We here at BlogForArizona never miss the Buckmaster Show. We especially love the Blogger Beat!
Recall Arpaio
Stop Sheriff Arpaio from continuing to make Arizona the clown car of American states. Respect our state by removing America's craziest sheriff from office. Sign up, volunteer or donate for the recall today!
Mo Udall says, "I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside." Donate to BlogForArizona to help us keep an eye on the pricks inside the GOP caucuses controlling Arizona's politics. Or you could buy some of our keen swag."
The following guest commentary about the current budget battles in DC was submitted to the Arizona Daily Star for publication. Since the Star chooses to primarily publicize Republican budget plans-- and no other ideas, including those proposed by Southern Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva-- they didn't publish this commentary about the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Back to Work Budget. So, here you go...
On Tuesday, March 12th, the Congressional
Progressive Caucus released its proposed federal budget. Dubbed the “Back to
Work Budget”, it will be presented as an amendment to the already discredited
Paul Ryan and Congressional Majority budget. The CPC budget will reduce the
Federal Budget Deficit by more than $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years, will
create 7 million new jobs in its first year, and preserve existing benefits for
Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Progressive Caucus’ “Back to
Work” budget will also make public healthcare affordable to the nation by
offering a public option.
Since the Tea Party took over the House of Representatives after the disastrous 2010 election, you'd think the most pressing job facing the Congress was to lower taxes on the richest Americans. (Feather-bedding the 1% is right up there with squashing our civil liberties, suppressing voter turnout, grandstanding about cutting "entitlements" (AKA earned benefits), supporting Wall Street banksters, and protecting Citizens United and the obscene campaign finance system we have.
Just look how many marches, blog posts, letters to the editor, calls to representatives, and Occupations it took to overturn the Bush Era Tax Cuts on people who make more than $400,000 a few months ago. (And it still probably wouldn't have happened if it weren't for three percentages that changed public opinion-- 99%, 1%, and 47%.) More on taxes and budgets after the jump.
On Wednesday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) released its "Back to Work" Budget. Think of it as the polar opposite of the Republicans' "Stab Americans in the Back" budget penned by Congressman Paul Ryan and released earlier in the week. Special thanks to Congressman Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the CPC. Each year, the CPC releases a common sense budget plan. When will Washington DC listen, when will the Lame Stream Media cover it? Go to this link to tell your Congressional representative to vote for the Back to Work Budget.
Here is the summary from the CPC...
7 million new jobs in one year
$4.4 trillion in deficit reduction
We’re in a jobs crisis that isn’t going away. Millions of hard-working American families are falling behind, and the richest 1 percent is taking home a bigger chunk of our nation’s gains every year. Americans face a choice: we can either cut Medicare benefits to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or we can close these tax loopholes to invest in jobs. We choose investment. The Back to Work Budget invests in America’s future because the best way to reduce our long-term deficit is to put America back to work. In the first year alone, we create nearly 7 million American jobs and increase GDP by 5.7%. [Details and graphics after the jump.]
Author and historian John Nichols warned a packed house of Tucson progressives and unionists that now is not the time for complacency. Now is the time to rise up and fight against the forces of greed who are trying to rob the American people of their rights and their earned benefits.
The Fix the Debt Coalition is a group of 127 billionaires, "lesser millionaires", and corporate CEOs who are rolling out a $60 million advertising campaign to promote the new Simpson-Bowles Plan for debt reduction, according to Nichols. The original Simpson-Bowles Commission-- dubbed the Cat Food Commission because of its cuts to senior citizen benefits-- was infamously unpopular when it was proposed originally. The Simpson-Bowles redux may be even worse.
How would the billionaires' club "fix the debt"? By reducing Social Security payments to the elderly and disabled, by raising the eligibility age for Medicare, by dramatically cutting Medicaid support for the poor, by eliminating the Affordable Care Act and changing Medicare to a voucher program for future recipients, by imposing austerity on 99%, and by [wait for it] lowering taxes on billionaires and corporations.
"They are proposing to take from our vulnerable seniors, from our disabled-- and let's be honest they're probably going to take the lunch money from the poor kids. They're going to take all that, so they can give the rich guys a tax cut," Nichols warned. More details and a video clip of Nichols' talk after the jump.
Does Congressman Paul Ryan not realize that the Romney-Ryan ticket lost in November?
And that President Barack Obama (who sounded like a progressive in the last days of the campaign) won by a larger margin than any other president in recent history-- including John Kennedy, Ronald Raegan, and Bill Clinton?
The November election was a much a referendum FOR Obama as it was AGAINST Republican austerity and their ideas to balance the budget on the backs of Americans-- rather than forcing the 1% to pay their fair share.
Or does Ryan-- and the other Wall Street shills in Congress-- just think that if they propose the same stale, trickle down economics and middle class austerity ideas over and over again that eventually we will acquiesce and say, "Oh, yeah, go ahead and screw the 99%. Obviously, the robber barons... er... your corporate masters... er... the 1% really need additional tax breaks more than we need Social Security or Medicare."
In recent months, a handful of Republican governors have softened their stances on Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Showing a bit of financial savvy and (dare I say) compassion for the millions of poor Americans who would be covered by this, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and others have decided to take the feds' funds and allow expanded healthcare coverage for their citizens who can't afford insurance.
Unfotrunately for the people who would benefit from Medicaid expansion, Big Brother Brothers don't like it when their puppets... er... politicians brake ranks with the 1%. Americans for Prosperity-- the Koch Brothers' astroturf group-- is organizing the citizenry to fight against their own self interests to defeat Medicaid expansion.
This battle is coming to Tucson on Thursday, March 7, 2013. Americans for Prosperity has organized a public forum on Medicaid expansion at The Loft Cinema, 6:30-8:30 p.m. After a showing of "Sick and Sicker", an anti-Obamacare propaganda film, there will be a panel, which is heavily packed with Tea Party types-- like former State Senator and perpetual blow hard Frank Antenori, State Representative Ethan Orr, and Tom Jenney, Arizona Director for Americans for Prosperity. The sole Democrat on the panel is State Senator Steve Farley. (Go, Steve!)
If you believe that healthcare is a human right and if you believe that "We the People" should take care of each other (and not fight over crumbs left by the 1%), come testify at this forum. This is your chance to tell your story. If you support Medicaid expansion in Arizona, you can also go to this link on the AHCCCS website add your name as a supporter. Comments and healthcare stories can be sent to Share@azahcccs.gov.
Flyer and details about Americans for Prosperity's efforts in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida after the jump.
Even though the majority of US Senators voted to end sequestration and stop automatic budget cuts on Thursday, February 28, there were enough Repulbican Senators to filibuster this action and trigger the accross-the-board cuts that no one said they wanted.
One unintended consequence of allowing sequestration to go forward is the nationwide release of hundreds of immigration prisoners from federal prison.
