ResQgeek

While I was on my work trip to Seattle last week, a news article popped up in my social media feed that caught my attention. Actually, the first thing that I saw was a notice from the Alexandria Dash bus service that they were unable to provide service to Eisenhower Avenue because of a police investigation. Only a little later did I see the article about the apparent road rage shooting. This all caught my attention because my daily commute to work includes a ride on a DASH bus along Eisenhower Avenue, and the shooting occurred at the intersection that is basically where I catch my bus in the morning. I was actually quite relieved that I was in Seattle that day, even though the shooting took place almost two hours after I normally would have been at work.

According to another story about the incident, this shooting appears to be the culmination of an encounter that began on the Beltway. According to witnesses, the shooting victim swerved in front of the shooter's vehicle and jumped out of her SUV, screaming at the other driver. The articles I've read suggest that the shooter has a history of anger management issues, although I would venture to speculate that the shooting victim was acting in a less than fully rational manner as well (jumping out of a car in rush hour traffic to confront another driver not being the safest or most efficient tactic). I don't see any indication as to what or who initiated this encounter, but quite clearly it quickly escalated to the point of violence.

I'm finding myself reflecting on this shooting a lot over the last week, perhaps because of its proximity to my commuting route. And (to my surprise), I'm finding myself less focused on the shooting than on the amount of anger displayed by everyone involved. I can't help but think that we, as a nation, could benefit from some sort of massive anger management therapy session. Road rage is just one (highly visible) example of how angry we seem to be these days.  We also see it in so much of what masquerades as political discourse of late, and it certainly felt like anger was a significant factor that drove the election last autumn.

I am not an expert in anger management, and I certainly have had my share of moments when I've blown my top. But I'm coming to realize that such outbursts are unhelpful and frequently are counterproductive. I'm learning that it is often better to take a deep breath and step away before I respond, to give me time and distance to calm down. Often I come to see that I was on the verge of a massive overreaction, and I can sometimes even manage to put myself in the other person's shoes, in an attempt to understand their actions. All of this leaves me feeling less stressed and better able to cope.

I have no idea how we convince others to take these steps, or even if they would work for others. But it seems to me that unless we find someway to reduce the amount of anger coursing through our society, things won't get better anytime soon.

"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.” - Rep. Todd Akin

If you haven’t read or heard that quote, I’m guessing that you haven’t been following the news this week. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a politician flush his career down the toilet in such a glaringly obvious fashion as this. This statement, explaining why Akin doesn’t believe that abortion is necessary in cases of rape, is so blatantly wrong-headed and misogynist that I cannot conceive of any way for him to resuscitate his career.

There has been plenty of analysis about this statement, which includes a disturbing parsing of rape into “legitimate” and (presumably) illegitimate categories (are we ever going to stop blaming the victim?), and a bizarre pseudo-medical “wish it were so” scenario about the risks of pregnancy during rape that can’t possibly be grounded in any true science. It also manages to address the existence of the rapist and the child while entirely dismissing the presence of the woman involved, as if her life and concerns were of no consequence.

But the thing about all this that truly terrifies me is that, as pointed out by Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post, Aiken is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Really? How scary is it that a man who believes that a woman’s body can “shut the whole thing down” if she is raped gets to decide Federal policy and spending priorities for Science? No wonder our policies in these areas seem so completely screwed up.

This statement, made in support of an anti-abortion policy position, is the most clear illustration of how the anti-abortion movement has sold it soul, willingly accepting the most misogynist, illogical arguments, as long as they support the ultimate goal of making abortions illegal. In the process, the movement has lost sight of the big picture: there are real people involved, people who have to face real life consequences to their choices, and whose circumstances very often don’t lend themselves to the overly simplistic arithmetic that supports the anti-abortion position. Reality is far too messy for such a simplistic approach.

To those who truly would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions, I would suggest a different approach. Instead of lobbying for a legal ban on abortions and preaching about the evils of abortion, why don’t we try to address the social circumstances that force women to consider abortion in the first place. If we were to approach this issue with an attitude of compassion, instead of one of anger, we might be able to put ourselves into the shoes of the women, to empathize with their situations, and thus find ways to help them. I find it infuriating that so many of those who oppose abortion also oppose almost every reasonable measure that might address the need for abortion, including meaningful sex education for children and social programs that would provide safety nets for at risk populations. And, as illustrated by Aiken, many of those opposed to abortion also seem to be operating from a misogynist world view where any meaningful understanding of the needs of women is simply impossible.

It seems to me that it is long past time to find a solution to the problem of Congressional Representation for the people who live in the District of Columbia. The House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would impose limitations on abortions in the District of Columbia. Not only do the residents of DC not have any representatives that can vote on this issue, but during a subcommittee hearing for this bill, their non-voting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, was not even allowed to speak. If that isn’t the antithesis of representative democracy, I don’t know what is. Regardless of your position on the issue of abortion, we should all be outraged that Congress is willing to impose legislation without so much as even considering the views of those upon whom the law will be enforced.

