“What Being A Dissident Means”

I missed this earlier, but the New York Times also has short op-eds from a number of critics of the Chinese government, including the Tibetan writer, poet, and dissident Woeser. She writes:

China is not as open politically today as in 1989. The atmosphere in the 1980s felt freer — it was suffused with an enthusiasm for culture and ideas, with people craving and absorbing new thoughts. Although China has made enormous economic strides since then, it still insists on an authoritarian political system. This doesn’t mean that there are no avenues for an exchange of views.

To be a dissident is to express oneself publicly and engage actively in a civic discourse. For me, I blog, write books and reach out to the Western media. I began blogging in 2005. My blog has been hacked and shut down by the Chinese. Now I’m on my fifth blog. Of course, the Internet is also a double-edged sword; the dictatorship can use it to serve its purposes, sometimes as tool to hunt down dissidents.

I am a Tibetan, and my voice belongs to Tibet. Almost all of the official Chinese narratives implicitly or explicitly advance the control of my people and my land. When I see my people silenced, wrongfully arrested or persecuted, I turn to the Web to speak out for those who are voiceless. In changing China, the Internet is also changing Tibet and its connection to the world.

Tank Man


As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests by Chinese students in seek of democracy and economic reform, the New York Times has an amazing article of the accounts of the four different photographers who captured images of the lone man, carrying home bags of groceries, challenging a column of massive military tanks. This scene is undoubtedly one of the most powerful images of people in pursuit of freedom of the last century. To look at it is to feel a well of emotions at the strength and clarity of this anonymous act of defiance in the face of tyranny and violent brutality. Sadly, the Chinese government still treats the Tiananmen Square protests as something threatening, to be hidden from the citizenry and banned from internet searches. I fear that the defiance in this act is, in many ways, only felt outside of China as it should and does not reverberate through history with the same force behind the curtain of censorship erected, maintained, and continually modernized by the Chinese government.

Swan on Dodd

Tom Swan of Connecticut Citizen Action Group (and former Ned Lamont campaign manager) is one of the people I most respect in Connecticut politics. He’s a dyed in the wool progressive with a history of getting results, from forcing Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic Party to fighting for marriage equality and universal healthcare. Swan and CCAG have also done a lot of work around credit card reform, which is the subject of his Connecticut Post op-ed from yesterday on Chris Dodd’s achievements in that area and beyond. Swan writes:

That it happened at all is a credit to the leadership of our senior senator, who took on the banks and beat them. It’s no secret that Chris Dodd has been attacked from all sides recently. And certainly, public sentiment during the economic crisis helped make this moment possible.

But it was Chris Dodd — who’s been on the right side of this fight for 20 years — who held the line, insisting on much tougher protections than those included in a similar bill that had already passed the House of Representatives. As chairman of the Banking Committee and a 30-year veteran of the Senate, he shepherded the legislation through the chamber, drawing upon his unique ability to reach across the aisle to get some very conservative Republicans to join him.

In a career filled with big, bipartisan victories — the Family and Medical Leave Act, election reform after the 2000 debacle in Florida — passing meaningful credit card reform during a time of economic crisis may well prove the senator’s most lasting.

But the real winner here isn’t any public official, industry or interest group. It’s the American consumer, including the people of Connecticut, who have a right not to be deceived, misled or ripped off — particularly during a recession when they can least afford it. [Emphasis added]

Swan’s whole op-ed is worth a read, as it shows the remarkable scope of Dodd’s credit card reform legislation, which will surely go down as yet another piece of landmark lawmaking that will have a lasting impact on our country.

Ivy League

This is just hilarious. In a Washington Post editorial defending Sonia Sotomayor’s distinguished record from attacks on her gender, intelligence, and race, there’s this gem of a quote.

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove implicitly questioned Judge Sotomayor’s intelligence, saying in an interview with PBS host Charlie Rose that “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.”

You don’t say, Karl?

Specific Recommendations

Hilzoy has a number of very good, specific policy recommendations stemming from the Ezra Klein/Duncan Black premise that this is a moment for the president and Congress to show that Scott Roeder and the “pro-life” terrorists will not win in their effort to defeat the right of choice through violence and terrorism. Hilzoy writes:

One way to stop terrorism is by enforcing our laws. We should absolutely do that. But another is to make it clear that terrorism doesn’t work. We should do that too. And the best way I can think of is to change our present situation, in which only a handful of doctors perform late-term abortions.

Responding to Political Murder with Bold Politics

Ezra Klein, in addition to being one of the leading progressive healthcare journalists, has long been one of the leading male voices in the blogosphere in support of feminism. It’s no surprise that his response to the murder of Dr. George Tiller really drives home some of the lessons that I both think America should be taking from this and steps to ensure hateful, violent right wing activists like Scott Roeder do not win in the battle for protecting the right to choose. Ezra nails what I think is a critical point: the murder of Dr. George Tiller was a political killing. It was politics by another means, meant to produce a political and effectively legal result related to the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion in the United States. Ezra writes:

As The American Prospect‘s Ann Friedman writes, this has to be understood in context. It is the final, decisive act in “an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment against someone who was providing completely legal health-care services.” That campaign stretched over decades of protests, lawsuits, violence, and, finally, murder. The different elements were not always orchestrated. But the intent remained constant: To counter the absence of a statute that would make Tiller’s work illegal with enough intimidation to render it impossible.

This was, in other words, a political act. Tiller was murdered so that those in his line of work would be intimidated. In conversations with folks yesterday, I heard well-meaning variants on the idea that it would be unseemly to push legislation in the emotional aftermath of Tiller’s execution. I disagree. Roeder was acting in direct competition with the United States Congress. And it’s quite likely that he changed the status quo. Legislative language and judicial rulings had made abortive procedures legal and thus accessible. Yesterday’s killing was meant to render abortive procedures unsafe for doctors to conduct and thus inaccessible.

Ezra suggests Congress and Duncan Black suggests that President Obama should view this as an opportunity for to step forward and defend the rights already exist, to ensure their continued existence. From increased protection for abortion providers to increasing access to comprehensive reproductive treatment in hospitals to incentivizing the training of doctors who can provide late term abortions (and thus directly ensuing Dr. George Tiller’s murder will not effect the availability of late term abortions in the long term).

Dr. George Tiller was murdered because there are people in this country who have been told for years that “abortion is murder.” It’s no shock that in the self-proclaimed “pro-life” movement’s efforts to stop abortion from being legally available to women while describing it as “murder,” their members might resort to violence to prevent abortion from taking place. Tiller was previously the target of politically motivated violence – he was shot twice and his clinic was bombed and as a result, wore a bulletproof vest daily. The AP has put together a timeline of over a dozen instances of rightwing violence targeting abortion doctors over the last two decades. The pattern is clear: violence has accompanied legislative, judicial, and ballot initiatives by the “pro-life” movement to limit American women’s access to abortions.

It’s time for a bold, moral defense of the right to choose through legislative action. Anything less constitutes caving in the face of the violence of terrorists.