Note: This is a work of fiction. It’s something I originally wrote for a writer’s workshop and later put up on a writing Website. I’ve referred to it a couple of times in other posts. I had thought about sending it to a magazine to be published but kept putting off actually doing so. Since most publications have a 4 to 6 month lead time, my choice was to either hold it till next year or post it here. I decided there’s nothing I’d rather do than share it with my friends and readers. I doubt that I’ll post other short stories here since this really isn’t intended to be a fiction site. But I hope you enjoy a special Memorial Day offering – something a little out of the ordinary – for a special day.
The Wall is a blunt slab of black marble that rises out of the ground like a musical crescendo. Located at the Washington War Memorial, it’s the dirge for my generation’s folly.
I stood in front of it, my eyes scanning the list of names engraved on its shiny surface. I found the one I was looking for and, with my hand covering my mouth, I sank to my knees in front of Billy’s name. My eyelids were blinking rapidly to block the tears that were forming. I felt a little silly. I told myself it wasn’t as if I didn’t know what I’d find. I’d come looking for it. I called it closure and told my doubting family that it’s what I had to do.
Billy Reynolds and I were not childhood sweethearts. Far from it! I was a tomboy and I used to slug him. He slugged me back. Until one day when he noticed that I had grown up. I’d hurled some awful insult at him to goad him on. He had his fist clenched and was pulling it back to build up momentum before he delivered the punch. I was squaring off to pounce back. Suddenly his hand just dropped to his side instead, and he had a crestfallen expression on his face as he turned and walked away. He hung his head and his shoulders were hunched. He looked as deflated as a balloon.
“Chicken,” I taunted.
But he just ignored me and kept walking away.
We were only twelve then but he hated me for growing up. I could still be mean to him, but he had learned too well from his proper family that he couldn’t hit a woman. Especially because he recognized that he was becoming more of a man than a boy himself.
By the time we got to high school we had declared enough of a truce to actually date. And what young girl wouldn’t give up a life long rivalry to date the town’s football hero with the brown hair, blue eyes and sprinkle of freckles across his nose?
I wouldn’t.
He might have been the football hero of Hudson Springs, in upstate New York, but I was the town hippie. I had long blond hair that I wore parted down the center. I dressed in long granny dresses that he said were unflattering. “Why don’t you show your legs,” he would ask.
“Male chauvinist pig.” I would answer.
I spouted bad poetry, anti-war rhetoric and Bob Dylan lyrics. Billy loved the Beach Boys. But we were drawn to each other. We dated and argued constantly. I wouldn’t go to his senior prom unless I could wear a black armband. I told him that proms were a petit bourgeois institution anyway. He told me I was nuts. So much for brilliantly articulated intellectual arguments.
He went away to college and we wrote for a couple of years. Then just as I was getting ready to join him at the state university he announced that he had been drafted. I was horrified, especially when he told me that he intended to go.
“Go to Canada,” I pleaded. “It’s just across the border.”
But he refused. He wanted to go into the army because he thought it was his duty to serve. I told him only fascists would go. He said I was nuts. This was becoming a routine. “Don’t you have any other argument except that I’m nuts?” I asked.
“Yes I do, but you are nuts.” He insisted.
“The war’s immoral,” I said.
“I want to be a lawyer someday not a fugitive,” he pointed out.
“Good, at least you’ll defend innocent people and be useful then,” I said.
“No, I want to be a corporate lawyer, and gouge the public and stick it to innocent people.” He said.
“Billy!” I punched his arm in exasperation.
“Okay, I’ll study criminal law and help felons stay on the street.”
“I give up.” I stalked away as he laughed.
“I just can’t have a serious conversation with you.” I complained.
“No, you just can’t spout leftist clichés at me because I don’t take them seriously.
Anytime you want to engage in an actual argument, I’m ready.”
Then the tears were running down my cheeks and not from laughter. Yes he infuriated me by refusing to take me seriously. But he also made me laugh and at that moment I was so afraid that if anything happened to him the laughter would stop forever.
“Please don’t go to Vietnam,” I begged.
“Donna, I’ve got to. I’m sorry if you think that makes me a fascist pig.”
“It doesn’t make you a fascist pig. It makes you somebody who could die there. Billy I’m so scared I won’t see you again.”
“God, I hope that’s not true,” he said, putting his arms around me. “I want to come back and marry you.”
“Will we have to get married in a church?” I asked.
“No, we can get married in a Buddhist temple and read our vows from Mao’s Little Red Book.” He replied.
“Buddhists don’t read Mao Tse Tsung,” I pointed out. “They’re not Communists.”
“I know you Donna, you’ll find a way to combine them just to piss me off.”
“You’ll marry me anyway?”
“No, you’ll accuse me of supporting a petit bourgeois institution and being a male chauvinist pig,” he said.
“Marry me anyway,” I said.
“I’ll marry you anyway. I love you Donna.”
Of course we both wrote. I protested the war. Billy fought in it. We were an unlikely couple but we did love each other. And one Christmas when Billy was home on leave we did get married. It was a small wedding with just my parents and siblings and Billy’s family. And no, it wasn’t a Buddhist wedding with vows taken from Mao’s “Little Red Book.” It was actually a very traditional ceremony in our local Catholic Church. I even wore a white gown and Billy looked handsome in his dress uniform.
Near the end of his tour of duty the tone of his letters had begun to change. His attitude was shifting. He never became stridently anti-war just as he had never been really gung ho for it. Truth was, unlike me, Billy was usually calm and measured in his opinions. In an age of irresponsibility, he felt a sense of obligation. In a time when people mistrusted institutions, Billy had career ambitions within those institutions. He hoped to improve them, to be sure. But he wanted to do it from the inside. Where I tried to goad him with anti-establishment rhetoric, he used his wicked sense of humor to deflate my arguments because he wasn’t an ideologue.
And in the end neither was I. I loved him much more than my ideology. I kept my ideals and allowed him the space to keep his. But his letters began to disturb me. There was more cynicism in them. He was seeing things in Vietnam that bothered him. Things that have already been written about and argued to death so many times by others far more articulate than either of us. I counted the months until his discharge. I even dreamed about our starting a family.
Then I got the call that every soldier’s wife dreads. Billy’s whole platoon had been caught in a Vietcong ambush. There were no survivors.
At the funeral I sat next to Billy’s younger brother, Don, who was sixteen and looked just like Billy. On either side of use, like sentinels, were Billy’s parents, Kay and William Reynolds, Sr.
We gave Billy a military funeral. I jumped at each volley of gunfire from the rifles used to salute the fallen soldier, who had been, all too briefly, my husband. I watched as the two young men in full dress uniform solemnly folded the flag that had draped Billy’s coffin. They brought it over to Billy’s mother, but she made a slight gesture with her head. The one holding the flag knelt before me and placed the flag in my hands.
He rose, saluted, pivoted smartly on his heel, and marched off. Tears were streaming down my face as my hand clutched the flag. Billy’s brother leaned over and whispered, “Donna, try not to burn it.”
I had to bite my lip hard to keep from laughing even through my tears. “Don you’re as horrible as Billy was,” I whispered back.
He squeezed my hand. “Thanks.”
We clung to each other’s hands for a few minutes more. Then, all too soon, the funeral was over.
But how do you forget your first love?
So this Memorial Day I made the long trip from upstate New York to Washington, DC. I looked up Billy’s name. I placed a little swatch of cloth on the ground next to it. As I rose, I heard the distant roar of motorcycle engines. I looked up and saw a group of men on Harleys. Bikers. Then I remembered the Rolling Thunder group that came to the Vietnam War Monument every year at Memorial Day. They were Vietnam vets who came to pay homage to their fallen comrades. I watched them as they slowly drove down the street. When they had passed, I looked back at the Wall sadly. Then a tall figure loomed in front of me, blocking the fading sunlight. I looked up and smiled at the handsome young man in his crisp new uniform.
“You ready Grandma?” He asked.
“In a moment,” I answered.
“Grandpa must’ve been something,” my grandson said. He had grown up with all the stories about his grandfather who had died a hero. My son, Will’s father, had idolized the patriarch he had never known. Perhaps I saw to that too well. Despite my protests, he had gone into the army although it was during a time of peace. Now his son was following a tradition that Billy had unwittingly started. I sighed and turned from the Wall.
“Come on Will. We’ll go to the Old Ebbitt Grill near the White House for dinner.”
“Isn’t that where you used to protest the war grandpa fought in,” he asked with mock innocence.
“Yeah, maybe I’ll do it again while you eat dinner.” I answered.
We fell into an easy banter and for a moment it took me back to all those years ago to somebody else who had had wicked sense of humor and liked to tease me. I linked arms with Will and tried to feel a measure of peace as I said a prayer for his safety. In a few days he would deploy for Basra.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
A Lady In Distress
Two new and unwelcome unauthorized biographies about Hillary Clinton are being released just in time for the summer beach reading season. At least, neither book will be greeted enthusiastically by the Clinton campaign. Both books, Carl Bernstein’s “A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” and “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, don’t break any new ground. And since both tomes are by respected journalists, neither will be hatchet jobs. Bernstein, of course, is best known for his work with Bob Woodward at the Washington Post on the Watergate break in and his subsequent reporting as an ABC correspondent, and Gerth and Van Natta are both award winning New York Times reporters.
Despite all their accumulated credentials, I’m not sure why another book about Hillary Clinton is needed, let alone two. In fact, while I was complaining to a Republican friend (both of us were actually criticizing our party's respective choices) about the fact that I feared that Hillary is still too polarizing a figure for my comfort, he asked the following perceptive questions, “Is there anything the public doesn’t already know about her and Bill? Is there really any opportunity for an October surprise for her campaign?”
Good point. Her life with Bill, in and out of the White House, has been subject to so much scrutiny that it’s hard to see the public giving these two biographies more than a collective yawn before moving on to the next new best selling light fiction as they slather on more sunscreen.
That’s especially true if this report by Dan Balz and Perry Bacon, Jr., in today’s Washington Post is accurate:
On the other hand, books like these do renew the energy of that part of the Republican base that has always made it a cottage industry to hate the Clintons, especially Hillary Clinton. Indeed the coffers of publishers like Regnery are perennially enhanced by printing books with unflattering pictures of her on their covers.
And that’s precisely where the danger comes for Republicans. Every time Hillary haters have tried to throw mud on her for her husband’s behavior, which is the great temptation for the self-righteous so-called values crowd, it has backfired because it reminds the larger public of two things. One is that Hillary was, in fact, the wronged wife and the victim. And, two, she behaved with great dignity during that difficult period in her life. She gained tremendous stature by stoically standing by her husband’s side, not contributing to a Constitutional crisis by leaving him, and generally acting with grace under extreme pressure. The public came to view her as a lady in distress who behaved with great decorum. And something about that view brought out all the protective instincts that people have toward victims who do not deserve what fate has dealt them.
If you don’t believe me, think back to Hillary’s debate, in her first Senate race, with Republican opponent Rick Lazio. He was a moderate, pro-choice New York Republican who was running strong at the beginning. During one of their debates, though, he aggressively stepped into her space, practically wagged his finger in her face and brought up Bill’s bad behavior in a way that suggested she was complicit in his adultery. The picture carried by the press nationwide was of her looking down with a sad expression as Lazio literally got in her face. Even with his choirboy good looks, Lazio looked like a bully who had just asked a rape victim how short her miniskirt was before her attack. People hated him for blaming the victim, the lady in distress. While I’m sure that incident was not the only reason for it, Hillary went on to win the election by 55 percent.
Books that attempt to revive Bill’s scandals or paint Hillary as controlling, cautious, and manipulative are a dime a dozen and they most bring a collective yawn. For more interesting summer reading, I’d recommend Brad Meltzer’s page-turner, “The Book of Fate,” which is now out in paperback.
Despite all their accumulated credentials, I’m not sure why another book about Hillary Clinton is needed, let alone two. In fact, while I was complaining to a Republican friend (both of us were actually criticizing our party's respective choices) about the fact that I feared that Hillary is still too polarizing a figure for my comfort, he asked the following perceptive questions, “Is there anything the public doesn’t already know about her and Bill? Is there really any opportunity for an October surprise for her campaign?”
Good point. Her life with Bill, in and out of the White House, has been subject to so much scrutiny that it’s hard to see the public giving these two biographies more than a collective yawn before moving on to the next new best selling light fiction as they slather on more sunscreen.
That’s especially true if this report by Dan Balz and Perry Bacon, Jr., in today’s Washington Post is accurate:
“The books recount the roller-coaster ride through the Clinton presidency and his tenure as governor of Arkansas, raising anew issues of marital strife and infidelity, Clinton's strong and sometimes controlling personality, the scandals that ultimately led to impeachment, the failed effort to reform health care and much more.”Although Balz and Bacon point out that both books could hurt Clinton’s presidential bid by rehashing past scandals and reminding voters of their Clinton fatigue from the late nineties, others predict that the public will largely ignore the ancient history. Indeed even the media has moved on to the newer scandals involving Brangelina and Brittany and Lindsay.
On the other hand, books like these do renew the energy of that part of the Republican base that has always made it a cottage industry to hate the Clintons, especially Hillary Clinton. Indeed the coffers of publishers like Regnery are perennially enhanced by printing books with unflattering pictures of her on their covers.
And that’s precisely where the danger comes for Republicans. Every time Hillary haters have tried to throw mud on her for her husband’s behavior, which is the great temptation for the self-righteous so-called values crowd, it has backfired because it reminds the larger public of two things. One is that Hillary was, in fact, the wronged wife and the victim. And, two, she behaved with great dignity during that difficult period in her life. She gained tremendous stature by stoically standing by her husband’s side, not contributing to a Constitutional crisis by leaving him, and generally acting with grace under extreme pressure. The public came to view her as a lady in distress who behaved with great decorum. And something about that view brought out all the protective instincts that people have toward victims who do not deserve what fate has dealt them.
If you don’t believe me, think back to Hillary’s debate, in her first Senate race, with Republican opponent Rick Lazio. He was a moderate, pro-choice New York Republican who was running strong at the beginning. During one of their debates, though, he aggressively stepped into her space, practically wagged his finger in her face and brought up Bill’s bad behavior in a way that suggested she was complicit in his adultery. The picture carried by the press nationwide was of her looking down with a sad expression as Lazio literally got in her face. Even with his choirboy good looks, Lazio looked like a bully who had just asked a rape victim how short her miniskirt was before her attack. People hated him for blaming the victim, the lady in distress. While I’m sure that incident was not the only reason for it, Hillary went on to win the election by 55 percent.
Books that attempt to revive Bill’s scandals or paint Hillary as controlling, cautious, and manipulative are a dime a dozen and they most bring a collective yawn. For more interesting summer reading, I’d recommend Brad Meltzer’s page-turner, “The Book of Fate,” which is now out in paperback.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Fred Thompson's Phony Red Pickup Truck
Ok, I know I’m the Virginia Democratic blogger whose been pushing the Fred Thompson for President idea here in the Old Commonwealth. I really was intrigued by Arthur Branch running for an office higher than the television DA of New York City. I mean how realistic is the premise that New Yorkers actually voted for Bubba for any office in New York City?
It’s not that I support Thompson. Just the opposite. I actually think he’d be a terrible president. But I also believe he’s going to be an attractive candidate to a lot of the Republican right because the already announced candidates just haven’t caught their enthusiasm yet. Certainly the three frontrunners have not excited the Republican base.
Because of that it would be a mistake for Democrats to write Thompson off. On paper, he can be a credible candidate, as this shows:
But the rumor has gotten out that he is famously lazy – not a good trait for a candidate let alone for a president. I think that in the placid years of the Clinton administration, back in the halcyon days of 1999-2000, when America was at peace and had a truly good economy, one where the benefits actually filtered down to ordinary working people, Thompson’s lack of serious engagement wouldn’t have been a liability. In fact, back then, the most serious political issue seemed to be with whom it would be more fun to throw back a beer. The likeability factor got more serious media attention than an actual foreign policy debate did.
But these are serious times. The sizzling economy is not trickling down past the corporate boardrooms of Halliburton or the floor of the Wall Street trading floor. Ordinary Americans are losing good job, pensions, health benefits and their pay is mostly flat. And at the same time, we are in a seemingly endless war in Iraq with no exit. People may be losing their patience for the "aw shucks" folksy persona of rich phonies.
In Sunday’s Tennessean, Larry Daughtrey, one of Tennessee’s best political writers, has this devastating piece on Fred Thompson. Here’s the money quote:
Frankly, in National Airport, when Fred Thompson wasn’t thinking about future voters, he didn’t seem very friendly either. The exact word to describe him - when the klieg lights weren’t on for a Law and Order scene and the political press wasn’t around to sing his praise - is “dyspeptic.”
Of course, because running for president is hard work, Thompson might not do it. As an actor, it may be the ratings for next season and not the votes.
But, as Daughtrey put it, “if he buys a used Boeing 707 and paints it red, watch out.”
It’s not that I support Thompson. Just the opposite. I actually think he’d be a terrible president. But I also believe he’s going to be an attractive candidate to a lot of the Republican right because the already announced candidates just haven’t caught their enthusiasm yet. Certainly the three frontrunners have not excited the Republican base.
Because of that it would be a mistake for Democrats to write Thompson off. On paper, he can be a credible candidate, as this shows:
"He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission and a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, researching national security and intelligence. Thompson is also a public speaker with the Washington Speakers Bureauand is a special program host and senior analyst for ABC News Radio. He publishes a daily blog and podcast on ABC Radio web site."I’ve seen him at National Airport doing the NYC to DC shuttle. On paper he can appear to be a credible candidate.
But the rumor has gotten out that he is famously lazy – not a good trait for a candidate let alone for a president. I think that in the placid years of the Clinton administration, back in the halcyon days of 1999-2000, when America was at peace and had a truly good economy, one where the benefits actually filtered down to ordinary working people, Thompson’s lack of serious engagement wouldn’t have been a liability. In fact, back then, the most serious political issue seemed to be with whom it would be more fun to throw back a beer. The likeability factor got more serious media attention than an actual foreign policy debate did.
But these are serious times. The sizzling economy is not trickling down past the corporate boardrooms of Halliburton or the floor of the Wall Street trading floor. Ordinary Americans are losing good job, pensions, health benefits and their pay is mostly flat. And at the same time, we are in a seemingly endless war in Iraq with no exit. People may be losing their patience for the "aw shucks" folksy persona of rich phonies.
In Sunday’s Tennessean, Larry Daughtrey, one of Tennessee’s best political writers, has this devastating piece on Fred Thompson. Here’s the money quote:
In addition, I’ve known the rumors for a while that even while campaigning in that red pickup truck, Thompson would ride a few miles out of town and the limo would be waiting, which Daughtrey sort of confirms in his article."In the Washington world of workaholics, Fred is remembered as a virtual teetotaler. During his eight years in the U.S. Senate, an insertion into the Congressional Record amounted to heavy lifting.
His high school yearbook sized him up early: "The lazier a man is, the more he plans to do."Sliding back and forth between the fantasy worlds of the silver screen and politics is nothing new for him.
Back in 1992, the Gucci loafers, Lincoln Continental and high-dollar lobbying fees of Fred D. Thompson, Esquire, weren't playing too well at the political box office in Tennessee. So, he bought an old red pickup and a pair of $100 boots, tuned up the drawl and beat a Harvard man for the Senate in Big Orange country."
Frankly, in National Airport, when Fred Thompson wasn’t thinking about future voters, he didn’t seem very friendly either. The exact word to describe him - when the klieg lights weren’t on for a Law and Order scene and the political press wasn’t around to sing his praise - is “dyspeptic.”
Of course, because running for president is hard work, Thompson might not do it. As an actor, it may be the ratings for next season and not the votes.
But, as Daughtrey put it, “if he buys a used Boeing 707 and paints it red, watch out.”
Monday, May 21, 2007
Big Pharma and the Mental Health Crisis
Guest Post from Alison:
Note: This post grew out of some comments to a post that I wrote on mental health issues earlier this month and an exchange of emails between Alison and me. I appreciate the points she made about non-drug treatments for even severe mental illness. Like Alison, I am a layperson. But I have seen some devastating side effects from psychotropic drugs and it seems to me that they should be a treatment of last resort and used temporarily if at all possible. I believe that drugs do have a role to play in the treatment of some mental illnesses, but I also agree with Alison that too often drugs are simply thrown at mental health problems indiscriminately and often by family physicians who are not qualified to prescribe and monitor their long term use.
With the disclaimer that I am a layperson in regards to neuropsychology, the issue isn't whether psychiatric illnesses are biological or not but what works in helping people to recover from them.
Lots of diseases and disorders are biologically based but do respond to non-drug approaches better than drug approaches to either curing or maintaining optimal functioning. As for the chemical imbalance theory, the best way I can summarize that in a neutral manner is to say it has never been proven and has been discredited/discarded as overly simplistic at best. Our brains and bodies are always in and out of chemical balances of various sorts, and at this point researchers are looking more at proteins, but again it is never a simple balanced or not balanced explanation, there are multiple processes going on all the time. Also, all kinds of activities and situations affect the brain, not just drugs. Cognitive therapy has been shown to change the brain, trauma has been shown to change the brain, all kinds of good psychotherapy can change the brain. Depression and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have been studied more than schizophrenia and CBT, but in England,CBT and "Hearing Voices" groups and new individual psychotherapy approaches that teach clients how to understand what triggers their voices, what they may mean and ways to keep the experience of voices from overwhelming them have all been shown to improve the quality of life and functioning of people diagnosed with schizophrenia.
In the old days in the U.S., psychotherapy was used and worked well on many people diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; more people with schizophrenia fully recovered before the advent of drugs than after, in fact, if they had access to good psychotherapy as most did not. When community mental health centers were formed (although never enough and never fully funded), the standard of care was psychotherapy and medication together, not medication alone as it is so often today. Drug "holidays" were more common as psychiatrists would test to see if their patients still needed to be on psychotropic medication over time. One rarely sees this today as the pharmacological approach (and big Pharma) have taken over psychiatry on the whole.The few places where intensive psychotherapy is being used successfully with people with psychotic illnesses in the U.S. are private hospitals such as Austen Riggs, which also has recently released research on the success of their approach and private practitoners who work with individuals with psychotic illnesses. Other helpful non-drug approaches to psychotic illnesses are peer support, either adjunctive or stand alone, social and employment supports and individualized wrap around services. There is also, of course, the long known but often overlooked fact that a certain percentage of people with psychotic illnesses will recover with or without any treatment at all---E. Fuller Torrey, hardly a progressive in these matters, says 25%, others say up to 60% if people are not kept on drugs indefinitely because the neuroleptics themselves cause structural changes to the brain. This is getting long and others have written much more eloquently about it, I would summarize that people with schizophrenia and other psychotic and affective disorders have a range of etiologies of their illness and a very large range of response to treatment and that many different kinds of treatments can be helpful, not just drugs.
Note: This post grew out of some comments to a post that I wrote on mental health issues earlier this month and an exchange of emails between Alison and me. I appreciate the points she made about non-drug treatments for even severe mental illness. Like Alison, I am a layperson. But I have seen some devastating side effects from psychotropic drugs and it seems to me that they should be a treatment of last resort and used temporarily if at all possible. I believe that drugs do have a role to play in the treatment of some mental illnesses, but I also agree with Alison that too often drugs are simply thrown at mental health problems indiscriminately and often by family physicians who are not qualified to prescribe and monitor their long term use.
With the disclaimer that I am a layperson in regards to neuropsychology, the issue isn't whether psychiatric illnesses are biological or not but what works in helping people to recover from them.
Lots of diseases and disorders are biologically based but do respond to non-drug approaches better than drug approaches to either curing or maintaining optimal functioning. As for the chemical imbalance theory, the best way I can summarize that in a neutral manner is to say it has never been proven and has been discredited/discarded as overly simplistic at best. Our brains and bodies are always in and out of chemical balances of various sorts, and at this point researchers are looking more at proteins, but again it is never a simple balanced or not balanced explanation, there are multiple processes going on all the time. Also, all kinds of activities and situations affect the brain, not just drugs. Cognitive therapy has been shown to change the brain, trauma has been shown to change the brain, all kinds of good psychotherapy can change the brain. Depression and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) have been studied more than schizophrenia and CBT, but in England,CBT and "Hearing Voices" groups and new individual psychotherapy approaches that teach clients how to understand what triggers their voices, what they may mean and ways to keep the experience of voices from overwhelming them have all been shown to improve the quality of life and functioning of people diagnosed with schizophrenia.
In the old days in the U.S., psychotherapy was used and worked well on many people diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; more people with schizophrenia fully recovered before the advent of drugs than after, in fact, if they had access to good psychotherapy as most did not. When community mental health centers were formed (although never enough and never fully funded), the standard of care was psychotherapy and medication together, not medication alone as it is so often today. Drug "holidays" were more common as psychiatrists would test to see if their patients still needed to be on psychotropic medication over time. One rarely sees this today as the pharmacological approach (and big Pharma) have taken over psychiatry on the whole.The few places where intensive psychotherapy is being used successfully with people with psychotic illnesses in the U.S. are private hospitals such as Austen Riggs, which also has recently released research on the success of their approach and private practitoners who work with individuals with psychotic illnesses. Other helpful non-drug approaches to psychotic illnesses are peer support, either adjunctive or stand alone, social and employment supports and individualized wrap around services. There is also, of course, the long known but often overlooked fact that a certain percentage of people with psychotic illnesses will recover with or without any treatment at all---E. Fuller Torrey, hardly a progressive in these matters, says 25%, others say up to 60% if people are not kept on drugs indefinitely because the neuroleptics themselves cause structural changes to the brain. This is getting long and others have written much more eloquently about it, I would summarize that people with schizophrenia and other psychotic and affective disorders have a range of etiologies of their illness and a very large range of response to treatment and that many different kinds of treatments can be helpful, not just drugs.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Support Big Box Legislation in Fairfax!
Jambon has a great post up at Raising Kaine today on proposed Big Box legislation that will be before the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors tomorrow, Monday, May 21, at 4 PM. The hearing will be held in the Fairfax Government Center at 12000 Government Center Parkway, in the Board Auditorium.
This legislation could be another example of the Fairfax Board of Supervisors commitment to greening the county and to smart growth. Big box stores like Target, Home Depot, and Wal Mart contribute to suburban sprawl and traffic congestion.
Lately, city and county planners have been encouraging mixed use developments built near existing Metro stations and bus stops. Besides making environmental and economic sense, there are health care experts who have said that our suburban way of life, where we get into our cars for every shopping errand, is contributing to the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease in this country.
Mixed use development has the added health advantage of getting people to live, shop and possibly even work in a single community where they can walk rather than ride to jobs and stores. What a concept. It used to be called a small town!
Anyay, if you're able to get to the Government Center (and in all honestly, I'll be at work in DC), please get out to support Big Box legislation.
This legislation could be another example of the Fairfax Board of Supervisors commitment to greening the county and to smart growth. Big box stores like Target, Home Depot, and Wal Mart contribute to suburban sprawl and traffic congestion.
Lately, city and county planners have been encouraging mixed use developments built near existing Metro stations and bus stops. Besides making environmental and economic sense, there are health care experts who have said that our suburban way of life, where we get into our cars for every shopping errand, is contributing to the epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease in this country.
Mixed use development has the added health advantage of getting people to live, shop and possibly even work in a single community where they can walk rather than ride to jobs and stores. What a concept. It used to be called a small town!
Anyay, if you're able to get to the Government Center (and in all honestly, I'll be at work in DC), please get out to support Big Box legislation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Gun Raffle in Fairfax on Thursday
Today's Washington Post is reporting on a proposed gun raffle to be held in a government building in Annandale, Virginia on Thursday. Local Fairfax officials have been meeting with the Commonwealth Attorney to try to figure out if there is any way to prevent this raffle from going forward in response to an outpouring of sentiment from Fairfax residents who are clearly uncomfortable with these preceedings.
Philip Van Cleave, president of Virginia Citizens Defense League, the group that is holding the raffle to raise funds to support several gun shops who are being sued by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said that his group will give tickets free to anybody who walks through the door. That's because research has turned up a loophole to Virginia law, which says that a gaming event cannot be held on public property without a special waiver, which Fairfax lawmakers are not inclined to provide the group.
You know, you can’t get as pro Second Amendment a Democrat as I am. I truly believe that people do have a right to have weapons, whether for hunting or to protect themselves. And yes they really have a right to carry a concealed weapon too.
But this scuffle in Fairfax County between the Virginia Citizens Defense League and county officials who are uncomfortable with a gun raffle being held in a government building in Annandale has turned me completely off the pro-gun faction. And this is exactly the type of extremism from the gun lobby that will blow up in their face. Scorched the earth policies usually end up scalding those who adopt them
Look, if you were to go into a public office building in most cities or municipalities in this country, you would have to go past a metal detector. If you had a weapon, whether a gun or a knife, it would be confiscated. In fact, if you carried pepper spray, that too would be taken from you. Certainly, you couldn’t go into any federal building, under the very pro-gun Bush administration, with a concealed weapon of any kind – and that includes non-gun weapons – without a guard taking it away from you. Indeed, most federal buildings still have all those cute color-coded warnings that the Bush administration has made into a paean to paranoia regarding national security. Bring a gun into, say, the Treasury Building or the State Department and you’re liable to be held as a terrorist.
But bring a gun into a government center in Annandale, Virginia and suddenly you become a Second Amendment patriot?
The only reason the Virginia Citizens Defense League is doing this is not to snub Michael Bloomberg in New York City but to thumb their noses at liberal Northern Virginians, who the Virginia Citizens Defense League think don’t agree with their pro-gun stand either.
Truth be told, most Fairfax residents are uncomfortable with a display of guns in a public building. If the Million Mom March had a base, it probably is in Northern Virginia. But you know what? There is something to be said for home rule and respecting the mores of a region that’s different from the rest of Virginia.
Back where I came from, in upstate New York, it used to be the Republicans who supported home rule. And in Byrd Machine Virginia, it was the Democrats who supported the Dillon Rule that essentially stripped the grassroots of control and gave all power to the state. And that was done to keep power in the hands of a few very corrupt, racist Dixiecrats in the bad old days.
It’s time we admitted this.
I don’t want to take guns away from anybody. But I think holding a gun raffle in a public building in an urban area where citizens are clearly uncomfortable with public displays of guns is disgusting.
It’s not about Michael Bloomberg. For these bozos, it’s about Northern Virginians. And I’m one of those Northern Virginians.
Let people have their guns. But don’t thumb your noses at those whose culture is different by a public display. You want to take on Michael Bloomberg. Fine. Do it in Southwest.
Philip Van Cleave, president of Virginia Citizens Defense League, the group that is holding the raffle to raise funds to support several gun shops who are being sued by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said that his group will give tickets free to anybody who walks through the door. That's because research has turned up a loophole to Virginia law, which says that a gaming event cannot be held on public property without a special waiver, which Fairfax lawmakers are not inclined to provide the group.
You know, you can’t get as pro Second Amendment a Democrat as I am. I truly believe that people do have a right to have weapons, whether for hunting or to protect themselves. And yes they really have a right to carry a concealed weapon too.
But this scuffle in Fairfax County between the Virginia Citizens Defense League and county officials who are uncomfortable with a gun raffle being held in a government building in Annandale has turned me completely off the pro-gun faction. And this is exactly the type of extremism from the gun lobby that will blow up in their face. Scorched the earth policies usually end up scalding those who adopt them
Look, if you were to go into a public office building in most cities or municipalities in this country, you would have to go past a metal detector. If you had a weapon, whether a gun or a knife, it would be confiscated. In fact, if you carried pepper spray, that too would be taken from you. Certainly, you couldn’t go into any federal building, under the very pro-gun Bush administration, with a concealed weapon of any kind – and that includes non-gun weapons – without a guard taking it away from you. Indeed, most federal buildings still have all those cute color-coded warnings that the Bush administration has made into a paean to paranoia regarding national security. Bring a gun into, say, the Treasury Building or the State Department and you’re liable to be held as a terrorist.
But bring a gun into a government center in Annandale, Virginia and suddenly you become a Second Amendment patriot?
The only reason the Virginia Citizens Defense League is doing this is not to snub Michael Bloomberg in New York City but to thumb their noses at liberal Northern Virginians, who the Virginia Citizens Defense League think don’t agree with their pro-gun stand either.
Truth be told, most Fairfax residents are uncomfortable with a display of guns in a public building. If the Million Mom March had a base, it probably is in Northern Virginia. But you know what? There is something to be said for home rule and respecting the mores of a region that’s different from the rest of Virginia.
Back where I came from, in upstate New York, it used to be the Republicans who supported home rule. And in Byrd Machine Virginia, it was the Democrats who supported the Dillon Rule that essentially stripped the grassroots of control and gave all power to the state. And that was done to keep power in the hands of a few very corrupt, racist Dixiecrats in the bad old days.
It’s time we admitted this.
I don’t want to take guns away from anybody. But I think holding a gun raffle in a public building in an urban area where citizens are clearly uncomfortable with public displays of guns is disgusting.
It’s not about Michael Bloomberg. For these bozos, it’s about Northern Virginians. And I’m one of those Northern Virginians.
Let people have their guns. But don’t thumb your noses at those whose culture is different by a public display. You want to take on Michael Bloomberg. Fine. Do it in Southwest.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The War of Words About Iraq
The Democrats seem determined to lose the confidence of the public by not sticking to their guns about getting out of Iraq. And they seem even more determined to lose the war of words about Iraq by claiming that the war is already lost. And, of course, the Republicans have no reason to do the hard work of ending the war as long as they think they can score political points by calling the Democrats defeatists. Neither side is correct.
The war in Iraq, in fact, was won long ago. Of course, since our premise for invading Iraq turned out to be false, it’s easy to lose sight of exactly what our original goals were – at least the publicly announced goals – and therefore to not recognize that we actually met them. Our military succeeded in doing everything this administration asked of them and doing it as successfully as humanly possible.
Our original justification for going into Iraq was to depose Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein and find his weapons of mass destruction before he could turn them against his Middle Eastern neighbors or us.
We got rid of Hussein and his sons. We installed a new government. Unfortunately, we never got those WMDs. But you can hardly blame the military for that. Those unconventional weapons were never there to start with, so that’s a benchmark that was impossible to meet. All the rest the military succeeded in doing.
It’s the continuing occupation that’s so damned hard.
And that’s where we are failing. It was doomed from the start and not by the military but by an incompetent civilian administration that put inexperienced people into powerful positions in Iraq, even though their appointees lacked knowledge and were not competent to rebuild the Iraqi nation. This article from the September 17, 2006 Washington Post, taken from Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s book, Life in the Imperial City, highlights the tragic missteps that certainly helped derail our efforts in Iraq.
As Chandraskekaran documents, those civilians who flooded into the country in the early days of our victory – and it was a victory – were young and their primary qualification for service was that they were ideologues, who were loyal to the Bush administration. Surprise, surprise! Like that hasn’t been the major qualification for every position of responsibility that has led to abysmal failure on the part of the Bush administration both at home and abroad.
It’s important, though, to define the real problem or we will never be able to fix it in Iraq. And the American public is as uneasy with the Democratic timetables for withdrawal as they are disapproving of Bush’s intransigent insistence on staying the course. For good reason, thoughtful people fear the consequences of pulling out and wiping our hands of the whole mess, which we largely created in the first place. It’s not unreasonable to fear a destabilized and failed state in an already volatile region that always is in danger of exploding.
But we also can’t continue an occupation that is spiraling into chaos. We can’t keep doing what we’re doing into infinity. That’s not defeatism. That’s common sense. In fact, here’s an excerpt from an article by Christopher Preble, “How to Exit Iraq,” taken from the Cato Institute’s Website in 2005.
Eventually, we have to step out of the way of the civil war going on in Iraq and let the Iraqis come up with a political solution to their political problems. We can’t do that for them. But we also can’t withdraw from the entire region. In short, Johnny isn’t going to come marching home all that soon. But he does need to get out of the Iraqis’ way.
The strategy we need is to re-deploy troops out of Iraq to nearby hot spots where they can continue to combat terrorism and defend our national interests. We also may have to leave some troops in Iraq to continue to train security forces. We cannot leave them in a lurch and abandon them. Colin Powell’s pottery rule is still true. We broke it. We have an obligation – moral and practical – to help fix it.
To do that, we also are going to have to open talks with Syria, Saudi Arabia and, yes, Iran. They are not our friends. At best, they are treacherous allies in a dangerous region. But they realize that an unstable Iraq is not in their own self-interests. In other words, while they are not our buddies, they are stakeholders in an effort to stabilize their own region. And that’s exactly how to approach them, as adversaries who happen to have a common interest with us. In the case of Iran, we will need special care. We are going to have to warn them in no uncertain terms to stop meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs. But right now, the chaos our presence is bringing to that region is actually strengthening their influence among their fellow Shia. Iran is the wild card. But we won’t get them out of Iraq as long as we are there. Our presence provides rationalization for their interference in the region.
In the end, there is a real possibility that such talks may fail. Because of that we do need to leave a door open to be able to return should the situation warrant it. Again, Preble from the Cato piece:
But we have also had a diplomatic failure of monumental proportions caused by a political lack of will on the part of an incompetent and arrogant administration that still places ideology above evidence and facts.
Now we’ve got to step out of Iraq but not out of the region. Iraq must solve its own political problems with the help of the international community as led by America. We do have that responsibility. But we have got to stop losing the peace. And the only way to do that is to get out of the business of occupying another country. Let me repeat what I said near the beginning of this piece: That is not defeatism. It’s common sense.
The war in Iraq, in fact, was won long ago. Of course, since our premise for invading Iraq turned out to be false, it’s easy to lose sight of exactly what our original goals were – at least the publicly announced goals – and therefore to not recognize that we actually met them. Our military succeeded in doing everything this administration asked of them and doing it as successfully as humanly possible.
Our original justification for going into Iraq was to depose Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein and find his weapons of mass destruction before he could turn them against his Middle Eastern neighbors or us.
We got rid of Hussein and his sons. We installed a new government. Unfortunately, we never got those WMDs. But you can hardly blame the military for that. Those unconventional weapons were never there to start with, so that’s a benchmark that was impossible to meet. All the rest the military succeeded in doing.
It’s the continuing occupation that’s so damned hard.
And that’s where we are failing. It was doomed from the start and not by the military but by an incompetent civilian administration that put inexperienced people into powerful positions in Iraq, even though their appointees lacked knowledge and were not competent to rebuild the Iraqi nation. This article from the September 17, 2006 Washington Post, taken from Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s book, Life in the Imperial City, highlights the tragic missteps that certainly helped derail our efforts in Iraq.
As Chandraskekaran documents, those civilians who flooded into the country in the early days of our victory – and it was a victory – were young and their primary qualification for service was that they were ideologues, who were loyal to the Bush administration. Surprise, surprise! Like that hasn’t been the major qualification for every position of responsibility that has led to abysmal failure on the part of the Bush administration both at home and abroad.
It’s important, though, to define the real problem or we will never be able to fix it in Iraq. And the American public is as uneasy with the Democratic timetables for withdrawal as they are disapproving of Bush’s intransigent insistence on staying the course. For good reason, thoughtful people fear the consequences of pulling out and wiping our hands of the whole mess, which we largely created in the first place. It’s not unreasonable to fear a destabilized and failed state in an already volatile region that always is in danger of exploding.
But we also can’t continue an occupation that is spiraling into chaos. We can’t keep doing what we’re doing into infinity. That’s not defeatism. That’s common sense. In fact, here’s an excerpt from an article by Christopher Preble, “How to Exit Iraq,” taken from the Cato Institute’s Website in 2005.
“Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski declared last week that the United States could never achieve its goals of a democratic, stable and peaceful Iraq unless the American people were prepared to "commit 500,000 troops, spend [US]$200 billion a year, probably have a draft," and have some form of wartime taxation. Brzezinski conceded that Americans "are not prepared to do that."Cato is not a leftwing think tank. Nor is Bryzesinski a Northeastern liberal dove. And he’s right. We’re not prepared to do those things. Nobody on the right currently criticizing the Democrats is willing to reinstate a draft let alone consider raising taxes. All they really want to do is chant slogans about defeatism and try to score political points off Democrats. That’s not a way to find a solution in Iraq.
Eventually, we have to step out of the way of the civil war going on in Iraq and let the Iraqis come up with a political solution to their political problems. We can’t do that for them. But we also can’t withdraw from the entire region. In short, Johnny isn’t going to come marching home all that soon. But he does need to get out of the Iraqis’ way.
The strategy we need is to re-deploy troops out of Iraq to nearby hot spots where they can continue to combat terrorism and defend our national interests. We also may have to leave some troops in Iraq to continue to train security forces. We cannot leave them in a lurch and abandon them. Colin Powell’s pottery rule is still true. We broke it. We have an obligation – moral and practical – to help fix it.
To do that, we also are going to have to open talks with Syria, Saudi Arabia and, yes, Iran. They are not our friends. At best, they are treacherous allies in a dangerous region. But they realize that an unstable Iraq is not in their own self-interests. In other words, while they are not our buddies, they are stakeholders in an effort to stabilize their own region. And that’s exactly how to approach them, as adversaries who happen to have a common interest with us. In the case of Iran, we will need special care. We are going to have to warn them in no uncertain terms to stop meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs. But right now, the chaos our presence is bringing to that region is actually strengthening their influence among their fellow Shia. Iran is the wild card. But we won’t get them out of Iraq as long as we are there. Our presence provides rationalization for their interference in the region.
In the end, there is a real possibility that such talks may fail. Because of that we do need to leave a door open to be able to return should the situation warrant it. Again, Preble from the Cato piece:
“The jihadis will claim that the American withdrawal represents a victory for their side. But while the United States has already suffered a blow to its credibility, it is still eminently capable of defending its vital interests. An American military withdrawal would not, and must not, signal that the United States has chosen to ignore events in Iraq.The truth is we had a military victory long ago. And if need be, to contain a real threat to our domestic security, we are thoroughly capable of going back in to remove a genuine threat. Americans will always support our military in actions to strengthen our legitimate national security interests.
“If Iraqis wish to retain their sovereignty and independence, they must ensure that al-Qaeda and other anti-American terrorist groups do not establish a safe haven in their country. Accordingly, the withdrawal of U.S. forces must be coupled with a clear and unequivocal message to the new government of Iraq: do not threaten us or allow foreign terrorists in your country to threaten us. If you do, we will be back.”
But we have also had a diplomatic failure of monumental proportions caused by a political lack of will on the part of an incompetent and arrogant administration that still places ideology above evidence and facts.
Now we’ve got to step out of Iraq but not out of the region. Iraq must solve its own political problems with the help of the international community as led by America. We do have that responsibility. But we have got to stop losing the peace. And the only way to do that is to get out of the business of occupying another country. Let me repeat what I said near the beginning of this piece: That is not defeatism. It’s common sense.
Monday, May 07, 2007
The Awful Sound of a Ball Dropping - Update!
UPDATE: Since I first wrote this piece yesterday, I saw an excellent post from Catzmaw on Raising Kaine. Catzmaw is a lawyer and she explains in great detail the differences in the legal code under which a mentally ill person can be involuntarily committed and the flaws in the system.
I'm not going to try to summarize her very fine explanation. Instead, I'm just going to urge you to click on the link and read her superb diary on this subject. Thanks Catzmaw for shedding light on a topic that we cannot let fade from the public view.
*************************************************************************************
Virginia definitely dropped the ball on Seung Hui Cho. And what makes this all the more disturbing is that it is not as rare as we would like to believe. According to an article in today’s Washington Post, journalists Brigid Schulte and Chris L. Jenkins report that Cho never received treatment that a judge in Blacksburg ordered for him after he was declared a danger to himself and others.
As the article points out, it is impossible to predict whether treatment would have prevented the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, but it might have averted it or at least made it far more difficult for Cho to purchase a gun.
Because of loopholes in Virginia law, Cho neither received court ordered treatment nor was he placed on a list that would have alerted gun shop owners not to sell to him. Given Cho’s serious lack of interpersonal skills, I suspect it would have been difficult for him to go out and buy illegal weapons on the street. The fact that he was so uncommunicative would have posed a serious barrier to his purchasing weapons from an illegal dealer.
But perhaps, even more important than limiting Cho’s access to weapons, timely therapy might have helped Cho back to a normal productive life. The greatest part of this tragedy was that this was a smart person who had a lot to offer society. He could have built a productive life rather than been the cause of so much destruction and tragedy.
