A Daily Dose of Interesting

My Lady Parts Keep Trying to Kill Me

I thought I was done with cancer. Did my time, paid my dues back in 2008 with breast cancer. But for some reason my lady parts weren’t done trying to kill me, and they attacked with a vengeance late last year. A double whammy – independently sourced ovarian and uterine cancer, unrelated to each other or my previous breast cancer.

For good measure, the less dangerous Grade 1 ovarian tumor touched some endometrial tissue (did I mention I also discovered that I had undiagnosed endometriosis for the better part of a decade?) on my left fallopian tube, and gave birth to a small (less than one cm), very rare, Frankensteinish “de-differentiated” tumor with stem cell-like capability to adapt, morph, grow, and spread like an invasive weed during a rainy summer. They are so rare and usually caught so late that there is very little data about them worldwide, so the data about my very tiny one will be shared broadly – not exactly the kind of notoriety I was looking for. Carrie, my oldest child, quipped “Worst superpower ever, Mom.” Apparently, she’s absorbing my occasionally macabre sense of humor. Repeated bouts with cancer, either your own or that of someone close to you, will do that to a person.

Thankfully, we caught this malicious little monster of a tumor unusually early. Hopefully removing all of my abdominal lady parts, plus performing an omentectomy (go ahead and look it up, I certainly had to – not the kind of tummy tuck I’d recommend) got it all, along with the Grade 1 uterine and ovarian cancers, too. My six rounds of chemotherapy infusions plus some immunotherapy meds will serve as insurance to try and make sure it’s all truly gone and hopefully will significantly lower my risk of recurrence – especially the malicious little monster. I never laid eyes on it personally (deep anesthesia, complete with intubation, robbed me of that chance and it kept hiding from view during multiple scans), otherwise I’d have given it a name. So “malicious little monster” it is because that’s more alliterative and G-rated than “sneaky little bastard” or “nasty little f#@ker.”

When I had my breast cancer back in 2007-08, it was low-grade, Stage 1, and opting for a full mastectomy was considered curative, with a few years of the medication Tamoxifen thrown in as insurance. Genetic testing that more wimpy tumor showed that my risk of recurrence was only 9%, and so it was believed that chemotherapy and radiation would do more harm than good. As a result, I was able to avoid both of them. Whew! Bullet dodged, I thought – I’m done with cancer now. If I got any more cancer, I thought it would be colon cancer, which runs in both sides of my family, and I’ve had enough suspicious looking polyps by now that I’m on a 3-year colonoscopy schedule rather than the usual 5-10 years. How much you wanna bet I’ll be annual after this? Fun times.

I recovered from my two cesarian sections, my mastectomy, and my recent major abdominal surgery really quickly. It’s a more positive superpower I seem to have. However, my torso is now a topographical map with a vertical river of an incision scar running due south from a couple of inches above my belly button down to my older, horizontal c-section scar. And there remains my old mastectomy scar, which is still visible even with my breast implant. In addition to the scars, because of the nature of the vertical incision and my lack of the extra protective layer of an omentum, I will always be at higher risk than usual for hernia. Heavy lifting is now a hard no for me, so if my friends and acquaintances see me play the helpless, weak lady role in the face of something heavy it’s not a retreat from feminism, it’s just me trying to avoid having my intestines make their way outside of my abdominal wall, so please cut me a break and help me out. But with all of the stress, appetite loss, and dietary restrictions that came with the cancer symptoms and everything removed during the surgery itself, I easily and quickly reached the goal weight at which I’ve been aiming with varying success for about 15 years. It’s not a weight loss regimen I would recommend, but at least I look pretty awesome in clothes. When it comes to cancer, you emphasize the positives where you can.

The chemotherapy regimen for ovarian cancer, even early stage (I was Stage 2A – one of the first things you learn once you’ve been attacked by more than one type of cancer is that the staging parameters for different types of cancers varies significantly), is pretty nasty. Two strong chemo medications are prescribed to be infused in sequence, which takes 4 hours, but they first must be tempered with a 40-minute IV drip full of electrolytes, anti-nausea meds, antihistamines, and steroids. And if your immune system reacts strongly once they begin infusing the actual chemo meds, as mine did, that means they pump even more IV Benadryl and a second steroid into you with syringes and stay ready with an Epi-pen just in case.

Most folks don’t react too badly, and the few that do only react during the first infusion. Not me. Apparently, my body can’t recognize its own cancer cells and kill them, but it is quite proficient at recognizing when it’s being poisoned. I not only reacted with the classic stabbing lower back pains they warned me about both times, but with the second infusion I added even worse additional symptoms: a racing heartbeat and shortness of breath. I had to put up my hand in protest and gasp to please let the extra syringe full of IV Benadryl do its thing when one of the three nurses who had converged on me asked, “should I hit her with the pen?” I put up my hand and spoke up because I figured if I could still breathe well enough to talk (and the back pains were subsiding), then an Epi-pen stab would likely do more harm than good. She held off, and when the shortness of breath and racing heart were not completely calmed by just the Benadryl, the extra IV steroids were opted for. My reactive symptoms to the chemo meds came both times at exactly seven minutes after the first chemo med infusion began. At least I’m consistent about something.

I live 46 miles from the main oncology clinic where my oncologist is based and was hoping that after an infusion or two, perhaps I could receive my chemotherapy at a clinic a bit closer to home. But because I am such a problem child, I must keep going to the main clinic until my reactions subside. Reacting to the second infusion is pretty unusual, and the third time is quite rare, but given my malicious little monster and all, rarity is apparently my thing now, so who knows?

They say that you establish a chemo side effects pattern pretty quickly after the first two infusions and then it holds consistently through the rest of the infusion cycles. For me, because of the extra doses of Benadryl and steroids, my side effects get delayed for about 36 hours. I’m sleepy from the Benadryl all through infusion day (I call it day zero) and that evening, which means I cannot drive myself home. My husband has been the one to accompany me to my two infusions so far, and because I am so sleepy from extra Benadryl dosing, he gets a lot of work done on his iPad Pro while watching me sleep. Unfortunately, he has unexpectedly had to leave the infusion area to take phone calls both times before my reactions occurred, so he has completely missed the excitement of seeing three nurses converge on me with their bright orange tackle box, multiple syringes, and Epi-pen. Because he has a tendency to leave unexpectedly, the nurses have taken to giving me a little bell to ring if I feel reactive symptoms once they start the first chemo infusion bag. I do ring it, but very softly, as if I am somehow bothering them by doing so. I don’t really know why, but I suspect it’s a female/mom thing. We women always feel apologetic bothering others with our own needs, no matter how dire or justified those needs might be. “Sorry to bother you, but my heart is racing and I’m starting to have trouble breathing . . . “ In-grained gender socialization sticks hard, am I right ladies?

The Benadryl wears off early the next morning, but the steroids are still in my system (just ask any athlete who dopes and gets caught), and so I am wired to the point where I can’t relax and sit still the entire next day, have trouble sleeping the second night, and still feel quite energetic the second morning. I take that time to get a lot done while the energy and the absence of pain lasts. Like I said, with cancer you emphasize the positives when you can.

However, by 4:00 PM that second day the steroids dissipate, and I’m curled up under a heavy layer of blankets, shivering with feverless chills, and random but constant shooting pains that plague my lower body. They feel a lot like sciatica, but occur throughout my hips, legs, feet, and lower joints. I did manage to lessen their severity somewhat below my knees by wearing compression socks during my second infusion and for a few days afterward. But it took me several days after my first infusion to realize that this was, yet again, an immune reaction that pain meds simply did not phase. Not even oxycontin dented them much. The oncologist on-call over that first weekend suggested taking antihistamines instead. So, I take Allegra every morning and during the day layer on top of that the ingredient in the old over-the-counter medication that used to be called Actifed, and I take Benadryl at night. That does more to bring the pain down to a dull roar than even Oxy did. They are not certain exactly why, but it works. Heat therapy helps some, but I cannot use electric heating pads or blankets because I am one of those weirdos upon whose wrists analog watches will completely stop – I can drain a watch battery in record time simply by wearing said watch. Since the main active ingredient in my chemo meds is the metal platinum, which conducts electricity, applying an electric heating pad to my aching legs increased rather than soothed the stabbing pains I was experiencing, which was a rather nasty surprise.

