objecting

I hate posting at night! I'm back to mornings.

In keeping with wmtc's war theme, Bob Herbert's column today relates to what I posted recently about trying to see war for what it is.

It's the sickening reality that is seldom seen in the censored, sanitized version of the conflict that Americans typically get from the government and the media.

Americans' attitude toward war in general and this war in particular would change drastically if the censor's veil were lifted and the public got a sustained, close look at the agonizing bloodshed and other horrors that continue unabated in Iraq. If that happened, support for any war that wasn't an absolute necessity would plummet.

Herbert also touches on an aspect of war I think about a lot: its effect on the warriors. The post-combat troubles of servicepeople are well documented, and post-traumatic stress is only the beginning. Veterans, compared with the general public, have soaring rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression and suicide. The pain, and the energy it takes to suppress it, must be enormous.

If this is true for "normal" warfare, whatever that means, I wonder how it compares for servicepeople who were party to the atrocities that so frequently accompany it. I think of this as "check your values at the door".

Think of normal college students who take part in a fraternity gang rape. Each young man alone is probably not a rapist. If his date doesn't want to have sex, or is passed-out from drinking, he probably doesn't force her anyway. But subject to group-think and the climate of the moment, he is transformed.

How does he live with it afterwards? Where does it go? While I would never compare the rapist to the raped, the abuser to the abused, I believe that when humans stoop to the lowest of their potential, they pay a price, too.

The people who took part in Abu Ghraib will pay that price. Obviously not through the legal system, as we're seeing, but within themselves. Their country betrayed them by putting them in that position, requiring of them what no one should be asked to do: to brutalize other human beings.

Back to Bob Herbert. He interviewed Aidan Delgado, a 23-year-old reservist who, after finishing his tour in Iraq, sought and received conscientious objector status. Delgado talks about the photos. Everyone wants to see the photos.

Some of the most disturbing photos in his possession were taken after G.I.'s at Abu Ghraib opened fire on detainees who had been throwing rocks at guards during a large protest. Four detainees were killed. The photos show American soldiers posing and goofing around with the bodies of the detainees.

In one shot a body bag has been opened to show the gruesome head wound of the corpse. In another, a G.I. is leaning over the top of the body bag with a spoon in his right hand, as if he is about to scoop up a portion of the dead man's wounded flesh.

. . .

Mr. Delgado said that when his unit was first assigned to Abu Ghraib, he believed, like most of his fellow soldiers, that the prisoners were among the most dangerous individuals in Iraq.

He said: "Most of the guys thought, 'Well, they're out to kill us. These are the ones killing our buddies.' "

But while at work in a headquarters office, he said, he learned that most of the detainees at Abu Ghraib had committed only very minor nonviolent offenses, or no offenses at all. (Several investigations would subsequently reveal that vast numbers of completely innocent Iraqis were seized and detained by coalition forces.)

Whenever I write about the torture and atrocities, someone generally comments how this always takes place during war. That is true. But is that an excuse? Should the United States, as the self-appointed arbiter of What's Good In The World, throw up its hands and say, hey, it happens? What would the US do if photos like these surfaced of Americans in the hands of Iraqis?

Or perhaps we should treat all criminal acts that way? Rape? Well, it's always been with us, since humans' earliest days. Oh well, boys will be boys. Theft, murder, embezzlement - you name it. It happens all the time. Oh, well. Shrug and move on.

Aidan Delgado is doing what he can.

Several months ago Mr. Delgado gave a talk and presented a slide show at his school, New College of Florida in Sarasota. To his amazement, 400 people showed up. He has given a number of talks since then in various parts of the country.

His goal, he said, is to convince his listeners that the abuse of innocent Iraqis by the American military is not limited to "a few bad apples," as the military would like the public to believe. "At what point," he asked, "does a series of 'isolated incidents' become a pattern of intolerable behavior?"

The public at large and especially the many soldiers who have behaved honorably in Iraq deserve an honest answer to that question. It took many long years for the military to repair its reputation after Vietnam. Mr. Delgado's complaints and the entire conduct of this wretched war should be thoroughly investigated.

Herbert's column here. Veterans (and their families) against the war here, here and here, among other places.

uniquely american

Richard Schwartz of New York's Daily News helps New Yorkers kick off "Cover the Uninsured Week". (Thanks ALPF. I went back to the source.) In "One Nation, Uninsured," he writes:

The U.S. spends 15.5% of its gross domestic product on health care, about $1.7 trillion a year. No other country comes close. Yet for all that money - equal to the entire economic output of France - approximately 45 million Americans go without health insurance.

By the way, in France, which on a per capita basis spends about half what we do on health care, everyone is insured. In fact, under France's universal health system, patients can visit doctors, even specialists, virtually any time they wish.

That explains why thousands of New Yorkers will be converging at scores of sites across the city today to kick off "Cover the Uninsured Week," a nationwide effort to focus attention on the millions of uninsured Americans.

It's a uniquely American event, since in the rest of the industrialized world, where universal coverage is the norm, health care is considered a basic human right. But in the 50 United States, I guess health care is a frill. It shows. We're only No. 22 among industrialized nations in life expectancy (77 years). Japan is No. 1 at 81 years. We're No. 25 in infant mortality rate (6.8 infant deaths per 1,000 births). Sweden leads with only 3.5 deaths per 1,000.

. . .

Think shifting health spending entirely onto the shoulders of Uncle Sam won't make a difference? Wrong. National health would save us nearly $250 billion a year on administration alone. That's the difference between the 20% we spend on administration versus the 4% to 7% nations like France, Britain and Canada spend.

A columnist for the Daily News is making a pitch for single-payer! If I didn't know better, I'd call this a tipping point. But since I do, I'll just thank Mr Schwartz for covering the event.

free country

Since I'm so pressed for time these days, I'll borrow a post from two of my favorite bloggers, TJ at Welcome To Gilead and Redsock at In Cold Blog. (You guys often post about the same stuff.)

It's not a new story, but it's an important one, and it can't get too much coverage - since the blogosphere seems to be the only place it exists. From Ted Rall:

They've vanished into the netherworld of a Homeland Security gulag and their story has already disappeared from the headlines, but the shocking case of two 16-year-old girls from New York City arrested a month ago ought to inspire outrage among every American worthy of the name. Since the government's reasons for the girls' imprisonment could apply to virtually any teenager, it should also spark fear.

. . .

Without a warrant, NYPD detectives and federal agents burst into the girl's home--no wonder they don't have time to look for Osama!--where they "searched her belongings and confiscated her computer and the essays that she had written as part of a home schooling program," say her family. "One essay concerned suicide...[that] asserted that suicide is against Islamic law." The family is Bangladeshi. They are Muslim. That, coupled with the mere mention of suicide bombing in her essay, was enough to put the fuzz on high alert.

Although she is conservative and devout, the girl and her parents vigorously deny that she is an Islamist extremist (not that such opinions are illegal), but this is post-9/11 America and post-9/11 America is out of its mind.

Based solely on an essay written by one of the two, the FBI says both girls are "an imminent threat to the security of the United States based upon evidence that they plan to become suicide bombers." But the feds admit that they have no evidence to back their suspicions. Nothing.

. . .

Homes searched without a warrant, kids thrown in prison for thoughts real and imagined, people's lives destroyed by an out-of-control federal government--will Americans speak up for what's right? Please call and write your congressman and senator to demand the release of the two girls from Queens.

Read Rall's story here.

Here's another good one from Rall on how your vote - and your blog - can get you fired. Doesn't matter if it never interferes with your work. It's discriminatory, and in some states, it's perfectly legal. P.S. Rall decries this dangerous intrusion into our personal lives from any ideology or political party. There are examples from all the Republicrats.

rewriting

Kyle posted a comment about the new War Museum opening this week in Ottawa. The Museum's mandate:

The Canadian War Museum, the national military history museum, is a living memorial to those men and women who served in Canada's armed forces. It is also a centre for research and the dissemination of information and expertise on all aspects of the country's military past from the pre-contact era to the present. It preserves the artifacts of Canadian military experience, interprets them for present and future generations, and advances the professional study of Canadian military history, including the effects of war and conflict on the nation and all its citizens. [emphasis mine]

Since I read and think a lot about war - why wars are fought, how they effect us - this seems pretty interesting, especially since it aims to present a full history, not a sanitized or glorified one.

