North Carolina is one of eight states where it's illegal for a midwife to handle a delivery. (To be clear, the state is ok with certified nursing midwives, who have to attend nursing school, just not certified practicing midwives, who can deliver babies in 27 other states.) Practicing midwives still work, though. One less, after Amy Medwin was arrested this week.
I've written before about how restrictions on home birth aren't motivated by public health concerns but rather because they're a threat to insurance companies and the doctor lobby. And, though I know that a lot of people don't agree with me on this - this is part of the reason I'm pro-choice. I trust women, and I trust families, to make informed decisions about their reproductive health.
Some of those women will choose hospital births with or without epidural painkillers. Some of those women will choose C-section deliveries. Some of those women will choose to give birth at home. And it isn't my place or anybody else's to judge those choices. It's none of our business.
Medwin provided care to a couple who had a stillborn baby a few weeks ago, but since that family doesn't hold her responsible I have a hard time believing that they pushed for her arrest. So what's the deal?
Says Capt. John Stifford of the Rowan County Sheriff's Office: "Whether you be a midwife, a doctor or law enforcement officer in North Carolina, you're required to be certified in this state and she was not and that's why she's been charged at this point."
So, even the law enforcement agency that issued the warrant for Medwin's arrest admits that there's nothing inherently dangerous about what Medwin does. It's just a matter of state regulation.
So - time to get with the times, N.C. Change that stupid rule and give families more options - safe options - for their own care. Because the fact is that women are going to continue to use practicing midwives, despite what the state says. Might as well bring them out of the closet and make sure they're operating safely.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
This had escaped me, but next month marks the 100th anniversary of the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, a sweatshop in New York City. On March 25, 1911, a ninth-floor fire killed 146 garment workers in 18 minutes. Most of them were immigrants from Russia, Eastern Europe, Italy; most were women. Six of them were finally identified only last week.
The International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) had tried to organize the sweatshop, and had recruited a few of its 500 workers as members. But, for the most part, the Triangle Shirtwaist victims were poor and utterly powerless to make demands of their employers. Demands like, a working fire escape, or not being locked in the building.
The fire is credited with a number of reforms in New York State, which then filtered through manufacturing in the rest of the country. But Triangle Shirtwaist's owners were acquitted of criminal charges, and ended up settling a number of civil suits for $75 per victim. And, "In August of 1913, [co-owner] Max Blanck was charged with locking one of the doors of his factory during working hours. Brought to court, he was fined twenty dollars, and the judge apologized to him for the imposition." I think that if 146 people died horribly at a business I owned, I would probably revisit some things, but not these guys, apparently.
It would be nice if this were just bad, ancient history. But as I write this, people in all 50 states are demonstrating in support of the public workers in Wisconsin, who for the last two weeks have been protesting a bill that would basically destroy their unions. The governor and his Republican supporters are casting it as a budget-cutting measure (though he can propose $117 million in business tax cuts, which would contribute to a budget deficit in the next fiscal year, and that's totally fine).
There should be incentives to attract talented people to work in the public sector, like the people who teach your children - and trust me, a competitive salary isn't currently one of them - so employers that can't pay high salaries compensate with other benefits. But, in a time where millions of private-sector Americans are out of work and state revenues are lower, it's also appropriate to ask state employees to tighten their belts.
But the thing is - they ARE. (As if teachers and firefighters and cops all live and work in palaces, but whatever.) The public-employee unions in Wisconsin have already said that they are willing to compromise on benefit cuts as long as they can preserve their right to collective bargaining (which is kind of a union's reason for being). So when the governor digs in his heels and insists that he's going to unilaterally take away their rights, and he won't even discuss otherwise, it's hard to know where he's coming from.
This is NOT about balancing a budget. This is about twisting an economic crisis to push through something that the powers-that-be have been trying to do for more than a century: destroy unions altogether. And the fact that so many business owners want to prevent their workers from protecting their own rights is proof that we still need unions. Because these people are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
For the record, I don't belong to a union and I enjoy living in a right-to-work state where I can't be forced to join one as a condition for getting a job. I'm also the great-granddaughter of a man who was blackballed for taking part in a miner's strike in the 1930s - blackballed not just from a job in the mines, but from anywhere in town. So much for his right to free enterprise.
I'm also deeply fortunate to work in a place where employees at all levels can be heard and where the grievance procedures aren't just written in a hand-book, but observed. Most Americans aren't that fortunate.
I don't think unions are blameless or immune from the very abuses of power they're supposed to protect their workers from. But I'd rather live and work in a world where authority is collective, as opposed to one where I'm at risk of frakking death if I'm unlucky enough to work for the wrong person.
Also, business people? I need you to explain something to me. That nice place where I work, where everyone is taken seriously and has a voice in choosing our benefits package or drafting the budget - there's very little employee turnover. Seriously, I'd say that the majority of people I encounter have been there more than five years. They're invested its success. They also have institutional knowledge, which saves us time and money that we could be wasting on reinventing the wheel.
So, my question for the for-profit sector is... why don't y'all get this? I mean, go back and look at Henry Ford. The man may have had serious personal issues, but he was smart enough to know that if he paid his workers well, not only would they stick around, but they would be a market for his product. Or look at one of my uncles, who several years ago was offered a bonus, which he insisted be given to the people under him instead. That's leadership. That's long-term thinking.
So if the governor of Wisconsin wants to balance the budget, maybe he's the one who should take a pay cut. Nobody goes into teaching for the big bucks, so stop treating teachers and other public employees like they're free-loaders, like they're the problem. Unions are a big part of the reason we even have a middle class in this country- what's left of it.
And if you want to know what it looks like to have a totally unfettered "free" market where employees have no outlet for demanding fair and safe treatment, all you have to do is go to Manhattan and wander down to Washington Place. The building's still there, though now it's owned by NYU. Better yet, go to the Evergreens Cemetery in Brooklyn. Eight of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire victims are buried there.
The International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) had tried to organize the sweatshop, and had recruited a few of its 500 workers as members. But, for the most part, the Triangle Shirtwaist victims were poor and utterly powerless to make demands of their employers. Demands like, a working fire escape, or not being locked in the building.
The fire is credited with a number of reforms in New York State, which then filtered through manufacturing in the rest of the country. But Triangle Shirtwaist's owners were acquitted of criminal charges, and ended up settling a number of civil suits for $75 per victim. And, "In August of 1913, [co-owner] Max Blanck was charged with locking one of the doors of his factory during working hours. Brought to court, he was fined twenty dollars, and the judge apologized to him for the imposition." I think that if 146 people died horribly at a business I owned, I would probably revisit some things, but not these guys, apparently.
It would be nice if this were just bad, ancient history. But as I write this, people in all 50 states are demonstrating in support of the public workers in Wisconsin, who for the last two weeks have been protesting a bill that would basically destroy their unions. The governor and his Republican supporters are casting it as a budget-cutting measure (though he can propose $117 million in business tax cuts, which would contribute to a budget deficit in the next fiscal year, and that's totally fine).
There should be incentives to attract talented people to work in the public sector, like the people who teach your children - and trust me, a competitive salary isn't currently one of them - so employers that can't pay high salaries compensate with other benefits. But, in a time where millions of private-sector Americans are out of work and state revenues are lower, it's also appropriate to ask state employees to tighten their belts.
But the thing is - they ARE. (As if teachers and firefighters and cops all live and work in palaces, but whatever.) The public-employee unions in Wisconsin have already said that they are willing to compromise on benefit cuts as long as they can preserve their right to collective bargaining (which is kind of a union's reason for being). So when the governor digs in his heels and insists that he's going to unilaterally take away their rights, and he won't even discuss otherwise, it's hard to know where he's coming from.
This is NOT about balancing a budget. This is about twisting an economic crisis to push through something that the powers-that-be have been trying to do for more than a century: destroy unions altogether. And the fact that so many business owners want to prevent their workers from protecting their own rights is proof that we still need unions. Because these people are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
For the record, I don't belong to a union and I enjoy living in a right-to-work state where I can't be forced to join one as a condition for getting a job. I'm also the great-granddaughter of a man who was blackballed for taking part in a miner's strike in the 1930s - blackballed not just from a job in the mines, but from anywhere in town. So much for his right to free enterprise.
I'm also deeply fortunate to work in a place where employees at all levels can be heard and where the grievance procedures aren't just written in a hand-book, but observed. Most Americans aren't that fortunate.
I don't think unions are blameless or immune from the very abuses of power they're supposed to protect their workers from. But I'd rather live and work in a world where authority is collective, as opposed to one where I'm at risk of frakking death if I'm unlucky enough to work for the wrong person.
Also, business people? I need you to explain something to me. That nice place where I work, where everyone is taken seriously and has a voice in choosing our benefits package or drafting the budget - there's very little employee turnover. Seriously, I'd say that the majority of people I encounter have been there more than five years. They're invested its success. They also have institutional knowledge, which saves us time and money that we could be wasting on reinventing the wheel.
So, my question for the for-profit sector is... why don't y'all get this? I mean, go back and look at Henry Ford. The man may have had serious personal issues, but he was smart enough to know that if he paid his workers well, not only would they stick around, but they would be a market for his product. Or look at one of my uncles, who several years ago was offered a bonus, which he insisted be given to the people under him instead. That's leadership. That's long-term thinking.
So if the governor of Wisconsin wants to balance the budget, maybe he's the one who should take a pay cut. Nobody goes into teaching for the big bucks, so stop treating teachers and other public employees like they're free-loaders, like they're the problem. Unions are a big part of the reason we even have a middle class in this country- what's left of it.
And if you want to know what it looks like to have a totally unfettered "free" market where employees have no outlet for demanding fair and safe treatment, all you have to do is go to Manhattan and wander down to Washington Place. The building's still there, though now it's owned by NYU. Better yet, go to the Evergreens Cemetery in Brooklyn. Eight of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire victims are buried there.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
A tale of two bookstores
Late last year, right after Christmas, I was looking for a copy of "The Hangover" on DVD. I was in the neighborhood of my city's Borders franchise, so I decided to pop in there and see if they had it. They did - for $29. I have not paid that much for a DVD in my life. (For the sake of comparison, I ended up going with a $10 version at Wal-Mart that came in a two-DVD set with "Wedding Crashers.")
It's important to note that the $29 version was the stripped-down edition, the kind that lists "interactive menu" as a special feature. (Note to DVD marketing people: this is like listing "track menu" as a special feature on a CD, or "ink on paper" for a book.) The edition with the actual special features was even pricier. I walked out of Borders shaking my head. Did they think someone was actually going to drop that much on a single DVD of a movie that came out 18 months earlier?
This is why they're bankrupt. Well, one of the reasons. Looking back on that moment just a few weeks ago, I can clearly see that my local Borders lost its soul, to quote Edward McClellan's piece at Salon. The place that in past years hosted local bands and readings of area authors and basically kept Thruway Shopping Center hopping was suddenly just another big-box store that I got into and out of as quickly as possible, usually disappointed.
Just around the corner from our Borders is a used book/CD/movie store, Edward McKay. I can't remember the last time I went in Ed McKay and didn't have to stand in line for half an hour. It's always packed with people dropping off items to sell or trade. And it's always my first stop when I'm looking for a book or DVD. Despite its unpredictable inventory, the staff can tell you exactly what's in the store and precisely where to find it. They stock LPs (which is how my 12-year-old nephew is getting into The Who). You could spend an afternoon there, not even buy anything, and still have a great time.
I hear the narrative that e-readers and the Internet are killing locally owned bookstores, and then I go to Edward McKay and wonder where exactly that narrative comes from. Maybe, as McClellan writes, "as paper books become a niche product, niche retailers will be the best place to buy and sell them."
A book-lover can only hope...
(PS: I have a copy of "Wedding Crashers" for sale, best offer. Original packaging!)
It's important to note that the $29 version was the stripped-down edition, the kind that lists "interactive menu" as a special feature. (Note to DVD marketing people: this is like listing "track menu" as a special feature on a CD, or "ink on paper" for a book.) The edition with the actual special features was even pricier. I walked out of Borders shaking my head. Did they think someone was actually going to drop that much on a single DVD of a movie that came out 18 months earlier?
This is why they're bankrupt. Well, one of the reasons. Looking back on that moment just a few weeks ago, I can clearly see that my local Borders lost its soul, to quote Edward McClellan's piece at Salon. The place that in past years hosted local bands and readings of area authors and basically kept Thruway Shopping Center hopping was suddenly just another big-box store that I got into and out of as quickly as possible, usually disappointed.
Just around the corner from our Borders is a used book/CD/movie store, Edward McKay. I can't remember the last time I went in Ed McKay and didn't have to stand in line for half an hour. It's always packed with people dropping off items to sell or trade. And it's always my first stop when I'm looking for a book or DVD. Despite its unpredictable inventory, the staff can tell you exactly what's in the store and precisely where to find it. They stock LPs (which is how my 12-year-old nephew is getting into The Who). You could spend an afternoon there, not even buy anything, and still have a great time.
I hear the narrative that e-readers and the Internet are killing locally owned bookstores, and then I go to Edward McKay and wonder where exactly that narrative comes from. Maybe, as McClellan writes, "as paper books become a niche product, niche retailers will be the best place to buy and sell them."
A book-lover can only hope...
(PS: I have a copy of "Wedding Crashers" for sale, best offer. Original packaging!)
Monday, February 14, 2011
You don’t bring me flowers anymore
You can’t go out to eat anywhere on the weekend closest to V-Day. It’s some rule that couples must celebrate their love in a restaurant, which means that a normal person can’t so much as go to Burger King without having to wait for a table behind a dozen lovey-dovey duos.
(I never got that, by the way. “Hey, it’s the Hallmark-approved Day of Love. Sure, we could stay home and spend 24 hours straight-up naked, but instead let’s go stand in the lobby of Chile’s for two hours. That’s sooooooooo romantic.”)
I hard-core resent Valentine’s Day. I hate hearing people say that they’re not doing anything special because they’re single. I hate seeing coupled-up friends defend their low-key V-Day because it didn’t look like a Kay Jewelers commercial. I hate feeling like this one day *has* to be this commercially specified something or it doesn’t count.
I tried to play the V-Day game during my first serious relationship, when the then-BF and I did the whole waiting-an-hour-for-a-table thing and I planned this whole surprise ice-skating date at the Coliseum annex, only to find out that the Coliseum had rescheduled a high school basketball game for that night, so we ended up back at his house watching “Romper Stomper,” which, curiously, no one else was insane enough to check out from Blockbuster that night. That might actually be my favorite Valentine’s Day ever. (What? I really like Russell Crowe.)
At my grandmother’s funeral last month, my uncle didn’t talk about valentines. He talked about knowing that his mom never missed one of his basketball games. There are things that are sweet and nice, and there are things that are infinitely more important.
Still don’t care for Mondays, though. Feb. 14 or otherwise.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Stieg Larsson. Not blown away.
I'm now officially two-thirds of the way through Steig Larsson's "Millennium Trilogy." I borrowed The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo from my mom and bought The Girl Who Played With Fire* at Target. Today at a discount store I found The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest in hardback, but even at the discount rate it was still more expensive than the paperback edition will eventually be. So I didn't buy it.
Which is how I knew that these books, while entertaining, aren't really that great.
It all boils down to one thing: Larsson really could've used an editor. I don't know how much of his writing he got in front of an actual publisher before he died, but I firmly believe that these books would've been far better had he had the opportunity to re-write, condense and refine under someone else's direction.
For instance, each of the first two books takes nearly 200 pages to really get started. Before that, you have to wade through a ton of exposition. A compellingly written exposition dump is still an exposition dump. And then there's my bigger problem, which is that literally every single female character in both books at some point hooks up with the male protagonist, who's quite the boob guy.
Larsson's title for the first book was Men Who Hate Women, which is appropriate. (Seriously - it's beyond disturbing.) So maybe with Blomkvist he's trying to set up a man who really really super-loves women. And breasts. And stroking those breasts. A lot. And then telling us aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllll about it. We also get to hear a lot about IKEA's stock and the square-footage of every single living space occupied by even the most minor characters.
Setting the scene is one thing, but I don't particularly care what a character spends on his or her lunch. A good editor could've pared at least some of that down and focused what are some good stories about a couple of unique characters.
* Edward McKay was thrilled to buy this from me. Apparently they're flying off the shelves at my favorite used-book store. I was also thrilled to use the store credit to subsidize my long-awaited purchase of "GoodFellas." So, everybody's happy.
Which is how I knew that these books, while entertaining, aren't really that great.
It all boils down to one thing: Larsson really could've used an editor. I don't know how much of his writing he got in front of an actual publisher before he died, but I firmly believe that these books would've been far better had he had the opportunity to re-write, condense and refine under someone else's direction.
For instance, each of the first two books takes nearly 200 pages to really get started. Before that, you have to wade through a ton of exposition. A compellingly written exposition dump is still an exposition dump. And then there's my bigger problem, which is that literally every single female character in both books at some point hooks up with the male protagonist, who's quite the boob guy.
Larsson's title for the first book was Men Who Hate Women, which is appropriate. (Seriously - it's beyond disturbing.) So maybe with Blomkvist he's trying to set up a man who really really super-loves women. And breasts. And stroking those breasts. A lot. And then telling us aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllll about it. We also get to hear a lot about IKEA's stock and the square-footage of every single living space occupied by even the most minor characters.
Setting the scene is one thing, but I don't particularly care what a character spends on his or her lunch. A good editor could've pared at least some of that down and focused what are some good stories about a couple of unique characters.
* Edward McKay was thrilled to buy this from me. Apparently they're flying off the shelves at my favorite used-book store. I was also thrilled to use the store credit to subsidize my long-awaited purchase of "GoodFellas." So, everybody's happy.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
On forgiveness
And as many of the people who know me are aware, I was raped in October 2007. Like Roethlisberger, the guy in my situation (hereafter referred to as Asshat – sorry for the profanity, but that’s what I have to call him) was an athlete out with his buddies, and was drunk. As in the majority of sexual assaults, we knew each other. That’s one reason I relate pretty strongly to the whole Ben thing. I’m not saying he’s definitely guilty of the legal crime of rape. He wasn’t convicted (also a fact in the vast majority of rape/sexual assault cases), and because the cops involved, in my opinion, didn’t do their jobs, we’ll never know what happened in that bathroom.
It will matter, I promise. It will matter to the fans who want to feel good about liking this one quarterback. And more importantly, it will matter to a young woman in Georgia who’s probably not enjoying Super Bowl Sunday right now.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The top totally fell over and you know it: I finally saw "Inception"
Here's one more weird thing about me to add to the list: I prefer reading reviews of movies after I've seen them, not before. I like reading what other people thought of a film and to what degree it gibes with what I thought. Strangely, I seek out the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I can't explain it. I think it's because my default is "OMG this was the best movie ever made!" and I need someone to punch a hole in that balloon. Sometimes I disagree with those bad reviews, and that's how I know I like a movie.
All that is a long way of explaining how I know that more than one professional critic referred to "Inception" as "Matrix-y." And that's how I know that "Inception," while being a very, very good movie, probably isn't going to be as ground-breaking or game-changing as the movie that jumped to top-of-mind when professional critics on deadline needed to describe it. Who knows, though. In five or 10 years, it's entirely possible that we'll see movies called "Inception-y." (Which is why they should wait five years to hand out Oscars.)
And "Inception" is an excellent movie. The Academy should be embarassed that Christopher Nolan didn't get a Best Director nomination, and that the film didn't get a nomination for editing (though Nolan did get a nod for writing the screenplay). It takes an awful lot for a movie lasting over two hours that isn't either "GoodFellas," "The Wild Bunch" or a "Godfather" movie to keep me interested.
But it's also unusual for me to notice flaws while I'm watching something for the first time. I had two big ones. First, Ellen Page's character could've been replaced by an interrogating robot and no one would've noticed. I'm not knocking Page, she's fabulous. She did a great job with a character that didn't exist. (Actually, almost all of the characters were blanks. Make that three flaws.) The problem is that roughly 90 percent of her dialogue was asking questions that the audience conveniently needed answered, and the other 10 percent was saying things that I really didn't need to hear at all. Because I'm 30 years old and fairly capable of figuring things out for myself. But whatever.
My absolute biggest problem with "Inception" was that the stakes weren't high enough. As A.O. Scott wrote in the New York Times review (told ya, I read 'em all), "The conceit that they're all dreaming takes some of the edge off the movie's violence..." It's not just that, though. Why are our hero and his crew bothering with all this dream-diving anyway?
***Here be Spoilers!!!***
To help one energy conglomerate beat another energy conglomerate. That's pretty much it. Now, if only the story had included some big discussion about how the Bad Energy Company was going to pollute something and deprive someone else and millions of people (and possibly polar bears) would die as a result, And also the real likelihood of the planet being knocked off its axis and spiraling into the sun. See, THAT would justify a 50-50 shot of driving oneself insane to keep it from happening. But a Japanese guy bilking an Australian guy out of a few dollars? Yeah, I didn't get it.
*** spoilers are back in their cages ***
The more I think about it, the more I appreciate the actors in this movie. Except for Leonardo DiCaprio and Marin Cotillard, none of the other actors had a single thing to work with. But they all made me believe that they understood the words coming out of their mouths, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Shortcomings of the story aside, I cared what happened to them.
Also, the last scene was really cool.
All that is a long way of explaining how I know that more than one professional critic referred to "Inception" as "Matrix-y." And that's how I know that "Inception," while being a very, very good movie, probably isn't going to be as ground-breaking or game-changing as the movie that jumped to top-of-mind when professional critics on deadline needed to describe it. Who knows, though. In five or 10 years, it's entirely possible that we'll see movies called "Inception-y." (Which is why they should wait five years to hand out Oscars.)
And "Inception" is an excellent movie. The Academy should be embarassed that Christopher Nolan didn't get a Best Director nomination, and that the film didn't get a nomination for editing (though Nolan did get a nod for writing the screenplay). It takes an awful lot for a movie lasting over two hours that isn't either "GoodFellas," "The Wild Bunch" or a "Godfather" movie to keep me interested.
But it's also unusual for me to notice flaws while I'm watching something for the first time. I had two big ones. First, Ellen Page's character could've been replaced by an interrogating robot and no one would've noticed. I'm not knocking Page, she's fabulous. She did a great job with a character that didn't exist. (Actually, almost all of the characters were blanks. Make that three flaws.) The problem is that roughly 90 percent of her dialogue was asking questions that the audience conveniently needed answered, and the other 10 percent was saying things that I really didn't need to hear at all. Because I'm 30 years old and fairly capable of figuring things out for myself. But whatever.
My absolute biggest problem with "Inception" was that the stakes weren't high enough. As A.O. Scott wrote in the New York Times review (told ya, I read 'em all), "The conceit that they're all dreaming takes some of the edge off the movie's violence..." It's not just that, though. Why are our hero and his crew bothering with all this dream-diving anyway?
***Here be Spoilers!!!***
To help one energy conglomerate beat another energy conglomerate. That's pretty much it. Now, if only the story had included some big discussion about how the Bad Energy Company was going to pollute something and deprive someone else and millions of people (and possibly polar bears) would die as a result, And also the real likelihood of the planet being knocked off its axis and spiraling into the sun. See, THAT would justify a 50-50 shot of driving oneself insane to keep it from happening. But a Japanese guy bilking an Australian guy out of a few dollars? Yeah, I didn't get it.
*** spoilers are back in their cages ***
The more I think about it, the more I appreciate the actors in this movie. Except for Leonardo DiCaprio and Marin Cotillard, none of the other actors had a single thing to work with. But they all made me believe that they understood the words coming out of their mouths, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Shortcomings of the story aside, I cared what happened to them.
Also, the last scene was really cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)