1
The Republicans use their new majority to attack women
Mon, 2011-02-28 12:57
#1
The Republicans use their new majority to attack women
Mon, 2011-02-28 13:08
#2
Just wondered if folks missed this in perusing that liberal rag, the NY Times:
Editorial
The War on Women
Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women's reproductive rights and access to essential health care.
A NY Times columnist
The G.O.P.'s Abandoned Babies
By CHARLES M. BLOW
The Republicans' budget exposes their contradictory position on child welfare: "pro-life" before birth, utter indifference afterward.
Mon, 2011-02-28 13:37
#3
Good articles George; thanks!
These proposed changes can represent a foreshadowing of what may happen here if Harper wins a majority.
Mon, 2011-02-28 15:12
#4
The Republicans, with the Democrat's complicity, use their new majority to attack women.
That is what the head line should read.
Mon, 2011-02-28 15:18
#5
Technically speaking, you're correct, trippie, but the complicity of the Democrats in the misdeeds of the Repuglicans is so documented, long-standing, and known that it hardly bears mentioning anymore.
Mon, 2011-02-28 18:34
#6
No, trippie, it should not, say that, because that would be a lie!
Tue, 2011-03-01 00:53
#7
George, I feel so sorry for you man. How else do you think the republicans could get away with what they do if not for the support of the Democrat party?
What, did you miss the whole installation of George Bush into the white house and Al Gore not doing anything about it?
Tue, 2011-03-01 01:19
#8
Or maybe George, when the Democrats voted in favour of increasing the military budget and supporting the various wars the USA is in, all those bombs landing on women and children were not really an attack on women and children.
Cause the Democrats would never support attacking women.
Tue, 2011-03-01 06:03
#9
The Republicans, with the Democrat's complicity, use their new majority to attack women.
That is what the head line should read.
The attack against women's choice of reproduction , basic women's rights, is led by the fundamentalist, evangelical churches of the U.S. They are not members of the Democratic Party of the U.S. Democratic women continue to lead the political fight against this movement at the local, state and national levels of government.
And even though the consistent, indiscriminate, blanket condemnation of American political action favoured by this board tends to run over into displays of ignorance such as yours, trippie, the line must be drawn somewhere. Right now, progressive forces in the U.S. and Canada are desperately attempting to retain the gains made in human rights through the post-war period. Your working of American military action into the ongoing battle for women's rights in the U.S. reaches the very peak of valueless, political drool.
Wed, 2011-03-02 00:12
#10
Fetus called to testify before Ohio legislative committee:
http://blunt-objects.blogspot.com/2011/03/most-ridiculous-thing-youve-heard-of.html
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/28/unborn-baby-to-testify-at-abortion-hearing/
Wed, 2011-03-02 01:05
#11
@ George
Sorry bro but the only ignorant one around here is you. The Democrats are personally responsible for the affairs of the American political body.
It is you in your wilful blindness that thinks other wise. There is only one working class world wide. Just because the bourgeoisie keep them separated behind artificial imaginary borders, makes no difference to reality. What happens to the working class in one country, happens to the working class in every country.
There are only two ruling parties in the USA, the Republicans and the Democrats. They work in tandem to suppress the workers by upholding the Capitalist economy.
Get a grip, these anti-women actions are reactionary, taking place in a very specific economic climate. This climate has been created by a Capitalist economy that has been upheld by both the Republicans and the Democrats.
Wed, 2011-03-02 01:08
#12
Catchfire
trippie, comments like "I feel sorry for you, George" are not constructive.
George, if you are angry at trippie for raising the points trippie is raising, confront them with evidence to the contrary, or rhetoric so persuasive we can't help but come over to your point of view. As you know, however, the personal attacks (ignorance, drool, etc.), are not allowed. Please don't make me put you on probation, but honestly, these ceaseless attacks have got to stop, and I'm running out of ideas.
Wed, 2011-03-02 01:45
#13
Right now, progressive forces in the U.S. and Canada are desperately attempting to retain the gains made in human rights through the post-war period.
They spit on social achievements of the CCF-NDP, and there are no progressives on the left fighting the good fight in America. Or at least, this is what some would have us believe from time to time. And I'd bet they were all card carrying members of the Lech Walesa booster club in the 80s, too. Solidarnosc.
Wed, 2011-03-02 02:35
#14
Fighting to maintain the few rights we have gained is useless. The mind is formed in the environment. These people think they have to do these things because it is all they have left. It is identity politics.
To stop this type of thinking you have to change the environment. Making a few laws that will constantly be attacked gets everyone nowhere.
The fight is against Capitalism. Change the environment, change the thinking.
Wed, 2011-03-02 06:50
#15
trippie, comments like "I feel sorry for you, George" are not constructive.
George, if you are angry at trippie for raising the points trippie is raising, confront them with evidence to the contrary, or rhetoric so persuasive we can't help but come over to your point of view. As you know, however, the personal attacks (ignorance, drool, etc.), are not allowed. Please don't make me put you on probation, but honestly, these ceaseless attacks have got to stop, and I'm running out of ideas.
For some reason, Catch, I find myself having to defend the politics of progressive women in the U.S. There is a deafening silence among the women of babble. This old fellow isn't about to take up the struggle of maintaining a rational perspective on this most important issue...not even as International Women's Day approaches, next Tuesday. In a way I was involving myself in this thread only in memory of my wife's dedicated involvement in the movement in the last quarter of the previous century. But that was another century. Feminism, then, was a political act, acknowledgement that action had to result in changes in the law. And all of this has been said before...endlessly.
The moderator will notice that the commentary brought to this thread by trippie has more to do with the U.S. military than women's rights - and I'm not about to waste time responding to that, whatever you want to call it. Particularly since that has somehow escaped the moderator's attention, and one is instead called to order: "George, if you are angry at trippie for raising the points trippie is raising, confront them." Even though trippie was obviously not "raising points" that could be refuted in under 1,000 words, given their level of generalization.
With warnings from both mods in the past week, I'll leave it to trippie and Catch to bring enlightenment to the readers of yet another dead thread, struggling to stay afloat in the sea of U.S. imperialism,and the quicksand of CIA plots.
Wed, 2011-03-02 09:58
#16
For some reason, Catch, I find myself having to defend the politics of progressive women in the U.S. There is a deafening silence among the women of babble. This old fellow isn't about to take up the struggle of maintaining a rational perspective on this most important issue...not even as International Women's Day approaches, next Tuesday. In a way I was involving myself in this thread only in memory of my wife's dedicated involvement in the movement in the last quarter of the previous century. But that was another century. Feminism, then, was a political act, acknowledgement that action had to result in changes in the law. And all of this has been said before...endlessly.
The fatuous, arrogant nature of this quote is absolutely jaw-dropping.
I can't recall the last time a man, in the feminist forum, told women what feminism was and is, but I'm pretty sure we tore him a new one.
You presume that because we babble women haven't contributed to your thread that we are indifferent. Well, I won't speak for other women, women who live the feminist reality in a patriarchal world every single day, but I didn't respond earlier because your position isn't worth either propping up or challenging.
Your argument reveals a shallow understanding of both feminism and women's reproductive rights. It shows no understanding whatsoever of the political and personal complexities the issues present to all women, and is facile in its use of left-wing political language to display what seems to be nothing but reactionary bullshit.
Your bullying, aggressive style doesn't work in here. We've seen it time and time again in this forum, and I don't believe it's worth the thought required to form a decent response.
You want to engage in a meaningful discussion of feminism and women's reproductive rights? Leave the posturing egotism out of your argument.
Wed, 2011-03-02 10:17
#17
.... and I don't believe it's worth the thought required to form a decent response.
We can only anticipate with a certain measure of impatient delight then, for one of those times when it will be worth it.
Wed, 2011-03-02 10:34
#18
The personal attacks in #15 are breath-taking. Who is in charge of suspending moderators accounts?
Wed, 2011-03-02 10:37
#19
The first posting with news out of the NYTimes was found acceptable. And then someone squatted on the thread.
The reaction is not egotism at work on my part. As I say, it's simply a nostalgia for the period of politicical feminism when the days approaching Intarnational Women's Day in our household bustled with activity. My wife was awarded a "Women of Distinction" award just last year (accepted by her daughter, in her absence) for the "Advancement of Women." I drove her to the last International Women's Day event that she attended while suffering the early effects of an advancing dementia, a decade ago.
In the grand scheme of Long Term Care in Ontario, women are held in hospital for longer periods because they tend to lack the funds (pensions) that put you into the private or semi-private rooms (more expensive) of LTC getting you out of hospital first. As you will see in another thread, it tends to be women who are threatened with large hospital bills if they don't move. This outrageous situation would have been met by action, in Alida's day...and she would have led the charge. Today? Well, some old folks mutter at the general situation facing the aged, in letters to the editor, but the conspiracy of silence holds, and the abysmal situation worsens. Of course, it is nothing in comparison to what approaches us all down the pike as the neo-conservative, anti-state machine gathers speed.
And equitable accommodation of people entering nursing homes will not be overcome by decisions of the Jim Flahertys to sell you added pensions on top of GIS and the CPP. No, Rebecca, I don't apologize for anything. It's just a damned shame that time that could be spent mobilizing for political action is instead squandered .
And your enemy, really, is "out there" on the hustings, selling folks the politics of a privatizing world. I'm only a messenger from a progressive past.
Wed, 2011-03-02 10:40
#20
Catchfire
I don't know, Caissa, I'd say George was begging for it when he wrote this gem:
For some reason, Catch, I find myself having to defend the politics of progressive women in the U.S. There is a deafening silence among the women of babble.
Your complaint has been noted. In the meantime, this thread is about the war on reproductive rights going on in American legislatures. Stop the drift, please.
Wed, 2011-03-02 10:50
#21
The personal attacks in #15 are breath-taking. Who is in charge of suspending moderators accounts?
If you re-read my post, you will note I attack the position/agrument, not the individual.
Wed, 2011-03-02 11:11
#22
Maysie
Looks the hazing of Rebecca West is in full swing.
George, as Rebecca said, some of us, in our paid and unpaid work, in how we live our lives, and looking at who is in our communities, live, work and are feminist activists all the time.
Everyday is IWD at my place. 
And I think it's also excellent to come together, march, yell and celebrate it, hence why I started a 2011 IWD thread here.
Wed, 2011-03-02 11:31
#23
The first posting with news out of the NYTimes was found acceptable. And then someone squatted on the thread.
The reaction is not egotism at work on my part. As I say, it's simply a nostalgia for the period of politicical feminism when the days approaching Intarnational Women's Day in our household bustled with activity. My wife was awarded a "Women of Distinction" award just last year (accepted by her daughter, in her absence) for the "Advancement of Women."
I understand that nostalgia George, I really do. I spent a chunk of the 80s fighting against the Mulroney gov't's attacks on reproductive rights. I stood outside the Morgantaller Clinic, freezing my ass off in the wee hours of the morning, so women using the clinic wouldn't be harassed by rubber fetus-throwing fundies.
The fact is, the most recent generation of feminists have a more difficult battle to fight than we did. Back then, it was easier to tell who the bad guys were. Now, in both the US and Canada, there are even fewer politicans who have access to anything resembling a conscience - regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. Reproductive rights are just another issue to be exploited in the big popularity contest that represents mainstream North American politics.
Roe vs Wade was never a homerun. The struggle to protect and maintain women's constantly eroding access to reproductive health services in the US is, and always has been, ongoing. There is no final outcome in this issue. Feminists don't get to say, "there now, it's all fixed." We know better.
Wed, 2011-03-02 11:49
#24
And that is exactly what drove me to (irrationally) post that as IWD approached. I was a male apprentice in the struggle for many years, and was allowed to call myself "feminist." But it is the inequality of condition out there in society, flowing from the inequity of income that is continuing to set the stage for more reversals. Daily visits to a dementia ward in even a very nice, new, bright, well-staffed home only remind one that the letters columns are shockingly short on news about what is happening. And news features such as the recent one by the Star are not gender sensitive. It is time to sound the alarm. Again.
Wed, 2011-03-02 12:04
#25
If you re-read my post, you will note I attack the position/agrument, not the individual.
Fatuous sophistry would be how I would construe an argument that split hairs that finely. One might even construe this argument as a piffle.
The way moderators responsd to arguments neeeds to be held to a higher standard.
Maysie may construe my argument as hazing, I prefer to construe it as George getting attacked by a moderator. YMMV.
Wed, 2011-03-02 12:06
#26
George has already taken ownership Caissa, there's nothing up for grabs here anymore.
Wed, 2011-03-02 12:13
#27
Northern Shoveler
Seems to me that the problem is the source of links. The inspiration for the thread may have been IWD but expecting feminists to respond to the NY Times editorial board and a male columnist seems a little misguided. I suspect that most thought the piece was a puff piece not the underlying issues. To my mind here is some good American reporting on some of the same issues.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39826272/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/
Tue, 2011-03-15 13:38
#28
@ George
Unfortunately I find your possition reveals itself. I make no differences between the struggle of womens rights and the struggle of the working class rights, they are one in the same .In other words I do not play identity politics.
The nature of Capitalism suggest the working class as whole is exploited by the capitalists as a whole, that is why the price of a commodity is not identical to it's value. Some things cost more then their value and others things cost less.
Since Capitalism is a globel economic system, what happens to a member of the working class, be it a woman, man or child, in Yemen is the same as what happens to them in America. The insistance of natinalism and identitiy politics is a backwards step for any Progressive person. It's a form of conservatism were individuals try to conserve their social place in life. Were the working class is pitted against itself depending on it's local behind Bourgeois National borders.
There are only two classes of people in the world, the Capitalist class and the working class.There are not 500 differnet classes. There are not 1000 different struggles. There is only one. The liberation of the working class from its exploitation.
Tue, 2011-03-15 18:04
#29
Jesus fuck. Can you two give it a rest? Do you have to clutter up every thread with your endless sniping? Just ignore each other. Y'know, the way adults do.
Tue, 2011-03-15 21:06
#30
Jesus fuck. Can you two give it a rest? Do you have to clutter up every thread with your endless sniping? Just ignore each other. Y'know, the way adults do.
But "Jesus, fuck," Two-Two, as you would say. where do you see that I have responded to this attack before? The thread was dead, but not for the lone stranger. My posts were a response to a highly personal situation that clearly means diddly squat with this critter.
I was raked over the coals for things that I said in reply to the half-wit...and no doubt I will be given a vacation (or worse) for my language here, But "Jesus, fuck" Two-Two, I'm responding to you, here, for your completely unbalanced take on the twit's emergence, again. Why blame two people when only one was involved? You sound like a mod!
It was interesting responding to the rabble survey, today, asking (seriously) how rabble could be improved...probably with the idea of bringing aboard more members.
I invited the powers-that-be to contact me and talk about the zoo.
Tue, 2011-03-15 21:16
#31
I don't know, Caissa, I'd say George was begging for it when he wrote this gem:
For some reason, Catch, I find myself having to defend the politics of progressive women in the U.S. There is a deafening silence among the women of babble.Your complaint has been noted. In the meantime, this thread is about the war on reproductive rights going on in American legislatures. Stop the drift, please.
This one, in particular, begs for discussion, because the full text gives the human factor involved:
"For some reason, Catch, I find myself having to defend the politics of progressive women in the U.S. There is a deafening silence among the women of babble. This old fellow isn't about to take up the struggle of maintaining a rational perspective on this most important issue...not even as International Women's Day approaches, next Tuesday. In a way I was involving myself in this thread only in memory of my wife's dedicated involvement in the movement in the last quarter of the previous century. But that was another century. Feminism, then, was a political act, acknowledgement that action had to result in changes in the law. And all of this has been said before...endlessly.
The moderator will notice that the commentary brought to this thread by trippie has more to do with the U.S. military than women's rights - and I'm not about to waste time responding to that, whatever you want to call it. Particularly since that has somehow escaped the moderator's attention, and one is instead called to order: "George, if you are angry at trippie for raising the points trippie is raising, confront them." Even though trippie was obviously not "raising points" that could be refuted in under 1,000 words, given their level of generalization.
With warnings from both mods in the past week, I'll leave it to trippie and Catch to bring enlightenment to the readers of yet another dead thread, struggling to stay afloat in the sea of U.S. imperialism,and the quicksand of CIA plots."
Not that any of this will mean a damn thing in the final roundup of comments.
Tue, 2011-03-15 21:38
#32
Northern Shoveler
"I find myself having to defend the politics of progressive women in the U.S. There is a deafening silence among the women of babble. " Get back to me George when you understand just how truly patronizing that comment is. In the meantime don't you have an article from the NY Times to digest and integrate into your world view.
Tue, 2011-03-15 23:36
#33
Maysie
You sound like a mod!
Using "mod" as pejorative? As a former mod I have to say, George, that hurts. 
P.S. to Northern Shoveler: tee hee 
Wed, 2011-03-16 00:40
#34
I apologize in advance for the thread drift.
Moderators. George has shown over various threads in this forum that he has a habit of continually demeaning the other members. He has used various derogatory terms and references in multiple posts and seems inclined to brush off anyone else's opinions or ideas with nonsensical remarks. He has come across as arrogant and impertinent and definitely unrepentant for his repeated personal attacks upon others views and inteligence. Something needs to be done to curtail this steady stream of offensive comments.
Thank you
Once again...sorry for the drift.
Wed, 2011-03-16 23:56
#35
But Im just a child ;)
Thu, 2011-03-17 00:30
#36
George, Im gonna make this as simple as possible, just for you.
The thread title is "The Republicans use their new majority to attack women".
The title is misleading. It is not the Republicans that are attacking women, it is the Capitalists class that is doing so. The Capitalist class in America is lead by the Republicans and the Democrats together.
When I stated this, you started your attack on me.
It is you that wants to believe that the Democrats are not involved with oppression of women under Capitalism. The facts state other wise. So In my defence I brought up the fact that the Democrats support all the American wars that are presently in operation. These wars kill women and children, that's a fact.
You then attacked my again. But I don't fall for it. I don't take your bully remarks that demean me and try to cow me into accepting your position.
If you are truly interested in women rights you would fully understand that the oppression of women is directly tied to the oppression of the working class as a whole.
Women can never be free until the working class is free. Our cause is one and the same. You can not free women in one country until all the women of the world are free at the same time. Until the class system under Capitalism is crushed and replaced with a Socialist or Communist economic system, the women of the working class will always be held under the heal.
It is you George that refuses to understand this most basic principle of our struggle. It is you that attacks commentators with slander when your ideas are challenged.
I will never be swayed by people like you, the ones that pretend, the ones that boast about their loyalty and point fingers at people like me, making off hand remarks meant to harm.
Your far to obvious for me George , have a good life.
Mon, 2011-04-11 09:44
#37
At risk of another attack, I'll just bring a political note to this thread, again, and note how the U.S. battle over a $3.6 trillion budget was hung up over the Republican (Tea Party leading) opposition to - and the Democratic Party support for - $75-million in funding for Planned Parenthood. As the Globe and Mail's Konrad Yakabuski points out: "Since 1976, Congress has banned the use of federal money to pay for abortions. It has funded Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions to low-income Americans, on the condition that the federal grants are used for other services. These include everything from family planning to mammograms."
The Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained: "The Tea Party is trying to sneak through its extreme social agenda - issues that have nothing to do with funding the government."
Could the same strategy fail to appear in Canada with a Harper majority? I urge all who don't believe that it could enter Parliament to read Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor and Steve's hidden history. Once upon a time, women from across the Canadian political spectrum would have confronted his silence on the hustings at each campaign stop...with picket signs at the door when not allowed inside.
Sat, 2011-04-16 03:18
#38
Is it fair to say the the Republicans & the Tea Party have more Big $ capitalists as a %age of their members than the Democrats?
It takes a lot of money to be elected to even a minor position in local government in the U.S., & with campaigns that go on for 2 years, I doubt that "Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington" is a reality anymore. You need money to run for Anything.
I'm sure that their are many Democrats who feel safer under manditory "Barefoot & Pregnant" legislation. There are many Men of all stripes & types who might welcome it.
There even seem to be a few women (Real Women Org. etc.) that have this phylosophy. (but not for themselves, of course!)
(I'm waiting for somebody in The Great Uncharted Goofy to suggest forced poligamy as a 'solution' to single parents who need some form of social assistance to raise their children.)
The ignorance is intolerable! The senator that stated that, 'Pap smears, & mammograms are available at Walgreens Pharmacies' should be censored if not for mispeaking ( or maybe telling fibs), then for pure Ignorance of what these proceedures are, & possibly being ignorant of what a pharmacy does..
Being an idiot is not illegal, & neither is voting for one. I hope that now that the bigots are out of the broom closet. women & men in their constituencies will reject them next time around.
Harper has never been quite Right Wing enough to suit some of his party. I don't know that he would even try the restrictions on abortion funding on Canadian soil that he has tried with Cdn. Aid packages to other countries. I hope i'm not over estimating the intelligence of either Harper, or the voters, but i don't think that relgious convictions are quite the driving force in society or Gov. policy in Canada that they are in the U.S. & other countries. We are a mostly secular society, esp in urban areas.
I would like to see Harper out of the P.M.'s chair this time around, just to make sure that he can do no more tinkering with human rights -Any Human Rights.
Sat, 2011-04-16 06:01
#39
The Theocons are patiently waiting on instructions from their chiefs and Steve. You haven't read Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor. I'd really like to discuss the Canadian situation on the basis of that one.
This sort of truism: ("I'm sure that their are many Democrats who feel safer under manditory "Barefoot & Pregnant" legislation. There are many Men of all stripes & types who might welcome it.") is not as helpful as a peek at the recent history of party positions on this question in Congress. Recent history. Lincoln was a Republican, remember. :)
Sat, 2011-04-16 13:11
#40
George, I don't care if stating that Fact is helpful to you. It is a fact. Mysogeny like racism is one of those facts that is common to everyone, probably then, now & perhaps always. Good luck trying to find a mainstream feminist friendly Party anywhere in the World.
I have more faith in Democrats not actively following or proposing these absurd ideas, but I'm sure the Democrats could passively throw women under the bus if they deem it necessary to fulfill their own larger agenda.
In spite of our 'Enlightened' society, women still make less $$, still are scrambling for day care, still take on most of the responsibilty for children & the frail elderly, are not properly represented in any level of Government, & still get treated as 2nd. class citizens, & a cheap labout source in CANADA.(& the U.S., U.K. etc., etc., etc...)
I know Lincoln that was a Republican. I'm surprised that you would ask. I can see now why some people here get so annoyed with you.
Sat, 2011-04-16 23:46
#41
The Republicans under Lincoln declared emancipation for African Americans.
The Grand Old Party today is a racist repository.
And men still do have it better in all those categories you list. Things change. The Democrats might. But they have not been an attraction for the born-again pro-lifers that the Bible Belt has spawned . It's not "Big $ capitalists" that oppose choice for women. (And I'm sorry that that little observation about Lincoln so annoyed you. Don't know why. Wasn't supposed to. I'll slink away from this forum again before this becomes a dustup for some damned reason.)
Mon, 2011-04-25 22:42
#42
The Republicans under Lincoln declared emancipation for African Americans.
The Grand Old Party today is a racist repository.
And men still do have it better in all those categories you list. Things change. The Democrats might. But they have not been an attraction for the born-again pro-lifers that the Bible Belt has spawned . It's not "Big $ capitalists" that oppose choice for women. (And I'm sorry that that little observation about Lincoln so annoyed you. Don't know why. Wasn't supposed to. I'll slink away from this forum again before this becomes a dustup for some damned reason.)
GeorgeV. I think we all know that Lincoln was a Republican. Even Me! 
If big money capitalists are concerned for women's rights, why are we so underpaid by those same people?
Company daycare? Not many, & only available to the higher earners within the company. The fees are Not geared to income.
Promotions? Women are still in a very small minority of leadership positions in Banks, & financial institutions. (& in politics,@ all levels, needless to say.)
We are still "cheap labour". We are still the reliable employee who will do the unpaid overtime to keep her job & feed her kids.
We are still "The Other". In spite of all the stats about who usually steals from their employers,(Men!) who takes the most time off work (Men!), we are still considered not as trustworthy, reliable, or competent. Men get the 'carrot' & women get the 'stick' in motivational phsycology with most corporations.
The fact that women sometimes take time off for illness & care of family members is also looked on with suspicion. "How dare she put children/family before the god of the company? Heresy!"
A jealous god indeed! And not just a Republican god.
Mon, 2011-04-25 23:14
#43
Has Obama said Anything about retaining reproductive Rights? Not very much... (In spite of the fact that much of his Base is women. Liberal women, educated women, poor women, & women of colour.) The phrase, "Dance with the one that brung yah," comes to mind.
He has also said very little, in spite of the fact that much of the rhetoric against reproductive rights, is transparently False, simple minded & in some cases, outright Lies! It would take very little effort to make a statement about this foolishness, & simply say,
"No! We will not cede these rights!"
It seems all you have to do in America is misquote the Bible, & you become untouchable. Even when you are a dirty, mispeaking, self serving SOB!
I also think the War Between the Sexes makes most wars look like a walk in the park. It certainly has gone on much longer. It crosses all political party lines, races, colurs, & creeds. We all have a kind of vested interest in it from the day we are born. We all want to be winners.
