Labor Sacrifices, Not Executives - Nothing New

"I cannot escape the feeling that the tendency so far has been to say that labor must make sacrifices of wages and hours because of necessities of national defense.  I have yet to see anywhere a statement that manufacturers and business concerns . . .  shall make this same type of sacrifice by cutting profits and reducing the salaries of executives."




Sound familiar? 

This is from Doris Kearns Goodwin's No Ordinary Time, which I'm reading again for my next book club meeting. (Previous posts based on the book about the creation of lend lease and Hitler's first (and last) visit to Paris.) I took a break to finish Dirt Music, which deserves at least a post, beyond the one I did about Australian camels and Saudi Arabia.  

The quote comes from Eleanor Roosevelt's newspaper column, "My Day", December 9, 1940.

The book is hefty - 633 pages - but riveting.  I've got 400+ pages to go by April 30. 

A Real Plan, An Interim Plan, Short Deadlines - Overview of Where Redistricting Board Stands

[Note:  This may not look like much, but I spent a lot of time trying to sort out the important points, including the maps and links.  And getting it reasonably short. My eyes are glazing over so let me know if you catch any errors so I can fix them.]

Yesterday the Alaska Redistricting Board formally approved a new Proclamation Plan (I think they call this the Amended Proclamation Plan) and an Interim plan in case the Amended plan doesn't get all the approvals it needs in time for the June 1 candidate filing deadline. Below is my understanding of what they covered yesterday as they went over their timeline of things that need to be done.


Overview

1. There’s a June 1 deadline for candidates for the legislature to file.  A plan must be in place before that so they know which districts they are in.  There is some possibility of pushing the filing deadline, and probably the primary election, back two weeks, but they want to avoid that.  But a new Federal law with deadlines for sending military ballots may prevent that.
   
   
2. It’s April 6 now, so that leaves less than 60 days.
   
   
3. The Board’s new Proclamation Plan has to
1. get pre clearance from the Department of Justice (DOJ)  to insure it meets the Voting Rights Act requirements AND
2. go back to the trial court to determine if they followed the court mandated “Hickel Plan” to first draw up a constitutional map and then make the least amount of deviance from the constitutional requirements necessary to also comply with the Voting Rights Act. 
4. Timing for the DOJ and court clearance is uncertain.  I’m guessing the Alaska courts will do things as quickly as possible (the Supreme Court ruled in one day the first round,) but what about the DOJ?  They have a 60 day turnaround, but have an ‘expedited’ process. The board is unsure they can get it or what exactly it means.
   
   
5. Additionally,
1. The Division of Elections wants two weeks notice somewhere in the process
2. Both political parties wanted two weeks for something, not sure what.
6. Given all the uncertainties, the board has also adopted an Interim Plan.  The Supreme Court offered this option if they can’t get the new Proclamation Plan done in time.  The Interim plan is the basically the same as the original Proclamation Plan with changes to the two districts in Fairbanks that were declared unconstitutional and which the Board did not contest.  (Proclamation Plan districts 1 and 2.)
7. Attorney White believes the Interim plan, though the Native districts  are essentially the same as in the plan the DOJ already approved, needs pre-clearance because it was drawn up by the board, not the court.  But he thinks it should be easy. And he believes court approval should be easy.
    
8. There is still some uncertainty whether they can put forward both plans simultaneously, but they hope to take that path.  If it appears that by around May 15 the new plan will not get approved in time, they will go with the interim plan.   Chair Torgerson said that is not his hope.  He wants the new plan to go into effect.   
 

 

That leaves the question of what is the difference between the Interim Plan and the New Proclamation Plan?

Most of the districts are the same in both plans.  Southeast, Anchorage, and Kenai, and Matsu will be the same.  The differences will be in the area that was white in the “Hickel Plan Template.”   The colored in parts should be the same in both plans.

Hickel Plan

Sorry about the light and shadows on the Hickel Plan Template above. But if you look carefully you can make it out. If you're in Southeast, Anchorage, Matsu, Kenai, and the North Slope, your district shouldn't be different in the Interim Plan and the Amended Proclamation Plan. (There may be some minor changes in Kenai Borough, I think Seldovia moved.)  They were only going to change district boundaries in the white section.