( An analysis about why we can't seem to give DC true representation )

There's a quote from South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford that's all over the news today, but I'm having some difficulty swallowing it. In yesterday's press conference explaining his 5 day absence from the state and apologizing for an extra-marital affair, the Governor said "The bottom line is this: I have been unfaithful to my wife." Excuse me? As despicable as the infidelity is, I don't think its the bottom line on this incident. As Governor, Sanford is the chief executive of the South Carolina state government. To disappear for five days without telling anyone where he was going, or providing any means for anyone to contact him represents a gross dereliction of duty. His responsibility to the governance of the state dictates that he be available to address any emergencies or other issues that might arise. To be out of contact with his staff and other representatives of the state government for five days seriously impairs the ability of the state to respond, and is absolutely inexcusable. That is the bottom line, Governor.

The Metro section of the Washington Post includes a feature called "Page Three", which include short essays from Post readers about their experiences in and around the city. I really enjoyed the first essay from today's selections:

The Literary Choices That Can Touch the Soul.

Here is the actual text of a classified ad that was placed in the Des Moines Register:

OLDS 1999 Intrigue. Totally uncool parents who obviously don't love teenage son, selling his car. Only driven for three weeks before snoopy mom who needs to get a life found booze under front seat. $3,700/offer. Call meanest mom on the planet.

Mom might not have won any points with her son, but she's got my vote for responsible parent of the year! Read more in the Washington Post.

I never would have predicted it, but the Virginia Republican party has abandoned its plans to require voters to sign a loyalty pledge in order to vote in the Republican primary in February. Apparently, the response to the planned pledge was overwhelming, including from within the party. Many party members are concerned that the planned pledge might (??) alienate the independent voters. In any case, the pledge will not be required to vote in the Virginia Republican primary. Both parties have their primaries scheduled for the same day, so it will only be possible to vote in one or the other. I suppose I'll have to see how the races are shaping up as we approach the date, and vote in the primary where I feel like I might have a chance to influence the outcome.

[Read more from today's Washington Post]

Roy L. Pearson, the DC Administrative Judge who lost his multi-million dollar lawsuit against a dry cleaning business earlier this year has officially lost his job as a judge. The committee that decided against reappointing him reviewed his decisions and tapes of his proceedings and concluded that he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgement and judicial temperament." Given the nature of his lawsuit, which was based upon a lost pair of pants, it is hardly surprising that his judicial record might support such a conclusion.

The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, but sometimes they manage to reach the right destination.

[from the Washington Post]

Last month, I wrote about a photographer who was hassled by security guards in Silver Spring, MD. While Ellsworth Drive might appear to be a public street, it is apparently leased to a developer, who wished to restrict photography for "security and business reasons". Yesterday, the Montgomery county attorney issued an opinion that states that Ellsworth Drive "constitutes a public forum" and that the First Amendment protections apply. The letter from County Attorney Leon Rodriguez to the County Executive noted that the "publication, dissemination and display of photographs" are included in such protections and that while the courts have not clearly resolved the issue of taking photographs as a protected expressive act, "it is likely that a court would consider the taking of the photograph to be part of the continuum of action that leads to the display of the photograph." Basically, the county had identified this location as a public space where photography is a protected expressive activity. A small victory for the First Amendment and common sense.

[From an article in the Washington Post]

It is a general principle of the law that the freedom of expression is protected in public spaces. In other words, a photographer has the legal right to take pictures on in a public place. This legal principle seems to be coming under increasing attack these days, often in the name of security. My workplace recently held a community day celebration outdoors in the park-like area in the middle of the office complex. A day or two before hand, we received an e-mail informing us that any employees who planned to take pictures should make sure they were wearing their work IDs. The area where the festivities were held is open to the public, and there are no signs or notices indicating any restrictions on public activities (other than the ubiquitous parking restrictions). To me, this would appear to be a public space, where photography is not only permitted but protected.

Now it seems that the rights of expression are under attack for commercial reasons as well. The downtown commercial center in Silver Spring, MD, certainly would appear to be a public space--streets run through it and anyone can walk there pretty much at any time. However, the Montgomery County has apparently leased certain streets to a developer, who is treating them like an enclosed mall. Among the activities being prevented by their security guards...photography. Unless the space is clearly identified as private, and the prohibited activities clearly posted, I think this is wrong. From a common sense perspective (which is a foolish notion when it comes to the law, I know), if it looks and feels like a public space, it should be treated like one.

See today's column by Marc Fisher for more details about photography restrictions in Silver Spring, MD.