Radical And Political – KNZ Clan http://knz-clan.com/ Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:18:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://knz-clan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/icon-1-150x150.png Radical And Political – KNZ Clan http://knz-clan.com/ 32 32 After Dobbs, married women keeping their names regain political meaning https://knz-clan.com/after-dobbs-married-women-keeping-their-names-regain-political-meaning/ Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:13:18 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/after-dobbs-married-women-keeping-their-names-regain-political-meaning/ Placeholder while loading article actions On Friday, the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson (MS) Women’s Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, ending nearly 50 years of women’s access to safe and legal abortion. Summer 2022 is also on track to set a record 2.5 million marriages, the highest number of marriages in 40 […]]]>
Placeholder while loading article actions

On Friday, the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson (MS) Women’s Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, ending nearly 50 years of women’s access to safe and legal abortion. Summer 2022 is also on track to set a record 2.5 million marriages, the highest number of marriages in 40 years. What does it mean for millions of Americans to marry when women’s right to control their reproductive lives has been eviscerated?

Marriage and reproductive rights are intertwined issues that highlight long-standing legal, political, and cultural debates about women’s autonomy. The same political and activist forces that brought us reproductive rights in the late 1960s and early 1970s also revised marriage and divorce laws to secure women’s rights within and outside of marriage. Together, these legal changes established that, at least on paper, women were full citizens with fundamental equal rights and autonomy, not subordinate beings beholden to husbands and motherhood.

Not only will millions of women suffer and die as a result of the Dobbs decision, but the decision also calls into question the autonomy and personality of all women (and, therefore, the future of same-sex marriage). This new doubt will restore political meaning to several heterosexual marital customs, including symbolic naming practices adopted in the 1970s.

Until the 1970s, women gave up almost all their rights upon marriage. under what was called hedging laws, a woman lost her legal identity when she married because she was subsumed by her husband. Mrs. John Smith literally meant the woman legally related to John Smith. Beginning in the 1840s, women’s rights activists challenged state laws that denied women the right to inherit property, earn their own money, or retain custody of their children. But those reforms have been slow and tenuous, with many vestiges of coverage remaining on the books well into the lifetimes of the majority of Americans alive today.

Married women could not even refuse sex to their husbands (marital rape was not criminalized in all 50 states until 1993) they also could not expect an equitable distribution of property in the event of a divorce. And married women couldn’t apply for credit cards or bank accounts without their husband’s signature until the law passed. Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 which prohibited “discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or age in credit transactions”.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others successfully challenged dozens of gender-based laws – including laws that excused women from jury duty (because this civic service apparently took them away from their more important work at home), policies that essentially forced pregnant women to leaving the workforce and laws that provided differential benefits to the spouse based on gender—arguing that laws based on gender stereotypes limited women’s rights in violation of the 14th amendment.

But writing mostly in Dobbs, The opinion of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. challenges 50 years of case law based on the belief that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights and freedom regardless of gender.

That’s why two small but potent symbols of women’s growing autonomy in the 1970s are particularly important today: the introduction of the honorary title “Ms.” and the practice of women keeping their surnames.

Traditionally, men, at least white men, were formally addressed as M., regardless of their marital status. Since a woman’s marital status (and, therefore, her virginity status) determined her overall legal and societal position, women did not have such a neutral term until Gloria Steinem and her colleagues from Mme magazine invent one.

Rejecting the retrograde idea that a woman should be “Miss” until marriage and “Mrs. [Husband’s Last Name]“After marriage, the founders of Ms. boldly declared a woman’s right to full personality, regardless of her marital status. They chose this moniker over other appealing choices to convey the magazine’s mission: that the personal was political. When the review made its debut in 1972, “Mrs.” was such an unfamiliar term that the editors had to spell it out for people on the phone, as they reflected in a oral history. Within months, however, as co-founding editor Mary Peacock reminded“Suddenly you might say ‘Mrs..,‘ and everyone knew what you were talking about.

A related, and even more controversial, naming practice also began to gain traction in the early 1970s: women retaining their maiden names after marriage. Historically, a wife taking her husband’s surname signaled his loss of legal personality, making the decision to keep her name a powerful political action. Inspired by the example of abolitionist Lucy Stone (1818-1893), feminists in the 1970s resurrected the practice of keeping one’s surname after marriage.

Stone rejected the myriad legal injustices for women inherent in the institution of marriage. Her suitor, fellow abolitionist Henry Blackwell, agreed. The couple decided to marry on their own terms, removed the word “obey” from their vows and issued a protest to explain that marriage should be “an equal and permanent partnership so recognized by law”.

The most dramatic way the couple recorded their protest was that Stone, one of the most famous women of the time, kept her last name. Stone’s example inspired women throughout the 19th century and beyond. Women’s rights leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who insisted on using both her maiden and married name, hailed Stone’s sweeping decision and its far-reaching implications, gushing to Stone that “Nothing has been done in the women’s rights movement for some time that has gladdened my heart so much as the announcement by you of a woman’s right to her name. Taking a name is one of the first steps towards freedom, and one of the first requirements of a republican government.

