I recently read a short book on teen girl boxing, Without Apology, and one theme was the problems with finding competitive match-ups. Like the book itself, the sport has potential, but isn't quite developed yet. [The subject would have worked as a short subject, I think, but simply did not have enough material for even a short full length book.] HBO takes this line with women's boxing, having a policy of simply not airing bouts because of lack of competitive balance and other factors. This seems a bit of overkill. It does suggest a bit of sexism, thus Laila Ali is bashing them for not airing her match-up on Saturday.
Bob Raissman, a local sports reporter whose snarky shtick generally annoys, supplies some valuable context in his column today. Yes, he suggests, an across the board ban is strange, especially from a financial standpoint. But, though the fact is generally ignored, Ali's competition -- making HBO's point -- is simply a mismatch. Yes, HBO has aired male mismatches, though critics like these often make a point to be against them too. IOW, why aren't some of them also against the Ali fight? Overall, HBO Sports (who is treating the fight as a "news event," showing clips ... BR suggests it might be over so fast that a clip will do the trick) arguably is taking a principled stand here -- firm in their sexism.
I appreciate the column in part because it is a fair minded take on the subject, while considering various angles, including some that might go against conventional wisdom. This seems to me a good strategy, one that I try to achieve to some extent at least. Thus, not surprisingly, the latest Slate piece on abortion (see last post) led me to write a slew of posts on the Slate Fray on the subject. My overall sentiment is that this is not really a credible way to stop abortion, even if you are firmly against the practice. The subject clearly leads to emotional comments, including bashing those who are "pro-life" (the language in this debate is so debatable), which eventually gets tedious. In some fashion, wedge issues are intended to do this.
But, no need to feed the beast. Thus, I like the idea of taking something as a given, for the sake of argument, and addressing the core issue. This was a favorite tactic of Justice Brennan -- do not be an absolutist about things, but still promoting a liberal jurisprudence, which ultimately was more successful than the Douglas/Black approach. So, I try not to get into fighting matches with people who call five month fetuses "babies."
My rejoinder to such emotional laden language in this particular debate is to wonder how banning one particular procedure that in various cases is probably safer (I'm not a doctor, but so says experts in the field) for the woman really helps the "babies?" In fact, those truly concerned about the "babies" would face more energy on other things -- such as better contraceptives/maternal health care -- that protects their lives in much great numbers. IOW, more than statistically about zero.
Ultimately, we see the red herrings. These people really want to ban all late term abortions or think loads of women are having them for trivial reasons. Or, want to use the issue as a wedge. The big picture also comes in respecting the political sphere at large. This is seen by trying to understand the reasons why people were so worried about Democrats like Jim Webb -- decorated military man -- being elected to Congress. Or, shots about how -- horror -- Nancy Pelosi is going to be Speaker of the House. Pelosi (with Sen. Reid) has done a good job in the minority, stereotyping aside. And, who exactly is the alternative? Are we supposed to support Dennis Hastert and his gang of idiots? ROFL.
Seriously now. One person in '02 actually raised the abortion issue. A serious person. We should not have checks and balances against an administration he admitted was a mess because ... well, no really credible reason. Books have been written on the subject, so I won't re-address the mind-set that drives the voters to be so afraid of a party that honestly is not progressive enough as a whole. But, apparently, there is a limit -- even in gerrymandered districts and a Senate that by design favors conservative states.
At some point, people are willing to trust a party with a slew of rather credible figures.* It helps that there is a populist strand among key Bush loyalists, or those whose loyalty was necessary for his election. Concern about economic issues, which leans Democratic. The support of ballot measures raising minimum wage and candidates supporting what could be called "fair trade" underline the point. Faux tax relief claims by Republicans apparently have limited value.
Finally, a word on Rummy. Again, I disagree with those who think his removal is meaningless. The change of party control has a great affect of chastening the administration, forcing a priceless sit down with Madame Speaker-Elect Pelosi and Bush/Cheney. Ah, to be a fly on the wall. These people are bullies who do not want to admit they are wrong. Firing Rummy is a sign of just that. The replacement has a checkered past, but we are still talking about Bush here ... what did we expect? But, it matters if the military leaders like the choice better. It matters that the guy appears a bit more realist than Rummy. And, the committee led by James Baker will soon put forth some policy proposals, this time debated by a Democratic Congress. Gates is involved as well.
When a sports team does badly, they often change the coach. It does not necessarily mean things will change overall -- consider the NY Knicks -- but it often is a quite important move. A signal. I think something similar can be said here. The fact the guy has a history of cooking the books, so to speak, and involvement with Iran-Contra also rankles. I will be sooooo glad when this bunch of criminals is out of office. But, it's not January 2009 yet. So, we take what we can get.
Overall, as Glenn Greenwald said: "It actually feels like we have more than one branch of government again." Or, as suggested by a guest on Democracy Now!, this time "values" voters (including Catholics) clearly viewed things a bit differently than the term is stereotypically defined. Good government, anti-torture, Katrina, control over private lives, etc.
---
* C-SPAN aired a BBC report that noted that the reason why the Democrats won was because the American people opposed the incompetence of the Republicans. This is a fair assessment, one in a fashion supported by a top aide of the gentlelady from Louisiana. He noted that the people wanted change, not necessary a particular policy.
This is helpful really since it allows some reasonable debate and compromises. You know, the way things should work. But, I think it did help that there were many good candidates out there, people that the voters could trust -- credible alternatives. There are such people out there ... the assumed limited presidential field for '04/'08 notwithstanding.