Is feminism being undermined by Republicans and the media?

Sarah Palin, Republican media icon

Several years ago On The Issues Magazine theme was "The Conning of
the Feminists," telling us that Republican media icons are set up specifically to undermine and pervert female values.

Some of the right-wing media and neo-cons use an array of ideas in opposition to values set by feminists, of independence and women's rights.  It was reflected in the Hillary Clinton famous presentation of herself as a cookie-baking mother in order to counteract the Republican women in the female department.

Sarah Palin is but one of the neo-cons claiming feminism that according to On the Issues doesn't have "a single teabag’s worth of feminist values."Instead she, and other female right-wingers, according to the article,encourage women to view themselves through a patriarchal prism.

 The issue looked also at another “con” of feminists, as well, this from a consumerist media that is encouraging women to view their feminist selves in an ever-so-convenient patriarchal package.

Tanya Melich, the former Republican insider and author who showed us the inside of the GOP Party’s anti-woman agenda in her book The Republican War Against Women,  reveals again how Republican women icons are undermining women's gains and ideas.   In her article,  “Next Chapter in the ‘Republican War Against Women’.” Melich articulates the GOP’s tactic of putting women candidates like Sarah Palin on the front line, only to lead the same, longstanding efforts against women’s rights and
freedoms.

In "Fighting the Black Anti-Abortion Campaign: Trusting Black Women"SisterSong’s Loretta Ross tackles a growing threat facing the African American community,  the anti-choice campaign pushing lies of racism to coerce and shame women of color into continuing their unwanted pregnancies.  She maintains that by doing this the campaign undermines black women's autonomy.

On The Issues Magazine is a progressive, feminist, quarterly online magazine.  The advocacy of women's rights continues to be its principal theme, even as it leads into border issues that relate to women and men as well.

In 2013 the Washington Post offered an article entitled, "Feminism is dead! Long live feminism.  The article points out that patriarchy is dead, so the big fight for recognition and equality in that sense is dead.  In 2015, however, the feminist movement, just like in 2013 may be dead as far as patriarchy is concerned but like the Washington Post writer points out the groping from the guys at any female with a decent body walking down the street is not dead.  The sexism continues that way, as it is influenced and underlined by the Miley Cyrus girls.  That's girls, some might well say, as women who have learned a lot know better than to call attention to bodies, then hypocritically shout to be known then for their brains. 

The fact is that as young women take the one-down position, or applaud the sexy stars like Miley Cyrus that parade their bodies in overtly sexy ways the 1960's women said were selling out themselves, the downgrade of those women who stood up for women's rights is part of the sell-out part that many of the old-timers worry about.  For those hard-fought rights could be recalled with the Republican agenda that seems to be a part of future planning for the right wing of the party, even as one attempt to cripple abortion rights was defeated not long ago.

Yet while there are the shrill of voices in the feminist crowd who shout for justice and the anti-feminist group whose head-down, pout-lipped style would make the former cringe, most women are still mainstream, with a moderate stance on most areas impacting women's rights.

It is unlikely the extreme right or left will dominate women, after the fairer sex brushed off the male domination years ago, looking for freedom to work, think and act as individuals with brains as well as bodies.  They won't so long as there remains one baby boomer plus a bit willing to take up the banner and march if the young ones give up the cause that women know remains in one form or another.

Did American colonial laws embrace dueling as the way to resolve political conflict?

Hamilton-Burr duel

Politicians used to have unique ways of settling disputes, with some of them saying that in the early days of America people respected an aggressive style of taking care of business. However, there are differences of opinion on the matter, with a narrative that appears to favor the present style of disagreement over the way things used to be done during those early years.

Sarah Palin said, in response to attacks accusing her of verbal violence a few years ago, that America's past political disputes were more violent than present ones, using dueling as an example. But what does history say about it?

Since the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Gifford in Arizona and school shootings that have occurred both at Sandy Hook and in Washington State, people have disagreed about the present political climate. Some say politics has always been violent and confrontational, whereas others argue the present political atmosphere is particularly toxic.

Palin was accused of fostering violence by having a map on her Facebook page with crosshairs targeting political opponents. She countered this accusation by saying, "There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?"

