Where are all the women?

I noticed something while watching the news this morning as the anchors ran through the catalogue of anti-American protests going on in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and Sudan.

In all the reels of footage they were showing of the rioters, I didn't see a single female face amongst the crowds.

Mohammed Abu Zaid/AP Photo                           Egypt

AFP/Getty Images                                            Libya

Hassene Dridi/AP                                       Tunisia

AP Photo                                                     Yemen

Reuters                                                Sudan

There must be some women who share the anti-American sentiments on display. But they are noticeably absent or at least underrepresented in the mob violence.

This is very different from the pro-democracy protests of the Arab Spring that we saw last year where men and women, Christian and Muslim stood shoulder to shoulder in Tahrir Square. 

CNN

And, this very different from the crowds of counter-protesters that have been gathering in Libya.

Esam Al-Fetori/Reuters

Sociologically, this is interesting to me. Statistically, there are fewer female serial killers, fewer female suicide bombers, and historically, far fewer murderous female world leaders.

Personally, I'm far less likely to lend credibility to a mass movement until I see both sides of the human race represented.

I don't have the answers to the Middle East problem -- I don't know anyone who does -- but I know that when we find one, women will be in the mix.

Democrats for...democracy

So, this happened tonight at the second night of the Democratic National Committee's convention in Charlotte, NC.



To put it all into context, there was a lot of hullaballoo about the fact that the DNC's platform, voted on and passed on the first night of the convention, differed greatly from the 2008 platform in leaving out "God" in a section where God was previously acknowledged and on the matter of Israel's security -- one of the U.S.'s strongest allies.

The language that was voted on included a declaration that Jerusalem "is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths." Such language was in the 2008 platform, but the 2012 platform only made reference to a "commitment to Israel's security."

Also, it included a call for a government that "gives everyone willing to work hard the change to make the most of their God-given potential." 

As you can see, they did not have their ducks in line when they took that vote. The change required 2/3 approval by all delegates. Anthony Villaraigosa (mayor of Los Angeles and convention chair) looked almost as if he was trying to convey a *hint, hint, wink, wink* to the crowd as he repeated his call for the votes not once, but twice before making a wholly indefensible decision that the "ayes" had it.

Reports coming in from Twitter suggested either that the "nos" were in the majority or that the vote was too close to call. Some delegates are even questioning whether a quorum was present to make the vote official.

Had the party any integrity, Villaraigosa would have admitted that it was too close to call and requested a roll call vote. Because the party's platform is meant to be represent the guiding principles under which all party members will campaign. What goes into that platform matters most to grassroots political organizations. The delegates who represent party politics on the local level are bound to defend that platform to the people they engage, for better or worse.

The message the Democrats sent tonight was not just about their views or contentions on foreign policy or religion, though they are...interesting, I suspect, to many. In fact, I would say those revelations are subservient to a greater issue. 

No, the greater Voila! moment was the one where convention watchers across the country witnessed a political party's attitude toward the value of a vote.

Why can't I just watch Doctor Who?

This week, Wired posted a great column by Roberto Baldwin on why he's given up on pay TV.

Baldwin says he's watched his bundled basic cable + internet bill climb from $94/month to $153/month in two years. He rightly points out that most people only watch a fraction of the hundreds, even thousands of available channels and that their bills subsidize programming that they don't care about, don't know about, or straight up don't enjoy.

Considering all the online streaming alternatives and the technological advances that allow us to wirelessly beam computer screens to television screens, the (increasing) prices are really hard to justify.

A la carte programming is in our future. Not only does it have the potential to be the answer to cable inflation, it also addresses one of the draws to program piracy, which The Oatmeal perfectly highlighted here.