I Know, But PLEASE Vote Anyway!

When I think of the brave efforts made and terrible horrors endured by both the Suffragists of the early 20^th century and the Civil Rights activists of the 50s and 60s so that women and blacks could secure the right to vote, it makes me very sad that so many people today have come to view voting as pointless.

I do understand why. Our governments – locally, statewide and federally – have become completely co-opted by Big Money: corporations, lobbyists for various industries, and rich individuals, whose only concerns are maintaining and furthering their own interests. In both houses of Congress, the vast majority of Representatives and Senators are (1) male, (2) white and (3) millionaires, multi-millionaires and a few billionaires. Their concern seems to be getting elected (and re-elected) to their cushy jobs with good salaries (everyone needs pin money), extraordinary benefits & perks, and very brief actual-work periods.

The Republicans, once a stodgy party interested primarily in minimal government spending and low taxes for the upper middle class and rich (when rich wasn’t yet obscenely über wealthy), has moved so far to the Lunatic Fringe Right and Ultra Conservative that they have zero concern for anybody’s human rights, civil rights, health & well-being, education, or anything else that should accompany citizenship for all citizens. In the name of Christianity (which shouldn’t even be in the picture!), they’ve decided that they and they alone hold the moral high ground on every conceivable issue. And ever since the election of America’s first black President, all that has been transparent is their racism and determination to prevent him from functioning – and they’ve made a good job of it!

But perhaps even more disappointing are the Democrats. We know who and what the Republicans are. But who and what are the Democrats? They’re disconnected from each other; generally cowardly when it comes to speaking to and acting against any sort of formidable, oppositional power; they have been unsupportive of their own President; and as a result of all this, have failed utterly to combat the 1% on behalf of the rest of us. They appear to be a bit more willing and able to rise to the occasion for this critical mid-term election and the endless campaign for the 2016 Presidency that will immediately follow, but still, it is indeed hard to work up a whole lot of enthusiasm for them. 

ALL THAT SAID, IT IS STILL VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE WHO CAN VOTE MAKE IT TO THE POLLS TOMORROW. There is no same day registration/voting in NYC (I checked); I don’t know about the rest of the state, or whatever locale and state you live in. But unlike Presidential elections, during which you might legitimately feel that your blue or red state is going to go blue or red with or without you, EVERY SINGLE VOTE IN THIS ELECTION MATTERS, BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED BY THE POPULAR VOTE. 

If you don’t want to render President Obama completely impotent for the next two years, the Democrats, for all their weaknesses, must NOT lose control of the Senate. There are opportunities nationwide to get rid of some entrenched Republican Congressional representatives or avoid new ones. There are critical Governorships and State Senatorial races. There are important Propositions on the ballots of many states. There is an opportunity tomorrow to show by our numbers that we’re here and we do care about the governments we have. We may not be able to make great strides this time around, but we can rattle the status quo – perhaps just enough to enlarge Democratic balls and impact for 2016. Don’t give up yet. Please vote tomorrow and give what’s left of American democracy a fighting chance.

Working For Tips

There is presently a lot of heated social conversation about people who traditionally receive tips as part of their pay for work – namely those in the restaurant-bar, hotel, taxi-limousine, beauty service and travel service industries. They legally receive what’s known as a sub-minimum wage (apx. $5.00/hour) from their employers, because their tips, supposedly, bring them up to a living wage. That wasn’t true 30 or 40 years ago and it’s even worse now. That’s because more and more Americans, either out of ignorance or cheapness, are leaving smaller and fewer tips. So the question is: should the sub-minimum wage be increased? Would it surprise you to know that many Americans are saying no?

Tipping is a uniquely American custom, something Americans traveling abroad are delighted to discover and foreigners visiting here often learn to their embarrassment the first time they stiff a waiter or cab driver. There’s an irony here, since it appears that tipping began in the 1600s in England when men drinking in taverns gave money to servers “to insure promptitude” or T.I.P for short.

When the practice started to make its way into American bars and restaurants in the late 1890s, a movement against it rose up. Many Americans felt it was in opposition to the country’s ideals of class equality and would lead to the development of a “servile class” that would be rendered financially dependent on the rich. But the custom persisted – and grew – here, nonetheless.

Over time, tipping somehow went out of favor (in some instances out of legality) in Europe, and indeed created that “servile class” in America – which has never been a classless society, despite our delusions to the contrary. This explains why many Americans resent tipping and/or look down on people who work for tips and/or are ashamed to work in jobs that receive tips.

I was the daughter of a man who spent most of his working life first as a waiter and then as a skycap. He worked for tips. He worked very hard and put up with an assortment of indignities, but still never made enough to support a family, which is why my mother worked in the 1950s when most women were still housewives.

She worked until the 1980s, pouring her considerable intelligence into the bottomless, low-paying well of the pink ghetto, first as a bookkeeper, then as a comptroller, and finally as the manager of the subscription department of an elite specialty business newspaper – where she signed her letters “L. Browne,” lest the high-powered male subscribers suspect she was a woman. And meanwhile, my black father smiled as he allowed white people to rub his head for luck in the hope it would earn him a larger tip.

Since Ronald Reagan (whom I still blame for everything), America has been creating an economy and social mindset guided by millionaire Republican belief that the population is made up of Makers and Takers, an idea that middle class and working class Republicans buy into. That’s why so many people still think that teenagers are the ones working minimum-wage jobs, when the truth is, most teens can’t find jobs because the jobs they used to have are now held by adults trying to make a living and support their families. People working for tips are also doing the same thing.

In case you haven’t noticed, unless you (or you and your partner/spouse, if you have one) are bringing in a six-figure salary, nothing in America is affordable, anywhere – not housing, utilities, food, gas, a night at the movies, nothing – except clothing, house wares, and the smart electronic devices everyone loves so much, all of which are sold cheap because they’re made by indentured and child labor through the American “job creators” who are actually outsourcing those jobs to Third World countries. Welcome to the 21^st century. 

