Category Archives: democrats

Major Award: Federal Judge of the Week, Possibly the Decade.

Posted on by
4

Loyal Readers™ may recall our most recent Coathanger Lobby update, in which we reported that federal Judge Edward Korman called the Obama administration’s decision to override its own agency’s recommendation to make Plan B One-Step emergency contraception available over-the-counter without restriction, “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” Judge Korman ordered the administration to make it as available as, say, toothpaste. Or condoms.

The Obama administration appealed that decision. But on the eve of the appeal deadline, it approved over-the-counter sales of Plan B One-Step for those age 15 and above provided they produce proof of age with photo ID. I wrote then:

In a noxious bit of lawyering befitting the sleaziest of the profession (and that is saying something, my friends), the administration relied on its brand new 15+ approval rule to argue in its appeal that the case is moot because the plaintiffs — who happened to be 15 or older —”now have access without a prescription and without significant point-of-sale restrictions to at least one form of emergency contraceptive…”

This was, of course, in direct defiance of the Judge Korman’s order.

I also noted of the new 15+ with ID policy:

It’s bad enough that this leaves girls 14 and under to their coathangers and friendly neighborhood Gosnells, but it isn’t even true. 15 year olds — particularly urban and/or poor 15 year olds — typically have no drivers licenses or access to other forms of state ID, and thus will not be able to purchase Plan B. FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said in an interview, “If a 15-year-old is unable to verify their age, they will not be able to purchase Plan B One-Step.”

Well. In an appeal hearing this Tuesday morning, Judge Korman did not exactly take to kindly to the administration’s disingenuous poo-flinging and rained down righteous scorn upon it — along with some primo mockery. It is truly a thing of beauty to behold.

Via Irin Carmon at Salon in a piece titled Judge rips Obama’s right-wing Plan B stance:

Korman repeatedly slammed his hand down on the table for emphasis, interrupting the government counsel’s every other sentence with assertions like, “You’re just playing games here,” “You’re making an intellectually dishonest argument,” “You’re basically lying,” “This whole thing is a charade,” “I’m entitled to say this is a lot of nonsense, am I not?” and “Contrary to the baloney you were giving me …”

As an aside, and as a public service to my Many Tens of Loyal Readers™, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is rarely, if ever, a good idea to lie to a federal judge.

Anyway, there was more:

He also accused the administration of hypocrisy for opposing voter ID laws but being engaged in the “suppression of the rights of women” with the ID requirement for the drug.

…

Korman made clear why he found that to be an inadequate compromise: “You’re using these 11- and 12-year-olds to place an undue burden on women’s ability to access emergency contraception. If it’s an impediment to voting, it’s an impediment to get the drug.”

This last point unequivocally reveals that the administration is acting here on something other than any sound principle: if ID is a barrier to voting — and of course it is — then ID is a barrier to purchasing Plan B One-Step. Judge Korman pointed out that in a speech to the NAACP regarding various villainous voter ID laws, Attorney General Eric Holder himself cited statistics “showing that 25 percent of African-Americans of voting age don’t have a photo ID.”

Voting age, as you may recall, is 18.

Korman did not say, “You lying hypocrites cannot have it both ways,” although he might as well have. Judge Korman also dismissed out-of-hand the suggestion that 15-year-olds could simply use a birth certificate to purchase Plan B One-Step, and on such painfully obvious grounds that I cannot even believe the government made such a stupid argument: a birth certificate is not a photo ID. Irin Carmon also points out that although the Judge did not note it, immigrant women would also be adversely affected by the ID requirement. Korman said:

”You’re disadvantaging young people, African-Americans, the poor — that’s the policy of the Obama administration?”

Why, yes. Yes it is. Unless, like other right-wing misogynists, the Obama administration next plans to make the case that young, African-American, and/or poor women are not really people. You know, with actual human rights, and stuff.

Oh, but there was still more:

The government has said it put the age cutoff at 15, because [Plan B One-Step manufacturer] Teva had asked them to in their petition. But Korman said that in previously unreleased correspondence between the FDA and Teva, the government had specifically instructed the company to reapply in that fashion after rejecting its first attempt to lift all age restrictions. When he tried to read aloud from one of those documents, a tense standoff resulted, in which Teva’s representative cut in and insisted that the correspondence was confidential. But Korman did get as far as, “We are amending our application to address the Secretary’s stated concern …” In other words, the new restrictions were apparently initiated by the Obama administration as a compromise move.

And he wasn’t done yet:

[Lawyer for the government Frank] Amanat argued that making a hormonal drug like Plan B over-the-counter was unprecedented, and that the public interest was served “when the government acts deliberately and incrementally.” Korman cut in sarcastically, “Tell me about the public interest. Is there a public interest in unplanned pregnancies? Some of which end in abortions?”

Korman also took a shot at Teva over the pricing of Plan B One-Step, which runs about $50, pointing towards Teva’s representative and referring to “Those price gougers over there.” Hahaha. Awesome.

Perhaps Judge Korman’s most astute — and most damning — observation is this one:

“It turns out that the same policies that President Bush followed were followed by President Obama.”

Would that the members of the federal judiciary were so inclined to take on Obama’s DOJ in matters of torture, war crimes, state secrets, drone assassinations, illegal wars and indefinite detention, instead of getting the vapors at the mere utterance of the words “national security” or “terrorism.”

Regardless, for all of the reasons noted above, Perry Street Palace is pleased to bestow its highly coveted Major Award for Federal Judge of the Day, Possibly the Decade, to

Hon. Edward R. Korman*
United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York.

awardjudgekorman

Congratulations, Your Honor. We know of no one more deserving today of this form of address: you truly do honor to justice.

