DirkGently
DirkGently's JournalWell, no. "Rare" is stigmatizing rightwing framing.
It's not even a controversial observation. "Rare" gives weight to the rightwing premise that abortion is a moral hazard. It is also, unfortunately, precisely the kind of calculated triangulation that gives progressives a lot of their misgivings about the Clintons. It's a deliberate sop to the religious right -- "We hate it too, of course."
In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that "rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur".
"It separates 'good' abortions from 'bad' abortions", she added.
Steph Herold, the deputy director of the Sea Change Program – an organization that seeks to create a culture change around abortion and other stigmatized reproductive experiences like miscarriage and adoption – agrees. "It implies that abortion is somehow different than other parts of healthcare," she told me. "We don't say that any other medical procedure should be rare."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/hillary-clinton-abortion-legal-but-rare
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/breaking_where_abortion_is_ava035510.php
But it’s also worth reiterating, as Adele Stan did this weekend and reproductive rights activists have been saying for years, that if you’re more than nominally pro-choice, you cede important ground by embracing the “safe, legal and rare” formulation that Douthat cited as a consensus. As the National Network of Abortion Funds tweeted, “Let’s reject ‘rare.’ If abortions are legal & accessible, number of abortions performed should = exactly the number of abortions necessary.” Contrast the following data points — the 87 percent of U.S. counties that lack an abortion provider, the financial barriers that right-wingers would like to increase with insurance bans, and the significant stigma around abortion — with the fact that almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. Suddenly, “rare” becomes more about a lack of real choice rather than choosing from an abundance of options. If, as a matter of public health policy, we are doing a terrible job of preventing unintended pregnancies, and some women want abortions and can’t have them, then the current rate is too low.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/
"Safe, legal, and RARE" -- Hillary Clinton.
This has been a bit of an odd fight for HRC to pick. Other than her close ties to Wall Street and her support of the Iraq war, I think her most substantive deficiency as a progressive has been her triangulation on abortion rights and gay rights.
Her adoption of the anti-abortion position that we should be just as concerned with making abortion "rare" as with ensuring safe, legal access, always struck me as a politically calculated betrayal. It's along the same lines as her other fudges, delays, and silences on human rights. Marriage equality leaps to mind. Remember that odd non-answer about how she never changed her mind, but rather the country "evolved" or something?
To me, Hillary follows this same pattern of trying to be as safe as possible first, then backfilling once something has already been decided. I do not see how she can claim to be the real "champion" when her pattern is to equivocate first, never push for anything not already well supported, then speak up loudly when the fight is over (and claim she never changed her thinking in the process).
Which results in this precise kind of undermining.
"Safe, legal, and rare?"
This is the best "champion" we have for women's reproductive freedoms?
I'm sorry, but that just is not her style. Champions stick their necks out.
The heckler's veto is a bad argument.
You don't let the presumed bad attitudes of others dictate what you do.
Sure, Republicans think mentioning taxes or characterizing any kind of effort toward the common good as socialism are magical death blows to any candidate.
But for starters, Dems don't pick policy or candidates based on fear of what Republicans will say, and for another, times are changing.
It's also maybe the worst argument Hillary could make.
Hillary's still in the lead for the nomination, but if we're supposed to choose based on ugly things Republicans will say in the general, no Democrat anywhere would be subject to the fury and slander Hillary Clinton will face from the other side. They regularly frame her as evil incarnate. They hate her like no other, and are convinced she is just a few dozen more hearings away from disgrace and possible incarceration.
We need to choose our candidate based on who we like, not on trying to anticipate what the Republicans will say.
(HINT: They won't like anyone we nominate).
How would anyone legislate against their friends and benefactors?
NOTE: I have posted much of this before, and reiterate here in response to what appears to be an honest request for the basis of why people feel Hillary Clinton is beholden to the banking and financial industries. I have not reposted these thoughts before, and am not trying to "spam" the site with them. These are just my thoughts on this subject, along with some of the information I think supports them.This is to me at the heart of substantive, rather than emotional objections to another Clinton in the White House. The wealthiest, most self-interested people and entities in the world are part of their social circle and integral to their personal financial successes, and the lifeblood of their extra-political endeavors.
When the Supreme Court said that massive campaign donations weren't a threat to democracy without a specific, "quid pro quo" exchange of money for influence, we laughed and shook our heads. Wealthy people don't give you a million dollars and expect nothing in return.
How do you, even if you want to, turn on a Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank or Morgan Stanley that like you so much they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear you speak?
And, does anyone think those firms were paying to hear about how their industry has run amok, and needs to be held accountable for the trillions they pocketed from the American economy?
The Clintons are not just friendly to Wall Street -- they are in business with them. They have built their lives and their fortunes out of relationships with the people who bit out the beating heart of middle-class wealth, chewed and swallowed it, then insisted they were doing "God's work."
As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America's biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she's been with Wall Street.
Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.
"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has said on the campaign trail.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street/
They can do that if they want, but no one who thinks the banks and the financial industry need to be better regulated should expect that to come from one of Wall Street's best friends in the world.
