WHAT DO WOMEN WANT ? by The Cosmic Messenger

It's a question men have deliberated since both sexes populated the earth usually with disguised intentions. In response, women have told them what they expect and all that's needed is for males to pay attention. Over time, the dispute has transformed itself into an ideological battleground in which moral absolutists fight social perfectionists to determine if human equality can be achieved in our society. Judging from the number of still unresolved issues, this dance appears destined to continue for awhile unless citizens can move beyond the divisive politics of socio-economic class.

How we perceive our differences is influenced by family, religion, the media and politicians over a lifetime. Virtually all men say what's necessary to satisfy a woman are tangible comforts such as a suburban home with children, romance, gifts, money and reliability in a relationship to make her feel secure. They equate happiness with material possessions and anticipate females will too. By contrast, women's cognitions interpret feelings differently and rely significantly more on instinct to evaluate their desires. For them, eliminating sources of stress and anxiety associated with daily living weigh equally in their perceptions about emotional satisfaction.

Males multiply their experiences by competing each day in their actions towards one another while women rely more on shared effusion for survival. Most were conditioned to think this way by their parental role models from childhood through adolescence. During these formative years both males and females are likely exposed to ethical lessons and first encounter the media through television which shape their personal identities as well. The foundation for the difference between right and wrong is introduced while a steady, repetitive barrage of electronic persuasion is initiated contributing further to the intellectual bewilderment genders experience in puberty.

With so many temptations vying for their attention it's not surprising more individuals don't enter adulthood still befuddled by life. Some go to college to try and advance their intellects. Others transition into the work force where they discover economic reality immediately. In either situation, there's a political temporal mentor waiting at this point with a mundane scheme endeavoring them to move their behavior towards a majority consensus. These planners employ many of the same basic messages our parents, scruples and the media nurtured when growing up but in conflicting ways which divide us into sectarian proponents each advocating methods they believe will achieve the best efficiency for the type of civil order we live in. Rather than clarifying how we think about issues though, the schism contributes to greater polarization of citizen opinion. The lack of a well-defined, general agreement over political questions leads to exploitation and the type of autocratic system we live in today.

Currently the subject of women's rights best illustrates the rivalry in national beliefs about how to address a particular policy issue. It's separated the nation into opposing factions consisting of ordinary people who still regard this principle as essential to democracy and the country club mindset who do as they please without regard to civil rules. They're presided over by an American czar who believes the Constitution is obsolete and its guarantees must be reconstructed to meet the demands of corporations in the global economy of the 21st century. From President Bush's perspective, citizen rights are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is building a worldwide, business empire free of restraint. What are the consequences for women when a industrial ideologue like our current leader seizes control of the political process in the United States ?

Unfortunately, the struggle by them to legally achieve daily, functional parity by amending the Constitution is deemphasized in favor of the needs of commercial clientele who's agenda would be threatened if such protections became law. The history of civil rights in our country is an ugly saga characterized initially by the struggle of women and blacks to gain voting rights in the early half of the 19th century. Black suffrage was finally attained in 1869 followed by women in 1920 but neither group felt fully emancipated and continued to lobby for tantamount protection under the law. African-Americans gained major victories in the 1960's when statutes shielding them from race discrimination were passed but women proceeded to demand national measures securing equality based on sex which neither the U.S. or states could refuse to grant.

Despite having been first introduced in 1923, an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) wasn't approved by Congress until 1972. However, it failed to win ratification from a majority of states by 1982 where it remains in limbo awaiting revival by the next generation of divested citizens. What was significant about the ERA amendment despite its downfall is it rallied the nation around an issue impacting gender. It broadened the debate about discrimination beyond racial profiling to include other segments of American society and allowed women to put forth a list of demands which they felt would level the playing field for everyone. In the 24 years since its defeat conservatives from Reagan to Bush have stymied efforts to reintroduce the amendment for conformation by implying it was a matter states could decide effectively on their own. Such an irrational approach has created a dysfunctional system in which laws regulating women's reproductive rights, pay equality, sexual harassment, childcare access, maternity leave and family definition are too inconsistent from state to state to eliminate unfair treatment.

There's mounting evidence the present Administration has declared open war on the, "laws, policies and programs that promote women's equality," NY Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney told a public gathering in NYC during August of last year. "This quiet, behind-the-scenes maneuvering has left women in America and around the world much worse off than they were just a few years ago."

To support her contention, Maloney cited numerous backsteps Bush has taken since 2001 which reverse the gains women had made during the last several decades. I've summarized the more significant ones below:

• 
  Bush waits until July, 2006 to state his position on birth control: Conveyed in a letter to Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) that he supports "...safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception." However, pharmacists across the country refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control because of personal objections and the House of Representatives has voted to strike any mention of birth control from legislation on family planning. Department of Justice refused to include mention of the pill in its guidance on treating rape victims.
• 
  Bush imposes Global Gag Rule on family planning: One of Bush's first actions in office was to put in place a global gag rule prohibiting international health care organizations from providing or advising on the option of abortion, even in countries where choice is legal and in cases where the woman's life is in danger.
• 
  Bush stops gathering information on women in the workforce: On July 29, 2005, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics decided to stop gathering information about women in its monthly payroll survey. Without this crucial information, the DOL will no longer have statistics on the number of women employed in specific industries or on the wage disparity between men and women.
• 
  Withdraws support for Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Bush withdrew his support for Senate approval of the CEDAW which is unratified by only a handful of countries including Iran, Sudan and Brunei. Although 180 countries around the world have already sanctioned the treaty Bush has actively worked against it.
• 
  So-called 'Partial Birth' Abortion Ban: By passing a bill that mirrors the unconstitutional abortion ban overturned in Stenberg v. Carhart, Bush and Republican Congress have privileged ideology over women's health. Supreme Court made it clear a ban without an exemption for women's health would not pass constitutional muster. Instead, Bush pushed for the broadest possible limits hoping a change in the make-up of the Supreme Court would yield a different result.
• 
  Bush's Plan to Privatize Social Security bad for women: Women more likely than men to depend on Social Security for their financial well-being - not only in retirement but throughout their lives - because of survivorship and disability benefits. Vast majority of Social Security recipients are women -- almost 60 percent of all beneficiaries age 65 and over. Women are less likely to have pensions than men and more likely to rely on Social Security for a significant part of their income in old age. Without Social Security, more than half of white senior women and about two-thirds of African American and Hispanic senior women would live in poverty.
• 
  Rape cases in Army's ranks inadequately prosecuted: An Army task force on sexual assault completed a report in June 2004 revealing that sex abuse claims within the Army's ranks increased by 19% from 1999 to 2002. The number of rapes reported rose by 25%. Both numbers far outpace the growth of Army personnel, which grew 6%. In addition, Bush cut the membership, staffing and funding for Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, revoked the committee's autonomy by giving control to the Pentagon, watered down DACOWITS's attention to women's issues, reduced installations it visits each year and has hindered effectiveness by requiring committee members to travel to installations in groups.
• 
  Unborn Victims of Violence Act gives fetuses same rights as mother: Instead of trying to protect pregnant women from violence, Bush pushed for legislation that would increase the rights of fetuses. Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which treats embryos and fetuses as separate individuals in crimes against pregnant women.
• 
  Bush's budget cuts hurt women and children: Bush has proposed deeper cuts in services for women and their families. Women are more likely to live in poverty and rely on federally funded housing, health and education programs. Bush proposes deep cuts in Medicaid, housing programs such as Section 8, HOPE VI and the Community Development Block Grant. Advocates eliminating the Women's Educational Equity Act, a relatively inexpensive program helping women and girls achieve equal treatment in school.
• 
  Bush's policies cut number of children served under the Child Care and Development Block Grant: The CCDBG provides child care funds for low-income families. Because CCDBG is severely underfunded, only one out of seven children eligible for federal child care assistance receives help. By Bush's own estimates, its current budget would result in 300,000 children losing child care assistance by 2009.
• 
  Bush closed the White House Women's Office: Immediately after Bush's inauguration in January 2001 it was quietly closed. The office, established in 1995 monitored policy initiatives developed in the White House and cabinet departments for their impact on women and served as a liaison to outside organizations concerned about policies affecting women.

President Bush's blatant contempt for issues affecting women is stereotypic of his management style which utilizes deceptive rhetoric to make a bad situation sound good. In his letter to Maloney, Bush claims to support contraception but doesn't offer any assurances the FDA will approve the Plan B morning after pill for women of all ages. It's this kind of double standard which irritates many contemporary females and leads them to believe their concerns won't be addressed until they win Constitutional protection for gender, reproductive and economic rights which nullify discriminatory state laws across the nation.

What do women want ?

Women have been telling politicians in America for over a century what they expect but still have little to show for their demands other than the right to vote. To achieve the Constitutional guarantees they seek will take active, engaged listening by a broad cross section of our public. If it were left to electronic advertisers to decide they'd empower women by selling them products which cure genital herpes, overcomes vaginal dryness and a new cell phone to convey the news to their friends. The religious right prefers spreading its beguiling message from the pulpit which stresses the sanctity of life while encouraging parishioners to send their offspring to certain death in Iraq. President Bush just chuckles, withdraws to his Oval office and issues edicts that violate the civil rights of everyone but corporations.

In 1846 the esteemed Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass told women at their initial Rights Convention "suffrage is the power to choose rulers, make laws and the right by which all others are secured." Exactly 160 years after those words were spoken, women have an opportunity in November to exercise this right and send a message to the nation about what its REAL priorities should be.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

THE PEOPLE vs DUBYA by The Cosmic Messenger

*** Note ***

I published this Column in October, 2005 as Gulf Coast residents were still in shock from Hurricane Katrina. It asks whether State Attorney Generals will hold President Bush legally liable for his incompetence !

For residents along the Gulf coast September was a tough lesson in reality as the devastating winds of Katrina and Rita peeled away the illusionary rhetoric of the Bush administration about a secure homeland. After the deadly spirals of destruction subsided, many of the citizens populating red states who make up the affected areas were left with a sense of betrayal by elected officials at every level of government.

As the blame game began for such ineptitude, you had to wonder if the groundwork was being laid to escape liability for the consequences of irresponsible decisions made which allowed human exposure to spills of toxic pollutants or the abandonment of the region's most vulnerable people. It was as if the fiercest elements of the cosmos had been unleashed upon humanity combining to write a real life tragic drama containing all the ingredients of a John Grisham legal suspense novel. As I watched internet video broadcasts of the horrific destruction and suffering left behind in the wake of the hurricanes, I was struck by how eerily similar these calamities were to the extreme misfortune endured by the plaintiff in Hollywood's screen adaptation of Grisham's fictional story, "The Runaway Jury."

The movie version, released in 2003 was filmed in New Orleans and its plot revolves around a suit brought by the widow of a stockbroker gunned down by a disgruntled ex-employee. She's filing against a Mississippi gun manufacturer which hopes to avoid an enormous jury award fearing the establishment of a judicial precedent against the industry if it loses. It capitalizes on several themes the writer employs frequently in his prose such as the undue influence of corporate power and money, legal corruption and industry's lawsuit persecution complex. Beyond these similarities and the Gulf coast setting there's an effort to exploit citizens' fears of corporate jury tampering to influence verdicts.

Although gun violence and hurricane devastation differ vastly both can result in unwanted outcomes if not addressed prudently. Undoubtedly, as questions about the government's emergency response evolves beyond the public arena of dismay, the issue is destined to be addressed in our nation's courts of justice where litigants will battle defendants represented by their attorneys seeking valid remedies applicable to whatever is being alleged. It's the American way.

However, the path to winning a verdict sometimes traverses unethical means such as those employed by the Grisham character Rankin Fitch, a jury consultant hired by the gun manufacturer to ensure a propitious outcome. Fitch specialized in illegal surveillance of jurors by photographing them in compromising situations, tapping their phone conversations and searching medical records for embarrassing information that could be used to blackmail them into voting for his client. If the described methods failed, a corporation might attempt to buy either the judge or a majority of the jurors.

These solutions were considered routine 20 years ago but as industry losses mounted in a variety of consumer complaints over tobacco, guns and pharmaceutical products corporations recognized more aggressive actions were needed. Beginning with the Reagan era, the business community has focused on restructuring the court system through appointment of judges willing to limit the powers of federal government and protect seizure of their assets for violations of "New Deal" regulatory laws.

What's transpired since the era of jury fixing is a gradual change in philosophy which diminishes government's restrictive capacity while suggesting taxpayers will shoulder the cost if fines are imposed due to public laws such as environmental, welfare or economic limitations. William Greider, in a 2001 article for Nation magazine credits former University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein for popularizing the present trend of construing the Constitution to mean government can't regulate without just compensation to those whose property is lessened in value by their actions. Greider points out the theory has not only been encompassed by modern American conservatives but was embraced by NAFTA signatories who failed to recognize the agreement provided a method to settle disputes between countries and corporations through an arbitration panel. Although the committe's determinations can't supplant domestic laws of a country, a monetary judgment is binding.

Given that the prevailing legal trend both within American jurisprudence and free trade accords tilts litigation heavily in favor of corporate rights, the prospect of obtaining proper redress for hurricane victims seems improbable.

Most of these people's property rights such as home values or the fair worth of their labor was taken from them on those fateful days in late August and September without any expectation they'd be justly compensated by the government due to its own negligence. The declaration by President Bush to set up a Gulf Opportunity Zone and using Fast Track Authority to suspend minimum wage statutes reflects the predominate sentiment of placing the concerns of business ahead of individual rights.

Bush's impious actions demonstrate his godless reverence for opportunistic capitalism while extinguishing the hopes of people suffering in the Gulf coast region that his previous proclamations of compassion for society's less privileged would somehow be fulfilled. His behavior in the aftermath of our country's worst disaster is a signal to business they've nothing to fear from either his Attorney General or him and any allegations of corporate remissness will have to be pursued civilly at the local and state levels where Bush knows the probability of impoverished persons' winning retribution is reduced by their incapacity to pay for adequate legal counsel.

With the "pay to play" economic principle of the Bush administration now thoroughly entwined in its efforts to shrink government regulation by reshaping the way justice is administered, individual rights will soon disappear. For residents of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama seeking compensation due to corporate malfeasance or government mismanagement of the crisis, the odds of obtaining an equitable monetary settlement have been reduced significantly. To win justice for them, attorney generals from the states affected must step forward to defend citizen rights, recognizing they have a responsibility to protect everyone and not merely corporations because it's the politically correct trend at the moment. Some have already threatened to do so based on concerns insurance companies are denying claims for water damage. However, suits brought related to adverse reactions to toxic hazards created by the storms present a more challenging problem.

For example, if the dispute came about due to the negligence of an international oil company operating in the U.S. and the failure of our government to enforce environmental regulations affecting them, it's conceivable Bush officials would recommend to them a complaint be filed with a NAFTA arbitration panel asserting that both state and federal government laws requiring clean up of harmful dangers inordinately weighs against the companies profits. If the oil corporations were to win such an action, they and the Bush administration could cite it as a warning to state governments not to file charges seeking damages for violations of local environmental regulations or risk having to pay an enormous pecuniary price. Considering both the President and Vice President's intimate past relationship with the oil cartel and their eagerness to protect corporations at the expense of working class Americans, the alleged scenario appears valid.

We're at a crucial point in our nation's history where we must decide if we want to be governed by the system of checks and balances originally provided for in our Constitution or ruled by corporate laws designed solely for their benefit. The confirmation of John Roberts as Supreme Court Chief Justice lessens the prospect a balanced judiciary will objectively curb the powers of the other branches of our government anytime soon. Perhaps the litmus question Congress and the corporate media should ask the next nominee is whether you support Epstein's Constitutional interpretation of limiting government rather than a woman's right to choose since this philosophy is dedicated to sacrificing individual values for the property rights of corporations.

If not, the only remaining legal avenue for people victimized by either industrial or government carelessness is to ask state attorney generals to prosecute on their behalf for criminal negligence. Travis County, Texas DA Ronnie Earle isn't waiting for the Texas Attorney General to file criminal charges against elected officials who abuse power in his state. This week he indicted Republican House Leader Tom Delay for conspirancy to launder campaign donations. Hopefully, that was a warning shot which will result in a conviction for a foolhardy leader who thinks he's so powerful that laws don't apply to him.

Are you listening Mr. Bush ? A lot of people in the nation and along the Gulf coast think you're guilty of recklessly endangering people's lives by failing to make certain our homeland is secure from any threat of danger. It remains to be seen if a state attorney general has the ethical will to indict the President for heedlessly putting citizens at risk for injury or death by not preparing properly in advance of the ravaging winds of a hurricane.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.