The Financial Page-Page (M.Snowe comments lightly on Surowieki's Financial Page)

Page Title: "The Free Trade Paradox"

Brief Synopsis:
Surowieki waxes on the similarity of Clinton and Obama, especially in reference to their Free Trade policy, or lack of support thereof. As he summarizes, it's "like a contest over who hates free trade more."
Then he explains the pitfalls of free-trade and, alternatively, those of not-so-free trade.

Free Trade might be bad because:
1. It cuts US blue collar jobs and lowers wages (many believe but it's hard to quantify this)
2. It feeds more money into the swelled pockets of the American rich (probably true, w/ all those corporate profits)

Free Trade might be good because:
1. It lowers the prices of goods lower and middle income Americans spend their cash on
2. This in turn gives more Americans greater spending power

Surowieki's argument, while not exhaustive by any means, does extol on the short term problem of up toughening trade restrictions with other nations--it creates a world where the goods which were previously cheap, suddenly become more expensive--and those goods are usually the ones lower income households purchase. So the American wealthy will not feel the pinch, but the lower- and middle-incomers will, almost immediately. Of course, the jobs available to lower and mid income people will begin to increase as US manufacturers decide to relocate back to America, and the wages will probably spike to higher levels than when the same jobs were harder to come by and in competition with the middling wages of foreign workers (which will still be middling, only we'll have taxed them up to their eyeballs, making their wages go down by valuable pennies as their sales also plummet). But the benefits to US workers could take months, if not years--and would it translate into a richer America?
Surowieki ultimately comes out against tougher trade restrictions.

Assessment: Our undergraduate economics professors have always said that the freer the trade, or the better the advancements in globalization--the better for all (or at least most). Globalization, at least financially, is often seen as more of a threat than it really is--kind of like the gap between subway cars and the platform--you're often told to "mind it," yet even when you don't contemplate the danger, you usually navigate onto the train just fine. Of course, nobody's blaming the electorate for having strong opinions about foreign trade, because like it or not, it combines some of the touchiest subjects we as a species seem to perpetually have issues with: money, race, culture, nationalism, etc. The problem is, is there really anything we can do in this globalized marketplace that will in fact yield a higher quality of life for our poorer or lower middle class workers? Obviously, we'd all like to believe the answer is yes, but is the free trade, or not-so-free trade debate really the outlet? It seems that trade restrictions will only hurt lower earners, at least in the short to medium-length run.. And in a recession, any short-term losses for the lowest paid in our country, even if there's a promise of better wages on the unpredictable horizon, is not exactly a wise decision, or in their best interests. And what about lower income americans that don't work the kind of jobs that foreign workers do to create these goods? Their bills will go up without ever seeing a spike in their wages. We've become so reliant on foreign goods, we probably won't even know where to start. Another point to make is that Surowieki's argument forgets to mention that this issue is not one sided--we can tariff the crap out of foreign entities, but they also have the power to set prices, and if we drive taxes up, they might eat some operating costs to adjust the prices, and therefore stay competitive, while simultaneously lowering the already low quality of goods, and compromising lower American earner's quality of life in the meantime. But it's anybody's guess what could happen. The problem is that plans that restrict free trade, while they are possibly made by certain politicians with the best of intentions, they can also be fed or supported by those who have less concern for the working poor and lower classes, and foreign workers as well.

Can't miss this "won't miss" list

M.Snowe always likes to create original content, but this article is so succinct, so terse, that we decided it speaks better than could be adapted originally on this blog. While we have decided to stay out of declaring any one (democratic) candidate as our favourite, this piece tells it like it is. The only thing to add would be that unfortunately, there is another problem with this primary that won't end with a formal candidacy, and you can read about it here. And as much as we like the almost assured democratic candidate, we don't like this. But here's the article, and it's listed below. When it's spelled out and itemized like this, it really makes a statement that no sane, reasonable person can ignore.

Misogyny I Won't Miss

By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 15, 2008; A15

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web site.

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White Bitch Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother, talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: "White women are a problem, that's -- you know, we all live with that" (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible "gender card."

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for "change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

Marie Cocco is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Her e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

Lighter Fare

My maternal parental unit is sometimes ridiculed for her lack of NYC, general geographic, and literary knowledge. But a few weeks ago, she made a stunning joke that referenced a major work of literature, and for this, we must pay homage.

Maternal Unit: I had to stay home and wait for the exterminator on Tuesday morning.

M. Snowe: But, there are no bugs in the house! Back five years ago when I lived there, you refused to get a bug man and we had ants in the summer; and now that the house is bug free, you sign up for a plan where he's showing up every three months!

Maternal Unit: Well, the bug man never showed up anyways, after I waited and waited for him.

M. Snowe: See what happens when you pay for something you don't need?

Maternal Unit: It's okay--next Tuesday, the Bugman Cometh.

Scari--Lia

Justice Scalia gave an hour-long interview to C-Span last week. Judges on the supreme court hold a precedent for keeping their mouths shut ex curia--they're the legal counterpoints to the most chatty of Cathys. (and some justices don't talk in court either--here's lookin' at you, Justice Thomas!). So when one of them agrees to an hour long tete a tete, you can bet a number of people will be listening.

Most of the discussion was more benign than Mr. Bean's mole. But there were a few gems, both hilarious and depressing in nature (though mostly depressing, because the hilariousness often disintegrates with the realization that this man is one of the last defenses of your and my civil rights. It's like bringing a clown car to the monster truck rally--it's insanely humorous until the carny carnage interspersed with rubber noses and water corsages rapes the eyes.)

First of all, Scalia referred to his interview and press engagements for his newest book as his "coming out." It's doubtful, the hard-core Catholic that he is, that Scalia meant he's coming out in the usual sense of the term--the man is uber conservative. But it was funny nonetheless to hear talk about his "coming out" multiple times, without the merest of mere hesitations.

But listening to him talk about his children and grandchildren was where it got really depressing. (Warning: here comes the clown car and subsequent intellectual blood-bath). The man is clearly blessed in the effective sperm department, with nine children, and 28 grandchildren. When asked about his powers of copulation, his most reasoned answer was that as Catholics, he and his wife played "Vatican Roulette." (We might be unfamiliar with the game, but the odds are that it ends with a bullet in his wife's career either way.) Listening to Scalia talk about his children is a nice way to transport back into the Victorian era. You half expect him to interrupt and say he must dash--his chase and four has just pulled up to take him to the haberdashery.
Nine children. It sounds like he's angling to start up his own supreme court of kids; although with his views on affirmative action, he still needs four more (he has five sons and four daughters). Out of sympathy, he quickly lists his three daughters, and then philosophizes and gets really cander-ous when talking about all his son's livelihoods. His wife, too, was chained to the kitchen as he donned his big bilious robes--his daughters prove that his influence reins supreme: all four are "stay-at-home moms" as he lovingly put it, diligently "raising some of his grandchildren." He vaguely mentions something about one "having been a business woman," and another teaching German, and the last having a degree in library science (but not using it). He seems utterly pleased that they've stopped putting their brains to good use (whereas reason might argue he never started). Too bitter a sentiment for you, dear readers? Okay, a bit harsh, yes. But consider this next part of the interview:
When asked about the quality of lawyers that argue before the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia says the following:
"But more often, I am, I am startled by the fact that this young woman, who is a public defender from Podunk is so good, is so smart, and is so competent; and I ask myself, you know, what is she doing, being a public defender in Podunk--why isn't she out inventing the automobile, you know, doing something useful? Ah, I mean, I'm being sarcastic, I suppose."
First: Podunk--anybody know where that is? Either way, it's a small town of some sort in backwoods America that doesn't see much national press. Apparently, Scalia doesn't think everyone in America deserves a day in court, especially the poor.
Second: Methinks the startled surprise at seeing a well educated and bright woman argue her case caught him off guard, considering all the submissive docile women he must be used to at home. You would think after sitting on the bench next to some strong women, he'd have gotten a clue...but that's what happens when you're myopic.
Third: Umm, the automobile has already been invented. Plus engineering isn't very lady-like, is it?
Fourth: "Something Useful"??? Correct us if wrong, sir, but would that mean that your life's work, and decisions on the court are useless as well? Because we have no problem believing in their uselessness, but we do have a problem with believing that you feel that way!
Five: You're right, what is she doing? If you had it your way, the lack of affirmative action would never have allowed this woman into a good law program anyways.
Six: Is there something inherently time-wasting in being a public defender? Last time we checked,you were supposed to be defending the public as well--this woman just does it for much less money (she'd get paid less than you on average no matter what she does, thanks to her vagina, anyways). So who should be asking about the waste of their talent now?

Justice Scalia, do us all a favor, will you, and stop talking (and for that matter recuse yourself!) Just pretend every new case is a press interview about Bush v Gore--and keep repeating it's in the past and you don't need to rule on any of it!

Further Reflection...

on the previous office softball & politics post.

Watching a bad late night show last night, something must be said in response to the last post.

It's not about a white women vs. a black man. By comparison, both plights are equally frustrating when trying to break into the cultural/societal/political values of the greater population. Sometimes, women get the bum end of the deal. Sometimes, people of a racial minority do. A greater number of the time, people of minority sexual orientations do as well. The true problem is happening in the current political atmosphere as a whole. By staging a proxy war between a black male candidate and a white woman, the traditional upper middle class, straight male majority serving in politics gets the best of both worlds: not only do they see these two groups fracture within themselves and among themselves, they also get to blame both groups if everything goes sour and pear shaped in November.

Last night, on a show that will remain anonymous, the loud mouthed comic reported something like this: "Hillary's campaign is losing funds, and is in debt--they are looking for ways to save money, cutting the budget for travel expenses, including hotels. You know what that means: Hillary and Bill will have to actually share a bedroom!" (insert copious audience laughing and applause here).

This was all in good fun (and nobody likes somebody who takes things toooooo seriously), but how fair is it to punish the victim of the adultery, and not the source itself? It seems Bill gets to be the playboy, where Hillary is the hard-arsed loser. Her apparent sexual ineptitude has always been a point for comedians, pundits, and even other politicians (don't forget McCain's joke about Hillary's and Janet Reno's love child, Chelsea). It has become perfectly acceptable to use the sins of the husband to damn the innocent wife in a political arena. Both David Paterson, the new governor of NY, and his wife admitted to affairs--and yet because they were up front about it, the media coverage has been distilled. This is good--Paterson seems a decent fellow, but the question is, where are the jokes about Michelle Paterson wishing for a separate room in their newly acquired mansion? Maybe a nice little zinger about "what he can't SEE, can't hurt him?" (for those non-NYer's, Gov. Paterson is legally blind).

But it does go both ways (gender and racial stereotyping)--Clinton, despite her huge cash-stash (from book deals and Clinton foundation funds), is not seen as "elitist" as Obama, and the idea that he can't connect with a poorer base is thrown around, one reason being that in this country, the racial divide is so pervasive that it's not just black and white, but rich black, poor black, educated black, etc., etc., etc.-- It's all about being "black enough" to hold on to that voter base, while not being the "Jeremiah Wright-Type Black" that scares away a large number of poor white Southern Democrats and independents (mostly).

It seems neither candidate can exist as simply who they are, or what they want to push forward with, and sadly, the prevailing notion is to pit them against each other (and their multiple defined selves) instead of worrying about who exactly is pulling those strings to make it so. Neither should have to "get out" of the race until one is named the victor (or victoress), but the blame shouldn't be shouldered by either one due to their long battle if the democrats lose in November--they're just playing out the primary game set up by the democratic primary rule makers (who are those old white dudes, yet again!).

the office political/softball team

Despite the most recent primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, we seem to like skirting the coasts of Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. But why, when it's already clear that (unfortunately or not) in all probability, she will have to concede to Obama, and his lead in delegates and primary states? It can't be solely because everyone is hungry for an ongoing story--and even the idea that a knock-em-down battle royale can't be the only rationale. So what is it?

There are, perhaps a few ways to explain this phenomenon. And while these rationales can be extremely divergent, it's highly likely that all exist and come into play together, thereby creating a powerful amalgam, increasing the public's fascination with this "close race" that hasn't really been as close as people like to think.

Since everybody (or at least those white middle-aged male pundits) seem to like sports analogies, here's an extended one for you all (sort of). This race, and the greater political system, is like a company softball team, and the etiquette followed therein.

First, team makeup. The team, while really hoping to be competitive, is open to anyone who wants to give it a go. They may not get to play more than an inning here or there, but they get a jersey, and go to practice. Then you have your regulars, and starters. It's good to be a starter, a regular, a well-seasoned player who understands the formulas of camaraderie. Both Clinton and Obama are, by degrees, like these players--they're generally respected, known names in the field, and they have the stamina and commitment to show up to every game.

But the rules of the office softball leagues are stacked against a fair-fielded team, and there exists a not-so-subtle atmosphere of discrimination, that when viewed on the field, may be innocuous enough, but what many don't realize is that the playing field is an exact replica of the political office race, dirt pitch excluded (most of the time!). The rules of the softball game are simple: Co-ed teams with two outfielders, meaning you need ten players on the field in order to have a true game. The special stipulation is that out of those ten, you need to have AT LEAST four female players on the field at all times. This co-ed rule is telling, because it automatically assumes that every team will have only a limited number of females, and to make things more "fair" the team needs to scout at least four women to play. This is a fearful pursuit, because some players don't want women "muddying up" their chances at intra-office glory to go sour. The fear is made funnier still because softball originated out of fear--fear that women would flood little league baseball teams, therefore disrupting the All-American male "purity" of the sport. It seems after the age of 16 or 17, the rules switch as the advantageou- factor turns toward the guys. The very fact that "less-competitive" office play is associated with softball instead of baseball is another topic worth discussing, but maybe later (and what is so "soft" about softball anyways? those who've been hit with both base- and soft- balls will tell you that neither one smarts any less than the other, and in fact a softball might hurt more, seeing as the larger ball creates a large surface area of bruising!).

But back to the four girls on the company team rule. Co-ed integration in the league has been coerced rather than accepted. Women are begrudgingly given a spot on many a team, and sometimes it is disguised by begging. There is no similar rule about fielding a team with "at least four males" or "at least four people of a different race than the majority." Why? Because: A. it seems a bit weird to racially designate, and B. it's assumed that minorities will already be on the team, and they are usually welcomed. Jackie Robinson was a long time ago--according to sports fans anyways--and race is no longer a controversy in sports. In fact, often the opposite is true--everyone knows that minority group members who come to the US to play sports are often better than your average WASP players (and we mean people of all races -- whether from Asia, Africa, or South America). No sports fan would wish to re-segregate sports. But sex-segregation--that's a different ballgame. Where race is touchy, people have no problem assuming that women aren't up to snuff, and they make it apparent in the rules, and the team dynamics.

After playing and observing many more office softball games than is healthy to admit, the positions women are placed in are often the same: right field, right-center field, second base and sometimes first base. The first base female is also often the best of the women players. While there is nothing wrong with these positions in a major league team setting, they speak volumes in an office one. Anyone who knows the scantest bit about softball/baseball will tell you that the right side of the field (where all these positions populate) sees the least amount of balls, because most players are right-handed hitters and find it very hard to pull the ball to the left. Since there are less lefties, there are less balls hit to the right side. The obvious reason the best woman player on the team is put on first base is that she will be an integral part of making outs while at first base--she has to consistently catch the throws coming from the left side of the field. Numerous games have come and gone with women at the lousy positions, and at the end of the batting order. They play, oh yes, but only because the law requires it are they allowed. The same rings true for this primary season, in a way. Clinton wants to play, and the democrats think it's a lovely show of their liberal spirit to allow her a position (on the left, no less!). But no one seriously believed she'd be able to handle short stop or bat clean up--and that has nothing to do with a fair estimation of her abilities. It's obnoxious and mean-spirited to play the gender card, but we can't forget that no one with a full-deck doesn't utilize it every once and a while.

The fact is, just as the surprised teammates over-congratulate and patronize the young female teammate with faces of disbelief when she hits a nice triple, people lauded Clinton for the mere fact that she got on base, when in truth she should have been held to the same standards and methods of scrutiny as her male teammates. Instead, the standards were more likely to center on what her husband is up to, similar to the attention paid to how to accommodate a pony tail or hair-sprayed style in a batting helmet. The fact is, although race is a huge issue, gender was OKAY to critique and use as a method of bashing, whereas race was a no-no--as it should be--but so should gender! Don't believe that? Well, compare this: Is it more common to hear: "you throw like a girl", or "you throw like a black man"? And even if you were to hear both on a regular basis, which one would be viewed as more derogatory? Even in the face of the Wright problem, Obama has come out relatively unscathed. Yet Clinton is still getting jabs for saying she doesn't like to bake cookies! The problem is gender is still perceived as an issue worth stereotyping and accepted when stereotyped. Men of all races have slowly and surely found their foothold in politics--and similar to the right to vote, people of different races have secured their opportunity (and at least written legal equality) before women of any race or creed did, and in many cases, will.

The course of mislaid directions never runs smooth

M. Snowe veers away from the personal--but sometimes the personal smacks so much of the philosophical and inter-social that it's unavoidable to be inspired by the seemingly mundane occurrences of the unholy inter-sanctum that is the nuclear family. Observe, if you will, the latest correspondence from a parental unit, relying directions to a certain person's apartment (changes and routes have been blocked with red X's so M.Snowe is not visited and summarily lambasted for her stupidity by an onslaught of blog-reading tourists).

"K,

Directions are to take XXX all the way to where it joins NJ Turnpike. You want to travel to Exit X C. Stay to the right when you reach toll booth and get off at right towards light rail. Go to bottom of ramp, stay straight and bear left under light rail tunnel. At traffic light, just past tunnel turn right. Turn left at next light which is just past light rail station. Stay on that straight and take first left which is X street. M. Snowe is at XX on left almost to end of street.

T"

... then further email follow-up:
"Oops, I meant XX not XXX. XXX is the BQE in Brooklyn/queens!

Diner is the Brownstone diner and pancake factory featured on drive-ins, diners and dives. See you around 8AM. We can either eat first or pack vehicular. Call me when you get close."

??????????
First, it's advisable to point out that the "light rail tunnel" in question is not, in fact, a light rail tunnel, but an overpass for cars. Particularly enjoyable is the line: "stay on that straight." This road is naturally straight already. Is the direction-giver rather subtly suggesting that the driver will be drunk, or perhaps lack a steady hand to steer? Question: will they reach the manna and honey that awaits at the diner in the form of pancakes and maple syrup? Changes look dim.

