breed-specific insanity continues in ontario; tea partiers support animal abuse in missouri

Breed-specific insanity continues in Ontario, under the radar of the media and most of the public, but inflicting lifelong pain on the families it tears apart.

Someone claims your dog is a banned breed, and it's up to you to prove she's not. And how do you prove such a thing? You can't. So your dog is taken from your home, and killed. Now, with a later amendment to the law, the dog can now be re-homed out of the province. But what will happen to the dog? And what of your family?

This almost happened to me, a week after we moved to Canada. In the story below, note the day the law went into effect: August 29, 2005. That's the day before we landed. Two days earlier, and we would have been safe. As it was, we were at the mercy of a kind Animal Services person, who may have showed leniency because we had just moved to the country.

Without this, I can't imagine what we would have done. We spent years healing Buster from the tortures he endured, and nursing him through his many chronic illnesses. To think our life with him could have been ended just days after we moved to Canada...! It's too terrible to contemplate.

A family in Cobourg, Ontario, is suffering this way right now. The dog Chaos (pictured above) has caused no trouble. He is not aggressive. He's not even a banned breed! But if you read the story carefully, you might discover what is really going on. The dog is barking. And someone found a way to fix the problem.

Stop K9 Profiling - End BSL (here on Facebook) is asking people to contact Ross Barth at Animal Services at 905.885.7808 and politely ask that Chaos be released.

Those of us who oppose breed-specific dog laws are asking for only one thing: that all dogs be treated equally. It's illegal to arrest people and lock them up because they might do something wrong in the future. (It happens, but it's still illegal.) Why can we do this to dogs?

Dog lovers protest breed ban after pet seized
By Pete Fisher, Northumberland Today

COBOURG/PORT HOPE - Punish the deed, not the breed: that was the message of a protest Saturday in front of the Northumberland County courthouse in Cobourg.

Tracey Van Slyke organized the protest after Animal Control officer Ross Barth and four Port Hope Police officers served a warrant at her home on Wednesday, March 9, and subsequently seized her 11-month-old dog, Chaos.

Officers said Chaos appears to be a pit bull, and therefore falls under banned breed legislation which states that no pit bulls are to be born after the legislation was enacted in August 2005.

"So, we've got an 11-month-old dog that shouldn't be here based on what I determined as to be a pit bull-type dog," said Barth, who was acting as a result of a complaint he received.

Though the dog wasn't at the home, it was later seized at a Cobourg residence.

"I don't believe I ever had an illegal dog," Van Slyke said at Saturday's protest.

Approximately 30 people from Cambridge to Kingston took part in the rally to call for changes to the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

As of Aug. 29, 2005, that restricts ownership of American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and any dog that is deemed to be substantially similar can be seized.

All pit bulls born before August 2005 were to have been sterilized, tagged and registered. Any dog born after can be seized and destroyed or sent to a research facility for animal testing.

Van Slyke said she has two dogs and is doing her best as a "responsible dog owner," but has also been informed her dogs are "interrupting the enjoyment of other tenants" with their barking.

"My dogs occasionally bark," she said. "I've been working with them to get them to stop.

"I have contacted the legal clinic and they are going to assist me in my eviction notice.

"We need our dog back," she said.

"He's never done anything aggressively other than bark and we've been working on behavioral management with him. He doesn't deserve to die just because someone doesn't think he should be where he is."

. . .

Barth said he has to act under the law when a complaint is made, and if the owners can prove the animal is not a pit bull it would be released back to them.

"I can't say whether I agree with the law or not," he said. "That's not for me to decide. The law is in place and I have to enforce the law."

Barth said nobody involved in this incident wants to see the dog destroyed, "but we know if the court decides we have no option."

Chaos is currently being housed at the Shelter of Hope on Theatre Road in Hamilton Township because Barth couldn't find another place to keep the dog.

Some shelters are shipping the dogs like this to Quebec because that province has no ban on the breed.

Barth is an animal lover himself said it's a disturbing case for all involved.

"It's breaking my heart. I had the dog in my lap. I watched the police officers doing their job and I don't think anyone of us want to see the dog taken away from its owners."

Elsewhere, anti-government freaks will bring suffering and death to countless puppies and dogs, because even the most basic, bare-bones animal protection laws are really just "government meddling" in citizens' lives.

I wrote about this back in October, when tea-party activists were trying to block legislation that would limit some of the most egregious abuses of puppy mills in the state of Missouri. Despite those efforts, that legislation passed. And now they're trying to get it repealed.

For years, Missouri earned the dubious distinction as the nation’s “puppy mill capital” because its lax humane regulations and enforcement allowed dog breeders to raise puppies at low costs in terrible, overcrowded conditions. Last fall, Missouri voters approved a referendum to finally solve this problem — the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act — which mandates regular veterinarian inspections of breeding facilities and ensures a basic level of treatment for dogs, such keeping temperatures between 45 and 85 degrees. Tea party groups stridently opposed the referendum, arguing it was “just another example of big government meddling in people’s lives.” Now, capitalizing on the big gains they made in November, Republicans in the state legislature are poised to repeal the regulations Missouri’s voters enacted. . . .

The bill still has to make it through the state House, and Gov. Jay Nixon (D) has not yet said whether he would sign or veto the bill. Editorializing against the state Senate vote, the Kansas City Star wrote that the “senators showed an arrogant disrespect for Missourians” who voted for better treatment of the animals. “The state legislature, held hostage to interests that regard dogs as just another form of livestock, has ignored the problems for years,” the paper added.

By this light, we should be well on our way to repealing child labour laws, fire codes and minimum wage laws (a cruel joke in most US states anyway).

For more on puppy mills, go here. "Overcrowding" doesn't begin to describe the tortures these dogs are subjected to.

Read More

viva wisconsin libre

Narayan Mahon for The New York Times

As the senators walked around the Capitol square, where one of the largest protests in what has been a daily outpouring of union employees and supporters was under way, the crowd pressed in to shake hands and shout words of encouragement. Many called the senators by name, a fact that caught some off guard.

Senator Timothy Cullen was visibly moved and called it his greatest experience as a public official. “We heard about how strongly they felt,” he said. “But you have to be here to feel it.”

The size of the crowd, which the Madison police estimated at around 100,000, and the amount of positive energy was striking, coming a day after the long battle over the bill was lost, though legal efforts were under way to keep it from taking effect.

For weeks the rhythmic chanting of protesters has filled this city like a heartbeat, proof that despite the lack of legislative power, the political left in this state is still a visible, and audible, presence. At the very moment that the noise was expected to fade in disappointment, that thumping proof of life — the staccato refrain of “This is what democracy looks like,” was the most popular of the chants — continued with renewed vigor.

