Oregon WIP

I'm outta here

2006-07-14T09:17:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-25T07:06:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-21T08:08:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-09T09:20:00.000-07:00

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

2006-06-03T11:07:00.000-07:00

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...

2006-05-23T15:57:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-17T08:49:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-17T06:32:00.000-07:00

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.

More women to vote for...and Why

2006-05-05T11:20:00.000-07:00

1. Virginia Linder for Supreme Court

She is the only one of the three candidates who actually is a judge (Court of Appeals for those who don't know.)
She would join the ranks of only three other women who have served our highest court- Betty Roberts, Susan Graber and Susan Leeson. The fact that I can name them without looking points to either a great memory or not too much to remember. It's the latter that is most disturbing. Oregon is only one of a handful of states without a woman on it's court and more and more states have chiefs that are women. And we call ourselves progressive?
She's smart and thoughtful about her decisions and just an all around good choice for Oregon

2. Diane Linn

She has taken leadership initiave to make decisions, then been criticized for acting like a leader ( she is the Chair of the County)
Ted Wheeler has too much connection to the Republican Party and smacks of rich white boy attitude (at the City Club he said he bought his expensive luxury car because "it was the only one that fit in my garage"- Yech!)
Diane has faced opposition at every turn from her "teammates" on the County, preventing the county from accomplishing many of its goals for which the Chair is blamed. These are three women who act like bratty adolescents in a tween film (Mean Girls comes to mind). These are not women who support other women and if any of them were up for election I'd personally find other women to replace them who don't pull up the ladder as they reach the top.
Diane has ideas and solutions already in place that just need time to implement. With Wheeler the county will be starting over from scratch.

An of course re-elect the great Betsy Johnson and Darlene Hooley.

Women to stay away from: Linda Flores, Shirley Parsons, and of course, Karen Minnis

Linda Flores lists her occupation in the voters' pamphlet as "homemaker and volunteer." Not that there is anything wrong with that but I thought she was a state rep. Oh well.

Are you in or out?

2006-05-05T10:49:00.000-07:00

In an attempt to not make this website about one candidate or one issue, I have taken a little break from writing. This isn't to say that I don't think that VOE is bad policy (because I do) or that Burdick wouldn't be the best candidate to get Portland back on track ( because I do). I had hoped that more issues could have been discussed and solutions proposed. Since it didn't, and the election is only a little over a week away, I will succumb to the interests of the masses- or at least those who look for a new post from me regularly.

I've been doing a lot of research, for work, on the various primary races and the candidates backgrounds. It seems to me there is this notion within the Democratic Party- at least locally- that there are good progressives and not good progressives. The rhetoric I hear is that there are insider progressives and outsider progressives and the outsiders lend a fresh perspective and would, in theory, create a solid message and direction for the party. But, are these outsiders really outsiders?

For example, Jesse Cornett is running for State Senate District 24. The Oregonian recently ran an opinion piece giving Jesse "outsider cred." The definitions of this could be endless but there is no way anyone could see Jesse as an outsider in local politics. He has positioned himself since his days at PSU as the ultimate insider. He's worked for Hatfield and is the senior policy advisor to the Secretary of State. He co-founded The Oregon Bus Project and Blue Oregon. He's backed by an impressive list of current and past elected officials, people who are definitely on the inside of Oregon politics. Don't get me wrong. Jesse's politics are my politics, and clearly he is the only good choice for that district. I just wonder why he is trying to sell himself as something he isn't. Isn't his presumably well thought out agenda good enough? Why this self-factioning within the party?

A friend of mine recently said that the great thing about Portland is that we argue politically among a choice of liberal politics more than we argue about partisan politics. While it indicates that we live in a liberal city, is it really great for liberal politics?

And yes, I said liberal and not progressive. Dems everywhere need to stop being afraid to be who they are. Which brings me to my campaign speech for the day.

The only logical choice for City Commissioner No. 2 is Ginny Burdick. She may not be part of the hip "in" crowd but who she is has served District 18 and the state well for many years and there is no reason to believe that her service to the city would be any different. She has vision, solutions and frankly, brings the kind of experience that guarantees that Portland will come out from under this current shadow and continue being the great city we have known and loved.

Being who you are has more substance than being a skin deep member of some inner circle.

I hate to say it, but...

2006-04-11T05:55:00.000-07:00

I told you so.

Burdick's C & E shows no money from Enron ( no longer PGE/Enron) or PGE or any of the other big corporations that folks are so afraid of her being associated with. She's got less money than Sten, who basically paved his own path to get that money. She is out there running- dare I say it again- a traditional campaign, which as I have said before, does not necessarily equate with corruption.

She is still the only candidate for City Council to tell voters what she stands for- besides her opinion on campaign finance. I know that she is committed to bettering the lives of everyday people. Not only has she been clear on the kinds of reforms she sees the city needs, she has a record of past political performance to show it. There are only two things a politician really needs to be able to do: define the challenges a community faces and offer solutions. Burdick is the only candidate, so far to do that. I have yet to hear from Sten anything about solutions to the problems the city faces. All I hear from that campaign is backpedalling and excuse-making. Boyles' is too mired in controversy and Lister offers no concrete soultions.

Portland is a city on the brink. Our schools are closing, we have no real industry and even the infrastructures that hold it all together are weak. Finding a way to bring business into Portland is necessary for our well-being as a city. The people who live here need jobs and schools for their children. If they don't get these things they are going to start leaving for greener pastures and no one will be clamoring to get here. Portlanders should not be so xenocenrtric to think that Portland will always be the great little city people love to love. It is already in decline. Even the Oregonian agrees that Portland is " a city that doesn't work.

Burdick is an advocate for jobs and education. She isn't afraid to take on leadership when it comes to solving school issues. Of course, the arguement is made that schools are a county or state responsibility, and they are. But, Burdick shows the kind of leadership Portland has been missing, when she refuses to sit back and say "it's not my job."

While all the other players sit around fiddling with what has turned out to be a joke of campaign finance reform plan, Burdick is working on issues. Perhaps the fact that she has yet to raise the same kind of money that Sten has been handed is a good sign that she is focused on real solutions and not some red herring that hides a lack of vision.

NEW Leadership Oregon

2006-04-08T17:38:00.000-07:00

College women (and those who know them) need to know about the opportunities NEW Leadership Oregon provides. Every June NLO puts on a six-day residential conference at Portland State University to train and mentor college women for civic engagement and public service. PSU was fortunate to be chosen as one of 13 programs(at the time, there are now nearly 20 programs) around the country, led by the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers Univeristy.

Oregon's most influential women come to engage with college women from all over the state. In past years women like Governor Barbara Roberts, Gretchen Kafoury, Kay Toran, Delores Pigsley, Vanessa Gaston, and Gail Shibley have lent their expertise and mentorship. This year proves to be no exception with Governor Roberts, Gretchen Kafoury and State Representative Carolyn Tomei already signed on.

The program is non-partisan and open to all college women enrolled in 2 or 4 year colleges or universities in Oregon. This means private, community or state schools, graduate or undergraduate levels.

The application deadline is this Friday, April 14. The application is available on the NLO website at www.newleadershiporegon.org Questions can be ansewered via email at newleadership@pdx.edu or by calling 503-725-3137.

Global Coverage of Women in the News

2006-04-04T06:15:00.000-07:00

I am a bit in late on this one, but congratulations to Jensine Larsen and World Pulse Magazine for the great O front page story yesterday. I met Jensine when she was just getting started and it is great to see how far she has come in such a short period of time. She is a shining example of what attorney, teacher and writer, Pauli Murray, once said. "Never underestimate the power of a woman and her typewriter." Another Oregon woman making a space for women around the world to be heard and recognized. Way to go, Jensine!

City Debates

2006-03-26T05:12:00.000-08:00

You would think from the press coeverage that the debates on Friday were a snorefest. Has everyone lost interest? Perhaps it's because no one said anything we hadn't already heard. Sten was at his usual Blue Oregon best, slamming Gard & Gerber, and conflating Burdick with her employer. I think Anne Martens said it best on BO when she said, "I think that it is opportunistic and dishonest to attempt to impute something under my personal by-line to my employer in an effort to stir up a political maelstrom." Doesn't this apply to political opinion as well? How selective we all are.

I'd also add that Burdick has not veered from her mission to be a better voice for Portland. She has been consistent on schools during all her years in the senate, not just popping up with funding ideas at the eleventh hour for political expediency. She has a solid record of voting to limit public utilities' gouging habits. As for the tram, everyone knew when the thing was first proposed that only a small handful of people wanted it and would benefit from it. The Council, then, agreed to go forward with it, despite loud protests from the community. It again supported additional funding, despite protest from the community. Sten was there the whole time. Now he wants to pull out. Like he has been doing all along, he wants to pass the buck on this thing. The City has a responsibility to finish what it started, even if it was a fiasco from the beginning. Burdick understands that and it has nothing to do with a PR pitch. I love how Sten and his unseen cadre consistently spout a particular rhetoric but when someone else stays on message they are being insincere.

Burdick still hasn't taken a dime from "Big Corporations" (read PGE) and she hasn't taken money from the city either. You tell me who is insincere here.

Helloooo...

2006-03-23T07:26:00.000-08:00

Ok, I know you are out there and I know you are reading this. So, why is it when the boys over at the other sites chase their own tails everyone has so much to say??? They talk in supposition and speculation over there..."what's going to happen at the debate on Friday? Well, let me tell you..." Meanwhile, I'm talking about things that are really happening that have an impact on people here in Oregon and the rest of the nation, not just some jingoistic notion that what happens in the good old town of Portland is all important. Don't get me wrong. There are really important issues in Portland, and as a Portlander they matter to me. But there is so much more. Portland politicos have been buying into their own press (especially since they generate it themselves) that they don't seem to realize there are bigger fish to fry.

I met an 11 year old girl last night who had just written a scathing letter to the President, attacking the No Child Left Behind Act. She could not only articulate a problem but she did what most people don't: she offered a series of solutions. At 11! What she had to say was so well thought out that I was saddened that adults who pride themselves on being "in the loop" were so far behind the curve compared to this kid. I know there are people who have something to say who don't; people who are thinking critically and not just parroting some social guru.

I've seen some of you on BO and Bog's site. Most of you are women who aren't buying into the boy talk. Stop giving the spotlight to them and come over here and have a real discussion about women and women's issues- which by the way include things like clean affordable water and utility bills, city infrastructure like police and schools, and how to bring industry to Oregon. The difference for us as women is that those issues are interconnected with "typical" women's issues like abortion rights and domestic violence, not separate and distinct.

DV Update

2006-03-21T20:25:00.000-08:00

The latest from the Supreme Court is just as one would expect. Scalia sarcastically asked the Washington prosecutor whether exceptions to the constitution should be made for domestic violence victims. Alternatively, the only woman left on the court seems to be the only one there who recognized the complex and specific problems violence against women presents for legal analysis.

As usual, Scalia tried to make the constitution a literal endeavor and, in the absence of some smart legal framework, the prosecutors in both states stand to lose this case. What they should have argued is that the states are obligated to prosecute these cases by statutes, defined by the states' legislatures. This fact then makes the state the accuser that the defendant is free to confront, as I mentioned yesterday. Unfortunately, they didn't and it looks like women will lose again.

Take Action for Education

2006-03-20T17:38:00.000-08:00

For those of you interested in education and our kids here is a great opportunity. The White House Project is a phenomenal program that is doing great work around the nation to get women in the political pipeline and serve the community in innovative ways.

OutSPEAK 3
Education
What will it take to provide every child with equal access to education?
A subject specific quarterly panel discussion which examines issues through the tri-fold lens of race, class and gender. Come out and join us for the first of many conversations that provide women with an opportunity to expand their knowledge, understanding and ability to engage others around topics that matter.
MARCH 23, 2005
6:30 – 9:00 p.m.
In Partnership with the
South Seattle Community College Cultural Center
6000 16th Avenue SW.
Seattle, Washington 98106
Network Strategize Discover Grow
Invite friends – everyone is welcome!
For More information call or email
Joy Eckwood, Washington State Field Organizer
206-832-2410/253-250-3548 or
jeckwood@thewhitehouseproject.org
The White House Project, a national, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) organization, works to advance a richly diverse, critical mass of women into leadership positions, up to and including the U.S. Presidency.

Losing ground

2006-03-20T07:00:00.000-08:00

So much is happening it is hard to decide what to write about so I've decided to touch on a few crucial concerns this week.

I just learned that PPS is going to be providing funding for an alternative school to be housed at Jefferson High School and run by the Mt. Olivet Baptist Church. Although the appalling nature of this decision is evident in the last sentence, there is more. Superintendent, Vicki Phillips is proposing closing elementary schools all over the city, including the one my children attend, and yet, there seems to be funding available for an openly christian school. What happened to the separation of church and state? And why is there money for a new school but not for my existent local school? But wait, there's still more. Mt. Olivet also donated a whopping $15,000 to the Yes on 36 campaign in 2004. So, not only will PPS be funding religion instead of education, they will also be funding homophobia. If this matters to you, and I think it should, contact Phillips now and tell her this is an outrage. Contact the school board and tell them this is an outrage. PPS should not be funding alternative schools until they can fund the schools we have. It makes me wonder about the future of public schools in Portland in general. Is there a day in the not too distant future when there will be no more public education?

In that same moral vain, The Committee to Protect our Daughters is out getting signatures to get an intiative on the ballot that would require teen girls 15-18 to notify parents before an abortion. The committe is a front for Oregon Right to Life, run by Gail Atteberry. I have no doubt Ms. Atteberry will get enough signatures to get this on the ballot, and when she does, advocates for women's rights, should be ready to fight this one tooth and nail. Unlike many other states with notification and consent laws, Oregon has a law in place that allows teens 15 and over, boys and girls, to receive medical attention without parental notice or consent. This puts us in a uniue position with regard to laws that try to impose consent or notification restrictions on teen girls. If this initiative passes, girls will be discriminately singled out for this one procedure. This will represent an unequal application of Oregon law, where boys will still be able to obtain medical care without parent involvement but girls will not.