__________

* Judge Edward R. Korman was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, which would ordinarily disqualify candidates for the prestigious Perry Street Palace Major Award for Federal Judge of the Day, Possibly the Decade. But in light of the above, the Palace cannot hold that against him.

Coathanger lobby update: the Obama administration, redux.

Posted on by
Reply
obamalogocoathanger

Hahaha. I crack myself up.

Loyal Readers™ may recall that in 2011, Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, overrode the FDA’s recommendation that Plan B One-Step — the so-called “morning after pill” that prevents pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse —be made available over-the-counter without a prescription for women and girls of all ages. The move was completely unprecedented in the history of the agency. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D., said at the time:

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step.  Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.

It is our responsibility at FDA to approve drugs that are safe and effective for their intended use based on the scientific evidence…Our decision-making reflects a body of scientific findings, input from external scientific advisory committees, and data contained in the application that included studies designed specifically to address the regulatory standards for nonprescription drugs.  CDER experts, including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential.

Despite FDA’s recommendations based entirely on sound scientific evidence, Secretary Sebelius hung her hat on the fact that ten percent of girls in the U.S. reach puberty by the age of 11.1 years, and noted that “the product would be available, without a prescription or other point-of-sale restrictions, even to the youngest girls of reproductive age.” (pdf.) For some reason she said that like it’s a bad thing, when it is, of course, the very point of eliminating age restrictions and other barriers to access in the first place. The Washington Post summarized her position this way:

Sebelius said she reversed the FDA’s decision because she had concluded that data submitted by the drug’s maker did not “conclusively establish” that Plan B could be used safely by the youngest girls.

I wrote at the time:

To which I can only retort:  hey Secretary Sebelius, do you know what cannot be used safely by the youngest girls?  The birthing process.  However, young girls need neither a prescription nor parental consent for that.

Flash forward to April of this year: in ruling on a lawsuit brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, federal Judge Edward Korman called Sebelius’s decision “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent,” and ordered the agency to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter without restriction.

Late yesterday, the administration appealed that decision. In the meantime, on Tuesday the Obama administration approved over-the-counter sales of Plan B One-Step for those age 15 and above — in defiance of Judge Korman’s order. In a noxious bit of lawyering befitting the sleaziest of the profession (and that is saying something, my friends), the administration relied on its brand new 15+ approval rule to argue in its appeal that the case is moot because the plaintiffs — who happened to be 15 or older —”now have access without a prescription and without significant point-of-sale restrictions to at least one form of emergency contraceptive…”

It’s bad enough that this leaves girls 14 and under to their coathangers and friendly neighborhood Gosnells, but it isn’t even true. 15 year olds — particularly urban and/or poor 15 year olds — typically have no drivers licenses or access to other forms of state ID, and thus will not be able to purchase Plan B. FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao said in an interview, “If a 15-year-old is unable to verify their age, they will not be able to purchase Plan B One-Step.”

Let us briefly consider some facts:

Adolescent pregnancy is associated with higher rates of illness and death for both the mother and infant.

Death from violence is the second leading cause of death during pregnancy for teens, and is higher in teens than in any other group.

Pregnant teens are at much higher risk of having serious medical complications such as:

It is also worth noting that here in the Greatest Ever Country Ever in the World Ever, 10-year olds give birth. (pdf.)

The Palace stands by and hereby reiterates its previous pronouncement on this matter:

IF A YOUNG GIRL HAS THE GOOD SENSE TO SEEK OUT
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION WHEN SHE NEEDS IT,
WE SHOULD FUCKING GIVE IT TO HER.
(FOR FREE.)

The Palace also stands by and hereby reiterates its theory on the Obama administration’s otherwise inexplicable actions in this matter:

obamarepublican

Barack Obama: “NOW can I be a Republican? PLEASE?? Aww, come on guys!”

Lazing around on the Internetz.

Posted on by
2

Via the awesome Abby Martin, we learn that as the pernicious CISPA bill stalls in Congress, it turns out that the Obama administration has already secretly authorized and put into effect the worst of the bill:

Well, knock me over with a feather. On the plus side: Abby Martin is a badass.

__________

Speaking of badasses, Melissa McEwan at Shakesville has written one of the most succinct, well-expressed and devastating takedowns of the “principles” of economic conservatism I have seen anywhere. I was going to quote from it liberally (see what I did there?) but I will just urge you to go read it.

__________

If you are so inclined, please go sign this petition by navy Veteran and rape survivor Trina MacDonald,  urging Congress to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to move the prosecution of military sexual assault out of the chain of command.

According to estimates from the Department of Defense, 19,000 service men and women are sexually assaulted while serving in the United States military every year. But 86% of them never report their assault—too often because seeking justice threatens their safety, their job security, and their future.

One really shouldn’t have to report one’s rape to one’s rapist—or their enablers. Go do your good deed for the day and sign the petition.

__________

Without endorsing all of it, this is an excellent analysis of Why Things Happen that I mostly agree with. Short version: wars, lies and corruption are not the result of a “conspiracy” per se, at least not in the typical way we think of it. They are the inevitable emergent properties of a system: global capitalism.

Do powerful forces attempt to control events? Yes, they do. But these forces, in this day and age, are political representatives of a class—the capitalist-imperialist class. And they do not have total control.

__________

Irin Carmon has an interesting and provocative piece at Salon, in which she reflects on the intersection between toxic masculinity and terrorism in the case of the Boston bombings. Does it surprise anyone that friends of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s wife Katherine told NPR that he “flew into rages, calling her a slut and a prostitute and throwing things at her”? Or that he was arrested for domestic violence against another woman in 2009?

“Large public acts of terrorism are very public displays of masculinity, making a statement in the biggest way possible,” says Abby Ferber, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who has studied white supremacist groups and masculinity. In her work, she said, she often encountered a “vulnerability to their sense of masculinity whether it’s their relationship with their father, their culture. And there are a limited number of ways in the culture to show your masculinity.” In the absence of the traditional forms of masculinity — including financial or social power — “you’re more likely to see extreme means. They’re showing that they’re real men, man enough to do something like this.”

This is problem #423,752 with traditional cultures — i.e. conservative cultures: gender roles are distinct and narrowly limited. Where Real Men™ are defined by their status in a hierarchy and dominance over others, masculinity becomes synonymous with power and strength, and femininity with submission and weakness. This dynamic isn’t good for anyone in a healthy and diverse society. It’s a cultural meme that is self-perpetuating. It won’t die easily.

__________

Last but certainly not least, Glenn Greenwald has a revealing post about the San Francisco Gay Pride parade’s decision to ban any mention of Bradley Manning, while marching under the banner of some of the most corrupt corporations on the planet.

Yes, there will undoubtedly still be exotically-dressed drag queens, lesbian motorcycle clubs, and groups proudly defined by their unusual sexual proclivities participating in the parade, but they’ll be marching under a Bank of America banner and behind flag-waving fans of the National Security State, the US President, and the political party that dominates American politics and its political and military institutions. Yet another edgy, interesting, creative, independent event has been degraded and neutered into a meek and subservient ritual that must pay homage to the nation’s most powerful entities and at all costs avoid offending them in any way.

Budding fascists in the Democratic Party running the San Francisco pride parade: this is what authoritarianism looks like in the age of Obama.

__________

I think I’ll have a refreshing cocktail. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, you godless heathens.

Whew! Good thing Romney/Ryan didn’t win!!!11!!

Posted on by
1

Via William McJunkin on Twitter comes this stark reminder that we sure dodged one hell of a bullet when we* reelected Barack Obama. Derek Thompson, writing at The Atlantic, explains:

The president’s budget would spend less on both Medicare and Social Security than Ryan’s GOP plan over the next ten years.

That would be the budget proposed by right-wing doucheweasel Paul Ryan (a.k.a. Satan), which budget had been relentlessly criticized by the left and even by some on the right.  But back to Derek Thompson:

On Social Security: Ryan didn’t cut Social Security by a penny. The president has proposed cutting the program’s spending by $130 billion, by adopting a slower-growing measure of inflation.
[emphasis in original]

…

And here’s the bottom line: Obama preserves federal Medicaid spending, he doesn’t unwind Obamacare, and he spends much more on mandatory and non-defense discretionary programs than Ryan proposed. But his cuts to Social Security and Medicare combined are somewhere between $200 billion and $380 billion deeper than the GOP budget. On these programs there is no room to “compromise.” The president is already to the right of the right.
[emphasis added.]

McJunkin comments: “tell me the current two-party system is not a collossal fraud.”

I have nothing to add to that.

Oh, wait!  Yes I do:  a graphic I haven’t pulled out in a while:

obamarepublican

Meanwhile, from a fun-filled Caribbean oceanfront resort comes word from one Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel:

I’ve been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity.

I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial.

I could have been home years ago — no one seriously thinks I am a threat — but still I am here.

…

Last month, on March 15, I was sick in the prison hospital and refused to be fed. A team from the E.R.F. (Extreme Reaction Force), a squad of eight military police officers in riot gear, burst in. They tied my hands and feet to the bed. They forcibly inserted an IV into my hand. I spent 26 hours in this state, tied to the bed. During this time I was not permitted to go to the toilet. They inserted a catheter, which was painful, degrading and unnecessary. I was not even permitted to pray.

I will never forget the first time they passed the feeding tube up my nose. I can’t describe how painful it is to be force-fed this way. As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldn’t. There was agony in my chest, throat and stomach. I had never experienced such pain before. I would not wish this cruel punishment upon anyone.

I am still being force-fed. Two times a day they tie me to a chair in my cell. My arms, legs and head are strapped down. I never know when they will come. Sometimes they come during the night, as late as 11 p.m., when I’m sleeping.

There are so many of us on hunger strike now that there aren’t enough qualified medical staff members to carry out the force-feedings; nothing is happening at regular intervals. They are feeding people around the clock just to keep up.

…

The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one.
[emphasis added.]

…

The situation is desperate now. All of the detainees here are suffering deeply. At least 40 people here are on a hunger strike. People are fainting with exhaustion every day. I have vomited blood.

And there is no end in sight to our imprisonment. Denying ourselves food and risking death every day is the choice we have made.

I just hope that because of the pain we are suffering, the eyes of the world will once again look to Guantánamo before it is too late.

It’s important to note here that many Yemeni guests at the Casa Guantánamo luxury hotel are innocent people cleared for release by the U.S. government, but President Obama put the kibosh on all transfers to Yemen in 2009 in the wake of that dumbass underwear bomber.  Is perpetually imprisoning innocent people who pose no security risk really making anyone safer?  No, no it is not.  It is generating entirely justified hatred and animosity toward the U.S. in the Arab world.

What a fucking disgrace.

It all brings to mind the line from the Eagles’ Hotel California:

You can check out any time you like,
but you can never leave.

I had no idea the president was such a big Eagles fan.

Kudos are due to The New York Times for running Samir’s Op-Ed.  I look forward to watching right-wing pundits and politicians — in both parties — piss themselves over it.

__________
*By “we,” I mean a majority of the citizens of the United States of America.  The Palace’s official position is well known to its many tens of Loyal Readers™, but in case you’re new here I’ll spell it out:

Barack Obama is a Wall Street-serving corporatist, a radical and lawless executive, and an unrepentant, murderous warmonger very much like his predecessor.

Mmmm. Tea is delicious. Don’t you agree?

Posted on by
2

In the days following my post last week, in which I regaled Loyal Readers™ with missives the Palace received from dimwitted Democrats professing shock and disbelief that a president who has repeatedly offered cuts to Social Security has, once again, offered cuts to Social Security, the Palace inbox continued to clog up with no less than twenty-six additional missives comprising similarly clueless swill.  All of them are from people and organizations that unconditionally supported and campaigned for the president’s reelection:  Democracy for America, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Blue America, RootsAction, Rebuild the Dream, Campaign for America’s Future, Robert Reich, CREDO Action, Firedoglake and others.  Fear not, people:  I have no intention to bore you with more of this tiresome nonsense by posting them all here along with my trenchant responses thereto (i.e., sneering mockery) before unceremoniously banishing each one to the trash.  But one that I received just this morning truly stands out among the rest as a monument to political hackdom, and this one deserves a response.

An outfit openly calling itself “Twenty-First Century Democrats” — as if that were actually something to be proud of — and about which I know nothing (nor do I care to), sent this:

21stcenturydems Dear Iris:

The president is trying to negotiate a budget with Tea Party Republicans by putting Social Security and Medicare on the table. Negotiations with these people just don’t work.

Please give as much as you can so that we can fight against Tea Party Republicans.

We need to kick Tea Party Republicans out of Congress. Negotiations among Democrats work better for our country than negotiations with Tea Party Republicans.

Please give as much as you can so that we can fight against Tea Party Republicans.

Organizing for the 2014 elections start today.

Thank you,
Jennifer Petty

*le sigh*

Ms. Petty is of course correct when she states that negotiations with Tea Party Republicans “just don’t work.”  Thank Vishnu they don’t.

For it appears that the only hope for the nation’s seniors and veterans to avoid this cruel, stupid and terrible fate just might be Tea Party Republicans blocking Obama’s budget in the House.  Who cares if they only do so because the chained-CPI cuts to Social Security Obama is offering are not cruel, stupid and terrible enough?  Sure, they’re sociopaths.  And idiots.  But at least they’re useful idiots — unlike conservative Democrats, who are worse than useless: they’re treacherous.  Indeed, Ms. Petty’s statement that “Negotiations among Democrats work better for our country than negotiations with Tea Party Republicans” is completely untethered to reality.  It’s conservative Democrats like Barack Obama and his conservative congressional allies in the Democratic Party who would happily “negotiate” away our social safety net, exactly as they did with the public option during the health care clusterfuck.  The only thing stopping them is intransigent Republicans.

As I said the last time the president offered cuts to Social Security (yet again) in December, if one actually wants these cuts blocked, one’s time and efforts would be far more effective rallying Tea Party Republicans and Paul Ryan acolytes in the House.  Call them up.  Tell them to stand strong.  FOR FREEDOM!  Also: Jeezus!!!  Do not compromise with those treasonous libruls and RINOs — on anything!

THE PALACE TOTALLY HAS YOUR BACK, TEA PEOPLE!
DO THE RIGHT THING!!!11!!!!!
TEA PARTY 4EVAH.

Someone is living in an alternate reality. I’m pretty sure it isn’t me.

Posted on by
Reply

I must have dreamed of a presidential debate that happened all the way back in October:

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I suspect that on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position.

I awoke today to a “News Alert” from The Washington Post, breathlessly informing me that President Obama’s new budget would cut Social Security and Medicare if Republicans agree to increase taxes on the wealthy.  It links to this gag-inducing article, which I really do not recommend clicking, unless you enjoy reading things like this:

“It’s not our ideal policy. It’s a compromise that we’re willing to do to get a bigger deal,” a senior White House official said Friday. “We want to make clear that it’s something that we’re willing to do. To not put it in [the budget] would be a conversation disconnected with reality.”

Disconnected from reality?  I think I just had an aneurysm.

Or this one:

The senior official added that including the offer was not a hard call. Failing to do so, the official said, would have provoked howls from Republicans that “you moved the goal posts.”

Oh no!  Not howls from Republicans!  What could possibly be more horrifying than that for the poor President of the United States?

Or this:

Overall, the budget request reflects Obama’s stark shift in strategy over the last month, as he has adopted a far more congenial posture toward the opposition. He has begun a charm offensive, reaching out to rank-and-file House and Senate Republicans, dining and speaking privately with them in hopes they will take seriously his offer to overhaul entitlement programs in exchange for increasing tax revenue. Obama is set to have dinner with a group of Republicans on Wednesday night…

See, this is why we drink.  And vote Green Party.

Anyway, this WaPo “alert” was followed by a missive from Robert L. Borosage, Co-Director for Campaign for America’s Future:

Subject: Chained CPI in Obama Budget ★ What Went Wrong and What You Can Do ★

The President has ignored the voice of the people and has cut Social Security with his new budget.
Social Security represents America at its best, and now it is up to you to defend it.
The president included the “chained CPI” in a foolish attempt to make a deal with Republicans. He has wobbled because we didn’t make ourselves clear.

Perhaps he was confused by your ringing endorsement for his reelection.  You know, since he offered Republicans Social Security cuts as far back as July of 2011 and said he agreed with Romney on Social Security cuts at a televised debate in October watched by 67 million people, he may have erroneously thought that you wholeheartedly approved of his repeatedly stated desire to cut Social Security.

Next came one from Democracy for America:

Subject:  Obama wants to cut Social Security

 

Nooooo!  THAT CANNOT BE!!!!11!!!

Iris -

News leaked today that President Obama’s budget will openly push for cuts to Social Security benefits — a shot across the bow for the progressives who called their neighbors, spent weekends knocking doors and donated millions to reelect him.

“News leaked?”  How is it that a leading organization supporting Obama’s reelection thinks that (a) this is “news,” (b) and “a shot across the bow,” and (c) a press conference today at which White House officials released the budget overview to reporters is accurately described as a “leak”?

Then there was one from Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

Subject:     Unbelievable

Really.  Do tell.

Iris -

This morning, the New York Times reported that President Obama will propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits in his budget next week.

Join the mass movement and show your outrage.

The time to “join the mass movement and show your outrage” was before his reelection.

 

Obama is proposing the so-called chained CPI, which would cut cost-of-living adjustments for grandparents and veterans. Here are three facts about chained CPI that everyone should know:

1. Chained CPI is a Social Security benefit cut. If chained CPI goes into effect, a worker at age 75 will receive $653 less in benefits a year. A worker age 85 will receive $1,139 less in benefits a year.

2. Chained CPI cuts Social Security benefits for current seniors. The chained CPI will cut the benefits of all current retirees, including disabled workers – even after politicians have promised repeatedly that any changes to Social Security would not affect current beneficiaries.

3. Chained CPI hurts veterans. Under the chained CPI, a disabled veteran who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have his or her benefits reduced by $1,425 at age 45, $2,341 at age 55, and $3,231 at age 65.

What you can do…

1.  Sign the petition to the White House, and join the mass outrage movement. We’re working with great allies at CREDO, MoveOn, Democracy for America, Social Security Works and our progressive heroes in Congress on an ongoing campaign to stop these cuts.

Oooh, a petition.  YOU BETTER LOOK OUT PRESIDENT OBAMA!  Or we’ll… we’ll…petition you!  And then where will you be, huh?  HUH?

2.  Share these facts with everyone you can. You can forward this email, or click to share on Facebook and Twitter.

Social Security is the core of the progressive and Democratic legacy. The President has no mandate to cut these benefits, and we’ll do everything possible to stop him.

Well, everything except make your reelection support contingent on, oh…I don’t know… maybe a pledge not to cut Social Security?

As it turns out, cutting Social Security is now the core of the progressive and Democratic legacy.

The president just offered to cut Social Security again last December.  Or did I dream that too?

Nicholas Ruiz III is not awesome.

Posted on by
4

Yesterday I posted an almost awesome missive I received from Nicholas Ruiz III, Democratic candidate for Congress (FL-7) along with my reply thereto, in which I called to his attention some language he used that I found problematic:

We’re over-developed – what we need is conservation and sustainability. It’s an entirely different conversation, than the slash and burn, develop, pollute and expand, by the way, ‘did the market go up today?’ lunacy of the far more responsible Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Unlike the more responsible Democrats who like parties and jewelry – I like to read.

I pointed out to him that when one employs gendered, sexist tropes like this one to mock Democratic women as vapid, shallow and materialistic, one is perpetuating the unhelpful, stereotyped view that all women are vapid, shallow and materialistic.  However unintentionally, I noted, language like this contributes to the already toxic culture that women have to navigate every single day.  (As Loyal Readers™ here are well aware, there are an infinite number of ways to mock terrible Democrats, men and women alike, without resorting to gender stereotypes.)  I asked him directly whether I could expect more from Nicholas Ruiz III.

I was happy to receive a prompt reply from Nick.  And it was almost awesome, too.

__________

On Saturday, March 30, 2013, Nicholas Ruiz III wrote:

Dear Iris,

Thank you for your thoughtful note. Yes! I am an ally. A stronger one, in or running for office, if you are progressive, you will not find. I’m sorry if I sounded insensitive. But I truly didn’t levy that criticism of Pelosi and Schultz because of their sex or gender. I meant the criticism in terms of what I perceive to be their preference for the trappings and pageantry of public office and fundraisers, over the nuts and bolts labor and authentic, heartfelt committment to the actualization of truly progressive socioeconomic policy in the U.S. I’ve been to the parties, met them both – and many others, male and female, that I perceive to be equally imbricated within such a misguided rendering of employment as a federal representative.

So, for me, the criticism applies to women and men, though I thought of Pelosi and Schultz instantly, only because of their representative leadership positions with the Democratic hiearchy. They set a bad example, but so do Steve Israel and Steny Hoyer, who I could have easily mentioned for the same reasons instead. And I should have, come to think of it!

Still, I do get your point. And from a purely didactic point view in the academic, theoretical and practical sense, I agree. So in the future – I will choose my examples far more carefully, than I already do – and I thank you immensely for your solidarity and example.

Sincerely,

Nick

__________

See?  That was almost awesome, amirite?  But unfortunately Nick misunderstood my point.  It is not objectionable to point to two powerful and prominent congresswomen as examples of terrible Democrats and mock them for being terrible Democrats; it is objectionable to deploy a sexist quip in order to do so.

So I wrote back to my new friend to clarify what I thought I had stated clearly in the first place.

__________

Dear Nick:

Thanks very much for your response.  I think you misunderstand my concern.  I understood your criticism of Pelosi and Shultz the way you intended it, and I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly.  The issue is not that your examples were two women: they are Democratic politicians richly deserving of our scorn for prioritizing the trappings of power over the needs of the citizenry, among other things.  As you point out, they are in leadership positions in the party and thus should be subject to the same heightened scrutiny as Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, or indeed even Barack Obama.  It is not sexist to use Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz as examples of terrible Democrats.  They are.  And if we are ever going to make any real progress on social or economic fronts, we will need to call them out on their intransigence at every opportunity.

The problem is that the gendered language you used results in splash damage to women who are not Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  What I objected to specifically was your reference to these women’s preference for “parties and jewelry” (in contrast to yourself:  ”I like to read”).  Your ”jewelry” quip in particular could never be deployed against Steny Hoyer or Steve Israel, and the reason this is so is because it is a gendered insult, one that feeds directly into a nasty and persistent narrative about women being vapid, shallow and materialistic — in striking contrast to men, who are of course naturally smarter, deeper, more worldly thinkers whose motives are above reproach.  (Insert eyeroll here.)  There is no equivalent way to demean Hoyer and Israel as men, except, tellingly, to emasculate them by likening them to women (OMG the horror!).  I’m sure you would agree that doing so would be both highly objectionable, and entirely irrelevant to your point.

I think it’s important to not get bogged down in semantics and miss the bigger picture.  But we are all, every one of us, swimming in a stew of sexist messages to the point that we absorb and repeat them without thinking.  I sincerely appreciate being called on it whenever I mess up and am less inclusive than I aspire to be (which I do), so that I can understand another’s perspective and try not to make the same mistake again (which unfortunately I also do).  But I want to make clear that this is not about a “purely didactic point [of] view in the academic, theoretical and practical sense,” this is about women’s lived experience in the real world.  Memes that reinforce the notion that women love shiny sparkly objects are not helpful in our fight for equality.  At all.

I appreciate the discussion and the opportunity to clarify my thoughts further.  I hope it’s been helpful, as that was my purpose for writing you.  “Allies” in the Democratic party are a dime a dozen.  Allies who are willing to listen and learn?  Well, not so much.

With thanks and best regards,
-Iris.

_________

Now if Nicholas Ruiz III were, in fact, awesome, what might one expect to hear in response?  Perhaps something like this:

Ah, I see your point now.  I didn’t realize how that phrase might come across with respect to women.  I apologize for that, and I will try to be more thoughtful in the future.  Thanks for taking to time to write to me and point it out, as I truly want to be an ally to women in their fight for equality.

With love and solidarity always,
-Nick

If that had occurred, then the title of this post would be “Iris HEARTS Nicholas Ruiz III.”  But as you may have guessed from the actual title of this post, that is…not what occurred.

__________

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Nicholas Ruiz III wrote:

Dear Iris,

Gendered language? In the very most pinky ring, Oscar Wlidean sense, please do say you’re not assuming that men do not wear jewelry or like shiny objects, or do not like dress attire, or ties and such, of the finest kind and variety, or cannot represent these things, materially, and otherwise – and that only women do; or pomposity and parties and everything else. Please, do say? Many men love and represent ‘jewelry.’ Alot. And many women do not like it, or represent it at all. And everything between. Essentializing words, as you have here, is shall we say, the most anti-Barthesian, anti-Butlerian, anti-Derridean and most importantly, anti-compassionate thing one could do.

This theoretical and ontological ground has been and continues to be well-oiled and vital. To posit what you do here – would be an error of the precise kind you attribute herein – and quite simply, fails to account for a body of work well-known and understood as queer theory.

But if we must essentialize, let me say this: its been said and I agree, that we perform our words and desires, one at a time, each and every day – and no performance is universal. And thank the gods and goddesses for that. I understand your critique of my performance. And that’s why it’s for me – not for you. Your performance, I equally understand, but for me does not perform ‘inclusiveness’ in the most socially-just sense, for this world of an essential us. But it belongs to you to use as you wish. So let’s disagree. :-)

Amicalement,

Nick

Oh.  No.  He.  Didn’t.

My reply:

__________

Really, Nick? This is what you’re going with:  some men wear pinky rings and nice ties, therefore your comment about two women politicians preferring parties and jewelry cannot possibly be sexist and problematic for women?   I see.   So I guess in the context of writing about two African-American politicians, if you were to call them lazy, or say that they prefer eating watermelon and fried chicken to doing their jobs, and someone explained to you how that was problematic, she would now be reading your brilliant insights that some people in other ethnic groups are also lazy, and some of them eat watermelon and fried chicken too, and furthermore some African-Americans are most definitely not lazy and do not like watermelon or fried chicken — therefore, your comments cannot possibly be interpreted as racist.   Also, you would tell her that positing that such comments are indeed racist is the most “anti-compassionate thing one could do,” and fails to “perform ‘inclusiveness’ in the most socially-just sense.”  (Which sentiment, I must note, is so rich with irony it belongs in an irony museum.)

And of course you would explain all of this to her in the most pompous and condescending manner your impressive vocabulary will permit.

Well, here’s a little insight for you, one you apparently missed: demeaning and belittling aspersions are not, in fact, routinely cast upon men by referencing their affinity for silk neckwear or cufflink bling.  I know!  It’s true!

There’s a word for what you’re doing here, Nick:  mansplaining.  That’s what it’s called when a d00d deigns to ‘splain to an educated, bisexual, intelligent female activist living in New York’s West Village that she “quite simply, fails to account for a body of work well-known and understood as queer theory.”

So please, allow me to ladysplain right back at you.  Words have meanings.  Those meanings can change in different contexts, and less privileged people experience words and contexts differently than other, more privileged humans do.  (This is not, by the way, even remotely the same thing as “essentializing” words.) Now here comes the important part, so I’m going to type verrrrrry slowwwly, just for you:  you don’t get to decide how women should experience and react to language they find problematic and offensive, because you have never been on their side of gender oppression.  And you really, really do not get to call yourself an ally, when someone tells you that “memes that reinforce the notion that women love shiny sparkly objects are not helpful in our fight for equality,” and you respond with a pile of patronizing, disingenuous denials.  (Quoth Nick: “Yes!  I am an ally.  A stronger one, in or running for office, if you are progressive, you will not find.”  Jeezus.  Let us hope not.)

As I said in my previous email:

“Allies” in the Democratic party are a dime a dozen.  Allies who are willing to listen and learn?  Well, not so much.

So by all means then, let’s disagree.

You seem to think you know how to be a feminist ally, and I disagree.

You also seem to think you’re pretty awesome, and I…disagree.

The arrogance and blindness you exhibit is so painfully, boringly typical, I am quite confident that should you be elected to Congress you’ll fit right in with those establishment Democrats you so scorn.

I wish you well.

PEACE,
-Iris.

__________

It is my sincere hope that this is the end of our correspondence.  I am saddened — but hardly surprised — that yet another self-proclaimed liberal d00d who claims to be an ally to women thinks that he understands their lived reality better than they do — and when told otherwise, denies that lived reality, and ‘splains how things really are.

Fucking liberals are the worst.  At least with conservatives women know exactly where we stand:  demeaned, diminished and dismissed.

__________

HAPPY ZOMBIE JEEZUS DAY EVERYONE!

Expecting more.

Posted on by
1

The Palace recently received an almost awesome missive from Democratic congressional candidate (FL-7) Nicholas Ruiz III:

NRIII2014BREAKING: The Fortune 500 Challenge – With stock market indices sitting at world record highs – we challenge Democrats to demand that the Fortune 500 companies show good corporate will by paying no employee less than double the current minimum wage, or be taxed accordingly. This puts no one out of business – and is the first vital step toward addressing the vast inequity created by decades of corporate profiteering amidst predatory wage suppression and a Congress of indifference. Help our campaign advertise this challenge on national television.

And a sincere thanks to everyone that has helped so far.

nicholasruiziiiI know we’re all feeling satisfied with the great work the Democratic caucus is doing. Thanks to President Obama’s leadership and vision, we’ll soon have dirty Keystone XL tar sands pumping sweetly in the Canada night, and piped exquisitely parallel the continental divide, all the way down to the Bayou Riviera on the Gulf of Mexico. I feel the burn and glow now as I write to you.

It’s even better that the Democratic caucus so nicely tends to the American family’s sore plight by voting wholesale against the Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Back to Work Budget – the only budget circulating in DC right now that would actually help the American family. What did we Americans do to deserve such benevolence at the hands of our stewards? A godsend, surely.

Now, I’m just a liberal. A progressive FDR, New Deal Democrat – so I’m sure social justice is better left to Democrats whose campaign accounts are filled with millions of USD in corporate donations from banks, oil companies, defense contractors and accounting firms. Not to mention, the $millions from liberal instituions like Harvard U and UC Berkeley, and great actors and smart PACS that really know more about what we need than you or me. But I’ve freedom of speech, so I intend to use it. It’s my humble little contribution to making our already perfect world, a little better than that even.

So here’s what I’ve got. I’m running for Congress. Against Republican corporate lobbyist cum congressman John Mica in FL-7. I’ll need your help to win, and since I know you’d prefer to see my face on MSNBC rather than his ( I’ll never go on Fox, and you can quote me on that)  you’ll help me to do that. Never mind, that I’ll actually vote for things like the CPC Back to Work budget. And I’ll vote to double the minimum wage. And I’ll vote against more dirty XL fuel projects. I’ll vote to conserve land and oceanfront. We’re over-developed – what we need is conservation and sustainability. It’s an entirely different conversation, than the slash and burn, develop, pollute and expand, by the way, ‘did the market go up today?’ lunacy of the far more responsible Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Unlike the more responsible Democrats who like parties and jewelry – I like to read. I have a Ph.D, so you can feel confident, that I will probably spot, and will move to strike any hidden language in bills that accidentally awards billions of dollars in tax breaks for corporations and billionaires, ’cause like we say in Florida – that just ain’t right. So those are the perks you get with supporting a candidate for Congress like myself.

And more.

Like, for example,  I’m happy to report that I know of three other Democrats worth your time and money for the 2014 mid-term elections. The first is Democrat Andrew Hounshell, a steelworker in Ohio. He’s running against GOP philosopher Rep. John Boehnor, that really outstanding GOP rep. that loves to work with good Democrats like Steny Hoyer to get deals done. But Andrew will be a much better U.S. congressperson than John Boehnor. Just trust me on this.

Another Democrat you should know about is Carl Sciortino, a state rep. in Massachussets. He’s running for Congress, too.  He hopes to replace current rep. Ed Markey, since he’s running for the Senate in 2014.

Lastly, I must tell you about a wonderful Democrat, Alan Grayson. You know, that bashful rep. from Orlando, FL. Yes, that one. Let’s hope he stays in Congress long enough to greet me when I get there. I’ll need his help, and others like him, to do everything I’ve been telling you about in this political life.

Love and solidarity always,

Nick

whendovescry

N R I I I   2 0 1 4
contribute|volunteer

pd. pol adv. by nick ruiz, democrat for congress

__________

Isn’t that almost awesome?  It truly is almost awesome.  But I would prefer that Nicholas Ruiz III be actually awesome.  So I wrote him back.

__________

Dear Nicholas Ruiz III:

I’m a New York City-based blogger and lefty activist, and I have been thoroughly enjoying and forwarding your sharp and witty emails.  I have also donated to your campaign.  But the latest email I received from you struck me as problematic, and I thought I’d take a moment to explain why.

I would like to take it as a given that you are an ally in the cause of equal rights for women.  As you are undoubtedly aware, for decades women have been experiencing major setbacks in states across the country as well as at the national level in the form of dehumanizing legislation.  But that whole “Republican” War on Women thing?  It’s also fueled by Democrats who are either indifferent to what they perceive as “women’s issues” — wrongly, in my opinion — or worse, they are True Believers themselves.  Clearly women need all the allies we can get in Congress (not to mention everywhere else).  So when I read this passage in your otherwise excellent message, I saw a bright red flag:

We’re over-developed – what we need is conservation and sustainability. It’s an entirely different conversation, than the slash and burn, develop, pollute and expand, by the way, ‘did the market go up today?’ lunacy of the far more responsible Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Unlike the more responsible Democrats who like parties and jewelry – I like to read.

There is no shortage of clever ways to mock craven establishment Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz — and this is especially true for a wordsmith with your obvious skill.  But when you employ sexist tropes like this to do so, you are perpetuating the stereotyped view that all women are vapid, shallow and materialistic.  You may not be a misogynist, but that other guy, the one who really, truly hates women and sees them as less than deserving of basic human rights?  He reads it as validation that his view of women is correct.  He thinks you agree with him.  However unintentionally, language like this contributes to the already toxic culture that women have to navigate every single day.

And yes, I’d still be writing to you if you went after Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin in the same vein.

There is, of course, the practical value of taking care to avoid alienating potential voters and donors, and I suppose that would be reason enough to be more conscious of such things.  But I hope for more from you.  Can I expect more from you?

Best regards,
-Iris Vander Pluym
perrystreetpalace.com

P.S.  It wouldn’t hurt either if you had also included a woman among the candidates you deem worthy of support in your latest email.  Were you to do so, you might find it instructive to note how she is portrayed in the media.  (Hint: no one will inquire as to how you will “balance” your career with your responsibilities to your children should you be elected, or focus on your choice of shoes, handbags or suits.  Well, unless you’re a truly bizarre and original dresser.  Which could actually be a lot of fun, now that I think about it.)

__________

I will post any reply I receive from Nicholas Ruiz III.  Then we can all revisit the subject of his degree of awesomeness.

[h/t Melissa McEwan]

I must look really stupid or something.

Posted on by
Reply

Iris — We are conducting a membership audit before the first FEC deadline of President Obama’s second term. Your membership is pending.

Name: Iris Vander Pluym
Supporter record: [REDACTED]
2013 Membership: Pending

My membership?  My membership in…what?  Ooh!  Ooh!  Maybe what I have long been waiting for has finally arrived:  my membership card for access to the V.I.P. section in Dante’s Ninth Circle of Hell, where I plan to meet all my friends in the afterlife.*

If you support President Obama’s agenda, it is CRITICAL that you renew your membership in the next 72 hours.

Now hold on there, Skippy.  President Obama’s agenda includes illegal wars,  due-process free assassinations that kill civilians, drilling offshore and in the Arctic, constructing the Keystone XL pipeline and cutting Social Security benefits for no good reason whatsoever.  I do not support that agenda.  Why on earth would any Democrat?  (To be fair, this new EPA rule requiring cleaner gas and better emission standards is a good thing — however inexcusably late in coming and insufficient it may be.)

Anyway, there’s more:

John Boehner and Paul Ryan have already stockpiled millions of dollars for the sole purpose of blocking President Obama’s second term agenda. If we don’t catch up soon, we are in real trouble.

OMFG!  You mean the very same Republican sociopath Paul Ryan whose Democratic opponent — ROB ZERBAN — you could not be arsed to support?  Why, it’s almost as if you want Paul Ryan in Congress, so you can use him as a fundraising bogeyman.  Or maybe, just maybe…you’re really not all that far apart.

According to our audit, we need 35,000 renewals by Sunday’s fundraising deadline to keep pace. That means we need you. This is urgent.

You know what’s urgent?  Stopping the killing of civilians in drone strikes.  Single payer healthcare.  Serious action on global warming.  Prosecuting war criminals and returning our standing in the world.  JOBS.

Iris — click this personalized link to renew your membership with a donation of $3 or more >>

Nah.  I think I’ll give my $3 to Rob Zerban instead.  Actually, I’ll make it $25.  Hey, you guys know he’s considering running again, right?  Against Paul Ryan.  Ahem.

Boehner and Ryan depend on the Koch Brothers and Big Oil; we rely on your grassroots support.

Hahaha.  Sure you do.  I don’t know about Boehner, but for sure Paul Ryan depends on your ignoring viable Democratic candidates who run against him.

Thanks for standing with us,
Democratic Headquarters

I stand as far away from you as humanly possible.
-Palace Headquarters

__________
*There is no afterlife.  Which is a really good thing, because shitty Democrats would undoubtedly fuck that up too.

A field guide to conservatives, revised.

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday kos posted A guide to the conservative movement in one handy chart, which purports to characterize the various conservative factions.  I have taken the liberty of reproducing it here:

conservativetable

It’s amusing and mostly accurate, as far as it goes.  However there is one egregious oversight, which I have taken the liberty of amending:

conservativetable2