Click on the links below for bigger and better versions of these two maps

 There are some big differences between the Interim Plan and the Amended Proclamation Plan.  The Aleutians are split in the Interim Plan, but aren't in the Amended Plan.  District  They did fix Fairbanks house districts 1 and 2 from the old plan. For people who are interested in the plans in the area that was tinkered with - mostly in House Districts 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 from what I can see - can look at the maps.

• The Amended Plan's statewide map is pretty good.   
• The Interim Plan has unfortunate district numbers that block details.  

The Board promised the individual district maps would be up next week. 

This map below shows the Proclamation Plan Fairbanks lines (in black) superimposed on the Amended Proclamation Plan.   The Interim Plan looks to be pretty close (in Fairbanks) to the Amended Proclamation Plan.  It's hard to match all this because the maps for different plans are in different sizes and my Photoshop was being balky when I was resizing.   And it's still not detailed enough to see actual boundaries.  And I don't really know Fairbanks at all anyway.

[The district to the left of 1A is 4B.  Numbers are from Proclamation Plan. Letters are Senate districts.]

If someone really needs to know,  this can get you started. Here are the links for the various Fairbanks maps on the Redistricting Board website.  Those are high resolution pdf's that you can blow up and still get detail:

• 2002 Plan (the current plan)
• Proclamation Plan (one courts sent back for changes)
• Interim Fairbanks Plan (this is a back up in case the Amended Proc Plan isn't approved on time)
• Amended Proclamation Plan

And this table might help too.  It gives the numbers of the districts in the various plans.

2002 Plan	Old Proc Plan	Interim Plan	New Proc Plan
HD10	HD 1	HD 3	HD 3
HD 11	HD 2	HD 1	HD 1
HD 7	HD 3	HD 2	HD 2
HD 9	HD 4	HD 4	HD 4

HTML Tables

The video shows Board Attorney Michael White going over the time-line with the Board on Thursday.  Board Chair John Torgerson also speaks.

Break of Day in Rampart

There's an interesting piece in the museum that I've been keeping an eye on. Thursday after the board meeting, I went back to the museum to get photos of it.

 

You can see some of Kathleen's masks here.

Rampart, Alaska

Redistricting Board Formally Adopts New Proclamation Plan and Backup Plan

I'll try to get back here and write up a summary, but I fooled around too long and now I don't have enough time.  Basically the adopted the plan they approved Saturday, which the staff cleaned up and prepared the metes and bounds for.  They also approved a back up plan - one that is basically the previous plan with the Fairbanks districts 1 and 2 adjusted to be constitutional.

All the documentation is up on line (well, not all, individual district maps are coming soon) so you can look there.  Below are my rough notes from today's meeting.

From the board's website:

REPORTS AND DATA

- Amended Proclamation of Redistricting

- Description of Amended Proclamation House and Senate Districts

- Board Adopted Findings

- Population Analysis

- Senate Terms

- GIS Files

MAPS

- Amended Proclamation Statewide Map

- Amended Proclamation Anchorage Map

- Amended Proclamation Mat-Su Map

- Amended Proclamation Fairbanks Map
- Amended Proclamation Kenai Map
- Amended Proclamation Southeast Map
- Interim Statewide Map
- Interim Fairbanks Map

Remember, the notes below are very rough.  There's a long gap where the attorney, Michael White goes over the time line.  There's a gap because I videotaped that and I'll put it up when I get it done.  Sorry it's not ready now.  And there are still some loose ends, but I think they come out in the notes below.

Alaska Redistricting Board April 5 Meeting

The Myth of the Big Election Turnout

Tuesday night at Election Central as the stories of people being turned away from the polls were told, people were also talking about 'the big turnout.'

That didn't explain, for me, how that would have affected things.  After all, they are required, as I pointed out in the previous post, to have enough ballots to take care of a 70% turnout.  Normal turnouts for Municipal elections range from low 20% range to the mid 30% range.  The numbers on the election results from last night show turnout at 26.82%.

Registered Voters 204838 - Cards Cast 54946 26.82%
Num. Report Precinct 121 - Num. Reporting 118 97.52%

 So, they had 54,946 people vote.  70% of registered voters (204,838) would have been 143,386 ballots.  If they had that many ballots ready, even if 20,000 unregistered voters showed up, that shouldn't have put any strain on their supply of ballots.  But people kept talking about high turnout.

The Anchorage Daily News has a story titled "Voter turnout creates ballot shortage" and quotes Municipal Clerk, Barbara Gruenstein:

"An "unprecedented number of voters" caused the shortage, she said."

