November 12, 2008

Today is the first day that same sex couples can marry in Connecticut. In October, the Connecticut supreme court heard a case arguing that same sex civil unions (which had been legal) did not bestow the same rights and privileges as marriage. It's sort of the "separate but equal" thing.

And speaking of separate but equal, I was sincerely unhappy with what I heard in the news about black support for the same sex marriage ban in California. It wasn't that long ago that our laws used marriage restrictions as a means to further a racist agenda. It's not at all nice to see that people have managed to convince themselves that while bigotry on the basis of race is wrong, bigotry on the basis of sexual preference (and sex) is apparently fine, possibly even thought of as justified in the minds of over half of California, Arizona, and Florida voters*.

I don't like the state of Connecticut but I gotta say, today I'm quite happy to live here.

* And Arkansas, where voters passed "a...measure banning unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents."

Yay politics!

One of my local papers just ran a story about a couple of folks here in CT who decided not to wait for national democratic party censure of Senator "Traitor Joe" Lieberman.

Back when Lieberman lost the state democratic primary in his last run for US Senate, he refused to give up on his senate seat even though he had clearly given up on the people who had previously elected him. "Traitor Joe" made his own party so he could get a line on the ballot that November. The party was called the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party (or CFL). Lieberman, as stated in the Hartford Courant article, "...abandoned the name and the embryonic party as soon as he won".

Since then, John Mertens, a Trinity College engineering professor and John Orman, a Fairfield University political science professor have put the abandoned party to use. Here's a statement of the revived CFL party's new purpose from their website:

The Connecticut for Lieberman Party (CFL) rejects the fraud perpetrated on the members of this party and the citizens of Connecticut by Joe Lieberman when he used the creation of this party to get on the general election ballot in 2006. The CFL is an independent, anti-war, anti-corruption, pro-fiscal responsibility, pro-democracy party, that stands for individual liberties and real problem-solving in government. The CFL wants everyone to know that in the United States of America, voters are free to join any party they wish, and participate in the democratic process according to the laws of Connecticut and the United States.

I have one word to describe this move and that is BRILLIANT!

not on crazy pills

I was just doing a little research on the US and CT legislative candidates. I ran across this gem from US Rep Joe Courtney (D, district 2):
(from 2nd District Race: Candidates for Congress address high fuel prices, By Adam Bowles, The Norwich Bulletin, Aug 24, 2008)

Locally, Courtney insisted the state take a fresh look at how it retains its younger workers, calling the current thinking in Hartford "reactive" at best.
“Other states are more predatory when it comes to growing their job bases," he said. “If you take a look around, there’s not much available (in Connecticut) when it comes to entry-level jobs...”

Ok so I'm not crazy.

Also, if you're eligible to vote in the upcoming US election (not to mention any possible state primaries between now and then), please check out Project Vote Smart for information about candidates who will be on your ballot.

If you already know what US and state legislative districts you live in you can access candidate information in the following way:
From the link/navigation bar near the top of Vote Smart's site frame, select the header "Candidates" and you'll get a drop down menu which includes the items "US Congress" and "State Offices".
Here's what you get if you select US Congress and then Massachusetts.
And this links to the results for State Offices, Massachusetts, Senate.

If you don't know your US and state district info and if you're not in the mood to track it down via internet search of phone call to your town clerk/city hall, I suggest you use your zip code to zero in on your candidates on Vote Smart. Here's what to do:
You'll need your full zip+4, which you can find here. Once you have your zip+4, type/paste it into the field on the upper left side of Vote Smart's site frame titled "Find Your Representatives - Search by Candidate's or Official's Last Name, or Enter Your ZIP Code". This takes you to a page which allows you to navigate to all your area's candidates for state or federal office.

cozy

I'm at home after the post-last official day of work semi-mandatory work party at the house of my boss. She's fun, but it was an outdoor event and the outdoors in the backwoods of CT scare the hell out of me since I caught Lyme in 2002. Lest I forget how much that sucked and how much the physical symptoms I have had since contracting Lyme continue to suck, my left ankle's been hurting a lot the last two days. (I blame the wacky weather. It's been overcast, warm, and humid all week. Today's nice weather comes courtesy of a front that moved in yesterday, hence more joint pain.) It was fairly throbbing earlier. I thought about wrapping it but then remembered my bad luck with such things and bagged it, opting instead for medication.

I went to the party today covered in DEET and spent most of the few hours I was there sitting away from the grass, trees, ornamental shrubs, and other tick-havens. While my choice of seating left me a bit removed from the rest of my co-workers, I did have fun chatting with another woman who wouldn't come out onto the grass either. "Holy shit, so basically we're going to a fucking Tick-nic!?" she had asked last week when told about the location of this get together.
On the way home from the party, I started feeling really gross, probably on account of being drenched in DEET for going on four hours. I got home to find A____ making food - some kind of mexican beef thing which smells great now that I've had a shower and a blueberry muffin and shook off some of the ick feeling.

It's nice and quiet here right now, just the sound of the fan, some birds, and a faint but comfortingly familiar, specifically non-rural traffic hum from the highway about 1 mile to the south.

Like the sore ankle, my anxiety over not having a job yet is still lurking around the edges but it's such a pretty day and I'm so happy to be home early and to be able to have some down time with my fella later this evening that I'm determined not to let either of these bring me down right now.

hicks

Below is an excerpt from a news story from Vernon, CT. I don't live in Vernon CT, but I've lived near it on and off since living in CT.

Vernon is a combination of the backwoodsy ruralities - the hallmark of the Northeastern section of CT - and a few miles of traffic filled, stripmall lined roads. They have a Price Chopper. There are some diners in Vernon. I feel this makes it distinct from other more truly rural places like Coventry or Ashford. The town of Vernon boasts one lane roads over covered bridges, a paucity of street lights, no sidewalks, and other elements which the residents of this foul state apparently consider quaint. Adding to the quaintness factor are the locals in Vernon, who do what they can to preserve that good old country feel. What makes a CT local? In part, it seems to be many generations of careful breeding, often among just a couple of families who can be traced back to some of the earliest settlers of the area. This results in as little brains as teeth among the lot of them and news items like this one from the Hartford Courant.

VERNON - — Armed with tin snips and fortified by an evening of drinking, a Vernon man led an assault on an electronic speed sign mounted to a utility pole near his South Street home early Sunday.

After noticing the sign missing, police launched a search and soon found its charred remains in a fire pit behind the home of Ben Gardiner.

Gardiner, 22, of 291 South St., admitted, police said, to taking out his anger on the sign after it flashed his speed as he arrived home about 1 a.m. Sunday.
...
Gardiner and friends took the sign to Gardiner's backyard and took turns running toward it to measure their speed. This apparently caused much delight, police said.

The fun lasted until a woman in the group suggested that the sign might have a tracking device or camera on it that could lead police to them. That caused the group to "to freak out," witnesses said. They decided to burn the sign in the fire pit.

dipshittery

Now I'm going to have to drive by this cheery holiday display and see what all the fuss is about.

Atheist Protests Location Of Tree
By David Owens
Courant Staff Writer
December 14, 2007
VERNON — The leader of the atheist organization that placed a display in Central Park in Rockville has asked town officials to move a Christmas tree placed in the park by town employees that partially obscures the atheist display.

Dennis P. Himes of Vernon, who is state director of American Atheists Inc., wrote a letter to Town Administrator Christopher Clark and sent copies to Mayor Jason L. McCoy and the press.

In the letter, Himes said he expected McCoy to order the tree be moved away from the atheists' display. He also asked that the workers who installed the tree be admonished.
...
The Connecticut Valley Atheists placed a three-sided display in Central Park on Dec. 1, after first applying to the town for a permit. Permits also were issued for placement of a creche and a menorah. Until this week, the atheists' display was the only one in the park. It is a three-sided structure that on two sides features an image of the twin towers of the World Trade Center and is framed by the words "Imagine No Religion."

The sign was a topic at Tuesday's town council meeting, where some speakers expressed anger that it was in the park.

Justin Schwarz of Brooklyn Street said the sign is offensive and told the council he plans to speak with a lawyer about trying to get it removed. Schwarz on Thursday said he views the sign as "hate speech."

"I find the 'Imagine No Religion' offensive, as a Christian and as a human being," Schwarz said Thursday. Schwarz said a friend who is an atheist apologized to him for the sign.

"This group, they're out to force their will upon other people at the wrong time of the year," he said.

The Rev. Raymond Grezel, pastor of the Rockville Church of the Nazarene, asked the town council Tuesday whether the atheists' display is "appropriate." He urged the council to examine the town's policy and consider the ramifications of allowing any group to display its views.

He raised the issue of a white supremacist organization placing a display in the park on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. McCoy said Thursday such a display would likely not pass muster.
...

CT, we're expensive

I was up early today to see my fella A_____ off. He's got a talk today, one I should go to but during which I managed to schedule an appointment. I couldn't have timed it worse if I tried. It's not like the talk is new info. As of last night, I'll have heard his talk 4, maybe 5 times. But I still would have gone if I could because as I've said, it's bad not to be seen in grad school and the occasion of this talk is one of those places to be seen. Plus, if I have to attend a talk that is not entirely my cup of tea, I'd rather go to one where I have some good reason for being there other than what more often than not boils down to faculty mollification (i.e. at least pretending to drink the cool-aid).

So I'm up, under-caffeinated, a little cranky about my day's schedule, and reading the news while I wake up. And what do I find? More reason to dislike the state I live in.

Despite a slowdown in the housing market, the median sales price of a single-family house in Connecticut has climbed above $300,000 for the first time.

The Warren Group report shows that sales of single-family houses were down by 9.5 percent in June compared with the same month last year.

The overall point is clear: The median price of a house in the state has outpaced the price of consumer goods and services. In June 1997, for example, the median price of a single-family house was $149,900. If it had risen in step with the consumer price index, that figure would be $195,000 in 2007, not $307,250.

Why? The article goes on to offer some shallow commentary from unbiased sources like a Century 21 agent and unsubstantiated speculation. (Thank you Fox news for lowering the standard everywhere.) Personally, I'd put my money on this:
The reason [for the local spike in home prices] even as sales decline, could come, in part, from a higher portion of sales occurring in Fairfield County, where houses cost more, said Steven P. Lanza, executive editor of The Connecticut Economy [published by a local university].

Fairfield county? The article has a table which lists the median price of a single family home in Fairfield county as $629,500. The county where I once owned a home has a median price of $243,750. Fairfield county is also the richest county in CT, and a nice example of how screwy the distribution of wealth is in this surrogate state o'mine.


The part of today's article which hits the point for me comes from this quote.
"It's still a very expensive housing market in the state, even in the midst of the housing recession we are going through," said Todd Martin, economic adviser for Bridgeport-based People's United Bank. "The state is still not very affordable."

Connecticut's for...

fucking, it seems. At least so say Jesus H Christ and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (think sort of a musical Upright Citizen's Brigade).

You can hear a sample of "Connecticut's for Fucking" here.

character

Cheeerist, I hate Connecticut.

From the Journal Inquirer
VERNON - The McDonald's restaurant on Route 83 is looking for more than a facelift as corporate owners are hoping to tear down the existing structure and construct a more modern building complete with two drive-through windows. But the [proposed] futuristic design is causing concern among the town's Design Review Commission, which is calling for a more subdued, New England-esque look.
...
[Design Review Commission staff liaison] Rodriguez said..."A lot of this is about what you want the character of a community to be."

bang

Hey! Did you know fireworks are legal in CT?
This is natural selection at its very best.

Friendly's sold

Of all the things in the news today, the one which immediately drew my eye was the headline "Friendly Ice Cream Corp. Sold". It's a local story. Along with the story is a link for readers to share their "Friendly's memories". Personally, I find it hard to wax nostalgic about Friendly's. This is not to say I haven't got any Friendly's memories, just not any of the sort which I think I'd want to share in a pleasant trip down memory lane context. More evidence of my jaundiced views I guess.

I should back up. Friendly's is an ice cream/family restaurant chain. Of all the local chains of my childhood, Friendly's has never stood out as anything special. Compared to the occasional local dairy farm run ice cream stand/shop (of which there are usually a couple in any New England region), Friendly's is downright nasty.

It's not so much the ice cream which makes Friendly's nasty, and possibly in a town where there are many more choices for restaurant than Friendly's, Friendly's wouldn't seem so, well, wretched. But living in Buttfucknowhere CT for 9 years now has made me sort of loath Friendly's.

The only chain which outnumbers Friendly's are Dunkin Donuts. I do not feel a similar loathing for Dunkies because they are not a "restaurant". They don't try to be, even with all the silly shit they keep adding to the menu. You can still treat them like a coffee shop. Friendly's, on the other hand, is a restaurant. Because it is a restaurant, it occupies a dining niche which, were it not for Friendly's taking up that space, might be filled by something (or some several things) else. Something better.

