The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47180 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
B wrote:
I don't think anyone should be physically violent, but Trans advocates should be loud as fuck.
i mean this sincerely:
1. Do you actually believe they should be so loud as to functionally crowd out other pieces of legislation that serve to help other disenfranchised or suffering people?
2. Does the calculus change if said legislation stands little chance of having the progressively-desired impacts in a Republican-controlled state)? E.g., does a "loud as fuck," single issue approach to trans rights make more sense depending on the party in power?
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 4:32 am Posts: 20886 Location: Surrounded by Wokes. Please send help.
Trag, (this post probably belongs in the local government thread by the way):
I wouldn’t necessarily subscribe to the idea that members of XYZ committee are better equipped to vet a bill covering XYZ topic than the members of a different committee. In my experience very few people in XYZ committee have close working knowledge of XYZ topic. They move very quickly (at least in WA) throughout their day talking about gun laws, then salmon population, then housing, then drugs, then whether or not to tack on $1 to the cost of each Mariners ticket for SoDo neighborhood improvements, to stem cell research, etc. it’s like speed dating from one issue to the next in rapid succession, and again, members of XYZ committee are not necessarily experts on XYZ topic.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47180 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Bammer wrote:
Trag, (this post probably belongs in the local government thread by the way):
I wouldn’t necessarily subscribe to the idea that members of XYZ committee are better equipped to vet a bill covering XYZ topic than the members of a different committee. In my experience very few people in XYZ committee have close working knowledge of XYZ topic. They move very quickly (at least in WA) throughout their day talking about gun laws, then salmon population, then housing, then drugs, then whether or not to tack on $1 to the cost of each Mariners ticket for SoDo neighborhood improvements, to stem cell research, etc. it’s like speed dating from one issue to the next in rapid succession, and again, members of XYZ committee are not necessarily experts on XYZ topic.
Yeah but that’s what legislative services divisions are for dawg
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22550 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
tragabigzanda wrote:
B wrote:
I don't think anyone should be physically violent, but Trans advocates should be loud as fuck.
i mean this sincerely:
1. Do you actually believe they should be so loud as to functionally crowd out other pieces of legislation that serve to help other disenfranchised or suffering people?
2. Does the calculus change if said legislation stands little chance of having the progressively-desired impacts in a Republican-controlled state)? E.g., does a "loud as fuck," single issue approach to trans rights make more sense depending on the party in power?
Do you think Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis should have stopped marching because the police were too busy beating the fuck out of them to properly serve other people in their towns?
She's not the one fucking the people of Montana. The Republicans in Montana could have just censured Zephyr and moved on as normal, garden-variety bigots, but THEY made the choice to really stick it to her in a way that fucks their constituents.
If she shuts up and takes it, that'll be the strategy going forward to oppress Blacks, women, the poor, those with disabilities, all LGBT+ communities, LatinX, union members, teachers, ... all the groups that Republicans wish didn't exist.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47180 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Thanks for that response.
I believe there are degrees of systemic oppression, and there are at least a few between getting beat up by police while trying to gain some basic dignities like bus seats and drinking fountains, and being a democratically-elected representative who’s been assigned to committees, given a public platform, and as of recently, is the de facto leader of a large group of protesters — a few who’ve taken it upon themselves to turn violent in a Capitol building funded by state taxpayers — who’s tasked with weighing in on legislation that effects her constituents (an honor and privilege of the highest order, IMO).
From her own campaign site, emphasis mine:
Quote:
My name is Zooey Zephyr. I am a progressive, bisexual trans woman, and I am running for office because I believe that the best way for me to fight for social & economic justice is to get into the room where the laws are being written.
[…]
As your representative, I will fight for human rights—from voting rights to trans rights to working towards dismantling the cruelties of the prison-industrial complex. I will also work to address what I see as four of the big, interconnected areas where Montana is failing to adequately help its residents: housing inequality, health care, infrastructure, and climate change.
I agree that a simple censure would’ve been sufficient under normal circumstances, but the level of chaos in the Capitol was beyond disruptive, it effectively halted the legislature from doing its job (and Zephyr from weighing in on legislative topics that she promised her district she’d tackle).
Given the parameters of the MT legislature, I can see why the leadership opted to send her out into the hall, even if I don’t entirely agree with it. As the party in control, the true fucking of Montanans would’ve been had they allowed no further advancement of legislature.
Understand I’m not letting the GOP entirely off the hook here; the way they’ve tossed transparency to the side with their handling of her committee’s bills is deeply troubling to me. But with her pet issue more or less settled, it’s difficult for me to see the benefit of her further grandstanding in the Capitol when she’s afforded ample opportunity to leverage sentimental mass media coverage from outside the Capitol walls.