On another note, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two domestic violence cases today. Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana. Both cases will determine if 911 tapes are enough evidence to convict a DV offender when the victim refuses to tesitfy. There are many reasosn why DV victims refuse to testify, chief among them fear of retribution by their abuser. Using evidence based prosecution, prosecutors around the country have been able to use 911 tapes, police reports and other evidence to convict at a much higher rate than before, when victim testimony was necessary. The plaintiffs in these cases contend that this kind of evidence precludes their 6th Amendment right to confront their accuser. However, it is the state that is the accuser in these cases, since the state establishes the statutes that criminalize the acts of domestic violence. The plaintiffs had that right and continue to have the right to confront the state, including 911 operators, police officers and others that represent the state's case. If the court determines that the plaintiffs rights are being violated, women around the country will find themselves unable to find a prosecutor who can get a conviction without thier testimony. Because even with a conviction these men are not put away for long, many victims fear they will face violence that is exponentially worse if they go on the stand and accuse their abuser directly. Studies show this is no baseless fear. If the court rules in favor of these plaintiffs, women will lose again in the legal world. If I get beat up on the street by a strange man, I will not have to testify for the state to get a conviction, but if my partner beats me up I will. Is this equal protection?

Finally, keep your eyes on the news from Washington County. For months now, Washington County judges, including municiple judges, have been handing down verdicts that are anti-woman. Two examples. In Beaverton a judge convicted a woman of false accustion of rape, where she could serve time in jail. The judge accepted that sex had occurred and even though the woman at the time was at an age where statutory rape would apply regardless of consent, he still claims she falsely accused three men of raping her. Her attorneys have appealed. In Hillsboro, a man raped a 14 year old he met on the internet. She claimed she was 18 and so the judge determined that she lied about her age and gave the rapist a leaner sentence. It looks like women and girls, especially the most vulnerable, teen girls, in Washington County are not well protected by the courts.

And then there's South Dakota....

OregonWIP in the news

2006-03-16T07:56:00.000-08:00

Wow, it's been quite some time since I've posted anything new. Not that there isn't anything new to talk about, but life calls.

It was great to see a mention by Ginny Burdick in the "In Portland" section of today's Oregonian. Yes, everyone thinks we are a conspiracy of two, if not the same person, however I was more excited that she cited Women in Politics as her favorite website because it is so important that woman get involved, stay involved and help other women get there, too. In these days of threatened civil rights, cultural depictions that demean women and New York Times articles that constantly remind women they should be stoking the home fires, it's great to know that there are women who are willing to lead the way toward a more inclusive society.

It's mid-March, Women's History month. Take some time this month to learn what women have done to further democracy and, for god's sake, tell your children about it now. It's a disgrace to hear these things for the first time in college. Nothing changes for the better when half of humanity and its contributions are kept hidden from the general discourse.

Here are some suggestions of women in Oregon to know and love: Ophelia Paquet, Betty Roberts, Gretchen Kafoury, Eleanor Davis and there are many more!

The problem with politics: the either /or dichotomy

2006-02-27T17:29:00.000-08:00

It has become widely believed that if you don't support Voter Owned Elections, you must support big money donations. As, if there is no other possible approach. It is an interesting phenomenon to watch as people talk about "traditional ways of fundraising, going after the big corporate donors." There is nothing traditional about that. Does everyone have long term memory failure? That way of raising money as a norm is relatively new to the political scene. Of course, there have always been candidates who were in the back pocket of some wealthy special interest, which is why we now feel the need to implement self-restriction on fundraising methods. But, the truth is, more candidates than not have traditionally raised money at coffees and house parties and asking friends, family, and neighbors for donations and support. Those people have not been able to keep up in the last 30 years because more and more of the cheaters are going straight for the big bucks. This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that if you don't voluntarily opt to beg for starvation donations, you are a tool of the corporate special interest.

There are still those who are willing to meet their neighbors, get to know them, help them understand the issues and solutions, and ask for support- financially and in other ways. The argument behind VOE is that it will help minorities and others who may have biases against them that prevent them from raising the money to compete with others who have substantial financial means or connections. In other words, it is suppose to level the playing field, that great all-American fantasy. The trouble is, I don't really think it does that in the end. While Ms. Candidate is out there asking people for $5 instead of $50, she will only be able to compete in a primary if she actually gets the required number of donations to qualify for public funds. If she doesn't her odds of having a voice in the political arena are substantially diminished because, in not qualifying, she now has insufficient funding to stay in the race. On the other hand, if she goes out with the intention of collecting $50 or more donations from those same folks, she risks being labelled the "big money candidate," which is now worse than being labelled a conservative in Democratic circles.

It's a label that sticks like glue. What's worse is that we have spent an awful lot of time talking about who is or who isn't beholden to corporate dollars instead of talking about who will do what for Portland. It has changed the debate to the extent that voters now know even less about what candidates stand for than they did before VOE.

For example a recent poster on BlueOregon stated, "GB is accepting money from the big corps, including utilities. PGE donated $7,500 to her so far, according to the Feb 1st C&E reports. " The GB she refers to is Ginny Burdick, the big bad big money candidate. That C&E was actually the C&E for the First Things First Campaign and that donation from PGE was to the FTF campaign NOT Ginny Burdick, who has no connection to FTF other than the company she happens to work for. Does anyone know if she actually put in billable hours on FTF?

What I find amazing is Dems following what I call the George W. Bush Strategy of Rhetoric. Say it enough times and people will start to believe it, but it doesn't have to be true and as long as folks remain sheep, then no one is the wiser. I keep hearing Ginny Burdick referred to as "the big money candidate" over and over and over. Where's your proof? FTF is not Ginny Burdick and conflating the two is an obfuscation meant to mislead folks.

It reminds me of a particular US Senate race in Oregon. In 1974 Bob Packwood won his first Senate race, beating Betty Roberts by a small margin. In the last days of the campaign he misled the public about then Oregon State Senator Robert's voting record in the Oreogn legislature. It worked and he won. The next day Roberts considered filing a claim with the Secretary of State. In the end she let it go and Packwood served in the U.S. Senate for too long before his misogyny forced him out. At least Packwood was talking about the issues in 1974. Doesn't Sten- and Sten supporters- want to talk about the issues? What does he even stand for in this election? For that matter, it's hard to know what Burdick stands for because all we hear about is VOE and "big money candidates."

By the way, both Roberts and Packwood raised money door to door and at house parties. Roberts, who won all but two races in her 30 plus years in politics, also received donations from community groups. As far as I know, and I have researched a lot of her professional life, she never took one corporate dollar and she did just fine politically. Why? Becuase she had a vision and it had nothing to do with how to raise campaign funds. Those races weren't so long ago that we should have forgotten already that there are more than two ways to fundraise. It's a shame that Dems think you're either for VOE or you're against us. Sounds a little like the impetus behind the Neo-Con question, "why do you hate America?"

Liberal sexism

2006-02-23T11:04:00.000-08:00

Lately I've done a lot of questioning of BlueOregon and its message, and people have been quite upset with my take on the site. It isn't BlueOregon per se, but what it embodies. A recent poster to my last blog was right to talk about the pervasive sexism in liberal politics. Kari Chisholm wanted to know what all of the last discussion had to do with women in politics. Well, clearly he didn't see that poster's comments. Women are a minority on BlueOregon and other blogs. They are also in the minority in letters to the editor and opinion pieces in newspapers nationwide. Most importantly for equal representation, women have nowhere reached political parity. Women's voices are silenced everywhere and yet, liberals everywhere, including Oregon, seem to think that feminist concerns are obsolete.

Local politics is nothing more than a pissing match among the boys who are still the gatekeepers around here. Women candidates are few and far between in Oregon these days, and not all of them espouse progressive views. But, the good old boys still want to keep women out by making clear they aren't the "chosen" progressives of the local political elite. BlueOregon is visible on this so it gets more airtime from me, but it is going on elsewhere too.

On the national level Hillary Rodham Clinton has received the oft used insult of desperation when women begin to make inroads anywhere: she's angry. Bill Maher, a good progressive by any standard, still makes sexist comments on his show on a regular basis. Locally, the Bus Project recently hailed Kobe Bryant as a sports hero on its website, despite the fact that he paid off a woman for her silence on his sexually abusing her.

Lest anyone dismiss the person who posted on the last thread as some radical feminist wacko, she may be extreme and overt in her language but ultimately she is right. Women struggle all across this state to makes ends meet, to raise good children and to have some dignity. I can't even write on this blog on a regular basis because I am trying to care for my family and be productive in the world. Meanwhile, a larger number of men seem to have plenty of time to sit around and debate the validity of a blog, where those "good progressives" have developed such myopia that they regularly defend their insulated world. They are so insulated that they have to ask, "what does that have to do with women in politics?"

Just another day at the blog

2006-02-18T20:11:00.000-08:00

So, BlueOregon doesn't have an agenda when it comes to slamming challengers to the incumbents it supports ( i.e. works for)?

Another "screed" has shown up on the site about Ginny Burdick and the company she works for. This is the kind of backhanded negative campaigning that is typical of those who don't actually have a candidate to promote.

Don't believe BlueOregon when it says it is an open forum. It's really just open season on challengers to the status quo.

As for the conspiracy theory Charlie Burr proposes on BlueOregon, it makes me wonder who the conspiracist is. Perhaps he should do some research on the League of Women Voters, which was born out of a women's suffrage group, headed by Carrie Catt Chapman, who was notorious for her devious tactics. Despite popular opinion, it really helps to know something about women's politcal history.

When Mud Turns Blue

2006-02-16T21:55:00.000-08:00

BlueOregon.com is at is again: desperation politics. While the gang at BlueOregon have attacked other candidates- Nick Fish and Ginny Burdick come to mind- this time they directed their mudslinging at Ben Westlund. They accused him of sexual harassment but it didn’t stick because the rumored “victim”, State Representative Debbie Boone, came forward immediately to dismiss it. Now BlueOregon is backpedaling and claiming no responsibility.

It is striking how quickly BlueOregon attempted a smear campaign. Westlund’s party change probably has something to do with it. Apparently Dems freak out when an Independent enters a race because it’s widely believed that Indies take votes away form Dems. But how about a race on the merits? Is BlueOregon unable to participate in a clean race? Oh, sure, the latest posting on the site calls for fair play and challenging unsupported claims. Apparently that’s a one way street for them. They don’t seem to feel the need to verify their claims in the first place- again, Nick Fish and Ginny Burdick come to mind. If I were a skeptical sort I would think that the folks over at BlueOregon are behind certain incumbent campaigns, where challengers, like Westlund, upset the apple cart.

So what about Westlund’s transgression? He claims it was a naive mistake. And, it seems it was. It was resolved immediately and Boone now says she has respect for him. Sexual harassment it was not but it was definitely born out of a sense of entitlement that pervades the male world. Vanity Fair is a case in point. The new issue represents a kind of overt sexism that feeds male entitlement. It shows a nude Scarlett Johansen and Keira Knightley and a fully clothed Tom Ford. (The irony that he is a clothing designer should be lost on no one.) According to the LA Times-Washington Post Service- I won’t personally support the magazine’s issue, so I am relying on the article- all of the photos for the cover story involve the same sexist scenario: clothed male celebrity, nude female celebrity.

The LA Times- Washington Post article makes the point that the photos imply a hierarchy of power, with the women in the vulnerable position. What these kinds of images do is tell us who has power- men- and who does not- women. It also tells men that they are entitle to women’s bodies, their birthright, let’s say. It affects our safety on the street when men feel compelled to comment on our appearance. Our choices are silence or rebuffing, which can lead to violence or the threat of it. (Talk about censorship.) It also leads to a hostile work environment, where women are impeded from being the capable and intelligent workers that they are. It becomes so subconscious that most men will think you’re a conspiracy nut if you bring it up. But, apparently a guy like Ben Westlund, as a freshman legislator, doesn’t even realize when he’s crossed the line. Lucky for him, someone pointed it out before it became a bigger problem. By all accounts, he learned a lesson.

I’m probably not going to vote for Ben Westlund, but I’d like to see the guy get a level playing field. Dirty politics hurts the candidate it’s aimed at, but it also insults the voters’ intelligence. What, we won’t know a good candidate when we see one unless the opponent is covered in mud?

Education Makeover

2006-02-11T09:08:00.000-08:00

Polls, this week, show a lack of support among voters for renewal of the I-tax that has funded Multnomah County Schools for the last three years while the legislature sat on its hands. The district's response is that it needs an image makeover so that voters will see how much better the district is doing with taxpayer money. While oversight and accountability are important, what really needs an overhaul is Education's public image. When the budget fails to yield more money for education, the media often reports it as a loss for "education and other social services." Since when is education a social service? Thomas Jefferson created the public school system, not as entitlement program, but with a mission for creating citizens. For Jefferson education was a patriot's duty.

I am pretty sure that if we made education a matter of national security, which it is, the public would rally behind it. After all a majority of Americans are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in the name of national security so how about throwing a little financial support behind schools in the name of national security? How will an uneducated, criminal population be able to defend itself against tyranny, and the scariest of the scary, the terrorist? Who will interpret intelligence reports? Who will generate them? Who will develop a plan of action? Who will implement it?

I am also pretty sure that if we made education a heroic act like, say, sending your barely legal daughter or son off to fight and/or die in an immoral and illegal war, the public would rally behind it. We talk a lot about sacrifice when we talk about our troops. The troops sacrifice for our nation, spreading liberty and democracy, which is somehow suppose to make us more free and democratic here at home. Their parents and spouses sacrifice for the same reasons. Yet, educating our citizenry is not painted as glorious or heroic, and the sacrifice it takes is undervalued. We dispose of our human capital so carelessly, while at the same time refusing to invest in its resource. How long do we expect the resource to exists under those circumstances? I believe Jefferson might have been thinking that an education populace translates into a more secure democracy.

The New York Times reported today that Volkswagen is cutting 20, 000 jobs. Most of those jobs will be here in U.S. manufacturing plants. Those jobs are not disappearing, they are just disappearing from the U.S. Volkswagen plans to relocate those jobs in China. China, a nation where education is paramount, and they have the budgets and test scores to prove it. How will we sustain liberty and democracy without an economic base?

Common sense, some might say, but clearly these critical connections are lost on Americans. I blame the way we talk about education in this country. The district needs to do more than just makeover its image, it also needs to start talking about education as something greater than simply a way to fill up kids' time for 6 hours a day, 9 months a year. And, it certainly is more than a social service like medicaid or arts funding that we can dismiss when the coffers run low. Educating kids, yours or someone else's, is patriotic. It is a responsibility of citizenship. And, it is heroic.

Ginny Burdick for Portland City Council

2006-02-09T08:33:00.000-08:00

The common wisdom (Portland Dems that is) has it that Ginny Burdick is the Enron candidate and that she is taking campaign money from PGE because she won't play the "clean money" game, and will "continue" to support utility company practices. So, I thought some record straightening is in order.

The Enron Candidate: Burdick will not be taking campaign money from PGE. She will not be taking money from the taxpayers either- but more on that later. She is running. not to help utility gouging pracitices along, but to improve matters in the city, something the current council is clearly unable to do. Things like spending what is budgeted for city projects and reassessing priorities for city projects are at the top of her list. Even the golden boy, Erik Sten, has been quoted saying that "no one is minding the store." What's more Burdick's record in the senate proves it. She voted with Rick Metzgar last year to force utility companies to pay the tax money they collect from consumers. Doesn't sound like she is protecting anyone but the citizens of Oregon.

If the Enron/PGE gossip isn't true, why is it sticking? The answer points to the insiders who want to be the gatekeepers of Portland Democratic politics, namely Mark Wiener and Liz Kaufman and their flunkies. Sten is the favored horse for these folks, but Burdick is a viable threat to their boy's campaign. Which leads to the campiagn finance fund.

Burdick is being painted as the big money candidate because she will not be taking money from the city campaign finance fund to finance her campaign. She believes in doing it the old fashioned way where tax payer money is not going to people running for office. You'll find her at house parties and coffees, talking to people about her ideas for a better Portland.

Yes, I know the argument for the fund is that it levels the playing field. But, it costs the city a great deal of unneccesary money. I just want to do a little mental exercise to show how much money could be spent on the fund, and diverted from real city needs. Right now there are 12 candidates for city offices that have filed and are seeking to qualify for the fund. If all of those individuals qualify for the $150,000 in campaign funds from the city we are looking at an overall outlay of 1.8 million dollars. The city could use that money in myriad ways that will support better police and fire services, improve roads and transportation, or supplement Portland Public Schools. (I know the council doesn't think it's the city's job to fund schools, but is it really leadership to pass the buck or does real leaderhsip solve a problem?)

And, does it really level the playing field? Some candidates will qualify while others will hurt their campaign, financially, by not making the mark. These are candidates who could have gotten a slightly larger amount from donors that might be the difference in remaining in the race. What it really does is set the insiders apart from those that might challenge them. I, for one, am glad that Burdick isn't willing to play the game. It is also indicative of a candidate who is interested in how city money is spent for the most effective outcome. If runnning for office and winning is a person's only goal, they aren't really concerned with solving problems. It looks like Sten's goal right now is to win re-election, but he isn't giving voters any reason to do that. In contrast Burdick is offering a plan. That plan is being overshadowed by some campaign politics straight out of the book of dirty tricks.

33 years of challenges

2006-01-22T13:16:00.000-08:00

Today marks the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. All week I have been attending events to commemorate the ruling and what it has meant for women across this country. As we face the new confirmations of Roberts and, most likely, Alito, it bears a discussion of what Roe has meant for women and what it has not.

Like other liberal women I know, I have looked upon Roe as the thing that secures my ability as an autonomous person. Let's face it, if women can't determine when they are able and willing to parent, they cannot be as productive as they would like and their voices are silenced as their presence is erased from the public arena. However, in recent years too much enphasis has been placed on Roe's power to facilitate women's autonomy. The truth is the ruling itself creates a class of citizen whose rights erode as time goes on. The legal invention of a trimester system places a pregnant woman in a precarious position where, as her preganancy progresses, she is determined less capable of deciding what she wants to do with her body and the government replaces her as the rational actor that makes that decision.

The language in Roe left a wide open door for the restrictions we now see that require anything from consent of parents and spouses to non-medical disclaimers doctors are forced to recite. All of these restrictions presuppose that the state is more capable of making a reasoned decision and that women are not reasonable people who are capable of making thought out decisions. What adds insult to injury, in a nation that does not support parenthood in any substantial way, is that women are the ONLY ones who can possibly make this decision with any rationality, especially the many women who seek abortions because they already have children and know what it will mean to have another one.

The restrictions that states are now imposing across the nation have made access harder- impossible for many women in rural areas and/or without financial means. Roe need not be overturned at this point because for many women Roe may as well not exist. Sure, Alito will probably be confirmed and, as NARAL Prochoice America reminds us frequently, our rights under Roe will be in jeopardy. I don't frankly, think that overturning Roe will make too big of an impact for many women who can't excersice the freedom Roe purports to give them.

Last night I heard Sarah Weddington speak at a NARAL event. The woman who argued Roe before the Supreme Court said it best when she said that overturning Roe can help women rethink how to pursue an agenda that supports women's right to their autonomy, thus their liberty guranteed under the constitution. The constitution doesn't gurantee a right to an abortion but it does gurantee a right to liberty and being able to determine if one can be a parent and adequately raise a good child (citizen) seems to me to be liberty at work. Women's rights advocates need to stop putting all their eggs in a basket labeled Roe and figure out why we are still fighting to make our own adult decisions after 33 years.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

2006-01-16T08:35:00.000-08:00

Today we consider what it is that MLK, Jr. left us in his untimely death. Some have drawn on his fight against poverty, others his fight for voting rights, and still others on his non-violent approach. As is almost always the case in the social/political world, none of it is disconnected. As we look at what our nation is doing in Iraq and then consider what our nation is doing at home, it is important to recognize that limiting our freedoms at home is not democratic. We cannot limit democracy and throw out the constituion and its promises, while pitching democracy at others. It doesn't work.

The administration has been heard on every major news outlet talking about defense and security and executive privilege for years. What we don't get a daily dose of is the alternative. For example, limiting consitutionally protected freedoms is not the only, nor the best, way to protect citizens from terrorism. Terrorizing another nation's citizens to oust one, admittedly, heinous leader while others go untouched is not the best promotion of democratic principles. These strategies are nothing more than smokescreens to hide the reality that this president wants an empire over which only he can reside. Well, he and his cronies.

When the founders created this nation and the constitution, they envisioned a nation that was self-governed and gave voice to many. Granted, the elites that were the founders did not always envision that voice being extended to everyone, but the success of their ideals is that we have been able to evolve in ways that include more and more voices. This is also the very thing that made us the envy of other nations. This new version of democracy, that looks more like British imperialism everyday, will continue to limit the democracy we have enjoyed as citizens and makes other nations view us with disdain. How can we sell democracy , justice, liberty and freedom under those conditions?

While we concentrate on Iraq's constitution and construction of its parliament, our president is listening to our conversations and torturing those we've taken captive. Off the radar, education is going downhill fast making us less competetive with the world in ways that improve lives not end lives. Health care is a luxury like buying a Bentley. And, voting, the quintessential element of democratic citizenship, has become suspect and unavailable to many once again.

None of this is news to progressives. What progressives need to do more of is what MLK, Jr. did: connect the dots. King knew that poverty and voting rights and freedom all went hand in hand. He also knew that to achieve liberty for everyone, the ideals of liberty could not be forsaken for the process of attaining it. That is why his words still reverberate in our memories. Yes, he was a great orator, but more importantly he knew how to connect the issues in a way that made us all responsible. We cannot hope to be a truly democratic nation with liberty and justice for all if most of those in poverty are still people of color, if women are sill considered the primary caretakers of the nation, if gay couples are prevented from making families with each other, and if we let elected leader of our nation use violence to spread our values.

Out with old...

2006-01-15T16:42:00.000-08:00

Kitzhaber has announced...finally. This is good news for Vicki Walker, who most recently sent out a letter to those who have signed on to her website indicating she will proceed full speed once Kitzhaber's announcement was made. It's also good news for Oregonians who will now have the benefit of the old governor's expertise on health care and that of a new player in the gubnatorial arena, who will support the efforts of our ex-gov. Walker, unlike Kulongoski, has an interest in the issues that affect Oregonians everyday, including health care availablity and cost. As a senator she has displayed leadership in protecting the citizens of this state from overarching state agencies and recalcitrant corporations . She is being completely ignored by local press and of course, the local blog community, Jack Bogdanski nothwithstanding.

It's is reminiscent of Carol Mosley Braun's run for the Presidency a couple of years ago. She didn't even get a vote because she got so little press she was forced to drop out of the race early. Our levels of discrimination are so submerged that even GW has to claim that he supports women because he loses nothing in doing it and he sounds good on TV, when the truth is the institutions are doing the job he really wants to do: roll back the clock for women. Ellen Goodman (Sunday's Oregonian) took a look at the abortion issues before Alito and concluded, in the same way, that Roe need not be overturned outright since the rights and protections it affords are nearly non-existent (actually non-existent for many women in rural areas) in a nation that continues to heap restriction after restriction on women's ability to obtain a legal medical procedure. Like legislative restrictions, the press is silencing women who run for executive office before they even get out of the box.

I challenge the local news agencies to give Walker the same press coverage in the coming months as her male counterparts. And, I challenge Oregonians to give her real consideration before dismissing her because she's not well known or doesn't have political capital or any of those other euphemistic reasons for not considering her because she's a woman.

Brokeback Nation

2006-01-13T05:32:00.000-08:00

For weeks I have been hearing about this movie, Brokeback Mountain, and how it is breaking through heterosexist barriers. I kept hearing statements from critics and commentators that, "Americans are flocking to see it" and " Even straight men aren't put off." It purports to contain a vivid gay sex scene between the two main characters that is "daring" and "breaks new ground." All along, though, I kept wondering, why? Why wasn't this movie offensive to the same crowd, Middle America, that rejected gay marriage initiatives all across the country last year? This movie isn’t only tolerated, it's embraced? When America suddenly embraces a movie, book, music, etc., the thing in question is rarely truly revolutionary. I wasn’t convinced. I saw it last night, and now I get it.

This movie is less than groundbreaking; it's culturally reproductive and nothing more than commodified rebellion- a little twist but still in the profit- making mold. It is a movie about two men who fall in love in cowboy country. While on the surface it would appear that it takes one of the most masculine arenas and turns it on its head, it follows a typical Hollywood formula. First of all, Heath Ledger grunts like a Neanderthal through the entire movie, which I suppose was his way of being a super masculine man. The sex scene that no one could stop talking about came about 30 minutes into the movie and was more like two boys wrestling over an insult. And about 15 minutes later, when both men marry we get to see Anne Hathaway's breasts.

In the interest of reality, we are often told, women's nudity is necessary for the plotline of a movie. So, you would think that in the interest of reality we would have seen some nudity between these two lovers. In fact, the only real nudity in the film was from Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams. I may be missing something but I guess it’s important for the straight men who may come to see this movie, about a gay love affair, to get their usual dose of T&A.

So, what this movie does not do is break new ground. It gives us just enough to think it's innovative and daring when it is neither. It contributes to and stabilizes the status quo by not pushing far enough. For example, it’s not yet safe to watch an actual sex scene between men, where they express some affection and caring. Instead, we had to witness a violent, masculinized interpretation of how men should have sex together. Coupled with the requisite female (only) nudity in American cinema, it’s made palatable for the average movie goer.

While I am on the subject of sexual exploitation…. The Willamette Week has ceased producing escort ads at the back of each issue. When I asked why, they told me that they were losing other advertisers and they made a business decision to cut the ads. I doubt with Mark Zusman at the helm the content will change much but it’s a bit of progress. In fact, as the official Suicide Girls journal, they have published yet another article in the current issue about SG, this time about their pending law suits.

Interestingly, SG has moved its headquarters to L.A. and they have created spin-off websites. They now are suing past models for copywrite infringement and breach of contract. Since Portland is porn capitol of the nation we will be bombarded with still more exploitation, not less, but the latest business choices of the WW are a step in the right direction. Still, all of this- the movie, the SG lawsuits and the WW decision- beg the question, is profit the only thing that trumps free speech?

Confirmation Circus

2006-01-11T10:46:00.000-08:00

Is it just me or is the Senate confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito a joke? It seems more like bad reality television than a serious government effort. After all, apparently Alito can say whatever he thinks will play well with the committee members. Does he seriously want us to believe that he is "open minded about abortion"? Isn't he the guy who believes that spousal consent is critical? This latest testament to supporting women is hard to stomach from a guy who wanted to keep women out of his alma mater.

Just before the holidays Nick Fish wrote a beautiful op-ed regarding Alito's activism in keeping Princeton an all male college. (It can be found in the Oregonian archives.) Fish highlighted that his wife, Patricia Schecter, is an alumus of Princeton, holding a PhD in History. She is an author and a professor of History at Portland State University- one of the university's best. Had Alito succeeded, she would not have been able to attend Princeton and perhaps, Portland would be poorer for it. Personally, I suspect she would have found another way and would still be here, Princeton degree or not. Determined women are rarely put off by closing doors.

Without access to all male institutions of higher learning, women are disadvantaged because many women's colleges do not offer PhD's. In the 1970's this was a critical issue, much more so than today when women have access to a variety of colleges and universities and are attending in greater and greater numbers. But, Alito has another opportunity to limit women's access to freedom and autonomy and that is through abortion law.

Why do we bother with these formalities? Alito will be pushed through the hearings and confirmed with barely a peep of dissent, and when the next opportunity arises for Alito to prevent women from making their own decisions, he'll nix it. How can I say this with such conviction? His record over the least 30 years shows that he has been no friend to women's liberty, despite what he said yesterday. Anyone can say anything they want. It's what they do that matters.

Football and the glass ceiling

2006-01-05T06:17:00.000-08:00

I am a pretty big college football fan and as the season ends with last night's Rose Bowl- an amazing and exciting game-I have had a persistent thought. Why are there no women football coaches? I always knew growing up that a football career was unthinkable but I always thought it would be exciting, if not a reality, to coach a college team. That was the '70's when girls could dream about things but nothing had happened yet. But, as I watched the 2005 season, it occurred to me that nothing had progressed that far in the world of sports. When you really think about it, coaches are the executives of sports. As such, they get the big salaries and the status that goes with the position. In essence they have the same respect as professors on a college campus, and on some die-hard campuses, more. Why are women still excluded? I see women reporting about football on the field and in the paper, so we've cracked that ceiling. Is it the standard notion that because women don't play they can't coach? That's a little like the military's reasons for few women in the departments of state and defense, isn't it? No combat duty, no ability to strategize, apparently. Coaching is a thinking job, not a muscle job. I'm not suggesting that physically there aren't some women somewhere who couldn't do the job on the field. In fact, I'm convinced there are. But, I know there is an untapped source of women who grew up with their brothers and fathers learning the game and could strategize with the best of them. So, when we think we've come a long way, baby, let's remember we aren't there yet. Maybe Oregon would consider replacing Belotti with a woman who would have stuck with a quarterback that had the momentum in hand and the team psyched up.

Congrats to the team that beat USC!

Happy New Year

2006-01-03T07:15:00.000-08:00

It's is a new year and a new primary season. As the candidates begin their filings and their campigns, as voters let's look for vision, leadership and innovative thinking. As progressives we need to put down our shields of defense and begin fresh thinking on the the issues. Support candidates who have a plan, not just a complaint. Support candidates who you may never have heard of but bring valuable experiences to the political arena. Oregon deserves better political representatives than we have been giving ourselves in recent years. Don't Oregon voters value themselves enough to ask for more from our elected officials?

And while I am on the subject of deserving more, how about using the initiative process to better our lives rather than restrict and impose long term damage on Oregon? Let's start being smart about what initiatives we really want. The founders of the US were purposefully vague in the creation of the constitution because they believed that to be too narrow was a death sentence for freedom. In the past 2o years Oregonians have passed initiatives that are specifically targeted at particular members of the community ( i.e. criminals, landowners, gay men and lesbians). Measure 5 has rendered our education system virtually bankrupt and created inequality in education funding, and therefore education outcomes, across the state. Measure 11 has tied the hands of judges, forcing them to impose sentences on teens who commit felonious pranks that will ruin their lives, rather than rehabilitate them and allow them to move forward as valuable adult members of our community.

The most egregious initiative we have passed in these 20 years has been Measure 36. This measure and its additions to the Oregon constitution fly in the face of the constitution's proscription for equal opportunity. Nevertheless, the Carson Court has upheld its constituionality, including applying it retroactovely to the 3000 or so marriages that were performed in 200, that application itself being unconstitutional under the US Constituion.

Ophelia Paquet is not a name one thinks of readily but she was an Oregonian who fought for the recognition of her marriage. She was a Native American married to a white man when Oregon had miscegenation laws. When her husband died their property, most of which she acquired through her own work, went to his children from a prior marriage because the state did not recognize his marriage to Ophelia. Ophelia prevailed in court, dismantling Oregon's miscegenation laws in 1921. Less than 100 years later Oregonians are again telling other Oregonians who they may marry.

I bring up Ophelia for two reasons. First, to demonstrate that it was a brave woman with no political power who eliminated a variety of discrimination in Oregon only to be replaced by this voter initiated discrimination. Secondly, it is important for those who voted in favor of measure 36 to remember that politics is a pendulum and although they get the power to decide right now, eventually that tide can turn on them.

When we look to changing the constitution, we need to remember the long term effects these votes will have. While it may look appealing to put criminals behind bars, it costs the state in dollars that could be put into education and in the loss of potentially valuable community members. When we limit freedoms of fellow Oregonians we open the door to eliminating freedoms for us all, because if I can get enough signatures, I can make you stop going to church every Sunday just because I think religion is wrong.

Twofer Tuesday

2005-12-20T08:39:00.000-08:00

Yes, two diatribes in one day. I am a little ticked off. One of the things I see happening in Oregon politics is that a few really squeaky wheels are getting all the press. What's worse, they are dictating who gets the press. I recently went to add this blog to Lefty Blogs, run by Kari Chisolm who also runs Blue Oregon. When I went to a post that says, "Got a brand new blog?", here's what I got:

"...then don't submit it to LeftyBlogs.com.
As we've said before, our focus is ensuring that our readers are exposed to local, political, original commentary.
If you've got less than a month's worth of posts, we have no way to know what kind of blog you're going to have. So, blog for a while, and then come back here to let us know.
Posted by Kari Chisholm on September 29, 2005 12:57 PM"

Wow, is this censorship I smell? When did Kari Chisolm get the power to decide what is progressive political speech and what isn't? Granted it is his site and he has the ability to do what he wants with it but don't forget Rupert Murdoch owns media outlets, too, and we all know where that kind of discriminating news has gone. If Chisolm's focus is on providing a forum for left-leaning commentators to get their message out, then why is he being so censorius as to not even welcome the opportunity to read a new blog?

Well, I guess if I want to be part of the liberal elite then I will have to wait my month or so and then bow before the kingdom of Chisolm. I'm not likely to do that. Maybe that's why Ginny Burdick got the beating she endured on Blue Oregon not too long ago. She failed to pay proper homage to the self-appointed of Oregon politics.

Prove your innocence, women

2005-12-20T08:22:00.000-08:00

Peter Ackerman defended himself yesterday while postponing sentencing of the 19 year old woman he convicted of falsely accusing three men of raping her. The Beaverton municiple judge stated that this young woman's attorney should have presented expert testimony to prove that her demeanor following the alleged rape was within the normal limits of what it means to be properly traumatized. I assume Judge Ackerman means to imply that since he did not, she must not of acted properly traumatized. And, to continue down this road of deductive reasoning, it must mean that she lied about being raped.

Are we really becoming a society where false accusations of rape are so prevalent that state intervention is necessary to stem the tide? The facts don’t support this. Depending on the study, approximately 1 in every 5 women is raped in this country. These figures include reported and non-reported rapes. In fact, only 38% of all rapes are reported nationally. The Portland Police Bureau’s own study says that only 10% in Oregon are reported. According to this report only 3% of that number are unfounded, meaning there isn’t enough evidence to support a rape conviction. Of that smaller number 1.6% are proven to be actual false accusations. So 1.6% of 3% of 10% of rapes reported in Oregon are false. Hardly a groundswell of false reporting.

If we compare the number of rapes and the number of false accusations, we see that rape continues to be the problem, not false reports. What happens when we accuse women of falsely reporting rape is that the focus is directed at women’s behavior. Scrutiny is taken off of the men who rape and the problem that rape continues to be for women. It questions women’s rational capabilities by implying that women can be so irrational as to blame an innocent man for a personal and, presumably, malicious agenda. It also allows society to refrain from questioning the rationality of men who rape.

The young woman in Beaverton apparently didn’t act appropriately traumatized. I struggle to understand how that can ever be defined. The legal standard is what the reasonable person would do. In the case of rape, it is hard to define what the reasonable person is. Is it the one who’s had this experience or one who thinks he should know what the reasonable response is? Since Judge Ackerman’s chances of ever being rape are so slim, he certainly can have no basis for judging whether or not this woman’s response is adequate proof of her alleged rape, even by standards of reasonableness. By attempting to use these criteria to measure the validity of her claim, this judge has placed the spotlight on the wrong party. Judge Ackerman would counter that this is why this woman should have provided an expert. But, isn't it the prosecution's job to provide experts to prove her guilt?

As a society we purport to abhor rape, but as long as courts continue to scrutinize women’s motives, they allow rape to continue unabated. Penalizing women who report rape in an effort to weed out illegitimate claims has two affects on the ability of men to rape with impunity. First, it silences women in a way that rape is unable to do. Second, it gives rapist another defense in court that now has legal teeth. Ultimately, it guarantees that rape will continue to be a part of our everyday lives.

What do I tell my two daughters? The only choice I have now is make sure they know that if they get raped, they are better off sweeping it under the rug of their lives than to risk a jail sentence. And we thought we were so different than those third world nations who stone women for reporting rape.

Supreme Equity

2005-12-15T09:56:00.000-08:00

Oregon ranks high on the list when it comes to women in elected office, but only because so many other states have such dismal numbers of women representing their states that they make Oregon and Washington look good. (Washington currently has the highest number of women in their legislature at 34%.) In the past ten years however, Oregon had gone from women making up a third of our legislature to 28% in the last session. Even at the high of 33% that is still not representative. Oregon is greivously lagging in the number of women who hold state office- currently it's only Susuan Castillo, State Superintendent of Schools- and no women serve on our Supreme Court. With the recently announced retirement of Wallace Carson from his post as Chief Justice, an opening is available and a woman wants that job. Virginia Linder is one of three women who currently serve on the Oregon Court of Appeals. After 8 years on the Court of Appeals, she has announced her plans to run for the open Supreme Court seat.

I recently was introduced to Judge Linder by the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, Betty Roberts. Justice Roberts endorsed Judge Linder for her position on the Appeals Court and remains very supportive of Judge Linder, particularly her bid for the Supreme Court. Justice Roberts has done as much for this state as men like Senator Mark Hatfield and Govenor Neil Goldschidt. She began serving in the state legislature in 1965 and went on to be state senator, barely losing a bid for the U.S. Senate to Bob Packwood in 1974. She has been active in promoting women in government, women's citizen rights in the state, and creating and protecting laws that have made Oregon a safer, cleaner place to live for us all.

If Justice Roberts supports Virginia Linder, then so do I. In addition to Justice Roberts, only two other women have served on our court in its history. It's time we had another. It's time we had more than one at a time. Women are attending and graduating from law schools in Oregon at a rate on par with men. Oregonians need to work on achieving equity in our legislature, our state offices and our courts. It's time we started looking for and supporting those qualified women who can move into positions of leadership. Fortunately, Judge Linder has come looking for us.

Run or get off the pot

2005-12-13T06:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, a local politico posted a blog regarding Kitzhaber's potential entry into the gubnatorial race this coming year. The poster seems to think that he a) won't run and b) is running interference for Kulongoski. A respondent made the point that it isn't the 5% of the population that dabbles in politics as a lifestyle that decide these things but rather the other 95%- the people- who do.

Two things came to mind as I read this. First, if Kulongoski needs help from a former governor to deflect honest competition within his own party, isn't there a problem? I don't know what motivates Kitzhaber to toy with the primaries, but I think that Vicki Walker and Pete Sorenson should get in it or move on. If Oregonians are unhappy with the way the state's been managed these Kulongoski years, let them decide what they want instead of the party telling voters who their choices should be.

I think Vicki Walker is severely underrated in the press. She's smart, has a good plan for the future of the state and she has shown leadership in the legislature where such things have been seriously missing. My advice to Vicki is "Get in it." An underestimated woman always stands the chance of surprising everyone. But mostly, she and other candidates would be presenting their agenda for solving problems in Oregon, and voters should decide who has the best plan.

Which brings me to my second thought. The poster said:

"a contentious Democratic Primary would do a lot to hurt The Kulo’s chances in the general election. People who care about social issues in Oregon should support (hold’s nose) Ted Kulongoski’s campaign to be reelected Governor. Ted might not be the best person for the job, but he’s probably the only candidate actually running who can win state-wide."

It seems to me that Democrats nation-wide are running scared, afraid that anyone who dares to challenge the old guard stands to destroy the party and its chances. This kind of defensive and reactionary posture virtually guarantees that the party will be damaged and leaves a perpetual opening for Republicans. It's time for Dems to stop reacting and formulate a plan with fresh ideas and a vision. Maybe it is finally time for someone new, even green, who can step outside of the muck the party has gotten itself stuck in and reassess.

If Kulongoski thinks he's that person-if Kitzhaber thinks he is that person- then let them show us. Otherwise, I think it's anybody's game. Let's stop tampering with potential. It doesn't hurt the party if we put the best candidate on the ticket. It definitely erodes and weakens the party to choose the "lesser of two evils" every primary season. If we really care about the issues of our state, we have to stop running scared of the Republicans and start leading.

To read the post quoted go to: http://privilegejudo.org/2005/12/12/kitzhaber-wont-run

Let's start the discussion

2005-12-12T10:51:00.000-08:00

So many of our progressive blogs in Oregon deal with critically important issues and help motivate individuals to get informed, stay informed and take action. Unfortunately, they often skim issues that affect half of our population more than the other half. There is also a critical need to keep women in our state involved in the political process. In the last two election cycles we lost ground in terms of the number of women serving in our state legislature. There are many highly qualified women out there who are eager to serve their communities, and there are great programs designed to get young women involved in politics at an earlier age. My hope is to let this serve as a forum to get more discourse on how to support the women we know in their political efforts. I also hope it serves as a place to help educate one another about the setbacks women continue to face in 2005 in their daily lives, which is political. It is important not to narrowly define politics in these discussions, but to bring forward the experiences, not necessarily envisioned as political in nature, that will add to the problem solving capacity of our political system.