Protesting the KXL pipeline

Hell hath no fury like a hippie scorned.

Hello friends. It turns out that summer in Seattle is delightful and I got distracted for a few months, so please forgive my rusty writing skills.

I am very much against the Keystone XL pipeline project, as are most people who have done more than three minutes of research into the issue. The pipeline extension's effect on climate change alone would be "game over" in terms of guaranteeing more carbon pollution. On top of that, the inevitable enormous spill from this pipeline is more than likely to devastate key components of our ecosystems. James Hansen's short essay "Silence is Deadly" is a stunning summary of the serious consequences that would result from building this pipeline. A few political aspects have changed since this paper was written, but the message remains the same. What possible reason could there be that we would allow such a thing to be built on our land, or anywhere on our planet? 

Answer: money. Isn't that always the answer?

I can go on and on about this KXL monster itself, but I would rather tell you about my experience protesting it. I signed up with 350 to protest KXL Sunday evening outside of a northwest Seattle home where President Obama was attending a private fundraiser. Since my invitation got lost in the mail, I decided the next best thing to rubbing elbows with the POTUS would be to wave a sign at him. I just wanted to remind Barry that KXL was a bad idea and if he really loved us he would not approve the project. I donned my best Obama sweatshirt and met the hippies environmentalists at the agreed upon location. There were quite a few people already waiting when I arrived around 4:30 p.m. It did not take long to realize that, whether or not this was intentional, the protesters' language was not only anti-KXL, it was anti-Obama. 

This I did not like. The best example of my frustration? One of their chants went like this:

Hey, Obama!

We don't want

Your pipeline drama!

This sounds like a taunt from a middle schooler who has been held back a grade...twice. (To be fair, some of the other chants made sense and had better messages.) One woman near me quickly moved to a location across the street, literally distancing herself from us, saying "Oh no, I'm going over there, I'm for Obama." To her and many others, we protesters sounded like we were against Obama, not just the pipeline. And there is a huge difference between those two ideas.

At one point, a protester leader made a classic "us vs. them" comment through his megaphone about how we were outside the fundraiser, and not inside the house, because none of us had $1,600 to spend on a ticket to the dinner. He implied that President Obama only listens to the big donors. I just don't think this sort of rhetoric is productive: who are we to judge what people spend their money on? If I had $1,600 to spend on a political fundraiser, I would go and hopefully have a chance to voice my opinion on how terrible KXL is and how Obama should not approve the project. Is it crazy to think that some of the donors at last night's fundraisers were doing exactly that? Why assume that someone attending an Obama fundraiser is not pro-environment? I would imagine the donors who were inside the fundraiser actually have similar values to those of us who were outside the fundraiser. Why create an "us vs. them" mentality?

In general I really do believe that 350 is a great organization with a strong and important message. And perhaps the individual protesters, not the organization, were the real problem. I liked the inflatable KXL monster they brought (see photo above). But to attack Obama with such childish remarks makes me angry. How is that tactic going to further the 350 cause? Really, all it does is placate the protesters. It is a distraction. Many of the protesters were eager to join in the chanting, no matter how little thought was put into it. I am sure that some of the less intelligent ones went home and slept soundly, thinking "I did a great thing today, I gave that scoundrel Obama a piece of my mind." Firing up the base with mindless messages, without really accomplishing anything, reminds me a lot of the Tea Party's tactics.

We climate activists are better than that, and this issue is too important for us to manufacture outrage on top of the real outrage this issue warrants. We have reason and facts on our side, so I don't need your drama, 350 protesters. President Obama is the first sitting president to publicly acknowledge climate change and the need to take action to reduce our carbon emissions. Let's work with him, not against him.

I agree that it is wise to address all politicians with a healthy dose of skepticism, but what evidence do we have that Obama is anti-environment? Has he done everything perfectly? No. Has he accomplished a few key things using the shreds of political capital he has left? Yes. (My favorite small example of this: "An obscure new rule on microwaves.") 

Furthermore, ascribing the "pipeline drama" to Obama is such a distortion of reality. I suppose the proverbial ball is in Obama's court on the KXL approval, but implying that this is Obama's issue alone (as if this was his original idea to cut a disastrous pipeline through America and that there are no outside forces affecting this decision) alienates the thousands of people who blogged, phone banked, canvassed, and otherwise fought to get this president elected.

I'm interested in getting things done, not just getting people worked up. Until I'm proven wrong, I'm going to continue to protest KXL and support my president.

This week's winners: criminals, the gun industry, anti-government fear-mongers

          

President Obama says it better than I can say it, so before you read my post, you might want to just save yourself some trouble and watch the video above.

The POTUS is angry, angrier than we've ever seen him during the last four years. I'm angry too, for the exact same reasons. I've been planning a post on expanded background checks, but today is the real kicker.

A majority of Senators voted for the Manchin-Toomey Amendment to the Firearms Bill and 90 percent of Americans support the measure. The sponsors of the amendment, one Democrat and one Republican, are both gun owners and have "A" ratings from the NRA. But somehow, this was not enough to make a law that would move us an inch toward reduced gun violence. We have a mile to go, and we can't even move an inch.

Who won today? Criminals who cannot pass background checks. The gun industry, interested in selling more guns and more powerful guns that can shoot expensive ammunition more quickly. Anti-government fear-mongers. To be succinct: anyone who profits (financially, politically or intangibly) from more criminals people buying guns or simply the idea that anyone should be able to buy a gun.

I have many, many thoughts on this subject but in light of today's vote and Monday's bombing in Boston, I do not have the emotional strength to explore these in a coherent fashion tonight. I will fight again tomorrow, and I hope you will, too.

I leave you with one thought for today: think of a reason to reject expansion of background checks that is not also a reason to scrap the whole background check system entirely. Every "reason" I've heard so far (infringing on 2nd Amendment rights, it's too expensive, hurts law-abiding gun owners, etc.) seems to be a reason to get rid of all background checks, which is extremely scary and dumb. That's not a very polite thing for me to say, but I'm done with being polite when it comes to this subject.

GOP misinformation: slow down, I can't keep up!

Republicans, I just can't even keep up with your flagrant disregard of facts and how generously you feed misinformation to your loyal supporters. If you don't like a particular policy of President Obama's, that is perfectly OK. But what's with the hatred of truthiness? Romney's recent attack ads burn me up in so many ways, and on the surface they look like your usual biased nonsense. But the "welfare gutting" ads in particular have been refuted specifically over and over again. I'm mildly frustrated the Romney keeps hammering this idea onto the airwaves, but what's most disturbing is the collective Republican mindset of believing anything, especially if it sounds like a poor person of another race is going to get a free meal on their dime. (Tangent alert: Obama will never come out and say it, so supporters such as myself will have to say it: conservatives, you are flat-out racist on so many issues, and the only people from whom you are sometimes able to conceal it are yourselves.)

Read the full article on NPR, but here's the really disturbing snippet:

"We think that the fact that the work requirement has been taken out of welfare is the wrong thing to do," said Peggy Testa, attending a Tuesday rally near Pittsburgh for Romney running mate Rep. Paul Ryan.

When told that's not actually what had happened, Testa replied: "At this point, [I] don't know exactly what is true and what isn't, OK? But what I do know is I trust the Romney-Ryan ticket, and I do not trust Obama."


Even when Obama gets re-elected, we're still kind of doomed...because the Peggy Testas of the world will still be here.

(Sorry, Peggy Testa, I'm sure you're a very nice lady. Go Steelers.)

"Stupid" single women

Oh Republicans, you've done it again. I had a whole long list of important and not-so-important topics that I was going to tackle this week, but now a congressman and U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri has shot his mouth off and once again it is necessary to talk about the ever-current subject of respect for women.

"Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, the Republican who's challenging Democrat Claire McCaskill for the U.S. Senate seat, said in a television interview Sunday that it's 'rare' for women to become pregnant when they are raped. 'If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,' he said in an interview with KTVI, a St. Louis television station."

Seriously. One could try to explain this as a rogue Republican's singular remark, and that the GOP is not a party full of misogynists, but let's look at just a handful of recent evidence to the contrary:

• The much publicized three-day attack Rush Limbaugh launched against Sandra Fluke earlier this year, calling her a "slut" for testifying to Congress about the benefits of access to birth control.
• Ann Coulter saying that Obama had recruited Sandra Fluke to campaign on his behalf to get the "stupid single women" vote.
• Romney "distancing" himself from Rep. Akin's remarks: "Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan disagree with Akins's statement. Saul told NPR, 'A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.'" That's fantastic, how about commenting on the fact that Rep. Akin falsely claimed that a woman's body will prevent pregnancy in the event of a rape?

So, Ann Coulter and company, if I were not a "stupid single woman," I would naturally vote for the party who publicly says that it's somehow a failure of my body if I get pregnant as a rape victim? Smart women, by your standards, believe this?

Affordable Care Act: Still a BFD

So the Supreme Court says the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as "Obamacare," is constitutional. As soon as the news broke, you probably noticed quite a bit of activity in your Facebook or Twitter newsfeed. I was as guilty as anyone, but I felt like my quick Facebook status update was somewhat appropriate seeing as how I only posted what NPR described as the "money quote" from the court's decision: "Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it." Aside from a sassy "mmm-hmmm" I didn't post any of my own thoughts or interpretations...in fact I started this blog so I could vent without flooding my friends' and frenemies' social media feeds, and at the same time force myself to stretch my thoughts beyond a 140-character rant.

My status update prompted a few questions and issues, from the right and the left, that I hadn't thought about in quite some time. Let's discuss!

The first topic that came up was the idea that the government "owns" you with the implementation of the ACA. I would be more on board with this logic if we were implementing universal health care. What we're really doing with the individual mandate, which I believe is the source of many people's Obamacare concerns, is balancing out the economics that allow insurance to function. See my previous post on health care from December 28. Currently, pretty much everyone receives some level of health care, but only some of us pay into the system. The individual mandate says that everyone will receive health care and everyone will pay into the system. So, while we as a population are probably going to be providing more health care services, we're also going to be taking in more money. 

People don't like this because they think their money is going to pay for treatment for some lowlife who doesn't deserve health care. There are two things I hate about this reasoning: one, all human beings deserve basic care especially in a resource-rich country like the Unite States, and two, that "lowlife" could be any one of us if our luck changes. When more people pay into the health care system, there are fewer unpaid medical bills (in general) and therefore costs go down for everyone. People have a hard time with this, and rightfully so, because providing and paying for health care is very complicated and you won't see a benefit to the individual mandate immediately or clearly. The benefit could be that health care costs only rise two percent per year, as opposed to seven percent. That's not very sexy politics, but it is a likely valuable outcome of the individual mandate and the complete ACA.

Please keep in mind: the government is not taking over the delivery of health care services. They are becoming more involved in the payment of such services. In this regard, the federal government is not doing anything more than your for-profit health insurance provider already does for you.

Another thing that came up was being tied to your employer under current conditions so you can have health care insurance. I made this point because I am no more "scared" of the government making health care payment choices than I am of the insurance companies. The insurance companies need to be reigned in; I love the idea of capitalism but I do not love companies who put profits ahead of people's health and lives. (Why are people afraid of the government but not an insurance company whose primary responsibility is to shareholders?) First, I think it's good for capitalism and entrepreneurship if you are free of the health insurance issue to switch to a new job or start your own company. Second, I have a little personal story about health insurance and switching jobs...

To my knowledge, I have only been without health insurance for a few months of my entire life, most memorably in July 2010. In June of that year, I left a wonderful job in Chicago to move to Denver and take an even better job with a different company. I am so fortunate to have survived the recession and the earliest stages of my career without any involuntary unemployment. My last day on the job in Chicago was a Thursday, and my new job in Denver started the following Monday, June 21. I would be unemployed for only one business day. However, my health insurance at the new company would not start until August 1. A typical delay when starting with a new employer. So, I applied for COBRA insurance to cover the gap. COBRA is slightly expensive, but it's better than paying for health insurance completely on your own. I didn't think twice about this arrangement until two weeks into my Denver residency, when I received a letter from the health insurance company. They regretted to inform me that they would be unable to insure me. It turns out that I had failed to complete a minor procedure a doctor had recommended prior to my insurance application. (I canceled the appointment for that procedure because the movers showed up a day early, the day of the appointment.)

Instead of charging me a higher amount for my "pre-existing condition," they just flat-out denied me coverage. My pre-existing condition was something that a majority of women experience in their lifetimes and usually requires a simple fix. I did not have cancer, a congenital heart defect, AIDS...I had a common condition, but I was un-insurable. I was out of luck, through no fault of my own, except perhaps making the mistake of telling the truth on my insurance application. And, OK, I suppose you can fault me for canceling the original doctor's appointment, but the movers were showing up to take my stuff to a new city where I was pro-actively moving to get a bigger and better job. Call me a lowlife, it was my fault I was un-insurable! I survived this short period of being without health insurance, but what would have happened if I had been in a hit-and-run accident, or I had been brutally mugged, or caught in a fire? I would either be dead or bankrupt.

As usual, I urge you to please leave comments if you find holes in my arguments or think that I am just plain making things up. Given my Ivy League degree, the legal studies classes I've taken and the countless nights spent arguing with some of the smartest people on the planet during my college years, I should be good at making my case...but I still have a long way to go before I reach Maddow-level logic and well-researched arguments.

Doing real life stuff and easing into feminism

Hi friends! Just a quick post tonight, as I don't really have a specific point to make tonight (or ever).

I've been slacking on the posts because I've been doing far too much real life activism.

• The Colorado Democratic Party put on a fantastic Jefferson-Jackson dinner earlier this much, which I helped with a bit. (We were even protested by Occupy Denver! I think they are a little silly sometimes, but I support their right to be silly.) See the video of Cory Booker's keynote speech here:

• I'm now on the volunteer committee of the Democratic Party of Denver, and we're busy getting ready for Caucus on March 6th and County Assembly on March 31. Holla at a girl if you are interested in volunteering, especially House Districts 4 and 6, as I am your designated committee person, like it or not.
• I'm currently in the running for both Assistant Treasurer of the DPoD and Treasurer of the Denver Young Democrats. For DPoD I need to be appointed, and for DYD I need to be elected, but both of these, um, "races" are uncontested. If you're registered as a Democrat in the County of Denver and you are between the ages of 18-35, please join the Denver Young Democrats and come out and vote for me and my compadres tomorrow night at Tavern Uptown! Membership is only $10 per year. And tomorrow night, membership comes with a FREE DRINK! DAMN I love being a Democrat!
• And, most importantly, today I got a friend to register as a Democrat. Winning!

The main theme for my political thoughts over the past few weeks has been "there is no way the GOP is for real." They've turned me into a feminist! I'm the kind of girl who gets bi-weekly manicures, wears dresses every day that ends in "Y,"  and uses different hair conditioners and facial moisturizers depending on the humidity of a given day. And right now I'm wearing a FLANNEL SHIRT. The same flannel shirt I WORE YESTERDAY. Why? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) held a hearing regarding the mandate to offer birth control to women, and this is what it looked like:

Thanks for inviting us, asshat. I'm so embarrassed that the head of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod even showed up to this thing. A few thoughts on the birth control access mandate:

• NO ONE is forcing anyone to take birth control. The mandate does require that you provide access to a birth control pill, which is a proven and safe drug for the prevention of pregnancy. If you are against birth control, you are free to continue practicing your beliefs by, wait for it, wait for it...not taking birth control.
• The birth control pill prevents abortions. If you are against abortions, then why the hell are you also trying to prevent expanded access to birth control? Oh, okay, I see, that leads me to...
• Some of these people define the beginning of a human life pretty damn early. We can all agree that a living baby existing outside of its mother is a real human life. I would even go so far as to say a fetus in its third trimester is pretty damn close to a real human life, as it has a good chance of surviving if suddenly taken from the womb. But what about fetuses in earlier stages of development? What about the egg and sperm immediately after fertilization? What about the egg right before that son-of-a-bitch sperm gets to it? We can see the baby being born: that's clearly "life." We cannot see the egg and sperm and little zygotes and know exactly when they start taking off on the path to being a real human. So, go ahead and encourage people to carry pregnancies to term, but let's legally allow people to make choices in that gray area we can't agree on.
• STOP referring to me and other like-minded individuals as "pro-abortion," or the supercute shortened collective term, "pro-aborts." It would be lovely if all pregnancies, intended or unintended, could be carried lovingly to term and live happy lives in emotionally and financially stable families. But that's not what we're talking about. I don't know of a single person who is pro-abortion. We are pro-choice.
• To the States that require a woman to view a sonogram or undergo an ultrasound before an abortion: why the hell doesn't the man have to participate? Do you think that woman got pregnant on her own?
• Stay the hell away from my reproductive organs, God-damn it! Why do so many people think the liberals are too involved in our daily lives?

I can't wait to walk into the pharmacy when the mandate takes effect, pick up my birth control pills without paying a co-pay, and turn to the other customers in line and yell "Thanks, Obama!"

Bachmann, payroll tax cuts and 2+2=5

I can no longer hold back. I really, really dislike* Michele Bachmann. Today she appeared on CBS' The Early Show, and was at her most Bachmanny. Besides reminding me why I don't watch the major networks' morning "news" shows, she said a lot of dumb $#!&, and really failed to answer the anchor's questions and dodged most of them poorly.

Bachmann accused the House Democrats of leaving D.C. before voting on the extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment insurance benefits...from her campaign tour stop of Davenport, Iowa. Look, I get that she's running a tough campaign to be the GOP presidential nominee and we are less than two weeks from the Iowa caucus, but you can't accuse the Democrats of being absent when you are also absent, Michele. (I am not going to verify whether or not the Democrats, or Republicans, actually left Washington, because this is not my point.)

Besides that little double-standard she expressed this morning, the fact is that Democrats and even some of the Republican leadership were ready to pass the bill. Late last week, the Senate passed their bill with huge bipartisan support. Speaker Boehner even seemed on board. Then on Tuesday, the House rejected the bill. I am very pleased to say that not a single Democrat rejected the bill. The most recent maddening twist to this saga is that the Republicans are claiming they will not settle for anything less than a one-year extension of the benefits, as opposed to the two-month stopgap extension in the bill passed by the Senate and presented in the House. This totally pisses me off because the original offer of a two-month extension was intended as a bill that would be easier to pass than a one-year extension. All things being equal, I'm pretty sure the Democrats would have been on board with a one-year extension.

An hour after the House vote, President Obama was so pissed off (my interpretation) that he walked into the press secretary's briefing unannounced and talked to the reporters directly. I love it. It sounds like something Jed Bartlet would do. Funny, though, that this morning on CBS Bachmann said something to the effect that Obama is nowhere to be found regarding passing this bill or starting new negotiations.

This leads me to a larger point, that we'll need to explore futher at a later date, of the Orwellian statements coming from the right wing these days. By "Orwellian" I mean statements like "two plus two equals five." Bachmann provides many examples of this. Today, she gets on national TV and says Obama is not involved in the process, while he is in DC working on this, giving his own press conference, has pretty much given up his Christmas vacation...while she campaigns in Iowa. Too many people out there believe Bachmann and the other candidates' words without thinking for themselves or finding another source of information. Too many voters believe that two plus two equals five.

*"Hate" is a strong word, so I try not to use it unless I really mean it. I only feel hatred, or something close to it, for three living people: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Fred Phelps.

A promise fulfilled

President Obama ran for office on a campaign touting hope and change. Many of us have been disappointed by certain things that did not change, and a continuation of the status quo that left us hopeless. Finally, the war in Iraq is coming to its official end. While nearly everyone can agree that ousting Saddam Hussein was a positive result, the costs of this war, in terms of lives of U.S. troops, allied forces and civilians, as well as the financial burden on the U.S. government and taxpayers, were crushing. This war crushed each family who lost a loved one to the cause. It crushed our sense of patriotism and American pride. It crushed our federal budget and added enormously to our national debt.

I hope this decision to end the war in Iraq gets the attention it deserves. When one of your "Independent" friends brings up his or her disappointment with President Obama's tenure thus far, remind them of this achievement. Of course, Obama did not accomplish this by himself. But, it was his campaign promise and he saw it through to fulfillment during his third year in office. I'll take it.

Next time I see Barry in person, I'm going to thank him for this...from all of us.

Etc.

Good news for gays and their allies: Obama is officially supporting the "Respect for Marriage Act" that bitch-slaps the "Defense of Marriage Act," which in reality wasn't defending a damn thing. One, I love that they're using the word "respect" in the title. The bill's short and sweet objective is "to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage." Fancy that. Democrats trying to give power to the States! ROMA respects the rights of consenting adults to decide with whom they will share their lives and marriage benefits. ROMA respects States' rights. There is much to like about this situation. I think that so many of the supporters of DOMA are looking at the situation illogically and think that they need to deny gays the right to marry in order to protect their own marriage or family. Or perhaps it is a religious issue, but I also find that silly because ROMA obviously does not compel churches to perform gay marriages. I'm so glad I was born liberal.

So...what are they really trying to accomplish? The Institute of Medicine is recommending that among other preventative health services, birth control should be mandatory on all health insurance plans. Without a co-pay. Which would increase access and therefore decrease unwanted pregnancies or unplanned pregnancies in which the mother was less than conscientious in her prenatal planning (i.e. boozing while the fetus was developing). Of course, someone has a problem with this. Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity (seriously?) at the conservative Family Research Council lists two reasons to be against this: one, that requiring insurers to cover contraceptives violates the rights of people who don't believe in artificial contraception. Since insurance pools money as well as risk for all the policy holders, everyone would be paying for the "free" birth control, whether they believe in it or not. Two, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives (morning-after pills) can cause "very early abortions" by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into a woman's uterus. So these people would rather not increase access to birth control, which would prevent abortions, because the morning-after pill is kind of like an abortion? Because in some cases a sperm and an egg joined together but then had no where to go? Great plan. Something about this leads me to believe that the Family Research Council (another completely lame name for an organization) is not completely focused on reducing the number of actual abortions performed. I don't know what they are focused on, but it doesn't appear that the FRC is concerned with that.

Last night at the Denver Young Democrats Inauguration After Party I was chatting with some of the attendees when I mentioned that I live in the Cherry Creek neighborhood of Denver. Immediately several people jokingly called me out on living in a fancy neighborhood and implied my Democrat card might get taken away. I love this mentality. Being a Democrat means appreciating what you've been given and also what you've been able to earn for yourself in this country. It means go ahead and live in a fancy house or drive a fancy car - just remember you have nice things because you live in the United States of America. Sure, I got decent grades and I earn my salary by working hard. But I am in my current situation because of my public school education and my federal college loans, to name just two big things that immediately come to mind. The government is so far from perfection, but if you think you got to where you are without the help of the government, you are not looking hard enough. (Note: I live in Cherry Creek because I work in Cherry Creek, and my dog demands that I come home for lunch every day. Had to shorten the commute. Democrat guilt compelled me to write this note.)

A few years ago, to widen my perspective I subscribed to the Republican National Committee email list. I started getting sassy with them immediately. They really irked me because one of the first emails I received was addressed "Dear Fellow Patriot." OMG. I started replying to the emails with full educated Democrat sass. And it occurred to me recently that I had not received an email from Reince lately...I got kicked off the list!!!

One step closer to making sure "President Bachmann" only exists in my nightmares.