It's almost enough to make me miss the US. Almost.

Read More

students and farmers join the fight in wisconsin; state senator admits budget is really about hurting obama

If the Wisconsin state senators who cast their surprise votes on Wednesday thought they had fired the last shot in this battle, by now they may know better. The 14 absent Democratic legislators, emboldened by relentless public outcry, are challenging the legality of the vote.

That public outcry is only getting louder and stronger, as more ordinary people recognize that they have more in common with each other than with the corporate-controlled elite. Here are two exciting and inspiring developments of the ever-growing resistance.

Hundreds of students at multiple Madison middle and high schools walked out of class Thursday to participate in protests at the state Capitol.

And students are planning another walkout for 2 p.m. Friday, organizer and East High School senior Jesse Banks said.

"There's been a lot of claims that we're wasting educational times and the student walkouts are counterproductive," Banks said. In response, the walkout is scheduled during the last hour and is expected to include a rally at Library Mall where high school students will discuss a Republican bill that dismantles public sector employee collective bargaining.

"The plan is to use it as a tool for education," Banks said.

Banks joined about 600 students who walked out of East High School around 10 a.m. Thursday to join protests of Assembly action on the collective bargaining bill, which was passed unexpectedly by the Senate Wednesday night.

. . .

As many as 800 West High School students also marched to the Capitol around 10 a.m., senior Jacob Fiksel said. . .

"I want to be part of stopping this," he said, adding that the students at the rally were excused from class by their parents.

Tomorrow, Saturday, March 12, members of the Wisconsin Farmers Union will descend on the capitol this Saturday - riding their tractors.

The Farmer Labor Tractorcade will bring tractors and solidarity to the Capitol to fight for labor rights and a just state budget. Rural communities will be disproportionately hurt by the cuts to education and Badgercare. Farmers in Wisconsin stand with state workers and all working and middle class families in the state. The event is sponsored by Family Farm Defenders and the Wisconsin Farmers Union. All farmers - and eaters - welcome and encouraged to come!

For more information and to learn how you can support Tractorcade, go to this Facebook page or the Family Farm Defenders website.

Meanwhile, ThinkProgress and Raw Story report that Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald made a bit of a slip on Fox News: he spoke the truth!

State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R), the Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader, must have forgotten his talking points while appearing on Megyn Kelly's Fox News show. This afternoon he admitted on-air what many liberals have long-suspected: rescinding collective bargaining rights from state workers is Wisconsin is as much about the 2012 presidential election as Wisconsin's 2011 budget shortage.

As first reported by ThinkProgress, Fitzgerald told Kelly: "If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin." [You can watch the clip here.]

Read More

must-watch video: michael moore to wisconsin protesters: america is not broke

Michael Moore gives the progressive troops in Wisconsin a great boost.

"America is not broke, and neither is Wisconsin. . . . America is awash with wealth, it's just not in your hands." Don't miss this, it's very good.

I wish Moore had mentioned the trillions of dollars the US is spending on the largest military budget in history. But it's still great stuff, and worth watching the whole thing.

Story here on TPM.

Read More

democracy now: inside the wisconsin state capitol

Here's a brilliant and inspiring video from "Democracy Now!", bringing you inside the Wisconsin State Capitol.



These are thrilling times, watching people all over the world discover their voices and their power.

How 'bout it, Canada?

Read More

wisconsin police say "we are workers, too"

Last night's news from Wisconsin was the best yet. Governor Scott Walker ordered the capitol building cleared of sleeping bags, saying he would close the building for the weekend. Police said: No.

The union representing Wisconsin's police officers issued this statement (click to enlarge):

Law enforcement officers know the difference between right and wrong, and Governor Walker's attempt to eliminate the collective voice of Wisconsin's devoted public employees is wrong. That is why we have stood with our fellow employees each day and why we will be sleeping among them tonight.

When police officers recognize that they have more in common with other workers than with the state whose edicts they are asked to carry out, we are really onto something. These cops are the civilian equivalent of war resisters. More power to them!

Read More

scott walker reveals himself to not-david koch; indiana official reveals his fascism on twitter, calls for protesters to be shot

Scott Walker, the embattled union-busting Governor of Wisconsin, had a little chat with his favourite ultra-rightwing financier, David Koch. Or so he thought. From AMERICAblog:

Last night, the Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, delivered an address to the people of his state. But, yesterday, Walker also got on the phone with someone who really matters to him - billionaire GOP activist David Koch, who is behind much of what is happening in Wisconsin, but also funds far-right GOP activism nationwide. Well, that's who Walker thought he was talking to. . . . .

Ian Murphy, a blogger at Buffalo Beast, managed to talk to Governor Scott Walker by pretending to be Koch. . . . [Ed note: the Buffalo Beast site is down. The post, called "Koch Whore", should be here. The call has been confirmed by the governor's office.]

More details from the call are emerging - Greg Sargent at the Washington Post has a few:

* Walker doesn't bat an eye when Koch describes the opposition as "Democrat bastards."

* Walker reveals that he and other Republicans are looking at whether they can charge an "ethics code violation if not an outright felony" if unions are paying for food or lodging for any of the Dem state senators.

* Walker says he's sending out notices next week to some five or six thousand state workers letting them know that they are "at risk" of layoffs. "Beautiful, beautiful," the Koch impersonator replies. "You gotta crush that union."

Listen so you'll know that Walker really is one of Koch's minions. And, this is about crushing unions and workers. In fact, you'll hear Governor Walker admit that he "thought about" it when fake Koch suggested the idea of "planting some troublemakers" among the protesters in Madison. Were they going to come in on horses and camels?

AMERICAblog has the audio and the transcript: here, and scroll down.

Walker's frank talk is small potatoes compared to the deputy attorney general of Indiana calling for the Wisconsion protesters to be massacred. From Mother Jones:

On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building­ - something that didn't end up happening­ - one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was [Jeff Cox], a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.

Cox says liberals hate police, but it looks like this legal eagle isn't too keen on the US Constitution, with all those guarantees of free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and all that silly stuff. And a man advocating the use of deadly force against peaceful protesters is calling those protesters "thugs". Project much?

Update from Mother Jones:

Update: The Indiana attorney general's office has confirmed to Mother Jones that Jeff Cox was terminated Wednesday. The full statement and screen captures of the now-defunct blog re posted here.

Both items with thanks to James.

