Carol for House 115

She did it!

When the South Carolina Election Commission rejected Carol Tempel and others who were running for office in 2012, Carol decided not to fight the Commission's decision.  Instead, she opted to run as a "petition candidate".

I had my doubts.  My own preference has always been to curse the dark rather than go look for a candle.  But Carol tirelessly sought and collected signatures, and yesterday announced that she has been certified to run for South Carolina House 115 in November.

Isn't this exactly the kind of person we need working for us in Columbia?

Carol doesn't just know how to surmount obstacles, though. She knows the issues.  As an educator, she knows why our tired education system doesn't work.  She understands that the path to jobs is not to sell out to big corporate interests, but to tax wisely, to spend our money on improving our schools, paying our teachers a living wage, investing in our children instead of the wealthy business interests that are being all-too-well represented by her opponent.

Carol knows that knowledge is power.  Education leads to hope -- less teen pregnancy, less crime, better jobs, healthier families.

And Carol has proven that she is determined to fight for South Carolinians.

Welcome aboard, Carol!  We're glad it's official!

Air Disaster

If you've traveled by air within the past year, and gotten where you were going on time, congratulations.  The likelihood of that happening is getting less likely by the day. And the greater the number of delays, the less likely you are to get an explanation for why your life has just been thrown out of whack.  So let me just jump to a few conclusions....

Flights diverted to "nearby" airports during inclement weather -- Planes are not being gassed up to capacity anymore, in order to save some bucks flying with a lighter gas tank.  Yes, I believe that back in the day we saw far fewer instances of planes having to land at another airport and wait out a storm -- or wait in line to refuel.  Don't get me wrong; I am not advocating flying around in circles on fumes waiting for the storm to pass.  Just start off with a full tank, the way I do when I'm making a long trip.

Cancelled flights -- Don't have enough passengers to make a big enough profit?  Just cancel the whole thing, and squeeze people in elsewhere.  These days, you can get passengers to wait for hours for a flight anyway; why not just put them on a later half-full flight?

The other neat reason for cancelling a flight is that the aircraft is having mechanical problems.  Maybe the problems were noted as the plane arrived on a wing and a prayer, or it may be that the plane just didn't pass the pre-flight inspection.  Our friends on the right-wing side of the political aisle (no pun intended) might think that the problem is too many regulations.  Myself, I'd prefer the airlines just keep their planes in top condition.  Is that too much to expect from companies that take hundreds of dollars for a couple-hour use of a seat in the air?

Waiting for take-off -- Remember it wasn't so long ago when the media reported with horror people being forced to remain in an airplane for hours waiting to take off?  Well, now it's just business as usual.  Sitting on a runway for over an hour?  Consider yourself lucky if every 15 minutes or so the pilot gets on the intercom and tells you what number you are in line.

Back in the day when people were paid what they were worth to do such an incredibly important job as fly planes, or manage flights, or keep airplanes in top condition, we could expect the planes to run on time.  But here in 2012, it's okay for the CEO to whine about profits, and then, in the name of same, cut costs to the edge of disaster.  In the case of big containers of people many thousands of feet in the air, the edge of disaster is a very real and frightening consideration. So it is regulations, of all things, that prevent planes daily crashing.  But they don't make the planes safe, they just keep the ones that are not safe on the ground.  And regulations don't make airports run efficiently; in fact, by preventing dangerous planes from taking off, regulations increase delays.  Or at least provide a good excuse for the airline industry when explaining why hundreds of people can no longer plan on starting a vacation, attending a conference, or even making a connecting flight (that the airlines scheduled).  

What to do about this?  I believe the solution is to let the federal government take over the airlines.  No more for-profit.  No more boards to keep happy with inflated stock prices.  And then vote people in that will fund the airlines, and the necessary employees.  Basically, exactly what they need to do with Amtrak.  Which, by the way, now has an on-time record that beats the airlines.

Tax Exempt No More?

I imagine that rather than continuing to try to fight the battle over denying the existence of sexual abuse by priests, the Catholic Church has decided to turn its -- and our -- attention to women.  While they continue to keep nuns under their thumbs, denying them the same status as priests, Catholic women at large tend to be philosophical about whether it really is God telling the Pope what to do about birth control and abortion.  It may simply be that the Pope and bishops just have issues with women that are interfering with messages from the Almighty.


Sadly, our right-wing politicians are all too happy to yield to the authority of this bunch of guys known as the Catholic Bishops, being guys themselves, mostly (There are always a couple of women in the crowd that are going to "stand by their man", and that is definitely true in the republican party.).


It started most notably when a bunch of guys was asked to testify on Capitol Hill in February as to whether Obamacare is hurting religious freedom by offering cost-free birth control to women.  Catholics, scorned fifty years ago in politics, were proudly represented by a member of the Catholic Bishops, who, in his wisdom, testified that, by allowing women reproductive freedom, he was being denied religious freedom.  Not in so many words.


Legitimatized by Congressional right wing-nuts, the Catholic Church has flaunted their wealth and power with increasingly grandiose political contributions, as with the anti-same-sex marriage support in North Carolina in May.  The Mormon Church was successful in their anti-gay effort in California -- twice -- although the courts continue to find the ban unconstitutional.  And it is no longer risky to preach an anti-left-wing get out the vote message at the pulpit.


So, as the wealthy Christian (and I use that term loosely) denominations step up to throw money into the political fray as they whine about losing their freedom, the theatrics can only get more incredible, the message ever more dramatic.


Hence:

     


Only a clip from Monty Python could improve on this message, absurdity-wise:



      

On the other hand, I would have a difficult time finding a comparable message, horror-wise.  I can only hope that whoever paid the production company for Test of Fire: Election 2012 is planning on a full-feature extravaganza for Halloween.


And I would think that the reason the sponsors of that ghastly video are anonymous is that they realize that the Church that paid for this message no longer qualifies as tax-exempt.

Not Angry Yet

Why should women be angry?

We should be angry because, after decades of fighting for equal rights, women are more than ever treated as decorative hood ornaments.  Our governor here in South Carolina is an example.

Nikki Haley is cute, flirty and manipulative, just the traits men like in a woman.  It makes them feel more manly when a woman pretends to be in charge while she is doing exactly what you want her to do.

She is the decorative hood ornament that keeps us in our place.  She is there to prevent women from having equal pay for equal work.  She makes sure women that are raped and abused don't make a fuss.  She won't help you pay for your daughter to have an HPV vaccine, because she can't order you to do it, which is what she would have preferred.  She is not going to make sure that you or your daughters get education and training unless you can pay for it your own damn self.

But we aren't most of us angry.  We are worn out, beaten down.  We haven't been taught to think for ourselves, so we continue to believe what we are told.

It's time to get angry.

A Winning Cause

One of the biggest problems with Obamacare has been the failure to sing its praises.  This may well be because, after the right-wing backers backed off their own original proposals and the blue dog Democrats decided to play "Let's Make a Deal" none of us was all too happy with what was left.


But I believe that the Affordable Care Act was truly the result of democracy in action.  What we got was phenomenal:


1.  All Americans would be guaranteed affordable health care.


2.  Children could remain on parents' plans until age 26.


3.  The Medicare "donut hole" would be closed, ensuring continued drug coverage for the elderly.


4.  Health care coverage could no longer be denied due to a preexisting condition.


5.  Insurers could no longer place lifetime caps on coverage.


Hurray!  Right?


Predictably, our own "representatives", Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and of course the lovely Jim DeMint, are continuing to stand up against health coverage for all South Carolinians.

Even if the Federal Government gives us the money.


Ezra Klein, filling in for Rachel Maddow, gave a very clear and comprehensive narrative of what the Medicaid expansion, made optional to states by the Supreme Court decision, means to South Carolina, specifically.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It is bad business and just plain old meanness to deny South Carolinians this federally supported health care.


So isn't Obamacare the absolute best issue to run on this election season?  Shouldn't all our candidates be listing all the benefits that will be lost if voters support people like Tim Scott?  This is our big chance to get our act together, here in the Democratic Party of South Carolina, and be of one voice, and be heard loud and clear.


Isn't it time the people of South Carolina knew what the Affordable Care Act means for them?

The Forgotten -- Again

What has been lost in the buzz about the astonishing Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate in Obamacare is the part of the decision that affected those who benefit from Medicaid.


Once again, the poor, disadvantaged, and those who have fallen on hard times, have been forgotten.


The part of the Affordable Care Act that was rejected by the court was that which extended Medicaid coverage, paid for with federal dollars.  Rather, it was decided that each state could decide whether to take the federal dollars and extend coverage or not.


Of course, we all know where that leaves the poor in states like South Carolina.  And we should all be ashamed for relegating them to a footnote in today's historic ruling.

Complicating the Issues

I like to think of myself as above average in my awareness of important political issues.  I try to listen and read objective accounts and expert analyses.  On the other hand, I do indulge in MSNBC, because there are times we all just need to have the simple version.


I know that one of the tactics well used by the republican party is that of complicating the issues.  If you can make it murky, you can make it sound more threatening.


I have been trying to understand the Violence against Women Act.  It really isn't all that complicated, but you would never know that by reading about it.  Anywhere.


There are excellent analyses of the act, from its inception in 1994 to the current opposing Senate and House versions of the reauthorization act.


But the details make me bleary-eyed, and guilty for feeling that way.


Imagine the average voter.


So let me try to simplify it.  I may be wrong, but so will Fox News.


It appears that the difference between the existing Act and the proposed reauthorization in the Senate is the inclusion of LGBT, immigrant, and Native American women.  The repellent House version of course, does not include those minority groups.


I have counseled battered women, living with their abusers, or forced out of their homes to a shelter, as well as those who have successfully left their abusive partners and struggle day by day to make it emotionally and financially.


Believe me, the cards are stacked against women who have been abused.  Even with the existing protections, they are constantly thwarted by the judicial system, by financial institutions, by their religious leaders, and by plain old misunderstanding and bigotry.


I don't believe for one minute that the republicans in Congress have a good reason for the exclusions they have put into the new bill.  I believe that their purpose is merely obstructionist.  If the Senate Democrats were to appear willing to pass the bill with the House exclusions, my guess would be that there would be further roadblocks, much as occurred with Obamacare and pretty much everything else the Democrats have tried to move forward.


So what do we do?  We need to think in terms of an abused woman, not abused women.  We need to understand what happens on a day to day basis when a woman is raped or battered, how she attempts to survive the violence, and the barriers that are put in her way.


Meeting women who had been the victims of violence and working with them in therapy was the best education I could have had, other than having to experience it myself.  I got to see courageous women attempt to free themselves and their children, and each roadblock that was put up to force each of them back.


And so should we all.