Twisted Justice

Yesterday, when America’s Supreme Court once again decided 5-to-4, this time in favor of Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood, they asserted that the religious beliefs of the owners of private corporations trump the individual beliefs and rights of their employees. This decision does much more than deprive women of insurance coverage for certain kinds of contraception. It gives seriously discomfiting credence to the ridiculous notion that corporations are people and that the rights of corporate persons are greater than the rights of human persons – which is pretty much how things have been going in all areas for some time.

So the Court ended its session with yet another attempt to further a Conservative Christian agenda, redefine personhood, set a dangerous precedent, and create genuine confusion about what is legal, let alone Constitutional. It’s no wonder that Justice Bader Ginsberg in her dissent said, “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

I’m so angry about this latest SCOTUS bullshit that I am literally physically, emotionally, and mentally drained. And the thought that I’m morally obliged to help fight this is thoroughly overwhelming – in large part because I don’t understand it.

According to the research I’ve done, the Constitution, in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, makes clear the necessity for a separation of Church and State, even though that specific language isn’t used. But it doesn’t address a unification of Church and Commerce. So what in the Constitution makes it legal for the owners of a private company to determine what kinds of health insurance coverage they will or won’t provide to their employees, not based on cost or law, but on the company’s owners religious beliefs?

Hobby Lobby is a very big company, which is what makes it a corporation. It has thousands of employees in hundreds of stores across the country. This is not a new business, so employees had health insurance in the past. Apparently, it’s the provisions of Obamacare-governed insurance that added types of contraception – such as the Morning After pill and IUDs, methods that can induce abortion – that the deeply anti-abortion Green family (the owners) object to and therefore don’t want to include or pay for (they don’t object to other forms of birth control, such as the pill or diaphragms, which they are willing to pay for – thank you, Green family…).

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that corporations are people. Why do they have rights that human people don’t have? For example, I have Medicare and pay over $100 a month for it. Medicare covers many things that I will never need, such as medications, treatments, and surgeries that only apply to men. Medicare doesn’t cover dental care or eye glasses or hearing aids – all of which I do need.

Yet I can’t say “I don’t want to pay for men’s stuff, I want my Medicare payments to cover what I need.” If the Green family gets to cherry pick the coverage they will and won’t cover – not just for themselves but for thousands of other people – based on what they believe, why can’t I do the same, just for myself, based on what I actually need? 

This whole thing is fucked up. As usual, it’s about religion, women, and sex, a combination that Conservatives are very uptight about, as well as the idea that big business and microscopic goo have more human rights than women. The mind reels.

It would be bad enough if it stopped there. But as Justice Bader Ginsberg also pointed out, “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

This, my friends, is what’s known as a truly slippery slope. All of America, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.

The Woman Issue

Since we’re just three weeks from Election Day, I think now would be a good time to remember that there are other important considerations besides The Economy (unemployment/debt/deficit/taxes) and the country’s biggest-ticket-items: Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and health care.  Of course all this is critical – especially since the Presidential opponents have significantly different ideas about how to handle them.

But the “ancillary” issues that are dismissed in some quarters as "distractions" are in fact very important.  They literally define what our country is now and what it will be in the future: our culture, our values - not in some uptight religious sense, but having a collective, humane agreement about what matters.  Most of these issues have something to do with women, because the category of "woman" overlaps or underpins almost everything else.

All the major stuff, plus:
the future of the Supreme Court, green energy, effective foreign policy, youth and adult education, poverty, hunger, homelessness, the erosion of hard won civil- and voting-rights, Gay Rights and Marriage Equality, immigration and the Dream Act, progressive science, the environment, infrastructure, reforms and regulations, the arts and humanities, fighting voter suppression and the lie of voter fraud - all the things that are the essence of our democracy and literally civilize us and make us great.

Women’s rights, woes, and unbalanced status in America and around the world personify the very real culture clashes that define our times.  And it's an outrage that it's happening here in America.  After decades of struggle to earn the right to vote, not to mention personal autonomy, property ownership, professional opportunity, pay equity and more, women are now in real danger of losing control of our own bodies due to a growing lack of basic and preventive health care, and access to legal abortion and contraception, some of which require enduring intrusive, unnecessary medical procedures and stressful waiting periods.  The repeal of Roe v Wade is a very real possibility in a Conservative/Republican administration.

