If you are in Michigan and have foreclosed on your house, then you better have a new address ready to provide at the polls.

Printed on Sept 17, 2008 in the Register Guard:

By Anthony Biglan and Dennis Embry

Prevailing views about the “war” on terror are contrary to scientific understanding of human behavior. Human beings who are traumatized by attack become highly motivated to counterattack. Yet U.S. leaders pursue a strategy that pays little attention to these effects. As the bumper sticker says: “We are making terrorists faster than we can kill them.”

Trauma perturbs the brain’s hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. People exposed to stress become hyper-vigilant and prone to attack perceived threats. These reactions occur whether the stress results from a legitimate effort to fight terrorism or from a terrorist attack. They are the result of natural selection; those who are quick to counterattack were a bit more likely to survive in a dangerous world. It didn’t matter if some counterattacks were misplaced, so long as counterattacking generally contributed to survival.
(more…)

John McCain recently chose Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. On one level, Palin is a very honest person. She shares McCain’s interest in ethical reform, having won on a “sweep the bums out” platform in reaction to the ongoing corruption investigations of virtually all major Republican figures in Alaska. She’s the mother of five, has a history of making good on campaign promises, and belies gender stereotypes in a number of ways. How many other moms do you know who go moose hunting?

On the other hand, it’s a deeply cynical attempt to win over Hillary Clinton’s backers. Until less than two years ago, Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a town of 9,000. Her foreign policy credentials make Obama’s look like Joe Biden’s. She does not generally support reproductive rights, opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest. To her credit, she is consistent, having carried to term a son that she knew had Down’s, rather than opting for termination. She opposes access to family planning services both here and overseas. She is opposed to government sponsored universal health care, preferring a market-based approach. (And look how good the free market has been at providing universal health care!)

In short, while she appears to be a genuinely decent person, her nomination is a repudiation of much of what Hillary Clinton stands for. This includes the most important feminist principle of all - that a women should get the job when she is the best candidate for the job, not because of her gender.

A request from a bride-to-be has led an Oregon Indian tribe to legalize same-sex marriage, a move leaders say may be the first of its kind in the United States.
Kitzen and Jeni Branting plan to marry under the Coquille Indian Tribe’s law legalizing gay marriage.

The Coquille Indian Tribe now not only recognizes legal same-sex unions from state and federal governments, but it will soon be handing out its own marriage licenses not only to heterosexual couples, but to homosexual couples as well.

Last year, a man and his girlfriend got in an argument about him going out drinking with his friends instead of going trick or treating with the family. In the course of the argument, he pushes her. She decided to stay when he promised not to do it again. A few weeks later, he hung her cat in a noose, apparently to send her a signal. A month after that, he choked her in front of her six year old son.

In 10 years of criminal prosecution and defense, I can tell you that one thing will matter more than anything else to the jury – that he killed the cat. I have seen terrible cases of domestic and child abuse shrugged off by juries. “Well, she stayed with him!” “I wouldn’t do it, but a kid should be spanked every once in a while, even if it did leave scars.” But, if there’s an animal involved, it makes the news.
(more…)

Finally, the last of the conservative measures! Measure 64 shows that Bill Sizemore wants revenge on the unions that successfully identified him as a racketeer. Again using crowd-pleasing language, it purports to prohibit using a “public resource” for a “political purpose” and levies double damages for doing so. Now, who could oppose such a benign statement of government neutrality?
(more…)

The Secretary of State has published the measures that will be on the ballot in November, along with statements of financial impact. In a schedule-defying act of commitment to voter education, I’m going to try to cover each of these. Ambitious, no?

Actually, not so much. I’m starting easy. Measure 54 lowers the voting age in school district elections in Oregon from 21 to 18. Not too many readers of this website will have much of a problem with that, but there’s another good reason to vote for it - the current law is illegal. The 26th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits abridging the voting rights of people 18 and over. The explanation? Simple - the voters passed the age 21 requirement in 1948, while the 26th Amendment didn’t come along until 1971.

This measure comes to the ballot as a legislative referral and has no financial impact. You can either vote for it and feel good about yourself or wait for the courts to strike down the age 21 requirement. Ah, the classic Hobson’s choice!

As always, the views expressed here are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

We’ve seen a lot of debate lately about the “tyranny” of Measure 11 and mandatory minimum sentences. The argument goes that mandatory minimums violate equal rights and disproportionately punish offenders for some minor crimes. Before looking toward the future, I think it bears reviewing the history of how all this came about.

