Republicans Call Angry Groups to Testify at Sotomayor Hearings

Americans for a Pluralistic US Supreme Court circulates an online petition in support of President Obama's nominee.

Yahoo News report that the Republicans are planning to bring stakeholders in their political coalition into the hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, which is a way of making extreme points and offering extreme positions without elected Republic Senate members making these extreme arguments.

Republican senators will call Frank Ricci, a white firefighter who won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on race discrimination last month, to testify about Sonia Sotomayor at her high court confirmation hearings next week. Yahoo News

Frank Ricci can be counted on to assert that as a white man he was discriminated against by Sotomayor and the rest of the three-judge appeals court panel that rejected the white mens' appeals for the court to confirm the results of a test that excluded all Black people from promotions. So, although the Senator Jim Sessions many not say so himself, calling on Frank Ricci is a way to send a message to white men all over the country that the Republicans still believe in and defend the white male supremacy paradigm.

In addition to Ricci, Republicans plan to call Sandy Froman, a former president of the National Rifle Association, a Fairfax, Virginia-based group that promotes gun ownership rights, and Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, a Washington-based group that opposes abortion.

Republicans will use the hearings to call their base together and satisfy their base that they have done what was possible (nothing but blather on) against the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.

Unfortunately for the Republicans this pre-staged constituency versus constituency ploy will reaffirm that the Republican Party is the party intended for white men (30% of the electorate) and virulently anti-abortion people as well as gun-rights groups. It's also the party whose most vocal constituent groups OPPOSE the nomination of the first Latina for the US Supreme Court.

With more Latinos naturalizing and being born in the United States with the right to eventually vote, the Republicans just can't help themselves. They're damned with the angry color-aroused white firefighters if they don't oppose this nomination and they're damned with the USA's fastest-growing minority if they do oppose Sotomayor. So, they'll do what they always do: Go with their color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior and oppose Sotomayor simply because she's a Democrat (the party with all those Black and Latino people) and they will oppose her because she, herself, is a Latina.

As demographics face fundamentally color-aroused dispositions, the Republican are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Can the US Provide Free, Public Medical Care Like Brazil?

Free public neighborhood health clinic in Brazil
where treatment is provided to all
as fundamental right.

I am not convinced that single payer is necessary to dramatically improve health care in the US. I believe that making health care a right (like the right to vote) - a right that is not means tested - is what we really need.

This morning in Brazil, I went to a Government public health clinic in my neighborhood, made an appointment to meet with a doctor tomorrow morning for a consult and prescription, and I will be charged $0.00 (zero) for this service, because health care is a right in Brazil.

I showed proof of address (because people must go to the health clinics in their neighborhoods - the clinics that are closest to them) and I showed proof of my identity (incidentally as a foreign permanent resident). I also showed proof that I am up to date with my vaccinations, which are provided for free at the same clinic. Tomorrow when I get the prescription, the medications will be provided for free.

There's still one question that an American really wants to ask here: Where's the cash register? At these clinics, there are no credit card swipers, cash registers, and no calls to any insurance companies or Government bureaucrats to confirm whether the patient is covered for one service or all services.

At seven in the morning,
patients line up to schedule appointments
which may be from a day to a month away.

Crucially, there isn't even a check within Government records to confirm a patient's right to be served. Since Government-provided health care is a right for all that is not means-tested and is provided by the Government itself, there's no need to confirm people's insurance status. Health care is actually more of a right in Brazil than voting is a right in the United States, because there is no need in Brazil to show that you have "registered" to participate in the free services. And there is no crime a person can commit that would result in the loss of the the right to participate in the Government system.

The existence and operation of the free health clinics, hospitals and blood work laboratories is Brazilians' "insurance" that health care will be available to them. The government buys or manufactures medicines in bulk and provides them for free, either at this clinic or at the hospital downtown.

While waiting in line to schedule an appointment this morning, an elderly woman mentioned in passing that, in addition to having a home in this town, she also owns a summer cottage and land in the countryside. It doesn't matter here. Yet, if she said the same thing at a Medicaid office in the US, she would probably carried out by armed guards, tasered and/or arrested and charged with fraud.

And yet, even with the absolute guarantee that patients have a right to Government health care through this nationwide system of free clinics and hospitals regardless of income, assets or ability to pay, (some people sue the Government for failure to provide expensive care or new and expensive medicines for unusual conditions) there are still private insurance companies, doctors and hospitals for people who have conditions for which the state system isn't equipped to provide excellent and immediate care, and/or for people who want the "Cadillac" service that we really all should get wherever we are.

To make health care more affordable in the US, setting up a national system such as the one in Brazil, or in the Seattle / Puget Sound area, where all of the medical, nursing and administrative staff work for salary rather than as entrepreneurs, is the surest way to keep costs down. Along with doing away with the bureaucracy involved in means testing, charging individuals for insurance, making sure that they have paid, etc.

The crucial part is not that Government nationalize all medicine, but that Government set up a national system Government-owned clinics hospitals and pharmacies like the system Brazil has, or provide insurance to all Americans the way the French do, with patients accessing services from private providers and the Government paying for these services.

Brazil's "Public Option" Health Care a Model for USA

Cross-posted at the Public Option Health Care Now blog.

Pardon me for sounding confused, but I just cannot understand the idea of requiring individual Americans to purchase health insurance. Here in Brazil, there is a "public option" that consists of community health centers in each neighborhood as well as often two public hospitals in cities under 100,000 population, with more public hospitals in larger cities. Anyone, even an international tourist, can go to these clinics and hospitals and it is unlawful to request or accept payment from patients.

In addition, common medications are given out for free at these clinics if they are available, with the only requirement being a prescription from a doctor, public or private.

No one is required to purchase this assurance that their medical needs will be taken care of. Instead, the program is paid for through various government taxes. It's worth pointing out that in Brazil people are tax-exempt until their income reaches three times the minimum wage, so it's fair to say that many of those receiving the benefits of the service are being entirely subsidized by other wealthier people who may use the public system or may prefer to use private doctors.

In light of my experience with this system, it seems rather absurd to me that we should require people in the US who are sleeping under a bridge to buy health insurance when they cannot even afford a cup of coffee. Government promises to provide such people with subsidies just make me think of a tidal wave of new bureaucracy to determine who needs what level of subsidy and who has paid their premiums and who hasn't. A public option designed this way may have all of the expensive bureaucracy of a welfare department, with an equal likelihood that many people will fall through the cracks when the need the care the most.

What the United States needs is what Brazil has: a system of public clinics and hospitals where anyone and everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, can come and receive treatment with no discussion whatever of their financial circumstances. In such a system, Bill Gates might lie in a hospital bed alongside Bill, the streetsweeper, each receiving from their Government the care they need without the bureaucracy they would abhor.

Afrosphere Petition Says, "Confirm Wise Latina Woman Judge Sonia Sotomayor Now"

Black bloggers are lining up in support of "wise Latina woman" Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the US Supreme Court. For example, African American blogger Atty. Francis L. Holland, whose previous efforts toward diversity in American institutions have been cited by the Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, Black Enterprise, the American Prospect, the Columbia Journalism Review and the Pew Project for Excellence In Journalism, has posted an online petition in favor of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the US Supreme Court.

Holland says he hopes the petition, which is reprinted below, will gain thousands of signatures from people of all skin colors, ethnic backgrounds and genders, just as President Barack Obama received pluralistic support across the board in November's presidential election:

The petition says:

Petition to Confirm Wise Latina Woman Judge Sonia Sotomayor Now

View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition

To: Members of the US Senate

I strongly support and urge immediate Senate confirmation of President Barack Obama’s nominee for the US Supreme Court: “wise Latina woman”, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who now sits on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

At present, the US Supreme Court has nine members, of whom seven are white men. This is unfair and unbalanced. According to the US Census, the nation is less than 33% white male, while it is approximately 51% female, 15% Latino and 13% Black. Although white males are the minority of America, they remain the vast majority of the US Supreme Court, just as was the case before women and minorities gained the right to vote.

It is impossible in a pluralistic society for a Court comprised of 78% white men to make wise, reasoned and sound decisions affecting the lives of a nation which is less than 33% white male. A wise and just Supreme Court requires a diversity of experiences, with the participation of representatives of the majority of Americans.

For far too long, there has been a quota system at the United States Supreme Court. The de facto quota system required that all or the vast majority of the nine members of the Court be white males. In the history of the nation, there have never been more than three members of the court who were not white males at any one time. The anachronistic white male quota system is no longer tenable as the nation strives to treat all Americans equally and to have a government all of whose branches have the consent and participation of the nation’s diverse populace.

The US Supreme Court cannot function wisely, justly, and fairly without the full participation of wise women and wise members of the nation’s minority groups, including the nation’s largest minority – Latinos. Therefore, we urge our elected representatives in the US Senate to immediately confirm the “wise Latina woman” who has earned our respect and support: soon-to-be US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

View Current Signatures

Pres. Obama Kisses Dick Cheney' Republican Torture Policy Ass

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog and Democratic Afrosphere.

Take two paragraphs from two Washington Post articles together and you understand exactly why President Barack Obama is acting like a wishy, washy wimp on the torture photos. (Yes, I said "torture" and I'm not going to adopt the media's euphemism of "harsh treatment")
The Washington Post reported in the first article today,

Cheney Seizes Spotlight,

. . . former vice president is most visible critic of Obama's policies and most forceful defender of Bush's record. WaPost Article Number One

So, instead of going into retirement and giving his failing heart a rest, ex-vice president Dick Cheney has become Washington's foremost pro-torture lobbyist, and he supports himself, at least in part for this, on his pension paid for U.S. taxpayers.

However, Dick Cheney's bloviating can't have any effect on policy now, right? Because he had the lowest approval rating of anyone in the Bush administration, whose overall favorability rating was 29% at the end of their administration. So who would listen to Dick Cheney now?

President Barack Obama does, and worse, he heeds what Dick Cheney says. Here's the second headline in the Washington Post today:

Obama Rethinks Detainee Photos

President has "great concern" about the impact that releasing abuse photos would have on troops.

The only conclusion I can draw from all of this is that, although a clear majority of us voted against Dick Cheney's policies in November, we're still going to be living under Dick Cheney's policies in May and June and for so long as the wimpy and malleable Barack Obama is president. It's disgusting, that's what it is!

Although all but 29% of us wanted Dick Cheney to just go the fuck away, and we were even willing to forego his prosecution in exchange for his absence, we now are getting something completely different. Obama is REWARDING Cheney for going on television and preaching in favor of torture. And that means that we have NOT seen the end of Dick Cheney. Instead, we've exalted him to the position of the most effective spokesman for the policies we voted against last November.

Let's give Cheney the Congressional Medal of Honor while we're at it, so every Republican will follow his example. We want every Republican to stand before the public, make absurdly self-serving pronouncements in favor of past illegal acts and war crimes, and then their pronouncements will be adopted as policy by none other than President Barack Obama.

If you think about it, the same thing happened two weeks ago, when the Republicans staged doofy "tea parties" across the United States and then Obama immediately announced that he was going to cut the Federal budget by one hundred million dollars. Screaming wins with Obama, if you're a Republican doing the screaming. I only hope that Democrats can learn to have as much effect on Obama's policies as Dick Cheney is having.

A Day of Blogging for Justice: Standing Up Against the Police Pre-Trial Electrocution - April 24, 2009

Hat Tip and Shout Out to the Villager at the blog Electronic Village for his recent blog post. Check out how the afrospear is blogging about the issue of the tasing, beating and electrocution of Black folks in America. He writes about A Day of Blogging for Justice: Standing Up Against the Police Pre-Trial Electrocution

The AfroSpear is calling on all bloggers to join us in a Day of Blogging for Justice: Standing Up Against the Police Pre-Trial Electrocution on Friday, April 24, 2009.

The rules are simple:

1. Share a post on your blog focused on your concerns about the tasering of Blacks folks.
2. Send an email to AfricanAmericanPoliticalPundit@gmail.com so that we may document everyone's participation.

He gives examples of what bloggers have been reporting on the police pre-trial electrocution:

• Afro-Netizen - Taser Death of Black man by White cop near Jean ...


• Black Voices - 21st Century Whips


• Diane Dimond - The 50-Thousand Volt Solution


• Electronic Village - Police Taser 16-Year Old Robert Mitchell to Death


• Electronic Village - Taser Policy Defined by 'Use of Force Continuum'


• Jack and Jill Politics - A Day of Blogging for Justice - Against Extra-Judicial ...


• Mondoglobo - Lousiana Police Electrocute Handcuffed Man in Grocery Store
• 
  


• Pam's House Blend - NC: More Freestyle Law Enforcement Death-by-Taser


• Problem Chylde - Tasing as Deadly Force


• Race Wire - Black Teenager Killed by Cop’s Taser


• Tasered While Black - Black Man Pepper Sprayed, Batoned, Tased ...


• Tasered While Black - Police Taser and Kill Black Man and Laugh About It


• Tasered While Black - Black Man Tased and Beaten in Peoria, IL.


• The Super Spade - Tasered While Black


• Ultraviolet Underground - Electrocuted While Black

I like the villager, and so many other bloggers hope that you will participate. Please read villager's complete post on A Day of Blogging for Justice: Standing Up Against the Police Pre-Trial Electrocution

Related Blog Posts

15 Year old Detroit boy with asthma dies after being Tasered While Black

From African American Political Pundit

Fort Worth Police Tasered a Mentally Ill Black Man To Death

From African American Political Pundit

Should the White Male Monopoly of Sunday Morning Talk Shows End, as has the White Male Monopoly of the Presidency?

Yet another white male for Sunday Morning Television?

" Is Chuck Todd getting a weekend show?" That's the question posed by Chris Cilizza in his Washington Post blog column today. As any lawyer knows, the answer to a question posed in the affirmative is usually an affirmative answer, and Chris Cilizza doesn't disappoint, at least in this way. White male Chris Cilizza answers, "We hope so", because white male Chris Cilizza sees no problem with white male Chuck Todd being added to an overhwhelmingly white male Sunday talk show lineup, dominated by white men.

I would pose Cilizza's question differently, as I did many times over the last three years about the presidency of the United States: 'Should the United States elect a 44th consecutive white male president and thereby perpetuate the white male monopoly of the presidency in a nation whose majority is decidedly not white male? The obvious answer was "no", and the answer to Cilizza's question is also "no", for the same reason. Chris Cilizza's suggestion that Sunday need another white man is but one example of a larger phenomenon, pointed out in an article by The Nation, entitled, "White Male Pundit Power":

It's still all about the white men. Hillary Clinton's loss has renewed critiques that American political media is slanted, sexist and dominated by men. While Clinton and Obama broke barriers in the Democratic primary, swiftly dispatching white male Senators with more government experience, [as well as less, I might add] the race was still refereed, scored and narrated by white male commentators, an influential constituency in presidential politics. Pundits talked a lot about gender and racial progress during the campaign, of course, but the elite opinion media continues to employ, groom and promote a commentators corps that is disproportionately white and male."White Male Pundit Power", TheNation, June 9, 2009.

Take that principal to the talk shows, and Media Matters has reported on the subject:

Not only are the Sunday morning talk shows on the broadcast networks dominated by conservative opinion and commentary, the four programs -- NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday -- feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male.

And the top-rated Sunday show -- Meet the Press -- shows the least diversity of all. The NBC program is the most male and nearly the most white (Face the Nation beats it out by 1 percentage point), and it has the highest proportion of white males to all other guests. Media Matters, 2007.*

That's just the break down of the guests, with three very potent bar graphs to prove the point beyond argument. But, let's talk about the monopoly of the white male hosts: If the question had been, "Are there severral good reasons to deny Chuck Todd a weekend show, then, of course, we could expect to see the question followed by several good reasons. And here's a fundamental one that makes all others superfluous in my opinion: White men as pundit and commentators tend to promote other white men in American society, to the detriment of the female and minority majority of American society, very much as the white minority under apartheid enforced rules and behaviors that benefited them and disadvantaged the majority Black South Africans.

Media Matters points out an excellent example of this phenomenon:

During a panel discussion of the 2008 presidential election on the July 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, syndicated columnist Robert Novakasserted: "Republicans are very pessimistic about 2008. When you talk to them off the record, they don't see how they can win this thing. And then they think for a minute, and only the Democratic Party, with everything in their favor, would say that, 'OK, this is the year either to have a woman or an African-American to break precedent, to do things the country has never done before.' And it gives the Republicans hope." Neither host Tim Russert nor any of Novak's fellow panelists, Bloomberg News Washington managing editor Al Hunt, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum -- all of whom are, like Novak, white men -- commented on or challenged Novak's assertion. As Media Matters for America documented, the four Sunday-morning talk programs on the broadcast networks, Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, feature guest lists that are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. Media Matters, July 15, 2007.

Now, some psuedo liberal whitosphere blogger is sure to point out that Chris Olberman is a white male who favors Blacks and women in his commentary. This, to me, is like pointing out that in spite of the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency, there were some white presidents who did not absolutely oppose minority and women's rights. Yet, merely by being president they were participating in and perpetuating an institution that had been preserved like an "all white male golf club", in which only white men need apply.

And that's the problem with the Sunday Talk shows and most of television commentary and anchorships: their composition is determined by white men and it is assumed, a priori, that any open position will go to a white man, just as it was assumed under apartheid in South Africa that the president would be a white man who ruled over a Black majority.

Is Chris Cilizza exhibiting color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior when he shows enthusiams for white males for Sunday morning without seriously promoting anyone who is NOT a white male for a pundit positiion. Well, if anyone can point out an example of Cilizza supporting a woman or minority for a Sunday morning talk show then that example of his color and gender-associated behavior will give us more information from which to form an idea about his color and gender-associated ideation. For now, it seems to me that, just as it was assumed a priori that Tim Russert would be replaced by a white man, Chris Cilizza assumes that any open space on a Sunday morning talk show should go to someone just like Chris Cilizza: a white man.

It's a matter of self-interest. Most blogggers at the Washington Post are white men and this tendency has the effect of securing Chris Cilizza's career path, at the Washington Post and elsewhere. Look at the list of columnists at TheHill.Com Blog. There are twelve columnists and ten of them are white men, with two white women. Can women and minorities get the attention we need for the fact that we are paid dramatically less in America, when the pundits are overwhelmingly white men who benefit from the pay discrepencies, both when they receive higher pay and when they hire us for less? Poor A.B. Stoddard doesn't even see any advantage (and much disadvantage) in using a first name that would identify her as a woman.

So, Chris Cilizza, the answer to your question is a firm "No". On a Sunday morning talk show lineup already monopolized by white men, there is no reason whatsoever to add another white man to the lineup, and every reason in justice and equality NOT to do so.

*I include the dates of the articles cited to demonstrated how very little has changed, particularly in the ideation and behavior of Chris Cilizza, since these articles were written.