Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: NY Times: Familiar Violence at Fort Hood, Get Lit at the
Actors Gang
(Joe Maizlish is a counselor in Health Conditions: Addiction, Alcoholism,
Anxiety, Attention deficit disorder, Depression, Insomnia -Ed)
Ed,
What isn't talked about enough is that these high figures for despair,
disorder, and violence have in them a component of the atrocious
activities and events particularly associated with the kinds of wars the
empire is getting into. Oppression of others goes along with oppression
of what one considers "one's own."
Yet the media (and of course the military and politicians) rarely name
the natures of the wars as something to deal with, instead saying we
need more treatment of vets (which is certainly so, an obligation
really). But even to name the war policies as an "upstream" factor in
the high figures, that's getting impermissibly political for most
articles which claim to deal with the plight of the vets and communities.
That leaves it mostly up to us, as usual, and to good programs as we'll
discuss Sunday.
- Joe
Ed Pearl wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10post.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us
At Fort Hood, Some Violence Is Too Familiar
By MICHAEL MOSS and RAY RIVERA
NY Times: November 9, 2009
***
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/opinion/12michelman.html?th&emc=th
Trading Women's Rights for Political Power
"If Democrats do not commit themselves to defeating the amendment,
then they will face an uncompromising effort by Democratic women to
defeat them, regardless of the cost to the party's precious majority."
By KATE MICHELMAN and FRANCES KISSLING
NY Times Op-Ed: November 11, 2009
A GRIM reality sits behind the joyful press statements from Washington
Democrats. To secure passage of health care legislation in the House, the
party chose a course that risks the well-being of millions of women for
generations to come.
House Democrats voted to expand the current ban on public financing for
abortion and to effectively prohibit women who participate in the proposed
health system from obtaining private insurance that covers the full range of
reproductive health options. Political calculation aside, the House
Democrats reinforced the principle that a minority view on the morality of
abortion can determine reproductive health policy for American women.
Many House members who support abortion rights decided reluctantly to accept
this ban, which is embodied in the Stupak-Pitts amendment. They say the
tradeoff was necessary to advance the right to guaranteed health care. They
say they will fight another day for a woman's right to choose.
Perhaps. But they can't ignore the underlying shift that has taken place in
recent years. The Democratic majority has abandoned its platform and
subordinated women's health to short-term political success. In doing so,
these so-called friends of women's rights have arguably done more to
undermine reproductive rights than some of abortion's staunchest foes. That
Senate Democrats are poised to allow similar anti-abortion language in their
bill simply underscores the degree of the damage that has been done.
Many women - ourselves included - warned the Democratic Party in 2004 that
it was a mistake to build a Congressional majority by recruiting and
electing candidates opposed to the party's commitment to legal abortion and
to public financing for the procedure. Instead, the lust for power yielded
to misguided, self-serving poll analysis by operatives with no experience in
the fight for these principles. They mistakenly believed that giving
leadership roles to a small minority of anti-abortion Democrats would solve
the party's image problems with "values voters" and answer critics who
claimed Democrats were hostile to religion.
Democrats were told to stop talking about abortion as a moral and legal
right and to focus instead on comforting language about reducing the number
of abortions. In this regard, President Obama was right on message when he
declared in his health care speech to Congress in September that "under our
plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions" - as if this
happened to be a good and moral thing. (The tone of his statement made the
point even more sharply than his words.)
The party has distanced itself from the abortion-rights movement in other
ways. It has taken to calling Democrats who oppose a woman's right to choose
"pro-life" (and not "anti-choice"). The group Democrats for Life of America,
whose Congressional members ultimately led the battle to exclude private
insurance companies that cover abortions from health insurance exchanges,
was invited to hold a press conference in Democratic Party offices. The
party has promoted "pro-life progressives" like Sojourners, Catholics United
and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, organizations whose leaders
have stated that abortions should be made "more difficult to get."
This, then, is where we stand as party leaders celebrate passage of the
House bill. When it comes to abortion, they seem to think all positions are
of equal value so long as the party maintains a majority. But the party will
eventually reap what it has sown. If Democrats do not commit themselves to
defeating the amendment, then they will face an uncompromising effort by
Democratic women to defeat them, regardless of the cost to the party's
precious majority.
In the meantime, the victims of their folly will be the millions of women
who once could count on the Democratic Party to protect them from those who
would sacrifice their rights for political gains.
Kate Michelman is the former president of Naral Pro-Choice America. Frances
Kissling is the former president of Catholics for Choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment