Blog for Choice Day

Today is the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. As they did last year, NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling it "Blog for Choice Day" and asking pro choice bloggers to post on the follwoing:

This year's topic: tell us, and your readers, why it's important to vote pro-choice.

I will only slightly rephrase my answer for last year's question as to why I'm pro choice:

My answer?

A woman must have the right to control her own body -- and that necessarily must include anything that may going on inside it.

Simple, no?

Yeah, it gets messy if there's a fetus in there, and more messy the older that fetus is.

But you either get to control your body or you don't.

And women and girls face an opposition who believes that a mass of cells smaller then the head of a pin has not just equal rights, but more rights, than the woman or girl herself.

I will never understand that.

I will also never believe that a man would put up with everyone and his uncle trying to micromanage his body.

So I'm pro choice.

Period.

And, if like me, you are pro choice, it's important to vote that way because you know damn well that others are voting against your rights.

Blog for Choice (Maria's Answer)

As David blogged here, today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. "Bush v. Choice" in conjunction with NARAL Pro-Choice America is calling it "Blog for Choice Day" and asking pro choice bloggers to post why they are pro choice.

My answer?

A woman must have the right to control her own body -- and that necessarily must include anything that may going on inside it.

Simple, no?

Yeah, it gets messy if there's a fetus in there, and more messy the older that fetus is.

But you either get to control your body or you don't.

And women and girls face an opposition who believes that a mass of cells smaller then the head of a pin has not just equal rights, but more rights, than the woman or girl herself.

I will never understand that.

I will also never believe that a man would put up with everyone and his uncle trying to micromanage his body.

So I'm pro choice.

Period.

And because there's no better day than today to mention this again, please keep in mind that our very own "hot, hip, young" mayor is a self proclaimed "social conservative" and anti choice.

THEY NEED YOUR HELP NOW!

Democracy for Pittsburgh (local coalition group for Democracy for America) usually features candidate forums at every meetup. The December meeting featured a few candidates who really stood out (in my humble opinion). I mention it now because December 31st is nearly upon us and this is your last chance to make a contribution to candidates for the 2005 year.

I therefore ask you to consider contributing anything that you can to any or all of the following candidates:


Georgia Berner, Candidate running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 4th Congressional District (www.georgiaberner.com )

Georgia Berner is an innovative CEO of a prominent and growing manufacturing company in New Castle, PA who is running for Congress in Pennsylvania's fourth congressional district against Melissa Hart (a horrid little conservative Republican who is for torture and corruption). Georgia's campaign is really gaining momentum and she could really use your help in keeping that momentum going. (Did I mention that Georgia is a pro-choice candidate, one of the few, if not the only one running in this race?) I was impressed with Georgia's down to earth style and common sense approach -- plus, this is a woman who knows how to CREATE JOBS.
DONATE TO GEORGIA BERNER HERE!


Tom Kovach, Candidate running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District (www.kovachforcongress.com)

Tom Kovach is part of a growing trend of "Fighting Dems" (Navy Vet). He's running a real grassroots campaign. As he puts it, "This is the people's campaign. We aren't interested in support or donations from big business and WILL show special interests that we, the people, can build a campaign and win without the big bucks shoveled out to our opponent by the likes of Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay. We are strong, experienced grassroots Democrats who want to send a message to our party that Dems shouldn't try to pace the Republicans in fundraising. Campaigning can be done with quarters and we'll prove it!" His issues page is heavy on restoring our economic well being and supporting a safe, fast and fair exit strategy for Iraq. Take my word for it that Tom's a dynamic speaker -- or better still, meet him yourself.
DONATE TO TOM KOVACH HERE!


William Sargent, Candidate for State House in the 42nd Legislative District of Pennsylvania, (www.votesargent.com)

William Sargent is one more "Fighting Dem" (He flew missions over Afghanistan and Iraq and is currently a Reservist). William intends to be a true “CITIZEN LEGISLATOR.” As he puts it, “Professional politicians have run Harrisburg for far too long, and the time has come to make a change. As an Air Force Reservist I represented the United States as a citizen soldier, and when elected I will serve my district as a citizen legislator, not a politician. As Pennsylvanians, we are in the midst of a crippling economic crisis stemming from ever-increasing property taxes, stagnant local and national economies, a decline in manufacturing jobs, and the rising cost of energy. We can no longer afford ineffectual leadership in Harrisburg.” I found him to be a riveting speaker.
DONATE TO WILLIAM SARGENT AT: PO BOX 11942, Mt Lebanon, PA 15228


Steve Karas, Candidate for State House in the 34th Legislative District of Pennsylvania, (www.karasforpahouse34.zoomshare.com)

Steve Karas is a member of Democracy for Pittsburgh and you can read his platform here. It includes such items as reducing both the benefits and size of the legislature to reasonable levels and allowing any citizen to gather signatures and offer ballot referendums. Steve's a great guy who can use your support.
DONATE TO STEVE KARAS: Contact him at gbh65@verizon.net


Chuck Pennacchio, Candidate for U.S. Senate -- Pennsylvania, (www.chuck2006.com)

And, if you've read this blog at all, you know I support CHUCK PENNACCHIO for US Senate. Pennacchio is everything that Bobby Casey, Jr. is not: a true progressive. He's the Blue State Candidate that we need for the Blue State of Pennsylvania (Poll shows Casey's support will plummet as voters learn he opposes choice).

YOU CAN HEAR CHUCK SPEAK AT DfP'S JANUARY MEETUP:

Event Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Event Time: 7:00 PM
Venue Name: Mario’s South Side Saloon (upstairs)
Address: 1514 E Carson St
City: Pittsburgh
State: PA
Zip Code: 15203
R.S.V.P. for this meeting here.
DONATE TO CHUCK PENNACCHIO HERE!

******************

UPDATE: 2 Political Junkies is NOT Democracy for Pittsburgh's blog. 2PJ is David's and my blog. David is free to post all he wants for whomever he wants (even Bob "I put my own self to sleep when I speak" Casey if he chooses to).

The website for Democracy for Pittsburgh is:
http://www.pghdfa.org/blog/

If you go there you'll notice that I blog there as well. HOWEVER, when I do blog there, I feel that I am blogging on behalf of the group and so I do not personally advocate on behalf of any candidates there. Once a candidate is endorsed by the group, then and only then, do I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to push for particular candidates on DfP's website. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

Blog for Choice

I was reminded today that it's Blog for Choice day.

The instructions were simple:

This year's topic is a simple one: tell us, and your readers, why you're pro-choice.

The foundation of my pro-choice stance is a little different from what I pick up around me. Though, by presenting my point of view, I am in no way invalidating any of the other importnat and necessary pro-choice positions.

For me, the issue is religion. Scratch the surface of an anti-abortion argument and you'll find a religious argument underneath. For instnace, we're told by some that "life begins at conception." Ok, fine but other religions may have different definitions of when life begins. Which definition is the one to become law? For those seeking to impose abortion restrictions, it's obvious to me that they're seeking to impose a specific metaphysical doctrine on the rest of the population.

That's something that the First Amendment expressly forbids. The government can not take sides, as it were, in a religious debate.

When is the Sabbath? Is Mary, the Mother of Christ, really the Queen of Heaven? Does God exist and if He does, what authority does he have over the rest of us? All these may be important theological questions, but they could not be settled (if indeed they could ever be) by a majority vote in a state or federal legislature.

And neither is the answer to the question, "When does life begin."

