Great Rant about the Asshattery in Wisconsin

Friends, I'm sure you have also been watching the events as they unfold in Wisconsin. It's democracy at work, and much is at stake. I am so frustrated, because the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts so long as they can keep their collective bargaining rights. However, the new asshat of a governor has said he will not negotiate. How crazy. That's not democracy, and he's not a dictator. Other rallies are happening across the country. You can also sign this petition for fair pay and workers rights, that will go to all 50 state legislators. Please do. This fight will affect us all, and it's headed to your state next.



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

America, Meet Your New Freshman Class!

Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Research Career Choices at Least as Much as You Would Research a House or a Car!

U.S. employment is expected to go up 10 percent in the next decade, but there are some professions that are expected to see their ranks shrink. The reasons vary –- from outsourcing, to technology and the economy.

As high school seniors start scoping out colleges and thinking about what they want to be when they grow up, it’s a good idea to take a look at the broader jobs landscape –- what the Fastest-Growing Jobs are, but also what jobs may be disappearing, what they pay, and what some of the alternatives for a degree in that field.

Before students and their parents drop $30,000 to $100,000 or more on college, it’s important to think about what that investment will buy you: a job with good prospects or a ticket to the unemployment line?

You would spend time researching a major purchase like a house or car –- and it’s even more important to research your career and your college. You know, the thing that will actually pay for the house, car and other lifestyle choices.

Here are Nine Disappearing Jobs for those with bachelor’s degrees, according to the Labor Department.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Since 1888, AAUW Has Provided More Than $80 Million to 11,000 Fellows, Grantees

WASHINGTON – AAUW will award $3.2 million in 2010–11 in support of 215 scholars, research projects, and programs promoting education and equity for women and girls. Building on its rich tradition of opening the doors of higher education and opportunity to women, AAUW has provided more than $80 million to 11,000 fellows and grantees from around the globe since awarding its first fellowship in 1888.

"In these tough economic times, when many nonprofits are cutting back on giving, we are proud that we can continue our generous support of exceptional women and worthwhile projects that benefit communities locally and abroad," said AAUW Executive Director Linda D. Hallman, CAE. "We are equally proud of the accomplishments of our outstanding former fellowship and grant recipients, who have impacted our nation and world in remarkable ways."

Past recipients of AAUW fellowships and grants include:

•Mahzarin Banaji, Harvard psychologist whose research on unconscious bias was featured in the 2010 AAUW report Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
•Jenny Bramley, who was the first woman to receive a degree in physics from a U.S. institution and who went on to design cathode ray tubes, including those used in color televisions and early computer terminals
•Joyce Brothers, eminent psychologist
•Marie Curie, who received a $156,413 grant in 1920 to purchase one gram of radium for her experiments
•Judith Resnick, Challenger astronaut
•Susan Sontag, author, literary theorist, and political activist
This year's awardees represent an outstanding group of accomplished women scholars, researchers, and nonprofit and community leaders from more than 25 states and a dozen countries around the world.

AAUW fellowships are among the most competitive and offer one of the largest funding pools available exclusively for graduate-level women. Specifically, AAUW:

•provides vital financial support to graduate women preparing research for publication, advancing their careers, reentering the workforce, or changing careers to enhance their professional credentials and marketability in the academic world and the global workplace;
•targets funding to advanced studies in the traditionally male and higher-paying fields of science, technology, engineering, and math and supports women of color in fields in which they have traditionally been underrepresented;
•responds to the global development needs of women by awarding financial support to women from around the world to enable them to gain access to academic training and contribute to the economic and social development of their countries; and
•supports nonprofits and individuals in their efforts focused on women's and girls' educational and economic development, with a preference for STEM-related programming.
AAUW's fellowships and grants programs were highlighted on GreatNonprofits.org, which included AAUW on the 2010 Top-Rated Women's Empowerment Nonprofits List.

Longtime AAUW member Bets Brown wrote, "Just over 30 years ago, I was fortunate enough to receive from AAUW an American Fellowship for my doctoral dissertation. This grant allowed me to focus on my research without having to have a full-time job and, thus, shortened the time it took to complete my degree by one year. AAUW grants have impact. As the only woman in my graduate school class in marine sciences, I was impressed by the positive responses of professors and others when they learned of my having the AAUW grant. AAUW elevated my stature professionally."

To view the directory of fellowship and grant recipients, visit www.aauw.org/learn/fellows_directory/.

To reach an award recipient, contact AAUW at 202/728-7602 or fellowships@aauw.org. For information about sponsorship and endowments, contact development@aauw.org.

To apply, visit www.aauw.org/learn/fellowships_grants. For application questions, contact aauw@act.org.


