MW: Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way

Crossroads, or Roundabout?

“We stand at a crossroads” is often repeated. So often, in fact, that I have come to believe that we are running in a circle at the crossroads rather than setting a course. The United States is 10 months into the Golden Age of Obama, and we continue to circle rather than forge ahead.

Unemployment is at a 20 year high, with few solutions to be found. Extensions have been granted to unemployment benefits, but those who have exhausted theirs must now reapply and wait for approval. The White House staff reassures us that job losses have slowed, but fail to realize that there were fewer jobs left to be lost. The staffers also refuse for the most part to acknowledge that many of these jobs will never return in any shape, form, or fashion. The “shovel ready” jobs are just not there, and much rigging of statistics in “jobs saved or created” data has surfaced. Stetson University has admitted that they misread the survey, and listed each student hired in work-study programs as one job, even though the student only worked 3-5 hours/week. Therefore, their numbers were overstated by a factor of roughly 80%.

Homelessness and hunger are the counterparts of unemployment. The local Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul Society, rescue missions and food pantries admit that they do not know how much more that they can do. Anyone who can scrape up any money at all is trying to help, but the numbers who can help are being toppled by those who need help. Many years of dealing with the chronic homeless, many of whom were turned out of institutions by Reagan’s policies, taught me a great deal. The new homeless, however, seems to be comprised by people who were previously functional in our society. My fear is that they will join the ranks of the chronic if immediate and sustained intervention does not take place.

Feminism Friday: The Myth of Corporate Benignancy

Um, huh?

I’ve been thinking a lot about how the Democrats and Republicans have been able to make the “debate” on health care so incredibly dumb. The Democrats have descended into “why do you hate poor people!!!111!!!” territory, whereas the Republicans have brandished their ignorance proudly, generating lots of heat, but no light.

Meanwhile, the true issues that need discussion are totally and completely obscured. And if anyone brings up the fact that Democrats are not doing what the public wants (a strong public option), or meeting their own stated objectives of cutting costs and expanding quality, affordable health care to cover those who don’t have it (in fact, the House health care bill removes coverage from those who already have it!), or points out the insane misogyny of Stupak-Pitts and the not-much-better abortion policy of the new 2074-page Senate Bill O’Crap, or asks why all single-payer advocates have been shut out of the debate entirely, or wonders if the Democrats are really doing much of anything at all except trying to grab the public’s cash and transfer it wholesale into the insurance company’s pockets, well, you know what happens to those people: They are called Republicans. Or selfish. Or accused of wanting the Democrats to fail. Or, the worst name of all:

SOCIALISTS.

How the hell are our Congresscritters getting away with this dumbing down of the national debate? I believe it’s because of the myth of corporate benignancy.

Morning Widdershins: Mammogram Mania

Courtesy of www.dobhran.com

The latest attempt to control health care costs may finally have gotten the attention of the general public. The US Preventative Services Task Force exists to improve services while attempting to control escalating health care costs. They have been tasked with the study of procedures and treatments to determine efficacy and also to perform risk/benefit analysis. The group has produced a new and controversial working thesis regarding mammography: in the 40-50 year age group, mammography adds additional radiation to the lifetime maximum, produces obfuscated results and many false positives, and finds actual and true carcinomas in 1 of 1900. This does, in all actuality, lend some credence to the fact that the American system of medical care spends money needlessly without regard to outcomes.

The first question that we should ponder is that of the panel’s composition. Which disciplines are represented? How many oncologists? How many radiologists? What representation does women’s health care have? If the board is comprised of pediatricians and gastroenterologists they are also physicians, but they may reach a completely different conclusion than an oncologist would. The second question that I have is the Breast Self-Examination. The USPSTF has concluded that this is also unnecessary, despite the fact that it is a simple procedure which saved countless lives in the years before mammograms became routine. It is true that many lumps discovered in BSE are fibrocystic in nature, but I am forced to conclude that the panel believes that discovery of the lumps would then lead to mammography, so they feel that ignorance would indeed be blissful. This is a whole lot like removing your rearview mirror because it would be very upsetting to see the car behind you that you will quickly and firmly hit.

