WOMEN – 50% OF THE POPULATION AND ONLY 11% OF THE SUPREME COURT

Finally, after the Bush farce of selecting Harriet Miers in 2005 as his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O’Conner, we now get the chance to have a woman once again claim a rightful seat to the high Court.  Bush and his advisers knew that selecting a less-than-qualified woman who would be bounced would allow Bush to argue that “see, I tried.”  And then he could go to his original plan of selecting a male to fill the seat emptied by Sandra Day O’Conner.

While women make up just a tad over 50% of the population, they have continuously been relegated to second-class status when it comes to seats on the Supreme Court. Currently, the Court has only one woman – Ruth Bader Ginsburg – for a whopping 11% of the Court’s composition.  Even when two women sat on the high court, the percentage remained at only 22% – far below the 50% of the population represented by women.

A number of  presidents have looked to good ‘ole males to fill Supreme Court seats despite the fact that many qualified candidates could have been found.  But now President Obama has selected a woman, Sonia Sotomayor, as his pick to replace retiring justice David Souter, ending the guessing game and the trash-talking about women’s weight and health as criteria to sit on the high bench.  Simply assanine.

What a dilema for Republicans.  On one hand, Sotomayor represents the “pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps” philosophy about which Republicans are so want to preen and crow.  She was born in the Bronx and grew up in a public housing project.  Her mother worked six days a week to raise her and her brother.

Sotomayor later graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and went on to attend Yale law school, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal – probably under one of those oh-so-dreaded affirmative action quotas about which Republicans nash their teeth.

Republicans will be forced to find something wrong with her even though she was appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush – a Republican.  This could be interesting.  Yes, indeed, Republicans may just be forced to confront their “speak-with-forked-tongue” philosophy.

PELOSI – WEAKNESS SHOWS IN CIA WATERBOARDING CONTROVERSY

Despite the fact that I was proud to see the first woman chosen as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has proven to be a bitter disappointment.  In almost every political news show I have watched where she has appeared, in almost every news conference she has held, she reflects indecisiveness and the inability to coherently communicate her position on many critical topics.

I find her appearances and her halting manner of presenting her views on various positions akin to watching the painful performances of George W. Bush as he stumbled and mumbled through his dozens of news conferences and appearances.

Her latest foray is to take on the CIA by claiming that she and Congress were lied to about the use of the torture technique of water boarding.  While I am sure the CIA is quite capable of fabricating and manipulating facts a la its attempts to tie Al Qaeda to Iraq and Iraq to 9/11, Pelosi’s attempts to justify her statements leave one feeling like the Aflac duck shaking its head in wonder.

Photo Credit:  Getty Images

_____________________________________________________________________________

The incident or incidents in question occurred in August 2002 when CIA contractors water boarded Al Qaeda ally Abu Zubaydah.  In what has now become – and will probably remain so – a “he said, she said” battle, Pelosi’s news conference on May 14th, does nothing to support her claim that she knows what she is discussing.  Here is a sample of how the conference went:

PELOSI: He informed me that the briefing had taken place. We were not in a place where he could — that was all that he was required to do. We’re not in a setting — we weren’t in — I’m no longer the ranking member on intelligence. He just informed me and that the letter was sent. That is the proper person to send the letter, the ranking member of the — of the Intelligence Committee.

So my statement is clear, and let me read it again. Let me read it again. I’m sorry. I have to find the page.

I was informed that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was that the briefing — in the briefing was that it was not being employed.

When — when — when my staff person — I’m sorry, the page is out of order — five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing — informing that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing; I was just informed that the briefing had taken place.

I am sure Pelosi is intelligent and knowledgeable, but it sure doesn’t come through to any great extent in her communication efforts.

So quack, quack.  All I have to say at this point is lead or get out of the way.

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON FACES TYPICAL DOUBLE STANDARD IN SOUTH KOREA QUESTIONS

Deciding that matters of state are less important than Hillary Clinton’s views on love, the South Korean press corps perpetuated the alive-and-well attitude that women just don’t deserve the same respect as men when it comes to their roles in high government positions.

Clinton has been traveling abroad this past week, and, of course, has faced the requisite press corps’ questioning rituals.  But, hold the phone, stop the presses, among the questions asked of the Secretary of State during press coverage in South Korea was a completely-less-than-serious question about her thoughts on the “nature of love.” You’ve got to be kidding!  The question came from a “giggly” college student, but drew a tremendous amount of press attention.

In the history of our country, we have had 67 secretaries of state – 3 of whom have been women.  Does anyone honestly believe that this type of question would have been asked of the likes of Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, or any of the other 60 male secretaries of state?  Of course not!