Despite the antihistamines, the pain and corresponding fatigue of that first infusion cycle lasted eight days. I finally woke up at 3:30 AM on post-infusion day nine, so soaked in sweat that I had to get up and shower. Speaking of that, did you know that when you are going through chemotherapy all of your body secretions are so toxic that you literally need to protect your own skin and your loved ones from them? You must brush your teeth and/or rinse your mouth more often, and drink lots of water, even during the night, to flush the toxins out of your body and to keep your bladder from getting too irritated by sitting statically too long, filled with poison. If you have pets or little kids that might get into the toilet water, you must be sure to close the lid and flush twice, especially if you have a low flow toilet.  Wanna have vaginal or oral sex? A condom must be used. No deep kissing. If you sweat on your partner, they should shower too as soon as possible. It’s sobering to think about how toxic my “medicine” is when I practice these precautions myself, as well as when I see the infusion center nurses glove, gown, mask, and goggle up when they are handling and hanging my chemo meds IV bags, just in case the bags leak or get dropped and spill. No need to gown me up, though – I’m already full of the stuff. Even one’s tears become toxic and can change some people’s vision. Fun stuff. Anyway, after my shower and donning a change of clothes, I felt great – no more chills, aches, or fatigue. But I was also wide awake at 4:00 AM.

Unless you pay something like $5000 out of pocket to wear a “freeze cap” on your head during chemo infusions to garner an 80% chance you won’t lose all of your hair (it still usually thins significantly), your chance of losing your hair with this chemo regimen is 99.9%. Because I was not willing to pay $5000 cash for six of the world’s worst ice cream headaches without the benefit of the ice cream, I am not the rare exception when it comes to hair loss. I had my mom clipper off what was left of my hair a day before my second chemo infusion, which if I stay healthy and can stay on schedule are 21 days apart, with the last one occurring on May 1st. Goodbye to my hair, and hello to a really nice wig, hats, and fake bangs to wear under hats (yes, those are actually a thing). Surprisingly, my eyebrows are still hanging in there, thinning but still there and even feebly trying to grow back – I even had to pluck two little strays this morning. So far, I seem to harbor “The Little Eyebrows That Could.” We’ll see if they keep it up, since I’m sure it’s a worse uphill battle for them than that storied Little Engine faced, since he was just being overloaded, not poisoned. My eyelashes are thinning slowly, with no sign of regrowth, so I’m assuming they will be gone soon. I can’t wait until my leg hair gives up completely, though. Too bad its loss can’t become permanent, since my chemo regimen costs a lot more than laser hair removal treatments do.

The second infusion cycle has been better – my number of bad, painful days decreased from nine to four, which is progress. I’m hoping that will now be my new pattern and that as my immune reaction decreases, the pain on the bad days will continue to lessen in intensity. The addition of immunotherapy meds to my infusion regimen for my third cycle could introduce a wildcard that could disrupt this pattern of improvement, and I know for certain that it will at least temporarily increase my already keen need to avoid getting sick.

I am told that even if my pain decreases, my compromised immunity and fatigue will be cumulative throughout the entire chemotherapy regimen, worsening with each infusion cycle. Which means that I must stay away from crowds and sick people for the next several months. And so, my friends, if I decline an invitation or fail to show up to events you know I would normally attend enthusiastically or even help to lead, I’m not being rude or anti-social. I am simply trying to keep from, at best, getting mildly sick and disrupting my chemo schedule or, at worst, ironically dying from a more common illness after going through all of the trauma, discomfort, logistical battles, and expense I have experienced thus far to avoid dying from cancer. Those logistical battles and expense will be the subject of an upcoming essay, so please stay tuned.

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Feminism, Health, Whimsy, Women

Say No To Private School Vouchers

The Minnesota State Constitution has been clear about the nature of our public education system since 1859:



“Article XIII – MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS

Section 1: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

Section 2: In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds, or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught.”



Any taxpayer or lawmaker can express an opinion about Minnesota’s public schools and public charter schools and whether they are “uniform, thorough, and efficient,” or demand that public schools be improved or better funded. But they cannot simply ask state taxpayers to pay for students to attend private and particularly parochial schools. People who argue otherwise are often not familiar with or choose to ignore our state constitution and subsequent case law about its education clauses.

That includes Minnesota State Senator Roger Chamberlain, a Republican from Lino Lakes and current Chair of the Senate Education Policy and Finance Committee who has introduced bills proposing various forms of taxpayer funded private school vouchers during the past several legislative sessions. This session, he is holding a significant increase in basic education funding hostage to the creation of a cash voucher in the amount of the basic per student formula that students can put into an “education savings account” and use to pay for private schools.

Despite Senator Chamberlain and his supporters’ claims that such private school vouchers enhance “school choice” options for parents, the simple fact is that they are blatantly unconstitutional in Minnesota. When a parent chooses to send their child to a private school of any kind, they are opting to exit the public school system constitutionally required to be provided by the state. They are also opting to pay any tuition that private school charges to attend it. That is that parent’s school “choice” – they have already made it, and it is not taxpayers’ problem to solve the financial aspect of that choice for the parent.

In regard to Article XIII, Section 1 – there is no way, without regulating them like public schools, to make private schools “uniform” – and no way to ensure they are “thorough and efficient” without mandating state testing for them. No regulation and accountability, no state money. And according to Section 2, if the private school maintains any religious affiliation at all, they can receive no state money – period.

Private school parents also argue that they pay taxes to support public schools that they do not use – and that it is not fair that their student cannot simply take their share of state aid to any school they choose to attend. This is a flawed argument that flies in the face of virtually all taxpayer funded infrastructure and services provided by government. For instance, you do not as a taxpayer get to opt out of paying taxes to support Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport just because you never fly. And you do not get to refuse to pay taxes to support the maintenance of state highways that you do not drive on. Nor can you opt out of paying county taxes for those county services you do not use – like the jail, for instance. In short, you do not get to opt out of paying for a public service just because you do not currently use it, and that includes public schools.


One could just as easily ask: should childless couples be exempt from paying for public schools, or should empty nesters be exempted once their kids graduate? Answer: No. The Minnesota State Constitution clearly states that the stability of a republican form of government depends mainly upon the intelligence of the people. Which means that public schools are publicly funded because there is inherent value in having good public schools in all communities – past, present, and future. Public schools, like most forms of public infrastructure, are long-term, multi-generational and cross-community investments that do not just affect or benefit the families with kids who currently attend them.

That Senator Chamberlain is pushing so hard for taxpayer funded private school vouchers is no surprise – he has several wealthy private schools within twenty miles of his Senate District – Mounds Park Academy, Totino-Grace, Cretin-Durham Hall, St. Paul Academy & Summit School, Benilde-St. Margaret, Academy of Holy Angels, Blake, Breck, Convent of the Visitation, and even De LaSalle. And those are just ones which offer grade levels K-12. There are many more that only offer elementary or K-8 grade levels.


Senator Chamberlain and others who support taxpayer funded private school vouchers claim that these vouchers enhance “school choice” options for parents – particularly for low-income students who otherwise could not afford private schools. Let us examine that premise, using an expensive option like the Blake School as an example – it charges $32,000 for high school tuition. Even a high average voucher of $13,000 (depending on how it is calculated it could also be as little as $7000) would not be enough to allow low-income students to afford Blake’s high tuition. But a private school taxpayer voucher would bring down the cost for wealthy Blake students already there because they would get that $13,000 voucher to put towards their tuition too – at the expense of the public schools they left behind. Funny how that works.

Given the actual math, it is just as likely that Senator Chamberlain and his Republican colleagues are looking to enact taxpayer subsidies for their wealthy private school constituents and donors more than to assist low-income students. And without requiring private schools to adhere to the same open admission and testing standards as public schools, these taxpayer subsidies would benefit wealthy private school students even while schools like Blake could continue to admit only students they deem “qualified” to attend.

In addition, it is not a given that simply switching to a private school will result in long-term academic gains for a public-school student. Although nationwide studies have shown that public-school students who use vouchers to attend private schools do make gains initially in reading and math, those gains level off and begin to decline after three years – especially in math.

This strongly suggests that the dirty little secret of private schools is that they are often successful not so much because they produce good students but instead because they are good at selecting good students to admit to their schools to begin with. But because our Minnesota State constitution states that “it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools,” if the Minnesota Republican Party wants public school funds to go to private school vouchers in the name of “school choice,” they must also require private schools to follow all of the same rules, regulations, and testing standards to which public schools must adhere. They must take any student who walks through their doors, including special education students with stringent IEPs and 504s, and be subject to the same non-discrimination rules as public schools in regard to race/ethnicity, religion, lack of English fluency, sexual orientation, and gender identity. But most private schools would not be willing to do that, particularly those with religious affiliations – which are prohibited from receiving state funds by Article XIII, Section 2 anyway.

