You probably heard the great news – after two years of progressive activism, FOX finally cancelled Glenn Beck’s show–but the Boycott Must Go On!!


Ten years ago, Media Matters launched with a revolutionary mission: to systematically monitor the U.S. media for conservative misinformation every day, in real time. We’ve been calling out right-wing lies for a decade — and we’re not done yet. Will you contribute now to help us raise $10,000 for our 10th anniversary?

Media Matters Timeline

For ten years, we’ve successfully fought back against the bad actors that poison our media with right-wing lies and smears. It’s been an amazing beginning, and we couldn’t have done it without your support.

We’re in this for the long haul. Make an anniversary gift today to kickstart the next ten years of media accountability.

Dear Kevin,
You probably heard the great news – after two years of progressive activism, FOX finally cancelled Glenn Beck’s show.
Beck was targeted after he slandered President Obama by saying, “This president has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture, I don’t know what it is… This guy, I believe, is a racist.”
Activists at ColorOfChange, Media Matters, StopBeck, FoxNewsBoycott, and of course Democrats.com responded with a boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck’s show. Ultimately over 300 advertisers pulled their ads from Beck, costing FOX over $40 million.
Advertiser boycotts work! And it’s time to boycott all FOX News advertisers:

http://www.democrats.com/boycott-proactiv

We’re starting our boycott of all FOX News with Proactiv, which sells acne medicine to teenagers and young adults. Why?
First, there are lots of other acne treatments. Second, young adults above all are hurt by FOX News, which promotes right-wing policies on race, education, healthcare, the environment, and war. Let’s get our future leaders to lead the fight against FOX News!
Sign the petition to Proactiv and enter the email address of every young adult over 18 you know:

http://www.democrats.com/boycott-proactiv

Beyond President Obama, FOX regularly slanders nearly everyone: Democrats, unionized workers, the unemployed (including veterans and 99ers), environmentalists, feminists, blacks, Hiics, Jews, Muslims, progressives, scientists, and any other group it disagrees with.
FOX News broadcasts rightwing extremist slander, incitement to violence, political propaganda, and outright lies to promote its rightwing political agenda. This is not “news,” but rather a never-ending “war on news” – and it’s all documented in our petition.
Why would any decent company want to fund it? Tell Proactiv to stop advertising on FOX News:

http://www.democrats.com/boycott-proactiv

Thanks for all you do!
Bob Fertik

GLEN BECK ADMITTED in 2007, “I Am RACIST and Barack Obama is very White” THIS MAKES Boycotting FOX NEWS needed NOW

By Kevin Stoda

Dear, American supporters of the Fascist Oddball Xenophobic (FOX) news networks.

AMERICANS are getting less tolerant of your racism and stronghold on our major media.

For example, we have noted that in his 2007 TV program from FOX (See on You-Tube), Glen Beck admitted he himself was racist. Further, Beck then, in contrast to 2009, called Barrack Obama much more white than black. (Apparently, Beck now he has other nonsense to mush men’s minds.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tgvWxC_6A

Using a major news platform to promote racism and to tell people to disrespect a whole presidential administration through mixed truths, outright lies, and xenophobia, is not to be tolerated any more.

On Democracy Now today, Amy Goodman asked Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP what he thought of Wal-Mart’s pull-out from advertising on the Glen Beck program on FOX.

NOTE: Goodman had simply asked , “The whole attack by Glenn Beck that drove this (resignation)? In your response from the NAACP to Van Jones, it says, ´The only thing more outrageous than Mr. Beck’s attack on Van Jones is the fact that there are sponsors that continue to pay him to provide this type of offensive commentary.` Do you support the continued boycott of companies like Wal-Mart of Beck’s show on Fox?”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/8/white_house_environmental_adviser_van_jones

This is a particularly important point because Glen Beck´s HATE CAMPAIGN ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION led recently to a great American policy maker, Van Jones, quitting the government this week.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/06/van-jones-resigns/

Mr. Jealous said, “We certainly support them (Walmart) choosing with their dollars who they’re going to support. I mean, it’s—Glenn Beck is somebody who’s told a seven-year-old girl, a seven-year-old black girl, that he would buy her a ticket back to Africa, that she needed to go back to Africa. And then he comes out, and he says that healthcare is the beginning of reparations. I mean, this guy plays the race card on a weekly basis. He does it very aggressive—you know, in a very hateful way.”

Recall, first, that Van Jones is one of the most important and thoughtful men in America—however, the FOX (Fascist Oddball Xenophobic) news network chose to support a man, like Glen Beck, rather than seeing that tens of millions of Americans need to get health care from promoters like Jones and that our America economy needs to move starting today to the kind of economy that its competitors worldwide are already doing.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/95963/what_will_the_green_economy_look_like/

Let’s quote the wisdom and influential words of Van Jones on the absolute necessity to green the American economy NOW!

“I think it’s really important to point out that we’re sort of at the end of an era of American capitalism, where we thought we could run the economy based on consumption rather than production, credit rather than creativity, borrowing rather than building, and also, most importantly, environmental destruction rather than environmental restoration.”

Jones continued, “We’re trying to make the case in this book that that era is over. We now have to move in a very different direction. And key to that will be basing the US economy not on credit cards, but based on clean energy and the clean energy revolution that would put literally millions of people to work, putting up solar panels all across the United States, weatherizing buildings so they don’t leak so much energy and put up so much carbon, building wind farms and wave farms, manufacturing wind turbines. We argue you could put Detroit back to work not making SUVs to destroy the world, but making wind turbines, 8,000 finely machine parts in each one, twenty tons of steel in each wind tower, making wind turbines to help save the world.”

Finally, Van Jones wisely noted, “So we think that you can fight pollution and poverty at the same time. We think that you can actually power our way through this recession by putting people to work, but we’re going to have to start building things here and re-powering, retrofitting, retooling America, and that that’s the way forward both for the economy, for the earth and for everyday people.”

Note: These statements came from a program on DN from October of last year:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/28/van_jones_on_the_green_collar

Van Beck has written a book of the same title, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems.

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061650758/The_Green_Collar_Economy/index.aspx

America needs such voices as Van Jones in government leadership in America—not Fascist Oddball Xenophobic (FOX) types.

