Your Word for the Day

oligarchy |ˈäliˌgärkē, ˈōli-| nouna small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution:oligarchic |ˌäliˈgärkik, ˌōli- | adjective ,oligarchical |ˌäliˈgärkikəl, ˌōli- | adjective,oligarchically |ˌäliˈgärkik(ə)lē, ˌōli- |adverb


From Aristotle, emphasis mine.
A Democracy is a form of government under which the citizens distribute the offices of state among themselves by lot, whereas under oligarchy there is a property qualification, under aristocracy one of education. By education I mean that education which is laid down by the law; for it is those who have been loyal to the national institutions that hold office under an aristocracy. These are bound to be looked upon as "the best men," and it is from this fact that this form of government has derived its name ("the rule of the best"). Monarchy, as the word implies, is the constitution in which one man has authority over all. There are two forms of monarchy: kingship, which is limited by prescribed conditions, and "tyranny," which is not limited by anything.

We must also notice the ends which the various forms of government pursue, since people choose in practice such actions as will lead to the realization of their ends. The end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy, wealth; of aristocracy, the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the tyrant. It is clear, then, that we must distinguish those particular customs, institutions, and interests which tend to realize the ideal of each constitution, since men choose their means with reference to their ends. But rhetorical persuasion is effected not only by demonstrative but by ethical argument; it helps a speaker to convince us, if we believe that he has certain qualities himself, namely, goodness, or goodwill towards us, or both together. Similarly, we should know the moral qualities characteristic of each form of government, for the special moral character of each is bound to provide us with our most effective means of persuasion in dealing with it. We shall learn the qualities of governments in the same way as we learn the qualities of individuals, since they are revealed in their deliberate acts of choice; and these are determined by the end that inspires them."

Silly Post. It's Friday. This is my dog.

Asking a Rhetorical Question

I am taking a new class, boys and girls.  This one is called Rhetoric and Media Arts.  I feel like it will be worth posting my thoughts and my findings here, since I haven’t really written much about politics, but I am still browsing the web and finding cool things.  This might end up being a kind of “flavor of the class” blog.  Do you love me no matter what?

The truth is, after our class on Monday, I felt like I lost my handle on this topic.  I thought I knew what rhetoric was, but perhaps I have been mistaken.  A little background first, some part of my undergraduate degree was in communications studies.  When we talked about rhetoric in those classes, we were concerned mostly with the idea of persuasion.  What tools can you use to get someone to see and do something you desired?  We talked about communication models that pulled apart sender, message and receiver.  We talked about what “noise,” cultural and physical there may be to disrupt the transmission of your message.  I managed to lump all of this together with the study of rhetoric.  I am pretty sure I am not where I need to be and that I have no real idea what the study of rhetoric entails.  Since my first homework assignment is to right this wrong, I have to go to Google.

I hate that I always start with Wikipedia.  Oh, sure!  I tell myself that this is what most people do: start with the basics and go from there.  Still, I wish there were something a little more reliable.  The entry about Rhetoric started me thinking about rhetoric now vs. ancient rhetoric.  I have made a mental note to find out more about Kenneth Burke.  I am starting to feel excited about our rhetorical decisions around political phrases like “undocumented workers vs. illegal aliens.”  There’s a lot here to play with.

Since I still feel like I am just dancing on the surface of this thing, I was very excited to find this video out on YouTube.  It has the rather amusing title "In Defense of Rhetoric: No Longer Just for Liars".  That brought me in, but I stayed for the full 14 minutes because it is a very good video.  There is a lot here that gets at the heart of rhetoric.  Balancing the message, tools for that message and the intended audience all while marinating your image.  I think I am starting to understand what got me muddled to begin with because of this video.  I appreciate the idea that rhetoric is how we come to understand our world, not just the arguments we have.

While I was out playing on YouTube, I also stumbled on this video.  The wonderful thing about this piece is that it attempts to dissect the use of persuasive language in Obama’s televised speech after the death of Osama bin Laden.  The reviewer notes the mise en scene, the movements of the speaker, as well as the types of words used and when during the speech.  This is the first time I have seen this kind of dissection.  Why is Obama using his hands here, but not before?  Why an emotional plea at the beginning?  Why tell us the history before simply saying something like “we got him!” and calling it a day?  Very interesting.

One more, sublimely silly, example of rhetoric comes to us from the fine folks at HuffPost.  In their daily column called “Good News” they are offering up a pictorial argument that suggests everyone should have a dog.  Entitled “21 Reasons A Dog Is The Best Investment You Will Ever Make,” I am adding it here because I enjoy the structure of the argument.  It begins with “are you tired of being let down by life?”  That moves through emotional appeal after emotional appeal, paired with pictures of dogs loving and being loved by their humans, with the occasional link to the story to match.  The “21 reasons” title is a lovely rhetorical device.  “Steps” and things that can be numbered feel very logical and pragmatic.  The last “step” is, of course, to do yourself a favor and follow a link to adopt from the ASPCA.  It's manipulative and brilliant.  I love it.

That wasn't a rhetorical question, but the way.  Do you love me no matter what?  Because this could get interesting.

Steven Colbert Brought Me Out of Retirement

Hi.  Yeah.  I've been gone for a while.  I am back, though.  I caught this on The Colbert Report on Monday, and I have been thinking about it ever since.  This is brilliant stuff.

Oh, and see you tomorrow.

Jimmy Kimmel Did This Thing -

And I think it is wonderful.  Yes, I know.  I probably wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think it was wonderful.  I also think this is very sociologically important to watch.  Can you spot judge someone and decide if they are pro- or anti-gay marriage.  I know that being anti-gay marriage is not the same as homophobic (even when it feels like it might be), but this is exactly the kind of "safe/not safe" debate that most members of the GLBT public have always faced.  How do you know how it will be received.    There's funny bits in here too, of course.  It's late night TV and it has to be funny.  It is also a pretty smart thing.

Rethinking Frankenstein

I've been reading Frankenstein.  It's made me think a little bit too much.  While it isn't a web site I visited, it could be.  Either way, this is what is on my brain.

Like many of you, I was asked to read Frankenstein in high school and again in college. It had been so long, however, that I felt like I’d never read it. I jumped in assuming that as I went along, it would start to feel familiar. Maybe the book changed on me, or I read a different version. I found myself really enjoying the language this time! I read and reread parts of it because I liked the way it sounded in my head. I don’t remember that from the first time. Or the second, come to think of it.

One of the times I read Frankenstein, I was told that this story was about science gone too far. I believed it. It made sense to me when I heard it. I imagine I have notes about it somewhere. It’s probably mostly true. The subtitle of “the Modern Prometheus” would certainly lend credence. I know that Prometheus was the trickster who created man from clay and stole fire from the Gods. I remember his story had themes about consequences of trying to over-reach your station in life. Victor certainly would be very much like that trickster. I was told it; I believed it; I took notes. Veni, vidi, noti. Or something like that. I thought I had the real and only truth about this book. Maybe the book changed on me here, too because, this time as I read, I could not stop seeing the story as an angry letter to God.

Have you read Mary Shelley’s biography? Shelley’s mother died when she was 11 days old, by the time she was finished writing Frankenstein in 1817, she had also begun to live in exile and in debt with a married lover, suffered the loss of a premature child and weathered the suicide of both her half sister and the wife of her lover (It’s complicated.). She was not yet 19. Less than that would have broken many. Don’t get me wrong; she’s got a right to be ticked off.

At 18, with so much trauma and drama shaping her world, she set out to write a ghost story that ended up being an indictment on the relationship and responsibly of a creator to the created. With her own life a model of pain and rejection and turmoil, what vision could she use for the Creator? Shelley creates, in Victor Frankenstein, a Creator who is weak, vindictive, doubtful, malevolent, maudlin, given to fits of depression and rage. He’s a terrible God figure! What, then, should the Creation be?

In Victor’s eyes, he has created a monster. But is he? Why is Shelley’s monster so articulate? If she was simply telling a scary story, the result of Victor’s work could be the mute, grunting green man of movie lore. Instead, he waxes “I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king, if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me. Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember, that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous." This isn't exactly the machination of an evil demon fiend. in fact, this passage could read like a kind of prayer from a forsaken creation. This Creation is doomed in his own way, like Prometheus, to live a life of constant, renewed pain and isolation from the god/creator that could have opted to love and forgive him. 
 
For his part as Creator, Frankenstein spends his days feeling wretched, guilty and depressed. He feels a sense of responsibility for his creation, but only in so far as he believes it falls to him to destroy it. Utterly selfish to the core, it never occurs to him that his Creation would have anything like a soul or feelings. When he finally meets his Creation again, he finally thinks that he might be responsible in another way. “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” At last, Victor agrees to help the poor creature, and then recants and destroys all signs of progress. He gives his creation a chance at hope and happiness and then takes it away. As creators go, Victor is a pretty mean specimen. He can be seen here as the vengeful Zeus. Enraged that the Creation would dare ask to have a chance at the same happiness and companionship that Victor would have in Elizabeth, he dooms him to continued torment. 
 
I think that I missed this reading of Frankenstein so long ago because I got caught up in the layers of voices. Walton is telling his sister Frankenstein’s story, who is telling the story of the Creation. I have to wonder if this story of a story of a story is another way to heighten the theme of this broken Garden of Eden. This third removed lens gets us away from the blasphemy. It also offers Victor Frankenstein a shot at redemption as the failed Creator. We get to see that Victor dies for us; to save us from the evil of his creation. The creature, too, gets his wish when Frankenstein finally becomes the constant companion and watchful eye that only a Creator can be. In the end, is the absence of his God figure that causes the Creation to despair and ultimately choose to kill himself.

It’s interesting. I've never thought about it this way. Maybe I should pull at it a bit more. There’s probably a reasonable paper in here somewhere. If I am ever asked to write one again, I could be ready. I will have the notes.

Fingers crossed

Over the next two days, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on two appeals to state and federal laws restricting gay marriages.  The first case will appear before the court on Tuesday, March 26th.  The first case will be about the ongoing battle in California around Proposition 8.  The over riding question here will be about equal protection and the 14th Amendment.

In a separate argument on Wednesday, the Court will tackle the federal Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA.  This 1996 law defined marriage as between a man and a women, and therefore barred gay and lesbian couples from any of the federal benefits and privileges of marriage.

The Supreme Court doesn't like to rule too far away from public opinion on topics such as these.  I guess it is good news, in that case, that just today a CNN poll was released that says that the demographic of support is shifting.  The cause?  A lot more people know someone who is gay, and the world didn't end.

"The number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has risen by almost the same amount in that time - from 40% in 2007 to 53% today - strongly suggesting that the rise in support for gay marriage is due in part to the rising number of Americans who have become aware that someone close to them is gay," 

Whatever the reason for the shift, I can only hope that the Supreme Court will understand that the failure to recognize millions of loving and committed relationships as marriages simply because of sexual orientation is a pure and complete act of discrimination.

I will have my fingers crossed.

Except when I am typing.  

I plan to follow the business of the Court this week with bated breath.  And then, of course, dear reader, you will have to read my  thoughts.  

I Heart Colbert

If this doesn't make you giggle, I got nothin' for ya.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

Just keep...

Neil GaimanAuthor, Graphic Novelist, "Stardust"

more from Neil Gaiman »

In Memory

I want to talk about domestic violence.  I want to talk about it because I feel like no one is talking about it enough.  But I also don't know what "enough" looks like.

What I have to say is messy.  There will be information that could be a trigger topic for some people.  If this is you, just watch this video and come back for my normal trigger-free writing on Monday.  If you aren't going to have a trauma trigger based on today's topic, you should still watch the video; but wait until after, so that you can restore your faith in humanity and beautiful things.




There.  Wasn't that beautiful?

I am thinking about domestic violence because of the most recent news out of South Africa about Oscar Pristorius.  If you don't know the name, I will give you a bit of history, and you can learn more about his story here.  Pristorius made history in the 2012 Olympics by being the first disabled athlete to compete in the able-bodied London games.  His story is very compelling.  A birth defect left him in prosthetics since toddler-hood.  He is considered a national hero in South Africa.  His nickname is "The Blade Runner," because of the appearance of this running prosthetics.  As inspring as his history may be, on Valentine's Day he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, in his gated community home.  He was granted bail today.  Family and supporters cheered in the court room as the magistrate announced his decision.  He swears it was an accident, although there have been some claims that there were issues with violence in their short relationship.

I don't know what happened.  I wasn't in that room. 

Family and friends claim that it seemed like Pristorius and Steenkamp were happy.  Goodness knows that both of these young people were in the prime of their lives and beautiful.  So, these two beautiful people, we say, can't possibly be living with this secret.  I mean, every relationship has it's ups and downs.  This is just was all a terrible mistake.  It can't possibly be true. 

And maybe it is.  And maybe it isn't.  Maybe, we just like the idea that this was something that was never supposed to happen to a happy, non-violent couple.  People like Pristorius are heroes and heroes don't hurt anyone.

I don't know what happened.  I wasn't in that room. 

What I do know, is what we want to be true when it comes to domestic and relationship violence rarely is.  There is no such things as a typical abuser.  Chances are very good that if you were waiting in line behind an abuser at the Starbucks, you would still feel safe.  You wouldn't think, "this guy is gonna hit me."  The abuse, when it does occur, is behind closed doors.  It happens in secret.  It is not an accident.  It doesn't happen because of stress or because the victim was in any way provoking.  No one deserves it.  No one is to blame but the perpetrator.  The events happen in secret, and to anyone of any age, race, gender, or socio-economic level.  Even beautiful and successful people can be abused.  Most If Ms. Steenkamp was being abused, it is unlikely that she would have told anyone.  At the heart of domestic violence is a dis-balance of power. 

Yeah, dis-balance isn't a "real" word and I am supposed to use "unbalanced."  Stick with me.  I am using disbalance because, while the prefix "dis-" and "un-" both mean "not," "dis-" takes its origin from the Latin meaning for reversing.  An unbalanced system can be righted, a disbalanced system exists to reverse the balance and can't be righted. 

There is no mechanism by which a domestic violence situation can be either right, or righted.    Some people who are in violent relationships manage to leave their abusers.  Some don't.  More than a fair share of them end much like Ms. Steenkamp's story.  Someone in custody, someone dead, and with everyone wondering happening what happened in that room.

If you need helping leaving, check out these resources:

Love is Respect
A How-To Guide

You Can Leave Your Hat On

I am unorthodox in my teaching style.  I admit it.  I sing, I dance, I make horrible jokes and frequently at my own expense.  Every now and again, I've pushed what is probably appropriate in a classroom.  I teach a topic that is generally agreed upon to be a pretty dry subject.  I teach technology and, typically, college aged students think they know all they need to know.  It takes all of my singing and dancing and the occasional "did she just say that?" techniques to stop students in their tracks.  I think that I am the kind of teacher that I wanted to have when I was a student: I'm odd.

Today, I take that all back.  Clearly, I am not anywhere near in league with this guy.

This Columbia University professor, Emlyn Hughes, gave memorable lecture to his quantum mechanics students.  It would seem that his logic was: "In order to learn quantum mechanics, you have to strip to your raw, erase all the garbage from your brain and start over again."  I actually kind of understand this.  It mostly reminds me of the often told story called "empty your cup."  Usually, the names and dates and roles are confused and varried, but the basic story goes like this:

A Zen master received a [university professor] [scholar] [new monk] who came to inquire about Zen.  As the master served tea, the young [smart ass] spoke at length about Zen.  The master soon poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept pouring.  The [know-it-all] watched the overflow and yelled "No more will go in!  You're wasting it!"  "Like this cup," the Master said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

I have this conversation with my students at the beginning of the semester.  I am not a Zen Master, but the sentiment is similar.  You have to let go of what you think you know in order to understand computer science or, it would seem, quantum mechanics.  I worry that what Professor Hughes was trying to do will be lost in the noise around HOW he said what he said.  He told his class to empty their cups by taking off his clothes.  I have told my students the same thing, in my own way.  And my students have never seen my underpants.  So, I guess I win.

Gay Parents Bashed: What Would You Do?

This pairs really well with the post about Valentine's Day.  And it gives me hope for humanity. 

Warning: may want Kleenex handy.

Be Just, My Valentine

I have a 7 year old daughter.  To call her "percocious" is an appropriate assessment. to be fair, I don't know if she's smarter than most 7 year olds, but she is much smarter than I was at 7, so I am sticking with it.  My husband and I have a policy whereby we always answer her questions as truthfully as possilble.  The secondary policy of only answering the question she asked, without embellishment, has saved us from many, many uncomfortable situations.  Every question she asks is a near time-bomb for us, and a revelation about how much we take for granted, and without question.

Last week she asked me about the origins of Valentine's Day.  I was doing the dishes, and a flood of half memories from a childhood lesson washed over me.  It's about a saint, I think, I said.  His birthday, maybe.  I think he went to jail and was marytered there.  Something about standing for love, or something like that.  I tumbled the list out to my daughter, she listened and tried to keep up.  "Hallmark makes a ton of money on it now."  "How did he stand up for love?"  My daughter, for all of her candor, is frequently also very litteral.  I wasn't so lucky this time.  She wanted to know what he did.  Off to Google with me.

What I found a couple of trustworthy pages was the story of a monk named Valentinus.  This is from Wikipedia:

St. Valentine's Day began as a liturgical celebration of one or more early Christian saints named Valentinus. The most popular martyrology associated with Saint Valentine was that he was imprisoned for performing weddings for soldiers who were forbidden to marry and for ministering to Christians, who were persecuted under the Roman Empire; during his imprisonment, he is said to have healed the daughter of his jailer Asterius.

From the History Channel: 

One legend contends that Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret.

I added the italics.  I love the idea that Valentine was martyred, in part, for seeing that the government should not interfere with love.  It would seem that this particular bit of information is not just timely for the holiday, but also as we look around the word and directly into the faces of inequalty as it relates to gay marriage. In 2013, we have self professed educators jockeying for a straight only prom because of her religion.  We have a possible pope successor who has defended anti-gay bills like Uganda's "Kill the Gays" bill.  At this point, it is as though the origin of Valentine's Day has been lost.  Remember when it was all about love?  And that meant enough that you could be martyered for choosing it above state decree?

Not all is lost.  France decision about same sex marriage is a pretty good reason to celebrate Valentine's day, if you ask me.  Let's do this too, America.  The alternative is bleak, and not in the best interest of our spirit as a nation, or as a people.  Anti-gay sentiment is the last socially exceptable form of prejudice.  America, be my Valentine in the spirit of St. Valentine.  Let's stand for love, too. Please don't give me one more difficult thing to explain to my 7 year old.

Gone, Baby, Gone

“Just don't take any class where you have to read BEOWULF.”

~Woody Allen  I'm taking a class.  And it's kicking my butt.  It's true.  If you came here right now, I would show you the dent marks.  The few days off because of snow gave me a wonderful chance to catch up on some stuff, and starting tomorrow, I should be back on track.

Everything is a Remix

If I am late to the party that is this page, I am so very sorry.  Today, I am sending you to another web page for some really cool history lessons.  Go.  But come back tomorrow.  Maybe we'll discuss.  

Everything is a Remix

Been Avoiding Benghazi

If the zombie apocalypse ever actually starts, I am pretty sure it will be about Benghazi.  Here me out: Can’t you imagine the hordes of undead, clustered, advancing while dragging a limp foot behind fiendishly demanding a brain.  Think about it!  Many of the people who have decried Benghazi as the worst tragedy since 9/11 couldn’t find Benghazi on a grade-school globe before this past year.  These witch hunt cries of a desperate people, demanding a domestic villain for an international crime can only be the first sign of the viral infections that will ultimately cause the zombie apocalypse.  Their brains, deprived too long of reason, will demand the consumption and assimilation of fresh brains which are actually capable of independent reasonable thought.  It’s not quite I Am Legend, but I think it’s close.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took on the Republican critics who have been demanding answers to their tough questions about culpability and the September attacks in Libya.  There were a total of 5 hours worth of testimony, but the one statement above seems to have gone the most viral.  And, to be fair, it should.  What are we hoping to accomplish by beating on the work of the Secretary of the State’s office, at this point?  What good can come of this?

For those still doggedly clinging to the idea that there are still no answers about Benghazi, let me help you out.  Here’s a transcript of what Secretary Clinton had to say.  For better or worse, the fighting, yelling matches, and sound bites have taken over the coverage of the proceedings.  It’s not fair; there are some really good bits in here that should have gotten more airtime.

Take this, and the emphasis is mine:

Any clear-eyed examination of this matter must begin with this sobering fact: Since 1988, there have been 19 accountability review boards investigating attacks on American diplomats and their facilities. Benghazi joins a long list of tragedies, for our department and for other agencies: hostages taken in Tehran in 1979, our embassy and Marine barracks bombed in Beirut in 1983, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, our embassies in East Africa in 1998, consulate staff murdered in Jeddah in 2004, the Khost attack in 2009, and too many others.  Of course, the list of attacks foiled, crises averted, and lives saved is even longer. We should never forget that our security professionals get it right 99 percent of the time, against difficult odds all over the world. That's why, like my predecessors, I trust them with my life.

Let me translate that one for you.  This stuff has the potential to happen all of the time.  We are a stranger in a strange land more often than not.  Our people see it coming, and we are able to stop bad things from happening.  But sometimes, bad stuff still happens.

Ms. Clinton goes on to say that she has started a review board, has implemented all of their suggestions, and have turned those suggestions into very specific action steps that are better than 85% complete.  They are also looking at big picture stuff about the strategic approach to diplomacy in places like North Africa.  She's done all of this already.  Since September.  This woman is more productive than any two people I know and she missed a month of work because of a blood clot.  In her brain.  

And there's this:

That's why Chris Stevens went to Benghazi in the first place. Nobody knew the dangers better than Chris, first during the revolution and then during the transition. A weak Libyan government, marauding militias, even terrorist groups... a bomb exploded in the parking lot of his hotel, but he didn't waver. Because he understood that it was critical for America to be represented in that pivotal place at that pivotal time. Our men and women who serve overseas understand that we accept a level of risk to protect this country we love. They represent the best traditions of a bold and generous nation. And they cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs.

Again, I will translate.  This is the job.  It's always heartbreaking to face loss of this nature.  No one wants to say it, but the work diplomacy sometimes means dodging violence, too.  We expect our soldiers to place themselves in harm's way for the defense of country.  Our diplomats do the same thing.  Our military has suffered casualties (and how!) in recent years and now so too have our ambassadors.  It is heartbreaking, but no less so than the thousands of soldiers who have also lost their lives.

Ms. Clinton is right.  The only thing that matters at this point is how to avoid further loss of life.  We can, as the old Mother Jones quote goes "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living."  And that is all we can do.  Of course, it won't be enough to stop the zombie hordes from descending; they are always looking for something to prattle on about.  But I will stay with Ms. Clinton on this one.  Until the first undead dude shows up at my doorstep.  And then, if I am to understand this process at all, I think it becomes every man or woman for themselves. I don't know for sure.  I don't watch those movies: they scare me worse than politics.

Women in Combat vs Women at War

“There are years that ask questions and years that answer.”
― Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the end of an era when he said that women would no longer be barred from combat positions in the military.  There has been a lot of talk about what will change.  Women have been on the front lines for more than two wars, engaged with the enemy and have in fact, lost their lives over the span of these past few decades.  Women have seen combat, but the official ban was lifted, and that counts for something.  It counts as we look at the possibility of a military career for women.  It counts if we’re looking at a Defense Department that is now moving more in sync with reality and the natureof war.  This change matters if you are looking at the long game of women’s equality.  Where I hope it will matter most, however, is in the military’s response to the overwhelming number of women who are raped while serving their country.

It is a statistic that should make you sick to your stomach: a woman in the military is more likely to be raped than a civilian woman.  One in three military women has been assaulted.  Compare that to the national statistic of one in six civilians, and your head will start to hurt.  Who is attacking women in the military?  More than half of the assaults reported were military on military.  According to The Huffington Post, a servicewoman was nearly 180 times more likely to have become a victim of military sexual assault (MSA) in the past year than to have died while deployed during the last 11 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From that same article:

According to the most recent report by the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, 3,192 sexual assaults were reported out of an estimated 19,000 -- roughly 52 a day -- between Oct. 1, 2010, to Sept. 31, 2011. The department estimates that only roughly 14 percent of the assaults were reported. The majority of sexual assaults each year are committed against service members by service members, SAPRO reports. While MSA does not affect only women, the office characterizes the "vast majority" of victims as female junior enlists under the age of 25, and the "vast majority" of perpetrators as male, older (under the age of 35) and generally higher-ranking.

Why is this problem so rampant?  Why aren’t you talking about this over cocktails at a dinner party?  Well, like rapes on civilian women, these rapes go largely unreported.  But for an added bonus incentive to would-be rapists in military fatigues, you will likely not be punished.  Story after story comes out of the barracks about these women, who suffered the worst abuse at the hands of fellow soldiers only to be ridiculed, persecuted, and ultimately relieved of duty while their attackers remain in good standing with the military. 

If you have the stomach for it, I would recommend the documentary “The Invisible War.”  There are a lot of parts that could be triggers, however, if you have a history of your own to consider.  No one asks for this, but I find these cases particularly heartbreaking.  Don’t forget: these are women who are also serving their country.  Who are also bravely fighting, and must also work very hard to stay safe from enemy attack.  This is not what they signed on for and this should not be their fate.

If you are comfortable with the language that says that there is an American war on women, this is another frontline.  If you are willing to say that, women have seen bloody combat for years.  Our human decency has also seen the causalities.  But thank you, Mr. Panetta for trying.  Maybe there’s another, more secret policy of rape culture in the military that we can phase out for good, too.  Will this be the year we finally answer that question?

 

Just a giggle

All Quiet on the ....

I must do better with this.  I am sorry.

I decided that I didn't want to post about guns for a little while.  The problem with that is that there is very little on the news these days that doesn't have some connection to guns and gun control.  There's a young boy in New Mexico, there's another university shooting, and endless drivel from the fine folks over at the NRA.  I could have said so much about the commercial they created that targeted the Obama girls.  I could, but they make me tired, so I didn't.  The end result is that I didn't write anything. 

Clinton is testifying about Benghazi today.  I can't wait to hear how this all shakes out.  Tune in tomorrow to see.

One Month Ago, Redacted

It's been one month since Newtown.  I thought that, just for today, I would take away all of the talk about guns as an act of mourning.  Just for today, no one shot anyone.  No one argues about the right to own firearms.   

If you're as tired of all of it as I am, this might be a small vacation.  Just for today, enjoy your news.  Redacted.  

in memoriam

Janis Joplin.  Curt Cobain.  Jimi Hendricks.  Jim Morrison.  Amy Winehouse.  All rock stars, rock gods, even.  Wonderful and gifted musicians at the pinnacle of their career.  All dead at 27.

On Friday, January 11, 2013, the world lost another kind of rock star.  He was 26.  He killed himself.

I don't permit myself many heroes.  My chosen field is technology, and there are many to choose from if you'd like to find an idol among them.  I will always fondly mention Grace Hopper, Alan Turing and Steve Jobs. Most of these did something truly revolutionary in their day.  Each of these stepped away from the pack and said there is a brand new thing that is possible.  Each used a determination that we all envy to forge a new thing, a new way of computing, or a new relationship to technology.  If you have a smartphone, a computer or even a GPS, you should be grateful to any of these people.  We should all be grateful.

The man who died on Friday probably won't be listed in anyone else's list of technology rock gods.  His name was Aaron Swartz.  Aaron began his path to being a computer genius when he was still a child.   At 14, he would co-develop RSS.   And at 20, Reddit.  By 26, he had founded Demand Progress.  There are about 14 active campaigns at Demand Progress, most of which are about civil rights, civil liberties, and government reform.  Swartz wasn't just making the newest shiny toy for all of us to adore; he was using his computer skills to try to change the world.

The one thing that Swartz could not change was his depression.  A deep and abiding sadness took him from us, leaving more of the same.  From the 14 year old boy that Aaron was, to the man he had become, the legacy of exceptional, natural intellectual power was accompanied by bouts of depression. In an excerpt from his blog, Swartz describes what depression is like, and then goes on to say:

The economist Richard Layard, after advocating that the goal of public policy should be to maximize happiness, set out to learn what the greatest impediment to happiness was today. His conclusion: depression. Depression causes nearly half of all disability, it affects one in six, and explains more current unhappiness than poverty. And (important for public policy) Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy has a short-term success rate of 50%. Sadly, depression (like other mental illnesses, especially addiction) is not seen as “real” enough to deserve the investment and awareness of conditions like breast cancer (1 in 8) or AIDS (1 in 150). And there is, of course, the shame.

In his time, Swartz was labeled a digital hero.  He was no rock god, but like so many talented young geniuses, there is the feeling that they were only ever ours to borrow.


And there is, of course, the shame.  We should all feel this shame.

Yes.  It is a shame.  Rest in peace, Aaron.  Thank you for your all of your service.

Smoke and Mirrors

There's nothing like a good art exhibit to put a mirror up to your face.  It will shock and, if it's really good, inspire you.  Good art will demand that you think, and while you're at it, figure out why you think that.  Frieke Janssens Photography has done just that with her Smoking Kids series. 

Let me take a step back.  I first learned of this photo shoot from the article over at Slate.  You can read that here, if you're curious.  Once it was clear that the cigarettes and cigars where not real, and that the effects were added post production, I let myself stare for just a little while.  I realized that I was a little mortified and a little attracted by the images.  They're beautiful!  They're hideous.  I wouldn't want my 7 year old to look at them.  A friend of mine once told me, "you never know how dirty the lyrics to a song really are until you've heard them sung by a child."  The voice in your brain that screams at the inappropriateness of these images should be screaming at the inappropriateness of smoking, in general.

If we're disturbed by children smoking, why do we not seem similarly outraged when an adult does it?  It isn't just a bland "well, they're too young" that will fully suffice here.  What if the child was holding guns?  

Don't worry.  I haven't preached about much yet, and I am not starting here.  This isn't a post about anti-smoking.  This is a post about the things we do without thinking about it.

CNN ran an article a couple of days ago entitled "Why Americans are dying earlier than their international peers."  The article was describing the research of the National Research Council. The NRC learned that Americans were dying sooner than in other high-income democracies.  The research is troubling. 

The data shows that "Americans have the highest prevalence of AIDS in the group. Seniors are at a greater risk of developing and dying from heart disease. And our children are less likely than children in peer countries to reach their fifth birthday."

It took them 18 months, but after convening a panel of experts, they think they can tell us why.  The answer:

Though Americans know what's "good" for them, few act on it. Although we are less likely to smoke and drink heavily than our peers, we consume more calories, have higher rates of drug abuse, are less likely to use seat belts and are more likely to use guns in acts of violence, according to the report. 

I can't fully bring myself to act shocked.  

Resolutionists

1/4/13

A very good friend of mine is a self proclaimed gym rat.  He goes everyday, sometimes twice a day, and stays for hours.  I envy him his dedication.  It's easy to keep doing something you love, he'd say.  This time of the year, he gets a bit cranky, though.  He's used to normal traffic of the gym and, with all of the people with fresh New Year determinism, it's hard to find a place to park or a free piece of equipment.  He calls these folks "the Resolutionists."  These seasonal health freaks who will slow down, and then stop coming all together sometime between now and mid-March.  Mostly, he's of the opinion, I think, that they're just in the way of the serious gym members.

----


I started this post about New Years resolutions, and I never followed through on finishing it up.  It was going to be about how we pick this time of the year to make changes to our lives that are deep and meaningful.  I couldn't finish it.  I think that might be symbolic somehow.  So here it is in its undoneness; along with a promise to stop making resolutions that don't last the year.

Being back in full swing after the holidays does have its perks.  John Stewart is back.  Last night he delivered this awe inspiring message about trying to have a conversation about gun control.  I think he's onto something.  I've missed him.  I've missed you guys, too.  Here's the clip, if you're someone who sleeps instead of watching late night television.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Happy New Year!

Thanks for checking in.  I've been too somber.  It's time for a little happy.  Happy New Year!

I wish you all the love and joy your heart can hold, with just a little spill over.  Marinate in the absolutely exquisite nature of connection and community.  Go ahead!  Just get prune-y from sitting in it!

Love to you,

Lynn