Other 19th-century feminists experimented with naming as a means of retaining some autonomy after marriage, including Mary Church Terrell, founding president of the National Association of Colored Women; sculptor Adelaide Johnson, who insisted that her husband take the surname “Johnson” when they married in 1896; and free-thinking feminist Helen Hamilton Gardener, who coined a brand new name for herself after being exposed in the newspapers for having sex before marriage.

For much of the 20th century, the practice of American women keeping their surnames fell out of favor. However, thanks to the boost it received from second-wave feminism, the percentage of women keeping their own name peaked in the 1970s. Today, polls estimate that between 10 percent and 20% of American women keep their maiden name, although the percentage is higher for women with degrees and those who marry later in life.

Debates over surnames are, in essence, debates over women’s autonomy. Do we see women as individual citizens or, above all, as wives and mothers? The reasoning behind Mississippi’s limits on women’s reproductive autonomy (and the Supreme Court’s affirmation of it in Dobbs) is based on outdated stereotypes that a woman’s autonomy should come far behind her potential role as a mother.

Feminists have successfully challenged the sexist ideologies that shaped our laws and jurisprudence half a century ago. And indeed in 2015, the New York Times reported that the percentage of women keeping their names seemed to be on the rise but that the overall political nature of the practice had decreased, explaining that “fundamental rights have been achieved, so the gesture carries less weight either way”.

But now the terrain looks very different. As Lucy Stone wrote to her best friend, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, in 1855, “[i]It is very little for me to have the right to vote, to own property, … if I cannot keep my body and its uses in my absolute right. Retaining one’s surname after marriage and adopting the honorary title of Ms provides a marker of legal autonomy and personality, and doing so in 2022 may well prove a particularly significant decision, both symbolically and politically.

]]>
Biden chastised for continued opposition to Supreme Court expansion https://knz-clan.com/biden-chastised-for-continued-opposition-to-supreme-court-expansion/ Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:34:22 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/biden-chastised-for-continued-opposition-to-supreme-court-expansion/ President Joe Biden was reprimanded on Saturday for doubling down on his opposition to expanding the US Supreme Court, even after his deeply unpopular right-wing majority spent the last week ending the constitutional right to healthcare. abortion, to weaken gun restrictions, to undermine the separation of church and state. , and the erosion of hard-won […]]]>

President Joe Biden was reprimanded on Saturday for doubling down on his opposition to expanding the US Supreme Court, even after his deeply unpopular right-wing majority spent the last week ending the constitutional right to healthcare. abortion, to weaken gun restrictions, to undermine the separation of church and state. , and the erosion of hard-won civil rights, with more attacks on equality and federal regulatory power expected.

“Any Democrat who doesn’t call for an expanded Supreme Court now supports ending abortion rights and the coming attacks on gay marriage, birth control, and every other right we have.”

“It’s something the president doesn’t agree with,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Told journalists when asked about the possibility of expanding the court. “It’s not something he wants to do.”

MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan called the president’s lack of urgency “ridiculous”, “maddening” and “inexplicable”.

“What is Biden ‘agreeing’ to do?” Hasan asked on social media. “What does the leader of this country want to do to stop the increasingly fascist assault on our democratic institutions and basic rights?”

Hasan and other outraged commenters responded to a viral tweet suggesting that Biden opposes not only court expansion but also filibuster reform.

Whereas ABC News confirmed that Biden does not support the expansion of the High Court, CNN journalist Mike Valerio deleted his tweet because, like journalist Judd Legum Explain, he misrepresented Jean-Pierre’s comments on the President’s position on the filibuster. Although Biden has generally defended the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for advancing most bills, he has called for voting exclusions. He may or may not do the same for reproductive freedom, but Jean-Pierre dodged the question.

“I don’t care what President Biden thinks about the filibuster,” said Representative Ted Lieu (D-California). “He’s no longer in Congress.”

“These are the real messages and facts,” Lieu continued. “If we elect two more Democratic U.S. senators and the Democrats hold the House, we can pass the bill that codifies Roe vs. Wade in the law.”

The House passed the Women’s Health Protection Act last year, but stalled in the Senate because right-wing Democratic senses Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona) refused repeatedly to support the abolition or suspension of the filibuster. , thus giving the GOP minority veto power over most legislation.

While Lieu argued that the Senate Democratic Caucus only needed two more members to be able to repeal the filibuster and codify deerothers have argued that Biden and other party leaders must do much more, including expanding the Supreme Court, to prevent the Republican Party from continuing to impose a reactionary agenda opposed by the vast majority of Americans.

“Not every Democrat calls for expanding the Supreme Court,” said journalist Jordan Zakarian said Friday on social media, “is now in favor of ending the right to abortion and the coming attacks on gay marriage, contraception and all the other rights we have”.

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DN.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), as well as Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), are among lawmakers who have called for court expansion since deer was overthrown.

Last April, Biden appointed a 36-member bipartisan commission to study potential Supreme Court reforms, including adding more seats, establishing term limits and creating a code of ethics for judges. .

Although the panel found Despite “considerable” support for 18-year term limits for judges, proposals to increase the size of the court were met with “strong disagreement”.

“As we watch this majority of the court go crazy over their right-wing overlords,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (DR.I.) tweeted Saturday, “Do we regret that the innocuous and irresponsible commission of the Supreme Court has overlooked all the major issues: no transparency, no code of ethics, appointments in black money, secret gifts, hypocrisy, capture , corruption ?

“More and more people understand what I said is happening,” he said. addedpointing to the last reports by The lever. “The court has been captured by special interests using masses of black money.”

During a Sunday appearance on ABC“This week,” Warren told host Martha Raddatz that the High Court “burned through any legitimacy it might still have.”

“They just took the last piece and put a torch on it with the Roe vs. Wade opinion,” she said. “I think we need to rebuild trust in our court and that means we need more justices on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Shortly after Biden created his Supreme Court commission, congressional Democrats — led by Reps. Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Mondaire Jones (DN.Y.) in the House and Markey in the Senate – introduced legislation that would increase the number of High Court seats from nine to 13.

While its passage is unlikely to prevent the election of more progressive lawmakers in future terms, there is no shortage of ideas for immediate steps the Biden administration could take to protect abortion access.deer America.

In a letter Sent to the White House on Saturday, 33 Senate Democrats told Biden that “now is the time to act boldly to protect abortion rights.”

“You have the power to fight back and lead a national response to this devastating decision,” the letter states, “we therefore ask that you take all steps available to your administration, across all federal agencies, to assist women to access abortion and other health care, and to protect those who will face the hardest burdens from this devastating and extreme decision.”

Biden has instructed the Justice Department to ensure pregnant women can travel to states where abortion remains legal, and Attorney General Merrick Garland has sworn to crack down on states trying to ban federally-approved abortion pills.

But there is much more to do, say progressives. By Sunday, more than 14,200 people had signed Ocasio-Cortez’s contract petition urging Biden to open abortion clinics on federal lands, especially in states where access to care has already been eliminated or severely reduced.

]]>
A radical decision for radical times https://knz-clan.com/a-radical-decision-for-radical-times/ Sat, 25 Jun 2022 01:04:47 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/a-radical-decision-for-radical-times/ The decision is a reminder that this era is indelibly marked by the influence of former President Donald Trump. He appointed three of the five justices who constituted the majority and ushered in an era in which unthinkable events became commonplace. Here’s what we don’t know: how a society already rocked by radical currents will […]]]>

The decision is a reminder that this era is indelibly marked by the influence of former President Donald Trump. He appointed three of the five justices who constituted the majority and ushered in an era in which unthinkable events became commonplace.

Here’s what we don’t know: how a society already rocked by radical currents will respond to this new incitement to a culture war – which will be waged in Washington and dozens of state capitals. It is the nature of radical moments, after all, that old assumptions are upended and familiar landmarks are rendered irrelevant.

Radical may seem like a strong word, but here I’m just saying it in clinical terms, not pejorative or complimentary. Of course, people who applaud the disappearance of Roe vs. Wade, no less than those who lament it, must appreciate the jaw-dropping nature of the decision, even as Alito presented it as the purely rational conclusion of legal logic. In a legal system that fundamentally relies on precedent, a slim majority—a majority made possible by a combination of partisan calculations and the random chance of a certain judge’s death—decided that particular precedent to be null and void. The same applies to a right which has existed for half a century and which affects the most intimate sphere of human life.

The precise timing of the decision has made its implications more clearly seen – as part of a larger whole. It was a stunning decision, coming at the end of a week in which the public learned some amazing things about what happened at the end of Trump’s presidency.

In January 2021, as President Joe Biden took office, it seemed like six years of Trump’s dominance in American politics — two as a candidate and four as president — were coming to an end. Trump personally may have broken down the barriers of custom and decorum through outlandish rhetoric and behavior. But the political system as a whole appeared intact and largely unscathed – he was now an ex-president, discredited by his loss and his role in encouraging the January 6 riot.

In fact, it wasn’t until Trump left the presidency that we can clearly see how he broke down barriers across the American regime. The disappearance of Roe vs. Wade precedent is part of his legacy. So does the historical precedent that presidents gracefully step down once a winner is legally declared.

Reality is shattered, precedents are the signature of this era. Friday’s Supreme Court ruling is a useful opportunity to think back to all the things that one might have assumed “would never happen” – but have actually happened in recent years. Alternatively, think about the things you assumed would happen, because that’s how the American political system works, that ultimately didn’t happen.

Surely it wouldn’t happen for partisan opponents in the Senate to block a presidential nominee for the Supreme Court from filling a vacancy that occurred almost a year before the end of the president’s term – that’s not how the process works. But of course that’s how it worked in 2016, which is why Neil Gorsuch’s Trump pick had to vote for repeal deer rather than Barack Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland to maintain it.

Surely a Supreme Court would never decide a polarizing social issue on a 5-4 vote – that’s how it works now. We should try to reach a unanimous decision, as in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending segregation, or at least produce an emphatic majority, as in the 7-2 vote when deer was decided in 1973. Except that’s not how it works anymore. Chief Justice John Roberts’ pleas for a narrower ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization were met with contempt by his Conservative colleagues, who felt that five votes was more than enough.

Certainly, the deliberations of the Supreme Court are treated with reverence, which is why draft opinions never leak. But in this case, they did, a first in the modern history of the institution.