Action Wednesday: War Against Women Edition

Yes, This is Sexist. Duh.

Our dear Canadian friend HT, whose country is (fortunately) much less insane than ours when it comes to women, asked in comments yesterday why there was a war against women in America. This was my response:

1. In terms of the latest revoltin’ development with the mammograms, I believe it’s simply because women live longer and cost insurance companies more money. If we die off earlier, it’s good for their bottom line. And nothing saves lives like mammograms and wellness exams. These, then, are the preventive measures that the insurance companies are now trying to “reform” out of being covered.

2. In terms of the religious half of the patriarchy, it’s because the fundies believe in the “talking snake” theory of evolution, as Mike Malloy used to say on Air America Radio. According to that theory, women are the source of all evil. After all, we only have pain during birth and our menstrual cycles because The Lord God punished us for eating the apple. So saith Genesis!

3. In terms of the corporatocracy half of the patriarchy, the more underpaid labor there is in the pool, the more profits they make. Thus, illegal immigration is encouraged, but the corporations who hire the illegal immigrants are no longer punished for it; and thus, women make 78 cents to every man’s dollar. Women’s inequality is a source of cashola to them.

4. If women are allowed to gain equality, then the Chalice principle will become more balanced with the Blade principle. There goes the patriarchy!

I thought I’d open this theorizing up to discussion today. What do you all think? Why is there a war on American women?

And… here are our actions today:

---

Lysistrata: We Say NO to Stupak and Pitts!

NOW Rally on 11/21 in Pitts’ Pennsylvania District

NOW Protest in DC on November 23rd

UPDATE: Lobby to Stop Stupak-Pitts on December 2nd in DC

---

 
Single-Payer/Medicare for All Actions

2009 Strategy Conference in St. Louis – November 14 and 15

Non-Violent Civil Disobedience

Medicare for All, not Warfare

---

Anti-War

No Escalation in Afghanistan

---

Climate Change

Demand that Ford Quit the Anti-Environmental Chamber of Commerce

---

 This is an open thread.

Morning Widdershins: A Feminist Looks at 61

Bonne anniversaire a chatblu!

Tomorrow is my 61st birthday. Hats and horns are optional. Between the birthday thing and the Stupak thing, I have been more contemplative than usual this week. In general, I have accepted the passage of time gracefully, at least I think so. While no one enjoys aging, it is considerably preferable to the only known alternative –“Live fast, die young, and have a good looking corpse”.

The world has made considerable progress since November 18th, 1948. Much that is good has transpired. Technology and medicine have progressed at a dizzying pace, possession of marijuana in small quantities is no longer a felony. The draft is no longer with us, and that is a triumph in and of itself. Civil rights have advanced up to and including the election of a non-white president, although much remains to be resolved for the average citizen. Attitudes toward alternative lifestyles, including LGBT, remaining unmarried, and having children outside of wedlock have softened. And yes, some attitudes toward women have changed, but not nearly as much as I would have hoped.

My mother’s generation won the right to work without being considered unfeminine. Certainly, World War II contributed toward a shift in that point of view, but some of it stayed around after V-J Day. Fortunately, both of my parents were college graduates, so they never considered that I would not be well-educated. Most women of my generation were admitted to state colleges and universities under a quota system. Mine admitted 70% male, 30% female freshman classes. Over the past 43 years, I have seen a dramatic change there, and now college campuses are evenly split to a slight plurality of females. That’s a major advancement, as far as I’m concerned. Post-graduate education used to be even harder for a woman to obtain. One of my sorority sisters was the only female in our school of veterinary medicine. She went to work win her father’s practice after graduation. There were three women in the school of law, and none in the medical college. Georgia Tech, a renowned school of engineering, did not admit women at the time. These barriers have come down, and women now have a decent shot at obtaining the post-graduate degree of their choice. This is also good progress.

