"Moral" Values?

Monday morning, Al Franken made a point heard muttered frequently around The Thinking Woman since Wednesday. (Context: Rush Limbaugh -- who as we know is a saint -- claims that the Democrats want to eliminate any morality whatsoever from the world.)

Just about every issue in the election was a moral issue. The war in Iraq, Social Security security, etc., are all moral issues. In fact, we at the Thinking Woman think that everyone who voted voted on moral values, because our moral compass influences our attitude toward many issues addressed by the government.

So the question is not one of morality, but of how much the government has a right, constitutionally, to impose one set of moral values on a whole nation.

In an article in The Slate, Paul Freedman, associate professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, argues that that what really drove people to vote for Bush was terrorism, not "moral values" (defined primarily as attitudes toward gay marriage and abortion). We think he has a point. Read it for yourself, and see if you agree:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109275/

Four More Years

After a divisive election campaign, the cessation of all the passion, intensity and hard work is a bit of a let down. For the Kerry supporters, it is more than that. But even the feeling for Bush supporters has to be more one of relief than of euphoria.

One thing the 2004 presidential election map made clear: America is blue around the edges, which is an apt description of how some of us have felt this week. But before 48 percent of our readers give in to depression, let’s review some facts.

In spite of President Bush’s claims of a mandate, he was only elected by a three percent majority of voters. This is a very small margin, much too small, we think, to be claiming that America wants to dwell permanently on the right.

Overlooked here is how the choice of Democratic candidate may have affected voters. Was John Kerry a man Americans could easily identify with and believe in? In spite of his many positive attributes, we don’t think so.

However, given Kerry’s sometimes aloof and aristocratic bearing, a huge percentage of the population still voted for him. Some of this may have been the ABB (anyone but Bush) vote but it does showcase the anger many Americans feel. And when you come right down to it, Americans chose their candidate on Tuesday based on whether they were angry or afraid.

Kerry’s supporters were angry. Angry at discrimination, diminishing personal rights, rising unemployment and health care costs, escalating war and terrorism, and forced conservative values.

Bush’s supporters were afraid. Afraid of terrorism, liberal values, homosexuals and taxes.

As Jon Stewart pointed out on The Daily Show on November 3, it’s ironic that the people who live closest to two of the latter fears aren’t afraid at all. New Yorkers, who count gay neighbors among their friends and associates, and experienced the full brutality of September 11 firsthand, voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

Still, we are now faced with a new order of things. The Republicans will control the House and Senate, making it very hard to push anything construed as a liberal agenda. It also means that the remaining Democrats could make things impossible for Bush. The Senate needs 60 votes to pass a bill and only 55 belong to Republicans. If the Dems dig in their heels, we could be looking at four years of gridlock.

However, we hope that won’t happen. We hope that Americans will come together to find common ground and start the healing process. We hope that Bush will make true his campaign promise in 2000 and finally prove to the American people that he’s a uniter, not a divider.

As Abraham Lincoln once observed, “a house divided against itself will not stand.” If President Bush wants to make good his promise of a stronger America, he would do well to remember that

Election Day -- Have you voted yet?

Today is Election Day.

It's time to vote, if you haven't already!

But if you are still undecided about who to vote for, there is still some time to do research. An excellent source for cutting through the spin and exaggeration is www.factcheck.org , the site Vice President Cheney mistakenly referred to in his debate with John Edwards as factcheck.com.

Factcheck.org strives to be nonpartisan, and focuses on the exaggerations and misrepresentations, presenting raw facts to put them into perspective. You can also go back and read the party platforms, links for which are found on this blog.

Finally, regardless of where you vote, there are a few things that are true everywhere:

You are entitled to the time to vote. Most states have liberal voting hours. But employers are required to allow you the time to go vote.

If you are in line when the closing time is reached, you are still entitled to vote. Stay in line as long as it takes to cast your ballot.

Poll workers are there to help you -- you can ask questions and get help if you need it. Do not feel awkward about asking for assistance in understanding and completing your ballot.

If you live in west, don't let the earlier returns from the East Coast discourage you from voting. This year is a very close race, and the last vote cast in Hawaii is as important as the first vote cast in Maine. And remember, you are voting for more than a president, you are voting for state and local offices and issues, as well.

If for some reason there is a question about your eligibility to vote, you can cast a provisional ballot.

And most important, have fun!

The Final Debate

The final debate is over, and we are left with spin doctors and campaign speeches to help us decide who should be the next president.

Thursday night's theme could be, "But Iraq IS a domestic issue!" Although the debate was to be devoted to Domestic Issues, the candidates were more animated when given the opportunity to discuss foreign policy and the war in Iraq.

How did the candidates look?
Both candidates appeared relaxed and confident, especially President Bush. At times John Kerry looked as if he was having the time of his life. Both candidates appeared well-prepared, and unruffled when challenged by the opposing candidate. Both candidates made some mistakes in "facts", but not many, and when debating without notes it is impressive when there are so few mistakes made.

Who won the debate?
Well, even the Republicans are conceding that Kerry has gained an advantage. As Ralph Reed told John Stewart on The Daily Show, John Kerry is a formidable debater. He debated in college, and his debate coach at Yale said he was one of the top five best debaters he had ever seen or coached. So no wonder he looked like he was enjoying himself -- John Kerry loves to debate. He looked and sounded presidential. He was effective in presenting specific strategies for addressing and dealing with the present problems facing the country.

President Bush stayed on message, as he has in previous debates. The president's main message is to trust him to do the right thing. He also hammered home his commitment to education as the key to the problems that face the nation. He spoke like someone who understands from experience the job of the president, and he projected the warmth and congeniality that gained him a reputation for being a uniter when he was governor of Texas.

Even so, the edge went to John Kerry, who had more substance to his statements, and never avoided a question.

What mistakes were made?
Both candidates had the usual factual inaccuracies (although none as good as Vice President Cheney recommending factcheck.com, an ad site originating in the Cayman Islands, as a source for accurate information instead of factcheck.org), but more than that, they made a couple of strategic errors. President Bush evaded a direct question about abortion rights, giving Sen. Kerry the opportunity to point that out. When asked about what he would say to someone who was laid off because of outsourcing, his reply was to hand the person some money to go to a local community college to gain the skills to look for a new job. It lacked compassion, and adhered to the erroneous assumption that people who are outsourced are minimum wage earners with no training.

