May 17, 2012

Choice and the budget

Editor’s note: This is a guest op-ed by Anh Phan, a National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) National Governing Board member who lives in the DC area.

House Republicans continue to show their utter contempt for American women by their actions. Will the Senate respond by passing a similarly devastating budget today?

Last week, the passage of a budget bill that completely cuts Title X, the federal family planning program for low income women, reveals a misogyny that is really hard to stomach.

For women of color, including APA women and low-income women, this is especially devastating, as Title X includes breast and cervical cancer screening, STI/HIV testing and birth control.

When 36% of all APA women have no health insurance, Title X helps to close the coverage gap on these simple preventative healthcare measures.
The message that this budget sends is a slap in the face to women, and low income women in particular. It says “You don’t deserve healthcare because you are poor.” To American women, it says “You have no right to exercise control over your body, especially your sexuality.” If conservatives really wanted to prevent abortions, they should be pouring money into comprehensive sex education and preventative health care, and expand access to birth control. They should do this by supporting clinics like Planned Parenthood which does all of these things to prevent abortion.

If conservatives really wanted to keep women of color from having abortions, they’d stop putting up inflammatory billboards in New York City and start providing culturally competent healthcare providers in geographic areas that have no medical facilities. They should empower women to be agents of their own sexuality and have greater access to birth control and emergency contraceptives. These are the most effective tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Of course, abortion is still legal, despite the anti-choice’s efforts to revert back to the bad old days. The Pence Amendment debate flared on both sides in the House but not even the impassioned relevation that some of their legislative colleagues have had necessary abortions moved the Republican majority and 10 Democrats who passed the budget.

The Senate has a chance to correct this awful budget today. Let’s encourage them to send a message of support to women instead of the damaging blow from the House passed last week.

–Anh Phan

Pakistan at Deadly Crossroads

AAA-Fund Blog Editor’s Note:  This thoughtful piece provides some background on the tragic killing of one of Pakistan’s best and brightest:

Pakistan elite silent after Taseer assassination

By Mosharraf Zaidi, Special to CNN
January 11, 2011 9:44 a.m. EST

CNN Editor’s note: Mosharraf Zaidi has advised governments and international organizations, including the U.N. and the EU, on international aid and development. He writes a weekly column for Pakistan’s The News, and other publications.

(CNN) — The assassination of Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer by his bodyguard last week seems to confirm prejudices about Pakistan as a country where moderate voices are in danger, where violent extremism is widespread and where investors aren’t very safe.

Taseer, ever the entrepreneur, the tycoon and the irrepressible Pakistani patriot, would reject that vociferously. If he could tweet his thoughts from heaven, the prejudiced would have hell to pay. His plain-spoken manner and blunt style were often a political liability. But for all his political faults, Taseer’s was a rare courageous voice.

He was murdered for speaking out in defense of a poor, defenseless Christian woman in a village — something few dared to do. It was Taseer’s unambiguous morality in his speaking out for the weak that captured imaginations of those neutral Pakistanis keen to see reason as a dominant force in their country.

Taseer was unique in life and stands virtually alone in death. The deafening silence among the pygmies that make up the rank-and-file of the Pakistani elite is the sound of fear and moral confusion.

The fear is genuine and real. More than the assassination itself, the mainstream reaction to Taseer’s murder exposes the cancerous immunity to reason in Pakistan’s Islamic discourse. Without expressing anything resembling blasphemy, educated and articulate Pakistanis chided Taseer, even in death, for writing his own death warrant. His crime? Asking for changes to the Pakistan Penal Code, whose blasphemy clauses have been regularly abused for social, political and economic gain.

The irrational right-wing Pakistani “Tea Party” is really no party at all. It is a lynch mob. And it isn’t tea that fanatics in Pakistan have been drinking for years. Instead, the Pakistani establishment has fed them a steady diet of nationalism, pan-Islamism and Takfirism [accusing a Muslim of apostasy.]

Unable to win elections, or compel social transformation on its own, the Pakistani right has always required the patronage of secret services and their financiers; American, Saudi or otherwise. It simply cannot survive without this patronage. The Machiavellian establishment, fueled by the clumsy intellect of military men and the dangerous cunning of civilian bureaucratic and political hatchet men, knows this. It is the only power base in the country that can truly respond to Taseer’s assassination.

