Saturday Morning Reads: Our Future. Our Selves.
Posted: October 8, 2011 Filed under: black women's reproductive health, children, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Feminists, Foreign Affairs, GLBT Rights, Hillary Clinton, morning reads, Planned Parenthood, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, religion, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, right wing hate grouups | Tags: Abigail Disney, Bobby Jindal, CEDAW, Creationism, Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius, Leymah Gbowee, Liberia, Rick Perry, teaching religious myth over science, Values Voter Hatefest, women on boards of directors in the US 13 CommentsGood Morning!
I admit to a growing fascination with Leymah Gbowee since hearing several interviews with her after the announcement that she is one of three women sharing the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. She is just one of those take charge and get it done women if there ever was one! I am now itching to see “Pray the Devil Back to Hell”. This is a documentary by filmmaker Abigail Disney. Here is a link to a 2009 report from Bill Moyers Journal on the 2008 film. Yes, Abigail Disney comes from THAT family but the movie is a long ways away from animated princesses and singing animals. You can watch the Moyers piece here to get a feel for Gbowee’s commitment to social justice in Liberia.
Women’s News Network updated their recent interview with Gbowee on her work to secure reproductive and sexual rights of African women as well as her efforts to assure peace in Liberia. She also addresses the needs of American women in the interview. Yes. We can learn many things from the struggles of women in developing nations for basic rights as we see the daily erosion of our own. Did you ever believe you would live a country where the whims of a druggist can dictate your access to prescribed medicine?
In Gbowee’s estimation, American women also have challenges that need to be addressed. This topic came up in response to our conversation about CEDAW, and the inability for the agreement to get national traction. She referenced the disadvantages that come from not signing the international treaty. Totally frank in her assessment questioning America’s ability to provide cogent leadership on women’s issues, Gbowee pointed to matters that leaders “don’t want to tackle.”
She said, “If a President or Secretary of State is standing up and making statements about the rapes in Congo, and that same country has not signed a document that is so important to the lives of their women —what other name do you give it but hypocrisy?”
Part of our exchange included how important it was for those working to help women under siege, to truly engage in an equal dialogue. “There is a need to speak to the women of these countries,” Gbowee said. She told me a story about a trip she had taken to Congo where she had spoken with women on the ground, and learned that for them “rape was at the bottom of the list.”
At the top — was “political participation.” For those women, “rape is a symptom of an actual issue.” She continued, “We want to help. But we need to step out of our donor driven issues and step into what it is that these communities actually want.”
Yes. Gbowee’s got me thinking on how United States women are losing ground daily. She is right. Our country has not signed on to CEDAW. What does this say about a President that MS magazine labelled a feminist? This link takes you to the Text of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Why is our country not a signatory? Why are our rights not a priority?
The Convention defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
By accepting the Convention, States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including:
- to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
- to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
- to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.
The Convention provides the basis for realizing equality between women and men through ensuring women’s equal access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life — including the right to vote and to stand for election — as well as education, health and employment. States parties agree to take all appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, so that women can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It seems that a country as advanced as ours would consider the rights of half of its citizens to be extremely important, wouldn’t it? However, that doesn’t appear to be the priority of many folks in government outside of the US State Department. Here is a youtube of SOS Clinton saying that the treaty is a priority of the Obama administration. Why haven’t we signed it?
American women are experiencing an incredible set back in rights. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius spoke at an abortion rights fundraiser on Wednesday where she issued a strong warning against moves by Republicans to roll back women’s health gains by 50 years. Women are being sent back to chattel status in state after state.
“We’ve come a long way in women’s health over the last few decades, but we are in a war,” Sebelius said at a NARAL Pro-Choice America luncheon attended by about 300 people, who gave some of their loudest applause at her mention of the Obama administration’s support for requiring insurance plans to cover birth control without copays.
Sebelius said women have suffered discrimination by insurance companies that considered “Viagra an essential medication and birth control a lifestyle choice.”