Clean up the American airwaves of all its fascism and racism, today.

http://www.pittsburghurbanmedia.com/a-petition-against-fox-conservative-host-glenn-beck.aspx

NOTE: One way to change the noise of Fascist Oddball Xenophobic (FOX) media moguls is to support alternative media organizations

http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/index

and alternative monitoring websites.

http://americas.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/64380

Another way, is to demand that local radio and TV channels put better programming on, such as Democracy Now or news sources promoted by serious progressive journalists:

http://www.tacomapjh.org/progressive_news.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments

German Hostages Freed in Southern Philippines–After Suffering Beheading Threats


In the news

More news for german hostage philippines


  1. Philippine militants free two German hostages | Reuters

    http://www.reuters.com/…/us-philippines-militants-idUSKCN0I607S20…

    Reuters

    3 days ago – MANILA (Reuters) – Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militants in the Philippinesreleased two German hostages on Friday, after saying they would …

  2. Philippine rebels free German hostages – Al Jazeera

    http://www.aljazeera.com/…/philippines-abu-sayyaf-hostages-20141…

    Al Jazeera

    3 days ago – Two German hostages have been freed by the Abu Sayyaf group in the southern Philippines, the Philippines military and the group have said, …

  3. BBC News – Philippine militants release two German hostages

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/…/world-asia-2966572…;

    British Broadcasting Corporation

    3 days ago – A Philippines-based militant group has released two German hostagescaptured in April, local officials say. The hostages were reportedly …

  4. Islamist militants free two German hostages in Philippines

    3 days ago – Filipino troops on high alert ahead of a deadline set by Islamist militants to execute a German hostage unless a ransom was paid. Photograph: …

  5. German Hostages Freed in Southern Philippines

    http://www.voanews.com/…/germans-hostagesphilippines/2…
    Voice of America

    2 days ago – Two Germans who were held for six months in the southern Philippinesby suspected members of a notorious group formerly tied to al-Qaida …

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

McDonald’s just signed a historic pledge to combat deforestation — but it continues to buy palm oil made from destroying the last remaining habitat of the Sumantran tiger


McDonald’s just signed a historic pledge to combat deforestation — but it continues to buy palm oil made from destroying the last remaining habitat of the Sumantran tiger.

Tell McDonald’s to only buy palm oil from responsible suppliers.Sign the Petition

Kevin,

McDonald’s is using unsustainable palm oil, and it’s not good news for the Sumatran tiger or Borneo pygmy elephant: their rainforest homes are being systematically destroyed for massive palm oil plantations in Southeast Asia.

The palm oil industry’s rampage is also fueling climate change — releasing billions of of tons of greenhouse gases every year, and making Indonesia the world’s third largest climate polluter.

But due to pressure from people like us, the largest palm oil producers have promised to halt deforestation for one year.Now we have an opportunity to fundamentally change how major companies like McDonald’s source their palm oil — or the tiger, the orangutan, and the elephant will be at risk once again.

Tell McDonald’s to seize this opportunity and adopt a responsible palm oil policy.

McDonald’s buys palm oil to make a range of products — from Baked Apple Pie to Spicy Chicken McBites. If we could get McDonalds to adopt a no-deforestation palm oil policy, it would show the palm oil producers that there’s no going back. The palm oil industry would be forced to make its one year separation from deforestation permanent, if it wants to sell to leading consumer brands in the future.

The best part? McDonald’s just joined a pledge at a UN Summit to help cut global deforestation rates in half by 2020, so we suspect it’s open to the idea of changing its palm oil policy to be tiger-friendly.

But McDonald’s has a way to go still. It currently relies primarily on controversial “RSPO GreenPalm” certificates, which give a few dollars to sustainable producers while allowing McDonald’s to buy any palm oil on the marketplace, regardless of its sustainability.

McDonald’s: Keep your word to reduce deforestation. Adopt a responsible palm oil policy now.

This isn’t only about getting McDonald’s to clean up its own act, but also to use its significant influence with suppliers to reform the whole palm oil industry, especially those producers who are linked even more directly to rainforest destruction and human rights abuses.

Together, we’ve already convinced Kellogg’s and other big companies to change their ways, causing a shift in the global palm oil supply chain. Similar organized consumer pressure has dramatically slowed the rate of deforestation in Brazil. McDonald’s can be moved with public pressure too.

Tell McDonald’s to adopt a deforestation-free palm oil policy.

Thank you for all that do,

Kaytee, Eoin and the SumOfUs team


***********
More information:

Palm oil companies say they’ll put forest destruction on hold. But what happens next?, Greenpeace UK, September 19, 2014
Palm oil scorecard company profiles: McDonalds, Union of Concerned Scientists, March 1, 2014

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How I shocked my teenager–and you can, too!


Will you join members like Suzanne in calling voters to save the Senate this weekend?

Dear fellow MoveOn member,

Sometimes you just have to start a really good story at the end. So here goes.

I’ll never forget the expression on my 13-year-old daughter’s face as she watched me call progressive voters across the country from our Connecticut kitchen table and urge them to get out and vote on Election Day.

She looked proud, excited, and maybe—so like a teenager—just a little bit shocked to see me in action. Of course, I fight for her future every day. That’s what moms do. But this was different somehow, because call by call, conversation by conversation, she could see me making a difference in real-time.

You know, it’s one thing for me to talk with my kids about what I value—about democracy and about what happens when good people don’t step up to make it work. That’s important, for sure, and I wouldn’t trade our dinnertime conversations for anything in the world.

But it’s another thing entirely for my daughter to see me live our family’s values—to walk the talk, so to speak.

I’m signing up to make more calls this weekend and I just have to ask:

Will you join me and the thousands of other MoveOn members who’ve signed up to call voters and help us save the Senate together?

Yes. I’m signing up!

I have to be honest with you. I was dreading my Voters Rising call shift all week, almost like a root canal. Maybe you have some of the same worries that I had. I don’t have great technical skills and I worried about imposing on folks.

But I told myself: “Just click the darn sign-up button, show up at your computer with your phone, and see what happens.”

I’m so glad I did.

You can do it to! Can you sign up today?

Yes. I’m signing up!

As it turns out, making get-out-the-vote calls is really easy.

It took me two calls to get comfortable. On the third call, the magic took over. I found the courage to say the things that I only say out loud when I’m home alone, listening National Public Radio and doing a stack of dishes.

