Using Children

One would have thought that when Carly Fiorina herded children on a field trip into an anti-abortion rally the fallout would have been enough to convince the most rabid anti-abortionist that using children was a line that should not be crossed.

But yesterday, in a move so offensive it has moved the bar even lower, our own governor Nikki Haley signed the 20-week abortion ban into law surrounded by children.

In this extremely clever and contrived photo op, Haley is surrounded by adorable children, the older ones as well as an infant held by one assumes its mother in the background.  The picture was taken at Hidden Treasure Christian School, a school for special needs children.

What I would like to know is:  where did they hide the severely disabled children?  You know, the ones who aren't beautiful, or who might not want to look on attentively at the governor as she smirks for the camera.  I assume they have a few kids enrolled who don't look like they were delivered from the womb on an angel's wings.  Could it be that the message might not have been so irresistible if the children did not look so delectable?

And what is the message?  Here, too, is the evil genius of today's media smart anti-abortion movement.  By posing with these children as she signs the anti-abortion ban, the message is that these wonderful children might not be there if their equally wonderful mothers had chosen to have an abortion.  Haley is demonstrating that those aborted "babies" in fact do have a place in God's world, where people like her and the good folks at Hidden Treasure would love them like their own.

Damn liar.

Just how many children with severe disabilities are born because their mothers had inadequate health care thanks to Nikki Haley refusing to accept federal Medicaid funding?  And how many women have gotten inadequate treatment because there are too few clinics -- don't let's forget, Nikki Haley spent our tax dollars to investigate Planned Parenthood for bogus complaints, and would have these clinics closed, making it even harder for uninsured or inadequately insured pregnant women to have the care they need.  And even more tragically, how many wanted babies do not survive because of South Carolina's refusal to provide adequate health care -- and food and housing -- to all pregnant women?

And, for the record, many, many women choose to bring at-risk pregnancies to term.  The decision to have a late-term abortion is rare.  Without the intrusion of the state of South Carolina, many women weigh their ability to care for a disabled child against the cost to their families, financial means and stresses, and their own emotional resources and supports.  It is obscene to continue to promote the myth that women who decide to have a late-term abortion based on fetal risk factors are callous and selfish.  It is obscene to paint such women as murderers.  And it is a damned lie to imply that this decision is made frivolously, or frequently. 

I would like very much to know how this special needs school selects their students.  Where do the children who are unable to communicate, who cannot learn toileting skills, who need to be fed and moved from place to place?  And what other support does Haley provide for mothers who are unable to work in order to stay with their severely disabled children?  The assumption -- the lie -- is that the decision to have a late-term abortion is frivolous, and what a smug and self-satisfied attitude.  When a woman makes that choice, it is a hard one.  And when a disabled child is born to a woman with little to no support system, here in South Carolina you can bet that rarely are those kids in attendance at Hidden Treasure Christian School.

And then there is the matter of having this photo op and signing this law at a Christian school.  A school that by law and by the tenets of the constitution, is not a government funded or sponsored institution.  Of course, it could be that, were Nikki Haley to try to find such a pleasing picture in a public school, she would have to settle for the actual real-life tough cases of disability, the ones that the Christian school can screen out.  The kids that go to schools that are inadequately funded, with teachers that are underpaid in schools that are understaffed.

If you are reading this blog, you know me, and you know that when I saw the photo and the article yesterday, I was spitting mad.  After I posted the link on Facebook, I wrote a letter to The State.  I would have written one to the Post & Courier but could not because of their 30-day rule.  So I would like to share my letter with you here, and, if you too agree that Haley's message is as inappropriate, cruel and self-serving as the law itself, please join me in sharing with social media, contacting the governor's office, and in writing letters to the editor.

This is what I wrote:

Governor Haley's photo op commemorating her signing of the 20-week abortion ban is abhorrent in so many ways.  First of all, it makes apparent that this has been a religious cause, and not based on science, as its supporters falsely claimed.  And using special needs children in such a way is the lowest kind of publicity stunt, featuring religious indoctrination and coercion of those who are not yet able to make their own decisions, and about a very adult issue.  Signing the bill at a Christian school makes it clear that in South Carolina, there is no separation of church and state:  if you do not believe in the God of Nikki Haley and our legislators, your beliefs will not be honored as reflected by our laws.

I hope that the flagrant misuse of the power of government as represented by this bill signing, makes it that much easier for the Supreme Court to find this law unconstitutional.

Those who are celebrating their victory with the passage of this law have already indicated that this is just the start.  Because this was about extremist religion and misogyny, and never about science, they are not only posing for pictures in a Christian setting, they are planning for further attacks on women's reproductive rights.  Let's let them know that this is a Pyrrhic victory, and the battle is nowhere near over.

Taxing South Carolina

I hate to say it, but while the poor continue to be underpaid, underfed and uninsured, the pressing problem in our state this year seems to be our terrible awful roads.  In fact, the problem is so bad that even businesses are pushing for a tax that would pay to solve the problem.  The problem is so bad that even republicans are working toward fixing this mess.

On the other hand, our governor, "Let-them-eat-cake" Haley, would like to use the opportunity of increasing a sales tax to, you guessed it, cut the state's income tax.  Because why would we ever want South Carolina to take a step forward without taking a couple steps back?

Each election season, we are asked to increase the sales tax to improve schools, libraries, and pretty much any service that the public overwhelming wants to see improved.  What this does for Tea Party greed-heads like Haley is make everybody pay regardless of income.  A loaf of bread, clothes for school, a car repair, we all have to throw that money into the pot, so the wealthy among us don't have to feel put upon.

While this is also true of the gas tax, there are a couple of differences.  First of all, the cost of gas today is so unbelievably low that I think most of us feel the urge to drive in and buy gas even when our tanks are full, rather than pass up such a bargain.  Adding a sales tax right now is about as painless as it can get.  Secondly, with the price of gas so low, it is inevitable that there will soon be an increase of those big gas guzzlers that we love so much.  Although some of us realize that the price of gas will indeed rise again at some point, others prefer to take the opportunity to indulge in their fantasy of the return to the day of the road-hog.  So for those who are intent on living by the philosophy of "Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead!" the gas tax hike is the least they can contribute to the wear and tear on roads and environment.

You may have been wondering why the price of gas is so-freaking-low.  No, it's not because of the fracking and the oil pipelines, or the offshore drilling that have all been touted as totally safe and the means to our freedom from terrorist states.  All these processes are costly, not just to the environment, but take more financial investment than traditional drilling and coal-mining.  It's only worth the investment if the price of gas is sky-high.

Enter OPEC.  With far more easily accessible fuel, and lots of it, they can let the oil gush until the price is so low they can undercut American oil enterprise.  Texas, prepare for another round of bust-years.  We sure don't know how this will play out, other than investors won't be paying more for less, and the Saudis are pretty much in control.

All we can do, and really, the best thing we can do, is use this time to really invest in better ways.  This is actually a golden opportunity, and not just for a gas tax to rebuild roads.  This is a time to use the windfall to build alternative energy sources and to bring our mass transit into the 21st century.  We can do it because of the opportunity OPEC has given us; we can create jobs and innovate.  We can really strengthen the middle class with good jobs that will help us build the future.

Or we can go out and buy that Hummer and vote for that pipeline.

Back here in South Carolina, in the Statehouse, Representative Whipper has introduced H 3445, "Gas User Fee," which proposes to raise the gas tax by seven cents a gallon.  Cynic that I am, I read the bill a few times and didn't see anything that looked like cutting a tax elsewhere.  It does not address mass transit, which is something we really need to promote, loudly.  But it is certainly the beginning.  Yesterday I emailed Rep. Whipper to let him know I supported this bill, and I also emailed my representative with the same message, and added that the taxes raised should also be used for mass transit.

You can also send emails to your representatives, by going to scstatehouse.gov.  There you can find your representative and click on the link to send an email.  It takes but a minute.  Let them know that we support raising the gas tax, and that this is the time to not just rebuild our roads, but to create a mass transit system that we can be proud of.

Making Noise

I think there is one thing about the Republican Party that we can all agree on:  they make a lot of noise.  Unabashedly.  They may be idiots, but they are bombastic and cocksure idiots.  And we all know when they are in the room.

Look at Mark Sanford.  He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he does know how to attract a crowd.  We Dems all laughed at the stunt he pulled in front of MUSC,

but Mark got the last laugh.

And more recently, there was the traveling circus act that involved Lindsey Graham and his pack of wannabees.  From the minute he learned that dim bulb Lee Bright was planning on running at him from the right in the primary, Lindsey began to beat his chest and pound the news shows; his face was on every media outlet he could finagle.  Whenever there was a shooting or an abortion bill, you would find Lindsey Graham flashing his conservative credentials in most ridiculous fashion.

All that talk about guns and abortion fired up a few more of South Carolina's right wing-nuts.  We ended up with quite the circus, four (or more?) challengers for Graham's seat.  And did they make noise!  You may not be able to name all those who ran against Graham, but you probably had fun watching the fireworks.  And the media complied.

On the Democratic side, we tend to shy away from attention.  We want people to understand that we are on the side of the good, and because we really do represent all those middle class ideals the republicans pretend to value, we don't get the support of the billionaires.  Groups like A.L.E.C.  just aren't very likely to want to throw big bucks at candidates that don't see government as a tool for, say, A.L.E.C.

So we don't have a lot of money, but our intentions are good.  What's to be done?

There was an interesting race in Virginia's 7th District.  You may have heard of it, especially if you've watched or read anything about Tuesday's primaries.  Eric Cantor, GOP leader for well over a decade and current US House majority leader was toppled.  Furthermore, he was toppled by an unknown, a university professor, who spent a fraction on his campaign (spending little more on his entire campaign than Cantor spent at steakhouses, according to the New York Times.)  David Brat won handily, by more than ten points, leaving everybody -- except his supporters -- stunned.

David Brat is a creepy guy.  Student evaluations of faculty comment more about how cute and charming he is than his teaching abilities.  And so he got out to voters in the 7th District, constantly, tirelessly.  He hammered out the message that -- are you ready for this? -- Cantor is a liberal.  His proof?  That Cantor had made some comments indicating that immigration reform, particularly in regard to children brought to the US, made sense.

Within this nasty success story is the kernel of a lesson.  We Dems need to seek attention, not hide from it.  We need to brag about our differences, and more important, if we really believe in Democratic principles, we should be able to tell people why they will benefit.

Here's another thing.  There is a lot of free publicity available out there.  The media loves something different.  The four idiots that ran against Graham made the Republican Senate primary the centerpiece of the primary news cycle.  When they all vowed to support each other against Graham in a runoff, it made front page.

Our candidates need to get together and work together.  They need to figure out how to make news, and how to turn news to their advantage.

Here's another example.  In our Senate primary, even those who try to follow the news mostly don't know who is running against Tim Scott (yes, I am guilty).  But on the other side, Brad Hutto had a challenger.  And that lit a fire under the Democrats that made the difference.  It would have been a far better effort if the result had been state-wide debates and arguments rather than trash-talking, but any attention was better than none.  Because we are the party that speaks for the people.

There is a race here in South Carolina District 114 for state representative.  Most of us know Bobby Harrell.  As far as I can tell, nobody likes him.  His voting record is awful, and he is about as corrupt as they come.  But unless we make some noise, he will win.

Bobby has two opponents.  Yes, two.  What an opportunity for us Dems.  Mark Sanford knew that if he stood on the sidewalk downtown and gave a speech he would be ignored, but bring along a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi and people are paying attention.  Let's suppose that Sue Edward of the Green Party and Mary Tinkler of the Democratic Party coordinated events -- debates and even ads.  Why would they do that?  They would get twice the coverage for less dollars.  They would not only be able to debate their differences, but talk about their similar goals.  Even better, they would be able to talk about how Harrell's votes have worked against the people of South Carolina.  What the heck, invite Bobby and make news whether he shows up or not.

My point is -- one of them, anyway -- is that when you have two great candidates, there is no reason for that third one that nobody likes to win an election because of name recognition.  We need to be creative and open to really different ideas about how to get the word out.  Think about Sanford debating Pelosi's cardboard image.  We can do better.  We just have to be willing to take the risk.  And we need to believe in ourselves.

In the end, we increase our chances of winning -- look at the Cantor upset.  And whether we win or not, we will have influenced the discussion, and perhaps even our elected officials' votes.  And isn't that really what it's all about?

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.

Pathways to Censorship

Well, the South Carolina House took a break from is persecution of women yesterday to weigh in on college reading lists.  According to our representatives, a licensed physician needs to be regulated by our legislators and so do our university professors.

Wait a minute!  Are these the guys (and Nanney) who are constantly harping on freedom and how regulation is destroying our country -- God bless America, hallelujah!?  Apparently, this bunch has done a bit of research and found that there are some areas, none of which would adversely affect themselves, where we citizens need to be instructed -- by them.

For example, Wendy Nanney has it on good faith (faith being the instructive word) that at twenty weeks a fetus feels pain.  So she has another God-fearing expert testify to that effect, and wins out handily against the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

And now we have a budget amendment that would have part of a university's funding held up until they ban using "pornographic content" in classes.  Representative Mac Toole from Lexington adds that "pornographic content" is not defined because we will know it when we see it.

Oh, my, if only Molly Ivins were here to do justice to this state of affairs.  She was the go-to gal on ignorance in the Texas lege.  She once said about a state legislator from Dallas:  "If his IQ slips any lower, we'll have to water him twice a day."  And now that I think of it, taking care of infirm legislators here in SC could be considered a jobs bill.

While we are whiling away our time, setting around trying to make ends meet, we do have hard working legislators making sure we don't step out of line.  Freedom is okay, as long as it's accompanied by lots of campaign contributions.  After all, money is speech.  Which is exactly what they want us to understand about our colleges.  The politicians have the money, so they own the speech.

I am thinking this might be one of those instances where we might just sit back and watch censorship in action.  After all, we'll know it when we see it.

  

Guns, Bars, Stupidity and Lies

As a result of the horrific shooting of children in Newtown, Connecticut in December, 2012, our SC legislators got right on it with a slew of bills to -- you got it -- allow more guns into more potentially dangerous places, like for example, bars.  We had to laugh when Rep. Mike Pitts sponsored the bill in 2013, and then watched with much less glee when the bill passed in the House.

Even I did a double take when I read his claim that "44 states are having no issues with people that do carry in" (which is shorthand for those of us who don't speak gun for bringing your gun into an establishment).

After having listened to quite a bit of NRA newspeak over the years, I decided to investigate this statement.  In fact, not having "issues" means states with no laws addressing bringing guns into bars.  Many of which don't allow guns to get as far as the parking lot, making carrying into a bar irrelevant.  They don't have laws because up to now it's been OBVIOUS that guns and bars are a bad idea.  So.  Let's go ahead and NOT assume that 44 states are inviting gun-toting folks into bars.

The rationalizations surrounding this bill are cretinous.  A gun is more dangerous locked in a car.  Well, I guess that assumes that some idiot is going to leave the weapon on the seat in full view, maybe with the window open a generous crack, or fully expects that the car is going to get broken into on a regular basis.

What I have to say to that is, you maybe should leave the damned gun at home.  Or if you don't have the common sense to hide the gun and lock the vehicle, you maybe shouldn't own a gun.

Here's another gem.  The gun-slinging citizenry would feel safer bringing that gun into that restaurant.  I don't know about you, but I haven't had the occasion -- yet -- to have to face down someone with a gun in a restaurant.  But I have to assume that a diner paranoid enough to need to carry a gun into a restaurant is NOT a person I'd want to imagine enjoying a meal in the same establishment as I, much less enjoy a meal with.

Now, our less smart brother to our west, Georgia, has already passed such a law.  Over there in Georgia, Jerry Henry of Georgia Carry ("The No-Compromise Voice for Gun Owners")  contends,

“We have had zero incidents of law abiding citizens being in any ‘O.K. Corral shootouts,’ as predicted by the gun prohibitionists.”

If by zero, Mr. Henry means several, I guess that would be accurate.  Any idiot, including Mr. Henry, could google Georgia bar shootings and come up with data contrary to his claim.  Okay, to be fair, they might not have taken place in the bar.  So these jackasses went into a bar, did some drinking, had a fight, and then had the good sense to go out in the parking lot to shoot it out.  And fortunately did not have to walk all the way to their cars to get their guns.

Which brings me to another point, besides the ones on our legislators pointy heads.  Not only do bartenders and restaurateurs now have the responsibility to card drinkers and monitor their behavior, requiring them to stop serving people who are drunk, often being blamed for allowing drunks to get in a car and drive.  Now they bear the responsibility for posting when weapons are not allowed AND making sure that if allowed, those carrying don't drink.  Except that some of our clever legislators who can't seem to draw a line without wanting to cross it, think it's just uncivil to not allow someone to walk into a bar or restaurant with a gun and not have one itty bitty drink.

And how about this:  the assumption through all this is that someone who is carrying is going to be trustworthy enough not to drink with his buddies, and if he's allowed to drink, will know when to stop, and if he doesn't stop when he should, will have the good judgment to not get in a fight, and if he gets in a fight, will not pull out his gun.  Until he gets to the parking lot.

To sum it up:  if I don't want to be drinking with Yosemite Sam, I should not frequent bars or restaurants that do not have signs posted prohibiting weapons.  If I do see a sign, I have to assume that the barkeep is going to be making sure nobody's tempted to carry.  And when people carry and drink, I will have to take it as a given that they will show good judgment and self restraint.

We all know good judgment and self restraint are characteristic of drinkers, and I'm just going to assume even more so if they feel the need to carry a weapon in when they stop for a burger and beer.

You know what the whole entire problem is with stupid laws like this?  The problem is that our legislators bear absolutely no responsibility for the consequences.  They cannot be sued, they won't lose their jobs, they don't even have to question their faulty judgment.  And with groups like A.L.E.C. and the NRA keeping their purses fat, they are quite likely to get re-elected.

If this is important to you, and if you walk the streets and shop and eat in the establishments here in South Carolina and are a rational person, it probably is, talk back.

Our legislators do their best to ignore opposing (less remunerative) opinions, but they have email addresses that you can access at scstatehouse.gov.  Even better, they have Facebook pages.  Leave a public comment, or send a private message, or both.  Send out a tweet.  Write a letter to the editor, which I believe gets you the best bang for your buck.

And after all, aren't we really talking about the best bang for the buck?

Maybe Not the Best New Thing in the World

Since we should know by now the types of abuses that can be fueled by internet anonymity, it came as quite a surprise to me to find that South Carolina's proposed answer to school bullying is an anonymous reporting website.

As the parent of a boy who was targeted by bullies who made horrific accusations about him when he pushed back, I can just imagine how much fun bullies can have after school on such a website.  I imagine that someone who is afraid to come forward might also utilize the site, but... then what?  Are school officials then responsible for accusing a student with no ability to get access to needed details?  After a student is confronted by school officials, the officials may not know who did the reporting, but the bullies just might figure it out.  And just supposed the complaint is fabricated, will that make our school officials actually complicit in the bullying? 

Once again, this appears to be a situation where an easy solution is proposed because a real solution would be difficult.

Principal Bradley of Aiken Middle School understands that anonymous "reporting" can open up a can of worms, without solving the problem.  That is why at his school, there is a bullying prevention program, and information provided on their website to students as to how to report bullying.

When a child is bullied, the last thing they need is for adults to create greater distance.  Trusted contact is essential, as well as the reassurance that after the reporting they will not be abandoned.  Even in schools where such a website is put up with all good intentions, the pressures of running a school are such that these anonymous cases will become more difficult to pursue than working to have an environment wherein students feel comfortable trusting an adult with their fears.

So let's not be tempted to take the easy way out on this one.  As with any form of violence, and especially with children, adults that are not afraid to reach out to them is what's needed, not more isolation.

A Planned Parenthood

For better or worse, much of my life has been a tight squeeze financially.  So I have learned to stretch a dollar pretty much till I could see through it.  That includes giving by volunteering rather than with cash.

There are two exceptions to that rule.  The first is the American Civil Liberties Union, for which I maybe don't donate a lot, but I do donate annually.  I figure, without the ACLU, we would most likely be, well, Russia.

The other exception is Planned Parenthood.  This group, like me, knows how to stretch a dollar, but unlike me, they are under constant attack from (as Jim DeMint likes to say) enemies of freedom.  Like ACORN, Planned Parenthood provides services to those who would do without.  And like ACORN, Planned Parenthood's service to the underserved is a great opportunity for the wealthy and powerful.  By attacking those who help the underserved, they are able to keep the focus off their own greedy schemes.

Right now, this very weekend, the Republican House added to their agenda of evil an anti-contraception provision to their already Grinchy funding bill.

Here in South Carolina, each year we are under attack by the truly anti-life right wing in our state legislature, with bills restricting doctors who perform women's services, redefining "life" in ever more absurd ways in order to restrict abortion, and attempting to prohibit access to contraception.

And of course, under attack throughout the country, is Planned Parenthood.

Which is why I am asking you all to do something I rarely do:  donate.

Not as easy as you think.  If you go to the Planned Parenthood website and click on "Donate" you may end up giving to the national organization, in which case our own center will get a mere cut.  In order to donate fully to our own hard-working South Carolina branch this is what you need to do:

1.  Follow this link:  http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-systems/

2.  On the top right, click on "Donate."

3.  On the right, where it says you can "Give to a specific local affiliate, click here."

4.  At the top where it says Organization, scroll down and select "SC" and "Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Inc."

5.  Be as generous as you can.

After all, doesn't every child deserve a planned parenthood?