Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The U.S. Is 1 of 8 Nations in the World Not to Sign International Treaty for Rights of Women

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 05:50 PM
Original message
The U.S. Is 1 of 8 Nations in the World Not to Sign International Treaty for Rights of Women
As of March 2007, 185 nations had signed the international “Treaty for the Rights of Women”, leaving the United States as one of eight nations in the world and the only industrialized nation that hasn’t signed it. The only other nations that haven’t yet signed it are Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Iran, Nauru, Palau and Tonga. The formal name for the treaty is “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women” (CEDAW). In February of this year the Bush administration indicated that it was “not pressing for ratification at this time.”


About the treaty

Human rights organizations call the Treaty “the most complete international agreement on basic rights for women”. It puts forth the view that human rights for women should be universal across all cultures, nations and religions, and thus it is often described as an “international bill of rights for women”. In that respect it is very similar to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, except that it applies specifically to women. It specifically addresses the following areas:

Legal right to not be discriminated against
The convention defines discrimination against women as:

… any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.

Therefore, nations that sign the treaty commit to the principle of gender equality in their legal system by abolishing discriminatory laws and establishing laws that prohibit discrimination against women. Paramount among the legal rights that the treaty addresses are the rights to vote and hold office, to own and inherit property and otherwise be free of economic discrimination, and to obtain an education.

Reproductive rights
The preamble to the document states that “the role of women in procreation should not be a basis for discrimination.” It proclaims adequate maternal health care and child care as essential human rights. It is the only human rights treaty that addresses family planning issues, proclaiming that participating nations:

are obliged to include advice on family planning in the education process and to develop family codes that guarantee women's rights "to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights".

Protection against violence and sexual exploitation
The treaty strives to prevent violence against women and girls, domestic or otherwise, including the widespread cultural practice of genital mutilation. It requires participating nations to take steps to eliminate the sexual exploitation of women:

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

Yet, at the same time it encourages the decriminalization of the act of prostitution, which enables prostitutes to come forward to expose their exploitation without having to fear imprisonment for doing so.


Today’s international status of women and girls with respect to violence, health and education

Violence and health
Amnesty International has disseminated many statistics on violence against women and health problems specific to women:

Internationally, approximately one third of all women are exposed to violence during their life, and approximately one fifth are raped. In the United States, approximately 350,000 women are raped each year. Rape is frequently used as a weapon of war. Much of the violence against women is attributable to the lack of law enforcement against these crimes. For example, in most countries in the world marital rape is not even recognized as a crime, and the practice of forced marriages forces many women into violent domestic situations.

In today’s world, approximately 60 million women or girls are “missing” because of sex selective abortions or inadequate medical care due to the widespread cultural attitude that women and girls are less important than men and boys. Approximately 135 million women have undergone forced genital mutilation. Millions of women are victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, but these issues are often off of society’s radar screen.

Education
Lack of education due to sex discrimination has been reduced in recent years, though it is still a major problem. Thirty years ago girls constituted 38% of primary school enrollments in low income countries, and that rose to 48% by 2005. Between 1999 and 2004 the world-wide number of children not in school declined from 100 million to 77 million. By 2005, the percentage of children not in school who were girls had declined to 57%.


Why it’s important that the United States sign the treaty

First and foremost it’s important that the United States sign and ratify the treaty because it is a moral imperative. Failure of the United States to participate in the Convention sends out the message that we don’t care that much about human rights for women, thereby impairing our ability to influence other countries to improve their human rights records and reducing the chances for the success of the Convention.

Amnesty International talks about how the Treaty has improved the lot of women throughout the world so far:

Women around the world have used the Treaty to achieve important reforms in their country that reduce violence and discrimination. Measures have been taken against sex slavery, domestic violence and trafficking of women; millions of girls are now receiving primary education that were previously denied access; women's health care services have improved, saving lives during pregnancy and childbirth; and millions of women have secured essential loans and the basic right to own or inherit property.

Treaty ratification commits nations to take concrete action to improve the status of women and to reverse discrimination and end violence against women in their own country and around the world.

