When the Virginia Tech shooter killed his first two victims, officials detained the girl’s boyfriend and did little else. After he killed another 30 people, officials admitted that they discounted the first two murders as a “domestic dispute.” Last week, in a column written before this incident, I noted that this euphemism is used to downplay acts of violence against women.
“Domestic dispute” is codespeak for the things men to do their “own” women, which therefore do not really concern the outside world. The distinction is artificial, because violence that begins at home frequently spills into the rest of the world. Consider, for example, Buckhead shooter Mark O. Barton. After he shot 9 people at his office, police later found the bludgeoned bodies of his wife and children at home. In fact, Barton may have killed before. Someone bludgeoned his first wife and mother-in-law to death years before the Buckhead killings. Barton was named a person of interest and investigated by police – but the prosecutor did not proceed with indictment. It makes you wonder if we could prevent some mass murders by taking “domestic disputes” more seriously.
The trial of a woman named Mary Winkler who shot her husband also made front page this week. When a woman shoots a man (or even a man’s tires, in the case of Miss America 1944), it always makes great headlines. “Tennessee preacher’s wife convicted” national headlines read.
Meanwhile, another trial involving another Mary never made front page. Mary Babb (no relation to this columnist) was the victim of many “domestic disputes.” Because the violence was male-on-female, most of us never read about it. “Witness describes fatal shooting,” was the local headline for her story.
Mary W. testified that her husband abused her physically, sexually and emotionally. Friends and relatives said her personality had changed since marrying the controlling preacher, and testified of a black eye and other visible injuries. Mary W. said he subjected her to sexual acts she found physically painful and morally repugnant. She was afraid to divorce her husband, who had sworn to kill her and cut her up into a million pieces if she ever crossed him. After he tried to silence their baby by covering her mouth and nose, Mary W. says she snapped. She does not remember pulling the trigger. She fired one blast from his own shotgun – the one he had threatened her with so many times – then she packed her three little girls in the car and fled.
On Friday, a jury found Mary W. guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The verdict recognizes that she shot her husband intentionally but without forethought. Though Mary W. claims the shotgun went off accidentally, pointing a gun at another person certainly suggests intent. If she was not in imminent danger, her actions can hardly be considered self-defense. Although the gun had been pointed at her many times in the past, one crime does not excuse another.
She should have gone to the police. She should have prosecuted Matthew Winkler for beating and threatening and sexually abusing her. She should have divorced him instead of shooting him. Right?
But let us consider the other Mary. Mary B. was also a victim of an abusive husband, and she did all the things we would have advised Mary W. to do. Mary B. filed for divorce. When her husband Thomas responded by threatening her with a knife, Mary B. sought to prosecute him for assault, domestic violence and criminal sexual conduct. Mary B. obtained an order of protection. She moved to another city with her three-year-old son and she found a job working for a newspaper.
While in jail, Thomas was so vocal in his threats against Mary B. that cellmates requested he be moved. In spite of the threats, and in spite of a prior sentence for assaulting Mary B., the judge let him out of jail on bond. Several months later, with the court date and charges still pending, Thomas found his prey again outside her place of employment. He rammed her Ford Explorer till it overturned. As Mary B. lay trapped on the ceiling of her vehicle, he shot out the window, and then killed her with one blast from a shotgun.
Two Marys faced controlling, abusive husbands. Mary B. did everything right. She did not fight violence with violence. She trusted the authorities to protect her. Mary B. is dead.
Mary W. fought back. Afraid that involving the police would result in her death, she took matters into her own hands. Mary W. survived. Because she survived, she is going to jail. We fail to protect those women who turn to the law for protection – and we prosecute those who protect themselves. Until judges stop letting abusive men go free, we should not condemn women like Mary W. who fight back. What other recourse do they have?
Divorce is a legitimate reaction. The longer an abused woman stays, the harder it is for her to get out alive. Since abuse gets worse with time, churches and counselors should not advise abused women to tough it out or give him one more chance. Yet filing for divorce is not sufficient – particularly if Georgia legislators succeed in prolonging the waiting period between divorce filing and finalizing to 120 days. Statistics show that the rate of marital homicide is highest during the separation preceding divorce. Some abusers continue to harass or physically attack their victims even after divorce. Mary B. had already filed for divorce. Divorce did not save her.
