Wordcount 1960

January Rants
by Ronald Bruce Meyer
A collection of opinionated thoughts not deserving of a separate page or a full essay

January 23, 2002 What Does Government Do??
My take on the article by M.W. Guzy ("Feel No Remorse - The Corporate Creed") published in the online liberal commentary site TomPaine.com, is that he speaks an obvious truth. Corporations, like The Terminator, are designed for one purpose only: the Terminator's is to kill people, the corporation's is to generate profits. Everything else is secondary. Guzy, a columnist for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, pointed out that asking a corporation to display ethics and conscience in its operation is futile. It's like asking a fundamentalist to stop proselytizing

But here is where government should come in. Unlike most conservatives, who want government restricted to its traditional roles of defending our shores from invasion and our citizens from violent (if not corporate) crime, I think government has a vital role that cannot otherwise be filled. The marketplace won't do it; private watchdogs can only throw a tantrum -- they don't have power against countervailing corporate cash. The role government can, and must, fill, is that of leveler: government can equalize unequal powers, unequal interests.

In its role of leveling the playing field, government can make sure corporations play fair with each other by setting minimum standards of conduct, in business and ethics; government can also act as citizen-advocate, using its power (as Guzy pointed out) to make corporate behavior ethical by making corporate misbehavior too expensive. Money is something a corporation understands. The upside of government meddling in corporate ethics is this: Corporations freed of concerns that their competition can beat them in a race to the ethical lowest common denominator, can better serve their customers, and multiply their profits, by pursuing them both in ethical ways. Only government can assure that end.

January 11, 2002 My letter in print!
Oh, boy! I finally got my letter printed in the Chicago Sun-Times! Too bad it took so long -- I had moved from Chicago to the Washington, DC, area almost a week earlier. And I don't think the Washington Post has ever published one of my pugnacious letters, or paid me to print one of my op-ed commentaries. But there is a certain thrill in seeing your name in print (or, as in this case, on the Internet, which has a wider circulation). I wrote a more detailed rant on this subject on December 28, but here is the letter as it appeared in the Sun-Times today:

One concluding note: The Sun-Times treats me better than the snooty Tribune, which has never published one of my letters in the 26 months I lived in town.

January 7, 2002 When in Rome...
I like to think of myself as a feminist -- inasmuch as a man can be one and still be politically incorrect enough to enjoy printed and video erotica. That said, I found the story in today's Washington Post, about Lt. Col. Martha McSally, particularly compelling. Air Force fighter pilot McSally is a classic over-achiever, realizing that to make it as a female in the male-dominated military, she has to be better than her colleagues. And by many measures she is. In addition, she has the standing to take issue with the policy affecting only Air Force women stationed in Saudi Arabia (74.2% literacy rate for female subjects). She doesn't think it's fair, or even good policy, to be required to wear the customary head-to-toe gown, the abaya and its matching head scarf, similar to the Afghan burqa. She also objects to having to ride in the back seat of cars driven by men she outranks and to be accompanied by a male soldier at all times off base.

The Air Force claims that the policy is for her own protection, presumably from terrorist attacks (as if American soldiers would actually blend in in Saudi Arabia!), but also so as not to offend the Islamic sensibilities of the host government, where separation of church and state is as much of an outrage as mutilation of thieves is here. Lt. Col. McSally's objections are, like her, well reasoned and respectfully articulated. Her supporters, both conservative and liberal, have added their own to a growing list:

 First, that the policy is unconstitutional because it discriminates against women and violates their religious freedom by forcing them to adopt the dress code of another faith.

 Second, "It is unconscionable," says Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), "that our own U.S. government should uphold this institutionalized disrespect of women by requiring that Americans conform to these standards."

 Third, says Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.), "What makes this particularly bizarre... is that we are waging a war in Afghanistan to remove those abayas, and the very soldiers who are conducting that war have to cover up."

 Fourth, the State Department, which is presumably just as concerned about not offending its host, does not require its female employees to wear the abaya. Also, wives of military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia do not have to wear the garment, either. The host government has not officially complained. Indeed, they forbid US military men from wearing traditional Islamic costume.

 Fifth, and this is of particular concern for McSally, the different (inferior) treatment of women off base cannot have a good effect on the treatment of women on base.

 Sixth, isn't it just hypocritical? As McSally pointed out in a recent discussion at National Cathedral School, before an audience of about 200 girls of the upper school, "If it were in our national security to deploy to South Africa under apartheid, would we have found it acceptable or customary to segregate African American soldiers from other American soldiers, and say, `It's just a cultural thing?'"