Penguins Die in Crash; Octopus Uninjured

On a night when political junkies are surfing the net looking for the most recent results from the Connecticut and Georgia polls, how can you not get sucked in by a news link on CNN.com: Penguins Die in Crash; Octopus Uninjured.

Now the story is that a truck overturned carrying some unusual livestock.

"Four penguins and some exotic fish were killed in the accident, including three penguins that were hit by passing motorists, said Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Richard Buchanan.

"The rest of the penguins kind of stayed together in the ditch," he said.

And the octopus was uninjured.

But, it coulda been worse:

The trooper said it was the oddest traffic accident he had ever handled.

"We've worked several wrecks involving cows, horses, pigs, even fish, but this is the first where the live animals were penguins."

Buchanan said he was glad the accident was not worse.

"There was another truck full of snakes and alligators that was an hour ahead of them, so luckily we didn't have to deal with the alligators," Buchanan said.

I know that there is a metaphor in here somewhere for Democrats watching tonight's election returns. I just haven't figured it out yet.

Keeping it Civil; "Hate" is Not a Political Slogan or a Civic Value

Update: Style Weekly published a slightly edited version of this post on its Back Page on August 30, 2006.

This morning I listened to a civil debate between surrogates for Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

Then, I read this quote from Buck O'Neil, a self-described "proud ... Negro League ballplayer," on the occasion of the induction this week of 17 Negro leaguers and Negro leagues executives into the National Baseball Hall of Fame:

And I tell you what: They always said to me, "Buck, I know you hate people for what they did to you or what they did to your folks." I said, "No, man, I never learned to hate."

I hate cancer. Cancer killed my mother. My wife died 10 years ago of cancer. I hate AIDS. A good friend of mine died of AIDS three months ago. I hate AIDS. But I can't hate a human being, because my God never made anything so ugly. Now, you can be ugly if you want to, but God didn't make you that way.

It got me thinking again about one of the points that Mary Sue Terry made in the great speech she gave at the recent Virginia Women in Politics Conference. After speaking thoughtfully about the need to use long-term thinking in solving current issues and avoiding lost opportunities, Terry urged careful consideration of the language of politics. She expressed concern about language that makes politics a war or battle rather than a conversation or discussion. She talked about the need to change the nature of political discourse. She urged women not to participate in the use of "war" and "battle" language in politics. She reminded the audience that the language used can become a predictor of behavior.

This is a theme I have visited before. In spring 2000, I asked noted linguist Deborah Tannen, who had just published her book, The Argument Culture: Stopping the War of Words, to address the language of conflict in politics at the annual Southern Women in Politics Conference held that year in Northern Virginia. She has spoken and written about this here, here and here.

Her message:

... there's something deeper that I'm trying to talk about-the power of words to frame how you think about things, how you feel about things, how you perceive the world. The tendency in our culture to use war metaphors so pervasively, and to frame everything as a metaphorical battle, influences how we approach each other in our everyday lives. We end up thinking problems are insoluble, because we have allowed the polarized extremes to frame the debate.

In March 2005, I wrote a piece titled: "Let's Change the Language of Politics -- It's Time to Stop the Hate." Writing about the use of the term "hate," particularly by Kerry supporters, in the 2004 presidential campaign, I said:

I have trouble understanding why many of my politically passionate friends (regardless of party affiliation) without hesitation describe their disagreement with particular politicians on policy as reasons to "hate" that person. ...

I believe "hate" is a term that should be reserved for persons whose actions are so antithetical to common decency and civility, such an affront to our common humanity, that they should provoke a visceral, unreasoned antipathy among all people of good heart and right reason.

Should we not "hate" our captors if we were Iraqi prisoners subjected to abuse and torture or the relatives of kidnapped civilians beheaded on video for worldwide consumption? Should we not "hate" terrorists who purposely kill civilians to make a political point? Should we not "hate" bigots who maim and kill solely because someone is of another race, religion or sexual orientation? ...

What troubles me about the almost routine use of the term "hate" to describe people with whom we disagree in our daily discourse on matters of public concern is that it desensitizes us to the real meaning of the term and the emotion and passion that it normally evokes.

Can leaders and parents teach tolerance or expect tolerance from our children when we are so ready to describe objects of mere political disagreements as people we "hate"? ...

Before we continue to speak about our political opponents as people we "hate", we should think about the message we are sending to our children about when it is okay to "hate." We should not be teaching our children that it is okay to "hate" anyone just because they have different beliefs, unless those beliefs are so abhorrent that they shock the conscience.

We should consider the words of President George Washington, and ask ourselves before we speak if our words will live up to his expectation of the "demeanor" of "good citizens":

"Happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction and to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demeanor themselves as good citizens."

We should give bigotry no sanction and persecution no assistance by sending the wrong messages to those we lead or nurture. As Max DePree says in his book Leadership Jazz, "[w]e are dealing with God's mix, people made in God's image, a compelling mystery." "We are all authentic in our own right; no person awards us authenticity; we are born with it."

No one is worthy of hate, when that assessment is made only because they bring to that mix a different point of view, a different tradition of faith or a different political position.

This is an important lesson to learn for those of us participating in the debates of this campaign season about candidates and issues, including the Marshall/Newman amendment.

We do ourselves and our causes no good if we stoop to name-calling and demonizing our opponents. We teach our children the wrong lessons if we teach them through the language we use that it is okay to hate someone for their beliefs or their being or that politics is a "battle" or "boxing match" properly "fought" from opposite "extremes" or opposing "corners."

Anyone who doubts the power of words to incite behavior need look no further than the recent incident of hate violence against a gay couple living peaceably in Loudoun County. Can anyone doubt that words of hate fueled the attack there?

I haven't quite gotten out of the habit of participating in the use of "fighting" references in my political lexicon, as Mary Sue recommended. But, I'm working on it. Bad habits are hard to break and good habits are hard to keep.

What I do know is this.

Hearts and minds are not changed by force of battle. They are led to change by love and the gentle persuasion of conversation and thoughtful consideration.

Spinning around the Poll; Allen Set Up for Election Day Surprise?

Not Larry Sabato has an early look at the most recent Mason/Dixon poll that shows Allen over Webb by 48% to 32%.

Bloggers for Allen are doing their level best, here, here and here to spin this and other recent polling as positively as they can for their candidate.

But, the reality is that Allen's consistent showing at or below 50% is a sure sign of trouble for him and any incumbent.

Check out this analysis over at PollingReport.com by Nick Panagakis , for example, that reports:

An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing.

The key is the behavior of undecided voters. Again, according to Panagakis:

our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

And, as to the "spread":

The overwhelming evidence is that an incumbent won’t share the undecideds equally with the challenger. To suggest otherwise by emphasizing point spread or to say that an incumbent is ahead when his or her percentage is well under 50% leads to election day surprises.

But, according to Zogby, the 16 point spread shown in Mason/Dixon may indicate some break in the clouds looming over the Allen campaign:

... traditionally, the undecideds break for the challenger against the incumbent on the basis of the fact, simply, that the voters already know the incumbent, and it's a referendum on the incumbent. And if the incumbent is polling, generally, under 50 percent and leading by less than 10, historically, incumbents have lost 7 out of 10 times.

At a minimum, the weak Allen showing indicates that Virginia voters may be willing to consider a change. Check out this analysis of the Daschle/Thune race on election eve. Or this report re: Lieberman's travails.

It's up to Webb to prove that he's a viable challenger and preferable alternative to Allen. If he can do that, victory may be his on November 7th.

"Activist" Judges Defined; Test is Eye of the Beholder

Found this interesting definition of "activist judge" in the Christian Coalition of Georgia's 2006 questionnaire for judges, who unlike judges in Virginia, campaign to get elected:

"Judicial activism occurs when a judge interjects his or her own personal beliefs and policy views to achieve a desired outcome by failing to adhere closely and strictly to the text of a statute or constitutional provision."

The questionnaire asks candidates to declare that this would never be appropriate in any case.

It also goes on to ask judges (often in biased language and slanted wording) for their personal, moral or policy views on a variety of topics including:

Roe v. Wade
Denial of adoption based on sexual orientation
Domestic partner benefits
Same sex marriage
Prayer in schools
Flag burning and
Tort Reform

These are just some of the policy, personal and moral issues covered in the 37 question form candidates for Georgia judgeships are asked to sign.