Prior to 1990, Oregon sentencing law was pretty simple. The judge could pretty much sentence a defendant anywhere in the statutory range permissible for the crime. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, “truth in sentencing” and sentencing guidelines to reduce racial disparities in sentencing became popular themes. Put simply, people didn’t like prisoners serving only a small portion of the adjudged sentence because of prison crowding, and felt that sentencing guidelines would prevent minority defendants from getting longer sentences than non-minority defendants.
(more…)

The Supreme Court took a major swipe at crime victim’s rights recently. In Giles v. California, the Supreme Court held that a crime victim’s report of a prior incident of assault by her husband could not be used against him in a subsequent trial of him for her murder a short time later. The decision struck down a California rule that provided that prior statements made to the police could be used against a defendant if the defendant’s conduct had caused the victim to be unavailable for trial.

This is a common occurrence in domestic violence cases, where defendants often terrorize their victims before trial (or, in extreme cases, even kill them) to prevent them from testifying. Contrary to common sense, the Court held that the prosecutor had to prove that the defendant’s actions were INTENDED to cause the victim to “not be available to testify” not merely that they actually caused the victim to be unavailable. In essence, the decision forces the prosecutor to go into the defendant’s head and see what his intent was when terrorizing the victim.

I have no objection to the general rule requiring the prosecutor to present the witnesses for cross-examination by the defendant in his criminal trial. The right to confront witnesses lies at the heart of the American justice system. However, when the defendant causes the absence of the victim by his conduct, he forfeits that right. In fact, that’s the name of the doctrine - forfeiture by wrongdoing. The ultimate expression of this utter contempt for the law occurs when a defendant kills the victim of an earlier crime.

This decision beggars the imagination. How could a man accused of assaulting his wife have had any other intent than to prevent her from pressing charges when he killed her? What’s his defense of that conduct supposed to be? “Oh, I knew that she had reported me to the police for a violent crime, but that’s not why I killed her. I just did it on a lark.”

The decision essentially overturns Oregon’s policy of allowing the statements of a dead or missing victim solely on the basis of the defendant’s having caused the absence, without the requirement to show that the defendant intended to cause the absence. For instance, I once showed that the defendant had threatened the victim with the kidnapping of their children while trial was pending. The defendant never came out and said “If you testify, you will never see your child again,” but, under the circumstances, what else could, “You will never see your child again” mean?

This absurd decision shows just how far “strict constructionist” judges will stray from reality. Judges should not legislate from the bench, but they should interpret the law based on the facts of our society as it exists. It demonstrates a way of thinking that does not acknowledge any interpretation of the language of the Constitution in light of the facts of modern society. It puts domestic violence victims at a much increased risk of death at the hands of their intimate partners and undermines the rule of law in our society. For us, it shows us the importance of electing leaders who will appoint and confirm judges willing to interpret the law in the light of our present society, not in the light of a white male landowner dominated agrarian society where women were treated as the property of their husbands.

If you are able to give some time in these last days to put her over the top and let her continue building the Eugene we all want to live in, see the times and places below!

In my opinion the most important race for this May 20 election is the one for Mayor of Eugene.  Just for the fact that the two candidates come from two very different sides of the political landscape.  If you didn’t know the Lane Bus Project supports Kitty Piercy for this post!

Monday, May 12th:

Sign waving-
Ferry St Bridge and 18th & Chambers - 4-5:45pm
Phoning-
SEIU Office (basement of Oregon Community Credit Union, corner of 11th and Ferry) - 6-9pm

Tuesday, May 13th - Thursday, May 15th:

Phoning-
SEIU Office (basement of Oregon Community Credit Union, corner of 11th and Ferry) - 6-9pm

Friday, May 16th:

Sign waving-
Morning-Ferry St Bridge- 7:30-9am
Afternoon-Ferry St Bridge and 18th & Chambers - 4-5:45pm

Saturday, May 17th:
Bus Project GOTV Canvass! Monroe Park (10th and Monroe)
10am - Meet Up 11am - Canvass

Sunday, May 18th:
Final GOTV Canvass- University Park (24th and University) - 1pm

Monday, May 19th:
Last Night of Phoning!
SEIU Office (basement of Oregon Community Credit Union, corner of 11th and Ferry) - 6-9pm

Let me know if you can help! Contact Ashley at 541-968-8269 or ashley@kittypiercy.com.