I can’t exactly begrudge Laura Richardson for financial incompetence, as I’ve never been very good with money. I always have the feeling I’m holding a cursed pagan icon, and it just slips through my fingers. But I bet if one of her political opponents (say, me) were in her shoes, Ms Richardson wouldn’t hesitate to mention it. In full color flyers. Three days before the election. Or something like that.
Here’s what I can and do begrudge her for: “Based upon what I was going through, changing four jobs in less than one year,” she argued to the P-T’s Gene Maddaus, “I think any American would understand what that does in terms of a person’s financial stability.”
Please. Americans are losing their homes because the economy is tanking, because mortgage brokers bamboozled many of us, and because some simply bought a house they couldn’t afford. Richardson lost hers because she borrowed too much cash to run for Congress, and because she bought three houses she couldn’t afford. She reveals here a total misunderstanding of the housing crisis, not to mention the daily reality of the real working class (or else she’s just shoveling it). Are we supposed to feel sorry for a United States Congresswoman because she isn’t making enough money?
I say I can forgive Richardson’s personal fiscal ineptness (whatever was ineptness; methinks arrogance, ambition, and entitlement played their parts), but then, I’ve never been a fan. But for the faithful, this has to be a confidence shaking, if not perhaps shattering, event. Richardson has portrayed herself as highly competent, and also as one who will fight for the communities she represents. But her behavior cost taxpayers and WAMU investors (that’s anyone with a savings account) and she wasn’t doing a thing about it until a reporter called her for comment. Yipes!
And she’s going to stop the war?
Richardson’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton, her vote for war funding (after a televised promise to the contrary) and now her blasé wheeling and dealings in the midst of mortgage meltdown confirm what I always knew:
Ambition gets you in over your head.
I know this from experience, because I ran for Congress, too.
Unfortunately, Richardson’s woes don’t seem to be derailing her reelection campaign, which culminates Tuesday in the Democratic Party primary.
Her opponent Peter Mathews waits in the wings; if only someone would introduce him and he would take the stage.
*
A post-feminist interpretation of equal protection made this year’s PRIDE festival the most politically profound Pride ever. Is this exciting to you, or repulsive? The answer to that question may determine your entire demographic profile.
Here are two things about the gay marriage debate that deserve more discussion:
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Comity Clause reads:
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
What this means is that the people now getting married throughout California can one day move to Georgia, Wyoming, or West Virginia and demand to be treated as a married couple. They’ll have to fight in court, almost certainly, but they’ll have a case.
One can imagine the good ole boys of the Bible Belt getting hot under the collar about fellas marrying fellas in the wild, wild west, or up in New York City, capitol of queers. But would they start a multimillion dollar campaign to stop it if they could keep out of their own state? I doubt it.
The trouble is the word marriage. It carries a legal status that must be recognized in every state, no matter where the marriage originates. And gay couples, as a socio-political demographic, seem pretty attached to the word marriage – to gaining the same privileges and immunities straight couples enjoy as married citizens.
And why shouldn’t they? After all, it’s only equality being sought here – the right to couple with one person to whom you are attracted romantically and sexually. Would we deny people this right?
On the other hand – here’s the other thing about gay marriage that deserves more study:
Why should they? Why should gay men and women seek the approval of straight society? And further, why should they, in fact, seek to participate in the central institution of heterosexuality and its monozygotic twin, patriarchy? Why should anyone who believes in sexual liberation seek to be married?
Marriage comes out of a desire of men to control patrilineage and to ensure that most men reproduce. By marrying virgins and making extramarital sex (by women, mainly) taboo, property rights and kinship privileges could be preserved. Women, in this arrangement, were essentially property themselves.
Modern marriage has softened these practices slightly, enhancing what is left of them with romance. The romantic ideal of perfect love is inextricably connected to heterosexual mating practices. Are gay Americans sure they want to adopt romance, and pretty much every other aspect of straight coupling – save the straightness?
Or could there be an opportunity here for something more creative, adventurous, and liberating?
*
The police shot Roketi Su’e to death and I’m sure they were scared and he was acting real crazy. I work with people who, judging from the remarks of his friends and family, are a lot like Roketi Su’e, and I can tell you, it’s not always a picnic (and it’s rarely uninteresting). Bipolar disorder, which Su’e apparently had, is a profoundly challenging condition. These folks can be unpredictable, downright scary, and certainly irrational. They can also be, and usually are, likeable, essentially “normal,” just terrific to be around. Su’e seems to have fite the profile.
But the cops didn’t know him personally. I don’t think the cops needed to shoot this guy, but guess what – they didn’t have a whole lot of options. Least not any we could reasonably expect them to pursue, given their training.
That’s because they’re not trained to work, primarily, with mentally ill people. The police are trained to work with the general public, to keep order, to arrest and deter criminals. Talking down a large man experiencing psychotic escalation is not their strong suit; some are better it than others, but even under the best conditions, it’s just not their M.O.
We train them to shoot when in danger, and sometimes they do.
There are social workers who ride along with sheriff’s deputies and help out with psychiatric crises. But there aren’t enough of them.
Here’s what can save lives: Every police office should be an expert in nonviolent crisis resolution. It should be their first response to any situation that is not imminently life-threatening. Ego can’t get in the way. Asserting authority can’t get in the way. Being in a hurry, ignorance, racial fear, and the criminal code can’t get in the way. Every police officer ought to be able to do a few things almost 100% of the time when dealing with psychotic or manic individuals:
1. Recognize the symptoms of mental illness
2. Communicate with body language and words that the officer is not a threat, but a helper
3. Utilize the de-escalation techniques that are standard in psychiatry among paraprofessionals
4. Recognize imminent danger, and distinguish it from minor threats
5. Switch from the above stance to the use of minimal necessary force as soon as necessary
Su’e really was never a threat. One man with a police baton versus several cops? There had to be a better way to handle this. Why shots to the torso?
People with mental illness are not criminals, and must not be treated as such. Criminal behavior involves knowing deception, purposeful harm to others, and reckless disregard. Psychosis and mania consist of misperceiving reality, poor impulse control, and confused thoughts and speech. Let’s train all cops to know the difference, so they can put their good intentions to the best use in the most trying crises.
Less lawsuits that way, too.
And (when we have the money) let’s hire more crisis social workers to drive around with the police. Cop cars are way cool.
Wink, wink.