WEB WANDERINGS
April 26, 2012
How can one not speak about war, poverty, and inequality when people who suffer from these afflictions don't have a voice to speak?
~Isabel Allende
Women for Obama
In 200 days, women across the country are going to decide this election. Let’s commit to volunteer in our communities. Sign up here: http://OFA.BO/hgtcea
Too Informed To Vote Republican
A liberal community for members to discuss politics and/or current events.
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."
~Thomas Jefferson
Free Marissa Alexander
Why This Is Important
On August 1 2010, my premature baby girl, born nine days earlier, was in the Baptist South N.I.C.U. fighting for her life and I would too be fighting for my life in my own home against an attack from my husband.
My name is Marissa Alexander, I am a mother of three children, but at the present time, I am not able to be with them due to the following circumstances. I am currently sitting in the Pretrial Detention Facility in Jacksonville FL, Duval County awaiting a sentence for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon with no intent to harm. Before my life changed drastically on that August afternoon, I was in the perilous position of leaving an abusive relationship with my husband who has history of violence and documented domestic abuse towards women. Our history included one which required me to place an injunction for protection against violence and was active during the month of August 2010.
In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave. After a minute or two of trying to escape, I was able to make it to the garage where my truck was parked, but in my haste to leave I realized my keys were missing. I tried to open the garage but there was a mechanical failure. I was unable to leave, trapped in the dark with no way out. For protection against further assault I retrieved my weapon; which is registered and I have a concealed weapon permit. Trapped, no phone, I entered back into my home to either leave through another exit or obtain my cell phone.
He and my two stepsons were supposed to be exiting the house thru the front door, but he didn’t leave. Instead he came into the kitchen that leads to the garage and realized I was unable to leave. Instead of leaving thru the front door where his vehicle was parked outside of the garage, he came into the kitchen by himself. I was terrified from the first encounter and feared he came to do as he had threatened. The weapon was in my right hand down by my side and he yelled, “Bitch I will kill you!”, and charged toward me. In fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling. As I stood my ground it prevented him from doing what he threatened and he ran out of the home. Outside of the home, he contacted the police and falsely reported that I shot at him and his sons. The police arrived and I was taken into custody.
I was devastated and would continue to be for months following the incident. I had to appear in court all the way up until trial as I plead not guilty and know that I acted in self-defense. I believe my actions saved my life or prevented further harm, but preserved that of my husband who was completely irrational, extremely violent, and unpredictable that day.
Florida has a self-defense law and it includes the right to stand your ground. Below are the facts of my concern with the incorrect way the law was applied and ultimately the injustice in my case.
·The alleged victim, my husband, under sworn statement in November 2010, admitted he was the aggressor, threatened my life and was so enraged he didn’t know what he would do.
·The alleged victim, my husband, was arrested for domestic violence two times, once for abuse against me. The attack against me was so violent; I ended up in the hospital.
·Prior to my arrest, I told the office I was in fear for my life due to the prior violence against me. I also told the officer there was a domestic injunction in place to protect me against abuse from the alleged victim. This information was written in detail by the officer in my arrest report, but ignored for some unknown reason.
·In July of 2011, a hearing was held, where I along with the alleged victims testified as it relates to the stand your ground law and its immunity from prosecution.
·After the hearing, Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt denied my motion, citing that I could have exited the house thru the master bedroom window, front door, and/or sliding glass back door. The law specifically states: No duty to retreat.
·My attorney entered a standing objection on the record to the ruling and we proceeded to trial.
·During that time, Angela Corey, our State Attorney met with the alleged victims. I also along with my attorney met with Angela Corey, John Guy, and then prosecutor Christen Luikart. I justified my actions to them and the truth as I have told it has remained the same.
·Knowing our prior domestic abuse history, Angela Corey was hard pressed for the minimum mandatory, which provisions allow for prosecution to wave those stipulations. I was not guilty, nor did I believe that was fair and just under the circumstances. She also allowed for those same provisions in the State vs. Vonda Parker, same charges different circumstances which did not include self-defense.
·Florida uses a law commonly known as 10-20-life as a sentencing guideline when a felony takes place with the use of a weapon. Under this statute, my felony charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to harm carries a twenty year mandatory sentence.
·Stand your ground law has been applied in multiple recent incidents, the following is just a couple of incidents. Carl Kroppman Jr was allowed to use this law to avoid being arrested/charged during a road rage incident on the Buckman Bridge in Jacksonville, FL in August of 2011. Marqualle Woolbright of Ocala, FL avoided murder charges due to the stand your ground law when he shoot and killed someone.
I am a law abiding citizen and I take great pride in my liberty, rights, and privileges as one. I have vehemently proclaimed my innocence and my actions that day. The enigma I face since that fateful day I was charged through trial, does the law cover and apply to me too?
A step further and more importantly is in light of recent news, is justice for all include everyone, regardless of gender, race or aristocratic dichotomies. I simply want my story heard, reviewed and the egregious way in which my case was handled from start to finish serve as an eye opener for all and especially those responsible for upholding judicial affairs.
The threat that day was very real, imminent, and the battery on me occurred minutes before the decision I made to protect myself. That decision was a last resort, necessary and a reaction to the continued threat on my life. I am a believer that grace allowed for my response to be carried out in a non-lethal manner. This prevented the imminent threat and harm a non-fatal tactic, but not against an unknown attacker, rather my very own husband. That was by far the most difficult position to be in nine days after giving birth to a six week premature infant. My heart goes out for my two stepsons and always has had a hurt and sincere empathy for them being subjected innocently to that trauma.
The law states that I was justified in standing my ground and meeting force with force up to including deadly force, but political views and concerns states otherwise in the 4th circuit court.
So my last questions and valid concerns are what was I supposed to do that day and the stand your ground law who is it for?
Sincerely,
Lincoln B. Alexander Jr on behalf of Marissa Alexander
Why People Are Signing:
Staci Bigelow I am signing because Marissa did the right thing and this is bullshit. You can't enforce the law against one person and not the other.
Karen Christine Villegas I was an abused spouse and the laws need to be changed to protect the abused and not the abuser.
Diana Hartwick Why is it ok for Zimmerman to get away with murder chasing Trayvon and this lady trying to get away from her abuser (her husband) in her own home for fear of her safety? If you have a law like that... then it should be for everyone and if it isn't then repeal it!
Colleen Williams The husband should have been jailed, not her. I realize that Florida hates women, and that the GOP hates women, but we do vote, and we are going to vote vagina haters out of office.
susan gere Unequal justice in FL... what a surprise. people: Register to Vote, get your neighbors and friends to register, then Vote these bad judges and lawmakers OUT.
Sequoyah Lindsey-Taylor If this scenario is true.. then the husband should be brought up on charges b/c he violated a protection order. Also lets note that no one was harmed in this incident.
kay fogleman This is just one more case that is so UNJUST !!! Our judicial system needs to get rid of a lot of these judges that do not look closely at their cases.There is NO reason this young mother should be charged with anything let alone be in jail !
Carrie Gordon This is ridiculous! The police need to concentrate on the people who are actually committing murder, not those trying to defend themselves. I lived in Jacksonville for 20 years before moving to Illinois. I find it hard to believe that the good people of that city would let an injustice like this be allowed to continue! Marissa Alexander deserves her freedom!