However, the greatest problem women face – to a much lesser extent here in America but to a vast extent around the world (particularly but not exclusively in the Muslim World) – is atrocious oppression, abuse and violence.  You’re no doubt aware of the 14-year old Pakistani girl who was recently shot in the head by a Taliban terrorist because she wrote a blog and spoke out against the Taliban and advocating education for women.  According to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “The United Nations mission in Afghanistan says it verified 34 attacks against schools in just the first six months of this year, ‘including cases of burnings of school buildings, targeted killings and intimidation of teachers and school officials, armed attacks against and occupation of schools, and closures, particularly of girls’ schools’.”

And let us not forget the routine honor killings, stonings, cutting off women's noses, acid attacks, indentured servitude, sexual slavery and rape as a tactic of war and cultural intimidation that are central to radical Islamic Shariah Law.  In addition, throughout Africa and elsewhere, female genital mutilation is traditional.  More recently, the gang rape of lesbians in order to “turn them into proper African women” has become common, as well as the rape of young girls (including infants and toddlers) because it’s believed that sex with a virgin will cure or prevent AIDS.

While most of this behavior is not an American issue per se, some of it is.  Rape, sexual slavery (of children and women) and severe domestic violence are very much American problems – particularly growing violence against girlfriends by teens and young men.  And there are millions of educated-but-ignorant young women who cluelessly ignore these matters and truly believe they're living a solid post-feminist reality.  The have no real understanding of history and are contributing nothing to the existing, still-valiant struggle - because "feminist" has become an old-fashioned, bad word.  They're the Starbucks Generation.

Which feeds in (you should pardon the expression) to America's benefits for the poor that so many people seem to bitterly resent: Welfare and Food Stamps.  Separately or combined, they barely provide the ability to survive.  Although many Americans picture Welfare recipients as burly black men laying around the house watching 60” televisions, and Food Stamps recipients as people using these benefits for non-nutritional purposes, like buying booze and frequenting strip clubs.  These stereotypes couldn’t be farther from the truth.  The vast majority of people on Welfare and Food Stamps are white women and their minor children and their lives are brutal.  These women are generally unskilled, under-educated to the point of illiteracy, and plagued by severe mental/ emotional problems, too.  (Abject poverty, constant worry and social disdain can do that to a person.)

Which brings us back to the fact that women’s health, safety, freedom and prosperity are very much an important part of the 2012 campaign – domestically and as a foreign policy issue.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made great efforts and some strides in the area of women’s rights by vocally supporting education, professional opportunity and personal freedom, and forcefully speaking out against horrific violence and oppression of women.  Republican John R. Bolton – George W. Bush’s ambassador to the U.N. and a specialist on security and arms control – is said to be Romney’s top contender for Clinton’s post should he win the Presidency.  Do you imagine Bolton would make the crises and needs of women a top priority as he travels the world?

How women's issues are addressed – and whether they are addressed at all – will, for years to come, be a revealing part of what kind of country we are and strive to be.  I don’t believe that Romney/Ryan support heinous violence against women here or abroad.  But I also don’t think they have the awareness, sensitivity, and concern we need in the White House, Congress and Senate.  For example, important legislation that would have helped combat extensive sexual slavery in America has been defeated numerous times by Republicans.  They want small government, but they want it to be just big enough to control women, especially sexually.  How long can women here and abroad be denied, defiled, and controlled by men with much power and little compassion?

Human beings are more important than money, but ironically, a greater empowerment of women in all ways would be a genuine boon to our economy and those of developing countries who are nonetheless determined to keep women in the Dark Ages.  So gentlemen, please don’t forget your mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, and all the other women in your life when you vote next month.  And ladies, don’t forget the life and liberty you protect may be your own – and perhaps those of our sisters worldwide.

Speaking Truth to Stupid: Rape Ignorance and Voter Suppression

Okay, my “strength and fervor” have been replenished since my last post and I feel strongly motivated to comment on two outrageous trends within the Republican Party – policies and practices which, God, common sense, and civic participation willing – will help defeat them at every level come November.  I’m referring specifically to this week’s outrageous allegations by Missouri senatorial contender Todd Akin that rape victims cannot get pregnant from rape, and so no exception is needed in anti-abortion laws (and efforts) to permit rape (and incest) victims to have abortions.  I’m equally appalled and downright terrified by ongoing nationwide Voter Suppression efforts.  It would appear that real freedom is in real trouble in 2012.

In the rape matter, we have another unfathomable example of how Science Ignorance and Religiously Influenced Science can have a devastating impact on legislative efforts to address urgent matters.  It’s in the same scientific class as “climate change is a hoax” and “wind and solar power can’t work because what happens when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing?”  This stuff is dangerously dumb.  But the latest attack in the War On Women (which, of course, is just a phony Liberal construct) is a horrendous combination of gross ignorance and stunning insensitivity.

Prior to the 20^th century, Western Medicine actually asserted that when a woman’s uterus was not properly engaged in what it was meant for – incubating a fetus – it literally floated around inside her body, contributing to otherwise unexplainable female melancholia.  Now, Akin and his ilk are reviving a long-held anti-choice belief that in instances of “legitimate” or “forcible” rape (as opposed to fun and welcome rape?), a woman’s body shuts down and prevents pregnancy.  Her “juices don’t flow” and her “tubes tighten,” they say.  Oy, vey! 

Therefore, exceptions to anti-abortion laws must be eliminated, say these cavemen, because willfully fornicating women who get themselves pregnant through pleasure could easily lie about rape or incest.  Anti-abortion proponents aren’t going to let that loophole threaten the Personhood of the Unborn when “science” can “prove” rape doesn’t cause pregnancy.  I guess this will show the approximately 34,000 rape victims annually who get pregnant through rape who’s boss!

Now – instead of science, one of the worst periods in American History – the era of Jim Crow and poll taxes – comes into play in regard to Voter Suppression.  Republicans at both the state and federal levels would have us believe that voter fraud is a huge problem that must be addressed with stringent ID and voting hours laws to ensure that people who are not legitimately entitled to vote cannot be registered and get anywhere near a voting both.

The fact that over the past umpteen years there have been more bungee-jumping accidents than incidents of voter fraud doesn’t enter into this.  Conservatives would have us believe that Voter Fraud is a real and urgent problem – just like seeing the President's college transcripts and a real birth certificate, since the one he provided was obviously a forgery.  Accordingly, Voter Suppression laws are now in effect in 38 states – and they have a direct and purposeful impact on the young, the elderly, Blacks and Hispanics, and the poor of all ages and ethnicities – in other words, people who are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans.

It’s not unreasonable to require first-time voters to present some form of identification when they register.  I vaguely recall that when I registered in the early 1970s, I presented a phone bill and my Social Security card – which showed where I lived and that I was on the government grid.  I had no problem then and have had no problem in the 40-odd years since.  Now, many states are asking for birth certificates (which many people no longer have or never had – and getting them, if available, costs time and money) and, more specifically, photo IDs.

In suburban and rural America, most people have a driver’s license.  But in urban areas, that’s often not the case.  Many students have school-issued photo IDs – but in some states, like Texas, a student ID isn’t acceptable; neither are company-issued photo IDs – don’t ask me why.  States are requiring government issued photo IDs – such as passports (most Americans don’t have one), a driver’s license, or a state-issued photo ID that one can get through the Motor Vehicle Bureau whether or not you’re a driver – but this too costs time and money.  Many working and poor people don’t have one or the other or both, nor do they have the means of transportation to get where they need to go for this.

It is sufficiently distressing that half of the country doesn’t even bother to vote, whether or not they have the “appropriate” ID to register.  To make it deliberately difficult, if not impossible, for many people who want to vote to do so is obscene and totally contrary to what this country supposedly stands for.  It is estimated that up to four million Americans could be disenfranchised by these Voter Suppression initiatives.  Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives are up in arms.  Republicans/Conservatives are quietly letting political shenanigans take their course.  After all, if they let everyone vote, there’s a good chance that Batman and Robin will lose to President Obama – and, as they have stated clearly and publicly, beating Obama is their primary objective.

Left to their devious, self-serving devices, Republicans stand a real chance of throwing Roe v Wade, the 1965 Voters Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, environmental protection, any attempts at gun control, the existence and strength of unions, gay rights & marriage, and all support for education, the arts & humanities, and public broadcasting, under the bus.  They say Obama has robbed Americans of their freedom – how and what, they don’t say.  But it’s clear that the Republicans can and will do some serious freedom robbing if we don’t stop them.  Make sure you register and vote – and speak up.  Nothing less than functional Democracy is at stake.

What Is It With Conservatives and Sex?

This past week’s sexually-related political news has left me, as usual, with my mouth agape and my head spinning.  I am increasingly astonished, appalled and frightened by the sexual Puritanism that increasingly spans the American political landscape.  The Conservative desire to “take their country back,” presumably back to 1952, refuses to acknowledge that 60 years and a sexual revolution have passed.  That’s the fact, Jack, like it or not.

I’m referring specifically to the (thankfully thwarted) politically-motivated decision by the breast cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, to withdraw their longstanding support of Planned Parenthood.  They bought into the lie that Planned Parenthood is “the nation’s largest abortion mill.”

Komen didn’t want to jeopardize their mainstream support from abortion opponents who feel about breast cancer the same way they feel about children with cleft lips in poor countries and battered kittens everywhere.  Truth is, only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activity is performing abortions; the rest is devoted to all other women’s health needs, especially breast health and making contraception readily available.  Their core clientele is poor and working class women.

The other assaults du week on women’s health, freedom and day-to-day survival came, of course, from the Greek Chorus of Republican Presidential contenders, including Mitt Romney’s dismissal of the very poor (predominantly women and children), Newt Gingrich’s assertion that America “has always been a bible-based country,” and Rick Santorum’s assorted invectives against abortion (which he claimed is linked to breast cancer; not true), homosexuality, and contraception, because the last enables sinful activity, also known as sex, by unmarried and married “fornicators.”

The scientific ignorance, prudery, social obliviousness, and presumption that personal sexual activity is of legitimate governmental concern, is frightening – as well as an unconstitutional infringement on personal liberty.  But the media feed into it as if it were nothing more than a Hollywood “scandal” to have a giggle over, and the public…well, the largely-politically-disengaged public either doesn’t know or care that there is a dangerous social movement in our midst.

I understand fiscal conservatism.  I don’t agree with it or think it’s in the nation’s best interest – but it isn’t insane, it’s just a particular belief about how to manage taxpayer funds.  It’s up to taxpayers (citizens!) to tell government through votes, petitions and other recourse, what they do and don’t want their money spent on, and we don’t vote or speak out anywhere near enough.

What I don’t understand is social conservatism, which is deeply rooted in Fundamental Christianity and focuses on the sanctity of The Family and the Evils of Sin (also known as human sexuality).  They believe that the only appropriate sexuality is heterosexuality between monogamous, legally married couples for the sole purpose of reproduction.  All and any other sexual activity on the part of consenting adults is sinful.

If these ideas were simply the moral foundation upon which some people choose to live their lives, there would be no problem.  I’ve often said that the best pro-choice slogan I’ve ever heard is: “If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one.”

The problem – and it’s a very big and important problem – is that social conservatives, the same people who say government should stay out of people’s personal lives – want to legislate their definition of morality and outlaw everyone else’s.  And anyone who opposes them is either a fascist or a socialist, but in either case, a degenerate sinner.  Give me a fucking break.  Literally.

Attention liberals, libertarians and all free-thinkers: have sex freakily and frequently.  It’s not just your right – it’s your civic responsibility!

What Constitutes Personhood?

This past August, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney got a lot of heat for his assertion that “corporations are people, too” while speaking at an Iowa State Fair.  The audience did not appreciate this millionaire’s personification of corporations; I didn't either.

Now, the idea of what constitutes personhood is coming from another familiar quarter.  Some segments of the anti-choice movement – which has been trying to reverse the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973 –  is trying to redefine personhood in their effort to re-criminalize abortion.

As reported in the New York Times on October 25^th:  “A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder. With this far-reaching anti-abortion strategy, the proponents of what they call personhood amendments hope to reshape the national debate.”

What makes this effort even more horrific than it seems at first glance is its attack on contraception, definitely including IUDs and morning-after pills, but potentially capable of affecting all forms of female birth control (nobody’s saying a word about condoms), as well as stem cell research – and we thought that battle had been fought and won!

In case you’re wondering (as I did for the longest time) why anti-choice proponents object to contraception, the very thing that prevents unwanted pregnancies, is this: as much as they object to abortion, they are equally opposed to what they define as “fornication,” meaning, any sex outside of marriage by both sexes whatever their age, and, engaging in recreational sex, even within marriage, rather than having sex solely for procreation.  In short, they don’t just want to make abortion a crime, they want to make sex a crime.  Welcome to the 21^st century, where once again Puritans rule! 

Interestingly, as the Times also notes: “The drive for personhood amendments has split the anti-abortion forces nationally.  Some groups call it an inspired moral leap, while traditional leaders of the fight, including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, have refused to promote it, charging that the tactic is reckless and could backfire, leading to a Supreme Court defeat that would undermine progress in carving away at Roe v. Wade.”

The two things I find most appalling about these initiatives is (1) they are based on religious definitions of morality/sexually-appropriate behavior, which is completely unacceptable in a secular society, and (2) they are trying to extend the definition of personhood to include a spec of microscopic goo, which is what a fertilized egg is.  In short, this is totally crazy.

However, maybe we as a society would not be poised at this ludicrous juncture if pro-choice advocates had, from Day One, been willing to face the secular moral and legal aspects of our position.  In this regard, I am again motivated to quote the always-interesting Camille Paglia, who wrote on Salon.com during the 2008 campaign:

“Let’s take the issue of abortion rights, of which I am a firm supporter.  As an atheist and libertarian, I believe that government must stay completely out of the sphere of personal choice.  Every individual has an absolute right to control his or her body…  But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand.  My argument…has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism… 

“…Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder…  …I [also] support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children).  I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty…

“…Not until the Democratic Party stringently reexamines its own implicit assumptions and rhetorical formulas will it be able to deal effectively with the enduring and now escalating challenge from the pro-life right wing. Because pro-choice Democrats have been arguing from cold expedience, they have thus far been unable to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion.”

Fair enough.  So, I will now attempt to make an effective ethical case for the right to abortion:

When a woman becomes pregnant, whatever the circumstances, the fetus within her is in the process of developing into a human being.  But at least until the 7^th month of pregnancy, that fetus is unable to survive outside the woman’s body and fully develop on its own.  Therefore, while it is understood that a fetus is a living human being in development, it does not have legal, independent personhood status until birth.  The unborn do not have a “right to life” that supersedes the rights of a born, autonomous woman.

While a fetus is within a woman’s body and is not capable of surviving outside of it, the fetus is an integral part of that woman’s body.  As such, the woman has the right to do with her body what she sees fit, including the removal, the killing, of the fetus, thereby preventing its full gestation and birth.

While this may be distressing to some people, their distress does not alter a woman’s right to control her own body, including whether or not she becomes pregnant, and if so, whether or not she chooses to bring the pregnancy to term. 

The justification for killing the fetus is the same as society’s justification for killing in self-defense, in defense of one’s family and home, in the course of war, in the course of law enforcement when necessary, and as a form of judicial punishment for heinous crime.  Society recognizes that killing, however repugnant, is sometimes necessary, and a secular society recognizes a woman’s right to abortion as one of those necessities, because giving birth to a child that one does not want or is unable to care for is patently irresponsible and cruel.

Those who object to abortion on religious or other personal moral grounds should not have them, and the law should not attempt to coerce them into doing so.  Similarly, those with moral objections to abortion – much as those who object to participation in war – have no moral or legal right to prevent another person’s abortion.

Meaningful Memorials

Memorial Day is for remembering the military dead. Veterans Day is for remembering the surviving military. But as far as I’m concerned, this country does a very poor job of remembering, and honoring, the American military, dead or alive.

To start with, all that most people do to remember the military (particularly if no relative of theirs is currently serving) is wave the flag – literally from their homes, figuratively in their political views, emotionally in their hearts of hearts. Some may watch or march in a parade. Some may visit a grave or a memorial. These are all nice symbolic gestures; but aside from offering respect and dignity (not to be sneezed at, I know), they don’t mean anything, they don’t accomplish anything.

In consideration of things that might be more meaningful memorials, I feel compelled to start with something that happened this week that is the complete antithesis of what I'm talking about. Congress decided that military women who become pregnant from a rape by military men shouldn’t have their abortions (should they choose them) funded by the government. Presently, civilian government employees are so covered – minimally, of course, according to the traditional proviso: pregnancies created by rape or incest, or that threaten the life of the mother. This means that a servicewoman in Iraq or Afghanistan who has suffered a rape by a comrade in arms can just bite the bullet: keep the kid or spring for the abortion herself. It’s just our government's way of saying: we remember you. Thank you for your service.

The biggest thing that we don’t do to honor and remember the military dead – We the People and We the Government – is closely, seriously consider what the hell we’re doing before we send American military into harm’s way. Yes, of course sometimes war is necessary. But it isn’t/wasn’t necessary in Iraq, I’m way less than convinced it’s necessary in Afghanistan, it certainly wasn’t necessary in Vietnam. Truthfully, my lack of knowledge about the Korean War doesn’t allow me to assess that one. World War II was necessary; I can tell the difference. Neat, clean, minimal personnel, covert missions like the one that got bin Laden, that’s a contemporary example of putting military to good use. We should remember that.

Another thing we should remember: the military dead have families. They should not be delayed, or nickled and dimed, in receiving insurance and death benefits, and their benefits should be multi-faceted and much greater. They deserve that. If we had mindful decency in crafting and funding and executing these benefits, we would remember that.

The military dead were fiercely devoted to the surviving military. In honoring that devotion, we should remember to treat the surviving military very, very well. If they’re sick in any way, they should get the best care and therapy possible, no expense spared (or delayed). If they’re even just trying to reacclimate to civilian life, they should get the money, services and perks they need (and deserve), no expense spared or delayed.