____________________________________________________
The issue with Glass-Steagall is not that it either repealing it caused the bank implosion that crashed the world's economy, or could prevent another in the future. But it was part of a rational scheme to prevent banks from gambling with depositor money, and repealing it not only unquestionably contributed to the crisis, but evidenced a wrong-headed belief on the part of the previous Clinton administration that the financial industry was unfairly hampered by regulation, and that letting it self-police would be better for everyone.
Hillary, in denying the role of Glass-Steagall in the banking crisis, appears to be saying she doesn't understand what was wrong with the entire notion of de-regulating the banks so they could be more "creative" in their money-making endeavors.
The real problem, though, is that Clinton is in denial when she blames "shadow banking" and firms like Lehman for being the real cause of the crash. Her theory shades the truth in favor of the banks, who were eyeballs-deep in the wild speculation and reckless underwriting that blew up the world, but she is quite clearly determined not to acknowledge that.
A hedge-fund manager, writing on Forbes:
Now, when memories are fresh, is the time to reinstate Glass-Steagall to prevent a third cycle of fraud on customers. Without the separation of banking and underwriting, it's just a matter of time before banks repeat their well-honed practice of originating garbage loans and stuffing them down customers' throats. Congress had the answer in 1933. Congress lost its way in 1999. Now is the chance to get back to the garden.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
The Washington Post allowing that the repeal was not "the proxmimate cause" but was a factor:
● After the repeal, banks merged into more complex and more leveraged institutions.
● These banks, which were customers of nonbank firms such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, in turn contributed to these firms bulking up their subprime holdings as well. This turned out to be speculative and dangerous.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/repeal-of-glass-steagall-not-a-cause-but-a-multiplier/2012/08/02/gJQAuvvRXX_story.html
Just when we thought energy scarcity was an ugly fight ...
... here comes the fight to control the WATER.
It's the perfect resource to control. No pesky cheap alternatives to get in the way. Everyone has to buy, if they want to live.
Doesn't seem to be any question but that Republicans seized on Detroit as a perfect disaster capitalism opportunity. Grab local control, sell off any assets at firesale rates; then grab the local population by the throat over the very right to stay alive.
Government, run like a business.
Katrina Pierson has an insane glint
... in her eyes.
And a history of weirdo racist remarks:
@TrillTitan This corrupt country has a head Negro in charge. What is he doing for blk children? He's helping everybody else,Why? @DOTCOM_MOM
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/trump-spokeswoman-katrina-pierson-has-a-long-history-of-outrageously-racist-tweets/
Very bad precedent being reinforced here.
Up to a point, I understand the strategy of silence and presumed observation on the part of federal law enforcement here.
Granted, unarmed liberals, Muslims, or other-than-white people in general would have throughly maced, Tased, hog-tied and charged with terrorism at this point, but that doesn't mean that would be the right thing to do either.
But doing nothing is not okay. No one needs to be shot or bombed or anything, but the fact these yahoos haven't even been formally told to cut the crap and leave seems inexplicable. They already think they can do this kind of thing because they pointed their rifles at BLM at got them to give up before.
This time we need arrests and jail time, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later, before more damage is done.
Yes, it's good Hillary switched sides.
There is no question embracing the civil rights movement and quitting her leadership role in conservative politics partway through college was the right thing to do.
Generally, Hillary has moved from poorer positions to better ones. She's come around on marriage equality and Iraq after holding problematic conservative positions in those areas as well.
If we're talking about "candidate research" though, of course, skipping her leadership of the Wellesley Young Republicans in order to cite her later change of not just party, but her entire political philosophy, would be an oversight.
If you "don't have the votes"
The answer is not to shrug and crawl away. You get the votes by pushing the issue and never giving up.
Presidential candidates are in the business of talking about what we NEED, not just what they think they can get without sticking their necks out and fighting.
Obama talked endlessly about what we needed -- including a public option -- and then didn't get all of it. Some thought he fought hard enough; others thought he gave up quicker than he should have.
No one thought he was a fool, or somehow dangerously misguided, to talk about our goals and priorities first and deal with how far we could get toward them second.
Goals aren't "fraud."
And a single-payer / universal health system has been a goal of Hillary's as well.
What's troubling about Clinton's argument here is the weird insinuation that continuing to pursue a true universal system is somehow going to destroy the useful but limited gains of the ACA.
There is no reason at all we can't improve on what we have under the ACA while steering toward the far superior solution of a single-payer system.
It sounds like Clinton's saying she has no intention of even trying to move toward single-payer, and wants to simply tweak the ACA because it would be easier.
That doesn't just seem like it's less true to the party's traditional goals -- it actually is, which is the problem with her position.
It's also a problem her people sent Chelsea out to peddle the idea that pursuing single-payer, just she and others have done, would somehow strip "millions and millions and millions" (Chelsea laid it on pretty thick) of their existing care, which of course is not true at all, as everyone sort of noticed immediately.
As Clinton has argued herself, Democrats attacking other Democrats on universal health care is unacceptable.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Orlando
Home country: USA
Current location: Holistically detecting
Member since: Wed Jan 27, 2010, 04:59 PM
Number of posts: 12,151