"War on Women" Really a Ploy to Speak for Me

How are your math skills? Can you still do subtraction in your head? Because here is a little math problem that I find interesting:

1920 - 1878 = ?

If you are quick, you've already calculated the difference. If you are really clever, you may have even figured out the significance of the equation and the answer. I'll come back to that point later.

What does a math problem have to do with the so-called "War on Women" being waged by politicians, lawmakers and the flame-fanning media? Everything, in my opinion.

First  let's examine at the term. Where does the "war" imagery come from? Are there dead bodies in this war? Has blood been spilled? Are there prisoners, hostages, guerilla tactics? Are there uniforms? Is there a defined front? Are there clearly defined parties who have chosen a side? Is participation in this war compulsory?

The "War on Women" is a sham, a made-up event described with evocative terms that create a sense of danger and urgency. War terminology and symbolism permeate our culture to such an extent that we hardly question it when  such terminology is coined. Scholars have been writing about the "Battle of the Sexes" for decades. But is that really the proper way to frame the many issues under the umbrella? I don't think so.

Look at where waging figurative wars have gotten us. Just a few "wars" that have been fought in my lifetime:

War on Drugs

War on Poverty
War on Terror

War on Illiteracy

War on Obesity

None of these wars have ended. The unfortunate conditions of poverty and illiteracy are still with us. Legal and illegal drugs are abused on every strata of society. Obesity may be a growing condition, but fighting it is more of an individual battle - no general or czar can make someone change their relationship with food and eating. And the war on terror, which isn't purely figurative, has always sounded like an oxymoron to me.

The amount of time, money and effort devoted to "warring" against these societal woes is staggering. And the toll on our psyche of so many wars - real ones like Afghanistan or figurative ones like the campaign to increase literacy - have diluted the meaning and seriousness of the word "war." 


Meghan Daum, in an insightful LATimes op-ed, referred to "America's seemingly endless appetite for flimsy controversy." I believe the "War on Women" is one example of that media-fed desire for controversy. These days, they use a just-add-"GATE" approach to grabbing the attention of voters and holding it for the short span our ADD can spare. The candidates who take this simplistic approach, reaching out to voters by professing a belief that a war on women is the most significant issue facing this country do so at their own peril. It is an imaginary war and informed voters recognize the term as media hype and fear-mongering.


It is difficult enough to choose a candidate who is, at least symbolically, committed to their statements and promises. Often, we voters have to compromise when choosing the candidate we vote for. We may vote for the person who we are in agreement with on the greatest number of issues. Or it may be necessary to choose someone based on where they stand on our key issues. It is our right, as individuals and as an electorate, to decide how we weigh the issues and decide which candidate best fits that which we value. To that person, we offer our single, sacred vote.

So why, in an already muddied election year, would the creators of talking points want to christen the debate over some important issues a "War on Women"? What can be gained by misstating the real questions and distorting the real answers? 

I think I may have a partial answer. See, although only a few people truly want to be President of the United States, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people want to be a spokesperson for a cause or group. And when it comes to dividing people by gender, few distinctions are easier to quantify, so the job simply remains to choose the larger group and make a play for their vote by claiming to speak for them.


Well, I have an announcement to make. Attention, media personalities, lobbyists, political spouses, union and club presidents, op-ed journalists and the various and sundry other limelight-seekers who claim to know what I think and want: YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.


I am a woman. That is a fact of my existence. But I am much, much more than a woman when it comes to my voting tendencies. I am entirely too complex a being to be pandered to on the basis of my gender. So please stop trying. You are wrong about me at least as often as you are right, which makes for abysmal statistics when trying to claim you "know" me.


Many people, office-seekers and others, claim to know what I think. I'm not sure where they get their credentials to interpret or broadcast their version of what I, a woman, supposedly want from this election process, though I grant them their First Amendment right to say whatever they choose. But how can anyone believe the claim that a person sitting in a Washington office writing propagandist copy has a true understanding of the multidimensional, non-composite entity called "Women Voters?"  


A few politicians and pundits actually spend time outside the world of their insular lives: journalists listen to voters at town hall meetings and report what was said; candidates ask for input, not just votes; elected officials respond to constituent requests. I thank these groups for taking the trouble to get their facts first-hand and on the ground.


But many more individuals purport to speak for women without, in my opinion, any idea how women think. Men are guilty of this, but they often defer to women to shape their statements and opinions. However, there are many women in public life and the media who seem equally as out-of-touch as the men they deride. I don't want anyone who has no accountability to me to claim the right to speak for me, be they woman or man.