And, Hillary, ever gracious, gave her thoughts on the world-shattering issue of the “nature of love” by discussing her relationship with her husband, former President Bill Clinton – which, frankly I suspect was the underlying reason for the question in the first place.  Nary a day passes without some smart-ass comment, cartoon, or slam about his “sexual proclivities” even though the scandals have long passed.

Clinton joked at the start of her response that “I feel like more of an advice columnist than a Secretary of State today.”  Come on people, shame on you, and, if it was a woman reporter who carried the news forward – double shame on you for trivializing the position that Hillary Clinton holds.  It’s time to get serious when women hold positions of power.

Photo Credit: CBS News – Political Hotsheet

__________________________________________________________________________

The shifting of the issues from a focus on our global economic mess and the deteriorating state of foreign affairs to a flippant and intrusive question about the nature of love is downright demeaning.  Clinton is an excellent secretary of state who is knowledgeable, intelligent, and energetic when it comes to foreign relations.   To twirl off into the ethereal world of the nature of love has nothing to do with foreign affairs, but it sure has everything to do with the double standard applied to women in positions of authority.

SOUDER TO THIRD DISTRICT WOMEN: NO EQUAL PAY FOR YOU, BABY!

With the presidential election providing the major entertainment for the past number of months, reporting of many pieces of legislation has been lost in the shuffle. One of those bills is aimed at closing the wage gap that still exists and hasn’t changed a great deal in the 45 years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963.

At the time of the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women were earning 59¢ for every $1.00 earned by their male counterparts. Today, that disparity has been cut by 18¢ to 77¢ for every $1.00 earned by male wage earners. In 45 years, the gain has been a mere 18¢ – a .004¢ gain for each year the Equal Pay Act has been in effect. The difference is a disgrace and a slam to every working woman who does the same job as her male counterpart.

Our illustrious third district representative, Mark Souder, is doing his part to make sure women stay in their place when it comes to wages. In July of this year, House Bill 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, was introduced. The bill passed the House by a vote of 246 to 178 with 9 abstentions. Of the 246 vote majority, 14 were Republicans who had the courage to step up and recognize the inequities that still exist for female employees.

Souder, of course, did the expected – he voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. Along with the other Indiana Republican hoard, Souder chose to disregard the infinitesimal gains made by women in 45 years of Equal Pay Act enforcement.

The Paycheck Fairness Act proposes to remedy a number is issues including the following:

• Improves Equal Pay Act remedies – Plaintiffs will be allowed to recover compensatory and punitive damages instead of the current liquidated damages provided by the EPA.
• Allows an EPA lawsuit to proceed as a class action lawsuit with potential litigants to opt-out rather than opt-in as is now required. Under the new rules the members will be considered a part of the lawsuit unless they chose to opt-out of the lawsuit.
• Improves collection of data by requiring the EEOC to provide data identifying the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
• Prohibits employers from punishing employees who share salary information with each other. This change will make it much easier for employees to learn of pay disparities.
• Closes a loophole in the employers’ ability to raise the defense that the “disparity” is due to a factor other than sex. While employers currently can literally use about any argument – stronger negotiating skills, higher previous salary – the new Act tightens the affirmative defense by requiring the employer to show that the differential is due to a factor other than sex and is related to job performance.

How any conscientious representative could vote against a bill that is aimed at giving working women parity in the workplace is beyond me. But apparently, it isn’t beyond Souder. He now has two more years to practice his own brand of what he thinks serves the third district. But apparently that doesn’t include the working women of the third. Nope – according to Souder, baby, you should be happy that you have earned a .004¢ each year for 45 years.

NEW POLL SHOWS CLOSE GOVERNOR’S RACE

In an exclusive Indianapolis Star-Channel 13 poll, Governor Mitch Daniels seems to have a race on his hands. According to the poll, 46 percent back Mitch Daniels re-election effort, and 42 percent support Democrat Jill Long Thomspon. The governor’s campaign is quick to dismiss the results and believe their lead in the campaign is bigger than the four points reflected in the Star-13 poll.

Long Thompson’s campaign points to the right direction, wrong track numbers. When asked if Indiana was heading in the right direction, 47 percent said yes, but 44 percent said Indiana is on the wrong track.

“We believe, by and large, that Hoosiers approve of the job Governor Daniels is doing,” said Eric Holcomb of the Daniels campaign.

But I have to wonder if Mr. Holcomb understands the meaning of the phrase “by and large” which today means “generally speaking,” “mostly” or “on the whole.” However, the origin is nautical, and had a very precise meaning. It was an order to the man at the helm of a sailing ship, meaning to sail the ship slightly off the wind. A similar command was “full and by” which meant to “sail as close to the wind as it can go.”

