Expanding Freedom

ABQjournal: Get State Out of Marriage Role By Mary Ellen S. Capek

As a social institution, civil marriage has changed considerably over time, and the laws have followed.

When a woman married in the 19th century, she lost all her civil rights. Women and children were chattel, the property of their husbands and fathers. My great-grandmother was not able to inherit property and would have lost custody of her children had she sought to leave an abusive marriage.

As recently as 1967, a Caucasian man and an African-American woman would not have been able to marry in 16 states — and their children would have been deprived the benefits and protections of their parents’ marriage. …

Many committed gay and lesbian families are models of nonhierarchical family units and are actually more stable than some so-called “traditional” marriages that dictate inequality and preach dominance of husbands over wives — not a healthy model for sustaining marriages or raising children.

Divorce rates in predominantly “Bible Belt” states are evidence of these failures— 73 percent in Mississippi, for example, 79 percent in Oklahoma. (The national heterosexual divorce rate is 51 percent.) Two of the most significant threats to the institution of traditional marriage are sexism and divorce. …

Lesbian and gay families lack essential state and federal benefits that automatically accompany a marriage license, for example, financial and legal rights that protect a surviving spouse when a partner dies — which include automatic inheritance, assumption of a spouse’s pension, bereavement leave, burial determination, exemption from property taxes, Social Security survivor benefits, and the right to wrongful death benefits.

Additional government-bestowed protections for families include divorce, child custody and visitation rights, joint adoption and foster care, domestic violence restraints, immigration rights for a foreign spouse, insurance discounts, joint bankruptcy, joint parenting, medical decisions, and sick leave to care for a spouse.

The most profound threats to the institution of “traditional” marriage in New Mexico are the domino effects of poverty: violations of basic human needs for shelter, security and well-being. …

Mary Ellen S. Capek, a researcher and consultant, is co-author of “Effective Philanthropy: Organizational Success Through Deep Diversity and Gender Equality,” a book written for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation that will be published by MIT Press in 2005. Capek and her partner, Sue Hallgarth, live in Corrales and got married Sept. 16 in Victoria, Canada.

mjh’s weBlog: Read the Conservative argument FOR gay marriage

Share this…

More Terrorists Than Ever — Thanks, Duhbya!

Terrorism cells multiplying, Senate warned

Al Qaeda has ”infected others with its ideology, which depicts the United States as Islam’s greatest foe,” he said. ”The steady growth of Osama bin Laden’s anti-U.S. sentiment through the wider Sunni extremist movement and the broad dissemination of al Qaeda’s destructive expertise ensure that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future — with or without al Qaeda in the picture.” — CIA Director George Tenet speaking to Congress

So, more muslims than every hate us and want to destroy us? Does Bush work for bin Laden or vice versa? Who profits from a war without end? Those who rule through fear. mjh

Share this…

Dump Heather Wilson!

On the one hand, the media overreacts to emotion from politicians (consider the nonsense

over the Dean Scream). On the other hand, I saw Heather on TV and she was strangely strangled with emotion. I go with those who ask if

these same complainers are as outraged over near-naked cheerleaders and topless Sports Illustrated models, not to mention the rape of

female soldiers by their fellow soldiers. mjh

Heather Wilson Receiving Campaing DonationCry us a river By Michael Henningsen and Sara Hiatt, Alibi

For a politician whose voting record clearly

defines the self-serving interests of corporate America (Viacom is one of her campaign contributors for Chrissakes, to the tune of

$4,500 since 1997) to get teary eyed and ridiculously dramatic over a risque halftime show–it was just a breast, after all, and 52

percent of us, including Wilson, have them–and not over the fact that she’s repeatedly voted against the interests of New Mexican

children and families she’s constantly feigning concern about is insulting to every resident of the state she supposedly represents.

Shut up, Heather. And do some good in Washington for a change! And besides, with American soldiers still dying in Iraq, aren’t

there bigger issues to cry about?

New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan

The usually passionless Heather Wilson turned up the temperature last night as she graced TV screens across America with a withering

attack on Viacom, owner of CBS, and its president, Mel Karmazin, for airing the Janet Jackson strip act at the Super Bowl. The ABQ GOP

Congresswoman lit into Karmazin who was appearing before a congressional committee looking into the incident: “You knew what you were

doing. You improved your market share and lined your pockets!” Exclaimed Heather, in a near-tearful tirade over Janet’s bared breast.

The CBS Evening News, CNN and other media picked up her tongue-lashing.

Her high-pitch seemed a bit out of character for the low-key

lawmaker. But politically she picked safe turf. The Jackson act has been panned everywhere and the issue especially appeals to

conservative Republicans. Heather’s previous national TV shots, on Bill Maher’s HBO program and a stint on the Fox network’s ‘Hannity

and Colmes,’ have fallen flat. This time she was more animated, if a bit demagogic. But you don’t get to the U.S. Senate by hanging

back and I’m sure her future competitors eyed her new act and are laying plans for their own coming-out parties.

You might ask what

senate seat Wilson and her rivals could have their eyes on. Certainly, Sen. Domenici’s. But that’s not up until 2008. Sen. Jeff

Bingaman is up in 06′, but when asked recently by talk show host Mike Santullo if he definitely was seeking re-election, Jeff did not

say yes. I am sure it was just an oversight, wasn’t it Jeff? …

Heather Wilson’s outburst against CBS and Viacom for airing a racy

half-time show at the Super Bowl has drawn some return fire. Local wags, mostly Dems, ask pointedly if Heather is willing to put her

money where her mouth is and not put her campaign commercials on CBS affiliates? The wags also point out that the ABQ GOP

congresswoman has over $750,000 in her ever-growing campaign kitty, big chunks of it from the pharmaceutical industry which some of her

constituents find as profit-hungry as Viacom. Will she cease taking donations from that industry?

Of course, the answers are no and

no. Politicos can blast greedy corporations all they want, but when you look in their own backyard, they are just as money driven,

raising untold millions from just about anyone in their quest to get re-elected. Sounds a lot like trying to get those CBS

”ratings” Heather is in a tizzy about, doesn’t it?

And what of the politics of the nationally televised Wilson tongue-lashing?

One observer recalled the response Heather received when she was introduced by the Prez at a recent Roswell rally. She basically got no

response, while loud cheers were given to her fellow GOP Congressman Steve Pearce. Sure, Pearce represents the area, but, our observer

reflects, the silence had to be deafening for Heather. “Her hit on Viacom will resonate most with conservative southeast NM

Republicans who she would badly need to win any future GOP U.S. Senate primary against Pearce or another conservative,” said our

source who has worked at the highest levels of New Mexico politics. [mjh: Joe’s blog has THE photo, if you’ve been searching the Web

for it.]

WilsonWatch.org | Heather Wilson (R-

NM-1)

THE COST OF OUR DISTRICT
Congresswoman Heather Wilson has raised a total of $7,189,041 to keep her seat in congress.

Her largest contributors include: Lockheed Martin, WorldCom, Republican Leadership PACs.

Miles Nelson For Congress

Share this…

Cal Thomas Nominates Bush for Dictator-for-life

Cal Thomas

President Bush should quickly change the subject. What signal would it send to our highly motivated enemies should America change leaders in mid-war? One of the reasons the United States prevailed in World War II was the four terms to which Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Continuity at home helped prosecute and win the war against Germany and Japan. The stakes today are higher. We cannot afford trivial pursuits in presidential politics during wartime.

This isn’t a game. It is about the survival of the United States of America and the values associated with Western traditions. Rejecting an administration that has built a (so far) successful defense against terrorism following 9/11 in favor of one with no such experience could give America’s enemies a unique window of opportunity to hit us again, and harder.

This is the line the Bush reelection team should take. We are at war, and we are likely to remain at war for a very long time. Political games can be played after we win. They should not be played during the battle.

Most agree that the ”War Against Terrorism” will last a long time, perhaps a generation. Thomas says ‘stick with Bush during the War’ — is he advocating Bush remain president forever? Or does he think Bush will win the war in 4 more years? mjh

Share this…

Bush Doesn’t Deserve his Job

Bush smirksWhite House Struggles to Halt Flap Over Jobs Report By Steve Holland, Reuters

The White House on Thursday sought to contain the fallout over an overly optimistic forecast that 2.6 million jobs will be created this year and some Republicans expressed concern about the damage being done to President Bush.

Bush, who has distanced himself from the forecast as Democrats emphasize sluggish job growth, tried to change the subject by accusing Democrats of wanting to raise taxes by not making his tax cuts permanent. …

The chairman of Bush’s re-election campaign, Marc Racicot, continued a general Bush administration retreat from the president’s own job forecast saying the 2.6 million figure was only a “stated goal.” …

Since 112,000 jobs were created in January, meeting the goal would require adding an average 335,000 new jobs each month all year — well above the 166,000 per month predicted by a recent survey of forecasters by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter. [mjh: only 1,000 jobs were created in December 2003; nearly 3 million have been lost under Bush’s watch.]

In fact, the White House had implied that 3.8 million jobs would be created this year by projecting about 3 percent growth in the number of jobs in 2004.

Duhbya on ‘Meet The Press’

RUSSERT: The Bush-Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We’ve gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from 5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion, up 23 percent. Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?

BUSH: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead that would enhance recovery. …

RUSSERT: But when you proposed your first tax cut in 2001, you said this was going to generate 800,000 new jobs. Your tax cut of 2003, create a million new jobs. That has not happened.

BUSH: Well, it’s happening. It’s happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs. …

RUSSERT: How, why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?

BUSH: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years. …

RUSSERT: That’s a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.

BUSH: Yeah.

RUSSERT: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?

BUSH: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. …

RUSSERT: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?

BUSH: Well, that’s a hypothetical question which I can’t answer to you because I don’t know how strong the economy is going to be. …

RUSSERT: Are you prepared to lose?

BUSH: No, I’m not going to lose. [mjh: is that just confidence?]

RUSSERT: If you did, what would you do?

BUSH: Well, I don’t plan on losing. I have got a vision for what I want to do to for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us, I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too. [mjh: what with American Fascism and all that.]

Share this…

‘Taxcut’ is code for gutting the government

Bush makes pitch for making tax cuts permanent

President Bush on Thursday pressed his election-year complaints against ”tax raisers and spenders in Washington,” arguing that failure to make administration-backed tax cuts permanent would raise taxpayers’ bills by billions.

”When you hear people say, ‘Oh, let’s just let the tax cuts expire,’ it’s a tax increase,” Bush said in an event at the White House to promote his economic record. ”It’s a code word for, ‘I’m raising your taxes,’ to increase the amount of money we have to spend here in Washington on new programs, on programs that meet a particular political desire of the appropriators.”

These tax cuts were a big mistake, but now any move to correct that mistake can be attacked simple-mindedly as an increase. mjh

Share this…

American Taliban

Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts By JAMES GLANZ, NYTimes

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations.

The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

“Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systemically nor on so wide a front,” the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.”

According to the report, the Bush administration has misrepresented scientific consensus on global warming, censored at least one report on climate change, manipulated scientific findings on the emissions of mercury from power plants and suppressed information on condom use.

The report asserts that the administration also allowed industries with conflicts of interest to influence technical advisory committees, disbanded for political reasons one panel on arms control and subjected other prospective members of scientific panels to political litmus tests. …

“I am concerned that the scientific advice coming into this administration seems to me very narrow,” said Dr. Drell, who has advised the government on issues of national security for some 40 years and has served in Democratic and Republican administrations, including those of Presidents Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson. “The input from individuals whose views are not in the main line of their policy don’t seem to be sought or welcomed,” he said.

Bush and many of his supporters believe god created the universe a few thousand years ago. They ridicule the notion of global warming. They believe in ”creation science”, not evolution. They believe the Bible is literally god’s word and not subject to any intepretation (though they seem to interpret it plenty). Bush and his followers are the true American Taliban — you pray with them or they are against you. mjh

Share this…

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." — Sam Adams