The Political Voices of Women

During the past few weeks it seems that events in US politics have been moving at light speed. It’s certainly more than this blogger can keep up with. Fortunately, as I member of the Political Voices of Women Community I can count on my fellow members to keep me up to date. Here are excerpts of a few blog posts from our community. Enjoy,

From “Baker’s Dozen About Obama” by Ellen Keim

Here are thirteen of my “Obamic” impressions, for what they’re worth:

First of all, I hope people can separate what they think of Obama–either his track record or the man himself–from the historical fact of his presidency.

Second, I can’t even imagine how much pressure he feels to be the best for fear that he may ruin the chances for another black candidate.

Third, I never thought he was the “Messiah” as some did, so I never expected him to be super-human. Some people are getting disenchanted because they expected perfection and instant gratification.

Fourth, I don’t think people are giving him enough credit for what he has done, either because they don’t agree with it or because it isn’t their pet project.

Fifth, he hasn’t been President for all that long. Considering the messes he inherited, we should expect fixes to take longer than a year.

Sixth, I don’t think we have seen the positive effects yet of the way he has reached out to the Muslim community around the world.

From Marcia G Yerman, “Thoughts for a New Decade: What I Wish for Women“

As we move into a new decade, I can’t help looking over my shoulder at all the things I would like to leave behind.

VIOLENCE: Number One – Violence perpetrated against the female gender. Whether it is domestic violence behind closed doors in the United States, acid being thrown in the faces of young girls in Afghanistan trying to attend school, or rampant rape as a tool of war…It must end.

DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTH CARE: I would like to discard health care that doesn’t take into account the needs of women, and policies that don’t speak to the disparities in care for all members of the female community at the local, state, and national levels.

UNEQUAL CHANGE: I would welcome a roll back on the wage disparities between a woman’s paycheck and a man’s, taking into account a gap that is even larger for women of color. Moving forward, I would like more support for women working in the services sector, where wages are lower and benefits are commonly non-existent. More legislated awareness for the work/life balance issues that often drive women to choices based on the need for flexibility, as they seek to mesh family responsibilities with a career agenda, would be helpful.

From Margaret, “Free Speech and Corporations“:

Over the weekend, I posted a link on my Facebook page to a Keith Olbermann commentary on the SCOTUS decision that was issued on January 21, 2010. Now, I’m not a fan of Olbermann as a general rule, but I found what he had to say pretty much nailed what has me concerned about this decision. I don’t often publish anything on Facebook that is politically oriented, but I feel as if this decision has such far-reaching implications that it transcends “politics” and really has the potential to impact my daily life. In short, it scares the living crap out of me.

And from Onedia Hayes Sylvest, “Lifting the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy — Those Arguments Against Sound Familiar“:

I am a retired navy commander. I retired in 1994 just after the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy was begun. I thought it was insufficient then and I thought the reasons for taking such a half-baked (read another word there) stand was a little brass short of what it should have been. I also heard lots of reasons (and some of those are being repeated now by such people as John McCain) that sounded remarkably familiar.

When I first entered the Navy women did not have pants in their uniforms, they had to leave the service if pregnant, their husbands could not be claimed as “dependents” without proof that the navy woman provided at least 51% of his monetary support. We did not have top ranks or positions, there were no women with stars on their shoulders and we were denied access to many jobs/skill areas solely because of our gender. Women could not serve on ships or on aircraft and the primary reasons offered sounded almost identical to those I heard in 1993 and that I am hearing now.

I know that I served with gays and lesbians in the navy. Most were talented and dedicate. Some were not or even disruptive. However, neither the talent and dedication nor the poor performance and disruptive behavior were caused by their sexual preferences. The same traits and performance were equally present in both heterosexual and homosexual service people. In those days if you wanted to get someone eyeballed by the chain of command then feed the rumor of homosexuality. In my early days many people even assumed that women in the military were probably lesbians and if not they were either looking for a husband or were not of good moral character. The environment bred, I think deliberately, some level of hostility to any who did not fit the accepted image of what a sailor, CPO or officer should be. In the 70′ the primary targets were women and homosexuals.

