“Republicans want women to have easier access to birth control–so why is Planned Parenthood against this?” An Explanation.

RARE (self characterized as “America's News Feed”), offered an article by W. James Antle III, entitled “Republicans want women to have easier access to birth control–so why is Planned Parenthood against this?”

Both the Republican election year contraception proposals and Antle's analysis purporting to uncover "liberal" and "feminist" hypocrisy are completely disingenuous.
As for the “metaphorical” war on women—yes, it is metaphorical, just like the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, war on Christmas, et al. In this case, however, it is a metaphor for the real life, day to day assaults on women's rights and women's access to health care being perpetrated locally and nationally by radical right ideologues. How long have Bobby Jindal and the other four Republicans running for office been supportive of over the counter contraception? Bobby Jindal suggested it two years ago. The others, four to six days ago! By the way, Planned Parenthood welcomed Bobby Jindal's OTR advocacy back then, what they question now on all of these politicians are their motives and their actual intentions—more about that later.

Several of the arguments this article makes for OTC contraception in terms of accessibility are precisely the arguments made for years by women's advocates. And, yes, “Polls find no significant partisan disagreement about birth control”; however, Republican politicians have shown a complete disregard for the interests or wishes of the vast majority of Americans on women's rights including contraception and abortion, worker's rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, civil rights, the government shut down, income inequality and many other issues. Is this Republican ruse on contraception an attempt to obfuscate their basic legislative antipathy toward women and women's rights? Undoubtedly.

This new “bi-partisan” effort to promote over the counter contraception is EXACTLY what it seems: A double-edged political ploy. While overtly harming women with opposition to raising the minimum wage (a majority of the lowest wage workers are women), cutting back on child and family welfare programs while extending corporate tax breaks and hand outs, opposition to extending unemployment insurance, limiting voter access (to name a few right wing tactics), the new Republican proposal offered by four or five candidates seems to offer a long sought feminist goal—less expensive, less prohibitive access to birth control.

Make no mistake: this tiny, carefully nuanced Republican overture is the direct result of the Affordable Care Act offering no-copay, shared-cost access to birth control. [“Shared cost” is precisely the premise of insurance; i.e., everyone pays in, and those who wind up needing it use it]. Is over-the-counter guaranteed to make access cheaper? NO. Look at the skyrocketing costs of medical and pharmaceuticals. They have been entirely, outrageously disproportionate from the actual COLA for decades. If some forms of contraception become designated as OTC, will insurance still be required to to cover them. No one knows! The Republican House tried over 50 times to destroy the ACA. If they are ever successful, would even over-the-counter contraception be certain? Absolutely not. Even under the ACA, could OTC status remove contraception from insurance coverage? Quite possibly, and quite certainly with a little legislative tweaking. The absurd Arizona bill declaring that a woman is pregnant two weeks BEFORE conception shows the political vagaries of trusting women's rights to Republican politicians.

As stated, Hobby Lobby's insurance allowed many of the available forms of contraception, only banning a few, but there was absolutely no guarantee that they wouldn't exclude many more once their exemption under the Affordable Care Act was allowed; other plaintiffs argued for a complete exemption.

The “free-market” solution offered by Antle can and is constantly subverted by the very players who tout laissez faire. A single payer program with contraception and abortion provided without additional cost provides a much less costly approach to health care in general (by eliminating the middle man—the for-profit insurance industry—and by having much greater negotiating power with the profiteering pharmaceutical industry), including a much greater likelihood of eliminating unwanted pregnancies.

Should we trust Bobby Jindal, Ed Gillespie, Mike McFadden, Cory Gardner, Thom Tillis or W. James Antle III and their advocacy of over-the-counter contraception? Better to call it over-the-counter deception. First of all, this advocacy is only about “oral contraception,” aka “the pill.” Antle's article alludes to “the more controversial ones, like IUDs.” The major controversy over the IUD was in 1974 over one specific brand that was pulled from the market this year; most of the other “controversy” was and is over myths and misconceptions. However, the limitation of the Republican proposal to basically ONE form of contraception could potentially and quite easily put many of the others in much greater doubt.

