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?
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
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
Friday, September 24, 2010
Teresa Lewis - Nothing More to Do
September 23 - I thought all day about Teresa Lewis. At times I actually had a physical sensation of her - and I thought about her all summer, too, believing that such a miscarriage of justice - her getting the death penalty, the two gunmen getting life - would be an obvious cause for commuting her sentence. Yet I wasn't surprised when Governor McDonnell refused to commute her sentence.
Tonight, at about 8:30, I went to the vigil organized by Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty at the Clarendon Metro – a site chosen for visibility. It wasn’t a very spiritual or soulful or even mournful event – it was a public education and awareness event, as the leader, a young man named Tobias, clearly said. (After all, what could be done?) We stood in a circle – at least a dozen of us – talked for about 10 minutes, joined hands for a minute at about 9, then talked for 15 or so minutes until someone learned via their phone that she was dead (pronounced dead at 9:13), and then we held hands for another minute and went our ways. There really wasn’t anything more to do.
I had had various questions about the gender issue as I visited her website and read about the case in The Post: did she get the death penalty because she was a woman (to oversimplify the matter), did that figure in at all, did her being a woman drive her behavior, was Bob McDonnell being truthful when he said gender did not play a role in his decision to decline her appeal? At the vigil, a young attorney who had worked on the case at Steptoe and Johnson talked about the gender aspect. He said psychologists had testified that Teresa had “dependent personality disorder,” a DSM -recognized condition, and had always done what men told her to do. As a woman, I can relate to that behavior – it’s almost instinctive at times, there’s such a strong pull to “obey” (although it doesn’t justify committing a crime, of course). I think of the young woman sentenced to a long prison term – in Virginia – for carrying dope for her boyfriend.
But what really upset me – what I still can’t shake – is the unfairness of the sentences. My gut feeling is that Teresa was seen as a jezebel, an evil power, using sexuality to manipulate and for gain – a prostitute. The triggermen - Matthew Shallenberger (who committed suicide in prison) and his former roommate and friend Rodney Fuller – were sentenced to life terms at their separate trials. (One of them negotiated a deal.) But the judge deemed Teresa the crime's mastermind and called her "the head of this serpent"- which some interpret as a biblical reference alluding to Eve (or at least it sounds like it’s biblical). Most of the photos of her made her look deranged, brutish, capable of any and all cruelties. In the one on her website, she looked like the lady next door - and then there was the one of her as a little girl.
Sexuality permeated just about everything in this sordid story (or at least what I know about it). The most recent Post story made Teresa seem like a pimp because she encouraged her daughter to have sex with Fuller (Teresa was sleeping with Shallenberger). The attorney at the vigil dismissed the importance of this, saying Teresa thought her daughter would like Fuller! The repeated references to Teresa's "young lover" were rhetorically loaded - they made her seem like a horny old gal who'd do anything for a hot young guy...anything.
Then there was the huge matter of whether Shallenberger was using Teresa – whether when he met her at Wal-Mart (talk about the banality of evil!), he thought she was an easy mark, so he could get the insurance money. His IQ was said to be 113 – her IQ, 72 or 73, borderline mentally retarded. Lewis’ attorney, James E. Rocap III appealed Monday to Governor McDonnell to reconsider his decision to deny clemency to Lewis, claiming there was new evidence that should spare Teresa the death penalty. He argued that Shallenberger later - in jail - claimed he manipulated Teresa, "to dupe her into believing he loved her so that he could achieve his own selfish goals." Shallenberger wrote about this in a letter, which he destroyed – by eating part of it (if I understood the attorney at the vigil correctly). The letter, or what was left of it, was never introduced as evidence – but couldn’t McDonnell have taken it into consideration? Weren’t there many things he could have taken into consideration? After all, he is pro-life - or is that just for embryos and fetuses?
Besides being borderline retarded, Teresa took a massive amount of pain medication, which disoriented her, according to the attorney at the vigil. Personally, I believe that over-medication is a gender issue – as is depression. Men can and do over-medicate and are depressed but the causes can be quite different from those affecting women. Both over-medication and depression need to be considered in light of gender norms - you get a fuller picture of Teresa's mental state and her capabilities when you pair her over-medication with the gender-related "dependency disorder."
Was Teresa even capable of masterminding a plot like this – Teresa as described by The Post this evening (post-execution) as a woman “who plotted with her young lover to kill her husband and stepson for insurance money” and in another news report as “scheduled to die by injection Thursday for providing sex and money to two men to kill her husband and stepson in October 2002 so she could collect on a quarter-million dollar insurance pay out.” Teresa who apparently had never done anything violent before? That’s a complex scheme for a non-violent, not very bright, not very aggressive or directed, very gullible lady, or at least it would be in my experience. (And let's remember she met him at Wal-Mart.)
A NOW friend wondered what could be done to stop the execution of another woman when there are clearly unresolved issues and questions– and she noted that two of the three women on the Supreme Court, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, voted to stop the execution. Perhaps more women on the court? Would Teresa have been saved during the Kaine administration? Kaine commuted two sentences, so she might have fared better, if there were legal grounds for a commutation. Apparently the Supreme Court didn’t think there were.
Maybe I’ve been a feminist too long, maybe I see everything through a gender lens, but on balance, I think Teresa got shafted (yes, I know that word has connotations) because she came off as a manipulative woman – a bitch. The mental picture of her standing there while her husband bled to death – standing there coldly, is the usual phrase - is enough to put the fear of God in any man. I think that and a less-than-adequate defense did her in. (Interestingly, if I understood the attorney at the vigil correctly, she might not have been sentenced to death under new guidelines adopted after her crime).
Teresa’s attorney, Rocap, called her "a good and decent person" and said she was being put to death “because of a system that is broken" (according to the news report, he was referring to the decision by the Supreme Court and McDonnell's rejection of clemency). I don’t know that she was all that decent (I can only wonder, how could a decent person ever fall to such depths, absent some crushing burden or total mental collapse?) but I believe she was a victim of a system that treats people who commit the same or similar crime differently, that penalizes those who fail to “play” the judicial system to maximum advantage, that discriminates against the powerless and the less capable. And I wonder – what in her life ever indicated she would cause murder to be committed – would cold-heartedly take the lives of her husband and his son. And what was her daughter up to – never saying a word (she went to jail for five years for that)?
As person after person said at the vigil, the death penalty is a moral issue. Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty opposed the execution of John Mohammed. Someone mentioned that Teresa's death certificate would give the cause of death as "homicide" - the very crime she was convicted of committing. A young woman at the vigil said she opposed the death penalty because there is always the possibility for change for the better - as long as there is life. Another young woman said she opposed the death penalty because all life is sacred, all life hs value. As for me, if even one person is executed wrongly, a monstrous evil has occurred;. And the fact that so many Black men are executed is clear proof the death penalty is discriminatory on the basis of race.
Tonight, I am resolved to actively oppose the death penalty. In the case of Teresa, it seems that there was more evidence to be heard and that doubts remain. There is something very wrong about killing her and allowing the other two to deal their way out of death. Death is irreversible, the ultimate silencer.
God does death – not us. I feel cold and aching - like I have been hurt, lost something, been diminished.
Thank you for reading this.
Tonight, at about 8:30, I went to the vigil organized by Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty at the Clarendon Metro – a site chosen for visibility. It wasn’t a very spiritual or soulful or even mournful event – it was a public education and awareness event, as the leader, a young man named Tobias, clearly said. (After all, what could be done?) We stood in a circle – at least a dozen of us – talked for about 10 minutes, joined hands for a minute at about 9, then talked for 15 or so minutes until someone learned via their phone that she was dead (pronounced dead at 9:13), and then we held hands for another minute and went our ways. There really wasn’t anything more to do.
I had had various questions about the gender issue as I visited her website and read about the case in The Post: did she get the death penalty because she was a woman (to oversimplify the matter), did that figure in at all, did her being a woman drive her behavior, was Bob McDonnell being truthful when he said gender did not play a role in his decision to decline her appeal? At the vigil, a young attorney who had worked on the case at Steptoe and Johnson talked about the gender aspect. He said psychologists had testified that Teresa had “dependent personality disorder,” a DSM -recognized condition, and had always done what men told her to do. As a woman, I can relate to that behavior – it’s almost instinctive at times, there’s such a strong pull to “obey” (although it doesn’t justify committing a crime, of course). I think of the young woman sentenced to a long prison term – in Virginia – for carrying dope for her boyfriend.
