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)
Condi Rice is proud —PROUD, I TELL YOU — that the US went to war in Iraq. And she’s sure that the world isn’t more dangerous as a consequence. Meanwhile, some Republicans are apparently in a state of alarm and despondency over the President’s current activities. They’re worried about the President, already sufficiently unpopular, is being shown fiddling about while the economy goes up in flames.
As they begin their unity tour this week, Hillary Clinton has a powerful argument to win over diehard supporters who resist backing Barack Obama because he kept her from becoming the first woman in the Oval Office.
If John McCain is elected, they can kiss goodbye to Roe v Wade, which has been teetering in the Supreme Court balance since Bush started naming Justices and would surely be overturned in another Republican Administration.
As late as last year, McCain told Tim Russert on Meet the Press: “I have stated time after time after time that Roe v Wade was a bad decision…To me, it’s an issue of human rights and human dignity.”
So much for pro-choice and the illusions of Independents and disaffected Democrats that, on the overriding issue of women’s rights, McCain is not Bush Redux.
Obama ran into flak at the Black Caucus last week for saying, “If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it.”
Hillary Clinton can help everyone involved “get over it” by reminding ardent supporters, both men and women, of what could be at stake if they fail to do so.
As the title hints to, the article deals with the possible conflicts of interest that the business dealings of some of the McCain family members–such as Cindy and Andrew McCain–may create for John McCain, should he be elected President.
While most of us know what those business dealings are–it rhymes with fear (no pun intended)–the following information did come as a surprise to me, and sheds light on why such potential conflicts of interest for a McCain presidency are very real.
According to the LA Times, executives of Hensley & Co., one of the nation’s major beer wholesalers (executives that include John McCain’s son Andrew),
Have written at least 10 letters in recent years to the Treasury Department, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a beer industry political action committee, and hold a seat on the board of the politically powerful National Beer Wholesalers Assn.
Hensley has run afoul of health advocacy groups that have tried to rein in appeals to young drinkers. For example, the company distributes caffeinated alcoholic drinks that public health groups say put young and underage consumers at risk by disguising the effects of intoxication.
And,
The company has opposed such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in fighting proposed federal rules requiring alcohol content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor.
Some political analysts, such as Samuel L. Popkin, a political science professor at UC San Diego, claim according to the LA Times that,
“You can’t run a beer company out of the White House,” “You can’t run any company from the White House. McCain is leaving a live hand grenade on the table, a major embarrassment.”
However, these gentlemen forget that McCain has already started to defuse this “live hand grenade” by promising to “veto every single beer” that comes across his desk.
Now, if Senator McCain would just promise to get every single American soldier out of Iraq in a little less than one hundred years…
June 24th, 2008 By SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
The young Corporal Sarah Bryant, a member of the British Intelligence Corps, has become the first female soldier to be killed in Afghanistan. The mortal remains of Sarah and three other soldiers killed on June 17, when a device exploded in Helmand province near their base at Lashkar Gar, have reached Britain. (Photo above of Sarah on her wedding day to her husband Carl Bryant in 2005).
Reports The Telegraph: “The sight of Sarah Bryant’s bare shoulders in her wedding dress is almost unbearably poignant. Two years ago, she was a glowing bride; now the 26-year-old is wearing a body bag, having been blown up when her Land Rover was hit by an explosion on Tuesday afternoon. The grief of the family and friends…
“Her death will naturally revive those old arguments about whether women are suited to the battlefield. It is always so when something happens for the first time and Cpl Bryant is the first woman to die in the British Armed Forces in Afghanistan.” More here…
A floral tribute at the town’s memorial read: “To an English rose and her comrades. Rest in peace.” In what her family described as an ‘amazing life’ she had also served in Iraq and learned Pashtu so she could help train the Afghan security forces.
The Independent reports: “The number of British servicewomen killed in Afghanistan and Iraq now stands at seven. About 700 of the British force of just under 8,000 in Afghanistan are female. A number of those serving in Helmand and Kandahar are members of the Intelligence Corps and fluent in Pashtu, while others are based in Kabul with a proficiency in Dari, the language of the Tajiks and Uzbeks.
“The Defence Secretary Des Browne said: ‘We have now lost nine soldiers in 10 days and every single one of them is a tragedy’.” More here…
The BBC adds: “The death of Cpl Sarah Bryant in Afghanistan has brought the subject of women in the military to the fore.”
In the strongest rebuff yet of the national “pregnancy pact” story that has scandalized Gloucester, top city and school officials say there’s no evidence that nearly half of the 17 pregnant teens at Gloucester High conspired to have babies together.
“We have not been able to confirm the existence of a pact,” said Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk, trying to defuse the national story on the school’s teen baby mama drama. “The information from the principal has not been verified by any other source.”
Principal Joseph Sullivan, in an explosive story published last week in Time magazine, said about half the 17 pregnant teens at Gloucester High made a pact to get pregnant, even high-fiving each other when they had a positive test at a school clinic.
Developing… Update added minutes later… Anatomy of a media-made pact. From the horse’s mouth, GloucesterTimes.com:
Through stories and editorials, we have occasionally noted that at least some of the 18 girls who became pregnant this past school year did so intentionally, with the idea that it might be “cool” to “become moms” and raise the babies together. Could that be considered some sort of informal “pact”? Maybe. It depends on how formally one defines that word. But one thing has become certain over the past two days — that’s the fact that “pact” can certainly be a magic word. As soon as Time magazine reported the presence of a “pregnancy pact” — as its headline blared in its online edition Thursday — this story, which had already sparked local and some national talk about teen pregnancy and the distribution of contraceptives in schools, exploded worldwide.
How? Well, shortly after Time posted the story, national news network CNN — a corporate partner of Time Warner, and thus a close partner of Time — added the “pregnancy pact” story to its online and broadcast reports. It wasn’t long after that the other major news networks joined in, and the frenzy was on.
By Thursday night — before the print edition of Time was even on newsstands — Gloucester and its teen “pregnancy pact” were featured on the CBS Evening News, and Patrick Anderson, our reporter on the story, was called upon for a guest spot on MSNBC’s Dan Abrams show. By yesterday morning, I was getting calls and doing live radio interviews with WABC in New York, with BBC World News in London and with Ireland national radio in Dublin. All, of course, were looking for more information about a story that has literally thrust — or plunged — Gloucester into the global spotlight.
In the midst of all of this, our own coverage has maintained a different focus. Yesterday’s Times focused on the fact that none of the pregnant girls — not one — dropped out of school this year, a fact officials credit in large part to what has become something of a controversial day-care facility at the school. And while today’s story leads with local officials questioning the status of any “pact,” (Please see news story, Page 1) it also includes coverage of the media’s sudden, intense interest in our community on the heels of the explosive Time story. For Gloucester, we believed that had, indeed, become part of the story as well.
So, you may ask, why has your community’s newspaper covered this global story like that — with only peripheral mention of any “pact”? Because, frankly, no one had used that term in describing the girls’ intentions to us — as no one apparently had with local school and other officials, either.
Answer that Time Magazine!!! Parenthetically, more confirmation of my point last night, heedless adults taking thoughtless advantage of kids for our needs. In this case the need for a good story! Thereare doubtless real, complex, nuanced, important issues and problems that need to be addressed in this story. I’m not sure we’ve done anyone any service!(I’m still reading…) I hate it when I rant! It was the principal who gave the quote. Sounds like he got carried away.
The story would have benefited from more caution all around. None of the girls would be interviewed; a recent graduate of the school who “thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant” is quoted instead. You can get by with that I guess but it’s not the best journalistic practice in the book…
THE NEXT DAY ON TODAY: The Time reporter, Kathleen Kingsbury, on The Today Show, 8:12 a.m. EDT, “…repeatedly the story I heard out there was that there was a group of girlfriends who decided to get pregnant and raise their babies together…” Hey??? I didn’t hear the word pact! Did you??? BAD REPORTORIAL PRACTICES!!! Confirmed on Today!!!
I guess Barack Obama and other key Democrats (“Liberals,“ Bill would say) didn’t do or say anything that Bill Kristol could use as fodder in his much awaited, once-a-week, Monday morning New York Times column. I say that because Bill Kristol decided to go after MoveOn.org by dredging up last September’s General Petraeus ad, and by mischaracterizing a new 30-second TV spot that MoveOn is airing and is called “Not Alex.”
I resisted the temptation to view the ad before reading Kristol’s “critique,“ and that almost turned out to be a mistake because after reading the following Kristol review I was very reluctant to view such an allegedly nauseating, unpatriotic piece of dirt:
The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past. And the sole responsibility of others.
I finally gathered enough courage to view the ad.
The 30-second ad shows a young mother holding a young baby, Alex, while expressing her natural maternal concern as to what may await her baby when he grows up in a troubled world. This is what she says–and perhaps the only part that Kristol gets right in his much awaited piece:
“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”
Now, only Bill Kristol could extrapolate the words of this mother into “Take that, warmonger!” “creepy,” “MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform,” “The MoveOn ad is… barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past,” and by using the words of a post at the Web site, BlueStarChronicles.com.,“Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism?”
Of course, mothers all across America realize that their sons, and daughters, may have to serve in the military and even risk their lives for our nation. That is not the issue. The issue is that they fear that their sons and daughters may be sent to fight an unnecessary war, a war that is started based on faulty intelligence, exaggerations, and even false pretenses; a war that is utterly mismanaged; and, yes, a war–or an occupation–that may go on “for a hundred years.”
Fortunately, I don’t have young kids. But I do have a precious grandson and I share the same concerns for him as the mother in the MoveOn ad. I have expressed such concerns in “John McCain’s One Hundred Years in Iraq.“
As far a Kristol’s claim that MoveOn “slandered a distinguished general officer,” I could stand corrected, but I don’t remember Bill Kristol condemning the slandering–the swift boating–of other military heroes who honorably served our country, such as Vietnam veteran John Kerry and triple-amputee, Vietnam veteran Max Cleland.
But of course: it’s always the mid-Twentieth Century for a certain segment of the American public. Family Circle is sponsoring a bake-off between potential First Spouses. Which one is the best role model for the homemakers of America? As The New York Daily News says, ‘[T]he stakes are not small. The wives of the winners of the last four presidential elections have also won this competition.’
So…by failing to win this competition, Michelle or Cindy may cause their husbands to lose the election. Furthermore, they’ll reveal themselves to be unfit to be a presidential spouse. A presidential spouse needs to be a good role model for a helpmeet, even if the spouse is Bill Clinton. Bill submitted a recipe for oatmeal cookies. I suppose there is some statistic somewhere proving that people who bake are more supportive and more likely to understand the pressures of being president.
This morning at 11:00 AM eastern time, I’ll be taking part in a panel discussion on internet radio which is being hosted by Fausta Wertz of Fausta’s Blog. The subject will be (brace yourself…) hymen reconstruction surgery. We’ll be taking a second look at a previous New York Times article and accompanying analysis from National Review Online regarding the growing phenomenon of young women having reconstructive surgery done to “restore their virginity” prior to marriage.
This trend is not in any way unique to young Muslim women in Euorpe and the Arab street. It’s also picking up speed in India among various Hindu sects. (India is still a place where women are treated far worse than either cattle or monkeys in many remote areas, by most accounts.) But it doesn’t stop there. I’ve already found no less than 20 clinics offering the procedure right here in the United States. (Check out the Center for Vaginal Surgery for one example. There are more than half a dozen in New York City alone.) Records and numbers are sketchy since the procedure is generally not covered by insurance and is highly private, but some clinics claim to be performing hundreds per year.
Where did this requirement for a woman to be a virgin on her wedding night come from and how well is it surviving in the modern era? It seems to show up in all the major religions, and women failing to live up to this ideal are instructed to be dealt with in a variety of ways ranging from slavery to death by fire or stoning.
Is this chase for chastity something to be admired or shunned? Has the sexual revolution set us free or dragged us to the gates of hell? And do a few stiches from a surgeon really turn back the clock on your virginity, or are you just fooling yourself and lying to your prospective husband? You be the judge. Leave your comments in this thread. Or, if you’d care to take part in the discussion, join us at 11:00 eastern at Fausta’s show, or using the player below, or call in during the show at (646) 652-2639 to have your say.
ABC’s Rick Klein reports: Sen. John McCain on Friday abruptly cancelled a Monday fundraiser that had been scheduled at the home of a Texas oilman, after ABC News contacted the campaign inquiring about a verbal blunder the Texan made during an unsuccessful 1990 campaign for governor.
Clayton Williams stirred controversy during his 1990 campaign for governor of Texas with a botched attempt at humor in which he compared rape to weather. Within earshot of a reporter, Williams said: “As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”
McCain’s campaign is on the record for nixing the event due to those comments:
McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the Monday event was being cancelled, given the offensive comments. He said he could not yet say what McCain would do with donations brought into the campaign by Williams. Read the rest of this entry »
Right. There are none so blind as those who will not see. According to The New York Times, a substantial number of media critics, commentators, pundits, and outlets — not to mention many well known so-called ‘progresssive’ bloggers — still aren’t prepared to acknowledge the offensively biased coverage of Senator Clinton throughout the primary. People, even my 80 year old "I am not now, nor have I ever been a feminist" Republican mom noticed it.
The blatant sexism of the media campaign against Hillary Clinton didn’t bother the people who were doing it or the people who benefited from it, but it bothered the hell out of a lot of women, including me. It was quite clear to me early on that a large number of media figures had decided that Obama should be the presumptive nominee — and never mind waiting to find out what Democratic voters wanted.
Now it seems that the scales have fallen from Howard Dean’s eyes.
The stereotype for same-sex relationships is that they do not last. But that may be due, in large part, to the lack of legal and social recognition given to same-sex couples. Studies of dissolution rates vary widely.
After Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 couples, including same-sex couples and their heterosexual married siblings. The focus was on how the relationships were affected by common causes of marital strife like housework, sex and money.
Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.
While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll. […]
Other studies show that what couples argue about is far less important than how they argue. The egalitarian nature of same-sex relationships appears to spill over into how those couples resolve conflict.
One well-known study used mathematical modeling to decipher the interactions between committed gay couples. The results, published in two 2003 articles in The Journal of Homosexuality, showed that when same-sex couples argued, they tended to fight more fairly than heterosexual couples, making fewer verbal attacks and more of an effort to defuse the confrontation.
Controlling and hostile emotional tactics, like belligerence and domineering, were less common among gay couples.
The Gottman Institute is likely to be responsible for a good bit of the work cited above. Their findings are here.
This past weekend, First Lady Laura Bush made a courageous and well-intended visit to war-torn Afghanistan. She ventured deep into central Afghanistan to see for herself what progress has been made particularly in women’s development and educational and training projects.
Emphasizing such interests, the First Lady flew to Bamiyan, one of the country’s poorest provinces, which has Afghanistan’s only female governor. While in Bamiyan, she visited a school under construction, which will also be an orphanage.
She also visited a provincial reconstruction team compound in Bamiyan where New Zealand soldiers performed the traditional warrior dance for the First Lady. The camp is very close to a cliff side where two giant Buddha statues once stood. The niches in that cliff side are now empty as the statues were blown up by the Taliban in 2001. Perhaps the First Lady saw these, too, from a distance.
In Kabul, Mrs. Bush met with Afghan teachers and students and announced a U.S. $80 million pledge for education programs, including funds for scholarships, for developing the campus of the American University of Afghanistan, and for a national literacy program.
While Laura Bush was shown schools, orphanages, hospitals, cultural sites and other projects that are important to all, but in particular significant to women–wives, mothers, grandmothers–apparently she did not visit Afghanistan’s notorious heroin-producing poppy fields.
Why do I mention wives, mothers and grandmothers in conjunction with Laura Bush’s visit and the poppy fields in Afghanistan?
The reason is simple, and it also takes us to a subject that, strangely enough, has not received much media attention. But it did catch my wife’s (a grandmother) eye and attention.
You see, we religiously read the on-line version of the Stars and Stripes, a great little newspaper published daily for the U.S. military, Department of Defense civilians, contractors, and their families–especially those serving overseas. On May 8, 2008, the Stars and Stripes carried an article, with an accompanying photo, titled “To win favor with Afghans, Marines let poppies grow.” To our amazement, according to the AP story, our own U.S. Marines are in essence closing their eyes to opium poppy-growing in Afghanistan. The article even carries a photograph showing armed U.S. Marines “peacefully” walking through the poppy fields.
According to the article:
“Last week, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit moved into southern Helmand province, the world’s largest opium poppy-growing region, and now find themselves surrounded by green fields of the illegal plants that produce the main ingredient of heroin.”
June 2nd, 2008 By SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
President Nicolas Sarkozy was joined by fashion giants from around the globe yesterday in paying tribute to the iconic French designer, Yves Saint Laurent, who has died aged 71, reports The Independent.
“Yves Saint Laurent was the last of the French pioneers, including Chanel and Christian Dior, who established Paris as the fashion capital of the world. His death late on Sunday night, after a long struggle against brain cancer, has plunged France into a kind of unofficial national mourning…”
So are we now close to the endgame in the seemingly-endless Democratic primaries? Or will it go all the way to the Denver convention in August, with supporters on each side of the nearly evenly divided Democratic Party continuing to be increasingly irritated and frustrated with the other side as Republicans watch the spectacle with bigger and bigger smiles?
Yesterday’s decision at the DNC, which gave the Clinton campaign some of what it wanted in terms of Michigan and Florida delegates but not its actual demands, ended up being the decision that many on the DNC reportedly actually wanted.
And now the predictions and questions have started. Will Clinton start to ease her campaign to a close or suspend it this week? Will she withdraw? Will she fight on in Denver? Will Obama make a big victory speech this week if, as expected, he’s within a hair of the nomination or over the top by the end of the week in pledged delegates and more superdelegates come out for him? Or will he make a more modest pitch?
The Telegraph reports that there’s an Obama effort behind the scenes to offer Clinton a “graceful” exit — one that notably avoids asking her to run as Obama’s Veep:
Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama’s cabinet under plans for a “negotiated surrender” of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama’s aides.
The former First Lady would get the chance to pilot Mr Obama’s reforms of the American healthcare system if she agrees to clear the path to his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.
Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.
Not inviting her to be his running mate is not an oversight:
May 31st, 2008 By SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
The medical fraternity has hailed as “miracle” the birth of an “ectopic” baby at Darwin in Australia on Thursday. The healthy 2.8 kg baby survived despite developing in her mother’s ovary instead of her uterus. The delighted parents have named their daughter Durga, after one of the most powerful goddesses in the Hindu pantheon.
Most ectopic pregnancies end in miscarriage or are terminated early because of the risk to the mother, reports the BBC. “The mother and baby were both doing well.
“The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said the odds of survival in such a pregnancy were ‘no more than one in a million’. Just 1-2% of all pregnancies are ectopic, and in 95% of those cases the egg is fertilised in the fallopian tubes on its way to the uterus. In 0.5% of cases, including this one, the baby grows inside the ovary itself.
” ‘We’re calling it a miracle,’ said Robyn Cahill of the Darwin Private Hospital in Australia’s Northern Territory, where Mrs Meera Thangarajah, 34, gave birth to Durga. Robyn added: ‘Only 1 in 40,000 fertilisations implant in the ovary, and it was unheard of for one of those foetuses grow to full term.” More here…
Ravi Thangarajah, 40, father of the “miracle” baby did not quite understand the gravity of the situation, and what the fuss was all about. “The doctor and the paediatrician came in and told me it was like a miracle baby — you’re one of the luckiest men in the world at the moment,” he said. Mr Thangarajah added he had to “go to Google” to find out about the “miracle” condition. More here…
May 23rd, 2008 By DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Assistant Editor, TMV Columnist
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM is an award-winning film to be shown on PBS over the Memorial Day week.
It tells the story of seven WWII veterans who fought together and were captured together; their “bonds go far beyond surviving combat. The men have joined forces 50 years after the war to conquer a final foe.”
“Despite the brutal ordeals of being a prisoner, many POWs saw their capture as a personal failure, and carried their silent burden for decades.”
Now for the first time, seven of these men who lived it, tell their unique stories and reveal how they have come together to restore their senses of manhood, of selfhood
PBS goes on to say:
Intelligent and heartfelt, this is an emotional and inspiring …[film] sure to resonate with viewers across America, especially soldiers and veterans of all conflicts. Especially now.
What some have well-meaningly named “The Greatest Generation,” could also, in a far clearer reality… have been righteously called “The Silenced Generation.” This includes the soldiers and nursing corps and families and civilians who suffered so deeply in war…
‘Observers’ with few observation skills or little experience with the night thoughts and terrors of veterans, have said in the long ago past, that those who have been to war were ‘brave’ for not speaking about their ordeals afterward. There was little timely intervention for people traumatized by war. And, if there was therapy, it was kept nearly secret from most everyone, further isolating the person ’til they could be ‘rehabilitated’ back into society again.
“Rehabilitated,” as one of my patients who is a veteran and former POW said, “rehabilitated, that’s what the enemy wanted us to be too.”
Something about ’stiff upper lip’ once back home, being some kind of badge of manhood/ honor. Silence often touted as a superior behavior by those very ones who were not POWs, those who have rarely or never been in hand to hand combat, never tried to operate in a field of blood, never tried but failed to save a life, no matter their rank, or lack of it.
One of my dear friends, John, an ace WWII pilot, now white-haired and one of the last of the truly gallant men on earth, says, “We never suffered in flying, no matter how or what we engaged, like the boys did on the ground. We were the lucky ones.”
Back then, observers and self-appointed behavior-setters, were not skilled and were not paying attention to how the psyche, if sealed off from leaching expressions of trauma will, like a radial tire, develop a bubble in the sidewall and blow out in a different way. Alcohol, anger fits, drugs, isolation, inability to bear social interaction, controlling others, instability, violence, abuse, uncommunicativeness, and other addictions gradually build up to ease the pressure from deep trauma.
Those who say it is somehow superior not to speak of grave matters as they affect the human soul and psyche, are wrong in most cases. What is brave is to speak of what one did/ saw/ thought/ felt… as each person chooses, and without fear of being exiled for being somehow less a person. How could a solider, nurse, family member, civilian who was in the midst of blood witness and war, ever be thought ‘less’?
Perhaps for those who remain silent because they have no demons riding nightly through their skulls, that is the right way for them. But that should never be confused with those who have remained silent and done their damnedest all these years, remaining silent, because they felt that if they spoke even a few sentences about these matters, it might throw them to their knees weeping to the sky.
It is brave to say out loud what a culture ought hear when done with war… all of it—rather than enjoining the most superficial aspects of culture which are giddy to wash their hands of it all, wanting only to feast now and be happy and return to ‘your regular programmed episodes,’… leaving out of their ‘happiness equation’ the depth quotient of those who went away to war mostly whole, but came back not weak, but also no longer all of a piece… or peace.
If the culture can stand to go to war, it has to be able to stand to stay near to hear the stories of war afterward, the real ones that live on in people’s very cells, the ones that would make most of us want to fall to our knees and weep to the sky.
It makes no sense to allow those who suffered for us once, to suffer for us twice, and ad infinitum…because we let them suffer in silence, alone.
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM, seven POWs break their silence and tell their stories: showing May 26, Monday KBDI TV in the Rocky Mountain market. Check your local listings
Unlike his brothers, Ted Kennedy won’t leave behind any soaring rhetoric for the history books, but colleagues in both parties this week are recalling his four decades as the Senate’s most practical politician who “routinely reached across party lines on a wide number of issues to cut landmark deals.”
In contrast to their public use of his name to signify woolly-headed liberalism, Republicans are talking about the “go-to guy” in getting laws on the books, practitioner of a lost bipartisan art in the era of Bush-Rove scorched-earth polarization.
“He’s a legislator’s legislator,” says Sen. Jon Kyl. “At the end of the day, he wants to legislate, he understands how, and he understands compromise.”
“I’ve known and worked with him for 40 years,” recalls GOP Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander. “He’s results-oriented. He takes his positions, but he sits down and gets results,” Alexander said.
Jack and Bobby Kennedy were tough acts to follow, and their younger brother turned out not to have their talent for words to inspire voters. In 1980…
Richard Thompson Ford, professor of law at Stanford University and author of The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse, spoke last month at Google. In his talk and in his book, Ford argues that we should think of racism not as a crime, like murder, where we have to find bad people and fix them, but rather as a social problem that we can come together to work on and fix, “kind of like air pollution.”
He disputes the notion that Americans don’t like to talk about race. He says we talk about race obsessively, just not very productively. “Every few weeks there’s a race scandal, but we don’t talk about the real problems and we don’t talk about real solutions.” Instead we talk about phony scandals generated by people paid to be offensive (stand-up comics, cable news pundits and radio jocks). And the problem is this distorts our understanding of race and distracts us from the real issues we could be addressing.
Ford sees a good news/bad news story about race relations in a world of “racism without racists.” The analogies between racism and sexism aren’t perfect but I think they’re there and they’re worth exploring. From his talk:
The good news is that attitudes are better than they’ve been in American history. I think it’s fair to say that they’re quite a bit better than they were 20 years ago… and they’re certainly better than they were in the 1960s during the time of the civil rights movement. Not only is racism taboo and people are unlikely to express racist attitudes openly but… actual attitudes are improved. Fewer people are racists and racism is on the wane. So that’s the good news.
The bad news is that many racial inequities are as bad as they were during the time of the civil rights movement. For instance… many inner city neighborhoods are as segregated as they were during the Jim Crow era, poverty in poor minority neighborhoods is in many cases worse, joblessness is in many cases worse… incarceration rates particularly for men of color are much, much worse than during the era of Jim Crow.
So this juxtaposition has led to it to be difficult for us to know what to think and what to do about problems of race relations. Some people looking at the problem of real inequities that continue to trouble our society conclude that if racial injustices are as bad as in the Jim Crow era than racism must be just as bad too and it’s all just undercover, it’s all on the down low. And that leads people to assume that when there are conflicts, when there are problems, there’s a racist to be blamed for it.
And that’s one type of conflict that has given rise to this phrase, “playing the race card.”
Far too long for a blog post (he’s a law professor after all) at 56 minutes it is well worth watching:
My suggestion is that as Democrats grapple with racism and sexism in this campaign, Ford’s discussion of racism can inform both. Ford is clear that there are still racists. We can agree, too, that there are still sexists.
Ford’s argument is that ubiquitous accusations of discrimination frequently distract us from the real issues and keep us from making real progress. That argument certainly seems worthy of some serious consideration right now!
“If many of Mrs. Clinton’s legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination,” the New York Times asks today, “how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?”
The question underscores how crucial it is for Democrats to untangle the issue of what derailed America’s first woman president from what seemed her clear path to the White House only a year ago. Was Hillary Clinton’s campaign undone by the message or the messengers?
In the latter category, Sen. Clinton, although she bears ultimate responsibility, was clearly hampered not only by her husband but hot-shot strategist Mark Penn, who failed to see that voters would be turned off by a play-it-safe campaign fueled by what looked like a sense of entitlement. (They overlooked the lesson of what Harry Truman did to Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, a “sure” year for Republicans.)
“When people look at the arc of the campaign, it will be seen that being a woman, in the end, was not a detriment and if anything it was a help to her,” presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin points out. Her candidacy faltered as a result of “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.”
No matter how true that may be, and even if they accept its validity, that will bring cold comfort to millions of women who have so much hope invested in what Hillary Clinton calls breaking “the highest and hardest glass ceiling” in American life.
All other calculations aside, and there are many, this frustration has to be taken into account in Barack Obama’s choice of a running mate. With consideration and without condescension, the potential first African-American President has to think long and hard about the symbolic and practical value of breaking through American prejudice with two for the price of one.
This morning at 11:00 AM eastern time, I’ll be taking part in a panel discussion 
