LET’S CALL OUT SEXISM IN POLITICS, BUT LET’S BE CLEAR WHAT’S SEXISM AND WHAT’S NOT, Sept. 14
With two women running for the presidential nominations in their respective parties, and with Pennsylvania’s first female attorney general charged with criminal perjury and hearing calls to step down, there has been a lot of discussion lately in the media about sexism in American politics. Merriam-Webster defines sexism as “prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women; (and) behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.”
Last week, in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said this of fellow GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina: “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”
He was roundly criticized by other politicians, notably Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
And he should have been.
That was a disgusting and sexist remark, unbecoming of someone vying for the White House in the 21st century.
Trump tried to say later that he was talking about Fiorina’s “persona,” not her appearance, but no one was buying it, probably because he has a habit of saying abhorrent things about women. (Google his comment about Fox News host Megyn Kelly; we don’t wish to repeat it.)
Making fun of a woman’s appearance, and declaring her to be unimaginable as president because of the way she looks, is textbook sexism.
But this is what isn’t sexist: insisting that a state’s attorney general_ that state’s top law enforcement official _follow both the letter and spirit of the law.
It’s true that people leak grand jury materials all the time, as Kathleen Kane is alleged to have done, and they get away with it. It’s also true that it’s not the crime of the century. But Kane also has been charged with lying under oath about it_ a felony charge.
She has the right to defend herself, but it’s going to be difficult to do her job as the state’s top law enforcement official while doing so. To say that is not to be sexist; it’s to state a reality, albeit a difficult one.
Kane has said in the past she’s been targeted because she has stood up to Pennsylvania’s old-boys network; she now alleges she’s being targeted by prosecutors and judges seeking to conceal pornographic and racially insensitive emails.
Her past assertion about the old-boys network wasn’t a strike against sexism_ it was an attempt to use the specter of the all-too-real sexism in politics to escape accountability.
Last week, another woman politician_ Hillary Clinton _went on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” to tell her genial host, and America, that she was sorry for “the confusion” she caused by using a private email server while she was secretary of state.
DeGeneres strongly defended her, and said: “I personally believe that women are held to a different standard than men. We are held to a different standard for our weight, for our age, for our looks.”
That is true. And when that happens, it is indeed sexist.
But in this particular instance, it’s also a diversion. Clinton isn’t facing questions about her use of a private email server because she’s a woman.
She’s facing those questions because she was secretary of state.
Often female politicians have to deal with sexist remarks and attitudes; sexism shouldn’t be tolerated in any sphere.
When it surfaces, it should be called what it is, because it’s damaging and demeaning to its target and to all women and girls.
But we also have to be careful not to invoke sexism to evade responsibility.
That only hurts the cause of women, especially those seeking leadership roles, when that cause still_ in 2015 _is badly in need of advancement.
_ LNP
___
MYSTERY, Sept. 13
The budget impasse in Harrisburg continues without any end in sight.
Republicans are talking about passing a stopgap budget to provide some much-needed funding for human service agencies and school districts.
However, Gov. Wolf has not reacted positively to such talk, contending that he’s more interested in finding a long-term solution to the state’s financial woes, instead of some patchwork fix. Of course, Wolf also knows a stopgap solution would relieve much of the pressure coming from those directly affected by the budget stalemate. And once that pressure is relieved, Republicans would probably dig their heels in harder than ever against Wolf’s campaign pledge to impose an extraction tax on the natural gas industry and use it to improve the state’s education system.
With polls showing that most people blame Republican leaders in the state Legislature rather than the governor for the budget deadlock, Wolf has little incentive to compromise on an issue so near and dear to his heart.
So, in short, nothing’s going to change. Republicans and Gov. Wolf will continue to talk past each other, and nothing will get done.
But there is one issue that could trigger a settlement between the two sides. That’s the much talked about elimination or reduction of property taxes. That’s one issue that has support from both Democrats and Republicans, including our local legislators. Now there are differences to be sure. Gov. Wolf has proposed reducing property taxes and raising the sales and income taxes to make up the difference. Wolf, however, doesn’t favor a total elimination of property taxes, and he also wants some of the money from the sales and income tax increases directed to poorer school districts across the state.
Republicans, meanwhile, want property taxes eliminated and all revenues given equally to school districts across the state. There are also differences between the two sides over the size of the increases in the sales and income taxes and what items would remain exempt from the sales tax. However, the bottom line is that most Democrats and Republicans agree that the property tax is unfair and inequitable and shouldn’t be used solely to fund our education system.
Just think for a minute of what a game changer that would be, particularly for our area. Senior citizens would no longer have to worry about selling their houses because of rising property taxes.
With every school district across the state getting approximately the same amount of funding, superintendents and school board members could be assured of having predictable budgets and resources. Parents would be assured their sons and daughters are getting as good an education as their counterparts across the state.
And there would be praise for everyone, Gov. Wolf and Republicans alike. It’s not hard to see such goodwill leading the two sides to resolve their differences on other major issues.
However, there is one big fly in the ointment.
For whatever reason, the Republican leaders in the state legislature have not included property tax relief in any of their budget negotiations with Gov. Wolf.
It doesn’t make any sense. Why isn’t the one issue that has support from both Democrats and Republicans not even on the table? Is it possible Republicans are fearful that Wolf will get too much credit if some sort of property tax relief legislation is passed? Or perhaps Republicans are worried that it would somehow derail their plans for privatizing alcohol sales and reforming public pensions.
At any rate, it’s time for Republican lawmakers, including state Sen. Pat Stefano, R-Bullskin Township, and state Rep. Ryan Warner, R-Perryopolis, to press their leaders on the property tax issue and demand that it be addressed.
The property tax issue just might be the key that opens up the budget gridlock. It’s certainly worth trying.
_ The (Uniontown) Herald-Standard
___
BE AWARE: THE DEER ARE THERE, Sept. 16
A deer dashing across an open meadow is a picture of grace and beauty. Those spindly legs at once project both power and frailty.
Frailty, however, is not what comes to mind when the front end of your car comes into contact with a deer and folds up like an accordion in the blink of an eye.
Unfortunately for drivers in Pennsylvania, the incidence of vehicle-meets-deer is all too frequent. A report just released by State Farm Insurance Co. ranks the state fourth_ behind No. 1 West Virginia _in the number of auto insurance claims involving animal collision, mostly deer. Elk and moose also figure in the statistics. (Trust us when we say you never, ever want to hit a full-grown moose, a genuine threat for our neighbors in northern New England.)
Hitting a deer, even a small one, can be bad enough. Last year, the 3,487 collisions involving deer in Pennsylvania produced nine human fatalities. In Bucks, the 140 reported crashes resulted in no deaths. Likewise, there were no fatalities among the 118 collisions in Montgomery County.
Property damage is another story. Hitting a large or even a smaller animal in the road very often results in a vehicle repair bill in the thousands of dollars. Today’s vehicles are designed to protect the occupants in the event of a collision. The trade-off is that the vehicle absorbs most or all of the impact, and it’s not a pretty sight.
State Farm and other agencies offer a list of tips to avoid a run-in with a deer. One of the most critical is driving slower in areas where deer are apt to venture into the roadway, especially at night and on stretches of road bordered by woods or open fields. Of course, when you drive slower, you can incur the wrath of the guy behind you who’s in a hurry. Our choice would be to risk an obscene gesture in the interest of preserving your car’s body work.
If truth be told, sometimes a collision with a deer is simply unavoidable. And there are very few truly “safe” roads where a deer strike is impossible. You would expect deer to be a common hazard in rural areas. But when development encroaches on animal habitat as it has around here, even heavily populated communities share the space with deer and other creatures.
Constant awareness is the best defense. That and a willingness to take it easy on the speed.
We’re heading into that time of year when deer activity increases. That means more animals on the move, and more chances to encounter one in the middle of the road.
The deer are out there. Drive accordingly.
_ The (Doylestown) Intelligencer
___
DEGREES ARE EXPENSIVE, Sept. 15
With the presidential candidates beginning to weigh in on the high price of a college education, maybe families will finally get some relief from the crushing debt resulting from seemingly endless tuition hikes.
The problem has gotten worse since the early 1980s, when tuition growth began outpacing median family income, making college less attainable both for the middle class and for families trying to reach that level. As a result, students attempting to achieve the dream of a college education have amassed a record $1.2 trillion in debt.
Some analysts say student debt could become more destructive to the U.S. economy than the recession-related mortgage crisis, as debt-ridden graduates put off buying homes and starting families.
Seeking votes among that group, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has introduced a college affordability plan that could cost taxpayers $350 billion over 10 years. The plan includes ideas promoted by President Obama, such as indexing some student debt to income, which is being done now, and allowing students to refinance loans much as property owners refinance mortgages to get lower interest rates. By cutting federal interest rates, Clinton would reduce the billions in profits the government earns from student loans. She would also require colleges to be more fiscally accountable.
Other candidates have offered less detailed proposals to cut college costs. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent running as a Democrat, wants tuition-free public colleges. Republican former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is expected to announce his college affordability plan in a couple of weeks.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) is pushing alternative and vocational schools. But Rubio and others should resist the idea of subsidizing for-profit institutions, such as bankrupt Corinthian College, that have produced dubious academic results. Taxpayers could lose as much as $3.2 billion to pay off Corinthian’s student loans.
The college affordability crisis has caused lower enrollment at many small private colleges, and some have closed their doors. A number of historically black colleges are facing extinction, including Cheyney University, which has also suffered from inconsistent leadership. La Salle University is among the Catholic colleges that are struggling. It recently terminated about 20 non-teaching employees and plans other cost-cutting steps through a complete examination of its academic and support programs.
That’s the real key to making college more affordable. Each school must be thorough in evaluating exactly what it must provide to ensure that students get a meaningful education at a cost that does not require them to struggle with debt years after receiving a degree.
Government has a role to play too, though, so it’s good to see the presidential candidates address the issue. But they need to offer more than sweet talk to get votes. They must offer realistic plans that make college more accessible.
_ The Philadelphia Inquirer
___
MILITARY HANGOVER: THE U.S. MUST PUSH FOR CIVILIAN RULE IN THAILAND, Sept. 16
When Thailand’s generals seized power in a coup d’etat against an elected government last year, it looked as if they intended to hand it back to elected civilians quickly.
Now it appears not, raising the sticky question of whether the government of President Barack Obama will observe U.S. law and cut off military aid to Thailand. Mr. Obama has not done so in the case of Egypt, whose government also took power in a military coup. U.S. forces carry out more than 40 joint exercises per year with the Thai military.
Thailand’s generals, who ruled the country of 68 million for many years in the last century, seized power in May 2014. They named a National Reform Council, which was supposed to write a new constitution to be submitted to the population in a referendum by January. The drafting committee took 10 months to produce a document. The council rejected it Sunday, in a 135-105 vote, with the 33 security force representatives on it voting against the draft.
The constitution now goes back to a new drafting committee, which will likely take at least 10 more months to produce a document. That will probably push elections into 2017, leaving the military in power until at least then.
In the meantime, the Thai economy is showing feeble growth under military rule. Civilian political figures, including those of the Pheu Thai and Democrat parties, oppose military rule. In addition, a bomb that killed 20 people at a shrine in Bangkok last month indicated an increasingly shaky security situation, in spite of the military government’s predictable pledges to keep Thais safe.
The Obama administration should respect the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and use a cutoff of U.S. aid to Thailand as an incentive to the Thai generals to accelerate the process of returning the country to civilian rule. Neither Thailand nor Egypt benefits from military rule, and the United States should not support it.
_ The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
About Post Author
