|
FOCUS: On 'No Choice' |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15946"><span class="small">Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 14 November 2017 13:00 |
|
Moyers writes: "For many decades men used the power of the state to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies. Once legal, abortion was outlawed in the late 19th century, and women who sought one were treated as sinners and criminals."
Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)

On 'No Choice'
By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company
14 November 17
Our new video series launches this week as a reminder of the experience of women who sought abortions when the male-dominated state controlled their bodies and their fate.
or many decades men used the power of the state to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies. Once legal, abortion was outlawed in the late 19th century, and women who sought one were treated as sinners and criminals. Many women — some 2 million a year in the 1890s alone — defied the coercive power of patriarchal and paternalistic government to obtain abortions.
Women of means were sometimes able to find a doctor to help, but all the others had to resort to desperate and dangerous measures. They swallowed potent concoctions of turpentine, bleach and detergents; jabbed coat hangers, bicycle spokes and knitting needles into their vaginas; or had lye, soap and potassium permanganate squirted into their uteruses. Botched attempts caused injury to thousands of women a year, and many were rendered infertile. As late as the mid-’60s every large municipal hospital in the US had a “septic ward” filled with women suffering from infections. Some women leapt from stairs or roofs trying to end a pregnancy.
On Jan. 22, 1973, the US Supreme Court decided, “Enough’s enough,” and abruptly declared abortion legal. In deciding Roe v. Wade, the court held that because the Constitution protects the right to privacy, in the earlier months of pregnancy, a woman can legally choose to abort.
Conservatives reacted ferociously, and in the 44 years since the ruling, the Republican Party, dominated by the religious and political right, has crusaded to nullify Roe. Conservatives named to the Supreme Court for just this purpose have tried to whittle away at it, and according to the Guttmacher Institute, since the decision, states have enacted 1,074 restrictions aimed at limiting a woman’s access to legal abortion. In 2015 alone, conservative lawmakers considered nearly 400 bills to limit a woman’s access to legal abortion and passed 57 new restrictions.
With Donald Trump’s election a year ago, his appointment of right-wing judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and his embrace of the conservative strategy to fill lower courts with young, deeply conservative judges who pass the litmus test of vehemently opposing abortion, we are closer than ever to the reversal of Roe v. Wade, despite the fact that a majority of American adults say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Too often lost in the furor is the real experience of women who sought abortions when the male-dominated state controlled their bodies and fate. Recall that time and you understand why women (and men) today are organizing, lobbying and taking to the streets to declare, “Never Again!” Against the steamroller of the White House, the Republican Congress and the Christian right, all they have going for them is the courage to stay the course, the support of a multitude of kindred spirits — and memory.
Lest we forget the way things used to be, we invited several women — and one male doctor — to share their personal stories from both before Roe and afterward. I urge you to watch and listen, and to think about what will happen once again to women if women have NO CHOICE.

|
|
Mueller Alone Cannot Save the Country |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 14 November 2017 09:45 |
|
"The Trump-Russia conspiracy allegations are more serious, by orders of magnitude. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation asks, did presidential candidate Donald Trump and his inner circle conspire with an adversarial foreign power to interfere with a presidential election and influence the outcome in Trump's favor? There is no parallel or rival in American history."
U.S. Capitol, June 21, 2017: Special Counsel Robert Mueller leaves after a meeting with members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Mueller Alone Cannot Save the Country
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
14 November 17
t’s misleading to compare the Trump-Russia affair to Watergate. In that Watergate was a scandal, involving illegality by the president and his inner circle, and that impeachment is again justifiably on the table, then yes, there are unavoidable comparisons.
We should not, however, be lulled by the pundits into believing the two are equal in gravity. They are not. At the core of the Watergate affair was what former Nixon press secretary Ron Ziegler once described as a third-rate burglary. In fact, most historians agree that the real Watergate scandal was due in greater measure to the coverup that followed than to the original incursion into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters by Nixon’s Plumbers.
Nixon had swept under the rug far larger mischief than the Watergate break-in over the years. He did so, however, as a private citizen or an elected official of lesser stature. What Nixon failed to fully comprehend was the extent to which his actions in the Oval Office would fall under microscopic examination.
The Trump-Russia conspiracy allegations are more serious, by orders of magnitude. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation asks, did presidential candidate Donald Trump and his inner circle conspire with an adversarial foreign power to interfere with a presidential election and influence the outcome in Trump’s favor? There is no parallel or rival in American history.
Trump and his supporters are quick to characterize reporting on Russia story as fakery and Mueller’s investigation as a witch-hunt. It had better be, or resignation will be the least of Trump’s problems.
All indications, however, point to Mueller and his team preparing to shred the Trump camp’s inner circle. Trump and his entourage really, in truth, appear to be absurdly fat targets. That is not to trivialize in any way the immediate and unprecedented threat Trump poses to world democracy. That is quite real indeed. However, the point at which the Trump administration will no longer be legally or politically viable, or both, seems not terribly far off.
News comes today of a Massive Nazi Rally in Poland drawing some 60,000 right-wing demonstrators from across Europe. The organizers and participants of the rally in Poland, according to the report, seem emboldened by leader of the free world Donald Trump’s dog-whistle rhetoric, their slogans and chants echoing those of their American counterparts, the white supremacists who marched on Charlottesville, Virginia.
We must take upon ourselves personal responsibility for the removal of Donald Trump and his entourage from power by all lawful means and with great urgency.
We must remember that Trump’s rise to power was largely fueled by U.S.-based cable and commercial news — the same oracles who today assume ownership of prosecuting the charges against their own creation.
We must at every level — city, county, state and federal — resist and denounce the radical fascist actors and their demagoguery.
We must not trivialize attempts by the government of Vladimir Putin to interfere through illegal means with a free and fair voting process in America, regardless of its perceived effect on the outcome. The right of Americans to vote is under attack by elements foreign and domestic. This is nothing short of a war on our right to self-determination.
We cannot afford to assume we will be saved by Democratic majorities. The Democrats are in fact easier to push toward democracy. We must push them always.
Regardless of how many times we are told that there is a “leadership vacuum in the Democratic party” or that “a number of Democratic politicians are vying to assume leadership” we must not forget that Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat was the most popular candidate for president, across the political spectrum, in 2016 and still is today.
Never forget democracy is a garden. It must be tended always.
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive
Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported
News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for
this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a
link back to Reader Supported News.

|
|
|
We Can't Ignore the Latest Lawsuit Against Trump's Kangaroo Voting Commission |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 13 November 2017 14:33 |
|
Pierce writes: "The assault on voting rights is getting messy."
President Donald Trump. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

We Can't Ignore the Latest Lawsuit Against Trump's Kangaroo Voting Commission
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
13 November 17
The assault on voting rights is getting messy.
he Presidential Commission on Voter Integrity, headed by noted friend of the franchise—and the immigrant—Kris Kobach of Kansas, has fallen rather clamorously off the radar since its disastrous open hearing in New Hampshire back in September. Not that the commission hasn’t been busy. So far 15 lawsuits of one kind or another have been filed against the Commission, and that will keep your staff pretty damn occupied. The whole puppet show has fallen into disarray, largely because it was founded in deeply bad faith, and because Kris Kobach is the Midwest distributor of Bad Faith on behalf of James Crow, Esq. LLC.
But the latest lawsuit is one we can’t ignore. The commission is being sued by one of its own members, as we learn from the invaluable Ari Berman at Mother Jones.
Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a Democrat whom Trump appointed to the commission in May, sued the commission in federal court on Thursday, alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, which requires presidential advisory committees to operate in a bipartisan and transparent manner. The lawsuit says Dunlap is being deliberately kept in the dark about the commission’s work. “The law and good conscience require Secretary Dunlap to participate meaningfully in the work of the Commission; however, despite diligent efforts to gain access, Secretary Dunlap has been, and continues to be, blocked from receiving Commission documents necessary to carry out his responsibilities,” the lawsuit states. “By obstructing certain commissioners’ access to information and failing to allow substantive participation of commissioners with balance in terms of points of view, the Commission and its staff have compromised the legitimacy of any findings that may emerge from this process.”
Dunlap’s cause of action can probably best be explained by the brothers of the Faber College chapter of Delta Tau Chi.
Though a few Democrats, including Dunlap, were eventually appointed, “the Commission’s superficial bipartisanship has been a façade,” the lawsuit states.
The suit cites a number of examples of how Dunlap and others have been excluded from the commission’s work. Kobach consulted with von Spakovsky and another hardline conservative commission member prior to requesting extensive voter data from all 50 states, but did not inform the full commission of the action. Dunlap alleges he was not consulted beforehand about the agenda of commission meetings or documents introduced at them. He also claims he’s been told that the commission’s work is “on hold” pending the outcome of litigation against the commission, but a right-wing group in Minnesota said it had been invited to speak at a commission meeting in December, which Dunlap is unaware of. When he asked commission staffer Andrew Kossack for “copies of any and all correspondence between Commission members,” Dunlap said “Kossack did not provide any documents or agree to provide any documents.”
The assaults on the franchise are going to intensify, especially if Tuesday night’s results prove to be the precursor to the 2018 midterms that a lot of people believe them to be. Perhaps the last best hope that defenders of voting rights have against this kangaroo confab is that interested parties can sue the commission to tatters, leaving what’s left to public scorn and mockery. After all, remember, it wasn’t over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

|
|
FOCUS: Patriotism, Taxes, and Trump |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39255"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 13 November 2017 11:53 |
|
Reich writes: "Selling the Trump-Republican tax plan
should be awkward for an administration that has made patriotism its
central theme."
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)

Patriotism, Taxes, and Trump
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Website
13 November 17
elling the Trump-Republican tax
plan should be awkward for an administration that has made patriotism its central
theme.
That’s because patriotism isn’t mostly
about saluting the flag and standing during the national anthem.
It’s about taking
a fair share of the burden of keeping America going.
But the tax plan gives American corporations a $2 trillion tax
break, at a time when they’re enjoying record
profits and stashing unprecedented
amounts of cash in offshore tax shelters.
And it gives America’s
wealthiest citizens trillions more, when the
richest 1 percent now hold a record 38.6 percent of the nation’s total wealth, up from
33.7 percent a decade ago.
The reason Republicans give for enacting the plan is “supply-side” trickle-down nonsense. The real reason is payback to the GOP’s mega-donors.
A few Republicans are starting to admit this. Last week, Gary Cohn, Trump’s
lead economic advisor, conceded in an interview that “the most excited group
out there are big CEOs, about our tax plan.”
Republican Rep. Chris Collins admitted that “my donors are
basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.’”
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham warned that if Republicans
failed to pass tax reform, “the financial contributions will stop.”
Republican mega-donors view the tax payback as they do any other investment.
When they bankrolled Trump and the GOP, they expected a good return.
The biggest likely beneficiaries are busily investing an additional $43
million to pressure specific members of Congress to pass it, according to The Wall Street Journal.
They include the 45Committee, founded by billionaire casino
oligarch Sheldon Adelson and Joe Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs; and the
Koch Brothers’ groups, Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners.
They’re not doing this out of love of America. They’re doing it
out of love of money.
How
do you think they got so wealthy in the first place?
As more of the nation’s wealth
has shifted to the top over the past three decades, major recipients have poured some
of it into politics – buying themselves tax cuts, special subsidies, bailouts, lenient
antitrust enforcement, favorable bankruptcy rules, extended intellectual property protection, and other laws that add to their
wealth.
All of which have given them more clout to get additional legal changes that enlarge their
wealth even more.
Forty years ago, the estate tax was paid by 139,000 estates, according
to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. By 2000, it was paid by 52,000. This
year it will be paid by just 5,500 estates. Under the House tax plan, it will
be eliminated altogether.
Why
do Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals than the citizens of every other
advanced economy? Because Big Pharma has altered the laws in its favor. Why do
we pay more for internet service than most other nations? Big cable’s political
clout. Why can payday lenders get away with payday robbery? The political heft of
big banks.
Multiply
these examples across the economy and you get a huge hidden upward
redistribution from the paychecks of average working people and the poor to top
executives and investors. (I explain this in detail
in the documentary “Saving Capitalism,” airing next week on Netflix.)
All
this is terrible for the American economy.
More
and better jobs depend on increasing demand for goods and services. This must
come from the middle class and poor because the rich spend a far smaller share
of their after-tax income.
Yet the
middle class and poor have steadily lost purchasing power. Partly as a result, a relatively low share of the nation’s working-age population is employed
today and the wages of the typical worker have been stuck in the mud.
The
Republican tax plan will make all this worse by burdening the middle class and
the poor even more.
A slew of analyses, including Congress’s own Joint Committee
on Taxation, show that the GOP plan will raise taxes on many middle-class
families.
It will also require cuts in government programs that middle and lower-income
Americans depend on, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
And the plan will almost certainly explode the national debt, eventually
causing many middle class and poor families to pay higher interest on their auto
loans, mortgages, and credit cards.
I don’t care whether the top executives of big corporations, Wall
Street moguls, and heirs to vast fortunes salute the flag and stand for the national anthem.
But they enjoy all the advantages of being American. Most couldn’t have got to where they are in any other country.
They have a
patriotic duty to take on a fair share of the burden of keeping America going. And Trump and his enablers in Congress have a patriotic responsibility to make them.

|
|