Some Welcome Humor
Yesterday, I thought that this blog snarkifying comments made by Prop. 8 supporters was the funniest thing I’d seen in ages.
I was wrong. This picture is the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages. McCain looks immature, undignified, and cretinous.
LizardOC’s snarky reframing of the “fundamental repugnance of the confidently bigoted” makes me laugh and provides some much-needed cheering up. I’m working hard and so are many other people, but sometimes, I’m so tired. I’m tired of constantly having to fight for rights and social justice, and I’m tired of encountering bigotry and hatred. It can be wearying. But it’s necessary and I will never stop. And so endurance and laughter are key to staying in for the long haul.
To quote the inimitable Molly Ivins,
As a life-long Texas liberal, I have spent the whole of my existence in a political climate well to the right of that being created by Ronald Reagan and his merry zealots. Brethren and sistren, this can not only be endured, it can be laughed at. Actually, you have two other choices. You could cry or you could throw up. But crying and throwing up are bad for you, so you might as well laugh. All you need in order to laugh about Reagan is a strong stomach. A tungsten tummy. – The Progressive, March 1986. p. 84 in Molly Ivins…Can She?
No on Prop. 8: Conversations with Homophobes
A few months ago, a junior high school friend friended me on Facebook. She’s one of the Mormons that is against same-sex marriage, against recognizing that everyone, GLBTQI or heterosexual, has the right to marry. Loving v. Virginia recognized that
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” [sic] fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.
and this former classmate and her spouse exercised that civil right last year. It is remarkably hateful, narrow-minded, and selfish for someone that writes in her profile that marriage and her hubby are wonderful to deny that right and joy to someone else, based on sexual orientation. Behind all the excuses about religion, the separation of church and state, “God said marriage is sacred,” “marriage is traditionally between a woman and a man” (false), Yes on Prop. 8 is about homophobia. It’s based on the idea that same-sex couples just aren’t right, just aren’t the same as straight couples, just aren’t really in love … and even if they weren’t, recognizing their right to marry would somehow dilute straight marriages. Those ideas are homophobic. And if your straight marriage would be rendered unstable by my same-sex marriage, you have problems in your relationship that won’t be solved at the ballot box.
Last night, this junior high school acquaintance (JHSA) posted a video on FB with this note, “Please view this video of the removal of parental rights that will happen if gay marriage is legalized in CA.”
Any person with a minimal grasp of the legal framework of parental rights and marriage would realize that there is no logical connection between same-sex marriage and removing the parental rights of straight couples. Amending the state constitution to define marriage as being between a woman and a man and explicitly denying the right of same-sex couples to marry does nothing to preserve, destroy, or otherwise affect the parental rights of straight, married couples. The only possible connection between parental rights and same-sex marriage is that if same-sex couples can marry, then they will, logically speaking, have parental rights over their own children. They will not be out in the streets ripping straight, married couples’ children away from them. Since same-sex marriage has been legal since June 16, if the disaster scenarios that Yes on 8 dreams of were valid, they would already have occurred. I’m looking around and seeing a distinct lack of straight couples losing their parental rights due to same-sex couples marrying.
Not being one to put up with stupidity and illogic of this order, let alone homophobia, I commented,
Have you _read_ the text of Prop. 8? It doesn’t affect married, straight couples’ parental rights at all. It only removes the rights of same-sex couples to marry and thus codifies bigotry and prejudice in our state constitution. If you’re going to take the side of homophobia and hatred, at least do it without resorting to outright fabrications and lies.
JHSA invited me to join a Yes on Prop. 8 FB group a few months back; I declined and then wrote on her wall and politely asked her not to invite me to anymore homophobic groups, as I would be voting no on Prop. 8 and did not support bigotry and prejudice. She deleted my comment without responding, so I figured that she would probably do so with this comment as well.
Oh-ho! I woke up this morning to this gem, not from JHSA, but from one of her in-laws:
Excuse me [Pizza Diavola], but if you are going to try to resemble some form of tolerance and the higher road then make your arguments based on logic rather than personal slamming. Honestly.
I responded,
Excuse me [in-law], but if you are going to try to endorse homophobia and hatred, be honest about it. Prop. 8 codifies hatred. Is it hard for you to own up to that? Then perhaps you should reconsider your position. Honestly.
and then added,
By the way, I’m amused and appalled that a homophobe would preach about “tolerance and the higher road.” I’m sorry, I have no tolerance for homophobes that try to take away other peoples’ rights.
JHSA and family, I have no problem with you exercising your religion in your church and in your lives. I do have a problem with you extending the reach of your religion to the public square and into my life. I hate intellectual dishonesty; if you’re going to endorse bigotry and hatred, be honest about it. Say, “I believe that GLBTQI people are wrong and inferior to me, and that’s why I’m voting yes on Prop. 8.” Have the honesty to own your homophobia and stop hiding behind fear-mongering lies about same-sex marriage.
JHSA tried to convert me to Mormonism in 8th grade; I read the Book of Mormon she loaned me and politely returned it. It is appalling that she can’t grant me the same respect that I granted her.
A short message from Mayor Gavin Newsom and No on Prop. 8:
Transcript:
I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that this is the second most important election in the United States of America. Let’s not look back and say, “We coulda shoulda, woulda.” We know this is going to be close. I’ve got polls, they’ve got polls that are very good, and I’ve got some polls that have this right on the bubble. So as far as I’m concerned, this thing is a dead heat. So we are gonna have to work harder, and absolutely are going to have to work smarter, than our opponents. If we succeed, we will not only change history in California, we will change the tone and tenor of this debate across not only America, but the rest of the world. [Applause] People are counting on us. This is a big deal! This is a big deal! We have done so much, we have come so far. We have changed the way people feel and the way people view members of the LGBT community. But we have not finished the job.
Donate and help close the $10M fundraising gap between No on 8 and Yes on 8. Phone bank and talk with undecided voters. Write and talk with everyone you know, and explain why we must defeat Prop. 8.
Fight for equality. Fight for love.
No on Prop. 8: The Greatest Of These Is Love
Via Sarah in Chicago:
The election is in 26 days. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME ARGH -RUNS AROUND IN CIRCLES-
Okay, first things first. California voters: you have until Oct. 20 to register to vote. You have until seven (7) days before the election request a vote by mail/absentee ballot. If you vote absentee, you can return your ballot to any polling site or you can return your ballot by mail. If you mail your ballot, do so before Nov. 4, because it has to arrive by the end of the day, Nov. 4, in order to be counted.
Everyone else (sorry, I’m not looking up voting requirements for the other 49 states): you can find your state’s voting deadlines, forms, and contact information at Project Vote Smart’s state voter registration information page.
Read the rest of this entry »
I Write Letters: $700Bn Bailout Proposal
Dear Representative Pelosi,
I am writing regarding the proposed bailout for the financial industry. According to the AP newswire, Congressional Democrats and Republicans have agreed to a $700Bn bailout. While I understand that the financial crisis is pressing and immediate action is necessary to prevent a total collapse of the economy, I am concerned about the terms of the bailout. This is a golden opportunity to win concessions on regulating the financial industry and setting terms that would create a more stable economy with a more equitable distribution of wealth that would benefit everyone overall and not just the top fraction of society. I am concerned that in the haste to throw money at the problem and appear decisive, Democrats will not press as hard as they should to set regulatory oversight and terms on the bailout. In the short run, $700Bn might solve the banks’ immediate problems. However, regulatory oversight and farsighted terms and conditions on the bailout would solve the immediate problems and set the groundwork for preventing future crises.
I support Senator Clinton’s proposals, which serve both the poor citizen facing foreclosure as well as the CEO floating to safety on a golden parachute, and I ask that you do the same.
* Secure toxic mortgage securities and create an entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis. This would help homeowners keep their homes and avoid foreclosure, and create stability in the market.
* Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the “short-selling” of stocks. It would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned.
* Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a coordinated response to the crisis.
* Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications that would encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. This measure would protect citizens in the long run by helping them maintain a stable roof over their heads.
* Restore competent federal oversight of the increasingly complicated financial markets. The rapid evolution of the securities and banking industry overwhelmed the current regulatory framework, resulting in a “shadow banking system” that operates outside of oversight and without accountability.
* Require transparency and accountability on executive pay. Senator Clinton has proposed the Corporate Executive Compensation Accountability and Transparency Act to impose new transparency rules on executive pay, end the accounting techniques that hide compensation, and provide shareholders a say in executive compensation packages.
* Ensure the accountability of financial institutions borrowing money from the Federal Reserve’s new lending facilities. Taxpayers deserve to know that the companies they are bailing out are on the road to recovery and aren’t throwing more good money after bad.
$700Bn is a great deal of taxpayer money, approximately as much as the cost of the Iraq war. It behooves you to ensure that it is a wise investment, one that will benefit poor, lower class, middle class, and upper class citizens as much as CEOs, and lay the groundwork for a stable economy that, while not as prone to extraordinary heights, compensates by avoiding extraordinary lows that create crushing debts and weigh most heavily on the poor, lower-, and middle- class citizens.
