Surprise! Women Are Working. Who Knew?

Breadwinner Moms? Who knew?  The Pew Social and Demographic Trends research finds 40.4% of American families have both adults working.  Predictably, the American Family Association decries the trend observing that women are “designed to serve their husbands.”  This, in addition to:

“Lou Dobbs on the May 29 edition of his Fox Business show Lou Dobbs Tonight hosted a panel of all men — Fox contributors Juan Williams, Erick Erickson, and Doug Schoen — to discuss the study. On this panel, Erickson reacted to Pew’s research by comparing the relationship between men and women to the relationship between male and female animals, concluding that men losing their dominant role in the family is “tearing us apart.” [MMFA]

Really? Now where was all this concern for “family values” when enslaved women were hoeing fields in the American south?

“Of course, the burdens, physical as well as psychological, that came with childbearing were enormous for enslaved women. Expected to put the needs of the master and his family before her own children, the slave mother on a large plantation returned to the fields soon after giving birth, leaving her child to be raised by others. On a smaller farm, the slave’s mothering responsibilities were simply added on top of her usual duties. For the love of their children, slave mothers often chose to stay in bondage, while their male counterparts attempted escape. The female slave was, moreover, faced with the prospect of being forced into sexual relationships for the purposes of reproduction. Perhaps more harrowing, she might be witness to her daughters suffering the same fate.” [PBS]

Oh, but that was so long ago — we should all “get over it?”  Times were different.  They certainly were.  However, while white women were considered too delicate to be exposed to “man talk,” and indeed too fragile to mention body parts, the Black woman was supposed to face a day’s grueling work in the field and then attend to her responsibilities as a house wife.  If this is the ‘traditional’ perspective on marriage and family life, then it was certainly highly selective.

Or, where were the cries of alarm for the American Family when by 1900 Black women and immigrant women dominated the numbers of those In Service.  The mistress of the house could breeze through the living quarters issuing  orders, demand that beds be made to perfection, that food be served on time, that fires be lit or laid up, that washing be completed, ironing and sewing be finished, and by the way they’d like hot water packed upstairs for bathing… that would be at 8.34 pounds per gallon.  For a Victorian era child’s large bath tub that would mean filling a container with a capacity of about  6,032 cubic inches — half full would equal 3,016 cubic inches at 231 cubic inches per gallon.

The attitude which supported the abuse of enslaved women could as easily justify the misuse of servants.  Fragile, ethereal, white women must be protected — Black women, immigrant women were beasts of burden.

Harriet Stanton Blatch’s speech to a convention in Washington, D.C. in 1898 summed up the problem for women in the workplace:

“We have never been “supported” by men; for if all men labored hard every hour of the twenty-four, they could not do all the work of the world. A few worthless women there are, but even they are not so much supported by the men of their family as by the overwork of the “sweated” women at the other end of the social ladder. From creation’s dawn. our sex has done its full share of the world’s work; sometimes we have been paid for it, but oftener not.”

A few years later (1911) women — mostly immigrant women from Germany, Hungary, Russia, and Italy — were the victims of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in New  York.  It was the most deadly factory fire in memory, and launched workplace safety standards in this country.  The wage scale didn’t match the sacrifice:

“But you see hours didn’t change. The hours remained, no matter how much you got. The operators, their average wage, as I recall – because two of my sisters worked there – they averaged around six, seven dollars a week. If you were very fast – because they worked piece work – if you were very fast and nothing happened to your machine, no breakage or anything, you could make around ten dollars a week. But most of them, as I remember – and I do remember them very well – they averaged about seven dollars a week. Now the collars are the skilled men in the trade. Twelve dollars was the maximum. ” [GMU edu]

It’s 2013, and women are still paid on average 75% of what their male counterparts are earning.   Working women are “tearing us apart?”  Who tore apart the families of those Africans placed in bondage? Who expected those Black and immigrant women to work full time cooking meals, doing housework, tending to children, and doing the scullery work — and then return at night to repeat the process in their own homes?  Who turned immigrant apartments in tenement buildings into piece work factories for various industrial sectors?  Who expected the girls at the shirtwaist factory to place their lives in peril for seven dollars a week?

If the “dominant role” for men is predicated on his performance as Master of His Domain (while his privileged wife orders the servants around) then this is indeed a thin bollard on which to moor social values.

If the “dominant role” for men is grounded upon differentiating between women of color, or working women, from  his view of his own spouse as the “nest builder,” then the class-ist, racist, perspective is entirely too visible.

 

Branding Women

That GOP rebranding effort is made all the more difficult by Republicans at various levels of government who are getting in their own way.  The problems are visible in economic issues, as well as social ones.

Home Economics

H.R. 377, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is currently stalled in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and there’s a discharge petition to blast it back into consideration on the House Floor.  Representative Dina Titus (D-NV1) and Representative Steven Horsford (D-NV4) have signed the petition, as have another 191 members of Congress as of Thursday, April 25, 2013.  Noticeably absent are the signatures of Nevada Representatives Heck and Amodei, both Republicans.

The bill simply states that wage rate differentials are to be based on experience, education, and training — not merely on gender.  It also provides for collecting statistics on employment and the publication of the data.   The part which usually causes groans, moans, and predictable grimaces from Republicans might be:

Revises the prohibition against employer retaliation for employee complaints. Prohibits retaliation for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing the wages of the employee or another employee in response to a complaint or charge, or in furtherance of a sex discrimination investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action, or an investigation conducted by the employer.

Makes employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for either compensatory or (except for the federal government) punitive damages.  [CRS]

The standard GOP response to these kinds of provisions is (1) The Trial Lawyers are Coming, The Trial Lawyers are Coming; and, (2) Onerous Government Infringements on Your Liberty! Your Freedom! Both are nonsense.

The problem isn’t anything new; consider this from 2010:

Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones.

This has economic implications for 50.8% of the American population, or 49.5% of the Nevada population — women.  It also has evident connections to Nevada’s median household income ($55,553) in which the female’s contribution to household revenue is, on average, worth about 75 cents of every dollar contributed by the male partner.   IF members of the Republican Party are serious about improving the micro-economics of the average Nevada home, then insuring pay equity would be a good place to start.  The Discharge Petition needs 218 signatures to reach the floor — the ‘John Hancocks’ of Congressmen Heck and Amodei would be helpful.

Home Not-S0-Sweet-Home

Under the convenient rhetoric of “Liberty” and “Big Government,” lie some inconvenient attitudes on display from various levels of Republican leadership.

It’s Big Government if gender pay equity solutions are under discussion. However, it’s perfectly acceptable to allow government intrusion into private family decisions like contraception and birth control.  Heaven Forefend, a family should debate abortion options in private!   The Republican Party seems to have no problems at all when it comes to calling in the Big Government to prohibit abortion procedures.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a Fetal Personhood Bill, S. 583, on March 14, 2013, under the terms of which a fetus would have 14th Amendment rights.  As noted previously, could a fetus decide that the economic circumstances of the family to which it was about to be born were insufficient for its grand plans and sue for emancipation?  Personally, I would like to see a fetus challenge Citizens United.

Anti-Choice bills have also been introduced by Representative Diane Black (R-TN) HR 940 and HR 217;  by Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) HR 447;  Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) HR 732; Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) HR 61; Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) HR 1091; Senator David Vitter (R-LA) S. 138;  Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) HR 1122;  Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) HR 23; Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK) S. 154; Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) S. 356;  and the list goes on.

Anyone operating on the comforting delusion that the newly formed 113th Congress will be less focused on anti-choice legislation and more intent on JOBS and bills to improve the economic situation of American families will be sorely disappointed.

The GOP still hasn’t quite found its footing on Women’s Issues.  Perhaps this could be because it hasn’t quieted those voices within it ranks for whom women are variously mobile wombs, ranting radicals, or irresponsible sows at the public trough.

Leading GOP spokesperson Rush Limbaugh’s memorable misogynistic rants in regard to Sandra Fluke’s testimony on behalf of women who need contraceptive medication to avoid complications of ovarian disorders are echoed by an Albuquerque Republican who called a minimum wage increase advocate “names” on social media — and who later said (a lá Limbaugh) he was “just joking.” [ABJ] [TP]

Opposed to sexual violence, and want to “Take Back The Night?” Then expect some moron, such as the notable example in Arizona, who preaches that “Women Are Asking For It.” [TP] At Dartmouth sexual assault protesters were threatened with rape.  [TP] Or, call for police assistance too often to report domestic violence?  You could be facing a police department pressuring your landlord to evict you.  [TP]  Had enough of hearing about Steubenville, OH? There’s a new example from Michigan. [TP]  There’s a thread running through all these unfortunate incidents.

Women are undeserving of full consideration as human beings.  They are responsible for the exercise of male transgressions.  They are prey for the predators and it’s the woman’s fault if…if almost anything.  It’s a woman’s fault if a man is unsatisfied…in nearly all realms of human endeavor.   Can’t establish a meaningful long term relationship with the fair sex? Blame the Femi-Nazis?  Can’t get and hold a job? Blame the radical feminists for demanding employment?  Can’t understand the point a person is making about medical conditions or employment situations?  Call names! Like, “Radical Bitch.”  Want a simplistic solution to the complex personal issues involved in family planning? Just rail about abortion.

So long as Congress turns its attention to abortion more often than it does to women’s health, as long as radio ranters validate the misogyny of the disgruntled, so long as corporate interests can insert their anti-labor message into the parlance of economic discussions of wage rate equity — we will have trouble addressing the problems facing American families.  The GOP is still branding women, instead of rebranding their own party.

Madness in March

** Nevada’s own Sin City Siren has an outstanding Bracket, created especially for those who are interested in seeing how state and localities across this country are competing to see which can have the most regressive, reactionary, and repugnant statutes limiting the rights of women to make their own decisions (as in Small Government?).   Do click over and copy the brackets, and then share them with family and friends!

** The Nevada Progressive updates information about the continuing Soap Operas which are the lives of former Mega-Lobbyist Harvey Whittemore and the ever charming but perhaps a shade duplicitous Heidi Gansert.  Steve Sebelius added another page to the continuing drama that is Assemblyman Steven Brooks (D-NLV).  For the video version, see Ralston Reports.

*** The Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus reprints a good piece from Jim Hightower on how the GOP wants to transform Medicare into “We Don’t Care.”  For a refresher course in how Republicans have the wrong end of the stick on the Medicare issue, consult this March 10th post in Perrspectives:  In Five Charts. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-LoonyTunes) should get more exercise dodging questions from reporters about how she substantiates her claims on the floor of the House that the Affordable Care Act “kills people.” [ThinkProg]  For those in the fact based universe:

While the main coverage expansion provisions will go into effect in 2014, the ACA has so far saved seniors over $6 billion on prescription drugs, reduced administrative overhead, deterred private insurers from requesting double digit premium increases, kept millions of young people on their parents’ health care plans, and provided 34.1 million people with Medicare preventive services without additional cost-sharing. [ThinkProg]

*** And, if we thought the continuing Management by Crisis thing was over in House Republican quarters — here comes Speaker John Boehner with the Demand, (Demand I say), that every dollar increase in the debt ceiling (The Debt Ceiling I say) will “require a dollar in spending cuts.”  Another day, another manufactured crisis.   Before one gets too hysterical about The Great Big Debt Crisis — read “Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor Are Trying To Con You Into Paying Their Debts. “

*** Things we could be talking about if it weren’t for the manufactured debt “crisis” compliments of the GOP majority in the House of Representatives:

(1) The report that nearly two out of three hate crimes committed in this country goes unreported. [The Grio]

(2) The filibuster of Richard Cordray’s nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [TPM]  Of District Court nominee Elissa Cadish, who withdrew her nomination after Senator Dean Heller (R-NRA and Shooting Sports Foundation) questioned her bona fides on the unrestricted and unlimited right to pack shoulder firing missile launchers as prescribed in the 2nd Amendment. [Bloomberg] Or, the filibuster of Appeals Court nominee Caitlin Halligan, who had the temerity to do her job and participate in a lawsuit of behalf of the City of New York in a lawsuit again gun manufacturers. [Bloomberg]  Or the hold placed on the nomination of Scott C. Doney, to head the NOAA — Mr. Doney relinquished his nomination. [NOLA] Or, Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO, and Tobacco Industry) placing a hold on the nomination of Gina McCarthy to head the EPA, because he has a problem with levee plans, which is interesting because McCarthy’s area of expertise is “fuel efficiency” and clean air administration. [LAT]  Here’s the list of nominations pending in Senate Committees.   Two days ago Bloomberg News oped asked “Are Republicans  Abusing the Filibuster?”  the answer still looks like YES.

***  Perhaps we could even be paying more attention to the latest report card release from the American Society of Civil Engineers on our nation’s infrastructure — hey! we’re up to a D+ now.  But, why worry — Nevada only needs about $2.7 billion to maintain and upgrade our drinking water delivery systems, another $2.9 billion to deal with our sewage; while we have 149 high hazard dams, and 40 structurally deficient bridges.  [ASCE]  Maybe we’re waiting for our kids and grandkids to pick up the bills?

A Tenth of the Sense: VAWA and the Radicals

Congressional opposition to the Violence Against Women Act comes clad in the patriarchal toga of a radical interpretation of the 10th Amendment.  The traditional Roman 20 feet of woolen cloth draped over the tunic is surely sufficient to cloak the misogyny which might be a factor for some members of the 113th Congress.  However,  it is now, and always has been a minority view and no amount of high flying rhetoric (or cable news air time) can make it more than what it’s always been — a convenient cover for “State’s Rights.”

The Tenthers found their pseudo-philosophy on Madisonian fragments. “Their basis for ignoring the plain language of the Constitution is a statement by James Madison that federal spending is only really permitted when it advances one of Congress’ other enumerated powers, such as by building a post office or funding a war.” [Prospect]  However, the Tenther’s philosophical underpinning breaks down almost immediately, in the provisions of the “enumerated powers” section of the Constitution itself.  The closing lines of Article I, Section 8 (the enumeration of powers) provide Congress with the power:

“To make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the fore-going powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof.”

Mr. Madison may have wished for a State’s Rights emphasis in the Constitution, but he lost.  He may have wanted a founding document closer to the old Articles of Confederation, but his side did not prevail.   Further, when he did assume the Presidency of the United States whom did he appoint to the Supreme Court but Justice Story — a confirmed Hamiltonian Federalist.

If a secret decoder ring, tea leaves, crystal balls, and anachronistic projection aren’t enough to deconstruct the U.S. Constitution into a milk toast version of the Articles of Confederation, then what’s a Tenther to do?  There is an interesting crossing of ideas in the Tenther Theology — are they angry with “activist judges” who legislate from the bench — especially when they affirm provisions of the Violence Against Women Act — or do they want a Constitution so rigidly interpreted that neither Congress nor the Courts may legislate or confirm such legislation at all?

Government Shouldn’t Govern?

The Tenther Radicals make an assumption about governance which is profoundly antithetical to the notion of American progress.  If the legislation in question promotes privatization and individualism then it is Constitutional, if the legislation promotes the general welfare or secures common support for needs of significant categories of citizens then it is unconstitutional.   There are some significant historical examples to which we can refer.

Tenthers railed against the enactment of Social Security during the Depression as a “power grab” of the first water.  The transcripts of Senatorial debate are instructive, if somewhat tedious in detail, and illustrate the continuing discussion about the efficacy, efficiency, and constitutionality concerning this centerpiece of New Deal legislation.    Modern Tenthers seek to privatize the Social Security program under the rubric of “saving” it, or “strengthening” it, or “reforming” it.  However, each of the proposals actually set forth to accomplish this end result in Privatization.

Tenthers were appalled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.   The landmark modern civil rights case struck the Old South like lightning.  As Jim Crow Era laws were struck down, or legislated out of existence, the cry for State’s Rights (Tenth Amendment) increased.  The rallying cries may have changed from Segregation Now Segregation Forever, to No Affirmative Action; but, the voices are essentially the same.  Proscribed behavior, such as discriminating against people of color, women, and members of the LGBT community, has been reframed by white (and often male) dissenters to create a sense of victim-hood.   Thus, in the radical thinking of the Tenther camp if one is prevented from discriminating, or prevented from individual actions which could result in community harm, then the perpetrator becomes the erstwhile victim.

Victims and Victim-hood

The Tenthers have now reached toward the Violence Against Women Act and seek to fly their Over-reaching Power of Government banner against this statute.   It should be noted that the 2000 U.S. v. Morrison case to which they often refer, did rule against using the Commerce Clause as a foundation for VAWA, but left the essential features  of the legislation intact.   It is certainly better optics to argue against the VAWA authorization as “unconstitutional” as opposed to standing on the floor of the House or Senate maintaining that the Rule of Thumb (you can’t beat your wife with a piece of lumber of greater circumference than your thumb) should be the law of the land.  Here, again, we find the “victim-hood” revision.

“Claiming that the reauthorization would expand the definition of domestic violence to include “emotional distress,” Heritage declared that the “expansive and vague language will increase fraud and false allegations, for which there is no legal recourse.”

“Under VAWA, men effectively lose their constitutional rights to due process, presumption of innocence, equal treatment under the law, the right to a fair trial and to confront one’s accusers, the right to bear arms, and all custody/visitation rights,” the group wrote. “It is unprecedented, unnecessary and dangerous.” [TPM]

Lo, the poor wife beaters?  Those who psychologically damage their victims could be the “victims” of false allegations?  With no legal recourse?  In the instance of rape the best statistics indicate a false report rate of approximately 8%.  [Slate]  This is why we have prosecutors and trials.  Those instances in which the crime was not completed are classified as assaults, and those which are completed, but without substantiation or conviction aren’t counted.  Juries are the finders of fact. No fact. Probably no prosecution. No conviction.

What the Conservatives appear to be lamenting is not the false allegation, but the ramifications of being convicted of domestic violence.  Does anyone seriously believe that a man or woman who is convicted of an act of domestic violence should be able to “visit” the family he or she has just brutalized?  The statistics on gun violence add another layer:

“Although firearms are used in a relatively small percentage of domestic violence incidents, when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide. Congress, recognizing the unique and deadly role firearms play in domestic violence passed the Protective Order Gun Ban in 1994. The law prohibits gun possession by a person against whom there is a restraining or protective order for domestic violence. In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, which prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun.” [VPC]

If one has already threatened the family with a baseball bat, knife, or other any other weapon — are the conservatives arguing that the person should have the “right” to escalate the violence by adding in a few firearms?

Another conservative outlet, Freedom Works lamented:

“The newest version of the VAWA, S.47, contains very vague and broad definitions of domestic violence,” the organization wrote. “A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. Calling your spouse a mean name is not advised or polite, but it isn’t the same thing as violence towards her.”

Really?  What would we call a person who shouts vile epithets at a partner every day for a year? A person who uses offensive language, especially in front of children, at top voice (or drunken slur) for weeks on end is “impolite?”  Stalking a domestic partner is “not advisable?”   If the behavior is sufficiently abusive to cause a person to get a restraining order, then is it not “violent?”

One legal authority describes the effects as a component of verbal abuse as follows:

“Perpetrators of verbal abuse often misuse their authority and prey on those in a subordinate position. Victims of verbal abuse are often told they are to blame for the abuser’s behavior and reluctant to take action to end the abuse. Verbal abuse may lead to stress, depression, physical ailments, and other damage.” [USLegal]

So, by the lights of the conservative opponents, abuse which leads to stress, depression, physical ailments and other damage, isn’t really violent?  Must the victim be physically injured? Must the injury require bone setting, or will a few stitches be enough?  Must the injury be permanent? Scarring?  How much blood must be on the floor before the opponents of VAWA are satisfied?

How many women or domestic partners must be subjected to domestic violence before the federal government can assist state and local police with funding for domestic violence training and support programs?  Are the Tenthers arguing that the federal government has no role to play in the following state and local programs?

“VAWA, FVPSA, and VOCA funding support domestic violence shelters, law enforcement, courts, rape crisis centers, children’s services, prevention, community outreach, and other state and local programs that provide services for victims and families.  These programs have made significant progress towards ending domestic and sexual violence.  Statistics show a significant decline in domestic violence since VAWA was first enacted in 1994.  In addition to saving lives, VAWA, FVPSA, and VOCA save money by reducing future violence and other related social costs.” [NNEDV]

What the Tenthers are essentially telling victims of domestic violence is that the Federal government exceeds its constitutional authority when it assists states and local governments with violence prevention programs, with law enforcement efforts, with community outreach and educational programs, and with shelters for abuse victims.  This is not a usurpation of state and local authority, but a collaborative effort to end a scourge perpetrated by those who mis-use and abuse their authority over others, and who prey on those in subordinate positions.

The Tenthers have no substantial legal or constitutional argument to make, they have an unfortunate history of using their radical theory to perpetuate some of the more egregious practices and traditions in American life, and they are now clutching their togas and seeking to hide a misogynistic agenda beneath the folds of a document which begins with “WE the people.”

Passing VAWA…again

S. 47, the Senate bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act is sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 59 co-sponsors, including Nevada Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Dean Heller (R-NV).  Votes are expected sometime after 2:00 pm (Eastern) this Tuesday.

Title IX, section 204 is of particular interest to Native American victims of domestic violence.

“(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to all powers of self-government recognized and affirmed by sections 201 and 203, the powers of self-government of a participating tribe include the inherent power of that tribe, which is hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons. (2) CONCURRENT JURISDICTION- The exercise of special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction by a participating tribe shall be concurrent with the jurisdiction of the United States, of a State, or of both.”

There are two exceptions to this jurisdictional framework: If the persons involved are not Native Americans, or if the defendant has no ties to the tribe.

This version of the bill has been modified since the last session:

“The Senate version has been tweaked from the version considered last year, with sponsors scuttling a provision on law-enforcement visas given to undocumented immigrants who’ve been the victim of domestic violence. Democrats did this for procedural reasons — it gives the House fewer excuses to ignore the bill — and expect to address this in a comprehensive immigration reform bill, so the issue isn’t being dropped altogether.

VAWA supporters in the Senate did not, however, get rid of LGBT provisions or a measure that extends tribal courts limited jurisdiction to oversee domestic violence offenses committed against Native American women by non-Native American men on tribal land.

House Republicans have balked at these provisions in the past, but at least for now, senators don’t care.”  [MSNBC blog]

Now it will be up to the House of Representatives to step up and do the right thing.

Things that could get me to toss confetti in 2013

There are things that could get me to toss confetti for 2013.   Not many, mind you, which would justify the consequent vacuuming, but a goodly handful.

#1. The Senate of the United States of America does something constructive with the FILIBUSTER rule.   The original rule was intended to prevent the willful trampling of minority points of view, but the abuse of the rule is now part of the clichéd “Washington Gridlock.”  There is a delicate balance between Majority Rule and Minority Rights, but Obstruction for its own sake is not a laudable occupation.

#2. The Republicans in the House of Representatives eschew the  Hastert Rule , under which a majority of the majority party caucus must agree to the passage of a bill before a vote can be taken on the House floor.  This might have been a lovely idea if the current majority party caucus weren’t the replication of that other cliché– a wheelbarrow load of frogs.  Governance requires compromise, and compromise demands the admission that we don’t always get everything we want.  Ideological posturing is not a substitute for principled discourse.

#3.  Someone in a position to do something about it finally figures out that arguments over raising the debt ceiling are academic at best and consummately silly at worst — rather like announcing that because I overspent my budget for this holiday season I’m going to chop up my credit cards and not pay the bills.  Aside from being the most fiscally irresponsible action imaginable, it’s also a manifestation of the idea that the full faith and credit of the United States is some kind of bargaining chip in ideological squabbling.

#4. The National Rifle Association (aka No Rational Argument) stops pretending to care about the right of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and honestly announces that its ultimate intention is to promote the sale of as many firearms as its manufacturing donors can create.  After that, it should be far easier to discuss comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and banning military style assault weapons.

#5. More people, perhaps even more people in the national media, stop referring to “The” government and start calling it what it is — OUR government.   “The” government calls to mind the institution which cracks down on Moonshiners, or enforces school integration, or ignores calls to make Jefferson Davis’s birthday a national holiday.  “The” government didn’t decide to integrate public schools — “our” government did. “The” government didn’t decide to enact regulations to prevent air and water pollution — “our” government did.  And, “The” government didn’t create the Food Stamp (SNAP) program — “our” government did that.  And so it goes.  Continual references to “The” government is an unfortunate holdover from the Reaganesque caricature of government designed to promote the financial health of the economic elite by appealing to the discontent with those laws “our” government enacted to promote OUR general welfare.

#6. Our representatives on Capitol Hill learn to say “____ isn’t the end of the world as we know it.”  I could do with a great deal less hysterical hyperbole.  “This is the Largest Tax Increase In The History of the Universe!”  Probably not.  “This is the worst violation of human rights ever!” Probably not that either.  “This will create the worst calamity known to man.” Probably not.  “This will destroy our ____.”  Again, probably not.  Excuse me while I chuckle at the pomposity of this meaningless prognostication.

#7.  Journalists who seek to inform me via the television set prove to be (1) knowledgeable about the subject under discussion, and (2) include fact checking as part of the “context” of which they speak so often.  If a statement made by a politician is factually inaccurate, they will tell me; and I hope they’ll be able to offer a correction.  I really don’t care if they are correcting the record in the wake of Left Wing Larry or Right Wing Richard’s pontification.  The object of the exercise should be to impart accurate information so far as it can be known — I can get my “entertainment” elsewhere.  Bluntly, the “he said, she said, and then he said” reactions from professional chatterati or elected representatives is less entertaining than a good professional wrestling match, which at least has the grace to admit it’s a scripted farce.

#8. Somebody finally declares the Culture Wars over and done with.  Our contemporary version appears to incorporate a toxic dose of good old fashioned misogyny.  Women make up about 51% of our population and telling them they cannot have an abortion (even in the cases of an ectopic pregnancy or as the result of a rape) is paternalistic to the core.  Worse still would be telling them that their employer can decide if their health insurance plan covers contraceptive medication.

#9.  On a related note, it really doesn’t do to blame God for everything.  I’d cheer the week that some blowhards weren’t showcased in the media for pronouncing God’s Wrath for … whatever.  Hurricane Katrina — God’s wrath for a Gay Pride gathering? Really?  God’s wrath because we don’t pray hard enough?  That certainly doesn’t explain the attack on congregants in the Knoxville Unitarian church.  God’s Wrath because we don’t have organized  prayer in schools? Huh?  No one at Columbine High School, Platte County High School, Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech University, or Sandy Hook Elementary knew how to pray and practiced it regularly? Spare me the Westboro Wannabes who “know” the mind of God better than a six year old child.

#10.  The confetti will fly when we begin to have a serious discussion about global climate change without having to incorporate the phony “science” offered up by the fossil fuel industry.  No, there isn’t a “controversy” here. And, no reputable science deflects our responsibility as human beings for the contamination of which we are clearly capable.

Speaking of the Almighty, there’s an old story about the man caught in a flood which seems appropriate at the moment.  “Why, he cried out to God, am a trapped in these flood waters?”  The Almighty, sorely tired of listening to the wailing, said, “I sent you warnings.” “When?”  “When?” responded the Deity. “When indeed.” “I sent you warnings on the radio. You ignored me. I sent you warnings in television broadcasts, and you ignored me. I even sent a deputy sheriff to personally advise you to evacuate. And, you ignored him too.”  ….

We’ve been visited with major named storms, watched ice caps diminish, seen glaciers disappear… and all together too many people are ignoring the warnings.

VAWA: Jumping off the Racial Cliff?

Let me hear that part about the Congressional Republicans NOT being tainted with the stain of racism?  Let me hear the tautological complaint once again that accusing members of the Republican Party of racism is racism.  And, then let me hear why members of the Republican Caucus in the Congress of the United States of America aren’t taking action to extend the protections of the Violence Against Women Act to Native American women? What situation would prevent the Senate version of the bill from a quick passage?

Did you read this on the NRDC Blog?

“Today on Indian reservations, the local governments don’t have the ability to respond to domestic violence crimes in their community if the perpetrator isn’t Native. Without this ability, non-Native offenders often go unpunished on tribal land because the only ones who can bring them to justice are federal prosecutors who are often hundreds of miles away and lack local resources to properly investigate and prosecute these crimes. The result, according to a recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded report, the offenders become emboldened, and the violence escalates to rape and in some cases homicide. On some Indian reservations, the homicide rate of Native women is 10 times the national average.”  (emphasis in original)

This isn’t rocket science, it certainly isn’t the stuff of which neurology lectures are composed.  Local law enforcement officers don’t have jurisdiction on tribal lands and federal officers are (1) physically located some considerable distance from the localities, and (2) understaffed and under-resourced to enforce the law on tribal lands.   The situation was discussed here, in some detail.

We’ve also heard from Nevada 2nd District Congressman Mark Amodei:

“I heard from tribes in my district, including the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony Tribal Council, the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, and the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe about this issue and I can assure them that this bill would not only provide increased funding for federal law enforcement and prosecutors to pursue these cases, it would also empower Indian victims to seek protective orders in U.S. District Courts against abusers.”  [Amodei] (emphasis added) [Link]

So increased funding for federal law enforcement is the “answer” to the jurisdictional issue?  No.  And, seeking a protective order from the U.S. District Court in Reno is going to be convenient for assault victims in Duck Valley? No. Again.

So, why would Representatives like Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) resist giving tribal courts jurisdiction over crimes committed against Native American women on tribal lands?

“Cantor and other Republicans continue to stall the VAWA Reauthorization because of baseless constitutional concerns for those accused of abusing Native women.”  [NRDC] And, who are those accused of abusing Native women?  Who would be in this category, and not be subject to the jurisdiction of tribal courts?  Non-tribal people.

Of Representative Cantor, “…his staff has said they’re willing to try to come up with other solutions to responding to violence against women on tribal lands, as long as the solution doesn’t give tribes jurisdiction over the matter. But proponents of the Senate bill see the limited jurisdictional change as the only realistic way to address the problem.” (emphasis added) [HuffPo] What’s the problem?  The only logical conclusion a sentient person can reach is that Representative Cantor he doesn’t want to see white men hauled into tribal courts for assaulting Native American women.   Heaven forefend non-whites might have jurisdiction over white men?

Thus far, Representative Cantor and Representative Amodei seem to be on the same page — VAWA authorization would be just fine and dandy — BUT we can’t have non-white people facing justice in tribal courts.   And, the question does, indeed, drill right down to “protecting the rights” of non-Native rapists, as explained by Rep. Tom Cole (Chickasaw) R-OK:

“There are 535 members of Congress, and 534 of them could go on the Sioux Reservation, commit a crime, and not be subjected to local jurisdiction,” Cole added. “If I did it, though, I would be, because I’m an Indian. We trust tribes to have jurisdiction over Native Americans. As long as you give people the right to appeal, they ought to be subject to tribal jurisdiction.… Most American communities have local jurisdiction; Native Americans do not. It’s not right. I will vote with the Democrats on this if an amendment or recommit is offered. I hope we can get it done this year.” [Indian Country] (emphasis added)

OK, if “we” trust Native Americans to dispense justice to other Native Americans without comment or complaint, then why are the tribal courts — which must follow the same federal regulations regarding the rights of defendants as any other Section III courts — not to be trusted to dispense justice to non-Native people, most often men.

The answers are provided by a paper authored by Bethany Berger of Wayne State University and the University of Connecticut: (pdf)

“Federal Indian Law scholars agree that U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding tribal jurisdiction over non-members are not dictated by judicial precedent. I believe that these decisions are based instead on two assumptions:
• First, the justices assume that nonmembers will be placed at a disadvantage in tribal courts, which they portray as unfamiliar, biased, and ultimately inferior places. The justices, for example, repeatedly refer to “intrusions on personal liberties” if non-members are subject to tribal jurisdiction, the fact that nonmembers do not vote in tribal elections, that tribes are not fully bound by the U.S. Constitution, and that tribal law is “unfamiliar” and will be “unusually difficult for an outsider to sort out.”
• Second, the justices assume that jurisdiction over outsiders has little to do with tribal self-government, because tribal self-government only concerns things that the justices think of as “uniquely tribal,” such as hunting and fishing and traditional practices untouched by time. Taxation, zoning, criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians are all outside what the justices imagine really matters to tribes. In Strate v. A-1 Contractors, for example, the Court held that a tribe did not have jurisdiction over lawsuit arising from an accident on a highway running through the reservation saying that it was not crucial to tribal self government for the tribe to exercise  jurisdiction over a “commonplace state highway accident claim.” Tribal government, somehow, does not involve the “commonplace” stuff that all governments do.”

The first argument is not supported by the actual results of the actions of tribal courts.   So, local justice of the peace courts, or municipal courts, are “competent” but tribal courts are assumed to be “inferior,” “unfamiliar,” or “biased?”  Now, what kind of thinking could automatically revert to those assumptions?  The second argument is equally absurd.

It’s acceptable for tribal courts to do Indiany-Things like take care of Mother Earth, or to protect their hunting and fishing rights — like Native Americans don’t hold construction jobs and exceed the speed limit on highways through tribal areas.  But, Heaven Forbid they’d be interested in things like zoning, contract fulfillment, and child custody?  In short, they are assumed competent to  take care of Mother Earth but not their earthly mothers.

The non-Native man who assaults, batters, rapes or abuses a Native woman is a batterer, an abuser, and/or a rapist.  Think that doesn’t put a Native woman in a place that’s confusing? Unfamiliar? Unpleasant?  Evidently, the constant conservative complaint that we don’t pay enough attention to Victim’s Rights, doesn’t apply to Native women?  What else could explain the devotion of Representatives Cantor and Amodei to the rights of the defendants?

What indeed?

Alice Paul Wants You To Vote Today

Alice Paul would remind women all over the country to VOTE today.  The suffragette and several cohorts were arrested in July, 1917 and imprisoned for their campaign activities:

“The arrested suffragists were sent to Occoquan Workhouse, a prison in Virginia. Paul and her compatriots followed the English suffragette model and demanded to be treated as political prisoners and staged hunger strikes. Their demands were met with brutality as suffragists, including frail, older women, were beaten, pushed and thrown into cold,  unsanitary, and rat-infested cells.  Arrests continued and conditions at the prison deteriorated.  For staging hunger strikes, Paul and several other suffragists were forcibly fed in a tortuous method.  Prison officials removed Paul to a sanitarium in hopes of getting her declared insane.  When news of the prison conditions and hunger strikes became known, the press, some politicians, and the public began demanding the women’s release; sympathy for the prisoners brought many to support the cause of women’s suffrage.” [AlicePaul.Org]

If Paul and here cohorts could withstand the treatment in the prison, and endure incarceration to promote the vote for women in this country, surely standing in line — even for several hours — isn’t too much to ask to protect:

1. A woman’s right to have a say in her own reproductive health treatment.

2. A woman’s right to apply to the educational institution of her choice.

3. A woman’s right to get equal pay for equal work.

4. A woman’s right to be free of legal discrimination in cases of rape and domestic violence.

5. A woman’s right to be an equal participant in our political processes.

6. A woman’s right to be free from discrimination by health care providers and health care insurance corporations.

 

Mourdock and Heller: Closer Than You Think

Thus much for the “moderate persona.”

“News of disgraced Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s view that pregnancy resulting from rape is a “gift from God” spread across the country yesterday, but what Nevadans should know is that their own Republican Senate candidate Dean Heller stands shoulder to shoulder with Richard Mourdock.  Heller even started joint fundraising accounts with Mourdock and has received $107,000 from their joint fundraising efforts. ” (DSCC)

FEC reports show the following:

“Heller & Mourdock Were Both Members Of Two Joint Fundraising Committees. The campaigns of Dean Heller and Richard Mourdock were both members of two joint fundraising committees, the Founders’ Committee and the 2012 Senators Classic Committee. Founders’ Committee Transferred More Than $60,000 To Mourdock’s Senate Campaign & More Than $70,000 To Heller’s Campaign.

According to FEC records, the Founders’ Committee transferred $60,903.47 to Hoosiers For Richard Mourdock and a total of $70,293 to Dean Heller’s Senate campaign.  2012 Senators Classic Committee Transferred Nearly $40,000 To Mourdock’s Senate Campaign & More Than $37,000 To Heller’s Campaign.  According to FEC records, the 2012 Senators Classic Committee transferred $38,561 to Hoosiers For Richard Mourdock and a total of $37,259.16 to Dean Heller’s Senate campaign. “

This would make sense given than Senator Heller voted for the Blunt Amendment, voted twice against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and voted twice against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Again, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV1) is a far better choice for Nevada women.  Voter information located here.

No one could be that stupid? Could they? Updated

There are two notions, both dangerous, lurking in the 2012 election.  They are as alive and well in Nevada as they are in Florida, or any other “swing” state. They are both wrong.

The first is that the Republicans really truly wouldn’t think of doing something so idiotic as to actually transform the Medicare program from a defined benefit framework to a “coupon care” program in which seniors would have to beat through marketing bushes to find health insurance corporations willing to sell them policies.

The Medicare Malaise

Haven’t we been listening?  Republican have been trying to stop or privatize the Medicare program since 1964. [Politifact]  They called it “socialized medicine” then and they are still calling it “socialized medicine” now.  Fast forward to 2012 — the Ryan Budget Plan first called for transforming the Medicare program to a voucher (premium support) plan and later changed the plan to allow people to opt for the traditional program.

