Primary day is tomorrow, and I'm a little bit nervous.  It should be a fairly low pressure day for me because, as precinct captain, all I really have to do is be a presence at the polls and recruit volunteers out of the committed Democrats who come out to vote in the Democratic primary.  I expect we'll probably see heavier than usual turnout for a primary, given the rather acrimonious Senate primary between Harris Miller and Jim Webb, but still pretty light in absolute terms, as primaries always are.  But really I have no idea: this is the first time I've worked my own precinct for a primary.

I just made a couple of phone calls to set up a tentative arrangement for an older lady to get a ride to go vote.  Unfortunately the person who told me last week they could do it, may now have to back out if his work schedule changes - he'll know by this afternoon.  If it does turn out he can't do it, then I'll have to scramble to find someone else.

The real reason I'm anxious is that I haven't been able to do as much as I wanted to do in preparation.  I just haven't had time.  Working full time, going to school 3 nights a week, volunteering with a campaign, chairing the Women's Rights Committee, AND being a precinct captain is really wearing on me.  It's the school that's put me over the edge more than anything, and I wish I hadn't had to sign up for summer classes, but at least I've made arrangements so that I will not have to do summer classes next year.  It is an off year, but in Virginia we have elections every year - it will be state senate and some local races - and I'll have a chance to get out there and do a lot of canvassing to ID Democrats and build my volunteer base.  Ah, next year.

It's all a learning experience.  Right now, I know what I need to put in my kit, and I know how to recruit volunteers, and that's what I need, for tomorrow.

As for the primary itself...

Crossposted at my blog, Secondhand Sun.

Remember how, immediately after September 11th, 2001, airline security was suddenly a lot tighter, and everyone was glad? "I'm just happy they're there to protect us," we'd say sanctimoniously, to justify to ourselves that we had failed to protest the indignity of having our underwear spilled out of our luggage for all to see. But after a while it got old, and instead of relaxing, the restrictions got, well, more and more restrictive. And those of us who'd travelled overseas, to countries that had dealt with terrorism on a recurring basis since long before 9/11/2001, remembered that we didn't have to sacrifice our personal dignity to clear security, there.

When I was travelling to visit my family over the winter break last year, I flew for the first time in perhaps two or three years. I've always liked flying. And I was happy to be doing it again. I arrived plenty early at the airport, got my e-ticket, and joined the security line. People were shuffling through the line, pulling their laptops out of zippered bags and placing them in the plastic tubs, taking their shoes off, putting those in the plastic tubs, and shuffling on through the metal detectors in their sockfeet. I took one look at the spectacle of hundreds of adults in their socks, and when I heard the recorded looped message that said taking your shoes off was optional, I decided I wasn't going to do it.

Crossposted at Dailykos

I woke up to this from the Washington Post: an article headlined Cost of Rebuilding New Orleans' Levees Triples.  The lede is as starkly simple as a sucker punch.

The Bush administration said yesterday that the cost of rebuilding New Orleans's levees to federal standards has nearly tripled to $10 billion and that there may not be enough money to fully protect the entire region.

Of course we all knew this was coming.  We all knew that this administration's incompetence, combined with their callous disregard for human life, would all but ensure that the levees in south Louisiana would not be repaired in time for the upcoming hurricane season. Update [2006-3-31 11:59:31 by furryjester]:I found out this morning that my congressman, Tom Davis, was going to be at an event just a short walk from my office. So I went down there to speak with him about this. He assured me that, despite what this article says, he's sure that the levees are going to be rebuilt with Category 5 hurricane protection. Um. Yeah. So I'll be looking forward to seeing Tom Davis stand up to the president and insist that the levees must be rebuilt "higher and better" just as Bush said they should. Any day now.

So I've been thinking, in the wake of South Dakota, about ways to make the Democratic Party understand that we, we women, we activists, we Democrats, are serious about women's rights and that we expect them to stand up for us - that we expect not to be slapped down, when we stand up for ourselves.  And I've had an idea, that I want to share with you all, for feedback.  Here goes...

What We Want: A 100% pro-woman nominee for President in 2008.  This candidate should fully support a woman's right to abortion AND birth control.  This candidate should fully support an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.

Crossposted at Dailykos

Mardi Gras is on my mind this weekend.  This afternoon, I tried to explain it to my friend's two-and-a-half year old.  I don't think she understood.  She's never seen a parade of any sort before, so my description probably didn't make much sense to her.  I found some plastic beads and tried to convince her to "play Mardi Gras" with me, but she wouldn't say, "Throw me something, mister!" She did like it when I threw the beads at her, though.  Maybe she absorbed something from it.  Maybe not.  Maybe she'll never know.

(Mardi Gras stories after the flip)

I just wanted to share with you guys some of the highlights of my week.  This is not so much to brag about myself but because I can sometimes get discouraged about whether little old me can really make a difference. In those times it helps me to read about small differences others have made. I have had a good week, and so maybe I can perform that service for someone else today.

I think that the most important thing for us activists to always remember and hold close is that the world does change through the actions of people like us.  It's not always easy, and it's certainly not as fast as we'd like it to be.  But people of strong will can make a difference - and do.

This is what my week was like.

The Washington Post reports that Tim  Kaine has been chosen to deliver the Democratic rebuttal to the State of the Union address.

Despite the fact that I am a Kaine supporter, and worked hard for his election in November, I am not happy about this choice.  It's not about Kaine.  The Post's analysis of the reason behind the choice is below, but it's not entirely correct:

Crossposted at Dailykos

I sat with my stuff at my feet in the waiting area by the gate at Chicago O'Hare, waiting to board a plane for the second leg of my flight home to Louisiana.  I had claimed a prime seat in the row nearest the jetway, and I had my headphones on, when a tall, thin African-American man in an airline uniform walked up to the counter and picked up the microphone.

Time to board? I lifted my headphones off to listen.  "Ladies and gentlemen, we will be boarding this flight in a few moments.  But first, just for you - this Christmas carol," the man said in a rich tenor.  And he sang:

I'll be home for Christmas
You can count on me

Virginia Governor Mark Warner commuted the death sentence of Robin Lovitt to life in prison without parole, yesterday afternoon.  Lovitt had been sentenced to death for a stabbing that occurred in 1998.  DNA tests at that time were inconclusive and a court clerk destroyed the DNA evidence that had been collected, which by state law ought to have been retained until the entire appeals process was exhausted.  Lovitt's attorneys contended that more advanced tests recently developed could have proved his innocence.

The governor's full statement is below, but the chief point is this:

However, in this case, the actions of an agent of the Commonwealth, in a manner contrary to the express direction of the law, comes at the expense of a defendant facing society's most severe and final sanction. The Commonwealth must ensure that every time this ultimate sanction is carried out, it is done fairly.

Crossposted at Dailykos

Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post has written an article discussing the "debate" over the future of Charity Hospital in New Orleans.  Charity Hospital is an institution in New Orleans.  It's no one's first choice for quality of care, but it's where you can go if you can't pay, and they won't turn you away.

It was damaged by Katrina.  It is closed.  Patients are being cared for in tents inside the convention center, instead.  Now, apparently, Charity Hospital is the subject of a "debate," presented to us thus:

Some suggest the Charity complex -- including the main "Big Charity" hospital, its sister University Hospital, research labs and offices -- should be razed. Others demand it be rebuilt. And because any public hospital here -- new or old -- would be built with federal dollars, every U.S. taxpayer has financial a stake in the fight. (sic)

Let's talk a little bit about that financial stake.  In 2003, taxpayers filed 101,386,201 individual tax returns.  The upper-end estimate quoted in the article for completely rebuilding Charity Hospital is $350 million.  That comes out to less than $3.50 per taxpayer - and that's if you ignore all other sources of government revenue (corporate income tax, tariffs, estate taxes, etc.)

Crossposted on Dailykos
I know that the title of the diary may seem to suggest otherwise, but this is a serious question.  I'm hoping for answers from the activist writers here I respect so much, like Meteor Blades and Madman in the Marketplace and others whose names maybe I don't know, who have done this and who understand better than I what it's meant to accomplish.

I've been thinking a lot about this - about Cindy Sheehan's planned protests all this week at the White House, about the die-ins, about getting arrested.  I'm planning to go, on Friday.  I don't know what I'll do when I get there.

(more)

Crossposted on Dailykos

It's a fight that crops up repeatedly on liberal blogs, and - if you're like me - in discussions with your Democratic friends and neighbors, with potential volunteers, and with voters.  How much do we compromise with people and movements who don't support ideals that are important to us? To what degree do we support candidates who don't stand for the same things we do, in order to get some of what we want? There are those who say that we progressives ought to stop supporting Democrats and form a third party.  There are those discourage any political activity whatsoever outside of electing Democrats, on the grounds that it is self-sabotage.

The interesting thing about this debate is - no matter what pioneers we may think we are - we are not the first progressives or radicals or leftists or liberals to engage in it.

After the flip, I've copied excerpts from an exchange of letters between Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, the early 20th century radical anarchists, on just this topic: to what extent should activists cooperate with other activists who have some goals in common, but not all?