Ethics statement misinterpreted

The Ob-Gyn board released a statement that said doctors who are against conducting abortions must refer patients to another doctor who will. Doctors who do not refer patients risk losing their certifications. Pro-life Ob-Gyns are against this because they are morally opposed to abortions. Now, the board is saying that everyone misinterpreted its statement. The director says that doctors who are pro-life will not have their certification revoked if they refuse to refer their patients to another doctor. The Bush administration did not agree with the original ethics statement. Also, the secretary of health does not believe that doctors should be obligated to provide contraceptive to patients, which was also part of the ethics statement.

If you are morally opposed to abortions, why would you become and Ob-Gyn? Abortion surgeries and referals are part of their job. Doctors are supposed to serve their patients in the best way they can. Their personal bias for or against abortion should have nothing to do with the healthcare they provide.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88650797

Legislation against eating disorders?

Eating disorders such as anorexia disproportionately affect women (90% to 10%), so I consider the Italian government's decision to start a campaign against eating disorders as not just a health but very much a women's issue. The Associated Press published an article on March 25, posted on the San Francisco Chronicle's website, entitled Italy Starts Anti-Anorexia Campaign. The Italian Ministries of Health and Sports are reported to have invested around $1.5 million against the growing epidemic of anorexia and other eating disorders particularly known in this country where high fashion and image consciousness are so elevated. The program recognizes eating disorders as diseases, and will aim schools, dance instructors, swim and gymnastic coaches, and the media, providing guidelines for magazines, television, radio and Internet.  Somewhere I'm glad to see that the media is being held accountable for its contribution to the portrayal of a certain beauty ideal; on the other hand, though, I wonder how effective this campaign will really be. As one user commented on Feministing.com, "it does irk me though how much blame is put on the nameless and faceless 'media.' " The media responds to what sells; in other words, consumers influence the media in this respect as much, if not more so, than the media influences consumers. Are we placing too much responsibility on reporters/editors/photographers and not enough on our own actions?

Outsourcing Surrogacy

On March 10th, the New York Times covered an article about the increasing use of Indian women serving as surrogates for foreign couples. While commercial surrogacy remains illegal in many states and European countries, India legalized the practice in 2002, attracting many infertile foreign couples. The price of surrogacy in India, around US$25,000 is also a lot cheaper than in most Western nations. The Times article highlighted a specific clinic in India which keeps the procedure anonymous, never allowing the surrogate and the parents to meet, and always uses a separate surrogate and egg donor for each case. While the surrogates only get about $7,500 of the $25,000-$30,000 paid by the couple, this is often more than what many Indian women could make in a year. The lure of money attracts the Indian women while the cheap prices and government support attract foreign couples to seek wombs outside their country of origin.

While this is on a different subject than most of the other women's issues we have covered in this blog, I thought the article provided an interesting perspective on the legally and ethically contentious area of reproductive technology. The article highlighted some of the issues with using surrogates abroad and pointed the vast economic discrepancies that have led to this influx of Indian surrogates. While the Indian women receive a relatively high wage, they have very few rights when carrying another couple's baby. The article spoke about some of the calls for surrogacy reform in India and how these may help all the parties involved. While the idea of outsourcing reproductive processes may seem like a great way for poorer, infertile couples to create a family, it also reinforces global racial and economic hierarchies that place Indian women below the Western mothers and fathers -to-be.

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/world/asia/10surrogate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=india%20and%20surrogacy&st=cse&scp=1

Where is feminism at today?

Both the New York Times and Condé Nast's Portfolio.com recently published articles addressing in general terms the state of feminism today. 

1. The first article, written by Kate Zernike and entitled Where Does Society Stand on Gender Matters, is a response to the Eliot Spitzer scandal and Hillary Clinton's campaign. "The politics of the last few months have certainly opened a spigot on the question of where exactly society stands on gender matters," writes Zernike. "Weren't we in what some people have long called a postfeminist era?" In reference to the Spitzer scandal, she observes the fact that men and women's reaction to the scandal were quite different; as a result, "even people who were unwilling to see it before are more likely to acknowledge the pervasiveness of sex stereotypes." The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, has entered the gender minefield (especially after Geraldine Ferraro's comments), which "explains why older women form the core of her support." The two issues are explicitly linked on Slate magazine's female blog (The XX Factor), on which Noreen Malone wrote that, "Oddly enough, it's taken Spitzergate - not Hillary's tears - to make me less dismissive of the feminist 'obligation' to vote for a woman." Unfortunately, in contrast to our beliefs a year ago when Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy, "it has proved harder to move the country beyond stereotypes." Even more important: "Some also argue that the media is not as quick to recognize misogyny as it is to recognize racism. The media is on eggshells about race, bus has blinders on about sex and gender stereotyping." 

2. The second article is entitled Sexism in the Workplace and is written by Harriet Rubin. It documents, in a rather interesting and interactive manner, the differences between men and women in corporate America over the past 30 years. The startoff point: a book published in 1977 by Anne Jardim and her partner Margaret Hennig, entitled The Managerial Woman. Today, 52% of all middle managers are women. "Poof! Sexism in America - gone," write Rubin. "20 or 30 years ago, people thought it could actually work like that: deal with sexism and be done with it." With today's presidential race, the question of gender bias vs. racial bias is stirring things up and making us re-question just how far along we truly are. The article looks at it from a statistical perspective, pointing out key indicators such as women's pay rate, board seats and corporate-officer posts, which have all dropped in recent years. Among the Fortune 500 firms, for example, the number of female officers has declined each year since 2005, resulting in a low of only 14.8% of board seats in these companies being held by women. Still, the popular perception is that "women have it made": a female candidate for the White House, a woman House speaker,...There's nothing to discuss! "I've never had so much trouble getting people to talk to me," writes Rubin. "Nobody really wanted to get into it." Rubin also gets into the issue of power/success vs. femininity, particularly as portrayed in the media; it seems you cannot have one with the other. Case in point: Hillary Clinton's criticism for showing cleavage (which garnered her a 747-word censure by Pulitzer-prize winning, Washington-Post reporter Robin Givhan), followed by her refusal to pose for Vogue (which garnered the dismay of Anna Wintour). 

So where is the feminist movement today? Is this election a good time to look back and reassess how far we've come along- and whether or not we are slipping back? How much does the media play into people's perceptions of the current levels of sexism and the country's sensitivity towards it?

Gender at Women's Colleges

The Sunday Times magazine this week had a cover story about transgender students at women's colleges. The story highlighted a tranman who originally attended Barnard, but transferred to Columbia as well as a transgender student from Wellesley College. The article largely focused on their stories and their struggles at women's colleges. It also looked at how women's colleges are often better situations for gender nonconforming students than co-ed institutions. They pointed out that this does not mean that it is always easy for these students or that all the gender conforming students accept trans students. The author spoke to some students who felt reluctant to allow trans students on campus because they felt it violated their women's college experience. Rey, the student who attended Barnard, experienced many of these sentiments and ultimately had to transfer to Columbia.

I thought that it was interesting and positive that the New York Times wrote such a lengthy article on gender nonconforming students. The unique issues of students falling outside the gender binary are often not addressed on college campuses. I particularly liked that this article focused on women's colleges and some of the debates around accepting transmen at a women's institution. The article also introduced readers to the differences between transgender, transsexual, gender nonconforming, etc. I think that this could increase people's education around this issue and bring shed a different light on gender differences on college campuses.

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16students-t.html?pagewanted=2

Cal Poly sets up classes in Saudi Arabia

Cal Poly is going to work with a Saudi Arabia University to set up a Cal Poly engineering program in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia university does not allow women. Therefore, they would not allow women to take cal poly classes there.

Cal Poly is known for recruiting women to its school. Professors, students, and alums are shocked that the school supports women in the US, but is signing a contract with a regime that suppressed women. One professor said it was just for the money and he was ashamed to hear about it. The school is recieving $5.9 million.

The administration views the deal as a way to eventually get Saudi women involved. At first it will be just for men, but they think that in the future it will be opened up to women. The administration is optimistic that the deal will help change Saudi attitudes about women.

I was shocked by this news! If an American school wants to set up a program in another country to try and change the regime, then the way to do that is through its own rules. Cal Poly should not allow the Saudis to reject women from engineering classes. By allowing it, the California school is actually strengthening sexism in the area.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=88251837&m=88251813

Girls and STDs

As Katie mentioned in the previous post, the media has been covering a recent study that finds 1 in 4 teenage girls "infected" by a sexually transmitted disease. The way the issue has been framed, however, leads me to question why the focus has only been placed on girls. True, STDs are more easily detected in women; but using terms like "infected" and failing to bring up the teenage boys' role is making it look as though teenage girls are either particularly promiscuous and to blame for this high STD rate, or that they are vulnerable, naive and unaware of their sexual activities. I was particularly frustrated with an editorial in the New York Times entitled, "One in Four Girls." The articles begins by suggesting that, "Teenage girls and their parents need to read the latest government study of sexually transmitted diseases." My first thought is, what about male teenagers? Don't they need to be aware and involved in preventing the transfer of STDs? After all, they are the other half of the puzzle. I was also upset by the article's last sentence: "Teenage girls...need to understand that a serious infection is but a careless sexual encounter away." Why employ the word 'careless'? STDs can be transmitted in all sorts of situations, even when the girl is careful to educate herself and to know the sexual history of her partner. The responsibility (and judgment) of the act should not be cast solely on girls- teenage boys are just as accountable and should be included in this matter, especially if opinions are going to be cast on awareness and responsibility.

One Quarter of Teenage Girls Have STDs

A new study released by the Centers for Disease control indicates that 1 in four US women ages 14 to 19 are infected with at least one sexually transmitted disease. The CDC checked for the human paillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, genital herpes and trichomoniasis. The number of infected African American teenage girls is strikingly higher than white girls (50% compared to 20%). Many women do not know they are infected with these diseases which can lead to serious complications, such as cervical cancer or genital warts in the case of HPV.

The New York Times article focused mainly on the methods of the survey as well as prevention and treatment ideas. They also briefly mentioned the connection to abstinence only education through a quote from a Planned Parenthood representative. The Feminist Daily News, however, wrote a shorter story that pressed for changes in abstinence education policies. They criticized the Bush government for their role in promoting abstinence only and had a link to information about the ineffectiveness of these programs.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/science/12std.html?hp
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10870

Spitzer's Cheating

Why is that when a politician cheats on his wife, he always has the wife stand next to him at his press conference about it? It seems cruel that women not only have to deal with it at personal level, but also in a public forum. Samantha Bee's fake announcement that she cheated on her husband was influenced by Governor Spitzer's press conference yesterday.

It's ridiculous that these men cheat on their entire families and then drag their wives up to the podiums with them. It's like they won't go down alone. The Daily Show skit mocks this logic. Men who cheat should not have the comfort of having thier wives stand by them and walk off the stage hold thier hand.

Think about how this affects the view of women in American society. A wife should not always stand by her husband, especially not on TV while the whole country is witnessing her humiliation. This perpetuates the idea that a man cheating is somehow the woman's fault. As Samantha Bee says, "You should have the hooker up there with him!"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163844&title=shame-parade

Iraqi Women Face Risks Behind the Wheel

When Saddam Hussein was in power, Iraq had one of the highest proportions of women driving in the Middle East. After the American invasion, bad traffic, convoys, and insurgent attacks are keeping women out of the driver's seats. However, one woman continues driving a van full of children to school. She has been doing it for 28 years and is very poopular in her neighborhood.

She does not wear a head scarf, except when she goes to get gas for her car. One time she forgot her head scarf and the men at the station said she better have it next time she came. Her family tells her it is too dangerous not to wear it. Her family also wants to stop driving because of the danger, but she refuses.

Many women who have stopped driving miss the independence and going out. They use to be able to go anywhere, but now they are afraid to leave their house. Insurgents stop women in the street and tell them the Koran forbids women to drive. Sometimes, they hand out leaflets and brochures explaining why women shouldn't be driving. Women are afraid to drive because they might get shot or harrassed while stopped at a red light.

Has the US invasion of Iraq made life worse for Iraqi women?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88091798

The other side of the Spitzer Scandal

Oh how we love the scandals! Over the past two days, the front page headlines on CNN, FoxNews and the NYTimes have not stopped one second in their coverage of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's hiring of a sex worker/prostitute and the resulting pressure for his resignation. Here is how the three news sources covered the story:

1. CNN.com: "Source: Spitzer 'cannot hold on to his job'." The article is framed around the premise that that Spitzer has no choice in resigning, and goes on to project that, following Spitzer's resignation, Lt. Gov. David Paterson "would become the state's first black governor and the 4th in U.S. history." Spitzer has not been charged with a crime, however; the article explains that calls for his resignation, and perhaps impeachment, are centered around "what's right and wrong in moving this government forward." Throughout the article, the sex worker in question is only referred to as "Kristen," a "pretty  and she is quote several times in broken conversation stating that she knew what her purpose for meeting with Spitzer was. At no point does the article invoke the issue of sex rings, or the question of legality/morality in exploiting sex workers; it only accuses Spitzer of being hypocritical in his previous attempts to prosecute prostitution rings.

2. FoxNews.com: "New York Republicans Demand Eliot Spitzer's Resignation With Threat of Impeachment." This article is very similar to the CNN article- detailing Spitzer's activities, the fact that he was caught as "Kristen" crossed state boundaries, and the calls for his resignation. This article does, however, comment on the fact that Spitzer was known as the "Sheriff of Wall Street," named by Time Magazine as "Crusader of the Year," and that he is a "square-jaw graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law" who was "sometimes mentioned as a potential presidential candidate." This reinforces the framing of the story around Spitzer, his character and his position, rather than around the issue of sex rings. It also fails to mention that Gov. David Paterson would be the state's first black governor.

3. NYTimes: "State in Limbo Awaiting Word on Spitzer." The article begins by introducing Gov. David Paterson, who "was in limbo on Tuesday afternoon as he and the rest of the state awaited word on whether Gov. Eliot Spitzer would resign." "No one has talked to me about his resignation and no one has talked to me about a transition," he was quote as saying. The article also details Assemblyman James Tedisco's move to impeach Spitzer if the governor did not step down with 48 hours. On several occasions, the article mentions the fact that Spitzer lives in an apartment on Fifth Avenue, a symbol of wealth in New York. This is the closest hint in all three articles about the significance of wealth in the exploitation of vulnerable sex-workers. 

4. Feministing.com: "Politicians and Prostitutes: the Real Victims of Public Sex Shamings." Blogger 'Samhita' raises the issue that seems to be missing from all the mainstream-media articles: the problem of "hyper-masculinity" that comes out of the aggressive framing of political power, and the fact that, while Spitzer will not get prosecuted, there is a good chance "Kristen" will. "I think it tells a biggesr story of patriarchy, heterosexuality, legalization of sex work and the ethical treatment of sex workers," writes Samhita. While she does not believe that either should be prosecuted (in fact, Samhita seems to believe we should legalize sex work), she does believe this is an opportunity to "talk about the rights and conditions of sex workers." 

My question is, who is 'we', though? The media is certainly not talking about this aspect of the Spitzer scandal, and I'm not sure that they will. As Samhita states, "Spitzer may get a slap n the wrist, but sex workers nation-wide will contiue to be subjected to harsh criminal proceedings, high incarceration rates, drug use, violence, lack of health-care and not protection from violent, retaliatory pimps." Will the media cover "the bigger story of the horrid treatment of sex workers by the criminal justice system"? If it doesn't, who will spark the conversation?

Women's Day has come and gone

March 8 was International Women's Day- and I'm embarrassed to say, I had no idea. But is it really my fault? After all, the media barely even touched on it. So I went around digging today for articles on IWD, and sure enough, I found a mix of relevance and perturbation:

• The Women's Rights Blog very mutedly reported on Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice's speech in Brussels on Thursday at a conference of women leaders entitled, "Women: stabilising an insecure world." The blog highlighted Rice's call for actions over rhetoric, encouraging the education and protection of girls and women.

• The blog provides a link to an article by Sarah Collins, published on The Parliament.com. The article was just as muted as the blog post, simply relating select quotes from Rice's speech and commenting on EU parliament president Hans-Gert Pottering's suggestion to create a special EU envoy for women's rights in international relations. No further information was provided on the feasibility or background of this proposed policy.

• I found another article about the conference, posted on the Daily Star in Lebanon in the form of two "first person" accounts by writers Benita Ferrero-Waldner and Margot Wallstrem. Much more detail was provided, as well as detailed and informative references to the implications of the conference. Ferroro-Waldner and Wallstrem bring up issues of war ("women are often disproportionately affected [by war] due to their traditionally more vulnerable place in society") as well as issues of refugees ("80% of the world's refugees are women and children"), along with issues of sexual violence and rape, climate change and environmental degradation. They lead each paragraph with strong statements, such as "Without education you cannot have social stability," and "We believe the key to a stable world is sustainable development." The article also touches on their opinion of women's roles, stating that, "Women make a difference in part because they adopt a more inclusive approach toward security and address key social and economic issues that would otherwise be ignored." It concludes by listing the key obstacles that still stand in the way of women's contributions: "[Women] remain marginalized in decision-making, peace-building and peacekeeping operations. Under-representation of women in politics still persists worldwide, including European. Only 6% of ministers worldwide and 10% of parliamentarians are women. And we all know that the famous "glass ceiling" is still in place."

• To my dismay, I also found some ghastly commentary against IWD and feminist movements in general, published on the Fox Business website and originally posted on a website entitled "The Eagle Forum," which presents itself as "Leading the Pro-Family Movement since 1972." The article, published on March 7th, referred to IWD as "serving to advance radical feminism in the form of promoting pro-abortion and pro-gay rights legislation, Title IX, government babysitting services and government wage control, commonly camouflaged as 'pay equity' or 'comparable worth.'" It refers to women's groups as "feminist groups," and denounces international women's solidarity by claiming that, "Radical feminists know that they can't complain about American women because we are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived, so they search for oppression in other countries using taxpayer dollars." The article concludes that, "The United States should seriously reconsider lending its stamp of approval to future IWDs."

Elle Magazine - political analyst?

Ok- I don't usually look for political opinions in my beloved fashion magazines, but I was flipping through the January issue of Elle a couple of days ago, and I came across an article that I had initially overlooked- not for lack of interest, but for lack of energy. The article is entitled, "The H-Bomb," written by Katha Pollitt, and addresses exactly the issue I've been talking about over my last couple of posts: the incredible and shocking amount of sexist rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has had to endure since she declared her candidacy for president of the United States. (I've hotlinked the article here).

The article begins by stating out right what the author thinks is on everyone's mind: Hillary presents a threat because she is "an older powerful liberal woman whose power is illegitimate because it is bound up somehow with sex- how else could a woman get power over men, its rightful possessors?" And I agree with her- this seems to be a feeling that men (I can think of examples out of the ones I know) have deep down inside, but would never directly vocalize. Or wait- maybe they would?! It seems Don Imus has- in fact, he did so 11 times in one of his shows. Glenn Beck referred to her as the Antichrist, and Michael Savage called her Hitlerian. Have these people gone mad?? Since when did serious and business-like start to come off as cold and bitchy? And since when are presidential elections run like beauty pageants? Even women have dared cross over onto the misogynistic side: columnist Maureen Dowd compared Hillary to the power-hungry Tony Suprano. And a FoxNews clip I happened to catch a couple of days ago features a couple of female anchors offhandedly commenting to a couple of anchors that they wear skirt-suits rather than pant-suits because they enjoy looking "feminine"... Somewhere in there, an-ever so subtle reference to Hillary was made. On live TV! Have I been living under a rock? Why am I so surprised/offended??

Oh the plus side, I suppose, many women have actually taken these accusations to heart- Pollitt writes that, "I come across one of these sulfurous emanations from the national collective unconsciousness and I want to sit down and write Hillary's campaign a check immediately." I heard this type of response on the NPR show I commented on last week- a right-wing caller told Tom Ashbrook that, after hearing the remarks thrown at Clinton, she decided to vote for her. "Sisterhood is powerful!" adds Pollitt. 

True, sisterhood is powerful- those of us attending Wellesley certainly know this. But is this the way it should be? A nomination based on race and gender? When was the last time that articles (especially in these alternate forms) addressed policy-based aspects of the Democratic race? "Let's show our daughters that they can break the glass ceiling- the greatest of all the glass ceilings we have." Yes- I agree, I would love love love to see a woman in the White House. But this is not, and shouldn't be, the only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Or a reason NOT to vote for her. After all, Pollitt keeps reminding us that "women are just as much- well, almost as much- a part of this double standard as men are."

Sadly, Pollitt reminds us that "If she were a man, there would be no doubt she'd win the primary, and the general election, too." Even though we've known this all along, it is SO disheartening to actually see in print.

To leave on a happier note, here's my favorite line of the whole article: "Think of it this way: If all the castrating bitches voted for Satan's daughter, we might actually move the feminist revolution out of the parking lot where it has been sitting, low on gas and with major transmission problems, for the past decade and a half."

Clinton on Daily show

Jon Stewart made a great point to Clinton when he said that he didn't understand why the idea of experience and hope are "mutally exclusive". Why is that? Can't a candidate be both hopeful and experienced. Does the experience kill the hope? Clinton argues that change can't happen without experience.

Has the media been too soft on Obama? Clinton argued it was ridiculous for anyone to ask her to give up when nominations (she cited her husband's as an example) have not been wrapped up until June. So, to tell Clinton she is over when it is only February and the contest is tied, is completely uncalled for. She believes that the media (not just Obama) has played a huge role in this.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163165&title=sen.-hillary-clinton-pt.-1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163166&title=sen.-hillary-clinton-pt.-2

Making History: Clinton Wins Ohio and Texas

"We're going on, we're going strong, and we're going all the way!"--Hillary Clinton

Clinton's wins in Ohio and Texas put her back in the media's spotlight. Obama had been dominating the media for the past month and various reporters and journalists had claimed Clinton was finished. These wins will shift the focus back to her and give her the attention she deserves. Now the race is virtually tied again! Clinton was able to get the women's vote and Latino vote in Texas to propel her to victory. The funniest thing is how the media was basically kicking her out of the elections. They said she was finished and that she should drop out if she didn't win Ohio and Texas. Well, she won so maybe now they'll talk about her in a positive way.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87911962

Pregnant Women Working Longer

Both the Feminist Daily News and the NY Times posted articles regarding new census bureau data on pregnant women. These articles found that 67% of pregnant women worked during their pregnancies in 2000, while only 44% did so in 1960. Women are also less likely to quit their jobs after giving birth now than in the 1960s. The Feminist Daily News reports that these changes are likely tied to women's increasingly higher levels of education, as well the increase in average age for women giving birth. They also point to the fact that more and more families are requiring two incomes in order to survive. The Times however attributed the changes mostly to the increasing availability for paid and unpaid maternity leave and better protections for women against job discrimination.

The Times and the Feminist Daily News took slightly different approaches to analyzing this data, even though the Feminist Daily News got the information from the Times. The Times highlighted the better workplace benefits for women, while the Feminist Daily News pointed to the problems families have surviving on one income. The Times article did not recognize that America has one of the worst federal policies toward maternity/parental leave in the world, only requiring companies that employ more than 50 people to offer 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave. While many more companies offer unpaid or paid leave for parents now than they did in the 1960s, women in many companies still are not offered, or cannot afford, to take substantial leaves. While the Feminist Daily News did not directly point to the lack of parental leave in America, it did not highlight better workplace benefits, therefore subtly suggesting that these benefits are not generally family or women friendly. Their article also pointed to the progressive issue of providing a living wage for workers so that parents can spend time with their children and women do not have to work late into their pregnancies.

New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26census.html?sq=pregnant%20women&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1204646555-9JBTfYzCIPmTc2mY2nrt0Q

Feminist Daily News article:

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswire.asp