Laurie Essig

Electoral results: suppress the vote, bash the queers, and buy the vote

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image by Getty Images via Daylife"][/caption]

Yesterdays elections are being written off in the media as unimportant or indicative of nothing.  But in fact there are some fairly interesting lessons to be learned in yesterday's vote: 1.  The fewer poor and or Black people that vote, the better for the Republicans. This is the lesson in Virginia where the voter turn out was much lower than last year, when Obama won the state.  And African American votes went from 1/5 to about 16% of voters. This has long been the strategy of the GOP.  In 1980, Paul Weyrich, the founder of the conservative movement was saying:  "I don't want everyone to vote.  Elections are not won by a majority of people.  They're won by a majority of voters." The fight against ACORN is partly a fight about voter suppression.  ACORN gets people to register to vote who do not normally register to vote.  Kill ACORN and other efforts to get more people to vote and you manage to help the GOP. 2.  Denying gays and lesbians the same rights as straight people is still a good strategy for winning. This is a lesson learned in Virginia, where newly elected GOP Governor McDonnell believes, at least according to a 20-year old graduate school thesis he wrote at the evangelical Regent University, that government should strengthen the traditional family by working against gay rights, abortion rights, and even women in the workplace (i.e. working women undermine the family). It is also the lesson in Maine, where a recently passed same-sex marriage law was overturned by the voters. Ah heck, it's also a lesson at Obama's Whitehouse where not a single thing has been done to stop discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military or to support same-sex marriage legislation. It's good for the Republicans; it's good for the Dems; it just ain't so good for the gays and lesbians. 3. Rich candidates can buy the election. Although the NY Times is trying to spin Michael Bloomberg's re-election as mayor of New York City as "close," the truth is he won and he won because he outspent his opponent by 14 to 1.  In fact, Bloomberg poured $90 million of his own dollars into the election. Of course, lesson number 1 also can be applied, since the Republican mayor also won an election where

the turnout appeared to be on track to be among the lowest in modern New York history.

The real lessons to be drawn from this election and every other one is that until there is real reform of campaign finance laws, until civil rights are not decided by a majority of voters, and until the GOP is held accountable for decades of voter suppression, the results of the election are that the best strategy for winning is not to run an honest campaign with good ideas for governance.  Instead, the best way to win an election is to suppress the vote, bash the queers, and buy the vote. Christie Wins in New Jersey, McDonnell in Virginia - NYTimes.com.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ten key election races and results (cnn.com)

Electoral results: suppress the vote, bash the queers, and buy the vote

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image by Getty Images via Daylife"][/caption]

Yesterdays elections are being written off in the media as unimportant or indicative of nothing.  But in fact there are some fairly interesting lessons to be learned in yesterday's vote: 1.  The fewer poor and or Black people that vote, the better for the Republicans. This is the lesson in Virginia where the voter turn out was much lower than last year, when Obama won the state.  And African American votes went from 1/5 to about 16% of voters. This has long been the strategy of the GOP.  In 1980, Paul Weyrich, the founder of the conservative movement was saying:  "I don't want everyone to vote.  Elections are not won by a majority of people.  They're won by a majority of voters." The fight against ACORN is partly a fight about voter suppression.  ACORN gets people to register to vote who do not normally register to vote.  Kill ACORN and other efforts to get more people to vote and you manage to help the GOP. 2.  Denying gays and lesbians the same rights as straight people is still a good strategy for winning. This is a lesson learned in Virginia, where newly elected GOP Governor McDonnell believes, at least according to a 20-year old graduate school thesis he wrote at the evangelical Regent University, that government should strengthen the traditional family by working against gay rights, abortion rights, and even women in the workplace (i.e. working women undermine the family). It is also the lesson in Maine, where a recently passed same-sex marriage law was overturned by the voters. Ah heck, it's also a lesson at Obama's Whitehouse where not a single thing has been done to stop discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military or to support same-sex marriage legislation. It's good for the Republicans; it's good for the Dems; it just ain't so good for the gays and lesbians. 3. Rich candidates can buy the election. Although the NY Times is trying to spin Michael Bloomberg's re-election as mayor of New York City as "close," the truth is he won and he won because he outspent his opponent by 14 to 1.  In fact, Bloomberg poured $90 million of his own dollars into the election. Of course, lesson number 1 also can be applied, since the Republican mayor also won an election where

the turnout appeared to be on track to be among the lowest in modern New York history.

The real lessons to be drawn from this election and every other one is that until there is real reform of campaign finance laws, until civil rights are not decided by a majority of voters, and until the GOP is held accountable for decades of voter suppression, the results of the election are that the best strategy for winning is not to run an honest campaign with good ideas for governance.  Instead, the best way to win an election is to suppress the vote, bash the queers, and buy the vote. Christie Wins in New Jersey, McDonnell in Virginia - NYTimes.com.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ten key election races and results (cnn.com)

Not having curtains is now illegal in Virginia

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="180" caption="Image by whatleydude via Flickr"][/caption]

Is walking around your house naked a crime?  What about brewing a pot of coffee naked? What about walking around your house naked to brew a pot of coffee in the morning while children walk to a nearby bus stop? Apparently in Virginia it is not necessarily a crime to brew coffee au natural, but it is if you don't have curtains at your windows and can be seen by your nosy neighbors walking by.

Eric Williamson, 29, said he did know he could be seen. There is a school bus stop in front of his house. Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me," Williamson told MyFoxDC.com. "I'm a loving dad-- any of my friends would tell you that," Williamson said. "There is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever do anything like that to a kid. Fairfax police say that, according to a witness, Williamson wanted to be seen naked. If convicted, he could be fined $2,000 and spend a year in jail.

Naked Man Charged With Indecent Exposure For Brewing Coffee In Own Home. This brings up several issues, most of them uniquely American. First of all there is the conflation of a nude body with a threat to children. "There is a school bus stop in front of his house."  Well, actually it's across the street from his house and there's a yard so the children would have to be pretty interested in looking at the naked guy brewing coffee to see him.  And, of course, he's brewing coffee, not a particularly sexual act.  Had Williamson been jerking off in his own home, no doubt the supposed connection between being naked and "a threat to children" would be written in stone.  American children are taught to fear all adult sexuality as predatory, even when it has nothing to do with them.  But how exactly would children be harmed by peeping in a man's window and seeing him set the coffee to "brew" while he scratched his underwear-free private parts?  Perhaps the children would be appropriately grossed out and learn not to look into peoples' windows?  And perhaps they would realize that not all naked men are a sexual threat? Second, there's the deeply-held belief that any leakage between the private and the public is a threat.  In the Victorian Era, there was an absolute obsession with keeping the public and private spheres separate.  The home was private, clean, feminine and safe.  The city was public, masculine, dirty and dangerous.  No doubt the early obsession with marking private from public stemmed from urbanization and immigration.  There was a lot of crossing of boundaries.  Classes and races mixed together.  Middle-class women shifted their roles from private producers of domestic goods to public shoppers for such goods.  Soap and cleaning products were some of the first products advertised, and they were advertised as a way to keep ourselves clean by not allowing our private worlds to be  polluted with the "filth" of the public world. Williamson refused to respect the boundary between public and private by leaving the windows into his private home open to public view.  At the same time, the passerbys violated the public/private divide by looking in. Private behavior- that is, naked coffee making- leaked into the public sphere-- "the bus stop."  Now the coffee and the children are both contaminated.  The answer is simple: curtains.  But the answer is also complex: there is no real line between private and public, only an imaginary one that we draw by taking off our shoes when we walk in the door, scrubbing the boundary lines between our private homes and the dirty public streets, and pretending as if we can ever be safe from the contagious behavior of others.

Can states f*#k their way to fiscal health?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

So I was reading this news story about how state budgets are so terribly strapped that they're thinking about legalizing marijuana in California, charging prison inmates more rent in Virginia and charging strip club patrons a "pole" tax in Georgia. Strip clubs, marijuana eyed during budget crunch - CNN.com. I won't get into the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana or charging prisoners higher rent for their cells, because I have little or no expertise in this field, but the last one got me thinking about f*#king our way to fiscal health. You see, I do know a lot about commercial sex.  In fact, I have spent the last several days doing content analysis of porn sites.  It's research, I swear, for my book on cosmetic surgery.  Besides, do you really think counting the number of boob jobs on penisbot.com is fun?  Anyway, while researching cosmetic surgery and porn, I was reminded of one of the most innovative porn sites to come along:  Fuck for Forest. Fuck for Forest (FFF) is a not-for-profit porn site that charges viewers money and then uses that money to help save the Rain Forest and the indigenous people who live there.  Started with seed money from the Norwegian government, FFF was able to raise over $100,000 in profit in their first year alone by showcasing lusty tattoed and pierced folks f*#king in the woods. I realize that $100K is a drop in the bucket in the $10billion ocean that is the US porn industry, but still, it does seem like states might be able to capitalize on this.  After all, I am not one to believe the economy is about to "right" itself after decades of unsustainable growth, exploitation of the environment, and the transfer of wealth and resources to a few.  But state sponsored porn could at least keep things like unemployment benefits around until we come up with a better plan. And let's face it, paying to get off seems like a plan with more likely rewards than buying a lottery ticket.  Besides, the possibilities are endless.  In a state like California, famous folks could offer to frolic for fiscal health.  Suddenly the Gubenator and some super patriotic Hollywood type, like Britney, could do the dirty and we could pay $10 to log on and see it.  Of course, things get trickier in less erotic states.  I am pretty sure there is no one connected to the state government of Georgia whom I want to see in a steamy shower scene.  Probably ditto for Iowa, Maryland, and a few dozen other states. Still, if there is one thing that being a serious student of porn has taught me is that human desire and fantasy knows no bounds.  Now if the states could just figure out how to translate the sin of lust into revenue in the same way they've made gambling pay off.

Can states f*#k their way to fiscal health?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]

So I was reading this news story about how state budgets are so terribly strapped that they're thinking about legalizing marijuana in California, charging prison inmates more rent in Virginia and charging strip club patrons a "pole" tax in Georgia. Strip clubs, marijuana eyed during budget crunch - CNN.com. I won't get into the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana or charging prisoners higher rent for their cells, because I have little or no expertise in this field, but the last one got me thinking about f*#king our way to fiscal health. You see, I do know a lot about commercial sex.  In fact, I have spent the last several days doing content analysis of porn sites.  It's research, I swear, for my book on cosmetic surgery.  Besides, do you really think counting the number of boob jobs on penisbot.com is fun?  Anyway, while researching cosmetic surgery and porn, I was reminded of one of the most innovative porn sites to come along:  Fuck for Forest. Fuck for Forest (FFF) is a not-for-profit porn site that charges viewers money and then uses that money to help save the Rain Forest and the indigenous people who live there.  Started with seed money from the Norwegian government, FFF was able to raise over $100,000 in profit in their first year alone by showcasing lusty tattoed and pierced folks f*#king in the woods. I realize that $100K is a drop in the bucket in the $10billion ocean that is the US porn industry, but still, it does seem like states might be able to capitalize on this.  After all, I am not one to believe the economy is about to "right" itself after decades of unsustainable growth, exploitation of the environment, and the transfer of wealth and resources to a few.  But state sponsored porn could at least keep things like unemployment benefits around until we come up with a better plan. And let's face it, paying to get off seems like a plan with more likely rewards than buying a lottery ticket.  Besides, the possibilities are endless.  In a state like California, famous folks could offer to frolic for fiscal health.  Suddenly the Gubenator and some super patriotic Hollywood type, like Britney, could do the dirty and we could pay $10 to log on and see it.  Of course, things get trickier in less erotic states.  I am pretty sure there is no one connected to the state government of Georgia whom I want to see in a steamy shower scene.  Probably ditto for Iowa, Maryland, and a few dozen other states. Still, if there is one thing that being a serious student of porn has taught me is that human desire and fantasy knows no bounds.  Now if the states could just figure out how to translate the sin of lust into revenue in the same way they've made gambling pay off.