Posted: May 9, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: abortion rights, American Gun Fetish, Barack Obama, Economy, fetus fetishists, GLBT Rights, Global Financial Crisis, John Birch Society in Charge, New Orleans, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, religious extremists, Reproductive Rights, the villagers | Tags: Bonnet Carre Spillway, Chas Bono, Lousiana, Mississippi River Flooding, Morganza Spillway, transgen, Vanessa Redgrave |
Good Morning!!!
Hopefully, you had a great weekend! The weather’s been nice here but we’re mostly focused on all that water coming down the Mississippi towards us. The Bonnet Carrre Spill Way opened today at 8 am to release some of the river water in to Lake Pontchartrain. The Corps has requested that the Morganza Spillway be opened too. The last time it was opened was in 1973 when Nixon was still president. That’s more controversial because it will flood farms and land but will help maintain the levees in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. We’ll have to see who wins that one.
If granted, the Corps plans to open the Morganza Thursday. This could create water up to 25-feet deep in spots.
In Terrebonne Parish, low-lying areas in the Western end are vulnerable to flooding, up to five feet. Parish president Michel Claudet tells FOX 8 he’s worried people don’t realize what could happen. Claudet says there’s a plan to sink a giant barge in Bayou Chene. Essentially, it would serve as a temporary dam to reduce the backflow of water into St. Mary and Terrebonne Parishes. Bayous and creeks are already filling up and public works crews were out, looking for low areas to reinforce.
Opening the Morganza Spillway would require the evacuation of people and livestock in the Atchafalaya River Basin. About 30 miles Northwest of Baton Rouge, West Feliciana Parish is bracing for the worst. If the Morganza opens, the Corps projects possibly 25-feet of water in some areas.
“We’re going to do what we can you know,” said Brad Smith of St. Francisville. He was rushing to his Cat Island hunting camp to shore it up, hoping he can get it higher than the water. “I mean you have money invested in a camp, you know your heart’s there, and you want to save it,” said Smith.
Friday, residents in the Stephensville-Belle River area North of Morgan City built walls of sandbags around their properties. Saturday, they were being urged to self-evacuate.
Governor Jindal believes that the flooding is certain anyway.
Land and structures in the Morganza Spillway will flood, even if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not open the gates, Commissioner of Agriculture Mike Strain and Gov. Bobby Jindal said today.
“It is inevitable that Morganza will flood and the system will top, regardless of whether they open the system,” Strain said at a press conference at the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security.
Jindal said he has asked the Corps of Engineers to provide maps of areas that are anticipated to flood, with and without opening the gates. He said he wants people who would be affected to be able to prepare before the water starts rising.
“Even without opening the spillway, folks can expect flooding comparable to 1973,” the governor said. “If they decide to open the spillway, it will be more water.”
This will be historical either way. I remember when they had to open the Bonnet Carre Spillway last spring because the river was so high. I live a few blocks from the Mississippi. The river was so high the boats were riding on the river at about the same level as the street. It look like the oil tankers were traveling on the next road over. I usually only see the very tops of these ships. It’s a strange feeling to think you’re sharing the road with huge ships.
So, since we’re talking about the Nixon years, I might as well offer up the Daily Mail’s first glimpse at the biography of Vanessa Redgrave. In part 2 of a three-part excerpt from the book, the Mail covers Redgrave’s political career.

Vanessa Redgrave as a Workers Revolutionary Party parliamentary candidate in 1974
The article’s interesting title is Vanessa Redgrave and the red sex slaves: How her bid to start Marxist revolution plunged her into bizarre scandal.
Never a shrinking violet, Vanessa Redgrave knew exactly what to do when she found a listening device in an electrical socket at her home. She called a Press conference.
It was common knowledge, she told the world in thrilling theatrical tones, that the internal security service MI5 had been bugging her conversations since she’d been a member of a Trotskyist organisation called the Workers Revolutionary Party.
Well, she wasn’t going to stand for it. So she was making a formal complaint to the European Commission, claiming that MI5 had violated her human rights.
Unfortunately, her grand gesture fell flat. Not only did the EU maintain that bugging radicals such as Vanessa Redgrave was ‘necessary in a democratic society’ — but it turned out that the bug had nothing to do with MI5 in the first place. It had been planted by a rival Left-wing faction.