 The Clerk is a sharp lady so maybe I'm missing something, but here are the voter turnouts as I could figure them for the last Municipal elections going back to 2006.  I got the numbers for the past election years from the Municipal Clerk's Website:  Election History/Past Election Results.  I got this year's numbers from this year's election results page. 

	# of Voters	% of Registered V's
2006 Mayoral	70,859	35.18%
2007 Assembly	62,071	32.13%
2008 Assembly	46,850	23.36%
2009 Mayoral	58,714	29.92%
2010 Assembly	39,096	19.42%
2011 Assembly	45,200	22.9%
2012 Mayoral	54,946	26.82%

HTML Tables

[UPDATE April 23:  The total number of ballots listed in the April 20, 2012 Election Summary Report is 71,099.  That comes out to 240 more votes than the 2006 election.  So this was a 'big' turn out by Municipal election standards, but only barely higher than the second highest count two mayoral elections back.]

 The numbers are as of 11:48 pm Tuesday night, 118 out of 121 precincts reporting.
Even if 10,000 more votes were outstanding, this year's total would not be a record in either total number or percentage of voters.  Is there something I'm missing? 

As it stands, the turnout is less than the previous two mayoral elections.

What makes more sense, if lots of unregistered folks showed up, was that they ran out of questioned ballots.  There were stories of people crossing out the Sample on the Sample ballots and using them.  But there should still have been a lot of back up regular ballots. 

Yesterday's Election Shenanigans

I was tired last night and not in a particularly good mood. So even though there was conflicting information I didn't pursue it.  But Mel at Bent Alaska covers it in detail and the story is going to be disturbing. From Bent:

"Yesterday, we reported that an administrator of Jim Minnery’s Protect Your Rights – Vote NO on 5 Facebook page posted the following notice: Attention Young People or First Time Voters – YOU CAN REGISTER AND VOTE AT THE SAME LOCATION TODAY !! It is super easy. Take a few minutes TODAY and stop by a polling station, register to vote (all you need is your AK driver’s license) and cast a NO Vote on Prop. 5. We really need you to vote. Tell at least 3 of your friends how easy it is."

As soon as I heard that there was a rush of people to the polls and they ran out of ballots,  I began to suspect that this was an intentional attempt disrupt the elections.

Mel's post makes it clear that the "Protect Your Rights" folks knew full well that the information was false.  They'd sent an earlier email out to their list telling people exactly when the registration deadline was. Is it possible the person who did the FB page and the email acted alone and didn't know about the deadline?  Not likely.  



The generally conservative - but with straightforward local political reporting - blog Alaska Pride (no, not gay pride) had this headline March 28:

Dittman Poll Shows 50 Percent Support Anchorage Proposition 5 Vs. 41 Percent Opposed; One Anchorage Got An Earlier Start, More Money, And Remained Civil

 Let's go back to 2009 when the Anchorage Municipal Assembly had hearings on an ordinance that would have done the same thing this ballot initiative tried to do.

Mayor Mark Begich had resigned to take his US Senate seat and liberal Assembly Chair Matt Claman assumed his job as Acting Mayor until the Municipal election in April, when he was defeated by current Mayor Dan Sullivan.  The new mayor doesn't take office until July 1.  There were enough votes to pass the ordinance on the Assembly, but Minnery and his Anchorage Baptist Church friends flooded the Assembly with people to speak against the ordinance - including busing people from outside of Anchorage.  Assembly chair Debbie Ossiander ruled that everyone could talk, even people from outside of Anchorage.  This strategy worked to delay passage of the ordinance for weeks, long enough that Mayor Sullivan took office and then vetoed it.

The liberals were outsmarted in terms of strategy.  And while busing in people from outside the city and getting the Assembly chair to let them speak pushes the limits of fair play, there is a long tradition of using the rules to thwart your opponents.  It tends to be ok if your side does it, but not if the other side does it. 

But telling people to go to the polling place to register, knowing they had to register 30 days earlier, in an attempt to disrupt the election crosses the line for me because it resulted in legitimate voters not being able to vote.  Clearly it's in the dirty tricks category.  But the First Amendment allows people to lie in most circumstances.

Assuming then they were intentionally getting unregistered people to the polls, what was their goal? 

If the anti-Prop 5 folks read the polling data that said Prop 5 was ahead 50% to 41%,  perhaps they decided to cause enough irregularities at the polls to challenge the election if they lost.  I don't know.  Now that they've won,  what will the Prop 5 folks do?  It would seem that even with a challenge, they are too far behind to get enough votes to win.  I'd emphasize the word seem.  I'm sure there are other possible scenarios. 

It's clear, to me anyway, that Minnery's group's Facebook post and emails were intended to get unregistered voters to the polling places to ask to register and then vote, which Minnery knew they were not entitled to do.  He couldn't help but know that this would disrupt the election process by diverting the attention of the voting officials from helping qualified voters.  And that it would increase the number of challenged vote ballots needed way beyond the normal level.  What his reasons for doing this were and what all the consequences were, we don't know.  Was he hoping to establish a grounds for challenging the election if they lost, which the Dittman poll suggested?

Of course, it also raises the question of how the Dittman poll could be so far off.  Last week it was 50% to 41% in favor.  And this week it is 58% to 41% against.  That is a HUGE margin of error.  Was Dittman really that far off?  Or is the vote count off?

I'd note that the ADN reported Tuesday that "More than 3,800 people had already voted at Loussac Library, City Hall or Chugiak Senior Center through Sunday . . . [and a]nother 2,675 people had requested absentee ballots. . ."   The absentee ballots have not been counted yet, nor, I believe, have the early votes.    But if 2,000 of the absentees actually send in their ballots, the total outstanding would only be about 5800 or 9.5%. 

Again, I encourage you to look at Bent Alaska's post on this.

Anchorage Mayor Wins, Gay Rights Lose, And Not Enough Ballots

Not all the votes were in when I left election central at the Denaina Center, but the numbers were pretty clear in most of the races.  But the big topic was that - this is all based on rumor, though I did talk to both mayoral candidates and an assembly member - about 17 -20 precincts ran out of ballots.

The Municipal Code requires that

"For each regular and special election, the municipal clerk shall ensure that ballots are prepared for at least 70 percent of the registered voters within each precinct to present all candidates and propositions to the voters."28.40.010 B

And turnout was significantly lower than that.   I talked with Mayoral Candidate Paul Honeman but didn't get his comments about the balloting on video.  It was not yet 9pm, but already he was significantly behind.



A bit later I talked to the Mayor.


 And finally I spoke to Assembly Member Dick Traini.

Scared Of Men In Dresses, Again

Anchorage folks, just go vote yes on Prop. 5.  Today. I'm tired of people using their gods to persecute other human beings.  A fanatic Jerry Prevo has fought against gay rights in Anchorage - just to keep a job or apartment, we're not even talking partnerships - here for far too long.

I heard about a Dittman poll on the radio yesterday saying Sullivan was ahead 57% to 30something% for mayor, but Prop 5 was ahead 50% to 42%.  That's promising, but I can imagine some people saying:  "Well Sullivan's in but Prop 5 will win, so I don't have to vote."

Don't you believe it.  I wouldn't be surprised if they put those numbers out there to keep people away from the polls.  "Your vote won't matter anyway, so why bother?"  NOT TRUE.  They certainly haven't given up.  There were big media buys for the weekend and Anti-5 people were on a bunch of corners on Monday already.  In force.

This year they've brought men in dresses back into their scare tactics as well as the idea that Prop. 5 would take away people's religious rights.  I don't recall any religious practices that require Christians to turn gays away from their rental property or workplace.  Where does it say, "Thou shall not rent to gays"?   It doesn't.  Instead it says repeatedly to be good to strangers - in the Old and New Testaments.  No one is saying that Prevo can't spew his hate in his church.  Or that people can't pray anyway they like  Just that they can't use their religion to keep gays from working at their businesses or renting their apartments.  And if it's a fourplex or smaller, it doesn't apply to you.  They can even boycott businesses with gay employees.  So chill.  Can someone say, "I won't rent to you because you eat pork and shellfish, which is prohibited in the bible"?  Of course not.   It does say to love your neighbor though. 

I'm really depressed that so many people are so ignorant and so personally needy that they have to lash out against others to make themselves feel better. [Is that a gross generalization?  Maybe, but surely it applies to many of these frightened individuals.]  Slavery and then segregation were also defended with the bible.  At least we aren't fighting a civil war over this.

We need to step back.  Breathe deep.  Each take responsibility to make sure three other people go vote yes on 5, and approach this with a little humor.  So I'm reposting a piece I put up last time Anchorage battled over this.  Enjoy.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Men Jerry Prevo Would Ban from Anchorage Schools

[Note: The pictures in this post are NOT mine. To see the source of the picture, click on the picture. UPDATE:  Not all of them still work three years later.]

In his ADN letter opposing the addition of "sexual orientation" to Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinance, Reverend Jerry Provo wrote:

Maybe, worst of all, this ordinance would allow a man who teaches a second grade class or any grade to show up as a woman in the classroom and the School District could do nothing because of this ordinance.

I confess that I laughed when I read this letter last Friday. Phil had an overview of some of the blogs that showed how each point in the letter was dead wrong. The letter is ludicrous. His biggest worry was about men dressing like women. Where are his public crusades against drunk drivers? Against redlight runners? Against heterosexual adulterers? It seems to me that murder and adultery are both prohibited in the Ten Commandments, not in some obscure passage in Deuteronomy along with other obscure prohibitions that we no longer observe. After all, what is the big deal about men who want to dress like women?

Men have a long tradition of wearing clothes that are more like women's clothes than than the "pants of the family" we associate with men in the US.

Religious men, particularly, seem to like to wear gown like clothing. Probably foremost is the Pope who wears some of the most elaborate clothing of anyone in the world. But this trend of dressing in garments more like women's clothing isn't confined to Catholics. Protestants also find this appropriate for the leadership.






Like these Episcopalians.
















And Russian  Orthodox.









Muslims clerics don't wear trousers either.

Nor Buddhist monks. They wear robes.

Nor Hindu priests

Even rabbis.

All the religious leaders I know of are also considered teachers. Would Rev. Prevo protest any of these people teaching in an Anchorage school wearing their work clothes? (I know some people are thinking "separation of church and state," but it's ok. If they are teaching ABOUT their faith and NOT teaching their faith, it's ok. And most such religious leaders also have expertise in other areas they might teach.)

And it's not just religious leaders who wear clothing that would be more closely associated with women than men.

Surgeons wear gowns at work.

And academics also have a tradition of wearing gowns. Even our former President whom Rev. Prevo supported so strongly.






And would Rev. Prevo prevent these two gentlemen from coming to class dressed this way to talk about Scotland?


OK, these men aren't exactly dressed as women, but my assertion that what they wear is more like women's garments than men's is much closer to the truth than Prevo's various assertions about the 'horrible' things that would happen if the ordinance passed.

And what should we do about all the women teachers who come to school already wearing pants? Prevo doesn't raise this 'serious' problem. My belief is that in our society it's less of a problem for a woman to dress like a man, because it's natural for people to want to be mistaken for the people who have the most power. But it seems perverted, to some people, for people with power, to try to be like those with less power. So men shouldn't dress like women. It's giving away their male based privilege.

Sorry I can't let go of this quite yet. I suspect Prevo knows this is ludicrous, and he probably knows that those who introduced the ordinance did so because they think they have the votes to pass it. Last December, Frank Schaeffer was interviewed on National Public Radio. You can hear the interview at the link. From the NPR page:

Frank Schaeffer's parents, Francis and Edith, were best-selling authors who were instrumental in linking the evangelical community with the anti-abortion movement.

But after coming of age as an evangelist and helping to organize religious fundamentalists politically, Schaeffer had a crisis of faith: Though he is pro-life, he decided that abortion should remain legal.

One of the things he says in the interview is that abortion and gay issues were no big deal with his father when Frank (the son) was little. They became big issues for evangelicals because whenever they talked about them, they got lots and lots of donations.

So, I'm guessing that Prevo has a knee jerk reaction to the word 'gay'. It's less about stopping the ordinance than it's about raising money. This letter isn't aimed at the vast majority of people in Anchorage. It's far too silly. It's aimed at the rabidly ignorant who will open their wallets to fight the 'perverts.' So when Prevo writes:

It would allow any man to dress like a woman and use any public women's restroom. Ladies, do you want that to happen?

it's to alarm those folks, who don't think, into supporting Prevo's high lifestyle.

Of course, thinkers would shake their heads in disbelief. What's to stop men from dressing up as women now and going into women's bathrooms? The law? It's illegal to go through red lights, to litter, to beat up women, yet people do these things every day. And when the ordinance has passed and is law, I promise you that it won't prevent the police from arresting men who dress as women in order to get into women's restrooms.

