Problem/Solution

Problem: The US has lost millions of manufacturing jobs overseas, we have millions of unemployed people - most of whom have at least a high school education. Tax incentives to large businesses have not increased domestic hiring of these workers who were formerly employed making things here in the US.

Problem: Increasing tariffs on foreign-made products doesn't do much to bring back jobs here, because it ends up closing markets to our goods as well.

Problem: Asking people to "Buy American" is hard when there's not a lot that actually does get made here anymore (though here's a good resource to find stuff that is).

Problem: Even with tariffs, products made overseas can be made for pennies on the dollar, because they don't much care about worker safety or child labor. So basically, we as consumers, and the stores we shop at, are getting bargain-basement prices while ignoring the fact that the true cost of those prices is the horrible conditions of workers - and the fact that many of the things we buy are made by children.

Problem: Given that bringing lost manufacturing jobs back to the US is an unrealistic goal, how then to re-employ the work-force who once held those jobs?

Solution: Create, or build upon, industries that cannot be exported. Examples:

• Infrastructure. Specifically, rail. Our nation is woefully under-provided with passenger rail. We could connect every point in the country with every other point in the country with a reliable rail network. Building railroads requires putting people to work on-site. Maintaining railroads requires keeping people working on-site.
• Infrastructure again. This time, specifically nation-wide wireless broadband access. Get people in every nook-and-cranny of the country connected. Installing and maintaining a wireless broadband network = jobs.
• Renovation. Making every existing building more energy efficient. Installing new windows, better insulation, solar panels, radiant flooring.
• Renovation again. Making every existing building less toxic. Removing lead paint, asbestos, mercury.
• Renovation again. Making every existing building accessible.

Now, I'm guessing that there are people who say that private industry should step up and do these things, and I would agree...if private industry were stepping up to do it. But it's not. And this is a perfect example of what the government can be really good for. Government can start the ball rolling just like it did during the '30's with the WPA. Spend money on infrastructure, create a robust national rail network. And, yes, high speed rail. Create a robust high speed wireless network.
Give grants or government loans to homeowners for renovations. Grants or government loans, instead of tax breaks or bank loans, since tax breaks and bank loans assume a level of solvency that not every homeowner has.
Give grants to school systems, organizations, and municipal governments for similar renovations.

Put people to work. Here at home.

On Blogging in the Open

I started blogging in May of '05, under the pseudonym "Mystery Mommy" (a mommy who liked mysteries). I blogged anonymously partly because I didn't want to be Dooced, but mostly because all the bloggers I was reading (almost exclusively personal bloggers) were blogging anonymously. I didn't care really if people outside of my bosses knew about my blog. I told Stevens about it. I told my friends about it. Heck, I told my mom about it.

Mostly, I didn't want to be googleable.

I came up with descriptive names for people when I wrote about them (my mom is "QuiltsALot", my dad is "MakesBooksForGrandkids"). I met several of my bloggy friends in real life.

So, along comes 2007, and I started having trouble blogging because the biggest thing going on in my life was just unbloggable if I wanted to stay ungoogleable.

But I found a way.

As time went on, staying ungoogleable became less and less important. I told more people. I told Stevens's campaign manager (Shaun Daniels, the World's Best Campaign Manager, Bar None). I told our '09 campaign staff. I twittered and facebooked. And I started this blog here.

And I was surprised at how long it took the Loudoun blogosphere to find me, because some of the folks in this arena are strong with the Google-fu (Hi Barbara!!).

The drawback to blogging in the open is that I am held personally accountable for the things I write.

The benefit to blogging in the open is that accountability breeds trust. Several of the people who responded to my questions for candidates told me that they were answering my questions because I blog under my own name, and they know that they have a remedy if I misrepresent what they say or break my promise to post their responses without editing or commentary.

Accountability, I has it. I get benefits from it. But I do pay a price. It's a price I am willing to pay, but I don't think you're wrong if you're not willing to pay it.

But here's the thing: If you're an anonymous blogger, don't whine that you're not getting the benefits of open blogging. That's the price YOU'RE paying for not having accountability.

Deal with it.

Peace be with you all

Yesterday, Stevens and I took our son to our church for an interfaith service in remembrance of 9/11. The sermon was beautiful, powerful, and moving. UU Sterling records each week's sermons, and I include it here.

Please give it a listen.

Brief note

While I have been LOVING the comments and the general level of discussion on the previous post, a few of the comments have rankled with me because they speculate about Andrea's state of mental health and...well...

I just wanted to say that not all people who are temperamental or hard to work with have mental illnesses.

Conversely, not all people with mental illnesses are temperamental or hard to work with.

I'd prefer it if we could talk about behaviors instead of motivations. K?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime...

