Author: Kahli

On Wednesday during legislative action regarding the minimum wage increase, Republican Senator from Colorado, Wayne Allard, introduced an amendment that would have scrapped the Federal minimum wage entirely.  Although the amendment failed, a full 28 senators voted for it.
If any of the following belong to you, you might want to let them have it:

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)

More importantly, the Employee Free Choice Act is being considered for the House of Representatives.

Workers who attempt stand up for themselves are routinely harassed and intimidated.   American Rights At Work report that a worker is fired or retaliated against for their support of a union every 23 minutes.

The Employee Free Choice Act will strengthen workers’ rights and hold anti-union employers accountable.  When Congress passes this important legislation, tougher penalties will be in place to protect workers whose rights are violated.  Workers would have a fair, simple, direct method for organizing unions.  And employers would be forced to stop dragging out contract negotiations for years and years.  

Unfortunately, because we have a chance of winning this important battle for workers, right-wing anti-union forces are already mobilizing to defeat this legislation.  They’re sure to hammer away at the Employee Free Choice Act with a well-financed, well-orchestrated campaign.  In order to combat their well-funded efforts, we need to overwhelm each and every member of Congress with letters from their constituents in support of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Please go to American Rights At Work to sign their petition asking that your Congressperson be a sponsor of this important piece of legislation.

Solidarity!

Apparently President Bush is starting to feel our pain.  The State of the Union speech is likely to include his plan for fixing the health care problem in the U.S.

When I first read about this in the New York Times yesterday, I was quite confused.

President Bush intends to use his State of the Union address Tuesday to tackle the rising cost of health care with a one-two punch: tax breaks to help low-income people buy health insurance and tax increases for some workers whose health plans cost significantly more than the national average.

The basic concept is that employer-provided health insurance, now treated as a fringe benefit exempt from taxation, would no longer be entirely tax-free. Workers could be taxed if their coverage exceeded limits set by the government. But the government would also offer a new tax deduction for people buying health insurance on their own.

Since this approach made absolutely no sense, I assumed I had misread or misunderstood what was intended.

Apparently not.

In Paul Krugman’s   opinion piece today (subscription only), he points out that the plan is a wrong-headed as I thought.

First, the plan assumes that low-income people don’t buy health insurance as a matter of choice.  I think that most people would love to have it, but are too busy buying things like food and shelter. A tax break for buying health insurance?  Give me a break. Yeah, that will help.

In his Saturday radio address:

Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.”

I may be wrong, but I see nothing like universal home ownership in this country.

Krugman also points out that besides lower-income Americans there is another group that is uninsured.

…many can’t get coverage because of pre-existing conditions — everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won’t solve their problem.

Ooops. I guess no one is supposed to notice that glaring loophole.

As bad as all that is, our President appears to believe that some middle class workers have it too good when it comes to health insurance.

Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase — not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.”

No word on whether the health insurance coverage for the Prez and Congress is “gold-plated.”

I truly cannot comprehend where Bush is coming from.  Is he beyond cynical? Ignorant? Unintelligent? Lacking in empathy?

If this plan is actually presented in the State of the Union speech what is the appropriate response.  Laughter at the ludicrousness of it? Demands for competency hearings?  

All I know is that this whole thing has made me feel nauseated.

The Santa Fe New Mexican reported on the upcoming trial of nine peace activists who had the audacity to try to present a petition at Senator Domenici’s office.

They were cited by homeland security officials Sept. 26 after entering the federal building in Santa Fe to collect U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici’s signature on a Declaration of Peace calling for an immediate end to the war in Iraq. The group includes a 15-year-old high-school student, several retired people and a prominent Jesuit priest.

According to longtime peace activist John Dear, the Santa Fe Nine hope to put the war on trial in federal court. Dear said he is facing as much as six months in prison on the misdemeanor charge, but added, “I’m so notorious that you never know what will happen.”

These nine citizens of the United States, while attempting to communicate with the staff of their elected official, were confronted with the Santa Fe police force, the FBI, a SWAT team, federal marshals and Homeland Security Department officials.  When they entered an elevator in the building, the power was shut off so the activists spent their time reading the names of American and Iraqi war dead.

They were finally arrested and face trail at 9 a.m. Jan. 25 in a second-floor courtroom of the federal building, 421 Gold Ave. SW, Albuquerque

There is something horribly wrong in our democracy when our elected officials and their staffs use police to intimidate and incarcerate constituents with dissenting points of view.

The Santa Fe Nine who posed such a horrible threat to Senator Domenici and his staff are as follows:

Philip Balcombe, 58, retired, Santa Fe

Sansi Coonan, 61, housewife, volunteer at St. Elizabeth shelter and the Boys and Girls Club, Santa Fe

John Dear, 47, Catholic priest, former pastor in Spring and Cimarron and author of more than 20 books on peace and nonviolence, Santa Fe

Bruno Keller, 65, retired, Santa Fe

Jan Lustig, 52, mother and activist, Santa Fe

Michella Marusa, 66, active member of Santa María de la Paz Catholic Community, Española

Jordan McKittrick, 15, high-school student, Santa Fe

Bud Ryan, co-coordinator of Pax Christi New Mexico and board member of St. Elizabeth shelter, Madrid

Ellie Voutselas, 69, mother, librarian, coordinator of Pax Christi Santa Fe, Santa Fe

Please keep them in your thoughts and prayers.  Please do what you can to publicize their plight.  The police should not be used to stifle peaceful dissent.  Our elected officials should not be using armed force against citizens of this country who wish to present views to their governmental representatives.  

This is a disagrace.

In 2003, I worked my butt of for Howard Dean.

It was the first time I had ever gotten that involved in politics. I gave money to the candidate. (Imagine!) I posted on blogs. (After I finally figured out what they were and how you signed on.) I spent weeks in Iowa. I spent a week in Wisconsin. I watched the take down of Dean. The media did its part.  The mainstream Dems played their share of dirty tricks. I heard about how he was too outspoken and too liberal.  Howard Dean too liberal?! Whatever. It was not to be.
That experience got me far more attuned to political issues. The more involved I got, the more liberal I got. I didn’t expect it to happen but it just did.  I also became much more cynical about politics and its practitioners.

I watched Kerry deny responsibility for his vote authorizing the war, for his vote for No Child Left Behind, for his vote for the Patriot Act and I became sick to my stomach.  His votes were never wrong – other people just screwed up the implementation. I watched as the “Progressive” community demanded unquestioning fealty to Kerry’s candidacy, a fealty that was offered without requiring any quid pro quo from Kerry.  The Dems were not above spreading fear.  “Anybody but Bush!”  “Anybody but Bush!” Don’t demand principle of the candidate.  Don’t demand clarity.  Don’t demand passionate leadership.  Just shut up and support the man.  After he is elected, you can hold his feet to the fire.

That strategy didn’t work out so well.

It did appear that Kerry, in fact, might have won the election.  A few brave Dems went out on a limb (Boxer, Tubbs Jones), but the rest of us were told to shut up it.  It would piss off the American people if the Dems looked like sore losers. No, there was no reason to fight tooth and nail to ensure that the people’s choice was inaugurated.  In certain “liberal” circles, people were shunned for even suggesting fighting for the truth.

W . took office and brought greater and greater shame to his position. (Torture, suspension of habeus corpus, signing statements, illegal wire tapping, horrendous judicial nominations.)  Very few Democrats tried to stop his reign of terror.  Oh, there was a half-hearted attempt here and there, mostly for show.  As progressive citizens expressed our outrage, we were once again told to shut up.  The Dems had no power.  They couldn’t do anything.  And taking a strong stand against this stuff would just upset certain segments of the populace.  If they did ever take power in Congress, then we could hold their feet to the fire.

And now less than 48 hours after the Democrats won control of both houses, we are again being told to shut up.  Don’t demand too much.  Subpoenas?  Maybe, if they get around to it.  Assuring the rights of gays, immigrants and women?  Well…  Universal health care?  They like the sound of that.  Don’t expect any action.  A tax policy that might help us crawl out of our mountain of debt?  Perhaps a little  tax  on the rich, but  nothing meaningful.  And could we please stop pointing out that the debt puts us in a weak position vis a vis our foreign investors.

And now that they have power they can’t really do anything with it. The 2008 election is right around the corner and they have to stay in power so they can stay in power.  After that, you can hold their feet to the fire.

We supercilious liberals often made fun of the right wing base.  They were being played by the power brokers. Yet, we progressives consent to be played too.  Coming from Chicago, I’m very familiar with the “Wait till Next Year” philosophy.  But that is only baseball.  As long as you have blue skies, cold beer and ivy-covered walls, nothing else matters.

But we are not talking baseball.  We are talking peace, war, health, justice, community.
I’m done waiting.  I’m starting a little bonfire for feet warming and I hope you’ll join me.

I expected to feel self-righteous, maybe even a little snide.  Instead I’m exhausted, drained, edgy and slightly nauseated.

Shortly before the 2004 election, I got into a huge fight with a friend of mine.  We’d been drinking and started talking politics. It got ugly fast. I assumed that as a college-educated, well-traveled, art-loving, fun-loving individual, she would be fairly liberal. I found that she was not liberal at all.  She was ultra-conservative. Ultra.  She told me I had no right to live in America since I hated it so much.  She admitted that she could not believe certain facts (yes, facts) because she would it would be too devastating to her sense of what the United States is if she did.
Needless to say our relationship suffered. I was sad and angry and confused.  This past summer I reached out to her. I felt I had to learn how to hear what she said.  I had to reconnect with the goodness that I knew she possessed. (In many ways she is the most selfless person I know.  Caring for her mother-in-law who had Alzheimers disease in her home. Making lunch on a daily basis for a handicapped woman who lives down the street, etc.) She did not fit the stereotype of the redneck, uneducated, wingnut, nor of the fat cat corporatist who expected the government to provide her wealth while exploiting the poor. We had dinner together.  We both behaved well.  We took a baby step toward healing the rift between us.

Knowing that she and her husband loved the Southwest, I invited them to visit us if they ever were in Santa Fe.  To my surprise, she took me up on the offer and she and her husband spent the last 48 hours in my home. I swore to myself that I would be on my best behavior; that I would try to listen to her; that I would be respectful; that I would try not to be defensive.  She was a guest in my home.  Moreover, her own mother had died about ten days ago, and I knew she was in a fragile state.

The past two days were instructive, humbling and exhausting.  We did our best to tiptoe around the landmines, but politics came up despite our best efforts.  During dinner she commented that although she and her husband scarcely watch TV anymore, they had seen a great program on ABC about 9/11.  I choked down my mouthful of food and my horrified retort, and asked as neutrally as I could if she knew that there were some factual problems with the program.  She said she knew it was a drama but that it was based on “The /11 Report.” I gently asked if she knew that some members of the 9/11 committee had objected to its contents and that and FBI script consultant had quit because of his concerns about its veracity.  “No, she replied, I wasn’t aware of that.”  My husband changed the subject and that was that.

My friend and her husband brought up a few political races in my previous home state of Illinois.  I was quiet to hear what they would say. Rob said he couldn’t stand either candidate for governor so he was going to vote Green as a protest.  Maria replied that for the first time in her life she wouldn’t vote at all.  We agreed that there were very few politicians we could admire.  I let them take a few swipes at Duckworth and Durbin and remained quiet.  I learned that neither supports Duckworth’s competitor in IL-06, Peter Roskam (R).  By remaining quiet I also learned that both of them spend 20 minutes a day praying for peace.

Over the course of the past two days we had a number of close calls, but when they left this morning we had avoided out and out confrontation.

I’m very confused by the encounter. These people who pray for peace, who actually exert themselves to help people, will probably never vote for Democrats.  They are disillusioned with the Republicans, but for reasons I failed to discern they consider Democratic politicians beyond the pale. I didn’t trust my self-control, so I didn’t probe. They are extremely devout Catholics, but still love and have contact with their daughter who is “shacked up” with her boyfriend.  They were distraught when their only son joined an ultra-orthodox Catholic religious order.

I don’t understand them.  They don’t understand me.  Our universes do not seem to be the same.  I suspect we have more in common than either of us realize.  I don’t know how we personally are going to bridge the gaps that separate us. I don’t know how we progressives are going to bridge the gaps with people like these.  Although many of our values are the same, our message is not resonating.  We are not trusted.  We have a lot of work to do.

We need to work together if we are going to save this country.  We need to listen.  We need to respect.  We need to articulate our views in a way that will not cause people to shut down.  It won’t be easy.  It is exhausting.

The New Jersey Supreme Court believes that homosexuals have the same rights at heterosexuals.  

Good for them!  Imagine all of us having equal rights!

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, but the state Legislature must decide whether to give same-sex couples the right to legally “marry” or create civil unions.

“The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes,” the court said in its ruling.

The Legislature now has 180 days to address the issue. It has two options: amend the marriage statues to include same-sex couples, or “create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union.”

“The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process,” the court said.

“At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples,” it said.

There is so much going on in the world that is acute: N. Korea with Nukes, impending war with Iran, vote theft and voter suppression, global warming. It is too much to take in.

That being the case, there is a tendency to overlook the less acute — the chronic nagging pain that is always there. Today’s news smacked me between the eyes. The chronic pain became acute. Sorrow. Rage. Frustration. Bubbling up and spilling out in a welter of bitter tears.

The amazing, Bob Herbert, wrote a searing column in the New York Times on misogyny as exposed through the two recent to school shootings. (Herbert can be read only if you have a subscription – and this may be the time to get one.)

I hope I’m not pushing the limits of fair use, but I want to share some of what he said.

In the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania and a large public high school in Colorado, the killers went out of their way to separate the girls from the boys, and then deliberately attacked only the girls.

In the widespread coverage that followed these crimes, very little was made of the fact that only girls were targeted. Imagine if a gunman had gone into a school, separated the kids up on the basis of race or religion, and then shot only the black kids. Or only the white kids. Or only the Jews.

There would have been thunderous outrage. The country would have first recoiled in horror, and then mobilized in an effort to eradicate that kind of murderous bigotry. There would have been calls for action and reflection. And the attack would have been seen for what it really was: a hate crime.

None of that occurred because these were just girls, and we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that violence against females is more or less to be expected.

A girl or woman is sexually assaulted every couple of minutes or so in the U.S. The number of seriously battered wives and girlfriends is far beyond the ability of any agency to count. We’re all implicated in this carnage because the relentless violence against women and girls is linked at its core to the wider society’s casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls, to see them first and foremost as sexual vessels — objects — and never, ever as the equals of men.

Yes, violence and dehumanization have been reduced to a dull ache and it took the eloquent words of this man to throw it up in our faces, to smack us between the eyes with the ugly reality that confronts women, girls, mothers, sisters, daughters and aunts every day.

Oh, and the other article – the president of Israel may soon be arrested for raping women on his staff.