A Republican War on Women

The Republicans seem to be waging a war on women.

First they tried to cut the federal contribution to Planned Parenthood, the largest health care provider to poor women. Then they attacked the Obama administration for requiring employers to provide health insurance which includes contraception for women. They have introduced legislation in the house which would permit any company to deny access to no cost birth control regardless of religious affiliation.

The Republicans in Virginia have introduced a bill that will require a women to have inter vaginal ultrasound before having an abortion and a bill which would provide that life begins at conception (more on this story later)

Arizona is in the process of passing a law requiring women to advise their employer why she needs contraception (which must be for something other than preventing pregnancy) before their health insurance will provide it.

Pa. has passed a law requiring not only an ultrasound but also requiring her Dr to explain what it shows while keeping it in her sight lines The Republican governor said it didn’t compel her to see it because “she could always shut her eyes”. 

Now they are trying to stop Congress from passing the Violence against Women Act. This is basically the same bill that was approved with bipartisan support in 1995 and was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. In 2005 it passed the Senate unanimously. Why did they like it then but not now?

The act passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee but by a vote along party lines. Not one Republican voted in favor of it. It also sounds like it will be difficult if not impossible to get the 60 votes it will need to pass in the Senate. 

I spent a large part of my working life as a prosecutor and judge in the lower courts. One of the major problems we dealt with was domestic violence. I don’t know how many phone calls I received at 1:00 or 2:00 o’clock in the morning, which seemed to be the time that drunken husbands arrived home to beat up their wife or girl friend. The calls were to determine whether a restraining order should be issued and what the terms of that order should be. This act, in part, provides some support for a battered woman’s struggle to free herself from her violent spouse.

Domestic violence is only one of the issues the Act addresses. It also deals with the problems of rape and sexual assault. The Act provides funding for victim assistance programs like rape crisis centers and hotlines. It also provides legal assistance for victims of violence and provides funding for community violence protection programs.

The Republicans seem to be concerned because the Act extends its protection to gays and lesbians. These people make up 10% of our population and they also deserve protection from violence.

It also grants immunity from deportation to illegal immigrants who report domestic violence. They will not complain if it means that they will be deported.  Do the Republicans believe that these women don’t need and deserve protection?

What has happened to our society? Women in any culture are particularly vulnerable to violence. At one time all men and women recognized the need to protect them.

What has happened to the Republicans?

To Encourage Civil Discourse

Recently Rush Limbaugh launched a blistering attack on a third year law school student who had dared to defend the Administration’s regulation requiring health insurance policies to include contraception for women. On the first day of his attack Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a whore and a prostitute. The next day he suggested that she should videotape her sexual encounters so he could watch them and on the third day continued his ugly attack.

Michelle Malkin in her latest editorial defends Mr. Limbaugh. She lists a number of similar attacks by liberal TV and radio commentators on conservatives, including herself. She then concludes that since liberals make such horrible nasty statements about conservatives, Limbaugh should be permitted to use similar language to attack Ms. Fluke.

Fortunately commentators and editorial writers on both the right and the left disagree. They have condemned this attack on this woman. I believe the vast majority find these vile, hateful rants whether by the right or the left, unacceptable.   

On the other hand there are a lot of people who do find this language acceptable.  Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich gave weak responses when asked to comment on Limbaugh’s tirade?  Santorum said that Limbaugh was “an entertainer.” which I guess allows him to viciously attack young women. Santorum is often on stage surrounded by his wife and daughters. I can’t help wondering how entertained he would be if Limbaugh had called any of them sluts and prostitutes for defending their beliefs as Americans.

Cal Thomas (a conservative writer) at a meeting of CPAC, in a feeble attempt at humor, suggested that if Ms. Maddow’s (a liberal talk show host) mother had used birth control the world would be better off. He realized then that a gentleman should never wish someone to be dead or to never have been born. So he called Ms. Maddow, apologized, and offered to take her to lunch. She accepted and later he devoted a column to it and she told the story on her program showing a picture of them together.  She reported that he was an intelligent, interesting man with a great sense of humor and that they had enjoyed their time together. Together they set an example for civil discourse which I hope others will follow.

I am not suggesting that a sincere  apology by Rush to Ms. Fluke would do any good and I am sure lunch wouldn’t be a good idea either. Limbaugh (and he has company on the right and left) is a mean nasty man who has capitalized on his ability to attack those who can’t fight back. Fortunately there are not a lot of Limbaughs in the world.

It would, however, be a breath of fresh air for people like Cal Thomas who, for whatever reason, belittles or attacks someone, to apologize to that person, and for the person attacked to graciously accept that apology.

Ms. Malkin in her column mentions an attack by Ed Schultz on Laura Ingraham. Perhaps we can draw a lesson from how that was handled. MSNBC gave Shultz a week off without pay. Schultz read a sincere apology before his next broadcast, then introduced the man who would take his place that week. I don’t think he has slipped into vile or insulting discourse since.

President of Georgetown University claimed the high ground in this controversy  Even though he disagreed with his student’s position he said “”she provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not support her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression”. It is a shame that the John DeGioia’s aren’t the ones with radio programs that attract millions of listeners.  

My most interesting friends are those with whom I disagree. They are the ones who challenge me to think. They are also the ones that force me to search for arguments to support my positions. Sometimes I can’t find one.  That does not make me angry. It makes me a better person.

 We all must learn to listen. I am afraid we all know to well how to talk.

Recently Rush Limbaugh launched a blistering attack on a third year law school student who had defended the Administration’s regulation requiring health insurance policies to include contraception for women. On the first day of his attack Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a whore and a prostitute. The next day he suggested that she should videotape her sexual encounters so he could watch them and on the third day continued his ugly attack. Michelle Malkin in her latest editorial defends Mr. Limbaugh. She lists a number of similar attacks by liberal TV and radio commentators on conservatives, including herself. She then concludes that since liberals make such horrible nasty statements about conservatives, Limbaugh should be permitted to use similar language to attack Ms. Fluke. Fortunately commentators and editorial writers on both the right and the left disagree. They have condemned this attack on this woman. I believe the vast majority find these vile, hateful rants whether by the right or the left, unacceptable.    On the other hand there are a lot of people who do find this language acceptable.  Perhaps that is the reason Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich gave weak responses when asked to comment on Limbaugh’s tirade?  Santorum said that Limbaugh was “an entertainer.” which I guess allows him to viciously attack young women. Santorum is often on stage surrounded by his wife and daughters. I can’t help wondering how entertained he would be if Limbaugh had called any of them sluts and prostitutes for defending their beliefs as Americans. Cal Thomas (a conservative writer) at a meeting of CPAC, in a feeble attempt at humor, suggested that if Ms. Maddow’s (a liberal talk show host) mother had used birth control the world would be better off. He realized then that a gentleman should never wish someone to be dead or to never have been born. So he called Ms. Maddow, apologized, and offered to take her to lunch. She accepted and later he devoted a column to it and she told the story on her program showing a picture of them together.  She reported that he was an intelligent, interesting man with a great sense of humor and that while they still didn't agree they had enjoyed their time together. They set an example for civil discourse which I hope others will follow. I am not suggesting that a sincere  apology by Rush to Ms. Fluke would do any good and I am sure lunch wouldn’t be a good idea either. Limbaugh (and he has company on the right and left) is a mean nasty man who has capitalized on his ability to attack those who can’t fight back. Fortunately there are more Cal Thomas's than  Limbaughs in the world. It would, however, be a breath of fresh air for people like Cal Thomas who, for whatever reason, belittles or attacks someone, to apologize to that person, and for the person attacked to graciously accept that apology. They could then agree to rationally discuss their differences. Ms. Malkin in her column mentions an attack by Ed Schultz on Laura Ingraham. Perhaps we can draw a lesson from how that was handled. MSNBC gave Shultz a week off without pay. Schultz read a sincere apology before his next broadcast, then introduced the man who would take his place that week. I don’t think he has slipped into vile or insulting discourse since. The president of Georgetown University claimed the high ground in this controversy  Even though he disagreed with his student’s position he said “”she provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not support her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression”. It is a shame that the John DeGioia’s aren’t the ones with radio programs that attract millions of listeners.   My most interesting friends are those with whom I disagree. They are the ones who challenge me to think. They are also the ones that force me to search for arguments to support my positions. Sometimes I can’t find one. That does not make me angry. It makes me a better person. We all must learn how to listen. I am afraid we all know too well how to talk.		Show details

just received an e-mail from a friend which starts by asking if I recognize the date: January 3, 2007?  I do of course. It was the date on which the people woke up, recognized what a disaster the previous six years had been, and elected a Democratic Congress for the first time in almost 20 years.

It was too late to prevent the worst economic collapse since the depression. It was however in time to prevent that collapse from destroying ours and the worlds economy.

The person who wrote the e-mail then claims that the recession was the fault of the democrats in Congress.. He doesn’t need to read history to know that this isn’t true. I am sure he, like most of us, lived through it.

I would ask him if he remembers January, 2000? That is the date when the Republicans took control of both house of Congress and the White House. In that year and for even a few years before the seeds of economic disaster were being sown.

Not many people recognized this, although many economist and investors began to warn of our impending peril.  Federal Reserve chairman Allan Greenspan did not recognize the danger. He did testify that there were a lot of little bubbles. In 2007 he finally recognized that the bubble reached its breaking point in 2005.

Real estate prices rose at different rates in different parts of the country and some parts saw no or little increase. For example while the rate of appreciation in Los Angeles began in the late 1990’s the bubble did not begin in Las Vegas until 2003. Housing prices rose steeply beginning in 1996 and peaking in 2005.

In mid 2005 Greenspan testified that “it is hard not to see that there are a lot of local bubbles”. Even President Bush noted in early 2006 that “if houses get too expensive people will stop buying them.

In May 2006 (only four months after the Democrats got control of Congress) Forbes Magazine wrote that “the great housing bubble has started to deflate”. 2006 market data shows that lower sales, rising inventories, falling median prices, and increased foreclosure rates show that the correction in the US housing market began in late 2005 and continued through 2006 resulting in the recession that all economist agree began in Dec 2007 and ended in June 2009.

The causes of the real-estate bubble (with the benefit of hindsight) were the low interest rates fixed by the fed, the easy credit, the increased  number of sub prime and no doc loans and the increased number of adjustable rate mortgages.

The tremendous increase in home prices from 1997 to 2005 had other effects on the economy. In 2005 1,283,000 new homes were built compared to 600,000 in the early 90’s. Mortgage equity withdrawals grew considerably. In 2005 homeowners extracted 750 billion dollars of equity from their homes up from 106 billion in 1995.

The United States housing market correction

* Comparison of the percentage change in the Case-Shiller Home Price Index for the housing corrections in the periods beginning in 2005 (red) and the 1980s–1990s (blue), comparing monthly CSI values with the peak values immediately prior to the first month of decline all the way through the downturn and the full recovery of home prices.

NAR chief economist David Lereah's explanation, "What Happened", from the 2006 NAR Leadership Conference[78] Boom ended in August 2005 Mortgage rates rose almost one point Affordability conditions deteriorated Speculative investors pulled out Homebuyer confidence plunged Resort buyers went to sidelines Trade-up buyers went to sidelines First-time buyers priced out of market

All of the economic problems that led to the recession were in place by 2005, before the democrats gained control of Congress. Fortunately they were there ready to work with President Bush when he finally began dealing with the problem in 2007. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (TARP) was enacted with 172 Democrats and 91 Republicans voting yes. 108 Republicans voted against their President and his Secretary of the Treasury. Does any one remember Hank Paulson on his knees begging the Congress to pass this bill?

It is fortunate that the Democrats didn’t stonewall President Bush the way the Republicans are now stonewalling President Obama. If this act had not passed every major US bank would have had to dissolve,  the FDIC would have been wiped out and ours and the worlds economy would have been destroyed.

I don’t think the recession can be blamed on Democrats or Republicans. Very few people in either party, and very few in the country, saw what was about to happen. The major banks, the investment houses, Fanny Mae and Freddy  Mac, the mortgage originators, AIG, Moody’s, Standard and Poor and the people taking out mortgages they could not repay, all contributed.

Perhaps better government regulation and the Federal Reserve might have been able to prevent it. It is always easier to see things in hindsight.