ICE claims it is releasing prisoners around the country-- including Arizona-- in order to live within its budget constraints. According to the New York Times, before the budget-cutting sequestration release, ICE had a $2.05 billion incarceration budget and was holding 30,773 immigration prisoners. By releasing them (but not dismissing their cases), ICE reduced its per-prisoner cost from $122-164/day to hold them in a federal prison to $0.30-$14/day to allow them to live at home with their families while their cases are processed. (Why weren't we doing this already? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. The Corrections Corporation of America and the American Legislative Exchange Council want to make big bucks on immigratants.)
Whatever comes from sequestration, I lay the consequences at the feet of those two dysfunctional Senate twins-- Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. Reid because he didn't have the balls to change the filibuster rules a fee weeks ago when he had the chance-- even though the majority of Senators and US citizens wanted him to. (Didn't he see this fight on the horizon?) And McConnell because yet again, he put ideology and ego before the good of the people. Don't be foooled, these bastards knew what level of havoc they would wreak on the American populace with this non-step.
Earlier in February, Maricopa County Latino leaders, organized by Phoenix City Councilman Michael Nowakowski, met with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and offered prayers and support-- not protest signs or recall petitions.
Should Latinos play nice with Arpaio in hopes of winning him over, or should they work to recall the "toughest sheriff in the US", stop deportations of hard-working, law-abiding people, and push for immigration reform?
If there is any doubt in your mind that we all should fight back against the racism that Arpaio embodies, check out this video by Dennis Gilman after the jump.
On Sunday, Tucson Police and the Border Patrol arrested Rene Meza Huertha, in front of his wife and children, and arrested activist Raúl Alcaráz Ochoa, who was trying to prevent the arrest of Huertha. This action by TPD is in direct violation of the City Council's vote in August 2012-- making Tucson an "immigrant friendly" city. From the Arizona Daily Star...
"We don't want people to feel fear when traveling to work, to school, to the store," [City Councilwoman Regina] Romero said before the meeting. "We also don't want people to be afraid to call the police to report a crime."
She said a conversation now will begin among the city, immigrant communities, businesses, the Tucson Police Department and others about how to make the city more welcoming.
Activists are calling for a protest and press conference today, Monday, February 18 at 4 p.m., outside of TPD.
On a related note, the American Friends Service Committee, Border Links, Derechos Humanos, and other immigrant supporters, including the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, will hold a press conference and protest of Operation Streamline on Tuesday, February 19, at 12:30 at the Federal Courthouse. The Operation Streamline action leads up to a Congressional hearing on this policy on February 22 in DC. Details and background on both of these actions after the jump.
By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
During the 2012 election cycle, there were many Republican-initiated moves across the country intended to inhibit or even block voting by groups that tend to not vote for them.
For example, here in Arizona we saw the Maricopa County Elections Department tell Spanish-speaking voters the wrong day for Election Day, the same elections department under-train staff and under-supply polling places in Democratic-leaning areas, leading to ballot shortages and long lines on Election Day, and a suspiciously interminable vote-counting process after the election.
The efforts brought forth a mixed bag of results.
Nationally, Barack Obama won reelection as President, and the number of Democrats in the US Senate surprisingly increased, while the Republicans retained a comfortable majority in the US House.
Locally, Democratic candidates won all three competitive Congressional seats here, and made small gains in the Arizona legislature, while the Republicans now control all statewide elected offices and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe "Bull Connor Jr." Arpaio won reelection comfortably.
Because of the lessons from the 2012 election cycle is that Republicans across the country are attempting to make systemic changes, to impose rule changes at local and state levels, to "stack the deck" in favor of Republican candidates.
In many of the states that tend to vote for Democrats in presidential elections but whose state governments are dominated by Republican, proposals to change the way electoral votes are allocated. Instead of the current "winner take all" system, they want to change to a system where electoral votes are split between the major candidates, based on things like percentage of the popular vote or by congressional district. However, no such proposals have been put forth in states that tend to favor Republican presidential candidates.
In other states with state governments dominated by Republicans, they've seen proposals to restrict voting by groups that tend to favor Democrats, all in the name of "reform"..
None of the schemes qualify as "subtle", and all of them have justifiably caused an uproar wherever they've be put forth.
Here in AZ, the Republicans have seemed to learn a bit of a lesson from all of that.
National Nurses United (NNU) is one of the most creative and most activist unions in the US.
Long before anyone was talking about the financial transaction tax (AKA the Robin Hood Tax), NNU and its members were in the halls of Congress-- pushing for this innovative revenue-generating tax on Wall Street-- and in the streets bringing attention to it.
U.S. Rep. Ron Barber (D) will host a meeting to discuss the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Border Patrol Operations-- today. Please RSVP at AZ02.RSVP@mail.house.gov.
The meeting is 5:30 to 7 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 29 at Pima Communitiy College East Campus, 8181 E. Irvington Rd.
By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
The latest evidence that the Republican crazy engine in the AZ lege is warmed up and hitting on all cylinders just two weeks into the new session:
SB1213, relating to "schools; science instruction; requirements".
When I saw that subject on the lege's website, my first thought was "oh shit - what are they up to now?". I calmed down long enough to realize that I was getting ahead of myself and should look at the bill's content before thinking the badly about the measure.
So I read the bill, and came to the conclusion that my deepest fears about the bill were wrong.
The fears weren't unfounded, however. Not hardly.
They were far milder than the reality of the proposal.
No, this is not a picture of the Peace Ball. I was just trying to get your attention. That's Barack and Michelle, of course.
After the jump, check out Loneprotestor's video of the Peace Ball.
These days, you can't turn on the TV or radio without hearing a "news" story or pundit "analysis" about the battle over deficit reduction by budget cuts or revenue generation.
Republicans want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor by cutting "entitlements" (ie, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, Pel Grants, food stamps, and whatever programs are left of Johnson's War on Poverty). Heaven forbid that they would consider taxing the rich, taxing financial transactions, raising the income cap for Social Security benefits, or anything like that.
Austerity is their battle cry. After the jump, watch this video featuring John Nichols of The Nation explaining the hoax of austerity.
Key Questions for the White House on Immigration Reform
1. It is widely reported that the Obama administration has deported unprecedented numbers of immigrants, and it is widely suspected that the Department of Homeland Security is operating under a self-imposed a deportation quota. Is there a deportation quota? If so, where does it come from, and will it be reduced or eliminated as part of the President’s proposal on immigration reform?[More good questions after the jump.]
Border Patrol agents have been caught on video destroying water jugs and removing clean blankets that No More Deaths humanitarian volunteers left in the Arizona desert for border crossers.
From No More Deaths...
Tucson, AZ- A hidden camera video released by Tucson-based humanitarian organization No More Deaths shows an agent of the U.S. Border Patrol removing clean blankets and food intended for migrants in distress.
Videos of Border Patrol behaving badly and more details after the jump.
This week the story of domestic violence charges against former Mexican American Studies (MAS) Director Sean Arce bubbled up on the Arizona Daily Independent (ADI) blog and on Facebook, where discussions continue to roil. Prior to ADI's initial blog post on December 27, 2012, rumors were swirling around regarding what happened on December 9, 2012, the night Arce and his compadres celebrated his birthday. Now we have ADI's account-- written from the police report and reaction from people across the political spectrum, including this blogger. Unfortunately, none of the lame stream media outlets have chosen to cover this story.
