Mother Jones just published a lengthy profile of the most senior member of the Senate (and the second wealthiest), Dianne Feinstein. The article is titled, "The Lioness in Winter." (Feinstein is 83 years old or is the reference to OUR Winter of Discontent?) The piece is definitely timely what with the calls to "primary her" for a more progressive, more Trump-resisting replacement. The story is also provocative with details on the challenges in her personal life, but the third paragraph stopped me:

"I am old enough to remember what it was like before" Roe v. Wade, she said, recalling how, as a member of the California Women's Parole Board in the 1960s, she had sent women to prison for 10-year sentences for terminating pregnancies. "And they still went back to it because the need was so great."

Granted the times were different, very different, but still. The interviewer did not record whether Feinstein expressed regrets now or debated whether to protest then.

Feinstein's work on the CIA's torture methods might have changed the future of the country if the details from her Senate Intelligence Committee discoveries were ever fully revealed.

The take-away question for me is what political and personal risks is she willing to take before she faces voters in 2018? More specifically, what can the resistance movement do to encourage,or demand, Senator Feinstein to be not just the most senior and 2nd-most wealthy but to be the most powerful member determined to rescue the nation from the existential threat of Trump and his cronies?
Mother Jones just published a lengthy profile of the most senior member of the Senate (and the second wealthiest), Diane Feinstein. The article is titled, "The Lioness in Winter." (Feinstein is 83 years old or is the reference to OUR Winter of Discontent?) The piece is definitely timely what with the calls to "primary her" for a more progressive, more Trump-resisting replacement. The story is also provocative with details on the challenges in her personal life, but the third paragraph stopped me:
"I am old enough to remember what it was like before" Roe v. Wade, she said, recalling how, as a member of the California Women's Parole Board in the 1960s, she had sent women to prison for 10-year sentences for terminating pregnancies. "And they still went back to it because the need was so great."
Granted the times were different, very different, but still. The interviewer did not record whether Feinstein expressed regrets now or debated whether to protest then.
Feinstein's work on the CIA's torture methods might have changed the future of the country if the details from her Senate Intelligence Committee discoveries were ever fully revealed.
The take-away question for me is what political and personal risks is she willing to take before she faces voters in 2018? More specifically, what can the resistance movement do to encourage,or demand, Senator Feinstein to be not just the most senior and 2nd-most wealthy but to be the most powerful member determined to rescue the nation from the existential threat of Trump and his cronies?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/dianne-feinstein-versus-donald-trump

On June 3, 1916, Portland, Oregon observed National Preparedness Day with the largest parade in the city’s history. Fifteen thousand people marched along forty blocks downtown with their shoulders squared, heads held high, and spirits soaring. Hundreds carried banners with a one-word message – Prepare – while brass bands played martial airs and a dozen divisions marched in formation, group by profession and interest. A contingent of four hundred doctors and medical students, three hundred young men of the Athletic League, and five hundred suffragists – all stepped out for patriotism and readiness. It was a time of unit with the thrill of shared purpose and resolve.
 
Equi was of a different mind. Earlier that day, she had motored around the city with an opposite message, daring for its difference. Then she steered her way in to the parade route and approached the jubilant, patriotic crowd. She had mounted an American flag at the front of her automobile, but strapped on the side was a white banner that warned,” Prepare to Die, Workingman – J.P. Morgan & Co. Want Preparedness for Profit – Thou Shalt Not Kill.” With brazen courage, she rolled into the march behind the Knights of Columbus and the local bar association, two contingents known for their preparedness fervor. Quick and fierce, the marchers attacked. According to Equi, the attorneys struck first, yanking the banner from her and striking her with it.
 
A mob of 50 angry men surrounded and taunted her
 
“I was scratched and bruised, and my hand bled,” she said. “They tore the banner to shreds and stomped on it.” At one point, a mob of fifty angry men surrounded and taunted her, yelling, “That’s what we do to your banner, now here’s ours.” The men thrust the American flag into her hands, daring her to rip it. Equi later admitted to tearing two strips from it saying, “Your flag is no protection to me.” She put up a fight until the police intervened and arrested her and two of the men.
 
Excerpted from MARIE EQUI: Radical Politics and Outlaw Passions, available at bookstores and online. For more info: michaelhelquist.com 
--------------
Author’s Note:
What impresses and inspires me about this incident is Marie Equi’s courage and passion. Three years earlier police arrested her for protesting in a labor strike. At the station, the police brutally interrogated her.  She knew she could not count of police to protect her in another street fight. She knew men might beat her up again. But she pushed her way into the parade, one dissenter among 15,000, because she believed strongly in the anti-war cause. 

From the blog of the Oregon State University Press: 

The specter of the European War had darkened everyday life in the United States for many months. Americans had marched in Preparedness Day extravaganzas a year earlier. A minority of dissenters had rallied to protest what they regarded as an imperialistic adventure of capitalists who were ready to carve out spheres of influence with the bodies of working-class soldiers and sailors. A coalition of peace organizations had struggled to halt the false notion of “preparedness,” believing war-readiness would demand engagement in the conflict. But war now seemed inexorable.
 
The day before, April 4, 1917, the U.S. Senate ended twelve hours of debate to adopt a resolution that a state of war exists between the U.S. and Germany. The final vote was 82 to 6, with 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats opposing the measure. Crowds crammed into the Senate galleries, and US House members stood in the rear of the room witnessing the event. After the decision was announced, senators and spectators emptied the chambers in a somber silence.
 
On April 5, 1917 the U.S. House of Representatives voted 373 to 50 in favor of the war resolution. Their debate continued for 17 hours, with a decision coming shortly after 3 am in the morning. The only woman serving in the U.S. Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, reluctantly voiced her opposition. She was quoted saying,” I want to stand by my country but I cannot vote for war.”