Telling It Like It Is
Re: Tell It To The Judge by Louise Melling and Karen Pearl
Your article "Tell it to the Judge" clearly illustrates the sexist nature of this administration, yet fails to blatantly use the word "sexist." Although all the article's points imply that the administration is absolutely sexist, it falls short of the mark for actually saying it outright. Women (and men, for that matter) don't seem to realize that "assaults on women's health" are actually blatant sexism, not the "opposition to family values" they are so frequently billed as. If it was a man's penis at risk of falling off of causing him permanent infertility, you can bet your ass that no one would ask him to go find a judge before he could have procedures to save it or himself.
For too long now, everyone has walked on eggshells and apologized for speaking the truth, cowering under the threat of the Bush administration's counter-attack (which is nothing more than a sad diversionary tactic). It's time to unapologetically wake the people of this nation up with appropriate language. Use of the word "sexist" with regards to this administration falls appropriately in that category.
Adrienne Link
A Battle Of Wills
Re: Cindy Sheehan's Fellowship Of Grief by Celeste Zappala and Dante Zappala and Rewarding Incompetence by Cindy Sheehan in the TomPaine archives
If there was a draft, there would be thousands in the street in the name of enlightened self-interest. However, the ruling classes are unlikely to ever make that mistake again. They counted instead on tugging first at the pockets of the working poor to lure them into the military war machine, and then at the heartstrings of a nation too often blinded by fear and reflexive patriotism. Thank goodness for these brave families who cannot be shamed into being quiet. Ask Bush for all of us: What was the real reason for this mess?
Barbara Jaccoma
What frustrates and infuriates me is that this is not getting much coverage in the network media. If it weren't for the Internet, I doubt that it would get the attention it should. Where are the politicians wanting to be re-elected, the people who always clamber out of the woodwork to get attention for other causes but are silent in this very important cause. I guess being a pacifist is still considered "less than patriotic" in this country. How sad for us all. Keep up the good work and may your numbers grow throughout the country with people who cannot necessarily come to Crawford. What a small man our president has shown himself to be.
Rose Rohal
Cindy Sheehan needs psychological counseling and separation from all of the liberal Bush-haters who are flocking to her like buzzards to a dead carcass. Everyone feels bad for her loss, however she is really making an ass of herself by using her son's death as a catalyst for her liberal war of words with the Bush administration. President Bush saw her when her son was killed. End of story. He's the president of the United States and he's got more important things to do on a daily basis than to pacify a peacenik like Sheehan. This isn't about her son's death, it's about her hunger for the spotlight and her liberal agenda. The question the press needs to ask her that will end this mess is, "If President Bush were to pull our troops out of Iraq, how would that honor your son's death?" Bottom line, it wouldn't. It would cheapen it. It would make his death and the death of the hundreds of other troops worthless and without meaning. Cindy Sheehan needs to grow up and quit being the puppet of the extreme left-wing of the country. Believe me, once her novelty wears off, Michael Moore and George Soros will completely forget her over champagne and caviar when they're counting their money from using her.
Ed Albanoski
It's not often a leader with such strong convictions is conceived from the civilian population. I think that Ms. Sheehan may be on to something if she stands firmly behind her convictions.
Jake Elledge
I would like to know why you are giving Cindy Sheehan such attention. Instead, go to Iraq and talk to our soldiers and see what else is going on behind the scenes. See if they think they are over there for nothing. I can tell you how my son and his unit feel: These people needed freedom and all that goes with it.
I just went to a website that sells Cindy Sheehan's t-shirts, and the proceeds help her stay at the outskirts of President Bush's ranch. If she wants to honor her son, tell her to raise money in her son's memory and do something positive with it. I have heard that one family is raising money in their son's name to buy musical instruments to send to the schools of Iraq. Please tell me who is she honoring: her son, or is she trying to make a name for herself? I am really tired of hearing all the negative news being reported. Why not talk to families that are proud of their servicemen and women for a change?
Teena Salisbury
Saving The Safety Net
Re: States Shred The Safety Net by Dan Hawkins
This excellent article is marred by two small blemishes. First, Section 1115 waivers are approved or disapproved by the federal government. So the Bush administration should be held at least 50 percent responsible for these awful Medicaid changes. Second, the article's title makes it sound as if all states are shredding the safety net, when, in fact, many are making valiant efforts to protect the poor despite the lack of support from the federal government.
