding of the military, its waste and the greed of military corporate interests. The compromise part of the budget is in non-defense spending. Long term unemployment compensation is gone -- Happy Holidays, to the unemployed from your US Congress. Another battle in the right-wing war on poverty has been won, with food stamp cuts over the next two years. Government workers -- not Congress, of course -- will suffer cuts to pensions and increases in insurance premiums, but all for the good of the country and the pretend reduction of the national debt.
So here we are, folks, with the new, improved Congress, gearing up for the 2014 Election Season of Lies. If only I believed that the Democrats would loudly denounce this plan by the Republicans that would have us forget all the damage they have done to the fabric of our democracy over the past five years. Rather, they will modestly speak to their ability to garner cooperation from their "colleagues across the aisle" while aiding and abetting the plundering of the poor and middle class.
Meanwhile, the 2014 Congressional calendar is proof of the fact that our leaders are not expecting to do much next year other than run for re-election. The House of Representatives, apparently having wasted too much of the 126 days they were scheduled to meet in 2013, have reduced their calendar year to 113 days, many of which no doubt will be taken up by voting to kill Obamacare.
Indeed, Congress more than ever continues to be the gift that keeps on giving. To themselves.
In this season of warmth and giving, it matters not that our Congressional leaders have performed a slight-of-hand with the budget deal which we did not believe they were clever enough to accomplish. We are all just happy they did it.
Beyond the holiday cheer, however, is a grim look at what this new era of compromise heralds for us. The new budget reinstates the full funding of the military, its waste and the greed of military corporate interests. The compromise part of the budget is in non-defense spending. Long term unemployment compensation is gone -- Happy Holidays, to the unemployed from your US Congress. Another battle in the right-wing war on poverty has been won, with food stamp cuts over the next two years. Government workers -- not Congress, of course -- will suffer cuts to pensions and increases in insurance premiums, but all for the good of the country and the pretend reduction of the national debt.
So here we are, folks, with the new, improved Congress, gearing up for the 2014 Election Season of Lies. If only I believed that the Democrats would loudly denounce this plan by the Republicans that would have us forget all the damage they have done to the fabric of our democracy over the past five years. Rather, they will modestly speak to their ability to garner cooperation from their "colleagues across the aisle" while aiding and abetting the plundering of the poor and middle class.
Meanwhile, the 2014 Congressional calendar is proof of the fact that our leaders are not expecting to do much next year other than run for re-election. The House of Representatives, apparently having wasted too much of the 126 days they were scheduled to meet in 2013, have reduced their calendar year to 113 days, many of which no doubt will be taken up by voting to kill Obamacare.
Indeed, Congress more than ever continues to be the gift that keeps on giving. To themselves.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Field Trip
Back when I was a psychologist, there were lots of neat tax-deductible places we could go for "educational purposes." Like Caribbean cruises. Throw in a couple of lectures and you're good to go. Of course, we did have to pay for the trip ourselves. And in the interest of full disclosure, I never could afford a Caribbean cruise.
Not so with the U.S. House of Representatives. As much as they squeal when President Obama travels as President of the United States, they were all too happy to accept a trip to Israel, expenses paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Why a group of 37 Democrats followed by a group of 26 Republicans needed to take a trip to Israel, rather than have a couple of representatives go is beyond me. Also, why they needed to go in separate groups, as though if they went together a few ideas might get exchanged, much like middle school boys and girls who are afraid of getting cooties from each other.
And of course they all brought wives, because who would want to go on an educational junket without a spouse. And of course our own Mark Sanford wouldn't want to feel left out and lonely, so he got special dispensation to bring along his girlfriend, excuse me, fiancee. I'm absolutely sure since they are not married they had separate rooms....
As the House Republicans fight over taking pennies for the poor out of the budget, and making sure that no one who can't afford it gets heath care, it strikes me as the height of hypocrisy to have the nerve to take massive group vacations on someone -- anyone -- else's dime. Not to mention the fact that if Israel pays, no one is going to come back complaining about money we spend on Israel. Can you say "conflict of interest?" And I thought taking gifts from lobbyists was illegal.
Don't let Mark Sanford, or anyone else who is voting against the poor while getting paid vacations and lobbying junkets, get away with it. Our Representatives are living high off their corruption, and we need to keep letting them know we know about it. They have no conscience, so we will have to take that role for ourselves.
Tweet @MarkSanford, go to his Facebook Page, call and email him to let him know what you think of his hypocrisy.
Not so with the U.S. House of Representatives. As much as they squeal when President Obama travels as President of the United States, they were all too happy to accept a trip to Israel, expenses paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Why a group of 37 Democrats followed by a group of 26 Republicans needed to take a trip to Israel, rather than have a couple of representatives go is beyond me. Also, why they needed to go in separate groups, as though if they went together a few ideas might get exchanged, much like middle school boys and girls who are afraid of getting cooties from each other.
And of course they all brought wives, because who would want to go on an educational junket without a spouse. And of course our own Mark Sanford wouldn't want to feel left out and lonely, so he got special dispensation to bring along his girlfriend, excuse me, fiancee. I'm absolutely sure since they are not married they had separate rooms....
As the House Republicans fight over taking pennies for the poor out of the budget, and making sure that no one who can't afford it gets heath care, it strikes me as the height of hypocrisy to have the nerve to take massive group vacations on someone -- anyone -- else's dime. Not to mention the fact that if Israel pays, no one is going to come back complaining about money we spend on Israel. Can you say "conflict of interest?" And I thought taking gifts from lobbyists was illegal.
Don't let Mark Sanford, or anyone else who is voting against the poor while getting paid vacations and lobbying junkets, get away with it. Our Representatives are living high off their corruption, and we need to keep letting them know we know about it. They have no conscience, so we will have to take that role for ourselves.
Tweet @MarkSanford, go to his Facebook Page, call and email him to let him know what you think of his hypocrisy.
Friday, August 16, 2013
If It Worked for ACORN...
Have you heard the scandal about the surfer on Food Stamps? If you haven't you aren't paying attention. Crime fighters at Fox News are all over it. They found a guy who is proud of the fact that he is cheating the government.
And James O'Keefe played a pimp in order to kill ACORN.
We have become a country far too easily duped. This is the place where Wall Street Banks break the law and figure by the time they get caught they will have made millions (or billions). This is the land of corporate welfare, where the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and Wal-Mart write the rules so that they can legally pillage and plunder. And create a nation where the numbers of poor and hungry grow each year.
Ronald Reagan invented the welfare queen, and the tall tale worked so well for him that the republican party -- funded by corporate America -- has fed off it ever since.
Because of Reagan's dream, shared by corporate America and the right wing, hard working Americans have been seeing their dreams dashed. Less likely these days to wish for wealth than health care, insecure Americans prove an easy target for the myth of the welfare queen.
Just as with the other battles we are fighting for what should be our rights as Americans -- the right to vote, the right to a living wage, the right to medical privacy -- as long as we are struggling just to keep from losing those battles, we are unable to focus on the real financial criminals in our society.
As long as Fox News and Markwayne Mullin can get us riled up about the Food Stamp recipient that eats steak, we won't even notice that our children's future is being stolen by the wealthy and powerful.
So we need to keep reminding people of where the real corruption lies. Maybe surfer Jason Greenslate really exists, or maybe he's another wannabe James O'Keefe. What he is not, is the person who is draining our economy and living high off our tax dollars. You will need to look to our Congress and folks like Wal-Mart's Waltons to find the real guilty parties.
Let's help focus on the real problems, and get the American people back on track.
And James O'Keefe played a pimp in order to kill ACORN.
We have become a country far too easily duped. This is the place where Wall Street Banks break the law and figure by the time they get caught they will have made millions (or billions). This is the land of corporate welfare, where the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and Wal-Mart write the rules so that they can legally pillage and plunder. And create a nation where the numbers of poor and hungry grow each year.
Ronald Reagan invented the welfare queen, and the tall tale worked so well for him that the republican party -- funded by corporate America -- has fed off it ever since.
Because of Reagan's dream, shared by corporate America and the right wing, hard working Americans have been seeing their dreams dashed. Less likely these days to wish for wealth than health care, insecure Americans prove an easy target for the myth of the welfare queen.
Just as with the other battles we are fighting for what should be our rights as Americans -- the right to vote, the right to a living wage, the right to medical privacy -- as long as we are struggling just to keep from losing those battles, we are unable to focus on the real financial criminals in our society.
As long as Fox News and Markwayne Mullin can get us riled up about the Food Stamp recipient that eats steak, we won't even notice that our children's future is being stolen by the wealthy and powerful.
So we need to keep reminding people of where the real corruption lies. Maybe surfer Jason Greenslate really exists, or maybe he's another wannabe James O'Keefe. What he is not, is the person who is draining our economy and living high off our tax dollars. You will need to look to our Congress and folks like Wal-Mart's Waltons to find the real guilty parties.
Let's help focus on the real problems, and get the American people back on track.
Friday, July 12, 2013
A Nation of Whiners
Harry Reid has finally decided to do something about Mitch McConnell's blocking of executive branch nominees. If you were watching C-Span yesterday, you got to see McConnell have a tantrum over -- are you ready? -- the fact that Reid called the meeting for Monday, at 6 p.m.
The Minority Leader of the Senate was upset because his members would have to show up early for their work week. This despite the fact that Reid could have called the meeting for Monday at 9 a.m., which is when the normal work-week starts for lots of us who are not members of Congress.
He then followed up that impressive argument by calling Harry Reid a "liar" and Obama's recess nominees "illegal." To which Reid defended himself by saying, "Am not." Not his finest moment, granted, but this is Harry Reid, and you have to be proud of him for just taking a stand, right?
The behavior of our republican officials prove the point that bullies are cowards and whiners. Their government jobs, big salaries and short hours, great health care and paid vacation and sick leave, and quite enviable retirement benefits, including the ability to use their contacts and influence for life, only make the whining more incessant.
The 2012 election season, with its highlight the Republican National Convention, was a showcase for bullies. These are the people who steal your lunch money and then when a friend gives you half their sandwich, knock it out of your hand and call you a crybaby.
Which is what they are also demonstrating in the battle over the Farm Bill. In essence, they are stealing our tax dollars for their buddies (and themselves) in Big Agra, while knocking the food stamp dollars out of the hands of the poor. And whining the whole time.
We should be better than this. And I'm talking about those who vote these characters into office. Those who bullied their way into the health care town halls of a few years ago, even shouting down a woman in a wheelchair. The ones who would have us spend our tax dollars to build a fence and pay for yet more border patrol but gripe about public school dollars.
Who are these people? We know them. They are misinformed and afraid they are going to lose whatever they have. They put their trust in the bullies, because the bullies yell the loudest, and point the finger away from them. The bullies provide a scapegoat.
The poor, women and children, gays, minorities, immigrants. What they have in common is not that they are destroying our country. What they have in common is that they are those not in power, they are the weaker among us. They are the groups that bullies feed on.
But the LGBT among us stood up and stopped being afraid of the bullies. The immigrants who live among us, whether legal or not, are standing up so that we can see that they are essential, and can no longer be picked on. Minorities will stop letting the bullies pit them against each other, and when they unite, they will be minorities no more.
Women are beginning to fight back. We are finding our heroes, like Wendy Davis. We are beginning to see that the fight against abortion is a red herring that allows the powerful to continue to gain wealth and power while we fight among ourselves.
And the poor? Thanks to the success of bullies like Mitch McConnell, more of us than ever have joined their ranks. Which means that when we fight back, we will be formidable.
The Minority Leader of the Senate was upset because his members would have to show up early for their work week. This despite the fact that Reid could have called the meeting for Monday at 9 a.m., which is when the normal work-week starts for lots of us who are not members of Congress.
He then followed up that impressive argument by calling Harry Reid a "liar" and Obama's recess nominees "illegal." To which Reid defended himself by saying, "Am not." Not his finest moment, granted, but this is Harry Reid, and you have to be proud of him for just taking a stand, right?
The behavior of our republican officials prove the point that bullies are cowards and whiners. Their government jobs, big salaries and short hours, great health care and paid vacation and sick leave, and quite enviable retirement benefits, including the ability to use their contacts and influence for life, only make the whining more incessant.
The 2012 election season, with its highlight the Republican National Convention, was a showcase for bullies. These are the people who steal your lunch money and then when a friend gives you half their sandwich, knock it out of your hand and call you a crybaby.
Which is what they are also demonstrating in the battle over the Farm Bill. In essence, they are stealing our tax dollars for their buddies (and themselves) in Big Agra, while knocking the food stamp dollars out of the hands of the poor. And whining the whole time.
We should be better than this. And I'm talking about those who vote these characters into office. Those who bullied their way into the health care town halls of a few years ago, even shouting down a woman in a wheelchair. The ones who would have us spend our tax dollars to build a fence and pay for yet more border patrol but gripe about public school dollars.
Who are these people? We know them. They are misinformed and afraid they are going to lose whatever they have. They put their trust in the bullies, because the bullies yell the loudest, and point the finger away from them. The bullies provide a scapegoat.
The poor, women and children, gays, minorities, immigrants. What they have in common is not that they are destroying our country. What they have in common is that they are those not in power, they are the weaker among us. They are the groups that bullies feed on.
But the LGBT among us stood up and stopped being afraid of the bullies. The immigrants who live among us, whether legal or not, are standing up so that we can see that they are essential, and can no longer be picked on. Minorities will stop letting the bullies pit them against each other, and when they unite, they will be minorities no more.
Women are beginning to fight back. We are finding our heroes, like Wendy Davis. We are beginning to see that the fight against abortion is a red herring that allows the powerful to continue to gain wealth and power while we fight among ourselves.
And the poor? Thanks to the success of bullies like Mitch McConnell, more of us than ever have joined their ranks. Which means that when we fight back, we will be formidable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)