Month: November 2001

Sisterhood is Powerful — Unless You Happen to be Stuck in Afghanistan

At the end of October, the Village Voice ran an interesting article by Sharon Lerner examining feminist attitudes toward the war against Afghanistan. In hindsight some of the comments look downright silly, but women’s rights advocate Hibaaq Osman’s take on the war is downright chilling.

Lerner notes that last year Osman gave a speech at the United Nations in which she said that the only place in the world where military force might be justified would be to overthrow the Taliban. But with such a war actually underway, Osman had a change of hart. She told Lerner,

I said it, but I was just making a point. This predicament is a test for feminists. We have seen our worst nightmare — women being dehumanized and shot in public — and it makes us more radical. It makes us angry enough to entertain the idea of war. But do I support war? No. No. No. War is not OK under any circumstances. The whole thing simply breaks my heart.

Which, of course, is precisely what people who hang prostitutes in stadiums filled with thousands of people (as the Taliban did) want to hear.

Meanwhile, the article also quotes Susan Sontag who wrote a controversial New Yorker criticizing the war against Afghanistan. Sontag tells Lerner that, “I continue to wish with all my heart for the [Taliban] regime to be overthrown; I just don’t think the U.S. military can do it.” Apparently military analysis is not exactly Sontag’s forte.

Source:

What women want. Sharon Lerner, The Village Voice, October 31 – November 6, 2001.

If You Disagree with Rob Okun, You’re Not a Good Father

Some feminists and feminist organizations have had a long standing animosity to the Father’s Rights movements, culminating with National Organization for Women‘s 1996 press release claiming the movement was “using the abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers.” That animosity was on full display recently in an article penned by Rob Okun and published by Women’s eNews.

After a lengthy look at the role of father’s in family life — which Okun claims can be “a force for great good in family relations and child rearing, or a force of hostility and estrangement” — Okun informs his readers that father’s need support and a fair shake from the courts unless they are in any way involved in the Father’s Rights movement. In that case, all bets are off. Okun writes,

Many such fathers see their children’s mothers as actively trying to deny them access to their children, and more than few get involved in what are often called “fathers’ rights” groups. It’s not uncommon to see handfuls of men with signs advocating the rights of dads picketing in front of family courts in many states in most sections of the country.

…

Nonviolent fathers deserve support as they look for a fair shake in custody cases in which they have legitimate claims. But others have forfeited any such claims for support if they intimidate their children’s mothers, harass the court or affiliate themselves with groups more interested in fueling conflict than in maintaining the well-being of their children.

Presumably, Women’s eNews would not run an article from a conservative suggesting that women who spend their time picketing at NOW-sponsored events are bad mothers who have forfeited any claims for support, but it had no problem giving Okun’s article the headline, “Involved fathers care for kids, not picket courts.”

Right, and a woman’s place is at home caring for children, not in the work place.

Source:

Involved fathers care for kids, not picket courts. Rob Okun, WEnews, October 31, 2001.

Ann Coulter Mocks Clinton

As much as I disagree with pretty much everything she’s ever written, I laughed out loud at Ann Coulter mocking Bill Clinton’s recent speech at Georgetown. According to Coulter,

Initial reports from National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration officials investigating the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 are now ruling out slavery or Indian dispossession as the cause.

Of course, Coulter conveniently forgot to mention whether or not the NTSB has ruled out “swarthy males.”

Zimbabwe Plans to Complete Its Suicidal Path

Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe apparently has decided to complete his plan to place that African nation on a path to national suicide by announcing plans to seizure the remaining 4,500 or so white-owned farms. The main result of such an idiotic plan will be a severe risk of famine over the next year or so.

Zimbabwe is already in significant trouble thanks to Mugabe’s policies. Over the past few years, Mugabe has desperately used racial animosity to hold on to power. When Zimbabwe first won its independence, many white landowners fled the country. Mugabe appealed to white farmers to stay and help build a new, prosperous Zimbabwe.

Over the past few years, however, his government turned on the white farmers and began seizing their farms. This policy was almost single handedly responsible for transforming Zimbabwe from a nation that was a net food exporter to one that today has appealed to the United Nations for more than $360 million in food aid to prevent serious famine.

Now, Mugabe has use newly won powers to effectively nationalize almost all white-owned land. The results are predictable — with their land set to be seized by the government, the farmers will not plant crops and next year at this time Zimbabwe is going to be a basket case.

John Robertson, an economist living in Zimbabwe, appraised the likely outcome for The Times (UK), saying,

It is suicide. Anything that has been planted will go to waste. Gross domestic product will be cut by half. It will make us equal to the poorest countries in the world. These are the actions of madmen.

This is why people starve in the developing world — not because of any problem with overpopulation, but because of the idiotic actions taken by governments more concerned about maintaining autocratic power than feeding people.

Source:

4,000 Zimbabwe farmers to be evicted. Jan Raath, The Times (UK), November 13, 2001.

Let My Pizza Go!

Believe it or not, there is actually a federal standard that defines a pizza — and, ironically, the main effect of the standard has been to prevent pizza makers from lowering fat content and making other changes to pizzas that consumers might like.

The rules apply to apply to frozen pizzas that are labeled as meat or sausage pizzas, and dictate that such a pizza must have a crust, cheese, and tomato-based sauce and at least 10 to 12 percent of meat by weight. So, under USDA regulations it is illegal to sell a frozen pepperoni pizza that is only, say, 5 percent pepperoni by weight, even if consumers might prefer the pepperoni taste without all the calories and fat of a pizza that comes with a 10 percent weight standard.

Similarly, pizza makers can’t call it a pepperoni pizza if the product uses a non-tomato based sauce.

As Tony Mantuano, a consultant to Schwan’s Sales Enterprises which makes Freschetta pizza notes, the rules are long out of date. “One of our most popular pizzas is a pizza that has duck sausage and goat cheese. There’s no tomato sauce. There’s no mozzarella.”

The USDA will accept comments on its proposal to eliminate the regulation of meat pizzas through Jan. 2, 2002.

Source:

Government defines what a pizza is. Philip Brasher, Associated Press, November 7, 2001.