Democratic Diva

By now I’m sure y’all are aware of his recent comment:

FRANK: In this country, we had slavery for God knows how long. And now we look back on it and we say “How brave were they? What was the matter with them? You know, I can’t believe, you know, four million slaves. This is incredible.” And we’re right, we’re right. We should look back on that with criticism. It is a crushing mark on America’s soul. And yet today, half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted. Far more of the African-American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by policies of slavery. And I think, What does it take to get us to wake up?

He was being interviewed by blogger Mike Stark on the topic of Rush Limbaugh mocking an uninsured woman using her dead sister’s dentures.

I’ve met Congressman Franks socially on two occasions. Both times in small groups where people were engaging in innocuous superficial chatter, as folks are wont to do in nonpartisan gatherings. Both times, Franks commandeered the conversation into a creepy harangue about abortion and made everyone visibly uncomfortable. Many, many other people have reported similar encounters with Franks.

Think Progress says to start watching the youtube at 6:20 but if you watch from the beginning you’ll see that you only have to get 1:04 minutes in before Trent segues into abortion. I think we can safely say that dude is obsessed with the topic. And this isn’t the first time he’s linked abortion with African American slavery and a genocide conspiracy.

Stark approached Franks with the intention of discussing Limbaugh and to bolster his case that “bipartisanship” is a pipe dream so I can’t criticize him for not challenging Franks on the merits of his bogus anti-choice conspiracy theory mongering. But I’ll do it: Black women do indeed have a higher abortion rate but it’s due to a significantly higher rate of unintended pregnancy in their community, due to less access to reliable birth control and medically accurate information. As I’ve noted numerous times on this blog, anti-choicers get free reign to bloviate about abortion but are rarely, if ever, asked probing questions about their true positions on contraception and sex ed by the MSM. Which is maddening, because anti-choicers have been at the forefront of blocking every program that has proven to reduce unintended pregnancies while advancing dangerous nonsense like abstinence-only sex “education” and crackpot conspiracy theories in the most vulnerable communities.

I googled several permutations of “Trent Franks” and “contraception” and “birth control”. Several links of Franks blathering about abortion and several links to his votes against family planning funding but no direct statements on birth control. My travels on Teh Interwebz led me to this awesome gem by GWU researchers Naomi Chan and June Carbone.

The legal fights over what forms of contraception are permissible, who has access and under what circumstances, are fundamentally about control of the socialization of the next generation. The much more divisive (and seemingly principled) issue of abortion receives the lion’s share of publicity and anger, but contraception has been, and remains, a hidden casualty of the conflict. It is also an issue ripe for reframing – and for making the subterranean assaults on women’s interests visible. While feminist theory can be separated into various strands – liberal, radical, dominance, reconstructive – and various waves – first, second, and third — virtually all feminists would place women’s ability to control our own bodies as a central tenet. Moreover, if there is any issue that should be able to rally consensus support with the general public, it should be the principle of reducing unwanted pregnancies. We believe that both abstinence and abortion are distracters in this effort; the critical issue is the availability and
affordability of birth control. Over 95% of sexually active Americans will use contraception at some point in their lives, over 90% of Americans will engage in non-marital sexuality, and over 60% agree that sexuality outside of marriage is permissible. Moreover, unlike abortion, there is little objection to contraception per se, with even 75% of Catholics agreeing that the Church’s position on birth control should be changed.

Yet, amidst controversies over abstinence education in public schools and the continuing abortion wars, the class-based nature of contraceptive access has become invisible. We explore the hypocrisy of a system that, whatever its values, makes reproductive autonomy readily available for the affluent and the sophisticated and increasingly beyond the reach of the most vulnerable. We also consider the potential of contraception as a reframing device, capable of exposing the hypocrisy of family values advocates whose policies disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable. This paper traces the history of attempts to restrict contraception, the legal events securing widespread access to contraception and their importance to a generation of college-aged women, the short-lived nature of the consensus that produced them, and the potential of the issue to serve as a rallying point for a revitalized feminism.

I love it when people smarter than I am put my discombobulated thoughts into words. For a very long time, I’ve been convinced that arguing with conservatives about abortion is a waste of time because the more important issue is contraception, and, more to the point, who is allowed to have sex. If anti-choicers really cared about stopping abortion, then they’d be calling for condom dispensers on every corner and female-controlled birth control on demand. But instead they prescribe abstinence for all unmarried people, regardless of age. I’m 41, I’ve never married. I’m supposed to be abstaining? Really?

Somehow, a marriage certificate is a magical prophylactic.

