Opinion

[lawyerlee]

A thread dedicated to thoughtful opinion pieces of any persuasion, as long as they make you think. :)

[lawyerlee]

The Blasphemy of Flag Worship (http://www.alternet.org/story/22268/) AlterNet

In a few days the House of Representatives will overwhelmingly approve, for the sixth time, a Constitutional Amendment to allow Congress to make it a crime to deface the American flag.

In three previous votes, the Senate could not muster the two-thirds majority needed to send the bill to the states for ratification. In 2000, the last time the Senate took up the matter, 63 voted for the amendment, four short of a two-thirds majority. Since then Republicans have picked up five Senate seats. That is why USA Today describes the upcoming vote, scheduled sometime after July 4, as a "cliffhanger."

If Congress passes the amendment, will the states ratify it? Time will tell. But we should recall that every state legislature has passed resolutions urging Congress to send it such an amendment.

We can expect to hear a lot of First Amendment-loving progressives condemn this Congressional initiative as inappropriate and dangerous. I would hope that the Christian right would join the opposition. Not out of a love for the First Amendment, but because of their devotion to the Ten Commandments.

Devout Christians firmly believe that the Ten Commandments should be etched in stone in our courthouses and emblazoned on the walls of every classroom. The message of the Second Commandment is clear. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..."

Can anyone deny that the American flag has achieved the status of a graven image?

The contention that flag worship is blasphemy was a key element before the Supreme Court in 1940. In that case it upheld the right of a Pennsylvania school district to expel two students who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The two teenagers were members of the Jehovah's Witness denomination. Their church believed that pledging allegiance to the flag violated the Biblical admonition (Exodus 20) against worshipping or bowing down to any graven image of God. The court decided that the need for national security and national unity allowed Congress to force individuals to violate the Ten Commandments.

In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its 1940 decision. That reversal probably had less to do with religion than with the Court's realization that, at the height of a war against totalitarian regimes, a central feature of which was a slavish devotion to national symbols, compelling us to worship the flag was inapt. (As a side note, that same year the Flag Code itself was changed. No longer were students required to salute the flag with one arm extended forward. The similarity to the Nazi salute was too embarrassing. From that time onwards, we were told to put our hands over our hearts.)

The evidence that we literally worship the flag is overwhelming. Unique among all nations, we have a Flag Day, a Flag code etiquette, a national anthem dedicated to the flag and a verbal salute to the flag. Twenty-seven states require school children to salute the flag daily.

Some might argue that we are simply saluting a symbol, that we are actually pledging allegiance to our country. But the words tell a different story. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American, and to the republic for which it stands." The insertion of the word "and" makes clear that the flag and the republic are two different entities. We are pledging allegiance to the flag itself.

If further evidence is needed, consider these words from the Congressionally enacted U.S. Flag code (Title 36 USC 10, PL 344). "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing."

Just eight months ago, Lincoln, Nebraska police arrested a 64-year-old Vietnam War veteran who flew the American flag upside down to protest the war in Iraq. He was arrested for violating a 1977 Nebraska law prohibiting the "mutilation of a flag," which it defines this way. "A person commits the offense of mutilating a flag if such person intentionally casts contempt or ridicule upon a flag..." The penalty is three months in jail. Of course, in many societies, the punishment for ridiculing God is far greater.

Our national anthem, sung at every sporting event and increasingly, at every mass political gathering, is the only one I know that focuses its devotion solely on a flag. "And the rockets' red glare / the bombs bursting in air / gave proof through the night that our Flag was still there." Congress has repeatedly thwarted attempts to substitute the eminently more singable and entirely more fitting song, "America the Beautiful," for "The Star Spangled Banner."

Following up on its 1943 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1989 and again in 1990 declared that ridiculing or defacing the American flag was protected by the First Amendment. Which is why Congress is now about to send a Constitutional Amendment to the states.

God bless those who will fight this Congressional initiative as a dangerous precedent, the first Constitutional Amendment that restricts the reach of the Bill of Rights. Their devotion to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution is admirable. Perhaps we can expect devout Christians' equally fierce devotion to the Ten Commandments to energize them in opposition to this initiative.

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.

[mmeblue]

Hey Diana - should commentary/responses on the opinion pieces go in here as well, or were you thinking this would just be the place for the articles themselves?

[lawyerlee]

Hey Diana - should commentary/responses on the opinion pieces go in here as well
Yeah, definitely! :)

[oceaneast]

Interesting thread topic! I like it.

