Writing Life

I saw some statistics in the Fall 2009 Update put out by American University’s School of Public Affairs. In an article featuring Jennifer Lawless, who ran for the U.S. House seat in Rhode Island’s 2nd District, there was a stat “cheat sheet” at the end. I’ve heard these numbers in various places, but never gathered together. This is a call for change:

• The United States ranks 85th worldwide in the percentage of women serving in the national legislature.
• Eighty-three percent of the members of Congress are men
• Three-quarters of statewide elected officials and state legislators are men
• Men occupy the governor’s mansion in 44 states.
• In 89 of the nation’s 100 largest cities, men run city hall.

Nice follow up in today’s Washington Post. Two highlights:

• “The measure … prohibits discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.”
• “But in interviews after the court’s decision, transgender people throughout the Washington region said Montgomery’s new law would be most meaningful in making the mundane details of day-to-day life a little bit easier. And they hope that it spurs action in neighboring jurisdictions.”

In a great victory today, the Maryland Court of Appeals tossed out the anti-transgender referendum put forward by a Montgomery County hate group. Due to not gathering enough signatures, the appeals court said that the question should not, and will not, be included on the November ballot. The link above is to the great Free State Politics site. The Post also has a piece up, which will be published tomorrow (9/10).

Free State Politics reports that Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley doesn’t support discrimination and unequal rights for transgendered people in Montgomery County. While talking about his support for civil unions to the Washington Blade, he commented about the struggle against hate-mongers in Montgomery County who oppose equal rights for transgendered people. O’Malley said of such rights:

…we did it in the city of Baltimore and dogs and cats didn’t fall from the sky. You know?

While a judge basically said that the appeal to stop the hate-based ballot initiative against equal rights in Montgomery County was correct in its claims, he said that Equality Maryland filed too late, and thus will allow the question to go on the ballot in November. This will likely be appealed. What is sad, in my opinion, is that this says it’s okay to break the law or not meet the requirements of the law, as long as no one calls you on it officially before a deadline.

About a month after the last ruling, there’s still challenges being brought against a group that seeks to deny equal protection under the law to residents of Montgomery County. The current challenge being brought by Equality Maryland now focuses on how many signatures were required to get a referundum on the ballot for November.

According to the Washington Post, Equality Maryland:

challenged the validity of signatures on the petition calling for a vote. Elections officials set the mark for certification at 25,000 signatures, or 5 percent of registered voters. That figure did not include registered voters listed as “inactive” because they have not regularly participated in elections.

Jonathan Shurberg, an attorney for Equality Maryland, said in a court filing that the county should have included 52,000 inactive voters in its total, raising the number of signatures needed to reach the 5 percent mark. By that calculation, he said, opponents fell about 700 names short.

The first round in the challenge to the ballot initiative that seeks to deny equal rights to all Montgomery County citizens has gone to the initiative’s supporters. A county judge said that opponents missed a deadline to appeal some signatures and denied their claim that the text was misleading. However, he hasn’t decided yet whether the referendum will be on the ballot in November yet or not.

Maryland Moment reports that Equality Maryland and Lamba Legal are challenging the validity of signatures submitted in support of a referendum that seeks to treat some Montgomery County residents as second-class citizens. A fringe group seeks to roll-back equal rights protections passed by the County Council and signed by the County Executive.

Members of a fringe-right group that opposes fair and equal rights for transgendered persons in the County has seemingly obtained enough signatures to make it a ballot initiative in November. Approved unanimously by the County Council and signed imediately by the County Executive, this law seeks to offer protection to transgendered persons, whose sense of gender does not match their outward biology. This group, as many groups like it, sought to frame the argument as a collapse of civilization and an invitation to abuse. As it often the case, their argument hasn’t panned out in Montgomery County nor in any other jurisdiction in the United States where similar laws have been enacted.

If the signatures hold up under scrutiny (some have suggested an unusually high rate of valid signatures, which goes against typical rates from other ballot initiative efforts), then Montgomery County citizens need to go to the voting booth in November to say that they support equal rights for all County citizens, not just select groups.

The Gazette has a nice piece on the slots referendum and how activists opposing slots will use the February 12th primary to reach out to voters. Sadly, lobbyists on both side of the issue will be going after citizens from now until November, spending ungodly amounts of money. For this, we can thank the lackluster Maryland Assembly, which failed to fulfill their responsibilities to vote on hard issues instead of passing the buck.

The Baltimore Sun has a piece on the upcoming discussion on equal marriage rights and the small-minded groups that seek to oppose letting same-sex couples enjoy the rights and benefits of all married couples in Maryland.

State Senator Jim Robey got his bill approved by the Howard County delegation to install speed cameras on county roads where the speed limit is below 45. It still needs to be approved by the whole Assembly, but this is an important first step for passage. I won’t spend time arguing over Sen. Robey’s claims that these cameras will help prevent tragic deaths like the officer hit on Maryland Route 32 (where the speed limit is 55, not under 45), nor will I get too upset about his claim that these cameras are better than police sticking their heads into your car window to sniff for alcohol or illegal drugs, something that I think would be a better use of police time and county/state money (ref: Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2008, p. HO03).

Let’s just say that he got his bill. Now, let’s see him do something for the citizens of Maryland. Senator Robey, get behind SB 290, the Religious Freedom And Civil Marriage Protection Act. This legislation expands civil marriage in Maryland to include same-sex couples while preserving the rights of religious institutions and leaders to perform and recognize only those marriages that are consistent with the tenets of their faith. On Sept. 18, 2007, a divided Maryland Court of Appeals ruled 4-3 it was not a violation of the state constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-couples. This bill is the next logical step.

The three House of Delegate members from Maryland District 13, which Sen. Robey represents, have cosponsored this piece of legislation. They got behind you, now you get behind them, for the better of the County and the State of Maryland.

All three delegates from Maryland’s 13th District signed on as cosponsors to the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which seeks to expand civil marriage in Maryland to include same-sex couples while preserving the rights of religious institutions and leaders to perform and recognize only those marriages that are consistent with the tenets of their faith. Shane Pendergrass, Frank Turner and Guy Guzzone all cosponsored House Bill 351. [This bill corresponds with Senate Bill 290.] I applaud my Delegates in their support of equal, not special, rights.

Now, all we need is to get Senator Jim Robey (D-District 13) to cosponsor SB 290. I’ve contacted his office and am awaiting his reply. If you believe in this issue, please urge him to cosponsor and support this legislation. You can give him a call at 410.841.3572 or send him an email. If you live in the 13th District, it’d be even better that he hears from you.

County Executive Isiah Leggett signed legislation that provides protection to transgendered persons in Montgomery County. This is a long time coming and I salute Executive Leggett and the County Council for offer equal not special rights to its citizens. Maryland Politics Watch has a nice piece up on this topic.

This progressive stance is what makes me proud of Maryland and stands in contrast to the state’s General Assembly, which punts on hard decisions and seems to shy away from progressive values, most recently seen during the special session in Annapolis.

Unlike our elected state Delegates and Senators, who can’t seem to make the tough decisions they were elected to make, the Montgomery County Council seems full of people willing to debate and decide important yet difficult issues. Yesterday,

[the Council] unanimously approved broad protections for transgender individuals in housing and employment yesterday.
…
Without debate, the council voted 8 to 0 to join 13 states and the District in outlawing discrimination based on a person’s gender identity. County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) said he intends to sign the measure.

The issue was controversial due to a small group of right-wing conservatives who sought to derail the process by creating nightmare scenarios that played out in their minds but would not have happened in real life due to other laws and protections already in place.

Kudos and praise to the bill’s sponsor, council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large). Thank you for making a tough decision to introduce this bill and shepherd it through the Council. And thank you to the Council for providing equal, not special, rights to transgendered people.

Wow, I really couldn’t believe what I was reading in this op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post. To me, he seems to rail against women being elected to any leadership position. It seems Mr. Krauthammer believes that women are only elected to power because their husbands were in power. Poor little women couldn’t possible have the, dare I say what he’s swinging out there for all to say, “balls” to lead strongly, independently and on their own.

His article is supposedly about how the election of the wife of the outgoing Argentine president just won the election to succeed him. She won it outright too, without a neeed for a run-off, which is a strong accomplishment. He blithely dispatches Cristina Fernendez de Kirchner’s background as a strong Senator long before she was involved with President Nestor Kirchner. Additionally, he continually calls her Kirchner, while the more normal method of address would be Fernendez. But, far be it for Krauthammer to bow to the truth when doing so would work to shine some light on his poor argument.

His article then turns to saying that this bodes ill for America, but only if America elects Hillary Clinton president. She’s not allowed to win, it’s only because of Bill. Krauthammer ignores the work she did as First Lady and also ignores the strong record she’s built up as a Senator from New York.

Additionally, he quickly tries to deflate any argument that might say, hey, what about Jr. being elected to Daddy’s seat? Nope, that’s not the same. There have only been two father-son presidencies, and that’s okay with him. But, a husband wife? That, my friends, will bring the apocalpyse, according to Mr. Krauthammer. Check out his verbage:

But the father-son connection is nothing compared to husband-wife. The relationship between a father and an adult son is psychological and abstract; the connection between husband and wife, concrete and quotidian. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. George Bush, pere, didn’t move back into the White House in January 2001.

Whew, I wonder how many sons and fathers are going to feel a little sad, based on Mr. Krauthammer’s words. I thought my biological connection to my father was pretty concrete, and pretty everyday normal. And what’s with the biblical quote? Oh, probably a red meat morsel for the Christian far-right that seems to be losing clout and attention from the media, from politicians, and from the general public.

Tell us what you really think, Mr. Krauthammer? You want a white male in the Oval Office. It’d be okay if his father also occupied the White House. But, you’d like to keep this elected position part of the Boys-Only Club. If you had your druthers, you’d also keep every president/Prime Minister part of that club. Sorry, the World Has Moved On. It’s time you did too, or that you took your pen, and whatever marbles you have left, and head on home.

One can only imagine the aneurysm Mr. Krauthammer will have if he has to write about a Mother-Daughter succession. Chelsea in 2020!

… short-sighted, homophobic fool. I couldn’t believe when I saw this story over on Yahoo’s wire coverage. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace feels that homosexuality is immoral and should not be accepted openly by the U.S. military. He makes his personal homophobia public policy. So much for thinking of the troops. So much for thinking of America. So much for honoring his duty as an officer and as the Chairman.

As the article clearly notes (and many sources have cross-verified), the U.S. military has fired 10,000 troops because they came out or were outed. Of those troops, at least 50 had specialized language skills, i.e. they spoke Arabic. One would think that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would want to build a military that could coherently address a region of the world where it’s fighting two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and seems hell-bent on starting a third (in Iran).

From an AP wire report:

Women make up a larger share of the national legislature in 79 other countries, including China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, an association of national legislatures. The U.S. even trails a couple of fledgling democracies: Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let’s hope this continues to show that women are fine leaders and completely able to govern and lead. In addition to incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is seriously considering, and considered a serious candidate, for President of the United States. It’s about damn time!

My first day’s impression (December 1st) wasn’t that great, although it started out good. My first session was Bringing the past (back) into the present: Exploring the Present Tense of History in Queer Lives – Part II. I don’t have a great deal of experience with gender theory in anthropology, but the chair of the anthropology department at American University, where I went, was speaking on this panel.

The talk that stood out the most to me was one by Deborah Elliston. Her paper was entitled Queer History and its Discontents at Tahiti: The Contested Politics of Modernity and Sexual Subjectivity. In this paper, she discussed the mahu and rairai of Tahiti and how these two groups of people create and are created by historical, economic, and social forces in Tahiti. The Mahu are male-bodied but present a female persona in public. They dress in female clothes and affect female speech patterns They are accepted by the community and form this gendered identity is adolescence. The rairai are also male-bodied, but perform a female gender internally and externally. The mahu have more of a ritualized place in the society while the rairai often perform as sex workers. Elliston tied the rise of the rairai to the 1960s, when the French colonial authority poured a great deal of money and people into the area, in order to facilitate transfer of their nuclear weapons testing from newly independent Algeria to the South Pacific. With the influx of capital, and men to spend it, the rairai started servicing these foreigners for cash. Internal to the society, there was an attempt to assert who was the truest mahu, between the two groups. The rairai said the traditional mahu weren’t true to their gendered identity, while the mahu asserted their traditional role as their authenticity. It was a really exciting talk.

After that session, I went to In the Name of Security: Anthropology in the Age of Surveillance. This was a good preaching to the choir session. This was one of the closest talks to what I do at CGS; however, there were no solutions offered. The speakers simply talked about the horrible state of our national and foreign policy, but they didn’t provide any options for how we should fight back. My last session on Thursday was Reinscribing the State: Governmentalities of Globalization. This was predominantly a student panel and the presentations weren’t delivered in the best of ways. The topics were intriguing and more time or a roundtable discussion with the authors would have been much more valuable.