We all want our Freedom. We all want our own way, as much as we possible can get, all the time.
Yet we all, "Want someone to look after us." 
Sad, isn't it.
Mon, 2011-04-25 23:16
#44
(Lots of problems here tonight posting. I'm trying not to duplicate a post.)
Tue, 2011-04-26 10:20
#45
And from Toronto, this morning, comes a Canadian Press story from a press conference at the Morgentaler clinic warning that "Stephen Harper will be under 'tremendous pressure' from his caucus to pass abortiion restrictions if he wins a majority government, several somen's health groups said Monday."
Last wek, Harper vowed not to reopen the abortion debate "after Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost bragged that the International Planned Parenthood Federation had lost its funding for supporting abortion."
Currently, New Brunswick is the only province in Canada where women have to pay out of pocket for abortions in private clinics..." Finding two doctors to approve of hospital abortion being "virtually impossible," according to Simone Leibovitch, the New Brunswick Morgentaler Clinic manager.
Good to see women speaking out in Toronto. Spirit of '81 and all that.
Fri, 2011-04-29 17:56
#46
Let's hope that all fair minded Canadians speak out at the polls on Monday, & send Harper et all packing.
Fri, 2011-05-06 00:55
#47
That didn't happen, and his social conservative rump is demanding a place in the sun already.
Fancy that!
Sat, 2011-06-11 02:35
#48
The first posting with news out of the NYTimes was found acceptable. And then someone squatted on the thread.
The reaction is not egotism at work on my part. As I say, it's simply a nostalgia for the period of politicical feminism when the days approaching Intarnational Women's Day in our household bustled with activity. My wife was awarded a "Women of Distinction" award just last year (accepted by her daughter, in her absence) for the "Advancement of Women." I drove her to the last International Women's Day event that she attended while suffering the early effects of an advancing dementia, a decade ago.
In the grand scheme of Long Term Care in Ontario, women are held in hospital for longer periods because they tend to lack the funds (pensions) that put you into the private or semi-private rooms (more expensive) of LTC getting you out of hospital first. As you will see in another thread, it tends to be women who are threatened with large hospital bills if they don't move. This outrageous situation would have been met by action, in Alida's day...and she would have led the charge. Today? Well, some old folks mutter at the general situation facing the aged, in letters to the editor, but the conspiracy of silence holds, and the abysmal situation worsens. Of course, it is nothing in comparison to what approaches us all down the pike as the neo-conservative, anti-state machine gathers speed.
And equitable accommodation of people entering nursing homes will not be overcome by decisions of the Jim Flahertys to sell you added pensions on top of GIS and the CPP. No, Rebecca, I don't apologize for anything. It's just a damned shame that time that could be spent mobilizing for political action is instead squandered .
And your enemy, really, is "out there" on the hustings, selling folks the politics of a privatizing world. I'm only a messenger from a progressive past.
I understand your nostalgia for both Women's Day & your wife as she was. I miss my Mother too, even though she is still here.
I think the Star's series of articles "Begging For Care' that related to the CCAC, & what happens after you are discharged from hospital did an admirable job of stating the case, & the inhumane short comings of our 'Care System".
Yes I fear what will become of my mother, my family, & myself when Harper & Friends get through with Health Care in Canada. But I'm also aware that Prov. Liberals have done Nothing to help us either. When " Emergency Room Wait Times" became a hot potato issue, money was taken from CCAC & other aspects of Ont. Health to make their figures look better. My family has waited for help & been repeated turned down for the last 7 years. It took a major fall with broken bones to get even the basics.
(& as i have mentioned before, we save our provincial & local governments probably a $1000.00 per day per patient by keeping them out of nursing homes & assuming that responsibility.)
E-Health was So Effective-?? that during a 9 week stay in hopital & a physio rehab unit, NOBODY tumbled to the fact that my mother has severe dementia, & is almost totally deaf. We paid how many Millions of $$ for E-Health??
I am convinced of one thing. Nobody knows what it's like to care for a family member with dementia until they are called upon to do it. Politicians are not likely to be that person. They have the money to get Poppi into a nursing home, or Granny into a paliative care hospital. Their hands will never touch an adult diaper, & they will never brush an elderly person's hair unless a photo op is involved.
None of them give a flying F*** George! They don't have to.