It's amazing what can get sanitized when it contradicts The Message. Did you know that the original Godzilla movies contained political meaning that has never been seen in the US? I imagine sci-fi folks and Godzilla-heads already knew this, but I'd never come across it before. From the New York Times' Brent Staples:

A fire-breathing reptile is pretty much the same in any language. But the butchered version of the film that swept the world after release in the United States was stripped of the political subtext - and the anti-American, antinuclear messages - that had saturated the original. The uncut version of the film is due out on home video early next year, and should push serious Godzilla fans to rethink the 50-year evolution of the series. It should also show them that they were hoodwinked by the denatured Americanized version that dominated many of their childhoods in the late 20th century. . . .

The original "Gojira" was never intended as a conventional monster-on-the-loose movie. Nor did it resemble the farcical rubber-suit wrestling matches or the domesticated movies (with Godzilla cast as a mammoth household pet) that the series degenerated into during the 1960's and 70's.

As the historian William Tsutsui reminded us in last year's cult classic, "Godzilla on My Mind," the 1954 movie was a dark, poetic production that dealt openly with Japanese misgivings about the nuclear menace, environmental degradation and the traumatic experience associated with World War II.

The nuclear annihilations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still fresh in mind when the famous Toho Company embarked on the "Gojira" project in 1954. . . .

It's a great little piece called "Godzilla vs. the Giant Scissors: Cutting the Antiwar Heart Out of a Classic"; read it here.

More info about the original, uncut Godzilla is here, including links to some of the ink its gotten.

****

Right now there is construction (or demolition?) going on across the street from us. I'm losing my mind. A glass of red wine and a baseball game is the only solution.

the ultimate hypocrisy

You all know how I love to blog about hypocrisy. Well, this one just blew me away.

I've long known that many women on the front lines of the anti-choice movement have had abortions. In this article, the Pro-Choice Action Network of Canada, has documented some of their stories.

++++++

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion": When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur (copyright © September 2000)

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

++++++

Read it here. Go. Read.

what i'm reading: nadine gordimer, peter matthiessen, amelia earhart

Nadine Gordimer's July's People was excellent. In addition to its incredibly nuanced understanding of relationships and identity, the ending was positively chilling, not something I will soon forget.

By coincidence, the next book kept me in Africa: Peter Matthiessen's African Silences. Matthiessen is one of those larger-than-life people. He's written dozens of books, both fiction and nonfiction, and has a parallel career as an explorer and naturalist. He was also one of the founders, with George Plimpton, of the legendary Paris Review.

I've read two of his novels - At Play in the Fields of the Lord and Killing Mister Watson - and loved them both. Both books deal with the destruction of environments, and links that to the degradation of people's souls. They are also terrific reads - colorful, suspenseful, powerful.

Yet for some reason, I just cannot read Matthiessen's nonfiction. I have tried several books, several times each (let it never be said I don't give a book a chance!), and simply cannot get through them. So after wanting to read African Silences since it came out in 1992, I could not. It's about Matthiessen's many African expeditions and the annihilation of the large mammals there (elephants, rhinos, gorillas). I wanted to like it, but...

Here's something Matthiessen wrote about the war on Iraq. Unfortunately, it's not dated.

After I gave up on the elephants, the library informed me that another book I've wanted to read for ages has come in. (I'm totally loving this request-online system.) It's Still Missing, a feminist biography of Amelia Earhart, by Susan Ware. Earhart fascinates me - something I have in common with my idol (and all-time favorite Canadian), Joni Mitchell.

According to Ware, the mystery of Earhart's disappearance overshadows her life and considerable achievements, and she tries to "rescue Amelia from the cult of her disappearance" within a feminist perspective. I'll let you know how it goes.

expatria

"More Americans than ever before have decided America is no longer their home."

So reports an AP article in South Carolina's The State newspaper. ('Cause remember, you can't spell ALPF without AP.)

These Americans aren't only going to Canada. They're going all over the world.

They've put down roots abroad, from Cuba to the United Kingdom. They're in Germany, in the Philippines, in Israel.

If they were a U.S. state — call it Expatria — its population, some 4 million Americans, would place it right in the middle, along with Kentucky and South Carolina.

Expatriates, citizens of this floating, far-flung state, are changing the very definition of "American."

As someone who believes that word needs some serious redefining, I'll say that's good news.

Not all the movement is political, but some of it is:

They fall in love with a foreigner, or with an exotic place or culture. They are looking for an adventure, or for a cheaper place to live. They go because their job is there, or because their heart is no longer here. Or, like Glen Rubenstein, they have given up on the American political system.

"It seemed too hopeless a future to me," battling for a liberal agenda in a country that has become so conservative, he says. And so last year, he, his wife and their two children gave up their lives in Brooklyn and moved to Montreal.

Note to self: invite Rubensteins for drink with Nick and Mason...

The article discusses what it means to be an American expatriate. Read more here.

new moving to canada blog

After the 2004 election, I got a flurry of email from people interested in moving to Canada. The first person to contact me was Nick from Colorado - and Nick was also the first person, out of everyone who wrote, to actually act on the idea. Now he has an application in the CIC queue - he and his partner are moving to Toronto!

Though we don't know each other well, I know we are kindred spirits. One day Nick and Mason and Allan and Laura will meet for a drink in our new city.

Nick and Mason have started a blog to keep track of their emigration experience and to update friends and family after they move. (Seems to me that was the original purpose of this blog!) It's called Destination: 43:40:12N 79:22:12W. Pay them a visit when you have a moment.

I've also reorganized the "friends of wmtc" links into alphabetical order. They had been in some kind of vague order in which people found me, but that was getting ridiculous. Now I've conformed to what seems to be the blogosphere standard. (That's me, always the conformist!) If you're reading wmtc and I don't know your blog, please send it to me so I can link to you.

That's it for this morning. More from me later tonight.

re-runs

I wear a button on my backpack that says: "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam". Every day this becomes clearer to me. Danny Schechter, of MediaChannel.org, writes in detail about the parallel, and about how the mainstream media ignores the connections.

The word is Vietnam.

Its absence was never more noticeable than in the coverage this past weekend of the 30th anniversary of the Vietnam war, marked in Vietnam with celebrations, but largely ignored in America where CNN led with the story of a bride who went missing when she had second thoughts.

Is this denial or is it deliberate? Just this past month, the national Smithsonian Museum of American History installed a new patriotically correct permanent war-positive exhibition, "The Price of Freedom: Americans at War."

If you want to know about the pain of the war official America wants you to forget, you have to head a few blocks south on the mall in Washington to the Vietnam memorial with its nearly 60,000 names engraved in black marble. That's where you will see the tears of visitors every day and their lingering memories three decades later.

I've blogged about this before. My brother was draft age during Vietnam. It was always a concern in our home: how would he get out of it? One of my earliest political memories is of Walter Cronkite's newscast, with the three flags in the upper right corner - American, South Vietnamese, North Vietnamese - with a supposed body count of the day next to each. My parents would watch in sober silence, or shaking their heads, jaws clenched. One of my next political memories is attending an anti-war rally with my father.

Schechter lists a dozen parallels between the two wars. Read the whole thing here.

godstuff

David Cho recently asked me:

As liberal Democrats are undergoing soul searching after the 2004 election, some are talking about reframing the debate to inject morals into their positions in order to fight the perception that liberals are "anti-morals."

For example, they think they should say it is "immoral" to deny access to health care or equal marriage rights in this case. What do you think?

As you know, I do not believe that conservatives have cornered the market on morals.

We discussed the role of morality in politics (which reminds me of an earlier discussion on wmtc about George Lakoff's ideas.) I was finding it difficult to articulate my problem with approaching politics through morality. Fortunately, G came to my rescue:

If the whole political sphere becomes solely about morals, we are all doomed because at the end of the day, morals are entirely subjective. . . .

The law, on the other hand, is objective and is in place to essentially uphold a society's morality.

It's easy when there is an overwhelming majority in favor of one side. Where this becomes sticky is the situation in which certain moral viewpoints are split across a society, and there is no overwhelming majority for any side of the issue. Few will argue that murder is moral, hence the laws against it are not overly contested; however, viewpoints on issues such as gay marriage are pretty evenly split. Which moral view is then upheld in law? In a democratic society, that becomes a tough issue to handle. Can a large enough majority be won over on the issue? Can it be determined that a part of society is wrong on the issue, hence drafting it into law without an overwhelming majority supporting it? If so, how?

Where this becomes dangerous is when leaders invoke their own personal morality into law without consideration for one or either side(s) of the debate - cardinal sin #1 in a democracy.

I would also add that sometimes laws must be changed without the support of a majority, in order to build a greater democracy and uphold the promise of the Constitution. For example, the US couldn't wait for the majority of Americans to become comfortable with ending legal racial segregation. (Cross-reference to gay marriage here...)

All this got me thinking about how religion is used, especially how it's being used right now, as neoconservatives claiming religiosity re-fashion our society.

I have known many people who are devoutly religious and also extremely liberal or progressive. The people I'm thinking of are all African-Americans who I've met through my work as a word-processor in law firms for the past 15 years. They are not "casual Christians". Their faith is a major part of their life. They vote Democrat and would probably support a more liberal party if there was one.

The Haven Coalition has had several members who are observant Jews, including two rabbis (one male, one female). Some are lesbians, all are feminists. All are radically pro-choice and pro-equality, that is, they believe people should have equal rights regardless of sexual orientation. (Hint: that means they support gay marriage!)

These are but a few examples from my own life. Historically, we all know about the role religion has played in freedom movements, from the American civil rights movement to Bishop Tutu of South Africa to the liberation theology of Central American priests. I've plugged Jim Wallis's book several times in this blog. Two other books that had a profound influence on me politically were authored by nuns: Dead Man Walking by Helen Prejean and No Turning Back by Patricia Hussey and Barbara Ferraro, who resigned from their order over the church's inflexibility on abortion. (Catholics for Free Choice have an excellent website, by the way.)

But as you know, I don't have religion in my life. I was raised as a Jew, and still identify as Jewish as my ethnicity, but I'm an atheist. My activism and worldview don't come through faith. I was raised in a Jewish household that was actively liberal, but politics and religion were not connected, except in the belief that Jews, having been persecuted, should stand beside oppressed people everywhere.

The mainstream media's casting of religion as conservative - and liberalism as anti-religion - is so disturbing, and so outrageously incorrect.

may day

Today is May Day, the international workers' day.

We working people keep this world running, be it in a hospital, a factory, a subway or behind a computer. See what workers around the world are doing to celebrate: google news about May Day 2005.

teen endangerment act

Two letters in the New York Times opposed to CIANA:

To the Editor:

Re "House Tightens Parental Rule for Abortions" (front page, April 28):

Given that the parents of the pregnant girl had no say in her becoming pregnant, why should they determine whether she chooses to terminate the pregnancy?

This is just another example of zealots who, in pursuit of their own agenda, press to put Big Brother in our bedrooms, doctors' offices, drugstores, libraries and schools, while proclaiming they want smaller government and less government interference in our lives.

Beatrice Williams-Rude
New York, April 28, 2005

•

To the Editor:

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does nothing to discourage young women from having abortions. All it does, in fact, is make abortions more dangerous.

Those who see abortion as a moral issue should address the problem at its root instead of placing the safety of women in jeopardy. Politicians often fail to honor complexity when they "solve problems." Simple solutions to complex problems, however, erupt.

How about focusing upon improving sex education for young women and men? How about teaching them about safe sex earlier?

Those of us who oppose this bill are not "pro-abortion." We are pro-safety, pro-education and pro-dialogue in the face of complexity.

David Tolley
New Haven, April 28, 2005

I'll add this question to Mr Tolley's: how about facing reality? Teenage girls do get pregnant. Many of them won't want to or be able to become mothers yet, and can't confide in their parents. Let's not make criminals out of the other caring adults in their lives.

Maybe she'll tell her parents one day, when it's all over. Maybe she never will. Let's give her all the options we would want for ourselves.

Also, please read more about the implications of this law in your own state.

lunacy

"Why can't I make my own decision?"

That was the blunt question to a judge from a pregnant 13-year-old girl ensnared in a Palm Beach County court fight over whether she can have an abortion.

"I don't know," Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez replied, according to a recording of the closed hearing obtained Friday.

"You don't know?" replied the girl, who is a ward of the state. "Aren't you the judge?"

A thirteen year old girl is making her case before a Florida judge, in an effort to expel a blob of cells from her own uterus.

This country is completely insane.

The girl, however, is tough and smart, and she makes a good case for herself. Read the story here.

Among the many injustices embedded in this story is how the laws restricting abortions disproportionately affect low-income women. A 24-hour waiting period is not a big deal - unless you don't have a car or child care, and you had to beg a ride to the clinic in the first place, and now you have no one to watch your children and no way to make that second trip. The 24-hour wait becomes 2 weeks as you make these arrangements. But now the procedure costs twice as much. And may no longer be legal in your state.

If this teenage girl came from a middle-class home, would this be happening to her?

tune in

Yes, I know, I'm not supposed to be here this morning! I'm on my way to the library right now. This is just a quick post to alert you to watch TV tonight and Sunday. If you blog, please ask others to do the same. From the ACLU:

Two leading TV shows this weekend that will feature interviews with ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. On both programs, Anthony will discuss the ongoing abuse of detainees and prisoners in U.S. military custody, and the erosion of America's moral leadership in the wake of continuing disclosures of abuse.

Tune in this weekend:

Friday, April 29: PBS "NOW" at 8:30 pm ET and again Sunday at 11:00 pm ET (check local listings)

Sunday, May 1: CBS "60 Minutes" at 7:00 pm ET (check local listings)

The ACLU has played a pivotal role in bringing the abuse and torture carried out by the United States government to light. These two appearances allow Anthony to address specific allegations of torture and the lack of accountability at the highest levels, even a year after the photographs from Abu Ghraib became public.

In Friday's "NOW" segment, Anthony will be among a number of experts discussing detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and in Afghanistan. On Sunday, May 1, Anthony will appear in a "60 Minutes" segment detailing the use of sexually suggestive tactics to humiliate and coerce Muslim men held at Guantanamo Bay. Anthony will speak out powerfully against the use of these tactics and explain their connections to the wider practice of torture and abuse developed and condoned by our government.

Read more about the ACLU's fight against torture and abuse here.

Have a great day and I'll look forward to catching up on comments tonight!

closer to our dreams

Two fun stories from ALPF, who continues to make my life easier.

In the first, we see the link between the possible NDP-Liberal deal and gay marriage. One thing that's often lost in the American discussion of Canadian gay marriage is that gay marriage is already legal in seven of ten Canadian provinces, and there's legislation pending in an eighth. The federal bill would extend it nationwide. That's significant, and it should happen, but from what I gather - and not just from Rob - it will happen. The conservative posture against the bill is just that: posturing.

Remember when budding democracies wanted to emulate the United States? These days it seems they have a different role model. ALPF's second story is about the withering of communism's legacy in Russia, and what is envisioned as a replacement.

It will take Russia at least another decade to emerge from its totalitarian past, and when it does, Ambassador Georgiy Mamedov hopes it looks a lot like Canada.

"It will take us another 10 years or 15 years, what it took you 139 years to get where you are today," Mr. Mamedov told The Globe and Mail editorial board yesterday.

The envoy said Russia's only way forward is to build a free and democratic country, "the initial beginnings of a civilized society" that looks like Canada.

"I think that Canada is the closest we have that some people dreamt our country may become. . . . We don't want to become like the United States.

Mr. Mamedov claimed Mr. Putin wasn't waxing nostalgic for the Soviet regime when Putin said, "There are many bad things that you can say about the Soviet Union -- purges, lack of democracy . . . ideological crusades of the power of the state . . . but we had free education, free child care, free medicare -- and now the whole social safety net [has] collapsed."

Shit, here in the US, we have purges, lack of democracy and ideological crusades of state power, plus our whole social safety net has been destroyed! Yeah baby, we've got it all!

I imagine the anonymous commenter who is stalking this blog has just blown a gasket, as I dared to compare the US with the old USSR. Don't worry. I know it was worse there. Here, everyone eats meat and has TVs.

new posting schedule

I've started researching the new book. In an effort to get to the library earlier in the morning - since I run out of steam in the afternoon - I'm going to try blogging in the evening. We'll see if I can multi-task enough to listen to a baseball game, sip a glass of red wine and compose coherent blog posts at the same time. If I can't, it's back to mornings!

Today I spent many hours at a good library in midtown Manhattan, as I will most weekdays for the foreseeable future. I haven't had occasion to do library research in many years; most of research is done by interviewing. So this will be very different, and so far it's fun, if a little more time-pressed than I'm comfortable with.

On a break, I went to beautiful Bryant Park, outside the main branch of the NYPL (the building with the lions), very near the branch I was using. Tulips and magnolias were in bloom, there were lots of people out, it was sunny and cool, it felt great. I thought, this is what I love about living in a city: public life.

On the way home I got a little reminder of what I'm sick of about urban life, as extortionists known as subway musicians held us captive with conga drums while the train went express from 59th to 125th Street.

bravo

I forgot to congratulate the Spanish people on their excellent move. Spain is poised to become the third European country to legalize gay marriage, and the first to do in defiance of its traditional Catholic roots. It's thrilling to see freedom growing before our eyes.

ciana

I preface this post with a reminder: this blog is not a forum to discuss the morality of abortion.

Here's some info about the latest assault on our personal freedom and bodily integrity. It was fully expected, but that doesn't mean we aren't mourning. And fighting.

House Committee Approves Measure Barring Transport Of Minors Across State Lines To Avoid Abortion Parental Notice.

From the Kaiser Family Foundation Daily Reproductive Health Report:

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved 20-13 a measure (HR 748) that would bar the transportation of minors across state lines for the purpose of evading state abortion parental notification or consent laws. The bill, known as the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), would authorize fines or up to one year in prison for people who violate the measure.

The measure includes an exception if an abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant minor and would allow minors to gain judicial bypass from a judge in their home state to avoid parental notification (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 3/21).

Under the bill, doctors who perform abortions on minors from other states also could be subject to penalties. The measure states that abortion providers in states without parental consent laws would be required to attempt to notify in person or by certified mail a parent or legal guardian of any minor abortion patient who is a resident of another state. Parents who are not notified of their minor child's abortion would be able to sue for civil damages. The full House is expected to approve the measure as soon as next week, CQ Today reports. A Senate version of the measure (SB 403), sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), has not yet been heard in committee, according to CQ Today (CQ Today, 4/13).

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) in January said that passing legislation to avoid circumvention of state parental consent or notification laws is one of the top 10 legislative priorities for Republicans in Congress this session (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 3/21).

Proposed Amendments Before approving the measure, the committee rejected three Democrat-offered amendments to the legislation, CQ Today reports.

The panel rejected 12-19 an amendment offered by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) that would have exempted a minor's grandparents or adult siblings from being criminally liable for transporting a minor across state lines for an abortion.

In addition, the committee rejected 12-18 an amendment offered by Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.) that would have exempted bus or taxicab drivers or others in the business of professional transportation from being prosecuted under the measure.

The committee rejected by voice vote an amendment sponsored by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) that would have made an exception for minors whose pregnancies are the result of sex with a parent, guardian or other household family member (CQ Today, 4/13).

[Ed note: In other words, if the teenager is being sexually abused, she still needs her abuser's permission and no other adult can help her. Thousands of pregnancies result from incest and sexual abuse every year.]

From Planned Parenthood Federation:

Take Action! Helping a Loved One Shouldn't Be a Crime
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) would outlaw an older sister, grandmother, or close family friend taking a woman under age 18 across state lines to access abortion services. It would also mandate notification of a parent even in states that have chosen not to enact such a requirement. Urge your representative to vote against CIANA: here.

Of all the restrictions on reproductive freedom, it's the attacks on teenagers that anger me the most. (Which is really saying something.)

It's easy to pick on minors - they can't vote. And it's easy to appeal irrationally to parents' desire to control their children's lives, just at the time when they are losing that control to adulthood.

"If my daughter was pregnant and getting an abortion, I'd want to know!" Then foster a home environment in which she would come to you, rather than hide in fear of punishment and shame.

"My daughter would never get pregnant, so why should I care about that!" Then you are living in a dream world. Don't make us live in yours, too.

"I would never have an abortion and neither will my daughter!" Never is a big word. Millions of women who say that have already had abortions, or will in the future. And your daughter's body doesn't belong to you. It belongs to her.

When, in the not-distant future, the US is divided into totally red states (abortion illegal under all circumstances), totally blue states (abortion legal and accessible - New York, Massachusetts, California, maybe one or two others) and mostly shades of light blue (abortion legal but with myriad obstacles), people like Rick Santorum will attempt to criminalize adult women who cross state lines to have an abortion. It will be blatantly unconstitutional and probably won't pass.

Well, not at first, anyway.

****

New readers, if this post makes you angry - in either direction, you might want to read these posts (republished without link info here).

Without the ability to control our reproductive lives, women can never be full and equal citizens. Therefore, the right to contraception and abortion is the sine qua non of women's freedom.

Women are humans. Women's freedom is human freedom.

the needy friend

In this article from Macleans, Canada resembles that overly needy kid in the school cafeteria, trying to get the cool kids to like her. Or the boyfriend you're trying to shake, whining about giving him one more chance.

Canadians feel like Americans take them for granted and don't know the country well enough, Ambassador Frank McKenna said Tuesday in a strong pro-trade pitch geared to sharpening Canada's image south of the border. . . .

"We want Americans to know us better. Because we look like you, sometimes we think you take us for granted. . . . We feel that we sometimes get lost in the crowd . . . We want you to know that we are your northern neighbour and that we have a lot to be proud of in our own right."

In listing a host of famous Canadians from all walks of life, McKenna said he wants to change U.S. perceptions that Canada merely produces great hockey players.

Oy vey. I wish Canada could just say "fuck it" and not care what the US thinks or does. Canadian wmtc readers have taught me why that can't be; of course the answer is economic, what else?

Still, I can't help but wish the boyfriend wannabee would find the dignity to walk away.

literary manhattan

Randy Cohen, who writes a column called "The Ethicist" for The New York Times Magazine, has an amazing idea.

I propose to create, with the help of the Book Review's readers, a literary map of Manhattan -- not of its authors' haunts but those of their characters, a map of the literary stars' homes.

I began thinking about this map years ago while reading Don DeLillo's "Great Jones Street." Bucky Wunderlick gazes out the window of his "small crowded room" at the firehouse across the street. I realized: there's only one firehouse on that street and few buildings that contain tiny apartments rather than commercial lofts. I know where Bucky Wunderlick lives. Or would live if he existed. He's got to be at No. 35. Knowing this made walking around the neighborhood like walking through the novel. But I walked without a map. Shouldn't there be a map of imaginary New Yorkers?

It would be a lush literary landscape -- the house on Washington Square where Catherine Sloper waited and yearned, the coffee shops where the characters of Ralph Ellison and Isaac Bashevis Singer quarreled and kibbitzed, the offices where John Cheever's people spent their days, the clubs where Jay McInerney's creatures wasted their nights, the East 70's and Upper West Side avenues where the Glass family bickered (Salinger gives several addresses), downtown where Ishmael wandered the docks.

The fleshed-out idea, more examples, information about how to participate, and a sample map, are all here.

This is perfect melding of two of my great passions - books and New York City. Guess I'll have to quit my job and give up my writing assignments to work on this project...

micassa

I should be working, but I saw this in the Toronto Star, and I thought of something...

It's an article about a family with a disabled child who was forced to relinquish custody of their 14-year-old son because they couldn't afford to care for him. The boy, who has a brain injury and is autistic, is now in a juvenile group home.

Ontario's new ombudsman is investigating complaints from parents who say they must give up custody of their severely disabled children to get them the care they need.

"If that is the case, it is simply unacceptable," André Marin told a news conference yesterday, promising results from a team of seven lawyers and investigators within weeks.

"This urgent and pressing issue demands our immediate attention."

Marin said parents have complained they are forced to give up their children under the "false pretense or artifice that the child is in need of protection or has been abandoned by the parents."

He urged any parents in this situation to contact his office, which has already heard from the parents of six children.

"As ombudsman of Ontario, I intend to be a voice for children and their families who've been treated unreasonably, unjustly or oppressively by the provincial government."

By contrast, many people with disabilities in the United States have no such recourse.

One of the long-running fights in the disabled activist community is the passage of the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act, known as MiCASSA.

Right now, Medicaid pays for nursing home care, but not long-term personal attendants. People with disabilities who could live in their own homes, go to school and work, if they had a personal attendant - but who can't afford one - are often forced to live in nursing homes. This includes children and teenagers.

Personal attendant care would be less expensive for the state. More importantly, it would give people with disabilities control over their care and their lives.

Families are in crisis. When support services are needed there are no real choices in the community. Whether a child is born with a disability, an adult has a traumatic injury or a person becomes disabled through the aging process, they overwhelmingly want their attendant services provided in their own homes, not nursing homes or other large institutions. People with disabilities and their families will no longer tolerate being forced into selecting institutions. It's time for Real Choice. . . .

MiCASSA, the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act, is that alternative! Instead of making a new entitlement, MiCASSA makes the existing entitlement more flexible.

MiCASSA establishes a national program of community-based attendant services and supports for people with disabilities, regardless of age or disability. This bill would allow the dollars to follow the person, and allow eligible individuals, or their representatives, to choose where they would receive services and supports. Any individual who is entitled to nursing home or other institutional services will now have the choice where and how these services are provided. The two million Americans currently residing in nursing homes and other institutions would finally have a choice.

My favorite MiCASSA activist is Kyle Glozier, a young man I interviewed as a "roll model" for the KOW book. When Kyle was 14 years old, he testified before Congress and debated anti-disability-rights activist Clint Eastwood. From there, he was chosen to address the 2000 Democratic National Convention in L.A. In front of 35,000 people, with another 1.5 million watching on TV, Kyle brought down the house.

Kyle, who has cerebral palsy, uses a Liberator communication device, which converts typed words into spoken speech. He's in college now, planning to go to law school, and is a full-time activist. He says, "There's no distinction between my regular life and my life as an activist. I'm in this 24/7."

Kyle is one of the coolest young people I've ever met. He is truly a future leader of his movement.

Photos of Kyle addressing Congress and the DNC here and here, and tons of information about MiCASSA on this website.

drink!

When you're too busy to blog, who ya gonna call? ALPF! Here's a funny piece I never would have seen, from a twice-yearly review of Canadian journalism published by students in their final year of J-school at Ryerson University in Toronto.

Is The Comedy Network not doing it for you? Do you like the laughs but wish it had more politics, more current events, more outrageous personalities? Are you okay with lots of yelling, loud music, and flashy graphics? Then I have great news for you; Canada's getting another comedy station: FOX News.

Fox News's special love for Canada has not escaped their notice:

Rose thinks Canadians will tune in out of curiosity and, except for a small, far-right minority, will only keep watching because of the station's entertainment value. He says he can't see FOX News having any kind of impact on Canada's political slant. Adds the Globe's John Doyle: "It's always a mistake to underestimate the shrewdness of Canadian viewers."

Doyle, who frequently travels to the United States and has watched a lot of FOX News programming, recommends that Canadians check out FOX's most popular show, The O'Reilly Factor, hosted by Bill O'Reilly. "Most Canadians will find his views pretty damn funny." He thinks viewers will especially enjoy O'Reilly's hatred for Canada. "He seems to be obsessed with it," Doyle says. In fact, O'Reilly hates Canada -- with its liberal drug laws and gay marriage -- so much that he has threatened to call for America to boycott its northern neighbour.

Don't miss the Bill O'Reilly Drinking Game!

Allan and I have been known to play drinking games while we watch the Red Sox. We substitute take sips (or maybe gulps) of wine for shots. (Hey, we're old, and we watch baseball every night.) Pre-game, we decide on three of the many over-used expressions from the NESN play-by-play guy to drink on. Can't do this too often, I'd always be asleep by the 7th inning. "Outstanding!"

new friend link

wmtc welcomes David Cho, a blogger from Orange County, California, who has an incredibly cute dog. He's what I call a Bustery Dog. (The dog, that is, not David.)

David Cho describes himself as a Christian conservative, so I am greatly heartened by his opposition to the war in Iraq. It has always seemed to me that standing up for peace is the Christian thing to do, despite what Fearless Leader would have us believe.

Here is something David wrote after the 2004 election, called "Moral Selectivity". It's very good.

brave marines

This is how "we support our troops".

A growing number of veterans are breaking the code of silence to speak out about the appalling conditions under which they are asked to serve. Operation Truth is the place to read more.

war sucks

I didn't post anything about Marla Ruzicka, the American humanitarian-aid worker who was killed in Iraq ten days ago. There was a great outpouring from the progressive media and the blogosphere about it, and I didn't feel I had anything to add.

Beyond that, I felt a little squeamish about everyone mourning one American when so many people have been killed. Most of the pieces I saw about Ruzicka's death were also concerned about that, and took great pains to relate her death to the whole disgusting situation over there. Also, Ruzicka chose to go to Iraq to help alleviate other people's suffering; in that sense she truly was heroic, and her life should be celebrated. But still, it made me uncomfortable.

This morning I see our pal Bob Herbert attended Ruzicka's funeral. He uses it as an occasion to write about the horrors of war - and the silence that keeps those horrors off the American radar screen

The vast amount of suffering and death endured by civilians as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has, for the most part, been carefully kept out of the consciousness of the average American. I can't think of anything the Bush administration would like to talk about less. You can't put a positive spin on dead children.

As for the press, it has better things to cover than the suffering of civilians in war. The aversion to this topic is at the opposite extreme from the ecstatic journalistic embrace of the death of one pope and the election of another, and the media's manic obsession with the comings and goings of Martha, Jacko, et al.

. . .

So the public doesn't even hear about the American bombs that fall mistakenly on the homes of innocent civilians, wiping out entire families. We hear very little about the frequent instances of jittery soldiers opening fire indiscriminately, killing and wounding men, women and children who were never a threat in the first place. We don't hear much about the many children who, for one reason or another, are shot, burned or blown to eternity by our forces in the name of peace and freedom.

Ruzicka was working to to establish a U.S. government office to accurately document the civilian casualties of American wars. Shortly before her death, she wrote about why this is important; if you haven't seen the piece, it's here, among other places.

Ruzicka founded CIVIC Worldwide: The Campaign for Innocent Victims of Combat. Of course, I think everyone killed or hurt in this war is an innocent victim (assuming Bush and Rumsfeld don't get blown up.) But Ruzicka's work is important. The idea is to get this information publicly reported, provide compensation for victims and their families, and study the data in an effort to minimize civilian casualties in future "operations". (There's a euphemism for ya.) Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is pursuing it on the government level.

Herbert continues:

War is always about sorrow and the deepest suffering. Nitwits try to dress it up in the finery of half-baked rationalizations, but the reality is always wanton bloodshed, rotting flesh and the lifelong trauma of those who are physically or psychically maimed.

Read the whole column here.

walkers in the city

Here's something I would love to do.

I was reading this neat story about a man who has walked every block of downtown Manhattan (that is, below 14th Street). There are some cool pics; I especially like the one of the whirligigs in an East Village community garden.

I was going to post about this, and when I searched for the link (I was reading it in hard copy), I found this letter:

To the Editor:

I enjoyed reading about Robert Jay Kaufman, who walked every Manhattan street below 14th Street ("His Long Walk Home," April 17). Mr. Kaufman has a delightful perspective on the city, and I'm looking forward to reading his book. But his walking accomplishment is not unique - many people have actually walked every one of Manhattan's 500 miles of streets.

For instance, Cmdr. Thomas Keane completed a four-year Manhattan walk in the early 1950's; his story made The Times on Dec. 15, 1954. I myself walked every Manhattan street in two and a half years, and I finished on the 50th anniversary of Commander Keane's final day of walking. Then there is Joseph D. Terwilliger, who last year walked the entire island in a staggering 10 weeks.

By the way, I have also heard from people who have walked, or are walking, every street in Minneapolis, San Francisco and Christchurch, New Zealand, and every road in Catron County, N.M.

Images of my walk can be seen on my Web site: newyorkcitywalk.com.

Caleb Smith
Upper East Side

The guy's site is really good - full of photos. He's originally from New Mexico, but clearly a New Yorker at heart. He says about the end of his odyssey:

I chose to finish at Thirty Third Street because it runs along the south side of the Empire State Building. From almost anywhere on the island, if you look up at the observation deck, you see little pops of light from the flash bulbs of tourists taking pictures. Those twinkling lights kind of became a beacon for me over the years as I was walking. After several toasts in a nearby KoreaTown bar, I took the elevator to the top, and sent my own camera flashes down to Manhattan. . . . I'm head over heels for this city, now more than ever. I'm still walking the streets, exploring, seeing what I missed the first time around.

Really nice.

This is the kind of thing that, when I was younger, I would decide Allan and I should do. We'd set out to walk from our neighborhood at the northern end of Manhattan to the southern tip, get about as far 85th Street (about 100 blocks), stop someplace for lunch, have a few drinks, and that would be that.

Or after I bought a architecture walking tour book, I'd declare that we were going to do a tour of a different neighborhood each weekend. That might last three or four weeks. We'd have a great time, but I guess I'm not obsessive enough to dedicate so much of my time to a single pursuit. But I'm glad other people have done it, and extra glad they put it on the web!

what i'm reading: mudrooroo, nadine gordimer

I read a short novel called Wildcat Falling, said to be the first published work by an Aboriginal Australian. It was published in 1965, but was released in the US only in 1992. The book was OK, a first-person narrative of a poor, intelligent, mixed-race young man, a "bodgie" - the Australian equivalent of a British "teddy boy" - leaving prison to little opportunity on the outside.

The more interesting story is the author, born Colin Johnson, known as Mudrooroo, who I gather became a controversial semi-celebrity figure in Australia. He lived a nomadic life, living all over the world, from the London jazz scene, to a few years in India, where he became a Buddhist monk, to San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury with readings at the famed (and still wonderful!) City Lights Bookstore. He still writes and teaches about Aboriginal culture.

Apparently some people challenged Mudrooroo's claims of being part aboriginal, and his refusal to respond or get involved in any way inflamed his critics.

To really understand the story, I'd probably need Australian newspapers on microfilm, but I found a few things about it online. This essay was confusing without the proper background, but I did like this bit:

What the critics of Mudrooroo seem not to appreciate is that to acquire an Aboriginal identity (regardless of how) in 1965 was not exactly something that people were queuing up to do. To be regarded by the dominant society of Australia 1965 as being a "boong", "coon" or "Abo" was a passport to discrimination, prejudice and poverty, and many light-skinned Aboriginal people opted to assume a non-Aboriginal identity (Indian, afghan, Maori, etc) to escape the extreme difficulty of life as an Aboriginal person. To have been bestowed with an Aboriginal identity and then embrace and live that identity among Aboriginal people when times were tough is, for me, sufficient for Mudrooroo to be regarded as a member of the Aboriginal community. It aught to be remembered that many of those who (often opportunistically) opted to pretend that they weren't Aboriginal in return for acceptance in the white community were reviled...

This parallels with African-Americans who "passed" as white in pre- civil rights days - and the reverse. Most African-Americans are of mixed backgrounds, but to live as a Black person in America is to be Black. In other words, race is a social concept, not a quality of "blood". Mudrooroo's genetic heritage is unknown, but does it matter?

I'll probably read at least another short novel by Mudrooroo, to get a clearer picture of his perspective.

Right now I'm finishing July's People, by Nadine Gordimer, the South African writer and Nobel Prize Laureate. Gordimer sets up scenarios in which characters grapple with the poisonous fruits of racism. She's incredibly adept at teasing out and expressing all the complexities and nuances of personal relationships.

This book takes place during a violent revolution; the racist regime has collapsed. A white Afrikaner family - liberals who oppose the system - have obstinately stayed in their home long past the point of safety. They are left with no way to flee - and will surely be killed in their home if they stay. Their trusted house servant, July, has managed to smuggle them to safety, and so saves the life of the family of five. The action of the book begins immediately after their harrowing escape.

July takes the family to his own village. Not only is the formerly privileged white family now living in a mud hut amid squalor and deprivation, but all the past customs and relationships have been twisted and turned upside-down. The "July's people" of the title are both the dirt-poor black Africans of the huts, and this white African family for whom he used to work, and now both protects and masters.

It's very complex and surprising. Gordimer's novels make you understand the implications of racist domination in a deeply personal way - what it did to people's psyches, how the poison travels through society forever.

code help needed

My blog footer - the Margaret Mead quote - has migrated into the sidebar. No matter what I do, it won't return to its proper place in footerville.

I don't know if this is a Blogger glitch, or my own ineptitude. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. If your blog has a footer, perhaps you can send me the code.

ct vs ms

Connecticut takes a step forward. Microsoft retreats.

eat. live. enjoy.

There's a lot of bad news today, none of it surprising, all of it better left to other bloggers. It's expected, it's business as usual, it's we move to canada.

Closer to home, this week the results of a study conducted jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study, called "Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity," strikes a blow to the notion that an "obesity epidemic" is shortening the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

The study found that a very small (8%) percentage of Americans are clinically obese to the point of threatening their health and lives. Even more interestingly, it shows that being underweight is as much a danger to health as obesity, and that a few extra pounds in otherwise healthy adults seems to increase longevity. From the New York Times story:

People who are overweight but not obese have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight, federal researchers are reporting today.

The researchers - statisticians and epidemiologists from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - also found that increased risk of death from obesity was seen for the most part in the extremely obese, a group constituting only 8 percent of Americans.

And being very thin, even though the thinness was longstanding and unlikely to stem from disease, caused a slight increase in the risk of death, the researchers said.

The new study, considered by many independent scientists to be the most rigorous yet on the effects of weight, controlled for factors like smoking, age, race and alcohol consumption in a sophisticated analysis derived from a well-known method that has been used to predict cancer risk.

And from the Times' editorial on the study:

The most striking finding was that people defined as overweight but not obese had a lower risk of death than people of normal weight. Indeed, their excess pounds may have prevented some 86,000 deaths annually. That estimate has exploded like a bombshell amid the health officials struggling to control the undeniable upsurge of obesity here and abroad. It leaves the C.D.C., in particular, with a lot of explaining to do.

Last year researchers from that health agency concluded that obesity and overweight were killing some 400,000 people a year in this country (later revised downward to 365,000). These figures were cited extensively in promoting a campaign to control obesity. Now the new study has put the toll at a small fraction of that. . . . The whole notion of what constitutes normal weight and overweight may have to be rethought.

When I started writing about eating disorders, first for Seventeen magazine, then for a book and an educational video for teenagers, my eyes were opened to the multi-billion-dollar scam that is the Diet Industry. It's all around us. It's big business. It keeps us unhappy. It even keeps us fat. (Which is good for profits.)

One doesn't need to have battled life-threatening anorexia or bulimia to be trapped on the diet treadmill. I've never had what could be medically diagnosed as an eating disorder. But when I interviewed girls who had recovered from very serious EDs, I recognized their behaviors as an exaggeration of things most women (and increasing numbers of men) in our society do all the time.

Eating disorders are very complex; there's much more involved than merely wanting to be thin. But I started to view the whole body image and diet obsession on a continuum. And I woke up to my own little corner of that prison, a life-changing revelation.

Like most women I know, I've struggled with my weight all my life. When I was in my late 30s, I began to realize that most of the time I was doing so, I was already at a perfectly healthy, normal weight. But I don't look like a Barbie doll. Therefore...

These days it's common for the weight- and size-obsessed to substitute euphemisms like "an unhealthy weight" for "fat", and claim their fixation on [insert current obsession here: fat, carbs, whatever] is about health, not weight. For the most part, it's a crock.

Of course we should be concerned with what we eat. We're living creatures! Food is fuel, and as is the case with everything: garbage in, garbage out. Of course we should get physical exercise. Of course we should eat fresh fruits and vegetables, and avoid overloading our bodies with saturated fat, processed sugar and artificial ingredients. That's just good, healthy, common sense.

But that extra five or ten pounds around your middle or on your hips? How much of your life do you want to dedicate to losing it? And what will you achieve if you do? Will you be happier? Will you find love, success, contentment? You may look better in the mirror, and you'll garner some compliments around the office. After that, how much of your life will you dedicate to staying that way? And how will you feel when you inevitably gain the weight back?

I can't begin to describe how wonderful - how liberating - it was to step off the Diet Treadmill. Now when I run into women talking about diets, I resemble nothing as much as a recovered alcoholic or chain smoker: I recognize it as an old addiction, necessary to avoid.

There was once a very popular feminist essay about women's obsession with losing ten pounds. The author closed with the observation that the quickest way to lose the weight would be to just cut off our heads. She figured we might as well, for all we were using our brains on this one.

Much has been written about this, and I know this little post doesn't bring anything new to the discussion. But I think this recent study is important. If there's a chronic dieter out there reading this blog, perhaps she'll consider it.

Information about eating disorders here, here, here (Canadian resources) and here, as well as numerous other places online. An important feminist perspective here.

super cool kids

Some kind of vibes are flowing through cyberspace across the national borders: ALPF and I are beginning to think alike.

Taking a break from national and personal anxiety, ALPF and wmtc bring you nine-year-old activist Hannah Taylor. Hannah's compassion for the homeless people that she saw on the streets of her native Winnipeg led her to start saving her own money to donate.

Hannah turned that experience first into a home and classroom project, teaching her three siblings and her schoolmates about the most underprivileged people in their community.

Then she started collecting spare coins in old baby-food jars, gaily painted red and black like good-luck ladybugs.

Those jars, to "make change" for the homeless, were the start of the Ladybug Foundation, which raises money for charities that help homeless people.

Hannah also does public speaking - for example, in front of 16,000 people at the opening of Winnipeg's MTS Centre - to urge Canadians to find a better way to care for its homeless population. The Ladybug Foundation, a non-profit organization, has raised more than $500,000 using a variety of creative campaigns - all of which Hannah has initiated. She also volunteers at homeless shelters and missions.

Yesterday Hannah became the youngest person ever to address The Empire Club, a "captains of industry" organization formed in 1903. Hannah adds her name to a list of past speakers that includes every Canadian Prime Minister, six US Presidents, Winston Churchill and Indira Ghandi. News stories here and here, including a photo of Hannah standing on a box to be seen above the podium.

Watch for her name in the future. We'll be hearing from Hannah Taylor for a long time.

****

Hannah Taylor reminded me of another young activist I know. Rasha Kawar, a fourth-grader from Texas, is trying to get US airlines to provide a wheelchair-accessible restroom on designated flights. That is, she's trying to get them to obey the law.

After a frustrating and humiliating experience on a flight to Israel, Rasha asked her mother, "What are we going to do about this?"

When she got home, Rasha wrote a letter to President Bush asking him the same question. She said, "Can I please meet with you on the weekend? Or maybe if you are free one day you can come here, because we really have to talk."

Rasha received a letter from the president saying he is "proud to be her friend" and photographs of his wife and dogs. Her mom said Rasha should be happy to receive a reply -- after all, Mr. Bush is a busy man. Rasha wasn't buying it. "I didn't write to him to be his friend. I have a hundred good friends. I wanted him to solve this problem, and he didn't."

Um, I'm quoting myself: here's my story about Rasha, written for other wheelchair-using kids.

Rasha's quest may seem frivolous to you, or presumptive, or needlessly interfering with business. Imagine if you took long-distance flights several times a year - or ever, for that matter - and you couldn't use a rest room on the plane. At one time, curb cuts, chair lifts and wheelchair-accessible public restrooms were considered frivolous, wasteful and unnecessary. Now they are part of everyday life; because of them, millions of people can function more fully in the world - go to school and work, and contribute to society. This is really no different.

You can read Rasha's statement and, if you want, sign her petition. I'll email her this post to see how the project has advanced.

More cool kids here.

high anxiety

A personal post today.

I got the assignment.

And I'm freaking out.

It's typical feast-or-famine freelance stuff, but in this case the semi-famine was on purpose - and I was enjoying it. Thanks to my well-paid, low-work day-job on the weekends, I'm able to enjoy down periods without financial stress.

With this BLC* looming, I've been very comfortable without a lot of writing work. Seeing friends, enjoying the city, watching movies or baseball, and of course blogging, has been enough. Add in my work for Kids On Wheels and what I'm still doing with the Haven Coalition, and it was quite enough. Note that this is a five-day week: Saturday and Sundays are spent in a corporate law firm, 12 hours each day.

Then a giant project falls in my lap. It's interesting work, something I enjoy and am good at. It pays literally ten times more than the other books I've written and four times more than I've ever been paid for a single assignment. I don't write strictly for money - Kids On Wheels, for example, doesn't pay well, but they pay fairly according to their ability, and I am passionate about the work. But being really well compensated for doing what you love - what could be better?

Plus this work has the potential to be ongoing: if it works out, it could save me from full-time word-processing after we move. This is very, very big.

The downside: I'm about to be swamped, and working under extreme deadline pressure is not one of my strengths. I'm the oddball who leaves lots of extra time for everything. I never pulled an all-nighter in college; papers were always done well before they were due. I write assignments early, building in time to let the piece sit untouched for a day or two, which I find essential to good editing.

I know it's unusual - I live with someone who can't think about starting until the deadline looms - but it's how I am.

I've struggled with overload anxiety all my life. When I feel too busy or too pressured, I tend towards panic, and I can't think straight. My mother claims I was like this in the 4th grade, coming home with a book report and math homework on the same day, in frantic tears, bemoaning how I'd never get it all done.

Over the years I've learned how to control and harness this. I recognize some semi-panic as part of my writing process. I can separate myself from it, look at it from the outside: oh yes, this is the part when I get nervous and doubt my ability to get it all done...

Nevertheless. This is a lot of work, without much time, the first time I've worked with this company, and with the premiere issue of the KOW magazine - which means a lot to me - happening at the same time. And I still have a month or two left on my obligations to Haven, which I can't just ditch.

And so, I've been up since 4:00 a.m., wide-eyed, stomach churning. Klonopin, as well as the delegation of several household duties to a certain other blogger around here, will be key to avoiding a complete meltdown.

****

How I made this writing connection is a cool side note.

Last summer, I spent a lot of time running a phone bank for ACT. (Remember John Kerry...?) I trained volunteers phoners, then did supervising and trouble shooting once they were on the phones.

One of the many volunteers I met said she was very impressed with my work - which kind of amazed me, because what was I really doing? - and asked me what I did in the rest of my life. When I said I was a writer, she pressed further, and when I mentioned writing for young people, her face lit up. "Oh really? My husband is the editorial director of Weekly Reader..." She gave me her card and his, and urged me to get in touch.

After the election - and after my mourning period - I did. I interviewed with her husband, who instantly offered me work, and who has since been passing my resume and samples along to various people in the business.

This is a great example of something my life is rich with. I truly believe that no experience is ever wasted. Connections are formed in ways you cannot foresee.

Also, that volunteer did a very special thing. Most people don't give a second thought to the people around them. She took the initiative and made a real difference in someone else's life. Her example reminds me to (continue to) strive to do the same.

****

Blogging is good. I feel much better.




* big life change

not canadian enough?

I didn't blog about Michael Ignatieff's recent speech, because I seldom (never?) agree with anything he says, and I don't know enough about the current Canadian political situation to put his remarks in perspective.

ALPF sent - and I even saw this one on my own! - some interesting commentary on the speech from Star columnist Richard Gwyn. In a piece called "Too Many Canadians Aren't Canadian Enough," Gwyn writes:

Being Canadian, he [Ignatieff] writes, is "a constant act of justification and self-invention." To be tired of all of this "is to be tired of Canadian life".

He's wholly right. My own formulation, which I've expressed earlier in this space, is that to be Canadian is to be someone who is forever becoming a Canadian.

But I think Ignatieff misreads the nature of the looming crisis. It isn't because Quebecers are too Québécois, it's because Canadians aren't Canadian enough.

Quebec isn't a real threat, I would argue, because Quebecers have already separated within Canada and so have no need to formally separate.

They've figured out, this is to say, how to be wholly Quebecers while using Canadianism (our passport, our international image, etc.) as a useful, if secondary, asset.

The rest of us are getting to be like Quebecers. Canadianism is becoming a convenience rather than a source of identity.

For me personally, the realization of just how far we have moved from a sense of national solidarity happened when Newfoundlanders lowered the Maple Leaf flag. That the provincial government did this was one thing. That Memorial University, an independent institution, did it also, was quite another.

I cannot think of any other country where citizens would lower their national flag as a bargaining ploy.

Our sense of national solidarity seems to be slipping away.

This is interesting to me, since I eschew nationalism, and my own national identity is not a source of pride to me.

Is national identity necessary? Can we be proud of the society we live in (and strive to better it) without rallying behind a flag? Or is patriotism necessary in order to build a society?

In the US, where there is rampant nationalism - the love-it-or-leave-it crowd - there is also rampant selfishness, a total unwillingness to put the social good before the individual. Patriotism feeds militarism and the absence of self-criticism. But in Canada, national identity means something very different. But what? And does provincial identity threaten that?

Your comments are welcome. Though I can't respond quickly, or at all, I'm always monitoring.

Meanwhile, the Blue Jays just tied the game. Gotta go!

another cool canadian move

Thanks to ALPF, I didn't miss this story:

Canada is the first country in the world to approve a cannabis spray that relieves pain in people with multiple sclerosis, Health Canada said Tuesday. . . .

Sativex, which is administered through a spray in the mouth, relieves pain in patients that suffer from MS, the government agency said. It's expected to hit the shelves by late spring.

"Effective pain control and management are extremely important in a disease like MS," said Dr. Allan Gordon, neurologist and director of the Wasser Pain Management Centre at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, in a statement. "The approval of Sativex in Canada reflects the urgent need for additional treatment options in the field of neuropathic pain in MS."

As someone concerned with the issues of people with disabilities, I welcome this news. Can any of us imagine what it's like to live with constant and untreatable pain? And should any of us deny relief to others who suffer, based on some antiquated notions about "good vs bad" drugs?

Good work, Canada.

tomorrow's posts tonight

I have to be out very early tomorrow morning, so I'll blog tonight while watching Bronson Arroyo vs. Roy Halladay. So far one mammoth home run from Manny Ramirez, and some mean defense from the Blue Jays...

I'm waiting to hear about a writing assignment that, if it happens, will drastically change my outlook for the next month or two. It would be very interesting, challenging - and highly lucrative. The three rarely go together for me. But I'll really have my hands full meeting all my deadlines. No more NYC-to-do excursions for a while, and I'll have to resist replying to all your great comments during the day.

Your comments to this post were fantastic. I really appreciated everyone's input and perspectives. Galileo, who I believe is both gay and a practicing Christian, had this to say:

When I first read about the move to allow pharmacists to not carry certain items according to their conscience, I thought, "Gee. That's a good idea. No one should be forced to do something they don't think is right."

But then I thought about it some more. Where does it end? Can an emergency room doc withold treatment from a gang member because he disapproves of gang activity? Can he refuse to treat an injury caused by the patient's own stupidity? What if he wants to withold surgery from someone because they are gay, or a different religion, or a different color? Just because they think it's wrong.

Back to the pharmacist. What if he wants to withold AZT from someone with HIV because he assumes that AIDS is a gay disease and thinks it's wrong? What if he doesn't want to fill a prescription for pain killers because he would choose to tough it out and you should too?

Initially, I was even able to answer these questions with, "So what? You can always go to another pharmacist for your drugs." But if everyone in a conservative town is witholding the same prescriptions, it essentially becomes impossible to get.

I really appreciated this line from your post:
But if you can't do your job properly because your conscience is bothering you, you need to find another profession.

When you sign up to be a pharmacist, you know what you're getting into. It's not like you accidentally got the job; it takes a lot of time and effort. So to all the pharmacists out there, know what you're getting yourself into, then live up to your responsibility and quit complaining about it. Otherwise, find something else that's more compatible with your lifestyle.

I admit the line Galileo quoted was meant sarcastically. I don't buy the conscience excuse; I think it's good old-fashioned, puritanical, patriarchal disapproval. But his comment made me consider the possibility more seriously.

When John Ashcroft said that legal abortion conflicted with his religious beliefs, I felt he had to decline the position of Attorney General, since his job would be to uphold the laws of the land, and abortion is still legal. When personal conscience conflicts with the law or the requirements of your job (or both), you can only choose one. If this conscience thing is real, and not just an excuse, well then, Galileo's comment says it all.

cody day

Six years ago today, we adopted Cody, also known as Brown.

Cody, the dog with the world's saddest eyes, is the ultimate bottom dog. She isn't overly affectionate, and the affection she gives is quiet and restrained. She is slow, lazy, devious, and mischievous in her own quiet way. She is also a survivor: Cody is the only dog I've ever heard of who was an overweight stray.

In typical bottom-dog fashion, Cody hates anything being done to her - bath, vet, nails clipped - and screams bloody murder before anything even starts. (By contrast, Buster the Alpha Dog will calmly submit to any and all procedures if he is so instructed. And if his mommy is with him.)

Cody likes to be alone. In fact, she's the only dog we've ever had who doesn't sleep in our bedroom. This is a subject of great note in our home. Dogs normally want to be around their human family at all times, but Cody likes her privacy. Indeed, I suspect she's not a dog at all, but a cat wearing a clever disguise.

For her birthday, Cody gets to go to the vet and be stuck with needles.

i am not worthy

more theocracy

In post-revolutionary Iran, "morality police" rode the streets on motorbikes searching for - and attacking - women who were "immoral", i.e., wearing lipstick, allowing a strand of hair to fall out of their chadors, walking on a sidewalk unaccompanied by a male relative. In Christian America, pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for products they don't believe women should use.

If you're not following this story, it's about Emergency Contraception, also called the Morning-After Pill, marketed under the name Plan B. (I blogged about access to EC in Canada here.) Pharmacists in various states have been refusing to fill prescriptions for these drugs, citing concerns of conscience. I know the thought of people - make that women - having sex without birth control, or of birth control failure, is a dire problem for other people's consciences. But if you can't do your job properly because your conscience is bothering you, you need to find another profession.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich recently ordered pharmacies in his state to fill all prescriptions, no matter what their employees' personal views. That's encouraging. Illinois State Senator Frank Watson, whose family owns a pharmacy that doesn't stock EC, says this is "an infringement on a business decision and also on the pharmacist's right of conscience." Ah, the old "business decision". Government out of our lives. But wait, doesn't that mean... Hm, this gets confusing!

Read about this from a pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-responsibility point of view on the Bush v Choice blog from NARAL: here and here.

Facts about the Morning-After Pill here. This is not abortion. This is contraception. And this is not about fetuses or the "unborn" or the pre-born or anything they call the blobs of cells they purport to love so much. This is about people who oppose women's freedom. This is a direct attack on women's ability to control their own lives.

It's also why EC needs to be available over the counter.

And it's also a great example of why I can't wait to get the hell out of here.

what's softer than a softball?

David Corn, the Washington editor of The Nation, asks that question in a piece that might win a prize for Most Obvious Title: "Newspaper Editors Serve Bush Lame Questions" (which I saw at Common Dreams):

I often watch presidential press conferences and find myself shouting at the television: "Don't ask that!...That's a dumb question!...Follow up, follow up!...Come on, don't let him off the hook!"

I realize it's not always easy to press a president in these controlled and staged settings, and most members of the White House press corps are encumbered, rightly or wrongly, by a certain sense of decorum. If a president says something wrong, misleading, false, evasive or stupid, they do not feel empowered to reply, "Excuse me, Mr. President, but that simply is not so. Can you please give us a straight and direct answer?" For those Americans who look to the Fourth Estate to hold--or try to hold--the politicians accountable, White House reporters tend to disappoint. But these journalists are outright ferocious when compared to newspaper editors--judging from Bush's Q&A session Thursday at the annual convention of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. [Emphasis mine.]

Corn goes on to deconstruct that press conference. Since I never watch W on TV - except via Jon Stewart - this was horrifyingly educational. Read it here. Corn is also the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.

26.2 miles

Today is Patriots Day in New England, the day of the Boston Marathon.

I love the Boston Marathon because it was the first city marathon to include an official wheelchair division - thanks to the persistence of activists, especially the pioneering road racer and chair designer Bobby Hall. I've also written a lot about Jean Driscoll, who won the women's wheelchair division an amazing eight times in her signature yellow racing chair.

By contrast, an official wheelchair division in the New York City Marathon came much more recently, and only after a long, ugly battle. I'm very proud to have contributed to that fight. I covered the situation for years, which is how I came to know Hall. My notes from an interview with Allan Steinfeld, then the president of the New York Road Runners Club, were to be used in evidence in the last big lawsuit, but NYRCC finally settled out of court. My long wrap-up of the fight is here, from an excellent but now-defunct online sports magazine called SportsJones.

Two Canadian women are entered in the 2005 wheelchair division, Diane Roy and the well-known Chantal Petitclerc. There are some Canadian men running the wheelchair division, too. I'd like to see 24-year-old Christina Ripp, one of my favorite wheelchair basketball players, wear the laurels this year.

redundancy of the day du jour

George Steinbrenner is an idiot.

the test of our progress

In today's New York Times, Bob Herbert remembers my favorite US president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I know about his flaws and his missteps, though I point to different issues than some. I don't think having relationships outside of one's marriage is a problem for a presidency, especially if it's not even a problem within the marriage!

Amazingly for an American president, FDR was married - happily - to a feminist, a bisexual, a radical thinker. I see this as a measure of a man well ahead of his time. Eleanor was Franklin's intellectual partner, and an enormous influence on his thinking. (A case can be made for Eleanor being nearly solely responsible for FDR's progressive ideas.)

In those days a president's personal life was out-of-bounds for the press. The White House press corps knew about Lucy Mercer, FDR's girlfriend, and many may have known about Eleanor's relationship with Malvina ("Tommy") Thompson. But those were considered things the public didn't need to know. Imagine that.

Anyway, back to the important stuff. Of Franklin Roosevelt, Herbert reminds us:

His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster . . . To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. . . .

Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

Herbert says, "I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that.""

"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Over the next thirty years, the country would make substantial progress towards many of these goals, though others (like the right to health care) remained elusive. Now, sixty years after FDR's death, we've come a long way. Backwards.