Morning Widdershins: Manic, Movie Monday

You Gotta Be Kidding Me

Ah, yes. Another weekend has come and gone, and it’s Manic Monday again. At least, the right wingers are manic with glee after our President’s latest inappropriate display of weakness before yet another world leader. The cheerleaders are manic with frustration (WARNING: GOES TO ORANGE SATAN) as they try to pretend that once again, this is no big deal. Poor dears. It must be difficult to keep up that level of denial. But seriously, what other President can you imagine bowing like this, not once, but twice? Well, except for the President Obama most resembles – Ronald Reagan, who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth and thus, bowed down to her (after he was no longer President, I must add in all fairness to that evil bastard).

Jake Tapper’s take on this matter seems somewhat fair and balanced. He writes, quoting a protocol expert friend of his:

“This picture shows two things,” my friend writes.

“1) The ‘right’ is wrong about Obama’s bow.

“2) The ‘left’ is wrong about Obama’s bow.

“His bow is neither (1) unprecedented nor (2) a sign of cultural understanding.

“At their 1971 meeting in Alaska, the first visit of a Japanese Emperor to America, President Nixon bowed and referred to Emperor Hirohito and his wife repeatedly as ‘Your Imperial Majesties.’”

(See that picture HERE.)

“Yet, (and?) Nixon gets the bow right. Slight arch from the waist hands at his side.

 ”Obama’s handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush’s back-rub of Merkel.”

Morning Widdershins: Whiplash

Pauvre chatblu!

Whiplash is a problem caused by sudden, sharp movement of the neck.  The usual reference to whiplash is that related to motor vehicle collisions, and the ambulance chasers who feed from them.  The mechanism of injury is imprecise.  Most injuries seem to occur when the neck snaps back and forth, or side to side, in rapid succession.  In some cases, there is apparent stretching, tearing or disruption of the anterior longitudinal ligament.  In many, however, no apparent pathology is noted, and the findings are for the most part subjective.  Whiplash may also occur in sports injuries, kicking, shaking, and on roller coaster-like rides. 

I believe that the current pain in my neck is secondary to the last three categories.

Women’s rights have been kicked to the curb in order to enhance the chances of a quick resolution to the mired Health Care bill. Representatives that we have contributed to, worked for, and supported have caved to pressure and voted for a bill that dilutes women’s health care and right to choice.  They assure us that it will be lost in committee, while the Senate rushes to adopt Stupakesque language for its own measures. 

Women have been considerably shaken by this.  Organizations like NOW and NARAL were swept away by the Democrats’ siren song – “Vote for Obama or lose your right to choose.”  Yeah, right.  Recent postings from women who did not see this coming, felt Obama to be “the perfect candidate” – hell, he was the Second Coming – now are lifting themselves up and saying “Whaaaat? What about us?” Face it, sweeties:  you are as expendable as we bitter, fat, old hags.  Soon, Donna Brazile will tell you to stay home as well.  You are no longer needed, but that is subject to change without notice.  Just try to remember how you have felt this week when the next representative of the Democratic Party assures you in dulcet tones that they are looking after your needs. 

The entire week has been a roller-coaster ride.  First came the great joy and tintinnabulation of the passage of the Bill of the Century:  Hurrah!  We’re saved!  You may not be, but our careers are.  Now no one can say that we accomplished nothing. We then suffered through one entire day of liberal commentators extolling the virtues of the bill.  The cards, calls and letters must have come rolling in, because the following day was devoted to the theme of “Women are not happy about this”.  (Good pickup, guys and girls.) The following day, new marching orders became evident:  the bill is amazing, and women should just suck it up, and take one for the team.  The most amazing player in this was Claire McCaskill, the candidate foisted upon us by Emily’s List, who then became instrumental in foisting Obama upon us because her kids thought that he was very cool.  Claire initially told the staff of “Morning Joe” that the bill would likely pass into law with the Stupak provision intact, but that it would be fine because middle class women would basically be unaffected.  WTF???  Apparently by that afternoon, she had seen the light, as she reversed her position before dusk.  No word if she had pulled a u-turn and resumed her initial stance.

At any rate, my neck hurts.  This could be attributed to the degree of arthritis that is commensurate with my age, or it could be that the pushing, kicking, shaking roller-coaster ride of the past week has really finished it off.

How’s yours??

This is an open thread.

MW, Toxic Meme Edition: Lies of the “Pro-Life” Movement

Phew!

Now that Stupak-Pitts has exposed the machinations of the “pro-life” movement in the most obvious and unflattering manner, I’ve been thinking a lot about the different ways in which their movement lies, not just to pro-choicers, but to their own faithful believers. Here are some things I’ve come up with: as always, feel free to add your own in comments. Here we go!

Lie #1: We are pro-life.

Yup, that’s a big fucking lie right there. Are they anti-war? No. Are they anti-death penalty? Hey-ell no. Thus, they are not pro-life in any meaningful sense of the word. What they are is anti-choice. But remember they’re not anti-THEIR choice; they’re anti-YOUR choice, wimminz. They think you are evil because of some ridiculous story about a snake and an apple tree.  For an illustration of this insanity, see the fact that until very recently, the RNC’s Cigna health plan covered elective abortions…until their rabid anti-choice base found out and put a stop to it. Sort of.

Lie #2: Only irresponsible women get abortions, with the corollary – only pro-choice women get abortions.

 This is a really big one, and it’s taken hold throughout the community of women. This propaganda is to cover the fact that one out of three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. That equates to tens of millions of women. The idea that tens of millions of women, your friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers are murderers because they decided to terminate their pregnancies, would be a huge reality check for anti-choicers. So, they propagate the meme that it’s just “other” women that do it, not 33% of the female population in America.

The truth is that when a woman has become pregnant without planning to do so, whether or not she terminates that pregnancy has a whole lot to do with her situation in life. Is she in a stable relationship? Is she a teenager? Was the sex consensual, or was it rape or incest? Does she have the financial resources to raise the child? Is she too old or young to bear the child safely?

In short, the decision whether or not to bear a child is just like any important decision people have to make; people who are reasonable and rational and have actual lives. I know this is not the narrative that we are supposed to be brainwashed into believing, but it’s reality. Women are people too!

Lie #3: Life begins at conception.

No, it doesn’t. Potential life begins at conception. No one really knows whether a blastocyst will become a healthy baby with a chance at growing up into an adult, until after it is born (and sometimes, not even then). Thus, termination of a pregnancy is not murder at all. Never has been, never will be.

Lie #4: We can “all agree” that abortion reduction is a good thing.

This is actually not just a “pro-life” movement lie, but a lie that Obama and the Democrats use as well, to “tamp down the anger” and make it seem like there is some common ground with the pro- and anti-choicers. But in itself, is abortion reduction a good thing? No, it’s not…not if unwanted pregnancies increase because of policies that have made it impossible for women to gain access to sex education and contraception. If we’re going to “all agree” on something, how about agreeing that unwanted pregnancy reduction is our common goal? Ah, but then you know who wouldn’t agree? Anti-choicers. So what that meme is really about is trying to make pro-choicers submit to the insanity of the anti-choice movement, just as Stupak and its “liberal” apologists are doing.

Lie #5: Feminism is about “abortion rights.”

I really hate to say I told you so, but…I told you so. Pro-choicers, even brilliant ones, have allowed the anti-choicers to dictate the terms of the debate by using the words “abortion rights.” I do not want the right to an abortion that, because of situational reasons, I most likely will never have. I want the right to control my own body, just the same rights that men have, and use, without anyone questioning them.

