My name is Catherine Morgan, I'm a writer, nurse, mother, and founder of "The Political Voices of Women". This is a blog dedicated to inform and educate the voting public through articles, ideas, and links. It's also a way of giving myself a voice, rather than just sitting back and watching politics and my opinion go by.
--- I am now also at the Care2 Election Blog.
This is from a post by Erin at Queen of Spain and BlogHer. There is much more to her post, and I encourage you to go back and read the whole thing. This particular part of her post is about a Mother’s Day project that I was honored to be asked to participate in, along with other BlogHer contributing editors.
My mother’s political influence has always been one of support for my beliefs and has turned into a dual education on policy and issues. Her political world has been expanded by mine, but I am reminded at how very different our 18th birthdays were-and how far we’ve come.
As part of ACORN’s‘I Remember Mama Voting’ project BlogHers and others are weighing in this Mother’s Day.
Contributing Editor Kim Pearson writes, “But the most important political lessons were about my African legacy. She showed me South Africa, told me about apartheid, and said, ‘Always remember, we will never be free until South Africa is free.’ She introduced me to real Africans, made sure I read about the new countries emerging, and about their efforts to press their cause at the United Nations. All of this while we tracked each success and failure of the civil rights struggle, and talked about whether black women had any business getting involved in feminism.”
Contributing Editor Suzanne Reisman says, “My mom is not as involved in political causes as I am, but my family has always been Democrats surrounded by a Republican community. I just always knew that Republicans were not for us, although when I was older, I remember overhearing my father telling our neighbor a bizarre joke about my mom voting for Ronald Reagan because she thought Jimmy Carter had bad legs. I was utterly horrified at the thought. How could my mom vote for a Republican?!?! Fortunately, when I asked her about it, she had no idea what I was talking about, but it was my first exposure to the stereotypical notion that women don’t vote on the issues, but rather on a candidate’s attractiveness. I thought that was the dumbest thing any woman could do, and swore I would follow my mom’s example and always vote for the candidate who would help ‘the people.’ Thanks, Mom!”
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan writes, “I remember the first political discussion I ever had with my mother. We had been in a waiting room with many magazines, and I was too young to read any of them, but I did notice covers with horribly graphic photos of men at war. It happened to be towards the end of the Vietnam War, and I asked my mother, ‘Why is there war?’ She told me that people don’t want to be at war, the leaders of the countries make the wars. That was when I realized women were not in positions of political power. Then I said, ‘We should make women the leaders of all the countries in the world, and then there would never be any wars.’ My mother told me that sounded like a good idea, but it probably would never happen. My response was, ‘Then those men leaders who want a war, should fight it themselves.’ I didn’t understand then, and I still don’t understand today, how war solves any problems, neither does my mother.”
Rontun writes, “No, I don’t have any photographic evidence to prove that Satan’s inferno suddenly has been transformed into a winter wonderland, nor am I meaning to suggest that the threat of global warming has abated. But it’s evident to me that there has been a climate shift of cosmic proportions.
Let me explain. My mother, an octogenarian who’s voted Republican her entire life except in 1960 when she elected to support JFK because he shared her Roman Catholic faith, revealed to me on the telephone yesterday that she’s voting in Kentucky’s upcoming primary for Barack Obama!
This is no minor transformation, and it began as a direct consequence of the Bush administration’s war policies combined with the emergence in power of the evangelical community.”
L.K. Campbell says, “One of the biggest political arguments that I remember between Mama and Daddy happened during the 1972 presidential campaign. Daddy never voted for a Republican. If our German shepherd dog ran against the Republican incumbent, Lady would’ve gotten Daddy’s vote.
When he announced his intention to vote for George McGovern, Mama couldn’t believe it. Even though she was a registered Democrat, she was way too conservative to vote for McGovern.
‘You mean to tell me that you’re going to vote for that hippie-loving radical?’ she asked.”
Let me just start with this…Is there some way to “impeach” Howard Dean as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)? This whole situation is 100% his pig headed fault. I keep hearing him repeating over and over again, that Florida and Michigan are being “punished”, and that is that. Has Howard Dean ever heard of the CRAZY idea that the punishment should fit the crime? When a handful of people make a decision that is punishable…those people should be punished (not a couple million people). Howard Dean appears to be is on some sort of power trip, and as far as I’m concerned, he should be the one that is punished. He should be fired for making such an overwhelmingly irresponsible decision regarding a state’s right to move up their primary. Disenfranchising millions of voters because their state has moved up its primary, is just insane.
Why should the rest of the country care whether or not Florida and Michigan voters are disenfranchised? Well, let me tell you. In less than a year, Democrats need to win the general election, or McCain will end up in the White House. Need I say more?
I don’t care how they do it, but the DNC better fix this problem before it is really too late. I recommend all Democrats contact the DNC and voice their opinion on this issue. You can use their contact form or you can call them at 202-863-8000. This isn’t just a Florida/Michigan problem, this is a problem for every Democrat in this country. Take a stand. Insist that all votes be counted. This is the United States of America, we pride ourselves on our ability to conduct fair elections, and we DO NOT disenfranchise our citizens.
[As soon as I find a video clip of Howard Dean's comments from earlier today, I will post it here]
With no end in sight for the Democratic nomination fight, the past 24 hours have brought on a new round of debate over what to do about Michigan and Florida, including discussion of holding a second round of nominating conteststo award the two states’ delegates.
Govs. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Charlie Crist of Florida released a joint statement Wednesday calling for a resolution to the matter so their states’ voters are not disenfranchised in the nomination fight. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is open to a second round of contests but shot down suggestions that delegates be awarded based on the first primary results. “We are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game,” Dean said in statement Wednesday.
Dean’s missing the boat on the importance of the legislative system, something that doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s observed him over the years. The Florida Senate passed legislation enabling the earlier primary. The Florida House voted 118-0 to do the same—in May, 2007. Maybe next time we want to pass a law in the Sunshine State we better check with Howard Dean first?
The DNC hardline position is nothing more than a move to control candidates. Party of the people? Not. If Sen. Barack Obama had won Florida, you think the DNC would refuse to count the votes? Not. Try tacking on those 210 delegates to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s numbers and see how they look.
Clinton & Obama: Unite Democrats, Insist All Votes Be Counted — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
I know I am in the minority when I say this…But, I do not think that under any circumstances, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, should concede the Democratic nomination. At least not until every state has held it’s primary. This election is just much too important for that. Sadly, most would prefer Hillary Clinton bow out gracefully if she doesn’t have a landslide victory on Tuesday.
Top supporters of Senator Barack Obama, joined by at least one prominent Democrat yet to endorse a candidate, put pressure on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday to bow out of the presidential race unless she scores clear victories in the crucial big-state primary contests on Tuesday.
Like I said, “I don’t agree.” This isn’t just any election, this is an historic election. One where Democrats will be nominating either the first woman or the first African American to be our next president. And I think it is only fair that all Democrats (except of course Florida*), have an opportunity to vote in this primary.
If the candidates (and the DNC) truly care about uniting the party, then they should agree that regardless of the outcome, Clinton and Obama will run as a team. And then, from this moment, and until every state has had an opportunity to vote, Hillary and Barack should campaign on the issues only, and drop all the rhetoric and mudslinging.
I know this is a radical idea, and one that will probably not be adopted. However, by uniting the candidates, the party becomes united. And by allowing every state to hold a primary that “counts”, the DNC will continue to unite the voters in preparation for the general election. Let’s face it…How well has this primary system (of deciding the nominee before all states have had a chance to vote), served us in the past? Not so well.
It seems clear that voters want all votes to be counted, so why not just do it? I think it’s about time to recognize that the old system is not working. And the primaries are going to be held in every state either way, so why not let them all count?
Guess what? It’s not to late to do right by the American people.
Who will be the Democratic presidential nominee? Will tonight’s MSNBC debate in Ohio be the deciding factor? Let’s take a look at some pre-debate, debate, and post debate coverage.
During Women’s History Month, help make women’s voices heard.