Vanessa Styles I am appalled by this case, what is America coming to, we send our soldiers to fight in other countries to help the people, what about the Americans here who are being mistreated. I an praying for you and your family Marissa.
Bobby Crumbley Its the right thing to do....
Posted by TheBlueSquirrel.org: My Left Nut
About
This is about what WE, THE PEOPLE, can do to make politics work for WE, THE PEOPLE. No child should go hungry, no family should sleep on the street, medical care is a right of every person born on this earth.
Mission
It is my goal to bring a message that I have been carrying in my heart for most of my life. I believe people are for the most part good but fear the unknown and those that maybe different. I have spent 30 plus years writing documents for the court, letters to my clients, pleas for the poor, homeless, uneducated, disabled, injured, abused and have contacted all of my representatives and most of yours...wherever you may live in the United States.
Someone needs to help. Someone who isn't making a profit off of their troubles, your troubles, my troubles. I believe that everyone should stand up for those who can not stand up for themselves. You may believe me gullible. You may believe me naive. I don't care. It is my goal that no child should go hungry, no family should sleep on the street, medical care is a right of every person born on this earth. Some have labeled me a socialist. A liberal. A bleeding heart. The supporter of a freeloading society. I wear those labels as badges.
It is my belief that immigration issues cannot be handled by building ridiculously high fences and sending every one that has been in this country illegally or was brought here as a child illegally and who is now ready for college to be sent "home." This is home. We depend on them to fulfill jobs, pay taxes and purchase goods. Many are our neighbors, friends and colleagues. We need to pass the Dream Act and sit down and work out a reasonable plan to put long time illegals onto a path of citizenship. To do less is inhumane, costly and in many cases "just plain stupid."
I do not believe that a corporation has any constitutional rights and that the Supreme Court failed in their duties and changed my view of the law and of our Constitution in the decisions of Gore v. Bush and Citizens United v. FEC. The Filibuster and other rules of Congress that prevent laws from being debated should be forever banned. The House of Representatives and the Senate work for us...not for Corporations, lobbyists, the uber rich. They work for the homeless, the third grader that has no desk in an overcrowded classroom, the hungry family of 6 that lives in a one room apartment. The Koch brothers, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Fox News are not in charge of our country and to the extent they have attempted to take it, we must take it back.
We need to roll up our sleeves, stop fighting and work this out. I plan on pointing out what we can do, where it can be done, who to contact and how it may help every chance I get. Facebook has allowed us the ability to reach out and discuss our similarities and our differences and learn from each other. But we must do more than "talk." I will try not to sound preachy, but some might find that they don't like what I have to say. As long as we remain civil, all views will be respected and I will listen. I hope you all will join me in this adventure that some call "Life." Welcome.DescriptionI was born in Kansas to a Republican elected Sheriff and a beautiful, hard-working and giving Republican wife. At very young ages, they realized that they had liberal hearts. They left Kansas and headed to Colorado in the early 60's and were lifelong liberals. They raised me to help my neighbor and to look to the political process for putting into place the laws that would govern our lives. I am a self-described bleeding heart liberal. I went to law school and found myself a liberal husband and raised two liberal hard-working kids with kind hearts and big dreams. I, too, have big dreams.
http://www.thebluesquirrel.org
http://www.thebluesquirreldiary.com
On August 1 2010, my premature baby girl, born nine days earlier, was in the Baptist South N.I.C.U. fighting for her life and I would too be fighting for my life in my own home against an attack from my husband.
My name is Marissa Alexander, I am a mother of three children, but at the present time, I am not able to be with them due to the following circumstances. I am currently sitting in the Pretrial Detention Facility in Jacksonville FL, Duval County awaiting a sentence for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon with no intent to harm. Before my life changed drastically on that August afternoon, I was in the perilous position of leaving an abusive relationship with my husband who has history of violence and documented domestic abuse towards women. Our history included one which required me to place an injunction for protection against violence and was active during the month of August 2010.
In an unprovoked jealous rage, my husband violently confronted me while using the restroom. He assaulted me, shoving, strangling and holding me against my will, preventing me from fleeing all while I begged for him to leave. After a minute or two of trying to escape, I was able to make it to the garage where my truck was parked, but in my haste to leave I realized my keys were missing. I tried to open the garage but there was a mechanical failure. I was unable to leave, trapped in the dark with no way out. For protection against further assault I retrieved my weapon; which is registered and I have a concealed weapon permit. Trapped, no phone, I entered back into my home to either leave through another exit or obtain my cell phone.
He and my two stepsons were supposed to be exiting the house thru the front door, but he didn’t leave. Instead he came into the kitchen that leads to the garage and realized I was unable to leave. Instead of leaving thru the front door where his vehicle was parked outside of the garage, he came into the kitchen by himself. I was terrified from the first encounter and feared he came to do as he had threatened. The weapon was in my right hand down by my side and he yelled, “Bitch I will kill you!”, and charged toward me. In fear and desperate attempt, I lifted my weapon up, turned away and discharged a single shot in the wall up in the ceiling. As I stood my ground it prevented him from doing what he threatened and he ran out of the home. Outside of the home, he contacted the police and falsely reported that I shot at him and his sons. The police arrived and I was taken into custody.
I was devastated and would continue to be for months following the incident. I had to appear in court all the way up until trial as I plead not guilty and know that I acted in self-defense. I believe my actions saved my life or prevented further harm, but preserved that of my husband who was completely irrational, extremely violent, and unpredictable that day.
Florida has a self-defense law and it includes the right to stand your ground. Below are the facts of my concern with the incorrect way the law was applied and ultimately the injustice in my case.
·The alleged victim, my husband, under sworn statement in November 2010, admitted he was the aggressor, threatened my life and was so enraged he didn’t know what he would do.
·The alleged victim, my husband, was arrested for domestic violence two times, once for abuse against me. The attack against me was so violent; I ended up in the hospital.
·Prior to my arrest, I told the office I was in fear for my life due to the prior violence against me. I also told the officer there was a domestic injunction in place to protect me against abuse from the alleged victim. This information was written in detail by the officer in my arrest report, but ignored for some unknown reason.
·In July of 2011, a hearing was held, where I along with the alleged victims testified as it relates to the stand your ground law and its immunity from prosecution.
·After the hearing, Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt denied my motion, citing that I could have exited the house thru the master bedroom window, front door, and/or sliding glass back door. The law specifically states: No duty to retreat.
·My attorney entered a standing objection on the record to the ruling and we proceeded to trial.
·During that time, Angela Corey, our State Attorney met with the alleged victims. I also along with my attorney met with Angela Corey, John Guy, and then prosecutor Christen Luikart. I justified my actions to them and the truth as I have told it has remained the same.
·Knowing our prior domestic abuse history, Angela Corey was hard pressed for the minimum mandatory, which provisions allow for prosecution to wave those stipulations. I was not guilty, nor did I believe that was fair and just under the circumstances. She also allowed for those same provisions in the State vs. Vonda Parker, same charges different circumstances which did not include self-defense.
·Florida uses a law commonly known as 10-20-life as a sentencing guideline when a felony takes place with the use of a weapon. Under this statute, my felony charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to harm carries a twenty year mandatory sentence.
·Stand your ground law has been applied in multiple recent incidents, the following is just a couple of incidents. Carl Kroppman Jr was allowed to use this law to avoid being arrested/charged during a road rage incident on the Buckman Bridge in Jacksonville, FL in August of 2011. Marqualle Woolbright of Ocala, FL avoided murder charges due to the stand your ground law when he shoot and killed someone.
I am a law abiding citizen and I take great pride in my liberty, rights, and privileges as one. I have vehemently proclaimed my innocence and my actions that day. The enigma I face since that fateful day I was charged through trial, does the law cover and apply to me too?
A step further and more importantly is in light of recent news, is justice for all include everyone, regardless of gender, race or aristocratic dichotomies. I simply want my story heard, reviewed and the egregious way in which my case was handled from start to finish serve as an eye opener for all and especially those responsible for upholding judicial affairs.
The threat that day was very real, imminent, and the battery on me occurred minutes before the decision I made to protect myself. That decision was a last resort, necessary and a reaction to the continued threat on my life. I am a believer that grace allowed for my response to be carried out in a non-lethal manner. This prevented the imminent threat and harm a non-fatal tactic, but not against an unknown attacker, rather my very own husband. That was by far the most difficult position to be in nine days after giving birth to a six week premature infant. My heart goes out for my two stepsons and always has had a hurt and sincere empathy for them being subjected innocently to that trauma.
The law states that I was justified in standing my ground and meeting force with force up to including deadly force, but political views and concerns states otherwise in the 4th circuit court.
So my last questions and valid concerns are what was I supposed to do that day and the stand your ground law who is it for?
Sincerely,
Lincoln B. Alexander Jr on behalf of Marissa Alexander
Why People Are Signing:
Staci Bigelow I am signing because Marissa did the right thing and this is bullshit. You can't enforce the law against one person and not the other.
Karen Christine Villegas I was an abused spouse and the laws need to be changed to protect the abused and not the abuser.
Diana Hartwick Why is it ok for Zimmerman to get away with murder chasing Trayvon and this lady trying to get away from her abuser (her husband) in her own home for fear of her safety? If you have a law like that... then it should be for everyone and if it isn't then repeal it!
Colleen Williams The husband should have been jailed, not her. I realize that Florida hates women, and that the GOP hates women, but we do vote, and we are going to vote vagina haters out of office.
susan gere Unequal justice in FL... what a surprise. people: Register to Vote, get your neighbors and friends to register, then Vote these bad judges and lawmakers OUT.
Sequoyah Lindsey-Taylor If this scenario is true.. then the husband should be brought up on charges b/c he violated a protection order. Also lets note that no one was harmed in this incident.
kay fogleman This is just one more case that is so UNJUST !!! Our judicial system needs to get rid of a lot of these judges that do not look closely at their cases.There is NO reason this young mother should be charged with anything let alone be in jail !
Carrie Gordon This is ridiculous! The police need to concentrate on the people who are actually committing murder, not those trying to defend themselves. I lived in Jacksonville for 20 years before moving to Illinois. I find it hard to believe that the good people of that city would let an injustice like this be allowed to continue! Marissa Alexander deserves her freedom!
Vanessa Styles I am appalled by this case, what is America coming to, we send our soldiers to fight in other countries to help the people, what about the Americans here who are being mistreated. I an praying for you and your family Marissa.
Bobby Crumbley Its the right thing to do....
Posted by TheBlueSquirrel.org: My Left Nut
About
This is about what WE, THE PEOPLE, can do to make politics work for WE, THE PEOPLE. No child should go hungry, no family should sleep on the street, medical care is a right of every person born on this earth.
Mission
It is my goal to bring a message that I have been carrying in my heart for most of my life. I believe people are for the most part good but fear the unknown and those that maybe different. I have spent 30 plus years writing documents for the court, letters to my clients, pleas for the poor, homeless, uneducated, disabled, injured, abused and have contacted all of my representatives and most of yours...wherever you may live in the United States.
Someone needs to help. Someone who isn't making a profit off of their troubles, your troubles, my troubles. I believe that everyone should stand up for those who can not stand up for themselves. You may believe me gullible. You may believe me naive. I don't care. It is my goal that no child should go hungry, no family should sleep on the street, medical care is a right of every person born on this earth. Some have labeled me a socialist. A liberal. A bleeding heart. The supporter of a freeloading society. I wear those labels as badges.
It is my belief that immigration issues cannot be handled by building ridiculously high fences and sending every one that has been in this country illegally or was brought here as a child illegally and who is now ready for college to be sent "home." This is home. We depend on them to fulfill jobs, pay taxes and purchase goods. Many are our neighbors, friends and colleagues. We need to pass the Dream Act and sit down and work out a reasonable plan to put long time illegals onto a path of citizenship. To do less is inhumane, costly and in many cases "just plain stupid."
I do not believe that a corporation has any constitutional rights and that the Supreme Court failed in their duties and changed my view of the law and of our Constitution in the decisions of Gore v. Bush and Citizens United v. FEC. The Filibuster and other rules of Congress that prevent laws from being debated should be forever banned. The House of Representatives and the Senate work for us...not for Corporations, lobbyists, the uber rich. They work for the homeless, the third grader that has no desk in an overcrowded classroom, the hungry family of 6 that lives in a one room apartment. The Koch brothers, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Fox News are not in charge of our country and to the extent they have attempted to take it, we must take it back.
We need to roll up our sleeves, stop fighting and work this out. I plan on pointing out what we can do, where it can be done, who to contact and how it may help every chance I get. Facebook has allowed us the ability to reach out and discuss our similarities and our differences and learn from each other. But we must do more than "talk." I will try not to sound preachy, but some might find that they don't like what I have to say. As long as we remain civil, all views will be respected and I will listen. I hope you all will join me in this adventure that some call "Life." Welcome.DescriptionI was born in Kansas to a Republican elected Sheriff and a beautiful, hard-working and giving Republican wife. At very young ages, they realized that they had liberal hearts. They left Kansas and headed to Colorado in the early 60's and were lifelong liberals. They raised me to help my neighbor and to look to the political process for putting into place the laws that would govern our lives. I am a self-described bleeding heart liberal. I went to law school and found myself a liberal husband and raised two liberal hard-working kids with kind hearts and big dreams. I, too, have big dreams.
http://www.thebluesquirrel.org
http://www.thebluesquirreldiary.com
Abortion Laws Proposed In Some States Would Buck National Trend, Expand Access
Posted: 04/24/2012 1:03 pm Updated: 04/24/2012 1:15 pm
Posted: 04/24/2012 1:03 pm Updated: 04/24/2012 1:15 pm
California State Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego)
introduced a bill that would expand access to abortion for women in her state.
Posted by Ruthe de la Rosa
Posted by Ruthe de la Rosa
WASHINGTON -- As many states debate and pass new restrictions on abortion, often against increasing resistance, a small number of others are considering moves in the opposite direction, weighing legislation that would increase access to and coverage of abortions.
A California bill awaiting its first hearing this week in the state's House would allow licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurse midwives to perform aspiration abortions on women in their first trimester. Four other states currently have similar regulations.
California State Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), who introduced the bill, said she was worried by the current tenor of the national conversation on abortion. "I think it's a step backward. I think it's targeting women and women's healthcare as something that is bad, when in actuality we need more and better health care, not less," she said. "We would like to see that negative conversation turn around and emphasize women's health and safe early access to reproductive services."
She said the tone of the discussion in her state has been markedly different.
"When we see other states rolling back access to reproductive health, the bills that we've seen in Virginia and other states requiring ultrasounds and lectures from the doctor to the woman -- those are not policies I support, nor do I think the majority of the California legislature supports those kinds of policies," Kehoe said.
The opinions of state legislatures increasingly determine the degree of a woman's access to abortion, said Elizabeth Nash, who manages state issues for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that monitors and supports abortion rights.
"A state may have anywhere from zero to one or two laws around restricting access, all the way up to a dozen or more," said Nash. "Your access to reproductive healthcare depends greatly on where you live."
Such differences aren't lost on Josh Brahm, the director of education at Right to Life of Central California, who moved to the state from Georgia.
"Georgia is definitely a more conservative state politically, which means they have the opportunity to pass a lot of pro-life bills that wouldn't have a shot in California," Brahm said in an email.
California voters have a history of opposing measures to restrict abortion. While 37 other states require parental notification or consent for minors to have abortions, Californians have rejected such notification measures three times in seven years. A fourth proposal is likely to make the 2012 ballot.
"If we continue to fail to pass a bill like that, I'm not convinced pro-life groups should continue spending money on legislative efforts in California, at least for the time being," Brahm said.
He added, "I think the short term goal in California, and perhaps every other state, should be to engage pro-choice people on the idea level."
Several other state legislatures, primarily Democratic-leaning ones, have contingents making efforts to secure abortion rights, among them the pro-choice advocates in New York who are pushing a measure that would effectively codify Roe v. Wade in state law.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers in Washington state also sought to expand access to abortion this year, proposing a bill that would have made the state the first in the nation to require that all insurance plans include abortion coverage unless they claimed a conscience exemption.
The bill passed the state House but died in the state Senate during a procedural fight over the state's budget. Supporters said they believe they would have had the votes to pass the measure, and they expect to reintroduce it in 2013.
Washington State Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-Tacoma), a sponsor of the bill, said the trend toward increasing restrictions elsewhere in the country had energized abortion rights supporters in her state.
"It's started to make people, and women in particular, realize how important it is that we push on reproductive health issues," Jinkins said. "Every time folks think, 'We have legal protections, everything's fine, we're going to be fine,' then this kind of stuff happens across the nation and people start to see how quickly you can lose those protections."
Jinkins said that uncertainty at the national level reinforced the need for states to take action.
"There's a huge attack on women's reproductive health," she said. "Everything from our access to simple birth control to the right to choose to have an abortion if that's what you decide to do ... It does make it more clear why in states like Washington, where we've had a 40-year history of protecting women's rights, why we need to make sure that we keep on doing it."
Efforts like those in California and Washington are still unusual, said Nash.
"We haven't seen much action around those proactive issues, around family planning, for the past couple years precisely because there has been a lot of defensive work that has had to be done at the state level," she said. But she said that public outcry this year could mark a step toward change.
"Certainly this year we have seen push-back in ways we were not seeing in 2011 or 2010," she said.
A California bill awaiting its first hearing this week in the state's House would allow licensed nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurse midwives to perform aspiration abortions on women in their first trimester. Four other states currently have similar regulations.
California State Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), who introduced the bill, said she was worried by the current tenor of the national conversation on abortion. "I think it's a step backward. I think it's targeting women and women's healthcare as something that is bad, when in actuality we need more and better health care, not less," she said. "We would like to see that negative conversation turn around and emphasize women's health and safe early access to reproductive services."
She said the tone of the discussion in her state has been markedly different.
"When we see other states rolling back access to reproductive health, the bills that we've seen in Virginia and other states requiring ultrasounds and lectures from the doctor to the woman -- those are not policies I support, nor do I think the majority of the California legislature supports those kinds of policies," Kehoe said.
The opinions of state legislatures increasingly determine the degree of a woman's access to abortion, said Elizabeth Nash, who manages state issues for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that monitors and supports abortion rights.
"A state may have anywhere from zero to one or two laws around restricting access, all the way up to a dozen or more," said Nash. "Your access to reproductive healthcare depends greatly on where you live."
Such differences aren't lost on Josh Brahm, the director of education at Right to Life of Central California, who moved to the state from Georgia.
"Georgia is definitely a more conservative state politically, which means they have the opportunity to pass a lot of pro-life bills that wouldn't have a shot in California," Brahm said in an email.
California voters have a history of opposing measures to restrict abortion. While 37 other states require parental notification or consent for minors to have abortions, Californians have rejected such notification measures three times in seven years. A fourth proposal is likely to make the 2012 ballot.
"If we continue to fail to pass a bill like that, I'm not convinced pro-life groups should continue spending money on legislative efforts in California, at least for the time being," Brahm said.
He added, "I think the short term goal in California, and perhaps every other state, should be to engage pro-choice people on the idea level."
Several other state legislatures, primarily Democratic-leaning ones, have contingents making efforts to secure abortion rights, among them the pro-choice advocates in New York who are pushing a measure that would effectively codify Roe v. Wade in state law.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers in Washington state also sought to expand access to abortion this year, proposing a bill that would have made the state the first in the nation to require that all insurance plans include abortion coverage unless they claimed a conscience exemption.
The bill passed the state House but died in the state Senate during a procedural fight over the state's budget. Supporters said they believe they would have had the votes to pass the measure, and they expect to reintroduce it in 2013.
Washington State Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-Tacoma), a sponsor of the bill, said the trend toward increasing restrictions elsewhere in the country had energized abortion rights supporters in her state.
"It's started to make people, and women in particular, realize how important it is that we push on reproductive health issues," Jinkins said. "Every time folks think, 'We have legal protections, everything's fine, we're going to be fine,' then this kind of stuff happens across the nation and people start to see how quickly you can lose those protections."
Jinkins said that uncertainty at the national level reinforced the need for states to take action.
"There's a huge attack on women's reproductive health," she said. "Everything from our access to simple birth control to the right to choose to have an abortion if that's what you decide to do ... It does make it more clear why in states like Washington, where we've had a 40-year history of protecting women's rights, why we need to make sure that we keep on doing it."
Efforts like those in California and Washington are still unusual, said Nash.
"We haven't seen much action around those proactive issues, around family planning, for the past couple years precisely because there has been a lot of defensive work that has had to be done at the state level," she said. But she said that public outcry this year could mark a step toward change.
"Certainly this year we have seen push-back in ways we were not seeing in 2011 or 2010," she said.
David Evans shared a link: "If you believe you are a student of human nature I suggest you read this story. I think you will get a lot out of it."
LETTER FROM EUROPE
In Oslo, Evil Demystified With Civility
By ALAN COWELL
Published: April 23, 2012
LONDON — As the trial of Anders Behring Breivik opened in Oslo last week, a friend e-mailed from New York with a question: Was it not a bit weird, he asked, that officers of the court took time to shake his hand, offering courtesy, deference even, to a man who had openly boasted of killing 77 people last summer in Norway’s worst peacetime atrocity?
He had a point.
Mr. Breivik’s court appearance seemed to redefine the banality of evil, recast for our time into images of the mundane — the Sunday-best tie, slightly askew; the slicked-down, job-interview hair, not quite perfect; the caricature clenched-fist salute — a Chaplinesque parody that would have been ridiculous if the crime had not been so monstrous.
The courtesies endured even as Mr. Breivik calmly, and without visible remorse, recited his memories of killing people so unused to such violence that they could not even flee as he reloaded. “They are unable to run,” he mused. “It looked really odd.”
He shot them anyhow.
And yet, the civility serves a purpose, said Thomas Hylland Eriksen, a professor of social anthropology in Oslo. “The decency and openness of the trial is our defense against him,” he said. Or, as Mette Yvonne Larsen, a Norwegian lawyer, put it, “many of the survivors who saw him today were relieved to see a little man with a thin little voice, which is not how he seemed before.” John Cooper, a British attorney, told the BBC: “This evil individual has been demystified.”
The conclusions inscribed a new chapter in Europe’s long and unfinished debate over the troubled interface of justice and terrorism, notably the challenge of administering the law without offering suspects a pulpit or an opportunity to project their cases as emblems of what democracies are supposed to oppose: the arbitrary deprivation of individual liberty, the hijacking of justice.
By coincidence, as Mr. Breivik took the stand, a comparable debate seized Britain.
True, there were sharp distinctions: the 33-year-old Norwegian was arrested almost literally red-handed after shooting down 69 mainly young people at a summer camp on the leafy island of Utoya last July, hours after a diversionary car-bombing in nearby Oslo had killed eight. His goal, he said in court, was to defend his country against Islamization and, because he acted out of what he termed necessity, he insisted that he bore no criminal guilt for the acts he admitted undertaking. (The court’s main task, in fact, is to rule on his sanity.)
Britain, by contrast, has dealt generally with terrorism suspects from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, some jailed after court hearings, but others arrested or otherwise restrained without trial while the courts consider requests for their extradition.
Take Babar Ahmad, a 37-year-old computer expert wanted in the United States on terrorism charges and held for more than seven years without trial in Britain as his lawyers oppose extradition, who said in a rare interview with the BBC the other day: “I have never been questioned about the allegations against me. I have never been shown the evidence against me.”
The taunts gouge deep scars. Habeas corpus and the right to trial are supposed to be central tenets of Britain’s centuries-old justice system. Yet, when those rights are subsumed into the so-called war on terrorism, societies that pride themselves on a commitment to the notion that justice should be seen to be done find themselves accused of acting in much the same manner as those who do not share that belief at all.
In the newspaper The Guardian, for instance, the columnist Jonathan Freedland compared the Breivik case to the United States’ decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks at a military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, rather than at a U.S. court in New York.
“By treating Breivik like any other defendant,” Mr. Freedland said, the Norwegian courts have given him a “global megaphone.”
Washington may have avoided that situation, he said, but, “by trying Mohammed behind closed doors,” the U.S. authorities “have declared there are limits to the open society, that the rule of law is not strong enough to cope with every eventuality.”
In Britain, the debate has tapped an additional vein of resentment over the role of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the final arbiter of extradition cases invoked by suspects after all other avenues of appeal have been closed.
In January, the European court ruled that Abu Qatada, wanted in Jordan on terrorism charges dating to the late 1990s, could not be extradited from Britain because a promised retrial in Jordan would be flawed. (In April, the same court ruled that another prominent detainee, Abu Hamza al-Masri, could be sent to face terrorism charges in the United States, along with five others, including Babar Ahmad.)
Last week, the British home secretary, Theresa May, announced that the European court’s objections to the extradition of Abu Qatada had been overcome by guarantees from Jordan of a fair trial and that he would therefore be removed from Britain. But she spoke too soon.
Very soon afterward, Mr. Qatada’s lawyers said her announcement had been made just before the expiration of a deadline to file an appeal with the European court, and so the case was reopened. In Britain, Ms. May was ridiculed for not having waited just a few hours longer. An editorial in The Times of London suggested that “either Ms. May or her officials are unable to count.” The government faced damaging accusations of ineptitude.
In London, as Oslo, in other words, the accused had upstaged the accuser. The difference was that Mr. Breivik had his days in court; many of those held in Britain have not.
A version of this article appeared in print on April 24, 2012, in The International Herald Tribune.
LETTER FROM EUROPE
In Oslo, Evil Demystified With Civility
By ALAN COWELL
Published: April 23, 2012
LONDON — As the trial of Anders Behring Breivik opened in Oslo last week, a friend e-mailed from New York with a question: Was it not a bit weird, he asked, that officers of the court took time to shake his hand, offering courtesy, deference even, to a man who had openly boasted of killing 77 people last summer in Norway’s worst peacetime atrocity?
He had a point.
Mr. Breivik’s court appearance seemed to redefine the banality of evil, recast for our time into images of the mundane — the Sunday-best tie, slightly askew; the slicked-down, job-interview hair, not quite perfect; the caricature clenched-fist salute — a Chaplinesque parody that would have been ridiculous if the crime had not been so monstrous.
The courtesies endured even as Mr. Breivik calmly, and without visible remorse, recited his memories of killing people so unused to such violence that they could not even flee as he reloaded. “They are unable to run,” he mused. “It looked really odd.”
He shot them anyhow.
And yet, the civility serves a purpose, said Thomas Hylland Eriksen, a professor of social anthropology in Oslo. “The decency and openness of the trial is our defense against him,” he said. Or, as Mette Yvonne Larsen, a Norwegian lawyer, put it, “many of the survivors who saw him today were relieved to see a little man with a thin little voice, which is not how he seemed before.” John Cooper, a British attorney, told the BBC: “This evil individual has been demystified.”
The conclusions inscribed a new chapter in Europe’s long and unfinished debate over the troubled interface of justice and terrorism, notably the challenge of administering the law without offering suspects a pulpit or an opportunity to project their cases as emblems of what democracies are supposed to oppose: the arbitrary deprivation of individual liberty, the hijacking of justice.
By coincidence, as Mr. Breivik took the stand, a comparable debate seized Britain.
True, there were sharp distinctions: the 33-year-old Norwegian was arrested almost literally red-handed after shooting down 69 mainly young people at a summer camp on the leafy island of Utoya last July, hours after a diversionary car-bombing in nearby Oslo had killed eight. His goal, he said in court, was to defend his country against Islamization and, because he acted out of what he termed necessity, he insisted that he bore no criminal guilt for the acts he admitted undertaking. (The court’s main task, in fact, is to rule on his sanity.)
Britain, by contrast, has dealt generally with terrorism suspects from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, some jailed after court hearings, but others arrested or otherwise restrained without trial while the courts consider requests for their extradition.
Take Babar Ahmad, a 37-year-old computer expert wanted in the United States on terrorism charges and held for more than seven years without trial in Britain as his lawyers oppose extradition, who said in a rare interview with the BBC the other day: “I have never been questioned about the allegations against me. I have never been shown the evidence against me.”