For example, if a man doesn’t want to get a woman pregnant, he can go get a condom. Because he is a man, he can choose buy a condom in any drugstore he wants to, without any pharmacist’s tender “conscience” being offended by his scary man-part. What on earth is the difference between a man buying a condom, and a woman using birth control? Absolutely none, except that the fundies hate the idea that women would ever be able to control their own reproductive destiny, so they pretend their “consciences” are offended by birth control pills. It’s simply ludicrous.

That’s what “my body, my choice” means. I get to decide whether or not to have a baby, just like a man does. It’s not “my body, my abortion,” for Jeebus’ sake!

That’s all I’ve got for now…what’s on your mind?

This is an open thread.

Feminism Friday: Politics, Medicine and Religion – Three’s a Crowd

In Critical Condition

Our founding fathers were determined to keep religion out of politics. While many were religious men, none wanted to commence a new nation enveloped in the trappings of the old. The specter of the Church of England was always present. Over the years, very distinct laws were written which barred any public money from being utilized for religious purposes. As far as I’m concerned, the meddling of religious groups, primarily the Catholic Church, into the health care bill crosses the church-state line in a big way.

My mother came from an old-school Irish Catholic family: one of her sisters said a Hail Mary before cooking dinner. (In my case, you should say a Hail Mary before attempting to ingest anything whatsoever that I have cooked.) I grew up in the embrace of Holy Mother Rome. I admire to this day their educational system, and I admire them for taking care of their own. My outgrown clothing, school uniforms and toys went directly to the convent for redistribution, and I was taught early not to recognize them when worn by a classmate. The omnipresent second collection for a “special intention” was usually earmarked for some parishioner who had an immediate and overwhelming need. The Church runs excellent hospitals, longterm care facilities, shelters, and the like, and they are committed to the principle of universal health care.

Unlike my mother, I was overwhelmed by what they did not do well: respect women. Saints Augustine and Paul were prolific writers, and were given to such statements as “It is better to marry than burn”. Teachings were peppered with references to “Original Sin” – the downfall of Eve –which is why we baptize infants. Per the RC church, everyone carries the taint of Eve. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, women are unfit for the priesthood, yada, yada, yada. Sorry, Mom, I just couldn’t cut it. For all the beauty of Catholicism, it has some serious problems dealing with women. And little boys, for that matter, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

MW: A Gathering Storm…A Political Lysistrata?

A Gathering Storm

A storm is gathering. Ever since we who supported Hillary Clinton were turned into pariahs throughout the “progressive” blogosphere, and we first understood how expendable we were to our former friends and allies; ever since we were told by Donna Brazile to stay home in 2008; ever since we were called racists and Nazis and dried-up bitter old c*nts who were fat fat fat, simply because we expected fair play and consideration from the Party we had belonged to, volunteered for, and voted for, for decades, we have been saying it:

The Democratic Party is not our friend.

A Democratic Party that cared about women would not have passed the Stupak Amendment. There really is no way around that fact.

And finally, FINALLY, liberal women, who were never PUMAs are noticing, 

Since the healthcare reform bill passed the House with the Stupak-Pitts amendment intact on Saturday night, feminists have been up in arms about the latest assault on access to abortion, and so-called progressive men have been telling us to calm down and look at the big picture. In other words: same old, same old. In an e-mail, our own Rebecca Traister summed up the ongoing conflict between those who prioritize women’s rights and those who see them as a bargaining chip to be traded away as necessary:

This is the argument made over and over again: If the repro rights activists would just stop agitating about the pro-life Dems, we could get majorities, and things would improve for women and men everywhere. I get that argument. Most days, I believe it. And then I wake up to a Democratic majority that will only pass progressive healthcare legislation if it includes antiabortion provisions. 

Um, yeah. Welcome to Reality, sisters. Ain’t it a kick in the head?