you heard it there first...

Yet another reason we loves the bike.

And the reckless girls.

And the outcast women.

the edge of the First Ammendment

Recently heard on the news of a muslim woman who was granted a new trial in small-claims court after her previous case was dismissed because she wore a scarf and veil in court, only revealing her eyes.

I'm all for religious freedoms. More specifically, I'm more for freedom FROM religion, but that's another post. However if a person can't be identified as a matter of course of their religious beliefs, how can the state/court provide justice for the offenses against them? The state/court needs to know WHOM it's serving. There are some technical issues to this argument which I'll overlook for the moment (she could be identified by fingerprints I'd assume, if that's not a modesty issue). There's the potential solution that the case be tried by a female judge, but that would prevent men from being in attendance in the court, which would put court operations in secret, violating the rights of more people in the public by inducing gender discrimination... right?

Of course, now I'm really curious about other photo-ID based issues surrounding muslim women that wear the niqab or burqa... Can one get a driver's license? What's the point of photo ID when your face is covered? And even if driving is not an issue because the woman is not allowed to drive (due to familial or religious restrictions), what about writing a check? Or getting on a plane or train? (I'm of course ignoring some other important issues here in that the woman in the news was in court contesting damages to a rental car - how did she rent the car without showing her face?)

There's lots of issues here with women's rights in what may (or may not) be perceived as oppressive religious lifestyles. Those issues may (or may not) be relieved by the women, in their religious beliefs, giving up control of their lives by their own consent (which brings up even more issues about whether a sound-body-and-mind adult citizen can legally reliquish consent i.e. the Spanner case).

I suspect you can't actually buy TPE on ebay, but it's kind of funny that it was a sponsored link when searching for a link to the UK court case.

But really what I mean to throw out there is: We live in a world where photos of people's faces are the de-facto standard for identification and person-to-person authentication. Can an individual expect all of the rights and privileges afforded others while not revealing their face? Must an alternate means of identification become available and pervasive, like ADA provisions, to serve citizens with specific religious beliefs?

I'm kind of curious about both Muslim religious leaders as well as what the courts have to say, I'm sure that this has come up before...

the pink collar

My neighbor appears to have moved out, so there's people rustling around there, sounds like they're painting... which gets me to thinking again about the notion of Pink Collar jobs (mentioned briefly in this previous post). What are the odds that the painter is a woman? Painting isn't a job that requires testicles or any other male anatomy... right? Then why aren't there more female house painters? Is it because of oppression in industry? The painting industry? I thought the interior painting service industry was dominated by the labor of students and part-timers... surely there's no institutionalized sexism there, right? So I'm wondering - why aren't there more women with jobs as painters? My only workable theory is that of self-selection and de facto gender segregation - the same concept that results in the categorization of pink collar jobs.

I got in trouble recently at Book Club when the topic came up. It's hard to say something meaningful in 30 seconds about gender equality in mixed company when it's part of pre-discussion chit-chat. Especially when one can be perceived as a chauvinist pig for not automatically echoing PC dogma. How can we have real and meaningful conversations about equality of the genders (or sexes, whichever you prefer - looking for a definition I can I can finally agree with? Try here) when we're limited by a Least Offensive Vocabulary? Me, I say fuck it. Say what you mean and mean what you say, and let's get on with it.

D.C. and the random thoughts...

Taking the Metro... light rail is totally the way to go. I realize there are many subway commuters who think this is no meaningful revelation, but they don't know how good they've got it (compared to sad bastards like me with no meaningful commuter rail service). Railroads mean:
- No traffic jams, EVER.
- Definite (deterministic) travel times - the train is on a dedicated highway, and runs on schedule.
- Bulk purchasing (with a monthly pass).
- Get some reading done along the way.
- Probably some environmental benefits in there too...
- Meet your neighbors. ... I have driven in my car for 1500 miles over the past week. In contrast to the train and walking, the automobile is isolating and sterile. It keeps us isolated from each other and depersonalizes the human condition all around us. People become the car they are driving. No wonder there's road rage.

Trains: The benefits are legion...
---------------
Overheard on the radio, a discussion of Pink Collar Jobs.

I'd never heard of such a thing codified before, but it puts a name on what has bothered me about whether or not such a thing as gender equality can be realized... not because of law or culture or society, but because of self-selection. There are many women who go into career paths traditionally occupied by women: Teacher, Secretary, Nurse, etc., and regardless of equal opportunities, there remain differences. The day I see a woman on a highway road crew (ok, more than just a token individual) with a jackhammer or a mound of steaming asphalt in hand (instead of working in Flagger position), I will then believe in unbounded equality. Until then, I'm afraid I'm a pragmatist. Ideas and Notions are great, but show me the reality of it.
---------------
Seeing the Vietnam Memorial is hard to describe in words. As I was walking along the wall, I couldn't even begin to imagine, while there by the names etched in granite, being able to speak - for any reason.

There's just... so many. So many that died for this notion of "Stopping the Advance of Communism".

And then Iron Curtain fell in 1989, and it seemed to have fallen all by itself, and Communism was no longer a threat, so one begins to wonder how big the threat really was? Or was it just that it's so easy to judge in hindsight?

openess?

From the book club selection for the month _The Prince of Tides_, a conversation between Tom and his sister's psychiatrist:
----------------
"Every time you say something personal, Tom," she said, "it seems as though you're putting more distance between us. Thee are time you seem very open, but it's a false openness."
"I'm an American male, Lowenstein," I said, smiling. "It's not my job to be open."
"What exactly is the American male's job?" she asked.
"To be maddening. To be unreadable, controlling, bull-headed, and insensitive," I said.
----------------
There's something in there that speaks some truth about the American male experience, whether it be in the boardroom, on the factory floor, or at the NASCAR race. I doubt I can put it into words properly very well, so I'll just leave it with the quote.