In one of the three strip malls which border my university campus and which count as the commercial district of the "college town", there is a Friendly's. There used to be a nice little coffee and donut shop in this strip mall. According to the campus police (the ones I liked, yes, I'm the kind of tool who talks to police officers - the decent ones at least), this coffee shop had the best coffee. I used to go there. They had chess board table tops and games you could check out. It wasn't great, it wasn't bohemian. It was a regular working class local privately owned coffee shop and it went out of business a few years ago.

The space stood empty for some time. Two women I knew who ran the coffee truck on campus considered moving into the space the nice locally owned coffee shop used to lease, but they dropped their plans when they were told by the owner of the strip mall that they would have to limit their menu due to a deal with Friendly's. That is, Friendly's wouldn't allow any shop to move into their strip mall if that shop planned to offer menu items which might compete with the items Friendly's offered.

Talk about fucking collusion.

Needless to say, the space is still empty. It was occupied for a short while by a nice enough coffee shop - although the atmosphere left something to be desired ("ugh, who ever heard of painting a dining room BLUE?!" my brother yelled when we ate there once). But they went out of business about a year ago, leaving the empty space and yellowing "for rent" signs up in the windows.

Friendly's, however, remains - offering such delightful menu items as the "fishamajig".

I recall going to Friendly's with some school mates when I was in my former graduate department. It was me, another American (Kelly), and a young woman from Spain (Emma). Emma had only been in the country a few months. We looked over the menu and Emma asked "what is 'fish-a-ma-jig'?"

Kelly and I laughed and advised her NOT to order it. "See, it's like fish and whatever. Or whatever kind of fish," Kelly said.
Emma was confused.
"The suffix "ma-jig", in English, is added onto words to denote a sense of non-specificity," I explained.
"It's like 'fish or something, but we might not know what'," Kelly added.
"Oh," Emma said, staringt at the menu.
"So you probably shouldn't eat anything that has the morpheme 'ma-jig' or 'ma-bob', that's another one that means sort of the same thing."
"And don't eat something that has a 'whatsit' in it either. That would be ill advised also."

I wonder if Friendly's will change their menu now that they have been sold. I wonder especially if they will change their atmosphere. The one across from my campus has a chronically grease-slippery floor, an ordor of bleached french fries, and acid-like pictures of giant ice creams photoshopped into photographs of New England landmarks. The ice creams seem to be lurking, waiting for an unsuspecting tourist. Also, the local Friendly's plays just truly wretched music from the late 60s/early 70s. I mean BAD music. Muskrat Love, Neil Diamond, John Denver, all the worst of course, bad bad music.

Blue state casino

I once asked a good friend who worked as a professor in Texas if the adjuncts at her university were part of the union. She laughed and laughed and explained to me that in Texas, you don't unionize. I was young and naive I suppose. Also, I had only ever lived in MA, MI, and CT. I had taken some things for granted, like a strong or at least highly visible working class with empowered workers who will fight like hell to get, keep, and enforce their bargaining rights.

Today, as I read the news, I was reminded that this may not be how it works in less labor friendly states. It was this headline which called that conversation with my friend from Texas briefly to mind:
Unions Take Shot At Casino - Ruling Might Help Organization Efforts
The casino is one of those tribal casinos in Southeastern CT. The ruling is a federal one, not by the NLRB but by a circuit court which extended the federal labor law to the casinos. That this is a federally mediate issue would seem to negate the notion that unionizing casino workers might be easier if only because it is more conceivable in a blue state - except that while whether workers are "allowed" to organize is important (i.e., among other things, whether workers are allowed to call themselves workers), whether workers see themselves as workers and think of unionizing in a positive light is crucial.

I know this from the truly odd world of academic labor. Consider grad students. Most of these would be academics are not from working class families and were not raised to see blue collar values as anything other than quaint at best. The cultural experience many graduate students drag along with them like some unacknowledged toilet paper tail stuck to their shoes is one bounded by upper middle class at the low end and chock full of prep schools, private high schools, social and intellectual elitism, and an unquestionable inherited skin deep pseudo-liberalism. In short, people who think listening to NPR makes them radicals, who can afford to support their vegan lifestyle without collapsing of scurvy, and who have the luxury of certain key comforts and securities - either now or at least in childhood - which allows them to believe in such fairytales as the american dream and the tenure track job.

Part of the cultural package bought and consumed by these folks is the implicit message that unions are bad. By the time they reach grad school, they are not in a position to think of unions favorably, unless you're talking about unions in like Brazil or something. Then they're very pro. But here? For us?