But what really upset me – what I still can’t shake – is the unfairness of the sentences. My gut feeling is that Teresa was seen as a jezebel, an evil power, using sexuality to manipulate and for gain – a prostitute. The triggermen - Matthew Shallenberger (who committed suicide in prison) and his former roommate and friend Rodney Fuller – were sentenced to life terms at their separate trials. (One of them negotiated a deal.) But the judge deemed Teresa the crime's mastermind and called her "the head of this serpent"- which some interpret as a biblical reference alluding to Eve (or at least it sounds like it’s biblical). Most of the photos of her made her look deranged, brutish, capable of any and all cruelties. In the one on her website, she looked like the lady next door - and then there was the one of her as a little girl.
Sexuality permeated just about everything in this sordid story (or at least what I know about it). The most recent Post story made Teresa seem like a pimp because she encouraged her daughter to have sex with Fuller (Teresa was sleeping with Shallenberger). The attorney at the vigil dismissed the importance of this, saying Teresa thought her daughter would like Fuller! The repeated references to Teresa's "young lover" were rhetorically loaded - they made her seem like a horny old gal who'd do anything for a hot young guy...anything.
Then there was the huge matter of whether Shallenberger was using Teresa – whether when he met her at Wal-Mart (talk about the banality of evil!), he thought she was an easy mark, so he could get the insurance money. His IQ was said to be 113 – her IQ, 72 or 73, borderline mentally retarded. Lewis’ attorney, James E. Rocap III appealed Monday to Governor McDonnell to reconsider his decision to deny clemency to Lewis, claiming there was new evidence that should spare Teresa the death penalty. He argued that Shallenberger later - in jail - claimed he manipulated Teresa, "to dupe her into believing he loved her so that he could achieve his own selfish goals." Shallenberger wrote about this in a letter, which he destroyed – by eating part of it (if I understood the attorney at the vigil correctly). The letter, or what was left of it, was never introduced as evidence – but couldn’t McDonnell have taken it into consideration? Weren’t there many things he could have taken into consideration? After all, he is pro-life - or is that just for embryos and fetuses?
Besides being borderline retarded, Teresa took a massive amount of pain medication, which disoriented her, according to the attorney at the vigil. Personally, I believe that over-medication is a gender issue – as is depression. Men can and do over-medicate and are depressed but the causes can be quite different from those affecting women. Both over-medication and depression need to be considered in light of gender norms - you get a fuller picture of Teresa's mental state and her capabilities when you pair her over-medication with the gender-related "dependency disorder."
Was Teresa even capable of masterminding a plot like this – Teresa as described by The Post this evening (post-execution) as a woman “who plotted with her young lover to kill her husband and stepson for insurance money” and in another news report as “scheduled to die by injection Thursday for providing sex and money to two men to kill her husband and stepson in October 2002 so she could collect on a quarter-million dollar insurance pay out.” Teresa who apparently had never done anything violent before? That’s a complex scheme for a non-violent, not very bright, not very aggressive or directed, very gullible lady, or at least it would be in my experience. (And let's remember she met him at Wal-Mart.)
A NOW friend wondered what could be done to stop the execution of another woman when there are clearly unresolved issues and questions– and she noted that two of the three women on the Supreme Court, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, voted to stop the execution. Perhaps more women on the court? Would Teresa have been saved during the Kaine administration? Kaine commuted two sentences, so she might have fared better, if there were legal grounds for a commutation. Apparently the Supreme Court didn’t think there were.
Maybe I’ve been a feminist too long, maybe I see everything through a gender lens, but on balance, I think Teresa got shafted (yes, I know that word has connotations) because she came off as a manipulative woman – a bitch. The mental picture of her standing there while her husband bled to death – standing there coldly, is the usual phrase - is enough to put the fear of God in any man. I think that and a less-than-adequate defense did her in. (Interestingly, if I understood the attorney at the vigil correctly, she might not have been sentenced to death under new guidelines adopted after her crime).
Teresa’s attorney, Rocap, called her "a good and decent person" and said she was being put to death “because of a system that is broken" (according to the news report, he was referring to the decision by the Supreme Court and McDonnell's rejection of clemency). I don’t know that she was all that decent (I can only wonder, how could a decent person ever fall to such depths, absent some crushing burden or total mental collapse?) but I believe she was a victim of a system that treats people who commit the same or similar crime differently, that penalizes those who fail to “play” the judicial system to maximum advantage, that discriminates against the powerless and the less capable. And I wonder – what in her life ever indicated she would cause murder to be committed – would cold-heartedly take the lives of her husband and his son. And what was her daughter up to – never saying a word (she went to jail for five years for that)?
As person after person said at the vigil, the death penalty is a moral issue. Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty opposed the execution of John Mohammed. Someone mentioned that Teresa's death certificate would give the cause of death as "homicide" - the very crime she was convicted of committing. A young woman at the vigil said she opposed the death penalty because there is always the possibility for change for the better - as long as there is life. Another young woman said she opposed the death penalty because all life is sacred, all life hs value. As for me, if even one person is executed wrongly, a monstrous evil has occurred;. And the fact that so many Black men are executed is clear proof the death penalty is discriminatory on the basis of race.
Tonight, I am resolved to actively oppose the death penalty. In the case of Teresa, it seems that there was more evidence to be heard and that doubts remain. There is something very wrong about killing her and allowing the other two to deal their way out of death. Death is irreversible, the ultimate silencer.
God does death – not us. I feel cold and aching - like I have been hurt, lost something, been diminished.
Thank you for reading this.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
McDonnell Brags, Women Suffer
This past week, Bob McDonnell bragged to right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham that the Hyde Amendment has been enacted in Virginia. "It was a great win for a pro-life cause," he said.
According to the Washington Post:
"The General Assembly in April approved an amendment to the state budget that will limit funding for abortions to those performed in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother* is at risk. Nothing in state law had previously banned Medicaid-funded abortions in instances when the health of the mother* was in jeopardy."
*This should say "woman" or "pregnant woman." You're not a mother until the baby is born!
The Post continues:
"A small number of abortions -- paid for with state funds -- in cases of deformities can still be performed. But McDonnell, a Catholic who has long opposed abortion, argued that the change will essentially bring Virginia in line with federal law."
McDonnell had promised to defund Planned Parenthood. But it will still receive some state funding - and Ingraham criticized the Gov for that because "Any money they get ends up helping them offset [the cost of] abortion services.''
According to the Post:
"McDonnell said he is not allowed to withhold money from Planned Parenthood -- or other Medicaid providers -- which are required by law to provide abortions and other services."
The Post reports:
Planned Parenthood serves 30,000 women in the state a year. It had been receiving about $35,000 in state funds a year and more than $275,000 from health-care claims.
According to the Washington Post:
"The General Assembly in April approved an amendment to the state budget that will limit funding for abortions to those performed in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother* is at risk. Nothing in state law had previously banned Medicaid-funded abortions in instances when the health of the mother* was in jeopardy."
*This should say "woman" or "pregnant woman." You're not a mother until the baby is born!
The Post continues:
"A small number of abortions -- paid for with state funds -- in cases of deformities can still be performed. But McDonnell, a Catholic who has long opposed abortion, argued that the change will essentially bring Virginia in line with federal law."
McDonnell had promised to defund Planned Parenthood. But it will still receive some state funding - and Ingraham criticized the Gov for that because "Any money they get ends up helping them offset [the cost of] abortion services.''
According to the Post:
"McDonnell said he is not allowed to withhold money from Planned Parenthood -- or other Medicaid providers -- which are required by law to provide abortions and other services."
The Post reports:
Planned Parenthood serves 30,000 women in the state a year. It had been receiving about $35,000 in state funds a year and more than $275,000 from health-care claims.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Jessica Valenti on Sarah Palin and Feminism
Fun factoid: Sarah Palin got a lot of publicity when she spoke to the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List recently and appropriated the feminist label, calling for a "pro-woman sisterhood." The president of the Susan B. Anthony List - an organization that has used unbelievably vicious language about abortion rights in some of its direct mail - is a woman named Marjorie Dannenfelser, who formerly owned the house I live in. Interesting - same first name, diametrically opposed politics (her husband, Marty, is a right-winger as well). She's nice in person but her organization is hateful and shamefully distorts the facts and abuses the ideal of feminism.
