Ohio, Ohio, who wants to take credit for this Kasich or Obama?

Surprise, it still sucks to live in Ohio, economically speaking. In 2011 the median household income decline in 2011 by 5.7% from the previous year, which is a decline more than three times the national average, according to the US Census Bureau. On Wednesday, the Census Bureau released figures that estimate Ohio’s median income is $44,648, which is a decline of $2,675 from 2010.

There might be some good news; well it is portrayed as good news by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The state’s poverty rate is 15.1% and the rate of uninsured residents is 13.6%, which remains virtually unchanged. I guess they see no movement as good. Opposed to the rest of the world would consider a 15% poverty rate bad even if it has stabilized.

As the election approaches (I sincerely hope you heard that in Bette Midler’s voice from Hocus Pocus), both campaigns are sure to be looking at this information and considering the best spin. Naturally, Romney will used a poverty rate this high and a drop in median income as a sign that Ohio is on the brink of destitution while Obama will be claiming the poverty didn’t increase as expected.

Median Household Income, Inflation-adjusted to 2011 dollars (based on a figure from the Cleveland Plain Dealer)

Year	Ohio (Rank)	US Dollars
2011	$44,648 (39)	$50,054
2010	$47,333 (34)	$50,831
2009	$48,107 (32)	$52,195
2008	$49,027 (32)	$52,546
2007	$53,259 (23)	$54,489
2006	$51,202 (30)	$53,768
2005	$50,925 (28)	$53,371
2004	$51,266 (27)	$52,788
2003	$53,220 (23)	$52,973
2002	$53,363 (23)	$53,019
2001	$53,083 (25)	$53,646
2000	$56,111 (19)	$54,841
1999	$53,303 (26)	$54,932
1998	$53,638 (25)	$53,582
1997	$50,487 (25)	$51,704
1996	$48,631 (29)	$50,661
1995	$51,202 (21)	$49,935
1994	$47,804 (25)	$48,418
1993	$47,951 (23)	$47,884
1992	$49,324 (20)	$48,117
1991	$47,975 (22)	$48,516
1990	$50,067 (21)	$49,950
1989	$50,825 (22)	$50,624
1988	$50,678 (21)	$49,737
1987	$48,812 (24)	$49,358
1986	$49,173 (21)	$48,746
1985	$50,181 (13)	$47,079
1984	$47,675 (18)	$46,215

The study yielding these results was conducted in the spring of 2012. People were asked about their income in 2011. It doesn’t reflect any changes during 2012. Ohio gained 100,000 jobs between July 2011 and July 2012, and governmental data shows that Ohio is more than 400,000 jobs short of 2000 levels.

As far as median household incomes, only seven other states saw drops worse than Ohio, but Dave Davis didn’t say which states had the drops.

So we’re back to discussing the middle class and how they suffered this time…I’m pretty sure they were suffering before. Claudia Coulton, co-director of the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development at Case Western Reserve University said,

“Wow. This suggests that it’s the middle class who took a hit this time, and that would show up in the lowering of median income. I know we’ve heard some economic news in Ohio that we’re seeing some job creation here, but what we haven’t quite heard about that news is whether the wages for those jobs are the same as the jobs that we’ve lost. The fact that poverty stayed the same suggests that we really didn’t see a change at the lowest end of the income distribution.”

Coulton added that local food pantries have seen a change in their clientele including an increase in families eligible for food stamps.

Nationally, household income decreased by $700 from 2010, to $50,054, while the rate of people in poverty held at 15% and the number of uninsured dropped by 1.4 million people (Obamacare bitches, but seriously parents can now keep their children on their insurance till the child reaches 26 years of age). The poverty rate for a family of four in 2011 is $22,811, which is ridiculous.

Below is another figure from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

David Johnson, a Census Bureau chief, said the main finding was health insurance coverage increased between 2010 and 2011. 1.4 million Americans gained health insurance. The rate in 2010 was 16.3% and dropped to 15.7% in 2011. The poverty rate held with no statistical difference between 2010 and 2011. Rates of private insurance remained the same. More than one-third of people working full-time lack health insurance. Johnson also noted the stratification of incomes in the US the disparity it creates.

Figure from Cleveland Plain Dealer:

This figure is a historical look at median household income by race, also from the Census Bureau.

So what to do with this? Honestly, I hate how slowly this information comes out, because we know it isn’t really that relevant anymore especially with the increase in jobs in Ohio during the second half of 2011 and the first half of 2012. That being said I’d like to see figures that encompass more time, maybe five years. That is what I’m working on in Maryland, and to see the recession laid out is interesting and makes for some exciting figures.

With the DOL training grants for old people, and the welfare to work requirements, we can assume that many of the jobs added were in the service sector, which are usually low-wage. Ohio needs positions that offer a living-wage to bring the economy up and drop the poverty rate. I know I’m beating a dead horse on that one. 

Elk schools Kristof

Mike Elk, labor journalist extraordinary, for real, wrote an excellent piece for In These Times on Kristof’s op-ed raking CTU over the coals. Naturally, elk knew all kinds of things I wasn’t aware of including Kristof’s lack of an opinion on the New York Time’s freezing the pensions of non-U.S. citizen overseas employee pensions, but we’ll get there.

Kristof enjoyed similar protections when he started with the Times in 1980 as a member of the Newspaper Guild of New York. He ceased being a member of the union when he became a columnist. Union members have asserted that once Kristof’s star started to rise he gave them the cold shoulder when they asked him to help in restoring the pensions for the overseas non-U.S. citizen employees.

January 2012, the New York Times froze the pensions of all non-U.S. citizen overseas employees, many of these individuals work in dangerous locations as translators and fixers. This upset many of the reports because recently two foreign employees died in the line of duty (for lack of a better phrase). Reporter Sultan Manadi (a former Time translator) died training to protect a reporter in Afghanistan and Times translator Khalid W. Hassan near Baghdad in 2007.

More than 600 New York Times employees condemned the pension freeze in an open letter to New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. last December reading:

“Our foreign citizen employees in overseas bureaus have just had their pensions frozen with only a week’s warning. Some of these people have risked their lives so that we can do our jobs. A couple have even lost them. Many have spent their entire careers at the Times—indeed, some have letters from your father explaining the pension system—and deserve better treatment.”

 Elk spoke to a union member who had tried to get Kristof to sign the letter, given Kristof has won two Pulitzers for his overseas reporting. Kristof did not respond to him. In fact none of the columnist responded to this member who assisted in writing the letter though all of them were asked except Krugman. Shockingly, Kristof didn’t respond to Elk’s inquires about his story either.

The New York Times is involved in a contract dispute with the Newspaper Guild of New York. The reports at the Times have worked without a contract for nearly a year and a half when their contract expired on March 31, 2011. Elk is an associate member of the Newspaper Guild (TNG-CWA).

Union leaders, including Bill O’Meara, are hoping star reporters and columnist speak up. O’Meara fears the New York Times will seek an impasse in bargaining with the National Labor Relations Board to impose a concessionary contract on unionized reporters.

Bill O’Meara, Newspaper Guild of New York President, claims the New York Times is trying to eliminate pensions for U.S. employees as well. A sticking point in negotiations includes the Times wants to increase employee healthcare costs, which are already high.

Elk asserts it is not uncommon for star reporters and columnists to stay out of the union struggles because they feel their jobs are protected by the power of their brands. Kristof doesn’t have to worry the Times views him as an asset, but other reporters are not so lucky. O’Meara thinks the struggle will come to a head next month. He also says no one is ruling out a strike.

Personally, I would love to hear Kristof explain how foreign Times employees don’t deserve their pensions, and how unions are destroying newspapers in the U.S. Or maybe just come out and say he is anti-labor. And that no, he wouldn’t be sympathy to the CTU needs any more than the needs of those in his own house.

Kristof gets the CTU strike wrong

Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed on the Chicago Teachers’ strike arguing that it is a civil rights despite not a labor dispute, and he goes so far as to state the teachers do not have their students’ interests in mind. Given Kristof’s thoughts on teachers’ unions I’m not surprised at all.

He begins not by blaming teachers, but stating poverty plays the biggest role in the inequity in schools. Don't be fooled, he'll blame teachers soon enough. Kristof claims “separate but equal” is alive and well in the Chicago Public School system, asserting that 86% of the children are black or Hispanic, and 87% come from low income families. Chicago’s high school graduation rates have been improving (he doesn’t say because of what), but they are still about 60%. Only 3% of black boys in the ninth grade go on to earn a four year degree (nothing noted about the rates of incarceration and death among black men, Kristof, you could blame the police…and they have a union too). This information is from the Consortium on Chicago School Research.

That being said, I agree with this sentiment. Systemic poverty permeates public schools in all settings. Poor students have more difficulties inside and outside of the classroom that is not to say they are unable to learn, but have more barriers than their wealthier counterparts. These barriers are often difficult to deal with and while some are being addressed such as hunger with breakfast and lunch programs others such as neglect and lack of supervision obviously are more complex. 