History tells us that harsh language and dueling were common in the 18th century and that it was the ultimate outcome of political debates that could not be reconciled by discussion or apology. It was, however, frowned upon by key figures in America's early period of independence.

Dueling was one of the methods used to resolve political differences in the 18th century. This method was imported from Europe, where nobles fought with swords or guns to defend their honor. Men from various backgrounds dueled in America, with guns most often the chosen weapons used. For example, Button Gwinnet who was one of those who signed the Declaration of Independence was shot by General Lachlan in a duel. In addition history records the fact that Abraham Lincoln narrowly escaped a duel with swords but prevented it by issuing an apology to a state official.

Dueling had its formal rules, codified in 1777 and known as the Code Duello. An individual would issue a challenge; and if that challenge was accepted, both parties would select a second. A second was to try to settle the dispute between the two opponents. If they were unable to do that, a time and place was selected for the duel. Death was not necessarily the desired outcome. A shot fired and blood drawn could be sufficient.

Experts tell us that death from dueling was infrequent and that it was the last resort of an unreconciled argument. It was considered harsh, and the expectation was the opponents would work out their differences before this occurred. Although dueling was common enough, many members of the clergy and key government officials such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington opposed it.
One of the most famous duels took place between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in 1804. Hamilton and Burr were both personal and political enemies.

The duel between Burr and Hamilton was politically motivated, unlike the Arizona shooting or school shootings, but the notion of having a gun for self defense as a personal weapon was not something the ordinary citizen embraced during the Colonial period.  Yet there were those instances, as in the Hamilton and Burr duel, where the love of the gun became the emotional spur for resolving disputes.

Alexander Hamilton was an advocate of strong central government, wrote the Federalist Papers and was America's first Secretary of the Treasury. His opponent, Aaron Burr, was a Republican who was elected and served as Vice President of the United States with President Thomas Jefferson.
Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel following Hamilton's interference with Burr's re-nomination for Vice President in 1804 and attempt to become New York's governor.

The duel commenced, and Burr's shot mortally wounded Hamilton. The physician on the scene recorded the following of Hamilton's words and behavior before he died: "Soon after recovering his sight, he happened to cast his eye upon the case of pistols, and observing the one that he had had in his hand lying on the outside, he said, "Take care of that pistol; it is undischarged, and still cocked; it may go off and do harm. Pendleton knows " (attempting to turn his head towards him) 'that I did not intend to fire at him.'

Hamilton was then taken to his home and was said to havdied in agony the following day with the pistol's ball lodged next to his spine. Burr may have won the duel, but he was indicted by both New York and New Jersey. The trial, however, never took place. He ended up wandering the country and died in poverty and disgrace in 1836. The duel may have settled the score, but the way it was done was not embraced by the laws of the times, just as it would not be today. By the time of the Civil War it had declined because of negative public opinion.

Humanitarian relief examined through prism of prayer and the Madman

Jesus offers food, followed by a sermon

"We need to pray for those people and hope other people pray for them as well," the woman spoke of her work at the church, as her friends smiled and nodded, congratulating one another for living in a warm climate and offering their verbal sympathies to those affected by a cold snap and who might be at risk from it.  "We offer prayers weekly for people in need, especially when there is a disaster and they need God's attention."  But how often is prayer used as an excuse to do nothing or to engender belief in a reality where people are looking for concrete help?

After the earthquake in Haiti that killed hundreds of people, fostered disease and left thousands homeless, many people traveled there to offer help.  Some agencies collected money, however there were concerns about the lack of transparency as preliminary accounting offered questions about where some of the money went, when there was insufficient evidence it was used to help people physically.  At the same time church members and ministers flocked to Haiti as well, offering their prayers and faith-based intervention.

One of these people who went to Haiti following the earthquake disaster was Franklin Graham, heir to his father Billy Graham's business of Baptist ministry.  He traveled to Haiti to underline the spiritual message he said he had brought to others after disasters, that God understands your pain.

According to the Christian Post, Graham spoke at a soccer stadium in Haiti and said this, "We pray for you. We pray that God will cover you with His mercy. We know how difficult it is for you as you remember."

Before Christmas Graham had been to Haiti with Sarah Palin, bringing shoe boxes of Christmas gifts.

While conservative talk show hosts say of folks who talk about negative speech in the wake of the Arizona shooting and school shootings that they are simply looking for political opportunity, what of politicians and preachers who arrive saving souls when it's water and food that they need?

Graham went on to say to the people of Haiti following the disaster that created extensive problems that continue to plague the country, "Cholera has come into your country and infected your people. Many have died and many are sick. But sin has affected not only you but the entire human race. The entire human race has been infected and is under the death sentence," explained Graham.

"But if you are willing to receive Christ today by faith, God will forgive you and cleanse you of your sins," he continued. "Will you trust Him today?"

The parallels are scarcely missed in this message, as people went forward after Graham's message, as people all over the world followed Franklin Graham's father, Billy.

But inside the message, equating cholera with sin might suggest to folks cholera visited the people because they were filled with sin. It is a common message that arrives again and again in the wake of human tragedies. It is what Graham said after Hurricane Katrina as well.

This is what USA Today wrote following Franklin Graham's pronouncements after Hurricane Katrina, beginning with the quote from the preacher himself in a speech Graham gave in Virginia: "This is one wicked city, OK? It's known for Mardi Gras, for Satan worship. It's known for sex perversion. It's known for every type of drugs and alcohol and the orgies and all of these things that go on down there in New Orleans. Reverend Graham continued, "There's been a black spiritual cloud over New Orleans for years. They believe God is going to use that storm to bring revival. "

The imagery of sin in the wake of the storm wasn't lost on the people who heard. Right or wrong, the gift of salvation has value for many, but it's hard for the message to stick when it's food and water they need. While Graham and his crew helped after the storm, going into New Orleans to help rebuild churches and give food and shelter to many, the initial remarks set off a firestorm, because the words of salvation came first.

This reporter heard fundamental Christians say just weeks after Hurricane Katrina, as the survivors struggled in the town of Natchitoches before they moved on to other places or back to New Orleans, "They should just get over it and move on with their lives. They should just trust in God as their hope." It was trust and love the victims needed for sure; it was shelter and food, however, these folks needed the most.

Buses arrived at the shelter in Natchitoches during the early days after the storm, taking people to local churches, predominantly white, with white men guarding the doors to prevent any
suggestion of violence, as they watched television screens of New Orleans. People got food, in regular forays, and Bibles and prayer all the time. In fact, they got it before and after the food.

When a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina had passed and people went on with their lives, there was virtually no one taken from the shelter who sat in those churches who continued to worship in them weeks later. For the message of prayer and food put together, with sin didn't stick. The food was enough of a prayer.

The Ebola outbreak in Africa brings the response of the Christian world, again focusing on sin but also the need to protect others from the disease in ways that mean strict quarantines that would allow no one back into a country without a 21-day quarantine if they arrive from an area that has been impacted by the disease and even if they have had no direct contact with an individual who has Ebola. This, according to social and physical scientists say, will only serve to reduce the number of volunteers who arrive to help the people of West Africa, now struggling to contain the disease with limited resources.  But it is direct, physical help of food, clean water and medical supplies that might make a difference:

In the Madman by Khalil Gibran, a Christian himself, is this parable that Christians might ponder in the wake of disastrous events:

"Once there lived a man who had a valley-full of needles. And one day the mother of Jesus came to him and said: 'Friend, my son's garment is torn and I must needs mend it before he goeth to the temple. Wouldst thou not give me a needle?'

And he gave her not a needle, but he gave her a learned discourse on Giving and Taking to carry to her son before he should go to the temple"

As weather disasters and disease outbreaks occur, those affected look to others for help.  Is it prayer they need most or a lecture on sin or on giving and taking, or clean water, food, and safety so that their attention may be on the words that surround deeds that make a difference, as Jesus did with the Sermon on the Mount.

Skeptics continue to mock the idea of climate change despite 2013 'best evidence'

Measuring the summer Arctic melt

Marsha Hunt---In spite of the polar weather sweeping much of the world and the extreme temperatures, fires, earthquakes and other activities identified with climate change, many people still deny the earth's atmosphere is changing, forcing the governments to develop inertia over making recommended changes.  So what is the present evidence and what do people need to know to understand that local weather anecdotes are not the same as rigorous science and that the consequences of doing nothing far outweigh the policies of corporations whose money-making notions interfere with the knowledge and changes we need.

Although there have been many articles and reports supporting scientific evidence of climate change, a significant faction of folks continue to mock the ideas, rattling their verbal swords on social media sites and trivializing the problem that is creating major problems around the world.

And while Al Gore initiated the efforts to bring the attention of the world to the anticipated problems observed by scientists decades ago, and has been mocked for those efforts, nevertheless the facts, as unfolding and substantiated by scientific research across the world, the climate is changing; and the impact of this is enormous, experts remind us. The criticisms against Gore have also been printed many times, but according to those who have followed his pronouncements over the years and reviewed the accusations, his main premise of the threat of climate change to the world's welfare has been found to be true much of the time.

Even the naysayers of the early Gore pronouncements, like former President George W. Bush, now agree there is indeed something to the urgent need to change direction and reexamine priorities when it comes to climate change, such as reducing pollutants that are said to be behind much of the problems.

Remarks by present naysayers indicate certainly that there are many people who have firmly decided the notions of climate change as being man-made are not true and simply part of backdoor politicians aligned with scientists to make money on the issue, while others, like Palin, make remarks that often poke fun at the ideas of it altogether.

Palin's remarks in 2013 reflect the rightwing notions that some say stand in the way of the changes needed to combat climate change.  She said, "I've been hearing all this hootin' and hollarin' from the liberals about how CO2 is going up to levels we haven't seen in 5 million years," Palin told Fox and Friends' host Gretchen Carlson. "But the truth is, life was pretty good millions of years ago. "There were plenty of plants and animals back then, and they did just fine in the heat. And as Earth starts to warm up, all our old friends will start coming back. The polar bears might die off, but think of all the dinosaurs we're gonna get!"

While some folks look at the polar weather and maintain that means the earth is actually getting colder and proving scientists wrong, the science has observed repeatedly the term "climate change" refers to the extremes in both directions, of hot and cold weather patterns; and that the overall direction of the earth's temperature is actually going up.

The most useful information for the world economies has less to do with the topics of immigration and economic reform than what scientists say is responsible for what might be particularly devastating, and has been for many already, and that's the consequences of climate change that include more hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes and weather conditions that can negatively impact millions.  2013 reflected the greatest evidence yet of the negative impact of climate change, according to science experts.  And these conditions require large outlays of money and manpower to overcome or control, something which will become even more difficult in the future.

Helping the dying prepare for end of life

[caption id="attachment_14688" align="alignleft" width="300"] Hospice St. Elizabeth[/caption]

Carol Forsloff--"I don't think she will live past the next month or so, so you need to prepare her for hospice."  But who pays for this help from hospice and how?

Molly Gideon's family worries about their mother, whose condition at a hospital had deteriorated significantly.  Hospice care was the recommendation by medical staff.

For the senior, the answer for who pays is Medicare.  There is a hospice benefit that provides for hospice intervention for an individual with a disease, illness or disabling condition that is determined to likely cause death in the next six months.

Medicare pays for a variety of services related to hospice care including doctor's visits, nursing care, medications and a host of special services, including counseling related to end of life.

80% of those requiring hospice are over the age of 65.  What happens to those who don't qualify for Medicare and are too young to receive the benefits?

People without Medicare coverage must rely on private insurance plans.  Many private insurers pay for an individual's care during the end-of-life phase.  Even in those instances where the patient survives, the costs for care are provided so long as the doctor states that the condition is terminal.

Hospice care does not include payment for room and board, but does pay for respite care for the caregivers.  So if a family member is involved in providing care at home,  the program provides an aid to give the caregiver a respite in the process.

The dying process is complex, according to those involved in caring for terminally ill patients.  For that reason, hospice workers help the family understand the process, as too often family members over-estimate a patient's likelihood of survival.   The denial of death is not just confined to the patient in the stages of death and dying but also family members.   Hospice is designed to assist with the experience of dying that involves a number of issues, including shock, grief and denial.  While some folks will arrange their affairs to make the best use of their time, talents and resources, others may just remain in despair, unless they have help.