Read More

ted rall, tunisia, egypt, wisconsin and revolution

I've been meaning to post this interview with cartoonist and activist Ted Rall ever since Allan said, "You must read this - he sounds exactly like us."

Rall's new book is The Anti-American Manifesto; this interview is in the CUNY [City University of New York] Graduate School Advocate.

Reluctant Revolutionary: An Interview With Ted Rall

Advo­cate: . . . In your new book you explic­itly advo­cate the use of rev­o­lu­tion­ary vio­lence. It’s hard to get any more rad­i­cal than that and I can’t imag­ine the deci­sion to write such a book was an easy one to make. Indeed, in con­ver­sa­tions with friends about the book I’ve found that even the men­tion of rev­o­lu­tion­ary vio­lence is almost uni­ver­sally greeted with dis­dain, shock, or dis­be­lief. I am really inter­ested in how you came to this deci­sion to write the book, the events or ideas that led you to this argu­ment, and why you felt com­pelled to write this book now?

Ted Rall: Well, it was a very dif­fi­cult deci­sion, from a career stand­point as well as from the stand­point of being a sim­ple Amer­i­can cit­i­zen. As a stu­dent of his­tory I am well aware of the fact that rev­o­lu­tion is dan­ger­ous and vio­lent and bru­tal and can make things worse before they make things bet­ter, so it’s not a deci­sion to be taken lightly. I want to be very clear that even though the book is a call to arms and a call to get rid of the cur­rent gov­ern­ment, and it does def­i­nitely defend the use of vio­lence (I would say that there is no such thing as non-violent rev­o­lu­tion; no rad­i­cal change has ever taken place with­out vio­lence or the cred­i­ble threat of vio­lence), but I think there is a ten­dency to sen­sa­tion­al­ize the vio­lent aspect of the book. Most rev­o­lu­tion­ary activ­ity is inher­ently non-violent actu­ally. It’s just that vio­lence is part of the revolutionist’s tool­box; it has to be, oth­er­wise there is no way to cred­i­bly remove the state. The rich and the pow­er­ful don’t give up wealth and power vol­un­tar­ily so you can’t fight it non­vi­o­lently with­out effec­tively tying one hand behind your back.

In terms of the deci­sion to write the book I kind of fol­lowed a sim­ple, log­i­cal process, which is to ask myself and many other peo­ple whether there was any pos­si­bil­ity that this sys­tem, the Democ­rats and the Repub­li­cans and the cor­po­ratist cap­i­tal­ist sys­tem that they sup­port, could or would address any of the really seri­ous press­ing prob­lems that are faced by the Unites States today  —  whether those are income inequal­ity or the envi­ron­ment and cli­mate change, or sky­rock­et­ing deficits, or war and mil­i­tarism, or health­care  —  and I don’t think so.

. . . When Obama refused to be the new FDR I knew that, Obama being about the best most pro­gres­sive, smartest pres­i­dent we were gonna get out of this sys­tem, I knew that the time had arrived to call for rev­o­lu­tion. Now I wish that other peo­ple were doing it, I wish that I could join some­one else’s move­ment. I don’t want to stick my neck out; it’s not fun to attract all of this heat, but no one else is doing it. There’s no Left what­so­ever in the United States. All there is is wimpy lib­er­als. So, I wrote this book in order to start a con­ver­sa­tion. This is not rev­o­lu­tion for dum­mies, this is not a how-to guide, this is not the anar­chists’ cook­book. If you are pick­ing this up look­ing for how to over­throw the US gov­ern­ment buy another book; this is not that book. This is a book that cre­ates the space to have a dis­cus­sion that is just not even part of Amer­i­can pol­i­tics. Amer­i­can pol­i­tics occurs strictly between the Ds and the Rs. We don’t even talk about the Greens and the Lib­er­tar­i­ans, much less the pos­si­bil­ity of get­ting rid of the sys­tem entirely.

Advo­cate: Along those same lines, how has your life changed since the pub­li­ca­tion of the book? What’s the last month been like for Ted Rall? What have you learned about Amer­ica, par­tic­u­larly con­cern­ing the sub­ject of this book?

TR: I guess many things did not come as a sur­prise. The fact that the media and the polit­i­cal sys­tem are so deeply entrenched and unwill­ing to con­sider actual change came as no sur­prise. The fact that there are many very reac­tionary, hate­ful peo­ple who defend the sta­tus quo no mat­ter what came as no sur­prise either. But what did come as a sur­prise were the huge crowds that came out to my book sign­ings, which indi­cated to me that there is a thirst for talk­ing about these sorts of options. Many, many peo­ple have been over the sys­tem for a long time, but that con­ver­sa­tion doesn’t take place, so I pro­vided a forum for that kind of dia­logue to hap­pen. What I’ve learned, and it’s kind of what I sus­pected, is that there are a lot of peo­ple out there like me. I wouldn’t have writ­ten the book if I thought I was alone. I don’t think I’m such a unique thinker. A lot of peo­ple can look at the same set of cir­cum­stances and draw sim­i­lar con­clu­sions, and they have. So in terms of how my life has changed, I mean, it hasn’t really, except for being very, very busy doing inter­views, but that’s about it.

I've always said that, despite the persistent, ignorant and usually imaginary fear of socialism and communism that runs through US history, the real danger to US democracy has always been from forces on the right. I've blathered about this ad nauseum on wmtc, no need to flog the "fascist shift" theme here. Now, events in the Middle East, the successful leftist movements transforming South America, and the sudden spark of progressive engagement emanating from Wisconsin and rippling through other states, are combining to give me new hope. These events are reminders that none of us can predict the future.

No people's movement, no matter how successful, has ever known the outcome of their struggle in advance. All we can do is keep on keepin' on.

Read More

the uterus police: georgia politican wants every pregnancy loss investigated by law enforcement

[allan guest post]

There are far too many US politicians - on both sides of the aisle - who despise equality, hate women, and have no shame in pushing legislation that would sound right at home in any of the world's worst dictatorships. Here are what two of them are doing.

Georgia Representative Bobby Franklin wants abortion classified as murder (of course), but he also wants to force the police to investigate all "miscarriages" (the antiquated term for a spontaneous abortion) to make sure that they were indeed spontaneous. From Daily Kos:

Franklin wants to create a Uterus Police to investigate miscarriages, and requires that any time a miscarriage occurs, whether in a hospital or without medical assistance, it must be reported and a fetal death certificate issued. If the cause of death is unknown, it must be investigated. If the woman can't tell how it happened, than those Uterus Police can ask family members and friends how it happened. Hospitals are required to keep records of anyone who has a spontaneous abortion and report it. ... Needless to say, there are no exceptions allowed. Not for rape victims. Not for incest victims. Not to save the life and health of the mother ...

