Tag Archives: obama

February 26, 2012 · 4:47 pm

HOLY COMMUNION

HOLY COMMUNION

Louise Annarino

2-26-2012

One role of government is to secure the safety of its populace. Government attorneys prosecute criminals. Individuals do not. Individuals may bring a civil claim for the injuries they personally sustained as a result of a criminal act. The criminal act is defined by city, state, county, or federal law. Government Prosecutors bring criminal charges on behalf of their entire communities. Crime is consider an offense not just against individuals; but, against the entire community. We have been told that the Occupy Movement, representing the 99% of the community, is dangerous to the community and must be shut down.

“Now here’s something astonishing. While the camp was in existence, crime went down 19 percent <http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/emails-exchanged-between-oakland-opd-reveal-tensio/nGMkF/> in Oakland, a statistic the city was careful to conceal. “It may be counter to our statement that the Occupy movement is negatively impacting crime in Oakland,” the police chief wrote to the mayor in an email that local news station KTVU later obtained and released to little fanfare. Pay attention: Occupy was so powerful a force for nonviolence that it was already solving Oakland’s chronic crime and violence problems just by giving people hope and meals and solidarity and conversation.”

Excerpt from

http://www.thenation.com/article/166394/why-media-love-violence-protesters-and-not-banks <http://www.thenation.com/article/166394/why-media-love-violence-protesters-and-not-banks>

Why? Human beings are social beings who seek close and meaningful ties to one another. We are not hatched from eggs; we come from the womb of another human being and yearn the rest of our lives for such intimacy with another human being. Even E.T. just wanted to go home. We all want to go home, to the place where we are heard, understood and accepted. This is why young people form gangs, fraternities and sororities, clubs, and Facebook friends. This is why we Tweet, and blog. We seek communion.

The Occupy Movement is a study in communion. It is a sacred act of humbling the self for the good of the whole. What can it teach us about reducing crime? It teaches us that meeting the basic needs of food and shelter, offering a safe haven for ideas and creative output, listening and responding to others’ fears and concerns, and acting to restore justice and mercy can heal a city; can reduce crime.

My First Holy Communion seemed magical. I dressed like a bride; even wore a veil circled with fragrant flowers. My heart sang a new melody when the Host dissolved on my tongue. I connected with God, the God whose Son humbled himself for the good of the whole. I understand communion. I understand what happened in Oakland. The Occupy Movement is a sacred act. Supporting the 99%, as President Obama does every day, is a religious act, a sacred act. Politics get dirty. The Occupy Camps get dirty. Life gets dirty; ask any kid who knows how to play it. Dirt does not make sacred acts less holy. “Ashes to ashes; dust to dust”; we all simply want to get dirty, and go home.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , ,

February 24, 2012 · 4:28 pm

A MAN'S WORLD BUT A WOMAN'S HEAVEN

A MAN’S WORLD BUT A WOMAN’S HEAVEN

Louise Annarino

February 24, 2012

 

“It’s a man’s world but a woman’s heaven,” Sister Robertine, Vice Principal and teacher of Latin would tell us girls as she took on the uncomfortable task of teaching girls’ religion class our senior year. It was clear she found comfort in such an idea. I had noticed her on many occasions staring down the Principal, Fr. MacFarlane, arms akimbo, the rosary beads hanging from her wide black belt shaking with passion. It was she who would tell me, “I’ll speak to Father about it” when I complained about a school policy or procedure I believed unfair to us girls. Later, when Father altered his position, I knew whom to thank; although, he never acknowledged Sister’s role in the matter. I wondered why he was called “father”, but she was called “sister”. Was she not his equal? Should she not be called “mother”?

 

Sr. Canisia was a master of power plays. She would stomp about the classroom shouting “Maozeedung!” as she stalked us from behind, trying to teach us world history. When she became utterly exasperated she slammed her fist against the blackboard, then picked up her pace and stomped about, stopping to push aside a desk to wake up a bored student. One such day she suddenly heard footsteps on the stairs. Since Father’s office was directly beneath the classroom, she listened for those footsteps. We all did. She rushed to her desk, put a finger to her mouth and said quietly, “NOT ONE WORD!”

 

Father strode into the classroom without knocking on the closed door, eyebrows and voice raised he asked, “What is going on here? We are trying to get some work done downstairs!” Her head hanging low Sister meekly replied, “I can’t do a thing with these heathens today, Father. They are simply uncontrollable. SIgh.” As Father began his lecture, Sister looked over the class, her glaze hardened against any potential traitors who would challenge her version of events. None dared. Father left, humphing and harrumphing. Students resumed breathing; and Sister smiled in triumph. She had pulled one over on him. She noticed my deepening grin and her eyes began to twinkle, recognizing a comrade in arms.

 

As the male caretakers of morality allow themselves to be used by the Republican Party to distract voters from the true sins of the world – poverty, joblessness, lack of health care, racism, sexism, homophobia, destruction of the environment – I think about those nuns who demonstrated feminism in action to teenage Catholic school girls. Their only comfort was a belief heaven awaited them. I wanted that heaven on earth for women, as it existed for on earth for men. I was unwilling to wait until after my death for equality.

 

Every nun in our high school had a Ph.D. or was working on a Ph.D. Yet, the only fields then open to women were nursing, teaching or secretarial work. A few were librarians or social workers. They had no other comfort than a belief the future would be better. And that belief fueled the girls whom they taught. We became lawyers, doctors, bankers, plumbers, carpenters, engineers, astronauts, and politicians. Heaven became possible on earth. But, not easy, never easy.

 

The male domination of the world continued. Men “allowed” us a few slots, and continued to believe in their natural right to dominate us. They refused to change the structures, policies and systems which met their needs and supported their success. The needs of women, especially, those with children, required a change in policies, structures and systems which men fought at every turn. In fact, without readily available birth control, most women could never have taken the stage alongside men. There is no need to rehash what we have each experienced for ourselves – women’s struggles to succeed in a “man’s world”. Those who do, do so because of the support of strong men who are not threatened by women’s equality, and with the support of other women. Women have little trouble admitting to ourselves that we cannot do it alone. We are genetically and chemically programmed to work in tandem with those around us, building communities of support within our families and within the larger family of man. We are strong supporters of the 99%.

 

It is no mystery that the male morality police have been seeking to stop our access to birth control as a means of restricting our options for escape from their dominance and control. They do not like our insistence on assuring the welfare of human beings as they seek wealth and power around the globe. Women cry out against wars. Women cry out against hunger,poverty,racism, homophobia,environmental degradation. They see the connection between such sins and the lack of a possible heaven on earth for anyone else.They cry out to protect their children,and every woman’s child. Face it; we women get in men’s way, and they have had enough! They are angry because they think that the more we have the less they can get. We expect them to share their toys; they want to take their marbles and go home.

 

Well, women have had enough, more than enough. Women are careful with their anger, realizing the possible harm which could come to their beloved husbands, sons and grandsons;most of whom gave up male despotism decades ago. Women tread lightly.

But, women tread their way to the polls. Women vote. The 2012 election is vital at the local, county, state and federal level. Do we want anti-science climate change deniers on our school boards? Do we want right to work laws which lower wages for all workers while busting unions enacted in our state house? Do we want to protect insurance company profits by returning to days when a pre-existing condition effectively denied you coverage by electing congresspersons who would dismantle Obamacare?

 

Do we want to live in communities across the United States which would approve Jim Crow laws, restrict to right to vote, deny women access to birth control, demonize immigrants and assure the fulfillment heaven on earth for white men? Or, do we want equal opportunity for all? Do we want the promise of a future heaven on earth because we support every single person’s right to pursue happiness? We cannot elect those who  tell us only the 1% have the know-how, the innate ability, and the wisdom to allow us to participate in their heaven. Don’t we really want our own heaven on earth? What arrogance to “allow” us what is our right!

 

Vote for President Obama, whose message of hope is not just for America’s sons, but for its daughters as well. Vote for President Obama, whose message of hope is not just for African-Americans or white Americans, but for all Americans. Vote for President Obama.

 

We women recognize voting for President Obama is not enough. we must vote for his support system. We must vote out those racists who undermine every move he makes on our behalf, simply because he is an African-American man. We must vote out those who undermine him simply to protect their golden parachutes. We must vote out those who undermine him simply to protect their excessive profits hidden in off-shore accounts. He is trying to rebuild this country to support ALL of us. we cannot elect those who undermine him simply because we are in their way. A man’s world and a woman’s heaven? Not for long, Not for long…

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 17, 2012 · 6:14 pm

HISTORY LESSON; Small Government or No Government?

HISTORY LESSON: SMALL GOVERNMENT, NO GOVERNMENT ?

Louise Annarino

2-17-2012

 

Republican and Libertarian 2012 presidential candidates have followed two themes: small government, or no government. In support of these complimentary positions they rewrite American history, even Mr. History Gingrich who should know better does so.

 

Colonial Americans did not dump tea in Boston Harbor because they opposed taxes; but, because they were unrepresented in the British Parliament. Initially, they did not want  to end government but to participate in it. The corruption and despotism of British monarch George III, the arrogance and disdain of the British Parliament toward colonial interests, and the overriding desire to refill a depleted British treasury following the Seven Years War on the backs of colonists stirred the minds and hearts of the American colonists who began to see themselves as simply “Americans”. They declared their independence from Britain and immediately started designing a government very like the one they overthrew, with some interesting twists learned from native American political structures.

 

For example, the British Parliament has two chambers: the House of Lords (aristocracy), and House of Commons (everyone else). One of the hottest arguments after the revolution was between those who wanted to call George Washington “King-Your Majesty-Your Highness” and those who wanted to avoid all things aristocratic and call him “Mr. President”. Mr. Washington insisted on the latter, and shunned all signs of royalty. Americans chose a bi-furcated legislative body, the Senate and The House of Representatives. Their response to despotism and the threat of autocratic rule was a “separation of powers” between the Executive,Legislative and Judicial Branches of government. “We the People, By the People, and For the People” was born.

 

Initially, they favored a “confederation” of quite independent states based on the Native American “confederation of tribes” model; but, soon recognized the need for a strong federal government, affirmed early on by The U.S. Supreme Court. The failure to directly address the slavery issue and women’s right to vote, despite Abigail Adams’ warning to her husband John to “mind the ladies”, remained a stain on self-government and equal rights for all citizens; and, eventually led to a civil war.

 

I have been watching Ken Burns’ THE CIVIL WAR. It is appalling that after such horrific suffering caused by secessionists and slave owners with the support of Southerners, including West Point graduates, among them Robert E. Lee, who abandoned their oaths to support the United States of America and called it “honorable”, that our current batch of presidential candidates would also suggest secession, states rights, and the honor of the American people as appropriate policy within the Republican Party. The Republican Party, The Grand Old Party (GOP) which gave us Abraham Lincoln as its first presidential candidate. It is shameful;how far the Republican Party has fallen.

 

We must not accept a discussion of secession to be considered a legitimate possibility. To attack President Obama as unpatriotic while behaving so unpatriotically themselves is the height of hypocrisy. They use the threat of secession as a means of attacking a strong federal government; just as it was used to instigate a civil war 200 years ago. Why would they risk such division among our citizens? The same reason they did then…money and power. Racist code talk, outright racist comments, and outright lies about President Obama’s policies and leadership should have been laid to rest 200 years ago.

 

Those, who argue a strong and active federal ( Paul,Perry,Gingrich,Romney et al) or state government (Governors Kasich R-OH and Walker R-WI) takes away our liberty are wrong. If by “government” one means government led by a despot this is true. But WE are the government. WE pass legislation, make rules, interpret laws through those WE elect to represent us in those endeavors while we go about earning a daily living. WE are not despots. WE are not deprivers of our own liberty. WE decide what government does;despite the fact George W. Bush “the Decider” alleged otherwise. The Government is not something apart from ourselves; it is US. When Republican candidates attack government, they attack US. WE are “we the people”. Why attack our governments? Because WE are all that stands in the way of those 1% “aristocrats” who want to make money at our expense. Have we forgotten the our history?

 

In the meantime, they distract us and delude us into thinking our governments, federal-state-local are attacking us. We are under attack, but not by government. Discover and support your own self-interest…your government.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

February 16, 2012 · 3:47 pm

CYNICISM VS. SKEPTICISM: POLITICIANS ARE NOT ALL THE SAME

CYNICISM VS. SKEPTICISM: POLITICIANS ARE NOT ALL THE SAME

Louise Annarino

2-16-2012

 

In Italian being “cynical” means being “unprincipled”; changing with the wind, switching sides without affecting conscience. A cynical person is an opportunist. “Skepticism” is entirely different. It is core virtue of reason, allowing flexibility of thought and change position based on the disclosure of truth. Cynicism is destructive; skepticism is healthy.

 

As a second generation Italian, Sicilian father and Napolitan mother, I can assure you no one is more skeptical than a Sicilian. It is in our genes. We question everything and everyone. The more powerful the authority, the more skeptical we become. For the upcoming campaign season, I suggest we all become a bit more Sicilian.

 

Negative campaign ads are part of the political climate, and are increasing in intensity. They are destructive for two reasons: first, lies repeated enough appear to be truth; and second, they build a climate of cynicism among voters.

 

Not all campaign ads are the same; neither are the political candidates, nor their parties. Yet, Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Joe Hannity, Karl Rove et al. consistently respond to any criticism of their unprincipled, change in the political wind distortion of past policies and legislation with a shrug “They all do it; Democrats are just as bad as Republicans”. Even  Chris Matthews at MSNBC falls easily into this trap of cynicism. In a recent on-air interview questioning a Republican guest about the extremely negative Republican presidential race, Matthews allowed his guest’s statement that President Obama ran a very negative attack-ad campaign in 2008. How soon we forget the campaign for change based upon hope. This is just one example of the pure cynical revisionism we will hear and see more of as election day nears.

 

Such willingness to behave so cynically destroys are faith in our political process. It drives people away from political involvement. While this may benefit Republicans whose numbers are dwindling due to changing demographics, an unwillingness to change, or to exercise flexibility of thought. However, it does not serve well the Democratic party. We need to get as many voters as possible involved in the political process, and to the polls. Our numbers are greater. Their best hope is to turn our hopeful voters into cynics. We must stop being cynical; and, instead be skeptical.

 

Not all political attacks are untrue. When President Obama warns that Republicans intend to dismantle/privatize Social Security he is basing this so-called “attack” on statements of fact by Republicans. Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney et al. have each proposed privatizing Social Security and Medicare, differing only on whether it would be a partial vs, complete privatization;and, each would raise the minimum retirement age. Their proposals would effectively gut funding, making the current program which is fully funded for next 30years, unsustainable. A cynic would argue that President Obama is engaging in negative attacks just as Republicans attack him – citizenship, patriotism, socialism etc. They are not the same. Cynical ad hominem attacks are a poor substitute for policy attacks.

 

A skeptic would check out the Republican proposals to see if what President Obama alleges is true, check out President Obama’s own proposals; then, decide whether his or her initial impressions were accurate. A cynic would merely ignore the cognitive dissonance such truth-telling engenders, shrug and say “politicians are all the same”. Cynicism never improved a single thing; it does not promote positive change. Only skepticism can do so.

 

Let’s get skeptical! Sing it out in tune to Olivia Newton John’s “Let’s Get Physical”…now, I am dating myself!

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 14, 2012 · 5:50 pm

OUT IN THE OPEN

OUT IN THE OPEN

Louise Annarino

2-14-2012

Hopefully, this is the last time I shall have to discuss the Roman Catholic Church and the opposition of its Pope and its most conservative of Bishops to progressive political theory, and at times, to President Barack Obama.

I will not discuss the church’s theological positions. It is none of my business. Catholic women are not part of the church hierarchy and have no positional power within its ranks. Some may have personal power with particular members of the church hierarchy; but, personal power is ephemeral at best. Therefore, I am not entitled to any opinion on theological teachings. That has been clear since my baptism.

However, as an American, I am entitled to an opinion on its espoused political positions, and its corporate climate. I am also entitled to question whether as a religious institution it has any right to take a political position. Jesus’ response to his religious hierarchy “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s”, Matt 22:21, is not simply a basis for the separation of church and state; although, one could argue such. It was his brilliant repost to a group of rabbis trying to trick him into taking a political position, or to discredit himself as a rabbi. Jesus himself had made it clear he was not a political Messiah, John18:36. The Pharisee rabbis were trying to prove otherwise. The Roman Catholic Pope and Bishops would be wise to follow Jesus’ lead. They are not political Messiahs. They are behaving like Pharisees. Their objective is political and financial power, in the guise of religious freedom. No one has asked them to deny their religious teachings, or practice their faith as they see fit. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, President Obama adjusted the political and financial demands of women’s preventive health care to eliminate any possible religious entanglement argument. The church has been outed;it’s outcry was never about religion. It has always been about politics.When the Bishops met 7 months ago to prepare an attack on President Obama’s health care mandates, they behaved like Pharisees, trying to protect their turf from the President they view as the usurper.

Let’s be clear, a church hierarchy which has treated women and children as second class citizens and done little or nothing to protect them; and, has in fact attacked them with impunity ( witch hunts, pedophilia) posits it should be able to deny any woman, Catholic or non-Catholic, comprehensive preventive health care. Really? For, now that the issue of providing insurance coverage for such care is off the table, the only thing remaining is the health care itself. The Bishops’ continuing opposition is simply opposition to women’s comprehensive preventive health care, period!

Thank you, President Obama, for making it so clear. Now, let us ignore the Pharisees and move on.

At age 10 I wrote a letter to then-Senator John F. Kennedy, and received a personal reply. I sent him several pages  listing American Catholics from pre-revolution through 1962 who had served America without becoming a tool of the Catholic church. Presidential candidate Kennedy was deemed an unacceptable candidate since many believed the Roman Catholic Church would try to use him to foster its own agenda, in violation of the separation of church and state. Senator Kennedy used my research in his debate with Richard Nixon. He was the first Catholic elected President of the United States.We know from history that it is dangerous to mix church and state. Millions have died over the centuries as the church imposed its will on the state. Many fled to the wilderness of America to avoid oppression resulting from merger of state and religion. President Kennedy had to overcome this perceived threat. Now, politicians struggle to affirm their willingness to be guided by religious institutions in matters of state. The backlash, should this not be prevented, has a long and bloody history. Women have never fared well under church dominated state action.

I am weary of those arguing the state is denying them the right to practice their religion. They have no right to force me to practice their religion! I have a right to the same comprehensive preventive health care as any other woman, no matter who is my employer; just as I have a right to minimum wage, unemployment benefits etc. Religious belief has no place in determining who is eligible for employment benefits.

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , ,

February 9, 2012 · 3:55 am

A SLAP IN THE FACE

A SLAP IN THE FACE

Louise Annarino

February 8, 2010

 

In the 8th grade, I experienced the Sacrament of Confirmation at my parish church along with the other 8th. graders at St. Francis De Sales Catholic School. Preparing for the big day was so exciting; we would be confirmed by the Bishop.

 

That night I dressed in a fancy dress and wore the gold crucifix given me by my parents. My cousin Dolores who was my sponsor processed into church by my side. Mom had pinned my first gardenia corsage on the dress near my left shoulder, just like a grown woman would wear it. I was ready to affirm my faith. I had chosen the name Bernadette,asking St. Bernadette Soubirous to guide my life.

 

When the Bishop began  questioning us on matters of faith I was the first to raise my hand. I yearned for the grace of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity of God, to descend upon me. Suddenly, it was time to approach the altar rail and kneel. As a female in 1962, this was the closest I was permitted to approach the altar. My knees and shoulders shook as I awaited the bishop’s approach. Since I was so short, I was the first to be confirmed.

 

The Bishop annointed my forehead with chrism, blessed balsam oil; and, continued with the “laying on of hands”. Next, he slapped my cheek, the sound echoing sharply off the back walls of the church. I heard a loud gasp among the on-lookers. The Bishop looked horrified, as did the other confirmees awaiting their turn.

 

I winced from the pain. We had been told to expect a small slap as a symbol of our willingness to defend, and suffer for, our faith. But, I didn’t expect my head to snap to the side from the impact. Nor did the poor bishop. His strength surprised him. He was quite gentle with those who followed. His handprint was still visible on my cheek at the celebration party, hours afterwards.

 

The effect of this sacrament is intended to give the courage and strength to deal with spiritual conflict as adults. It did so for me. When I took that slap on the face in confirmation, I was ready for any spiritual conflict life threw my way. I did not expect it would be my own church which would continually slap me in the face. Just as I did not see the pain coming from the bishop’s slap, I did not see it coming from my church.

 

I was aware that my church, and most others, have caused spiritual conflict for centuries. We learned about the Inquisition in grade school religion classes. We discussed the racism and sexism within the church in high school religion classes. And, while we learned of the church’s shortcomings, we also learned the social justice teachings of the church. We watched our priest and nuns march for civil rights, oppose unjust wars, and fight for those on death row. We learned the people of the church, including its clergy, are human. We had faith good would triumph over evil.

 

The horror of sexual abuse and rape of our boys and girls by priests wounded us immeasurably; but, the cover-up nearly destroyed us. For many of us it was the last straw; not, for our faith’s survival, but for our willingness to accept the leadership of the church hierarchy, a hierarchy which believed it was exempt from state law and common humanity.

 

The church has become increasingly political, ignoring the separation of church and state unless it benefits financially from the separation. Like all organizations, its first priority is the survival of the institution, at any cost. “At any cost” is the key.

 

The church now opposes full implementation of The Affordable Health Care Law. If it were based on its moral teachings, this position is sound. I believe it is a political, not a moral position. Consider the following from an on-line statement by James Salt, Catholics United:

 

  • No one is being forced to use contraception against their will.  The new rules simply require that employees have access to these services. Individuals who are opposed to the use of contraception do not have to make use of the coverage.
  • Churches are exempt from these rules.  The new rules require that institutions that employ and serve non-Catholics, such as hospitals and universities, are required to include contraception coverage in their health insurance plans.  No Catholic church or diocesan office will be affected.
  • There will be fewer abortions because of this decision.  Regardless of your beliefs about contraception, everyone should recognize that greater access to prevention services will result in fewer unplanned pregnancies.  Fewer unplanned pregnancies will result in fewer abortions.  And despite many false claims to the contrary, the contraception covered by this rule does not include abortifacients, like RU-486, that induce abortion.

 

Additionally, clergy and politicians are wrongfully, and knowingly, alleging that the insurance coverage required for all women would include abortifacients and abortion services. It does not do so. They are also ignoring the fact that President Obama and Kathleen Sibelius allowed a one year delay for the church in order to open discussions about how to implement the requirement without causing a crisis of conscience.

Why does the church lie to its members? Why does it allow and promote political attacks based on lies? Why does it escalate lies, and obfuscate truth? Is it trying to save itself, at any cost?

Why such an attack on women? Does the church oppose insurance coverage for penectomies, Viagra, STDS? Why is it only women’s health which is under attack? This has NOTHING to do with the church’s anti-abortion teaching. The required insurance coverage only covers contraception. Contraception is that which prevents the conception;not birth. 98% of Catholic women use birth control. Why is the church so afraid of contraception? The church teaches that the only purpose of copulation is conception. No sex allowed unless a woman agrees to possible pregnancy. Seriously? Does any thinking adult believe this reflects a moral high-ground ? The only conclusion I can reach is that misogyny led to such a stance. Keep them barefoot and pregnant.  Okay, now I am ranting. I admit it. Perhaps all that grace from confirmation has made me a female warrior, a woman willing to engage in spiritual conflict, even with my own church. Maybe, I have had one too many slaps.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , ,

February 7, 2012 · 12:55 pm

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING ?

Much Ado About Nothing ?

Louise Annarino

February 7, 2012

 

So much of what we read and hear about politics is “much ado about nothing”; while the important information is hidden on a back page, relegated to the lower left-hand column, or never reported. This is partly the result of voice votes scheduled or delayed until late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. For example the vote for Medicare Part D, after 2 days of debate in the House was wrangled to final vote, 216-215, in the very early hours of June 27. The Senate version passed on June 26, and the conference bill came to a vote at 3 a.m. on November 22. When it appeared the vote would fail (219-215) if allowed to proceed to the few final votes the House Republican leadership held the vote open for hours, convincing members to change their votes, passing (220-215) at 5:50 a.m. I recall staying up all night and watching this happen on C-Span. When it was suggested that then-representative Nick Smith (R-MI) switch his vote to “aye” if he wanted substantial and aggressive campaign support” (C-SPAN microphones picked up some of this conversation.See Wickipedia for explanation from Rep. Smith) from  from the Republican Party for his son who was replacing him, I realized this poorly constructed bill would pass. Finally, the problems have been corrected under Obama’s Health Care Affordability Act; the Donut Hole has been closed. Last night, the Transportation Department reauthorization bill was similarly manipulated by Republicans late evening.

The Proposed Transportation Reauthorization Bill  is a vital part of our economic recovery, maintaining  old jobs and creating new ones. It covers surface, rail and air transportation.

Below, are the hi-lights of the bill; one can easily see the importance of passing the bill:

Funding Highlights:

• Provides $13.4 billion in discretionary resources in 2012, a $1.3 billion decrease from 2010 levels. (This figure excludes $109 billion in obligation limitations for the surface transportation plan. Including surface transportation obligation limitations, Department of Transportation’s total budgetary resources increase by $53 billion over 2010.)

• Includes a six-year, $556 billion surface reauthorization plan to modernize the country’s surface transportation infrastructure, create jobs, and pave the way for long-term economic growth. The President will work with the Congress to ensure that the plan will not increase the deficit.

• Jump-starts productive investment and stimulates job growth with a first-year funding boost of $50 billion in 2012.

• Provides $8 billion in 2012 and $53 billion over six years to reach the President’s goal of providing 80 percent of Americans with convenient access to a passenger rail system, featuring high-speed service, within 25 years.

• Includes $30 billion over six years for a pioneering National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of regional or national significance to the economy.

• Continues to invest in the Next Generation Air Transportation System—a revolutionary modernization of our aviation system.

• Initiates Transportation Leadership Awards to create incentives for State and local partners to pursue critical transportation policy reforms.

• Reduces funding for Airport Grants, focusing Federal support on smaller airports, while giving larger airports additional flexibility to raise their own resources.

Click to access transportation.pdf

The above provisions are what President Obama sought; but, not what he is being asked to sign. Approval came after more than four years of disagreement over various provisions, which led to repeated short-term extensions and neither growth nor stability. The most recent short-term extension of the FAA funding will expire Feb. 17. If the President vetoes the bill, projects now in place could be shut down, and thousands of workers lose their jobs, creating even more unemployment.

Adding union-busting provisions to this bill were part of changes proposed in the Republican-controlled House Transportation Committee,and supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A Republican-led effort to weaken rules governing union organizing at airlines and railroads was resolved in a compromise between the House and Senate. But unions are rightly angry with both Republicans and Democrats that new provisions seriously toughen requirements for holding elections. The vote to unionize a workplace moves from 35% to 50% of the workforce voting “aye”; and, non-voters would be counted as “nays”. Think how such a system would affect political elections; definitely an unfair and undemocratic system. Judges would no longer review National Mediation Board Rule changes; public hearings would replace that more efficient and less politicized procedure.

It appears that the bill eviscerates public transportation by rail, subway etc. by changing their funding source. It has been difficult to find details of what actually passed late last night versus what had been discussed during the day. News sources are vaguely supportive of the bill without fully disclosing what the final bill includes. What routinely happens is that this will soon become and old story, and no additional details will be reported upon. We the people will be left  with a bad taste in our mouth for both parties: those greedy self-serving Republicans, and those weak-kneed, caving Democrats. Neither of these descriptions is entirely true. If we stay on this story, we can readjust the flaws within this law. Don’t let this story fade from your memory. It is NOT much ado about nothing. The workers, our middle class, need voters with long memories and a willingness to pay attention.

It is easy to blame Democratic Senators and Congresspersons, and President Obama when he signs the bill into law) for “caving” to Republicans. But consider what was at stake.  Senator Cantwell (D-Wash) expects at least 12,000 jobs to be created in her state as a result. It moves the airports from outdated radar to the safer global positioning technology. It allows projects underway to continue without delays. it provides certainty so that other projects can be funded and get underway.

But make no mistake. This Law undermines the middle class and America’s workers. Long term those issues will have to be addressed. Changes will have to be made in new legislation regarding labor and union rights. This is one more example of Republicans holding our President and the Democratic Party hostage.The Republican Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al. must be held accountable for such blatant attacks on the middle class.

As President Obama stated repeatedly during the 2008 campaign “We are the change that we seek”.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 27, 2012 · 6:08 am

Ashamed To Be A White Woman

ASHAMED TO BE A WHITE WOMAN

Louise Annarino

January 26, 2012

Did you see THE HELP? In the movie based upon the book of the same name, the racism of white women takes center stage, but the African-American women are the stars of the show. When I saw Republican Governor Jan Brewer, of Arizona angrily shake her finger at President Obama at the foot of the staircase as he emerged from his jet, I thought of this movie. Governor Brewer was behaving with the same arrogant disregard for the humanity of President Obama as the white women in the movie did their household help. She displayed the intrinsic racism of white women, which we white women must confront and overcome on a daily basis.

 

What does this disrespectful act show? It shows her premise that she is superior to President Obama, that he must answer to her, and that she is free to publicly shame him. Why? How? He is not her child. He is not a boy. He is an adult male. He is the President of the United States of America. He is a guest of the state of Arizona. He invited her to be present on the tarmac for his arrival, an honor HE granted HER. And he is African-American. To the Gov. Brewers of the world the latter overrides every other consideration.

 

She says the president is “thin-skinned” because he told her that in her book, she misrepresented  a meeting he had with her in the White House. Immediately after the meeting she had told reporters it was “cordial’ and was ‘all smiles”; but, in her book she indicated President Obama had lectured her and was condescending to her.  In other words, she accuses him of having an opinion and challenging her own. How dare he! She later tried to justify today’s behavior saying she felt  “threatened”. How many African-American men have been jailed or lynched on trumped-up assault charges by a white woman claiming she felt threatened? Too many. As a  further defense of her own rudeness she accuses the President of walking away from her while she was still talking. She accuses him of the very thing she did…behaving rudely.

 

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton was close enough to observe and overhear the interaction  between the two. He has indicated that the President did not prematurely leave the scene; but, in fact stayed much longer than he expected, and was very gracious and calm. In the photo itself, President Obama appears to be calming and comforting. It is not he who is angrily denouncing someone. When interviewed about the incident he continued to act graciously toward Gov. Brewer. The Governor’s attempt to justify her actions is not simply a reframing of truth to make herself look better; nor is it believable. It is a series of lies which defame President Obama. This confirms the President’s contention that her book misrepresented him. She is still misrepresenting him!

The most damning of all is that Gov. Brewer actually thinks we accept her justification. White women always expect to be believed when attacking an African-American man. Clearly, we can all see within the photo itself, and from comments of nearby observers that she was putting the “boy” in his place. To then add feeling threatened and accusing the President of wrongdoing confirm my initial impression that she behave with racist anima. This is despicable behavior. Unfortunately, it sells books.

Somedays, I am just ashamed to be a white woman. Today is one of those days.

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 23, 2012 · 11:46 pm

LETTERS FROM HOME: POLITICAL E-MAILS

LETTERS FROM HOME: Political E-Mails

Louise Annarino,

January 23, 2012

Political e-mails, I call them “letters from home”, from friends and family tend to fall into one of several categories:

  1. Ad hominem attacks on President Obama using “facts” proven untrue: e.g. refuses to show his birth certificate, apologist for America as evildoer, spending country into ruin, raised taxes etc.
  2. References to an un-cited article published by well-known news source as basis for  “facts” proven untrue.
  3. Religious pieces with art depicting Christ on the cross, candles with moving flames across the flag and cross; citing scripture etc. before attacking Obama for stopping Americans from praying, reading scripture or forcing them to pay for abortions.
  4. Letters from unknown  or anonymous (they would be destroyed if they disclosed their identity)persons, veterans, military personnel, or secret agents describing some horrendous anti-American act/ statement by President Obama which Politifact and other neutral fact checkers indicate are lies.
  5. Racist rants.

The one thing each of these has in common is that they intertwine reality with lies, their source cannot be found, there is no factual basis for the allegations contained within, they claim liberal-elitist media is keeping the story under wraps…AND…we are warned that if we do not forward this information something terrible will happen.

I used to go line-by-line refuting each allegation with facts which were properly cited to original source material, and hit “reply all” asking each person to forward my response to others whom they had sent the e-mail. I received 3 types of response:

  1. a personal attack on my character, intelligence and morality ( I am being prayed for all over America!);
  2. personal threats to maim or kill me;
  3. warnings to never send such Obama garbage to them again (of course they persist in continuing to send me attack Obama e-mails);
  4. no response at all.