Did Arce aggressively confront his ex-wife in a local restaurant? Did he follow her home, break into the house, and break windows-- causing Essence Arce to flee? That is for the courts to decide, but, in my opinion, the police report (which alludes to dried blood on Arce's hands when he was arrested) is very damming.
My goal here is not to try Arce's case in the court of public opinion, but to point out that IF the domestic violence charges against him are true, we have yet another local case of a powerful man abusing his power and acting in a violent or at least highly inappropriate manner toward women. In recent months, Arizona has seen SIX powerful men charged with domestic violence or sexual harassment.
Women are murdered every day in this country by husbands, lovers, and former partners. In the workplace, women are subjected to harassment and discrimination. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. For more details, continue reading after the jump.
Former President Jimmy Carter has given a "full throated endorsement" of states' efforts to legalize marijuana.
Alluding to a 1979 speech in which he called for decriminalization of marijuana, Carter said the US has gone backwards in its policies. (He called for decriminalization in 1979? How did I miss that? Oh, yeah, 1979, I ... er... must not have been paying attention ... for some reason.)
In an interview with CNN (video here), Carter also said that the nation's marijuana-related incarceration laws discriminate against blacks, Latinos and the mentally ill and are unnecessarily imprisoning far too many US citizens. For every person imprisoned in 1979 for marijuana, there are 8 in jail today, according to Carter.
More details, check out the CNN video, this story in the Huffington Post, or this story from ABC News. After the jump, watch the documentary Breaking the Taboo, in which Carter says the War on Drugs has failed, and the US should rethink its drug policies. (Well, duh. I'm glad a well-respected elder statesman like Carter spoke up. President Obama, the ball is in your court.)
I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of the constant, absurd, expensive court battles between our boneheaded state government and the feds.
How many MILLIONS of dollars have Governor Jan Brewer and her clown posse in the Arizona Legislature wasted on Quixotic court battles over right-wing ideology?
This week the US Supreme Court will waste more of its valuable time on an obviously flawed and discriminatory Arizona law that gives rich people tax credits when they donate to private schools-- to help rich kids and their rich buddies who own the private schools. (Seriously, the Governor and the Legislature won't be satisfied until all of the guv'mint schools are closed and the buildings sold to their business buddies for pennies.)
WASHINGTON - The legal challenge to Arizona's private-school tax-credit program went before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, and justices confronted attorneys on both sides about whether it violates separation of church and state.
In hourlong arguments in the nationally watched case, justices focused heavily on the structure of the tax-credit program, which allows taxpayers to donate up to $1,000 to non-profit organizations that distribute the money as private-school scholarships. Taxpayers then can take a dollar-for-dollar credit off their state income taxes.
Justices focused on whether donations are, in effect, directly steering government money to religious schools, as the challengers argue, or are a taxpayer charity that goes to private-school students, as supporters contend. [More here.]
Fellow BfAZ blogger Dave Safier posted a very detailed first-person account of the forum here this morning, and today's Arizona Daily Star'salso offered a thorough account that overlaps somewhat with Safier's but also includes other facts. (KGUN 9 video here.)
Safier writes from the viewpoint-- as he admits-- of commentator who has "expended thousands of words trying to explain the value of the MAS program". The Star reporter gives a newsier account of the meeting and offers some more basic background.
Why a third article? Here, I offer here some history, a broader analysis of the issues, and a call for action. Read more after the jump.
Parents, students, teachers, and activists have been abuzz in recent weeks about the new Proposed Desegregation/Unitary Status Plan for Tucson Unified School District (TUSD).
Mexican American Studies (MAS) advocates see the new plan as a potential way to bring back the program that was killed a year ago by the TUSD Governing Board, after it was found by the State of Arizona to be in violation of HB2281 and, therefore, in the opinion of the government... illegal.
This week, three pulbic forums will be held, and after those meetings, the plan's public review and comment period will end on Nov. 28, 2012. Information about the forums and other ways to comment on the proposed plan (without leaving your house) after the jump.
The Republican vs Republican-lite Congressional District 2 race has finally been called. Congressman Ron Barber defeated Colonel Marthy McSally in a very tight contest.
With the special election primary, the special election, and the general election, Barber has been running for office for 10 months of this year. Now, he can finally relax into his new Capitol Hill seat.
But, wait, there's more... now, he has to stand up and be our Congressman.
And immigration reform-- a hot-button Southern Arizona issue, for sure-- is at the top of President Barack Obama's priority list, after his rainbow-hued election win. With his delayed deportation for Dreamers and his focus on deporting undocumented criminals (and not your housekeeper), Obama has been inching forward on immigration reform.
What will the role of Baja Arizona's new Congressman be? Find out after the jump.
When my dogs race out the doggie door at night and start barking at passers-by, I figure they're just doing their job--warning ne'er-do-wells to move along and not linger by my gate. After all, there are plenty of seedy characters wandering the dimly-lit streets of midtown and downtown Tucson at night. If you live near the US-Mexico border, the seedy characters your barking dog encounters could be much more dangerous than drunken students, hookers, or small-time dope dealers.
After the jump, watch what this Bisbee dog found outside of her fence.
Perhaps Governor Dingbat's staff should just stop allowing her to do live interviews.
Brahm Resnick interviewed Brewer post-election and prodded her regarding the softening in her party nationally on comprehensive immigration reform after the drubbing her ticket got among Latinos (a 44% gap on the Presidential line). He asked Brewer if she would now be open to a comprehensive immigration deal now that her enforcement first position has so thoroughly alienated Latino voters.
"But here's the thing," Resnik pointed out. "With John Boehner and Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist and [Maricopa County Attorney] Bill Montgomery -- what he said in particular was, 'You know what? We can do both at once. We can secure the border and do comprehensive immigration reform.' Is that something you're on with? Because it sounds like you are just a secure-the-border-first person."
"What ever works," Brewer replied. "If we can do both at the same time, I'm fine and dandy with that. But we cannot resolve these kinds of issues today and then have the problems still existing."
Well, that's certainly a new tune for Brewer.
Of course, she didn't really mean it. On Sunday, KPNX reported that Brewer's office had contacted Resnick after the interview was recorded on Friday to walk back her support for comprehensive immigration reform in concert with securing the border.
Spokesman Matt Benson said, "the governor still believes in securing the border first," Resnik wrote. "He added that she was willing to 'come to the table' to deal with all immigration issues. Later Friday, the governor's office issued a statement reaffirming her 'secure the border first' stance."
It should not come as a surprise that Brewer's head remains buried in the sand. Toward the end of the interview she clearly implied that the Obama Administration intentionally leaves the Tucson sector "unsecured" in order to whip up racial animus to secure the Latino vote.
When asked if the GOP, and the AZGOP especially, deserved any blame for alienating Latinos, she replied, "No, President Obama, in the last four years, they've had four years to get our borders secured and they refused to do it, but yet we know they can. We know that they can secure the borders. Why won't they secure the border? Because they wanted that out there because they knew that they could turn it into an issue of all about racism."
Say what? So Obama has purposely left the border insecure (despite cleverly covering his tracks by plowing more billions into enforcement, deporting at a record clip, and radically expanding manpower on the border) in order to alarm white folks so much that they'll go batshit, pass a bunch or racist legislation and piss off Latinos, so that in turn Latinos will feel so disrespected by the GOP that they'll vote for him in droves? Now we're deep in the crazy...
Reality adjustment just isn't in the cards for politicians like Brewer and Arpaio. They are incapable of acknowledging that their belief that the Obama Administration and Dems are exploiting racism is nothing more than projection of their own racist motives onto the opposition. The AZGOP has been successfully exploiting racial animus and the fears of white America to win elections for several cycles now. Expecting them to stop now and support a reasonable resolution is like expecting a Coatimundi to ditch its own tail rings.
If the GOP wants a fresh start with Latino voters, they can only do so with fresh GOP politicians who didn't cut their teeth on denigrating Latinos and scaring the shit out of white voters (with headless corpses in the desert, for example...)
to get elected. Of course, that disqualifies nearly every currently elected AZ GOP pol...
We here are Blog for Arizona have been beating the drum for election reform continuously for several weeks (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11)-- long before our state was disgraced last week with 600,000+ uncounted ballots.
In the election integrity arena, one thing that Arizona has done right-- despite the Arizona Legislature-- is to vote for, support, and fight for an INDEPENDENT Redistricting Commission. Redistricting every 10 years, based upon the latest US census, is mandated by the US Constitution. In most states, the state legislatures draw the maps-- thus ensuring that whichever party is in power says in power for 10 years-- thanks to gerrymandering.
Arizonans passed the law forming the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) before the redistricting related to the 2000 census, but Republicans successfully blocked independent redistricting in the courts for years. (This is how a purple state like Arizona came to be controlled by scoundrels like Governor Jan Brewer and former State Senate President Russell Pearce.)
After the 2010 census, a new AIRC was formed with two Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent. You'll remember that Brewer, Pearce, and the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature (also known as the forces of darkness) tried to block the AIRC at several junctures-- including firing the head of the commission in late 2011 and attempting multiple legal shinanigans to stop reform... unsuccessfully. Thanks to redistricting and a strong showing by President Barack Obama and other Democrats, Arizona Democrats gained a significant number of seats in both the Arizona House and Senate. (And we were able to get rid of some real rotten apples like Pearce, Lori Klein, Ben Quayle, and Frank Antenori.)
Unfortunately, the vase majority of states have the old system in which partisan state legislatures draw the lines. Who swept into power across the US in the 2010 elections? Teapublicans. Who drew the new legislative and Congressional districts in most states? Teapublicans.
Why should you care? Because gerrymandering by Teapublicans helped those same Teapublicans retain contorl of the US House of Representatives in the 2012 elections. Despite an historic win by Obama, Democratic gains in the US Senate, and more Democratic votes in House races, gerrymandering enabled "Just say no" Teapublicans to control the US House and the budgetary purse strings. For more on this, check out this story in Think Progress: Why Americans Actually Voted for a Democratic House.
Here's a hint to election integrity activists across the country: start a grassroots movement to form independent redistricting... now.
Republican Congressional candidate Col. Martha McSally says
she has been “fighting for women’s rights and women’s equality [her] whole
life.”
McSally is well known as the first woman combat pilot and
the Air Force officer who fought against a government rule requiring US service
women to wear Arab garb when they leave the base.
Does this make her a champion for women’s rights? Let’s look
beyond these headlines to answer that question.
More on McSally's stances on choice, women's health, equal pay, and the War on Women after the jump...
Choice
Although McSally bristles when called a “cookie
cutter” Republican candidate, her stances on women’s issues are in
lock-step with Congressional
War on Women stalwarts like Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul
Ryan and fellow Arizonan Jeff
Flake, who is running on the Republican ticket for US Senate against Dr.
Richard Carmona.
McSally’s
website says she believes in “the sanctity of every human life”. This
right-wing code for saying that she agrees with the Republican Party’s
anti-abortion platform. Ironically, small-government McSally
believes that the government should dictate when American women have children.
Not supporting a woman’s right to make decisions governing her own body is a deal
breaker for many women.
In a 2010 CBS News interview
about Sarah Palin, Katie Couric asked feminist icon Gloria Steinem if one could
be a “conservative feminist”—as
Palin claimed to be, despite her disagreement with traditional feminist views.
“Yes, you can be a feminist who says that you don’t agree
with abortion and wouldn’t have an abortion,” Steinem answered, “but you can’t
be a feminist who says that other women can’t [have an abortion] and [who] criminalizes
abortion. One in three American women needs an abortion at some time in her
life. To make that criminal and dangerous is not a feminist act.”
Women’s Health
In addition to her anti-choice stance, McSally is in the repeal-and-replace camp
when it comes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA)--even declaring that she would
vote to strike down the ACA as one of her first acts in Congress. This also
reflects her anti-woman views.
The ACA includes many hard-fought benefits for women: coverage
for preventive services like mammograms and PAP smears; coverage for maternity
care—a benefit that McSally’s former boss Arizona Senator Jon Kyl
infamously mocked; coverage for
contraception and family planning—a benefit 98% of American women need at some
point in their lives; and an end to insurance
premium price discrimination against women.
Pay Equity
The first bill that President Barack Obama signed into law
as president was the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue employers
for wage discrimination. Historically, American women have made less than male
counterparts doing the same work. A 2010 study showed that American women earn
about 80
cents per every dollar earned by a male worker. This not only translates to
a smaller paycheck, but over a lifetime in the workforce, this results in a
significantly smaller retirement income. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt
Romney has declared that he would not have signed the fair pay act into law.
Where does McSally stand on equal pay for equal work? Who
knows? The “Jobs & Economic
Opportunities” paragraph on her website focuses on cutting corporate taxes
and regulations—with no mention of equal pay or workers’ rights.
“…You want to talk about a war on women? Walk in my shoes down
the streets of Kabul. Walk in my shoes down the streets of Riyadh; where women
have to be covered up. Where they’re stoned, where they’re honor killed if
they’ve been raped , where they can’t drive and they can’t travel without the
permission of a male relative.
That’s a war on women…”
To American women, McSally’s comment is a slap in
the face because it discounts dismisses our struggles here at home. Yes,
definitely, the way women are treated in Afghanistan and other fundamentalist
countries is deplorable. Women in more progressive countries are fighting for
the rights of our oppressed sisters around the world.
We are able to fight because of the rights and
freedoms we have won here at home—the right to free public education, the right
to vote, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to control our own
bodies, the right to affordable healthcare for ourselves and our families, the
right to love and marry whomever we want.
McSally’s record and
public statements show that she is not a feminist and that she does not stand
with American women in our struggles.
P.S. I included a still life of my recipe box, my 1972 edition Betty Crocker Cookbook, a few kitchen knick-knacks, and my favorite chocolate chip cookie recipe to show that you can be a feminist and still cook and own recipe cards.
Whose legacy would better serve Southern Arizona? That of a right-wing, anti-woman, every-man-for-himself, war-monger who never ventured south of his Tucson Foothills office or that of a reasoned, pro-choice, pro-public health Blue Dog who wasn't afraid to meet constituents?
As a long-time resident of Giffords' district, my experiences yesterday made up my mind. Yesterday, I thought I was going to meet the Warrior Woman who hopes to take the CD2 seat-- you know, the one who says she "resemble[s] Gabby Giffords more than the man who worked for her”-- but she was a no show.
McSally is no Gabby Giffords
Giffords was not afraid to face constituents and answer tough questions. McSally apparently doesn't have the nerve to answer questions that are not softballs from right-wing commentators. (Sounds like something Jon Kyl would do, huh?)
I had a scheduled interview with McSally to discuss women's issues (since she now claims to fight for women's rights, while being anti-choice); the multiple inconsistencies in her platform (believing in the "sanctity of life", while flying 325+ hours as a bomber) pilot; and rumors circulating about her two-year marriage to Donald Henry in 1997 (what's up with that annulment in Santa Cruz County, when you were married and lived in Pima County).
When I showed up at her office, video gear in tow, I was given mush-mouth excuses from her press secretary and campaign manager. "Gosh, she's so busy." (My guess is they Googled me and said, Yikes-- we're not talking with her!)
Not surprised that McSally bailed on a video interview with a feminist who wanted to ask about women's issues, I went to her constituent event at Nimbus, down the street. I waited with about 30 old white folks on the Nimbus patio for 45 minutes. Eventually, McSally staffers said, "Gosh... she's so busy. She doesn't have time to come and talk with you all today. Scheduling conflicts, you know... blah, blah, blah." Since when does a politician in a tight race not have time for a meeting with rich, old white folks? (Was it something I tweeted?)
More unanswered questions about Martha McSally after the jump.
The Maricopa County Elections Department has admitted to a second instance of voter suppression... er... poor proofreading. You'll remember that last week ABC 15 and Blog for Arizona reported that Spanish speaking voters were given the wrong date for the election on a document that was included with new voter registration cards.
This week, the elections department says that a bookmark with election details gives English speakers the correct date for the election (Nov. 6) but gives Spanish speakers Nov. 8 as election day.
Giving groups that you don't want to vote the wrong date is a tried and true voter suppression tactic. I didn't believe the first instance was a mistake; giving Latinos the wrong date twice is definitely not a typo oopsy. Seriously, how dumb could they be? Or how dumb do they think the rest of us are?
The Maricopa County Elections Department should be investigated by the feds-- now.
PHOENIX - A spokesperson for the Maricopa County Elections Department admits they once again gave voters the wrong date of next month's election.
Yvonne Reed confirms to ABC15 that bookmarks distributed by the elections department incorrectly listed the date of the general election in Spanish as November 8.
The flip side of the bookmark correctly lists the date in English as November 6.
Reed tells ABC15 the bookmarks were distributed at the three election counters throughout Maricopa County and that the department has no way of knowing exactly how many people received the bookmarks.
Randy Parraz, President of Citizens For A Better Arizona, says the blame lies squarely with Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell.
"It shows she's incompetent and not qualified," said Parraz.
What's really tragic about this suppression of Spanish speaking voters is that there have been gargantuan efforts to get out the Latino vote. This is an important election for all of us, but for Latinos in Maricopa County, it is there best chance in years to oust renegade Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Check out the Adios Arpaio video by Phoenix videographer Dennis Gilman after the jump.
The second 2012 presidential debate was a rousing throwback to old school American politics. Both candidates were "fired up and ready to go." Both delivered a few zingers and gotcha moments. Both explained their plans for America's future... well, sort of.
Republican challenger Mitt Romney-- obviously hoping for a repeat of the frist debate in which he appeared energized, arrogant, and on top of his game, if you ignore the lies and the moderator bullying-- started the second debate smiling and upbeat. About 30 minutes into it, Romney was scowling in the background as President Barack Obama actually answered policy questions. By the end of the debate, when the families came on stage, both Romney and wife Ann had those "holy shit what just happened?" looks on their faces.
So, why was the second debate so different from the first one? Obviously, after the first debate, Obama realized that Romney wasn't going to play by anyone's rules but his own (ie, stick to the truth, stick to the question topics, stick to his previously stated views, or stick to the agreed upon debate rules). In the first debate, Obama seemed confused and frustrated by Romney's reckless but masterful disregard for propriety, and Obama didn't call him out on it, which is why, I believe, many people said Obama was "off his game" that night. Where was our witty, intelligent guy? Why didn't he point his finger at Romney and say, in prep school style, "You, Sir, are a liar!" Or, in Chicago style, "What you talkin' bout, n....?" [Sarcasm alert.]
Last night, Obama-- and moderator CNN's Candy Crowley-- took the gloves off with the prep school bully turned vulture capitalist. Obama and Crowley both called out Romney when he didn't answer the questions or answered a completely different question than what was asked. In his element with the town hall format, the president was quick-witted and light on his feet, when he said that Romney's economic plan was a "sketchy deal"; when he said that Romney didn't have a five-point plan, he had a one-point plan; when he ripped Romney's infamous 47% comment (after Romney opened the door by saying he cared about 100% of Americans); or when he answered the first college student's questions about post-graduation employment with a specific list of policies (when Romney had just shined the student on with platitudes).
But I think the best performance of the evening was by Crowley. Let's face it. Jim Lehrer blew the first debate. He allowed Romney steamroll him... repeatedly. The debate was such a mess that it was difficult to figure out the format or what the questions were half the time because both candidates (but mostly Romney) were allowed to stray. Crowley-- who is being attacked today by the right for her active role in actually moderating the debate-- did her best to keep the debate moving and make the candidates stick to the format and the questions.
Personally, I don't see how anyone could be undecided after last night, but if you are, undecided, check out this story by the New York Times after the jump and get off your duff.
Former mining lobbyist, right-wing think-tank exec, and Koch Brothers darling Congressman Jeff Flake wants to replace long-time Arizona Senator Jon Kyl in the US Senate. (Shudder.) Former surgeon general Dr. Richard Carmona is trying to end the stronghold that Republican extremists have had on our two Senate seats for decades.
As a public service-- just so you really know who you're voting for-- the Carmona campaign has launched a new website to educate voters about Flake's Teapublican, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare reform, pro-1% voting record. Check out DoYouKnowJeff.com before you vote.
Congressman Jeff Flake-- formerly thought to be the heir apparent to retiring Jon Kyl's US Senate seat-- is now in a dead heat for that seat with Independent-turned-Democrat, former Surgeon General, Green Baret, Pima County Sheriff's Deputy, ER doc Richard Carmona.
Carmona has been stumping tirelessly statewide for almost a year, steadily rising in the polls and raising millions of dollars to beat the lobbyist-turned-Tepublican. Carmona's increasing popularity and public pressure recently persuaded Flake to agree to multiple debates statewide. Flake had previously declined all debates, beyond a simple forum at a Phoenix PBS station with no audience. Another sign that Flake is in trouble; he is coming under fire on social media for twisting the facts about Carmona's past. (OK, politicians twist facts for a living, but Carmona has such a distinguished record of service that the super-PAC-funded trash talk is backfiring on Flake.)
A sure sign the Dems think they can win this, they recently announced that the big fundraising gun of the party-- former President Bill Clinton-- will stump for Carmona this week, October 10 in Tempe. Go here to register for this event. Woot!
With the Republican Congress and the state legislatures (including Arizona's) passing anti-woman laws that ranged from the absurd to the vindictive, I can't understand why any woman in the US would vote Republican in this election.
None the less, the War on Women and the assault on women's reproductive rights continue-- at least in the religious right wing of the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party's platform includes strong pro-choice language. Consequently, at the recent Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, a small band of anti-abortion protesters demonstrated in front of the convention center daily. Mostly, the demonstrators were old white men (surprise, surprise), but on one particular day a handful of young women joined them (to lend some credibility?).
You might say that "the devil made me do it," but with video rolling, I engaged one of the protesters in a heated, street-level debate about abortion, choice, access to contraception, sex education, "legitimate rape", fetus personhood, the morning after pill, and forcing underage girls to have a rapist's baby.
Surprisingly, we found some consensus. We both believe...
- Abortion is a very difficult choice.
- Abortion should be a last resort, not a routine birth control method.
- Rape is rape, and there's no such thing as protection from pregnancy when a woman is raped.
- Abstinence only education is "unrealistic." Contraception and sex education should be provided to young girls in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy. She didn't want the contraception to be free, but she was somewhat more enlightened and reasonable than most Congressmen.
- Vaginal ultrasound should be an option, if the woman wants one. (On the tape, she seems incredulous when I tell her about some of the legislation that has passed.)
Of course, the big differences between us were that:
- I believe every woman should have the right to choose, and she wants the government to dictate what citizens do;
- She believes that a fetus is a person from the moment of contraception, and I don't. She also believes that "right to life" doesn't apply to "criminals". (So, the death penalty is OK, but not abortion.)
What I came away with is that much of the anti-woman legislation passed by Arizona and other states is too extreme even for a deeply religious woman who is vehemently opposed to abortion.
The War on Women has been raging nationwide with Tea Party-controlled
state legislatures and governors signing into law multiple bills that
attack women’s rights, families, and social safety net programs.
At the recent Democratic National Convention (DNC), First Lady Michelle
Obama and other speakers at the DNC’s Women’s Caucus meeting repeatedly
stressed the themes of equal pay for equal work, access to care,
discrimination, choice, and the power of the women's vote. With several
standing ovations and chants of "fired up, ready to go" and
"four more years," the Women's Caucus had the feeling of an old time
tent revival.
Although the First Lady was the featured speaker, several guest
speakers warmed up the audience of approximately 400 women (and a handful of
men).
Tuesday's Arizona primary was a good day for women.
As we all know, the Arizona Legislature was on the forefront of the War on Women in the spring of 2012. Our legislators passed some of the country's most draconian laws restricting access to contraception, crippling Planned Parenthood, claiming that personhood begins before conception, and forcing women to submit to vaginal ultrasounds against their will.
Primary day was a good day for women because all eleven of the women candidates backed by the pro-choice group Arizona List won their races. The only way we can change Arizona's reactionary ways is to change our government in Phoenix. We're counting on these women to help us do that.
In a year of unprecedented attacks on the rights of women in the US, an endorsement from the National Organization for Women (NOW) carries a lot of weight for us feminists because it tells us who are friends really are and who will stand up for women.
As usual, when there is a hot-button, righ-wing issue, Arizona leads the nut-case pack. The War on women was a fertile field for the Arizona Legislature and Governor Jan Brewer.
Unfortunately, only a handful of Arizona politicians were at the forefront in the pushback against extremists on the right. Congressman Raul Grijalva (CD3), State Senator Kyrsten Sinema (currently running for Congress in CD9), and Dr. Richard Carmona (currently running for US Senate against Teapublican Congressman Jeff Flake) spoke up earlier and more consistently than any other Arizona politicians.
Who was endorsed by NOW is as interesting as who was not endorsed because it clearly reflects who didn't stand up for women (or who waited months until the outcry was so thunderous that they were forced to speak up.) For example, Blue Dog Congressional Dems Ron Barber (CD2), Matt Heinz (CD2), Amanda Aguirre (CD3), J. Manuel Arreguin (CD3), Andrei Cherny (CD9), and Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1) are not on the NOW endorsement list, but neither are progressive-backed candidates like Dave Shapira (CD9) or Wenona Benally Baldenegro (CD1).
Occupiers in Tampa, Florida and Charlotte, NC are gearing up for the deluge of politicians, dignitaries, convention delegates, journalists, and other protesters who are about to descend upon their cities.
With their anti-women, anti-any-color-but-white, anti-immigrant, anti-middle class, anti-gay, anti-union... OK... anti-99% agenda, the RNC offers a fertile field for protests from the rest of us. With Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on the ticket, the Republicans have cemented their place in history as the party of the 1%.
Occupy Tampa is one of the few Occupations with tents on the ground, and they plan to be camping-- and protesting-- during the RNC.
More hints about what will be happening outside the convention halls, after the jump.
Disgraced and disbarred, almost-Arizona-Attorney-General Andy Thomas published a conspiracy-theory laced diatribe on 'judicial tyranny'. It is an impressively reality-challenged piece of political propaganda. The defining feature of propaganda is hyperbolic and unsupported assertions lacking any sort of proof or factual basis: Andy's rant has this feature in spades.
Let's take a look at what Andy has to say, and point out it's many, many problems. Andy is in bold and I'm in italics...
When long-time Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl announced his impending retirement in February 2011, the chances of a Democrat filling that seat seemed so remote that most news stories—including this one from Politico—only mentioned the Republican heir-apparent, six-term Congressman Jeff Flake.
Sixteen months later, Democratic challenger and former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona is in a statistical dead heat with Flake. Carmona is trailing by only 2 percentage points in a poll that has a 3.5 percent margin of error. The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, oversampled registered Independents, the second largest group of registered voters in Arizona, after Republicans.
Carmona, a registered Independent until he switched parties last fall to run on the Democratic ticket, has been campaigning ardently for the Senate seat since December 2011. On Saturday, Carmona and Senator Al Franken—who Carmona dubs his “new best friend”—traversed the state making six campaign appearances to tell Carmona’s street-kid-to-surgeon-general life story and raise money for the campaign.
The marathon day ended in an upscale midtown Tucson backyard where the pair was greeted enthusiastically by more than 200 party activists, Southern Arizona elected officials, and candidates running for state and local offices.
With speakers blasting “My Sharona”, it was a Democratic Party love fest in the bluest city in an ever more purple state. Basked in the orange glow of the Tucson sunset, Democratic Mayor Jonathan Rothschild was all smiles as he welcomed Franken and hometown boy Carmona to the stage.
In his address, Carmona focused on his background and his policy stances. The contrast between Carmona and Flake could not be more pronounced. Carmona bills himself as an independent outsider who will serve the people of Arizona, as he did as Surgeon General. He often says that he learned early on in his Washington, DC stint that he was there not to serve either political party (or President George W. Bush, who appointed him); he was there to serve the American public and be the “people’s doctor”. Flake, on the other hand, is the former executive director for the right-wing think tank the Goldwater Institute, a former lobbyist, and a current six-term member of the US House of Representatives. While Carmona campaigns on working both sides of the aisle to get things done, Flake has voted repeatedly with Republican obstructionists in Congress.
Carmona has been forthright in speaking out publicly on issues that some politicians would shy away from—like true immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and the Republicans’ War on Women. His biggest round of applause on Saturday was when he affirmed a woman’s right to choose and touted access to affordable healthcare, including contraception coverage. In contrast, Flake voted for the Blunt amendment, which would have allowed employers to opt out of contraception coverage and voted against the Affordable Care Act. It’s not surprising that Planned Parenthood has given Flake a rating of 8 (out of a possible 100 points) and has endorsed Carmona.
Franken sprinkled his speech with his usual dry humor—saying that Carmona reminded him of his wife, except that his wife was not a SWAT team member, never earned a purple heart, and wasn’t US Surgeon General—or even a medical doctor. What Franken was referring to was his wife’s and Carmona’s humble beginnings and the public education opportunities that helped them succeed. Calling him a “rock star” candidate, Franken charged the audience with helping Carmona by volunteering, by writing checks, and by telling their friends and neighbors about him.
Although the former comedian gave the crowd a few laughs, Franken’s message was serious: if Democrats want this Senate seat back, they will need an all-out, on-the-ground effort to overcome Flake’s name recognition and money.
In America, we mostly talk about the civil rights of LGBT persons in moral or ethical terms - and it certainly is that. Equity and justice war with the moral precepts and prejudice of religionists. But there is more to it.
It's also an economic issue. And we need to talk about that, too.
Imagine for a minute that you are talented young person who happens to be homosexual. Or you are an entrepreneur looking to start a business in which you are competing for talented people irrespective of their sexual orientation.
Where are you going to choose to live, or to start that business? Well, look at this chart (link to interactive version) and tell me what states appear attractive to you.
The states that are going to be attractive to that young person who happens to be homosexual, and to the employer who is looking to hire that person, are obviously those which most vigorously protect that person's rights. Who would want to work and live and raise a family in a state where it is legal to discriminate against you in employment, housing, and family rights because of your sexual orientation?
Note the severe poverty of legal protections for that young person in Arizona. We are talking about as much as 10% of the population who are LGBT and want their rights as citizens protected by their government. Failing to protect the rights of LGBT citizens is a severe competitive disadvantage for any state.
Why would any self-respecting LGBT person move to a state like Arizona, or stay there? Why would an employer hoping to attract talented young people do business in a state where a fair number of its prospective workers would not want to live?
Do you notice a pattern in the chart of states above? One could certainly posit political and cultural factors that would account for the distribution of rights among the states and regions, but one might also note a correlation with higher incomes, educational attainment, and economic dynamism, diversity and resilience. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Protecting the rights of LGBT citizens is an competitive economic advantage to a state, as well as the right thing to do. No society can prosper when it alienates and disenfranchises portions of its citizenry. The hard-nosed economic argument justifying pushing forward on LGBT rights should be made in conjunction with the equitable arguments usually advanced. By reminding folks that LGBT rights are good for the business climate in a state, we can further isolate those on the far right who wish to entrench legal discrimination against our LGBT citizens for religious reasons (which are, in any case, specious).
With Arizona having become a primary front in the GOP's War on Women, it seems to me there is a possible means to make the GOP pay at the polls this November for their aggression against the rights and health of half the population.
The GOP supermajority in the AZ legislature has passed several anti-women laws that do not reflect the values and opinions of the majority of Arizonans, especially those of Arizona's women. Among them are the widely-reported and controversial new restriction on abortions after 20 weeks, the defunding of Planned Parenthood in Arizona, and the ability for employers to opt out of funding birth control for their female employees if they have a "moral objection" to use of contraceptives. Not all these bills have been signed into law by Governor Breweras as of this writing, but unless they get imesheshed in the Governor's childish veto tantrum over the budget, they almost certainly will be.
This presents Democrats, and any voters who do not want the government's fingers in every woman's vagina, an opportunity to turn the tables and make the GOP radicals pay at the polls.
Here in Arizona, as in many states created in the Progressive era, the voters have preserved to themselves the right of recall and referedum. Most people are familiar with the recall as a tool for removing an office-holder who has behaved poorly in office, such as former Senate President Russell Pearce. But the Arizona Constitution also allows specific legislative enactments to be referred to the ballot for approval or rejection by voters, essentially allowing voters to recall a law they don't like.
One normally sees Initiatives referred to the ballot by citizens groups (or by special interests) by petition, or by the legislature itself (generally for amendments to the Constitution), but if enough voters don't like a law that has been passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor, a petition can be circulated to refer it to the ballot, as well. Even better, whereas Initiaitve petitions require 10% of voters to sign, a referendum of a legislative enactment only requires 5% to sign.
These provisions make it relatively easy for citizens to place the aforementioned anti-woman laws on the ballot this November. It would require some organization, some (wo)man-power, and some money, to circulate the petitions and to clarify the issues for voters, but it could be easily be done by the Democratic party and groups dedicated to women's health and reproductive rights.
Why would we want to do this? Because the GOP has screwed itself with America's women this election cycle. Women are breaking for Democrats in record numbers. Even many conservative women are offended and angry about the bombardment of anti-woman legislation coming out of GOP controlled state legislatures and the GOP caucus in Congress. Polling confirms that the GOP has stepped out on a limb and handed us a saw: it's incumbent upon us to oblige them.
By placing these extremist laws on the ballot for referendum, we will drive record numbers of women to the polls to spit in the GOP's eye. The GOP has proven quite adept at using ballot initiatives and legislative referenda to energize their base and drive them to the polls. Now we can return the favor.
You might ask, "Doesn't this idea risk a backlash by driving ultra-conservatives to the polls to support these radical anti-woman laws?" You bet it does. But we who respect women, not to mention women themselves, far outnumber them. Such a referendum will surely inspire both opponents and supporters to have their votes counted on these laws - but who will speak louder? I have no doubt who would prevail.
Such a shellacking at the polls would prove convincingly that there is no political advantage to radical conservatives forcing their views on society through anti-woman legislation. It would demonstrate that they will always lose in the court of wider public opinion, and pay a heavy price at the polls - thereby acting as a deterent to conservatives giving their anti-woman constituents jollies with discriminatory legislation in the future.
This fall, we can give the GOP a shellacking with a brush they fashioned themselves. We can increase the odds of victory in Arizona for Obama and Carmona. We can give Democratic candidates a leg up all the way down the ticket. But we must act decisively and soon.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this idea. Please distribute this posting widely among your social circles. This idea deserves some wider debate and consideration.
In 2010 and 2011, the Arizona Legislature led the way for crazy extremist laws against immigrants and brown people in general.
Changing their focus slightly, the Arizona Legislature decided to victimize women during the 2012 session. Not to be left out of the nationwide War on Women, legislators proposed multiple bills that would limit abortion services, mandate vaginal ultrasound exams, legislate personhood, deny insurance benefits for contraception, and put them at the forefront in repressive legislation. There was such public outcry against some of the Lege's wackier, more invasive ideas that not all of their bills have made it to the governor's desk.
Here is a partial list of Arizona's heavy-handed contributions to the War on Women.
The Lege passed and Governor Jan Brewer signed the "Mother's Health and Safety Act" (HB2036) which limits abortion and requires a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound so the woman can view the fetus before aborting it.
HB2036 also legislates the beginning of life and says that pregnancy begins before intercourse. (This should be nicknamed the Virgin Birth Bill. Check out Stephen Colbert's take on Arizona's "pre-life" law.)
The Lege also sent HB2625 to Brewer. That bill would allow employers to drop insurance coverage for contraception.
Not to be outdone by the states, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign continues to drive women voters away with outrageous statements like it's OK for women to earn less than men, and he and his wife Ann have waffled back and forth-- now infamously-- on working mothers.
FOX News-- well known for covering multiple wars, like the War on Christmas-- is still in heavy denial mode that the War on Women exists. As a result, they are digging themselves in deeper. In this clip, one FOX commentator said women are equal because they have the right to shop. In response, Young Turks Commentator Ana Kasparian says, "F*ck you" to FOX.
To voice our collective outrage with the actions of Teapublican legislatures and bone-headed GOP politicians, in general, women in Arizona and across the country will be demonstrating this coming Saturday, April 28, against the War on Women. The Arizona demonstration will be appropriately located on the lawn of the State Capitol Building, beginning at 10 a.m. Be there.
I have heard anti-gay sentiments too often from GOP candidates for office in Arizona. Frank Antenori has been one of the most vocal and blunt here in southern Arizona, but he is certainly not alone. I find it all distasteful, offensive, and scripturally indefensable.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's candidacy for Congress was certainly, and rightly, sunk by the scandals in which he has immured himself. But one wonders, would he have been able to weather those storms with GOP primary voters were his lover a young Latina woman? I believe that Babeu's downfall was not his indiscretion, poor judgment, and potential abuses of power - after all, these seem to be par for the course among GOP politicians in Arizona - but his sexual orientation.
Too many GOP politicians find they can get support and donations by appealing to Christians' discomfort with gays. What is the basis of that ingrained bigotry against gays by Christians?
Turns out it's just six passages in scripture - out of some 31,000 passages. How strong is the Biblical basis for anti-gay prejudice? Not very.
Take a listen to Matthew Vines, an impressively articulate and thoughtful Christian gay man, who would like to challenge your settled notions of what the scriptures actually say about homosexuality.
Matthew's scholarship is impressive. It boils down to this:
"The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships. There is no biblical teaching about sexual orientation, nor is there any call to lifelong celibacy for gay people. But the Bible does explicitly reject forced loneliness as God’s will for human beings, not just in the Old Testament, when God says that “[i]t is not good for the man to be alone,” but in the New Testament as well."
There is no sound foundation for condemnation of the sexual orientation and loving relationships of homosexuals in the Bible. Homophobia's popularity among Christians is merely the last terrible bigotry that remains acceptable in our culture, because many claim the Bible condones it. It does not.
The bitter truth is that bigots will find a reason to indulge their hatred, not because God commands it, but because deep in their hearts, they enjoy it. Their hatred is a reflection of the fallen nature of man. They know hatred and bigotry are not reflections of the godly nature granted humans by their Creator, but rather than be ashamed and purge their hatred through compassion and understanding and the inspiring life of Jesus, they seek to justify their hatred by claiming God shares it.
God hates none of his creation; certainly not the many men and women he created in his image whose hearts and souls, and libidos, respond only to persons of the same sex.
The capacity to love one another, to cleave together, to create loving families, is the godly nature of mankind. To condemn this capacity in some, because God gave them a loving nature different than the majority is not Christian: it is monstrous.
Matthew points out that Jesus taught that we shall know a true teacher by his fruits. The shame, self-destruction, suffering of young gay men and women are the bitter fruits of a misguided teaching. Spit it out.
Watch Matthew present his argument after the flip. If you can still bring yourself to claim God's consent to your hatred of gays, you haven't a heart to appeal to...
Frank with someone whom he thinks wants to destroy his marriage
I am deeply disappointed in Frank Antenori. Frank tends to get carried away by his own rhetoric. That's usually fine, if not exactly useful. Every politician loves the sound of his or her own voice. But what Frank said at the Young Republican debate is just hateful and wrong.
This diatribe is why Frank Antenori lacks the character to represent Congressional District 8/2. This sort of divisive, hyperbalistic, and fear-mongering rhetoric is what is wrong with politics. This is the worst of the paranoid style of politics and Frank appears to be loving every minute of it. People who aspire to leadership should not engage in this sort of bullshit.
Asked if he would defend the Defense of Marriage Act, Frank gave the following jeremiad on the motives of left:
"The family is the core unit that makes this country great. And if you dismantle it, like the left loves to do—they love to divide and conquer. They love to pit us against each other. They love to tear apart families. They don't want families. They want individuals that they can control. So the key thing to that is for them to destroy families." (h/t to Jim Nintzel writing for The Skinny)
Frank owes half of America an apology.
He may be an effective conservative firebrand, adept at bashing his hometown to score points with his team of wing-nuts in Phoenix, but he is not the sort of person who can claim to represent all the citizens of this district.
Now, let's take a closer look at Frank's claim.
We liberals hate families. That's why we are trying so hard to create more of them by allowing same-sex couples to marry and raise children. That makes sense.
Seems to me this claim is just ridiculous on its face. If anyone hates families - same-sex ones at least - it is conservatives, who get their knickers in a twist because gays and lesbians want the same rights as heteros. How someone else enjoying the benefits and satisfactions of stable family life denigrates my own hetero marriage, I have always failed to see. If anything, the fact that there is a population of people clamouring to be allowed the same rights as my wife and I enjoy is an affirmation of the continuing relevance and vitality of the institution.
America needs every American to be great. That means every right, institution, and office should be accessible to every American: not just the whites, the straights, and the Christians.
Welcome to America's third century, Frank. Nobody will be sitting in the back of the bus. Get used to it.
Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.
BforAZ Merchandise:
Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.
Recent Comments