If you doubt this, imagine yourself living as a religious minority (say in Kabul) where the legislature votes overwhelmingly to impose a set of beliefs with which you disagree.

In a truly free society, each woman (for let's all remember who we're talking about here) would be free to make her own decisions regarding faith (which one, if any, she decides to follow) and thus she would be free to make her own decisions regarding her health, her privacy, and whether she should continue a pregnancy.

It's all about freedom, pure and simple.

NO CHOICE

On Wednesday evening I attended the monthly meetup for Democracy for Pittsburgh. The meetups often feature political candidates and this night was no exception. The candidate was a Democrat who plans to run against a sitting Republican member of Congress. I'm not going to name the person on the off chance that someone reading this will decide to donate money to the guy after reading what I write.

More importantly, his name is not important because he represents something bigger than his candidacy.

He expressed many opinions with which I agree and seemed particularly interested in health care -- with one glaring exception. The exception was that, when asked, he stated that he was "pro life."

Democracy for Pittsburgh is a progressive organization. it is the Pittsburgh coalition for Democracy for America. Democracy for America favors candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially progressive.

Now he did say that he knew what he was walking into. He stated that no pro choice candidate could win in his district. He stated that he hoped to mostly avoid the topic of abortion during his run for office.

When asked outright if he would sign a bill outlawing abortion, he hedged. Later, when a member of the group said that she had been raped and it was her father who had raped her, he said he would support an exception for rape and incest. (Need it be said that if you support an "exception" for rape and incest, that you obviously must support some curtailment of abortion rights?) He also said that he supported the morning after pill and embryo stem cell research.

Perhaps some of you now are thinking, "Hmm, he's sounding a bit more reasonable. He's certainly no religious zealot on the subject."

But, I would posit that his stand is not "reasonable." His stand is the height of hypocrisy.

While I strongly disagree with those who would ban all abortions, the morning after pill and embryo stem cell research; at least their postion is based on a philosophical/religious argument that life begins at conception and life must not be destroyed. Your demands follow reasonably from your views. You do believe in something. Some of those same people would accept an exception for the life of the mother, and this still makes sense in the context of their beliefs as you would now have two "equal" lives at stake and they feel that they cannot ask someone to give up their own life for another.

But, I have to argue that a person who would ban abortions but have an exception for rape and incest is not "pro life" but solidly anti choice.

Is the fetus somehow less "fetus" and more "baby" because the conception occured by an act of rape/incest?

Of course not!

I will put forward that people who believe in this type of exception just find the idea of rape and incest even more "icky" than they find abortion to be "icky." Or perhaps they are able to empathize more with the idea of one of their own (wife, sister, daughter, friend) being forced to carry to term a child conceived of rape. Perhaps they themselves would not want such a child around.

But I do not care to know what psychology is behind their reasoning.

What they are in fact doing is judging how "moral" a woman is who wants/needs to have an abortion. Has she jumped through enough hoops? Has she satisfied my desire to feel comfortable that she is not just some careless, unthinking slut? Has she suffered enough already?

They are deciding that: yes, you have a choice if you have been raped, but you do not have a choice if, say, you already have six children and you do not have the finances or emotional and physical resources to have a seventh. They are judging that, well rape is one thing, but the fact that you are 16, or 14, or 10 just doesn't cut it with them -- it's not ugly enough for their comfort zone.

They truly do not believe that you have a choice in deciding what you will do with your own body, your own person, more than they believe that you are taking the life of a "baby." After all, it is not the fault of the "baby" in question that you were raped or incested, is it?

So then it must be about their comfort level in why you want/need an abortion more than their belief that you are killing a person.

Can anyone please explain to me how this is not hypocritical?

The current Democratic meme that we must welcome pro-lifers and make them feel more "comfortable" in our party says that we believe in nothing as a party. Either we are pro choice or we are not.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no room in the party for candidates who are personally opposed to abortion but who would not impose that belief on others. I fully support your right to believe in whatever you like. I support your right to say you think abortions are wrong. However, I do not support your "right" to prevent women from having the choice to terminate a pregnancy.

Another woman at the meetup was a veteran. She had served in both wars in Iraq. She spoke eloquently about the horrors of the current war -- about the unbelievably gruesome injuries she saw visited upon our troops.

She wanted the candidate to explain to her earlier in the evening (before she talked bout serving in Iraq) why she should have anyone deny her a medical procedure. Yes, that is what she called abortion. And, apparently that is what the candidate was more comfortable thinking about abortions that were from rapes than what he thought of abortions in general.

Now, here's the part where I scold my so-called "progressive" brothers. It was the women at the meetup who asked question after question about abortion. I am not saying that there weren't any strong pro choice men there, but am saying that it is my experience (certainly on this blog and others) that, in general, "pro choice" progressive men are far more willing to "forgive" a candidate for being anti choice. They are far more willing to label pro choice women as being un-pragmatic and lament their insistence on focusing on a "single issue." They are uncomfortable with being accused of being the "Abortion Party." You know, hey, can't we just let this slide (for this candidate...for this election...)?

It is also my experience that the women who are most "strident" on this issue are the ones who were around pre Roe v. Wade. Even if you were in jr. high, like me, when that case was decided, you can remember a time when women did not have the right to fully control their bodies. You remember the laughter, derision and outright hostility towards "libbers." You remember when it wasn't even illegal to pay a woman less than a man for doing the exact same job. You remember a lot.

Those that are a bit older than me remember the consequences of back alley abortions. The hospital wings filled with women suffering from infections or botched operations. The deaths.

I see a lot of outrage in the progressive corner of the blogosphere. There is much to be outraged about. Many of you write outraged posts.

You are outraged by the deaths and injuries of our troops in Iraq...



You are outraged by the deaths of innocent civilians...



You are outraged by the torture at Abu Ghraib...



You are outraged by less life and death matters such as Republican fiscal policies...



But, I see precious few "pro choice progressive" men outraged by the efforts to make back alley abortions the only CHOICE that many women will have...even when those efforts are by candidates that we are encouraged to be "pragmatic about" and support...



Perhaps it's out of your comfort zone.

Call Tomorrow!

Wednesday, April 25th is National Call-In Day to Support the Freedom of Choice Act

Please call 202-224-3121 tomorrow.

Here's the coalition-based script:

"Please cosponsor the Freedom of Choice Act (H.R.1964/S.1173) to codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women."

(Feel free to alter as needed.)

Phone calls are still the most effective way to get the attention of your members of Congress. If you know your Rep./Senators do not agree with you, please call anyway. You are registering your own convictions on the issue.

If you can't call, you can go to http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/congress_foca_0407
and send an email to your members of Congress.

There's a link on this page where you can download a .PDF of the act.

*******************

Coalition Partners:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Advocates for Youth
Alliance for Justice
American Association of University Women
American Civil Liberties Union
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Choice USA
Feminist Majority
Law Students for Choice
Medical Students for Choice
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Abortion Federation
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Women's Organizations
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Organization for Women
National Women's Law Center
People for the American Way
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Reproductive Health Technologies Project
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective

NOTE: 1) Yeah, I do have something to say about the recent SCOTUS ruling. Hopefully, I'll be able to blog on that soon. 2) The above post is only slightly rewritten from an email I received from the DfP list -- Thanks, Joy.

Blog for Choice Day

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and for the last five years it's also Blog for Choice Day.

The topic this year is: What does Trust Women mean to you?

As always, I will slightly paraphrase what I've written on this day in years past.

My answer?