I talked with the person I phoned about why I cared so very deeply about their vote. I want equal pay for women and to get money out of politics. I want a just federal minimum wage and for wealthy folks and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. I want my daughter to have say over what happens to her body—plain and simple as that.

It all just came pouring out. And the person responded with her own concerns and hopes.

From that point, it was clear sailing. Sure, I got some answering machines and some wrong numbers, but I also spoke with many voters who weren’t thinking about the mid-term election, or who weren’t planning to vote prior to getting my call because they were disillusioned or angry about the mess in Congress. I spoke with folks who were undecided and others who wanted to come out swinging in opposition to Mitch McConnell but just needed a little encouragement.

People wanted to hear what I had to say, as long as I spoke from the heart. That’s the power of MoveOn’s citizen-powered plan.That’s the power you’ll have when you sign up.

Can you? Right now?

Yes. I’m signing up!

Please don’t miss the opportunity to join Voters Rising.

You’ll have your own reasons for making these calls. For me, it’s the love I have for my kids and this big, unwieldy democracy of ours—a democracy that’s being eroded and corrupted before my eyes.

Well, not on my watch. Not any more.

And just one more thing. Like you, I have way too many things to get done in a day. I thought that signing up for a call shift would just add to the tired, back-to-school feeling that creeps in right about now. I was wrong. There’s an irreplaceable feeling that comes from contributing like this, from exchanging ideas with folks across the country.

I’m uplifted. Hopeful. Raring to go. Because this is what democracy looks like.

And now that I’ve had a taste of it, there’s no going back! Thank goodness.

And my daughter? She’s hooked. And has promised to make dinner the next time I have a call shift. Now that’s a deal.

Thanks for all you do.

–Suzanne, a MoveOn volunteer

Want to support our work? We’re entirely funded by our 8 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Start a monthly donation here or chip in a one-time donation here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

America is Awaiting and Receiving more Edward Snowdens


Tomgram: Laura Poitras and Tom Engelhardt, The Snowden Reboot

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: Call me moved. I recently went to the premiere of Citizenfour, Laura Poitras's engrossing new filmon Edward Snowden, at the New York Film Festival. The breaking news at film's end: as speculation had it this summer, there is indeed at least one new, post-Snowden whistleblower who has come forward from somewhere inside the U.S. intelligence world with information about a watchlist (that includes Poitras) with "more than 1.2 million names" on it and on the American drone assassination program.

Here's what moved me, however. My new book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World, ends with a "Letter to an Unknown Whistleblower," whose first lines are: "I don't know who you are or what you do or how old you may be. I just know that you exist somewhere in our future as surely as does tomorrow or next year... And how exactly do I know this? Because despite our striking inability to predict the future, it’s a no-brainer that the national security state is already building you into its labyrinthine systems.” And now, of course, such a whistleblower is officially here and no matter how fiercely the government may set out after whistleblowers, there will be more. It’s unstoppable, in part thanks to figures like Poitras, who is the subject of today’s TomDispatch interview. Tom]

Edward Snowden and the Golden Age of Spying
A TomDispatch Interview With Laura Poitras

Here’s a Ripley’s Believe It or Not! stat from our new age of national security. How many Americans have security clearances? The answer: 5.1 million, a figure that reflects the explosive growth of the national security state in the post-9/11 era. Imagine the kind of system needed just to vet that many people for access to our secret world (to the tune of billions of dollars). We’re talking here about the total population of Norway and significantly more people than you can find in Costa Rica, Ireland, or New Zealand. And yet it’s only about 1.6% of the American population, while on ever more matters, the unvetted 98.4% of us are meant to be left in the dark.

For our own safety, of course. That goes without saying.

All of this offers a new definition of democracy in which we, the people, are to know only what the national security state cares to tell us.  Under this system, ignorance is the necessary, legally enforced prerequisite for feeling protected.  In this sense, it is telling that the only crime for which those inside the national security state can be held accountable in post-9/11 Washington is not potential perjury before Congress, or the destruction of evidence of a crime, or torture, or kidnapping, or assassination, or thedeaths of prisoners in an extralegal prison system, but whistleblowing; that is, telling the American people something about what their government is actually doing.  And that crime, and only that crime, has been prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and beyond) with a vigor unmatched in American history.  To offer a single example, the only American to go to jail for the CIA’s Bush-era torture program was John Kiriakou, a CIA whistleblower who revealed the name of an agent involved in the program to a reporter.

In these years, as power drained from Congress, an increasingly imperial White House has launched various wars (redefined by its lawyers as anything but), as well as a global assassination campaign in which the White House has its own “kill list” and the president himself decides on global hits.  Then, without regard for national sovereignty or the fact that someone is an American citizen (and upon the secret invocation of legal mumbo-jumbo), the drones are sent off to do the necessary killing.

And yet that doesn’t mean that we, the people, know nothing.  Against increasing odds, there has been some fine reporting in the mainstream media by the likes of James Risen and Barton Gellman on the security state’s post-legal activities and above all, despite the Obama administration’s regular use of the World War I era Espionage Act, whistleblowers have stepped forward from within the government to offer us sometimes staggering amounts of information about the system that has been set up in our name but without our knowledge.

Among them, one young man, whose name is now known worldwide, stands out.  In June of last year, thanks to journalist Glenn Greenwald andfilmmaker Laura Poitras, Edward Snowden, a contractor for the NSA and previously the CIA, stepped into our lives from a hotel room in Hong Kong.  With a treasure trove of documents that are still being released, he changed the way just about all of us view our world.  He has been chargedunder the Espionage Act.  If indeed he was a “spy,” then the spying he did was for us, for the American people and for the world.  What he revealed to a stunned planet was a global surveillance state whose reach and ambitions were unique, a system based on a single premise: that privacy was no more and that no one was, in theory (and to a remarkable extent in practice), unsurveillable.

Its builders imagined only one exemption: themselves.  This was undoubtedly at least part of the reason why, when Snowden let us peek in on them, they reacted with such over-the-top venom.  Whatever they felt at a policy level, it’s clear that they also felt violated, something that, as far as we can tell, left them with no empathy whatsoever for the rest of us.  One thing that Snowden proved, however, was that the system they built was ready-made for blowback.

Sixteen months after his NSA documents began to be released by theGuardian and the Washington Post, I think it may be possible to speak of the Snowden Era.  And now, a remarkable new film, Citizenfour, which had its premiere at the New York Film Festival on October 10th and will open in select theaters nationwide on October 24th, offers us a window into just how it all happened.  It is already being mentioned as a possible Oscar winner.

Director Laura Poitras, like reporter Glenn Greenwald, is now known almost as widely as Snowden himself, for helping facilitate his entry into the world.  Her new film, the last in a trilogy she’s completed (the previous two beingMy Country, My Country on the Iraq War and The Oath on Guantanamo), takes you back to June 2013 and locks you in that Hong Kong hotel room with Snowden, Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian, and Poitras herself for eight days that changed the world.  It’s a riveting, surprisingly unclaustrophic, and unforgettable experience.

Before that moment, we were quite literally in the dark.  After it, we have a better sense, at least, of the nature of the darkness that envelops us. Having seen her film in a packed house at the New York Film Festival, I sat down with Poitras in a tiny conference room at the Loews Regency Hotel in New York City to discuss just how our world has changed and her part in it.

Tom Engelhardt: Could you start by laying out briefly what you think we’ve learned from Edward Snowden about how our world really works?

Laura Poitras: The most striking thing Snowden has revealed is the depth of what the NSA and the Five Eyes countries [Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, and the U.S.] are doing, their hunger for all data, for total bulk dragnet surveillance where they try to collect all communications and do it all sorts of different ways. Their ethos is “collect it all.” I worked on a story with Jim Risen of the New York Times about a document — a four-year plan for signals intelligence — in which they describe the era as being “the golden age of signals intelligence.”  For them, that’s what the Internet is: the basis for a golden age to spy on everyone.

Click here to read more of this dispatch.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Will I keep my job if I become pregnant or decide to become a mother?” is not irrelevant anymore, or “Do I have healthcare?” is not irrelevant anymore to the abortion decision. Why or Why Not?


  • Abortion as a Social Good: Author Katha Pollitt Pens New Vision for Pro-Choice Movement

    S4-pollitt2

    We look at a book out this week that offers a new vision for the pro-choice movement. In “Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights,” Nation columnist Katha Pollitt dissects the logic behind the hundreds of abortion restrictions enacted over the past few years and shows that, at their core, they are not about safety, but about controlling women. In order to reverse the tide of eroding access, Pollitt concludes, the pro-choice movement must end the “awfulization” of abortion. She writes, “I want us to start thinking of abortion as a positive social good and saying this out loud.”

TOPICS

GUESTS

Katha Pollitt, a columnist forThe Nation magazine who has been writing about reproductive rights for decades. Her new book out this week is Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org,The War and Peace Report, as we turn now to our next guest. We continue to discuss the crisis in abortion access as we turn to a new book that offers a new vision for the pro-choice movement. It’s called Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights. We’re joined by Katha Pollitt.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Why “Pro”?

KATHA POLLITT: Well, I chose that title because I wanted to make a positive case for abortion rights, as opposed to the negative case of “if abortion is illegal, women will die”—which is true. I wanted to talk about how abortion is part of what makes it possible for women to have a decent, reasonable life in which they have children when they’re ready to have them, and it’s good for everybody. It’s good for children to be wanted and to be well timed, and it’s good for men, too. We forget that. But when you have women having random—expected to have random children with random people, just because a stray sperm gets in their womb, this is not good for anybody.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Katha Pollitt, you say that you’ve addressed the book to those who are in the middle of the abortion debate here in the United States and, as you say, millions of Americans, more than half, who don’t want to ban abortion exactly, but don’t want it to be widely available, either. How do you explain that kind of middle space?

KATHA POLLITT: Well, I think abortion is very stigmatized. And it’s connected with ideas about women and sex, like you can have an abortion if you’ve been raped, but if you’ve had voluntary sex, too bad. You know, a lot of people feel that way. And most abortion in the United States is for social, economic and personal reasons. It’s not for the really hard cases. About maybe 10 percent is for rape and incest and medical catastrophes for the mother or the fetus. But most of it is because the woman is—she’s in school, she doesn’t have any money, she doesn’t have a partner, and she doesn’t want to be a single mother, and—you know, and reasons like that. But those reasons, which basically say this should be a woman’s decision, because having children when you want to have children is very important to women’s lives, that, I think, is a harder message for middle-of-the-road people to take in.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to continue to talk with Katha Pollitt about abortion as a moral right after this.

[break]

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Last year, Planned Parenthood announced it was moving away from the term “pro-choice.” It launched a campaign called “Not in Her Shoes” with this video message. While we wait for that SOT to come up, I’d like to ask you about your position on that, the language that’s been used in this debate in the U.S. They say, you know, “pro-choice,” “anti-choice,” as opposed to “pro-life,” which is what most people who are opposed to abortion call the term.

KATHA POLLITT: Well, in my book, I don’t use the term “pro-life.”

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Right, exactly.

KATHA POLLITT: And I explain why I made that decision, which is, I think it’s a propagandistic word. They’re not pro-life. They’re anti-abortion. It’s a rare pro-lifer who is against the death penalty, who’s against all war, who favors, you know, all the things people need to flourish and stay healthy in life. They’ve tied themselves to the Republican Party, which doesn’t support any of that. So, I use the term “opponents of abortion,” awkward as that is, and sometimes I use the term “anti-choice,” although I tried not to do that.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why did you not use that word?

KATHA POLLITT: I can’t remember why exactly. I think it is a term they find so offensive, and I didn’t want to sort of provide them with a hot-button issue. I wanted it to be sort of fair. And I think “pro-choice” is a fair term.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to that Planned Parenthood clip that we have ready now, “Not in Her Shoes.”

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AD: Most things in life aren’t simple, and that includes abortion. It’s personal. It can be complicated. And for many people, it’s not a black-and-white issue. So why do people try to label it like it is? “Pro-choice”? “Pro-life”? The truth is, these labels limit the conversation and simply don’t reflect how people actually feel about abortion. A majority of Americans believe abortion should remain safe and legal. Many just don’t use the words “pro-choice.” They don’t necessarily identify as “pro-life” either. Truth is, they just don’t want to be labeled.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s the “Not in Her Shoes” campaign of Planned Parenthood. Katha Pollitt, your response?

KATHA POLLITT: Well, I don’t—I’m not able to speak to whether people identify with labels or not, but I would say that when you say things are—it’s not black and white, it’s gray, and all like this, what you’re really—you’re putting it on the wrong footing, because it is black and white. What the right should be is a black-and-white issue. How people feel about it is something entirely different, it seems to me. And people can have all kinds of feelings about abortion. They can think, “My abortion really saved my life,” “My abortion made me sad,” “Someone else’s abortion makes me angry.” But what the law should be is not to be decided by individuals’ feelings about it. This is a question of rights.

AMY GOODMAN: You talk about your own mother in the book.

KATHA POLLITT: Yes. My mother had an illegal abortion in 1960, which was the year the birth control pill came out, but I guess a little late for her, but—and I never knew. I found out when my father, after her death, got her FBI file. And that—

AMY GOODMAN: Her FBI file.

KATHA POLLITT: Yes, and this tells you something about illegal abortion. The FBI knew. You know, isn’t that kind of amazing? They knew that she—you know, what was going on with her gynecologically. That’s a kind of scary thought. So, you know, not only did my mother have an abortion, my great-grandmother had an abortion, and this was during World War I back in Russia. And I think in the book I say she had had eight children by then, but my cousin tells me it was nine children. So this tells you how embedded in women’s reproductive lives is abortion. It goes back 4,000 years, anthropologists tell us. It is not some newfangled innovation that came in after Roe v. Wade.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, earlier this year, Emily Letts, an abortion counselor at a clinic in New Jersey, filmed her own abortion and posted it online. In the video, which went viral, she explained her reasons for wanting to share her story publicly.

EMILY LETTS: I feel like I talk to women all the time, and they’re like, “Of course everyone feels bad about this. Of course every woman is going to feel guilty,” as if it’s a given how people should feel about this, that what they’re doing is wrong. I don’t feel like a bad person. I don’t feel sad. I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby, I can make a life. I knew that what I was going to do is right, because it was right for me and no one else.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That’s Emily Letts, who filmed her own abortion and posted it online. Katha Pollitt, you talk about the stigmatization of abortion leading to the criminalization of abortion. Could you elaborate on that?

KATHA POLLITT: Yeah, well, I want to just point out that my great-grandmother died of that abortion. That’s a sort of important piece of the story. And that’s what happens when abortion is illegal and you don’t get good medical care.

About the stigmatization of abortion, I feel that when we talk about abortion—”it should be safe, legal and rare,” which is how Hillary Clinton put it and how the Democratic Party often frames it, and/or “it’s the most difficult decision a woman makes,” you know, “it’s also terrible and agonizing”— you’re kind of conceding a lot to the people who say, “Yes, it is a terrible decision, it should be rare, let’s make it illegal, let’s make it really hard to get.” It’s very hard to say, “Here’s this terrible thing you’re going to do, so we have to keep it legal, so you won’t do it illegally.” That’s not a ringing cry that will rally people to the truth, which is: Abortion is a part of reproductive life, women’s reproductive lives. One in three American women will have an abortion by menopause. Sixty percent are already mothers. You know, so this picture we have of it’s the slutty teenager, it’s the cold-hearted, child-hating career woman, this is completely false. That’s not the typical abortion patient.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s sort of the point of Obvious Child, the feature film that’s out.

KATHA POLLITT: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: But I wanted to ask you about reproductive justice, a framework—

KATHA POLLITT: Yes, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —founded by women of color, which uses the lens of human rights to look at the right to parent and raise children in a healthy environment, as well as the right to abortion. This is longtime activist Loretta Ross talking about reproductive justice in an interview for the PBS seriesMakers.

LORETTA ROSS: We kind of spliced reproductive rights and social justice together to come up with the term “reproductive justice,” which was a human rights way of looking at the totality of women’s life, so that that question of “Will I keep my job if I become pregnant or decide to become a mother?” is not irrelevant anymore, or “Do I have healthcare?” is not irrelevant anymore to the abortion decision.

AMY GOODMAN: That is Loretta Justice [sic], the Atlanta, Georgia, activist—rather, Loretta Ross. Talk about reproductive justice.

KATHA POLLITT: Well, I think reproductive justice is great. I wish it had a few fewer syllables. You know, “I’m pro-reproductive justice” is a little awkward. But it’s exactly right. It’s that the abortion decision is made in a social context, and the childbearing decision is also made in a social context. And we should have a society where a woman who doesn’t want to stay pregnant can do that, and a woman who wants to have a baby and raise that baby well can do that, too. You know, we—it’s like what we do in this society is we say, “Oh, you’re pregnant; you have to have a baby. Oh, you have a baby; well, screw you. You know, why did you do that?” And we do so little to help mothers and children and families in this society. We don’t even have paid maternity leave. So, women are really left to carry, often alone, the tremendous burden of producing and raising the next generation. Well, what kind of a society does that? That’s really crazy.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to end with our last headline today about Anita Sarkeesian, who’s been forced to cancel a planned talk in Utah—

KATHA POLLITT: So shocking.

AMY GOODMAN: —after threats of a shooting massacre. She was deeply concerned that the university would not ban people from the talk carrying in guns. How safe do you think women are in this country now expressing their views around equality and reproductive rights?

KATHA POLLITT: Well, I think that there are risks. We see that with this whole “Gamergate” thing. That’s the most obvious way right now. But look, the anti-abortion people have killed people. Now, they killed doctors and healthcare providers, but, you know, it’s been tremendously discouraging to the whole abortion community to think, “Yes, if I perform this necessary service that women want and need, I could be murdered.” That’s what we’ve come to in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: Katha Pollitt, we want to thank you for being with us. Her new book is called Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights, as she sets off for her tour around the country to talk about these issues.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

If Medical Professionals and Social Workers are Sent to Africa Today, Please See this Video–and Consider!


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Germany and Brussels are Responsible for the Spanish Ebola Case


NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, could you elaborate, Leigh Phillips, on the point that you make in your article about why it is that pharmaceutical companies are more interested in funding medications that people have to take over a long term, rather than investing in one-off medicines like vaccines?

LEIGH PHILLIPS: It’s fairly straightforward, and it’s not—the argument is not that the major pharmaceutical companies are somehow evil or malevolent. This is just the way that the free market works. If Ebola, like many, many other unprofitable diseases, is something that—basically, if we’re going to resolve the situation, we’re going to basically cure it. We’re not going to handle it for the long term. We want something that—some drug or some vaccine or some treatment that people are going to take once, twice, maybe for a short period of time, but then that’s it. We don’t want to be dealing with this for the rest of—somebody doesn’t want to be dealing with this, obviously, for the rest of their lives.

And compare that to the situation with, say, insulin for diabetes or other drugs that people might need to have to take every day for the rest of their lives. Any sort of major pharmaceutical company, if you—they’re trying to decide where they’re going to invest their, you know, roughly, maybe around a billion dollars’ investments into any new drug. Are they going to invest that money in a product that is going to have a very low return on investment or not much of a return on investment at all, or something that is much more likely to have quite a high return on investment? It’s a bit of a no-brainer where they’re going to allocate the bulk of their money.

And so, what we see here is, this is—Ebola, in many cases, is just an example of a wider problem that we have with pharmaceutical research. Antibiotic resistance right now is a very, very frightening situation, where we are facing a sort of 30-year—what’s called in research journals a “discovery void,” that is, that pharmaceutical companies have for about three decades now refused to engage in any—the development of any new classes of antibiotic. And we’re really coming towards the edge—the end of the efficacy of the antibiotics that we have in the cabinet at the moment. And we have about five to 20 years left before we see a sort of fairly rampant increase in deaths from bacterial infections.

from: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/16/an_unprofitable_disease_in_the_political

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Unprofitable Disease: In the Political Economy of Ebola, Who Lives and Who Dies?


from: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/16/an_unprofitable_disease_in_the_political

  • An Unprofitable Disease: In the Political Economy of Ebola, Who Lives and Who Dies?

    Ebola_research

    We look at the political and economic circumstances of the spread of Ebola with science writer Leigh Phillips, who calls for a socialization of pharmaceutical research and production. Phillips says that using revenues from profitable drugs to subsidize research for unprofitable drugs would reduce the costs of vaccines and their development. He also argues the decimation of the healthcare infrastructure is linked to the same free market policies and austerity measures pushed by Western countries and the International Monetary Fund that impoverished the West African countries where the Ebola outbreak has occurred. “We need to begin to ask whether capitalism itself is not pathogenic,” says Phillips, whose recent article for Jacobin magazine is “The Political Economy of Ebola.”

    TOPICS

    GUESTS

    Leigh Phillips, is a science writer and European Union affairs journalist. His writing appears in Nature, The Guardian and Scientific American. His recent article for Jacobin is “The Political Economy of Ebola.”

    We look at the political and economic circumstances of the spread of Ebola with science writer Leigh Phillips, who calls for a socialization of pharmaceutical research and production. Phillips says that using revenues from profitable drugs to subsidize research for unprofitable drugs would reduce the costs of vaccines and their development. He also argues the decimation of the healthcare infrastructure is linked to the same free market policies and austerity measures pushed by Western countries and the International Monetary Fund that impoverished the West African countries where the Ebola outbreak has occurred. “We need to begin to ask whether capitalism itself is not pathogenic,” says Phillips, whose recent article for Jacobin magazine is “The Political Economy of Ebola.”

    AMY GOODMAN: We bring in Leigh Phillips now into this conversation—Michelle speaking to us from Atlanta. He’s a science writer and European Union affairs journalist. His writing has appeared in Nature, The Guardian, Scientific American. His recent piece for Jacobin is headlined “The Political Economy of Ebola.” What do you mean by this, “the political economy of Ebola,” Leigh Phillips?

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: Well, I think we need to look at the political and economic circumstances, particularly around this particular disease both in the United States and Western countries in terms of the funding for research, where that’s coming from, and in terms of austerity in Europe, but also austerity in West Africa, as well. There’s sort of two prongs to this. The first, of course, was that, you know, over the last few months we’ve seen over and over again people from the CDC, senior figures from the WHO, even John Ashton, the head of the U.K. Faculty of Health, who have said, basically, that the knowledge is there, the know-how is there—we have five candidate vaccines, there’s a number of other different treatments that, you know, are well in hand—but there just hasn’t been any buy-in from the major pharmaceutical companies. John Ashton, as I was saying, from the U.K. Faculty of Health, you know, sort of the doctor-in-chief, if you will, in the U.K., described this as “the moral bankruptcy of capitalism.” It sounds, you know, quite vituperative there, quite explosive language, but it really expresses the anger that a lot of the researchers feel about how, look, we know what to do here, but this is just an unprofitable disease.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, could you elaborate, Leigh Phillips, on the point that you make in your article about why it is that pharmaceutical companies are more interested in funding medications that people have to take over a long term, rather than investing in one-off medicines like vaccines?

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: It’s fairly straightforward, and it’s not—the argument is not that the major pharmaceutical companies are somehow evil or malevolent. This is just the way that the free market works. If Ebola, like many, many other unprofitable diseases, is something that—basically, if we’re going to resolve the situation, we’re going to basically cure it. We’re not going to handle it for the long term. We want something that—some drug or some vaccine or some treatment that people are going to take once, twice, maybe for a short period of time, but then that’s it. We don’t want to be dealing with this for the rest of—somebody doesn’t want to be dealing with this, obviously, for the rest of their lives.

    And compare that to the situation with, say, insulin for diabetes or other drugs that people might need to have to take every day for the rest of their lives. Any sort of major pharmaceutical company, if you—they’re trying to decide where they’re going to invest their, you know, roughly, maybe around a billion dollars’ investments into any new drug. Are they going to invest that money in a product that is going to have a very low return on investment or not much of a return on investment at all, or something that is much more likely to have quite a high return on investment? It’s a bit of a no-brainer where they’re going to allocate the bulk of their money.

    And so, what we see here is, this is—Ebola, in many cases, is just an example of a wider problem that we have with pharmaceutical research. Antibiotic resistance right now is a very, very frightening situation, where we are facing a sort of 30-year—what’s called in research journals a “discovery void,” that is, that pharmaceutical companies have for about three decades now refused to engage in any—the development of any new classes of antibiotic. And we’re really coming towards the edge—the end of the efficacy of the antibiotics that we have in the cabinet at the moment. And we have about five to 20 years left before we see a sort of fairly rampant increase in deaths from bacterial infections.

    AMY GOODMAN: Leigh Phillips, I just wanted—

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: The bulk of modern medicine—

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to just—Leigh?

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: Sorry, yes?

    AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to ask—you’re speaking to us from Vancouver, Canada.

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: That’s right, yeah.

    AMY GOODMAN: Vancouver, Canada, where you have a public healthcare system.

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: That’s right.

    AMY GOODMAN: The piece you wrote is called “Socialize Big Pharma.” So can you talk about—I mean, you’re saying that for private drug companies, for these mega-multinational corporations, to invest in a vaccine, for example, for Ebola, doesn’t—is not profitable for them. So what then is the solution? This, of course, is really magnifying this issue on a global stage, how public health systems in the United States and all over have so deteriorated. Can you talk about your point, socializing Big Pharma?

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: Absolutely. I think if we look at most Western countries in the postwar period—’40s, ’50s and ’60s—most Western countries nationalized their healthcare systems to a greater or lesser degree. And the United States is one of the only sort of countries that hasn’t done this yet, but it’s still pretty much—we’re moving—the United States is, even there—is moving in that direction. But this is basically half of the task. The other half of the task is to bring in the pharmaceutical sector into the public sector, for exactly the same reasons, that it is simply too dangerous an issue for this to be left to the vagaries of the profit motive within the market. What we can do is—

    AMY GOODMAN: And so, what would that look like?

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: —recognizing that this is a market failure. And this is not just some, you know, far-left analysis; this is recognized right across the board, that there is a major market failure within the pharmaceutical sector. The companies themselves recognize this. The solution is one of two things: either a fairly major public intervention to fill that gap or, as I argue, just much more simply is, if we can use the profits from profitable—the revenues from profitable drugs to subsidize the research and development and commercialization of unprofitable diseases, we’re going to, as a society, spend far less to solve this problem anyway. So, that’s the simple calculus there.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Leigh Phillips, another point that you make in your article is that it’s not coincidental that Ebola is affecting some of the poorest countries in the world. So could you talk about some of the collapse of the infrastructure, public infrastructure, in Liberia and in Sierra Leone that has allowed this virus to spread as rapidly as it has? And what contributed to that collapse of public facilities?

    LEIGH PHILLIPS: Absolutely. I think that—I mean, one of the really, really frustrating things with this particular issue is how it really demonstrates the—as John Ashton wrote in the U.K., the moral bankruptcy of capitalism, not just on the one end in terms of research, but in West Africa, as well, and in Spain. We see that the same processes, the same free-market-driving ideology that has reduced these countries to real dire poverty. These three countries are some of the most poor countries in the world. And when I say “most poor countries in the world,” I mean really right at the bottom of the global league tables. And their public healthcare infrastructure has been utterly decimated, not merely by civil war but by a series of processes that are imposed by Western countries, international financial organizations like the International Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund itself recognizes this, because just last week Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, said to West Africa, “Look, now is not the time to be worrying about your spending. Go ahead, increase your spending,” and she finished her comments by saying, “We don’t normally say this.” Well, this is exactly true. The sort of structural adjustment that has been imposed in these countries, and many other countries, as well, is what is responsible for the decimation of the healthcare infrastructure in these countries.

    And we’re seeing it in—in fact, this exact same process is in Spain. The European Union has imposed, you know, since the economic crisis, since the eurozone crisis, a series of absolutely brutal austerity programs in the southern flank—in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal—and in Ireland, as well. Part of the response—the result of this has been, again, a real deterioration of public health infrastructure. Spain has seen basically a quarter of its spending on healthcare cut for the last few years annually. So you see nurses and other medics marching in the streets in Spain—they call them these white ties, because people are wearing their white lab coats—protesting what’s happening with austerity. The hospital where we’ve seen the cases in Spain, their isolation ward was shut down directly as a result of the imposition of austerity by Brussels and the decisions in Madrid.

    It is on both ends; both the market failure in terms of pharmaceutical research and the decimation of public healthcare infrastructure, both in West Africa and in Europe, it’s two sides of the same coin. They both put capitalism in the dark here. There’s a friend of mine who’s a phylogeographer, Rob Wallace. He has this wonderful phrase about this, about how pathogens follow inequality and expropriations like water falls—follows cracks in ice. I think that’s absolutely correct. I think we need to begin to ask whether capitalism itself is not pathogenic, whether neoliberalism is not pathogenic.

    AMY GOODMAN: Leigh Phillips, we’re going to have to leave it there. We thank you so much. Science writer, European Union affairs journalist, joining us from Vancouver, Canada. We’ll link to your piece in Jacobin headlined “The Political Economy of Ebola” at democracynow.org.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Utah State University Fails to Condemn State Law Which Failed to Protect Threatened Speaker and Students from Massacre Threat


The feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian has been forced to cancel a planned lecture in Utah after threats of a shooting massacre. Sarkeesian has long faced bomb, death and rape threats from online harassers opposed to her critiques of sexism in video games. This week, Sarkeesian was scheduled to give a lecture at Utah State University when the university received an email threatening to carry out “the deadliest shooting in American history” at the event. The email sender wrote “feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge.” He used the moniker Mark Lepine, the name of a man who killed 14 women in a mass shooting in Montreal in 1989. Sarkeesian canceled the talk after being told that under Utah law, police could not prevent people from bringing guns. A university spokesperson told the Standard-Examiner newspaper the school had determined it was safe for Sarkeesian to speak because: “The threat we received is not out of the norm for (this woman).”

  • ‘Gamergate': Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/gamergate-feminist-vide…

    The Washington Post

    4 days ago – Feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a talk that would have taken place tonight at Utah State … school shooting in American history” if Sarkeesian gave her lecture. … As escalating threats of death and rape marked Sarkeesian’s tenure as a video game vlogger, she’s been adamant  …

  • Feminist critic forced to cancel lecture after gun threat

    http://www.msnbc.com/…/feminist-critic-forced-cancel-lecture-after-gun-threat

    4 days ago – Critic Anita Sarkeesian faces death threats after her critique ofFor this, she has been driven out of her home by death threats and, as of yesterday, forced to cancel a planned lecture at Utah State University following a threat  …

  • Feminist cancels USU talk after guns allowed despite death

    m.sltrib.com/…/sarkeesian-usu-video-feminist.html…

    The Salt Lake Tribune

    4 days ago – Anita Sarkeesian has shown up for speaking engagements amidst terror threats before. But after learning that Utah State University was legally forbidden fromif the school did not cancel a lecture by a well-known feminist writer andSarkeesian confirmed, via Tweet: “Forced to cancel my talk at USU  …

  • Anita Sarkeesian – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

    Wikipedia

    1984) is a Canadian-American feminist, media critic and blogger.against herplanned lecture at a Utah university, which made international headlines.Her bloghas also been utilized as material for university-level women’s studies …. Sarkeesian cancelled the event, however, after learning the university could not  …

  • Democracy Now! – Share your reaction to this story: Our…

    Share your reaction to this story: Our final headline today reports that the feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian has been forced to cancel a planned lecture in Utah  …

  • Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats

    kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-…

    Kotaku

    4 days ago – Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats becauseUtah State University has enacted security measures following a terror threat thisfeaturing feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian carried on as planned, according to …. I don’t know if I’ve just been blind, but when has this happened for any  …

  • Terror threat against feminist Anita Sarkeesian at USU

    http://www.standard.net/…/Utah-State-University-student-t…

    Standard‑Examiner

    5 days ago – EDITOR’s NOTE – This story has been updated here. LOGAN — UtahState University plans to move forward with an event featuring aschool shooting in American history” if it didn’t cancel the Wednesday lecture.The FBI is currently investigating death threats made against the woman in March at  …

  • Utah’s Crazy Open Carry Gun Laws Force Feminist To

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/…/utah-crazy-open-carry-gun-laws-force-feminis

    4 days ago – Feminist video game culture critic Anita Sarkeesian cancelled a lectureat Utah State UniversityViolent threats against women championing this cause are sadly common and this is not the first time Sarkeesian has received death threats.Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats  …

  • Feminist games critic cancels talk after terror threat – The

    4 days ago – Anita Sarkeesian cancels talk at Utah State University over threats of ‘the deadliestThe feminist pop culture critic Anita Sarkeesian has been forced to cancel a“Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because ….Please explain to me how you plan to shut  down a hashtag or  …

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

7 ways to connect spiritually with your spouse


7 ways to connect spiritually with your spouse

  • Regardless of your religion, bringing spirituality into your marriage can create a deeper connection, and allow a husband and wife to share a bond that is more than just a physical reaction. Connecting spiritually with your spouse entwines hearts, interlocks minds, and fuses souls together in such a way that a husband and wife become one while learning more about who they are as a couple, and as individuals. One of the greatest things a couple can do to strengthen their marriage is to connect spiritually and continue to develop that connection throughout their marriage. Here are 7 ways to connect spiritually with your spouse.
  • 1. Pray together

    When a couple prays together, they are inviting God into their marriage. Not only will he help a couple in times of trouble, he will warn them when their marriage is in danger. Pray together every morning and night, taking turns vocalizing the prayer. Pray for your spouse, and let him hear you pray to God on his behalf. This will knit your hearts together in unity and love for each other.

    Prayer has been a powerful element in strengthening my own marriage. When I hear my husband pour out his heart to God on my behalf, I can truly feel his love for me, and his faith in our Heavenly Father. When I pray for my husband, it is my greatest desire to ask God to bless him with all the richest blessings of heaven. Prayer is a powerful thing, especially when you do it together.

  • 2. Read together

    There are so many great things that a couple can read together and discuss. A book doesn’t have to be religious in order for it to bring a level of spirituality into the discussion. There are essays by Emerson and Thoreau, poetry by Whitman and Longfellow, books by men like C.S. Lewis and Victor Hugo, and women like Emily Dickinson and Louisa May Alcott. There are spiritual books like the Tao Te Ching, and religious texts, like the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita. My husband and I connected spiritually when we read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance together. When a couple reads together, they are not only opening their minds, they are opening their hearts.

  • 3. Spend time in nature while focusing on each other

    Go for a walk together and hold hands. Talk about the world around you, the beauty you see in the world, and the beauty you see in each other. Rather than focusing on your spouse’s physical appearance, focus on those things that truly make her beautiful to you from the inside out. Then tell her why as you’re walking hand in hand. Strive to always see the positive in each other, and in life, recognizing that most of life’s beautiful moments are not seen with the eyes, but felt with the heart.

  • 4. Share in life’s big questions

    Ask and answer life’s most intriguing questions together. Why are we here? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Is there life after death? Does God really answer prayers? As you search out these questions together, not only will you grow together spiritually as a couple, you will have a greater understanding of your place in the universe.

  • 5. Go to church together

    Attending church together weekly not only allows a couple to connect spiritually, it will help them build a firm foundation for their marriage that is built upon common faith and beliefs. It will also allow a couple to learn and grow together in their faith and their spirituality, and will strengthen a husband and wife both individually, and as a couple.

  • 6. Grow a family together

    Whether a couple is blessed with their own children, or adopt, as a husband and wife join to become the sole providers for a young child, that couple has reached a new level of spirituality in their marriage. They become central to that child’s universe. For a small moment in time, the couple understands the remarkable nature and awe of that great responsibility. If a couple takes their role seriously, great power and wisdom will pour out on them spiritually as they work together to raise God’s children.

  • 7. Take a leap of faith together

    As a couple steps out into uncertainty together with nothing more than their faith in God and their trust in each other, they learn to walk by faith and can discover that anything is possible. Their faith and spirituality can increase. If they keep faith as their focus, they learn to hold tight to one another, to support each other, and to rely on God for their wants and needs. There is no greater way to connect spiritually with your spouse then to combine your faith and create a miracle in your life, for the betterment of your marriage and your family.

    Connecting spiritually with your spouse takes time. It doesn’t happen in 7 simple steps. Spiritually connecting with your spouse is a process that requires daily actions and consistent effort throughout your marriage. As you choose to make a spiritual connection a priority in your marriage, your relationship will be strengthened. Just as love ties your hearts together, the spirit will unite your souls.

Tiffany Fletcher

Tiffany Fletcher is a home-schooling mother of five, a motivational speaker, and the author of “Mother Had a Secret: Learning to Love my Mother and her Multiple Personalities”. She uses her own experiences to help others overcome adversity and find hope and meaning in their lives. You can like her on Facebook or follow her on Twitter.
Website: http://motherhadasecret.blogspot.com/


————————

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment