The Soccer Mom Vote

If They Give us Irrelevant News, Does the News Become Irrelevant?

Last week in the car I was listening to this discussion of the state of journalism today. Centered mostly around a new study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study looked at all forms of journalism; print, broadcast, and online. As I understand it, the news is not great. We have probably all heard about print readership being down as people switch to online newsreading, and an increased fragmentation of the news audience. This translates into less ad revenue and less money available to invest in news gathering. More and more outlets are closing their international bureaus and greater amounts of information are coming from wire services and what is being called "user-generated" content such as messageboards, bloggers, and vloggers. The report calls it an era of shrinking ambitions, as in:

News organizations need to do more to think through the implications of this new era of shrinking ambitions. The move toward building audience around “franchise” areas of coverage or other traits is a logical response to fragmentation and can, managed creatively, have journalistic value. To a degree, journalism’s problems are oversupply, too many news organizations doing the same thing. But something gained means something lost, especially as newsrooms get smaller. There is already evidence that basic monitoring of local government has suffered. Regional concerns, as opposed to local, are likely to get less coverage. Matters with widespread impact but little audience appeal, always a challenge, seem more at risk of being unmonitored. What do concepts like localism and branding really mean? Should only national newspapers maintain foreign bureaus? Does localism mean provincialism? Should news organizations, so as not to abandon more high-level coverage, enlist citizen sentinels to monitor community news? To what extent do journalists still have a role in creating a broad agenda of common knowledge? Those issues, debated in theory before, are becoming real. And the wrong answers could hasten, not stave off, the decline of news organizations.

For me, that raises questions of quality. I sometimes think that if I had known myself a little better or had gotten some decent guidance in high school or college, I would have gone on to a journalism program. Then I look at the shape that the news media is in today and I think maybe it's a good thing I didn't go that route. I'd likely be horribly frustrated with my job.

Every evening for about a year I was hungrily watching a EuroNews feed that I first discovered while in Russia. Comcast has recently removed it from my lineup and I feel like I have lost contact with the outside world. Though focused mostly (as you might imagine) on the European Union, the broadcast also opens a window on the Middle East and Africa in a way that you don't often see here in the United States. And, unlike the BBC, I have not been able to detect any obvious anti-American slant. For the record, I do like the scope of news that the BBC offers, but they are sometimes a little too fond of showcasing the more ridiculous aspects of American society.

Of course, American news has been doing a fine job of that all by itself. In an effort to stop the hemorraging of advertising revenue, there has been a perceptible shift away from hard news to infotainment. Even cable news has succumbed to this tactic as evidenced by a recent count of minutes spent on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith vs. the war in Iraq.  There is a place for escapism, but it's at the supermarket checkout, not CNN.

In that regard, the news industry has often been its own worst enemy in hastening its irrelevance. A glance at the local news gives you the usual litany of shootings, car accidents, fires, traffic jams, and a segment I like to call "Parental Scare of the Week." (Insert voice of doom here) Hardly more than a few seconds are devoted to anything happening at the State House. I don't even watch TV news anymore. It's irrelevant to me.

Americans are already woefully ignorant about the world beyond our shores, and many of us have met the foreign friend who knows more about our American system than we do. The closing of foreign bureaus not only exacerbates this problem but helps allow disasters in other parts of the world to go unchecked or ignored by one of the few remaining nations with the power to influence change.

But what really concerns me is the increased fragmentation of our media and its audience. Relentless political attacks and a few significant missteps by institutions such as the New York Times have chipped away at the notion of an authoritative source for the facts of an event or issue. No longer do we as a nation sit down with Walter Cronkite every evening. In addition, the proliferation of Web-based outlets has created a situation where everyone is preaching to their own choirs. As a reader, I can select only those news outlets which present my preconceived notions of the world, and be entertained by snarky attacks on those who do not share my views.  I may or may not be aware that what I am reading, watching, or hearing is largely opinion or agenda journalism rather than news or analysis, but it gives me confidence in my views and reinforces them, so I know I must be right about them. Indignation about the errors of others is strangely empowering and often convinces me that people who disagree with those views are beneath consideration.

What I'm reading may be the result of an unsubstantiated rumor, a retaliatory leak, or just outright bias, but if I hear, see, or read it enough times, it must be true. For instance, maybe there is an upside to the civil war in Iraq. Maybe Mark Foley was really a Democrat (don't believe me, check out the eyebrow-raising screenshots at this link).

The traditional role of the press has been that of watchdog on the government, but the media increasingly needs its own watchdog, and possibly a new injection of gravitas.  More than ever we need a well-informed citizenry, what we are getting instead is a partitioned nation of media consumers high on their own outrage.

SAHM vs WAHM vs WOHM vs WTF?

In college I found myself drawn into the seedy underbelly of the Women's Studies Department, fascinated by the evidence of my systematic brain washing from the time I was a little girl peering at the Barbies on the shelf and wondering why the women around me didn't look like her.  I began to study television commercials, watching the posture and relationships between the characters and their products.  I watched the day time talk shows and marveled at how women so often sat closed up, arms and legs tucked in while men sprawled across chairs, confident and assertive in their speech and convictions.  I became wildly fascinated with the debate over what was better for the children of feminists: a mother who stays home and cares for her budding activists or a mother who went to work and showed her children that "real women" storm the board room and smash the glass ceiling. 

I'm still trying to figure that last one out. 

As an attached parent, I have put my foot firmly in the stay at home mom (SAHM) camp, committed to breastfeeding my children on demand and knowing how very hard it is to keep that relationship alive while working.  When my first daughter was14-months-old, I went back to work full time and found myself in the struggle so many moms share: wanting to be with my baby, enjoying the time away, trying to feel fulfilled as both an independent woman and as a mother.  At that time in our life, we were able to arrange it so that my husband became the stay at home parent, a job he took to beautifully and with a flair I didn't seem to posses.  Pregnant less than a month into that job, I only stayed until Anya was born and then slipped back into the world of breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and attachment parenting. 

Now that Anya is approaching two years of age, I find myself itching for more to do.  I love the playgroups, the connections, the community I have found through parenting.  But I long for the face paced world of the arts I worked in for so long.  I miss the Opening Nights and the artist interaction and running my own crew of people.  And I worry that I am not showing my children all that a smart educated woman can do.

Of course, this is when a job opportunity crops up.  So Mark and I have been kicking it over, trying to figure out if we could make it work.  This time, however, we can't afford to have my husband out of work and with two kids we'd have to place in someone else's care, it doesn't pencil out.  And unlike before, I have this amazing community of fellow mothers that have become my friends.  When Lily was little, I suffered a bit from post partum blues and therefore felt isolated, lonely and frustrated.  Work ended up being a welcome escape and the path to mental health.  This time, I worry that all I could think about while at work was my kids and what I was missing that very moment.

So how does one do it?  How does one balance this need to contribute to the working community while doing the most important job in the world?  My husband says the only way I can be true to my feminist roots is to continue to be fulfilled, no matter what that means.  So how does a feminist mother show her daughters that they can have whatever they want when she can't figure it out for herself? 

I want to hear from all of you out there, whether you think of yourself as a feminist or not.  Whether you work at home or out of it.  How do you answer this great feminist question of what is really better for our children?

Discuss.

Personifying America

I recently read a review by Alison Lurie of Alain de Botton's The Architecture of Happiness in The New York Review of Books. I have not read the book yet, but as a result of Lurie’s review, it is now at the top of my list. This book endeavors to reveal the way our environment (specifically, the architecture of our homes and our workplaces) directly affects us, and deeply so. A review excerpted from Publisher’s Weekly (posted to Amazon.com) explains it quite nicely:

"Alain de Botton examines the ways architecture speaks to us, evoking associations that, if we are alive to them, can put us in touch with our true selves and influence how we conduct our lives.”

You might be asking yourself, what the hell does this have to do with The Soccer Mom Vote? Or politics in general for that matter? Stay with me.

Alain de Botton goes to hyperbole in the most interesting way. He personifies the buildings he examines and suggests that they actually have moods. He proposes that they have a describable character and even an inherent morality (or immorality) of their own. Then he goes on to describe how the culmination of these traits directly impacts those who inhabit those places, by making them happy or making them miserable. De Botton seems to believe that for most humans, the architecture of the places wherein we pass the time can have a remarkably strong influence on us, both psychologically and morally speaking. What de Botton suggests is very powerful and I buy into it.

So much so, in fact, that I propose that we extend this theory beyond architecture and apply it not only to the buildings in which we live, work, worship, and entertain ourselves, but to our environment on a much grander scale, to our country.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that we are, at least in large part, products of our environment, that our environment, our culture, our society all leave indelible impressions on what we think, how we feel, and ultimately who we are.

There is one passage in the book in particular that struck me and inspired me to apply this idea to American politics. The author, who I am guessing is not a regular customer at any fast food chain, describes his intense misery when he was forced to take temporary shelter from a rainstorm inside a McDonald’s:

“The setting seemed to render all kinds of ideas absurd: that human beings might sometimes be generous to one another without hope of reward; that relationships can on occasion be sincere; that life may be worth enduring… The restaurant’s true talent lay in the generation of anxiety. The harsh lighting, the intermittent sound[s]… and the frenzied behaviour of the counter staff invited thoughts of the loneliness and meaninglessness of existence in a random and violent universe.”

Upon exiting the McDonalds, de Botton went immediately to a cathedral wherein he found complete relief in the heavenly surroundings, saying that they “kindled a yearning for one to live up to its perfections.” Lurie concedes (and I will too) that de Botton exaggerates. But his point stands. It is with these kinds of examples that he explores the “architecture of happiness.”

By simply playing with the title, we might begin to understand how we feel about our country and how it has impacted us, if only subliminally, how it has skewed our mood, our character, our way of thinking. Filtered through a lens of American politics and the history of growing up American, how would you describe the architecture of happiness? Of melancholy? The construction of freedom? Of conservatism, liberalism, democracy? The formulation of American youth, innocence, optimism, brutality, barbarianism, savagery? How might you write these stories?

Or, given the opportunity to shelter yourself from rain, how might you feel upon running into the doors of the U.S.A and waiting it out inside for only 15 minutes? What might you see and hear? How might you feel? Given the choice, would you seek shelter instead in Mexico? Germany? China? France? Iraq?

If we personify America to the degree that de Botton personifies homes and buildings, what is the mood of this place in which we live?  If this pot was melted down, what would be the character that survives? Who is America personified? And do you like her? She may be the most popular girl at the party but would you invite her home to meet Mom?

As a voter, how much would you trust the woman boiled down from America? As a mother, how much protective concern would you extend to your children if a little girl called America ran out onto the Soccer field and began to play with your sons and daughters? Do you think young America would play fairly?

All concerns aside, I think I can say I like her. I certainly appreciate her. I am thankful for her. She is good spirited and well-intentioned and generous. But like most folks, she is complex. She is young and many times arrogant. She is wealthy and a little bit spoiled. She can be naïve and she often behaves as though she is invincible.

She is not.

Speaking of Polls

It could be that I'm tired and my brain just doesn't want to cooperate in stringing together several coherent thoughts on one subject right now.  Maybe it was the previous post (by another Nancy) about polling that inspired me.

Maybe it's all the speeches, the public appearances in already "crucial" primary states, the pandering for election campaign donations . . . but I'm curious, too.  I'm curious as to what issues concern you most as you listen to the soundbytes put forth on the evening news. 

After all, I've been quite impressed with the thoughts of this here readership and I want to know what your two biggest concerns are; What you want to see changed when a new administration steps into the White House.  Heck, with all the exposure this blog has been getting out there in cyberspace, maybe some of these candidates seeking to become the next President of the United States will take notice.

I guess if I had to narrow it down to just two I'd ask for comprehensive plans regarding how we improve the lives of the poor in this country (How do we spread the wealth so that all children will have nutritious food to eat, clean clothes to wear and sturdy, safe homes to sleep in); and second, a plan of action regarding a complete overhaul of the public education system so that all children. regardless of social status, income or geographic location, will have access to curriculum that will allow them to become successful adults with the economic means to support themselves and their families that can then go on to contribute to their communities in a positive way.

It's a tall order to fill.  I realize that.  Yet, addressing these two particular issues would have a highly positive effect on so many others, ie. the ever widening gap between the middle and upper classes, the lack of proper health care, abuses of public assistance programs, unemployment rates, etc.  It's like playing with dominoes - if you take care of poverty first, followed closely by education and set the results in motion many of our social ills will collapse right behind them.

And yet, I don't hear plans addressing these two biggies from any of the frontrunners.  I hear a lot about what a national health care system might look like or how reversing certain tax breaks would help fund this social program or that one, but to me these kinds of solutions are just Band-Aids.  They don't address the fundamental problems that underlie so many of these other issues and I think it's high time someone did.  If I've learned anything as I've come of age in this crazy world over the last 15 years or so it's that it's high time for real change.  No more covering up the wounds.  It's time to take the steps necessary to heal them and put a stop to the decay that is spreading throughout the land.

But that's just me.  What two issues concern you most when you think about the United States today on March 19th?  If you could sit down with Obama, Clinton, McCain, Giuliani or Edwards, what two subjects would you ask them to address?

It could have been you. It could have been me.

I was diagnosed with colon cancer when I was 26. Not only was I lucky that it was caught early and I was cured. I was also lucky that I had health insurance to cover the majority of the costs of my treatment. Not everyone in America enjoys this privilege. According to CoverTheUninsured:

"The federal government estimates that 46 million Americans lack coverage of any kind for an entire year. Other research shows that tens of millions more Americans go without health coverage for shorter periods of time."

These less fortunate people receive little or no care, even when facing life-threatening illnesses. And, in the cases where care is made available, there are long lines and red tape blocking their way to a healthy outcome.

My friend, Nicole Foy, is an incredible journalist who recently wrote a two-part article for the San Antonio Express-News about the life and death of Bonnie Terry, a woman who was dedicated to helping others. Shortly after Bonnie was diagnosed with stage II breast cancer, her three-year contract job (which provided her with health insurance) ended. She then paid premiums on an extended 9-month plan but it maxed out after only four months while she was undergoing chemo. Nicole's vivid and emotional account of Bonnie's journey as an uninsured woman moving through the public health system helped me put a name and a face on this embarrassing and escalating problem in America—the plight of the uninsured.

I won't go into detail about Bonnie's story here because Nicole tells it with such care and intimacy (her research and writing talents are on center stage here because although she never met Bonnie, she's able to make you feel as though you have). I urge you to read Nicole's articles yourself to get the full picture of what Bonnie, her family and friends, and even some of her caregivers went through before she died.

Bob Richter, the newspaper's public editor, followed Nicole's story in a column about his thoughts on the topic and I couldn't have summed things up better myself:

"The critics — usually those with a financial stake in maintaining the status quo — argue that a single, regulated health care umbrella amounts to "socialized medicine." They said it when President Truman proposed universal health care after World War II and when LBJ hustled Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.

But few people complain about socialized police, fire or military protection, socialized public education or interstate highways. Shouldn't all taxpayers also have access to good health care?"

Over the next year and a half, let's keep our politicians on task and ask them what they plan to do about America's uninsured. I don't know what the answer is, but you can bet my vote will go to the candidate who's got a viable plan and who convinces me that they'll make universal health care coverage a priority.

Click here for letters to the editor about Nicole's story.

And the survey says?

75% of moms in North Carolina don't care about the Presidential election.   35% of high school children couldn't describe what Dick Cheney looks like.  52% of senior citizens think Barak Obama is a relative of Osama bin Laden.

Shocking statistics?  You bet.  But don't be too worried, because I just made them up.

Darrell Huff, author of the bestselling book, How to Lie With Statistics, offers the following advisory statement when interpreting statistics:  "Even if you can't find a source of demonstrable bias, allow yourself some degree of skepticism about the results as long as there is a possibility of bias somewhere. There always is."  Huff's book is geared toward helping readers to interpret -- with the appropriate critical eye -- the statistics they come across in academics, in the workplace, and in marketing, among other contexts.  But his philosophy is also quite apt for the world of politics. 

One important part of being an informed citizen in today's world is to be able to judge the validity of information that we read about and hear.   In order to be critical thinkers we must conduct a careful analysis of data, facts, and interpretations presented by the media, by our teachers and mentors, by coworkers, by friends and family -- and of course by politicians and social activists.

We have to be critical thinkers.  We have to understand the ways that we can be lied to with statistics and with the selective presentation of information, so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. 

I know a little bit about this subject -- just enough to be dangerous -- since part of my former job was analyzing the way in which my place of employment proposed to collect information from, and present information to, its audience via statistics.  So in the spirit of Darrell Huff's book, I offer Nancy's Guide to Critical Thinking, or How Not to Be Fooled By Statistics.      

• Carefully consider cause and effect when you're presented with a so-called "causal relationship."  For instance, what if I told you that for this blog entry, I took a random poll and found that 50% of the respondents have a cold right now?  What if I also told you that the same 50% of respondents had spent an hour or more outside shoveling their cars the day before the survey?  Would it be appropriate me to assume that exposure to the bad weather caused their colds?      

• Consider that the approach used to collect the information might have skewed the results.  If a pollster frames a question other than neutrally, it may impact the way people respond.  For example, if he queries people leaving a restaurant with an ominous tone, and asks a negative question (“You didn't order one of those odd-sounding veal dishes, did you?”) he may get a different answer than if he phrased it more positively ("Did you try their delicious veal tonight?") You may not be able to detect what approach was used in conducting a poll, of course, but keep this potential bias in mind. 

• Look at the scope of the information and how it's represented.  A narrowly focused survey might give a sample that’s not representative of the population.  For example, if I ask 300 people in my county to respond to an election question, I would get a VERY different answer if I conducted my poll in my very liberal hometown as opposed to in the very conservative town on the other side of the county.  If I were to advertise the survey results as indicative of or representative of the opinions of my entire county, that would be inaccurate.

• Cast a wary eye at graphics.  The use of pictures, tables, and simple graphs is a popular way to represent public opinion and survey responses. However, the figures can often be too simplistic to show the data in a meaningful way.  For example, consider a U.S. map that's color-coded to indicate how much people in each state like coffee, where states colored green love coffee, states colored yellow like coffee, and states colored red hate coffee.  You have to wonder how the opinion of an entire state was reflected in this way -- were people surveyed, were their coffee-buying habits analyzed, were the number of Starbucks stores each the state counted?  And since "like" and "love" are such subjective terms, how can you really portray the difference between how much people in New York liked coffee versus people in California?

• Listen for when there's a careful choice of words.  The words that are chosen to describe a news story or event are often carefully selected to have an impact on the readers -- this is of course obvious when it comes to headlines.  But this also holds true when people speak about high-profile events, particularly when it's in their best interest to portray a specific perspective, but they don't want to lie outright.  One instance of this that stands out in my memory is when then-President Bill Clinton made a statement in response to the charges that he'd had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky.  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," he said, then paused before he added, "Ms. Lewinsky."  I remember joking with my husband at the time that he might have been looking at some random woman in the audience when he uttered the first part of his phrase "...with that woman." 

• Understand key assumptions before reacting.  Would you be shocked to read an article that said 60% of female children wear thong underwear?  Perhaps so, but would you be less shocked if the survey defined "children" as girls ages 10-19 as opposed to "children" ages 4 to 12?  How about if you read that "a majority" of teenagers in your school district have tried cocaine?  Your reaction might be a little bit different depending on the definition of "majority" -- certainly, there is a significant difference between 51% and 95%, but both could technically be considered "a majority."  Of course, a respectable information source makes the assumptions behind its statistics readily available, but in some cases you need to delve deeper into the fine print to find these things.   

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.  And I'm sure you do a lot of critical thinking already, particularly if you're a regular contributor to and/or reader of this site.  But I hope I've provided some food for thought, because there's a 95% chance that you'll run across some meaningless statistics today.