Also, a little sprinkle of mental baking soda: This direction-giver regularly gives written & spoken directions peppered throughout with adverbs as if they were not directions, but instead a rather bland soup. Every other line of written direction began: "probably," "maybe," or "I think..." Also, this is the same person who took us on the crazy cross-borough bridge chase.

Bigger Picture:
What do direction-giving abilities say about us all? We ask politicians about complex issues like economic stimulus packages and the risks of moral hazard in the financial institution bailouts, political lobbyists and contribution conflict of interests, foreign policy missteps and the war in Iraq, humanitarian crises in Darfur & beyond, Iranian nuclear proliferation, the withholding of US funding to international family planning clinics merely because they perform abortions (apparently Roe v. Wade doesn't apply to what we fund globally!), and etc., etc., etc. But when was the last time someone asked a candidate, or anyone in government, how to get from Tampa to New York (that is, when not on the campaign jet)? It's important to take a step back, and regroup. The plans might be mighty, once someone is in office, or in a wider conception of goals and dreams. You could rely on puckish ingenuity, but chances are if you want to get somewhere, locationally, symbolically, or professionally, it takes more than a few fancy enchantments--and that's often what politicians are spouting out all over the place--ideas, notions of change or (alternatively) experience, you name it. But a political pantheon trying to institute Bottom's Dream only makes Asses out of us all. They hope to help the middle people, and end the unfairness, and bring about global change for the better--bring the country out of a recession of multiples: economic recession, global moral authority recession, independent and inspired thought recession, and the list goes on. Let's forget about the end destinations ever-so-momentarily, and focus on producing the best, most concise directions possible, with the goals as only a shadowy anticipation behind all the action that needs to be taken in front of it. And that's another important point of directions: they are created by a director, but they need to be, in the same breath, correct, and followed correctly. And that doesn't mean that directions can't be changed, improved, or altered in some way along the way. It's a matter conscience, choice, and directional strategy.

Think but this, and all is mended:
That you have but slumbered here,
While these visions did appear.

Dear John Letters... (in which M.Snowe fakes it but good)

1 Writer's Block Plaza
NY, NY
USA, Blogosphere, Universe, etc.

Senator John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-2235
Fax: 202-228-2862

Dear Senator:

First, please excuse my intrusion. Since I am not a member of your Arizonian constituency, feel free to disregard my humble correspondence. However, since you are running as the Republican candidate for president, it might be conceivable that you would read and absorb my letter. In hopes of the later, I will continue with my praise of your most recent Senate actions.

This past week, the Senate was called to vote on a bill approved by the House and originally written by those whom you lovingly consider "your friends on the other side of the aisle." Before I address this bill, I'd like to point out that you should be a bit more careful, Mr. Seniorator. What I mean is, you use the address "my friends" in many different contexts, not all entirely amiable. Now, as a staunch supporter, I know that when you call Democrats "friends" you mean something different than when you call campaign contributors at your rallies "friends" (wink wink). But that's another story.

Back to the Bill. It was the Equal Pay Bill, also know as the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the name taken from the Supreme Court case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. The bill was written--as I'm sure your copious hours of research into the bill informed you--as a correction to the Supreme Court's ruling that a worker should be limited to 180 days upon first instance of discriminatory pay practice by an employer based on sex, race, age, etc. Ledbetter, an employee of Goodyear, and her lawyers claimed that every time she received a pay check that was less than her male equals' salaries, it constituted discrimination. But you, dear Senator, and the Supreme Court (or at least those legal eagles: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, & Thomas: the conservative bench clusterfuck, as I fondly call them) decided that if this woman had a gripe with her pay scale, she should have complained within 180 of being hired by Goodyear. If she was so conscientious about receiving equal pay, why didn't she snoop around the records of her fellow employees while she was still on her initial six-month probationary period upon hiring--you know, back when she was new, didn't have a rapport with her colleagues, and didn't know how much they made, and was barred from asking as a matter of company policy? If she got canned then and there for snooping, it wouldn't have blown up into an expensive and unfruitful extended legal battle now! Think of the time everyone could have saved and all the tires that could've been made with the money instead used to pay the lawyers! If she just married up and stopped futzing around with rubber and tires, we'd all be able to stick an extra wheel on or cars, and have as many rubber stamps as we wanted (which would SO come in handy once you're president!).

So again, I must applaud your decision not to vote on this bill, and instead campaign for contribution monies in some of the poorest sections of the country, like New Orleans; because let's face it, the best way to stop poverty, and specifically poverty among women and children, is going to their home town and asking for money for your campaign--not to sit in your leather senate seat and try to legislate away their problems! They need to carry a McCain FOR PRESIDENT banner to really combat their lower wages and discriminatory victimization. Like osmosis, our grand old party ideas of free market economies and free enterprise will seep into their ears, and allow the New Orleans people to wipe off their toxic-mold encrusted sneakers and participate in the utopia of true laissez faire! Huzzah!

I melted at your words when interviewed about the bill. You said: “I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.” *Give me a moment while I collect myself, and re-congeal from the puddle of Republican glee I was just transported into by your eloquence.*

Okay. So the lawsuits, the legal battles, all this unnecessary stuff--you hit the nail right on the democrat's head. We don't want all these lawsuits! And this legislation would open it up, allowing women to sue whenever they actually find discrimination--not just those 180 days. They have long careers, so that would be absolute chaos! Of course, it might make people file suit without direct evidence in the first 180 days, just to cover their legal bases, so to speak...but I don't think that's likely. Who ever heard of courts being flooded with unwarranted law suits instead of well-researched, justifiable ones?

Besides, the heart of this issue, as you so rightly but your finger on, is not that women are receiving lower pay for equal work, it's that they don't know what they're doing (especially in comparison to men). In full disclosure, I'm a woman, and I can confirm that I don't know what I'm doing, even now, sitting here drafting this letter to you in praise for your work. I'd need more clues than a naked scavenger hunt to really understand your policy. But the other message that you told the press that made me liquefy was this one (in regard to the salary disparity between men and women):

“They [women] need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,...And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them....It's a vicious cycle that's affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least,”

*note: a single, translucent tear of pristine republican emotion runs down my cheek every time I read this, fomenting my soul with GOP solidarity. *

You see, you silly discriminatory-practices-lawsuit women, like Madame Ledbetter (her name is even criminal!)--you have it all wrong! Senator, you know where the problem needs to be nipped in the bud: Education. Women aren't getting paid less because they're women, it's because they're stupid, and can't perform tasks! All that sentimental stuff: yikes. It's surprising enough that women can even manage to form lawsuits, with all the hormones and familial concerns.

You said you saw the disparity in wages, and want to rectify it. Well, Senator, do I have an initiative for you! I say, you put women back in their traditional spot: the home, and more specifically, the kitchen. They seem to like taking care of their families, as you suggested in the quote above. Just eradicate hiring women in the US! Ah, but I know you're saying to yourself, "well, that's a good idea, but how would I do it?" Don't worry John (I feel we're on an intimate, first name basis now) I wouldn't leave you hanging. Remember after the liberalism of the 1920's, followed by the depression, and then WWII, everybody got reallllllly conservative, and Rosie the Riveter put away her hammer and instead constructed school lunch boxes in poodle skirts and stuff? Well, all we need to do to get back to the glory days of Dad Knows Best is to start a war, in tandem with a depression of sorts. You see, the first baby boom occurred because Americans needed to do some good old fashioned boning after all those years of depressing war. And the babies were born more frequently after the Great Depression, because people felt they could now afford to have them. So, think about it. All you need is an altercation, or war of some sort against a foreign power and ideology...and then maybe a recession, followed by an upturn. And BOOM! Women are in the kitchen where they so rightly fit. Less women and lawsuits to deal with at work! Everybody wins! Now if we could only find a long, drawn out war, and an unstable economy.....

Best wishes to your campaign!

Your Ever-Ardent Political Fan and Future Bathroom Tryst,

M. Snowe

why to hate morning television (in case you've forgotten)

Morning news television (produced by the major broadcasters, such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) is in the rather unenviable position of straddling the line between daytime television and regular newscasting. Perhaps a better title would be "daytime lite." The time of airing is what does this format in--or at least makes it particularly unique. Because these programs usually start at 7am, it services a large crowd early. People have yet to go to work, so network morning new programs catch all groups--workers and stay-at-home people alike. They get people watching at the gym, or those waiting for the traffic report during those ever-important 25-minute-intervaled local news breaks. They get stay-at-home parents and caretakers, and work-from-home professionals. It's an eclectic mix, and because of that, the shows provide a little bit of everything.

But, in watching an entire show, front to back, you get a much better sense of the structure. Often, people catch five minutes here or there. But if you really pay attention, there are patented social cues inserted into the ebb and flow, including atmospheric shifts and tempered segments. It's all so that the supposed demographics are fitted, or so those who the execs think are watching, are induced to continue watching. It's no surprise that in the earliest, 7AM hour, the "hard news" dominates the segments, whereas during the last hour, fashion, entertainment, and cooking make up the majority of the program. But this makes the assumption that these divergent audiences, watching the same three hour show at different times, are only looking for certain things. What this suggests is that the show is purely consumer driven (like most other shows), based on people's wants. It's so obvious that stay at home mums want to know how to dress nicely, and that career-types will want the results of yesterday's financial market projections. But this assumes too much--it isn't informed by culture, it in fact informs cultural cues, including stereotypes about gender, race, and especially class. It over-compensates, making the facile assumptions that those who stay at home are less concerned with politics, and more concerned about how to bake the perfect muffin. It implies that the legal aid rushing out the door around 8AM doesn't want to know about which celebrity is in rehab, although they will be glued to their US magazine on the train into work. These kind of cultural assumptions benefit no one.

And the gender implications are omnipresent. First off, the increase in "feminine products" commercials is inversely proportional to the amount of news coverage, as if women, not enticed by ads for vagacil or o.b., are devoid of any use for what's happening in China (Free Monistat Three Day!...I mean Free Tibet!). And if it wasn't Black & White enough how sexually-stereotyped the Today show is, they give it to you in Blue & Pink: observe, if you will, next time--that all Matt Lauer's cheat sheets are a pale blue, whereas Meredith Viera's are a baby pink. And that's not the half of it. Gadgets, gizmos, legal battles, medical stories, politics & sports are all covered by the men; whereas cooking, fashion, relationships, and the odd political story about Hillary Clinton is thrown to the women, along with the throw-away mothering stories and pet tragedies. Yes, you might argue that there are exceptions--but they are just that, the exceptions, not the rules. And this isn't just gender bias here, the show is fraught with racial & sexual bias and ageism. Look at the different segments, and tell which go where. The "anchors" are predominantly white and upper middle class, middle aged, definitely heterosexual(we are meant to think). These are the people that are metaphorically and literally anchoring us -- they're who and what we're supposed to be. The jolly weatherman, the extra-bubbly semi-hosts, etc.: all superfluous, and therefore all apt job openings for affirmative action initiatives, sadly. The only gay correspondents allowed are those that flamboyantly embrace the most stereotypical roles, and are relegated to, you guessed it: fashion and pop culture (and that's only for gay men, who never are allowed to really talk about their orientation on air, but it's implied. Openly out lesbians, well, they don't get any segments). Young women co-hosts, or fills-ins on the show must be: perfectly trim, stylish, and married, also, the possibility of pregnancy is seen as a way to introduce lovely segments on what to expect while expecting. They will never get a hard-edged story to cover, ever. Where the weatherman or the male anchor can be happily rotund, the younger female hosts must adhere to the strict rules that apply to movie stars (except when pregnant). Another double standard. Like in politics (or almost any other professional arena) women will be judged by what they wear, while the male anchors throw on a suit and they're done (the only controversy lately about a man's attire has seemed to center on jewelry, namely a little "flag pin" ...but them again, that was about ideology ultimately, not fashion sense. Women have to deal with cleavage counters).

Then there was Tuesday's Today show, and please note that this is the day of the much anticipated Pennsylvania primary. What heightened the excitement on Tuesday's show was that the First Lady and one of her (currently sober) daughters guest-hosted, and were interviewed on the show. Now, Laura Bush is no garish bulldog--she's what every 1950's woman would have hoped from her First Lady . She's got stereotypical gender roles coming out her perfectly make-uped pores. Talk of her husband's politics was verboden, and she focused mostly on literacy (primarily childhood literacy). Though she might get a pass because of her old job as a librarian, literacy is the common cause trumpeted by first ladies ever since Martha Washington supported the post-colonial version of No Child Left Behind. (Yuck...people realize that common grammar rules state sentences shouldn't end on a preposition, right?)

Okay, so the visit seems innocuous enough, but it's not. Why would Mrs. Bush pick Tuesday? Could it possibly be an attempt to throw a huge contrast out against Hillary Clinton, the rather "Un-FirstLadylike" Senator hoping to win voted in PA? Laura Bush's stint on Today reinforced the "important issues" women should focus on: reading to their children, dressing snappily, and helping to plan your kid's weddings (apparently, a Bush daughter is gettin' hitched).

At one point, the presidential spawn remarked how its hard to teach children to appreciate reading, "especially getting boys to read." First, it should be noted that the statement is grossly inaccurate--many little boys love to read. It also reinforces the stereotype that rough and tumble boys are incapable of sitting still and reading a book, cover to cover. Second, it suggests that the state of education should be more concerned with getting boys to excel, when in fact copious studies have shown that our educational methods were primarily crafted by males, for males, and put women and girls in the classroom at a strict disadvantage. The angry objections to Today, and complaints about the first lady's strategic visit to the set of studio one A could go on forever. Basically, the main thrust of this argument is that morning television is a hazy-eye-crusted version of everything that is wrong in the world, served to us before coffee, so we don't necessarily process all it's evils. But let's not dwell--we've all got more important things to be getting on with. (Note that preposition!).

Bridges and Tunnels and Junkyards, Oh My!

In one fitful day, the parental units (more accurately and affectionately, the father/driver) managed to take us through a whirlwind tour of as many New York and New Jersey over- and underwater passages as transport-ably possible.

The final rough estimate:
7 Bridges (3 passed, 4 ridden on),
1 Tunnel,
4 Boroughs,
2 States,
5 or so Navy & Junk yards, including the POW/MIA memorial parkway (an especially apt title for a highway that does give off the distinct and unsettling feeling that you have indeed been consumed and taken hostage by the Brooklyn coast, with little or no hope of return, or at the very best, the prospect of being marooned on an impending Staten Island).

Right before entering the tunnel:
Question: Where are the return directions?
Paternal Answer: We don't need them, we just go back the way we came.
Question: But aren't there, like, four one-way streets on here?
Paternal Answer: We're only going one way.

First
Holland Tunnel (into Manhattan from Jersey).
Side maternal comment:
"Wait, we're under the river?"
"But how is it so long?"

Second
Williamsburg Bridge (out of Manhattan, after numerous dead ends, a track back down Canal, and a few seconds reflection on the state of shops where some by back ally purses and knicknacks).
Side maternal comment (while on Canal Street): " So is this Queens?"
Response: "No, Manhattan."
Maternal further comment: "Is that different?"


Third
Kosciuszko Bridge, from Brooklyn into Queens

Maternal comment: "what about the one in Albany?"
Response: "They're different."


Four & Five
Passing the Manhattan Bridge, then the Brooklyn Bridge

Six
Passing multiple navy and junk yards. Note the random American flag. Not sure why we would want to make it perfectly clear that these junk yards are distinctly American. Getting an alternative view of lower Manhattan, and it's cold steel fortress-ness.

Maternal Comment:"yucky."

Seven
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
(you can't actually tell, but the cars are all going very slow--almost in reverse--in attempts to forgo the disaster that is driving through the alien landmass of Staten Island.)

Eight
Bayonne Bridge. No pictures exist of this bridge, due to disruptions in the atmosphere caused by the combined fumes of Staten Island and New Jersey. Luckily, a fall in cabin pressure did not necessitate the standard dropped yellow oxygen bags. There was no need to first secure the cups over our mouths and noses, and then assist any small children sitting next to us. Breathed normally. The bag may have appeared empty, but oxygen was going through.

Also, debates were held amid Staten Island traffic, the lead being that Bush is not, in fact as stupid as he acts, talks, and overall seems to be. Father, although a staunch democrat, was somewhat defensive of a certain passenger's insistence that Bush is, in fact, an idiot. But since father was the one who decided to divert said passengers through three additional bridges, an extra hour and a half of traffic, and STATEN ISLAND--all in an attempt to circumvent five minutes of lower Manhattan driving--we can neither confirm nor deny the doubt we have that if we were, as the father suggested, to ask Bush (off the record) whether or not Iraq was a good idea, he would admit it wasn't.

...But some publishers are pro-choice.

Here's the latest from my copyediting book. Read previous posts on this topic here and here.

"The half-title page (bastard title page) displays the main title of the book only. (Sometimes the half-title page is eliminated to save space."

Who knew they were so cavalier.

Short reflection on Arabian tales (some fake, some imagined)

Scheherazade is an icon of mythic proportions, to be sure. She is the frame around which One Thousand and One Nights takes place; and it is her role as ultimate storyteller that saves her life, and tames the king. Often, the frame of any story, otherwise know as the prelude to the story within a story, is told by a captivating narrator. More often than not, the best narrators in books are the abused, under appreciated, or downtrodden. The storyteller must come to us from a different perspective than the mainstream, and for good reason. No one wants to look in the mirror as they read--they do not want to hear about the commonplace or everyday (that is, unless it's told in a new and exciting or at the very least intriguing or grotesque way). You see it in books paradoxically written by those who keep the downtrodden trapped in the frames--Uncle Remus, Sheherazade--they all share a common thread of subjugation or slavery, and the stories they weave make it implicit, and yet at the same time, these stories are in fact written by the captors (who strike similar reliefs to the beasts or villainous men of the story). Is this, in some creative fashion, an apology--a subconscious literary mea culpa? Or is it an argument for keeping people down, through the creative and artistic outlets--a justification of sorts?

It seems, through the frame, that literary masters superimpose their mastery on the downtrodden. But it's not just the frame. While (in a uncharacteristically bored moment) watching the 2005 version (Peter Jackson's) King Kong, the following quote was presented:
"And lo! The Beast looked upon the face of Beauty, and it stayed its hand from killing. And from that day, it was as one dead."

The quote claimed to have been sourced from "an Arabian proverb," when in fact, as this archived NYTimes article explains, it was originally fabricated as an old proverb by Marian C. Cooper, the original writer of the King Kong story. There are multiple things wrong with this fake proverb, number one being the warning against a beautiful woman's deception and the probability of impotence in it's wake. The other is the notion that a beautiful woman has some secret store of power that men cannot resist--even the most beastly of them. What is so appalling about attributing women with such a gift of control, you might ask? Well, it is shuttered about with deception. It implies that women use guile, and their significance relies solely on their appearance. Also, it implies that women are somehow "above" the affairs of men. And we all know about pedestals... and the quote:
"The pedestal upon which women have been placed has all too often, upon closer examination, been revealed as a cage."

And yet, Jackson's movie ends with the quote: (it wasn't the airplanes) "it was Beauty killed the Beast." Despite all her power as a potential savior, the tragic end and final words condemn the "beauty," while simultaneously drawing the viewer's attention away from the fact that she, like Kong, suffered as a victim in a plot acted upon her. His other-worldy strangeness, and her womanly beauty were both attributes to be exploited, not celebrated

More Stereotypical Manuscript

Here are some more submitted stereotypes in copyediting language/rules:

The Gay Recluse writes:
More on the gay front than sexist, but! How about "homo panic": failure to use any adverbs ever for fear of being labeled a queen. (He offered pathetically.)


Not pathetic at all! In fact, combing a few copyediting books/websites, it's clear that the makers of these rules (and general grammar rules) were homophobic:

"Querying" : This word is an obvious allusion to Queer--and of course, the textbook warns all future copyeditors:
"Do not query often...Queries should never be sarcastic, snide or argumentative."

"Homophones": (Words pronounced identically or quite similarly but spelled differently) "Be able to spot and eliminate troublesome pairs"


And that's not all. Grammar seems to be quite conservative.

Hence, the definition of copulative verbs:
"verbs that express a state of being, rather than an action."

Interestingly, the verb "copulate" means: to engage in sexual intercourse. The grammarians have decided that to have sex is a state of being, not an action. Or perhaps they have a special regard for Sting and his Tantric practices?

Sexist Copyediting Rules

Who knew that even the bookmakers are a part of the patriarchy!

Taken from a manuscript copyediting website:

"A "widow" is the last line of a paragraph that appears alone at the top of a page. An "orphan" is the first line of a paragraph that appears alone at the bottom of a page."

Instructions from manuscript prep document:

"Avoid ‘widows and orphans’: that is, headings, single words, or single lines of text that dangle, separated from the rest of the section to which they belong, at the top or bottom of a page. You may insert additional line spaces to avoid such occurrences."

While it's understandable that widows and orphans aren't exactly wanted personages in society, and there are obvious connotations of incompleteness and sadness, why is it only women and children that get abused, via manuscript preparation requirements?

Here are some healthy, equally-abusive suggestions for manuscript problem terms:

Please avoid the following common manuscript problems:

Widowers: text that stands flush right in the middle of the page, and seems deeply unconnected to the rest of the text (either by differing font or font size), and yet tries strenuously to fit in.

Mid-lifers: unnecessary breaks in text flow accompanied by extravagant design images or colored text vehicles.

Machomarks: overly elaborate and masculinized sentences sectioned off for extra attention (by phallic-shaped bullets or charts), even though the facts therein are void of any intellectual value or attractiveness.

Asshole: Random termination of a paragraph without explanation, often followed by tense diction and sense of impropriety.

Snobs: Sentences constructed with ten or more rather overly erudite, pithy adjectives to describe the banal.

ED Guys: Incomplete sentences.

Write in with other suggestions!

Olympiadic Problems

The Olympics thrive on conflict--that's essentially what they're all about anyways--not-so-friendly competition that masquerades as international good-sportsmanship. Some Americans felt good/smug about Jesse Owens winning 4 gold medals while in Germany during Hitler's reign in 1936, as the dictator was proclaiming the supremacy of the "Aryan race." Yet, on returning home, Owens was still subjected to all the racial prejudices that plagued the US. Ultimately, neither side is free from blame, or can take the completely ethical highroad. The US was embroiled in a deep debate prior to the 1936 games as to whether or not they would boycott, due to Hitler's regime. The US decided to participate, the main argument being that sports should be free from politics. Also, one must take into consideration the US policy of non-involvement before entering WWII. In fact, despite many nation's internal debates about whether or not to send athletes, the Berlin Olympics (up until that time) had the highest number of participating nations. But really, can we claim that politics and sports are so divergent? Wasn't it a mere month or so ago that baseball players were testifying in congress? Can a country that claims to invest so much in overseas peace and "freedom" really claim the rule of separation of sports (a.k.a. the new church) and state?

There are two main arguments in the newest debate concerning boycotting the Beijing summer Olympics, or at the very least, boycotting the ceremonial opening. The first is the obvious throwback to Berlin, currently trumpeted by Bush: he aligns with Chinese officials, and plans on attending the ceremony, citing international cooperation over any political concerns/issues. French and German officials plan on boycotting the opening, though the Brit's Gordon Brown still plans on attending. Just as a precursor to the problems that might present themselves as the games near, the Olympic torch relay has meet with angry protesters in England, France, and California. The torch actually had to be held at an "undisclosed location" while in the US, and the general CIA-like feeling and rendition-style atmosphere is not helping the international acclaim of this year's games, scheduled to start on 08-08-08. The last time something notable was held at an "undisclosed location" it was Dick Cheney--and I think most wished he would have stayed there to grow mold in undisturbed peace and utter incapability. But here's the problem with Bush's stance: we can no longer claim neutrality in world affairs, like Roosevelt did in 1936. This is not ala carte globalization--we've (for better or worse) taken the moral high ground in terms of the "war on terror" and "fighting for freedom and democratic society." We might be able to strategically ignore a tiny country with problems in the middle of South America (probably due to it's lack of oil). But we can't pick and choose what types of events warrant our support or action in terms of democracy. Aren't we still boycotting Cuba?...but then again, Cuba doesn't manufacture nearly as many lead-laced children's playthings that the US so enjoys receiving from China. China is a major world power, and it's only going to grow. But the political problems that China faces are overt, and they're gaining notice with the current protests in/about Tibet.

The claim that sports should be a non-political endeavor is absolute fiction. Politics, prejudice, and an ingrained attitude of superiority have all mixed together to create an Olympic system that has, until very recently, been highly discriminatory (it's still discriminatory, but not as much nowadays). Sports like to consider themselves as drama-free in terms of the outside world (and most importantly politics) because that way, sports get to make up their own rules. And then, once rules are put in place to regulate them, sports and the sports authorities try in all seriousness to subvert the rules in whatever ways possible. Sports is increasingly political, because sports are no longer the lazy-day occupation of Saturday afternoons--they involve the same themes that inculcate political scandal: Drugs, sex, lies, MONEY, and fame.

Let's take one "for instance" where the Olympics and the sporting community allowed a prejudiced view to continue for years, unabated. To think that national politics/feeling don'tfind their way into sports and vise-versa is insane--but people believe it. In fact, without reading about gender and sports, the practice about to be explained concerning Olympic policy is not widely known, or "politicized" if you will.

"Gender Verification." This practice was performed only on women (or those participating in women's events in the Olympics, and some other major sporting events). In 1966, Olympic officials felt that it was necessary for all female athletes in the games to be "inspected" by officials in order to prove their sex (to make sure that men were not trying to compete as women). It is also important to remember that men were not tested to make sure they were, in fact, men. This is inherently political because it goes against women's basic rights as equals and it assumes: A. Women would not be athletic enough to pass as men, and B. Men are automatically better athletes than all women, so the incentive to try and win in a female competition would be high.

Not only is the idea of testing detestable--but the methods were also inhumane. The female athletes would have to strip down, and literally prove their sexuality by having their genitalia inspected. The tests, while despicable, were actually quite unscientific--because someone can look like a woman, but in fact be a man in terms of hormones and chromosomes--and so after a rather ungracious start, the Olympic officials decided it would be better to conduct genetic testing (still on women only) to see if the athletes were women. These tests relied on analyzing the X and Y chromosomes. XX: female, XY: male. But it isn't so simple. Some people have extra chromosomes, and it causes different issues in terms of sex/gender determination, those being people that have XXY, or those who have a combination of XXY cells and a singular X chromosomes. So some women, who were women, turned out in the tests to be male, causing quite an uproar in the athletic community, and causing many women political, social, and psychological harm. It is also important to note that this was not the only type of gender-stereotype-influenced testing. Before the doping scandals of today, it was women who were considered more likely to inject steroids into their buttocks (because they were "weaker" than men and could use the extra help, apparently). Women, especially those participating in collegiate sports, were subject to random drug tests, while their male counterparts were not. This was happening all throughout the 80s and early 90s. Only now is steroid testing a huge part of male sports.

But the real shocker is this: Gender Verification continued up until the 2000 Sydney Olympics. From 1966 to 2000, women were either required to drop trow in front of doctors and other players, or ordered to take a cotton swap to their cheek cells in order to compete, while men waltzed in, test-free. These tests were not only shame-inducing, they ruined lives by determining that some women were not "in fact" women, and subjecting them to public and private humiliations.

The Olympics are fraught with politics, discriminatory practices, and every other injustice that plagues all the nation states. To claim that a global event with many nations involved can occupy a Utopian space of neutrality is inconceivable. The real question is whether or not one issue warrants pulling back the veneer of political myopia and actually making a boycott happen. If we didn't do it for Hitler, the odds aren't in our favor for boycotting The People's Republic.

Abort Missions

Two horrible, yet altogether unsurprising stories released this week.

The first is sadly one more notch on a string of Bush Administration armchair-medical-politicking. Now, everyone knows that the Bushies like to block stem-cell research, propel far-right abstinence only sex ed programs into the mainstream, and appoint evil supreme court dictators in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade--but this story on blocking mere information takes the big-brother-is watching-and-restricting cake. Popline, a search engine of articles and research findings on reproductive health, is run by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the United States Agency for International Development. At the height of concealment, the database decided to block over 25,000 scholarly articles on abortion. The search engine has been unblocked following the uproar, but as of last Thursday, "a search on "abortion" was producing only the message "No records found by latest query." Just completing a search, here are the results you can now receive, 26,383 records on abortion. What still strikes the viewer are the chosen headliners--mostly reports of the ills of abortion in certain countries, or the apparent negative effects. Something tells us that these reports, though organized by "most viewed" are not as innocently placed as might be hoped.

It is shocking that a country supposedly committed to freedom and most especially freedom of information would block such a benign query. Anyone can go on the internet and run a quick search, and PoP! you now know exactly how to construct a pipe bomb. But you want learn about abortion? Well, that's too bad--you can't even get the science behind it. Some behind the Popline search restriction said they had to restrict the search because it was government funded, and is part of the Bush Administration's implemented policy that mirrors Regan's crazy politics:
"On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush announced reinstatement of the so-called Mexico City policy that required non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The President is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services."
It's another case of "do what we say but not what we do"--apparently, like Geneva Rules, we can tell others what is restricted and yet go against our own practices. Roe v. Wade upholds abortion rights, and yet we tell other nations not to abort, or even promote abortion. International wartime rules say that American troops cannot be tortured overseas (and that goes for everyone), but the US has no trouble disregarding that policy against foreigners when it sees fit. Instead of, oh, maybe watching out for people building bombs from internet-gained advice, or stopping people for forming internet alliances to terrorize the US, Bush and his cronies were too busy thinking about the best ways to make sure women would stay barefoot and pregnant. Because we all know that a women in charge of her own reproductive destiny, and who can read up on all the information she needs, is much more fearsome a creature to behold than Al Qaeda. But we digress.

Speaking of the war, Newsweek has an altogether equally unsurprising article on the toll US alliances with Iraqi tribal fighters has taken on Iraqi women. In order to be fair, this first comment must be made: women don't get a fair shake in Iraq, regardless of who is ruling them, but this turn of events is definitely not granting Iraqi women any favors.
This is a representative quote that is worth dissecting:
"But at present, U.S. forces are too please