The wealthy will always be able to take care of themselves; such is the power of money. Your duty as a Representative is to look after the people who are less protected and ensure that they, too, benefit from a bailout plan that would create a stable economy and restore economic security for everyone, not just the top tier of society. I ask you to support a bailout plan only if it is based on economic analysis that is transparent and available to everyone to examine, and transparency and regulatory oversight. Solving the financial crisis is important, but providing money without setting conditions to address the systemic causes of the crisis will only allow the cycle to recur in the future.
As Speaker of the House, you hold unique power to lead the House Democrats in a strong stand for setting conditions on the bailout. Please do not cave into the Republicans cries of “partisanship!” as if partisanship were a flaw rather than a feature. It is imperative that the Democrats stand firm on this issue and advocate for a solution that would protect the poorest citizens as well as the wealthy.
Sincerely,
Pizza Diavola
SF, CA [zip code]
Sent to Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein (with appropriate edits). Feel free to take, copy, and edit.
If you are in California’s 8th District and one of Pelosi’s constituents, you can contact her here via email. If you are not one of her constituents but would like to email her anyway to show broad-based support for a transparent bailout plan with regulatory oversight and conditions that will reform the banking industry, you can contact her here in her capacity as Speaker of the House. The number for her D.C. office is (202) 225-0100.
I don’t pretend to understand all the details of the bailout and everything, but I understand a few things:
- Throwing money at a situation without any strings attached might solve the immediate crisis – or it might not, considering that a lack of regulation was a large factor in what got us here.
- Regardless, the bailout is the immediate issue at hand, but it didn’t happen overnight. In order to prevent this situation from recurring, we need to address the root causes of the situation. Throwing money at the financial services industry without setting conditions for how that money will be used is not going to address the systemic causes of the collapse.
- CEOs will always be able to take care of themselves. That’s the nice thing about being obscenely rich. People that are less well off, people that are being foreclosed on, people that are seeing their savings and investments vanish into thin are, will not, and those are the people that the bailout needs to provide for.
- The financial services industry and the government officials that they’ve bought are desperate. Nail them to the table because now is the prime time to get concessions out of them that will provide for a stable, regulated economy in the long run.
- A stable, well-regulated economy will probably not provide dizzying heights of wealth. However, those dizzying heights have only ever benefited the teeny, tiny percentage of the very wealthiest people, while everyone else suffers from an unregulated economy where they’re not protected. The bailout proposal needs to balance the concern for growing the economy and making sure that the benefits of that growth accrue to everyone, not just the top 0.0001% of society.
Call and write your senators and representatives, as well as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, and McCain, and tell them that you want a transparent proposal with oversight and conditions that will protect homeowners and non-wealthy citizens and address the systemic causes of the financial crisis as well as the immediate situation.
HHS Rule Change: LAST DAY TO COMMENT
Get your comments in! The comment period for the HHS rule change closes today! Don’t know what to write? Here’s a sample:
Dear Secretary Leavitt,
I am writing to urge you to stop the proposed HHS rule change regarding reproductive health care and “conscience clause” exemptions. The proposed rule change is extremely vague in terms of defining abortion and leaves it up to health care employees to define abortion according to their own whims. This vagueness will lead to many people classifying birth control and emergency contraception as abortion and taking the rule change as license to deny patients medication, treatment, accurate information, and referrals to other health care employees that are willing to do their jobs and help their patients. Denying women access to treatment on the basis of religious feelings is inherently discriminatory and coercive and the rule change privileges the feelings of health care providers over the real, immediate needs of their patients. The rule change speaks of protecting health care providers, but simultaneously leaves patients vulnerable and unprotected.
In many places, women and girls will have more than one option for accessing reproductive health care. However, their insurance might not cover a visit to another doctor if their primary care physician refuses to write a prescription for birth control. They might not be able to take the time off of work for multiple appointments searching for a health care provider who won’t deny them access to contraceptives. Once they have a prescription, they might not be able to find a pharmacist who won’t refuse to fill their prescription. For the women with more limited options, the situation will be even more bleak. Ultimately, whether or not women can eventually find health care providers who are willing to do their jobs and give them the medications they need, this rule change will put more obstacles in the way of exercising their basic right to access health care and decide their reproductive future. It’ll make it more difficult. It’ll make it more time- and labor- intensive and not everyone can afford to waste those commodities. The burden of the rule change would, like so many other policies restricting health care, fall most heavily and harshly on the lower class and poor people in this country.
The rule change also does not take into account the fact that birth control is also used for treating medical conditions unrelatd to conception and pregnancy, such as endometriosis, menstruation-related anemia, dysmenorrhea, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), acne, regulating irregular periods, etc. Under the rule change, health care employees would be free to deny patients birth control treatment for these conditions, should the employees have a blanket objection to birth control.
