Archive for the 'politics' Category

Book Report: Nickel and Dimed

Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006
I just finished reading Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed and it really opened my eyes. Clevery subtitled “How (Not) To Get By in America,” the book is a chronicle of Ehrenreich’s “adventures” in survival as a member of the low-wage workforce that serves our meals, cleans our homes, and cares for our elderly.

The book is divided into three sections, each of which finds Ehrenreich in a new location, looking for work and a place to live. Her first stop was Key West, where she took a job as a waitress at one restaurant before moving to a busier one attached to a hotel. A bit later, she tried to increase her income by picking up some additional work as a maid at said hotel, but the exhaustion (and accompanying pain) got to her and she decided just to stick with the waitressing.

In the second section, she journeyed to Maine, where she picked up a job working for a cleaning service during the week and working at a nursing home on the weekends. It was the “off season” in Maine, meaning weekly rents were far cheaper at the extended-stay motels, but she still had problems making ends meet. There’s no doubt that the tourist season would have bankrupted her or had her sharing a single-room efficiency with several other workers.

Finally, it was on to the heartland of America, Minnesota, where she was shocked to discover a severe affordable housing shortage. She took a position as an “associate” at Wal-Mart to gain additional insight into the largest private employer in the United States (possibly the world), but no matter how hard she tried, she just could not afford to live, even in the seediest of motels with assistance from local charities and the State.

In each location, Ehrenreich tried to live as cheaply as possible, often finding shelter at hotels, motels, and trailer parks that cater to those unable to afford an apartment. And, in Minneapolis, when she couldn’t even afford to do that, a local organization suggested she live at a shelter (while working full-time at Wal-Mart, mind you) until she had saved enough to afford the first month’s rent and security deposit for an apartment in the tight real estate market.

While it is arguable that she could not even hope to capture the complete experience by spending just a month in each place (and, of course, being able to return to her “real” life at any time), she was able to glean a good deal of insight into the struggles of low wage workers in this country. Her final chapter, in fact, articulated perfectly some of the thoughts and feelings I’ve had for some time. Here’s an excerpt:

When poor single mothers had the option of remaining out of the labor force on welfare, the middle and upper middle class tended to view them with a certain impatience, if not disgust. The welfare poor were excoriated for their laziness, their persistence in reproducing in unfavorable circumstances, their presumed addictions, and above all for their “dependency.” Here they were, content to live off “government handouts,” instead of seeking “self-sufficiency,” like everyone else, through a job. They needed to get their act together, learn how to wind an alarm clock, get out there and work. But now that government has largely withdrawn its “handouts,” now that the overwhelming majority of the poor are out there toiling in Wal-Mart or Wendy’s—well, what are we to think of them? Disapproval and condescension no longer apply, so what outlook makes sense?

Guilt, you may be thinking warily. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to feel? But guilt doesn’t go anywhere near far enough; the appropriate emotion is shame—shame at our own dependency, in this case, on the underpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on—when, for example, she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently—then she has made a great sacrifice for you, she has made a gift of some part of her abilities, her health, and her life. The “working poor,” as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone else.

I highly recommend checking this book out if your a social activist interested in pushing for a living wage or are simply interested in the nature of labor and the workforce in America.

Politics Aside: Kelly gets a column

Friday, April 14th, 2006

After her very successful run for office last year, Kelly has become quite the thought leader here in Hamden. She was just named Chairperson of the town’s Clean and Green Commission and was asked to pen a biweekly column for Hamden Daily News, an online-only newspaper for our town. She cleverly named it “Politics Aside”.

Her first column ran today and I think it’s very timely: our proposed budget is under review right now and has a lot of oddities in it, including the elimination of the Traffic Director position and the reorganization of the Traffic Department under Engineering. If you know anything about traffic planning on a municipal level, you know this is going to cripple our efforts to get a handle on the traffic issues which keep sprouting up and ensnarling our roads. And then consider the fact that some of our roads haven’t been paved in over 35 years and… I’ll stop now. Anyway, I’m obviously a little biased, but I think it’s a great first piece and I’m looking forward to seeing her develop her column and public voice.

Congrads Kelly. Good Luck. I love you.

Getting Naked

Tuesday, April 4th, 2006

We feel bad about missing Grey Tuesday, CSS Reboot and all the April Fools shennanigans (too much work, not enough sleep), but we finally found something we can join/support in with little to no difficulty: CSS Naked Day. For the whole of today (April 5th), we’ve turned the CSS off for both this site and Easy Designs. We hope you enjoy their rich, semantic goodness.

Honorable, my ass!

