Wednesday, August 31, 2005
support local business and relief efforts
No link to share right now, but I just heard on KVOA Channel 4 that Fronimo's will donate all their profit this Friday to hurricane relief efforts.
It's great food and great business. Go. Eat. Help.
Fronimo's is a Greek restaurant in midtown Tucson, on the south side of Speedway just east of Country Club. I recommend the chicken gyro plate. You might even see me there this Friday!
It's great food and great business. Go. Eat. Help.
Fronimo's is a Greek restaurant in midtown Tucson, on the south side of Speedway just east of Country Club. I recommend the chicken gyro plate. You might even see me there this Friday!
where to donate
From a Daily Kos diary:
The American Red Cross
Donation Link: Click here and select 'Donate Now'.
Relief focus: The Red Cross provides a full spectrum of services to disaster victims. From assistance with shelter, medical care, food, clean water and cleanup efforts, the Red Cross is an organization poised to assist in circumstances such as this.
Feed The Children
Donation Link: Click here and follow the donation link.
Relief focus: Feed the Children has long been competent at mobilizing and distributing supplies to disaster victims and victims of famine and disease. They are currently mobilizing a massive relief effort by gathering needed supplies and getting them to hurricane devastated areas.
The Salvation Army
Donation Link: Click here and follow the donate on line link.
Relief focus: The Salvation Army is prepared to provide 400,000 hot meals a day to displaced disaster victims and emergency personnel working to aid those devastated by Hurricane Katrina. They also provide a means for individuals to physically volunteer their time and assistance in the relief efforts.
United Jewish Communities
Donation Link: Click here and choose upper-right Katrina relief links.
Relief focus: Community organized and administered humanitarian relief for disaster victims.
Catholic Charities USA
Donation Link: Click here and follow instructions to donate online, by mail, or by phone.
Relief focus: Community based relief efforts focused on the long-terms needs of disaster victims and affected communities.
United Methodist Committee on Relief
Donation Link: Click here and follow the 'Donate Now' link.
Relief focus: Although they provide general community-based disaster relief, they are also focusing on the creation and distribution of "flood buckets", a more hands-on relief item for those who prefer to donate with a personal touch.
Noah's Wish
Donation Link: Click here and scroll to the bottom of the page.
Relief focus: Noah's Wish is a not-for-profit, animal welfare organization, with a straightforward mission. We exist to keep animals alive during disasters. That's it.
Humane Society of the United States
Donation Link: Click here.
Relief focus: Dispatching Disaster Animal Response Teams (DARTs) to rescue animals and assist their caregivers.
ASPCA
Donation Link: Click here and choose the type of giving you prefer.
Relief focus: Although they do not yet have anything specific to Katrina up on their site, the ASPCA sends emergency relief to animal shelters when natural disasters occur.
North Shore Animal League America
Donation link: Click here and select 'Donate'.
Relief focus: NSAL America has an emergency response team that is ready to respond in the event of an emergency. In 2004, we responded to the devastating hurricanes in the south.
United Way
Donation Link: Click here and follow Katrina donation links.
Relief focus: United Way is leading response and recovery efforts by working hard to identify the most serious needs of devastated communities and is committed to helping not only with front-line disaster relief but with long-term recovery—those needs that are often not addressed in the days, weeks and months following a disaster.
America's Second Harvest
Donation link: Click here.
Relief focus: They expect at least ten food banks and hundreds of related agencies will be hit by hurricane 'Katrina'. Their Network is in great need of funds to transport food to victims and secure additional warehouse space to assist our Member food banks in resuming and maintaining operations.
Direct Relief International
Donation link: Click here and select 'Support Us'.
Relief focus: Because of the organization’s extensive medical inventories, Direct Relief serves as a private back-up support to official emergency response efforts in the United States.
Habitat for Humanity
Donation link: Click here and follow the Katrina link.
Relief focus: Helping disaster victims rebuild piece by piece and house by house.
this one is even harder
New York Times:
He's going to have a much more difficult time with this one though. First, this was a natural disaster so there's no way to set up an "us vs. them" strategy. It's the classic modern Republican political strategy, the latest incarnation of Nixon's "southern strategy." But it can't be us vs. Mother Nature. Or can it, given this administration's and Congress' open hostility to the environment?
Seriously though, he's going to have a hard time parlaying this national crisis (we're all Cajun this week) into a boost in poll numbers or bipartisanship. Right now it looks like the right is settling for the people left behind - the "looters" who are merely doing what they need to do to survive - to use as their scapegoats. Except for when they're blaming the gays. Fortunately, most of the American public sees this ridiculous hysteria for what it's worth.
With nobody to blame, the president might actually have to do something to help those affected without profiting from or exploiting the tragedy. We're pulling for you, sir; you can do it!
Not since he sat in a Florida classroom as the World Trade Center burned a thousand miles away has President Bush faced a test quite like the one he returned to Washington to confront this afternoon.
He's going to have a much more difficult time with this one though. First, this was a natural disaster so there's no way to set up an "us vs. them" strategy. It's the classic modern Republican political strategy, the latest incarnation of Nixon's "southern strategy." But it can't be us vs. Mother Nature. Or can it, given this administration's and Congress' open hostility to the environment?
Seriously though, he's going to have a hard time parlaying this national crisis (we're all Cajun this week) into a boost in poll numbers or bipartisanship. Right now it looks like the right is settling for the people left behind - the "looters" who are merely doing what they need to do to survive - to use as their scapegoats. Except for when they're blaming the gays. Fortunately, most of the American public sees this ridiculous hysteria for what it's worth.
With nobody to blame, the president might actually have to do something to help those affected without profiting from or exploiting the tragedy. We're pulling for you, sir; you can do it!
you're saying what we're all thinking
Cheers to Kevin Spidel, a fellow Arizona blogger, for his post, "Spidelblog - A classist & racist tragedy."
He's absolutely right. There are massive systems of oppression that have historical contexts and conspire to keep people of color in positions of poverty and subservience. The ranks of the poor who are white also continue to grow and people of color are succeeding at higher rates than ever before in American history, but socioeconomic status is still disproportionately linked with race and ethnicity.
Poor folks have fewer resources and extremely restricted access to resources. And they're easy scapegoats. The mayor of New Orleans has now directed the local police to abandon rescue efforts and instead stop the "looters."
The right wing bloggers are all abuzz about how these bad brown people are stealing hard-earned property from the better off people who were gosh-darn smart enough to get out of town in time. After all, those poor people only lost their rentals, while the people who left town worked hard and were successful.
Of course, there were homeowners who couldn't leave town and there were renters who did, so that puts a lie to that generalization.
Also, if you're "successful" by the winger definition, you likely have insurance - property, life and health. That's a luxury not shared by most poor people. Which group do you think will experience greater long-term consequences to the greatest natural disaster in a century?
That's right, the poor. A group disproportionately composed of people of color. This status quo relies on systems that reinforce centuries-old power dynamics, controlled by an overclass that refuses to acknowledge human suffering if it interferes with their profiteering or power-hoarding.
He's absolutely right. There are massive systems of oppression that have historical contexts and conspire to keep people of color in positions of poverty and subservience. The ranks of the poor who are white also continue to grow and people of color are succeeding at higher rates than ever before in American history, but socioeconomic status is still disproportionately linked with race and ethnicity.
Poor folks have fewer resources and extremely restricted access to resources. And they're easy scapegoats. The mayor of New Orleans has now directed the local police to abandon rescue efforts and instead stop the "looters."
The right wing bloggers are all abuzz about how these bad brown people are stealing hard-earned property from the better off people who were gosh-darn smart enough to get out of town in time. After all, those poor people only lost their rentals, while the people who left town worked hard and were successful.
Of course, there were homeowners who couldn't leave town and there were renters who did, so that puts a lie to that generalization.
Also, if you're "successful" by the winger definition, you likely have insurance - property, life and health. That's a luxury not shared by most poor people. Which group do you think will experience greater long-term consequences to the greatest natural disaster in a century?
That's right, the poor. A group disproportionately composed of people of color. This status quo relies on systems that reinforce centuries-old power dynamics, controlled by an overclass that refuses to acknowledge human suffering if it interferes with their profiteering or power-hoarding.
religious right: when in disaster, blame the gays
Give me a freaking break.
What about Gulfport and Biloxi, MS? They were also all but destroyed, but they're hardly sin city.
That part of the tragedy must be because that New York Jew Neil Simon set one of his autobiographical plays in Biloxi.
What about Gulfport and Biloxi, MS? They were also all but destroyed, but they're hardly sin city.
That part of the tragedy must be because that New York Jew Neil Simon set one of his autobiographical plays in Biloxi.
sharing the pain
From WaPo (registration required):
It's all connected. Refusing to limit emissions leads to unprecedented hurricanes that cause massive death and destruction.
National Guard units are already deployed to a war zone, contrary to their established purpose, and without proper training or equipment.
