Phyllis Schlafly: the Queen of Conservatism Who Made Women Second-Class Citizens

by Nomad

At ninety years old, Phyllis Schlafly is still actively spreading her own gospel, persuading a younger generation of women that being second-class citizens is just Nature's way.  

It has been said that half of the work done in this world is to make things appear as they are not.

One of those who has spent her decades in this pursuit is Ms. Phyllis Schlafly. Here's a woman who has spend a good part of her life trying to convince people that equality for women is a dangerous thing. All in all, her mission. much to the dismay of feminists and progressives, has been surprisingly successful. 

To some, Schlafly is an annoying fossil from the apex of the Reagan era that should have been forgotten a long time ago.  

Schlafly and the ERA

Although she might these days be just another crackpot on the Far Right, Schlafly will always be famous (infamous) for the part she played in defeating the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment  (ERA) aimed at specifically protecting the rights of all women.

The 1868 14th amendment, which gave equal protection to all citizens, should have offered enough civil protections, but  women were not always thought of a specific class or a minority in need of protection.

However, this attitude began changing in America around the 1920s. Since that time, specific legislation had been debated whether women by virtue of their gender, needed specific protections. 

That debate lasted a full half century.

When the 1964 Civil Act became law protecting the civil rights of minorities, progressives and feminists demanded a new look at equality for women as well. When the   ERA passed both houses, it looked as though it was a sure thing.

Sequester Cuts and Killing Unemployment Benefit Extensions: When GOP Values Make no Sense

by Nomad

This week the Republicans appeared to be sticking to its tried and true conservative principles by blocking a vote on extending unemployment benefits. 

Add to that the impact of sequester cuts to state jobs training programs and you have a campaign issue nightmare. The question is: can any party get elected by hurting its most vulnerable voters? 
Not once but twice?

Two days ago, Republican conservatives used the power of the filibuster to block a Democratic bill to restore unemployment benefits to over a million Americans, hit hard by the recession. According to an announcement of this decision, the lawmakers declared they were standing on conservative principle.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) stated:

"People, if you pay 'em for years and years, they won't look for a job." 

Who is the "'em" and who are the "they"? What happened to "us" and "we"? 

Extending unemployment benefits, he added, creates no jobs. At a cost of $6.4 billion, the cost of the extension could not be justified, according to the Republicans. Shelby told an interviewer,

"That is a huge expenditure. What we need to do is spend that money on retraining these people that are unemployed -- help them for a few months and get them retrained and get them back in the job market. That's the problem."

As we shall see, there is a major problem with that idea. 

Other Republicans cited their conservative principles to support the filibuster. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said:

"I certainly ran because we're mortgaging our children's future. We're bankrupting this nation."

It's not hard to imagine the possible fallout from this decision come election time. With more than.1.3 million people Americans left without any kind of safety net nationwide, it could make a difference who controls the houses of Congress.