home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers! War Hero? Meet the Real John McCain:
North Vietnam's Go-To CollaboratorWhat actually happened in his POW camp that twisted John McCain and made him the unstable bully he is today? Was it abuse, as he claims, or was it the fact that he collaborated extensively and has to cover up? In this EXCLUSIVE expose, Vietnam war historian Douglas Valentine gives us the answer. Read how the Vietnamese protected and promoted him and how in return Hanoi John danced to their tune. McCain was on Vietnamese radio so often he was tagged as "the PW Songbird". SUBSCRIBE NOW to read the true story of Glory Boy McCain, only in our newsletter. Also in this issue: Alexander Cockburn on the final fall of Hillary Clinton's sleazeball husband, lobbyist for torturers. PLUS Serge Halimi on what "free trade" really means when the going gets rough. Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great holiday presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
|
Today's Stories April 22, 2008 David Isenberg April 21, 2008 Bill Quigley Uri Avnery Dave Lindorff Wajahat Ali Andy Worthington Robert Jensen Ron Jacobs Dan Bacher Harvey Wasserman Danny Alexander Website of the Day April 19 / 20, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Wajahat Ali Andrew Wimmer Rev. William E. Alberts David Rosen Robert Fantina Ramzy Baroud Saul Landau Dr. Susan Block David Yearsley Phyllis Pollack Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement April 18, 2008 John Ross Dave Lindorff Dan Glazebrook Carl Finamore Rannie Amiri Richard Morse Ko Young-dae Farooq Sulehria
April 17, 2008 Michael Hudson Robert Bryce Kathy Kelly Madis Senner Peter Morici Ron Jacobs William S. Lind James Murren Ben Terrall Walter Brasch Website of the Day
April 16, 2008 Bill Kauffman Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz Saul Landau Peter Morici Eric Toussaint / Jeff Ballinger David Macaray Gary Leupp Richard Morse George Ciccariello-Maher Dave Lindorff Website of
the Day
April 15, 2008 Ralph Nader Uri Avnery Brian Cloughley David Price Joe Bageant Steve Early Mats Svensson Michael Donnelly April Howard / Laray Polk Charles Modiano Website of
the Day
April 14, 2008 Carl Finamore Michael Hudson M. Shahid Alam Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Joanne Mariner Martha Rosenberg Dave Lindorff P. Sainath John V. Whitbeck Website of the Day
April 12 / 13, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney David Yearsley Robert Fantina Conn Hallinan Bill Hatch Ramzy Baroud George S. Hishmeh Ron Jacobs Nikolas Kozloff Charles Thomson Alexander Billet Missy Beattie David Michael Green Seth Sandronsky Prairie Miller Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
April 11, 2008 Nikolas Kozloff Wajahat Ali Sharon Smith Yigal Bronner
/ Neve Gordon Alan Farago Dave Lindorff George Wuerthner Christopher
Brauchli Website of the Day
April 10, 2008 Mathieu Vernerey Elizabeth Schulte David Macaray Ashley Smith Peter Morici Jacob Hornberger Harold Austin Website of the Day
April 9, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Winslow T.
Wheeler C. Hand Paul Krassner Paul Wolf Wajahat Ali Karyn Strickler Dan La Botz Eric Walberg Robin Millenthal Website of the Day April 8, 2008 Mike Whitney Nikolas Kozloff Greg Moses Joshua Frank John Ross Michael Donnelly John V. Walsh Jeff Nygaard Bill Piper Sen. Russ Feingold Website of the Day
April 7, 2008 Ishmael Reed Harry Browne
Uri Avnery Lenni Brenner Ayesha Ijaz Khan Robert Fisk Edwin Krales Chris Genovali Website of the Day
April 5 / 6, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Ramzy Baroud Ralph Nader David Yearsley Saul Landau Paul Craig
Roberts Lawrence Korb / Ian Moss Seth Sandronsky John Ross Robert Fantina David Michael Green Missy Beattie Patrick Bond Dr. Susan Block Phyllis Pollack Adam Engel Jeffrey St. Clair Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
April 4, 2008 Dave Lindorff Greg Moses Ron Jacobs Alan Farago Alison Weir David Rosen Robert Weissman Jacob Hornberger Jackie Corr Carl Finamore Laray Polk Susie Day Website of
the Day
April 3, 2008 Peter Morici Joe Bageant Andy Worthington Nikolas Kozloff Rannie Amiri David Macaray Stephen Lendman Website of
the Day
April 2, 2008 Diane Farsetta Harry Browne Wajahat Ali George Wuerthner Col. Dan Smith Philippe Marlière Steve Early Bernard Chazelle Reza Fiyouzat
April 1, 2008 Jeff Leys Thomas P. Healy Winslow T. Wheeler Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz Patrick Irelan Andy Worthington John V. Walsh Michael J.
Smith Robert Weissman Dave Lindorff Martha Rosenberg Website of
the Day
March 31, 2008 Mike Whitney Mats Svensson Paul Rockwell Paul Craig Roberts Patrick Cockburn Peter Dale Scott Alfredo Molano Peter Morici Uri Avnery Michael Simmons Betsy Roberts
/ Karen Orr Phyllis Pollack Website of
the Day
Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Christopher Brauchli William Blum Robert Fantina John Ross Allison Kilkenny Nelson P. Valdés Suzanne Baroud Richard Rhames Christopher Fons Carl Finamore Eamonn McCann Missy Beattie Fred Gardner Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 28, 2008 Saul Landau Alan Farago Peter Morici Andy Worthington Felice Pace Peter Montague Dave Lindorff March 27, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Binoy Kampmark Joanne Mariner Norman Solomon William S. Lind John V. Walsh Robert Weissman Ron Jacobs Ralph Nader David Macaray John Borowski Website of
the Day
March 26, 2008 Stan Cox Sharon Smith Anita Sinha / Jill Tauber Matt Vidal William S. Lind Joe Mowrey Dave Lindorff Ray McGovern Justin Smith Sam Husseini Martha Rosenberg Michael Dickinson Website of the Day
March 25, 2008 Ishmael Reed Corey D. B.
Walker Linn Washington Jr. Alan Farago Vijay Prashad Joshua Frank Ralph Nader David Rovics Peter Morici Dave Zirin David Krieger Website of
the Day March 24, 2008 Jeffrey St.
Clair Peter Morici Uri Avnery Wajahat Ali Paul Craig Roberts George Ciccariello-Maher Stephen Lendman Christopher
Brauchli Cat Woods Stacey Warde Dave Lindorff Website of
the Day
March 22 / 23, 2008 Ralph Nader Nicole Colson James Petras Laura Carlsen Greg Moses Andy Worthington Michael Dickinson John Ross Missy Comley Beattie David Michael
Green Ramzy Baroud Martha Rosenberg Paul Watson Isabella Kenfield James Murren Jacob Hornberger Kathlyn Stone Seth Sandronsky Kim Nicolini Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 21, 2008 Marleen Martin Peter Montague Saul Landau Anis Hamadeh Jacob Hornberger Khalil Nakhleh Adam Isacson Kenneth Couesbouc Madis Senner Monica Benderman Website of the Day March 20, 2008 Damien Millet
/ Mike Whitney John Ross Dave Lindorff Wajahat Ali Jill Nagle Manuel Garcia, Jr. Dan La Botz Robert Weissman Stella Dallas
/ Website of the Day
March 19, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Robert Fisk Jeff Taylor Ed Ruggero Ron Jacobs Christopher
Fons Sherwood Ross Cynthia McKinney Joshua Frank Robert Weissman Walter Brasch Yifat Susskind Andrew Wimmer Website of
the Day
March 18, 2008 David Price Paul Craig
Roberts Tim Wise Patrick Cockburn Conn Hallinan James T. Phillips Uri Avnery David Macaray Marjorie Cohn Peter Zinn Dan La Botz Monica Benderman
March 17, 2008 Pam Martens Sasan Fayazmanesh Nelson P. Valdés Peter Morici Wajahat Ali Ronnie Cummins Shaun Harkin Ali Khan Robert Jensen P. Sainath Greg Moses Dr. Susan Block Website of the Day
March 15 / 16, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Ralph Nader Robert Pollin Diane Christian Wajahat Ali Tom Wright
/ Alan Farago Greg Moses Michael Hudson Martha Rosenberg John Goekler Uzma Aslam
Khan Oren Ben-Dor David Underhill Fred Gardner David Michael
Green Rev. William E. Alberts Gail Dines David Yearsley Chris Clarke Poets' Basement Website of
the Day
March 14, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Don Santina
Patrick Cockburn
Tim Rinne Robert Fantina
Saul Landau
David Macaray
Franklin Lamb
Michael Neumann
March 13, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Mike Whitney
Assaf Kfoury
Andy Worthington Adam Federman
March 12, 2008 Dave Lindorff
R.F. Blader
Yonatan Mendel
Jonathan Cook
Bill and Kathy
Christison James J. Brittain
Ron Jacobs
March 11, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Ed O'Loughlin
Ramzy Baroud Kathy Christison
China Hand John Joslin
Mike Averko
Ben Rosenfeld
Thierry Paquot
March 10, 2008 Uri Avnery
Col. Dan Smith
R.F. Blader
Michael Neumann
Bob Fitrakis
and Harvey Wasserman James J. Brittain
Missy Comley
Beattie March 8-9, 2008 Weekend Edition JoAnn Wypijewski
Mike Whitney
Peter Morici
Ralph Nader
Jonathan Cook
Steve Niva
Bill and Kathy
Christison Hervé
Do Alto and Franck Poupeau Eric Walberg
Scott Johnson
Mark Scaramella
Bill Clinton Poet's Basement
Website of
the Weekend March 7, 2008 Patrick Cockburn
Robin Blackburn
Saul Landau
Binoy Kampmark
Chris Floyd
Andy Worthington Will Potter March 6, 2008
March 6, 2008 Vincent Navarro Forrest Hylton Peter Morici George Ciccariello-Maher John Ross Jacob Hornberger Paul Watson Dan Bacher Website of the Day