Forget judicial independence. Forget that the common law tradition we brought from England is a tradition of judge-made law that still controls much of tort and contract law.

Just ask yourself, if personal views are to be set aside, why do we need to know what a judge's views are?

Now it's clear. The Christian Coalition is simply looking for judges who will be activists on their side of the issues.

Kind of like when Jerry Falwell went shopping for a federal judge (supported by the ACLU) when he wanted the Virginia constitutional provision banning the incorporation of churches declared unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Now that a federal judge has held Virginia's constitutional limitation unconstitutional, the voters will be asked in the fall to vote to repeal it as "obsolete".

Seems kind of ironic doesn't it? Asking the voters to approve the unappealed finding of a single "activist judge" who held a provision of Virginia law must yield to the higher power of rights guaranteed in the federal constitution.

Where in the US constitution does it say that a church has a right to be incorporated? Does a church have freedom of religion? Isn't it a judicial extension of the First Amendment to say that its protection of individual religious free exercise extends to the corporate form of organizational entities?

Just asking.....

President Bush Commits Assault

Jaded JD has a LOL post up including this video clip of the President of the United States committing a simple assault (an unconsented touching) on the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It's too generous to call what the President did sexual harassment, although it is clear that the President did something to the prime minister that he, clearly, would not have done to a male member of the G8.

This is one where a picture is worth a thousand words.

Now, I know that there are some who will defend this as a "nice" gesture, designed to ease the Chancellor's tension. That dog won't hunt.

My guess is that Merkel had annoyed the President or was perceived by him to be too assertive or to have too much power in the room. This move is one that asserts his role as the alpha male and is designed to diminish the stature of the person over whom he shows physical dominance.

I'd like to think that Bush is smart enough to have done this in a calculated way. Unfortunately, my guess is that it was simply an instinctive (and immature) reaction to a situation that was unconscious.

And, that speaks volumes about Bush, his stature on the world stage and his basic attitudes toward woman.

Scary isn't it?

Blogger badge

If I were smart I could get one of these on my sidebar without messing up my template format ...but having tried for longer than I care to admit... I have to admit I'm just not that smart.

Sisyphus: Commonwealth Coalition fundraising concert July 8th

Sisyphus has this post about a concert this weekend to benefit The Commonwealth Coalition, an organization of individuals and organizations committed to voting NO on the Marshall/Newman amendment.

Sisyphus: Commonwealth Coalition fundraising concert July 8th

Blogs United in Martinsville

Alton has posted up some more detail about the agenda for the Blogs United conference over at ImNotEmeril.

Topics on the program include libel, FOIA, Net Neutrality .... lots of time for schmoozing with fellow bloggers.

Attorney General McDonnell will speak again ... wonder if there's any chance for an elected Democrat to have a shot at the podium?

And, it would be nice if Vivian or Kat or one of the other talented women bloggers or women who could contribute to the topics on the agenda were added to the list of speakers/panelists.

Looking good, Alton... keep on keeping on.

Alton/ImNotEmeril ... I apologize... Send me more info, please

Alton:
You asked for an apology. Here it is.

I am sorry. I did not mean to hurt your feelings, impugn your integrity or cause any other personal affront or offense.

Please send me permalinks (other web addresses) (or post them in comments below) with the following information so that I can better help promote your efforts:
1) date, time, place of the bloggers conference you are planning;
2) names of persons participating in planning or scheduled to present;
3) program for the event;
4) information on registration;
5) posts or other communications inviting comments/participation from fellow bloggers;
6) any other information that would be valuable in marketing the conference to other bloggers.

Thanks.
Claire

2006 VA Political Bloggers Conference

Some random thoughts on this weekend's bloggers conference in Charlottesville (unfortunately, I was only able to be there on Saturday):

Decrying the Divide
I am disappointed that the Virginia political blogosphere has allowed egos, partisan bickering and polarization to divide bloggers into those who attended the "liberal" Sorenson conference (strange denomination given keynotes by McDonnell and Bolling, but it is true that conservative bloggers were outnumbered) and those who will attend a "conservative" bloggers conference in Collinsville in August.

Last year's blogger's conference was distinguished by the collaboration of Chad and Waldo bringing the blogging world together as a "community" to engage in reasoned discourse across philosophical and political lines. Perhaps we should all go to Collinsville to seek to rebuild communications across the silly battle lines drawn this summer, that is, if those of us who participated in this weekend's meeting are "allowed" to attend the other.

C'mon guys... Do we need to model our behavior on the traditional organizations that we all so often criticize? Wouldn't it be refreshing if we could come together despite egos and politics to engage each other as peers? We should try to do better.

Blue Dog
Being obstreperous and contentious is my friend Steve's brand. He didn't disappoint.

Campaign Finance
Chris Piper did his usual effective job helping folks understand the state campaign finance rules to the extent that they are understandable. Audience member, former governor's counsel, and campaign law expert, Lee Goodman, added great substantive comments to the discussion.

For the most part, using common sense works. If you get paid to blog, campaigns would have to report your fees just as they'd have to report any other payments for services. If you get paid to blog by others and you give your services to the campaign, the market value of the services should be reported as an in-kind contribution. If someone pays you for an ad, they'd have to report it; if you give a campaign free ad space for which you charge others, it's an in-kind contribution. But there are a lot of gray areas.

That's why it's time to seek greater clarity regarding the rules regarding "internet communications" in Virginia. The new federal rules (published March 27th) provide a helpful starting place. Under those rules, paid ads on blogs and payments for blogging services must be reported by campaigns. Otherwise blogging is pretty much exempt. There are other rules for mass emails, etc, that also deserve some thought.

Read the rules here, the FEC's FAQs here and some analysis here,and here.

Ethics and Standards of Conduct
Jim Bacon would be so pleased. Even the "wild westers" from last year seem to see some value in a voluntary code of ethics.

I agree with Mike Shear (WaPo reporter who was Saturday's lunch speaker) that, if a blogger wants to be seen as a journalist, a blogger has to act like a journalist -- not a repeater of idle gossip, innuendo and items of suspect truth.

I also believe that those of us in the blogospere who play varying roles, campaign worker, lobbyist, etc, owe it to our readers to make clear what role we are playing on our blogs or posts. Our profiles should contain sufficient information to allow readers to evaluate our biases. Specific posts should also include a disclaimer/other info where appropriate.

Pseudonymous blogging is not journalism. It is, like the Federalist Papers and other anonymous tracts, a platform for conveying a point of view without having to take responsibility for it or to hide from readers the bias/posture/profession/job of the author. That said, like the Federalist Papers, it is not inherently bad nor without redeeming social value.

Anonymous posting is the tool of the paid blogger or the troll or the irresponsible person or the person who wouldn't have the nerve to say or want to be judged for saying what he/she posts and who doesn't want to be tied to his/her doggerel even by a regularly used pseudonym.

EJournalism or Community
Bloggers need to decide 1) whether they are journalists (like Jim Bacon) who create an environment in which they publish information and opinion and where comments will, like letters to the editor, be less frequent and more substantive ;
or
2) whether they are writers/commentators trying to create an interactive community where they write and other folks come to share their views and opinions (hopefully, respectfully and with some measure of maturity).

I think that it is difficult to try to be both, although some seem to think it possible or a goal to be sought.

In either case, as Waldo says, you set the standard and you get back what you send out. If you are mature, you get mature. If you are juvenile, you get juvenile.

My blog is, unfortunately, in that wasteland in between jounalism and community.

Not regular enough nor informed enough to be journalism, and not "friendly" enough to generate community.

I need to think about that.

Let me know what you think.

Talking about a real woman

Okay. I admit it. I've got a "girl crush" on Dolly Parton.

I was at the Southern Women in Public Service conference in Nashville this week where Dolly was presented with the Lindy Boggs award for public service. She entered the ballroom to accept the award singing "9 to 5" ... gave a great speech ... got off some great one liners in an interview with 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cissy Daughtry (think frumpy 60 something interviews not so frumpy ageless woman) ... and sang "her favorite song" "Coat of Many Colors" strumming her guitar expertly with improbably long fingernails.

Among the things she said I remember....

Asked to comment on her song for the movie Transamerica ... she began by saying that everyone should be free (as she says she is) to be exactly who they are. Then she reminded folks that she'd been nominated for "9 to 5" and lost in a year when Cissy Spacek did the Loretta Lynn movie and that this year she'd been nominated this year and lost when Reese Witherspoon was doing June Carter Cash in Walk the Line. She quipped that next time she hoped that she wouldn't be nominated in a year with a country music movie.

Asked what advice she had for a man thinking about becoming a woman she said, "I'd tell him the installation will be expensive, but it's the maintenance that will kill you."

Asked about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, she said that Republicans care about "the bottom line" and Democrats are more "top heavy." (Okay, think about it... Dolly Parton).

Asked what she thinks about dumb blonde jokes she said she didn't really mind them because she knows that she's not dumb and, more importantly, that she's not blond.

She poked fun at herself and had not a single remotely unkind word to say about anyone else.

She was "real" in every way you can imagine that matters, while acknowledging that almost none of what you see is "natural."

Dolly received her award in significant part because of her work in founding The Imagination Library.
Because of her efforts, children all over the country have books at home to inspire them to read and to help them prepare for school.

Let's see ... rich, smart, good looking, nice as can be, great sense of humor, focused on children as our future, great voice, wonderful songwriter ... etc, etc.

Now you can see why I'm smitten.

Watch out Men ... The Women are Coming

Two interesting articles recently highlight the enhanced role that women will play in the future of the American economy and in Washington politics ...

Cited on the Post's blog, On Balance,is an article that appeared in The Economist on April 12th (available online only to subscribers). In The Economist article titled Women and the World Economy, the lead was ...

WHY can't a woman be more like a man? mused Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady. Future generations might ask why a man can't be more like a woman.…

Commenting on the article, the Post blogger points out that women have made phenomenal progress in the last 50 years ... so much so that their success (and economic power) is beginning to threaten men. However, the reality of the marketplace is that women continue to make less than men on average.

One question that the article provokes for me is that posed by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid's Tale ... if men are threatened by women's economic strength, what steps might they take to stay in power and control rather than let "nature" and demography take its course?

And, if that weren't enough, today's K Street Confidential column in the business section of the Post is headlined "Women, Minorities Make Up New Generation of Lobbyists" Why the change? High powered women exiting government through the revolving door looking for work is one reason. Flexibility of the work is another. Here's a reason offered by a partner in a woman-owned lobbying firm:

"This town has shifted business models from the Old Boys Network to a focus on substance, competence and credibility," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal of Venn Strategies LLC, a woman-owned lobbying firm. "In the old model it was difficult if you were a woman. In the new model you can be a man or a woman and it doesn't matter."

Wow ... expertise over relationships or golf scores. What's this world coming to?

Ten Tips for Becoming an Effective Advocate

#1 Google rated blogger for women entrepreneurs,Kirsten Osolind, has a great feature on her re:invention blog. Every Saturday she posts 10 Tips for 10 Million Women -- featuring advice for women entrepreneurs by women entrepreneurs.

Last Saturday, she featured my Ten Tips for Becoming a Grass Roots Advocate (a revised and updated version of an article that I wrote for NAWBOTime). It's a handy reference for women business owners who want to succeed in the "business" of advocacy at the local, state or federal level.

Let Kirsten know if you've got 10 Tips that you'd like her to feature. You'll find the link to submit your wisdom on the blog.

The Path To Electing More Women May Lead Through Redistricting

GOP Hokie has been writing about the redistricting. Here's one thing he probably hasn't thought about:

American University Professor Barbara Palmer is the co-author of an interesting new book about women candidates for political office that got great coverage in David Broder's column in the Washington Post this week.

Among the most interesting of Palmer's findings reported by Broder is this:

Demographic changes now underway will increase the number of districts where women can compete. But the radical suggestion from Palmer and Simon is for states to use this knowledge of what makes a district "woman-friendly" in the next round of redistricting, after the 2010 Census, to increase substantially the number of women in Congress. As women in state legislatures position themselves for the coming redistricting battles, that's something they can keep in mind.

There's lots more of interest in the book, "Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling: Women and Congressional Elections," which looks at all of the women candidates who ran for Congress between 1956 and 2004 and identifies the characteristics of the districts in which they won and lost.

Sounds like a good read for anyone who wants to run for Congress or who would like to help identify women candidates for districts well-suited to electing them or who would like to know how to draw districts that would elect women!

Delegate Kilgore --- One Man --- Three Masters?

In a little noticed development upstate, Delegate Terry Kilgore has been named Dean of Institutional Advancement at the University of Appalachia, a new private university in Grundy. In the school's press release, Kilgore is quoted as saying he intends to continue representing clients in "serious injury" cases, and there's no indication that he intends to give up his seat in the legislature:

Delegate Kilgore noted that he is in the process of phasing out of his general practice of law and will maintain his legislative district office in Gate City where he and his wife, Debbie, also an educator, and their two children, Kayla and Kyle, continue to reside. “I will continue on a part time basis to represent a limited number of serious injury clients as part of my agreement with the University of Appalachia. It is important that I stay actively involved in the legal profession and it was not an easy decision to make this transition. But with all the expanding opportunities for further educating our high school graduates happening right here in Southwest Virginia I cannot resist doing what I can to make that happen on a larger and more aggressive scale.”

The head of the University said of Kilgore's selection:

"Terry will be instrumental in expanding program development, promoting scholarships and fundraising, and increasing the awareness of educational and health care needs of Southwest Virginia. He has shown great enthusiasm in taking this office and has begun making contacts and setting up site visits well before his start date. Terry strengthens our leadership team and will help make our mission become a reality.”

So, Terry will be an agressive advocate for the constituents who elected him, the University, and his continuing legal clients -- all at the same time. Wonder how we'll know when he's doing which job.

There is always the potential for conflict with a citizen legislature, but this may be a situation where it will be difficult to parse expected loyalties.

Can one man serve three demanding masters well and without conflict (especially when two of the jobs require significant fundraising)? Guess we'll find out.

Ohio Appeals Courts Split on Application of Ohio Marriage Amendment in Domestic Violence Cases

This week one of the 12 Ohio appellate courts ruled that the Ohio marriage amendment bars prosecution of domestic violence cases involving unmarried partners. News reports here, here, and here.

This is the fifth of the 12 appeals courts in Ohio to rule on this issue. The first four appellate decisions went the other way. See this decision, for example. It will take a decision of the Ohio Supreme Court to resolve the conflict and determine the issue once and for all.

The following is excerpted from the decision of Ohio's 2nd District Court of Appeals, located in Dayton, in the case of State of Ohio v. Karen Ward:

This appeal concerns the issue of whether the provision in the domestic violence statute extending the protections of that criminal statute to "a person living as a spouse" offends the Defense of Marriage amendment to the Ohio Constitution adopted by the voters in 2004 because it recognizes "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the effect of marriage."

We conclude that it does.

Let us suppose that the (Defense of Marriage) amendment were given the more restrictive interpretation. The evident purpose behind the second sentence of the amendment — to prohibit the indirect recognition of non-traditional marriages — could die the death of a thousand cuts. Imagine the adoption of a testimonial privilege for quasi-spouses, the addition of quasi-spouses alongside spouses and children as beneficiaries in wrongful death actions, the addition of quasi-spouses to the class of family members who can recover for loss of consortium, or the addition of a quasi-spouse to the list of persons who must be notified of a woman's intention to have an abortion.

The list is endless.

At what point would the second sentence of the amendment be deemed to have been violated? Would only the last in the series of legislative enactments, common law rulings, and administrative or judicial rule-making be voided for unconstitutionality?

Suppose that, after a long series of legal struggles to enhance the rights of non-traditional, quasi-spouses, the only remaining point of difference in Ohio between a spouse and a quasi-spouse were that the spouse, but not the quasi-spouse, could claim an additional $25 credit on the Ohio income tax? Would that avoid implicating the second sentence of the amendment because actual spouses and quasi-spouses are not treated identically for all legal purposes in Ohio?

In our view, the jurisprudence contemplated by the hypotheticals recited above would be unworkable. The general principle evident in the second sentence to the Defense of Marriage amendment is that a legal status of a de facto marital relationship shall neither be created nor recognized in Ohio as having the same effect as the legal status of a de jure marital relationship. It is tempting to speculate which of potential exceptions to this general principle would have found favor with a majority of the Ohioans who voted for the Defense of Marriage amendment, but this would be mere speculation.

In our view, the second sentence was intended to avoid the prospect of the Ohio General Assembly, or the Ohio courts, establishing exceptions to its reach.

Note to Victoria Cobb ... time to update your website FAQs.

My Blog Roll -- Women Bloggers Worth Reading

So, I've been following all the chatter about blog rolls, see here and here for example, and I thought, "maybe I should have a blog roll?"

Not wanting to get into the fight about who's influential and who's not ... lots of self-congratulating and back scratching going on there ... I decided that I'd post a blog roll of women bloggers who I think are worth reading. Some I've listed are political, some not. Some are in Virginia, some not.

If you've read a woman blogger who makes you laugh or think, send the link along.

I'm always looking for something new that's worth reading.

Lilly Tomlin -- Worrying About Same Sex Marriage

I heard Lilly Tomlin tonight speak to a conference of women business owners. During her performance she said:

"I worry about same sex marriage. If all of us gay people keep imitating straight people, what's next? Monster truck rallies?"

LOL

52% of the Population Deserves Better When It Comes to Judicial Appointments

There's been much hand wringing and teeth gnashing this session about the likely failure of the General Assembly to replace retiring chief judge of the Court of Appeals, The Honorable Johanna Fitzpatrick, with another Northern Virginian. As Not Larry Sabato reports, some members of the Fairfax Bar Association have gone so far as to call the leading non-Northern Virginia candidates "unqualified" -- an assessment attacked as politically inspired.

Unnoticed and unremarked, however, is that none of the five people interviewed to replace Judge Fitzpatrick (and another retiring Judge) was a woman. Meaning that the number of women on the Appeals Court will drop from 3 of 11 to 2 of 11 (a number clearly heading the wrong direction).

Nor was any of the three candidates interviewed for three circuit court judgeships open this year a woman. Nor was any of the candidates interviewed for four district court vacancies a woman. And, only two of 10 candidates interviewed for six juvenile and domestic relations court vacancies were women (and two of the judges being replaced were women meaning that the best we can hope for is not to lose ground).

Here's the list of those interviewed this year:
Appeals Court
Randolph A. Beales
Judge Victor V. Ludwig
Judge R. Terrence Ney
William G. Petty
Judge John E. Wetsel, Jr.

Circuit Court
James C. Hawks
Josiah Thomas Showalter, Jr.
Judge Alfred M. Tripp

General District or Juvenile Court
R. Glennwood Lookabill
S. Clark Daugherty
Ashley K. Tunner
Robert S. Brewbaker, Jr.
J. Frank Buttery, Jr.
Ronald L. Napier
Steven T. Buck
Margaret W. Deglau
Richard S. Wallerstein, Jr.
Edward S. Whitlock, III
Jimmy Don Bolt
Croxton Gordon
Thomas B. Dix, Jr.

As of 2003, women comprised about 30% of the legal profession and 49% of the law school graduates. At large firms, 16% of the partners were women in 2003. That last number makes our declining percentage of appellate judges look acceptable at 18%, but certainly our goal ought to be higher, and we should certainly be trying not to lose ground.

It is simply not okay for the legislature not even to seek to interview a more diverse pool of candidates, particularly when they are replacing some of the few women already serving on the bench.

The House and Senate Courts Committees who interview the candidates to assure that they are qualified (before the Republican House and Senate Caucuses decide whom to elect) need to do a better job of identifying qualified women and minority candidates for Virgina's judgeships.

The majority of residents of Virginia who are women deserve to have a judiciary that better reflects our presence among potential litigants.

After all, shouldn't majority rule?

Bloggers to be Left on the "Digital Dirt Road"?

The national blogs are all a buzz about legislation that would end "net neutrality" and allow major internet providers to provide better and speedier net access to paying customers.

Here's a post from the Guerilla News Network that explains the proposals now pending in Congress:

In the federal government in Washington, the main legislation concerning the media in the United States – the Telecommunications Act – is being rewritten, and the fate of net neutrality (and perhaps the future of the internet) rests in the balance. Unfortunately, Net neutrality clauses have been struck out of the most recent draft of the Telecom Act.

GNN describes the proposals as ones that will relegate bloggers and other nonpaying net consumers to the "digital dirt road."

Doesn't sound good to me.