Today, April 26, is Ludwig Wittgenstein's birthday. (Thank you, Garrison Keilor.)
I took an introductory philosophy class at Michigan - big disappointment - I wanted the answers and I was given the questions. Wittgenstein, however, stuck with me. We think in language - and how can we think about things that don't have any reality, or a reference in real life experience (or at least that's what I think he thought). So "god" was spoiled for me forever. Whenever I think "god," I feel my mind exploding, metaphorically.
From Garrison Keilor on NPR this morning: ...Wittgentsein is
the man who said, 'Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open": Ludwig Wittgenstein (books by this author), born in Vienna in 1889. He was described by his colleague Bertrand Russell as "the most perfect example I have known of genius as traditionally conceived: passionate, profound, intense, and dominating." He was the youngest of nine children; three of his brothers committed suicide.
Wittgenstein was born into one of the richest families in Austro-Hungary, but he later gave away his inheritance to his siblings, and also to an assortment of Austrian writers and artists, including Rainer Maria Rilke. He once said that the study of philosophy rescued him from nine years of loneliness and wanting to die, yet he tried to leave philosophy several times and pursue another line of work, including serving in the army during World War I, working as a porter at a London hospital, and teaching elementary school. He also considered careers in psychiatry and architecture — going so far as to design and build a house for his sister, which she never liked very much.
Wittgenstein was particularly interested in language. He wrote, "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for." And, "Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination."
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Smelly Fish - Wait, Make That Republicans
Being from Chicago, going to school in Michigan and NYC and living in Arlington for 30+ years, I haven't seen a lot of confederate flags. Til yesterday (4/20), at the fabled political gathering called the Shad Planking.
Almost everyone wore stickers saying: "April Is National Confederate History Month" and there were those flags all over. (See the Good Ole Boys photo.) No apologies, no explanations.
Lots of people wore round orange stickers saying "Guns Save Lives." And just about everyone had an "Allen for Senator" sticker. One guy was handling out booklets with the text of the Constitution. McDonnell's remarks were hilarious - he roasted everyone, was particularly hard on Allen, joked about his veto of the redistricting bill.
There was excitement around Allen, not much around Bolling (probably candidate for governor to succeed McDonnell) that I could see, and lots around the Tea Party display and candidate Jamie Radtke. She's 35, smart, educated, reasonably well-spoken. I really hope she gives George Allen a run for the money.
I think I'll go next year - as it's a big election year, it's supposed to be huge. Maybe more than 3 Dems will show (Roslyn Tyler, Bobby Scott and - I heard but did not see -Bill Barlow). Anyone want to drive? It's at least 3 hours each way from NoVA, plus of course time for accidents, backups, and other usual traffic messes.
Hope you enjoy the photos.
Almost everyone wore stickers saying: "April Is National Confederate History Month" and there were those flags all over. (See the Good Ole Boys photo.) No apologies, no explanations.
Lots of people wore round orange stickers saying "Guns Save Lives." And just about everyone had an "Allen for Senator" sticker. One guy was handling out booklets with the text of the Constitution. McDonnell's remarks were hilarious - he roasted everyone, was particularly hard on Allen, joked about his veto of the redistricting bill.
There was excitement around Allen, not much around Bolling (probably candidate for governor to succeed McDonnell) that I could see, and lots around the Tea Party display and candidate Jamie Radtke. She's 35, smart, educated, reasonably well-spoken. I really hope she gives George Allen a run for the money.
I think I'll go next year - as it's a big election year, it's supposed to be huge. Maybe more than 3 Dems will show (Roslyn Tyler, Bobby Scott and - I heard but did not see -Bill Barlow). Anyone want to drive? It's at least 3 hours each way from NoVA, plus of course time for accidents, backups, and other usual traffic messes.
Hope you enjoy the photos.
Friday, February 25, 2011
How did we lose the two decade fight over regulating clinics?
I am an active Democrat and a feminist and, for what it's worth, this is my take.
The Washington Post front-page article on 2/25/11 quotes Senator Dick Saslaw as saying "They slipped one through." The Democratic leadership failed to stop the legislative maneuver that was taking place. They have been accustomed to doing things the same way for so long - stopping anti-choice bills in the Senate Education and Health Committee - that they, as Saslaw said, didn't catch this, even though members of that committee include the most senior and liberal Democrats.
They simply were out-smarted. And, in my view, didn't take it seriously enough. AG Cuccinelli gave fair warning that he was deadly serious about TRAP - Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers - when he issued an opinion on this in the summer.
"There has been no state to adopt this type of legislation that would force women to have a first trimester abortion in a hospital. This is unconstitutional under Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey because it puts an undue burden on a woman who is having a first trimester abortion. They should not have to have this simple procedure in a hospital," said Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke.
Ben also blames the Democrats - asleep at the wheel. They knew they only had 18 votes.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch has an excellent and comprehensive report on what happened. On a broader note, the Republicans have pounded away at this issue for 20 some years. Their strategy, in VA and nationally, is chipping away. They are not relying on the Supreme Court to overturn what is left of Roe v Wade. They are chipping away at access to services and at what little funding there is; their message machine is enormous. Their allies include the very powerful US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If this matter is litigated and goes to the Supreme Court, we could lose because we will not have a strong enough case that this type of regulation poses a burden on women. Anthony Kennedy will argue as he did in the late-term abortion decision - regulation is good for women (!), women will appreciate it (because we can't take care of ourselves, presumably).
Other factors of concern:
this is a "women's issue" and unfortunately does not carry the weight of being a civil rights issue that the LGBT cause now carries.
Democrats have been willing to compromise away aspects of abortion rights - note Obama's executive order to get Catholic permission to go ahead with health care reform.
I am also angry that Cucinnelli misrepresented - or heck, lied about - Virginia NOW's position two decades ago on this issue. He actually mentioned NOW in his statement crowing about the passage of the amendment. NOW does not favor the kind of regulations that the Republicans want, which will shut down clinics.
Finally, this shows why advocacy groups are key to any fight. We can't let up the pressure and scrutiny, even of our Democratic friends.
The Washington Post front-page article on 2/25/11 quotes Senator Dick Saslaw as saying "They slipped one through." The Democratic leadership failed to stop the legislative maneuver that was taking place. They have been accustomed to doing things the same way for so long - stopping anti-choice bills in the Senate Education and Health Committee - that they, as Saslaw said, didn't catch this, even though members of that committee include the most senior and liberal Democrats.
They simply were out-smarted. And, in my view, didn't take it seriously enough. AG Cuccinelli gave fair warning that he was deadly serious about TRAP - Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers - when he issued an opinion on this in the summer.
Ben Tribbett has some great quotes, worth repeating:"These amendments are draconian and patriarchal..." Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton. Love that she says patriarchal.
"There has been no state to adopt this type of legislation that would force women to have a first trimester abortion in a hospital. This is unconstitutional under Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey because it puts an undue burden on a woman who is having a first trimester abortion. They should not have to have this simple procedure in a hospital," said Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke.
Ben also blames the Democrats - asleep at the wheel. They knew they only had 18 votes.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch has an excellent and comprehensive report on what happened. On a broader note, the Republicans have pounded away at this issue for 20 some years. Their strategy, in VA and nationally, is chipping away. They are not relying on the Supreme Court to overturn what is left of Roe v Wade. They are chipping away at access to services and at what little funding there is; their message machine is enormous. Their allies include the very powerful US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If this matter is litigated and goes to the Supreme Court, we could lose because we will not have a strong enough case that this type of regulation poses a burden on women. Anthony Kennedy will argue as he did in the late-term abortion decision - regulation is good for women (!), women will appreciate it (because we can't take care of ourselves, presumably).
Other factors of concern:
this is a "women's issue" and unfortunately does not carry the weight of being a civil rights issue that the LGBT cause now carries.
Democrats have been willing to compromise away aspects of abortion rights - note Obama's executive order to get Catholic permission to go ahead with health care reform.
I am also angry that Cucinnelli misrepresented - or heck, lied about - Virginia NOW's position two decades ago on this issue. He actually mentioned NOW in his statement crowing about the passage of the amendment. NOW does not favor the kind of regulations that the Republicans want, which will shut down clinics.
Finally, this shows why advocacy groups are key to any fight. We can't let up the pressure and scrutiny, even of our Democratic friends.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Abortion - Why It MUST Be Covered by Health Insurance
"Why would a woman seek an abortion from Dr. Kermit Gosnell?" - a Philadelphia abortion provider who has been accused of murders by the district attorney. Susan Schewel, executive director of the Women's Medical Fund, a high-quality, respected abortion provider in Philadelphia, answers that question with facts that we must not ignore, no matter how monstrous Gosnell may be (if convicted). The case of Gosnell quite simply illuminates the tremendous injustice that will be done if legislative attempts succeed to ban insurance coverage of abortion under health care reform.
Whatever you think about abortion, please read this.
Schewel writes:
Abortion is a legal, common and routine medical procedure. Yet for 25 years, Pennsylvania has banned Medicaid funding for abortion. Abortion is the only routine medical procedure not covered by Medicaid, and this prohibition leaves desperate women vulnerable to substandard providers such as Gosnell.
She reviewed records of women who lived in the neighborhood where Gosnell practiced and who went to him before going to her excellent practice. During January and February 2010, she found six women, ages 21 to 36.
Five were mothers. Four were enrolled in Medicaid; two had no health insurance at all. Two received unemployment checks, and one had just been laid off a few days before she called. One worked at McDonald's and earned $450 a month, $200 of which went to rent.
One was obtaining a protection-from-abuse order against her violent husband. Another was pregnant due to a rape. One was living in a homeless shelter with her young child. She received $316 a month in welfare. The average monthly income of these six women was $503.
When they arrived for their appointments (at Gosnell's office), they were told that they needed $350 to $450 for an abortion procedure. As you can imagine, this seemed like a fortune. And not one had insurance to cover the cost. Thankfully, they turned to us at the Women's Medical Fund, and we were able to help.
The Gosnell story powerfully demonstrates the consequences of the unconscionable public policy under which, if you are poor, pregnant and don't want to be, you are out of luck and on your own. This story reminds us of the lengths to which desperate women will go to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
How do we help these women - and thousands others? Not by closing a bad practice or unnecessary additional regulations.
What will solve the problem is lifting the ban on public funding for abortion and providing equitable health coverage for all.
Yet right-wing (Republican) legislators are intent on doing the opposite - making it impossible or difficult to get abortion coverage in the exchanges that are being set up and due to be operational in 2014. In Virginia, two bills are now in the General Assembly - HB 2147 in the House of Delegates introduced by Delegate Cline, and SB 1202 in the Senate, introduced by Senator Obenshain. Both are - simply - immoral and should be defeated.
The cry "no taxpayer funding for abortion" is simplistic and misleading. It appeals to our worst nature - to a self-righteous desire for punishment - in this case, of the most vulnerable. (Of course, one of "us" would never be in that situation - right?) Pregnancy occurs for many reasons - including that a woman feels compelled to have sex and cannot convince the man to use protection. We are talking about power, not morals or lack of morals. Why are so many Americans convinced it's ok to treat women as moral degenerates - and to give men a pass. Why do we want to blame those who most need help? Why won't we treat women decently, morally, humanely? Why won't we work on lifting up women - not keeping them permanently victimized.
Whatever you think about abortion, please read this.
Schewel writes:
Abortion is a legal, common and routine medical procedure. Yet for 25 years, Pennsylvania has banned Medicaid funding for abortion. Abortion is the only routine medical procedure not covered by Medicaid, and this prohibition leaves desperate women vulnerable to substandard providers such as Gosnell.
She reviewed records of women who lived in the neighborhood where Gosnell practiced and who went to him before going to her excellent practice. During January and February 2010, she found six women, ages 21 to 36.
Five were mothers. Four were enrolled in Medicaid; two had no health insurance at all. Two received unemployment checks, and one had just been laid off a few days before she called. One worked at McDonald's and earned $450 a month, $200 of which went to rent.
One was obtaining a protection-from-abuse order against her violent husband. Another was pregnant due to a rape. One was living in a homeless shelter with her young child. She received $316 a month in welfare. The average monthly income of these six women was $503.
When they arrived for their appointments (at Gosnell's office), they were told that they needed $350 to $450 for an abortion procedure. As you can imagine, this seemed like a fortune. And not one had insurance to cover the cost. Thankfully, they turned to us at the Women's Medical Fund, and we were able to help.
The Gosnell story powerfully demonstrates the consequences of the unconscionable public policy under which, if you are poor, pregnant and don't want to be, you are out of luck and on your own. This story reminds us of the lengths to which desperate women will go to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
How do we help these women - and thousands others? Not by closing a bad practice or unnecessary additional regulations.
What will solve the problem is lifting the ban on public funding for abortion and providing equitable health coverage for all.
Yet right-wing (Republican) legislators are intent on doing the opposite - making it impossible or difficult to get abortion coverage in the exchanges that are being set up and due to be operational in 2014. In Virginia, two bills are now in the General Assembly - HB 2147 in the House of Delegates introduced by Delegate Cline, and SB 1202 in the Senate, introduced by Senator Obenshain. Both are - simply - immoral and should be defeated.
The cry "no taxpayer funding for abortion" is simplistic and misleading. It appeals to our worst nature - to a self-righteous desire for punishment - in this case, of the most vulnerable. (Of course, one of "us" would never be in that situation - right?) Pregnancy occurs for many reasons - including that a woman feels compelled to have sex and cannot convince the man to use protection. We are talking about power, not morals or lack of morals. Why are so many Americans convinced it's ok to treat women as moral degenerates - and to give men a pass. Why do we want to blame those who most need help? Why won't we treat women decently, morally, humanely? Why won't we work on lifting up women - not keeping them permanently victimized.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Was I A Criminally Negligent Parent?
Conservative commentator Kate O’Beirne got me thinking about my parenting skills. A few days ago, at a Republican gathering at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, called “Less of Washington and More of Ourselves,” she railed against the federal school meal programs as just one instance of the feds “taking over” a responsibility that properly belongs to “ourselves.”
Let me say here and now we fed our kids. I’m not positive about breakfast because I usually got up later than they did, but they brown-bagged lunch in elementary school (Mike lived on PBJ for years) and/or got money for lunch (although apparently the lunches in junior-middle-high school were awful and they often brought theirs). We always had dinner but often it involved rice-a-roni or mushroom soup with noodles and tuna, so that might not meet Kate’s standard for acceptable parenting.
So here’s what Kate actually said (no kidding):
“My question is, what poor excuse for a parent can’t rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana? I just don’t get why millions of school children qualify for school breakfast unless we have a major widespread problem with child neglect. You know, I mean if that’s how many parents are incapable of pulling together a bowl of cereal and a banana, then we have problems… [that] can’t be solved with a school breakfast, because we have parents who are just criminally negligent with respect to raising children.”
Kate, let’s check our facts. First, you really have to have milk with the cereal. But more to the policy issue here, school meal programs are for kids from low-income families – and income level has to do with the availability of jobs and the skills and experience of employees. Parenting ability has nothing to do with it.
Kate, you need to stop by an elementary school in a regular neighborhood (ie, not McLean), where kids are dropped off very early by parents who have to get to work – parents whom you suggest may be “criminally negligent” because they don’t earn much and they’re overworked. These parents do the paperwork to get their kids into a meals program that helps them be better prepared to learn. I’d say that, far from being negligent or abusive to their children, these parents are breaking their backs to earn a decent living and to take care of their kids.
Kate concludes that we should “ask more of ourselves” and less of the federal government. I agree. If we can feed our kids well – no small matter, involving shopping, cooking, putting the meal on the table and cleaning up -- we should. (Or at least call for a pizza.) If we can’t, though - if we work two jobs, work overtime, are going to school to get ahead, have aging parents to care for - should we let them be hungry or underfed? Should we trust to the often unpredictable state to allocate funds? Should we throw outselves on the mercy of non-profits that are always scrambling for money (usually from the feds)? Or the profit-driven private sector?
Who’s criminally negligent then?
Let me say here and now we fed our kids. I’m not positive about breakfast because I usually got up later than they did, but they brown-bagged lunch in elementary school (Mike lived on PBJ for years) and/or got money for lunch (although apparently the lunches in junior-middle-high school were awful and they often brought theirs). We always had dinner but often it involved rice-a-roni or mushroom soup with noodles and tuna, so that might not meet Kate’s standard for acceptable parenting.
So here’s what Kate actually said (no kidding):
“My question is, what poor excuse for a parent can’t rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana? I just don’t get why millions of school children qualify for school breakfast unless we have a major widespread problem with child neglect. You know, I mean if that’s how many parents are incapable of pulling together a bowl of cereal and a banana, then we have problems… [that] can’t be solved with a school breakfast, because we have parents who are just criminally negligent with respect to raising children.”
Kate, let’s check our facts. First, you really have to have milk with the cereal. But more to the policy issue here, school meal programs are for kids from low-income families – and income level has to do with the availability of jobs and the skills and experience of employees. Parenting ability has nothing to do with it.
Kate, you need to stop by an elementary school in a regular neighborhood (ie, not McLean), where kids are dropped off very early by parents who have to get to work – parents whom you suggest may be “criminally negligent” because they don’t earn much and they’re overworked. These parents do the paperwork to get their kids into a meals program that helps them be better prepared to learn. I’d say that, far from being negligent or abusive to their children, these parents are breaking their backs to earn a decent living and to take care of their kids.
Kate concludes that we should “ask more of ourselves” and less of the federal government. I agree. If we can feed our kids well – no small matter, involving shopping, cooking, putting the meal on the table and cleaning up -- we should. (Or at least call for a pizza.) If we can’t, though - if we work two jobs, work overtime, are going to school to get ahead, have aging parents to care for - should we let them be hungry or underfed? Should we trust to the often unpredictable state to allocate funds? Should we throw outselves on the mercy of non-profits that are always scrambling for money (usually from the feds)? Or the profit-driven private sector?
Who’s criminally negligent then?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Abortion - Winning Issue for Democrats
Will wonders never cease? Politico says that" Abortion was winning issue for Dems." An article by Alexander Burns on November 13 makes these points (but if you're an abortion rights advocate, you should really read the whole article - it's at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45069.html ):
"By branding Republican challengers as outside the cultural mainstream on the issue, Democrats managed to hold on to at least a slice of the political center..." Moderate women made the difference in a handful of key states.
This was counter to what the Dems did in 2006 and 2008, when they ran candidates whose positions on abortion were closely attuned to the socially conservative areas where they sought office.
Dems made abortion a central concern in a handful of battleground Senate races — and they won as a result.
In Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet beat Ken Buck — a tea party-backed conservative with down-the-line anti-abortion views — after defeating him by 17 percentage points among women.
In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pummeled Republican challenger Sharron Angle for opposing abortion in all cases — and in particular, for telling an interviewer who asked about abortion in the case of a rape that some women were able to turn “what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.” Reid won women voters by 11 percentage points and nearly tied Angle among men, losing by just 2 points.
Highly touted Republican Senate candidates also found themselves on the wrong end of the issue in blue-state Washington and California. Washington Sen. Patty Murray ran ads accusing challenger Dino Rossi with wanting to “turn back the clock” on abortion. In California, Planned Parenthood sent out a mailer comparing Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, charging that both “want to make criminals out of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them” and branding both GOP women “too extreme for California.”
For some voters, the issue appeared to serve as shorthand for a larger network of social and values-related issues. “Candidates’ positions on choice do serve a signaling function, in terms of the kind of person they are and if they are standing up for women or not,” said Deirdre Schifeling, political director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
"By branding Republican challengers as outside the cultural mainstream on the issue, Democrats managed to hold on to at least a slice of the political center..." Moderate women made the difference in a handful of key states.
This was counter to what the Dems did in 2006 and 2008, when they ran candidates whose positions on abortion were closely attuned to the socially conservative areas where they sought office.
Dems made abortion a central concern in a handful of battleground Senate races — and they won as a result.
In Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet beat Ken Buck — a tea party-backed conservative with down-the-line anti-abortion views — after defeating him by 17 percentage points among women.
In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pummeled Republican challenger Sharron Angle for opposing abortion in all cases — and in particular, for telling an interviewer who asked about abortion in the case of a rape that some women were able to turn “what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.” Reid won women voters by 11 percentage points and nearly tied Angle among men, losing by just 2 points.
Highly touted Republican Senate candidates also found themselves on the wrong end of the issue in blue-state Washington and California. Washington Sen. Patty Murray ran ads accusing challenger Dino Rossi with wanting to “turn back the clock” on abortion. In California, Planned Parenthood sent out a mailer comparing Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, charging that both “want to make criminals out of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them” and branding both GOP women “too extreme for California.”
For some voters, the issue appeared to serve as shorthand for a larger network of social and values-related issues. “Candidates’ positions on choice do serve a signaling function, in terms of the kind of person they are and if they are standing up for women or not,” said Deirdre Schifeling, political director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
20 Reasons to Vote Democratic
This piece about the upcoming congressional elections was written by Bob Tiller, a politically savvy guy I used to work with. It says it all. It's worth reading and passing on. Go vote!!! Thanks, Bob!
"...Although some people claim that these elections don’t matter, I believe that they do – enormously. All elections have consequences for our lives, and that is true of this fall’s contests.
I decided to do some digging about key issues that Congress has been dealing with, to educate myself before the election. I have finished my research, and I can now tell you that when I go into the voting booth, I will enthusiastically vote for Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. I want the Democrats to retain their majority, and I want to tell you why. Here are ten reasons.
1. The Democratic-led Congress enacted major reforms to the federal student loan program for college students, freeing up an additional $60 billion for students that would have gone for bank fees and profits.
2. The Democratic-led Congress enacted a “bill of rights” for credit card holders that will prevent credit card companies from gouging ordinary people and wrecking their credit. You are already seeing the results of that law.
3. The Democratic-led Congress enacted major reforms to the banking and financial sectors, reining in corporate excesses and restructuring many things, so that our nation will not soon be wracked by the same type of recession that hit us in 2008. One part of that law is a new consumer financial protection agency, an entity sorely needed.
4. The Democratic-led Congress enacted a significant income tax cut for middle-class and working families last year. The Republicans don’t want you to know about that, so they claim that Democrats oppose tax cuts. But the Republicans are wrong on this – Democrats cut income taxes for the middle class. If you don’t believe me, please look it up.
5. The Democratic-led Congress also enacted significant tax cuts for small businesses – more than once. Republicans enjoy ranting about how Democrats hurt small businesses, but they are wrong on the facts. Democrats have taken numerous steps to help small businesses, including tax cuts. If you don’t believe me, please look it up.
6. The Democratic-led Congress enacted legislation to provide better and more comprehensive health care to combat veterans from our recent wars, as well as benefits to their caregivers.
7. The Democratic-led Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. When the Republicans held the majority, they stonewalled any increase for years and years, exacerbating poverty and homelessness for working Americans. The Democrats also enacted a law guaranteeing equal pay for women after the super-conservative, super-activist Supreme Court said that existing law did not guarantee such equality.
8. The Democratic-led Congress passed a landmark health care bill that we should all be thankful for. Among its many provisions are these: 32 million people who have been without coverage will soon be able to have it; insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime expenditure limits on anyone, even those with major illnesses; no one can be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions; all of us now have a “patients’ bill of rights;” and Medicare is strengthened for years to come. (Furthermore, everyone can keep their current health coverage if they wish.) These are huge steps forward for our nation. Ironically, on the very day that several of these provisions took effect, Republican leaders declared their fundamental opposition to such progress and vowed to repeal health care reform, including these common-sense provisions, if they obtain a majority in Congress. In addition to the comprehensive health care bill, the Democratic-led Congress expanded the SCHIP program that provides health care for at-risk low-income children, and strengthened the Medicaid program for low-income adults.
9. The Democratic-led Congress faced up to the recession and extended unemployment benefits for those who are out of work and unable to find work, while Republicans strenuously opposed such payments to those in great need.
10. Finally, there is the stimulus package, enacted by the Democratic-led Congress. Republicans rail endlessly about how terrible it was, but a majority of unbiased economists declare it a solid achievement, a real success. Every American should be thankful for Democrats’ thoughtful and prompt action on the stimulus package, because it helped to halt our steep slide into recession, and put millions of unemployed folks back to work. The stimulus package was and is a solid, practical response to difficult times, a true building block for the economic recovery.
Those are ten significant accomplishments by the Democrats, ten reasons why they should be entrusted to continue leading Congress. Not convinced yet? Well, here are ten more.
11. The Democratic-led House enacted a major clean energy jobs bill that will benefit our nation in numerous ways. Senate Republicans have so far blocked it in that chamber, but Democrats will keep trying to achieve bipartisan approval.
12. Democrats have proposed a thoughtful, workable plan to deal with immigration issues. Republicans have no plan beyond rounding up millions of immigrants and sending them back, plus placing more troops at the Mexican border.
13. Democrats in Congress are striving to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” so that every American who wants to serve in the military will be permitted to do so. Republicans have blocked repeal because they fundamentally oppose full freedom for gay people.
14. Republican leaders have pledged to increase the nation’s deficit even further in order to cut taxes for the super-rich. They attempt to scare the rest of us by suggesting that President Obama’s proposal for somewhat higher taxes on the super-rich will translate into higher taxes on everyone, even though there is no evidence for that.
15. The Democratic-led Congress enacted an increase in vehicle fuel standards that will both decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil and clean up our environment.
16. Several Republican candidates for Congress are committed to privatizing Social Security, while Democrats strongly oppose such an effort. Imagine what pain and anguish would have set in among our nation’s seniors during this recession if their monthly Social Security checks depended on the stock market. Democrats will protect Social Security and make it solvent for decades to come. (In a further attack on seniors, one Republican candidate has even pledged to work for the elimination of Medicare.)
17. The Democratic-led Congress worked closely with President Bush in 2008 to enact the TARP bill, which prevented the recession from becoming much more serious than it was. We hear Republicans routinely decry that bill, but it was actually a stunning bipartisan success, saving many American companies and jobs. Although the initial projection for TARP expenditures was $700 billion, the success of the program and the rapid rate of repayments now point to a final cost to taxpayers of less than one-tenth of that amount.
18. Republican leaders announced their goal to remove reasonable rules and controls on Wall Street, so that investment bankers can return to their Wild West approach and make themselves richer.
19. The Democratic-led Congress voted to penalize American companies that ship jobs overseas, while Republicans opposed that legislation.
20. Finally, the Republicans have several candidates who are truly beyond the pale. A Republican House candidate in Ohio enjoys wearing a Nazi uniform in public and re-enacting Waffen-SS atrocities. The Republican Senate candidate in Alaska urged repeal of the 17th Amendment, which provides for senators to be elected directly by the people; he wants to go back to the days when state legislatures chose senators, with lots of backroom horse-trading. The Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky called for repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Some Republicans are backing repeal of the 14th Amendment, which enabled the slaves to become full citizens of this country.
So, there is a summary of the choice that we face. We can re-elect the Democrats, the party that works to improve our nation and its people, or we can bring back the Republicans, the party that promotes fear, opposes progress and undermines liberty. We can re-elect the strong, thoughtful Congress that has been in place for the last four years, or we can bring back the party that let business run amok, creating economic collapse.
Here is another way to think about it: the Democrats in Congress will do a better job on practically every issue than the Republicans. Beyond the 20 points above, take a minute to think about: military spending, nuclear weapons treaties, public education, terrorism, reproductive choice, farm policy, climate change, stewardship of natural resources, religious liberty, labor issues, meals-on-wheels, transportation and Indian affairs. I trust Democrats to handle all of those matters in a more thoughtful and appropriate way than Republicans.
As I said at the outset, elections have consequences, and this year is no exception. Voting for Tea Partyers and their cohorts is gambling with everything that makes up America – our economy, our health, our jobs, our infrastructure, our security, our liberty.
Big money is flowing to the Republicans in this election, hoping to buy a Congress that will ignore the interests of ordinary people. Earlier this year the conservatives on the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to democracy when it essentially removed limits and controls on secret financing of election campaign ads; the result is that tens of millions of dollars have flooded into Republican coffers. We need to fight back with people power.
If you agree with this analysis, please consider taking the following steps:
(1) Forward this message widely. Sent it to everyone in your address book. If you only like parts of it, forward the parts you like. If you want to cut and paste, feel free. If you want to plagiarize, feel free. If you want to print it out and distribute hardcopies, feel free; it is not copyrighted. Just get it out quickly and widely.
(2) Go out and work for Democrats between now and November 2nd. Knock on doors, host a gathering, work at phone banks, hand out leaflets, give some money to candidates."
Bob concludes by saying: Thank you for reading this and thinking about it.
Bob Tiller
"...Although some people claim that these elections don’t matter, I believe that they do – enormously. All elections have consequences for our lives, and that is true of this fall’s contests.
I decided to do some digging about key issues that Congress has been dealing with, to educate myself before the election. I have finished my research, and I can now tell you that when I go into the voting booth, I will enthusiastically vote for Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. I want the Democrats to retain their majority, and I want to tell you why. Here are ten reasons.
1. The Democratic-led Congress enacted major reforms to the federal student loan program for college students, freeing up an additional $60 billion for students that would have gone for bank fees and profits.
2. The Democratic-led Congress enacted a “bill of rights” for credit card holders that will prevent credit card companies from gouging ordinary people and wrecking their credit. You are already seeing the results of that law.
3. The Democratic-led Congress enacted major reforms to the banking and financial sectors, reining in corporate excesses and restructuring many things, so that our nation will not soon be wracked by the same type of recession that hit us in 2008. One part of that law is a new consumer financial protection agency, an entity sorely needed.
4. The Democratic-led Congress enacted a significant income tax cut for middle-class and working families last year. The Republicans don’t want you to know about that, so they claim that Democrats oppose tax cuts. But the Republicans are wrong on this – Democrats cut income taxes for the middle class. If you don’t believe me, please look it up.
5. The Democratic-led Congress also enacted significant tax cuts for small businesses – more than once. Republicans enjoy ranting about how Democrats hurt small businesses, but they are wrong on the facts. Democrats have taken numerous steps to help small businesses, including tax cuts. If you don’t believe me, please look it up.
6. The Democratic-led Congress enacted legislation to provide better and more comprehensive health care to combat veterans from our recent wars, as well as benefits to their caregivers.
7. The Democratic-led Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. When the Republicans held the majority, they stonewalled any increase for years and years, exacerbating poverty and homelessness for working Americans. The Democrats also enacted a law guaranteeing equal pay for women after the super-conservative, super-activist Supreme Court said that existing law did not guarantee such equality.
8. The Democratic-led Congress passed a landmark health care bill that we should all be thankful for. Among its many provisions are these: 32 million people who have been without coverage will soon be able to have it; insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime expenditure limits on anyone, even those with major illnesses; no one can be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions; all of us now have a “patients’ bill of rights;” and Medicare is strengthened for years to come. (Furthermore, everyone can keep their current health coverage if they wish.) These are huge steps forward for our nation. Ironically, on the very day that several of these provisions took effect, Republican leaders declared their fundamental opposition to such progress and vowed to repeal health care reform, including these common-sense provisions, if they obtain a majority in Congress. In addition to the comprehensive health care bill, the Democratic-led Congress expanded the SCHIP program that provides health care for at-risk low-income children, and strengthened the Medicaid program for low-income adults.
9. The Democratic-led Congress faced up to the recession and extended unemployment benefits for those who are out of work and unable to find work, while Republicans strenuously opposed such payments to those in great need.
10. Finally, there is the stimulus package, enacted by the Democratic-led Congress. Republicans rail endlessly about how terrible it was, but a majority of unbiased economists declare it a solid achievement, a real success. Every American should be thankful for Democrats’ thoughtful and prompt action on the stimulus package, because it helped to halt our steep slide into recession, and put millions of unemployed folks back to work. The stimulus package was and is a solid, practical response to difficult times, a true building block for the economic recovery.
Those are ten significant accomplishments by the Democrats, ten reasons why they should be entrusted to continue leading Congress. Not convinced yet? Well, here are ten more.
11. The Democratic-led House enacted a major clean energy jobs bill that will benefit our nation in numerous ways. Senate Republicans have so far blocked it in that chamber, but Democrats will keep trying to achieve bipartisan approval.
12. Democrats have proposed a thoughtful, workable plan to deal with immigration issues. Republicans have no plan beyond rounding up millions of immigrants and sending them back, plus placing more troops at the Mexican border.
13. Democrats in Congress are striving to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” so that every American who wants to serve in the military will be permitted to do so. Republicans have blocked repeal because they fundamentally oppose full freedom for gay people.
14. Republican leaders have pledged to increase the nation’s deficit even further in order to cut taxes for the super-rich. They attempt to scare the rest of us by suggesting that President Obama’s proposal for somewhat higher taxes on the super-rich will translate into higher taxes on everyone, even though there is no evidence for that.
15. The Democratic-led Congress enacted an increase in vehicle fuel standards that will both decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil and clean up our environment.
16. Several Republican candidates for Congress are committed to privatizing Social Security, while Democrats strongly oppose such an effort. Imagine what pain and anguish would have set in among our nation’s seniors during this recession if their monthly Social Security checks depended on the stock market. Democrats will protect Social Security and make it solvent for decades to come. (In a further attack on seniors, one Republican candidate has even pledged to work for the elimination of Medicare.)
17. The Democratic-led Congress worked closely with President Bush in 2008 to enact the TARP bill, which prevented the recession from becoming much more serious than it was. We hear Republicans routinely decry that bill, but it was actually a stunning bipartisan success, saving many American companies and jobs. Although the initial projection for TARP expenditures was $700 billion, the success of the program and the rapid rate of repayments now point to a final cost to taxpayers of less than one-tenth of that amount.
18. Republican leaders announced their goal to remove reasonable rules and controls on Wall Street, so that investment bankers can return to their Wild West approach and make themselves richer.
19. The Democratic-led Congress voted to penalize American companies that ship jobs overseas, while Republicans opposed that legislation.
20. Finally, the Republicans have several candidates who are truly beyond the pale. A Republican House candidate in Ohio enjoys wearing a Nazi uniform in public and re-enacting Waffen-SS atrocities. The Republican Senate candidate in Alaska urged repeal of the 17th Amendment, which provides for senators to be elected directly by the people; he wants to go back to the days when state legislatures chose senators, with lots of backroom horse-trading. The Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky called for repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Some Republicans are backing repeal of the 14th Amendment, which enabled the slaves to become full citizens of this country.
So, there is a summary of the choice that we face. We can re-elect the Democrats, the party that works to improve our nation and its people, or we can bring back the Republicans, the party that promotes fear, opposes progress and undermines liberty. We can re-elect the strong, thoughtful Congress that has been in place for the last four years, or we can bring back the party that let business run amok, creating economic collapse.
Here is another way to think about it: the Democrats in Congress will do a better job on practically every issue than the Republicans. Beyond the 20 points above, take a minute to think about: military spending, nuclear weapons treaties, public education, terrorism, reproductive choice, farm policy, climate change, stewardship of natural resources, religious liberty, labor issues, meals-on-wheels, transportation and Indian affairs. I trust Democrats to handle all of those matters in a more thoughtful and appropriate way than Republicans.
As I said at the outset, elections have consequences, and this year is no exception. Voting for Tea Partyers and their cohorts is gambling with everything that makes up America – our economy, our health, our jobs, our infrastructure, our security, our liberty.
Big money is flowing to the Republicans in this election, hoping to buy a Congress that will ignore the interests of ordinary people. Earlier this year the conservatives on the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to democracy when it essentially removed limits and controls on secret financing of election campaign ads; the result is that tens of millions of dollars have flooded into Republican coffers. We need to fight back with people power.
If you agree with this analysis, please consider taking the following steps:
(1) Forward this message widely. Sent it to everyone in your address book. If you only like parts of it, forward the parts you like. If you want to cut and paste, feel free. If you want to plagiarize, feel free. If you want to print it out and distribute hardcopies, feel free; it is not copyrighted. Just get it out quickly and widely.
(2) Go out and work for Democrats between now and November 2nd. Knock on doors, host a gathering, work at phone banks, hand out leaflets, give some money to candidates."
Bob concludes by saying: Thank you for reading this and thinking about it.
Bob Tiller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