Her message resonated with some at the event who acknowledged doubts about Obama’s leadership on a variety of liberal issues.
“I’m a little disappointed with his force, his forcefulness, pretty much across the board,” Chicagoan Bamboo Solzman said of Obama. Sebelius’ remarks at Wednesday’s event solidified Solzman’s support of Obama’s re-election, she said. “He was forward enough to choose her, so that does help,” Solzman said.
We are clearly losing ground. While women in the administration are being sent out to do heartfelt speeches, nothing is being done to protect our rights. Speeches do not protect women and children from the brutalities of fundamentalist religions and the economic realities of sex-based discrimination. Neoconfederate Ron Paul is just one among many Republican presidential contenders that wants to eliminate access to something as simple as basic birth control. The fight is not just for our right to abortion. It is for our right to birth control and self determination.
“I am deeply troubled by the flippancy with which President Obama recently discussed regulations that are alarming and troublesome for many Americans,” Paul said. “Not all Americans are comfortable with the Obama administration’s decision to mandate coverage of birth control and morning-after pills, and the considerations of these people, many of them Christian conservatives, are worthy of careful consideration – not mockery.”
“Many, like me, view this rigid regulatory overstep from which there is inadequate opportunity to self-exempt as payback to Planned Parenthood and big pharmaceutical companies for their support of Obamacare,” Paul added. “Many others oppose it out of strict moral conviction and their voices should be heard at least to the extent that an authentic opportunity to exempt be provided. That is, until Obamacare is repealed in its entirety.”
“As this mandate violates the conscience of millions of pro-life Americans, I have introduced in Congress H.R. 1099, the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act, which removes all federal funding for domestic and international family planning,” Paul continued. “As President, I plan to defund Obamacare and all federal programs that use tax money taken from the American people to promote abortion and provide abortion services domestically and globally. I pledge also to veto any bill with funding for Planned Parenthood or any other international family planning regimes.”
Any of us can have deeply felt beliefs against the death penalty, against invasions of nations, and against assassination without due process of American citizens, yet none of our concerns are met with similar angst and pearl clutching. Only the fetus fetishists get to object to using their puny tax dollars for every one. If they don’t want abortions or birth control, they just shouldn’t get them. That should have nothing to do with our access Their views preclude the findings of modern science and medicine and they are ruling the day.
Most Republican presidential wannabes spent their week pandering to so called “values voters” at a summit cum hatefest. Clearly, this political movement is out to define every one’s personal choices to meet their maxims. They have declared an open war on women’s rights. Rick Perry’s Endorser called Mitt Romney’s faith a “cult” and referred to Planned Parenthood as “a slaughterhouse for the unborn”. This is nothing more than hate speech dressed up in a pastor’s robe.
It was no ordinary opener from the prominent Southern Baptist Convention leader, Pastor Robert Jeffress, who endorsed Perry on Friday. Jeffress praised Perry for defunding Planned Parenthood in Texas, calling the provider of women’s health and abortion services, “that slaughterhouse for the unborn.”
He also lauded Perry’s “strong commitment to biblical values.”
“Do we want a candidate who is skilled in rhetoric or one who is skilled in leadership? Do we want a candidate who is a conservative out of convenience or one who is a conservative out of deep conviction?” Jeffress said. “Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person — or one who is a born-again follower of the lord Jesus Christ?”
Jeffress called Perry a “genuine follower of Jesus Christ.” The pastor did not mention Perry’s rival Mitt Romney by name, but he told reporters after his remarks on Friday that Mormonism was a “cult.”
Jeffress’ comments and his endorsement of Perry threatened to inject some tension into what has been a relatively quiet year for religion on the campaign trail and the Perry campaign sought to quiet the uproar.
The campaign’s official comment on Jeffress evolved quickly on Friday afternoon. When initially asked by ABC News whether Gov. Perry agreed that Mormonism is a cult, Perry spokesman Mark Miner said: “The governor doesn’t judge what is in the heart and soul of others. He leaves that to God.”
