|
|
Sunday, July 31
The Myth of Marriage
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 31 Jul 2005 01:00 PM CDT
 The Myth of Marriage
by Monica Mehta, AlterNet.org
A radical new book debunks the concept of marriage as a time-honored institution, and argues that we need to loosen up about it.
The institution of traditional marriage is in a state of crisis.
There's
a misstatement in that sentence. But it's not that marriage is in
crisis. It's that the institution of marriage is, or was at any time,
traditional. As Stephanie Coontz reveals in her new book, Marriage, A
History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage,
human unions have gone through a number of evolutions. We would be
remiss to think that it was ever a stable institution. Instead, it has
always been in flux....
Coontz describes her thesis:
The
basic argument for this book is that what we think of as the
traditional marriage - the marriage based on love, and for the purpose
of making peoples' individual lives better - this was not the purpose
of marriage for thousands of years. Instead, marriage was about
acquiring in-laws, jockeying for political and economic advantage, and
building the family labor force. It was only 200 years ago that people
began to believe that young people could choose their own mates, and
should choose their own mates on the basis of something like love,
which had formerly been considered a tremendous threat to marriage. As
soon as people began to do that, all of the demands that we now think
of as radical new demands - from the demand for divorce, to the right
to refuse a shotgun marriage, to even recognition of same-sex relations
- were immediately raised.
But it
was not until the last 30 years that people began to actually act on
the new ideals for beloved marriage. Social conservatives say that
there has been a crisis in the last 30 years, and I agree with them,
that marriage has been tremendously weakened as an institution. It's
lost its former monopoly over organizing sexuality, male-female
relations, political social and economic rights, and personal
legitimacy. Where I disagree with them, is in how to evaluate that
change and its consequences. I agree that it poses tremendous
challenges to us, the breakdown of this monopoly of marriage, but I
disagree with the idea that one could make marriage better by trying to
shoehorn everyone back into the older forms of marriage. Because the
main things that have weakened marriage as an institution are the same
things that have strengthened marriage as a relationship. Because
marriage is now more optional, because for the first time ever, men and
women have equal rights in marriage and outside it. Because women have
economic independence. This means that you can negotiate a marriage,
and make it more flexible and individualized than ever before. So a
marriage when it works is better for people, it's fairer, it's more
satisfying, it's more loving and fulfilling than ever before in history.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
Newsworthy Notes from the Blogosphere
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 31 Jul 2005 04:00 AM CDT
 Newsworthy Notes from the Blogosphere
Hey, Look at This! Gordon Fischer has a Blog!
Gordon, you sly dog, why didn't you mention this when you wrote me the other day?
Gordon Fischer, former head of the Iowa Democratic Party, says of his new blog, Iowa True Blue:
 One of the principles guiding this Blog is the concept of personal responsibility.
For Iowa's public servants, that means being accountable for their
votes, the contributions they receive, and the leadership they choose.
On the topic of Congressman Tom Delay, Iowa Republicans appear to have
a great deal of explaining to do.
Couldn't agree more, Gordon. Without accountability, we've got NOTHING.
So, if
you're into Iowa politics (and why are you reading Blog for Iowa if you're not?), definitely check out Iowa True Blue.
It ought to be a good read. And I love that great graphic
depiction of Ol' Gordo! (pictured above on the right) Nice start, Gordon!
And speaking of accountability . . .
From Sirotablog, 7.28.05
by David Sirota
Pelosi Demands Accountability from the "CAFTA 15"
Roll
Call has a new report up about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D)
holding an emergency meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee
tonight to discuss formal sanctions against the 15 Democrats who sold
out their party and voted for the corporate-written Central American
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Pelosi raised "the likelihood that
defectors' committee assignments would be reviewed at tonight’s meeting
of the Steering Committee." That's absolutely necessary - why should
Democrats who undermine their party be given plum committee assignments
over other, far more loyal and principled Democrats? Pelosi should be
commended for her courage - and now she needs to back up her words with
action.
The
story goes on to note that "Several Democratic sources said Pelosi and
other House leaders are particularly upset with New York Reps. Greg
Meeks and Ed Towns, members of exclusive committees with safe seats,
who voted for CAFTA."
Meeks
had the nerve to say that he "voted my conscience" on CAFTA, despite
his long history of selling off his votes on trade to the highest
corporate bidder.
From Yellow Dog Blog, 7.29.05
by Bob Geiger
And for MORE Democratic Straight Talk . . .
Democrat
Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran who is running for Congress in Ohio's
second district – the election is Tuesday – appeared on "Hardball" with
Chris Matthews last night. Hackett appears to be following some
of DNC Chairman Howard Dean's lead, giving straight answers and
refusing to back down from his criticism of [George W. Bush] and
calling Bush a "chicken hawk."
Here are excerpts:
MATTHEWS: What is a chicken hawk?
HACKETT:
Chicken hawk is somebody who is not willing to fight the fight of their
age, their generation, and speaks brashly and with unnecessary bravado
when they're sending other kids and other sons and daughters, other
folks' sons and daughters, off to war.
It is --
encompasses language like, bring it on. It encompasses language like,
you're with us or you're against us and we're going to take it to you.
And I think that's dangerous. And I've got to tell you, you know, when
we're over there fighting in Iraq, Marines and soldiers, and we hear
language like, bring it on coming from the Oval Office, that's a
danger. We don't need that. That's encouraging an...
MATTHEWS: Paul, why did you call [Bush] -- why did you call [Bush], whose office you respect, a chicken hawk?
HACKETT:
I respect the office of the president of the United States. I said
those words. I meant them. I stand by them. I would say them again.
Saturday, July 30
Five Minutes with Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's The Daily Show
by
Linda Thieman
on Sat 30 Jul 2005 11:00 AM CDT
 Five Minutes with Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's The Daily Show
by Elana Berkowitz and Amy Schiller, CampusProgress.org
As
one of America’s finest voices in fake news reporting, Stephen
Colbert’s straight guy blue suit, arched eyebrows and deadpan
seriousness have become highlights of Comedy Central’s “The Daily
Show,” where he is the senior correspondent. As cable news increasingly
becomes a sad parody of itself, “The Daily Show,” an actual parody
show, remains profoundly funny and totally relevant.
CP:
When you were developing your super straight guy look and sound, which
actual media personalities did you model yourself after?
SC:
... [In] terms of who I channel, my natural inclination was Stone
Phillips, who has the greatest neck in journalism. And he’s got the
most amazingly severe head tilt at the end of tragic statements, like
“there were no…survivors.” He just tilts his head a bit on that
“survivors” as if to say “It’s true. It’s sad. There were none.”
...And then I also used Geraldo Rivera, because he’s got this great
sense of mission. He just thinks he’s gonna change the world with this
report. He’s got that early seventies hip trench coat “busting this
thing wide open” look going on. So those two guys.
CP:
You do “This Week in God.” Which is one of our favorite segments.
You’re from a South Carolinian religious family and you are a
church-goer yourself. Why did you choose to focus so heavily on
religion right now?
SC:
We used to do This Week in God only once a month, but if there was room
on the show we could do it every week! There is so much religion in
public life. It has become acceptable for court decisions to be based
on the Gospel. There’s so much religion in public life, it’s a
religious pandemic. It’s everywhere. It’s not a needle in a haystack.
We throw away stories every week. I know we’re not a secular state like
France which has it in their constitution, but boy I wish our founding
fathers had been at little clearer in that First Amendment.
CP:
How do you keep finding people to interview on “The Daily Show” who
either don’t know the interview is satirical or are willing to play
along?
SC:
Everyone knows what the show is at this point, but they don’t
understand where we’re going with the conversation. I talk to them for
hours and you’re seeing the 3-4 questions that are important to my
segment. They don’t necessarily perceive a 3 minute edit out of a 3
hour conversation. I don’t make a big deal out of being funny, and then
we do our best to bring ‘em back alive in editing.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
Friday, July 29
Largest Public Health Cutback in US History
by
Caroline Vernon
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 04:53 PM CDT
 Largest Public Health Cutback in United States History
By Caroline Vernon
(excerpts from familiesusa.org and tenncare.org)
* * * * *
Here in Eastern Iowa, the Health Care forum of Progressive Action for the Common Good will hold a candlelight vigil and bell ringing at 8:30pm on Sunday, July 31st, at the Unitarian Church, 3707 Eastern Avenue, in Davenport. The vigil will also be preceded at 7:30 by the showing of the documentary, “323,000.” The ringing of the bells will represent the 99 counties in Iowa as a way of showing support and solidarity with the people of Tennessee and the 719,000 TennCare enrollees affected by the cuts.
* * * * *
Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen is executing the cruelest and largest cutback of public health coverage in the history of the United States. Every day, nearly 2,000 people enrolled in TennCare, the State Medicaid program, are receiving letters of termination or reduction of benefits. Hundreds of thousands of Tennesseans, many of whom are chronically ill and disabled, are living in fear because of Governor Bredesen’s decision to strip them of the only health care they have. Now, more than ever, they need your help.
Unfortunately, the national media has done very little to address this issue even though many people stand to lose their lives as a result of these drastic and unnecessary cuts. To make matters worse, internal State memos and documents, obtained by the Tennessee Justice Center, reveal that the State had orchestrated and implemented these cuts merely as a political strategy, with no regard for the consequences they are having on people's lives. The Tennessee Justice Center is a non profit, non-partisan law office. TJC represents low income families, and all of their clients are on TennCare.
The documentary, “323,000,” is the culmination of a 6-month investigation into the largest health care cuts in the history of this country. In the course of the investigations, documents were discovered that definitely prove that Governor Bredesen did not tell the truth to the citizens of Tennessee when he said the reason for the drastic cuts were the fault of the Tennessee Justice Center and other TennCare advocates. In fact, as you will learn below, the cuts are part of a bigger political strategy.
In 2002, Governor Bredesen campaigned on a platform to reform TennCare. In a printed press interview, he cited one of the problems with the program was due to the fact that the MCO’s (Managed Care Organizations) were overpaid and not bearing any of the risk or properly managing care.
In early 2003, after he was inaugurated, Governor Bredesen began negotiating with the Tennessee Justice Center in an attempt to settle 4 class action lawsuits that they had filed against the State. By the end of the summer, they had completed negotiations and entered into settlement agreements. Governor Bredesen had said at that time that these settlement agreements had put the State in the drivers seat to be able to manage TennCare. He made promises then that he would implement reform. Throughout the rest of 2003 no reforms were implemented.
more »
Fluoride: Do You REALLY Know What's in Your Drinking Water?
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 02:06 PM CDT
 Fluoride: Do You REALLY Know What's in Your Drinking Water?
by Kelly Hearn, AlterNet.org
Anti-fluoride
activists say a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence
counters long-held assumptions about fluoride's safety, and they're
turning up the heat.
Last
month, the Environmental Working Group, a respected Washington-based
watchdog organization, called public attention to a Harvard study that
shows links between fluoride and bone cancer in young boys. That study,
conducted in 2001 by Elise Bassin, a Harvard doctoral student, stated
that "among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level
was associated with an increased risk of developing [the rare form of
bone cancer] osteosarcoma. The association was most apparent between
ages 5-10, with a peak at 6 to 8 years of age."
The EWG,
which claims Bassin's study is the most comprehensive of its kind to
date, also formally accused Chester Douglass, a researcher at Harvard's
dental school and Bassin's former supervisor, of playing down her
results in a 2004 report to federal officials.
The EWG
has asked the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) to investigate Douglass and has called on federal officials to
list fluoride as a potential carcinogen.
Douglass,
who is the editor of an academic publication funded by the toothpaste
industry, told officials that his $1.3 million federally funded study,
which included Bassin's work, showed no significant link between
fluoridated water and osteosarcoma.
Both Harvard and the NIEHS are investigating EWG's claims.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
It just goes to show that it depends on who funds the study.
The Stench of Hog Lot Expansion in Scott County
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 29 Jul 2005 04:00 AM CDT
 The Stench of Hog Lot Expansion in Scott County
by Molly Regan
On
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, the Scott County Board of Supervisors in
IOWA voted 5–0 to recommend that a hog farmer and his family be allowed
to expand their operations. Thomas Dittmer, Grandview Farms, and
family currently maintain about 1250 hogs in confinement. They
want to increase that number to as many as 3000. The Board does
not have FINAL say as to whether this will take place, they just
recommend yea or nay. The IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(IDNR) has the final say.
Dittmer
applied for a permit to the IDNR June 30th and there is a 30-day period
for PUBLIC INPUT and input from the Board of Supervisors. Last
night, the Board forwarded their recommendation to the IDNR.
I spoke
on Tuesday morning to the Board and again last evening. I cited a
study by DR. JAMES MERCHANT, DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF PUBLIC HEALTH AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA. In a study, Dr. Merchant found that
children who live close to hog lots where ANTIBIOTICS are used on the
hogs, THESE CHILDREN HAVE A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF ASTHMA THAN THOSE WHO
LIVE CLOSE TO LOTS WHERE ANTIBIOTICS ARE NOT USED. A reference
to this is on my December 12, 2004, environmental post.
It was
mentioned by one of the Supervisors at Tuesday’s meeting that they
believed a waiver had been obtained by Dittmer from several
neighbors. I asked what the wavier said. It was not
known. So I called one of the neighbors who I had spoken with
Sunday evening, and he said he had not signed anything and was not even
approached about signing.
So at
last evening’s meeting, I asked once again for information on this
waiver. It was explained by a Board member that it would stay
with the property no matter who owned the property in the future.
But still, no information as to what it actually said. I pressed
the issue, asking whether or not these other farmers were giving up
their right to sue Dittmer if they ever became ill because of this
operation. Dittmer, who was also present, finally read one of the
waivers that 2 neighbors had signed…. Those pesky environmentalists,
always LOOKING FOR LOGIC.
After
hearing the waiver read, which is some type of separation waiver, I
said that I was no lawyer but it sounded to me as though the neighbors
were giving up some rights.
I asked
the Board to think about purchasing meters that gauge the concentration
of HYDROGEN SULFIDE AND AMMONIA to be placed at this location and
others around the county. I am not sure what will result in my
request.
Apparently
the Board believed that progress is best because Chairman Larry Minard
was convinced that Dittmer has done everything correctly to be a “good
neighbor” by keeping in touch with those living close to him who may be
affected by the odor. Chairman Minard also sites that this
expansion will create good jobs for the area. This type of
progress we can do without.
I grew
up on a farm and I know what it is like to be around hogs, cattle,
chickens and all other types of animal agriculture beings that create
smelly waste. I know people need to make a living at what they
know and love. But increasing from 1250 to 3000 hogs will only
exponentially increase the smell and health hazards in this area.
This farmer has his big toe in the door of unlimited expansion.
In 7 or 8 years, what if another expansion is applied for? When
this farmer wants to retire and a larger hog factory wants to purchase
it and add 10,000 hogs, how will the neighbors feel then? Will
they THEN put up their own stink?
At least
our efforts made it to the front page of the QUAD CITY TIMES ON
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27TH. We will see if others come out the next
time an application is put forth. For today though, if anyone has
concerns about this, contact the IDNR at www.iowadnr.com or
515-281-4367 at their Information and Education Bureau. Ask about
input on the MASTER MATRIX. Do it today, please.
And as the good citizens that you are, do not forget to CPR: CONSERVE –PARTICPATE – RECYCLE.
Thursday, July 28
CAFTA: Because You Hafta...
by
Chad Thompson
on Thu 28 Jul 2005 12:43 PM CDT
 CAFTA: Because You Hafta...
It's in the history books: House Republican Leadership kept the vote open until enough votes were tallied to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
The vote was close (naturally) - with the GOP putting together a
217-215 vote total to pass the bill. While we'll now be dealing
with the impacts of the vote, we should also note just how this bill
passed.
The Washington Post notes
the "hold the vote open tactic" used by the House Leadership -
extending the typical 15 minute voting period until enough votes were
tallied to guarantee passage.
The
217 to 215 vote came just after midnight, in a dramatic finish that
highlighted the intensity brought by both sides to the battle. When the
usual 15-minute voting period expired at 11:17 p.m., the no votes
outnumbered the yes votes by 180 to 175, with dozens of members
undeclared. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for another
47 minutes, furiously rounding up holdouts in their own party until
they had secured just enough to ensure approval.
What goes on in that extra 47 minutes? A little "arm-breaking", naturally.
Rep.
Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., said the Bush administration and Republican
leaders strong-armed Republican House members into voting for CAFTA. He
said they used highway funds and the threat of stripping chairmanships
from Republican House members if they didn't support CAFTA.
"I've seen the Republican leadership break arms on close votes before, but nothing quite this ugly," Pomeroy said.
There was also a little bargaining going on to minimize the political
impact of passing such a bill, especially in the southern states -
where the textile industry is barely holding on.
The New York Times article has an item worth pointing out:
For the next half-hour, Republicans, mostly from textile states, jockeyed over who would be allowed to vote against the bill and save face back home. The final count came minutes after midnight.
An honest question: if this bill is really opposed by the
constituency - why the jockeying to determine whose position is most
threatened? Just who do the Representatives here represent?
Surely not the desires of their consituents, obviously.
How Did Iowa Representatives Vote?
It's hard to find this information easily - a midnight vote guarantees
that the final vote will occur too late to make the morning papers - in
the hopes that "unpopular" votes will be buried in the next day's news
cycle.
The Washington Post listed "aisle-crossers", which leads us to the following:
For CAFTA: Nussle, Leach, King, Latham (all Republican)
Against CAFTA: Boswell (Democrat)
If anyone has access or time - I would love to hear Jim Nussle address the El Salvadoran Ethanol issue that will certainly impact Iowa's agricultural economy, if not deflate that bit of economic development altogether.
Wednesday, July 27
DeLay: House Will Pass CAFTA
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 27 Jul 2005 01:21 PM CDT
 DeLay: House Will Pass CAFTA
According to House Republicans - today is the day for CAFTA. (Or rather, tonight. Wanting to miss the evening news?)
House will pass CAFTA tonight: DeLay
Jul 27, 11:11 AM (ET)
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - Republicans in the House of Representatives will approve a
new free trade agreement with Central America late on Wednesday with
the help of a few Democrats, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said.
"It will
be a tough vote but we'll pass CAFTA tonight," DeLay told reporters
after a meeting between [Bush] and House Republicans. "We will
honor our commitments to the south, we will protect our national
security and will do it all with very few Democrats."
Mr. DeLay hits on an important point - "very few Democrats" should be supporting CAFTA to begin with, especially Democrats from Iowa.
With fitting timing, Tom Frank commented on TPM Cafe about where Democrats (and progressives in general) should stand on economic issues:
We need to point out the massive contradiction between the cons’
populist, “family values” rhetoric and their free-market practice. When
conservatives talk about how Xtreme and revolutionary the laissez-faire
system is, we should agree with them—and then point out what exactly
this means: the destruction of the world you grew up in. If left to
itself, free-market capitalism would empty our towns and bid our wages
down to nothing and drill for oil in the Grand Canyon and hook us all
up to non-stop virtual-reality advertising goggles for the rest of our
days. It doesn’t give a damn about families or values or very much
else. This is why you once had so many liberals in this country:
liberals protected people from these forces. That’s what we were about.
Thus,
CAFTA should be a Republicans-only bill, passed in the name of the
"American People", passed for the benefit of concentrated corporate
power.
There's still time to call Tom Latham!
Toll-free numbers to reach the Capitol switchboard:
866-340-9281, 866-340-9279, 877-762-8762
The vote on CAFTA is today. Tom Latham of Iowa is on the fence.
If Latham is your representative, call his office and let him know that
his health voters are looking very carefully at this vote, etc. ASK HIM TO VOTE AGAINST CAFTA.
As you know CAFTA has the CODEX-like agreement within it which would
impact access to our vitamins and supplements. We need an amazing
flurry of calls.
Washington DC Switchboard 202 224-3121
Ask for Mike Gruber in Cong. Latham's office and leave a message on his voice mail
|
|
