Sleepy Caturday
Posted: April 14, 2012 Filed under: just because 44 Comments
Hi news junkies… I’ve been under the weather this week and having insurance hassles trying to get the meds I need… so here are a few quick links and then I’m going to go back under the covers.
- April 24th: Emily’s List honors Gabrielle Giffords.
- NY1Online: Kirsten Gillibrand Rips Romney on Women’s Issues
- Digital Journal, via Reader Supported News: Argentinian Farmers Suing Monsanto for ‘Poisoning’
- NPR: For Carole King, Songwriting Is A ‘Natural’ Talent
- Occupy.com, via Reader Supported News: A Housing Justice Movement Builds in Chicago
Also, I’d like to point you to a series of webcasts of the Dalai Lama over the next week or so… via the Dalai Lama facebook page:
There will be live webcasts of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s public talks and panel discussions during his visit to Hawaii and San Diego, USA, from April 14-19, 2012.
April 14th: Talk with Students – “Educating the Heart”
His Holiness the Dalai Lama will give a public talk entitled “Educating the Heart” and will discuss with Hawaii high school and college students the importance of practicing tolerance, perseverance, and persistence in everyday life at the University of Hawaii’s Stan Sheriff Center. Live webcast can be viewed from http://dalaila.ma/HzbQLE
Time: 1:45pm HAST (Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time)April 15th: Panel Discussion – “The Importance of Native Intelligence in Modern Times”
His Holiness will participate in a panel discussion with Native Hawaiian leaders on “The Importance of Native Intelligence in Modern Times” at the University of Hawaii’s East-West Center. This discussion is by invitation only but will be live webcast from http://dalaila.ma/HzbQLE
Time: 9:45am HAST (Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time)April 15th: Public Talk – “Advancing Peace through the Power of Aloha”
His Holiness will give a public talk entitled “Advancing Peace through the Power of Aloha” at the University of Hawaii’s Stan Sheriff Center. Live webcast can be viewed from http://dalaila.ma/HzbQLE
Time: 1:45pm HAST (Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time)April 18th: Panel Discussion – “The Global Impact of Climate Change”
His Holiness will take part in a panel discussion on “The Global Impact of Climate Change: Balance through Universal Responsibility, Compassion and Human Consciousness” at University of California, San Diego’s Rimac Arena. A live webcast will be available at http://uctv.tv/ on the day of the event
Time: 9:30am PDT (Pacific Daylight Time)April 18th: Public Talk – “Cultivating Peace and Justice
His Holiness will give a public talk entitled “Cultivating Peace and Justice” at the University of San Diego’s Jenny Craig Pavilion. A live webcast will be available at at http://www.sandiego.edu/dalailama/ on the day of the event.
Time: 1:30pm PDT (Pacific Daylight Time)April 19th: Public Talk – “Universal Ethics and Compassion in Challenging Times”
His Holiness will give a public talk entitled “Universal Ethics and Compassion in Challenging Times” at San Diego State University’s Viejas Arena. Live webcast will be available at http://sdsu.edu/ on the day of the event.
Time: 9:30-11:30am PDT (Pacific Daylight Time)
By: Dalai Lama
Alright, well Tag — You’re It! Please share what’s on your Saturday morning blogging list… I’m going back to bed!
An Immodest Proposal
Posted: April 13, 2012 Filed under: Voter Ignorance, War on Women, We are so F'd | Tags: infrastructure, Jonathan Alter, Paul Krugman 20 Comments
I’m spitting mad about the attacks on Hillary Rosen and the crocodile tears of folks like Rush Limbaugh and others that are trying to say that the war on women is really about evil feminists and real women. You’ll notice that most of this fabrication is coming from right wing men who have a lot to gain by reigniting the Mommy wars. Just follow this link to the WSJ op ed page and read how the real misogynists are Feminists. There is nothing more disingenuous that the rant that says feminists don’t support women and child rearing in what ever form that takes. Most feminists would love to see a situation more like Germany where the country actually supports extended parental leave for babies and toddlers and extends training and quality of day care providers and access to nursery school for all types of families. If this were really about how to do best by our children we would be having a completely different conversation. We would protect them better from abuse and give them and their parents the kind of support they need to be healthy, happy, and well-educated. This hoopla is only about splitting the women’s vote.
The heart of the argument needs to be aimed squarely back at the folks that are defunding everything from family planning, Planned Parenthood, Title X, preschools, school lunches, student loans and all things that support a functioning society. This includes public health and education structures more than anything else. Any mother–working a paying job or not–wants institutions in place that support her children. The real anti-family agenda is from people who do not support the basic structures of civilization. Folks that can’t write checks for tutors, nannies, preventative health care measures, prenatal services, childhood illness treatment, extra curricular activities and fancy schools and colleges rely on society recognizing the benefits of good health and education for its members. A decent society provides decent public goods. We pool our funds to benefit the economic security and health of our country. Our recent spending priorities have been wars, weapons, and subsidies to businesses that pollute, gamble, and abuse our resources. None of this is healthy for the future of our children.
These interests have now set up a cat fight between women to take our minds off the real problems. Feast your eyes on the Ryan Budget and you will see–as Paul Krugman puts it–who is cannibalizing our future and our families.
One general rule of modern politics is that the people who talk most about future generations — who go around solemnly declaring that we’re burdening our children with debt — are, in practice, the people most eager to sacrifice our future for short-term political gain. You can see that principle at work in the House Republican budget, which starts with dire warnings about the evils of deficits, then calls for tax cuts that would make the deficit even bigger, offset only by the claim to have a secret plan to make up for the revenue losses somehow or other.
And you can see it in the actions of Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, who talks loudly about acting responsibly but may actually be the least responsible governor the state has ever had.
Mr. Christie’s big move — the one that will define his record — was his unilateral decision back in 2010 to cancel work that was already under way on a new rail tunnel linking New Jersey with New York. At the time, Mr. Christie claimed that he was just being fiscally responsible, while critics said that he had canceled the project just so he could raid it for funds.
Now the independent Government Accountability Office has weighed in with a report on the controversy, and it confirms everything the critics were saying.
Chris Christie lied on a project that would shorten commutes, provide jobs, and basically create a better situation for families in the northeast corridor. I have only to ask why? Well, if you take a look at the Ryan Budget and the Norquist mentality, the deal is that most of these folks don’t want the community and its families to succeed, they want their cronies to be able to make a buck off of everything. They want all the power and all the money within their plutocracy. I’m not talking about government ownership of airlines, telecommunications, or any other move that one could logically equate with socialism. I talking funding and providing infrastructure improvements and the taxes that would enable them for the benefit of all. These kinds of public projects are ones that only a government can do successfully because of the scale and related economies. Jonathan Alter demonstrates that today’s republicans don’t recognize that the benefits from legitimate public projects bring benefits that far outweigh the costs for every one.
Grover Norquist, the tax-cutting champion, famously said he wanted to shrink the federal government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bath tub.”
With gargantuan deficits, that seems like a pipe dream, but it may be time to start running the water.
The new plan offered by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and approved recently by Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans puts the Republicans on record supporting a federal government that within a decade will consist of little more than national defense, entitlements and interest on the national debt.
Those are largely transfer payments to defense contractors, seniors and bankers. The rest of what the government actually does would be eviscerated, from building roads to environmental protection to medical research.
Ryan has abandoned the Republican fantasy on display during the primaries that cutting liberal spending programs will be enough to restore fiscal sanity. He’d go where the big money is — entitlement reform — and also eliminate a series of tax deductions used by the affluent, though in an April 10 editorial board session with Bloomberg View he was still mum on which ones.
Ryan does not represent the historical positions of any Republican administration. The first Republican Project that required some taxes was the civil war. The used taxes on the rich–among other things–to fund that, reconstruction, and expansion into the westward part of the country.
To fund the war, the federal government taxed as it had never taxed before. The tariff, long the main source of government revenue, was raised sharply. So were excise taxes on commodities such as liquor. The government also instituted the country’s first income tax, which imposed a 3 percent levy on incomes above $800. It was soon raised to 3 percent on earnings of more than $600 and 5 percent on those that exceeded $10,000.
In the mid-19th century, anyone would have considered a person with a $10,000 annual income “rich.”
With the war’s end, government outlays declined sharply. In 1865, they had been almost $1.3 billion, the first time any government anywhere had spent more than $1 billion in a year. By 1870, they had declined to $309 million.
The income tax was allowed to lapse in 1873, and excise taxes were lowered as well. What remained very high was the tariff. But the purpose of a high tariff wasn’t solely to fund federal operations; it was so high that the government ran budget surpluses for 28 straight years, from 1866 to 1893.
Rather, the tariff was kept high to protect the booming industrialization of the American economy in the postwar years. That was very popular in the Northeast and Midwest, where the industry was concentrated, but deeply unpopular in the South and West.
The Republicans also wanted a transcontinental railroad. Look back to the article for the kinds of things built by Republican Presidents–still useful today–that wouldn’t pass muster with today’s Republican Party. This again comes from the Alter article cited above. All of these things improved commerce, provided jobs, and made the country much better off. Each generation of Americans–up until now–were always better off than our predecessors because they invested in a future for us.
The 1856 Republican platform demanded that “the Federal Government render immediate and efficient aid in [the] construction” of a transcontinental railroad. Money was also pledged for “the improvement of rivers and harbors.”
Soon thereafter, Abraham Lincoln signed laws creating hundreds of new colleges (the Morrill Land Grant Act), helping Americans buy property (the Homestead Act), establishing a new Cabinet department (Agriculture) and protecting public land from development (Yosemite).
Today’s Republican Party is on the other side of each of those Lincoln-era achievements, voting to slash money for education (Pell grants, which are discretionary, would be eviscerated in the Ryan budget), withdraw federal loans to buy property (closing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), shut Cabinet departments (Romney has said he’d shutter a few, though not which ones) and open up more coastlines for drilling.
The idea of using government money to invest in the future hardly died with Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt built the Panama Canal; Dwight Eisenhower constructed the interstate highway system; and Republicans have voted for smaller such investments repeatedly over the years.
You get the idea. We shouldn’t even have to introduce the other items coming from Democratic Presidents like FDR that did projects like the Hoover Dam, rural electrification, and the blue star highways that were predecessors to Eisenhower’s interstate system. If you look at countries that have made priorities of internet systems and/or solar energy projects rather than let a few for-profit businesses piece together networks around urban areas, you’ll see the benefits of federal projects that we’re losing right now. We may not only see rural Americans loose the benefit of these things but also of something as basic as the constitutionally mandated postal service. If some one can’t make extraordinary profit from it, today’s Republicans don’t want it.
I”ll let Paul Krugman have the last word.
America used to be a country that thought big about the future. Major public projects, from the Erie Canal to the interstate highway system, used to be a well-understood component of our national greatness. Nowadays, however, the only big projects politicians are willing to undertake — with expense no object — seem to be wars. Funny how that works.
But think beyond that, public education, the national park system, great science projects like the moon shots or huge telescopes would not be done by private industry without huge amounts of federal largess or protection. Then there’s medical research like Nuclear medicine, genetics, and prevention of diseases by vaccinations. All of these started out as government funded projects before they were profitable enough to be transferred to the private sector. Why do today’s republicans think small for the country and big only for the 1%? Why are they creating a cat fight to take us off the real problems that challenge our children’s future?
Friday Reads
Posted: April 13, 2012 Filed under: abortion rights, Foreign Affairs, Iran, morning reads, War on Women, Women's Rights 20 Comments
Good Morning!
More news in the “imaginary” War on Women. As usual, many Republican Fembots are sadly selling out our interests. Wacko Tea Party Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signs another bill designed to remove the constitutional right to access to abortion. The state is banning abortions from 18 weeks forward. This directly conflicts with Roe v. Wade and medical science. Welcome to the beginning of the world of The Handmaiden’s Tale. Jan Brewer is no Fay Dunaway either.
Despite its name, critics derided the Women’s Health and Safety Act that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law today as cruel, dangerous, and hostile to women—likely to deter many Arizona women from seeking an abortion, and to distress those who nonetheless go through with one.
Life starts earliest in Arizona, which now defines gestational age as beginning on the first day of a woman’s last period, rather than at fertilization. In practice, that means the state has banned abortions after about 18 weeks (20 weeks from the last menstruation) except in the case of medical emergencies. While that provision has been much discussed, abortions after that point account for only about 1 percent of the procedures currently performed.
The stipulation likely to be most widely felt is what experts are calling an effective shutdown of medication abortions. These nonsurgical abortions are usually performed within the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and account for between 17 and 20 percent of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights advocacy group. While women often take the pills at clinics and in their homes, the bill now mandates that a medical provider must have hospital privileges within 30 miles of where the procedure takes place. Many times clinics or homes are not within 30 miles of hospitals, and the distance prevents providers from other cities or even states from caring for women, says Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. Another factor that could contribute to what Nash called a “shutdown” of medication abortions is that the law requires abortion pills to be administered using outdated protocols, confusing providers and obscuring proper use of the drugs.
While it becomes the seventh state to pass such legislation in the past two years, many Arizonans believe theirs is the most restrictive and sinister because of the degree to which it will legislate health care, thwart evidence-based medicine, and shame women. One in three women will have an abortion before age 45 according to Guttmacher, and more than half of those women already have a child.
The Virginia Speaker of the House who also is an ex-ALEC Chair was heard telling a woman ‘I’m Not Speaking In Little Enough Words For You To Understand’.
ProgressVA recently released a report on the legislative influence of the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — which began hemorrhaging donors in the wake of a campaign raising awareness of its efforts to disenfranchise voters and enact Florida-style “stand your ground” laws. The group noted that the Commonwealth of Virginia has spent $232,000 of taxpayer’s dollars over the past decade to send legislators to ALEC conferences and meetings.
Virginia House Speaker William Howell (R), himself a national board member of ALEC and its 2009 national chairman, took issue with the report and called it “inaccurate.”
In an exchange caught on camera, Howell berates the group’s executive director Anna Scholl, mocking the group’s website and her. Howell criticizes the Washington Post’s article about the group’s as “full of half-truths or un-truths.”
In a failed attempt to back up his accusation, Howell notes that while the Commonwealth paid about $230,000 on ALEC-related expenses, it spent even more on travel for the same and other legislators to attend conferences by the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislators.
When by Scholl pressed as to how omission of that irrelevant detail constituted an inaccuracy, Howell berated her:
I guess I’m not speaking in little enough words for you to understand.
When Scholl responded to the slight, telling him “I’m a smart girl, actually I went to the University of Virginia,” more than capable of understanding polysyllabic words. Howell curtly replied, “We’ll good for you.”
Planned Parenthood has sued Texas.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state of Texas over the state’s exclusion of the nonprofit group’s clinics from a state women’s health program primarily funded by federal dollars.
PPFA told Austin American Statesman reporter Chuck Lindell that they’ve already closed 12 clinics across Texas since last year, after Texas Republicans slashed family planning funds by $74 million. Exclusion from Medicaid funding will see another $10-$13 million pulled from the group, which would trigger the closure of even more clinics serving lower-income communities.
Texas Republicans say they are within their lawful authority to deny funding to the nonprofit group because abortion providers are not considered to be qualified organizations. To those ends, the legislature last year passed a new rule that bans abortion providers from receiving taxpayer money.
PPFA, however, insists that only 3 percent of services performed across the whole country in 2010 had to do with abortion: the vast majority of their work, they claim, relates to breast and cervical cancer screenings, reproductive health, education and contraceptive support.
The Obama Administration said last month that Texas’s move was illegal, and began to cut off federal funds for the Texas Medicaid Women’s Health Program because of the state’s decision to exclude PPFA.
A study conducted by U.S. government scientists are linking the rise in earthquakes in the U.S. to fracking.
A spate of earthquakes across the middle of the U.S. is “almost certainly” man-made, and may be caused by wastewater from oil or gas drilling injected into the ground, U.S. government scientists said in a study.
Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey said that for the three decades until 2000, seismic events in the nation’s midsection averaged 21 a year. They jumped to 50 in 2009, 87 in 2010 and 134 in 2011.
Those statistics, included in the abstract of a research paper to be discussed at the Seismological Society of America conference next week in San Diego, will add pressure on an energy industry already confronting more regulation of the process of hydraulic fracturing.
“Our scientists cite a series of examples for which an uptick in seismic activity is observed in areas where the disposal of wastewater through deep-well injection increased significantly,” David Hayes, the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, said in a blog post yesterday, describing research by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey.
N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue is arguing that those pushing a highly restrictive marriage amendment could wind up invalidating the states’s domestic violence laws.
North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue warned on Thursday that Amendment One, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, could remove protections against domestic violence for unmarried women.
“It would ban the state from recognizing civil unions, strip away domestic partner benefits and it actually could eliminate legal protections for all unmarried couples in the state,” she said in a video on YouTube. “This will harm the stability and security of North Carolina families like never before.”
“The amendment I believe is dangerous for women,” Perdue continued. “There is a real risk that some laws we have on the books now to protect the victims of domestic violence may no longer apply to many women in the state.”
Because the proposed amendment states that marriage between a man and women is the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized,” opponents have said that it could render domestic violence laws invalid for unmarried couples.
After Ohio passed a similar marriage amendment, some judges dropped domestic violence charges in cases involving unmarried couples.
Yeah, right, no war on women here.
Seymour Hersh has evidence that the Bush administration trained Iranian terrorists in Nevada. Amy Goodman interviews Hersh on the subject.
AMY GOODMAN: In what appears to be a first for U.S. foreign policy, new revelations have emerged that the Bush administration secretly trained an Iranian opposition group despite its inclusion on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorists. Writing for The New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reports U.S. Joint Special Operations Command trained operatives from Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or MEK, at a secret site in Nevada beginning in 2005. According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Obama took office. The MEK has been included on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups since 1997. It’s been linked to a number of attacks, spanning from the murders of six U.S. citizens in the ’70s to the recent wave of assassinations targeting Iranian nuclear scientists.
Although the revelation that the U.S. government directly trained the MEK comes as a surprise, it’s no secret the group has prominent backers across the political spectrum. Despite it’s designation as a “terrorist” organization by the State Department for 15 years, a number of prominent former U.S. officials have been paid to speak in support of the MEK. The bipartisan list includes two former CIA directors, James Woolsey and Porter Goss; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Attorney General Michael Mukasey; former FBI Director Louis Freeh; former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton; and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Punking Hilary Rosen
Posted: April 12, 2012 Filed under: religious extremists, right wing hate grouups, Rush Limbaugh, the GOP, War on Women, We are so F'd, Women's Rights | Tags: Hillary Rosen 36 CommentsHilary Rosen provided the right wing noise machine with a two second sound byte that has been used to reignite the Mommy Wars. They have purposefully obfuscated what Rosen said thinking they will dupe women into voting for Romney. I am not falling for it. I can’t imagine most of the women I know will fall for it either. Any one that thinks that Hilary Rosen
believes that stay-at-home parents without access to maids, nannies, yard crews, and millions of dollars don’t work, raise your hand! I thought so. It’s different when you have the ability to just write a check to get anything done. Ann Romney does not have the day-to-day experience of 99% of the women in this country, housewife or not. Most women who work inside and outside of the home have to do stuff for themselves. They can’t just write a check and call on an army of servants. Not so with Ann Romney. So, why is every one punking Hillary Rosen? That Punk’d treatment would include that provided by “this is what a feminist looks like” President Obama and his gang of campaign boyz.
President Obama strongly disagreed with Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s controversial comment about Ann Romney, saying today that “there’s no tougher job than being a mom.”
“Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement,” the president told Bruce Aune of ABC’s Cedar Rapids affiliate KCRG.
Rosen sparked a political firestorm when she questioned Wednesday whether Ann Romney is qualified to gauge women’s economic concerns, claiming the mother of five has “never worked a day in her life.” The Romney campaign pounced on the comments as an opportunity to boost the GOP frontrunner’s standing among female voters, while the president’s campaign and the White House publicly distanced themselves from Rosen.
My mom was a “housewife” too. However, Mildred cleaned our house. Mrs. Anders watched me and my sister when we weren’t at Miss Margaret’s pre-school, Miss Donna’s ballet lessons, or Mrs. Donna’s swimming classes. My mom played a lot of bridge, spent a lot of time at the country club, and then did things for junior league like volunteering at the hospital gift shop or attending lunches for the local Red Cross. Mrs Olsen did all our laundry except for our clean ironed bed sheets that were dropped off by Kimball’s laundry at our front door. My dad did the grocery shopping since mom hated doing that and he cooked dinner any way so it was pointless for her to do that. So, as you can see the life of an upper middle class house wife is just full of challenges. Most of the women I’ve mentioned here–like Miss Donna who taught me ballet or the Mrs Donna that taught me swimming–were either widowed or divorce. Mildred and Mrs. Anders had husbands that were old and not able to make money any more since their bodies had way gone pass the point of being able to do the kinds of physical work their educations would allow. Mrs. Olsen was putting her son through college. Yup, my mom had the toughest job in the world. Did I mention that we were the poor ones in my family? My mother’s brother and sister had live-ins for all of that. Of course, my aunts were “housewives” too although I came to think of them more as country club wives. They never worried about much of anything except boredom and when to pick us up. None of us were rich enough to have chauffeurs. Some how, I can’t imagine Ann Romney cleaning any of those multitudes of houses, can you? So, I wish I was reading a lot more articles in support of Hillary Rosen, like this one from The Nation. My mother had the ability to pay a lot of other people do a lot of things. She didn’t have to worry about making ends meet, for example. She had other women doing a lot of work because they needed that money just to stay in their houses. I don’t think my mother could’ve related to Mrs. Olsen’s concerns any more than Ann Romney could relate to most women. The issue is not if you choose to work or not. The issue is if your life is completely underwritten by millions of dollars or a struggle to keep food on the table.
Rosen was responding to Mitt Romney’s constant trotting out of Ann when he gets a question on women’s issues:
What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we—why do we worry about their future?
There’s nothing there about stay-at-home moms, or the idea that that raising children isn’t work. Rosen was referring to the fact that Ann Romney—an incredibly rich and elite woman—likely does not understand the economic concerns of most American women. Again, it was unfortunate choice of words—but she wasn’t wrong.
The Romney campaign, predictably, has grabbed onto this “controversy” in an attempt to divert attention from their missteps around equal pay and the war on women yesterday. Ann Romney joined Twitter, and her first two messages were about the flap, writing that “all moms are entitled to choose their path” and that she “made a choice to stay home and raise five boys.”
Since all moms are “entitled” to “choose” their path, I’m very much looking forward to the Romney’s plan for national mandated paid parental leave. I’m also wondering, since they believe that women’s domestic labor is valuable and real work, when they will come out in support of wages for said work. (Or perhaps women are only entitled to make their “choice” when they have the financial means to do so.)
Focusing on this slip-up just brings more attention to the way in which a Romney presidency wouldn’t support mothers. Because empty platitudes about motherhood “being the hardest job in the world” doesn’t change the reality of most moms’ lives, or make their job any easier.
But it’s not just that Romney is bad for women (whether they work outside the home or not). What’s being lost in this conversation is the incredibly facile and insulting notion that just because a woman made the decision to marry Romney and occasionally talk to him about other women, that he is somehow well-informed on women’s issues. Ann Romney is not an expert on women’s issues just because she happens to be one. And she’s not an expert in what mothers need just because she has children. Believing otherwise is infantilizing and reduces women’s very important and complex concerns to beauty parlor chitchat.
What’s disappointing to me is that most of the press and even many Democrats are allowing the right wing to frame and punk single mother Hillary Rosen. Here’s a little sample of the right wing smear going on right now.
No one is arguing that raising children isn’t work. Democratic strategist and CAP Action board member Hilary Rosen is a single mother of twins who had to go through the expensive and challenging process of adoption with her then partner Elizabeth Birch. Now, she’s trying to stick up for other mothers who don’t have the luxury of millionaire husbands to help fund their child-rearing duties, and the backlash is getting ugly. Catholic League president Bill Donohue attacked her family on Twitter this morning:
@CatholicLeague: Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.
So, just so you know this is right wing spin, here’s Limbaugh and the newly fabricated “democratic war on mothers”. So, the defunding and removing access to prenatal care, school lunches, family planning services, preschool, maternal leave, and a myriad of other family-friendly programs wasn’t enough evidence of a republican war on mothers that we need to invent things out of thin air?
Rush Limbaugh jumped into the firestorm on Thursday created by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s jab at stay-at-home-mom Ann Romney as the radio talk show host accused the Democratic Party of launching a “war on mothers.”
Limbaugh spent the bulk of his three-hour afternoon program griping about Rosen’s charge Wednesday that Mitt Romney’s wife has “never worked a day in her life,” telling listeners that the comment summed up the Democrats’ position on women’s role in society.
“This is big because it’s such a teachable moment. It’s such an illustration of who these people are, the left. It’s such an illustration of phonies of feminism. It is an illustration of the absolute hostility that the left has for women who stay at home,” the conservative radio host said, speaking before Rosen issued a statement apologizing to Ann Romney.
He continued, “Obama and the Democrats are not content to just divide men and women. They want to go deeper and dive working mothers from stay at home mothers. And they want to attach the virtue to working mothers and assign no virtue to stay at home moms. Now you talk to most women, even those who consider themselves feminists … they will tell you that they thought that was a battle they fought and won and ended years ago.”
Limbaugh also personally defended Ann Romney, referring to her as a “role model.”
“They’ve gone after the wrong woman here. Ann Romney is not disliked. Ann Romney is not unlikeable. Ann Romney isn’t controversial. Ann Romney isn’t telling anybody how to live. … Ann Romney’s a role model. Don’t care what you think of Mitt. That’s not the point here. She is a role model for living and trying to live a fulfilling life,” he said.
No one but Ann Romney knows if her life is fulfilling and if she considers herself any kind of a role model. I would hope my daughters would not consider Ann Romney’s life one worth copying but then that’s my values. For one, I love my father a lot. If he were an outspoken atheist like Ann Romney’s was, I certainly would have never allowed any one to sneak-baptize him into any religion after his death. I consider that the panultimate disrespect. I also would not for a minute raise my daughters in any tradition where women must call 18 year old man children “elders”, where tons of money is spent defeating the ERA, and where women are not allowed access to “heaven” with out a husband sponsor. That’s just the short list of the kinds of patriarchal, women-hating stuff that goes on in Romney’s religion. I don’t consider that much of a role model for self respect. I also would’ve put my husband on the roof of the car if he’d have tried to put the family dog up there. However, Ann Romney has to live with all of these decisions and her life. That’s the deal with being a mother, you should be able to choose the way you do it. I can’t imagine any one thinking Ann Romney’s choices or lifestyle is common to all but a few women and I challenge all of us that see this backlash and stand behind Hillary Rosen. For a group of people that scream class war at the drop of a hat, the misogynists sure have done a great job of missing the point of class and money in Rosen’s comments.
endnote:
I’ve just been told that David Pflouffe is on Lawrence O’Donnell acting lie a complete ass. He just called the pillorying of Rosen a “rare moment of bi-partisan agreement”. This is just another example of the inability of Democratic men to really stand up for what’s right. Unbelievable! This is akin to them joining in the swift boating of Kerry. This has nothing to do with the choice of not working or working. It has everything to do with being a member of a privileged elite that’s far removed from the rest of us. We need to be very vocal about this.
or as Hillary herself puts it on her facebook:
I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don’t want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t.








Recent Comments