THE ABORTION DEBATE- PRO LIFE VERSUS PRO ?

I don't see the logic in giving the woman the sole right to choose whether or not to have a child.

One of the great talents of the right wing Republican attack machine is the ability to frame the debate. First, they tell you what the topic is. Second, they tell you their position (always on the side of God, America, Children, Freedom, Victory,- you know, the little things). Then, they don't wait for you to respond- they tell you what your position is, what your beliefs are, what your arguments are-- typically either completely false or wildly out of context. Then they debate it, holding you hostage to the position they created for you, forcing you on the defensive (note how many times during the McCain - Obama debate you heard Obama plaintively exclaiming "I never said that"). For example: on the topic of Iraq, if you are John McCain, and you want to leave the American military in that five and a half year quagmire for another 100 years, with no clearly defined objective goals, then you are in favor of "VICTORY!" The rational person (i.e. Barack Obama) who wants to get out of there before more Americans die for no discernable purpose is labeled as "a cut and run defeatist who is willing to let brave Americans who perished there die in vain, forever tarnishing their sacrifice." Never mind that the rational person correctly predicted before the catastrophic decision to invade that it would be a disaster with no exit strategy. Or that there is no such thing as "victory" when we aren't even fighting an enemy but merely trying to stop criminal gangs from killing each other.

So it is with the abortion "debate." The cleverest thing about this debate is the choice of words from the right wing. They are "pro life!" Calling themselves "pro life" takes a lot of chutzpah from the political party in favor of the death penalty, the party most in favor of aggressive war, the party which has dismissed the loss of over 100,000 Iraqi lives as so inconsequential that it doesn't bear mention in any of the debates on the wisdom of getting out of Iraq.

And they label those opposed to their position as "pro abortion." Well, there you go again, as Ronald Reagan used to say. Those against criminalizing abortion in the first trimester label themselves as "pro choice," meaning that they want to give that choice to the woman, in consultation with her doctor, rather than letting the government choose. But you'll never hear the right wing even address that position in a debate. Instead, in the last few years, the right wing has upped the ante, conflating abortions in the first trimester with the rare (and legally, only when the mother's life or health are in danger) "partial birth abortion." In effect, the right wing has labeled pro choicers as being in favor of killing children just before birth, causing them excruciating pain. Here's a typical description from the National Right to Life (NARAL) website, quoting Republican Senator Sam Brownback:

"Unborn children can experience pain . This is why unborn children are often administered anesthesia during in utero surgeries. Think about the pain that unborn children can experience, and then think about the more gruesome abortion procedures. Of course, we have heard about Partial Birth Abortion, but also consider the D&E abortion. During this procedure, commonly performed after 20-weeks -- when there is medical evidence that the child can experience severe pain -- the child is torn apart limb from limb. Think about how that must feel to a young human."

Never mind that this is utterly bogus: women can't choose to have a late term abortion, and the use of this imagery is purely to provoke a visceral response rather than have a meaningful debate.

But the pro choice camp is less than consistent in logic and morality as well. The red herring argument on their side is "we need exceptions in the cases of rape or incest." My short response to that mammoth inconsistency is this: can a child morally or legally be killed after it is born because he or she is the product of rape or incest? Of course not. So why differentiate while the child is in the womb? We don't have bills of attainder in this country, where a parent's crimes allow punishment to his children. So this argument is just as bogus as the "partial birth abortion" canard from the right.

And my position? I am pro choice and anti-abortion. I don't believe in criminalizing abortions in the first trimester. And I am in favor of allowing the father of the child to veto it- after all, if the woman's right to choose is involved, then the person she chose to help potentially conceive a child should have an equal right to see his child born. I don't see this argument as being about a woman's right to control her body, any more than a mother has the right to kill her baby because her life is controlled by the demands of caring for a helpless infant. My position is that the government's role should be to reduce the number of abortions by promoting sex education, birth control, and adoption.

Saxby Chambliss Takes the Cash, Sells out the Troops

If you are in the military, a veteran, or someone who cares about our servicemen and women who are in harm’s way, you can not in good conscience vote for Saxby Chambliss in this year’s Senate race. When my son was ordered to go to war against Iraq on March 20, 2003, neither he nor his fellow Marines had been given the equipment they needed to do their mission or keep them safe. My son was not in an armored vehicle- he was in a canvas covered Humvee which wouldn’t stop a pocket knife, let alone an RPG. My son's unit was typical of the thousands of troops sent in to invade Iraq: they lacked body armor, short barreled M-4 rifles for urban combat, and armored humvees. Congressmen like Mr. Chambliss voted for war- but never bothered to provide the military with simple things like two way radios, desert boots, adequate eye protection from desert winds and sand, sun block, and handi-wipes to clean the dirt and sand. They lacked essentials like enough Arabic speaking interpreters-- some took one look at combat and went home. They were not even provided enough bullets for training before they were sent over. When my son was deployed a second time in 2006- four years after Mr. Chambliss won his Senate seat-- he still didn’t have body armor, and I paid several thousand dollars out of my pocket to equip him and other members of his unit-- he had refused my initial offer to pay for his body armor because he didn’t want to have it and leave his fellow Marines unprotected.

Mr. Chambliss had voted to send my son to war in October of 2002, but he couldn't be bothered to vote for the funds to properly equip the troops before they went. After he won his seat, instead of doing his job, he spent his time soliciting money from huge defense contractors. According to Federal Election Commission records, on August 1 and 2 of 2007, he raked in thousands from sixteen top executives from the world's biggest arms dealer, Lockheed-Martin, collecting money from Californian Robert Stevens, its President and CEO, and numerous Vice Presidents and top executives who live in California, Maryland, Texas, and Virginia. In return for their tens of thousands paid to influence Mr. Chambliss, that company made over twenty billion dollars in additional government contracts since the beginning of the war, and its stock price shot up almost 600 percent (from $20 a share to near $120 a share), making millions of additional dollars in salary, bonuses, and stock options for each of the executives. It’s a real bargain for the defense contractor- but it’s a disgrace to Mr. Chambliss and a disaster for unprotected servicemen who came home maimed or in body bags.

APPENDIX:

If some dedicated researcher for Senator Chambliss thinks this is an unfair smear, then take a moment and check the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Records for the contributions which, not coincidentally, almost all took place on the same days in August of 2007, with others kicking in in February and March of 2008. Here's Lockheed's information from its website, followed by a partial list of FEC records of campaign contributions, in alphabetical order, with the title of the Lockheed Martin executive and his or her business or home address:


Chairman, President, and CEO Robert J. Stevens
EVP Information Systems and Global Services Linda R. Gooden
SVP, Human Resources Kenneth J. Disken

Key Lockheed Martin Financials
Company Type Public - NYSE: LMT
Main Headquarters
Fiscal Year-End December
2007 Sales (mil.) $41,862.0 (41 billion dollars)
2007 Employees 140,000



FROM FEC DISCLOSURE REPORT BY SAXBY CHAMBLISS:

BRUNO, SALVATORE
FREMONT, CA 94536
LOCKHEED MARTINVICE PRESIDENT GEN 02/28/2008 1000.00

BURBAGE, TOM
ALPHARETTA, GA 30005
LOCKHEED MARTINEX. VICE PRESIDENT 08/10/2007 1000.00

BURICK, RAYMOND
KENNESAW, GA 30152
LOCKHEED MARTIN VICE PRESIDENT 08/02/2007 1000.00

CESSARIO, NICHOLAS
MARIETTA. GA 30063
LOCKHEED MARTIN PROGRAM MANAGER 08/03/2007 1000.00

CHAUDET, STEPHEN
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 08/02/2007 1000.00
#2 03/06/2008 1000.00

CRANDALL, MYLES
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.VP STRATEGIC 02/28/2008 1000.00

CROCKER, JAMES
CASTLE ROCK, CO 80104
LOCKHEAD MARTIN CORP.VICE PRESIDENT 03/28/2008 1000.00

CROWLEY, MARK
MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. VICE PRESIDENT 03/24/2008 500.00

DAHLBERG, GREGORY
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22308
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 08/02/2007 1000.00
#2 (misspelled as “Delberg in #2) 03/07/2008 1000.00

DAILEY, BRIAN
ARLINGTON, VA 22209
LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE BUSINESS 08/02/2007 1000.00
#2 (misspelled as “Brien” in #2) 03/06/2008 1000.00

DUNCAN, LAWRENCE
BETHESDA, MD 20816
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.EXECUTIVE 04/11/2008 500.00

GRANT, JAMES
COLLEYVILLE, TX 76034
LOCKHEED MARTINE XECUTIVE 08/02/2007 1000.00

HAINES, DAVID
MARIETTA, GA 30068
LOCKHEED MARTIN VICE PRESIDENT 08/10/2007 1000.00

HEATH, RALPH
ALEDO, TX 76008
LOCKHEED MARTIN
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 08/01/2007 1000.00
#2 03/06/2008 1000.00

INGLEE, WILLIAM
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22309
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 08/02/2007 1000.00

JOHNSTONE, J BRIAN
MARIETTA, GA 30064
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 08/02/2007 500.00


KRISCH, CHARLES
NEW HOPE, PA 18938
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.EXECUTIVE 03/06/2008 1000.00

KUBASIK, CHRISTOPHER
POTOMAC, MD 20854
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 08/02/2007 500.00

MAGUIRE, JOANNE
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 02/28/2008 1000.00

OVERSTREET, JACK
BURKE, VA 22015
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.V.P.LEGISLA 08/02/2007 1000.00

REYNOLDS, ROSS
ACWORTH, GA 30101
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 09/21/2007 1000.00

RHYANT, LEE
ROSWELL, GA 30075
LOCKHEED MARTINEXECUTIVE 08/02/2007 1000.00

RUE, STACIE
SAN JOSE, CA 95120
LOCKHEED MARTIN GOVT RELATIONS 03/06/2008 500.00

SEALBACH, MARIJEAN
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.VICE PRESIDENT 02/28/2008 1000.00

SHREWSBURY, JUNE
COLLEYVILLE, TX 76034
LOCKHEED MARTIN
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 03/06/2008 1000.00

STEVENS, ROBERT
POTOMAC, MD 20654
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE
(note: he is Chairman,
President & CEO but
did not list that) 08/01/2007 1000.00
#2 03/07/2008 1000.00

STEVENSON, RICHARD
ALEDO, TX 76008
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 08/02/2007 1000.00

STREATKER, JOHN
SAN JOSE, CA 95148
LOCKHEED MARTIN VICE PRESIDENT 03/06/2008 1000.00

SWISTKOWSKI, LEONARD
SAN JOSE, CA 95138
LOCKHEED MARTIN VICE PRESIDENT 03/06/2008 1000.00

THOMSON, J R
LOS ALTOS, CA 94024
LOCKHEED MARTIN VICE PRESIDENT 02/28/2008 1000.00

TRICE, ROBERT
ARLINGTON, VA 22207
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 08/22/2007 1000.00

VALERIO, MARK
EVERGREEN, CO 80439
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP.
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 03/06/2008 1000.00

WALTERS, GREGORY
VIENNA, VA 22182
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. VICE PRESIDENT 04/11/2008 1000.00

WILDFONG, D JOHN
CENTREVILLE, VA 20120
LOCKHEED MARTIN EXECUTIVE 08/01/2007 1000.00

THE FAUX IMMIGRATION "CRISIS"-- XENOPHOBES UNITE!

If the know-nothings had their way, America would be deprived of the contributions of hard workers, innovators, and geniuses

In 2007 a political firestorm erupted when Arizona Senator John McCain sponsored a bill which would have given retroactive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants to the United States as part of a comprehensive plan to regain control of our borders. Backtracking faster than an NFL defensive back, McCain not only withdrew support for his own bill (he voted against it!), he later disavowed any connection to the idea of crafting legislation that wouldn't pass muster with the irrational xenophobes of his party. The magic words changed from "amnesty" and "registration" to "virtual fences"and "mass deportations." This wasn't McCain's first effort at real reform of our immigration laws- in May of 2005, McCain and Senator Ted Kennedy proposed the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act "(S. 1033), which also went down in flames.

Although Senators McCain (now a proud "conservative maverick for change," an oxymoron if ever there was one) and Kennedy (the most liberal Senator of his era) would appear to be strange bedfellows on this issue or any other, the oddest political fact is that the prime mover for immigration reform was President George W. Bush. The answer to this seeming conundrum- why would they be on the same side of this legislation?- is very simple: Senator Kennedy for reasons of social justice and rational economics; President Bush and Senator McCain because their real constituency-- large businesses, including agri-businesses-- really, really needs and likes having a ready pool of hard working, non-complaining, low paid labor.

But the Republicans' nominal constituency-- jingoistic, red meat eating, unemployed or underemployed angry victims of Bush economics-- strongly and loudly opposed any thought of amnesty, which was a cornerstone of the 2005 and 2007 bills. Recognizing political reality- if they couldn't sneak this one by the only voters who are foolish enough to consistently keep on voting for those who have done the most to wreak havoc on their jobs (disappearing abroad) and their homes (record setting foreclosures and bankruptcies), then they would have to ditch the idea until they could get a Democratic Congress to pass it, then lay the blame on "liberals."

But suppose we could wave a magic wand and all immigrants and descendants of immigrants would disappear from the United States. Who'd be left? Obviously, nobody, because even the Native Americans came across the Bering Strait when it was a land bridge from Siberia about 30,000 years ago, during the last ice age. The simple fact is that this continent was populated by immigrants and this nation was founded by immigrants. Unlike almost every other nation in the world, from the moment of its birth in 1776, this country has celebrated and honored the immigrants who were its bedrock. The Statue of Liberty is not holding up a "Stop" sign, and the plaque at its base inscribed with Emma Lazarus' poem doesn't tell foreigners to go back where they came from:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

My paternal great grandparents and my maternal grandparents came to this country as immigrants looking for a better life- for an opportunity to work and to live as equals in this New World. They were among the millions who voluntarily suffered the hardships of cross-Atlantic travel in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (my grandmother was 12 and orphaned, speaking no English, when she landed in Boston in 1905). In college I wrote a history paper about the German Jewish immigrants to Philadelphia in the 19th century, checking census records, cemeteries, synagogue membership rolls, and other data. It was fascinating to discover the myriad places from which they came, the occupations they entered, and the lives they touched once they arrived here in the early 1800's. Almost without fail they contributed greatly to society, and their descendants and the descendants of their fellow immigrants became the leading lights of their new country.

No rational, knowledgeable American could ever deny the incredible contributions that immigrants of every stripe contribute to every institution which matters- small business, large business, mining, manufacturing, finance, science, the military, the arts, sports, even government. Whether we are talking about athletes like Phoenix Suns point guard Steve Nash (the South African born Canadian won two consecutive MVP's a couple of years ago) or Seattle baseball icon Ichiro (Japan), governors like Michigan's Jennifer Granholm (Canada) or California's famous Arnold Schwarzenegger (Austria), Nobel Prize winning scientists like Albert Einstein (Germany) , or top generals such as Rick Sanchez (top commander in Iraq, of Mexican heritage) or John Shalikashvili (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, born in the country of Georgia and grew up in Poland), it is indisputable that we still enjoy the fruits of the magnetic attraction this country holds for those living abroad who want a better life.


So what do we do about the current immigration "crisis?" First, it's important to note that there is no crisis. That alarm is simply another fantasy of the rabid right wing know-nothings of this country who cling to power only by quadrennially exciting the fears, anger, and hatred of "Real Americans" towards anyone who exhibits the slightest difference from the norm. But what about all of the illegal Mexicans who swarm across our border looking to land on welfare rolls, use our hospitals, and collect Social Security? Answer: another myth. When asked: "On balance, what effect has twentieth-century immigration had on the nation's economic growth?" of 38 persons who had been president of the American Economic Association, as well as those who had been members of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, 81 percent answered "Very favorable" and 19 percent answered "Slightly favorable." None said that immigration was unfavorable. Their statistics are borne out by casual observation and anecdotal evidence: there is no institution or program in this country which is suffering because of illegal immigrants, including welfare rolls, because most illegals are too frightened at deportation to risk getting into the system.

So if we want to cut off our collective noses to spite our faces, we should round up every illegal immigrant, deport him or her, and spend billions of dollars on additional border patrol and real and virtual fences on the southern border . (Strangely, except for several hundred Canadian actors who have become Hollywood success stories, i.e. Pamela Anderson, Glenn Ford, Lorne Greene ("Ben Cartwright of Bonanza), Art Linkletter, Howie Mandel (Deal or No Deal), Lorne Michaels (Saturday Night Live producer), Mike Myers (Austin Powers), Seth Rogan (knocked up), and William Shatner (Star Trek), Canadians aren't beating down our doors to gain entrance to this country.) But if we remain calm, rational, and self interested, we will simplify immigration procedures and eliminate absurd requirements such as requiring illegals (some of whom have been here for decades since they were small children) to get on a plane back to a country of which they have no living memory and wait for months to obtain an entrance visa. Because the people who made this country great weren't 8th generation Americans. The bedrocks of this country were the first and second generation Americans who understood the importance of getting an education, working hard, and appreciating the freedoms we have here which are so scarce elsewhere.