Assuming the identity is valid (and there seems to be little thus far to indicate that it isn’t) then Vanity Fair in Italy has apparently located Barack Obama’s long lost (or not so lost) half brother, George.

The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate’s half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

“No-one knows who I am,” he told the magazine, before claiming: “I live here on less than a dollar a month.”

We can leave for another day the question of whether or not this should be an issue in the presidential election, but I think we can rest assured that it will. It seems that George has been living for some while in a shanty town outside of Nairobi in a six by nine foot shack. He’s not in contact with any of his family and lives by his wits in a town where street violence is the norm. He also claims that he doesn’t mention his famous brother in conversations because he is “ashamed.” (It’s unclear if he meant he was ashamed of his brother or embarassed by his own impoverished conditions.)

Why does this matter to the presumptive Democratic nominee? Because if you found out that an elected official, running for high office and the multi-million dollar recipient of book deals, etc. was keeping his mother in a cut-rate old folks home eating Alpo, you might not think very highly of him. Having a brother living in such conditions is certainly not much better.

But was George really a “long lost” brother of Barack Obama’s? Perhaps not.

He has only met his famous older brother twice - once when he was just five and the last time in 2006 when Senator Obama was on a tour of East Africa and visited Nairobi.

The Illinois senator mentions his brother in his autobiography, describing him in just one passing paragraph as a “beautiful boy with a rounded head”.

Of their second meeting, George Obama said: “It was very brief, we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger.”

So Obama knew of his brother’s existence as recently as two years ago and the guy remains living in misery in some crime infested, dirt road shantytown? There may indeed be more to the story than meets the eye. Perhaps George prefers no contact with his famous sibling and prefers not to accept any charity? That has an odd ring to it, though. Expect some questions to be put to Obama over this one.

UPDATE: Some good comments and e-mails coming inon this one. Among the more interesting was this question:

If Obama is elected, would the secret service be required to protect George Obama? Would the requirement be affected by the half brother status as opposed to a full blood brother? Or would that fact that George isn’t a U.S. citizen or resident affect the requirement?

An interesting question indeed.

(Photo by Guy Calaf, Vanity Fair, Italy)

As uncomfortable as the subject may be for people for whom the protection of privacy is more important than the corrosive effects of lying and hypocrisy on politics, the more that I learn about John Edwards’ romp with Rielle Hunter, the more Elizabeth Edwards reminds me of Hillary Clinton. Minus the cancer, of course.

In fact, the parallels are rather stunning.

Both women worshiped at the altar of political prominence and power, so much so that they overlooked clear evidence of their husbands’ violation of their wedding vows. They contributed to their husbands’ phony public personas as straight arrows and then circled their own wagons when confronted with the truth.

But then no one ever said being a political wife was all grand balls and trips to exotic places, right?

Psychoanalyst Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés, a friend and fellow TMV blogger, notes that the archetypal view is that people marry for love.

But the reality, she says, is that people marry for many reasons. When prestige and power are sought after, they almost invariably flow from husband to wife and family and seldom in the other direction. Thus there is much more to be lost if the husband is exposed as a cad.

And if the husband is successful the wife is sought out and feted whether she has earned that or not, while doors that otherwise would remain closed magically open.

I would like to believe that in the cases of the Missus Edwards and Clinton their marriages are not all about politics and power.

That both women, whip-smart intelligent and admirably independent, might have concluded once their tears dried that their husbands’ infidelities — in Bill Clinton’s case years and years of philandering that some insiders say continues to this day, and in Edwards’ case the probability that his affair resumed after he confessed to his wife — were less important than the great good that would be done if the upward trajectories of these couples’ public careers were not interrupted or destroyed.

Yes, I would like to believe that, and both couples have spoken extensively about the the importance — as well as the joys — of their familial and political partnerships. Both husbands have extolled their wives’ greatness. The only difference here is that while Elizabeth has a habit of finishing John’s sentences in joint interviews, Hillary never lets anyone finish hers.

Nevertheless, the record convinces me that despite the obvious complexities of both marriages, power tripping has played a greater role than altruism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin Drum points to McClatchy today:

11,000 couples later, gay marriage largely a nonevent in Mass.

Says Kevin, “Good.”

Ampersand quotes from the California court ruling (pdf) that proposition 8 can be officially described as “Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry” (opponents and advocates both recognized that the change of description worked in favor of those who oppose the initiative):

There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization.

Says Ampersand, “Personally, I’d enjoy watching the news if high government officials were required to engage in useless nominalization at all times.”

MAJeff hasn’t been paying attention to the John Edwards affair, but uses the occaision to observe that “Traditional marriage” is a moving target:

One thing I’ve heard is, “at least he didn’t break the law.” Well, depending upon where his trysts took place, Edwards may have broken the law. Here in Massachusetts, for example, adultery is a crime that carries a penalty of incarceration in state prison for up to 3 years, jail up to 2, or a fine of up to $500. As of 2004, 24 states criminalized adultery. (Cossman, 2007: 209. fn6). Admittedly, such laws are rarely enforced, and the no-fault system means that even if cheating takes place, it’s less likely to be the legal “reason” for the divorce [”Irreconcilable differences” or its equivalent is the norm].

Marriage is a regulatory system. When folks stand in front of their witnesses, and take their vows (the state won’t allow you to marry without a public ceremony), they are entering a three-way contract, with conditions set by the state. One of those conditions is sexual monogamy. Mess around, and you’ve violated the terms of the contract. You’ve sinned against the state, and have committed a criminal offense.

Adultery itself has changed. At the founding of the Republic, it wasn’t sex outside of marriage but involved a married woman having sex with a man not her husband. Adultery laws were put in place to establish men’s property rights over their wives, and particularly to ensure that the children born into such relationships were theirs and not some other man’s. It wasn’t about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman’s womb. [Ed. Oops. Big difference]

Indeed, the comment of Edwards’s, that he “didn’t love” the woman with whom he had the affair is a sign of that. In contemporary society, marriage has become about companionship and intimacy [see, for example, Giddens or Seidman]. One of the things that makes same-sex marriage imaginable to many people is the fact that marriage itself has changed in such ways as to make it imaginable. We no longer have the explicit gender-based marital roles established in law. (Everyone say, “Thank you” to the feminist legal activists who brought about a lot of those changes.) Marriage isn’t gender-role based, at least legally, in the rigid ways that it once was.

Says me, “Thank You!”

His name was Christian the Lion. He was raised by humans, got too big, and was reintroduced to the wild. A year later, the humans wanted to go back to see if the could find him in the wild, even though it could be dangerous.

And, they did…

It’s all over You Tube, TV’s “The View” and the Today Show. The video explains — and shows — it all. A MUST VIEW for all:

You can read Barack Obama’s agenda for helping women and families balance work and life in his Blueprint for America’s Working Women and Families, and later today, I’m told, there will be video of the announcement, which occurred in Chicago just about 20 minutes ago.

From the inbox:

Michelle Obama will address a gathering of Women for Obama in Chicago on Monday. There, she will discuss the campaign’s success in reaching women across the country, and discuss why her husband, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, will be a champion in addressing the unique challenges facing working women and families. Mrs. Obama will also unveil a Blueprint for America’s Working Women and Families, detailing Barack Obama’s agenda to help women balance work and family, to keep themselves and their families healthy, and to prosper in a changing economy.

Michelle Obama kicked off the Women for Obama program in Chicago in April 2007. Since then, Women for Obama has created a nationwide network of tens of thousands of women working to educate and empower themselves on the issues that are most important to women and families. Throughout the primary, the group has played a key role in Senator Obama’s campaign through its fundraising, grassroots activity and online organizing efforts.

“We know the importance of women’s voices and votes in this election cannot be overstated, and I am so proud of the progress Women for Obama has made over the last year, bringing the issues that are most important to women and families to the center of this campaign,” said Michelle Obama. “As President, Barack will change Washington so that instead of just talking about family values; we actually have policies that value families. Policies that make it easier for working parents to support, care for, and raise their families; policies that no longer force working women to choose between their kids and their careers. Barack understands the struggles working women and families face every day, because the women he loves most in the world have gone through it. That’s why he carries our stories – and the stories of women he’s met all across America – with him every day.”

This luncheon, benefiting the Obama Victory Fund, will take place at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago on Monday.

I’ve browsed the Blueprint and here’s a list of the topics covered:

1. Fight for pay equity
2. Making Work Pay for Working Families
3. Increase the Minimum Wage to $9.50 by 2011
4. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit
5. Provide a Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to an Additional 7.5 Million Women
6. Create Automatic Workplace Pensions
7. Expand Retirement Savings Incentives for Working Families
8. Expand Family and Medical Leave Act
9. Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave
10. Expand Paid Sick Days to 22 Million Women
11. Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination
12. Expand Flexible Work Arrangements
13. Expand High Quality Afterschool and Summer Learning Opportunities
14. Fix the Nation’s Health Care System
15. Ensure All Children Have Health Insurance
16. Fight Cancer
17. Supports a Woman’s Right To Choose

You’ll have to read the pdf to get the meat on each of those.

Does he offer enough ideas and details? Not enough? What would you add? What would you remove?

What more do you want to know?

How does this blueprint compare to what John McCain has promised to do for working women and families?

Last week a California judge ruled that trying a 14-year-old boy accused of murder in an adult court does not violate the constitution:

“I cannot say that this is unconstitutional,” said Ventura County Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily.

Teenage defendant Brandon McInerney of Oxnard is charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime in connection with the Feb. 12 killing of classmate Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.

Today a Ventura County Star editorial pleads with District Attorney Greg Totten to use his discretion to rethink that decision:

The Star Editorial Board respectfully asks Mr. Totten to step out of his office, ask for counsel outside his prosecutor peers to lessen the real influence of groupthink, look at the question anew and reflect again on the circumstances before making a final decision. (His initial decision was made within just two days of the shooting and his office had left open the possibility it could change as more facts were learned.)

We hope Mr. Totten also considers the information that has come forward recently in the national discussion of whether children should be tried as adults. A November 2007 report by the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law organization in Montgomery, Ala., stated that the United States is one of the few countries in the world that allows children to be prosecuted as adults and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

The majority world opinion of civilized nations is that juveniles should not be subject to dying in prison — certainly not 14-year-olds.

There is science on the competence of 14-year-olds that ought to inform our legal and ethical decision as to whether or not we should declare kids adults fit for trial. William Saletan, for example, has reported:

In a forthcoming review of studies, Laurence Steinberg of Temple University observes that at ages 12 to 13, only 11 percent of kids score at an average (50th percentile) adult level on tests of intellectual ability. By ages 14 to 15, the percentage has doubled to 21. By ages 16 to 17, it has doubled again to 42. After that, it levels off. […]

Steinberg reports that on tests of psychosocial maturity, kids are much slower to develop. From ages 10 to 21, only one of every four young people scores at an average adult level. By ages 22 to 25, one in three reaches that level. By ages 26 to 30, it’s up to two in three.

Emphasis mine. The case at hand presents a psychosocial challenge that was daunting for all involved. In fact, the evidence indicates it pretty much overwhelmed all of the adults involved.

Arguably, what we have here is the scapegoating of kids for the inability of adult individuals and institutions to cope with the complexities of psychosocial challenges of our own making. We built this society; we birthed those kids; we raise and educate them!

Some of the indicators become clear in last week’s Newsweek Cover Story — no matter what your political persuasion (or perspective on the objectivity or lack thereof of the reporters of the story). Extended illustrative excerpts follow. Read the rest of this entry »

Among the oddities that has emerged during the course of the present Presidential election, is that both candidates - John McCain and Barack Obama - are left-handed.

Previously, we translated an Arabic article from Iraq about the phenomenon, and today we have this from France’s Rue 89.

Alluding to the unlikelihood of such a turn of events, Guillemette Faure writes:

“When Obama or McCain move into the White House in January, four of the five last American presidents will have been left-handed. … And if the Supreme Court hadn’t lent a hand to George W. Bush during the recount of votes in Florida in 2000, with the election of Al Gore the five last American presidents would have been left-handed.”

So why is the U.S. so prone to left-handed leaders? Faure speaks to an author of a book on the left-handed, who responds:

“The proportion of left-handed (per country) is directly proportional to the tolerance accorded left-handers. It was 3 percent in early 20th century France. It’s now around 15 percent and in the United States, it’s approaching 25 percent. It [the U.S.] is historically a more permissive country, more concerned with individual rights, which has lifted the stigma from left-handedness much earlier than in our Old Europe.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Annnnd….attempts by state and federal governments to interfere with a woman’s freedom to control what goes on inside her own personal womb continue apace. Joe Windish has an earlier piece about an 8th Circuit decision that unleashes the State of South Dakota on women who seek abortion in that state by letting the state insert a word or two on behalf of its legislature into the discussion. At this rate, I’m afraid, just having the state insist on telling women who are trying to make a decision about its legislators’ personal views is going to be the least of our worries.

Hillary Clinton is (in her words) ’sound[ing] the alarm’ regarding the Department of Health and Human Service’s pending regulations that will redefine common forms of contraception as ‘abortion.’  What’s in a name?:

These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. (HuffPost)

That’s bad.  That’s very, very bad.  The ramifications are serious, both for those who think it’s not the government’s business to impose its current ideology on health care issues such as availability of contraception to the poor or who are already grumbling about all the women on welfare who expect taxpayers to pay for their children’s basic necessities.

If you’re one of those, you should definitely sign this petition. Here’s why:

Read the rest of this entry »

The New York Times came up with what I’d call a strange title for this article: Women Are Now Equal as Victims of Poor Economy.  And the key points are oddly framed:

[F]or the first time since the women’s movement came to life, an economic recovery has come and gone, and the percentage of women at work has fallen, not risen, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Each of the seven previous recoveries since 1960 ended with a greater percentage of women at work than when it began…

The proportion of women holding jobs in their prime working years, 25 to 54, peaked at 74.9 percent in early 2000 as the technology investment bubble was about to burst. Eight years later, in June, it was 72.7 percent, a seemingly small decline, but those 2.2 percentage points erase more than 12 years of gains for women. Four million more in their prime years would be employed today if the old pattern had prevailed through the expansion now ending..

Economists first assumed that this was because women didn’t need the money or had ‘other priorities’ (such as staying home with the kids and living on welfare). Whimsical little souls, those economists.

Read the rest of this entry »

You have to seriously wonder about Republican presumptive Presidential candidate Senator John McCain’s grasp of political imagery and desire to win over not just swing voters but Americans who are losing their homes, lost their jobs, and who can barely afford to fill up their gas tanks: according to columnist Robert Novak, McCain plans to keep former Senator Phil aka “mental recession” Gramm on as not just a campaign adviser but a campaign surrogate.

Unless you’ve been on Mars, Gramm is the former Senator who sparked not just a firestorm of denunciations but a hailstone storm of derision — and comedian and other joke punchlines — by saying the United States was merely suffering from a “mental recession” and that financially beset Americans were “a nation of whiners.” Once the firestorm broke, Gramm tried to clarify the statement as many politicos do, by saying he didn’t mean it meant what it sounded like he meant — which all but a recently removed gallbladder in a jar in at Mercy Hospital in San Diego know he meant.

But he insisted he stood by the statements…giving America the most vivid example yet of the formal end of the pretext of “compassionate conservatism.”

He claimed it was only talking about American’s political leadership. Which still didn’t explain what he meant by a mental recession. This was followed by some conservative talk show hosts saying, by golly, Gramm IS misunderstood and IS right — the economy really IS sound. (You can’t say “sound as a dollar” anymore because the dollar isn’t sound.) These hosts know the American economy is sound because they’ve seen this as they ride in their chauffeured limos and fly their private jets to speaking gigs.

McCain’s action as reported by Novak shows that he prizes political and personal loyalty, since Gramm is a longtime friend and close adviser That’s laudable enough.

But keeping Gramm on as a high-profile adviser will allow the Demmies to run quotes of Gramm’s comments in ads between now and the election as an example of someone who’ll be close to a President John McCain in a policy-making capacity.

Needless to say, the Obama campaign jumped on the news:

Senator McCain’s economic plan gives nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies but doesn’t provide any tax relief to more than 100 million middle-class families. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise since today we learned that Phil Gramm will continue to advise Senator McCain on economic policy despite calling Americans struggling in this economy ‘whiners,’”.

Novak’s column frames this as a case of two people patching up a relationship.

The problem for the McCain campaign: most voters won’t perceive this election as an extended episode of The View, with recriminations, gaffes, ending in tearful apologies and people making up.

At a time when many Americans need to take out a loan to fill their gas tanks but can’t because they can’t get a loan on their house because their house is being foreclosed-on and their bank that would give them the loan is on a list of endangered banks, a surrogate and adviser who made a statement calling them “whiners” won’t be a stellar asset. As an adviser or a CREDIBLE on-camera surrogate.

It certainly sounds as if Christmas has come early this year for the Democrats.

Even though Santa can’t say “ho, ho, ho” anymore without being accused of slurring women, he can and has given Democrats the gift that most assuredly will keep on giving.

Cohabiting among older people increased 50 percent from 2000 to 2006, the McClatchy Newspapers report today:

“The total–1.8 million–counts only couples who live together full time and were willing to admit it to census interviewers. Part-time cohabiting–traveling together, sharing a summer house, spending weekends together–is up at least as sharply, according to seniors and people who work with them.”

This news about the growth of “love expectancy” may come as a shock to younger generations, whose sophistication does not extend to the notion that parents and grandparents, despite all the evidence of Viagra commercials, may not be immune to a culture of supersex on TV and in the movies.

Read the rest of this entry.

One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is how they treat their less fortunate members. From the earliest days of American society we have tried to meet that noble goal. There has always been an unspoken understanding that ‘Society should provide the less fortunate with their basic needs’. This goal is correct and proper and I strongly support the basic premise.

However over the years the meaning of those words have gone through many changes, usually much needed ones but also often controversial ones.

For example the term ’society’ has changed dramatically in the past couple of centuries. At one point it meant mostly the private sector. Families, religious groups, private charities and the like were expected to help those in need. Sometimes local government might become involved but that was about it.

Then we saw the growth of the welfare state and the increasing role of the federal government and the decline of the religious and private charity groups. Today they exist in a balance, with most people agreeing that they should share responsibility (though still debating to what degree each side should be involved).

The term provide has also changed, at one point it was assumed that you would provide the needy with the means to obtain their needs (IE work) while today it has evolved to something of a mix,  with some people advocating that everyone should work for their needs while others suggesting that to require any work is wrong.

The term ‘the less fortunate’ has perhaps taken the broadest path of change over the years. At one point racial, religious and ethnic prejudices led to limitations on who was helped. Often moderately needy people would get aid while truly needy ones would be ignored.

Even the term ‘their basic needs’ has gone through a number of changes. If you were to visit a welfare agency at the start of the 20th century they would consider a bed, some clothes and some food to be pretty much all anyone needed to survive.

Today most people look to items like telephone service, television, etc as fairly basic needs. Again, there is considerable debate over how far the change should go but the basic idea that more than food/clothing/shelter is needed is a pretty common assumption.

However in all of the years of evolution there is one thing that has never happened before. People have never sought to remove words from the statement…… but that may be changing. For the first time I am seeing signs that people would like to remove the term ‘the less fortunate’ and require society to provide everyone with their needs.

I first saw signs of this when I began to talk with younger people who came in to my office to discuss their financial needs. Time and time again they talked about how ‘government should provide’ them with the money needed for everything they wanted in life.

I am not talking about just a basic place to live but rather a home as luxurious as they wanted. My parents worked hard to provide my sister and I with a house of about 1500 square feet, which was considered fairly nice by the standards of the day.

Today people expect homes of twice that size and don’t care if they cannot afford it. I have seriously had bankruptcy clients expect that they could erase their mortgages and car loans completely but still keep the property.

I have also seen this is some of my younger friends who expect to be able to buy any car, take any trip and get anything they want right now. Their logic is that someone else has it so they should get it too.

I consider these things to be signs of the Barney effect. These people I mention have been raised with the idea that everybody should be equal, everything should be fair. If you play a game there should not be a score kept because somebody might lose. If you have a competition at school then everybody ought to get a prize.

It is thus hardly surprising that these people now expect that they should be given everything they want or need as an adult. Of course there are many very hard working members of the Barney generation and hopefully they will overcome this trend.

If they do, then there can be much to gain from a generation whose desire to achieve is tempered with a sense of fair play.

If they do not, then we will continue on our trend towards a society where the many depend on the few, and that can never last.

Bill Cosby were running for President and told black folks that they need to “cowboy up” and take responsibility over their lives instead of blaming white folks. Well, that happened yesterday at the NAACP National Convention from presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. This is an excerpt from the speech last night:

“Teaching our daughters to never allow images on television to tell them what they are worth; teaching our sons to treat women with respect, and to realize responsibility does not end at conception; that what makes them a man is not the ability to have a child but to raise one. That’s a message we need to send.”

I have two initial personal feelings about the above statement. It is absolutely disappointing that we need any politician to tell us what should be common sense regarding personal responsibility in that one, women should be treated with respect, and two, fatherhood is a lifelong commitment and not a biological act. The statement also reveals something about Obama. He is willing to cross the boundaries of “political correctness” and perceived social alignment to tell the NAACP what they have rarely heard for almost one hundred years; that their failure as a social empowerment organization is not to be blamed primarily on white America, rather, by the lack of leadership themselves.

Don’t get it twisted. I know that there is still racism and sexism in this country as is evidenced by the backlash of the cover art of The New Yorker and its’ satirical commentary on race, ethnicity and gender. The question is how do we move forward as a united people? Is it up to Obama and McCain to lead us beyond our fears, failures and prejudices; or, is it up to each of us to find the strength within ourselves and take action?

Politically, the question is more intriguing: How would the media cover a story that might involve John McCain going to the Christian Coalition convention to tell their parents to turn off the television, put away the video games and be better parents? Only time will tell…

If puberty happens in middle school, why shouldn’t we expect lgbt awareness would begin then too?

From today’s WaPo, Owning His Gay Identity — at 15 Years Old; Youths Coming Out Sooner, but Protections Against Harassment Lag:

Saro, who first said he liked boys to a classmate in sixth grade, is like many of today’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths who openly discuss their sexual orientation and identity with friends, and sometimes family, before entering high school. In doing so, experts say, these youths are escaping the isolation of generations before them but also finding themselves vulnerable to harassment — or worse. A California eighth-grader who expressed interest in asking another boy to be his valentine was fatally shot in February in a case that drew national attention.

“Within any given school system, there may be a very accepting crowd and a very hateful crowd,” said Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the Rockway Institute in San Francisco, a national center for LGBT research and public policy. “You have to find a way to avoid the people who will hurt you and keep close to the group that will accept you.”

In recent years, 110 Gay Straight Alliance clubs, which are common in high schools nationwide, have sprouted in middle schools, including nine in Maryland and Virginia. Kevin Jennings, the founder of the first club, said he “never anticipated” they would also form in middle grades. His organization, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is creating age-appropriate pamphlets to respond to the trend.

This year, students in 1,046 middle schools took part in the Day of Silence, a protest against LGBT intolerance, organizers said, double the participation level of the previous year.

“Unlike people of my generation, where there was very little visibility and a great sense of sadness, these kids know gay people are out there,” Jennings said. “They have a language now to understand their feelings.”

And there’s this:

The first time Saro said aloud what he had always felt — that he liked boys — came when he lived in Prince George’s County. The words tumbled out, Saro said, as he and another sixth-grader were walking home. The boy shrugged it off with a “So?”

Later that year, that boy called him an anti-gay slur. When Saro ran to tell the teacher, according to a letter his parents wrote to the school, he was told: “Well, you act like one, so you should be used to it by now.”

The issues are difficult and complex — for parents and for kids. The article is sensitive and complete. Please read it.

For those of you who might wish to read the Pitt-Jolie-certified announcement of the birth of their boy-girl twins, this is the write-thru from the newspaper that the couple selected for the task - Nice’s Nice Matin.

For the Nice Matin, Jean-François Roubaud writes in part:

“The most celebrated babies in the world were born just before 8pm last night at the Santa Maria Clinic of the Lenval Foundation Hospital. Angelina Jolie, 33-years-old, has brought twins into the world: Knox Leon Jolie-Pitt, a small boy at 2.27 kilos [about five pounds] and Vivienne Marcheline, also a petit 2.28 kilos. The two were worth over $11 million even before they let out their first cry: the exclusive first-ever photo of the extended Pitt family - now six children - has been sold by the couple to an American magazine to benefit a humanitarian cause.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Now that Jesse Jackson has reassured us about Barack Obama’s genitals, it’s time to consider what prompted the Reverend’s rage–the candidate’s criticism of African-American fathers for failing their children–as part of a larger subtext of this election.

On all sides, it involves issues about American manhood in the 21st century and the troubling rites of passage from one generation to the next.

Start with George W. Bush who was moved to take up a war left unfinished by paternal prudence and turned toward “a higher Father” for guidance.

Enter John McCain, son and grandson of Admirals who, after writing “Faith of My Fathers,” is campaigning for the White House based on the premise that the Head of State in an age of terror should be a reassuring paterfamilias.

Then there is Obama, searching for a father he never knew in “Dreams from My Father” and, in his presidential campaign, calling out men who aren’t there for their children and challenging them to take up their responsibilities.

Read the rest of this entry.

Obama has clarified his supposed opposition to allowing a woman to have a late term abortion in circumstances when the pregnancy causes the mother mental distress. (The Swamp)  He does not think mere ‘mental distress’ is a reason to permit such an exception.

According to Linda Douglass, the Obama campaign’s senior spokesperson, the senator from Illinois was making a distinction in the magazine interview between medically diagnosed mental illness and the kind of mental distress that an unwanted pregnancy causes many a pregnant mother.  (The Swamp)

He does think such an exception should be permitted in circumstances in which there is medically diagnosed mental illness — a position that still doesn’t please either side of the abortion argument. (The Swamp) 

Read the rest of this entry »

It used to be that Latin Americans viewed Europe as far more humane than the United States because of the way undocumented workers there were treated. No more …

According to this editorial from Diario Co Latino of El Salvador:

“According to news coming from the Old Continent, a law passed by the European Parliament on the 18th of this month not only permits the expulsion of undocumented immigrants, but also provides for prison terms of up to 18 months and five-year prohibition on returning to Europe. … Many believed that today’s Europe, because its past was so appallingly bloody, was more democratic and humane than the U.S. But with this newly-adopted law, it has demonstrated that it’s the equal of the United States.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Whether you’re white, black, or anything else:

It’s now cliche for white folks looking to justify their own paranoia and fears to invoke rowdy black kids on the train, with no parents, acting a fool. Word up, I hate it to. But my ability to see this threw a racial lens is undercut by one observable fact–white kids act a fool in full view of their parents. In the last three months, I’ve seen a white child hit his mother, tell her mother to shut up, and run up and down a subway car, ignoring his parents pleas to stop. Yesterday, on my plane to Denver, I watched a white kid get up and walk the aisle–while the plane was ascending. He kept going even after the stewardess warned him.

That’s Ta-Nehisi Coates arguing for no more complaints about how black kids act in public please. He says he’s been watching scenes like that his whole life. And that white parents are far more permissive than black parents.

He’s got some pretty good stats to back him up. Black parents are more likely to spank and…

…black parents punish their children more than white parents in all ways. If you’re black and you misbehave, you’re both more likely to get spanked and more likely to lose your allowance than your white neighbor, who in turn is both more likely to get spanked and more likely to lose his allowance than the Hispanic kid down the street. So on average, poor people spank more and withdraw allowances less, whereas black people spank more and withdraw allowances more.

Coates concludes:

I know the white kid with his mother is just rude, while the black kid is “scary,” but to me, they’re just annoying–both of them.

Worth keeping in mind over a long hot summer holiday weekend.

It’s been tried before, in a variety of ways. Starting with the time of our American Revolution…and continuing through the War of 1812, the Mexican army attack on the Alamo, the Spanish American War, and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor – through two world wars – this country, when united, has never been defeated.

In fact, history will show that each time America has been attacked from without, she has grown notably stronger!…

The Communists took a different tack. … they devised a cunning plan to establish Communist cells in this country, made up almost totally of Americans…

By changing the moral compass of our country, especially in the young generation, they would literally take over our culture – and eventually our government – from within.

That’s right folks! Like the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and the cunning communists, we’re sneaking into your towns to recruit the young!

And now, according to facts just revealed by Focus on the Family, a frightening new assault is well under way, on our very processes of government. Focus is the leading family advocacy outfit in the country and happens to be based in Colorado, where they’ve had a ringside seat for the activities of a multimillionaire named Tim Gill. This man and other extremely wealthy men who share his priorities have demonstrated that enough money can buy virtually anything … maybe even a country.

Tim Gill founded Quark, a very successful software company, and 14 years ago began pouring much of his massive wealth into the homosexual rights movement. Dozens of gay rights organizations owe their existence to Gill. That list includes the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN – the nation’s leading homosexual activist group in America’s schools). I’ve written here before about the goals GLSEN has for our schools and the minds of our young; they are determined to see that all teachers imbed acceptance, even admiration, for every kind of deviant behavior into the curricula and permanent perceptions of America’s students.

I’m sad to say how many people in my rural Georgia community agree with Pat Boone. We’ve got some real work to be done here.

RELATED:  It was nice to see Peter Wehner write in the WaPo today that Christian conservative “critics of Obama have an obligation to provide a fair and honest critique, and the attacks leveled by Dobson fall terribly short of that standard.”Morbo has the entire James Dobson salvo against Barack Obama and detects an air of desperation. I certainly agree.

Scott at World o’Crap has some fun walking us through WorldNetDaily CEO Joseph Farah showing us how to sniff out the subversive elements infesting America’s vital news organs. He begins with a quote from a Dobson radio ad:

“Mom…”

If the Colorado legislature has its way…

“A man in a dress came into the girl’s restroom at school today.”

We could all be dealing with a new type of predator.

“Honey, there was a man in the women’s showers at the gym today, and the management said it was, it was Colorado law.”

And instead of our kids worrying about class work, they’ll be worrying about who might be in the restroom with them.

“No way I’m going in there (school bell), I’d rather wait all day if a guy’s in there.”

Our children must be protected from predators, but if Governor Ritter won’t veto Senate Bill 200, all public restrooms, including those in our public schools, will be open to anyone of any sex.

Have you ever opened up your local newspaper and wondered why there is so much coverage of homosexuals and issues of concern to homosexuals?