Saturday: Self-governance
Posted: May 14, 2011 Filed under: morning reads 19 CommentsMorning, news (& history!) junkies.
My weekend roundup is going to be more heavy on history this Saturday (though there will be news sprinkled in too), because “what is past is prologue,” and that applies very much to the present-day rollback of women’s fundamental rights to govern themselves.
On This Day in History (May 14)
In 1863, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton suspended work on women’s suffrage to form the Women’s National Loyal League, which held its first convention on May 14, 1863, at the Church of the Puritans, NYNY. I’ll let you decide how much of a history lesson you want on a Saturday morning–if yes, click over and view the leaflet calling for a meeting of “loyal women of the nation” to discuss the Civil war, along with a transcription of a letter on the second leaf, from Susan B. Anthony to Amy Post. But, I do want to highlight one particular excerpt from what Anthony said at the convention:
SUSAN B. ANTHONY: This resolution brings in no question, no ism. It merely makes the assertion that in a true democracy, in a genuine republic, every citizen who lives under, the government must have the right of representation. You remember the maxim, ” Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This is the fundamental principle of democracy; and before our Government can be a true democracy- before our republic can be placed upon lasting and enduring foundations -the civil and political rights of every citizen must, be practically established. This is the assertion of the resolution. It Is a philosophical statement. It is Dot because women suffer, it is Dot because slaves suffer, it is not because of any individual rights or wrongs it is the simple assertion of the great fundamental truth of democracy that was proclaimed by our Revolutionary fathers. I hope the discussion will no longer be continued as to the comparative rights or wrongs of one class or another. The question before us is: Is it possible that peace and union shall be established in this country ; is it possible for this Government to be a true democracy, a genuine republic, while one-sixth or one-half of the people are disfranchised?
Conservative women’s groups have tried to subvert feminism and reappropriate this feminist pioneer as one of their own in their crusade against the autonomy, privacy, and equity of all women, but Susan B. Anthony shared a mutual admiration with the socialist movement and was a suffragist, abolitionist, and practitioner of civil disobedience for which she was brought to trial. As evidenced in the passage above, what drove her tireless championing of civil rights for both women and blacks was a core belief in the inalienable right to self-governance.
Last Year…This Year
A year ago today, Sarah Palin gave her address to the conservative and so-called “Susan B. Anthony List,” and a week later, history of women historians Ann Gordon and Lynn Sherr debunked the “feminists for life” mythology that Susan B. Anthony was a pro-life activist. Naturally this didn’t convince the FFL and SBA-List crowd any more than Obama releasing his long-form birth certificate convinced Orly ” it says African, not Negro” Taitz.
This is a screenshot I took of the SBA-List homepage on Thursday morning of this week:
Here is an FFL news bulletin from February 2011 that shows you what they were up to on SBA’s birthday and throughout Women’s History Month in March:
New Campaign Beginning on Susan B. Anthony’s Birthday
February 2011
To make holistic, woman-centered solutions a reality and effect lasting change, Feminists for Life members need information and tools. To effectively advocate for women and systematically eliminate the root causes that drive women to abortion, Feminists for Life needs members.
On Susan B. Anthony’s birthday, February 15th, Feminists for Life will launch a new campaign lasting through the end of Women’s History Month in March. Together we will celebrate our rich feminist history and reach out to educate others, encouraging them to join us in creating practical resources and support for pregnant women and parents.
Well, “practical resources and support for pregnant women and parents” sounds great and all, but if one of your sister groups has given top priority to defunding Planned Parenthood in Susan B. Anthony’s name and your Grizzly-go-tos are going to make vacuous remarks like “Hells no. I would not vote to increase that debt ceiling,” that really shows, on so many levels, how fake this call for practical resources for women is. If you want to defund planned parenthood and cut public spending on everything but the neverending war machine, then you’re not interested in helping anyone…other than the oligarchy, that is.
As I said last summer: Sarah Palin is neither the problem, nor the solution.
At the time I asked people to consider that tearing Palin down by calling her a bimbostein (etc. etc.) will do nothing to make the war on women stop.
Yes, she’s complicit in that war and as Madeleine Albright once said, there’s a place in hell reserved for that kind of thing. However, Palin is not in power. She has a megaphone she uses irresponsibly, but in a town where Barack Obama and Paul Ryan are declared to be the smartest suits amongst a sea of suits, the war on women was going to happen with or without the help of Palin, Bachmann, et al.
They’ve got less control combined than Barack Obama, who lest anyone forget signed an executive order that segregated women’s health care. It wasn’t a Speaker Palin who brought Stupak to a vote.
It was Speaker Pelosi… who Obama hung out to dry in 2010.
Women hold less than 20% of elected representation and make up 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs. At the rate we’re going, it will take 500 years for American women to achieve gender parity.
With or without Pelosi, Palin, and any other woman who sells the rest of her sisters out in politics, the rightwing rollback of women’s rights would be happening.
It is baffling watch them sell us out. Especially when they propagate garbage like the following…
From Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s How Obama’s Gender Policies Undermine America:
In other words, contrary to what feminist lobbyists would have Congress believe, girls and women are doing well. […] Policymakers should require that government contractors hire men to bring down their 10 percent unemployment rate. Health reform bills should feature Offices of Men’s Health to help men live to the same age as women. Unfortunately, the reverse is occurring. Both Congress and President Obama continue to advocate policies that favor women over men.
Dakinikat gave an apt description of Furchtgott the other day in the comments at Sky Dancing: “Schlafly as an economist.”
I’ll let a recent survey and Ms. Foundation’s Anika Rahman take care of responding to Diana Fuhgettaboutwomen’s thesis… New Poll: Economic Crisis Still Affects Majority of Americans, Impact on Women Especially Severe (via Reuters)…
The 2011 Community Voices for the Economy survey of 1,515 adults nationwide was conducted from March 15-24, 2011. It revisited key questions from a January 2010 survey.