And he’s not the first young person in Virginia for whom lack of effective mental health treatment and too easy access to guns led to a lethal result for others. Last year, Fairfax teenager, Michael Kennedy, shot and killed two police officers in a Sully District police substation after he walked out of a mental health facility. There were significant differences between the cases to be sure, but one thing was the same in both situations. These were two troubled young men whose behavior set off alarm bells among those who knew them yet didn’t receive treatment that might have saved their lives and the lives of their victims.
According to the Post, about Cho:
I think society does have to proceed carefully when declaring any person a danger to himself or herself. To be sure, forty years ago, there were terrible abuses of the mental health system.
At that time, it was far too easy for a parent to have an adult child – usually a young woman – committed to a mental hospital as a method of interfering with his offspring’s choice of lifestyle. And adult children often had an elderly parent declared mentally incompetent and sent to facilities so that they could get their hands on their parent’s money. And in general, people were simply warehoused for years in substandard back building wards rather than treated and released. And all of that lack of care often cost the state lots of money. So, the move during the 60s to de-institutionalize mental patients was viewed as humane and pragmatic. That was especially true when new generations of drugs appeared that seemed to be capable of treating serious mental disorders while allowing patients to return to normal lives.
All of that was a positive development that ended years of abuse of people’s civil liberties and returned truly mentally ill people to society as fully functioning and productive citizens. But because of past abuses, the pendulum has swung too far. In many cases, such as those in Virginia, it’s extremely difficult to impose treatment on the mentally ill against their will no matter how desperately they need it.
But mental illness, by definition, is different from diabetes or heart disease. If I want to ignore my doctor and not take insulin or a statin for cholesterol, I have the right to make an informed decision. If I want to try chanting OM instead of taking a beta-blocker to lower my blood pressure, I’m guaranteed the right to make that choice. Nobody should protect me from my choices regardless of how foolish they might be as long as I hurt nobody else in the process.
But with mental illness, the sicker you are, the less you are able to make a decision based on informed consent. Unlike a physical illness, the more serious a mental illness is, the more likely it also is that the patient is out of touch with reality. The hallmark of a serious mental illness is the fact that the patient is delusional and is incapable of choosing care for himself. Such a person does not even realize that he is sick and out of touch with reality. To be blunt, he thinks the space men really are out to kill him in a devious plot and that he is totally justified in killing all of them to save himself. It’s self-defense. And such a person may also think that you or I are those deadly space aliens posing as human beings.
That’s an extreme and very over simplified example. But the impact of some mental disorders is that they can be dangerous to others besides the individual patient. So society has an interest in and a right to restrain that patient or to compel him to get treatment.
The problem is that we have no will and little resources to do this. Some extreme libertarians will argue that it is not the government’s place to provide care to sick people. That may be a valid argument for a diabetic who isn’t a threat to others. It may even be true for somebody with a depression who poses no risk to the public. But just as nobody in their right mind would argue that we ought to let dangerous criminals out of high security prisons because it’s expensive to keep them there for their full sentences, it’s ridiculous to argue that we shouldn’t ensure treatment, whether institutionalization or outpatient, for those whose mental illness makes them dangerous to others. That’s not being punitive.
In fact, in addition to the lives of innocent victims, the dangerously mentally deranged person is also a victim whose life might be saved. But only if Virginia stops dropping the ball and instead makes treatment a priority.
But with each passing tragedy, the sound of that ball dropping is getting too deafening to ignore.
I'm not going to try to summarize her very fine explanation. Instead, I'm just going to urge you to click on the link and read her superb diary on this subject. Thanks Catzmaw for shedding light on a topic that we cannot let fade from the public view.
*************************************************************************************
Virginia definitely dropped the ball on Seung Hui Cho. And what makes this all the more disturbing is that it is not as rare as we would like to believe. According to an article in today’s Washington Post, journalists Brigid Schulte and Chris L. Jenkins report that Cho never received treatment that a judge in Blacksburg ordered for him after he was declared a danger to himself and others.
As the article points out, it is impossible to predict whether treatment would have prevented the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, but it might have averted it or at least made it far more difficult for Cho to purchase a gun.
Because of loopholes in Virginia law, Cho neither received court ordered treatment nor was he placed on a list that would have alerted gun shop owners not to sell to him. Given Cho’s serious lack of interpersonal skills, I suspect it would have been difficult for him to go out and buy illegal weapons on the street. The fact that he was so uncommunicative would have posed a serious barrier to his purchasing weapons from an illegal dealer.
But perhaps, even more important than limiting Cho’s access to weapons, timely therapy might have helped Cho back to a normal productive life. The greatest part of this tragedy was that this was a smart person who had a lot to offer society. He could have built a productive life rather than been the cause of so much destruction and tragedy.
And he’s not the first young person in Virginia for whom lack of effective mental health treatment and too easy access to guns led to a lethal result for others. Last year, Fairfax teenager, Michael Kennedy, shot and killed two police officers in a Sully District police substation after he walked out of a mental health facility. There were significant differences between the cases to be sure, but one thing was the same in both situations. These were two troubled young men whose behavior set off alarm bells among those who knew them yet didn’t receive treatment that might have saved their lives and the lives of their victims.
According to the Post, about Cho:
"Cho, they said, slipped through a porous mental health system that suffers from muddled, seldom-enforced laws and inconsistent practices. Special justices who oversee hearings such as the one for Cho said they know that some people they have ordered into treatment have not gotten it. They find out when the person "does something crazy again," in the words of one justice -- when they are brought back into court because they are considered in imminent danger of harming themselves or others.
" 'The system doesn't work well,' said Tom Diggs, executive director of the Commission on Mental Health Law Reform, which has been studying the state mental health system and will report to the General Assembly next year.
"Involuntary outpatient commitments are relatively uncommon in Virginia, officials said, because those in the system know they are not enforced. They are almost an act of faith."
I think society does have to proceed carefully when declaring any person a danger to himself or herself. To be sure, forty years ago, there were terrible abuses of the mental health system.
At that time, it was far too easy for a parent to have an adult child – usually a young woman – committed to a mental hospital as a method of interfering with his offspring’s choice of lifestyle. And adult children often had an elderly parent declared mentally incompetent and sent to facilities so that they could get their hands on their parent’s money. And in general, people were simply warehoused for years in substandard back building wards rather than treated and released. And all of that lack of care often cost the state lots of money. So, the move during the 60s to de-institutionalize mental patients was viewed as humane and pragmatic. That was especially true when new generations of drugs appeared that seemed to be capable of treating serious mental disorders while allowing patients to return to normal lives.
All of that was a positive development that ended years of abuse of people’s civil liberties and returned truly mentally ill people to society as fully functioning and productive citizens. But because of past abuses, the pendulum has swung too far. In many cases, such as those in Virginia, it’s extremely difficult to impose treatment on the mentally ill against their will no matter how desperately they need it.
But mental illness, by definition, is different from diabetes or heart disease. If I want to ignore my doctor and not take insulin or a statin for cholesterol, I have the right to make an informed decision. If I want to try chanting OM instead of taking a beta-blocker to lower my blood pressure, I’m guaranteed the right to make that choice. Nobody should protect me from my choices regardless of how foolish they might be as long as I hurt nobody else in the process.
But with mental illness, the sicker you are, the less you are able to make a decision based on informed consent. Unlike a physical illness, the more serious a mental illness is, the more likely it also is that the patient is out of touch with reality. The hallmark of a serious mental illness is the fact that the patient is delusional and is incapable of choosing care for himself. Such a person does not even realize that he is sick and out of touch with reality. To be blunt, he thinks the space men really are out to kill him in a devious plot and that he is totally justified in killing all of them to save himself. It’s self-defense. And such a person may also think that you or I are those deadly space aliens posing as human beings.
That’s an extreme and very over simplified example. But the impact of some mental disorders is that they can be dangerous to others besides the individual patient. So society has an interest in and a right to restrain that patient or to compel him to get treatment.
The problem is that we have no will and little resources to do this. Some extreme libertarians will argue that it is not the government’s place to provide care to sick people. That may be a valid argument for a diabetic who isn’t a threat to others. It may even be true for somebody with a depression who poses no risk to the public. But just as nobody in their right mind would argue that we ought to let dangerous criminals out of high security prisons because it’s expensive to keep them there for their full sentences, it’s ridiculous to argue that we shouldn’t ensure treatment, whether institutionalization or outpatient, for those whose mental illness makes them dangerous to others. That’s not being punitive.
In fact, in addition to the lives of innocent victims, the dangerously mentally deranged person is also a victim whose life might be saved. But only if Virginia stops dropping the ball and instead makes treatment a priority.
But with each passing tragedy, the sound of that ball dropping is getting too deafening to ignore.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Against The Crowd
Several of my favorite bloggers have undertaken a campaign to get a shock jock, Neal Boortz, removed from some Virginia radio stations for his inflammatory remarks about the Virginia Tech shootings. By now everybody in the Virginia blogosphere has heard Mr. Boortz’s unseemly and inaccurate statements so I am not going to link to them. I don’t need to spread his venom any further.
But for anybody who did miss his remarks, he and several other pundits have said that the students at Virginia Tech were somehow to blame for the massacre that occurred there a few weeks ago because they passively lined up to die and nobody fought back or tried to stop the shooter. I’ll deal with that in another, related post. For now let me just say that that was a completely inaccurate assessment of the situation, based on early, erroneous reports. But even if the students had in fact passively complied with the demands of a crazed killer who was firing rounds of bullets from a high capacity magazine, calling them “wussies” is ridiculous. Blaming the victim in a situation like this is despicable.
Unfortunately, campaigning to get the radio stations to cancel Boortz’s show or to get his syndication to fire him is both misguided and a colossal waste of energy.
It’s misguided because it has allowed the right to hijack the debate so that it’s no longer about what Boortz said but about censorship. Somehow, instead of focusing the discussion on Boortz’s statements, refuting them and exposing him for the pompous fraud that he is, liberals have allowed him to become the victim while they are now the villains. It would be nice to blame the right for this but the truth is people who call for silencing others really do bring those charges on themselves.
And yes this time it is censorship. It’s true that by one definition censorship is when the government knocks on somebody’s door and arrests him for making controversial statements. But censorship is also engaging in a dedicated effort to get radio stations to drop somebody because you don’t like what he said. This is not really allowing the market forces to remove Boortz. It is a concerted campaign to silence him.
Whatever happened to Voltaire’s “I may not agree with what you said but, I will defend to my death your right to say it.”
On the other hand, all of the energy going into this effort to get radio stations to remove Boortz is wasted because instead we should be fighting to revive the fairness doctrine.
Despite what conservatives tell you, they are no more in favor of free speech than the left is. What they really mean is that they favor preventing anybody from interfering with their right to dominate the airwaves. But contrary to their assertions, those airwaves are not private property and never were. Private companies lease the right to broadcast over the airwaves from the government, which owns the frequencies. That’s why the FCC can control content and fine companies for indecent broadcasts, just as the Bush appointed FCC did to CBS for Janet Jackson’s half-time fashion mishap a few years ago.
Some on the right may try to make the argument that the fairness doctrine is an attempt by the left to limit free speech. However, it is anything but that. In fact, it would expand freedom of speech. All the fairness doctrine says is that some time must be set aside on public airwaves for opposing points of view.
There’s an old saying that you are free to say whatever you want, but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That may not be entirely true. I once attended a free speech symposium where the speaker, an ACLU member, said you should be free to yell fire as long as somebody else is right beside you to yell equally loudly, “that’s a lie; you’re safe so sit back down.”
In other words, your freedom of speech is only as secure as mine is. Each side will only stop lobbying to silence others whose opinions they dislike when there is a place for everybody to be heard.
It’s no good pontificating about free debate and the marketplace of ideas when it doesn’t actually exist. And if only one side gets to dominate the airwaves it’s not much of a marketplace. It’s more like a monopoly. And when that happens those shut out of the market will continue to shout down the other side by attempts at censorship.
Even more important, it is in the common good and absolutely vital to democracy to have a real marketplace of ideas with genuine, lively, spirited debate. And it’s especially crucial to be able to point out when somebody is spreading lies. And that’s what Boortz and others like him are doing every time they repeat the story that the students at VT did nothing to prevent Cho from shooting them.
It’s like crying fire in the crowded theater. You can either silence the shouter, or you can allow the dissenter to stand there and point out that there is no fire. One way will lead to real censorship; the other will expand freedom of speech for all and give the public a genuine marketplace of ideas. It will protect democracy by allowing the minority opinion to be heard, even against the crowd.
But for anybody who did miss his remarks, he and several other pundits have said that the students at Virginia Tech were somehow to blame for the massacre that occurred there a few weeks ago because they passively lined up to die and nobody fought back or tried to stop the shooter. I’ll deal with that in another, related post. For now let me just say that that was a completely inaccurate assessment of the situation, based on early, erroneous reports. But even if the students had in fact passively complied with the demands of a crazed killer who was firing rounds of bullets from a high capacity magazine, calling them “wussies” is ridiculous. Blaming the victim in a situation like this is despicable.
Unfortunately, campaigning to get the radio stations to cancel Boortz’s show or to get his syndication to fire him is both misguided and a colossal waste of energy.
It’s misguided because it has allowed the right to hijack the debate so that it’s no longer about what Boortz said but about censorship. Somehow, instead of focusing the discussion on Boortz’s statements, refuting them and exposing him for the pompous fraud that he is, liberals have allowed him to become the victim while they are now the villains. It would be nice to blame the right for this but the truth is people who call for silencing others really do bring those charges on themselves.
And yes this time it is censorship. It’s true that by one definition censorship is when the government knocks on somebody’s door and arrests him for making controversial statements. But censorship is also engaging in a dedicated effort to get radio stations to drop somebody because you don’t like what he said. This is not really allowing the market forces to remove Boortz. It is a concerted campaign to silence him.
Whatever happened to Voltaire’s “I may not agree with what you said but, I will defend to my death your right to say it.”
On the other hand, all of the energy going into this effort to get radio stations to remove Boortz is wasted because instead we should be fighting to revive the fairness doctrine.
Despite what conservatives tell you, they are no more in favor of free speech than the left is. What they really mean is that they favor preventing anybody from interfering with their right to dominate the airwaves. But contrary to their assertions, those airwaves are not private property and never were. Private companies lease the right to broadcast over the airwaves from the government, which owns the frequencies. That’s why the FCC can control content and fine companies for indecent broadcasts, just as the Bush appointed FCC did to CBS for Janet Jackson’s half-time fashion mishap a few years ago.
Some on the right may try to make the argument that the fairness doctrine is an attempt by the left to limit free speech. However, it is anything but that. In fact, it would expand freedom of speech. All the fairness doctrine says is that some time must be set aside on public airwaves for opposing points of view.
There’s an old saying that you are free to say whatever you want, but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That may not be entirely true. I once attended a free speech symposium where the speaker, an ACLU member, said you should be free to yell fire as long as somebody else is right beside you to yell equally loudly, “that’s a lie; you’re safe so sit back down.”
In other words, your freedom of speech is only as secure as mine is. Each side will only stop lobbying to silence others whose opinions they dislike when there is a place for everybody to be heard.
It’s no good pontificating about free debate and the marketplace of ideas when it doesn’t actually exist. And if only one side gets to dominate the airwaves it’s not much of a marketplace. It’s more like a monopoly. And when that happens those shut out of the market will continue to shout down the other side by attempts at censorship.
Even more important, it is in the common good and absolutely vital to democracy to have a real marketplace of ideas with genuine, lively, spirited debate. And it’s especially crucial to be able to point out when somebody is spreading lies. And that’s what Boortz and others like him are doing every time they repeat the story that the students at VT did nothing to prevent Cho from shooting them.
It’s like crying fire in the crowded theater. You can either silence the shouter, or you can allow the dissenter to stand there and point out that there is no fire. One way will lead to real censorship; the other will expand freedom of speech for all and give the public a genuine marketplace of ideas. It will protect democracy by allowing the minority opinion to be heard, even against the crowd.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Gerry Connolly and His Big Developer High Rollers
Both critics and supporters of Gerry Connolly acknowledge that he gets much of his financial support from real estate developers and the construction industry. An article, by Bill Turque, in today’s Washington Post analyzes Connolly’s ties to big developers and construction companies. According to the article:
And he doesn’t.
My guess is that Connolly is genuinely pro-business and pro-development He hasn’t sold out to the highest bidder. The highest bidders are contributing because they want to see somebody win who already supports business and growth. In other words, Connolly gets their donations because he is already on their side, not because he’s in their pocket.
And you know what? If Fairfax weren’t business friendly, see how fast residents would complain about the loss of jobs and services those businesses provide. If Fairfax's vibrant economy came to a screeching halt, watch how quickly Connolly and other supervisors would no longer be in office. In that worst case scenario, nobody in the county would be well served.
The question isn’t whether Gerry Connolly, or any other supervisor, is pro growth. It’s what kind of growth they support. So far, Connolly has been a leader in the fight for smart growth. He has been the number one cheerleader for building the tunnel rather than above ground Metro station to Tysons. In addition, he has proactively supported mixed-use building developments clustered near already existing Metro stations, like the Dunn Loring project, to alleviate suburban sprawl and roadway congestion.
Besides all that, as this Washington Post article from March shows, Connolly signed on to the Sierra Club’s “Cool County” project to green Fairfax County. Among some of the initiatives are the use of ethanol- burning buses, tax breaks for hybrid cars, encouraging new neighborhoods with more trees and green spaces, and vegetation on public buildings, including schools and firehouses, to reduce carbon dioxide levels. In addition, Fairfax County gets 5% of its electricity from alternative energy sources like solar and wind power and already uses 90 hybrid vehicles.
If pro-business Gerry Connolly can get his developer friends interested in projects that provide green spaces and that invest in alternative energy he will have accomplished more than some of the purists who constantly vilify developers and keep winning the small skirmishes while losing the war against global warming.
In truth, I am not Connolly’s biggest fan. But I’m also not his worst critic. On balance, when it comes to land use and greening Fairfax, he’s on the right side and if he can convince his developer buddies to support smart growth because its good for public relations and for business, well, there are worse reasons for supporting environmentally friendly projects that do something to alleviate global warming.
“Connolly (D), who is running for a second term, is the top fundraiser on the local level in Northern Virginia, the reports show. He has amassed $311,700 from developers and builders, which is 38.5 percent of the $808,293 he has raised since the beginning of 2004, according to an analysis conducted for The Washington Post by the nonprofit Virginia Public Access Project.”Among Connolly’s top donors are the Lerner Corp and WestGroup. But the issue isn’t simply who gives to his campaign but why they give and what they get for their donations. Nobody is so naïve as to believe large corporations, developers, trial lawyers, or any interest group gives simply out of a disinterested sense of civic responsibility. Or as Connolly’s opponent Gary Baise, a Washington corporate lawyer whose specialty is environmental litigation put it:
“ ‘The analysis I want to see is how close the dates of these contributions are to votes the board took on applications [for rezoning].’ Baise said he had no specific examples of campaign contributions that directly followed favorable votes.”I suspect that if you examine the record you won’t find quid pro quo. You’re probably not going to read about any juicy scandals where somebody gave Connolly’s campaign a huge contribution and a week later the Board of Supervisors voted in favor of their development. In fact, Connolly stated bluntly in the article, “I don’t operate that way.”
And he doesn’t.
My guess is that Connolly is genuinely pro-business and pro-development He hasn’t sold out to the highest bidder. The highest bidders are contributing because they want to see somebody win who already supports business and growth. In other words, Connolly gets their donations because he is already on their side, not because he’s in their pocket.
And you know what? If Fairfax weren’t business friendly, see how fast residents would complain about the loss of jobs and services those businesses provide. If Fairfax's vibrant economy came to a screeching halt, watch how quickly Connolly and other supervisors would no longer be in office. In that worst case scenario, nobody in the county would be well served.
The question isn’t whether Gerry Connolly, or any other supervisor, is pro growth. It’s what kind of growth they support. So far, Connolly has been a leader in the fight for smart growth. He has been the number one cheerleader for building the tunnel rather than above ground Metro station to Tysons. In addition, he has proactively supported mixed-use building developments clustered near already existing Metro stations, like the Dunn Loring project, to alleviate suburban sprawl and roadway congestion.
Besides all that, as this Washington Post article from March shows, Connolly signed on to the Sierra Club’s “Cool County” project to green Fairfax County. Among some of the initiatives are the use of ethanol- burning buses, tax breaks for hybrid cars, encouraging new neighborhoods with more trees and green spaces, and vegetation on public buildings, including schools and firehouses, to reduce carbon dioxide levels. In addition, Fairfax County gets 5% of its electricity from alternative energy sources like solar and wind power and already uses 90 hybrid vehicles.
If pro-business Gerry Connolly can get his developer friends interested in projects that provide green spaces and that invest in alternative energy he will have accomplished more than some of the purists who constantly vilify developers and keep winning the small skirmishes while losing the war against global warming.
In truth, I am not Connolly’s biggest fan. But I’m also not his worst critic. On balance, when it comes to land use and greening Fairfax, he’s on the right side and if he can convince his developer buddies to support smart growth because its good for public relations and for business, well, there are worse reasons for supporting environmentally friendly projects that do something to alleviate global warming.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wiccans Win Religious Liberty Case Against Veterans Administration
After a protracted legal battle with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Wiccans have won the right to have the symbol of their religion, the pentacle, engraved on the headstones of deceased veterans.
Represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, relatives of the fallen veterans finally had the Wiccan pentacle admitted to a list of 38 religious symbols that indicate the faith of their departed loved ones. As this article in the New York Times points out, it normally only takes a few months to gain this recognition. Wiccan families, however, fought for ten years to have their religion officially recognized.
Wicca is a pre-Christian nature religion. Although when it was first founded some of its members claimed that it was part of a Pagan faith stretching back to Old Europe’s pre-history and even referred to it as “the Old Religion,” most adherents now admit that their faith is a modern revival based on what they imagine Celtic and other ethnic groups’ Paganism might have been.
What makes this battle important is that every religion at one time was new, including Judaism and Christianity. And every new faith was denigrated and considered a cult or a fad by the prevailing dominant religion. Indeed, persecution of the new Christian faith by Imperial Rome was the perfect example of egregious religious persecution.
In America, though, minority religions are protected under the First Amendment. Although something like 85 to 90 percent of Americans consider themselves Christian, there are many followers of minority faiths such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. Indeed, the number of faith traditions in America can be mind-boggling. But one thing all of those religions have in common is that in our nation, their rights as minority faiths is protected and they do not have to fear discrimination, especially from their government.
In this particular case, groups that normally oppose Americans United for Separation of Church and State signed on as supporters. In fact, John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that usually litigates First Amendment cases in defense of religious liberty for a diverse group that includes Christian organizations, had this to say:
What makes Whitehead, himself a conservative Christian, absolutely right is that when one small minority is discriminated against, no religion is truly safe. The Wiccans victory, in this case, is a victory for religious liberty for all groups including Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, relatives of the fallen veterans finally had the Wiccan pentacle admitted to a list of 38 religious symbols that indicate the faith of their departed loved ones. As this article in the New York Times points out, it normally only takes a few months to gain this recognition. Wiccan families, however, fought for ten years to have their religion officially recognized.
Wicca is a pre-Christian nature religion. Although when it was first founded some of its members claimed that it was part of a Pagan faith stretching back to Old Europe’s pre-history and even referred to it as “the Old Religion,” most adherents now admit that their faith is a modern revival based on what they imagine Celtic and other ethnic groups’ Paganism might have been.
What makes this battle important is that every religion at one time was new, including Judaism and Christianity. And every new faith was denigrated and considered a cult or a fad by the prevailing dominant religion. Indeed, persecution of the new Christian faith by Imperial Rome was the perfect example of egregious religious persecution.
In America, though, minority religions are protected under the First Amendment. Although something like 85 to 90 percent of Americans consider themselves Christian, there are many followers of minority faiths such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. Indeed, the number of faith traditions in America can be mind-boggling. But one thing all of those religions have in common is that in our nation, their rights as minority faiths is protected and they do not have to fear discrimination, especially from their government.
In this particular case, groups that normally oppose Americans United for Separation of Church and State signed on as supporters. In fact, John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that usually litigates First Amendment cases in defense of religious liberty for a diverse group that includes Christian organizations, had this to say:
" 'I was just aghast that someone who would fight for their country and die for their country would not get the symbol he wanted on his gravestone,' said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which litigates many First Amendment cases. “ 'It’s just overt religious discrimination'.”
What makes Whitehead, himself a conservative Christian, absolutely right is that when one small minority is discriminated against, no religion is truly safe. The Wiccans victory, in this case, is a victory for religious liberty for all groups including Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Phriendly Jaime, I May Buy You That Beer Yet
I may owe Jaime over at West of Shockoe a beer yet. I’m still skeptical about Gore running in 08, but as I’ve said many times, if I hear certain names I’ll get interested. Well as this post in the NY Times political blog, The Caucus, shows, one of those names popped up. It's Peter Knight, a long time Gore insider and he's organizing a reunion dinner for former Gore fundraisers to mark the 20th anniversary of Gore's first run for president. Here's what the Caucus had to say about the event scheduled for May 8:
I’m listening. I’m hoping. And Jaime, I hope I will owe you a beer. If he runs, you name the location.
It’s not a Gore ’08 strategy session (at least not officially), but about 20 former fund-raisers and supporters of former Vice President Al Gore will gather in Washington next month to talk about politics, memories and Mr. Gore’s future at a dinner being organized by Peter Knight, his close friend and political ally.On the other hand:
Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said Mr. Knight and another former Gore fund-raiser, Mary Pat Bonner, were organizing the dinner at their own initiative, and that Mr. Gore — while honored — would not be attending.Well, I'm not convinced that Gore is going to run. And this may just be an innocent little reunion dinner to sit around and reminisce about the good old days. Yeah, right.
I’m listening. I’m hoping. And Jaime, I hope I will owe you a beer. If he runs, you name the location.
SAVE THE DATE FOR THE FCDC LABOR ROUNDTABLE ON THURSDAY
JOIN US
for the first ever
Labor Roundtable
Democratic primary candidates (SD 39, HD 34 and 40)
will join area labor leaders and activists to discuss issues of concern to working men and women in Fairfax County.
Thursday, April 26 at 7:30pm
Fairfax County Government Center
12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax
What issues resonate best with working families?
for the first ever
Labor Roundtable
Democratic primary candidates (SD 39, HD 34 and 40)
will join area labor leaders and activists to discuss issues of concern to working men and women in Fairfax County.
Thursday, April 26 at 7:30pm
Fairfax County Government Center
12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax
What issues resonate best with working families?
- What does the Republican incumbents’ voting record say about their support for labor?
- What can Democratic candidates do to connect with and motivate union voters?
- What part can unions play in electing pro-worker candidates?
Paid for and authorized by the FCDC Labor Committee, www.fairfaxdemocrats.org.
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
The Labor Committee is a Standing Committee of the
Fairfax County Democratic Committee.Please RSVP to the FCDC Labor Committee at labor@fairfaxdemocrats.org
Monday, April 23, 2007
Healing Words and Leadership from Chap Petersen
For one of the most balanced, compassionate posts about the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech and what possible next steps we can take, go here to Chap Peterson's Ox Road South blog.
Chap struck the right note of balance, respect for all points of view and multiple approaches in a serious discussion that has to take place. It's no longer possible to shout past each other and try to score ideological points off each other. People have to begin feeling their way gently and with compassion and try to find ways to prevent further tragedies. We need the humility to realize that we will never be able to prevent every horrific event but we also need the courage and political will to learn from this tragedy and improve the lives and safety of all Virginians.
And there is no one panacea. First, we do have to respect the rights of law abiding citizens who own guns. Chap reminds his readers that he is one of them. But he comes up with a couple of common sense suggestions such as better accessibility to mental health treatement, a more stringent database that would prevent somebody as severely mentally ill as Seung Hui Cho from being able to buy guns. This something that already is in the law but loopholes in that law made it possible for Cho to still gain access to deadly weapons. We can tighten those loopholes while still protecting legitimate privacy rights of our citizens and the rights of gun owners.
Finally, Chap says that high capacity gun magazines are not appropriate for civilian gun owners. They had been outlawed until 2004, when Congress let the ban on semi-automatic weapons expire.
In his writing, Chap has proved himself a leader willing to step up and take a principled stand that is courageous, compassionate and respectful. I applaud him for it and urge you to read his own words.
Chap struck the right note of balance, respect for all points of view and multiple approaches in a serious discussion that has to take place. It's no longer possible to shout past each other and try to score ideological points off each other. People have to begin feeling their way gently and with compassion and try to find ways to prevent further tragedies. We need the humility to realize that we will never be able to prevent every horrific event but we also need the courage and political will to learn from this tragedy and improve the lives and safety of all Virginians.
And there is no one panacea. First, we do have to respect the rights of law abiding citizens who own guns. Chap reminds his readers that he is one of them. But he comes up with a couple of common sense suggestions such as better accessibility to mental health treatement, a more stringent database that would prevent somebody as severely mentally ill as Seung Hui Cho from being able to buy guns. This something that already is in the law but loopholes in that law made it possible for Cho to still gain access to deadly weapons. We can tighten those loopholes while still protecting legitimate privacy rights of our citizens and the rights of gun owners.
Finally, Chap says that high capacity gun magazines are not appropriate for civilian gun owners. They had been outlawed until 2004, when Congress let the ban on semi-automatic weapons expire.
In his writing, Chap has proved himself a leader willing to step up and take a principled stand that is courageous, compassionate and respectful. I applaud him for it and urge you to read his own words.
Friday, April 20, 2007
A Time To Heal
Cross posted at Raising Kaine
Ecclesiastes assures us that there is a season and a time for everything under the heaven. A time for war and a time for peace; a time to weep and a time to laugh; and a time to mourn and a time to dance. There is also a season and a time to heal.
I am uncomfortable with phrases like “we have to move on” though. To me it feels more like moving into a different space, one of gradual healing. Let’s take it slow. There are no timelines to the grieving and healing process and just as each of us grieves differently, each of us will heal at our own pace.
But healing often doesn’t happen without some will to do it and some tangible acts that help move the process along.
One suggestion – and it’s the same one that was given after 9-11 – is to turn off the television. Stop flooding yourself with waves of images and sounds of the tragedy or you’ll eventually drown in them. Get out of your homes and out of yourselves.
At times like this, people need connections and not just virtual ones. Until now, the blogs have provided many of us with a place to come together to grieve, to vent, and to feel connected. A special thanks has to go to Ben Tribbett for his Not Larry Sabato, and to Raising Kaine, for providing places for people from across Virginia to come together and to feel like they are part of a larger community.
But it’s time to turn the computer off too because it can’t take the place of real human contact. One of the things that struck me about Cho Seung-Hui was how radically disconnected he was to those around him. Unlike in high school where, the word is, he was bullied and laughed at, it seems that people at Virginia Tech tried to reach out to him and he kept refusing every offer of kindness from teachers and students. By the time he reached VT he was already so badly damaged that they couldn’t reach him.
Yet, connectedness is the best antidote to despair and anger. It blesses you with empathy for others. It’s what makes us human. Its total absence is what turns us into monsters.
That doesn’t mean that everybody has to be a joiner or an extrovert. There are plenty of introverts, people who prefer privacy and small intimate gatherings with fewer people to large parties and big crowds. That’s very different from somebody being completely disconnected from all people. Introverts often have satisfying relationships and deep connections though with fewer people. It’s the crowds they don’t feel comfortable in.
But every human needs some connection to others. And every human being needs hope. So, if you have not yet been to one of the memorials, see if there’s something to attend so that you will be surrounded with others like you who still have grief to work through. The good thing about all of these memorials is that for all the tears, they also leave you with a sense of hope in the goodness of other people and a sense that evil will not overcome goodness and mercy.
If you’ve missed the memorials in your area, go to a church or synagogue or mosque or temple this weekend. I’m sure they all will acknowledge this terrible tragedy and share the sadness as a community. And they too will not let evil be the final word. They will lift you up and carry you out on a hopeful note.
Finally, be with your family and friends. This promises to be a gorgeous weekend across Virginia, warm weather, and sunshine, the beginning of spring. Go out for a hike, play ball, go on a picnic. Enjoy those you love. Give them a hug and savor every moment with them.
The very best way to honor those who died tragically is to continue to live in love while carrying their memories in your heart. That way evil does not triumph. We will have beaten it. We will have prevailed.
I’ll see you all next week!
Ecclesiastes assures us that there is a season and a time for everything under the heaven. A time for war and a time for peace; a time to weep and a time to laugh; and a time to mourn and a time to dance. There is also a season and a time to heal.
I am uncomfortable with phrases like “we have to move on” though. To me it feels more like moving into a different space, one of gradual healing. Let’s take it slow. There are no timelines to the grieving and healing process and just as each of us grieves differently, each of us will heal at our own pace.
But healing often doesn’t happen without some will to do it and some tangible acts that help move the process along.
One suggestion – and it’s the same one that was given after 9-11 – is to turn off the television. Stop flooding yourself with waves of images and sounds of the tragedy or you’ll eventually drown in them. Get out of your homes and out of yourselves.
At times like this, people need connections and not just virtual ones. Until now, the blogs have provided many of us with a place to come together to grieve, to vent, and to feel connected. A special thanks has to go to Ben Tribbett for his Not Larry Sabato, and to Raising Kaine, for providing places for people from across Virginia to come together and to feel like they are part of a larger community.
But it’s time to turn the computer off too because it can’t take the place of real human contact. One of the things that struck me about Cho Seung-Hui was how radically disconnected he was to those around him. Unlike in high school where, the word is, he was bullied and laughed at, it seems that people at Virginia Tech tried to reach out to him and he kept refusing every offer of kindness from teachers and students. By the time he reached VT he was already so badly damaged that they couldn’t reach him.
Yet, connectedness is the best antidote to despair and anger. It blesses you with empathy for others. It’s what makes us human. Its total absence is what turns us into monsters.
That doesn’t mean that everybody has to be a joiner or an extrovert. There are plenty of introverts, people who prefer privacy and small intimate gatherings with fewer people to large parties and big crowds. That’s very different from somebody being completely disconnected from all people. Introverts often have satisfying relationships and deep connections though with fewer people. It’s the crowds they don’t feel comfortable in.
But every human needs some connection to others. And every human being needs hope. So, if you have not yet been to one of the memorials, see if there’s something to attend so that you will be surrounded with others like you who still have grief to work through. The good thing about all of these memorials is that for all the tears, they also leave you with a sense of hope in the goodness of other people and a sense that evil will not overcome goodness and mercy.
If you’ve missed the memorials in your area, go to a church or synagogue or mosque or temple this weekend. I’m sure they all will acknowledge this terrible tragedy and share the sadness as a community. And they too will not let evil be the final word. They will lift you up and carry you out on a hopeful note.
Finally, be with your family and friends. This promises to be a gorgeous weekend across Virginia, warm weather, and sunshine, the beginning of spring. Go out for a hike, play ball, go on a picnic. Enjoy those you love. Give them a hug and savor every moment with them.
The very best way to honor those who died tragically is to continue to live in love while carrying their memories in your heart. That way evil does not triumph. We will have beaten it. We will have prevailed.
I’ll see you all next week!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
A Million Ways To Mourn
The tragedy at Virginia Tech has everybody grieving across Virginia. And across the blogosphere. And the ways and forms that our grief takes illustrate how very differently people mourn.
Over on NLS, and elsewhere, a thread where people were expressing mourning for the young victims has turned into a debate on guns, with people expressing anger at those who have turned this “political.”
Terry Hartnett, president of the Million Mom March and a longtime anti-gun activist, was roundly criticized for this by some and defended by others. And Republitarian and others were equally criticized for making the point that if somebody had had a gun, they might have been able to stop the shooter in his tracks.
But I respectfully disagree with those who have accused those on both sides of the spectrum of politicizing this or of opportunism.
People express their grief in different ways and need different ways to find comfort. The author Leo Tolstoy once observed that “all happy families are alike but unhappy families are all different in their unhappiness.”
I think that’s true. And I think it’s a myth that tragedy brings us together. In fact, we are more likely to be unified in the times when we celebrate than in the times when we mourn.
That’s because we all have different styles of explaining tragedy. And also because mourning and grief contain an element of anger anyway. Indeed, the late Dr, Elizabeth Kubler Ross, who devoted her life to working with the dying, observed five stages of grieving and one of those was anger. Another was attempting to “make a deal with God.” Another was denial.
Often the loss of a child in a family does not bring the parents closer, seeking comfort from each other. Sometimes it does. But it is just as likely to lead to divorce.
Here in Virginia we are seeing the many ways that people explain tragedy to themselves as well as express their grief and they are all valid expressions.
For somebody who has made gun control a major part of their life, it seems so obvious that banning guns would have saved lives that reacting in anger to the availability of guns becomes a natural expression of very real grief, not a chance to exploit the opportunity to promote their political views. Their real concern is saving lives and their anger and opinions are a natural expression of that concern and of their grief.
Likewise, for those like Republitarian, defending the right to own a gun becomes crucial at such a time. He truly believes that somebody who was armed might have been able to stop a killer. I don’t know whether that’s true or who is correct in this debate. And that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that neither of these good people is exploiting an issue. Rather this issue is deeply who they are and bringing it up is a natural expression of real grief as well as a legitimate desire to prevent future tragedies.
It’s fair for others to say, we don’t want to hear it now. For them, grief is expressed much differently. The kindest thing we can do is to respect each other’s different ways of mourning.
Right now my prayers are with all those at Virginia Tech. Ben Tribbett, at NLS is right. Today we are all Hokies. But that doesn’t mean the discussion about what to do next isn’t valid. Or that the people raising it are being exploitative. We are all just different in our unhappiness.
Over on NLS, and elsewhere, a thread where people were expressing mourning for the young victims has turned into a debate on guns, with people expressing anger at those who have turned this “political.”
Terry Hartnett, president of the Million Mom March and a longtime anti-gun activist, was roundly criticized for this by some and defended by others. And Republitarian and others were equally criticized for making the point that if somebody had had a gun, they might have been able to stop the shooter in his tracks.
But I respectfully disagree with those who have accused those on both sides of the spectrum of politicizing this or of opportunism.
People express their grief in different ways and need different ways to find comfort. The author Leo Tolstoy once observed that “all happy families are alike but unhappy families are all different in their unhappiness.”
I think that’s true. And I think it’s a myth that tragedy brings us together. In fact, we are more likely to be unified in the times when we celebrate than in the times when we mourn.
That’s because we all have different styles of explaining tragedy. And also because mourning and grief contain an element of anger anyway. Indeed, the late Dr, Elizabeth Kubler Ross, who devoted her life to working with the dying, observed five stages of grieving and one of those was anger. Another was attempting to “make a deal with God.” Another was denial.
Often the loss of a child in a family does not bring the parents closer, seeking comfort from each other. Sometimes it does. But it is just as likely to lead to divorce.
Here in Virginia we are seeing the many ways that people explain tragedy to themselves as well as express their grief and they are all valid expressions.
For somebody who has made gun control a major part of their life, it seems so obvious that banning guns would have saved lives that reacting in anger to the availability of guns becomes a natural expression of very real grief, not a chance to exploit the opportunity to promote their political views. Their real concern is saving lives and their anger and opinions are a natural expression of that concern and of their grief.
Likewise, for those like Republitarian, defending the right to own a gun becomes crucial at such a time. He truly believes that somebody who was armed might have been able to stop a killer. I don’t know whether that’s true or who is correct in this debate. And that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that neither of these good people is exploiting an issue. Rather this issue is deeply who they are and bringing it up is a natural expression of real grief as well as a legitimate desire to prevent future tragedies.
It’s fair for others to say, we don’t want to hear it now. For them, grief is expressed much differently. The kindest thing we can do is to respect each other’s different ways of mourning.
Right now my prayers are with all those at Virginia Tech. Ben Tribbett, at NLS is right. Today we are all Hokies. But that doesn’t mean the discussion about what to do next isn’t valid. Or that the people raising it are being exploitative. We are all just different in our unhappiness.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Godspeed to Virginia Tech
Tonight they need our prayers. Here is Gov. Tim Kaine's statement:
"It is difficult to comprehend senseless violence on this scale.
"Our prayers are with the families and friends of these victims, and members of the extended Virginia Tech community.
"The state is working closely with Tech officials, local law enforcement, and the community health system to provide whatever additional resources and support may be needed.
"My staff has made arrangements for me to leave Tokyo today, where I was set to begin a two-week Asian trade mission, so that I can return to the Commonwealth on Tuesday.
"I urge Virginians to keep these victims and their families in their thoughts and prayers."
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Toy Trucks and Girl Bloggers
Years ago, when I was active on a fan site for the TV show The West Wing, some of us started a thread for aspiring writers on the site’s message board. We swapped tips and tricks to stay motivated, solve plotting problems, and fight the inevitable procrastination that most fiction writers – and maybe many writers in general – seem to encounter.
One suggestion that a contributor came up with came from her teacher in a writing workshop. Have a toy truck, the message board contributor advised.
What she meant by that was to have another story or writing project that a budding author could turn to when she ran dry of ideas in her main project. The object was to take a needed break from the work in progress but to not lose the habit of sitting down and writing something every day.
It was good advice. Many self-help books on writing advise would be authors to sit down every day even if they do nothing more than stare at a blank screen. That advice, however well meaning, is counter-productive. Stare at the screen – or even a blank page – for too many days and you’ll throw in the towel for good.
Instead, sometimes when you step away and think of something completely different, your subconscious mind will still be working on the original project and will come up with the perfect idea or solution to whatever has been blocking you.
That’s true in every creative endeavor including research science. There’s a famous story of a nineteenth century German chemist, Friedrich Kekule, who couldn’t solve a mathematical problem pertaining to a formula he was working on. Finally, he just took a break from his work and went to sleep one night. During the night, he dreamed of a snake swallowing its own tail. That dream inspired him to solve the problem of the correct structure of the benzene molecule.
So switching gears, taking a nap or having the toy truck, helps you to step away and come back with a fresh perspective. At least, that’s what happened to me.
I stopped blogging because I wanted to try my hand at fiction. At first I was going great guns blazing. I did a short story that I posted on a Website for writers. I began a novel and wrote 58 pages, working steadily. Then I hit writer’s block. I didn’t feel like doing it any more. I actually knew where I was going with the broad outlines of the story but the motivation had dried up.
At about that time, a few bloggers began telling me how much they missed my blog. And truth to tell, I missed doing it too. So I began to spend more time surfing the blogosphere, posting comments on everybody else’s blog, writing occasional diaries for Raising Kaine, and even doing a couple of guest posts, at Jim Hoeft’s invitation, on Bearing Drift.
And guess what?
If you guessed that I got passed page 58 and ideas totally unrelated to blogging began to flow again in my other work, you would be right.
But, I’m actually a little embarrassed to come back after the great fanfare that accompanied my saying goodbye. So many people wished me well that there’s something to be said for quitting while you’re ahead and staying quit. Also, I don’t want people to think my good bye was some sort of ploy. I can assure you that at the time I was very serious and sincere about leaving.
In addition to the desire to do a different type of writing, blogging was taking a lot of time. Several bloggers had left citing the same reason. And I envied each and every one of them for walking away when they did. So I followed suit.
One of the strains of blogging had been the sense of obligation to post something every day. When I started blogging, the received wisdom was that you had to post daily, and possibly update your site several times a day, to keep your readers. If there were nothing new, they’d stop coming around. That seemed logical.
But now with blog aggregators it’s possible to post less frequently and still get an audience. As the blogosphere has expanded, almost nobody can keep up with everything out there, so more and more people are going to the aggregators’ sites as a one-stop shop to find out what’s going on and who’s saying what. Also, most blogs have Lefty Blogs, BNN, or Waldo’s aggregator on their sidebars. So, if readers go to one of the larger, better-known blogs, if a post somewhere else catches their eye, they’ll click on the link. Most people who use the Web are inveterate Web surfers, looking for other links anyway.
That works beautifully for me. I don’t take advertising and I don’t need constant traffic to my site. If I have nothing up and nobody clicks on my site for three days or three weeks, it doesn't matter to me. When I’ve got a post up, it’ll show up on the aggregators and people can surf over and read it if it’s something that arouses their interest. That’s good enough for me.
Also, since I stopped blogging, a lot has changed with the blogging software. Blogger has made it easier than ever to update a blogroll, post links, etc. Although I learned the basic HTML coding needed to do things on a site, it was never my ambition to do Web design. I wanted to write, not code and worry about graphics. But I wanted a crisp, professional looking site. And I wanted to link and have a blogroll that showed off other bloggers. Now I can do those things on Blogger with just a few clicks of a mouse.
The other thing was that I had been blogging with AOL dial-up for a good deal of the time I was doing it. Then I switched to Verizon, which kept crashing. The technology was frankly driving me bonkers because I’m not the most patient person in the world. Nor am I a computer geek who finds problem solving all that interesting. Again, I wanted to write, not fiddle with all the techie stuff.
But now that everything is running smoothly and I can concentrate on penning opinions again, I have decided to try my hand at blogging once more. Just as all the technical hassles had pushed me in the direction of leaving when I was sorely in need of a break, so the solution to those hassles and my own natural inclination to want to spout my opinions at the blogosphere have paved the way for me returning. It just feels right.
One suggestion that a contributor came up with came from her teacher in a writing workshop. Have a toy truck, the message board contributor advised.
What she meant by that was to have another story or writing project that a budding author could turn to when she ran dry of ideas in her main project. The object was to take a needed break from the work in progress but to not lose the habit of sitting down and writing something every day.
It was good advice. Many self-help books on writing advise would be authors to sit down every day even if they do nothing more than stare at a blank screen. That advice, however well meaning, is counter-productive. Stare at the screen – or even a blank page – for too many days and you’ll throw in the towel for good.
Instead, sometimes when you step away and think of something completely different, your subconscious mind will still be working on the original project and will come up with the perfect idea or solution to whatever has been blocking you.
That’s true in every creative endeavor including research science. There’s a famous story of a nineteenth century German chemist, Friedrich Kekule, who couldn’t solve a mathematical problem pertaining to a formula he was working on. Finally, he just took a break from his work and went to sleep one night. During the night, he dreamed of a snake swallowing its own tail. That dream inspired him to solve the problem of the correct structure of the benzene molecule.
So switching gears, taking a nap or having the toy truck, helps you to step away and come back with a fresh perspective. At least, that’s what happened to me.
I stopped blogging because I wanted to try my hand at fiction. At first I was going great guns blazing. I did a short story that I posted on a Website for writers. I began a novel and wrote 58 pages, working steadily. Then I hit writer’s block. I didn’t feel like doing it any more. I actually knew where I was going with the broad outlines of the story but the motivation had dried up.
At about that time, a few bloggers began telling me how much they missed my blog. And truth to tell, I missed doing it too. So I began to spend more time surfing the blogosphere, posting comments on everybody else’s blog, writing occasional diaries for Raising Kaine, and even doing a couple of guest posts, at Jim Hoeft’s invitation, on Bearing Drift.
And guess what?
If you guessed that I got passed page 58 and ideas totally unrelated to blogging began to flow again in my other work, you would be right.
But, I’m actually a little embarrassed to come back after the great fanfare that accompanied my saying goodbye. So many people wished me well that there’s something to be said for quitting while you’re ahead and staying quit. Also, I don’t want people to think my good bye was some sort of ploy. I can assure you that at the time I was very serious and sincere about leaving.
In addition to the desire to do a different type of writing, blogging was taking a lot of time. Several bloggers had left citing the same reason. And I envied each and every one of them for walking away when they did. So I followed suit.
One of the strains of blogging had been the sense of obligation to post something every day. When I started blogging, the received wisdom was that you had to post daily, and possibly update your site several times a day, to keep your readers. If there were nothing new, they’d stop coming around. That seemed logical.
But now with blog aggregators it’s possible to post less frequently and still get an audience. As the blogosphere has expanded, almost nobody can keep up with everything out there, so more and more people are going to the aggregators’ sites as a one-stop shop to find out what’s going on and who’s saying what. Also, most blogs have Lefty Blogs, BNN, or Waldo’s aggregator on their sidebars. So, if readers go to one of the larger, better-known blogs, if a post somewhere else catches their eye, they’ll click on the link. Most people who use the Web are inveterate Web surfers, looking for other links anyway.
That works beautifully for me. I don’t take advertising and I don’t need constant traffic to my site. If I have nothing up and nobody clicks on my site for three days or three weeks, it doesn't matter to me. When I’ve got a post up, it’ll show up on the aggregators and people can surf over and read it if it’s something that arouses their interest. That’s good enough for me.
Also, since I stopped blogging, a lot has changed with the blogging software. Blogger has made it easier than ever to update a blogroll, post links, etc. Although I learned the basic HTML coding needed to do things on a site, it was never my ambition to do Web design. I wanted to write, not code and worry about graphics. But I wanted a crisp, professional looking site. And I wanted to link and have a blogroll that showed off other bloggers. Now I can do those things on Blogger with just a few clicks of a mouse.
The other thing was that I had been blogging with AOL dial-up for a good deal of the time I was doing it. Then I switched to Verizon, which kept crashing. The technology was frankly driving me bonkers because I’m not the most patient person in the world. Nor am I a computer geek who finds problem solving all that interesting. Again, I wanted to write, not fiddle with all the techie stuff.
But now that everything is running smoothly and I can concentrate on penning opinions again, I have decided to try my hand at blogging once more. Just as all the technical hassles had pushed me in the direction of leaving when I was sorely in need of a break, so the solution to those hassles and my own natural inclination to want to spout my opinions at the blogosphere have paved the way for me returning. It just feels right.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Holding My Breath Until I Turn Blue?
No, just going back to being a Democrat now that April Fool's Day is over. The only thing I was serious about yesterday was that I do want to keep the domain since I still use the name Anonymous Is A Woman. Every once in a while I'll Google just to see what's going on, and I've noticed that somebody else is using the same name on eBay and another person on YouTube. I promise you that they are not me. I don't bid on eBay and I don't have a site on YouTube. I also don't have a copyright on the name Anonymous Is A Woman, which is actually a famous quote frequently attributed to Virginia Wolfe. Nevertheless, I would like to hold onto the name and this domain.
On the other hand, I really did write a guest post on Bearing Drift, which is what Jim Hoeft was referring to in the comments section yesterday. It grew out of a few emails that we sent back and forth and Jim very graciously invited me to do so. I don't want to embarrass him but he's a good guy.
Nevertheless, if I never complete my novel and win a Pulitzer Prize, I can now always blame him for distracting me from my true calling. The truth, though, is that I seem to have gotten to page 58 before writer's block set in. Which could be just as well since one of my characters was a reincarnation of Torquemada. I promise you that you really don't want to know.
But I actually did write one short story that may even be readable. It's posted here. And I also wrote a personal essay on suffering and faith here.
To post comments on that site, I think you have to sign up, so if you don't want to go through that rigamarole, don't worry about it. If you're interested, just click on the links and enjoy reading "what I did on my winter vacation" when I abandoned blogging.
And I'll be back in a few months, unless the spirit moves me sooner :)
On the other hand, I really did write a guest post on Bearing Drift, which is what Jim Hoeft was referring to in the comments section yesterday. It grew out of a few emails that we sent back and forth and Jim very graciously invited me to do so. I don't want to embarrass him but he's a good guy.
Nevertheless, if I never complete my novel and win a Pulitzer Prize, I can now always blame him for distracting me from my true calling. The truth, though, is that I seem to have gotten to page 58 before writer's block set in. Which could be just as well since one of my characters was a reincarnation of Torquemada. I promise you that you really don't want to know.
But I actually did write one short story that may even be readable. It's posted here. And I also wrote a personal essay on suffering and faith here.
To post comments on that site, I think you have to sign up, so if you don't want to go through that rigamarole, don't worry about it. If you're interested, just click on the links and enjoy reading "what I did on my winter vacation" when I abandoned blogging.
And I'll be back in a few months, unless the spirit moves me sooner :)
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Exciting April 1st Announcement for AIAW
Well, it’s time to throw up a post on this site again – just to keep from losing the domain. After all, I don’t want somebody taking it over to hawk Cialis, socially useful and medically necessary as that drug is.
However, I’m also excited to be announcing that I have decided to return to full time blogging, but as a Republican. I’m even turning my site red, which is such a better color anyway. Remember, there’s a shade of red out there that could flatter everybody.
Let’s face it, living with a union thug and advocating for the needy are boring. And frankly, I hate the Birkenstocks. Ann Coulter is right.
What I long for is to wear six-inch stilettos in a cute fuchsia and puce (if I figure out what puce looks like).
I want big hair and lots of black eyeliner and scarlet lipstick to go with my scarlet manicure. Color coordination is so important.
In fact, the more I think about it, the hell with politics. I am going to dedicate my blog to the really important stuff – fashion. From now on, I’m going to call it Anonymous Is A Fashionista. And I’m buying my stuff at Wal Mart only if it’s imported directly from China.
Ooops, gotta go, Dan just got back from another damn outsourcing rally.
However, I’m also excited to be announcing that I have decided to return to full time blogging, but as a Republican. I’m even turning my site red, which is such a better color anyway. Remember, there’s a shade of red out there that could flatter everybody.
Let’s face it, living with a union thug and advocating for the needy are boring. And frankly, I hate the Birkenstocks. Ann Coulter is right.
What I long for is to wear six-inch stilettos in a cute fuchsia and puce (if I figure out what puce looks like).
I want big hair and lots of black eyeliner and scarlet lipstick to go with my scarlet manicure. Color coordination is so important.
In fact, the more I think about it, the hell with politics. I am going to dedicate my blog to the really important stuff – fashion. From now on, I’m going to call it Anonymous Is A Fashionista. And I’m buying my stuff at Wal Mart only if it’s imported directly from China.
Ooops, gotta go, Dan just got back from another damn outsourcing rally.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The End of the World as We Know It: I Agree With Robert Novak on Something
You know it’s the end of the world as we know it when I agree with Washington Post columnist Robert Novak about anything. But in his column today, he’s spot on in his analysis of why both Hollywood’s elite billionaire donors, like Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen and Stephen Spielberg, as well as rank and file Democratic activists around the country, are so wary of Hillary Clinton.
Here’s his astounding comparison of Clinton and one of her opponents, John Edwards:
To be sure, Novak isn’t completely kind to Edwards. He points out that in 2004, Edwards started out as a Southern centrist in the mold of Jimmy Carter. According to Novak, when Edwards saw that it wasn’t working, he recast himself as “a leftwing populist.”
Novak thinks that many Democrats are as uncomfortable with Edwards as they are with Clinton because they consider Edwards a shallow trial lawyer. Indeed Novak believes the true beneficiary of Clinton’s early stumbles and disappointments will be Barack Obama.
While this might be true – only time will tell – the most important point of Robert Novak’s column is the contrast between Edwards, the courageous, and Clinton, the cautious. That’s his characterization, not mine.
Still, it’s an accurate take on the difference between those two, and it deeply disturbs me that Hillary can’t just come out and admit she made a mistake.
Like Novak, and like the Democratic activists he cites, I’m seeing a politician who wants it both ways. She wants to neutralize the anti-war sentiment among voters by blaming the way Bush handled the war, but she doesn’t want to admit that the war, itself, was a mistake in the first place.
The most troubling aspect of this is that Hillary is a woman who doesn’t like to admit that she made an error at all. She’s got a stubborn streak. And that reminds me all too much of somebody else who would rather go it alone than say those magic words, “I made a mistake, I’m sorry. Now, how can we correct this together?”
An admission like that doesn’t make you weaker. Indeed, it’s requisite to being a strong and credible leader.
Since Barack Obama wasn’t wrong about Iraq and hasn’t been around long enough to have cast an embarrassing vote on anything (and trust me, if you stay in elective office long enough, you’ll have some vote or some statement you’d like to kick yourself around the block for), it’s hard to know how he’d handle a situation where he had to admit he was wrong. You can’t blame the guy for being right. Or for, so far, being on the side of angels and casting votes that most Democratic activists approve of.
But it’s hard to say if that’s because his judgment is uniformly sterling and prescient or just because he hasn’t been around the block yet.
Since I’m a bit of a contrarian, I believe that everybody screws up sometime. And I want to know how my candidate will handle it when he or she does. And that’s something I already know about John Edwards and also, unfortunately, about Hillary Clinton.
Here’s his astounding comparison of Clinton and one of her opponents, John Edwards:
“What's wrong with Clinton was demonstrated by the Feb. 4 performance on NBC's "Meet the Press" of a competitor, former senator John Edwards, who displayed the qualities she lacks. He took firm positions and admitted error, in contrast to Clinton's careful parsing. It followed his virtuoso performance at the Democratic National Committee meeting two days earlier that overshadowed Clinton's speech there. Comparing Clinton and Edwards, one longtime observer of the Democratic scene called it "caution versus courage."His analysis of the difference in style and substance between Clinton and Edwards is spot on. Where Hillary cautiously parses every word, every action, and every position, Edwards has already come out with a bold plan for universal health care, admitted that it would mean raising taxes on the wealthy, and stated the plan’s costs. In addition, he declared that he was wrong on Iraq and his vote for the war was a mistake that he regretted.
To be sure, Novak isn’t completely kind to Edwards. He points out that in 2004, Edwards started out as a Southern centrist in the mold of Jimmy Carter. According to Novak, when Edwards saw that it wasn’t working, he recast himself as “a leftwing populist.”
Novak thinks that many Democrats are as uncomfortable with Edwards as they are with Clinton because they consider Edwards a shallow trial lawyer. Indeed Novak believes the true beneficiary of Clinton’s early stumbles and disappointments will be Barack Obama.
While this might be true – only time will tell – the most important point of Robert Novak’s column is the contrast between Edwards, the courageous, and Clinton, the cautious. That’s his characterization, not mine.
Still, it’s an accurate take on the difference between those two, and it deeply disturbs me that Hillary can’t just come out and admit she made a mistake.
Like Novak, and like the Democratic activists he cites, I’m seeing a politician who wants it both ways. She wants to neutralize the anti-war sentiment among voters by blaming the way Bush handled the war, but she doesn’t want to admit that the war, itself, was a mistake in the first place.
The most troubling aspect of this is that Hillary is a woman who doesn’t like to admit that she made an error at all. She’s got a stubborn streak. And that reminds me all too much of somebody else who would rather go it alone than say those magic words, “I made a mistake, I’m sorry. Now, how can we correct this together?”
An admission like that doesn’t make you weaker. Indeed, it’s requisite to being a strong and credible leader.
Since Barack Obama wasn’t wrong about Iraq and hasn’t been around long enough to have cast an embarrassing vote on anything (and trust me, if you stay in elective office long enough, you’ll have some vote or some statement you’d like to kick yourself around the block for), it’s hard to know how he’d handle a situation where he had to admit he was wrong. You can’t blame the guy for being right. Or for, so far, being on the side of angels and casting votes that most Democratic activists approve of.
But it’s hard to say if that’s because his judgment is uniformly sterling and prescient or just because he hasn’t been around the block yet.
Since I’m a bit of a contrarian, I believe that everybody screws up sometime. And I want to know how my candidate will handle it when he or she does. And that’s something I already know about John Edwards and also, unfortunately, about Hillary Clinton.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Sam Brownback's Strange Bedfellows and Opus Dei Connections
Note: This is being cross-posted on Raising Kaine. Also, I am not reviving AIAW on a regular basis. But Rob from Raising Kaine had suggested that I cross post back here when I do a diary for them. It seems like a good idea just to keep my domain from becoming public and being taken over by somebody hawking Viagra or Cialis. So, once in a while - very rarely - when something disturbs me enough, there will be a new post, probably in both places.
Kansas senator, Sam Brownback, formally threw his hat into the Republican presidential ring with yesterday's announcement. On the surface, he's the ideal candidate for the pro-life, religious values voters. But his real agenda goes far beyond what even a lot of them want to see for our government.
Indeed, over the years, Brownback has burrowed himself into the leadership role in a network of secretive cabals with a dangerous theocratic agenda that most Americans, even the so-called values voters, don't support. And in some cases, his view is extra-biblical, relying not simply on biblical principles but on the rule a religious elite who believe they know Christ's true plan for our nation and are dedicated to imposing it on the rest of us. Their goal is nothing short of the abolition of free will and individual conscience.
Most people don’t expect Brownback to actually win the Republican nomination, but as this Rolling Stone article points out:
Brownback has managed to amass a movement that is nothing less than an old-fashioned tent revival meeting, composed of far right evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics from the ultra-orthodox Opus Dei movement.
According to Terry Mattingly’s On Religion website: (please note, emphasis is mine)
In addition to Opus Dei, The Fellowship, the Values Action Team and his other shadowy, undemocratic cells, Brownback announced that one of the major advisers to his presidential exploratory committee will be Thomas Monaghan,, the founder of the ultra-conservative and controversial Ave Maria University, which you can read about here. In addition to moving Ave Maria from Michigan to Collier County, Florida, Mohaghan is attempting to build his own theocratically governed private town, also named Ave Maria. The town will be set up and governed on orthodox Catholic principles such as banning pharmacies from distributing contraceptives
According to this report from the Media Transparancy website:
Brownback is not just involved but is the leading force in groups whose goal is to remake America as an authoritarian theocracy, guided by biblical law as dictated by an annointed few. Incredibly, they believe that "the Bible is for the masses," and their vision is for an extra-biblical dictatorship, perhaps based on biblical principles, but ruled by a small cabal who impose their religious and social views on everybody else. These are people who have made alliance with the leaders of El Salvadoran death squads and brutal Somalian dictators. Theirs is a scary vision for America, indeed for the world.
Brownback, the Fellowship, and their fellow travelers like Jim DeMint, Ed Meese, Tom Coburn, and others mentioned above need to be taken seriously and watched carefully. Theirs would be a dangerous America indeed.
Kansas senator, Sam Brownback, formally threw his hat into the Republican presidential ring with yesterday's announcement. On the surface, he's the ideal candidate for the pro-life, religious values voters. But his real agenda goes far beyond what even a lot of them want to see for our government.
Indeed, over the years, Brownback has burrowed himself into the leadership role in a network of secretive cabals with a dangerous theocratic agenda that most Americans, even the so-called values voters, don't support. And in some cases, his view is extra-biblical, relying not simply on biblical principles but on the rule a religious elite who believe they know Christ's true plan for our nation and are dedicated to imposing it on the rest of us. Their goal is nothing short of the abolition of free will and individual conscience.
Most people don’t expect Brownback to actually win the Republican nomination, but as this Rolling Stone article points out:
"Brownback is unlikely to receive the Republican presidential nomination -- but as the candidate of the Christian right, he may well be in a position to determine who does, and what they include in their platform. 'What Sam could do very effectively,' says the Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical activist, is hold the nomination hostage until the Christian right "exacts the last pledge out of the more popular candidate."But Brownback's role as the deal maker for the right is no where near the only threat posed by the softspoken Kansas senator who manages to carry a big stick with a great deal of political clout.
Brownback has managed to amass a movement that is nothing less than an old-fashioned tent revival meeting, composed of far right evangelicals and traditionalist Roman Catholics from the ultra-orthodox Opus Dei movement.
According to Terry Mattingly’s On Religion website: (please note, emphasis is mine)
Father C. John McCloskey III, the priest referred to in the above article, is a brilliant Catholic apologist with an Ivy League education, who has worked for Merrill Lynch and Citibank on Wall Street before becoming a priest in the personal prelature of Opus Dei."This latest ceremony at Catholic Information Center will not draw the attention of the Washington Post. But that happened last year when Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas entered the fold. Some of McCloskey's earlier converts also caused chatter inside the Beltway -- columnist Robert Novak, economist Lawrence Kudlow and former abortion activist Bernard Nathanson."
For all his brilliance, Fr. McCloskey certainly doesn’t win any points for religious tolerance. Again, from On Religion.
"In addition to winning prominent converts, McCloskey has bluntly criticized the American Catholic establishment's powerful progressive wing, tossing out quotations like this zinger: 'A liberal Catholic is oxymoronic. The definition of a person who disagrees with what the Catholic church is teaching is called a Protestant.'But what’s especially bothersome about Fr. McCloskey's narrow minded views is his cultivation of those in power:
"It is also crucial that McCloskey openly embraces evangelism and the conversion of adults from Judaism, Islam and other world religions. For many modern Catholics this implies coercion, manipulation, mind control and, thus, a kind of "proselytism" that preys on the weak.
" 'That's pure trash. That's a false ecumenism,' said McCloskey. 'That's simply not Catholic teaching. The Catholic church makes exclusive truth claims about itself and cannot deny them. It doesn't deny that there are other forms of religion. It doesn't deny that these other forms of religion have some elements of truth in them. ...
" 'But we are proclaiming Jesus Christ and where we believe he can be most fully found and that's the Catholic church. We cannot deny that.' This issue will become even more controversial as America grows more diverse. "
"But words like 'conversion' and 'evangelism' draw attention when a priest's pulpit is located on K Street, only two blocks from the White House. The flock that flows into the center's 100-seat chapel for daily Mass includes scores of lobbyists, politicians, journalists, activists and executives"However, Opus Dei is actually just the tip of the iceberg for Brownback. Much more troublesome is his long term association with a shadowy group in Congress called The Fellowship. Here’s a rather lengthy description of them, their goals, worldview, and influential members, taken from the Rolling Stone piece cited above:
"One of the little-known strengths of the Christian right lies in its adoption of the 'cell' -- the building block historically used by small but determined groups to impose their will on the majority. Seventy years ago, an evangelist named Abraham Vereide founded a network of 'God-led' cells comprising senators and generals, corporate executives and preachers. Vereide believed that the cells -- God's chosen, appointed to power -- could construct a Kingdom of God on earth with Washington as its capital. They would do so 'behind the scenes,' lest they be accused of pride or a hunger for power, and 'beyond the din of vox populi,' which is to say, outside the bounds of democracy. To insiders, the cells were known as the Family, or the Fellowship. To most outsiders, they were not known at all.Sorry for the very long quote, but if I tried to paraphrase any of this, you wouldn’t believe me or would think that I was just being paranoid.
" 'Communists use cells as their basic structure,' declares a confidential Fellowship document titled 'Thoughts on a Core Group.' "The mafia operates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four-man squad. Hitler, Lenin and many others understood the power of a small group of people.' Under Reagan, Fellowship cells quietly arranged meetings between administration officials and leaders of Salvadoran death squads, and helped funnel military support to Siad Barre, the brutal dictator of Somalia, who belonged to a prayer cell of American senators and generals.
"Brownback got involved in the Fellowship in 1979, as a summer intern for Bob Dole, when he lived in a residence the group had organized in a sorority house at the University of Maryland. Four years later, fresh out of law school and looking for a political role model, Brownback sought out Frank Carlson, a former Republican senator from Kansas. It was Carlson who, at a 1955 meeting of the Fellowship, had declared the group's mission to be 'Worldwide Spiritual Offensive,' a vision of manly Christianity dedicated to the expansion of American power as a means of spreading the gospel.
"Over the years, Brownback became increasingly active in the Fellowship. But he wasn't invited to join a cell until 1994, when he went to Washington. 'I had been working with them for a number of years, so when I went into Congress I knew I wanted to get back into that,' he says. 'Washington -- power -- is very difficult to handle. I knew I needed people to keep me accountable in that system.'
"Brownback was placed in a weekly prayer cell by 'the shadow Billy Graham' -- Doug Coe, Vereide's successor as head of the Fellowship. The group was all male and all Republican. It was a 'safe relationship,' Brownback says. Conversation tended toward the personal. Brownback and the other men revealed the most intimate details of their desires, failings, ambitions. They talked about lust, anger and infidelities, the more shameful the better -- since the goal was to break one's own will. The abolition of self; to become nothing but a vessel so that one could be used by God.
They were striving, ultimately, for what Coe calls 'Jesus plus nothing' -- a government led by Christ's will alone. In the future envisioned by Coe, everything -- sex and taxes, war and the price of oil -- will be decided upon not according to democracy or the church or even Scripture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. It's a good old boy's club blessed by God. Brownback even lived with other cell members in a million-dollar, red-brick former convent at 133 C Street that was subsidized and operated by the Fellowship. Monthly rent was $600 per man -- enough of a deal by Hill standards that some said it bordered on an ethical violation, but no charges were ever brought.
"Brownback still meets with the prayer cell every Tuesday evening. He and his 'brothers,' he says, are 'bonded together, faith and souls.' The rules forbid Brownback from revealing the names of his fellow members, but those in the cell likely include such conservative stalwarts as Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, former Rep. Steve Largent of Oklahoma and Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma doctor who has advocated the death penalty for abortion providers. Fellowship documents suggest that some 30 senators and 200 congressmen occasionally attend the group's activities, but no more than a dozen are involved at Brownback's level.
"The men in Brownback's cell talk about politics, but the senator insists it's not political. 'It's about faith and action,' he says. According to 'Thoughts on a Core Group,' the primary purpose of the cell is to become an 'invisible 'believing' group.' Any action the cell takes is an outgrowth of belief, a natural extension of 'agreements reached in faith and in prayer.' Deals emerge not from a smoke-filled room but from a prayer-filled room. 'Typically,' says Brownback, 'one person grows desirous of pursuing an action' -- a piece of legislation, a diplomatic strategy -- 'and the others pull in behind.'
"In 1999, Brownback worked with Rep. Joe Pitts, a Fellowship brother, to pass the Silk Road Strategy Act, designed to block the growth of Islam in Central Asian nations by bribing them with lucrative trade deals. That same year, he teamed up with two Fellowship associates -- former Sen. Don Nickles and the late Sen. Strom Thurmond -- to demand a criminal investigation of a liberal group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Last year, several Fellowship brothers, including Sen. John Ensign, another resident of the C Street house, supported Brownback's broadcast decency bill. And Pitts and Coburn joined Brownback in stumping for the Houses of Worship Act to allow tax-free churches to endorse candidates.
"The most bluntly theocratic effort, however, is the Constitution Restoration Act, which Brownback co-sponsored with Jim DeMint, another former C Streeter who was then a congressman from South Carolina. If passed, it will strip the Supreme Court of the ability to even hear cases in which citizens protest faith-based abuses of power. Say the mayor of your town decides to declare Jesus lord and fire anyone who refuses to do so; or the principal of your local high school decides to read a fundamentalist prayer over the PA every morning; or the president declares the United States a Christian nation. Under the Constitution Restoration Act, that'll all be just fine.
Brownback points to his friend Ed Meese, who served as attorney general under Reagan, as an example of a man who wields power through backroom Fellowship connections. Meese has not held a government job for nearly two decades, but through the Fellowship he's more influential than ever, credited with brokering the recent nomination of John Roberts to head the Supreme Court. 'As a behind-the-scenes networker,' Brownback says, 'he's important.' In the senator's view, such hidden power is sanctioned by the Bible. 'Everybody knows Moses,' Brownback says. 'But who were the leaders of the Jewish people once they got to the promised land? It's a lot of people who are unknown.'
"Every Tuesday, before his evening meeting with his prayer brothers, Brownback chairs another small cell -- one explicitly dedicated to altering public policy. It is called the Values Action Team, and it is composed of representatives from leading organizations on the religious right. James Dobson's Focus on the Family sends an emissary, as does the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America and many more. Like the Fellowship prayer cell, everything that is said is strictly off the record, and even the groups themselves are forbidden from discussing the proceedings. It's a little 'cloak-and-dagger,' says a Brownback press secretary. The VAT is a war council, and the enemy, says one participant, is 'secularism.'
"The VAT coordinates the efforts of fundamentalist pressure groups, unifying their message and arming congressional staffers with the data and language they need to pass legislation. Working almost entirely in secret, the group has directed the fights against gay marriage and for school vouchers, against hate-crime legislation and for 'abstinence only' education. The VAT helped win passage of Brownback's broadcast decency bill and made the president's tax cuts a top priority. When it comes to 'impacting policy,' says Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, 'day to day, the VAT is instrumental.'"
In addition to Opus Dei, The Fellowship, the Values Action Team and his other shadowy, undemocratic cells, Brownback announced that one of the major advisers to his presidential exploratory committee will be Thomas Monaghan,, the founder of the ultra-conservative and controversial Ave Maria University, which you can read about here. In addition to moving Ave Maria from Michigan to Collier County, Florida, Mohaghan is attempting to build his own theocratically governed private town, also named Ave Maria. The town will be set up and governed on orthodox Catholic principles such as banning pharmacies from distributing contraceptives
According to this report from the Media Transparancy website:
"Tom Monaghan 'is putting his money and influence' into making Brownback "the next president of the United States," McClatchy Newspapers' Matt Stearns recently reported. The extremely wealthy, and controversial conservative Catholic, 'is advising the 2008 presidential exploratory committee for Brownback, a longtime social conservative who converted to Catholicism a few years ago,' Stearns pointed out.If this all frightens you, it frightens me too. There are a lot of good, sincere people out there who oppose abortion, worry about the increasing crudeness that passes for culture in our society, and sincerely believe that religion has value in the public square. But what Sam Brownback is involved with goes way beyond that well-intentioned debate about societal reform.
" 'In the Catholic community, he's looked upon as kind of on the fringes,' the Rev. Robert Drinan, a liberal Roman Catholic priest and former Democratic congressman who teaches at Georgetown University, told Stearns. 'The worldview is, "We have to get back to a Catholic civilization." They want to go back to a Christian society imposed from above...It's just another world they want to build.'"
Brownback is not just involved but is the leading force in groups whose goal is to remake America as an authoritarian theocracy, guided by biblical law as dictated by an annointed few. Incredibly, they believe that "the Bible is for the masses," and their vision is for an extra-biblical dictatorship, perhaps based on biblical principles, but ruled by a small cabal who impose their religious and social views on everybody else. These are people who have made alliance with the leaders of El Salvadoran death squads and brutal Somalian dictators. Theirs is a scary vision for America, indeed for the world.
Brownback, the Fellowship, and their fellow travelers like Jim DeMint, Ed Meese, Tom Coburn, and others mentioned above need to be taken seriously and watched carefully. Theirs would be a dangerous America indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)