Speaking of institutions, proud members of Congress would surely be more loyal to their institution and the effective functioning of constitutional government than they would be politically party to a president of their party. It’s what forced Richard Nixon to accept his fate in the Watergate scandal and leave office, just a year after the original deer decision. So far, that’s not happening with this generation of Republicans in Congress, few of whom turn against Trump even after this week’s revelations about how he tried to enlist his Justice Department. for making false allegations of voter fraud in his desperate bid to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

All of these are surely worthless currency in contemporary politics.

This is especially true of the question of what happens next. Many political analysts predict the court ruling will energize progressives in ways that could help Democrats and eventually lead to the restoration of abortion rights lost in court defeats through political victories. Sounds plausible to me. But it’s worth wondering how many of these analysts predicted Trump’s victory in 2016, or even that he would increase his vote total in 2020.

Even the majority of the Supreme Court disagrees with what she produced. Alito’s opinion said nothing in the decision would affect same-sex marriage, or the right to practice birth control, or other decisions that relied on some of the same legal reasoning as Roe v. Wade. But Judge Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion making it clear that, in his view, all of these precedents should also be reviewed.

For now, a majority of the Supreme Court has gotten the sweeping decision it wanted — and the reality that sweeping times lead to unpredictable outcomes.

]]>
Stop hitting the political panic buttons — Neuse News https://knz-clan.com/stop-hitting-the-political-panic-buttons-neuse-news/ Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:54:00 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/stop-hitting-the-political-panic-buttons-neuse-news/ RALEIGH – Remember when rapid automation was going to put much of the workforce out of work? Concerned politicians and other professionals have warned that robots will displace production workers, self-driving vehicles and drones will displace truckers and delivery staff, and algorithms and kiosks will displace service and management workers. Radical responses such as universal […]]]>

RALEIGH – Remember when rapid automation was going to put much of the workforce out of work? Concerned politicians and other professionals have warned that robots will displace production workers, self-driving vehicles and drones will displace truckers and delivery staff, and algorithms and kiosks will displace service and management workers.

Radical responses such as universal basic income would be needed, they argued, to quell the chaos engendered by long-lasting unemployment.

Politicians backed him just two years ago. Now in 2022 we are in the midst of massive work shortage. Companies desperately need employees and will hire them at high cost, including for many of the same jobs, such as drivers and fast-food servers, that were previously set to disappear.

Yes, I realize that in theory there could be a short term labor shortage followed by a longer term labor surplus. In the real world, however, technological innovations (and free trade, for that matter) do not produce net job destruction. They produce net jobs creation. As consumers save money or time by purchasing goods and services produced at lower cost, it frees them up in money and time to patronize new businesses that hire their own employees.

I also recognize that some specific labor market concerns are warranted. One of the factors explaining the current labor shortage is widespread drug addiction, for example. And in the long run, some jobs will be eliminated, leaving their current or potential occupants with the need to retrain, move or rethink their future.

What I disagree with is the hysterical way politicians often talk about these issues. They may believe that such emotive performances are what the audience wants, that using such language will indicate how much they care for those who suffer. Or politicians may believe that if they push their fingers into enough panic buttons, solutions will materialize. In this, they follow Teddy Roosevelt’s leadership advice: “At any point in the decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is to do nothing. »

Another possibility is that at least some of these politicians are, in fact, hysterics. Roosevelt certainly was.

A later Republican president, Calvin Coolidge, was his temperamental opposite – and offered far more sound advice: “If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure nine will hit the ditch before they get to you. .

Policy makers can and should take practical steps to help today’s workers prepare for tomorrow’s economy. They can improve and expand retraining programs. They can restructure the unemployment insurance system to encourage rapid re-entry into the labor market (including the option of a one-time cash payment to cover moving costs where new jobs are created). They can reform fiscal and regulatory barriers that prevent entrepreneurs from starting or growing new businesses.

What they cannot do, what no one can or should attempt to do, is prevent change from happening. If machines can make things faster and cheaper than human hands, so much the better! In the past, such innovations freed the vast majority of us from having to scrape our lives off the ground, as most human beings have done for most of human history. Labor-saving methods and devices allow us to redirect our efforts to more productive activities.

One of the great products of modern engineering is, in fact, the panic button itself. A Boston inventor named Augustus Pope patented a battery-powered version in 1853. A businessman named Edwin Holmes purchased Pope’s patent and began selling electric alarm systems to homes and businesses. Later, innovators developed a variety of military, industrial, and medical uses for panic buttons.

In some cases, these apps have displaced the need for humans to monitor critical areas or perform emergency tasks. The net result, however, has been to improve the situation for workers and consumers.

Not all problems are emergencies. To claim otherwise is in itself dangerous. On this point, and much more, Coolidge was wiser than Roosevelt.

John Hood is a board member of the John Locke Foundation. His latest books Mountain folklore and forest peoplecombine epic fantasy and ancient American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

]]>
GOP House candidate slammed ‘dumb and hungry’ black people https://knz-clan.com/gop-house-candidate-slammed-dumb-and-hungry-black-people/ Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:23:16 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/gop-house-candidate-slammed-dumb-and-hungry-black-people/ If it seems like audiences keep learning more about Carl Paladino’s ugly rhetorical record, it’s not your imagination. CNN reported on the latest evidence. New York Republican congressional candidate Carl Paladino told a radio host in late 2016 that black Americans were being kept “dumb and hungry” so they could be conditioned to vote only […]]]>

If it seems like audiences keep learning more about Carl Paladino’s ugly rhetorical record, it’s not your imagination. CNN reported on the latest evidence.

New York Republican congressional candidate Carl Paladino told a radio host in late 2016 that black Americans were being kept “dumb and hungry” so they could be conditioned to vote only for the Democratic Party. , saying, “You can’t teach them any different”. Paladino, then a Buffalo school board member, was defending himself against allegations that his previous comments were racist and said he cared about black people, but they were packaged to be a base for Democrats.

He added at the time: “I don’t consider myself a racist in any way.”

And while I’m sure the Republican’s perception of himself is quite impressive, his actual record continues to hamper.

Going back to our previous coverage, Paladino has a history of racism, homophobiaand driving completely crazy conspiracy theories. More recently, the New Yorker shared a Facebook message claiming that the recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were false flag operations. (The Republican soon after said he had “no idea” how the post appeared on his page.)

Two weeks ago, the public learned of an interview Paladino did last year in which he said Adolf Hitler was “the kind of leader we need today.” (The candidate soon after tried to clear things up, issuing a statement that he didn’t actually support Hitler.)

Now we are faced with a related story in which Paladino publicly argued that rogue Democrats have somehow kept black Americans “dumb and hungry,” which cannot be undone since, in the mind of the GOP nominee, blacks cannot be taught. Otherwise.

I have a hunch this won’t be the last such story to come to the fore between now and Election Day.

Part of what makes this remarkable — aside from the obvious offensiveness of Paladino’s unsubtle racism — is the extent to which the New York Republican captures a larger political dynamic. Benjy Sarlin of NBC News, for example, recently explained, “Paladino was one of the first canaries in the coal mine where politics was headed. He emailed a video of bestiality to his contact list (yes, you read that right) along with racist memes featuring the n-word, then won the ‘gubernatorial’ nomination in New York in 2010.

This is a positive and underestimated point. As ridiculous as Donald Trump’s rise in GOP politics may seem, there were plenty of hints of sweeping shifts in attitude among rank-and-file Republicans. The fact that Paladino can win a gubernatorial primary in a big blue state, after voters learned of his disgusting opinions, proved to be a sign of things to come.

Indeed, let’s not forget that during Trump’s candidacy in 2016, his political operation brought in a man to oversee the campaign in New York State: Carl Paladino.

But let’s not forget either that the problem is not entirely retrospective. Elise Stefanik, Speaker of the House Republican Conference, quickly threw his support behind the Paladino’s congressional bid, indifferent to his racist record.

When the party learned of his argument that Hitler was “the kind of leader we need,” the total number of GOP leaders who withdrew their support for Paladino was zero.

]]>
From equal rights to education, Gara represents Alaska https://knz-clan.com/from-equal-rights-to-education-gara-represents-alaska/ Sun, 19 Jun 2022 18:39:04 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/from-equal-rights-to-education-gara-represents-alaska/ By Emily Kane Updated: 3 hours ago Published: 3 hours ago Gubernatorial candidate Les Gara speaks to people as he participates in an Abortion Access Day visibility rally in Anchorage on Saturday, May 14, 2022. (Emily Mesner/DNA) We need a governor who respects the legitimate needs of all to reach their potential. Les Gara worked […]]]>
By Emily Kane

Updated: 3 hours ago Published: 3 hours ago

We need a governor who respects the legitimate needs of all to reach their potential. Les Gara worked hard for all of us as a legislator for 18 years. He is the only gubernatorial candidate to have consistently championed a woman’s right to sovereignty over her own body. He fought for public education and academic opportunity, unlike other candidates, including two men who served as governor of Alaska but used their terms to cut funding for public schools and government. of Alaska.

As a former foster kid, Les battled a lot of adversity, and it informed his dedication to public service. He used his career to make sure everyone had a fair chance at success. That is why Les is committed to supporting a strong and vibrant education system, which is essential to developing both our workforce and meaningful, well-paying jobs as we enter an era of innovative resource management and sustainable.

Les believes that we need to protect our fisheries from the deadly bycatch of factory trawlers. He has always opposed the Pebble Mine, which we all know poses an untenable threat to the world’s largest wild salmon spawning ground.

Les has worked tirelessly to end annual oil company tax subsidies that amounted to $1.3 billion in 2021. We need this money to rebuild our state and strengthen our economies, instead of dipping into those -this.

Let’s review some facts:

Les is the only candidate in the race to support abortion rights. This is a pivotal moment in American history when 50 years of legal precedent allowing a woman to manage her family planning is threatened. Les has never wavered in her absolute commitment to a woman’s right to choose. It shouldn’t be controversial, but somehow it’s become a political lightning rod. This decision is personal, not political, and must be permanently protected, lest we regress as a nation and as a democracy. In contrast, Governor Mike Dunleavy sued the state for going along with the sweeping Texas law that effectively prohibits a woman’s right to choose. Former Governor Bill Walker has a long-held belief that drives him to be anti-abortion. He was a top donor to the 2010 anti-abortion election initiative and held a fundraiser at his home. He promised in 2014 that if elected he would set aside his personal values ​​– a difficult thing for anyone to do – and veto anti-abortion legislation. But then he reneged on that promise and sided with precedents in favor of abortion rights. Walker sued to restrict Medicaid coverage of abortion services despite the Alaska courts making it clear he would lose that lawsuit — which he did. This caused the state to lose a lot of money. Governor Dunleavy repeated this mistake recently; more money wasted.

Les sponsored legislation to uphold the rights of all Alaskans to equal treatment under the law. None of his opponents supported their LGBTQ+ neighbors. Governor Dunleavy played political games with their basic rights and Walker sued to block same-sex marriage while governor, saying he believed “marriage can only be between one man and a wife”.

Les stands alone on commitment to public education among the leading candidates. Governor Dunleavy has proposed a record $280 million cut to public education in his first year in office. Walker cut $32 million from pledged statutory education funds in 2015 and vetoed more than $50 million from public and university education funds in 2016. Les has always fought for our schools and our university system.

Les is the only candidate in this race with proposals to fund job development, educational opportunities and renewable energy projects.

Les has the credibility and drive to finally bring Alaska into the 21st century with a new, modern economy that uplifts everyone and diversifies our sources of energy and income. Les would end the annual donation of more than $1 billion of Alaska’s oil revenues by ending the oil company tax credit subsidies that Dunleavy had voted for. As a lawmaker, Les always voted against these ridiculous giveaways, time after time. Let’s make Les Gara our next governor by voting for him in the August 16 primaries and again in the November 8 general election.

Emily Kane is a naturopathic doctor and licensed acupuncturist. She lives in Juneau.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for review, email comment(at)dna.com. Send submissions of less than 200 words to letters@adn.com Where click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and comments here.

]]>
Trump criticizes Pence during Nashville speech; January 6 hearings continue https://knz-clan.com/trump-criticizes-pence-during-nashville-speech-january-6-hearings-continue/ Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:00:00 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/trump-criticizes-pence-during-nashville-speech-january-6-hearings-continue/ As the House Jan. 6 committee continues its work, former President Donald Trump has come to Nashville. Trump was a keynote speaker at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” conference. The senses. Americans Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee also spoke. Former President Donald Trump on Friday slammed former Vice President Mike […]]]>

  • As the House Jan. 6 committee continues its work, former President Donald Trump has come to Nashville.
  • Trump was a keynote speaker at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” conference.
  • The senses. Americans Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee also spoke.

Former President Donald Trump on Friday slammed former Vice President Mike Pence as lacking “courage” for refusing to implement a plan to overturn the 2020 election results, echoing a tweet sent by Trump on January 6, 2021 as the country’s second-in-command. safe from a violent mob attacking the United States Capitol.

In a keynote address at a conservative Christian policy conference in Nashville, Trump gave a lengthy speech against what he calls a ‘ridiculous narrative’ and ‘witch hunt’ as a House committee continues its investigation. on Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack.

Former Trump aides and employees testified on Thursday about Trump’s efforts to pressure Pence into illegally rejecting the 2020 election results. A former Trump aide testified that Trump called Pence a “wimp” during of a heated phone call on January 6.

“I never called Mike Pence a wimp,” Trump said. “Mike Pence had a chance to be great. He had a chance to be, frankly, historic, but just like Bill Barr and the rest of those weak people, Mike didn’t have the courage to act.

Former President Donald Trump addresses attendees at the Road to Majority Conference at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center Friday, June 17, 2022 in Nashville, Tennessee.

The bipartisan committee alleged on Thursday that Trump’s actions endangered the vice president’s life in his pursuit of a legal theory that Pence could void the election. Pence refused to do so. Republican U.S. Representative Liz Cheney, vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, called the strategy “illegal and unconstitutional.”

Related:January 6 hearing for revelations: Trump called Pence a ‘wimp’ as VP resists ‘pressure campaign’ to void election

]]>
The complex legacy of Fusako Shigenobu’s years in the Middle East https://knz-clan.com/the-complex-legacy-of-fusako-shigenobus-years-in-the-middle-east/ Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:00:47 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/the-complex-legacy-of-fusako-shigenobus-years-in-the-middle-east/ Early in the morning of May 28, Fusako Shigenobu – at one time the most wanted Japanese woman in the world – was released from prison in Tokyo after serving more than 20 years for her activities as leader of the Red Army. far-left Japanese (JRA). Now 76 and in failing health, Shigenobu was greeted […]]]>

Early in the morning of May 28, Fusako Shigenobu – at one time the most wanted Japanese woman in the world – was released from prison in Tokyo after serving more than 20 years for her activities as leader of the Red Army. far-left Japanese (JRA). Now 76 and in failing health, Shigenobu was greeted by her supporters and her daughter outside, where she gave a brief statement to the media.

His release was widely reported nationally and internationally, just as the JRA hijackings and seizures of embassies in the name of the Palestinian cause received sensational media coverage in the 1970s.

But who is Fusako Shigenobu really? A vicious former terrorist now defeated and disgraced, or a committed militant who used divisive means to achieve particular goals?

We are faced with two versions of her: the widespread public image, supported by mainstream media and government and police accounts, of Shigenobu as a dangerous radical, a femme fatale who lured men from Japan in the Middle East to participate in missions; and another image of her as a leftist, passionate icon activist who took up arms to contribute to the Palestinian struggle.

Neither account is entirely accurate.

Shigenobu was not the “Empress of Terror”, as she is frequently described, nor did she participate directly in missions as a fighter in the same way as, for example, her Palestinian contemporary Leila. Khalid. Despite common misconceptions (repeated in media coverage of his release), Shigenobu was almost certainly not personally involved in the 1972 attack at Lod Airport (now Ben-Gurion Airport), which was entirely planned by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). .

This infamous operation was carried out by three Japanese men and killed 28 people, including two of the perpetrators. Most of the victims were Christian pilgrims from Puerto Rico with American nationality. At the time, these deaths were met with horror and shock by the world, which struggled to understand why Japanese leftists were attacking Israel. Although authorities described it as an indiscriminate massacre, the JRA claimed that civilians were killed in the crossfire.

Yes, Shigenobu was theoretically married to one of the attackers, but it was a ruse so she could leave Japan with a different name. Shigenobu arrived in Lebanon in 1971 to volunteer for the Palestinian cause and began working for the PFLP’s English-language newspaper with author Ghassan Kanafani. Operation Lod was handled by the PFLP completely separately from Shigenobu and before the JRA even officially existed (although the latter retroactively claimed credit for the incident).

Shigenobu was not the “Empress of Terror”, as she is frequently described

Later, Shigenobu did organize the other Japanese Middle Eastern militants into the JRA and the group carried out several operations with the PFLP or independently.

The hijackings and seizures of embassies that made so many headlines in the 1970s were arguably more pragmatic than ideological: JRA operations were preceded by the arrest of their comrades, and the objective, according to the hijackers’ stated demands, was to secure their release.

The JRA essentially disappeared from the radar after its last hijacking in 1977, which successfully secured the release of several other peers. After this point, despite rumors of involvement in other terrorist incidents, the JRA never publicly claimed credit for any other operation, and its members were instead occupied with humanitarian and grassroots activism (and survival of the Lebanese civil war). Although often seen as a beautiful woman living a mysterious life as a fugitive in the Middle East, the truth of Shigenobu’s existence was probably more mundane.

It was only after Shigenobu was arrested in 2000 and she officially disbanded the JRA in 2001 that many details of her activities began to emerge.

What then is Shigenobu’s true legacy? Not the revolution, which never materialized through the actions of the JRA (or any part of the New Left movement in Japan). Not violence, which has been categorically rejected by the Japanese public as a means of achieving political change.

No, her most enduring contribution is arguably far less exciting or glamorous, to some, than the image of a female leader of a terrorist organization would have us believe. It’s like someone who has dedicated themselves to supporting what was for many an overlooked cause. In 1970 much of the world was rightly focused on the suffering of the Vietnamese, but Shigenobu turned his attention to the Palestinians. This interest would prompt him to abandon activism in Japan to pursue something more ambitious.

The JRA’s hijackings have certainly succeeded in raising awareness of Palestine, but at the cost of innocence and notoriety that have overshadowed its other efforts. The pen may ultimately be more powerful than the Kalashnikov: Shigenobu has published numerous articles and books from the 1970s to the present day that provide insight into his mindset and, perhaps more importantly, have helped share information in Japanese about the Palestinians, whose plight still gets relatively little mainstream media attention in Japan.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sparked an outpouring of support from countries around the world, including Japan, which even relaxed its strict refugee policy to allow Ukrainians to flee. But while the global media rightly focuses its attention on the horrors in Ukraine, other peoples also continue to suffer, from Kurds and Rohingyas to Uyghurs and Palestinians. She will be remembered by many as someone who was willing to travel to a remote part of the globe and embark on a difficult and dangerous life campaigning on behalf of the oppressed and forgotten.

As Shigenobu’s daughter, May, recently wrote, “I experienced first-hand the love and devotion [my mother] had not only for me, but for all people and especially those who are oppressed… She taught me not only to be kind, or that all discrimination is unfair, but that we must work to end such injustices.

The more militant methods used by Shigenobu were unjustifiable even by her own admission, as she was honest in acknowledging her past mistakes, even though she still believed the cause was just. During her trial, she apologized for adopting harmful means, such as taking hostages. After her release, she also repented, expressing remorse “for hurting innocent people by prioritizing our fight.” Here, then, is another legacy: a rare willingness in radical politics to admit error. Looking ahead, Shigenobu said she wanted to “study” next. The real revolution begins with learning.

Posted: Jun 14, 2022, 2:00 PM

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod ? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′; n.tail=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’, ‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’); fbq(‘init’, ‘797427810752825’); fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);

]]>
‘Education’ is the reason federal voting patterns are changing https://knz-clan.com/education-is-the-reason-federal-voting-patterns-are-changing/ Sun, 12 Jun 2022 19:00:00 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/education-is-the-reason-federal-voting-patterns-are-changing/ He took the Australian Electoral Commission’s voting figures by polling booth and compared them with all the detailed demographic information for the corresponding small statistical areas in the 2016 census. They’re not a perfect match, but they’re a good guide. The trend since the 2019 federal election, where the Coalition’s base of support shifted towards […]]]>

He took the Australian Electoral Commission’s voting figures by polling booth and compared them with all the detailed demographic information for the corresponding small statistical areas in the 2016 census. They’re not a perfect match, but they’re a good guide.

The trend since the 2019 federal election, where the Coalition’s base of support shifted towards the poorer, less skilled and less educated Australian-born people, has continued. Credit:ANDREW MEARE

Metcalfe notes that “we are seeing a continuation of the trend in the [2019] federal elections, where the Coalition’s base of support shifts to the poorest, least skilled and least educated Australian-born people”.

When Labor lost in 2019, many people noticed the swing against Labor in the regional mining seats of NSW Hunter Valley and Central Queensland. What few have noticed is the swing at Work in many safe liberal seats.

This time, says Metcalfe, wealthy, educated professionals swung 11-12% against the Coalition, while the country’s working poor – the fifth of polling booths paying the lowest rent, earning the lowest incomes and with the less skills – only tipped 3-4% against.

As we know, much of this change in attitude towards the Liberals has come from the teal independents in the Liberal heartlands seats in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. The most dominant feature of the teal seats was their high level of “schooling”.

Not surprisingly, income and education are strongly correlated. But Metcalfe says education, not income, determines conduct.

Many people think they have detected in recent election results a growing divide between city and country in Australia, but also in Britain and America. But perhaps it’s more of the better educated concentrating in the big cities – where the best paying jobs are – leaving the less educated in the suburbs or in the country towns, feeling that the world has changed in a way they don’t like and thinking about voting One Nation.

Some political scientists believe that voters in wealthy economies are split between globalists and nationalists. Along the same lines, David Goodhart explained Brexit as a battle between those who could live and work “anywhere” and those who had to live “somewhere”.

But it still comes down to education and how ever-higher levels of education – especially among women – are reshaping the party political landscape.

Take climate change. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to accept science, believe that we should act, and not worry about losing your job in the mine or paying a little more for electricity.

Wouldn’t it be funny if the party of the workers became the party of the educated, while the party of the bosses became the party of the fighters?

I don’t see that happening, it’s too incongruous. There is no way for the Coalition to get enough seats without the green heart of the Liberals. But it will take a sea change in policy to bring well-educated people back into the fold, or into bed with Neanderthals.

The Business Briefing newsletter features top stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.

]]>
‘Kevin McCarthy will sell his mother’s soul in order to protect his own political career,’ says his Democratic challenger for president, a woman who has spent the past 20 years educating the Bakersfield community https://knz-clan.com/kevin-mccarthy-will-sell-his-mothers-soul-in-order-to-protect-his-own-political-career-says-his-democratic-challenger-for-president-a-woman-who-has-spent-the-past-20-years-educating-the-bakersfie/ Sat, 11 Jun 2022 05:11:51 +0000 https://knz-clan.com/kevin-mccarthy-will-sell-his-mothers-soul-in-order-to-protect-his-own-political-career-says-his-democratic-challenger-for-president-a-woman-who-has-spent-the-past-20-years-educating-the-bakersfie/ Marisa Wood, a challenger who won the Democratic nomination against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on June 9, now faces an uphill battle for her House of Representatives seat in the Republican stronghold district. Wood, a teacher from McCarthy’s hometown of Bakersfield, Calif., told Insider she was inspired to run for Congress specifically because of […]]]>

Marisa Wood, a challenger who won the Democratic nomination against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on June 9, now faces an uphill battle for her House of Representatives seat in the Republican stronghold district.

Wood, a teacher from McCarthy’s hometown of Bakersfield, Calif., told Insider she was inspired to run for Congress specifically because of how the House Minority Leader “ignored” the concerns of his constituents.

“He chose his own political career over what’s good for democracy. Over those brave Capitol cops, who fought to defend democracy. That’s what people see, that’s what people are finally seeing,” Wood told Insider. “Kevin McCarthy will sell his mother’s soul in order to protect his own political career and do whatever the former president tells him to do. And that’s not okay.”

McCarthy, who faced declining approval ratings and shrinking winning margins in the last elections, is seeking his 9th term. Although he has repeatedly faced controversy for his support of former President Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, he is a likely candidate for Speaker of the House whether Republicans win enough seats midterm.

“Kevin has proven that he doesn’t want to defend what he admitted, remember we heard on tape was an attack on our democracy,” Wood said. “And he refuses to stand up for that because he’s scared and cowering from what Trump and the radical right are saying. So we won’t have a second chance. We have to wake up.”

Although Wood’s campaign is underfunded compared to McCarthy’s, it has raised $627,738 to McCarthy’s $19,307,207 and the district reliably voted Republican before McCarthy took office, the challenger remains optimistic about her chances of taking on the career politician.

“I have tremendous hope,” Wood told Insider. “And you know, it’s an unshakeable hope. It’s not fanciful. It’s based on the fact that what is possible, can and will happen, even in the face of what is likely.”

McCarthy’s office did not respond to Insider’s requests for comment for this article.

]]>