“Last year Americans, and especially women, said they were profoundly affected by the recession,” says Anika Rahman, President and CEO of the Ms. Foundation for Women. “This year, the impact continues virtually unabated, and in some cases is far worse, especially for low-income women and women of color. The so-called economic recovery is not reaching women or others in need — not by a long stretch.”
In a key indicator of economic security, the percentage of Americans who report living paycheck to paycheck all or most of the time was up five points over 2010 to 49 percent. But the increase among low-income women is especially staggering: 77 percent report living paycheck to paycheck, a 17-point jump from last year.
More highlights (or rather lowlights) on how women, men, and families are struggling in this economy:
* Seventy-one percent of women and 65 percent of men say the economic downturn had some or a great deal of impact on their families.
* Nearly half of Americans (46 percent) remain concerned that they or someone in their household could be out of a job in the next 12 months.
* Low-income women continue to feel the greatest impact from the downturn, with 80 percent saying it has had some or a great deal of impact compared with 73 percent of low-income men. Other groups experiencing a particularly strong impact are: Latinas (74 percent); single mothers (73 percent); and women without a college degree (74 percent).
Rahman describes the “triple blow” of the womancession:
“Women are losing jobs faster than men because of drastic cuts in areas like education and health care where they make up the majority of the workforce. As the majority of state and local public-sector workers, women are affected most by attacks on public-sector unions. And women suffer most from cuts to social services because they’re more likely to be poor and care for children and the elderly.”
That’s not all the 2011 Community Voices polling uncovered. Most women and most Americans aren’t sounding like they would say “hells no” to raising the debt ceiling:
In a particularly notable finding, the survey revealed that women — and a robust majority of the American public — want the government to take a stronger role in fixing the economy and creating jobs, even if it means increasing the deficit in the short-term. In fact, a significant majority of Americans are concerned that deficit cuts will come at the expense of families and children.
Until we have equal representation in government, until we have more Anika Rahmans and Liz Warrens shaping the economic debate, until we have more women’s voices invited to the Sunday morning panels, what we need to be focusing the bulk of our energies on is not Furchtgott and her ilk. They deserve pushabck in due measure, but the war on women didn’t begin with them and it won’t end with them.
What we need to be doing to fight back the war on women is shoring up women who make good in politics — women like Kirsten Gillibrand.
From Robin Marty, via Care2.com… Gillibrand: Childcare IS a Jobs Agenda…
“Childcare is part of a jobs agenda,” Gillibrand said in the live chat, hosted by the women’s political organization committed to supporting pro-choice candidates, voicing her frustration at a expense that has become a significant burden to numerous families with both parents in the workforce.
As a result of the rising cost of childcare, Gillibrand is proposing legislation that will help to reduce the ballooning cost of care. “In this difficult economy, parents cannot afford the rising cost of child care. Families’ incomes are just not keeping pace,” Senator Gillibrand said. “I speak with parents all over New York State, who tell me that something must be done. In addition to making child care more affordable for parents who work and go to school, my plan will provide special assistance to businesses that help their employees with the tremendous costs.”
Gillibrand’s proposal includes increasing the Dependent and Child Care tax credit to $6000, giving larger tax breaks to businesses that offer on site child care services, getting more workers into the child care industry and encouraging businesses to allow more telecommuting — a proposal that wouldn’t just cut the amount of money needed to be spent on childcare, but would also reduce road congestion, fuel consumption, and business expenditures for keeping employees in an office.
If the Susan B. Anthony List and Feminists for Life actually cared so much about mothers and children, they’d be working on a childcare agenda, instead of trying to police pregnancy.
The Kirsten Gillibrands are our way to play offense in this war on women. They capitalize on where the rightwing is weak–which is basically on everything since their solution to everything is no government–and they fight back by offering an actual alternative, showing how government *can* work for women, men, and families. That’s an alternative that most Americans want.
Here’s what else Gillibrand is doing–fighting for Kathy Hochul in NY-26, where Rove is spending big money trying to prevent an upset by a Demcoratic woman in a district where Dems never win. Two women fighting like…Democrats!
Go, Kathy, Go!
Kirsten Gillibrand for President!
Puts to shame this from earlier in the week, which is pretty much the byline of 44 and his male-dominated Congress:
It’s unclear for now how much resistance Democratic lawmakers will put up to the Republican proposal.
BTW, take a look at what ThinkProgress has reported on one of Kathy Hochul’s opponents. Via ThinkProgress… Jane Corwin Voted To Allow Women To Be Shackled During Childbirth.
Like Madeleine said. Place in hell. It’s reserved.
Let’s return to inspiring women in politics…Mayor Lake Lady with her first “Post Card from the Edge of Municipal Governing.”
It’s an exciting read and look from the inside of government. Give it a look if you haven’t already.
Hillaryland
A few quick links on that other woman who’s been making good in politics for two decades now… h/t Stacy at SecyClintonBlog on the first two.
Slideshow (49 pics): Hillary wining and dining in Italy…
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dines at Pierluigi restaurant in Rome with Tony Blinken and other colleagues. Hillary seems in good spirits, drinking wine and chatting with her team as they dined alfresco. The Secretary of State is in Italy to discuss Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s frozen assets and reportedly release the money to aid Libyans caught in the country’s conflict.
(May 6, 2011 – Photo by PacificCoastNews.com)
Youtube: raw footage of Hillary attracting a crowd–as she often does on her travels–this time on an unannounced visit she made to a shopping district while she was in Italy (2 minutes).
Reminded me instantly of this youtube of her from October 2009, in the streets of Dublin (1 minute)
“A woman who triggered a revolution in women’s health care”
I’ll close with this series of tribute to Barbara Seaman from On The Issues magazine:
Seaman lived in New York City near her three children and four grandchildren. “I didn’t start out to be a muckraker,” Seaman once said. “My goal was simply to try and give women plain facts that would help them to make their own decisions, so they wouldn’t have to rely on authority figures.“
[originally posted at Let Them Listen; crossposted at Taylor Marsh and Liberal Rapture]
Late Night: What do the Brooklyn-based Der Tzitung and the South Dakota legislature have in common?
Posted: May 9, 2011 Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Women's Rights | Tags: Der Tzitung, South Dakota, Stupakistan 38 Comments
So what do Der Tzitung and the SD legislature have in common?
Answer: Their fear of women!
Via the UK Daily Mail… Where did Hillary Clinton go? Hasidic newspaper edits Secretary of State out of Situation Room photo:
Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Der Zeitung printed a story this week with a subtly manipulated version of the historic image – all the men in the photograph remain untouched but the two women in the picture have been Photoshopped out.
Photoshopped: The Hasidic newspaper printed an altered version of the Situation Room photograph, with the women edited out
[…]
Spot the difference: Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason are missing
Original: The historic picture of White House staff in the Situation Room
Der Tzitung has since issued a non-apology apology, after Wapo called them out on a technicality (which doesn’t even make all that much sense, since all WH photos are public domain):
Update: Full statement by Der Tzitung.
The White House released a picture showing the President following “live” the events in the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials. Our photo editor realized the significance of this historic moment, and published the picture, but in his haste he did not read the “fine print” that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes. We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department.
The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ’00, and when she was re-elected in ’06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.
We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.
All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. (See below.) That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.
We are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and there is no conflict in that, and we will with the help of the Almighty continue as law-abiding citizens, in this great country of our’s, until the ultimate redemption.
NEWS REPORT
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This isn’t about the impression given or so-called intentions.
Going out of one’s way to photoshop two women out of a historic photo of the WH Situation room IS disparaging to women. Not publishing photos of women because of modesty laws IS disparaging to women.
And, now for the South Dakota tie-in…
Via Amanda Marcotte/RH Reality Check… South Dakota Banning Abortion Without Banning Abortion?:
How did South Dakota do it? The new law requires women seeking abortion to speak to the doctor, then wait 72 hours, then get counseled at an anti-choice propaganda station called a “crisis pregnancy center,” only after which would she be allowed to obtain an abortion. This law received quite a bit of attention for overt misogyny inherent in the implication that women are too stupid to be aware of what they’re asking for when they seek abortion, or that women are so ignorant and incurious that they can’t be expected to have considered anti-choice arguments unless forced. But it’s looking like this law may do more than that, and may actually make abortion impossible to get in South Dakota.
This works in two ways. Right away, it was clear that the 72-hour waiting period was an attempt to force the sole abortion provider in the state, a Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, to drop the service. The doctor that performs abortions flies in to provide the service, and this requirement is obviously intended to push out any doctor who doesn’t work full time at the clinic by making the travel requirements onerous.
The “counseling” requirement seemed more condescending than truly burdensome at first, though it is true that many women seeking abortion really don’t have the flexible schedule to work in a few hours to be hectored by anti-choicers before obtaining their abortion, which pushes this requirement from being irritating and sexist to being truly an obstacle. But recent news indicates that something more devious is likely going on. As Robin Marty reported last week, not a single crisis pregnancy center has agreed to counsel patients seeking abortion so that those patients can fill their requirements to get their abortions. Not even the centers that lobbied to get the requirement pushed through. Without centers willing to say they saw the patients seeking abortion, patients could be caught in a red tape nightmare that makes getting abortions impossible.
It’s always possible that this is a paperwork oversight, but experience tells us that anti-choicers don’t play by the normal ethical rules of fair play (which comes with the territory when you’re organized around the immoral desire to force unwilling women to bear children), so we have to consider the alternative, that this was the plan all along. At the end of the day, the “counseling” requirement is using bureaucratic nonsense to create a situation where women who want abortions have to get consent from people who think that every woman should be forced to have a many children as possible, whether she likes it or not. Of course they’re going to refuse to give that consent. Through a paperwork shuffle, the state of South Dakota has given the power to control abortion access to anti-choicers, and their choice—surprise, surprise—is a ban.
Once again, the real news reads like the fake news.
This was from the Onion back in March — Oklahoma Doctors Can Now Legally Pretend To Give Abortions:
Talk about life imitating parody. The Onion byline on the video:
Doctors in the state will now be able to act like they’ve just given a woman an abortion and send her on her way.
Between Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn who are afraid of Hillary Clinton’s and Audrey Tomason’s presence in the WH Situation Room and state legislatures across this country trying to send women back into the backalleys, might as well legalize fake abortions. Things have gotten so ludicrous that I’m surprised someone in the He-Man Woman Haters Club hasn’t tried the faux abortion tactic already… it’s just one step removed from all these attempts to ban abortion through backdoors and red tape.
In other news on the War on Women front, I hear from Dakinikat that the “Defund Planned Parenthood” control freaks are at it in Louisiana, so I’d like to end on a more proactive and possibly hopeful note…
Via Laura Bassett reporting for Huffpo… Federal Court May Strike Down Bill Defunding Planned Parenthood:
Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.) is on the verge of signing a bill that would bar Medicaid patients from receiving any kind of health care at Planned Parenthood clinics, and the family-planning giant is ready to retaliate in federal court.
Republican state lawmakers pushed the defunding bill in order to block taxpayer money to an organization that performs abortions (although the Hyde Amendment has blocked federally funded abortions for 30 years). But Planned Parenthood’s lead attorney says the law violates federal Medicaid rules as well as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“We’re going to file a lawsuit in federal court as soon after the governor signs this bill as we can get into court,” said Roger Evan, director of litigation for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “The funding ban is scheduled to take effect immediately, and we see Medicaid patients every day, so we will be seeking instantaneous relief against the law taking effect while we pursue the litigation.”
House Bill 1210, introduced by state Rep. Eric Turner (R-Cicero) in January, would prohibit the state of Indiana from contracting with “any entity that performs abortions or … operates a facility where abortions are performed.” But federal Medicaid rules state that Medicaid beneficiaries can obtain health services from whichever qualified institution or agency — including Planned Parenthood — the person chooses.
Further, Evan said, since abortion is legal on a federal level, the bill violates the 14th Amendment by punishing those institutions that offer it.
“A very essence of something being a constitutional right is that the states cannot punish you for doing it,” he said. “The problem here is that Indiana is penalizing Planned Parenthood for providing women with access to abortion services — an obviously constitutional realm of conduct. They’re trying to cut off more than a million dollars worth of funds. It’s punishment in disguise.”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said they never comment on pending legislation, but Indiana state officials have expressed concern in recent weeks that violating the federal Medicaid rule by discriminating against Planned Parenthood could cause the agency to cut off all $4 million in federal funds it gives to Indiana for family planning each year.
But Evan said Planned Parenthood is planning to stop the bill in its tracks before CMS has a chance to rule on it.
“If these contracts are canceled and Medicaid reimbursement is cut off, the consequences will be instantaneous to women in Indiana,” he said. “By the time the federal government goes through the process of levying a penalty, in a way, the damage would be done and irreparable.”
If Planned Parenthood is successful in court, the federal court will issue an injunction against the statute, and life will go on as normal at Planned Parenthood clinics. If the lawsuit is unsuccessful, the new law will take effect the minute Daniels signs it, ensuring that many Medicaid patients with appointments at Planned Parenthood over the next few weeks will have no way to pay for their services.
Here’s hoping the lawsuit goes somewhere… before the American Taliban omits women’s seats in any Situation Room altogether, sending us all off into the political back alleys (no photoshopping necessary.)
What part of “Beaches and Speeches” does Jonathan Alter not understand?
Posted: May 9, 2011 Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Media | Tags: clueless class 24 CommentsI’d like to start off by flashing back to February 23, 2008. Here’s what one Jonathan Alter had to say back then: Hillary Should Get Out Now…
If Hillary Clinton wanted a graceful exit, she’d drop out now—before the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries—and endorse Barack Obama. This would be terrible for people like me who have been dreaming of a brokered convention for decades. For selfish reasons, I want the story to stay compelling for as long as possible, which means I’m hoping for a battle into June for every last delegate and a bloody floor fight in late August in Denver. But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary’s political career. She won’t, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she’s in so much trouble in the first place.
Ah, yes, the most viable female candidate for president ever should have dropped out before she won two big primaries. How foolish of her to actually want to run for real and prove her mettle!
Fastforward to the June 2011 edition of Vanity Fair, in which the same Jonathan Alter has penned this profile on Hillary Clinton: Woman of the World…
VF illustration and caption from Alter's Woman of the World piece: THE PERILS OF HILLARY As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton finds herself dealing with foreign upheaval not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Aloft, the secretary of state can often be found with a black binder clip in her hair instead of fastened onto classified documents. It helps. Her stylist, Isabelle Goetz, does her hair in Washington, but on the road—unless the ambassador’s wife can recommend someone good—she takes care of herself. For years she’s routinely done her own makeup, which is easier because she has good skin. And her genes seem unusually strong. Dorothy Rodham, Hillary’s mother, is 92 but looks more like 80. Hillary is 63 but seems a bit younger. She is one of those lucky people who look better—or at least not worse—with age.
All of this is relevant politically because it means that in 2016, when she’s 68, she is unlikely to be written off as too old to run for president. Since the beginning of the year, Hillary has said repeatedly that she will leave office no later than early 2013 and retire from public life. In Bahrain, just before the Middle East upheaval, I heard her be more direct than ever before on the subject: “I’ve had a fascinating and rewarding public career …. I think I will serve as secretary of state as my last public position and then I’ll probably go back to advocacy work, particularly on behalf of women and children, and probably around the world.”
Hillary isn’t as calculating as her public image. The 2000 Senate race, for instance, was practically serendipitous. But it’s hard to believe “Clinton” and “ambition” have been fully sundered. In 2016, the Democrats are unlikely to have anyone better or more acceptable to different parts of the party.
First. Was it really necessary to launch into a discussion of Hillary’s electoral fitness by saying she looks younger than her age? I mean, what is this? The progressive version of Rush Limbaugh?
Second. Hillary should have just gotten out of the race the week of February 23, 2008. That obviously would have been the best move for her career. So said the Clueless Class.
Staying in the race until June 2008 has clearly been oh-so-detrimental for Hillary, as evidenced by how the Jonathan Alters in 2011 are now clamoring for her to run in 2016.
Talk about the Audacity of Hope. They WISH Hillary would run in 2016.
Hillary in Harper’s Bazaar, February 2011:
As for Clinton’s own postsecretary course, she says, “I’d probably teach international relations, current events, something involving women’s roles and rights around the world. I have no idea what I’m going to do, but I have a lot of interests that I hope to fulfill. And then an occasional beach, an occasional time-out.”
And what of 2016, the next date Clinton could conceivably run for president? “I have no thoughts for 2016,” she says with a benevolent smile. “Beaches … speeches.”
What part of that does Alter and the rest of the Clueless class not understand?
Hillary has transcended both 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the clueless class that worships the empty suits that sit inside it.
Her “not fully sundered ambition” after leaving the Obama Administration will be to use her power as an emeritus stateswoman to make the rights of women and girls a hallmark of any human rights campaign and national security agenda. What she’s going to be launching in the near-future is her own foundation for women–we’d be only too lucky if she had time to launch another presidential bid. And, frankly, after watching the the Democratic party self-destruct and sell out their core constituencies for K-Street/C-Street gobbledygook , come 2016, I’d rather see Hillary become UN Secretary General than President of the United States.
You had your chance at Hillary, progressives. Somewhere between saying Hillary had “more baggage than Paris Hilton on the Riviera” (that’s from Alter himself) and chanting WWTSBQ, you blew it.
And, anyways, if Hillary was really going to run, you better believe these goons wouldn’t be floating her for 2016–they’d still be spending every waking hour cataloguing how unlikeable and unelectable she is.
Alter doesn’t still seem to get that Hillary has transcended all of this and truly is a “Woman of the World” whose horizons are bigger than what the pea brains in DC can comprehend. Here’s another excerpt from Alter’s current piece:
For any secretary of state, the prerequisite for success is a strong relationship with the president. “He’s hard for her to connect with,” admits one of her top people. “It’s hard for her to break through to the more-than-polite level.” That isn’t meant to suggest chilliness or dysfunction. “Is it Bush-Baker?” the aide continues, referring to the relationship between the first President Bush and James Baker, who was so tight with his boss that he felt obliged to resign as secretary of state to run Bush’s ill-fated re-election campaign in 1992. “No. But there’s a lot of mutual respect, and she feels like she’s always got a shot with him.” Imagine how it feels to be a supplicant, looking for her “shot” at impressing the president. It was only four years ago that Hillary said her main opponent in the Democratic primaries was “irresponsible and frankly naïve” when he promised to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and other rogue regimes without preconditions during his first year in office. She hasn’t forgotten who turned out to be right on that one.
One day I asked Hillary point-blank how she gets along with Obama, with whom she meets a few times a week when neither is on the road. She gave me a predictable answer, that her relationship is “not only very good professionally but very warm personally.” Of course, “warm” is just another term of art in Washington, where the advice to anyone looking for a friend has long been to get a dog. When I ask for examples, she has to pause before recalling a very public moment: a spring day in 2009 when the weather was so good that the president suggested they go outside, where they were photographed chatting at a picnic table on the South Lawn. “It was exactly what I could have hoped for. It was spontaneous and heartfelt, and we had a good time,” she says. Her second example is a full hug she and the president shared in the Situation Room after the health-care bill finally passed.
What Alter et al. don’t get is that Hillary isn’t “looking” for “a shot to impress the president.”
It’s not her fault Obama’s a cold fish.
Hillary is a professional. She makes an effort to keep a working relationship with her boss. She gets things done.
What a bitch!
(Think Tina Fey, Bitch is the New Black.)
In fact, if you see Jonathan Alter discussing his June profile on Hillary on C-Span, you’ll see that at between the 1 to 2 minute mark, Alter himself concedes that:
She never has quite connected with the president on a personal level, but then there are not a lot of people that feel close to him, so that also is to be expected. They have a working relationship that is productive for the United States.
In his C-Span appearance, Alter also reiterates more emphatically that while he thinks Hillary isn’t “plotting” to run and thinks that *she sincerely thinks* she’s out of politics, he doesn’t think the “Democrats” can find anyone “formidable” besides her in 2016.
Alter notes in both his article and on C-Span that Hillary is “terrific off the record” but that she’s guarded on the record, defensive, yada yada. What is it with Jonathan Alter, Maureen Dowd (who once said of Hillary, “She has kept her sense of humor — which has a tart side — mostly under wraps, so she won’t be accused of being witchy”), and the rest of the press?
I’ve never seen this kind of obsession with a male pol for, you know, being a pol.
On Hillary’s resilience, Alter offers this commentary:
Even as she navigates these choppy waters, Hillary’s own vessel is solid and surprisingly leakproof. One of the least-noticed changes in American public life is how she has been transformed from a subject of constant gossip and calumny into a figure of consequence and little controversy. There are structural reasons: secretaries of state always exist in a zone slightly above grubby politics, which is meant—in theory, at least—to stop at the water’s edge. The right-wing attack machine can apparently concentrate only on one or two villains at a time, and since 2008 it has been Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s turn in the barrel, not Hillary’s. I tried for months to find people willing to lace into her. None would, not even politicians and TV blowhards who had once catalogued her distortions and dined out on despising her.
Well, of course they don’t want to go on the record taking her down now. Bullies don’t go after the smart girl when they need her to save their butts on a group project.
BTW, how many months has Alter ever spent “trying to find people willing to lace” Obama? Good grief.
Of course, Alter can’t resist this bit of Bill, Hillary, Obama commentary:
Despite running against each other, the president and secretary of state have a lot in common in the way their minds work—more, arguably, than either has in common with Bill Clinton. Staffers have noticed that both Obama and Hillary are methodical, secure, and human-scale when you talk to them; they’re deductive thinkers who drill down into a problem. The former president, by contrast, is discursive, needy, and larger-than-life; he’s an inductive thinker with a connective mind.
Bwhahahaha! Hillary is more disciplined than Bill, but both Clintons are wonks who make policy specifics accessible to the public, each in their own styles. They both blend populism with intellectualism in a way that’s been sorely absent from the White House since they left. Their styles complement each other. Where Hillary is focused like a laser, Bill is able to bring the big picture into focus.
Obama’s plenty disciplined, but he thinks the song is about him and doesn’t get deep in the weeds about the issues. (Either that or he doesn’t think he has to engage any of us little people on the issues.)
Then there’s this refrain from Alter throughout his piece:
On Egypt, it was Hillary who early on recommended caution and Obama who insisted that U.S. policy should be to push for an immediate transition.
What? Dakinikat, Minkoff Minx, bostonboomer, and I liveblogged Egypt at Sky Dancing.
Obama was just as foolishly entrenched in the “orderly transition” and “stability” memes as Hillary was. It took forever for Obama to respond and when he finally did, it necessarily fell short, by virtue of the Administration looking pathetic, having earlier had Biden opening his big mouth and saying he wouldn’t call Mubarak a dictator. It was officially Samantha Power who was pushing Obama to be more bold on Egypt, but all of this was probably good cop/bad cop shenanigans anyway, to give Obama cover to “evolve” his position once Mubarak’s ouster became a foregone conclusion.
Oh, and just look at how Alter wraps things up:
She has been involved in this cause for years, but now has a much bigger platform to push the idea of new cookstoves that cost as little as $25 each. “This could be as transformative as bed nets or even vaccines,” she says, the excitement in her voice palpable. “We are excited because we think this is actually a problem we can solve.”
That’s rare. Development challenges and global conflicts often seem intractable, and that has to be a little discouraging at three in the morning in the skies over Kabul or Cairo. “You can’t just look at these conflicts and issues and say, ‘O.K., that’s been solved,’” Hillary says to me at the end of an interview, starting to chuckle. “Because most of these problems are never solved.” Now she’s back in dutiful, dogged mode, which happens to be the mode that best fits today’s Hillary—the one almost everyone seems to like. “You know,” she says, “you just keep working at them and working at them and working at them.” Who can argue with that?
Likeable, congenial, hard-working, dutiful Hillary… meh.
There’s a lot more where that kind of faint praise came from in Alter’s profile of Hillary, stuffed between interesting details about her work at Foggy Bottom (e.g. at townterviews, “Often a questioner will refer to her in fractured English as ‘President Clinton.'”), but I think you get the point already.
I’m going to leave you with a passage where Alter actually lets Hillary’s merits as a stateswoman stand on their own somewhat, instead of trying to put too much of his own backhanded spin on it:
She accepted the post, in November of 2008, only after President-Elect Obama—in an inspired move over the objections of many on his campaign staff—twisted not just her arm, she informed friends, but her fingers, toes, and every other bone in her body. The president, for his part, is proud of himself for choosing her. He knows that she represents the United States better than anyone but him and is—to the surprise of many Obama veterans—refreshingly low-maintenance. When budget season arrived this year and the departments all faced drastic cuts, Hillary used a Cabinet meeting to offer tips on how to avoid making cuts that would affect vulnerable people—children, the elderly—and look bad politically. (She recalled that Newt Gingrich’s effort to slash the school-lunch program, which put Gingrich on the defensive, was the real turning point in the 1995 budget debate.) Several second-tier Cabinet members thought it one of the most useful White House meetings they had ever attended.
Wouldn’t you love to have Hillary as your boss?
Saturday: Big Easy Reads
Posted: May 7, 2011 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: BP oil spill, Climate change, disaster capitalism, dispersants, Gulf coast, Louisiana, New Orleans 28 CommentsMorning, news junkies.
I’m going to start this Saturday with my history pick first:
La Nouvelle-Orléans (New Orleans) was founded May 7, 1718, by the French Mississippi Company, under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Bienville, on land inhabited by the Chitimacha.
Click thumbnails for HQ views at pompo.com. Photography by Alfonso Bresciani.
I know we’ve had the perfunctory “Gulf oil spill: one year later” press coverage over the last few weeks, but since today marks the anniversary of New Orleans’ founding, I thought it would be prudent to take time out to dig deeper and get beyond the soundbytes. So this Saturday’s link dump is going to focus exclusively on the Gulf.
So how are NOLA and the Gulf Coast really doing?
Vanity Fair has posted a web exclusive from New Orleans-based photographer and CBS-affiliate videographer Jackson Fager, documenting the faces of shrimpers, fisherman, and oysterman along LA’s coastline, many of whom had their livelihoods snatched from them when the oil spill struck. Please check out Fager’s observations, thoughts, and photos. Here are the faces of the two women included in his slideshow (click for HQ and descriptions at the VF site):
Next up, from an interview (posted April 27th) with an environmental justice organizer with the Sierra Club:
BETWEEN THE LINES: And the Vessels of Opportunity, that was what BP set up to hire local fisher folks to clean up the spill, right?
DARRYL MALEK-WILEY: Right, that was funded by BP to hire people to go out and do clean-up work. A number of problems with that…No. 1, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network actually purchased safety gear and gave it to a number of fishermen to wear — respirators and things like that — because the environmental community knew about the dangers of the health impacts. And BP basically told fishermen and Vessels of Opportunity that if they wore the protective gear, they would no longer be working for BP.
In the interview, Malek-Wiley discusses a new organization called GO FISH (Gulf-Organized Fisheries in Solidarity and Hope), which is mobilizing fishermen and their families all the way from Alabama to Texas to fight for fair compensation from BP. Here’s what Malek-Wiley says these fishermen on the frontlines have to say about the official government spin that the oil has mostly disappeared:
DARRYL MALEK-WILEY: Yeah, what they say is that the oil is still here. We see it daily…tar balls are washing up all along the Gulf Coast. Just the way the winds blow…in the wintertime, the wind blows offshore so it’s blowing out into the Gulf; in the summertime we start getting southern winds blowing stuff back on shore. So we’re starting seeing tar balls come in; some of the oil come in. Because all the dispersant did was put it on the bottom of the Gulf, and so we’re starting to see some of that oil and dispersant coming back up and impacting a number of different coastal areas.
And, on dispersant:
DARRYL MALEK-WILEY: There is still a wide range of opinion. You know, the environmental community and fishermen basically agree that the use of dispersants without the needed scientific data on the long-term impacts of the stuff was not a smart thing. One point eight million gallons of dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico — nobody’s ever put that amount of dispersant anywhere in the world, so we don’t know what the impact of that is going to be. Some of the people who are sick, they’re taking samples of their blood and they’re finding the chemicals that make up the dispersants in their blood, as well as Louisiana sweet crude, and having serious health impacts.
Check out the rest of the interview to read more about those serious health impacts. It’s rather alarming, especially when you consider we’re talking about a population that has been out of work and lost their health insurance.
Dispersants: Questions remain
Last week the FDA declared seafood safe in Barataria, the coastal area hardest hit by the BP oil spill. The Miami Herald/AP article at the link says that means 99% of LA’s waters are open for fishing. The only meat I eat is seafood, and down along the Gulf we’ve gotten repeated “assurances” that our food supply isn’t tainted, but even all the way here in Houston a local chef who serves seafood still has unresolved concerns about dispersants:
“The thing that scares me the most about the oil situation is the dispersants, and from everybody that I talked to — from scientists to fisherman that’s the one thing that sit there and they hold onto,” he said.