(I first saw this at Care2.)

Two weeks ago, it was reported that Franklin has filed a bill that would remove the term "victim" from rape, stalking, and domestic violence cases and replace it with "accuser". A post at Creative Loafing notes that Franklin once actually

conjured the phrase "My body, My choice" while discussing a piece of legislation he introduced that would prevent the government from making vaccinations compulsory in the event of a pandemic. Irony at its worst.

Franklin is also not keen on having homosexuals in the military:

The Bible says it's a capital offense. You want someone with unrepentant criminal behavior? And it's not just that, neither should adulterers, neither should thieves, neither should a lot of things.

Well, I actually agree with this. Let's have the US military conduct a rigorous weeding out of its troops by strictly applying the 10 Commandments.

Have you ever said "goddamn it"? Out! Have you ever worked on Sunday? Out! Did you ever disobey your parents? Out! Have you ever stolen anything, ever? Out! Have you ever looked at anyone else in the world who was not your wife/husband and had a sexual thought? Out! Have you ever wished you had the same cool gadget as that guy over there? Out! And even if you somehow passed the test and were sent off to fight in a war, as soon as you killed one person ... Out!

Get 'er done, Congress!

Mother Jones reports that the South Dakota GOP-dominated House of Representatives will soon vote on House Bill 1171, which is sponsored by Representative Phil Jensen. The bill would

expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus - a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. ...

[The bill seeks to alter] the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion - even if she wanted one.

The bill has already passed out of committee on a 9-3 party-line vote.

Sara Rosenbaum, a law professor at George Washington University: "It takes my breath away. Constitutionally, a state cannot make it a crime to perform a constitutionally lawful act."

The magazine continues:

South Dakota already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, and one of the lowest abortion rates. Since 1994, there have been no providers in the state. Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from out-of-state once a week to see patients at a Sioux Falls clinic. Women from the more remote parts of the large, rural state drive up to six hours to reach this lone clinic. And under state law women are then required to receive counseling and wait 24 hours before undergoing the procedure. [There are ongoing attempts to increase this to 72 hours. - ed.]

Before performing an abortion, a South Dakota doctor must offer the woman the opportunity to view a sonogram. And under a law passed in 2005, doctors are required to read a script meant to discourage women from proceeding with the abortion: "The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Until recently, doctors also had to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she had "an existing relationship with that unborn human being" that was protected under the Constitution and state law and that abortion poses a "known medical risk" and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." In August 2009, a US District Court Judge threw out those portions of the script, finding them "untruthful and misleading." The state has appealed the decision.

But, remember: the procedure is still legal -- even though the state has not had anyone able to perform the procedure practicing in the state in almost 20 years. (Also, see this Common Dreams article from 2005.)

An update to the story states that Jensen is considering adding specific protections for abortion providers to the bill. "There's no way in the world that I or any other representatives wish to see abortion doctors murdered," Jensen told the Washington Post.

Oh, my goodness gracious, no.

Read More

from egypt to wisconsin: solidarity pizzas

Have you seen this? I love it! From Slate, via Politico:

In an act of intercontinental solidarity, an Egyptian has ordered a pizza for Wisconsin protesters, reports Politico. The call from Africa is just one of many streaming into the Madison, Wisc., pizza parlor Ian's from all over the world. So far, people from 12 countries and 38 states have rung up looking to help get free pizza to the Wisconsin protesters clustered in the Capitol. On Saturday, Ian's distributed more than 1,000 free slices and sent 300 pizzas to the Capitol. The trend continued on Sunday, as staff member fielded calls from as far away as Turkey, Korea, Finland, China, and Australia. The trend began when a mother of a University of Wisconsin student called in offering to donate $200 to feed the people occupying the Capitol. The pizza chain's postings on Twitter and Facebook soon led to so many donations that they had to shut down on Saturday night.

Also: Libya! What atrocity. What courage. (War resisters there, too.) Fight on, Libya.

Read More

signs of life in the lower 48: congressperson jackie speier and wisconsin labour: we are with you!

I've been breathlessly following the news from Wisconsin for a week, and it just keeps getting better. Canadian readers may not know that the capital of this once (and future?) liberal US state has been a battleground for labour rights and public services, ever since Governor Scott Walker declared war on public-sector workers.

First, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) announced a state budget plan that strips state workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights, cuts pay and benefits and says there will be no negotiations.

Today, he took it even further: He announced he has alerted the National Guard to be ready in case state workers strike or rise in protest. He told the Associated Press he’s been working on contingency plans for months.

The last time the National Guard was used against public workers was the Postal Workers strike in 1970. The last time the Guard was called out in Wisconsin to quell a labor dispute was the 1934 Kohler strike by the UAW.

A few days later, more than 10,000 protesters descended on the capitol building in Madison, carrying signs and chanting "recall Walker". Inside, thousands crowded into the rotunda and watched a feed of the public hearing on the governor’s proposal. Firefighters joined them in solidarity. Then nurses. And construction workers. Then teachers, as one of the states largest school districts was shut down by a teacher sick-out.

Today, the protests were estimated at 40,000 people. Democrat state legislators "fled" the state, but this wasn't their party's trademark cowardice: it was staged to deny the state's Republican-controlled Senate enough votes to pass the anti-labour bill. (It was thought that if the Democrats were still in Wisconsin, state police could force them to return to vote!)

Faith groups in Illinois offered the lawmakers sanctuary, and the most recent report is that the Republicans have quit until Tuesday.

Supposedly formerly liberal states like Wisconsin are now havens for reactionary populism. Not so fast?

* * * *

The US House of Representatives voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood today, a horrific salvo on the war against women (my extended thoughts here). Whether or not this becomes law, California Representative Jackie Speiers made millions of us proud by speaking about her own abortion during the House debate.

HuffPo:

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."

Speier underwent an abortion in her early 40s, while she was serving in the California State Assembly. The procedure used to terminate the pregnancy was the same type that Smith's book described. As she listened, Speier said she became more emotional and made the decision to speak out.

"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."

She said she had spoken publicly about her experience with abortion only once before, while debating late-term abortion in the California state legislature.

After she told her story, Speier said many colleagues -- both male and female -- offered their support, some saying she put tears in their eyes. One Republican told her the amendment was inappropriate, she said, while Smith, whose remarks caused her to speak up, said nothing.

As a longtime supporter of abortion rights, Speier said she was frustrated to see a debate over funding descend into a moral debate over a woman's right to choose. The amendment under debate, proposed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), was to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funds -- even though they are already barred from being used for abortion.

Speier crossed a seemingly uncrossable boundary. Speaking publicly about one's own abortion is the last taboo, tackled by feminists in various projects, but almost never heard in the mainstream. Speier will receive hate mail, for sure, but she'll also receive an outpouring of support, along with the silent gratitude of millions of women who are thinking, "Yes! It's about time!"

Read More

c-42 and north american security perimter: "canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window"

Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed a new border "security" agreement with the United States. Completed without public input or Parliamentary debate, the agreement aims to bring Canada's security "in line with" - read, under - US policy.

In Parliament, Bill C-42 - the Public Safety Act, or An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act - would seal the deal at home, putting Canada's airspace under US control, too.

When the "no deep integration" cry was making the rounds of the Canadian blogosphere some years back, I didn't bite. (Some old posts here and here.) The fear of the US taking over Canada has a long and often well-founded history, but it seemed to me hyperbolic to claim that a trade deal would lead to Canada becoming the 51st state.

There are many reasons to oppose so-called "free" trade deals: they are usually free of labour laws and environmental protections, and they free your community of decent jobs. They are generally enacted without public consultation or debate - that is, outside of any kind of democratic structure - by governments more concerned with corporate profits than the people they supposedly serve.

But the language surrounding "no deep integration" seemed to me based more on fear than on reality. Take, for example, the "North American superhighway". Depending on who you ask, this would lead to Mexico taking over the US, or the US taking over Canada. In reality, it was a change in tariff and border laws on highways that already exist. What's more, I had only recently emigrated to Canada, and the nationalist tone of the "no deep integration" campaign struck a sour note for me.

But hyperbole and nationalism aside, I know a raw deal when I see one. And I know a Canadian Prime Minister who is a lackey to the US when I see one, too.

First, from the Council of Canadians.

Harper signs new security perimeter deal without consulting Canadians or Parliament

Late Friday afternoon, Prime Minster Stephen Harper announced he had unilaterally signed a deal with the United States government that some pundits have said is larger in scope than NAFTA.

The security perimeter deal, which Harper touted as being needed to further ease trade restrictions between the two countries, states that Canadian and U.S. governments will work “together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries” to toughen security and promote trade.

In his comments following the announcement, Prime Minister Harper said the border plan is intended to “keep out terrorists and criminals,” “simplify regulations that hinder trade,” create “consistent inspection measures,” and to have “better management of our border” but not eliminate it.

The Council of Canadians has spoken out against this deal, which was reportedly negotiated in secret for six months with involvement from business groups, but not Parliament or public interest groups. While concrete details about the deal have been sparse, many concerns have already been raised about the implications of sharing security information with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the loss of sovereignty and trade-offs made to come to this agreement, and the degree to which any of the common measures being discussed will address the so-called “thickening” of the border.

"We've gone down this road before – it was called the Security and Prosperity Partnership – and North Americans rejected it," said Stuart Trew, Trade Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. "The Harper government must disclose what terms it is negotiating with the Americans and open it to public and parliamentary scrutiny."

And on C-42, from Maclean's:

Please Uncle Sam, May We Enter Your Airspace?

We knew it was coming, but the way it’s being done is upsetting opposition politicians – not to mention raising a few ethical questions. As Canwest News Service reported this week, the federal government has quietly presented a bill in the House of Commons that would give U.S. officials final say over who can board aircraft in Canada if they are to fly through United States airspace – even though they are not landing in the U.S.

Bill C-42 allows airlines to pass on passenger information to “a foreign state” for flights over that country. The legislation is needed so that Canadian airlines comply with U.S. Homeland Security’s Secure Flight program, which requires airlines to submit personal information about passengers 72 hours before a flight’s departure. If the bill passes, passengers leaving Canada on one of the many flights that travel over U.S. airspace will have their name, birth date and gender subject to screening by U.S. officials. If you have the same name as someone on a no-fly list, you may be questioned, delayed or even barred from the flight. If your name doesn’t show up, you get your boarding pass.

Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe said Bill C-42 was introduced with no warning and no discussion with the opposition. Together, the opposition parties could vote down the legislation – a situation that could cause turmoil for air travel. “Canadian sovereignty has gone right out the window,” Liberal transport critic Joe Volpe told the Montreal Gazette in a recent interview. “You are going to be subject to American law.” NDP transport critic Dennis Bevington told Canwest that “We’re doing this without understanding what the threat assessment is. There’s no way that this is going to get an easy ride.”

Public outcry has killed bills and deals like this before. Here are a few actions you can take to add your voice.

* Sign a letter to Stephen Harper at the Council of Canadians website.

* Read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's response to amendments to Bill C-42. The amendments don't go far enough: the bill must be killed.

* Write to your MP opposing Bill C-42. Find your MP by entering your postal code here (scroll down).

* Educate your friends and colleagues about Bill C-42. Email the Council of Canadians link asking people to sign the letter.

* Get rid of this *&@#$! government!

Read More

u.s. war on women continues and escalates: planned parenthood under attack

The US war on American women has escalated lately (as opposed to the US war on Afghan and Iraqi women, men and children, which continues at the same torrid pace). Please read below for important information about the US government's attack on Planned Parenthood, and how you can help.

* * * *

Two weeks ago we saw the redundant law-enforcement expression "forcible rape" used to strengthen the Hyde Amendment, which already appears to be iron-clad.

When public outrage forced the woman-haters to retreat from that, they proposed a bill that would allow hospitals to let a woman die rather than perform a medically necessary abortion or even transfer the woman to a facility that would perform one.

Another Republican initiative would redefine the language of the criminal codes of the state of Georgia, with the express purpose of making it more difficult for rape victims to report the crime. From AMERICAblog, quoting the Democrats:

Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin . . . has introduced a bill to change the state's criminal codes so that in "criminal law and criminal procedure" (read: in court), victims of rape, stalking, and family violence could only be referred to as "accusers" until the defendant has been convicted.

Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims. But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn't think you've been victimized. He says you're an accuser until the courts have determined otherwise.

To diminish a victim's ordeal by branding him/her an accuser essentially questions whether the crime committed against the victim is a crime at all. Robbery, assault, and fraud are all real crimes with real victims, the Republican asserts with this bill.

This must reflect the belief that women falsely accusing men of rape is such a major issue that it requires action on a state-wide level. In reality, rape and sexual assault remain horribly under-reported, especially where the victim knows her assailant.

In Texas - a state with no money and virtually no public services - Governor Rick Perry wants to require sonograms for all abortions, and require the patient to listen to the fetal heartbeat. (This local article about the bill says it would require women to listen to "their baby's heartbeat".) Perry fast-tracked this bill by calling it "emergency legislation".

Ohio is considering a bill that would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which, because of new technology, can occur as early six weeks after conception.

There's a whole bunch more like this. I won't list them all. And we must always remember that laws mandating obstacles to abortion will always disproportionately affect low-income women, as women with the economic means can travel for services. They shouldn't have to, but they can. For working-class and poor women, no such option exists.

While those bits of legislative violence against women happen on a state level, a wider war on women is waged by the US Congress. Right now it focuses on Planned Parenthood, one of the very best - and most necessary - organizations in the US.

An attack on Planned Parenthood is an attack on all low-income women and their children, on teenagers seeking health information, on battered women who need confidential help, on people with no health insurance trying to raise healthy children. An attack on Planned Parenthood is an attack on affordable health care, pregnancy prevention and safer-sex education.

For almost a century, Planned Parenthood has been filling the gap left by the irresponsible, negligent US government. Now, armed with the results of an anti-choice sting operation that managed to catch one irresponsible staff member, Congress is gunning for Planned Parenthood.

Gail Collins of The New York Times sums up the situation in this excellent column.

As if we didn’t have enough wars, the House of Representatives has declared one against Planned Parenthood.

Maybe it's all part of a grand theme. Last month, they voted to repeal the health care law. This month, they're going after an organization that provides millions of women with both family-planning services and basic health medical care, like pap smears and screening for diabetes, breast cancer, cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

Our legislative slogan for 2011: Let Them Use Leeches.

“What is more fiscally responsible than denying any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America?” demanded Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the chief sponsor of a bill to bar the government from directing any money to any organization that provides abortion services.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t use government money to provide abortions; Congress already prohibits that, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. (Another anti-abortion bill that’s coming up for hearing originally proposed changing the wording to “forcible rape,” presumably under the theory that there was a problem with volunteer rape victims. On that matter at least, cooler heads prevailed.)

Planned Parenthood does pay for its own abortion services, though, and that’s what makes them a target. Pence has 154 co-sponsors for his bill. He was helped this week by an anti-abortion group called Live Action, which conducted a sting operation at 12 Planned Parenthood clinics in six states, in an effort to connect the clinic staff to child prostitution.

“Planned Parenthood aids and abets the sexual abuse and prostitution of minors,” announced Lila Rose, the beautiful anti-abortion activist who led the project. The right wing is currently chock-full of stunning women who want to end their gender’s right to control their own bodies. Homely middle-aged men are just going to have to find another sex to push around.

Live Action hired an actor who posed as a pimp and told Planned Parenthood counselors that he might have contracted a sexually transmitted disease from “one of the girls I manage.” He followed up with questions about how to obtain contraceptives and abortions, while indicating that some of his “girls” were under age and illegally in the country.

One counselor, shockingly, gave the “pimp” advice on how to game the system and was summarily fired when the video came out. But the others seem to have answered his questions accurately and flatly. Planned Parenthood says that after the man left, all the counselors — including the one who was fired — reported the conversation to their supervisors, who called the authorities. (One Arizona police department, the organization said, refused to file a report.)

Still, there is no way to look good while providing useful information to a self-proclaimed child molester, even if the cops get called. That, presumably, is why Live Action chose the scenario.

“We have a zero tolerance of nonreporting anything that would endanger a minor,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. “We do the same thing public hospitals do and public clinics do.”

But here’s the most notable thing about this whole debate: The people trying to put Planned Parenthood out of business do not seem concerned about what would happen to the 1.85 million low-income women who get family-planning help and medical care at the clinics each year. It just doesn’t come up. There’s not even a vague contingency plan.

“I haven’t seen that they want to propose an alternative,” said Richards.

There are tens of millions Americans who oppose abortion because of deeply held moral principles. But they’re attached to a political movement that sometimes seems to have come unmoored from any concern for life after birth.

There is no comparable organization to Planned Parenthood, providing the same kind of services on a national basis. If there were, most of the women eligible for Medicaid-financed family-planning assistance wouldn’t have to go without it. In Texas, which has one of the highest teenage birthrates in the country, only about 20 percent of low-income women get that kind of help. Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack, and the State Legislature has diverted some of its funding to crisis pregnancy centers, which provide no medical care and tend to be staffed by volunteers dedicated to dissuading women from having abortions.

In Washington, the new Republican majority that promised to do great things about jobs, jobs, jobs is preparing for hearings on a bill to make it economically impossible for insurance companies to offer policies that cover abortions. And in Texas, Gov. Rick Perry, faced with an epic budget crisis that’s left the state’s schools and health care services in crisis, has brought out emergency legislation — requiring mandatory sonograms for women considering abortion.

You can sign a letter of support for Planned Parenthood, donate to their foundation, or learn more about what they do.

Read More

republicans to women: we'd rather see you and your fetus dead than allow an abortion

I generally don't use this blog to chronicle the hundreds of anti-choice bills proposed in the US every year; I leave that to other bloggers more focused on that specific angle. But every so often, something comes along that is just too perfect in how clearly it exposes the true colours of that hateful movement.

From TPM:

The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.

The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the "Protect Life Act," would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. Much of its language is modeled on the so-called Stupak Amendment, an anti-abortion provision pro-life Democrats attempted to insert into the reform law during the health care debate last year. But critics say a new language inserted into the bill just this week would go far beyond Stupak, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

The sponsor of H.R. 358, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) is a vocal member of the House's anti-abortion wing. A member of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus and a co-sponsor of H.R 3 -- the bill that added "forcible rape" to the lexicon this week -- Pitts is no stranger to the abortion debate. But pro-choice advocates say his new law goes farther than any other bill has in encroaching on the rights of women to obtain an abortion when their health is at stake. They say the bill is giant leap away from accepted law, and one they haven't heard many in the pro-life community openly discuss before.

Pitts' response to the complaints from pro-choice groups? Nothing to see here.

. . .

A bit of backstory: currently, all hospitals in America that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding are bound by a 1986 law known as EMTALA to provide emergency care to all comers, regardless of their ability to pay or other factors. Hospitals do not have to provide free care to everyone that arrives at their doorstep under EMTALA -- but they do have to stabilize them and provide them with emergency care without factoring in their ability to pay for it or not. If a hospital can't provide the care a patient needs, it is required to transfer that patient to a hospital that can, and the receiving hospital is required to accept that patient.

