#and why does it take a citywide vote

[welkinalauda]

Read voter information pamphlet.

[rapeculturerealities]

In May, Sweden became the 10th country in Europe to recognize that sex without consent is rape. The new legislation, which passed by a majority vote in Parliament and goes into effect in July, has been hailed as a huge victory by women’s rights activists.

"The biggest value of this law is normative,” Amnesty International’s Anna Blus told Newsweek, “making society realize what rape is and, hopefully, preventing rape in this way.”Previously, in order for a prosecutor to prove that a rape had occurred, he or she had to show evidence that the perpetrator used force, threatened to use force, or had taken advantage of someone in a vulnerable situation. Now, under the new law, in order for sexual activity to be considered legal, a person needs to explicitly agree or otherwise make it clear they want to participate. As Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said at a news conference last year supporting the change in law: “It should be obvious. Sex should be voluntary. If it is not voluntary, then it is illegal. If you are unsure, then refrain.”The change in Sweden’s rape law is an example of the global movement to pass affirmative consent policies. Here in the US, a number of state and citywide consent reform initiatives are currently under consideration; California is the only state to pass “yes” means “yes” legislation, or the notion that both parties must consciously, explicitly, and voluntarily agree to engage in sex acts, for college campuses.

But what exactly is consent? In jurisdictions across the country, there’s actually little consensus on what counts as consent. In fact, half of the states in the US—including Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, and North Carolina—don’t explicitly define consent in their statutes at all.

“One person’s idea of consent is that no one is screaming or crying,” Erin Murphy, a professor at New York University School of Law, told the Associated Press in December. “Another person’s idea of consent is someone saying, ‘Yes, I want to do this.’ And in between, of course, is an enormous spectrum of behavior, both verbal and nonverbal, that people engage in to communicate desire or lack of desire.”

For example, in the case of Brock Turner—the former Stanford student convicted of sexually assaulting a woman behind a dumpster—his attorneys tried to argue that the victim had consented to digitally penetrative sex, even though she was intoxicated. “I asked her if she liked it,” Turner testified, “and she said, ‘uh-huh.’” In California, consent is defined as “positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will”; the law also stipulates that intoxication impacts a person’s ability to consent. Turner was ultimately convicted of three felony counts of sexual assault (though he also received a lenient punishment largely thanks to inconsistent sentencing laws).

In contrast to California, however, Ohio does not define consent in its laws. In fact, an archaic legal loophole in its rape laws has garnered criticism in recent years. There, a woman can be drugged and sexually assaulted legally by her husband, as long he does not use force and they’re not technically separated. In other words, her ability to consent is stripped away because she’s married to her attacker.

“It’s pretty telling,” Murphy said, “that the critical thing most people look to to understand the nature of a sexual encounter – this idea of consent – is one that we don’t even have a consensus definition of in our society.”

That’s why the American Law Institute (ALI) began working several years ago to update the sex assault laws in its 1962 Model Penal Code, a text that offers model legislation often adopted by state legislatures. They started with coming up with a legal definition for consent, as it relates to criminal proceedings. Doing so, ALI Deputy Director Stephanie Middleton tells Broadly, gives a judge or jury a better idea of how to proceed in a trial.

“Under the old version of the model penal code,” she explains, “consent was, if a woman—I say woman because [the code] assumed it was a woman—didn’t physically resist, then it was viewed as she was consenting. That’s one of the reasons we had to go back there [to update].”

According to an ALI blog post, though, getting to an agreed-upon definition was “one of the most hotly debated issues in the project.” After looking at newer state statutes and various court opinions, institute members (comprised of judges, lawyers, and academics) ultimately agreed in 2016 that consent should be defined as “a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact,” but that context and circumstances should also be considered.

Interestingly, the discussion did touch on the idea of affirmative consent, but some members raised concerns that society just wasn’t there yet. “A lot of our members thought it was just going too far and wasn’t practical to expect people to communicate to each other clearly a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ as to each stage, whether it goes from kissing to necking to whatever,” Middleton says, “that that’s just not how people behave.” She adds that it’s a model that does appear to work on college campuses, though. (According to one researcher’s assessment, there was strong evidence that since the law was implemented for California students, sexual assault reporting rates on college campuses have increased.)

Because the project is ongoing, no states have yet adopted the ALI’s definition of consent, Middleton says. “We have a lot of work to do. We’re still grappling with some very difficult issues, but we really want to be sure that we don’t just stick with what [many] states currently have on the books.”

She adds: “There are some states that have old-fashioned views about consent.”

In fact, a lone state senator in North Carolina last year tried to take on a legal loophole that said a woman could not revoke consent during sex after initially giving it, even if her partner turns violent. For almost four decades, “no” has only legally meant “no” in the state if a person says so before engaging in sex. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that if a woman consents to penetration then withdraws her consent, the accused can’t be found guilty of rape.

Amy Guy is a North Carolina woman who experienced the law firsthand. When her estranged husband showed up drunk to her home in 2016, WRAL reported, she agreed to have sex with him, but begged him to stop when he got violent. Because of that court ruling, the charges against him were lowered from second-degree rape to misdemeanor assault on a female; he received a 10-month jail sentence.

State Sen. Jeff Jackson—whose bill clarified that a person who continued having sex with someone after they withdrew consent did so against their will and could be charged as such—told Broadly last year he first encountered this loophole while working as a criminal prosecutor, when his office had to dismiss a rape charge because of similar circumstances. "Very few legislators are aware that this is the current state of our law," Jackson said at the time. "They're very surprised when I tell them.”

For Jackson, who said that every lawmaker he’d spoken to about the loophole agreed it needed to be changed, it seemed like an easy enough fix. For all the progress made in recent years to change the popular discourse and culture around sexual assault, the right to revoke consent during sex would appear to be something politicians on both sides of the aisle could get behind. And yet, despite the national attention that swirled around North Carolina’s antiquated take on consent, the bill died in committee.

[threadatl]

Atlanta City Council makes a questionable investment in Piedmont Park expansion

Is this equity and transparency? The City of Atlanta just voted to spend $20.4mil -- $10mil of which will come from TSPLOST revenue -- on an expansion of Piedmont Park and the Atlanta Botanical Garden in one of the wealthiest, whitest parts of our city.

Saporta Report has a good post on this issue: Atlanta City Council OKs $20.4 million for part of Piedmont Park expansion

Where was the public engagement process? There was none. The project was born from behind-closed-doors dealmaking by former Mayor Kasim Reed, and no follow-up engagement happened on the investment on TSPLOST dollars on this. 

Why are we investing this much money, including dollars intended by voters for citywide transportation projects, in an area of town that's already rich with green space?

You'll hear a lot about how we couldn't possibly leave $80 million of philanthropic investment (which is going toward the park expansion) just sitting on the table.

Yes, we could have. That's what leadership does when they recognize that something is the wrong investment at the wrong time, and judging from the comments of council members on the issue, many realized that this was a questionable public investment (only one, Natalyn Archibong, voted against this and did so because of the use of TSPLOST on a non-transpo project).

If philanthropy is stuck on prioritizing areas that don't need it, then city leadership needs to step up and let them know what our priorities are - equity, transparency, affordability, public engagement, and transportation.

For reference on what City of Atlanta residents voted for on the TSPLOST tax in a 2016 referendum, take a look at this document and notice there’s no mention of park expansion. 

Atlanta City Council members: don’t let philanthropic investment cloud our focus on what we prioritize. At this point, all we can do is hope that Mayor Bottoms has these same questions about taking $10 million in transportation funds for expanding a park in a park-rich neighborhood. 

Image source: City of Atlanta website

[dine-on-nervine]

Have you _____ during this pandemic?

Worn a mask? Of course. I work in retail.

got tested for coronavirus? I haven’t been tested ever. Just temperature scans all over the place.

known someone who died from the virus? I haven’t lost anyone to my knowledge.

gotten the COVID vaccine? I did that a few days ago, with the followup on May 19.

started a new hobby? Not really, just been working on the ones I already have.

hated being stuck at home? I hated the thrifts being closed. I was never “stuck at home”.

worn a mask someone made for you? Yes, my girlfriend sewed me three.

sewn your own mask? Nah, I have a girlfriend for that. :-D

purchased masks at the store? I did that awhile ago and as of today (since I lost the mask I pulled out for the rest of the week somehow) I need to buy more.

purchased a KN95 or N95 mask? Nope. My store sells KN95 masks, but I use the blue paper ones.

complimented someone on their mask? I have done that. And I’ve seen some absolute idiot masks too, like the other day it was “This mask is as useless as the governor” (Inslee’s saving our lives so fuck you, dude!) and the transwoman in a “Trump 2020 - Fuck Your Feelings” mask.

protested mask-wearing? Nope, but I pull mine down a lot when I’m not within sight of anyone.

complained on Facebook? You know it. But mostly about other people. What fucknuts you find in Florida and Kentucky and Texas running things.

read a book? Nope.

had an event canceled you had been looking forward to? I’m sure of it. This will be two RAGS rummage sales and two UPS flea markets and one Packwood citywide rummage sale (going on two?) that didn’t happen.

stocked up on toilet paper? Well, it’s just my ass so when I had the chance to buy some I did, but I think I have 4 left from what I bought about a year ago.

been to the store when it was crowded? It happens.

been to the store when the toilet paper aisle was empty? LOL, yes. Target was wiped out, NOTHING on the shelves. WinCo was okay for nose tissue and paper towels but the toilet paper was catch-as-catch-can for a month or so.

lost your job? Actually I was hired to my job two weeks after the shit hit the fan.

worked from home? Nope.

still had to go to work? Yes. Because someone’s gotta stock those shelves.

went to a protest at your state’s capital building? Nah, that’s for losers.

watched the news for updates on the virus? I read the news and there are always updates, I don’t look for them specifically.