Anyone else might have been utterly humiliated at making a fool of themselves, but not Vanessa. As her daughter Natasha once said, it never bothered her that she wasn’t liked — because being disliked gives her enormous freedom.
This is one celebrity biography that I can’t wait to read.
I first got the OBL kill news via CNN breaking news. The NYT is trying to claim the credit for the story. The truth is that it broke on twitter and was leaked by an aide of Donald Rumsfeld. Here’s the tick tock according to Felix Salmon.
Brisbane is the NYT’s ombudsman, and today he describes the way that the paper broke the news of Osama Bin Laden’s death. Well, he can’t do that, because the NYT didn’t break the news of Osama Bin Laden’s death. But he ignores the people who did break the news, and just tells the story of how the official NYT machine worked. His story starts at 10:34 last Sunday night, when a source told NYT reporter Helene Cooper that Osama had been killed. By 10:40, an alert was up on nytimes.com. Then, by Brisbane’s account, Twitter got involved:
One minute after Ms. Cooper’s news alert was posted on the Web, Jeff Zeleny, The Times’s national political correspondent, posted on Twitter: “NYT’s Helene Cooper confirming that Osama Bin Laden has been killed. President to announce shortly from the White House.”
At virtually the same time, Jim Roberts, an assistant managing editor, sent a similar Twitter message. Next to come was an automated Twitter post generated by NYTimes.com, regurgitating the original news alert.
Those links are all Brisbane’s, by the way, including the rather hilarious link to the homepage of the very site his column is on. All of the links are internal; none are to the actual tweets in question. But here’s the first tweet that Brisbane mentions, from Zeleny. As Brisbane says, it was posted at 10:41pm.
For a very different look at how the Osama news broke check out SocialFlow’s exhaustive analysis of 14.8 million tweets on Sunday night. As far as Twitter is concerned, the news was broken by Keith Urbahn at 10:24pm. But it really got momentum from being retweeted at 10:25pm by NYT media reporter Brian Stelter, who added the crucial information that Urbahn is Donald Rumsfeld’s chief of staff. Urbahn, here, gets the goal, but Stelter absolutely gets the assist …
The first real interview of the president on the OBL operation was seen Sunday Night. If you want to see the 60 Minutes Interview with President Obama that covers the OBL kill operation you can see it here.
Read the rest of this entry »
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Posted: May 7, 2011 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: abortion rights, child sexual abuse, children, fetus fetishists, religious extremists, Reproductive Rights, Women's Rights | Tags: Aerosmith, Steven Tyler |

Steven Tyler and underage girlfriend Julia Holcomb
Don’t read this post unless you’re prepared to be repulsed, sickened, nauseated, enraged. I just thought it would be fair to warn you. A few days ago, the National Review ran this op-ed by Kevin Burke, in which he tries to make a case for “post-abortion trauma” using Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler as an example. Here’s how the article begins:
Long before he won accolades as an American Idol judge, Steven Tyler was a bona-fide rock star, with all that that implied. In 1975, when he was in his late 20s and the lead singer for the band Aerosmith, Tyler persuaded the parents of his 14-year-old girlfriend, Julia Holcomb, to make him her legal guardian so that they could live together in Boston.
When Miss Holcomb and Tyler conceived a child, his longtime friend Ray Tabano convinced Tyler that abortion was the only solution. In the Aerosmith “autobiography,” Walk This Way (in which recollections by all the band members, and their friends and lovers, were assembled by the author Stephen Davis), Tabano says: “So they had the abortion, and it really messed Steven up because it was a boy. He . . . saw the whole thing and it [messed] him up big time.”
Okay, there is so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin. Burke tells us that a 27-year-old Tyler basically bought a 14-year-old girl from her parents, moved her into his home and impregnated her. Then he got her an abortion, and he is traumatized.
But Burke doesn’t even register the horror that he has described–a child given up by her parents so a wealthy rock star can exploit her. His only focus is on the fact that Tyler was upset by the abortion.
He provides a quote from Aerosmith’s “autobiography ” Walk This Way, in which Tyler describes the experience (Julia was called “Diana” in the book).
