Notes from the Perimeter

My Travels in Argentina...

2011-06-26T11:36:00.000-07:00

I've begun working on a mystery graphic novel set in Buenos Aires, where I recently spent four months doing, among other things, some travel writing. Since my protagonist is a travel writer & sports blogger, this excerpt seemed especially apt.

Super Sunday (Argentina-Style) & the Meaning of Home

February 7, 2011. It wasn’t easy finding a sports bar in Buenos Aires that would be broadcasting the Big Game. Mention “Super Bowl” to most porteños, as the denizens of Buenos Aires call themselves, and you’re likely to elicit a blank stare or a yawn (accompanied by that most Latin of gestures, the dismissive air-swat). The biggest excitement I encountered was amazement that a thirty-second commercial could actually cost $3 million (dollars no less, not pesos) – ¡puta de dios!

However, I did locate a venue, a club called Sugar, in a very lively, bustling area called Palermo Soho. Sugar, run by an American if his accent could be believed, was deep, dark, excessively noisy and I would venture to guess that nearly every norteamericano in BA, in particular those younger than 30, was there. I had taken a willing but utterly baffled new amiga with me, and we ended up sitting at a table with two American women from San Francisco, Lydia and Clara. Clara had just finished a three-month apprenticeship with a protégé of Buenos Aires’s (perhaps) most famous chef, Francis Mallmann, whose cookbook Seven Fires is considered by many to be one of the best guides to all things grilled. Lydia, her friend, had come to visit for the final two weeks of Clara’s stay.

The game was broadcast on two large screens, one at the very back of the very narrow back room, and one near the entrance. Diana and I had arrived early in order to get a seat and perhaps (at least in my mind – Diana never did have a clue about what was going on) watch some of the pre-game show. Our screen, which rippled gaily in the breeze from the open front door, was partially blocked by a large brick column and a group of boisterous young Americans who continually jumped up and over the backrest of the booth in front of us to get mas y mas cervesas. We could barely see what was going on. The possibility of hearing anything in the din was non-existent, and, in any case, the commentary was in Spanish. Instead of the usual pre-game sampling of interviews, musical performances, and prognostications, what seemed primarily on offer were clips from recent soccer matches featuring the team Boca Juniors. (A friend here, a native porteño, a cultured, erudite man, in utter seriousness informed me that one particular game between Boca Juniors and their deadly rival River Plate was simply the most important game ever played in the history of sport. In the history of sport! The most important!) The commercials were all Argentinian – none of the most expensive ads in the world made it this far down.

Sugar is renowned, at least in the ex-pat community, for its reasonably authentic buffalo wings and when ours finally arrived (the handful of waiters were run off their feet so our food showed up during the half-time show) we were able to confirm that we might easily be in any American city if cuisine were the only distinguisher (well, maybe not Pittsburgh since the majority of Sugar’s patrons were cheering for Green Bay). The most prominent brand of cervesa was Stella Artois. Everyone spoke the universal language of burgers and French fries. But clearly we were not in Kansas any more.

I’ve been reading Pico Iyer’s remarkable book The Global Soul in which he examines exiles and immigrants, fractured identity, the transformation of cities, the rise of a new tribalism, and the eternal, human search for home. (The book, which is deeply optimistic about the ultimate value of multiculturalism, was published in 2000 – it’s hard not to wonder how differently he might have viewed his subject if through the lens of 9/11 and its aftermath.) In the barrio surrounding Sugar there were far more people outside than in: enjoying their cafes con leche, their conversations (on and off cellphones, occasionally both together), their early dinners (or late lunches since dinner in BA usually beging around 10:30), oblivious to something designated “super” unfolding nearby. English was discernable in the ambient roar of the club but the prevailing rhythm was Castellano.

When one is a traveler in a foreign land and not just a tourist (as defined by the degree of time and solitude), one begins to understand what ‘home’ is and what it’s not – at least a little. I have ‘home’ in the form of my bank account (which, god willing, is sufficient to see me through my visit), my facility with the world’s most dominant language, the Internet and Skype so family and friends can be present at least in some electronic form, the airline ticket that in three months will return me to my familiar life. I’m lucky to have made a few friends here and I’m learning enough Spanish to get by and even, sometimes, communicate. The local economy is benefiting from my presence and I’m enjoying pleasant encounters with shopkeepers and the women in my dance class. I’m not an exile or a refugee or even someone seeking a better life in a place far away (and willing not just to pay but also to abandon whatever I must to get there). My being here for an extended stay isn’t tinged with loss, except for the temporary deprivation of the comfort of understanding the unspoken rules, of having a place within the community. You might even say that on some basic level, I’m experiencing what it’s like to be a stranger in a strange land.

Perhaps, as the heated, often vicious and simplistic, debate about immigration policy rages on in the United States, we need to remember that most immigrants bring something to give, and not just come for what they can take. As Iyer notes, immigrants hold our dream of the promise of America and in believing, they help realize it. Maybe we need to examine the view through their eyes. We need to know what it’s like to be on the far side of the glass. That’s one reason I’m here – to engage in that conscious act. At Sugar, I was watching the Super Bowl but in fact I was, like so many people in so many alien places, on the outside looking in.

Don't Be Mean to the Girl: Gender, Power and the Politics of Pretty

2010-10-05T12:11:00.000-07:00

When Christine O'Donnell upset the Republican applecart in Delaware on Tuesday, Karl Rove called her, among other things, "nutty." Oh Karl. That's just not nice. One thing that seems to be true in these through-the-looking-glass days of American politics is that you can't be mean to the (Republican) girl.

It's difficult to evaluate the candidacy of O'Donnell without the calculus of gender. In a day-is-night kind of way, O'Donnell would seem to benefit from the fact of being a woman in the way that her flaws and missteps are apparently tolerated. For example, last year O'Donnell's financial disclosure statement for last year indicated an income of $5,800 (although later she said she made "more" but refused to say how much). Would a man in those circumstances be considered anything other than fiscally questionable? Probably not. Perhaps unfairly, we equate masculine power with material substance. But how do most people define feminine power? This is an overstatement, but in O'Donnell's case it seems to less about having things than getting away with them.

The Weekly Standard recently unearthed new details about a nearly $7M gender-discrimination lawsuit O'Donnell filed in 2005 against the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative not-for-profit think-tank. The claims she makes in the lawsuit are revelatory, of her character and modus operandi. In it, she asserts that she was fired due to the organization's policy that women were not allowed to be in leadership positions (a charge the company denies). She insists that she suffered such pain and mental anguish that she lost her ability to make a living and enjoy life (poor baby). Her career was thwarted, she proclaims, since the organization reneged on its promise to pay the tuition for her master's degree at Princeton, tuition, by the way, that would likely cost the organization about as much as O'Donnell's yearly salary (a statement from Princeton noted that she was never enrolled in a master's program there). Ultimately O'Donnell dropped the lawsuit; however, to read the text is to see emerge the portrait of an unstable, histrionic, incompetent and whiny woman on the warpath for someone to blame.

When I was coming of age, in those heady days of "women's liberation," what mattered was strength: of character, of action, of ideas and ideals -- the willingness to fight not just the traditional forces of oppression and reaction arrayed against us but also the secret traitor within.

As Simone de Beauvoir aruges in her seminal work of feminism and existentialism, The Second Sex, women are too often party to our own enslavement. In accepting traditional roles with their trade-off -- the chilly landscape of autonomy for the promise of refuge -- we are choosing security over risk, status over disenfranchisement, the known (however limiting) for the unknown (however exhilarating). To be self-governing is to accept responsibility: for our choices and decisions, for our successes as well as the many mistakes we will make. It can be a tough and perilous road -- far less daunting to let others make the rules.

Christine O'Donnell and her fellow Grizzly-ettes turn all of that on their well-coiffed heads. The female power they wield is less a matter of integrity than wiley-ness, but it certainly comes in a pretty package. Good looks with its currency of sexuality apparently are a requirement of this particular sorority. As one commenter said in response to an article about Rove's dismissal of O'Connell's chances, a lot of Delawarians might vote for her anyway because she's "attractive and gorgeous." Subvert female sexuality and you have female compliance -- and a kind of collaboration that ultimately is nothing more than betrayal.

The image of woman that O'Donnell embodies is one that most of us fought fiercely to repudiate: manipulative, amoral and fragile. We are not to mind the inconsistencies, the emotional lash-outs, the prevarications, the glib oversimplifications of issues. When she plays the woman card, O'Donnell is asking for indulgence, not respect. Don't be hard on me, she says -- don't be mean to the girl. And even an old misanthrope like Rove ultimately caves.

(First published in www.care2.com in September 2010)

Natural Rejection: Texas Judge Dismisses Creationism Degree Lawsuit

2010-10-05T12:08:00.000-07:00

In a decision that’s bound to further rile the advocates of creationism-as-science, Austin federal judge Sam Sparks has dismissed a suit filed by the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research. Its graduate school (ICRGS) had petitioned the court for the right to offer a master’s degree in science education from a biblical perspective. To use a distinctly non-evolutionary metaphor, in his rejection of the suit the judge tore the ICRGS a new one.

First, a little background: in 2008, the ICRGS applied to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for the right to offer master’s degrees in science education grounded in a literal interpretation of the biblical version of creation and the vigorous repudiation of evolutionary theory. The application was rejected due to the strong bias toward creationism; the ICRGS then sued, claiming that the board violated the institute’s first amendment rights of the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.

Part of Sparks’s opinion states, “Having addressed this primary issue, the Court will proceed to address each of ICRGS’s causes of action in turn, to the extent it is able to understand them. It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.” (Thanks to Care2’s Scott Pasch for pointing out this out.)

One irony here (of so many) is that California, where the ICR graduate school is based, has allowed the degree to be conferred since 1981. In California, the graduate school is accredited by something called the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS – their acronym, not mine), a body not recognized by Texas. According to their website, TRACS “was established in 1971 to promote the welfare, interests, and development of postsecondary institutions, whose mission is characterized by a distinctly Christian purpose….” (Oddly enough, I visited both the ICR and TRACS websites but found no mention, not in the “Updates” or “Daily News” sections of either, any mention of the suit dismissal. Could this inexplicable absence be an example of unnatural selection? Holy moley!)

Why did California, with its reputation for being open to all manner of unorthodox ideologies, permit the ICRGS to teach creationism as a scientific methodology, with the prize of recognized masters degrees in the offing? If California views creationism as just another iteration of “you say tomatoes and I say tomahtoes,” well, I beg to disagree. Creationism is much more of the “my way or the highway” school of thought. And what’s up with Texas, whose school boards rewrite US history with apparent impunity? One can only marvel. Apparently, the thinking of both Judge Sparks and the Texas Board of Education was that while theology might infuse and inform many disciplines, science isn’t one of them.

For many people, especially those who rely on fundamentalist doctrines as the foundation for belief, science and religion coexist uneasily if at all. In this Weltanschauung, the primary religious text is literally the only vessel of truth, and ‘literal’ is the operative word: any view that allows for interpretation or (gasp!) an evolving understanding of the tenets is unacceptable. Thus, the role of science is to confirm, not to challenge.

I take no issue with religion as a way of acknowledging and making peace with the great mysteries of life. I heartily support the moral and ethical guidelines that underlie most of the world’s great belief systems. However, I believe that science and religion lay out two different paths to truth. As Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes said, “Religious belief is not science. Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.”

I balk at the imposition of a narrative of uncertain authorship and provenance (a narrative I consider to be part historical record, part literature, part mythology and part spiritual longing) – one whose fundamental principle is that faith needs no proof – upon our inspired (divinely or otherwise) human ability to comprehend the miraculous workings of our miraculous universe.

Creationism, for me, is a pale, feeble construction compared with the majesty of evolution and all that evolution implies: deep time, a vastly rich and complex system, purpose in seeming randomness, and the moral imperatives of emergence and extinction. That might not be the underlying cause of the Texas decision, but, as with evolution, I'll take what I can get.

(first published on www.care2.com in July 2010)

Reverse the Curse

2010-01-07T09:25:00.001-08:00

Why do they hate us? The Football Gods (TFGs), I mean. They seem to have a malign and perverse interest in knees and in yesterday’s TexMess smote yet another brilliant player with their evil touch. Oh, Wes, say it ain’t so!

Last week I mentioned significant injury as worst-case scenario, and that nearly happened. Welker, considered by many to be the Pats’ season MVP and a key to playoff success, much less that elusive fourth Super Bowl win, is a huge loss, irreplaceable despite the apparent channeling of WR Julian Edelman who had 10 carries for over 100 yards.

Why do I contend that Welker’s injury is nearly worst-case? Two words: Darryl Stingley. Welker’s accident, possibly the result of a cleat tangle with the stadium turf, did not leave him paralyzed. It might have ended his season but if there is justice in this world, it won’t end his career. It was not, as in the case of Jack Tatum’s assault on Stingley, tainted by the reprehensible suspicion of malicious intent (except perhaps from TFGs). Tatum’s churlish behavior in the aftermath of Stingley’s devastating injury – he never apologized, never visited, never called (whoa, that sounds like a relationship) – only fuels the flames of blame.

So, what now? The odds, already dubious, are set against them. The Pats rolled into Reliant Stadium on, well, a roll: peaking at the perfect time, a playoff berth guaranteed, the game meaningless except for keeping everybody sharp. Instead TFGs landed a stunning blow. The mettle of this season’s team is about to be tested like never before. The story waits to be written.

Every heroic tale has its dark before the dawn. Every hero faces the worst kind of setback before stumbling to his feat and pulling off a miracle. The sidelining of Welker is dreadful and demoralizing but it doesn’t have to be fatal.

Perhaps it’s not likely that one or more of the players will find a way to transcend their own limitations and truly step up – when that scenario plays out on the heroic stage it never is the likely thing. But when, oh so rarely, it does happen it’s the stuff of legend. In local lore, it’s Kurt Schilling’s bloody sock. Would that 2004 World Championship, as great as it was, been the mythic event it became had the Sox, just days earlier, not stared into the abyss?

So I say, let’s reverse TFG’s curse. Let’s face the darkness with courage and resolve and dare the abyss to look back. Let’s have the audacity to still seek the Ring -- in spite of, or maybe even because of, the nearly impossible odds. I challenge this team to show us all that football, like any noble quest, can be so much more than a game.

--first published on Ballhype.com

Willful Ignorance: Should Students Be Allowed to Choose What Not to Study?

2010-01-07T09:09:00.000-08:00

Jack Summers, a Newton, MA, tenth-grader, might not know everything but he definitely knows what he doesn’t want to know. Jack, a self-proclaimed atheist, objected to an assignment in his mandatory English class: to read a section of the Bible as an example of literature. Initially school administrators baulked; eventually, as one of the local papers described, they ‘caved’ and while Jack still was forced to read the Bible assignment (meaning, presumably, that he would have failed the class otherwise) he was exempted from taking two related quizzes and completing a paper about the reading. (Of course, the first thing that comes to my mind is: how do we know that Jack did indeed read the assigned portion of the Bible? Did the atheist code of conduct prevent him from simply saying he’d done so since he was not required to demonstrate any knowledge or reflection?)

A further oddity (in my mind) is that Jack’s mother, Majorie Summers, in supporting her son, questioned in a letter to the editor why her son wasn’t given the chance (apparently the original accommodation) to read a secularized summary of the Biblical passage and respond to that: “Jack did indeed have to read the Bible after the school failed to provide him with a secular analysis of the biblical assignments, as had been agreed at our meeting with the Newton South team. We were also surprised when Jack was told by his teacher that his two quiz grades would be dropped, instead of retaken after a review of the secular material.”

The assignment was to explore the Bible as a piece of literature. Is Summers advocating a sort of Cliff Notes of the Bible, in which all of its literary qualities, everything that makes it literature – use of language and imagery, rhythm, poetic construction, character description, narrative power – are eliminated and only the religious message remain? Isn’t that exactly what the Summerses say they want to avoid?

It’s far too simplistic to deny that we choose every day what we want to learn and what we (regrettably or with relief) forgo. While some new learning is mandatory (revised procedures at work, changes in the tax code, relevant current events, etc.) much is discretionary due to the fact that we can process only so much information at any given time. In my case, the list of languages unexamined, places unvisited, software uninstalled, books unread, disciplines unexplored is full to overflowing. The only reason I can think of for wanting to prolong my lifespan is so that I’ll have time to learn Italian and the techniques of Chinese cooking. However, this incident brings up a larger question: What does it mean, especially for a kid, to choose willful ignorance about something with the kind of historical and cultural impact as the Bible?

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1963, in the case of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, that schools can include the Bible and other religious texts as examples of literature and in cultural studies – they just cannot use those works in a religious context, for proselytizing or promoting a particular religious viewpoint. The decision reads in part: “[It] might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities…as part of a secular program of education.”

A few of Jack’s comments about his position are unintentionally funny. In an interview with the press, he referred to the Bible as “the word of God” and a “holy text.” I fear that Jack hasn’t quite grasped the concept of atheism – simply put, an atheist does not believe in the existence of deities. Clearly Jack does believe that God and holiness exist – he just doesn’t want to be confronted with them.

Herein, for me lies the rub: the fear that new knowledge, especially knowledge that might challenge comfortable assumptions or beliefs, is somehow contagious, able to transform attitudes against the person’s will. Debates about such diverse subjects as evolution, climate change and homosexuality often have this fear as subtext: if I learn about Judaism, I might change my mind about it – OMG!

The most fundamental point of education is to provide the framework for more choices, not fewer. The central premise of education is that knowledge expands and frees, not constricts and restricts.

It’s fully appropriate that no religious text – the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita nor any other – be taught in a public school as religious ‘truth.’ However, for students to explore these masterworks as literature, as hallmarks of culture, as intrinsic aspects of the development of civilization is not only a good idea: it’s a necessary one. And if in the process, a student discovers something that feels truthful, then that becomes a choice for that student to make, a choice that a willful stance of ignorance can’t offer.

first published on 12-20-09 on www.Care2.com/causes/education

NEW FEATURE!

2010-01-07T08:51:00.002-08:00

Some of the following posts will be reprints from my Care2 education blog and my Patriots football blog. I'll also be posting new political blogs. Hope you keep reading and commenting!

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

2009-12-09T16:53:00.000-08:00

We'll be back with exciting news on Monday January 11. Have a joyful season.

Up in Smoke

2009-11-17T15:03:00.000-08:00

November 11. Last week the NH Senate narrowly failed to override Gov. John Lynch’s veto of the bill to allow medical use of marijuana. Bummer. Objections ranged from concern about regulating cultivation and distribution to worries that legalizing this use would send a “wrong message” to kids. Many feel, myself included, that allowing seriously ill patients to have legal access to what, for many, is the only palliative is not only a no-brainer but a political initiative grounded in compassion, wisdom and practicality. However, this issue seems to whip opponents into a frenzy of misapprehensions, such as the following.

1. Authorized distribution sites, however well regulated, would make it easier for kids to get their hands on the drug.

Does anyohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifne seriously believe that kids can’t get hold of anything they want right now? Schoolyards apparently are orgies of intoxication, rife with crystal meth, oxycontin, cocaine, alcohol and any number of other controlled or illegal substances. The bill would have licensed three nonprofit “compassion centers” where patients or their caregivers holding state-approved identification cards could receive up to two ounces of marijuana every ten days. Dude, two ounces every ten days does not a party make.

2. Cultivation and distribution could not be adequately controlled.

I spoke last week with Representative Evalyn Merrick, chief author of the bill, who said that some potential clients complained that the proposed system would be so tightly regulated that they would have a harder time obtaining the drug legally than they do now. However, they were willing to undergo a more cumbersome process rather than continue to deal with potentially dangerous dealers or face a felony conviction.

3. State law regulating marijuana should not be in conflict with federal law.

On October 19, President Obama announced that the Justice Department would no longer seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state law. This is a powerful acknowledgment of the legitimacy of marijuana as a medicine.

4. Other medications are available to treat the symptoms of serious illness.

According to many studies, including a 1999 report entitled “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base” from the Institute of Medicine (part of the US National Academy of Sciences) and the American Public Health Association’s resolution supporting safe and legal access, marijuana is one of the most effective substances for assuaging the pain, nausea, and anxiety that people with HIV/AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses endure—for many it’s the only substance that does work. It’s also proven effective in alleviating conditions such as glaucoma, spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer’s, among many others.

5. Marijuana is too dangerous to use as medication.

Au contraire. The DEA’s chief administrative law judge ruled in 1988 that marijuana is “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known.” It has never caused a lethal overdose, unlike, for example, Tylenol.

6. Smoking marijuana could have long-term health consequences.

This is my personal favorite. Hey, if I have Stage IV brain cancer or full-blown AIDS, I’m not going to be too worried about the condition of my lungs twenty years hence, but that’s just me.

7. Legalizing marijuana for medical use sends a “terrible message.”

Those who take this stand—allowing that a drug such as marijuana might have a legitimate use actually implies that irresponsible use is okay—must then be in favor of not just regulating but eliminating liquor stores, cigarette sales and all valuable but potentially abuse-able drugs like oxycontin. No? Hmmm…

…which brings me to the final, perhaps most disturbing (and least acknowledged) undercurrent in this debate: the fact, as noted in the 1999 Institute of Medicine report, of the inherent difficulties in marketing a non-patentable herb. The very “naturalness” of marijuana limits the amount of profit pharmaceutical companies can make.

Drug dealers oppose legalization of marijuana for any reason because that would erode their obscene business. Pharmaceutical companies oppose legalization of marijuana for medical use because there’s no profit in it. One way or another, it seems to come down to money and that seems to me to be a very wrong message indeed.

An Imaginary Interview with Olympia Snowe

2009-11-17T14:58:00.000-08:00

October 19. For those of us who care about health care reform and aren’t willing to join the frenzied anti-debate (“Read the bill! Read the bill!” I’ll read you the bill, pal), Olympia Snowe’s gutsy decision to break ranks with a party notoriously unsympathetic to independent action was inspiring. Senator Snowe didn’t endorse every aspect of the bill and expressed grave reservations about the public option (she and I differ on that one) as well as the costs (a legitimate concern but so are my insurance premiums) but at least she was willing to move the bill out of committee and on to the next step. I found myself thinking how much I admire her integrity and how I’d love to ask her some questions. So I did, even if just in my own mind.

PT: Senator Snowe, thanks for joining me in this invented conversation. In the statement you issued about your decision to vote yes to moving the Baucus bill out of committee, you said, “When history calls, history calls.” By that, did you mean that the need for health care reform has become too critical for both citizens and the economy to fall victim to partisan politics?

OS: Aye.

PT: You still maintain that the public option would disadvantage insurance companies but you insist that real and substantial changes must be made to the way insurance companies do business in order to rein in costs and eliminate abuses. Is that correct?

OS: Absolutely.

PT: May I tell you a brief story?

OS: Please.

PT: A few years ago, on vacation in Tuscany, I got into a serious motorcycle accident. I was treated at a local hospital and released with instructions to have my injuries checked in a week’s time. By then we had moved on to Rome. There I found a public clinic where my wounds were seen to, the dressings changed and I was sent on my way, all at no charge. This service is part of their national health care system. The United States is the only industrialized country without some sort of public health care option. Don’t you think this is wrong?

OS: Right.

PT: In the aftermath of your vote, I imagine you’ve had to deal with a barrage of both positive and negative feedback.

OS: Indeed.

PT: After your decision Rush Limbaugh called you a “joke” and, with regard to Maine, said, “let’s just saw the state off and let it sail out to sea.” Do you think Limbaugh represents the conservative faction of your party?

OS: Yikes!

PT: I’ve also heard unsubstantiated rumors that Representative Boehner circulated a petition on the House floor calling you “stuck up” and that Michael Steele, GOP chair, suggested that your action was the reason the Red Sox were swept by the Angels. Do you care to comment?

OS: No.

PT: My goodness, I see that I’ve done most of the imaginary talking! Can I ask that we engage in a real interview sometime in the near future? Senator? I’ll have my people call your people!

In these deeply divisive times, it’s rare to find someone of either party willing to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous criticism in order to take a stand. I don’t agree with Senator Snowe’s position on everything but I have great admiration for this woman who clearly puts her own integrity and her duty to principle before blind adherence to ideology. Perhaps ultimately she’ll bail on health care reform if it becomes too costly or too “liberal” and that would disappoint me. But I won’t fear her caving to pressure. In standing her ground, she has given health care reform a chance and created a powerful antidote for the poison of pandering, partisanship and prevarication that currently afflicts the body politic.

Walks of Life

2009-11-17T14:44:00.000-08:00

It’s Saturday night, September 26, at the Washington Convention Center and my feet hurt. I’ve been standing for two hours, first in a motley group, then up against a wall, then in a straggly line of folks waiting desperately to find out if we’ll actually gain admission as press to the Congressional Black Caucus awards dinner, the highlight of the annual Legislative Conference. It’s a big deal since President Obama is scheduled to speak and that dinner is the party to attend, certainly in DC if not in the entire world. One woman is so anxious that when a fellow reporter taps her on the shoulder to inquire where she got her glitzy handbag on wheels, she screams, “Don’t touch me! I need to get through this!” Oh yeah, collectively we’re on tenterhooks and my personal feet are on fire.

This is my first time being vetted by the Secret Service and it’s an eye-opener. Earlier in the day we emailed our names, DOBs and social security numbers for initial clearance. Those of us who leapt that hurdle presented ID, submitted to body searches and allowed dogs to sniff our equipment. Now we’re marched in a pod to the hall where the gala is getting underway. Every attendee must pass through one of the numerous security checkpoints set up to streamline the process. Since the President will be in the house there is no latitude for latecomers: doors will be locked at 7:00 precisely and even ticketed stragglers will be out in the cold.

As we troop through the glittering masses, I envision being escorted to one of the softly lit, flower-strewn tables, where a comfy chair and nice big glass of wine await but we’re told sternly that the party is for guests only, not for us working stiffs: even resting momentarily at a verboten table is cause for ejection. It’s not easy being us.

The press area is a row of chairs along the far wall where we park our equipment, move in groups to take photographs, and compose our stories. One woman has brought a sandwich. Most of my fellows are in casual clothes; however, I’m dressed to the nines in my black silk Vera Wang and torturous neon purple stilettos. The reason? I have a secret weapon in my purse: a ticket to the gala, which I bought as insurance in case I didn’t make the press corps cut. Now that I know how nonexistent the press amenities are, I plan to use it. My heels might be excruciating but they’re purposeful: I get to walk in the shoes of both reporter and guest. (I also get to find out what kind of dinner $750 buys.)

President Obama gives an eloquent speech about the need for health care reform and reminds this audience with its collective history of oppression, marginalization and defiance that we all must rise together to demand, as a human right, access to affordable care. Patrick Kennedy, accepting an award in his father’s honor, suddenly channels Teddy in an impassioned, thrilling plea for civil discourse about the issues that most divide us.

The night is filled with stars: movie icons and political luminaries, generals and ambassadors, heads of state and kings of commerce. But for me, the most impressive of all are the women, especially the elderly women, who have come in their jeweled, feathered hats and sequined jackets, whose feet have carried them through lifetimes of hatred, struggle, and survival to arrive, finally, at this night, where one of their own stands at the presidential podium.

Earlier in the weekend, during a party to support the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, I couldn’t bear it any longer. In the middle of the dance floor I took off my shoes. All around me, women young and old smiled and nodded: the sisterhood of throbbing bunions and abused arches.

But my feet have not suffered the journey that these elderly women had to take, those marches of freedom and endurance. Tonight they walk into this hall of privilege, to seats at the table they have bought with the currency of courage, in sensible shoes as befits the durable feet of old women. No, they don’t need high heels to stand tall.

Redemption

2009-09-09T18:01:00.000-07:00

I was quite shocked last week when I didn’t win the Megagazillions jackpot of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. I could have used the money. Like many folks, I have this notion that wealth, especially the mind-boggling in-your-dreams riches-beyond-compare variety, would shelter me from life’s ill winds. Despite the cautionary tales about how often lottery winners end up broke, divorced and self-medicated, this belief persists. However, when I heard the news about the death of Ted Kennedy, I paused to reflect upon the arc of his life, one of money, access and advantage. And I considered how little we, the body politic, value true courage, which, in part, means having the audacity to endure.

Ted Kennedy’s life was a study in contrasts: vast privilege and crushing responsibilities, bountiful accomplishments and terrible loss, grievous sins and ultimate redemption. Time and again he suffered events of such tragic nature as to devastate the most hardy soul: among them the assassinations of two brothers and the death of a beloved nephew. However, I would surmise that perhaps the hardest burdens to bear were of his own making: the death of Mary Jo Kopechne and that period when his dissolute behavior cast a shameful shadow over the family name.

What does it mean to make terrible mistakes? What process is set in motion by the struggle to be worthy of forgiveness, make amends and rise above one’s defects? We seldom ask that question of those to whom we grant essentially unlimited power. And I believe we should.

It has long been a sort of running joke that we expect our politicians to stop making any notable errors of judgment around the time they hit fifteen. Really. The prohibition is so strong that it results in unintentionally hilarious evasions, such as Bill Clinton’s failure to inhale. The conventional wisdom seems to go: character should be solidified by then and, as we all know, sterling moral fortitude means never having to say you’re sorry.

Well, I don’t know about you but I certainly wouldn’t want my adult persona and values to been set in stone by late adolescence. Not hardly. How can any of us be redeemed if our lives are blameless? I’m pretty satisfied, here in the latter part of my life, with the way I turned out but it took the chemistry of disappointment, grave blunders, heartbreak and regret to transform into a semblance of wisdom and fortitude.

Much has been written about Ted Kennedy’s devotion to the disadvantaged, his commitment to public service, his love for friends and family, dogs and boat, his thoughtfulness and joie de vivre. But for me, those admirable qualities don’t preclude Ted Kennedy’s life from being a cautionary tale. All of his wealth and privilege couldn’t protect him from the consequences his own imperfect nature. Yet somehow he found the strength to defeat his worst enemy: himself. He discovered the courage to express true remorse, acknowledge his failings with an unflinching honesty, and evolve. By the end I believe he reached a true state of grace: demons vanquished, the lead of his shortcomings transmuted into gold. Ted Kennedy endured, and, in enduring, found redemption.

His finally was a heroic life, a triumphal tale of trials met and conquered. Within a legacy rich in achievement, this will stand as his greatest.

An Other Issue

2009-08-21T08:55:00.000-07:00

I’ve been highly entertained by the whole ‘natural born’ citizen brouhaha that the ‘birthers’ have been trying to propagate. In case you’ve been in a coma for the last few months, their contention is that Barack Obama is ineligible for his office.

First they claimed he was born in Africa, unearthing a Kenyan birth certificate so full of discrepancies that even Karl Rove rolled his eyes. The birthers were oddly innocent of any doubts regarding this document as opposed to his Hawaiian birth certificate which they imperiously dismissed. Unfazed, they bravely pressed on, revising their argument to claim that because only one of his parents was a US citizen, Obama cannot be considered ‘natural born,’ a constitutional requirement for the presidency.

Lawyer and dentist (does she represent herself when sued for malpractice?) Orly Taitz is especially comical. Prone to on-air meltdowns, this émigré from the Soviet Union has taken the lead in proclaiming that Obama is not only an illegitimate commander-in-chief but is the incarnation of Stalin himself. You betcha.

The nutjobs are indeed entertaining. But my amusement is tinged with uneasiness. I fear there is a faction in this country determined to cast Obama as Other. Let me migrate from the ridiculous to the all too real—the debate about health care—to illustrate my point.

In town hall meetings across the country, the rhetoric, especially on the right, is becoming incendiary. If you believe the ads and admonitions, you’d be convinced that the Obama administration is hell bent on any number of lowdown, mendacious provisions aimed at impoverishing the population. ‘They’ want you to die, especially if you’re old or unborn. ‘They’ will insist that a government bureaucrat or, gasp! an IRS agent, make your medical decisions. ‘They’ are determined to bankrupt you and the country for no reason other than the glee of raising taxes. ‘They’ sure aren’t like us so ‘they’ must be Other.

Individuation is a necessary part of growing up. At best, despite obvious differences of character, background and talent, we attribute to our fellows the same basic humanity that we value in ourselves. Only when we reduce another individual or group to a label such as ‘bad guys’, a simplistic collection of unpleasant or dangerous traits does it become sinister.

Perceiving someone as Other is the result of projection, and the problem with projection is that it says far more about the projector than the project-ee. Let me share a story. Years ago I was engaged to a sailor; we had delivered a yacht to Dubai and he was to return for several months to repair the damage the voyage had caused. Right before he left he said, “I just know that while I’m away you’re going to have an affair.” What? I was besotted, madly in love. The concept didn’t even register; I shook my head and forgot about it. Yep, you guessed it. While in Dubai, we had become friendly with a German woman working at the marina. My fiancé knew, perhaps without knowing that he knew, that he intended to get involved with her when he returned, and he did. However, he was so guilt-ridden by the notion that he projected his discomfort onto me. I lost a fiancé but I gained a valuable lesson about projection.

The difference between others and Others is the difference between community and enemy. We are, or should be, a community in which, as the adage goes, we trust that what unites us is more profound that what divides us. Differences become a catalyst for growth rather than the context for denunciation.

What, you might ask, does this have to do with health care or Kenyan citizenship? Despite what some would have us fear, Obama is neither lunatic nor devil. Disagree with his policies or methods but give him credit for being our legitimate president and, in terms of health care, for wanting the same thing we all should: that no patient be left behind. There is plenty of fodder for honest argument without demonizing the opposition and reducing the debate to a meaningless jumble of jargon.

Beware The Other—but not in the way you might think. Beware those who would propagate The Other. The evil you perceive might be your own.

(initially published as a newspaper column during the week of August 10)

Politics as Unusual

2009-07-12T14:54:00.000-07:00

Say WHAT? When Sarah Palin’s stupefying announcement left even Karl Rove shaking his head, you know she’s either “crazy like a fox” or just plain crazy. To try to make some sense of it all, I decided to consult my Inner Sage: she-who-knows-all-but-seldom-shares.

Me: Greetings, Oracle Who Lives Within. I come with questions.

Sage: Make it quick. I’m busy today sabotaging your diet.

Me: This business with Sarah Palin is a puzzlement. I feel that if I can understand what’s going on, I’ll gain more insight into life itself.

Sage: Dream on. Anyway, what do you want to know?

Me: Although I read the transcript of her resignation announcement I couldn’t understand what she meant. Many statements seemed contradictory. For example, she said, “People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska.” However, in a message on her Facebook page, she wrote that she was leaving her job to pursue a “higher calling.” Which is it?

Sage: For Narcissus, all pools are mirrors.

Me: What?

Sage: Next question.

Me: She boasted that in her two years as governor, she accomplished more than most governors are able to do in two terms. Is this true?

Sage: When oil revenue flows like water, the fish are easy to catch. When the waters recede, the wily fisherman abandons the boat and heads for the hills.

Me: Excuse me?

Sage: I’m on a roll here. Continue.

Me: She said, “I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and ‘milk it.’ I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That's not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old ‘politics as usual.’ I promised that four years ago - and I meant it.”

For one thing, aren’t ‘lame ducks’ politicians who either can’t run again or know they can’t be reelected? Since she chose not to pursue a second term as governor, is she a true lame duck? Is there really no more work to be done in Alaska? Did she have the same qualms about traveling around the country when she was running with John McCain? And, really, aren’t ‘politics as usual’ descriptive of those who place personal gain above the public good?

Sage: Many queries provoke a single answer: You betcha.

Me: (Sigh.) Why did she pick the beginning of a huge holiday weekend to make her announcement?

Sage: Blessed are they who dispense their news on a slow day for they shall not be heard.

Me: She claims she and her family have been unfairly brutalized by the media. Is she really being treated more harshly than other politicians?

Sage: Don’t ask me – check with Hillary.

Me: She seldom allows herself to be interviewed or in a press conference situation – why is that?

Sage: Ask me no questions and I’ll tell you no lies.

Me: She said, “it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: ‘Sit down and shut up,’ but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and ‘go with the flow.’ Nah, only dead fish ‘go with the flow.’” What flow is she talking about, and, hey, isn’t she the quitter here?

Hello…? Hmmm, I feel like a cookie.

Obviously the questions remain. Is Sarah Palin stepping down or stepping it up? Is she taking care of her family, clearing the decks for a run for national office, or simply going after greener pastures (as in money)? All I know is that when the going gets tough, the tough might get going but the Palins of this world get out. And there’s where, in my opinion, she belongs.

Truth & Beauty

2009-06-22T01:52:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin is back in the news. Oh goody. She’s the most fun when she goes rogue, as she did with her off-again, on-again, will-she-upstage-the-Newt? appearance at the big GOP fundraiser a few nights ago. I readily admit to being no fan of SaPa, who strikes me as no more thoughtful or informed than she was at any point during the election—she seems less a political contender and more and more like a celebrity reality show contestant who would rather wrangle with David Letterman over a tasteless joke than offer ideas about dealing with Iran or fixing health care. I will admit, however, that she looks good. Nice hair, great bone structure, snappy dresser. And that got me to thinking about the ‘babe factor,’ in life and politics.

We humans have always attributed special qualities to those who, through no agency of their own, possess beauty. Beautiful people benefit from a host of often unconscious assumptions: that in mind and spirit they are superior to us ordinary-looking blokes. While this is true for men and women, men are blessed with the additional boon that power trumps looks. (My use here of ‘trump’ is deliberate.) Power in men, even men of unprepossessing physical attributes, is compelling while too frequently power in women is the opposite of sexy: strong women—especially opinionated, outspoken and accomplished—are viewed as having forsaken their essential femininity. To my knowledge, there is no male equivalent in English for the B word.

These attitudes are changing despite fossilized misogynists like G. Gordon Liddy who complained that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor might have her period while making a critical decision—oh gawd, the irrationality! the emotional excess! (The debunked cliché!) The candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin did not suffer from the charge that women aren’t fundamentally fit for highest office. Each woman faced different challenges to her legitimacy but initially gender did not seem to be a factor.

Nevertheless, in both cases, gender was a subversive element. Clinton was mocked for her ‘cackle’ and cleavage. Her wrinkles and weight were brutally scrutinized. She adopted a ‘policy wonk’ style that, while it showcased her considerable experience and expertise, worked against her personal appeal—she was described as ‘cold,’ code for the B word—and it didn’t play well against Obama’s inspirational oratory.

The gender effect in Palin’s candidacy was more insidious. When she burst on the scene as McCain’s out-of-right-field choice, she enjoyed a lengthy honeymoon with the press—‘don’t be mean to the girl’ seemed to be the unspoken rule, implying a measure of ‘feminine’ fragility (never applied to Clinton). Finally, Katie Couric threw down the gauntlet and exposed Palin’s now legendary unready-ness…and unique syntax.

Certainly in McCain’s choice of Palin, gender played a role. Yes, she brought energy and star appeal to the rather stodgy McCain campaign and galvanized the conservative base. However, after Obama secured his nomination, conservative strategists speculated about the supposed eighteen million disaffected Clinton supporters ripe for the plucking. Of course: throw them a woman! Any woman would do, especially if she’s good-looking, folksy, reproductive and generally non-threatening to male—dare I say Republican?—notions of female propriety.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the gender effect is how Palin herself has embraced it. This latest skirmish with Letterman exemplifies her willingness to embody the worst of female stereotypes: that women are creatures of emotion, not reason. Letterman’s joke was crude and unfunny but obviously it was not directed at Palin’s fourteen-year-old daughter. Nevertheless, Palin responded with the kind of manipulative stubbornness that has given women a bad name for eons. Sarah might not have ideas but she’s got drama.

Beneath it all is the scurrilous notion that to be of value a woman must be decorative. Would Sarah Palin have been a feasible candidate without her looks? (She certainly didn’t get the nod on the strength of her resume.) To what extent does her beauty imply other qualities? If she suddenly gains fifty pounds, will she forfeit whatever potential she might have for remaining on the national stage?

After all, beauty is not always truth and in life and in politics, that we really do need to know.

Fear & Loathing, Latina Style

2009-06-18T15:26:00.000-07:00

No doubt even in the remotest reaches of the New Guinean rainforest folks have heard of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s controversy-igniting remark: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Much teeth-gnashing has ensued over her use of the word better; Sotomayor has been subjected to charges ranging from reverse racism to practicing identity politics to suggesting that a judge’s life trajectory might influence his or her decisions: She thinks she knows better than a MAN! Than a WHITE man! The effrontery!

Some of the pundits commenting upon Sotomayor’s remark (a surprising number of them white guys) have noted that if a white man had claimed that he was “better” than a woman in matters judicial all manner of outrage would erupt. Really? Isn’t the history of the Supreme Court one in which the subtext is a presumption of male superiority, white male superiority at that? Of the 110 justices in the Court’s history, 106 have been, yes, pallid and of the manly persuasion. The remaining four comprise two African Americans and two women – there have been no Asians, Native Americans or Hispanics (with the possible exception of Benjamin Cardozo whose Portuguese ethnicity is disputed). Men of European descent, anointed by wealth and privilege, have influenced the development of our national ideas about law, equality, responsibility and opportunity far more than any other group. Fellas, I’m having a tough time feeling your pain.

Racists, reverse and otherwise, and identity politickers share a common characteristic: they engage in groupthink. These people ignore nuance and reduce complexity to an ignorantly simplistic (and ugly) view of the world. In her life and career, Sotomayor has exhibited a fierce independence. These charges are ultra-rightwing-speak for women who aspire to break through those glass gates that protect exclusively male enclaves. What they’re actually calling her is “bitch” – a pejorative that has no true male equivalent.

Regarding the notion that a justice should be aloof from circumstance, utterly rational and somehow embodying a godlike perspective, I offer Samuel Alito’s testimony during his 2006 confirmation hearing. Alito readily admitted that his experiences as the child of immigrant parents shaped his view of the world and no doubt influenced his perspective on cases. Since in some quarters he had been perceived as cold and unfeeling, he made this assertion to the Senate in an attempt to appear more human, more compassionate…dare I say wiser?

The point that seems to be missed in this debate is that Sotomayor referenced wisdom above gender and ethnicity. She didn’t say a smart Latina woman – she said wise. Wisdom is the ability to “make sensible decisions and judgments on the basis of knowledge and experience” (Word®). Sotomayor has frequently discussed her commitment to impartiality. By nearly all accounts she has a brilliant legal mind. Despite her own personal narrative, a review of her decisions over her seventeen-year career as a judge reveals no ideological pattern: she doesn’t favor minorities or exhibit an anti-business bias. If her paper trail is any indication, she’s no dreaded “activist judge” but consistently demonstrates fairness and the integrity to acknowledge and learn from mistakes.

In Sotomayor’s case, it would seem that intelligence, knowledge, common sensibility, and the gumption to transcend difficult circumstances and continue to challenge herself have coalesced to create the matchless quality of wisdom in the character of this Latina. I, for one, welcome her judgment on the Court.

Cheneymania

2009-06-10T13:11:00.001-07:00

It’s nice to finally get a good look at Dick Cheney. After eight years of lurking as a shadowy figure in his famously secure, undisclosed location, that legendary snarl is on every television screen.

Nobody can accuse our former vice president of donning the mantle of power reluctantly. And I suppose that once one has been puppeteer-in-chief, it might be hard to descend to lesser activities, like playing golf or masterminding a vast criminal conspiracy -- oh, wait, as CEO of Halliburton didn’t he already do that?

Liz Cheney – where’d she come from? – on a recent This Week with George S... kept referring to her dad as “the” vice president. What does that make Joe Biden, the “other” vice president? I think where Dick Cheney is concerned the adjective “former” has a most reassuring ring.

Ignoring his abysmal approval rating and armed with a secret weapon – his signature death-ray Look – the former vice president (FVP) is doing what he does best: going on the offensive. The tale he’s telling? That his policies, which led directly to war and the torture of suspects, kept our country safe. Furthermore, he claims that the Obama administration, in calling for an end to “extreme interrogation techniques,” is putting us in harm’s way – does “letting the terrorists win” sound familiar? The FVP, according to himself, is a selfless martyr to the cause of the safety of the American homeland. What a guy.

Not to make a Federal case of it (well, maybe just a little), let’s examine some of the more glaring inconsistencies in FVP’s contentions.

According to many experts in interrogation techniques, the extreme measures that FVP advocated and approved are of dubious value. Because any so-called intelligence is gained only under great duress, its validity is questionable. At a Senate hearing on May 14, a key witness, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, testified that “the harsh interrogation techniques may actually have hindered the collection of intelligence, causing a high-value prisoner to stop cooperating.” (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/) I can tell you that if I were being hung upside down by my toes and dunked repeated into a bucket of water, I’d swear on my mother’s grave to just about anything.

Investigative journalist Robert Windrem writes that FVP’s office insisted on waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner to force him to confirm a Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda relationship. Torturing this prisoner based on political motivation made the act indisputably illegal since the prisoner was not considered a terrorist. More importantly, this connection, a primary rationale for the war, has been thoroughly debunked, although FVP’s modus operandi seems to be based on the theory that telling a lie often and loudly enough makes it the truth. WMDs anyone?

FVP brags that his policies kept America safe for seven years. But he was in office for eight years. FVP seems to have forgotten that 9/11 happened on his watch and that he ignored repeated warnings about Al Qaeda from chief counter-terrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke and others. According to the National Security Archive, a recently declassified January 25, 2001 memo from Clarke to the Bush Administration read in part: "We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida network." Bad spelling, good intelligence – but FVP dismissed the Clinton Administration’s warning that terrorism should be their highest priority.

During the FVP years, as news about Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, black sites, rendition, etc., leaked out, the United States lost the respect and the goodwill of much of the rest of the world. The torture of prisoners served not to make us safer but to bolster the ranks of those who would harm us. (Funny how the Bush Administration went from indignantly denying the use of torture – How dare you accuse us of that? – to huffily defending its necessity.)

If it weren’t so egregious – and scary – FVP’s demanding that the public accept his take on things simply because he says so seems almost bizarrely naïve. The Bush Administration is a story of failed policies, broken promises, missed opportunities, mind-boggling incompetency, lies and damned lies. This is Dick Cheney’s lasting legacy and all the talk show appearances in the world can’t spin that truth into another of his deceptions.

Calling to Account

2009-05-12T06:57:00.000-07:00

Debate swirls around Obama’s decision to release the ‘torture memos,’ the Bush administration’s legal opinions crafted to justify extreme interrogation techniques, part of a larger attempt to expand the scope of allowable actions in a broadly-defined War on Terror. On the right, much wringing of hands: Obama is emboldening our enemies! On the left, much gnashing of teeth: The torturers must be prosecuted! In the middle, the question: Does the call for responsibility mean our country will be mired in a past we need to put behind us?

Accountability vs. moving on: this dilemma is as old as the first time a spouse caught cheating begged his or her mate: Am I going to have to pay for this forever? I remember the time a boyfriend got involved with someone while he was on an extended business trip. I was devastated by the breach of trust but perhaps even more so by the surprising and uncomfortable fact that I simply was unable to look beyond his infidelity. My mind understood that his fling was essentially an acting-out during a time when we were under the stress of having to make some major decisions (Get married? Have a baby?) and that we, as a couple, mattered more than what was, in reality, an ultimately meaningless encounter. My heart, however, recognized only one truth: Ouch! Ouch ouch OUCH! I couldn’t let go and our relationship didn’t survive.

Some people in this release-or-not debate bring up the enduring controversy of Gerald Ford’s decision to pardon Richard Nixon; interestingly both sides claim that event as support for their point of view. The anti-releasers note that in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and Watergate, with its institutionalization of the politics of revenge, we as a nation did need to put all of that behind us: prosecuting Nixon perhaps would have caused a fatal division in an already fractured country. The pro-releasers argue that since the pardon continues to be contentious, it indicates that moving on healed nothing: it simply allowed a villain to get away scot-free. However, Ruth Rosen (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/17) and others point out that Nixon didn’t escape justice. He resigned, in disgrace, and his name is forever associated with corruption. Prosecution could well have been a blessing in disguise, in that, to some, instead of a crook he might have become a martyr.

We certainly hold on to the past when that past is the vessel for happy remembrances. One doesn’t secure a promotion, get engaged or finish a marathon only to be chided about dwelling on things no longer relevant. No -- one relishes, savors, celebrates. Every choice we make, every action we take, and every unexpected piece of luck or hardship becomes part of the fabric of our lives, intrinsic to both our being and our becoming.

If actions have no consequences then they have no value. Not only are wrongdoers emboldened, if people are allowed to commit harmful deeds without any ramifications, then the ultimate gift we, as humans, have to give – forgiveness – is impossible. Forgiveness requires accountability and acceptance and is the balm that heals wounded and perpetrator alike.
I believe President Obama is right in releasing the torture memos. He is wise to assure those told that these procedures were legally sanctioned that they will not be prosecuted. However, those who crafted and implemented the heinous policies that resulted in torture, by whatever word you call it, should be investigated and appropriate action taken. Otherwise, we, as a nation, move on from a dark and disturbing period having learned nothing.

I think back on the cheating boyfriend. I finally realized he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, talk about what had happened with any insight. He wanted I’m sorry to be the end of it: no discussion, no introspection, nada. The wiser part of me perceived that his unwillingness to accept any real consequences meant that the experience had taught him little beyond the cost of getting caught. If responsibility means having the guts to see things as they are, act accordingly even when it’s tough, and learn whatever lesson is offered, then perhaps the person I held accountable was myself.

War of the Weeds

2009-04-20T05:25:00.000-07:00

Maybe you can please most of the people some of the time, and some of the people most of the time, but there will be some people who simply refuse to be pleased no matter what. When President Obama, at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, called daughter Malia his “technical advisor” after she got the sound system working, somebody no doubt somewhere could be heard to holler, “That’s taking jobs away from Americans!” Maybe Michelle Obama got toughened up on the campaign trail but I bet even she was surprised by the criticism that arose regarding what could be considered an innocuous, if not wholly worthwhile, endeavor.

On March 26, Executive Director Bonnie McCarvel and Program Coordinator Janet Braun of the Mid America CropLife Association sent the First Lady a letter objecting to the fact that the garden she has created on the White House grounds is organic.

Yes, the First Lady is guilty of not supporting pesticides.

Here are some excerpts from the letter:

Starting in the early 1900's, technology advances have allowed farmers to continually produce more food on less land while using less human labor. Over time, Americans were able to leave the time-consuming demands of farming to pursue new interests and develop new abilities. Today, an average farmer produces enough food to feed 144 Americans who are living longer lives than many of their ancestors. Technology in agriculture has allowed for the development of much of what we know and use in our lives today. If Americans were still required to farm to support their family's basic food and fiber needs, would the U.S. have been leaders in the advancement of science, communication, education, medicine, transportation and the arts?...

As you go about planning and planting the White House garden, we respectfully encourage you to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply.

These conventional farming “ambassadors,” as they call themselves, make some valid points. Modern farmers employ many environmentally friendly methods such as reduced tillage practices, precision and contour farming, and grass waterways to prevent erosion. They use biogenetics to implant pest resistance directly into seeds and GPS technology to target specific areas for pesticide spraying. Huge combines and powerful tractors have increased the efficiency of harvesting, thus saving time and energy. Farmlands provide most of the nation’s wildlife habitat.

Nevertheless, conventional agriculture is synonymous with large-scale agribusiness which, in transforming the faming landscape, has resulted in the disappearance of the small family-owned farm, a decrease in the availability of fresh, flavorful vegetables (just compare a packaged “vine-ripened” tomato with one plucked warm from the garden), and a dangerous dependence on pesticides and biogenetics which have the potential to alter the balance of nature and cause unintended consequences.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we abandon large-scale agriculture in favor of tilling our own little acres. This more economical and plentiful food supply is a necessary part of our diets. However, the conventional and the organic are not mutually exclusive: there’s a place for the organic garden, too. The recent emphasis on supporting locally grown produce has raised awareness of the energy costs involved in long-distance transportation of food, the health benefits of eating produce in season, and simply the incomparable pleasure of food that is truly “garden fresh.”

Isn’t an essential aspect of being American the right to choose? Michelle Obama isn’t in the mass-food-production business – she simply has chosen to use an organic approach for the benefit of her own kids and those who come to learn the lessons of nature and nurture that gardens have to offer. So, I say to Ambassadors McCarvel and Braun: you do your thing and Michelle (and I) will do ours. After all, “organic” is just another word for freedom.

The Woman Thing

2009-04-07T15:32:00.000-07:00

For me, it was all about the ladies a couple of weekends ago. Two events and one article got me thinking about the evolving leadership role of women – who we are as leaders and why there aren’t more of us.

On Friday I attended a daylong session of the annual W@M! Conference. W@M! stands for “Women, Action and the Media” and it was indeed a shout-out to women activists, journalists and garden-variety feminists who came together at MIT’s Stata Center (the new building by Frank Gehry that looks like the fantasy of a demented child) to talk about how to promote progressive ideas and ideals and get more women’s voices into the mainstream.

On Sunday night I attended the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s 100 Club dinner. This 50th anniversary of the 100 Club – somebody quipped that the name came about because when the event began it was doubtful that 100 Democrats could be found in the entire state – was a celebration of firsts: the first woman US Senator, Jean Shaheen (who had been the state’s first female governor); the first female US Representative, Carol Shea-Porter; the first women to serve as State Senate President and House Speaker, Sylvia Larsen and Terie Norelli respectively; and the first time in history the state chose a woman to stand as the Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, a surprising article I had just read in preparation for yet another gathering of prominent women occupied my thoughts. “Women and the Vision Thing,” by Herminia Ibarra and Otilia Obodaru, published in the January 2009 edition of the Harvard Business Review, examines the questions: Why don’t more women reach the top of their professions? What’s holding us back?

At first glance it would seem that nothing is. After all, according to a survey quoted in the article, women tend to score higher marks than men in just about every leadership component: energizing, designing and aligning, rewarding and feedback, team building, outside orientation, tenacity, and emotional intelligence (page 5).

The problem is what George H.W. Bush famously referred to as “the vision thing.” Rightly or not, women are perceived as being less effective than men in key components of the critical skill of visioning, which includes the ability to perceive opportunities and threats and inspire constituents to follow their lead. When circumstances are uncertain, women are less trusted than men to devise successful strategies and manage risk.

Ibarra and Obodaru offer some explanation for this startling disconnect. Women who work in collaboration might simply not get credit for the vision they engender. Also, women tend to value grounded-ness and action based on concrete data while men are more willing to portray a rosy future strong in optimism but perhaps weak on the particulars. The authors note the difference in the styles of candidates Obama and Clinton: his charismatic but somewhat vague vision compared with her practical, if unexciting, focus on policy and experience. Furthermore, women don’t entirely trust the vision thing when it seems to be more style than substance.

The article concludes by urging the aspiring woman leader to get up on her high horse and down with the vision thing. Obviously society needs it, wants it, and responds to it. But I came away from the article, from W@M! and the 100 Club, with another reaction.

While I want women to aspire to leadership roles in business, politics and as opinion-makers, I don’t want us to give up our peculiar form of integrity – centered, specific, collaborative – in order to be more like the men who currently occupy those seats of power. To say that women aren’t visionary is simply to fail to see how we are. “One man—one dream” might be compelling but the strength of women (one of many) is that we understand the power of the collective vision, and more often than not, we know how to get there. Perhaps what needs to change is our basic understanding of vision: to learn to be inspired by what’s inherent in the woman thing.

A Matter of Words

2009-03-26T15:51:00.001-07:00

A reader, in a recent letter to the editor of one of the papers in which my column appears, referred to me as an “Obama sycophant.” Where I come from, them’s fightin’ words so I figured I better confirm what sycophant actually means.

According to Microsoft Word’s thesaurus, a sycophant is “somebody who servilely or obsequiously flatters a powerful person for personal gain.” Flattery is characterized by two essential qualities: excessiveness and insincerity.

It would seem that I face several challenges in my quest to become a sycophant, the most daunting being that President Obama has nary an inkling of my existence. How can I disproportionately and falsely flatter him into bestowing benefit upon me if he doesn’t even know who I am? Furthermore, unless my reading of this president is way off, he seems particularly impervious to sycophancy. Hard times for us sycophant wannabees.

Words matter. To be accurate, I am an Obama apologist. Look it up: an apologist is a defender, a supporter, an ally. In light of the dire circumstances Obama inherited, I believe he’s doing as fine a job as anyone could. I’m thrilled that stem cell research restrictions have been lifted, Gitmo will be closed, and we’ll soon be leaving Iraq. I’m convinced that health care, education and the economy are in good hands. I’m grateful he’s in charge. But my patronage isn’t blind. On at least one issue, President Obama and I part ways.

During the campaign, Obama espoused his support for “clean coal technology” as one element of a comprehensive energy policy. “Clean coal” sounds like a good thing. Clean is good. And, despite the fiscal crisis, we still need to wean ourselves from foreign oil and increase domestic as well as alternative sources of energy. The United States is laden with coal deposits. If technologies, such as scrubbers and “carbon capture and sequestration,” can be developed to reduce the pollution that coal-fired plants produce – primarily CO₂ and sulfur dioxide (contributors to global warming and acid rain respectively) – then it’s a win-win. Right?

Not so fast. The term “clean coal” is deliberately defined narrowly, referring only to the burning of coal in electric generation. However, the whole lifecycle -- mining, transport and combustion -- must be examined, and even the most rudimentary research reveals numerous troubling issues.

Scrubbers might lessen smog but they do nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses and are energy intensive, as is transporting coal from mining sites to power plants. Questions persist about the safety, environmental impact and long-term viability of carbon storage, which involves the untested technology of permanently burying CO₂ emissions from coal-fired plants deep underground. Nobody knows what might happen should the containment crack or gasses escape into aquifers or the atmosphere. Projects such as FutureGen, intended through carbon storage technology to be the first near-zero-emissions U.S. coal-fired power plant, have faltered due to cost overruns.

Most disturbing of all is the method of coal extraction known as mountaintop removal. This environmentally devastating procedure, in which draglines literally remove entire mountain ridges and dump the resultant debris into valleys and streams, is decimating land and communities throughout Appalachia. Perhaps coal can play a role in our energy future, but it must be without these destructive mining practices. For an eye-opening video, visit the website of my friend: writer/musician/activist extraordinaire CD Collins, a native Kentuckian: www.cdcollins.com.

Words matter. Characterizing coal as “clean” is inaccurate at best, deceptive at worst. Those who promote coal, clean or otherwise, are primarily mining industry types who stand to profit. Terms like “clean coal” constitute a kind of rebranding, designed to manipulate, play on our fears of energy cost and dependence, and persuade us to focus on a reassuring image and not the upsetting substance.

Words matter, so I say to my president: reject the lie of “clean coal.” Resisting the supplications of the mining industry: now, that would constitute real change. I ask for the benefit of the staunch folks, misty mountains and verdant hollows of Appalachia. And yes, I stand to gain, in the only way that really matters.

Meanwhile, I’ll keep working on the sycophant thing.

RUSH to Judgment

2009-03-11T09:49:00.000-07:00

The man who recently declared himself the most influential person in the Republican party – no, not Michael Steele but that cuddly gadfly Rush Limbaugh – recently took a giant step toward peace and reconciliation by convening a “Female Summit” during the final third of his radio program on February 25. Women, especially those who were not madly in love with him (I’m not making this up) were encouraged to call and let Rush know how he might win them over. “The reason we're going to do the Female Summit is Public Policy Polling in North Carolina published a national poll on your beloved host, El Rushbo. They found I've got 46% approval, 43% disapproval, but I got a huge gender gap….Thirty-one percent is the differential between male approval and female approval. So yesterday I said, ‘What can I do about this?...What is the explanation for this?’” (February 25, 2009)

At first glance, this exercise might appear quixotic. In the past, Limbaugh has made some famously un-endearing comments about women, such as:
• “I love the women's movement...especially when I'm walking behind it.” (The Way Things Ought To Be, page 145)
• “We're not sexists, we're chauvinists — we're male chauvinist pigs, and we're happy to be because we think that's what men were destined to be. We think that's what women want.” (April 15, 2004)
• “I have long told you, for example, Undeniable Truth of Life No. 24, written back in 1987: Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” (August 12, 2005)

Limbaugh allowed that to fully plumb the depths of the female psyche might take more than one day. However, according to Rush, it takes at least six weeks of listening to his program daily to get “the gist” of him (February 25. 2009).

Okey dokey. I’m a woman, I don’t approve of Rush Limbaugh, so I figure I’m a perfect candidate for the summit. Because he announced this affair on one day and held it on the next, I didn’t have a chance to call in but I do have some comments. So, Rush, since you asked:
• For someone so obsessed with appearance, how come you’re fat?
• Women often say they like men who make them laugh – I’ll give you that.
• You’re contemptuous of minorities and the disabled – Donovan McNabb and Michael J. Fox come to mind. Your mockery of Fox’s Parkinsons’s symptoms was shameful (and erroneous) and hey, if ESPN fired your ass, why should I give you a pass?
• Your summit apparently was modeled on the old chestnut: “Enough about me. Let’s talk about you. Tell me what you think about me.” Men.
• If you think I’m going to devote six weeks of my life to getting your gist, you’ve got another think coming.
• And, Rush, the cigar has GOT to go. But, wait. What if, in this case, a cigar isn’t just a cigar? Oh dear.

El Rushbo, pal, the women you seek to woo are neither stupid nor credulous. We didn’t fall for Sarah Palin and I doubt that we’re going to fall for you.

However, as usual in his universe, Rush got in the last word. “Our preliminary report … it appears that women who have hated me have been led to me by other men and then have changed their opinion, which means something I have always known, that women do want to please their men.” (February 25, 2009)

Oh, please.

Four Sonnets in Search of an Explanation

2009-02-21T07:02:00.000-08:00

i

It’s easy of iniquity to speak,
This life is full of villains, to be sure.
Some rogues are ignorant and some are weak
And some are evil to their very core.

The game of politics is one that spawns
A breed of bad guys who might be unique:
Beset by greed or power, they are pawns
On someone else’s chessboard, so to speak.

To judge the worst we sometimes judge the best
And see wherein the diff’rences might lie.
Who suffered hurt perhaps is the best test;
Who profited? – a question to apply.

Sometimes the profiteer will seek applause
By mixing venal gain with higher cause.

ii

Above all, truth is that which we must seek.
Victim or perp (and sometimes they’re the same)
Can be set free if one true word they speak
And say out loud what conscience does proclaim.

The world in which our legislators dwell
Is crazy, yes, but plays by its own rules.
To stand apart, to speak one’s mind, is swell
Unless by that one makes of others fools.

No one a fool can make without consent
And trust is something honest people know.
To say one thing when something else is meant
Is likely to result in quid pro quo.

We can find truth in many forms indeed
But to oneself be true is the right creed.

iii

Judd Gregg, perhaps to show himself a prince
Of peace instead of his own party’s hack,
Did contact Obama and did convince
The new administration of the lack

Of bipartisan cooperation --
“I Commerce Secretary wish to be
So I can serve both you and our nation.”
This move at first did seem to guarantee

A bounty of goodwill that all could reap.
Alas, the Senator seemed to forget
The promises Obama swore to keep.
Gregg cried, “He’s liberal ! That I can’t abet.”

No other reason gave, his name withdrawn,
Come on, dear sir, what’s really going on?

iv

This strange thing became then even stranger,
You say you probably won’t run again.
Was there some threat, some imminent danger
To you, your reputation or your kin?

Perhaps it’s as you said: You didn’t think
About the consequences of your deed:
To fight opposing loyalties would stink,
And doom a fella’s chances to succeed.

But did you not hear your party’s critics
Who said, “That stimulus plan should be dead”?
Or when they cried, “The census they might fix!”
A surge in voter numbers did you dread?

To claim “It’s principle” is as you might
Though saying yes—but no—is all too Right.

The Road Not Taken

2009-02-15T07:09:00.000-08:00

The transition is over. The tears have been shed, the hugs exchanged, and the toes and fingers of those who waited hours in the bitter cold on the Mall in Washington to hear the words “So help me God” have finally thawed. Barack Obama has taken the oath of office and gotten to work. Change has come.

But what if …? What if, instead of an Obama administration, we were witnessing the beginning of the McCain years?

In his first act of official business, President John McCain trademarks my friends. “My friends® I’ve got to protect my brand,” he explained, “since that one is sitting on change and hope.”

In the spirit of what President McCain is calling “my posse of rivals,” he is keeping Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in his post, explaining, “Nobody is quite sure what happened to all the money he distributed and, my friends®, I want that work to continue.”