All five vehemently oppose abortion rights, and all four oppose the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurance policies pay for preventative care, including birth control, with no deductibles or co-pays. They adamantly support the argument that NO ONE should have to help to pay for abortion against their religious beliefs. This “pro-life” stance, of course, does not extend the same consideration for those whose religious beliefs oppose executions or war. They support a personhood amendment which could easily be used to undermine many current forms of birth control. The idea that one should not in any way be “forced” to pay for someone else's contraception or abortion could immediately lead to the insistence that, since religious objectors carry insurance and pay into that insurance, no insurance company should provide insurance for any form of contraception or abortion. “So, here, ladies (and gents),” you can hear the Republican bandwagon whisper, “Here's your over-the-counter Oral contraception...ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!”

“The Greatest Threat to Democracy is Hypocrisy! Seek Truth! Speak Truth!” Tim McMullen

Truth is Nearly Always One-sided.

This is the graphic to which I alluded in my previous blog post. The comment to which I responded said, "Isn't this about a one sided as it gets. "Liberals Taking Our Country Back" by Cynthia Yanez. They don't bang the drum they use C4."

You make an interesting point, David, a point that the far right is generally unwilling to admit: Truth is nearly always one-sided. The graphic makes three statements of fact reflecting well-known Republican positions, but you deem it "a (sic) one sided (sic) as it gets."

Unfortunately, you fail to make any actual assertion about error in the claims; you only suggest that these political claims are not impartial or that they are hyperbolic in the extreme.

1. "Republicans voted against equal pay for women although it passed anyway. " This is clearly in reference to the Ledbetter Act, which was defeated in 2008 by the Republican minority, but passed with a vote along party lines in 2009. It can't have been about the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2014 because that was blocked by every member of the Republican minority in the Senate participating in the procedural filibuster to prevent it from being brought to a vote.

2. "Republicans are against a woman's right to choose." Is there any doubt about this one? The Republican Party Platform of 2012 states, “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 2012, was quite explicit about his opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.

3. They want to force women to have kids when raped (see Republican Platform and Ryan note above) and give the rapist visitation and custody rights. These "rapist's rights" already exist in 31 states. In Ohio, a law has been introduced to overturn the parental rights of the rapist prompted by the kidnapper who kept two women captive for ten years and who fathered a child by raping one of them; he has demanded to see his "daughter." The legislation has been blocked in committee by the Republican committee chairman.

Apparently, you were looking for something more balanced, something like this:

1. "Republicans voted against equal pay." True, but those sluts don't deserve equal pay to a man: after all, the man is the breadwinner; the woman is subservient to the wishes of the man. It says so, right there in the bible, about a thousand times. Here's one fine example: 

1 Timothy Chapter 2
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the 
man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was 
in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they 
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

2. "Republicans are against a woman's right to choose." Damn right, they are against all those baby-murdering Democrats and those whores and doctors of whores who want to kill their zygotes and fetuses; those women and health care providers are criminals and murderers who deserve to be imprisoned or even killed, by terrorist vigilantes if necessary, to carry out the Lord's work [See Timothy 1:2:15 above].

3. "They want to force women to have kids when raped and give the rapist visitation and custody rights." Well, DUH! See number one and two above. Hell, "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down" (Rep. Claude Akin, Republican ), and "The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low" (Rep. Trent Franks, Republican) [Actually, about 32,100 pregnancies result from rape each year]. "The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant....To get pregnant, it takes a little cooperation. And there ain’t much cooperation in a rape” (Rep. Henry Aldridge, Republican)

According to the San Francisco Gate, "Aldridge had the floor during the committee meeting as he was trying to apologize for earlier remarks implying that victims of rape or incest are sexually promiscuous" (as quoted in policy.mic).

As for Rapist's rights, Paul Ryan's Fetus Rights Bill (aka, Sanctity of Human Life Act) H.R. 23, which he has repeatedly submitted to Congress intends: "To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization."

Section 2(2) states, “The Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.” Initially, this asserts that this is a states' rights issue; however, taken to its logical conclusion, the rapist has a right to prevent his rape victim from terminating her pregnancy, even if she resides in a state where abortions are still legal. Having thus prevented the abortion sought by the woman, he could then claim visitation and custody rights in at least 31 states that currently do not bar such action.

So, there you go, David, both sides get to speak for themselves. And thanks for the invitation to C4. Now let's try to Cclearly.

"The Greatest Threat to Democracy is Hypocrisy! Seek Truth! Speak Truth!" 
Tim McMullen

Should We Fear David Brooks' "Population Implosion"?

Danny O'Keefe shared an article by David Brooks titled "The Fertility Implosion" which expresses Brooks' growing trepidation about birthrates falling worldwide. Danny offered the following intro: "A major point in this article is that when people expand their income ability (usually with the benefit of greater education) they rely less on large families. The Earth could use less people. If the capacity to create and retain wealth grows, then the only real problem with maintaining an equity standard would seem to be fair distribution. If that sounds like socialism then let your granny starve."

I responded:
Danny, I agree with your analysis of the issue, but I don't think Brooks does. Perhaps I am just so jaded by all the recent assaults on women's rights, but this reads to me like a subtle admonishment to the advocates of birth control that we are controlling ourselves out of "prosperity."

The irony of this way of thinking is that it is predicated on the interpolation or conflation of the perceived need for large families due to the low life expectancy juxtaposed with the capitalistic fantasy of endless growth for prosperity. The irony stems from the fact, as you have pointed out, that increased population does not mean increased economic growth when the wealth is siphoned off by a tiny percentage and the trajectory of the "trickle" ceases to be "down."

It is likely that, with the technology that David Brooks acknowledges, we could, indeed, feed the world and not only successfully sustain life but improve living conditions for all. This cannot occur, however, when the system designed to provide that sustenance is predicated on promoting predators and sacrificing workers to a slave-like subsistence.

Brooks laments the fertility implosion because the system he supports demands a perpetual supply of an ever cheaper and harder working labor force (i.e., the hilarious misnomer: increased productivity) who do not share in the profits that their labor creates. Adam Smith would not recognize this grotesque perversion of his theory of capitalism as distorted by the amoral and immoral elevation of greed and selfishness by the likes of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, two unlikely but sympathetic bedfellows, whose acolytes recite snippets of their philosophies like mantras without an inkling of understanding.

In OUR TOWN, Wilder has an angry man ask Editor Webb (the play's most centered and level headed character, played, incidentally, by Ronny Cox in the excellent 1977 TV production), "“Is there no one in town aware of social injustice and industrial inequality?” To which Editor Webb replies:

"I guess we’re all huntin’ like everybody else for a way the diligent and sensible can rise to the top and the lazy and quarrelsome sink to the bottom. But it ain’t easy to find. Meantime, we do all we can to take care of those who can’t help themselves."

In the last thirty years, we have completely reversed these goals, rewarding and promoting corruption and fraud as the methodology of the quarrelsome and lazy gamers of the system while the diligent and sensible see their prospects squeezed out of them as that desire to help others is seen as a foolish weakness and unaffordable indulgence: Socialism, if you will.

My guess is that the only way to turn this delusional, self-destructive juggernaut around is by simultaneously and wholeheartedly supporting workers rights, women's rights, immigrants' rights, LGBT rights everywhere in the world, coupled with a profound respect for and aggressive protection of the environment. If we can do those "simple" things, we just might overcome this offensive glitch in the slow but inevitable evolution of freedom on this little speck of dust.

It's Time to Take It Back (Rush Did...)

Did you happen to notice that Rush Limbaugh has apologized to the Georgetown student that he slandered? It is a typical type of political media apology—I'm sorry that you were offended by what I said...I make jokes...I might have used an ill-chosen word or two, but what I was saying is still true—but the truth is that Limbaugh almost never apologizes for any of the crap he spews, so those of you who pushed those advertisers' buttons really got through. If even a few of them have dropped him permanently, it will be a positive move, but if we call him out every time he makes a racist or sexist remark and let his sponsors know that we will not support them as long as they are supporting him, he just may eventually go the way of Glenn Beck and lose his national audience. 

There is all this talk about "entitlements" and how they are destroying this country and must be cut back or eliminated. I worked for forty years as a teacher, so I don't even get social security, yet many of these obscenely highly-paid pundits and pension-for-life politicians characterize the pension that I did earn as nothing less than stealing from honest, hard-working taxpayers (I, of course, have been an honest, hard-working taxpayer since I was sixteen), but now I am merely a leech. There you have it, from "teach" to "leech" as a sign of these bizarre times. 

I say we start with Scott Walker in Wisconsin, where this latest war on the 99% began and get him out, and then start recalling the hell out of those Governors and legislators across the country who are waging an immoral and unscrupulous war against workers, women, immigrants, homeowners, children, the elderly, the poor, veterans, ad infinitum.

The thing that the far right wing figured out (I am going to stop calling them Republicans—I have had many friends who considered themselves to be Republicans who were far left of many "centrist" Democrats in this looking-glass world of present day politics, but this current crop of psychotic sycophants and cynical, polemical demagogues do not deserve to be graced with the name Republican)...Anyway, the thing that the far right wing figured out was that in this day of instant and world-wide media, NO politics are LOCAL. That's why they have been infiltrating and running campaigns for school boards, sheriffs, judges, state legislators, governors, and local referendums and initiatives, as well as pumping millions into national campaigns while simultaneously pushing for deregulation of the media, of the environment, of finance. Deregulation really just means, "Now you can't stop us at all because we just conned you into wiping out the law that criminalized our acts of pillage and mayhem." 

My senators and rep from California or Maine or Hawaii may agree with me 100%, but their votes can be neutralized by a 40% minority in the Senate. Judges decisions don't just affect the defendant, they can have ramifications across the country. When a Scott Walker introduces a bill to destroy the rights of workers, that same bill shows up in fifteen different state legislatures the same week. When Virginia attempts to pass a law requiring women to be physically or sexually assaulted by a doctor or technician for no other purpose than to abuse and terrify her (their law did not require her to actually look at the ultrasound) before she can have an abortion, variations of that law are simultaneously being introduced in other state houses around the country.

These assaults on workers' rights or women's rights don't originate in Wisconsin or Ohio or Virginia. They are devised by far-right think tanks—the same ones that thought up and published the Patriot Act ten years before 9/11—then disseminated through ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and the National Chamber of Commerce, then hammered into the unsuspecting and undiscerning ears and minds of the populace 24/7 over the airwaves of Fox and Clear Channel, then "picked up" by the rest of the media, and finally perpetuated through endless bloggers and trolls on the internet.

We have to get smart. We need to be aware of and support campaigns across the country when a rational candidate has a chance to eliminate an irrational one. We need to have civilized, reasoned, informed conversations at work, at the store, in our schools, in our homes. We can't let racism or sexism or distortions or lies go unchallenged, not in jokes, not in public forums, not on the internet, not in idle chat among friends. People can be persuaded, but they have to hear it reiterated again and again from people they respect in order to drown out the conniving cacophony calculated to create complacency and hopelessness which, in turn, can convince people to either not vote because "voting is useless" or to vote against their own best interests through deceptive and manipulative propaganda. 

So let's reframe the discussion. End the entitlements (right there, we can get rid of corporate welfare and tons of business tax loopholes), all we want are OUR OWN EARNED BENEFITS, which include general health, welfare, safety, and security for all. I will offer more on the necessity of taking back the language at a later date. But for now, as Woody Guthrie and Studs Terkel used to say, "Take it easy...but take it!"

And as I always say, "The Greatest Threat to Democracy is Hypocrisy! Seek Truth! Speak Truth!" 
Tim McMullen

My song, "The Governed's Mental Getcha'," written in 1980, which addresses a number of the issues that have reared their ugly heads in recent months (okay, they never went away).

Contraception Controversy: "Remember why the Pilgrims came here."

In a comment section on Facebook, someone was attempting to justify the attacks on women's access to health care and contraception as a religious right of conscience (my words—he said something like, "people shouldn't have to do what goes against their faith"), and he ended with, "Remember why the Pilgrims came here and why this country was founded!"

What follows is my answer:

History is fun sometimes, though. For example, the "Pilgrims" never actually called themselves "pilgrims." Some came to escape persecution for their so-called (but not self-called) separatist attitudes about the Anglican Church. They did not come here to establish religious liberty for others, but only to practice their brand of religion. They were, however, much more in favor of a clear separation of church and state than the Puritans who followed ten years later.  William Bradford, the leader of Plymouth, was not a minister, nor did they have one in their midst, but being puritans, but not Puritans, they followed some of the tenets of John Calvin, including a belief in "the accessibility of Divine truth," and therefore found ministers less necessary than the Anglican Church. They adopted a congregational (and somewhat democratic) approach to governance of the colony and to the separate governance of the church. 

Their little 2000 member colony was fairly quickly overtaken by 20,000 Puritans who did not defend one's right to free speech. They excommunicated, banished, and occasionally killed those who disagreed with or spoke against their decrees. It is very instructive to read Roger Williams and his treatise on "The Bloody Tenet of Persecution" in which he condemned the colonies in both Plymouth and Boston (and governments in Europe) for allowing people to be punished for their beliefs. He advocated freedom of religion and an absolute separation of church and state. For these reasons he was banished by the Puritans with the concurrence of the colony at Plymouth. 

One of the other things that got him kicked out was his argument that the King's charters establishing Plymouth Plantation and the Massachusetts colony were unlawful and that the natives must be paid for their land if the colonists were to stay. You can bet they ran him out quickly for that one. He did purchase land from the natives with whom he had formed a trusting friendship and established a colony which he named Providence. He also encouraged Ann Hutchison, another critic of the Puritan government in Massachusetts who was also banished for her teachings, to settle in another town close to his (This eventually became Portsmouth). Eventually, this area was formalized into the colony of Rhode Island, a true "land of the free" where Baptists, Quakers, Jews, and people from other persecuted religions could find true religious freedom.

So, I guess the short, snotty retort is, "Don't talk to me about the Pilgrims and the Puritans and why they came here" because it was only the reaction against their policies that helped our nation eventually establish our fundamental rights including freedom of religion and the essential wall of separation between church and state. 

Now, let's look at the idea of IMPOSING OUR VALUES (man, I love the "shouting" CAPS) [My response to his use of caps]. Every single law that has been proposed by the religious right—and remember a majority of Christians do NOT believe in the extremist positions that the radical right pursues, let alone those who practice non-Christian religions, not to mention those who find religion to be unfounded or predicated on dangerous superstition—every law proposing a limiting of access to or elimination of abortion or contraception or Planned Parenthood or other health care is a direct imposing of their religious values (or in some cases, cynical economic interests)  on the rest of us. 

So let's get down to the specific argument at hand. It has nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with providing insurance for employees. The Catholic Bishops say that they should not have to provide insurance that offers access to contraception to their employees, even if their employee is not Catholic. As has been true of every compromise by the President and the Democrats in the last three years, when the Republicans are given what they want, they say, "That's not enough. Now we want more." 

The president, very cleverly I might add, came up with a solution that answered the Bishops' complaint. They did not have to pay for contraception (remember, a huge majority of Catholics use contraception—I don't know what the statistics are for contraceptive use by pedophile priests, and yes, I am absolutely incensed that the same Catholic hierarchy that has condoned child molestation for centuries has the nerve to IMPOSE their minority religious view on this so-called "free" country, while using millions of tax-free dollars to impose that will!). His proposal required that access to birth control be provided not by the employer but by the insurance company. It's the same as the ridiculous Hyde amendment by which no federal dollars can be spent on abortion. Nevertheless, the foolish and ill-advised separation of spending sources would be maintained. Well, what of the good, honest, fair-minded Americans who want their federal dollars made available for women's health care, including access to safe and affordable contraception and abortion when necessary. They are held hostage to the machinations and manipulation of a few cynical billionaires and the flagrant hypocrisy of churches.

It is also extremely important to recognize that this health law had already exempted churches and church employees from this requirement. The requirement to have contraceptive coverage applied to all other employers, including other businesses that happen to be owned by a religious organization. In other words, if you had been hired by the church to work in the church, they were exempt from this provision. But if you worked in a hospital, or a store, or a restaurant or a service or manufacturing facility owned or run by a religion, then all employees would be covered. Another important part of this controversy is that many of these employees in these "religiously run" enterprises do not share the faith of their employers, and denying women coverage of contraception (while happily paying for and encouraging men's use of "viagra") is blatantly discriminatory. In a sense, especially when the employee is of a different faith from the employer, it is a form of religious persecution.

Look at it another way. If I am of a religious group that condemns homosexuality, do I have a right, as an employer, to deny medication and treatment for HIV or AIDS to my employees because I think it God's punishment for sin? Before you answer, remember, many straight people are afflicted with the disease (realize, also, that contraceptive medicine has other life-saving purposes in women's health). If I am a Quaker or a Jain, then I don't believe in war. Should my group spend millions of tax-free dollars to demand that not one red cent of any taxpayer's money be allowed to be spent on the military? Can I refuse to serve a soldier if he comes into my Quaker restaurant? Or deny my Jainist insurance coverage to any employee who is also a veteran? Can Christian Science congregations who hire someone inside or outside their faith refuse to provide insurance or health care for that employee? Can a Synogogue forbid their non-Jewish employees from having a lunch hour because one of them might eat pork? Understand, it's not that they would be required to prepare or serve the pork. They just can't prevent the employee from having access to that choice.

Now, fortunately, neither the Quakers nor the Christian Scientists nor the Jews take such extreme positions; in fact, despite their "unusual" (non-mainstream) religious beliefs, each of these groups are remarkably open and liberal in their thinking (of course, all groups have fundamentalist factions that are much less liberal, but they do not represent the vast majority). The religious employer is not being forced to use contraception, nor are they being forced to require their employees to use contraception; and in this new compromise, they are not even being asked to pay for it; they are only being asked to provide health insurance for their employees. That their employees choose to use contraception (and I do not hesitate to argue that abortion should also be available) should be absolutely no business of the employer. It should be a decision left solely to the employee. Your employer should not even know which specific health services you are using.

But the response to the President's compromise? A proposal from a Republican legislator that any employer be allowed to exclude any procedure from their insurance coverage for any reason. Pissed off yet? I am. And I am incensed and disgusted by the attempt of so many to equate the actions and motives of the two sides in this political charade—a controversy which emanates solely from the political and economic interests of the radical right in limiting freedoms while pretending to champion them!

Through the Looking Glass—The Irrational Assault on America

You know, sometimes it really does feel like we are living in a Looking-Glass world. The frantic deregulation and merger frenzy of the last thirty years, stoked by the unfettered greed of banks, insurance companies, giant accounting firms, pharmaceuticals, media organizations, energy companies, and the Chamber of Commerce (to name but a few) nearly bankrupted this nation; the anti-tax policies and upward redistribution of wealth of the Bush years unquestionably brought on the greatest economic meltdown since the depression; colossal, criminal, corporate fraud and malfeasance have been exposed repeatedly, yet no real political or legal response has been forthcoming.

Instead, the "know-nothing" Tea Party swept politicians into power with the craziest campaign imaginable. Take all the things that nearly destroyed us—unfettered corporate greed, no public accountability for private or public corruption, an orchestrated attack against the regulation of criminal corporations, unlimited secret political spending by corporations wedded to an all-out assault on public and private unions and their political power—and reenergize each of these assaults on the middle-class ten-fold.

This illogical, delusional, self-destructive, Mad-Hatter Tea Party craze has now consumed the entire Republican’t party (as well as a few putative Democrazies) who are now clamoring and clambering over each other in a race to dismantle the last remaining shreds of the social, economic, and political safety nets of the diminishing pool of middle-income workers and the ever-increasing ocean of lower-income and unemployed workers.

Instead of attacking the obvious causes of our economic woes (including two illegal wars costing us over three billion dollars weekly), these elected representatives (read corporate political shills) and their deregulated media mouthpieces have mounted legislative campaigns to extend tax cuts and corporate subsidies for the wealthiest 1% while denying even minimal economic protections for workers; they are attempting to entirely eliminate funding for all public media, the only entities providing real, even-handed journalism in this country; they are attempting to severely curtail or destroy workers rights and protections with an unprecedented assault on collective bargaining; they have introduced a full-fledged campaign to decimate women’s rights by radically redefining rape, criminalizing miscarriages, allowing hospitals to refuse to save a woman’s life if doing so requires an abortion, and authorizing the legal murder of abortion providers; they have continued attacks on the rights of LGBT community; they continue their attempt to demonize immigrants and undocumented workers; and they have begun to decimate or eliminate environmental protections while legislatively denying scientific evidence and disallowing that evidence to affect our environmental policies.

The unimaginable harms of these initiatives, considered separately or collectively, is truly mind-boggling. As I learned from more than twenty-five years of collective bargaining, “once you give it up, you never get it back.” Just envision the havoc that any one of these proposals will wreak on our society, and then try to imagine what it would take to fix it once it is in place.

If we don’t get involved, NOW, in private conversations, in public demonstrations, in political campaigns; if we don’t immediately inform our elected representatives, both local and national, of our positions on these vital issues; if we don’t write our local newspapers and media outlets with rational, focused responses to the vitriolic distortion and lies of wacky political demagogues and crackpot pundits, the cause of democracy here and around the world will be setback for generations, perhaps many generations, to come.

“The Greatest Threat to Democracy is Hypocrisy! Seek Truth! Speak Truth!” Tim McMullen