I think this is because of a deeper element than the consumption of anti-labor cultural rhetoric with no immediate contextual antidote. These are people who have lead their lives very much expecting mommy and daddy to know what's best and right, and who as they've matured, have learned to predict and conform to certain key parental expectations. Moreover, these are people who are old enough to have felt a little of what life might be like without the billowy cushion of the mommy and daddy money pillow. Such a person will transfer this parent pleasing attitude into the university upon matricuation as a graduate student, applying it to anyone from a major advisor to the departments head, and finally if nebulously all the way to the ineffable, unknowable god-like deans and provosts.

In that context, it is a simple matter to bust any grad employee union before the cards are even printed simply by threatening that the university (provosts, deans, department heads, and advisors) will stop loving you.

Hm...I seem to have gone on a rather lengthy tangent. Well, there's a lot more where that came from but I'm not up to delving that deeply into thoughts of unionizing and organizing workers in a field I am pretty sure I will not be a worker in for much longer.

However - to return to the topic at hand - I am pleased to see that folks working at the casinos of CT are being roused. I don't know what working conditions are, but I am of a mind that unionizing is not something which need only be done in dire circumstances. Unless your experience has told you the people above you will always act fairly, compassionately balancing your interests with other needs like massive huge profits, it is foolish to dismiss the notion of collective bargaining a priori.

From the Hartford Courant
Unions unsuccessfully tried to organize workers at Foxwoods, one of the state's largest employers, in the late 1990s. This time, union organizers appear to have two new advantages: a recent, favorable court ruling and signs of dissatisfaction among some workers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in February that Indian tribes, though considered sovereign governments, must follow the National Labor Relations Act, including its rules giving employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. Foxwoods is owned and operated by the Mashantucket Pequot tribe.

weather

It's officially summer in CT. The last two days have brought 80+ degree weather, and while yesterday was beautiful, sunny, dry, and gorgeous, today it's moving into simply warm and unpleasantly muggy. I was hoping for a little more spring before we went straight into July.

The change is not being kind to me. When they are down, my hands look like someone wrapped tourniquets around the wrists - red with big distended veins.

I never was a fan of the hot and humid, but it sucks dreading summer so much. I really need to get a pool pass.

no girls allowed

When a university does not address sexual assault, it is essentially hanging up a "no girls allowed" sign. By "address" I mean any number of actions - maintain a rape crisis center and rape crisis counsellor team, ensure campus is well lit and safe, provide facilities and operational support for a campus safety escort service (i.e. walkers and vans), make sexual assault defense and prevention programs available for all students, promote sexual assault awareness campaigns among the campus and greater campus community. All of those things take funding and in today's climate of profiteering universities, funding is the last thing they are going to put into a problem they'd rather not acknowledge in the first place.

Take Yale. (please)
Today, Yale was in the news. A Yale student who says she was sexually brutalized after a party dubbed "Camp Yale" is accusing the university of not enforcing underage drinking laws or doing enough to warn students and faculty about sexual assault.

Oh the Hartford Courant. So willing to give the benefit of the doubt despite the legality of the situation. It's not a matter of the student "say(ing) she was sexually brutalized". The woman's rapist plead "no contest" to the charges. Why continue to play the "who says" and "alleged" game after a conviction has been secured? Why do it if we are going to unequivocally declare the Duke lacrosse players innocent without their having been found innocent at trial.

But I digress. I read the Yale lawsuit article with interest, translating from the original misogynist text as I went. I think this is an interesting tactic this woman is taking in suing the university. My own experience at universities is that they do NOT like to address the fact that sexual assault occurs on their campuses or among their student populations. It is frustrating to watch as someone who has been largely indirectly affected by sexual assault. This woman was assaulted by a man who had been allowed to stay on campus after a prior similar assault
The lawsuit says that Yale should have known about Korb's violent tendencies, after he allegedly bit another student. The suit accuses Yale of glossing over previous incidents of sexual violence and failing to educate students about the problem.

Wait, they knew he bit someone before? What the hell were they thinking? Were the Yale administration waiting for him to go buy some guns and shoot up the school? Ah but I forget. Only sensible people would consider a college aged boy who goes around BITING girls to be in any way pathologically fucked. And sensible, when it comes to assault on women and the men who assault them, is not the common approach. The immediate Virginia Tech response to the first two killings showed the common thinking on it: Providing the boy only bites/stalks/assaults(bites?) girls, he's not going to be considered a threat to the community as a whole. Hence no need to throw him out of school, alert the community, mandate counseling, or treat him as any kind of threat. He's a personal problem, a disturbance at worst. No reason to rock the boat or worry people needlessly.

But I have to say, what struck me was this little nugget.
Responding to years of complaints, Yale last fall opened a rape crisis center that combines counseling and prevention programs under one roof.

Allow me to underscore the important part of that sentence:

Last year Yale finally got around to opening
a rape crisis center.

LAST fucking YEAR?!

Here's a random thought - I can't help thinking that had there been a means for support and empowerment of the victims of sexual assault before LAST fucking YEAR, perhaps we as a country would have been spared some men's rise to power as political figures.

The thought that Yale only just LAST fucking YEAR opened a rape crisis center makes me seethe. I want to go put a brick through something Yale-ish. It's so indicative of the problem though isn't it? It's a perfect illustration of what marginalized groups face in US culture these days, especially in the academic culture. A flat out denial of a problem, a complete disavowal of any possibility of racism, sexism, ageism, anti-gay belief (gotta have a new word btw, a post for another time), classism (oh god a huge one) on the one hand while ensuring there is NO way to record or address any instances of the afore mentioned "-isms" available to students, staff, or faculty. The way harassment, discrimination, bigotry and other systemic oppressive behaviors are treated on campus is to allow the denial to dictate funding and programming - no sexism = no need for a sexual harassment office. A belief in no rape = no need for a rape crisis center. And thus there are no records. Or falsely low records of occurences of discrimination, harassment, rape.

How many complaints do you think are likely to result when the university model is to say "Look, it's not that we don't believe you. It's just that we only take complaints written in orange ink" and then refusing to buy orange pens.

The unsurprisingly low number of official (orange inked) complaints are used as further evidence that nothing like that happens here, further cause to not fund such facilities and programs, and the whole thing perpetuates itself.

I am glad someone is suing. Yale's obvious lack of concern for the reality of sexual assault is tantamount to a civil rights violation. It wouldn't be if rape didn't happen. While we'd all love to believe this it is not only incorrect, it is wrong.

I'll be sure to follow the lawsuit as well as I can. I don't know that it will be easy since following the story means it needs to make it into the news as it progresses and I have no faith the news outlets will pick it up to report on anything beyond the novelty of a woman having the chutzpah to sue over a climate which made the sexual assault more likely, which one might argue facilitates and enables sexual assault.

Douchebag du jour (V)

Today's douchebag is Mark Rowan, editor for the CCSU student newspaper (The Recorder).

Back in February, CCSU Recorder opinion editor John Petroski wrote a column called "Rape only hurts if you fight it" (text is here). After intense and wide spread protests of the paper's decision to run the column, apologies were issued.

One of those "apologies" came from Mark Rowan. It was a "We're sorry if..." apology, the kind which should be like a razor blade to the tongue of the sincerely contrite person but which literally slithers out of the mouths of remorseless douchebags.

Today, Rowan was in the paper again. The context was an article about the findings of a committee formed at CCSU which was meant to identify ways to ensure "...greater journalistic responsibility on the part of the newspaper". My summary of the findings as presented in today's news is that they don't even count as a slap on the wrist. In short, the committe decided that those who write for the paper are accountable only to what passes for personal conscience to guide a set of sophomoric, shock-jock informed standards of misogynist journal-tainment.

Here's what Mr. Rowan said in repsonse to the findings of the committee.

Recorder editor Mark Rowan...said the task force's recommendations would help the newspaper become more accountable to the student body. But he added that he felt the newspaper was already moving in that direction before the furor over the rape article.

Rowan added that he felt that some segments of the campus population would never be satisfied, no matter what steps the newspaper took.

"There's been a witch hunt from the day the article appeared," he said. "This should be about improving the paper, not punishment."

And here's some of the text of the column which kicked off this "witch hunt". I'm missing it. What part of this reflects the trend of moving in a direction of being more accountable to the student body?
In actuality, rape’s advantages can very much be seen today. Take ugly women, for example. If it weren’t for rape, how would they ever know the joy of intercourse with a man who isn’t drunk? In a society as plastic-conscious as our own, are we really to believe that some man would ever sleep with a girl resembling a wildebeest if he didn’t have a few schnapps in him? Of course he wouldn’t—at least no self-respecting man would—but there in lies the beauty of rape. No self-respecting man would rape in the first place, so ugly women are guaranteed a romp with not only a sober man, but a bad boy too; and we all know how much ladies like the bad boy.

Thank god for free speech. Because of that I can say Mr. Rowan is a douchebag. I can go on to explain he's a douchebag because he has fulfilled numerous douchebag requirements such as being a man who, in response to valid, shared community perceptions of his committing/defending injurious sexism, cries "WITCH HUNT!!!"

Why do I find it so irksome when men use the term "witch hunt" in a situation like this one? Aside from the illogical and utterly contradictory inversion of victim and perpetrator which it necessarily entails in such cases, I am overwhelmed by the irony of a man claiming alleigance with the victims - predominantly female - of exactly the same kind of callous, violent sexism he himself is being censured for advocating and advancing.

Unlike today's douchebag, as a reasonable and thinking person, I take comfort in the idea that there is a significant portion of the campus population which will not be placated by soft pedaled slithery platitudes like Mr. Rowan's.

Yay CGA

I do so like having a non-republican dominated state legislature (it's called the CGA here - Connecticut General Assembly).

My sense is that state level democrats are not quite the same as federal. Although you certainly can have many republicans in sheep's clothing at the state level, there isn't as much drive for them in a state which wants to believe it's not a hillbilly-loving, bible thumping, jezzebel stoning, proudly and openly omniphobic state.

One pro from the last presidential election - the blue/red state fallacy seems to have helped to nudge some of the supposed "blue states" away from intimations of kooky-con attitudes. While the state I live in still sucks (oh yes it does, this is not a love letter to CT, 'the state of denial'), the non-kooky-con CGA at least has been entertaining some nice bills lately.

For example, there's one which would extend the statute of limitations on rape. Currently rape is seen as less serious than "class A felonies" and "capital felonies".

CT's Class A felonies (c. 2005):

• Murder other than a capital felony or arson murder
• Felony murder
• Sexual assault in first degree of certain younger victims
• Aggravated sexual assault of person under age 16
• Kidnapping in first degree
• Kidnapping in first degree with a firearm
• Arson in the first degree
• Employing a minor in an obscene performance
• Assault on pregnant women resulting in termination of the pregnancy

The above crimes have no statute of limitations, while most sexual assault cases do (i.e. first degree sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, and spousal/cohabitating partner sexual assault are currently considered Class B felonies in CT). According to the Hartford Courant, The proposed bill would extend [the Class A felony] list to include first-degree sexual assault, aggravated first-degree sexual assault, sexual assault in a spousal or cohabitating relationship, second-degree sexual assault, third-degree sexual assault, and third-degree sexual assault with a firearm.

EC in CT (II)

CT's more catholic than thou bishops have been slapped down and it's about time! The "thou" is catholic leadership in other nearby states such as NY and NJ. The slap down was the recent passage of an emergency contraception bill by the CT Senate on a vote of 32 to 3 (Hartford Courant for an anti-choice slanted story on the bill).

CT's hardline catholic leadership has consistently and rigidly opposed any legislation requiring hospitals to make emergency contraceptives available for rape victims. I recall listening to the hearings on a bill (which was defeated) last year. The reasoning of those opposing the bill was that it would violate the constitutional right of an organization to impose its religious beliefs on others, even if that imposition could cause increased pain, suffering, and health risk (pregancies count as a heath risk) and would prevent access to standard medical treatment. I'm not sure exactly where in the constitution that right is guaranteed, but the CT catholics are quite certain it exists.

From March 2006
Bill O'Brien, CT Right to Life Committee...says the state law, if it is passed, should be struck down as a violation to the right of religious freedom. He says "some of our sons and daughters are fighting and dying for religious freedom overseas right now". He says we have kicked god out of the schools, we now want to kick god out of medicine. He says "I find it interesting that rape is being used in this bill," "In Roe V Wade, Roe, now knowns as ____ said she was raped and later recanted...That lie was used as a wedge to justify legalized abortion." "It has been argued that a woman who has been raped will be inconvenienced by going to a catholic hospital." "This is not just a catholic issue...freedom of religion is in our federal and state constitutions, it's time to stand up for our constitutions."

anachronism

From today's headlines:
Socialite Anne Bass was one of two people injured during an armed break-in at her Litchfield County estate, state police said.

I had no idea the word "socialite" was still used. I could imagine it being used in a completely sarcastic sense but not as a sincere description of a person. And what shocks me most is that I live in a state where there are people who are apparently best described as "socialites".

one toke over a Douchebag du jour (IV)

It started out as nice news. From The Boston Globe
HARTFORD, Conn. --A move to legalize marijuana for people suffering from certain medical problems cleared its first legislative hurdle Wednesday, giving hope to those who've been pushing for the bill for several years.

I read that and I thought "Isn't that great?" Then I read this part.

Rep. Arthur O'Neill, R-Southbury, opposed the bill on Wednesday. He said the federal government has classified marijuana as a drug with no therapeutic benefit. But O'Neill expressed frustration that authorities have agreed not to prosecute people living in the 11 states where medical marijuana is legal.

"I feel somewhat put upon as a legislator in the state of Connecticut to have to sort of stand up for a system that the federal government itself seems reluctant to stand up for," O'Neill said.

A quick search on State Representative Arthur O'Neill shows he seems to have issues with those who choose to inhale. As a member of the State legislature's Judiciary committee and Finance committee, he played a significant role in the death of a similar bill a couple of years ago. He voted against it, twice. But more importantly, when the bill managed to make it to the house floor for a vote and passed, he sent it off to be tied up in committee - where it died. Guess who voted against it, again, in the Finance committee? Yeah. Representative O'Neill. The moral of that story is if your vote is not enough to count in the majority when the tally is taken of 146 elected state reps, then try try again in a committee where your vote is one of only 39! (Yay!)

In fact, it looks like it went through the Finance committee ok. Seems O'Neill really is just in the minority. But that committee voted on it 5 days before the end of the legislative session. The last action on that bill reads "tabled for the calendar". I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess this means sending it back to committee that close to the end of the legislative session means O'Neill killed the bill.
Anyone who's a big fat politics nerd who knows for sure, please share.

Still...after mulling over Representative O'Neill's comments on this most recent incarnation of the bill, I have to say, while I might disagree with his persistent opposition to the bill, I think I can see it might be possible that one could maybe sort of respect a guy who's somewhat willing to stand up for something someone else makes the pretense of believing in. Especially when you consider who he's standing up against - quite sick people who just won't stop lobbying for even a chance at an improved quality of life. Those blasted, nefarious special interest groups. Lobbyists even!
Sweet jesus.

4 votes short

Senate Dems. Weigh New Iraq Restrictions
Sunday February 18, 2007
By Deb Riechmann, Associated Press Writer

The [US] House passed a nonbinding resolution Friday that rejected the president's 21,500-troop buildup in Iraq. The vote put Bush on the defensive going into a far more consequential confrontation over paying for the plan.

On Saturday, Senate Republicans foiled a Democratic bid to repudiate Bush's deployment of additional combat troops. The 56-34 vote fell four short of the 60 needed, but Democrats quickly claimed victory, noting that a majority of senators voted against the escalation.

And how did Senator Lieberman (Rat-Conn.) vote on this? If you're familiar with "Joe", I think you'll be able to guess how he voted. If you'd like to know how he and other US Seantors voted on this resolution, follow this link to the Boston Globe story.

Does anyone out there suffer under the delusion that CT is anything other than a rather large golf course for a clutch of robber baron fucks? If so, please allow me to correct that. First off, realize that CT elected Lieberman - AGAIN, despite having a much clearer idea this time where the senator's allegiances were. I suppose anyone with eyes could have seen it before, but you'd have to have deliberately looked a bit and for many reasons (some of them even really good reasons) people sometimes just don't look. But this last time, the true nature of Lieberman was pretty much in the faces of even the less deliberately attentive. And he won anyhow. I know there could be some reassurance in the fact that it wasn't a clear victory for him. There was a nice turn out of progressive voters who gave Lieberman a good run for his money (and it was a lot of money). But lacking any substantive evidence that this group is anything more than a completely unaffiliated set of inconsistent, unstable voters which includes in its ranks a large number of folks who know very little about candidates or races who lack national name recognition, I felt the minor bouyancy of seeing what had to be at best a pyrrhic victory for Lieberman was limited in scope and duration.

So while I am happy about outcomes like Joe Courtney beating Rob Simmons for the US House in the last election (because Simmons creeped me out in an X-files smoking man kind of way) I still feel unimpressed with CT's political leanings. I still feel that CT is a state of rich and/or well off bastards who manage to project a very superficial appearance of yankee-moderate values but who consistently vote craker, and of an unfortunately large number of apparently quite idiotic working poor (hey, I'm in that socio-economic group so yes, I'm knocking my peers here) who consistently vote like it's an act of sympathetic magic which will bestow upon them the affluence and dignity of the american dream they desperately, irrationally cling to.