At this point in Kristof’s op-ed, he calls for reform,

“America’s education system has become less a ladder of opportunity than a structure to transmit inequity from one generation to the next.“That’s why school reform is so critical. This is an issue of equality, opportunity and national conscience. It’s not just about education, but about poverty and justice—and while the Chicago teachers’ union claims to be striking on behalf of students, I don’t see it.”

Wait, what? The strike makes perfect sense to me.

Kristof concedes states without teachers’ unions also suck because of poverty, but that’s about all he’s willing to say. Unless, it is on why CTU is to blame:

“Still, some Chicago teachers seem to think that they shouldn’t be held accountable until poverty is solved. There are steps we can take that would make some difference, and Mayor Rahm Emanuel is trying some of them—yet the union is resisting.”

Which teachers specifically think this? Sounds like an unfounded assertion to me that plays up stereotypes about the big bad unions. 

Here Kristof points out that Chicago elementary schools have a school day almost an hour shorter than the national average and a school year two weeks shorter than the national average, which sounds like the school board and the CTU should amend their contract and make sure teachers are compensated for the extra time. And like all good progressives, he worships before Emanuel’s attempts to get Chicago on par with the nation:

“I’d be sympathetic if the union focused solely on higher compensation. Teachers need to be much better paid to attract the best college graduates to the nation’s worst schools. But, instead, the Chicago union seems to be using its political capital primarily to protect weak performers.”

[Head scratch] Silly me, I thought this was about changes to their contract including changes to the duration of the day without appropriate inclusion of CTU in the discussion and a wage increase previously promised. Clearly they are circling the wagons to protect ill performing teachers.

Kristof then cites a study on the differences between poor performing teachers and good teachers. This is true! The study appears to be well done, but Kristof doesn’t offer anything about Chicago specifically in reference to the study. He also cites another study out of LA that says good teachers erases the white/black testing gap. Instead of dealing directly with a racist, classist, and sexist testing standards, let’s go after the unions.

This is the argument used against teachers’ unions since I can remember. Also, against just about every other union. Because you know unions protect awful employees and leave corporations with no way of getting rid of substandard employees. Tired argument Kristof; we’ve heard it before.

Kristof points out that the CTU is insisting that teachers who were laid off should get priority in new hiring, which Kristof sees as in insult to the students. I might agree with him, if all the laid off teachers were in fact laid off for poor performance as he asserts. However, once again he provides no support for this claim. Often this is a clause in union contracts, because during difficult economic times people are laid off for things beyond their control, and corporations who may seek to screw over their workers will bring in new personnel for lower wages or in some cases new non-union employees.

Kristof concludes with these statements:

“Teaching is so important that it should be like other professions, with high pay and good working conditions but few job protections for bottom performers. 

“This isn’t a battle between garment workers and greedy corporate barons. The central figures in the Chicago schools strike are neither strikers nor managers but 350,000 children. Protecting elements of a broken and unaccountable school system—the union demand—sacrifices those students, in effect turning a blind eye to a “separate but equal” education system.”

I argue that a labor dispute matters whether it is between garment workers and corporations or between teachers and a school board. Arguing the teachers should sacrifice their demands for the good of the students is bull. The school board to ford for the sake of the students. Where is that argument Mr. Kristof? How about what the students learn from their teachers if they quit the strike? How about the hierarchy of oppression Kristof is alluding to, but not saying here? Poor kids have it worse than poor teachers. Black kids have it worse than female teachers. I reject this idea that the hierarchy should dictate labor contracts. The students and their parents should join the picket line, after all the school board and Emanuel administration will run over the students and their families as easily as their teachers. This is an administration who arrested how many people during Occupy Chicago? They do not have the interests of the children at heart, and anyone who would say so is  a liar or uninformed.

President Obama vows to bring justice to the killers in Libya, more violence to follow

The attack in Libya which killed a US ambassador and three other staffers resulted in President Obama condemning the attacks

President Obama went on to vow to work with the Libyan government to “bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” And then devolved into a speech on acts of terror and USA chants.

The attack occurred after a mob swarmed the US consulate in Benghazi and set it on fire. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, two security officials, and a consulate worker died when they were trying to evacuate the building.

The mod gathered due to anger over a US financed film that was believed to be attacking Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. I'm not ready to agree this is all over a movie and a prophet. US foreign policy regularly includes killing kids with drone strikes so it might be a bit more complicated. 

President Obama has increased security at embassies around the world because of the attack. Obama also said that the US does not seek to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, and “[t]here is no justification for this senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

Naturally, this being an election, Romney decided to make a statement to the effect that Obama has a lack of clarity on foreign policy. Because that’s the kind of man that he wants to be.

While President Obama hasn’t responded directly to Romney, he did note that the US did not seek to  break the bonds between the US and Libya. Obama also praised the work Ambassador Stevens had done, particularly when violence broke out in Libya:

“He worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of this situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps. Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.”

I wanted to end with this instead of the politics of it because four people died, and most of the media is more concerned with Romney dissing the President on foreign policy. 

At last I heard, the attack may have been planned...

Welfare, still not about poor people

Welfare is once again a hot topic in election politics. Romney making the assertions that Obama "gutted the work requirements" pertaining to welfare. Of course that actually didn't happen, but that's not really the point. I'm more curious as to why we continue to beat up on the poor whenever an election rolls around, let a lone when a recession comes around.

The reality, as Michelle Chen points out, both Republicans and Democrats have gutted the welfare system to "conduct a cruel social experiment on impoverished families." The memo that causes so much interest among Republicans would allow states more flexibility in meeting the mandates of TANF. The idea of moving people off welfare rolls has little to do with decreasing poverty and more with getting people off welfare.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) claims TANF's track record contrasts with AFDC:

Over the last 16 years, the national TANF caseload has declined by 60 percent, even as poverty and deep poverty has worsened. While the official poverty rate among families declined in the early years of welfare reform, when the economy was booming and unemployment was extremely low, it started increasing in 2000 and now exceed its 1996 level.
These opposing trend--TANF caseloads going down while poverty is going up--mean that a much smaller share of poor families receive cash assistance from TANF than they did prior to welfare reform. 

This has driven poor mothers of color to the margins of the economy making them virtually invisible in politics.

The work requirements have driven welfare recipients into low-wage dead end employment. More often those families that leave welfare are both disconnected from welfare and from work. Here is the time to throw in racist sexist thoughts of black women exploiting the welfare system. Also, time to think back on the deserving and undeserving poor. Now we have to think about whether welfare to work is forced labor, and while Chen's article doesn't mention the connections between the employers who benefited from welfare reform and the lobbying activities that led to it.

The conversations surrounding welfare, like welfare policy, has little to do with the welfare recipients or how to improve the system. Instead, attention is drawn to politicians and dropping the welfare rolls.

Chicago's Teachers Walkout

Last night the Chicago Teachers' Union (CTU) went on strike. This is the first action like this in 25 years. Huge!

29,000 teachers went on strike because they like all workers want fair pay and decent working conditions. Additionally, they want to serve their students the best they can. Mayor Rahm Emanuel, backed by Mitt Romney which is a pretty good indications of who is right and wrong, failed to bargain with the union. JJ did a write up about this earlier, and naturally he covers everything you need to know. 

But here is a brief summary of Zaid Jilani's article followed by a few photos:

• Powerful Outside Interests Worked With Rahm to Cripple CTU's Ability to Strike (They Failed). Last year, privatization groups worked with the city council and Mayor Rahm to raise the threshold to 75% meaning 3/4 of teachers would have to vote in favor of a strike. However, 90% of CTU members voted to strike, so looks like that didn't work out so well for those who would union bust. 
• Rahm Refuses to Pay Teachers What They Were Promised. Chicago Public Schools (CPS) had agreed to offer teachers a 4% raise last year, but Mayor Rahm canceled it. The district refused to address this in negotiations. During all this CPS called for longer school days, which is a pay decrease. Stay classy CPS. 
• The City Won't Agree to Limit the Number of Kids in Classrooms in the Contract. Illinois does not have limits on classroom size. CTU wants a limit on class sizes in its contract, buy again the city refuses to discuss it. 
• Rahm is Intent on Shifting Funds to Untested and Unproven Charter Schools. Mayor Rahm is aggressively expanding charter schools and wants 250 more in the next 5 to 10 years. The research is inconclusive as to whether charter schools are in the best interests of students. Of course charter schools are largely non union and lack the benefits unions provide for teachers and students. Teachers in charter schools tend to make 8% less than public school teachers

Thus far, I've heard the students are standing with their teachers, but some parents are unhappy. 

These photos were part of a FoxNews slideshow.

Good News for Maryland's Budget

At the end of August, Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot announces that state revenues for the 2012 fiscal year, which ended on June 30, exceeded estimates by $230 million.

This is good news for a few reasons. First it shows economic recovery, even weak recovery is recovery. This shows an improvement in household and corporate income. Secondly, this reduces Maryland's revenue shortfall for the upcoming year.

Franchot issued a statement emphasizing the economy isn't great, even though the recovery is adding jobs that recent is moving slower than everyone would like. That being said, as Neil Bergsman notes, "Still, the good revenue news suggests a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel."

There are still risks to Maryland's budget and to the economy. Congress might enact abrupt federal budget cuts, which would sent the economy into a new recession or Europe's economy could self-destruct which would contribute to the US economy suffering.

That being said Maryland has a balanced budget through June 2013 with $672 million in a rainy day reserve. Maryland has again received a Triple-A credit rating, which is impressive. The budget and economy will remain difficult, but everyone sounds hopeful at the moment.

I'd rename this article my "institutional rape"

I read a post on Jezebel today, and it gave me pause. Entitled "Workshopping Rape," it summarized a piece written by Elissa Bassist about her experiences of sexual violation. I'm being specifically picky with my words right now because after a lengthy conversation with another women's studies feminist grad this gets complicated. Upfront, V and I took very different approaches to this piece, I took a theoretical approach grounding policy application while V took the legitimization of all individual experiences. Ready? Let's do this. 

Excerpts from Ms. Bassest's piece, "My 'Caffeine-Free Rape'": 

I am in the student health waiting room filling out required forms, writing in my date of birth and social security number and martial status, listing any allergies I have to specific medications, and I reach a box asking if I have ever been sexually assaulted. I either check the box or I don’t.In 2006, I met my first real-deal boyfriend. I was a senior in college, 22, and one of those late-in-life virgins, waiting for the ideal circumstances to have sex. When we had sex the first time, it hurt. When we had sex every other time, it hurt. But I had no way to describe what was happening in the dark, no way to talk about it, no language to explain.In 2008, after we’d graduated and broken up, he e-mailed me confessing he’d cheated with four women (not simultaneously, but just as unimaginable). Like the responsible and terrified educated woman I was, I got tested for AIDS and STIs. During the exam, the gynecologist asked me if I’d given birth. Huh? I’ve never been pregnant. She said my cervix was ruptured, torn in such a way that it looked like I’d given birth to a baby. A human-size baby. I was broken on the inside and nobody knew, not even me.Either I check the box or I don’t. Do the mornings I’d wake up to him thrusting into me count? Does it count that I stopped thinking I was “having sex” and started thinking “I was being had sex with”? A torn cervix, does it count? Check the box or do not check the box.In 2011, I started the second semester of my Masters of Fine Arts program in creative nonfiction, and I workshopped a book chapter about these events — it was my first attempt to describe what happened in the dark, to talk about it, to develop a language to explain. Here are selected passages from the chapter:I never said, "No, no, no." When I’d cry — almost every time we had sex — he asked if he should keep going. Keep going, I’d say. Just finish. And he would. He could. What is the difference between saying “No, no, no,” and praying the man you trust will stop when he sees you crying? How about when he hears you screaming?I would look at him, concentrating every part of me on the mouth that kept saying it loved me … And he didn’t know. I could see that he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong or unusual. He and I could feel things so differently while we were at the center of one another.  A male classmate typed up a one-page single-spaced critique, and in the last paragraph he wrote: “You need to invent a new word for your situation. Diet Rape or Rape II. Caffeine free rape [sic]. A rape substitute. maybe [sic], ‘I can’t believe it’s not rape.’ Just trying to interject a little humor in here. Not sure what to say. I hope your cervix is better.” Nothing but rubber bands go back to normal. I check the box. 

***
The classmate who brainstormed the phrase “Diet Rape” wrote a note in black ink on his critique: “‘Rape’ hints @ a criminal act. Was this criminal?” Do I have to check a box? When I explained to a friend what happened with my first boyfriend, I added the caveat: “I mean, it wasn't like back-alley rape.” Her response: “Yeah, I was not-back-alley raped too.” This was not an isolated, personal problem. 

***The three women in the group, including me, had stories of sexual violence. After a few drinks, the male friend grew frustrated and admitted he didn’t understand why women were “stupid” enough to remain in situations of violence or trauma or pain when no obvious force was forcibly being forced at them, at us. He asked, “Didn't you know he was tearing your cervix? How’d you let that happen? Why didn’t you leave?”Why didn’t I say no, no, no.Instead of answering him, I could have gone into even more silence, a deeper fear, an ever-widening chasm of shame. But I did not. The only way to escape being the victim, acting the victim, or blaming the victim is to stand up for the victims. I gathered up all the questions he asked me and asked them of him, to this man who is no longer my friend: “Would you know when someone you thought you loved for the first time was tearing your cervix? Do you even know what a cervix is? No? Are you stupid? Do you get called stupid because someone made a promise to love you, and you were hurt because you trusted him?”He didn’t understand it. To understand it would be to think about it, which he didn’t want to do. To understand it would mean going through his own history, a history where he might recognize how he hurt someone else or failed to accept what someone else had done because it scared him.“Be kind to the wounded,” I told him. Those who are abused have to deal with (1) abuse; (2) being unable to talk about it because they don't know what happened to them or they are ashamed they'll suffer blame or further distress; and (3) being called stupid for having “let” it happen. 

***
I originally (and regrettably) titled the chapter I workshopped “How Not to Lose Your Virginity.” My classmate titled his critique “How to Make a Guy Cringe,” and when I read that I thought, This is his tragedy, too, and not because reading about what happened to me and what happens in the world made him uncomfortable, but because of the way he’s been socialized to sex and violence against women.I thought the problem was out there, in the back alleys. I believed the classroom was far from the back alley. I hoped the people who used the phrase “Diet Rape” were not in educational institutions, sitting next to me, cringing. It’s his tragedy, too, because the problem is not just out there, it’s also in here, in my classroom, in my relationship, in the way I thought about and talked about and had sex — the problem is in him, Mr. I Can’t Believe It’s Not Rape.

I chopped this up a bit, and encourage you to read the original excerpt. A point of concern for both V and myself is that we were lacking in information to fully understand the situation. So we can all agree this woman deserves our sympathy and understanding, but I'm not sure this is rape. The guy asked if he should stop, and she said no. She gave consent. As V pointed out coercion could be a factor, but the author doesn't say that. So again, V argues Elissa's experience in legitimate, and I agree. I argue that you can't use a word as loaded as rape after the fact, because if she does she isn't the only one impacted: so is her former boyfriend. If she is a victim, then he is a rapist. And he did what we ask men to do, ask for permission. 

This brought our conversation to an impasse. I also expressed concern when misinformed idiots run around talking about "gray rape" and "legitimate rape" then we can't be unclear. One of Elissa's classmates suggested they come up with a word for this; I don't think so. I think when we do we leave the window up for others to come up with their own versions of what counts. Problematic. V then pointed out that coercion requires an awareness and understanding of rape culture, which Elissa may not have had at the time. Additionally, the man involved did say what is expected, but ignored the nonverbal signs. 

This is when we applied "institutional rape." Institutional rape is rape facilitated by institutions, it includes the systematic rape of women in times of war, acts of rape within institutions such as prison facilitated by the state and prison administrators, and we would argue rapes facilitated by rape culture. As you can imagine in some of these cases, the rape is directly and indirectly sanctioned by the institution. Now, institutional rape isn't really recognized outside of women's studies. Often, it is references when we discuss violence against women of color or other marginalized groups. And I'm not aware of a situation when it was applied to rape culture with the working theory that the culture is facilitating the sexual violence. 

So where do we go from here? Was this all an intellectual exercise in understanding or do we use this to continue unpacking rape culture? Well, I know I will continue to unpack this, but I'm not really sure anyone outside my insulated feminist group would think this through at all. 

You know what I can't get enough of? Dudes regulating my body and possibly throwing women in jail

A Senate candidate from North Dakota, Representative Rick Berg (R-ND), the entitled man that he is, once voted for a bill what would have made any women who obtained an abortion guilty of a homicide even  if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. This bill didn't even include an exception when the woman's life was endangered.

In 2007, Berg and a few others in the North Dakota House supported a measure to impose penalties on doctors and anyone else who "aids, abets, facilitates, solicits, or incites" a person to obtain an abortion.

The new section to chapter 12.1-16 of the North Dakota Century Code reads:

Intentional termination of human life--Preborn children. A person is guilty of a class AA felony if the person intentionally destroys or terminates the life of a preborn child. A person that knowingly administers to, prescribes for, procures for, or sells to any pregnant individual any medicine, drug, device, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of a pre born child is guilty of a class AA felony. A person that internationally or knowingly aids, abets, facilitates, solicits, or incites a person to intentionally destroy or terminate the life of a preborn child is guilty of a class C felony. For purposes of this season, "preborn child" includes a human being from the moment of fertilization until the moment of birth.

In North Dakota a AA felony carries a maximum sentence of life without parole. This makes complete sense because Chapter 12.1-16 of the North Dakota Century Code that covers homicide.

The bill text doesn't leave room for an exception to save the mother's life, but it is possible that would be considered self-defense, but these people hate women so we can assume that is a no.

Berg denounced Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) over the whole "legitimate rape" discussion. Berg claimed Akin's statement was "insulting and reprehensible," and "condemn[ed] them in the strongest terms possible."

See the guy who thinks we should jail rape victims and force them to carry their rapist's child thinks it is crazy to use the term "legitimate rape." Seriously, the crazy just isn't stopping this election cycle. This bill would allow for abortion providers to be tried. As if the US wasn't scary enough for abortion providers. This is enough to make me want to volunteer at clinic and walk women in.

DNC Platform the Abridged Version

The DNC released the platform that will be approved during the convention. Like the RNC's most of it is pretty predictable. There are a few promising notes and some very disappointing omissions. There are some points like support for Planned Parenthood and unwavering support to uphold Roe. I abbreviated from The Nation and added some extra commentary. 

Positive:

A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The White House is endorsing massive grassroots movements as a way to undo the Supreme Court decision. The platform reads: "We campaign finance reform, by constitutional amendment if necessary."

Exempting the safety net from deficit reduction. They are not including Medicare and Social Security in the deficit reduction talks. The Democrats were once ready to cut these programs so it is good news that these are no longer up for grabs. 

Gay marriage. Still brushing our shoulders off on this one. It reads: "We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples."

Voting rights. The Democrats are angling to be the party fighting for the right to vote: "We believe the right to vote and to have your vote counted is an essential American freedom, and we oppose laws that place unnecessary restrictions on those seeking to exercise that freedom...Democrats know that voter identification laws can disproportionately burden young voters, people of color, low-income families, people with disabilities, and the elderly, and we refuse to allow the use of political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens."

Omits support for Jerusalem as capital of Israel. This doesn't really mean anything except drawing attention to Mittens' platform being the Democratic one from 2008. 

Minimum wage. There are recent efforts to raise the minimum wage, which I discussed earlier. The platform endorses recent efforts without being specific: "We will raise the minimum wage, and index it to inflation. 

Assault weapons ban. About damn time. With all the gun violence in the last year, it is about time someone said something about weapon bans. The platform reads: "We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening out background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements-like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole-so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-break few." We've hears this before, in 2008. But Obama didn't do much on this. 

Reiterates support for cap-and-trade. Democrats have quit on cap-and-trade in the last few years, but apparently that is coming back too: "Democrats will continue pursuing efforts to combat climate change at home as well, because reducing our emissions domestically-through regulation and market solutions-is necessary to continue being an international leader on this issue. We understand that global climate change may disproportionately affect the poor, and we are committed to environmental justice."

Cons:

Lowering the corporate tax rate. Platform reads: "We are also committed to reforming the corporate tax code to lower tax rates for companies in the United States." No one is excited about this approach. It closes the loopholes. This approach aims to take the money gained from closing massive loopholes that allow corporations to pay little or no taxes, and dump the revenue gained into lowering the overall tax rate for corporations. This could be an opportunity to raise money for public investments, social safety nets, or deficit reduction, but it isn't. Additionally, Obama's plan only articulates one-quarter of the loopholes and exemptions and is vague on the rest. It is possible that this plan could lower the corporate tax rate without ending enough exemptions to pay for it. 

Housing section. This section is bad. Very bad. The platform says nothing on principal reduction, a policy that the White House claimed to support. Additionally, the platform claims: "President Obama took swift action to stabilize a housing market in crisis, helping five million families restructure their loans to help them stay in their homes, making it easier for families to refinance their mortgage and save hundreds of dollars a month."This is pretty misleading; we're not sure who they have helped, if anyone.  To close, it claims the administration has "cracked down on fraudulent mortgage lenders and other abuses." There is no proof of this, which makes me think the DNC saw how Ryan lies and thought this guy might be onto something. 

Civil liberties. Gitmo anyone? 

No support for card-check. There is not pledge to fight for the Employee Free Choice Act. Labor present? Not in Charlotte. 

Doesn't pledge not to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The platform doesn't say the safety net should be part of the deficit reduction, but it doesn't say they won't either. They could change the retirement age or any number of changes that could be rough on recipients. 

Affirms support for the death penalty. We're still ok with executing people...

Signals support for the Keystone XL pipeline...maybe...The language here leaves room for negotiation on the subject. 

And with that and watching Michelle Obama do the verbal equivalent of kicking ass and taking names I'm done.

Bonus Update: The DNC added God and Jerusalem back to the platform. Progressives everywhere groan.

Unions Boycot DNC

So while simultaneously throwing 400,000 members behind the democrats, the union bosses are pretty pissed that the DNC is holding the convention in North Carolina (a right to work state).

Last year, the DNC announced the convention would be in Charlotte, North Carolina. NC is pretty anti-labor, though this is anecdotal for me; my mother's factory was moved from Cleveland, Ohio to North Carolina the year after the factory unionized. In addition to this, the stadium, Bank of America Stadium, was not built by union labor. I'm pretty sure the RNC held their's in a union built facility.

Several unions claimed to be boycotting the convention. According to USA Today, the boycott is deterring the DNC's fundraising efforts. Jim Spellane, a spokesman for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said via email, "We feel that a better use of our member's money would be spent on grassroots mobilization efforts this election cycle." In 2006, they donated more than $1 million to assist in staging the Denver convention. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the union would not make any "major monetary" contributions to the convention.

Apparently, the unions held a shadow convention in Philadelphia, but they are also planning a protest in Charlotte. A group of unionized Charlotte city workers picketed city hall as they plan to do every Monday this month.

While boycotting and protesting, Trumka has promised to send 400,000 union volunteers door-to-door to union and non-union homes for President Obama. The AFL-CIO volunteers started going door-to-door on August 25th.

I'm torn on this. The anti-labor sentiment in this country right now is very disturbing, and for the DNC to pick a state that is anti-labor, feels like a slap in the face to labor. Of course North Carolina is a swing state and an important one. Of course, so is Ohio (a little bit of a shameless plug), but at the time the DNC decided the location of the convention, Ohio hadn't rejected SB5/Issue 2. But what kind of message would have been sent if the DNC opted to hold their convention in Wisconsin and push a pro-labor/worker platform. Instead, Charlotte in a non-union built stadium.

Convention fail, DNC.

A federal judge allows early voting in Ohio

A federal judge ordered Ohio to open its polling places three days before the November 6 election. Ohio Republicans have been doing their best to limit voting in Ohio with voter ID laws and restrictions on early voting. 

Friday's decision restored early voting the weekend and Monday before the election. In 2008, more than 93,000 Ohio voters cast ballots during this time. It is being called a win for Obama's campaign. 

Last week, a three-judge court restored the weekend early voting in parts of Florida that are subject to the Voting Rights Act. Another judge in Florida voided part of a state law that would have prevented groups from registering new voters. A Texas law was struck down by a federal judge as well including a strict photo ID requirement and election districts that undercut the voting power of Latinos and blacks. 

Voting-rights advocates are pretty pleased as they should be:

"It shows judges take very seriously the right to vote as fundamental in a democracy. And when politicians manipulate the rules for political purposes, their rules are not entitled to the normal deference," said Penda Hair, a veteran civil rights lawyer for the Advancement Project.

Naturally, this time of year election lawyers and civil rights advocates have been warring with one another over the new rules many states have come up with on casting ballots and counting votes. Florida and Ohio have adopted early voting after previous elections resulted in long lines at the polling places. The African American turnout the weekend before the election contributed to the narrow victories Obama had in both states in 2008. 

Conservative legislatures reduced early voting in Ohio. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a former Republican leader in the state House, claimed the early voting on weekdays is the only "uniform, fair" rule for all 88 counties. Later he said military voters and their families could cast ballots on the weekend. 

The Obama campaign sued claiming all voters should have equal rights to vote early and in person on the three days before the election day...weird, that sounds fair. 

U.S. District Judge Peter Economus agreed Friday. "Restoring in-person early voting to all Ohio voters through the Monday before election day returns to voters the same opportunity to vote as previously conferred under Ohio law," he said. Military families will benefit as well because they will be certain the polls in their area will be open, he said.

Naturally, Ohio is going to appeal the ruling:

Ohio Atty. Gen. Mike DeWine said he would appeal to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati. If his appeal is turned down, he could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

Earlier this week, a different federal judge blocked an election rule in Ohio that caused 14,000 ballots to be thrown out in 2008. Ohio claimed that votes cast in the wrong precincts had to be discarded, even if the voter went to the correct polling place and was then sent to the wrong spot. The judge noted a single polling place can serve several precincts.

Both of these judges were appointees of President Clinton. The judge in Texas was appointed by President G.W. Bush. 

This comes after a pretty big loss in Pennsylvania when a state judge upheld the state's photo ID law. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is considering an appeal. 

Happy Labor Day Weekend! Chicago Public School Teachers on Strike

On Thursday, the House of Delegates representing schools and citywide educators across Chicago set a potential start date of Monday, September 10, 2012 for a strike of more than 26,000 teachers, clinicians, and paraprofessionals. 

The resolutions reads as:

RESOLVED that the House of Delegates shall set a strike date of September 10, 2012. 

The strike is necessary to achieve a labor contract with acceptable wages, benefits and job protections; and for all other purposes for which a strike is authorized under law. The strike is also necessary to protest unfair labor practices committed by CPS against our membership.