In the case of an anti-abortion hospital with a patient requiring an emergency abortion, ETMALA would require that hospital to perform it or transfer the patient to someone who can. (The nature of how that procedure works exactly is up in the air, with the ACLU calling on the federal government to state clearly that unwillingness to perform an abortion doesn't qualify as inability under EMTALA. That argument is ongoing, and the government has yet to weigh in.)

Pitts' new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren't willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn't have to -- nor would they have to facilitate a transfer.

The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts' bill say.

"This is really out there," Donna Crane, policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America told TPM. "I haven't seen this before."

Crane said she's been a pro-choice advocate "for a long time," yet she's never seen anti-abortion bill as brazenly attacking the health of the mother exemption as Pitts' bill has. NARAL has fired up its lobbying machinery and intends to make the emergency abortion language a key part of its fight against the Pitts bill when it goes before subcommittee in the House next week.

I love when the movement calling itself "pro-life" - the use of that word without quotes being the most successful propaganda campaign of our time - proposes something that very clearly contributes to death. I'm not being sarcastic: I love it.

We know these woman-haters don't give a crap about actual living babies and children. But some of us also know they don't give a crap about fetuses either. Their movement is all about hating women: hating feminism, hating modern life, hating western women's ability to control their own lives, to have sex without consequence, formerly only the province of men. And every so often, they show their hand. As James said when he sent me this story (from AMERICAblog via HuffPost Hill): "Because having both mother and fetus die is so much better than the fetus alone." I'll leave you to tease out the layers of irony for yourself.

Read More

q. when is rape not rape? a. never. rape is rape is rape.

Q. What could be worse than being raped and then becoming pregnant?

A. Being forced to carry the pregnancy to term against your will.

In case you haven't seen this yet...

US lawmakers are seeking to redefine rape in an attempt to strengthen already horrendous anti-abortion laws. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except when the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. (Please note: 1976 Hyde, not 2010 Stupak.) This new bipartisan proposal would take away that last bit of protection.

House Republicans wasted no time in declaring their legislative priorities for the 112th Congress. The first: repeal health care for millions of Americans. The second: redefine rape. A day after repealing health care, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, a bill that would not only permanently prohibit some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions, but would change the language exempting rape and incest from rape to "forcible rape."

By narrowing the Hyde Amendment language, Republicans would exclude the following situations from coverage: women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults. . . .

172 Republicans — including sixteen women — and lone Democrat Rep. Daniel Lipinski (IL), chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus — readily support the new standard.

[UPDATE: The Washington Post issued a correction to point out that Lipinski is not the sole Democrat supporting the bill. As of today, Democratic Reps. Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Ross (AR), and Heath Shuler (NC) are also sponsors.]

"Forcible rape" is a redundancy used in FBI crime statistics to denote that a weapon such as a gun or knife was used by the rapist, or that the victim was beaten in addition to having been raped. It is by far not the only form of rape or sexual assault legally recognized as a criminal act. Rapists can be and are charged for rape where no weapon is present and where no additional violence - other than the rape itself - is present.

The rape of a minor by an adult is always legally rape, regardless of weapon. The use of drugs to facilitate a rape constitutes legal rape. And so on.

We should also acknowledge how this law would punish women not only for being raped, not only for becoming pregnant as a result of that rape, but for being poor. Like most anti-choice and anti-woman laws, this law would disproportionately affect low-income women. Which are disproportionately and rapdily becoming most women in the US.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic Congressperson from Florida, strongly denounced the bill and its sponsors on The Raw Story:

"It is absolutely outrageous," Wasserman Schultz said in an exclusive interview late Monday afternoon. "I consider the proposal of this bill a violent act against women. . . . to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself," Wasserman Schultz said.

. . . .

The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL lashed out at the measure's backers, calling it "unbelievably cruel and heartless toward survivors of rape and incest."

"We are seeing more and more anti-choice lawmakers who are willing to deny survivors of rape and incest access to abortion care," NARAL president Nancy Keenan told Raw Story. "If they can't block access altogether, they will work around the edges. Rep. Smith's 'Stupak on Steroids' bill is an example of this piecemeal strategy because it seeks to make the narrow exceptions for public funding of abortion care for rape and incest survivors even more restrictive."

Wasserman Schultz also said the bill contradicted the GOP's core political philosophy.

"Even though Republicans say they want government out of our lives, this is the most intrusive governmental act that we've probably seen to date in the personal lives of women," she said.

US readers, please contact your representatives to express your outrage at this bill. Go here: Stop the Attack on Women's Health and Safety: Oppose H.R. 3!.

If you want to help in a more direct way, you can donate to the National Network of Abortions Funds. N-NAF raises money so abortion clinics can serve women regardless of their ability to pay for procedures. A gift to N-NAF is a direct action you can take to help a low-income woman take control of her life.

Read More

politically motivated violence in the u.s. ... and you are surprised?

I understand that some people are amazed at the recent massacre and assassination attempt in Arizona. I'm amazed that anyone is amazed. As the activist Rick Telfer said on Facebook, "Gee, why would anybody get the idea to gun down a political opponent in the USA?!" He posted a link to Sarah Palin's now infamous target map, but obviously that is but a tiny shred of evidence of the huge violent tapestry. It's a wonder this hasn't happened sooner, and more often. (And of course, in a less overtly political context, it does.)

In case you missed these:

Paul Krugman:

Climate of Hate

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate. [Read more.]

And Keith Olbermann, strong as ever, generously including himself as he calls on both right and left in the US to denounce violent rhetoric, rightly calling out those who don't as complicit in violent acts.

Read More

ottawa warned about wikileaks, but canada has nothing to fear

This morning we read that the US State Department is warning its allies about an impending WikiLeaks release that "could damage U.S. relations with allies around the world".

Ottawa is among the "warned," but Canadians can feel secure in the knowledge that their country will not be alienated from the United States, come what may. I'm quite confident that there is nothing the US could possibly say or do that would cause Stephen Harper or Michael Ignatieff to even harshly criticize the US, let alone distance themselves from US policy in any way.

When it comes to the old stereotype of Canada kissing up to the US for approval, this Conservative-Liberal coalition government does not disappoint.

Read More

cindy sheehan: if mccain had won

Apparently the circus is in town again, and more cats of one colour or another will assume office in the US. I scratch my head and wonder why people think it matters which colour cat controls Congress.

Cindy Sheehan asks what the US would have looked like if McCain had won. The answer should not surprise you. Yet all those liberal and progressive USians are still voting Democrat, instead of building support for a progressive movement. Why?