Bernie Horn
Policy Director, Center for Policy Alternatives
Dem Damage
Re: The Strategic Class by Ari Berman
I have always been a registered Democrat ...but I have watched this party wimp out over Iraq, our economy, gun control and every issue the Bush administration puts out. If the Democrat party runs Biden or Hillary...I will never vote Democrat again. I will register as an Independent and pray that the Progressive Democratic wing of the party will run against Biden or Hillary. What has happen to my party of FDR and "The Buck Stops Here-Truman"? God help our country. We got together for Dean, surely we can do it again. But hurry...I am 72 years-old!
Rosemarie Brigham
Splendid—Ari Berman has pointed to a deeply disappointing and disturbing phenomenon: the herd mentality of those upon whom we should rely for critical distance. Does the Democratic Party's inexpugnable inability to dissent from the proposition, "Israel can do wrong" have anything to do with it? Israel has every short-term reason to wish for an aggressive and unilateral American world role, and not alone in the Mideast. In the long term, it is a different matter— but who thinks beyond the next year or so?
Norman Birnbaum
Great insight and analysis by Ari. It further illustrates the disconnect between the "think-tank elite" and the average citizen outside the beltway who is desperate for clear, sharply delineated differences from Republicans. It also illustrates why Kerry lost. He had a huge opening: The Bush administration was guilty of the most spectacular failure in the history of our country to defend it and consultants, advisors, hawks, etc. walked right by the opportunity. The result? More of the same: Dems continue to lose elections.
John Wilborn
Sold On Stem Cells?
Re: Stem-Cell Alarmists by Susan Frank
Although I don't totally oppose embryonic stem cell research, your dismissal of concerns about this technology is too sweeping and hopelessly naïve sounding. The slippery slope argument is legitimate; history has shown that when humans figure out how to do something, they will proceed to actually do it. The profound cruelty of atomic weapons did not prevent the U.S. from using them against civilian populations. The warnings of George Orwell and Huxley have not prevented government surveillance with technology that the public was told we never be used for that purpose. Internationally, we know rogue scientists are working towards human cloning and that U.S. regulation has no power over them.
The ridiculous assertion that disease effects people of all classes does not in any way refute the statement that the benefits of this technology may only be seen by the rich. Or haven't you ever seen the difference in medical care for the rich and poor with life-threatening diseases? Most naïve of all is your assertion that government regulation will protect against abuses. This assumes a benevolent government (what if we had an even more evil administration take power in this country?) and its ability to prevent a black market from developing, which didn't happen with alcohol, cocaine, heroin, body organs, plutonium, uranium and a billion other things.
Likewise with the medical profession. The Nazis had doctors too, and they took the Hippocratic Oath before they experimented on pregnant women. So did the U.S. researchers who let the Tuskegee men suffer from syphilis. Although these may seem like moldy examples from the past, government and medical integrity do not seem to be more widely upheld than before. When technology like this has long-term consequences, many unforeseen as usual, that effect all future generations of human beings, trusting to our government to protect against abuse (especially where it involves massive amounts of money) is a death wish.
Joel Peterson
Susan Frank spoke for many American families in her thought-provoking piece on "Stem-Cell Alarmists" (August 16, 2005). I must add to her comment on the biotech industry as a key player in the battle for stem cell research funding. I wish they were! The reality, however, is that the energy behind positive stem cell research legislation has always been patients with incurable disease, their families and those groups and foundations which represent us.
For example, my son Roman Reed is paralyzed. Our family worked with Assemblyman John Dutra (D-Fremont, since termed out) to pass a research bill, (the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act) which funded some groundbreaking stem cell research. Our greatest champion, of course, is Bob Klein, sponsor of Proposition 71. He was inspired to fight for cure because his son Jordan has diabetes. Klein's financial business involvement is real estate, not biomed.
Stem cell research is being fought for by those to whom it matters most—the families of those who suffer.
Don C. Reed
Co-founder, Californians for Cures
