On C-Span today, a caller had this to say about taxpayer-funded abortions in relation questions from today's hearing:
I would rather go to jail than have people take my tax dollars and kill innocent human beings.I would like to be the person to escort this dipshit to jail, since the caller has conveniently decided to ignore all of the innocent human beings that have been killed in Iraq.
"You don't have to be right to do Buchanan's job. Or even sincere. You just have to be very loud."—Ta-Nehisi Coates, on professional superfuck Pat Buchanan's hot advice that the GOP needs more race-baiting, not less.
Great News
As you may recall, the Bush administration was (with one notable exception) extremely hostile to female asylum-seekers who sought asylum on the basis of forced marriage, genital mutilation, domestic violence, and/or sexual assault. Just another one of many shames of that eight-year blight on this nation, for which the current administration is now seeking to atone [trigger warning for case details; emphasis mine]:
The Obama administration has opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic beatings and sexual abuse to receive asylum in the United States. The action reverses a Bush administration stance on an issue at the center of a protracted and passionate legal battle over the possibilities for battered women to become refugees.Blub.
...The administration laid out its position in an immigration appeals court filing in the case of a woman from Mexico who requested asylum, saying she feared she would be murdered by a common law husband there. According to court documents filed in San Francisco, the man repeatedly raped her at gunpoint, held her captive, stole from her and at one point attempted to burn her alive when he learned she was pregnant.
The government submitted its legal brief in April, but the woman only recently gave her consent for the confidential case documents to be disclosed to The New York Times. The government has marked a clear, although narrow, pathway for battered women seeking asylum, lawyers said, after thirteen years of tangled court arguments, including resistance from the Bush administration to recognize any of those claims.
Moving cautiously, the government did not immediately recommend asylum for the Mexican woman, who is identified in the court papers only by her initials as L.R. But the Department of Homeland Security, in the unusual submission written by senior government lawyers, concluded in plain terms that "it is possible" that the Mexican woman "and other applicants who have experienced domestic violence could qualify for asylum."
As recently as last year, Bush administration lawyers had argued in the same case that battered women could not meet the strict standards of American asylum law.
"This really opens the door to the protection of women who have suffered these kinds of violations," said Karen Musalo, a professor who is director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Ms. Musalo has represented other battered women seeking asylum and recently took up the case of L.R.
Gay amendments possible this week for defense bill:
U.S. senators are considering the introduction of LGBT-related amendments to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill if it comes to the Senate floor as planned this week.Note that Gillibrand is still interested in an unqualified repeal of the policy and that this is just a stop-gap measure until that's possible. It's also, by serendipity if not design, a clever way of proving that repealing the policy won't cause the military to explode.
The potential amendments could make the legislation a vehicle for the biggest advances to date in LGBT rights at the federal level.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is considering the introduction of an amendment that would instate an 18-month moratorium on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which would prevent further investigation of gay service members until it expires or Congress can accomplish full repeal, according to Bethany Lesser, a Gillibrand spokesperson.
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, home of the intermittent connectivity.
Recommended Reading:
Marcella: Carnival Against Sexual Violence 74
Anji: Second Carnival of Feminist Parenting
Kathy: Jeff, Please Go Away - Quietly!
Resistance: The Browning of Disease
Dave: Ingraham Puts Crosshairs on Planned Parenthood
Tigtog: Watching Whales Watching Us
And a fond farewell to Hilzoy.
Leave your links in comments...
In what I'm assured by my internet provider—who we'll continue to call Cromcrast—is a huge coincidence, immediately following another weekend where we made lots of hot love with our instant queue on Netflix, I'm having "intermittent connectivity issues" again. So Cromcrast is sending someone out to re-examine my modem and, apparently, the line they just replaced, which means that my contributions might be spotty this afternoon.
The Washington Post published a big profile of anti-choice leader Randall Terry today, and it's positively sickening in its whitewashing of his history.
The first part of the article languidly dwells on what a theatrical maestro of the antiabortion movement Terry is, spends three paragraphs on his personal life, a few paragraphs on how modern antiabortion leaders consider him a hasbeen, and then dedicates an extended portion to his big comeback, describing Terry's physique, his clothes, his home work-out space, the projects he's pitching, and his media strategy, and finishes with eight paragraphs describing the inaugural meeting of the new iteration of his Operation Rescue, "Operation Rescue Insurrecta Nex."
Terry's intimate association with the exhortation of violence against abortion doctors and his extended history of harassment are all but absent from the article, and the years during which Operation Rescue was most active—when members "chained themselves to the actual medical equipment used to perform abortions" and "shoved themselves into the faces of pregnant women on their way into [clinics], screaming 'Mommy, Mommy, don't kill me!'"—are described as "Operation Rescue's glory days."
I am truly appalled that the WaPo would run what is essentially a fluff piece on Randall Terry, actively helping resurrect his career. The man is a fucking terrorist.
Are the editors over there worried there won't be anything left to write about if there isn't an incessant and constantly escalating abortion battle in this country? Are the lives of the people hurt—the doctors murdered, the clinic staff endangered, the patients harassed and threatened—by people like and/or associated with Terry so insignificant, their value totally contingent on their newsworthiness as targets, that the WaPo would actually aid Terry in a comeback? Gobsmackingly irresponsible.
Contact the Washington Post's ombudsman.
Truly, I stand in awe at how Senate Republicans manage to up the ante in a way that defies all logic. Not content in blocking attempts from Democrats to push through health care reform, the Repubs have come up with a novel approach to stall thie bill: Block their own amendments.
At the opening of Monday's hearing, Sen. Dodd asked Sen. Enzi (R-WY), the ranking Republican on the committee, if he would agree to accept by unanimous consent a total of 64 Republican amendments. After a whisper from an aide, Enzi, a little perplexed and not a little embarrassed, refused to allow the 64 Republican amendments to be accepted, lowering his voice to mumble, "I think some of our members want votes on some of those." Dodd's visible exasperation and disbelief is priceless.
From Day Two, here's Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Fuckery) questioning Sotomayor about what a huge stinking racist she is:
Watching Lindsey Graham's gotcha grin as he needled Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with disingenuous and rhetorical questions you had to wonder what was so funny.Spot-on. The Republican behavior during this entire confirmation hearing has been Privilege on Parade.
...It is not that the Republican inquiries were out of bounds in legal terms. But a confirmation hearing like this is a political forum.
Even if they vote for her, the fallout for Republicans could reach well beyond Hispanic voters. They are coming across as a bunch of snarky and bitter old white men who cannot bear the thought of their kind losing power.
During her enforced silence, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been portrayed as a woman of passion. Her speeches, endlessly dissected in the weeks since President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court, reveal a fiery Latino pride. Her colleagues say she runs a "hot bench."Gee, it's almost as though the rap on Sotomayor—which in a remarkable coincidence hewed closely to stereotypes of women, especially Latinas—was exaggerated bullshit! And now because she's not living up to those erroneously-applied stereotypes, she's boring. Lose-lose for women—again! Wheeeeeeeeeeee!
That was not the woman on display here Tuesday.
For hours on end, as Judge Sotomayor had her first chance to rebut critics and the nation had its first chance to listen to her at length, passion was in short supply. Instead, as she sought to fend off Republicans' criticisms — that she was a temperamental bully who would allow her feelings to dictate her decisions — Judge Sotomayor took pains to make herself as boring as possible, with the possible exception of her flaming red jacket.
What's your favorite dessert?
This doesn't necessarily have to be something sweet. If your favorite thing to have after a big meal is a slice of cheese or a cuppa black coffee, that's welcome, too.
I adore pretty much anything with chocolate or raspberries, but I have a really hard time thinking of anything I wouldn't pass up for a nice piece of key lime pie.
Yesterday, HoosierAccess posted video of RNC Chairperson Michael Steele meeting with bloggers at the Young Republicans convention in Indiana. In the video, Steele is asked: "Regarding your inclusion of diverse populations of the Republican Party, what is your plan moving forward?" To which Steele responded: "My plan is to say, 'Ya'll come!'"
At that point, there is supportive laughter, and someone in the audience can be heard to say: "I'll bring the collard greens!" There is more laughter; Steele laughs and responds, "There you go. I got the fried chicken and potato salad!"
Tell the British Government: "Jessica Must Stay!"
by Shaker Thalestris, an overeducated, unemployed autistic woman who has slightly more cats than she has college degrees.
The following is the text of a press release recently published on Indymedia UK regarding the possible deportation of US-born UK resident Jessica Davanzo, who recently escaped marriage to an abusive man and started working as a personal assistant to a disabled British woman:
Jessica Davanzo, originally from the US, moved to the UK on a 2 year visa in October 2006 after marrying her ex-husband, a UK citizen, and breaking all ties with her former life in the US. However, after she moved to the UK, but before her visa came up for renewal for indefinite leave to remain, her husband started abusing and threatening her, forcing her, after many attempts at relationship counselling failed to have any effect on his increasingly abusive behaviour, to leave him, move to another town (Northampton) and start a new job.Continued…
Soon after this, and possibly as a result of the stress and trauma she experienced, in June 2008 Jessica became ill with a neurological condition called Guillain Barre syndrome, which resulted in her spending 6 months in hospital and being temporarily paralysed, needing intensive rehabilitation to regain the ability to walk, as well as having longer-term effects of chronic fatigue and back pain, and being unable to work for 10 months. Due to her immigration status Jessica had no access to any form of UK state benefits, leaving her destitute and at risk of homelessness.
As a result of this experience of impairment and the awareness of disability it brought with it, after her recovery Jessica decided to work as a PA (Personal Assistant) for a disabled employer, Roxanne Homayoun. Roxanne, who has physical and visual impairments and requires 24-hour assistance, and is an activist for disability rights with an MA in 20th century history, said "Jessica is such a truly positive, honest, and principled person that she has helped me to see that many of my dreams are still achievable, they just need modifying. I would be absolutely devastated if Jessica is deported."Jessica's life is in the UK now, and it would be wrong to add to her extensive list of personal tragedies by forcing her to give it up, start over and rebuild her life from scratch again. And for Roxanne, the loss of Jessica could mean the loss of an independent life in the community. It is deeply unfair that the relationship these women have is not considered important enough to keep them together, while any marital or family relationship, however tenuous, dysfunctional, or downright abusive, would have been preserved. That constitutes a patriarchal, heterosexist, and ableist double standard if I ever saw one.
In the notice of decision dated 3rd June 2009 (which Jessica only received on the 10th June), she was informed that there was "no right of appeal against this decision" which she was later told by an immigration solicitor was not in fact true. Jessica and her solicitors are now seeking a judicial review of the decision. She was also told, despite several police reports and a supporting letter from Victim Support, that "you have not produced evidence to confirm that your marriage was caused to break down during the probationary period, as a result of domestic violence".
Jessica's case brings together issues of vital concern for feminists, disability rights activists and all those who support the free movement of people across borders. The UK Government's decision to demand that she leave the country shows a complete disregard for the circumstances of women fleeing abusive relationships (if she had stayed within the relationship and continued to submit to her ex-husband's violence, she would have been permitted to stay in the country - what message does that send to women trapped in such situations? This is victim-blaming at its worst - women being punished for getting out of a life-threatening situation or rewarded for staying within it) and for the incredibly important role of PAs in maintaining disabled people's independence.
The letter Jessica received from the Home Office claims that forcing her to leave the UK is not a breach of Jessica's human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, they have totally failed to take into consideration the human rights of her employer, Roxanne, whose physical safety, freedom of private life and ability to participate in political society would all be put in serious jeopardy by the loss of her PA, given the extreme rarity of PAs with whom disabled employers are able to build up the sort of relationship (itself arguably "family life" under Article 8 of the ECHR) enjoyed by Roxanne and Jessica.
If the UK government cared either about women survivors of marital abuse or about disabled people who need assistance to live independently (for whom it can take an extremely long time to find a PA with the right attitude to genuinely support their human right to choice and control over their own lives, and for whom losing such a PA could easily result in risk of institutionalisation or life-threatening neglect), then it would not have threatened Jessica with deportation. Jessica Must Stay!
Sign the online petition to let Jessica stay in the UK; join the Facebook group in support of her; or you can contact the British Home Office (headed by Home Secretary Sir David Normington) at this email and the UK Border Agency (headed by Chief Executive Lin Homer) at this email.by Shaker laguiri. Part One is here.
The first death from swine flu in Spain took place two weeks ago. She was a pregnant woman whose son was born by Caesarean section, and this is part of his story.
I wrote about his mother's story in Part One, where I noted, "the public health system is fundamentally universal and free." When I wrote that post, I tried to avoid an important political issue, which is the management of the healthcare system in Madrid, a region comparable to an American State. Here, in public services, a government (local, regional, national) has two main options: Providing that service directly, with tax money that goes to pay for the buildings, the things, and the salaries, or to hire a company. A lump sum of tax money is given to a private company, which pays for the buildings, their contents, and the salaries. If ownership and management are 100% public, most workers are part of the civil service and their working conditions and benefits are a bit better than "normal" workers. If management is private, the vast majority of workers are "normal" ones. Tax-funded-but-privately-managed operations are normally cheaper than their publicly-managed equivalents, for the very simple reason that a private company wants to extract a profit from the original lump sum of tax money that it is given by a government.
Traditionally, conservative governments prefer these mixed arrangement for schools. Sometimes you get them in healthcare. In 2003, the Conservative Esperanza Aguirre became President of Madrid and begun a very fast creation of new hospitals and also the transfer of public hospitals to private companies. Hospital Gregorio Marañón, where Dalila Mimouni was diagnosed an infection, asthma and muscular pain as a result of pregnancy instead of swine flu, is one of them.
It is also the hospital in which Dalila's son, Rayan, born at 28 weeks' gestation, has died when he was two weeks old. His death has been blamed on a "terrorifical mistake," in the words of the Hospital's director. On Sunday, he was given baby formula by an IV drip instead of through a nasogastric tube. Prematures babies can't survive this, and he died about 15 hours later in spite of every medical effort done to help him.
That's the fact. Now, these are some of the circumstances.
The nurse who made the fatal mistake was alone and unsupervised on her first day on the Newborns' Intensive Care Unit. She had worked on five different sections in less than two years. She was covering up a lack of staff on the Newborns' ICU. At feeding time on Sunday, the nurse who was in charge of Rayan had to leave to take care of a coming emergency. I'll say that again in case it wasn't clear: The nurse that made the mistake was covering up an absence in the ICU. Her supervisor had to cover up an absence in Emergencies, leaving a nurse unsupervised on her first day working with critical newborns. According to a union, half the staff in the ICU are temps.
Did I say that Madrid has a lot of new hospitals? Yes, if you look here, you see a pretty blue box which shows that there are 8 new ones on top of the 23 older ones. Impressive, isn't it?
Now, if you look at that website, under "job offers," there are several headings. "Proceso de dotación de Nuevos Hospitales" = Process for the equipment of new hospitals. Clicking there, you can see that's not hiring. That's redistribution—spreading the staff of the old hospitals accross the new ones. Then there's "Bolsas para la contratación temporal" = temporary jobs. "Bolsas" means bags: They are open waiting lists with no disclosure of how many doctors are actually needed. Doctors can join the queue and sit by the phone until they get a temp job. There are three lists—nurses, pediatricians, and general doctors.
Now, the real jobs. Would you like to know how many non-temping jobs are offered in the public health system in Madrid this year? 5,288. There are 49 clinics and hospitals in Madrid, and about 6 and a half million people. So, we can safely assume that, yes, Madrid is working with 25% more hospitals and the same staff than it did five years ago. Probably less, because we had our own Baby Boom and the majority of Spanish doctors are near retirement age.
No wonder privately-managed public hospitals are so profitable.
The truth is, I feel bad I assumed sex discrimination on my first guest post about this tragedy. Maybe doctors saw her as the appendage to a fetus, but I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe all they saw was a lot of extra work through a caffeine haze, while each one of them was doing the job of a doctor and a half. Or maybe a job they weren't even properly qualified to do. For myself, I just hope I never get sick in Madrid.
On any other day, this probably would have been the Quote of the Day (emphasis original):
Q: How do you feel about Dumbledore becoming somewhat of an icon for the gay rights movement?Random Aside: I like Daniel Radcliffe a lot, even though I don't particularly care for the Harry Potter series—although everyone else around me does, including Iain and Mama and Papa Shakes, and, you know, zillions of book sales, so, believe me, I realize I've the odd palate on this one. I've not read the books (I started the first but wasn't keen on it) although I have been dragged to see all the movies with Iain and my parents, and [spoiler warning!] every time they love to laugh at my indignant exasperation that the culprit is always the same: "Oh, well, fuck me, it's the dark arts teacher again! Who'da thunk it?!"
Daniel Radcliffe: It's wonderful. I grew up around gay people my entire life, basically, that's possibly why I'm quite camp, and some people think I'm gay when I meet them, which I think is awesome. It's always good to keep them guessing [laughs]. I don't go on any blogs or chats or anything, but my friends are demons for them, and apparently someone said "Daniel Radcliffe is gay. He's got a gay face!" [Laughs] I really don't know what a gay face is. But I think it's wonderful that Dumbledore was outed as gay ... Half of me thinks Jo Rowling just did that to see if she could piss off the right wing, but I'm not sure how true that is. I think she had it planned, I think she always knew he was gay.
"I'm basically in support [of same-sex marriage]. ... I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that."—Former President Bill Clinton.
This is not, as you'll note, a full-throated endorsement of federally legalized same-sex marriage, but it is a big deal for one of the most prominent Democrats in the nation to say he is personally in favor of same-sex marriage.
Bill Clinton has never said this on the record before. Reading it actually made me a little light-headed.
