This Just In

 In an unsurprising turn of events, former Carrboro mayor Mike Nelson has announced that he will run for the state senate seat Ellie Kinnaird is leaving.  I got really excited for a split second when I saw this N&O header:

Orange Commissioner Mike Nelson to seek Senate seat

Then I found out he's going for the state senate.  Wouldn't it be fabulous if he ran against Dole?  Now that would be interesting.  I wish he would go for her seat because she's really just an awful representative of our state.  Plus it would be fun to see her running against a gay man.  Just because it would.  It'd be even more fun to see Tupperware (you know, 'cause she's all plastic) Lid run against Angela Davis, but I'm guessing she's not interested either.  What?  Her dad taught at St. Aug's and no one else wants the job.  Seriously, why is everyone afraid of Dole?  I know the unnatural visage could throw a person off in a debate situation, but if you didn't look straight at her, you'd probably get through it.

Anyhow, back on Planet Earth, Nelson had this to say about throwing his hat in the ring,

The state legislature is the battleground for many of the issues I care about: the environment, quality schools, equal treatment under the law for lesbians and gay men, and health care reform.  Legislative seats don't open up very often, I decided, and if I sincerely wish to impact those and other issues then there was no choice but to get in the race."

Aside from the use of impact as a verb, I like it.  (Funny story, Chris Fitzsimon insists I used 'partner' as verb [not in a rude way] the first time we met.  We all know that cannot be true.  Don't we?)  I fear frustration ahead for Nelson as he works on the equal treatment for gays and lesbians in a legislature that can't even agree that LGBT people shouldn't be bullied at school, but he'll have to handle that as it happens.

8 Comments

  1. James

    August 22, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Mike Nelson v. Moses Carey. Should be interesting.

  2. Max

    August 23, 2007 at 9:03 am

    “a legislature that can’t even agree that LGBT people shouldn’t be bullied at school” Hmm, it be nice to give kids equal protection under the law and protect all of them from bullies. Why give LGBT kids special treatment?

  3. Jim Stegall

    August 23, 2007 at 11:05 am

    There’s not a school system in the state that doesn’t already proscribe bullying behavior. The bill Andrea was apparently referring to would have done nothing whatsoever to add to the protections against bullying that already exist.

    In my opinion there was (and is, since the bill made crossover and is still alive for the short session) an ulterior motive for insisting on the bizarre, convoluted wording with respect to sexual orientation contained in the original bill. I just wish the bill’s proponents would come clean about what that motive is, so we could have an honest, adult-level discussion about it.

  4. sturner

    August 23, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Andrea,
    I’m sure Chris was just kidding you. I think you’re OK unless you start to refer to yourself in the third person as in “Andrea promises that Andrea will never lose her temper again when Dallas posts grammatically incorrect comments on Andrea’s blog.”

  5. Andrea V

    August 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    In point of fact, Jim, the bill I referred to would have added to the protections of some of the most bullied children in the state’s public schools by stating explicitly that they deserve protection. The sponsor said he wanted to signal to the school systems that they could not ignore that some kids are more vulnerable than others, something that has continued, Max, despite current anti-bullying legislation.

    I’m guessing the language that Jim calls “bizarre [and] convoluted” is the term “gender identity and expression” even though it’s actually pretty clear. As to what the ulterior motive for the bill could be, I can’t begin to imagine. Can you tell me, in the interest of an “adult-level” conversation?

  6. Jim Stegall

    August 23, 2007 at 11:05 pm

    I can only speculated as to the intentions of others, especially since these others continue to obfuscate the issue by using meaningless language. For instance, you say that the bill would have “added to the protections” of some students. But can you tell us how? I’ve read the bill over and over, and I can’t find a single behavior that the bill would proscribe that isn’t already proscribed in the typical LEA policy manual. If I’m missing one, please point it out to me.

    I know the sponsors and supporters of this bill aren’t going through all this for nothing. You and your confederates have a very specific end in mind via this proposal, one that I suspect involves many, many lawsuits. I just wish you would do us all the courtesy of saying explicitly what it is.

  7. Andrea V

    August 24, 2007 at 8:29 am

    Sorry I thought I was clear. The bill adds to their protection by naming them explicitly as bullying targets and insisting that the school systems not look the other way when they are targeted.

    Jim, I am not being disingenuous when I say that I have no idea what “ulterior motive” or “specific end … involving many, many lawsuits” there could be for this bill. As you’ve now made this weird accusation twice, now leveled at me specifically, will you please tell me what you are talking about? I just wish you would do us all the courtesy of saying explicitly what it is.

  8. Jim Stegall

    August 24, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    How does being “named explicitly as bullying targets” ADD to their protection? Is there a human being somewhere on the planet who does not already know that children who exhibit the named characteristics are often the targets of their bullying peers? What is accomplished by writing that information into law? And how does insisting that the school systems do exactly what they are already doing ADD to these students’ protection?

    It’s supporters must believe that it does SOMETHING, else they would not have fought so hard for it. If they could articulate what that something is (in a substantive, vice rhetorical, way) we could have that honest debate.