Democratic Diva

I called it! Last year when Oklahoma passed a creepy law that required abortion providers to release personal details about patients, which would be published and available to the public, I had an uneasy feeling that Arizona’s wingnuts in the lege would be following suit. I was right and there are two bills under consideration, one in the House and the other in the Senate that would mandate the following reporting by abortion providers:

1. THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE FACILITY WHERE THE ABORTION WAS PERFORMED.
2. THE TYPE OF FACILITY WHERE THE ABORTION WAS PERFORMED.
3. THE COUNTY WHERE THE ABORTION WAS PERFORMED.
4. THE WOMAN’S AGE.
5. THE WOMAN’S EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND BY HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED AND, IF APPLICABLE, LEVEL OF COLLEGE COMPLETED.
6. THE COUNTY AND STATE IN WHICH THE WOMAN RESIDES.
7. THE WOMAN’S RACE AND ETHNICITY.
8. THE WOMAN’S MARITAL STATUS.
9. THE NUMBER OF PRIOR PREGNANCIES AND PRIOR ABORTIONS OF THE WOMAN.
10. THE NUMBER OF PREVIOUS SPONTANEOUS TERMINATIONS OF PREGNANCY OF THE WOMAN.
11. THE GESTATIONAL AGE OF THE UNBORN CHILD AT THE TIME OF THE ABORTION.
12. THE REASON FOR THE ABORTION, INCLUDING WHETHER THE ABORTION IS ELECTIVE OR DUE TO MATERNAL OR FETAL HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS.
13. THE TYPE OF PROCEDURE PERFORMED OR PRESCRIBED AND THE DATE OF THE ABORTION.
14. ANY PREEXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS OF THE WOMAN THAT WOULD COMPLICATE PREGNANCY AND ANY KNOWN MEDICAL COMPLICATION THAT RESULTED FROM THE ABORTION.
15. THE BASIS FOR ANY MEDICAL JUDGMENT THAT A MEDICAL EMERGENCY EXISTED THAT EXCUSED THE PHYSICIAN FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER.
16. THE PHYSICIAN’S STATEMENT IF REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36‑2301.01.
17. IF APPLICABLE, THE WEIGHT OF THE ABORTED FETUS FOR ANY ABORTION PERFORMED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36‑2301.01.

Who would get to see this information? Oh, just everyone.

B. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL COLLECT ALL ABORTION REPORTS AND COMPLICATION REPORTS AND PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORT BASED ON THE DATA GATHERED IN THE REPORTS. THE STATISTICAL REPORT SHALL NOT LEAD TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON FILING A REPORT OR ABOUT WHOM A REPORT IS FILED. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MAKE THE STATISTICAL REPORT AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE AND FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AND COPYING.

The bills stipulate that individual patients cannot be identified by name, Social Security or driver’s license numbers, or anything else that would make it possible to ID the woman. Which means that women in Maricopa and Pima Counties might rest assured that people wouldn’t figure out who they are from these statistics but women in La Paz and Greenlee Counties might not feel as secure.

Why do you suppose anti-choice lawmakers in Oklahoma and Arizona would find it useful to compile and publicly expose data on abortions that have already happened? It’s a puzzler, if you assume that “pro-life” legislation is designed from a motivation to prevent abortions. What’s the point of this?

It’s not so puzzling when you realize that people accused and/or convicted of crimes get their names and photos published in the paper and on the TV news regularly. But abortion is legal, and medical records are private by federal law, so my theory is that this proposed state law is the closest anti-choicers can get to humiliating women committing this “crime”.

If you think I’m overreacting consider this: Why don’t they want abortion providers to gather information on the men who impregnate women who get abortions for later publication? If anti-choice legislators merely want to compile information on the incidence of abortion the better to understand and prevent abortion, then don’t you think it would be useful to know about the men? Wouldn’t information about the residence, educational attainment, and the (ahem) age and marital status of the men be of interest to them?

Well, wouldn’t it? Or is it just about punishing the women?

