 |
  |
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
|
Grid
and Bear It This just in from the Bush administration: There is probable cause to believe that Ken Lay, the former CEO of Enron, may have committed fraud three years ago when he plunged his company into the biggest bankruptcy of all time. In other news, the Bush administration announced there is probable cause to believe that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night. The glacial speed of the Lay prosecution contrasts with the "detain now, ask questions later" approach taken by the Justice Department in its investigation of Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer in Portland who was jailed for weeks without any indictment until the FBI realized it had the wrong man. Why so much haste in the Mayfield case and so much inertia in the Lay case? Here's a hint: The Justice Department moves a little slower when the president refers to the suspect as "Kenny Boy" (Lay is one of W's biggest campaign contributors). Last week's indictment of Lay is good news. But we need to be careful that the vilification of Lay doesn't distract us from systemic problems in the energy industry. Lay is not the only reason why our energy policy is in shambles. The lack of meaningful regulation, coupled with the nature of energy on the interstate grid, will cause more problems in the future. How does the grid work? It's a vast network of wires that spans several different states and connects virtually everyone — sort of like The Matrix, only less tedious. When you flip on the light switch in your house, the power you're using could come from a local source or from a source hundreds of miles away. The grid offers many benefits. It promotes competition among suppliers, and it distributes energy to areas that might not be capable of local generation. The grid is basically just a free market of electrons, and it offers all the advantages of a free market. On the other hand, the grid invites abuse by unscrupulous energy suppliers. The interconnectivity of the western states allowed Enron to ship power back and forth across state lines during the energy crisis of 2001, jacking up prices along the way. A recent lawsuit by the Snohomish County Public Utility District turned up evidence that Enron made $220,000 in three hours by shipping power from California to Oregon, masking its origin, and then shipping it back to California at wildly inflated prices. The Snohomish PUD obtained transcripts of recordings in which Enron officials joked about swindling "Grandma Millie" in California. Is there any way we can get Grandma Millie on the jury trying Ken Lay?
Environmentalists worry that the grid hinders conservation by mismatching costs and benefits. Most of the proposals for new power generation involve burning natural gas. The new gas-fired plants can't be built in big cities like Portland, because of political pressure and because the air quality in Portland is barely within EPA guidelines. So energy speculators want to satisfy Portland's demand for new power by building gas-fired plants somewhere else. One set of developers wants to build the Willamette Valley's biggest gas-fired plant near Coburg, just a few miles north of Eugene. A state agency controls the siting of power plants, so local jurisdictions can't prevent the construction of a plant that sells power to faraway customers. Would Portlanders have much incentive to conserve electricity if their power came from gas-fired plants in other areas? Of course not, because the harmful consequences wouldn't be felt in Portland. If you could eat a gallon of ice cream every day, and magically put all the pounds on your neighbor's backside, what would you do? You'd eat a lot more ice cream, and your neighbor would have a lot more junk in the trunk. Ben and Jerry would become the richest men in America. The president would be palling around with "Benny Boy" instead of "Kenny Boy." By the way, do you know who put up the money for the Coburg power plant back in 2001? You guessed it: Enron. If the energy speculators get their way, we'll have a $500 million monument to Ken Lay's legacy in our backyard, even when he's behind bars. Tom Lininger is a law professor and former county commissioner.
Ask
Yourselves For all of the EW's forward reporting on sexual misconduct and sexual violence against women, including the recent Magaña and Neil Goldschmidt cases, I am dismayed by your continued economic relationship with the sex industry. A look through your back-page ads on any given week yields headlines such as, "Girls 18 and Over," "Eugene's Hottest Ladies," and "Escorts Available," accompanied by silhouettes of women on their knees or all fours (a reference to both anal and oral penetration being available) and in other sexualized positions. While EW has touted itself as being ahead of major newspapers on progressive issues, EW has continued to support itself with sex industry ads. Feminists and other researchers have demonstrated an undeniable link between the pervasiveness of pornography and prostitution with sexual violence against women. In my own research on attitudes toward prostitution and sexual violence in men, I found that men who held attitudes supportive of prostitution were more likely to have raped and sexually assaulted women than men who did not hold these views. It is also well known that parts of the industry considered "soft-core," such as "escort services" and strip clubs, which you routinely advertise, are often fronts for prostitution and trafficking of women and children, many of whom are routinely beaten, coerced, and addicted to drugs and alcohol. Prostitution myths, like rape myths, direct attention away from the choices of men to rape, prostitute and purchase women's bodies. Myths regarding pornography/prostitution, such as: "Women choose to do it;" "Women like it;" "Women make lots of money in it;" and "It's a job like any other;" are extremely misinformed and misogynistic attitudes that serve to normalize and thereby uphold the pornography and prostitution institutions. Let me supply readers with some actual statistics. The vast majority, upward of 70 percent, of women in prostitution/pornography have sexual abuse histories, usually by men they know (i.e. fathers, brothers, partners). In a study of one legalized prostitution setting, the Mustang Ranch, 100 percent of women turned over their entire earnings to a man on the outside, usually a husband or partner. In an international study on the incidence and prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among prostituted women in five countries, the rate of PTSD was found to be nearly 80 percent as compared to 1 to 14 percent in the general public. Ninety percent of women in the latter study stated they wanted to leave prostitution but feared for their lives if they did. Studies have replicated findings numerous times that pornography use is strongly associated with recidivism among sexual perpetrators. Yet, EW actively supports the purchasing of women's bodies with its advertisements.
If we were talking about any other class condition, such as poverty or race, the enslavement and exploitation of these groups would be viewed as outrageous, akin to racial slavery and sweatshops. Gender is a class condition and yet the sexual slavery of women is overlooked and marginalized in dialogues even in our most progressive communities. I am sure EW would not accept money from and run ads for the white supremacist groups or corporations hiring sweatshop workers. Yet, EW continuously prints advertisements from the sex industry — an industry that clearly decreases quality of life for women and girls, as well as boys. I challenge EW to see itself as part of the problem of violence against women by its continued choice to economically support the sex industry. Once again, if we were talking about any other class condition, our progressive leadership would urge us not to economically support an industry that is harmful to others. Ask yourselves, is pornography or prostitution something you would choose willingly? EW's actions reduce the creation of meaningful jobs for women, and contribute to a climate of sexism where women are dehumanized, viewed as objects, as readily available for sex, and as enjoying submission and male dominance. Megan Schmidt of Eugene has a doctorate in clinical psychology with a specialty in feminist and gender issues and sexual violence prevention programming.
Different
Drummers The screen door creaks open and slams shut. "Honey, I'm home-o!" It's my darling bride, back from the gym. "In here, Ward," I call from the kitchen where I'm fixing dinner. Wifey smooches my cheek and swipes a cucumber slice. "How was your day?" Crescents of sweat ring her muscle shirt collar and sleeves. She leans against the fridge, forearms glistening. "The plumber came by." I continue tearing romaine into the bite-sized strips my sweetie likes. "She says we'll need to replace the whole pipe." Wifey turns to pour ice water for us both. "Oh well, it had to happen some time." She reaches past me for plates, pulls fresh napkins from the drawer. "Been listening to the news?" She sets out forks and knives. "Unfortunately." Wifey goes to grab another cuke but I tap her hand with a salad tong and give her a look. "Looks like that damned measure made the ballot." "Don't worry," she says, hugging me from behind. She nuzzles my neck, then snags more cucumber. "We're still married, no matter what."
Nearly a quarter million Oregonians signed the Defense of Marriage Coalition's petition. That's a lot of people hell-bent on defending their marriages. Good for them. They've got a problem and are offering up a creative solution. Marriage isn't faring very well (about 50 percent end in divorce), so they'll amend the Constitution and prohibit marriage for gay people now and forever. Right on. You can't have the likes of Sarah and Gretchen or Tim and Kent — or the thousands of other couples who have already taken vows — getting legally married, having access to all the privileges and protections the law grants to everyone else. Granting marriage licenses to two men or two women puts proscribed gender roles up for grabs. Women mowing the lawn? Men folding laundry? It's just wrong. How's a guy going to be the head of the family if you have two guys? How's the woman supposed to be the helpmate if are you have two women? Who will take out the recycling? Who gets to use the power tools? Who drives, and who folds the map? Which one fakes the orgasm? What a fine mess we'll be in then. People will think for themselves and follow their own God-given proclivities — and then where will we be? People doing what they damn well please, that's where. Same-sex marriage isn't the only threat, either. Some of you boy–girl couples ought to forfeit your right to marriage licenses, too. We know you're out there, mixing it up — taking turns doing dishes, sharing grocery duty, granting equal time with the remote. Your shenanigans threaten the marriage institution as we know it. We can't base our society — our nation — on every person leading their own life, exercising their own liberty, pursuing their own happiness. We need standards, direction, control. We need official edicts declaring who can do what. We need a king, for chrissake. At the very least we need to support the Defense of Marriage ballot measure. Vote to change that liberal Constitution. Better yet, don't vote at all. That way those who know what's right for you can make all the decisions. Don't even bother to register. America thrives on low voter registration — look where it's gotten us so far!
Oregon — the whole country, the world, and any life we might discover on other planets — needs all marriages to be exactly alike. How do you expect to get a good goose-step going if everyone marches to their own drummer? Difference is scary, so be afraid. Get out there and defend your marriage against the onslaught of homos and homettes and those free-wheeling heteros. Vote some good old-fashioned discrimination right into your state Constitution. And if that doesn't protect the sanctity of your marriage, maybe you ought to get a gun. Voter registration applications are available at post offices, banks and credit unions, the public library, and page 91 of your 2004-2005 Qwest telephone directory. Sally Sheklow teaches writing at LCC and shares domestic responsibilities with her wife. Comments can be sent to sally@wymprov.com.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
