Did you know that in the United States it's completely legal to gerrymander for partisan reasons? That just seems so messed up to me. This means that a party who holds the hosue can willfully redistrict seats to ensure that even if the state could go to the other party, that they win, no matter what voters want. Gerrymandering is one of the sleaziest tools in the conservative playbook. They want the win, they don't care if they earn it.
So the party that has incredible pools of dark money, that are being controlled by business interested Koch Brothers and ALEC, that has been working to completely fuck US citizens by screwing them out of money in order to give corporations tax cuts, that shut the government down at a massive cost in order to repeal a law that was legally and constitutionally passed, can legally redraw districts so that they have an unfair advantage in elections. And the worst part? It's legal even if they know that it will disproportionately impact minorities because those minorities may vote democrat. Lovely
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS AND THE UNITED STATES
REGARDING SECTION 3(C) OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
"In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats.6 It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.
See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 551 (1999) (“[A] jurisdiction may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering, even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen to be black Democrats and even if the State were conscious of that fact.”); League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 854 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (“[Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act] is implicated only where Democrats lose because they are black, not where blacks lose because they are Democrats.”)."
Sounds menacing doesn't it. Almost like you're living in a dictatorship. It certainly seems to have put the scare in many right winged voters.
But here's something that people should know;
If Premier Kathleen Wynne is an "unelected premier" than all Premier's are unelected Premiers.
1) The leader of the party is chosen by the people within the party. They hold an election, and whomever wins becomes the leader, and the Premier if the party wins power.
2) During an election, the only people who actually vote for the Premier is their riding. If the leader of the party loses their riding, they usually have to rely on a backbencher resigning so they can hold a by-election and win a seat. If they don't win a seat, than they can't enter the legislature. This is happening with BC Premier Christy Clarke right now.
3) Replacing Premiers while a party holds power is incredibly common place and happened as recently as Mike Harris' 2nd term. He stepped down, the party held an election, and Ernie Eaves replaced him.
In fact, since George LeDrew took the Premiership in the 1940s, the only Premiers to not come into power this way are David Peterson (Liberal), Bob Rae (NDP), Mike Harris (PC, replaced by Ernie Eves) and Dalton McGuinty (replaced in his 3rd term by new Liberal Party leader Kathleen Wynne).
This technique is literally called the Tory Regeneration Technique, and was created by the PC's.
This is how it's done.
So, I am begging you to please use this to stop people from using that talking point. It isn't true, it doesn't even make sense since the leader of the PC's before Hudak became Premier by taking power in the middle of a term.
It is the most ridiculous talking point I have ever heard. Please, please stop it.
So there is a ton of speculation out there about the existence of the Rob Ford crack video. Ford Nation supporters are claiming that it must not exist, blah blah blah. Because apparently despite the fact that Rob Ford is a proven liar (see here) for some reason it is more believable that a guy who works for Gawker, a US website from New York who has had no interest in Toronto or the mayor previous to this, is collaborating with two Toronto Star journalists to bring the mayor down and fabricate this story. Despite the fact that TorStar and Gawker have both said they have seen the video, had an argument about whose story it was and generally agree on all of the details of the film, Ford Nation has their heads so far buried in the sand that it can not be true.
Well people, here's a list of reasons why this story is so believable to people who don't blindly support the craptastic Mayor of Toronto.
The phone call where he is recorded telling someone he will get Oxycontin for them.
The call by his MIL to the police about him threatening to kidnap his children "report that the mayor had been drinking and was taking his children to Florida against the wishes of his wife, Renata."
The escalation of strange behaviour this year alone:
The Sarah Thomson sexual assault story
This picture of him very obviously inebriated:
The story about him being asked to leave the gala
The fact that he ran out of a meeting to put magnets on cars unexpectedly
The former press secretary who wrote here that his staff has previously asked him to get help.
With all of this, how can someone argue that Mayor Ford doesn't have a substance abuse problem?? And how is it believable that all of this is made up; that his former press secretary, an ex rival mayor candidate, three journalists, multiple newspapers (the sun was the one that reported the asked to go to rehab story) are all working to bring him down for personal reasons. The previous lies and dui. It's just all way too much to sweep under the rug.
People need to do him a favour and stop justifying this behaviour and stop jumping on conspiracy theories when it is so obvious that the mayor needs help.
Right now there is a lot of news circling about Rob and his brother Drug, I mean, Doug Ford. There is speculation about the family's involvement in the drug trade and current drug abuse allegations plaguing the Mayor and his brother, Conservative MPP hopeful. While his rabid supporters are demanding people trust Rob and Doug over credible journalists, calling the articles unfounded and a witch hunt, people are ignoring some very basic reasons why Rob Ford and his brother are not fit for office. While the drug allegations certainly play a part, there is much more that can be used to criticize the brothers.
