progressive values
20 January 2009 - 9:28am
Today the world changes
A nation built with African slaves inaugurates an African-American President.
A nation driven by culture wars born out of the Vietnam era moves into hope for more pragmatic, if still partisan, politics.
A nation fallen into the darkness of torture, of "collateral damage" of hundreds of thousands of lives, of ends justifying any means returns to an age of striving for the highest of American ideals.
A nation seduced by the fantasies popularized by Ronald Reagan, that markets are God, that government is evil, that global warming is a myth, that liberalism is out to destroy America, a nation almost paralyzed with the shock of the revealed lie of those fantasies -- a long nightmare, really -- returns to a reality-based vision of the world.
A nation coming off of one of the more ugly racist federal elections puts a black man into office.
Barack Obama is a pragmatic progressive whose intellect brings us hope that his leadership can guide the cumbersome bureaucracy and conflicting interests and influences into actions that make sense, based on reason.
It was truly audacious two years ago to believe this could happen. It took a lot of hope and the hard work of millions, and the faith of many more. But here it has happened.
Barack Obama is about to become President.
How unlikely.
How amazing.
The world is astonished. Today America returns to the light.
- human rights
- Barack Obama
- birth control
- civil rights
- conservatism
- corruption
- culture
- Culture of Corruption
- Dick Cheney
- evolution
- George W. Bush
- Global Gag Rule
- global warming
- Guantanamo Bay
- habeus corpus
- health
- immigration
- intolerance
- Iraq
- Katrina
- law
- military
- national debt
- national security
- politics
- pollution
- poverty
- privacy
- progressive values
- race
- racial discrimination
- racism
- religious fundamentalism
- Republicans
- Rita
- science
- technology
- terrorism
- torture
- United States Constitution
- war
- wealth
- White House
- world issues
13 September 2008 - 9:35am
In politics, "pro-life" equals pro-governmental control of women's bodies, so let's get real here
The political "debate" is really a bunch of moralistic posturing. As much as the so-called "pro-life" camp tries to deny it, the crux of the conflict is not about abortion itself, but about governmental control of women's bodies.
A governmental ban on abortion means that the government is deciding what happens inside of a woman's body.
It means the woman has no say.
And it means a lot of scary implications.
Birth control could end up being banned as a consequence, since some people seem to think that "life begins at conception" which would make even the birth control pill illegal. Some people, especially a certain patriarchal legacy from the Roman Empire, seem to think every sperm is sacred, which would make even condoms illegal.
But it goes beyond that. Doctors have determined that drinking during pregnancy can have detrimental affects on the fetus. So do we start arresting pregnant women when they have a drink?
What about smoking? Can a woman who miscarries after smoking a cigarette be jailed for manslaughter?
What is to be considered an unnecessary, even reckless, risk? Riding a bicycle, where you could fall and suffer miscarriage?
What if the woman just has "unhealthy" eating habits? Toss her into prison?
Does the government then establish breeding colonies where women's behavior and diet are strictly controlled, safely protected from the temptations and dangers of the outside world by razor wire and armed guards?
And what if the government decides that certain genetic lines are undesirable -- to many health risks, perhaps, or maybe just "the wrong kind of person"? It has happened before, even in our own country, and not all that long ago. If the government decides on what can happen in a woman's body, and controls the woman's body by force of law, then the government has the power and right to force abortions and sterilizations as well. Is that what we want? A kind of fascist breeding program?
It may sound silly or outrageous to you, but these are real implications of giving government control of the womb, the result of simply making abortion illegal.
Why do abortions happen? Because pregnancy entails real physical risk, real livelihood risk, real social risk, which makes an unwanted, unexpected or dangerous pregnancy a very real problem to the woman. How do we reduce the number of abortions to near zero? There are so many ways that have proven track records, but what doesn't work is government occupation of every fertile woman's body.
If you are really pro-life, then you will see through the false morality of righteous posing that defines the "pro-life" movement, and you will see the falsity of the claim that the pro-choice majority wants to abort babies just for kicks or to pursue some dark satanic agenda.
If you are really pro-life, then you would support:
- Easy availability of birth control
- Emergency contraception (which is not the abortion pill, by the way, which is another thing altogether)
- Real fact-based sex education for all children who are fertile
- The end of abstinence-only education, which is just wishful thinking (or do you really think that kids pumped full of raging adolescent hormones would not even notice their sex organs if adults did not tell them about it?)
- Stronger laws protecting women from date rape, marital rape and general violence against women
- Elimination of all laws that make rape the only felony where the victim's own testimony is not enough to convict the perpetrator (and here I'm speaking to you "tough on crime" folks)
- A cultural change to put responsibility for a woman's pregnancy on the man as well (because she sure didn't impregnate herself, did she?)
- Free sterilization for women who opt for it (for whatever reason)
- Free pre-natal healthcare for women who cannot afford to have a baby
- Free post-natal healthcare for children and women who cannot afford it
- Affordable healthcare for all
- Elimination of all pre-natal coverage exemptions that insurance companies are getting away with right now
- And many many other policies that empower women to more effectively control their own destinies, rather than empower the government to seize women's bodies.
3 June 2008 - 9:40pm
Three speeches -- one is presidential
This is leadership.
In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.
So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.
So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.
So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.
So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.
And so it must be for us.
America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
And here on this night, the first time an African American -- or a non-white person of any kind -- has won the nomination of a major political party in America, he speaks not of this but of Hillary:
At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.
That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency — an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
A fabulous speech.
3 June 2008 - 12:37pm
White women to vote against reproductive rights to spite Obama
Yeah, that'll show him!
John McCain is in favor of forced pregnancy, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.
John McCain's healthcare plan is "let the market handle it" (like it has been handling it so far), but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.
John McCain is obsessed with fighting wars and extending the war of choice on Iraq, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.
Why? Because they seem to feel that Hillary Clinton is somehow entitled to the nomination, despite the fact that she didn't get the votes.
What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. . The women talk of being taken for granted by a party leadership that never spoke out on some of the outrageous Hillary bashing -- and despite the close race, joined the early rush to crown Obama. . .
"Many of us feel slighted," said Lynn Eyrich Harvey, 76, from Los Gatos, Calif. "We feel that years of supporting the party is unimportant, that we are to sit down and shut up -- but be sure to vote Democratic in November." Passions can change, one supposes, but the women I hear from do not see the rampant sexism, particularly toward older women, as isolated gaffes but as a systemic dismissal of them -- an enormous voting bloc that has been reliably Democratic.
"How Obama's campaign has treated Hillary will not be forgotten," Janet Rogers, 55, who runs a Bed and Breakfast in Medina, Ohio, wrote me. "I will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. My husband and friends all feel the same way."
[via TGW]
How did Obama's campaign treat Hillary? She was the one always attacking him, remember?
It was her election to lose -- she had all the advantages early on -- and she lost it. She ran a lousy campaign, reinvented herself every week, and used political rhetoric of the tone and slant that fits perfectly with Karl Rove politics. A lot of Democrats have been looking at Hillary and just saying "ugh, no more."
If things were reversed, and the African American male candidate were the establishment politician defending the DLC's control of the Party, and the woman were the new face who spoke about politics with an entirely different tone and who inspired people into believing that change really is possible, then I'm quite sure the woman would win.
Clinton is a Clinton. Clinton has baggage. But what's worse, her political style, her campaign, her rhetoric all are rooted in the 90s, and sound way too much like more of the same than many would like.
You want to vote for John McCain? Knock yourself out. And think about the Supreme Court you are leaving to your daughters and granddaughters. Think about the fraying social safety net under yet another term of thrashing. Think about the Global Gage Rule and how it's being applied at home. Think about our failing schools. Think about perpetual war. Think about the nail in the coffin of progressive values you are driving in with a vote for McCain. All because your candidate did not win.
More women will run. Women will win. This is not going to change.
But in what kind of America? Change has to happen now, or we are setting this country back even more.
24 May 2008 - 9:46am
Once again, a disturbing side of Hillary Clinton
What do you think? Is she sticking around in case Barack Obama is assassinated? All these slips add up.
To this blogger, Hillary Clinton has waged a campaign on bringing out the inner white supremacist out of many Americans who are frothing at the mouth over the prospect of having to vote for a black man. Of course, many other pundits and bloggers gave her the benefit of the doubt. Then her infamous, "white Americans" comment happened.
This after a long string of gaffes, innuendos and outright racist attacks that too many people in media decided to let pass and still give her the benefit of the doubt since many were coming from her own surrogates and even her husband.
Then Ketucky and West Virginia happened :
Are you telling me it is not in her mind that she has enough racists supporting her enough to go out and kill Obama for her?
Ouch. I'm not comfortable with the "for her" at the end of the last sentence, but I think there's no doubt that Hillary's dark view of the world contains scenarios where she rises from Barack's ashes.
But tell me, "feminist" Hillary supporters: How can you claim that I or Liza or any of the 40%+ women out there who don't support Hillary are anti-feminist or even misogynist? And what does declaring you'd rather vote for McCain than Obama say about your real feminist credentials? How is Barack responsible for Hillary's problems?
And tell me, realpolitik Hillary supporters: How does a woman who blunders so often make the case that she's "better qualified" to run the Executive Branch? This was Hillary Clinton's nomination to lose, and she's losing it, and losing it ugly -- so ugly that if, by some wild chance, she actually grabs the nomination, she will have alienated so many of those who have joined what's been a newly energized Democratic party that progressivism will suffer for years as a consequence.
How about a little dignity, Senator Clinton? How about acting Presidential instead of like some goon?
store
Buy stuff here.













