We have all heard about the horror that certain people feel when their phone numbers are leaked online--I'm pretty sure everyone remembers when Paris Hilton's cell was hacked and the numbers of hundreds of celebrities were suddenly available to everyone on the internet.

Well...it has happened again. This time, it's not your typical celebrity--but someone who maybe should be getting more attention on a national level than he is.

Bill Napoli, the South Dakota Republican who has attracted much criticism for his views on what constitutes rape, was a strong supporter of the South Dakota bill that banned abortions within the state.

Now his phone numbers have been leaked online in the form of a cartoon--although, in all fairness, anyone who was previously interested in his car museum would have been able to find contact information on the web already.

Upon receiving a copy of the cartoon in my e-mail inbox, I thought very little of it--until I got bored enough to actually call the listed numbers. Leaking information on the internet brings up very interesting questions regarding privacy and its respective place within politics, but it also shows that the information age has made room for people to contact politicians in ways that may have never been possible before.

I am not going to pretend to like logic class—the subject is always difficult or inane, never in the middle. In our logic class, we are required to present two articles per semester. We need to evaluate the arguments in terms of what we are doing in class on the day we present, etc. It’s a relatively simple assignment.

Today I became more agitated than usual when a girl stood up to present a letter to the editor concerning abortion. The author of this letter presented a link between poverty and abortion, saying that if President Bush wants to curtail abortion, he needs to work towards an end to poverty. The girl, and most of the class, felt this was a very strong argument. I was slightly appalled, and it wasn’t because I don’t think that President Bush and everyone else should work to eradicate poverty.

I was appalled because although the initial movements for reproductive freedom aimed to make the service available to everyone, abortion is still expensive and remains out of the price range for many people. There is no direct link between poverty and abortion. The fact that people consistently draw this link makes me furious because it is false. I raised my hand and politely pointed out that abortion remains expensive, that most insurance plans do not cover abortion, and that states will not pay for abortions—so abortions remain out of reach for many women, particularly women living in poverty. You can get welfare after a child is born to help with finances, but you cannot use state funds to have an abortion (this is true of any state in the United States, as far as I know). This seems a little silly to me, considering the fact that abortion is legal, and the procedure is hardly cosmetic.

The girl was absolutely convinced that Planned Parenthood performs free abortions, which is not true. She said that people have abortions because they “can’t afford to have children.� This is partly true, but the difference between not having adequate funds to have a child and actually living in poverty is definitely real. They are not interchangeable and they are not one in the same.

On a deeper level, the link that people consistently draw between living in poverty and having abortions upsets me because it completely subverts what the right to abortion is all about, which is reproductive freedom. Abortion rights are about privacy and being able to control your own body. I fail to understand why people still need to attribute a cause to abortion other than not wanting to have a child. Why is not wanting to have a child not enough? Why is it necessary for so many people who claim to be supportive of abortion to somehow turn the women having abortions into objects of pity, with problems that are always bigger than pregnancy? Health issues, sexual assault, and poverty are just a few of the reasons that people will link with abortion. What if ____? But what if _____?

What if someone just does not want a child?

That should be more than enough—there is no need to link other issues (which are certainly very real and tangible issues) to abortion. The abortion debate should be about choice, not about conditions.

I will be the first to say that I missed the actual broadcast of this piece of news tonight (I've more or less put my TV out of commission). A video about the case is viewable from this page. There is also a story about what happened.

First of all, I think it's a miracle that they actually found the man responsible for the phone call. I was kind of shocked to read that phone calls like this have been happening for a decade and that such calls have, in several cases, led to sexual abuse.

What I thought was interesting was this:

Gardere goes on to say that it was no accident that caller was targeting fast food restaurants.

"Everything is by the book," he explained. "This is how you serve it. This is exactly how you do it. You follow the book — you're OK. I believe he picked fast food restaurants because he knew, once you got them away from that book, once it was something outside the manual or the procedures, they would be lost."

...

This can't be entirely far from the truth. Companies such as McDonald's thrive on automation and procedure in all facets. While there is a large degree of automation involved with most aspects of working for a company like McDonald's, what does it say about the scope of knowledge about legal rights within the United States if someone can call a restaurant pretending to be a cop and the rest of the people subsequently claim to see no reason why they shouldn't do exactly what this voice tells them to.

Maybe the level of deference to authority has gone completely overboard...or perhaps these bogus phone calls have only resulted in sexual assault because the people involved were really just that ignorant.

But honestly, having worked in supervising positions in a variety of jobs, including fast food, I cannot imagine thinking it would be legally okay to strip search an employee because someone on the phone told me to. Nor can I imagine leaving someone sitting in an office, naked and humiliated, for hours while under the pretense that an officer was going to be arriving shortly.

It's very easy for people to talk about the variety of freedoms that citizens of the United States are guaranteed--but what good are those freedoms to people who don't understand what they mean?

And none of that even begins to delve into what should be a basic understanding of human rights...

The Guerrilla Girls appeared to be having legal troubles in early 2005

In all honesty, I hadn't read anything about the Guerrilla Girls in ages. They were one of those groups that always brought interesting discussion to the table and although I had assumed they were still active, I never saw advertisements of any sort for Guerrilla Girls appearances, etc.

I stumbled across the previously linked New Yorker article while researching for a history presentation. I was a little shocked to see that the Guerrilla Girls are actually involved in such a legal battle...especially since it appears they are involved in a legal battle with each other.

Then my professor, Judith Roy, mentioned something that I had not even contemplated previously. The two members that are actually suing were members of the Guerrilla Girls from the inception of the group. These are women who wanted to focus on issues of sexism and racism in the art world. These are women who wanted to topple the 'isms' for the benefit of not only themselves but also for the benefit of future artists.

It's not as though the Guerrilla Girls had no impact. They certainly did have an impact, however, racism and sexim still pervade the art world. The Guerrilla Girls even discussed this fact themselves in their book, The Guerrilla Girls' Bedside Companion to the History of Western Art. This isn't for lack of trying on the behalf of groups such as the Guerrilla Girls--it's because sexism and racism are mindsets that have proven to be difficult, sometimes seemingly impossible, to erase.

The Guerrilla Girls did a lot to combat racism and sexism in the art world. Just exposing the issue is doing more than nothing--and the Guerrilla Girls took it a step further by calling out galleries, auction houses, art critics, and art collectors alike for their discriminatory policies.

It seems that as time has moved on, the art world has stopped evaluating racism and sexism within itself--and the focus of the Guerrilla Girls has changed as well. Their last book, Bitches, Bimbos, and Ballbreakers: The Guerrilla Girls' Illustrated Guide to Female Stereotypes, is just one example of their departure from their original goal. Their website also has a parody of the color-coded terror alert released by the Bush administration that is visible here.

It's not that I think that such change is a bad thing. First of all, sexism and racism in all areas of life form a connected force that is harmful to everyone. Second, I love what the Guerrilla Girls bring to the table. They make feminism fun. They prove that feminists actually do have a sense of humor and that humor can be infused into all areas of life--even areas that are very serious. It just seems that this could be something that would be upsetting to original members of the Guerrilla Girls, especially since sexism and racism are still pervasive forces in the art industry.

Hopefully, the Guerrilla Girls will get all of their internal conflicts resolved. Lordisa knows they are still needed--both in and out of the art world.

Inga Muscio is back with a new book. Personally, I’m not sure that I could be happier about it. Muscio’s first book, Cunt: A Declaration of Independence, changed the course of my life. To put it bluntly, Muscio used the power of words to open my consciousness in ways I could never have anticipated. Over time, I have discovered that I am far from the only person who felt this way.

Apparently this is Inga Muscio’s goal and her talent because she has done it again with Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil: My Life and Times in a Racist, Imperialist Society.

Weaving history, observations, and personal experiences together, Muscio dissects the white supremacist nature in an accessible, painfully honest, and eye-opening manner. Explicitly explaining how racism infiltrates every aspect of life in the United States, Muscio also discusses animal rights and environmental issues, leaving readers with a coherent understanding of the nature of domination.

Sometimes reading this autobiography is painful—Muscio invites and elicits introspection that might hurt. In the end, however, hope is offered and knowledge is gained. This is the kind of pain that leads to improvement and consciousness, and that kind of pain is something that should never be underestimated.

It’s a shame that the resource packet was cut from the final copy of the book. The bright side is that it is available online at Inga Muscio’s website along with excerpts from the book.

All in all, I’d certainly recommend Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil to anyone who is willing (and I mean really willing) to read, understand, and improve.

Two Winona, MN Students Suspended for Wearing Vagina Monologues Buttons

There has been very heated debate over this matter for the past two days. I've been suprised by the lack of support--particularly from people who align themselves with liberal causes.

The buttons have been called pointless, disruptive, vulgar, and a cry for attention. First of all, there is a definite point to the buttons. Women are taught from a young age to fear their vaginas. Women are encouraged by corporations and by society to hide their periods--feminine products keep getting smaller and they are even making the wrappers 'silent' now. Heaven forbid another women in a restroom hear the familiar sound of a tampax wrapper! The point is, having your period and having a vagina is natural. There is nothing gross or disgusting about it. Why are women taught to be uncomfortable about their own genitals?

Perhaps more importantly, why is a button that is counteracting such negative body image being seen as so inappropriate in a high school setting? Relatively recently, mainstream media has paid attention to the fact that teenage girls have low self-esteem and that low self-esteem can cause all kinds of problems. Teenage girls also suffer from body image issues (a direct result of media that shames the female body). Why is a teenage girl letting other teenage girls know that she loves her vagina--perhaps the most controversial and passively despised part of a young girls body--so wrong?

Because it is disruptive? People learn about vaginas in various high school level classes. The fact that women have vaginas shouldn't be a suprise to anyone in high school. People have alleged that such a button is inappropriate in a high school setting because high schools are full of horny boys. The very simple fact is that young women and girls need to deal with the fact that they have vaginas and boys don't need to be out-of-control balls of hormones.

The teenage drive for sex is due, in part, to hormones. Girls go through this too. The fact is that our society teaches young men that being sexually active and showing that you have a libido is masculine--a mark of 'true' manhood. It makes sense, given this knowledge that teenage boys, who are entering or new to manhood, would be driven to prove themselves. That doesn't make it right.

There is nothing vulgar about the word vagina in and of itself. As a matter of fact, there is nothing vulgar about sex, female desire, yeast infections, or menstruation. These are all facts of life. Vagina is not a profane word.

These girls are not treating this incident as a cry for help. Every interview has shown them to be intelligent, eloquent, and genuinely interested in the Vagina Monologues. What gives?

If a button that says "I (heart) my vagina" isn't appropriate in a high-school setting--I think the reasoning behind such a decision warrants explanation.

Granted, I do understand that Supreme Court precedents have said that public schools can control what a student can and cannot wear. Schools have a right to deem certain things obscene and deem other things acceptable. But where is the reasoning? Perhaps if someone would provide a straight-answer about why this is offensive, vulgar, or inappropriate I would be satisfied. Just because a school has the power doesn't mean they are in the right.