@ Home in the World

Paying Attention in Afghanistan

If you are surprised by, or disappointed in, President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, then you probably weren’t paying attention during the campaign.

 

Before he was elected, Obama talked about Iraq being the wrong war, and how it caused us to take our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan. There was talk of ending the war in Iraq so that resources could be shifted back to a focus on Al Qeida and the Taliban.

 

Just as too many on the right were quick to call this kind of talk a “weakness,” too many on the left either heard this as support for their own anti-war sentiment, or they didn’t hear it at all. Deploring Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war, left-leaning hopefuls seized upon Obama as just the person to clean up the mess that had been made of the Middle East and our reputation around the world.

 

Unfortunately, cleaning up after George Bush doesn’t mean sweeping his mistakes under the rug and pretending they never happened. No matter how much we might want to. Damage has been done, and in Afghanistan, as in a lot of other places, that damage has been significant.

 

It started so well, too. After 9/11, with the support of much of the world, the United States went into Afghanistan and broke up the Taliban’s stranglehold over the region. An election was held, women and girls began to regain access to basic services, and Afghanistan looked like it was headed in the right direction.

 

But as recent hearings in the British Parliament have once again rehashed, the Bush Administration wasn’t really focused on Afghanistan in the first place. Almost immediately after 9/11, Condoleeza Rice and others began talking up an invasion of Iraq. As any young child comes to learn, if you are marching in one direction, and looking in another, you are bound to bump into something. Hard.

 

While all the American media attention was focused on the fiasco that was the Iraq war, the situation in Afghanistan quietly deteriorated. It’s taken a long time to get as bad as it has and it can no longer be ignored. Strict anti-war believers are not going to want to hear this either, but there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the President’s decision.

 

Intelligence – in all senses of the word. The Obama administration took time to come to this decision. There’s good reason to believe that he truly listened to his military advisors when it came to the needs and plans in Afghanistan and didn’t just go through generals until he got to one who told him what he wanted to hear. In eight years, there’s a lot of information about what worked and what didn’t in the conflict, including what worked for our British Allies. Armed with that knowledge, we should be able to better accomplish the progress that Iraq so rudely interrupted.

 

Big picture thinking – Early in his presidency, Obama linked Afghanistan and Pakistan as two sides of the same coin. (AfPak!) Pakistan is beginning to push back on the Taliban in their territory where the prior Pakistani leadership accepted a lot of money from the US and all too conveniently ignored the fact that Osama bin Laden was most certainly holed up there. Musharrif’s successor is in a position of needing to crack down on extremism in order to retain his hold on the country.

 

“The surge worked.”  Part 1 - Iraq was as difficult as it was because Cheney and Rumsfeld were determined to do it on the cheap. Or, alternatively, to pay Haliburton and other profiteers rather than soldiers. Exactly the predicted mess ensued and continued until additional troops were sent over to do much of what should have been done years ago. Of course, Iraq and Afghanistan are different, but there’s reason to believe that if not for Iraq, Afghanistan would not be in the situation it is today.

 

“The surge worked.”  Part 2 – Whether you believe that or not, American soldiers in Iraq are packing up their equipment and preparing to ship it to either the U.S. or Afghanistan. Many are heading home themselves. This frees up resources to attend to Afghanistan, where the focus should have been all along.

 

War is not the (only) answer - There is, at last, a realization that military solutions are not the tool in the kit. Diplomacy is not a dirty word and we no longer treat people we disagree with like recalcitrant children. There seems to be a far greater understanding this time around that the civilians of Afghanistan are key to success.

 

Gravitas – Like it or not, Obama gets a lot of international support for simply not being George Bush. You can bet that all the major players around the world, including bin Laden, understood the phrase “All hat and no cattle.”  Whether the new vibe they are getting from the United States actually translates into boots in Afghanistan remains to be seen, but NATO’s not simply laughing us off anymore.

 

And finally:

 

Dick Cheney is wrong. Again. - A deadline is a threat not a weakness. Saying we'll hang around in Afghanistan until Kharzei and his countrymen feel like getting their act together benefits no one but Haliburton. If you don't set a target date, no one needs to take you seriously. Frankly, we tried it his way. It's the reason we now have to redo what was screwed up in the first place.

The dress and the bag

When I was a child, I used to play dress-up at my grandparents house.

My father's mother made all her own clothes and, this being the 70s, most of them were flowing, brightly colored, and polyester. My grandmother took many of them in for me, but there was one dress she never permanently altered, but pinned temporarily while I played princess in it.

The dress was simple, but beautiful. It was a grey irridescent silk in the style of the 40s, with a handful of tiny rhinestones scattered on the bodice. Cue the Big Band music. The shape of the dress would be very flattering on my grown-up body, and I sometimes regret that it was never rescued after she died. If it truly did fit, I'd not only be wearing something that I loved since childhood, I would be wearing a piece of history.

I once asked my grandmother why she pinned the dress for me instead of sewing it, and she told me that the dress was very special to her. It was the dress she had worn at a party with Eleanor Roosevelt.

Now Eleanor was a woman I admired very much, and so this explanation impressed me quite a bit. I wish that I had been old enough to ask for details, but if I had, I probably wouldn't still be playing dress-up.

As the years passed and my mother became more and more estranged from her in-laws, I saw less of those grandparents, but learned more about their background.

Among other things, they were very poor Germans living in Ohio. I have my grandfather's gold football pin that says Middletown '22. They came to New Jersey after my father was born for my grandfather's job. He worked for "Ma Bell" for his whole career, as so many men did in those days.

The more I learned, particularly about their socioeconomic status, the more it seemed unfathomable that my grandparents could have crossed paths with the Roosevelts. One day, I asked my mother about it.

Turns out my grandmother's brother was the bagman for FDR's campaign, charged with impressing the locals with the need for campaign donations. Emphasis, apparently, on the pressing.

Now, on my mother's side I can trace my lineage, DAR style, to Roger Williams and "Mad" Anthony Wayne. However it is this story, of a great uncle's involvement in the seedier side of old time politics, that fascinates me to no end.  I just wish I knew more.

Viola! Sarah Palin has written a book.

(Yes, the typo in my title is deliberate.)

Sarah Palin has reportedly finished her book ahead of schedule. Hopefully her editor has blocked out a good chunk of time to work on it before its planned November release.

She made it look so easy. I'm jealous!

Fortunately she left some tips with David Letterman.

I don't know whether it's guts or a complete lack of self-awareness that allows her to keep putting herself out there like this, even if most of us wish she wouldn't.

I'm almost at the point with her that I was with the old Seinfeld show where I would have to leave the room whenever the George Costanza character was a major focus of the episode. It's difficult to watch people embarrass themselves like that.

Of course, it's good fodder for a joke, but one of the best I've heard wasn't intended as a joke at all.

Yesterday, some guy on Good Morning America announced the title of Palin's book as "Going Rouge."  A title that might actually be more appropriate.

And who were you calling divisive?

When George Bush was president, I tried to keep my tone neutral around my kids. They were both young enough that they were encountering things like voting booths, The Pledge of Allegiance, and presidential speeches, Memorial Day parades, and war for the first time.

I felt it was my job to explain all of these things in a way that showed respect for our nation, even though I didn't always like where it was going.

I may not have had a lot of respect for our last president, but if George W. Bush had chosen to address school children in a televised speech during school hours, I would never have dreamed of pulling my kids out of school. He could talk about the war and encourage kids to enlist, and I still wouldn't have taken them out. I would have dealt with whatever the President had to say as a parent, just like I would have to when some of their friends, and some of the characters they watch on TV do things I don't approve.

Personally, I'm thrilled that the President is taking 20 minutes out of the school day for a speech and a civics lesson. Anything that takes kids beyond the often abstract concepts taught at school and gives them a glimpse of the real world, is a good thing in my opinion.

So I find it ironic, and more than a little disturbing, that when the President is delivering a message about the importance of staying in school for the kids' own success and the strength of the country; so many have contemplated doing exactly the opposite and chosen to have their children miss a full day of learning because of a 20 minute speech on the importance of education.

It makes you realize just how deep the anti-intellectualism popularized by George Bush and Sarah Palin actually runs in this country. We've gone from having a President who bragged about not reading things, to one that is a living, breathing example of how education can help you rise above the circumstances you were born into, and yet, it's the second guy that everyone's afraid of?

I'm happy that we have a president who will take the time to get the imperative of academic success across to school children from all walks of life. I'm happy that we have someone willing to address the students rather than just the scores. What the Republicans never seemed to realize is that all the teacher-bashing in the world isn't going to help students who don't really want to be in school; who don't see the connection between school and success. It's important that the President asks young people to help their country, even if part of what he's saying is really "help yourself, too."

Yet, just as I did with Clinton, I underestimated the power of the hatred people have stirred up against Obama; deep, personal, frightening, hatred. Compared with some of the stuff going on out there today, taking one's kids out of school is fairly harmless. Much as they might have hated Clinton, people did not show up at his public appearances with guns. I'm worried.

Last week, I found myself having to explain to my son why people might have hated Ted Kennedy's brothers enough to kill them.  I hope to God I don't have to do that again.

... and the dream shall never die.

I am having a hard time imagining politics without the Kennedys. The family and their history have been a part of my political life since I was a small child.

My answer to that famous question of "Where were you when Kennedy was shot?" is "Not born yet, don't hate me." But, you would think that I had been around when it occurred, so familiar am I with the story and the feeling of devastation at the loss.

Born Irish and raised Catholic, I had a few strands of the Kennedy family mystique woven into my own tapestry, as if our heritage were somehow elevated by their success. Many families I knew had a photo of President Kennedy up on their walls along with blessed portraits of the Pope and Jesus Christ. When I came along in the late 60s, people seemed to still be mourning Jack, and then mourning Bobby.

Maybe it wasn't just us Irish Catholics. It's easy to see how the nation, and Democrats in particular, might feel as if hope, also known as Camelot,  had been stolen from them. As imperfect as President Kennedy was, what came after him; the escalation of Viet Nam, the struggles for Civil Rights, and the scandal known as Watergate brought this country to its knees.

In the 7th and 8th grades, JFK's speeches were standard fare for those participating in Forensics competition. I still have much of that oratory rattling around in my head and can follow along with recordings of him like many people can sing along with a song they haven't heard in 20 years.

Of course we knew the Kennedys did not walk on water. The treatment of women in their personal lives did not always reflect the actions they took in fighting publicly for their rights.  My mother happened to be a friend of Mary Jo Kopechne, so my family was well aware of the Chappaquiddick incident.

With the legacy of his brothers resting on his shoulders, Ted Kennedy lost his way, as I have seen many, too many, youngest sons do. However, some say with the help of his wife Victoria Reggie, he fought his way back to purposeful service to his country and constituency.

When I moved up to Boston in the mid 80s, it was as close to the center of the political universe as I might get without going to Washington, D.C.. It was a city of history, legacy, ideals, and the Kennedys. A friend quickly recruited me in her efforts to resurrect the College Democrats, and I found myself holding signs, making phone calls, and stuffing envelopes for state-level candidates and eventually, for John Kerry's effort to succeed the respected Paul Tsongas.

It was at Kerry's victory party that I met Ted Kennedy.  He was kind and approachable and I was left with a sense of meeting history. My story is not nearly as interesting as those many whom Kennedy helped directly, but the experience was unforgettable nonetheless.

Years later, I volunteered for a Kennedy campaign, doing the usual things that lower-level campaign staffers do. I didn't even cross paths with him during the campaign, but my efforts garnered me an invitation to the victory party at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport. I'll probably always regret not going.

I thought about going down to the JFK Library for the viewing; the family's legacy has meant that much to me and my view of the world. Unfortunately, neither of my children would have been able to stand the long lines, so I was grateful that my older son noticed the flags at half staff and asked about them.

His question gave me a chance to explain to him the story of the Kennedy family; the combination of privilege and service; the dictum that "for those to whom much is given, much is required." We don't seem to believe that as a nation anymore, and I wonder if churches still teach the concept in real-world terms.

Like a lot of other people, I am left wondering if the Kennedy legacy, and the old-style liberalism the family  embodied, ends here. That the Democratic party has moved more toward the center in recent years, is not an entirely bad thing, in my opinion. But, where are the strong voices of critique against greed, corporate welfare, and war profiteering going to come from now? Is there anyone left who understands that a modicum of security and stability for the lowest rungs on our socioeconomic ladder benefits society as a whole? Who truly fights for the little guy anymore?

In addition to their service, another think that distinguished the Kennedys was their great rhetoric. There have been many, many lines in speeches given during and before my time that have brought me to tears. In the past several days, many of Ted's speeches were revisited in the media; our memories restored through archived recordings. The lines that stick with me were delivered by Ted at a time of loss; the 1980 Democratic Convention. I hope they will still prove true as time goes on.

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

 

And the difference is...?

Pumpkin's first therapy appointment has been pushed back into July because the insurance company (Arrgh, Magellan again) says the therapist is not a registered provider with them and that it will take 30 to 45 days to get him registered. The kicker is that the provider is registered with another practice, just not the one that is close to us. Apparently, that doesn't count.

On the night I heard about this, I found myself listening to Newt Gingrich going off about how no one wants government bureaucrats making decisions about people's health care. As if we didn't realize that the only difference between a government bureaucrat and a corporate insurance bureaucrat is that the guy working for the private insurance company is getting paid more than the guy working for the government.

Why do the Republicans treat us like we are stupid?

Oh, wait....

Bobby Jindal, WTF?

At first, I thought it would be easy to poke fun at Bobby Jindal. He started out with his “Oh yeah? Well I have a cool minority story, too” introduction, and moved quickly into an uber-folksy scold of the Democrats for their stimulus package. He may have been trying to update the standard Republican image of the condescending old, white man lecturing about the evils of government intervention (except in the bedroom), but he came out looking like an Indian Barney Fife struggling to get his gun out its holster.

 

I half expected him to flash that goofy grin and say “Silly Democrats, tax cuts are for the rich!”

 

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was not Bobby Jindal, or his odd delivery that was the problem. It was the message he delivered.

 

Maybe he deserves credit for being brave enough to come out after President “Yes we can!” and be Governor, “No we shouldn’t.” Unfortunately, that and his refusal to expand unemployment eligibility had effect of making him and most other Republicans appear tone deaf to the plight of the existing or soon-to-be unemployed. People are scared, terrified, dammit, and you have the nerve to come out and say that they shouldn’t be helped.

 

What’s amazed me in recent months is that nearly all the post-election chatter about why the Republicans lost has resulted in the conclusion “We weren’t conservative enough.”

 

Ok, never mind that scary Sarah Palin was, and continues to be, as conservative as it gets, and that voters in large numbers rejected her message of meanness. Insisting that you lost because you weren’t the polar opposite of the guy a majority of the country voted for is just deliberately obtuse.

 

Republicans are scolding themselves for abandoning their principles, but if we examine the “principled” response to the current situation, it’s easy to see why this isn’t working for them.

 

6% unemployment, and climbing? Tax cuts for the rich will jump start the economy.

 

Millions of uninsured?  You and your doctor should make decisions about healthcare. If you can’t afford it, there’s your decision.

 

Fraudulent, abusive, and just plain unsound practices in the financial sector?  Regulation? We don’t need no stinkin’ regulation!

 

Millions of single parent households living in poverty? Stop gay marriage!

 

 

See what I mean? Tone deaf. Obtuse.

 

The problem is that Republicans are so busy lecturing the country on what they should be angry about that they are not listening to what Americans really are angry about.

 

 

Note to Republicans: we tried it your way. That’s how we got into this mess. In the words of the strange, but currently popular saying: EPIC FAIL.

 

And cracking open your roll of tokens to deliver the same tired old message isn’t going to make it better.

Madame Secretary

Do us proud!

Looking for the words

My kids watch too much TV.

It is one of the few things that Piper and I do not agree on when it comes to child rearing. He grew up with the TV always on in the background, I did not.  We have found a way to deal with it; I let them watch more than I want and he doesn't argue with me when I finally do shut it off.

I didn't think it was possible, but I have found something even more irritating about the television than the incessant noise of Sponge Bob (that show gives me a headache) - the commercials. Or, more accurately my kids reactions to the commercials.

Oh sure, they do the obligatory "I want that" to the latest transformer type toy or junk cereal. They know that just about the only things I will ever say "yes" to are lego kits and sports stuff, but they do it anyway for fun. The thing that really bothers me though, is the reaction to Bratz or Barbie, or cheesy makeup kits, always pink and sparkly and puke-inducing. At least once a day I hear one of them say:

"That stuff's for girls...." 

You heard the sneer in that, right?

I don't know exactly where this attitude is coming from, but I don't like it. I don't like the toys either but the segregation of children's playthings is a whole other rant I don't have time for today.

So my question is this:  How do I approach this topic without going all militant on their asses in a calm and thoughtful manner? They are 6 & 7, are they even able to think critically about what's coming out of their mouths?

I wonder too, if this is a real problem or if it's just that this whole Sarah Palin debacle has me more sensitive about the view and standing of women and girls in our society. I just find the whole thing very unsettling.

Sarah Palin has done for me what Obama could not...

Get me energized again about this election.

Oh, it's not what it looks like. But, boy that announcement went through me like a bolt of lightning on Friday morning. And you? The transparency was breathtaking. "Cynical," is the word I've heard most often about the choice. McCain really thinks we are that stupid.

At first, all I saw was her picture on various websites and the silent screen of the TV in the North End restaurant we visited on our day off. I was intrigued. She was not much older than I am, a working mom, this had possibilities. What, besides her gender, did she bring to the table?

If you know me at all, you'll understand that the more I learned about her in the following days, the more horrified I became. Let's just call it one small step for woman, one giant leap backward for womankind.

But now we see exactly how little John McCain values women - first the trophy wife, now the trophy VP.

I've never thought much about age and health in any campaign (I even stood up for Dick Cheney's right to serve as VP in spite of his heart problems), but this whole business about McCain being 72 with a history of cancer is feeling a bit like the prelude to an accidental President type comedy movie starring Tina Fey.

Only it wouldn't be so funny.

And Tina Fey might be more qualified.

What was McCain thinking (with)?

As a New England moderate, of course, there's no way I'm going to relate to this woman. Her stands on just about everything are the exact opposite of what I believe. It's hard to understand a woman who would put so many limits on women's rights. It's hard to support a woman who would force her daughter to marry at 17. It's impossible to find much commonality with a woman who would attempt to ban books from a public library. What century are we in? It's hard to believe that people are seriously trying to sell her as having foreign policy experience because she lives next door to Russia. I've been to Russia more times than she has. Does that qualify me for anything?  Извините меня, госпожу Палин, вы можете сказать мне, как добраться до Красной площади?  I thought not.

So I guess I ought to thank John McCain for insulting my intelligence; for slapping my face with his demeaning pick and waking me up.

I'm paying attention to this election again, I'm much more engaged, and more determined than ever to support Barack Obama.