The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Young Women Now Less Likely to Work in Same Jobs as Men Wage Gap Continues Due to Occupational Segregation

WASHINGTON, DC - A new briefing paper from the Institute for Women's Policy Research charts occupational segregation since the early 1970s. Women continue to enter some high paying male-dominated professions, for example, rising from 4.0 percent to 32.2 percent of lawyers between 1972 and 2009, yet overall progress has stalled since 1996, according to one common measure, the Index of Dissimilarity. Slowing progress, women continue to dominate professions traditionally done by women, which typically pay less, accounting for over 95 percent of all kindergarten teachers, librarians, dental assistants and registered nurses in 2009.

A few occupations have witnessed a sharp reversal in desegregation, with women's share falling from over one-third to less than 21 percent of computer programmers since the late 1980s, and women's share of civil engineering declining from 13 percent in 2005 to just over 7 percent in 2009. Most troubling, young women experience more segregation today than they did a decade ago; since 2002, their Index has worsened by 6 percent, erasing nearly one-fifth of the improvement since 1968.

IWPR's Briefing Paper "Separate and Not Equal? Gender Segregation in the Labor Market and the Gender Wage Gap" analyzes data from the Current Population Survey on women's share of occupations from 1972 to 2009. Based on 2009 earnings data, it examines the relationship between median earnings and the gender composition of occupations, differentiating between occupations that are predominantly male, have a relatively even gender balance, and are predominantly female -- for low-skilled, medium-skilled and high-skilled fields.

“It is very likely that the stalled progress in integrating the labor market is contributing to the failure of the wage gap to close,” says Heidi Hartmann, President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Working in traditional female occupations can come at a steep price. Women are now proportionately more likely than men to have some years of post-secondary education. Yet, whether an occupation requires college level education or medium-level skills or is low-skilled, typically occupations that are predominantly held by women have lower median earnings than occupations with a more even gender balance or occupations predominantly held by men. There are important exceptions, particularly among medium-skilled occupations: dental hygienists, an occupation almost exclusively held by women, have higher weekly median earnings ($956) than occupations almost exclusively held by men such as electricians ($856) or carpenters ($665). Yet, while over 80 percent of dental hygienists have at least an associate degree, only one in five electricians, and even fewer carpenters, have similar levels of education. To achieve similar earnings, women have to acquire more formal education than do men.

"All workers are likely to do better if they have at least some post-secondary school qualifications. Yet while it is still possible without college to earn a decent wage in some male-dominated occupations, the same is not true in female-dominated occupations," says Ariane Hegewisch, a Study Director at the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Almost as important as getting a qualification, however, is the field in which you qualify. A speech language pathologist--an occupation that is predominantly female--on average makes $1,153 per week, compared with a pharmacist--an occupation nearly half female--who receives median earnings of $1,841, a difference of close to $700 for a week of full-time work."

The difference in median earnings is not as big in absolute dollar terms for workers in low-skilled occupations. Yet working in a female-dominated, low-skilled occupation (the Bureau of Labor Statistics identifies nursing and psychiatric aides, maids and housekeepers and cleaners, and personal and home care aides as the largest occupations in this group) is much more likely to result in earnings close to the poverty threshold than working in low-skilled male dominated occupations (such as truck drivers, laborers and ground maintenance workers). Median weekly earnings in low-skilled, male-dominated occupations were $553 in 2009, compared with $408 in female-dominated occupations.

"Policy makers need to pay attention to the stalled progress in gender desegregation," says Robert Drago, Research Director for the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Occupational segregation carries costs for the economy and employers by exacerbating skill shortages and causing reduced productivity. It also costs working families. Particularly in low-skilled jobs, working in an occupation predominantly held by women instead of one held by men, may be the difference between earning a poverty wage and earning a family supporting wage."

IWPR's research on occupational segregation and earnings is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) conducts rigorous research and disseminates its findings to address the needs of women and their families, promote public dialogue, and strengthen communities and societies. The Institute works with policymakers, scholars, and public interest groups to design, execute, and disseminate research that illuminates economic and social policy issues affecting women and their families, and to build a network of individuals and organizations that conduct and use women-oriented policy research. IWPR's work is supported by foundation grants, government grants and contracts, donations from individuals, and contributions from organizations and corporations. IWPR is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization that also works in affiliation with the women's studies and public policy programs at The George Washington University.

Glenn Beck Doesn't Think Women's Rights Should be Military Goal

I find this little ditty from the August 24 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program quite fascinating. Given that much of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been billed as "democracy building," you'd think Mr. Beck would have a clearer view of the importance of strong women's roles in a developing democracy. Democratization is harmed by not including gender as an important axis in assessing the character of political institutions, and gender theorists have long suggested that gender is a primary organizing principle of the state. Given the way the Taliban has horribly oppressed women and girls, it does not seem out of bounds to me that, in working with Afghan nationals, the roles and opportunities for women and girls would be part of our focus.

At the dawn of the 20th century, Egyptian poet Hafez Ibrahim said: "When you educate a woman, you create a nation." Another play on this idea came from Robert M. Maciver when he said, "When you educate a man you educate an individual; when you educate a woman you educate a whole family." Investments in women and girls -- through increased education, family planning, and labor force participation -- can lead to real economic growth in developed and developing countries. The cause of women's empowerment has never been more important. So yes, Mr. Beck, our soldiers -- an unprecedented amount of whom are women -- care about women's equality as they carry out their mission.

As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently put it, gender inequality is "the dominant moral challenge we face in the 21st century."



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Turning the Tide: from the Great Recession to Job Creation

Here's some fab propaganda from the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's (D-MD) office. It also has the added benefit of being true. Enjoy, and share with friends...the more folks who see it, the better.



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Arsonist and the Fireman

Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Classic Dave Obey: The Retiring King of House Appropriations Speaks His Mind about Education Reform

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the irascible longtime chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, is retiring. He says he leaves more discontented than when he started. Here is a quote -- and Mr. Chairman is in fine form, I must say -- from an Obey interview with The Fiscal Times:

"The secretary of education [Arne Duncan] is whining about the fact he only got 85 percent of the money he wanted .… [W]hen we needed money, we committed the cardinal sin of treating him like any other mere mortal. We were giving them over $10 billion in money to help keep teachers on the job, plus another $5 billion for Pell, so he was getting $15 billion for the programs he says he cares about, and it was costing him $500 million [in reductions to the Race to the Top program]. Now that’s a pretty damn good deal. So as far as I’m concerned, the secretary of education should have been happy as hell. He should have taken that deal and smiled like a Cheshire cat. He’s got more walking around money than every other cabinet secretary put together.

It blows my mind that the White House would even notice the fight [over Race to the Top]. I would have expected the president to say to the secretary, “Look, you’re getting a good deal, for God’s sake, what this really does is guarantee that the rest of the money isn’t going to be touched.” We gave [Duncan] $4.3 billion in the stimulus package, no questions asked. He could spend it any way he wants. … I trusted the secretary, so I gave him a hell of a lot more money than I should have.

My point is that I have been working for school reform long before I ever heard of the secretary of education, and long before I ever heard of Obama. And I’m happy to welcome them on the reform road, but I’ll be damned if I think the only road to reform lies in the head of the secretary of education.

We were told we have to offset every damn dime of [new teacher spending]. Well, it ain’t easy to find offsets, and with all due respect to the administration their first suggestion for offsets was to cut food stamps. Now they were careful not to make an official budget request, because they didn’t want to take the political heat for it, but that was the first trial balloon they sent down here. … Their line of argument was, well, the cost of food relative to what we thought it would be has come down, so people on food stamps are getting a pretty good deal in comparison to what we thought they were going to get. Well isn’t that nice. Some poor bastard is going to get a break for a change."

And by the way, Obama Administration, if you really proposed cutting food stamps, shame on you.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Take the 2010 Ask a Working Woman Survey

The Great Recession has hit American workers in the gut—unemployment is up, jobs are scarce, foreclosures are occurring at record rates and health care costs are skyrocketing. Even if you are working, wages are stagnant and many seniors will have to work past retirement age just to pay bills.

In this brutal economy, what is on the minds of today’s working women?

The AFL-CIO’s community affiliate, Working America, is providing a chance to share those concerns through the just-launched online 2010 Ask a Working Woman survey. The biennial survey enables working women to share workplace concerns.

The Ask a Working Woman survey runs through the end of July.

More than 12,000 women responded to the survey in 2008, when they said the top item that would make their lives easier is a 10 percent raise. While issues such as affordable health care and quality child care were major concerns for working women, paying the bills, buying the groceries, filling the gas tank and paying the rent and mortgage were the concerns women said worried them the most.

AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Take the 2010 Ask a Working Woman Survey

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Young Americans Learn That Trying To Find Work Is Pointless

While the nation has experienced some job creation during the rebound (and I use that term lightly), the rebound so far, however small, hasn't even started for the young.

That's because the new jobs in today's market aren't open to younger workers, according to a study called "Unemployment Among Young Workers" by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee:

"Employers added over half a million jobs in the last four months, yet the unemployment rate for young workers reached a record 19.6 percent in April 2010, the highest level for this age group since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking unemployment in 1947... The youngest workers (16 to 17 years) experience the highest rates of unemployment. The unemployment rate for 16 to 17 year olds was 29 percent in April."

The chart below shows how the unemployment rate for America's youngest workers (in red) continues to get worse, even while other age groups' unemployment rates have plateaued or slightly declined (in blue or green).

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-unemployment-by-age-young-americans-2010-7?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CS_COTD_070710#ixzz0t83zs5kC



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

WPI's 111th Congress, First Session At-A-Glance: Legislative Action Affecting Women and Families

Women’s Policy, Inc. has produced an excellent summary of legislative action affecting women and their families in the first session of the 111th Congress (2009).

Read this wonderful recap for the latest substantive legislation action on the following issues:

Adoption
Appropriations
Breast Cancer
Federal budget
Child Support
Children’s Health Insurance
Domestic violence
Early childhood education
Employment
Equal Pay
Family and Medical Leave
Hate crimes
Health Care Reform
HIV/AIDS
Housing
Indian Health
Infant Mortality
International Women’s Day
Juvenile Justice
Microloans made to women-owned small businesses
Military families
Missing children
National Domestic Violence Awareness Month
National Women’s History Month
Nutrition programs
Ovarian cancer
Paid sick days
Postpartum Depression
Science, Techonolgy, Engineering and mathematics education
Sexual Assault
Small Business
Stalking
Teen Dating Violence
Violence against women
Women and business


Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

An Interactive Timeline: Eight Years of Republican Failure

For those waffling voters out there wondering what four-to-eight years of McSame might look like, let's take a moment to recap the last eight. If you're like me, you'll probably throw up a little bit in your mouth as you literally gag over the disaster of the past two presidential terms, courtesy of Bush 43, Cheney and Company.

DC News Briefs: High Court, Lame Ducks, and Goodbye to Larry Craig

A few news updates from this gorgeous autumn day in our Nation's Capital.

Senate Shenanigans: Fulfilling my prediction from way back in January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already scheduled a lame duck session beginning Nov. 17. Senators will already be in Washington for the biennial meetings to elect party leaders and set the rules of their chambers...so the timing works.

In the meantime, beginning Monday the Senate will hold the first of a series of pro forma Senate sessions -- which means the Senate will not be going into recess. As a result, President Bush will be prevented from naming any recess appointments -- as he's been known to do.


Mr. Wide Stance Says Goodbye: Sen. Larry "I'm Not Gay" Craig (R-ID), forced out of office because of one of the more memorable sex scandals in political history, said goodbye on Thursday to a mostly empty Senate chamber. Has it really been only a year since the Idaho Republican unleashed some of the best political satire Washington has ever seen with his arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting? With much less fanfare — in fact, none at all — Craig delivered his last speech to the nearly vacant Senate floor. A couple of senators troubled themselves to say nice things about his legislative record; Craig said good things about them in return -- and then it was OVER. Finally. Godspeed, Larry.


Supreme Court Begins New Term: The first Monday in October is always the first day of the new high court session. The 2008-09 term has a docket that includes cases about employment and sex discrimination, education, and others. Among the cases already accepted for review are a case where the justices will decide whether Title IX provides the exclusive legal remedy for cases of sex discrimination in public schools. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (Case No. 07-1125) is scheduled for argument Dec. 2. The court will also be hearing a case that will provide the basis for a potentially important ruling on job discrimination. The question is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects a worker from being dismissed because she cooperated with her employer’s internal investigation of alleged sexual harassment of another worker. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (No. 06-1595) will be argued Oct. 8.


Pork Barrel Spending Brings ... Presents? One of Rep. John Boehner’s (R-OH) district offices -- the one in West Chester, OH, to be exact -- was evacuated Monday after a suspicious package from Georgia arrived in the mail. After noticing it was leaking an oily substance, Boehner's staff called the Capitol Hill police in Washington, DC. The police advised the staff to evacuate as a precaution and call in local authorities. After an X-ray analysis, police investigators determined the package contained -- bacon. On a related note, Boehner voted twice last week for a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry.


House Republicans Break a Record ... for Gridlock: The Grand Old Party in the House managed to rack up a new record for the 110th Congress -- 120 motions to recommit overall during the two-year period, more than doubling the previous record of 56 set by Democrats in the 109th Congress. What is an MTR, you thoughtfully ask? Well, it's a parliamentary maneuver -- traditionally the right of the minority party -- to provide one last chance to amend or kill the bill. So yes, MTRs basically direct to House to go back to the drawing board -- and muck up the works as well. Wanna slow things down? Offer an MTR. Want to make the majority party nuts? Offer and MTR that picks off some of the majority party's members. In that vein, it is important to note that within this new gridlock record was another record -- 24 of the 120 MTRs were actually adopted, far exceeding the old record of 6 set by the 106th Congress. This means the ruling party -- the Democrats -- got beat at their own game 24 times. Yikes. Come on, Nancy, you can do better than that.


Stevens Gets Busted by ... Himself: Jurors listened Monday to a secretly recorded phone call in which Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) coaches the businessman on how to avoid an obstruction of justice charge. That same businessman paid for a major renovation of Stevens’ home. In the October 2006 phone conversation, it was clear that Stevens was aware that a grand jury was investigating his conduct. During the call, Stevens urged the businessman to forgo additional conversation and start communicating with him primarily through lawyers. Of course, little did Stevens know that Bill Allen, head of he oil services company VECO Corp., was already cooperating with federal investigators. Stevens is in a tough re-election race, and these calls, this trial -- well, let's just say Alaskans are growing increasingly weary of Uncle Ted.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Build the Next Cabinet: Who Do You Think Should be the Next Secretary of... ?

Between Election Day and Inauguration Day, some of the biggest decisions facing the president-elect will be choosing his cabinet — the critical people who will run the executive departments and the most prominent agencies in our country's government. The transition team will spend that short time frame in a frenzied effort to screen and select the next set of leaders for the executive branch, and dole out political appointments galore.

Thanks to CQ.com's fun new game, The Cabinet Maker lets you personally assemble a core group of advisers for the next occupant of the White House. What would an Obama or McCain administration look like if you had your druthers? The game features candidates chosen by CQ's beat reporters as likely suspects for 18 top positions, so it's an interesting preview of the Washington-style game of musical chairs that will play out when a new sheriff comes to town. Take a look.

Just What Every Woman Needs: A Wild Cherry Steam Thing

In this critical election year, women will most likely be the deciding vote. It's quite a responsibility, really -- the direction, indeed the future of a nation rests in our hands. As such, women are more engaged than ever -- 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling don't lie; neither does the fact that pay equity is front and center this election season.

In many ways, this decision-making power rests well with women. We're comfortable with it. We have long been the primary family economic and social decision makers -- whether it's buying the family home, choosing a car, when to go to the doctor, or what laundry detergent or mustard to buy. Marketers have long known this, and therefore target women directly. Unfortunately, their advertising has not necessarily caught up with women's key roles and critical decision-making positions. Take this ad... "A woman has needs. And right now I need this wild cherry steam thing." All this shit happening in the world today, and all they think women can think about is a snappy new red washer/dryer set? Now, as you all know, I am not without humor, and I appreciate clean clothes as much as the next person -- perhaps more. But this ad is whacked. All I could think when I read it was "Huh? WTF?"


Personally, I think women have more important needs. In fact, I am quite confident we do. Let me enumerate -- for the benefit of the manufacturers of the LG steam washer and dryer and their marketing "gurus" -- just a few of the things that I need, in no particular order.

1) Got equal pay? Um, no. Well, women did just get a one cent raise -- the average went from 77 cents on the male dollar to 78 cents. Woo Hoo. So let's start there -- pay us fairly, and I can buy your fancy appliances.

2) How about a fair and balanced judiciary? So the precious few civil rights and liberties women do have are protected. And so when I sue your ass for sexual harassment and pay discrimination, I have a better than 5 percent chance of winning -- which are the current odds, by the way.

3) While I'm on the subject of the judiciary, hands off my reproductive rights, okay? And let's make them real -- ensure docs are trained in abortion techniques and women's health; make sure hospitals have to offer emergency contraception (even the Catholic hospitals); ensure Rx drug plans cover birth control, especially if they cover Viagra; teach comprehensive, age-appropriate comprehensive sex education in our schools; repeal the global gag rule and increase national and international family planning funding. Course, the more kids I have the more I'm gonna want your fancy washing machine, I guess.

4) How about a basic guarantee of paid family and medical leave, and paid sick days while I'm at it. Yes, we have a federal FMLA law now, but lots of folks don't take advantage of the protections because it's unpaid. If you work in a job with no vacation or paid sick time, then you're shit outta luck. This country's work/family policies are the joke of the developed world -- hell, lots of "underdeveloped" countries do better than we do. Gimme some time off, and I can do my laundry in your super dupper machines.

5) Can you say health care? I knew you could. We need comprehensive, universal, affordable, high quality health care. End of story. 'Nuf said.

6) How about the best public schools on the planet? And affordable colleges so that everyone can explore and reach their full potential. This isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do -- it's about global competitiveness and national security. You want smart workers who can build your washing machines? Then we need to do a lot better by our K-12 system and make college more accessible. Oh, wait, you probably outsourced those factory jobs overseas, didn't you? Made in China? Or maybe you just outsourced your advertising efforts -- which would explain your piss-poor ability to relate to American women in this particular ad.

7) Stop violence against women and children -- rape, incest, domestic violence. We need better enforcement of current laws, more funding for prevention and victim support programs, and fundamental social change that tips in favor of simply not tolerating this crap. Can your washing machine, which you seem to think is what women really long for, take care of that problem, please?

8) I hope your cherry red washer/dryer set is energy efficient, 'cuz our environment is in a world of hurt. We need more research and federal support for alternative energy sources, more recycling, environmental education in the schools, better public transportation, etc.


Okay, so I'm on a rant, but damn! These ridiculous ads make me a little crazy. So tell me, what do you really need this election season? Do tell....


Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Schlafly and Washington University: Academic Freedom or Insult to Women?

Most of you have probably heard by now that Washington University of St. Louis has decided to honor Phyllis Schlafly, a native St. Louisan and two-time Wash U. graduate, with an honorary doctorate of humane letters. This unanimous decision by the university's Board of Trustees has caused a furor, and rightly so.

Over the years, Schlafly has done it all. She's well known for her successful efforts to defeat the ERA because it was "dangerous." Folks can argue the relative merits of the ERA, but really -- it's anything but dangerous. Schlafly, a lawyer by training, also said there should be bans on women holding certain non-traditional jobs -- like firefighting or construction. And, in controversial statements that have been recirculated since the Wash U. story broke, Schlafly has apparently even doubted whether a wife could really be raped by her husband. Worthy of an honorary degree? Um, not so much.

The school's web site calls Schlafly "a national leader of the conservative movement." A true statement, and in and of itself not a disqualifier for an honorary degree. I wish they had also mentioned, though, that she is the leading anti-feminist of the second wave of the women's movement, who continues to put forward opinions that are anti-theticial to the very lives the women graduates of Wash U. aspire to lead. I don't know about you, but I always thought it was the height of hypocrisy that Schlafly has always been a vocal advocate of the full-time housewife -- while she herself was traveling the country, making speeches, founding and running the Eagle Forum, writing more than 20 books, doing radio and newspaper commentaries, etc. Who was home raising HER children, I wonder??

Not surprisingly, the Wash U. community is fighting back, and the Internet has proven fertile ground to voice their protests. Students have set up a Facebook group, "No Honorary Doctorate for Anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly." At last count, the group has attracted close to 2000 members since the controversy hit the airwaves. Interestingly, parents, students and alumni alike are threatening to hit the university where it hurts -- its pocketbook -- and withhold those sought-after alumni donations in response to the Board's poor judgement. Professors apparently aren't much happier than the alumni and students -- and seriously, there's not a whole lot of things scarier in academia than a pissed off tenured professor.

I think Mary Ann Dzuback, the director of women's and gender studies at Wash U. as well as an associate professor of education and history, hit the nail on the head when she made it clear that she wouldn't be against Schlafly being invited to lecture at the school -- I wouldn't be either. To me, that represents the best in academic freedom, in discourse and debate and differing opinions. But, as Dzuback says, recognizing Schlafly with something as important as an honorary degree is something quite different:

"This tells the world that this administration thinks so highly of the honoree that they give her the highest degrees the university can give, the highest degree of respect. And that is deeply troubling...This is a woman who has spent her whole career arguing against full rights for women."

It certainly seems an odd commencement message to send the women -- and men -- of Wash U. off into the world with -- new graduates, full of hope and excitement, whose choices would be immediately curtailed by a woman who believes that women don't deserve the same opportunities and rights as men, and that the men don't deserve full, accomplished partners who've pursued the full lives they've dreamed of -- whether that is to stay home and raise kids or climb the career ladder or some some combination in between.

The key here, the point here, is that feminism has always been about choices -- opening doors and breaking down barriers so that people can make the choices that are best for them, freely and without restrictions based on their gender. Schlafly would unilaterally take fundamental choices away from women -- and that is not honorable. It is disturbing that Washington University of St. Louis has not only forgotten this history, but that it is also willing to so dishonor the futures of its graduates that it would bestow an honorary degree on Phyllis Schlafly.

Feeling feisty? Send the Chancellor of Wash U. an email or personal note, or heck, give him a call -- the more people he hears from, the better.


Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Reaping the Results of Seven Years of Failed Federal Abstinence-only Sex Education Policies

I've been a bit blocked lately. I think I am suffering from some election-related fatigue. But I also realized that in some ways, in writing about so many election-related topics, I'd fallen into the same trap as the mainstream media -- and in so doing was neglecting some of the real policy issues before us at the expense of maintaining such a close focus on the horserace. So, back to the policy stuff tonight -- and please, if you have topics you'd like me to explore, just let me know. Ideas and suggestions are always welcome.

A statistic recently slapped me in the face, and inspired today's topic. According to the first national study of the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among young women ages 14 to 19, one in four are infected with at least one of the most common STDs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, released in mid-March, also found that nearly 50 percent of African-American teenage girls were infected with an STD.

The alarming results of this study are the manifestation of failed government policies coming home to roost -- and our children are reaping what we've sown. What's so disturbing is that most STDs are largely preventable. "Clearly young people do not have the information and skills they need to protect themselves," said Joseph DiNorcia, Jr., president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Gee, you think? I wonder why?

This CDC study should motivate policymakers, both on the state and federal levels, to finally get their head out of their collective asses and provide responsible, age-appropriate, comprehensive sexuality education to young people. Rather than continuing to pour good tax money after bad into failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, the federal government must deal with the hard truth that teenagers are having sex, and are woefully ignorant of how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy. We have to arm young people with knowledge about prevention methods -- how else can we begin to see declines in these staggering figures?

And more and more states are seeing the light. In February, Iowa became the 17th state in the union to withdraw from the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage block grant program -- effectively telling President Bush and his thought police that they could keep their money -- and that they'd educate their kids about sex in the way they thought was most appropriate, thank you very much.

Why would states take the extreme step of turning down money from the feds? Because, believe it or not, there is no federal funding stream dedicated to comprehensive sexuality education programs. Since 1982 our federal government has spent at least $1.5 billion on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs -- over $800 million of which has been spent during the Bush administration. These ideologically-driven programs are not allowed to discuss contraceptives except in terms of failure rates, and have never been proven to be effective. A congressionally mandated study, released last year, found that students in abstinence-only programs were no more likely to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex, had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at pretty much the same age.

Comprehensive sexuality education is not really so scary. And yes, it includes abstinence discussions and ideas for delaying sexual activity. But it also provides kids with the information and decision-making skills they need to make good choices. Such programs cover a wide rage of of topics related to sexuality and provide medically-accurate facts free of outdated stereotypes -- something those abstinence-only programs don't do. Comprehensive sexuality runs throughout the school years, and provides information on topics such as sexual development, reproductive health, relationships, affection, intimacy, body image, and gender roles. It also helps young people develop communication, decision-making, and other personal skills to help them become sexually healthy adults. Duh.

Congress is beginning its work on the federal budget. In an absolutely shameless move last year, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, cut a deal that kept the abstinence-only program alive and well. We can't let him do it again this year. Email or call Rep. Obey and tell him not to cave so quickly on a bad deal this year. Tell him it's time -- once and for all -- to end federal mandates for abstinence-only education programs, and instead create funding streams for comprehensive sexuality education.

You can also send an email to your representative, asking them to co-sponsor the Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R. 819), which according to the American Association of University Women includes "a myriad of provisions that would expand access to contraception and preventative health care services that help reduce unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases while improving access to women's health care; it would also provide a federal funding stream for comprehensive sex education in schools." Sounds like a plan to me.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

It's STILL the Economy, Stupid: Middle Class Dream Slipping Away

Here's a scary stat. Only 1 in 4 people in working families have a good job -- one that pays at least $17 an hour, and comes equipped with employer-sponsored health insurance and a pension.

No wonder at least 48 million Americans in working families lack the where-with-all needed to do a chin-up to the middle class. This dismal but not surprising news comes from a new report, released Thursday (2/21) by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

So let's break this down a little further. A total of 48 million -- that works out to about one in five working Americans struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are below a basic, minimum middle class budget for their community. And a full-time job at $17 bucks an hour adds up to an annual income of just over $35k. No one's living high on the hog on that paycheck -- and they aren't likely to be buying homes, paying for college, or saving for retirement either.

Movin' On Up: Reforming America's Social Contract to Provide a Bridge to the Middle Class, takes a look at recent research by CEPR in various sectors -- such as job quality, economic security, and unionization -- then outlines a set of nationwide policy reforms that would make it possible for more struggling families to live the middle class dream. Here's the gist of the report's recommendations:

• Labor market standards and institutions must be strengthened
• Access to post-secondary education and training must be expanded
• The system of public and private health care benefits must be reformed

And, here's another "newsflash" that most working Americans could tell any government bureaucrat willing to listen: the country's current poverty standards do not accurately reflect the number of working families who are holding on to the middle class by their fingernails, or who cannot maintain a middle class lifestyle at all. Gee, ya' think? But of course, the government will disavow the military-industrial complex before they actually recalculate the poverty guidelines to mesh with the economic realities of everyday life. Even though, according to the report (and trust me, the good folks at CEPR are not the first to show such findings), almost half of all working families living below a middle class standard of living actually have incomes that put them above the official federal poverty line. This is not hard when the poverty threshold for a family of four is set at the unbelievable, wholly unrealistic level of $21,200.

CEPR rightly concludes that steps must be taken to bring some balance back to the economy and ensure everyone can take part in our nation's economic prosperity. Said co-author Shawn Fremstad:

"Tremendous increases in economic growth and workers' education levels over the last few decades should have moved millions of Americans into the middle class, but didn't because of policy choices that increased inequality. We must update America's social contract to make sure that the economy is working for all Americans."

The CEPR report dovetails quite well with an insightful New York Times op-ed by former labor secretary Robert Reich. He believes, like many of us, that we are sliding headlong into a recession -- hair-splitting terms like "stagflation" aside.

"The underlying problem has been building for decades. America’s median hourly wage is barely higher than it was 35 years ago, adjusted for inflation. The income of a man in his 30s is now 12 percent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Most of what’s been earned in America since then has gone to the richest 5 percent."

"Yet the rich devote a smaller percentage of their earnings to buying things than the rest of us because, after all, they’re rich. They already have most of what they want. Instead of buying, and thus stimulating the American economy, the rich are more likely to invest their earnings... The problem has been masked for years as middle- and lower-income Americans found ways to live beyond their paychecks... We’re finally reaping the whirlwind of widening inequality and ever more concentrated wealth. The only way to keep the economy going over the long run is to increase the wages of the bottom two-thirds of Americans."

And Reich has a similar formula to address this growing income inequality: better schools (including pre-K), stronger unions and government protections, and wage replacement programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit that allow poorer people to keep more of their income. One thing's for sure: we need to begin to look at these problems systematically, and come up with a nexus of solutions. For the first time ever, we have a generation of adults (Generation NEXT) who believe they will fare worse than their parents. That is the saddest commentary of all, and may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy if we don't act collectively to address it. This next President, whoever they are, had better be the "Economy President."

SOTU: Bush, Version W.7

For the seventh and final time, George W. Bush addressed the Congress and the nation about the state of our union. Thanks to you, Mr. President, the country is in deep shit. Tonight you came to Capitol Hill with your lame duck, lame ass wish list. Here's a few of the more brazen highlights:

• Faith-based initiatives that don't just blur the line between church and state, they trample it -- unrepentantly proselytizing, shoving your version of religion down the throats of people who come looking for basic social services. You want Congress to make them permanent.
• Precious public funds being siphoned off into private schools through the DC voucher program -- which, oh by the way, were mainly given to students already in private schools, not those needy kids in underperforming schools you like to use as smokescreen. Oh, and civil rights -- like Title IX -- don't apply in these private schools now mooching off the public trust. But no matter, you'd like the program to go nationwide.
• Injecting religion into science, effectively scuttling promising breakthroughs on such things as stem cell research and delaying the over-the-counter availability of critical alternatives like emergency contraception. You still think it's the government's role to hamstring critical research based on your own narrow moralistic viewpoint, and plan to withhold federal funds to ensure your agenda.
• Short-sighted, selfish tax cuts that sent the country further into debt and only benefit the rich -- not so much as a trickle has trickled down. These, too, you'd like Congress to make permanent -- you know, because the middle class is doing sooooo well.
• Renewing No Child Left Behind, the teach-to-the-test unfunded mandate you and Ted Kennedy thrust on the states five years ago. A circuit court recently slapped your hand and said you can't force state and local governments to underwrite your schemes anymore, and Teddy seems unwilling to be duped by you again. Still, you like the high stakes testing cuz it lets you find some measure, somewhere, that shows some group of students has improved. Let's see you put lipstick on this particular pig.
• Preemptive wars that cripple our economy and undercut critical domestic programs and -- oh yeah -- have made us the most reviled country the world over. Yeah, yeah, you think the surge is working, you want more money, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, our fighting men and women get extended stays overseas, less time at home, and a crippled and underfunded Veterans Administration either unable or unwilling to treat our soldiers with the dignity they deserve. Shame on you. (My brother's a vet, pal -- I am particularly hawkish on this one.)
• Constant patriotic platitudes while you question the patriotism of those who dare to disagree or criticize your policies, and barely concealed scare tactics used to con people into believing that giving up their civil liberties is a fair price for freedom. The latest is your recommendation that we give retroactive immunity to the telephone companies that violated our right to privacy under the auspices of your administration's illegal wiretapping witch hunt.

That's quite the parade of horribles. Impressive, really. Prior to the speech, President Bush went to great lengths to say he was not feeling the least bit nostalgic about his last State of the Union address, that there was no sentimentality about this event that marks the beginning of his last year in office. Gotta tell ya, George, I'm not feeling particularly nostalgic myself. In fact, January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough. But since you were so kind to share your list of recommendations with the people tonight, here's one for you: don't let the East Wing door hit you on the ass on your way out.