For the record, these women represent themselves, and do not represent me:


Michelle Obama
Anne Romney
Kathleen Sebelius
Sarah Palin
Rachel Maddow
Maureen Dowd
Ann Coulter
Hilary Rosen
Laura Ingraham


These people, regardless of whether I agree with their politics, policies or opinions, have not earned the right to represent me. I do not recklessly cast my lot with an unelected person, whether they be a paid pundit, government employee, a spouse or relative of an elected official or candidate, or a columnist, talk-show host or blogger. Because they are not accountable to me, and their motives are not tied to my welfare, I cannot risk my vote based upon the notion that they are women, and therefore are looking out for all women. 


My vote is too important for that. The votes I cast in 2008 are what I live with today. The votes I will cast in 2012 represent my contract as a citizen withthe United States of America.  The winners are my representatives, and the jobs they do are outlined in the Constitution. 


I have a President. Whether I voted for him or not is not important. He is my President, and I claim him in success and failure, and honor him for serving my country. If I want different results, I must exercise my right to vote and cast my ballot for someone else next time.


Same goes for Congress. My U.S. Senators are Richard Lugar and Dan Coats. My U.S. Congressman is Joe Donnelly. My state's Governor is Mitch Daniels. Senator Barbara Boxer does not speak for me; not just because I disagree with her politics, but I also don't live in California.


I have representation. Those gentlemen are accountable to me. But I am also accountable to be an informed, useful citizen.


If my representatives are not doing their job to my satisfaction, I should first look to myself and my expectations. When I disagree, do I call their office, write a letter or email, attend a town hall meeting? Do I contribute ideas or only criticize? Do I get my information from 24-hour news channels and trendy websites, or do I examine voting records and bills authored by my representative? How well am I doing my job as a citizen and voter?


I bring a lifetime of experiences, knowledge and emotions to any discussion about the present problems or future solutions. I have opinions about decisions being made in Washington D.C. that will affect me and my family. I care about many issues that don't fall into the category of so-called "women's issues." And I don't agree with many women about solutions to problems that do center on gender-specific issues. I do recognize, however, that much of the hoopla being paraded as a war on women is nothing more than the struggle between opposing and overlapping factions to gain a larger share of the votes of women.

The self-appointed spokespersons for women will not influence my vote by suggesting there is a war being waged against me. I am wise to the game and I'm too smart to waste my time and my vote by falling for emotion-based scare tactics.


If there is one thing a history teaches, it is that few things worth having can be gotten quickly. Today's hot-button issues - health care reform, entitlement spending, energy availability and cost, bloody wars on foreign soil - none of the problems developed quickly, and they won't be solved in short order or without someone experiencing pain. That is the simple reality of solving complex problems in a country with a population of 300 million souls.


But in seeking solutions to complex problems, I expect to to meet with disagreement; I expect to win on some issues and lose on others. I certainly don't consider a peaceful, organized protest against mandated employer-paid coverage for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs to be a war on women. As a woman, I consider that protest to be the exercise of free speech, and the issue itself to be about economic and religious freedom, which applies to women and men.


When it was decided that I would stay home and raise our children rather than seek an job and income outside the home, that was a decision made by my husband and I together. It affected both of us, not just me. Women's work choices are no more or less important than men's. If anything, we have more options today than ever. Stay-at-home mothers know just as much about important national issues as mothers who work outside the home. All mothers, and all women, know that high national unemployment is a much bigger issue and affects many more people than the artificial discussion regarding individual choices of when and where to work during one woman's lifetime.


So don't try to tell me that there is a war on women. I personally support groups who are fighting against family-weakening policies, the continuing erosion of individual liberty and the strengthening of the welfare state. I think those people are fighting for all women and men. That is my opinion. My votes will be in keeping with this belief. If you believe differently, your vote may not be the same as mine. But whether we agree or disagree on a candidate or an issue, we all have a stake in the outcome. 


Incidentally, the math problem at the beginning does have a bearing on this theme. In the year 1878, the first bill proposing a woman's right to vote was introduced in Congress and was defeated. It took several more tries before the 19th Amendment was adopted, and it was not ratified until 1920. Thirty-two years is a long time - at the turn of the century, it was most of the adult life expectancy for a woman. Some women who gave their life to the cause of women's suffrage died before seeing this reality:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In almost 100 years, women have benefited from great changes in society and played a major role in bringing about many of those changes. Compare the living conditions of the average woman circa 1912 to our lot today, and I think you'll see that, as a whole, we have much to be thankful for.


There is no war on women. There is only a war for your vote, waged by slick propagandists and people who hope to achieve fame and influence by claiming to speak for you.


Speak for yourself. Study your candidates. Know your representative. Be your own researcher. Be your own advocate. Choose your candidates and representatives based on substance, not sophisticated media campaigns designed to confuse and exhaust you.


And, above all, cherish and value your right to vote, and make it count by being an informed voter.

I Don't Want A Poor President

Much has been made of the personal wealth of some of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates, both those still in the race and a few who got out in previous months. Almost no candidate in recent memory in either party has come from truly humble beginnings. And those who did found financial security, if not wealth, early in life. (Link to a brief but fascinating synopsis of all U.S. Presidents' financial fortunes and misfortunes here.)


The original crop of Republican primary candidates had a few millionaires, which has helped sustain the droning mantra of the left concerning the GOP being concerned only for "protecting the rich." John Huntsman, for whom money was no object at a broadly estimated $16 - 70 million net worth, needed more than money to attract voters. Herman Cain, a successful businessman with a fortune between $2 and 6 million, rode a wave of popularity until his campaign was sidetracked by accusations of improper conduct. Michele Bachman's personal wealth of $1 - 3 million also puts her in the Millionaire's Club. But those three left the field, so it's of no significance.


Of the remaining Republicans, personal wealth spans from the very rich to the barely rich. Current estimates of the candidates' net worth are as follows:

Mitt Romney $200 million

Newt Gingrich $6 - 30 million

Ron Paul $2 - 5 million

Rick Santorum $0.5 - 2 million

Since all four will receive a generous retirement from their various public service jobs, chances are none will die penniless like our 20th President, James A. Garfield.

For the record, President Obama's current net worth is estimated at $2 - 11 million, of which most derives from royalties earned from the sale of his books.

 

As a rule, presidential candidates are not from the "middle class" as measured by income.  And neither political party can claim to put forward candidates of average means. The list of the ten wealthiest presidential candidates is comprised of 5 Democrats  and 4 Republicans. An independent, Ross Perot,  actually came in at the top spot with a net worth of $3.5 billion. All the way down at number 10, former senator John Edwards rounds out the list with an estimated $45 million, although he still has some legal matters pending which may negatively impact that figure.


So what does all this have to do with the voters? Considering that the POTUS has not been elected from the lower rungs of the financial strata for several decades, not much. We, the electorate, can only elect those who choose to run for public office and have the financial resources to stay in the campaign long enough to garner votes. If we deem it important to vote for someone who understands us, understands our challenges, our dreams, our fears, we may not get that opportunity, because people of modest means usually cannot afford to run for public office.


But someone has to do it. For many participants, the deciding factor is the level of sacrifice involved. The time and energy required, the financial and organizational resources needed, and the unrelenting scrutiny from the public and the media make the life of the public servant unattractive to all but the most dedicated of campaigners. I'd venture to say that only the most power-hungry and the most service-driven see their political aspirations through to fruition. For many, politics is a calling - an inescapable tug of the conscience to employ their talents and abilities for the greater good of their community or country. For others, politics is a gateway to power and influence. For some, both motivations play a role in their ambitions.


But is the fact of being rich necessarily a bad thing in a candidate? Well, since we've established that very few poor people can or do run for office, it would seem that our choices are somewhat limited to people with the financial means to run.  Which brings me to my main point.

The press seems to love jumping on any utterance of Mitt Romney's that hints at his personal fortune. The pundits aren't content with stringing him up for being a successful businessman, which wasn't always the kiss of death it is today. No, as is the case for almost anyone seeking public office, his words, be they serious statements of policy or lighthearted utterances, get run through the blogophere drag-and-drop context blender, and late-night comedy spin to reflect poorly on his sense, judgement or grasp of reality.

One version of the current spin is that Romney is suffering from a surfeit of "gaffes," telling comments that reveal what a truly rich, evil person he is. In case you've been (wisely) ignoring the day-to-day coverage of campaign minutiae, here are few of the ripe comments the former governor let drop in recent weeks:

Just like us boring, everyday folk, Mitt knows about NASCAR; he has friends who are team owners.

As a staunch American car industry supporter, Mitt's wife owns a couple of Cadillacs.

As a business owner and manager, he took pleasure in firing greedy, incompetent employees.

He can't be blamed for the crass but obvious-to-everyone statement, suggesting that campaigns go through stages, and candidates adjust their message like hitting a reset button or shaking an Etch-A-Sketch. Romney's communications director, Eric Ferhnstrom, served up that tasty nugget, and can only be blamed for telling the truth with an alarming lack of awareness of the potential for damage. For more on campaigns reinventing their candidates, google Hillary Clinton campaign hairstyle, Ronald Reagan 1982 tax increase, Barack Obama flag lapel pin, to name a few noteworthy changes mid-stream.


Back to Romney: his current estimated net worth of $200 - 250 million places him among the nation's 3,140 richest people, in the top 0.001% of Americans. Compared to him, Rick Santorum and his large family look like paupers. But this is America! The favorite destination of wealth-seekers for four centuries and counting! Why is success and wealth considered a liability in this particular election?

It seems that if the media likes a candidate, it's okay if they are wealthy; if they don't like a candidate, their wealth works to their disadvantage. I feel a song coming on - sing along!

♫ If you’re wealthy and you know it, hold your tongue! ♫

Let's be clear. I'm not poor - far from it. I don't worry about my next meal and I'm not plagued by foreclosure notices and utility shutoffs. But the recession, the steady rise in the cost of food and fuel, and difficulty saving apace the rising cost of college expenses have been hard on my family. We're middle class in assets and income, but our outgo is getting dangerously close to our income. 


But I, and most thinking Americans, don't automatically blame the rich and successful for the problems of our economy and rising costs. I believe that I'd be worse off if the rich and successful were prevented from making and spending their money to grow businesses and corporations that feed the consumer economy in which we all exist. Yes, I believe that there are a few evil rich people who'd like to steal from me, but I also believe there are a few evil poor people who'd like to steal from me, and quite a few unsavory types between the extremes.

However, I'd be more disturbed if Romney tried to pretend to know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck, or affected an affinity for the poor, or the uneducated, which he couldn't sincerely achieve. What the left calls "blunders" and "gaffes," I would simply term "efforts." We all attempt to empathize with situations we've never personally experienced. I've committed gaffes when I've tried to comfort friends grieving the death of a spouse, or attempted to identify with the challenges of a parent of a special needs child. I don't always say the right thing, but that doesn't stop me from trying to empathize or sympathize when I want to make a human connection.


I want a president who can get the job done. The only way I know if he can do the job is to look at his past successes and failures and judge how those will enable him to handle future challenges.

I haven't been on the Romney bandwagon, and I'm not necessarily jumping on now. But we're looking to elect a leader, an executive, a person who can analyze complex problems with multiple variables and make trustworthy decisions. He's running for President of the United States, not Mr. Congeniality. I'm prepared to cut him some slack for not being able to hide the fact that he's lived life as a wealthy man.

The Solution

Few who care about our country are completely satisfied with the direction that our government is taking us.  While we have much to be grateful for in the USA, we also have ample room for improvement.

However, if you watch the election coverage, (and sadly, I do), it is easy to get the impression that the whole country is spiraling out of control, and only the extreme, fringe elements are prevailing.  I find that notion to be poppycock.  The problems of this country are deep and complicated, decades in the making and years in the repairing, but hardly beyond the ingenuity and dedication of the American citizenry.  Clearly, our problems cannot be solved by any one person, as our president is beginning to figure out.

Furthermore:



Our problems cannot be solved by the Democrats.

Our problems cannot be solved by the Republicans.

Our problems cannot be solved by chucking the two-party system.

Our problems cannot be solved by dismantling our nuclear arsenal.


Our problems cannot be solved with health care coverage for all.

Our problems cannot be solved by prayer in schools.


Our problems cannot be solved by new Czars.

Our problems cannot be solved by more speeches, town hall meetings and television appearances.


Our problems cannot be solved by court decisions, new amendments, unfunded mandates or executive orders.


Our problems cannot be solved by leveling the playing field, affirmative action, increased diversity or wealth redistribution programs.

Our problems cannot be solved by erecting a fence or wall, or creating a national ID card, and we solve nothing by strip-searching grandmothers in airports.


Our problems will not be solved by a food pyramid, a new, improved food pyramid, better access to nutrition information or a national Food Police Force.


Our problems will not be solved by furtive intolerance of or legislated protection of particular religious sects.

Our problems cannot be solved by penalizing big oil, big banking, big pharma, or any other big industry that can afford the huge punitive fees used to fund so-called restorative programs.

Our problems cannot be solved by increasing the size, budget, power or authority of the federal government.


Our problems have been caused in large part because our apathy as citizens has allowed do-gooders and evil-doers alike unfettered access to the cogs and wheels that regulate our system of government. 

Our problems have also been caused by the idea that someone else should help us solve our problems, or better yet, take them over for us.  Lately, that someone else is the federal government.  The can-do attitude that typified American self-sufficiency is becoming a vestige of the distant past.


Our problems will not be solved by one election cycle, one political party, one man or woman, one bill passed or repealed, one clever ad or yard sign.

We can only begin to address and repair the many challenges facing this country by shaking off our apathy and doing our civic duty.


The solution is simple and elegant.  Vote.


Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd.  Excuses abound: yes, it's optional, it may seem pointless, you may be just one person, but the rest of us are counting on you.  It doesn't matter if we don't agree on one single candidate or issue.  The country needs you to care enough to make that small but very important effort. 

Call me if you need a ride or a babysitter.  


See you at the polls.


(Note: This essay was originally published in Polite Ravings on October 31, 2010.)

To Your Health!

Take this simple test to see if you are ignoring important symptoms of an unpleasant, inconvenient but essentially non-lethal condition:

If you suffer from:	Then you may be afflicted by:
Headaches	Metabolic syndrome
Fatigue	Compromised immune system
Trouble sleeping	Sleep apnea
Weak bladder control	Fibromyalgia
Thinning hair	Color blindness
Low sex drive	Heartbreak of psoriasis
Uncontrolled weeping	Reduced liver function
Sinus blockage	Chronic fatigue syndrome
Hairy back	Hormone imbalance
Bad posture	Seasonal allergy syndrome
Dry eyes	Food addiction
Seasonal allergies	Epstein-Barr syndrome
Weight gain	Low T
Upset stomach	Old age

All you do is match the normal imperfections of the human condition on the left, to the serious-sounding condition or syndrome on the right.  Warning:  some symptoms are linked to all the conditions, so it may look a little messy when you are done.

My theory is that if it's called a syndrome or condition, the name was invented by a drug company to sell a product.  Once something is isolated as a specific symptom or set of symptoms, Friendly Farma Inc. can name the "syndrome" and develop an expensive treatment plan.  Catchy names, unpredictable spelling and acronyms play a large role in selling these new ideas to a sickly, whiny public.

(NOTICE TO WHINY PUBLIC: Please hold your fire. I'm not talking about true diseases or chronic conditions here.  This is innocent humor commentary and at least I'm not calling you a hypochondriac to your face.)

I've always thought that we are much healthier than commercials, magazines and drugstore shelves would have us believe.  However, it really started to bother me when our prescription drug plan changed significantly this year (along with our regular health plan).  This meant the Eric brought home lots of reading material to acquaint us with the new guidelines for dealing with doctor visits, approved prescriptions, payments, coverage limits, and other engrossing information.  Normally I'd just skim it and hope Eric would forget to quiz me, but the approved medications list caught my attention.  For some reason, it was a pretty short list.

How could that be?  I can't watch one hour of news without being regaled with the miraculous powers of Cialis, Lunesta, Abilify, Lipitor, Rogaine, Pradaxa, Nexium, Crestor and Plavix.  Doesn't my insurance company want me to benefit from the improved quality of life made possible by extensive research and testing on the part of the altruistic drug companies?  Well, of course they do.  They just don't want to pay the drug company prices, particularly if I'm not willing to either.

It seems our insurance company has recently decided that they only want us to take cheap drugs that prevent life-threatening conditions or regulate chronic conditions.  My blood pressure medicine and Eric's blood thinner are on this list.  They must want us to take them, because they are free (as in $0) on our plan.

But what about all those other drugs the pharmaceutical firms spend so much time and money advertising to the decrepit, whiny populace?  Why do they go to such lengths to make me want them, convince me that I need them, if my insurance company won't pay for them?  This seems patently unfair.

The lady on tv with the horrible toenail fungus stays quietly at home with the shades drawn.  But after a 30-day course of Phlizzerak, she's seen strolling the streets in broad daylight, smiling broadly at no one and everyone, stiletto sandals showcasing her beautifully healed toenails.  Why should she get to be happy because of a drug, while I have to suffer without it?

What about the couple who bump heads while they are working on some home-improvement project?  Do they get in an argument about his clumsiness or her inability to tell a crescent wrench from jackhammer?  No!  They magically appear in his-and-hers porcelain tubs, sweetly holding hands across the short distance that separates them from conjugal bliss.  And is this beautiful moment the product of years of hard work to develop their sense of humor, a climate of forgiveness and an understanding of one another's unspoken love language?  Not hardly.  This moment is brought to you by Schtiffenhaut Laboratories, makers of Xerdella, or some other nonsensically-named product designed to make you feel that you, Mr. and Mrs. Humdrum, are not living life to the fullest because you don't take this drug.

I'm not calling out Big Pharma for their profits, or Big Insurance for their cost-cutting strategies, or Big Marketing for the ads that do their best to create a need.  No one entity has forced one individual to buy one pill.  But the cooperative system of those three, working in tandem, is expertly designed to target the individual psyche, which is perfectly capable of evaluating its own situation and judging its own needs.  But does my psyche act on facts, or does it just want the tubs and stilettos?


I love spicy, hot, dangerous food.  Thai and Indian foods are my favorites.  If I suddenly found they gave me stomach problems, say, acid reflux that keeps me up at night, would I stop eating curries?  Probably not.  Commercials have been telling me for years to pop a pill before I engage in dangerous eating, so that I can enjoy my meals without interruption by the obvious symptoms warning of the damage I'm doing to my stomach.  Take an OTC acid reducer so I don't have to change my behavior or make a personal sacrifice - no-brainer, right?

I just wonder about our ancestors who didn't have access to 20,000 square feet of cures for every ailment, real or imagined, in the form of the ubiquitous Walgreens, CVS and Rite-Aid stores that seem to be everywhere these days.  I know there were snake oil salesmen, bogus treatments, home remedies, hypochondriacs, faith healers and leeches in our medical history, but did our forbearers spend so much time worrying about their body and its complications?  Did metalsmiths stay home from the forge when sinus pain and pressure cost them a good night's sleep?  Did pioneer women neglect the milking when PMS struck?  Did the laborers who built the transcontinental railroad complain about a sensitivity to MSG in their gruel?

It doesn't seem possible that I can be just 4 or 5 generations removed from hardworking people who put in 16 hours of labor on an average day, only to lay down on a bug-infested straw mattress on the floor - yet I travel with a special pillow or I "can't get a good night's sleep."  Really?

I think we've been had.  I think we are all much healthier, stronger and more capable than the product peddlers would have us believe.  I think if we all just sent the dollar equivalent of one month's hair care or bowel regularity purchases to President Obama, he could use that fast cash to pay bills, instead of raising the debt ceiling.

(Note: This essay was originally published on Polite Ravings on January 26, 2012.)

Thoughts on Accuracy and Civility in Public Discourse

Is it too much to ask, or can we at least stipulate that:


...not everyone who believes that traditional marriage between a man and a woman deserves different legal status than a same-sex marriage is a homophobe?
...and not everyone who believes in allowing states to rule on same-sex marriage is a godless liberal?


...not everyone who suggests causes for racial disparity in school test results is a racist?
...and not everyone who fights for racial equality is looking for a handout?


...not every person who thinks nostalgically about the 1950s is a Neanderthal?
...and not every person with a college degree is enlightened?


...not everyone who owns a gun is a murderer?
...and not everyone who commits a crime is beyond redemption?


...not every single woman who uses birth control is a slut?
...not every woman who doesn't believe in premarital sex is a puritan?


...not everyone who drives a big car is against the environment?
...and not everyone who owns a hybrid vehicle is prudent?


...not everyone who doesn't live in Washington, DC, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles or San Francisco is uninformed?
...and not everyone in the so-called "elite" is elitist?


...not everyone who doesn't go to church is a secularist?
...and not everyone who does go to church is a fundamentalist?


...not everyone who wants to see the Social Security and Medicare programs re-vamped to address the future is an ageist?
...not everyone who wants to see these programs continue to serve the elderly favors government dependence?


Categorizing people is necessary for different reasons, some logical, some nefarious.  But I don't believe it is entirely avoidable.  So it stands to reason that not all members of all categories of people are right or wrong, top dog or disadvantaged, useful or wasteful, deliberate or mindless, helpful or harmful.  Categories, which lead to "-ism-speak" are basically just organizational tools.  I want to be accurate and precise when describing items, be they groups of people or spring dresses.  I use size, color, accessories and other descriptive terms to make myself understood, in either case.  That's the purpose of language - to make oneself understood.  So why do I have to police my own speech so carefully these days?


Since when did identifying a group and offering a fitting description become so politically incorrect and divisive?  Can we not even discuss the problems of people and the groups they belong to without courting hatred from those who hold differing opinions?


When we paint those who hold opinions different from our own with the broad brush of "-ist" and "-ism," we waste valuable time and energy in judgement, time and energy that are better spent on analysis and problem-solving.  When problem-solvers attempt to find answers by evaluating and labeling the people they are trying to help, that doesn't mean they judge those groups they've created names for as lesser in value, importance or worth.


During this last week, I've been called a racist, an ageist, anti-women's rights and an elitist.  Not directly, mind you, but by implication.  If I complain about the language in a hip-hop song, I'm a racist.  If I suggest that Social Security is too large a drain on our economy than the country can sustain, I'm an ageist.  If I donate money to an organization that promotes seeing though an unplanned pregnancy, I'm against women's rights.  If my husband and I are both college graduates, we are elitists who want to de-fund all entitlement programs.  And if you don't believe me, read the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, Boston Globe and Atlanta Journal from the last few weeks. 


Calling people names takes anger, maybe even rage.  Being called names gets blood boiling.  In both instances, people are being swayed by rhetoric - perhaps their own, perhaps that of someone else.


Look around you.  Look around your neighborhood.  Look at our country, all that we have, all that we stand for.  There is so much good here, so much to be thankful for.  Compared to anywhere in the known universe, we are the most blessed civilization in human history.  If we want that to continue to be the case, we must think with our brains, and avoid being dragged into the war of words and name-calling that the media wants us to react to.


It's an election year, the economy is in a barely-noticeable recovery, food and gas prices are getting uncomfortably high and one of our old middle-east foes is playing cat-and-mouse over weapons.  Sound familiar?  It should, because it has happened this way several times before, and the trumpets blared for civil unrest on past occasions, too.


Don't be misled.  Don't let your boiling blood cause you to react irrationally.  That's what they want.  It sells more papers, gets more website hits, brings on more advertisers.  But we have to ignore the call to arms, and instead heed the call to think.


Odds are, your fellow man doesn't hate you any more than you hate him.  If you are a decent human being, those are pretty good odds.


(Note: This entry originally appeared on Polite Ravings on March 5, 2012.)

Save It For After the Election

Two alarming developments in political news this week:

Thursday, with a transportation bill awaiting a vote in the Senate, the president called on some democrats to sway their vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline amendment.  He reportedly promised them that he'd deal with Keystone after the election, but wants it quashed for now.  He got his wish.

Senate republicans are to be commended for their tenacity and unwillingness to let this pipeline disappear from the legislative agenda. It could easily be argued that it could find a better piece of legislation to piggyback on than this roads and highways funding bill. However, it seems that the executive branch has decided to play politics to impede legislation that doesn't appease his base  until after the election.  In other words, the Do-Nothing Congress got their orders from the Do-Nothing Executive: save it until after November.

In an international development:

After meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, two subtly different versions of the outcome were reported by the two sides.  That isn't unusual, since all leaders spin, but Netanyahu's later comments to his home press were much more disturbing.  According to HotAir.com, President Obama proposed a deal to the Prime Minister of Israel, offering special bunker-bursting bombs and other specialized weaponry in exchange for a promise that Israel won't act against Iran's nuclear program until after the US election.  The weapons deal had been negotiated earlier, but the suggestion that delivery would be conditional on waiting for the November 2012 election is a new wrinkle.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the allegation, but Israel's PM is standing by his story.

Consider yourself warned: if both of these allegations are true, our president is clearly more worried about retaining his power than in upholding the duties of his office.

(Note: This entry originally appeared in Polite Ravings on March 10, 2012.)

The Four Republicans: Bitter Opponents or a Useful Team?

I'm feeling a little schizo, now that I've committed myself to starting a new blog for my political, theological and philosophical opinions.  I've been working on so many ideas, I can't seem to stop and create the vehicle for these ideas. So I am once again inflicting my serious opinions on my humor-seeking Polite Ravings audience (hi to you two up in the balcony!)


But after watching the returns from the Republican primary in my home state of Alabama, I can hardly keep my thoughts on cute squirrels at the birdfeeder or the growing dog hair piles. I realize most people outside of the deep south weren't that tuned in to the voting in Alabama and Mississippi yesterday, but in this confusing race for the Republican nomination, I was pretty intrigued.


Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, came in as the unexpected winner in both states.  He beat Newt Gingrich, who formerly represented Georgia and was thought to have a homefield advantage, and Mitt Romney, who is as un-southern as they come, and was thought to have no clear advantage other than his war chest. Ron Paul spent no meaningful time or money in either state, and finished with about 5% of the vote in both states.


Lacking anything intelligent or helpful to say after Santorum's gleeful speech, the pundits immediately began discussing the various strategies for and against whittling this down to a one-candidate race. If you want to know the different plans suggested by these talking heads trying to fill airtime, you were probably tuned in, so I won't repeat them. Better analysis can be found at Real Clear Politics or Politico, if you need a dose of expertise.


While reading a few of the articles, one of my daughters (who are both home sick today) came downstairs to get medicine and a hot drink.  We began discussing the results and I got off on a tangent, which is the same thing as a lecture by my kids' standards, and I stumbled on a brilliant idea for the Republican strategy.


No one should drop out.


The very fact that no one candidate represents a majority of the Republican electorate could be construed as an strategic advantage for the GOP, for the remainder of the primary calendar. 


If a single, preordained candidate is shoved down the collective throats of the divided party, you could easily end up with a bunch of disaffected voters who decide to sit out this time around. No retired general making an impassioned speech at the convention will make it palatable to a dovish Ron Paul supporter to cast his vote for hawkish Rick Santorum. No GOP official can construct a party platform that will help Newt Gingrich's visionaries embrace Mitt Romney's plodding march to the center. None of the candidates have it within their power, influence or personality to unite the party.


Only one candidate can do that:  President Obama.


With only one rival to focus on, the president has a rather simple job. Spend his considerable financial and political assets attacking that one rival on their most vulnerable weaknesses. Depending on the opponent, that could be described as difficult and expensive, or cheap and easy.


Take Newt Gingrich, for example.  He has multiple marriages to exploit, and would give the USA it's first known First Lady with mistress credentials. Obama can counter Newt's claims of $2.50/gallon gasoline as pandering without proof.  Though he rose to power after the Republican revolution of the 1990s, he was later sanctioned by his collegues for ethical misconduct. These stories and others will make for excellent targets for President Obama's supporters and Super-PACs.


Mitt Romney doesn't have the dirty laundry of the former Speaker, but as the grandfather of Obamacare, we can expect lots of ads depicting the former governor of Massachusetts as a big-government Republican who actually approves of the president's signature legislation. His public gaffes that bring attention to his wealth and status (firing and laying off employees, owning multiple Cadillacs, having friends who own NASCAR teams) invite contrast with Obama's in-the-trenches days as a community organizer. And Mr. Romney has committed some very public flip-flops on hot-button issues, which the Democrats will have a field day capitalizing on. He is seen as an accommodating Republican governor in a very liberal state, and many of his accommodations lend themselves to scrutiny, if not lampooning.


Rick Santorum, with his penchant for going off-script, is a veritable candidate covered in targets. Because he talks like I do, without a final thought in mind that helps him stay on topic and out of trouble, he is truly a candidate wearing the matador's cape.  Name an issue and he's said something that can be edited and spun to make him sound insane. Birth control, educational choice, war with Iran, border fences and college snobs - he can make his own common sense sound like drivel if he is allowed to keep talking.  President Obama and his supporters can complete their opposition research in about 5 minutes - Santorum has left a trail of tittilating tidbits that will make for excellent fast-paced, cutaway-and-caption ads and crazy-sounding sound bytes.


Ron Paul probably can't get to the level of a one-on-one campaign against Obama, so imagining that battle and how the ad wizards and spin doctors would handle it is probably a true exercise in futility. Sen. Paul is so different from any candidate we've had in recent history, the options for opposing him are limitless. For sheer tenacity and consistency, he should be admired and given a hearing. Disagreeing with him is one thing - but mock him at your peril.


So there is not a Teflon candidate among these four. They all have flaws, weaknesses and tendencies to say more than necessary and talk when they should listen. Several columnists have attempted to assemble the perfect nominee from the best of each man's parts, but that only yields a non-existent Frankenstein.


Assuming the supreme Republican goal is to make Obama a one-term president, then I suggest that all the candidates stay in the race, if possible, until the convention.  As long as the Obama campaign and the PACs supporting it have multiple opponents on diverse fronts, their battle will be expensive, indirect and tiring.  With the convention 5 months away, the President and his supporters must expend capital and effort trying to cover all bases. They have to refute charges of candidates they will never face in the general election. (Sidebar:  They are already doing this, quite expensively, with an ad targeting Sarah Palin, who is not on the ticket or likely to be. Why go to the expense when the HBO movie reportedly discredits her sufficiently for his supporters' purposes? Truthfully, I don't have a clue.)


There is much speculation that this four-way race and the associated unpleasantries are bad for the GOP, and hurt the party in the eyes of independent voters. There are those who say that this is the nastiest primary season ever. But since they always seem to say that, and one never knows how different people measure nastiness at different times with different contributors, it's hard to credit that assertion.  


Others claim that it is preferable for the Republicans to vet each other, so that all of the potentially toxic stuff will be old news by the time the President begins campaigning in earnest. I don't know whether that point outweighs the idea that the party is tearing itself apart, which is just one of the inflammatory terms used to describe this long primary season. I'm inclined to believe that it will take more to hurt the GOP than this nasty nominating process, but for dissenting opinions, look no further than your nightly news. Or check out what our friendly neighbors in Canada think of the matter in this piece from CBC.ca:

Some speculate a continued battle among Republicans could weaken the party overall, as Democrats sit back, gird themselves for victory and watch the attack before a candidate is named - finally - at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.

Or, in the words of David Axelrod, chief strategist for the President,  

“While they’re destroying each other, we’re building a campaign nationally.” (link to The Hill article here.)

I think about the words used to describe political contests: battleground, victory, campaign, fight, challenge. It would be difficult to write about the election without war analogies. (I have to say I haven't seen "gird" used in a while and I thank the Canadians for bringing it back.) I think these four candidates should have a look at one of those old movies where one lone guy has to fight against a coordinated team. The outnumbered guy has to be very careful, conserve his energy and only strike when he can be assured of landing a punch. The team can hang back, driving their opponent to make tactical mistakes due to confusion or exhaustion. Doesn't this sound like a good strategy?


Likewise, each GOP candidate can choose just one or two areas of the President's record to focus on for the remainder of the primary season.  Romney can pick apart the  ridiculous budget's wasteful spending and marginal job growth; Santorum can concentrate on policies that have disenchanted the Christian right and traditional values voters; let Newt work on energy independence and problems associated with implementing new energy technologies before they or the markets are ready; and let Ron Paul be in charge of showing how Obama's cabinet and regulatory authorities are crippling economic growth.


If they can all afford to stay in until August, imagine the wear-and-tear they can wreak on the President's campaign. Like the man who dies from a thousand paper cuts, four candidates needling away at the administration's many failures may do more damage than one fallible nominee stuck duking it out, mano-a-mano, in the permanent media spotlight.  


Even if the party and the candidates decide to shuffle, redeal and name a nominee before the convention, they can at least take heart in the other recent comment about the GOP primary by David Axelrod:  “I do think it’s easier to raise money when you have one opponent." So I ask:  why make it "easier?"


This is a very strange primary, where different candidates have bounced in and out of favor, attracting scrutiny and criticism as they rise, and as they sink, they are disdained or ignored. It's kind of like watching the arcade game called Whack-A-Mole, though not quite as fun.  But if these guys can just take a few more whacks over the next five months, they may wear their opposition down.


And this voter's advice to the Republicans candidates - if they are listening.


(Note: Originally published on Polite Ravings on March 14, 2012.)