In the heart of the most dynamic and exciting economic region in the world, Pakistan can still be a force for good. To do so, the Pakistani establishment has to take two sets of actions. The first and immediate is to mobilize the state machinery, swiftly and firmly, against those that openly call for violence.

This isn’t unprecedented. The Pakistani state has a long record of using busloads of cash, the British legacy administrative system of magisterial power, and a police force not entirely familiar with Miranda rights to obliterate dissent.

The second, the more complex and much longer-term task is the deradicalization of Pakistani Muslims. The religiously illiterate fanatic is a dangerous creature.

His blind rage is expressed in all kinds of wars that go far beyond religion. Pakistan’s class and caste wars are as old as the Indus River. Religious authority is merely an instrument of social mobility. Slaying members of the elite, even if it is not openly acknowledged, is seen as striking a blow for one’s oppressed class and caste sensibilities.

The 24-hour news media also feeds the rage, airing long and tortuous narratives that stimulate the indignities of being Pakistani in the 21st century. The U.S. war in Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s tribal areas is at the top of the list of these indignities.

Deradicalizing Pakistani fanatics is not going to be easy, but it may not be as impossible as it seems. In essence, it needs to be seen as rerationalism. Too often, critics view deradicalization as an attempt to strip Muslims of their identity or as an attack on the fundamentals of a Muslim’s faith. On the contrary, fundamental Islamic values of reason, knowledge and mercy need to be included in the mainstream Islamic narrative. These qualities are facets of Islam that have become subservient to blind rage.

Luckily, there are glimmers of light. Civil voices across the country demonstrate the establishment will not be batting alone if it begins to take steps to fix its own mess. More than 60 organizations have signed up to a call for resistance by the Citizens for Democracy.

Recently, activists in Karachi, including one of Taseer’s six children, registered criminal charges against a mosque leader who was openly inciting violence against Sherry Rehman, a former journalist and now member of Parliament who has submitted a bill for an amendment to the blasphemy laws. These are reasonable people asking for reasonable actions.

Bringing reason into Pakistan’s public discourse is a critical prerequisite for a society based on the rule of law and a political process that enhances the dignity of people, rather than undermines it.

Pakistan is teetering on the brink of economic collapse and political failure. For decades, Pakistanis have rightly spoken with pride of their society’s strength and resilience. Now is the time for Pakistan to prove its resilience once more.

Civil society can take the brave first few steps, but this struggle is one that requires the assets and resources of the state. Taseer’s assassination is a test of the Pakistani state.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mosharraf Zaidi.

"Too Many Asians"

Ed. note:  As Joe Mathews notes at FoxandHoundsDaily, some folks have gotten antsy that “too many Asians” have been selected for California’s redistricting commission.

Oh, No! Too Many Asians!

Terrible news! California has a big new problem at the heart of its democracy:

There are too many Asian Americans drawing lines.

The lines in question are district lines for Assembly, Senate, Congressional and Board of Equalization seat. The Asian Americans in question are four people from around California whose names were among the first eight people selected – via lottery — to serve on the new Citizens Redistricting Commission.

This over-representation of Asians is suddenly a concern for supporters on the redistricting commission, which is the product of two ballot initiatives, Prop 11 in 2008 and Prop 20 from this November. Those initiatives were supposed to create a line-drawing body independent from politics and representative of the state.

It remains to be seen how politically independent the commission will be. But the body’s structure puts the goal of a representative body beyond reach – and show just how preposterous the commission itself is.

Prop 11 established rules for a selection process that relied on a lottery to select the first eight commission members by lottery from a pool of 36 finalists. In the lottery, candidates who happen to be Asian were lucky, winning four of the eight spots. So now, as these eight commission members pick the next six members needed to fill out the commission, observers of the commission are advising them how to choose.

The Center for Governmental Studies, the state’s leading think tank on political reform issues, argues that the final six commission slots should include at least two Latinos, a mix of four men and two women (including at least one white female), and at least some members from counties that weren’t represented in the first eight.

Yes, my head hurts too.

Creating a representative body of 14 people to represent the 38 million people of California isn’t just foolish. It’s impossible. Fourteen is far too small a number to reflect the diversity of a state with so many different regions, dozens of languages, and nearly as many ethnic groups as there are on planet earth. Heck, the state has more professional sports teams (15 across the four major sports) than it has redistricting commissioners; at least one team’s fans will be left out.

Almost as difficult as 14 is 120. That’s the number of legislators California has – the same number the state had in 1879, when there were fewer than one million Californians. The notion that 120 people could represent a state of 38 million is also laughable. California’s legislators represent three times as many people as lawmakers in the state with the next largest districts. Our districts are 10 times more populous than the national average. No legislature is less representative of its people than California’s.

But these basic facts haven’t stopped the good government reformers of California from focusing relentlessly on the commission. They seem to believe in magic – that getting the right number of Latinos, Southern Californians and political independents – to draw lines will make some difference. So they are devoting precious energy, time, thought and money to the absurd project of trying to create a representative body of 14 that can’t be representative to draw lines for a representative body of 120 that can’t be representative.

The redistricting commission is a grand waste. It can’t change the politics of the state when there are only 120 seats. And it can’t draw more than a few additional competitive districts, given that Californians have sorted themselves into communities of the like-minded, with a blue Democratic coast lapping a red Republican inland.

So forget this pointless commission. If your goal is a more representative legislature, then the body must be expanded in size. (In the book California Crackup, my co-author and I suggest tripling the number of lawmakers to 360 and putting them all in one house). Elect those lawmakers to represent regional, multi-member districts using proportional representation, which would create political competition everywhere, make the legislature more representative of the different kinds of people in an area, and end once and for all the practice of partisan gerrymandering.

And guess what? California could have as many Asian representatives as the voters choose.

– Joe Mathews

Jean Quan's Victory, Crocodile Tears for Don Perata

From our New America Foundation friend Joe Mathews (reprinted from FoxandHoundsDaily.com):

I Cry for Don Perata

By Joe Mathews

Journalist and Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He is co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (UC Press, 2010).

It is terrible what happened to Don Perata in the race for Oakland mayor.

Did you hear? The man who ruled the state senate lost his bid to be mayor of Oakland. And it’s just so unfair, as many of Perata’s supporters have made clear. Perata’s consultant John Whitehurst declared that the election outcome had been “an injustice, and Oakland will pay the price.”

The problem, you see, was this new system called Instant Runoff Voting now being used in Oakland, San Francisco, and other cities around the country. In this system, cities – crazily — give voters more choice and avoid expensive runoff elections by allowing voters to rank their choices on the ballot, instead of just choosing one candidate.

So Perata, a fabulous public servant, won the most first place of any of the nine candidates running for mayor. He got 35 percent of those first place votes. But he lost because 35 percent of votes wasn’t a majority. The woman who finished in second place among first-place votes, a city council member named Jean Quan, won when the ranked choices were used to conduct an instant runoff. She had many more second and third place choices than Perata, and won when those were added to the tally.

Think about how unfair this is to Perata. Here he was, a prominent former leader in the state legislature who had by far the most money to spend in the race. And the public opposition to his bid for mayor was minor. After all, only two-thirds of the city’s voters didn’t see him as their first choice for mayor. And a majority of the city didn’t even want him as one of their first three choices.

So he totally should have won.

Or at the very least, there should have been a real runoff between the top two first-place vote getters in the interest of the taxpayers — instead of just the cheaper instant runoff that saved the taxpayers money. That runoff contest would have been a wonderful expression of democracy, with low turnout and a negative campaign in which Perata could have used his financial advantage to savage Quan personally. Which is how we conduct fair elections in a free country.

What injustice! I cry for Don Perata. I cry for democracy. And I cry for Oakland, and particularly that minority of voters who saw this great man as one of their three top choices for mayor – and didn’t get him because of this terrible system.

APA Leader Makes History

First Asian American Woman to Lead a Large U.S. City

Jean Quan narrowly defeats Don Perata for Mayor in Oakland’s first ranked choice election, becoming the first Asian American woman mayor of a large U.S. city.

From her press statement:

My family has lived in Oakland for over 100 years. My parents were poor immigrants. My mother was illiterate and my dad died when I was five. My parents worked in Oakland hotels, restaurants and garment factories. I attended public schools and went to UC Berkeley on a scholarship. As a college student I was founder of Asian American studies and helped organize tutoring programs for students West Oakland and Chinatown, and helped fight redevelopment removal of local residents there, too.

Come January when I take the oath as Oakland’s first woman mayor, I’ll take office in City Hall 8 blocks from where my great-grandfather took refuge in Oakland after the 1906 Earthquake, 6 blocks from where my mother-in-law and sister worked as garment workers, and 4 blocks from where my father was a hotel cook. I am grateful and humbled by the trust the voters have placed on me as their new Mayor.

Congratulations Mayor-Elect Quan!

– Kiran Jain

Commitment to Service

Ed. Note: Brian Wang is a field organizer for Ami Bera’s campaign. AAA-Fund endorses Dr. Ami Bera, Democratic candidate for the United States House of Representatives from California’s Third Congressional District.

The momentum is strongly in our favor and many experts have raised our campaign as one of the most likely races to defeat a GOP incumbent this year. We are poised to take this victory and everyone can envision our success. The third Congressional District in Sacramento is less than ten percent Asian and/or Pacific Islander, according to the most recent Census data, and new immigrants (e.g., Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders) are the least likely to vote of all ethnic groups. We need to make our voices heard and elect a leader who reflects the true diversity of our community.

With just one month left before Election Day, now is the time to get involved. You can make a huge impact on this race and help preserve the Democratic majority in the House. You can make phone calls from your home or office in any part of the country, as long as you have a computer with internet access. If you can help make phone calls, we can send more volunteers to knock on doors and make the one-on-one personal connections with voters that are more likely to result in getting their support. Our volunteers and interns are the reason why Dr. Bera will win this year and we will win with your help!

Please contact me at or 626-512-2249 if you are interested in volunteering or being an intern during these last two weeks of the campaign. We are looking for leaders who have demonstrated a commitment to service and we hope you will get involved!

– Brian Wang

CA's Future CJ

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated the first Asian American Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, a 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice . Justice Cantil-Sakauye will give the California Supreme Court a female majority for the first time in its history.

According to the Daily Journal, Justice Cantil-Sakauye was a deputy legal affairs secretary under former Gov. George Deukmejian. She  is a Republican and has been on the Judicial Council for the past two years. She finished high school at 16, and became the state’s youngest judge when she was named to the municipal court bench at age 30. She is a Sacramento native, a mother of two and the wife of a police lieutenant. Her Filipina mother and Filipino Portuguese father were farmworkers in Hawaii.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson elevated Cantil-Sakauye to the Sacramento County Superior Court, and Schwarzenegger named her to the Court of Appeal in Sacramento.

– Kiran Jain

Kumar Barve Takes On NARAL

Ed. Note:  Maryland Majority Leader (and AAA-Fund Honorary Board member) Kumar Barve recently published this newsletter; we have reprinted it because we thought it would be of interest to our readers.

Majority Leader Barve Responds to Maryland NARAL’s Endorsement of Candidates
Dear Friend:

Yesterday I wrote to the Chair of Maryland NARAL’s Political Action Committee, Tracy Terrell, about the endorsements her organization made.  Maryland NARAL is the premier pro-choice advocacy group in our state.  I enclose the letter below for your review.  Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments.

Sincerely,

Kumar P. Barve

Dear Tracy:

Thank you for endorsing me for reelection.  However, for the first time in 24 years I am stunned by many of the endorsement decisions of the PAC.

As you know, between 1986 and 1990 I was the Treasurer of Maryland NARAL and its Political Action Committee.  I served as a member of Maryland NARAL’s Board of Directors from 1989 and 1990.  I participated in marches on Annapolis, and I was actively involved in our first fundraising efforts.  I count among my colleagues the leaders of the movement in Maryland at that time including  Karyn Strickler, Joan Brown, Emily Schacter, Karen Ringen, Mary Gill, Kathleen Nieberding-Ryan and many others.

In those days, the PAC gave extra credit for leaders, but we also indentified all pro-choice candidates in the same press release.  For example, in my race in 1990, I received a contribution and an endorsement, and all but one of my competitors was identified as pro-choice as well.

While you are quite vocal as to your supported candidates, you are less so with respect to those who are merely pro-choice.  I had to search on your website and finally found what can only be described as an error-filled list of candidates.

First, I am glad that you at least recognize Delegates Luiz SimmonsJim Gilchrist and Senator Jennie Forehand as pro-choice.  Allow me to provide a little background on Simmons and Forehand.  To paraphrase the country-western song, ‘they were pro-choice before pro-choice was cool’ in District 17.  Both campaigned as pro-choice as far back as 1974.  In those days, Delegates Joe Owens and Frank Shore were highly popular in Rockville and staunchly anti-choice.

Second, your unwillingness to endorse Jim Gilchrist even though you admit he is pro-choice is simply bizarre.

I have found some errors in your website which I think require some clarification:

  1. You identify Senator Kathy Klausmeier as “Mixed-Choice”.  This is strange because she is one of your endorsedcandidates.  Is this a mistake or do you lower your standards for candidates in more conservative parts of the state?
  2. You identify Kevin Kelly as “anti-choice”.  He was one of only four Western Maryland delegates to vote in favor of the codification of Roe vs. Wade in the House of Delegates in 1991 (the others were delegates Betty Workman, George Littrell and Tom Hattery).  While he has not supported funding for poor women, I believe he has not changed his position on Roe vs. Wade.  Maybe I’m wrong on this and I’d be happy to have new information on his position.
  3. The first name of the Senator from District 17 is not “Jennifer”, it is Jennie.  Here legal name (as it always appears on the ballot) is Jennie.
  4. Janet Greenip is anti-choice, but she is no longer a member of the Maryland Senate.  Oops!

Finally, Jennie Forehand.  Her challenger, Cheryl Kagan is strongly pro-choice.  As a former staff member of NARAL I think we can all agree that she is pro-active as well.  But, has Jennie ever done anything but help the cause during her time in office?  Neither she (nor Simmons and Gilchrist) nor I have done much more than vote the right way to defend choice, because (wait for it . . .) we won this issue at the ballot in the 1992 referendum.

Jennie has been an active solid citizen on our issue.  Period.

All this is troubling to me.  Four years from now I may have a strong challenger for my seat.  Can I count on your support for me in my time of need if it were to arise?  Or will my past history of leadership be conveniently forgotten if a NARAL employee decides to run against me?

Sincerely,

Kumar P. Barve
Majority Leader

One More Election, One Inch Further

Ed. note:  We welcome CAUSE blogger V.I. King to our Blogteam.  His piece, which reflects on the results of the June 8, 2010 California primary, was first posted here.

In the next few days, campaign staffers will take the leftover brochures and phone lists to the dumpster. The offices, where dozens of volunteers once buzzed, will wind down and revert to empty storefronts.  And friends of ours will either raise their hands to take their oaths of office, or go back to their homes wondering what to do next as they look at their reflections in bathroom mirrors.

Those handful of us who have run for office are part of a club.  Entrance to the club requires, as a ticket, an innocent child-like belief that things should and can be better.  Once admitted to the club, we walk down an endlessly long hallway until swept into one of two rooms — one for the winners and one for those who did not win.  The first room is full of smiles and a giddy anxiety about possibilities.  The second room is deadly quiet and cold, a graveyard full of headstones that each list a dream that died on election night.

The winners like John Chiang deserve our deep appreciation and gratitude.  Through their ambition and hard work, they continue to break through the glass ceilings and serve as the cutting edge in our quest for empowerment.

But those who did not win deserve our deepest appreciation and gratitude.  They have sacrificed money, time, sweat, and tears.  They rose up to the challenge and, in doing so, advanced the entire movement one inch further.

On election night, thousands of voters who had never voted for an Asian-American candidate before did so for the first time.  Impressed by the high quality of the candidates and their ideas, many more thousands of voters voted for Asian-Americans on the ballot without a millisecond of concern that those individuals were somehow not American enough or too different from themselves to lead.

We have the candidates, the successful and the unsuccessful, to thank for that.  We are all empowered by their journey and, as a result, we all have won.

– V.I. King

AAA-Fund Endorsee Kamala Harris Wins CA AG

AAA Fund endorsee Kamala Harris handily won the bid to be the Democratic candidate in California’s Attorney General race, the first South Asian and African American woman to do so. She led a crowded field of challengers that included three state assemblymen (Lieu, Torrico, Nava) a former Los Angeles city attorney (Delgadillo), and Silicon Valley’s former Facebook executive Chris Kelly, who poured $12 million of his own money into the race. She garnered 33% of the votes cast, beating her closest competitor, Chris Kelly, by over 20 percentage points.

Congratulations Kamala! Onward to November. For more information about her campaign, please visit www.kamalaharris.org.

Read more at “Kamala Harris Trounces Chris Kelly in AG Primary.”

– Kiran Jain