I'm outta here

I'm leaving Oregon. There are many reasons why I am happy to go, not the least of which is the self-inflicted wounds the voters of this state like to impose. But, I am sad too. I was born and raised here, and although I have moved away for short periods at a time as an adult, Oregon has always been my home as it was to the 3 generations of my family before me. This is the only place I know where beaches are clean and mostly public. It is a place where progressive legislation spilled from. By progressive I do not mean democratic or liberal, but innovative and forward thinking, and ahead of most of the rest of the nation.

In the last twenty years we've seen that leadership erode with the initiative process and legislators that decided to vote down party lines instead of with Oregon's best interest in mind. That continues to be the case as in last election year's Measures 36 and 37, and this year's ballot initiative to discriminatorily prevent young women from making medical choices the statutes already allow them to make. It is also apparent in our legislature's lack of respect for our citizenry when it fails to educate future citizens by restricting funding. So much of these issues are not partisan, but have been made so by those who lack forsight and a real grasp of what liberty means. I am guessing there is a general lack of knowledge of the basic premises of our governmental system these days.

What saddens me most about our political system is that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot in this state by defining good and bad progressives. There is nothing progressive about exclusion or infighting. While I realize this is a national trend, given Oregon's history, I had hoped we would be out front in promoting "the good fight." Sadly, I was wrong.

So, as I watch my children's school close, and our utility prices increase and our basic civil rights take a beating, I am happy to go elsewhere where schools are given top priority, utilities are a providence of the municipality and civil rights still means something to most people. And, yes, that is somewhere in the US, believe it or not, but it isn't Oregon. Of, course, I am not leaving willy-nilly because I am disgruntled. I am moving on for bigger and better opportunities, but the timing couldn't be better. I also know that nowhere is perfect. I do, however, feel good about going where ground need not be made up, and progress is possible- something I think Oregon is short supply of.

It's been a great outlet for me to write my little diatribes, especially when I could see there are others out there who might have something to say about their own feelings on these subjects. There is a lot to do and I would hope that someone can keep up with what's happening in Oregon politics and keep pushing for more gender parity in the state, because I really believe that will make a difference. I know you are out there. I've spent many hours with you and have been made better because of it.

I could continue to write from elsewhere but I don't think it would be valuable to do so from an outsider's position. So, I say goodbye, and thank you to all of you who have written back and supported this site.

TG

Oregon Women do Politics

Right here in Portland, for the past three days, a convergence of women from all over the state is demonstrating that women are interested in and clamoring for public leadership. National Education for Women's (NEW) Leadership Oregon has been holding their 3rd annual conference at Portland State University since Thursday. Twenty-nine women from colleges and universities across Oregon have come to meet with and learn from some of the state's most prominent women leaders, women like Mayor Vera Katz, Governor Barbara Roberts, Judge Betty Roberts, Amanda Fritz, and Goli Ameri, just to name a few. The list of former and current women leaders in the state of Oregon is impressive, but the caliber of women who are attending the conference gives hope to the future of women's leadership. I have been meeting women as young as eighteen who are not only eager to serve and lead, but have already developed skills that distinguish them among their peers at their institutions.

There is evidence that when women run for office they win in relatively proportionate numbers to men, but the figures also show that women often just don't run. There are a whole host of reasons why this is true, not the least of which is the public perception of their responsibility to their families. In fact, some of the veteran women have noted that not much has changed in that regard since they were running in the early '70's.

What's exciting to me is that there are innumerable women out there who want to make their communities, their state, their nation and the world a place where equity and justice are paramount values. We are at the half-way mark in this conference and already I see women whose names I know I will see in the news in the very near future. Someone said that these were dangerous women. I suppose this depends on your perspective, but I would say if by dangerous we mean women who will shake up the status quo, then that is exactly what they are. There is no question that these are women you want on your side, whether it's in business, the sciences, the non-profit sector or just plain good old fashioned politics.

It is definitley a booster shot of motivation to be in their presence and to see what Oregon's future holds.

Commander Foxworth...How appropriate

Former Police Chief, Derrick Foxworth, in what is clearly a backroom deal, has been promoted just days after being demoted. In all the news and speculation that has surrounded the events of the past week, race and out of control media have been the overriding themes. But no one has raised the spectre of sexism, which is what is at the heart of this issue. With Foxworth's promotion to commander, it is clear that he, like all public male figures who engage in sexist behavior, is in command. Ultimately, nothing changes and the "boys will be boys" environment is reinforced. I worked for Clinton, I still view him as one of the smartest presidents we've had and I'm still drawn to the television when he speaks like a moth to a flame. But, when the President of the United States is not held accountable for his treatment of women, then how can we expect that anyone else will be. And, that act was played out again here in Portland.

A letter to the editor of The Oregonian asked today, "whatever happened to Angela Oswalt for her 'serious lapse of judgement'?" Yes, like most women with a miniscule pool of quality men to choose from she displayed bad judgement in choosing to involve herself with Foxworth. The difference between her and Foxworth, however, is that she lacked power and he had it. It was his responsibility to not abuse that power, which he clearly did. The emails alone show an abuse of power and a huge lack of judgement on his part. The he said/she said aspect of all of this can be debated but those emails and the existence of this dispropotionate relationship are indisputable. And, those unsubstatiated allegations were not substanitated by an internal reviewer. This wasn't an impartial jury of one's peers and no outside investigations were conducted. It is easy to dismiss what we don't want to acknowledge if someone with some degree of authority tells us what we want to hear. The truth is women have traditionally been shut out of the power structure that takes into account their experience and, to add insult to injury, often dismisses the reality of that experience.

What gets reinforced with these decisions is that people with power can run roughshod over people without it. When that power is attached to a penis there is even greater impunity.

Some women

There are people out there who think I defend all women all the time simply because they are women. This week's news events cause me to underscore there are plenty of toxic women out there. We have them in Multnomah County, Oregon, and the nation. I've made my feelings about the County pretty clear, but these women discourage me the most because they purport to be open-minded liberals. Nice try, girls.

Mary Starrett, who officially announced her run for governor , makes no secret that she is going to turn Oregon into a mini-theocracy, where government interferes with nothing except women's rights, presumably because God pre-ordained women to be nothing more than vessels and care-givers. Although, I don't think she has any hope of winnning a large number of votes, let alone enough to win the governor's seat, we should watch these kind of women who want to gain their own power at the expense of other women.

Then there's that viper of a woman, Ann Coulter. No one can honestly agree with the remarks she makes in her book about the widows of 9/11. Because of the negative publicity, her book will, nonetheless, make incredible sales and she will continue to have a forum for her evil takedown of other women. Perhaps she's just hungry. She looks a little peaked to me, and I know, when I get hungry, I get cranky. I'm jokingly trying to find some benefit of the doubt to give her, but seriously, she makes women look bad. She is the embodiment of the message perpetuated by mysogyny since women began entering public life that the only rewarded women are those that hurt other women. Isn't it time to see these women for who they are? Hypocrits. How about a little more focus on women who help other women? Women like Governor Barbara Roberts, Gretchen Kafoury, Justice Betty Roberts, Gail Shibley, Tina Kotek, and many more who are committed, both individually and institutionally, to surrounding themselves, and us by default, with talented energetic and positive women. Where's that news coverage? I know, I know. It isn't as sexy as a catfight, and if women aren't sexy, my God, what are we? Just ask Ann who thinks Playboy should be the next step for the widows. It's exhausting.

Thoughts on the blogosphere

It seems there is a little tiff raging at Jack Bogdnaski's blog with Torrid Joe of Loaded Orygun. I've been thinking about the value of political blogs lately. I'm no expert on blogging and I have a small window from which I view this entire experience, but it seems to me that there are two things happening in blogs. One of them is happening at bojack.org. There are people, like Torrid Joe, or as we now know, Mark Bunster, who think they can abuse people verbally without recourse. Kudos to Jack for putting a stop to that. I've been at the back end of some of Mark's unkind and unthought-through remarks. He is someone who doesn't have any foundation for his opinions but he likes to see his thoughts "published" somehwere and, I think he likes the drama of it all- most bloggers (this one included) seem to, so he isn't alone in that. So, without any real information, he resorts to abusive language.

The other problem has to do with the lack of information. At the risk of sounding elitist, there appear to be a lot of people out there who have no real knowledge or a cursory understanding of politics but feel very superior in putting their ill-formed opinions out there as if they are fact. I'm not opposed to a discourse where opinions and ideas get bandied about, but the blogs seem more like a space to prop like-minded others up, while tearing down a dissenting voice. If blogs are, in theory, suppose to represent a new kind of democratic forum, they fail on this count miserably.

I admit, it's nice when someone agrees, but it is also nice when someone disagrees and can make you think. The problem with blogs like Loaded Orygun, in particular, is that there is no room for thoughtful disagreement. The disagreeing party is suddenly the very worst evil one can think of, simply for having an opinion. It too closely parallels the very political system that blogging seeks to infiltrate. Blogs take on the same kind of exclusionary structure of the larger political community and they leave out thought, as well as people, that don't fit some pre-ordained mold.

Here's a great example that I observed in Oregon, initially, but now it seems to be taking on real life nationally. Progressives. What does this mean? Ostensibly, it was suppose to be a re-evaluation of the term and meaning of liberal at a time when liberal was being equated with a lack of values ( thank you GOP, then George Lakoff.) It has, unfortunately, devolved into a divisive tool among Democrats (Progressives? Liberals? Look at this; how can progress be made if you can't even identify yourself?) If you're not someone's particular incarnation of progressive, you may as well be a Republican/Conservative. It's too black and white, which leads to the kind of nastiness the blogs spit out. The worst insults are tossed at fellow lefties. It mirrors a deeply divided political system, where cyber as well as live democrats are doing the destrcutive work for the opposition.

Not to beat a dead-horse, but why did a woman who has a solid liberal/left record get raked over the coals? It's this kind of thing that makes me wonder, what are we all really trying to accomplish?

I can't help myself...

Last week Bob Herbert wrote what will not be the last attempt to convince us all that Hillary Rodham Clinton is unelectable.
http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org/v2/press/2006/May/2006-05-18-NYTimes.html

It's to be expected. She is Hillary Rodham Clinton. But here's why he and the other naysayers, including lots of polled voters, are wrong. Clinton has the best campaign war chest, the best solidity of her base, and the strongest tenacity of any potential candidate this early in the game. She also has more White House experience than any other candidate and she has had all of her skeletons exposed. And, yet, even with those skeletons, she still enjoys a high 65-70% approval rating in New York. If who I described was a man in either party, the party would be clamoring, begging even, for him to run, and they would be doing everything to shore up the nomination for this guy.

Instead, Clinton's "supporters" run around talking about how unelectable she is, virtually promising a self-fulfilling prophesy. The truth of the matter is she understands that presidential politics is not ideological and she has turned to the center. The result is something we haven't seen in politics in some time. Here is a candidate that is forging alliances across the aisle. Now, there are a lot of progressives out there who are trying to pit themselves against liberals and vice versa. Those progressives and liberals are worried about her policy positions. I am not a fan of her proposed legislation to criminalize flag burning, and I am certainly not a fan of her Iraq policies. But there are a couple of scenarios to consider.

1. Are we really going to bump a well-known, well-funded candidate for an unknown, underfunded maybe, just because he's a guy, not a Clinton, not polarizing, not [insert problem here]. I'll tell you what else he isn't. Fully vetted. In this day and age of the dirtiest politics, you can be sure that whatever little skeleton, no matter how well hidden, will be outed. With HRC we all know her skeletons. No surprises there. The best the opponents can do is re-hash old news.

2. If she is the nominee, are Dems going to not vote for her because they dislike her policy on Iraq or other issues that bring her more to the center? Does anyone seriously believe that she is going to be worse for this nation than the current administration? And does anyone seriously believe that the GOP is going to follow-up this administration with something more palatable?

Either way, if she were anyone else besides a Clinton, this conversation would not be going on. Certainly, if she were a man with these kinds of crendentials this conversation wouldn't be going on. Herbert thinks that despite all of these arguments, it's her gender (he means her sex) that will be her downfall, because he thinks America is just not ready for a woman leader. If it isn't, then we can stop pretending that America is the leader of the free world. Nations- third world nations- are electing women leaders all over the world. So, what's our problem?

Finally, as Marie Wilson of the White House Project put it, if her gender is the problem, then that simply means we need more women to be leading at all levels of government and business so that more women will be in the pool and we can all stop talking about gender and talk about qualifications.

More Boys

Are there any women with political know-how or are they just frozen out? I just checked into a company here in Oregon, Democracy Resources. Essentially they gather signatures for initiatives. Every one running it is a man. Not one, even token, woman. Interestingly, all of their client testimonials are from women. Are they trying to make themselves appear gender neutral?

I just have to vent because in a day and age when people keep talking about how far women have come, we really haven't. Men still make up majorities all over the place, particularly in politics. Unless women create their own space, no space is available to them.

I'm not arguing for a leg-up. I'm contending that there are qualified and capable women out there who are ignored for one reason or another. Obviously the bottom line is that the boys don't want their apple cart messed with. The way I see it, no self-respecting male progressive can be truly progressive unless he is committed to equal representation. I mean committed, not just talking about it or claiming an alliance that you never work for. And it is time for those great male allies women do have to start getting their brothers on board.

Ah... Election Night

Where to begin? Diane got trounced, as the O puts it. Expected. But, what happened to dignity? The first shot of Wheeler's election night party was of three grown women, gloating like junior high cheerleaders who just caused the nerdy girl massive humiliation. There is a special place in hell for women who thwart other women, and there are three spots specifically reserved for the women- or should I say girls- of Multnomah County Commission. It embarasses me as a woman in politics.

But...on to the good news of the night. Sten did not walk away with the vote, as a lot of the young, hipster, boy-driven crowd wanted us to believe. Although Burdick is 15 points back, she is still in it. The Stensters are already spinning the numbers to indicate a virtual cakewalk to the finish line, but really all this means is that more than 50% of the minority that voted didn't want him. That spells opportunity for Burdick. She will need a positive, consistent, and available presence for voters to see why it is in their best interest to put her on the council.

The Stensters will keep carping about "big business" for the next 5 months, which only means they have no new ideas. Portland needs business, as every city does. Business is not the enemy and Burdick seems to be the only candidate of the two who knows it. Sten has been characterizing himself as the rebel who stands up to business, while Burdick knows that courting business and balancing their interests with those of people who forge a life in Portland are key. Oh, and by the way, many of those people are employed by "business."

The Stensters will keep dragging out a ficitionalized connection between Burdick and PGE/Enron, Burdick and the PBA, and Burdick and Gard & Gerber. And when I say fictionalized, I don't mean there are no connections, but the truth about what those connections mean to the people of Portland will be distorted, as they have been. The PGE/Enron thing is like trotting out Whitewater everytime someone mentions the name Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's old news. So, she works for Gard & Gerber. Have I mentioned that Sten is backed by some of the nastiest, dirtiest poltical consultants in Oregon? Does G&G have interests in business entities? Yes. Has Ginny worked on some of these projects? Yes. Does this automatically mean she is only running for office to protect her client's interests? Not on your life.

The thing that people have forgotten or chosen to ignore in recent months, is that Burdick is a state senator who has been in office for 10 years. She has been re-elected to this position twice because she has been an effective leader and advocate. She served the state on the land use and development commission for 6 years prior to that. She has been a solid Democrat, advocating for families, women's issues, and public safety and health. To paint someone with that kind of public service record as motivated solely by big-business-greed is disingenuous at best. But, of course, I did mention the nasty consultants already.

I'd like to see the next 5 months educate Portlanders on what the city needs and who can solve those problems best. I'd give anything to stop hearing about voter owned elections and campaign financing. Sure, it matters where candidates get their money, but clearly Burdick isn't doing anything unethical to raise funds, so let's get on with it and talk about what matters: city infrastructure, affordable housing, schools and safe streets for our children, making Portland a place where everyday people can do more than just hang on.