Finally, Senator Chamberlain is also pushing so hard for unconstitutional taxpayer funded private school vouchers this year because census-driven redistricting in 2021 could very well cost the Minnesota Republican Party their current Senate majority in 2022. According to preliminary data, to ensure required uniform population distribution across all Senate districts the more blue and purple Twin Cities metro area must gain three to four Senate districts (which also means six to eight House districts). Since the actual number of total districts must remain the same, those metro area gains would come at the expense of red outstate areas where populations have fallen. Demographic shifts do not favor the Republican Party, and the Minnesota courts limit partisan gerrymandering. If Chamberlain cannot get vouchers done this year or next, it probably will not happen this entire decade, and maybe never at all – and he knows it. Apparently, constitutionality matters little in the face of desperation.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/constitution/

https://patch.com/minnesota/minneapolis/senate-gop-school-choice-advocates-push-new-voucher-style-program-minnesota

https://www.privateschoolreview.com/the-blake-school-profile/55391#:~:text=1%2C360%20students%20attend%20Blake%2C%20coming,percent%20of%20the%20student%20body.

https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-services/ieps/understanding-individualized-education-programs

https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-services/504-plan/504-plans-and-your-child-a-guide-for-families?utm_source=google&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=evrgrn-may20-fm

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2017/7/12/21108235/do-school-vouchers-work-as-the-debate-heats-up-here-s-what-research-really-says

https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sessiondaily/Story/15965

https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hjvid/92/894007

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, Education, History, Legal/Constitutional, Parenting, Politics, Race relations, Social justice

Why Higher Gas Prices Are Long Overdue

The recent rise in gasoline prices is not the President’s fault. It would not even be the President’s fault if Trump were still President. In fact, prices started to rise in January before Trump left office, and the overall problem of U.S. vulnerability to gas price volatility has been brewing for over 30 years.

In early January 2021 Russia and the OPEC cartel finally decided to stop flooding the world market with cheap oil in an effort to hurt Canadian oil sands, U.S. shale oil, and Venezuelan deep water production (which are more expensive extraction methods), and cut back their own supplies to the world market. Prices rose accordingly. In February, major refineries were shut down and/or damaged by the freezing cold and power outages in Texas. That also diminished available gas supplies. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions are easing and people are itching to travel again, all while we go into the normal summer travel season where prices always rise because gasoline demand rises.

The sudden shortages of gasoline and $4 per gallon prices in the southeastern United States were caused by the Colonial Pipeline cyber security hack issue. The outright gas station outages were caused by gas hoarding. Prices reacted worst where the hoarding happened, and in those locations people brought $7 per gallon gasoline prices upon themselves.

Gas was $1.20 per gallon in 1980. It is crazy unrealistic to think that it should always be less than $3 per gallon in 2021 when most everything else has increased at the normal or above rate of inflation. That prices have been so low for so long is a function of the recent world oil glut as technology has allowed more countries to become oil producers, combined with the heavy fossil fuel subsidies that have been part of US energy policy for a century. Depending on what is counted as a subsidy, estimates are that U.S. oil subsidies depress average U.S. gasoline prices between 28 cents and 98 cents per gallon.

The real issues here are that:

1) The U.S. does not emphasize cyber security enough for vital industries, and

2) We Americans have been so spoiled for 30 years with overly cheap gas prices and gas guzzling vehicles that when prices spike to more realistic 2021 levels many can no longer afford to drive them.

The truth is that we have had this coming for quite a while.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/investing/opec-oil-production-russia-saudi/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/04/opec-meeting-saudi-arabia-and-russia-to-review-production-policy.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-18/gulf-coast-fuel-makers-could-take-a-week-to-restart-after-freeze

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/politics/colonial-pipeline-ransomware-payment/index.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/colonial-pipeline-cyberattack-hack-11620668583

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/?sh=4ab341794473

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/21/17885832/oil-subsidies-military-protection-supplies-safe

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, Environment, History, Politics, World

It Is Tough To Be a Juror In a High-Profile Murder Case – I Know Because I Was One Myself

I have heard many people speculate about the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial. Was the case really a slam dunk for the prosecution? Did jurors feel pressured to bring back a guilty verdict on all counts? Did the Trump Justice Department’s pressure to disallow the state of Minnesota to accept a third-degree murder plea from Derek Chauvin influence the jury during the trial that then was required to be held? Did the public and social media comments of activists or the multimillion-dollar civil settlement that was awarded to George Floyd’s family during the trial by the City of Minneapolis influence the jury’s decision? Did the protests in Brooklyn Center in response to the shooting of Daunte Wright place increased pressure on the jury to convict Chauvin? I do not know the answers to these questions, which are all valid and will be addressed during the appeal process – Derek Chauvin’s attorney has already filed an appeal. What I do know is that the verdicts were just, and that the jurors were likely quite confident in regard to them even if they had mixed feelings about having to render them.

I know this because I served on a jury in a high-profile first-degree murder trial in November of 2006. The case involved a young Chaska, Minnesota man named Grant Everson who along with friends plotted to kill his parents in order to collect life insurance money so that they could move to Amsterdam to open a coffee and marijuana shop – recreational marijuana was legal in the Netherlands.

Here is the story of the crime itself as presented in court, and my experience as a juror during the trial:

Everson and his friend, Joel Beckrich, intended to fatally cut Everson’s parents’ throats in the early morning hours of Sunday, January 15, 2006 as they slept, and failing that, to shoot them with a shot gun in their beds while stealing items of value to make it look like a burglary. But they lost their nerve at the last moment for either plan and retreated to huddle in a mud room closet to discuss abandoning the task for that night to try again another time. But their discussion was interrupted when Everson’s mother Nancy woke up, came to investigate, and recognized her son even behind his ski mask as he pointed a loaded shot gun at her in a hallway outside the mud room closet, where Beckrich remained concealed.

As Nancy Everson waited in the kitchen for her son to come and talk to her, Grant Everson pressured Beckrich to take the still loaded shot gun and kill Nancy Everson, then quickly go into the master bedroom and kill Everson’s father so as not to leave behind any witnesses. Reluctantly, Beckrich took the shot gun, confronted Nancy Everson with it and asked her twice if she preferred to be shot “in the head or chest.” She instead swore at her son by name to “get the hell out of my house,” and lunged for the gun. Beckrich pulled the trigger, and the blast hit Nancy Everson in the head, killing her instantly. He then charged into the bedroom, but the father, Tom Everson, had heard the commotion and the shot gun blast, knew his wife was likely dead, and exited out of the master bathroom window and fled to a neighbor’s house to call police.

Everson and Beckrich rendezvoused in the nearby woods, returned to their van, stripped off their outer clothing, masks, and gloves, and put them in the empty shot gun case – Beckrich had left the gun in the woods and they did not bother to retrieve it that night, intending to come back for it later since it was mid-January and not likely to be found in the meantime. They dumped the clothing filled shot gun case into a commercial dumpster at a random business in Bloomington on their way back to Beckrich’s townhome in Burnsville. Unfortunately, the dumpster was emptied on Monday morning before the gun case could be found, and as a result the case and its contents were never recovered. The two men drove to Beckrich’s townhome that he shared with another friend, Chris Fuhrman, to whom they recounted what had happened, hoping to use one another and Fuhrman as alibis for their whereabouts that night. Although horrified that his friends had actually gone through with their plan, Fuhrman agreed to be part of their alibi at that time, as did another friend present who was still a juvenile.

Because Grant Everson was living with and working for his parents and was expected to work on Sunday morning for their insurance business, in order to feign normality he left Burnsville in his van in time to make it back to his parents’ home by 8:00 AM that morning. The Chaska Police and Carver County Sheriff Departments had been dispatched to the scene of the murder, and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) had also been called. Everson was stopped at a check point a few blocks from his parents’ house and upon identifying himself was detained and arrested for the murder of his mother because his father had heard his mother shout Everson’s first name just before she was killed. Everson insisted that he was innocent and that he had been at the Burnsville townhome overnight.

Chaska police detectives attempted to verify Everson’s alibi by going to the Burnsville townhome. After separating Beckrich, Fuhrman, and the juvenile friend for questioning, Fuhrman took the opportunity to confess that Everson and Beckrich had both been involved in the murder, and that Beckrich was the actual shooter. Fuhrman claimed that he was afraid of Beckrich because Beckrich had threatened to kill Fuhrman if he turned them in to police. Beckrich subsequently admitted that he was the shooter and was arrested for first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder, and Fuhrman and the juvenile were arrested as accessories to those crimes. Beckrich led the detectives to the shot gun that he had left in the woods in Chaska, and it was booked into evidence as the murder weapon. In the end, Fuhrman and the juvenile exchanged their own testimony against Beckrich and Everson for the dismissal of all charges (Fuhrman) and probation and record expungement after a certain number of years (the juvenile) for themselves. Beckrich eventually pled guilty to second-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder in exchange for testifying against Everson at trial. Beckrich was sentenced by a judge to 45 years in prison, with the possibility of parole after 30 years. Everson’s was the only case that went to trial.