Thus, when a person doesn’t want to “sail” directly into a statement, “by and large” is a hedge, a phrase of circumspection, a way of saying that the statement is an imprecise generality. Holcomb is actually saying that they aren’t quite sure how many Hoosiers approve of the Guv’s policies and actions. Nice choice of words – by and large. Perhaps a better assessment would be “we just don’t know.”

WHERE DID PALIN GET HER GLASSES? WHO CARES?

In the latest round of nonsensical twaddle in this year’s presidential election, voters are more focused on Sarah Palin’s glasses than on answers to real issues. One headline shouts, “Sarah Palin’s Much-in-demand Glasses Bring Sexy Back.” Wow, way to demean women. Palin becomes a talking bobble head with a pair of glasses.

Voters – and I would assume most of the vision-struck are women – seem to be more interested in Palin’s glasses then her anti-choice and anti Roe v. Wade, anti-ANWR, anti-global warming, pro-book banning, pro-creationism in schools positions, just to name a few.

Photo Credit: The Stump

_____________________________________________________________________________

But, if you want a pair, they come from a Japanese designer. The frame is from Kazuo Kawasaki’s 704 series, in grey, made from titanium and mounted via a screwless tension system. The price starts at $375 for the frame and can go up to $700, depending on the lens. Guess that puts them out of my range. I paid just under a hundred dollars for both lens and frame at J.C. Penney. And, even then, I was looking for something less expensive. I hadn’t needed glasses for over 30 years, so it was quite a shock.

What is it with media and voters? When it comes to women candidates, their accessories trump their intelligence, values, positions, and ability to lead. Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits provided fodder for the media and voters on a daily basis as they tried to guess what color she would wear. She was labeled “dowdy” and “chunky.” Never mind her accomplishments throughout her life and her current position as a well-liked and respected senator. Never mind that she put up one hell of a fight for the opportunity to represent the Democratic party in this November’s election.

When Katie Couric stepped into the CBS nightly news slot as the anchor woman, the media went into a frenzy about what she would wear. Would it be a pantsuit? Would it be a dress? What colors would she wear? How many in the media and viewers care about what Bob Schieffer, Charlie Gibson, or George Stephanopoulus wear when they appear on their programs?

When focus is turned to such meaningless issues as clothing and accessories, the media and male political establishment have effectively diminished the ability of women to be taken seriously. Now, back to Palin’s glasses – they are simply glasses. Are they really so important that voters – in particular Republican women voters – cannot tear themselves away from looking at them? Are they really so mesmerizing that women will ooh and ah and become brain dead on issues?

While I don’t particularly care what Republican women do, I do care how women of all races, parties, and ages are perceived. The fixation on Palin’s glasses does a tremendous disservice to women in both political parties. So now you know where she got them. And, I still say who cares?

DANIELS’ HYPOCRISY – OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS ROLL IN

After disclosure of campaign funds in the quarterly report, the Daniels’ camp began screeching about Jill Long Thompson’s contributions from out of state. JLT received substantial contributions from out-of-state donors, and the Daniels’ people would have you believe that Daniels’ is the darling of every day, average Hoosiers who are ponying up small contributions to his campaign.

On July 22, 2008, however, the Republican Governor’s Association located in Washington, D.C. contributed a whopping $725,000 – just shy of three quarters of a million dollars – to the Daniels’ campaign. Their contribution belies Daniels’ arguments that he is supported by your “average Hoosiers.”

As state Democratic Chair Dan Parker observed, “Obviously the Mitch Daniels campaign lives in a glass house and shouldn’t be throwing stones.”

Looks like Daniels and his minions are worried about this re-election prospects. After spending $7,000,000 on TV commercials and advertising, Daniels cannot quite convince Hoosiers that he is “the one.”

GOT MONEY? LONG THOMPSON GETS THE CASH

In a strong showing of financial support, Jill Long Thompson raised $1.6 million in the second quarter of 2008. That figure darn near matches Daniels’ $1.8 million. Could it be that the powers that be in the Daniels’ camp have underestimated JLT’s ability to raise funds and fight this campaign?

To date, Daniels has spent $7,297,990.66 and has an ending balance of $2,847,140.73. JLT has spent $1,463,385.17 and has an ending balance of $1,040,323.24. Got that? Daniels has already spent over $7,000,000 – and for what? He has sunk much of his funding into TV commercials, which he apparently thought he had to do in order to get a head start. You will notice that he has changed his campaign tactic this time around.

We probably won’t see him running around in the RV and his flannel shirt and his baseball cap – whoops, sorry, he is still wearing the baseball cap. He has, instead, called on average Hoosiers to appear in front of the cameras to swear to what a wonderful governor he has been. You know, all those thousands of jobs coming to Indiana in 2011 and 2012.

Of course, there are those naysayers who question the source of her donations. Personally, I don’t think too many people care where she gets her funding. I would almost bet that Daniels received a substantial amount of his funding from out-of-staters four years ago when he ran for his first term as governor.

So, let me use a phrase here that I have usually avoided – YOU GO GIRL!

OPEN GOVERNMENT – MY FOOT!

Last night I sat through 65 minutes of one of the most embarrassing and disgusting displays of stonewalling I have ever seen. First let me say – for those who don’t know – I am Maria Parra’s campaign manager.

When Maria contacted me a few months ago and asked me to take the role, she said “don’t worry, you won’t have to do much. I replied that if I decided to do it, I would give my best and did not want to be just a fill-in name for a form. I called her back a couple of days later and said I would take the position.

I realize that Maria’s campaign is for a county election which does not draw the same attention and create the same excitement as the state and federal elections. But Maria also serves on the Wayne Township Advisory Board as an elected official. Those who have read the daily papers know that what ensued last night was not pleasant.

Last night’s meeting was to resolve Maria’s request for a number of documents that she had been requesting for quite some time. I have to admit, I would rather have skipped the meeting because last night was my late night at work, and I was tired. But I had told Maria I would be there, so I took a break and went.

I am glad now that I did. I thought it would be fairly short and the documents would be provided. Pretty simple – right? Maria prepared and sent in a request. The documents were at the Trustee’s Office. They would be copied and given to Maria. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

I couldn’t have been more wrong. Once the meeting started, it turned into nothing more than a trashing of Maria for requesting the information. Mark GiaQuinta sarcastically argued that the entire office and its work had to come to a halt to respond to Maria’s request. I guess his goal was to impose a guilt trip. I have to tell you if that is all it takes to stop the office, then we are in trouble.

GiaQuinta also made a condescending suggestion that the office should start an expanding folder so that if Maria needs documents in the future, one copy can be made for her and one copy could put in the folder in case she lost or misplaced them again.

In between his condescending comments, he challenged her knowledge of the process and her motive for requesting the documents. Maria asked several times during the session if Tony could just give her the documents. After over an hour, he finally capitulated and handed over what documents he did have – a task that could have been done in the first five minutes of the meeting.

I left feeling like the AFLAC duck shaking its head after talking to Yogi Berra in one of the older commercials. I was not only stunned at the actions of the other advisory board members and Mr. GiaQuinta but also shocked that someone would have to go through this just to obtain information that is to be available to the public and must be provided if requested.

And, honestly, I am still shaking my head tonight over something so simple as providing documents upon request. They should have been provided months ago and last night’s debacle would never have been necessary. Am I glad I went? You betcha because this was a real eye opener.

Open government? Maybe it should be called “forced open government.”

LONG THOMPSON PICKS A RUNNING MATE

Jill Long Thompson will spend today and tomorrow traveling the state to introduce her pick for Lieutenant Governor. JLT has chosen Dennie Oxley of English in southern Indiana to balance the ticket, both geographically and philosophically. Oxley is a state representative from district 73 and, based on his affiliations, appears to be more conservative than Long Thompson.

District 73 sits centrally located at the very southern part of Indiana. It is equidistant from the western border and the eastern border with part of its border lying on the Ohio River. He, no doubt, will bring a strong base from the southern part of Indiana, which JLT needs in the fall to defeat Daniels.

Photo Credit: Jill Long Thompson for Governor website

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following is JLT’s schedule. If you have the opportunity, make an effort to attend her conference here in Fort Wayne – or any of the others, if you can. Unfortunately, I will be working, so I will have to miss this time.

Monday, June 16, 2008: (All times are local)

9 a.m. News Conference

Haps Enterprises
7001 Airport Dr.
Clark Regional Airport
Sellersburg, Ind.
_____________________

10:30 a.m. News Conference

Tri-State Aero
6101 Flight Line Dr.
Evansville, Ind.
______________________

1:30 p.m. News Conference

Indiana Statehouse, North Atrium
Indianapolis, Ind.
______________________

3:45 p.m. News Conference

Mercury Air Center
4021 Air St.
Fort Wayne, Ind.
______________________

5:00 p.m. News Conference

Atlantic Aviation
4302 Lathrop St.
South Bend, Ind.
______________________

5:15 p.m. News Conference

Gary Jet Center
5401 Industrial Highway
Gary, Ind.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008: (All times are local)

10:30 a.m. News Conference

Bloomington City Hall
401 North Morton St.
Bloomington, Ind.
________________________

1:30 p.m. News Conference

Vigo County Courthouse
33 South Third St.
Terre Haute, Ind