“It was a big crisis. It’s a major thing when you’re growing something with a woman, but they convinced us that it would never work out and would ruin our lives. . . . You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I’m going, Jesus, what have I done?”
See that ellipsis? Burke left something out of the quote, so I’ll provide the entire passage:

Burke left out the part where “they” (doctors?) told Tyler Julia was too young to have a baby! Burke also left out the part about how Tyler was providing a little girl with drugs and how he dumped her right after the abortion. Burke expresses zero concern for how traumatic all this must have been for Julia Holcomb. And BTW, what kind of abortion is that? It sounds like a very late term one to me. I suppose a rock star would be able to get one of those for his underage girlfriend….and then he got involved with a Playboy playmate and sent Julia back to her parents.
And check this out (h/t Mary Elizabeth Williams at Salon)

Um…did it bother Burke that Tyler made Julia dress up in little girl outfits? I guess not. Anyway he goes tries to argue that Tyler suffers from “post-abortion trauma.”
For many post-abortive men and women, the anxiety associated with an abortion can surface at unexpected times, triggered by events such as a subsequent pregnancy, the death of a pet or a loved one, or some other person, place, or thing that in some way connects with the traumatic memory.
Because Burke runs something called Rachel’s Vineyard Ministries, which puts on workshops and retreats for “post-abortive” people.
Rachel’s Vineyard weekends for healing after abortion are offered throughout the year in locations across the United States and Canada, with additional sites around the world. We also offer a 15-week support group model for Rachel’s Vineyard. Rachel’s Vineyard is a ministry of Priests for Life
The program is an opportunity to examine your abortion experience, identify the ways that the loss has impacted you in the past and present, and helps to acknowledge any unresolved feelings that many individuals struggle with after abortion. Because of the emotional numbness and secrecy that often surrounds an abortion experience, conflicting emotions both during and after the event may remain unresolved. These buried feelings can surface later and may be symptoms of post abortion trauma.
Married couples, mothers, fathers, grandparents and siblings of aborted children, as well as persons who have been involved in the abortion industry have come to Rachel’s Vineyard in search of peace and inner healing. The weekend is a lot of work but yields a fruitful harvest for all who are willing to labor there.
Good grief! Well at least they accept women. I wonder if they have to stand up and “confess” in front of the group? But come on–grandparents and siblings of aborted “children?” What about cousins, aunts and uncles?
I told you this was going to be a sickening post. I could make a remark about about maybe Burke isn’t so concerned about child sexual abuse because he’s a priest… Ooops! Did I say that?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Posted: April 29, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: black women's reproductive health, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, religious extremists, Reproductive Rights, Women's Rights | Tags: defunding planned parenthood, hypocrisy, Indiana, Mitch Daniels |
Mitch Daniels told THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s Andy Ferguson that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until economic issues are resolved.
Well, that was back in June, of 2010 … obviously the economic issues must all be resolved today, right?
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said today he will sign a controversial bill that cuts off government funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Indiana will become the first state to take such action.
“I supported this bill from the outset, and the recent addition of language guarding against the spending of tax dollars to support abortions creates no reason to alter my position,” said Daniels, a Republican.
You can’t trust any of them. They say anything. Way to call a truce, Governor … right on the backs of poor women!
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Posted: April 26, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: abortion rights, black women's reproductive health, Reproductive Rights, Women's Rights | Tags: activists for choice, young women's reproductive health |
I just read an astounding blog on the early fight for reproductive health rights by Eleanor Hinton Hoytt of Black Women’s Health Imperative at RH Reality Check. Hoytt asks a question that I’ve wondered myself recently. Will young women fight so that all US women will have access to reproductive health and not just those with sympathetic parents and partners or money in the bank? I know that Dr. Daughter is in the middle of the fight as an ob/gyn in a public hospital that serves many of Nebraska’s poorest women. She’s in a state that works hard to prevent access to a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in the first two trimesters and a state that has eliminated access to prenatal care for women who can’t prove citizenship. Youngest daughter and I live in a state with a whacked legislator that wants to criminalize abortion. How can you “murder” something that’s–at best–on life support and marginally human? I worry that my youngest daughter doesn’t see the issue and the attacks by crazed religionists as completely central to any young woman who seeks to self-determine her life. Hoytt’s story reminds me of the early days when women frequently shared how they came to realize that they were feminists and had a huge system to fight just to be recognized as a complete person. But, again, her central thesis is a significant one and worth sharing.
