Feeds:
Posts
Comments

December 15 is the anniversary of the marriage that no longer exists. The marriage no longer exists because the husband no longer exists, having died eight years ago, which begs the question: does the anniversary still exist? Or perhaps the question is, how do I acknowledge its existence? 

In a parallel universe, one of those infinite dimensions that split off at each major event and form the “what-ifs” of our lives, I might be planning a dinner or a getaway for the two of us. My mind turns that way from time to time. Such magical thinking, as Joan Dideon has named it, is inevitable. It’s a coping mechanism, one that changes form and purpose over time.

Last month my father-in-law Pete turned ninety. From a legal standpoint,  he is no longer my father-in-law, but such definitions often prove to be utterly inept when it comes to describing the ties that bind us. He is an amazing man: tall, trim, and upright; still exercising, making minor repairs, or running food over to shut-ins during the holidays. Writing to thank me  for a gift,  he closed:  “When people ask me how I’ve managed to reach ninety, I tell them it’s all smoke and mirrors — and it is!”

JimPete94 Pete and Jim, 1995

 Smoke and mirrors and the “what-ifs” are represented by those parallel universes we can’t see and can’t know, notwithstanding quantum physics and fervent believers in alternate realities. In another universe, I would be celebrating with my tall, strapping husband, he from such long-lived and healthy stock. Or perhaps not. If one thing changes, so does another; change has consequences. Events set off other events: illness or injury, trauma or death, disappointment, division, good fortune or incidents that affect those closest to us. The road keeps on dividing and subdividing. 

In an alternate reality…ah, but I don’t live there. Nor do I any longer live in the past I can’t change or the future I can’t know. In the here and now, I am, if not deliriously happy, at least profoundly grateful for the opportunity to have married and loved. So I’m going out to dinner with my sister, who was extremely close to my husband. After all, he was and will always be her favorite brother-in-law.

Dumb War?

“I am not opposed to all wars; I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
then-candidate Barack Obama, March 26, 2008
ObamaAfghanistan is a war which we didn’t start but which we will end. We have twenty months (more or less) to do so. Before we end it, we will provide a surge to counter the insurgency. This will be done in full view of absolutely everybody. This is not done lightly but with the security of the United States in mind. We will secure key areas (not deeply rural areas because we can’t; no one can) against the Taliban as we  train and grow the Afghan Army. Yes, we are forced to count on support from a deeply corrupt government, but we will hold that government accountable. We will not send them money directly but instead will fund local leaders, build up local miltia and convert former insurgents. We cannot send troops uninvited into Pakistan, where we know Al Qaeda is most active and where the nuclear arsenal is less than secure, but we will be close by. We will try to cut off any nascent partnership between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and prevent new alliances from growing. Most importantly, we will convince ordinary Afghans that we are there to help them take their country back and then move it forward. This is at the heart of any lasting success.
Afghanistan_652277a
War is hell. It’s also either strategic, unavoidable, inevitable, unwinnable, manageable, practical, essential — or dumb. What have we here?

My 44-year old friend Natalie looks great. She is half way through her radiation treatment for a malignant tumor found so far back in her breast no self-exam would have found it. Hopefully she’ll be able to avoid chemotherapy. She had no family history of cancer, no genetic or behavioral markers. It’s true there is no way of knowing whether this particular tumor would have killed her; some cancers are so slow-growing as to be almost non-threatening. Mammograms detect more thoroughly than ever any anomoly but even when something is found to be malignant, it’s not always possible to know whether it’s potentially fatal. Natalie doesn’t care and neither do her friends, frankly. At this level, the anxiety is more than worth it.

I understand the concept of “evidence-based science” as well as the next person. Reason demands evidence, at least when it comes to issuing absolutes. Too many people are inclined to make presumptive declarations — that is, declarations that presume knowledge. So yes, show me the evidence.

I also understand that our bodies are highly complex organisms with any number of uncertainties built right into them. There may be tumors and aneurysms, clogged veins and weakened livers, and even degenerative disks, none of which are necessarily going to harm us or even slow us down. Why find out if you’re caring a potentially threatening gene, some argue, the operative word being potentially? Life is about uncertainty; some things we can’t know; others we don’t need to.

But even though I get all that, even though I believe that we must all learn to live with uncertainty, even though I realize living involves risk and  many kinds of cancer aren’t life-threatening, I cannot wrap my mind around what not being tested might have meant for my friend Natalie.

 

My difficulty with the recommendations has nothing to do with the politicizing of the findings, which are, after all, reissues of earlier recommendations. Trying to tie these recommendations to the “threat” of managed care is another deliberate attempt at fear-mongering. But I find the “small risk” argument to be an unpersuasive one: except for chemo, most women will tell you mammograms, sonograms, biopsies, anxiety, and even radiation are worth undergoing. Yes, evidence shows that only one in more than 1900 women’s lives were saved by early testing. But that one may have been my friend Natalie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cliff Notes Op-eds

I’ve been sick with a head cold which a massive dose of “Emergen-C” has probably prevented from turning worse. To tell the truth, I’m still tired, stressed, and more than a little cranky. I’m also behind the curve in terms of current events commentary, so I’d thought I’d play catch-up by offering my unsolicited opinion on a range of news topics, albeit at a deeply discounted price, given the economy, my general mood, and the fact that the stuff is unsolicited (which makes me just like the other 80 million bloggers across the globe). Anyway:

imagesArmy doctor at Fort Hood kills twelve:  The shooter was commissioned, a loner, a psychiatrist (!) and a Muslim, in no particular order — or maybe the order matters. The location was a military base in Texas. The hero  was a local policewoman. So many stories, so much analysis, so few new angles. Once again, mainstream media is obsessing.

Health care legislation may not solve problem of rising costs: I admit that while championing a solution that would provide health care for the uninsured, I foolishly believed Congress and the White House might also be able to craft legislation that addressed the runaway cost of health care. Was I wrong? Tell me I was wrong. Otherwise, what the hell are we doing? Obama_health-care_Congress_Sept102009

Republican candidates win gubernatorial races in Virginia, New Jersey: First governorsof all, these victories do not represent an indictment of Obama; rather, the Democratic candidates represented an indictment of incompetancy. Second, New Jersey is exceptional; that is, exceptionally corrupt. If the virus is spreading, however, I have to rethink this whole third party thing.

Joe Jackson petitions son Michael’s estate for an allowance:  I have no idea what kind of a fatherJacksonJackson was, except probably a typically show-biz type — all swagger and gaga over the cash cow he produced. Still, he’s now eighty and he’s asking for approximately $180,000 a year, which is probably less than some of the Goldman-Sachs bonuses this year. Give it to him.

Andrea Agassi has “written” a book:  This autobiography apparently contains  shocking revelations about drug use (gasp), fake hairpieces (no) his antipathy for his first wife, AgassiBrookes Shields (oh dear) and his apparent dislike of tennis (oh please). Mostly, it’s noticeable for pull quotes, serialization potential, and the overtly earthly presence of its “ghost” writer. It’s sure to be a best-seller.

Now hand me the Kleenex and turn off the light on your way out.

sick

churchlady02 copyMy next door neighbor’s son Jason was crestfallen when he got the memo  from school about this year’s pc Halloween celebration: no vampires, no zombies, no monsters, no devils; no swords or stakes or axes or ropes or hockey masks with breathing holes. Forget the fake blood or the green slime or the dripping claws or the sticky cobwebs or the black goo or dressing like his horror film namesake. “Positive images only,” said the school memo, with helpful suggestions like “Winnie the Poo,  Cinderella, Tinkerbell, or Marley” (presumably  before his death scene). To make things worse, no weapons of any kind, even for the heroes. I understand school is supposed to be a safe place, but what’s a nine year old boy to do? vamp

I volunteered to brainstorm with the boy one afternoon, little suspecting that Jason had already assembled a list of potential figures he could impersonate.

I felt a kind of sickening dread as I scanned the list. My heart pounded against my ribcage as my breath caught in my throat. The sound of blood roared in my ears and for a moment I couldn’t see.

“How did you come up with these names?” I managed to whisper.

“Pretty good, right?” Jason asked slyly.

These are the list of possible Halloween costumes each and every one designed to strike fear into the hearts of most sane…adults.

The Financier Bernie Madoff       Madoff

The Balloon Boyballoon-boyjpg-f36e89c1e27f427f_large

an airline pilot with a laptop  pilotlaptop

Mark Sanford or Rod Blagojevich

Blago Sanford

Sarah Palin as an author or Kate Gosselin as a talk show host

Palin Gosselin

At the end of the day, Jason decided to go as a 401K plan.

Pretty scary.

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

According to the weekly news index from Pew Research, Afghanistan has become the focus of both old and new media – at least until some cute video of a pet or a baby starts circulating or some reality show contestant starts complaining, at which point new media will take a sharp detour. I’ve been hesitant to blog about international affairs recently. So many people do it so much better (see Steve Clemons’ Washington Note) and what can I add? Or perhaps I should say: where’s the challenge? How hard is it to criticize a policy in flux? Like shooting fish in a barrel – one of my least favorite images, by the way, as it manages to encompass both cruelty and an excessive use of firepower to prove a point.

Still, I’m going to toss in my two cents, though I risk pointing out the obvious, over-simplifying the situation, and boring my readers to tears. We all need to be at least superficially up to speed before we can determine, not only what we want our country to do in Afghanistan, but also why we always seem to end up in these positions.

QUICK AND SIMPLE HISTORY UPDATE

Afghanistan is a country with a complex history. Landlocked, the area has been at the crossroads of competing eastern and western, religious and secular empires for centuries. For the last thirty years, it has been in a continuous state of civil war. In the late seventies, the secular government in Afghanistan was also viewed as pro-Soviet. The U.S. Cold War strategy at the time was to covertly support the “other” side in order to counter Soviet influence in the Persian gulf. In the case of Afghanistan, our 80ssupport went to a loose but ideologically conservative coalition of religious leaders and tribal leaders – the mujahideen. The Soviets then countered with an invasion to shore up their friends in the government, the United States began to arm the anti-communist factions (which also received aid from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and a horrible civil was broke out in which between half a million and two million Afghan citizens were killed. You can check at any one of dozens of sites on Afghan recent history (even Wikipedia is more or less up to date) or you can watch the infinitely enjoyable CW's war copy“Charlie Wilson’s War” starring Tom Hanks, Philip Hoffman Seymour and Julia Roberts. I leave it to you.

Although the United States may have assumed an ideological victory (as Charlie Wilson never did), it became clear, with the fall of the Soviet Union, that we might have backed the wrong horse. The Taliban wreaked havoc on the citizenry in its zeal to bring everyone in line with the supposed dictates of a particular brand of fundamentalism, resulting in not only a mass exodus of intellectuals but also a repressive regime that removed freedoms, violates human rights and reduced women to second-class citizens.

OUR POST 9/11 WAR

The United States’ activities in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks were called “Operation Enduring Freedom” a military campaign to destroy presumed Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. 301px-US_Army_Afghanistan_2006The U.S. also sought to overthrow the Taliban government because they were presumably harboring Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members, although documents show that Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia – that would be our current adversary and our former one. The Taliban was ousted, the secular leader Hamid Karzai was made the 225px-Hamid_Karzai_in_February_2009transitional chairman of the newly installed government, then became president in 2004.

AND NOW…

In a few words: Taliban resurgence, particularly in the countryside, an spike in illegal drug activity, corruption charges against the present government currently enjoying U.S. largesse, voting fraud and human rights violations still occurring and the Afghan people – and our foreign policy – once again caught between a rock and a hard place. The Afghan government is neither reliable nor trusted by the people. The extent of our ability to force change appears limited. Even Joe Biden is dismayed. What we have is money to withhold and manpower to withdraw. We can just say no, or as Tom Friedman suggested in his NY Times op-ed piece, tell the government to shape up or we ship out. And do it.

We might also consider asking (or demanding or forcing) our own strategic thinkers to get to work redefining their own terminology with respect to our policy in Afghanistan and indeed around the world. What does it mean to choose sides? What does a victory look like? How do we propose to battle an ideology? What do we think will make the United States safe, what with poorly protected facilities, ill-defined immigration policies, poor follow-up for visas and other home protection issues that need attention? Can we say we’ve seriously considered a wholesale revamping of our foreign policy and military approaches to make those approaches at once more robust and more practical?

Or shall we continue as always, with an either/or, add more, subtract more, we won/we lost mentality? Shall we continue to send our troops into harm’s way while our leaders dither about what a sustainable foreign policy in the twenty-first century looks like and the rest of us dither about whatever it’s easiest to absorb?

That seems almost too easy – like shooting fish in a barrel.fish

twitterblackberryUSEA friend of mine alerted me yesterday to the hoopla surrounding a tweet from entrepreneur and career counselor to young women, Penelope Trunk, who posted the following last week: ”I’m in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there’s a fucked-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin.” 

The tweet has sparked controversy throughout the blogosphere, particularly on women’s sites, from feminist protesting Trunk’s cavalier approach to abortion to concerns about the appropriateness of the material. Amanda Marcotte, controversial blogger and pot-stirrer par excellence, supported the tweet as “an elegant instance of the power of Twitter.” 

Comments ranged from the predictable “gross!” to the sympathetic “perhaps this is how she expresses her grief” and naturally, the moral implications of abortion have been front and center. 

My first question is: in our brave (or perhaps I should say, narcissistic) world of full and immediate disclosure, is anything off-limits?

I’ve always said that if content disturbs you, you are free to ignore it. In the good old days of print journalism, the “naughty” magazines came in brown wrappers and movies were (and still are, sort of) rated so you knew what you were getting into – or not.

But tweets go to the followers, who send them to others, who dissect and analyze them and then forward them to all sorts of outlets. How could I – or my nine-year-old niece – have avoided this tweet? Do I want her thinking everyone is (or should be) this seemingly easy-going about a miscarriage or an abortion? Will she be fooled into thinking these issues come with no more emotional complications than perhaps irritation or relief?

Trunk argues that miscarriage is a fact of life and life intrudes on work, and you can’t manage the balance if you can’t talk about it. I agree. Lots of things are facts of life: the messiness of grief, the reality of resenting one’s  offspring, the gracelessness of aging, or petty pleasure one occasionally takes from seeing someone else fail. Maybe these things do need to come out in the open. Besides, tweeting about the taboo is a great career-booster.

But to my second question: can you really describe anything important in 140 characters?

Gender and Power

I’m leery of generalizations chiefly because I’ve found so many exceptions. Still, it’s hard to look at certain kinds of behavior as reported in the news and not think, “Not again!” or even”WTF?”

20090914LADIES-BIn India, it’s become so difficult for women to commute to work without getting groped, hassled, or hit on; the government has added women-only commuter trains in the country’s four largest cities. Two-thirds of Egyptian menadmit to harassing women. And in democratic Israel, ultra-Orthodox “modesty patrols” have attacked, beaten and stoned women they deemed unchaste. Note these are all democracies.

The very concept of women as prey drives me crazy, and so does the idea that women are at fault for being, well, women. Either we end up with epidemic sexual harassment and/or violence agtemptressainst women, or we end up with social, religious, or civil laws dictating  what women may or may not do, in order to protect not only the women but also the men, who cannot help but respond to the temptations offered by the presence of a female. 

On my less charitable days, I find myself asking: have men no self-control?

When I posted this question on another site, I was bombarded with explanations about gender and nmantisature and normal impulses and where guys locate their brains as contrasted with women. I was reminded of the female praying mantis, who allows the male to impregnate her and then kills him), or the black widow spider. Someone mentioned female stalkers.

Forget nature for a minute; I’m not talking about survival instincts, which in the animal kingdom don’t involve either malice or intent. And leave aside individuals who are likely sociopaths. Let’s talk about culture and upbringing and how we value women. Most of you reading this, male and female, will (I hope) know that attraction does not have to equal action and that men can be – and have been -brought up to understand the difference between mutual consent and unwanted advances. We might even take it for granted that if a woman gets pinched by a man in the New York subway, he’ll be pummeled to the floor.

Yet, as male elected officials continue to publicly humiliate  their wives while lying about how they spend their supporters’ time and money, I have to think again about gender and power and the choices men and women make, and who they blame for their choices.20edwards1a_190

We’ve come away but we’ve away to go.

Uncivil Society

Today’s headline in USA Today reads as follows: “What Happened to Civility?” At the risk of sounding rude: hahaha, oh that’s a good one, ROFLOL.

Our current rash of incivility is nothing new but it does seem at times to be particularly threatening. Look at what the last decade has wrought: a rash of angry, impassioned (or calculating) commentators, all with access to airwaves or broadband and many espousing a so-called “conservative” point of view. Their idea of free expression consists of name-calling and their expression of ideas boils down to inane invective that makes Triumph the Insult Dog look like Gandhi. Triumph-Insult-Dog-w02Since appeals to reason apparently aren’t appealing in the least, we are treated instead to Anne Coulter’s “towel-heads,” Bill O’Reilly’s “traitors,” Glenn Beck’s “racists” and Rush Limbaugh’s – I don’t even know where to begin.

The other “side” – um, non-conservative – has been feeling the heat. Not wanting to be seen as weak, they’ve responded by hauling out a big brush in order to paint all Republicans as “wing nuts” and “crazies” or even “big fat liars.” As a certified ECL (east coast liberal, although I was born in the Midwest and “liberal” means open to discussion), it’s hard not to resort to naughty words to describe the crap that sometimes comes out of Sean Hannity’s mouth – or Michelle Bachman’s, for that matter. I refrain because name-calling, while easy, says nothing and solves nothing .

This week seems to be focused on the outbursts of three well-known people – well, two who are well-known and one who is gleefully capitalizing on his new-found fame, it would appear. I’m not sure whether Serena William’s outburst was more understandable than, say, Joe Wilson’s or whether Kanye West’s behavior was more calculated than the other two. In fact, I wish the media would stop expending so much energy trying to analyze these particular episodes or label them as harbingers of a decline in civility.brawl

I would suggest that the common thread that ties these outbursts to together is a sense of entitlement. We’re all “free” to say or do whatever we want. After all, we’re just expressing our true feelings or we’re giving voice to the honest emotions of others. I don’t know that trying to intimidate a young singer or a court side judge, or interrupting a speech and then turning it into a PR opportunity qualifies as particularly “honest.” But it’s much worse to deliver information selectively in order to manipulate public opinion.

politicalcartoonIncivility has always existed in public, particularly political life. Our democratic tradition has proved to be messy at times. Britain’s House of Commons has hosted some particularly nasty fights. In this country, earlier presidential campaigns were brawls (or duels: Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton to death after Hamilton’s interference prevented Burr from becoming vice-president; talk about a sore loser). The newspapers in our nation’s early years were overtly partisan vehicles for disseminating not just a candidate’s platform but gossip, rumor and innuendo concerning his opponent. In the fifties, Joe McCarthy held sway in my home state of Wisconsin and nothing says rude like being called a Communist – and denied your livelihood.

Maybe it’s not worse. Yet I could swear vitriol is raining down on us these days. We’re almost at the point where we can’t even pretend we’re exchanging ideas within the context of an open democracy because we’re not. We’re ranting, folks. The proliferation of outlets for self-expression means there are more places than ever to roll in the mud or sling it every which way. If we aren’t down and dirty, we’re analyzing every single outburst to death; actually we’re giving bad behavior life after death.

I believe vigorous debating is healthy; it hones our critical thinking skills, opens us up to other people’s ideas and may produce highly satisfying outcomes, like the Torah, the U.S. Constitution or agreement on who to vote off the island or into the semi-finals. But these outbursts and the lengthier diatribes don’t represent debate but the triumph of raw feeling. We must be heard so we will be outrageous; outrageous has more entertainment value. The disease has gone viral; we’re all ready for a fight.

Have we always had each other on the ropes or by the throats? Are we doomed to live in states of red and blue and see everything in black or white? Is there anyone refereeing or are we all too busy renouncing one another? I’m all for differences of opinion, but do we have to be so friggin’ rude about it? yelling

We act as if discussion is for sissies and reasoning is for wimps. Everything gets reduced to the level of a barroom slugfest. We must know such behavior is not humanity at its best and has the potential to be dangerous but we persist.

Bigot! Traitor! Pansy! Hate-monger! Racist! Socialist! Loser liberal! Fundamentalist fanatic! You idiot! Says who? Says me! Shut up! No, you shut up!

What we need is a giant time out. Everyone shut up. If you can’t stop acting like self-involved idiots, you will be sent to your rooms and you will stay there until you can behave civilly.

Back Soon

Dear readers: I’m taking a break from posting until after Labor Day in order to work on final edits for my new book and plan for upcoming projects. This blog may have a home at another address; I will also be blogging in other locations. I promise to let you know if you’ll let me know the best way to keep you up to date (if you’re on Facebook or you have Google Reader or use RSS, it’s easy. If what I just wrote has you puzzled or terrified, we’ll need to talk).

Beginning about this time of year, I find I’m on a roller-coaster ride of emotions. Some of that is fairly recent, the result of the forever after anniversary that can’t help but bring back, if not the pain itself, then the memories of that pain. Much of it these days relates to my awareness that much more of my own time is behind me than ahead of me; just the thought of being in “the autumn of my years” could bring me unaccountably low.

beach1But ingrained in me is the sense that autumn is a time of transition; not the beginning of the end, but the beginning of something else. Autumn is part of a cycle, one we all experience differently, depending on where we are, who we are, and how we look at what we’re doing. It’s as possible to transition to something more meaningful, more remarkable, or more significant than it is to do anything else.

The secret to my autumn, I’m beginning to understand, is to focus on what can be done. Gone is gone, past is past, and the future is unpredictable. So I go into September as always, with a flexible game plan and a set of goals,  which include staying aware, alert and curious about what is to come. Hey, you never know.

See you in September.  sunsetbeach

Older Posts »