(Oops, better make that 100%!)

meanie moms

Last month soccermom Elaine* was invited to go to LA and visit set of The New Adventures of Old Christine (8:30pm Monday nights on CBS) and interview the cast.  So she asked me to come along and let me tell you, I was WAY out of my league there.  Here is a list of the other attendees (courtesy of Elaine):

Amy Keroes and Dawn Dobras, founders of the popular working mother website Mommy Track’d, Erin Kane and Kristin Brandt, who created the website and podcast Manic Mommies – which features a weekly podcast available for download on Itunes and Yahoo; Melinda Roberts, better known as The Mommy Blog and author of Mommy Confidential, Liz Gumbinner, who is an advertising agency executive by day and pens the wildly successful blogs Cool Mom Picks and Mom101; Sara Fisher, a part-time public relations executive and author of the blog, The Self Made Mom; Tim Clark, who is better known as L.A. Daddy; as well as four contributors from BlogHer including: Elaine, author of Wannabe Hippie, Lorien Silverleaf, contributor to The Soccer Mom Vote, Yvonne from Joy Unexpected; and Liz Rizzo author of Everyday Goddess.

The studio had a cameraman follow us around all day and here's the result:

The show is really funny; the whole cast has impeccable comic timing and it was inspiring and intimidating to meet those talented and accomplished women. 

Including Alex Kapp Horner and Tricia O'Kelley, who play the Meanie Moms on the show.  They had coffee and pastries with the whole gaggle of bloggers after the interview.   Not only are these women even more beautiful in real life than on tv, but they are nice and real, nothing like Marly and Lindsay (the Meanie Moms).  Heck, one of 'em even married a real life Mainah (that's a person from Maine to all of you non-Maineiacs). 

But watching all the episodes of the show that are online and meeting these two ladies, I started thinking more and more about something that has been in the back of my mind for a long time.  It's the mommy wars.  Working vs stay at home, AP vs mainstream, all the ways we are different from the "other" moms.  And some of those "others" can be downright mean.  Though the Meanie Moms may seem like caricatures, there are really women that mean out there.  But not me, right?  Well, maybe, according to Alex Kapp Horner, maybe I am.  Because she says that some of the moms at her kid's school look down on her for not feeding her child organic food.  Wait a minute, I think I may do that, and I definitely have a hard time not judging when I see moms who aren't breastfeeding. 

What is this need we as women sometimes have to tear each other down?  To feel superior to others?  Why can't we all subscribe to the "sisterhood" many of us claim to aspire to?  I recently read Tripping the Prom Queen and was appalled by how much pain women cause each other as adults, not because I haven't experienced it, but because I didn't have any idea it was so widespread an epidemic.  Didn't we outgrow this stuff when we crossed over from high school?  Apparently not, as I have been deeply hurt by other women as an adult.  I can only hope and pray I haven't caused as much, and I have made real, coscious efforts to be as kind as I can and to try to make amends when I haven't lived up to my own standards.

I really think it is important as moms to model good sisterhood for our daughters so that they can inflict as little pain on others as possible and meet the "Mean Girls" with grace when they encounter them.  So I challenge you and myself to help minimize the pain and sorrow we cause to other women and help our daughters break the cycle of violence that women perpetuate on each other.

*For another, less political, viewpoint of the day, check out Elaine's post about it on her blog. 

Rethinking Recent History

In an effort to have a more succinct post this month, I offer up a simple and current topic.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Is it relevant in today’s world?
Was it a temporary fix or transitional measure when it was introduced in the first place?
Would repealing it do damage to morale and cripple our military in the middle of two wars?

I’m simply going to link articles, giving you a snippet of the movements going on toward repealing this policy.

First, the efforts of Representative Marty Meehan, a Democrat from Massachusetts.  He is reintroducing the bill (it had previously died in the Republican controlled Congress) and has over 100 co-sponsers.

From the USA Today article, which you can read here:

Three Republicans have signed on, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. She says her husband, Dexter, was cared for by a lesbian nurse when he was injured during combat in Vietnam. Defense Department statistics released at the request of Congress and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group, show that nearly 7% of the 726 troops discharged under the policy in 2005 were medical personnel. That's the most in one year and brings to 334 the number of health care workers, including doctors, nurses and mental health specialists, dismissed since 1994. "People in need of medical specialists couldn't care less about the sexual orientation" of those caring for them, Meehan says. "The policy is outdated and discriminatory."

An article from the Air Force News addresses specifically the position of retired Army General and former Joint Chiefs chairman John Shalikashvili.  In it is referenced his support of the measure when Clinton introduced it in 1993 but goes on to say:

“I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces,” Shalikashvili said.

Additional sources:

CNN: Former Joint Chiefs Chairman: Time to Include Gay Troops
Washington Post Op-Ed piece
Christian Science Monitor: New Scrutiny of 'Dont Ask Dont Tell'

Of course, I have an opinion on this matter.  I'm proud of the men and women who serve to protect the freedoms I, for the most, probably take for granted.  I'm married to a combat veteran who put his life on the line so that you and I would enjoy the rights and privileges that come with being an American.

It's been a long time since our servicemen were asked to adapt to the fact that women were ready to do the fighting as well.  It's no longer a boys only club.

But, we still have armed forces that do their jobs with honor and integrity, regardless of their gender.  And yet, we ask homosexuals, who are guaranteed employment everywhere else in American, without fear of discrimination, to keep quiet about their private life or risk termination.  It just seems backwards to me.  Then again, this is my opinion.  I have never served in the military so I am seriously lacking in the knowledge of the more intricate innerworkings of the military as a whole.

Be that as it may, from everything I've read in the last few weeks, it would seem the backers of this effort are choosing a course of slow and steady.  They know the response to overturn this measure is not something that can change overnight.  I would think that allowing the time for a healthy dialogue of the pros and cons of this measure would stir enough debate and give people a chance to examine who and what is at stake here.

In a time of war, though, I imagine things look a bit differently than they did in 1993.

 

"It Takes One Voice To Save A Life"

• 

Let's talk about your colon.  Great way to start your Monday, right?  Did you know March is the National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month (and has been ever since March 2003)? 

Colorectal Cancer is curable 90% of the time when detected early. But is still one of the deadliest cancers there is because no one wants to talk about or acknowledge this part of their body. According to the NCCRA (National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance), this means more people die from colorectal cancer than breast cancer and AIDS combined!

Let's start with the facts:

"Colorectal Cancer is the second leading cancer killer trailing only lung cancer in annual US cancer deaths. The American Cancer Society estimates that in United States 148,610 of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in 2006 and 55,170 deaths will occur. Fortunately, colorectal cancer is easily detectable with screening techniques that can catch the cancer when it is still treatable. Be informed and prevent this disease and its terrible consequences."

The risks:

• Age: Although colorectal cancer can strike at any age, more than 9 out of 10 new cases are in people age 50 or older.
• Gender: Colorectal cancer affects both men and women
• Ethnic background and Race: Jews of Eastern European descent (Ashkenazi Jews) may have a higher rate of colon cancer. Because of disproportionate screening, minorities, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, are more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer in advanced stages. As a result, death rates are higher for these populations.
• Diet and Exercise: A diet made up mostly of foods that are high in fat, especially from animal sources, can increase the risk of colorectal cancer. People who are not active have a higher risk of colorectal cancer.
• Smoking and Alcohol: A Recent studies show that smokers are 30% to 40% more likely than nonsmokers to die of colorectal cancer. Heavy use of alcohol has also been linked to colorectal cancer.
• Personal history of bowel disease: A personal history of colon cancer or intestinal polyps and diseases such as chronic ulcerative colitis, Crohn's Disease, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease increase a person's risk of developing colorectal cancer.

  [Here is a GREAT fact sheet you can print out and use to track your own family history. ]

• Family history/genetic factors: A person who has a specific inherited gene syndrome (such as Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) or Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colon Cancer (HNPCC)) is at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer. People with a strong family history of colorectal cancer (defined as cancer or polyps in a first-degree relative - parent or brother or sister - younger than 60 or two first-degree relatives of any age) are also at increased risk for developing colorectal cancer.

The symptoms: 

The following symptoms might indicate colorectal cancer:

• A change in bowel habits
• Diarrhea, constipation, vomiting
• Narrower than normal stools
• Unexplained weight loss
• Constant tiredness
• Blood in the stool
• Feeling that the bowel does not empty completely
• Abdominal discomfort - gas, bloating, fullness, cramps
• Unexplained anemia

What can you do to help Lower Your Risk? 

1. Get regular colorectal screening tests
2. Maintain a healthy weight
3. Eat a low-fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables and whole grains
4. Use alcohol only in moderation
5. If you use tobacco, quit.  If you don't use tobacco, DO NOT START
6. Exercise moderately for 30-60 minutes a day, five days a week. 

Now these are all things we need to be doing anyway.  Isn't it nice to know you get more than one benefit from doing them?

I started this post with "the facts."  Let me finish with "the emotions."  Readers of my personal blog know that a great woman in my life just died from metastasized colon cancer (the cancer in her lungs is what killed her).  When she was diagnosed, she was well below the age of 50.  She was having other issues and they decided to just do a complete physical.  The colon cancer was found then.  And she fought it and fought it.  When it came back in her lungs and liver, she fought it some more.  She lost her battle on the 24th of February, 2007.  And I lost my best friend. 

For her sake, and for mine, get yourself tested.  Have the colonoscopy. See the fact sheet here on what to expect. I've had one, it is not a big deal. Just do it. 

The Pushed Out Revolution?

With Women’s History Month (March) and International Women’s Day (March 8), it’s a logical time to ask, have we really come a long way baby?

The shelves are full of books that focus on women struggling to make the choices right for them – work full-time and juggle career and child-rearing obligations, “opt” out of the workplace or try to find something in between?

A prime example of those feelings is reflected in one recent comment at my personal blog:

“[The] point about elite women staying [or leaving] the work force does resonate for me to the extent that the more women who make it to the top so to speak -- who really gut it out -- the more they can struggle to change the structure to positively influence all working mothers, college educated and pink collar, and service workers. I am a former litigator who has been home for the last 2 years with my 3 kids after having struggled to gut it out and work in law for 6 years after the birth of my first child. BUT I do feel that I have let down young female lawyers a bit. So there is a sense that I should get back in there and help change the status quo.”

But sometimes the anecdotal isn’t an accurate reflection of the factual.  Author E.J. Graff says in a recent Columbia Journalism Review article that statistics reflect a different reality -- that over the last 50 years, the number of women working outside the home has slowly and steadily increased, not decreased, yet the media seems more intent on reporting on a relatively small handful of professional women who don’t make their way back to careers after becoming mothers.

According to Graff:

“The moms-go-home story keeps coming back, in part, because it’s based on some kernels of truth. Women do feel forced to choose between work and family. Women do face a sharp conflict between cultural expectations and economic realities. The workplace is demonstrably more hostile to mothers than to fathers. Faced with the ‘choice’ of feeling that they’ve failed to be either good mothers or good workers, many women wish they could – or worry that they should – abandon the struggle and stay at home with the kids.”

The dilemma is continually framed as a Faustian bargain that women freely choose to make, when in reality it is a false choice – if women are asked about why they leave their jobs, it is often because they feel they were forced out as a result of a failure of the workplace to evolve to fit the ways families look today, not the way they looked 50 years ago.

Graff points to a university study entitled, “Opt Out or Pushed Out?"  This study points out that often it’s not the pull of motherhood alone leading women to trade their pumps and pantyhose for sweats and sneakers.  Many women feel they are ultimately pushed out of their jobs because once they become mothers, prime assignments dry up, mentorships fade and the flexibility they had hoped would exist isn’t a reality.

So why isn’t this the story that’s getting the mileage in newspapers and on cable news shows?  If there was more sunshine on this angle, maybe employers would feel more pressure to change inflexible work hours and find ways to create workplaces where long-ingrained stereotypes about the “commitment” of women once they are mothers, could change.

Interviewing a handful of mothers about why they’ve left the workplace might be a good place to start in discussing why that’s happened, but that’s only the easy first part of the story. Reporters need to dig deeper into the ‘pushed out’ story to make employers more accountable for the things they are doing, and not doing, in the workplace, so that women who really want to stay in their jobs, can find a way to do that without being professionally penalized or labeled as not committed to their careers.