That leaves the "Homeland" with fewer feet on the ground to provide comfort and support in times of national crisis. And with the resources of other states being directed to the places they're needed, that leaves the rest of us even less protected for the next domestic crisis.
We're less safe than we were five years ago in so very many ways.
With thousands of their citizen-soldiers away fighting in Iraq, states hit hard by Hurricane Katrina scrambled to muster forces for rescue and security missions yesterday -- calling up Army bands and water-purification teams, among other units, and requesting help from distant states and the active-duty military.
It's all connected. Refusing to limit emissions leads to unprecedented hurricanes that cause massive death and destruction.
National Guard units are already deployed to a war zone, contrary to their established purpose, and without proper training or equipment.
That leaves the "Homeland" with fewer feet on the ground to provide comfort and support in times of national crisis. And with the resources of other states being directed to the places they're needed, that leaves the rest of us even less protected for the next domestic crisis.
We're less safe than we were five years ago in so very many ways.
devastating
From MSNBC.com:
This has been my major concern. The immediate storm was horrific in its own right, but the longer-term impacts to public health have the capacity to turn an emergency into a long-term epidemic.
If you'd ever visited New Orleans before last week, you'd know all about the above-ground cemetaries and mausoleums. With all those corpses set free by the massive storm, the public health nightmare is complicated even further.
I'm glad a state of emergency has been declared, officially making it possible for FEMA to start providing services. I can't imagine why it took this long though.
In announcing the public health emergency in Washington, Health Secretary Michael Leavitt said his agency is concerned about potential disease outbreaks and was sending medical experts to monitor conditions.
This has been my major concern. The immediate storm was horrific in its own right, but the longer-term impacts to public health have the capacity to turn an emergency into a long-term epidemic.
If you'd ever visited New Orleans before last week, you'd know all about the above-ground cemetaries and mausoleums. With all those corpses set free by the massive storm, the public health nightmare is complicated even further.
I'm glad a state of emergency has been declared, officially making it possible for FEMA to start providing services. I can't imagine why it took this long though.
pollution linked to poverty
BBC news reports about a new World Resources Institute report, endorsed by the U.N., saying that protecting the environment is one the surest ways to achieve the Millenium Goal of halving the ranks of the world's poor in a decade.
No word on whether U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had a chance to mark it up first, but given it's conclusions, it's unlikely that's happened.
No word on whether U.S. Ambassador John Bolton had a chance to mark it up first, but given it's conclusions, it's unlikely that's happened.
nature's wrath
New York Times coverage of the hurricane aftermath.
The greatest humanitarian crisis in the history of the United States:
Donate to the Red Cross here.
The images of Katrina's wrath eerily remind me of parts of the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, about sudden climate change brought on by humanity's utter disregard for mama nature.
The greatest humanitarian crisis in the history of the United States:
Peter Teahen, the national spokesman for the American Red Cross, said: "We are looking now at a disaster above any magnitude that we've seen in the United States. We've been saying that the response is going to be the largest Red Cross response in the history of the organization."
Donate to the Red Cross here.
The images of Katrina's wrath eerily remind me of parts of the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, about sudden climate change brought on by humanity's utter disregard for mama nature.
truly outrageous
From the AP:
Are you kidding me? He was on vacation during the brunt of the crisis, when he wasn't out politicking.
And I'm sure symbolic gestures are exactly what the survivors are looking for. Sure there are likely hundreds dead, massive starvation, a public health nightmare and economic devastation, but they have a symbolic gesture from arguably the one man who could do the most to alleviate some of their suffering.
And these are states that overwhelmingly support the guy. Imagine his response if a tsunami hit the California coast.
We'd be seeing pictures of him singing duets with Kenny Chesney and giving his Social Security privatization stump speech to residents of a nursing home in Cheyenne.
Returning to Washington ahead of schedule also could insulate the president from criticism that he was on vacation during the crisis, and the return could be seen as a symbolic gesture to hurricane victims.
Are you kidding me? He was on vacation during the brunt of the crisis, when he wasn't out politicking.
And I'm sure symbolic gestures are exactly what the survivors are looking for. Sure there are likely hundreds dead, massive starvation, a public health nightmare and economic devastation, but they have a symbolic gesture from arguably the one man who could do the most to alleviate some of their suffering.
And these are states that overwhelmingly support the guy. Imagine his response if a tsunami hit the California coast.
We'd be seeing pictures of him singing duets with Kenny Chesney and giving his Social Security privatization stump speech to residents of a nursing home in Cheyenne.
a televangelist with what appears to be a shred of integrity
I've kind of had a passing fascination with "Biblical prophecy expert" Jack Van Impe ever since I first saw the commercials for his televangelism show when I moved to Arizona. We didn't get that kind of... interesting... viewing material where I came from.
Plus, his wife's name is Rexella, which is kind of nifty. Rexella Van Impe. It actually rolls off the tongue. They did a commercial for their TV program where he lavishes praise on her for earning her doctorate. It's like watching the kid whose leg is in a cast try to walk up the flight of stairs...you're rooting for him, but at the same time you don't want to stare because you know he's just going to fall again.
So I'm even more impressed with him since he called Pat Robertson on the mat today for Robertson's crazy assassination talk last week. I don't know if he did it for the ratings or what, but you've got to respect an extremist like Van Impe - and for all my distant admiration, he's still an extremist - for policing his own. Especially with someone as powerful and scary as Robertson. If genuine, that took guts and integrity.
On the other hand, one guess who Robertson's gonna blame for the next terrorist attack/hurricane...
Plus, his wife's name is Rexella, which is kind of nifty. Rexella Van Impe. It actually rolls off the tongue. They did a commercial for their TV program where he lavishes praise on her for earning her doctorate. It's like watching the kid whose leg is in a cast try to walk up the flight of stairs...you're rooting for him, but at the same time you don't want to stare because you know he's just going to fall again.
So I'm even more impressed with him since he called Pat Robertson on the mat today for Robertson's crazy assassination talk last week. I don't know if he did it for the ratings or what, but you've got to respect an extremist like Van Impe - and for all my distant admiration, he's still an extremist - for policing his own. Especially with someone as powerful and scary as Robertson. If genuine, that took guts and integrity.
On the other hand, one guess who Robertson's gonna blame for the next terrorist attack/hurricane...
this is a mensch
Cindy Sheehan says goodbye to Crawford. She just has this warmth and integrity and humanity to her, I can't fathom how the right can demonize her like they continue to do. I guess it's all they know. It's OK, healthy even, to engage in honest dialogue about differences of opinion. It's not OK and rather unhealthy to work so hard generating so much bile to fling at any person, no matter how much you disagree with her. Thank you, Mrs. Sheehan, for the sacrifices you've made and the work you're doing.
I'll continue my McCain/Daily Star redux tomorrow for anybody actually reading this.
I'll continue my McCain/Daily Star redux tomorrow for anybody actually reading this.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
pederson is in
Big announcement about the 2006 Senate race next Wednesday, 10:30 AM at Casa Grande city hall.
The e-mail from the AZ Democratic Party didn't mention their former chair by name, but who else would have the backing of the state party this far out?
The e-mail from the AZ Democratic Party didn't mention their former chair by name, but who else would have the backing of the state party this far out?
that wild, wild border
The title of this Tucson Citizen article kills me: Bush tells Arizona crowd he'll help tame border. As if the border was some wild animal that needs to be brought under control with the civilizing influence of the United States government.
I'm fed up with politicians taking the easy way out on border issues. Rather than address the underlying issues, they do what they always do with just about every issue: they look for the most convenient band-aid to put over the festering sore and hope the patient will just not notice an arm falling off.
The call for detention space calls to mind an eerie episode of COPS I had the misfortune of flipping through a couple of weeks ago. It featured Maricopa's own Sherriff Joe, taking the cameras on a tour of a tent city he had constructed out in the desert to house county jail inmates as a cheaper alternative to building more jails.
Look, if you commit a crime you should pay an appropriate, proportionate penalty. I don't have a problem with that at all. That's how a society is supposed to function.
But there is also often an underlying cause when a crime is committed. This doesn't justify or excuse the crime, but it does help us understand why crimes are being committed so we can work more effectively to prevent them. Maybe we do need more resources on the border, but the efforts of the federal, state and local governments can't be limited to punishing the transgressors.
These politicians have to take the blinders off, look at the big picture, and start addressing some of the underlying corruption and poverty issues that are driving people over the border in the first place.
I'm fed up with politicians taking the easy way out on border issues. Rather than address the underlying issues, they do what they always do with just about every issue: they look for the most convenient band-aid to put over the festering sore and hope the patient will just not notice an arm falling off.
More people, detention space and resources will be made available in border areas, Bush said.
The call for detention space calls to mind an eerie episode of COPS I had the misfortune of flipping through a couple of weeks ago. It featured Maricopa's own Sherriff Joe, taking the cameras on a tour of a tent city he had constructed out in the desert to house county jail inmates as a cheaper alternative to building more jails.
Look, if you commit a crime you should pay an appropriate, proportionate penalty. I don't have a problem with that at all. That's how a society is supposed to function.
But there is also often an underlying cause when a crime is committed. This doesn't justify or excuse the crime, but it does help us understand why crimes are being committed so we can work more effectively to prevent them. Maybe we do need more resources on the border, but the efforts of the federal, state and local governments can't be limited to punishing the transgressors.
These politicians have to take the blinders off, look at the big picture, and start addressing some of the underlying corruption and poverty issues that are driving people over the border in the first place.
it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic
Hurricanes linked to global warming. The science is crystal clear. I take no pleasure in the nightmare that folks in Louisianna, Mississippi and Alabama are facing right now, but this raised my eyebrow:
Hmmm.
In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God.
Hmmm.
of small penises and big cars
Leave it to Cornell University researchers to find empirical evidence that men whose masculinity is threatened will overcompensate with homophobia, sabre-rattling and SUV's.
I miss Ithaca.
I miss Ithaca.
37 million americans live in poverty
And that's just with the current formula for calculating the poverty rate, which was developed in the 1950's or 60's. A better measure would be a figure that accurately takes into account the cost of living and the value of a living wage.
Still, 37 million people living below the poverty line, working three jobs to barely survive, is unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination. The focus should be on giving them the tools and support they need to rise out of poverty, not punishing them for being poor while rewarding their corporate masters.
Our government's priorities are seriously screwed up when 12.7% of the population living in poverty is an acceptable figure.
There are children going to bed hungry - if they have beds - in this country tonight, but instead of doing something meaningful about that, Congress will instead return from its summer vacation on Monday and again take up the debate over whether or not to eliminate the estate tax. I don't know anyone who has an estate worth a million dollars, so I don't know anyone who has to pay that tax. It's only for the superwealthy who wouldn't miss the money anyway. That tax revenue could help many people. It shouldn't even be a debate; the estate tax is what obscenely rich people pay to remain respectable, concerned members of society.
The debate should be over how to fix welfare so it's not punitive or insulting. We have an moral duty to help our 37 million brothers and sisters who have been denied opportunity after opportunity, and the millions more who are on the verge. We are failing to fulfill our duty as their ranks continue to grow.
The debate is stuck in neutral with very little emphasis placed where it's needed.
Still, 37 million people living below the poverty line, working three jobs to barely survive, is unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination. The focus should be on giving them the tools and support they need to rise out of poverty, not punishing them for being poor while rewarding their corporate masters.
Our government's priorities are seriously screwed up when 12.7% of the population living in poverty is an acceptable figure.
There are children going to bed hungry - if they have beds - in this country tonight, but instead of doing something meaningful about that, Congress will instead return from its summer vacation on Monday and again take up the debate over whether or not to eliminate the estate tax. I don't know anyone who has an estate worth a million dollars, so I don't know anyone who has to pay that tax. It's only for the superwealthy who wouldn't miss the money anyway. That tax revenue could help many people. It shouldn't even be a debate; the estate tax is what obscenely rich people pay to remain respectable, concerned members of society.
The debate should be over how to fix welfare so it's not punitive or insulting. We have an moral duty to help our 37 million brothers and sisters who have been denied opportunity after opportunity, and the millions more who are on the verge. We are failing to fulfill our duty as their ranks continue to grow.
The debate is stuck in neutral with very little emphasis placed where it's needed.
mccain and the daily star ed board, part 1
I'm about to cry, and not just because of some of the assinine things this insanely popular politician said. I wrote a lengthy post and then the blogger servers went down and it was all for naught. Let's hope this goes better the second time around...
And now without further ado, McCain redux, part uno:
On immigration:
First off, what undocumented immigrant has $2,000 with which to pay a fine? Presumably if he or she can't pay the fine, the penalty is deportation anyway. This is just a backdoor attempt to make deportation less controversial. "We tried to give them a square deal, but they just wouldn't pay the piper."
People are crossing the border from Mexico because they see the United States as a place of greater opportunities. Paying documented and undocumented immigrants the lowest of the low wages is just helping to create a massive underclass that will forever be scapegoated for every ill facing the nation. If you really want to curb illegal immigration, you have to create incentives for people to stay in their countries of origin. Most immediately, that means helping clean up the massive corruption in the Mexican federal, state and local governments, followed by aid to jumpstart the Mexican economy. When there are worthwhile opportunities in their own country, many border crossers won't see the need to risk life, limb and liberty to get into the U.S. Why does our border policy have to be punitive? Why does it always have to treat the people crossing the border like second-class human beings? Punishing people who hurt others or who damage personal property is one thing; punishing people who are just looking for a better life for their families is quite another.
This passage kind of made me wonder if Senator Kennedy might not necessarily be the best partner from the left on this kind of legislation. I can't really imagine there's much of a problem with undocumented immigrants in Hyannis. But partnering with Kennedy, who is demonized on the right, is part of why McCain gets his ill-deserved "maverick" rep. If he really wanted to pick up credibility from a liberal Democrat, it would have made more sense to partner with Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, two liberal lions who actually represent another border state. It just makes more sense to me.
I laughed out loud at the dictionary-reading line. McCain's a skolur!
On Iraq:
We've paid a heavy price in American treasure, eh? Is that in doubloons or in embezzled, mismanaged taxpayer money paid in exhorbitant sums to corrupt private contractors? Gosh, it sure would be nice if there was something Senator McCain could do about that, being the watchdog of government spending that he claims to be. Oh wait, there is! Congress has the responsibility of deciding how much is spent on this war and in what ways. Congress could demand accoutability and transparency from the corporations it authorizes the DOD to contract with. Congress should be asking the hard questions and being dilligent stewards of our tax dollars. But, as we all know, most of them - particularly those in the majority - are not.
Oh, and also: duh. It's a good thing we have Senator Obvious to tell us we can't afford to lose.
This is classic Republican specious reasoning. News flash: Iraq will be a factionalized nation whether we leave now or in ten years. That's not necessarily a bad thing: having diverse voices speaking in an honest and open dialogue. But that's not the kind of factionalizing Senator McCain means. He's talking about civil war, which is all but inevitable regardless of when we leave.
There are steps we can take to minimize such a civil war and also reduce the continuing number of casualties suffered both by our forces and by the Iraqis. Juan Cole has a pretty solid 10-point plan that Congress can start working on now. I really agree with his first point about partial troop redeployment. Our troops have not been properly trained to wage the war we're asking them to wage. As Cole puts it, "our troops are warriors, not traffic cops." I do have some concerns about point 6, selling or giving arms - including tanks - to the new Iraqi government. We all remember how well that worked out for us with Afghanistan in the 80's.
The real merry-go-round of rhetorical nonsense comes when the Senator compares the terrorist element in Iraq with the North Vietnamese Communists at the tail end of that "conflict." For once a Republican is not conflating Iraq with 9/11 by willfully ignoring the fact that Americans have already been attacked on American soil. He commits this sin of ommission to justify not withdrawing troops early because the terrorists would then supposedly take it as an invitation to attack Americans on American soil. The pre-emptive strike doctrine. Get them before they get us. Except they already got us. And then we got them back. It's circular reasoning. Yes, that policy has really worked wonders so far. Cindy Sheehan gives the best summary: "we have to continue killing American soldiers because so many have been killed already." That's insane troll logic!
That's all for now. Hope this posts this time. Stay tuned for our next exciting episode!
And now without further ado, McCain redux, part uno:
On immigration:
//snip//
Amnesty was tried once in the 1980s, and it didn't work. So we need to make sure that people who have broken our laws by entering our country illegally pay a price for that - we need a $2,000 fine plus having to work for six years before being eligible for green card status. And then it would probably take another five years after that to be able to go for citizenship.
I read the dictionary on occasion and the word "amnesty" does not fit into the proposal that Sen. Kennedy and I have, even though many claim that it does. It is a severe and significant penalty for having broken our laws and come into our country.
//snip//
First off, what undocumented immigrant has $2,000 with which to pay a fine? Presumably if he or she can't pay the fine, the penalty is deportation anyway. This is just a backdoor attempt to make deportation less controversial. "We tried to give them a square deal, but they just wouldn't pay the piper."
People are crossing the border from Mexico because they see the United States as a place of greater opportunities. Paying documented and undocumented immigrants the lowest of the low wages is just helping to create a massive underclass that will forever be scapegoated for every ill facing the nation. If you really want to curb illegal immigration, you have to create incentives for people to stay in their countries of origin. Most immediately, that means helping clean up the massive corruption in the Mexican federal, state and local governments, followed by aid to jumpstart the Mexican economy. When there are worthwhile opportunities in their own country, many border crossers won't see the need to risk life, limb and liberty to get into the U.S. Why does our border policy have to be punitive? Why does it always have to treat the people crossing the border like second-class human beings? Punishing people who hurt others or who damage personal property is one thing; punishing people who are just looking for a better life for their families is quite another.
This passage kind of made me wonder if Senator Kennedy might not necessarily be the best partner from the left on this kind of legislation. I can't really imagine there's much of a problem with undocumented immigrants in Hyannis. But partnering with Kennedy, who is demonized on the right, is part of why McCain gets his ill-deserved "maverick" rep. If he really wanted to pick up credibility from a liberal Democrat, it would have made more sense to partner with Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer, two liberal lions who actually represent another border state. It just makes more sense to me.
I laughed out loud at the dictionary-reading line. McCain's a skolur!
On Iraq:
Serious mistakes have been made for which we've paid a heavy price in American blood and treasure - primarily by not getting control in Iraq after initial military success, allowing looting, not having more American troops on the ground, not understanding the people that we have just defeated. We cannot afford to lose. We must prevail.
//snip//
We've paid a heavy price in American treasure, eh? Is that in doubloons or in embezzled, mismanaged taxpayer money paid in exhorbitant sums to corrupt private contractors? Gosh, it sure would be nice if there was something Senator McCain could do about that, being the watchdog of government spending that he claims to be. Oh wait, there is! Congress has the responsibility of deciding how much is spent on this war and in what ways. Congress could demand accoutability and transparency from the corporations it authorizes the DOD to contract with. Congress should be asking the hard questions and being dilligent stewards of our tax dollars. But, as we all know, most of them - particularly those in the majority - are not.
Oh, and also: duh. It's a good thing we have Senator Obvious to tell us we can't afford to lose.
//snip//
I have said for years it's going to be long, it's going to be hard, it's going to be tough. Whether you supported the invasion of Iraq or not, whether in hindsight we should have gone or not, I respect those personal opinions. And I still think we did the right thing. But if we leave now, we will establish Iraq as a factionalized nation, a hotbed of Muslim extremism, and they will follow us wherever we go. When we lost in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh and his friends didn't want to follow us to the United States. These people do.
This is classic Republican specious reasoning. News flash: Iraq will be a factionalized nation whether we leave now or in ten years. That's not necessarily a bad thing: having diverse voices speaking in an honest and open dialogue. But that's not the kind of factionalizing Senator McCain means. He's talking about civil war, which is all but inevitable regardless of when we leave.
There are steps we can take to minimize such a civil war and also reduce the continuing number of casualties suffered both by our forces and by the Iraqis. Juan Cole has a pretty solid 10-point plan that Congress can start working on now. I really agree with his first point about partial troop redeployment. Our troops have not been properly trained to wage the war we're asking them to wage. As Cole puts it, "our troops are warriors, not traffic cops." I do have some concerns about point 6, selling or giving arms - including tanks - to the new Iraqi government. We all remember how well that worked out for us with Afghanistan in the 80's.
The real merry-go-round of rhetorical nonsense comes when the Senator compares the terrorist element in Iraq with the North Vietnamese Communists at the tail end of that "conflict." For once a Republican is not conflating Iraq with 9/11 by willfully ignoring the fact that Americans have already been attacked on American soil. He commits this sin of ommission to justify not withdrawing troops early because the terrorists would then supposedly take it as an invitation to attack Americans on American soil. The pre-emptive strike doctrine. Get them before they get us. Except they already got us. And then we got them back. It's circular reasoning. Yes, that policy has really worked wonders so far. Cindy Sheehan gives the best summary: "we have to continue killing American soldiers because so many have been killed already." That's insane troll logic!
That's all for now. Hope this posts this time. Stay tuned for our next exciting episode!
Monday, August 29, 2005
daily star ditches coulter column
This just in: The Arizona Daily Star is reinventing its opinion and editorial pages (again). The most important part of this news is that they are thankfully getting rid of Ann Coulter's column. This is a gem from the article:
Amen.
Shoot an e-mail to new publisher and editor David Soeffler to thank him for sparing us any more of Coulter's hyper-paranoid, offensive schtick.
Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives.
Amen.
Shoot an e-mail to new publisher and editor David Soeffler to thank him for sparing us any more of Coulter's hyper-paranoid, offensive schtick.
remember the sexual revolution
I firmly believe in adding a historical perspective to any argument or issue.
Joshua Zeitz over at Huffington Post gives just such a perspective to the FDA's current stalling tactics on approving Plan B for over-the-counter use.
Joshua Zeitz over at Huffington Post gives just such a perspective to the FDA's current stalling tactics on approving Plan B for over-the-counter use.
usa: oil companies more important than consumers
The only time Bush will consider releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is when refiners start feeling the pain in a natural emergency. Never mind that consumers have been feeling that pain for months.
Cost per barrel of petroleum: $70
Number of barrels of refining capacity impacted by Hurricane Katrina: 1 million
Putting commerce ahead of consumers: priceless
Cost per barrel of petroleum: $70
Number of barrels of refining capacity impacted by Hurricane Katrina: 1 million
Putting commerce ahead of consumers: priceless
at least one president will meet with her
Photo credit: Lm Otero/AP/MSNBC.com
Too bad he's a fictional president...
az: where kids count less than cargo
I know these western states are all about libertarianism and deregulation, but sometimes that attitude just defies logic.
One of the first differences I noticed when I moved here from the northeast was that people could legally ride in the beds of pickup trucks, despite the obvious safety concerns. Such riding behavior was outlawed in the northeastern states years ago.
To be fair, there have been efforts in Arizona to outlaw this dangerous activity. Of course, there are still forces in the state legislature that don't want their rights curbed under any circumstances, even when it would save lives.
But if you're hauling cargo instead of people? According to that Star article:
That's the Arizona legislature for you, always putting property ahead of people.
One of the first differences I noticed when I moved here from the northeast was that people could legally ride in the beds of pickup trucks, despite the obvious safety concerns. Such riding behavior was outlawed in the northeastern states years ago.
To be fair, there have been efforts in Arizona to outlaw this dangerous activity. Of course, there are still forces in the state legislature that don't want their rights curbed under any circumstances, even when it would save lives.
But if you're hauling cargo instead of people? According to that Star article:
State law prohibits driving a truck on a public road with unsecured cargo in the open bed. But kids? That's OK, it seems.
That's the Arizona legislature for you, always putting property ahead of people.
mccain and the daily star ed board, prologue
I'll post something substantive tomorrow on Senator McCain's recent sit-down with Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board.
And now I sleep..."yay sleep! that's where I'm a viking!"
And now I sleep..."yay sleep! that's where I'm a viking!"
Sunday, August 28, 2005
fatasses
As if the downtown Tucson Fox Theatre renovation project didn't have enough problems, now it turns out audiences members just won't fit the period seating.
Not surprising, just disappointing.
Not surprising, just disappointing.
be a witness
This is important.
There is a genocide happening halfway around the world that I alluded to in an earlier post about foreign affairs. Innocent women, children and men are being raped and murdered by their own government in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Where's the news coverage? Why is this not front page news? Surely this has major national security implications for the United States. Also, it's a genocide. We have a moral obligation to know about it and do something about it. What good is being the world's only superpower if we turn a blind eye on this atrocity?
Demand that U.S. media start reporting on these crimes against humanity.
There is a genocide happening halfway around the world that I alluded to in an earlier post about foreign affairs. Innocent women, children and men are being raped and murdered by their own government in the Darfur region of Sudan.
Where's the news coverage? Why is this not front page news? Surely this has major national security implications for the United States. Also, it's a genocide. We have a moral obligation to know about it and do something about it. What good is being the world's only superpower if we turn a blind eye on this atrocity?
Demand that U.S. media start reporting on these crimes against humanity.
progressive partisanship vs. coalition-building
I read through this earlier post and realized I may have been a little too harsh in some regards. This is something I really struggle with, especially since I recently had a brief dialogue about this with a colleague from the other side of the aisle.
There are plenty of R's out there with whom I disagree on a great many issues, but with whom I may agree on a great many other issues. What is my proverbial litmus test then for supporting them as candidates? Where do I draw the line?
For starters, I think it matters what office she or he is running for. The wingnuts have different levels of control over different institutions. I have to consider my political calculus carefully. Am I helping strengthen the majority controlled by the far-right idealogues or am I helping to moderate their caucus with somebody who will stand up for the same principles I support?
When I moved from New York to Tucson, I used to say - and it still holds water but in a different way - that a northeastern Republican was better than a southwestern Democrat any day of the week. People in general are more liberal in the northeast and more conservative in the southwest. It's the lay of the political land. Just as all politics is personal and local, I realize now that all politics is contextual.
To borrow a phrase: you go to election with the Democrats you've got.
I'm learning that sometimes you also have to go with the Republicans you've got and that's not necessarily the end of the world.
I don't mean for this to sound like I've made a major revelation that perhaps not all people with a big R on their voter ID cards are bad. I just haven't expected them to be nearly as progressive as I've found them to be and it's a big relief. I'm really curious to know - with no judgement attached, simply out of pure curiosity - why anyone belongs to one political party, especially when the other party seems more in line with his or her politics.
I assume the Goldwater-era conservative values of local control and limited government would probably cover most of that answer, along with family tradition. With the religious right vastly overreaching at all levels of government nowadays, it's no wonder that some non-religious conservatives would try and distance themselves from the theocratic base that appears to control their party.
It's been said many times in the blogosphere (of which I'm much the newbie) that the old labels of "conservative" and "liberal" don't quite work anymore. This does make me uneasy because it signals yet again that the political center has shifted considerably to the right. Then again I never really much care for labels of any stripe, so perhaps it's OK.
I will say though that I have far more respect for someone who is totally committed to a cause, even if it's one that's totally contrary to my politics and to common sense, than I do for someone who considers himself or herself "moderate." You have to stand for something and be passionate enough to advocate for it.
It's easy to judge a person by the company they keep. But it's also helpful to have friends (or at least accessible colleagues) in high places. I stand by my earlier criticism of the HRC. And I'm still no fan of Congressman Kolbe, but that's mostly for his pro-"free"-trade, pro-deregulation, pro-big-business platform. As chair of the House subcommittee on foreign affairs appropriations, he holds the purse strings on all foreign aid. I would much rather have somebody hold that powerful position who would do more to help end starvation and poverty in third world countries, rather than throwing good money after bad to multi-national corporations so they can maintain their exploitative profit margins based on the antiquated and ineffective trickle-down theory.
He also gave me an icky feeling when I met with him for work a few months ago. Even my usually obtuse boss noticed that he eyed me up and down. Ew.
There are plenty of R's out there with whom I disagree on a great many issues, but with whom I may agree on a great many other issues. What is my proverbial litmus test then for supporting them as candidates? Where do I draw the line?
For starters, I think it matters what office she or he is running for. The wingnuts have different levels of control over different institutions. I have to consider my political calculus carefully. Am I helping strengthen the majority controlled by the far-right idealogues or am I helping to moderate their caucus with somebody who will stand up for the same principles I support?
When I moved from New York to Tucson, I used to say - and it still holds water but in a different way - that a northeastern Republican was better than a southwestern Democrat any day of the week. People in general are more liberal in the northeast and more conservative in the southwest. It's the lay of the political land. Just as all politics is personal and local, I realize now that all politics is contextual.
To borrow a phrase: you go to election with the Democrats you've got.
I'm learning that sometimes you also have to go with the Republicans you've got and that's not necessarily the end of the world.
I don't mean for this to sound like I've made a major revelation that perhaps not all people with a big R on their voter ID cards are bad. I just haven't expected them to be nearly as progressive as I've found them to be and it's a big relief. I'm really curious to know - with no judgement attached, simply out of pure curiosity - why anyone belongs to one political party, especially when the other party seems more in line with his or her politics.
I assume the Goldwater-era conservative values of local control and limited government would probably cover most of that answer, along with family tradition. With the religious right vastly overreaching at all levels of government nowadays, it's no wonder that some non-religious conservatives would try and distance themselves from the theocratic base that appears to control their party.
It's been said many times in the blogosphere (of which I'm much the newbie) that the old labels of "conservative" and "liberal" don't quite work anymore. This does make me uneasy because it signals yet again that the political center has shifted considerably to the right. Then again I never really much care for labels of any stripe, so perhaps it's OK.
I will say though that I have far more respect for someone who is totally committed to a cause, even if it's one that's totally contrary to my politics and to common sense, than I do for someone who considers himself or herself "moderate." You have to stand for something and be passionate enough to advocate for it.
It's easy to judge a person by the company they keep. But it's also helpful to have friends (or at least accessible colleagues) in high places. I stand by my earlier criticism of the HRC. And I'm still no fan of Congressman Kolbe, but that's mostly for his pro-"free"-trade, pro-deregulation, pro-big-business platform. As chair of the House subcommittee on foreign affairs appropriations, he holds the purse strings on all foreign aid. I would much rather have somebody hold that powerful position who would do more to help end starvation and poverty in third world countries, rather than throwing good money after bad to multi-national corporations so they can maintain their exploitative profit margins based on the antiquated and ineffective trickle-down theory.
He also gave me an icky feeling when I met with him for work a few months ago. Even my usually obtuse boss noticed that he eyed me up and down. Ew.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
voices for the vote
I've created a page containing the full script for the dramatic reading commissioned by the Pima County/Tucson Women's Commission for their 2005 Women's Equality Day Open House.
It's also available as a pdf download for printing. Please give me credit as editor if you intend to use it.
It's also available as a pdf download for printing. Please give me credit as editor if you intend to use it.
partisan progressives
Here's an interesting analysis at MyDD of why right wing advocacy groups are successful and why what we consider "progressive" single-issue advocacy groups aren't suited to current day politics.
Essentially it boils down to our side not seeing the forest for the trees. Or more accurately, not seeing the forest because we're only focussing on individual trees. Read the comments, too, as they present some decent alternate perspectives.
So what does this have to do with AZ-08?
I'm doing some research on Jim Kolbe's last few races here in southern Arizona. I'll be posting more extensively on all this in the coming weeks. What stood out to me was that the Human Rights Campaign, they of the queers in khakis, was his second largest contributor in the last two cycles.
HRC ought to be aligned closely with the Democratic party because that's the party that's more likely to stand up for gay rights (though you might not know it to look at them since 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA). At the very least, the Democrats haven't been nearly as outright hostile against the gays as the Republicans.
Congressman may be what passes for moderate these days and openly gay, but he belongs to a party and contributes to their ability to maintain majority status that would treat him as a second-class citizen. I'm not suggesting that he should switch parties; there's something clearly attractive about the party that suits every other aspect of his life.
But the HRC, whose mission is to promote equality for LGBT people, is working against their own mission by supporting candidates who are members of a majority that is blatantly opposed to that mission, regardless of the standpoint of the individual candidate.
You can only judge a caucus by its most extreme members. This is why NARAL is being criticized for its endorsement of Senator Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, and it's why I'm critical of the HRC now.
I'll be writing a letter to HRC asking them not to donate to my Representative just because he's a homo. A Democrat in his seat will be more helpful to HRC's cause than he will. He doesn't even support local LGBT causes.
This is about pragmatic politics - making sure that interest groups are looking at the bigger picture and understanding the political ramifications of their spending or actions.
Essentially it boils down to our side not seeing the forest for the trees. Or more accurately, not seeing the forest because we're only focussing on individual trees. Read the comments, too, as they present some decent alternate perspectives.
So what does this have to do with AZ-08?
I'm doing some research on Jim Kolbe's last few races here in southern Arizona. I'll be posting more extensively on all this in the coming weeks. What stood out to me was that the Human Rights Campaign, they of the queers in khakis, was his second largest contributor in the last two cycles.
HRC ought to be aligned closely with the Democratic party because that's the party that's more likely to stand up for gay rights (though you might not know it to look at them since 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA). At the very least, the Democrats haven't been nearly as outright hostile against the gays as the Republicans.
Congressman may be what passes for moderate these days and openly gay, but he belongs to a party and contributes to their ability to maintain majority status that would treat him as a second-class citizen. I'm not suggesting that he should switch parties; there's something clearly attractive about the party that suits every other aspect of his life.
But the HRC, whose mission is to promote equality for LGBT people, is working against their own mission by supporting candidates who are members of a majority that is blatantly opposed to that mission, regardless of the standpoint of the individual candidate.
You can only judge a caucus by its most extreme members. This is why NARAL is being criticized for its endorsement of Senator Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island, and it's why I'm critical of the HRC now.
I'll be writing a letter to HRC asking them not to donate to my Representative just because he's a homo. A Democrat in his seat will be more helpful to HRC's cause than he will. He doesn't even support local LGBT causes.
This is about pragmatic politics - making sure that interest groups are looking at the bigger picture and understanding the political ramifications of their spending or actions.
rss feed now available
How meta is this? I'm blogging to let you know about the blog's RSS feed that's now gone live. See the "
" icon in the next column.
" icon in the next column.Friday, August 26, 2005
get real
Great episode tonight of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO.
Panelists: Dan Savage, Eve Ensler and AR Governor Mike Huckabee (R)
Satellite interviews with: Cindy Sheehan and TX gubernatorial hopeful Kinky Freedman (I)
Dan and Eve did a great job. Eve came off a little shrill at times, but god how I love her tenacity in hammering a point. And she speaks about foreign affairs from the experience of actually having travelled to the places she's talking about.
I've read and enjoyed Dan's column for years, but I never knew how smart and articulate he is. I think he's a sellout for partnering up and adopting "The Kid," but I don't generally hold it against him.
Bill Maher is a jackass, but he's funny and usually right.
Finally, Mrs. Sheehan is about the sweetest mom ever. I can't understand how anyone can believe anything the right-wing smear machine is saying about her; she's the most disarming, unassuming, down to earth women I've seen on TV in a long time. She didn't come off as an aging hippie either, which was my major concern. She's not raging angry. She's grieving, but she's strong and serene about it at the same time. I was most impressed with her delivery. Honest and sincere to the last.
Panelists: Dan Savage, Eve Ensler and AR Governor Mike Huckabee (R)
Satellite interviews with: Cindy Sheehan and TX gubernatorial hopeful Kinky Freedman (I)
Dan and Eve did a great job. Eve came off a little shrill at times, but god how I love her tenacity in hammering a point. And she speaks about foreign affairs from the experience of actually having travelled to the places she's talking about.
I've read and enjoyed Dan's column for years, but I never knew how smart and articulate he is. I think he's a sellout for partnering up and adopting "The Kid," but I don't generally hold it against him.
Bill Maher is a jackass, but he's funny and usually right.
Finally, Mrs. Sheehan is about the sweetest mom ever. I can't understand how anyone can believe anything the right-wing smear machine is saying about her; she's the most disarming, unassuming, down to earth women I've seen on TV in a long time. She didn't come off as an aging hippie either, which was my major concern. She's not raging angry. She's grieving, but she's strong and serene about it at the same time. I was most impressed with her delivery. Honest and sincere to the last.
are you kidding me?
Remember when ABC News' 20/20 used to be about hard-hitting investigative journalism? Or when it was at least good for the awkward interaction between Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters?
So what does the venerable TV newsmagazine consider crack journalism these days?
Vampires.
That's right. Tonight's episode of 20/20 was all about being "On the Trail of Dracula."
Not on the trail of bin Laden. Not on the trail of the WMD's. Not on the trail of Cindy Sheehan. Not on the trail of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative.
I suppose I shouldn't be so appalled. I mean this is, after all, the show that now stars John Stossel, who packages blatant partisan lies as genuine broadcast news. He wasn't on the show tonight, but it reeked of his smarmy crap.
So what does the venerable TV newsmagazine consider crack journalism these days?
Vampires.
That's right. Tonight's episode of 20/20 was all about being "On the Trail of Dracula."
Not on the trail of bin Laden. Not on the trail of the WMD's. Not on the trail of Cindy Sheehan. Not on the trail of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative.
I suppose I shouldn't be so appalled. I mean this is, after all, the show that now stars John Stossel, who packages blatant partisan lies as genuine broadcast news. He wasn't on the show tonight, but it reeked of his smarmy crap.
tin political ear or just a rabid partisan?
Jon Kyl keeps digging his own political grave. Now he's falling over himself to announce that President Bush is coming to Arizona.
I'm disappointed with CJ Karamargin for this final paragraph in her Daily Star article:
She fails to mention that, according to SurveyUSA's latest 50-state tracking poll, Bush's approval rating is down to 45% in Arizona and his disapproval number is at a high of 52% in the state.
Particularly interesting in these results: the President's approve number among state Republicans is lower than the disapprove number among state Democrats. Independents disapprove of his job performance by a margin of 62%-35%. Democrats are showing more party unity in their opposition to the President than his own party is showing in their support of him. This is incredible in a state with a historically unified GOP.
I'm disappointed with CJ Karamargin for this final paragraph in her Daily Star article:
Although Bush did not carry Tucson or Pima County in 2004, he is popular throughout Arizona. He won the state last year with nearly 55 percent of the vote. He won Arizona in 2000 with almost 51 percent.
She fails to mention that, according to SurveyUSA's latest 50-state tracking poll, Bush's approval rating is down to 45% in Arizona and his disapproval number is at a high of 52% in the state.
Particularly interesting in these results: the President's approve number among state Republicans is lower than the disapprove number among state Democrats. Independents disapprove of his job performance by a margin of 62%-35%. Democrats are showing more party unity in their opposition to the President than his own party is showing in their support of him. This is incredible in a state with a historically unified GOP.
bitter validation
Well, my earlier post about John McCain not being the maverick he's made out to be has been well justified with today's latest development in the battle for equal rights in Arizona.
What a hack.
What a hack.
playing politics with women's health
Today was supposed to be about celebrating women's empowerment. After all, today is the 85th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Consitution, which gave women the right to vote. More on that later.
Instead of celebrating today, we have plenty to be outraged about. The FDA has yet again postponed approval of emergency contraception for sale over the counter:
But the most appalling part of this saga is this:
That's right, the Bush administration is setting a precedent by opening up what should be a scientific, medical decision to public comment. This has never been done before. It's blatantly discriminatory to expect certain groups of people to get a prescription for the same medication that other groups of people can obtain over the counter. There is no medical or ethical justification for that. Parental notification is a red herring for maintaining control over girls' bodies instead of letting them make those decisions for themselves.
Bottom line: this drug has been determined 100% safe for adolescent and adult use. The FDA panel on women's health overwhelmingly approved over the counter sale. This is nothing but cynical posturing by a political entity that is afraid of women deciding for themselves what they do with their own bodies.
Disgusting.
Instead of celebrating today, we have plenty to be outraged about. The FDA has yet again postponed approval of emergency contraception for sale over the counter:
The morning-after pill is a high dose of regular birth control that, taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent.
It was Barr’s latest disappointment in the two-year battle to sell Plan B without a prescription. Contraceptive advocates and doctors groups say easier access could halve the nation’s 3 million annual unintended pregnancies. FDA’s scientists say the pills are safe, used by more than 2.4 million Americans and millions more women abroad with few side effects.
The agency’s independent scientific advisers overwhelmingly backed over-the-counter sales for everybody, not just adults, in December 2003.
But the most appalling part of this saga is this:
Friday, FDA essentially boiled the issue down to regulatory precedent: Selling the same dose of a drug by prescription and without at the same time and for the same medical use has never been done. The FDA will allow 60 days of public comment on how to take such a step and enforce an age limit, but Crawford would not say how soon the agency could evaluate those comments and rule.
That's right, the Bush administration is setting a precedent by opening up what should be a scientific, medical decision to public comment. This has never been done before. It's blatantly discriminatory to expect certain groups of people to get a prescription for the same medication that other groups of people can obtain over the counter. There is no medical or ethical justification for that. Parental notification is a red herring for maintaining control over girls' bodies instead of letting them make those decisions for themselves.
Bottom line: this drug has been determined 100% safe for adolescent and adult use. The FDA panel on women's health overwhelmingly approved over the counter sale. This is nothing but cynical posturing by a political entity that is afraid of women deciding for themselves what they do with their own bodies.
Disgusting.
an extreme makeover: ahe afterthought
I just wanted to add this. I never planned to start discussing foreign policy in this forum, but now that I've opened the door in the last post, I might as well clarify something.
A foreign policy doctrine based on surgical strikes to prevent massacres, genocide and other human rights abuses would be logical, ethical and a proper use of our armed forces. I am an anti-violence advocate, a bleeding-heart liberal, but I also believe that we have an obligation to the people of the world, as its last remaining superpower, to use our might only when absolutely necessary to end suffering. We were told that Saddam was a ruthless dictator and that is one of the revolving excuses for our invasion.
Let me tell you, there are plenty of other ruthless dictators all over the world. Human rights abuses abound in places like Darfur and Thailand and throughout Latin America. There are even human rights abuses right here in North America. These are deeply troubling situations - as they should be. Why are these abuses not cause for a declaration of war, or at least a "police action?"
I reject the notion that the only reason that we went to war with Iraq was because W had a score to settle over Daddy's unfinished business or that we're just in it for the oil. While both of these things are probably true, foreign policy, especially when it comes to the use of military force, is far more complex and nuanced than that.
Notice that up to this point I haven't used the big "T" word. Of course the threat of terrorism is real and has changed the calculus considerably. Unfortunately, that very real threat has been manipulated into incorrectly justifying an illegal, immoral war. This cynical manipulation of fact and emotion only add to the complexity of the situation.
Oh what a tangled web we weave indeed.
A foreign policy doctrine based on surgical strikes to prevent massacres, genocide and other human rights abuses would be logical, ethical and a proper use of our armed forces. I am an anti-violence advocate, a bleeding-heart liberal, but I also believe that we have an obligation to the people of the world, as its last remaining superpower, to use our might only when absolutely necessary to end suffering. We were told that Saddam was a ruthless dictator and that is one of the revolving excuses for our invasion.
Let me tell you, there are plenty of other ruthless dictators all over the world. Human rights abuses abound in places like Darfur and Thailand and throughout Latin America. There are even human rights abuses right here in North America. These are deeply troubling situations - as they should be. Why are these abuses not cause for a declaration of war, or at least a "police action?"
I reject the notion that the only reason that we went to war with Iraq was because W had a score to settle over Daddy's unfinished business or that we're just in it for the oil. While both of these things are probably true, foreign policy, especially when it comes to the use of military force, is far more complex and nuanced than that.
Notice that up to this point I haven't used the big "T" word. Of course the threat of terrorism is real and has changed the calculus considerably. Unfortunately, that very real threat has been manipulated into incorrectly justifying an illegal, immoral war. This cynical manipulation of fact and emotion only add to the complexity of the situation.
Oh what a tangled web we weave indeed.
extreme makeover: aging hippie edition
I was in a local coffee shop the other day for a work meeting and as I was waiting for the rest of my party to arrive, a group of anti-war activists began to assemble at a group of tables nearby.
Let me be very clear from the start: I was opposed to the Iraq invasion from the start based on the dubious rationale we were given at the time. I think a very strong case could have been made for some precision action to remove a horrible dictator, guilty of countless human rights abuses. I did not and still do not support this mismanaged, sloppy quagmire into which the current administration has plunged us.
That said, these anti-war activists really need to start being more savvy if they don't want their messages to continue falling on deaf ears. None of the folks I observed at the coffee shop the other day were younger than 35 and several of them were in their 60's. I don't say this to be agist and I hope this doesn't come off as such. I merely make this point to say that they come from a very specific era with a very specific activist ethic.
I respectfully submit that perhaps these anti-war leaders could benefit from a freshening-up of their tactics. Their goals are certainly admirable, even if we arrive at similar conclusions in very different ways. It just pains me to see good people of faith and conviction work so hard for something so important and their tactics simply aren't effective in the new world order.
I posted briefly about this below (mostly with a link to a great analysis at MyDD). One of the biggest disappointment of the left over the past 25 years has been our struggle to change our tactics with the times.
I believe I can help many of these progressive causes step onto the 21st-century battlefield. I would gladly work with my coffee shop cohorts to give them some new skills and tools they can use to more effectively communicate their ideals.
Let me be very clear from the start: I was opposed to the Iraq invasion from the start based on the dubious rationale we were given at the time. I think a very strong case could have been made for some precision action to remove a horrible dictator, guilty of countless human rights abuses. I did not and still do not support this mismanaged, sloppy quagmire into which the current administration has plunged us.
That said, these anti-war activists really need to start being more savvy if they don't want their messages to continue falling on deaf ears. None of the folks I observed at the coffee shop the other day were younger than 35 and several of them were in their 60's. I don't say this to be agist and I hope this doesn't come off as such. I merely make this point to say that they come from a very specific era with a very specific activist ethic.
I respectfully submit that perhaps these anti-war leaders could benefit from a freshening-up of their tactics. Their goals are certainly admirable, even if we arrive at similar conclusions in very different ways. It just pains me to see good people of faith and conviction work so hard for something so important and their tactics simply aren't effective in the new world order.
I posted briefly about this below (mostly with a link to a great analysis at MyDD). One of the biggest disappointment of the left over the past 25 years has been our struggle to change our tactics with the times.
I believe I can help many of these progressive causes step onto the 21st-century battlefield. I would gladly work with my coffee shop cohorts to give them some new skills and tools they can use to more effectively communicate their ideals.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
i'm not running for anything
I just thought I should put that out there officially. The fact that nobody even reads this blog pretty much validates that decision.
It seems that's the first place everyone's mind is going when they learn about my recent award. When my Uncle Mell e-mailed me to congratulate me, his subject line read "Vote for Michael". That's exactly the same phrase exclaimed today by one of the funders performing a monitoring site visit at work when he learned about the honor.
As I said to my uncle, I couldn't even get elected dogcatcher. Especially not dogcatcher.
My personal identity would be too much of a turn off to too many members of whatever electorate we're talking about, regardless of how smart, charming and skilled I am. Most voters would see me as just a homo-judeo-atheist and that would be the end of their consideration of my candidacy. I don't believe voters would immediately jump to that conclusion, but I've seen plenty of candidates like me get demonized into obscurity by their opponents. It's a detestable but successful strategy. I could fight it, but I'd rather run a campaign on issues, not on my identity.
Now this is not to say I wouldn't run for something in the future, but for now I'll stick with helping other people get elected to offices.
It seems that's the first place everyone's mind is going when they learn about my recent award. When my Uncle Mell e-mailed me to congratulate me, his subject line read "Vote for Michael". That's exactly the same phrase exclaimed today by one of the funders performing a monitoring site visit at work when he learned about the honor.
As I said to my uncle, I couldn't even get elected dogcatcher. Especially not dogcatcher.
My personal identity would be too much of a turn off to too many members of whatever electorate we're talking about, regardless of how smart, charming and skilled I am. Most voters would see me as just a homo-judeo-atheist and that would be the end of their consideration of my candidacy. I don't believe voters would immediately jump to that conclusion, but I've seen plenty of candidates like me get demonized into obscurity by their opponents. It's a detestable but successful strategy. I could fight it, but I'd rather run a campaign on issues, not on my identity.
Now this is not to say I wouldn't run for something in the future, but for now I'll stick with helping other people get elected to offices.
those who try to repeat history are doomed to fail
I really couldn't have summarized the failures of modern progressivism better if I tried. It's important to acknowledge where we've gone wrong so we can change our tactics and start winning again.
the gays get it
I'm (literally) a card-carrying member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. I just received an e-mail about a unified front against the Roberts nomination:
First, kudos to all four, including those HRC "queers in khakis," for taking a bold stand and doing it together. They haven't exactly been known for sharing their toys in the past. That reminds me: I wonder if Levi is leading the leather caucus again this year at Creating Change...?
This nomination is not just a threat to queer rights for decades to come; a Justice Roberts would set back civil rights, individual rights, women's rights and civil liberties for generations. The fact that these queer organizations would explicitly mention choice in their public statements opposing the nomination marks a monumental shift for the better for progressive interest groups.
We need to be allies with each other instead of falling into the trap of fighting against each other for an ever-shrinking piece of the pie.
(excerpt)
HRC, THE TASK FORCE, NCLR AND PFLAG ANNOUNCE OPPOSITION TO ROBERTS NOMINATION
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 — The Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays put out a united statement today to announce opposition to the nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court.
"Judge Roberts has such a narrow view of what the courts can and should do, it's a wonder he wants the job at all," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "Ultimately, this is about an individual’s right to privacy. From women's rights to religious freedom to civil rights, there is powerful evidence that Judge Roberts would rule against equality."
"For his entire adult life, John Roberts has been a disciple of and promoted a political and legal ideology that is antithetical to an America that embraces all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "He has denigrated the nature and scope of the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection and due process as well as federal government's role in confronting injustice. I have no doubt he's an accomplished lawyer and an affable dinner companion, but that doesn't make him any less a mortal danger to equal rights for gay people, reproductive freedom and affirmation action."
"There is nothing in Roberts' history as a lawyer, policymaker or judge to indicate that he would be anything other than hostile to the claims of those seeking to preserve affirmative action, reproductive freedom and fundamental rights, or for those seeking to ensure that the emerging protections expressed in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas become truly meaningful in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
"The stakes for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans are too high," said Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "We cannot sit back and allow a man with a demonstrated record of hostility towards privacy and minority rights to make decisions on our nation's highest court that will affect this nation for generations to come. After a thorough review of the selective documents released by the White House, PFLAG is convinced that nominee John Roberts should not be trusted to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Americans."
First, kudos to all four, including those HRC "queers in khakis," for taking a bold stand and doing it together. They haven't exactly been known for sharing their toys in the past. That reminds me: I wonder if Levi is leading the leather caucus again this year at Creating Change...?
This nomination is not just a threat to queer rights for decades to come; a Justice Roberts would set back civil rights, individual rights, women's rights and civil liberties for generations. The fact that these queer organizations would explicitly mention choice in their public statements opposing the nomination marks a monumental shift for the better for progressive interest groups.
We need to be allies with each other instead of falling into the trap of fighting against each other for an ever-shrinking piece of the pie.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
crime gets a makeover
According to a fascinating Wall Street Journal/Harris poll, Americans just haven't been concerned about crime since September 11, 2001. In fact, crime as a concern has been on the decline since the tracking started in 1994.
Why is this significant to me? The Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994, when 36% of the electorate was listing "crime/violence" among their top two concerns. When VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, 10% still considered it a top priority. VAWA now expires at the end of September, but now only 3% of Americans are extremely concerned about crime.
The crime rate overall has declined since 1994. The incidence rates for some crimes have decreased at a slower rate than others. Three guesses about which violent crimes are still most common and least reported.
My concern is that the political will to reauthorize VAWA in a timely manner is severely diminished because most of the electorate is no longer thinking about violent crime as a high priority issue. Violence against women in particular has never been at the top of the list when voters think about crime issues. Nobody talks about rape or domestic violence or stalking or child abuse because they're not very nice to talk about. The problem now is that people are thinking about other things instead.
I've heard some advocates in the DV community call it "domestic terrorism," which might be the right framing when trying to build political will to encourage our elected officials to do the right thing and reauthorize a strong and inclusive VAWA. Frankly, that framing leaves a bad taste in my mouth though.
Regardless of how we frame it, swift and convincing action is needed. Click here for much more information about VAWA and its reauthorization. Please take action; this is literally a life or death situation.
Why is this significant to me? The Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994, when 36% of the electorate was listing "crime/violence" among their top two concerns. When VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, 10% still considered it a top priority. VAWA now expires at the end of September, but now only 3% of Americans are extremely concerned about crime.
The crime rate overall has declined since 1994. The incidence rates for some crimes have decreased at a slower rate than others. Three guesses about which violent crimes are still most common and least reported.
My concern is that the political will to reauthorize VAWA in a timely manner is severely diminished because most of the electorate is no longer thinking about violent crime as a high priority issue. Violence against women in particular has never been at the top of the list when voters think about crime issues. Nobody talks about rape or domestic violence or stalking or child abuse because they're not very nice to talk about. The problem now is that people are thinking about other things instead.
I've heard some advocates in the DV community call it "domestic terrorism," which might be the right framing when trying to build political will to encourage our elected officials to do the right thing and reauthorize a strong and inclusive VAWA. Frankly, that framing leaves a bad taste in my mouth though.
Regardless of how we frame it, swift and convincing action is needed. Click here for much more information about VAWA and its reauthorization. Please take action; this is literally a life or death situation.
home sweet home
I'm keeping half an eye on the political situation in my home state of New Jersey.
While I'm a little chagrined to learn that Morris County, the county in which I was born, "is the top vote-producing county in GOP primaries" (I would have pinned that dubious honor on one of the southern or coastal counties), it's clear to me that the state Republican party is just as much of a bumbling mess today as it was four years ago.
Corzine should skate to an easy, self-financed win.
While I'm a little chagrined to learn that Morris County, the county in which I was born, "is the top vote-producing county in GOP primaries" (I would have pinned that dubious honor on one of the southern or coastal counties), it's clear to me that the state Republican party is just as much of a bumbling mess today as it was four years ago.
Corzine should skate to an easy, self-financed win.
"maverick" my ass
John McCain is about as moderate as, well, me.
He was in Tucson on Tuesday, ironically playing down his presidential ambitions while pandering to the Christian right on "intelligent design." If "all points of view" should be presented to students in public schools as McCain claimed here on Tuesday, why is comprehensive sexuality education banned in Arizona? Senator McCain doesn't make those decisions, but he holds a tremendous amount of influence over his state party. Hypocrisy and arch-conservatism at its worst.
He votes with his party more than 80% of the time in the U.S. Senate. During his lengthy tenure in Congress, that number has often climbed above 90%. His so-called maverick persona is a well crafted and undeniably successful PR ploy. Bill Frist could call himself a maverick for supporting embryonic stem cell research and hardly anybody would bat an eye.
Not that Stuart Starkey was a great candidate, but I happily voted for him last year. While it might be remarkable that a) McCain ran opposed and b) anyone - including me - remembers his opponent's name, at least it shows there are signs of life in the state Democratic party.
He was in Tucson on Tuesday, ironically playing down his presidential ambitions while pandering to the Christian right on "intelligent design." If "all points of view" should be presented to students in public schools as McCain claimed here on Tuesday, why is comprehensive sexuality education banned in Arizona? Senator McCain doesn't make those decisions, but he holds a tremendous amount of influence over his state party. Hypocrisy and arch-conservatism at its worst.
He votes with his party more than 80% of the time in the U.S. Senate. During his lengthy tenure in Congress, that number has often climbed above 90%. His so-called maverick persona is a well crafted and undeniably successful PR ploy. Bill Frist could call himself a maverick for supporting embryonic stem cell research and hardly anybody would bat an eye.
Not that Stuart Starkey was a great candidate, but I happily voted for him last year. While it might be remarkable that a) McCain ran opposed and b) anyone - including me - remembers his opponent's name, at least it shows there are signs of life in the state Democratic party.
difficult, but not impossible
Open Secrets has the totals raised and spent by all candidates in the 8th Congressional District in the 2004 election cycle. The incumbent Congressman Kolbe won with 60% of the vote and outraised and outspent his opponent, Eva Bacal, by a factor of ten.
She lost by a whopping 24 points, but she also only spent less than $100,000 in the race, virtually nothing. As near as I can tell, that bought her some stunningly lackluster TV spots in the final weeks of the election. I think the state or county party may have badly miscalculated, assuming she could coast in on Kerry's winning coattails in a state that ultimately went red by about 10 points.
Money is certainly a factor in any race, but the candidate has to be convincing. The Democrats simply did not have that in Mrs. Bacal last cycle. She seems like a lovely woman, but she didn't run the kind of campaign you need to run against a reasonably popular incumbent who has held his seat for 20 years.
SurveyUSA's most recent 50 state tracking poll for August has President Bush's approval rating at 45% in Arizona. His disapproval rating is at a whopping 52%. Couple that with national approval ratings for Congress in the low 30's and you have plenty of ripe fruit for the right Democrat. Congressman Kolbe faces primary challenges from at least two others (including a repeat of his match with perennial right-wing nut Randy Graf). I'm told he will run to the left in the primary to ensure he wins the Tucson Foothills voters (his peeps). After all, the 2004 primary proved that he could lose the Cochise County vote and still win the primary.
Let's also not forget that there will be a very mean-spirited and cynical anti-same-sex-marriage proposition sharing the November ballot with this race. Will the Congressman come out (again, so to speak) against the measure? I think it's safe to say he doesn't favor it, but how vocal will he make his opposition? The primary goal of the initiative of course is to drive up conservative turnout. With public opinion turning against the Iraq war and the Bush administration's domestic agenda even among social conservatives who would presumably vote for the amendment to the state Constitution, it's a risky strategy for the state GOP. I know more than a few southern Arizona moderate Republicans who aren't too happy about what their party and allied groups have cooking for 2006.
Bottom line: with the state-level executive offices pretty much a lock (Napolitano, Goddard and Brewer likely won't face much serious opposition) and the Senate seat seriously in play, AZ08 is the other race to watch next year (possibly AZ01 too, but I don't live there so I'll leave the punditry to someone who does). The Democrats can win it back for the first time in 20 years if they play a clean but aggressive game and focus on winning the socially liberal, fiscally conservative Foothills vote. They held the seat since statehood until they lost it to the sitting member in 1984.
She lost by a whopping 24 points, but she also only spent less than $100,000 in the race, virtually nothing. As near as I can tell, that bought her some stunningly lackluster TV spots in the final weeks of the election. I think the state or county party may have badly miscalculated, assuming she could coast in on Kerry's winning coattails in a state that ultimately went red by about 10 points.
Money is certainly a factor in any race, but the candidate has to be convincing. The Democrats simply did not have that in Mrs. Bacal last cycle. She seems like a lovely woman, but she didn't run the kind of campaign you need to run against a reasonably popular incumbent who has held his seat for 20 years.
SurveyUSA's most recent 50 state tracking poll for August has President Bush's approval rating at 45% in Arizona. His disapproval rating is at a whopping 52%. Couple that with national approval ratings for Congress in the low 30's and you have plenty of ripe fruit for the right Democrat. Congressman Kolbe faces primary challenges from at least two others (including a repeat of his match with perennial right-wing nut Randy Graf). I'm told he will run to the left in the primary to ensure he wins the Tucson Foothills voters (his peeps). After all, the 2004 primary proved that he could lose the Cochise County vote and still win the primary.
Let's also not forget that there will be a very mean-spirited and cynical anti-same-sex-marriage proposition sharing the November ballot with this race. Will the Congressman come out (again, so to speak) against the measure? I think it's safe to say he doesn't favor it, but how vocal will he make his opposition? The primary goal of the initiative of course is to drive up conservative turnout. With public opinion turning against the Iraq war and the Bush administration's domestic agenda even among social conservatives who would presumably vote for the amendment to the state Constitution, it's a risky strategy for the state GOP. I know more than a few southern Arizona moderate Republicans who aren't too happy about what their party and allied groups have cooking for 2006.
Bottom line: with the state-level executive offices pretty much a lock (Napolitano, Goddard and Brewer likely won't face much serious opposition) and the Senate seat seriously in play, AZ08 is the other race to watch next year (possibly AZ01 too, but I don't live there so I'll leave the punditry to someone who does). The Democrats can win it back for the first time in 20 years if they play a clean but aggressive game and focus on winning the socially liberal, fiscally conservative Foothills vote. They held the seat since statehood until they lost it to the sitting member in 1984.