The only truly “safe sex” out there is sex between married couples that are faithful to each other for life. If you’re single, then the only safe sex is no sex. Abstinence is not engaging in sexual contact (vaginal, anal, oral, or any other genital contact whatsoever) with another person. If you are not practicing abstinence while single then you are making yourself vulnerable to potentially deadly diseases and pregnancy. Condoms simply cannot provide complete protection against STIs or unplanned pregnancies. Having anything other than married, monogamous sex—even with a condom—is like playing Russian roulette with your life. You are choosing to put a bullet in the gun and hold it up to your head. All you can hope for is that it doesn’t fire, this time. But there are no guarantees.

Choosing to save sex for the special person you will end up spending the rest of your life with is the only way to truly enjoy the gift of sex without the risk of getting a life-threatening STI or causing an unplanned pregnancy. This will also increase your likelihood of having a healthy relationship. This is your life we are talking about here. We want you to make it a good one.

If you don’t take control of and responsibility for your sexual life, who will?

Because no one was ever infected by a spouse who had prior sexual experience or who cheated during the marriage. And no one ever got pregnant without wanting to with someone with whom they were married. Nope, no way, that never happens.

Really? Trent, what say you on all of this?

This afternoon the lege killed the solar jobs killing bill.

House Bill 2701 was killed two days after hearing from several solar companies, including Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd., which threatened to abandon plans to locate a factory in Goodyear.

The bill was seen as a potential showdown with the Arizona Corporation Commission, which had set standards requiring state utilities get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as solar and wind by 2025. Provisions included the classification of nuclear power as a renewable.

Solar industry officials said the bill had the potential to gut the industry in the state. Other companies protesting the bill were First Solar and Arizona Public Service Co.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued a statement thanking bill sponsor Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, for pulling the bill from consideration.

“This sends a clear and united message to employers around the world — Arizona remains the premier destination for solar industries,” Brewer said in the statement.

Since much of the impetus behind this bill was a grab by the Legislature at the ACC’s authority, expect this issue to be resurrected, maybe minus the unpopular solar-killing aspect. Still, this needs to be used as a campaign issue against the sponsors, especially LD12’s Weiers, Montenegro, and Nelson. Smooth move, guys, jeopardizing a big solar project in your district.

Then, there’s this:

The two-week fight over the bill may already have inflicted damage on Arizona’s chances to land at least one company, China’s Yingli Green Energy. The Austin Business Journal, sister paper of the Phoenix Business Journal, reported on its Web site Thursday that Yingli was offered a contract with the Texas city to locate its manufacturing facility there.

Yingli, while not publicly committed to Arizona, had received a federal tax credit from the U.S. Department of Energy to locate in Arizona. The company potentially could lose millions in the credit if it switches states, as DOE officials said the grants cannot be transferred.

Hopefully that’s an overblown concern, especially since a federal tax credit is at stake, but still, thanks ever so much to the myopic dimwits in our State Legislature that it’s even an issue.

In a howler of a LTTE this morning, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-LD9) beseeched readers to support HR2701.

Join me in a fight to save utility customers millions of dollars from unreasonable mandates placed on them by the Arizona Corporation Commission.

These mandates have forced electric-utility companies to charge a tariff on utility bills over and above the cost of electricity. For example, APS will charge utility customers an extra $153 million this year because of the mandates placed on them by the Corporation Commission.

The item on the APS bill is titled “Environmental Benefit Surcharge.” Although it is a relatively small amount for residential customers, it adds up to thousands of dollars for each business and industry. The Sun City Recreation Centers paid over $52,000 in this extra tariff in 2009.

Businesses and facilities that have to pay this extra charge will be forced to raise their prices just to cover the additional costs.

To fight these outrageous mandates, I have introduced House Bill 2701. I have the support of 51 other legislators, but I expect that I will have a battle on my hands and need your help.

For more information or to join me in my fight, call me at 602-926-5413 or e-mail me at: DLesko@azleg.gov. – Debbie Lesko, Glendale
The writer is a Republican state representative from District 9, which includes Sun City, Youngtown and parts of Glendale and Peoria.

$52,000 in 2009 for The Sun City Recreation Centers? To the internets we go, divas! From The Sun City Recreation Centers website:

With seven recreation centers, eight golf courses and more than 120 chartered clubs, there’s something for everyone in Sun City!

For a total of 15 facilities, that works out to about $288 a month per facility. These aren’t residential homes, mind you. These are huge facilities that use a lot of energy and have thousands of members paying annual dues. If they can’t afford a little under $300 a month to help promote renewable energy in Arizona, they’ve got far bigger problems than being spared that surcharge is going to solve.

I didn’t want my post on nuclear energy last night to get too long so I’m making a separate one for this.

HB2701 is a bill that would add nuclear to the description of energy sources that qualify as renewable for the purposes of AZ’s Renewable Energy Standard. What that means is that APS, which gets over a quarter of its power from the Palo Verde nuclear plant, would automatically be in compliance with the 15% mandate. Opponents of the bill (rightly) fear that it will put the kibosh on the nascent solar and wind projects that are poised to take advantage of the RES. Which means it’s also a jobs killer, as opponents of the bill in the business community have claimed. My troll Alan claims that environmentalists destroy jobs but I imagine he hasn’t considered how many jobs are left uncreated in the US by backwards thinking protection of the status quo over innovation.

Naturally, HB2701 a GOP led effort, though a couple of Dems have joined to sponsor it.

Here is Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Duh) demonstrating his astute grasp of economics and energy policy:

“I’m a believer in the free market,” he said. “Solar should stand without having to be propped up,” by government incentives.

(facepalm)

Why can’t that girly solar energy pull itself up by its bootstraps already? Why can’t it be more like that good old red-blooded manly nuclear energy? Which is so ruggedly individualist that it is practically the John Galt of the energy world! And thank you, Rep. Montenegro, for putting words to the frustration so many of us feel as we watch our state be overrun with solar development while poor nuclear can’t catch a break.

Yesterday CNN.com presented both sides of the nuclear power debate. I’m loathe to characterize complex issues as “debates” with concrete positions but for simplicity’s sake and because CNN presented it that way, I’ll go with that.

Taking the pro-nuke side was environmentalist Stewart Brand, who was interviewed by CNN:

Looking for a surefire way to cut greenhouse gases, Brand said the alternative to burning coal became clear: “We already had a very good supplier of …electricity. It worked like mad and was as clean as it could be — and that was nuclear.

“Looking at nuclear more closely made me look at coal more closely and I got to realizing what a horror it was across the board, and as I learned more about nuclear, I started learning all this stuff that my fellow environmentalists had been careful not to let me know about.”

Read about Bill Gates’ argument for nuclear power

I gotta say I’m a skosh leery of Brand, who acts like his fellow environmentalists are engaging in a conspiracy to keep information from him. Especially since he helped to found a consulting firm called the Global Business Network.

Plus, I find the insertion of the link to Bill Gates annoying. Last time I checked, Bill Gates is neither a nuclear physicist nor a environmental scientist. Being fantastically successful in one area and making a lot of money does not necessarily translate into expertise in everything. Gates is shilling for nuclear because he’s invested a bunch of money in a speculative venture. Whoopie for Bill but it’s still an argument couched in the lamest logical fallacy of them all – Appeal to Authority.

On the anti-nuke side was Stanford engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson:

If our nation wants to reduce global warming, air pollution and energy instability, we should invest only in the best energy options. Nuclear energy isn’t one of them.

Every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on clean renewable energy and one more dollar spent on making the world a comparatively dirtier and a more dangerous place, because nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand.

In the November issue of Scientific American, my colleague Mark DeLucchi of the University of California-Davis and I laid out a plan to power the world with nothing but wind, water and sun. After considering the best available technologies, we decided that a combination of wind, concentrated solar, geothermal, photovoltaics, tidal, wave and hydroelectric energy could more than meet all the planet’s energy needs, particularly if all the world’s vehicles could be run on electric batteries and hydrogen fuel cells.

We rejected nuclear for several reasons. First, it’s not carbon-free, no matter what the advocates tell you. Vast amounts of fossil fuels must be burned to mine, transport and enrich uranium and to build the nuclear plant. And all that dirty power will be released during the 10 to 19 years that it takes to plan and build a nuclear plant. (A wind farm typically takes two to five years.)

The point about how much fossil fuel is burned to produce nuclear energy cannot be stressed enough. Proponents of nuclear energy act as if uranium is mined by magic elves and flown to the power plants by the gossamer wings of non-carbon-emitting fairies. They focus on how “clean” nuclear energy is at the one point in it’s generation where it’s not emitting pollution and conveniently ignore the entire fuel cycle.

Mind you, solar, hydrogen, and wind energies also require fossil fuel to be burned to produce them so it’s important that all energy technologies be viewed in terms of the totality of their production and not just those aspects that put them in the most favorable ecological light. With that said, Jacobson claims that wind energy blows nuclear out of the water on that score:

The on-the-ground footprint of nuclear power, through its plants and uranium mines, is about 1,000 times larger than it is for wind. Wind turbines are merely poles in the ground — with lots of space between them that can be farmed, ranched or left open — or poles in the ocean. Geothermal energy also has a much smaller footprint than nuclear; solar only slightly more. But while geothermal, solar and wind are safe, nuclear is not.

For nuclear to meet all the world’s energy needs today — 12.5 terawatts (1 terawatt = 1 trillion watts) — more than 17,000 nuclear plants would be needed. Even if nuclear were only 5 percent of the solution, most countries would have nuclear plants.

Another little discussed, but inescapable, issue with nuclear energy is that it uses a lot of water. By a lot, I mean, billions of gallons. So much water that droughts can force nuclear reactors to shut down.

Filed under: Energy/Environment, News and Opinions | 3 Comments »

The Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision has spurred Sec’y of State Ken Bennett and a bipartisan group of legislators to rush to put together a bill that will bring our state’s law pertaining to corporate campaign contributions into line with that decision.

The Secretary of State’s Office is proposing changes in state campaign contribution law to bring Arizona into compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling passed down last month.

Under the ruling, companies and labor unions are permitted to spend money to influence candidate elections through methods such as running TV ads about a candidate. Arizona law forbids corporations and unions from spending their own money supporting or opposing state candidates. When the Supreme Court determined such limitations violated First Amendment rights, Arizona’s law became unenforceable…

…The Senate bill, which is sponsored by Senate president Bob Burns, R-Peoria, and Senate minority leader Jorge Luis Garcia, D-Tucson, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Monday and moves on to the Senate Rules Committee. The House bill, sponsored by Speaker of the House Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, and House minority leader David Lujan, D-Phoenix, is expected to be heard by the House Judiciary Committee this week.

It’s “unenforceable” now, ya know. Therefore, it behooves the legislature to rectify the situation, post haste. It being a big Supreme Court decision and all. I mean, what’s the point of having unenforceable laws on the books?

*cough*

13-3604. Soliciting abortion; punishment; exception

A woman who solicits from any person any medicine, drug or substance whatever, and takes it, or who submits to an operation, or to the use of any means whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage, unless it is necessary to preserve her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

In case y’all missed it, last Monday Horne testified before a House Education in support of HB2281. You can click on the hotlink, scroll down to testimony on the bill. About 1 hour 25 minutes in you will hear Tom Horne refer to longtime labor and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta as “a former girlfriend of Cesar Chavez”.

For the record, Dolores Huerta, 79, is married to Cesar’s brother Richard. I joined women activists at a press conference this morning on the Capitol lawn to denounce Horne’s sexist, dismissive, and inaccurate remark. It was covered by a few news networks so you might see us on teevee tonight.

After we were done with our statements it started raining hard so we huddled under the awning of the House building waiting for it to subside. The reporters and camera crews joined us and took statements from some of the activists. Turns out they were also waiting for Mr. Horne to come out and respond to the condemnation.

What transpired after that was truly stunning. First, Horne’s explanation of describing Ms. Huerta as Cesar Chavez’ girlfriend was simply, “That’s what I was told.”

(Really, Tom? Why are taxpayers funding your department and providing you with a staff if you and they are incapable of entering “Dolores Huerta” in Google and gaining a modicum of knowledge about the woman before going before a legislative committee and saying something so insulting and bone stupid?)

Then Horne went on a paranoid tear about La Raza and commies. Most of what he said to the reporters is the same sob story he gave to the legislative committee, and the same yarn he’s retold twenty brazillion times about a Tucson school assembly (back in 2006) when students were forced (my understanding is that it was voluntary) to listen to Dolores Huerta who said that Republicans hate Latinos. I can’t imagine why she would say that. *cough* This made some young Republicans in the audience feel sad. Tom Horne went on to relate (for the umpteenth time) how he set up an assembly featuring his Deputy Superintendent Margaret Garcia Dugan (who, oddly enough, is not using the “Garcia” much these days) and those uppity, I mean, rude La Raza kids walked out on Ms. Dugan when she said “I’m a Republican and I don’t hate myself.”

Channel 3’s Frank Camacho got tired of Horne’s tired old fish tales and filibustering and asked the question on a lot of our minds: He asked Tom Horne what he knew about Dolores Huerta. Without missing a beat, Horne resumed his McCarthyesque tirade and ignored the question about Huerta. It became abundantly clear to those of us still huddling around the cameras that Horne, to this day, does not know who Dolores Huerta is or why she is an important historical figure.

In other words, Tom Horne has been flogging this Dolores Huerta/Tucson school assembly thing for nearly four years and doesn’t even know anything about the woman. More to the point, he can’t be bothered to learn anything about her. If that doesn’t make the case for the need for ethnic studies, I don’t know what does.

Thank you Capitol Times: The Cap Times initially repeated Horne’s description of Ms. Huerta without correction. They have graciously issued a retraction and provided some good biographical information about Huerta’s life and work.