RE: The Wide Spectrum of Republican Presidential Nominees

http://iansapathy.blogspot.com/2011/04/wide-spectrum-of-republican.html?showComment=1303697595977#c3929307474250386210
In reading your take on the Republican party's presidential prospects for the 2012 election, I am envisioning Donald Trump's run at the Republican ballot as comparable to the recently televised public mayhem surrounding Charlie Sheen. Celebrity plus money plus high ratings equals media saturation. You are right to be concerned that Donald Trump's antics are hurting the party he is running under. The media will extensively cover the absurd, because it is America's guilty pleasure and we will watch. While I must admit that I do not support the Republican party, I would hate to see the 2012 race taken over by frivolous issues that distract from what is relevant.

I hope to see a worthy opponent rise out of the Republican party, and that would not be Donald Trump, and it certainly would not be Sarah Palin. Palin has shot herself in the foot repeatedly when she did allow the media to approach her, showing her lack of knowledge to put it kindly. Now she hides from the media, utilizing a strategy in which she carefully exposes the image she wants to convey to the public through limited and controlled interactions with the media. Could you imagine putting this person in a room with another world leader, allowing outrageous, un-vetted remarks to potentially harm our foreign relations? Think Blood Libel...

While Romney and Huckabee do bring the issues that Americans are concerned with to the presidential platform, I would like to see a new, unexpected Republican candidate surface. The current candidates are just too partisan in their approaches, and the country is already deeply divided. I think Obama has it in him to be great; his first term has been a slow start, dealing with the tremendous debt created in the Bush era and a woefully divided Congress. If we could get two candidates in the ring that would make eliminating partisan divisiveness their top priority, 2012 could be an intellectually stimulating election year.

Things would be really interesting if a strong minor party candidate emerges, but now I feel like I'm really dreaming...

Justice for All = Equal Access to the Courts

Every day in America courts make decisions about people’s lives, for better or for worse. Legal and financial resources are necessary to successfully navigate a court case and bring about just rulings. Imagine for a moment that you are an immigrant with a limited ability to speak English. How will you communicate effectively to the court? What if something as precious as the custody of your child is at stake?  Equal access to the criminal and civil court systems should be a basic human right. Federal law states that Individuals who have limited English proficiency have the right to equal and meaningful access to the courts, and yet many states are not in compliance. Meaningful access includes a combination of oral interpretation services and written translation of vital documents.

Recipients of federal funds must comply with federal laws. Texas criminal courts receive federal funding and must offer LEP populations equal access to the justice system through interpretation, translation and auxiliary aids such as a TDD, or Telecommunication Device for the Deaf.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits national origin discrimination by recipients of federal funds. Different treatment based on a person’s inability to speak English may be a type of national origin discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires state entities to provide American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters or auxiliary aids to ensure effective communication with D/deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Executive Order 13166 issued in 2000 further emphasizes that recipients of federal funding must provide meaningful access to LEP persons, such as the right to an interpreter, to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and developed tools for recipients to use to offer meaningful access to LEP persons.

A study by the Brennan Center for Justice, Language Access in State Courts, found that 46% of the 35 states surveyed fail to require that interpreters be provided in all civil cases.

Follow the link below to read a compliance letter issued to states by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/lep/final_courts_ltr_081610.pdf

In Harris County, a mother is suing the courts for failure to provide an interpreter at her child custody hearings. As she bears the burden of paying for her own interpreter, her ex-fiancé repeatedly takes her to court, strategically exhausting the little money she has left to fight to keep custody of her child:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7055110.html

While I would hope for willful compliance from states on this issue, it may take the loss of federal funding before states bring their courtrooms into compliance. Better a state temporarily lose a source of funding than another parent and child become permanently severed due to unconstitutional court practices.

Response to Anti-Abortion Laws Passed Yet Again

I agree that the passage of this South Dakota law regarding the 3 day waiting period before an abortion can be performed is a waste of the doctor's time as well as an insult to the woman in question's intelligence and ability to reason.

With that said, I believe there is a larger issue at play within this law; it strategically reduces abortions by delaying a time-sensitive procedure. A number of women will be prohibited from legally obtaining an abortion once they have surpassed the pregnancy time-line within which the abortion can be performed. This is an anti-choice tactic, and the 'successes' gained by it are artificial. The patient did not change her mind because she was enlightened by information she had not been exposed to before seeing a doctor, she ran out of time and was left with no choice.
Not only do poor women stand at risk to be disproportionately affected by this law, but women in abusive relationships and victims of incest also are impacted more profoundly. The safety aspect of the situation means that abused women must first find shelter and support before getting to a clinic; the abusive partner's reproductive coercion may be what led to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place and he is not going to let his partner have a choice about whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. Getting away from the abuser and into a domestic violence shelter can take weeks if placed on a waiting list due to lack of space at the shelter. Only after safety is addressed can the pregnant woman then explore her options about the pregnancy. It's too bad that she will then be re-victimized by a law that exerts further control over her body, minimizes her ability to make decisions, and questions her understanding of a subject she is all too intimately aware of.
Original blog:
http://politicalviewskelseysewalson.blogspot.com/2011/03/anti-abortion-laws-passed-yet-again-in.html

Congress Out of Touch With America's Volunteer Organizations

Last week I sat in on a teleconference sponsored by the Texas Association of Nonprofit Organizations (TANO) regarding state and federal legislative updates. I work as a policy analyst for a nonprofit organization that exists to end family violence, and a part of my role is to track funding trends that could impact the populations we represent.


One presenter on the TANO call, David Thompson of the National Council of Nonprofits, covered the federal budget and the proposed cuts impacting charitable organizations. Mr. Thompson emphasized the need for nonprofits to communicate to Congress about who they are as community agencies and why money is needed to provide direct services to their target populations; he stated that many members of Congress continue to express beliefs that nonprofits are run by volunteers and do not need funds for staff salaries and employee benefits such as health insurance. Currently, a $1 billion dollar cut has been proposed to the Corporation for National Community Service, which funds programs like Americorps. Congress is likely to approve this deep cut if they are not educated on the fiscal necessities of nonprofit organizations.


In the past I have served as a direct service advocate in various capacities at local nonprofits, including a homeless shelter, family violence shelter, and homeless youth outreach program. I can testify to the fact that social services cannot be consistently provided to the community through a volunteer base. Volunteers are an insufficient source of manpower, essentially because they are unpaid for their offered services. Volunteerism is typically something that Americans participate in after the work day is done and the bills are paid; the average American with a passion for giving may have 3 or 4 hours left in the week to spend in a volunteer position. With the recent Recession, many Americans have taken on a second job, leaving little or no time left for volunteering. Full-time, paid staff positions are the only means by which an agency can consistently provide essential services to clients.


Volunteer programs such as Americorps fill the gap for nonprofits in need of volunteer power; Americorps members are placed in communities in volunteer positions, and they receive a federally subsidized living allowance to sustain them through their term of service. I was introduced to social work by joining Americorps and taking my first position in social services at a homeless shelter in Austin. Without a living allowance, I would not have been able to commit to the 40 hour a week volunteer position, and I may not have continued on to where I am today without the experience I gained from Americorps.  


It is hard to believe that members of Congress could be so lacking in comprehension regarding what it takes fiscally to run a nonprofit. Who are we electing into office, and what is their level of real life experience?? If this is any indication of how ill-informed Congress is, I question their ability to manage a budget at all.


If you would like to find out who represents you in Congress and contact them about why nonprofits in your area need and deserve federal funding in order to keep their doors open, follow the link below:


http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

Behind The Assault On Planned Parenthood by Ryan Grim, The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/planned-parenthood-funding_n_827886.html 

This blog posted on the Huffington Post’s website by writer Ryan Grim attempts to sort out the truth and fiction behind recent allegations made against Planned Parenthood after a college student, Lila Rose, went undercover as a potential patient to videotape her interactions with Planned Parenthood program staff. Rose sets up scenarios in which she portrays a pregnant underage teen trying to obtain an abortion, and at another clinic she teams up with another actor to portray members of a human trafficking ring. Rose has released her videotapes alleging that Planned Parenthood staff violated the law, and in other instances acted unethically, such as by allegedly pushing a patient to obtain an abortion while discouraging adoption as a viable option.

The videotapes have been promoted and circulated by conservative media as a smear campaign against Planned Parenthood, and of even more concern, Republican leaders have cited the videotapes as just cause for stripping the organization of its federal funding. Republican figures such as Mike Pence of Indiana and Cliff Stearns of Indiana back up Rose’s accusations that Planned Parenthood gave out unlawful information as well as neglected to report knowledge of criminal activity. 

Ryan Grim takes a closer look at these videos, the only ‘evidence’ held forth to support claims of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood staff. Along with his analysis of the full length videos, he provides readers with a link to the videos to watch and formulate their own opinion: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AppletonTranscript.pdf

A full viewing of the videotapes becomes quite telling, exposing Rose’s use of heavy editing and splicing to create the story she wants told, the stance promoted by the Republican agenda. While Planned Parenthood provides a vast array of affordable, much-needed and often life-saving services to women of all ages, the far right narrows these services down to the hot button issues of abortion and sex education in schools. I agree with this blogger’s take on the videotapes; remove Rose’s creative editing and the allegations evaporate.

Will America take a deeper look at the sensationalized materials that grabbed their attention, or will they choose to cling to the propaganda that made headlines and furthered the political goals of one party? I hope for the former, but fear the latter.  I also hope that this author is right about the potentially overwhelming support women will offer in order to keep Planned Parenthood’s doors open; he cites that one in five women have accessed this community clinic for women’s health services, making it a well recognized and established institution for American women. I believe that closing Planned Parenthood’s doors would be an attack on women and their right to affordable healthcare, choice, and privacy; the de-funding of this organization is just one of many legislative tactics this session aimed at stripping women of individual liberties.

Read the post, and you may be concerned enough to get involved yourself. Follow the link below to become a supporter of Planned Parenthood:

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/

A Common Sense Argument for Sustainable Farming

/http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/sustainable-farming/

“Fun/depressing fact: It takes the earth 18 months to replenish the amount of resources we use each year. Looked at another way, we’d need 1.5 earths to be sustainable at our current rate of consumption.”

In Mark Bittman’s editorial for The New York Times, Sustainable Farming Can Feed the World?, the above quote really grabbed my attention – just what a good, compelling editorial should do. Why did this quote catch my eye and draw me in? Because it is fact-based, it underscores the topic the author is taking on, and it provides the reader with a reason to care about and listen to the writer’s opinion.

This editorial explores the possible benefits of a conversion from industrial farming to sustainable farming by way of a solutions-based rational. The author’s citing of many global problems that could be alleviated through sustainable farming methods balances out the article; from hunger and obesity to depletion of natural resources and global warming, Mr. Bittman rounds out his argument rather than pushing one particular agenda. Compromise is a present theme, with the author interjecting ideas some adherents are willing to consider but that staunch supporters of the sustainable farming model might rule out, such as the possible need for the continued use of chemical fertilizers in order to meet short-term goals while making the shift towards long-term solutions.

The editorial compels the reader to acknowledge the injustices of a world in which millions live in hunger while fifty percent of food produced is thrown away and millions struggle with the complications of obesity. Knowing that geographic separation from such ethical dilemmas can ease the American conscience, Bittman further emphasizes the threat to our own existence if we continue on. The continued use of resource-guzzling, environmentally destructive industrial farming just won’t cut it; we don’t have 1.5 earths.

Overall, I particularly like the author’s placement of relevant, easy to access links, containing factual information to back up the opinions expressed. Bittman’s basic logic is compelling while uncomplicated, leaving me with food for thought (couldn’t resist!)

CPAC Coverage: Getting To Know The Opposition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12441638

On February 12, 2011, the BBC News posted an article entitled "CPAC 2011: Meet the Republican Presidential Contenders". This article covers the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that was held in Washington DC on February 10th. Republican presidential hopefuls delivered speeches at the conference, which this article covers from three perspectives; two Republican conference attendees rate the speeches while BBC's Katie Connolly provides her forecast for each speaker's chances of running in 2012. One conference attendee expressing his take on the presenters is Mike Bayham, a New Orleans-based political consultant who has been a delegate at each Republican National Convention since 1996. Charlotte Evans is the other reviewer attending the conference; she is a Republican student activist with a strong interest in energy policy, self-described as a fiscal, pro-life, and federalist conservative.

Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Haley Barbour and Rick Santorum, all spoke, while Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee where noticeably absent from the line-up.

I find this article valuable because it educates me on the Republican Party's developing strategies for the 2012 election. "Know your enemy" is the phrase that keeps popping into my head when I think about why any news highlighting the Republican Party would capture my attention.

This article does a great job of covering the speeches from three different perspectives; each person reports their opinions on the areas of the speeches that were most notable to them, from healthcare, energy, national spending, defense and the economy. I like each person's candid take on the presence, personality, and delivery of each contender - image is something that can certainly factor into votes. While the two attendees obviously have Republican agendas, Katie Connolly brings the insight of a journalist in touch with varying factors playing out in the media regarding these political figures. I especially enjoy the layout of the article, with a number rating system providing a summary of the reviewers' perspectives. This article puts Mitt Romney in the lead, with much credit going to his ability to engage his audience. One to watch, one to defeat.

I was not surprised to see Sarah Palin absent from this event. She has built an ice castle for herself somewhere in fantasy land, where she controls all elements surrounding her spoken word. If you can't tell a reporter the name of just one newspaper you read, I guess there are acres of topics that are liable to make you look really stupid. Let's just hope the American public doesn't fall for this highly sanitized portrayal of the Great American that Palin is trying to create inside a bubble void of much needed criticism.