Government scientists say their tests show no trace of any oil or dispersant in any seafood. They say the dispersant breaks down faster than oil in the water. NOAA says dispersant is simply not a concern, and for now, Caswell says he believes them.
“I eat it,” he said.
I eat it too, though I have cut back and still find myself wondering whether our public and private institutions are leveling with us on just how much they don’t know about the long-term impact of having these chemicals in our ecosystem and food supply and how far the reach of these effects might be. How many people have to get sick before they’ll admit anything?
Take for example this report out of Raceland, LA on fisherman Brandon Cassanova, who has mysteriously fallen ill, possibly due to exposure to dispersants. For months, Cassanova has been experiencing seizures, abdominal pain, memory loss, racing heartbeat, and elevated blood sugar, and his symptoms appear to be getting more acute. His lifelong primary-care physician, Dr. Mike Robichaux, believes Cassanova’s illness matches a “bizarre cluster” of symptoms experienced by people who say they have been exposed to dispersants and other toxins related to the oil spill. Robichaux, a former state senator and longtime advocate for locals exposed to pollutants, has written to Sen. Landrieu and others demanding the government for answers. He isn’t buying the line that the Gulf seafood is safe to eat, either.
While formal data collection by the LA Dept. of Health & Hospitals and long-term NIEHS research are underway, the task of proving causality between exposure and symptoms remains a hurdle. According to Tulane’s Dr. Luann White, most of the cases being reported are of a short-term and mild nature and dilution by the Gulf waters makes detecting chemicals and pathway of exposure to the public difficult. Anecdotally, however, Lafayette-based toxicologist Wilma Subra–who researched the chemistry of dispersants and came up with a list of possible effects–says she’s seen 600-700 people exhibiting this cluster of symptoms after being exposed to dispersants and crude, and that each of these cases seems to know of yet others going through the same thing.
A Thought Experiment on the Gulf Coast
This next one is interesting food for thought. Via geekosystem: What if the Gulf Oil Spill Never Happened? It’s a 2-minute animation clip by Chris Harmon, entitled Oil’d…please give it a look if you haven’t seen it yet:
Vodpod videos no longer available.
The Gulf Coast Oil Spill and Climate Change
I want to touch on the impact of the spill in terms of the broader environmental challenges for the Gulf…it seems like disaster capitalism struck this region and went into overdrive right at the time when it was most vulnerable and needed improvements in infrastructure and conservationist attention more than ever. Funny timing, that.
Over at Greenanswers.com, Chelsea Cooley paints a bleak picture with this headline… Last Days of Louisiana’s Bayous:
The 2010 BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico harmed Louisiana’s coastal eco-system in some obvious ways and in many other ways yet undiscovered. One unsettling truth is that the diminishing state of the wetlands actually aided the widespread effects of the oil spill, as the wetlands might otherwise have provided a protective barrier, preventing oil seepage into the bayous’ central regions. Barataria Bay, for example, a popular nesting ground for Louisiana’s pelicans, was one of the areas most polluted by the spill. The crisis compounded problems faced by an already delicate ecosystem.
However, the wetlands are also suffering due to a dramatic rise in sea-level associated with Global Warming. According to one professor of earth science from Tulane University, the sea-level rise in the Gulf Coast is occurring at a rate five times faster than it did in the 1000 years preceding the Industrial Revolution. The implications of human activity are on the table for all to see.
Also take a look at this SciAm/Reuters headline the other day that Dakinikat passed along to me… Seas Could Rise Up to 1.6 meters by 2100:
OSLO (Reuters) – Quickening climate change in the Arctic including a thaw of Greenland’s ice could raise world sea levels by up to 1.6 meters by 2100, an international report showed on Tuesday.
Such a rise — above most past scientific estimates — would add to threats to coasts from Bangladesh to Florida, low-lying Pacific islands and cities from London to Shanghai. It would also, for instance, raise costs of building tsunami barriers in Japan.
“The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic,” according to the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council.
And, this piece at Huffpo brings it altogether. Pre-Spill, Coastal Threats Cannot Be Ignored, Environmentalists Say…It’s breathtaking to read the entire piece and the extent of the challenges the Gulf region is up against. I’m just going to quote a few snippets:
Dr. Virginia Burkett, senior science advisor for Climate and Land Use Change at the U.S. Geological Survey, said the spill contributed to Louisiana’s wetlands loss, which was already well underway because of multiple stressors. And, she said, a year after BP’s rig explosion, cumulative effects of climate change and the spill are still poorly understood. Climate change itself, however, has been well studied.
[…]
Louisiana is in the grip of global, environmental change. “Temperatures and ocean waters are rising because of increased greenhouse or heat-trapping gases, like carbon monoxide, in the atmosphere,” Burkett said. “Glacial mass and annual snowcover are declining more rapidly than many scientists had predicted.” Ocean temperatures and acidity are increasing, and rainfall volume has grown. But spacing between rain events has expanded so droughts are more frequent in some regions of the world, she said. And in several ocean basins around the globe, hurricanes have become more intense.
As much as our government tries to pretend like the oil that gushed out into the Gulf last year just disappeared, they cannot wipe away the consequences of the larger pattern of environmental destruction that the BP oil spill has contributed to in the area. The spill last year wasn’t the first domino to fall, and it won’t be the last:
Burkett said events that hastened coastal erosion in recent decades won’t be the last.”When I was a child, Hurricane Camille was the big benchmark event, then it was Katrina.” And in the current decade, the Gulf oil spill is the gorilla.
What can we do?
Burkett offers these suggestions:
“Barrier islands and wetlands can be restored for hurricane protection,” Burkett said. “River sediment can be used to build marsh, instead of letting sediment wash out to sea.” Preparations can be made for more intense drought and wildfires.
“Home owners and communities can elevate houses, and cities can adapt infrastructure to the rising sea. In some areas, however, retreat may be the most effective option.” Her parents, for example, moved inland when they lost their home in Biloxi, MS to Hurricane Katrina.
So how much ‘ruin there is left in a nation’ may very well depend on just how much ‘retreat’ there is in it.
And, our ability to retreat depends on us even knowing we’re in danger in the first place. We saw the failures to get people out in time during Katrina and the several weeks it took for the current Administration to really respond to the BP oil spill, but what about the mini-disasters that build up cumulative damage yet go virtually unnoticed, leaving people unaware of the true extent of the daily threat they’re up against and how unsustainable their living spaces are becoming. Wired.com had a really interesting read recently on what can be done to better track crude leaking into the Gulf using satellite imagery… Gulf Oil Shouldn’t Spill Beneath the Radar:
A year after the Deepwater Horizon blowout sent 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, smaller leaks still bubble across the Gulf — but unlike big spills, they’re largely ignored.
A nonprofit organization called SkyTruth, which uses public and commercial satellite imagery to assess environmental damage, recently added airplanes and ships to its Gulf monitoring. But the group can still investigate just a tiny fraction of spills and leaks that may be reported, underreported or not reported at all by oil companies.
SkyTruth founder John Amos, a geologist and a former oil-company research scientist, thinks roughly $3 million per year could buy the necessary data and provide the first continuous, accurate assessment of Gulf oil pollution.
“The oil industry has done a great job convincing the public that modern drilling pollution is nonexistent. But we’ve discovered wells damaged by hurricanes in 2005 that are still leaking,” said Amos, who may have caught an oil company grossly under-reporting one of its leaks. “We have some tools available to do investigations, but in many cases it’s just not enough. For smaller spills, we need an up-close look from satellite imagery.”
On the proactive side of things, over here at Houston’s Reliant Center, the Offshore Technology Conference this past week has yielded some interesting results:
A possible tool for preventing oil spills like last year’s Gulf disaster arrived on the floor of Houston’s Reliant Center this week, courtesy of an auto industry refugee and a jackknife can opener.
The Latest Threat
As mentioned earlier, the BP oil spill isn’t the first or last threat the area is facing. Here’s the latest trouble, via the Daily Comet… Flood will deal blow to struggling oystermen.
Via the Sun Herald… Another slam for the Gulf:
GULFPORT — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans to open the Bonnet Carre Spillway on Monday, sending a flood of fresh water through Lake Pontchartrain, through a strait and into the Gulf.
It’s something officials don’t do often, because of the effect it has on the marine life and the Mississippi Sound.
But the Mississippi River — already high at 1.6 million cubic feet per second flowing past Natchez — is expected to increase to 2.45 million cubic feet per second by May 22.
Knowing that volume is coming down the river, opening the Bonnet Carre is an attempt to divert some of it before it gets to New Orleans.
But scientists who study marine life in the Gulf cringe.
“It will change things, that’s for sure,” said Bill Hawkins, director of USM’s Gulf Coast Research Lab. But how much change depends on the volume and duration of the diversion.
Jay Alford has more — The Coming Waters (h/t Dakinikat):
There’s more water on the upper Mississippi River right now than any time in history, period, in any time in history,” said Garrett Graves, chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. “This overwhelms the volume of water that was in the river in 1927, 1937, 1997, 2008. An extraordinary flow is coming down the river.”
That water levels are expected to be above crest for seven to 10 days doesn’t inspire much confidence. Graves said there are “vulnerabilities everywhere from the levees in Baton Rouge to the levees in south Louisiana.”
Final Thought
I’ll close with the WSJ’s review this Saturday, of Rowan Jacobsen’s Shadows on the Gulf: A Journey Through Our Last Great Wetland.
The headline says a lot in itself… A Gulf Requiem:
“Most of the Gulf Coast has not been touched by the oil spill,” Mr. Jacobsen reports, “and is beautiful and vital as ever.”
Yet these early avowals of glass-half-fullism notwithstanding, it’s hard not to hear the mournful sounds of a pipe organ on nearly every page. And you have to wonder why all the people—oystermen, oilmen, shrimpers, tourists—are so grim-faced, as if shuffling past what appears to be a Gulf-sized casket.
It’s a true shame that we’d let an area that is one of our national treasures become a laboratory for climate change and disaster capitalism in this fashion. Take a good look, because what’s happening to the Southern Louisiana area and the rest of the Gulf is foreshadowing of the rest of our country’s future, if the interests of profit continue to be put before people, unabated, and people get pushed off further to the margins of the margins.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if our president would have responded to the death of OBL by using the new presidential force behind the bully pulpit to restore our attention to the Gulf Coast and all that has been neglected over the past decade… too bad any reminder of the Gulf and the struggles of ordinary people conflicts with the fierce urgency of Obama’s permanent campaign.
[originally posted at Let Them Listen; crossposted at Taylor Marsh and Liberal Rapture]
Late Night Laughs: Trump booed at WHCD
Posted: April 30, 2011 Filed under: just because | Tags: Fake Obama vs. Real Ron Paul, White House Correspondents' Dinner 5 CommentsTonight is the WH correspondents’ dinner.
via the NYT Caucus blog’s live coverage:
Donald Trump, who just arrived at the White House Correspondents Dinner, was booed while walking the red carpet. #WHCD#NerdPromstableford
2 hours ago
Obama’s speaking right now… says tonight he’s going to release his birth video….
He played Lion King Circle of Life.
“I want to make clear to the Fox News channel. That was a joke.” — Obama
LOL.
Earlier… Powell and Albright share a moment:
Best pix WWR ever took at #nerdprom. WWR was chatting w/Colin Powell when another Secretary of State… http://twitpic.com/4rmk5o WestWingReport3 hours ago
Also, here’s some more theater of the absurd from this week… Fake Obama v. Real Ron Paul on Stossel’s Fox show (h/t Stacy):



Photoshopped: The Hasidic newspaper printed an altered version of the Situation Room photograph, with the women edited out
Spot the difference: Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason are missing
Original: The historic picture of White House staff in the Situation Room


















Recent Comments