The taunts gouge deep scars. Habeas corpus and the right to trial are supposed to be central tenets of Britain’s centuries-old justice system. Yet, when those rights are subsumed into the so-called war on terrorism, societies that pride themselves on a commitment to the notion that justice should be seen to be done find themselves accused of acting in much the same manner as those who do not share that belief at all.
In the newspaper The Guardian, for instance, the columnist Jonathan Freedland compared the Breivik case to the United States’ decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks at a military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, rather than at a U.S. court in New York.
“By treating Breivik like any other defendant,” Mr. Freedland said, the Norwegian courts have given him a “global megaphone.”
Washington may have avoided that situation, he said, but, “by trying Mohammed behind closed doors,” the U.S. authorities “have declared there are limits to the open society, that the rule of law is not strong enough to cope with every eventuality.”
In Britain, the debate has tapped an additional vein of resentment over the role of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the final arbiter of extradition cases invoked by suspects after all other avenues of appeal have been closed.
In January, the European court ruled that Abu Qatada, wanted in Jordan on terrorism charges dating to the late 1990s, could not be extradited from Britain because a promised retrial in Jordan would be flawed. (In April, the same court ruled that another prominent detainee, Abu Hamza al-Masri, could be sent to face terrorism charges in the United States, along with five others, including Babar Ahmad.)
Last week, the British home secretary, Theresa May, announced that the European court’s objections to the extradition of Abu Qatada had been overcome by guarantees from Jordan of a fair trial and that he would therefore be removed from Britain. But she spoke too soon.
Very soon afterward, Mr. Qatada’s lawyers said her announcement had been made just before the expiration of a deadline to file an appeal with the European court, and so the case was reopened. In Britain, Ms. May was ridiculed for not having waited just a few hours longer. An editorial in The Times of London suggested that “either Ms. May or her officials are unable to count.” The government faced damaging accusations of ineptitude.
In London, as Oslo, in other words, the accused had upstaged the accuser. The difference was that Mr. Breivik had his days in court; many of those held in Britain have not.
A version of this article appeared in print on April 24, 2012, in The International Herald Tribune.
Rallies Set as Student Debt Hits $1 Trillion
Activists and students plan to hold demonstrations on college campuses and in communities around the country Wednesday to mark what they call 1TDay — the day when the U.S. student debt reaches $1 trillion.
Organizers said rallies and acts of civil disobedience are set for at least a dozen cities, including Newark, Del., home of Sallie Mae, the private corporation that handles billions of dollars in student debt. A massive rally is planned for New York City’s Union Square.
The events are being organized by the Occupy Student Debt Campaign, a coalition of groups from the Occupy Wall Street movement against corporate greed.
“Trillion Dollar Day is a reminder that private banks are still very much in the predatory lending business; this time it’s students, not homeowners,” said Andrew Ross, one of the organizers.
According to the coalition, 2010 graduates had on average $25,250 in student debts.
"I'm the first person in my family to go to college,” said activist Annie Spencer, a doctoral student at City University in New York. “I'm now $80,000 in debt and don't see a day when I won't struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who took on this trillion-dollar debt were sold the promise of a better life in exchange for carrying the burden, but the deck was stacked against us from the start."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Activists and students plan to hold demonstrations on college campuses and in communities around the country Wednesday to mark what they call 1TDay — the day when the U.S. student debt reaches $1 trillion.
Organizers said rallies and acts of civil disobedience are set for at least a dozen cities, including Newark, Del., home of Sallie Mae, the private corporation that handles billions of dollars in student debt. A massive rally is planned for New York City’s Union Square.
The events are being organized by the Occupy Student Debt Campaign, a coalition of groups from the Occupy Wall Street movement against corporate greed.
“Trillion Dollar Day is a reminder that private banks are still very much in the predatory lending business; this time it’s students, not homeowners,” said Andrew Ross, one of the organizers.
According to the coalition, 2010 graduates had on average $25,250 in student debts.
"I'm the first person in my family to go to college,” said activist Annie Spencer, a doctoral student at City University in New York. “I'm now $80,000 in debt and don't see a day when I won't struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who took on this trillion-dollar debt were sold the promise of a better life in exchange for carrying the burden, but the deck was stacked against us from the start."
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Senate Democrats Ready Bill Freezing Student Loan Costs
Wednesday, 25 Apr 2012 07:26 AM
Senate Democrats are ready with an election-year bill preventing interest rates from rising for millions of college students with federal loans. Republicans are already balking at the way Democrats would cover its $5.9 billion price tag: boosting payroll taxes on the owners of some privately held firms.
Democrats unveiled their bill late Tuesday, a measure that would prevent today's 3.4 percent interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans for low- and middle-income students from doubling automatically on July 1. The interest rate freeze, which would help 7.4 million people, would last for a year.
The congressional maneuvering highlighted the competition between the two parties to appeal to college voters, who leaned heavily toward Barack Obama during his 2008 run for the White House, and to address the broader financial pressures facing Americans in an economy still struggling to regain strength.
Not willing to cede any ground, Obama's likely GOP rival this time, Mitt Romney, has also asked Congress to temporarily extend the lower rates. Congressional Republicans say they too support keeping students' interest rates low.
That apparent agreement on the overall goal is not stopping either side from seeking political advantage.
"Republicans in Congress have voted against new ways to make college more affordable for middle-class families, even while they're voting for huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires," Obama told college reporters Tuesday by telephone as he flew aboard Air Force One from North Carolina to Colorado, where he addressed university audiences on the subject.
"This is a question of values," he added.
Obama was scheduled to speak to students Wednesday at the University of Iowa.
At the Capitol, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told reporters that Romney's call for freezing student loan rates was "a huge contradiction" because Romney supports the House-passed GOP budget. That fiscal plan proposed no changes in the student loan law, which would double the loans' interest rates without congressional action.
Republicans trained their fire on Democrats' plan to finance the bill by making it harder for owners of smaller, privately owned companies called S corporations to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on some of their income.
The proposal would apply to such companies with incomes exceeding $250,000 and whose revenues come mostly from the work of three or fewer owners. The higher payroll taxes would also be required for some law firms, doctors' practices and other professional services partnerships.
"Not only are they calling for higher taxes on small-business owners, they also plan to raid the Medicare and Social Security trust funds at the same time," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats released their plan a day after the government announced that Social Security's trust fund would be depleted by 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. It said Medicare's trust fund would run dry in 2024, the same as last year's estimate, but cautioned that the program's spending is continuing to grow quickly.
Senate Democratic aides said their bill would pay for itself with around $6 billion in extra Medicare taxes that would be collected over the next decade from the private companies.
That money would normally go to a Medicare trust fund for financing the hospital care the program provides its elderly recipients. Democrats said their payroll tax language would also raise $3 billion in new Social Security revenue, but that money would go to Social Security's trust fund and not be used to pay for the student loan legislation.
Top House Republicans said little about the issue Tuesday. Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, blamed Democrats for the potential doubling of student loan interest rates — a reference to the 2007 law that lowered rates to 3.4 percent but said they would automatically double in 2012.
"That's why Republicans and Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill will be working on this issue in coming months," Steel said.
Rank-and-file House Republicans said they were open to keeping students' interest rates low but opposed the Democrats' payroll tax increase on company owners.
"The proposal they're talking about is a dream world," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., a tea party-supported freshman, would not commit to supporting the overall bill, saying he wanted to study it.
Asked if Romney's endorsement of keeping interest rates low would sway him, Toomey said: "I'm aware of that. We all make our own decisions."
House Democrats said they are writing legislation similar to the Senate Democratic bill.
The Obama administration says a doubling of interest rates would cost the average student more than $1,000 over the life of the loan.
College students finish school owing an average $25,000 in loans. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated that 37 million Americans — about 1 in 7 — owe $870 billion in student loan debt, with two-thirds held by people under age 30.
There are about 4 million S corporations. They pay no corporate income tax, but their owners must pay individual income taxes on the company's earnings.
S corporation owners owe payroll taxes on the part of their income that they consider their salaries. They don't owe payroll taxes on the earnings they classify as their firm's profits, and they have great leeway in deciding how to classify the money they make.
Ninety-four percent of S corporations are owned by three or fewer stockholders.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Senate Democrats Ready Bill Freezing Student Loan Costs
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Wednesday, 25 Apr 2012 07:26 AM
Senate Democrats are ready with an election-year bill preventing interest rates from rising for millions of college students with federal loans. Republicans are already balking at the way Democrats would cover its $5.9 billion price tag: boosting payroll taxes on the owners of some privately held firms.
Democrats unveiled their bill late Tuesday, a measure that would prevent today's 3.4 percent interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans for low- and middle-income students from doubling automatically on July 1. The interest rate freeze, which would help 7.4 million people, would last for a year.
The congressional maneuvering highlighted the competition between the two parties to appeal to college voters, who leaned heavily toward Barack Obama during his 2008 run for the White House, and to address the broader financial pressures facing Americans in an economy still struggling to regain strength.
Not willing to cede any ground, Obama's likely GOP rival this time, Mitt Romney, has also asked Congress to temporarily extend the lower rates. Congressional Republicans say they too support keeping students' interest rates low.
That apparent agreement on the overall goal is not stopping either side from seeking political advantage.
"Republicans in Congress have voted against new ways to make college more affordable for middle-class families, even while they're voting for huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires," Obama told college reporters Tuesday by telephone as he flew aboard Air Force One from North Carolina to Colorado, where he addressed university audiences on the subject.
"This is a question of values," he added.
Obama was scheduled to speak to students Wednesday at the University of Iowa.
At the Capitol, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told reporters that Romney's call for freezing student loan rates was "a huge contradiction" because Romney supports the House-passed GOP budget. That fiscal plan proposed no changes in the student loan law, which would double the loans' interest rates without congressional action.
Republicans trained their fire on Democrats' plan to finance the bill by making it harder for owners of smaller, privately owned companies called S corporations to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on some of their income.
The proposal would apply to such companies with incomes exceeding $250,000 and whose revenues come mostly from the work of three or fewer owners. The higher payroll taxes would also be required for some law firms, doctors' practices and other professional services partnerships.
"Not only are they calling for higher taxes on small-business owners, they also plan to raid the Medicare and Social Security trust funds at the same time," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats released their plan a day after the government announced that Social Security's trust fund would be depleted by 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. It said Medicare's trust fund would run dry in 2024, the same as last year's estimate, but cautioned that the program's spending is continuing to grow quickly.
Senate Democratic aides said their bill would pay for itself with around $6 billion in extra Medicare taxes that would be collected over the next decade from the private companies.
That money would normally go to a Medicare trust fund for financing the hospital care the program provides its elderly recipients. Democrats said their payroll tax language would also raise $3 billion in new Social Security revenue, but that money would go to Social Security's trust fund and not be used to pay for the student loan legislation.
Top House Republicans said little about the issue Tuesday. Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, blamed Democrats for the potential doubling of student loan interest rates — a reference to the 2007 law that lowered rates to 3.4 percent but said they would automatically double in 2012.
"That's why Republicans and Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill will be working on this issue in coming months," Steel said.
Rank-and-file House Republicans said they were open to keeping students' interest rates low but opposed the Democrats' payroll tax increase on company owners.
"The proposal they're talking about is a dream world," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., a tea party-supported freshman, would not commit to supporting the overall bill, saying he wanted to study it.
Asked if Romney's endorsement of keeping interest rates low would sway him, Toomey said: "I'm aware of that. We all make our own decisions."
House Democrats said they are writing legislation similar to the Senate Democratic bill.
The Obama administration says a doubling of interest rates would cost the average student more than $1,000 over the life of the loan.
College students finish school owing an average $25,000 in loans. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated that 37 million Americans — about 1 in 7 — owe $870 billion in student loan debt, with two-thirds held by people under age 30.
There are about 4 million S corporations. They pay no corporate income tax, but their owners must pay individual income taxes on the company's earnings.
S corporation owners owe payroll taxes on the part of their income that they consider their salaries. They don't owe payroll taxes on the earnings they classify as their firm's profits, and they have great leeway in deciding how to classify the money they make.
Ninety-four percent of S corporations are owned by three or fewer stockholders.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Senate Democrats Ready Bill Freezing Student Loan Costs
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Thibodaux Playhouse, Inc.
IMHO: I want this VW Van! Rudy and I could travel the nation in this awesome vehicle and always be noticed. Well, I guess not. I'm pretty old and definitely poor, but what a nice dream.
Sex Advice From My Grandmother
One Nerve reader's eighty-four-year-old grandmother on sexual positions, STDs, and the importance of foreplay.
One Nerve reader's eighty-four-year-old grandmother on sexual positions, STDs, and the importance of foreplay.
BY ALISON DENISCO
When I was twenty years old and dating my first serious boyfriend, my grandma Carmela asked my mother point-blank if I was still a virgin. She didn't get an answer, but I came home on my next college break to find the now-infamous Grandma Sex Letter patiently awaiting my arrival, the grandmotherly cursive writing on the back of a newsletter from her senior housing facility belying its scandalous nature. What follows is explicit yet touching advice on sex and love from my eighty-six-year-old grandma.
My beloved Alison,
Now that you have become a complete woman, I want to give you my thoughts and hints on sex and love and a few lessons about people, from your grandmother who has been there to you who are just beginning.
1. To know if you are both in love, you feel a "connection" in bed. If you feel ALONE in bed when having sex, you are with the WRONG man. This is CRITICAL! The connection of mind, body, soul!
2. There is real love that everyone wants but it does not happen to everyone — it is called "soul-mates," spiritual, supernatural. This is the highest form of love — it is a religious feeling. You have found God. You know instantly, "love at first sight." You know he was meant for you and he is your real husband, and he knows you are his wife-to-be.
3. When having sex and the female does not enjoy it, I strongly recommend that the female gets on top of the man. It always works, the female has a climax and enjoyment. If he wants to perform oral sex on you, enjoy it!
4. Always make sure the man's penis is CLEAN. Make sure he washes it with soap and water before coming to bed.
5. Many men are PIGS. They want sex every day! You are not obligated to say "yes" to please him if you do not feel up to it. You never do anything unless you want to. To pacify the pig, give him manual stimulation!
6. Never, never do ANAL sex! You can get diseases, especially if after anal, he goes vaginal. Also ORAL sex is dangerous if there are cuts in your mouth, or sores. Men love it. Don't swallow his SEMEN! You can get throat STDs. There is no cure for herpes. Chlamydia and gonorrhea have no symptoms and can leave you sterile. You both would need antibiotics!
7. Some men are pre-mature ejaculators; that is very frustrating and bad for the female. He needs help to learn to control himself until the female is ready.
8. There should be foreplay to get the girl ready. As you get older, more experienced, you can skip all that and it is over in 7 minutes.
9. Perhaps you already know all these hints. I hope you find it helpful; I love you and do not want you to make a mistake. Never marry someone and say "Well, I can always get a divorce if I'm not happy." When there are children, you are never divorced. The ex-husband will be in your life forever, so make sure you marry the right guy.
10. Make sure you never marry an abusive control freak. When a man loves you, there is respect. He will be proud of you and your achievements — not jealous and needing to know your every move, or keeping you away from family and friends. Make sure he comes from a happy family with a loving mother and father who have a good marriage.
11. Never, never tell a boyfriend if you have any savings, inheritance-to-be or your salary when you graduate. Some men look for a woman with money. I do not respect such men! If he has credit card debt, DUMP him immediately! You only discuss finances with the man you want to marry.
12. Should you date a man who is stingy, dollar conscious, and you love to spend money, the relationship will never work unless you are a thrifty person yourself, then you can put up with him.
13. When dating a new man, do not feel obligated to have sex with him because he bought you dinner. To avoid this, pay for your own dinner. You are getting to know each other. You are not a homeless person who needs a meal.
14. Be happy, be with someone whose company you enjoy and you can't live without, and respect him. Watch out for womanizers, drunks!
15. You can make sure you know a man well by dating him on weekends and vacations. If he's unsure about committing, DUMP him. No excuses.
16. Hope you find the happiness you deserve. There should be love, respect, admiration, trust, and a mental and physical connection. If you find "true love," you will live happily every after. That is true.
Love,
Grandma Carmela
When I was twenty years old and dating my first serious boyfriend, my grandma Carmela asked my mother point-blank if I was still a virgin. She didn't get an answer, but I came home on my next college break to find the now-infamous Grandma Sex Letter patiently awaiting my arrival, the grandmotherly cursive writing on the back of a newsletter from her senior housing facility belying its scandalous nature. What follows is explicit yet touching advice on sex and love from my eighty-six-year-old grandma.
My beloved Alison,
Now that you have become a complete woman, I want to give you my thoughts and hints on sex and love and a few lessons about people, from your grandmother who has been there to you who are just beginning.
1. To know if you are both in love, you feel a "connection" in bed. If you feel ALONE in bed when having sex, you are with the WRONG man. This is CRITICAL! The connection of mind, body, soul!
2. There is real love that everyone wants but it does not happen to everyone — it is called "soul-mates," spiritual, supernatural. This is the highest form of love — it is a religious feeling. You have found God. You know instantly, "love at first sight." You know he was meant for you and he is your real husband, and he knows you are his wife-to-be.
3. When having sex and the female does not enjoy it, I strongly recommend that the female gets on top of the man. It always works, the female has a climax and enjoyment. If he wants to perform oral sex on you, enjoy it!
4. Always make sure the man's penis is CLEAN. Make sure he washes it with soap and water before coming to bed.
5. Many men are PIGS. They want sex every day! You are not obligated to say "yes" to please him if you do not feel up to it. You never do anything unless you want to. To pacify the pig, give him manual stimulation!
6. Never, never do ANAL sex! You can get diseases, especially if after anal, he goes vaginal. Also ORAL sex is dangerous if there are cuts in your mouth, or sores. Men love it. Don't swallow his SEMEN! You can get throat STDs. There is no cure for herpes. Chlamydia and gonorrhea have no symptoms and can leave you sterile. You both would need antibiotics!
7. Some men are pre-mature ejaculators; that is very frustrating and bad for the female. He needs help to learn to control himself until the female is ready.
8. There should be foreplay to get the girl ready. As you get older, more experienced, you can skip all that and it is over in 7 minutes.
9. Perhaps you already know all these hints. I hope you find it helpful; I love you and do not want you to make a mistake. Never marry someone and say "Well, I can always get a divorce if I'm not happy." When there are children, you are never divorced. The ex-husband will be in your life forever, so make sure you marry the right guy.
10. Make sure you never marry an abusive control freak. When a man loves you, there is respect. He will be proud of you and your achievements — not jealous and needing to know your every move, or keeping you away from family and friends. Make sure he comes from a happy family with a loving mother and father who have a good marriage.
11. Never, never tell a boyfriend if you have any savings, inheritance-to-be or your salary when you graduate. Some men look for a woman with money. I do not respect such men! If he has credit card debt, DUMP him immediately! You only discuss finances with the man you want to marry.
12. Should you date a man who is stingy, dollar conscious, and you love to spend money, the relationship will never work unless you are a thrifty person yourself, then you can put up with him.
13. When dating a new man, do not feel obligated to have sex with him because he bought you dinner. To avoid this, pay for your own dinner. You are getting to know each other. You are not a homeless person who needs a meal.
14. Be happy, be with someone whose company you enjoy and you can't live without, and respect him. Watch out for womanizers, drunks!
15. You can make sure you know a man well by dating him on weekends and vacations. If he's unsure about committing, DUMP him. No excuses.
16. Hope you find the happiness you deserve. There should be love, respect, admiration, trust, and a mental and physical connection. If you find "true love," you will live happily every after. That is true.
Love,
Grandma Carmela
Posted by Ivy Jo Cochran:
"This is funny & cute! I can see my grandmother writing this kind of letter."
MAXINE SAYS:
BLUE SAYS:
Have a great day, everyone. It's now Thursday. Only 2 more days until we can watch herstory in the making.
SAVE THE DATE - APRIL 28, 2012!
If you possibly can, get out there and MARCH! Someday you can tell your granddaughter's all about it! And for those of us already with granddaughters, you'll know you've done a good job of raising your children if your grandchildren are marching with you! A plea to all my readers: please send me pictures as fast as you can at rudyblue02@yahoo.com or on your Facebook page. I'll be putting them up on Saturday's Web Wanderings as fast as I can get them, and I'll update all day long. Then on Sunday, you all can sit down at your computer and see all the women who were part of this herstory in making:
APRIL 28, 2012 - WOMEN MARCH ON STATE CAPITOLS ACROSS THE NATION!
SAVE THE DATE - APRIL 28, 2012!
If you possibly can, get out there and MARCH! Someday you can tell your granddaughter's all about it! And for those of us already with granddaughters, you'll know you've done a good job of raising your children if your grandchildren are marching with you! A plea to all my readers: please send me pictures as fast as you can at rudyblue02@yahoo.com or on your Facebook page. I'll be putting them up on Saturday's Web Wanderings as fast as I can get them, and I'll update all day long. Then on Sunday, you all can sit down at your computer and see all the women who were part of this herstory in making:
APRIL 28, 2012 - WOMEN MARCH ON STATE CAPITOLS ACROSS THE NATION!