Since I did not live in Chaska, I had heard only a few details of the case by the time that I received the very first and only jury duty summons of my life, but the timing made me pretty certain that it was the case for which I was being summoned. The jury pool was quite large – 100 people from all areas of Carver County. Jury selection took several days, and with so many in the pool I felt that my chances of being chosen to serve on the jury were slim, which would have been fine with me. But after answering the initial written questionnaire I ended up in the final group for additional oral questioning by both the prosecution and the defense attorneys and was eventually selected as one of the final twelve jurors. There were two alternate jurors, and their importance was reinforced when one of them had to step in as a regular juror when one of the twelve experienced a family emergency and had to be excused from jury service.

The trial lasted several days, with a break in the middle for the long Thanksgiving weekend. Like the Chauvin trial jurors, we were not sequestered during the trial, but were sequestered in an undisclosed area hotel for one night during jury deliberations as we were trying to arrive at a verdict. Witness testimony included family and friends of both Everson and the victims, police officers and detectives, and the three friends who had also been charged with involvement in the crime. Everson’s father and girlfriend testified that Everson had stolen his father’s handgun from its hiding place in the master bedroom – his mother had discovered it hidden in the garage the evening just prior to the murder and it resulted in a heated argument with both of his parents in front of his girlfriend, which she testified that Everson found especially humiliating. Everson’s father took back the handgun, but Everson replaced it by taking the shot gun (which was often used by Everson himself for hunting) with him to the Burnsville townhome, determined to convince his friends to help him kill his parents that very night.

There were also several expert witnesses. One was the Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy on Nancy Everson and determined her cause of death to be a shot gun blast to the head. Another was a ballistics expert who testified that the shot gun held in evidence was indeed the gun that killed Nancy Everson. A blood spatter pattern expert walked jurors through the complex mathematical 3-D mapping process that pinpointed the exact point in space where Nancy Everson was shot, as jurors and only jurors were showed actual, and quite graphic, crime scene photos. This witness made me realize how one might actually use the trigonometry and calculus courses that I, a historian by training, had reluctantly slogged through in high school and college.

Perhaps the most unexpected BCA witness was one that we jurors called the “tape lady” because she specialized in different types of tape that are commonly used in crimes. In the case of the Everson trial, she testified that the distinctive thread and adhesive patterns of duct tape found in Grant Everson’s van matched a sliver of tape that had remained on Everson’s pant leg after he and Beckrich had removed it from their clothing. Beckrich testified that the tape had been used to seal socks around the bottoms of their inner pant legs so as not to leave or pick up any trace evidence at the scene. Everson did not realize that a sliver of tape remained on his inner pant leg after he had removed his outer clothing and discarded the tape seal and sock into the empty shot gun case. The tape sliver was discovered on his pant leg and processed as evidence when Everson was booked into the Carver County Jail after his arrest. In the absence of the actual outer clothing, socks, and most of the tape that was stashed in the never recovered shot gun case, the testimony of the “tape lady” was intended to reinforce the premeditated nature of the murder, back up Beckrich’s testimony regarding how the tape was used in the murder, and to link physical evidence – the duct tape – to Everson.

Throughout the trial jurors were only allowed to take our own handwritten notes, and we were instructed that we would only see or hear most evidence once. We had to always leave our notes in the jury room, both during and after the trial. Although all the witness testimony was fascinating, it was also extremely tragic and brought home the serious nature of the task that was charged to jurors. The media attention also brought that home to us – we were instructed to park in the back lot each day and enter and leave the court via the employee entrance to avoid members of the media, who were kept to the front area of the government center by sheriff’s deputies. In hindsight I am very thankful that this was prior to the explosion of social media use and the complications that has raised for high profile cases like this one. But the fact remained that after all evidence and testimony had been presented and closing arguments had been made, we as jurors retired to the jury room to deliberate a verdict, and the media and all the other “noise” was left outside those doors as we were instructed by the judge to choose between a first-degree or a second-degree murder conviction and told that we would be sequestered until we reached a verdict. We had been advised the day before to bring to the court house with us that day a suitcase packed with a few days’ worth of personal items so that if the trial ended we would be prepared for sequestration.

Conviction for at least the second-degree murder charge was highly likely – Everson’s defense attorney (who was quite impressive and did not fit the stereotype we tend to envision for a public defender) did not argue that he did not commit a crime – the witness testimony against him was too compelling and pervasive to deny he was involved. But because Everson was not the actual shooter and Beckrich testified that they had intended to leave the premises until Nancy Everson woke up and confronted Everson, the defense claimed this undermined the premeditated nature of the crime because the original murder plan had been abandoned. Because of this the defense argued that second-degree murder and the possibility for eventual rehabilitation was the appropriate conviction for Everson, as it had been determined for Beckrich, the actual shooter. The prosecution in response argued that just because plans go awry does not mean that there were no plans at all, and that plans can be altered and carried out in the span of just minutes – they do not have to completely adhere to the original plans to be considered pre-meditation. The prosecution emphasized that Everson had heavily pressured Beckrich into shooting Nancy Everson, and that Everson had shown no remorse and exhibited an extremely inflated sense of entitlement and a callous disregard for anyone but himself – even his own family and friends.

After the jury foreman was elected (he was a Minnesota state trooper at the time – a natural choice to serve as foreman), we jurors did an early anonymous poll regarding guilt or innocence on both counts. That poll showed that all jurors believed Everson was guilty of at least the second-degree murder charge. Most also believed he was guilty of first-degree murder, but a few were uncertain of that, and so the ensuing discussion and reviews of evidence centered on the first-degree murder charge, particularly the element of pre-meditation. We did not reach a unanimous verdict by dinner time, and so we ate dinner and then were transported via minibus to an undisclosed area hotel to stay overnight. We were accompanied by sheriff’s deputies, who confiscated our cell phones and reminded us that we were not to use the hotel phones to call anyone, either. If we needed anything, we were to ask the deputies, who were stationed outside our rooms in the hallway. We returned to the courthouse jury room the next morning to continue our deliberations.

In the end, it was a second review of Fuhrman’s testimony that convinced the few reluctant jurors to convict on the first-degree charge. Fuhrman had been the only witness who had spoken with both Everson and Beckrich immediately after the murder. Fuhrman testified twice – once in a video recording of his initial police interview immediately after he was arrested, and once in person during Everson’s trial. Fuhrman consistently claimed both times that both Everson’s and Beckrich’s stories matched when they spoke to him separately, and that Everson had freely admitted to Fuhrman that he had heavily pressured Beckrich to be the shooter during their final exchange in the mud room closet, even going so far as to push the loaded shot gun with the safety off into Beckrich’s hands and then letting go of it, telling Beckrich, “I can’t – you HAVE to do it.” Beckrich himself testified at trial that he took the gun from Everson in the end because “you don’t let a loaded shotgun drop to the floor in an enclosed space.” Beckrich also claimed that he agreed to be the trigger man just to “get it over with” and because he knew that because his mother had discovered them Everson would be in big trouble with his parents if he did not kill them. Beckrich said that Nancy Everson had not seen him and may not even had known that he was there and so he would have preferred to leave and not have committed the murder if Everson had not insisted so strongly that Beckrich carry it out in that moment. In my opinion, both were guilty of first-degree murder but Beckrich, unlike Everson, had shown immediate remorse upon his arrest and cut a plea deal for a lesser charge.

We jurors reached a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree by lunch time that second day of deliberations, and we ate lunch together in the jury room while the court assembled the necessary parties in the court room to hear the verdict. We all were troubled about sending a young man to prison possibly for life (sentencing would be up to the judge), but confident in the verdict itself and relieved to finally be able to go home and resume our lives. But we soon found out that our duties as jurors were not over, and you could feel the entire jury box mood deflate as the judge instructed us that we were not yet done – that we needed to deliberate in regard to three aggravating circumstances that would aid the judge in regard to sentencing – to justify a maximum sentence, which in Minnesota was life in prison without parole. So back to the jury room we went – for three additional hours. All decisions had to be unanimous, and we eventually convicted on two of the three aggravating factors. After that we were finally released to go home.

Less than two months later the judge sentenced Everson to life in prison without parole, citing the aggravating factors, the calculated callousness of the crime, and his lack of remorse and seeming lack of understanding or acknowledgement of the pain he had caused and the lives that he had effectively ruined or irreparably altered. The judge said that Everson instead still seemed resentful for being held accountable for his own choices and actions, which did not bode well for society should he ever be released from prison. Because it was a capital murder case, the conviction was immediately appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction and denied Everson any further appeals for a new trial. To my current knowledge Everson remains incarcerated at the super-maximum security state prison in Oak Park Heights.

Throughout my time as a juror in this case, I can say with all honesty that I dutifully avoided talking about it outside of the court room once I reported for jury duty, and with no one during the actual trial, not even with family over the Thanksgiving break. Quite frankly it was nice to get a break from the all-consuming nature of the trial and be able to say “I can’t discuss it” if anyone mentioned it in my presence. I avoided media coverage of it, and I know that I would have avoided social media like the plague had it existed back then – I would have turned off all my notifications and taken a complete social media hiatus. Once you are in the thick of having to weigh evidence and make a decision that will literally determine someone’s future and affects the lives of so many people connected to the crime allegedly committed, you understand the seriousness of the task and adhere to it as best you can. You are giving up your normal life to do this task along with your fellow jurors – you may as well do it well. And quite frankly the attorneys and court staff are very skilled at weeding out those people who they feel will not adhere to those duties and the rules imposed by them. We jurors all took our task seriously and no one doubted each other’s integrity. It was clear that although none of us truly wanted to be there, we understood that the stakes were high and so we were all fully committed together for as long as it took to come to a unanimous and just decision.

Although there were no racial aspects to the Everson trial, I am confident that the jurors in Derek Chauvin’s trial felt the same way that I and my fellow jurors did in 2006, and were equally as confident in the verdicts that they rendered, even if were troubled by the implications of those verdicts and the fact that they had to be the ones to render them. Theirs was neither a racist 1950s all-white jury looking to acquit a white police officer, nor an anti-police jury looking to find any reason at all to convict a white police officer. They considered and reviewed all the evidence they felt they needed to, and their internal debate most likely concentrated on whether or not to convict for the most serious charge of second-degree murder. After ten hours they unanimously and confidently rendered the three verdicts they believed to be just. Thankfully, they were not asked to deliberate in regard to five aggravating factors – the judge will do that unassisted by the jury prior to sentencing Chauvin in a few weeks.

Certain things that could have swayed jurors most in regard to the case happened prior to jury selection and thus were not much different from any other high-profile case. One was having the Barr Justice Department intervene in the summer of 2020 to discourage Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison from accepting a third-degree murder and minimum ten-year prison sentence plea from Chauvin. The plea meant that Chauvin’s attorneys were pretty certain that he would be convicted of at least that charge. But U.S. Attorney General William Barr wanted the case to go to trial, and so it did. The release of the video of George Floyd’s death and the resulting protests and occasional violence in the days and weeks that followed were two other influencing factors, but they affected everyone who heard about, participated in, or saw them, not just jurors. And the video footage of George Floyd’s death, including additional previously unseen footage from police body cameras and area security cameras were introduced by the prosecution as key evidence in the case – the jurors were destined to see the video, and more, in graphic detail anyway. The reinstatement of the third-degree murder charge as preparations for the trial were about to begin was another possible influencing factor, but since it was less than the more serious second-degree murder charge it could have swayed potential jurors in either direction.

As jury selection was being finalized, the announcement of the $27 million civil settlement that the City of Minneapolis reached with the family of George Floyd was unfortunate timing and perhaps should have been avoided until after the trial. But it was likely no more prejudicial to jurors than Barr’s intervention in the initial plea deal had been, and jurors were asked if the settlement impacted their opinions regarding the case. Civil suits are treated separately from criminal trials, and a verdict or settlement in one does not preclude the same result for the other – just ask O.J. Simpson, who was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife but lost a costly wrongful death civil suit brought against him by her family.

As you critique the Chauvin trial and verdict, please consider that it is really difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a juror in a high-profile murder case unless you have been one yourself –  but even then one must remember that every case, trial, and jury situation is unique. Even though the Chauvin murder trial was thousands of times more high profile than the capital murder trial for which I served as a juror, the jury’s task is always the same: to consider the evidence presented by both sides, confidentially discuss that evidence as a group during deliberations, and render a just and unanimous verdict. Jurors are asked to do this while they are learning about the trial process and the law itself and trying to remain aware of and keep their own biases in check. And in high-profile cases, jurors must do this while also doing their best to ignore things being said or events happening outside of the court room setting. No one says this is easy to do, but it is quickly realized by all involved to be quite necessary, and so jurors do their best to comply not just out of duty, but also because the stakes are so high in these types of cases.

The jurors in the Chauvin trial did their civic duty under very difficult circumstances – we owe them the benefit of the doubt and a certain measure of respect not to second guess them or make assumptions in regard to jury dynamics and discussions about which we have no direct knowledge. Simply thank them for their service and leave the second guessing to the legal appeals process.

https://apnews.com/article/minneapolis-pay-27-million-settle-floyd-family-lawsuit-52a395f7716f52cf8d1fbeb411c831c7

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/derek-chauvin-files-motion-new-trial-george-floyd-case-alleging-n1266341

https://www.wctrib.com/news/284473-four-suspects-charged-shooting-death-52-year-old-chaska-woman

https://www.swnewsmedia.com/chaska_herald/news/beckrich-gets-45-years-in-everson-murder/article_0b132135-14c7-5e11-b67d-2eac3ed03714.html

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2006/11/30/chaskakilling

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/05/29/minn-court-refuses-new-trial-for-chaska-man-who-killed-mom

https://www.swnewsmedia.com/chaska_herald/news/everson-and-beckrich—where-are-they-now/article_13135980-aefa-58bf-9038-81ca3ae4a91d.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-04-30/prosecutors-ask-judge-to-consider-aggravating-factors-when-sentencing-chauvin-for-floyd-murder

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-civil-judgment-versus-criminal-conviction-28300.html

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, History, Legal/Constitutional, Politics, Race relations, Social justice

Voter ID Is Not A Magic Bullet Solution to Voter Fraud

The Constitution explicitly mentions voting in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. And in Article 1, Section 4 the Constitution explicitly says that although state legislatures have the right to pass their own election laws, Congress has the right to “alter” any of those state laws except for the locations of choosing Senators. Which means that it is constitutionally quite clear that Congress is the boss when it comes to election laws. That is why the Voting Rights Act of 1965 contained such tough federal enforcement measures and the 24th Amendment gave extra emphasis to outlawing poll taxes.

It is pretty clear that many Americans do not understand their own Constitution and our history of voting rights because so many people seem to think that Voter ID is a silver bullet solution to “election integrity.” First of all, if that were true there would not be so many fake IDs floating around – just ask teens and underage college students. In fact, there are millions more fake IDs being carried around and used to obtain illegal access to goods, places, or activities on any given day than there are intentionally fraudulent votes cast in any election cycle. And some of the states with the strictest Voter ID laws also are among the top states that make it easy for someone to obtain a fake ID. It would seem that Voter ID is not the fool-proof “solution” that its supports believe it is?

In addition, obtaining a state-issued ID is not “free.” It often requires certified copies of a birth, adoption, or naturalized citizen certificate. And for many women it may also require copies of marriage or divorce decrees to prove name changes. Certified copies cost money (one certified copy of a birth certificate in my county costs $26), which could be considered to be a poll tax if that’s the only thing keeping you from voting. The legal (Voting Rights Act) and constitutional (24th Amendment) prohibitions of poll taxes implies that we should keep how many times you have to provide such fee-based documents to a minimum – as in once, when you first register to vote.

It’s dismaying how many people are so willing to toss away due process when it comes to the fundamental, constitutionally protected right to vote. If you proved you were eligible at the time you registered to vote, then every election after that if your name is listed as a registered voter then you should be presumed innocent and the onus should be on the state to prove that you are not who you say you are. Due process should not be discarded when it comes to any fundamental right and yet many folks are proposing exactly that when it comes to voting rights, and not just in regard to Voter ID.

For instance, you should not lose your right to vote via improper purging of voter rolls just because you didn’t exercise your right to vote for awhile. That is like saying you should lose your right to due process because you have not committed a crime for awhile. Situational logic makes for situational due process, which is potentially discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The continued push to pass voter suppression laws in many states and the misperceptions and convoluted logic surrounding Voter ID requires a reread of the actual Constitution by most folks as well as a review of what “due process” actually is and why it should not be selectively denied when it comes to voting rights.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=100

https://fakeidboss.net/most-common-fake-id-states-list/

https://www.centerforalcoholpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FAKE-IDs-IN-AMERICA-2018.pdf

https://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/property-finance/land-records-vitals/vital-statistics/birth-certificates https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/10/29/georgia-voting-registration-records-removed

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/georgia-voter-rolls-report/index.html

https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/public-health-systems/lho/training/Problem/due-process.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/topic/due-process

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, Education, History, Politics, Race relations, Social justice, World

“Election Integrity” Laws Or Recycled Poll Taxes?