It’s time to raise the minimum wage and the sub-minimum wage, federally. And it’s time for Americans who eat in American restaurants, stay in American hotels, ride in American taxis – etc. – to ante up and leave a decent 15-20% tip.  You’re not tipping for extraordinarily wonderful service, you’re tipping because that’s what we do here. It’s the American way.

Twisted Justice

Yesterday, when America’s Supreme Court once again decided 5-to-4, this time in favor of Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood, they asserted that the religious beliefs of the owners of private corporations trump the individual beliefs and rights of their employees. This decision does much more than deprive women of insurance coverage for certain kinds of contraception. It gives seriously discomfiting credence to the ridiculous notion that corporations are people and that the rights of corporate persons are greater than the rights of human persons – which is pretty much how things have been going in all areas for some time.

So the Court ended its session with yet another attempt to further a Conservative Christian agenda, redefine personhood, set a dangerous precedent, and create genuine confusion about what is legal, let alone Constitutional. It’s no wonder that Justice Bader Ginsberg in her dissent said, “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

I’m so angry about this latest SCOTUS bullshit that I am literally physically, emotionally, and mentally drained. And the thought that I’m morally obliged to help fight this is thoroughly overwhelming – in large part because I don’t understand it.

According to the research I’ve done, the Constitution, in the First and Fourteenth Amendments, makes clear the necessity for a separation of Church and State, even though that specific language isn’t used. But it doesn’t address a unification of Church and Commerce. So what in the Constitution makes it legal for the owners of a private company to determine what kinds of health insurance coverage they will or won’t provide to their employees, not based on cost or law, but on the company’s owners religious beliefs?

Hobby Lobby is a very big company, which is what makes it a corporation. It has thousands of employees in hundreds of stores across the country. This is not a new business, so employees had health insurance in the past. Apparently, it’s the provisions of Obamacare-governed insurance that added types of contraception – such as the Morning After pill and IUDs, methods that can induce abortion – that the deeply anti-abortion Green family (the owners) object to and therefore don’t want to include or pay for (they don’t object to other forms of birth control, such as the pill or diaphragms, which they are willing to pay for – thank you, Green family…).

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that corporations are people. Why do they have rights that human people don’t have? For example, I have Medicare and pay over $100 a month for it. Medicare covers many things that I will never need, such as medications, treatments, and surgeries that only apply to men. Medicare doesn’t cover dental care or eye glasses or hearing aids – all of which I do need.

Yet I can’t say “I don’t want to pay for men’s stuff, I want my Medicare payments to cover what I need.” If the Green family gets to cherry pick the coverage they will and won’t cover – not just for themselves but for thousands of other people – based on what they believe, why can’t I do the same, just for myself, based on what I actually need? 

This whole thing is fucked up. As usual, it’s about religion, women, and sex, a combination that Conservatives are very uptight about, as well as the idea that big business and microscopic goo have more human rights than women. The mind reels.

It would be bad enough if it stopped there. But as Justice Bader Ginsberg also pointed out, “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

This, my friends, is what’s known as a truly slippery slope. All of America, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.

Fat in the Land of Oz

Pictured above is singer Kelly Clarkson, recently described by someone on You Tube as “a big fat pig.” This is what’s considered fat in America, a country that not too long ago managed to come up with a size 0 for women. I regard this as more of a political slam than a fashion statement, an anti-feminist backlash intended to intimidate women who may have forgotten to obsess about their body size for a minute and think about reproductive rights and equal pay and voter suppression and the economy instead. But our fat-loathing culture asks: “Who do these broads think they are, waddling around, offending everyone’s sensibilities instead of focusing on becoming a size 0” – (a literal nothing!). And of course, if your size is a two-digit number you’re obese and shouldn’t even leave the house (for shame!).

There are other things I could write about today: Team America in the World Cup; Dick Cheney everywhere on TV as if he were releasing a new album; how we shouldn’t even dip our military toe into that sectarian quagmire in Iraq; or the Supreme Court striking down a law that said people protesting outside abortion clinics had to keep a 35-foot distance away from patients entering the clinic (because those ignorant, heartless, slut-baby-killers deserve to be harassed up close before they do one of the most difficult things in their lives).

But no, I prefer to revisit last week’s chastisement of Dr. Oz by the U.S. Senate, which has nothing better to do than lambast the host of an afternoon health information talk show for describing two dietary supplements in what Oz admitted was “flowery language.” He hailed them as magical and miraculous – two words that any adult would take literally. The Senate was worried that the now-famous “Dr. Oz Effect” would encourage millions of fat-obsessed women to run out and buy this shit without knowing what the dangers might be! 

Now, it’s true that dietary supplements, from vitamins to magic weight loss elixirs, are greatly under-regulated, but so are numerous prescription medications that have so many horrific side effects you can’t imagine what medical condition would warrant taking them. Yet doctors can freely prescribe them as they see fit. What doctors are stringently regulated in prescribing are “controlled substances,” also known as serious meds that stop pain, ease anxiety, help you sleep, or just make you feel good. Which is why, after an agonizing major surgery, you’re offered Tylenol.

But I digress. The real issue here is that after 40 years of empowering, self-affirming, feminist philosophy, women young and old still view being “fat” as the worst thing that can happen to them. I’ll never forget the late Gilda Radner saying she would rather have cancer than be fat – and that sweet, brilliant comedian died young and  slim – and riddled with cancer.

I haven’t watched Dr. Oz’s show over the past couple of years, but I previously saw it often. I also once met with him privately, back in the 90s before he was a star, because the then-wife of a friend of mine was a friend of his and he saw me as a courtesy to her. I honestly don’t remember what he advised, but I do recall that in person, as on his show, he was kind, non-judgmental, gentle, and seemed genuinely concerned about my health.

Since then as now I was truly fat, not cosmetically chubby or a perfectly normal weight but fat in my fearful imagination, one could say concern was warranted. I was in my 40s then and still dieted frequently. People who are really fat know that any diet (combined with even minor exercise) will take weight off. What no one has figured out is how to keep it off without dieting for life, because what science and medicine understand about real obesity can fit on the head of the proverbial pin. But Dr. Oz is no charlatan and he didn’t deserve a scolding by the Senate. He tells people to eat healthfully and exercise – and when he finds a product he thinks will help, he talks about it. 

My mother used to say that if anyone ever came up with the real magic pill – the one that would take weight off, keep it off, and still let you eat at least somewhat for pleasure, it would be news on the front page of The New York Times. I know Americans can be stupid about lots of things, so just keep her sensible observation in mind. Until that article appears, really fat people will have to really struggle, if they’re willing. The rest of you should just get a grip. You don’t have to be a 0. You’re not a big fat pig. Stop letting the haters manipulate you. Here: have a cookie.

Celebrating Maya Angelou

As I’m sure you already know, the magnificent Maya Angelou died this morning in her North Carolina home at the age of 86. While I certainly extend my sympathies to her family, friends, and the many members of the worldwide public who felt a strong even daily connection with her (she was on Facebook and was a frequent tweeter), I don’t feel a sense of loss as much as I feel a sense of celebration of and for her spirit. As a writer, she leaves behind a strong and sensitive body of work; and as a human being, teacher, and leader, she leaves behind such a courageous, proactive, and never-ending legacy, that I feel Dr. Angelou has a kind of immortality.

If Rosa Parks was the Mother of the Civil Rights Movement, Maya Angelou was it’s brave, bold daughter. After Bayard Rustin died, she took his place as the SCLC’s (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) New York Office Coordinator; that was the organization that Rustin and others had founded with Martin Luther King, Jr. She later worked with Malcolm X, helping him put together the Organization of Afro-American Unity in 1964. When Dr. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968 – the date of her 40^th birthday – she stopped celebrating her birthday for many years after. But before, during and after these significant events, hers was a booming voice and substantial presence in the movements for civil rights, women’s rights, and human rights. For the rest of her life, she lived and worked around the world as an organizer, administrator, teacher, speaker, writer, and the human embodiment of inspiration for millions of people, but most especially women.

For me personally, she entered my life with her first book, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, in the years after I’d been awakened and inspired by Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Kurt Vonnegut, and Allen Ginsberg, and, irritated by Nikki Giovanni and Ntozake Shange (I appreciated the politics of those women but their personalities and language left me cold). Maya Angelou’s prose was clean and had the imagery of poetry; her poetry was visionary and had the clarity of good, clean prose. She spoke like she wrote and wrote like she spoke, which to me is the totality of a born writer. Her spirit, her essence, was always with me, even when I didn’t know it. Which may be why I don’t feel a sense of loss now so much as a sense of celebration.

The other reason is that I’m a natural intuitive (clairsentient meaning clear knowing, as opposed to clairvoyant, meaning clear seeing), and for five years I also took psychic development classes with an amazing medium, the late Gene Sterling. A few weeks before Maya Angelou recited her great poem, On the Pulse of Morning, at Bill Clinton’s first Inaugural, I channeled an energy that gave me the first real sense of being a channel, because the following words certainly weren’t coming out of my consciousness (or attitude towards nature) as they fell out of my mouth: “The rocks have feet, the trees have feet, the rivers have feet.” I don’t remember the rest of the message, but I’ve never forgotten that line and the whole stunning experience.

So can you imagine how I felt on that January day when Maya Angelou began to recite On the Pulse of Morning and I heard her say: “A Rock, A River, A Tree.” I later bought the recording of that poem, for which she won a Grammy, and I still have it. Listening to her, and listening to that poem, convinced me like nothing else could, that ideas, messages, language, energy, are all around us all the time, and we can pick them up if we’re able to put our egos aside and listen. That’s why, in a way, I’ve long felt that Maya Angelou and I have been tuned into the same otherly frequency. She did much more and a whole lot better with it than I have. But it is in that spirit that I say to her this evening, “Thank you for everything, Dr. Angelou, for all you endured, all you did, all you said, and for just being here. Rest in peace and live well in spirit. I’m still listening.”

A Global Shame

The kidnapping of 300 schoolgirls in Nigeria happened three weeks ago. I’m glad the world is outraged now, but it took three weeks for American news media to pay any attention to this story. Fox News was busy obsessing about Obamacare and Benghazi, as usual; CNN was focused on every dim ping in the ocean in their can’t-let-this-story-go endless focus on the downed Malaysian jet; and MSNBC was still staring at the George Washington Bridge Over Political Waters, not to mention the political horse races of 2014 and 2016. I don’t know what broadcast network news was doing because I don’t watch them. But even the usually ahead-of-the-game PBS NewsHour let us down. In print…even the New York Times was asleep at the wheel.

Three hundred schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria because a bunch of Islamist terrorist wackjobs don’t want girls to go to school – especially Western-style schools. They would rather sell them for $12.00 each, sending them off into the global child sex trafficking trade, or to individual men who want child brides, or someone, anyone, who wants free, hard labor. Only social media – primarily Facebook and Twitter – stopped sharing recipes and selfies long enough to sound an alarm loud enough for the news media and the public to hear. Good for them. Shame on us.

What happened to these 300 girls – yes, about 50 got away but more have been taken since – is a disgusting outrage. But it is part of a larger global shame that has been going on for years and has been shockingly under-reported, never mind addressed. Every year, a million children, mostly girls, literally from infancy to tweens, are trafficked worldwide, around 300,000 in the U.S. alone, primarily for the unimaginable misery of sex slavery, a lesser number for grueling manual labor. And these are just the stats on kids. The numbers for adult women are even more horrific, and men get roped into this travesty as well.

Throughout human history, human life has been regarded as pretty cheap in many quarters. But now we’re in the 21^st century, the bold progressive future, and it’s just as bad if not in some ways worse. Boko Haram may be a new name to us on the roster of terrorists who commit the unspeakable, but they’ve been around for years and our government, and the Nigerian government, and the governments of the world, have known about them – them and others, who pretend to act in the name of religion or culture or tradition or unashamedly in the name of greed run amok. Women, as always, are favorite targets, hardly regarded as human and certainly unentitled to autonomy or dignity. They’re fair game for brutality, especially sexual brutality, because men who are crazy are usually particularly crazy when it comes to women and sex.

And, not for nothing, another thing happened while world news ignored those Nigerian schoolgirls snatched from their beds. The wealthy, dapper, Sultan of Brunei decided that what his little oil-soaked country needed was the mania of Sharia Law, which has a special bug up its Islamist ass for women, gays, and anything resembling the rights of free speech or thought. Stone them! Mame them! It’s what Allah would want! Really?

Three hundred schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria for the crime of being female and getting an education. Now, with international intervention, some of them may be rescued. But much damage will already have been done. The rest, the majority, will be forever lost in the anonymous swamp of child trafficking. Are we, the world, going to confront this issue now? I’m not optimistic. Just heartsick. And really, really pissed.

I Don’t Like Children. Yes, I Said It!

A few days ago, in my post entitled The Tyranny of Healthy Lifestyle Zealots, I clearly detailed my objection to the social disenfranchisement of fat people and smokers (I’m both) by people who are zealously committed to what they consider a healthy lifestyle and therefore blame people like me for the high cost of health care. I corrected this inaccuracy, as well as put forth the idea that: “…in a diverse, free society, people have different needs, wants and behaviors, and everyone can be accommodated if we accept that those who differ from us have as much of a right to be who they are as we have to be who we are.”  I also gave an example, saying in part: “I don’t have children; I don’t even like children. But I don’t begrudge them the health care (or nutrition, education, and protection from abuse and neglect) they require… I believe in the concepts of ‘each according to his needs’ and ‘live and let live’.”

To my surprise, three friends responded privately, not to my larger message, but to my having said “I don’t like children.” Since they know me, they mostly found it funny, but they were all a little shocked that I had the chutzpah to say this straight out because, they explained, it’s just not done! One person voiced concern that I would turn people off and give them the wrong impression of me, which might impede my efforts to draw a larger audience to this blog.

I was nonplussed. I know most people do like kids (particularly babies) and especially adore their own, but I had no idea that to express the opposite was verboten. I know I’m in the minority here, but I didn’t realize that people who don’t like children and have the gall to say so are even more hated than smokers and fat people combined. Now that I’ve made it public that I’m a fat smoker who doesn’t like children, is it still safe for me to leave my apartment?”

While on the phone with my blog-expansion-concerned friend, she searched the phrase “I don’t like children,” and the first thing that came up was a site called Heartless Bitches International, a humor/satire-but-they’re-not-really-kidding-site by, about and for women who don’t conform to all of the current ideals and ideas modern women espouse (those HBs are more radical). On the site was a “rant” by an unnamed woman entitled The 4 Words of the Pariah, in which she beautifully states my own feelings thusly: “I don’t like children. What that lonely little statement can do to people… So what? If someone doesn’t like children why does it bother you so much? Stop taking everything so personally.” Later in the piece, she voices one of my greatest complaints by saying: “Somewhere along the way this society started worshipping children. Everything must be about the children. Every law passed must protect the children. Every restaurant, every movie theater, every bar, every museum, every art gallery, every area of our lives and cities must be child friendly.”

I’ve finally gotten to the point in my quickly-advancing old age that I accept myself just as I am and I really don’t care what people think of me anymore. That’s why I choose to speak my mind uncensored. However, on behalf of myself and other adults who don’t like children, let me say the following. I don’t hate children. I don’t wish them ill. I believe that society, government, and parents (or whomever a child lives with) should ensure that children are well taken care of. All children should be loved by those who give birth to them or adopt/foster them or otherwise take responsibility for them. And as I said above: “I don’t begrudge them the health care (or nutrition, education, and protection from abuse and neglect) they require.” I think government should pick up the tab for whatever kids’ caretakers can’t afford and it’s clearly in society’s best interest to ensure that we don’t raise generations of damaged and/or ignorant people. Whatever taxes are needed to ensure all of this is money well and importantly spent.

That said, adults who don’t have children – often because they don’t like children – are not obliged to like or interact with them. I don’t like babies; they hold as much appeal for me as sacks of flour. I held one once and all I wanted was its mother to get it off my hands immediately. I don’t enjoy the company of children, especially young children. I find them boring, unsettling when they’re running around and yelling, and disgusting when they’re eating. I resent it that our culture increasingly revolves around children. I believe adults take priority because we’re adults! and we should therefore have child-free spaces. The needs/rights of children should co-exist with those of adults, not supersede them. So if parents don’t want their kids to do or be exposed to certain things, it’s their responsibility to supervise them to ensure that – not my responsibility to live or look or speak or behave in child-friendly ways.

I shouldn’t have the presence of children imposed on me. Children don’t belong everywhere. And I’m sick and tired of politicians speaking incessantly about “The American Family.” Not all Americans have families, or want families, at least not those that include children. There are millions of single and married Americans who don’t want or don’t like children. We’re not monsters. We’re grown-ups with different needs, tastes, and points of view. That’s called freedom. And in a democracy, freedom is a delicate but necessary balance between freedom to and freedom from. I choose to be free of children as much as humanly possible. And in the words of that old song, “ain’t nobody’s business if I do.”

Contemplating Valentine’s Day

I think it’s fair to say that, generally speaking, men don’t like Valentine’s Day and women do. Men don’t like feeling pressured to be excessively romantic and having to express their emotions, not to mention spending money. Women like it when men are mushy, especially if they usually aren’t, and getting to hear a sometimes-rare “I Love You” is a thing of joy. And we like getting flowers and chocolate; gifts, period. I believe lesbians feel the same as straight women about Valentine's Day, but their relationships are usually more touchy-feely than straight relationships anyway. I can't speak for gay men.

The best Valentine’s present I ever got was a shipment of filet mignons from Omaha Steaks. It felt very sexy to be the kind of woman who inspired a gift of raw meat. His card was restrained, but since we had only been dating for six weeks when Valentine’s Day rolled around, I didn’t mind. I gave him a shirt – pedestrian, I know, but I couldn’t afford a gold cigarette case. My card to him was one with the photo above in which I wrote a correspondingly sexy message inside. Both of us were pleased.

