The Freedom Bulletin

Photo by Philippe Grangeaud, via the Socialist Party on Flickr

One of the reasons why the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case has received so much publicity, in addition to the defendant’s position as one of the most powerful economists in the world, is because it fits a lot of people’s stereotypes. Strauss-Kahn, who used to be the director of the International Monetary Fund, is a rich, white, older man. His accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, is a maid at the Sofitel hotel, a single mother, and a poor immigrant from Guinea.

She held a rally last Thursday at a predominantly black church, where she and her lawyer suggested that the District Attorney’s office is not prosecuting the case as zealously as they should be because of racism. (As promised, she is now filing a civil lawsuit.) Noel Leader, co-founder of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, asked the crowd, “Does race play a role? Does her gender play a role? Is this a class issue?” They responded in the affirmative.

Numerous others have echoed these sentiments. But who is really the victim of prejudice in this case?

Protesters from the New Black Panther Party have demonstrated outside of Strauss-Kahn’s temporary residence, chanting “black power” and “hands off Africa.”  This Black Star News editorial ridiculously compares the possibility that the sexual assault charges may be dropped to the South many years ago, where ”white men raped Black women with impunity and were never charged or tried” and “black people were not entitled to be protected by the laws of the land.”

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) writes at length about ”America’s history of the sexual exploitation of black women” and “the propagandized imagery of black women as over sexualized jezebels” as reasons why Strauss-Kahn should be prosecuted. Taina Bien-Amie, the director of Equality Now, implies that DSK is likely guilty because rape is ”a global epidemic, inflicted on women and girls of all ages, nationalities, ethnicities, and economic backgrounds” and ”a brutal exercise of power, control and destruction in an unequal society.”

The Black Star News also ridicules DSK’s likely defense that any sex was consensual, citing their ”vastly disparate social status and wealth” and even their looks, calling  Diallo “beautiful” and Strauss-Kahn “aged and unattractive.” Andrea Peyser at the New York Post disparagingly describes DSK as ”wealthy” and “self-important,” and the hosts of Prisonworld Radio Hour go as far as to say, ”The presumption of innocence should never be afforded to the wealthy.” Silly me. I thought the presumption of evidence should be afforded to everyone.

By arguing that sex between two people could not possibly have been consensual because of their gender, race, appearance, or class differences, you are making exactly the kind of generalizations that those who believe in equality should reject.

In our society, there are too many people who vilify the rich merely for being rich. There are too many so-called feminists who profess the belief that women are inherently weak and vulnerable, while men are inherently aggressive brutes. And all too many people support reverse racism in college admissions, job applications, and popular opinion. Such people seized on the image of, in the words of June Cross at the Root, ”the white man raping the black woman; the IMF raping poor Guinea; the rich raping the poor; the French aristocrats overdue for their comeuppance.” To answer Noel Leader’s question, classism, sexism, and racism do indeed play a role in this case – they are what caused the public and the press to convict DSK and the District Attorney to prosecute him so vigorously to begin with. In this case of numerous twists and turns, it is Dominique Strauss-Kahn who is, more than anyone else, the victim of prejudice.

The Milwaukee teachers’ union is suing for health insurance plans that cover Viagra. This is happening as the district is in the middle of a budget crisis and has laid off 482 teachers. Taxpayer-funded Viagra would cost $786,000 or enough for 12 teachers to keep their jobs.

The lawsuit claims that excluding Viagra from insurance coverage discriminates against men. According to MSNBC…

“In recent years, several lawsuits have claimed that employer health plans discriminate against women when they cover Viagra but not contraceptives or infertility treatment.

But the Milwaukee union says males are treated unfairly here. In one brief, its lawyers argued that vaginal cream, anti-bacterial medicine and estrogen replacement medication for female sexual dysfunction are covered. Other options such as penile pumps and implants included in the plans “are far less desirable than oral medication,” the filing said.

District spokesman Philip Harris said school officials won’t comment because “we just want to leave it alone.” But Miriam Horwitz, an attorney representing the board, argued in court filings the drugs weren’t necessary to treat life-threatening disease or have children.”

I have an idea – none of these things should be covered! The only things that should be covered by health insurance are things that people need in order to be healthy. This is especially true of plans that are taxpayer-funded.

You don’t need to have sex or have children to be healthy, so contrary to the opinion of the school board’s lawyer, neither Viagra nor infertility treatments (or maternity care, for that matter) should be covered. Whether to have sex or have children is a choice, and it is unfair for people who choose not to do these things to subsidize the decisions and preferences of those who do.

No Viagra, no infertility treatments, no penis pumps, no contraceptives, no maternity care, and no estrogen replacements. Discretionary procedures and medications should never be covered by health insurance, no matter what the person’s gender. Paying only for things that are medically necessary is the fairest policy for everyone.

Since Scott Brown’s victory on Tuesday, many people - such as Anna North at Jezebel.com, James Carroll at the Daily Beast, Monica Hesse at the Washington Post, and Jeanne Cummings and Erika Lovely at Politico – have said that basically, Martha Coakley lost because voters are sexist.

I disagree. I have never heard or read of anyone saying that they voted for Brown because he is a man. There’s just no evidence to support these claims.

Additionally, this article claims that it was sexist of Brown’s supporters to “cheer on the notion of Coakley being raped.” While it is certainly horrible to wish rape on someone, it isn’t sexist, exactly. Men can be raped, just as women can. Coakley’s supporters could just as easily have cheered about Brown being raped, and it would have been just as classless. It’s sexist to say that wishing rape on someone is sexist, since that claim seems to be based on the assumption that only women can be raped. Real feminists believe that men and women are equal and should be treated that way. Both men and women can be the victims or the perpetrators of rape, and it’s unacceptable to wish rape on anyone of any gender.

Plus, there has been letter after letter in the Boston Globe this week saying that the people elected Brown because of “stupidity,” “foolishness,” “personality, misinformation, and fear.” One person goes as far as to write, “although Scott Brown won the election, there is a large chunk of Bay Staters he doesn’t seem to represent.”

Well, duh! That would be the same chunk of Bay Staters that is currently represented by the other 11 of our 12 representatives in Congress. How do you think we non-Democrats have felt for the past few decades that we have gone with no representation in Congress? Right now, 52% of the people are represented by one person, and 47% are represented by 11 people. When it gets to be 6 and 6, then the Democrats can start complaining.

Why can’t people accept that maybe Brown won the election because people like his views better and think he’ll do a better job? Why can’t they accept that people might be fed up with one-party control of our state and the country, or opposed to the health bill that was created through bribery and forces everyone to buy health insurance? Why must people attribute Brown’s victory to sexism, ignorance, and fear? Maybe Brown won because he deserved to.

Have you seen Obama’s new website? It’s called Change.gov and it’s probably the creepiest website I have ever seen. From the Obama quote at the top of the layout to the countdown to his inauguration to the additional Obama quotes at the top of each section, it is just unsettling and reminds me a little bit of 1984. Even creepier than the design of his website are Obama’s ideas. Change.gov goes into detail about a plethora of his political positions, on a variety of issues. I could never list all of the items I disagree with, but here’s a sampling:

First off, he lists “Women” as one of his categories under “Agenda,” but he doesn’t list “Men.” Singling women out for special attention is sexist in itself.

“Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.”
So he will steal people’s money in order to create non-fun things that kids will be forced to do instead of having time to themselves as they desperately need.

“The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.”
Not only will Obama discriminate against economically successful people, but he’ll also discriminate against people who don’t have babies!

“Obama has introduced a comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan to provide critical supports to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year…”
Stealing more money…

“Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts.” There are government penalties on married families? I never knew that being given benefits and money was a penalty. Looks like Obama wants to discriminate against bachelors and bachelorettes even more than the government already does. Plus, it is sexist to assume that only men avoid child support payments.

“Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families.”
Stealing money from successful, sometimes unmarried and baby-free people to give to poor people who have babies! That’s just what America needs when our population is about three times as large as it should be, causing global warming!

“He introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.”
I have a really revolutionary, hard to understand idea to prevent AIDS: how about not having sex!!! Chastity is dignified, empowering, and free.

“Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education.”
More theft…

“Barack Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year…”
And even more theft…

“Senator Obama co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Signed into law in January 2006, the bill funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The legislation establishes a sexual assault services program and provides education grants to prevent domestic violence.”
How sexist! He equates “violence against women” with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking! Sadly, women can and sometimes do abuse, rape, and stalk men. Sometimes acts of domestic violence are not abuse at all but are acts of self-defense against an abuser. It seems that to Obama, women are weak and need to be protected, while men are abusive brutes. Such an attitude is degrading to both genders.

And finally, the Obama youth corps! Michael Graham pointed out in his awesome blog that Change.gov used to say “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year” (under “America Serves“).

But then he changed it to… “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.”

Obviously, it’s never good when the president thinks people don’t have a right to their own money or their own time, but at least he changed it to something less objectionable. Overall, it looks like Obama doesn’t really believe in gender equality or individual rights, and his spending will make Bush look fiscally conservative in comparison.