Too many of the so-called “election integrity” laws being passed and proposed by Republican-dominated state legislatures are a mere recycling of Jim Crow era voter restrictions that are intended to suppress the votes of minorities, the young, people with disabilities, women, and the poor. Some of them can become the equivalent of a poll tax, which even after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in Shelby v. Holder (2013) remains explicitly outlawed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The recent practice in many Republican states to reduce the number of voting locations in urban and minority areas creates long lines and waiting times to vote. Disproportionate attention has been placed on the Georgia prohibition of private parties to provide food or water to voters standing in line. But the larger issue is that no matter how long polls are open and even if refreshment is available to people in line during that time, if you must stand for hours in line to vote because there are fewer polling places per capita in your area, that amounts to subjecting you to a poll tax if you must take unpaid time off or risk losing your job altogether in order to stand in that line.

Several states are proposing to even take away the right to vote absentee if you have to work on election day. In Alabama, you cannot vote absentee simply because you must work during polling hours – you are expected to take time off from work to vote or do so before or after work hours. In fact, many states do not have laws that require employers to permit employees time off to vote on election day, and even those states that do often limit the amount of time that must be allowed to just an hour or two. In Georgia it is two hours, and long lines in Atlanta where the number of poll locations were reduced in recent elections often exceed that amount of time. Expanding early voting would help this situation, however the Republican state trend is to reduce rather than increase early voting hours and locations in heavily populated urban areas.

New restrictions on absentee voting combined with strict voter identification (ID) laws also make it harder for many people to vote and can turn into a poll tax for even those voters who do qualify to vote absentee. Alabama’s absentee voter law says that no excuses are valid to vote absentee other than travel, disability, or out-of-state military service. In Georgia you may still vote absentee for any reason, but you must indicate your state issued driver’s license or identification card number on both your ballot application and your ballot. If you do not have a driver’s license or ID card (which many poor, elderly, and disabled voters do not, particularly in urban areas), then you must submit a copy of some other form of photo ID with a copy of a document that provides proof of your address. Merely providing a witness signature from a registered voter is not enough. But in order to submit hard copies of a photo ID and proof of address, you must access a copier/printer because even if you take a picture of those documents with your phone you must still print hard copies to send in – twice. Once when you apply for your ballot, and then again with your actual ballot.  All of these copies cost money to make, which translates to paying a poll tax in order to be able to vote. In Arizona it was even proposed that absentee ballot signatures should all be notarized – a poll tax in the form of a notary fee.

Strict Voter ID laws also turn into surprisingly large poll taxes if you do not possess certified copies of key documents like your birth certificate or social security card that allow you to obtain a state issued ID card. These documents could have been lost, stolen, burned in a house fire, or left behind after an eviction or an emergency evacuation (think disasters like a tornado, hurricane, flood, volcanic eruption, or wildfire). Duplicate certified copies must be obtained from the county where the documents were issued – for a birth certificate or certificate of naturalized citizenship, the county where you were born or obtained citizenship. If you have ever changed your name, you may also have to provide proof of your name changes – meaning that you would need to contact the state or county in which you were married, divorced, or adopted to obtain a copy of your marriage license or divorce or adoption decree. In today’s mobile society, it is common to no longer live in the county or even the state where you were born or married. Even if you can obtain these documents remotely, there are always fees required to obtain certified copies – in my current county a single certified copy of one’s birth certificate costs $26. That amounts to a poll tax if you need to pay for that copy in order to obtain a state issued ID so that you can vote in your state. That poll tax increases if you need to also obtain copies of a marriage certificate and/or a divorce or adoption decree to prove any name changes. This requirement discriminates against women, who due to marriage and divorce change their names more often than men.


Strict Voter ID also discriminates against college students who no longer consider themselves residents of their home states and wish to vote in the state where they go to college. Texas has a Voter ID law which declares that a student ID from a Texas college or even a state university is not a valid Voter ID. This means that unless a college student wishes to go through the trouble and expense (poll tax) to obtain a Texas driver’s license or other type of state photo ID card, they are not allowed to vote in Texas. Since young adults are generally not as motivated to vote in the first place, disqualifying student IDs as a valid form of Voter ID is a deliberate method of suppressing the votes of young adults, who tend to vote Democratic. This becomes even more apparent when you consider that a Texas handgun permit is considered a valid form of Voter ID, while a student ID issued by the state-owned University of Texas is not. But college students tend to vote Democratic, while gun owners tend to vote Republican – this intentional bias is reflected in Texas Voter ID laws.

All of these existing and proposed laws are deliberately designed to suppress the voting abilities of minorities, the poor, people with disabilities, young adults, women, and urban voters – especially since most of them have been passed or proposed since the federal review requirement within the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was nullified by the SCOTUS decision in Shelby v. Holder. These suppressive laws are now gaining even more traction in Republican dominated state legislatures because it was the large turnout of these Democratic-leaning voters that helped to propel Democrat Joe Biden to victory in the presidential race over Republican incumbent Donald Trump, particularly in key swing states like Georgia and Arizona.

Recycling old Southern Democratic Jim Crow tactics to disenfranchise minorities and the poor is an ironic thing to do for the Republican Party, which had its formative roots in the abolition movement of the 19th century. And some of the folks who authored these New Jim Crow Laws are not even bothering to deny that targeted voter suppression is their true intent. U.S. Representative John Kavanaugh of Arizona claimed:


 “Democrats value as many people as possible voting, and they’re willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don’t mind putting security measures in place that won’t let everybody vote – but everybody shouldn’t be voting. Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody isn’t interested in voting, that probably means that they’re totally uninformed on the issues. Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well.” [Emphasis is mine]

What Rep. Kavanaugh means, of course, is that “quality” votes are votes for Republicans, and so those must be maximized while minimizing the number of  “non-quality” votes – those cast for Democrats. And what better way to do that than to recycle methods that worked for racist white southerners in the past? All while falsely claiming that rampant, widespread election fraud (which has been proven over and over again not to exist) makes such laws necessary?

When the Republican Party realized that it could no longer win elections within the free market of ideas, it did not change its ideas to appeal to more voters. Instead, Republicans – led by Donald Trump – chose to spread lies about fraud and “irregularities” to cause doubt about election integrity, then use that false doubt to pass voter suppression laws to disenfranchise those most likely to decide that Republican ideas are bad. The sad fact is that the current leadership of the Republican Party – once the party of Lincoln, abolition, and the expansion of voting rights – seems to no longer even believe in democracy itself.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-voting-bills-tracker-2021

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/apr/07/whats-georgias-new-voting-law/

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/2014-R-0256.htm

https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-lawmaker-wants-to-require-notarized-signatures-on-mail-in-ballots/article_6317f6b0-7be0-50ab-a110-06ba3d2b889f.html

https://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/property-finance/land-records-vitals/vital-statistics/birth-certificates#:~:text=You%20must%20have%20tangible%20interest,name%20in%20the%20same%20transaction.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/id/poster-11×17-aw-voter.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/13/arizona-quality-votes-kavanagh/

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, Education, Feminism, History, Politics, Race relations, Social justice, Women

Want to Stop Violence Against Women? Regulate Men

There are not a lot of people in the United States who pay much attention to what happens in the United Kingdom (UK) unless it involves the royal family. But there is a something else in the news right now in the UK that has repercussions for the cause of women’s rights all over the world: the reaction to the March 3 murder of 33-year-old London resident and marketing executive Sarah Everhard as she was walking home from a friend’s house that night. A London police officer has been arrested and charged with her kidnapping and murder, and a peaceful vigil in her honor was violently broken up by London police because it violated coronavirus restrictions on large gatherings. There has been outrage not just about the murder of a young woman by the actions of a violent man, but also because of the victim blaming that ensued in the aftermath as well as the usual suggestion that the onus remains upon women to protect themselves rather than society’s responsibility to protect women from violent men.

There were those who questioned Ms. Everhard’s decision to walk home alone, asking “Why didn’t she take a cab?” or “What did she expect?” – as if a woman in a supposedly free society has absolutely no right to be able to walk unaccompanied after dark. The response by London authorities and police was to advise London women to remain indoors at night for their own safety, or to at least “not to go it alone.” In order to make a point regarding how women are expected to regulate their bodies and behavior according to the threatening actions and attitudes of men, Member of Parliament Baroness Jenny Jones suggested that rather than restrict women’s night-time freedom of independent movement, there should be a 6:00 PM curfew for all men instituted instead. After all, it is overwhelmingly men who commit violence against women – and indeed commit violence in general – why should women have to always be the ones to adjust?

Talk about back lash . . . you would think that Ms. Jones had suggested that all men be imprisoned, the reaction was so swift and negative. On Twitter she was called “deranged,” “bigoted,” and “misandristic” (fearful of men) for correctly pointing out that restricting female freedoms in response to male violence against women is a misogynistic and contradictory go-to reaction that has not worked to end violence against women for centuries. Telling women to stay in does not protect them from violence – as the increase in domestic violence calls over the past year of COVID-19 restrictions has shown – so why suggest that? Because it is always women’s actions that are expected to change for them to remain safe – rarely are men asked to adjust or inconvenience themselves in response to an incident of violence against women.

The only effective long-term solution is to change the behavior of men, but yet when that is suggested people consider it outrageously unfair, and it is men who are suddenly portrayed as victims. Ms. Jones later clarified that she was only making a point – that she was not actually serious about instituting a curfew for men. But I would ask: why not be serious about it? Why should women continue to have to bear the brunt of male violence not just in regard to actual male violence, but also in regard to the burden – physical, emotional, social, financial, and cultural – of trying to avoid it? Until men actually experience a measure of even periodic personal inconvenience akin to that felt by women on a daily basis, even many of the “good” men feel little individual incentive to do more than simply insist they are not “bad” men. Even “good” men will too often laugh or remain silent when sexist comments or jokes are tossed around within a group of men about women. And even those who say something at the time still vote for politicians who have engaged in sexist or even violent behavior towards women and/or politicians who wink at such behaviors and do little to advance policies that will truly reduce violence against women or advance women’s socio-economic equality.

Not all men are violent or even sexist – why make all men suffer? Well, even fewer women are violent towards other women, and yet women are the ones who constantly must modify their own attitudes, behavior, and even their bodies, to avoid becoming the victims of male violence. Ms. Everhard took precautions – surveillance video caught of her leaving her friend’s house to walk home shows that she wore bright colors, running shoes, and leggings. She communicated with her boyfriend as she left her friend’s house, promising to recontact him when she arrived at her home. She was likely alert and aware of her surroundings. She modified her body, her attitude, and her actions to mitigate the threat of male violence that could be perpetrated against her. That a police officer has been accused of her murder means that she was allegedly abducted and killed by someone she should have been able to trust. But even if it had been someone more random with a violent criminal history – why is it at all a woman’s fault when she is a victim of violence at the hands of a man? And by extension – why should all the other women of London have to avoid going out alone because one woman was victimized by a violent man? Why is it fair to ask women to perpetually modify their actions and attitudes and curtail their own freedoms to avoid male violence against them when it is overwhelmingly men who harm women?

We repeatedly refer to violence against women as a “women’s issue.” Nope. It is not even equally a “human issue.” Since it is mostly men who are committing most violence against others including women, we need to start framing it as more of a men’s issue. Toss the ball of responsibility back into men’s court and say – fix or stop those among you who victimize women, or men can be the ones to have their freedoms restricted for a change until it does get fixed. Curfew for males unless they are accompanying a woman, instead of suggesting women stay in when there is a dangerous predator on the loose? Yep – a lot easier to figure out who the law-abiding males are that way, and perhaps if they are required to lose some of their own freedom of movement more men will start to become serious about combatting toxic male culture. Heavier regulation of traditionally male organizations with histories of violence against women like fraternities and sports teams? Yep. More regulation of male sexuality akin to that imposed upon women, such as charging fathers equally to mothers and health care providers for violating abortion and/or child neglect and abandonment laws? Yep. In return, make sure that forms of male birth control, such as condoms, are readily available and fully covered by insurance for both men and women.

If one believes that men and women are truly equal, then one should not object to the assertion that it is men who should start taking responsibility for their fellow males’ attitudes and behaviors towards women and stop requiring women to bear the daily burden of male behavioral transgressions and moral failures. Women have been bearing that burden for millennia, and it is time for society to put it back where it belongs and demand that men, as a gender, get their collective act together or they, not women, should have to suffer the consequences of male failures for a change. Too many men, even good men who are not by nature or practice sexist, remain silent much too often in regard to calling out and curtailing the inappropriate attitudes and actions of other men towards women. Men need to be personally, individually motivated to do and say the right thing in the face of male peer intimidation and apathy. Having to bear some of the collective consequences of the violent actions of some of their peers, even if periodically, may be a catalyst for motivating more men to take the issue more personally and seriously.

And please, do not respond by saying “It’s not fair to punish all men for the actions of the few.” Why not? Why is it more acceptable or less “bigoted” that all women are perpetually “punished” with the undue daily burden of having to take preventive measures that men do not due to still all too common violent acts against women? Asking that men take more responsibility for the actions of other men is not “punishment.” It is simply asking that all men, just like women have been asked to do for centuries, finally put some individual and collective skin in the game when it comes to ending the ongoing epidemic of male violence against women once and for all.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/police-officer-charged-kidnap-murder-sarah-everard-case-gripped-u-n1261010

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/men-curfew-sarah-everard-women-adapt-violence?CMP=share_btn_tw

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, Education, Feminism, Health, History, Politics, Social justice, Women, World

Why We Still Need the ERA: And Why Opposing It Does Not Make Sense

Many states have passed laws which require unpaid maternity leave for female employees, but few have passed mandatory paternity leave for men. This is unfair – both parents should have access to parental leave, and one could legitimately argue that a certain amount of maternity/paternity leave should be paid, and if ratification of the ERA can help all of this happen, then that would be a positive outcome for actual gender equality. In addition, the Affordable Care Act mandated that insurance policies require birth control coverage for women. If ratifying the ERA were to mean that male birth control methods such as condoms should be covered as well, that would be a good thing – men and women both deserve contraceptive coverage, and condoms, like many forms of female contraception, provide medical benefits beyond just pregnancy prevention. I have never agreed with the claim that prenatal care is just for women because it is beneficial for both the mother and her baby, which could be of any gender. Pregnancy is a medical condition that only women experience – but every person is a former fetus. Prenatal care is thus not as gender exclusive to women as many people claim, and the passage of the ERA should not undermine health care coverage of prenatal care on gender bias grounds.

The fact that even a relatively liberal state like Minnesota discovered just this year that it still does not have a statute on the books that makes sexual blackmail a crime indicates that 14th Amendment protections are not enough to ensure equality for women. Only the full addition of the ERA would put constitutional force behind making sure laws that address the types of discrimination and crimes that disproportionally affect women get written, passed, and consistently enforced.

Finally, the argument that it would be a bad thing for the ERA to extend full gender rights to transgender persons is simply discriminatory, and negates the claim that women are already protected under the 14th Amendment. Transgender people, like “regular” people, are “persons,” and thus should be protected under the 14th Amendment from discrimination, just like women supposedly are. Saying that female persons are protected as “persons” but that transgender persons are not is blatant discrimination based on personal bias regarding transgender persons – that already should not be allowed under an inclusive reading of the 14th Amendment. Unless those who oppose transgender rights under the 14th Amendment would deny the personhood of transgender individuals? That would not just be unconstitutional, but also unethical and inhumane.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor the ERA say anything to define “male” and “female.” The 14th Amendment does not mention sex or gender at all and limits itself to the term “person(s)” – it was subsequent legislation and court decisions that extended and applied the 14th Amendment to women, which even many opponents of the ERA say is a good thing. Similarly, the ERA limits itself to the term “sex.” It does not make judgements as to how to determine a person’s sex or gender – it leaves those types of details to legislatures to legislate and courts to interpret according to scientific and other factors. This means that as has been the case for every Amendment ever added to the U.S. Constitution, the ERA itself will not be the final word in regard to what it means for anyone it may or may not affect. Voters, states, Congress, and the courts will all weigh in over time.

The ERA is simply meant to state explicitly within the Constitution itself that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of sex. If we felt the need to state that definitively within the 13th Amendment regarding “race” and “previous condition of servitude” to make it abundantly clear, then we should do so in regard to “sex” as well since women were also excluded from full citizenship rights in the original Constitution ratified in 1787. As Amanda Gorman said in her January 2021 inauguration ceremony poem, America is “unfinished.” So is its Constitution, and full ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and inclusion within it is a necessary step towards making the U.S. Constitution more complete.\

https://time.com/5657997/equal-rights-amendment-history/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/equal-rights-amendment-explained

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4172365

https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era-ratification-map

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744

https://kstp.com/news/sextortion-bill-would-make-blackmail-for-sex-a-crime-in-minnesota/6020658/?link_id=17&can_id=cff6debbcbea96ffa300ef5dac6eed53&source=email-mn-dfls-in-the-know-february-22&email_referrer=email_1085657&email_subject=mn-dfls-in-the-know-february-23

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, Education, Health, History, Politics, Race relations, Social justice, Women

Blue State Socialism

The prolonged polar vortex event of 2021 is currently wrecking havoc in southern states. Governor Abbott of Texas even requested a federal emergency declaration, which allows increased federal resources and assistance for Texas communities affected by the unaccustomed cold. The request was approved very quickly by the Biden Administration.

Contrast that with the foot dragging and public castigation by the Trump Administration during the west coast wildfires over the past few years, particularly those in the blue state of California. President Trump tweeted that California’s ferocious fires were not caused by accelerated climate change, lightning storms, and careless individual human error, but instead by the state’s “mismanagement” of its forests, including a lack of “raking” the forest floors to deny the fires fuel. Trump insisted that “you gotta clean your floors, you gotta clean your forests – there are many, many leaves and broken trees and they’re like, like, so flammable, you touch them and it goes up . . . Maybe we’re just going to have to make them pay for it because they don’t listen to us.” No matter that most of the fires began and raged on federal land, and were fueled by historically hot, dry weather and strong, sustained winds scientifically proven to be exacerbated by accelerated climate change.

But when much of the city of Houston was flooded during Hurricane Harvey in 2017, the Trump administration did not hesitate to send disaster aid, despite the fact that Texas’ and Houston’s own lax development standards, flood mitigation strategies, and continued accelerated climate change denial policies greatly worsened the damaging effects of the historically strong storm. The irresponsible removal of wetlands and lack of proper storm water and zoning regulations caused flood water to divert to roads and populated areas, and a chemical plant to leak toxins into residential neighborhoods. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, after railing against aid for blue states New York and New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, wasted no time appealing for federal aid for his own red state five years later.

Fast forward to February 2021, as the current polar vortex causes ice storms and record snowfall and freezing temperatures in red southern states, freezing infrastructure and causing massive multi-vehicle accidents on roads. Southern red states have found their entire lives shut down for several days in a more complete way than COVID-19 managed to do over the course of the past year. Frozen wind turbines and fossil fuel well heads, malfunctioning power lines and transformer stations, frozen pipes and well systems threaten people’s safety even within their own homes as they go for days on end largely without power and running water, and unplowed, snow and ice-ridden roads make travel next to impossible. Mismanaged power availability by de-centralized, mostly unregulated private companies that now own most of Texas’ power systems has caused rolling black outs that last for most of the days and nights in many areas. To alleviate this, residents of surrounding states to the north with better managed power systems are going through less severe rolling blackouts to supplement the abysmal Texas power grid. Governor Abbott has called for an investigation into the failures of Texas’ power systems, which is good – but unless it leads to significant policy, behavioral, and fiscal changes it will be for naught and Texans will repeatedly find themselves in similar situations as the rest of the country becomes less willing to bail them out.

Like with Hurricane Harvey and similar recent storms, the warning signs of increased polar vortex events have been flashing for years, but the leaders of Texas and other southern states simply refused to heed them due to climate change skepticism and an unwillingness to raise taxes or energy rates and spend the money necessary to prepare for and mitigate the effects of these increasingly common extreme weather events. And so the rest of the country now gets to pay for it. Which we will gladly do – once. After that, these red states had better wise up, hold their leaders accountable, and start ponying up more state and local resources to help themselves so that less federal assistance will be needed in the future for similar crises. The southern states need to tax themselves and invest in weather proofing their own homes, businesses, communities, and infrastructure – from cold snaps, more frequent hurricanes, and flooding – both from severe storms and sea level rise.

Northern states have been expected to mitigate their own weather-related risks for a long time. No one in the South cries for northern states when they have a record heat wave, and northern states do not ask for disaster assistance when those happen unless it causes devastating tornadoes, the locations of which are more localized and cannot be precisely predicted like hurricanes and polar vortexes. Most northern communities have relocated vulnerable structures away from dangerously flood-prone areas along major rivers, including the Red River on the Minnesota-North Dakota border and the Mississippi River as it flows south through the Midwest.

Northern homes are insulated against cold, which also helps keep heat out during the summer months when residents run their air conditioners. Northern power grids, well heads, wind turbines, and solar panels are built to withstand months of winter weather as well as summer heat waves, and residents pay higher taxes for snow and ice removal from roads, bridges, parking lots, and airports so that communities do not have to shut everything down every time it snows or gets extremely cold. Northern home and business owners insulate their pipes so they do not freeze in cold weather or “sweat” during the hot summer months. Northern residents pay for a larger variety of clothes that residents must wear or store according to the appropriate season – one of the reasons why the state of Minnesota does not impose a sales tax on clothing. Of course, there are those in northern and coastal blue states that complain mightily about higher taxes and more cautious government regulation in regard to building codes, zoning, and environmental safety, saying that it stifles business growth and development. But as the past several years have shown in several southern states, ill-regulated and undertaxed growth and development can cause its own very expensive and even deadly problems, and as the old saying goes you often get what you pay for. Although no one is in favor of excessive taxes or wasteful spending, coastal and northern blue states with higher standards of living should not engage in a race to the bottom with red states for lowest tax rates, especially just for the sake of lowering taxes. Because those same low-tax red states are not as generous when it comes to helping blue states out when disaster occasionally strikes. When blue states ask for help, red state leaders cry “socialism” and preach about “local responsibility.” Apparently, it is neither socialism nor a sign of local negligence when it is red states who repeatedly need federal assistance.

https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-approval-of-federal-emergency-declaration-for-severe-winter-weather

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/20/trump-blames-california-for-wildfires-tells-state-you-gotta-clean-your-floors-1311059https://www.thebalance.com/hurricane-harvey-facts-damage-costs-4150087

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/11/climate/houston-flooding-climate.html

https://theweek.com/speedreads/967000/millions-texas-households-are-still-without-power-brutally-cold-winter-storm-what-went-wrong

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-blame-wind-for-texas-electricity-woes-11613500788

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/texas-power-outage-ercot/

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/04/17/red-river-flood-20-year-anniversary-towns-transformed

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, Health, History, Politics, Social justice

False Comparison: BLM Protests and the January 6 Insurrection Are Not Equivalent

We keep hearing it, and it needs to stop. People need to quit making false comparisons and claiming false equivalencies between the January 6 violent insurrection at the Capitol to Black Lives Matter protests that a few times unfortunately turned violent. Vandalism and property theft to businesses during protests have been happening since Revolutionary times – they are nothing new. Starting with the original Boston Tea Party – the tea that was dumped overboard was not government tea, nor from a government ship. Both were the property of the East India Tea Company.


By contrast, inciting and trying to carry out insurrection, threatening to take hostage and murder members of Congress and the Vice-President in an effort to overturn a valid election result – basically a violent coup, and one that was encouraged and celebrated by the sitting POTUS – now that is extremely rare within U.S. history. The Civil War is really the only comparison, and even that was neither incited nor supported by the president at the time – indeed Lincoln would condemn and disown these violent, Trump worshipers who did not just seek to peacefully protest the election result or take over the Republican party, but to overthrow our federal republic itself.


In short, one can sympathize with and defend the Black Lives Matter cause while condemning any violence or vandalism that occurred during BLM protests. You cannot say that about the January 6 insurrectionists. They planted bombs, attacked and injured over 100 police officers, outright murdering one – and two other officers committed suicide in the days following the insurrection. The mob’s leaders erected gallows on the Capitol lawn and violently broke into the building with the intent to intimidate, take hostages, and force the election Trump’s way – and several even intended to carry out the assassinations of Vice President Pence and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The mob’s motivation was completely misguided, threatened lawmakers’ lives (not just property) and the integrity of our entire government itself, and was fueled by lies the President told.


Finally, it is worth noting that there were no neo-Nazis or white supremacists leading or being celebrated within the ranks of Black Lives Matter protesters. There were plenty within the January 6 insurrectionist crowd. When you are following the lead of, marching or socializing with, or even defending or making excuses for Nazis in person or on social media, it’s pretty clear that you have surrendered the moral high ground and need to re-examine your own beliefs and social circle.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/07/964705339/more-than-a-month-later-its-still-january-6-on-capitol-hill

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-united-states-capitol-riots-2021-01-17/

https://apnews.com/article/white-supremacy-threats-capitol-riots-2d4ba4d1a3d55197489d773b3e0b0f32

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, History, Politics, Race relations, Social justice
Load more