My horrible governor Bobby Jindal joked about pedophilia at this same hub of hatred. What an inappropriate topic for jokes! Since so many folks were herded out of New Orleans and Southern Louisiana after Katrina, we can no longer even find a decent field of candidates to run against a man that’s trying to bring back the plantation system of government and economics. He has spent tremendous amounts of money courting chicken evisceration plants to our state for a few horrible paying jobs while decimating our already fragile public health and education systems.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) knows just how to crack up the audience at the Values Voter Summit: just make a joke about former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) being a pedophile.
After a long winded speech about all his accomplishments protecting children from sex offenders, Jindal brought it home.
“What I can do as governor is this: I can make Louisiana the last place that anyone who wants to in any way harm a child by exposing children to inappropriate material,” Jindal said. “I can make Louisiana a dangerous place for Congressman Weiner to relocate to.”
Louisiana is a dangerous place for teachers, nurses, and public employees right now because of this man and that clearly makes it a dangerous place for children. After all, this is the same governor that foisted a creationist law on them. He clearly doesn’t value children enough to educate them in science, protect their health, and provide them decent teachers and classrooms. Our children need protection from our Governor.
The scientific community has long advocated that allowing anything but science in the teaching of evolution will be intellectually harmful. In an e-mail sent to the Associated Press, Harold Kroto, a Nobel Prize winner for chemistry in 1996, said voting against the repeal creates a situation that “should be likened to requiring Louisiana school texts to include the claim that the Sun goes round the Earth.”
While evolutionary biology is based in the work of Charles Darwin, which shows how humans evolved through natural selection, creationism is rooted in a fundamental reading of Biblical texts that say mankind is the product of a divine maker.
With the law intact, Louisiana is the state that has gone the furthest in approving legislation that opens the door to allowing alternatives to science taught in its schools.
American women are also not making much headway to influence corporate culture and business decisions through board appointments. America’s top business women attended Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit in Laguna Niguel, California. Board positions are key to efforts to break the glass ceiling because boards approve CEO pay and appointments. One of the questions raised at the meeting was dealing with requests to become a board’s token woman. The topic was raised by Anne Mulcahy–former Xerox CEO and board member–who questioned if it was worth the effort to become the lone female on what has been an all boy board.
At the same time, female representation on boards is still a major issue. The percentage of female directors, which hovers around 20 percent, has been at a standstill over the past decade—Spencer Stuart finds that there has been no increase in that ratio since 2000. The research firm Catalyst reports an even lower number, 16 percent, putting the United States behind Finland, Sweden and Norway, which actually has a law requiring 40 percent of all board members at Norwegian companies to be women. Those low percentages persist despite the fact that study after study has shown that more diverse boards are associated with greater company performance.
I get what Mulcahy is saying. Why should women in positions of power join a club, as she puts it, that they may not want to be a part of? At that level, most women have multiple commitments, and joining a board where they’re treated like tokens rather than assets may not be the best use of their time. In addition, they may be able to have more of an impact on a board that is already forward thinking and receptive to diversity.
So, at a time when we are celebrating the progress made by women who have reached presidencies in countries in South America, Africa, Australia, and the East, we are seeing tremendous setbacks in women’s rights here in the United States. Who are the Leymah Gbowee’s of North America? Let us do more than just pray a few of our own devils back to hell. Let’s be in their faces and all in their business just like Ms. Gbowee! (See youtube below.) Let’s be an entire population of women that won’t shut up!!!
A Nobel Peace Prize for Women
Posted: October 7, 2011 Filed under: Violence against women, Women's Rights | Tags: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, Nobel Peace Prize, Tawakkul Karman 4 Comments
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakul Karman. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty, Frederick M Brown/Getty, Khaled Abdullah/Reuters
The 2011 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman for their work for women’s rights.
Liberia’s Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is Africa’s first democratic elected female president. Leymah Gbowee has worked to mobilize women across ethnic and religious dividing lines to bring end to the long war in Liberia.
Tawakkul Karman has played a leading role in the struggle for women’s rights and democracy in Yemen.
We’ve been covering a lot of news about women around the world here for as long as we’ve had a voice. It’s perhaps a natural offshoot of our roots in feminism and our roots as Hillary supporters. There has been a lot of major unrest in the world recently. Women and children have suffered tremendously. Women have been the victims of mass rape as a war weapon. Children have been recruited into armies. Women have been forced into early marriage, denied the right to participate in government and even to do the simple task of driving a car in major countries who we support, arm, and enrich. Our President is currently in the process of loosening punishment by our country for the use of children soldiers. That is hardly the act of a Nobel Peace Prize winner. The winning women are outstanding choices that do more than just symbolize the struggle of women to achieve independence, dignity, safety, and autonomy around the world.
These three women have campaigned for peace and democracy in Liberia and Yemen and are more than just symbols of the aspiration for peace. They have put their lives on the line for it in countries riddled with problems that we can barely imagine here. Sirleaf has been a personal hero of mine for some time since she is an economist as well as a leader. She spent time in prison and is the first woman president on the African Continent. She is a small woman with the heart of a lion. I look forward to learning more about the other two women. Here’s a few things to get his started!!!Here are some profiles of the winners from the UK Guardian.
The Liberian president, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and Leymah Gbowee, a social worker turned peace campaigner from the same country, will share the 10m kronor (£950,000) prize with Tawakul Karman, a journalist and pro-democracy activist in Yemen who has been a leading figure in the protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh since January.
The Nobel committee said the three had been chosen “for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work”.
“We cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society,” the committee said in a statement. They are the first women to be awarded the prize since 2004 when the committee honoured Wangari Muta Maathai, the Kenyan environmentalist who died last month, and bring the tally of female winners to 15, compared with 85 men.
Sirleaf, 72, is a Harvard-trained economist who became Africa’s first democratically elected female president in 2005, two years after the country achieved a fragile peace after decades of civil war. The committee said she had “contributed to securing peace in Liberia, to promoting economic and social development, and to strengthening the position of women”.
Seen as a reformer and peacemaker in Liberia when she first took office, Sirleaf declared a zero-tolerance policy against corruption and has made education compulsory and free for all primary-age children. She is currently running for re-election, with a vote to be held on Tuesday.
Gbowee, 39, was instrumental in helping bring Liberia to peace in the early 2000s, leading a movement of women who dressed in white to protest against the use of rape and child soldiers in the war. During the 2003 peace talks, she and hundreds of women surrounded the hall where the discussions were being held, refusing to let delegates leave until they had signed the treaty. The committee said she had “mobilised and organised women across ethnic and religious dividing lines to bring an end to the long war in Liberia, and to ensure women’s participation in elections”.
Since 2004, Gbowee has served as a commissioner on Liberia’s truth and reconciliation commission, and she is now executive director of the Women in Peace and Security Network, an organisation that works with women in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Sierra Leone to promote peace, literacy and political involvement.
“In the most trying circumstances, both before and during the Arab spring, Tawakul Karman has played a leading part in the struggle for women’s rights and for democracy and peace in Yemen,” the Nobel committee said of the third winner. Karman, 32, is a mother of three who in 2005 founded the group Women Journalists Without Chains.
She has been a key figure among youth activists in Yemen since they began occupying a square in central Sana’a in February demanding the end of the Saleh regime, and has often been the voice of activists on Arabic television, giving on-the-ground reports of the situation in the square outside Sana’a University, where dozens of activists have been shot dead by government forces.
She called her award “a victory for the Yemeni people, for the Yemeni revolution and all the Arab revolutions”.
“This is a message that the era of Arab dictatorships is over. This is a message to this regime and all the despotic regimes that no voice can drown out the voice of freedom and dignity. This is a victory for the Arab spring in Tunis, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Our peaceful revolution will continue until we topple Saleh and establish a civilian state.”
More information can be found at BBC News as well. In some ways, I feel that this prize reflects Hilary Clinton’s priorities as she has made the rights of women and children and their oppression by strict and violent patriarchal regimes has been a focus of her work. I’m going to close this thread with a quote from then-First Lady Hillary Clinton that seems very appropriate.
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.
from a speech given at the Conference on domestic violence in San Salvador, El Salvador (17 November 1998)
Congratulations to these outstanding women whose quest for peace has come at great personal danger and sacrifice!!!!
TGIFriday Reads
Posted: October 7, 2011 Filed under: Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs, Global Financial Crisis, morning reads, New Orleans, Women's Rights | Tags: Afghanistan, due process, executive order, Gender bias in Austrailia, General McChyrstal, global financial meltdown, kill list, Occupy New Orleans 18 Comments
Good Morning!
Wow! It’s Friday! The week has sort’ve whizzed by for me and I have to admit to feeling like the days are blending together. The weather is great down here right now. October in New Orleans is usually a nice blend of perfect weather and no real surge in tourists so that’s a good change. We had an Occupy New Orleans march–I didn’t make it–that seemed well attended and non-eventful. I had a lot of friends that showed up and they took a lot of pictures. I think we all should try to share the events in our individual cities if we get a chance. I’m really hoping this movement doesn’t get captured by the political establishment.
Taking its cues from the New York protest, Occupy New Orleans makes all its decisions through “general assembly,” a series of votes that aims to reflect the views of everyone involved. The process can be lengthy — simply selecting the march’s route took three hours for the group of about 100 to decide.
That’s one reason the group has not made a list of concrete goals, though it intends to in the upcoming weeks, said participant Michael Martin, 25. The movement also has no leader or spokesperson — each member is allowed one vote. The resultant lack of a coherent message has drawn skepticism even from would-be sympathizers.
Organizers of the New Orleans protest say they expect hundreds to participate; the group has more than 1,000 followers on Twitter and more than 4,100 fans on Facebook. The group received permits Wednesday allowing them to march, according to New Orleans Police Department spokeswoman Remi Braden.
In light of 700 protestors’ arrests in New York City on Saturday, Occupy New Orleans held a training session for legal observers Tuesday that drew 20 people, mainly law students.
We really need to have a huge conversation about the idea that a “secret panel” can put an American citizen on a kill list without actual due process in the courts. Here’s a start at that discussion from Reuters.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.
Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.
The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama’s toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki’s killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.
In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush’s expansive use of executive power in his “war on terrorism,” is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.
Yeah, that’s the word I’m thinking …. ironic… not!! I am very much attuned to the situation in Europe. The banks have pretty much done it to us again and it looks like there will be more bail outs coming. There’s a lot of talk that it could be worse than 2007-2008. Here’s ZeroHedge’s take on a BBC insider interview with an IMF advisor that says: “In The Absence Of A Credible Plan We Will Have A Global Financial Meltdown In Two To Three Weeks”. The interview is posted there if you’re more curious.
A week after the BBC exploded Alessio Rastani to the stage, it has just done it all over again. In an interview with IMF advisor Robert Shapiro, the bailout expert has pretty much said what, once again, is on everyone’s mind: “If they can not address [the financial crisis] in a credible way I believe within perhaps 2 to 3 weeks we will have a meltdown in sovereign debt which will produce a meltdown across the European banking system. We are not just talking about a relatively small Belgian bank, we are talking about the largest banks in the world, the largest banks in Germany, the largest banks in France, that will spread to the United Kingdom, it will spread everywhere because the global financial system is so interconnected. All those banks are counterparties to every significant bank in the United States, and in Britain, and in Japan, and around the world. This would be a crisis that would be in my view more serious than the crisis in 2008…. What we don’t know the state of credit default swaps held by banks against sovereign debt and against European banks, nor do we know the state of CDS held by British banks, nor are we certain of how certain the exposure of British banks is to the Ireland sovereign debt problems.”
But no, Morgan Stanley does, or so they swear an unlimited number of times each day. And they say not to worry about anything because, you see, it is not like they have any upside in telling anyone the truth. Which is why for everyone hung up on the latest rumor of a plan about a plan about a plan spread by a newspaper whose very viability is tied in with that of the banks that pay for its advertising revenue, we have one thing to ask: “show us the actual plan please.” Because it is easy to say “recapitalize” this, and “bad bank” that. In practice, it is next to impossible. So yes, ladies and gentlemen, enjoy this brief relief rally driven by the fact that China is offline for the week and that the persistent source of overnight selling on Chinese “hard/crash landing” concerns has been gone simply due to an extended national holiday. Well, that holiday is coming to an end.
Some of the weaker Spanish banks have been nationalized. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of this.
Australia’s Status of Women Minister, Kate Ellis says that “mindless bias” holds women back in her country. She’s been making the rounds arguing about a report that shows that gender differences in salary and position cannot be explained away by either occupational choices or other factors. Can you imagine Valerie Jarret holding US corporations to account for not promoting and hiring women? Oh, wait, the Prime Minister’s name is Julia … hmmmmm.
”We are saying very clearly to corporate Australia, we want to work in partnership with you to change this – and it’s an offer that I hope corporate Australia will take that up and we don’t have to take that conversation any further.”
Asked yesterday about the portrayal of women in the media, Ms Ellis said there was sometimes unequal treatment ”handed out”, and said the treatment of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was ”a case study before our eyes”.
”I think there’s a really interesting issue, where often I will be encouraging people where if you see unfair treatment, if you see discrimination you should stand up and call it out for what it is,” she said.
”In politics, there’s often the opposite pressure, where if you do that constantly it looks like female politicians are whingeing and they’re not tough enough to handle the environment.”
She said her office was collating examples of the media dealing with gender issues in ways that were not ”acceptable”.
According to the government’s latest census of women in leadership, last year females made up just 8.4 per cent of directors and 8 per cent of executive managers in ASX200 companies.
The report calls for companies to adopt a range of reforms, including making their workplaces more flexible and setting targets for gender diversity.
The Guardian has a killer interview up with retired US General McChrystal who says the US is only about 1/2 done with the war in Afghanistan. That means 10 more years if he’s right.
The US began the war in Afghanistan with a “frighteningly simplistic” view of the country and even 10 years later lacks the knowledge that could help bring the conflict to a successful end, a former top commander has said.
Retired US army general Stanley McChrystal said in remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations that the US and its Nato allies were only “a little better than” 50% of the way to reaching their war goals.
Of the remaining tasks to be accomplished, he said, the most difficult may be to create a legitimate government that ordinary Afghans could believe in and that could serve as a counterweight to the Taliban.
McChrystal, who commanded coalition forces in 2009-10 and was forced to resign in a flap over a magazine article, said the US entered Afghanistan in October 2001 with too little knowledge of Afghan culture.
“We didn’t know enough and we still don’t know enough,” he said. “Most of us, me included, had a very superficial understanding of the situation and history, and we had a frighteningly simplistic view of recent history, the last 50 years.”
US forces did not know the country’s languages and did not make “an effective effort” to learn them, he said.
McChrystal said the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq less than two years after entering Afghanistan made the Afghan effort more difficult.
Well, that’s some depressing things to think about which is about what’s on my mind today. What’s on your reading and blogging list?
Reid Goes Nuclear
Posted: October 6, 2011 Filed under: Democratic Politics, jobs, unemployment | Tags: Harry Reid, Senate Nuclear option 8 Comments
After endless Republican maneuvers to block any legislative progress in Congress, Harry Reid triggered the so-called “nuclear option” to stop a Republican attempt at symbolic vote on the President’s job bill that was bound to embarrass Reid. This move is a rarely used procedural option. The goal is to block republican amendments that are proposed after the senate has moved to vote on final passage of the bill.
Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.
The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.
The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to limit debate earlier in the day.
McConnell had threatened such a motion to force a vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which many Democrats don’t like because it would limit tax deductions for families earning over $250,000. The jobs package would have been considered as an amendment.
McConnell wanted to embarrass the president by demonstrating how few Democrats are willing to support his jobs plan as first drafted. (Senate Democrats have since rewritten the jobs package to pay for its stimulus provisions with a 5.6 surtax on income over $1 million.)
Reid’s move strips the minority of the power of forcing politically-charged procedural votes after the Senate has voted to cut off a potential filibuster and move to a final vote, which the Senate did on the China measure Tuesday morning, 62-38.
Reid said motions to suspend the rules after the Senate votes to end debate — motions which do not need unanimous consent — are tantamount to a renewed filibuster after a cloture vote.
“The Republican Senators have filed nine motions to suspend the rules to consider further amendments but the same logic that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 such amendments,” Reid argued before springing his move.
Reid said Republicans could force an “endless vote-a-rama” after the Senate has voted to move to final passage.
This move came as a result of Reid trying to usher through a vote on the China currency bill. McConnell wanted to force the vote on the Obama jobs bill to demonstrate the split in the Democratic caucus on the measure. As outlined below, McConnell tried to attach the jobs bill to the Currency bill. Reid outmaneuvered them.
Tonight, McConnell made what’s called a “motion to suspend the rules,” to allow a vote on the amendments. Such motions are almost always defeated, because they require a two-thirds majority to pass. But they’re another way for the minority party to force uncomfortable votes. Even though the minority party doesn’t get a direct vote on the amendment, how somebody votes on the motion becomes a sort of proxy for such a vote. In this case, for instance, if Democrats had voted down a motion for a vote on Obama’s jobs bill, it would have put them in an awkward spot.
Though it’s been the standing practice of the Senate to allow such motions by the minority, tonight Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell’s motion out of order, and was ultimately backed up by Democrats.
So, the end result is that by a simple majority vote, Reid was able to effectively rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments. Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it’s something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.
And just to clear up some confusion, what happened tonight was different than the so-called “nuclear option” to end filibusters. While triggering the “nuclear option” requires a Majority Leader to use the same sort of strategic maneuvers as Reid just did, tonight’s move had to do with the amendment process, not filibusters.
As I mentioned the other day, there are a lot of really nervous DINOs who are balking at the measures proposed by Obama to pay from the jobs act.
Democrats in the Senate were divided over the president’s original offsets to pay for his plan, most notably his call to cap deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 annually. But to unite their party, they scrapped his proposed offsets and instead added a 5.6 percent surtax on those who earn more than $1 million annually as the main way to pay for the $447 billion in spending on infrastructure and incentives for companies hiring new workers.
Before those changes were made and sensing Democratic divisions on the original plan, McConnnell went to the floor earlier this week and demanded that the president’s bill be voted on immediately — given the president’s repeated demands to pass his bill “now.”
But Reid blocked that effort, and Democrats are now moving forward with plans to bring the latest version to the floor early next week. Reid and his Democratic leadership team plan to meet at the White House on Thursday evening to talk about their strategy for the plan.
Republicans are opposed to the tax increases and spending levels in the plan and are well-positioned to block it next week since 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster. And there isn’t unanimity even among the 53-member Senate Democratic Caucus.
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat who faces a tough reelection next year, said he’ll vote against efforts to bring the bill forward for debate.
If you want more background on the Democratic infighting, you can check out my post from a few days ago here. My guess is that the current polling situation has begun to make it clear to the Democratic party officials that they’re in a heap of trouble. Obama’s polling worse each day. Reid undoubtedly doesn’t want to lose his position in the Senate leadership. I keep wondering why they haven’t pulled the rug out from Mitch McConnell much earlier but I’m assuming they’ve taken their cues from the White House. Maybe this is the start of a bit more gumption.
Send in the Clods
Posted: October 6, 2011 Filed under: Elizabeth Warren Campaign, Women's Rights | Tags: Elizabeth Warren, Scott Brown 21 Comments
There was a debate in the Boston area for senate candidates that included Elizabeth Warren. She was one of many candidates but had some fun stand out answers to some lighthearted questions. She got a sizable laugh when asked which super hero she’d like to be when she explained that her choice was Wonder Woman because of the bracelets. Another interesting question was put to her about how she paid for university. She mentioned that it wasn’t by taking her clothes off. That wasn’t the only direct hit she scored on incumbent Scott Brown, however.
“Forbes magazine named Scott Brown Wall Street’s favorite senator. I was thinking, ‘That’s probably not an award that I’m going to get,’ ” said Warren when asked about reforming Wall Street.
“What this is all about and what it’s been about from the beginning for me is America’s middle class. . . . This is what I work on. This is my life’s work.”
The six Democratic candidates vying to unseat Brown faced questions on job creation, campaign viability and even their favorite superhero. Students questioned the candidates for more than 90 minutes as UMass-Lowell Chancellor Martin Meehan moderated before an audience of about 1,000 people in the university’s Durgin Hall, and thousands more viewing the debate’s live-streaming video online at bostonherald.com.
Warren, a Harvard Law professor who quickly became the Democratic front-runner after entering the race two weeks ago, clung to her role as middle-class warrior but struck a more moderate tone in comparison to the other candidates.
When asked if she would encourage her children to join the military, Warren said she already had.
“This isn’t a hard question for me,” said Warren, in contrast to City Year co-founder Alan Khazei, who expressed difficulty when he thought about “my own daughter or son putting their life on the line.”
Warren also rolled with some of the curveball questions, joking that unlike Brown’s centerfold spread in Cosmopolitan magazine, “I kept my clothes on,” and relied on student loans to pay her way through college.
So, what was the snappy come back from Brown? Well, he relied on a sexist retort explaining how relieved he was that she’d kept her clothes on. It was tacky and mean even once you got past the sexism. Doesn’t this imply Warren with a distinguished academic career and record of public service is ugly?
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) doesn’t think anyone should have to see Elizabeth Warren naked.
At Tuesday night’s primary debate, Warren, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to challenge Brown, used a question about how she paid for tuition to take a jab at the freshman Senator. “I kept my clothes on,” Warren said, referring to Brown’s famed nude Cosmopolitan spread.
Brown could have brushed off the attack, but instead, he decided on the worst possible course of action. According to Boston journalist Joe Battenfield, Brown said “Thank God,” in response to Warren’s jab.
If Brown is expecting to hold on to women voters, he’s going to have to develop a different approach. There’s more than a few journalists that noticed the insult.
@ABWashBureau Rob Blackwell
Macaca moment? RT @NickBaumann @matthewstoller Scott Brown calling Elizabeth Warren ugly is probably not the best idea.Josh Marshall
Not Smart: Sen. Brown says “Thank God” Eliz Warren didn’t take her clothes off 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/scott-… via @TPM
There’s also this one from Slate’s Jessica Grose that has me scratching my head.
When I first heard that Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown had said on a morning radio show, “Thank God” his potential opponent Elizabeth Warren didn’t take her clothes off to pay for college, like he famously did in the pages of Cosmopolitan, I was appalled but not surprised: Attacking older female politicians for the way they look is straight out of the anti-Hillary Clinton playbook. Then I read that what he said was in response to some comments that Warren made at the Senate primary debate about Brown’s Cosmo spread, I wondered if they both deserved some blowback—she shouldn’t be denigrating him for posing nude, just as he shouldn’t be dissing her looks.
This man is the father of daughters who has already proved exactly how shallow he is about women when announcing his daughters were “available”. This came after a reporter found pictures of the two girls on their Facebook pages in bikinis. If I were a woman with a vote in Massachusetts, I sure would want this guy out of office. I just wonder if he’s going to adapt the campaign theme of “boys don’t make passes at girls that wear glasses” next. What a schmuck!!!!







Recent Comments