Heartfelt congratulations to the New Orleans Saints and to the folks in Louisiana for last night’s exciting and well-deserved win. Geaux Saints, and Laissez les bon temps rouler!

Can nothing be untouched by politics? The Tebow ad had already stirred up pre-game partisan controversy but it was at least (tangentially it turned out) about a hotly debated topic in politics, abortion. But some people can’t even let you pick a favored team to win the game without turning it into a reason to be a preening, pontificating jagoff. Troy Nelson writes for a blog called American Thinker and, apparently, spends a lot of time thinking about how hard it is out there for a white dude and why can’t those whiny brown-skinned disaster victims shut up already?

Shiftiness notwithstanding, I think President Obama’s answer is simpatico with this generation’s elevation of “victimology” and symbology above all else. Rather than focusing on the teams playing the game the rooting has been transferred to the more “deserving” team by proxy of their suffering fans. The Saints represent their fans which represent New Orleans which represents Katrina which represents victims of a storm event… which happened five years ago. See, the choice should be easy.

What happened to the days of pulling for organizations, teams, and players whom best demonstrate the virtues of team work and heart and will power? Who overcome the challenges of a determined opponent on the level playing field of competition? Of blood, sweat, and tears? I guess in our coddled, emasculated, socialist society any overt demonstration or celebration of these qualities is offensive, too Darwinian, too Randian, too capitalistic.

There’s nothing wrong with having a sentimental favorite, of pulling for the underdog. Who doesn’t sometimes pull for the David – the guy or team that’s not the BMOC (Big man on campus)? I do, when they earn it, when they overcome by the honest “capitalist” traits listed above. When did the Spock philosophy overtake the game? “The hopes of the many outweigh the hopes of the few.”

As Obama expressed, socialists and bleeding hearts have warped even sports and rooting into a meritocracy based on sympathy that often has nothing to do with the teams themselves but what they represent externally to the game. Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts don’t have a serious sympathy card to play. Sure, they can try to play up the angle of their rookie wide receiver and Haitian native Pierre Garçon as a “beacon for Haitians” but the Saints trump this with an entire city of victims. Advantage Saints.

That’s funny because I thought the Saints made it to the Super Bowl by “winning football games”, which I’d always thought was the most apt demonstration of the virtues of teamwork and heart and willpower in football. Seriously though, why would a manly capitalist like Troy even take an interest in football since players are unionized? They also have that pansy affirmative action un-meritocratic draft system. Honestly, I don’t know how conservative dudes can even watch pro football and risk the gay commie girl cooties infection they might catch from it.

Because Troy is such a strong believer in white power meritocracy, he rooted for the Colts.

If I do watch I just might have to pull for the master-of-his-craft tall white guy QB and the Colts. How capitalistic of me, how unsympathetic, how un-Barryish. I’m ashamed… not!

That worked out well, didn’t it? I notice there are no comments to Troy’s blog post after Saturday. Wonder why that is?

This popped up in my comments section today from my most dedicated troll, Alan:

Donna,

” That said, I must have filled their desire (”need”?) to raise a child since they didn’t give me back to the orphanage. Isn’t choice a beautiful thing, Alan? ”

Certainly your parent’s choice was.

Perhaps I read things that are really not there, but you seem to be a fairly angry person.

I believe that we are all products of our experiences. My child hood could have easily produced your anti establishment outlook, but had an opposite effect.

I am particularly curious about where your economic views came from. Since I work with a few people who are as violently against Christianity as you, I can guess that part. Like you they voted for Obama but are turning against him over his over spending.

This is standard troll fare: Ad hominems, strawmen, and projection, along with a heaping pile of unexamined privilege.

Perhaps I read things that are really not there, but you seem to be a fairly angry person.

