Despite the angering total lack of respect for life and liberty and the lack of ethics or morality by a conservative, Alaska talk show host, this article about the rally for Alaska Women Reject Palin - the largest rally EVER in the state of Alaska - is quite uplifting.
Biggest Rally in Alaska History... Alaska Women Reject Palin
Friday, September 19, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Oh, FDR, how I adore thee
"The present administration has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army. These unhappy times call for ... plans ... that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the pyramid." - FDR
The Great Depression v2.0
I've been saying or hinting for a while now that the current fiscal crisis we are in is absolutely akin to the Great Depression. I think most people think (thought?) that I was overreacting. Well, now I'm, sadly, not the only one.
McCain & Hoover: The fundamentals are strong!
"The day before Hoover insisted that the fundamentals were strong was the day that came to be known as Black Thursday, when in heavy trading the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost about 9 percent of its value. And while, in endless stock-footage documentaries showing images of dumbfounded traders over a soundtrack of mournful jazz clarinets, the crash is supposed to begin the Great Depression, it wasn't quite so. The real cause was the collapse of the banking system, which followed the crash in part because Hoover believed strong fundamentals would protect the economy from disaster."
The panic sets in ...:
"At some point, the new president might have to do what FDR did in the wreckage of early 1933--declare a "bank holiday" and announce emergency rules to govern banking and finance until the crisis is broken. For the country's sake, I think this a better approach than buying up junked banks and failed financial firms, one by one. People have the right to ask: what exactly are the rest of us getting for our money?"
I know that after eight years of a President who respects neither the constitution or history I shouldn't be surprised. But really, who hasn't heard the old adage that those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. (Actually, the quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it")
Mostly, when I employ this adage, I'm talking abou t the economy; about, what I see as, the fundamental lesson we learned during the Great Depression: that the government plays a fundamental role in the economy, both to ensure stability and to ensure true capitalistic competition or consumer protection when capitalistic competition is impossible (utilities for example). Ok, all of that didn't come directly out of the Great Depression. The latter came out of the Gilded Age but I thought I'd throw it in for good measure.
Anyway, my point is this: the financial crisis were are seeing is a) exactly what happened during the Great Depression (run on banks causing a crash of the economy), b) a direct result of the financial deregulation of the last two decades, especially the repeals of the Glass-Steagall Acts (a trend that, instead of being nipped in the bud by the government - you know, the one bailing out these free market corporations - is being continued by the process.), and c) is only not as a bad as the Great Depression (well, so far - fingers crossed) because we still have some remnants of the New Deal era regulations and safe guards in place.
Seriously, what is wrong with this country? Why do people buy this bullshit? How is it that I, a financial and economic lay person by most accounts, can say 'I told you so' and we have the top honchos of Wall Street scurrying around trying to justify their greed?
*Just because I know what people assume: I believe in capitalism. But, like, real capitalism. Capitalism that involves competition by many, consumer protections (because consumers are a part of the market too!), government regulation to ensure that competition exists and is fair or, in industries, that lend themselves to monopolies (utilities), ensure that corporations aren't taking advantage of consumers, and little to no government subsidies to private enterprises. I, particularly, believe in supporting and nurturing small business in America. Also, I do believe there are some things that do not benefit from being motivated by profit - education, health care, and the military in particular. Most importantly, though, I believe it's the role of the economy to serve society; not the other way around.
McCain & Hoover: The fundamentals are strong!
"The day before Hoover insisted that the fundamentals were strong was the day that came to be known as Black Thursday, when in heavy trading the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost about 9 percent of its value. And while, in endless stock-footage documentaries showing images of dumbfounded traders over a soundtrack of mournful jazz clarinets, the crash is supposed to begin the Great Depression, it wasn't quite so. The real cause was the collapse of the banking system, which followed the crash in part because Hoover believed strong fundamentals would protect the economy from disaster."
The panic sets in ...:
"At some point, the new president might have to do what FDR did in the wreckage of early 1933--declare a "bank holiday" and announce emergency rules to govern banking and finance until the crisis is broken. For the country's sake, I think this a better approach than buying up junked banks and failed financial firms, one by one. People have the right to ask: what exactly are the rest of us getting for our money?"
I know that after eight years of a President who respects neither the constitution or history I shouldn't be surprised. But really, who hasn't heard the old adage that those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. (Actually, the quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it")
Mostly, when I employ this adage, I'm talking abou t the economy; about, what I see as, the fundamental lesson we learned during the Great Depression: that the government plays a fundamental role in the economy, both to ensure stability and to ensure true capitalistic competition or consumer protection when capitalistic competition is impossible (utilities for example). Ok, all of that didn't come directly out of the Great Depression. The latter came out of the Gilded Age but I thought I'd throw it in for good measure.
