Impeachment resolution

Note that Maurice is one of the sponsors. FINALLY!
(this is from Joel Tyner:)
H.RES.1258 Title: Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 6/10/2008 Cosponsors (5) Latest Major Action: 6/11/2008 House floor actions. Status: On motion to refer the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 251 - 166 (Roll No. 401). COSPONSORS(5), BY DATE [order is left to right] Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 6/11/2008 , Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 6/11/, Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 6/11/, Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 6/18/2008 , Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 6/18/2008
[time to call rest of Congress on this-- at (800) 828-0498!...(pass it on)]
In fact...did you know that literally five major polls over the last few years (from Zogby, Newsweek, Ipsos, and American Research Group) have proven repeatedly that the vast majority of us across the U.S. do, in fact, favor Bush/Cheney impeachment?...(media blackout of national sentiment censored for years):
-- July 2007 American Research Group national poll of 1,100 Americans;
-- January 2006 Zogby national poll of 1,216 Americans;
-- October 2005 Ipsos Public Affairs national poll of 1,001 Americans;
-- October 2005 Zogby national poll of 1,200 Americans;
-- October 2006 Newsweek national poll of Americans.
[ http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Threepart_case_for_Cheneys_impeachment_ made_0706.html ;
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2 ;
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528 ;
http://www.impeachpac.org/?q=node/6 ;
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14897 ]
Also-- well over 100 Dutchess residents have signed on the petition started by yours truly to impeach Mr. Bush (including many prominent Dems from across the county; click on "View Signatures"); join us http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ImpeachW and http://www.WexlerWantsHearings.com !...(pass it on)...
Twelve Reasons to Impeach Bush/Cheney for High Crimes and Misdemeanors Against Constitution
[from David Swanson; click on http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/9171 for much more]
Memo from a January 2003 White House meeting of Bush and Blair at which Bush made clear that the U.S. would go to war with or without the United Nations and proposed various strategems to try to create a justification for war, a report that the CIA had strong evidence before the war that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, a January, 2003, State Department memo showing awareness that Niger documents were forgeries, a report that Bush was personally informed that the aluminum tubes claims were not supported by the State Department or the Department of Energy and that Iraq was very unlikely to attack the United States, testimony that Bush and Cheney were involved in the leaking of misleading classified information and in a campaign of retribution against Joseph Wilson, Paul Pillar, who was the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Middle East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, report that facts were fixed to support going to war, top aide to Secretary of State says facts were fixed to support going to war, an Amnesty International report on ongoing torture and unlawful detention. reports that almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody, "State of War" report by James Risen reveals illegal spying and reports on meeting between MI6 and CIA that preceded the Downing Street Meeting in July 2002, "Constitution in Crisis" report by John Conyers summarizing evidence of illegal activities, and Henry Waxman report on 237 Bush administration lies in searchable database...

Anti-feminism on the internet

This is from Feministing.com...the top ten internet anti-feminist videos.
http://feministing.com/archives/009415.html

They are funny, sad and real.

McCain bad for women, bad for human rights

McCain might "love" women, but he does not care about their rights. He skipped the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act vote, because he said it would just "lead to more lawsuits." He thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, and that we need a constitutional amendment (!) banning abortions. And, he wants to limit the distribution of contraceptives. . .
See http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/11/mccain-women-want/
See also Frank Rich's column yesterday www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Not to mention that his position on torture has changed, and he feels that the recent Supreme Court decision which states that prisoners held on Guantanamo do have habeas corpus rights, i.e. the right to court hearings is wrong.

Power of Democratic Women

In light of discussion of how democratic women in Ulster outnumber the men by 20,000+ to 14000+ here is e-mail was passed on to me from a colleague of mine in Cambridge, MA. about women's power of the vote. While the piece is focused on the number of women who voted for Hillary, the point is well made that Democratic women are the majority of voters, and need to be heard.

"
We made a huge difference...see below. We are a true power bloc. Please read and pass onto your friends. And, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for all you did to help Hillary.
We are a power bloc – since the DNC and party leaders are ignoring us, we need to be very shrewd and use that power so that they understand – throwing over our candidate is not going to work out for Democrats.
Among all women, Hillary led 51 percent to 43 percent, and from March through May she led 55 percent to 44 percent. Among white women, Hillary leads 61 percent to 34 percent and among Latinas, Hillary leads 58 percent to 25 percent for those states reporting Hispanics in exit polling. among non-African-American women, Hillary led 60 percent to 35 percent, and she led 62 percent to 33 percent among this group in states that voted March through May.
And Hillary brought more women into the process. Women rose from 7.56 million in the 2004 Democratic primaries to more than 21 million in May 2008 – from 54% to 58% of the Democratic primary electorate. In Ohio, for example, women rose from 52% of the Democratic presidential primary voters in 2004 to 59% in 2008.
Here's a chart showing HRC's margin among women in states from exit poll data – in states like Arkansas, Mass, NY, RI, WV, she won more than 60% of the female vote:


Total Vote
Women


% of All
#
HRC %
#
Obama %
#
Alabama
536635
60%
321981
41%
132012.2
56%
180309.4
Arizona
456626
62%
283108.1
53%
150047.3
40%
113243.2
Arkansas
314234
60%
188540.4
73%
137634.5
23%
43364.29
California
5066978
54%
2736168
59%
1614339
36%
985020.5
Connecticut
354495
59%
209152.1
53%
110850.6
45%
94118.42
Delaware
96374
60%
57824.4
45%
26020.98
51%
29490.44
Florida
1749920
59%
1032453
54%
557524.5
31%
320060.4
Georgia
1060851
63%
668336.1
33%
220550.9
65%
434418.5
Illinois
2038614
59%
1202782
35%
420973.8
64%
769780.6
Indiana
1276261
56%
714706.2
52%
371647.2
48%
343059
Iowa
237347
57%
135287.8
30%
40586.34
35%
47350.73
Louisiana
384346
60%
230607.6
38%
87630.89
58%
133752.4
Maryland
878174
62%
544467.9
41%
223231.8
55%
299457.3
Massachusetts
1244133
58%
721597.1
62%
447390.2
36%
259775
Michigan
594398
57%
338806.9
60%
203284.1
0%
0
Mississippi
434071
58%
251761.2
39%
98186.86
58%
146021.5
Missouri
825050
56%
462028
48%
221773.4
49%
226393.7
Nevada
117599.04
59%
69383.43
51%
35385.55
38%
26365.7
New Hampshire
287557
57%
163907.5
46%
75397.45
34%
55728.55
New Jersey
1108044
58%
642665.5
58%
372746
39%
250639.6
New Mexico
148404
56%
83106.24
52%
43215.24
46%
38228.87
New York
1891143
58%
1096863
62%
680055
36%
394870.7
North Carolina
1575451
57%
898007.1
43%
386143
55%
493903.9
Ohio
2233156
59%
1317562
57%
751010.4
41%
540200.4
Oklahoma
417207
53%
221119.7
54%
119404.6
30%
66335.91
Pennsylvania
2307759
58%
1338500
59%
789715.1
41%
548785.1
Rhode Island
186036
57%
106040.5
66%
69986.74
33%
34993.37
South Carolina
532151
61%
324612.1
30%
97383.63
54%
175290.5
Tennessee
623284
59%
367737.6
58%
213287.8
38%
139740.3
Texas
2868454
57%
1635019
54%
882910.1
45%
735758.5
Utah
131403
57%
74899.71
48%
35951.86
50%
37449.86
Vermont
154960
57%
88327.2
42%
37097.42
56%
49463.23
Virginia
986203
57%
562135.7
39%
219232.9
60%
337281.4
West Virginia
357226
53%
189329.8
73%
138210.7
22%
41652.55
Wisconsin
1113753
58%
645976.7
50%
322988.4
50%
322988.4
--
It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man tumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short agian and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt "

A Political Glass Ceiling?

The LATimes has been running a series of "dustups" between young and old feminists,Amanda Marcotte and Katha Pollitt, about the state of women in politics. The first of the series is at
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-marcotte-pollitt2-2008jun02,0,3755296.story at the end, click on the subsequent days, 5 in total.

And, from the New Republic http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2c2ec3a8-e813-4d4e-b566-510e0f19eced

Is Colorado Crazy?

Colorado's anti-choice/pro-life petitioners have gathered more than enough signatures to ask for an amendment that states defines a fertilized egg as a person be placed on the November ballot. There are many many implications of this potential new definition of person. . . yet another way to make women into just reproductive vessels, subordinate to the fertilized egg within.
Note that other states have similar statutes, shall we say, gestating?

See the analysis at Colorado's Naral website http://www.prochoicecolorado.org/ballotwatch.shtml
and
the National Women's Law Center's blog
http://nwlc.blogs.com/womenstake/2007/11/the-first-step.html

Oh, would the pro-lifers pay as much attention to the real children who are born and support adequate health care, child care, education, and living wages!

BTW, even in Roe V Wade (410 US 113, 1973) when Justice Blackmun discussed when a person was formed and then in a following section when one becomes a citizen, a fertilized egg was not "in play" so to speak. First the historical, legal, and theological discussion in Section IV, 3:
. . .
The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 -- was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.
. . .
{But he goes further and states in section IX that}

. . .A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
. . .

More sexism & the media

On media Sexism this primary season

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media