It’s okay to have picnics and barbecues on the long Memorial Day Weekend. Everyone deserves a little spring break. But later next week, we should think about what we can do to honor our country’s military dead. Maybe it’s a relevant financial contribution, maybe it’s volunteer service, maybe it’s writing to your Congressional representatives. You’ll know what works for you. Maybe it is visiting a grave. But in lieu of flowers, please take good care of veterans.

All Fall Down

As I begin this post, it’s not yet 8:00 a.m. and I haven’t even had coffee yet. Nor do I have the time/room here to talk about Donald “Pompadour” Trump’s transformation from a self-serving billionaire into a self-serving “birther”; Michelle Bachmann making Sarah Palin look like Eleanor Roosevelt; or other little matters like new violence against Israel, the ever-enlarging quagmire developing in Libya, and another unsettling earthquake in Japan.

That’s because my mind – like those of millions of Americans – won’t move off the subject of the very-possible government shutdown, a circumstance we’re all confronted with because the Congressional Republicans insist on hooking budget resolution to the policy issues they’ve wanted to tackle (and dismember) for years, and, because President Obama has been walking softly and carrying no stick at all virtually since he took office.

It remains to be seen what ultimately gets thrown under the bus during these final, early-dawn White House negotiations. We’ll very possibly see funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drown in the still-bubbling oil clogging the Gulf, or PBS/NPR going dark and silent, or, especially, Planned Parenthood rendered bankrupt as millions of American women have no place to turn for routine and preventative health care, not abortions.

Whatever does or doesn’t happen regarding the government shutdown today, it’s important to remember that the budget being haggled over only covers governmental operations through September 30^th, the end of the nation’s fiscal year. We have to soon confront the budget for 2012 and will no doubt have to watch the consideration of Rep. Paul D. Ryan’s (R-WI and chairman, House Budget Committee) proposed plan, which New York Times columnist Paul Krugman correctly termed “ludicrous and cruel” today.

What disturbs me as much as the details of all this political wrangling is the fact that more people were more concerned with the American Idol finals last night than the fact that the government was simultaneously being held hostage by politicians from both parties who, I fear, are more absorbed with getting re-elected than doing the right thing.

That said, the Republicans, with the Tea Party holding a legal assault weapon to their heads, do seem to genuinely care about making war on women, the poor, the environment, and arts/education in all its forms, and they’re going to continue this battle whether the government shuts down or not. Helpfully, the President and the Democrats in both houses squandered the political capital they had for the past two years and did very little to protect these constituencies and further their causes. But what difference does it make when the winners of American Idol and Dancing With the Has-beens are at stake? I wouldn’t know any of those people if you threw them in my lap. But I’m certain that many of the people who do, would not be able to identify two of the three people pictured above (for the record, left: Harry Reid, D-NV, Senate Majority Leader, and, right: John Boehner, R-OH, Speaker of the House).

Last night, Martin Wolf from London’s Financial Times, was on Charlie Rose talking about this budget dilemma, and he said: “Winston Churchill once observed that `America always does the right thing – after exhausting every other alternative'.” God willing and the creek don’t rise…

The Battle of the Sexes Redux

Given the fact that the election of a Black president and hard economic times have rejuvenated America’s cultural/political right wing, it should come as no surprise that the latest “Pro-Lib” (that’s progressive/ liberal…) construct on their kill agenda is feminism. Of course, the Right has been fighting modern feminism since it began in the late 1960s, successfully defeating organized efforts to secure the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment); continuously fighting mainstream efforts to make and keep abortion legal and readily available; and in general, bad-mouthing feminism at every turn.

But now, with women marrying later in life, with 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and with the genuine possibility of gay marriage coming closer all the time, the well-organized, articulate, on-point and active right wing is taking on feminism big time.

Two books published last month are paving the way for a major trend-setting argument, garnering considerable press attention and providing the language and talking points for this new battle: Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys by Kay S. Hymowitz, and, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say by Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly (yes, The Fly is back…).

Their messages are essentially the same: progressive-liberals aren’t fit to run a bowling alley let alone a nation; feminism, the demon seed of liberalism, is full of shit; women aren’t (and never have been) victims or oppressed or marginalized in any way; and most important, feminism has destroyed the American Family and emasculated men.

I want to say that for the past couple of years, I’ve been asking “Where is the New Feminism?” I’ve been saying that feminism and its resulting migration of women into the workforce has had a negative impact on family life – just as racial integration had a negative impact on black communities.

But, just as segregation allowed for strong black communities by default, because law and custom demanded that middle-class and poor blacks live side by side in neighborhoods filled with black-owned businesses, powerful and unifying black churches, and generally-united families, that didn’t make segregation a good thing or make integration any less vitally important. Similarly, while women living in the traditional role of wife and mother provided both stability for the family and clarity of gender roles, that didn’t make it any less important for women to be freed from their domestic cages, as well as the limitations created by law regarding property rights, divorce, employment, and personal freedom.

These Women of the Right would have us believe that the only solution to domestic instability is for women to cut out all this feminist nonsense and go back home – which can sound, to many, like a fine, easy, workable solution to a thorny social problem. The Right wishes they could also say that if blacks went back to second-class citizenship, we wouldn’t need all these Hispanics and Asians for menial work, but to their never-ending fury, they can’t say it. And of course, if gays just went back in the closet and shut the hell up, maybe this could be a decent, God-fearing country again. Yeah! Out with Jersey Shore, video games and the Internet, and back to Leave It To Beaver, Scrabble and stick ball! Why struggle with moving forward when it would be so much simpler to just move back?

Going back is both impossible and undesirable – regarding feminism, racism and homophobia. What is essential, however, is for the Left and the left-leaning but civically disengaged to become organized and creative in addressing the problems created by uncompleted social progress and counter the delusional Right with practical solutions and ongoing advancement.

Back in the `80s, I lived briefly with a man I adored, but the relationship didn’t work. During one of our rare serious conversations About Us, he said “I feel like there’s nothing I can do for you.” I didn’t appreciate the meaning and importance of that remark and really didn’t address it. I was wrong.

I don’t recall the feminism of my youth implying that women and men were the same, just that we were equal. But I do recall that we were so consumed with our own needs that we regarded consideration of men’s needs as somehow counter-revolutionary. We were wrong.

Clearly now is the time for everyone to consider everyone else’s needs and create a new kind of culture that will allow for the development of new kinds of families. New strategies. New compromises. More forthright communication on everybody’s part. And soon. Before the New Right destroys the good we’ve done and makes it impossible for us to do more.

It's Time to Get ANGRY!!!

I had decided to stop paying attention to the Republican’s culturally-punitive, draconian, and penny wise/pound foolish budget cuts, trusting that the Senate would create a better proposal and, if not, the President would veto stupidity run amok. Now, however, I’ve decided that may not be wise, since all of Congress (which includes the Senate…), as well as the Chief Executive, appear to have their own agendas and none appear to have the American public’s best interest at heart.

Let me first address the Budget conundrum: the federal government has been spending money like the proverbial drunken sailor for many years now. Some of the things money was spent on – like enhanced prescription coverage for those on Medicare – were deserving, sensible. Other things, like unproductive wars, were not. It’s fair to blame the Republicans for a lot of this, but the Democrats, who can’t seem to agree on a lunch menu, let alone a party policy, have done their fair share to contribute to the mess.

At this point, assessing blame is beside the point; we’re in a pickle and there’s no denying it. Both the national debt (money the government has borrowed from other countries) and the national deficit (the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in) are both enormous and genuinely threaten the nation’s functioning. The question is: how should our leaders address these very real financial problems without endangering the welfare of the nation?

Keep in mind that more than 75% of federal funds go to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – what the Republicans like to refer to as “the entitlement programs,” because in their hearts of no-heart, they don’t believe anyone is entitled to anything. Every sane person knows these three programs are vital to the day-to-day survival and health of millions of Americans. However, it is also well known that the administration of these programs is deeply flawed and rampant with fraud, waste and mismanagement. Also keep in mind that the government has depleted its income, its revenue, by not taxing the richest 2% of the population in a manner proportionate to their incomes.

Common sense would seem to indicate that the way to resolve our financial dilemma would be to overhaul the three vital social service programs and increase taxes on the richest Americans. (Finally legalizing marijuana would also make a lot of social and financial good sense...) Unfortunately, if not surprisingly, Congressional Republican representatives don’t see it that way. They want to (so far) avoid the infamous “third rail” of government spending (“the entitlements”), as well as refuse to raise taxes on the rich. Instead, they’ve aimed their cutting shears at programs within the 20% of government spending that remains. And they are using this opportunity – in the name of fiscal responsibility – to attack funding for things they’ve long disapproved of, particularly in the areas of women’s rights and education (which includes public broadcasting).

An editorial in today’s New York Times, “Waging War On Women,” does an excellent job of summarizing all the ways in which Republicans want to try to balance the budget on the backs of women and children – particularly poor women and children. This threat to funding for family planning, access to abortion (which is still legal in the USA, not so's you'd notice) and nutrition is very real and just another reminder of how much Conservatives hate the poor and fear independent women.

In addition, a post by PBS President, Paula Kerger, that appeared on The Huffington Post this week, details the educational importance of public broadcasting. The Republicans want to cut all funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which they have long believed is a tool of the Radical Left. Keep in mind that PBS’ NewsHour is the most respected, most trusted, and most watched evening news program in America; countless polls have shown this. Also remember that PBS offers cultural programming that is unparalleled anywhere else on television.

The Republicans also want to kill another of their pet bogeymen: The National Endowment for the Arts (another left wing tool, of course). The elimination of the CPB and NEA would kill public broadcasting and other national arts funding. As if we weren’t already an ignorant, boorish nation.

Indeed, all of the Republican budget targets aim to diminish health, personal freedom, education, cultural development, environmental and energy initiatives, foreign aid, and anything else that contributes to quality of life, personal growth, national stability, and international leadership.

I beg you to read the two pieces I’ve linked, to check out just what Congress has sent (and is still yet to send) to the Senate, and contact your senators, as well as the President, and let them know this is not in the best interest of the country and not what you want as a civilized, voting, American citizen.

I know things are falling apart worldwide and the end is relatively nigh, but do we have to end in social darkness and misery and pain? Let’s all of us, please, do what we can to prevent this. It's time to get angry!

A Day in the Life of the World

It’s been a busy, explosive, perhaps game-changing day on Planet Earth.

For starters, for reasons I don’t know, Congress is in recess this week, which strikes me as odd, considering that we’re in danger of a government shut-down next week, but perhaps legislators feel they can more effectively stir-the-shit in their respective home bases.

President Obama took advantage of their absence to announce that he will no longer instruct the Justice Department to defend the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act, calling it unconstitutional. Will this lead to the federal legalization of gay marriage? White House spokespeople say the President’s position is evolving; encouraging, if not reason for wholesale celebration.

Today’s he said/she said discussion column by David Brooks and Gail Collins in the New York Times (Budget Wars or Culture Wars) reminded me why I have such affection and respect for Brooks. Conservative though he may be, his intelligence, insight, fairness, civility, and sense of humor make him a constructive and valuable pundit. Brooks and Collins take on the events in Wisconsin, each making important points when they say:

Gail Collins: None of this is about budgets. It’s about crushing enemies. Unions. Government programs. The social safety net. Abortion. Contraception.

David Brooks: See how quickly budget issues turn into culture wars? That’s the road to gridlock. We have to keep in mind that these issues are ultimately about money even though the combatants always like to pretend they’re fighting for morality. It’s possible to split the difference on how much people contribute to their health insurance. Things will turn rotten as we start to see this as a holy war. (Italics are mine: MizB)

Well said. In Wisconsin and in other states where protests are being held in response to additional budget holy wars, as well as Congress, where it’s been less about budgets and more about Conservatives killing their favorite cultural bug-a-boos (government programs, the social safety net, abortion, contraception, among others), it’s been impossible for the Left and Right to find accord, because no one is focusing on the biggest budget busters: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I myself am on Social Security and receive Medicare, so I have a personal stake in what happens to them. However, I can’t deny that fraud, waste and mismanagement are making these important programs unsupportable. I want them to survive – so I want them to be improved. If everybody was focused on this sensible goal, we might actually resolve our national financial woes.

Meanwhile, throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa, huge public protests, no doubt inspired by the victory in Egypt, are threatening long-ruling despots: men who have oppressed the people and robbed their countries blind for decades. Regrettably, America’s stock market is only responding to its fears about rising oil prices and the Dow took a 100-point dive today. These people make me sick. What would happen if the market rose in response to worldwide calls for democracy and freedom. Might not such patriotism serve everybody, including investors? But once again my naivety is showing…

Way on the other side of the world, New Zealand is trying to recover from an earthquake that has so far killed nearly 100 people and caused billions of dollars in damage. Indonesia isn’t doing too well either, thanks to natural disaster. Seems either politics and rebellions are pulling the rug out from under people, or Mother Nature is pulling out the very earth. Perilous times, perilous times.

The main story of the day, of course, is the meltdown of Libya’s Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, certainly one of the world’s ugliest real-life portraits of Dorian Gray, as he desperately tries to hold on to his fiefdom. He’ll likely lose. And then what?

And as I write this, the History Channel plays across the room, re-running its series on Ancient Aliens, a theory I believe, and about which this series makes a strong, plausible case. Given what’s going on these days, I long for contemporary aliens – providing they wish us well and can help us fix what we can’t seem to fix ourselves. Here’s hoping.