March 5, 2008 Cockburn /
St. Clair Joanne Mariner Fidel Castro Christopher
Brauchli Steven Sherman Dave Lindorff James Murren Adam Engel Website of Day
March 4, 2008 Wajahat Ali William Blum Bill Quigley Ralph Nader Patrick Irelan James J. Brittain
/ Norman Solomon Jacob Hornberger Andy Worthington Mike Averko Website of the Day
March 3, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Alan Farago Richard Gott Wajahat Ali Paul Craig Roberts Robert Weissman Uri Avnery Martha Rosenberg Eva Liddell Michael Donnelly Website of the Day
![]()
![]()
Subscribe Online |
April 22, 2008
Why Can't I Have the Opportunity to Sell Out?Playing the Opposite GameBy JEFF BIRKENSTEIN
Discussing the presidential election in my university-level Writing Arguments class recently, a student said that of course some people would vote for their candidate based on gender and/or race. But, this was to be lamented. Rather, a candidate’s stance on the issue--and not identity politics--is what should matter. But if true, I asked, how could it be that the first 43 presidents were all white males? Coincidence? Or was not gender and race a factor, at least in part? Silence. This is a productive moment in class, a moment when students see that things are more complicated then they at first appear, that what they learned in history classes over the years is as important as what they did not learn. Hopefully, over time a student will come to see that being complicated is not necessarily a bad thing. This issue does not exist in the vacuum that is my class. Harry Brobst of Latrobe, PA won’t vote for Barack Obama. He takes pains in a New York Times article to explain that in the Pennsylvania primary he will vote “not so much for” a candidate but against one. And while Brobst searches, if inelegantly, to clarify his position as being based on something other than race, for much of the news media and the chattering classes the issue is strikingly clear: race and gender are at the forefront of the discussion concerning the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. For example, when Geraldo Rivera of Fox News gleefully exhorts me to sit through the commercial to catch his interview with Charlie Rangel (D-NY), head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, it’s because he thinks he has a scoop. Before the break, Geraldo explains that Rangel is “African American.” But the kicker? Rangel “supports Hillary Clinton.” Though unstated, Geraldo’s implication is that it is odd that in this election a black man would support a white woman while another black man is running. This is hardly an isolated incident, for, if we are to believe the media, women and African Americans have all the tough decisions to make this election. At CNN.com Randi Kaye writes that for African American women “a unique and most unexpected dilemma presents itself. Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?” Bill Kristol said on Fox News Sunday that Clinton supporters are only “the Democratic establishment and white women,” adding also, jokingly (it’s always jokingly from the Kristols of the world), that “[w]hite women are a problem, that’s, you know--we all live with that.” These are but a few examples of what seems to be an unending string of them. The subtext of what the talking heads and typing hands are telling us is that making such decisions based on the supposedly irrational issues of “identity politics” is a bad thing. For how, the thinking goes, could voters reject the apparently rational course of looking solely at a candidate’s position on the issues? How, for instance, could voters vote for Obama without--a favorite Fox News trump card we will be hearing ad nauseam in the coming months--knowing any of his “accomplishments”? How could voters choose Clinton just because she is a woman? Stanley Fish, trying to make sense of identity politics, observes that, “If there’s anything everyone is against in these election times, it’s ‘identity politics,’ a phrase that covers a multitude of sins.” His definition: (It may not be yours, but it will at least allow the discussion to be framed.) You’re practicing identity politics when you vote for or against someone because of his or her skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other marker that leads you to say yes or no independently of a candidate’s ideas or policies. In essence identity politics is an affirmation of the tribe against the claims of ideology, and by ideology I do not mean something bad (a mistake frequently made), but any agenda informed by a vision of what the world should be like. Fish then makes the argument that there are some perfectly acceptable times to vote according to such politics, if that vote is based on “interest-identity politics” (“based on the assumption…that because of his or her race or ethnicity or gender a candidate might pursue an agenda that would advance the interests a voter is committed to”) and not “tribal-identity politics” (“politics based on who a candidate is rather than on what he or she believes or argues for”). Fish also provides examples of non-default Americans (a Jew, an African American, a woman) who someone might support based on “interest-identity politics.” Ultimately, the non-default American is anyone who is not a white male (though this is endlessly variable when considering such factors as religion or education or socio-economic level or…). This is not inherently a bad thing or a good thing, but like so many things, it’s what you do with your position in society that counts. But Fish, like just about everyone else I have heard discussing this issue, avoids the choice that I will have to make. Since all politics is local, I’m starting with myself. Yes, as an American voter, I see two roads diverging in the woods and know I’ll have to cast a vote. While I avoided the path altogether in the Washington State primary--because I don’t want to be aligned with either party--I will vote in November. But this choice that I and millions of other people “like me” will have to make is not the one people are talking about. No, it is the one everyone is avoiding. What people are comfortable discussing, even when claiming that it is not or should not be important--from Fox News to the op/ed page of the New York Times to whatever it is that passes for a water cooler space these days, blogs maybe--is a variety of what ifs. What if a person of this gender and/or that race votes for someone outside their gender and/or race based on these very aspects of identity politics? What if? But what are people like me supposed to do? I am a white male, who, though not a registered Democrat, leans politically to the same side of the country in which I live. And although we don’t yet know whether Hillary or Barack will be the Democratic nominee, it appears as if, in the general election, I will be vote either for my race or against it and/or for my gender or against it. But you probably need a little more information on me before you can know just what and why I might be selling out come November. I’ll generalize and say that I am a literature professor at a small, Catholic liberal arts university, an agnostic/secular American Jew. I had one set of grandparents escape Nazi Germany and another set (also Jewish) stationed in Germany post-WWII with the US Army. As such, there are a few things I think I know. And even if Jews are now white, as Karen Brodkin writes in How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America, there remains a heavy “but…” hanging over her book. I have known all my life that Jews in America, though integrated, successful, overly educated, and whatnot (I’ve heard we run Hollywood and probably at least one secret world order, though I have yet to get my access card), are still not quite the American default. For my part, though, I’m not complaining. I can do just about anything legal I want in America without interference from others. Well, almost. I can’t be president. I know, I know, I’ve been told many times that I can do anything I can imagine. “Good job,” I think, “that’s exactly what unquestioning fealty to the American Dream demands that they (i.e. parents, teachers, the media, the corporations, the movies…) tell us Americans.” But consider this. Besides Ralph Nader (who got my vote in ‘00, because I knew that in my then-state of Kentucky, Gore had a snowball’s chance in hell...), I think another reason Gore didn’t win the election outright is because he had a Jew on the ticket. True, Gore ran an anemic campaign with a running mate who even Rush Limbaugh endorsed, but because the election was so close I believe this was yet another factor. Even though Lieberman tried to out-God Bush with his incessant public appeals to faith, there were plenty of Americans who, I suspect, could not vote for a Jew to be a heartbeat away from the American presidency. Of course, I don’t have the “facts” on this because we don’t discuss it. Given the mythology of the American Dream, such an admission makes us too uncomfortable. But in any case, this situation doesn’t apply to me, for Lieberman is a religious Jew. I am a secular one, thus disqualifying me outright, at least according to Lewis H. Lapham’s satirical, if accurate, understanding of the presidential job description: “…to be of service, believe in God, and never forget that the customer, although sometimes weird, is always right.” Two out of three just ain’t going to cut it in early 21st-century America. Maybe later, but not now. And while I don’t want to be president, I will vote for one. So what part of my American-ness, my humanity, to sell out? And how can I even be facing the decision to sell out, you might ask, when I am neither female nor African American? After all, though Jewish, I am firmly in the white-American-male camp. I have all the evidence I need from a simple trip the chalkboard on the first day of class. People see a white male up there and act accordingly; that is, I am afforded a certain level of respect which I have done nothing to earn. With my own eyes I have seen many times how this is different for people who are not white or not male or both. There are two major possibilities: will I vote, in part, my white race and go with John McCain or will I abandon my race and vote for Barack Obama? Or, as seems less likely now, might I face instead the choice of voting, in part, with my male gender or abandoning it to side with Hillary Clinton? Even if these choices are only part of the equation, all of my fellow American white males will face some part of this calculation. The catch is that no one wants to discuss the possibilities that I face. Vote on the issue of white maleness? Nobody does that, the talking heads would have you believe. Bill O’Reilly, typical of the people who desperately want to pretend we live in a race and gender neutral country, complains: “I don’t think gender should be a factor at all!” And, yeah, well, maybe it shouldn’t, but it is. So, the question then becomes: what will we do about it? O’Reilly’s repeated and vigorous efforts to deny minority status (I watch him over dinner a couple times a week; he’s good for the digestion) proves how powerful is the default, how invisible the whiteness and maleness to those who would see it continue unquestioned, not even out of malice perhaps, but out of ignorance, willful or otherwise. (Though maybe willful ignorance is malicious…) The reason the O’Reillys--that would be willfully ignorant white males in this case--want to deny the importance of whiteness and maleness? Because they know that if they ever--ever--acknowledge our country’s continuing, even if lessening, inequality, then they will need also to acknowledge a certain responsibility that comes with this knowledge, a responsibility to work for change. This explains part of the need of the O’Reillys to crush Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and, in turn, Obama. Historian Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (my dad tells me he also used to play a little basketball) writes: “The recent uproar about Barack Obama’s pastor has pushed a very explosive issue into the presidential campaign. The issue of our country’s history with regard to race is one that Senator Obama literally embodies in his physical being as well as various political stances he has taken.” This is only partially true. Race, of course, was always present in the campaign, from the very first presidential election to today. The Wright videotapes have not forced race not into the race but rather the discussion of it. To some in the chattering classes, this is the biggest sin, for they want nothing more than to avoid discussing race honestly and openly. I think their anger comes not only from the fact that some of the things Wright said may be, as Christopher Hitchens argues, “wicked and stupid and false,” but that some of the things Wright believes come from a deeply rooted past and present of racial injustice that as a society we don’t want to acknowledge. Obama’s speech on race--forced out of him after Wright’s comments were seen and heard by everyone--was the first time in my lifetime (I was born in ’69) that a major presidential candidate has been so refreshingly open on the topic of race. The problem for the O’Reillys is that they don’t like the subject even being broached and demand that we pretend this is an issue relegated to the past. Obama, trying to will change on a system that garners a great deal of money and power from schism, said “If we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together.” However, we are coming out of a presidency where division has been not something to avoid but a deliberate political strategy. Nevertheless, the conversation about minority status, sidelined for so long, is upon us. Even Condoleeza Rice, looking to extend her political career beyond Rove and Bush, recently said that the “descendents of slaves” in America are born with “[t]hat particular birth defect [which] makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today.” Bad phrase? Maybe. But good point? Yes. I know the charges already, of course, because I teach in class that in order to know your own argument, you must know the opposition’s. People will claim I’m playing the race card, the gender card, even the joker card. On March 25, Bill O’Reilly threatened to “get” anyone who dared to play the race card. “Everyone will know about it,” he said. I guess this means I’ll be on his show? Someone calling himself Ralph McGaughey of Boston emailed me after my essay on the anti-Harold Ford commercial (also in Counterpunch) and told me that I “have racial hang ups that the rest of society does not.” (He also said “Harold Ford is far more Caucasian than he is Negro.”) That, given the topic, I see the irony in his phrase “hang ups” maybe proves him right. Or, maybe I know the history of my country and am ever trying to understand how it affects us today. I would counter that such cards are already being played every day, whether or not I mention them, by both people who are racist and by people who are not. What I am actually doing is playing the Opposite Game, pointing out that many things in our country work also in the opposite manner of the way people acknowledge publicly or even understand. I have long liked to play the Opposite Game (though I have only recently starting calling it this, thanks to my good friend David Price). As a teacher of argument, this is a great strategy for getting at alternate or not as easily viewed versions of the truth. It’s pretty easy to play. The instructions: take an argument out there, look at some form of its opposite, and see where that gets you. That’s it. Let’s practice; we’ll start with an easy one. Fox News’ slogan: “Fair and Balanced.” You can see immediately how this works. Now, a harder one. The charge mentioned above that voters might actually vote for Hillary and Barack based on their gender and/or race. Look for an opposite. When Obama gets in trouble for “skipping” an African American event--in this case, the “State of the Black Union” in New Orleans--I immediately wonder a kind of opposite. Which events have McCain or any of the candidates gone to, or skipped, because of, in part, race? I know, I know, such questions should be kept to a whisper, but we can’t fully explore the possibilities or be true to our complicated American experiences in this presidential race if such questions are asked just of the non-default candidates. Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not claiming that John McCain or the O’Reillys or anyone else is racist or sexist. We all have to decide such things for ourselves. Instead, I am attempting to address a brave student of mine (who appears to be white; I make no presumptions) who says, “I am just tired of hearing about race all the time.” I am sure that he is. And he is no racist; rather, he doesn’t understand how the history of this country is not something only in the past. He has probably been taught, after all, that he should not acknowledge gender and/or race. That in today’s society (my favorite phrase in student papers) we have moved beyond such things. And now that the mere presence of a viable black candidate and a viable female candidate appear to raise the very issues this student thought were not supposed to matter is indeed confusing. Nevertheless, race and gender are factors on all levels, on all sides, and at all times and to deny them is, once you are aware of them, disingenuous. After all, when this country imported slaves and sanctioned the practice in the Constitution with the Three-Fifths Compromise (even while the Preamble, you’ll remember, begins with a distinctly non-exclusive plural pronoun, “We the people of the United States…”) it was certain that inequality would be aro |