From Pharyngula, this story about a Queensland teenager who performed her own abortion. Now she is facing seven years in prison and has been personally attacked, her home firebombed.
This is something that abortion opponents rarely consider. Aside from do-it-yourself abortions, what abortion laws would lead to generally is young women in prison. And the anti-abortion movement means to impose these penalties in all cases including rape and incest. (Thanks Radioactive Quill for the link) Not only that, but Personhood Florida also wants to outlaw oral contraceptives. They assassinate doctors inside churches. They firebomb houses in Quesnsland. They push their agenda through intimidation and violence. They punish the victims of rape. They oppose aborting anencephalic fetuses. Everywhere they try to limit, restrict, criminalize, harass, intimidate, attack. Vocal opponents of abortion rights support domestic terrorism and are enemies of women's rights.
This isn't a choice issue. Women don't have the right to choose an abortion the same way I have a right to buy the cheapest pair of tube socks from Wal-Mart. It's a personal freedom issue. I can't take away someone's reproductive health rights, and you can't, and the government certainly cannot.
Pam Gellar: Small-Minded Hatred
So, thanks to an e-mail discussion among some friends and family members I got to see an e-mail version of this article by Pam Gellar. The Blogspot version of the article doesn't convey the degree of fanatical shrieking as well as the e-mail did, which was full of underlining, font size changes and font color changes, not to mention the exclamation points in the title, used apparently without an appreciation of the irony.
By e-mail, I weighed in with my $0.02:
She is willing to toss in everything, including the kitchen sink.
Anyway, it all sounds so awful! Who's going to come along to change all this?
What do you mean, why? You just spelled out why we need radical change! Sure, your criticisms of America were largely overblown and inaccurate, but you scared me enough to convince me that we need change!
But seriously, yes, change is coming. During all of Pam Gellar's lifetime, no matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won the election, the one thing she could count on was a white guy in the White House. Change is coming, Pam. Get used to it. And lay off the Hitler comparisons, you're killing rational debate and the democracy that depends on it.
By e-mail, I weighed in with my $0.02:
[I agree that] this is crazy person talk that isn't worth responding to. Except that I can't really let the Nazi comparison pass without comment, since it is so poisonous.I'd like to take a moment to respond to Gellar's article in even more detail here. Other than an accusation that the bank bailout was two trillion instead of 750 billion (without citation) and some vague scary talk about the economic stimulus and health care, Gellar make NO POLICY COMPLAINTS about the Obama administration. Seriously. She has "never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now" but she can't list any action taken by Obama that she disagrees with.
Pam Geller's recounting of Nazi Germany's history is seriously screwy. Hitler didn't accomplish what he did because the media liked him, or because he was charismatic, or because of his economic policies. These things helped him, but they could also be said of almost any politician. Hitler was able to whip his countrymen into a racist, jingoistic fury by portraying Germans as superior and other groups as inferior and evil. Comparisons between Hitler and Obama are particularly offensive considering that if Obama had lived in Hitler's Germany he would have likely been murdered or forcibly sterilized.
Comparing Obama to Hitler is hate speech. Before I take anything Pam Gellar says seriously she'll have to leave the racist rhetoric behind.
Also, how dare the right wing talk about stifling dissent? We're six years into a war that was waged on false pretenses. When people from any part of the political spectrum pointed out how thin or inconsistent the case for war was they were called a traitor and accused of giving aid and comfort to terrorists.
On a second point, Daschle didn't say, "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/ apr/03/chain-email/daschle- didnt-say-seniors-seniors- should-accept-ra/
She is willing to toss in everything, including the kitchen sink.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?1929 x 10?!?! That's almost (*gasp*!) 19,290!!!!11oneone
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago? We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke... (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.
Anyway, it all sounds so awful! Who's going to come along to change all this?
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word:? Change...radical change. Why?
What do you mean, why? You just spelled out why we need radical change! Sure, your criticisms of America were largely overblown and inaccurate, but you scared me enough to convince me that we need change!
Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same Nation of Freedom, again.No, we don't want that kind of change!
But seriously, yes, change is coming. During all of Pam Gellar's lifetime, no matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won the election, the one thing she could count on was a white guy in the White House. Change is coming, Pam. Get used to it. And lay off the Hitler comparisons, you're killing rational debate and the democracy that depends on it.
Facts About Healthcare
Writing about David Sirota's comment on the trigger option made me thing about something. I didn't know that a trigger is a method of killing a bill. This is well known inside the Washington elite, but probably poorly understood in the country as a whole. This got me to thinking, how many other things about this issue have I been poorly informed about? I pay a lot of attention, but I'm not willing to read the 1000-page House bill. Even if I did, I'm not a medical or legal expert and there are likely things that I might have a tough time coming up with the correct interpretation.
The media coverage on the health care has focused on mainly superficialities: who's winning, who's losing, who's screaming loudest. Where are the in-depth newspaper and magazine articles that concisely and accurately explain what the various proposals are actually going to mean to a person like me? What are the important figures that are being debated? What's the size of the proposed hardship exemption?
Why can't newspapers and TV stations hire teams of doctors and lawyers without partisan bias (or as a balanced team) to read the bills and tell the reporters what I need to know about the proposals? It's easy to point a camera at people shouting at town halls, harder to read a 1000-page bill and lift the essentials out of it for your readers. But just because it's hard doesn't make it an excuse for shoddy journalism.
I understand that print journalism has taken quite a few hits recently, which unfortunately leaves TV to dominate the coverage. Olbermann and Maddow do their best, but their format doesn't lend itself to the type of in-depth coverage I'm looking for. They can interview experts and give them five or ten minutes to make a case, but I'm more interested in getting the numbers, in black and white, impartially.
The media coverage on the health care has focused on mainly superficialities: who's winning, who's losing, who's screaming loudest. Where are the in-depth newspaper and magazine articles that concisely and accurately explain what the various proposals are actually going to mean to a person like me? What are the important figures that are being debated? What's the size of the proposed hardship exemption?
Why can't newspapers and TV stations hire teams of doctors and lawyers without partisan bias (or as a balanced team) to read the bills and tell the reporters what I need to know about the proposals? It's easy to point a camera at people shouting at town halls, harder to read a 1000-page bill and lift the essentials out of it for your readers. But just because it's hard doesn't make it an excuse for shoddy journalism.
I understand that print journalism has taken quite a few hits recently, which unfortunately leaves TV to dominate the coverage. Olbermann and Maddow do their best, but their format doesn't lend itself to the type of in-depth coverage I'm looking for. They can interview experts and give them five or ten minutes to make a case, but I'm more interested in getting the numbers, in black and white, impartially.
"Trigger Mechanism" a Joke
Tonight Rachel Maddow talked to guest David Sirota about the trigger mechanism, the latest meme to bubble up from the depths of the health care debate. Sirota in his column and on the Rachel Maddow Show clarified for me exactly what a trigger mechanism actually is: it's a way to kill a bill while pretending that you're not killing a bill. For example, the prescription drug bill included a trigger mechanism that ostensibly would have allowed Americans to buy prescription drugs from overseas once the HHS secretary judged them to be "safe". The problem is that no HHS secretary has pulled the trigger. Once a trigger gets put into place, the corporacy just needs to make sure that the trigger doesn't get pulled, by bribing or intimidating bureaucrats. The trigger mechanism will appeal to obstructionist Democrats who want to appear to their constituents that they are in favor of reform, while not endangering industry contributions.
As much as 'trigger mechanism' is actually a way of killing a proposal while looking like you're in favor of it, it's funny that conservatives still oppose it.
As much as 'trigger mechanism' is actually a way of killing a proposal while looking like you're in favor of it, it's funny that conservatives still oppose it.
"YOU LIE!" (Updated)
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) has no respect.
Update:
Wilson issued a non-apology apology, stating that his outburst was spontaneous. However he stood by his assertion that Obama was in fact lying. At a cabinet meeting today Obama said that he accepted Wilson's "unequivocal" apology. I beg to disagree, Mr. President. Representative Wilson's apology was not unequivocal, he stands by his nonsense statement, and you should not accept an apology which is neither unequivocal nor truly an apology.
Tonight Keith Olbermann issued a Special Comment wherein he explains that the problem with Rep. Wilson's outburst is not its incivility but rather its stupidity. Indeed the GOP seems to have reached a point where being wrong - not just a little bit wrong, but completely wrong - and being wrong at the top of your voice has been elevated to a virtue, a strategy, and a way of being.
The bedrock of democracy is honest debate, but without honesty debate just devolves into a shouting match. We saw it during the 2008 campaign, we saw it at the tea parties, we saw it during the August town halls, and now we're seeing it on the floor of Congress. I'm open to an honest, earnest, even strident debate with the other side but how is that possible when the other side only has distortions, lies, and anger to offer?
Update:
Wilson issued a non-apology apology, stating that his outburst was spontaneous. However he stood by his assertion that Obama was in fact lying. At a cabinet meeting today Obama said that he accepted Wilson's "unequivocal" apology. I beg to disagree, Mr. President. Representative Wilson's apology was not unequivocal, he stands by his nonsense statement, and you should not accept an apology which is neither unequivocal nor truly an apology.
Tonight Keith Olbermann issued a Special Comment wherein he explains that the problem with Rep. Wilson's outburst is not its incivility but rather its stupidity. Indeed the GOP seems to have reached a point where being wrong - not just a little bit wrong, but completely wrong - and being wrong at the top of your voice has been elevated to a virtue, a strategy, and a way of being.
The bedrock of democracy is honest debate, but without honesty debate just devolves into a shouting match. We saw it during the 2008 campaign, we saw it at the tea parties, we saw it during the August town halls, and now we're seeing it on the floor of Congress. I'm open to an honest, earnest, even strident debate with the other side but how is that possible when the other side only has distortions, lies, and anger to offer?
We'll know you are Christians how, again?
Opposition to Health-Care Reform Revives Christian Right
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ -Matthew 25 NIV
Criminalizing Poverty
Via the AP, we get more details about the Max Baucus health care "plan" that his Gang of Six have been working on.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
"Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled to make premiums more stable and affordable. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950."
How exactly is this supposed to work? If I can't afford health insurance I'll be expected to pay $750 a year just for the privilege of having no health care at all? And how will they enforce this, by bringing legal action against people too broke to afford this poor tax? Will there be more fines, court costs, arrests? Will we put people in prison for declining to contribute to the profits of private insurance?
This is a truly twisted version of what the individual mandate was supposed to be. It should have been a promise by the government that everyone no matter how poor could gain access to health care (not health insurance!). In the absence of a public option, the individual mandate becomes a sick joke that Baucus and his cronies are trying to play on the poorest Americans. If this is the bill that ends up getting passed and signed then I won't ever again support any politician who had anything to do with it.
Tomorrow night is Obama's much-anticipated speech on health care reform. I sincerely hope, for the sake of everyone who has or may have trouble getting access to health care, that he does the right thing. If he doesn't, it will undermine the confidence the American people have in this administration and the liberal base's support for the Democratic party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