Thursday, February 9th, 2006

It appears that some Dems, including my Representative from the 3rd District in Connecticut, Rosa De Lauro, are trying to cripple our democracy under the guise of public financing.

HR 4694, or the “Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act,” proposed by Representative David Obey (D, WI), would make great strides toward establishing public financing for House of Representatives races, but there’s a catch. The bill contains some very sneaky language regarding how 3rd parties and independent candidates can conduct their campaigns which virtually guarantees the continuance of the two-party system. Let’s break down some of the key provisions:

  • Nominees of parties (including 3rd parties) that had averaged 25% of the vote for US House in that district (over the last two elections) would get full public funding

OK, this seems pretty reasonable and is to be expected.

  • Independent candidates who had averaged 25% would get full public funding

This is good, but starts to show one of the weaknesses of our electoral system. Independent candidates, that is to say candidates who run on no party line, are always at a disadvantage, even under this system which “levels the playing field.”

If you don’t understand why, take another look at the first provision: “Nominees of partiesthat had averaged 25%.” In other words, candidates, even those with very little party support, who manage to get the endorsement of a party that has averaged 25% of the votes in the district, will get full public funding. By contrast, an independent candidate has no party, so unless (s)he has run previously and garnered 25% of the vote in the last two elections, (s)he gets no public dough. And here’s another oddity… what if there is an incumbant Independent and (s)he decides not to run again, but another Independent steps up to run? Well, that new candidate has to start from scratch and may not get any public money.

  • All others would be required to submit petitions signed by 10% of the last vote cast, for partial funding; and 20% petitions for full funding

OK, so a candidate or party does not have standing to automatically get public funding. No biggie, but gathering signatures from 10%-20% of the last vote cast to qualify does seem a little steep. I understand wanting to keep out the non-serious candidates, but it seems a little excessive. The St Louis Oracle did the math:

[I]n Missouri’s 2nd congressional district, a candidate with a party that won less than 25% of the vote in the last two elections would need nearly 70,000 signatures to qualify for the public funding that her/his Democratic and Republican opponents would get automatically, and only signatures from the 2nd District would count. Nearly 35,000 signatures would be required in order to allow the candidate to spend anything at all on the campaign.

  • Candidates not qualifying for partial funding would be barred from spending any privately raised money

Say that again? What? Barred from spending privately raised money? What’s that all about? This is essentially saying “if you can’t get signatures from 10% of the vote in the last election, you can’t run.” Except that it isn’t. The key phrase is “privately raised.” If you have a massive fortune of your own to fund your campaign, goodonya! We all know how in touch the über-wealthy are with the plight of the common (wo)man struggling to feed his/her family on Wal Mart wages.

What started out sounding promising rapidly spiralled out fo control into a bill which really isn’t all that democratic. As if incumbent representatives have such a hard time getting re-elected in the first place. Talk about stacking the deck in your favor!

The whole thing does beg some interesting questions though:

  • Let’s say you have an incumbent who is a Democrat and she has run unopposed for the last two election cycles (it happens more often than you think). Would a Republican contender have to start from scratch, gathering signatures equalling 20% of the last vote like the 3rd party and independent candidates would?
  • And on the topic of running unopposed, does an unopposed candidate who qualifies for full public funding still get it?

I’ll end this on an interesting side note: In 2004, the sponsor fo this bill, Representative Obey, faced a challenger for the first time in his political career: Mike Miles, a Green candidate. Obey refused to debate Miles, saying that he was not a “legitimate” candidate. Miles got one of the highest vote totals of any third party candidate that year (9.37% or 26160 votes), came in second in the race, and has already announced that he’s going to run again.

Another political divide

Friday, November 18th, 2005

In the interest of observing politics and activism online, I have signed up to receive numerous newsletters and “action alerts” from groups ranging from MoveOn and the ACLU to the GOP. Politics aside, one thing I find very striking is how much freedom is given to an individual to add a personal message or rewrite a letter in support of or against a particular issue by the “left.” The “right,” however, does not seem to have any interest in their activists’ opinions.

When I received this recent solicitation from the GOP, for instance, I was not given any opportunity to rewrite the letter in my own words or even add a personal message to the missive. All the GOP seems to want is my signature and the email addresses of my friends. Even if I were to agree with an issue the GOP were asking for my support on, a practice like that makes me very disinclined to take action.

On the other “side,” you have action requests such as this petition from MoveOn. Much more emphasis is placed on personalizing the message of the action. Even if I do not have the time to add a personal message, I appreciate the effort to include me in the process and am more likely to take action.

Perhaps it is just my conspiracy-addled mind working overtime, but I find this dichotomy more than a little odd. What does the GOP have to fear from their own activists?