Independent Women's Forum - Anne Trenolone

Debunking, Even Further, the First Lady War Zone Myth

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:36:00 EDT

As I was reading The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" piece on First Ladies and visits to war zones, "Further Debunking the War Zone Myth", I found it interesting, but by no means complete.

"The Clinton campaign has cited newspaper accounts, including one in The Washington Post, to bolster the senator's claim that her now-famous March 1996 trip to Bosnia was the first visit to a "war zone" by a first lady since World War II. She is overlooking a trip to Saigon by Pat Nixon at the height of the Vietnam War as well as a trip by Barbara Bush to Saudi Arabia two months before the Persian Gulf War began."

While I give the Post props for getting down to brass tacks regarding Pat Nixon's visit to Saigon in 1969, I also felt the history of First Ladies dredged for the article was quite shallow. First Ladies and American wars go much farther back than Eleanor Roosevelt. So let's give some credit where credit is due.

OK, yes this historical tidbit does go back farther than World War II, but how soon we forget the trials and tribulations of our young country. Chief amongst First Ladies in war zones and in danger, I would place one Dolley Madison, our nation's fourth First Lady. Note this from the White House Historical Association:

"Dolley Madison continued entertaining at the White House until war virtually reached her doorstep. The dinner table was set for 40 guests the day she left the White House. She and a few servants had remained at the White House, packing up valuable documents, silver, and other items of importance. With limited space, she made choices about what to take and what to leave....Even the soldiers assigned to protect the White House had fled before Mrs. Madison."

Oh, yes, Dolley Madison—she didn't just save the famous Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington from any-old-average fire at the White House. She saved it from being burned by British troops who sacked the executive mansion on the night of August 24, 1814 during the War of 1812. Washington at that point was very much an active war zone. In fact much of the city was burned. Dolly Madison and countless American treasures and documents escaped the White House in a scavenged wagon before British troops arrived, rendezvoused with the President and watched the city smolder from a distance.

Following the war the President and First Lady returned to Washington and Dolley Madison committed herself to restoring the White House as a symbol of national pride.

IWF Podcast: Women and Security in Afghanistan

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:21:00 EST

Allison Kasic and Anne Trenolone discuss the status of women's rights and security in Afghanistan.

IWF Policy Brief #12: Women and Security in Afghanistan: Threats, Challenges, and the Continuing Response

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:28:00 EST

Executive Summary

"Genuine security remains a fundamental prerequisite for achieving stability and development in Afghanistan. Security cannot be provided by military means alone. It requires good governance, justice and the rule of law, reinforced by reconstruction and development." -Afghanistan Compact, January 31, 20061

Two years ago the government of Afghanistan and the international community outlined the terms of the Afghanistan Compact as a framework for cooperation and action to build a stable and secure Afghanistan. Much has changed over those two years-not all for the better-particularly regarding security. In fact, the past year has seen an increase in violence, especially in the southern provinces and in the Afghan capital of Kabul.

Recently, amid pressing domestic concerns, and in the shadow of Iraq, attention has re-focused back on the subject of security in Afghanistan given comments by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding troop levels and the need for forces specially trained to combat unconventional forms of warfare, like guerrilla tactics and what has come to be known as insurgent tactics.

Outside nations and NATO allies can debate troop levels and tactics, but the long term solution is to train a sustainable domestic force among Afghans themselves.2 While all acknowledge security as a major priority within the country, much remains to be done with regard to building a viable, domestic security infrastructure. Coordination among donors and international actors is lacking and while enshrined in the Afghan Constitution, adherence to the rule of law and a dedication to international human rights principles are not always manifested in practice. To this day, Afghanistan lacks a functioning judicial system and a truly federal government whose power extends effectively beyond the city limits of Kabul.

All the above factors, especially effective governance and rule of law, are important to Afghan women who have suffered the most due to the lack of a transparent and equitable judicial system and of a society that recognizes their basic human rights.

Afghanistan is Still VERY Important

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:47:00 EST

Tying-in to the IWF event today here in Washington Securing Afghanistan: The Role of Women, I wanted to highlight an article from the Globe and Mail in Canada, "Being in Afghanistan is Dangerous, not being in Afghanistan is even more Dangerous". It's an Op-ed so it is by no means unbiased, but it illustrates the need for nations such as Canada and the United States and Britain and Norway to not give up on efforts in Afghanistan.

It also illustrates the need for high profile leaders such as the UN Secretary General to call attention to the continuing plights of Afghanistan. It is important to stay engaged in order to help ensure that the same factors that following Soviet withdrawal lead to the creation of the Taliban regime and what became a prime breeding ground for terrorists in central Asia are not repeated. In addition to the event, for those of you not in DC, two new policy briefs on Afghanistan are forthcoming this week.

You mean if I have ovaries, I am obliged to vote for the woman candidate?

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:38:00 EST

According to a CNN article, "Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C." it seems one of the most important determining factors for voters this presidential election season are chromosomes and skin color.

Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.
For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?
No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice.

So does that mean since...

I am Italian, I must be voting for Giuliani;

My dad served in Vietnam, I must be voting for McCain;

I was born in the Carolinas, I must swing toward Edwards;

I've got family ties to Illinois, I must be voting for Obama;

I lack a Y chromosome, I must be voting for Clinton;

I grew up in Texas across the border from Arkansas, I must not be voting for Huckabee—the Razorbacks were old SWC rivals to my Alma Mater;

As I said I grew up in Texas, I must be voting for Ron Paul....

I could go on—apologies to any candidates I did not include in my list, it was by no means intentional—but the fact that anyone of either party would vote solely on the basis of race or gender is as ridiculous as the reasons listed above. And all you have to do to see how off-base CNN was in their correlation is read the comments that came in regarding the original article. Most folks weren't real happy.

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"

The long and short of it is, especially in a time as complicated as the one in which we live, there is way too much to consider that is issue related to base decisions on. Now we are not a perfect electorate and on some level these biological issues may play "a" role, but by no means do they play "the" role in determining nominees or presidents.

In shah Allah (God willing), Women Will Drive in Saudi Arabia; Even Little Sisters

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:19:00 EST

There may be women out there in my home the United States who I might not enjoy sharing the road with, but I respect their right to be behind the wheel. There are hopeful signs this view may be gaining some traction in Saudi Arabia.

According to this piece by Damien McElroy of The Telegraph across the pond in London, "Saudi Arabia to lift ban on women drivers, " that change may be on the way in the coming year:

Saudi Arabia is to lift its ban on women drivers in an attempt to stem a rising suffragette-style movement in the deeply conservative state.
Government officials have confirmed the landmark decision and plan to issue a decree by the end of the year.

My favorite quote in the piece is this one by Abdulaziz bin Salamah, the Saudi deputy information minister:

"In terms of women driving, we don't have it now because of the reticence of some segments of society," he said. "For example, my mother wouldn't want my sister to drive.
"It's something she cannot grapple with. But there is change on the way. I think the fair view is that one can be against it but one does not have the right to prevent it."

I know of a few mothers, fathers and brothers who just might agree with bin Salamah, right here in the good-ole USA. Personally, there may be a few fingernail marks on the passenger-side armrest of my own vehicle left there by my mother. That being said, she is the one who taught me drive at 15 and I've been driving ever since.

FOX: Studio B with Shepard SmithGOP polls

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:53:00 EST

IWF Director of Foreign Policy and International Women's Issues Anne Trenolone joined Studio B with Shepard Smith to discuss GOP polls showing McCain surging in New Hampshire.

Venezuelans Say, "Viva George W. Bush!"

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:26:00 EST

Well not exactly, but this kind of irony is what happens when you try to make sense of baited Hugo Chávez logic.

"Whoever votes 'Yes' is voting for Chávez, and whoever votes 'No' is voting for George W. Bush, president of the United States," Chávez told supporters at a huge pro-government rally in Caracas on Friday.
(The Washington Post, December 3, 2007)

It is fairly evident from polls and the like that the United States is not the most popular nation on the world scene these days and neither is our president. But even given the US's and more so George W. Bush's unpopularity the people of Venezuela choose the big, bad, mean United States over a president for life who is empowered to appoint governors and control the Central Bank.

Since 51 percent of voters in Venezuela's Sunday election voted to defeat Chávez's 69 constitutional "reforms", does that mean that a higher percentage of the Venezuelan people support George W. Bush than folks here in the United States. That just goes to show that Chávez 's logic and rhetoric is a bit skewed. As the article notes, it could very well be that this kind of erratic behavior is doing him no favors. Or it could be that the people of Venezuela are smart enough to know, that while not perfect, a democracy with checks and balances on the powers of its leaders is still the best kind of government going on the planet.

Kudos to Venezuelan voters for going to the polls and making their voices heard.

Iraq does have to be won by the Iraqis

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:47:00 EST

Besides his "the surge is working" comment from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today, Congressman John Murtha is telling the Iraqi central government what they need to hear. They do need to make progress, build bridges and clean up ministries that are not delivering results and that are hamstringing progress.

Also, in all honesty the folks on the ground—including those Pennsylvania troops Murtha met with last week—do have a desire to come home, but they have an even stronger sense of duty and conviction to get the job done right. They are being empowered to do the job right and the Congress needs to grant them the funding to accomplish this task.

The truth of the matter is the surge is working and has altered for the better the landscape that US diplomats and the US military are responding to.

However, publicized, Congressionally-prescribed timelines are not helpful to military planners and leaders working in a volatile and ever changing Iraq. Developing a sound exit strategy and publicizing it, for all to digest including insurgent groups, are two very different things.

The US cannot afford to repeat past actions that have withdrawn troops from vulnerable neighborhoods and sectors only to have to reclaim them militarily.

All this discussion of the surge and defense funding for military operations is buttressed by a new optimism among the American public regarding Iraq. A new survey out of The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press states:

A growing number [of Americans] says the U.S. war effort is going well, while greater percentages also believe the United States is making progress in reducing the number of Iraqi casualties, defeating the insurgents and preventing a civil war in Iraq.

Americans are becoming more optimistic about progress, but we should all be prepared that progress may not happen as quickly as we would like. The environment in Iraq is so complex and victories come in small quantities one by one, as is being illustrated on the streets of Baghdad daily.

Going back to Congressman Murtha, he makes a point that I am sure many on both sides of the aisle would agree with. Iraq has to be won by the Iraqis. They have to want it and they must seize the momentum ignited by the surge to make political progress toward stability and reconciliation.

Wait for it: I would hope the indignation and outrage from all sides is right around the corner

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:40:00 EST

Charlotte commented on the editorial out in the London Telegraph which was probably drafted before the people of Khartoum took to the streets today calling for the execution of Gibbons, ie the Teddy Bear Teacher. The entire situation has become downright dumbfounding. It also illustrates the malleability of uneducated crowds to the suggestions of hard-line religious leaders which is unfortunate for those Muslims who are working to bring the true teachings of the Quran to light and practice within Islam.

God help us if word gets around Sudan that the Teddy Bear is named after US President Theodore Roosevelt. In the current environment it seems anything is fair game.

But there is more than one story out in the media these days involving what could be termed unjust punishment that is in no way in accordance with the alleged "crimes" that have been committed. The two cases both involve women and actions that would in most cases not even be punishable offences on about half the planet.

The two cases vary greatly in that one involves a violent crime and one could easily be cited as a cultural misunderstanding. However, both cases do involve strict interpretations of Islamic teachings and the enforcement of these interpretations under sovereign law. While these interpretations are not embraced by all Muslim communities or cultures, they are still very much on the books in countries like Saudi Arabia and Sudan, illustrated this week by ongoing coverage in the media of a gang-rape victim and a teddy bear wielding school teacher. The punishment in both cases is unacceptable for a man and it is unacceptable for a woman, especially women without malice of intent.

The first case involves a Saudi woman who was raped in 2006. The unidentified woman's plight has drawn international criticism after an appeal increased her 90-lash sentence to 200 lashes and six months' jail.

The men found guilty of the attack were sentenced to two to nine years in prison. The woman, the victim, was convicted of violating Saudi law by not having a male guardian with her at the mall. The Associated Press explains the situation this way:

Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives. Also, women in Saudi Arabia are often sentenced to flogging and even death for adultery and other crimes.

The women's husband also a Saudi has been quoted as saying:

"From the outset, my wife was dealt with as a guilty person who committed a crime," said her 24-year-old husband. "She was not given any chance to prove her innocence or describe how she was a victim of multiple brutal rapes."

The Saudi government has sought to distance itself from this case as a product of a judge, the judicial and courts system and not of the ruling government per se. Word now is that the case is going to be reviewed. Let's hope the review goes better than the appeal.

Second out of Sudan and here via Reuters is the Teddy Bear incident:

Gibbons, of the private Unity High School in Khartoum, was arrested Sunday after one of her pupils' parents complained [news reports filed after this one have since revealed that the school's office assistant, Sara Khawad, not a parent, had complained to the education authorities—leading to the teacher's arrest], accusing her of naming the bear after Islam's chief prophet. "Muhammad" is a common name among Muslim men, but connecting the Prophet's name to an animal could be seen as insulting by many Muslims.

If found guilty of inciting hatred and insulting religion Gibbons could face up to 40 lashes and six months in prison.

But here again as in the Saudi husband's defense of his wife; even people in Sudan intimately involved with the incident, see the prosecution of the offense as excessive. As first quoted by Reuters and here from the London Evening Standard a quote from the mother of one of Gibbons' students:

"I'm annoyed ... that this has escalated in this way," his mother said. "If it happened as Mohammad said there is no problem here - it was not intended."

And from The Christian Science Monitor:

"I didn't complain and neither did any of the other parents," said one Sudanese mother whose 7-year-old son had hosted the bear for a weekend. "Anyway, she didn't name the bear - it was the class. Really, we think she is a good teacher."

But the other side says this, according to news reports leaflets distributed in Khartoum read:

"What has been done by this infidel lady is considered a matter of contempt and an insult to Muslims' feelings and also the pollution of children's mentality as an attempt to wipe their identity."

Both cases are being watched closely. The teacher has been sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation. My opinion is that deporting those who are working toward positive change in Sudan is hardly the right direction for that country.

Many have likened this case to the Muhammad cartoon controversy that erupted international discord. But I was reminded of the case of Micheal Fay. These women's punishments make Michael Fay's four cane lashes after being convicted of vandalism in Singapore in 1994 look like some exotic spa treatment (a link for those who may not remember the Fay-Singapore incident).

In regards to that case:

The official position of the United States government was that while it recognized Singapore's right to try and punish Fay with due process of law, it deemed the punishment of caning to be excessive for a teenager committing a non-violent crime.

Here is what the US has had to say about the two above cases.

Even with the Annapolis conference on the horizon on Monday, White House spokesman Dana Perino condemned the Saudi court action:

I don't think it matters if you're a female or a male. I think that the situation is very discouraging and outrageous. There is an appeals process and we hope that the verdict changes. It is certainly not consistent with the judicial reforms that the Saudis have said that they would undertake.

While the blogosphere and the cable news channels have latched on to both stories, and Ms. Perino commented from the White House, the US State Department has noted the events but not taken any solid stance on either. On the Saudi Case:

We have expressed our astonishment at such a sentence. I think that when you look at the crime and the fact that now the victim is punished, I think that causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment. But it is within the power of the Saudi Government to take a look at the verdict and change it.

And this as a follow-on, both from State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack:

This is a part of a judicial procedure overseas in the court of a sovereign country. That said, most would find this relatively astonishing that something like this happens.

Regarding the Teddy Bear Incident McCormack had this to say:

We are following the situation of the British teacher closely and with concern.

But official positions of the State Department are not limited to only what Sean McCormack has to say in the daily briefings. Note this excerpt from the State Department's latest country reports on human rights practices:

Saudi Arabia 2006
The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to peacefully change the government; infliction of severe pain by judicially sanctioned corporal punishments; beatings and other abuses; inadequate prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, sometimes incommunicado; denial of fair public trials; exemption from the rule of law for some individuals and lack of judicial independence; arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, and correspondence; and significant restriction of civil liberties—freedoms of speech and press, including the Internet; assembly; association; and movement.

Under Sudan, following references to the genocide in Darfur, accompanied by the heading "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" is this:

Sudan 2006
In accordance with Shari'a (Islamic law), the Criminal Act provides for physical punishments, including flogging, amputation, stoning, and "crucifixion"—the public display of a body after execution. Under the interim constitution, the government officially exempts the 10 southern states from Shari'a law, though some judges in the south reportedly still observed it. Northern courts routinely imposed flogging, especially for production of alcohol.

These reports are required by statute and use internationally recognized human rights as a baseline.

It is well known what is going on in regards to these issues. These two cases have only brought these issues more closely in focus for America and the world. It is unfortunate that those who would seek to live through Islam as a religion of peace are continually hamstrung by unreasonable and irrational responses that only make the divide amongst cultures and peoples broader, deeper and more vehemently held. It would be my hope that a response from those who do seek to live as Muslims in peace join the chorus of outrage and condemn these actions.

Es la economia estupida! Not to mention that whole President for life deal

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:15:00 EST

There are rumblings near the Equator. It seems Hugo Chavez may have finally reached the end of his people's tether in his quest to turn Venezuela into a modern socialist utopia. News out of Venezuela this morning—which has been percolating over the last month—reports that a key general, and Chavez's own ex-wife, are opposed to the reforms ensconced in the constitutional vote set for December 2. Also, just this afternoon, students and protesters have taken to the streets of Caracas and other cities to oppose the changes and urge voters to reject the amendments. From The New York Times:

"Chávez is delirious if he thinks we're going to follow him like sheep," said Ivonne Torrealba, 29, a hairdresser in Coche who supported Mr. Chávez in every election beginning with his first campaign for president in 1998. "If this government cannot get me milk or asphalt for our roads, how is it going to give my mother a pension?"
Despite an oil-fueled economy that has lifted purchases of goods like cellphones and cars, economic concerns related to shortages of basic foods and rising inflation are weighing on voters. So are fears over measures that would greatly enhance Mr. Chávez's power, like abolishing his term limits and easing expropriations of private property.

Protesters argue the proposed amendments would do away with key freedoms in the country, such as freedom of speech. Chavez counters that he needs these tools to steer the country toward socialism (see utopia above). To read up on the issue follow these links to stories from Bloomberg and the Associated Press.

Venezuelan students, police clash

Venezuelans March Across Caracas to Protest Chavez Constitution

Is Globalization Really the Evil Monster People Think it is?

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:00:00 EST

I heard an interesting commentary piece on NPR, to be exact it ran on Marketplace, last evening that links in well with IWF's upcoming event: Success in the Global Economy: An Agenda for the 110th Congress which is focusing on the US economy in the context of globalization.

The piece notes an article that ran in The Wall Street Journal, "A Globalization Winner Joins in Trade Backlash" that contains this eyebrow raising statistic:

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted earlier this month found that 60% of voters nationwide agreed with the statement that "foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy.

Of note is that the Marketplace commentary offered up by Paul Krugman was not exactly what I expected. Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times whose latest book is called The Conscience of a Liberal and his warning to Democratic presidential candidates is "Cool the Globalization Rhetoric". The intro to the piece sums it up this way:

A funny thing's happening on the way to the Democratic presidential nomination. The Wall Street Journal pointed it out the other day. Iowa voters are worried about the after-effects of globalization. So worried that the major Democratic candidates are working overtime talking down free trade. Globalization is turning into a hot-button campaign issue. Republicans are having their problems, too.
But commentator Paul Krugman says, its effects on the U.S. economy are overblown.

Krugman himself offers this:

Let's start with the idea that globalization makes it impossible for American workers to earn good wages. The facts say otherwise.

Both pieces offer a good picture of the globalization debate at the grassroots level.

FOX's Studio B: Poll showing Gov. Mike Huckabee in first place in Iowa

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:22:00 EST

Anne Trenolone discusses the latest poll showing Governor Mike Huckabee set to be in first place in Iowa.

IWF Policy Brief #9: Ensuring Women's Rights in Iraq

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:23:00 EST

Download the complete Policy Brief below.

Executive Summary

It is essential that Iraqi women continue to play a vital role in their emerging democracy. Through their active participation in their government and civil society they must work to maintain their human rights to be governed by civil-not religious-courts and statutes in matters of family law such as divorce, inheritance, and child custody.

Iraq is nothing without the full integration and participation of half of its society, its women. Women doctors and pharmacists, teachers and scholars, housekeepers, and seamstresses; have struggled through the wars and strife of the past 40 years and have worked to raise children and support families through numerous hardships. Denying them their rightful place in a democratic Iraq would be a catastrophe.

In February of 2004 women successfully secured a retraction of the Iraqi Governing Council's Resolution 137-the resolution would have transferred civil actions in regards to family and personal law including marriage, divorce and inheritance matters, to the jurisdiction of clerics and Shari'ah or Islamic law. However, Iraqi women continue to battle against repeated efforts to dismantle the legal tenets which established civil precedence in Iraqi family law in 1959. The most recent attack on women's rights in these matters is enshrined in Article 41 of the Iraqi constitution. Article 41 is in essence a repackaging of Resolution 137. Many see Article 41 and its call for family law to be governed by various interpretations of Shari'ah determined by sect or tribe as a direct contradiction of Article 14 of the same document which states that "all Iraqis are equal before the law." Analysts claim these differing interpretations could in some communities lead to the legal marriage of girls as young as nine.

Maybe USA Today can Start a Trend

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:02:00 EST

You know I was reading Charlotte's post on the coverage of news out of Iraq and Rich Lowry's column on the subject. Both are good but skeptic, commuter and journalism graduate that I am, I always scan the newspaper headlines at the top of the metro stop. Rich Lowry couldn't have known given that his piece was posted at 12:00 am last night that USA Today, the newspaper with the highest circulation in the US, would run exactly the story of a decrease in roadside bombings in the right column, top of the fold in today's edition. Kudos to USA Today.

Then just as an experiment I turned on the TV to see what was running on the major news channels. To my horror, three out of four were running live OJ Simpson coverage. Which station wasn't covering it CNN. Oh, wait, OJ just popped up on CNN. So that would make it OJ across the board.

Can we really say right now if pine chips are better than corn as a bio-fuel?

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:37:00 EST

As a footnote to Charlotte's Web this week on carbon offsets and the US Capitol, I would recommend two articles from The New York Times which also ran this week. The first, "The Carbon Calculus", only references the Capital plant via the photo that accompanies the article, but delves deeper into the issue of carbon trading and some of the potential pitfalls—of course the article doesn't really call them pitfalls. I can't say I agree with the lead of the article that is a bit editorial "A CHANGE is in the works that could go a long way toward making alternative energy less alternative, and more attractive to consumers and businesses." In fact the article clearly lays out the dilemma that a proposed system of cap-and-trade imposed by the federal government "could shake up the economics of energy, handicapping some fuels and favoring others."

This dilemma meshes nicely with the second article, "Fuel without the Fossil" out today (the two are actually part of an energy series by the NYT). "Fuel Without the Fossil" also touches on environmental issues and fuel and the battle to defeat carbon dioxide but underscores the continuing need to encourage competitive innovation in many sectors and to encourage lawmakers at the local, state and federal levels to allow the market to run its course in regards to the emerging bio-fuel industry. With oil at record prices per barrel this week, even average folks are starting to follow this debate and how it will in the short- and long-run impact their pocket books.

FOX Business Channel: The Bundling of Campaign Contributions

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:01:00 EDT

...

Yes, There are Still Women in Afghanistan and Iraq: And They Still Need Our Support

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:37:00 EDT

On the international side of things here at IWF we have for quite some time been working on issues related to the rights of women in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Last night on the Fox News Channel, on Hannity & Colmes to be exact, these women and their rights crept slowly and quietly into the 2008 presidential campaign dialog.

During a joint interview with Fred Thompson and Jeri Thompson, she offered these words:

"The one thing that I might express if I have the opportunity and since you are allowing me to do that, is that it does seem surprising to me that there isn't more coverage of women's rights in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran."

I would agree it is a topic that has faded into the background a bit. Social and political barriers facing women in Iraq remain today and in many ways are exacerbated by the ongoing conflict surrounding them. Traditional ideas about the role of women in society predominate. An ongoing struggle remains as religious extremists attempt to curtail women's roles and rights in society.

And in Afghanistan even with the legal barriers removed requiring women to wear the Burqa and with young girls attending school, challenges remain. The Taliban and its supporters have focused on the destruction of schools in an effort to deter attendance and push girls back into their homes. Some girls' schools in more dangerous provinces have even gone back underground. But what I would add is that women in Afghanistan are far from being victims. They are a vibrant, reticent group. And while they may still navigate their society with an abundance of caution under the cover of their blue burqas, they are out on the streets, they are working, they are making money and they are striving to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Is this strive to improve their lives the picture of progress we may have envisioned as westerners (particularly western women), where women throw off their burqas, embrace jeans and t-shirts on the streets and defy anyone to get in their way, no...but it is a start. As I have said on this blog before, change will come slowly.

Click here to reach the video link to the second portion of a three part interview posted on foxnews.com and hear these comments first hand or click here for the transcript.

*As a note, I inserted the text marked (inaudible) on the transcript because essentailly, it's easier to transcribe a few sentences than an entire interview :)

On Iraq Coverage, Don't Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:20:00 EDT

So we're talking about Iraq today. Well, Iraq is something I definitely have some opinions on and with all the Britney Spears coverage, SCHIP, Rush Limbaugh and-yes-Princess Diana coverage over the last few days on the news channels it hasn't really been at the top of the news feeds, though the papers have as always been plugging along on Iraq stories as Stanley Kurtz and apparently some others have noted.

But I am going to have to take issue with Stanley Kurtz on The Washington Post's series on IEDs.

I don't think this series is some kind of concerted effort by the Post to look backward at only the bad things happening in Iraq and somehow dismiss any progress during the last few months. Note this from the introduction to the four part series:

"The number of IED attacks declined in Iraq late this summer after five more U.S. brigades took the field as part of a troop "surge" ordered by the White House. American casualties from IEDs also dropped. Throughout Iraq, more than half of all makeshift bombs are found before they detonate."

If massive aerial bombing in World War II-reaching its final culmination in the release of the atomic bomb-was one of the lasting tactics of that brutal war, the rise of improvised explosive devices (IED's or roadside bombs as they are also known) have been a, if not the, defining tactic of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a topic worthy of detailed coverage and defeating this weapon will have far reaching consequences beyond Iraq.

Although the series is not a bed of roses in its description of a complex issue it does include reporting on "heartening developments":

"We've saved a lot of lives," Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England said in an interview last month. "We've had people killed and injured, but we've probably saved five or 10 times that number of people by preventing attacks, or capturing and killing [insurgents], or getting caches of weapons, or disabling them."

I might also note that the author of the series Rick Atkinson is an solid reporter and historian who has earned his chops covering not only this conflict but his continuing trilogy on World War II is excellent-and it seems the people who give out Pulitzer Prizes for History agree with me. If you aren't familiar with his book on the North Africa Campaign, An Army at Dawn, and his just released on the invasion of Italy, The Day of Battle, they are worth a look.

Atkinson also wrote The Long Gray Line, a chronicle of the 1966 class of West Point and wrote an account of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, In the Company of Soldiers, where he was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division then lead by one Major General David H. Petraeus, who everyone is very familiar with these days. If I recall correctly, it is from Atkinson's book where I learned of the General's penchant for pop tarts. But I digress.

Atkinson's series obviously took time and effort and the Post also obviously shelled out some bucks on it, so you can't really fault them for hyping it accordingly. Because much as we don't like to think about it sometimes, media is a business after all. Most other four-part, in-depth series would probably receive the front page treatment as well.

Detailed reporting that doesn't merely skim the surface of the real challenges in Iraq and that takes the time to relay the complexities of the situation the military and those working on the ground face every day is hard to come by. Don't discourage it when it does show up.

I think the bigger problem here is that certain folks may be intimidated by a four part series and as much as we American's talk about wanting in-depth, solid reporting, we don't always read it when it is available. We have other things on our minds. So as far as Post coverage on Iraq and its editorial placement, I just want to say, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. And if you didn't read the IED series, give it another chance. This new fangled thing called the internet makes it oh so easy to do.

I would also applaud Atkinson on making the effort to ask senior officials "to review the [article's] findings for accuracy and security considerations." Because when you publicize explicitly even the little things that places like JIEDDO (the Joint IED-Defeat Organization), and soldiers have discovered to combat and thwart IED attacks, they don't work anymore because terrorists and insurgents watch and read the news too.

MSNBC Live: Single-sex Classrooms

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:19:00 EDT

Anne Trenolone will joined MSNBC Live to discuss the debate on single-sex classrooms.

Rally the Diplomacy

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:36:00 EDT

As the situation in Burma, also known as Myanmar following the military junta that installed the current government there, has intensified over the past few days; it has erupted as front page news here in the United States. In reality current events are the product of a frightened government that has systematically used repression for years to instill fear in the Burmese populace.

Over the past year and indeed over the summer and in particular over the preceding months these peaceful demonstrations, lead by monks no less, have grown quietly larger and larger. Now as these demonstrations have focused more clearly the attention of the world on Burma, the military government has begun to crackdown on opposition leaders not only through suppression and violence against protestors in the streets, but through raids and arrests.

The US and the EU has responded with a condemnation of violence and a plea for peaceful dialogue. Still a full-court-press of diplomacy needs to be put into action to help urge leaders and neighbor countries especially China to weigh in on these actions. Both China and Russia also need to be encouraged to take diplomatic action including using their seat on the UN Security Council for positive change.

There may be progress on these points, US Envoy Christopher Hill is working to encourage China to act. I would venture a guess that Russia may be next on his list. Given the fact that China and Russia have both dug in their heels on the Burma issue for quite some time now, this particular diplomatic mission is by no means a slam dunk. Still, every effort at persuasion should be used at this critical time.

Cultures do not change like the weather

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:47:00 EDT

Today The New York Times returns to the subject of female genital mutilation and efforts in Egypt to outlaw the practice and make it culturally unacceptable as well. Both are tough battles to fight. Indented portions are excerpted from the article:

KAFR AL MANSHI ABOU HAMAR, Egypt - The men in this poor farming community were seething. A 13-year-old girl was brought to a doctor's office to have her clitoris removed, a surgery considered necessary here to preserve chastity and honor.

The girl died, but that was not the source of the outrage. After her death, the government shut down the clinic, and that got everyone stirred up.

"They will not stop us," shouted Saad Yehia, a tea shop owner along the main street. "We support circumcision!" he shouted over and over.

"Even if the state doesn't like it, we will circumcise the girls," shouted Fahmy Ezzeddin Shaweesh, an elder in the village.

It pains me in the year 2007 to even be writing on this subject. Something I first learned about in college and was shocked and appalled by then. As an aside that was around about 1996 when Egypt first ordered the practice stopped.

While I applaud the efforts of all those in Egypt working to bring an end to female genital mutilation-and yes, shockingly PC New York Times you should call it that upon your first reference and in your photo captions and everywhere else even if those who "support" it call it female circumcision. Yes, the times has a solid record of covering this topic and bringing the issue to light, but repetition of this inane description of this barbarism as "female circumcision" in a country that is not struggling against the cultural barriers inherent elsewhere only seeks to inoculate readers from the true brutality of this practice.

Female genital mutilation has absolutely nothing in common with the general term circumcision which Americans and western audiences most notably relate to the practice of removing the foreskin of an infant male, a relatively painless procedure that almost all males are subjected too the world over. Female genital mutilation inappropriately called "female circumcision" is an invasive process with long-term health effects, many of them severe. It is the genital equivalent of a frontal lobe lobotomy. Female genital mutilation has been linked to:

Severe and recurrent pain, backache, post operative shock, hemorrhage, damage to other organs, acute urine retention, tetanus and septacaemia. HIV and Hepatitis B transmission may also occur when simultaneous operations are performed on a group of girls.

Long term effects can include difficulties with sexual intercourse, menstrual problems, kidney infection, chronic infection of the uterus and vagina, infertility, acute problems during labor and child birth (and lets remember that the majority of women subjected to female genital mutilation are having babies in areas where assisted births are rare and hospital births even rarer), incontinence, prolapses, chronic vulval abscesses, and sexual dysfunction.

And these are only the physical, not the psychological effects.

Still as I rail on about this practice here in my comfortable office in the United States of America which affords me all kinds of protections-both cultural and legal-from such actions as these; I can understand logically the battle that advocates in Egypt face and that the way they structure their argument (on this point I would direct folks back to my September 11 post on this subject of packaging an argument) will have an effect on their ability to bring an end to this practice. The way to end female genital mutilation may not be the most in-your-face, over-the-top assault on the practice but a measured and structured campaign to change attitudes and actions. The article explains this delicate situation well:

At first, Ms. Assaad and a group of intellectuals who together created a task force simply lectured their neighbors, essentially calling the practice barbaric.

"At the beginning we preached and said this is wrong," she recalled. "It didn't work. They said, ‘It was done to our mothers and grandmothers, and they are fine.'"

She and her colleagues sounded like out-of-touch urban intellectuals, she said. But over time, they enlisted the aid of Islamic scholars and health care workers, hoping to disperse misconceptions - like the idea that cutting off the clitoris prevents homosexuality - and relate to people's lives.

"Circumcision is a very old custom and has absolutely no benefits," Vivian Fouad, who helps staff the national hot line, said to a caller wondering what to do with her own daughter. She continued: "If you want to protect your daughter, then you have to raise her well. How you raise your child is the main factor in everything, not mutilating your daughter."

This question as to how to bring about change among all actors in a community in regards to "tradition" and especially the norms associated with the place and actions of women is not confined only to Egypt and not only to efforts to bring an end to female genital mutilation. Other norms rooted in "tradition" or even just practice, such as women wearing burqas in public in Afghanistan-while no longer legally obligatory-may take longer to be embraced in daily life than in statute. Cultures change slowly:

But as the men in this village demonstrated, widespread social change in Egypt comes slowly, very slowly. This country is conservative, religious and, for many, guided largely by traditions, even when those traditions do not adhere to the tenets of their faith, be it Christianity or Islam.

For centuries Egyptian girls, usually between the ages of 7 and 13, have been taken to have the procedure done, sometimes by a doctor, sometimes by a barber or whoever else in the village would do it. As recently as 2005, a government health survey showed that 96 percent of the thousands of married, divorced or widowed women interviewed said they had undergone the procedure - a figure that astounds even many Egyptians. In the language of the survey, "The practice of female circumcision is virtually universal among women of reproductive age in Egypt."

Though the practice is common and increasingly contentious throughout sub-Saharan Africa, among Arab states the only other place where this practice is customary is in southern Yemen, experts here said. In Saudi Arabia, where women cannot drive, cannot vote, cannot hold most jobs, the practice is viewed as abhorrent, a reflection of pre-Islamic traditions.

To read the article in its entirety and without my commentary click here.

Washington Post on School Choice

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:58:00 EDT

Linking back to my post on DC schools and the charter-Catholic happenings yesterday, the Washington Post editorial page has also chimed in:

We strongly support the efforts of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) to improve the public schools, but no child should have to wait to learn. That's why choice is so important in American education.

Unmarried Parents are a Red Herring in Education Reform

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:55:00 EDT

While I was intrigued to read about the DC schools and their textbook warehousing and was shocked at the similarities this system had to the dysfunctional one used by the national medical establishment to store and distribute -in many cases to not distribute- medical supplies and pharmaceuticals under the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, I was a bit taken aback, by the commentary in an earlier post that single-parent households are innately worse off as learning and homework environments for children.

"There are certainly damaging sociological trends that hinder school performance (unmarried parents who don't provide an environment in which homework can be done-indeed, don't provide an environment where kids are even urged to do their assignments)."

I would argue-and yes it does seem I do that a lot on this blog-that the marital status of a parent has less to do with a parent encouraging a child to complete their homework assignments than other factors. Yes, being a child of a single or unmarried parent can have its difficulties and ideally every child would live in a loving, nurturing household, under the watchful caring eye of both a mother and father, but welcome to the real world. During my formative years I knew many kids from single parent households who excelled in their studies. I also knew kids from typical two-parent, nuclear families who lived in chaos that was reflected in their, let's not say intelligence, but their drive to achieve. My point being, I don't see the correlation.

Working to instill in children the importance of education and learning is part of being a good parent, single or married, mother or father. I would argue, it isn't that there are too many unmarried parents; there are too many parents with misguided priorities. These priorities are indeed a product of society as a whole.

However, when it comes to getting our schools right and in turn working to get children on the right track where learning is concerned, it takes solid teachers, solid administration, involved parents-both married and unmarried-who support those teachers and administrators and an involved community. Combine these human attributes with academic essentials such as proven teaching methods and rigorous curriculum and we can start to talk about real change in education.

An Archbishop Thinking like a CEO

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:23:00 EDT

I missed this Washington Post piece yesterday, but found the concept interesting. Parochial schools, particularly Catholic schools have held a unique position in the US educational system for a very long time. However, it seems in DC, the Catholic diocese is looking at the market and their finances and thinking about making some adjustments especially given the large portion of non-Catholic students who attend Catholic schools in the district. It is a process to be watched carefully. It could be a first of its kind innovation transitioning historically Catholic schools to the public system as charters.