The rule change will be expensive to implement, costing an estimated $44.5M/year to administer. It would increase health care costs for patients, many of whom already suffer from the onerous cost of health care in this country. It essentially gives health care employees carte blanche to refuse to do the jobs they were hired for and to patients’ health, lives, and futures at risk for the sake of indulging employees’ objections to treating women and girls as equal human beings with the ability and the right to make decisions over their own bodies. The rule change is nothing more than a codification of misogyny and an intrusion of a particular form of Christianity into the public sphere.
Sincerely,
[your name]
[your address]
Online comment form at regulations.gov to send a comment. If that link doesn’t work, you can search for the rule change at regulations.gov with any of the following info:
Docket ID: HHS-OS-2008-0011
Docket Title: Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law*
Document ID: HHS-OS-2008-0011-0001
Document Title: Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law
You can also email consciencecomment@hhs.gov, putting “Provider Conscience Regulation” as the subject – in fact, do both!
If you’ve already sent a letter, please take a moment to call 1-877-696-6775 and say: “I am calling regarding the proposed regulatory changes released on August 21. I would like to register my strong disagreement with the proposed change.” – Liss
I called them this morning and all the lines were busy. Keep calling until you get through!
ACLU Action Alert to contact the Department of Health and Human Services
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965 (DC)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: 202-224-3542 (DC)
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama: 202-224-2854 (DC)
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden: 202-224-5042 (DC)
Senators: Senate.gov
Representatives: House.gov
* Geez, talk about Orwellian nomenclature. The name of the rule change is misleading, since it suggests that it’s coercive and discriminatory to force health care employees to do their jobs. With all due respect, I would like to suggest that it is discriminatory to refuse to provide women treatment on the basis that they don’t deserve the information and health care they need, on the basis of their gender and on the basis that they are inferior human beings without the ability or the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I would also like to suggest that it is coercive to refuse to provide women treatment, information, and referrals and to do one’s best to force them to bear pregnancies they do not want or to suffer without treatment for medical conditions.
What’s My Vote Worth?
Courtesy of Google Alerts, I saw Michelle Obama’s piece in the Ohio State daily (2008/09/22). It’s a nice piece about memories of her father’s work as a precinct captain, the turnout of the youth vote in the primaries, and the importance of voting.
Like so many people, I took my right to vote for granted. I never had to march for it. I never knew what it felt like to be turned away while others were told that their voice counted. So when I got to vote for the first time, I did it dutifully – but without any excitement. …
When we vote this November, we’ll be casting our ballots for that world.
I’ve heard people say, “My vote doesn’t matter,” “My vote won’t count,” or, “I’m just one person. What possible difference can I make?” But this year, all our votes matter more than ever.
If you are satisfied with the world as it is, your choice this fall is easy. But if you believe, as I do, that we can change the world together, please join me in voting on Nov. 4. …
This year, I’ll be voting for my daughters’ future and my father’s memory. I’ll vote for the thousands of regular folks who fought to get me the right to vote. And I’ll vote for young people across America – and the generations of young people that will follow, who will someday look back at this time with gratitude that we summoned the courage to begin building the world as it should be.
CA Elections: Voting Requirements and Referenda
Just because it all bears repeating, I’m cross-posting this H1K entry here: CA Elections: Voting Requirements and Referenda.
In the spirit of (a) fighting voter disenfranchisement shenanigans *cough* Orange County GOP *cough*; (b) recognizing that there are many, many voter referenda on the California ballot this year; and (c) recognizing that few people do more than skim the voter guides on the night before the election, here’s a brief overview on what you can do to prepare for the November election.
1. Register, register, register. You can register to vote in California if
- You are a United States citizen
- You are a resident of California
- You are at least 18 years of age (or will be by November 4, 2008)
- You are not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction
- You have not been judged by a court to be mentally incompetent
The deadline to register for this November’s election is October 20, 2008. You can find the registration forms here at the CA Secretary of State site. You will need to re-register if you have
- moved
- changed your name
- changed your political party choice
since the last time you registered. For instance, I registered as a Democrat in New England a few years ago. When I moved to SF, I re-registered because I wanted to vote in California, rather than absentee as a resident of CT. After the state primary, I re-registered again to change my affiliation to the Green Party.
2. If you are an immigrant and have received citizenship, YOU CAN VOTE. Any letters, mailers, fliers, emails, etc. you receive saying otherwise are NOT TRUE. Just make sure that you’re registered with your current name and address, otherwise when you go to the local polling site, you might not be on the voter rolls. If you receive any material saying that you cannot vote because you’re an immigrant, regardless of your U.S. citizenship, hang onto the material and call 1-800-345-VOTE, a toll-free hotline established by the CA Secretary of State, to report voter fraud. In the 2006 elections, the GOP sent a bunch of mailers to immigrant-sounding households in Orange County, trying to mislead voters into thinking that they were not allowed to vote. That is voter disenfranchisement and a CRIME.
HHS Rule Change: 21 Days
“Alternatively, what kind of advertisement would you develop, considering these factors?
I’d love to see the Dems go full force against HHS’s upcoming policy that equates birth control with abortion. Senators Clinton and Murray have been fighting pretty much alone on this front, and a full court press against it from the entire Democratic Congressional Delegation, including Senators Obama and Biden, would show the Democratic commitment to choice.
I’m talking ads, speeches, some sort of Dem Leadership march on Secretary Leavitt’s office that’s carefully planned, meticulously scripted, thoroughly publicized on every talk show with lots of zingy talking points. Plus the Dem leaders in each state could hold related press events, building the Dem brand for downticket races too. If Senator McCain and Governor Palin are forced to go on record either for OR against birth control, their ticket’s rep as “Mavericks” is going to sustain some serious damage with either evangelicals or moderates. Heads we win, tails they lose.
Most Americans want access to birth control and would be horrified to learn that this policy may put their access in jeopardy. Even many anti-choice voters are pro-contraception. And this could be an easy way to win some points with independents and moderate Repubs, plus reminding Dems what side fights for them, since it doesn’t involve waiting on a court decision or until election day. All we have to do is make Leavitt so uncomfortable that he pulls the policy. We have less than 30 days.
Originally posted as a comment by eleanora on Shakesville using Disqus.
That? Is a fantastic idea. You know the drill: call, email, and write your senators and representatives and call up the Democratic candidates, too.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965 (DC)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: 202-224-3542 (DC)
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama: 202-224-2854 (DC)
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden: 202-224-5042 (DC)
Senators: Senate.gov
Representatives: House.gov
Comment on the rule change at Regulations.gov, providing “Provider Conscience Regulation” as the subject.
The Gap Between Talking and Doing
I’ve got a new post up at the Hillary 1000, The Gap Between Talking and Doing, prompted by Astraea’s post on the gap between the Democratic leadership’s lip service to reproductive rights and their failure to ensure that women and girls actually have access to reproductive rights services, Paladins for Choice – Part 1.
Two points I brought up in that post were the importance of information and the importance of action at the state level. The former refers to knowing what’s actually going on – too many people think that because of Roe v. Wade, women and girls have access to abortions whenever they need them, and so as long as Roe exists, no need to worry or pay attention or do anything else to secure reproductive justice. That attitude is patently false, given that there are many laws at the state level designed to chip away at access to reproductive services: in California, Prop. 4 is a parental notification constitutional amendment – it’s not just legislation, it would amend the state constitution – up for voter referendum this November, which would of course dramatically impact the lives of teenaged girls with unwanted pregnancies (Cara has more info on Prop. 4).
The importance of action at the state level is tied in directly to being informed – if you’re not informed, you can’t know that action is necessary. I’m volunteering with the Planned Parenthood/ACLU Campaign for Teen Safety (Vote No On 4) and in the course of canvassing for volunteers, my experience was that people were against Prop. 4 as soon as they heard what it was, but the vast majority of the people I spoke with had no idea that it was on the ballot again (this is the third time in four years that parental notification is up for referendum, thanks to some millionaire Republican jackasses). Since they didn’t know, those people might not have turned out to vote against Prop. 4 in November, or after voting in the presidential race, they might not have flipped all the way through the ballots for Representative, state rep, city council, board of education, etc. to the voter referenda.
It’s important to be informed and to spread the news: write your state and local representatives, the local paper, your blog, and talk to your acquaintances. Although Roe is important at a national level, at the state level there are laws strangling access to reproductive rights services – parental notification, conscience clauses, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds, mandatory counseling, banning abortion outright, etc. – all of these make it more difficult to obtain safe abortions when women and girls need them. So – go find out what’s happening in your state: read local feminist blogs, subscribe to newsletters from your local Planned Parenthood affiliates, subscribe to updates from your local reps, use a search engine, etc. And if you live in Cali – vote no on Prop. 4 and vote no on Prop. 8 this fall!
FISA Senate Vote
The Senate voted 69-28 today to approve “broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.” (NY Times). Post at Hillary1000. Please excuse me while I go call my senators to thank one and yell at the other.
