I heard this yesterday, and one of my readers sent me the link today. It is hysterical. National Public Radio had an interview with two of the top voice over artists for political campaign ads. (My favorite is “Humpty Dumpty…Wrong on Walls”.)
What the heck. Use the comments here to discuss the ongoing election results, if you like. So far, we can say for sure that Rick Santorum has lost and lost bad, so the day can’t be altogether bad, right?
This page by the DCCC is an excellent place to monitor the house races - word is they’ll be updating frequently.
And here’s CNN’s page on the Senate races. Right now (6:45 pacific time) it looks like the Republicans have surely won Missouri, probably Tennessee, and a good chance that George Allen will be re-elected in Virginia by small margin. So if the voting so far is representative of the whole, the Republicans will keep the Senate, albeit by a smaller margin.
UPDATE: 11pm Pacific Time, the Democrats have won in Virginia (which will probably require a recount) and are ahead in Montana and Missouri. So it may be the Dems will wind up controlling the Senate, as well. Damn.
The Feminist Majority has set up this page to track the results from a “Year Of The Woman (The Sequel) perspective. And this page on the Ms. Mag website will track stage ballot measures of interest to feminists. (Bad news: Late-term abortion ban in Virginia is projected to win. Good news: Minimum wage increase in Ohio).
Leave suggested links, thoughts, jokes, recipes, or whatever else you’d like in comments. It’s gonna be a long night.
I’m stealing this post outright from Dispatches from the Culture War. Ed quotes from a Time Magazine article about reactions in Israel to this Friday’s planned Gay Pride parade:
An unknown extremist Jewish group pasted up signs announcing a $500 “reward” for every gay man or woman killed during the parade, which is scheduled for Nov. 10. Several ultra-orthodox rabbis have vowed to mobilize more than 100,000 protesters to shut down Jerusalem on the day of the parade, and police warn that some groups plan to pelt the marchers with apples jagged with razor blades.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the religious divide:
Meanwhile, in a rare display of solidarity with Jewish extremists, an influential Islamic cleric is urging Muslims to stage a simultaneous protest inside the old walled city to draw away Israeli police who would otherwise be shielding the gay parade from harm. “Not only should these homosexuals be banned from holding their parade,” says one Muslim cleric, Sheikh Ibrahim Hassan, who preaches at a mosque near Damascus Gate, “but they should be punished and sent to an isolated place.” Hatred, it seems, can be a bridge to inter-faith harmony.
It’s amazing that so many people the world over believe that something as basically harmless as one guy fucking another guy, or one woman fucking another woman, is something to get so hysterical about. Further proof that right-wing religion rots the mind, I guess. When they die and have to face God and Her girlfriend in Heaven, boy will their faces be red.
At least, that’s the message Republicans in New York seem to be sending their constituents.
Curtsy: Blackprof.com.
How to describe “Herschberg: A Serial”? Well, to quote someone - either Elkins or Kip, I suspect Elkins but I’m not quite sure:
In 1990, a group of 20-something slackers lived in a rental—one half of a duplex—in Boston, Massachusetts. There was a recession on, George Bush was in the White House, and we were gearing up for a war on Iraq. Many of us were out of work, and our house had no heat. So to cheer ourselves up (and in an attempt to keep warm) we played elaborate role-playing games and wrote round-robin serials. This was one of them.
In 2000, many of us still lived together, or at least close to one another, now all the way across the country in Portland, Oregon. We’d lost Beth and Steven, but we’d gained Becca and Jake. There was a recession on its way, another George Bush was about to go to the White House, and after ten years of crippling sanctions, we were gearing up for yet another war on Iraq. So to cheer ourselves up (and in an attempt to stave off despair) we revived the old Herschberg round-robin and batted it around for a while until, like a cat with an exhausted mouse, we wandered away to other things.
In 2003, a group of people who had met on FictionPress were having an involved discussion of the dynamics of round-robin story-telling. Elkins used the old Herschberg serial to illustrate a number of her points, and as it happened, a few people really enjoyed it. So in 2004, she put it on-line.
So here it is, in all its trashy glory: desperate ret-cons, gratuitous character abuse, gaping plot holes and all.
And lots of T.S. Eliot, of course.
We mustn’t forget the T.S. Eliot.
And then, in 2006, some folks at the newly-revived Herschberg Forum (!) have decided to do a group read-through of Herschberg, starting this week.
I’m mentioning this because I was one of the original writers of Herschberg, back when we typed out each chapter on a shared electric typewriter (I think it may have been Kip’s), on some canary yellow paper we used because the previous tenants of the house had left half a ream of canary yellow paper behind, and hey, it was free paper, wasn’t it? In fact, I wrote the first chapter of Herschberg — which has been tragically lost, and now exists only in summary form. And I also participated in the 2000 revival (by which time we were doing a better job with the writing, I think).
There are currently 31 chapters online. The first ten chapters are, for the most part, rather bad, but they have the virtue of being very short. If you read much past chapter ten, I think you’ll see why people find Herschberg interesting enough to read, “in all its trashy glory.”
After the read-through of the 31 chapters (which will take from this week through February - see the schedule here), Elkins is going to resume posting new Herschberg chapters, which is something I’m quite excited about. Plus, I love the idea of a serial that’s been running (albeit not continuously) from 1990 through 2006…
Anyway, I thought I’d mention it in case any “Alas” readers are interested in participating in the read-through.
I’ve already mentioned that a police officer is on trial for rape. The defense has an interesting new definition of consent:
Mr Gotlieb told a jury in Auckland District Court today that five defense witnesses would be called. He said one witness, Les Gardener, was expected to tell the court the woman suggested sex with him earlier in the evening, before she was allegedly raped by the policeman.
What is the judge doing? Why is that evidence?
For the judges and defense lawyers out there, any woman can say no to sex. A woman can say no to sex with one man after suggesting sex with another man. I know that’s a hard concept to grasp - but if you have trouble with it I’m sure I could provide a mallet.
Reasonable doubt rears its head. From an article in The New Yorker:
It was also learned that the photo identification of the three players Nifong indicted was the result of a procedure so problematic that it may prove not to have been worth the effort. After the failure of the first two tries at getting an identification, Nifong instructed police to compile a photographic lineup consisting only of lacrosse players, and to ask the accuser if she recognized her attackers. That process (which Osborn described as “a multiple-choice test with no wrong answers”) seems to have been a violation of the Durham Police Department’s own rules.
I don’t know what happened at the party. But I know the photo IDs are essential to the DA’s case against the three accused Lacrosse players. And this was clearly a bad ID. There are standard procedures for running IDs, designed to protect innocent people from being railroaded; these procedures were ignored, and the ID has no reliability. Under those circumstances, I don’t see how anyone - including those who are sure Mary Doe was raped - could be certain beyond reasonable doubt that these three men raped her.
I’ve said a few times in the past that although I think Mary Doe was raped at that party, I also recognize that I could be mistaken about that. And I continue to believe that many of the arguments supporting the “Mary Doe is a liar” case - that her initial statements to police were jumbled and incoherent, that she’s a stripper, and that she also reported being gang-raped many years ago, for three examples - are not only garbage, but are based in dangerous, harmful myths about rape. All of these complaints are variations of The Myth Of The Platonic Rape Victim - the idea we should imagine a perfect rape victim, and then ask if the complainant’s behavior and statements match what our imaginary perfect rape victim would have done and said. The Platonic Rape Victim’s statements are never incoherent, contradictory or inaccurate; the Platonic Rape Victim is not raped twice in one lifetime; the Platonic Rape Victim is certainly not a stripper!
On the other hand, some of the new evidence - in particular, the recent public statements of the other stripper, essentially accusing Mary Doe of making the whole thing up - seems to be to provide much more substantial reason for doubt.
I stand by most of my past posts on this subject. But I no longer believe Mary Doe was raped that night. (Nor do I believe she wasn’t raped. I’m now an agnostic on this question.)
There are two questions to consider here: First, “Did a rape happen?” and second, “Is there enough evidence to prove in a courtroom that these particular three men committed rape?” I don’t know the answer to the first question. But - especially in light of the bad ID - I think the answer to the second question is “no.”
I was travelling last week, and I didn’t get to write about a whole lot of stuff I meant to write about. So I thought I’d put together my first link post. It’s not a link farm, because I don’t have that many links. Think of it more as a link lifestyle block, without the hard work of an actual farm link lifetyle blocks are in privileged areas (no this metahpor doesn’t work).
First of all you should just go and read brownfemipower. She has written some amazing stuff recently, and I want to quote whole posts. But I will just content myself with two snippets, from a poem in there somewhere
a thing i’ve noticed as i’ve been shifting through pictures of oaxaca and palestine is how many women bring their purses to rallies and protests. and not just a little purse they can hook over their head and forget about, but huge ass mama purses that you know the kitchen sink is in.
and every time i see a picture of some fierce mama facing down a tank or running away from bullets, clinging to her big ass purse, i want to cry. what is in that purse? did she pack extra tylenol in case somebody needed it? are their baby wipes (cuz they come in so handy, even when the kids aren’t around!)? is there a couple of extra bottles of water (in case one of the children lost their’s?)?
Also from Why feminists must stand against government repression in Mexico:
All feminists MUST pay attention to what is happening in Oaxaca. Indigenous women are leading the way to female liberation–which means that just as their demands for access to birth control carry the same weight in their actions that their demands for access to community radio do, they are also taking the brunt of the violence liberation often brings. But thier entire community recognizes that they will never have liberation (aka community health, freedom from poverty, clean air to breath, workers rights, sexual freedom, control of the land etc) as long as the nation/state has ultimate control over what happens to their bodies and souls–or as long as violence against women is acceptable in any form.
To some good news
PARIS, Nov 3, 2006 (AFP) - Unions at Paris’s main airport said Friday they plan to call for a strike over the withdrawal of security badges from scores of airport workers, mostly Muslims, denouncing it as discrimination.
This is an awesome display of solidarity from France’s airport. All credit to the workers involved, but there’s also a lot to be said for the constitutional right to strike.
While I was away Sophia from At the Bay wrote an excellent post about an article written by Anjum Rahman, a member of the Islamic Women’s Council. The article isn’t on-line so I’m quoting Sophia’s transcript:
Yet that seems to me to be a circular argument. It again relates sexual violence to women’s behaviour (ie their clothing - too much or too little) rather than men’s behaviour. It’s the same as the argument that covering up allows men to beat women without the results being visible. If that were the case, then women who dress scantily would suffer much less from domestic violence.
[...] To put hijab (covering) in the context of rape prevention is to negate its power. In reality, that is why the sheik’s comments are so destructive and harmful, and why they make me so angry. For me, hijab is a position of strength, but he turns it into a position of weakness and oppression. For me, it’s a personal statement of my relationship with God, but he makes it a statement about my relationship to man.”
BitchPhD has an excellent post about feminism, the division of labour, and a whole bunch of other things:
The second story is smaller, but bigger. In my Spanish class, there was an older woman who was returning to school. Over the course of the semester, we found things out about her: her husband was a doctor and she’d been a homemaker. He’d agreed to “let” her go to college as long as–she emphasized this–nothing changed at home. She was to continue to do all the housework and all the childcare (if memory serves, they had two school-age children) and could take classes and do homework in her spare time. I thought, of course, that this was fucking horrible, and although it was clear to me that her husband was a jerk, there was part of me that wondered why the hell she’d married him, and why she stayed married to him.
I don’t remember what prompted her outburst one afternoon, but I do remember her saying, passionately and seemingly on the verge of tears, “you young girls look at me and you all think you can have it all. You think that you won’t end up like me. But I’m telling you, you can’t have it all. Just wait. You’ll get married, and you’ll think you’re marrying someone who loves and supports and respects you, but that’s not how it works. I know you look at me and you think I’m crazy, or you feel sorry for me, but I’m telling you: look at me and realize that this is where you’ll be in twenty years.”
My Mum has said that she didn’t understand feminism until she had me (see I have magic powers). Although I have no children myself my feminist analysis is centred around reproduction, as much as it’s centred around control of women’s sexuality. I love reading personal blogs by feminist women who have children (my favourite is Raising WEG), because to me individual stories often speak really powerfully to the wider issues.
While I’m posting links I don’t think I’ve ever linked to my favourite post ever. When I first read this I said to a friend “I want to give this to everyone I know - no I want to turn it into a protective bubble around myself so that everyone who came within 50 metres had to read and understand it.” It starts with the absolutely awesome phrase “the crazy maze of eating while female” and is mostly about the problem of not replicating (and reinventing) negative attitudes towards food within supposedly feminist groups. After careful consideration I’ve decided this is my favourite paragraph:
At the very least, I think we need some new ways of approaching the issue of food in groups, so it becomes less about the fear of food and fat, less about our personal responsibility for our health, and more about encouraging women to feel strong in our ability to make food choices with integrity.
But I really do recommend you go read the whole thing.
Halloween… a time for costumes and candy. Also a time for going outside in freezing wind and tramping from door to door like oddly-dressed beggars. Every time a car passed us Sydney pretended to be scared, screaming “monster!” and clutching me or her Dad hard. But it was fun.
Interesting article by Asra Q. Nomani, a muslim peace activist, entitled “Clothes Aren’t The Issue.”
When dealing with a “disobedient wife,” a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of “the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam.” If that doesn’t work, he can “leave the wife’s bed.” Finally, he may “beat” her, though it must be without “hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost.”
Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book “Woman in the Shade of Islam” by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. “[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them,” reads one widely accepted translation.
The notion of using physical punishment as a “disciplinary action,” as Sheha suggests, especially for “controlling or mastering women” or others who “enjoy being beaten,” is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha’s work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.
Verse 4:34 retains a strong following, even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam. Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call “the 4:34 dance” — they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence. [...]
Born into a conservative Muslim family that emigrated from Hyderabad, India, to West Virginia, I have seen many female relatives in India cloak themselves head to toe in black burqas and abandon their education and careers for marriage. But the Islam I knew was a gentle one. I was never taught that a man could — or should — physically discipline his wife. Abusing anyone, I was told, violated Islamic tenets against zulm, or cruelty. My family adhered to the ninth chapter of the Koran, which says that men and women “are friends and protectors of one another.”
However, the kidnapping and killing of my friend and colleague Daniel Pearl in 2002 forced me to confront the link between literalist interpretations of the Koran that sanction violence in the world and those that sanction violence against women. For critics of Islam, 4:34 is the smoking gun that proves that Islam is misogynistic and intrinsically violent. Read literally, it is as troubling as Koranic verses such as At-Tauba (”The Repentance”) 9:5, which states that Muslims should “slay the pagans wherever ye find them” or Al-Mâ’idah (”The Table Spread with Food”) 5:51, which reads, “Take not the Jews and Christians as friends.”
Although Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem. A 2003 study of 216 Pakistani women found that 97 percent had experienced such abuse; almost half of them reported being victims of nonconsensual sex. Earlier this year, the state-run General Union of Syrian Women released a report showing that one in four married Syrian women is the victim of domestic violence. [...]
As long as the beating of women is acceptable in Islam, the problem of suicide bombers, jihadists and others who espouse violence will not go away; to me, they form part of a continuum. When 4:34 came into being in the 7th century, its pronouncements toward women were revolutionary, given that women were considered little more than chattel at the time. But 1,400 years later, the world is a different place and so, too, must our interpretations be different, retaining the progressive spirit of that verse.
Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult. Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small. [...]
Meanwhile, shelters created for Muslim women in Chicago and New York have begun to preach zero tolerance regarding the “disciplining” of women — a position that should be universal by now. And some Muslim men appear to grasp the gravity of this issue. In Northern Virginia, for instance, an imam organized a group called Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence — though it still endorses the “tapping” of a wife as a “friendly” reminder, an organizer said.
Yet even these small advances, if we can call them such, face an uphill battle against the Saudi oil money propagating literalist interpretations of the Koran here in the United States and worldwide.
There’s more - it’s worthwhile to read the whole article.
Why do westerners focus so much more on the veil and the hijab, while more or less ignoring wife-beating? I think the answer is obvious: Both Muslims and Christians beat their wives1, but only Muslims use hijabs.
The appallingness continues to escalate. From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2 — Under a new federal policy, children born in the United States to illegal immigrants with low incomes will no longer be automatically entitled to health insurance through Medicaid, Bush administration officials said Thursday.
Doctors and hospitals said the policy change would make it more difficult for such infants, who are United States citizens, to obtain health care needed in the first year of life. [...]
Marilyn E. Wilson, a spokeswoman for the Tennessee Medicaid program, said: “The federal government told us we have no latitude. All states must change their policies and practices. We will not be able to cover any services for the newborn until a Medicaid application is filed. That could be days, weeks or months after the child is born.” [...]
The Bush administration claims that they have no choice under the Deficit Reduction Act. But although the DRA does tighten immigration requirements, it doesn’t say a word about infants; nor are infants born in the USA immigrants. They’re citizens, just as American as Bush’s own daughters. More from the Times article:
Doctors and hospitals denounced the policy change and denied that it was required by the new law. Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the policy “punishes babies who, according to the Constitution, are citizens because they were born here.”
Yet another example of how the “pro-life” party doesn’t give a damn about babies once they’re born. Medical care during the first year of a baby’s life shouldn’t be subject to a months-long wait for the government to process papers, and it shouldn’t place non-citizen parents in the position of thinking that they have to choose between exposing themselves to the INS and providing their child with the healthcare it needs.
Curtsy: Tennessee Guerilla Women.
The New Zealand Police have launched a new campaign Get Better Work Stories. The thrust of this campaign is that your life is boring and a waste of time at the moment and you should rectify this by joining the police. The stories themselves are noble stories of fighting with young people, and having things thrown at you by protesters.
But they seem to have missed a few. Here are some of the ‘real work stories’ from the police this week:
Pepper Spray
I was called out to a party and there was a guy there we were supposed to arrest. He was coming towards me and I told him he was under arrest but he just kept walking. I thought ‘no-one gets to walk past me’ so I pepper sprayed him. I love this job, normal people don’t get to use pepper spray when they want to be violent.
Handcuffed
So I was called out to this party in South Auckland, and I thought to myself I haven’t been able to beat up any brown people for a while, this seems like a good opportunity. So I arrested the owner of the house, handcuffed him, and beat the shit out of him in the back of the car on the way back to the police station. It was awesome, made me feel like a real man, I even got to knock him unconcious.
Four on One
I thought it was going to be a normal night - not doing anything particularly exciting. But then a mate brought someone in for driving while diqualified. We decided the only way to protect the public from people who commit this terrible time was to beat him up. Two of my friends did the actual beating up part and I got to use pepper spray - I love pepper spray.
Other uses for Handcuffs
The police force can give you great opportunities even if you’re not working. I’d left my wife at home to look after the kids and was at the local, totally off my face and looking to score. I failed a couple of times, but then I pressured this woman to give me a lift home. I was obviously too drunk to drive and was all “I’m a police officer” - which worked. So I got her to the police station, hand-cuffed her and raped her, and then I did it a few more times. The best bit was my buddies covered it up for me for years.
These are just the stories that have made the news in hte last week or so. They’re just the cases where police officers actions have been made public and are considered unaceptable to the police force. I’ve watched four police oficers jump on top of someone who wasn’t resisting with one person kneeling on his head. I’ve seen plain-clothes police officers pull pepper spray on people without identifying themselves. I’ve had a police officer say to a group of women “If you get robbed attacked or raped, don’t call us because we won’t come.” I’ve seen police use unreasonable force at least half the time I’ve seen them arrest someone. There were no serious consequences for any of the police officers I’ve mentioned.
I’m a political activist - when I deal with the police there are always other people around me, watching. We know the nuumbers and names of all the human rights lawyers in Wellington and all the media outlets. The police know this, and they treat us accordingly. What I’ve seen is nothing compared to how poor Pacific Island kids from Porirua are treated every day.
Also posted on Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty
This probably won’t come as a surprise to anyone, but record numbers of women candidates are running in the upcoming election. Most of the women candidates are Democrats, which will likely increase the number of women given the favorable climate for Democrats in this election. According to the AP,
Record numbers of women now serve in the House (67) and Senate (14).
In the 36 governor’s races this year, 10 women are running, half of them incumbents and half of them Democrats. There are currently eight female governors, six of them Democrats.
In state legislative races, a record 2,431 female candidates are running this year, of whom 1,563 are Democrats. The previous record of 2,375 was set in 1992, but the numbers of female candidates seemed to hit a plateau after that.
When I think about the increasing number of women, I wonder if women will be able to shift some of the policy focus. Could we (women) help reshape views on Iraq, abortion, day care, equal pay? I am both cynical and optimistic. The cynical side of me says, women leaders will end up doing the same pandering as men, and policy won’t shift much, but the optimist in me believes a critical mass (I’m not sure what percentage that would be) could make a difference. What do you think? If the number of women increases, do you think this could affect policies or do you think we will start to see the women politicians join the ranks of the “good old boys”?
Local measures are usually about raising my property tax bill. Wheee!
Multnomah County measure 26-81 - funding libraries - Yes.
I’ll explain this one by quoting from the voter’s guide: “Shall Multnomah County continue library services with levy of 89.0 cents per $1,000 assessed value for five years beginning 2007? This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.” This is actually about renewing the previously-existing bond that has been paying for the libraries since we voted for it several years ago. The property tax for this one will be around $140 a year for most homeowners - but of course, we’ve already been paying an additional tax for the expiring library bond, so it won’t actually be that big a rise in taxes.
I love Portland’s public libraries - one of the best public library systems I’ve ever seen. Over half of funding for libraries comes from this tax. If this doesn’t pass, they’ll have to close some neighborhood libraries, scuttle plans to open a couple of new branches in underserved areas, and the ones that remain open will have fewer operating hours. So this is a big “yes” from me.
Metro Council Measure No. 26-80 - preserving undeveloped land - yes.
This bond bill allows Metro (a local government agency) to protect wild areas, mostly by buying up land for preservation. If this one passes, it would cost most homeowners about $35 a year.
Portland School District Measure 1JT - Yes.
About $155 per year per homeowner to help pay for schools. And this is another “renewal” measure, so taxes won’t really go up $150 - we’ll just continue paying what we’ve already been paying. Portland schools are underfunded, and if this doesn’t pass they’ll be even more underfunded, so this is another easy “yes.”
City of Portland Measure 26-86 - Reforms Firefighter & Police pensions and disability - yes.
Honestly, like PDXistenZ, I’m voting for this pretty much because no one seems strongly against it. On the surface, the goals of this measure - having disability decisions made by experts, and keeping the pension system from destroying the city’s budget during recessions - sound good. And the fact that neither the firefighter nor police unions published arguments against this in the voter’s pamphlet speaks volumes.
Frankly, this is the sort of highly technical measure that voters can’t be fairly expected to know enough about to decide on. In a better system this question wouldn’t be a ballot measure; this is why we elect legislators.
* * *
That’s it! I’m going to put off actually filling out my ballot for another few days, so if there’s anything you’d like to change my mind on, feel free to use the comments.
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]
Note that this is just a list of who I’m voting for; there are, of course, many elections in Oregon this year that my district isn’t voting in.
For Congress, I’m voting for Earl Blumenauer (D). Earl is decent on policy issues, and he wears bow ties, always a plus. Anyhow, both of his opponents are too right-wing for me to even think of voting for them.
For Governor, I’m (choke!) voting for Ted Kulongoski (D). To quote the leader of Oregon Right To Life:
“We try to deal in reality, and the reality is that either a Democrat or a Republican is going to win the governor’s race,” Atteberry said. “And there’s a very obvious contrast between the two — Ron Saxton will sign pro-life legislation, and Ted Kulongoski will veto it.”
I feel bad about this vote, because I think that Kulongoski would have to climb to reach “mediocre”; he’s a do-nothing governor who hasn’t been there to fight for progressive policies or even for his party. I’d get much more pleasure out of voting for Joe Keating of the Green Party. Oh well.
For State Senator, 24th District, I’m voting for Rod Monroe. It’s frankly a coin flip for me between Monroe and Ron McCarty. As for the Republican, T.J. Reilly - anyone else get the impression that he’s running for the legislature as a way of advertising his car repair business? Every flier (he sends more than any other candidate) talks about how great his car repair shop is.
When T.J. isn’t hawking his business, he’s doing negative campaigning; every single flier he’s sent has included attacks on his opponents. Today’s pro-Reilly flier in my mailbox - sent late enough to give Monroe no shot at responding before election day - features a creepy black-and-white photo of a cigar-smoking mobster type combined with vague allegations that Monroe has participated in “back room deals.” Plus, another flier brought up the fear of gay marriage in an attempt to drum out the gay-hating vote. Fie on him, fie on his stupid car repair shop.
State Representative, 48th District: Mike Schaufler (D). If the election were based on foreheads alone, I’d vote for N.W. (Bill) Stallings of the Constitution Party (pictured), because N.W. (Bill) has one of the most magnificent foreheads I’ve ever seen: broad, high, a veritable wall of mighty foreheadom. (Herman Munster had a bigger forehead, but it was fake.)
But I vote based on policy, not foreheads, and Stallings is “100% pro-life,” so forget him. Schaufler is too law-and-order for my taste, but he’s for regulating payday loans and he’s solidly pro-union, and it’s not like there’s a third choice. Plus, he has a pretty big forehead himself.
Judge of the Supreme Court, Position 6: Virginia Linder. Linder is a judge with decades of experience; Roberts is a career politician with very little judging experience. Kinda a no-brainer. Plus - given Roberts’ Republican party activist background - I simply don’t trust him not to use the bench to push Republican party positions.
Judge of the Court of Appeals, Position 8: Write-in for Pogo. I hate one-candidate elections.
Judge of the Circuit Court, 4th district, position 28: Mark Kramer. I’ll quote from the email my friend (and occasional “Alas” comment writer) Varro sent me:
Let me recommend Mark Kramer for that judicial position. I know him personally and professionally.
Mr. Kramer has 25 years of experience and has represented clients in both criminal law and family law, both in his practice and as a public defender and for St. Andrew Legal Clinic.
I believe that Mark’s lifelong advocacy for justice, his experience seeing things from diverse points of view, and his strong intellect will lead him to be an extremely fair and fiercely independent judge.
We have a wonderful opportunity to put a strong, smart, progressive lawyer on the bench, and we must not squander that opportunity.
Plus, he’s done work for domestic violence victims and advocated for low-income Oregonians. What’s not to like?
Judge of the Circuit Court, 4th District, Position 31: Cheryl Albrecht. Albrecht has been active in educating judges about the crime of stalking, which make sit seem likely that she has feminist sympathies. She’s as qualified as her opponent, Kathleen Payne, and comes with as long as list of endorsements; so for me that bit of feminist cred is enough to make me vote for her.
Almost done! Just one more post to go, this time on local ballot measures.
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]
In this video, “Peppermint Patty” (great name!) describes having her donations turned away by a Ronald McDonald House worker, who explained that she wouldn’t accept toys from a lesbian.
The video is, frankly, harrowing to watch, because Peppermint Patty is so shattered. Some people might find her reaction disproportionate - after all, far worse discrimination happens to queers every day than having their handmade teddy bears turned away by a Ronald McDonald House volunteer. It’s not like she was kept out of her lover’s hospital room, or refused the chance to marry, or beaten up, right?
But humans are funny creatures, not logic machines. Probably this same woman could experience being turned away from a church, or for a marriage license, and be pissed off and hurt but not in tears - because that sort of discrimination is expected. We mentally steel ourselves for the rejection. Our defenses are up.
But to have a Ronald McDonald House volunteer suddenly and arbitrarily turn away your donated toys because you’re a lesbian - that’s different. That’s being told - at a point when you’re totally unprepared and all your mental shields are down - that you really are worthless, that every bad thing society has every told you about yourself is true, that you are a pariah. This sort of blatant, out-of-the-blue othering is the sort of thing that could easily drive me to tears, to ripping my hair out, and to screaming fits in my bedroom - although I wouldn’t be brave enough to put it on a YouTube video, as Peppermint Patty did.
This sort of thing happens all the time, and the wounds are deep and they sting like hell. How much energy do the pariah classes - lesbians in this case, but also people of color, queers and trans of all sorts, the disabled, fat people, femme men, and others - spend just fighting internalized self-doubt and self-loathing? How much does this sort of crap set us back on a daily basis? How much more could we accomplish if we didn’t have all those feelings brought to the surface by worthless assholes like the RMH worker?
I can’t find an email for Ronald McDonald House (which, Peppermint Patty notes, is not actually owned by the McDonalds corporation), but there are phone and fax numbers here.
Okay, anytime Ann Coulter is having a bad day I’m happy. But I’m a bit bugged by this:
WEST PALM BEACH - Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has refused to cooperate in an investigation about whether she voted in the wrong precinct, so the case will likely be turned over to state prosecutors, Palm Beach County’s elections chief said Wednesday.
Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson said his office has been looking into the matter for nearly nine months, and he would turn over the case to the State Attorney’s Office by Friday. [...]
Knowingly voting in a wrong precinct is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the State Attorney’s Office in West Palm Beach.
Doesn’t five years seem pretty extreme for the crime in this case? A single year in prison and a hefty fine seems like more than adequate punishment for the harm done, and for deterrence purposes. Even for Coulter.
(Thanks to Lucia for pointing this story out to me.)
So over at my other site we are having a little debate/discussion about whether or not a candidate’s race should matter in an election. My Dad, who is the quintesessential Ohio swing voter, asked if people thought it was racist not to vote for the black candidate (Ken Blackwell) for governor. Knowing him he was being sarcastic, but like it or not, racial identity and racial politics do matter in these elections.
This particular election cycle breaks the record for the number of black (male) candidates running for statewide offices. Here’s how the major races that I am familiar with break down:
Ohio Governor’s Race: Features two men, a white Democrat Ted Strickland against a black Republican Ken Blackwell
Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Also has two men and a similar racial dynamic, a white Democrat Ed Rendell vs. a black Republican Lynn Swan
Massachusetts Governor’s Race: Has a black male Democrat Deval Patrick vs. a white female Republican Kerry Healey.
Tennessee Senate Race: Features two men, black Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. and white Republican Bob Corker.
Maryland Senate Race: Features two men, black Republican Michael Steele and a white Democrat Ben Cardin
I am curious what others think. How important to you think race will be in these races? Do you think race should ever be a factor in voting? I know I have focused mostly on race, but what about gender? Should a candidate’s gender ever matter?
My own personal sense is that I care more about a person’s racial or gender politics than their racial or gender identity; however, there is no doubt a contingent of American voters who do care about candidates identities. They may be a minority, but they still exist. What do you think?
If there’s one must-read post for every feminist this month, it’s this one. Please go read it.
Read or skim the comments there as well; there are suggested actions (including model letters in Spanish we can use).
Here in Oregon, we all vote by mail, so most Oregonians have already gotten their voter ballots. Many have already voted, in fact, but I tend to procrastinate.
So - how I’m voting.
No on Measure 39 - This is an anti-Kelo ballot measure, which basically says that the Oregon government cannot condemn property because they want to give the property to private developers. I’m moderately in favor of the principle behind this measure1, but the measure 39 writers stuck in some stuff at the bottom regarding how the courts should award attorney fees in disputes between government and property owners. I don’t like the practice of sticking obscure changes to the laws at the bottom of a popular measure; changes like that should be made through the legislature, or through a separate ballot measure, not snuck in as a more popular ballot measure’s carry-on luggage.
No on Measure 40 - Elect Oregon Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges by district. I’ve written about this one before, although its measure number has changed since then. I’m voting against this: Judges enforce laws for the entire state, not for their own districts.
No on Measure 41 - allows Oregonians to choose to take the Federal exemption when paying Oregon income tax. In other words, it’s a tax cut, of about $400 million a year for most of the next several years, and higher thereafter. The makers of this ballot measure don’t say what $400 million in government services they want to cut to pay for their tax cut, nor do they suggest any alternative forms of revenue the state should pursue. And because the measure is retroactive, the budget already passed for the current year would be entirely screwed up.
Oregon has already cut back painfully on essential services, such as schools, largely due to similar “unfunded tax cuts” in past ballot measures. We can’t afford a $400 million dollar a year tax cut.
Yes on Measure 42 - Prohibits insurance companies from charging people with bad credit records higher rates on their insurance. I’m strongly in favor of this one. Because a checkered credit history is so strongly associated with economic class, the current system effectively discriminates against poor people by allowing insurance companies to charge them more for the same services.
Incidentally, this ballot measure is sponsored by Bill Sizemore, who has written more horrible, right-wing ballot measures than anyone else in Oregon. I never thought I’d live to see the day I’d vote for anything with Sizemore’s name on it…
No on Measure 43 - Parental Notification on Abortion. In Oregon, minors 15 and over have the right to get medical treatment of any sort without telling their parents. This would make an “abortion exception” to that law, requiring that parents be given 48 hours notice before a 15, 16, or 17 year old can have an abortion.
Abortion is safest when done early in a pregnancy; the effect of this law is that minors would delay having an abortion until it’s less safe. Plus, it would require raped and abused 15-year olds to have the savvy, confidence and knowledge to navigate Oregon’s legal system in order to have confidential abortions - an absurd demand to make of a teenage girl pregnant by her father, or a rape victim who feels her parents would blame her for being raped.
Yes on Measure 44 - Allows all Oregonians who don’t have prescription drug coverage, to participate in the Oregon Prescription Drug Program (which is currently restricted to only lower-income Oregonians over age 53). More affordable prescription drugs, via the government’s ability to negotiate lower prices through bulk-buying. This one is a no-brainer.
No on Measure 45 - term limits. If Oregonians want to vote for someone for the third or fourth or tenth time, they should have that right. Plus, a legislature without anyone with long-term institutional knowledge tends to be ineffective.
Maybe on Measure 46 & 47 - campaign finance reform. I’m still not sure how I’m voting on these; I favor campaign finance reform in general, but I’m not sure if this specific approach is good. There’s a good article touching on the arguments both for and against here. I may end up voting yes for Measure 46, which amends the Oregon constitution to make campaign finance reform possible, and no on Measure 47, the specific reforms being proposed this time around.
No on Measure 48 - spending cap for Oregon government. This measure would cap Oregon government expenditures at the current level, adjusted for increasing population and inflation. The writing of this ballot measure is sloppy - for instance, the measure doesn’t make it clear when it takes effect if passed (is the current budget year affected?).
If measure 48 passes, it would would lower Oregon’s credit rating, so we’d have to pay out higher interest for bonds when the State borrows money in the future (borrowing money by issuing bonds is a routine way states pay for major infrastructure improvements, among other things). So this measure would mean that Oregonians would end up paying more for the same results, on anything we use bonds to pay for. That’s just stupid.
Besides, we’re already spending too little on education, infrastructure, and services. Why cap ourselves at “too little”?
That’s it for ballot measures. I’ll post again in a day or two with candidate endorsements.
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]
You are currently browsing the Alas, a blog weblog archives for November, 2006.