Jessica Valenti, the founder of Feministing.com, provides a good analysis of Palin's remarks to the Susan B. Anthony List in the May 30 Washington Post Outlook section, which I'll summarize here (anything in quote marks and italics is from Valenti's article in the Post) :
After telling CBS's Katie Couric in 2008 that she was a feminist and then telling NBC's Brian Williams that she would not "label myself anything," Valenti writes that today, Palin is
"...happily adopting the feminist label...It's not a realization of the importance of women's rights that's inspired the change. It's strategy. Palin's sisterly speechifying is part of a larger conservative move to woo women by appropriating feminist language."
The anti-abortion tactic of saying abortion "hurts women" is pretty well known and never fails to enrage me - I'd say non-consensual sex and an unwanted child hurt a lot more. Valenti brings up another mind-boggling bit of nonsense - the Independent Women's Forum argument against addressing pay inequities: that "the salary gap is a result of women's informed choices - motherhood, for example - and that claims of discrimination turn women into victims." Are women identifying with their oppressors?
So, Valenti asks, why do women listen to these pseudo-feminists? Because Palin and others align themselves with the suffragists and are "not-so-subtly saying that women in America have achieved equality. In fact, they don't believe that systemic sexism exists." In other words, we have the vote - what more do we want?
How does Palin rally women if everything is fine and dandy? By painting "actual feminists as condescending hypocrites who simply don't believe in young women" and who - by supporting abortion rights - send a message to young women that they're not strong and capable enough to have a child - an unintended one - and pursue their education and career at the same time. Holy mother, it's not about equality - it's about convincing young women not to have an abortion!
Valenti continues:
"So Palin's 'feminism' isn't just co-opting the language of the feminist movement, it's deliberately misrepresenting real feminism to distract from the fact that she supports policies that limit women's rights."
Valenti makes a few other good points - "feminism" encompasses a tremendous range of viewpoints, no one owns the label, saying you're a feminist doesn't mean you act like one (ie, feminists can be bigoted). But bottomline, "certain things are inarguable" - "Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It's a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end."
We who ARE feminists need to reclaim the term for real. We can't let Palin and her buddies steal what we have worked so hard to establish, in word and deed.
At the Virginia NOW state conference recently at James Madison University, we talked about feminism. One student said that the challenging thing about women's studies is that once you have knowledge about oppression, you have a responsibility to do something about it. I think about that a lot when young women tell me about the discrimination they face in the workplace...when the UVA lacrosse player got killed by her violent ex-boyfriend...when I think about how hard it is to raise a child in a family-unfriendly society such as ours. Once you have knowledge, you have a responsibility to act on it.
Sarah Palin has no knowledge - and the only action she's taking is trying to get publicity and possibly get elected. We have to stop her and the other so-called feminists who oppose fundamental justice and equality for women.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Orgasm & Masturbation on TV!
Did anyone else see Two and A Half Men Monday on CBS April 26, 2010? Charley (Charlie Sheehan) is troubled because his girlfriend, Chelsea, did not have an orgasm when they had sex. They discuss it. She admits she actually did have one - and when he asked, "When?" (because he either thinks he didn't notice or can't figure out how he missed it?), she replied, "When you were downstairs getting a beer?"
So not only was orgasm discussed - masturbation was also, or at least alluded to.
They have sex again - and she does have an orgasm and promptly falls asleep (and snores) while he starts to discuss his feelings.
This may be the most feminist program I've seen on TV in a long time!
So not only was orgasm discussed - masturbation was also, or at least alluded to.
They have sex again - and she does have an orgasm and promptly falls asleep (and snores) while he starts to discuss his feelings.
This may be the most feminist program I've seen on TV in a long time!
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Grandbaby
What's it like to have a new grandson - a first grandchild?
I mean aside from the obvious amazement - because a new baby is a miracle. Just look at that perfect ear, with all its swirls and dips and ridges and intricate designs. I understand the biology - but it just isn't enough to explain the miracle of that perfect ear, of that new life. And those long eyelashes - just like Sean's!
A grandchild affirms the strength of life. That life will find its way over, above, around, past, through all obstacles. It will struggle to emerge and, in our awe, we will circle around to protect it. A grandchild reminds me of my priorities - creating and caring. Reminds me that it's not about me.
Time collapses with a grandchild. I wonder - what happened to the past few years (33 since his mother and her twin sister were born)? Wasn't I just having a baby? The memory of that buoyancy - that surge of energy and hormones that enables us to endure sleeplessness and pain - is in my bones.
Welcome, James.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