What’s wrong with us? We are lazy, we are fearful, the establishment beats us down, we are ignorant, and we are defeated. Voting at least gives us the latent feeling that we are doing something, when we are really doing very little.

We righteously march down to our polling place, like good soldiers for the status quo. We vote. We get our little stickers with an American flag that proudly proclaims: I VOTED. But when we vote for a member of the political duopoly, we are only voting for "Dee or Dum".

The Democrats had their chance during the last four years, and instead of passing progressive legislation and ending the wars, they have pandered to the right, which has been emboldened by the power the Democrats gave it.

Now the Republicans are poised to take over at least the House of Representatives. And Democrats will begin to spew progressivism out of their lying mouths and abuse the energy of their newly-angry base to try to regain power - like the Republicans have done effectively for the past two years.

Will progressives ever learn that political pandering and fear-based voting never brings anything but defeat, or are we trapped in a vicious cycle of our own making?

Read it here.

If you're worried about a bunch of radical populists taking over Congress, Frank Rich has a good perspective on why they can't, and won't.

What the Tea Party ostensibly wants most — less government spending and smaller federal deficits — is not remotely happening on the country club G.O.P.’s watch. The elites have no serious plans to cut anything except taxes and regulation of their favored industries.

If this crowd of pitchforks and torches bankrolled by billionaires really wants change, they won't get it through the Republicans, any more than progressives will get it through the Democrats.

In other words, don't worry. The Empire will not change from this election, nor the one after that, nor from any election in the present system.

Read More

why strategic voting sucks

Many people in Toronto hate Rob Ford and are horrified that he might soon be the mayor of their great city.

Many of the same people are uncomfortable with George Smitherman, who is less offensive than Ford, but politically different only by degree. There's a reason Joe Pantalone calls Smitherman "the return of Mike Harris," and why dozens of Tories line up to endorse him.

These same folks who hate Rob Ford and dislike George Smitherman tend to like Joe Pantalone. They believe he would make a good mayor. But, because they believe he has no chance of winning, they claim they must "vote strategically" for the "lesser of two evils".

Bullshit.

Your candidate has no chance of winning? Vote for him and give him a better chance of winning.

Lesser of two evils? You are voting for evil. Why do you want to vote for evil? Why are you content to vote for evil when there is an alternative?

I'm not here to argue Ford vs Smitherman vs Pantalone. To me it is very obvious that Pantalone is the only progressive candidate, and progressive people should vote for him.

I'm here to state a very simple fact: vote for who you want. Vote for the candidate who best represents your values. If every Torontonian eligible to vote votes for the person he or she prefers for mayor, Toronto will get the mayor it wants. But if people vote for who they think is less-worse, then the best you'll get is less-worse. And less-worse is not good.

Don't be fooled by appearances and rhetoric. The mainstream Canadian media acts like Barack Obama is the polar opposite of his predecessor in the White House. But their policies are nearly identical, and in some areas, Obama is worse. George Smitherman may not be as scary as Rob Ford, but what does he stand for? What is his vision for Toronto?

And for dog's sake, don't vote for the man because he's gay. That's just stupid. Unless you're prepared to argue that all gay people think exactly alike - meaning, gay people are stereotypes and cartoons, not real people - then don't vote for someone because he's gay. Or because she's a woman. Or brown. Or white.

When you vote for a centre-right candidate to keep a right-wing candidate from getting in, you help move the centre further to the right. And every time the centre moves rightward, so does the right wing. And progressive thought becomes ever more marginalized, and more people say the progressive candidate has no chance of winning, and so they vote centre-right, and on it goes.

For a demonstration of what happens when people continually vote for the lesser of two evils with no viable alternative, look no further than our neighbours to the south. If you think you can distinguish between the Democrats and the Republicans - not on rhetoric, on action - you might want to check the voting records.

When there are only two candidates running, the "lesser of two evils" argument might make sense. I say "might," because I am personally done with voting for evil, at all, ever. But if there is an alternative, you don't have to vote for any evil. You can vote for the person you want.

So please, do that.

Read More

teabaggers for animal cruelty

Just when you think you know how insane the tea-crazies have gotten, one of them manages to drain a little more water from the pool. (A mixed metaphor, I know, but the Seinfeld line is too good to pass up.)

Concerned folks in the state of Missouri are trying to pass a law against the worst excesses of puppy mills, by legislating some minimum standards for breeders.

Puppy mills are horribly inhumane places where dogs are kept in disgusting conditions and used as breeding machines, forced to bear litter after litter of puppies until they die of exhaustion. The offspring of those tortured dogs are crammed into tiny cages, never socialized, exercised or attended to, and fed the bare minimum for survival.

Then they are cleaned up and sold to retail pet stores, to sit in windows until someone buys them. They often end up abandoned because they are so completely unsocialized, or die an early death caused by the abuse and neglect.

So who could oppose legislation against puppy mills? (Except, of course, the people who profit from them.) Why, the tea-partiers, of course. It's a socialist plot to prevent red-blooded Americans from owning as many dogs as they want.

A conservative group in Missouri is picking up the backing of the Tea Party and Joe The Plumber in its quest to stop the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups from passing "radical" anti-puppy mill legislation.

The measure, which can be read in full here, is called Proposition B or the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act." It aims to help eliminate the "3000 puppy mills" in Missouri that constitute "30% of all puppy mills in the U.S.," according to Michael Markarian, the Chief Operating Officer of the HSUS.

The HSUS is a national animal rights advocacy group that doesn't financially support local Humane Society shelters.

"This measure would provide common sense standards for the care of dogs," Markarian told TPM, including sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things. Markarian said the measure only applies to "commercial dog breeding facilities" that have more than 10 breeding females who they use for "producing puppies for the pet trade."

Sounds pretty straightforward, no?

Well, according to the Alliance For Truth, the main force behind the anti-Prop B movement, there is something much more nefarious afoot (er, apaw) in the HSUS measure. The Alliance For Truth claims that the HSUS has a "radical agenda" and is "misleading the public with its intentions on Prop B. The society seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners."

Anita Andrews from Alliance For Truth told TPM that it's a "deceptive, lying bill" that is "trying to purposefully get rid of the breeders." The state of Missouri, she said, has been given a bad rap as "the puppy mill capitol" of the U.S. but "in truth we have the best ribbon breeders in the country." And, Andrews said, the state already has anti-cruelty laws on the books.

"They don't like animals," she said of the Humane Society of the United States.

Via AMERICAblog, via James.

To learn more about Missouri puppy mills and what you can do to help, go here.

Read More