Noticing the Gap

Perhaps the tax rebate is an attempt to appease U.S. taxpayers in hopes that we won’t notice that $7.7 million in taxpayer funded defense contracts is missing!

“An internal audit of some $8 billion paid to U.S. and Iraqi contractors found that nearly every transaction failed to comply with federal laws or regulations aimed at preventing fraud, in some cases lacking even basic invoices explaining how the money was spent.”

“There is something very wrong when our wounded troops have to fill out forms in triplicate for meal money while billions of dollars in cash are handed out in Iraq with no accountability,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.” (AP: Iraq Contracts Skirted Fraud Rules)

Conservatives vote down increased taxes for social programs, but at least with those we know where the money is going and that people benefit. Our tax dollars are being used to line the pockets of super-rich government contractors, and no one is holding them accountable for reporting what the money is being spent on.

Read more here: Pentagon Audit Finds $15 Billion in Iraq Funds Unaccounted For

and here: Pentagon Audit: Iraq Spending Ignored Rules

Veteran journalist Barry Nolan was fired for protesting Bill O’Reilly’s reception of the Governor’s Award at the Emmy’s. During the ceremony, Nolan passed around a document with O’Reilly’s own words on it. For that, he was fired. It’s got him reflecting on the myth of free speech in this piece at Think Progress.

I find this interesting in light of the current coverage of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan speaking out against the Bush administration. Many people have criticized him and wondered, “if he felt this way, why didn’t he say anything while he was in the White House?”

Because he would have been fired!

I believe this is just the beginning. As the Bush administration gets closer to its final days, more and more people in the media will speak out about their experiences in which the truth has been squashed, such as Jessica Yellin at CNN. In this article, she discusses the pressure she was under not to report criticism of Bush during the lead up to the Iraq War.

As a follow up to my post about U.S. women running behind in politics, check out this article: “Why Are Women Still Not Running for Public Office?” by Richard L. Fox and Jennifer L. Lawless. They note that women win elections at the same rate as men; they just don’t run as often. The report discusses the concept of political ambition and why it seems that women don’t have it. Essentially it’s blaming women for not running, citing an “ambition gap,” without considering the factors that affect women’s decisions not to run.

In Ukraine, where I served in the Peace Corps for 27 months, “ambitious” is a generally negative word. There, it implies that you think you’re better than other people. Here, I’ve noticed “ambitious” used to negatively describe successful women who dare to venture into traditionally “male” territory.

For example,

At the Indy 500, another ambitious woman, IndyCar superstar and swimsuit pinup Danica Patrick, looked as if she were ready to show us her fists. (Jerry Crowe, LA Times)

The caddie McNamara looked at Annika [Sorenstam], an icy one, ambitious, driven, self-absorbed, as all the great ones are. (Dave Kindred, Golf Digest)

Many voters see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as coldly ambitious, a perception that could ultimately doom her presidential campaign. So on Monday her husband made a swing through Iowa in hopes of convincing voters that she is a sympathetic figure who gave up money and power for love and marriage. (Peter Nicholas, LA Times)

Check out “‘A’ is for Ambition” over at Echidne of the Snakes for an excellent commentary on the report. It points out that a lot of this discussion depends on how we define ambitious. Synonyms (at synonyms.com) include “pushy” and “compulsive,” neither of which I’d like to be called.

It seems to me that it must be an extraordinarily difficult time to be a member of the U.S. military. Amid overwhelming opposition to the war in Iraq (including numerous Veterans groups against the war) and divisive politicization of foreign policy issues, our leaders continuously fail to fulfill their promises to our veterans.

Women in uniform are demeaned, sexually harassed and assaulted at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs is unprepared to deal with the unique needs of female veterans (read this article by Helen Benedict about “Women Warriors” and see S.W.A.N. for a long list of resources).

There is also a debate going on now over whether or not increased educational benefits for veterans will encourage them to leave the military at a time when recruiting and retention numbers are dangerously low. The 21st Century G.I. Bill is undeniably better for the troops, and would be a true incentive that would boost recruitment, not hurt it.

Despite John McCain’s reputation as a war hero, he consistently votes against veterans’ benefits. As Aaron Glantz puts it, he “adores the war and ignores the warriors.” There is clearly no simple solution to the war in Iraq, but an easy first step would be to fund resources for the veterans at even a fraction of what we spend on the war.

*Check out “Final Salute” for photos by photographer Todd Heisler and words by reporter Jim Sheeler as they tell the stories of the fallen.

At Friday’s commencement ceremony at Washington University, many students and faculty stood and turned their backs while Phyllis Schlafly was awarded an honorary degree (see Feministing for great comments and links to video). Protesters argue that Schlafly’s views are in direct opposition to what is taught at Washington University.

Schlafly prides herself on her work against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), but routinely misrepresents the truth about its effects. In this article, Roberta Francis at NOW points out the hypocrisy of Schlafly’s life work and the hilarity that she was honored side-by-side with true shero Dr. Jessie L. Ternberg.

Washington University in St. Louis is granting an honorary degree to Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative political activist known for being anti-feminist and against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). She even believes that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) abuses the rights of men!

As one might expect, Wash U. has taken some heat for their decision to honor Schlafly. Many students and professors have spoken out against the administration’s choice to grant Schlafly an honorary degree. Posts on Feministing about this story have received heavy traffic, especially reactions to Schlafly’s comments that married women can’t be raped. One current student is seeking suggestions for how to protest Schlafly during the graduation ceremony.

As a supporter of free speech, I believe that people have the right to say what they want. The administration at Wash U. is claiming that Phyllis Schlafly stimulates the intellectual debate on women’s issues and therefore the university is exactly the type of place where she should be heard.

Heard? Maybe.

But honored? For promoting violence against and silencing of women? Not a chance.

We’ve come a long way, baby! Right?

Wrong.

We’re falling behind. Ten years ago, the U.S. was 37th among nations in terms of women’s political representation. Today, we’re 71st. Check out this article by Maya Schenwar about “Women in the Running.” We need to stop the backward slide.

EMILY’s List makes it sound easy: “recruit and fund pro-choice Democratic women candidates, help them build effective campaigns, and mobilize women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.”

According to The White House Project, “In every election since 1980 women have voted in higher rates than men.”

So, what are we waiting for? It’s time to play catch up.

For months now, people have been calling for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race for the nomination. On many websites and blogs that I frequent, there are ads with an unflattering photo of Clinton that ask “Should Hillary quit?”

Historically, candidates have not been pushed so hard to quit before their opponents have secured the nomination (see this article by Steven Stark for a nice recap). For a country that shies away from sports that can end in a tie, the expectation that Clinton should step aside before the time clock has expired strikes me as odd.

She is being treated unlike any candidate in history. Indeed she is unlike the others, so let’s not pretend that her gender has nothing to do with this phenomenon. Some will argue that it’s for the good of the party. But aren’t women always expected to put others first? If she were a man, would the calls for her to quit be as loud, or the push to beat her as offensive?

Many women, even those who support another candidate, feel personally attacked when they feel Clinton is being treated unfairly based on her gender. Eric Boehlert at Media Matters notes that the men who have come before her have not been told to go home and get over themselves, despite mathematical impossibility of winning. It’s unprecedented.

This story speaks for itself.

Photo by: Blake Wolf