1. Rob Ford on Bike Lanes: “I can’t support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it’s their own fault at the end of the day,” Video of Rob Ford actually saying this here
And then:
Rob Ford moves in to scrap the Jarvis Bike lanes, when people opposed, this is the response they got through a form email, which stated:
"The City should remove the bike lanes as soon as possible and improve travel times for thousands of daily commuters. City staff have been directed to develop a low-cost plan to do so. Bike lanes were never intended to be installed on Jarvis Street. The original Environmental Assessment recommended against installing bike lanes - but City Council amended the report to approve bike lanes anyway." (Notice the lack of study being performed to prove his claim that it would improve travel times).
After a little digging, I discovered the actual Environmental Assessment didn't disagree with the bike lanes, they disagreed with the way the city was proposing them, and offered an alternative they thought would work better.
2.Rob Ford and the Toronto Police:
During his run for the mayorallship, Rob Ford promised the city that he would put more police officers on the streets, this was both unsolicited and unwanted by police chief Bill Blair.
Earlier this summer, Rob Ford's Toronto Police voted, and approved an 11 percent pay increase.
Now, in order to cut more "gravy" from the city budget, Mayor Rob Ford has told Blair that he needs to find 10% to cut from the budget "or else".
This 10% budget cut can only come from laying off police officers. Police Officers that could have kept their jobs had the 11% wage increase not occurred, or if Rob Ford hadn't promised citizens there was "gravy" that could be cut, when there wasn't.
His brother's comments calling for Police Chief Bill Blair to resign because of Blair's announcement that confirmed the crack video.
3. Rob Ford and his attack on the TTC and Transit City:
Despite numerous reports suggesting that the cutting of Transit City would be costly to the city, and the Province, Rob Ford declared that that Transit City was dead (of course, this really isn't a decision he can make alone, and has yet to have city council vote to go ahead with this). Spouting more vitriole about how the "war on the car" is over, Rob Ford really appears to believe he is the only, and final say on the matter.
Updated: and of course this is exactly what happened, the Scarborough LRT has been cut in favour of a three stop Subway that will be far more expensive.
Which brings us to point number 4
4. Rob Ford has zero idea what his role, authority and responsibilities are as mayor. Rob Ford seems to legitimately believe that he holds all of the power, and that city council will bend to his will when he asks. This of course is untrue.
In August, Rob Ford, after a meeting consisting of only himself and his brother (who is neither a deputy nor commissioner, and holds no power above and beyond any other city councillor) decided that Toronto would not bid on the 2020 Olympics. And although some councillors would agree that a bid for the Olympics would not be in the city's interests, they are outraged that he made a unilateral decision without input from City Council, and appears to have given his brother special privileges that he has not been allotted. Nepotism runs high in this city government.
This is one in a line of unilateral decisions (much like Transit City) that Rob Ford doesn't have the power to make.
5. Rob Ford comes from a wealthy family, and appears to believe that all councillors should, and do have access to the same resources he has. He uses his own money to purchase his office supplies (which is against council rules) so he can state he has a zero sum office budget. He has been breaking city council rules for years, and it would be naive to believe that would stop now that he holds the reigns. Allowing this behaviour sets a dangerous precedent. If Ford's behaviour is accepted, people will get the impression that only the wealthy can run, and work in politics, and that is absolutely untrue.
6. Rob Ford and his brother Doug (Fords brother for whom he gives an unapproved amount of power) tried to cut the Toronto libraries. When Margaret Atwood took on the case Doug Ford was quoted as saying "I don't even know her" and then went on to imply that if she isn't an elected representative, then she should have no say in policy or what happens in Toronto. Hmm, that's not how democracy works Doug.
7. Rob Ford has offered, on a couple of occasions, the opportunity for anyone who wants to speak an opportunity to support or oppose proposed legislation, one such incident lasted 22 hours. After making city council sit through 22 hours of people speaking against cutting social services, Ford and his allies essentially dismissed every commenter, and wasted valuable time and money.
Updated:
8. Rob Ford consistently uses city recourses for personal reasons.
. And the most recent story regarding asking city staffers to organize a party for the football team that he was just fired from, and now his request that his staffers go get donated equipment back.
. His DUI and marijuana possession (that he lied about at first, only coming clean after media reports) . and now his own confirmation that he drank and drove more recently and then days later opted to make fun of a fellow councillor for drinking and driving.
He called all of these lies, two of which have already been substantiated as truth, not a stretch to believe the others are true as well since he was found lying about the DUI and the altercation at the Leaf's game.
