Yesterday, I was walking at an outdoor mall with my husband after attending a poetry reading, enjoying a gorgeous spring day, when two guys approached—one with a big fuzzy mike and the other hidden behind a video camera. An introvert’s greatest fear suddenly leap-frogged into my ordinary day. I frowned at them. But the camera was running, so I moderated my frown. I wanted them to know I didn’t want to be filmed, but they already were filming; I decided I didn’t want to look like a nasty woman on film.

“Hi! We’re from a local university. Can I ask you a quick question?” the one with the mike asked. I didn’t answer. He said, “It’s just one question.” I said nothing, feeling like a stalkee and wanting to stalk away, but that camera was staring me in the face with the guy walking in closer and closer. I was a bug under a microscope. With a pin stuck in it. I thought, What if I can’t answer the question? What if I can’t answer it and it’s a very simple question that everyone should know the answer to? Like those quizzes that show how stupid Americans are. What hemisphere is North America in, the north or the south? Uuuuuh. Duuuuuh. Can you name the capital of Iraq? Uuuumm, how many tries do I get?

I squirmed. I wanted to say leave me alone, go away, get that camera out of my face. Unpin me! I thought of how rude people in Michael Moore movies always look. Rude and stupid—throwing up their hands in front of their faces or trying to hurry away, making everything worse, so much worse. I thought, Michael Moore isn’t here; these guys look nothing like Michael Moore—they’re skinny, they’re young. That didn’t help much. I imagined my face on a big screen and people I know saying, “Oh my God that’s wyrdbyrd; how rude and stupid she looks.”

I uncharitably wished it was my husband who had been cornered. But I’m pretty sure he was sidling away, distancing himself. He was probably having similar thoughts, of the male variety: Do I look rude and stupid? Do I look like a Michael Mooree? Oh God let me out of here; unpin me.

“Do you know who Ron Mason is?” the young man asked and further visions of me appearing before the world, a twenty-foot vision of my clueless face in full digital color, floated into my mind.

“No,” I said in a curt voice meant to cover discomfort and insecurity.

“Thank you, that’s all,” he said, and I fled, pondering Ron Mason. With my haphazard attention to the news, and such an ordinary name, he could be anybody: a scientist who’s discovered a cure for cancer; a surprise candidate for president; the leader of the most famous band in the world; someone who’s been on every television in the nation for the past twelve hours after committing an atrocious act. Someone everyone but me has heard of. I asked my husband, Have you heard of him? No, he said. Well there’s that; If I’m stupid, so is he.

Naturally, I looked up Ron Mason. But not right away—not until today; maybe I wanted to pretend I didn’t care. Turns out he’s a film dude and I sighed a little sigh of relief, thinking these must be film students checking if anyone’s heard of their idol. But not too much relief, because then I imagined my face, wearing my new REI sunglasses, the ever-present groove between my eyes, gigantic on a screen in some classroom, and a bunch of eighteen and nineteen year olds laughing gleefully. And oh yeah, I haven’t had my hair done in five weeks.

But that’s my private face, I want to say to the two men, how dare you commandeer it for your own purposes. That’s my private grey hair peeking out at the roots. Unfair, unfair!

I admit to feeling more sympathy for those people who, cornered, appear rude and stupid and, yes, unattractive, in Michael Moore films. It’s a bit delicious when it’s someone else—particularly someone with obnoxious opinions—but not the least bit of fun when it’s you. I mean me.

I’m sure many women readily relate to Rebecca Solnit’s story of the haughty man talking down to the woman in my last post. A later paragraph in her article reminded me of a difficult time in my life about ten years ago.

Solnit wrote:

Most of my life, I would have doubted myself and backed down. Having public standing as a writer of history has helped me stand my ground, but few women get that boost, and billions of women are out there on this 6-billion-person planet being told that they are not reliable witnesses to their own lives, that the truth is not their property, now or ever.

Now I do not want to give the impression that I am a man-hating anger-filled woman (okay, some anger, but you’ll see why). I have a beautiful husband, I have male friends who are generous and good people. Certain men make me crazy but I don’t hate the male species. There have been periods in my life when I had more male friends than female.

That said, Solnit’s quote, above, reminded me of a time when I was told that I was not a reliable witness to my own life, and yes, that truth, as she so aptly put it, was not my property. One man in particular, and several others, wielded power over me and did their best to keep my story from being told, and later, from being believed.

For eight years, I worked as an analyst in a scientific field. I was adept at my job and, in fact, in a government agency overloaded with retirement-age men, was quicker to learn the latest computer-aided analysis methods. In truth, I was way better at the job than most of the men. (Plus, with my obsessive personality, I could analyze data to death). But they had seniority and I was merely a female contractor (the first woman to work there as an analyst and the only one at the time).

Toward the end of the eight years, one of my colleagues left to pursue a better-paying job. I approached the Chief of the operation about moving into the position that was opening, as it paid higher. Now the Chief, a relic well into his seventies, a veritable computer illiterate who, frankly, did not have the ability to assess the quality and nature of my work, said no. Simply said no. Without discussion. I couldn’t believe it. After eight years, he planned to bring in someone new (a male, no doubt) and train him to do the job for which I was already more than skilled. He not only said no but then—like the true alpha he was—he turned away from me. Not just no, but no you are not even worthy to be standing in my office asking me this question. So I went away, but then I screwed up my courage (it took a lot of um, twisting) and went back to ask him to reconsider, at least to give me an explanation. In his military man eyes, this was insubordination—who the hell was I to ask him for an explanation?—and certainly a shock after all those years of mousy obedience.

To make a long, long story short, the man proceeded to: First, decide to fire me for having the audacity to ask—not once, but twice—to move into a higher position and second, during a long drawn-out legal process, to lie about the work I did (laughable, since he didn’t understand it in the first place). One of his male colleagues, who had worked for him for many years, astounded me by lying or pretending not to remember details, like whether or not I had ever (yes ever in eight years) worked on a particular type of important project, which of course, I had worked on, many, many times and he darn well knew it. It was unbelievable (yes, I was naive). When I went to the Chief’s supervisor to discuss the situation, he attempted to perform certain acts with me (ahem). Does this sound like a very bad movie? It does to me, and it’s my life!

Thankfully, there were some honest men, mostly younger, who were willing to tell the truth and the truth did, in the end, prevail, but only after much tribulation.

Several years before, when I had pointed out to the contract supervisor that I should not be paid less than the men, since my work was similar, though more complex, he responded, “Just be glad you have a job.” As a single mom, I swallowed my anger at the injustice. But one injustice piled upon another was finally too much and I did what I thought was right—I stood up for myself.

This is hard to write about. I don’t even talk about it. It was a tough, tough period in my life. For one, I was taught to be a submissive female by a domineering father who, perhaps not coincidentally, is very similar in personality to the Chief. I also have a naturally quiet disposition. I am not a trouble maker. I decided to do what I thought was right, to stand up for myself and for hypothetical future female-analysts, even though it was extraordinarily difficult. I suppose I also thought it would set a positive example for my daughter, who was eleven at the time:  Look, Mom will not let herself be treated unfairly.

Was it worth it? No, not for me—although it may still be too soon to tell if there was some aspect of that hell that resulted in a smidgen of benefit. The harassment I was subjected to, losing a job I was good at, losing friends, losing the respect of people who did not know my side of the story, losing job references after eight years of devoted work, the incredible strain of legal proceedings, being called a liar (oh, and they tried to hang an affair with a married man on me)—does this sound like a positive event in my life? People who stand up to injustice often pay a huge price and whatever they may get in return is seldom worth it, in my assessment. Let’s just say I did not become a millionaire, but I did, according to one therapist, exhibit symptoms of PTSD, including horrific nightmares that lasted for years. And I think my daughter didn’t need this particular example to respect me—though I tried to behave as I always had, how could the stress not have affected her?

A couple of female analysts were hired after I left. In fact, I imagine the agency was ordered to hire a woman or two and to treat them well; if it were up to my old boss, he would’ve never hired another woman, I am certain of that (he didn’t hire me in the first place, I was inherited from another arm of the agency). So for the new analysts, it was worth it. Ironically, they don’t know me—I doubt they even know they have me to thank for anything. But whether they know it or not, they are standing on my well worn shoulders.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

And:  GRRRR:

McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate

Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had delayed the vote to give McCain’s Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, time to return to Washington to support the measure, which would make it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.

McCain skipped the vote to campaign in New Orleans.

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems,” the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.”

The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.

It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.’s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by supervisors kept her from making more.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last year to throw out her complaint, saying she had waited too long to sue.

A clueless white male bravely standing up against the possibility of increased lawsuits “in a private enterprise system.” You go, John! You know what’s important, man. (Hey, if you’re so against lawsuits and so in favor of equal pay, why don’t you promote enhancing the capacity of the EEOC to do its job?)

I can attest that the time limit is unfair. If you are not lucky enough to quickly find a good lawyer willing to take your case on a contingency basis, the time limit may pass before you can file your lawsuit. While I doubt the value of my own actions, because of the high personal cost, at least I was able to pursue justice, whereas most women in similar situations are denied even the prospect of justice. Of course, Mr. McCain, if the EEOC were properly funded and staffed, it wouldn’t be necessary for all these women to find their own lawyers and sue.

The rest of the news article is here.

I have to share this with y’all (okay. . . all three of y’all who read this blog). Found at Dark Orpheus. It’s long; bear with me, it’s worth it.

Men who explain things
Every woman knows what it’s like to be patronized by a guy who won’t let facts get in the way.
By Rebecca Solnit

April 13, 2008

I still don’t know why Sallie and I bothered to go to that party in the forest slope above Aspen. The people were all older than us and dull in a distinguished way, old enough that we, at 40-ish, passed as the occasion’s young ladies. The house in Colorado was great — if you like Ralph Lauren-style chalets: a rugged luxury cabin at 9,000 feet, complete with elk antlers, lots of kilims, and a wood-burning stove. We were preparing to leave when our host said, “No, stay a little longer so I can talk to you.” He was an imposing man who’d made a lot of money in advertising or something like that.

He kept us waiting while the other guests drifted out into the summer night, and then sat us down at his grainy wood table and said to me, “So? I hear you’ve written a couple of books.”

I replied, “Several, actually.”

He said, in the way you encourage your friend’s 7-year-old to describe flute practice, “And what are they about?”

They were actually about quite a few different things, the six or seven out by then, but I began to speak only of the most recent on that summer day in 2003, my book on Eadweard Muybridge, the annihilation of time and space and the industrialization of everyday life.

He cut me off soon after I mentioned Muybridge. “And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?”

So caught up was I in my assigned role as ingenue that I was perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that another book on the same subject had come out simultaneously and I’d somehow missed it. He was already telling me about the very important book — with that smug look I know so well in a man holding forth, eyes fixed on the fuzzy far horizon of his own authority.

Here, let me just say that my life is well-sprinkled with lovely men, including a long succession of editors who have, since I was young, listened and encouraged and published me; with my infinitely generous younger brother; with splendid male friends. Still, there are these other men too.

So, Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, “That’s her book.” Or tried to interrupt him anyway.

But he just continued on his way. She had to say, “That’s her book” three or four times before he finally took it in. And then, as if in a 19th century novel, he went ashen. That I was indeed the author of the very important book it turned out he hadn’t read, just read about in the New York Times Book Review a few months earlier, so confused the neat categories into which his world was sorted that he was stunned speechless — for a moment, before he began holding forth again. Being women, we were politely out of earshot before we started laughing.

I like incidents of that sort, when forces that are usually so sneaky and hard to point out slither out of the grass and are as obvious as, say, an anaconda that’s eaten a cow, or an elephant turd on the carpet.

The whole piece, from the L.A. Times, can be accessed here.

Rebecca Solnit is the author of many books including A Field Guide to Getting Lost, River of Shadows: Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West and Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have something to say about this, in particular a later paragraph in the article, but I shall save that for another day in the interest of not over-taxing my dear patient friends.

Took Isabel to the park today.  Spring makes us both happy.

We saw a tree with flowers on it and a couple of odd birds. I have no clue what either species is! (If Kirsten stumbles by, maybe she can identify the birds.)

people sending me e-mails with an article by a supposedly reputable scientist saying that global warming simply isn’t happening, or if it is, it’s not being caused by us and therefore, we should carry on with business as usual. It would be nice if global warming were simply a controversial theory. Unfortunately, it’s highly unlikely. I wonder who employs these scientists? Oil and gas companies? Conservative think tanks? There is a huge consensus of climate scientists on the reality of human-induced global warming and we need to take it very seriously.

The writers of these e-mails think it’s cute to use the term “inconvenient truth,” as in it’s an inconvenient truth that global warming isn’t real. Ha ha. We won’t be laughing in a few years if we don’t start doing something concrete about the damage we’re causing. In whose interest is it to dally about while the situation gets worse and worse? Big business, I suppose, but in the long run, it hurts everybody.

Talk of the Nation’s program today was about climate change. One disturbing fact is that the American Southwest may be in for a permanent drought. (Umm—hello, Las Vegas—this is a wake-up call.)

NPR and National Geographic have been publishing a program on climate change for the past year. See here for excellent coverage.

And I think anyone who’s going to bandy about “inconvenient truth” ought to at least see the movie. The evidence is overwhelming. Last summer, we heard a talk by a government scientist; he said that the facts in Al Gore’s movie are not exaggerated. He agreed with it, saying the science was solid. And no, this guy was not, judging by some of his other comments, a liberal. He was a climate scientist, period.

Okay, and while I’m on the topic, another e-mail I recently received that annoyed the heck out of me started out something like this: Isn’t it about time we inconvenienced (that word again!) a few caribou and started drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Excuse me?! Inconvenience a few caribou?! How about inconveniencing a few humans? How about if we started to change our gas-guzzling ways? How about if we took seriously the fact that we desperately need alternative forms of energy? How about not severely damaging a beautiful wild refuge because we are too lazy or greedy (or what?) to change our ways?

Sheesh. End of whine.  Here’s the ANWR.  Imagine:  oil rigs.

Last week was the 40th anniversary of MLK Jr’s assassination.  Until I heard it on the radio,  I hadn’t realized he was thirty-nine years old when he was killed.  I think of his presence, his power, his is-ness—he was thirty-four years old when he gave the I Have a Dream speech during the 1963 March on Washington. Thirty-four!

It seems some people have a lot to accomplish in their time on this earth and they accomplish a lot young perhaps because they’re not going to be here long. They’re going to do what they’re going to do and get it done early because otherwise it won’t get done at all.  I’m not saying this is conscious, but it happens.

I’m reading Flannery O’Connor’s letters, and she is another such young-achiever. It seems she knew she was a writer from the beginning and never wavered. In 1946, at the age of twenty-one, she was accepted into the Iowa Writers Workshop and never looked back, continuously writing short stories and two novels until her death in 1964, at the age of thirty-nine.

I know, I’m such a weirdo, posting over and over about the Tibet situation, including gruesome photos, and then it’s all about my dog. Such is life, eh?

Took these today. I love the accidental artsiness of the second (and the sexy ear flop over the eye—she looks très mysterious). Isabel is six months old. Ain’t she perty? 

Liberal. For a while there I went along and identified myself as Progressive. Some say the L word as if they’re talking about the most evil, most corrupted beings on earth. The RNM has been effective. Yeah, I believe everyone should have access to decent health care (meaning, yes, free, or very affordable) and I don’t believe in war to solve our problems and I think people and their needs (yes, even gay people and poor people and other unpopulars) should come before big business. I also believe we should be responsible stewards of the environment. Go ahead, stamp me with the L.

Religion/Christianity. I know it’s common these days to insist I’m not religious, I’m spiritual. Religion is now equated with rigid belief systems, with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson. And with anti-science, anti-evolution backward-headedness. But I’ve been hanging on to this word. Religion is important to my life; it includes church-going, singing hymns, praying, reading religious books, writing religious gobbledygook. Loving Christ. So no, the fundamentalists cannot have the R word. And they can’t have the C word, either. Christ doesn’t belong to anybody.

Feminism. (The Other F Word.) Okay this one, I admit has been slandered so effectively that I wouldn’t label myself a feminist in most company. But hey, what’s it mean? “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social and economic equality to men. ” Pretty ridiculous, eh? Could destroy the country.

On the smearing of feminism:

One of the most outrageous but effective conservative efforts in the last few decades has been the transformation of “feminism” into a dirty word. What began as the label for those who proudly worked on the frontlines to ensure equal rights for women has now been twisted to serve as a code word for alleged emasculating abortionists who can be blamed for everything from excessive litigation to the gay rights movement to the moral decadence of pop culture.

No one has been more influential in this sleight of hand than the conservative movement’s godmother, Phyllis Schlafly, the Trent Lott of gender equality.

For many Americans, the name “Phyllis Schlafly” conjures up images of her circa 1972 – when she was a Donna Reed doppelganger leading a 10-year battle against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). More than thirty years later, you might think this mother of six and leader of the so-called “pro-family movement” would have long since retired to the kitchen where – she claimed – all women belong.

Alas, she has failed to take her own advice. At 80 years old, she’s still waging the war against equal rights that she began in the 1960s, with the gusto of an overzealous preteen. Her weekly newsletter, The Phyllis Schlafly Report (now in its 38th year) lets her fulminate on everything from gay marriage to feminism in academia. She weighed in on the controversy surrounding Harvard University President Larry Summers’ recent remarks about the place of women in science, saying: “The outburst by feminist professors simply confirms the stereotype … that they are too emotional to handle intellectual or scientific debate.” Her newsletter can be read in 100 newspapers around the country and is accompanied by her radio commentaries, heard daily on 460 stations and on the Internet. Instead of leading the tranquil life of a grandma, darning sweaters and cleaning the oven and taking a few moments out of her day to dash off a bit of punditry, she’s still as hot as any of the fiery young pundits the right has, and she too is working the college circuit. In fact, it seems that Schlafly debates on campuses more frequently than any other conservative.

And a couple of genius quotes from the woman herself:

“The atomic bomb is a marvelous gift that was given to our country by a wise God.” Mother Jones, (no longer available online)

“Many years ago Christian pioneers had to fight savage Indians. Today missionaries of these former cultures are being sent via the public schools to heathenize our children.” (Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum)

The above from.

And here’s an exposé  of the ubiquitous, the evil, Liberal Media.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
My spellchecker didn’t like Falwell—thought it should be Falafel. It didn’t like Dobson, either—wanted it to be Doubloon. Jerry Falafel and James Doubloon, yahoo! (It thought Schlafly should be Scholarly—ha!)

Here is an Amnesty International letter you can add your name to that will be sent to President Hu Jintao of China. No, he will not listen to me or to you, but perhaps he will listen to thousands of us. Maybe it’s possible to force him to listen. Please, do your part and sign the petition. It takes a minute.

This is the text of the letter:

I am deeply concerned that Chinese authorities detained peaceful demonstrators in Tibet and used excessive force against them. Among the detainees were the following 15 Tibetan monks who were arrested on March 10, according to the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy:

Samten (m), aged 17, Lungkar Monastery, Qinghai Province
Trulku Tenpa Rigsang, (m), aged 26, Lungkar Monastery, Qinghai Province
Gelek Pel (m) aged 32 Lungkar Monastery, Qinghai Province
Lobsang (m) aged 15, Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Lobsang Thukjey (m), aged 19 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Tsultrim Palden (m), aged 20 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Lobsher (m), aged 20 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Phurden, (m), aged 22 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Thupdon (m), aged 24 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Lobsang Ngodup (m), aged 29 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Lodoe (m), aged 30 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province
Thupwang (m), aged 30, Darthang Monastery
Pema Garwang (m), aged 30, Darthang Monastery
Tsegyam (m), aged 22, Kashi Monastery
Soepa (m), aged 30, Mangye Monastery

On Monday, March 10, a group that included these 15 detained monks began a March from Sera Monastery towards Barkhor, Lhasa. Chinese authorities soon stopped their peaceful demonstration and arrested many protesters. The monks were detained solely for exercising their fundamental human right to freedom of expression, calling on the government to ease “patriotic re-education” campaigns which forces them to denounce the Dalai Lama and subjects them to government propaganda. There is no information of their current whereabouts or of any charges brought against them. They remain at high risk of torture and other ill-treatment.

I urge you to immediately release the 15 monks named above, as well as all others detained for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly. I call on you to fully account for all those detained during the demonstrations and to ensure that they are not tortured or otherwise ill-treated. Please ensure that the detainees have access to medical care and lawyers.

Sign the petition to the President of China demanding the immediate release of the 15 Tibetan Monks and other peaceful protesters.

It appears Chinese soldiers have played dress-up in the past. Is it surprising they would do so now, with so much at stake?

The Dalai Lama has said from the beginning that Chinese posed as Tibetan monks and carried out violent acts to throw doubt on the Tibetan cause.

Chinese soldiers in the garb of Tibetan monks and ordinary people were indulging in violence shown on Chinese television, the Dalai Lama said at a press conference here on Saturday.

‘To a lay person, soldiers dressed like monks may look like monks. But we watched the images carefully and realized that they were not monks. Also, in a photograph showing a Tibetan with a sword, the sword is Chinese. They all look like Chinese people dressed like Tibetans,’ the Dalai Lama said, apparently responding to Beijing’s allegation that monks and ordinary Tibetans ‘incited by the Dalai clique’ were behind the violence in Lhasa.

The Dalai Lama again, from the same source:

‘We are waiting to hear from the Chinese side. We have no power to bring China to the dialogue table. We have only truth and sincerity. That is why we are appealing to the world community, please help,’ the Tibetan leader said before heading back to Dharamsala after a weeklong stay in the capital. ‘I am here helpless, I just pray.’

The photo, showing soldiers carrying monk’s robes, is from a 2003 publication and was found at this site.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

From The Guardian:

When China won the right to host the 2008 Olympic Games seven years ago, Liu Qi, president of the Beijing organising committee and the then Beijing city mayor, told the International Olympic Committee:

‘If Beijing wins its bid to host the Olympic Games, it will be conducive to China’s economic and social progress; at the same time, it will also make further progress on the promotion of human rights.’ Wang Wei secretary-general of the Beijing 2008 Olympic bid committee, backed him up: ‘We will grant full freedom of the press to the journalists coming to China; they will be able to visit Beijing and other Chinese cities and cover any news event before and during the Olympic Games. We will also allow demonstrations.’

Four months before the Games begin, those promises look shattered. China’s human-rights record remains poor. Environmental, trade union and human-rights activists suffer house arrest or imprisonment, only tried under the catch-all charge of ’subverting state power’. This so-called crime saw human-rights campaigner Yang Chunlin condemned to five years’ imprisonment last week. China has seen little progress towards more freedom of expression; the country executes more people and arrests more journalists than the rest of the world combined. It routinely blocks foreign news to which the state objects and censors the internet. The conditions that existed in 2001 have not improved at all; in many ways, they have worsened.

And: “If China wants to be fully accepted as a major actor in the international community, then it has to behave as a responsible stakeholder in its actions. That especially includes its actions towards its territories like Tibet.”

How can we not see that the Olympics must be boycotted?

- - - - - - - - - -

Once again:

For video and still coverage of the protests, please see wikileaks

“In the last week Wikileaks has released over 150 censored photos and videos of the Tibet uprising and has called on bloggers around the world to help drive the footage through the Chinese internet censorship regime — the so called “Great Firewall of China.”

The transparency group’s move comes as a response to the the Chinese Public Security Bureau’s carte-blanche censorship of youtube, the BBC, CNN, the Guardian and other sites carrying video footage of the Tibetan people’s recent heroic stand against the inhumane Chinese occupation of Tibet.”

- - - - - - - - - -

Please see Linda’s blog for info on boycotting Olympic sponsors. Sponsors include:   Coca-Cola, Visa, McDonald’s, Microsoft, Lenovo, Samsung

A Tibetan woman cries inside a police van in frustration after their peace rally being held along with Amnesty International was dispersed by policemen in Katmandu, Nepal, Monday March 24, 2008. Eleven members of Amnesty International along with their country head were also detained. (AP Photo/ Saurabh Das)

KATMANDU, Nepal—Police in Nepal’s capital arrested about 475 Tibetan refugees, monks and their supporters Monday as they gathered to protest a crackdown on Tibetans in neighboring China, the U.N. said.

Chanting “China, stop killings in Tibet. U.N., we want justice,” protesters were marching toward the U.N. offices in Katmandu when police stopped them about 300 feet away, beat them with bamboo sticks and snatched their banners. The protesters demanded the U.N. investigate the recent crackdown in Tibet by Chinese authorities.

Scores more who demonstrated in another part of the capital were also arrested, the U.N. human rights office in Nepal said in a statement.*

It has been reported that the British intelligence agency, GCHQ, has determined that “agents of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the PLA, posing as monks, triggered the riots that have left hundreds of Tibetans dead or injured.”**

Certainly this government is capable of subterfuge to cast doubt on the Tibetans’ cause—especially as the Olympic Games near and they fear the effects of world-sympathy and a possible boycott.

The Washington Post says that pro-Tibet groups like the Tibet Support Network, Students for a Free Tibet and Human Rights China have been the victims of concerted cyber attacks. A spokeswoman from the Tibet Support Network said: “They’re really trying to disrupt the Tibetan movement, and whoever is perpetrating this is doing it on full-time basis.”

I cannot comprehend how difficult it must be to patiently and peacefully try to make your voice heard, waiting for justice, when your people have been persecuted for a long, long time and you see no light ahead, but I believe it is true that those in the moral right should do all they can to keep from stooping to their oppressors’ level.

I hope that the few young Tibetans who have participated in violence against the Chinese during these protests will return to the teachings of their spiritual father, the Dalai Lama. They will garner more world support with peaceful protests than with violent fighting. There is no way they will, with their tiny numbers, defeat their foes militarily and any instances of Tibetan violence will be used as fodder for the Chinese position that the Tibetans are the aggressors. I hope they will not play into their hands; they need the world sympathy and outcry that can force the Chinese into line. I am reminded of the Civil Rights Movement in this country, when, out of frustration and anger, some began to promote violence rather than follow MLK Jr.’s non-violent lead.

Please sign the petition at this site and support the Tibetan people and their right to freedom.

March 31 is the Global Day of Action for Tibet.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

*From here

**From here

- - - - - - - - - - - -

H/t to Linda, and thanks to her for her unwavering support of the Tibetan people

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Addendum:

For video and still coverage of the protests, please see wikileaks

“In the last week Wikileaks has released over 150 censored photos and videos of the Tibet uprising and has called on bloggers around the world to help drive the footage through the Chinese internet censorship regime — the so called “Great Firewall of China.”

The transparency group’s move comes as a response to the the Chinese Public Security Bureau’s carte-blanche censorship of youtube, the BBC, CNN, the Guardian and other sites carrying video footage of the Tibetan people’s recent heroic stand against the inhumane Chinese occupation of Tibet.”

China’s attempt to protect itself from a boycott of the Olympics by crying Don’t make the Games political is ludicrous. As David Wallechinsky pointed out in an interview on NPR yesterday, they already are political. It is the nature of a world event to be political. Wallechinsky, author of The Complete Book of the Summer Olympics, is an expert on the Games. Interestingly, he also compiles the top ten list of the world’s worst dictators for Parade every year.

Wallechinsky says the Olympic Committee is to blame for giving the Games to a dictatorship in the first place. Yeah, hello.

If anybody is to be held responsible for ruining the Olympics, it’s not the Tibetans or those who will boycott China for its treatment of them (not to mention the Sudanese; not to mention Chinese citizens; not to mention China’s support of Burma). How about laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Chinese government for its behavior, and then pointing a finger at the IOC for supporting a brutal dictatorship?

Hu Jintao, leader of The People’s Republic of China, and number four on the worst dictators list, has befriended number one, Omar al-Bashir, of Sudan. How cozy.

“Last week China’s leader, Hu Jintao, provided Sudan with an interest-free loan to build a presidential palace. With that gesture, Hu demonstrated his contempt for the Western understanding of the world — and for Western policy toward his own country.” And: “China is not financing a presidential palace by mistake; it is doing so deliberately. It is not financing just any presidential palace; it has chosen a president so odious that his fellow African leaders hold their noses at him.”*

Birds of a feather. . . .

Who Is the World’s Worst Dictator? (2007)

1.)    Omar al-Bashir, Sudan
2.)   Kim Jong-il, North Korea
3.)   Sayyid Ali KhamEnei, Iran
4.)   Hu Jintao, China
5.)   King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia
6.)   Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar)
7)    Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe
8.)   Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan
9.)   Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya
10.) Bashar al-Assad, Syria

Olympic Boycotts** (take special note of number three, below—I thought the PRC didn’t believe in making the Games political?—oh, guess that was then)

1956, Melbourne:  Boycotted by the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, because of the suppression of the Hungarian Uprising by the Soviet Union. Cambodia, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon boycotted the games over the Suez Crisis.

1972 and 1976, Munich, Montreal: African countries threatened the IOC with a boycott, asking it to ban South Africa, Rhodesia, and New Zealand. The IOC conceded in the first 2 cases, but refused in 1976. Twenty-two countries (Guyana was the only non-African nation) boycotted the Montreal Olympics because New Zealand was not banned.

1976, Montreal: The People’s Republic of China (PRC) pressured Canada to bar the Taiwanese team from competing under the name Republic of China (ROC). The ROC refused the compromise that was suggested and did not participate again until 1984, when it returned under the name “Chinese Taipei.”

1980, 1984, Moscow, Los Angeles: Cold War opponents boycotted one anothers’ games. Sixty-five nations refused to compete at the Moscow Olympics in 1980, protesting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The boycott reduced the number of competing nations to 81, the lowest number since 1956. The Soviet Union and 14 Eastern Bloc nations (except Romania) countered by boycotting the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

See this BBC article about current protests by Tibetan children in Katmandu

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Sebastian Mallaby, February 5, 2007, The Washington Post

**From Wikipedia

From VOA:

Police in Nepal armed with batons dispersed a protest Tuesday by Tibetan refugees and monks in front of the Chinese Embassy.

About 100 protesters in Kathmandu were loaded into trucks and vans and sent to detention centers.

There have been almost daily demonstrations in Nepal against China since March 10, when protests began in Tibet’s capital, Lhasa. At least 400 protesters were detained in Nepal Monday.

The U.N. human rights office in Nepal has said it is deeply concerned at the arbitrary arrests and detentions.

Nepal’s border with China in the Himalayas is a key route for Tibetans fleeing Chinese rule in the region.

Photo:  ”Police officers drag away a Tibetan monk while he attempts to nurse an injured fellow monk in Kathmandu, 25 Mar 2008″
- - - - — - - - - - -

For steps you can take to help, please see Linda’s post,  Tibet: less talk, more action

The violence against Tibetans must stop. The Chinese are perpetrating these acts prior to the Olympic Games as if they are certain the world will do nothing. It is a slap in the face to all who care about human rights. In Lhasa, at least 80 people have been killed so far.  They are not limiting themselves to Tibet, they are also attacking Tibetans living in Chinese cities.

From The New York Times:

For now, Beijing’s line on Tibet is likely to harden. Military police officers are pouring in to stifle new protests. Nor are the demonstrations winning much public sympathy in a nation where Tibetans are a tiny minority. The state media has tightly controlled its coverage to focus on Tibetans burning Chinese businesses or attacking and killing Chinese merchants. No mention is made of Tibetan grievances or reports that 80 or more Tibetans have died.

Less than five months before the opening of the Olympics, Beijing is acutely worried about an international reaction and is arguing that its response to the protests has been reasonable. Qiangba Puncog, the taciturn chairman of Tibet’s government, said during a hurriedly convened news conference on Monday that the military police and other officers were not carrying lethal weapons and had not fired a single shot — despite multiple witnesses reporting gunshots.

They’ve not fired a single shot, eh? What killed all those people? Slingshots? They think they can control the information that gets out, keep the truth a secret. Maybe that worked pretty well fifty years ago, not now.

The Tibetans are a peaceful people. They simply want the freedom to practice their religion and live in peace.

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Asked why his fellow Tibetans were protesting now, Aron lowered his head, pondering the wisdom of a frank answer. The silence of the monastery, a warren of brightly painted temples straggling up a dusty hillside, was broken only by the cooing of pigeons and the musical tones of wind chimes fluttering from temple eaves.

He looked up, clearly resolved to speak from the heart. “Because we want freedom,” he replied.

By that, he said, he meant both political independence for Tibet, which Chinese troops occupied in 1951, and religious freedom for Buddhist monks, who complain of restrictions by Chinese authorities.

“We want our culture to survive and to pass it on,” said a fellow monk, who also asked not to be identified. “But we don’t want to use violence; we want to solve this problem in a peaceful way.

As if that weren’t enough reason to boycott the Olympics, how about this?  China is supporting the Burmese regime by buying up great quantities of jade and other gemstones to use in trinkets to sell at the Games.

According to Human Right’s Watch (HRW), Burma’s junta owns a majority stake in each of the country’s mines – many of them sitting on land confiscated from local communities – sanctioning both unsafe working conditions and forced and child labor. The European Union passed rules in November banning imports of Burmese rubies and jade, and Canada and the US Senate followed suit in December.

And then there’s the Chinese presence in Sudan.

But the Chinese [oil] operations were marked “from the beginning,” by a “deep complicity in gross human rights violations, scorched-earth clearances of the indigenous population,” says Sudan activist Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College in Northampton, Mass. Giving expert testimony before the congressionally mandated US-China Economic and Security Review Commission last August, Mr. Reeves claimed the Chinese gave direct assistance to Khartoum’s military forces which, in turn, burned villages, chased locals away from their homes, and harmed the environment while prospecting for oil.

Brad Phillips, director of Persecution International, an aid group working in South Sudan, has seen the destruction firsthand. “The Chinese are equal partners with Khartoum when it comes to exploiting resources and locals here,” he says. “Their only interest here is their own.” He would love to see the Chinese sponsor a school here, he says, or a clinic, or an agricultural program, or “anything for the people.” But there is nothing like that in sight. Just miles of desolate land.

“The Chinese simply do not care about us,” says Martin Buywomo, Paloich’s mayor. “They have no contact. They never even came to my tent to pay respects. They think we are lesser people.” A member of the Shilluk tribe who attended British mission schools, Mr. Buywomo puts down the worn copy of George Eliot’s 19th-century classic “Silas Marner” he is reading and continues sadly. “We see them in their trucks but they overlook us. If they saw us dying on the road, they would overlook us.”

China cares only about money. The only way to make them listen is through the pocketbook.

And the Olympics? They are not what they once were. The Games are all about money nowadays. I remember the excitement of watching the Olympics when I was a kid. That excitement is gone. Who can sit through the hours of over-produced, schmaltzy life stories and ten thousand ads and believe all that has anything to do with amateur athletics? The realness is gone. The sports are an aside—athletes are being used and we shouldn’t buy it.

Why should China make piles of money off of sports lovers when their government is committing grave human rights abuses? And, Linda reports, “Ironically this week the US removed China from its list of human rights abusers.” What? Great timing.

Boycott the Olympics. Write to your members of Congress.

Linda has written a lot about the Tibetan situation, please see her site. You can also sign petitions here.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I want to be clear here that when I say China and the Chinese, I mean the government. Just as it is not fair to assume that all Americans support our government and its actions, neither is it fair to blame all Chinese for their government’s actions.

I’m biased. I prefer my heroes to be women. Maybe it’s because when I grew up history books celebrated Betsy Ross as a female hero. Hello, she sewed! I’m sorry, but big deal. Now Nikolas Kristof is simply an amazing human being, so I grudgingly bestow upon him hero status. He can’t help that he’s male. He travels to the places in the world where people suffer and shares their stories with us. He shines light in the dark places, and I, for one, am grateful for this. He also keeps a blog, which I’ve recently subscribed to. And if you watch his videos and read his columns, you will find that many of his heroes are women.

For instance, Mukhtar Mai, a Pakastani who ”survived a gang rape to become a fervent campaigner for voiceless women in Pakistan.” Mai runs schools, an ambulance service and a women’s aid group.

And this Pakistani woman whose husband was kidnapped in Pakistan and who bravely stood up to the government.

And the amazing Edna Adan Ismail, who founded Edna Adan Maternity Hospital—the first maternity hospital in Somaliland.

Kristof is a tireless voice for the downtrodden, especially women and children, because, in much of the world, they are most often the victims of horrendous human rights violations.

He also spotlights health crises that could be solved if the world would step up.

In his latest column, he wrote about the American Presidency and saving lives in Africa:

Saving children’s lives in rural Africa or Asia, where millions die of ailments as simple as diarrhea, pneumonia or measles, is achingly simple and inexpensive. The starting point is vaccinations and basic sanitation. 

. . .

For years, the rationale for opposing foreign assistance has been that it doesn’t work. It’s true that humanitarian aid is devilishly difficult to get right, money is squandered and the impact of aid is often oversold.

But President Bush’s record underscores that other policies are difficult to get right as well: Iraq is a mess, and social security reform and immigration reform both failed. Mr. Bush’s greatest single accomplishment is that his AIDS program in Africa is saving millions of lives.

That makes it all the more stunning that Mr. Bush’s proposed budget for 2009 cuts U.S. funding for child and maternal health programs around the world by nearly 18 percent.

Fortunately, all the candidates are saying the right things about malaria, AIDS and support for education in Africa (although John McCain is fuzzier about commitments). You can compare the candidates’ positions on global humanitarian issues at www.onevote08.org.

Voters should remember this: A president may or may not be able to improve schools or protect manufacturing jobs in Ohio, but a president probably could help wipe out malaria. Compared with other challenges a president faces, saving a million children’s lives a year is the low-hanging fruit.

See Nicholas Kristof’s page at the New York Times.

OneVote08 is a project of One—the Campaign to Make Poverty History.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

And historical women heroes?

How about Jane Addams? Susan B. Anthony? Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Marie Curie? Fannie Lou Hamer? Mary Harris Jones (Mother Jones)? Margaret Sanger? Sojourner Truth? Harriet Tubman? Etc.