Done With Democrats

We’ve got a majority in congress and a President on our team. As Bill Maher says, if not now, when?
The answer is never.
If Democrats don’t fight for meaningful health care reform in this country, I am THROUGH with them. As Susie Madrak notes:

If Obama does, in fact, include language to prevent the public health plan from becoming a single-payer option, we might as well kiss this Democratic majority goodbye. Because, as history shows, given the choice between a fake Republican and a real one, people will pick the real one every time!

Its go time people. We need to make a stand. Health Care reform is a life or death issue. Setting up a website to get us worked up, and then stepping up to the negotiating table having already given up, is the worst sort of betrayal. It isn’t the change we voted for, its an even bolder more of the same brand of politics. The kind where the people get royally fucked over for the sake of companies, in this case, the insurance industry.

No more.

If the Democrats can’t pull a win that means something out of this battle, its time to start organizing against them. Every single Democrat who opposes the public health option needs to be ruthlessly and energetically challenged in their next primary. Dr Howard Dean has a useful list here. You go on that list as a no, and you are on OUR list as someone to actively oppose during the next election.

I’m very happy and proud to see Jim Webb of Virginia firmly in the supporter’s column, along with Kerry and Kennedy from my home state of Massachusetts.

Where do your Representatives and Senators stand?

Republicans Lieberman and Graham to Block Torture Evidence

Republicans Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham vowed to block torture evidence by “any means necessary” (HuffPost).

Wonder if they’d resort to torture?

Against Institutionalized Child Abuse

We live in a sick, twisted world. Sometimes it is too much. This is one of those times (via Jesus’ General).

These places need to be shut the fuck down.

The Compelled Birth Movement

I get email! A reader (Liz) took issue with my post “The Problem With Calling Abortion Murder“.

Useful Spam Comments

I’m not sure what to do with these.  Three comments by people who clearly read my post, and who are just as clearly simply responding to my blog because the word “fitness” is in the title.  I want to reiterate my comment policy on spam:

Spam comments in the past, if applicable to the post, have had the spam links removed and the comments allowed.  Now, all spam comments will simply be blocked.  Period.

If I approve a useful comment from a spammer who took the trouble to read and respond to a post, then akismet will then allow that person to continue to comment.  So even if I remove the spam links, they might add more comments later with links to sketchy sites.  I don’t have time to police this blog.  So the rule is, if you spam, you are blocked.  And by blocked I mean I click “spam” on the helpful little akismet interface.

Health Insurance Denied

I’ve been denied health care coverage (Blue Cross and Celtic), for the crime of having prior conditions.  It is therefore with bitter attachment I watch our government fight over health care reform.  If they wanted to, Republicans and Democrats could join together and pass a simple bill: Insurers should not be allowed to pick and choose who they cover.  They won’t.  They will bicker, grand stand and attach riders to bills and – in the end – fail to take decisive action.

I’m not in the mood to hear bullshit supporting the privilege of insurance companies to discriminate over the rights of individuals to affordable medical care.  The truth is that in any other industrialized nation this would not be an issue: It damn hell shouldn’t be in ours.

I have COBRA for a while longer, but its very expensive and the coverage isn’t that great.  Then I’m not sure what I’ll do.

The only thing I know I can do is stand with the President and fight, and hope he makes this a priority.  Hope everyone in congress makes this a priority.

In the meantime I’m left wondering how so many Senators and Representatives could care so little about the value of human life that they would rather defend the profit margins of insurance corporations than ensure their constituents are allowed medical care.

Please join me in making Health Care Reform a priority.

Question for Randall Terry

Randall Terry,

Since you are effectively endorsing murder, if someone kills you will you have reaped what you’ve sown?

Or just maybe, will a fucking crime have been committed?

I disagree with you strongly, but I will never, ever advocate violence against you. That’s a key difference of character between us. And I feel for the family still grieving over George Tiller’s murder at the hands of a deviant, evil man. And I feel for the family of whoever else takes you at your word and decides to commit murder for the darkly ironic pro-life movement.

Traffic Tickets vs Life

A Police Officer in Paden, OK pulled over an ambulance with a patient inside to issue a traffic citation (Huffington Post).

WTF?

Despite being told that the woman in the ambulance needed to get to the hospital, the trooper insisted that one of the paramedics be detained in his car. When he tried to handcuff a paramedic, a fight ensued, which was filmed by the husband of the patient.

What happened to priorities?

The Problem With Calling Abortion Murder

Let’s say I said administrators at a school were routinely picking out high school students teachers didn’t like, and killing them.  Let’s say in addition, they had the full complicity of our legal system.  Would you be in the streets protesting?  Would you be writing articles or blog posts?  Or would you be in that school trying to rescue the kids, and shooting the administrators?

The problem with lying and calling abortion murder is that it leads directly to shit like this: An abortion provider was shot to death in Kansas.

Make no mistake about it, calling abortion murder is a lie.  One that anti-choice activists do not believe:

Opposing Gay Marriage in a Recession

One of the best arguments against Gay Marriage I’ve heard from Rob Thomas (emphasis mine):

Still, I’m amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion.

I had not thought of that angle.  What does it say about those pouring money into opposing gay marriage, during a recession, that they’d rather prevent people from enjoying equal rights than reach out to the poor and the meek and help those in need?

As an added bonus, he adds:

Isn’t it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone’s basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

Amen.

One of thehttp://melinda.toomojo.com/

Why Sotomayor is the Perfect Obama Nominee

In an excellent post one 10 Things You Should Know (about Sotomayor), number 7 is quite revealing (Huffington Post):

Sotomayor’s record on two key hot button cultural issues is thin. But, quite notably, her sole opinion regarding abortion was in line with the anti-abortion movement’s position.

…

That said, pro-choice groups hailed her nomination, with Planned Parenthood declaring that she “understands the importance of ensuring that our Supreme Court justices respect precedent while also protecting our civil liberties.”

What?  Her one ruling is anti-choice, and pro-choicers are supporting her?

Sotomayor has also not ruled on any cases involving gay civil rights, but gay legal activists described her positively

Does this remind anyone of the early supporters of Obama?  Who said he was amazing yet avoided specifics?

Sonia Sotomayor does have a plus, she has an incredibly impressive about of judicial experience.  But the broad bipartisan support she has enjoyed thus far, along with her relative silence in a long career on key social issues, leaves me wondering whether Obama is simply going to replace retiring justices with centrists.  I wonder why Democrats are excited by Sotomayor when I read something like this:

Additionally, the White House points out, “Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time.”

That’s staggering!  With “centrists” like that on a court staffed with die hard conservatives appointed by Bush, what impact will that have on laws in this country for years to come?

Mitt Romney Doesn’t Understand the Courts

Mitt Romney’s weak attack on Sotomayer shows a startling failure to understand her statement or our judicial system.  And this guy wanted to be President?!

Romney said (via CNN):

“The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary. Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place “where policy is made,” as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy.”

Her comment in full context (emphasis mine):

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made,” she said, laughing a bit through the next part: “And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I know.”

The thing is, she’s right (Huffington Post):

“She’s not wrong,” said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. “Of course they make policy… You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.”

As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court — itself a court of appeals — involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. “There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior,” he noted. “So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy.”

What Sotomayor was doing was acknowledging a reality of our current legal system.  She wasn’t advocating for it.  That’s a pretty important distinction Mitt Romney failed to grasp.

Obama’s GM Gaffe

Obama’s strong words on GM may come back to bite him (BBC):

“Our auto industry is the foundation for economies all across the Midwest,” Mr Obama said.

“Had we allowed GM or Chrysler simply to liquidate that would have been a huge anti-stimulus on the economy as a whole, and could have dragged us even deeper into recession or even depression.”

Now its looking like GM will go bankrupt after all (Huffington Post).

Both GM and Chrysler are in danger of liquidation.  Their loss will be terrible, and it will hurt the economies of the midwest, surely.  But a depression?  That’s on par with Biden’s stay off planes and trains gaffe.  Since the so called invisible hand of the market seems to be driven largely by fear or greed, Obama’s heightened rhetorical flourish may come at an unfortunate cost:  the realization that economic prophecies are self-fulfilling.  Let’s hope not.

Traveling Food

The past two weeks were spent in Davis CA, San Francisco CA, and Chicago CA.  On my journeys I tried out my new camera phone whenever I ate someplace delicious.  So I have a few random shots to share!

So here comes some food blogging:

Andrew Sullivan: Shutting Down Discourse

If there is one thing I hate more than watching journalists cook up weak or phony examples of left wing wrong doing to “balance” their stories, its when those journalists use that nonsense to attempt to shut down discourse. Andrew Sullivan is a choice exemplar. He gives his Moore award to Sara Robinson for her insightful post about possible reactions to the prop8 ruling.  Sullivan was attempting to dismiss this particular section (emphasis mine):

In the worst case, this decision could become the catalyst for a new round of large-scale domestic terrorism from the right. As I’ve noted, everything I’m seeing points to a subculture that is gearing up for this kind of heroic last stand in defense of a lost cause. And this time, it’s not going to be just a few white supremacist/militia/patriot/anti-choice wackos. The new crop of right wing militants is better connected, better trained, better armed, and absolutely determined to go down fighting. And, as the SPLC keeps telling us, there may considerably more people motivated to support them than there have been in the past. It’s not unthinkable that between 15 and 20% of the country could be inclined to start — or at least support — a civil war over this,

As Sara sharply notes, Andrew had trouble understanding those first 4 words.  Sara explains them for him gently.

What I take issue with is not Andrew Sullivan’s base need to “tsk tsk” a leftwing blogger.  Its that the effect is to de-legitimize extremely useful analysis and criticism.  Prop8 was upheld, but we have every reason to believe it will be crushed when Californian’s return to the polls.  Voters will be resentful of being a hate state, mindful of the dollars a gay-unfriendly public stance could cost them, and angrily aware of massive amounts of out of state financial and religious influence directed their state laws and rights.  Homophobes and theocrats are going down come 2010.

Which is why Mr Sullivan ought to be paying attention to Sara Robinson’s advice:

Most of yesterday’s piece focused on some very specific, well-supported reasons that I think the gay community should question their complacency. It also included a most-likely scenario (assuming the court rules against Prop 8, which is in itself not a most-likely scenario), which is that a few far-right whack jobs around the country would use the event as an excuse for a fresh round of gay-bashing. We might see another Matthew Shepherd, or another Knoxville. Or two or three. And wise people should at least prepare themselves for that possibility.

There’s nothing particularly outrageous or over-the-top about this claim: this stuff happens fairly regularly in America, as I think even Sully would agree. There’s always been that 2-3% of the population who are implacably and militantly on the political extremes, who aren’t burdened by the same social braking systems the rest of us came equipped with, and who are prepared to act out violently if provoked.  I simply pointed out that overturning Prop 8 is the most perfect imaginable example of the kind of event that might provoke them.

Homophobia is on the way out, and some among the pathetic, the ignorant, the fearful and the violent may lash out.  It is essential that we allow ourselves to be aware of this, and develop strategies for stopping potential violence.  We need to make clear in no uncertain terms that whatever heaven the crazies think they are protecting, when they stoop to violence they are only inviting hell.  We need to reach out to religious communities – who in no way would want to be associated with that violence – and ask them to take active steps to ensure their worshippers understand the difference between peaceful and violent opposition.  That starts with taking the potential for violence seriously and not downplaying the people who are skilled and intelligent enough to see the warning signs and sound a wake up call.