WVWV is honoring those women that have utilized the internet to amplify their voices.
Nominate your favorite blogger by March 21, then check back to vote for your favorite among our top 10 women bloggers.
If you are reading this post, please take a minute to nominate one of the (over 300) Women Political Bloggers in our growing list. On March 21st, ten of the women bloggers who have received the most nominations, we be listed…and then the voting will begin.
Teaching Evolution In Florida Schools - by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
It seems odd (if not shocking) that the word “evolution” has never been written in a science book in Florida, and the teaching of evolution has never been part of the curriculum. Even with all the controversy over evolution vs. creation, I just always assumed that evolution was being taught in science class. That’ll teach me to “assume” anything again. But, on Tuesday, the State Board of Education voted to require Florida schools to teach evolution. So, you might think that this is the end of the story? Not so fast.
The State Board of Education was actually split in their decision, it was passed with a 4-3 vote. So three of seven people on the BOARD OF EDUCATION don’t even believe evolution should be taught in school? What? What kind of school board wants to limit the education of students? And then, there is the “wording” that will be used to update the science books. Some say the wording is meant to minimize evolution, in order to avoid teaching it as fact. Others are saying that the board was “tricked” into passing this, believing that the wording was supporting creationism and not evolution? So, where does that leave Florida students? You can decide for yourself, let’s take a closer look…
Florida’s public school science standards for the first time will use the word “evolution,” although the biological concept already was being taught under code words such as “change over time.” The new standards, part of a set of overall science changes adopted by the State Board of Education Tuesday on a 4-3 vote, require schools to spend more class time on evolution and teach it in more detail.
A bitter debate over how to teach evolution in Florida’s public schools ended — at least temporarily — with a compromise Tuesday. The state Board of Education voted 4-3 in Tallahassee to adopt new science standards that for the first time require evolution to be taught.
The majority selected a last-minute alternative rather than the original document created by scientists and science teachers after months of work.
That compromise, introduced late last week, inserts the phrase “the scientific theory of” in front of evolution and certain other concepts.
Opponents, who disliked both options, plan to shift their fight to the state Legislature.
At stake is the ability of our students to compete with students across the world on an equal playing field. Currently our state science standards receive failing grades both nationally and internationally.
Unfortunately, those with the most to gain through stronger science education are the most vocal opponents of the proposed standards. The facts are that the proposed standards are similar to those of every high-performing state and country whose students currently compete against the students of Florida for spots in the best universities in the country. It is also a fact that as we seek new industry and higher paying jobs for the citizens of Florida we compete against states that produce students with a more rigorous understanding of science.
My friend Kay B. Day, at Covering Florida, was kind enough to share with me her feelings on this issue. Here is what she had to say…
My attitude is teach it all, but frame it in the proper context. Evolution is a widely accepted theory and naturally it belongs in a science class, but I think a scholar, regardless of age, should be allowed to question anything s/he wants to. I do think there’s possibility for framing a discussion of intelligent design, as long as you frame it as a religious explanation, and frankly, I’d love to see all major religions included in that discussion. After all, most kids have some knowledge of creation from whatever faith they’ve been brought up in. Don’t you think they’ll have questions and ideas that can be addressed in lively, useful debate? As a freethinker, I don’t like to see creative exploration impeded. As a practicalist, I’ve come to realize that many scientific theories as well as many religious interpretations have changed over time. Consider the changes in science–from our usage of drugs and from our disasters like Thalidomide. Consider the changes in religion–now parables are often ascribed to myth, even by the devout. Bear in mind you’re talking to someone who is a rabid proponent of freedom of speech, even more of freedom of thought.
Until now, Florida’s schools weren’t required to teach evolution. The old curriculum guidelines didn’t even mention it by name.
That state education officials would approve the new standards was not a foregone conclusion. Since last November, 12 county school boards passed resolutions calling for classroom evolution to be balanced by “alternatives” — a polite euphemism for religiously orthodox explanations of life. The resolutions were non-binding, but raised fears that that the Board of Education would try to duck controversy by diluting the new standards.
Apart from being illegal, teaching creationism as science is a very bad idea. Students may not be permanently scarred by failing to learn about evolution at an early age — though the National Academy of Science would surely disagree — but, they’re bound to be stunted if told that evolution and creationism are even remotely equivalent in any scientific sense.
Yesterday’s decision is thus great news for Florida — and perhaps for the nation. Had Florida backed down, Texas — where a pro-evolution science education official was fired last year, and a curriculum revision is scheduled later this year — might have followed suit. Together they exert enough purchasing power to drag the nation’s textbook manufacturers with them, science be damned.
The creationist ignoramuses on the Florida Board of Education officially upheld evolution yesterday when they voted to approve “the scientific theory of evolution” as the “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” Presumably, they thought that the inclusion of the word “theory” is a slight to science - demonstrating an utter ignorance of the scientific process. In the battle against theocracy, this episode reinforces the lesson that a proper epistemology is more desperately needed than knowledge of any particular theory. Hopefully, students will now learn the meaning of “scientific theory” in addition to evolution.
The “academic freedom proposal” means Florida students are free to be confused — or hoodwinked– into thinking evolution is just a theory, as in a guess, or one of many equally valid guesses.
Those students already earn dismally low scores on science achievement in comparison to students from other states and countries — and their chances to improve just got worse.
So, what do you think? Are you surprised that evolution isn’t being taught in some schools? Do you think it is in the best interest of students to learn about evolution? I hope you’ll let me know how you feel about this issue in comments.
In addition, this is a complicated issue that spans even further than Florida. The issue of separation of church and state is an important one, and one that has become more and more “blurred” over the last seven years. For that reason, I have already begun working on a follow-up to this post. Once I am finished I will update this post with a link to the new one.
Where Do The Candidates Stand on Issues of Science? — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
It seems to me, the Bush administration has been a serious thorn in the side of science over the last seven years. That’s why it is so important for us to understand where our current presidential candidates stand on issues of science. What would they do about the environment? Stem Cell research? Global Warming? Well, we know a little more after science advisors for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, debated at the Annual Convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Saturday.
Clinton and Obama propose doubling the federal budget for basic scientific research over a period of five years; investing heavily in technology to produce next-generation biofuels; and advancing the fight against global warming.
They also want to remove what they say are the current ideological constraints on science, to return it to its rightful place in government policies.
“Hillary Clinton will end this assault on science,” said Kalil, who served as deputy assistant for technology and economic policy under former president Bill Clinton.
“She knows that innovation is critical for economic growth and high paying jobs,” he added, after outlining Hillary Clinton’s science program on a giant graph.
Ross limited himself to a simple oral presentation that was less structured as he invited members of the audience to visit Obama’s Internet site to get more details about his program.
Barack Obama’s “plan” for science was just posted on his campaign website issues page. The statement is short and generic at best, but he has also posted a three page fact sheet that gives more detail about his overall view. They call the fact sheet a plan on the issues page, but it is really a rather odd combination of statements about his record on the issues and statements about what he supports rather than a real top down plan for science. Overall, the document is very positive for science, but it lacks enough detail for any kind of substantive assessment of what he would do for science as President.
Instead of leading the world in oil imports, we can lead in green technology exports. The country that split the atom can end our dependence on foreign oil and launch an energy revolution. We can call it Energy 2.0 because we’ve got everything it takes except we have not organized ourselves to make it happen.
When science is politicized, when the truth is subjugated by ideology, it’s worse than wrong — it’s dangerous. Ending the war on science and once again valuing the ever-skeptical but always hopeful scientific enterprise is about more than our economy. It’s about more than our security. It is about our democracy.
I usually am not excited about watching these debates (I’m sure I must have mentioned that before), but I had a feeling tonight’s debate was going to be different. And it was. It was respectful, informative, and ultimately historic. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton came off as presidential, and I imagine anyone watching tonight could picture either of these candidates as the next President of the United States.
If you weren’t clear about where these candidates stood on the important issues before tonight, this debate most likely was helpful to you. As the last debate before Super Tuesday (when 24 states will hold primaries or caucuses), this was a “super” way for the voters of those states to get to know both Barack and Hillary.
Here are a few interesting moments of the debate.
After these two opening statements, I knew I was going to enjoy watching this debate. It was obvious these candidates were going to play nice, and I was very happy about that. Obviously, both Obama and Clinton were pandering a bit to the Edwards supports, but you can’t really blame them for that.
Tonight the Republicans debated in California at the Reagan Library. It basically turned into a mini slug-fest between McCain and Romney. Just in case you missed it, here are a couple of video clips and links to posts on the debate.
In a not so big surprise, Barack Obama wins the South Carolina primary. What was a surprise though, was the large margin that he won by.
With 99 percent of the electoral precincts reporting, Mr. Obama had 55 percent of the vote, Mrs. Clinton had 27 percent, and Mr. Edwards had 18 percent. — The New York Times
I hope the results of this primary has shown the Clinton campaign, that using Bill Clinton to serve as Hillary’s attack dog, is not the way to go. Ultimately, the only candidates that will benefit from this type of behavior, are the Republicans. And, even though John Edwards didn’t do so great in South Carolina today…He was the only voice of maturity and reason this entire week.
With that said…Barack Obama delivered another “slam-dunk” victory speech tonight. This is a man that can really inspire and empower a crowd. If you missed this speech, it is definitely worth watching…
In a news conference yesterday, Dennis Kucinich announced he will Drop Out of the Presidential Election today. Kucinich has been excluded from several Democratic debates and virtually ignored by the media. He will now be focusing on his re-election in Ohio. Here is a YouTube clip of this announcement from yesterday, I’ll add more information to this post as I get it later today.
To start with, the candidates didn’t want to do a full two hour debate, so MSNBC agreed to cut it down to an hour and a half. I was tremendously disappointed with this decision. Well, not really (I was actually fighting off a happy dance). Sorry, I guess I kind of have a love/hate relationship with these debates.
Overall, it wasn’t a bad debate. Who won??? Some are saying McCain (I think he falls on the economy, and he outright lied about a statement he made on the economy), some say Huckabee (I did like his explanation of the fair tax), and others are saying Romney (even though they says he’s a flip-flopper, he seems like he has a strong message on the economy). Ron Paul didn’t get a lot of time, but he did make some good points. Interestingly enough, no one seemed to think Giuliani was the winner (I would have to agree). I’m not so sure who the winner was, but I think it could have been Hillary (they actually talked about her tonight more than anything else).
There was obviously a conscious effort not to attack and fight with each other. The Republicans were definitely playing nice tonight, I know that probably disappointed the pundits, but it made me happy.
Here are some other interesting spots to check out…
Is The EPA Really Protecting The Environment? — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)
Why is the EPA so determined to refuse to allow California and 17 other states from setting stronger emission standards? If this wasn’t so pathetic it might actually be funny. Our country has this thing called the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As the name implies, this agency is designed to protect our environment. But oddly enough, the EPA doesn’t seem concerned with the environment so much anymore. In fact, the EPA has evaded disclosure of documents on why California’s emissions laws were struck down.
The refusal to provide a full explanation is the latest twist in a congressional investigation into why the EPA denied California permission to impose what would have been the country’s toughest greenhouse gas standards on cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles.
The EPA is claiming “executive privilege” - I can’t tell you how sick I am of hearing the words “executive privilege” every time an attempt is made to get to the truth about something.
Secrecy, secrecy, and more secrecy - These are the words that are the cornerstones of the Bush administration. Can there be true “democracy” in a government of secrecy? Does “freedom” exist in a country of secrecy? How can there be “unity” in the United States of America, in the face of so much secrecy? One thing is for sure…Global Warming will continue to thrive in this environment of secrecy.
The Care2 community is very concerned with the environment. If you would like to get involved with protecting the environment, here are a few groups you might want to check out…
My mother’s political influence has always been one of support for my beliefs and has turned into a dual education on policy and issues. Her political world has been expanded by mine, but I am reminded at how very different our 18th birthdays were-and how far we’ve come.