This is just a sampling of what women are saying.

Want to read more? Why not join us and make your voice heard.

Thanks to Marcia G. Yerman for bringing Kimberly Hefling’s article, Female Veterans Struggle for Acceptance, to my attention. As Marcia noted in her comment on the post, “Military Sexual Trauma is a major issue.”

Sadly, it’s a major issue that is gravely under-reported.

In her article, Ms Helfing writes:

“Female service members have much higher rates of divorce and are more likely to be a single parent. When they do seek help at VA medical centers, they are screening positive at a higher rate for military sexual trauma, meaning they indicated experiencing sexual harassment, assault or rape. Some studies have shown that female veterans are at greater risk for homelessness.

Former Army Sgt. Kayla Williams, an Iraq veteran who has written about her experience, said she was surprised by the response she and other women from the 101st Airborne Division received from people in Clarksville, Tenn., near Fort Campbell, Ky.

She said residents just assumed they were girlfriends or wives of military men.”

Read Kimberly Heflng’s Article at HuffingtonPost

Unbelievable! It’s sounds like Sgt. Williams is encountering people who’ve watched too many episodes of MASH and taken the fiction as gospel.

But as one response to the HuffPo article indicates, even if people view today’s service women as more than the “girlfriends and wives of military men”, many are still unaware of the scope of the problems that they face. In his comment Kidorf asked, “Are you suggesting that those female soldiers are being “offed”?

Well, Kidorf, the parents of Army Pfc Lavena Johnson may well answer that question with, YES.

On July 19, 2005, Army Private First Class LaVena Johnson was found dead in Balad, Iraq. It has been reported that when her body was discovered in a tent belonging to a private military contractor her remains displayed a black eye, broken nose, burned hands, loose teeth, acid burns on her genitals and a bullet hole in the head. The military ruled her death as a suicide.

While it is yet to be confirmed by the military that Pfc Johnson was murdered, it is certainly clear that she and many other service women have been and continue to be subjected to various forms of abuse. It is also evident that their concerns (and those of their loved ones) are largely being dismissed.

The following is a video clip from a 2008 hearing held by The Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs’ on “Sexual Assault in the Military.” In this segment, you see Subcommittee Chairman Tierney and Full Committee Chairman Waxman practically threaten Michael Dominguez, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, with contempt after he reveals that he has ordered Dr. Kaye Whitley of the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to defy a subpoena to appear before the committee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi9Sb5nsnAM

In his opening comments to the hearing Chairman Tierney remarked:

“What’s at stake here goes to the very core of the values of the military and the nation itself. When our sons and daughters put their lives on the line to defend the rest of us, the last thing they should fear is being attacked by one of our own. We fundamentally have a duty to prevent sexual assaults in the military as much as humanly possible, and to punish attackers quickly and severely. We also must empower victims so they feel comfortable coming forward to seek justice and to receive help to get their lives back on track and to restore their dignity. Finally, we simply must ensure a climate in our military where sexual assault is in no way, either officially or unofficially, condoned, ignored, or tolerated.”

Another article which addressed this same troubling issue was “Rapists in the Ranks” by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a must read for anyone concerned about this issue.

In this article Rep. Harman wrote:

“The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center, where I met with female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41% of female veterans seen at the clinic say they were victims of sexual assault while in the military, and 29% report being raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and the downward spirals many of their lives have since taken.”

She also noted:

“At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to DOD statistics, only 181 out of 2,212 subjects investigated for sexual assault in 2007, including 1,259 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial, the equivalent of a criminal prosecution in the military. Another 218 were handled via nonpunitive administrative action or discharge, and 201 subjects were disciplined through “nonjudicial punishment,” which means they may have been confined to quarters, assigned extra duty or received a similar slap on the wrist. In nearly half of the cases investigated, the chain of command took no action; more than a third of the time, that was because of ‘insufficient evidence’.”