Orders of protection are useless. These are men who ignore social taboos and break existing laws every time they assault their wives. They are not going to be deterred by an additional rule on a piece of paper. Neither is a $30,000 bond (of which he pays just 10%) going to keep such a man from going after his prey.
Violent men are not stopped by un-enforced laws, restraining orders or fines. They can be stopped by prison bars. Until the American judicial system starts locking up abusive men, it should not lock up women who protect themselves.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
"On the Other Hand"
April, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Between the (Head)lines
A Canton, Georgia headline reads, “Couple, child victims of apparent murder-suicide.” The headline is sanitized and de-sexed, suggesting that everyone involved is a victim, as if none of the three were to blame. The headline does not tell us who shot who, but we all know. It is not just that 94% of murder-suicides are male on female. It is the headline that gives it away, by what is left unsaid. If the shooter had been female, the headline would read “Woman murders husband, leaves baby to starve.” As another example, consider two arrests that were made Easter weekend. The male-on-female murder was noted in this gender-neutral manner: “Arrest made in teens’ death.” But when three women were arrested for delivering a baby and discarding it, that headline read: “NY sisters arrested in baby’s death.”
Acts of violence by women against men are still extraordinary enough to rate “Man bites dog” news status. When Lorena Bobbitt was arrested for maiming her husband, that story was a great headline-grabber. News of the forced abortion and the continual abuse she had endured at his hands -- so horrible that the judge chose to acquit her for the attack -- barely made a ripple on the news radar.
The media gender bias extends beyond perpetrators; it is also evident in the treatment of victims. Consider the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal. The world was outraged at the discovery that priests were molesting altar boys. We barely noticed that they victimized girls, too. One priest raped numerous teenage girls upon the altar, yet it was boys who made the news. Defenders of the Roman Catholic Church note that children are more likely to be sexually victimized by school teachers than by their priest or pastor. Yet public outrage against student sex abuse has never risen to the level of calling it a scandal. The difference? Girls are the usual target.
Abu Ghraib stands as the strongest testament to the media neglect of female victimization. Emblazoned on our collective consciousness are the images of abused and humiliated men, out of context with Lynndie England’s thumbs-up and happy camper smile. But where are the photos and the stories of the women who were tortured at Abu Ghraib? Perhaps you’ll have to look it up, as I did, but women were (and still are) incarcerated in Abu Ghraib. Many women were stripped of their clothes, tortured, raped, and sexually humiliated right along with the men. A 70-year-old Iraqi woman was harnessed and ridden like donkey. But it was only violence against women, so it did not make the front page.
When mentioned at all, the abuse of women at Abu Ghraib is downplayed. The Taguba report makes no bones about the sadistic torture inflicted on male Abu Ghraib prisoners. As for the women, the report includes an innocuous-sounding admission of “a male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.” The legal term for such an event is rape, because the law recognizes that a prisoner cannot give meaningful consent to an armed guard. Acts against males that involved penetration were termed rape, but the rape of women was categorized as sex. The women who have been released alive went home tight-lipped. After all, this is a culture where a rape victim’s family often stones her to death in order to restore their “honor.”
Journalists tell us about violence against women in the passive voice, as if these things just happen. Consider “school shootings.” Schools don’t get shot; people do. And someone does the shooting. The shooters are nearly always male (boy students or sometimes a man from the community) and the victims are predominantly female. Sometimes the shooters even excuse the males and shoot girls exclusively. Very few media outlets have noted the gender component, preferring instead to imagine that school shootings are senseless or random acts of violence.
Another passive term the media likes is “domestic disputes.” This one sounds like two people on an equal playing field, who are having a bit of trouble working something out. Yet we most often hear this term after the discovery of a dead body (usually female), e.g. “The couple had a history of domestic disputes.” To me, a domestic dispute is what happens when somebody uses up all the hot water on a Sunday morning. The term does not adequately describe what it is like for a woman to be dragged through her house by her hair, choked, or threatened by a person who may be twice her size. Journalists should avoid using vague, sexless terms like “domestic dispute” and instead write strong sentences such as, “Police reports indicate this was not the first time the man choked his wife.”
Statisticians are also guilty of using this neutered, passive vocabulary. For example, they inform us that 1 out of 3 girls “will be sexually victimized” before age 18. Although sexual abusers are almost invariably male, we do not read that “Men sexually abuse 1 out of 3 girls before the age of 18.” Nor do we ever hear the percentage of men who abuse. We read about women in the military “getting raped,” not about “male soldiers raping their female comrades.”
If my rephrasing of these sentences disturbs readers, it should. We should be very disturbed that there are men in our midst, in this very community, perhaps at our church or our children’s schools, who perpetrate crimes against women and children we know. According to the CDC, men commit over 90% of the sexual violence in America against victims who are 78% female. Every year, American men kill 1,000 wives or girlfriends and rape or sexually abuse hundreds of thousands more.
Male-on-female violence is pervasive and is mostly ignored by our society. We cannot adequately address it by talking about how many women are abused. The problem is not abused women. The problem is abusive men.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
On the Other Hand
April, 2007
Acts of violence by women against men are still extraordinary enough to rate “Man bites dog” news status. When Lorena Bobbitt was arrested for maiming her husband, that story was a great headline-grabber. News of the forced abortion and the continual abuse she had endured at his hands -- so horrible that the judge chose to acquit her for the attack -- barely made a ripple on the news radar.
The media gender bias extends beyond perpetrators; it is also evident in the treatment of victims. Consider the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal. The world was outraged at the discovery that priests were molesting altar boys. We barely noticed that they victimized girls, too. One priest raped numerous teenage girls upon the altar, yet it was boys who made the news. Defenders of the Roman Catholic Church note that children are more likely to be sexually victimized by school teachers than by their priest or pastor. Yet public outrage against student sex abuse has never risen to the level of calling it a scandal. The difference? Girls are the usual target.
Abu Ghraib stands as the strongest testament to the media neglect of female victimization. Emblazoned on our collective consciousness are the images of abused and humiliated men, out of context with Lynndie England’s thumbs-up and happy camper smile. But where are the photos and the stories of the women who were tortured at Abu Ghraib? Perhaps you’ll have to look it up, as I did, but women were (and still are) incarcerated in Abu Ghraib. Many women were stripped of their clothes, tortured, raped, and sexually humiliated right along with the men. A 70-year-old Iraqi woman was harnessed and ridden like donkey. But it was only violence against women, so it did not make the front page.
When mentioned at all, the abuse of women at Abu Ghraib is downplayed. The Taguba report makes no bones about the sadistic torture inflicted on male Abu Ghraib prisoners. As for the women, the report includes an innocuous-sounding admission of “a male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.” The legal term for such an event is rape, because the law recognizes that a prisoner cannot give meaningful consent to an armed guard. Acts against males that involved penetration were termed rape, but the rape of women was categorized as sex. The women who have been released alive went home tight-lipped. After all, this is a culture where a rape victim’s family often stones her to death in order to restore their “honor.”
Journalists tell us about violence against women in the passive voice, as if these things just happen. Consider “school shootings.” Schools don’t get shot; people do. And someone does the shooting. The shooters are nearly always male (boy students or sometimes a man from the community) and the victims are predominantly female. Sometimes the shooters even excuse the males and shoot girls exclusively. Very few media outlets have noted the gender component, preferring instead to imagine that school shootings are senseless or random acts of violence.
Another passive term the media likes is “domestic disputes.” This one sounds like two people on an equal playing field, who are having a bit of trouble working something out. Yet we most often hear this term after the discovery of a dead body (usually female), e.g. “The couple had a history of domestic disputes.” To me, a domestic dispute is what happens when somebody uses up all the hot water on a Sunday morning. The term does not adequately describe what it is like for a woman to be dragged through her house by her hair, choked, or threatened by a person who may be twice her size. Journalists should avoid using vague, sexless terms like “domestic dispute” and instead write strong sentences such as, “Police reports indicate this was not the first time the man choked his wife.”
Statisticians are also guilty of using this neutered, passive vocabulary. For example, they inform us that 1 out of 3 girls “will be sexually victimized” before age 18. Although sexual abusers are almost invariably male, we do not read that “Men sexually abuse 1 out of 3 girls before the age of 18.” Nor do we ever hear the percentage of men who abuse. We read about women in the military “getting raped,” not about “male soldiers raping their female comrades.”
If my rephrasing of these sentences disturbs readers, it should. We should be very disturbed that there are men in our midst, in this very community, perhaps at our church or our children’s schools, who perpetrate crimes against women and children we know. According to the CDC, men commit over 90% of the sexual violence in America against victims who are 78% female. Every year, American men kill 1,000 wives or girlfriends and rape or sexually abuse hundreds of thousands more.
Male-on-female violence is pervasive and is mostly ignored by our society. We cannot adequately address it by talking about how many women are abused. The problem is not abused women. The problem is abusive men.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
On the Other Hand
April, 2007
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Box of Bones
Every year about this time, we are thrown another caveat on the story of Jesus. Last year The Da Vinci Code claimed that Jesus lived on through a sacred bloodline rather than as risen Lord. This year, a new non—fiction book called The Jesus Family Tomb ranked #10 on last week’s New York Times’ nonfiction list. The book claims that the bones of Jesus Christ have been found, encased in a stone ossuary.
Documentary-maker Simcha Jacobivici says he discovered the tomb beneath an apartment complex in Jerusalem in 1980. In first-century Israel, bodies were allowed to decompose for a year inside the tomb and then the bones were placed inside stone boxes called ossuaries. Ten such boxes were found inside this tomb, and six of them bore inscriptions in various languages – Latin, Aramaic and Greek. One of them allegedly bears the inscription “Jesus, son of Joseph.” They say the other boxes bear the names of his mother Mary, his brothers Matthew and Joseph, his wife Mary Magdalene, and his son Judah. Sound familiar yet?
It would not bother me if Jesus were married and had a child, although frankly I see nothing in Scripture or history that supports it. But finding the bones of Jesus would call into question the resurrection, upon which hinges our entire faith. So we must ask: Are these the bones of Jesus?
Some scholars are already saying no. Israeli archaeologist Amos Klonger, who was among the first to examine the newly discovered tomb, says the names on the ossuaries are so common that they prove nothing. In fact, the name Jesus survives on 99 tombs and 22 ossuaries in that region. Other scholars disagree with the actual translations of the names. The ossuaries were discovered in 1980, but stored in a warehouse until 1996, which raises further questions.
There are a few inconsistencies that leap out at this arm-chair scholar. Biblically, Jesus never had a brother named Matthew. His brothers are named as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Jacobivici adds to the family tree of Christ in order to support his own theory, since DNA evidence linked the bodies as siblings. Since we have a historical record of the names of the brothers, the bones of Matthew actually contradict the theory that the Jesus in the box is the one we call Jesus Christ. Since we have no historical record of Jesus having a son named Judah (or anything else), the DNA evidence tying those two bodies is irrelevant in establishing the identity of the Jesus in the ossuary.
The early disciples were persecuted mightily for their claim that Jesus was not really dead. They were exiled, beaten, flogged, beheaded, and crucified. Given the chance to go away quietly, they typically responded by saying, “We cannot help telling everyone what we have seen and heard.” His family – including his mother Mary and his brother James – were among those who claimed he had risen. If the family was lying, why would they keep his bones conspicuously in the family vault labeled “Jesus, Son of Joseph?”
I am not a scientist or a historian, but I am confident that when all the evidence is tallied and all the testing complete – not by profiteers but by actual scientists – the results will be so ordinary and so non-compelling they will hardly make the news.
In the meantime, we Christians ought to focus on showing a risen Christ to the world. Some have said that if Jesus were alive today, he would be in Iraq and carrying an M-16. But Jesus is alive! He was, and still is, the Prince of Peace. According to Scripture, the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. (Romans 14:17.) Just as Jesus wept with Mary of Bethany at the tomb of her brother Lazarus, Jesus weeps today with mothers who have lost children in the war on Iraq – and it matters not whether those mothers are American or Iraqi.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
April, 2007
Documentary-maker Simcha Jacobivici says he discovered the tomb beneath an apartment complex in Jerusalem in 1980. In first-century Israel, bodies were allowed to decompose for a year inside the tomb and then the bones were placed inside stone boxes called ossuaries. Ten such boxes were found inside this tomb, and six of them bore inscriptions in various languages – Latin, Aramaic and Greek. One of them allegedly bears the inscription “Jesus, son of Joseph.” They say the other boxes bear the names of his mother Mary, his brothers Matthew and Joseph, his wife Mary Magdalene, and his son Judah. Sound familiar yet?