"Trust Women" means trusting a woman to have the right to control her own body -- and that necessarily must include anything that may going on inside it.

Simple, no?

Yeah, it gets messy if there's a fetus in there, and more messy the older that fetus is.

But you either get to control your body or you don't.

And women and girls face an opposition who believes that a mass of cells smaller then the head of a pin has not just equal rights, but more rights, than the woman or girl herself. An opposition who believes that a woman should not be trusted with the control of her own body -- that only the State or a religion -- or anyone but the woman gets that trust.

I will never understand that.

I will also never believe that a man would put up with everyone and his uncle trying to micromanage his body.

So I trust women to control their own bodies and that makes me pro choice.

Period.

What Do Democrats Stand For?

My "I got you your "pragmatism" right here (grabbing crotch) " post garnered many comments. I believe that this one would best be answered by it's own blog entry:

At 5:36 PM, Patrick said... Maria,
As a pro-life Democrat, I identify with you as a member of a core constiuency that has been kicked in the teeth - repeatedly, to the point that many of us left the Democratic party alltogether. So in an odd way, I feel your pain.

The question we both have to ask of ourselves is are we single-issue advocates, or Party advocates? If one issue (abortion) is what keeps you from voting for Casey, then maybe you're not a Democratic loyalist, but a single issue pro-choicer. That's fine, this is America - not everyone has to be a Democrat.

You listed a lot of volunteer activities that you did for Kerry, but wouldn't do for Casey. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of pro-life Dems who are willing to pick up the slack and perform all of those tasks for Casey - tasks they may not have performed for Kerry.

My point is this: you may not have seen that many pro-life Democrats (or maybe you did, and just didn't know it, since I did all of those tasks myself), but if the Senate candidate was pro-life a whole new pool of volunteers would be available for the campaign. The little things you listed not only help one candidate, but the whole ticket - just like the GOTV work you did for Kerry helped elect Casey and Wagner in 2004. If the Democratic party is seen as open to acitivists from both sides of the abortion question, then the combination of the two will help elect people who agree a heck of a lot more than they disagree.

You say you highly dislike Casey. I think if you got to know his positions on most other issues, you would dislike him a lot less. Maybe even enough to see him as a great alternative to Santorum. And while your taking a second look at Casey, maybe some pro-lifers who are liberal on most other issues might try the same thing and could end up disliking Rendell a little less.

If we all did that, maybe we'd be a majority party again.
Just a thought.

Let me make my position more clear:

- I have certainly voted for people who are personally pro-life for religious reasons but who do not believe that they should impose their religious beliefs on others. Mario Cuomo instantly comes to mind as I lived in NYC for many years. Casey on the other hand has said that he would sign a law to make abortion illegal if it came across his desk.

- As an atheist, I have a huge problem with anyone who tries to legislate their religious beliefs on any topic when legislating that belief would take away someone else's civil rights. This includes any number of issues, such as gay rights, imposing the teaching of Intelligent Design (Creationism), etc.

- As a former Catholic, I know that the Catholic Church's position on birth control is as draconian as its position on abortion so when Casey says he opposes abortion due to his Catholic teachings, BIG alarm bells go off in my head.

- PA is a BLUE STATE with a majority supporting Roe V. Wade. You may believe that enough anti-choice folks will step up to the plate to fill in for the pro-choice folks in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh -- I do not. Furthermore, I see no reason why Republicans in the "T" would switch to vote Democratic simply by running an anti-choice Democrat so I see it as a NET LOSS FOR DEMOCRATS. A BAD, BAD TACTICAL MOVE.

- While many have stated correctly that PA has many Catholics, it has been demonstrated time and again that many of these Catholic Democrats will vote for a pro-choice candidate; otherwise Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Specter, Ridge and Rendell would not have won here.

- On a purely tactical basis, I could see (bending over backwards on my beliefs) by potentially supporting a self-described pro-life candidate in a RED area or RED State. I am saying, however, that it makes no sense for The Powers That Be to actively back an anti-choice candidate in a BLUE State and for them to try to further push for an uncontested primary (as Reid, Schumer and Rendell are doing). Morever, they not only backed Casey, they pushed him to run.

- As a Democrat, I will work to keep my party headed in the direction that I believe it should go -- that is Democrats support JUSTICE and FREEDOM. That encompasses social justice (including the right for women to control their own bodies), economic justice, environmental justice, etc. It also includes supporting religious freedom which I believe (and the Constitution backs me on this) the right to practice religion as well as the right to practice no religion and the right not to have someone else's religious beliefs imposed on you.

- When I see my party going astray in these areas, it is my duty as a Democrat to let my extreme displeasure be heard. If I don't, then I believe I am being a bad Democrat. If I don't voice my disagreement with my party then I might as well become a Dito Head-style Republican.

- I would dispute any implication that the party is not a Big Tent -- I would present Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (who is anti-abortion) as a good example of that.

If YOU had an overwhelming objection to a particular candidate and said that you would find your morals compromised by voting for that candidate, I would not imply that you are not a Democrat. That is what separates Democrats from Republicans -- the refusal to drink the Kool-Aid and march in lockstep. You, and others, have expressed that as a weakness in our party. I however, don't want to wake up one morning and find, like some Republicans have found, that their party has been taken over by one group (in their case that would be the Religious Right).

I do want my party to stand for something.

Many voters in the last election said that they voted for Bush because they believed that he was sincere in his beliefs and that they weren't quite sure what Kerry stood for. I will reassert that the way to keep PA BLUE is to continue to be the party of Justice and Freedom and that we, as a party, have always supported Women's Reproductive Freedom under that umbrella.

I repeat:

The way to beat Santorum is not to back Santorum Lite.

Hey Joe (Hoeffel Set To Blog)

I participated in a bloggers conference call Thursday night with Joe Hoeffel. (I intended to post about this Thursday or Friday but the fire wore me out.) The subject was Hoeffel's new web venture Joe Hoeffel & Friends (expected to be operational in the next week or two).

The following bloggers participated and you can see their accounts of the call below:

Dan and Ray from Young Philly Politics

Jane from Above Average Jane

Albert from Dragonballyee

The invitation to join the call came from Hilary Zwerdling of @DVOCACY, INC. I have no idea how bloggers were chosen to participate. Hilary moderated the call.

As is usual with all things political in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia was over represented. I believe that I was the only participant from the WILD WILD WEST, but the sponsors of the call did say that they wanted participation from this neck of the woods, and of course, there's no saying how many people were actually invited vs. how many chose to join in.

Hopefully, everyone reading this post knows who Joe Hoeffel is as he ran against Arlen Specter for Senate in 2004. Certainly one of Hoeffel's problems in his campaign was lack of name recognition as well as the perception of Specter as one of the last moderate Republicans in the Senate.

I wholeheartedly supported Hoeffel against Specter in the election and met him several times while he was campaigning in these parts.

Hoeffel is a Progressive so I was terribly disappointed when he came out for Bob Casey, Jr. (anti-choice, antigay, anti-embryo stem cell research, etc.) recently.

I attended a PA Organizing Conference for Democracy for America in May and Hoeffel was the speaker at lunch. My understanding was that he was asked beforehand not to use the event to campaign on Casey's behalf but he took the opportunity to answer a question as to why he wasn't running against Santorum into a 10 minute plug for Casey. I was one of the attendees who could be heard grumbling loudly that, "I didn't come here for this crap." I had even avoided a fundraiser for Wayne Fontana that was only a couple of blocks from my house because Hoeffel was a guest and I thought that I might break out into a rant against Casey there.

So let's just say that I approached the call with some trepidation, but also with curiosity (Who was participating? Would this be another Casey ad? etc.). I didn't really venture any comments and the call lasted a half hour.

The main gist of the call was to inform the progressives about the site (interactive, blog, calendar, polls, resource for information). Hoeffel plans to blog there a few times week. Getting his perspective on things may prove interesting if he keeps it current and insider-enough.

Certainly we can use an alternative to the Right-minded Grassroots PA.

Above Average Jane has asked everyone to give Hoeffel three months to get the site together and help it to look good. Three months can be an eternity in politics but I'm not set to attack it at the outset.

Just one thing, Joe:
Please do not make it one long campaign ad for Casey.

I know you're for him. However, I also notice that I wasn't the only blogger on the call with a big fat free Pennacchio ad on my site.

Let's make this a site that will truly attract ALL Progressive Democrats.

* * * * *
NOTE: After the call, I was able to catch a forum of bloggers (Atrios, David Corn, MyDD, Afro-Netizen and others) on C-SPAN2's coverage of The Conference for America's Future. Jerome Armstrong from MyDD mentioned just how crappy a choice Casey is for any progressive voter. Great minds think alike...

What A Long Strange Trip It's Been

Back in the summer of 2003 I first became aware of Howard Dean via MoveOn.org's straw poll to choose a Democratic candidate to support in the 2004 Presidential Election (I made perhaps the only New Year's resolution I have ever kept in January 2003 to volunteer for the eventual Democratic Presidential candidate in the next election). At that time, MoveOn said that they would support a candidate if one could get a majority vote from its membership. I initially voted for Dennis Kucinich as I understood him to be progressive, while having serious reservations about his backing of a woman's choice to control her reproduction system since he had until very recently been anti-choice. I also was concerned at the time that cosmetically speaking, Kucinich didn't seem to be the kind of person who many would pull the lever for.

Dean had a strong showing in that first poll which led me to look into him a little deeper. When I did, I liked what I saw. I found myself agreeing with his stands on most issues, but almost more importantly, I found myself getting caught up in the buzz surrounding Dean -- it was infectious. By the time MoveOn ran a second, runoff poll, I was in Dean's camp. Dean came close to achieving a majority in the second poll but fell a little short of winning.

By July 2003, I was starting to visit Blog for America and had just missed the Pittsburgh meetup for that month. By August, Dean was splashed all over the cover of Time and Newsweek and I attended my first meetup. The Pittsburgh August meetup was like a revival meeting and I found myself volunteering to help out with the group's website. I got a call the day after that meeting to create a flyer for gay outreach and before I knew it, I was on the website committee, going to house parties, donating money and chosen to be on the local Steering Committee. In October, I got the chance to shake Howard Dean's hand at a big downtown fundraiser and I was so jazzed it took me hours to go to sleep that night.

At this point, I must back up a bit. While I have had a lifelong interest in politics and have voted in every election, I had never before volunteered for a campaign. I have never been shy about expressing my political views (even as a child), but I never went that next step to active participation in the process. But after the 2000 election, something broke within me. I could not understand how the country could let it come down to a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.

I became radicalized.

9/11 only made things worse for me. Having lived for 15 years in Manhattan, the attack still seems inconceivable to me. I was fielding frantic calls from friends (one whose husband was in NYC that day and who we feared at the time was in a train under the towers when they started to collapse -- fortunately, the trains had already been stopped by then). I remember trying to reach my sister who worked a block from the White House by phone (an all day process). I remember the calls to and from friends in NYC the next day. I also remember the call from my mother on 9/11 who told me before the plane crashed in PA that my brother (who worked at 911) had enough warning about it to call his wife and have her pull their kids out of school while it was still flying over our state.

I obsessed on the attack and on the Bush Administration's response to it in the weeks and months after. I spent long hours online trying to get at the truth and saw clips of Bush sitting in the school on the morning of September 11th doing nothing long before Michael Moore immortalized those moments on film. I spent equally long hours online cataloging this administration's attempts to dismantle the Constitution in the name of "security" which eventually led me to MoveOn.org and then to Dean.

So when I discovered Howard Dean with his plain talk against a war in Iraq and his message that we could "take back our country," I was more then primed to jump in and help.

From August 2003 through March 2004, I gave many hours to doing whatever I could to help Dean win the nomination. I met many wonderful people who I'm still friends with. When Dean pulled out, like many of my fellow Deaniacs, I mourned the loss. I railed against the unfair coverage of "the scream" and the positioning of Dean in the media as some big joke. And, like many, I joined the local Kerry grassroots group (while still maintaining my DfA membership).

We all know how the story goes from here: Kerry lost and, as unbelievable as it was to imagine before November 2004, Bush is back for four moron years.

There was another thing that I could not foresee on Election Day 2004, however. That was the resurrection of Howard Dean. By December of 2004, Dean meetups which had been consistently growing smaller in attendance took a big upswing in new members and in the return of old members. People had not given up on trying to "take our country back."

In January, Howard Dean officially announced his candidacy for DNC Chairmanship. There were many naysayers from the beginning. They repeated the "Dean Scream." They repeated that Dean was "crazy"...or "a joke"...or "too far to the Left."

But Howard did what Howard does best: he spoke openly and honestly to the electorate. He reminded them that he had the skill set needed for the position (ability to mobilize people, to successfully fundraise, and an understanding of the need for a 50 state strategy).

And this time, it was his distracters and fellow candidates who fell by the wayside.

This time, it looks like the best man will win.

So on this morning when the DNC members will vote for their new chair, I will let out a phrase that I haven't repeated for quite some time now:

THE DOCTOR IS IN! :-)

Yes, That Was Me. Wendy Bell Offered Me A Weekly Segment

I turned it down, of course.

But let's back up a day or so. This story begins here with the results of the Pittsburgh City Paper's "Best of Pittsburgh" readers' poll.

I was nominated for "Best Blog" and lost. Didn't even crack the top three.

Wendy Bell was nominated for "Best Jagoff" and also didn't win, though she placed second.

My response was some faux-rage satire. What I did was to take Donald Trump's non-concession speech from November 7, 2020, wipe out all of his details and replaced them mine. The joke was me saying that the poll was fixed simply because I lost and I thought I should have won. Sound familiar? It's a joke about Donald Trump's assault on the truth regarding his loss in the 2020 election.

Wendy, on the other hand, tweeted:

No question. Another rigged election. I’m BEYOND disappointed.

— Wendy Bell (@WendyBellPgh) September 29, 2021

I wasn't sure if she was continuing the gag (which would've been funny) or if she was really agreeing with me that the readers' poll was rigged. For the record, I do not think the poll was rigged. I was joking.

Anyway, Wendy started following me on twitter (which was kinda glorious, if you think about it) and then DMed me that she was "furious" that she lost and that she was "deadly serious" about wanting to know who really won.

On the air, she had this conversation with Brock, who is her - I'm gonna say producer?

Wendy: I was very disappointed that I came in second place in this particular publication's “Jagoff of the year” because, ladies and gentlemen in all sincerity it is so tragic to be irrelevant, right?

So if you have a platform or an ideology or a mantra that you believe in, that manages to completely infuriate the left so that all they see are stars, ah! I think you're doing a good job.

I personally think I should have won and I'm upset that I didn't.

Brock: They did admit to “rigged elections” because he said it was rigged because you should have won.

Wendy: See?

Brock: Because you are the biggest jagoff, so -

Wendy: Well then there's that.

So I guess she didn't get the joke. Too bad. If she'd been joking along with me, it would have humanized her. A bit.

Note: I'd usually keep private DMs, well, private but since she quoted me on her air, I don't feel I have any obstacles quoting her.

This is when she invited me on her show. She pitched a weekly segment if I was good on the air adding that "For someone who hates me so much, you should jump at this!"

This was Wednesday morning. As I was working and have limited access to social media during the day, I had to wait until after work to respond, which I did on Wednesday evening. With this:

For the record, I DON'T hate you. I'm quite sincere when I say that I'm embarrassed for you and I feel sad for all the members of your audience who've gotten sick/who'll get sick (some VERY sick) simply because they believed what you've told them about the virus and about the vaccines. 

 Still not coming on your show - I still work during the day and your show is still not a level playing field (I learned blogging about Fred Honsberger a decade and a half ago that the caller never wins the argument simply b/c they're a caller). 

Anything I'd want to say, I've already posted on line. 

But feel free to read any of my blog posts on air. Your audience could probably use the exposure to actual covid information. 

And this is how she characterized my no:

And he said no. Wouldn't even consider it because, he says, he feels sorry for me that that the things that I talk about are going to cost some of you your health. That some of you, because you listen to me are going to become sick, some of you very sick. In fact, some of you may well die because you listen to me. Because I am a vaccine denier. Which is factually incorrect.

She left out the part about how I work during the day and can't take the time off. She also left out the part about me not hating her (she said Thursday morning that I vehemently disliked her). 

She also added the part about how some members of her audience may die because they listen to her. I did not say that in that DM to her - though I have blogged on it. Most recently when she was fact-checked by Trump defender Alan Derschowitz:

The danger here, Wendy, is that members of your audience will believe you when you discount the vaccines. Some of them might decide to take their chances on natural immunity. With any luck they'll make it through fine. Those unlucky, however, will end up in the hospital and some of them might even die.

So I guess she reads this blog.

But let's look at that part a little deeper. She seems to think it's not true. She seems to think that she's not putting anyone at risk by spreading misinformation.

She's very wrong.

Take, for instance, this piece by the CEO of St. Luke’s University Health Network, Richard Anderson:

On July 12, there were three patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at St. Luke’s 12 campuses; today [September 3], there are 91 patients.

During this timeframe, 94% of our hospitalized COVID patients have not been vaccinated. This lopsided percentage applies to most, if not all our nation’s hospitals. 

This is not a one-day or one-month anomaly; it is an alarming reality. It is an irrefutable fact that after nine months since the introduction of the COVID vaccine, patients who are vaccinated, for the most part, will not experience serious illness or hospitalization. 

And:

The current situation related to the COVID virus could also be described as a pandemic of choice, since over 90% of hospitalized COVID patients have made a dangerous choice by declining to be vaccinated. This choice has exacerbated and prolonged this unprecedented pandemic for all Americans. 

And he's not alone in his assessment. The vaccines have been readily available for about 6 months. Most of the people suffering right now in hospitals across the country could have taken the vaccine but chose not to.

How many of them are/were Wendy Bell listeners? Does she really think she's not a part (however small) of that deadly causal chain?

And she is a vaccine-denier, folks. Any time she uses VAERS data to steer anyone away from getting vaccinated, she's gone anti-vaxx. There is no question about this. She's a vaccine denier.

One last thing, as part of her description of her pitch, she said this on the air:

And so I said, what do you say? Why don't you come on and I'll give you this space. Brock even said if this individual wanted to sponsor – if they wanted to get a sponsorship for it, we would provide that sponsorship money to them. This could blow up his blog. This could be huge. 

What makes her think I would take money from the people who are sponsoring her? 

Those sponsors are (like Wendy and Brock) profiting off of Covid misinformation and all the suffering that it's caused. What sort of human being would I be if I were to take that cash?

For the record, it strikes me that Pittsburgh Dad's win in this poll is probably based on a definition of "jagoff" that more or less overlaps with "yinzer." So in that instance he wins, hands dahn.

But if you (like me) define "jagoff" as something closer to "any kind of irritating or unlikeable person" then Wendy Bell should truly have won.

Pittsburgh Dad is a yinzer. Wendy Bell is a jagoff.

Horses: Yes; Women: No

Via Blog for Choice:

Politico and RH Reality Check are reporting that anti-choice Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has introduced an amendment to a spending bill that would promote contraception--for wild horses.

But, they strip all federal funding for Planned Parenthood (mind you, this would be funding for contraceptives, cancer screenings, basic health care, etc. and not abortions) and want to stop all funds for all family planning for low-income Americans (Title X).

That would be:

Horses 1, Women 0

At least you know where you stand, ladies (barefoot and pregnant).

Via Digby, during the course of the debate on defunding Planned Parenthood:

Rep. Jackie Speier listened to debate on the House floor on Thursday evening as a Republican Rep. Chris Smith read a long, detailed description of an abortion and a "mangled image of a dead, tiny baby." Finally, Speier stood up and told her colleagues she had undergone an abortion in the early 1990s following a complication nearly four months into her pregnancy.

"As the night wore on, the vitriol and grotesque commentary got worse and worse," Speier, a second-term Democrat from California, told HuffPost. "I sat there thinking, none of these men on the other side have even come close to experiencing this, and yet they can pontificate about what it's like. It just overwhelmed me."

[snip]

"This was a wanted pregnancy, it was the second miscarriage I had had," she told HuffPost. "What they express doesn't come close to the experience that a woman goes through when she is losing a baby or when a pregnancy is terminated. It's a painful, gut-wrenching loss."

[snip]

Representative Speier shouldn't have to bare her personal life to the whole country. But she did because cynical, paternalistic Congressmen like Smith and Mike Pence thinks she is a child, a cruel child, who like all women cannot be trusted to make her own decisions. They have no clue about these experiences and no respect for the agency and autonomy of those who have to deal with them. (The women who support these patriarchal nincompoops are just as disrespectful.) It is a rare woman who has an abortion without understanding the seriousness of it and no one but she can rightly make the decision.

If you haven't already, watch Rep. Speier speak here:


Of course, here in PA, women are used to being treated as children (stupid and cruel children at that) as there is a mandatory lecture and waiting period for all women who seek an abortion in this state.
.

More On Bob Vander Plaatz's Pledge

There's been an update or two to The Iowa Pledge I wrote about on the 8th.

For those who don't know, a conservative group from Iowa called The Family Leader issued this "pledge" for all GOP candidates (and their supporters) to deal with. At the time of my writing that blog post, only Michele Bachmann had signed it.

And now there's two:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was initially “taken aback” by a pro-marriage pledge that asks presidential candidates to promise personal fidelity to their spouses, but said he ultimately decided to sign it.

“When I first read it, I was taken aback by it. I can't argue that I wasn't,” the former Pennsylvania senator said in an interview airing Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“But I understand why they're saying it, because it does undermine people's respect for the institution, respect for the people governing this country. If you can't be faithful to the people that you're closest to, then how can we count on you to be faithful to those of us who you represent?”

There was some other stuff in there, too, that Rick's pledged to support:

Other provisions in the pledge include promises to only appoint conservative judges, to remove anti-traditional marriage provisions in the tax code and opposition to any constitutional redefinition of marriage.

And some stuff he doesn't have to.

For instance when he signed the pledge, there was this language in it:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.

Wasn't slavery great?? It kept African-American families together!

Until someone was sold, of course. Keeping families together is one thing, but property rights are property rights. And as Ron Paul said (in another context, of course) private business owners have an absolute right to decide what to do with their own property.

But I digress.

Luckily for Rick and Michele, there's been some changes to the pledge:

Responding to a growing controversy, an Iowa-based conservative group has removed a passage in a marriage pact signed by two GOP presidential candidates that suggested black families were in better shape during slavery.

“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man," said Bob Vander Plaats, head of The Family Leader.

"We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow, " added Vander Plaats, who is known as a king maker in Iowa.

The campaigns have done the CYA dance:

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum signed the two-page document entitled "The Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family," on Thursday, but their campaigns emphasized that the "candidate vow" portion of the pledge that they put their stamps of approval on didn't mention slavery. Instead, it condemned gay marriage, abortion, infidelity and pornography.

Here's some meat from the pledge that's still in force. In that section of the pledge that outlines why marriage is in such deep trouble in Amurika, there's this:

Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non committal co-habitation; exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.

I am not sure about the "absence of all empirical proof" part, but let's for the sake of argument assume it's absolutely 100% correct (which it isn't, but let's just go with this for a second) and being gay is a choice, that it's not (as they say) hardwired into the brain.

What possible difference would that make?

For any given person, their sexuality is either a choice or it isn't. If it isn't, then no civilized society should condemn that person for merely being what they were born to be. If it's a choice then no civilized society should condemn that person for exercising his or her free will.

There's one republican who disagrees with the pledge:

Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson thinks the pledge that an Iowa Christian conservative group is circulating is offensive because it condemn gays, single parents, divorcees, Muslims, women who choose to have abortions “and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.”

And:

This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

Proof that not all conservatives got teh crazie.

Good to know.

The Problem With Bill

Tucker Carlson (MSNBC) called the performance "cringe-worthy."

Alison Stewart (MSNBC) said it was "cringe-tastic."

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Post) said it was like, "...watching someone drown in the shallow end of the pool and than refuse a life preserver." He added, "I watched that big guy shrink in his chair as he answered the questions."

The audience groaned.

I was cringing and groaning at my TV set at home.

I'm talking about Governor (and Presidential hopeful) Bill Richardson's performance on LOGO TV 's Visible Vote ‘08 Presidential Forum Thursday evening.

First, some background. If you're not familiar with LOGO, it's a LGBT oriented cable channel and this was billed as the first Presidential forum on gay issues. Each candidate who agreed to appear got 15 minutes on their own from a panel of questioners which included the aforementioned Jonathan Capehart, journalist Margaret Carlson, singer/activist Melissa Etheridge and the Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese. The candidates appeared in the following order: Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton (Dodd and Biden had scheduling problems). Naturally, no Republicans agreed to appear in a separate forum.

So what was so wrong with Richardson's performance?

In a word: everything.

Let me state up front that while I don't have a favorite candidate yet, I really liked Bill Richardson and have stated that on this blog before. I also kept saying back in 2004 that Kerry should have picked him for his running mate.

Here's a sample of Richardson's sorry performance:

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you. Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you
understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see
this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

It's not just that the content is bad, it's like he wasn't even prepared for the question -- at an LGBT forum! After the broadcast, he released a statement saying, "I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice." Then he repeated that he wasn't a scientist.

[sigh]

But it didn't stop there.

While he said he was for civil unions because that was achievable and he's a guy who gets things done, when Joe Solmonese asked him if he would sign a gay marriage bill if it was presented to him by the New Mexico legislature, he just wouldn't answer the question directly no matter how many times it was put to him.

And then they brought up something that I hadn't heard before. Bill Richardson had used the word "maricón" on the Imus show. For those of you, who unlike me, haven't lived in NYC for 15 years that word is Spanish for "faggot."

GayNewsWatch.com describes the Imus incident:

Almost exactly one year before Imus was to lose his show for using a slur to describe the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, the shock jock used the Spanish word “maricón” in an on-air exchange with Richardson.

“Bernard on the staff here has been claiming you’re not really Hispanic so-- that you're just claiming that for some sort of advantage or something,” Imus said to Richardson, tongue clearly in cheek. “You can just answer this yes or no and this will answer that question. Would you agree that Bernard is a maricón?”

Without missing a beat, Richardson replied in Spanish, “Yo creo que Bernardo, sí — es un maricón si él piensa que yo no soy hispano. [General laughter] Was that good enough or what? [General laughter]”

“That’s good enough for me,” Imus replied.

Most gay Latinos interviewed for this story agreed with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation that the word “maricón” means “faggot” in Spanish. So, translated to English, Richardson had replied: "I believe that Bernard, yes – he’s a faggot if he thinks that I am not Hispanic."

By the time Richardson left the forum stage, my support for him had entirely shriveled up and gone the way of the wind.

[sigh]

You can see Bill R opine on "choice" here (it's about two and a half minutes in):


You can read Pam of Pam's House Blend's wrap up here (she does have a link to good things that Richardson has done for the LGBT Community) and Sue of Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents weighs in here.

You can also view clips of the entire forum at LOGO's website here and the forum will be rebroadcast Monday at 7:00 PM ET.
.

Ignore the Post-Gazette and vote for Jack Panella for PA Supreme Court!

I'm being as charitable as possible when I say to the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Please! Put down the crack pipe!
(Or rename the paper. Oh, I don't know, something like "Trib Lite.")
Last week the P-G endorsed Lil Mayor Luke for the first time ever and now this week they've endorsed Judge Joan Orie Melvin, a Republican from Western PA, over Judge Jack A. Panella, a Democrat from Eastern PA.

In their endorsement, the P-G says:

Both have risen through the legal ranks, both have had distinguished careers and both are ranked highly recommended by the Pennsylvania Bar Association. In truth, either one would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.

So why do they give the nod to Orie Melvin? They chalk it up to wanting a judge from the West and say that they're "strike[ing] a small but important blow for gender balance by keeping the number of female justices at two."

Now anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I'm a feminist. They know that I've supported numerous women for office. They know that I defended Sarah Palin against those attacks that were purely sexist in nature.

That said, if it ever comes down to a male candidate who is good on issues that I care about versus a female candidate who isn't so hot on the issues, I have to go with the candidate who I agree with -- regardless of their gender -- every time.

So how does Judge Orie Melvin stack up on the issues? (And, yes, if you don't know already, the Judge is the sister of PA State Senator Jane Orie.)

According to the American Family Association of PA (courtesy of Sue from Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents) based on "Court Cases/Candidate Responses/Outside Sources" Orie Melvin is anti choice, anti gay, anti separation of Church and State and believes that Antonin Scalia is the Supreme Court Judge who most closely demonstrates her judicial philosophy.

Wow, P-G! Are you auditioning to become the Trib?

And, since half of the P-G's reasoning is based on gender, how exactly has Orie Melvin ruled on behalf of the distaff set?

Again from Sue, we know that Orie Melvin had no problem with a physician having sex with a woman he was treating for anxiety and depression which caused his patient’s psychological/emotional symptoms to worsen.

We also know this from the Pittsburgh City Paper:

He cites the 2007 case Toney v. Chester County Hospital, in which a pregnant woman received an ultrasound and was told her baby was fine. Opting for natural childbirth, she gave birth to a child with multiple severe disabilities. She wanted to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but her suit was challenged. Panella and the Superior Court majority ruled that the case could go forward. (Her case will be heard by the state Supreme Court Dec. 2.) Orie Melvin was one of two dissenters.

Orie Melvin won't comment on the case, but counters Panella's example with another pregnancy case. In that suit, in which a mother alleged that an HMO's advice delayed her access to care, Orie Melvin voted to reverse a lower-court ruling that would have tossed the case out.

Let me decode that for you. In the first case someone who, let's say, is very anti choice and is funded by anti choicers would not want to think that any birth is anything other than a blessing from God. They also might think that the misread ultrasound was also a blessing because it might prevent a woman from making a truly informed decision about continuing her pregnancy.

Surely all this is enough to make many not want to vote for Orie Melvin, but wait, there's more.

There's also the issue of redistricting (which is why this race is getting even minimal attention).

Also from the City Paper:

From a partisan standpoint, there's another big issue at stake in this election: redistricting. After each U.S. Census, the state's new population figures force the legislature to change the boundaries of election districts, for Congressional seats and for both branches of the state legislature. The party in power often gets to redraw the map, with results that typically shore up their political advantage.

The state Supreme Court often appoints the last member of the five-person redistricting panel -- and the court may also rule on the fairness of those lines once drawn. After the 1990 district revamp, for example, 25 cases were filed against the plan in the state Supreme Court.

Democrats believe the court's choice in 2000 helped gerrymander U.S. House districts in the GOP's favor. The U.S. Supreme Court -- in a ruling that divided justices along party lines -- eventually ruled against the Democrats. State political observers are bracing for more such fights, especially since the state is likely to lose at least one Congressional seat after the 2010 Census.

How can we expect the "genial and fair-minded" Orie Melvin to rule with respect to any possible redistricting matters? From Gort42 (via Spork by way of Crooks and Liars):

In her previous visit to Wilkes-Barre in May she gave a long rambling speech to the local GOP faithful. In that speech she listed as one of her selling points was the upcoming redistricting after the 2010 Census telling the partisan crowd that they needed a Republican on the court to rule in favor of Republicans in any challenges to whatever plan emerges.

So much for Judges being above politics.

And, if all that wasn't enough, there's this web ad which was running on GrassrootsPA and which was paid for by the PA GOP:


The ad fliped from the above to a blue banner that said, "Hit them where it hurts. The voting booth! On Nov. 3rd, Vote for Supreme Court candidate Joan Orie Melvin and your Republican judicial ticket."

The ad has since been modified (no more mention of Obama or the hammer and sickle ☭) and Orie Melvin certainly did not put up the ad herself BUT, it is her party who ran the ad and it is the party that she represents.

At this point, you have to ask yourself how much of this did the P-G know when they vetted and endorsed Orie Melvin?

Now that you know all about her, I suggest you go directly to http://votejackpanella.com and donate whatever you can and vote for him on election day.

This race is extremely close. PA doesn't need our own Scalia on our Supreme Court -- even if she's a she from Pittsburgh.
.

WARNING: Non-confrontational Call For A Contested Primary

For those whose taste run that way and who desire to take some action:

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2005 3:12 PM -0500
Subject: [PAforDemocracyCouncil] Bury them in letters of protest-we want our primary back!!


PLEASE CIRCULATE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE AMONG PA DEMOCRATIC VOTERS AND PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS.
A petition and contact list follow below.


Fellow PA Dems,

Do YOU want OUR PA Dem Primary back? Let's let our party know. Now.

The last election cycle saw an incredible upsurge of participation by ordinary Americans, the likes of which hasn't been seen in decades. We organized, we registered, and we VOTED. And in one arrogant, backroom maneuver, a small circle of Democratic Party powerbrokers has stolen from us, the ordinary working Democrats of Pennsylvania, OUR primary for choosing Santorum's opponent.

If Rendell's (& co.'s) problem was a destructive and expensive primary last time, suppressing democracy by making our votes meaningless is NOT the solution. The solution is to hold a CONstructive primary with a maximum return on the investment:

- name recognition and publicity for all the Dem candidates,
- defining the issues,
- building REAL Dem unity and power by engaging the voters,
- giving Pennsylvania's Democrats a really good reason to turn out for ALL the races in the primary, AND
- keep the Republican's guessing just how to sharpen their sabers, by notpainting a target on our candidate's back this early in the game! Why give the Repubs a whole other year to bash our candidate? Keep 'em guessing!

That would follow the DNC's new mandate. That's our party leaders' JOB.

If Mr. Casey is so, um, "Electable," he can prove it by running an honest and civil race against his competitors. If he needs a marshmallow primary, how in the world will he handle a race against Santorum? Rendell's move HURTS Casey.

One extremely important goal for a constructive 2006 primary race is to build common ground on preventing unintended pregnancies. "When life begins" is the purview of religion. Pubic policy on healthy families is the purview of government. Access to accurate information, contraception, and abortion when needed is the only proven way to reduce the number of problem pregnancies, and thereby, abortions. (See a short, cogent article at: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/reprod/littmanabortion?b_start:int=0 ) I SINCERELY HOPE THAT IF CASEY EMBRACES THIS POLICY APPROACH (AND WINS THE PRIMARY), THAT HOEFFEL AND HAFER CAN STUMP FOR HIM -- ALONG WITH THE REST OF US -- LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW!

Destroying the primary will not settle the polarization about government policy on unintended pregnancy (and thereby abortion). But fighting for proven solutions that work could heal the rift among all but the extremists.

- BELOW IS A LETTER AND LINK TO A PETITION SITE. The letter states pretty clearly why we need a civilized, widely participatory primary debate on the candidates and issues in order to unify to win the race against Santorum.

- IT IS FOLLOWED BY CONTACT INFORMATION FOR DEM PARTY OFFICIALS who snatched our primary, and a link for finding YOUR State Democratic Committee members, who, I'm told, are the ones who actually decide! Let's all let them know, in civil, positive, and no uncertain terms, that we WILL have OUR voice. We will not settle for a primary where we only get to vote "YES". PLEASE CONTACT AS MANY OF THEM AS YOU CAN STAND.

Our vote is our voice, and we will not stand to have both our Choice and our Voice stolen from us by OUR party.

Thank you,

Mary Clark Thompson
Dean Democrat and former Die-hard Independent

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 7:44 AM
To: Ray Murphy
Subject: Force State Democrats to Hold an Open Primary

Dear Progressive Pennsylvanian,

Last week, Governor Ed Rendell effectively ended the 2006 Democratic Primary before it began by endorsing Bob Casey Jr. to run against Rick Santorum for his US Senate seat. Beating Santorum is obviously an important goal, but it's not an excuse to skip the Democratic primary.

The nominee who runs against Santorum will need progressive, grassroots activists to help turn out as many votes as possible just like in the 2004 race. The people who will be on the frontlines against Santorum deserve a say in who they will be working for.

That's why we're asking you to join us in signing a petition to Governor Rendell and the state Democratic party asking for a real Democratic primary to allow voters, not party bosses, to decide who can beat Santorum:

http://www.localnet.com/~raym/primary06.htm

Unlike Rick Santorum, Bob Casey Jr. would fight for health care, good jobs and Social Security if elected to the Senate. However, his anti-choice views and his still emerging stance on LGBT issues raise important questions for progressives and could have an impact on turn-out in SE PA.

A real primary process allows those questions to be addressed. A primary process allows for dialogue and debate so that all members of the party can feel satisfied with the nominee that eventually wins. A primary is the best way for all of us to come together as one to support the best candidate.

Beating Rick Santorum is the key to taking back the Senate and the key to taking back our state. Let's make sure we do it the right way, working for someone we truly believe in.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ben Waxman and Ray Murphy
March 8, 2005


------------------------------------------------------------------

Democratic Party Contact List

Chairman Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-863-8000
email form: http://www.democrats.org/contact/

Governor Edward G. Rendell
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-2500.
email form: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/govmail.html

Chairman T. J. Rooney
Democratic State Committee
510 North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
tjrooney@pahouse.net
(717) 238-9381

7 W. Fourth Street
Bethlehem, PA 18015
(610) 882-1510
Fax: (610) 861-2112

4 East Wing
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020
(717) 783-8515
Fax: (717) 705-1920

Senator Chuck Schumer, Chair, Democratic Senate Campaign Committee
120 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202.224.2447 V
202.485.3120 F
INFO@DSCC.ORG

PA Treasurer Robert P. Casey, Jr.
PA Treasury Department
129 Finance Building
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 787-2465

Former PA Treasurer Barbara Hafer
(I haven't been able to track down appropriate,
non-invasive information on how to contact
Barbara Hafer. If I get any, I'll follow up.
Everyone else's info was published in public
sources.)

Rep. Joseph P. Hoeffel III
1908 Lycoming Avenue
Abington, PA 19001
215-659-6267



YOUR COUNTY's Dem State Committee members (I'm told that THEY decide!).
Find out who yours are! Under "County Organizations" in the center column,
click on the link "MORE" at: http://www.padems.com/index1024.html
Then click on your county on the MAP to see who the Chair and the State
Committee members are. Call your county phone number for their contact
information, or look them up in your phone book.


For good measure:
PENNSYLVANIA DNC MEMBERS:

*PA Chair:
Hon. T.J. Rooney
510 N. 3rd St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
W:717-238-9381

Hon. Jean A. Milko
2934 McKelvey Rd.
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
W:412-350-5334

Rena Baumgartner
RR 4
Kunkletown, PA 18058
W:570-629-0471

Carol Ann Campbell
236 N. 59th St.
Philadelphia, PA 19139
H:215-471-0511

Hon. Ronald R. Donatucci
104 Queen St.
Philadelphia, PA 19147
W:215-686-6250

William M. George
231 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
W:717-231-2841

Marcel Groen
1254 Lenox Rd.
Jenkintown, PA 19046
W:215-299-2705

Hon. Sophie Masloff
6315 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
H:412-421-7440

Ian Murray
3818 State St.
Erie, PA 16508
H:814-864-0841

Evelyn D. Richardson
6908 Kedron St.
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
H:412-363-6247

___________________________________________________

I certainly think the above petition is worthwhile (and have already signed it), as well as knowing that calling these folks can't hurt (and can only help -- be polite!).

That said, for any one who is wondering, I still stand by my original "inflammatory," "vulgar" statements on this subject that make me a "filthy pig" and a "filthy disgusting ho bag."

This is a blog, baby. And its chock full of OPINIONS, as well as FACTS. And, I often write in an in-your-face style. So, no apology here.
___________________________________________

Also, check out alternative-to-Casey Chuck Pennacchio who deserves more recognition in the non-blog world:

http://www.chuck2006.com

To Pittgirl, With The Greatest Respect, I Offer A Correction

A week or so ago, my friend Ginny (aka "Virginia Montanez", aka "Pittgirl") published this piece in Pittsburgh Magazine, titled "10 Ways Pittsburgh Ruled 2015."

As the title describes, Ginny proffers 10 bullet points as to why Pittsburgh was a great place to be in 2015 - points like:

• Our food is better than yours (about how Zagat named Pittsburgh "Top Food City of 2015"
• Hold the door (about how Mayor Peduto pledged to take in 500 Syrian refugees)

And so on.  I can't argue much of anything Ginny wrote - except her last bullet.  This one:

• That’ll be $10, sir. That’ll be $7.60, ma’am (about the pop-up shop opened in Garfield to illustrate the gender pay gap)

Yea, sorry to say I guess we have to revisit this but I don't want to edit what Ginny writes.  Here it is in full:

The fact that women in Pittsburgh earn 76 cents for every dollar men work for the same job is insanely frustrating. Go to the same school, pay the same tuition, earn the same degree, work your way up to the same job title, take home 24% less pay. ‘scuse me while I flip this table. One local graphic designer, Elana Schlenker, put Pittsburgh on the pay-gap map this year by opening a pop-up store in Garfield called 76 < 100 in which she charged female customers 24% less than male customers in an effort to draw attention to the pay gap issue. It worked. Soon national news outlets picked up on the story and she was hearing from women all over the world interested in learning more about how they could start similar ventures in their hometowns. As a result of the coverage, Schlenker opened 66 < 100 in New Orleans and now has other American cities in the pipeline. I’m looking forward to the day she can open 100 = 100 in Pittsburgh.

There's only one thing wrong with that paragraph - it's its opening premise.  Actually, had Ginny simply omitted the phrase "for the same job" there'd be nothing there with which to disagree.  Had she simply written:

The fact that women in Pittsburgh earn 76 cents for every dollar men earn is insanely frustrating.

I wouldn't be writing this blog post.  It's the "for the same job" part that unravels her entire idea.

Let me explain (again).

As the American Association of University Women reported recently the median income for women in Pennsylvania is $39,905 and the median income for men in Pennsylvania is $50,412.  Pop up the calculator App on your phone, divide the former by the latter, and you'll get about 79%.

So the pay gap exists.

But does it exist for the same work?

No.

The AAUW explains:

Critics charge that pay differences between men and women are simply a matter of personal choices. AAUW addressed this argument in our 2012 report, Graduating to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after College Graduation. Our analysis found that just one year after college graduation, women were paid 82 percent of what their similarly educated and experienced male counterparts were paid.  An earlier report, Behind the Pay Gap (AAUW, 2007), found that 10 years after graduation, the pay gap widened, and women were paid only 69 percent of what men were paid.  In part, these pay gaps do reflect men’s and women’s choices, especially the choice of college major and the type of job pursued after graduation. For example, women are more likely than men to go into teaching, and this contributes to the pay gap because teachers tend to be paid less than other college graduates.  Economists often consider this portion of the pay gap to be explained, regardless of whether teachers’ wages are considered fair. [Italics in Original.]

But take a closer look at the text. They're talking less about "equal pay for equal work" than they are discussing whether it's fair that professions usually populated by more women than men are less valued than professions usually populated more men than women.  But that's a separate discussion, isn't it?

As I wrote some time ago, the AAUW used these headings as a way to clarify the issue in the above mentioned report Behind the Pay Gap:

• Women and men choose different majors. 
• Choice of major plays a significant role in future wages. 
• Women and men work in different occupations. 
• Men report working more hours than women report working. 
• Women are more likely than men to take time off to care for children. 
• Men report working more hours than women report working. 
• Women are more likely to use family leave, work part time, or leave the labor force for some period.

So it's not about the same work.  Once they're all take into account, the pay gap closes considerably.  Of course any gap is immoral and unacceptable.  But the only way to solve a problem is to face it as clearly as possible and, simply put, the sentence "women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work" does little to clarify a very complicated issue.

Let's take another look at Ginny's first sentence:

The fact that women in Pittsburgh earn 76 cents for every dollar men work for the same job is insanely frustrating. [Emphasis added.]

It's also not true.  Sorry, Ginny.