Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

The Housewife Theory of History

By Rebecca Solnit, Orion Magazine. Posted June 9, 2005.


By taking the qualities that are supposed to render them irrelevant and using them strategically, women have been slowly but surely changing the world.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On the west coast of Madagascar, there's a tribe called the Sakalava, who are theoretically monarchists, loyal to a line of male kings. Their loyalty, however, is to dead rather than living kings, and the wishes of the dead kings are made known through spirit mediums who are, according to David Graeber in his wonderful Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, "usually elderly women of common descent." Which is to say that, officially, the Sakalava are governed by elite men, but ordinary elderly women are the literal voices of authority.

I'm not sure we're much different. We are governed mostly by elite men, quite a lot of them seemingly dead, and everything in our culture encourages us to regard these rulers not just as the central but the sole source of power. But history is changed again and again by people who are supposedly powerless, including the women veiled by the dismissive moniker housewife.

When Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg, widows of men killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center, started doing research and demanding answers from elected representatives, they gave rise to the 9/11 Commission. Nicknamed the Jersey Girls, they became experts on national security and terrorism. A year after the towers collapsed, one of them spoke forcefully to Congress about what had really happened. A year and a half after that, the 9/11 Commission issued the official verdict that there were no ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. By that time, the Jersey Girls were campaigning against Bush's re-election.

They didn't win that one, but they won't go away, any more than the Seattle-area mothers of mentally disabled children did when they ran into roadblock after roadblock to getting their children public school educations and other basic rights. Those three mothers, Evelyn Chapman, Katie Dolan, and Jane Taggart, went, as my friend Susan Schwartzenberg says in her forthcoming book, Becoming Citizens: Family Life and the Politics of Disability, "from outraged mothers to sophisticated activists utilizing a well-honed network of politicians, labor leaders, legislators, judges and the media." In 1971, Washington State passed the law that paved the way for the national Education for All Act of 1975, renamed the IDEA--Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--in 1990.

I think of Lois Gibbs in Love Canal in upstate New York, who started investigating the rash of illnesses in her working-class neighborhood, founded the Love Canal Homeowners Association in 1978, and continued connecting the dots and fighting the power until she became a founding figure in the environmental justice movement. Today she is director of the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, helping people find the voice to oppose their own destruction and fighting to reduce human exposure to poisons like dioxin. Her work helped generate the Environmental Protection Agency. I think of Las Madres de Este Los Angeles, who succeeded in keeping a succession of toxic dumps, incinerators, and a chemical treatment plant out of their East L.A. neighborhood in the 1980s and 1990s.

I think of Women Strike for Peace, who faced down anticommunist authorities at the height of the Cold War to protest the nuclear arms race, nuclear weapons, and the nuclear testing that was causing catastrophic damage to the environment and human health--particularly that of infants and children. They started in November of 1961 with a one-day strike in the mode of Lysistrata, more than a hundred thousand of them in cities across the country leaving their homes to stand up against arms and war. The members of WSP subversively used their gender and their genteel, housewifely image to suggest that being against what the government was doing wasn't radical but sensible, motherly, and kindhearted.

This might be the secret of the housewife theory of history: These women take the qualities that are supposed to render them irrelevant and use them defiantly as well as strategically. Starting with what they love, they cut straight through the quicksand of motives and purposes to point out that harm has been done and should be stopped. In some sense, they depoliticize politics, which is what makes them so politically potent. When asked whether they were in cahoots with the Soviets, WSP activists said that they thought perhaps Soviet mothers didn't want their children afflicted by fallout either.

Women Strike for Peace achieved two signal victories. One was their contribution to the end of aboveground nuclear testing with the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, a huge step forward in limiting the arms race and its environmental damage. The other was the decline and fall of the House Un-American Activities Committee, the Homeland Security Grand Inquisition of its day. When interrogated, the WSP women on trial so mocked and exposed the heavy-handed fearmongering of the HUAC that they helped to destroy it, making possible far freer political expression. They opposed the Vietnam War early on. And so the 60s, that era often associated with young men, was jump-started by women who used hats and gloves and baby carriages as part of their arsenal.

You could go farther afield to Buenos Aires, where the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo became the most fearless and visible opposition to a terrifying regime by organizing women across Argentina and contacting international human rights organizations. They still walk in protest in the Plaza de Mayo, the center of the nation, every week. They used their status as mothers to reject the definitions the government offered for those who had been "disappeared": These were not terrorists, they were beloved children who could not be erased. You could look to the women of the Niger Delta, who since 1986 have repeatedly shut down Shell and Chevron's oil facilities. But even here at home the history is clear: the 9/11 Commission, the EPA, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Education for All Act. That's a radically different landscape than we might have occupied had these activists not stood up for themselves and their clan.

The typical cinematic consequence of personal injury is the outraged paterfamilias avenging his family with a gun, a role played by Charles Bronson, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, and George Bush. These killers don't pursue principles or seek to prevent further harm; instead they inflict it in revenge. Silkwood and Erin Brockovich are anomalies. They illustrate how the housewife-become-activist shifts from defending her own tribe to defending the principle that everyone should be free from fallout or dioxin, that everyone should have an education or know the truth about what the government is doing. She fights not for revenge, but for rights. The community she develops generates organizations, legislation, laws, education, and awareness. It's a saga of expanding connections, while the killer heroes in the movies remain strikingly isolated. One of the problems for unions and organizers in America is that our dominant stories about how the world gets changed feature lone heroes, not collectives and associations. The unsung builders of those associations make a shift from the personal and local to the national and the principle, which becomes the only way to continue taking care.

The Greek word oikos, meaning house, is the root of the word ecologist, which could be defined as, among other things, housewife. It's not that I'm so fixated on housewives, who are one among many categories of individual that have taken power to change the world, and it's not that I believe that the category housewife is so compelling a definition of women who have other lives before and after and often during staying home with kids. It's that, just as the Sakalava are officially ruled by kings while elderly commoner women do the talking, so are we officially rescued by action-hero loners while others do the real work of organizing to save the world (from, among other things, action-hero loners).

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Rebecca Solnit is the author of Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities. Her latest book, A Field Guide to Getting Lost, will be available soon from Viking Books.

This article originally appeared in the May-June 2005 issue of Orion magazine, 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230, 888/909-6568, www.oriononline.org ($35/year for 6 issues).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Women of the World, Unite!
Posted by: mamakat on Jun 9, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've raised my children (twin daughters and a son) to understand that in addition to taking care of the business of their daily lives, they owe their fellow living things the courtesy of being resourceful, honorable, and just, of not taking more than their share, and of doing what they can to make sure everyone else is taken care of in this world. I didn't realize I was raising them to be housewives! It's long been a fantasy of mine that the way to save our planet and ourselves--from ourselves--would be to put mothers in charge of everything: capable, compassionate, and resourceful women who would make sure everyone had enough to eat, a safe place to sleep, a school to go to, a doctor to take care of them, equal chores to do around the house, and healthy, beautiful places to play, create, explore, and imagine in. So where do we start, ladies? A general worldwide strike to get everyone's attention? Boycotts, impeachment, non-cooperation? Creating a worldwide women's bank? Voting only for women? Hiring only women? Our own UN? I truly believe that the hands that rock the cradles of this world could run the world better than those currently in charge. Are you with me?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women of the World, Unite! Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
» RE: Women of the World, Unite! Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Women of the World, Unite! Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
what if
Posted by: parise on Jun 9, 2005 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've often wondered what would happen if one million mothers went to Jerusalem and demanded that the Israelis and the Palestinians take care of their problems this instant! I mean now! No nothing, no birthday celebrations, no weddings, no bank transactions, no t.v. until this issue is resolved fairly! Oh, I can hear some of you saying the issue is much more complicated then that. Is it?

Is it possible that only a mother can keep the peace between her children? More importantly is it possible that only a mother can teach her children how to keep the peace amongst themselves? We have been under male rule for so long we don't know the answer to this any longer.

Yes, this is sexist. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. Sorry to hurt the fellings of all you actualized males out there, but what if it's true?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what if Posted by: vescalant
» Cont. from last post Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
» RE: Cont. from last post Posted by: karmick
» RE: Cont. from last post Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
» RE: Cont. from last post Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Cont. from last post Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
Martiarchy
Posted by: gaiamater on Jun 9, 2005 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ancient Crete was a matriarchy. They had no army, no navy, no military at all. They loved beauty and had an egalitarian society. Catal Hyuok didn't even have a city wall. But that was then, this is now. Well, the present day Minangkabau are matriarchial. (Yes, Virginia, there are existant matriarchies.) Check out Peggy Sanday's papers and books on the Minangkabau. No rape, very low crime rate, emphasis on cooperation, sexual equality, reverence of the earth, art and beauty. Or try the Musuo of China--same deal. The pariarchal mind set that spawned the nuclear family leaves women and children open to abuse. As for crime, war, violence and general corruption -just look around. History is mainly who killed who. Matriarchy is NOT patriarchy in a skirt. The whole concept is totally different. It's time for women to take back control of our lives and our world--we certainly couldn't do any worse than what men have done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Martiarchy Posted by: Shakti
what tha?
Posted by: sarah on Jun 9, 2005 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realized a few days ago that i have never lived in mainstream american society. never. I grew up as US military dependent, moving from army post to army post acorss the country, surrounded by others who lived the same lifestyle. When i hit puberty in NY, i rebelled and immersed myself in the punk rock subculture, was punished and put in a juvenile home (the "maturation unit") until i was 17. At that point, a kind military family who had known me when i was 15, said they'd "take me," and we all moved to a remote army post in the california deset where the chances of me "getting into trouble" were pretty low (and very dry.) After foster care, i went to college at james madison university but, as an artist and a girl who'd spent much of her adolescence "locked up" or in runaway hiding, was distracted (again) by the creative energy and high alcohol use of the DC punk scene. in 1983, I blew off classes and screwed up academically, but generally had a pretty fun time with me buds in washington. no regrets at all... in fact, after a summer long stint in Boston, I went to the july 4th rock against reagan show at the lincoln memorial on the DC mall, and then took off to hollywood to find some trouble there. Instead i found even more creative energy and freedom and quite a few good friends, none of whom are your standard housewives, but all of whom are interesting, innovative, intelligent, and er.... also outsiders to the American "norm."

I guess what i'm trying to say, in my pathetic "what is going on here" kind of way, is that I DON'T GET IT. Unlike the characters on that ever-so-popular sunday tv show, my life long role models of women are those who live their lives, and don't use the excuses of boredom and desperation to justify their superficiality or their hazy sense of goals. For instance, my mother, even if we didn't get along, was always commited to doing things, just because she needs to "do thngs" to feel alive. The youngest child of five siblings, she was raised on a prosperous minnesota farm, and was both physically active and feminine. After a brief stint in college, she married my father--something considered normal in the late 50's. since their marriage, she adjusted to the demands of being a vietnam era wife and mother of 2 children whose only sense of home moved at government whim.
(CONTINUED NEXT POST.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what tha? Posted by: sarah
» RE: what tha? Posted by: LStokes
» RE: what tha? Posted by: sarah
» thanks for input. Posted by: sarah
» RE: thanks for input. Posted by: windy
Why does women's strength always have to come from
Posted by: Suzanne on Jun 9, 2005 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
their so-called "mothering instincts"? Haven't we gotten to the point where we've moved beyond being limited by our biology?

Which is not to say that biology plays no part at all, but in a sexist society like ours there's no way of really knowing what is actually biology and what is just convenient (for the status quo) ideology. And I think the view that we women are somehow "special" because we have ovaries is part of the same paradigm that says that we're so "special" that we have a "special" calling to make babies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JINGOIST
Posted by: jingoist on Jun 9, 2005 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a neat little bit of historical revisionism. JINGOIST

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: Lathor
Ancient Matriarchies
Posted by: RonaldMcRonald on Jun 10, 2005 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all fairness, the civilization of ancient Crete, the Minoans, failed miserably because they couldn't figure out how to make iron like the rest of the Greco-Roman world. Also, they suffered immense famines because they never developed proper acounting. And a navy is a tad important when there are a)Independent Pirates b)Enemy-funded Privateers and c)Enemy navies. Since they were an island, a ground army wasn't as important as a navy, which was vital to a trade-based economy.

Let's see...then there are the empowered femals of Scythia. Unmarried women in Scythian tribes were warriors, and pretty unnerving ones at that. It is estimated that the legend of the Amazons came from Scythian women.

Or we could look at a few of the Queens that England has had. Queen Mary, the one who spawned the name "Bloody Mary". I believe it was her who ordered the mass slaughter of "oh so many" protestants. Then, after her, Elizabeth started killing off Catholics.

Let's not get into this "womyn could do so much better than men" mentality. Because that's sexism, and sexism is wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what ever you can do i can do better?
Posted by: sarah on Jun 10, 2005 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well yeah.

it's about equal rights, all the way in every field........ hey, we americans now have our first woman serial killer... made a movie about her and everything. :)

just kidding. (people are people... good or evil are not gender based factors but rather, choices made by humans.) Men in our culture should learn to give a little elbow room for women who want to further themselves. Women need to strive to achieve instead of falling back on the cultural roles that they alternately rebel against and (ironically) use as a safety net when things go badly. that's wot i'm thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same Old Tired Line
Posted by: faultroy on Jun 10, 2005 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get rather tired of reading this same old tired line..."Women can do it better if just given the chance.."
Really? Well, let's see: More American Women vote than men correct? Yes. Well then what is the problem?
Why do we still have rampant truancy in the inner city schools (at any one time 33% of students fail to show up). Why is it with more than 75% of teachers being of the female persuasion do we have the worst educational record of any time prior to the '60's?
And what about healthcare--probably 80% of healthcare workers are women--and they are heavily unionized. Why is it there is--and always has been-- a rampant healthcare crisis?
Why is it that healthcare has gone up higher than any other
cost (other than oil). And please note that we have approximately 40 million unisured.
It is very interesting to me that the fields that have seen the most excessive cost increases--healthcare, schools and
social services are for the most part run by women. How is this possible?
And women still are not being paid equal to men--even though this is a violation of a woman's constitutional rights.
Do you see any specific lawsuits? No... Why?...bacause it is
not true.
What is true is that as this article says: women can--if they choose--make substantial changes for the better in their respective societies. But the reality is that just like men,
they can be greedy, avaricious, self centered and concerned only with their own self interest--Gee could it be that women are really equal to men--in all their good qualities--and their bad as well?--Naw not possible--then they(women) would have to admit their shortcomings-- and what woman could do that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Same Old Tired Line Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
» RE: Same Old Tired Line Posted by: sarah
» RE: Same Old Tired Line Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
» RE: Same Old Tired Line Posted by: sarah
» RE: Same Old Tired Line Posted by: sarah
» RE: Same Old Tired Line Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
Beyond Maternalism
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 11, 2005 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, it would be nice to see a TV program called Activist Housewives . . .

One way of getting beyond the "essentialist" arguments (women are nurturers, etc., etc.) is to think in terms of privileged and non-privileged (or less privileged). Men are privileged in this society, but so are white people, and rich people, and heterosexual people, and so on. Plenty of the things we do have less to do with male/female, white/black, or straight/gay than with privileged/non-privileged. If you're privileged, there's a lot you don't have to see or acknowledge -- like, among other things, the sources and consequences of your privilege. If you're non-privileged and want to improve your place in the hierarchy, the options are limited and most of them involve cozying up to the privileged. For women this often means marriage. Is it that surprising that quite a few women adopt their husbands' interests, worldviews, and voting patterns along with their surnames?

I grew up assuming that I'd be involved in whatever community I lived in. (As Rabbi Hillel said, "If I am only for myself, what am I?") I got this from the example of my father and both my grandmothers. In college, as an antiwar organizer, I met many young women (i.e., my age) whose attitude was, more or less, "If I can't be drafted, why should I care?" At the time I was outraged, and to this day I believe that if men are being drafted, women should be drafted too. (The fact that *no one* is being drafted is, I think, at least partly responsible for the relative weakness of today's antiwar effort.)

But I understand the women Solnit writes about: they were going about their business, not-seeing what they didn't have to see, then the issue(s) hit home. There's no need to resort to supposedly inherent female qualities to explain what they're doing -- think about the story of Cincinnatus (much beloved and repeated by the founders of the U.S.), the farmer who answered the call when it came and then went back to his plow. Now we've got a professional army and a professional politician class (mostly lawyers), but that wasn't the original idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Beyond Maternalism Posted by: RonaldMcRonald
Domination, not Equal Rights!
Posted by: mjaybee on Jun 13, 2005 12:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One wonders if such change from the grassroots level would occur if all of those housewives were working full time to support their families. I think it would not.

There is a luxury inherent in being able to participate in the community and society in general in a way that stems from having the ability to survive financially (i..e., a working husband) while taking time to pursue such organizing/activist pursuits.

In the meantime, don't look at the women's movement for equality anytime soon. NOW and other feminist organisations are at the forefront of denying men joint custody in divorce and whitewashing women's roles in child abuse and domestic violence in general, while painting men as brutish "patriarchs" responsible for all that is bad in the world. The dullard, compliant men of the "patriarchy" go along if they are hounded enough (viz. Larry Summers), and help push female supremacy closer to realization. So much for male domination.

Thankfully, young women such as my daughters are true egalitarians, and sharp, independent thinkers - a far cry from the rigid ideologues that dominate feminism in the US today. I hope Feminism 2.0 will really be about equality and the subsidies, male-bashing, victim ideology and distortions of the 70's feminists will be seen in the future as gross mistakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People don't always fit in the box you place them in...
Posted by: mendomama on Jun 13, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article moderately interesting, but the posts following it are much more revealing, in my opinion. I read some good posts that offer balance as a way to achieve greatness in our society, of which I agree whole-heartedly. I also read some men bashing by women, some women bashing by men, and women bashing by women. The latter I find the most troublesome, though all were disturbing. While I understand some of the points made, I feel there are some dangerous generalizations here. I get the feeling that some women are of the opinion that being a "houswife" is a sign of weakness. That to truly be an independent woman, your daily duties must extend beyond your children and your home. That for a modern day woman to choose "traditional" roles somehow makes them less adequate than a woman that chooses what's considered a more independent lifestyle. This is a "vibe" I've picked up many places by many women, not just in a few posts on AlterNet. Just because a woman chooses to get married, have kids, and remain in the home all the while, does not mean she is subservient, it does not mean she's traded her views for that of her husband, and it doesn't mean that she only thinks of baking pies, doing her hair and make-up, and the latest style trends. I don't think that every woman feels the draw to have children. Just as not every woman feels the draw to the proffesional work world. Some women are torn between being drawn to both worlds - which can be a very complicated balance, itself. I don't have any judgement about women who choose to not be mothers, however I have felt a tremendous judgment from some women for my choosing to be a stay-at-home mom. As if they think I'm wasting my abilities by not using them outside the home as a means to make money. Or that my husband is somehow dominating me because he makes all the money. I get generallized as a "soccer mom" by society and politicians. Well, I've never been to a soccer game in my life. I don't wear make-up, couldn't give a crap about the latest fashion trends, and if anything, my husband has become more involved politically since marrying ME. However, I do make a damn good pie! At any rate, the generalization placed on stay-at-home moms is very disturbing to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 13, 2005 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Children need mothers. Adults need people who are honest about their own struggle to grow up. Not until goodness becomes a sex-linked characteristic will I believe that, although my world has become geometrically more dangerous at the same time as the women's movement, activist women need take no responsibility for the increased dangers. If only innocence came so cheaply.

Whatever happened to, "We're all in this together"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Housewife activism
Posted by: LAmom on Jun 15, 2005 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One wonders if such change from the grassroots level would occur if all of those housewives were working full time to support their families. I think it would not.

Even though the person who made that remark displayed an anti-feminist tone, I do think that being free of having to work full-time makes it possible for people, regardless of gender, to devote time to causes they believe in. Now that so many couples find it necesssary to have both partners work outside the home, regardless of whether they both really want to, fewer people have the time and energy for activist work. There was a time when it was common for housewives to be involved in volunteer work and other types of advocacy. Our current economic system has thus had a side effect of silencing a lot of people who would otherwise be more involved in challenging the system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Housewife activism Posted by: mjaybee
activist mothers
Posted by: SB_Gypsy on Jun 20, 2005 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never forget MADD mothers against drunk driving - it has truly changed the face of our culture, for the better!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah
Posted by: RonaldMcRonald on Jun 23, 2005 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That mentality has changed to "It's them or us"

Quite frankly, I miss being on the same side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement