TompkinsNOW

It must be sarcasm

2011-11-12T09:42:00.001-05:00

I have been puzzled by the audience response at Republican debates.

I could not understand it when they cheered at the suggestion that if people

got seriously ill and could not afford health care, they should just die.

I could not understand how they could cheer in support of Cain as he

defended his right to sexually harass female employees and made Anita Hill

jokes.

I could not understand how the audience could cheer Gingrich as he accused

the media of being liberal because they didn't ask Occupy Wall Street

distorted questions.

I puzzled over this and finally I had a revelation.
It must be sarcasm! When I think about it this way, it was actually funny.
It is utterly absurd to believe that it is acceptable to allow sick people

to die for lack of health care in the wealthiest nation in the world .
It is utterly absurd to think that using one's financial position over women to

extort sex is anything short of rape.
It is utterly absurd to believe that because people express that

corporations are not people and they need regulation and that over 25% of

the nation's wealth should not be concentrated in 2% of our population, that

they are claiming that businesses should not be allowed to make any profit.

It is even more absurd that people would cheer this. This is very funny

sarcasm. So why is no one laughing?

Republican claims of fiscal responsibilty is yet another lie.

2011-04-18T06:29:00.001-05:00

Republican claims of fiscal responsibility is yet another lie.
The reality behind their 5 year plan belies their true objectives.
They propose 6 trillion in cuts to medicare and medicaid, environmental protection, and other programs that assist the poor and middle class. But do not be fooled into believing that this will all go to balance the budget. they plan 4 trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy.

Four trillion dollars in cuts to health care and the environment is solely to enable another 4 trillion dollars of cuts to the wealthy (who already pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the poor and middle class).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/us/politics/11deficit.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

The Truth Will Out!

2011-04-02T08:59:00.003-05:00

While Wealthy corporations can spend millions to support Republicans (without even reporting it), Republicans continue to mount an attack on anything or anyone who might express opinions which differ from theirs.

1) They threaten to end funding for public radio and television.
2) They are systematically destroying unions
3) Now they are attacking the free speech of college professors, Gov Scott Walker and journalist Rachel Maddow.

State employees are often forbidden from supporting candidates or engaging in political campaigns. This was intended as a means to protect employees from being used by elected state officials, who might exploit them.
<A conservative Michigan think tank has requested all personal emails from labor studies faculty.
State employees can't support candidates, but they surely have a right to express their opinion on issues. Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to every American. Well it used to be.
Oddly enough the think tank is concerned that labor relations professors might be expressing an opinion on labor issues. What next will Biology professors be forbidden from expressing their opinion on evolution?

Even more bizarre is their basis to request personal correspondence from an elected official (who surely has a right to express his opinion on issues) and Rachel Maddow (one of the few reporters who are not right wingers).

This is a blatant attack on anyone who would express opinions other than accepted Republican doctrine.
What are they so afraid of?
The Truth!
We must continue to speak the truth and speak it loudly.>

Social Security Under Attack!

2011-04-02T08:11:00.002-05:00

Social Security is a Federal Insurance program into which every worker pays. In return workers have a guaranteed pension in their retirement and insurance/financial protection in the event of disability. It provides survivors benefits to protect a family after the loss of a bread winner.

It is entirely separate from the budget. Yet Republicans, who hate the Social Security program (or any program the doesn't make the rich richer), will attempt to cut Social security benefits under the guise of balancing the budget.

Any cuts to Social Security will be especially devastating to women. Women overall make less than men. Many women choose to take time from working out side the home in order to care for children. Because of this and the lower wages of women, women's social security benefits are lower. Many women already have inadequate or barely adequate Social Security benefits. They cannot afford cuts.

Some media sources are reporting that Democrats are willing to accept a budget compromise that would make deep cuts to entitlement programs. The New York Times continues to report that Senate Democrats are standing firm.

Contact your legislators!

Lessons of the Great Depression

2011-03-31T09:10:00.002-05:00

Are we destined to repeat the great depression, because we failed to learn from it? Reagan initiated trickle down economics, deregulation, and the corrosion of collective bargaining rights. We slowly continue to implement it. Our wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of Americans. The percentage of wealth concentrated in the top 1% of our population has only been this high one other time since 1913 (before the great crash and depression). Workers bargaining rights and progressive income taxes had insured that wealth was more evenly distributed and that America had a strong middle class. If giving the wealthy more money creates jobs and the wealthy have more money than they have had since 1929, why is unemployment so high? If their trickle down economic were a vaild theory , record wealth at the top should correlate with record employment. The hidden truth is that jobs are created when the middle class has money to spend and create small businesses. Trickle down creates increases in poverty, homelessness and unemployment. What direction are the extremists in this country pushing? To cut public jobs (increasing unemployment). Roosevelt took us out of the great depression with a public jobs program--not massive public job cuts. To cut Social Security benefits. Many elderly and disabled individuals who paid in and relied upon these benefits will be driven into the streets. Maybe we will throw them into concentration camps or execute them--like the Nazi's. To dismantle collective bargaining rights What will be left besides the rich, the slave labor (that makes them wealthy) and millions of homeless left to die in the streets. We must not sit back or be driven by these insane and faulty slogans. We must make this Country understand the dangerous path we are on before we all end up real life characters in "The Grapes of Wrath".

Judicial Nominations

2009-10-17T08:25:00.003-05:00

Everytime (in recent history) Democrats have a President in the Whitehouse--Republicans hold up judicial nominations. During Clinton's term Republicans had control of the Senate and the held the Judiciary Committee in thrall to their own agenda.
So now when Democrats have a majority (and theoretically a filibuster proof majority), why has Obama been able to get only 3 of his 23 nominations on the bench. 90 Judiciary seats reamin empty and cases are backing up.
Republicans continue to hold our Country captive with their annonymous holds and filibuster threats. It is obvious to everyone else (if not yet to Obama) that bipartisanship won't work. Obama wishes to reduce partisan rancor over judicial nominations. One has to wonder how that could ever happen? As long as Democrats appoint judges who believe in the right to privacy and individual rights, Republicnas will be vehemently opposed.
The best part about having Democrats in control is that, we get to put judges on the bench who agree with us. Many women voted for Obama to protect the courts--not to appease Republicans.
The Democrats need to rally their majority to stand together and do the job they were elected to do. Obama needs to lead them and stop fretting about what the Republicans want. The Republicans want to be back in control. If the Democrats let the Republicans immobolize them, the people will return control to the Republicans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504083.html?hpid=topnews
Lori

Ithaca Community Members Rally for Single Payer Health Care

2009-10-17T07:45:00.000-05:00

In light of Obama’s plan for single-payer health insurance reduced bypolitical differences in Washington, about forty Ithaca communitymembers gathered on the Commons last Thursday afternoon in a rally forsingle-payer health care featuring Terry O’Neill, president of theNational Organization for Women. She said in reference tosingle-payer, “Well, I say it should happen and it needs to happensoon. We need a robust and full public option.”Single payer health care is named as such because doctors andhospitals are paid by one entity, usually the government. It is verysimilar to universal health care, which has been implemented by nearlyall industrialized countries and some of the developing world indegrees ranging from a nationalized health system (as in the UnitedKingdom) to decentralized health care (as in France).O’Neill also stated that an improved insurance system was necessaryfor women because “women are two to three times more likely to die inchildbirth without prenatal care” and “in eight states and theDistrict of Columbia, insurance companies can say that domesticviolence is a pre-existing condition. Also, “the reason women shouldhave single-payer is because insurance is predominantly throughemployment. Women predominate in part time employment” as well asminimum wage and non-union jobs, which O’Neill said are the leastlikely to have comprehensive health insurance.O’Neill’s appearance at the rally was part of a short tour of upstateNew York, including stops in Syracuse, Ithaca, and Buffalo. AllendraLetsome, vice president of membership for NOW, continued on toRochester. Although construction near That Burrito Place churned behind them,speakers stood on the concrete benches at the edge of the BernieMilton Pavilion and addressed the standing audience through amicrophone. The mayor of Ithaca, Carolyn Peterson, said that sevenmillion dollars out of Ithaca’s fifty million dollar budget for nextyear would go towards health care. Peterson is a member of the U.S.Conference of Mayors, which passed a resolution in June 2008supporting single payer healthcare.The New York State president of NOW, Marcia Pappas, and TompkinsCounty chapter head Lori Gardner also briefly addressed the crowd.Local NOW member Beverly Livesay, longtime Ithaca resident and inattendance at the rally, said “I think it’s one of the crucial issuesof our time—we’re killing young people, we’re killing our elderlybecause of a lack of insurance.”According to 2004 Institute of Medicine findings, “The clinicalliterature overwhelmingly shows that uninsured people, children aswell as adults, suffer worse health and die sooner than those withinsurance.” The IOM also stated in a 2009 report that “Individualswithout employer-sponsored health insurance who are not eligible forpublic insurance must rely on a limited nongroup health insurancemarket to obtain coverage. The premium costs for nongroup coverage canbe exceedingly high and individual subscribers must pay the entirecost without a contribution from an employer.”Bethany Schroeder MFA ’85, president of the Ithaca Health Alliance’sBoard of Directors, is working to provide health care for those whocannot pay those high costs. The Ithaca Health Alliance providesgrants to those who cannot afford health care bills and runs a freeclinic on South Fulton Street. She said that in Ithaca health careresources are “necessary because we have a great many people who arewell educated but underemployed and they just don’t have the resourcesto pay for insurance.” Schroeder estimated that “seventy percent ofthe people that come to visit us come to get primary care from aphysician” and said that “they don’t have insurance and this is theonly way they can get the care.” The free clinic also providesholistic and integrative care, which approximately thirty percent ofvisitors utilize, according to Schroeder.A popular bill in Congress for advocates of single payer is H.R. 676.Ithaca’s local representative to Congress, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)of the 22nd district, cosponsored H.R. 676, also known as the UnitedStates National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicarefor All Act, with eighty-six other members of Congress. The bill, ifpassed, would provide free medically necessary care to all individualsresiding in the U.S. or U.S. territories, including primary care andmedicine. It would also prohibit any for-profit institutions fromparticipating.Allendra Letsome, membership vice president for NOW, had advice tooffer to Cornell students. She remarked in a telephone interview that“the minute you leave the wonderful bubble of campus, your health carebecomes your own responsibility. When you make fifteen dollars perhour without health care coverage, your health care costs are going tobecome very relevant to you and you’d wish you’d said something.”
Emily Coon

Haliburton Covers up Rape and Sexual Harassment Against Women Employees.

2009-09-22T11:11:00.004-05:00

While enjoying the benefit of government contracts, Haliburton (KBR) has been covering up acts of sexual harassment, rape and kidnapping against women employees. Rather than filing charges against (or even firing the men) they fired women, who chose to press charges.

Corporations which enjoy the benefits of our tax dollars must face extra scrutiny. They must prove that they are providing a workplace that is free from discrimination. It must be one that offers equal opportunities to everyone, where sexual harassment is dealt with harshly. Most assuredly the rapes and gang rape that occured at Halliburton should have been dealt with severly (to the full extent of the law). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/middleeast/13contractors.html?_r=1
Lori

Sgt. Maj. Teresa L. King Becomes First Woman to be Top Drill Sergeant.

2009-09-22T11:08:00.002-05:00

No woman has ever run one of the army's rigorous shools for drill instructors. Today, Sgt King becomes the first. Accd. to NYT's just 8% of the active-duty Army's highest ranking enlisted soldiers are women--even though more than 13% of Army personnel are female. Prohibitions against women serving in combat is cited as one reason for this discrepency. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/us/22sergeant.html?th&emc=th
lori

Ill-Gotten Gains

2009-09-17T13:08:00.003-05:00

When Terry O'Neill decided to visit Ithaca, our chapter deceided that the critical issue to address right now is health care reform. Our Country has an opportunity to take a step forward, but appears to be poised to actually take a step backwards. It is better to do nothing than pass Baucus' plan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/health/policy/17health.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Governement taxes us and provides us with services. That is the role of government---To promote the general welfare. I read it in one of those dusty old documents we keep in the Smithstonian.
We just keep forgetting about it. The problem with Baucus' plan is that it forces people to buy into private insurance. This is in essence allowing the insurance companies to tax American citizens. Unlike when we are taxed by the government, we will have no representation there. We can't vote out the insurance companies CEO! We can't vote on their bloated salaries? We will have no say, when they raise our taxes.
Taxation without representation! We fought a revolution against that. A little before my time, but I heard that we won. Not the insurance companies!

Insurance Companies profit off illness. They turn around and use their "ill-gotten gains" to fight against real health care reform. Do we really want to subsidize them and make them stronger?
We need to oppose the Baucus plan vigorously. It is a step backwards.
Lori

Rape Is Not A Joke

2009-09-16T12:46:00.001-05:00

OK-- So many people thing that if there is more than a token number of women in politics that women are taking over. Our culture doesn't see this as sexism.
Many think that cultural sexism is acceptable because it is cultural or condoned by religon.
Women still only make about 70 cents to every dollar men make.
As wrong as all this is it is totally outrageous and unacceptable to make jokes about rape!
Russell Brand joked at the MTV music video awards, about drugging Megan Fox and raping her. More outrageos than the comment was that virtually no one commented on it. While President Obama called West a "Jackass" for an outburst at the program. He has been silent about Brand's denigration of all women.
People who proclaim themselves feminists. People who even proclaim to care about women need to speak up. It is not acceptable to use women for sex. It is not acceptable to have sex with a woman without her consent. It is not acceptable to joke about it or create the appearance that rape is funny, amusing, or acceptable.
Enough--Society must speak up. This behavior cannot be condoned!
Lori

Post to healthcare blog Thanks!

2009-09-13T08:01:00.004-05:00

Why are we the only wealthy industrialized country that has thousands of uninsured citizens? These other countries offer single payer insurance except a for few that combine private and public insurance options, e.g. Holland. Despite being capitalist countries, they believe that healthcare for all is a necessity. I suppose we need to study their healthcare history to understand how this came about in those countries and and what prevented it here. (Think insurance companies?!)
Small, poor countries such as Panama and Costa Rica have very good single payer systems. Here's a recent quote from a Costa Rican paper: "It's been more than 65 years since this small country of 4.6 million people introduced a public health care system. Spending $6,000 less per capita than the United States on health today, Costa Rica boasts a longlife expectancy and an infant mortality rate nearly equal to that of the U.S." ("The Tico Times," " Caja, a Model Health System?" by Chrissie Long, August 21, 2009, p. 1)

Just where is our outrage?
Karen

Response to persistence of Sexism blog of 9/12

2009-09-13T07:57:00.002-05:00

One reason sexism persists is that social change tends to be slothfully slow just like our present Congress in action. It takes years of educating people through plodding, prodding and repetition to make the positive changes we seek. (Look at how long it is taking to create legislation to prevent a worldwide catastrophe due to global climate change. While predictions are dire, people remain nonplussed and mired in entropy.) Another problem is that sexism has become more subtle. In addition, although we see sexism as dysfunctional it still serves some functions otherwise it would vaporize. Recently, we've been told that there are now more women in the workforce than men. At some level, this may look good. But it is not a kudo for women. It could simply mean that some employers would prefer to hire women because they pay them less, are less threatened by them, etc.

Your point about people perceiving some sex roles to be intrinsic is certainly one major roadblock. People don't even think about changing something that is written in DNA.

I may be perceived as soft on the crime of sexism, but my gut feeling is that we just have to continue patiently taking small tripping steps. Sometimes monumental gains are made by a stroke of serendipity but then it's usually back to the pokey glacial grind.

Karen

Why is sexism still a socially acceptable ism?

2009-09-12T07:03:00.001-05:00

Why is sexism still a socially acceptable ism?

Why is it that people can express sexist views and still be considered politically correct?

Why is it that commercials still portray women cleaning the toilets, vacuuming, and breaking up with their mops?

Why is it that when we see women heros on TV they always have short, tight skirts and low cleavage?
Why is it that we finally have 2 medical shows where the headline charcters are women and both are in the stereotyped role of nurse?

Why are all late night talk show hosts men?

Why are the vast majority of TV political pundits men?

Why is it still acceptable to refer to grown women as girls (as if we are still children who need guidance and protection)?

Why is it seen as acceptable that 50% of the population has only token representation on the US Supreme Court, Congress, and the US Senate.

Why is it socially acceptable to regard women as sex objects rather than whole human beings?

Why is it that society still assumes that there are intrinsic sex roles?

I know that there are alot more whys, but I think that the answer is connected with my last why. The continued acceptance of intrinsic gender roles allows all the other examples of sexism to be acceptable.

Health Care Reform Must Have a Public Option

2009-09-04T08:58:00.004-05:00

NOW supports a single payer health care plan, because health care and health insurance is an issue that disproportionately affects women. Women are disproportionately stuck in minimum wage jobs without health insurance. Women who stay home to care for children, are dependant on their husbands health insurance plan. Medicare as an exaple of a government plan, is administered much more efficiently than private health insurance plans, because they don't make a profit. Insurance companies are making a desperate bid to maintain their ability to make a profit off the suffering and illness of people in need of care.

Enough!! Let us get out there and cut through the lies and mud of the insurance companies. We may not be able to get single payer right now, but any health insurance reform needs a public option. We need a vehicle to compete with the insurance companies. Too bad if they can not compete and make a profit. It is more important that we deliver health care to all rather than provide profits for insurance companies.
Write or call President Obama and tell him to lead America toward real health care reform (with a public option).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ and 202-456-1111.

Lori

Women in Combat

2009-09-04T08:50:00.003-05:00

Whether or not we support the war, as feminists we believe that women should be treated equally and have equal opportunities in the military. Women in the military will never be treated as true equals by their male counter parts until they also serve in combat. According to a recent NYT article, GI Jane Breaks the Combat barrier as the War evolves, women are proving themselves in combat roles.

The military is using women more and more in combat roles, even though Congress has relegated women to non-combat roles. Modern combat is not a matter of pure physical strength. In peace keeping actions, inter personal skills may even be a greater advantage than sheer strength. Throughout history, women disquised themselves as men and served in combat. They were so successful that they often went undiscovered. If this weren't proof enough that women are capable, this article proves it.

It is past time that Congress removed the restrictions on women in the military.

Lori

Women (Almost) On Top

2009-09-03T08:58:00.002-05:00

Women (Almost) On Top. How could I resist reading a Slate article by that headline?
Women on top. I hope to read that we aremaking progress to a point where a majority of women are CEO's, Senators, Governors, or Supreme Court Justices. I hope to read that we might have a woman in a State-wide leadership position.
But no. Of Course this is just my wild hopeful imaginings.

I think maybe women are finally closing the wage gap with men. But this isn't true either.

What they actually mean is that the percentage of women in the work force is increasing to almost 50%. Partly because the better paying jobs that mostly men have held no longer exist and more men are out work. It seems the only thing that women are on top of, is a willingness to work minimum wage service jobs.What warped mind could see this as being on top?

Double Standard

2008-09-25T06:14:00.003-05:00

It really seems to me that there is a double (higher) standard for women in politics. This is not surprising since society has always held women to a double standard. Imagine if Hillary had run for President 4 years ago--everyone would have complained that she didn't have the experience to be commander-and-chief. She waited and her experience was used against her. While I have many legitimate issues where I can disagree with Sarah Palin, I think that it is an aspect of our sexist society to focus on her lack of experience for VP, when one of the male Presidential candidates has an equal lack of experience. If we can overlook the issue of experience for men running for President, why can't we overlook it for a woman running for VP? Can't she hire good advisers too, if she should happen to become President.
I am sensing in many feminists a self righteous about how women must behave. Women are not monolithic. We are diverse. We are Democrats, we are Republicans, we are liberal, we are conservative, we are atheists, we are evangelicals, we are animal rights activists, and we are hunters. We have a common bond though-- we all live in a sexist society where we are second class citizens. Some of us are more aware of this and fight to help ourselves, our sisters and our daughters. Many still live on bound by sexist preconceptions. They are still women. Our anger at their lack of consciousness should not be greater than that which we would level against a man, but less. They too are suffering from a sexist society.
We all know abstinence only doesn't work, but let's not place a spotlight on a child that has made a mistake. Let us focus on the issues!I respect Palin's right to chose to have a child with Down's Syndrome, as I wish that she would respect the rights of other women to make their own choices. If we are truly about choice, then women have the right to choose to not have an abortion.
I know many feminists are concerned about the Supreme Court and numerous other issues where most of us disagree vehemently with right wing Republicans like Sarah Palin. Let's focus our arguments on these issues. Let's be careful that we aren't applying a higher standard to Palin because she is a woman. While women are more critical of women who they disagree with than men who they disagree with, can we really expect men to treat us equally? We must speak up against sexism where ever it occurs, even sexism against those we disagree with.

Beyond Gender

2008-09-02T09:30:00.003-05:00

Women have been raised to believe that they should always sacrifice their goals and ambitions to everyone else's. When one member of the family must work so that their partner can continue their education--it is usually the woman who sacrifices her education to put her husband through school. When the man is offered a better job opportunity that requires a move, how often does the woman sacrice her career in order to allow her husband to advance his career? Women, who do not sacrifice their goals and ambitions are considered selfish. Women have been accultured with this attitude of self-sacrifice. We have been raised to believe that women
and women's rights are not as important as every other issue. It is more noble for women to work on peace, healthcare, poverty, racism, environment and numerous other issues.
If you don't believe that sexism still exists--turn on your TV. Who is cooking and serving dinner? Who is vacuming, cleaning the toilet, mopping the floor and dusting the furniture? Who are the mechanics, the plumbers, the bankers, the secretaries, and the nurses? Who is playing with dolls and who is playing with trucks? Not only are the sexist stereotypes still out there, but (as we saw in the primary) the expression of sexist attitudes is socially accceptable. There are no repercussions and no one feels guilty for putting women down. Why is it that we can accept the oppression of women in other countries by calling it cultural differences. If the majority of another country oppresses another ethic or religious group, it is wrong. It is not a cultural choice--it is oppression! Why is it a cultural choice to oppress women?
Many women have decided that they are beyond gender. Isn't that just a new excuse for self sacrifice? All women are affected sexism. Try being beyond gender, when your promotion goes to the less experienced man. We cannot be beyond gender in a world that regards us as second class citizens.

Party Unity is the Victor's Responsibility

2008-08-27T10:47:00.005-05:00

I thought that I was done crying until I read Marie Cocco's article about Hillary's speech at the Convention. She observed that the way Hillary was treated decades ago(as a young woman) when she ran for class president mirrored the way she has been treated recently as she ran for U.S. President. So little has changed for us as women. All of us women who have had an inexperienced man promoted ahead of us, and all of us women, who have been insulted and ridiculed for putting ourselves forward; identified with Hillary. Her battle was our battle. Her success was our success. Her failure is our failure. Men who think that Hillary can and should bring her supporters to Obama do not understand that this is an issue and a pain that goes far beyond Hillary. Once again Marie Cocco points out the sexism in placing Obama's burden of capturing Hillary's supporters on Hillary rather than Obama.
Impressed by Cocco's article, I went on and read the comments. I was shocked at the continued nastiness of Obama supporters. They have won! They should be graciously reaching out to women, in an effort to bring us on board. Instead the nasty insults continue. They continue to address Hillary and women with disdain while ordering us to fall in line behind Obama.
One commenter says: hillary's supporters need to put on a fresh pair of panties and step forward into the real world. however unhappy they are about obama, if they think mccain is really a better choice for america, they never really knew what hillary was about anyway.
Frankly, I am not sure I get the panties part, except that in his adolescent mind reference to women's apparel is an insult. It was obviously intended as one. Why does he think that he has the right to tell me what I have to do? Because men always think that they have the right to straighten out our "foolish" thinking and tell us what to do.
A second commenter accuses us all of being black-man hating lesbians. Of course that is the next move in their game book. When women don't listen to you and "behave"--accuse them of being lesbians. This option has become more popular since men lost the power to have women committed.
As we commemorate the anniversary of the 19th amendment, we remember the suffering and sacrifice of the women who fought for sufferage. I would be disloyal to those women, if I failed to respect the power of my vote and allowed myself to be intimidated. My vote must be earned, not coerced. Its all about control. Men think that they have a right to control me and my vote--but they don't. They can stamp their feet and make demands, but its my vote! They have to relinquish their posture of control, reach out on women's issues and earn my vote. I do not respond well to orders.
Most people are placing the burden of party unity on Hillary's shoulders (she must bring around her supporters). It is time we started placing the burden where it belongs--on Obama's shoulders. He should be reaching out to women. He should take responsiblity for his supporters. He should help them understand sexism and the importance of women's rights. He needs to send a strong message to his supporters that this kind of woman hating and homophobia is not acceptable.

Seriously--for a Moment

2008-08-02T16:45:00.003-05:00

For a brief moment this past winter the women of America raised their
heads and dared.
We dared to dream!
We dared to believe!
We dared to do the impossible!
We dared to think that women would be taken seriously!
For that one brief shining moment, all the slights and discrimination we have faced as women were overcome by visions of our possiblities. All the times we were told: "girls can't do that" were overshadowed by the possiblity that we could now do anything. They called us silly women when we asked for the vote, when we demanded to be doctors, judges, generals and congressman. Whenever we demanded our rights, we were being ridiculous. But for that one glorious moment a woman was being seriously considered for President of the United States.

Elderly women (who have fought for women's equality since women's vote was new--dared to believe that they would live to see a woman become President. Younger women raised our heads in pride as we watched Hillary's grace, pride, strength, and intelligence forge a path toward the Democratic nomination through a gauntlet of sexism. We dared to dream that our world would truly change! Girls saw, for the first time, that all doors were open to them. They dared to do the impossible!

Glorious as the moment was, it was after all--only a moment. An ephemeral glimpse into an alternate reality. Our reality came crashing down upon women and our hopes and dreams.While we mourned in devastation, Obama announced that his selection as nominee had made history and now the whole globe can heal. Women should get over it and support him. His statement that because he was selected America is making history denied the fact that his opportunity had come at the expense of women's opportunity to make history. Apparently he can not grasp the importance of the opportunity women have been denied. Does he truly believe that women can heal from the oppression and discrimination we have faced throughout our lives because he is President instead of Hillary? Does he not respect, recognize, or appreciate the discrimination that women face? It is as if he doesn't take our rights seriously, because they are not important to him. Once again--we are just silly women after all--striving beyond our station in life.

While Kim Gandy continues to state that women are grieving--there is
more to it than that. Many women are angry. They feel that the process was unfair and they were cheated. Some of these women will not be placated. They will not support Obama. They will withhold their vote in protest.

Some are still struggling to bring themselves around to
support him. They are waiting for something more from him. Something
more than the salt he has poured into our wounds. They are waiting for
him to demonstrate some real appreciation and support for women's
struggle. Women are waiting for the man (who claims to be the great unifier) to recognise and legitimize our loss as valid. They are waiting for him to value our rights and take our struggle seriously.

For one brief shining moment women dared to believe that we were equal. It was the hope and dream of our lives. How can we believe that
Obama cares about women and women's rights, when clearly he cannot appreciate the significance of our loss.

Well Boys--Shame, Shame On You!

2008-07-24T12:40:00.004-05:00

Everytime women struggle to advance their rights and achieve equality, they are met with an age old response from men. Derision and ridicule! They belittle us, they poke fun at us, they insult us and outright abuse us.

Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton faced it as they sought suffrage for women. In the 60's and 70's we saw men poking fun at women who sought to be police officers, doctors, or numerous other professions that were then reserved for men only. We saw it recently as the media and male pundits responded to Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidency. Sadly nothing has changed. These men (many who identify themselves as liberal) don't seem able to appreciate that women have a right to stand up and demand equality. Our struggle for equality seems to be an opportunity for them to get a chuckle. Well boys-- Shame, shame on you!

Throughout Hillary's campaign women suffered with her as the media and other candidates leveled sexist attacks against her. We all felt them personally. In the end many women feel cheated by a process that was far from fair. We feel cheated of a once in our lifetime opportunity for a woman President.

Men's response to this is OK, you lost, get over it. Men aren't from Mars--they are from another galaxy, if they think that response will appease us. In fact their total and absolute insensitivity to our feelings, concerns, and rights reflects upon the real problem here. Most men do not take women's rights seriously.

Recently Marcia Pappas, President of NOW-NYS issued a press release "He Must Come Bearing Gifts". Some male blogs have already responded with the typical male derision.
To Scott Leffler , who seems to think that asking for gender parity on the Supreme court and a woman chair of the DNC (she would be the first) is a female dominant position. Shame, Shame on you!
To Jackie Tam, who actually rewrites Marcia's release to create silly conditions-- Triple shame on you!

Women lost an opportunity to take a major step forward in women's rights and many women want a major step in return. We also want the primary system (that we feel cheated us) fixed. How do men respond? By poking fun at us in order to shut us up.Well boys! Shame, Shame on you for trying, but you won't shut up this woman. Better women than I have faced down this gauntlet of derision--so I proudly face it down too--knowing that I follow in great footsteps as I refuse to be silenced.
Lori

He must Come Bearing gifts

2008-07-21T09:54:00.003-05:00

Obama must do more to gain women's vote than simply tell us that he is the least of two evils. He must come court us! He must come bearing gifts! I am not talking about candy and flowers here. He has to make up for our loss of a woman president in our lifetimes.

I am proposing the list of gifts he must come with:
1) Based on population 4 or 5 Supreme Court Justices should be women. So--Obama must promise that all his appointments to the Supreme Court will be pro-choice women.
2) Howard Dean (the mute DNC Chair) must be replaced with a woman chair, who will not sit back quietly, while sexist attacks are levied against women candidates in primaries.
3) Super delegates must reflect gender equality. Closely contested elections should not be decided by a predominantly male body of super delegates (Keep in mind that super delegates are composed mostly of elected officials--that are overwhelmingly male).
4) We must correct the inequities in the Democratic Primary system.

a) Caucuses are not Democratic. Attendance is low because many voters cannot devote two evening hours voting. As it stands, anyone who does not show up at the start of the caucus and stay to the end does not get a vote. And who is most likely to have a conflict with these evening times? Women of course! They are more likely to be caring for their children. When caucuses were set up. Politics was a predominantly male game. Men didn't have to worry because their wives were putting the children to bed. Come on, Democrats and move into the 20Th century. We should be making voting easier and more accessible, not continuing with arcane, restrictive and sexist traditions.
b) Caucuses have open (i.e. public) voting where the women are often intimidated by the men. In a secret ballot women can vote their consciences. We still live in a sexist society; and people should not be intimidated by public votes.

5) Many misogynist Republicans and other conservatives crossed over to vote in our primaries. In fact Obama counted on these. He didn't want a re vote in Florida or Michigan, because the Republicans had already voted. If we ever get another woman candidate who can make a serious bid for the Presidency, misogynists from other parties should not determine the Democratic candidate. The Democratic Party is over two thirds women and our effect should not be diluted by the primary/caucus process. When there is work to be done, when there are close votes, women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. When there are close races, it is women that make the difference for Democrats. When it comes to choosing the Democratic nominee, women's votes must be represented proportionally.

Before women have another opportunity for the Presidency, there should be a level playing field.
In case we get another chance, we need assurances that this misogynist sleight-of-hand won't happen again.
Obama must bear these gifts- then we can talk.

Let me know what other gifts you think we should demand.

Women Must Put Women's Rights First

2008-07-21T09:49:00.002-05:00

I think that NOW needs to be more focused on sexism and actual women's issues.

personally I am a staunch environmentalist. I belong to several environmental organizations. I hang my wash out on the line, I recycle, reuse, and compost to the extent that I bring my used egg cartons back to farmers for reuse. I save the whales, seals, wolves, polar bears, (and numerous more mammalian and non mammalian species.)

But I strongly believe that we should not be diverting NOW's focus. NOW should be saving women!

Sexism is the last truly acceptable ism.

Did you hear the boys at Sierra Club speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the boys at PETA speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the boys at the National Wildlife Federation speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

NO-- they stick to their message.

While the Democratic Party should encompass all these issues and women's rights;

Did you hear the Democratic Party speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the its presumptive male nominee speaking up against the sexism in the primary?

Did you hear the its Chair speaking up against the sexism in the primary (I mean before women stopped sending in money and the woman candidate had suspended her campaign)?

The final straw though is when the national Organization for Women (the one organization who has this mission) can't discuss the sexism in the primary and how we should respond to it, because we need more time to discuss global warming and animal rights.

If women don't learn to put themselves first-we will forever be last!

It is OK for us to say that everyone and everything doesn't always come before women. Women need to focus and make our rights a priority for us-no one else will.

If we can't focus we'll have a male polar bear in the White House before we have a woman.

Statement made at the Sunday afternoon plenary of the 2008 National NOW Convention

Can We Really Be Surprised?

2008-06-19T14:14:00.002-05:00

Can we really be surprised that a media that is overwhelmingly dominated by men has examined complaints of its own sexism and found themselves innocent?

Even when one of their own, Katie Couric, joined the ranks of those women who are complaining about sexist attitudes and remarks; they respond by attacking her. Keith Olbermann named her the worst person in the world for "her promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism." I would have named her the worst person in the world for her interview on 60 minutes with Hillary where she asked the Presidential Candidate why she was called Frigidaire in college, while Obama was asked substantive questions.

Even after Hillary had suspended her campaign Leno continued his sexist attacks in the guise of a Jeopardy skit with Clinton and Obama. Can we really be surprised that a media that is overwhelmingly dominated by men has examined compliants of its own sexism and found themselves innocent?
Even when one of their own, Katie Couric, has joined the ranks of those women who are complianing about sexist attitudes and remarks; they respond by attacking her. Keith Olbermann named her the worst person in the world for "her promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism." I would have named her the worst perosn in the world for her interview on 60 minutes with Hillary where she asked the Presidential Candidate why she was called frigidare in college, while Obama was asked substantive questions.
Even after Hillary had suspended her campaign Leno continued his sexist attacks in the guise of a Jeopardy skit with Clinton and obama.In response to the word lapdance-Hillary begins gyrating against Obama and answers "what I would do to be Vice-President."http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/video/episodes.shtml. (This skit is around 17:30 in the video).

Can they really be so blind that they can't see the sexism there? Obviously there is a problem here. We need gender parity in the media and a whole lot of sensitivity training. Apparently the men can't even see it.

The sexism has relentless in this campaign. I haven't even scratched the surface. Please share the events of media sexism that you have observed with us by commenting to this email.

One Good Idea in a Generation

2008-06-05T10:51:00.003-05:00

After the Civil War there was an opportunity to pass an amendment to give suffrage to African-American men. Women who had been working for decades for suffrage asked that their fellow abolitionists not settle for suffrage only for men, but push for universal suffrage. Women were rebuffed with the claim that there was one good idea in a generation and this was not our turn.

To men who had the vote, to men who had all the rights in our society: it was a merely good idea. Would they have been so cavalier if men were the disenfranchised class? It wouldn't have been a good idea, it would have been an urgent necessity. Left unaddressed, it would have been a critical threat to our democracy. It would have been cause for Civil War.

Less than a year ago, women were poised to make history. It was almost certain that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee and easily beat any potential Republican challenger. Finally after 200 years, we would have a woman President. While many women were rejoicing at the realization of our hopes and dreams (yes--women have hopes and dreams too), many male leaders in the Party were working to sabotage her.
To them it was a good idea easily supplanted by another good idea.

They bring out Obama. He is young and inexperienced, but a good idea to supplant our good idea. Obama could have and should have waited. He should have rejoiced at this opportunity for women to make history. Instead he stole from us the greatest opportunity of our generation.

Now they expect us to rejoice with Obama that he is making history. I will rejoice with Obama and his supporters as much as he rejoiced with me when women were poised to make history and were once again told: Sorry one good idea in a generation.

Would women Support Obama as Democratic Nominee

2008-03-11T10:15:00.005-05:00

Obama has said that his supporters will not support Hillary, while her supporters would support him if he were the nominee. The facts are probably completely the reverse.

Many older women, who have spent their lives working to make the lives of today's young women brighter were excited by the likelihood of having a woman President in their lifetime. We have watched a sexist media, pundits and many male Democrats pummel Hillary and promote a green unknown,Obama, over an experienced woman.

Many women, who have been loyal Democrats, are furious. We are furious at the blatant sexism. We are also furious that male Democrats (including Obama) could not rejoice with us at the opportunity to fulfill our hopes and dreams. We feel that the green and inexperienced Obama could have and should have waited.

A woman's blog discusses the Obama phenomena in an article called "Icarus Redux". Women are even more furious because our perception is that an empty suit is being pushed forward over an excellent candidate (who happens to be a woman). the New York state NOW President recently issued a press release concerning the large number of calls NOW is receiving from women who will not vote for Obama. They will not vote at all, write-in hillary, or vote for McCain.

This should create concern among Democrats regarding the viability of Obama. New York State is not a given. Republicans do win State-wide here. With Obama's weakness among these furious women, upstate NY, and Latino's; New York could go red in 2008.

Will Democrats take what should have been a runaway elction and turn it into a major loss- simply becasue they could not rejoice with us?

2008-03-05T11:46:00.002-05:00

Has the media presented a fair and balanced version of the primary or have they taken an active role to preserve sexism?

In 1984,Gerry Ferraro burst onto the convention floor to accept the vice presidential nomination, it was a glorious moment for women across the country. Watching the convention reruns today still brings tears to my eyes. Since Mondale’s defeat, no Democratic presidential candidate has been willing to pick a female running mate. Twenty years later, Democratic “wisdom” still considers it political suicide to choose a woman vice presidential candidate. Most feminists had all but given up hope of ever seeing a woman president in our lifetime.

Then came Hillary, a brilliant, experienced, politically-savvy, strong, credible woman candidate with excellent feminist credentials. She is a feminist's dream, and a woman to make all women proud. Yes we're proud of the brilliance, strength,grace she reflects on all women who aspire to be more than men would have us be.

We expected sexism from men, and even from some of those women who aren't ready for women to leave traditional roles. And we expected despicable send-ups like the Hillary nutcracker, a "toy" whereby Hillary’s thighs crack your nuts. We expected such things from those Democratic party men who, for over twenty years, had refused to entertain the idea of a woman VP. But did we expect it from the media, from the hallowed presses who are supposed to be neutral? Did we expect that their sexism and misogyny would take an active role in choosing the Democratic nominee, rather than in simply reporting the race?

That a woman would dare to aspire to this last sacred male bastion seems to inspire virulent animosity within the mostly-male media, as evidenced by the stream of vicious attacks leveled at Hillary, this while her opponents goes unscathed. The recent remark about Hillary's "pimping" Chelsea on the campaign trail, is not even the first blatantly sexist slur. No, it's just one more in a long string of insults. In fact, the sexism and misogyny has sunk to a new low with this latest. Yet the Country seems to accept this in a way that they would certainly not accept racist remarks. In the US, blatant sexism is OK. It is OK for male “news reporters” to describe women as “hot. And it's OK for commentators like Joe Scarborough to refer to Hillary as “shrill” and to ask about her housekeeping skills.

When Sixty Minutes did co-interviews of Clinton and Obama; they asked Obama substantive questions while they cut off the top of Hillary’s head and asked her questions about her energy level and about why in school some had nicknamed her “frigidare.” It's bad enough that frustrated, (and mostly adolescent) males find fault with any woman who doesn't find them attractive. But does the media need to buy into this and give it substance? Once again, 60 Minutes' totally biased coverage passes public muster.

Furthermore, MSNB's Chris Matthews interviewed retired Gen McCaffrey about whether or not the troops would take orders from Hillary as Commander and Chief. McCaffrey responded: “Why wouldn't they listen to a female commander and chief ?” Matthews replies: “You're chuckling a little bit aren't you?” He continued to harangue McCaffrey as if he couldn't really be serious. This and many more incidents like it are all very OK. Women who aspire beyond their traditional roles are to be laughed at, ridiculed, degraded, and patronized and it is all OK!

Beyond the blatant sexism, one has to ask: why does the supposedly unbiased media attack one candidate with a vengeance and praise her opponent? Why do they analyze every breath she takes (for a possible negative spin) and avoid any scrutiny of Obama?

Why do they allow him the hypocrisy of declaring himself free from the financial influence of large PAC/lobbyists, while he in fact accepts bundled funds directly from corporations and special interests seeking favors?

According to Dan Morgan of the Los Angeles Times “Obama raised more than 1 million in the first three months from Law Firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nations capitol.” Morgan continues: “While refusing money directly from lobbyists, who get their income from clients, Obama takes money from those clients. In the first quarter of 2007 he accepted a combined $170,000 from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, to financial services giants that have numerous issues pending in Washington...“

The media says nothing about Obama's hypocritical claim to “clean money” while in fact he takes money from the same sources upon which politicians have always drawn. Why does the media continue to portray him as he would like to be portrayed, despite the facts. Why do they find ways to twist every fact or event into a negative for Hillary? Why do they have a double standard for Hillary and Barack? And even those media outlets who aren't blatantly sexist, often consign Clinton to relative invisibility whiles heaping volumes upon Obama.

So sexism is alive and well in the US media, while almost all criticism of Obama is dismissed as "racist." We've come a long way but still have far to go, even among our supposed friends

End of an Era

2006-02-07T15:00:00.000-05:00

Betty Friedan, one of the founders of NOW and instigators of the modern women's movement, died this past week. Her life was spent fighting for the slow but steady progress made by the women's rights movement. She died as Alito was taking his seat on the Supreme Court. With his appointment women's representation on the Supreme Court drops back down to 11% from 22%. Women comprise over 50% of America, yet we are not entitled to anything more than token representation on the Supreme Court. There should be 4 or 5 women on the Court, if it were to reflect America.
It seem to me as if Ms Friedan's passing herald's the passing of the rights she fought for.
The Republicans are striving to undo Title IX and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans have been scheming to undo Roe v Wade and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans are not only opposed to abortion, but to sex education and birth control. Alito would support the decisions of pharmacists, stores, and physicians to refuse women birth control, because they have a religious objection to it. He has demonstrated a sympathy for those who would impose their religious beliefs on others.
Alito would not support any measures to fight discrimination.
What I don't understand is why any Senator who claims to be pro-choice could allow Alito to be seated on the Supreme Court. The so-called moderate Republicans are complicit in the radical actions of their party. Except for Sen. Chaffee, who did vote against Alito, they are afraid to stand up to their party. They allow it to run rampantly over women's rights.
I am disappointed in those Republicans who have become part of this right-wing juggernaut, by not resisting it. If the moderate Republicans do not resist and do not take back their party, they are as bad as the right-wingers. They empower them!!
The 4 Democrats who voted for Alito (Byrd, Johnson, Nelson, and Conrad) should be ashamed of themselves. Democrats should primary them and replace them with real Democrats. They should replace them with Democrats who will support the Democratic platform. Democrats need to elect those Democrats who support the Democratic platform, not just someone who seems to be the most electable. A majority is useless without a majority of votes.
It is abhorent that Republicans have been allowed to redefine the role of the Senate in the confirmation of judges. Historically the Senate has rejected a multitude of judges and Justices. They rejected a Justice nominted by Washington, because they did not agree with his postion on the Jay Treaty.How is it that the founders could reject a Justice for his position, but we can't reject a Justice because of his position on Choice? Suddenly this is not what was intended by "advise and consent". The founders of our Country never intended for one person to have absolute control over the courts and nominations to them. When the Republicans are in control of the Presidency, they adamently maintain that "advise and consent" only means that the Senate must decide if the candidate is qualified. According to current rules, the Senate wouldn't even have a right to require an answer about the jay treaty. Our Founders intended that the people (via the Senate) have control over judicial appontments. This is not only a historical precedent, but it is the just and democratic process.
Why is it everyone accepts the Republican redefination as if it were undisputed fact?
The Republicans used the filibuster routinely when the Democrats were in control of the Senate. Now that they are in control they call it unfair and they threaten to change the rule. Why is it no one ever questions this turnabout from the Republicans? Why is it suddenly accepted that use of the filibuster is obstructing the government?
Jesse Helms would not let most of Clinton's Judicial nominees out of Committee, but they call Democrats obstructionists, if they don't allow an up or down vote. Why is it that Republicans can obstruct Democratic nominees, but when Democrats object to the appointment of Right-wing nuts by Republicans we forget the Republican obstruction?
Bob Dole stood up boldly to Clinton and warned him that they would not approve of a liberal Justice nominee, like Mario Cuomo or Lawrence Tribe. Suddenly the rules have changed agin and Democrats who are demanding a moderate appointee have no right. It is the Presidents decision. Why does no one remember this?
Why are the rules different for Democrats and Republicans?
Why does the press never notice that the rules are changed?
Why do they simply repeat what the Republicans say as if it were fact?
Are they lazy, ignorant, or complicit? I suspect a little of all three.
More and more broadcasting "journalists" are really actors. They are hired for their presence and entertaining abilities, rather than their journalistic training and expertise. Media is also being taken over by conservative sources, who control the message.
We must keep fighting. We must resurrect a media that will question and insist on fair and equal standards. We must give our all to ensure that Ms. Friedan's legacy is not removed. Her legacy and that of all the women who have battled for women's rights are at risk. We, who are their heirs, must keep their torch held high and flaming brightly.

Impeachment Polls

2006-01-18T10:21:00.000-05:00

The mainstream media has stopped discussing the spying issue and decided that the public doesn't care. According to a Zogby poll Americans by a margin of 52%-43% said that "If President Bush wire tapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, they agree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment." The judge's order won't delay legitimate taps to protect against terrorism. It does ensure they are legitimate and not part of a program of political spying.
Lori

Fair and Balanced

2006-01-12T14:33:00.000-05:00

The meaning of words often tends to transform with time. Take the words cool or Gay or bad. This has obviously happened with fair and balanced. When applied to the media it used to mean an objective presentation of all the facts. Now it means (after the President complains):

Never question or challenge the President.

Even if he lies in order to take the Country into war, even if he exposes CIA agents to keep opponants quiet, even if he spies on Americans without a warrant; don't question him.

Don't show Dead Soldiers carried off a plane or report the causality numbers.

After viewing the CBS news coverage of the Senate Judiciary Hearing on January 11th it is obvious we have even another meaning.

When reporting on a confirmation hearing for a pivotal seat on the Supreme Court,

Never stress the important decisions that Justice will make!

Never discuss his past opinions and record.

Never discuss the fact that he refuses to provide answers to troubling questions about his past record.

Never dwell on the fact that a Justice cannot be removed and is on the Court for life (no matter how much he might mislead the Senate).

CBS's interpretation of fair and balanced obviously goes beyond this:

Do show the conflict and tempers.

Do show crying wives.

Do blame Democrats for persisting in requesting answers to questions that other Justice nominees have provided.

Do assume taht they would never want these answers but for the pressure of special interest groups.

Do blame the bully boy Democrats for making little girls cry.

This is a serious appointment. Liberty and lives are at stake and America has the right to know. This is far more important than the hurt feelings of Alito or his wife. If the media refuses to provide real fair and balanced news, how can our Democracy thrive?

Mr Schieffer doesn't have to worry about anyone making a movie about his life and career. He'll never be an Edward R. Murrow!

Lori

Dangers of HAVA

2006-01-11T12:54:00.000-05:00

One of the changes that came out of the Republican controlled Congress after the fiasco of the Butterfly Ballot is the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). It sounds like an excellent thing! Unfortunately, it is like many of the bills Republicans pass with Orwellian names.
This legislation has forced New York State (along with the rest of the nation) to abandon the mechanical machines which are efficent and tamper proof for computerized machines.
The reason mechanical machines have worked so well is that they are set up and repaired by a member of each party. They cannot be rigged by one party. Every vote moves the counter forward by one. At the end of the day members from each party remove a paper record from the machine and lock it up. The machine can be double checked against that paper record. This part of the process is tamper proof.
We are abandoning this for computers. We can't provide enough people with the exepertise from each party to adequately supervise these computerized polls. What many localities are forced to resort to is allowing the manufacturer to "certify". This process is very open to tampering!! For more information read Assemblywoman Lifton's testimony to the Board of Elections.

Alito Nomination

2006-01-09T18:34:00.000-05:00

The ultra right wing, who rejected Harriet Myers because they could not be certain that she was committeed to their agenda, continues to claim that they are looking for Judges without an agenda. They claim to be looking for strict constructionists. They are not!! They are looking for Judges with their agenda. They are looking for Judges who will overturn Roe V. Wade. They are looking for Judges who will end Title IX. They claim to be looking for Judges who support States Rights (if the state wants to ban abortions), but they oppose States Rights, if that state wants to allow same sex marriage. They are looking for Judges who will rule for corporations over the employee or consumer.

This is about ensuring that our Supreme Court will protect the basic rights freedoms and privacy of the individual. This is about ensuring that our Supreme Court will be there to protect the average person against the goliath, when that is the just action.

Samuel Alito has not shown that he can be this kind of justice and in fact his record shows just the opposite. While he wiggles around about his former record and statements (which are racist, sexist, and vehemently against choice), He has not eased my concerns.

I am not assured that he would respect Stare Decisis in a case where he so obviously believes that the Constitution does not provide the Right to Choice. He will not be the first Justice to mislead the Senate and show his true colors only when they are beyond reach.

Senator Schumer demonstrated most effectively that Judge Alito has not respected Stare Decisis well at the circuit court level.

I have also been very disappointed with Sen Spector. While he claims to be pro-choice, he is promoting the Republican line, (that NOW was all upset over Souter and he has supported Roe). This is used to invalidate our concerns. It should be noted that we are right more than we are wrong about Court appointments. We were right about Thomas and Scalia. That makes us right 2/3 times. Sen Spector was wrong about Thomas and Scalia. That makes him right 1/3 times. I guess we are a better judge that he.

For more information go to NOW website.
Lori

2006-01-05T14:21:00.000-05:00

Goverment Spies

Over 30 years ago a President was brought down for spying on the other party. There will never be another Watergate, because now the President has claimed the authority to spy on anyone he chooses without any checks or disclosures.

When one considers the dirty tricks that this administration has employed on individuals who challenge or dissent with their opinion, it is not a far leap to believe that they are spying on anyone who disagrees with their position on the war, choice supreme court nominations....
Was this going on during the last Presidential election? Did they have access to the private conversations and strategy of the Kerry Campaign? Can we ever have another fair election, if they do?
Lori

2006-01-05T13:18:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Tompkins County NOW's Blog. We are just starting up, so please be patient.
Lori