Achieving Equity for Women: Policy Alternatives for the New Administration
Institute for Women’s Policy Research Symposium April 2, 2009

*A representative at the IWPR told me that the slides presented at the conference will be posted either today (April 3) or Monday (April 6) at: http://www.iwpr.org/index.cfm

             Beginning at 8:00am and ending at 6:00pm the IWFR’s symposium was an all day forum to present the traditional ‘wish list’ of the more liberal side of the Democrat Party. While women were to be the focus (and the conference was very woman centered), the policy discussions were more oriented toward the overall agenda of the Obama administration. The economy, health care, education and retirement do have tremendous impacts on women, however many of the day’s conversations extended far past the purview of female interests and into the realm of social engineering. The day was thus an exposition of the left’s domestic policy objectives with somewhat of a spotlight shown on the needs of women-more often than not, working women.

            Congresswomen Rosa Delauro delivered the opening remarks. She stressed the need to overcome this current financial crisis, for while more men have lost their jobs, women are feeling the brunt of this recession. She said she believes that we can only surface from this mess via new public policies, policies that will tell women “we value them and that they are valuable to society.” Delauro could barely contain her excitement for the new administration saying “this is our chance!” and (in a moment that sent shivers down my spine) that with both the President and Congress on their side, “we are bound only by our own imagination.” My favorite part of her speech was her unconvincing (to me anyway) anecdote about a recent trip she took to Afghanistan with Nancy Pelosi. Delauro asserted that during her visit many Afghani women approach her and the Speaker to thank them for passing the Lily Ledbetter Act. Everyone cheered as she closed, “The window opens for only a short time and let’s take advantage of this opening.” 

            Dr. Jared Bernstein, from the White House’s economic team, spoke about the economic crisis, with a minor portion on women. He provided the standard administration talking points about the economy- blaming the previous administration, the free market and conservative policies. He pleased the crowd with his introductory anecdote about growing up in a house of all feminists where the favored song was “I am Woman.” (sadly there was no vomatorium to which I could run so I skillfully stifled my gag reflex….). The questions posed to Dr. Bernstein brought him more to the topic of women. The most interesting/disturbing was a question about the possibility of legislating a reduced work week and reducing the number of work hours. While Dr. Bernstein said that the economic crisis makes that item unfeasible at this point, it is definitely something to push for in the future.

            Rebecca Blank gave a slide show presentation on women’s long term and short term economic outlook. The relative wages of women have been increasing as compared to men, but though skilled job wages for women continue to rise (and men’s have remained relatively static), unskilled have hit a plateau and unskilled men’s wages have decreased. While women’s unemployment, at 7.5%, is less than the 8.8% men are currently experiencing, women have apparently been hardest hit, especially with regard to the fact that increased male unemployment has resulted in a rise in domestic violence. Long term women should push for: 1. unemployment insurance 2. more preschool 3. expanded earned income tax credit 4. anti discrimination regulations.

            Heidi Hartmann gave a slide show presentation on retirement, social security and aging. She stressed that more equality in the workforce (which took into account the “two lives” of women) would make women more successful in retirement. This will require pay equity regulations and improved care/work economy. The wage gap was central to her policy argument, “ the wage gap is growing as more women age.” The retirement situation for women is more pressing because women are more likely than men to be alone in old age. She claimed that over a lifetime the typical woman earns only 38% of what a man earns. Given the struggles women face she suggested strengthening and increasing Social Security and adding a care giving credit to reward parents.

            Theresa Ghilarduci gave a talk about funding retirement and advocated instituting a mandatory supplement to Social Security, which would result in a defacto government pension scheme. Her entire slide show was oriented toward demonstrating that the 401k system is fatally flawed (if not evil) due to its inequality, uncertainty, and the fact that it increases and expands the financial system. She said that the 401K hurts women the most because they live longer and are held back by the wage gap.

            Maya Rockeymoore presented a slide show on the role of Social Security. Rockeymoore said that social security is central to helping women, as it is the only source of income for 22% of Americans and 53% of unmarried women/widows. “Social security is the only retirement policy that makes sense.” But she wanted to expand the benefits and lower the age of eligibility.

            Kathy Olsen gave a very short talk without a slideshow essentially expressing her concerns about social security reform and the “threat of privatization.”

            Hilda Solis delivered the keynote address. Rufina A. Hernandez introduced her and proudly invoked Cesar Chavez in her short talk, saying that Solis is a model of Chavez’s “Si se puede!” attitude. Solis did not say much; rather her’s was a speech of typical administration platitudes and bromides about continuing to fight for women and minorities. The most interesting part of her talk was a brief mention of her desire to push women toward the STEM fields, but specifically “green collar” jobs. She sees green jobs as the next big frontier for women. She spoke about encouraging community service and apprenticeships as well as ways to keep girls in school. She gave lip service to helping women in the underdeveloped world and, finally, expressed her hope that the courts would be a place where the feminist agenda could achieve great victories.

            Charles Kolb was the moderator for a panel on expanding quality early care and education (ECE). He gave a very brief introduction and told the assembly that America needed to look to France as a good model of substantive child care policies.

            Nancy Marshall presented a slide show on the topic of education and early care, stressing its importance for women entering the workforce. While she said that universal access to ECE  it is essential for maintaining a large population of women in the workforce, she spent a good deal of time justifying it based on children’s developmental processes.

            Mildred Warner powerpointed (my new word) on the economic importance of universal ECE for women as it allows them more flexibility, access to higher rungs on the career ladder and greater productivity. She said that it benefits the three central pieces of a community: the child, parent and region and that the country needs to provide more money for ECE and develop a program that considers all three. The government needs to invest a lot more money in early child care programs. Further she wanted more family leave plans, “I am embarrassed to be the citizen of a nation that does not have mandatory child leave.”

            Danielle Ewen gave a long talk without slides, repeating the same thing over and over again, but in different ways. The central thrust of her speech (other than the fact that she was thoroughly impressed with herself) was that there is not enough access to quality child care. That being the case the government needs to require licenses and enforce regulations on care providers. On top of that, the government must drastically increase funding in order to achieve universal preschool. She wants to make preschool a part of the K-12 public school system.  

            Alina Saliganicoff gave a power point presentation on health reform and women. She postulated that while both men and women have health concerns, women are plagued by health problems, especially chronic issues, more often. The wage gap has made access to insurance and health care more difficult for women than for men. 17million women are uninsured and, supposedly, there are a lot of obstacles to women getting quality health insurance. She spent time on the importance of abortion and contraceptives. Finally, the fact that women live longer than men mean that they need long term care and medical attention more than men. Thus, universal health care is her premier policy objective.

            Cathy Schoen gave a slide show presentation on the future of health insurance in the U.S. She presented the obvious goals for health care-slower growth of costs and better health outcomes. She insisted, however, that the government needed to ensure that 100% of Americans had health insurance. She delivered the standard argument for nationalized healthcare and tried to make the argument that the economic downturn was a function of high health care costs.

            Dora Hughes, a member of the Obama “team,” spoke to the healthcare policies that will most likely be delivered by the administration. While discussing nationalizing the health care industry, Hughes said, “We are optimistic that this will be the year we get it done.” She spent a great deal of time praising Obama for his work thus far and on the campaign trail. Hughes was confident Obama will fulfill the popular desire for affordable high quality health care. She was confident that he will be able to do this despite the economic troubles- because apparently these economic problems reinforce the assertion that America needs health care reform. That is Obama’s “mission.”

            Tina Tchen gave a short speech providing encouragement and support, rehashing the days events and resolving that overall it was a successful day of policy discourse.

Thus my day of fem hell ended and I subsequently treated myself to a cab ride home. 

America has come a long way since the days of sit-ins, freedom rides, and Bull Conner. In less than 50 years since the need for civil rights legislation, this country has elevated African Americans to unprecedented levels of power, even electing a black president. Institutional racism in the United States is largely dead. There are the ignorant scattered few who harbor evil thoughts and spew hatred, but when revealed as such become de facto social pariahs. One of the most feared insults is the assertion that an individual is racist- a moniker with the potential to result in the loss of jobs, friends, and respect.

America is going gangbusters when it comes to racial parity. The more pertinent conversation is perhaps less visible, as it is one which has been relived almost since the beginning of time. What we truly need now is a conversation about the rise of anti-Semitism in America and, quite frankly the world. In the most recent study on the subject, the Anti-Defamation League released the findings of a survey, which positively identified “an increase in the number of Americans with anti-Semitic attitudes,” from a 1998 percentage of 12% to 15% of “unquestionably anti-Semitic” citizens. While racism has been decreasing, anti-Semitism has been increasing.

That same study U.S.“ and further that “anti-Israel feelings are triggering anti-Semitism.” Between the perennial vandalism of temples with swastikas and defamatory scribble, there have been more explicit displays of bigoted viciousness. January of this year in Fort Lauderdale, for example, during a protest against Israeli action in Gaza, three hundred demonstrators shouted for Jews to “Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven” and chanted “Go to hell; go to hell; go to hell!” That same month in Washington D.C. 1,000 protestors cried “death to Israel and Zionism.” And the Cybercast News Service has further reported that “demonstrators in New York waved signs reading “Israel: the Fourth Reich” and “Palestine is our Land, the Jews are our Dogs.” And that “signs at a protest in Seattle called Gaza ‘Auschwitz’ and ‘A New Warsaw Ghetto.’“ Sadly these are but a few of the most recent chronicles of hatred aimed at the Jewish population.

Distressing still is the fact that abroad the situation is much worse. Several weeks ago The Anti-Defamation League again reported “that a survey it commissioned found nearly a third of Europeans polled blame Jews for the global economic meltdown and that a greater number think Jews have too much power in the business world.” Further the study revealed that 44% of Europeans think “Jews talk too much about the Holocaust.” Anti-Semitism has also been apparent in various episodes of vandalism and slurs. Recently the most visible was, of course, the February 14^th Neo-Nazi demonstration in Dresden commemorating the Allied bombing of the city in 1945. United Press International reported that an “estimated 6,000 neo-Nazis in Dresden [had] staged one of the biggest far-right demonstrations Germany [had] seen in decades.”

 On a more institutional level, however, has been the continued equation of Zionism with racism. Outside of the palpably anti-Israel policies adopted by the United Nations, Morris B. Abram, Chairman of the United Nations Watch has highlighted two of the most egregious demonstrations of Anti-Semitism perpetrated by this supposedly neutral international body. “During the 1991 session, the Syrian Ambassador repeated the Damascus Blood Libel that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make Matzoth. The Western democracies could not be stirred to challenge this age-old anti-Semitic libel …On 11 March 1997, the Palestinian representative charged, in a chamber packed with 500 people including the representatives of 53 states and hundreds of non-governmental organizations, that the Israeli Government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the repeated interventions of the Governments of Israel and the US, and UN Watch, this modern Blood Libel stands unchallenged and unrefuted (sic) on the UN record.”

Most recently the Associated Press reported on March 5^th that several western democracies have or are considering a boycott of a United Nations conference on racism due to, as Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini put it, “aggressive and anti-Semitic statements.” Such action would spur an incident much like the 2001 conference of the same title in which the “U.S. and Israel walked out midway through the conference over a draft resolution that singled Israel out for criticism and likened Zionism — the movement to establish and maintain a Jewish state — to racism.”

            Americans ought to be open to conversations regarding prejudice, but anti-Semitism is the most pressing of all issues. The Jewish people are perhaps the most resilient race in history, having faced persecution for thousands of years in manners ranging the gambit from passive hostility to enslavement to mass extermination; and yet they have thrived, individually composing one of the most successful groups of people on earth. They have not used their status as victims of prejudice as a crutch, instead they have fought their way into the upper echelon of society. Despite their success, the anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head in this the presumed era of sensitivity is unacceptable and must be exposed. Perhaps Mr. Holder should call upon Americans to engage in a meaningful dialogue on Judaism and the beauty of religious acceptance.

                  After the initial shock of arriving at what could best be described as the cantina scene from Star Wars, it was quite clear that, despite their radicalism, Riva and I were in the midst of a veritable juggernaut of political influence, made more powerful by a Democrat legislature and the ascension of Barak Obama to the presidency. All the usual suspects were there, from Eleanor Smeal (President of Feminist Majority) to Elisa Page (Co-founder of Blogher), Kim Gandy (President of NOW) to Tedra Osell (Editor of Bitch PhD and disgraced John Edward’s presidential campaign web designer).

                  The convention was an all day affair of lectures and panel discussions devoted to examining the relationship between the feminist blogging community and the institutional radicals-who have also gone digital. (In a memorable panel discussion, two of the movement’s beloved elders, Eleanor Smeal and Kim Gandy argued who got a web page first, both claiming to have done so in 1995. Eleanor Smeal won the tech-savvy competition with the knock out revelation that she was on Twitter. Alas, Gandy suffered a tragic defeat). The internet has been a priceless tool for these radicals who, as merely a small segment of the population, have been able to assert their influence from afar. Case in point, currently the biggest project underway at the Feminist Majority is an effort to enlarge and organize their constituency on college campuses across the country. There are not enough radicals to personally perform these initiatives; yet, the internet has become an indispensible proxy bra-burner. With views far to the left of the American mainstream, these women have found an effective means of political and cultural manipulation: blogging and organizing online.

The technological connectivity of these women was on full display throughout the day. In addition to a flamboyant interpretive artist, who with crayons and markers drew the content and feelings described during panel discussions, the presentations held in the main auditorium featured a large screen broadcasting a “Twitter-feed.” All through the conference, attendees were able to voice their thoughts via the scrolling “Twitter-feed” in the background. Full disclosure: in the midst of all the inanities appearing for the whole room to see, Riva and I fantasized about submitting thoughts absolutely antithetical to these women’s cause and watching the audience reaction. “This convention stinks, I’d rather go home and bake some cookies for my boyfriend!” Terrible….We know.

One of the (VERY) few men at this assemblage of irate ladies demonstrated the strength of these online feminists. Stanislas Magniant, a representative from Linkfluence (a research firm which specializes “in mapping, monitoring, and measuring trends and opinions on the social web”), gave a presentation on the “Impact of Women’s Issues and Feminist Bloggers on the Political Web.” Magniant provided multiple charts and maps to visually demonstrate the total political activity occurring online, both liberal and conservative. In the liberal region of his maps the portion carved out by the feminist community was quite large and dark (i.e. strong). In other words, the feminists are heavily connected to each other and sites devoted to liberal causes. Further the number of self-identified feminist blogs is quite plentiful. Most striking in this demonstration was the fact that while Mr. Magniant showed the conservative movement’s online property, there was no online community of conservative women to which he could point as primary opposition. A member of the audience at one point jeered “are their any [conservative feminists]?”   

The hardcore feminist lobby has and is harnessing the power of the internet, specifically the blogosphere, to promote themselves and their ideas. To be sure, anyone can find a blog on any  topic online- from bow-tie connoisseurs to sky-diving pug lovers, the difference is, however, the volume and strength of any given blogging community. And these feminists are a tightly woven, unapologetically loud group. What is most disturbing is the notion that these women are wiggling their way into the political mainstream. Unsuspecting and relatively mainstream sights such as the Huffington Post and Salon.com link to many of these activist blogs, thus bringing these embarrassingly dim actors (…well actresses) closer to the mainstream.

                  Extreme feminists are communicating, organizing, and strengthening online. It is incumbent upon America’s conservative women to make their own moves toward online organization. Women with level heads must begin the process of uniting online with more alacrity and moxie than the womyn of Fem 2.0. The blogosphere is the new battlefield and, unfortunately, the feminists have a head start. It is time for us, conservative ladies, to put on our proverbial boxing gloves and head into the arena. There are more of us than there are of them, we can and will win!

Caroline May
February 19, 2007

True Republicans are currently in an abusive relationship with their nominal leader, President George W. Bush. As Peggy Noonan succinctly put it, conservatives remain in a state reminiscent of “battered wife syndrome” in which each blow the administration has perpetrated against conservative ideals has resulted in many remaining loyal, scared to abandon that which they know, merely hoping for a better future.

It is no secret, however, that George Bush’s second term has resulted in a consistent stream of conservatives jumping off the proverbial Bush bandwagon (a bandwagon that currently portends no clear philosophical direction). Grassroots Republicans, the masses of GOP supporters to whom President Bush ought to accredit his presidential victories, have many bones to pick with their former candidate. The man who in his campaigns qualified his conservatism with the feel-good word “compassion” has gone astray from the original premise of conservatism. He has not only squandered any claim to the Reagan restraint from which he hailed but he has also lost a bastion of supporters garnered by the election savvy of  “the architect” Karl Rove.

Seeing Bush as a Texas simpleton, those representing the Left in this country have hated the President from the moment he defeated Gore in the Florida re-count, and continue to do so. With his enemies calling him an illegitimate president, it seems clear that the former Texas governor (celebrated for his good relations with Texas Democrats) has failed in his campaign promises to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. Washington D.C. is indeed a much different place than Austin, Texas.

In his attempt to reach out to those who loathe him, Bush has only alienated those who actually backed him. Conservatives were baffled for example, by his appeal to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy with the “No Child Left Behind Program.” Education initiatives it seems did little to sway the career politician Kennedy, a man who has continued to denigrate the President in the media. I love the quote in which Kennedy criticizes the very proposal over which he presided, no match it seems for the polarizing effect of this President, “This is the pattern and the record of the Bush administration (on) Iraq, jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue — mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics. Again and again, we see this cynical, despicable strategy playing out.”

In the image of legislation-happy-democrats, the President has allowed government spending to skyrocket and has expanded the government in ways unimaginable for one who claimed to be a conservative. Perhaps it would be pilling on to mention immigration reform and the Harriet Meyers nomination; however, the latter has become relevant in recent days and provides Republicans with just one more reason to leave the President’s side.

To conservatives the administration’s Supreme Court nominations, Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, represented a ray of light in a seemingly dark period for the conservative movement. In a book, recently published, which received a great deal of input from the White House, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush, journalist Robert Draper tells of some of the most intimate strife within the President’s inner circle. Providing great detail about a wide variety of issues, Draper’s account offers a piece of seemingly damning information about one of Bush’s greatest successes. The book, with administration participation, claims that it was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who initially suggested Harriet Meyers as the optimal nominee for the open seat on the bench. As many will remember the President did nominate the far from qualified Meyers, receiving near unanimous rejection from even the most ideologically lax Republicans.

Justice John Roberts since learning of the book’s allegations has adamantly rejected the premise. It seems misguided for the President to blame one of his biggest mistakes, Harriet Meyers, on his greatest victory, Chief Justice Roberts. With this claim it would seem that the President has completely rejected any aim to reinvigorate his based. Perhaps with such a short amount of time left in office the President no longer feels compelled to do so. However, is he now trying to destroy one of his greatest legacies? I continue to be baffled by this President. Bush has frequently stated, “history will be his judge.” I have reached a point, however, in which I doubt I will even be able to depend on this….

Caroline May

September 5, 2007

Some had internships, some sought adventure abroad, some bummed around the house, some spent the summer looking for a job, and a few found employment. Regardless of the activity, after sitting in classrooms for the last nine months, summer, for the majority of American youth, is a time for- as John Cleese would say- “something completely different.” Having torn free from the bonds of professorial dictates and stifling schedules, the ability to choose one’s activities for the following three months is a luxury of epic proportion. And some do have great opportunities: wealthy parents or  generous relative may finance a trip to Europe. Numerous applications painstakingly written months in advance may have provided one with the opportunity to work as an intern or lab assistant. Others may return to their hometown community swimming pool to reclaim their lifetime gig as the beloved lifeguard. Yet for each trip to Europe or invaluable experience at a top organization there are many wholly unable to set their own summertime agenda. The economic woes of the past year served only to intensify this unfortunate reality.

The precise definition of an economic recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Although the country did not fall victim to even one quarter of such anemic figures, Americans did feel the pressure of a slowing economy, as (among other things) the housing bubble burst, the dollar weakened and gas prices soared. In the midst of the economic malaise, students throughout the country finished school and ventured out in search of a job- for a bit of spending money, resume enhancement, and good old fashioned character building.

Despite the moxie exhibited by a great many teens on the path to gainful employment, the statistics were not in their favor. At the beginning of the summer Kristen Lopez Eastlick, in an article published by the Washington Examiner, provided the distressing news. “According to [the Department of Labor’s] data, only about one-third of Americans 16 to 19 years old will have a job this summer, and vulnerable low-income and minority teens are going to fare even worse. The percentage of teens classified, as ‘unemployed’ -those who are actively seeking a job but can’t get one- is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics.” At the heart of this mass increase in teen unemployment was the July 24 increase in the federal minimum wage, mandated by the Fair Pay Act of 2007-one of Nancy Pelosi’s early boondoggles as House Majority leader. Indeed, far from proving to be an economic boon, the increase in the minimum wage contributed to a teen unemployment rate of 20.3%, the highest such rate in over 10 years. A number made even more dramatic when compared with the percentage of total unemployment 5.7%, a figure many consider to be full employment.

I have been in many a heated conversation regarding the efficacy of the minimum wage. I am always shocked however at the level of ignorance regarding the economic realities of this superficial wage control. On its face, the minimum wage sounds like a benevolent policy, proffering nothing but excellent results; a course of action sure to shower all who promote it with good karma for years to come. Though appearing to be benign, as this summer’s unemployed teens can attest, this is naught but an illusion. All the good intentions in the world cannot conceal the fact that the minimum wage results in a number of negatives, namely unemployment

The minimum wage artificially raises the cost of unskilled labor, which, as any first year economics major can confirm, results in a decrease in the demand for such labor. In this way the government’s actions encourage employers to seek alternatives like machines or new production methods rather than hire employees to provide labor not worth the price mandated by the government. It is an empirical fact that as the minimum wage rises so too does the unemployment rate. 

In addition to the negatives resulting from this form of price control, it is important to note the demographic make up of minimum wage earners. The United States Census reveals that the majority of minimum wage recipients are teens and young adults just starting off in the job market. Only seven percent were heads of households, and as a study by the Employment Policies Institute revealed, two-thirds of minimum wage workers move above the minimum wage in one year or less. Although a seemingly virtuous endeavor, raising the minimum wage, in the majority of cases, is a result, not of constituent betterment, but rather legislative pandering to special interest groups, namely labor unions.

Supporters of a higher minimum wage might fool themselves into believing their own assertions of moral superiority, but the results of their actions speak volumes. Matthew B. Kibbe, a fellow at the Center for the Study of Market Processes at George Mason University, writes of the harm done to teens. “First, they lose income immediately. Second, because minimum-wage legislation has rendered them unemployable, teenagers cannot gain the experience and skills that would make them employable at higher wages later. If there were no floor price on labor, teenagers could offer to work for a lower price until they had gained the training, experience, and skills they needed to command a higher wage.”

 Caroline May 

August 30, 2008 

With no other options, the bleary-eyed student inches, ever so slowly, forward in line. Caffeine deprived and anxious, it is incumbent upon the continually time-constrained undergrad to wait while one or two (visibly exhausted and overworked) coffee clerks fill orders that can take up to a minute to dictate. Compounding the matter, the individual who wants no more than a single, easy cup of coffee, must wait, while the “mocha, chi tea, half soy, half skim, with half a tablespoon of sugar and three shakes of cinnamon—AND actually could you fix that with ice??” makes their order. With no competition, there is little incentive for efficiency and or improvements to this system.

The same phenomenon is present at 13th Street. While the line does not usually stretch out of the door, some how it is possible for there to be a packed store, three cash registers and a client turn-over-rate of about one every five minutes. 13th Street has no directive for performance because, as the only snack option, there is no need. In this dichotomy, the customer is an afterthought. At 13th Street, the rule “the customer is always right” does not apply. The preferred motto at this bastion of incompetence is instead: “the clerks will over-charge you at their leisure, and if you play your cards right they just might eek out a smile.”

Now that I have put any ability for me to get a snack at the RMC anytime soon in jeopardy, I will get to the point. My purpose in detailing the inefficiencies, incompetence, and inconveniences inherent to monopolies such as those present at the RMC is to provide an example of an environment without competition and, by extension, the results of such a model. The nationalization of healthcare in America will lead to this very lack of consumer choice and, in so doing, the degradation of the country’s overall medical system.

Americans need only look at such high-minded countries as Canada and the European nations to see the follies of this type of vast government expansion. Since surrendering their medical industries to the state, these nations have been wholly unable to fulfill their lofty, yet well-intentioned goals. Huge waiting lists and long wait times for consultations with and treatments by medical professionals, outdated medical equipment, increased costs, poor care, and an overall atmosphere of dissatisfaction are just a few of the problems ravaging these monopolistic systems.

To what, however, can we attribute these failures? Indeed, what cold-hearted soul would be against providing free medical care to everyone? At the outset it is best to remember that there is nothing in this world that is free – all things have a cost (be it money, time, health, etc.) and no matter how vital healthcare may seem, no man has the right to force others to pay for his necessities. Universal healthcare however, requires just that, by way of the taxpayer. In the second place, no longer spending their own money, patients do not have any incentive to seek out the best cost. In that same vein, doctors and drug companies, no longer accountable to consumer demand, lack compelling motivation to perform at their highest level. Formerly vying for consumer approval, these entities no longer have any need to compete. Without competition the overall quality of care decreases and the average citizen is left bearing the brunt (while the rich travel abroad for medical treatment at the first sign of a sore throat).

If poor quality healthcare, high costs and the like don’t turn you off, however, perhaps this will…With the government footing the bill for your doctors visits and medical needs, this leviathan has an increased interest in your lifestyle. Universal healthcare is thus the death knell of individual privacy.

The potential nationalization of America’s medical industry is a complicated and messy subject and, I concede, far too complex to scrutinize fully within the confines of an opinion column. Nonetheless, it is a relevant issue, worth keeping in mind. I offer this merely as a light-hearted topic for contemplation while waiting in line, this morning, for that essential cup of coffee.

Caroline May
October 15, 2007

I myself do not smoke; indeed, few at Rice would be caught dead with a cigarette in their hand. The minority who do smoke are the social pariahs of our campus, harshly criticized and judged for their addiction.

In the last few weeks there has been an ever-increasing drumbeat of anti-smoking rhetoric, followed in large measure by progressively harsher smoking bans. It is in the nonsmoking community’s best interest to reverse this movement of smoker marginalization and fight for their right to smoke.

The rational for smoking bans is based on a “scientific consensus” which believes second-hand smoke to be a public health risk. As with most controversial topics, the loudest, most visible groups have received the most attention. Interestingly, those with the greatest interest in seeing smoking abolished are not necessarily moved to action by concern for public health.

Standing to profit from smoking bans, politicians, liberal fundraising outfits, and corporations like Johnson and Johnson ignore the preponderance of evidence that challenge their revenue-producing world-view. A study published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that a non-smoker would have to be exposed to second-hand smoke for 4,000 hours in order to inhale as much tobacco smoke as one cigarette. In 2003, a study of the health histories of 35,000 non-smokers living with their tobacco-smoking spouses found no increased health risk among them. This study, conducted by James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of State University of New York, showed that there was no “causal relationship between exposure to [second-hand smoke] and tobacco related mortality.” Perhaps the most damning to those propagating the cause has been the assertion by the World Health Organization, which said that the most in depth investigations, using the “largest and longest studies on second-hand smoke are most likely to find no effects.” Unfortunately for the public at large, the superficial goodwill of the aforementioned interest groups have and continue to affect public policy, to the detriment of individual liberties.

In the minority, and having been vilified for their perceived weakness by society, slowly but surely the country has seen the steady expulsion of smokers from various places. Smoking bans, legislated on the state level, first made their appearance in California in the early 1990s. Since that time, these types of regulations have permeated the country. In the face of this ever-tightening noose, the victims of these laws are facing an uphill battle. Though victory in the war for smoker’s rights is difficult, it is vital for the protection and maintenance of liberty in America.

Consumer preference within the free market should be the deciding factor in the debate over the place of smokers on private property. The risk of secondhand smoke aside, business owners, and thus the owners of the air within their establishments, ought to have the right to decide the optimal smoking level for their businesses. Leaving the decision up to market forces will allow for some businesses to cater to smokers and some to nonsmokers, thereby satisfying the preferences of everyone within the market.

What is great about this system is the presence of choice, rather than an imposition of the preference of the non-smoking community on the minority, both segments of the population can have that which they most desire. Nonsmokers need not be forced into establishments accommodating smokers and smokers need not get nicotine withdrawal jitters in nonsmoking bars and restaurants.

The burden of smoking bans on private establishments is less a debate over health risks and more of an Orwellian demonstration of nanny-state liberalism on steroids. Smoking is not illegal and smoking bans legislate that which individual choice ought to decide.
Indeed, if smoking was as evil as the establishment is making it out to be, the solution would be to outlaw it. The dirty little secret, however, is that the taxes levied on tobacco funds a great deal of government programs; indeed the State Children’s Health Program is funded by tobacco taxes. Thus, the place of smokers ought not be outside shivering in the cold but rather inside, basking in praise, for their funding of children’s healthcare.

Caroline May
November 7, 2007

Apparently, Santa Claus is setting a poor example for the millions of children world-wide who so admire and love him. While I would have expected the use of non-unionized elf labor to be the first complaint levied against the jolly icon, the Daily Mail last week broke the news: Santa must deal with his weight problem.

Throughout the United Kingdom, malls and shopping centers are demanding that Santa watch his diet and maintain a more svelte figure. This movement has taken root in the United Kingdom in response to a recently released medical report, which predicted that over 50 percent of Great Britain’s population would be obese by the year 2050. While this is an unfortunate statistic, mandating Santa’s pant size is a far cry from a practical response.

Simply put, children so idolize Santa not because they want to be him, but because he gives them toys. Indeed, enterprising children hoping to emulate Santa would sooner don a red suit, give gifts, and get a pet deer before attempting to gain a hundred pounds. Fiona Campbell-Reilly, the spokeswoman at Bluewater shopping centre in Greenhithe, Kent, however remains oblivious. She instead has offered confused children this nugget of “wise” consolation, “He will still be the same lovable jolly man, but will be fitter and healthier.”

This attempt, however, speaks to a larger problem, namely the belief that the citizenry is irresponsible and must be shielded from anything which could potentially be deemed harmful. Such a nanny-state mentality asserts and propagates the insidious myth that people cannot think for themselves. The dangers of obesity are well known and it is the responsibility of the individual to look out for his or her own well-being. It is absurd to believe that Santa Claus’s weight would have any effect, either positive or negative, on a nation’s health.

While the Brits are forcing Santa onto treadmills, the Australians are giving Santa sensitivity lessons. In the post-Imus era, it seems the “ho” hysteria has made its way to the Southern hemisphere. The Sunday Mail reported that Santas employed and training with Australia’s largest Santa supplier, Westaf Operations, were ordered not to use the traditional Santa laugh, because, “‘We were told it (ho) was a derogatory term for females and can upset people,’ said the Santa, who did not want to be identified publicly.”

Instead of his normal, jovial chuckle, Santa will woo his admirers with a lackluster, but enunciated (to avoid misinterpretation) “Ha, Ha, Ha.” Thankfully, however, some have maintained their sanity, “University of South Australia communications senior lecturer Dr Jackie Cook said any banning of ‘ho, ho, ho’ was ‘nonsense.’ ‘Can we use a garden hoe anymore? Do we have to remove that?… Ho, ho, ho from Santa is going to be everywhere. It’s going to be in books, on Christmas cards and kids are going to come across it sooner or later.’”
Western nations pride themselves on their tolerance and freedom. Such restrictions on the thoughts, appearances, and attitudes of the members of society and, of all people, Santa, are a dreadful harbinger of things to come. For I think we all can agree that when Santa Claus is forced to change his ways something has gone terribly wrong.
Caroline May
November 14, 2007

Overshadowed somewhat this weekend by grave financial and political matters, Paul Newman was a man to whom we should all take pause and remember as we move forward into what looks to be an uncertain and ominous era. While times are hard, politics are divisive, and we struggle with the banalities of everyday, our memory of Paul Newman can instill in all of us a renewed faith in humanity. Whoever you were cheering for in Friday’s debate or however you feel about the current financial bail out, we can unite in a shared admiration of this impressive man who truly did make a difference.

Newman lived the American dream. Born to a middle-class family in Shaker Heights, Ohio, he used his vast talents to work his way up and into Hollywood’s upper echelon. He was significant even before his first appearance on the silver screen. In 1944 Newman helped to defeat the Japanese as radioman and gunner in World War II. After the War, he discovered his love for acting as an undergraduate at Kenyon College. Upon graduating from Kenyon, the future film legend studied his newfound passion at Yale University and the Actor’s Studio. He eventually began his acting career in New York wowing audiences throughout the Big Apple and later impressing viewers all over the country in Hollywood.

Having reached the pinnacle of showbiz, Paul Newman exemplified the best that Hollywood could offer. He had major roles in over 50 films including “Cool Hand Luke,” “Exodus,” “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” “The Verdict,” “The Sting” and “Absence of Malice.” He was nominated for countless awards including ten Academy Awards (finally winning the Oscar for “The Color of Money”). His craterous impact on American cinema alone would make him worthy of our united approbation, yet his acting chops were but one of the many positive aspects he left behind.

Steven Hunter, writing in the Washington Post, described Newman brilliantly as an American archetype, “Practical, tough, urban. He figured angles, calculated odds, charted courses, deployed distractions, maneuvered brilliantly. He wasn’t violent, he wasn’t a leader, he wasn’t Mr. Cool with the babes, he had limited gifts for comedy and highly-articulate, dialogue-driven set pieces. But nobody played shrewd better than Paul Newman. He became great playing shrewd.” While women swooned over his piercing blue eyes, handsomely angular face, and unapologetic masculinity, men admired his strength, determination, and commonsense wisdom.

Film critic Pauline Kael wrote in 1964, “They could cast him as a mean man and know that the audience would never believe in his meanness.” America loved Paul Newman. The humble manner in which he lived his life merely served to underscore his exceptionality.

Newman worked in Hollywood but was no representation of its culture. The iconic actor avoided interviews and never read reviews once saying, “If they’re good you get a fat head and if they’re bad you’re depressed for three weeks.” True to form and wholly devoted to his family, Newman lived on the opposite side of the country, in Westport, Connecticut. In this less pretentious setting, one of Hollywood’s most dashing leading men remained married to the same woman, actress Joanne Woodward, for over 50 years. He is famously remembered for saying that he had no reason to stray because, “I have steak at home. Why should I go out for a hamburger?” Working in a culture in which the average lifespan of marriage appears to be shorter than baseball season, Newman’s love for his wife and family were a thrill to behold. We should all be so skillful at maintaining our values.

In addition to the more than 50 years of joy he brought filmgoers and decades of devotion he gave his loved ones, Paul Newman was an exceptionally generous philanthropist. In 1982 he paired up with writer A.E. Hotchner and started the food brand Newman’s Own, best know for producing salad dressing and popcorn. All the after-tax proceeds from the sale of Newman’s products have gone and continue to go to charity. In 1988 he and Hotchner founded the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp. Each year this endeavor provides over 13,000 children with cancer a priceless sleep-away camp experience. Newman has also given millions to his alma mater, Kenyon College, and made smaller contributions to innumerable causes. He died having given over $250 million to charity.

His unwavering selflessness, hardy spirit and, endearing demeanor will be remembered far into the future, much farther, than ephemeral election polls, market fluctuations, or political catcalls. To be sure, Newman was no political outsider. He was an avid liberal-activist and proud Democrat. Despite, what I considered to be, misguided politics; he lived a life in full. Indeed, even a conservative Republican like me can love a man with a spot on Nixon’s enemies list. Whatever the coming weeks may bring, we can all remain grounded in our shared appreciation and celebration of the life Paul Newman led.

Caroline May
September 27, 2008