wondered if you had covid? It’s happened. I’ve never run a fever but various other symptoms have shown up. Every time someone asks if I’ve had this or that symptom, I lie and say no because every other malady in the world which causes those symptoms STILL EXIST.

not left the house for a week? Nope. Even when I wasn’t working right after the nation started taking this shit seriously, I was still going to the park at least 3 times a week.

watched YouTube videos? Not really.

spent a whole day watching movies? This has never interested me.

cleaned your house from top to bottom? Nope, too busy and pretty apathetic about it.

ordered something online? Yeah, that happened a few times. :)

ordered a pizza? Me personally, no. I’ve been where pizza was ordered. My girlfriend has much better taste than that so I ate pretty well from various restaurants by delivery.

prayed to God? I conversed with the universe a few times, not usually to beg for anything but to be gracious for what I have and express what I’d like to have happen or want to see come my way. And I’m happy to say that a lot of that did in some way happen.

completely forgotten a holiday that you normally celebrate? Don’t think so.

voted in an election? Definitely voted in the national election. It was the most important one in US history.

gotten to know your neighbors? Nope. A wave and a hello, and I have a new neighbor to the right, but nothing that qualifies as “getting to know them”.

sanitized everything in your home? Nope.

wrote someone a letter? I really should have, just for typing practice.

wished this pandemic were over? Name one person who does not.

been surprised this pandemic has lasted so long? Nope. We have the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic as an example of how these things work out globally and nationally, so any talk in March 2020 about this being over in a couple weeks was unrealistic -- especially when you have millions of fucknuts who don’t take it seriously, thus spread it far and wide before any serious measures to control it happen... and then, millions of fucknuts who STILL don’t take it seriously and bitch about the control measures and refuse to do them, continuing to spread it far and wide in the name of “personal freedom”.

worried about catching the virus? It’s a reasonable fear, I work in retail! Two of my coworkers caught it and deity-only-knows how many of my customers were exposed/exposiing others.

stayed home because you didn’t want to catch the virus? This was never an option. And it was never anything I chose to do.

been to church? I can’t think of any reason why I’d go to one, other than sightseeing.

watched an online church service? I can’t think of any reason why I’d do that either. One of the people I follow (and like a lot, so this is by no means a slant on her or her beliefs) said something in a survey about singing along with the hymns in the online church service she tunes into. I had a mental image of singing hymns alone at home while watching YouTube...

been stopped by a police officer? This is not something a lot of people want to do, even if it was just a tail light out, at the present time, especially if one is not Caucasian, because racists in blue have not gotten the message to straighten up or get back into the woodwork.

seen a lot of police cars patrolling the area? Nope, though the other day I did see a higher-than-usual number of cops around when I was out driving and it wasn’t even the end-of-month ticket quota.

had someone cough on you out in public? Nope, but someone would probably get laid out flat if they did that to me.

has someone stand less than six feet away from you while waiting in line? Yeah, and there were a couple times I was at the market maintaining the proper distance at the checkstand line and some fuck stepped in front of me.

had to use an inhaler? Never needed one.

been to the doctor? Dentist, a few times in the last month, but I haven’t seen the doctor in about a year and a half.

had increased asthma and/or allergy symptoms? Nope, but since in the last year I’ve started investing in product meant to improve my indoor air quality (Air Cop doesn’t work because there’s no circulation to get the bad air to it, so get an actual ionic system that moves the air) that 5ppb of O₃ that it produces does give me a little bit of a cough.

felt like you were fighting a virus? Not really, just dealing with the usual colds.

been diagnosed with the coronavirus? No.

felt lonely? Hmm, not really. My friends have always been remote, my beloved is nearby, I like being alone when I walk at the park, and I work retail so there’s no lack of human contact (whether I want it or not).

went somewhere with a friend? I do that some some regularity.

attended an online event? I can’t place one.

had a business in your area close down? Yeah, we’ve lost a bunch of them.

received a stimulus check? All three of them.

received food stamps? Nope, I’ve never collected on that. Long been in a position where if I am short on budget I can tighten my belt when it comes to food expenses and have things come out right. Someone asked me a few years ago why I don’t get food stamps since financially I qualified (my monthly expenses definitely exceeded my income by about $100 most months) and I said, “pride?”

applied for disability? Nope, not disabled.

applied for food assistance? Nope.

visited a food pantry? Nope.

had a fever? No idea.

believed a conspiracy theory about the virus? Nope, since if you have several brain cells to rub together you see how stupid a lot of them are. And yet they still keep coming because some people are idiots.

had to take online classes? Nope. That’s my girlfriend’s daughter, a freshman at a state college, though. Going off to college was a big source of dismay for her mother because those two are really close, and then with the pandemic... well, if you aren’t going into classes and must do the work and the lectures online, there’s no reason why you can’t do that at home and at your leisure. So after all these goodbyes about her leaving, she’d come home for a month at a time.

ate at a restaurant? Yes, I still do that. Capacity is at a fraction but I still do that.

walked through a drive-thru? Around here they demand that you drive. Funny that one place had bikes or mopeds on their drive-thru sign and I was like, yeah, no, you don’t really accept that. The building is open so I’m going in, even if it’s for take-out.

had your mask fog up your glasses? The struggle is real!

had to go to the hospital because of covid? Nope. Thankfully.

had to go to the hospital for a different reason? Nope.

used hand sanitizer? It happens out of necessity and my girlfriend sprays my hands every time we get back into the car after being in a store but I don’t believe in using them in regular life.

felt encouraged, joyful, or blessed? I am, I am, and I definitely am.

[epacer]

Education

San Diego Unified School Board candidate Sabrina Bazzo and current board members Richard Barrera and Sharon Whitehurst-Payne are expected to be elected.

San Diego Unified School Board candidates backed by unions prevail

Incumbents and union-backed candidates are again prevailing in the San Diego Unified School Board election — proving, they say, that voters support how San Diego Unified has been handling the pandemic, reopening and other key issues.

San Diego Unified is reopening cautiously and slowly and has set a tentative reopening date for January 2021.

Meanwhile the school board challengers, who trail their opponents by sizable margins, say the election results continue a familiar pattern: the candidates with union backing, funding and prior experience on the board tend to win.

Voters “went with what they knew,” said LaWana Richmond, a UC San Diego organizational development manager who ran to represent District E on the board. “People are really comfortable with the status quo.”

The leading school board candidates — incumbents Richard Barrera and Sharon Whitehurst-Payne, as well as health educator and former parent volunteer Sabrina Bazzo — were all endorsed by the San Diego teachers union. All five members of the current school board were endorsed by the union when they ran.

Barrera is expected to be re-elected to his fourth term on the board, and Whitehurst-Payne to her second full term.

“I think the voters know what they’re voting for, and I think voters have overwhelmingly endorsed the approach that we’re taking in our school district,” Barrera said. “They want stability in leadership, and they want to see the direction of the district continue.”

Nonprofit consultant Crystal Trull challenged Bazzo to represent District A, while college professor Camille Harris challenged Barrera to represent District D. Richmond challenged Whitehurst-Payne to represent District E.

The amounts of money raised by the six candidates were not huge — ranging from $15,669 raised by Barrera to $0 reported by Harris, as of Oct. 17 — but the teachers union poured significant amounts into supporting candidates it endorsed.

The San Diego Education Association spent more than $364,000 on campaign costs, such as mailers and online advertising, for all three candidates this year, including the primary elections, according to campaign spending filings as of Oct. 17.

The teachers union president, Kisha Borden, did not respond to a request for comment.

Without outside funding support, Trull, Richmond and Harris said they were unable to pay for a citywide mailer, which Trull said would have cost her $35,000 to $40,000.

Meanwhile Barrera said he thinks the teachers union endorsement holds significant weight in elections because voters trust teachers, and they want to know who teachers are backing.

Richmond and Trull said they hope that Measure C, a school board reform ballot measure that is looking to pass handily, will change future San Diego Unified School Board elections to allow candidates like themselves, who were not backed by unions, to have a fairer fight.

Measure C would change San Diego Unified’s general election to be by sub-district rather than a citywide, at-large election.

Its supporters say they hope this will help level the playing field for candidates who don’t have name recognition or a lot of money to wage a citywide campaign. They said they hope Measure C will also minimize the influence of interest groups in school board elections.

Measure C “allows you to really be in your community, focus on your community, and not have to be beholden to that special interest money,” Trull said.

Trull said she hopes Measure C will also lead to a greater diversity of perspectives on the board, which tends to vote unanimously.

“There’s a reason why groups endorse certain candidates, because they think a certain way,” she said. “So for three of the candidates to be endorsed by the same type of supporter ... it means they’re probably thinking all the same way, and that’s not good for any decision-making process.”

Barrera disputes the idea that teachers union support or a unified school board are a problem.

“The voters want and support a unified board that’s effective and can improve outcomes for our students, as this district has,” Barrera said. “The fact that a unified board shares a common set of values, including the value that educators who are closest to our kids should be supported and listened to ... the results of this election once again confirm that that’s the type of school board that our community wants in San Diego.”

It’s unclear yet whether Measure C will lessen the influence of interest groups on future school board elections. The three union-backed candidates also received more votes than their opponents in the spring primaries, which were by sub-district only.

Barrera said interest groups still will have a large role in elections, whether they’re district-only or not. He pointed to Los Angeles Unified’s school board elections, which are by district only and which generated $17.5 million in campaign spending.

Tom Keliinoi, president of Parents for Quality Education, the group that created Measure C, said while he’s not sure that Measure C will decrease interest groups’ power in the school board election, he thinks changing elections to district-only will still make it easier for non-union-backed candidates to have a winning chance.

One concern some people had about district-only elections was that they might create board members who only or mostly care about the wants and needs of their own sub-district, rather than the needs of the district as a whole or the needs of district areas that have more low-income and disadvantaged students.

Barrera said he worries that might happen, so he hopes future school board candidates will care about equity for disadvantaged students rather than their own sub-district’s wants.

While Richmond, Harris and Trull are likely to lose, they said a message they got from constituents during their campaigns is still important: that the district needs to do better at communicating and working with parents, especially when it comes to reopening decisions.

“They need to listen to their community; they need to listen to their constituents. That’s not happening, at least that’s what I’m hearing from parents,” Harris said. “They should be at the table helping make these decisions ... and I think that’s the frustration right now, that they aren’t being listened to.”

Barrera said the pandemic has made this challenging because the district does not want to communicate a decision to parents then have to backtrack on that decision due to the changing status of the pandemic. That is one reason district officials have said they were cautious about announcing a reopening date.

Still, Barrera said the district should do better.

“I think there’s always more work that the district needs to do in communicating with parents and with the community in general,” he said.

Measure D, a ballot measure that will add a way for San Diego Unified School Board members to be removed, has had a commanding lead and is expected to pass. Under Measure D, if at least four of the five board members decide that cause exists to remove a board member, a removal election will be held with voters deciding on whether to remove the board member. *Reposted article from the UT by Kristen Taketa of November 4, 2020

[sueboohscorner]

#Arrow Season 6 Episode 3 Next of Kin

First off, there’s a new intro. This makes me nervous because it means Diggle will be sticking as the Green Arrow for more than one episode.

The actual episode begins with Diggle and the team following Faust. Dinah makes Diggle fly, which is super cool. Why has she never done that with Oliver? To be completely honest, I think they spent extra time on the fight choreography this week to make up for their very large mistake. Anyway, they catch Faust when he runs into Rene and Curtis.

Back in the Quiver, Curtis and Felicity say they are working on something for Diggle. Then they all leave and Dinah and Diggle talk, but they don’t say anything that they haven’t been saying for the past two episodes.

Oliver is making William scrambled eggs and not helping him study for his math test. At this moment, I may or may not have yelled at the tv for Oliver to get Felicity to help him.

The FBI lady is waiting for Oliver in his office. She thinks someone else is being the Green Arrow, which is correct, and she makes another several digs at the police department, one of which Lance takes to heart.

A woman shows up at Kord Industries, drops a couple flashbangs, and hacks the computer.

Dinah walks in the next day with other cops and finds them all dead. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t flashbangs only disorient people? Did I miss her shooting all of them or slitting all of their throats?  Every other time she uses the flashbangs, nobody dies. This just kinda seems like a plothole.

Once the regular cops leave, Dinah talks to Felicity and Curtis and they tell her how to get in to the computer system.

Lance talks to Oliver. He has an idea about their “undercutting the cops” problem, though his solution is rather counterintuitive. Pollard is pushing an anti-vigilante bill and Lance wants Oliver to back it so he can tailor it. Oliver points out all the reasons that a bad idea and vetoes it.

Oliver brings Felicity food and they talk about William and the fact that she and Curtis haven't picked a business name yet. There’s a really sweet moment where Oliver mentions how much he misses Thea and she agrees. We all miss Thea and it’s nice to have the characters mention it. Without Thea, he asks for Felicity’s advice, which is she readily gives. He doesn’t ask her to tutor William, which is annoying, but they do get interrupted, so… They get interrupted by a call from Curtis. 

The mystery woman was looking into a nerve gas and there’s a shipment going out in an hour. This leads to a super awkward scene of Team Arrow kind of hijacking the truck and proving what the FBI lady said earlier about undercutting cops?

And it gets worse. The mystery woman stops the truck, shoots Diggle and the other two men. The rest of the team are in the back of the truck and she drops more flashbangs. They fight through them, which is kind of awesome, but she eventually overpowers them.

Her team unloads the nerve gas and then steers the truck toward a building. Rene asks Diggle what to do, he freezes, and the truck explodes, which sends people to the hospital.

Diggle isn’t feeling a lot of love back at the Quiver, except from Dinah, who weirdly backs him up. Felicity thankfully has something to distract them: facial recognition. The woman’s name is Onyx Adams, who was mostly a good guy in the comics, working with the Green Arrow and Batman after leaving the League of Assassins. That could prove to be important, as it is a reason to keep one or both of the Al Ghul’s alive. In the shows, she’s former CIA black ops. She is the only one that Felicity identifies at this point. Diggle apologizes and goes to check for intel with Lyla.

Oliver’s in a meeting. After everyone else leaves, Lance tells him that Pollard is entering the anti’vigilante bill and Oliver tells him to do anything he can to stop it.

Diggle and Dinah talk. She tells him she only backed him up because the team needs a leader and he tells her that he’s not used to being the big boss. That is not what’s happening. Diggle, Dinah, and us all know what’s going on. Please just talk about it and don’t make up some bs about not being able to be the boss.

Felicity found Onyx’s unit, who disappeared in 2015 with $100 million of Syrian government gold. Three of the members defected back to the CIA and died in mysterious nerve gas attacks. The only still alive is Rob Reynolds.

Oliver is talking to William and he still can’t help much. Rene is at the door and asks Oliver to come back because Diggle can’t handle it.

Oliver goes to the Quiver… and asks Felicity to tutor William. I think it’s adorable, but that is not why he was needed there. 

After Felicity leaves, he does what he actually needed to do and talks to Diggle. Their conversation is great and all, BUT DIGGLE STILL DOESN’T TELL HIM WHAT IS WRONG!!!! Come on, Man! Oliver does mention that he doesn’t think it was fair to ask Diggle to abandon his family so Oliver could protect his, which is important, because it was not addressed last week.

Onyx is with her henchmen and they don’t think the Green Arrow’s a threat.

Felicity tutors William and it’s great. Oliver chimes in from watching adorably and brings snacks.

Felicity gets and alert and has to go, and then Oliver and William have a mutual admiration moment.

They found Rob Reynolds. He’s at the Haselby Grand Hotel. Before they leave, Dinah talks to Rene, who still does not have faith in Diggle.

Reynolds is at the hotel and Onyx sticks a container of gas in a trashcan. He get his go bag and her team locks the doors. The t-spheres enter and then the team jumps out in synchronized slow-mo with protective glasses. John does hesitate for a moment when Onyx releases the gas, but he gets control of himself and has Dinah canary cry the gas away from the people.

Meanwhile, Reynolds is leaving. Onyx finds him and is about to shoot him when Diggle interrupts and manages to knock her unconscious.

At Felicity’s suggestion, Curtis throws a flash bang into the nerve gas and it explodes. Nobody’s hurt though.

The team is having champagne in the Quiver. Rene apologizes to Diggle and Felicity reveals Diggle’s new toy. It’s a super teched up crossbow. Diggle shoots it like he doesn’t have a care in the world. You do not get over a neurological condition in an episode or three. Even Dinah’s convinced that he’s just magically better.

Oliver makes a speech to the court about the bill and pulls out some obscure policy to put it to a citywide vote.

This obviously makes FBI lady suspicious and she adds Diggle to the board in her office that already has Felicity and Rene.

Oliver goes to see Felicity with a gift because William got an A on his test. It’s a key to his apartment!!!!

Not only that, but then they have a fade to black moment.

So happy!!!!

It’s not magic that’s making Diggle better. It’s drugs. My friend and I were actually talking about this last week, because of the Green Arrow’s very famous addiction storyline. In full view of the internet, you were right. I get Olicity, you can gloat.

So, I was not looking forward to this episode. At all. There were good parts of it, but all will not be truly right with the world until Oliver is the Green Arrow again. 7/10.

[the-erudite-library]

Government (alt. title: Oh God, Why?)

So i’m going to lose my shit if i put off making this post any longer because i can’t stop thing about it. Let me preface this with that I don’t really give a shit that my theory (or whatever this is) isn’t 100% canon compliant, because I’ve analyzed it from every conceivable angle and canon makes no fucking sense.

I’m putting this all under a cut because things are going to become very longwinded and confusing very quickly

So to start out, I noticed how in canon the terms ‘leader’ and ‘representative’ are used interchangeably and it bothered me, a lot. So instead, I split it into two jobs, and this is where things begin to get a little complicated. In my theory, there are three levels to the government: the Abnegation Council, made up of eleven members with the chairperson and vice chairperson being Abnegation’s leader and representative, they’re also chair and vice chair of the Faction Council; the Faction Council, made up of two people from each faction, the leader and representative; and the individual factions different leaderships. This is because in canon there’s talk of an Abnegation council that leads the city that Andrew Prior and Marcus Eaton sit on, but also refers to Jeanine Matthews and as Erudite’s leader and representative on ‘the council’ and does the same with Johanna Reyes sans the leader part, AND talks about there being five Dauntless leaders. Thusly I believe that there are three tiers to the cities leadership, each with different amounts of power. I will get into the different leaderships in every faction at a later point in this post, right now I want to discuss the Abnegation Council and the Faction Council.

Canonly, Abnegation runs the government; so they’re at the top of this food chain and ultimately they have the final say on literally everything that goes on in Chicago. The Faction Council can say what they want, but nothing ever gets done without Abnegation’s approval. They control citywide initiatives (like the factionless relief effort) and hold some power over the factions individually so that nothing can ever get out of hand. They’re meant to be an oversight committee to the faction council to keep things from getting too one-sided. Basically, anything that affects the city at large must be done with Abnegation’s blessing no matter how much it may be the sole responsibility of one faction; i.e. Candor is the justice system but they can’t make laws, they can only enforce them and make suggestions; Amity doesn’t get to decide what’s best for their crops, they just do the work; and Erudite doesn’t get to decide how they run the schools, they just have to do it. In some ways, it seems like the entire system is a farce; why even bother electing faction leaders and representatives if Abnegation is just going to step on them?

The Faction Council itself, is a bickering mess half the time. You know those deep seeded problems that some factions have with each other? Well, you can bet that those don’t get left at the door. They’re supposedly responsible for what happens to the city at large, every faction is represented and supposedly that means that everyone’s voice is heard. It is the one commonality in leadership that every faction has, there’s a leader and a representative and they serve together. But as I mentioned above, I split those jobs and made them different. The leader is very directly responsible for everything that happens in their faction, the one that is in charge of it all and no matter how much help they have it ultimately comes down to them. They’re the ones who will wield what power the Abnegation Council allows them to make in-faction laws specific to their ideals and needs (Abnegation’s rules on alcohol and other activities, Erudite’s ban on pets, Dauntless’ thing with old people). Though it is true that there’s a lot that they can’t control, there’s also a lot that they can and they do. The representative on the other hand, while technically the leader’s equal and partner, are not involved with the legislative process in as direct a fashion. Most of their power relates to each other, in that it is through their communication that agreements are made and some laws are passed. They also act as a mouthpiece to the people in a way that some leaders just don’t care to (Eric and Andrew would fill this role in canon). They are an advisor and an overseer to certain jobs in a similar field. While everyone is governed by the leader, they most often directly answer to the representative.

On to individual factions’ governments, things become even more complicated. The extras beyond the official council leader and representative don’t hold much power beyond their own faction, but they still have the title and for some that’s enough.

Abnegation is controlled directly by the Abnegation Council so as to not complicate things further. Enough said. Abnegation leadership and council members are chosen by their peers who believe them to be selfless, morally sound, and competent; though those currently sitting on the Abnegation Council has a say in whether they’re actually good enough to serve.

Amity does not technically have a leader. They have Johanna and their representative, but within their own faction the two of them are not above the people that they represent in any way. Any actions or decisions made by Amity are by consensus, as in canon. This is also how their leadership is chosen.

Candor has their leader and representative at the top plus a panel of top judges (think the supreme court) to advise both from a legal stand point and a moral one. Candor chooses its leadership through something akin to their initiation. They’re all but put on trial and questioned thoroughly, both by the current leadership and the common people, under the truth serum. After that, the people vote.

Dauntless’ leaders are appointed, not voted for and they’re one of only two factions who does this. The appointment of leadership takes place behind closed doors for the most part, not that most of the people care very much (that’s some Nose shit if you ask them). The prospective leaders go through a training program that lasts at least a year and tests everything from their combat skills, to their fear simulations, to just how they handle the political environment. Despite their insistence that they don’t care, Dauntless goes to great lengths to ensure that their leadership is competent and embodies their faction’s ideals. Dauntless always has an odd number of leaders so that they can vote on everything that happens in the faction and never have a tie, but the leader and representative that the Faction Council recognizes do hold a bit more power than the others.

Erudite is the other faction that appoints rather than votes. Sort of. They have the most complicated system by far. The leader and representative are both chosen via an intelligence test (as told in their faction manifesto), but the leader and representative aren’t really the factions only leadership. Sort of. The leader is advised by and delegates certain duties to a group of people known as the Department Heads, and they’re exactly what they sound like. Because Erudite has different fields of study that can be consolidated into a smaller amount of broad categories, there is a singular person that oversees all of it as well as represents that department before Erudite’s leader. The department heads are chosen not only by that same intelligence test, but also one specific to the broader field they hope to represent, their contributions to said field, AND they have to be approved by the leader and representative. In some ways, it’s harder to become a department head than it is to become Erudite’s leader. These different department heads exist because Erudite kind of runs itself based on people working in subcategories and subcategories of subcategories, and someone needs to be overseeing these subcategories just to keep things orderly. The different departments are: sociology, psychology, mathematics, history, education, engineering, medical, pharmacology, biology, architecture, chemistry, physics, language arts, journalism, and initiation (which is kind of a big deal).

Beyond all of this, there are also diplomats, council liaisons, behind the scenes people, etc.. They do everything that the leaders just don’t have time for or it’s simply beneath them. The diplomats are constantly on the move, keeping things smooth between all five factions consistently in a way that the reps don’t have time to do and don’t. The council liaisons work at the Hub and they coordinate everything, they plan events and keep meetings on schedule. They’re impartial, and apolitical, they’re there exclusively to serve the greater city and to make sure that everything doesn’t fall apart because of a damn scheduling error. Those working behind the scenes do all sorts of things depending on different specificities; there’s transcribers, and photographers, and broadcast crews on the rare occasion that a meeting or event is given permission to be televised. There’s dozens upon dozens of positions that people from all factions fill that go completely unnoticed, but are half the reason that the whole city doesn’t fall to pieces.

I could go on forever about the actual political drama, but i think i’ll save that for another post.

[leftpress]

CLEVELAND DEMOCRATS UNITE WITH GOP TO STOP FIGHT FOR $15

January 17, 2017 | By Kyle Landis and Robert Shields

“You need to ask yourself whose interests you’re serving,” she told council members. “The fact that Cleveland is the poorest city in America answers that question. … The proverbial pigs at the troughs got too greedy. Now the rest of us are the proverbial mad-as-hell, and we’re not going to deal with it anymore.” (Cleveland.com, 08/10/2016)

These are the words of Executive Secretary Harriet Applegate of Cleveland AFL-CIO, speaking on behalf of all working people to Cleveland City Council. But why is so much of her public outlash directed toward the Democrats on City Council and not the Republican Legislature and Governor who passed it?

On December 19, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed Senate Bill 331 effectively denying municipalities the power to raise the minimum wage. On the surface this story doesn’t seem very newsworthy as it comes as no surprise a lame duck republican governor with a history of attacking labor would sign this bill. Of course there is the obvious hypocrisy of a Republican Governor, who on one hand advocates for smaller and a more decentralized government while in the other hand he signs those same rights away.

Get your Latest News From The Leftist Front on LeftPress.tk → Help Us Gather News (Click for Details) ←

Far more sinister, however, are the Cleveland City Council Democrats who lobbied Governor Kasich to sign it! This is not only a slap in the face to all the Berniecrats who have spent a considerable amount of time building the Progressive Caucuses in the Cleveland area to pressure the Democratic Party on these specific issues, but also to Bernie supporters who embraced his endorsement of Hillary as a necessary compromise in exchange for progressive reforms to the party’s national platform. And to what effect? The ink had not even dried on the Democratic National Platform before Cleveland City Council demonstrated how worthless it is in guiding the party nor was Clinton able to defeat Trump despite these sacrifices.

The Democratic Party’s actions in Cleveland are hardly an exception to the actions of the party at large. The Democratic Party has also fought against $15 in Seattle and Minneapolis, both of which Socialist Alternative spearheaded. In fact, in every city that has fought for $15 the Democratic Party has fought back. Everywhere working people fight for a living wage, the Democratic Party fights to keep the people in poverty.

The events in Cleveland come after SEIU district 1199 and their initiative, Raise Up Cleveland, gathered thousands of signatures in an attempt to allow Cleveland  a chance to vote on whether they wanted to raise the minimum wage incrementally to $15. At an upcoming special election, scheduled for May 2, voters in Cleveland were set to decide whether they wanted to raise the minimum wage. It had mass support and it likely would have won.  

And why wouldn’t the people of Cleveland overwhelmingly support $15? According to the latest census data Cleveland’s poverty rate is at 34.7% and over half of all children live in poverty – making Cleveland one of the poorest city, if not the poorest, in the United States. Ohioans have not voted for a minimum wage increase in over a decade yet A Public Policy Polling (PPP) conducted in 2016 found 75% of Ohioans supported raising the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour from the impoverishing $8.15 that it’s at now.

The irony of this story becomes tragic when, in their opposition to $15, the Democrats cite their concern that a $15 minimum wage would deter their economic recovery. Really? Cleveland is the poorest city in the United States and the City Council is concerned that a living wage will deter their economic recovery! Is the city’s plan for economic recovery an expansion of even more poverty-inducing jobs?

Raise Up Cleveland, SEIU, and their backers successfully gathered over twenty-eight thousand signatures in 2016. However, in order to delay a citywide ballot, City Council stalled  by holding endless discussions and debates. Democrats control all 17 seats on Cleveland City Council giving them single party rule over the city. All but one of the 17 Democratic city council members voted against the petition drive stopping it from appearing on the ballot for the November general election.

Then, as if this wasn’t egregious enough, Council President Kevin Kelley, doubled down on the party’s efforts to stop the initiative and lobbied Republican state legislators to push through Senate Bill 331 which prohibits cities from raising the minimum wage.

What has happened in Ohio is a major assault on the democratic rights of all people orchestrated by the Democratic and Republican parties together in collusion with big business.  Election pundits need not look any further than Cleveland City Council and their betrayal of working people to understand why Ohioans, like many other midwestern rust belt states, couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary which led to Trump’s near 10 point victory here.

This series of events, among many others witnessed in 2016, burdens all who are paying attention with the following question – If our democracy can’t be used to improve the quality of life for the average person, then who, or rather, which group, or which class of people does this democracy actually serve?

Other local labor leaders and local social justice activists also publicly voiced similar discontent. Cleveland NAACP President Mike Nelson has called on the black community to abstain from voting in the 2018 midterm and statewide elections. While Nelson’s comments reflect the discontent and disdain that most Ohioans feel toward their elected officials, boycotting the midterm elections would be a serious strategic miscalculation. If community and labor leaders are serious about fighting back against the interest of the 1% then they must encourage their rank and file to organize a new party for the 99% rather than to boycott politics entirely and do nothing!