Oh I’m not fussy at all. Genuinely interested in learning/expanding my mind around this one. Just not seeing another reasonable response yet.
Truly i dont know enough about it at local levels and we've kind of talked about this before. I know you come from a place where the people/conservatives you live around don't really have take issue with trans issues, and there are more important issues to get through. I think that is totally fair but also in a nice little bubble. I think, or it seems as though, these issues are bigger elsewhere and there are kids/adults who are truly being impacted by 1)rhetoric and 2) laws being passed that make them feel subhuman. So, i think the issues are important, much like civil rights movements that B touched upon.
My partner thinks marching is still the way to go, i think its a waste of time and now dangerous. I think making your voice heard can be done in many different ways these days. But, im not a woman having my bodily autonomy threatened and regulated, so, i just sit back and support.
Its unfortunate that generally speaking, or in particular, the fed gov't is worthless and can't handle that issue along with other important issues that are perhaps more pressing.....
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22550 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
tragabigzanda wrote:
I believe there are degrees of systemic oppression, and there are at least a few between getting beat up by police while trying to gain some basic dignities like bus seats and drinking fountains, and being a democratically-elected representative who’s been assigned to committees,
Sure, but there are less degrees of separation between the current treatment of trans individuals in the current South and the treatment of Blacks in the Jim Crow South. And wrong is wrong. It shouldn't be easy to oppress people.
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 4:32 am Posts: 20886 Location: Surrounded by Wokes. Please send help.
I haven’t been tracking this situation in Montana at all so I have a question: Was this Zephyr person punished because of what she was saying or because of how she was saying it? Content issue or decorum issue?
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 4:32 am Posts: 20886 Location: Surrounded by Wokes. Please send help.
Bammer is actually curious what happened, but only a little and doesn’t want to spend much time on it, so was hoping someone here would quickly answer my question.
Oh I’m not fussy at all. Genuinely interested in learning/expanding my mind around this one. Just not seeing another reasonable response yet.
As I’ve said, the specifics of what she said are unremarkable. I agree with you that as the party in power, they have reasonable sway to reprimand that.
I think that by refusing to call on her for the education bill, they antagonized the situation unnecessarily. If they had called on her when she requested to speak on that bill, and she had instead attempted to steer the conversation back or continued to use accusatory language, that would’ve been a reasonable time to take the acts they are taking now.
End of the day, it comes down to: you passed a bill targeting a specific group of people. One of those people was in the room and spoke with emotion about it. That by itself is no different than when a Montana Democrat proposed a bill protecting abortion, and a Republican member of this same chamber compared it to child sacrifice. It is an emotional response by a person whose psychological closeness to the issue outsizes their professional decorum.
By choosing to let your reaction bleed over into the decision-making around whether or not you will call on this person in discussion of other bills, you are unnecessarily antagonizing the situation.
If they had called on her for the education bill and she used her time on mic to demonstrate an unwillingness to move on from the prior issue, that is a different story. That is a demonstration of a willingness to use elected status as a tool to upset regular order on the passage of other bills.
But if you are a ruling party in a government institution, and you first pass a bill that a community feels is directly harmful to them, then silence the only voice they feel they have in the room on not only that but other unrelated bills, then the ignition sequence of the problem that results is you.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47180 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
I almost agree with all of that, but it hasn’t addressed the extent to which the protestors can/should be viewed as a proxy for her voice/divergence from the issue at hand. Thoughts here?
I think activists are an unruly, unfocused, and generally chaotic bunch. They are the American politics equivalent of the lizard brain, and political representation is the means by which we avoid empowering the impulses they represent.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47180 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Riiiight…But when they’re in the legislative chamber, screaming “let her speak! Let her speak!”, and occasionally breaking shit…Does your otherwise reasonable response for how they should’ve handled this still hold up?
So far, it does not hold up for me. Were I the Speaker, I’d like to think I’d be willing to prioritize the stack of bills, and be willing to take the optic hit by just removing the entire lizard brain contingent from the discussion.
Again, it’s not like she didn’t have a platform; they cut her mic, but she was right out in the hall, able to communicate with other members of her party.
I’ll say again, I think whether or not you let her speak should be determined by whether or not it is appropriate for her, an elected representative, to be given time to speak on the education bill she is requesting to speak on. Taking a harsher response because activists is just another way of letting the activists dictate your response. You are attempting to reprimand them by exacerbating your response to her.
Permit me a hypothetical that we both know is impossible. Just pretend for a minute.
Imagine that when Caleb Hinkle said the abortion rights bill his Democratic colleagues introduced was tantamount to child sacrifice earlier this year, in this same chamber, he had been the only pro-life representative in the chamber at the time. Utterly impossible, but just pretend.
Imagine that the chamber then passed the bill and refused to call on him for an unrelated education bill because of the language he used related to the abortion bill specifically. And that pro-life activists were on site protesting. Do you really feel under those circumstances, the right thing for the chamber to do would be to refuse to let Caleb Hinkle, elected official, speak on an education bill?
I have not defending the activists, nor am I speaking in support of them. I am saying that the initial response to what Zephyr said was outsized and antagonistic to the situation, and at every step since then the response continues to be exactly the same, and for no real reason other than that doing otherwise would feel like a political loss.
I blame Social Media. Seems like everything, from both sides, is about riling up their base over the culture war of the week. Lets get rid of the internet.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47180 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
McParadigm wrote:
I’ll say again, I think whether or not you let her speak should be determined by whether or not it is appropriate for her, an elected representative, to be given time to speak on the education bill she is requesting to speak on. Taking a harsher response because activists is just another way of letting the activists dictate your response. You are attempting to reprimand them by exacerbating your response to her.
Permit me a hypothetical that we both know is impossible. Just pretend for a minute.
Imagine that when Caleb Hinkle said the abortion rights bill his Democratic colleagues introduced was tantamount to child sacrifice earlier this year, in this same chamber, he had been the only pro-life representative in the chamber at the time. Utterly impossible, but just pretend.
Imagine that the chamber then passed the bill and refused to call on him for an unrelated education bill because of the language he used related to the abortion bill specifically. And that pro-life activists were on site protesting. Do you really feel under those circumstances, the right thing for the chamber to do would be to refuse to let Caleb Hinkle, elected official, speak on an education bill?
I have not defending the activists, nor am I speaking in support of them. I am saying that the initial response to what Zephyr said was outsized and antagonistic to the situation, and at every step since then the response continues to be exactly the same, and for no real reason other than that doing otherwise would feel like a political loss.
H10-20. Speaker's duties. (1) The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House, with authority for administration, order, decorum, and the interpretation and enforcement of rules in all House deliberations. (2) The Speaker shall see that all members conduct themselves in a civil manner in accordance with accepted standards of parliamentary conduct. The Speaker may, when necessary, order the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the aisles and seat the members of the House so that business may be conducted in an orderly manner. (3) Signs, placards, or other objects of a similar nature are not permitted in the rooms, lobby, gallery, or on the floor of the House. The Speaker may order the galleries, lobbies, or hallway cleared in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct. (4) The Speaker shall appoint and may remove the members of all standing and select committees not otherwise specified by law or rule. For the Rules Committee, the Speaker shall determine the total number of members and the party division, but each party shall appoint its own members. The Speaker may appoint an additional at-large member to the Rules Committee from either party. (5) The Speaker shall sign all necessary certifications by the House, including enrolled bills and resolutions, journals (section 5-11-201, MCA), subpoenas, and payrolls. (6) The Speaker shall arrange the agendas for second and third readings each legislative day. Representatives may amend the agendas as provided in H40-130.
HR0001 (7) The Speaker is the chief officer of the House, with authority for all House employees. The Speaker may seek the advice and counsel of the Legislative Administration Committee regarding employees. (8) The Speaker may name any member to perform the duties of the chair. If the House is not in session and the Speaker pro tempore is not available, the Speaker shall name a member who shall call the House to order and preside during the Speaker's absence.
Honestly yes, within your hypothetical framework, I’d desire to see the same course of action, though your hypothetical has introduced one place where I think the GOP fell short:
They should’ve made it a point to communicate that they valued Zephyr’s further input, and that they recognized the divisiveness of the issue and that emotions were running high (or some such comment). I’m just talking about a bit of grace here, some offering to Team Zephyr that they felt it was important to maintain decorum and order given the length of time left in the session, and that they would commit to transparent discussions around how best to navigate this sort of conflict in the future.
Honestly yes, within your hypothetical framework, I’d desire to see the same course of action
This is a point we just simply disagree on. That’s fine.
Quote:
though your hypothetical has introduced one place where I think the GOP fell They should’ve made it a point to communicate that they valued Zephyr’s further input, and that they recognized the divisiveness of the issue and that emotions were running high (or some such comment). I’m just talking about a bit of grace here, some offering to Team Zephyr that they felt it was important to maintain decorum and order given the length of time left in the session, and that they would commit to transparent discussions around how best to navigate this sort of conflict in the future.
And this is a point we agree on. As I’ve said, I think your core point that they have the right as the majority to make this choice is factual. But as with Tennessee, I think there was too much baked-in political temptation to make the response something that felt like victory.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