I see the ‘passing of the torch’ as a common cause from a different perspective. I have heard the fears that some of the leaders of my generation have about the current generation. That they lack intensity; they refuse to listen and follow; they don’t have the urgency of NOW; and they have never lived without the power of their own agency or without control of their own body. When I see the young feminist of today, I see that their values are different, creativity is unlimited, and understanding of innovation amazing and astonishing. And, most of all, they have greater access and are most accepting of different races, ethnicities, socio-economic statuses and sexualities – this adds many more angels to the fight.
I’m happy that young feminists of today have had more opportunities to claim ownership of their bodies. I am happy that they don’t know the dark alleys, and I’m pleased that they are blogging, tweeting, and asking me to be their Facebook friend. And for many of them I meet, they want to share their stories with me and hear mine—they ask, what has kept me involved, passionate and angry for the past 30 years. I tell them my story and listen to theirs. But most of all I ask them to believe that they may achieve what I have not in many ways.
I urge my other pre-Roe or “menopausal militia” leaders to recognize the differences in this generation’s struggles, understandings, desires and dreams. I believe that too often we see a different experience or opinion as a sparring point, but now, more than ever, we must see this as a broadening of our cause. Young feminists are not laser-focused on abortion, and that’s okay. Let’s accept their boarder reproductive justice agenda.
I was fortunate enough to become sexually active post-Roe, way post-birth control pills, and at a University that practically wanted to give you all the birth control pills and reproductive health information you could possibly need. Planned Parenthood was accessible and free where I lived. Still, when the religionists started pushing back, I felt the need to take to the streets, to letter writing, and to volunteer as a clinic escort. I sent my two daughters straight to Planned Parenthood when the questions started and the needs were obvious. I’m not getting the reason that any young woman should be complacent right now about the obvious attack on their rights. But right now, I’m seeing a 50/50 shot in my own sample of 2.
It’s not really a constitutional right if we all can’t access that right equally, is it?
So, how do we in the menopausal militia pass the torch? Are there enough young activists out there to pick it up?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Posted: April 26, 2011 | Author: dakinikat | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, Barack Obama, Democratic Politics, Domestic Policy, Environment, Environmental Protection, Reproductive Rights, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, right wing hate grouups, Surreality, Team Obama, The DNC, The Media SUCKS, the villagers, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, Voter Ignorance, We are so F'd, WE TOLD THEM SO, Women's Rights | Tags: Ezra Klein, Obama, Right Wing, Rockefeller Republicans |

Time to trot out the Unity Pony
I’m having an interesting day reading all the links out there and discussions on several Ezra Klein blog posts. Some one should’ve noticed Obama’s hero-worship of Reagan during the primaries about three years ago. Some one should’ve read his books that were gleeful about past Republican policy initiatives. But no, we were too busy discussing other things to notice how far to the right Barrack Obama really is.
Here’s one of Klein’s posts that’s getting netplay now: The shocking truth about the birthplace of Obama’s policies. Some people just have not been paying attention at all.
President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican from the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him.
If you put aside the emergency measures required by the financial crisis, three major policy ideas have dominated American politics in recent years: a health-care plan that uses an individual mandate and tax subsidies to achieve near-universal coverage; a cap-and-trade plan that attempts to raise the prices of environmental pollutants to better account for their costs; and bringing tax rates up from their Bush-era lows as part of a bid to reduce the deficit. In each case, the position that Obama and the Democrats have staked out is the very position that moderate Republicans staked out in the early ’90s — and often, well into the 2000s.
I’ve been saying for years–literally–that the Obama Health Care Plan was more conservative than Nixon’s and basically was grabbed from Lincoln Chaffe’s Heritage Plan in the 1990s which was later called Dolecare and then later morphed into Romneycare. That’s just Klein’s first example. He also provides evidence on cap and trade which was supported by George H.W. Bush and Newt Gingrich when it was applied to ‘acid rain’ instead of ‘global warming’. He then moves to tax policies. Obama’s obvious proclivities to voodoo economics even showed up in the first stimulus which was top heavy with tax cuts and not big enough on job creation measures. Klein doesn’t even touch the increasing military budgets and interventions, the GLBT and women’s rights issues that get bargained away, FISA, Gitmo, etc., etc., etc. …
Here’s Mark Thoma’s take on the Klein piece and a follow-up by Andrew Samick. Samick considers Obama to be a Rockefeller Republican of all things. I’d say Obama’s even more to the right than that because that’s pretty much the side of the Republican party that raised me. Rockefeller Republicans love Planned Parenthood among other things. Warren Buffet is a great example. Hell, Charlton Heston loved Planned Parenthood. I even heard him speak on population control issues in Omaha, Nebraska in the mid 1970s sponsored by–gasp!–Planned Parenthood. The most interesting part is Thoma’s ending question. Why are we moving so far to the right now?
What’s left unexplained is why movements to the right by both parties — and these aren’t marginal moves — haven’t alienated the middle of the road, swing voters that seem to make a difference in elections. I don’t think I have a good answer for why. In the present case, there is some voter remorse — Obama is far more conservative than many thought — but I don’t think that explains the larger trend.
The original Ezra Klein piece is here: ‘Obama revealed: A moderate Republican’. Believe me, the conversation has gone viral with folks like The National Review (Be forewarned if you go there, it’s a putrid thread.) on line taking the bait. Booman even twists himself into a world class logic pretzel trying to say this is good news because it means Obama’s policies are “mainstream”. Joseph Romm at The Grist discusses the climate policy even further.
In the climate bill debate of the past two years, Obama and the Democrats embraced Republican ideas in an effort to minimize or avoid the partisanship inherent in other approaches that had been explicitly rejected by Republicans, including a tax and a massive ramp up in clean energy funding, as I’ve argued.
But Klein makes an effective case that it simply didn’t matter how reasonable or centrist or business-friendly a strategy environmentalists and progressive politicians pursued (or might have pursued). The Republicans simply were committed to stopping Obama from appearing bipartisan.
The Dems keeps getting suckered by Republicans the way Charlie Brown keeps getting suckered by Lucy. But the difference is that the GOP’s strategy wasn’t even a secret.
Ah, here’s the deal. Romm ties back to Thoma’s question. Why all this goose stepping to the right? Easy. It was the Republican strategy of say not to everything. They had to go further right to say no. Now, we’re in policy measures that are from John Birch Society land. Finally, the Democratic Congress said no more compromises when Planned Parenthood went on the chopping block. They also decided to get what they could get done before Boehner took over the house. We saw a few last minute Democratic Policies get passed but it was only due to the folks in Congress. Obama just went along because, hell, a win is a win, right?
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell told The New York Times in March 2010, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.” Why? As McConnell blurted out right before the 2010 midterm elections, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Obama kept proposing “conservative” policy at the onset. The Republicans announced they would sabotage it from the get go. This is something we complained about and pointed out here and elseblog for years. Obama’s opening policy moves were always a compromise position for real Democrats. He never was worried about putting policy out there with a real Democratic stamp on it because issues aren’t important to him. This President desperately wanted to pass anything with his name on it that would be called success. I frequently argued he wanted to makes sure there was a Health Plan that went through just to show he could do it when the Clintons couldn’t do it. He threw the Democratic plans over board almost immediately including the wildly popular single payer option. Dumping women’s access to private insurance with access to abortion was his final compromise maneuver to pass the silly thing. He’s thrown policies to the wind that have been basic Democratic Platform staples every chance he’s been in office. The Republicans were never going to act satisfied and were going to keep goosestepping further right. It was their announced strategy. He was more than willing to go right along with them because his proclivities are rightish anyway and he just wants the win.
So, my big question is why didn’t these folks see this coming all along like we did? Then a follow-up, what good does all this discovery now do three years too late?
Of course, if you read the Republican blogs, they’re still screaming Obama’s a socialist and Klein’s a fool. If you hit the partisan Democrats, the pretzel logic maneuvers are as obvious as Booman’s trying to find the sunny side up.
I’ll I can say is we told them so. Follow that up by a we are so f’d.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
Recent Comments