alf mabrouk ya masr!

February 11, 2011 is now Independence Day from the rule of Hosni Mubarak, the United States supported President of Egypt for 30 years. The technologically savvy, educated young people of Egypt organized a relatively peaceful 18-day protest that has ousted Mubarak and inspired millions around the world to Dream to Live! 


I am watching coverage of the celebration in Tahrir square - 18 million are chanting peace! life! democracy! - on MSNBC.  Even as I watch this incredibly moving demonstration of human rights and victory over oppression the nagging question for me is: what now?  Egyptians around the world have every reason to be ecstatic! This is a defining moment in modern world history on the side of democracy and liberty, like the destruction of the Berlin Wall. And what concerns millions about this huge turn of events is that no one really knows what might happen tomorrow. Will there be chaos? Will the military be able to create a stable environment so that political processes and rule of law can be reestablished under the new democracy.  And, what will the days ahead mean for Yemen, Iran, Syria and other countries watching, stirring, and preparing to follow Egypt. 


There are many others who are far more qualified than I am to make suggestions for the smooth transition from autocratic military rule to a functioning democracy in Egypt. However, I would like to suggest that the United States Congress consider increasing funds toward this burgeoning democratic state. I have to pay for state-building in Iraq and Afghanistan (such as it is), then why not ask my government to put resources toward a country with a real future? A country filled with people who have proven they are ready for democracy, capitalism, and a peaceful mideast region. Is it too much to ask for a bill to come to the floor like, Tax Payers Choice for Positive Statebuilding? 


It is not a time to step back from the table. Now, is a time to generously offer to support free elections, rule of law, democratic checks-and-balances in government in Egypt. We owe the Egyptians our aid, our resources, our praise and maybe even cold hard cash. What happens next is the Egyptian's destiny, but we cannot escape the United States responsibility in its heartbreaking past. 

Writing: An excuse to vent

In Sex and the City (SATC), Carrie Bradshaw narrates each episode with a question that often begins with "I have to wonder, if..." and after taboos have been exposed and hearts have been broken and mended by the bonds of friendship, she ends with "Or something". I still love watching Samantha, Miranda, Charlotte and Carrie navigate New York City's dating jungle with ferocity, skillful negotiation, a sense of propriety, and humor (usually in a mid-drift bearing top). I would not have known the first thing about treating marriage with sarcasm were it not for Sex and the City. 


Watching the episodes now, as a single, 37-year old woman living and dating in Portland, I get to thinking that I may be a product of the sister-doing-it-for-herself that was the Zeitgeist of the 90s. I chose to exercise my options in my 20s. I did not necessarily choose to stay unmarried until almost 40 years old. One thing is certain, my expectation that I will marry decreases, while my expectations for my future rise with each passing year. I suppose SATC taught me that you can have a great life as long as you live in a great city and have great friends. That's why I moved in with my one friend in Portland from New York City, where I am incredibly lucky to have four great girlfriends.


I have to marvel at what an incredible tool the HBO series was for the writers who got to vent about their own issues and frustrations with dating and the single life and in turn, were validated by ever-increasing numbers of viewers. The show has been internationally syndicated in countries such as Albania and South Korea. Single gals the world over have raised their cosmos, united under the banner, "All the good ones are gay!"  


Sex and the City was a kind of state of single women in modern society report with designer shoes, sexy men, and expensive cocktails. But, what did it really say about them? I wonder, besides being good entertainment, what could Sex and the City have accomplished if it had not been so focused on Vogue, Jimmy Cho, and Prada? Sure, it is great fun to get caught up in the big city fantasy that each of the four archetype characters' stories represented. But what about writing to make a statement and not just to vent? 


What about exposing the real issues women in the 1990s struggled with like the Glass Ceiling, increased divorce rates, sky rocketing expectations for academic achievement and economic attainment? What about how Glee has tackled the current issues of bullying, teen sexual identity, and homophobia while also winning awards and entertaining millions? 


Don't get me wrong. I benefit from this corner where I get to vent myself. Lately, I have been wondering about the usefulness of language and the potency of messages. In a world that is messaged to the max, is it incumbent upon all those in word craft to say something meaningful, to make a point and still have fun, to make their words count, rather than just spout, or something?

Language Please (A little rant, a little too late)

Today, Chris Smith (Rep, NJ) announced that the language of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act" (HR3) will be changed to reflect the same language that is used in the Hyde Amendment, striking the qualifying word 'forcible' from rape. 

To the people who said that HR3 would not change the way rape is defined, but only addresses how federal monies are applied to insurance policies that cover abortions (not rape), I would like to express my problem with your political autism here.

As I see it, the problem that I and many other people had was with the exemption in HR3 that would allow federal funding for an abortion prompted by a 'forcible rape'. Assuming that a percentage of women on Medicaid will want an abortion because they have been raped, how then is qualifying eligibility for an abortion by the term 'forcible rape' not a redefinition of rape?  If you cannot receive an abortion subsidized by Medicaid because your rape was not the right kind, then doesn't that beg the question: what is rape?

To the people who say HR3 will help to distinguish between the 'fake' rapes and the 'real' rapes by clearly explaining that the government means 'forcible' rape... I defer to Jon Stewart's writers.  I just hope those people who seek to root out the fakers never have to prove that they have been raped, or their identity was stolen, or they were jipped by the soda machine. I understand that to some of these people the real and plaguing problem is over how we spend our country's diminishing tax dollars. Guns or Butter? Forcible Rape or Margarine Rape? 

I get it. Separation of church and state is a cornerstone American value, which means that you cannot ask the government for money to make fliers advertising a prayer circle in the school gymnasium at lunchtime.  So, there are two governing bodies in the United States of America - church and state - that cannot be joined together to create a state funded pogrom against atheists, secular humanists and libertarians in this fair land. My point is this, HR3 is about de-funding abortion because it's a sin. And, the last time I checked, sin was a religious concept. But we all know that certain members of society are more righteous and better at defining things, like acts of violence such as rape. These lucky people understand the definition of forcible better than say the over 3 million women of reproductive age living below the poverty line that rely on Medicaid, some of which may want an abortion in the future because they have been raped.

Okay. Enough of me. 

Shall we skin the Hyde Amendment? Shall the women of the United States rise up and take to the streets like our Egyptian sisters demanding, with clear and bold language, our reproductive rights?