Senator Kerry cited Vice President Cheney's daughter, who happens to be a lesbian as well as the vice president's campaign manager, when talking about gay marriage. The post-debate furor over that remark has focused attention on the ire of the Cheneys and diverting attention from Senator Kerry's plans.

Bob Shieffer lobbed the candidates a couple of softball questions. His question about the strong women in the lives of the two men prompted a warm, sweet account by the president of love at first sight when he met his wife, and a joke about marrying up from the usually serious Kerry. It was heartening to see that both men are, like the rest of us, more than their jobs, but fathers and husbands.

So now we count down to the election. As the spin masters go into high gear it is important to remember that the platforms of each candidate, and the substance of the debates, should weigh heavily into which candidate to choose. Both men are strongly committed to their ideals, and there is a clear difference between them.

Most importantly, choose and vote.

Who Let The Dogs Out? The Cheney/Edwards Debate

The attack dogs were worked up to a lather last night as Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) went at each other like chained Rottweilers.

Characterized by WFAN radio personality Don Imus as a duel between "Dr. Death and the Breck Girl," the debate was punctuated with heated exchanges, counter-rebuttals and claims of distortion by both parties.

Unlike the gentlemanly presidential debate that clearly laid out what each candidate stood for and believed in, the vice presidential debate was an exercise in redundancy as the debaters circled around the same topics again and again much like attack dogs on a chain.

Was there a winner?

Well, to give the vice president his due, he was far more clear and concise than his opponent. Of course, it is easy to be clear when you are repeating the same assertions over and over no matter what the question. But that doesn't mean that Cheney didn't have his moments.

Particularly memorable was his line about Edward not showing up for Senate votes. Cheney said something to the affect of "I am the president of the Senate and have been there almost every Tuesday. Senator, the first time I met you was when you walked on stage this evening."

Unfortunately for the vice president, that's not true, since there is video showing them shaking hands at a National Prayer Breakfast, and later being thanked by name by the vice president. However, it doesn't negate the fact that the senator has been pretty busy running for office.

In spite of his youthful demeanor and his high-speed zooming from one topic to the next, Edwards proved himself a tough opponent. He never let a single assertion go unchallenged or unexplained and was well versed on facts.

He also had his moment when in true litagational style he backed Cheney into a corner on the question of an amendment to abolish gay marriage. By framing it totally in the context of a compliment to Cheney's family about his gay daughter, he left the vice president with only one reply: "Thank you."

Besides the often sharp rebuttals and character slams, we found the hand gestures of both candidates distracting. Edwards combined the Clintonesque pointing with a closed hand with other restless movements. Cheney continually wrang his hands in a way that makes us think of, well, the elderly. Didn't their handlers warn them about this? We never thought that Kerry's chopping and Bush's palm slapping would look restful by comparison.

Both candidates had their share of distortions -- never call them lies in politics!

For instance, Edwards claimed that the cost of war is over $200 billion when it hasn't yet reached that amount, and Cheney inflated the number of small businesses that will be affected if the tax cuts are rolled back.

In 2000, Cheney and then vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman gave such an intelligent, gentlemanly and mature debate that the entire country asked why they weren't at the top of their respective tickets. We at The Thinking Woman have no concerns that those sentiments will be repeated after this year's debate.

A source for analyzing the factual errors in last night's debate can be found in the American Progress Action Fund's Progress Report:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/

Bush's Home Town Newspaper Endorses Kerry

It has come to the attention of The Thinking Woman, through The Capital Times, an on-line newspaper at madison.com, that the Lone Star Iconoclast has endorsed John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

Why is this extraordinary? The Iconoclast is the newspaper in President George W. Bush's home town of Crawford, Texas.

While presidents are not always popular in their home towns, it seems remarkable that a newspaper that heartily endorsed the president during the 2000 campaign and strongly supported his bid to go to Iraq, would decided to instead to not even reluctantly but enthusiastically endorse his opponent.

While mentioning the president's foreign policy, the Iconoclast focuses on economic issues -- Medicare, Social Security, job outsourcing and overtime pay to name just a few. The editorial accuses the president of "duping" the American people, and pursuing an agenda that was not part of his campaign platform.

While newspaper endorsements should always be considered just one piece of the decision process in an election, a home town's defection should never be taken lightly.

To read the Iconoclast's entire editorial: http://http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=11655&ntpid=1

Who Won the First Debate?

When we started The Thinking Woman our primary goal was to cut through the spin and the media hype so that women could get a clear picture of what is happening in politics, the media and the world in general.

That mission is never more important than now, when our presidential candidates have on their game faces and their people are furiously spinning to suit their own ends. We don't blame them for this, it's what politicians do. But we're not politicians and we don't have to listen to what the pundits tell us. Neither should you.

Before we examine the first 2004 presidential debate, we'd like to make a suggestion. Watch the debates on C-SPAN where you'll see both candidates on a split screen with no network commentator telling you what you already heard in plain English. Don't listen to the network news or any commentators, not even if you swear by Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh.

Instead, decide for yourself.

(If you really need to watch something, watch Jon Stewart on the Daily Show on Comedy Central. The cast's wisecracking is pretty bipartisan. But then, that's just our opinion.)

What did we think of the debate? We'd have to say that both candidates presented themselves well and in a way that is appealing to their core constituencies.

The positives
President George W. Bush appeared firm and resolute, unyielding yet humble and even exhausted by the heavy burden the fight against terrorism has laid on his shoulders. He was a gentleman at all times and even softened Kerry up by complimenting his daughters and getting the senator to show his more human side.

Senator John Kerry appeared intelligent, firm and decisive. He showed himself to be a thinking man, well in touch with the facts, versed in diplomacy and ready to do whatever it takes to fight the war on terrorism. He never went over the line set by President Bush and graciously gave a touching tribute to the First Lady.

The negatives
Bush needed to pause often to collect his thoughts and occasionally appeared uncomfortable. Kerry came off as smug a few times and his long sentences at the beginning had us squirming in our seats. But basically, we felt these flaws were small and didn't affect the tone of the debate, which was substantive.

So substantive in fact, that we think that the American people got a clear and positive choice between the two candidates.

The differences
Both men want to bring our troops home, both men want to protect our country from terrorists and both men want to see an end to nuclear proliferation.

Bush presented a policy of staying the course and continuing the fight.

Kerry outlined proposals to bring in European allies and get our troops out of Iraq withing six months.

Bush sees Vladimir Putin of Russia as an ally. Kerry does not.

Bush sees China as an ally in controlling North Korea. Kerry does not.

Kerry sees the United Nations as a potential tool to eventual peace. Bush does not.

And Kerry would make modifications to the Patriot Act, where Bush would not.

The choice
Bush: Stand strong and go it alone to get the job done right.

Kerry: Build consensus and draw in allies to share the burden and improve America's relationship with the world.

Who you think will make a better president is up to you. We think you now have a clear choice.

So who won Thursday night's debate?

Isn't it obvious?

The American people won.

Critical Thinking In Utah

Utah Valley State College has invited film maker Michael Moore to speak to its student body. This is so controversial that a panel discussion about Moore's appearance was packed. One item from the Salt Lake Tribune's account of the meeting astounded us:

"Kay Anderson, father of a UVSC student who lives next to Sederburg, called his appearance an insult to the community. 'I should not have to send my children to a private university to get a conservative education when I live in a conservative community and have a state college in my back yard that is paid for by conservative taxpayers and donors,' he said. 'A balanced education does not require we teach our children to be so open-minded that their brains fall out.'

Anderson held up a cashier's check for $25,000 to help restoke student-body coffers if student President Jim Bassi and Vice President Joe Vogel rescind the Moore invitation.

But Anderson's offer drew hisses and boos from the capacity crowd. Even a petition to recall the two student leaders reportedly has stalled."
excerpt: Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2418051

Two things are astonishing, one of them gravely disturbing. First, the expectation that a public university, subject to state and federal guidelines, will provide the same philisophical approach to education as a private college or university.

Second, and this is the disturbing part, the idea that being open-minded is a bad thing. We at The Thinking Woman were taught that anything worthwhile will hold up to challenge and scrutiny. We were sent to college with the hopes of our developing that skill. Certainly this applies to religious faith and should apply to all areas of life. Like it or not, all adults ultimately form their own set of values. What we learn from our parents will not leave us.

But try to insulate, to discriminate, to isolate, can backfire so that children will reject the very core values their parents hold sacred.

It's not the children's brains but their values we're worried about.

What Do Women Want? An Open Letter To Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

Dear Senator Kerry,

There has been a lot written in the press lately about how you are losing women’s votes. As two women who represent your Democratic core, we would like to tell you what we, as women, want to hear.

While we’re proud that as a son of privilege you volunteered for Vietnam, we’re sick of hearing about it. Ditto all the allegations about George W. Bush shirking his military service. It’s time to give up this nonsense. It has little impact on our lives today. Frankly, we’re sick of it and it’s making the two of you look like spiteful little boys, not accomplished men.

As Democrats, we want you to keep asking and demanding the answer to: “Are you really better off than you were four years ago?”

We need to hear how you are going to keep us safe. Not broad promises but actual plans where you tell us (in laymen’s terms) what you will do to achieve your goals.

We need to hear what you are going to do so that we can have what we need to take care of our children. Talk to us about how you are going bolster the economy and support small businesses, a great many of which are run by women. Tell us how we can be sure our children will be fed, well educated and have their medical needs looked after.

Tell us how we can find and keep a home if we are poor. Tell us what you will do when we are left without a man in our lives, especially the majority of us who will outlive our mates. Tell us that your plans to make sure we won’t spend our old age living in a closet eating cat food.

We need to hear optimism. Yes, “Hope is on the Way” is an uplifting slogan, but we also need to hear creativity. What new ideas have you come up with that will give us reason to believe that hope really is on the way?

We need to see the real you. You are still pretty much a tall cipher with great hair, a winning smile and a rich wife. We don’t know you and as women we are very interested in what makes a person tick. We are also appreciative of men who make us feel safe because they are honorable, decent and kind. If you are these things, show us.

Lastly, treat us as intelligent human beings and you’ll win our confidence. Treat our concerns seriously and you’ll win our respect. Treat our needs as an important part of your campaign and you’ll win our vote. That’s what women want. It couldn’t be any simpler than that.

Sincerely,
The Thinking Women

A brief discussion of various styles of primaries

Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the California open primary was unconstitutional, other states have had to revise their approaches to their primaries. Here, briefly, is a general explanation of some of the various primaries:

"Blanket" primary
A blanket primary is similar to a general election. Voters can jump around on the ballot, voting for whom they choose. The idea behind this form of primary is to allow people to choose the candidate they most prefer, giving party affiliation little importance. Candidates are still associated with a party, and each party's candidate with the most votes (in a contested primary) moves on to be that party's candidate in the general election in November. Until the Supreme Court rule it as unconstitutional, this system was used in Washington, California and Alaska.

"Closed" Primary
Most states use a primary system in which voters can select only within a party. In some states, a voter has to actually register as a party member in order to vote in that party's primary. Whether or not a voter registers a party affiliation, at the polling place the voter must "declare" a party to vote, either to receive the proper ballot, or to have the voting machine set to prevent "crossing over." This system is disliked because, especially in small communities, the anonimity of one's party affiliation can be questionable. This problem is often alleviated by printing all parties on one ballot, with the choices made completely in the voting booth.

Louisiana System
In Louisiana, voters can choose any candidate from any political party in the opening round of voting. If one candidate wins a majority of votes cast, that candidate is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority, the top two vote-getters -- regardless of party affiliation -- move on to the general election.

Every woman should register -- and vote

Women make up 51 percent of eligible voters. Yet 50 million women did not vote in the last election.

Not even a hundred years ago, women marched, protested the office of the president, and were unconstitutionally arrested, imprisoned and brutalized as part of the effort to win women the right to vote. Their argument? Taxation without representation is unconstitutional.

Any person eligible who does not register and take the time to vote is essentially being taxed without representation. We as women should honor the women who worked tirelessly to gain us the right to vote by voting our consciences. Many of these pioneers never lived to exercise their right.