Some people, men and women, straight and gay, reject Valentine’s Day because they view it as a Capitalist conspiracy among the greeting card, flower and candy industries (which, in the business of marketing, would be considered a clever “cross promotion”). I think that’s rather cynical and humorless, even if it’s become true. However, historically, Valentine’s Day dates back to Ancient Rome, 270CE, when an imprisoned priest was martyred by Emperor Claudius II for falling in love with his jailer’s daughter and sending her a letter signed “from your Valentine.” Priests weren't celibate yet, but those old Romans didn't like Christians, so he couldn't win for losing either way.

What is now an annual holiday is also connected to a Roman spring fertility festival and evolved into a Day of Romance by the 14^th Century. Printed Valentine cards made their U.S. debut in the mid-1800s and traditional gifts were already chocolate and flowers, particularly red roses: the Roman symbol of love and beauty. The Valentine’s Day tradition endured and is celebrated in the US, England, Canada, France, Mexico and Australia, among other countries.

Like many women, I enjoy Valentine’s Day when I have a man in my life and don’t when I don’t. I don’t this year, but I’m not feeling bummed out. This country is in such a state of turmoil, division, anger, want, greed, and need (I really think America is having a nervous breakdown) that I welcome anything pleasant and that celebrates love when hate is going around like the flu.

I painfully miss affection and believe the lack of it is truly unhealthy. There was a study many years ago that separated a bunch of babies in an orphanage or hospital or some such into two groups. One group got a lot of holding, fondling, kissing, cuddling, etc. and the other group got none. The untouched group constantly cried and fussed, ate and slept poorly, and were just cranky little miserables all the time. The coddled group was the complete opposite. I don’t think this changes as we grow up, especially when we mature into sexual beings, as well.

And some kind of love and affection is, I believe, markedly important for the aging and elderly. I wouldn’t be surprised if some future study discovered a connection between a lack of affection and the development of severe depression and even Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. I don’t think it takes scientific genius to figure out that when people aren’t touched for extended periods, they literally lose their minds; affection is as basic a need as food, water, clothing, and shelter.

So, this Valentine’s Day, I’m thinking lovely thoughts. I’m remembering how lucky I was to have had a very loving, affectionate mother, and, how sweet it was when I had certain men in my life (others provided the emotional sustenance of a rock). I’m remembering my half-aunt Mildred (long story…) who, after many years of being widowed, had the courage to marry a second time at the age of 66 (and the even greater courage to divorce him at 76). 

I’m happy for everyone I know – and even those I don’t – who are fortunate to have a Valentine, and I wish all of you a happy, loving Valentine's Day. For those of you who don't have a significant other but want one, I hope you find one soon. And because I haven’t given up hope, I’m thinking positively and looking forward to my own next one. This fat lady ain’t singin’ yet.

The Woman Issue

Since we’re just three weeks from Election Day, I think now would be a good time to remember that there are other important considerations besides The Economy (unemployment/debt/deficit/taxes) and the country’s biggest-ticket-items: Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and health care.  Of course all this is critical – especially since the Presidential opponents have significantly different ideas about how to handle them.

But the “ancillary” issues that are dismissed in some quarters as "distractions" are in fact very important.  They literally define what our country is now and what it will be in the future: our culture, our values - not in some uptight religious sense, but having a collective, humane agreement about what matters.  Most of these issues have something to do with women, because the category of "woman" overlaps or underpins almost everything else.

All the major stuff, plus:
the future of the Supreme Court, green energy, effective foreign policy, youth and adult education, poverty, hunger, homelessness, the erosion of hard won civil- and voting-rights, Gay Rights and Marriage Equality, immigration and the Dream Act, progressive science, the environment, infrastructure, reforms and regulations, the arts and humanities, fighting voter suppression and the lie of voter fraud - all the things that are the essence of our democracy and literally civilize us and make us great.

Women’s rights, woes, and unbalanced status in America and around the world personify the very real culture clashes that define our times.  And it's an outrage that it's happening here in America.  After decades of struggle to earn the right to vote, not to mention personal autonomy, property ownership, professional opportunity, pay equity and more, women are now in real danger of losing control of our own bodies due to a growing lack of basic and preventive health care, and access to legal abortion and contraception, some of which require enduring intrusive, unnecessary medical procedures and stressful waiting periods.  The repeal of Roe v Wade is a very real possibility in a Conservative/Republican administration.

However, the greatest problem women face – to a much lesser extent here in America but to a vast extent around the world (particularly but not exclusively in the Muslim World) – is atrocious oppression, abuse and violence.  You’re no doubt aware of the 14-year old Pakistani girl who was recently shot in the head by a Taliban terrorist because she wrote a blog and spoke out against the Taliban and advocating education for women.  According to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “The United Nations mission in Afghanistan says it verified 34 attacks against schools in just the first six months of this year, ‘including cases of burnings of school buildings, targeted killings and intimidation of teachers and school officials, armed attacks against and occupation of schools, and closures, particularly of girls’ schools’.”

And let us not forget the routine honor killings, stonings, cutting off women's noses, acid attacks, indentured servitude, sexual slavery and rape as a tactic of war and cultural intimidation that are central to radical Islamic Shariah Law.  In addition, throughout Africa and elsewhere, female genital mutilation is traditional.  More recently, the gang rape of lesbians in order to “turn them into proper African women” has become common, as well as the rape of young girls (including infants and toddlers) because it’s believed that sex with a virgin will cure or prevent AIDS.

While most of this behavior is not an American issue per se, some of it is.  Rape, sexual slavery (of children and women) and severe domestic violence are very much American problems – particularly growing violence against girlfriends by teens and young men.  And there are millions of educated-but-ignorant young women who cluelessly ignore these matters and truly believe they're living a solid post-feminist reality.  The have no real understanding of history and are contributing nothing to the existing, still-valiant struggle - because "feminist" has become an old-fashioned, bad word.  They're the Starbucks Generation.

Which feeds in (you should pardon the expression) to America's benefits for the poor that so many people seem to bitterly resent: Welfare and Food Stamps.  Separately or combined, they barely provide the ability to survive.  Although many Americans picture Welfare recipients as burly black men laying around the house watching 60” televisions, and Food Stamps recipients as people using these benefits for non-nutritional purposes, like buying booze and frequenting strip clubs.  These stereotypes couldn’t be farther from the truth.  The vast majority of people on Welfare and Food Stamps are white women and their minor children and their lives are brutal.  These women are generally unskilled, under-educated to the point of illiteracy, and plagued by severe mental/ emotional problems, too.  (Abject poverty, constant worry and social disdain can do that to a person.)

Which brings us back to the fact that women’s health, safety, freedom and prosperity are very much an important part of the 2012 campaign – domestically and as a foreign policy issue.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made great efforts and some strides in the area of women’s rights by vocally supporting education, professional opportunity and personal freedom, and forcefully speaking out against horrific violence and oppression of women.  Republican John R. Bolton – George W. Bush’s ambassador to the U.N. and a specialist on security and arms control – is said to be Romney’s top contender for Clinton’s post should he win the Presidency.  Do you imagine Bolton would make the crises and needs of women a top priority as he travels the world?

How women's issues are addressed – and whether they are addressed at all – will, for years to come, be a revealing part of what kind of country we are and strive to be.  I don’t believe that Romney/Ryan support heinous violence against women here or abroad.  But I also don’t think they have the awareness, sensitivity, and concern we need in the White House, Congress and Senate.  For example, important legislation that would have helped combat extensive sexual slavery in America has been defeated numerous times by Republicans.  They want small government, but they want it to be just big enough to control women, especially sexually.  How long can women here and abroad be denied, defiled, and controlled by men with much power and little compassion?

Human beings are more important than money, but ironically, a greater empowerment of women in all ways would be a genuine boon to our economy and those of developing countries who are nonetheless determined to keep women in the Dark Ages.  So gentlemen, please don’t forget your mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, and all the other women in your life when you vote next month.  And ladies, don’t forget the life and liberty you protect may be your own – and perhaps those of our sisters worldwide.

Conventionally Speaking

I watched all of both the Republican and Democratic Conventions and found both of them informative, fascinating and revealing.  I watched them on C-SPAN so I wouldn’t be harangued by in-the-moment media analysis or irritated with commercials.  Then, over the several nights of both events, I watched analysis on PBS and the Cable Big Three (MSNBC, CNN and FOX).  I no longer pay any attention to the Big Three Broadcast networks that pay nothing to broadcast (and never have) yet still pay no attention to their civic obligations as massive media institutions; screw ‘em, let them play football while Rome burns.

I’m saddened to learn that convention viewership was low and that by and large, Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats each watched their own conventions but not each other’s.  I can only hope the debates will inspire greater and more bipartisan viewership.

And it’s too bad more people didn’t watch, because the differences between the two conventions were stark and very important.

The Republicans were stiff; many of the speakers were more politically self-serving than anything else; the delegation was (as usual) glaringly Caucasian; and the messages were clear.  Barack Obama is the most terrible, dangerous thing to ever happen to America and if Romney/Ryan win, they will undo as much Obama policy as they can and run the country like a corporation.  They made obvious their devotion to Norman Rockwell-like families and marriage; their belief in having as little government as possible doing as little as possible (except where women’s autonomy is concerned, of course); talked endlessly about God and taxes; and showed nothing but contempt for social issues, social programs and the poor – to the very minimal extent they addressed them at all.  They also outright lied about several matters, then afterwards announced they “would not allow this campaign to be controlled by fact-checkers.”  That’s true chutzpah.

In contrast, the Democrats produced a much more lively show.  The music was hotter, the speakers were numerous, diverse, and largely fired up and ready to go.  The delegation was a greatly mixed, cheerful crowd, with many people in outrageously fun get-ups.  But they weren’t there to play.  The primary topic of discourse was the Man of the Hour: Barack Obama.  There was much commentary from speakers about what he’d accomplished (Obamacare, the auto-bailout, ending the war in Iraq, getting bin Laden, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” etc.) and an obvious understanding that much more needs to be done, on the economic front especially.  But as Bill Clinton accurately observed, “No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, could have cleaned up the mess that was left for him in just four years.”

What was most heartening about the Democrats was what I can only describe as their humanity – a sensibility I sure didn’t feel from the let-them-eat-rice & beans GOP.  The Dems talked about community and citizenship and the fact that we’re all in this together.  They emphasized that while government should not be involved in everything, there are good and important things government can and should do.  They repeatedly referenced women’s rights, from pay equity to complete control of our health care, including reproductive freedom.  There were several gay speakers and broad support throughout the hall for GLBT rights, including marriage.  They talked about the fairness of The Dream Act, new energy initiatives, science, climate change and the enormous importance of affordable education and retraining working people whose skills are outdated.  There was assurance that the very young, the elderly, the disabled, and, singularly, returning veterans, would be protected and supported.  The said a “civilized society” looks forward, moves forward, works cooperatively and doesn’t leave anyone hanging out to dry.

Neither party was coy or closed about its values, priorities, positions or beliefs.  They couldn’t be more clear in their differences about who and what they want to serve.  Both parties also had interesting omissions in their statements.  The Republicans in general and Romney in particular said nothing about the Afghanistan War, the troops, or his party’s platform!  The Democrats didn’t mention the Stimulus Package during the president’s first two years.  The Democrats also didn’t say outright that a corporation isn’t a person and a country isn’t a corporation and a president isn’t a CEO and the Cabinet is not a Board of Directors.  The Republicans didn’t say a word about civil service, service, which is what government is about – service and leadership.

I’ve often been upset with Barack Obama over the past few years.  Even allowing for the obstructionism and outright hatred he was faced with from Day One, I thought he was at times too eager to cooperate and compromise with a Disloyal Opposition that was more dedicated to making him a one-term failure than they were in helping the country and its people.  They see the world – and the country – as a business deal.  That’s a very bad thing.

I appreciate that many people have lost faith in the political process entirely, who think that both sides, all sides, are corrupt and dishonest and not worth getting out of bed to vote for.  I don’t deny that political chicanery abounds.  But if you’d seen these two conventions, you would know that the Republicans have officially become right-wing extremists controlled by the Tea Party fringe, and the Democrats, however disjointed and disorganized they are at times, are still the party who cares about everyday people.  To them, the “bottom line” is not the whole story.  So please listen, please watch – and please vote.

Speaking Truth to Stupid: Rape Ignorance and Voter Suppression

Okay, my “strength and fervor” have been replenished since my last post and I feel strongly motivated to comment on two outrageous trends within the Republican Party – policies and practices which, God, common sense, and civic participation willing – will help defeat them at every level come November.  I’m referring specifically to this week’s outrageous allegations by Missouri senatorial contender Todd Akin that rape victims cannot get pregnant from rape, and so no exception is needed in anti-abortion laws (and efforts) to permit rape (and incest) victims to have abortions.  I’m equally appalled and downright terrified by ongoing nationwide Voter Suppression efforts.  It would appear that real freedom is in real trouble in 2012.

In the rape matter, we have another unfathomable example of how Science Ignorance and Religiously Influenced Science can have a devastating impact on legislative efforts to address urgent matters.  It’s in the same scientific class as “climate change is a hoax” and “wind and solar power can’t work because what happens when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing?”  This stuff is dangerously dumb.  But the latest attack in the War On Women (which, of course, is just a phony Liberal construct) is a horrendous combination of gross ignorance and stunning insensitivity.

Prior to the 20^th century, Western Medicine actually asserted that when a woman’s uterus was not properly engaged in what it was meant for – incubating a fetus – it literally floated around inside her body, contributing to otherwise unexplainable female melancholia.  Now, Akin and his ilk are reviving a long-held anti-choice belief that in instances of “legitimate” or “forcible” rape (as opposed to fun and welcome rape?), a woman’s body shuts down and prevents pregnancy.  Her “juices don’t flow” and her “tubes tighten,” they say.  Oy, vey! 

Therefore, exceptions to anti-abortion laws must be eliminated, say these cavemen, because willfully fornicating women who get themselves pregnant through pleasure could easily lie about rape or incest.  Anti-abortion proponents aren’t going to let that loophole threaten the Personhood of the Unborn when “science” can “prove” rape doesn’t cause pregnancy.  I guess this will show the approximately 34,000 rape victims annually who get pregnant through rape who’s boss!

Now – instead of science, one of the worst periods in American History – the era of Jim Crow and poll taxes – comes into play in regard to Voter Suppression.  Republicans at both the state and federal levels would have us believe that voter fraud is a huge problem that must be addressed with stringent ID and voting hours laws to ensure that people who are not legitimately entitled to vote cannot be registered and get anywhere near a voting both.

The fact that over the past umpteen years there have been more bungee-jumping accidents than incidents of voter fraud doesn’t enter into this.  Conservatives would have us believe that Voter Fraud is a real and urgent problem – just like seeing the President's college transcripts and a real birth certificate, since the one he provided was obviously a forgery.  Accordingly, Voter Suppression laws are now in effect in 38 states – and they have a direct and purposeful impact on the young, the elderly, Blacks and Hispanics, and the poor of all ages and ethnicities – in other words, people who are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans.

It’s not unreasonable to require first-time voters to present some form of identification when they register.  I vaguely recall that when I registered in the early 1970s, I presented a phone bill and my Social Security card – which showed where I lived and that I was on the government grid.  I had no problem then and have had no problem in the 40-odd years since.  Now, many states are asking for birth certificates (which many people no longer have or never had – and getting them, if available, costs time and money) and, more specifically, photo IDs.

In suburban and rural America, most people have a driver’s license.  But in urban areas, that’s often not the case.  Many students have school-issued photo IDs – but in some states, like Texas, a student ID isn’t acceptable; neither are company-issued photo IDs – don’t ask me why.  States are requiring government issued photo IDs – such as passports (most Americans don’t have one), a driver’s license, or a state-issued photo ID that one can get through the Motor Vehicle Bureau whether or not you’re a driver – but this too costs time and money.  Many working and poor people don’t have one or the other or both, nor do they have the means of transportation to get where they need to go for this.

It is sufficiently distressing that half of the country doesn’t even bother to vote, whether or not they have the “appropriate” ID to register.  To make it deliberately difficult, if not impossible, for many people who want to vote to do so is obscene and totally contrary to what this country supposedly stands for.  It is estimated that up to four million Americans could be disenfranchised by these Voter Suppression initiatives.  Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives are up in arms.  Republicans/Conservatives are quietly letting political shenanigans take their course.  After all, if they let everyone vote, there’s a good chance that Batman and Robin will lose to President Obama – and, as they have stated clearly and publicly, beating Obama is their primary objective.

Left to their devious, self-serving devices, Republicans stand a real chance of throwing Roe v Wade, the 1965 Voters Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, environmental protection, any attempts at gun control, the existence and strength of unions, gay rights & marriage, and all support for education, the arts & humanities, and public broadcasting, under the bus.  They say Obama has robbed Americans of their freedom – how and what, they don’t say.  But it’s clear that the Republicans can and will do some serious freedom robbing if we don’t stop them.  Make sure you register and vote – and speak up.  Nothing less than functional Democracy is at stake.

On Turning Sixty

Today is my 60^th birthday.  This means something to me.  I know there are lots of people who are indifferent to birthdays, who barely celebrate them, who say “age is just a number,” but I’m not one of them.  You can dismiss anything by saying “it’s just a:” number, movie, story, whatever; all that does is give you an excuse for not having feelings about it, and I believe in having feelings about everything.  There are also folks who hate their birthdays and won’t tell their age, because each passing year makes them feel increasingly ancient and freaks them out.  I understand how they feel, but I’m not one of them, either.

All my birthdays matter to me, especially the milestones – meaning 18, 21, 65 and anything that ends in 0.  I took 30 and even 40 in stride.  Fifty was a little wobbly, but I was a little wobbly in general; my 50s were a lost decade (I don’t care to go into why, just take my word for it).  But 60 is unique.  It doesn’t just mark the start of a new decade, it’s the true start of growing old.  This feels peculiar, because emotionally I’m still about 18.  This doesn’t mean I still feel the zest of youth, but rather, that I haven’t fully matured in some way.  If I didn’t have some sense of the wisdom that’s supposed to come with age, I’d feel like a complete moron, but fortunately, I do, so I just feel kind of…stunned.

At the same time, I also feel a sense of renewal.  This may be my last totally compos mentis decade, as well as the last one in which my lifelong bad habits haven’t totally caught up with me (of course, that remains to be seen), and I have a keen desire to make the most of it.  But I’m not aiming for Grand Old Age.  I think people live entirely too long these days.  I’d rather die than live to be in my 90s –  and I’m confident that I will…

People tell me I don’t look my age, but they’ve been saying that since I was a kid.  Today, they mean I look younger.  But when I really was younger, I always looked “older and more mature” than my age.  This was often a pain in the ass, like having to take my birth certificate to the movies in order to get the children’s price, or the time I was in 6^th grade, sitting on the front steps of the school waiting for Lunch to be over, and a school aide said “you can’t wait for your child here.”  “But I am a child here!” I replied, dismayed.

But the “you don’t look your age” thing got tired when I was 22 and after being in a minor car accident, a witness described me as “tall, big, curly-haired, about 40.”  After that, I gave up trying to figure out how old I was perceived to be or give much of a damn about it.  Although, I went to the doctor yesterday for a full check-up (not deliberately timed to coincide with This Occasion) and when I told the technician who was checking my vitals that I’d be 60 today, she gave me a big sympathetic smile and said “Well, bless your heart!” which, as you may know, can mean anything from Congratulations to Fuck You, depending on the speaker’s feelings (and whether or not you’re in the south).  It just made me feel old.  And it didn’t help to find out that I’ve shrunk an inch.  I was 5’6” for decades.  Now I’m 5’5”.  So I feel old and short.  This part of turning 60 sucks.

But there is a good part.  I feel more free.  I feel more worthy of the respect I always deserved but didn’t feel worthy of.  I appreciate my accomplishments and feel less guilty about my shortcomings.  I have numerous regrets, which haunt me, but I know that’s pointless.  I’m more in touch with anger I’ve had forever but never acknowledged – and as a result, I feel more forgiving (of myself and others).  I also feel a much greater sense of gratitude about the people and things I have in my life, as well as more content and comfortable about my “circumstances” – which aren’t great, but could easily be a hell of a lot worse.

And I feel, finally, fully accepting of who and what I am.  I’ve also made my peace with the idea that some of the confusion, fear, and uncertainty I’ve felt all my life I may never resolve, and it’s okay; there’s nothing wrong with not being able to answer all of your own (let alone Life’s) questions.  It doesn’t mean I won’t still ponder them, but I’ve lost my sense of urgency about understanding them.

This afternoon, I will get a manicure and bake myself a birthday cake.  Tonight I’ll order in sushi and break open the bottle of sparkling wine I never bothered opening on New Year’s Eve.  I’ll be alone, but I don’t feel melancholy about it, which I did for awhile leading up to today; ultimately, it was my choice.  Today I feel at peace with myself, and even (however momentarily) with the world gone mad we live in.  All in all, I’m okay.  Which is good to be able to say at 60.

Singularly Aggravating

Something’s been on my mind – for years, actually – that I finally want to rant – er, comment – about.

Both Republicans and Democrats are constantly talking about The American Family.  The Family is brought up whether the context is positive or negative.  Regardless of how one’s political views define Family, that’s the “unit” that seems to be of greatest political and social concern.

But please note: not everyone is part of a Family, no matter how you define it.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a full 42% of adult Americans are single, including those who are divorced.  Now, I’m sure a fair percentage of these single people are single parents with children (= family), singles straight or gay who are co-habitating (also = family) and single adults still (or again) living with their parents, which also = family.

However, a considerable number in that 42% are just plain single – living alone or in institutions, which in no way = family.  Many are women, elderly or both.  But the point is, we, too, are Americans, with a combination of special needs and, to a considerably lesser extent, particular advantages.  The problem is that as a group, we’re not really recognized; we just plain don’t count.

I am a completely single person.  I have no parents, extended family, children, or significant other.  I’ll be 60 in less than two months and live alone.  If I were hospitalized and didn’t have a legally-designated health care proxy, there are circumstances (the most dire) in which none of my friends would be allowed to visit let alone advocate for me, because those privileges are reserved for Family Only.  If I were institutionalized – a nursing home, a prison, whatever – I would be treated (mistreated) differently than residents with Family.

If I had home health care, regardless of the behavior/treatment of my aide, there would be little monitoring or other supervision.  If I were under the supposedly protective auspices of a city-run Adult Protective Services agency, which often takes advantage of their clients and have been frequently sued for this, I’d be screwed by them – especially if I didn’t have the capacity to speak up for myself.  If I dropped dead in my apartment, no one would know about it until the smell disturbed the neighbors.  In all the circumstances noted here, single = nobody’s looking out for you and you are extremely, particularly, singularly vulnerable.

As a single, competent person, it’s my responsibility to put in place as many legally protective measures as I can; I’m in the process of doing just that.  I’ve seen several single, older people fall off the grid and literally disappear.  It’s a very real thing, a very frequent thing.  Single people – whatever their age, health status, and even (often especially) financial status, are the most vulnerable – particularly the very rich and very poor.

And, if government speech is anything to go by, single people are not on our representatives’ or leaders’ radar.  That’s not a good or fair or even cost-effective state of affairs.  I encourage you to remember this the next time you hear one of these people talk about The American Family.  And while you’re at it, keep your single friends in mind.  It’s lonely, wearying and worrying to be single in a nation so solely focused on The Family.