Governor Paterson has been an outspoken advocate of women, especially when it comes to domestic violence. Unfortunately, in the past few days there are allegations that he may have had to contact with the girlfriend of one of his aides who may be a victim of domestic abuse, and following that alleged contact, she did not show up at the hearing on the case. Regardless of his intent, the appearance of such contact is very questionable. The Governor has to be like Caesar's wife: above reproach, without even the appearance of an impropriety.
Patterson has asked AG Cuomo to investigate.
The fact that Denise O'Donnell, Patterson's cabinet official who oversaw the State Police resigned yesterday over the handling of this case also casts a dark shadow over Patterson O'Donnell resigned because she said the Superintendent of the State Police misled her to believe that the state police were not involved in the case.
From where I sit the underlying issue is one of the old boys' network potentially protecting one of their own.. .trying to intimidate a victim of domestic abuse to drop the charges.
It is an issue of trust and open communication for O'Donnell, thus, I understand her resignation. How can you oversee an agency without transparency? The State Police's office of Internal Affairs needs to be investigating the allegations that the State Police had been involved in the case with officers were intimidating a victim.
The issue for the Governor is a one of trust and appearances--as a lawyer, he should understand the appearance of intimidating a victim of domestic abuse; as the governor he needs to be aware that actions speak louder than words--he can talk all he wants about against domestic abuse but the appearance of him defending his aide against allegations of abuse lead to distrust.
Victim intimidation is a very real part of the domestic abuse (battering) cycle. It is nigh on to witness tampering, and disrupts our justice system, but more importantly, it allows batterers to not have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Voting Monolopy?
yes, if the Justice Department allows Election Systems and Software (ESS)to acquire Diebold's election division. If this acquisition goes through 70% of all of American electronic voting machines will be made/ controlled/ serviced by one company.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 [(HAVA) for more information go to www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm ] which was supposed to help alleviate hanging chads and mismarked votes by upgrading voting machines.
Not only are electronic voting machine's technology (and programming) considered propreitary information, thus, the public (government) will not have access to the code to check reliability or verify votes and the machines are a computer hacker's dream. Here is a collection of NYT editorials on the problems with electronic voting from 2004-6:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/making-votes-count.html?pagewanted=all
There is also a fear that with ESS holding 0-% of the market it will be harder for election jurisdictions to negotiate a fair and equal price. Thus, today's NYT's editorial is about the Justice Department using its antitrust powers to ensure that public interest is served.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26fri3.html?ref=todayspaper
Here is the web page with contacts for AG Holder at the Justice Department:
http://www.justice.gov/contact-us.html
email: AskDOJ at usdoj.gov
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 [(HAVA) for more information go to www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm ] which was supposed to help alleviate hanging chads and mismarked votes by upgrading voting machines.
Not only are electronic voting machine's technology (and programming) considered propreitary information, thus, the public (government) will not have access to the code to check reliability or verify votes and the machines are a computer hacker's dream. Here is a collection of NYT editorials on the problems with electronic voting from 2004-6:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/making-votes-count.html?pagewanted=all
There is also a fear that with ESS holding 0-% of the market it will be harder for election jurisdictions to negotiate a fair and equal price. Thus, today's NYT's editorial is about the Justice Department using its antitrust powers to ensure that public interest is served.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26fri3.html?ref=todayspaper
Here is the web page with contacts for AG Holder at the Justice Department:
http://www.justice.gov/contact-us.html
email: AskDOJ at usdoj.gov
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Zero Tolerance
The NYS Senate did the right thing last night: they sent the message that battering women is very NOT okay. At 9:30 last night they voted (53-8) to expel Senator Hiriam Monserrate (D-Queens) from the Senate because he battered his girlfriend.
This is the first time that a Senator was expelled for slashing his girl friend
s face last year; it underscores NYS's position of zero tolerance for domestic violence.
This is the first time that a Senator was expelled for slashing his girl friend
s face last year; it underscores NYS's position of zero tolerance for domestic violence.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Corporate Citizens???
Corporate Citizens?, More like a Corporate State
On Thursday the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Citizens United V FEC that in short states that corporations are people/citizens and thus, can not be censored; they have first amendment rights to free speech. Corporations (which include labor unions and not for profit corporations) can fund political speech/ads/films/events without any limit or censorship, save the FEC limits to directly giving to candidates.
I am making my way through the 183 page decision.. .[ http://media.npr.org/documents/2010/jan/scotus_campaign_finance.pdf for those of you who want to read it]
As I said this Fall at the Constitution Day event, if corporations are given the same rights as citizens, they also need to be given the same responsibilities. For instance, they need to be making decisions not just with their own self interest in mind (read: profit) but with the public good in mind. Perhaps using this mindset, we might not have had people mortgaged over their means with interest only mortgages because the mortgage brokers would have thought about the consequences and impact on the community five years out when the balloon payment hit, and could not be paid. Likewise the development and sale of derivatives might have been curtailed.
But, for a court which the majority are suppose to be strict constructionalists and not judicial activists, this decision is more than activist it remakes our Republic into a Corporate State.
Here is Chris Hedges view on this situation: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25
The above is from: Blogging-for-America with some minor changes
On Thursday the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Citizens United V FEC that in short states that corporations are people/citizens and thus, can not be censored; they have first amendment rights to free speech. Corporations (which include labor unions and not for profit corporations) can fund political speech/ads/films/events without any limit or censorship, save the FEC limits to directly giving to candidates.
I am making my way through the 183 page decision.. .[ http://media.npr.org/documents/2010/jan/scotus_campaign_finance.pdf for those of you who want to read it]
As I said this Fall at the Constitution Day event, if corporations are given the same rights as citizens, they also need to be given the same responsibilities. For instance, they need to be making decisions not just with their own self interest in mind (read: profit) but with the public good in mind. Perhaps using this mindset, we might not have had people mortgaged over their means with interest only mortgages because the mortgage brokers would have thought about the consequences and impact on the community five years out when the balloon payment hit, and could not be paid. Likewise the development and sale of derivatives might have been curtailed.
But, for a court which the majority are suppose to be strict constructionalists and not judicial activists, this decision is more than activist it remakes our Republic into a Corporate State.
Here is Chris Hedges view on this situation: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/25
The above is from: Blogging-for-America with some minor changes
Friday, January 22, 2010
Anniversary of Roe V Wade
Today is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision, Roe V Wade in 1973. It is a very interesting opinion--it helps to articulate the concept of right to privacy that everyone uses, those who value this opinion and those who are working to reverse this opinion. Section VIII reads as follows (italics and bold, are mine):
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
While it gives women bodily autonomy in the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, the right is a finite one. She may only make the decision on her own during the first trimester, during the second and third trimesters she needs to seek medical opinions,which can trump hers. Further along in the section, Justice Blackmun writes:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
For those of you who have never read the decision you may find it, and the dissent here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
IMHO, We have a LOT of work to do to have women recognized as full individuals capable of making decisions throughout their lives, on their own, with full bodily autonomy. Without this ability, we are not seen as individuals.
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
While it gives women bodily autonomy in the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, the right is a finite one. She may only make the decision on her own during the first trimester, during the second and third trimesters she needs to seek medical opinions,which can trump hers. Further along in the section, Justice Blackmun writes:
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
For those of you who have never read the decision you may find it, and the dissent here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
IMHO, We have a LOT of work to do to have women recognized as full individuals capable of making decisions throughout their lives, on their own, with full bodily autonomy. Without this ability, we are not seen as individuals.
Friday, January 15, 2010
NYS Select Committee Directs NYS Senate to Expel or Censure Monserrate. We need to call our State Senators for their vote in this matter--IMHO, he should be expelled. Domestic Abuse should not be swept under the rug--Domnestic Abuse is a very serious crime.
Urge your Senator, as I did mine, Senator Larkin to vote for Monserrate's expulsion. The NYS Senate needs to send the message that domistic violence is not acceptableto the women and men of NYS.
To find your senator and e-mail him:http://www.nysenate.gov/senators
To See Senate committee's full report:
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/21574/monserrate-committee-releases-report/
Urge your Senator, as I did mine, Senator Larkin to vote for Monserrate's expulsion. The NYS Senate needs to send the message that domistic violence is not acceptableto the women and men of NYS.
To find your senator and e-mail him:http://www.nysenate.gov/senators
To See Senate committee's full report:
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/21574/monserrate-committee-releases-report/
Thursday, January 14, 2010
To help Haiti
Besides the regular Red Cross, Unicef, etc. groupos which aid in emergencies here are two women's groups that you may donate to to help Haitians:
•Madre – works with community based Haitian women’s organizations, will be helping women in crisis, needs: water tablets, antibiotics, medical supplies, also distributing food & clean water asking for: donate $$ or supplies, call for more info 212-627 0444 http://www.madre.org/index.php?s=4&news=263
•Quixote Center – long term grassroots organization working in US & Haiti, works w/ women’s groups & is sending earthquake aid https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/531/t/7451/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=3837
•Madre – works with community based Haitian women’s organizations, will be helping women in crisis, needs: water tablets, antibiotics, medical supplies, also distributing food & clean water asking for: donate $$ or supplies, call for more info 212-627 0444 http://www.madre.org/index.php?s=4&news=263
•Quixote Center – long term grassroots organization working in US & Haiti, works w/ women’s groups & is sending earthquake aid https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/531/t/7451/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=3837
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)