First, the ordinance says:  [April 3, 2012: it's basically the same this time around]

The assembly finds that invidious discrimination in the sale or rental of real
property, financing practices, employment practices, public accommodations, educational institutions, and practices of the municipality, based upon race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, marital status, age, veteran’s status, or physical or mental disability, adversely affects the welfare of the community. Accordingly, such discrimination is prohibited.

Only the bold is new language. It is already illegal based on sex. So using Prevo's logic, men already can't be prevented from using the women's room. But simple practical logic tells us that since men already have an equal, alternative place to wash their hands, they aren't being discriminated against. In fact at big events, the lines are usually longer at the women's restrooms, not the men's. Sexual orientation doesn't change the fact that gay men are still men. So the same logic that applies to "sex" will apply to "sexual orientation." If it didn't happen when 'sex' became a protected class, it won't happen now.

Second, even if the ordinance did what Prevo asserts, the sexual orientation clause wouldn't save men who dress up as women to get into the women's room. Why not? Simple. Gay men aren't sexually interested in women. It is only straight men who would try to see women's private parts exposed. And they couldn't claim they were being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

There is one serious issue here though. Transgender folks. Despite what we've been taught, the distinction between men and women is not as clear cut as we tend to believe. This topic is far too complicated to start after I've already written so much here. My advice is for people to read Eugenides' Middlesex. Wikipedia says:

Middlesex is a novel by Jeffrey Eugenides. It was published in 2002 and won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2003.
The narrator and protagonist, Calliope Stephanides (later called "Cal"), an intersexed person of Greek descent, has 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. The bulk of the novel is devoted to telling his coming-of-age story growing up in Detroit, Michigan in the late 20th century.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but this novel gives at least one view of the topic in a way that makes the issue understandable to people who otherwise might dismiss people having a sex change as crazy. And it is a well written and interesting story. I would say this is the easiest way to get a good understanding of the topic.

I raise this because there are people who, as they are transitioning from one gender to another, will be using new restrooms. (I notice that Prevo isn't worried about women coming into men's rooms.) If someone reads Middlesex, and their mind isn't totally shut down, they will understand that these people pose no threat at all to women in the restroom.

I'm not satisfied with what I've found on the topic online for those who want to know more, but are not ready to get Middlesex from the library. Here's the Mayo Clinic's take on ambiguous genitalia.

When Did You Decide To Be Straight?

That's still the best response I've heard to someone who says gays choose to be gay.  This post at Bent Alaska, RJ Haywood's story of growing up gay in an Anchorage Baptist Temple family, also addresses that question powerfully.


 We vote in Anchorage to be part of the 20th Century - to stop allowing people to be discriminated against in housing and work etc. simply because they are gay.  Vote Yes on Proposition 5.  

Rather than start something new, here's a post I did from June 25, 2009.

Some Context of Holier Than Thou Types

From today's Anchorage Daily News:


From today's New York Times article on Governor Sanford:

But other senior Republican strategists and leaders said they were concerned that their party’s large segment of evangelical voters makes the party more vulnerable to political damage from scandal, especially when it involves politicians like Mr. Sanford and Mr. Ensign, who had both been harshly critical of the infidelities of former President Bill Clinton and others.

From a Wiki on Republican Sex Scandals we see a long list of politicians who have been involved in sex scandals. Granted that many were involved in state and local level politics, a number on this list (without having looked at further details of each) are said to have been particularly vocal against the sexual misdeeds of others. For example:

Matthew Glavin, president and CEO of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, big player in the Clinton Impeachment, and many anti-gay jihads, has been arrested multiple times for public indecency, one time fondling the crotch of the officer who was arresting him.[102]

The link gives us a longer article that begins with another fallen angel:

It had been a tough two weeks for anti-gay Republican moralists. First, John Paulk, the leader of the bogus Ex-Gay movement was caught frolicking in a Washington, D.C. gay bar.

And then goes on to talk about Glavin:

The Atlanta Journal Constitution notes that Glavin’s Southeastern Legal Foundation has been active in anti-gay crusades as well, helping the Boy Scouts "fend off a court challenge to their anti-gay posture," and leading "a charge against an Atlanta City Hall initiative to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners."

The wiki also got me to other links like this news story:

With the Mark Foley scandal still troubling Republicans, one of the nation's top evangelical leaders is now accused of paying for gay sex. Heading into Tuesday's election, when voters in eight states will decide on gay marriage bans, liberals and some conservatives are saying the party that prides itself on family values has a hypocrisy problem.

Ted Haggard, a staunch foe of gay marriage and occasional participant in White House conference calls, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and head of his Colorado church following allegations he met monthly with a gay prostitute for three years. Haggard denies having sex with the man, but admits receiving a massage and buying methamphetamine.
Five weeks ago, Foley -- a vocal advocate for exploited children -- resigned from Congress because of sexually tinged messages to male pages. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., a married father of three, has been burdened by revelations about his five-year affair with a mistress who says he physically abused her.

On tedhaggard.com, the former evangelist has a lengthy "healing overview" in which he refers to these events as "my personal crisis" or "my incongruity." The closest he comes to spelling things out is when he discusses what

...the Overseers, who were a group of 4 pastors from outside New Life Church that were given authority by the church bylaws to investigate alleged misconduct on the part of the Senior Pastor and, after their investigations, discipline or remove the Senior Pastor...

imposed on him after he "confessed my sins to them and resigned all of my positions."
Included in this list of requirements in addition to leaving the state of Colorado and other prohibitions was that he

not engage in any sexually immoral behavior.

That's as close as he gets to suggesting what his 'incongruity' was about. We have to look elsewhere to get the specifics.

Since being fired as pastor of New Life Church amid a gay-sex and drugs scandal, the Rev. Ted Haggard has discovered he's "completely heterosexual."
The Rev. Tim Ralph, senior pastor for New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur, told The Denver Post on Monday that Haggard's homosexual activity appears to be limited to Denver male escort Mike Jones, who said he and Haggard had a three-year sexual relationship.

The fact that I can't find nearly as extensive a list of Democratic sex scandals (Top Ten Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress shows up a few times) doesn't mean that Democrats are having less extra sex I'm sure. And I can't believe that Republicans aren't capable of making lists of Democratic transgressors. I suspect it's more about Democrats being less committed to sexual purity than Republicans. For Republicans, in addition to the sex, there is often the contrast to their strong 'morality' stance.

"The attention focused on these cases will inescapably lead people to think about these people's hypocrisy," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They make a career out of defaming gay people and preaching family values, when it's clear that it's just a veneer." (from Truthout)

When people focus so strongly on demonizing people over their sexual practices, one wonders what they themselves are trying to hide. Is the lashing out at others a way of projecting punishment for their own desires or guilt? Is it 'just a veneer?" I'm sure for some that is the case. What drives the others to such extremes?

Jerry, how about a heart to heart about your gay phobia. Or is it just that you found it stirs up the fears of your flock and they open their wallets when you cry "Gay?"

The Kids Know What They're Doing

When I stopped by the museum last week I also got to see the Anchorage School District's Annual Student Art Show. These kids have good imagination, good eye, and good execution. Unfortunately, I just see that it ended today. From the Museum's program of exhibits:

“Art Makes Anchorage: 40th Annual Anchorage School District Art Exhibition” On view March 2 through April 1 The 40th annual Anchorage School District exhibition showcases artwork from the district’s most creative student artists. The exhibition gives kindergarten through high school students the rare opportunity to display their art in a museum. Works are chosen by teachers and include drawings, paintings, and sculpture.

As I went through the exhibit I shot a few that really grabbed my eyes.  Lucas (the otter above), sorry, my picture was too blurred to catch your whole name.  Email me and I'll put it up.  I was going to go back, but then I saw it was over today.   Wow!  That walrus face!  And Aaron's fish are amazing.  They're even better close up.  And he's only in the second grade. 

OK.  I'm partial to bikes, but it takes daring for a 6th grader to cut off the front and back and bottom.  But it makes a great picture.  And look at how Katherine put the art supplies together on the page.  Look at the detail of her background. 

Both of these above are exceptional.  The top one (Chris Maron - sorry it font was too small) is grade 3, but look at the design and how it isn't constrained by the borders or the normal vertical and horizontal.  And Cheyenne's colors and designs are wonderful. 

Jaz' birch trees are terrific.  Steven Gordon, watch out!  I'm joking.  Art shouldn't be a competitive sport.  I bet Steven and Jaz would get along great.  And look how Paige carries off her abstract mountains.  They are all wonderful.

Art is NOT fluff.  It's not a subject that can be discarded as a luxury.  Aside from jobs in art and theater, every car, every package, every advertisement, every building, every iProduct, is better because an artist participated.