Pearl S. Buck and the Privileges A Woman Must Give Up

by Nomad

A quote from a famous writer of the 1940s gives some stern advice for women voters of today. You can no longer afford the "privilege" of being complacent. 

Whenever I see women cheering in rallies for Republican conservatives, I wonder what kind of mindset would support the very elected officials who have showed so little respect for women's issues, such as women's health and reproductive choices. 

I ask myself how can so many women vote against their own interests. Where do these women come from?
One source gives a snapshot of the female conservative.

Married women are more likely to be conservative and, as the report shows, they're the one bright spot in a dark picture for the GOP. More importantly, while single women are more liberal, they don't vote as often as married women.

With so much at stake, why would any woman decide not to vote?

For such people, one writer gave a finger-wagging talking-to to women who don't concern themselves with politics.
In her 1941, book Of Men and Women,  Nobel Prize–winning author Pearl S. Buck wrote that certain attitudes had to change if women were ever going to make a positive impact politically:

What she has to give up will be her present privileges,

-the privilege of remaining ignorant in spite of education,

-the privilege of mental laziness,

-of not having to think thoroughly through any thing because she knows the ultimate decision will not rest on her,

-the privilege of being willful and capricious and irresponsible,

-the privilege of idleness and of having time to spend lavishly on self-adornment and amusement, and

-the privilege of escaping from the problems of life, by retreating from them into her home and considering that her whole duty is there.

She is, in short, to become an adult creature ready for the responsibilities of liberty."

Oregon, Obama and The Greatness of an Angry Man

by Nomad

In the aftermath of the Oregon shooting, the visibly upset President Obama spoke to reporters and to the nation.
He was not shocked. It's hard to be shocked when, as the UKGuardian points out, there's been on average a mass shooting – involving four or more injured people – nearly every day. There have been an astounding 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days. The president was angry and he made no effort to disguise the fact.

Somehow, said the president, this has become routine. The events, the reactions, the tears and the prayers. Why must this keep happening before something gets done. Is this something we have all become numb to?

He said the burden of guilt falls ultimately on the American people for not demanding more from their representatives in Washington in their respective state legislatures.

"This is a political choice that we make, to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones."

"This is not, Obama said, "something I can do myself."

He asked the American public to consider the ways they can get their government to change the laws and to save lives. "To let young people grow up." He declared

"That will require a change of politics on this issue. If you think this is a problem then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views."

The Intrinsic Good: Why All Conservatives Should Be Rallying Around Same-Sex Marriage

by Nomad

You would probably never consider the Supreme Court decision against same-same marriage bans to be a great victory for the conservatives. And yet, that's exactly what it was. They just refuse to admit it.

The Friends of the Court

The term, AMICI CURIAE, in Latin means the "friends of the court." These are respected citizens who offer fact-based evidence  as well as reasoned advice to the Supreme Court judges. This assistance is unquestionably a great asset to the justices.when they are tasked with difficult rulings. 

Such consultants are also failsafe against making judicial blunders. In theory, the more input from varied sources is given, the more balanced and well-thought out that decision will be.  

The group is normally made up "social and political conservatives, moderates, and libertarians from diverse backgrounds."

One look at the list of participants would reveal the truth about Senator Ted Cruz's ridiculous charge that the “tragic” Supreme Court decisions were a case of "judicial activism." In the case of the same sex marriage ban ruling, the group came from all walks of life.   

Many have served as elected or appointed officeholders in various Presidential administrations, as governors, mayors, and other officeholders in States and cities across the Nation, as members of Congress, as ambassadors, as military officers, as officials in political campaigns and political parties, and as advocates and activists for various political and social causes.

To claim this group of around 280 men and women from such varied political and social backgrounds could have an activist agenda is preposterous in the extreme.

When the SCOTUS was reviewing the constitutionality of state-level same sex marriage bans, the Amici dutifully reviewed as much information as it could find on the legality of same sex bans. Around 55 court cases were referenced and 19 authoritative texts were also consulted before they reached their conclusions.

The counsels, in addition, reviewed the constitutional and statutory provision with care. Due to the importance of the case and the ramifications of the decision, the amicus brief not a hastily drawn-up brief.

An Insidious Evil: Voting Rights Act, the SCOTUS Blunder and Voter ID Laws

by Nomad

A couple of years ago, one of the great legislative achievements from the 1960s was all but dismantled. Strange too since only seven years before it was gutted, both parties in Congress had voted to keep this landmark legislation around for another generation. We examine how this could have happened and what have been the effects.

In American history,  7 March 1965 became known as Bloody Sunday.

It was on this day that civil rights protesters clashed with Alabama State troopers. With billy clubs and tear gas, state troopers and county possemen beat, before the eyes of the nation, unarmed demonstrators. 

Despite that, two days later, a second march was organized. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was there and led the marchers and this time troopers stepped aside to let them pass. 

But that night, a gang of white thugs took their revenge of a civil rights activist, James Reeb. Reeb a white Boston minister, had come to join in the second march. Beaten to death by white men with clubs for his support of African American rights. Reeb became a martyr to the civil rights cause when he lapsed into a coma and died on 11 March 1965.

The entire nation shocked that such things could happen in the land of the free. What followed was remarkable, a national outcry against the activities of white racists leading to direct legislative action by Washington.

The Search for a Solution

On 15 March 1965, President Lyndon Johnson swiftly moved into action. He spoke before a joint session of Congress on a matter that was important to him and, he believed, important to the nation. The subject was the proposed Voting Rights Act, new laws which aimed at prohibiting racial discrimination in voting.

In certain areas of the nation, racial discrimination in voting was a deeply entrenched  problem. It had become “an insidious and pervasive evil,"  the result of an "unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” The time had come to rectify this long-standing problem as the federal government sometimes had to do.

Dumping: Why Hospitals Continue to Abandon their Homeless Patients

by Nomad

The problem of hospital's dumping homeless patients back on the street is a shame for the nation.

The practice of homeless dumping has been for some time now a shame of the national healthcare system. Nobody is very much surprised that it happens. In a system where money outranks almost other considerations, priorities can pretty regularly become warped by the profit margin. The penniless and homeless simply aren't worth the expense of adequate healthcare when the chief aim is to make a return on investment. 

That's the harsh reality of privatized healthcare. 

In numerous incidents, hospital employees and/or emergency services  have been caught releasing back to the streets otherwise homeless patients who may be in need of expensive medical care. These patients should have been placed in shelters or in some kind of adequate facility. The street is the last place for them, for their sake's and for the sake of general public health.