Tweaking the plans allows the GOP to rebuff charges that they are “eliminating” the Medicare program — however, what’s left after a significant number might opt for private insurance plans would be the least healthy and wealthy among us, making the traditional program all but unsustainable.

Secondly, the “option” idea so beloved by the Republicans is already available under the Medicare Advantage banner.  An elderly person can, and many do, purchase highly profitable  Medicare Advantage policies from private health insurance corporations.  By adopting the Romney/Ryan scheme the “choice” essentially moves from being able to chose between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans to being a “choice” between private health insurance corporation policy offerings in the long run.  The Romney/Ryan plan offers current seniors their choice between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage-like policies — but makes the choice much less likely and more expensive for those soon to reach retirement age.

Every election since 1964 has contained some Medicare element incorporated into the dialogue and the conversations have remained almost identical.  Medicare is either “socialized medicine,” or it’s a “government take over;” what hasn’t changed is the GOP intention to transform it into a so-called “free market” program to the benefit of health insurance corporations and their Wall Street allies.   This isn’t a line of attack they dreamed up for the 2012 elections. It IS the expressed intent of a party which appears to have fewer and fewer moderate members each election cycle.   Moderates who might have been counted upon to keep the transformation of Medicare at bay have been losing ground in the GOP.  The extremists who believe the Free Market Fairy will be able to sprinkle enough dust to justify privatization are the ones at the helm.

The extremists lead us to the second topic about which we should be listening more closely.

Are you listening ladies?

No one would be dumb enough to really call for a Personhood Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — would they?  They certainly would.  No one in this day and age would be arguing about “legitimate” rapes? Surely not. Oh, yes they are.

A Rape Is A Rape — Or is it?

“Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, said in a debate on Tuesday that “even when life begins with that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” [NBC]

“Trying to distance himself from the “legitimate rape” comment that Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) made last week, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith (R) stirred up further controversy by comparing a pregnancy caused by rape to “having a baby out of wedlock.”  [HuffPo]

“Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions.”  [OTB]

Missouri Senatorial candidate Todd Akin’s classic: “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” [Atl]

One major candidate making a fool of himself is an outlier, two is unfortunate, three is a trend — and four is an indicator that these candidates, all male and all Republican, have little regard for women’s health, and less regard for women’s choices.  This isn’t a recent bloom of this particularly nasty philosophical fungus.  Let’s return to October 2009.

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) sought to insert an amendment into the Defense Appropriation Act to prevent the government from doing business with contractors who would not allow employees to take rape cases to court 30 — yes, THIRTY — U.S. Senators voted No. [Sen 308]

Alexander (R-TN)  Barrasso (R-WY)  Bond (R-MO)  Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)  Burr (R-NC)  Chambliss (R-GA)  Coburn (R-OK)  Cochran (R-MS)  Corker (R-TN)  Cornyn (R-TX)  Crapo (R-ID)  DeMint (R-SC)  Ensign (R-NV)  Enzi (R-WY)  Graham (R-SC)  Gregg (R-NH)  Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)  Johanns (R-NE)  Kyl (R-AZ)  McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)  Risch (R-ID)  Roberts (R-KS)  Sessions (R-AL)  Shelby (R-AL)  Thune (R-SD)  Vitter (R-LA)  Wicker (R-MS)

What does it say about the Republican Party when four of its candidates for major offices in 2012 and thirty of its Senators in 2009 have medieval (or earlier) political stances on rape?  *The Franken Amendment passed and was signed into law — no thanks to the Dirty Thirty who opposed it.

What does it say about a political party when it controls the House of Representatives and passes 55 bills with topics running the gamut from de-funding Planned Parenthood to restricting abortion rights to weakening domestic violence provisions?  [TPM]

What does it say about a political party when its standard bearer’s campaign refused comment on the House Energy & Commerce minority report on “anti-women” bills was released in September?  Or, when its standard bearer can’t be relied upon to answer even a simple question about support or opposition to legislation calling for equal pay for equal work?

Sometimes the obvious is the honest.  Voting for the Republican candidates in 2012 is hazardous to women’s health — if they are elderly, or approaching retirement age and expect Medicare to be there for them.   It is just as hazardous if the woman in question is young and facing the prospect of diminished health care services like the loss of affordable treatment at Planned Parenthood clinics, or  if Republicans can repeal Obamacare and its provisions for cancer screenings.   It is truly hazardous to the health of women of child bearing age who having been raped must assume the cost of taking the pregnancy to term, and then bear the responsibility for raising the child — or the trauma of both the rape and the act of releasing the child for adoption.

Did it occur to the Republican candidates, who so easily dismiss the controversy about ill-informed or downright brutal remarks on rape and its potential consequences by saying they were “misunderstood,” that they’ve yet to offer any legislation dealing with the economic burden placed on the women under consideration?  Much less the social, and psychological burdens which must be carried for a lifetime?

If the comments made during this campaign season by major Republican candidates, and the actions of Republicans in the Senate, and the actions of the House of Representatives during the 112th Congress, aren’t enough to convince any sentient person that the GOP means what it says — there isn’t much more to speak of — until they actually do it.  And, they’re getting closer each election.

We’d all be much better off if this stops before we say — “I didn’t  think they’d really DO it.”

UPDATE: Think Progress helpfully adds more names to the roster of Republican candidates who share these antiquated and uninformed views:  Rep. Steve King, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, CT Senatorial Candidate Linda McMahon, PA Senatorial Candidate Tom Smith, WI State Rep. Roger Rivard, and OH State Rep. Jim Buchy.

See also: Sally Kohn, Salon, August 24, 2012.