Looks, presence and power

I am an Elizabeth Taylor fan.  Manohla Dargis summed it up:

"Ms. Taylor managed the role of sex object effortlessly as if it too were just part of the job. In contrast to so many other actresses, she seemed as desiring as desirous, with the gift of a thrillingly unladylike appetite. She was a great lover of food, of course, as her cruelly documented weight gains make evident. Yet the appetite that appeared to drive, at times even define her, exceeded mere food to include everything, and her consumption of men, booze, jewels and celebrity itself was an astonishment."

However contrived and improbable the stories, her performances in "Place in the Sun" and "Butterfield 8" conveyed a passion and humanity that were consistent with her later public discussions about a studio system that gave her 2 weeks off after the death of her husband Mike Todd, and her later support for AIDS activism. Who knows what really goes on in the lives of the impossibly rich and famous - not me for sure. But to the extent our lives are bombarded with celebrity-dom, I liked it that rich gorgeous Liz made it a believable part of part of her public persona to stick up for herself and for the socially excluded. So, a salute.

Do You Have Sex? Do You Have Power?

Ellen Shaffer, Defend the Dream Rally, San Francisco, March 15, 2011

Robert Reich is an inspiration to all of us, and one of the country's truly great thinkers. There are a lot of very smart people over at UC Berkeley, where he teaches.
As Co-Director of the Center for Policy Analysis, I want to demonstrate to Professor Reich that we can hold our own over here in San Francisco, too. So I have some complicated math questions I want to ask you. Some of them are multiple choice. I want you to huddle up and get warm and stand with some other people you think are really smart and we'll see if we can figure out what the problem is around here.

Are you ready?

Ok here's the first question, tell me if you can answer it:

Do you have sex?

Let me repeat: Do you have sex?

Ok here's the next question, this one has multiple parts:

Have you ever had sex, do you plan to have sex in the future, do you have any friends or relatives who you have reason to believe have ever had sex?

If you said yes to any of these questions, think about this one:

Do you think it's any business of Congress' if you do or if you don't?

All right, now let's get into some really tricky stuff.

When you've had sex, how many of you were surprised at some point when you got pregnant?

Here's a fact: 50% of pregnancies in the US are unintended pregnancies.

And 30% of women have an abortion at some time in our lives.

30%.

Here's another little-known fact: some of those women are - Republicans!

Now let's see what else we can discover here today.
We hear there are deficits, at the state and federal levels. The federal deficit is a big one, $1.5 trillion.

So let's see whose fault that is.

Did you make $810 billion last year? Anyone?

The oil industry did.

Anyone here vote to spend $3 trillion fighting phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, without any way to pay for it?

Fact: Corporate profits went up to $1.6 trillion in 2010. Over half of U.S. companies paid no federal taxes at some time in the last decade.

Anybody here make $1.6 trillion and not pay taxes?

Here in California we have seen some of the starkest financial tragedies, the tragic divide between rich and poor, entire communities devastated by the irresponsible, criminal negligence of banks and finance capital.

Now here's another question:

Do we have any power?

You bet we do. If we didn't have any power they wouldn't have to keep bopping us over the head to keep us down.

The right wing extremists in Congress are marching to the tune of the extremists in the corporate world.

In Congress, and in the states, the far right is going after us, all of us, with their guns drawn, literally and figuratively.

The Republican budget bill would slash funds to implement health care reform, slash Head Start early childhood programs, slash Pell grants to students, close down public radio, deregulate environmental polluters.

And to women, and to those of you who ever have had or ever will have sex, they would do this:

The would defund family planning, period. Defund Planned Parenthood, period - even the cancer screenings and preventive health services in poor neighborhoods that make up 97% of their budget. Remember, half of pregnancies are unintended; that percent would go straight up.

They would make it virtually impossible to get an abortion. Because many employers get a federal tax break for providing health insurance, extremists say this means you should not be able to use your private insurance to pay for an abortion, because there is a public dollar in there somewhere.

It gets worse than that. You've probably heard some of the proposals: defining the murder of abortion providers as justifiable homicide. Authorizing hospitals to refuse to perform an abortion even if the refusal would result in the death of the mother.

The number of reliable pro-choice Senators is now a bare 40.

The vast majority of Americans believe that we as individuals have the right to make our own decisions about how and when we're going to have children. The majority believe that abortion should be legal.

The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign was formed so that the 80% of us who support individual choices about our reproductive health can be visible and vocal, and can take action.

We can exert tremendous influences over our life courses, as individuals.

But in many other ways, do as well as our communities do.

It is when we are united that we truly have power.

That is why we have to be smart.

They are throwing everything at us at the same time: trying to smash our unions, smash our democracy, smash our freedom of choice about when we're going to have kids, and with whom.

Because we are strongest when we are united, and we are weakest when they can pull us apart.

We are here today with Madison, we are here today with Ohio, we are here today with the LGBTQ community, with undocumented immigrants, with men and women - and for sure with all of us who have sex!

We are here with the people near the Fukushima Daichi reactor, where caretakers kept saying, don't worry, it's perfectly safe.

We're here with each other because we know that when we stand together that is when we have power.

Do we have power?

Do we have power?

Do we have power?

Now let's show our leaders what power is and what to do with it.




Thanks to Weslyan Uncut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaxBR1AiFS4

WILL YOU HAVE TO PAY A 3.8% TAX IF YOU SELL YOUR HOUSE? NO!!!

Here is one of the most insidious and widespread myths about the application of the Affordable Care Act. In presenting about the law in remote areas, I've found that people who had heard nothing about any of the benefits of the ACA had heard this: if you sell your house you'll have to pay 3.8% in new taxes on the amount of the sale.
Here's what is wrong with this:

Sec. 1411 is below. It does impose a 3.8% tax generally on unearned income, a progressive feature of the law.
And the 3.8% tax does apply to the sale of certain property.
But all of the following must be true for the tax to apply to proceeds from the sale of your home:
1. Your annual income must be $200,000 or greater if you file taxes as a single person, or $250,000 if you file as a couple. This excludes about 98% of Americans right there.
AND
2. The net gain from the sale of your home must be declarable as taxable income.
Now if you've sold a residence in the last 20 years you know that Congress is constantly finding ways to exclude home sale gains from taxable income. Right now you usually pay no tax on the sale for a variety of reasons. These change from time to time but right now include these conditions at least:
a. The first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already.
or
b. If you buy another home, you pay no tax.
Remember, you can make a million in taxable gains on the sale of your home and the new 3.8% tax will not apply unless you're also declaring taxable earnings over $200,000 a year.
You can find all this out in summary at FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
But I think you're better armed by knowing where to look in the law so here you are:
‘‘SEC. 1411. IMPOSITION OF TAX.


‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e)—

‘‘(1) APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of an individual,

there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax

imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal to

3.8 percent of the lesser of—

‘‘(A) net investment income for such taxable year, or

‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—

‘‘(i) the modified adjusted gross income for such

taxable year, over

‘‘(ii) the threshold amount.

‘‘(2) APPLICATION TO ESTATES AND TRUSTS.—In the case of

an estate or trust, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any

other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax

of 3.8 percent of the lesser of—

‘‘(A) the undistributed net investment income for such

taxable year, or

‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—

‘‘(i) the adjusted gross income (as defined in section

67(e)) for such taxable year, over

‘‘(ii) the dollar amount at which the highest tax

bracket in section 1(e) begins for such taxable year.

‘‘(b) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of this chapter, the

term ‘threshold amount’ means—

‘‘(1) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under

section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

$250,000,

‘‘(2) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section

7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the dollar amount determined

under paragraph (1), and

‘‘(3) in any other case, $200,000.

‘‘(c) NET INVESTMENT INCOME.—For purposes of this chapter—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘net investment income’ means

the excess (if any) of—

‘‘(A) the sum of—
‘‘(i) gross income from interest, dividends, annuities,

royalties, and rents, other than such income

which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or

business not described in paragraph (2),

‘‘(ii) other gross income derived from a trade or

business described in paragraph (2), and

‘‘(iii) net gain (to the extent taken into account in

computing taxable income) attributable to the disposition

of property other than property held in a trade or

business not described in paragraph (2), over

‘‘(B) the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are

properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.

‘‘(2) TRADES AND BUSINESSES TO WHICH TAX APPLIES.—A

trade or business is described in this paragraph if such trade

or business is—

‘‘(A) a passive activity (within the meaning of section

469) with respect to the taxpayer, or

‘‘(B) a trade or business of trading in financial instruments

or commodities (as defined in section 475(e)(2)).

‘‘(3) INCOME ON INVESTMENT OF WORKING CAPITAL SUBJECT

TO TAX.—A rule similar to the rule of section 469(e)(1)(B) shall

apply for purposes of this subsection.

‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN ACTIVE INTERESTS IN PARTNERSHIPS

AND S CORPORATIONS.—In the case of a disposition of

an interest in a partnership or S corporation—

‘‘(A) gain from such disposition shall be taken into account

under clause (iii) of paragraph (1)(A) only to the extent

of the net gain which would be so taken into account

by the transferor if all property of the partnership or S

corporation were sold for fair market value immediately

before the disposition of such interest, and

‘‘(B) a rule similar to the rule of subparagraph (A)

shall apply to a loss from such disposition.

‘‘(5) EXCEPTION FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED

PLANS.—The term ‘net investment income’ shall not include

any distribution from a plan or arrangement described in section

401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 408A, or 457(b).

‘‘(6) SPECIAL RULE.—Net investment income shall not include

any item taken into account in determining self-employment

income for such taxable year on which a tax is imposed

by section 1401(b).

‘‘(d) MODIFIED ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.—For purposes of this

chapter, the term ‘modified adjusted gross income’ means adjusted

gross income increased by the excess of—

‘‘(1) the amount excluded from gross income under section

911(a)(1), over

‘‘(2) the amount of any deductions (taken into account in

computing adjusted gross income) or exclusions disallowed

under section 911(d)(6) with respect to the amounts described

in paragraph (1).

‘‘(e) NONAPPLICATION OF SECTION.—This section shall not apply

to—

‘‘(1) a nonresident alien, or
‘‘(2) a trust all of the unexpired interests in which are devoted

to one or more of the purposes described in section

170(c)(2)(B).’’.

(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 is amended—

(A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘and the tax under

chapter 2’’ and inserting ‘‘the tax under chapter 2, and the

tax under chapter 2A’’; and

(B) in subsection (f)—

(i) by striking ‘‘minus’’ at the end of paragraph (2)

and inserting ‘‘plus’’; and

(ii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph

(4) and inserting after paragraph (2) the following new

paragraph:

‘‘(3) the taxes imposed by chapter 2A, minus’’.

(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters for subtitle

A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is

amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 2 the

following new item:

‘‘CHAPTER 2A—UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE CONTRIBUTION’’.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendments made by this subsection

shall apply to taxable years beginning after December

31, 2012.

(b) EARNED INCOME.—

(1) THRESHOLD.—

(A) FICA.—øAmended section 3101(b)(2) of the IRC, as

added by section 9015 (and amended by section 10906) of

PPACA, including inserting a new subparagraph (B)¿

(B) SECA.—øAmended section 1401(b)(2) of the IRC,

as added by section 9015 (and amended by section 10906)

of PPACA, including inserting a new clause (ii) in subparagraph

(A)¿

(2) ESTIMATED TAXES.—Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (m)

as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the following

new subsection:

‘‘(m) SPECIAL RULE FOR MEDICARE TAX.—For purposes of this

section, the tax imposed under section 3101(b)(2) (to the extent not

withheld) shall be treated as a tax imposed under chapter 2.’’.

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection

shall apply with respect to remuneration received, and

taxable years beginning after, December 31, 2012.


Plus, if you've gotten this far, you can look up portions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) referred to above.

The House's Budget Bill is a Bully's Snigger

We've had our children, or not. But we remember.
Worried when we were "late." Escaped to New York or California or Mexico where it was legal, if we could, or found lay caregivers through Jane. Mourned our friends, or relatives, or patients, who were not so lucky. The girls who had to quit school; their boyfriends who never did.

We remember when domestic violence didn't have a name. We know that too many still cower in the face of it. We remember when women couldn't get jobs as reporters. We cringe that they are still blamed by some when they are raped on the job.

We fought on the job for decent pay and union rights, and at home for equality and respect. We're so proud of the lives we've created and equally proud of the generations of women and men who are asserting their places in the world.

We're not surprised that Republicans with no solutions for an ailing global economy are going after the rights of individuals to make our own reproductive choices, the rights of workers to a voice on the job, the rights of all of us to public health and health care. We have been startled at how quickly the Democrats will throw us under the bus.

The House's budget bill, HR 1, and the companion HR 3, are the equivalent of a bully's snigger. Their plans to cut health care services including family planning would force more unintended pregnancies on the most vulnerable women. And then deny access to abortions. They have come to push us around and take our money for their own binges, while bellowing about freedom and fiscal responsibility.


So, we need to find each other again, link up as allies, to renew our vision and our voices, to rebuild our power.

The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign will wear our silver ribbons for reproductive health, rights and justice (www.oursilverribbon.org) at the Walks for Choices this Saturday, Feb. 26 at noon. There's one near you: http://walkforchoice.tumblr.com/


Let's get this party started.

The Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign for Reproductive Rights -- Why Now

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-r-shaffer/the-trust-womensilver-rib_b_810010.html

We've learned a lot this past year.

We learned it is not enough to appoint and elect smart, progressive women and pro-choice men to government. They and we need to mobilize visibly and vocally to advocate for reproductive rights and justice.


As we celebrate the anniversary of Roe v, Wade on Jan. 22, we and our partners are launching the Silver Ribbon Campaign to Trust Women.


Since the beginning of time, women and men have found ways to control when and whether to undertake the joys and responsibilities of becoming parents. Most adults use or have used birth control. However, even the best birth control fails one time in a hundred. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned. At least a third of U.S. women have an abortion during their lives. Most adults believe that abortion care, a legal procedure. should be covered by health insurance as part of reproductive health services. 86% of employer-based health plans currently cover abortion. In these hard economic times, it is crucial that families have the choice whether to bring a child into the world.


But abortion has been stigmatized by a well-organized, well-funded minority movement, including extremists who provoke violent acts. Our reproductive health is used as a wedge issue, seizing on voters' anxieties about the economy and social issues to claim support for the regressive, anti-woman, anti-self-determination ideology of the right.

We saw a pro-choice president sign laws restricting access to abortion in at least three different ways: In the health care reform law, an executive order, and a regulation on state health plans. Despite the obvious fact that contraception is prevention, the Administration felt compelled to convene a panel to determine if contraceptives count as preventive care.


87% of counties now have no abortion providers. The burden falls hardest on the most vulnerable. 1 in 4 Medicaid recipients could not afford an abortion because it is not covered by their state. Medicaid funding restrictions also delay abortions by 2-3 weeks because of the hardship of raising funds to pay for the procedure. Delaying abortion results in higher risk for the health of the women and higher health care costs.


For too long, abortion providers have suffered from domestic terrorism by a violent, tightly-organized fringe. Virtually every clinic in the U.S. that provides abortions has experienced systematic harassment. Doctors who perform abortions have been targeted and murdered. Most recently, in 2009, an anti-reproductive rights zealot shot Dr. George Tiller point blank while Dr. Tiller was serving as a church usher. Each time a doctor murderer was apprehended, the media claimed that the perpetrator was a "lone wolf," a fable unmasked in Ms. Magazine's article by Amanda Robb.


It's up to us, the majority, to demand our rights. We have the right to make decisions about our reproductive health. We have the right to decide whether and when to have children. We have the right to use birth control as prevention. But if we do not stand up and be counted and seen, these rights will be chipped away -- or taken away.

On Jan. 22, on the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal, we join with men and women around the U.S. to launch a month in which we wear silver ribbons: the Silver Ribbon Campaign to Trust Women.


It's time to express the true voices of America.

It's time to come together and show our strength and numbers.

We need to stand by each other and claim our rights to the legal health care to which we're entitled.


Join the Silver Ribbon campaign to Trust Women, for Reproductive Rights and Justice.


1. Wear a Trust Women Silver Ribbon, representing science over ideology

2. Spread the word.

- Follow us on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/hmKaES

- Follow us on Twitter: @oursilverribbon

- Get your Twibbon: http://twb.ly/hp1HEG

Tweet and Facebook about the campaign the following lines:

Trust Women! Show your support for reproductive health care and women's rights by @Twibbon http://twb.ly/hp1HEG via @oursilverribbon

3. Take action!

Check out our webpage of events and share your story about reproductive rights and healthcare.

We who proudly wear the silver ribbon:

• Support reproductive rights

• Support free access to birth control

• Support keeping abortion legal and accessible

We Trust Women to make to their own reproductive health decisions and ask you to join us in showing that you Trust Women, too! Please wear a Silver Ribbon on 1/22-2/22 to show that you Trust Women and we (who Trust Women) are the majority.


Get involved! Go to: www.oursilverribbon.org


Co-authored by with Sophia Yen MD, MPH: pediatrician, adolescent medicine specialist, mother, woman, wife.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Gone; No on DREAM Act

I’d rather no one were in the military.


I’d rather no one had to be married to enjoy full benefits of social and political life.

I hope today’s vote removes another barrier to social inclusion. It was a hard fight; this is a milestone.

Next year we’ll fight for immigrants to claim recognition, to trust women with decisions about their bodies, and for equitable, quality, universal affordable health care.

From Politico:

By SCOTT WONG
12/18/10 11:57 AM EST Updated: 12/18/10 3:52 PM EST

The Senate voted Saturday afternoon to repeal the ban on gays in the military, marking a major victory for gay rights and an end to the 17-year old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.



The bill now heads to President Barack Obama, who plans to sign it into law, overturning what repeal advocates believed was a discriminatory policy that unfairly ended the careers of thousands of gay members of the military over the years.



The 65-31 Senate vote marked a historic – and emotional – moment for the gay-rights movement and handed Obama a surprising political victory in the closing days of the 111th Congress. The legislation had been left for dead as recently as last week after Republicans in the Senate blocked efforts to advance it, yet on final passage, the bill won surprising support from eight Republicans.



The repeal, which would not take effect immediately, ushers in a major cultural shift for a military that has operated under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy since the first year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.



The Senate vote capped months of uncertainty about whether Congress or the federal courts, where gay-rights advocates are fighting the ban, would act first to repeal the policy.



The real drama had already come a few hours earlier when the repeal bill cleared a crucial procedural hurdle. The 63-33 cloture vote was three more than needed to beat back a Republican filibuster.



With support from all but one member of the Democratic caucus and help from seven Republicans, the bill overcame the 60-vote threshold required to move forward.



The Republican senators voting “yes” with the Democrats were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John Ensign of Nevada, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine. Burr, Ensign and Kirk were late surprises, bucking their party on the historic vote.



West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who previously stated he opposes repeal, was the only Democrat to miss the vote, apparently because of a family “holiday gathering,” his spokeswoman said.



President Barack Obama called the procedural vote an “historic step” toward ending a discriminatory policy that weakens America’s national security and violates the ideals troops risk their lives to defend.



“By ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay,” Obama said in a statement. “And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.”



The repeal measure, passed by the Senate Saturday, already cleared the Democratic-controlled House this week along a mostly party-line 250-175 vote. It now goes directly to the president for his promised signature.



The repeal, however, wouldn’t take effect immediately. Obama, Gates and Mullen would have to certify to Congress that they have reviewed the Pentagon report on the impacts of repeal, that the Defense Department is prepared to implement repeal and that doing so would not harm military readiness, troop morale, and recruiting and retention.



The policy would be repealed 60 days after the president submits the document.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46576.html#ixzz18V2i4ifj

Acceptance of Dr. Paul Cornely Award for Social Activism from the Physicians' Forum at the American Public Health Association, Nov. 7, 2010

Thank you so much for this award. It is a deep honor to carry on the historic and inspiring work of Dr. Paul Cornely, a lifelong fighter for social justice. Upon his death in 2002, the Washington Post recalled his outstanding lifetime in public health. He was the first black president of the American Public Health Association (1970), the first black person to earn a doctorate in public health (1934), and a founder and first president of the D.C. Public Health Association in 1963 (now the Metropolitan Washington Public Health Association.) Among his landmark struggles was the fight to eliminate segregated health care.

It is especially meaningful to celebrate the traditions those of us gathered together tonight share.

The APHA annual meeting usually follows just on our national elections, and as a result we've shared many historic moments together.

We were together on the eve of the Bush presidency in 2000, and again when we led him to fire Donald Rumsfeld in 2006.
We were together when we elected Barack Obama in 2008.
And this week, of course, the San Francisco Giants have won the World Series for the first time in decades - against the Texas Rangers, I might add.

It has been a difficult week in some other respects but we are so lucky in so many ways - that we do still have the motivation, the means and the wherewithal to speak up for what we believe in.

And especially that we have each other to come together and share it with.

The corporate assault on politics is not new.

There are real historians here so I'll just talk from two of my personal sources of information - my parents and the movies.

I remember my parents telling me about Glenn Beck's precursor, the hate-spewing Father Coughlin, an anti-Semitic, pro Nazi demagogue who dominated the radio airwaves in the 1930s.

And I've been watching re-runs lately of "Mr Smith Goes to Washington." Freshly minted Senator Jimmy Stewart tries to stop a local wheeler dealer from diverting federal funds to build a dam on his property. Jimmy Stewart did everything he could muster. He filibustered on the floor of the Senate to marshal the local press back home - Mr Big confiscated all the newspapers and paid off the radio announcers. Jimmy mobilized the Boy Scouts to hand out fliers, and Mr. Big's goons beat up the Boy Scouts! But he kept at it and kept at it, til Senator Claude Rains couldn't take it any more and handed Jimmy his victory.

Their techniques are more sophisticated today. But the goal is always the same - to keep us ignorant and quiet, so the bullies of the world can get their way.

I think we've had more than one victory this year. We passed health care reform, after a century of failure. It is pock-marked, bullet-ridden and precarious, but it does two things at the heart of the single payer system we are going to win:

It expands the role of government in assuring coverage and payment for health care - something we must start talking about, positively and effectively.

And it targets administrative waste and reform of the delivery system.

These fundamental reforms are in addition to the immediate benefits I hear about every day, in the work of the EQUAL Health Network to educate about, implement and improve the new law, the immediate reason for this honor tonight.

Nothing could give me greater pleasure than to have the chance to share this room with the many of you who've stood here before me, and forged our identity as people who will speak truth to power - and will bend it!