Now, I just hit “delete”. Because such emails are not a true effort to communicate. The people who send them are not inherently stupid, nor deranged. They are not un-educated, nor unread. They are not mean, nor uncaring. They simply hate having an African-American president more they than hate sounding stupid. Yes, they also hate having a Democratic president. But what frightens them most is that the era of  heterosexual,white male dominance is over. They sense the game can’t be rigged in their favor much longer. African-Americans, Latinos, East Asians, West Africans and other new immigrant groups are gaining demographic majority far faster than anticipated. Women and the LGBT community are gaining professional and economic clout at an increasing pace. President and Michelle Obama are a daily “in-your-face” reminder that the power of privileged white men is on shaky ground. They need to dominate our political bodies: legislative, executive and judicial to maintain their presumed superiority. President Obama’s success are an affront to their control. They do not fear he is failing the country; they fear his success. What else can they do but lie … to themselves, to one another, and to us – their family and friends? And, when we do not buy the lie, they attack us personally.  I cannot lie to myself or to them, merely to hold the sense of family and friendship. I welcome the wonders a diverse leadership of this country can bring. As a woman, I resent their insistence I must accept their white, male dominance as a sacred reality. I am saddened by this loss of communion. I had enjoyed communicating with them. I no longer do. Is this how the Civil War became possible?

Even right-wing, Tea Party, Christian fundamentalist Michele Bachman is an unacceptable threat to the male dominance espoused by  today’s political conservatives: “Rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s Iowa coalitions director, Jamie Johnson, sent out an email saying that children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president. He wrote it in June, but it surfaced on the campaign trail in the fall.

“The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?’ ” Johnson’s email said.”

– DesMoines Register ,January 12, 2012 , Jennifer Jacobs;

Candidate Santorum offered no response; and Johnson, in an NBC interview stated his position is rooted in “classical Christian doctrine.”

That explains why so many people are praying for me! Please comment explaining how you handle such e-mails.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , ,

January 22, 2012 · 3:34 pm

ENTHUSIASM GAP

Enthusiasm Gap

Louise Annarino

January 22, 2012

A pragmatist seeking to change direction finds a way, despite the obstacles put in his path.Rep. Boehner refusing to bring a vote to the floor, continual Republican filibusters in the House and Senate, Reps. Mitchell, Cantor et. al. affirming they will do everything possible to create a failed presidency, PACS distorting and lying about President Obama’s successes. The brick walls are numerous, tall and wide.

Republicans should do this.This is what the Republican Party must do to win elections. Their policies message do nothing to produce jobs, decrease the deficit over the long term, curb excesses and corruption among the moneyed class which controls banking, investment, insurance and health industries (these used to be considered services, not industries), or create a more secure world. Thus, they must attack Democratic incumbents. This is the game of politics. If you have no message, use ad hominem attacks and distort the opponent’s message. Of course they should do this. And Obama supporters should understand this; but, too many of us seem to fall for it.

We human beings are ego-driven. If someone does not pull the car in the driveway the right way, or adds sugar to their sauce, or snorts when they laugh instead of chuckling, we roll our eyes! At any gathering one will find secret glances stolen when someone in the group doesn’t measure up to scrutiny. Sometimes it is better to withhold judgement and simply support one another; not in blind acceptance, but in shared consideration of the difficulties of life, and our common humanity. Sometimes, subliminal racial bias distorts our sense of common humanity.

President Obama told us over and over “We are the change”; we, not just him. A lesser man would have crumbled under the racist onslaught he, Michelle and their children face ever day. I heard recently that Michelle gets more death threats than the president. Do those who feel less enthusiastic about this president have any idea what such attacks do to a person? Could you handle it so well as the Obama family handles it? Recall the racist images on signs at Tea Party rallies. Listen to the Republican debates as presidential contenders talk code, and define American values as those of a white racist past, rather than the enlightened American values the Democratic Party and President Obama stand for. Newt Gingrich won a primary with a high turnout from the old order of South Carolina. But most of America lives in a new day. If we can get people registered and to the polls; and, if the 2012 polls are run fairly, Democrats will see that the  majority of Americans support an enlightened America and President Obama.

When a pragmatist hits a brick wall (in today’s political environment this has become the norm) he climbs over it, digs under it, or goes around it. This takes more time, more effort, and can look foolish. But, in the long run, it works. Instead of catcalls from those disappointed he did not tear down the wall (and satisfy their egos) they could help him. Put out your hands to boost him over the wall. Pick up a shovel and dig under the wall. Or, chart a course he can use to circumvent the wall. And cheer him on as he struggles on our behalf. President Obama is a pragmatist. He is a man of vision who takes the long view. He is like us, hopes that getting to the goal can be done easily; and, when it cannot, changes his strategy. He never gives up. Neither should we.

Enthusiasm is overrated. Hard work, willingness to take the hard knocks and get back up, persistence, and willingness to appear foolish at times are underrated. When we put the two styles together we are invincible. We must, take the time to review President Obama’s many accomplishments during his first term. Has he made mistakes? Who hasn’t? Has he course-corrected when he did? Yes, he has. He does not make excuses, nor cover them up. He owns them and corrects them. That is a president I can be enthusiastic about!

 

1 Comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , ,