A Modest Proposal

Last week, a county board of commissioners in North Carolina rejected a “state family planning grant that would cover contraceptive supplies along with other medical services related to family planning.”   Chairman Ted Davis said, “If these young women were responsible people and didn’t have sex to begin with, we wouldn’t be in this situation.”  

We’re in the midst of a war on women—specifically, women having sex outside of marriage—and a good solution has been hard to find.  Shame and stigma doesn’t work anymore.  Gone are the days when pregnant young Suzie is sent to stay with her aunt until the baby is born.  Now, teen moms are celebrated on television.  Unfortunately, the Constitution prohibits us from arresting consenting adults for having sex. 

What about the church?  The Catholic Church promotes abstinence outside of marriage and discourages the use of birth control even within a marriage. But studies show most Catholic women have used some form of birth control.  How often do we see huge families anymore?  That can’t all be due to the rhythm method.  In fact the Catholic Church has done such a bad job discouraging sex outside of marriage and the use of birth control among its own members, that they’re actively fighting the federal health care law that require insurers to cover contraception.

Clearly we’re going about this all wrong: shame, legislation, and God have not stopped women from having sex.   No, in order to seriously reduce the number of women having sex outside of marriage, we need to make sex for women as undesirable as possible.  We do that with three little words: Female Genital Mutilation.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been practiced for centuries in parts of Africa and the Middle East.  There are a few different kinds of FGM, but the most common procedure involves cutting off a girl’s clitoris.  She may be two weeks old or fourteen years old.  Without the clitoris, sex for the girl will not be pleasurable.  She will still be able to have sex and get pregnant, but because the act itself may be painful now, she will surely wait until she is in a happy and stable marriage.

Now, some short-term problems have been associated with FGM, such as infection, hemorrhaging, and psychological trauma.  But once trained doctors are performing the procedure in a hospital environment, the number of infections and death by hemorrhaging will decrease if not disappear completely.  And if the cutting takes place while she’s still a baby, she’ll no more traumatized than a boy is from his circumcision.  

Imagine a generation of women growing up, not wanting sex.  Imagine the money we will save not having to pay for birth control or unwanted pregnancies.  Without physical desire to distract her, she can concentrate on school, her career or, better yet, her husband!

Let Them Eat Cake

Forbes called it a "sound bite blunder," I call it a "Washington Gaffe". A "gaffe" is a social error or a faux pas; in Washington, DC, a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. Republican front runner Mitt Romney made the latter kind of gaffe when he explained to Solidad O'Brien on CNN "I'm not concerned about the very poor." Because the very poor have a safety net--welfare, food stamps, housing vouchers--he's not worried about them. He went on to say that he doesn't care about the very rich, either, because they're just fine. He's concerned about the middle class.

I hope he has to explain himself. But his own words suggest that he's not at all concerned about a group of people who are already so disenfranchised. Making ends meet through welfare and food stamps is not an easy life. I'd venture to guess that the "very poor" includes a high percentage of children and elderly. It's good to know what Romney really thinks about these groups. "The Examiner" calls Romney's statements not a gaffe but a "dog whistle to the tea party", which believes that too much money is spent on entitlements that go to the "very poor."

I do wonder how Romney defines "middle class." He referred to his speaking fees of over $370,000 as "not very much." Is a $370,000 income "middle class" to Romney? What about 10% of that, $37,000? I'm sure millions of Americans would love to be making $37,000 a year and pay the 25% tax rate on that money.

Edited to add a link to Jon Stewart's take on Romney's statements.

Newt

My grandma is a fan of Newt Gingrich. As readers know, my nana is awesome. She knits me hats, bakes me cookies, and is generally the coolest 90yr-old ever. But she likes Newt. She thinks he's "so smart" and has "great ideas."

"Just listen to him," she says. "I know you like Obama but Gingrich knows how politics work and can get things done. We need someone like that."

She recognizes all his personal failings, with his three overlapping marriages. But she likes him. She likes Santorum, too--"The young guy," she calls him--but he's not ready yet.

I've stopped trying to argue with her. She'll never vote Democratic, anyway, because of the abortion issue, even though I think the President who got us out of Iraq is more pro-life than the one who invaded it.

It's just interesting to hear her perspective. Just as I started to wonder how anyone could ever in their right mind support Newt Gingrich for president, Nana gives me an explanation.

Surreal Headline:

"Newt Gingrich won the Republican Primary in South Carolina." Seriously? I almost feel bad for Mitt, if I thought he could experience real human emotions.

I feel bad for saying even that. I actually think South Carolina will be a bloop. That for the first time since 1976, they haven't picked the eventual nominee. Time will tell.

Lucky Girl

Some days I feel bowled over by just how lucky I am. I'm healthy, I have a job that I enjoy and an outside interest (writing) that I love; I have family and friends I love, and a boyfriend who can make me laugh like no one else can.

A lot of things about our society angers and frustrates me--injustice and inequality abound--but when I step back I'm reminded that things aren't all bad. And yesterday, with their offices flooded with phone calls as well as the protests across the web, from google to Wikipedia to reddit, we saw Senators and Congresspeople retreat from positions they were heavily lobbied to take. I hope this is a sign of the future: the voices of many becoming more powerful than the money of few.

I'd been afraid that writing a post a day would be difficult, but on the contrary it's been great forcing myself to sit and write for 10-30 minutes each day, regardless of when I work or what I have to say. Have a great Thursday!

Wearing Blinders

ThinkProgress drew my attention to a short film by Adam Butcher called "Bradley Manning Had Secrets." The animated movie of 5.5 minutes uses the actual chat logs between Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo, the guy who busted him. The conversations took place about a week before everyone learned his name. I recommend watching it. If nothing else, it humanizes and provides greater understanding of Manning.

I tend to wear blinders when it comes to the Obama administration doing things I don't like because I feel they've got enough people actively rooting against them. From dropping the public option to extending the Bush tax cuts, I've defended them and rationalized their decisions.

But some things this administration has done (notice, I still avoid holding President Obama personally responsible) in the name of national security leave me chilled, from the use of drones to the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA gives the president the power to indefinitely detain an American citizen. The fact that the President promised not do do so means nothing. He "signed the bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists." I must be naive when I think, If your reservations are so serious, then DON'T SIGN THE BILL!"

I corrupted some coworkers today when I told them about what happens when you google "Santorum." Try it, but don't say I didn't warn you.

Ultimate Justice

Two chilling moments in the past two Republican debates:

1. Audience members, last Wednesday, cheer at the mention of the more than two-hundred individuals who been executed in Governor Rick Perry's Texas. Anyone who's followed the Cameron Todd Willingham case knows how flawed the death penalty system is in that state.

2. Audience members, last night, cheer and say "Yes!" as Wolf Blitzer asks Ron Paul if society should let an uninsured 30-year-old man in a coma die. (To his credit, Paul responded that charities should step in and cover his costs).

I'm trying to understand this lack of compassion. I hope for President Obama's re-election in 2012, but I know he's vulnerable. If it's not him, I hope for a President Romney or Huntsman, someone who won't fan the flames of blood lust.

Andrew Sullivan (a Reagan conservative) put it best at the end of one of his posts yesterday about the current state of the Republican Party:

If you ask why I remain such a strong Obama supporter, it is because I see him as that rare individual able to withstand the zeal without becoming a zealot in response, and to overcome the recklessness of pure religious ideology with pragmatism, civility and reason. That's why they fear and loathe him. Not because his policies are not theirs'. But because his temperament is their nemesis. If he defeats them next year, they will break, because their beliefs are so brittle, but will then reform, along Huntsman-style lines. If they defeat him, I fear we will no longer be participating in a civil conversation, however fraught, but in a civil war.

Bums, Bums, all of 'em Bums

The past few mornings I've woken up with my stomach knotted over these stupid debt talks. I'm angry at how out of touch Washington is. I'm angry at the Congress. I'm angry that our president couldn't get a better deal even when public opinion is on his side. I'm angry that I'm wasting energy on this.

But this is where writing helps. At the end of August, I'll begin a new term of Women Writing for (a) Change. My previous three terms were filled with women of different backgrounds, writing for different purposes. Some wrote as therapy. It became a safe place to explore ideas and feelings. Others wrote to express themselves. Still others wrote because they enjoyed it. For most, I'm sure, it was a combination of those factors.

A few of us were working toward the completion of larger pieces; the class provided the support and encouragement to keep writing each week. To always have something new to share. When I took my first class, I had the draft of a chapter and a rough outline. Today, I'm more than halfway finished and feel the end in sight.

This next term I'm taking a "Mastery" class. We'll meet every other week, and I think each "student" is working on a longer piece. Also, it's co-ed. It will be interesting to see how that affects the dynamics of the class.

I've missed having that community this summer, I think more than I anticipated. To have those two-and-a-half hours blocked off where I have permission to focus solely on writing and on myself is indeed a luxury. It replenishes like nothing else.

But I'm a Cheerleader!

Near the eight-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Obama enters our country into another war of choice. I finally saw some cable news yesterday and CNN's giant "LIBYA WAR" graphic. There are elements of this that make me (and others across the political spectrum, I'm sure) a little sick. What happens after Qaddafi is killed? Or not killed? Loses power? Or doesn't lose power? What is our responsibility? Our military is stretched so thin; the domestic recovery is slow. How do we have money for this but not for education or universal health care?

And why not Bahrain? Why not Yemen? Why not Sudan?

I hope this turns out well, of course. I hope the Americans come off as supporting the aspirations of people long oppressed by a crazy dictator, and not as invading another oil-rich nation to expand their empire. And I know President Obama would be criticized heavily no matter what he did, intervene or don't intervene. But this cheerleader still feels a little queasy.

Friday Procrastination

I continue my unflappable adoration of President Obama. His speech at Tucson was moving and pitch-perfect. In the State of the Union speech, I heard the same voice, message, and spirit that I heard at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

The Republicans made a decision not to work at all with Obama and the Democrats. They didn't want to give even the smallest bit of support to any of their bills, from Health Care to Financial Reform for fear that the Democrats would label these bills as "bipartisan." The Republicans wanted their hands clean from these bills. And politically, their strategy worked: Republicans swept the midterm elections, and Obama saw his numbers drop throughout the year, though they remained pretty stable considering the state of the economy.

Joshua Green has a wonderful article in the Atlantic profiling the new Republican Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. It describes McConnell's plan to frustrate the White House through delay and obstruction on even non-controversial issues: "Obama could not evolve into a post-partisan leader, because McConnell wouldn't let him. He pegged Obama as either too narcissistic or to naive to recognize that his promise of a harmonious new age was beyond his capacity to deliver."

Once the Republicans won their election, they were more free to compromise in December, from the 9/11 First-Responders and Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation to the Start Treaty. Suddenly it seemed our government could function again! Obama's numbers began to rise after this "lame duck" session. That reinforces the fact that the Republican party had the right strategy, politically. But that strikes me as disgusting, for lack of a better word. They absconded their responsibility for two years in order to gain power in the next election! That might be a simplistic reading of the situation--after all, if I see everything Obama does as correct, then I have a biased view of his opposition--but seriously. Seriously!

Green raises those questions at the end of his McConnell profile, asking if "a party has any responsibility to address society's problems in good faith." But it seems as if this strategy of obstruction will be effective so long as the electorate rewards them for it.

Okay, back to writing. I promised myself I'd get to 8200 words on my would-be novel by the end of the week, and right now I have 7700.

Edited to add: I don't think everyone should unflappably adore their president. I'm glad they don't! We need people to challenge and criticize from the left and right in order for our country and our democracy to thrive. I'm just a cheerleader with purple pom-poms standing on the sidelines.

Mid-term Reaction

As disappointed as I am with the results, on a national level, I'm not despairing. I think we'll be ok -- better this wave come now than in 2012. Timothy Egan had a great article in the New York Times. Its premise was that Obama and his actions saved capitalism, and now he's paying the price politically. Obama seems serious about governing and tackling our nation's problems while the rest come across as foolish. I am sad that Nancy Pelosi is losing that leadership position; I think history will treat her better than our news media.

I'm more worried about what this red tide means on the local level. Republicans swept both state houses and the governorship here in Ohio. Our outgoing governor, Ted Strickland, was a good smart man. He cares about unions and was well-tuned to needs of Appalachian regions of the state. But Ohio's been hit especially hard--unemployment is above the national average. The governor-elect wants to reject the $400 federal subsidy to build high-speed rails from Cincy to Columbus to Cleveland. It strikes me as ridiculous; this is something that would create jobs. He actually said that killing this program is is #1 priority.

So while a part of me still rails against the right-wing media and the manipulation of the public, that obviously wasn't the only thing going on in this election. It wasn't biased reporting that determined the results. There's something larger going on, and I'm trying to figure out what it is; a feeling that we were moving too fast on so many fronts and yet unemployment rose. I think there's a racial element, but that can only account for so much. The youth vote was horrendous; something like 8%. Had they voted at the same rate as the Medicare crowd, maybe results around the country would have been different.

The Most Trusted Man in America?

New York Magazine's feature story this month ("America is a Joke") is on Jon Stewart, that most excellent host of The Daily Show. The article describes a typical day as Stewart and his staff write, rewrite, and edit a 30-minute show (it looks as fun and stressful as you'd imagine!)

Those of us who watch Stewart know him as a (hilarious) voice of reason during a time when the media seem to be pushing narrative over truth. We thought that the election of Obama would dull his comic edge, but quite the opposite has happened. The show is more relevant than ever:

His comedy is counterprogramming—postmodern entertainment but with a political purpose. As truth has been overrun by truthiness and facts trampled by lies, he and The Daily Show have become an invaluable corrective—he’s Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, although in keeping with the fragmented culture, he’s trusted by many fewer people, about 1.8 million viewers each night.

In the article, Stewart talks about his encounters with people in the media after the presidential election in 2000:

The more we got to meet people [in the media], it was—‘Oh! You’re f&@ing retarded! You don’t care!’ The pettiness of it, the strange lack of passion for any kind of moral or editorial authority, always struck me as weird. We felt like, we’re serious people doing an unserious thing, and they’re unserious people doing a very serious thing.

The article is a bit long, but it's definitely worth reading.

The Cost of Ignorance

Timothy Egan had a piece in yesterday's New York Times that addresses the epidemic of ignorance among Americans today. He cites the large number of republicans--and people in general--who believe Obama's a Muslim. He mentions how many think that Obama was responsible for the bank bailout. From climate change to Michelle's trip to Spain, he says, we are being fed misinformation; lies are promulgated.

While "it would be nice to dismiss the stupid things Americans believe as harmless, the price of large, messy democracy," Egan asserts that ignorance has a price:

False belief in weapons of mass-destruction led the United States to a trillion-dollar war. And trust in rising home value as a truism as reliable as a sunrise was a major contributor to the catastrophic collapse of the economy. At its worst extreme, a culture of misinformation can produce something like Iran, which is led by a Holocaust denier.

It's enough to make me want to pull out my hair. How do you combat this? CNN, MSNBC, Fox News -- their primary responsibility is to their shareholders; not to us, not to the government, not to the truth. Their aim is to make money, not to make us smarter.

Maybe it's just another ugly August news cycle. Last year it was the town hall debacles. This year, the Mosques. And maybe, come September, the debate will be elevated.

(Actually, I'm pretty sure it won't be; I'll just have to find a better way to deal with my frustrations than pulling out my hair!)

Refudiation

On Sundays, as we wait for Reds pregame to start, my dad, grandmother and I often watch Fareed Zakariah and GPS on CNN. It's one of the few things we can watch on cable that doesn't seem to propagandize or make us less intelligent. He has on interesting guests with divergent points of view, and he asks very insightful questions. This past Sunday, he started his show by talking about the debate over the proposed Muslim cultural center.

"I can't believe they want to build a Mosque at Ground Zero," Nana said.

I replied that during the commercial break, I'd refute her.

"What did she say? Did she say that she'd refute me?"

(I certainly didn't say I'd refudiate her.)

But GPS, instead of going straight to commercial, went to its first two guests: former secretaries of the treasury Robert Rubin and Paul O'Neill. They discussed how difficult and complex economic recovery is, and while they disagreed what the correct course of action should be, there seemed to be some common ground. By the time the show went to commercial break, my dad said, "Are you sure you want to do this?"

Nana was asleep in her chair. Even if she'd been awake, I would have let it go.

I see fear and ignorance and emotion as the biggest enemies to progress. Because when we leave those things out of the discussion, the right answer seems clearer. I may be biased, but I believe truth has a liberal slant.

Agreeing to Disagree

I came of age when postmodernism was all the rage. You know, because we all see things from our own unique perspectives, we each have our own version of what's "true," and no "truth" is more valid than the next. It's an attractive philosophy, particularly when you've been taught one narrative your entire live; postmodernism challenges that narrative.

As I've written before, postmodernism was extremely attractive to me. But at some point, I found myself tearing apart things I believed to be true; what was the point but to become extremely skeptical and, ultimately, cynical?

But one of my least favorite phrases to come from this fad is "agree to disagree." You know, I think this, you think that, we'll never reach consensus so let's let it lie. We are each entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own truths. Then again, when we have fundamental disagreements about religion, higher powers, and the role of government, we can't expect to find consensus, can we?

I went out for drinks with my conservative friend. We tried and tried to stay away from politics but it seems we couldn't help ourselves. Oh how I wish I were smarter and knew more and could rebut quickly things I strongly suspect to be inaccurate. But instead I found myself saying, "Ooooooooooooh. New topic. No common ground."

Ah well, we had fun with our margaritas...

I thought I was smart, but then I played trivia.

My brothers, mom, and I played trivia at a local pizza place and ended up in fourth place. We missed questions about Wagner operas, the locations of forts, and the slogans of kitchen appliance companies. We also missed one about the various animals recorded to create the voice of Chewbacca (walrus and rabbit, among others). My brothers seemed particularly annoyed that I missed the questions in the literature and art categories (the answers, which I didn't know, were "Captain Flint" and "Stendhal Syndrome," respectfully).

This is us last Thanksgiving.

And just a quick note: I am sickened by the Shirley Sherrod incident. It epitomizes everything wrong with media today as well as illustrates something many have suspected for months while I resisted: that the Obama administration is too willing to concede to the Right and that it refuses to stand up for its own principles for fear of... what? whom?

But today, he signed into law sweeping financial reform. This is just one of many legislative victories achieved in a very short amount of time, ones of significant impact. So I'll continue to drink my kool-aide, thank you very much.

Common Ground

Last week, a friend responded to what I thought was a rather innocuous statement about wanting the country to "go a little faster" with what I thought was a reactionary, alarmist, tea bagger/Ayn Randian diatribe. This was a shock, to say the least, and judging by how much I've thought about it and replayed it, the whole exchange has me troubled.

My friend wept for me because I sound like I advocate revolution. I don't want an individualistic democracy where citizens pull themselves up by their bootstraps - I want socialism, she said. After all, progressives are really socialists. I want a dictator and loss of freedom. She asked me to explain myself. She wrote, I see the danger you don't see.

Normally I would have discounted such a reply. I would play it off to ignorance and fear. But me and her, we've known each other since our freshman years of high school, I've vacationed with her and her family, and I know she's smart and reasonable. I couldn't discard the reply.

I told her that I'm not calling for revolution. There's an on-going debate over the role the government plays in our lives, and it's the push and pull between the two sides that allows our country to change, adapt, and correct itself. I may not always like the direction it's going, but this is why we have elections. I thought this was a reasonable and even simplistic remark, but even this came off as radical.

This was not just a political debate between friends; rather, it illustrates one of the biggest problems our country seems to have--despite so much common ground and common goals between us, two distinct world views divide us. And because of the corrupting influences of money and power, our leaders are unwilling or impotent to bridge that gap.

File This Under "You've Got to be Kidding Me"

Last year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, went through a farce of a confirmation hearing. Democrats, Republicans, everyone knew she would be confirmed. They knew she was qualified. But because she had called herself a "wise Latina," Republicans smelled blood, Newt Gingrich called her a racist, and Sotomayor was reduced to backtracking. She said, "I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judgment."

She was confirmed, 68-31, but the Republican party continues to paint itself as the party of exclusion. This country is becoming more and more diverse, a trend that hurts the Republicans, and so their success is predicated on marginalizing and disenfranchising a large number of people. How can they think that, long-term, this is a) good strategy and b) moral?

Elena Kagan is the President's nominee to replace Justice Stevens, and hearings began yesterday. It is another farce, as Kagan is not allowed to give any real opinion. But knowing that it's a farce, I have to wonder why in the world the Republicans would focus their objections on Kagan's reverence for Thurgood Marshall? They repeatedly referred to him as an "activist judge" (now code for any hint of progressivism?), suggesting that the Supreme Court's first African-American judge was out of the "mainstream."

Just liked Sotomayor before her, Kagan will be confirmed. It will be along party lines, with a few Republicans crossing over. Perhaps the same farce probably would have taken place were both nominees white men; after all, they were nominated by a democratic president. But these hearings illustrate how out of touch they are and just who they are looking out for.

America is a living, breathing country. It adapts, slowly. It corrects mistakes, eventually. It bends toward justice. I'd like my America to go a little faster, but I can handle this pace: it's those who refuse to let it change at all that challenge me and my patience.

Express Yourself

In his autobiography, Malcolm X describes how he received a "homemade education" while in prison. He had always considered himself an "articulate hustler," but the language he used on the street--"Look, daddy, let me pull your coat about a cat"--were insufficient within the prison walls. With only an eighth-grade education, he was unable to engage in meaningful conversations and correspondence. With access to little else, Malcolm X began to copy the dictionary. Starting with "aardvark," he wrote each word and its definition:

In my slow, painstaking, ragged handwriting, I copied into my tablet everything printed on that first page, down to the punctuation marks.

I believe it took me a day. Then, aloud, I read back, to myself, everything I’d written on the tablet. Over and over, aloud, to myself, I read my own handwriting.

I woke up the next morning, thinking about those words—immensely proud to realize that not only had I written so much at one time, but I’d written words that I never knew were in the world.... It went a lot faster after so much practice helped me to pick up handwriting speed. Between what I wrote in my tablet, and writing letters, during the rest of my time in prison I would guess I wrote a million words.

To listen to his speeches, to read his words, makes his "homemade education" all the more impressive. He felt unable to express himself, and he rectified it. He describes himself as never having felt "so truly free" in his life as when he was incarcerated, his eyes and mind and possibilities opened to the huge world contained in books. Language is power. Controversial as he was, Malcolm X was undeniably a man of ideas. His ability to communicate those ideas made him a leader.

I watched the Cincinnati Shakespeare Company perform his complete works (abridged). There were jokes scattered about crazy right-wingers, tea parties, and BP. At one point, one of the three actors--they performed hilarious versions of everything from Othello to Hamlet--said, "That's the craziest thing I've heard, at least since, 'Change you can believe in'... What, too soon?" There were audience members laughing and clapping. But I didn't get it. I still don't. I want to say, "Grow up! Obama is trying to govern!" I don't understand what more people want him to do. He needs support, he needs political capital to effect change, and by ridiculing him from the left, people are instead removing an important voice from the debate. Keep up the pressure, but let him lead.

We have so many opportunities today. Libraries, the internet, education: these should be equalizers! Good-natured people, myself included, worry about the widening gulf between the haves and the have-nots. But is anyone talking about the gulf between the "knows" and the "know-nots"? Am I just projecting here? The more television I watch, the more I read, the more I think about (what I perceive to be) rampant anti-intellectualism. Politicians, the media, appealing to our basest instincts, worrying about the 24/7 news cycle instead of truth and progress. Where are the intellectual leaders? Who has big ideas today, based on fact and reason, that has enough celebrity to garner attention? Will corporate media allow any other voices? And when will we be smart enough to demand better?