Mount St. Helens

Mount St. Helens
Originally uploaded by HeatherEggs.

Here in Portland, the big news of the day are all the tiny earthquakes happening in and around Mount St. Helens, which is only 65 miles away from Portland.

This is a picture of it as of today, smoking a little. It's cloudy today and from some places in Portland you can see the volcano. But I don't live on that side of town so I wont' get a chance to see it today. Maybe this weekend if it hasn't errupted yet, I might take a drive and have a look! I've never seen a volcano before!

Norah Jones is a goddess!

I know this post has nothing to do with what usually goes on here but last night Kevin (boyfriend) and I went to the Norah Jones concert. It's so refreshing to see a young professional girl with her kind of popularity that doesn't require her to dress provocativly or sing about whatever Britany Spears sings about. Norah looked good last night! Pair of jeans with a blue halter top (not tight or revealing) and high heal shoes. She's not the anorixic pop star that seems to be popular these days. Then again, Norah isn't a pop star, and judging the attendance last night, the mostly graying crowd didn't think she was a jazz singer either. Not to be categorized, I guess, which is the way I prefer it to be. Great musical performance by her entire Handsome Band and Norah sounded fantastic. We had great seats, probably the best i've ever had at a show, right in the center, 10 rows up. Wow...great show!

On a side note, John Kerry supporters were outside the concert venue passing out Kerry-Edwards stickers. I grabbed a few as did my Republican boyfriend to pass out at his work to the Kerry supporters there. See, even a Republican is helping out! Although he does plan on voting for Bush and I dont' know how to stop him! Discussion and debate don't work with him. I need to use some guerilla tactics. Any suggestion?

Urban Sprawl is Bad For Your Health!

I read CNN mostly everyday and i'm not sure if I'm to trust them as a news source. But, this article entrigued me as I had heard a bit about it on NPR this morning. It pays to live in the city and not the vastly sprawling suburbs. At the end of the article it mentions that Portland is one of the top 5 major cities with the least amount of sprawl. I have an easy answer to why it's on there: Urban Growth Boundary! I had done a little research on this topic last year during my Environmental Law course. The boundary basically penalizes anyone who choses to build outside of the designated area. That still doesn't keep any sprawl from occurring but it definately reduces it. Oh, and there's no Walmart here because the store is too big (square footage). Plus, the hippies out here in Portland don't like the mega store. Fine by me, but I must admit, I do like those low, low prices! Too bad a third world country has to sell it's soul in order to produce goods for Walmart.

Hooray for Elwood!

My husband rocks. After a lot of fussing on my part about how I couldn't find a quote from Rumsfeld that I heard yesterday on NPR, Elwood managed to find the text on Darrel Plant, nicely sourced.

When I heard this beckpedaling yesterday about partial elections and explaining how American cities weren't totally safe either, I was about ten seconds away from a Stupid Man Rant. Suddenly, I flashed back to all the patronizing bosses I'd ever had, most of them male. I was rescued from Man Rant mode when I suddenly remembered Mary Beth, my supervisor from my First Real Job who would smile sweetly when she told me my ideas were all wrong but that my attempts at logic were cute. Well, maybe that's not exactly what she said, but that's the impression that I got from her when I noticed flaws in the system we were attempting to operate. So it's not a male thing; perhaps they teach you the smile and the offhand tone in management school? Where else could Mary Beth have learned it? Where else could Rummy have learned it? He was glibly directing the press in a voice that feigned conversational, explaining that *real* democracy and *real* safety were just models they taught in civics class, and Iraq wasn't entirely safe or democratic in the same way that America wasn't entirely safe or democratic. He even threw in a bogus statistic to reassure us--"...200, 300, 400 people killed in many of the major cities in America last year. Is it perfectly peaceful? No. What's the difference?..." in a tone that implied it was great that we were paying attention to his partial election idea but that there was really no need to be hysterical, honey, because us big boys have already anticipated and handled those messy democratic issues you were so concerned about. We've got it all under control.

For the record, Mr. Rumsfeld, here were the murder rates in 2002:
New York = 580 (lowest in almost four decades! Woo hoo!)
Los Angeles = 653
Chicago = about 645
according to this CNN article. Perhaps you'll want some real statistics on hand the next time you attempt to con us into something that is just not true. It will make you more believable, if not more accurate. I probably would not have noticed the statement if it weren't for your half-assed, flagrant abuse of numbers.

Of course, if Rummy would like to look at our crime rates in context, he could read If America Were Iraq, What Would It Be Like? for a much more accurate picture. Again, thanks to Elwood for the link.

What Women Want

I am cross-posting Agnes' report on the BPWF:

In support of the lovely Trope's post regarding women voters (see "Security Moms II"), The Business and Professional Women's Foundation recently released survey results that address women's interests in the presidential election. For what it's worth, here is some of what they report:

Working women as voters
For political candidates who want to know “What do working women want?” this survey provides clear answers. Overwhelmingly, domestic issues take precedence over terrorism and international issues. When asked “which issues will influence your vote the most,” fully 79%choose “domestic issues such as joblessness and education” and only 21% choose “international issues such as terrorism and trade.”

• The choice of domestic issues over terrorism and trade held for working women of every political affiliation. Republican working women chose domestic issues by two to one over terrorism and trade (67% - 33%), Independents chose domestic issues four to one (79% - 21%) and Democratic working women split nearly seven to one (87% - 13%).
• Nearly nine out of ten (86%) said that Health Care Costs was of major importance while just under half (49%) said Homeland Security was of major importance. Homeland Security ranked well behind Health Care Costs, Retirement Security (80%), Job Opportunities (71%), Good Schools (66%), and Housing Costs (61%) in a list of issues “as to how important they are to you and your family.”

Thank you! I have not yet checked out their website but wish the candidates would.

Security Moms II

First, read the article that shows how Elwood is just ahead of the curve.

Next, ponder with me: why are Security Moms going for Bush? What is a Security Mom? If I don't have kids, can I still be one? And why don't those pesky unmarried women vote, anyway?

Here's what the NYTimes has to say.

Democratic and Republican pollsters say the reason for the change this year is that an issue Mr. Bush had initially pitched as part of an overall message - which candidate would be best able to protect the United States from terrorists - has become particularly compelling for women. Several said that a confluence of two events - a Republican convention that was loaded with provocative scenes of the Sept. 11 tragedy, and a terrorist attack on children in Russia - had helped recast the electoral dynamic among this critical group in a way that created a new challenge for the Kerry camp.

Okay, so Beslan and the convention convinced all the Security Moms? These may be the reasons for the blinking upswing in Bush numbers, but I don't really think it tells the whole story. Bush's cowboy politics are likely to have left us more vulnerable to terrorist attack in the next ten years, no matter who wins in November. The trouble for these Moms is that Kerry hasn't articulated his plan (if he has one) to make us safer. He's quite busy defending his military record and his willingness to go to war, but he's not really getting to the heart of the issue, which is: a lot of people in this world hate the U.S., and we need to neutralize that threat somehow. As long as he doesn't present a plan that will inspire these Moms, they will continue with their fatalistic attitude that the terrorists will attack and we should have someone who's willing to go blow up the bad guys. I don't think they appreciate the job that Bush has done over the last four years. But in the absence of other options, it's not surprising that they are going with the devil they know.

So who are these Moms? Do I have to be one? Do I want to be one?

Also in the last month, Mr. Kerry suffered in the polls from attacks by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that challenged his record in Vietnam and highlighted his antiwar activities in the 1970's. One Democratic strategist said Mr. Kerry's failure to fight back against that attack fed a perception, particularly among married women, that he would not fight for them and their children. And, the strategist said, it is one reason Mr. Kerry must now "rebuild his image on strength.''
. . . Traditionally, there is a gap between married women and single women, with married women voting more Republican and single women voting more Democratic. This year, Ms. Lake said, the gap between how married and single women expect to vote is greater than it has ever been, largely because of the emergence of what analysts call "security moms,'' who tend to be white, married women who have children and who are fearful of another attack within the United States.

The subtext of this statement is that married = kids. Married women aren't more likely to vote Republican because they've borne children; 35% of kids are born to unmarried moms and lots of married women (ahem) are childless. Married women are more likely to vote Republican because their household income is reliably higher. It's not a security issue, and frankly, it's never going to be a security issue. If the unnamed Democratic strategist wants Kerry to "rebuild his image on strength", it's only going to dig him deeper into the hole. He cannot out-Bush Bush (and really, why would he want to?) But right now he is making Bush's mistake: campaigning to women through their husbands by talking about wars and factory jobs. He needs to begin campaigning directly to women, not about rape advocacy, but about the issues that tend to bring women into the political arena to begin with: abortion issues, health care, and education.* Every politician talks about health care for all Americans (unless you're Republican, then it's all working Americans) and about better schools. Tell us how. Every politician wants to reduce the number of abortions. Tell us how, and maybe we'll vote for you.

*Do you find this accurate? Send your thoughts.

Steve Trombley, president of Planned Parenthood Chicago Action Fund, writes:

Did you know that unmarried women were one of the smallest percentages of voters to turn out in the last election? Did you know that if unmarried women voters turn out at the same rate as married women it could advance the Kerry-Edwards ticket to a win?

He wrote this in a fund-raising letter on August 6, before Beslan and before the GOP convention. I'm not sure that his promise is accurate, because he can't guarantee the political leaning of every unmarried woman he's signing up to vote. But I can understand why these gals are not voting: if you are female, but not a Security Mom, nobody's talking to you. If you are unmarried and/or childless, nobody's talking to you. Are we supposed to take Mr. Trombley's word for it that Kerry will "stand up for choice" by keeping reactionaries out of the Court or improve the health care situation that drives so many women to Planned Parenthood in the first place? Trombley seems to think we will. I'm not so sure.

Desperate Housewives?

I may be jumping in ahead of myself, but since they don't believe in comments over at North Arlington All Stars I thought I'd just respond here. I am the liberal wife in question. No, I did not say that *we* should blow up Chechnya. I said that *someone* should blow up Chechnya. We're a little overscheduled as it is. I know that peace in that region is a great idea, and in fact inevitable--either through shrewd political maneuvering, or through the death of everyone remotely involved. It's just that after the stunt in Beslan, I don't much care which one it will be. I'm not on Russia's side. I don't really argue with Chechnya's point of view. But now that I have seen the work of the homicidal looneys on both sides, I wish it would all just go away.

But I didn't come here to rant, did I? First, the local:
The Chicago spycam plan made the national news section of the NYTimes today. By 2006, there will be a "highly advanced system of video surveillance" in place.

Sophisticated new computer programs will immediately alert the police whenever anyone viewed by any of the cameras placed at buildings and other structures considered terrorist targets wanders aimlessly in circles, lingers outside a public building, pulls a car onto the shoulder of a highway, or leaves a package and walks away from it. Images of those people will be highlighted in color at the city's central monitoring station, allowing dispatchers to send
police officers to the scene immediately.
. . .
Mr. Huberman, a 32-year-old former police officer who is also what one aide called "a techno geek," said this new system "should produce a significant decrease in crime, and from a homeland security standpoint it should be able to make our city safer." When the system is in place, Mr. Huberman said, video images will be instantly available to dispatchers at the city's 911 emergency center, which receives about 18,000 calls each day. Dispatchers will be able to tilt or zoom the cameras, some of which magnify images up to 400 times, in order to watch suspicious people and follow them from one camera's range to another's.

Our City-in-a-Garden is not only observing our actions now, but recording them for posterity or future litigation. I don't see how this will be tremendously useful in preventing terrorist attacks, since seeing a suicide bomber's face doesn't matter if he's dead by the time you hit the scene. I have some grave doubts about how effective this software would be against someone who "wanders aimlessly in circles" around a public area; I do so all the time downtown, and I live here. Imagine how these fancy programs will react to all the tourists flocking around Millenium Park, or our flamingo, or the Water Tower. I'll never be able to leave a BookCrossing book in the wild again, but this may be a puny argument from the Homeland Security Standpoint.

Please keep in mind that the cameras are not the new thing. There are about 2,000 within the city at the present time; they make their presence known in some of the more savory areas of the city with big flashing blue police lights atop utility poles. The new plan would only add another 250 or so cameras, but I expect them to cause more of a public outcry because if they are placed near "terrorist targets" there's a higher probability that the North Siders will notice.

"The value we gain in public safety far outweighs any perception by the community that this is Big Brother who's watching," Mr. Huberman said. "The feedback we're getting is that people welcome this. It makes them feel safer."

I don't feel safer, I just feel more watched.

Now for the cosmic: Fafblog on God vs. Satan. Glad we cleared that up.

Pissed off

I was informed today by a certain traffic engineer that my post on transit in Portland was wrong and that it was interesting that I commented on transit since I drive to work everyday. I told him to fuck off. Just because I don't use transit everyday doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about it. At least I don't drive an SUV that hypocrite!

Best Bumper Sticker Ever!

"Republicans for Voldemort"

Response to State of Public Transit Post

This is my first post to date for the Tally Ho since i've been in the midst of moving and settling in a new location. I moved to Portland, Oregon in July from the near-western suburbs of Chicago. Being used to the CTA in Chicago, I was pleasantly surprised at the amount of pubic transit available in Portland, a much smaller city than Chicago. Portland has light rail, a streetcar, and, of course, buses. What's great about it is that all of them are free to use downtown! Traffic in downtown Portland, even during morning rush hour, is non-existant. Most people I know park at a Transit Center and take the train/bus downtown. I drive downtown, but that's only because I start a bit later in the morning and by the time I would get on the train, the parking garage is full! In no way is this system perfect. I think the buses should run more frequently and the train stops running late at night. However, the light rail has been so successful that a new line has recently opened extending to the north part of the city.

Did I mention all the bike lanes? Portland has an unbelievable amount of bike lanes including the suburbs! You can also take your bike on any bus or train. Amtrack is also here in Portland but I have yet to check it out. I have a feeling that it's just as unreliable as in the midwest.

I guess Portland can be used as an example of public transit that's heading in the right direction. There is plenty room for improvement but I will say it's pretty darn good and much cleaner than Chicago's CTA!