President McCain defends auto executives’ practice of traveling by private jet: “I can tell you, my friends®, that otherwise it’s hard as heck to get from one mansion to another.”

Unconfirmed reports indicate that former Vice President Dick Cheney, now head of the CIA, who meets with President McCain daily at an undisclosed location, has indisputable proof that the French are amassing weapons of mass destruction to be used against the “Great Un-Elite,” their epithet for America. “We need another war to jump-start our ailing economy and we need to wreck another country so that we can help rebuild it. Especially France,” Cheney declared from an undisclosed Halliburton facility. The President added, “The surge is working, my friends®, and now we’ve got to give our brave men and women something to do.”

Vice President Sarah Palin announces the discovery that she can see Canada from Alaska. She was unavailable for further comment due to poor WiFi at Neiman Marcus.

In an effort to delay their retirement, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have joined an experimental life-prolonging drug trial. McCain has directed the FDA to withdraw approval for the trial, except for him.

Responding to potential tax problems for McCain nominee Mitt Romney, newly appointed ambassador to Togo, the President issues an executive order banning the public discussion of tax returns. ” Do you think only Republicans have tax issues, my friends®?” he bristled. “Anyway, Cindy made me do it.”

Samuel Joseph “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher was to have been hired as live-in White House handyman until he is discovered in First Daughter Meghan McCain’s bedroom at three one morning. “I was just unclogging her pipes,” he protested.

In a furtherance of what critics are calling his “Babe Initiative,” McCain taps Ann Coulter, who earned her J.D. from University of Michigan law school, to be chief White House counsel, saying, “She lays it on with a trowel.”

Under the “Drill Baby Drill” program, mandatory oil drilling has begun in all fifty states despite the objections of the governor of Rhode Island and others who claim there are no proven oil reserves within their borders. “Your point?” responds former Vice President and current Oil Czar Dick Cheney.

President McCain, when asked about whether he will be retaining use of his BlackBerry, replied, “I’m attached to my blackberry, my friends®, but I also like my orange marmalade.”

Tickets to McCain’s historic Inauguration, which occurred on Tuesday January 20, are still available on eBay and Craigslist.

Dancing in the New Year

2009-01-27T17:58:00.000-08:00

(Please read "Yes We Did" after this one -- I haven't figured out to slip a blog into a sequence!)

A week into the new year and I’m guessing that most people are already hard at work breaking the resolutions they so hopefully made as fireworks burst and champagne bubbled. Not me. This new year feels, well, new: brand new, full of optimism and possibility. I want my resolutions to be, in the latest vernacular, fierce. No whiney diet decrees or wimpy exercise intentions on my list – I’m thinking big this year.

Resolution 1: Remember the true power of giving. Back in the glorious heyday of hippie-dom, one of my San Francisco friends, Siddhartha (actually I think he had grown up as Stanley Figbottom) had a theory about money which he practiced with gusto: in his view, money was energy -- the more one put it out into the world the more one got it returned. It seemed to work for Siddhartha; despite no visible means of support, other than an occasional gig as a “therapist,” he always seemed to get by. He literally would give you his last buck if you needed it and others were equally generous back to him. As you might imagine, I found his to be a most gratifying philosophy.

Granted, those were simpler days. Those practicing that heady form of freedonomics found we eventually had to grow up, stop trusting a wacky spiritual version of the first law of thermodynamics and acquire jobs, credit scores, and debt. Our calculus of finance became computation, not faith. But as I contemplate the fiscal catastrophes that confront us, I believe that Siddhartha was on to something.

Everywhere are admonitions to give. The underlying message: give (money, time, energy) and you will receive (satisfaction, pleasure, a date). However, perhaps there is a more profound reason to give than the urge to do good, the intangible payback, the star by your name on the karmic ledger.
Giving in a context of scarcity is a gesture of courage and defiance. When you don’t have much to give but you give anyway you’re staking a claim in the future, affirming your ability to triumph over the worst of circumstances. To give of what you have, even with only crumbs in the cookie jar, is ultimately an act of personal power. When the world says nay, giving says “yes, I can.” Like Sid.

Resolution 2: Make someone mad every day. Many of us are driven by the need to win the approval of others. We want to be loved or at least liked. We go along to get along. However, taking the easy route, to gain sanction or avoid censure or confrontation, comes with a price, the risk becoming timid: afraid to speak our minds, to challenge authority, to boldly go… anyway. This is our time to stand up, in our daily dealings as well as in on the national scene. I’m not suggesting Rod Blagojevich as a role model, although one has to admit the guy has chutzpah. What I’m challenging myself to do when faced with a choice – to speak up or keep silent, to protest or concede, to defy or to pander – is to do what’s most difficult. It’s bound to make someone mad and maybe that’s a good thing.

Resolution 3: Intend the impossible. I mean to dance with Barack Obama at an Inaugural Ball. There, I’ve said it. Extremely unlikely, of course, but not utterly impossible. I do have an Inauguration ticket and I plan to be at some ball that night. And I’m a wicked good dancer. Mister President-elect, if you see this, I’m asking: just one dance. Half a dance. One twirl around the floor. Your fantastical election was less improbable than my wish for a dance but still…I have the audacity of hope.

Yes, We Did!

2009-01-27T14:53:00.000-08:00

January 20, 2009, Washington, DC. I’m cold. I’m wicked cold. It’s freakin’ freezing out here on the Mall where, I hear later, the temperature is in the single digits. That means 25 degrees below freezing. This bears repeating: 25 degrees BELOW freezing. And that’s without the wind, which, with depressing frequency, whips up a merry dance as if Sarah Palin herself were shouting out the weather (hopefully my final Sarah Palin reference).

At five this morning we rose up from our air mattress (a no-cost beneficence from cousins who have lent us their living room floor) and hit the street for our four-plus-mile walk to the Capitol. The sidewalks are already dotted with bundled pedestrians and the crowd grows heavy as we near the I-395 tunnel which has been closed to traffic – it’s our only available route to the Mall. After much herding we arrived at our spot in the Silver standing area. Dawn is history and a weak sun glimmers through the cloud cover. It’s not yet eight and we have hours to go before the ceremonies begin. The space fills in behind us and we hunker down to wait, huddled masses yearning to be warm.

We’re the lucky ones, part of the 250,000 who acquired actual tickets, a process that involved several hours the previous day of standing in line at the Longworth Congressional office building, one of the three – with the Cannon and the Rayburn – where House members are dispensing their tickets. We meet Pam from Greeley, Colorado, who had already gotten tickets from her Senator and is waiting in line to pick up tickets for a friend. (We have been charged to tell Elaine that Pam is an excellent friend who deserves a reward.) Several folks ahead of us are Andre Wooten, the son of Harold Wooten of the venerated Tuskegee Airmen, and his wife. Despite the glacial temperatures and progress, everyone is smiling and chatting, making friends, sharing the moment.

Every now and then a staffer from one of the House members patrols the line, calling out for people waiting for tickets from that particular congressperson. Representative Jim McDermott’s office is especially proactive so we all decide that if we ever have the chance to vote for him we shall. We are getting our tickets from Carol Shea-Porter so we call her office to share the example of Representative McDermott. They consider coming down but by the time we get the call back that they’re ready to meet us outside, tickets in hand, we’re already at the office door. Where it’s warm. The mother of one of Carol’s staff members is helping out for the day so she makes us coffee and we bask in radiant heat for an hour until we begin to thaw. We’re due for a party in Rayburn honoring Barbara Lee of Oakland. We learn a blessed fact: tunnels connect the three office buildings. We don’t have to brave either the lines or the cold to get to the party so we enjoy a reprieve for a few hours of food and fun.

At seven we grab a cab home, only to discover that nearly every street heading into the Capitol area has been closed down. After much backtracking we find an open intersection, finally arriving at our neighborhood more than an hour after we began our four-mile journey. We’ve been in the cab so long the meter has maxed out and the cabbie, from Ethiopia, has concluded that he’ll be celebrating Inauguration day at home. This experience cements our decision to walk so we set the alarm and fall into an excited and expectant sleep.

It’s now 10am on the Mall and I’m colder than I have ever been in my life. This is not an exaggeration – to keep myself from thinking about my feet (which I can no longer feel) or my knees (which seem to be frozen in place) I review my entire life to see if I can recall another time when I was this cold for this long. I even, for a shameful moment, consider giving up but the better angel of my nature reminds me that real adventures are generally uncomfortable in the having. Of course I’m not leaving. At 10:30 the Marine Band begins to play and slowly, grandly, the pageant of our nation unfolds.

The rest has already been reported and viewed: the tears on the faces of elderly African Americans when Obama took the oath; the overwhelming need to hug everyone in the vicinity; the sea of waving flags; the moral heft of Obama’s speech. The greatest moment for me came when I looked at the faces in the crowd – every color, every age, every station – pinched with cold but alight with joy and hope and I realized: This is what it means to be an American.

In the evening we attend the Grits ‘n Granite Ball, co-hosted by South Carolina and New Hampshire. We hook up with our friend Richard Komi, newly minted American from Nigeria who was just elected to the New Hampshire legislature. We schmooze with the King of Togo. Ours is a minor ball, not one of the ten official balls the Obamas are expected to attend. I wished to dance with Obama and yes, we did. This night Barack Obama has three hundred million names on his dance card and he is tripping the light fantastic with every one of us.