The Birds and The Bees

Back when I was still in high school, my grandfather, a dairy farmer by trade, decided to make sure I had a clear understanding of the birds and the bees.

Grandfather:  Do you know how a woman gets pregnant?

Me: Yes, sir.

Grandfather: Do you know how a woman does not get pregnant?

Me: Yes, sir.

Grandfather: Good, remember that.

My take on this conversation – only abstinence prevented pregnancy.  Thanks to Steven Colbert of the Colbert Report, I now know there is one other sure way to not get pregnant – “Be a man”.

Common Sense ??? – The Palin Election Strategy

In my second installment on Common Sense???, I would like to highlight an amusing, yet spot-on article about a sad trend in US politics. Washington Post contributor, Richard Cohen begins his article, Sarah Palin’s foolishness ruined U.S. politics, in the form of a movie critique.  While I for one do not plan to watch the HBO movie Game Change, having watched the debacle unfold in real time was more than enough, Cohen’s critique seems to follow the same gist as other reporters, claiming the movie makers have based their script on insider interviews.

Cohen’s article diverges from standard media coverage of the film as he moves away from a movie critique and begins to discuss a tragic result of the 2008 campaign; something I have called the Palin Election Strategy (PES)*.  Cohen defines this strategy with the election slogan, “Vote for me, I know nothing and hate the same things you do.” 

With this strategy in mind, Cohen proceeds to evaluate the 2012 Republican candidate lineup based upon the candidate’s similarities with Palin, and what he fears has become the new GOP’s platform. He finds that most of the candidates have been infected – I mean affected in some way.

More worrisome for our nation is the apparent effectiveness of this type of strategy and contagious spread of the acceptance of uninformed national candidates. I concur with Cohen when he warns the Democrats that PES might also be contagious to those outside the GOP field and voting pool.

While I enjoyed reading the article, I hate to say it, but Sara Palin is not the creator of this political strategy.  Anyone who has ever witnessed a middle-school student body election should recognize the familiarity of PES.  Hopefully planning, plenty of homework, and a real fear of embarrassment, will set our nation up for a more mature 2016 election cycle.

* I was tickled to read, “Vote for me, I know nothing and hate the same things you do.”  To me this slogan defines a great deal of the campaign rhetoric of 2012.  Palin Campaign Strategy (PES) is a title of my own making.  Hopefully PES will not become a worldwide epidemic, and it will be eradicated by 2016.  If not eradicated, I can at least hope that it will be relegated back to the world of secondary education.

Women Attacking Women: The Covert War on Women

A call to war, a battle cry, a rally of the forces!  Unless you have avoided the news media entirely over the past few weeks, you must have heard the phrase, “War on Women.”  Is there a war?  Most definitely, but as with most wars, those who call for war instead of diplomacy are as much to blame for the eventual collateral damage as those who drop the first proverbial bomb and ignite the fire.

As with every war, there are quieter, more dangerous forces working just under the radar.  These covert warriors often go undetected and therefore unstopped.  Even when their warfare is known to the public, they are often discounted as being of little consequence or threat.

As someone who grew up in a very paternalistic society, I recall being repeatedly instructed, “While men may look like they control the world, it is the women who you need to look out for; they have the real power.”

I left my conservative, male dominated society and studied at an all-female college.  At school, the lessons of my youth were reconfirmed.  Women had voices, they had strength, and they had power.  They could be viciously truthful, unbending in their beliefs and forceful in their causes.  Women, who would shelter you from a storm or come to your aid, could also tear you to shreds if they felt you were unjust, or worse, lacking a cause.  Vocal women are not rare at an all-female college, but direct attack will most often be parried with more direct attack.  When verbally attacked by men or women, women will defend themselves, not always to their credit, but often with results.  “She was like an angry mother bear,” is a metaphor which applies not just to women with their biological children, but also with their ideological children.

As with any war, covert operations exist in the War on Women.  It would not be covert, however, if the secret warrior didn’t blend in with the crowd.  Choosing a man to covertly attack women would be foolish. Just as foolish, would be to utilize the same attack tactics.  Direct, open attack would only strengthen a woman’s determination, not weaken it.  Women, regardless of what some might infer, are not stupid or weak.  By “some”, I do not mean “men”.  Sadly women have a terrible tendency of treating other women, who hold differing beliefs and lifestyles from their own, as being stupid or weak.

The news this week has provided two examples of this type of war on women.   The first tactic has left the covert battlefield behind and like the covert military actions of the Cold War, is now under public scrutiny.  Oddly, the revelation of a longstanding covert war between two groups of women in New York has come to light because President Obama chose to speak at Barnard College’s commencement rather than at Columbia University’s.  Barnard is the all-female sister school of the co-ed Columbia University.  While Columbia men have made some appalling statements in regards to the women of Barnard, the women of Columbia have been just as applauding in their commentary.  Hostilities between these neighbors are not new, the rhetoric and attacks did not begin recently. The only recent development is that these attacks have come to the attention of a larger public.

The second attack on women is much more subtle. It is acting on the perceived idea that women are shallow and easily manipulated.  It is the idea that a woman who stays at home with her children is somehow less intelligent, less informed and less interested in social causes than a career woman.  Now, I have been a career woman, a super-mom, and a mom whose children are her career. Never, during any of my stages of life, has my interest in social and political welfare been as keen as it has been since I became a stay-at-home mom.  Every day, the time invested in my children reminds me of how important it is for me to work for their future.  I do not believe I am a rare woman today, and contrary to myth, I think women of the past were not so different either.

I acknowledge that women come in all kinds of packages, with different education levels and with different beliefs. With such diversity, it is easy for women to get frustrated with other women. While women can be harsh when frustrated, on some level they recognize that they are on the same team; a team where the players acknowledge their dislike for each other or for each other’s ideas, but where they often come to each other’s defense when under attack.

When politicians act upon the perception that women only care about how much it costs to fill up their SUVs gas tank, they are being repugnant.  When women defend this action, promote this perception and infer that somehow homemakers are just not concerned with social issues, it is more than repugnant. Today, it was two Republican women on ABC’s This Week’s – Roundtable, who made this type of subtle attack on women.  You will have to watch the video link, rather than read the article to hear it. I commend ABC for editing out the reference to women voting rather than general public voting on this topic.  While today it was Republican women attacking, it reminded me of an interview* that I watched also on ABC, many years ago, when a prominent woman shocked the host with an attack on moms who left the workforce when they had children, and accused the women of being in some way a detriment to their children’s growth.  Sadly the Covert War on Women is bi-partisan.

The phrase, “Look out, woman on a quest,” does not only refer to women looking for the perfect guy, sexy shoes or a great pre-school.  Women of all walks of life organize quests, lead quests and journey on quests.  The main difference between women on quests and men is that they declare less often to the world what their social quests are.  This makes them excellent operatives in a covert war.  When these operatives are respectful, women feel enlightened and informed, but when these operatives attack with subtle demeaning stereotypes, self-esteem dwindles.  Regardless if one believes they are justified in their quest or cause; women should not be waging war on each other.

Oh, and men shouldn’t attack us either, because it isn’t nice, and if we actually do hold the real power, it benefits them to be nice to us…..

* I included a “Mommy War” debate, but am still looking for the episode where the prominent woman made the appalling accusation that educated women choosing to stay home with their children, were in fact harming them, especially harming the female children.  I had only been a stay-at-home mom for about a year and was infuriated by the statement.  Sadly, while I remember the interview clearly, I cannot as of yet find a link.  I will update this article if I eventually find it.

Saith Me… Rest

Being multi-faceted requires continual effort, refinement, and polishing.  With dedication, one’s light will always sparkle and shine.  Unlike the precious gem, the warm, living flesh needs rest.  Nightly rest is not sufficient.  Occasionally the multi-faceted individual needs creative rest; a time when the mind floats and flutters in and out of reality; a time when the layers of mental and emotional dust blow away.

War for Gas

Spring 1990 Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein claims economic warfare over Kuwaiti oil production.

By August, his military forces had invaded Kuwait.  By January 1991 the US had committed to freeing Kuwait and its oil.  There were many reasons the US government, the US media and the US people gave for the decision to wage war on Iraq.  The most reasonable justification was that a sovereign nation had been invaded.  Other reasons were:  support an ally and major US oil supplier, Saudi Arabia; help the Kurdish people of Iraq from their ongoing persecution; and prevent known biological and chemical warfare from being used by Saddam against the peoples of the Gulf region.

By February, President George H. W. Bush had challenged the Iraqi people, specifically the oppressed Kurds, “to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.”

To the great relief of the US, the First Gulf War ended quickly.  The promises made to the people of Iraq were left unfulfilled, as the citizens of the US pressured the President to pull out of the region.

November 2000, George W. Bush was elected as the US president bringing with him feelings of unfinished business in regards to Iraq and a desire to finish the task his father had started.  The only thing holding back the new president was a lack of justification for reentering Iraq; a justification the US citizenship would support.  However Iraq was not the same country as it had been a decade earlier.  A harsh crack down on the opposition by Saddam had left the country with greater fear of their dictator and with the potential for greater instability should the dictator be removed.  Added to this was also a greater distrust of the US and its promises.

By 2003 terrorist actions and threats had propelled the US population into a state of fear making it easier to convince them of a just cause to invade Iraq, and embroil the US into a further Middle Eastern war.  It would take the majority of a decade to pull the US troops out of this war.  However, Iraq would remain destabilized, and by that time the entire region would become destabilized.   Technology and a changing world would propel the Middle East into internal turmoil and revolt.  While the pleas of rebels would seek US help, the distrust and dislike for the US would continue to grow.  Allied nations and adversarial nations alike would distrust the US and its policies knowing that US election politics and fickle citizens could again force a US president to go back on his promises or worse encourage a president to act aggressively towards perceived threats.

So why do I bring up this history?  Well it is simple, gas prices or war to protect gas prices?  If one moves away from listening to political yelling matches, they might just hear that a) even with additional US drilling for oil, current gas prices would not drop anytime soon, b) opening up the US reserves would only adjust the price minimally, c) the prices of gas will go up not down if speculators fear more Gulf conflict and d) it is through trade agreements not threats that the US has been able to maintain the low gas prices compared to what Europe pays.

Ah, remembering back when gas was only a buck a gallon.  I was newly married, had children on the way and was dirt poor.  President Clinton was developing solid friendships with trading partners as well as putting the US on a path of making millionaires a common place. Oh yea, he was also developing a reputation for avoiding war even when our people were under attack.

It was good times, strong economy, low gas prices and big houses. All was perfect – right?  However, all an enemy had to do was wait; wait for a new president to be elected; a president less opposed to retaliation when attacked.

Low gas prices are gone, big houses are foreclosed on, and businesses closed up shop or moved away. Millionaires have lost millions, the middle class have lost jobs, and the poor have become so much poorer.  Religious wars, cultural wars, and international wars are threating our homeland and allies.

Okay so times are tough, but all this blame and hate and fear is not helping us.  Go back to 1990, it was Saddam that invaded a sovereign nation and he is now dead.  It was Osama Bin Laden that brought down the towers and the Pentagon in 2001. He too is now dead. Katrina was a natural disaster so we can’t send troops or drones after her.  BP was responsible for the big oil spill, but eliminating them won’t undo the environmental damage or lower our gas prices.

Our presidents, regardless of their political party affiliation have tried to do what they thought was best in every crisis they have faced.  They have all in their own way tried to correct the ills they have inherited.  President George H.W. Bush protected an ally.  President Bill Clinton pulled the US out of a deep recession.  President George W. Bush tried to fulfill a promise made by his father, tried to punish international terrorists for their crimes and tried to keep us from going into a recession after years of conflict and natural disasters.  President Barak Obama is trying to aid our poor, rebuild our international relationships, pull us out of a recession, bring jobs back to the US and keep us out of new wars despite entangling alliances.

In an election year it is my duty to vote as my conscience dictates, but I will support the people’s choice as I have after every election.  I will and do support my president regardless of who he is, because he is my president.  I will let the history books decide if his policies helped the people more greatly than they hindered.  I will not add my ire to my president’s burden, because I know he acts on his conscience.

I understand policies of containment and I understand the need to stand up to genocidal dictators. I recognize the turbulence of our time and the often unavoidable reality of war.

I understand there is great suffering in the world, but I do not expect my president to fix it all in four years or even eight.  With so many worries and ills in the world that the president must contend with, I will not take him to task over gas prices!

For a timeline of information on the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars, Click Here for an informative page.

Majority vs. Minority

Is it just as wrong to make policies that discriminate against the majority as it is to make policies that discriminate against the minority?  Should the government deny the majority health care services on the premise that it might go against a minorities’ beliefs?

As for religion and state, the government is charged with due diligence to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of The People.  It has not been charged with protecting the liberty of religious organizations.  While religious organizations are made up of people, they are not The People.  The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and mandating health coverage does not impinge on the exercise of faith.  It does not require any one to use the coverage, only for organizations to provide it for those who choose to use the coverage.

In the end, it comes down to money, or in other words taxes.  Whether the tax is levied in the standard sense or through mandating organizations to cover heath care equally, it is still a tax.  So rather than arguing about contraception, maybe the argument should be on whether religious organization should lose their tax exemptions?  This change has been called for, but I think that our churches would prefer simply offering health care, it would probably be much less costly.