In the following video Massachusetts School of Law Professor Diane Sullivan interviews Kirsten Holmstedt on her book, The Girls Come Marching Home: Stories of Women Warriors Returning From The War In Iraq. In the book female veterans of the war in Iraq speak about soldiers dying on their watch, dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and the difficulties of returning home.

Recently, President Barack Obama announced that an additional 30,000 troops will be deployed to Afghanistan. Of course, a percentage of that number will be women. Regardless of how you feel about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t it time to make sure that the women who courageously serve in the armed services be treated with the respect that they have earned.

Related Posts:

Will You Become One of 25 Million?

Speak Out Against the Sexual Violence in Iraq

What Happens When Johnny Comes Marching Home

Before the post begins, I’d like to send wishes: to our readers in the US, Happy Veterans Day; to Canada and Australia, Happy Remembrance Day; and to every one else, Happy Armistice Day.

Now to the post —

Ok readers, you can get up off the floor now.

I haven’t suddenly lost my mind. But you know that I have to call them like I see them, even when it gets me into big trouble. So here goes.

In a recent interview with FoxNews on the topic of the tragedy at Ft. Hood, Ms Malkin stated:

“I don’t think that we have to play games with the rush to judgment anymore. I think that the bigger problem for the American government and their culture post 9/11 is that there are too many people still doing the rush to white-wash.“

She later states: “the red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.”

Friends, when Michelle is right, she’s right. Sadly, the rest of her argument misses the point and her statement is a few years too late.

During the rest of the interview, Ms Malkin blames the recent tragedy at Ft. Hood on “the military’s worship of the “false god of diversity” which, in her opinion, was placed before national security.

First of all, that is an insult to the military and all of the servicemen and women whom Michelle Malkin constantly criticizes liberals for not supporting. Shame on her,

Second, I submit that it wasn’t the military’s worship of diversity but rather the Bush administration’s rush to war with an all-volunteer military and a “see no evil” recruitment policy that opened the door to disaster.

In an April, 2008 post, I referenced a December 2006 article in the San Francisco Chronicle which raised very serious questions about the military’s recruitment policy. In his article, “US is recruiting misfits for army: felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks“, reporter Nick Turse wrote:

“After falling short of its goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military’s achievement of its woman- and manpower goals.

But the armed forces have met with success only through a fundamental transformation, and not the transformation of the military — that ‘co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology’ that Rumsfeld is always talking about either.

In 2004, the Pentagon published a ‘Moral Waiver Study,’ whose seemingly benign goal was ‘to better define relationships between pre-Service behaviors and subsequent Service success.’ That turned out to mean opening more recruitment doors to potential enlistees with criminal records.

In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was ‘a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms ‘serious criminal misconduct’ in their background’ — a category that included ‘aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.’ From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.

In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of ‘recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.’ In fact, as the military’s own data indicated, ‘the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001.’

One beneficiary of the Army’s new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven Green, who served in the 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been ‘a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an anti-social personality disorder.’ “

In that same post I mentioned, Paula Zahn’s 2007 report on “Gangs in the Military“. If you missed it, here’s an excerpt from the show transcript:

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): No one knows for sure just how many gang members are in the military. By some estimations, it’s less than 1 percent of all military personnel, hardly an epidemic, but enough to prompt the FBI to issue this report.

(voice-over): Gang members at military installations from Fort Lewis, Washington, to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have been involved in drug distribution, robberies, assaults, and murder. According to this 2007 internal FBI document, the report found that gang activity in the U.S. — quote — “is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security.”

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military men training gangsters on how to use weapons.

GUTIERREZ: An issue law enforcement is taking seriously.

Al Valdez (ph) is a former detective. He trains police around the country on gangs in the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s not illegal to be a gang member in the United States. And it’s a protected right. In fact, the head of Army Recruitment Command correctly states that. What happens is, they bring that gangster mentality within the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When these cats come back from — these gang members come back from Iraq, we are going to have some hell on these streets, because these dudes are coming back with training that’s on another level.

So, if the military was willing to overlook gang members, overt racists and felons, then it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me if they may have overlooked an Islamic jihadist or two. To be clear, I said “IF”.

Of course, Ms. Malkin may not read the San Francisco Chronicle or be a fan of Paula Zahn but there were other signs that the recruitment demands placed on the military by the Bush administration’s rush to the war in Iraq and lack of an exit strategy would have serious consequences. Where was her concern then?

Oh yes, I forgot. Ms. Malkin was busy labeling anyone who expressed a concern about the war as a “traitor”, “a coward” and “an enemy sympathizer.”

Yes, when Michelle Malkin is right, she’s partially right. “The red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.“

Related posts:

What Happens When Johnny Comes Marching Home

The Illusion of An All Volunteer Army

originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation

If you apply the Sarah Palin standard the majority of the people who lost their lives in that big-city, eastern, liberal bastion of New York City would not be considered as “real Americans”. Nor would those “Washington insider” Pentagon employees or the majority of passengers on Flight 93 meet the Palin standard.

And when you think about it, a large number of US troops probably do not meet the Palin “real American” criteria either.

Of course, as suggested by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), the media can always conduct an in-depth investigation to see if members of our military are “pro-America”. After all, swearing an oath of allegiance isn’t enough proof. And if you don’t tow the GOP line, being a decorated general and former Secretary of State doesn’t count for much either.

It doesn’t make much sense, and you might assume that because John McCain is the candidate who is a veteran himself, that his record on veterans’ benefits would be superior.  But, you would be wrong.  So, why is John McCain claiming to have an excellent voting record on veterans’ benefits and other veterans’ issues?  I imagine, it’s for votes.  He appears to be putting his campaign ahead of the welfare of veterans. What do you think?

Taking on McCain on Veterans’ Issues…

In the first presidential debate a couple of weeks ago, John McCain boasted that he’s always been a champion for veterans. I’ll take care of them,” he said. “And they know I’ll take care of them.”

Unfortunately for McCain, facts keep getting in the way of the claim.

In recent years, McCain’s ratings from veterans’ groups have been less than impressive. The Vietnam Veterans of America, for example, recently compiled a list of key votes, and found McCain voted against the group’s position 15 times and with the group eight times. (Obama, in contrast, voted with the VVA 12 times, and against it only once.)

Read more »

Dear Readers,

If the last few days have left you with the same feelings that you had during the run up to the Iraq War you’re definitely not alone.

Remember the WMDs that posed an imminent threat to America?

Remember the statements that implied that the Iraqi oil revenue was going to pay for the war?

Now the Bush Administration and The Fed are saying that we have a financial crisis that needs an immediate $700 billion infusion from the American taxpayer. Did you know that some of that money could be used to bail out foreign owned banks?

Within the next 24 hours, Congress is expected to make an historic choice in addressing America’s financial crisis:

Cut the Bush administration a $700 billion blank check for Wall Street
OR
demand sensible public checks and balances in the $700 billion bailout.

Well, before you let them cut that blank check think about this?

Remember the brave US service men and women who were sent to war in Afghanistan and Iraq without proper body armor.

Remember the appalling conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center.

Remember that the US embassy in Iraq which cost in excess of $600 million to build and is projected to have an annual operating cost of $1.2 billion.

Remember that President Bush vetoed a $35 billion expansion to the SCHIP program which would have provided health insurance to millions of America’s uninsured children. He said that we couldn’t afford it.

Remember the devastation caused by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and now Ike. There are still parts of New Orleans’ 9th Ward as well as many parishes in Western Louisiana which have yet to have all of the debris removed.

Remember that five years after the worse blackout in US history, the energy grid is still “in dire straits“.

Americans, Get Over The Shock Already!

Are you going to let The Fed, the Bush Administration and Congress rush through a $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street and the banking industry when all of the aforementioned have put America and Americans last time after time after time after time?

Now, I’m not saying that nothing needs to be done to fix this broken economy. But are you going to let them rush to a bailout like they rushed to a war?

I just took action with the Campaign for America’s Future to weigh in for common sense solutions. I wanted to urge you to do the same. Please write an emergency letter to Congress now, and tell them: **No $700 Billion blank check to the Bush administration for Wall Street!**

Enough is Enough!

Read more »

Here is a guest post by community member Doris Anne Beaulieu from Life’s Ultimate Test.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

How many of you watched the interview yesterday with Mrs. McCain? The word “we” was forever used and I wonder why? She stated her husband and her talk out ever thing before decision are made. Who is running for president? Should “we” be paying better attention to her as running for president? Why is this? Is McCain having trouble with his memory that she has to tell him what side he’s on or what he should do? Now is the time for these answers to be answered before voting date.

As for using McCain record in the military we appreciate his serving his country like many men have and we appreciate all who have done just as well but not recognized. My father served in WWII, my brother served in Vietnam and my son served two tour in Iraq.

First point I would like to make is many Viet.-Nam vets suffered a flashback after 9-11. As a nation we need to give this some though before voting and talk to a vet. Second point I would like to make is what men seen in a year in yesterday wars is seen by our troops in a week. A much harder war to be in and harder impact mentally. Please also think about this before voting. Palin can talk to us after her son has served a few tours in this war and let us know if she even has close to the same son back.

If McCain choose Palin because he wanted the women votes that Hillary had. Well I’m sure all women who have loss their children out of neglect will vote for them in hopes to turn that over too. Please think that whole game plan out too before voting.

Is the media giving John McCain a free ride? Why are they letting him continue to propagate the idea that Obama is unpatriotic?

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University found that 72% of stories about Barack Obama have been negative in the first 6 weeks of the general election campaign (since Obama officially defeated Hillary Clinton.) During that same period 57% of the stories about John McCain have been negative.

So much for that ad John McCain has been running about how much the media loves Obama. It turns out “the media” is actually giving McCain a free ride in comparison to their treatment of Obama.

Read more »

Here is a guest post from Cynthia Samuels from Don’t Gel Too Soon.

From the day Richard Nixon was nominated in 1968 until Tuesday afternoon, forty years later, when John McCain began running this “Love” commercial, Republicans have been running against us. All of us who share a history of opposing the Vietnam war and working to elect an anti-war president. Against everything we ever were, believed, dreamed, voted for, marched against, volunteered to change, spoke about, created, sang, wrote, painted, sculpted or said to one another on the subway or the campus or anyplace else from preschool parent nights to Seders to the line at the supermarket.

How is it possible that what we tried to do is still the last best hope to elect a Republican? They used it against John Kerry. They used it against Max Cleland. They did it every time (well, almost) they were losing policy battles in the Clinton years. They called CSPAN and said unspeakable things. And now they are using the history of people my side of sixty to run against a man who was, if my math is right, seven years old during this notorious “summer of love” which – I might add, had nothing to do with those of us working to end the war. In fact, there were two strands of rebellion in those years. The Summer of Love/ Woodstock folks and the political, anti-war activists.

At the 1967 National Student Association Convention in Maryland, I saw a room full of students boo Timothy Leary off the stage, literally. We didn’t want to “turn on, tune in, drop out” we wanted to organize against the war. The anti-war movement was not a party. I know that’s not a bulletin but it is so hard to see all of us reduced to a single mistaken stereotype. Those who chose to find a personal solution weren’t nuts; communes and home-made bread were a lot more immediate gratification than march after march, teach-in after teach-in, speech after speech. “If you’re goin’ to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair.” Tempting, romantic – and not us.

Read more »

The Bush-McCain Challenge