It would not bother me if Jesus were married and had a child, although frankly I see nothing in Scripture or history that supports it. But finding the bones of Jesus would call into question the resurrection, upon which hinges our entire faith. So we must ask: Are these the bones of Jesus?
Some scholars are already saying no. Israeli archaeologist Amos Klonger, who was among the first to examine the newly discovered tomb, says the names on the ossuaries are so common that they prove nothing. In fact, the name Jesus survives on 99 tombs and 22 ossuaries in that region. Other scholars disagree with the actual translations of the names. The ossuaries were discovered in 1980, but stored in a warehouse until 1996, which raises further questions.
There are a few inconsistencies that leap out at this arm-chair scholar. Biblically, Jesus never had a brother named Matthew. His brothers are named as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Jacobivici adds to the family tree of Christ in order to support his own theory, since DNA evidence linked the bodies as siblings. Since we have a historical record of the names of the brothers, the bones of Matthew actually contradict the theory that the Jesus in the box is the one we call Jesus Christ. Since we have no historical record of Jesus having a son named Judah (or anything else), the DNA evidence tying those two bodies is irrelevant in establishing the identity of the Jesus in the ossuary.
The early disciples were persecuted mightily for their claim that Jesus was not really dead. They were exiled, beaten, flogged, beheaded, and crucified. Given the chance to go away quietly, they typically responded by saying, “We cannot help telling everyone what we have seen and heard.” His family – including his mother Mary and his brother James – were among those who claimed he had risen. If the family was lying, why would they keep his bones conspicuously in the family vault labeled “Jesus, Son of Joseph?”
I am not a scientist or a historian, but I am confident that when all the evidence is tallied and all the testing complete – not by profiteers but by actual scientists – the results will be so ordinary and so non-compelling they will hardly make the news.
In the meantime, we Christians ought to focus on showing a risen Christ to the world. Some have said that if Jesus were alive today, he would be in Iraq and carrying an M-16. But Jesus is alive! He was, and still is, the Prince of Peace. According to Scripture, the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. (Romans 14:17.) Just as Jesus wept with Mary of Bethany at the tomb of her brother Lazarus, Jesus weeps today with mothers who have lost children in the war on Iraq – and it matters not whether those mothers are American or Iraqi.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
April, 2007
Who Needs the ERA?
As recently as last week, I heard someone refer to the ERA as “satanic.” The Equal Rights Amendment, first introduced in 1923 and finally submitted to the states for ratification in 1972, has been maligned in every way imaginable. Critics have called it unnatural, rebellious, and all sorts of derogatory adjectives. Some claimed it would make men “unnecessary.” Thirty years ago, evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell charged that ratification of the ERA would require women to go into combat and become prisoners of war, while conservative lobbyist Phyllis Schlafly invoked the feared specter of coed restrooms.
Have you ever actually read the text of the Equal Rights Amendment? Here it is, in its entirety:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Fast-forward to 2007. We are still waiting for three more states to ratify the ERA. It has been ratified by 35 of the required 38 states. These days, 20% of the U.S. military is female. Women have received medals, protected convoys, and yes, some have been prisoners of war. And how many of us have enjoyed the family restrooms at the mall and the airport? All without the ERA.
Those who opposed the ERA as an ungodly evil still oppose it. They have stepped back from most of their dire warnings, and instead weakly reply that ERA is “no longer needed.” I assert that it is.
We need the ERA because it establishes that the Constitution and the whole of the law apply to women in the same way they apply to men. The 14th Amendment, introduced after the Civil War, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, but dealt a back-handed blow to women by adding the word “male” to the Constitution for the first time. The 19th Amendment established women’s right to vote, but stopped short of guaranteeing women equal rights in any other area. Currently a patchwork of state and federal laws protect us from some sex discrimination. Until we can count on uniform constitutional protection, women will always find ourselves having to prove that we have the same rights men already take for granted.
We need the ERA because it prevents a rollback of women’s rights. It only takes a simple majority for Congress to establish laws that could damage our freedoms. Writing equal protection into the Constitution guarantees that, short of another amendment, no new law could be applied to one sex alone.
The reason we need the ERA is because we do not have it yet.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
Have you ever actually read the text of the Equal Rights Amendment? Here it is, in its entirety:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Fast-forward to 2007. We are still waiting for three more states to ratify the ERA. It has been ratified by 35 of the required 38 states. These days, 20% of the U.S. military is female. Women have received medals, protected convoys, and yes, some have been prisoners of war. And how many of us have enjoyed the family restrooms at the mall and the airport? All without the ERA.
Those who opposed the ERA as an ungodly evil still oppose it. They have stepped back from most of their dire warnings, and instead weakly reply that ERA is “no longer needed.” I assert that it is.
We need the ERA because it establishes that the Constitution and the whole of the law apply to women in the same way they apply to men. The 14th Amendment, introduced after the Civil War, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, but dealt a back-handed blow to women by adding the word “male” to the Constitution for the first time. The 19th Amendment established women’s right to vote, but stopped short of guaranteeing women equal rights in any other area. Currently a patchwork of state and federal laws protect us from some sex discrimination. Until we can count on uniform constitutional protection, women will always find ourselves having to prove that we have the same rights men already take for granted.
We need the ERA because it prevents a rollback of women’s rights. It only takes a simple majority for Congress to establish laws that could damage our freedoms. Writing equal protection into the Constitution guarantees that, short of another amendment, no new law could be applied to one sex alone.
The reason we need the ERA is because we do not have it yet.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
Celebrate or Apologize?
The Georgia government has been asked to do a very simple thing: To say “I’m sorry.” Nearly 150 years have passed since that dark chapter in Georgia’s history when slaves were bought, sold, worked and bred like livestock. Today such acts are criminal.
It is sad that an apology needs to be requested. Sadder still is the response from some Georgia office holders. Governor Sonny Perdue questioned the legitimacy of apologizing for others, despite his claim that every Georgian regrets the state’s slave-holding past.
The Senate President Pro Tem called such apologies “silly,” even though he recently signed a resolution apologizing for the harm done by Georgia’s eugenics program.
State Senator Jeff Mullis has opposed an apology for slavery on the basis that he did not do anything “personally” and that slavery happened prior to his tenure. What are these men missing? They are not being asked to apologize personally. It is the state being asked to apologize for the terrible mistake of officially sanctioning slavery. Instead of getting on board with the apology, Mullis introduced a bill designating the entire month of April as a time to commemorate Confederate history and honor everyone who fought in favor of the South.
Which is it? Should we celebrate the heroism of our Confederate ancestors, or should we apologize for their grave wrongdoing? The answer is yes to both. If the glory of our Confederate ancestors belongs to us, then their sin is also ours to confess.
My personal heritage seems clear of slave owners, but I still feel regret when I consider the pain wrought by slavery in Georgia. In fact, it is because I love Georgia and embrace my Southern heritage that I do feel sorrow for our past in human trafficking. I’m sorry that the majestic plantations and fertile fields were propped up by forced labor. I’m sorry that men and women were whipped, that children were taken from their parents, and that young girls were impregnated against their will. I’m sorry that the churches, educators, and social customs of that time – both in the North and the South – taught that Europeans were somehow “more evolved” and that subjugation of the darker-skinned was not only acceptable, but actually ordained by God.
Yes, I know that some slave owners were kind to their slaves. Yes, I realize that many black people and white people grew up together as family. The human spirit is amazing, and hope springs eternal – but such miracles can never excuse the moral atrocity of slavery.
Yes, I know that slavery was not the only issue that led to the Civil War. Yes, I am an advocate of states’ rights, like so many readers of this paper. Yes, I am fiercely independent, and I am mistrustful of Big Government. But sometimes even Big Government gets it right. Liberty – not slavery -- is the rightful inheritance of all Americans.
Ironically, the Jeff Mullis bill may be our best shot at making things right. (And I don’t mean by restoring the slave quarters at the Gordon Lee Mansion.) The Georgia legislature has the opportunity to build the apology for slavery right into the Confederate history bill, allowing Georgians to celebrate what is good and reject what is evil in one fell swoop.
By all means, let us remember our Southern heritage. But let us remember it honestly.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
March, 2007
It is sad that an apology needs to be requested. Sadder still is the response from some Georgia office holders. Governor Sonny Perdue questioned the legitimacy of apologizing for others, despite his claim that every Georgian regrets the state’s slave-holding past.
The Senate President Pro Tem called such apologies “silly,” even though he recently signed a resolution apologizing for the harm done by Georgia’s eugenics program.
State Senator Jeff Mullis has opposed an apology for slavery on the basis that he did not do anything “personally” and that slavery happened prior to his tenure. What are these men missing? They are not being asked to apologize personally. It is the state being asked to apologize for the terrible mistake of officially sanctioning slavery. Instead of getting on board with the apology, Mullis introduced a bill designating the entire month of April as a time to commemorate Confederate history and honor everyone who fought in favor of the South.
Which is it? Should we celebrate the heroism of our Confederate ancestors, or should we apologize for their grave wrongdoing? The answer is yes to both. If the glory of our Confederate ancestors belongs to us, then their sin is also ours to confess.
My personal heritage seems clear of slave owners, but I still feel regret when I consider the pain wrought by slavery in Georgia. In fact, it is because I love Georgia and embrace my Southern heritage that I do feel sorrow for our past in human trafficking. I’m sorry that the majestic plantations and fertile fields were propped up by forced labor. I’m sorry that men and women were whipped, that children were taken from their parents, and that young girls were impregnated against their will. I’m sorry that the churches, educators, and social customs of that time – both in the North and the South – taught that Europeans were somehow “more evolved” and that subjugation of the darker-skinned was not only acceptable, but actually ordained by God.
Yes, I know that some slave owners were kind to their slaves. Yes, I realize that many black people and white people grew up together as family. The human spirit is amazing, and hope springs eternal – but such miracles can never excuse the moral atrocity of slavery.
Yes, I know that slavery was not the only issue that led to the Civil War. Yes, I am an advocate of states’ rights, like so many readers of this paper. Yes, I am fiercely independent, and I am mistrustful of Big Government. But sometimes even Big Government gets it right. Liberty – not slavery -- is the rightful inheritance of all Americans.
Ironically, the Jeff Mullis bill may be our best shot at making things right. (And I don’t mean by restoring the slave quarters at the Gordon Lee Mansion.) The Georgia legislature has the opportunity to build the apology for slavery right into the Confederate history bill, allowing Georgians to celebrate what is good and reject what is evil in one fell swoop.
By all means, let us remember our Southern heritage. But let us remember it honestly.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
March, 2007
Bad for Business
Bad for Business
Georgia Republicans are poised to reject any raise in state minimum wage, claiming that such an increase will hurt small businesses. Yet these same legislators are vying for a hefty increase in the state sales tax – a move that affects local businesses far worse than a minimum wage increase.
Inflation has eroded the real minimum wage to a level 30% below the 1968 minimum wage. Last legislative session 39 states at least entertained raising their minimum wages. Georgia alone attempted to drop the minimum wage. Our state senators passed a bill to cut young workers down to $4.25 an hour for their first 90 days of employment – a move that encourages retailers to install a revolving door of job instability.
Senator Jeff Mullis, who voted in favor of the cut, has recently hedged the issue by claiming he would favor an increase if it could be made “palatable to businesses.” In Georgia, the minimum wage law is already made palatable to businesses by exempting those with fewer than six employees or revenues under $40,000 per year. Georgia minimum wage law does not cover high school or college students, newspaper carriers, domestic employees, farm workers, or anyone who receives tips.
State Representative Ron Forster not only opposes a raise in minimum wage; he would like to eliminate the minimum wage altogether. Like many other Libertarians who call themselves Republicans, Forster claims minimum wage laws hurt small businesses, damage the economy, and cause job loss. This mantra is outdated and demonstrated faulty by years of empirical data. Employment grows 1-2% more quickly in states that have a higher minimum wage. Annual and average payroll growth is also faster in those states. Further, the number of small business establishments grows twice as fast in states with higher minimum wage standards. Businesses absorb wage increases through higher productivity, decreased turn-over costs, lower absenteeism, and improved worker morale. In fact, 75% of business owners in a Gallup survey said they would be unaffected by a minimum wage increase of 10%. Nearly half favored a minimum wage increase.
What happens when these supposedly pro-business legislators encounter the threat of a sales tax increase? On March 7th Senator Mullis told the Catoosa County News he would “wholly support the idea and the legislation” of a 1 cent sales tax increase. That’s a jump of 25%, coming from a legislator who promised in December that with Republicans in charge, we should expect “no new taxes.” (He forgot to preface the statement with “Read my lips.”) Mullis admits that the proposed sales tax increase represents billions of dollars of additional tax payments. Who will be footing the bill for this increase? Every Georgia citizen, rich or poor, will feel the impact.
Sales tax increases also hurt the small businesses Republicans claim they want to protect. Consider an area like Catoosa County. Currently we undercut Tennessee’s sales tax by 3 cents (closer to 2 cents when you consider local taxes.) Catoosa has enjoyed that tax advantage as an incentive for Tennessee consumers to spend billions of dollars in North Georgia. Despite Chattanooga’s wider range of offerings, Tennesseans will drive across the state line for that tax savings. As that tax difference levels off, local businesses can expect to lose both Tennessee customers and Georgia customers to Chattanooga.
Politicians who truly want to protect local businesses should stand against a sales tax increase. Use your weight to maintain a pro-growth business environment, not to step on the grocery bagger who is still subsisting on $5.15 per hour.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
Published March 20, 2007
Georgia Republicans are poised to reject any raise in state minimum wage, claiming that such an increase will hurt small businesses. Yet these same legislators are vying for a hefty increase in the state sales tax – a move that affects local businesses far worse than a minimum wage increase.
Inflation has eroded the real minimum wage to a level 30% below the 1968 minimum wage. Last legislative session 39 states at least entertained raising their minimum wages. Georgia alone attempted to drop the minimum wage. Our state senators passed a bill to cut young workers down to $4.25 an hour for their first 90 days of employment – a move that encourages retailers to install a revolving door of job instability.
Senator Jeff Mullis, who voted in favor of the cut, has recently hedged the issue by claiming he would favor an increase if it could be made “palatable to businesses.” In Georgia, the minimum wage law is already made palatable to businesses by exempting those with fewer than six employees or revenues under $40,000 per year. Georgia minimum wage law does not cover high school or college students, newspaper carriers, domestic employees, farm workers, or anyone who receives tips.
State Representative Ron Forster not only opposes a raise in minimum wage; he would like to eliminate the minimum wage altogether. Like many other Libertarians who call themselves Republicans, Forster claims minimum wage laws hurt small businesses, damage the economy, and cause job loss. This mantra is outdated and demonstrated faulty by years of empirical data. Employment grows 1-2% more quickly in states that have a higher minimum wage. Annual and average payroll growth is also faster in those states. Further, the number of small business establishments grows twice as fast in states with higher minimum wage standards. Businesses absorb wage increases through higher productivity, decreased turn-over costs, lower absenteeism, and improved worker morale. In fact, 75% of business owners in a Gallup survey said they would be unaffected by a minimum wage increase of 10%. Nearly half favored a minimum wage increase.
What happens when these supposedly pro-business legislators encounter the threat of a sales tax increase? On March 7th Senator Mullis told the Catoosa County News he would “wholly support the idea and the legislation” of a 1 cent sales tax increase. That’s a jump of 25%, coming from a legislator who promised in December that with Republicans in charge, we should expect “no new taxes.” (He forgot to preface the statement with “Read my lips.”) Mullis admits that the proposed sales tax increase represents billions of dollars of additional tax payments. Who will be footing the bill for this increase? Every Georgia citizen, rich or poor, will feel the impact.
Sales tax increases also hurt the small businesses Republicans claim they want to protect. Consider an area like Catoosa County. Currently we undercut Tennessee’s sales tax by 3 cents (closer to 2 cents when you consider local taxes.) Catoosa has enjoyed that tax advantage as an incentive for Tennessee consumers to spend billions of dollars in North Georgia. Despite Chattanooga’s wider range of offerings, Tennesseans will drive across the state line for that tax savings. As that tax difference levels off, local businesses can expect to lose both Tennessee customers and Georgia customers to Chattanooga.
Politicians who truly want to protect local businesses should stand against a sales tax increase. Use your weight to maintain a pro-growth business environment, not to step on the grocery bagger who is still subsisting on $5.15 per hour.
-- Jeannie Babb Taylor
Published March 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