Anyway, my point is this: the financial crisis were are seeing is a) exactly what happened during the Great Depression (run on banks causing a crash of the economy), b) a direct result of the financial deregulation of the last two decades, especially the repeals of the Glass-Steagall Acts (a trend that, instead of being nipped in the bud by the government - you know, the one bailing out these free market corporations - is being continued by the process.), and c) is only not as a bad as the Great Depression (well, so far - fingers crossed) because we still have some remnants of the New Deal era regulations and safe guards in place.
Seriously, what is wrong with this country? Why do people buy this bullshit? How is it that I, a financial and economic lay person by most accounts, can say 'I told you so' and we have the top honchos of Wall Street scurrying around trying to justify their greed?
*Just because I know what people assume: I believe in capitalism. But, like, real capitalism. Capitalism that involves competition by many, consumer protections (because consumers are a part of the market too!), government regulation to ensure that competition exists and is fair or, in industries, that lend themselves to monopolies (utilities), ensure that corporations aren't taking advantage of consumers, and little to no government subsidies to private enterprises. I, particularly, believe in supporting and nurturing small business in America. Also, I do believe there are some things that do not benefit from being motivated by profit - education, health care, and the military in particular. Most importantly, though, I believe it's the role of the economy to serve society; not the other way around.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Bullshit ....
In writing my last post, I was googling to try to find the democratic party official or worker or something who said that while working for the democratic party, he didn't have to listen to the left at all. Instead, I came across a random blog - I guess it can't be that random if it showed up in google's first page search results - some guy wrote about how both the Democrats and Republicans have it wrong. Don't get me wrong, as evidenced by my voting for Nader, I think both parties have a lot of shaping up to do. However, this guy's reasons for why the democrats need to shape up are right out of the Fox News play book. Seriously, dude, seriously.
Before I, inappropriately, post a comment, I thought I'd share here my responses to his post:
Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because
1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.
Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.
3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai
The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.
5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?
Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.
6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.
I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.
7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).
Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...
Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.
Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.
In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.
-- End Inappropriate Comment --
Before I, inappropriately, post a comment, I thought I'd share here my responses to his post:
Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because
1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.
Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.
3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai
The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.
5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?
Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.
6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.
I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.
7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).
Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...
Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.
Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.
In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.
-- End Inappropriate Comment --
Why I'm Voting for Nader
I thought I'd start my election '08 blogging off with why I'm voting for Nader. True, I'm a little late on the uptake - in more ways than one. Firstly, I've been meaning to write this post for some time but haven't had a chance until now. Secondly, I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 or 2004 so why, - you might ask - in 2008, would I vote for him?
Up until this election, I have essentially been a single issue voter. That issue, of course, being abortion. (In fact, I refused to vote for my local assembly person because he is anti-abortion. Instead, I wrote in "Ficus" - wink, wink, Micheal Moore.) I got my election guide from Planned Parenthood and voted down the line.
Adam and I have attended two Nader rallies so far this year and he talked about me - well, me as in the prototypical single issue voter. He brought up a good point. If I vote for a politician based on one issue and I disagree with said politician on other issues 49% of the time, have I really voted for someone who represents me? Have I performed my civic duty? In an election where there is a candidate, albeit an unlikely one, who I agree with more than 50% of the time (way more in fact), the answer is a resounding NO. The answer is no because I am against: NAFTA, torte reform, restrictions on abortion, corporate welfare, energy trading, media consolidation, FISA, welfare to "work"; I am for: universal single payer health care, new deal-style regulation of financial markets and utilities, small business, small farming, increased car efficiency standards, public transportation and works ... just to name a few.
The second reason I'm voting for Nader and perhaps the most resounding one for me is this: the democrats will never move further to the left (or even just not toward the center!) unless I prove to them that I am willing to not vote for them; prove that they are not entitled to my vote. As Eugene Debs said "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than to vote for someone you don't believe in and win."
Lastly, what have the democrats done for me lately? Let's see: they voted for the war in iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act, they voted to renew FISA, welfare to "work" happened on clinton's watch, etc etc. It's nice to blame Bush and Cheney for all of this - and they deserve A LOT of blame - but they couldn't have done it without democrat support.
So that's it. My mind is made up. As you can see, it really has less to do with Obama or even Nader than it does with a deep desire to see our country be great again. That, my friends, is real patriotism.
Up until this election, I have essentially been a single issue voter. That issue, of course, being abortion. (In fact, I refused to vote for my local assembly person because he is anti-abortion. Instead, I wrote in "Ficus" - wink, wink, Micheal Moore.) I got my election guide from Planned Parenthood and voted down the line.
Adam and I have attended two Nader rallies so far this year and he talked about me - well, me as in the prototypical single issue voter. He brought up a good point. If I vote for a politician based on one issue and I disagree with said politician on other issues 49% of the time, have I really voted for someone who represents me? Have I performed my civic duty? In an election where there is a candidate, albeit an unlikely one, who I agree with more than 50% of the time (way more in fact), the answer is a resounding NO. The answer is no because I am against: NAFTA, torte reform, restrictions on abortion, corporate welfare, energy trading, media consolidation, FISA, welfare to "work"; I am for: universal single payer health care, new deal-style regulation of financial markets and utilities, small business, small farming, increased car efficiency standards, public transportation and works ... just to name a few.
The second reason I'm voting for Nader and perhaps the most resounding one for me is this: the democrats will never move further to the left (or even just not toward the center!) unless I prove to them that I am willing to not vote for them; prove that they are not entitled to my vote. As Eugene Debs said "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than to vote for someone you don't believe in and win."
Lastly, what have the democrats done for me lately? Let's see: they voted for the war in iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act, they voted to renew FISA, welfare to "work" happened on clinton's watch, etc etc. It's nice to blame Bush and Cheney for all of this - and they deserve A LOT of blame - but they couldn't have done it without democrat support.
So that's it. My mind is made up. As you can see, it really has less to do with Obama or even Nader than it does with a deep desire to see our country be great again. That, my friends, is real patriotism.
Monday, July 28, 2008
America: The New India?
One of the things I've always hated about liberal intellectuals is the glorification of non-Western culture. I'm not saying that eastern cultures don't have positives - they have plenty - but they also have many many negatives (just as we do).
I remember talking with a friend of mine who was preparing to head to grad school for Indian History. She began telling me about how the Indian government was so responsive to the people - responsive in a way that the American government isn't. Specifically, she was talking about the Indian government's attempts at dealing with the exponential increase in suicides among poor farmers.
I looked at her quizzically. In America, I said, we would never get to a point where poor farmers are so desperate that they start killing themselves - we subsidize farmers, we have welfare. I wasn't saying that any of these solutions were perfect - the subsidies of Reagan should surely be replace by the revolving loans of Roosevelt; welfare plus promotion/creation of middle class jobs should surely replace welfare-as-slave labor, i'm sorry, i mean "welfare to work" - but the point was that in American, for better or worse, we generally keep people from killing themselves because of financial ruin.
Turns out that I was wrong. In the wake of the recent mortgage crisis (and I mean recent in the sense that it's the direct result of 20 years of deregulation of financial markets and tearing down social safety nets of the New Deal), people have begun killing themselves rather then watch their houses - likely the accumulation of their life's work - be sold off to the lowest bidder.
Is this seriously what America - and it's lofty ideals - has come to? Seeing suicide as an effective solution - for debtors and creditors alike - to what generally amounts to wall street's speculation and predatory lending? During the Great Depression - and don't kid yourselves, this is Great Depression #2, we just have enough of the safety nets enacted by the New Dealers in place to keep the economy from complete and utter collapsie - people shot the bankers and cops who came to foreclose houses, not the other way around. The people said, fuck you - if you're going to sell my house for a fraction of what I owe you and not give me the opportunity to buy it, I'm taking to the streets with guns and fire and stuff. Or something like that.
Ever since Bush got into office, I just cannot help constantly thinking of the old adage: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's become my sad sad mantra as I watch people throw away the very solutions to problems they are claiming to solve.
And repeat it we will.
Read the article The Suicide Solution by Barbara Ehrenreich at TheNation.com.
I remember talking with a friend of mine who was preparing to head to grad school for Indian History. She began telling me about how the Indian government was so responsive to the people - responsive in a way that the American government isn't. Specifically, she was talking about the Indian government's attempts at dealing with the exponential increase in suicides among poor farmers.
I looked at her quizzically. In America, I said, we would never get to a point where poor farmers are so desperate that they start killing themselves - we subsidize farmers, we have welfare. I wasn't saying that any of these solutions were perfect - the subsidies of Reagan should surely be replace by the revolving loans of Roosevelt; welfare plus promotion/creation of middle class jobs should surely replace welfare-as-slave labor, i'm sorry, i mean "welfare to work" - but the point was that in American, for better or worse, we generally keep people from killing themselves because of financial ruin.
Turns out that I was wrong. In the wake of the recent mortgage crisis (and I mean recent in the sense that it's the direct result of 20 years of deregulation of financial markets and tearing down social safety nets of the New Deal), people have begun killing themselves rather then watch their houses - likely the accumulation of their life's work - be sold off to the lowest bidder.
Is this seriously what America - and it's lofty ideals - has come to? Seeing suicide as an effective solution - for debtors and creditors alike - to what generally amounts to wall street's speculation and predatory lending? During the Great Depression - and don't kid yourselves, this is Great Depression #2, we just have enough of the safety nets enacted by the New Dealers in place to keep the economy from complete and utter collapsie - people shot the bankers and cops who came to foreclose houses, not the other way around. The people said, fuck you - if you're going to sell my house for a fraction of what I owe you and not give me the opportunity to buy it, I'm taking to the streets with guns and fire and stuff. Or something like that.
Ever since Bush got into office, I just cannot help constantly thinking of the old adage: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's become my sad sad mantra as I watch people throw away the very solutions to problems they are claiming to solve.
And repeat it we will.
Read the article The Suicide Solution by Barbara Ehrenreich at TheNation.com.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Coat Hangers Happened
In case you think coat hanger abortions are all hype,i found - through feministing - a disturbing and graphic article in the New York Times today written by an OB who has been there, done that. He didn't actually perform abortions pre-Roe; he did, however, deal with the aftermath of illegal, unsafe abortion procedures. Read the graphic accounts of the risk these women put themselves in and think about the kind of desperation that would cause you to do such a thing. It is surely not a desperation that anyone in the US having grown up with birth control readily available and abortion somewhat available (although it's becoming less and less available) has truly felt.
I have volunteered as an abortion clinic escort for the past few years now. Basically, a clinic escort is there to counter-balance and sheild the woman - sometimes physically; often emotionally - from protesters.
I began escorting at the Hope Clinic in Illinois, outside of St. Louis. Hope Clinic began in the 70s just after Roe and has been constantly sieged with protesters ever since - including Operation Rescue. Protesters there were loud, offensive, and often pushed the boundaries of the law. Once, someone screamed that us "deathscorts" "ate babies." Protesters, and sometimes their children, would photograph or video tape the woman walking into the clinic as well as the escorts. As escorts, we tried to block the pictures - it was better for them to have our picture than the woman's. In fact, my pictures is up on one of the Organization's sites - along with lies about the clinic selling baby parts among other things. I knew that doctors, nurses, employees, and escorts had all been harassed by protesters. We weren't allowed to call another escort by name. It was intense, but, for perhaps the first time in my life, I felt like I was actually making a difference and standing up for something I believed in. There is something profoundly rewarding in that.
When I moved to New York, I immediately got in touch with the Brooklyn Pro-Choice Network about escorting. Although escorting in Brooklyn is far less exciting, there are still protesters, mostly from the Catholic Church next door, who show up everyday. When I tell people here that I escort at the abortion clinic, they are shocked to find out that in a liberal city like NYC there are protesters at an abortion clinic. People are often unaware of the siege currently going on against reproductive rights in America today - from increasing restrictions on abortion to clinics closing to protesters who show up every single day to harass woman as they make a profoundly personal and difficult choice.
This article by Dr. Fielding really puts what we are fighting for into perspective. His closing remarks some the issue up to a T:
I have volunteered as an abortion clinic escort for the past few years now. Basically, a clinic escort is there to counter-balance and sheild the woman - sometimes physically; often emotionally - from protesters.
I began escorting at the Hope Clinic in Illinois, outside of St. Louis. Hope Clinic began in the 70s just after Roe and has been constantly sieged with protesters ever since - including Operation Rescue. Protesters there were loud, offensive, and often pushed the boundaries of the law. Once, someone screamed that us "deathscorts" "ate babies." Protesters, and sometimes their children, would photograph or video tape the woman walking into the clinic as well as the escorts. As escorts, we tried to block the pictures - it was better for them to have our picture than the woman's. In fact, my pictures is up on one of the Organization's sites - along with lies about the clinic selling baby parts among other things. I knew that doctors, nurses, employees, and escorts had all been harassed by protesters. We weren't allowed to call another escort by name. It was intense, but, for perhaps the first time in my life, I felt like I was actually making a difference and standing up for something I believed in. There is something profoundly rewarding in that.
When I moved to New York, I immediately got in touch with the Brooklyn Pro-Choice Network about escorting. Although escorting in Brooklyn is far less exciting, there are still protesters, mostly from the Catholic Church next door, who show up everyday. When I tell people here that I escort at the abortion clinic, they are shocked to find out that in a liberal city like NYC there are protesters at an abortion clinic. People are often unaware of the siege currently going on against reproductive rights in America today - from increasing restrictions on abortion to clinics closing to protesters who show up every single day to harass woman as they make a profoundly personal and difficult choice.
This article by Dr. Fielding really puts what we are fighting for into perspective. His closing remarks some the issue up to a T:
It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.
What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
