Art of the Odd

Maybe I should give the PonyShow its own category, too.

Tonight’s PonyShow’s was all about raising money for Hillary’s campaign. We had Hillary volunteers, Hillary’s state field director, Hillary buttons and signs and balloons. I danced to Natacha Atlas’s cover of “It’s a Man’s World,” and NovySan offered to stalk the candidate. All in all, a good night.

I’m in the process of updating News of the Odd, and I’m finding links that no longer lead anywhere (which I won’t burden you with), and links that don’t really belong there, but which I put there because, when I last updated the site, I didn’t have a blog. And so those links, I will burden you with. And here’s one now:

“Project Vote Smart: Presidential Candidates
Not, strictly speaking, odd (though when has the American presidential race not been odd?), but definitely useful. Project Vote Smart has collected issue statements, voting records, and biographical information on all of the candidates, even the ones you didn’t know were running. And navigating through their site, you might even find out who represents you in Congress. (Always assuming, of course, that you live in the United States. If not, you can be pardoned for not caring. If you do live in the US, it’s rather less forgivable. Unless, of course, you are either a Jehovah’s Witness, a recent immigrant, or a convicted felon.)”

I took some time off from work today to hear Barack Obama speak in Culver City. (Or Baldwin Hills, depending on whether you get the address from my cell phone or from the neighborhood signs in the area.)

He’s an excellent speaker, with a strong presence, a refreshingly accurate grasp of the English language, and some very good ideas. But that wasn’t what impressed me the most about him. The thing that impressed me the most is that right after he took the stage, a woman near the front of the crowd collapsed. Not only did he spot it — he shut things down until she got some help. “Can someone please call the medics or 911?” he asked, as half a dozen cops stood by. Should I just go over there?, I wondered. I had a bottle of water, but I was two hundred feet away, with bodies pressed close between us. “We’ve got someone down here — probably just the heat.” We stood in the sun, waiting, until he said, “Are you okay, ma’am? No, we still need some help here. Would someone please give her some water? Are you okay? Okay, you just sit right there on the ground until you don’t feel dizzy anymore.” I watched that, and I thought of Bush, blinking stupidly, reading My Pet Goat while New York burned, and while I can’t say yet that Obama is my choice for the next president, I can say he’s just taken a huge stride closer.

Yesterday, I discovered (at Fired Up! Missouri, via a link from Crooks and Liars) that the Missouri House has just passed a budget bill which would prohibit state funding for contraception in all county health clinics in Missouri. The bill originally contained an amendment which would have restored funding for family planning services to women too poor to afford private health insurance, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. (This funding was cut in 2003, when Republicans gained control of both houses of the Missouri legislature, by legislators who didn’t want state funds going to Planned Parenthood. The original amendment would have allowed county clinics to use state funds to provide contraceptive services.) However, Missouri Rep Susan Phillips successfully lobbied for the removal of the funding, on the grounds that “If you hand out contraception to single women, we’re saying promiscuity is OK as a state.“

If anyone doubts that the impetus for this was religious, the legislative session that approved it was opened with the following prayer, by the Reverend Mark Christian (no, I’m not making that up), of the United Pentacostal Church:

Righteous Everlasting God we thank You for this day. I thank You for the work of this incredibly important legislative assembly. Your servant, David of old, reminded us of the value of walking in the counsel of the godly and not standing in the way of those separated from You. He also told us that we should situate our lives by the rivers of water. Thank You for this day and the blessing and favor that with Your help and strength will be brought to each member of this distinguished House. In Jesus name we ask these things. Amen. ^[*]

This prayer was followed by The Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course, I’ve been saying for years that a significant segment of the anti-choice crowd is not only anti-abortion; they’re anti-contraception as well. A woman who can control her own reproduction (and thus her own sexuality) is dangerous in a patrilineal society. (One of the reasons, I’m sure, that midwives were so often victims of Medieval and Renaissance witch-hunts.)

And in other “scared of sex” stories, two legislators in Tennessee are attempting to ban the sale and display of sex toys. It’s already illegal to sell them in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and several other states, including Texas. All is not lost, however. The University of Missouri-Kansas City recently hosted a sex fair, with discussions and demonstrations of safe sex and contraception, and sales of — yes, you guessed it — sex toys.

As an aside, March 17 is the anniversary of the opening, in 1921, of The Mother’s Clinic in London — the first family planning clinic in England. (Unfortunately, the founder, Marie Stopes, was not only a pioneering doctor and women’s rights advocate — she was a eugenicist, too.)

^*This prayer would appear to violate the First Amendment prohibition on establishment of religion, as interpreted in Marsh v. Chambers, which upheld the tradition of “non-sectarian, Judeo-Christian” prayer in legislative assemblies, so long as “there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.” ^[back]

Via Boing Boing:

The Family Watchdog is a website that shows the names and addresses of registered sex offenders in the US. Oh, and their pictures. And sometimes their work addresses. All delivered up in a way that says, “These predators are stalking your children. And if you don’t take steps to protect them, you’re a very, very bad parent. Our map will show you where these animals live (one of the testimonials actually uses that word — animals), and then you can order our video, and find out how to protect your children from these predators.”

Now, I have strong, and mixed, feelings about sex offender registries. On the one hand, of course I want to know if the guy next door is a danger. And there are people on these lists who are truly dangerous. But there are also people on these lists who aren’t at all dangerous, but are having their lives ruined by being on these lists. (As someone on Boing Boing pointed out, in some states, peeing in public will land you on the sex offender registry. So will having sex with a 16 year old when you’re 18. Hell, I work with a retired cop who thinks a lot of the crimes you’ll have to register for in California are bullshit — and in California, the registration is for life. Think about that for a second.)

The maps shows clusters of sex offenders concentrated around schools (creepy), but it also shows clusters in low-income neighborhoods (which suggests to me that A) low-income offenders are more likely to be convicted of crimes that will land them on “the list,” very likely due to less-than-competent legal counsel, and/or B) people whose names are on these lists have difficulty finding jobs that would allow them to move into higher-income neighborhoods).

In many instances, the dots on the map are linked to addresses and mug shots, which raises serious privacy concerns. Many of the listings fail to show what the person’s offense is, meaning that despite the differently-colored dots on the map, you don’t know whether you’re looking at someone who whacked off in a porn theatre (Pee-Wee Herman — who, granted, did also plead guilty to “possessing obscene materials,” due to his collection of vintage erotica, some of which involved teenage boys) or someone who ass-raped a teenager in a hot tub (Roman Polanski).

I think the thing that bothers me most about this site, though, is its smug assurance that it can keep your children safe. (”Your family’s best friend,” says the slogan next to the friendly bulldog in the upper left. “Protect your Community, Protect Your Family, Protect Yourself.”) As though sex offenders were the only danger facing your children. As though every sex offender who might harm your children is listed here. (California, at least, points out on its sex offender registry site that 90% of the children sexually abused in the US know their abusers, and that nearly half are abused by family members.) As though only children need fear sex offenders. You have to dig for the disclaimers that admit that not every offender in the country will be listed and that not every sex offender notifies the state every time he or she moves. I can’t find a disclaimer that says that some of these people may have been falsely convicted, or that some of them might have very common names, and you shouldn’t assume that the Dave Jones who shows up here as a serial rapist is the same Dave Jones who lives up the street. The only privacy statement involves the privacy of the people who register for updates (oh, yes, they’ll be happy to let you know when a new “predator” moves into your neighborhood, for a small annual fee) or who buy their video. It draws no distinction between “offenders” and “predators,” and provides no definitions of the offender categories it includes (Offense Against Children, Rape, Sexual Battery, Other Offenses).

Out of curiosity, I attempted to locate the only convicted sex offender I know — a man with a history of sexual misconduct with minors (two that I know of — one was 5, the other 15). His name isn’t on their list. So I ran his current address. He lives equidistant between two schools, but he’s not on their map. A couple of his neighbors are — I see a few convictions for sexual battery, one for statutory rape, another for felony sexual assault on a child. And I think about the people who may live nearby, checking this site to find out if they’re safe, and thinking they are, because the nearest offender is half a mile away, when actually he’s right next door.

Is a “National Sex Offender Registry” a valuable service? I suppose it could be. But this feels exploitative to me. I don’t like it.