Is today the big day?

Voices Carry is saying the big unveiling of the Vote Yes petition total is scheduled for this afternoon. Any predictions on what the total will be? Will they put Leslee up front or let a less divisive figure take the lead? How many times will they use the phrases "abortion as birth control" and "this is what the voters asked for"? How long will it take after this announcement is made for Missionaries for the Preborn and other fringe groups to load up their trucks and return to South Dakota?

***Edit: Total is 46,000; both in the press coverage and on the Vote Yes website, Allen seems to be taking the lead over Leslee; not much about the message in KELO's coverage, and the wild eyed crazies are loading up their anti-choice caravans as we speak.***

The Election and Progressive Politics.

(This is cross-posted at my blog.)

Readers:

This is a guest post by my good friend and fellow activist, Ricky Baldwin. Actually, I feel silly saying "fellow activist" when it comes to Ricky, who puts the "act" in activism, as in, this guy knows all about organizing and the hard work that is standing up for your principles. He certainly puts me to shame. He's done labor organizing, he's worked for pro-choice organizations in *Mississippi* (which is even more of an experience than doing it in South Dakota, I'll bet), he's protested unfair treatment of migrant workers and he's done work in the Peace Movement, just for starters. I asked him if he'd like to write something on the current political situation, and he has. He will also be stopping by to answer comments, if anyone wants to leave any.

Here he is (the bolding at the end is my doing, but the words are his):

In my opinion, thinking about the elections we sometimes forget to start with what we know. We don’t know who’s going to win or what they will do – or try to do when it comes down to it. We do have a pretty good idea what they won’t do. Suffice it to say, what they won’t do includes some of the most important things the American people want (not to mention the rest of the world so deeply affected by US policies).

In every poll I know of, for example, a majority of Americans – or at the very least a strong plurality – always prefer some kind of 'universal health care' system such as what we call 'single-payer' (more or less the Canadian or British system). But there are powerful interests that want just the opposite, so we will not get it any time soon no matter who wins in November. Of the three remaining possibilities Clinton probably comes closest to at least proposing something like what we want, but that's not really very close. Besides, she has been weighed in that balance already, when Bill was prez, and found wanting. By that I mean she championed a miserable charade of a healthcare plan, which became infamous even in the mainstream for its potential to enrich our vampiric health insurance companies. Maybe this is one reason that, among all the candidates, Hillary is the number one recipient of donations from the health insurance industry. Who knows? Anyway, it didn't fly despite her long-famous abilities as an aggressive negotiator (when she was a big-time corporate lawyer). Now it seems she has tamed her proposal considerably. Single-payer ain’t happenin.

Also, one of the leading bones of contention this year promises to be the so-called "war on terror" – especially the war in Iraq – for another example. Most Americans pretty clearly want us out of Iraq (at least) sometime around yesterday, whatever the pundits tell us we are supposed to think. In dozens of local referenda across the country voters, even Republicans who supported Bush and other hawks in previous elections, virtually always say they want withdrawal "as soon as possible" or "with all due haste" or words to that effect. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have been very clear since election nite/morning 06: that's off the table, right along with impeaching Bush or Cheney, right along with Hillary Clinton's earlier swagger about getting rid of the phenomenally anti-democratic idea of the Electoral College (she's been silent on that for some time now, I notice). On the war, Obama probably looks best, although he has been pretty clear from the beginning of his campaign that the sort of immediate withdrawal actually favored by the American people was not on his agenda. It's true that Obama was outspoken against the US invasion of Iraq from before it happened, while Clinton supported and voted for it (a vicious hawk for some time), and McCain thinks we should stay there 100 years – only without torturing prisoners. But Obama has voted along with the others to continue funding the war, and he's mostly followed the line that 'the invasion was a mistake, but now that we're there we can't just leave.' (How would he feel if someone broke into his house and started smashing up the place, killing and maiming, and his neighbors responded this way?)

Neither of the Dems will rule out the sort of Bush-style unilateral aggression that got so many Nazis hanged at Nuremburg. McCain, of course, is a cheerleader for that sort of thing. None of them will challenge Israel's brutal policy of apartheid against the Palestinian Arabs – certainly not to the point of cutting off military aid to this beligerent European colony – they've made that very clear.

Judging from our three remaining candidates' actions, we are also unlikely to see the reversals we might hope for on NAFTA, the USA PATRIOT Act (all 3 voted to reauthorize) or the heinous 'No Child Left Behind' attack on public education. Speaking of NAFTA, we do also have significant circumstantial evidence besides the candidates' own voting records and campaign promises. Clinton was of course part of the administration that presided over passage of that longtime GOP wet dream, NAFTA, not to mention "the end of welfare as we know it," and "don't ask, don't tell" soon thereafter responsible for more military discharges for homosexuality than the earlier prohibition. Bill also promised to end the first Bush Admin's illegal policy of returning political refugees to Haiti, which his admin actually accelerated once in office. In fact, besides gutting the US welfare system as I mentioned, we might paraphrase an important Native American leader: the Clinton campaign made a lot of promises, but they kept only one – they promised to bomb Iraq and they bombed it. Hillary, we now know, pushed that policy of bombing as well as the Admin's cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and the baby formula factory they blew up at the same time. Their Admin also specifically fought gay marriage as well as medical marijuana. Some liberals!

It's hardly surprising, given Hillary's background in one of the highest profile law firms in the country – now renamed Rose Law Firm – representing Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods and the like. Obama, on the other hand, not only was a community organizer himself, but apparently as a bright young lawyer he turned down offers from more prestigious firms than Miner's to specialize in civil rights and social advocacy law, representing ACORN and the League of Women Voters and others (trouncing the Illinois governor and winning a 'Motor Voter' law), fighting red-lining (Citibank), and supporting whistleblowers and such. I claim it doesn't really matter if Clinton 'comes from money' and Obama doesn't, for example. Sen. Inouye (D-Hawaii), a Clinton supporter, who noted earlier this month that Obama attended an elite elementary school in an attempt to influence his state’s primary (Obama attended on a scholarship, while being raised by his single mom and grandmother) is beside the point, as is Rev. Wright's insight that Hillary Clinton is not black. What does matter is what, and what interests, the candidates represent. And on this score, their histories are telling.

McCain of course has an atrocious track record, no matter what Herr Limbaugh and Frau Coulter say. Maybe that's why Henry Kissinger is working for his campaign, not to mention a gaggle of war criminals and other miscreants including Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig, George Schultz and Colin Powell. It's a group that shares a lot, including – in a just world – a seat in the dock at the Hague. But the world is not that just. Hillary has of course Bill, as well as their former partner in state terror Madeleine Albright, as well as Richard Holbrooke (ugh!) and Bush Jr's "surge" plan co-author John Keane. Obama has the evil Zbigniew Brzezinski in his corner, but fewer big-name sociopaths as far as I can tell. Obama is, however, favored by others in the nefarious Council on Foreign Relations, as a recent Z article points out, because he is supposed to have the best grasp of the "historical moment", a sort of Machiavellian term as I understand it that is not at all a good sign. Of course other CFR spindoctors support Hillary or McCain (e.g. all those I mentioned above). Not the candidate with the most CFR votes wins, but the three with the strongest CFR cheerleading are in fact now the only contenders left.

The Z article is actually refreshing in that it talks about the way in which ruling class interests, altho they don't strictly speaking choose the next prez, do narrow the field to the point that any candidate still standing when the music stops will serve their minority needs well enough. One way they do this is, not surprisingly, money. What may be surprising, tho, at least to many good liberals, is the particulars. Over 80 percent of all presidential campaign donations as of fall '07 went to six candidates: Clinton, Obama, Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Edwards (in that order). Almost 70 percent were over $1000 (i.e. not from you or me or probably anybody we know). The author goes into great detail, and it's fascinating, breaking out groups of big donors. "Big Capital" (finance, real estate, insurance) favors Clinton, then Giuliani, Romney and Obama. The big law firms favor Clinton, Edwards then Obama. Etc. Again, it's not that the one with the most 'high class' donations wins, but the proverbial 'playing field' is thereby tilted (and, as the author emphasizes, many potential candidates are eliminated).

So are they all the same? Not if you're one of the working class millions. None of them are great, but I'd argue that, overall, tho I'm not happy about our choices and want to emphasize that above all we must not confuse simple voting with democracy – we have to organize and fight for the rights of ordinary people if we are to have any hope of even modest gains – but voting is an opportunity to at least sway government policy this way or that. It's not the only one, or even the most effective (at least not on the national level, for sure), but we skip it to our cost.

The Greens won't win. But of course owing to the anti-democratic structure of our electoral system, in most states a Green vote is a good protest and that's it. (My
mother called me in 2000 to ask if I thought she could vote for Nader. My response: You're in Mississippi, you vote for whoever you want and don't let anybody bug you. Mississippi is going for Bush.) If you live in one of those swing states, however, anything but a Democratic vote is dangerous brinksmanship.

So I'm saying I'd vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination? Of course – if it seemed close in Illinois, [Ricky's home - PF] I'd vote for Donald Duck if he ran as a viable candidate. I worked on Hillary Clinton’s first campaign in New York because she was running against a rightwing nut. But I think you can tell by now I hope she doesn't get it. (I voted for Obama in the primary, just to minimize Hillary's delegates relative to Obama. My man Kucinich was out by then.) The policies of the last eight years at least must be repudiated, but a vote for Clinton doesn't really accomplish that all that well. Oh, I've heard all the arguments, most of which aren't serious. She's a woman – yes, and so was Thatcher. She's earned it (!) – and what have the American people earned? (Obama, by the way, has a much better record of working for the good and welfare.) Oh, yes, and speaking of arguments for Hillary that make no sense, there's one that needs special attention. I'll quote a friend of mine who's in charge of the excellent news service justforeignpolicy.org. After Hillary repeated Bush’s transparent lie that Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors (the US withdrew them, preparing to bomb), my friend quipped: "Hillary, ready to lie from Day 1." Indeed.

Sure, she's familiar with all the (evil) people. She's comfy sending planes to bomb women, children and sick people for elite purposes. And she'd have no problem selling out health care or whatever interest of the poor/working class comes before her, if it helped her stay in office or in some other way. I'm sure her reputation as a ruthless negotiator is well deserved, and her corporate clients were happy with her, but is that a pattern we want her to continue in the White House? The world needs something very different, and it's up to US citizens – who are the only ones who get to vote, unfortunately – to get the most we can out of our government.

What we need, of course, is an immediate withdrawal of all US troops and reparations to Iraq and Afghanstan, unconditional release of all POWs and reparations to their families, closure and evacuation of Guantanamo Bay as well as the School of the Americas and all US military bases around the world. We need to stop backing Israel, Saudi Arabia, Colombia and other repressive states and instead start standing up for what we say we support – democracy – even if the results are not what we'd like. We need someone who will fight for single-payer healthcare, a living wage, free abortion on demand and gay marriage (if we can't get the state out of the marriage business altogether). We need the right of civilian review for every person who alleges mistreatment by any law enforcement rep. We need to put an end to corporate welfare and reverse the policy that corporations are people with Constitutional rights (it would probably take an amendment). And so many other things that we will not get. But we have an obligation, on behalf of all the less powerful people of the world, to get what we can. Our comfort levels as voters, our disgust, our desires to touch symbolic base and feel good about ourselves, are nothing beside the deep suffering that so many billions on the planet endure largely at the hands of a world order dominated by our government.

The good news is, the Dems have a decent chance of winning, and both at least promise to get out of Iraq – eventually – tho I'm sure they'll maintain that gargantuan military base there and the 'quagmire' will continue. I doubt either one would hack away at welfare much more – Bill did enuf – or follow Bush-Cheney on international agreements like the Kyoto Accords, etc. We might even get a decent land-mine treaty! But will we get another Kosovo in Sudan? Maybe Iraq has lefta bad enuf taste to prevent it, if we fight. And hopefully we can get someone decent on the Supreme Court in the next four years. (Four is about all we can hope for; we have to make hay while the sun shines, like the Republicans do and the Dems usually don't.)

For labor, it's just possible, of course, with a Democrat in the Oval Office and Dems running both houses of Congress, to pass a much-needed reform authorizing card check to replace the gauntlet-running election system we have now for joining a union. McCain would certainly never let that happen. Obama or Clinton just might, Obama more likely in my book. But that's far from given and would require a bitter, hard struggle. I hope it happens. Maybe at least we'll get a raise in the min wage and some extention of SCHIP, stuff like that. Who knows, maybe we can revive that ergonomics standard? Obama promises to ax "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell." Clinton says she wouldn't fight gay marriage, tho she opposes it, like Obama. Neither would attack abortion rights, at least, but it seems the real battles there are at the state level at the moment.

In education, maybe we can at least see some changes in that awful "No Child’s Behind Left". But what we really need is a massive federal expenditure (way short of what we're spending on Iraq, of course) to put one more teacher in every classroom in the US. Now THAT would be a campaign to get excited about!

There are many such changes that we need, and campaigns for any of them would be well worth our time. But elections will not get them for us – and this one may yet prove that to some of us. The work we need to be about is much less glamorous. It involves knocking on doors, talking on the phone when you'd rather be chillin, talking to people sometimes awkwardly outside activist circles, sitting in long meetings, speaking up "even when your voice shakes," tolerating quirky people with strange ideas, and sometimes a lot of study (newspapers, voting records, etc.). It involves some flexibility, too, especially when two or more good causes compete or conflict, and yet some focus to remember our basic purposes and the people who need change the most. Whatever we do, however we disagree, I hope we always keep them in mind.

A Dis-Honorable Mention for Stupidity

*Edit: Looks like the pictures have been taken down. Description from the article:

Photos from the party show female students wearing “Indian maiden” dresses, stitched up the side with fringe at the bottom, and feather headdresses. Some male students are naked in the photos except for underwear and brown

T-shirts wrapped around their waists as makeshift loincloths and red makeup smeared across their faces and chests.

A little news from our neighbor to the north: apparently somebody forgot to tell these charming UND students that that as 'Fighting Sioux' they're supposed to be honoring Native Americans. Now, I'm not going to say that the fact that UND has stubbornly refused to let go of a nickname that has been condemned by tribes, human rights groups, and UND students alike *caused* this behavior, but I think it's pretty clear that even basic race relations are beyond the grasp of these kids. And yet Native people are supposed to just trust that the whole thing is a big honor?

Seriously, UND. It's time to give in. What is the big friggin' deal?? I guess I'm missing what you're 'standing up for' here. What would really be lost, besides the animosity and disgust that's currently directed your way?


On an unrelated note, check out Cory's great response to Ken's response to the ongoing Tibet discussion.

Speaking of discussion, can I just say how not a fan I am of comment-free blogs? Comments are a chance to actually have a dialogue about an issue. Not everything deserves its own post and the 'point-counter point' style seems like a poor way to work out the finer points of an argument. Instead of a conversation, we're forced to yell at each other from opposite sides of a gorge. Would it be a stretch to suggest that the commentless blog is indicative of exactly what's wrong with our democracy? Probably. But it's still annoying.

Lefties Love Tibet

Ken Blanchard's recent post on Tibet is a classic case of taking a random relevant issue and somehow turning it into a condemnation of the left with nary an example or piece of evidence in sight. He says:

It is one of the revealing facts about the international left that it cares deeply about the fate of Palestinians under Israeli power, but next to nothing about China's brutal occupation and colonization of Tibet.

Really? The left doesn't care about Tibet? That must be why The Tibetan Freedom Concert was put on by notable conservatives The Beastie Boys and features right-wing staples like Rage Against the Machine. I'm sure the reported support of Tibet by Democrats is because of some vast leftist MSM conspiracy. And all those dreadlocked kids around town with "Save Tibet" patches on their bags must be the membership of the College Republicans. Maybe the people who live out on the golf course just keep their Tibetan prayer flags *inside* and that's why I haven't seen them.

Certainly, there are conservative people who support the plight of Tibet, but it's a classically left-wing cause and I've seen no evidence that the left has abandoned it. It's like if I were to say, "South Dakota Politics talk about nothing but Barack Obama; clearly they hate John McCain and hope he dies." It just doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps it's just the Europeans that Ken's got a problem with:

European scholars have called for the ostracism of their colleagues from Israel. I missed the part where they want to punish Chinese scholars for the much worse atrocities committed by their nation. But of course the Chinese are communists, and hostile the U.S. Israel is not communist and is an ally of the United States.

Certainly, if there are Chinese scholars hostile to Tibetan independence working in Europe and receiving no criticism, the(unnamed, un-cited) European scholars who have called for the ostracism of their Israeli colleagues are big hypocrites. If such Chinese scholars, European scholars, and Israeli colleagues do indeed exist, then right on, Ken.

Jeez

Are we really at a point in the Democratic primary where younger feminists are calling older feminists 'hysterical'??

Why, yes. Yes we are.

Hint: Insulting people who hold a different opinion does not help your candidate, no matter who your candidate might be. Dividing feminists into "feminists who get it" and "hysterical, condescending, Archie Bunker in heels, extra-rational, emotional, pseudo-populist demagogues of the right" based upon which candidate one supports in this race is not useful either.

Update: STDs and Teens in SD

Apparently, the one in four stat probably doesn't even cover the teen STD rate in South Dakota. Great. I really love the comment from the mom who says:

"Clearly, the safe-sex message is fooling our children because there is no such thing."

There's no such thing as a safe-sex message? I would agree with that. Where would South Dakota teens be getting such a message? Not from school. Not from parents like this. Seems to me that the LACK of a safe-sex message might be the issue here. The Argus didn't bother to talk any one who was pro-comprehensive sex ed for this article (all that research and investigating you have to do as a journalist...who needs it??), which is really too bad because the article provides basically zero context.

"The best way to avoid getting an STD is no sex or to have one partner," [family physician Mark] Huntington says. Bottom line, "it makes good medical sense to be monogamous for life."

It also makes good medical sense to run five miles a day and never eat any cheese. Guess what? Any health education plan based on the idea that more than 1% of people is going to adopt such a lifestyle is going to fail. Let's spend millions of our tax dollars on a campaign to convince people to throw their TVs out their windows, while we're at it.

And considering the that more than 90% of adults have had pre-marital sex, there's a pretty good chance that almost everyone advocating abstinence until marriage for teens is a big fat hypocrite. But kids respond really well to "do as I say, not as I do," right?

As if by divine providence, I got an email this morning from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice informing me that today is National Interfaith Call In Day to Support Comprehensive Sexuality Education (click here to learn more and participate!).

They're trying to get Congress to support the Responsible Education About Life [REAL] Act.

REAL would provide states with much needed funding for programs that would:
•be required to be age-appropriate and medically accurate;
•teach that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and stress the value of abstinence while they also teach about the benefits of contraception and protection;
•encourage family communication about sexuality;
•refrain from teaching or promoting religion;
•teach negotiation skills for young people;
•teach young people about the effects of alcohol and drug use on responsible behavior.

Sound like good stuff to me. Exactly the kind of programs that South Dakota teens are apparently in desperate need of.

Not really a topic, but...

Every blog I try to post to these days has like twenty million 'K's, so I've had to go and change my name. Oh well, everyone knows who I am, anyway:P

Depressing News

Here's some depressing new: Study: 1 in 4 Teen Girls Has an STD

I think we can all agree that this isn't cool. Since HPV makes up the majority of the infections, I think there's a good chance these numbers will go down with use of the HPV vaccine, but it's still a worrisome statistic.
Interesting notes: Only about half of the girls acknowledged having sex. What do we make of that? Doesn't it seem like a lack of education about what sex IS, combine with a whole lot of shame are probably keeping girls from getting the services they need? Combine that with the fact that

"...screening tests are underused in part because many teens don't think they're at risk, but also, some doctors mistakenly think, 'Sexually transmitted diseases don't happen to the kinds of patients I see.'"

and you've got trouble.

I didn't have real sex ed in high school, but I had very honest parents, a good doctor, and access to my mom's copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves. I feel very lucky that I had some guidance. It seems like we're just leaving the vast majority of teen girls to wonder around blindly, trying to find their way. And what do they find instead? CHLAMYDIA.

p.s. I do not appreciate being baited

But Ken Blanchard must be bored, and virtually anything is better than grading student essays, which is what I've been doing with the rest of my weekend.

Ken's posting today about Heather MacDonald's recent LA Times op-ed, which he not so surprisingly accepts without question. I'd heard about MacDonald's op-ed a few days back, and have also followed the response from the feminist blogging community. I think the best, most detailed response came from Jill at Feministe, and it's worth quoting at length, mostly because this discussion is beyond tiring to me and Jill says it better than I could:

So as long as women aren’t defining their experiences as rape — a conclusion she draws based on the fact that many women decided not to report the incidents — it isn’t rape. Unless the woman says it is rape, and then it definitely wasn’t rape, it was her fault for how she dressed and acted.

While Ken and Heather MacDonald see this as evidence that rape just never occurs on campus, I can think of a bunch of reasons why rape survivors might want to convince themselves that what they'd just experienced wasn't rape. Ken is pretty smart, and can probably think of some reasons, too. Jill goes on to refute MacDonald's argument that the 'one in four' statistic is false, and questions MacDonald's criticism of both the "campus rape industry" and the "campus sex bureaucracy" (whatever those might be):

At first, it seems strange that MacDonald would simultaneously attack what she thinks is a hyped campus rape crisis and sex education on campuses. But it’s quite deliberate, and very telling. Anti-rape activism and sex-positive sexual health education are two sides to the same coin: They both challenge the dominant narrative that women’s bodies aren’t our own; they insist that sex is about consent and enjoyment, not violence and harm; and they attack a power structure that sees women as victims and men as predators. Anti-rape activists and sex-positive educators insist that men are not animals. Instead, men are rational human beings fully capable of listening to their partners and understanding that sex isn’t about pushing someone to do something they don’t want to...

It’s conservatives like MacDonald who pine for a time when women kept their legs shut until men forced them open — and were then humiliated and scorned if they dared stand up for themselves.

The psychology of female rape apologists isn’t that hard to figure out. If you can tell yourself that rape survivors asked for it — that they dressed a certain way, flirted too much, drank too much, just changed their minds, or flat-out made it up — you feel safe. You don’t do those things, and so you aren’t at risk.

I’m sympathetic to the need for psychological self-protection. But not when it’s to the detriment of other women. MacDonald works for the conservative Manhattan Institute, and her view isn’t simply a personal one: It’s the standard right-wing misogynist line. And it’s part of a much broader assault on women’s rights and basic bodily autonomy.

You might also want to take a look at "Wrong on Rape", Nora Niedzielski-Eichner's response in the LA Times.

Glad I could help, Ken.

Sanity (almost)

Interesting news from my new home: the Montana Catholic Conference has come out against the proposed Human Life Amendment to the state constitution:

The Montana Catholic Conference says there are better ways to limit abortions than a proposed ballot
initiative on human life.
Constitutional Initiative 100 would define a person as "a human
being at all stages of human development or life, including the
state of fertilization."
It has yet to qualify for November's ballot. It has the support
of some abortion foes.
But the Montana Catholic Conference says it prefers other
strategies to bring an end to abortion.
They want to fund pregnancy centers that help women find
alternatives to abortion, increase adoption services, and require
parental notification for juveniles seeking abortion.

So why is it again that South Dakota Catholic leaders can't get enough of attempts to ban abortion?