. His pussy comments
. His erratic behaviour at council meetings
10. The fact that he is an international embarrassment: . Daily Show Clip . Jimmy Kimmel Clip (see above link) . After the Lisi ITO and the admission to crack smoking this has only gotten worse, there is no way I could possibly include all of the clips, they've been that numerous, but here are a couple:
11. Here is a map that shows all of the various public complaints he's faced while in office
This isn't even close to being an exhaustive list.
I think the most insulting thing about this whole thing is the fact that the Ford's (who have been caught lying) are smearing media, and have created some sort of complex conspiracy that all "left wing media" (rich since both the Globe and the Sun have had stories about him) are out to get him. Despite the fact that he's admitted to allegations, he and his brother are still claiming that this is all a media conspiracy, and most shockingly there are people who believe it.
Ford is a lying liar. He's a multi-millionaire, who's never had to work for anything, and has ridden on the coattails of his father (this is true for both of the Fords) and somehow has managed to make people who make little over minimum wage believe that he represents them. Trust fund kids with huge egos who thumb their nose at politicians who actually need their salaries and can't just do it for "the good of the people" (or future political aspirations, living up to their father's expectations, and for potential manipulation of government to fulfil their right winged agenda). Who also scream out allegations while shouting that "unnamed sources" are making shit up about them.
I can not wait until this all comes to a head, and these two idiots leave office in complete disgrace.
This is an interesting read. Well...... interesting is subjective.
This is a link to the Senate debates from Tuesday, the day Harper made his infamous speech and the first day of Parliament after the Parliamentary break the week before. This has some very important information regarding the Senate scandal. For one, the investigations into Brazeau and Harb were called before Duffy's despite the fact that Duffy was indicted in this mess before Harb. The investigations were all started due to media reports (this is imporant). Harb and Brazeau's were sent to subcommittee's of the Internal Economy Standing Committee, where as Duffy's was handled by the Standing committee (the one with Furey, Olsen and Tkachuk). Why the difference?
Also Mac Harb claims that the independent audit by Deloitte decided that there was no clear rule about primary residency, yet the Senate committtee ignored that, and deloitte's recommendations and created their own decision outside of the facts. They also stated that the rules were clear and unambiguous in their reports about Brazeau and Harb, but state that the rules were ambiguous in their report about Duffy.
A Conservative Senator also argues at one point that they shouldn't be investigating media claims about the Duffy/Wright thing (or shouldn't be going solely off of them) despite the fact that the original audits were spurred by media reports, seems like a little bit of a contradiction.
There's more, but these are the highlights. Definitely worth the read!
Watching twitter go off during the post caucus meeting press conferences has been absolutely hilarious. The talking points are already out in full force;
Mulcair wants to abolish the senate entirely, Huzzah how fantastic!.
This would be a great idea if it were at all possible for Parliament to do it themselves. In order for the Senate to be abolished a consensus would have to be made with the provinces. This is because the Senate, or the house of sober second thought, is constitutionally engrained. Thankfully it isn't that easy to change the constitution in this country. Currently there is a case in front of the Supreme Court that is looking into the constitutionality of abolishment, a decision has not been given yet, but one can assume that the Supreme Court will decide that Parliament does not have the power to abolish the senate, and the appropriate means will have to be taken in order to accomplish this.
This is a long drawn out process, and since the Supreme Court hasn't ruled yet, and Canadians are easily convinced of things a quick google search would disprove, Mulcair takes a completely safe position here, arguing for something he knows he can't deliver on (and will conveniently be able to blame his change of position on the Supreme Court decision). Throughout this campaigning on abolishment of the Senate, and passing out the talking point that Justin Trudeau simply wants to pad the senate with more Liberal senators, Mulcair, the official leader of the opposition, will be missing the opportunity to focus on the real issues here; the conflict of interest and ethics violations that caused the scandal to begin with. This gives PM Harper, Senator Mike Duffy and the rest of the chronies a free pass.
The Conservatives have been patting themselves on the back for being so swell, and have decided to focus solely on the expenses within the Senate. They want to reform the process for these expenses, make the rules clearer and waste a whole lot of time since these rules already exist, they just don't have to be followed when the PM appointed senators white wash a report and give the offenders the benefit of the doubt.
Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau is arguing not for padding the senate, or leaving it as it is, but for thoughtful debate and consideration on the matter. Firstly, wait for the Supreme Court decision to come down before you start rabble rousing about something you can't do, and secondly, acknowledge the role the Provinces and Canadian citizens have in this decision.
Trudeau also would like to move the focus from the senate onto the PMO, Nigel Wright, Duffy and Harper himself. There are a ton of questions that haven't been answered (you know since Harper refused to answer questions for Canadian journalists, yet willingly answered questions from Peruvian journalists), and this part of the scandal is what is demonstrative of all of the issues with this government. They aren't accountable, they aren't even remotely transparent, and patronage appointments are a way of life. I am shocked they haven't used the Rob Ford claim that they just have a different understanding of what conflict of interest means. I mean it worked for him, why wouldn't it work for the PMO? Although sputterings of this have been tried, the idea that Nigel Wright a man with law degrees from both University of Toronto and Harvard, had no clue that writing a 90 thousand dollar cheque with no expectations of it being paid back, would be viewed as a gift; you know a thing you give without an expectation of financial renumeration, and would be directly against the rule stating :
Section 17 (1) of the Senate Conflict of Interest code states: “Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept … any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator’s position.”
is absolute bullshit. It's quite possibly the biggest load of shit this government has tried to feed us.
I am not a lawyer, I'm just a measly 4th year Honours poli-sci student, so I think it should be reasonable to state that if I can read that and know that giving any sort of financial gift like the $90 000 written by Wright would be against the rules, someone with an education like Nigel Wright would have understood that as well.
Conflict of interest violations and ethics violations are par for the course with this government which is exactly why that's what we need to be focusing on. On the same day that the shit hit the proverbial fan when Harper gave a unconvincing pep talk to his caucus, it came out that Harper had appointed Conservative donors to the EI board, another incredibly obvious conflict of interest and patronage violation.
The thing is Harper thinks Canadians are stupid, and that while he and his friends might be able to read those laws and fully understand what they mean and their ramifications, that regular Canadians like me could not possibly have a clue. But we do. We understand why what they did was wrong. We understand that the closest appointed person to the Prime Minister writing a cheque to a Senator appointed by the same man that would stop an audit dead in it's tracks and have other Conservative Senators declaring that repayment was good enough with them is a shady fucking thing. We also know that there's not a rainbows chance in Hell that Harper had no clue this was happening.
People have been using their words very carefully in prepration for the oncoming investigations (there will be many, they will take years and they will cost millions) but people are catching on. The government hacks, the guys that actually are stealing Canadian taxdollars, think that we have no clue what they're doing. They think that they can just keep on bringing up "Adscam," not just bring it up but lie about the actually fallout of the situation ($2 million misused, half paid back by the Liberals, and top brass were found to be ignorant). At one point I read that the Liberals had stolen over 300 million dollars throughout the process. That's a huge number and it's bound to make people incapable of googling incredibly angry, but it's not the truth and moreover an event that happened over a decade ago can not be used to justify every single scandal, every single misstep of the Conservative Harper government.
Harper appoints 58 senators after campaigning on appointing none? "Adscam and the Liberals appointed senators too"
We get the picture, you guys are still pissed about the sponsorship scandal, but complaining about something that happened over a decade ago while ignoring the rampant issues created by the current government makes your anger meaningless and hypocritical. Hold all parties, all politicians, all governments to the same standards. It's the only way that any of your criticisms will mean something.
This last week has brought a ton of drama, and intrigue to the #cdnpoli hashtag on Twitter. There is the Rob Ford Crack scandal, the Harper Government's continual muzzling of Scientists, the missing 3.1 billion dollars that no one can explain, the use of taxpayer dollars to advertise for a jobs grant program THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET, EI board violations, etc, etc, etc, but none of these even come close to the drama surrounding the Senate Scandal. The Senate Scandal may be the scandal that finally brings down the Harper government; I personally hope that's the case.
Prime Minister Harper took the time to address his caucus today and subject them to a vapid, mindless speech. Prime Minister Harper made sure to mention "Adscam" in his speech but failed to mention Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy, or anything remotely related to the controversy that caused the speech to begin with. He then called for Senate reform and called on Tory senators to put through senate reform "regardless of any opposition they may face" implying that the Tory senators are standing on the high moral ground in this scandal. It felt like the Prime Minister was scolding the other political parties for not playing by the rules, not like he was dealing with a major scandal caused by his own appointed senators, his chief of staff and the PMO. Harper also cheerleaded himself as having the most accountable and transparent government in the world, and then he promptly refused to answer questions from the media that had been invited to watch the spectacle in a move that was directly contradictory to the bullshit speech he had just given. After this, PM Harper skipped out on Question Period and flew to Columbia, stopping only to have his photo taken with a saluting naval officer as he boarded to attend a meeting that many of the political pundits have called meaningless leaving angry journalists, angry opposition members and even angrier voters behind.
I think what might be the most insulting thing about this whole drama is that we're expected to believe that the man that used tax dollars to spy on CPC backbenchers had no idea what his Chief of Staff was up to, or maybe it's the idea that Nigel Wright, a man with two law degrees, wasn't aware of the ramifications of providing that money to Senator Duffy, a move which was a glaringly obvious ethical violation. Or maybe, possibly, the most insulting thing is that Stephen Harper has used this incident to make himself the moral victor, the hero of accountability and push his Senate reform agenda. Using a scandal caused by your party to benefit your party is smart but it's also disgusting.
It has since come out that the two "independent" institutions that will be investigating the matter are Mary Dawson, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of Canada appointed by PM Harper, and the Senate itself, proving once again that the CPC seemingly has completely different definitions than the rest of Canadians for terms like "independent," "accountable," and "transparent." (This has still not been stated officially as John Baird skirted the issue multiple times during Question Period).
Also in the news today it has come out that Harper appointed people to the EI board that had previously donated to the Conservative party, a big patronage no-no.
This man who touts himself as being "accountable" and "transparent" continuously breaks the trust of the Canadians that voted for him (all 39%) and reaffirms the criticisms the majority of Canadians have about him and his government. 3.1 billion dollars missing, money spent on ads for a program that doesn't exist and will not exist for at least a year, crooked appointments to the Senate and the EI Board, and that's just this month. The Harper government has crossed a major line, it is time for them to go. Which is a great dream, but will not happen unless the 39% of voters that voted for them finally wake up and stop following a partisan line to the detriment of themselves and their country, until they stop defending his actions and justifying them to themselves by repeating "Adscam" over and over and over. The fate of the country rests in the hands of people who seemingly have no ability to think analytically, people who are so blinded by partisan madness that they can't see the shit that's being smeared right in front of them.
I almost feel like it's time we should be mourning our country, for as long as elections can be won with such a small percentage of the country, and people keep on ignoring the hard truth about PM Harper, or remain apathetic to the hundreds of articles criticizing Harper's actions, nothing is going to change. The media will be stifled or used as a propaghandic mouth piece, elections will be stolen again, and laws will be violated all while we're being told it's all okay because they say it is, trust them.
To paraphrase the Wizard of Oz: "Don't look at the man behind the curtain, he's not doing anything important".
At first I was apprehensive about where she was going with the article. After reading through it, I feel the authour raises some very good points.
Dr.Sears and other likeminded "parenting experts" seem to have these unbelievably unrealistic expectations of mothers. Extended breastfeeding, baby wearing, co-sleeping are all discussed like they aren't any big thing, like they are the only things mothers could and should be doing to end up with well rounded amazing adults. They (mostly men) discuss these things like there is no good reason for a woman to not commit to spending her life putting her children first. Now, I don't disagree that children should be a priority, but they shouldn't be THE priority. Putting aside just the financial reasons why extended breastfeeding, etc. are unrealistic for most women, the emotional tolls these "practices" take on women should be enough to make any expert second guess their advice. Mothers are people with children, they don't exist solely for the child, they don't exist solely for the husband. We have needs, wants, desires, dreams, we need to be emotionally nurtured while we are emotionally nurturing our families. We need independence, and we need people to finally respect that we are people first, and mothers second.
I have the upmost respect for any mother, father, parent, who can afford both financially and emotionally to live their lives just for their children but that isn't, and won't ever be me. I need more. And I fully believe my child needs me to be more.
My daughter needs me to be a strong role model for her. She needs to see that women can be whatever they want to be, they can accomplish amazing things, and they can make real, sustainable differences. These successes should never come at the health and happiness of the child, absolutely, but that should be said for both parents. Why is no one lecturing the father that spends every night at the office trying to get ahead? What about the off road trucker who leaves for weeks at a time? Why is no one telling them they should put their emotions, dreams and financial well being to the wayside so they can be present, strong father figures for their children? Why are all of the expectations on moms?
This society is so fucked up. We were raised to believe that women should be strong, and successful, yet as adults we are constantly being told we aren't good enough to get the same jobs as men, we aren't good enough to be paid the same for the same work as men, we should be putting everything aside for our children, we should be expected to work and still get home and clean the house. Men are expected to be successful, and that certainly comes with it's own pressures, but they don't experience half of the societal pressures women face. We are never good enough. There is always some new expert selling us on our insecurities. There are so many people literally profiting on the fact that women are not good enough.
When will enough be enough? When will we finally say NO, we are good enough. NO, we will not work a full time job and take care of our husbands and families the way a 50s SAHM did. NO, we will not lose our identities so that our children can be considered "healthy" to an expert who has ZERO scientific and empirical evidence to back up his claims.
Women have made major strides towards equality, but we still have a long way to go. Until I see a book by Dr.Sears or any of his kin telling a dad they aren't good enough or should be dedicating their lives to their children, we will never be equal. And until we stand up and stop buying the crap their feeding us, this will never happen.
"The bill was introduced by State Reps. Don Balfour (R-Snellville), Bill Hamrick (R-Carrollton), Bill Cowsert (R-Athens), and Ross Tolleson (R-Perry). All four Senators are members of an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC). ALEC bring corporations and lawmakers together to draft template legislation that is introduced in other states to change policy. ALEC claims to be nonpartisan but is funded by several right-wing thing tanks."
Having sold themselves to corporate interests long ago, four Georgia senators are looking to legislate away First Amendment Rights on the advice of corporations (surprised?). They are putting through a bill that would make it a felony to picket (in particular to picket a CEO's house). Could they not even try to look like they're standing up for voters? At least a little? This bill is just more proof that the Republican Party (both federally and at the state level) or serving the interest of the wealthy, and have zero interest in standing up for actual voters.
The ability to protest is a First Amendment right, and these Republican senators are trying to legislate it away. How is this standing up for freedom, or respecting the constitution (y'know those two things that Republicans keep saying they're trying to protect)?
Now, you might want to argue that they believe they are protecting constitutional rights, mainly the CEO's right to privacy (your privacy's not important though). However:
"“In addition, they have from the beginning of the Session been looking like they want to find Constitutional challenges and actually pass bills that they know are unconstitutional but to use them as a way to overturn federal law,” Pellegrini said."
There is no defence for this. This party claims they stand for the Constitution, YET they knowingly violate it all of the time! They are constantly threatening the rights of the individual, and attempting to re-interpret and change it to suit their own personal agendas.
If this goes through the Republican Party will have successfully legislated one of your First Amendment Rights away from you, fucking amazing.
For this piece I will be referring to "pro-life" as "anti-choice" because let's face it, none of us are against life, that's a fallacy that's used to manipulate people and make the pro-choice movement come off as immoral and "anti-life" which is bullshit.
Despite the fact that I'm pro-choice, I do understand where the anti-choice group are coming from. They believe that life begins at conception, awesome, good for them. What I don't understand is why they believe that they are entitled to their "beliefs" but we aren't entitled to ours.
The difference between the two views is this: No one is going to force someone who believes life begins at conception to get an abortion (or at this point even perform an abortion), but by trying to make their beliefs legislation they are literally forcing their beliefs on everyone, forcing their belief that life begins at conception and their religious values onto the rest of the country. So much so that they attempt legislation that would prevent a pro-choice doctor from performing abortions, even those that are medically necessary.
We hear so much about anti-choice doctor's rights, that they should be allowed to morally object to giving abortions, but yet these same people have zero problem trying to pass legislation that would prevent a pro-choice doctor from doing something he feels is morally just. So anti-choice doctors should get the choice whether or not to perform an abortion but a pro-choice doctor isn't given the same right. Fan fucking tastic.
Their morals mean more than our morals apparently, and it's that sort of hypocrisy that I can't stomach.
Want to add (thank you Katie :D):
Pro-Choice does not mean you are pro-abortion, or that you don't believe that life begins at conception, it means that you believe in the woman's right to choose.
Attaching a contraception bill to a transportation bill is a dirty move, that sort of game playing is so frustrating! This is done to get people who would otherwise disapprove or vote down the bill to pass it, they attach it to useful, reasonable legislation in order to manipulate votes. I hate it.
“[T]he Majority Leader often offers amendments on behalf of other Senators—of both parties. And I appreciate the Majority Leader pointing out that Republicans insisted on having this vote. As everyone saw from the floor speeches [Wednesday], there is significant interest in protecting religious liberty despite the President’s health care bill’s mandate.”
Deflection. I mean serious deflection. Their amendment would give ANY employer the ability to decide what employees insurance provides. That's ridiculous. This amendment would take rights away from the INDIVIDUAL and give them to Corporations and Religious Institutions. Awesome, exactly what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect people from.
I am thrilled that this bill was defeated today. This would have been terrible for Women's rights, for reproductive rights, and for American freedom in general! The GOP is playing some serious games right now. If they're going to play this dirty to get ideological legislation through when they aren't in charge, what lines would they be willing to cross if they get all of the power?
"Republican aides privately say the cause is not an ideal point of focus, an admission evinced by the GOP’s recent messaging blitz on fuel prices."
Oh so you mean it's not a coincidence that all of a sudden Republicans are screaming about Obama and the price of gas? I'm shocked.
The president does not control the price of gas, this correlation is nothing more than rhetoric, and grasping at straws.
"Crude oil - The biggest portion of the cost of gas goes to the crude-oil suppliers. This is determined by the world's oil-exporting nations, particularly the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which you will learn more about in the next section. The amount of crude oil these countries produce determines the price of a barrel of oil. Crude-oil prices averaged around $35 per barrel (1 barrel = 42 gallons or 158.99 L) in 2004. And, after Hurricane Katrina, some prices were almost double that. In April 2008, crude-oil prices averaged around $104.74 per barrel. During that month, the price of oil reached a record price of almost $120 a barrel [source:DOE]. By May 16, prices had topped $117 per barrel [source:MarketWatch]. On May 22, markets in New York and London reported prices past $135 per barreland, and on July 11, oil hit an all-time high of $147 [source: Forbes, New York Sun]. Analysts speculated that everything from investment in oil futures to increasing demand from countries like India and China contributed to the spike in price.
Sometimes, gas prices go up even though there is plenty of crude oil on the market. It depends on what kind of oil it is. Oil can be classified as heavy or light, and as sweet or sour (no one actually tastes the oil, that's just what they call it). Light, sweet crude is easier and cheaper to refine, but supplies have been running low. There's plenty of heavy, sour crude available in the world, but refineries, particularly those in the U.S., have to undergo costly retooling to handle it." (Source http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/gas-price1.htm)
Do you know what did affect the price of gas? That massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That massive oil spill that BP tried as hard as they could to not be responsible for. And do you know how they got away with it for as long as they did? That wonderful thing called Neo Liberalism and the "Free Market" which has encouraged countries to strip away regulations all in the name of Profit. So BP doesn't have to do as many checks to make sure their shit isn't going to explode so that CEO's that aren't even from the US can make money. Fucking Awesome.
Also, and I want to stress this, the Republicans are not fiscally responsible. Both Bush's and Reagan drove up MASSIVE deficits! The fiscally responsible conservative is a myth, and people really need to stop believing it.
So since they aren't fiscally responsible, and since they've done absolutely NOTHING for the economy, people who give these people their votes will be doing so based on ideological ideals alone. That means if you don't agree with their stances on abortion and Equal marriage and you vote for them, you'll be giving them license to focus on those ideologies. These Dangerous ideals that really do run the risk of taking what was once considered one of the most free countries in the world and making it unbelievably repressive, and ruled by religion.
My heart is pounding, I have lumps in my throat, my stomach is churning and I'm not even there. Watching the livestream, reading twitter, and watching the youtube videos of police violence has been nerve wracking, but I can't turn away.
I'm a witness to the events of tonight. It feels like I'm there with them, when I'm actually miles away.
Yet the mainstream media and Barack Obama are still diminishing what's going on.
Today reports of 50,000 people marched together, in solidarity. Union workers, nurses, teachers, students, unemployed Americans, vets all in one unit peacefully, democratically sending a message together. People are still ignoring what's going on!
Now to touch on the not so heartwarming part of today's events. After a very peaceful march, demonstrators tried to converge on Wall Street, and the Police used the opportunity to act like babaric assholes with daddy issues. Beating, macing and pushing otherwise peaceful protests, just like the bullies they are. Lucky for them, it was all caught on video, and they weren't as smart as the G20 police were, it won't be that hard to find them.
This movement isn't going anywhere, it's only getting stronger, and on October 15 the world will join in.
I haven't seen the support for OccupyWallstreet here in Canada that I would have hoped to see. I believe it's because Canadians sincerely believe that what's happening on OccupyWallstreet doesn't apply to us. But they're wrong. Here's a short list of reasons why Canadians should be occupying as well.
1. The telecommunications monopoly:
Companies like Bell and Rogers own everything related to the way we receive and send media. They own our cable lines, they own our television stations, and they own our politicians. We are paying far too much for our internet, phone and cable because Bell and Rogers have no competition, and very little regulation. Check out openmedia.ca to learn more about this.
7. Stephen Harper wants to take public financing out of campaigns. Being that the CPC is great for corporations and not for people, private only financing gives them a HUGE advantage! Just another way that Stephen Harper and the CPC are manipulating laws to benefit them, not Canadians.
Canada is not a perfect country, and with the current Conservative government, things are only going to get worse. We need to stand up now, and take our country back.
Join OccupyCanada on October 15th, and be counted.
Last night I was on twitter and got an update from Pitchfork media. The tweet mentioned that Jeff Mangum (from Neutral Milk Hotel, absolutely one of my favourite musicians) was playing a lullaby for the demonstrators in New York. I immediately switched to the GlobalRevolutions live feed just in time to catch his very last song. It was amazing, serene and a moment in time that they will remember for the rest of their lives. But what was even more amazing was that sitting in my basement in St.Catharines, I was able to be a part of that incredibly special moment. They were miles away, and I got to be there with them.
I stayed on the livestream and watched a Q&A with some of the occupiers. People were able to chat with them, ask questions and receive answers immediately. The demonstrators have made it so that we don't have to "be" there to "be there". We can support them, and their actions by acting as their witnesses, by asking them questions to help streamline their mission, by spreading their words through twitter, facebook and other social media sites.
The fact that the mainstream media appears less then pleased to give the occupation any screentime bothered me at first, but thanks to social media and alternative news sources, and people like me, their words are getting out.
You don't understand why they're doing what they're doing? Go on the livefeed and ask them, or if you can't make it there, tweet @OccupyWallStNYC and ask your question there. They are more then happy to answer, and explain to anyone who wants to know.
Two years ago you campaigned on a message of hope, and change. You gathered support from people who felt underrepresented and were fearful about the future in Republican hands. You convinced us all that you were the answer to the problem. I believed you.
I spoke highly about you to anyone who would listen. I listed your merits, your experience. I defended your right to be President against ignorant internet trolls, and misinformed American citizens. I stood up for you time and time again. Every new decision, ever misdirection, every bill you tried, I defended you.
I have been waiting for you to address what's happening on Wallstreet and is spreading across your country, and the globe. I've been waiting for you to even acknowledge the plight of your citizens, to wake up and pay some attention to what's happening on your soil. I'm tired of hearing your statements about other issues, without even one mention of the biggest revolution to hit your country in years. Your youth have stood up, finally! Your retirees, teachers, union workers, unemployed citizens are all standing together to fight for an America that you promised them.
Mr. President I am done defending you and your actions, or lack their of.
I refuse to continue to rationalize to people about your motivations for wimping out in your fight against Republican tactics. I am finished spreading your message, and standing for your agenda.
That is until you stand up for me, and the rest of us 99% who are desperately needing you to do so.
Your country, the world, need you now more then ever. Now is when your message of hope and change would be the most effective. Those people who have been demonstrating need you to be their voice, and their hope again. They need your action.
Stop putting your career above your people, and start being the President you convinced us all you would be.
Occupy Wallstreet has brought up a lot of emotions from varied, and diverse groups. People are hopeful, frustrated and most of all cynical.
It's amazing to me the amount of times I've read things like "what are they hoping to accomplish?" "This isn't going to amount to anything" "got a job you no good hippies". Well, that would be one of the various things they're hoping to accomplish from this.
The claim that civil disobedience and revolution doesn't accomplish anything isn't new. People used that same argument to convince people to stop the sit-ins at Woolworth lunch counters, to deter women from burning their bras, and to prevent Homosexuals for fighting for equal rights. Every time a movement for equality, civil rights and basic human needs springs up, the same cynical, irrational discourse follows it.
If revolution accomplished nothing we wouldn't have the majority of the rights we grasp onto on a daily basis. We wouldn't have a United States of America.
So many of the things North Americans take for granted on a daily basis came from protests, demonstrations and plain old "anarchy" (although the definition of anarchy used in this context is not at all the definition of anarchy that political scientists acknowledge.) Why shouldn't it work this time?
Yes, when this movement started, the message was vague, but as the movement has developed so has their mission. I've been saying for years that Americans needed to stand up against Lobbyists and Big Business, and fight for their interests to become the focus of Politicians. That's what this movement hopes to accomplish.
The cynicism that's prevalent is just more ignorance, and more rhetoric. They're using this argument to deter people from joining the movement, because they know it CAN accomplish something, and change scares them.
Politics and economics are not meant to be stagnant. Politics is an ever evolving system. As people's needs change, government and politics should be changing to meet them. And if it won't change willingly, it needs to be forced, hence revolution.
For years the rest of the world has been being sold an image of the United States that they should prosper to be. A land of the free, the happy, the proud, the wealthy. A place where anyone's dreams could come true. A place where people truly knew the meaning of freedom. What we're learning today is that the image of the America we've been raised with is the made up face of a fractured nation.
Most Americans I speak too are struggling, are unhappy, and are incredibly frustrated. They've been sold this image too. They were raised to believe they could be what they wanted, that they could have a family, a job and total happiness. The reality they were met with was very different. With unemployment rates still high in the United States, and the costs of necessities like food and power rising, Americans are traveling a tough road, and it doesn't appear to be letting up anytime soon.
And while a majority of Americans are working two jobs just to scrape by, the rich are getting richer. Globalization has made it so that American Corporations don't need American consumers to survive. And with their major sway and influence in Washington, American Consumers don't have a voice, or anyone looking out for their best interests.
Cue in #OccupyWallstreet, or now #Iamthe99. Born out of the frustration of Americans at their lack of representation in politics, OccupyWallstreet is a movement that has major symbolism, and is inspiring similar movements around the world. Finally someone is speaking up for the consumer, the student, the mother, the average person.
As a student of political science, I am excited at the prospect of this movement. For far too long Politicians have been representing the wants of the highest bidder, rather then protecting the needs of their people. They've been trading the wellbeing of the American Citizen for stocks, and post term jobs. It's high time the citizens of the United States, the World, stood up for themselves and stood up against the blatant corruption prevalent in the "land of the free". Finally, people have stopped believing the rhetoric and have started educating themselves on reality. I stand with this movement, I stand with these people, and I have hope that a better America, a better world will be born from this.
