Employment Relation

In 1967, Kathrine Switzer wanted to enter the Boston Marathon, but back then, women weren't allowed to officially enter the race. Actually, a "men-only" rule wasn't even stated in the event rulebook - it didn't have to be! That's how male-dominated the running world was in 1967. Switzer applied anyway, using her initials on the application form.

During the race, Boston Athletic Association (and ex-runner) Jock Semple spotted her and tried to forcibly remove her. The photographers captured this dramatic scene - dramatic not only for the violent physical confrontation, but because it makes manifest the moment of conflict between feminism and patriarchal forces. And it also illustrates how men can and do help women in breaking down male bastions and male prejudices: Switzer's coach, Arnie Briggs, helped not only through his coaching, but by encouraging her to obtain an official race number and picking it up in person from officials. Switzer's boyfriend, Tom Miller, supported Switzer by running with her, and he helpfully delivered a shoulder block to the intervening official, Jock Semple.

Wearing an official number made all the difference: Switzer appeared to have been condoned by the Boston Athletic Association for participating in the race, and although Bobbie Gibb defiantly ran the same race, Gibb didn't secure a number and therefore didn't garner the media attention Switzer did.

Switzer chose to kick her inner "nice girl" in the teeth, and that takes courage. Her decision led to an unstoppable chain reaction, and for that, I salute her!

Related links:

Thanks to A Bird's Eye View, who originally brought Kathrine Switzer to my attention with her post, "She runs because she feels like a hero".

Here are some related links:

• Kathrine Switzer website: http://www.katherineswitzer.com/
• "Life is for Participating" - a chapter from Gail Waesche Kislevitz's book, The Spirit of the Marathon (Breakaway Books, 2002), with an introduction by Switzer.
• "Four Who Dared" by Marlene Cimons, chronicles in more detail women who ignored the Boston Marathon's men-only rule and entered the race.

But of course an anti-feminist, anti-women, pro-neoconservative Republican ideology group such as the Independent Women's Forum, would be thrilled to hear of Bush nominating John G. Roberts to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Shocking isn't it--that a group who endorses misogynist neocon-Republican propaganda would support the nomination of an anti-women's-reproductive-rights ideologue?

[...]"Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is a very well qualified candidate with a reputation of being a strict interpreter of the law rather than someone who legislates from the bench," said Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum.[...]

"We look forward to the confirmation process and hope that the Senate will focus on Judge Roberts' record, intellect, and judicial philosophy and not try to apply a 'litmus test' by questioning his views on specific matters that might come before the Court," said Pfotenhauer.

President Bush will announce his decision for the Supreme Court nominee tonight at 9pm EDT.

Slate has a short list of the backgrounds of some of the potential nominees, as does a special report in the NY Times online, and really, none of them look very promising.
Ok, that's a bit of an understatement.
All of them look pretty dooming for the future of women's choice, not to mention the other innumerable basic civil rights that Americans now enjoy.

The rumor is around Edith Brown Clement, who the AP seems to think would be the best choice for us pro-choicers.
Um, yeah. Sorry, guys. Not really.
NARAL's Nancy Keenan has this to say about Judge Clement:
"Edith Brown Clement is a worrisome choice for the United States Supreme Court. Judge Clement, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by President Bush in 2001, has not directly dealt with the right to choose while on the bench or in private practice. However, she has been an active member of the Federalist Society for Law and Policy Studies, a conservative organization with many prominent anti-choice leaders and members."

Also
I can't decide whether this is good or not, but the dying Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced some days ago that he intends to stay on the bench as long as his health permits. It seems that Rehny and I have differing views on what his health actually does permit, since he looks like he's about to keel over any minute now. I don't know that Bush can really nominate anyone worse than Rehnquist and get them through Congress, but I also don't know that I want to see him try. Yeah, Rehnquist is an assface and as antichoice as most people Bush could nominate, but somehow, I think he has at least some kind of dignity and human respect left in him, something I don't know I'd be able to say for whoever Bush might end up forcing through in his place.

Dear Mr. President:

We write in order to urge that you require your Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, to either come forward immediately to explain his role in the Valerie Plame matter or to resign from your Administration.

Notwithstanding whether Mr. Rove intentionally violated the law in leaking information concerning former CIA operative Valerie Plame, we believe it is not tenable to maintain Mr. Rove as one of your most important advisors unless he is willing to explain his central role in using the power and authority of your Administration to disseminate information regarding Ms. Plame and to undermine her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

We now know that e-mails recently turned over by Time, Inc. between writer Matthew Cooper and Time editors reveal that one of Mr. Cooper's principal sources in the Plame matter was Mr. Rove. This has been confirmed by Newsweek and two lawyers representing witnesses involved in the investigation. Mr. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, also has confirmed that Mr. Rove was interviewed by Mr. Cooper in connection with a possible article about Ms. Plame three or four days before Robert Novak wrote a column outing Ms. Plame as a CIA operative.

We also know that Mr. Rove told Chris Matthews that Ambassador Wilson's wife and her undercover status were 'fair game.' A White House source also appears to have previously acknowledged that Mr. Rove contacted Mr. Matthews and other journalists, indicating that 'it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger.'

The above facts appear to be directly inconsistent with previous statements by you and representatives of your Administration concerning leaking in general and the Plame case in particular. For example, on September 30, 2003, you stated 'there's just too many leaks [in Washington]. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.' You also stated 'I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.' On October 10, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked if Mr. Rove or two other aides in your Administration had ever discussed the Plame matter with any reporter, and he stated he had spoken to Mr. Rove and the others and 'they assured me that they were not involved in this.'

Regardless of whether these actions violate the law -- including specific laws against the disclosure of classified information as well as broader laws against obstruction of justice, the negligent distribution of defense information, and obligating reporting of press leaks to proper authorities -- they seem to reveal a course of conduct designed to threaten and intimidate those who provide information critical of your Administration, such as Ambassador Wilson.

We hope you agree with us that such behavior should never be tolerated by any Administration. While it is acceptable for a private citizen to use every legal tool at his or her disposal to protect himself against legal liability, high-ranking members of your Administration who are involved in any effort to smear a private citizen or to disseminate information regarding a CIA operative should be expected to meet a far higher standard of ethical behavior and forthrightness. This is why we believe it is so important that Mr. Rove publicly and fully explain his role in this matter.

Sincerely,

Drafted by Rep. Conyers, as reported by RawStory.

Oh, but Rove's lawyer says that Rove didn't do the leaking:

Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," Luskin said. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl."

Then he grinned and said, "Trust me."

This is just lovely:

Linda Lee Smith, 52, has spent 24 years in prison in the murder of her 2-year-old daughter, Amy. Although the parole board has declared her suitable for release six times since 1989, the state's governors have decided otherwise.

Smith was convicted of second-degree murder in San Luis Obispo County in 1980 and sentenced to 15 years to life after she did not stop her boyfriend from fatally beating Amy. Whether Smith participated in Amy's abuse was hotly disputed at her trial. The prosecution argued that by not aggressively intervening, she condoned the violence.

That Smith may have been a victim of domestic violence was no defense, Schwarzenegger said. He said in his May 18 letter denying parole that Smith still poses "an unreasonable threat to public safety."

Yeah, she may be averse to getting the living shit kicked out of her by a new boyfriend, so that makes her a menace to society. Thanks, Arnold, for clearing that up.

But she's not the only one.

Oberman and other legal scholars say there is no doubt prosecutions and convictions of mothers in children's deaths are on the rise. Anecdotal evidence from court dockets supports that:

• In Lake County, Ind., the county prosecutor isn't excusing Felicia Gordon for not intervening in the fatal beating of her son George, 7, in March. Gordon, 27, of Gary, was charged with murder after her boyfriend repeatedly hit, punched and kicked the boy to death. She admitted to police that she could hear beating and screaming for 10 minutes. Her attorney, Lemuel Stigler, says she stayed in another room during most of the incident because she was trying to protect her other son, a 1-year-old. She says her boyfriend pointed a gun at her after the beating and threatened to hurt her if she called police. If convicted at her trial this summer, she could face more than 65 years in prison.

It seems that this "Sophie" made the wrong choice -- she was supposed to go get herself and both of her sons killed. Anything short of that is simply child neglect!