[lawyerlee]

Marriage Penalty (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401415_pf.html)

By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Remember the 1986 Newsweek cover warning that a college-educated woman older than 40 had a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than of finding a husband? (My mother does.) Now National Journal magazine has come up with a 21st-century corollary: Women who work in the top ranks of the Bush administration are five times more likely to be single than their male counterparts. Delving into the demographics of 367 top administration officials, it found that a scant 7 percent of men were single -- compared with 33 percent of the women.

Part of the reason for this dichotomy, though by far the smaller one, is the phenomenon that drove my mother crazy when I was flourishing in my job but failing to produce grandchildren: A consuming career isn't exactly conducive to romance, and that's far truer for women than for men. Power as aphrodisiac has its gender-based limits. Far better, for matrimonial purposes, to be Henry Kissinger than Condoleezza Rice.

For those of you about to accuse me of a terribly dated, sexist worldview: I hope you're right. But I remember having dinner midway through President Bill Clinton's first term with a White House official -- a smart, attractive woman -- who confided that she hadn't had a date -- hadn't been asked out on one, in fact -- since the inauguration. She's married now, but ask her if having a fancy White House job was a guy magnet.

The bigger explanation for this marriage penalty, though, is the stubborn reality that jobs such as these aren't conducive to married life or, more precisely, to parental life, and that many women who could have such jobs have opted not to pursue them. Had the National Journal parsed the numbers more closely, I'm sure it would have found an even wider gender gap when it came to administration officials with children. Look at the four Cabinet secretaries who are women: Only one, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, has children.

The blunt truth is that senior administration officials who also happen to be dads are more likely than their female counterparts to have spouses willing to take up the parental slack. Many of their wives stay home with the kids or work part-time, particularly for the duration of what amounts to their single parenthood. The husbands of senior administration moms, by contrast, aren't anywhere near as likely to be on -- or to be willing to put themselves on -- this kind of daddy track.

And even if they were, it might not make a huge difference. Whether by reason of biological wiring or social conditioning, women -- not every woman, but many -- aren't willing to give up as much of family life as these jobs inevitably demand. In my experience, when something's got to give, for many women -- and for many more women than men -- that something is their careers.

Talk all you want about creating flexible, family-friendly workplaces. I'm all for that. But jobs at a certain level -- among them the kinds that National Journal looked at, such as assistant to the president, or Senate-confirmed positions -- are by their very nature family-hostile.

This phenomenon, of course, isn't limited to the Bush administration. At the president's last news conference, only one of the 18 questioners was a woman. This wasn't a reflection of male bonding on the president's part but of assignments by news organizations. The networks, wire services and big newspapers have their correspondents called on first -- and those correspondents are almost all men.

Maybe there's sexism at work here, but a far bigger component, I'd guess, is a glass ceiling that is, to a significant degree, self-imposed. I covered the White House once, when I was single. Now that I have children, I'd never consider that job, with its punishing, unpredictable hours and relentless travel. Yet two of The Post's White House reporters, both men, have kids much younger than mine; the third, also male, has older kids. More striking: Among The Post's dozen or so top editors, almost all the men are married with children. Of the three women at that level, only one is a mom.

I'd like to think that my daughters, when they are grown, will find the pull between work and family less agonizing, less intractable, than women today. I expect they will, slightly, as workplaces become more flexible and men as well as women are more unwilling to tolerate 24-7 jobs. But I suspect also that they'll bump up against the same realities, and experience the same conflicts, that I have.

What I'd tell them, in the unlikely event that they ask, is that having it all is best achieved, and perhaps only achieved, in stages. And, of course, to make sure their dad and I have lots of grandchildren.

[trefoil]

I see the author's point, but I'm not sure I agree that the flag has achieved the position of a graven image.

Maybe I'm just missing the "clarity" of the Second Commandment (it's possible! I'm not Christian). To me, there is a difference between respect and worship. I have respect for my family, but don't worship it. I have respect for my country, but don't worship it. I have respect for the flag, but don't worship it.

Personally, I hope that the constitutional amendment fails. I do understand that free speech has boundaries ("Fire!", libel, slander, etc.), but for those, I see the underlying need for the boundary. I find defacing the flag distasteful, but I don't see the underlying need for it to be illegal. I prefer that people be allowed to deface the flag, an action I dislike, than for people to no longer have the right to do things I don't like. This isn't a pet issue for me and I won't be upset if it becomes an amendment, but I will be disappointed.

Thanks for posting the article. It was interesting to read the author's view of the flag as a graven image. :)

[oceaneast]

Wow I never thought about it but women who work in the top ranks of the Bush administration are generally single. I'm sure it has something to do with being a demanding job and that women who have families can rarely devote themselves to (right or wrong)

[lawyerlee]

Work For Wal-Mart? You May Need Welfare (http://www.alternet.org/story/22298/)

By Maria Luisa Tucker, AlterNet
June 27, 2005
When Susan Mediger-Paul went into labor in 1995 and gave birth prematurely to her third child, she knew the health insurance provided by her employer would not cover the cost. Nor would it pay for the birth of her fourth and fifth child later on, in 1998 and 1999. She said she relied on Minnesota Care, the state's public assistance healthcare, to pay for the multiple hospitalizations of her children, two of whom suffered from asthma.

Mediger-Paul seems an unlikely candidate for public assistance healthcare. She held a good-paying job as an accountant at Wal-Mart, the infamously profitable company and the largest private sector employer in the nation.

So why was Mediger-Paul on the dole?

Because "Wal-Mart's health insurance was awful!" she says. Mediger-Paul opted out of the company health plan, she says, to pay into the state healthcare system. "I had two preemies and they both had asthma--there was no way I would have made it on Wal-Mart's insurance." With cheap premiums but large deductibles and gaps in care, she says the Wal-Mart insurance wouldn't even have covered her kids' vaccinations.

Mediger-Paul is in good company as she complains about the inadequacy of Wal-Mart's healthcare. This week, in an attempt to hold large employers accountable for their worker's healthcare costs, Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Ma.), Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) introduced the Health Care Accountability Act. Originally authored by the union-backed Wake-Up Wal-Mart campaign, the legislation would require states to publicly report the number of employees that companies have on taxpayer-funded public health care. These annual reports would include the state's cost of providing healthcare to those workers.

"We deserve to know the truth about the high cost of Wal-Mart's greed," says Paul Blank, the campaign director for Wake-Up Wal-Mart.

Mediger-Paul's home state of Minnesota has been debating similar legislation, which is set to pass by the end of the month. Additionally, 23 other state legislatures have recently debated or passed these so-called "Wal-Mart bills." Some states have moved even further, considering "pay or play" legislation that would force large employers to either commit a certain percent of payroll costs to employee healthcare, or pay into the state healthcare system.

The idea, say supporters of the legislation, is to stop subsidizing corporate profits with public healthcare money.

The Wal-Mart bills have been sponsored by a number of state lawmakers interested in universal healthcare, but labor organizers have honed in specifically and vocally on Wal-Mart. The legislation has stirred up a vitriolic fight between a labor movement trying to stay relevant in a service and retail economy and Wal-Mart, a profiteering giant that relies on cheap labor and would rather shut a store down than see it unionized. At the core of the debate is a difference in opinion over what is considered adequate, and who is ultimately responsible for the healthcare needs of low-wage workers.

"I believe every worker should have healthcare provided by the employer. It should be a right," says Bernie Hesse, director of organizing for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 in Minnesota. He also believes that part of the way to get there is to create a public education campaign against Wal-Mart, exposing "what a shitty place it is and how bad they treat people."

Nate Hurst, Wal-Mart's public and government relations manager, says Wal-Mart is living up to its responsibility, emphasizing that his company does provide health insurance that has saved lives. As for any snags in affordability or coverage, he implies that the whole healthcare system is at fault. "We certainly believe it's long past time for meaningful reform for our healthcare in this country, but these bills do not address these concerns, nor do they even ensure that one more person comes off the list of America's uninsured."

What the state legislation (and now the proposed federal legislation) has done is shine a light on the reality of people receiving public assistance healthcare, many of whom are gainfully employed and even have access to health insurance, but simply cannot afford it. Even when companies like Wal-Mart offer comparatively cheap health insurance premiums, the expense is still a major chunk of change for workers making less than $10 per hour on average. And even with health insurance, the deductibles, which range from $350 to $1,000 for a single person, make a doctor's visit a budget-buster.

In a 2005 report, Union Network International criticized the disconnect between the retail giant's health plan and the reality of the low-wage workers it was being offered to: "A single Wal-Mart shop worker could end up paying about 45% of her or his salary before seeing a single benefit from participating in the scheme."

And that's only for the workers who are eligible. There is a six-month waiting period for full-time employees to become eligible for coverage, and a two-year waiting period for part-time employees, whose dependents are never eligible for coverage under Wal-Mart's health insurance plan. (Anyone who works less than 34 hours per week is considered part-time.)

Wal-Mart reports that 47 percent of its 1.2 million employees are covered through the company health insurance, saying that many more are covered elsewhere, through other family members or retirement plans. Critics assert that most other large employers insure about 66 percent of their workforce, and use this number as proof of the inadequacy of Wal-Mart's health coverage. "Wal-Mart has led this kind of healthcare cost shift," says Blank. "They provide such inadequate healthcare with high premiums and, combined with poverty level wages, that leads tens of thousands of their employees to public assistance healthcare."

The scrutiny of Wal-Mart's health coverage began a couple years ago when Medicaid costs and health insurance premiums were skyrocketing. Universities and unions produced a number of reports that highlighted the cost of public assistance for Wal-Mart workers who received welfare, food stamps, public health care, and the like. In October 2003, the AFL-CIO released a pointed attack on the mega-store with its report "Wal-Mart: An Example of Why Workers Remain Uninsured and Underinsured," which blamed the company's penny-pinching health insurance package for skewing the market negatively.

With fewer than half its employees covered under plans that often had high deductibles and gaps in care, the report argued, Wal-Mart saved money and made it difficult for other retailers to provide decent health insurance and still remain competitive. In 2004, a UC-Berkeley study reported that the state's Wal-Mart workers and their dependents received $86 million in public assistance, including healthcare, welfare and free school lunch programs.

article continues at link above

[kakirk]

Oddly, someone from the AFL-CIO came by our house tonight collecting signatures about this very issue (the Wal-Mart one). Weird.

www.wakeupwalmart.com is on their literature.

Katie

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Re: the flag. I wonder whether the people who generally support the idea of an amendment consider how often they probably violate the flag code themselves? Like, the code says the flag shouldn't be used for sales purposes. It shouldn't be on any clothing. It shouldn't be flown in the rain. If it's flown at night, it must be lit. No other flag should be flown at a higher elevation.

So a person wearing a t-shirt with the flag on it is going against code. People who have little flags lining their walkway that they don't bring in overnight/when it rains= against code. Car dealerships flying flags during their "Fourth of July" sale= against code. If you're flying a flag and your alumni banner from your front door, and the banner is a smidge higher than the flag= against code. The thirty flags hanging from the highway overpass near my old apartment, day and night, in rain and snow and sun? Against code.

[lawyerlee]

Re: the flag. I wonder whether the people who generally support the idea of an amendment consider how often they probably violate the flag code themselves? Like, the code says the flag shouldn't be used for sales purposes. It shouldn't be on any clothing. It shouldn't be flown in the rain. If it's flown at night, it must be lit. No other flag should be flown at a higher elevation.

So a person wearing a t-shirt with the flag on it is going against code. People who have little flags lining their walkway that they don't bring in overnight/when it rains= against code. Car dealerships flying flags during their "Fourth of July" sale= against code. If you're flying a flag and your alumni banner from your front door, and the banner is a smidge higher than the flag= against code. The thirty flags hanging from the highway overpass near my old apartment, day and night, in rain and snow and sun? Against code.

I agree completely, K. Did you see that cartoon I posted? It kinda hints at that idea, plus it's funny as hell. It really pisses me off that so many people who don't even have enough respect for the flag not to lie on a flag beach blanket or have a flag on their baseball caps want to make it unconstitutional to burn a flag. Who is to say it is worse to burn a flag than to disrespect it in other ways?

[kakirk]

Or, how about one of these:
http://www.cutest-cloth-diapers.com/togo/MDQSS10740.jpg

You know, a flag diaper. Because that's not at all disrespectful. Defecating on a flag. nope, not at all. :rolleyes:

Katie

[lawyerlee]

Iraq: Bush Myths vs. Reality (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160556,00.html) Fox News

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

By Martin Frost

We have clearly entered a new phase of our involvement in Iraq — public opinion is turning against the administration and the president will be devoting a good bit of his time trying to convince the American public that our policy should not change. This is the right time to take a close look at myths and realities about Iraq.

I approach this subject as a Democrat who voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein on two separate occasions: In 1991 when Bush 41 was president and in 2002 when Bush 43 sought congressional approval to launch the current military campaign.

Myth: Saddam Hussein was a part of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Reality: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell (search), in one of his last interviews before leaving office, made it clear that Saddam was not involved in Sept. 11. Additionally, we thoroughly searched Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and could not find any. The administration is now justifying our involvement in Iraq on the basis of nation-building (democratization) — something President Bush derided during the 2000 campaign.

Myth: We did not need a large occupying force after initial combat. Vice President Dick Cheney (search) said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in March of 2003 that it was inaccurate to say that we would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq after military operations ceased. "I think that's an overstatement," he said.

Reality: Former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki had told Congress that we would need a force of at least 200,000 to occupy Iraq. Gen. Shinseki, who had been responsible for our successful peacekeeping effort in Bosnia, was correct. By not committing enough troops to Iraq, we were unable to seal the borders and this made it possible for foreign terrorists to enter the country and help launch the current waves of attacks against our military.

Myth: Democrats have not supported the War on Terror.

Reality: Democrats first proposed the new Department of Homeland Security and strongly supported our efforts against terrorists in Afghanistan, where Usama bin Laden was believed to be hiding after Sept. 11. A significant number of Democrats voted to authorize force against Saddam, and Democrats have overwhelmingly voted to fund our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Myth: There is a partisan divide over our policy in Iraq, with Democrats opposing the president and Republicans supporting him.

Reality: A number of Democrats have raised questions about whether the administration has a clear plan for future involvement in Iraq, but leading Democrats are not calling for unconditional withdrawal.

For example, former President Clinton has opposed a hard-and-fast timetable for withdrawal. And now some Republicans are raising serious questions about the wisdom of Bush's approach. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has called for a specific timetable for withdrawal, starting in October of 2006. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has said, "the White House is completely disconnected from reality" about Iraq. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has added that he is not as optimistic as the White House about our current progress in Iraq.

Where does all of this leave us today? There is no question that Saddam was a tyrant and that the Middle East is better off with him no longer in power. Also, a democratic Iraq could have a real impact on the future of the entire Middle East. If nation-building (democratization) had been the administration's real objective from the beginning, it should have leveled with the American public at the outset rather than relying on now-discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi involvement in Sept. 11.

The American public is perfectly capable of dealing with the truth. The Bush administration needs to level with the public about the difficulty of the job ahead in Iraq rather than making general statements indicating that all is well. We will stay the course in Iraq if the country is convinced that Bush has a realistic plan for the future. It's time for less myth and more reality.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.

[lawyerlee]

Congress Should Kill Discriminatory Domestic Violence Act (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160968,00.html)

Wednesday, June 29, 2005
By Wendy McElroy

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) will expire this September if it is not reauthorized by Congress. Largely viewed as an anti-domestic violence measure, VAWA has become a flashpoint for the men's rights advocates who see it instead as the living symbol of anti-male bias in law.

Although a significant number of domestic violence victims are male, VAWA defines victims as female. As one result, tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men, often including older male children.

Estimates vary on the prevalence of male victims. Professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach offers a bibliography that "summarizes 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews."

It indicates that men and women are victimized at much the same rate. A lower-bound figure is provided by a recent DOJ study: Men constituted 27 percent of the victims of family violence between 1998 and 2002.

Accordingly, men's rights activists not only accuse the VAWA of not merely being unconstitutional for excluding men but also of dismissing the existence of one-quarter to one-half of domestic violence victims.

The criticism should go deeper. In many ways, VAWA typifies the legislative approach to social problems, which arose over the past few decades and peaked during the Clinton years.

The legislative approach follows a pattern: public furor stirs over a social problem; Congress is pressured to "do something"; remedial bureaucracy arises, often with scant planning; the problem remains; more money and bureaucracy is demanded; those who object are called hostile to "victims."

VAWA arose largely from the concern stirred by feminists in the '80s. They quite properly focused on domestic violence as a neglected and misunderstood social problem. But their analysis went to extremes and seemed tailor-made to create public furor.

As an example, consider a widely circulated claim: "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds." The statistic is sometimes attributed to the FBI, other times to a 1983 report by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. But neither the FBI nor the DOJ sites seems to include that statement or a similar one.

Men's rights activists contend that the elusive statistic derives from the book "Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family" (1980) by Murray Straus, Richard J. Gelles and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. The book was based on the first National Family Violence Survey (1975), from which the FBI and other federal agencies drew.

The survey does support the claim that a woman is battered every 15 seconds but also indicates men are also victims. By omitting male victims from their efforts, however, domestic violence activists create the impression of a national epidemic that uniquely victimizes women who require unique protection.

In response to public outcry, Congress was pressured to "do something." It passed VAWA 1994, granting $1.6 billion to create a bureaucracy of researchers, advocates, experts, and victim assistants, which some collectively call "the domestic violence industry."

Reauthorized in 2000, VAWA's funding rose to $3.33 billion to be expended over five years. Now, VAWA 2005 seeks more money.

Voices like the National Organization for Women insist that "the problem" remains. To argue for the "growing problem of gender-based violence," however, NOW reaches beyond traditionally defined violence against women and seeks to protect high school girls from abusive dating experiences. NOW states, "Nearly one in three high-school-age women experience some type of abuse — whether physical, sexual or psychological — in their dating relationships."

Without expanding the definition in such a manner, it would be difficult to argue for more funding.

Data indicates that traditionally defined violence against women has declined sharply. The rate of family violence reportedly "fell from about 5.4 victims per 1,000 to 2.1 victims per 1,000 people 12 and older," according to DOJ statistics.

VAWA 2005 faces much more opposition than its earlier incarnations. One reason is that men's rights activists have been presenting counter-data and arguments for over 10 years.

Advocates of VAWA 2005 have responded with pre-emptive accusations that paint opponents as anti-victim: for example, "If Congress does not act quickly to reauthorize the legislation, they are putting women's and children's lives at risk."

But most of the anti-VAWA arguments are not anti-victim. Many are anti-bureaucracy and could apply to any of the so-called "industries" created by the legislative approach to social problems. (The Child Protective Services is another example.)

Some anti-bureaucracy objections focus on the billions of dollars transferred into programs, often with little oversight or accountability attached.

Other objections point to those dollars being used for political purposes rather than clear and immediate assistance to victims. The misuse of tax dollars is most often alleged on the grassroots level, where men's rights activists often face VAWA-funded opposition to political measures, especially on father's rights issues.

One incident in New Hampshire illustrates the point. Earlier this year, The Presumption of Shared Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act was defeated by vehement opposition from the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. The coalition both wrote to and spoke before the Legislature. Accordingly, father's rights advocates in New Hampshire are seeking language in VAWA 2005 to prohibit any VAWA-funded agency from "legislative lobbying, advertising, or otherwise supporting the endorsement of, or opposition to, any state proposed legislation" which is not explicitly related to the prevention of domestic violence.

I think they should seek to kill the act entirely. I believe VAWA is not only ideologically inspired and discriminatory, it is also an example of why bureaucracy-driven solutions to human problems do not work.

I hope VAWA becomes the Titanic of the legislative approach to social problems. I hope it sinks spectacularly.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

[lawyerlee]

Although a significant number of domestic violence victims are male, VAWA defines victims as female. As one result, tax-funded domestic violence shelters and services assist women and routinely turn away men, often including older male children.
What a bunch of hogwash.

First of all, Wendy, let's define "significant".

Secondly, there may be a problem with a set up of the shelters themselves in that they do not allow for older male children. But that is not a criticism of the Act, and it would be a quite simple thing to change.

I'm so tired of these "reverse discrimination" type arguments. :mad:

[pride&prejudice]

I can totally see why women in the Bush administration would be single. They are right. Not only is the environment not conductive to romance, but to have a guy who would understand the commitment of your job and to stand by it through dating, being engaged, and marriage is sometimes a hard thing to find.

I think we find this in certain sectors of most work places. I see it in mine. Mainly engineers where I work, the directors (and highest ranked people on the ladder) are all men. Out of the team leaders below them, only possibly 3 out of maybe 20-25 (not sure of the exact number) are women. Out of these 3 women, 1 is married.

I mean, even DH and I have discussed it. I'm going for my masters and possibly even Ph.D. while working full time (at least for now). I need that degree to get into the higher management, they have now made that part of the job requirement. However, if we have a family, we've already discussed that he would stay home and I would continue to work because of my job (the demands, but that it also pays more). I have mentioned this on more than one occasion to my bosses and they look at me like I'm insane. Their wives were the ones that stayed at home. I mean, I was even asked how long I planned on staying around because they figured when I had my first child that I would be gone since I would stay at home to raise it.

Sorry if that went really off. Its jsut something that I've noticed and people have talked about at work, but I'm glad that there is finally an article out about it.

[lawyerlee]

However, if we have a family, we've already discussed that he would stay home and I would continue to work because of my job (the demands, but that it also pays more). I have mentioned this on more than one occasion to my bosses and they look at me like I'm insane. Their wives were the ones that stayed at home. I mean, I was even asked how long I planned on staying around because they figured when I had my first child that I would be gone since I would stay at home to raise it.
Same here! My cousin is an MD, and her husband stays home with their two little ones. It works out wonderfully for them, and it is definitely something that Cliff and I consider a viable option for us in the future. Regardless, he is going to be a teacher, so he is obviously going to be the go-to-parent for sick kids and the like. He'll be off for the entire summer, too, so he'll naturally do more parenting than I will. And I think it's great.

It is frustrating to me that so many fields are still so terribly backwards in their views of women. My current office is not, but I know I won't be here forever. Who knows what kind of crap will come next. :rolleyes:

[Sherb]

Wow. As a VAWA grant attorney, boy oh boy do I take exception to that article.

Sure, some shelters may not take in men but I can see where putting a man into an all female enviroment could create chaos in an already chaotic situation.

Has that author ever been to a DV shelter? I have. In fact, I go there at least once a month. Our local shelter is run out of a house. It's a larger house but no mansion. It has 8-12 rooms in it. 6-8 of those rooms are bedrooms for the women. Usually there are at least 2 women to a room; unless the woman has multiple children, then she may have a tiny room all to her family unit. A woman in a DV shelter must stay in the house unless she's working or she is on official errands. That makes for a lot of people thrown together at a very stressful time in their lives living on top of each other.

If you add a man to the mix everything would become worse. There could be sexual tension, sure. But the real problem would probably be that the women that are there are trying to work through issues dealing with men. That could really stunt the women's ability to talk freely about the abusive situations. Some of them have trouble talking to me about the abuse and I am a woman trying to help them. The women are embarrassed about the abuse especially if it was sexual. Also, you could have too much deferrence to the male because of the learned patterns of behavior from years of abuse. The man could become king of the shelter.

As far as a "significant number" of males being victims of DV: I would love to help a man who has been abused. However, I have not come across a man that has been victimized yet. They haven't applied for help in our office or I would have heard about it. I'm not denying that an abused man is not out there but I have heard a lot more stories about a man pulling a gun on a woman and threatening to kill her and her children if she ever left him than I have heard of a woman doing the same.

A man can be the victim of DV. After all, DV is not about brute force, it is about power and control. I just don't think it is as prevalent or it is woefully under-reported and there are MILLIONS of abused men who never seek to leave the relationship and are walking around with black eyes, burns, and broken bones.

So why don't we see more male victims of DV? Is it because women tend to be more emotionally and mentally abusive? (and that kind of abuse being harder to prove and not as eye-catching and scandalous on the evening news?) Is it because the men want to be macho and don't want to admit to their buddies that their wife is pushing them around at home? Do they not have the information and the resources available to them that women do? Or are there fewer male victims? I think it is a combination of all.

Ok, I have so much more to say but this post is way too long.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

It works out wonderfully for them, and it is definitely something that Cliff and I consider a viable option for us in the future. Regardless, he is going to be a teacher, so he is obviously going to be the go-to-parent for sick kids and the like. He'll be off for the entire summer, too, so he'll naturally do more parenting than I will. And I think it's great.
OT, but I just wanted to mention- that's how things were with my sis and me growing up. My dad was a teacher, and took care of us during the summers. I think we probably ended up with a much closer relationship with our dad than we would have had otherwise. And I think it also helped both our dad and us get over any gender stereotypes. When it's Daddy's job to make you lunch, you know that anyone who says men can't cook doesn't know what they're talking about. And if you're Daddy, and you've seen your two little girls playing tackle basketball with the kids next door, and one of your fellow teachers says that girls are too delicate to play rough sports, you know that he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Fortunate Son- NY Press (http://www.nypress.com/18/26/pagetwo/newshole4.cfm)
"With supreme guts and righteousness, President Bush went into Iraq," Gov. Pataki told the Republican National Convention last August. The place erupted with applause. It was all very stirring.

Almost one year later, Pataki's son Teddy is, with supreme guts and righteousness, seeking a three-year law school deferment from the Marines, which last week commissioned the recent Yale grad as a second lieutenant.