Blog 12

Because I am incredibly selfish and only care about how events affect ME, I have been ranting and raving about the writer's strike in Hollywood for about a week now. Being a frustrated writer myself, I understand the Writer's Guild's desire to make more money from online sales of their shows, especially since "the suits" are certainly making the big money from new media. Still, striking writers means no new TV and I love TV, so I am taking the whole thing as a personal affront. But, a story I read at http://www.womensenews.org/ has made me think about all of the little people who are being affected by the writer's strike, and of course a majority of these little people are women.

Sandra Kobrin writes about all of the writing assistants, secretaries, and crew members who work for a salary to support the writers who are striking and the shows that are going dark. These workers, lower paid than the writers and not getting residual payments to keep them afloat like the writers, are being pink slipped as the strike drags on. And who are these cogs in the machine? Not all are women, but the majority seems to be. And who are the striking writers? Not all are men, but only about 28% of paid TV writers and 19% of movie writers are women, so let's just say the majority of the picket line walkers are male.

I'm not sure what it is going to take to bring the two sides of this mess to some sort of amiable agreement, but here's hoping that something gives soon. That way, I can go back to watching brand new episodes of my favorite mind rotting television shows, and the young women who work, largely unnoticed and unappreciated, to support the Hollywood system can go back to work. Rents and student loans don't pay themselves, as I well know.

For Sandra Kobrin's complete story, please go to http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3385/context/archive

Blog 11

So, another Election Day has come and gone, and a very interesting thing happened in my little ole' home town. I would say that my little corner of the world (and it is literally the corner of the state) is fairly provincial, staid, right wing, and a Republican bastion of supposed family values. Except for the rampant meth labs and arrests for possession and intent to distribute. But that is a topic for another day. Today, we are talking about the re-election of our female mayor, and voting in of her party as the majority party on the City Council.Now, granted this particular mayor is a Republican, which I don't personally get because a female Republican to me is like a water phobic mermaid. The two just seem to be at odds. But, she is a woman, and her election 4 years ago did cause some consternation amongst the masses, especially the old guard on the City Council. The Council was made up primarily of old men who had been in their positions for years, and the thought of taking orders from a woman was simply too much. This is where the problems started.

For four years, the mayor had to do battle with these male chauvinist yahoos. They would not back her on anything. The town needed a new library, which she backed and they didn't. The town needed a new entrance to a strip mall that was in desperate need of new tenants. The council portrayed the mayor as a spend thrift who was tossing our money around willy-nilly. So when this years election came about, I was less than surprised when one of the Council members decided to run against her. One of the council members even decided to chance party affiliation, presumably to avoid any comparisons with the mayor. These ill advised decision would come back to bite both of these gentleman in the ass.

The mayor won her reelection bid, with 60% of the votes. The Council member who changed his party lost his seat , and Republicans were elected pretty much across the board to fill city offices. Both mayoral candidates had run on the platform of bridging the divide that existed in city government. The gentleman thought that the way to do this was to preserve the old guard Council and get a new mayor who would go back to the way things had always been. Instead, the city spoke up and kept the mayor, and elected a Council that would work with her, and not the other way around. I am actually a little proud, for the first time in my life, to say that I live where I do. And I am proud of the mayor, even though we are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, for not backing down and for not calling the council out for their blatant sexism even though she had every right. She ran a clean, honest campaign and won based on her merits and achievements to date. All political races should end so well.

Blog 10

I haven't decided yet who I am backing for 2008. I was leaning toward Obama, but than the whole thing with Donnie McClurkin came up, so I'm not sure where I am at with him. I do think that this is shaping up to be the most interesting, and no doubt ugliest primary and election that we have seen. But what I really want to focus on this week is Hilary Clinton and her reaction to the drumming she got from her Democratic rivals in a debate last week.

Hil has decided to haul out the sex card, for the first, and I hope last time. Her camp implied, in not so many words, that the reason Clinton was subjected to the "piling on" (their words) at the debate was because of what is between her legs, and not because of what was coming out of her mouth. This, to me, is a non issue. If the other candidates, and the event's moderators, had questioned any of the other (male) candidates in this manner, we would not be discussing the matter. It's called, for better or worse, the political process. Hil wasn't singled out because of her sex; she was repeatedly questioned because she is so adept at not answering a question, no matter how many times you ask it. So, apparently, her fellow Dems and the questioners believed that if they kept at her, maybe they could get a definitive out of her.

I hope that the Clinton camp does not expect that Hil should be treated with kid gloves simply due to her sex. If we are going to start placing parameters on how to treat a candidate during a debate because of their "minority status" than that means Obama gets similar courtesies. And less we forget; Mitt Romney is a Mormon, Fred Thompson is elderly, I could go on. So, come on Hilary, man up (Ha! "Man up"). The next time you are the subject of what appears to be overly aggressive and repeated questioning about your stance on something, answer the damn question and stop hiding behind your own petticoats.

For a better, more well thought out opinion on this issue, check out this from The New York Times online: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/us/politics/05memo.html?em&ex=1194411600&en=fbb7e7688aa7f198&ei=5087%0A