Instead of relying on the Democrats to pursue policies and initiatives that are in the interest of working people, or attempting to reform the party, Unions should begin to lay the foundation of a new party for the 99%. This may sound far fetched, but for Cleveland it is not. Just next door in Loraine County nearly two dozen “independent labor” candidates ran for offices in 2013 and won! Instead of boycotting the elections, or relying on the Democrats yet again, why not run a labor party slate? The people of Cleveland clearly support the $15 initiative and the unions who fought for it and both are bitter from this recent betrayal. Will there not be a better time than now to do so?

In the case that the union leadership is unwilling to pursue this strategy then union members and people of our communities should take it upon themselves and run candidates independent of corporate money and the two-party system. This would not only lay a foundation for a new party, but also begin to organize the forces necessary for a statewide $15 minimum wage referendum and the necessary infrastructure to defend against another right-to-work attack that will inevitably be attempted again.

With a new Trump administration coming in, we can’t wait to fight back until 2018. We must both prepare to defend ourselves against Trump’s billionaires cabinet and continue to push for $15 minimum wage and other demands working people need.

Related Stories on LeftPress:

► THE CURSE OF ECON 101

► DOWN-BALLOT VICTORY FOR DSA MEMBER IN AUSTIN, TEXAS

► WHOEVER THEY VOTE FOR, WE ARE UNGOVERNABLE

[jasonborne24]

TRANSIT ACTIVIST CLAY CHASTAIN TAKES ON KANSAS CITY MAYOR SLY & THE STAR!!!

And EPIC Sunday screed by the author of the only CITYWIDE STREETCAR PETITION INITIATIVE ENDORSED BY THOUSANDS OF KANSAS CITY VOTERS right now. Take a peek: Clay Chastain calls out Mayor Sly James' hypocrisy, wrong doing and the Star's role in providing him cover and trying to turn the people against me Mayor Sly James was quoted yesterday (by KCUR public radio) as saying this about the city's $800 million infrastructure bond issue slated for the April 4 ballot..." I will not change, and will not support anything that is unbalanced and does not provide benefit to the entire city." Is that so mayor. Then...Why Mayor Sly James do you support the city's streetcar expansion plan (seeks to use a RESTRICTED ELECTION to build a limited Frou Frou line to the Plaza /UMKC), over my streetcar initiative (promotes a CITYWIDE election to build a rapid CITYWIDE streetcar system) that would obviously "provide (more) benefit to the entire city"? And Mayor Sly James, what is your political position on the sales tax increase for the eastside you just voted to place on the April ballot? Does using a citywide sales tax for targeted improvements in just one part of the city, "provide benefit to the entire city"? And Mayor Sly James, are you going to support placing that eastside petition initiative on the April ballot (along with, of course, the city's $800 million bond issue) but not support placing the following other two valid initiatives on the same April 4 ballot... (1) the streetcar petition initiative that seeks to transform the city's downtown streetcar system into a more rapid, useful and citywide rail system to "provide benefit to the entire city;" and (2) the petition initiative requiring the city to place any streetcar expansion plan before CITYWIDE voters and not lock citywide voters out of participating in such an issue of importance to the entire city? And Mayor Sly James (I almost forgot)...Do you think your deliberate legislative action to delay a 2011 light rail initiative election and then sabotage the ballot language of that light rail initiative (when it was finally ordered on the ballot by the Missouri Supreme Court three years later), upheld the public trust and provided "benefit to the entire city"? And Mayor Sly James, did you direct former City Attorney Bill Geary to pronounce to the Kansas City community and voters (without offering one iota of proof) that the 2016 light rail initiative was "likely illegal" and thus could be repealed if approved by voters? And do you think that lie provided "benefit to the entire community"? And where is Kansas City's news media, who should be asking these questions? Forget the Star, it is no longer "a paper for the people," rather a paper that seeks to control the people, push a liberal-oriented agenda and treat the people like mushrooms... keep them in the dark and feed them manure. And speaking of the Star, here are two recent examples of the Star's on-going role in trying to turn the people against me by making me look crazy and unstable... (1) Star reporter Tony Rizzo recently wrote a story about my lawsuit against Anne Hodgdon for her Facebook claim I sexually assaulted her 20-years ago. Mr. Rizzo (who never contacted me before he wrote his article) said I withdrew my lawsuit. True. But Mr. Rizzo deliberately failed to report to readers that I did so ON LY AFTER accepting an out of court settlement with Anne Hodgdon! The story made it appear the whole thing was just a slight misunderstanding between two people, we kissed and made up and I merely went overboard in filing the suit. (2) Star reporter Lynn Horsley recently wrote a so-called news story about my new streetcar initiative in which she mocked me for breaking my word not to bring another "light rail scheme" before voters. The article begins..." Clay Chastain promised this fall that if his November ballot issue failed with KC voters, he was done with his light rail schemes. He also said prior to the light rail election that streetcars were a poor substitute for light rail.' Does the Kansas City Star and reporter Horsley not understand that a streetcar initiative is not the same as a light rail initiative? Star reporter Horsley also failed to inform her readers that my new transit initiative is designed to transform the city's traditional streetcar system into a more rapid rail system (streetcars would now be running in exclusive transit greenways separated from traffic) and thus no longer a "poor substitute for light rail." If Kansas City had another reputable daily newspaper in this town, it would be lonesome. Clay Chastain...leader of the people's streetcar initiative. ############### You decide . . . 

[policeslime35-blog]

What Happens When a Millennial Candidate Bucks Philly’s Democratic Machine?

Politics

After many years of working local races, Alex Deering was finally ready to run a campaign of his own. Now he is working in a warehouse, battling depression, and feeling betrayed by the Democratic party he once had faith in.

Alex Deering

For the first time since moving to Philadelphia, Alex Deering isn’t working on a political campaign.

While many of his former colleagues were hosting last-minute fundraisers and calling up voters, Deering, 35, spent the weekend before Election Day at the warehouse of a popular Center City retail store unloading boxes. This has been his job for the past several weeks as his shrinking personal savings and unreturned phone calls have given him no other choice. Once known for his wide smiles and immediate reach for a handshake, he now prefers working behind the scenes with his current employer so he doesn’t have to discuss how he went from attending lavish galas to making $9.25 an hour.

But like most things in Deering’s life, he knows this is just another hurdle he will have to overcome. When he choose to run earlier this year for state representative of the 181st District — in a Democratic primary race that made history for being the first in the state to have two openly gay candidates of color face off — Deering knew it would be a challenge. What he didn’t anticipate was the sudden betrayal and loneliness that would occur after losing his first bid for office.

Speaking candidly for the first time since running, Deering told Philadelphia magazine about his journey from political promise and sudden exile — and why he remains optimistic about a return.

•

“It was one of the greatest joys I experienced in my life,” Deering says of the time he officially announced his candidacy in the lower North Philly district on December 1, 2017. “Having run a successful race for committee, I felt I would be able to use the knowledge I had acquired to really make good policy choices and represent the district at large.”

A New Jersey native–turned–Washington, D.C., transplant who spent his early 20s studying music, Deering moved to Philadelphia in 2011 intending to go to college and then pursue a political career. But once he got here, he says, he found the city’s political scene “so intense” that he felt the need to “jump out there and try my chance before completing my bachelor’s.”

“I never really knew the path I would take — I just knew I had a strong desire to help people, a defined position on many of the city and state’s current policies, and a great ability to connect with people,” Deering says. “I also realized I wanted to help people through more than just religious institutions. Politics gave me the opportunity to be who I am without feeling like I am deceiving people.”

Deering built his street cred as a young political operative — he was elected as a committee person in 2016 and worked nonstop on five state House campaigns, two state Senate races, and three citywide ones. Deering says that working on such races in rapid succession gave him the courage to finally run for office himself.

“Most of the ties the community currently has with state representatives locally is disjointed and stagnant,” Deering told Philadelphia magazine when he first announced his bid. “Outside of a few huge annual gatherings, people don’t necessarily understand all of the resources and opportunities elected officials can provide them. My campaign slogan is ‘Stand United,’ because I want North Philadelphians to not only hold me accountable to getting legislation passed in Harrisburg, but also being more present and connecting them to critical resources and job opportunities year-round.”

At the time of the campaign’s launch, Deering was the only openly gay candidate to declare he was running in the 181st, a district that had been represented by W. Curtis Thomas since 1989. Two weeks later, Philadelphia native and out community advocate Malcolm Kenyatta announced his bid for the same seat. Kenyatta, 27, who is Thomas’s cousin, had the competitive advantage. Despite the major political endorsements that Kenyatta received following his announcement, Deering refused to back down, believing that the race would eventually be about substance and not just popularity.

“Alex was trying to take on the old guard of the local Democratic party and was headed for disaster,” says a 181st District ward leader, who asked not to be named. “I believed in him, but couldn’t give him my support because I recognized the direction leadership was headed. Malcolm Kenyatta was next in line whether we wanted him or not.”

“I felt that I could still run against the establishment and walk away from the race with dignity and respect,” Deering said. “Little did I know of all the hardship that would come.”

•

The night before the Democratic primary election, Deering was up hanging posters at polling stations until the early hours of the morning, only to discover later that more than half the signs had been removed before people could vote.

“People had taped insulting stickers to the front door of my home by 6 a.m.,” Deering said. “It was a nasty campaign, but I did everything in my power to run one about the issues.”

As expected, Kenyatta would go on to make history as the first openly gay candidate of color to win a state house primary in Pennsylvania. Deering would go on to place fourth in the five-way race.

“Unfortunately, it was clear to me being elected was not about who saw the greater future or about who had the most knowledge about policy, it was simply about an image people created in their mind about you,” Deering says. “Anyone can walk up to a person and say the sky is blue, but if the person is told by someone he or she trusts that it is red, then what was said about the sky being blue will not be taken into consideration or believed.”

Deering says part of his loss was based on perception and “the desire for people to see money as the answer.” “People hear and believe what they want,” Deering says. “Time and time again, I was told I was the most qualified candidate in the race, yet the criticism was the amount of funding my campaign was able to raise.”

“I voted for Alex Deering even though I knew on day one he was going to lose,” says a local Democratic committee person, who asked for anonymity to speak frankly. “I think he was too naive to understand that when an incumbent doesn’t tap you, it’s pretty much a done deal. I kept telling him to run for something else, his confidence was high. I knew that when it finally sank in, he would be devastated. I hardly see him around the district anymore.”

After the campaign was over, Deering says he felt such “a huge sense of betrayal and loss” that he slept for three days. “I was so tired,” Deering says. “Not only had I lost the state representative race, I had also lost my committee seat by two votes. The committee seat loss pierced me to the core. I could understand the district not knowing who I was or being unsure about me as a candidate, but I put a great amount of sacrifice and work into the division.” Deering says the “public embarrassment was overwhelming,” leading him to stay with out-of-town friends over the weekend as he made constant trips to New York City and Washington, D.C. to avoid the public pressure.

“I expected that once the dust settled, I would be able to find a job to get back out there in politics,” Deering said. “None of that happened.”

During the summer, Deering reached out to several politicians he had prior relationships with for possible employment opportunities, but he says many either did not answer the phone or turned him down directly. To support himself, Deering eventually took a job in retail to help pay the bills.

“It isn’t the ideal job, but it is a job allowing me to do the things I want to do,” Deering says. “The reality is that no matter how smart I am or was, or how well I present myself, not having a bachelor’s degree stifled my ability to acquire gainful employment as it does for many American in our country. I invested so much in a political system that didn’t return the favor. I also wonder if I had played the game, would I be struggling this hard or would I have landed on my feet more quickly?”

•

Today, Deering is not afraid to admit that he is underemployed. However, he is adamant about continuing to pursue and complete his educational goals. “I have learned to make the best out of my present situation,” Deering says. “There are so many people in this country, state, and city that are just like me, which is why I fight as hard as I do to encourage everyone to go vote, so we all are heard.”

But Deering is also not afraid to admit that being on the campaign trail himself is still “emotionally hard.” “I experienced some of the greatest emotional lows I had ever felt in my life,” Deering says. “One of my favorite moments during the campaign trail were watching the presentations of high school students who interned on my campaign. I remember an intern saying to me that he was proud to work for an openly gay candidate, and he saw himself in me.”

Such positive moments with youth and combatting mental health problems in his own life encouraged Deering to volunteer and do some fundraising for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit focused on suicide prevention efforts among LGBTQ youth. It has been these moments where Deering says he has begun to reflect on “a new beginning.”

“I have learned the path I chart doesn’t always go as planned,” Deering says. “Some people have tried to push me to run for City Council. Some even told me to challenge Kenyatta in the next two years. Others say move to another state, where there are open seats. As for my future in politics, who knows what the future may hold, but I do know this is just the beginning.”

Source: https://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2018/11/05/alex-deering-millennial-candidate/

[oselatra]

Gene Fortson opposes end to at-large city directors, won't run again in 2020

Also says infrastructure problems need to be addressed. During his 12 years as an at-large city director, Gene Fortson has learned that the city board is a “changing organism,” one influenced both by the mayor and by the issues facing Little Rock. “The city and society’s progress probably delineates as much as anything [else] how the board chemistry works,” he said. As Mayor Frank Scott’s administration begins making changes at City Hall, Fortson says he’s looking forward to working with the city’s leaders to determine the future of the at-large positions, increase revenue to alleviate a constricted city budget and make Little Rock the “safest city its size, anywhere.” [content-1] [content-2] Scott has said he’ll seek to eliminate the board’s at-large positions in favor of more ward-specific representation. Fortson disagrees with Scott on this, and not just because he’s an at-large director. “I think it gives a unique balance between ward politics and seeing the city as a whole,” Fortson said. “The proper use, I think, of the at-large directors is sometimes to provide a balance and maybe more impetus for citywide needs that may not necessarily receive the same emphasis from individual ward directors on a daily basis. And I think that’s sort of the division of powers.” Fortson referenced a Hendrix College study that found a move from citywide at-large races to a system in which representatives are elected based solely on geographic wards would result in more minorities and women being elected to the board. “Traditionally, one of the arguments for doing away with the at-large [positions] was that minority candidates could not be elected,” he said. But recent elections in Little Rock are indicative of a shift in access to positions of power, according to Fortson. “Well, I think Frank Scott’s election, Terri Hollingsworth’s election as the county clerk, [and] Eric Higgins’ election as sheriff shows maybe those days are past, that a properly financed and a well organized and an attractive minority candidate can do just as well as anyone else citywide,” he said. “I think that old argument that was used [negatively against] the at-large [positions] does not really have the validity on paper [that] it may have had in the past.” He added that because research on the at-large positions focuses solely on “who got elected and how they got elected,” he’d call for “credible research” on the voting history of at-large directors. This research, according to Fortson, would dispel the notion that the at-large directors all vote together and in opposition to minorities. That at-large directors vote against the interests of minorities is “not true,” he said. “Somebody needs to look at a five-year or ten-year history of voting patterns and you’ll see that [the] three at-large [directors] are all over the ballpark, not agreeing with each other, and you’ll find that the three at-large [directors] have variously, at various opportunities, worked with board directors to achieve different things.” He said the 2014 construction of the Little Rock Police Department’s 12th Street Substation is an example of this cooperation between at-large directors and other city directors. “The 12th Street station that Ken Richardson was pushing so hard … never would have happened without assistance from me and other at-large directors, because it was a lot of money,” he said. “And that was a lot of investment in that ward. Other wards thought, well, wait a minute, they’re going to put $12 million in here? How much of that can I get? Which is their job in representing their ward, but there’s a balance.” This balance between a city director’s concern for his or her ward and a larger vision for the city is a difficult one, according to Fortson, and it becomes frustrating when directors exclusively focus on problems in their wards. “The approach of ‘my ward, my people,’ if carried to the extreme, we would resurface this road in my ward if I can get the funds to do it, right up to your ward, and then you get there [to your ward] and you get potholes,” he said. “It doesn’t take care of the city as a whole when you do that.” Fortson, 82, said he won’t be running for re-election when his term ends in December 2020. He also said he supports and would prefer younger representation on the city board. “I go back in my career, [and] I tried to hire a lot of young people in management positions because, for the most part, they did things better than the old folks did,” he said. “I think we need a mixture. I think the average age of the board is not reflective of the average age of the city. The average age of Little Rock is getting younger. The median age here is 36 or 37, so to be reflective of the city, the leadership needs to be around that age, too, or else be old folks who are adaptable.” A former CEO of both Worthen Bank and Trust and Stebbins and Roberts Inc., Fortson said he understands Scott’s embrace of the strong mayor role as CEO of the city. “Coming from the private sector, I think he mirrored a lot of what you do there, and that is [that] the CEO has certain functions he deals with on a direct basis, but actually your chief operating officer runs the whole city from a day-to-day implementation standpoint,” Fortson said. “It’s an interesting structure, it’s new to the city, but I can understand where he’s coming from, and I think it can be an effective way to operate.” Fortson said Scott’s decision to take control of six city departments that previously reported to City Manager Bruce Moore (finance, fire, human resources, planning, police and public works) will allow Scott to be “more hands-on” in the areas of the city he “views as critical to what he wants to do,” and, as with anything new, it will take time to adjust to the new structure. The board is a “synergistic-cooperative type of thing,” according to Fortson, and an ever-changing one. “There’s the evolutionary process,” he said. “An organizational chart is something two dimensional on a wall or on a sheet of paper. Six months from now, if you sit down and take a look at how that organizational chart functions between him and the various players, then you’ll know it may functionally look a little bit different from the way he draws it, although that’s just because it evolves that way. Things don’t stay static very long.” Nor should they, Fortson added. “Not in business, not in the academic world, and not in government,” he said. “It’s got to reflect the real world in which we live [and] the needs you have.”

***

Infrastructure problems such as potholes, aging plumbing systems and crumbling or nonexistent sidewalks are a main area of concern for the city, and Fortson said an increase in the city’s revenue is needed to begin fixing these problems. Like Ward 4 City Director Capi Peck, Fortson said he hopes state legislation that would require internet merchants to charge sales tax from sales in Arkansas will help restore more operating revenue to the city’s budget. Fortson compared navigating the budget management of a city in a constant state of flux to “punching a marshmallow.” “It won’t stay punched,” he said. “It comes back. That’s one of the joys of being involved in it, because you hope to try to help solve those problems. And I think … we sometimes disagree on things, [but] everybody on that board, the mayor especially, wants to solve them. … Finance is something that’s always intrigued me because it’s part of my background. You’ve got so many dollars, and that’s it. And people are wanting more police, they want this, they want that, they want a new fire station, and you can only go so far with those dollars.” Asked if he supports Scott’s plan to increase the LRPD police force by 25 officers per year for the next four years, Fortson said the city doesn’t have “spare money” and would need to reallocate dollars to do so. He added that while he doesn’t think there is a specific number of policeman that would be the “correct amount” for reducing crime in Little Rock, he does believe community-based policing is key to both reducing crime and restoring the relationship between police and citizens who don’t trust the force. Fortson said he also believes the next police chief should be a candidate who understands and respects Little Rock and its communities. “He or she needs to know the city,” he said. “They need to be somebody who can lead that force of however many we have and make sure that they are representative and responsive to the community. They need to be somebody who makes sure that the city and the police department are not adversarial.” According to Fortson, a key element to the “well-being” of Little Rock is the restored local control of the Little Rock School District, but like his board peers Peck and Ward 3 Director Kathy Webb, he said the best tool of the board is its voice. “We never had any input before [control] moved, and we don’t have any input now,” he said. “Getting it back here is important, and I would hope that as we continue to meet the criteria to improve the schools, that should increase the pressure to return it to local control and have a new, locally elected school board.” In addition to returning stability to teachers, students and parents of the LRSD who are experiencing “a lot of unknowns,” Fortson said local control of the district will enhance “quality of life” in Little Rock. Fortson said the city has an “inferiority complex” that prevents it from talking about “what we really offer.” “For those who choose to take advantage of it, we’ve got tremendous cultural and recreational opportunities,” he said. “If the Sun Belt is where you want to be, Little Rock is the buckle. We’re right in the center, and there’s so much available to you in so many different directions.” Fortson said this is why, despite opportunities to leave Little Rock during his career, he never did. He now looks forward to younger folks running for office and wants them to get involved in city government. “I encourage people in their 30s to get active and run for office,” he said. “If you don’t want to run for office, get involved. Do something. If you don’t like what’s going on, don’t talk to me about it, go out in the world and do something.” Fortson said he plans to stay involved in the Little Rock community, even if it’s not as an at-large director. “I’ve been very fortunate,” he said. “I have a high energy level, and I have good health and a lot of interests, and I assume I’m still mentally acute. So as long as I can do that, I’m going to stay active doing something. If it’s not this, I’ll do something else.” Gene Fortson opposes end to at-large city directors, won't run again in 2020

[rollinbrigittenv8]

Tegel Airport’s Fate Will Soon Be Decided by Berliners

Berlin's Tegel Airport has been slated to close when the city's new airport opens. But some interests want the facility to remain open. Michael Sohn / Associated Press

Skift Take: We know construction of Berlin's new airport has been a mess. But one thing mentioned less often is that it's far too small to handle the number of passengers expected to visit the city by 2030. This means Berlin probably needs a second airport.

— Brian Sumers

The German election may be boring to watch, but for Berliners, a separate vote also scheduled for Sept. 24 has provided plenty of intrigue and emotional tension. The citywide plebiscite on whether to close the capital’s Tegel Airport sheds new light on calls for the German government to step up infrastructure investment.

On the surface, the issue is cut-and-dried. Tegel, designed in the 1960s and operational in its current shape since 1974, is surrounded by densely populated residential areas. Of necessity, Tegel is relatively small: It was built to handle 6 million passengers in walled-in west Berlin. It’s a miracle that it somehow managed to serve 21 million in 2016. Berlin, the surrounding state of Brandenburg and the federal government are building a bigger new airport south of the capital, next to Schoenefeld, a cluster of decrepit Soviet-style structures which now serves as Berlin’s secondary gateway.

But there are strong reasons why about 61 percent of Berlin residents (and some 60 percent of Brandenburgers, who don’t get to vote on it on Sept. 24) want Tegel to stay open. They also explain why the Christian Democratic Union party’s Berlin organization is with these voters rather than with party leader Angela Merkel on this issue.

Some of the pro-Tegel sentiment is purely emotional. Berliners love the brutalist masterpiece for its efficient hexagonal design and the famously short time it takes to get to the gate. But then, Tempelhof, the airport that enabled the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s, was perhaps even more beloved — and Berliners allowed its closure in 2008 when a plebiscite about keeping it open failed due to low turnout. Now, it’s home to an annual kite festival, among other events.

The real reason a majority of Berliners want to keep Tegel open is that they don’t trust the federal and local authorities to handle the new airport project right. The construction began in 2006, and the Berlin Brandenburg Airport Willy Brandt, or BER, was originally supposed to open in 2010, at a cost of some 2.8 billion euros ($3.3 billion). Now, there is no official opening date, and, according to a recent report, construction at BER will only be finished in late 2018, which suggests a 2019 opening.

A special website tracks the mounting costs, which have reached about 5.4 billion euros, most of it funded by government-guaranteed loans. The project has been beset with technical problems incomprehensible to Germans, who are used to engineering excellence. At the heart of the debacle lay a faulty smoke-extraction system, designed for unfathomable reasons by a man who claimed to be, but wasn’t, a qualified engineer. Rebuilding it required an overhaul of the nearly completed structure. And last year, an airport employee was jailed for taking a 150,000 euro bribe from a contractor. 

BER will probably open eventually because the Berlin, Brandenburg and Federal authorities are dead set on it. They’ve been pushing the European Union to approve further loans to the projects, and if it fails, the embarrassment and ridicule will be unbearable. But, given the new airport’s history, many Berliners don’t believe the governments can run BER better than they ran its construction.

BER was planned to handle 27 million passengers a year, and air traffic to Berlin hit 33 million in 2016. If both current airports close, BER will immediately need to be expanded, and, given its less inventive design compared to Tegel, it may not be able to handle the overload in the meantime. When Tegel closure advocates, including Berlin mayor Michael Mueller, point out that Tegel needs a 1 billion euro renovation to keep functioning alongside BER, “Tegel-savers,” as they call themselves, counter that BER’s budget overrun is bigger, and it hasn’t been capped yet.

The liberal Free Democratic Party, which is set to return to the federal parliament this year, turned the Tegel issue into a major campaign weapon in Berlin. The campaign may have helped the FDP and the CDU recover some of the losses they suffered in the regional election last year, when they lost to the leftist parties now making up the city-state’s ruling coalition. The pro-Tegel parties are backed by Ryanair, the budget airline, which has pledged to keep the airport busy and perhaps invest in its renovation. Berlin is forecast to receive 50 million air travelers a year by 2030, and Ryanair has called on the city government to keep both existing airports open after BER is completed.

The plebiscite is not binding, and if Berliners vote to keep Tegel open indefinitely, lawsuits are likely to ensue: Residents of the areas adjacent to Tegel will bemoan broken promises and commerce operators with BER contracts will point out unexpected competition. Besides, both city and federal officials note, the operating permit for BER was conditional on Tegel’s closure, and it may be legally impossible to keep the old airport running once BER opens. But messing with the people’s will in Berlin is dangerous: This is a city with a long tradition of successful civil protest. There’s also the next election to think of. If Mayor Mueller ignores an adverse result of the plebiscite, he and his Social Democratic Party may lose the capital.

The debate over Tegel is also a commentary on the calls for increased public investment in Germany, something the Social Democrats have made one of the key points of their campaign. Responding to their demands for a mandatory public investment rate at state level, Merkel said plenty of money was being allocated — the problem was really with the local and state governments’ ability to carry out projects. BER, located right under the federal government’s nose and built with its participation, shows that the problem exists at the the national level too. Germany may have a reputation for solid project management and cultural resistance to graft, but when it comes to government investment, it faces the same pitfalls as any other country. Renovating  profitable Tegel may be a more efficient solution than pouring public funds into the bottomless pit of BER. And sometimes, it may be better not to fix what’s not broken, even if a fiscal surplus is burning a hole in a government’s pocket.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.

©2017 Bloomberg L.P.

This article was written by Leonid Bershidsky from Bloomberg and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.

[epacer]

Eye On San Diego Unified

San Diego Measures C And D Focus On School Board Elections And Accountability

Two local ballot measures could change the way San Diego Unified School District’s board members are elected and held accountable.

If it passes, Measure C would change school board elections to by-district. If Measure D is successful, the district’s school board would be able to remove board members who have been convicted of crimes or found to be neglecting their duties.

Measure C

Currently, elections for San Diego Unified use a hybrid model. During the primary, only voters from a candidate’s subdistrict can cast ballots. In the November general, the candidates compete in an at-large election, campaigning across all of San Diego Unifed’s five subdistricts.

Supporters of Measure C say at-large elections give disproportionate power to the city’s white majority and thus marginalize the votes of people of color in certain subdistricts. If passed, the measure would make the November general a by-district election starting in 2022.

Sharon Whitehurst-Payne, an incumbent board member running for re-election in Sub-District E, took second place in the 2016 primary but won in the general. She supports Measure C.

“My main reason for supporting it has to do with simplification,” she said. “It’s so complicated for folks to understand why we have district-only and citywide.”

But her opponent, LaWana Richmond, said Measure C would do more than simplify elections. It would remove financial barriers to campaigning and encourage more community members to run for office. She used the example of campaign mailers to show just how much more it costs to run in an at-large election.

“In the primary, I was able to get on a couple of them for a total of $1,000,” she said. “For the general election, just to get on one, they wanted $5,000”

Richmond said Measure C could help diversify the school board by encouraging more people to run.

But outgoing Board President John Lee Evans said the current system already promotes diversity while ensuring that candidates represent both the needs of their subdistricts as well as the overall district. Evans, who is voting against Measure C, said a by-district election could encourage board members from more affluent parts of the district to neglect the needs of schools serving more vulnerable student groups.

“When I was running I was accountable to the voters in the entire district as opposed to taking my subdistrict, getting the resources we need and not paying much attention to what’s going on in other areas,” he said. “That’s a potential detriment if it were to pass.”

Measure D

Evans does however support Measure D, which would change the San Diego City Charter to give the school board power to remove board members convicted of crimes while in office or if a judge determines they are in dereliction of their duty. But the measure couldn’t be used by a majority of the board to oust a political opponent in the minority.

“The measure does not allow for an unpopular board member to be removed for some small reason,” Evans said. “It has to be very major.”

Measure D was proposed by San Diego City Councilmembers Chris Cate and Vivian Moreno. If passed, board members whose behavior meets the criteria outlined in the city charter amendment could be removed with a three-fourths vote of the full board.

“If they felt for any reason that a school board member at any time is a derelict in their duties, there is a process by which they can remove that school board member absent a resignation or a recall, which we know is very costly and very difficult to get,” Cate said.

Both Measures C and D need a simple majority -- just more than 50% of the vote -- to pass. *Reposted article from KPBS by Joe Hong of October 21, 2020

[touristguidebuzz]

Tegel Airport’s Fate Will Soon Be Decided by Berliners

Berlin's Tegel Airport has been slated to close when the city's new airport opens. But some interests want the facility to remain open. Michael Sohn / Associated Press

Skift Take: We know construction of Berlin's new airport has been a mess. But one thing mentioned less often is that it's far too small to handle the number of passengers expected to visit the city by 2030. This means Berlin probably needs a second airport.

— Brian Sumers

The German election may be boring to watch, but for Berliners, a separate vote also scheduled for Sept. 24 has provided plenty of intrigue and emotional tension. The citywide plebiscite on whether to close the capital’s Tegel Airport sheds new light on calls for the German government to step up infrastructure investment.

On the surface, the issue is cut-and-dried. Tegel, designed in the 1960s and operational in its current shape since 1974, is surrounded by densely populated residential areas. Of necessity, Tegel is relatively small: It was built to handle 6 million passengers in walled-in west Berlin. It’s a miracle that it somehow managed to serve 21 million in 2016. Berlin, the surrounding state of Brandenburg and the federal government are building a bigger new airport south of the capital, next to Schoenefeld, a cluster of decrepit Soviet-style structures which now serves as Berlin’s secondary gateway.

But there are strong reasons why about 61 percent of Berlin residents (and some 60 percent of Brandenburgers, who don’t get to vote on it on Sept. 24) want Tegel to stay open. They also explain why the Christian Democratic Union party’s Berlin organization is with these voters rather than with party leader Angela Merkel on this issue.

Some of the pro-Tegel sentiment is purely emotional. Berliners love the brutalist masterpiece for its efficient hexagonal design and the famously short time it takes to get to the gate. But then, Tempelhof, the airport that enabled the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s, was perhaps even more beloved — and Berliners allowed its closure in 2008 when a plebiscite about keeping it open failed due to low turnout. Now, it’s home to an annual kite festival, among other events.

The real reason a majority of Berliners want to keep Tegel open is that they don’t trust the federal and local authorities to handle the new airport project right. The construction began in 2006, and the Berlin Brandenburg Airport Willy Brandt, or BER, was originally supposed to open in 2010, at a cost of some 2.8 billion euros ($3.3 billion). Now, there is no official opening date, and, according to a recent report, construction at BER will only be finished in late 2018, which suggests a 2019 opening.

A special website tracks the mounting costs, which have reached about 5.4 billion euros, most of it funded by government-guaranteed loans. The project has been beset with technical problems incomprehensible to Germans, who are used to engineering excellence. At the heart of the debacle lay a faulty smoke-extraction system, designed for unfathomable reasons by a man who claimed to be, but wasn’t, a qualified engineer. Rebuilding it required an overhaul of the nearly completed structure. And last year, an airport employee was jailed for taking a 150,000 euro bribe from a contractor. 

BER will probably open eventually because the Berlin, Brandenburg and Federal authorities are dead set on it. They’ve been pushing the European Union to approve further loans to the projects, and if it fails, the embarrassment and ridicule will be unbearable. But, given the new airport’s history, many Berliners don’t believe the governments can run BER better than they ran its construction.

BER was planned to handle 27 million passengers a year, and air traffic to Berlin hit 33 million in 2016. If both current airports close, BER will immediately need to be expanded, and, given its less inventive design compared to Tegel, it may not be able to handle the overload in the meantime. When Tegel closure advocates, including Berlin mayor Michael Mueller, point out that Tegel needs a 1 billion euro renovation to keep functioning alongside BER, “Tegel-savers,” as they call themselves, counter that BER’s budget overrun is bigger, and it hasn’t been capped yet.

The liberal Free Democratic Party, which is set to return to the federal parliament this year, turned the Tegel issue into a major campaign weapon in Berlin. The campaign may have helped the FDP and the CDU recover some of the losses they suffered in the regional election last year, when they lost to the leftist parties now making up the city-state’s ruling coalition. The pro-Tegel parties are backed by Ryanair, the budget airline, which has pledged to keep the airport busy and perhaps invest in its renovation. Berlin is forecast to receive 50 million air travelers a year by 2030, and Ryanair has called on the city government to keep both existing airports open after BER is completed.

The plebiscite is not binding, and if Berliners vote to keep Tegel open indefinitely, lawsuits are likely to ensue: Residents of the areas adjacent to Tegel will bemoan broken promises and commerce operators with BER contracts will point out unexpected competition. Besides, both city and federal officials note, the operating permit for BER was conditional on Tegel’s closure, and it may be legally impossible to keep the old airport running once BER opens. But messing with the people’s will in Berlin is dangerous: This is a city with a long tradition of successful civil protest. There’s also the next election to think of. If Mayor Mueller ignores an adverse result of the plebiscite, he and his Social Democratic Party may lose the capital.

The debate over Tegel is also a commentary on the calls for increased public investment in Germany, something the Social Democrats have made one of the key points of their campaign. Responding to their demands for a mandatory public investment rate at state level, Merkel said plenty of money was being allocated — the problem was really with the local and state governments’ ability to carry out projects. BER, located right under the federal government’s nose and built with its participation, shows that the problem exists at the the national level too. Germany may have a reputation for solid project management and cultural resistance to graft, but when it comes to government investment, it faces the same pitfalls as any other country. Renovating  profitable Tegel may be a more efficient solution than pouring public funds into the bottomless pit of BER. And sometimes, it may be better not to fix what’s not broken, even if a fiscal surplus is burning a hole in a government’s pocket.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Leonid Bershidsky is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.

©2017 Bloomberg L.P.

This article was written by Leonid Bershidsky from Bloomberg and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.

[slagglasscity]

From Michelle Janssens Keller in Chicago, IL

Girl World

I hadn’t meant to involve my young daughters in the election. I wanted to shield them from the rancor and negativity. They understood that we, their parents, supported Hillary and that Trump said mean things. That was as much as we planned to discuss, but then my four-year old started confusing The World Series with the Election, and my seven-year old started talking about Trump’s wall.

When the Cubs won, our Chicago neighborhood exploded with elation. Fireworks, car horns, strangers singing on the El. We danced, waved flags, cheered in traffic. We vibrated for days.

“So, Hillary Clinton won?!” my 4 year old shouted, throwing her body into my legs. We were at the playground surrounded by moms wearing Cubs gear, all laughing at her question. I couldn’t help myself. “No, not yet,” I explained smiling, “but I can’t wait for her to win.”

I could blame it on the citywide high; I’m not sure how I equated a broken baseball curse to the certain election of the first woman president, but the euphoria took over, made me and my NPR quoting neighborhood giddy and confident.

Here I could pinpoint our downfall: the dinners full of questions that, finally, in that first bright week of November, we started to answer.

“How do you know Hillary Clinton will win?” our eldest asked. We didn’t know, but we were pretty sure, because, in our fuzzy, idealistic world, we explained, bullies rarely win in the end.

“Why does Trump want to build a wall?” she asked. To keep people out. We simplified border control, but managed to make it all personal, carefully speaking of her classmates whose parents came from Mexico. Our children were appalled, their mouths dropping over plates of mashed potatoes and peas.

And they were emboldened. They stuck out their tongues at Trump on the TV, and while I mentioned respecting their elders, I didn’t stop them. He had become a caricature, an evil villain, to me and to them. An impossible reality. The fable would play out in days; the white pantsuit clad female warrior would triumph.

On Election Day we took the girls to the polling place, something we’d never done before. Last night’s dinner conversation had covered the women’s rights movement and the racial discriminations still rampant in our country. We had fully engaged, shed any protective parental intuition, and brought them into the emotional climate of such a historic election. We were confident about this choice; voting together would be momentous. They’d look back and tell their great-granddaughters.

At the polling place, the volunteers glowed. They handed the girls I Voted bracelets and let them into our booths. I guided my seven-year old through the ballot, handing her the marker to ink in the oval. She was so careful in that moment, whispering Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Like everyone, I wasn’t prepared for the fallout. I had a bottle of champagne chilling, my daughters asleep, my pantsuit still on. It is a blur of numbers and maps, expert analysis, but mostly the night was a stomachache. A twisting wallop in my gut.

In the dark kitchen the next morning my girls stood before me in nightgowns, barefoot, their bodies bopping.

“Did Hillary win? Did she?” They danced around as I slid to the floor, trying to compose an answer.

“No, she didn’t. Trump won,” I said, watching them in the dim light. This is the moment that makes me most regret involving them in the election. My oldest daughter’s face confused, wrinkling, her eyes tearing up, her lips wrought. My four-year old collapsing to the ground, her body thrashing in a long wail. The storybook fable taking a childhood-shattering turn. This isn’t how it’s supposed to end.

Later that day, I overheard the seven-year old with her friend. They were in the living room cutting felt, crafting tiny felt people to arrange on a felt board. They carefully snipped clothing, trees, a snowy background, and I envied their absorption. “Did you know,” she asked her friend, ”that some women don’t think they’re as good as men? Even some women believe this!”

I didn’t know if I should cry or celebrate. Already she was aware of this unjust perspective, one that discounted her full worth and set her up for a lifetime of battle. But she also knew the absurdity of this thought. I watched from the kitchen as the girls shook their heads and continued cutting, constructing their own felt world.

___

PHOTO:

Flags of Chicago by Phil Roeder

___

#DisturbedCity is Slag Glass City’s blog bulletin board created in response to the 2016 American elections. We seek contributions between now and the close of inauguration weekend, January 23rd, 2017. We will post and promote respectful, non-hating fragments, accounts, snapshots, shout-outs, blessings, etc. that fit our city theme.

Check out our guidelines and UPLOAD your blog contributions here: http://tinyurl.com/SlagGlassCity-DisturbedCity