Furthermore, enhancing the rights and the status of women is one of the best, if not THE best way to control world-wide population growth, which poses a great threat to our planet. The reason for this does not primarily relate to abortion rights – in fact, enhancing the education and status of women tends to lead to a decrease in abortion.

Increasing the education rates of girls causes them to reduce their out-of-marriage pregnancy rates and to get married later in life; that in turn substantially decreases birth rates and leads to healthier babies as well; it also leads to more women entering the workforce, leading to greater national economic productivity and less poverty and disease, thereby increasing the education rates of future generations and leading to a self-enforcing cycle of education, economic growth, fewer but healthier children, an overall substantial reduction in population growth, lowered worldwide consumption of resources, more food per population and better living standards, less global warming and other pollution of our environment, and therefore an enhanced capability for avoiding worldwide catastrophe.


What we can do

You can use the information and tools provided here to call or write to urge your Senator, pResident Bush or Secretary of State Rice to support the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And, you can join a delegation or apply to lead a delegation to meet at your Senator’s office to discuss this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's because the U.S. is more religious than those heathen women-loving
nations.

Religious leaders, like free market leaders, make things more democratic than those pesky laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. the US has not signed the Rights of Kids either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The US only likes kids before they're born, not after. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shenmue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. How long is this going to take?
:shrug:

Why is it so damn hard for some people to simply apply human rights to everyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Because "applying human rights to everyone" doesn't work when you think that *some* people are less
human than others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Bush doesn't want to irritate his base -- the religious right
They give several reasons for being against this:

-- They claim that the Treaty would give the international community the power to overrule U.S. law.
-- They claim that it would lead to lawsuits because of over-broad definition of discrimination.
-- They claim it will destroy "traditional" family values.
-- They claim the Treaty will require us to send women into combat (the most absurd claim of all).
-- They claim that it will interfere with child rearing.
-- They claim it will promote "gender neutral" schoolbooks.
-- They claim it will promote abortion by promoting access to family planning.
-- They claim it will lead to sanctioning of same sex marriages
-- They claim it will lead to the legalization of prostitution

These are actually all smokescreens, and none of it is true. Familiy planning, for example, leads to less abortions, not more abortions, since it decreases unwanted pregnancies, though it is true that some women will choose to get abortions because of access to familiy planning services.

With regard to prostitution, the Treaty specifically encourages cracking down on the exploitation of women, while not advocating punishment of the exploited women.

There is one claim here that it correct in some sense. The treaty does lead to the destruction of "traditional" family values, if by "traditional" family values one means values that subordinate women to second class citizenship and keep them illiterate and economically dependent. And as a matter of fact, that is what this is all about. Much of U.S. society, most particularly the Christian Right, is very paternalistic and does not want to see their "familiy values" subjugated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
27. We do, at least in theory. It's called the Constitution. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muntrv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. That's because the US only believes in the rights of Christian males.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
7. Call me shocked........is there anything left they can piss on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. And then people tell me that there's enough equality here for Senator Clinton to be elected.
Yah right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. I wish I were more surprised.
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. Are we still a "1st World Country"?
Because we certainly don't act like one. What is our excuse for not signing?

I can't wait until these Neanderthals are out of office and 6 feet under.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Not in my opinion we're not -- but we're not a 3rd world country either
We're worse -- we're an imperial country, or worse yet, we're THE imperial country.

I explained Bush's excuse for not signing in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1657850#1658763

In my opinion George Bush and Dick Cheney are evil beyond anyone who's ever led our country before, and they're taking us down the road to ruin. And we'll take the rest of the world with us if we don't change our direction soon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
32. However, as you said "These are actually all smokescreens, and none of it is true"
why is nobody taking these narrow minded idiots to task? The stupidity of our government just makes my head want to explode.

I honestly feel that my outlook on life in general has been going, down, down, down since these assclowns took office and I almost feel that I won't be able to breathe or take time to smell the roses again until they are gone. They have cast such a pall over EVERYTHING - the past, the present, the future. I don't even have it that bad and I feel hopeless, I can't imagine how awful others who are more affected must feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. i hear crickets chirping


Where are all those folks who are all about some women's rights?

Oh, hell. This thread isn't about porn? Never mind.

Women's rights are a real passion for some people - at least when we're talking about women's right to act in porn films.

Okay snark over.

This is just embarrassing....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. Exploiting women is profitable -- always has been --
The press asks questions about CEDAR every once in a while .. . .
but never in a way that the audience would really understand what's going down ---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. Oh well, at least we have the right to make porn and all.
I'll sleep well knowing we're "free."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. HA! Yep. Youbetcha! Thank Gawd fer Porn or we wouldn't have ANY rights, eh?
:sarcasm:

Ain't "freedom" grand.


Pfffft!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
15. The protection of the rights of women and safety of girls is one of the most important social
necessities of our Western culture. The Roman Catholic Church along with Fundamentalist Christian Organizations have launched a "return the woman to a biblical-cultural-historic position in society and in the home." I've said it here before, if we are not vigilant a greater oppression of women is in our near future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. It really is
And it says a great deal about the Bush/Cheney regime that it refuses to support it. Of course, that's perfectly in line with everything else that this bunch of thugs has done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
18. Not surprising at all.
Edited on Sat Aug-25-07 02:46 AM by Horse with no Name
In fact, it would be surprising if they did.:(
I remember growing up the 60's and 70's and seeing Gloria Steinham on television, listening to Helen Reddy, watching women walk in unison for ERA.
I don't see any of that anymore.
I see the rights that many died for being chipped away...
AND if we keep going the same course, I could honestly say that Susan B. Anthony would turn in her grave.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HardRocker05 Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 04:14 AM
Response to Original message
19. hmm, maybe we can get the dems in congress to raise this issue... oh yeah, nevermind. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Actually, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, supports the treaty
And I'm sure that a lot of other Dems do as well. But obviously that won't be enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
20. K & R - and I hear so many males on DU saying we do NOT live in a "patriarchal"
society.

I don't think they even grok what the word means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
22. You are known by the company you keep..
Edited on Sat Aug-25-07 08:10 AM by The Vinyl Ripper
The only other nations that haven’t yet signed it are Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Iran, Nauru, Palau and Tonga.

Does this mean Saudi Arabia has signed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Yes, they have
George Bush is ..... let's say ..... very special. He doesn't feel any need whatsoever for cooperation with other nations, just like he doesn't feel bound even by the laws of his own country, it Constitution, or international law.

The United States is also one of two nations in the world that hasn't signed the Kyoto protocol for the control of global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. It amazes, doesn't it?
And it means Iraq and Pakistan and India and China have signed - in spite of actual conditions in some of those countries.

The "threat to family values" that the Bushites see is tough to find - has signing this treaty caused same sex marriages in Saudi Arabia? The Bushies are even dumber than they look.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. I don't think he even cares
He just wants to pacify his base. I don't think that he ever takes the time to consider the right or wrong of an issue -- he just does it if he thinks it will be to his political benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
24. kicking for justice for women and children
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
25. A Third World Country like Imperial Amerika cannot reflect Free World Values
It is as plain and simple as that.

Old America, that was a different matter and the LEADER of the Free World, but Imperial Amerika is just one of a series of gently Tyrannical Empires (Russia, China) and a couple of Free Nations still left (most of Europe, Japan, Australia, India, S. America, a couple in Africa, like S. Africa, a couple others) and thus we jockey.

Anyway, my point is that a nation as we were would have signed this convention, by the Fatherland/Homeland does not believe in such sissy-mary Liberal Weakness.

I cannot believe it, but yes it is just that simple.

And yes, I yearn for a return of freedom's complexiites and amibuities, though I shall likely not live to se them restored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. I agree
Yet I am hopeful that, if pressure can't be brought to bear on Bush to sign CEDAW, that if and when Cheney leave office this and many other very important issues will be dealt with appropriately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connonym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
26. Sadly, not at all shocking
Part of the problem, I believe, is the whole "feminazi" thing. The concept of the women's rights has been so grotesquely distorted by the right wing that people are turned off by the notion of feminism even while they agree with all its ideals. I'm in my 40s, I remember when the ERA was being voted on. Even though I was just a child I remember thinking it was a no brainer. I'm saddened because I don't think a lot of younger women realize how fragile their rights are. They are content because they don't remember when sexual harassment was common in the work place, they don't remember when it was difficult to get birth control if you weren't married, they don't know a world where abortion is illegal. I wonder if my generation has failed to be a proper example. Don't even get me started on this ridiculous notion that there's some back-handed discrimination against boys in school. Where the hell did we go wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larry Ogg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
28. Our supposedly elected political leaders
bear more of a resemblance to a barbarian collective monarchy.

Let’s not lose track of their real purpose, which is to remove from law everybody’s rights, it just wouldn’t make any sense for them to give women and children additional rights today, so that some Nazi bastard would have to take them away tomorrow.

You also have to consider that the absence of such rights and laws allow some very rich and powerful people to remain under the radar. You can’t violate the rights of a woman or any person, if the ruling class proclaims, no rights exist.

Also women and children are exploited commodities and resources in third world countries , as of such, treaties and laws would have adverse affects on the corporate bottom line. So I don’t expect much will change as long as elected conservatives and so called elected moderates or centrist are allowing the corporations to write our laws and run the country.

I suppose we should also give a big round of applause to the corporate media for making this such an issue…

What would it look like if this was put in the perspective of social and political paradigms? I don’t mean to change the subject, it’s just that I have been doing a little research on paradigms this weak and can’t seem to find much info on the subject. Thought you might have some good insight on the subject…


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Thoughts on paradigms
Well, what you said about some corporations fearing giving more rights to women because it would impinge on their powers -- that certainly is true for many of them.

But also, there is a paradigm of the paternalistic family in this country and in the western world in general. That is a very old paradigm, which will make it harder to get rid of, but there has been some good progress in the 20th Century, such as when women were given the right to vote.

Some posters on this thread have called this a paternalistic society. I think that that is true to a large extent, but it is not fully true. There are many in our society, especially from the Christian Right, who fully believe in a paternalistic society -- so much so that they think of the paternalistic model, with women subordinate in every way, as not only "traditional" family values, but as the ONLY family values worth talking about.

But of course many of us don't feel that way, and it may even be true that most Americans don't feel that way, as evidenced by the fact that most Americans are pro-choice. But it seems like a very paternalistic society at this point in time, since George Bush occupies the WH, and he is about as paternalistic as they come.

I believe that there will be a much better chance for CEDAW to be signed by our country once Bush leaves office, if we can't get that to happen by putting enough pressure on him prior to that time. time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larry Ogg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Thanks Dr. Dale, never heard of the paternalistic family before,
that aught to keep me busy for a while.

Its amazing ware words and fraises will lead you. I did a google search and ‘wow’ there is a lot of info, I glanced through Wikipedia and there’s a lot about Roman master slave hierarchical father knows best type stuff relating too religion and politics.

One more thing, I know you must be very busy and all, but would it be ok, if I had some research question, to send you a pm? I don’t want to be a pest, just thought I would ask?
Larry



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Sure Larry, any time
I'd be happy to help out if I can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larry Ogg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Hey Dr Dale, check it out
I think that I got a DUzy award using my math skills.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1657360&mesg_id=1657360">***DUzy Awards for weeks ending August 17 & 24, 2007.***


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. .
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
36. disgusting but typical of BushCo.
i guess they know they'd lose a portion of the fundy vote if they supported it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
39. Oh, I'm so proud to be an American...
oh wait.


This is the collision of two loathesome trends in American fascist thinking: plain ol' simple and intense misogyny, and a phobic horror of the idea that the rest of the world might have some good ideas and the US might do well to recognize some basic global standards (see Kyoto, war crimes treaties, capital punishment, etc.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC