Published 23 October 2009

THE MASTHEAD
Editor-in-Chief: James H. Wang
Publisher: Isabel S. Murray
Executive Editor: Amanda R. McNally
Managing Editor: Ellena Kim

Read this issue’s articles!

Putting aside for now the rich commentary we could have on all of these festivities, we’ll be bringing you coverage of issues that you won’t find anytime soon in other campus publications or even many national publications. Next issue, we will debut the return of Untamed, the feminist publication at Dartmouth, as a section of the DFP. Our coverage of feminist issues will increase with this addition, and also help give more focus for our articles on feminism and society. It’s a trend that we’ve been following. Even this issue, we covered the recent talk by one of the most prominent feminist legal theorists alive, Catharine MacKinnon.

Now is a special time for many movements. The Franken Amendment is finally casting light on a part of the war effort that has been hidden for far too long. The National Equality March, even if mostly ineffectual, demonstrates the growing political significance
of the LGBT community in the American social landscape.

This is an exciting time, and with the changes at the DFP, we will continue to work to bring you coverage of these issues. Feel free to give us feedback on how things are going and what you want to see in this paper.

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. Zoya risks her life as an advocate of RAWA.

Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.” I feel strange saying this, but Ann Coulter, quoted here in a recent column on the war in Afghanistan, is right. Under normal circumstances, it would pain me to admit this, but in this case I have no problem agreeing with Coulter.In a short sentence, she just about covers all that we’ve heard from mainstream news sources about the state of affairs in post-invasion Afghanistan.

My problem is with Coulter’s avowal of the mainstreammedia’s portrayal of life in Afghanistan, which ignores the treacherous conditions in favor of a rosy revisionist depiction. It discounts the lives of ordinary Afghanis like Zoya, an Afghani woman and member of RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan) who recently came to Dartmouth to give her account of the state of her country. She had little to say about new schools and electricity plants.

Zoya spent a little over an hour in the basement of Silsby on a cold October night passionately painting a picture of the war-torn Afghanistan she calls home, one that contrasts sharply with the Afghanistan many Americans believe exists. The stark contrast between the Afghanistan we know through media representations and political rhetoric and the one Zoya experiences every day clearly demonstrates that the “fourth branch of government” is failing us, and the results are catastrophic-especially if you’re Afghani.

The audience got a telling glimpse into Zoya’s precarious status as a member of the pro-democracy, secular women’s right group RAWA before she even began her presentation. When a student in the front row started taking pictures of her at the podium, she turned to Professor Jennifer Fluri and reminded her that no pictures could be taken for fear of retaliation against her for her involvement in RAWA. Unfortunately, her fears have merit. Meena Keshwar Kamal, RAWA’s founder, was assassinated in February of 1987 and Afghanistan remains a dangerous place for outspoken pro-democracy and secular women’s rights activists. But Zora persists in her dangerous peace mongering, and she came to Dartmouth with a simple message: The war is not working…for anyone.

I know it’s unfair to use Ann Coulter’s words as a representation of American sentiment, but there is this idea that Afghanistan is the one we got right. Even Obama, who was (mis)branded as an anti-war candidate by his supporters and opponents, called it “a war of necessity” as opposed to a “war of choice” in Iraq. The mentality that large-scale military action in Afghanistan is our only viable option to maintain our national security still persists. As the utopian story goes, our military presence will eventually free the people of Afghanistan from extremist tyranny, ameliorate the oppression of women, and help us “win” the war on terror.

Many point to the same media coverage Coulter cites to show that our military action has already made progress to each of these ends, but this “censored, unreal image” of Afghanistan misses the mark, says Zoya. The real Afghanistan “has been ‘liberated.’” Zoya continues, “Afghanistan is a ‘free’ country for the rapists to rape our children…for the warlords to commit any kind of crime without the least concern. Afghanistan is ‘free’ for the drug lords, the mafia to produce two-third of the opium for the world, and Afghanistan is ‘free’ for the foreign troops to kill our civilians, to kill our children, to kill our women on a daily basis … In this sense, Afghanistanis free.” Zoya focused on this “real picture” of Afghanistan, a country where the stated objectives of American military intervention—spreading democracy, promoting women’s and human rights, and fighting extremist Islamic terrorism—appear unattainable by brute force.

Zoya rhetorically asked, “Are [U.S.] troops liberators or invaders?” and in her answer, she considered the stated objectives used to justify the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan. “After eight years, what happened to these justifications? [Do] we have democracy, [are] women being liberated, [have] we defeated terrorism?” According to Zoya, none of these objectives have been reached and more troops would only make things worse. The recent elections in Afghanistan were “a very dirty game played with the destiny of [the Afghan people].” There will be no democracy to speak of as long as the “warlords and fundamentalists that control everything here” also control the ballot box. Zoya further criticized the U.S. government’s role in helping corrupt government officials gain and hold on to power. “From the one side they are killing our women and children in the name of the so-called war on terror, but from the other side they are negotiating with the leaders of [the] Taliban, they are giving them opportunities, and they try to give them shares in the government.”

Zoya also rejected the notion that legally integrated schools and the election of female members of parliament translated into freedom for the women of Afghanistan. Outside of Kabul, “in the provinces, women are suffering.” She cited instances of unpunished gang rapes (thanks to a pardon from President Karzai) to show that many women justifiably live in fear. And although the schools are integrated, parents are reluctant to send their daughters to school when the possibilities of rape, kidnapping and forced marriage, or acid throwing are very real. As for the female members of parliament, “the majority of [them] belong to fundamentalists parties and do not represent the interests of Afghani women,” said Zoya. And after eight years of war, the viciously misogynistic and anti-American Taliban still controls much of the country. “Instead of [the] elimination of terrorism, it’s increasing in number and getting more powerful,”claimed Zoya. It turns out that bombing civilians doesn’t eradicate extremism or target terrorists—rather, it has the unfortunate effect of turning civilians whose families end up as “collateral damage” into anti-U.S. jihadists.

After eight years of war in Afghanistan, there’s no “winning” in sight. Now this isn’t really about what Obama should do in Afghanistan (although to quote Cornel West, “It’s gonna be hard to be a war president with a peace prize”). This is about us. It’s about what we know and what that knowledge compels us to do. If Zoya’s perspective was given the attention it deserves in the media, who wouldn’t think we need a drastic policy change in Afghanistan? If Zoya’s perspective was even heard at all, beyond the 20 or so people who sat in the basement of Carpenter last Tuesday, would it not have a profound effect on public opinion towards the war in Afghanistan? Zoya’s perspective is certainly legitimate, but it’s conspicuously absent from popular discourse on the Afghan war.

Zoya urged Americans to pressure our government to change its militaristic policies toward Afghanistan. But how could Americans even think to do so when the mainstream media only tells of how our involvement is helping Afghanis build new coed schools, elect female members of parliament, and defeat global terrorism (with civilian and American troop casualties included as a side note, or omitted altogether)? If you spend your time watching the news, this whole war thing seems like a win-win: dead terrorists for us and a shiny new progressive democracy for them! Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, and I doubt CNN or FOX will have Zoya on to explain why.

Would staunch believers in the wonders of capitalism even go to see this Michael Moore flick? And if they did, would they be swayed at all? As a socialist, I loved Capitalism: A Love Story; I already think capitalism is evil. There are a few parts, however, I believe would resonate with any viewer.

As in all his other documentaries, Moore showcases the human side of this seemingly academic subject. Staying away from too much financial mumbo-jumbo, he follows the stories of several families evicted from their houses — homes they built themselves and grew up in. If you have no sympathy for people evicted from their homes, the story of children unjustly sent to juvy will probably wrench your heart a little more.

Both of these human-interest stories were meant to demonstrate the ill effects of greed, which Moore argues is fostered by capitalism. The greed of today’s capitalism is antithetical to Christian teachings, which most patriots and capitalists claim to follow. As several priests point out in the film, Jesus was a champion of the poor. If hearing from the clergy wasn’t enough, Jesus is then satirically portrayed as an advocate for greed, free market economics, and more tax cuts.
Other than these high points and a few other memorable moments, Capitalism: A Love Story follows the typical Moore format, but less successfully than his previous films. Moore tries once again to talk to the CEO of General Motors. He and his crew didn’t even make it up the steps to the entrance. The security guards on Wall Street also knew well enough to keep him far from the elevators and AIG execs. Perhaps that is what was missing from this movie— no interactions with CEOs as in Roger and Me, no interviews with Charlton Heston like in Bowling for Columbine.

Generally, Moore’s documentaries work because they deal with issues people are riled up about: school shootings, the War in Iraq, or healthcare. The real question to ask in predicting the movie’s success is: are people angry about capitalism? Sure, there has been a recent backlash with protests against AIG bonuses and the bailouts. But, is that anger directed toward capitalism? The answer most likely is no, which is why Michael Moore’s newest documentary probably won’t hold well against conservatives. Still, it is worth seeing, even if it doesn’t quite hold up to Moore’s other fabulous flicks.

Unlike the recent tea party protests, the press barely covered the National Equality March (NEM) that took place on October 10th and 11th. Like Frank said, the only thing NEM demonstrators put pressure on was the grass they trampled.

And it wasn’t just the lack of press coverage that made this year’s LGBT March on Washington so ineffective. Perhaps another reason is the national decline of activism, particularly LGBT activism. We can march in Washington once every year to demand rights, but if we are not galvanized as a community—if we are not well-organized—then we cannot grab the media’s attention. While the demonstrators are probably a more passionate group of LGBT activists, they were poorly organized and didn’t say anything new. There was no new platform for LGBT rights; we mainly demanded the same things, such as the passage of LGBT hate crime legislation and the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

More so, I think this particular march showed us that the modern LGBT movement lacks not just institutional organization, but organizational personalities—leaders who help bring us together as a community. If you were to ask several ordinary people on the street, “Who are some prominent American LGBT activists?” you would probably get many blank stares. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, the LGBT rights movement doesn’t have any clear figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X. Our activists are not nationally known. They are people like Cleve Jones, who I had never heard of before he organized NEM or Urvashi Vaid, who heads the the relatively unknown Arcus Foundation. In fact, the most famous person to speak at the rally was Lady Gaga, who is not even an activist. In a way, the gay rights movement is still searching for its Franklin D. Roosevelt, someone who will hopefully unify us with mutual goals and powerful rhetoric.

But I don’t think there can be an FDR for the gay rights movement. There’s an evident internal struggle within the modern LGBT rights movement that is noticeable among different LGBT groups. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign both originally put out different statements on whether or not to try and push for a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. How can we fight for LGBT rights when we can’t even clearly define what the diverse LGBT community wants and how it wants it?
If there’s anything we can learn, it is that we should try to directly influence the legislative process directly rather than indirectly. By lobbying Congress and establishing allies there, the LGBT community can ultimately see the legislative changes it needs. LGBT people now have a friend in the White House who is open to more LGBT-friendly policies, including the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The LGBT community has gained visibility over the past two decades; now, it just needs people to help move legislation through Congress. For actual results we should take a page from Barney Frank and work with members of Congress and other politicians. Results won’t happen without organization and cooperation. At the end of the day, we need pressure from the grassroots, and not merely pressure on grass roots.

Catherine MacKinnon. Courtesy of soapboxinc.

It was 4:30 in Rockefeller 3 on October 6 and I was about to listen to one of the most-widely cited English-language legal scholars.

Catharine MacKinnon strikes an authoritative figure not only in the lecture room but also in the realm of women’s rights. From representing Bosnian women who survived atrocities during the Serbian genocide to pushing the Supreme Court of Canada to recognize pornography as a civil rights violation, Mackinnon specializes in sex equality with international and constitutional law.

Before MacKinnon got up to the pulpit, she seemed older, frailer, but once she spoke into the microphone, it was as if the legitimacy of her cause filled her with a new fiery passion. I think everyone in the audience could feel the urgency of the message of her lecture, “Women’s Status, Male States.”

With a B.A. from Smith College and a J.D. and a Ph.D. from Yale, MacKinnon was ably equipped to launch into a technical speech on the legality of sexual inequality and rape. Yet she approached the topic with the wit, eloquence and grace of a seasoned teacher. Not surprisingly, she has taught at esteemed universities all over the world, including Harvard, Stanford, Basel in Switzerland, Columbia, and the University of Chicago.

I came into Rocky 3 unsure of what I was going to hear, but that uncertainty was short-lived. MacKinnon shocked her audience early on: the state is a male institution, socially and politically built to enhance male dominance. Really? What makes a state “male?” MacKinnon defines “male” as structures of society based on the ideology of male superiority. Within the male state are “male” politics that write the laws of the male state.

Initially, I could not believe that the United States was male state. Yet, according to MacKinnon, compared to the transnational community, the United States is very much a male state. MacKinnon explained that the United States refuses to follow the European example and decriminalize prostitution. This sounds extreme, but decriminalizing prostitution would allow sex workers to get the healthcare and benefits they so desperately need while the police go after the real monsters: the johns, and the pimps. The United States would probably be even more of a male state if it weren’t for the international community.
I learned that Africa holds the gold standard for women rights policy, with South America winning silver. Really? How could the United States be so far behind?

MacKinnon went on, sharpening her point on the dull whetstone of our hearts. The United States has a democratic deficit. We are so busy exporting democratic ideals to the rest of the world, we neglect our own needs for democracy. We believe we are as democratic as it’s ever going to get, and yet the glass ceiling still exists for women. We have not yet experienced what many nations in Africa and South America have already experienced: a death of state, or rather the death of our male state to the hands of globalization. Our efforts to better the world haven’t yet hit home.

“Don’t women identify more with their nationality than their gender?” MacKinnon threw out to her audience. Isn’t she right? Is this some sort of ingrained misogyny that women perpetrate—an inner misogyny that contributes to society’s systematic misogyny? A hate of women that’s cyclical, branding women with certain undesirable characteristics such as a limited education, and then hating them for not being smart enough? Of course it is.

Within the hierarchy of rights that concern Americans, women’s rights probably come in dead last. Women’s rights is just one of the many “group” rights, as in minority group rights, at the bottom of the food chain. This minority status still holds even when women make up half of the world’s population. Next on the hierarchy comes economic and civil rights and finally the all encompassing political rights that enable leaders, mostly men, to have the right to rule.

If war is male, and peace is female, it is no surprise that in war, the combatants are predominantly male and the civilians are the “women and children” with a smattering of non-combatant men. During war, there is always rape. It’s a weapon used almost exclusively
on women. It’s a war policy on par with murder. Yet, rape isn’t just a war crime, it’s gender inequality.In August 2000, MacKinnon won $745 million in a damage award for Kadic v. Karadzic, a case that finally recognized rape as act of genocide in the eyes of international law.

Why does international law work better than national law in addressing women’s rights? The answer for MacKinnon is simple: it’s a matter of distance. She introduced this comparison—think of a nation as a home. A nation is sovereign, with its own laws, and its own dignity. A home is also sovereign, with its own laws and its own dignity. These laws are usually laid down by the head of the household, usually a male. In the old days, the head of a household was called a sovereign, so this comparison makes a lot of sense.

The home is the most powerful realm of men, and it becomes a place of constant and unhindered violation for the female. The home is sovereign, and the female must abide by the rules of her home. She can only seek help by going outside the home and appealing to an objective male. A male can only be objective in dealing with the situation when he is far enough away from the sovereign to see reality and put an end to the violation of the female. The same principle works for sovereign nations.

Such a sad world we live in when it takes a distant male (or female) to point out another male’s wrong. What’s stopping the locals from stepping in and saving the violated female? Well, for one thing, as much we’d like to term sexual abuse as “domestic abuse,” sexual abuse is anything but private. MacKinnon asserts each “privately” abused female adds to the public dominance of males in male politics. What is male politics? It is a system that tries to place a curtain between private and public, rewards domination, defines power as coercion, and values consent extracted from coercion. Male politics dictates not only how men treat women but how men treat and categorize other men.

MacKinnon acknowledges that male politics exists in transnational politics as well. Male politics reduces the effect of international law when it comes to recognizing and prosecuting gender inequality. The international community is ready to mitigate punishment for gender inequality based on different cultural norms, but MacKinnon insists that this is a bad policy. Not interpreting gender inequality through an objective international standard hands justice back over to the subjective, sovereign nation and its subjective sovereign males. Should “cultural differences”really cover genital mutilation masquerading as female circumcision or the Taliban throwing acid in the faces of girls who want to go to school? In the arena of world politics and morality, those who define women’s rights should not tolerate such cultural aberrations, such atrocities.

International law also has trouble calling a spade a spade. MacKinnon attests that the laws on human trafficking, the drug trade and crime in general are very strict and straightforward, but once someone yells “inequality” the laws become very murky and ineffective. “Call it inequality and you can’t do anything,”MacKinnon said, “Call it inequality, and you challenge the status quo.”

It is not inequality itself that the global community has an issue with, but gender inequality. MacKinnon gives the example of the law’s approach to racial inequality as compared to the worldview on gender equality. The international community realizes that racism is a lie, that racism is inaccurate, that racism isn’t grounded in reality. Racial equality is clear-cut, it’s self-explanatory, and it’s not supposed to be culturally relative but gender equality is not a reality, a fact, or even a moral issue for international law. It’s murky, it’s culturally relative and it’s only a “good idea.”

MacKinnon ended her lecture by sending that arrow thudding into our hearts. It was only through the question and answer session did I learn how humanity might move towards solving these discrepancies. For example, are America’s forays into foreign gender inequality simply hollow protectionism only to be seen in the light of military interests? One audience member wanted to know whether America only taking notice of the Taliban’s abuses of women during the War in Afghanistan was morally unsound. I was surprised by the MacKinnon’s confident response. Her view was that America’s opportunistic paternalism was better than nothing. MacKinnon would rather see women’s rights used as pawn in the public relations war to justify occupation, than see women’s rights not addressed at all.

On why the U.S. still has problem with gender inequality,MacKinnon also had a unique point of view. In response to my private question on whether it was male complacency or female complacency that was holding back women’s rights, she replied that there is complacency in both camps, but while elite women in the political or legal spheres concern themselves with the rights of women abroad, they neglect the rights of women at home. “Why is that?” I asked. There is a communication failure between elite women and ordinary women. The women in the position to do something fail to relate to the women they are supposed
to be representing. Gender inequality is tied to class distinctions.

Finally, if we’ve defined male politics and the male state, what is female politics? What would it take to establish a female state? This was the question I raised my hand to ask, and MacKinnon’s answer
was that there was no female state defined as one with a brand new set of grandiose, utopian rules. Female politics redresses errors of male politics. Establishing a female state is the slow progression from the male state to equality. “What is equality?” asked someone else. “Why, equality is the absence of inequality,” quipped MacKinnon, which drew chuckles from the crowd. What is inequality? Inequality is distinction based on attributes. And gender inequality is what MacKinnon has spent her entire career trying to eradicate.

Ultra-conservatives believe they are patriots and consider their opponents unpatriotic. Many, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, say that conservatives are the ones who inhabit “real America” and their foes are merely citizens of “the fake America.” However, ultra-conservatives are not the majority in this country. If ultra-cons don’t identify with “fake America,” they don’t identify with most of America.

Ultra-conservative ideology is not nationalist to begin with—it is primarily religious and cultural. Ultrra-cons do not recognize the real “nation” per se, as it exists beyond their dogma or culture. They are obsessed with the idea of Christianity’s predominant or exclusive role in American politics.
Ultra-conservatives falsely believe that America is a “Christian nation.” However, as the Constitution states,“There shall be no establishment of religion”—the U.S. is not a Christian nation. America’s founders were Christian, but they did not found this country on Christian ideology and did not want to live in a theocracy. In fact, our founders were much less religious than most people of the time.

All of this is not to confuse ultra-conservative dogma with more mainstream conservative ideology, which is indeed quite nationalist in a way that even offsets many liberals. However, the Republican Party is also confused about the distinction between mainstream and fringe. This has separated the party into two and may perhaps be a reason why, according to most polls, only around 20 percent of Americans identify as Republicans. Moderate Republicans think the party is too conservative and ultra-conservatives think that the party is too moderate, both becoming independents.

Most ultra-cons do not “hate America,” although most do hate “the government,” which may be a mental surrogate for the larger country. But when 20 percent of a country distrusts or dislikes the remaining 80 percent, it is clear who the anti-patriots are.

According to a survey by the American College Health Association in 2005, only about 13% of college students get a good night’s sleep every night. Such poor sleeping habits could have a negative impact on memory, ability to retain information, and grades.

Adjusting to the college sleeping cycle has been a rude awakening for the ‘13s. Freshman floors love to hang out and lounge at night. Sometimes this means sacrificing sleep (and ultimately good grades) for socializing or vice versa.

So is there a delicate balance? Can you have a social life and get enough sleep?
William Hernandez, a ‘13 who has been affected by sleep deprivation and acknowledges its negative consequences, said, “Sleep is like the lion, and when you wake the lion up, everything gets affected.” Obviously, Hernandez is not getting enough sleep.

For others who seem to efficiently manage their time, they credit their organization to adequate sleep. David Shapiro said, “I prioritize my sleep and don’t let it fall on the wayside. If you don’t sleep, what’s the point of studying? You learn stuff in your sleep.”

To set a good example, we are going to stop writing this article and go to bed, because sleep is the best gift you can give your body.

Al Franken, champion of rape victims. Image courtesy of zzzlist.

Dawn Leamon and Jamie Leigh Jones were two ordinary American women who only wanted an honest job for honest pay; they had no way of knowing that they were about to make the worst decision of their lives. Leamon and Jones, two contractors operating in Iraq, were both victims of rape while working overseas. In Jones’ case, she was gang-raped and abandoned in a shipping container by her perpetrators for 24 hours without food or water. But their coworkers were never charged with these heinous crimes, shielded not only by various government entities but also their employers.

With support from the U.S. Treasury and protection from a shield of patriotism, defense contractors have obtained a superman-like gall best demonstrated by their conditions for employment. Several contractors, like Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), require their employees to sign off on submitting to binding private arbitration in disputes with the contractors instead of bringing complaints to public courts. Here is an example, taken from a sample contract, of what such a clause in a KBR contract would look like:

5.6. It is the mutual intention of the parties to have any dispute concerning this Agreement resolved out of court …The parties agree that the resolution of any such dispute through such Plan shall be final and binding.

These “disputes” include allegations of sexual assault—something women like Leamon and Jones probably could not have anticipated. Unfortunately for them, it is also something the Department of Defense did not question. Cases of defense contractors, like Leamon and Jones, being raped by fellow employees in Iraq went unprosecuted by the Justice Department. This inactivity wasn’t challenged until a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in April 2008. At this hearing the Department of Defense claimed they couldn’t prosecute these cases because of the contracts employees had signed (even though their clauses only prevented civil suits). The Committee’s opinion? The DOJ and DOD were essentially wrong, and that someone should do something about these contracts.

A year later, new Senator Al Franken took this cue to propose his first piece of legislation — an amendment to H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense budget for 2010. The amendment curtails defense contractors’ use of arbitration in sexual assault and other disputes:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

The roll call vote on this amendment occurred with little debate on October 6. Franken made his case well enough to sway (if there indeed was any doubt in their minds in the first place) 68 senators to approve. Senator Jefferson Sessions of Alabama, along with 29 other Republican Senators, voiced his disapproval for the amendment. Sen. Sessions offered an explanation for his “nay” vote, arguing:

The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law. It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity… Senator Franken offered this amendment because he apparently does not like the fact there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts.

Sen. Sessions goes on to offer a long explanation of a Supreme Court case on arbitration agreements, quoting Justice Kennedy, and then surmises a very judge-like opinion:

We do not have any allegations that the contracts Senator Franken is trying to invalidate were imposed on employees or that fraud or coercion was involved in creating them. To invalidate these contracts would violate not only the due process rights of employers but the employees as well. Employees could, indeed, benefit from arbitration rather than having to go to Federal court.

I am pretty sure that Dawn Leamon, Jamie Leigh Jones and the hundreds of other women who haven’t received justice for the lewd acts they survived while working in Iraq aren’t “benefit[ing] from arbitration.” They want to be able to sue their employers for not handling their “disputes” properly. It is true that they signed the very contracts that now have them in such a bind, but not only do very few people actually read the contracts, no one could predict all the situations the term “disputes” could possibly apply to, including in this case rape and sexual assault.
Some blogs demonize Senator Sessions and the 29 Senators who also voted against the amendment, saying the lawmakers “in essence voted ‘YES’ to rape.” I can curse Republican Senators as much as the next liberal, but clearly they do not support rape. They simply chose a horrible way to exhibit their disapproval of Senator Franken by opposing a necessary change to unjust employment contracts. Their choice reveals a disturbing trend in Congress of opposition to the rival party trumping all.

The very Ig Nobel brassier mask. Artist anonymous.

So, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” This honor has filled some Americans with a surge of pride, others a shot of surprise, and for the majority of world citizens, an undermining suspicion that the Nobel Peace Prize has been devalued. In the same way that one wonders if the son of a former President has been elected on his own merits or connections, we have to wonder: was it Obama’s genius that won the prize or his position? The award does not feel deserved; it is less a celebration of his past achievements and more a confident encouragement for the future. Whatever happened to the American Dream—or the international dream—of not having to be president or royalty in order to win a million bucks and some recognition?

To answer this question, we must look to a different award ceremony that awards a different kind of genius. The Ig Nobel Awards are intended for inventions and discoveries that are “first intended to make you laugh and then think,” according to their website. Although you won’t be inducted into a Royal society or receive comparable prize money as a “real” Nobel Laureate, you can become a member of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists, provided that you fit the criteria.

Many of the scientists who submit their work to “improbable research” had absolutely no funding from external endorsements. Most of the discoveries are simple and elegant — not the result of arduous years in grad school.

For example, the Public Health Prize was awarded to Dr. Elena Bodnar for inventing a brassiere that, in an emergency, can be quickly converted into a pair of protective masks—one for the brassiere wearer and one to be given to some needy bystander. The genius of this invention lies in the fact that, assuming that the majority of women wear bras (hint hint), and given the fact that 51 percent the world’s population is female, the application of such a product could be nearly universal. Plus, it produces a great new pick-up line: “Hey babe, I have Swine, give me your bra.”

Some researchers combined common sense and ancient practices to form orderly answers that stand up to today’s high-standards. For example Donald L. Unger won the Medicine Award “for investigating a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers, by diligently cracking the knuckles of his left hand—but never cracking the knuckles of his right hand—every day for more than sixty (60) years.” What a trooper.

Similarly, the Veterinary Medicine Award went to Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson “for showing that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless.” Unfortunately, this discovery goes hand-in-hand with the demise of the entertaining game “HEY COW!”
More interestingly, in 2008, the Physics Prize went to Dorian Raymer and Douglas Smith for proving with mathematical knot theory that “heaps of string or hair or almost anything else will inevitably tangle themselves up in knots.” I don’t want to know how, but Geoffrey Miller won the Economics Prize “for discovering that professional lap dancers earn higher tips when they are ovulating.”

Other discoveries, like the fact that potato chips can be electronically modified so as to sound crunchier when chewed, merely prove some of our suspicions about the shadiness of the commercial world. Dan Ariely of Duke University, Rebeca Webar of MIT, Baba Shiv of Stanford University, and Ziv Carmen of Singapore won the Medicine Prize “for demonstrating that high-priced fake medicine is more effective than low-priced fake medicine.”

While many of these problems are ancient and their solutions timeless, others are extremely pertinent to global issues today. This year’s Economics Prize went to the auditors of four Icelandic banks “for demonstrating that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa.” In 2008, the Peace Prize was awarded to the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee for adopting a legal principle that plants have dignity. Now that sounds like a real paradigm shift.
The Ig Nobel Awards’ purist philosophy coupled with the Nobel Award’s prestigious regalia could help reinvent our notion of “genius.” Over a century ago, Alfred Nobel thought the Peace Prize was deserved by “the person who shall have done the best work … for the reduction of standing armies.” It’s clear Obama has not taken significant steps to reduce the number of troops in the Middle-East, and therefore does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Although the Nobel Award might be cheapened, the Ig Nobel Awards rewards deserving professors and entities for competent, albeit zany, work.