While experts maintain the counseling helps the dying deal with the process in the stages of end of life, politicians intervened to prevent its inclusion in the Obama health care bill,  with folks like Sarah Palin calling it "death panels," a statement proved false following fact checks.  Instead it would allow doctors to provide end-of-life counseling,  not recommending suicide or providing the mechanisms for it or pushing people towards unnecessary end-of-life procedures, as was the accusation.   While the false claims made against the end-of-life counseling created such a firestorm that the provision was removed from the bill, nevertheless its implementation  through a regulation-writing process in 2010, to allow doctors to be paid for helping patients make decisions regarding death and dying.   This would help individuals without insurance, or those who do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, to have information already available through insurance for those able to pay for it now.

And while questions continue to be raised about the nature and need for hospice, it is a common part of the healthcare provisions in Europe.

Seasons changing for women in politics for 2012 elections

Every election women's vote is talked about as valuable;  and with the potential lineup of women as well as men for the 2012 ballot, the likelihood increases that women will make even more of a difference in election outcomes.  What might that be?

Time was when someone asked a woman how she was going to vote, she answered that was her husband's business. That time wasn't long ago either; I remember women making that statement in the 1960's as women still had the goal of getting married young, having babies, and working in between, as teachers, secretaries or nurses. 2012 will be another time when women's voice will be heard, and what they say might make a difference in the future of America.

There wasn't much for women then to do or dream about in much of America's past. The notion of running for political office wasn't something most women thought of at all. They still looked to their guys to figure things out.But things change, and after the 1964 Civil Rights legislation, expanding women's rights, women started to look for new things to do.

Many women, whose dreams were thwarted, are voting now; and their ideas will be part of the mix with young women who have realized theirs.  Views on abortion differ by age group as does politics in general.  But women historically have voted sympathetically as well, so their divisions might not be as absolute as when they are sorted out with the votes of men.

Now, as we look to the future, we can look to a possibility of a woman for President one day.  Hillary Clinton came close to holding the banner of victory.  Regardless of political persuasion, women loved it. She symbolized achievement, and it was hard to see her not the finalist women hoped.

We have other women these days, although some would argue not the same in terms of standing nor of style.  But how they fare will depend on what they say and how they manage themselves, even as men are now judged.  The sadness is our  hearts and the knowledge how divided we've become. Women's longed-for dreams for a woman in the White House have materialized into a nightmare for many, even as those who never caught up continue following husband's leads into a world where women might lose a lot if the wrong kind of woman wins, a woman who doesn't support women's progress over the years.

2012 is on its way, and two women, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have been mentioned as Republican Presidential contenders.   How will that impact the women's vote.   Pollsters say the votes of women will count a lot in the next election. Both the Democrats and Republicans pursue women's votes, using the words they believe will move us to one side or the other. So with mixed feelings women will go and make that difference. Who knows what the difference will be, but given the controversies among women about Sarah Palin in 2008, it might be women themselves might not be ready to vote for a woman, if the woman does not measure up.

Michele Bachman, potential contender for President

What do polar bear numbers say about the rest of us?

[caption id="attachment_4420" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Polar bear"][/caption]


Carol Forsloff - Polar bears had been declining in numbers, according to scientists. But they now find that the decline that was said to be steady and steep, isn't what was maintained years ago.


Scientists at the University of Washington have examined these polar bears and find many of them are surviving. That is especially true if humans reduce greenhouse gases, they say. The bottom line is that people too are threatened with harm by greenhouse gases, with polar bears the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The fact more are surviving is some good news, in this world where the environment is consistently challenged.

“What we projected in 2007 was based solely on the business-as-usual greenhouse gas scenario,” said Steven Amstrup, who's one of the major researchers on this issue with the U.S. Geological Survey.  He has also been particularly active in Polar Bears International.  He tells us that previous research didn't consider greenhouse gas mitigation.

The new research, published in the Dec. 16 issue of Nature, indicates there is no “tipping point” that would result with the sea ice demise following warming and that the message is more hopeful than anticipated.

“Our research offers a very promising, hopeful message, but it’s also an incentive for mitigating greenhouse emissions,” Bitz said.

More polar bears around is a good sign, scientists say, for the rest of us.