So? People get angry. Anger is a predictable human response to a real or perceived offense or harm. The teabag rallies are full of rage-ful people who are incensed that a black man is President. They are also finding out that their white skin won’t protect them from the systematic looting of the middle class by corporate elites but they refuse to put the blame where it lies and instead lash out at “liberals” or other convenient scapegoats. Alan is clearly a bitterly angry man but he, being a member of a privileged group, believes himself to be uniquely entitled, not only to his anger, but to the ability to express his anger without being instantly dismissed or marginalized. He’s certainly justified in feeling that way since politicians and the MSM have been doling out cheap flattery to guys like him from time immemorial. On the other hand, members of non-privileged groups – women, gays, minorities – are expected to conduct themselves with quiet dignity at all times, regardless of how shabbily they are treated or how outrageously they’ve been insulted. Anger is so unseemly, to someone like Alan, when it’s coming from a person he doesn’t perceive to be entitled to it.

I believe that we are all products of our experiences. My child hood could have easily produced your anti establishment outlook, but had an opposite effect.

I suppose that incoherent bit of illogic was meant to insinuate that I had a bad childhood and it damaged me. Alan’s attempt to denigrate and marginalize me is amusing in that he lets it slip that he is pro-establishment. This is useful because right wingers sometimes like to pretend that they are the iconoclasts, valiantly struggling against the powerful twin edifices of liberalism and political correctness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Alan is all about protecting the status quo, because it tells him flattering things about himself while picking his pockets. Sad, but true.

I am particularly curious about where your economic views came from. Since I work with a few people who are as violently against Christianity as you, I can guess that part. Like you they voted for Obama but are turning against him over his over spending.

He’s not curious at all. This is strawmen and faux-victim theatrics. Amazing how every wingnut now has co-workers who voted for Obama but have turned against him because of a sudden concern over government spending. Kinda like how every one of them has a “friend in Canada” who had a horrible experience with their health care system. Alan considers anyone who objects to having religious beliefs imposed on them as “violently against Christianity” so it’s hard to even take him seriously. However, I do feel it’s important to rebut people like Alan, forcefully and often, on the internets and especially in real life. Recognize their third rate psychological tricks for what they are and do not let them derail you.

And Alan, please, try harder.

AZBlueMeanie has a nice post up at Blog For Arizona about how the conservative base is being played by the Tea Party astroturf operation and how the MSM is dutifully playing along. I especially appreciate this bit:

Note to the media: “conservative populist” is an oxymoron. Conservatives are all about maintaining the wealth and privilege of the wealthy and privileged. Historically, populists have always been farmers and laborers in progressive movements seeking to challenge the economic status quo and to get a piece of the wealth and privilege from the wealthy and privileged. Read a history book sometime.

That would be nice but it won’t happen. And the Meanie is a lot more charitable toward and optimistic about the teabag dupes than I am.

Believe it or not media losers, there are issues on which liberals, progressives and yes, even the tea partiers agree. One such issue is the bailout of the Wall Street banks whose casino capitalism nearly destroyed the world’s economy. Liberals, progressives and yes, even tea partiers agree that we want the TARP money paid back, we do not want the pirates of Wall Street to receive multi-million or billion dollar bonuses for their reckless destruction of our economy, and we want the perpetrators of these crimes to be prosecuted. And we agree that there must be rules to prevent these crimes from ever happening again.

Much as I’d like to believe that I’ve known too many raging Dittoheads over the years to think that “Bush’s base” in their new “Tea Party Patriot” costumes are suddenly driven by a desire to make Wall Street play by the rules. Maybe others are having different encounters but the only interest I’m seeing them show in the banks is to grouse that the entire fault of the economic collapse is the home loans that Democrats (and ACORN) supposedly forced banks to give to unworthy low income minorities. I’m not seeing signs complaining about banker bonuses at the teabirther rallies either. I am seeing plenty complaining about Obamacare and the same old stale boilerplate blah blah about the gubmint giving money to people who don’t work. Honestly, if I thought there was a glimmer of usefulness in joining forces with the 30% of the country who will never vote Democratic, will never think that brown or gay or female people deserve rights, and who will always call “socialist” whatever Rush and Fox News tell them to, I’d be all for it. But I can’t.

Getting back to the complicit mainstream-so-called-liberal-media, I have to ask: What is the purpose of the fawning coverage they are giving to a convention in Nashville that attracted 600 paying participants? A typical trade conference at the Phoenix Convention Center gets far more people than that. The Tucson Gem Show, going on right now, has more people in attendance on a given day. Heck, a good neighborhood yard sale in Ahwatukee might get more people dropping by than the number assembled at this ridiculous gathering of rage-aholics at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center. It’s not that numbers are everything, but you have to wonder why the MSM wants to elevate the importance of this particular subculture, while ignoring others. Like, say, the thousands of people who show up for Netroots, or the millions who show up to protest needless wars or exploitive trade policies? Or shoot, the millions of people who shop at yard sales these days? That’s at least as much of a story as this phony astroturf “Tea Party” movement.

Gosh, you don’t suppose all the unwarranted hype over the teabaggers could possibly be cynical ploy to advance the interests of Wall Street?

H/T to Joe.My.God.

The photo on the left is the one that a Florida Christian group used to illustrate their objection to a lesbian couple adopting a child in an alert to members. The photo on the right is the actual couple.

Sigh.

But wait, there’s more! Scott Maxwell, editorialist for the Orlando Sentinel, couldn’t resist adding his own special layer of suckage to this homophobic misogyny extravaganza. I’m sure he meant well, and wanted to take the Florida Family Policy Council to task for their dishonesty, but was this necessary?

And to make their point about just how frightening this ruling was, the Policy Council included a photograph of the couple — a strange and androgynous-looking duo, one with bleached skin and both with mullet haircuts. The couple look so odd (you literally can’t tell whether they are male or female) that one might wonder how any judge could place a young child with such a disturbing-looking duo.

Except the judge didn’t.

The abnormal-looking couple that the Policy Council chose to illustrate this story is not the same couple granted the right to adopt the child.

No, the two-woman couple awarded custody of the 1-year-old — South Florida trade-show executive Vanessa Alenier and her partner, Melanie Leon — look more like J.Crew models: all-American with catalogue clothes and smiles.

The picture that the Policy Council chose was a grotesque caricature.

Grotesque caricature? Of what? I’m not being disingenuous here. I know why the FL Family Policy Council used that photo instead of the real couple. Pretty people are more sympathetic than non-pretty people, and lesbians who don’t resemble stereotypes about lesbians muddle the “gays are different and scary” message. But since when does being non-pretty and having a bad hairdo make you “grotesque”? I’m not sure where Scott’s getting the bleached skin thing from and other than the unflattering haircuts there’s nothing about the pair that would elicit shocked double-takes were they walking around my local Costco. Admittedly, it’s hard to tell the gender of the dark haired one but that’s more a function of the quality of the photo than because the person is freakishly deformed. Honest to God this society is so warped where looks are concerned, especially (of course) with women. Look around you. Most people are not J Crew models and that includes Scott Maxwell, who ain’t all that if you ask me.

Now, I realize there are few things that bring straight dudes from across the political spectrum together like an opportunity to bond over the tragedy of non-conventionally attractive women being allowed to show themselves in public. Kumbaya, bros! But I hadn’t realized that physical appearance had so much bearing on one’s parenting ability. Wow. Hopefully judges are aware of this important factor and aren’t carelessly awarding children to aesthetically challenged people!

I told y’all, there’s all kinds of wrong about this story.

I’m not easily shocked by anything these days but some of the findings in Gallup’s latest poll have me floored. They asked Americans to indicate approval for broad political and economic themes. Many of the responses were predictable – “small business” enjoys near unanimous approval, for example – but other responses, well, take a look for yourself:

36% of Americans have a positive view of socialism?

OMGWTF??!!!

Moreover, 20% of self-identified conservatives like them some socialism!

OMGWTFBBQ??!!!

Hmm, how could that have happened? You think maybe the endless drumbeat from Fox News decrying everything Obama does and any kind of government spending that benefits people as “socialism” might have something to do with it? Gallup says they didn’t give definitions or description of the terms they used, so it’s reasonable to conclude that most of the respondents aren’t operating from a strict “government controls the means of production” definition of socialism. It appears that the vast majority of Americans still embrace rock-ribbed notions of the goodness of free enterprise and entrepreneurship but are increasingly warming to the idea that private industry isn’t necessarily the optimal delivery mechanism of things like health care and other needed services.

From today’s NYT Business Section:

“There is no financial sense in staying,” Mr. Koellmann said. With the $1,500 he is paying each month for his mortgage, taxes and insurance, he could rent a nicer place on the beach, one with a gym, security and valet parking.

Walking away, he knows, is not without peril. At minimum, it would ruin his credit score. Mr. Koellmann would like to attend graduate school. If an admission dean sees a dismal credit record, would that count against him? How about a new employer?

Most of all, though, he struggles with the ethical question.

“I took a loan on an asset that I didn’t see was overvalued,” he said. “As much as I would like my bank to pay for that mistake, why should it?”

That is an attitude Wall Street would like to encourage. David Rosenberg, the chief economist of the investment firm Gluskin Sheff, wrote recently that borrowers were not victims. They “signed contracts, and as adults should also be held accountable,” he wrote.

Oh yeah, Wall Street wants to continue to act as though moral hazard is strictly the province of the plebes. Wall Street wants people like Benjamin Koellmann to feel morally obligated to pay an inflated underwater mortgage. If people have lost their jobs, they want them to empty their savings and IRAs to pay their mortgages and end up losing their homes and trashing their credit anyway.

But the Klutznick Company, developers of City North, are showing plain good business sense by walking away from a bad debt, right Mr. Rosenberg? People like David Rosenberg don’t want us little people to think of our debts the way that big businesses think of theirs. Commercial real estate developers have no compunction about walking away from a failing contract and submitting to the penalty under the terms of the contract – which is forfeiture of the property. They’ll do it without hesitation, while holding themselves utterly blameless.

The Capmark bankruptcy and subsequent foreclosures are due to challenges nationally in the commercial real estate industry. Capmark provided the construction loan for High Street, Phase I of CityNorth, and it is their only involvement in the project. The foreclosure will result in a restructuring of equity interests in the High Street portion of the project to enable fresh capital to be injected. Day-to-day operations will continue as usual and Klutznick Company remains committed to the success of High Street.

For more than 25 years we have been working to create Desert Ridge and CityNorth, and our commitment to deliver a sustainable, urban core to Northeast Phoenix has not wavered. We have weathered economic downturns in the past, and we are confident in CityNorth’s long-term success.

Believe that Klutznick Co. and their financiers will not lose a wink of sleep feeling ashamed of themselves if they can’t restructure the loan and end up dumping CityNorth. They don’t have to worry about their credit scores either because credit scores, like personal responsibility and shame, are for little people too.

There are tangible risks for the person considering walking away from his or her home, but those risks should be weighed rationally and the decision should be made with the homeowner’s financial self-interest at the forefront. This requires overcoming intensive conditioning as Americans to believe we should always pay our bills no matter what. You have to keep reminding yourself that Donald Trump and Thomas Klutznick do not share those convictions. But the average person has internalized them thoroughly. Psychological studies have shown that endogenous shame is a powerful behavior motivator. The banksters are counting on you being unable to get beyond it and continue paying them, even if it is not economically rational for you to do so.

For the record, I’m not advocating walking away from your mortgage just because your home is underwater. I’m saying look at your whole situation – home value, job stability, income, other debts, mortgage vs. rent in your area, impact to credit, potential emotional impact of losing your home – to determine whether or not you should continue to service the mortgage. Think like a business. You are not your house and you are not your debt. And as long as it’s okay for CityNorth or these guys to walk away from their obligations, I don’t want to hear about “moral hazard”, ‘kay?