I've been hearing a lot lately about "Liberty and Justice for All, Born and Unborn."

It is not justice to force a pregnant person into involuntary servitude for 9 months, risking her life and health. With no trial. No judge. No jury.

It is not justice to declare that the life and health of a living person is worth less than the fetus she carries. With no trial. No judge. No jury.

It is not justice to withhold life-saving surgery from a living person due to concern for the fetus she carries. With no trial. No judge. No jury.

It is PARTICULARLY not justice to do so when you are also working to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control.

It is PARTICULARLY not justice to do so when you are also working to prevent accurate sex education.

It is PARTICULARLY not justice to do so when you are working to cut funds to social services, day care, foster care.

...If we truly valued children, we would do everything in our power not to traumatize, deprive, or neglect them...

Until I see this, I won’t believe that “pro-lifers” care about life at all. I won’t believe that “family values” proponents care about families. And I won’t believe that those who seek to “protect” children care about children.

Matt Kailey at Womanist Musings

Oh! And in case you thought Choice is only about Abortion, here's a post that will better inform you.

And if you're interested in empowering young people to make reproductive choices that work for them, why not donate to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Foundation (the second button, it's tax deductible!) and help with their mission in Petersburg, VA.
(crossposted at Loudoun Progress)

Now, perhaps, we can bring our troops back home

I am glad Osama Bin Laden is gone from this world, and can do us no more harm.

Roads cost money

This is a basic fact. Roads are a subsidy government gives to drivers. To pay for roads - for the materials and for the road crews, governments use either bonds or tax money.

And if you're going to say that you want the government to stop borrowing money, cut taxes, AND BUILD ROADS, then I'm wondering where you think the money's going to come from. The Easter Bunny's been and gone this year.

So, I'm asking Shawn Williams, where are you expecting to get the money to pay for the roads you want built?

On Language

Originally posted in January of 2010. Posting it again, because it's become current again.

A good explanation of why thinking about the words we use can be complicated and useful.

And another one.
And one more.

There are words I have never used outside of a discussion about why one doesn't use those words.

Here are some words I no longer use because I have been the one who began the discussion by using them:

• Crazy (I'm working on not using this one, it's been hard to scrub from my vocab).
• Insane (same)
• Lame

So my commonly used phrases, "Things are crazy busy here" and "Things have been insane around here" are being slowly changed to "Things are really very busy around here" or "Things have been a whirlwind around here"

And, "that's so lame!" has become "MEDICARE FOR EVERYBODY!!! WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT??"


If you have words you no longer use because a discussion about why you shouldn't use them began when you did? Please add them in the comments, along with an alternative sentence that expresses the same concept.

Comments that ask what ever happened to freedom of speech* will be deleted from the comments thread, but I will keep a tally of them and will post a total later.

Comments that use offensive words just to use offensive words and not to offer up non-offensive alternatives will be deleted. Repeat offenders on this front will be banned.


*Freedom of Speech is your ability to create your own blog and say what you like there.

Thinking of Jimmy Dugan

A high school friend of mine went missing last week, when a dock he was on collapsed, and now they think they've found his body.

He was a person who was full of life, made friends easily, and will be sorely missed.

So I had a post planned for today, talking about how women's rights are being stripped away state-by-state, but I'm not going to post it. Instead, I'm going to send you to Shakesville.

And I will sit here, mourning Jimmy, and mourning our friend Chris, who died in a fire 14 years ago and who I'm missing very much right now.

I've been waiting 30 years for this day

Q&A

Paul (a friend of mine from High School) asks:

"Ok Liz, here's two questions. Do you miss living in New York and do you think you'll ever move back??"

And the answers are: I often miss living in NY and...probably not.

There is so much about NYC that I love: not needing a car; the parks; the Indian Restaurants in the East Village; the general walkability; living near my parents.

But I love Loudoun and Virginia too. I feel at home here, I feel that my being here makes a difference, and I'm hoping that someday it will be a county where I won't need to drive everywhere. Now, if only someone would get working on a transporter so I can see my parents more often...

Why?

You all know how I feel about guns (short version, they're okay by me, but don't point them my way), but I don't understand why the sale and manufacture of clips to hold large amounts of ammunition for handguns is allowed.

What legitimate need does it fulfill? Hunting? Not with a handgun. Home defense? What, 9 or 11 bullets won't do? Militia duties? Again, not with a handgun.

The combination of an easily hidden handgun and a large clip of ammunition increased the scope of Saturday's tragedy.

So, why? What legitimate purpose did the availability of that clip serve?

(Yes, yes, I know that the ammunition clip didn't kill and injure the people at that event, that the shooter did. But he wouldn't have killed or injured as many people without that clip.)

My thoughts are with the friends, families, and victims.

What my last name means

Miller. It's a very common name. Easy to spell. Easy to say. Almost...anonymous in its plain-vanilla ordinariness.

My former last name was not at all common. I was the only person in America with my former full legal name. Even in the days before facebook, it was a very obvious name. Many people all over the country had heard of at least one person with the same last name and asked if I were related to that person (usually my father's oldest brother. If not, it was my uncle one brother up from my father).

When I got married, I was happy to take on the anonymity of Miller. There are names I would not have traded for. In fact, a former boyfriend had a common last name that suited him very well, but would not have suited me at all. At 4'11", one does not take on a name that means, "tall building".

Changing one's name on marrying was and is a very un-feminist thing to do, and I consider myself a feminist. But Miller as a name was pretty darn seductive to someone whose name had been forever a thing to reckon with. Even my father pronounces it differently depending on if he introduces himself as Bob (emphasis on last syllable) or Robert (emphasis on first). So believe me when I tell you that I did not change my name lightly or without a lot of thought.

As a feminist, I think I made the poorer choice, the choice that makes it harder for others to remain themselves if they wish.

Perhaps the better choice would have been for both of us to have changed our names to something like Brown or Jones. I don't know.

I know that I made the choice that felt right to me at the time, and that still feels right to me as a person.

And the fact that men, in general, don't have to think about this? Is a privilege I haven't got.

But here's the thing. I got married in New York State in 1996. If I had wanted to marry another woman, I wouldn't have been able to, and still could not in NY or VA. So the ease of changing my name through marriage? Is a privilege.

Funny that.

It's a shandah for the goyim

Really, Israeli rabbis? Really?

Three dozen top Israeli rabbis threw their support Tuesday behind a religious ruling barring Jews from selling or renting homes to non-Jews - an indication of growing radicalism within the rabbinical community at a time of mounting friction between Israeli Arabs and Jews.

I am ashamed.

Veteran's Day

Thinking of those who have served and sacrificed. I hope that everyone who is currently serving comes home safe.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank

BitchPhD is going dark. I am so sad about this. That blog has been enormously influential to me. Not least because the lead writer taught me how to get my bras properly fitted. I hate it when blogs I love go dark. I hate it worse when they take down the site entirely. I really hope that doesn't happen with Bitch PhD.

I'll miss you and your co-bloggers, Dr. Bitch. Please come back.

For the sake of argument...

Let's take the other side seriously for a moment and assume, strictly for the sake of this discussion, that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and that it has the same rights as every other person has. You know that I think that's crap, but let's pretend it's not for now, okay?

An innocent person has a right to live, so an embryo has a right to live. (Hard to imagine an embryo as anything other than innocent, eh?) Killing an innocent person is wrong and we should prevent that. If we don't act to save that innocent embryo against its murder by abortion, we're as guilty of killing it as the person who performs the abortion is, and as guilty as the woman who has it performed on her is. Our only moral option is to prevent abortion, even if that means making it a crime to have or give one.

Seems pretty clear that, if we don't act to stop it, we are committing a moral wrong, because we are choosing to let an innocent person die. That's why we have to empower our police to arrest abortionists and their patients, our courts to prosecute them, and our prisons to lock them up. Heck, Virginia has the death penalty and prisons are expensive. Abortionists and their patients are not innocent. Execute them. If we don't, we're as bad as they are.

Some people point out that, if we use the power of government to control a pregnant woman's behavior, we're taking away her liberty. That's true, but we're talking life and death here! Any constitutional scholar will tell you that life interests outrank liberty interests under the constitution. So, government forcing choices on pregnant women is constitutionally okay, if that's what it takes to save an innocent person's life.

Right.

When was the last time you gave blood? Something like a quarter of a million people died in Haiti this year after a major earthquake struck their homes. Many died for lack of blood. Every single person who could have given a pint of blood, but didn't, might have saved an innocent life. But didn't. Why is that okay, but standing by and letting a woman make her own choice isn't? Because it should be your choice as to whether or not you give blood? How is it not, then, a woman's choice as to whether or not she gives birth? Because her choice kills and your choice doesn't? Sorry. You give blood, or someone dies. She gives birth, or someone dies. What gives anyone the right to compel a person to give birth, if no one has the right to compel a person to give blood? (By the way, giving blood is far less likely to kill you than giving birth.)

If an embryo is an innocent person, and it's morally wrong to allow others to kill an innocent person, and therefore we are morally obliged to compel a pregnant woman to give birth, are we not morally obliged to compel an able person to give blood?

Are we not obliged to compel every potential donor with a kidney to be tested for type and kept on file so their kidney can save an innocent life when that donor dies?

Heck, if you have two good kidneys, why should you be allowed to keep them both? Some people don't have one. Government simply must take one of yours or else some innocent person dies.

If you believe an embryo is a person and that government must force a pregnant woman to give that person birth, then roll up your sleeve. And keep next week open, too, because you're going to be due in surgery. Someone out there needs one of your kidneys, and by God, the government's gonna give it to him.

Nothing else would be moral.

Hey! Remember that "optional" CBPO?

Who wants to bet it stays optional?

Seems to me that pretty soon that law will be mandatory throughout VA. As a state, we don't have a whole lot of extra funds to pay out in fines to the EPA.

Meanwhile, one of the big items causing pollution in the Bay is fertilizer and farm run-off. Well, how about using some of that stuff to generate electricity instead?

I just saw that Loudoun gets a mention on the last page of the WaPo article.

EXCLUSIVE!!! Interview with Jeff Barnett: Pro-choice Edition

Jeff, thank you so much for taking the time to answer some questions for my blog. So let's start with the big one: where do you stand on Choice?



Thank you, Liz, for the invitation. The question you ask is a very important one to me, and it's something I've felt strongly about for much of my life. In a modern democracy - one that prides itself on being a free society - few things could be more important than a woman's right to control her own body. The decision to have a child should be made by a woman in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her god. The government has no place in that conversation.

What did you think of Cuccinelli's opinion on abortion providers in Virginia?




I disagree strongly with Mr. Cuccinelli's opinion. Singling out abortion providers for significantly stricter oversight is not so much an attempt to protect our health as an attempt to discriminate against certain outpatient centers and shut down clinics that perform abortions. I will discourage the Attorney General's office from using the people's tax dollars to crusade against constitutionally permissible and medically accepted treatment.

Would you be in favor of repealing the Stupak amendment [no insurance plan that uses Federal funds can cover abortion]?



The health care reform legislation was a monumental achievement, and we drew support from a wide variety of legislators to get it done. I won't do anything to jeopardize our commitment to providing medical care to millions of previously uninsured Americans.

If I have the chance to repeal the anti-choice provisions of the health care reform without damaging the law's broader goals, I will seize the opportunity. Realistically, however, I don't know how likely that is to happen right away. We got the much-needed votes to pass health care reform legislation from a lot of people who oppose choice, and we got them because the President gave his word that certain things would happen. The President isn't a man who takes his promises lightly, and I'm not a man who asks him to break them. Making sure these health care plans cover abortion is important. This is a battle that we're going to win, but not within the next few months.

The Stupak Amendment makes it all the more important, then, that we make sure that the other means of securing the procedure are available and fully funded. There are many private channels that we must reinforce in order to make sure that this procedure isn't only available to the wealthy. In the absence of public funding, we have an obligation as leaders to make sure women are aware of the full range of contraceptive, preventive, and emergency options available to them.

Do you agree that medically required abortions (ones where the fetus is already deceased, for example) should not be treated differently from other medical procedures and shouldn't require special insurance?


Yes, I agree. I understand why the issue of choice is, in many circumstances, contentious. People of good conscience can have powerful differences on these fundamental issues. But the idea that health insurance would not cover treatment that is medically necessary to save a woman's life is unacceptable.

Do you think that oral contraceptives should be available without a prescription?



Yes, I do: you shouldn't need a doctor's permission to take control of your own body. Nevertheless, I think that opponents of this practice have some important concerns that we should address as we move towards making a range of contraceptives more readily available. Oral contraceptives, like many drugs, affect the way the body works in significant ways, and they aren't without side effects, however rare. Furthermore, reliance on birth control that isn't being properly used can lead to some pretty significant consequences. For those two reasons, it's helpful to have guidance when beginning a significant new medical regimen of any kind, birth control or otherwise.

The way to fight the side effects of oral contraceptives and to make sure they aren't misused isn't with prohibition and restriction: it's with information and education. I believe that oral contraceptives should be available without a prescription, but I also think that it's important that, when possible, we continue to consult our doctors before making significant medical decisions.

Do you think that pharmacists should be required to provide legally prescribed medication to their customers and patients?



Yes. Freedom of choice and freedom over your body don't mean much if you can't access the medication you need.



Thank you again, Jeff, for taking the time to answer my questions.

Cesarean rates rising

I have, myself, had a c-section. Knowing what I know now, I'd have held off getting pitocin...oh well.

In any case, read the article on it from AP.

The Washington Post has another article on the rates, which does a lovely bit of putting the blame on moms. Let me tell you, one reason I didn't push (ha!) for vaginal childbirth is because my employer automatically gives 8 weeks off if you get a c-section, and only 6 weeks if you have vaginal.

Doctors tend to prefer c-sections because they get reimbursed at higher rates.

So let's all accept that there is more going on with this than "convenience" and "scheduling".