This Saturday, a progressive coalition called America Votes will register as many people as possible, especially women, on what they are calling a National Women's Election Action Day. We at The Thinking Woman support and applaud this large-scale effort to register every eligible voter.

Of course, you don't have to be a progressive to vote. No matter what your political philosophy, make certain you are legally registered to vote. Check with your secretary of state's office or local voter registration office to verify that you are registered. If you are not, make sure you register in time for the November election. The deadline on this varies from state to state, so inquire now.

Let's make this year the year that the president was elected by a true representation of voters.

Remember, not voting is akin to taxation without representation.

• Women Should Vote Because:*
  We are 51 percent of the population, and with this majority voice we CAN influence the direction of critical policies important to us -- like childcare, choice, personal safety, economic security and a healthy environment.
• We are not effectively exercising our hard-earned constitutional right. 22 million registered unmarried women did not vote in the last election. And more than 50 million eligible women -- married and unmarried -- are not even registered to vote.
• A poll last year of some 3,000 women of diverse backgrounds conducted by the women’s voting project Women's Voices, Women's Votes found that 65 percent of the women polled believe this country is going in the wrong direction.
• Based on the findings of a recent survey by Business and Professional Women USA, retirement security, job opportunity, good schools and housing costs are all of HIGHER importance to women than homeland security.
• Voting statistics among all women can be improved. According to the U.S. Census bureau in 2000, some 30 percent of eligible women were not registered to vote.
• Registering is only half the battle. Almost half of registered unmarried women don't vote. If they turned out in numbers, unmarried women would be the largest voting bloc and would be the deciding "X" factor in close elections.

*from MOVEONPAC

Just what we don't need...digital women as pinups

The Associated Press recently reported that Playboy will be featuring (female) video game characters as pinups:

Playboy is taking a chance on silicon instead of silicone. The October issue of the men's magazine features several video game characters posing in the nude -- images created by the game companies through detailed computer illustration.

"Hopefully, the purists won't get too bent out of shape. This is just the next version of the pinup," said Playboy senior editor Scott Alexander, who developed the project.
The computerized models are part of the magazine's video game preview, titled "Gaming Grows Up." The five-page section starts with a topless image of the half-vampire, half-human title character from "BloodRayne," a leather-clad woman who fights with 3-foot blades attached to her arms...Digital women could become a regular feature if readers approve.

Now, we at The Thinking Woman are firm supporters of the freedom of the press. But this goes too far.

We can argue that digital pinups already exist. It's widely known that Playboy has been using air brushing for years to bring perfection to their pinups. But air brushing, digital enhancement and other techniques are commonly used in many publications to make models and celebrities alike look "perfect." So why not take it one step further, and eliminate the real person? Just create the impossibly ideal woman -- don't forget the weaponry! -- and fantasize about her, instead.

Of course, Playboy for years has been publishing erotic drawings and paintings. But here's the difference: A picture stays a picture, and remains a piece of paper. A digital person can be animated to move, talk, and live in such a realistic world that they can become as real a character as any created by an actor on film.

Let's be realistic. A large portion of Playboy's readership is under age 18. Do we really want our sons thinking this is an achievable norm? It puts even more pressure on our daughters, in a society already unhealthily fixated on appearence, to try to achieve an impossible-for-most body image.

At a time in life when boys and girls should be developing relationship skills, they do not need to have the additional pressure of competing with a fantasy woman.

Ralph Nader's list of issues link

http://www.votenader.org/issues/index_home.php

Democratic Party Platform link

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Please note: You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader for this link. If you are unable to access, please let us know and we will help you find the text.

Republican Party Platform link

Full text: http://www.gop.com/About/PartyPlatform/Default.aspx

The importance of Platforms

We have heard John Kerry and George W. Bush speak at their respective conventions. And both will be doing a lot of persuasive speaking in coming weeks up to the election. And both sides will spend millions on advertising, trying to convince us to vote for their candidate.

But when we make our choice, we need to go beyond the campaign rhetoric. It is important to read the platforms of the parties, because a party's nominee is pledged to uphold the party's platform and represent not just himself, but the approved agenda of his or her party.

That is why The Thinking Woman is publishing links to the full text for the platforms for the two parties along with a link to Ralph Nader's list of issues. (We have been unable to find the full text as yet of his party platform.)

At this time we are not including the platforms for other parties, but that may change in the coming weeks.

It is a lot of reading, but please take the time to read the platforms. These, more than anything else, will tell you exactly where the candidates stand.

Oh...the military delegates at the GOP Convention are reservists....

According to Eric Alterman, it seems that the "active" military personnel who are delegates at the Republican National Convention are reservists, so they are okay to be delegates:

"Update on my Possible Actual News Alert: According to our man Bateman, whom we should have contacted in the first place, the Republican Party is not in violation of the U.S. military’s rules on the participation in party politics by active duty military, owing to the reserve status of the delegates."

We have to ask, though, if the reserves are being sent into active duty, why is there a distinction for political activity and not being sent to Iraq?

Active servicemen serving as delegates?

The following appears today in Eric Alterman's column online on msnbc.com. (For the entire column: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/) Props to Michael Galletly for his vigilance! We at The Thinking Woman hesitate to call this a conspiracy (although the word has been muttered) but it certainly seems to be something the Republican Party itself would be anxious to clear up. The last thing they want is an appearance of inpropriety as they are the party of the sitting president:

Possible Actual News Alert: Is the Republican Party in violation of the US military’s rules on the participation in party politics by active duty military?

It sure looks that way. The RNC convention week is boasting that it has 144 active duty military delegates at the convention or three percent of the total. That information can be found here.

Meanwhile, according to DOD Directive 1344.10, which can be found here this is a violation of the code of military conduct.

It explicitly says:

"A member on active duty shall not ... Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform)."

But the Republican Party itself is claiming that the active duty personnel are not spectators but delegates. What’s going on here? Why are the Republicans encouraging our soldiers to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and its stated rules of political engagement? And why for goodness sakes, aren’t these rules being enforced?

Hey MSNBC.com, can we put a reporter or two on this story please?

(Thanks to Altercation reader Michael Galletly of Norman, OK.)

Cheney Earns our Admiration

The thinking women behind The Thinkingwoman are not given to praising Republicans too often, so imagine our surprise when we have good things to say about two of them in a given week. However, in a New York Times article by Robin Toner this morning (Aug. 25) Cheney was quoted about his opinion on gay marriage.

--- In a political season marked by Republican efforts to outlaw gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday offered a defense of the rights of gay Americans, declaring that "freedom means freedom for everyone" to enter "into any kind of relationship they want to."

--- Mr. Cheney said the issue was what kind of government recognition to give those relationships, and indicated that he preferred to let the states define what constitutes a marriage.

The critics immediately started sniping that Cheney was only trying to soften the harsh tone of the Bush administration calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage. We believe otherwise. Back in 2000 we were struck by the civil and intelligent content of Cheney’s debate with then vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. During their discussion the issue of the place of homosexuals in our society came up and both men agreed that they needed to learn more and remain open-minded about the topic. Since that time, Cheney has admitted that one of his two daughters is gay and has stated that he is as proud of her as her sister.

This doesn’t sound like a man who is playing a game for his administration. This strikes us as a good father who is standing by what he believes in spite of his party’s platform. We’d like to offer our praise and encouragement for this principled stance. We only wish we saw more of this in politics.

John McCain and the 2004 presidential election

We at The Thinking Women are fans of John McCain, the moderate Republican senator from Arizona. We have found ourselves frequently discussing him lately. We liked him as a running mate for John Kerry, and, for that matter, we liked him as the Republican presidential candidate in 2000. (And, for that matter, he'd make a great running mate for George W. Bush!)

Which brings up why he is being discussed by us so much now. It turns out that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are essentially the same group of people who ran a successful negative ad campaign against John McCain in 2000, enabling George W. Bush to gain the Republican nomination. And so, instead of running for re-election as president, Sen. McCain is running for re-election as senator in Arizona. (If being a war veteran were the main criteria for being president, there's no question his experiences and heroism far outstrips anyone else who has run for the office of president in the last twenty years. )

One of us was led to comment today that if John McCain were president, America wouldn't be in the mess we are today. And we asked (as we seem to do almost weekly), how could the GOP nominate George W. Bush over John McCain?

Which brings us back to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The conservative right appears to, right now, have the power (especially the money) in the Republican Party and they, by hook or crook (heh heh) got their candidate into office. John McCain is too moderate for the Republicans right now. Which is sad, because the country is being denied the Republican who has the true potential to unite a polarized nation.

The Swift Boat "controversy" -- enough already!

This thoughtful commentary on the "Swift Boat controversy was printed today in the New York Times. Following the commentary is my letter I wrote to the editor of the Times, after reading it:

On Cable, a Fog of Words About Kerry's War Record
August 24, 2004
By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

There is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.

Over the last few weeks, 24-hour news networks have done little to find out what John Kerry did in Vietnam, but theyhave provided a different kind of public service: their examination of his war record in Vietnam illustrates once again just how perfunctory and confusing cable news coverage can be. Facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer - without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection.

Somehow, on all-cable news stations - CNN as well as Fox News - a story that rises or falls on basic and mostly verifiable facts blurs into just another developing news sensation alongside the latest Utah kidnapping or the Scott Peterson murder trial. (It is particularly confusing on FoxNews, where so many of its blond female anchors look like Amber Frey.)

Fox News, which delivers its news with "Fight Club"ferocity, has relished the controversy the most, seizing hungrily on charges that Mr. Kerry lied to gain his medals. Those accusations, which have not been substantiated, were made in the book "Unfit for Command," co-written by a former Swift boat commander and longtime Kerry critic, John O'Neill. Fox News has pushed the story early, often, and sometimes even late.

Yesterday, President Bush denounced all third-party campaign ads, including the ads by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and called his opponent's war record admirable. Fox anchors made note of that development, then raced back to the disparaging remarks former Senator Bob Dole made to CNN on Sunday about Mr. Kerry's Purple Heart medals. ("Never bled that I know of,"said Mr. Dole, who was badly wounded in World War II.)

Fox News showed, again, a clip of Mr. Dole complaining that it was hypocritical of Kerry, a former opponent of the war, to run now as a proud Vietnam veteran. The Fox anchor Laurie Dhue then turned to her liberal guest, Elaine Kamarck, a former Gore campaign adviser.

"I mean, this does make it sound like he speaks from both sides of his mouth on this," Ms. Dhue said. "Could this hurt the Kerry campaign?"

Ms. Kamarck disagreed.

Fred Barnes, the executive editor of The Weekly Standard and a regular Fox commentator, ardently defended the Swiftboat critics of Mr. Kerry, saying on Fox that a majority of the senator's Vietnam brethren believed that Mr. Kerry"fabricated or exaggerated his record." Mr. Barnes added that "the entire chain of command above Kerry have said the same thing." He did not mention any notable exceptions in that chain of command, including Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, a former secretary of the Navy who said Mr. Kerry fully merited the Silver Star. Mr. Barnes's hyperbole went unchecked.

CNN showed less relish over the Swift boat clash, but it was not much more helpful in separating fact from friction. Wolf Blitzer's interview with the tart-tongued Mr. Dole made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed him to make misleading assertions without pointing out where he was in error. Mr. Dole suggested that Mr. Kerry was in a rush to obtain his Purple Hearts to meet a regulation that allowed soldiers to leave the war zone after winning three. "Imean, the first one, whether he ought to have a Purple Heart - he got two in one day, I think. And he was out of there in less than four months, because three Purple Hearts and you're out." ( Mr. Kerry did not receive two Purple Hearts for events of the same day. He received them for the events of Dec. 2, 1968; Feb. 20, 1969; and March 13, 1969.)

Finally, yesterday afternoon, Mr. Blitzer spoke to Mr. Dole by telephone and asked him if he regretted any of his statements. Mr. Dole said he did not.

"I wasn't trying to be mean-spirited," Mr. Dole said. "Iwas just trying to say all these guys on the other side just can't be Republican liars."

That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue.

Fox commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are famous for their informal, intemperate manner of speech. But the debate on programs like "Crossfire," on CNN, is often as heated - and as full of hot air. On an Aug. 12 edition about the Swift boat debate, a program regular, Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, called Mr. O'Neill and his fellow anti-Kerry veterans "the real patriots to rise to the surface this election year."

James Carville, Mr. Novak's liberal counterpart, challenged Mr. O'Neill's co-author, Jerome Corsi, charging that Mr.Corsi's blog is "scabrous." When Mr. O'Neill tried to change the subject, Mr. Carville shrieked at him.

At best, cable news programs swing into action when a crisis or major news development occurs, marshaling their resources to give viewers instant, live access. At their worst, they amplify the loudest voices and blur complexities. People can blame the confusion of combat for some of the discrepancies over Mr. Kerry's war record, but cable has done little to clear the air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/politics/campaign/24watch.html?ex=1094371553&ei=1&en=4697a6873ed58ccf

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Here is my letter:

I have just finished reading Alessandra Stanley's excellent piece on the media's coverage of the "Swift boat controversy."

I, for one, am sick of the whole thing. John Kerry is not the only person to serve in Vietnam, then come back and protest the war. George W. Bush isn't the only rich kid to avoid active service.

It's as if everything else both men have done in their lives is pointless next to decisions they made when they were kids in their 20s. There is a reason the writers of the Constitution assigned a minimum age of 32 for the person to hold the office of president. We make different decisions at each point in our life.

I am much more interested in what's happening now. Bush's policies have alienated the United States from the rest of the world. There is a huge deficit because of a tax cut that benefits only the top one percent of income earners. Health care is in a state of crisis. The country is even more polarized than it was when Bush went into office. War veterans have the worst support from the government they've had, ever. The current administration policies are decemating the environment, and we're in the middle of a war that is beginning to resemble Vietnam: A war Kerry was lucky enough to escape intact from, as were the majority of his critics, and Bush was lucky enough to avoid fighting in.

Instead of hearing about both candidates' pasts, I want to hear from George W. Bush how our country is better off than it was when he took office. And I want both candidates to give me detailed agendas for their administrations. I, for one, want to select a candidate based on a concrete plan for America, not on emotion and accusations.

Senate blocks amendment against gay marriage

Whether you hold fast to traditional beliefs that heaven ordained that marriage is between a man and a woman, or feel that love cannot be contained by the values of the past, the push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage is of critical importance to all Americans. The American Consititution was not meant for abolishing the rights of Americans. Changing the constitution sets a dangerous precedent.

In addition, the amendment proposal distracts the public from the important issues of our day -- terrorism, war, health care, social security, the environment, education and unemployment. It has become a re-election hatchet wielded by viscious hands. Fortunately, the Senate has seen this and will not be forced into a vote. To find out why, read below.

> Senate Vote Blocks Effort to Ban Gay-Marriage in Constitution
> July 14, 2004
> By CARL HULSE
> New York Times
>>
> WASHINGTON, July 14 - Backers of a constitutional amendment
> to prohibit same-sex marriages suffered a stinging defeat
> in the Senate today as opponents easily killed the
> initiative for the year in a procedural showdown.
>
> Senators voted 50 to 48 against a call to cut off debate,
> 12 votes short of the 60 required and even below a simple
> majority of 51. It would have taken 67 votes to approve the
> amendment itself. The loss effectively ended a drive to
> move the proposal through the Senate before the November
> elections. Six Republicans helped block the amendment,
> illustrating the divisions in the party ranks over the idea
> of inscribing such a ban into the Constitution.
>
> "The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes
> me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of
> Republicans," said Senator John McCain, Republican of
> Arizona. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority
> they have always possessed, and imposes a federal remedy
> for a problem that most states do not believe confronts
> them."
>
> Three Democrats sided with Republicans in trying to move to
> a vote on the language of the amendment itself. Under
> constitutional rules crafted by the Founding Fathers to
> make it difficult to alter the document, a supermajority of
> 67 votes is necessary to start the ratification process by
> the states. Today's vote did not reflect the full level of
> opposition since some Senate Republicans who were opposed
> to the amendment sided with their leadership on the
> preliminary vote.
>
> "This is an unnecessary amendment that wrongly and
> certainly prematurely deprives states of their traditional
> ability to define marriage," said Senator Joseph Lieberman,
> Democrat of Connecticut, as he joined many of his
> colleagues in asserting that marriage is an issue of state
> domain.
>
> Democrats also accused the Senate Republican leadership of
> forcing the debate on an amendment they knew could not pass
> to create a wedge issue for the coming elections. President
> Bush is a strong supporter of the proposal and conservative
> activist groups had aggressively urged the Senate
> leadership to bring the matter to the floor.
>
> Backers of the amendment said they were only responding to
> court decisions they said were reshaping the traditional
> American view of marriage despite scant involvement on the
> part of the public.
>
> "Marriage does matter," said Senator Wayne Allard,
> Republican of Colorado and the author of the amendment. "It
> matters to our children, it matters in America. Marriage is
> the foundation of a free society and courts are redefining
> marriage."
>
> Though they lost the vote, the backers of the amendment did
> succeed in getting lawmakers on record on the issue and
> they said they expected it to reverberate throughout the
> campaign season. Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and
> John Edwards of North Carolina, the two members of the
> Democratic presidential ticket, did not vote. They both
> oppose the amendment, however, saying that while they
> oppose same-sex marriage, the issue is a state concern.
>
> "The floor of the United States Senate should only be used
> for the common good, not issues designed to divide us for
> political purposes," Mr. Kerry said in a statement today.
> "Throughout history, amending our Constitution - the
> foundation of the nations values and ideals - has been
> serious business.
>
> "However, even Republicans concede that this amendment is
> being offered only for political gains. The unfortunate
> result is that the important work of the American people -
> funding our homeland security needs, creating new and
> better jobs, and raising the minimum wage - is not getting
> done.
>
> "Had this amendment reached a final vote, I would have
> voted against it, because I believe that the American
> people deserve better than this from their leaders. When I
> am president, I will work to bring the nation together and
> build a stronger America."
>
> The issue may still resurface in the House this year. A
> House panel was considering today a legislative proposal
> that its authors said could prevent federal judges from
> overturning the existing federal law defining marriage as
> being between a man and a woman, though critics said they
> doubted the new proposal could survive a court test.
>
> The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, has said he might
> schedule a House vote later this year on a constitutional
> amendment.
>
> The defeat in the Senate today came as no surprise. The
> Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, had already
> acknowledged that the amendment was unlikely to advance but
> said that the Senate action would be far from the last
> word.
>
> "This is the start," Dr. Frist said on Tuesday. "And it's
> not going to be over tomorrow. We'll be back in the
> future."

The Second Bill of Rights

The following is an article that appeared in the June 11, 2004 online issue of The Chronicle Review, a chronicle for higher education. This is a thoughtful analysis of what the rights of Americans can be -- beyond those listed in the Constitution:

We Need to Reclaim the Second Bill of Rights


By CASS R. SUNSTEIN

On January 11, 1944, the United States was involved in its longest conflict since the Civil War. The effort was going well. In a remarkably short period, the tide had turned sharply in favor of the Allies. Ultimate victory was no longer in serious doubt. The real question was the nature of the peace.

At noon, America's optimistic, aging, self-assured, wheelchair-bound president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, delivered his State of the Union address to Congress. His speech wasn't elegant. It was messy, sprawling, unruly, a bit of a pastiche, and not at all literary. But because of what it said, this address, proposing a Second Bill of Rights, has a strong claim to being the greatest speech of the 20th century.

In the last few years, there has been a lot of discussion of World War II and the Greatest Generation. We've heard much about D-Day, foreign occupations, and presidential leadership amid threats to national security. But the real legacy of the leader of the Greatest Generation and the nation's most extraordinary president has been utterly lost. His Second Bill of Rights is largely forgotten, although, ironically, it has helped shape countless constitutions throughout the world -- including the interim Iraqi constitution. To some extent, it has guided our own deepest aspirations. And it helps us to straighten out some national confusions that were never more prominent, and more pernicious, than they are today.

It's past time to understand it.

Roosevelt began his speech by emphasizing that war was a shared endeavor in which the United States was simply one participant. Now that the war was in the process of being won, the main objective for the future could be "captured in one word: Security." Roosevelt argued that the term "means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors," but also "economic security, social security, moral security." He insisted that "essential to peace is a decent standard of living for all individual men and women and children in all nations. Freedom from fear is eternally linked with freedom from want."

Moving to domestic affairs, Roosevelt emphasized the need to bring security to all American citizens. He argued for a "realistic tax law -- which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters." We "cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people -- whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth -- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure," he declared.

At that point, the speech became spectacularly ambitious. Roosevelt looked back, not entirely approvingly, to the framing of the Constitution. At its inception, the nation had protected "certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures," he noted. But over time, those rights had proved inadequate, as "we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence."

"We have accepted, so to speak, a Second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."

Then he listed the relevant rights:

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

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

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

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

The right of every family to a decent home.

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

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

The right to a good education.

Having cataloged these eight rights, Roosevelt again made clear that the Second Bill of Rights was a continuation of the war effort. "America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world." He concluded that government should promote security instead of paying heed "to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying."

Roosevelt, dead 15 months after delivering his speech, was unable to take serious steps toward putting his Bill of Rights into effect. But his proposal, now largely unknown within the United States, has had an extraordinary influence internationally. It played a major role in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, completed in 1948 under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt and publicly endorsed by American officials at the time. The declaration proclaims that everyone has the "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." The declaration also provides a right to education and social security. It proclaims that "everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

By virtue of its effect on the Universal Declaration, the Second Bill of Rights has influenced dozens of constitutions throughout the world. In one or another form, it can be found in countless political and legal documents. The current constitution of Finland guarantees everyone "the right to basic subsistence in the event of unemployment, illness, and disability and during old age as well as at the birth of a child or the loss of a provider." The constitution of Spain announces, "To citizens in old age, the public authorities shall guarantee economic sufficiency through adequate and periodically updated pensions." Similarly, the constitutions of Ukraine, Romania, Syria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Russia, and Peru recognize some or all of the social and economic rights cataloged by Franklin Roosevelt.

We might even call the Second Bill of Rights a leading American export. As the most recent example, consider the interim Iraqi constitution, written with American help and celebrated by the Bush administration. In Article XIV it proclaims, "The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security"; it adds that the nation and its government "shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people."

In fact, the United States itself continues to live, at least some of the time, under Roosevelt's constitutional vision. A consensus supports several of the rights he listed, including the right to education, the right to social security, the right to be free from monopoly, possibly even the right to a job. In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court started to go much further, embarking on a process of giving constitutional recognition to some of the rights that Roosevelt had listed. The court suggested that there might be some kind of right to an education; it ruled that people could not be deprived of welfare benefits without a hearing; it said that citizens from one state could not be subject to "waiting periods" that deprive them of financial and medical help in another state. In a 1970 decision, the court said: "Welfare, by meeting the basic demands of subsistence, can help bring within the reach of the poor the same opportunities that are available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community." Public assistance, the court added, "is not mere charity, but a means to 'promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'"

By the late 1960s, respected constitutional thinkers could conclude that the Supreme Court was on the verge of recognizing a right to be free from desperate conditions -- a right that captures much of what Roosevelt had cataloged. But all that was undone by the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. President Nixon promptly appointed four justices -- Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell Jr., and Harry A. Blackmun -- who showed no interest in the Second Bill of Rights. In a series of decisions, the new justices, joined by one or two others, rejected the claim that the existing Constitution protects the kind of rights that Roosevelt had named.

Roosevelt himself did not argue for constitutional change. He wanted the Second Bill of Rights to be part of the nation's deepest commitments, to be recognized and vindicated by the public, not by federal judges. He trusted democratic processes, not judicial ones. Having seen many of his reforms struck down by the Supreme Court, he feared that judges would be unwilling to protect rights of the sort he favored. He thought that his bill should be seen in the same way as the Declaration of Independence -- as a statement of the fundamental aspirations of the United States. In fact, Roosevelt's speech echoed Thomas Jefferson's famous language with its own declaration: "In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident."

But Roosevelt's hopes have not been realized. Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism, one that has no real foundations in our history. That approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract; it respects political liberty, but claims to distrust "government intervention" and to insist that people must largely fend for themselves. Its form of so-called individualism is incoherent -- a hopeless tangle of confusions. As Roosevelt well knew, no one is really against government intervention. The wealthy, at least as much as the poor, receive help from government and from the benefits that it bestows.

Roosevelt himself pointed to the essential problem as early as 1932. In a campaign address in San Francisco, he said that the exercise of "property rights might so interfere with the rights of the individual that the government, without whose assistance the property rights could not exist, must intervene, not to destroy individualism but to protect it." The key phrase here is "without whose assistance the property rights could not exist." Those of us who are doing well, and who have plenty of money and opportunities, owe a great deal to an active government that is willing and able to protect what we have. Once we can appreciate that point, we will find it impossible to complain about "government interference" as such or to urge, ludicrously, that our rights are best secured by getting government "off our backs." The same people who object to "government intervention" depend on it every day of every year.

Remarkably, the confusions that Roosevelt identified have had a rebirth since the early 1980s. Time and again, politicians argue that they oppose government intervention, even though property rights themselves cannot exist without such intervention. Time and again, American culture is said to be antagonistic to "positive rights," even though property rights themselves require "positive" action and even though the Second Bill of Rights helped to define our nation's political reforms for much of the 20th century. In recent years, we have been seeing the rise of a false and ahistorical picture of American culture and history, a picture that is increasingly prominent not just in America but also in Europe.

Unfortunately, that picture is far from innocuous. America's self-image -- our sense of ourselves -- has a significant impact on what we actually do. We should not look at ourselves through a distorted mirror.

Amid the war on terrorism, the problem goes even deeper. America should have taken the attacks of September 11, 2001, as the basis for a new recognition of human vulnerability and of our collective responsibilities to those who need help. Recall that threats from abroad led Roosevelt to a renewed emphasis on the importance of "security" -- with an understanding that the term included not merely protection against bullets and bombs, but also against hunger, disease, illiteracy, and desperate poverty. Hence President Roosevelt supported a strongly progressive income tax aimed at "unreasonable profits" and offering help for those at the bottom. By contrast, President Bush has supported a tax cut giving disproportionate help to those at the top. President Roosevelt saw the relationship between freedom from fear and freedom from want. Most important, he saw external threats as a reason to broaden the class of rights enjoyed by those at home. To say the least, President Bush has utterly failed to do the same.

Roosevelt was right. Liberty and citizenship are rooted in security. In a sense, America lives under the Second Bill of Rights. But in another sense, we have lost sight of it. It should be reclaimed in its nation of origin.

Cass R. Sunstein is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and a professor of jurisprudence at the university's law school. His most recent book is The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever, to be published next month by Basic Books.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://chronicle.com
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 50, Issue 40, Page B9


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead

This is a good source for helping work through rhetoric and spin from the White House. It is a site that focuses on statements by President Bush. While there are a lot of groups that will rebut or decry the president's comments, this site endeavors to document both the president's comments and their rebuttal.

Well, all presidents do it...

Recently in an article on MSNBC.com (I confess I didn't keep the URL to the article, and I forget the print magazine in which this will appear, but I'm sure you can search it)I read that President Bush has Saddam Hussein's gun. Now, I can really understand why Bush wanted that gun as a memento, but...

"The magazine quoted a visitor who had been shown the gun, which is kept in a small study off the Oval Office where Bush displays memorabilia. It is the same room where former President Clinton had some of his encounters with former intern Monica Lewinsky."

Why don't we just call it: "The Designated Room for Presidential Stupidity."

Women in the Military

The following letter was written to and published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper on Monday, May 17, 2004:

Photos raise concern about women in military

With the photos of how women in the Iraqi prison have behaved, I regard this
as a microcosm of the trend of American society.

Violence committed by women is on the rise, as reflected in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer on Thursday. How many women are in prison in this state
now for rape of a child? The incidence of stepmothers sexually abusing
stepsons is rising dramatically.

Then, there is the whole issue of women in the military. Our aircraft
carriers and larger ships have become floating houses of ill repute. Any
time a carrier returns from deployment, a significant percentage of women,
both single and married to men not on board the ship, are pregnant. Lyndee
England claims she is now pregnant from her multiple liaisons at the prison,
and that problem of pregnancy exists in high percentage in every military
service. Sexual related issues are at an all-time high in the military.

If the true story of the broad spectrum of sexual escapades as occurred in
Gulf War I were ever published by the press, the American public would
respond in horror. The recurring complaint of men at service academies, boot
camps and field training exercises is that the men have to assist women and
gun-deck the records because the women can't make it physically. Women are
plainly a distraction from the mission of our military.

I have ruefully come 180 degrees around to the conclusion that women have no
place in our military. Some societies can handle women in their respective
militaries; ours cannot. I am retired military and have represented many
women in my law specialty of military and military-related matters.

Rightly or wrongly, women have been historically and presently are the
keepers of the public morals in American society, and they are failing
everywhere in this very special charge. It is something we will have to live
with in other areas of our society, and let us retain the advances women
have made in other fields, but forget the military. Such is plainly is not
working, and this well-intentioned experiment must end.

J. Byron Holcomb
Bainbridge Island

The Thinking Woman's Guide to Politics, Media and Life

Welcome to the Thinking Woman, an exercise in empowering women by clearly explaining what you see and hear on the television, radio, print media, Internet and from the mouths of friends and relatives.

We are two women who could not be more different. One of us is a member of the East Coast Jewish media elite. A single mother and professional writer and editor who commutes from New England to Manhattan every day. The other is a stay-at-home mother of two, wife and transplanted Midwestern Lutheran living in the beautiful Pacific Northwest. What we have in common is a publishing background, liberal politics and a growing uneasiness with the disfranchisement of our women friends. They feel disconnected, helpless and often confused.

We will occasionally express our own views on current events, and how we see them affecting the lives of women. And our opinions will most likely have a liberal slant. But our goal is not to create another liberal site. It is to help women cut through the "spin", fluff, and doubletalk on all sides of an issue.

Women made the difference for Bill Clinton in 1994. They can make the difference again, not just in the 2004 election year, but in American life in general.

We're here to help our friends become informed, aware and involved. This is the Thinking Woman's guide to politics, the media and life. The fun has just begun. Won't you join us?