Wednesday, January 23, 2013

In regard to abortion rights,...

..."If ever our bodies - their health, their freedom, their adornment, their use - are not our own, what is?"

It is a question that men of color have asked in many anti-colonial movements, from Gandhi in British India to Steve Biko, who found the Black Consciousness Movement in South Africa - a message of autonomy and self-respect for which, even in 1977, he was imprisoned and beaten to death. Blacks with the self-esteem to look to themselves for a sense of what was beautiful and proud were too threatening to the white minority regime.

It's a question that women in every country are asking as they defy customs and laws that control female bodies for sex and reproduction; a control sometimes instituted by men of a different race to limit reproduction, and sometimes by men of their own race to force reproduction. Whether an older woman is going under the knife for cosmetic surgery because she fears losing her husband, or a younger one is forced to undergo a clitoridectomy because she is not marriageable without it, females rarely own their own bodies. In the United States, too, a woman may be told she is too fat for a job, be kicked of the airwaves for being too old, be reduced by economic need to selling her body for sex or surrogate motherhood, be forced to seek approval from the state for an abortion because she is too young, suffer the common body invasion of rape and be blamed for inviting the crime by the very fact of having a female body, and be constrained in a thousand other ways. The basic message is the same: A woman's power is not supposed to extend as far as her own skin. Which is why, as Adrienne Rich wrote at the end of Of Woman Born, "The repossession by women of our bodies will bring far more essential change to human society than the seizing of the means of production by workers."

It's a question that women who love women and men who love men are asking when they overturn homophobic, pronatalist punishments that subject the most private uses of our bodies to the public laws, or when they agitate for the right to be affectionate with each other at high school proms and anywhere else that heterosexual couples are. They are struggling against a bias so extreme that in the United States almost half of gays, have experienced violent attacks from strangers, peers, or their own families - and are six times more likely to attempt suicide then their heterosexual counterparts - even while they are still adolescents. Now in the era of AIDS, the unfair stigma of "carrying" a disease is a danger both to self and to self-esteem.

It's a question that many men of supposedly powerful groups are asking, too, when they challenge everything from laws on the length of their hair to the largely unnecessary rite of circumcision; from standards of height to hierarchies based on muscles, prowess at sports, and ability to fight each other; from an assumption that they must be willing to die for state-approved purposes to one that they will kill for them.

The answer to the question of who owns our bodies lies establishing the legal, moral, and social principle of bodily integrity, so that each person controls the universe within our skins. It lies in getting rid of both the Iron Maiden and the Iron Man so we can have choice, not compulsion; more beauty in our lives, not less; pleasure, not constraint. In Naomi Wolf's imagery, we are changing the self-consciousness of a spotlight on the body for the self-confidence of a light radiating from the body.

That's the shift of paradigm here: Instead of a light that is directed at us by others, a light that shines from within.

Gloria Steinem, "Revolution from Within," 1991

I am a firm believer in knowing where one's roots lie before the path forward is realized.

In regard to the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the backlash of a rich history for women determining their own path in life with the empowerment of Choice was lingering for four decades. This too, in time will pass.

When all the draconian laws of Pro-Life are tested for their illegal content within state legislatures, there will be no more blockades to the dignity of women in the USA. When abortion clinics are no longer the focus of those breaking the law and harassing the innocent, but, the enforcement of law to prevent danger to women and their providers. And when those that seek anarchy over justice are finally prosecuted. The Pro-Life movement is not about life, dignity or respect at all, it is about power.

The action of the House is unconstitutional.

It is unfortunate there are Democrats voting for this mess. The fact of the matter is the House cannot dictate the actions of the Senate.
This is not a good will bill at all. It is intended to embarrass and harass for political purposes.

The Senate needs to vote down the bill and tell the House to get serious about the Debt Ceiling.
Jan 23, 2013 2:12pm

...The vote passed by a count of 285-144. (click here) Thirty-three Republicans opposed the measure, while 86 Democrats voted to approve it, sending the legislation to the Senate where it is also expected to pass, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“I’m pleased that Speaker Boehner’s House colleagues have decided to change course and pass a bill that defuses yet another fight over the debt ceiling,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “In substance, it’s a clean debt limit increase.”
The bill, known as the No Budget No Pay Act of 2013, directs both chambers of Congress to adopt a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 by April 15, 2013. If either body fails to pass a budget, members of that body would have their paychecks put into an escrow account starting on April 16 until that body adopts a budget. Any pay that is withheld would eventually be released at the end of the current Congress even if a budget doesn’t ever pass....

The House is treating the USA Senate as an agency under their authority. The USA House has no authority to demand budgets from the Senate.

Nondelegation Doctrine (click here)

Non delegation doctrine is a principle of administrative law that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to agencies. Delegation is permitted only if Congress prescribes clear and adequate standards to guide an executive agency in making the policy. There should be an "intelligible principle” for the agencies to base their regulations on.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 1, vests all legislative powers in the Congress of the United States. The text permits no delegation of those powers, and so when Congress confers decision making authority upon agencies Congress must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform. The degree of agency discretion that is acceptable varies according to the scope of the power congressionally conferred. [Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'Ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001)]

The only recourse that actually exists for supposedly Senator's not performing their duties is impeachment. The House cannot delegate authority over the Senate as an agency. They can't do it.

The Republicans of the House are having a hissy fit. So, noted. The Senate can pass it to placate the House, but, that is a precedent that cannot be ignored as unconstitutional. The House cannot dictate to the Senate, otherwise, why bother having two houses of the legislature.

Secretary Boner needs to go back to the drawing board as soon as possible and actually legislate the debt ceiling increase rather than playing politics forever.

The 'mechanism' to settle difference between the two legislative houses is reconciliation. That is the only mechanism that exists for the two houses to talk to each other in a formal manner. The other action is for the USA Senate to pass their own bill and send it to the House. The USA legislative government is completely dysfunctional because of extremists like Cantor and Senator Paul that care little about the people unless they can manipulate the outcome of their votes.

The Republican extremists are only interested in moralizing and not governing.

The wealthy have purchased dismantling of a Presidential election by placing extremists in the House. The wealthy have no interest in having the government function. That is true today and it was true under Bush #43. The American people are still dealing with the residual of the extremism that came to populous focus under "W" and carried forward by an opportunist called Sarah Palin.

The Republican Party has become a populous party and not a governing party. They count on unlimited popular content in order to stay in office. It has nothing to do with governing. The USA Constitution means nothing to them. They want to remove all barriers to church and state and still call the USA the same nation on the original constitution. As the Republicans seek to break down established law of the USA Constitution, they will have couped the nation. If the USA Constitution is meaningless the nation is no longer the USA, except, in name only. It is time to call them what they are.

Oh, the Bush years? Tom DeLay. Absolutely. He was an extremist anchored in gerrymandering. Otherwise he had no power over the constitution.

Thank you, Hillary. We are going to miss you.

What does anyone say to a woman so dedicated to this country? For all my adult years, I have not known this country without you. 

Be happy.

Rand Paul states he is glad Secretary Clinton takes responsibility and implies in a long winded statement that there was a failure of leadership. He states he believes people unable to lead should be held responsible.

Well, a has a long list, beginning with the Impeachment of Bush #43 and the can then turn his sites on Speaker Boner.

His audience back home got a good show. Rude and crude counts for him. Reading cables is not the only function of the Secretary of State. What exactly are his recommendations in the form of legislation that matters, though?

The truth of the matter is, the only persons able to continue as President of the United States of America after the end of President Obama's second term, is someone in the Executive Branch. The national security of the USA is so very different today, experience with it will carry greater brevity in the future. Passing the baton will be important, especially in four more years. The paradigm of national security has to be examined for purpose and effectiveness. Same ole', same ole isn't going to hold up anymore.

NATO cannot continue to kill innocent people in war theaters for the sake of Pre-Emption. That strategy alone will cause a greater war and far reaching consequences for international relations and stability. The West has a challenge to actually pull peoples in these regions of the world up by the bootstraps to understand their world and economies to support their own sovereignty. The USA cannot continue to invade countries at will to satisfy its' own politically demented sense of security. Wall Street is going to have to assess it's own security needs and stop crying as 'USA interests.' In many ways, Wall Street is not!

For those focused on CABLES as the breakdown of national security in relation to our State Department missions need to deal with the fact CABLES DON'T WORK. In order for them to actually get paid for DOING THEIR JOBS, they need to realize they have to ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR CABLES IN THE FIRST PLACE! Now, the APPROPRIATE questions by Senator Paul would have been, "Since the cables did not reach your attention in a way that mattered, what indeed does the USA need to do to eliminate the need for these cables and find a method to secure the State Department officers in a way that works?"

The only question the USA diplomatic corps have to do when approaching a new government, even after saving lives by stopping dictators such as Gaddafi, "What can the USA do to help promote the stability of the new government and it's authority to promote its sovereignty?" That is the only question and the USA begins to sketch out its interests from that point forward without plans to invade or kill further. 

The people of Libya are not interested in another Gaddafi. While Bush and Blair disarmed the nuclear content of Libya to secure the stability of Northern Africa, it didn't promote democracy of the people. So, the idea NATO has the right to carry out their own priorities without regards to the people and their own directives, even in seeking al Qaeda to carry them out, is a ridiculous paradigm that does not belong in the real world anymore. That paradigm only guarantees continued instability and future war. Al Qaeda will exist as a 'strategy' with peoples unable to understand their own world. Al Qaeda does not need a central authority figure, it only needs 'the idea' as a solution to the problems of the impoverished and oppressed. Al Qaeda is nothing new, it was named Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood and the list goes on. Bin Laden globalized the idea as terrorist networks to achieve victory over financial institutions of The West, otherwise, it is all the same.

The reason so called "Terrorist Networks" exist in the first place is because they actually perform services to the people. Their government does not provide food, water, clothing, education in order to read the Quran and basic day to day needs of human beings. The networks provide charity through whatever methods they find economy, even in the cultivation and distribution of cocaine or any other substance in demand they can get their hands on. One of the more tragic expressions of this charity was the destruction of the bizarres in Syria. The West doesn't even try to solicit the support of the people, they leave them to their basic resources to struggle for their lives.

I have to say these things? The American people actually have their information about the world so polluted by hate filled politics they completely ignore their own reality in the world?

The Global Police.

Not her fault, just the way the USA deals with national security. The USA sees the globe as the place to carry out stability in the name of promoting democracy.

Sound familiar? I think it was Bush that justified his actions in Iraq not only with WMD, but, to promote democracy around the world.

Neocon's live.

..."The Arab revolutions (click here) have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. And instability in Mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in Algeria," she said....

Indeed, the revolutions in the Middle East has changed the dynamics of the region and indeed the policies of the USA in dealing with the new leadership is the same. Bombs, guns and war.


The people of Northern Africa do not deserve war unending because Europe and the USA see Pre-emption as a real strategy to admittedly burgeoning nations. The mistake the USA is making REPEATEDLY over decades is to be shortsighted and allowing oppression. The actions of Pre-Emption are exactly that.

Pre-emption promotes the standards of oppression. Those policies make the USA a warring nation and not a benevolent one. While the events in Mali are unfortunate, the reason to enter into the idea of war without end is out of the question. We are not going to protect leadership that may or may not have the best interest of the USA in their vision for their nations. We are not going to continue to kill innocent people that understand only their daily reality.

The events of Benghazi were more than unfortunate. When a nation falls in revolution it is a new frontier and while is appears the USA has to be a part of it to guide it, that is incorrect. The USA can offer any help as far as securing the region to keep the effects of revolution from destroying national security for itself and allies, but, to expect to provide an overlay of government in the vacuum of the lack of it is not realistic or prudent.

Ambassador Stevens, on assignment by the State Department, never stopped to realize he was in more danger than there was ever intelligence. His Americana got in the way of good judgement. Americana states "Determination is enough to make the best outcomes happen." The profession of journalism frequently makes the same mistakes. There were deaths among journalists in Libya as well because they had the inflated idea they were as safe there as when embedded with the military.

A void of a profoundly stable government should never be viewed by any NATO nation as something that can be overcome by military might. It cannot. The people in these nations have made fools of The West over and over for more than a half century. The ONLY President to have a successful strategy against these dynamics were Bombs and No Fly Zones of military or militarized bases. It was the only strategy that works. The only intelligence that is needed is surveillance and military prowess to meet the surveillance needs. There is absolutely no reason to spend billions and trillions on invasions. The USA has the best outcomes when this is not the strategy sought. 

Secretary Clinton did the best she could from her position in the State Department, the deficiencies are profound and have been profound. The USA cannot build secure facilities within moments of the need. The sincerely best outcome for the security of our diplomatic corps is to look at places where USA military installations already exist in dangerous regions and continue the missions from those bases. Building new installations as was done in Baghdad is out of the question.

It is known the 'idea' of a secure diplomatic mission in countries where they are not full partners in providing a stable environment for our personnel results in elaborate plans for construction of nothing more than woefully insufficient facilities full of corruption in the way monies are spent. We don't need it.

The Republicans on the panel seeking a political benefit from their questions of Secretary Clinton is not only inappropriate, but, immoral in wasting the time they are paid for to solve problems and not politicize them. The rest of the Clinton testimony today is a waste of my time, too. She was doing the job the nation demanded of her regardless of the lack of will the USA, primarily the House, has to provide the demands of those ideologies. There is absolutely no reason to continue Ambassador Rice, either. Ideologies have a very poor outcome in the real world.

No Pre-Conditions!

...He's ruled out an end-run around the GOP. (click here) The White House said over the weekend that the president won't rely on the 14th Amendment, which arguably gives him authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own.
And his Treasury Department has nixed the idea of issuing a $1 trillion platinum coin that could be deposited with the Fed, instantly creating more money to pay the nation's bills....

Every problem the nation faces is legitimate. The GOP doesn't 'get it.'

The problems the USA faces has no right or left. Each party faces the same problems within the nation. The social priorities of each may be different simply because the GOP has sincere ideological differences in separating church and state. But, the sincere problems of the nation are legitimate and not negotiable. The people of the USA are resolved and the only reason we still have a bunch of 'Block-Em Heads' in the House is because of Gerrymandering.

The National Debt Ceiling is not negotiable. An Amendment to the USA Constitution of any kind is debatable and will not pass the Congress. It just won't. But, the current National Debt is carried by the people of the USA because the GOP used our Treasury for job bill after job bill and went into a war in Iraq for their own ideology. It is over! The GOP has to pay the bills now. They don't like it and want to say the entitlements are the problem, the budget is the problem, the President is the problem.

"W"rong. They are and have been the problem.

The House needs to OWN UP TO THEIR OWN SPENDING PROBLEMS they inherited, pass a clean debt ceiling increase and accept the anger they will receive from their partisans in their districts. It is just too bad.

The House needs to DO THEIR JOB.  The country is not a hostage.

The nation is right back to where we have always been with this House and that is Speaker Boner is not a leader and panders to the extremists. He needs to work with the Democrats and the REAL Republicans that put the nation's interests first and leave the extremists and their funding sources in the dust.