Canadian constitutional crisis erupts

A constitutional crisis has erupted in Canada after Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper convinced Governor General Michaëlle Jean to suspend (or prorogue) Parliament until January 26. Harper took this action to put off a no-confidence vote that his minority government was almost certain to lose.

The Seattle Times has the one of the best discussions of the situation I've seen so far, including a sidebar with information about Canada's parliamentary form of government. A fuller discussion is provided by Wikipedia. And there is also an excellent analysis by historian Bob Beal at globeandmail.com..


Here's how the crisis developed. Early this week came the news that a coalition of Canadian political parties had moved to topple the recently elected minority government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. To the best of my understanding, the way that you get a "minority government" is when one party wins more parliamentary seats than any of the others, but not an absolute majority. This party can form the government if other parties don't form a coalition government that has more total seats than they do.
Several issues are at stake in the current crisis. First, the budget that Harper's finance minister submitted to Parliament failed to include any stimulus program to bolster Canada's weakening economy. According to Wikipedia, the proposal also would have suspended the right of federal employees to strike and right of women to take pay equity issues to court. Furthermore, the proposal would have eliminated public funding for political parties. Because Harper's wealthy Conservative Party has much greater access to private funds, this was seen as a direct attack on the opposition parties.

This inspired the Liberals and the New Democrats, with support from the separatist Bloc Québécois, to call for a no-confidence vote. This step could have allowed the Liberals and New Democrats to force Harper and the Conservatives from power and form a new coalition government without holding a new election.

Now, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth as the official head of state. The queen's official representative in Canada is the governor-general, a post currently filled by a fascinating woman named Michaëlle Jean. In theory, the governor general has some serious reserve powers -- to summon or dissolve parliament, to withhold assent from laws (something like a veto in the US), to dismiss the prime minister. In practice, the governor general's powers are mostly ceremonial.He or she does summon or dissolve parliament, but at the request of the prime minister.

Michaëlle Jean has played a key role in the current crisis, and I think it's useful and interesting to get to know a little bit more about her. According to Wikipedia, as a child, Michaëlle Jean fled Haiti with her family to get away from the dictator François Duvalier. The family settled in Canada. Ms. Jean has a bachelor's degree in Italian and Hispanic languages and master's degree in comparative literature from the University of Montreal.  She has studied at several Italian universities. While a student, Ms. Jean worked at a women's shelter for many years, and later helped establish a Canadian network of shelters for women and children. She's been involved with organizations that help immigrants come to Canada. Before her selection as governor general, she worked as a journalist, broadcaster, and filmmaker. Among other things, Wikipedia describes her as the first black, the third woman, and the second person in an interracial marriage to serve as governor general.

In short, Michaëlle Jean seems like an unlikely person to help Conservative Stephen Harper retain control of government in the face of organized opposition from Liberals and New Democrats. What's up with that?

As Bob Beal describes it:

A governor-general has never refused a prime minister's request for prorogation [suspension of parliament], or put conditions on it. But prorogations are usually very routine affairs. No prime minister has ever asked for one when he faced an imminent confidence vote. That could be seen as asking the governor-general to interfere to the extent of cancelling or delaying the exercise of the most basic right members of the House have, to express confidence or non-confidence in a government.

Well, I'm no expert on Canadian politics, but I can think of two reasons Her Excellency the governor general may have decided to prorogue parliament in this circumstance.

One is that the situation is controversial and seems to have split the country along political and geographic lines. Might have Michaëlle Jean seen this action as a sort of middle course between dissolving parliament and calling new elections (which would seem to favor the Conservative position) and allowing the Liberal/NDP coalition to form a new government? The governor general is supposed to play a neutral, non-partisan role, and Ms. Jean has emphasized bringing all Canadians together.

My hunch would be that a more likely explanation comes from the history of Michaëlle Jean's appointment to the position of governor general. She comes from a French-speaking country, and is married to a French speaker. When former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin recommended Mme. Jean for the post, she was accused of favoring independence for French-speaking Quebec, and even of having friends among separatist terrorists. In response, she issued a statement affirming her full support for a united Canada.

In the current crisis, the separatist Bloc Québécois holds the balance of power. While not actually joining the government, the Bloc Québécois has promised to vote to allow the Liberal/NDP coalition to to take power. Without this support, the coalition would not have enough votes to form a government. According to the Wikipedia article on the crisis:

The Conservative Party's reaction to the formation of the coalition was to frame the parliamentary impasse as a national unity crisis.^[41] In the House of Commons, Conservative MPs referred to Dion as a "traitor" for forming a "separatist coalition".^[42] Although the Bloc Québécois had agreed to support the coalition only in matters of confidence, the Conservatives suggested that the Bloc would have considerable influence in creating policy. Harper stated in his address to the nation that "Canada's government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with separatists."^[43]

Could Mme. Jean still feel she needs to bend over backwards to avoid even the appearance of favoritism to an arrangement that might favor the Quebec sovereignists?

The short answer is, I don't know. But as Angry Black Bitch points out,  we in the United States are not the only show around, "Canada also has some of the best political theater in North America!" (And thanks to ABB for the post that clued me in that the Canada situation had morphed from a controversy into a crisis.)

Unions and Upward Mobility for Women Workers

The Center for Economic and Policy Research has published a report showing that

unionization raises the wages of the typical woman worker by 11.2 percent compared to their non-union peers. The study goes on to show that unionization also increases the likelihood that a woman worker will have health insurance and a pension. The report also notes that union membership results in health care and pension gains on par with the gains of a college education.

A link to the full report (in PDF format) is here.

Breathing New Life Into Health Care

Truthdig has reposted an excellent column by Marie Cocco of the Washington Post.
Here's a snippet:

These are the immutable truths of the health care conundrum. They haven’t changed much in two decades. Costs are driven inexorably higher by continual advances in care as well as an aging population that needs more of it. Employers can’t cope unless they scale back coverage, shift costs to workers or eliminate benefits altogether. States have become insurers of last resort—but right now they face crippling budget shortfalls that threaten this safety net.

Using this compromised system as the basis for health insurance revision is folly—more so now than it was in the Clinton era, when more employers still were covering their workers. Tightening regulation of the insurance industry and creating a new, government-based plan to make coverage available to those who cannot afford to buy it from private insurers—the essence of Obama’s campaign proposal—would only add another layer of complexity and, eventually, cost. Only a single, government-financed system can eliminate the administrative waste, unfairness and economic burden of our current health insurance scheme.

Timidity is no longer an option.

Are you listening, HCAN?

Rape used to control resources in Congo

Inter Press Service reports that international indifference has allowed an epidemic of rapes to continue in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

More than 5 million Congolese have died in an ongoing civil war since the overthrow of dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997.

According to IPS, playwright and activist Eve Ensler says that "Rape is being used as a deliberate tool to control people and territory."

Hundreds of women and children were raped yesterday, hundreds more today. This is an economic war that uses terror as its main weapon to ensure warlords and their bands control regions where international companies mine for valuable metals like tin, silver and coltan, or extract lumber and diamonds, Ensler said.

Coltan is a rare and extremely valuable metal used in cell phones, DVD players, computers, digital cameras, video games, vehicle air bags, and more. It has long been implicated as both the source of funding and primary cause of the ongoing conflict and extraordinary violence against women.

"A friend mapped the locations of the mass rapes in the DRC and they correspond to coltan mining regions," she said.

Thailand, not Canada, faces constitutional crisis

Here's a an interesting comparison of the current situation in the two countries from JOTMAN.

Odetta dies at 77

And here is the New York Times obituary of the folksinger they describe as "the voice of the civil rights movement."

Will this cure our healthcare woes?

Over on AlterNet, I found a post headlined Health Care: It's Time for a Major Overhaul.

This is supposed to be an inspiring story about how a grassroots coalition, headed by an impressive number of progressive organizations, is taking on the insurance industry to fight for a plan that guarantees health care to all U.S. citizens.

I would like to be inspired by Health Care for America Now. Post author Alexander Zaitchik describes HCAN as

an umbrella organization launched in July to win a "guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all" by the end of 2009. ACORN is one of 16 groups on the HCAN steering committee, which is a veritable Who's Who of progressive grassroots, netroots, and labor groups, including USAction, MoveOn, SEIU and the AFL-CIO. Four months after launching with a press conference in the National Press Building, HCAN now consists of more than 500 organizations and boasts the backing of the president-elect, his incoming chief of staff and 151 Democratic members of Congress, among them leading progressives and "pro-business" Blue Dogs alike.

Unfortunately, Zaitchik's article provides no specific information about what this plan would actually do.

So I visited healthcareforamericanow.org to find out what they're up to. The main page is devoted to getting us to sign up for HCAN and to electronically contact Congress to support their program. It's the kind of website that makes me irritable. Looks like they want us all to march along with them like good little soldiers without understanding exactly what we're supporting. But clicking the "about us" link brought up this explanation:

We're offering a bold new solution that gives you real choice and a guarantee of quality coverage you can afford: keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.

We're also calling for regulation on health insurance companies. We need to set and enforce rules that quash health insurance companies' greed once and for all. There is a huge divide between our plan and the insurance companies' plan for healthcare reform. We want to make sure you have the quality coverage you need at the price you can afford. They want to leave you alone to fend for yourself in the unregulated, bureaucratic health insurance market.

Our plan is affordable for people and business. Their plan is profitable for them. With no regulation, health insurance companies can and will charge whatever they want, set high deductibles, and continue to drop coverage when you get sick. Now is the time to pick a side. Which side are you on?

If you follow that last link, you will get the impression that there are two and only two positions available, either to support HCAN or the leave the system as it is. Of course, there is at least one more option, that of a single-payer health care system. Common Dreams posted this Los Angeles Times article that points out that in the growing consensus over healthcare reform, single-payer is exactly what's being left out of the discussion.

The good folks at HCAN could argue that their program would be a significant improvement over the existing mess. They might argue that enacting single-payer health care is politically impossible at this point. They might argue that the option of allowing citizens to sign up for a government-sponsored insurance program could eventually lead to single-payer insurance. It's even possible that they would be right about all of those things. But they're not saying any of those things. Instead, HCAN's goal seems to be to ignore or even squelch the discussion. In doing that, they've failed to win my support.

As a healthy alternative, I encourage folks to check out Physicians for a National Health Program.

No kidding, it's really a recession, folks

Thanks to Truthdig for this news item that confirms that No Kidding: U.S. Economy in Recession.

Wow. Really. A recession. Who would have guessed?

Canadian coalition topples Tories

This just in from Open Left:

Canada's three Opposition parties have united to replace the governing Conservative Party with a Liberal/NDP formal coalition just six weeks after voters returned the CPC to power with a near parliamentary majority. This is a stunning turn of events.

AMA: Mammograms Detecting Breast Cancers That Would Regress Without Treatment

Hey. Look at this fascinating post that I found over on the Feminist Peace Network.

There. I did it.

The first draft of the third novel is finished. I needed 50,000 words by the end of the month, and I got 60,686. Or thereabouts. I'm not sure if I like it or not, but however sloppily, it has a beginning, a middle, and an end. And thus, I am one of the official winners of National Novel Writing Month.

Some of us from the local NaNo writers group are having our wrap party at Sauced, which is one of OKC's great hangout spots. Most of us have already crossed the line, but Jasmine is laboring along at 41, 696 words. She did start and throw away two previous novels this month. This seems to happen to her every year, but she's a genius and also types really fast, so I have every confidence she will win by midnight.

See y'all with regular posts soon:

What in the world?

When I catch the news on the radio, it seems that while I am trying to finish this novel the world has been going to hell in the proverbial handbasket.

Truthdig offers a link to this analysis of the situation in Mumbai. Over at thenation.com, Robert Dreyfuss discusses where this situation might lead -- and it doesn't sound good.

Also at thenation.com, Barbara Crossette has the best analysis I've seen of the ongoing political crisis in Thailand, which has heated up once again.

Okay. Enough of the troublesome real world for a moment. I'm going back to the imaginary world that I need to bring some direction and conclusion to in the next one day and nine hours (give or take a few minutes).

Hillary Clinton to head State Department

I'm not thrilled -- nor particularly surprised -- to hear that the Obama Administration seems to be filling up with former members of Bill Clinton's administration.

But when I saw on the NPR web site a headline that said "Hillary Clinton To Head State Department", that seemed like good news to me. Along with his appointment of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security, it shows a willingness to appoint serious women to serious posts.

Okay. And now I need to get back to work. I need to write 13,578 more words before the end of the month, plus figure out exactly what I'm doing with this novel.

Three views of a Detroit bailout

Automobile manufacturing has been crucial to the US economy. Yet, auto companies have made gas guzzling cars and other mistakes. As the auto industry struggles, is a bailout justified? And what kind of a bailout, if there is one?

One interesting perspective comes from AngryBlackBitch. She decries the greed and stupidity of automakers, but points out how much damage the failure of the auto industry would do to ordinary folks.

Another intriguing viewpoint comes from Michael Moore, interviewed on The Takeaway. Moore suggests that the conditions for government aid should include a requirement that the companies start making trains and other mass transit vehicles.

Finally, I usually like what Dean Baker says about economic issues, and he has an interesting analysis of this one.

By 2025, U.S. Won't Be Top World Power

This morning NPR had this fascinating story about the Global Trends 2025 report just issued by the National Intelligence Council.

Some see the report, released in time for Barack Obama's inauguration as U.S. president, as "frighteningly bleak." I think it's intriguing, and in some ways hopeful.

Says NPR:

The new study, titled "A Transformed World," projects a "multipolar" global landscape, where the United States is merely "one of a number of actors on the world stage" and where the U.S. dollar will only be "first among equals" in a basket of international currencies.

"We're thinking of it as the rise of the rest, rather than as the decline of the United States," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, as he introduced the report Thursday.

Some troubling trends predicted by the report include a rise in international conflict over food, energy, and other resources. On the other hand, while conflict over energy is likely to increase, a global shift away from fossil fuels will be taking place.

And words to write before I sleep

Okay. Think I'm closing in on 22,000 words on the rough draft of my novel, and I still don't know where I'm going with it. I thought it was going to be about these women I used to know in another state, but it has turned into an incoherent examination of one or two of my deepest fears. I keep telling myself that the only way to learn how to write novels is to write them. Maybe I'm learning something, but at the moment I'm rather frustrated. I think I can catch up on my word count and make sense of my novel by the end of the month, but I'm not sure of it.

Several times a week the local writers group for NaNoWriMo meets at local cafes in order to work together on our efforts for each of us to write a 50,000 novel by the end of the month. One of our group has finished her first NaNo novel and is starting her second. Another threw out the project she was working on and is 6,203 on the novel she decided to write instead. We are at the Red Cup. We are eating good food and hearing pleasant music.

Sound like fun? It's not too late for you to start your novel.

Oklahoma City Prop 8 demo

Yeah, sure, marriage is a patriarchal institution. But I'm probably going to go to the protest against California's anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 down at the Oklahoma City city hall today at 12:30 p.m. The address is 200 N. Walker. Here's a link for the sponsoring organization:

Oklahoma City - Join the Impact

This is part of a nationwide protest.

Okay. I'm way behind on my novel and need to get typing. See y'all later.

Update 7:00 p.m.: It was a nice little demonstration. Heck, I guess it was a pretty big demonstration. I would estimate that there were 150-175 people there. Someone I talked to thought it was more like 250-300. I bet it will be in the news, but I don't have a t.v., and I still have that novel to write, so I probably won't find out. Meanwhile, for an interesting commentary on the relationship of California's Ballot Measure 8, see happening here.

Anti-free-speech trade agreement?

The so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is being pushed to a quick ratification with almost no public information or discussion.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has information here. This link also brings up a petition you can sign to ask your senators to request more information from the United States Trade Representative and to hold Senate hearings on the treaty.

WikiLeaks has more information about ACTA here.

Colorado preserves affirmative action

This bit of good news from the recent election is thoughtfully reported by janinsanfran at happening here?

As I procrastinate a bit on my new novel tonight, I'll pass this good news along to you.

A novel experience

I mentioned this a while back, but just as a reminder, posting will be slow around here for a while because I'm participating in National Novel Writing Month. I need to finish 50,000 words by the end of November. So far I'm at 14875 words, so I've got a ways to go.

Would you like to write a novel? It's not too late to start. Is it really possible to write an entire novel in a month? You can at least get a good rough draft, which is usually the most difficult part.

"Not the Change I Was Expecting "

The Women's Media Center has this commentary by Veronica Arreola about the possible selection of former Lawrence Summers as Barack Obama's Secretary of the Treasury. Summers is currently an economics professor of Harvard, and previously served as president of Harvard and as treasury secretary for the final year and a half of the Clinton administration.

Arreola writes:

I am the president of the Larry Summers fan club. As the director of the Women in Science and Engineering program at the University of Illinois at Chicago, you might find that odd.

After his infamous statement in 2005 that women and girls had an intrinsic handicap towards math, explaining my job was a moot point. Everyone in my circle of friends and around the country knew the importance of running an academic support program for women majoring in science and engineering at a Research I institution. Despite the fact that women are going to college in record numbers and increasingly majoring in sciences, there are still those out in the world who think women just can’t hack it in the end. It also was an easier sell to donors and funders about the importance of the WISE office and our mission. So thank you, Larry for making my case so eloquently.

After his departure from the Harvard presidency he faded from the limelight. This week his name, along with New York Federal Reserve Chairman Timothy Geithner, has been bandied about as secretary of the treasury in the incoming Obama administration (can I just say how amazing it is to say that? The Obama administration!). Could the man who sold America on change seriously be considering appointing a man who suggested that Malia, Sasha and all of our daughters have a genetic disposition from not being able to math? Sadly yes.

Over at Open Left, Matt Stoller discusses some of Summers' shortcomings:

Summers was one of the key proponents of the banking deregulation of 1999 that led to the current financial crisis. In addition, Larry Summers has argued that women are innately less gifted in science than men, that 'Africa is Underpolluted', that child sweatshop work in Asia is sometimes justified, and that job destroying trade agreements are good for America.

People get stuff wrong all the time. That's not bad. But if you got the big stuff wrong, repeatedly, while being warned against it, you shouldn't be rewarded with a promotion.

Open Left has a petition to urge President-elect Obama not to appoint Summers to this critical post. I just signed it. I hope you will consider doing the same.

Update (11/10/08 10:55 p.m.): For a detailed analysis of Summers' failures as an economist, see this post at thenation.com by Mark Ames.

Good news and bad news

The good news is, after 30 years of right-wing backlash and Republican misrule, Barack Obama and the Democrats have won the presidency and increased majorities in the US House and Senate. (Someone might ask, but what about Bill Clinton? I would agree with those who said that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we'd had in years.)

And as Jeff Fecke points out, this Democratic victory owes a lot to the tireless work of Hillary Clinton.

In more good news, RH Reality Check reports that anti-choice ballot measures on the ballot in several states all went down to defeat.

Now for the bad news. Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House Blend reports that anti-gay initiatives are passing in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. She also reports that the  anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 appears to be narrowly passing in California, though not all of the votes have been counted as of Friday morning. Also at Pam's House blend, Pam Spaulding writes that Ballot initiatives provide a wake up call to the LGBT community about race.

I still remain cautiously optimistic that 30 years of right-wing backlash are drawing to a close in this country. But we do have a lot of work left to do.

Obama speaking

I have even fewer words for this.

I find myself  having a great deal of respect for the calm, composed young man who talks about rebuilding the United States. A man who promises to tell us the truth and listen to us, especially when he disagrees with us.

He says America can change, that this is the genius of America.

Is it okay for me to admit that I still am not sure that America is, or has a genius?

He's talking about a woman in Atlanta who voted today, a woman who is 106, a woman whose name is Ann Nixon Cooper. Who could not vote as a young adult for two reasons, because she is a woman and because she is black.

I tend to resist euphoria.

A woman behind me is saying, "now the work begins."

I can't sort it out now, but this is a very good moment.

I'm writing this while I'm watching McCain concede

Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States. It is still not clear how big the margin of victory will be, but it is starting to look like a landslide.

I am sure that I don't have words adequate to the occasion, but here are some.

We can hope that 30 years of right-wing backlash are coming to an end in the United States.

John McCain is giving a gracious concession speech, noting the historic occasion of the election of the country's first African-American president, and urging the country to unite behind him.

Oklahoma is not doing so well. The embarrassing James Inhofe will continue to represent us in the US Senate. McCain carried Oklahoma.

The world is going to be a better place, but we'll have to fight for Oklahoma.

But I'm sitting in the middle of a room of happy lesbians, and nothing can be better than that.

Inheriting the Earth...

Thanks to Pat Reaves for this reminder of the herstoric Katherine Bradley Sparrow Society. (Did I get that right, Pat?)..



Looks like it's time for the meek to get ready again. I am cautiously optimistic about the results of the election. Get out and vote if you haven't already.

Early voting in Oklahoma County

On Saturday I headed down to the Oklahoma County Election Board for early voting. Early voting took place on Friday and Saturday and will continue on Monday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

I didn't know what I was getting in for. I thought I might get in and out in a few minutes. Instead, I found myself in a line that stretched out for at least half a mile. I arrived about ten in the morning, and about four hours later I had voted. The elections worker I asked had no idea how many people came in on Saturday, but said she thought it was more than on Friday, when 5,000 people voted.

The crowd of early voters that assembled on Saturday was predominately African American. There may have been a few McCain voters in the group, but they were probably feeling pretty lonely. Pat Reaves, who kindly provided the photos displayed in this post, said that she felt it was remarkable that people were willing to stand in line for three or four hours to vote when it was almost certain that Oklahoma's electoral votes will all go to McCain.

I found myself thinking of women like Susan B. Anthony, who worked and waited for more than sixty years without ever having the opportunity to cast a legal vote. I thought of civil rights workers in the South who risked their lives securing the right for African Americans to vote. Compared to all that, standing in line for four hours didn't seem like much trouble. There was a great sense of camaraderie among those of us waiting to vote, and I think also a sense of being part of history.
Early voting will continue tomorrow, Monday, across Oklahoma. For more information, contact your county election board or the Oklahoma State Election Board.

The sordid history of the Electoral College (final part of a three-part series)

(You may also want to read Part I and Part II of this series.)

I'm going to tell two competing stories about the history of the US Electoral College. One of these stories was written in 1992 by William C. Kimberling, who was then the deputy director of the Federal Election Commission's Office of Election Administration. The other story was written by brothers Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar for the FindLaw web site.

In Kimberling's rather quaint version of the story, we have a much smaller nation than today--just 4 million people, spread out along the Atlantic seaboard, residing in "thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and suspicious of any central government" They believed that "political parties were mischievous if not downright evil," and "felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office."

The framers of the Constitution considered having Congress choose the president, but rejected that idea because it would break down the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. They considered having state legislatures select the president, but feared that this would erode federal authority.

Having a direct popular election of the president was also rejected. Writes Kimberling:

Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidat es from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

In contrast, the Electoral College would be made up of "the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."

According to the Amar brothers, the real motivation behind this scheme was much less noble:

The biggest flaw in standard civics accounts of the electoral college is that they never mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the President. But in a key speech on July 19, the savvy Virginian James Madison suggested that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: "The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes."

In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the electoral college-a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech-instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall electoral college.

The Amars add that the electoral college system also discouraged states from granting women the right to vote. Under a system of direct popular elections, the more voters a state had, the more its citizens would influence national elections. With the electoral college, what mattered was how many people lived in each state, not how many of those people could vote.

Kimberling and the Amar brothers agree that the method of conducting presidential elections outlined in the original constitution was transformed by the Twelfth Amendment . Originally, each elector cast two votes for president. The man with the most votes became president, and the runner-up became vice president. When there were no political parties, this system was workable.

But in the election of 1800, two rudimentary political parties--the Federalists led by John Adams and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas--squared off against each other. The Democratic-Republicans came out on top. As the Amar brothers note, "without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority...Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves."

But there was at least one serious glitch in the process. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both representing the Democratic-Republicans, came out with the same number of electoral votes. Kimberling points out that "The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor -- but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time."

The Twelfth Amendment was written to keep such a thing from happening again. It left the South's unfair electoral advantage in place. But it accommodated political parties by changing the system so that electors each cast one vote for president and one vote for vice president.

With the establishment of nationwide political parties, presidential candidates began to run nationwide campaigns for direct voter approval. Given this situation, the Amar brothers say,

Americans must ask themselves whether we want to maintain this peculiar institution in the twenty-first century.

After all, most millennial Americans no longer believe in slavery or sexism. We do not believe that voters lack proper information about national candidates. We do not believe that a national figure claiming a national mandate is unacceptably dangerous. What we do believe is that each American is an equal citizen. We celebrate the idea of one person, one vote-an idea undermined by the electoral college.

Well, maybe not quite everyone celebrates the idea of one person, one vote. Republican operatives are prone to using a variety of shady tactics to suppress voter turnout. Over at Truthdig, Bill Boyarsky argues that efforts to intimidate voters, challenge their eligibility, and subject them to long lines might prove decisive if the election is close. It seems to me that such tactics would be less effective if they had to be applied nationwide, in every precinct, rather than in a few swing states.

The Amar brothers provide more reasons for abolishing the Electoral College and a practical plan for making it happen. As someone who would like to promote democracy and resist the rule of manipulative elites, moving toward direct popular election of the president seems like a good step to take.

Should we drop out of Electoral College? (second part of a three-part series)

So. In the United States, we have this goofy, complicated way of electing the president. In every state, voters go to the polls and vote for a list of people who promise to vote for a particular candidate when the real vote comes up in the Electoral College. (For details, see Part I of this series.)

Is this a good idea or not?

Although the United States was a very different country in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified, some folks argue that the method of electing a president that was adopted then still works well. William Kimberling--in an essay written in 1992, but widely circulated on the Web today--takes this position.

According to Kimberling, if presidents were elected by majority vote of the entire population, "presidents would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones." By contrast, the Electoral College system requires candidates to gain support from many regions of the country.

Kimberling also argues that "the votes of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes." He says this gives "ethnic minority groups and other special interests" more power than they would have otherwise.

Kimberling seems to contradict himself with his next argument, that the Electoral College protects the political stability of the nation by strongly encouraging a two-party system For one thing, "it would be extremely difficult for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough States to have a chance of winning the presidency."

In addition to protecting the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements, the practical effect of the Electoral College (along with the single-member district system of representation in the Congress) is to virtually force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. Conversely, the major parties have every incentive to absorb minor party movements in their continual attempt to win popular majorities in the States. In this process of assimilation, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more radical views if they hope to attain any of their more generally acceptable objectives. Thus we end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views. In other words, such a system forces political coalitions to occur within the political parties rather than within the government.

Stability and moderation sound like good things. But couldn't you also say that this system allows powerful elites to limit the influence of new movements and new ideas and keep their grip on power? Maybe this why there often seems to be very little substantive difference between the two major parties?

Whoops. Looks like my radical bias is slipping in here.

But you don't have to be a radical in order to advocate doing away with the Electoral College. A New York Times editorial from 2004 argues persuasively for just that course of action. (A more recent commentary in the Houston Chronicle makes similar points.)

The Times points out that the presidential candidates focus their campaigns only in those states where the vote is likely to be close. Surefire :"blue" (Democratic) or "red" (Republican) states are ignored by the presidential candidates. Voters in those states are likely to be discouraged from going to the polls, because whether in the majority or the minority, they have good reason to believe that their votes don't matter. (Oklahoma, though not mentioned specifically by the Times, is one of those states.)

The Times argues that Presidential candidates focus on issues important in a small number of swing states, and ignore issues that are of importance elsewhere. As an example, the interests of Cuban Americans get a lot of attention from the candidates--because most Cuban Americans live in the swing state of Florida. Because most people from Puerto Rico live in heavily Democratic states, their concerns are mostly ignored

Furthermore,

The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors -- one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia -- the Electoral College vote can end in a tie...In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote -- one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.

The Times concludes that "The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count."

Personally, before I started this set of blog posts about the Electoral College, I was neutral about whether it was best to keep it or best to get rid of it. It's true that if we had gone by the popular vote, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. But it's also true that even under the Electoral College system, if not for some very questionable practices in Florida, Gore would have won that state, and also the presidency.

But once I started learning more about the history of the Electoral College, I found myself becoming convinced that we really need to get rid of it. For more information about this history, see the final part of this series.

John McCain on Women's "Health"

A friend sent this Daily Show clip to me, and it made me laugh out loud:

Supporting Obama, Voting McKinney

Feminist Peace Network has this thoughtful commentary from Aimee Chew. I found it very convincing.

As I've said before, with Oklahoma solidly in the Republican column, I would vote for Cynthia McKinney if she were on the ballot here.

Predatory Scapegoating

A friend sent me a link to this eye-opening commentary by Patricia J. Williams over at thenation.com.

Some three weeks before New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was forced to resign his office in disgrace (sex! scandal! floozies!), he published an op-ed in the Washington Post. Titled "Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers," the piece expressed Spitzer's concern that for several years there had been a marked increase in predatory lending practices, including distortion of terms, surprise balloon payments, hidden fees and deceptive "teaser" rates. These practices, he wrote, were having a "devastating effect on home buyers." In addition, the sheer number of such transactions, "if left unchecked, threaten...our financial markets." To those in the know (OK, those few egghead "elites" not enthralled by the birth of the Brangelina twins), the situation loomed so egregious that the attorneys general of all fifty states, both Democrats and Republicans, lodged suits against the worst predatory subprime lenders. A number of states, including New York, passed laws to rein in such practices.

What happened next was rather astonishing, even by current Republican standards.

Williams writes that "the Bush administration employed a little-used 1863 law to annul all state antipredatory-lending laws and, if that wasn't enough, to block states from enforcing their own consumer protection laws in suits against national banks."

Ironically, Republican operatives and right-wing radio hosts are now scapegoating black homeowners and "Franklin Raines, former head of Fannie Mae, the single black head of any organization implicated in this mess."

For details, read the whole article.

Josephine the Plumber answers Florida anchor

This video started out as a discussion at the recent Herland Fall Retreat. We had fun with it:



Here's the news report we used as our hook.

For a more serious and detailed discussion of McCain and Obama's tax policies, you can check out this post on the TaxProf Blog. Also worth reading is Mitchell Rofsky's commentary over on Common Dreams.

Background on Josephine the Plumber

In the final presidential candidate debate, John McCain accused Barack Obama of wanting to raise taxes on struggling small business owners. As an example, McCain spoke about Joe Wurzelbacher from Toledo, Ohio, a plumber who planned to buy his own plumbing business, and feared that he might suffer under Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 a year. McCain and Obama apparently spent much of the rest of the debate arguing about how their policies would affect people like Joe the Plumber.

But of course, anyone with feminist sensibilities might wonder, what about Josephine the Plumber?

For instance, Teresa C. Younger points out that the candidates failed to focus on female small-business owners. And Judi Jennings uses the idea of Josephine the Plumber to call for what she describes as a "moral economy." Meanwhile, Revolution 21's Blog for the People remembers the original Josephine the Plumber who sold Comet cleanser on t.v.--and also points out that Josephine "is fine with Barack Obama's tax plan. She makes only 67 percent of what Joe the Plumber does and won't get above the Democrat's $250,000 soak 'em threshold."

No "good war" in Afghanistan

Over at truthout, Camillo "Mac" Bica makes The Case Against Escalation of the War in Afghanistan.

"Gay Marriage and Subversion of the Republic"

Gay marriage has never been my issue, but over on Truthdig, Scott Tucker has a thoughtful analysis of California's Proposition 8. Tucker points out that

There is a much larger and starker problem with the Democratic Party. If Proposition 8 wins, the political illusions of many gay people must be part of the public accounting. Likewise, elected Democrats gone AWOL will deserve consequences at the polls. Career Democrats with extraordinary wealth have made some donations to groups opposing Proposition 8, but they have been stingy in spending real political capital for this cause.

Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden rarely mention gay people except when speaking directly to small audiences of gay and gay-friendly donors. The issue of gay marriage is one they prefer to avoid. All the more reason we might expect the top elected Democrats of California to take up this fight in earnest. But in fact, the career Democrats, with the important exception of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, have dealt with Proposition 8 only in smaller and safer side conversations, and not in strong public messages. This is true both in California and in Congress.

Haven't we already caused enough trouble?

JOTMAN reports a US attack on Syria.

Capitalism may be safe for now...

Well, it was a valiant effort, as Barbara Ehrenreich reveals in this Report From the Socialist International Conspiracy. Ehrenreich's entire post is well worth reading for its detailed and serious analysis of our economic and political situation, but here's a snippet to get you started:

First, we selected a cadre of crusty punks from the streets of Seattle, stripped off their Che T-shirts, suited them up in Armanis and wingtips and introduced them to the concepts of derivatives and dental floss. Then we shipped them to Wall Street with firm instructions: Make as much money as you can, as fast as you can, and as soon as the money starts rolling in, send it out to make more money by whatever dodgy means you can find--subprime loans, credit default swaps, pyramid schemes--anything goes. And oh yes: Spend your own earnings in the most flamboyantly gross ways you can think of--$10,000 martinis, fountains of champagne--so as to fan the flames of class resentment.

These brave comrades did far better than we could have imagined, quickly adapting to lives of excess and greed punctuated only by squash games at the Century Club. But we could not have inflicted such massive damage to capitalism if we hadn't also planted skilled agents in high places within the government and various quasi-governmental agencies. When all this is over, Phil Gramm, for example--the former senator and McCain economics advisor--will be getting a Hero of Socialism award for his courageous battle against financial regulation. That's the only name I can name at this moment, but I will tell you this: If you happened to have been in a playground in the suburbs of DC any time in the last few years, and noticed an impeccably dressed elderly man poking around under rocks, that was a certain Federal Reserve Chairman, looking for his weekly orders from the central committee.

Ehrenreich goes on to explain how a counter-coup by Goldman Sachs capitalists has put the entire plan at jeopardy. But there is still one presidential candidate who could help the socialist conspiracy succeed, as she reveals at the end of her report.

Unfortunately, if this analysis is accurate, the capitalists are out of danger.

As for myself, I am off to the Herland Fall Retreat.

As for you, if you get a weekend, I hope you enjoy it.

Eight Against Eight

Thanks to Angry Black Bitch for this report about an effort to defeat California's anti-gay Proposition 8:

On October 20, 2008, eight influential lesbian bloggers launched 8 Against 8, an eight-day collaborative online fundraising drive to defeat Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that seeks to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California.

The bloggers’ 8 Against 8 campaign donation page is located at www.8against8.com.

Erraticness to come

November is getting closer and closer. That means it's almost time for National Novel Writing Month once again. Thirty days. Fifty thousand words. Nothing to it. Well, maybe there's a little bit of something to it, because if I'm planning to crank out 50,000 words of fiction in November, I might not be writing very many blog posts. Just so you know.

Before then, I'm hoping to finish a multi-part series on the Electoral College. But there is also the Herland Fall Retreat coming up this weekend. So, if posting gets a bit erratic around here in the near future, don't worry. It will probably pick up again in December.

I do think I've got at least one excellent guest blogger who will be posting some material next month. And if you think you might like to be a guest blogger at Talking to Myself, you could email me. Unless, of course, you're going to be writing your own novel. Which you might like to consider, considering how much fun it is. Of course there is a sort of metaphor problem having a blog called Talking to Myself that has guest bloggers, but why should blogging be less contradictory than life itself?

Women Could Reach 'Critical Mass' in Congress

Women's eNews reports that women could increase our representation in the US Congress from 16 percent to 19 percent come Election Day.

Presently, the US ranks "69th in the world for female representation in government."

Feminist Activists Condemn The Government of Nicaragua

Well, this is disappointing. I'm sorry to say I haven't been followed the situation in Nicaragua in years. But I remember, 20 years ago or so, when many lesbian feminists supported Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas for the work they were doing to bring economic and political justice to Nicaragua after years of misrule by the dictatorial Somoza family.

While the Sandinistas were not specifically feminist, the active involvement of women in the Nicaraguan revolution seemed to create the conditions for the growth of feminism in that country. Many lesbian feminists opposed the Reagan Administration's illegal efforts to overthrow the Sandinistas. Many of us mourned the 1990 election that saw a right-wing candidate (a woman, ironically) defeat Ortega.

According to Wikipedia,

In 1998, Daniel Ortega's stepdaughter Zoilamérica Narváez released a 48-page report describing her allegations that Ortega had systematically sexually abused her for 9 years beginning when she was 11.^[13] The case could not proceed in Nicaraguan courts because Ortega had immunity from prosecution as a member of parliament, and the five-year statute of limitations for sexual abuse and rape charges was judged to have been exceeded. Narváez's complaint was heard by the Inter American Human Rights Commission on 4 March 2002.^[14]

In 2006, Hillel Neuer, the executive director of UN Watch, expressed concern that election of Ortega, described as having "highly substantiated" charges of sexual abuse raised against him, to the Presidency of Nicaragua, could undermine worldwide NGO efforts against child abuse and sexual violence.^[1

Also, after his 2006 return to the presidency, Ortega apparently became much more conservative. Part of this move to the right involved embracing socially conservative policies endorsed by the Catholic church, including a ban on all abortions.

Now, Feminist Peace Network is carrying a statement issued by feminists at the Social Forum of the Americas in Guatemala, condemning Ortega and the Sandinista government for its persecution of feminist activists. The statement condemns

• Physical violence and political persecution of feminists and their organizations
• Destruction and removal of files and information from the offices of the Research Center for Communication (CINCO) and from the Autonomous Women’s Movement (MAM) of Nicaragua
• A call to the people of Nicaragua to mobilize and take mob-style actions against feminists
• The order of search and seizure against a women’s group in Matagalpa called Grupo Venancia

These acts are part of an orchestrated campaign to criminalize feminists for their work to re-instate the right to therapeutic abortion (in cases where the mother’s life is at stake) and as reprisal for the denouncements of the sexual abuse of Zoila America by Daniel Ortega generated by many women’s organizations.

Apparently Ortega still has it in him to denounce capitalism and the abuses committed by the US government. The extreme misogyny of his government is certainly a disservice to socialism.

Thailand still in crisis

JOTMAN seems to be a liberal guy who has an interesting blog that focuses mostly on international politics, though he has also been posting a lot about the US presidential race.

Back in September, I was trying to sort out the political crisis in Thailand. I summarized what mainstream sources of information had to say about the situation. But something seemed to be missing from the reports that I was reading. JOTMAN had a post that had a little bit of analysis and a lot of on-the-scene videos and commentaries.

Once Prime Minister Samek Sundaravej was forced to resign, I thought the crisis had settled down. But apparently, opponents and supporters of the ruling party are still clashing.

In this post, JOTMAN argues that the Thai people need to learn to work within their democratic institutions, rather than hoping for intervention from the king, as supported by The Economist. In another post, he analyzes the recent border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia.

More on pay equity

In a recent post, I noted that equal pay for women has been one of the neglected issues of this election.

Not everyone is neglecting the issue. AlterNet has this post from RH Reality Check, comparing the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on pay equity issues.

And while this information isn't targeted to the election, the Institute for Women's Policy Research has an interesting and useful report on the economic status of women of color in the United States.

Nomi Prins on Paulson's Plan B

When the $750 billion plan to buy toxic securities failed to perk up Wall Street, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson switched course to buy stock in banks as a way to unfreeze the credit market.

Writing for The Nation, Nomi Prins thinks that Paulson's Plan B still won't work. Former Wall Streeter Prins was once a managing director for Goldman Sachs.

Prins is calling for reregulating the financial markets. The whole article is short, lively, and worth reading.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives win a muscular minority mandate in Canadian elections

Here's a report from the LA Daily News on the results of yesterday's Canadian elections.

Minneota student to plead innocent to terrorism charges

Thanks to CommonDreams for posting this Minnesota Daily article about non-violent community activists charged with terrorism under the Minnesota Patriot Act in connection with demonstrations at the Republican National Convention.

The RNC Welcoming Committee wasn't planning any illegal actions, Specktor said; instead they set up housing, meals and legal support for other protesters, some of whom might engage in civil disobedience.

"Basically, we provided the infrastructure for people to survive in the city while they're protesting," he said.

But authorities pointed to the group's website, which urged a strategy called "swarm, seize, and stay" that used civil disobedience to try to shut down the convention.

Civil disobedience, while illegal, can be traced back to the foundation of the United States and is very different from terrorism, Specktor said.

"[Civil disobedience is] consciously making a decision to disobey for a higher purpose," he said. "It's a time-honored tradition that we celebrate in our history books, the people in the civil rights era who sat in at the lunch counters and wouldn't get out of their seats."

The group had been infiltrated by paid police informants for up to a year before the convention.

Pretty unnerving stuff.

Women still under-represented in local government in Senegal

Despite passage of a 1996 Decentralisation Law, women are still under-represented in local politics in Senegal, according to Inter Press Service.

"The law should have helped women reach more positions of authority, especially in local governance," says Penda Mbow, a history professor at Dakar's Cheikh Anta Diop University. According to Mbow, women have the political will but face social and cultural hurdles at many levels.

"There are still men who won't take orders from a women. Senegal is one of the many countries where women are relegated to secondary roles in public administration, major institutions and political power," she explained to IPS.

Women is Senegal reportedly make up 70 percent of rural workers, 70 percent of the informal labor market, 15 percent of workers in public administration, and 4 percent of workers in the formal private sector labor force.

There are promising signs surrounding women's participation in Senegalese politics, but there's still a long way to go. In the 2008 UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Report on Women's Progress it will take developing nations two generations -- up til 2045 -- to reach the point where no gender holds more than 60 percent of parliamentary seats.

I wonder how long it will take us to reach that point in the US.

Two economic updates from Inter Press Service

First, U.S. Bows to Pressure, Will Buy Banks:

BOSTON, Oct 11 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration announced Friday evening it would buy shares in troubled U.S. banks, a move that upstages its own rigid, free-market ideology, and answers calls for the action by European leaders.

Second, Calls for Change Mount as IMF, World Bank Meet

WASHINGTON, Oct 11 (IPS) - Gone are the mobs in the street. Faced with a global recession, those demanding change from the rulers of the global economy appear to be on the inside as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank hold annual talks.

Both articles are worth reading.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

The Campaign for America's Future points out an important issue that has been largely ignored by candidates this election year: Equal Pay for Equal Work.

Women earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by men. Over the course of her career, the typical working woman loses almost a quarter of a million dollars in wages, simply for being female. [Institute for Women’s Policy Research] Losses for women with advanced degrees or careers in high-paying fields can total as much as $2 million over their working lives. Across the nation, the gender pay gap costs families $200 billion every year. [AFL-CIO]

Roubini Global Economics

On Friday night I was tooling down Classen Blvd. in my automobile, wasting precious natural resources and listening to the public radio program Left, Right and Center. One of the commentators--I think it was Matt Miller--mentioned the web site RGE Monitor as a good source of news about the current economic crisis. Some parts of this website are only available to subscribers, but it looks as if there is also plenty of information available without a subscription.

Oklahoma Ultrasound Law Challenged

Late Thursday, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a legal challenge against an Oklahoma law that requires any woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a doctor describe in detail what the image shows. The Oklahoma legislature passed the law in April, overriding Governor Brad Henry's veto.

The lawsuit, Nova Health Systems v. Brad Henry, was filed in Oklahoma County District Court on behalf of a Tulsa clinic. According to the Center, if the law is enforced, this clinic "will be forced to close down. The clinic provides more than 200 women abortion services a month. If it shuts down, that means more than 2000 women a year throughout Oklahoma and surrounding states will have no access to abortion. "

The Center describes the Oklahoma law as the most extreme abortion ultrasound law in the nation. It says that the law "prevents a woman from suing her doctor if he or she intentionally withholds other information about the fetus, such as a severe developmental defect. The statute also requires doctors to use a specific regimen for administering the medical abortion pill, despite that regimen being less effective and more costly than the one strongly recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)."

In challenging the law, the Center argues that it endangers the patient's health and invades her privacy. The Center also argues that the law interferes with a doctor's professional medical judgment in deciding what treatment is best for a patient.

"Nationally, this case has implications because the law at issue is among the first signs that anti-choice legislatures are beginning to take cues from last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.' Should this law be upheld, it could encourage copycat legislation around the country."

Thanks to t r u t h o u t for publishing the Associated Press article that led me to this story.

Just in time for National Coming Out Day

Let's just say that gay marriage isn't my issue. Coming out of a radical feminist background, I tend to understand marriage as an obnoxious patriarchal institution. I have a difficult time understanding why lesbians want to take part in it. Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that the Connecticut Supreme Court has overturned a state law that outlawed gay marriage.

National Coming Out Day is something else I've been kind of skeptical about. The argument goes that if all of the queers came out of the closet, discrimination against us would vanish because heterosexuals would realize how many of us there are and that they actually know some of us.

I beg to differ. Visible minorities suffer at least as much discrimination as invisible minorities do.

Nevertheless, in case any of y'all are still wondering, I think it's time that I let you know...I'm a lesbian.

"I Don't Have to Vote for Palin to Respect Her"

Women's eNews offers this thought-provoking commentary by Jane Marcellus about news media coverage of Sarah Palin.

I call this process "symbolic echo" because it's happened before, and it's happening again. If the image of a woman willing to be an "office wife" (a term for secretaries that originated in the 1920s) replaces the image of one like Hillary, maybe those ceiling cracks can be repaired, because we all become not Hillarys, but Sarahs. And if she is the object of ridicule, then all women, by extension, are ridiculed. As most women in the workplace know, nothing is as insidious and disempowering as ridicule.

Abortion rights and the November election

Katha Pollit asks some follow-up questions about abortion rights that she would have liked to pose to Sarah Palin during the vice presidential debate. It's a short article and well worth reading. And it reminds me of the importance of abortion rights in the November 2008 elections in general. Here are some links to information on this subject.

RH Reality Check has a 2008 Election and Reproductive Health page with lots of info and links about Senate Races, House races, and ballot initiatives.

Some of the ballot measures are quite alarming. According to NARAL,

In Colorado, a constitutional amendment on the November ballot would define "person" to include "any human being from the moment of fertilization" for those provisions in Colorado's constitution dealing with inalienable rights, due process, and equality of Justice. The true goal of Amendment 48 is to make all abortions illegal. It could also lead to bans on birth control, stem cell research, and in-vitro fertilization. This would eliminate a woman's rights to make personal, private decisions about her own body, free from governmental interference.

A ballot measure that seeks to outlaw abortion is up for a vote in South Dakota, despite that state's defeat of a similar initiative two years ago.

In California, a measure is on the ballot that seeks to impose a 48-hour waiting period for abortions, as well as requiring minors to notify their parents. California, of course, is also facing a ballot measure to outlaw gay marriage.

Markets keep falling, Fed cuts key rate, could crisis spur fundamental change?

Following more dramatic stock market declines worldwide, the Federal Reserve ordered an emergency cut in a key interest rate this morning.

Jesse Jackson explains that "We are witnessing the collapse of a failed ideology -- what the famed investor George Soros calls `market fundamentalism,' the belief that markets are always perfect and government should deregulate, cut taxes and get out of the way." The $700 billion bailout, Jackson argues, does nothing to address the real problems facing real people in the real economy. I would add that even financial markets have some inkling of this reality--and that is why they are continuing to fall.

Meanwhile, economists attending the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Barcelona say that the worldwide economic crisis may offer the chance to rethink neoliberal economics and create a sustainable economy.

Let's hope they're right.

Can we have our $700 billion back?

Looks like the stock market had another dramatic drop Monday. Given that it was almost my bedtime, I didn't have time to plow through all of the news. But Feminist Peace Network and Echidne of the Snakes have some useful and interesting observations.

Oklahoma voter registration deadline Friday!!!

Okay, Okies, have you registered to vote yet? If you haven't registered, YOU NEED TO GET IT DONE BY FRIDAY. That's right. The deadline for the state election board to have your registration is this Friday, October 10.

For more details, see this previous post, or contact:

OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD
Room B-6, State Capitol Building
PO Box 53156
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152

Telephone 405-521-2391
Fax 405-521-6457

Or follow this link to find out how to contact your county election board.

The time to stop procrastinating is NOW.

Sometimes satire is preferable to reality...

I was out blogging at Sauced on Sunday night, and saw that this video had been posted by lots of the contributors to feminist blogs. So I watched it. I laughed. I thought that passing it on here would be less work than finishing that long-delayed post about the Electoral College. I suppose most of y'all have teevee sets and have already seen it...but anyway, here it is.

Don't mourn, organize

Well, they passed the darned thing on Friday, and President Bush signed it. By a vote of 263-171, the House approved the Senate version of a megabillion Wall Street bailout.

As this thing was coming down, I personally did a lot of thinking, reading, and flip-flopping. Was this package a necessary evil that ought to be modified with stricter regulation for Wall Street and more help for homeowners stuck with predatory mortgages? Or was it just a bad idea?

At this point, I think it was just a bad idea. Economist Dean Baker and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich agree with me. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson thinks it's evil, but necessary. Either way, it's now the law of the land.

The $700 billion package (which, if you add the $150 worth of tax breaks the Senate added to it, may now cost at least $850 billion) is the most expensive government intervention in history. The war in Iraq, by comparison, has cost $600 billion so far.

So now what? How do we go forward from here? I'm seeing a number of interesting proposals out on the Net.

The Institute for Policy Studies calls for action to implement an unfinished agenda to deal with the Wall Street collapse and the bursting of the real estate bubble.

This bill doesn't do five fundamental things that the American public desperately needs, and we commit to pursuing this unfinished business in the months ahead (see IPS' Sensible Plan for details):
a. Create a stimulus for Main Street that addresses the recession in the real economy.
b. Establish a plan to ensure that the Wall Street speculators pay for the bailout.
c. Enact government regulation to shut down the casino — and rein in the unregulated financial sector of hedge funds, derivatives and other complex financial instruments.
d. Establish effective limits on all CEO pay (not just severance pay) and prohibitions on profiteering from the bailout.
e. Address the needs of poor homeowners who have lost or are facing the likely loss of their homes.

There are also several good articles posted on The Nation's web site. William Greider calls for "Born-Again Democracy," for popular action to force the federal government to re-regulate Wall Street, restructure the banking industry, and provide meaningful economic stimulus to combat the recession. Nicholas von Hoffman offers tax and fee proposals for "How to Break the Money Monopoly." Economist Joseph Stiglitz proposes "A Better Bailout."

Walden Bello's Wall Street Meltdown Primer is still timely.

I'm cautiously optimistic that this economic crisis can inspire a popular movement to change the economy of the United States in a way that restrains unbridled capitalism and helps ordinary people.

I couldn't bear to watch...

I steadfastly ignored the vice presidential debate the other evening, but AngryBlackBitch has a thoughtful and interesting commentary.

Linda Hirschman notes that Sarah Palin's performance turned off undecided women voters. (Thanks to AlterNet for the link.)

This may be scarier than the Wall Street mess

On Wednesday evening the US Senate may done something worse than pass the $800 billion Wall Street bailout plan.

Inter Press Service offers this report on an agreement ratified by the Senate that allows US companies to sell nuclear technology to India. This despite the fact that India refuses to join the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

With passage of the legislation, Washington will officially end a nuclear embargo on India that it first imposed in retaliation for Delhi's explosion of a nuclear device in 1974.

After the test, Washington helped organise the international "Nuclear Suppliers Group" (NSG) that strictly regulated what nuclear technology its members could provide to "non-nuclear states" that refused to join the NPT and submitted to certain International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. India refused to do so and in 1998 conducted yet another test.

In order for the deal concluded between the U.S. and India last year to be ratified by Congress, the 45-member NSG had to agree to largely exempt India from those terms, essentially lifting the ban on civilian nuclear trade. After a strong lobbying campaign by Washington, the NSG agreed to do so in early September.

India has agreed to open 14 of its civilian reactors to international inspectors. But the deal with the US specifically excludes India's 8 military reactors from the inspection agreement.

Come celebrate as Herland turns 25!

Oklahoma City's own Herland Sister Resources is celebrating her 25th anniversary this coming Saturday from 4:30 to 7:00.

The party will take place at Herland, located at 2312 NW 39th. You're encouraged to send photos or stories for the scrapbook to herland@herlandsisters.org or to bring them along to the celebration.

You can read more about Herland's history here.

In the interest of full disclosure, I suppose I ought to say that the editor of the Herland Voice was gracious enough to select this blog as their "Website of the Month" for October. But honestly, I'd want to brag on Herland, anyway. I never expected to find anything this wonderful in Oklahoma City.

Senate passes Wall Street bailout bill

A little while ago, I heard the news on NPR: Senate OKs Bailout Package, House to Vote Friday.

According to NPR:

The Senate approved a $700 billion rescue package for the financial industry Wednesday night, giving new life to the bailout by loading it with tax breaks and other provisions tailored to help ease its passage in the House, where an earlier version fell a dozen votes short Monday.

It's interesting how this thing keeps getting wordier and wordier as it goes along. Treasury Secretary Paulson's original proposal was about 3 pages long. The proposal rejected by the House on Monday was 110 pages long. The bill passed by the Senate just now runs to 451 pages. (Thanks to Marketplace for the link to the Senate bill.)

I'm still not entirely sure what I think about all this. But it seems that spending all this money on buying "toxic securities" from reckless investment firms might limit the amount of resources available to deal with other causes of the recession we're in.

As Dean Baker points out, the main problem is not insolvent banks, it's the loss of ability by consumers to spend because of the collapse of an $8 trillion housing bubble. This bubble was allowed to grow unchecked because "the folks currently in charge were out to lunch." Baker describes "predatory mortgages" foisted on "moderate income families, many of whom were black or Hispanic." This happened while "Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan repeatedly insisted that there was no housing bubble as house prices got ever further out of line with fundamentals."

Baker continues:

The main cause of the economy's weakness is not insolvent banks and lack of credit; it's the loss of $4 trillion to $5 trillion in housing equity as a result of the bubble's partial deflation. Families used their equity to support their consumption in the years from 2002 to 2007, as the savings rate fell to almost zero.

With much of this equity now eliminated by the collapse of the bubble, many families can no longer sustain their levels of consumption. The main reason that banks won't lend to these families is that they no longer have home equity to serve as collateral. It wouldn't matter how much money the banks had, they are not going to make mortgage loans to people who have no equity.

Baker says that in order for the economy to improve, we have to find other ways to boost demand.

Which brings me to this post from Women's eNews about an economic stimulus packages that failed last week:

Almost forgotten Monday amid the wreckage of the $700 billion legislation to bail out Wall Street was the failure days earlier of a relatively small $61 billion bill that would have helped low-income people weather the stormy economy.

The "economic recovery" bill favored by Democrats quietly slipped into political oblivion on Friday. It would have pumped billions into infrastructure projects, extend unemployment insurance and beefed up subsidies for health care, food, housing and other programs. Nearly $600 million was envisioned for food subsidies to help offset steep price jumps at the supermarket.

As the majority of the nation's poor, women would have been the main beneficiaries of more government spending on many of the targeted federal programs, said Joan Entmacher, a budget analyst at the National Women's Law Center, a legal advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "It is very disappointing," she said.

(I think this is the same bill I mentioned in an earlier post.)

Baker calls for "directly injecting capital into the banks. The taxpayers give them the money and then we own some, or all, of the bank." One group of populist Democrats proposes a "no bailouts bill." Jonathan Tasini over on Working Life has a more comprehensive and radical proposal.

I wish I had a brilliant concluding sentence, but it past my bedtime.

Midwives Fight AMA to Provide Black Maternal Care

Women's eNews reports that Midwives Fight AMA to Provide Black Maternal Care.

NEW YORK (WOMENSENEWS)--Shafia Monroe's sixth annual International Black Midwives and Healers Conference, taking place in New York's Harlem neighborhood Oct. 10-12, comes in the middle of a showdown between home-birth midwives and the American Medical Association.

In June the Chicago-based physicians' group, the country's largest, promised to back state legislation that restricts licensing to nurse midwives, those who have additional nursing training and certification required to work in hospitals.

The group wants to bar licensing to certified professional midwives. These midwives assist home births and specialize in the intimate, emotional and family-focused care of mothers. They often promote vaginal births over Caesarean sections, which precede the majority of maternal deaths in the United States.