A cynical Southern Republican once tried to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by introducing an amendment adding women's rights to the legislation. Howard W. Smith was certain that including the word "sex" would guarantee the bill's failure. Fortunately, he miscalculated, and in addition to ending racial segregation, the bill also made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. Today, an equally cynical legislator is hoping that the inclusion of new restrictions that directly affect women's health will derail the Affordable Health Care for America bill (H.R. 3962).



This amendment banks on the same underlying feelings that Smith hoped to tap into, namely, a blend of patriarchal benevolence and misogynist fervor. Why? A recent analysis of the Stupak/Pitts amendment by George Washington University summarizes the hidden danger: "The amendment bans federal funding for abortions and bars payment of federal subsidies to health insurance products sold in exchanges that cover most medically indicated abortions."

In other words, not abortions of convenience or after-the-fact second thoughts, but abortions recommended by physicians to protect the health of the pregnant woman—for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, which can be fatal to the mother. In other words, women are relegated to second-class status…again.

        

        

Scientists at the Alaska Volcano Observatory are pretty sure that the restless, heaving Mount Redoubt is gonna blow...or not. "It could erupt later today or in two weeks—or not at all," said geologist Tina Neal, according to the Associated Press. Once I stopped giggling at the patent absurdity of her pronouncement, I realized that her hedging, CYA language is not necessarily a sign of one woman's personal ambivalence so much as it is emblematic of American society today. Does no one dare take a definitive stand...on anything?

This photo is several months old. See AVO's Live Webcams or check out this video shot January 26, 2009, by Heather Bleick and the Alaska Volcano Observatory/U.S. Geological Survey: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/avo/dbimages/display/thumb/1233122500_ak231.jpg

Political Correctness
We're accustomed to politicians and lawyers filled with sound and fury signifying nothing, but listen to any conversation or newscast and you'll see that we have become a nation of citizens too fearful, too self-conscious, or too polite to say what we mean and mean what we say—at least in public. On the rare occasions when people do say something that can't be spun in any and every direction, they preface their remarks by acknowledging, jokingly, that they are not being "politically correct."

That we even accept such a phrase as "politically correct" has frightening implications: we expect people to soften the edges, blur the lines, add caveats, use euphemisms, allow "wiggle room." Most people, when talking or writing about something "important" or even slightly sensitive switch automatically into the passive voice. As a writer and editor, I love the active voice. It adds energy, movement, variety, and power.

As an observer of human interaction, however, I recognize why the passive voice appeals to so many: it absolves the speaker from responsibility. "Bombs were dropped on [Hiroshima, Baghdad, Gaza, etc.]" turns an appalling although admittedly decisive act sound incidental—almost accidental. It separates the doer from the deed. Even "America dropped a bomb" makes it grammatically possible, at least, for something to have been an accident although we know otherwise. But "America bombed Hiroshima" leaves no doubt who did what to whom.

We live in a nation where we think giving every kid a trophy just for participating helps build self-esteem, but the underlying message is that "all you need to do is show up." We reward mediocrity, conformity, and the social graces, and discourage dissent, originality, and honesty. Technology means that anything we say might wind up on the evening news or a popular blog, so we watch our Ps and Qs. Thus we hear not just politicians and lawyers but teachers, parents, truck drivers, doctors, coaches, economists, geologists, and even ourselves using words like "might, could, may, shall, maybe, possibly, seems...etc."

Seems, madam! Nay, it is; I know not "seems."

Will the volcano blow? Say yes, or say no, but say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't pander.

        

President Obama's proposed $825-billion "stimulus package" has two lofty goals: in the short term, it needs to create jobs and stimulate the economy; in the longer term, it needs to lay the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure. As aerial photos of DC on inauguration day suggest, he has millions of staunch supporters adding up to enormous stores of "social capital." What remains to be seen is what can be done with billions of dollars and an equal measure of trust, faith, and adulation.


The "Legobama" Inauguration (photo from Legoland)

Republicans audaciously complain that the plan is too expensive, although they had no problem with "their" president squandering a surplus and running up the federal deficit on an illegal war and tax cuts for the rich. Libertarians, of course, have a problem with anything that smacks of social conscience, and consider anything other than cutthroat capitalism to be "wealth redistribution," which in their lexicon means cheating. And Democrats worry that focusing on short- and long-term goals at the same time will cause an implosion overall, and cause the long-term efforts to fail.

The plan as it goes to the House today proposes spending around $550 billion and tax cuts around $275 billion. Much of the spending, while it falls under such categories as infrastructure, education, technology, law enforcement, and health care, is intended to "create jobs." I like the sound of that simple phrase, as it implies that there must be a bit of magic involved. I imagine Hermione Granger (it's more her style than Harry Potter's) at Obama's elbow waving her wand and intoning emploicus instantus! Here's what should appear (the breakdown of the number of proposed jobs to be created in 2010):

• Mining: 26,000
• Construction: 678,000
• Manufacturing: 408,000
• Wholesale trade: 158,000
• Retail trade: 604,000
• Information: 50,000
• Financial activities: 214,000
• Professional and business services: 345,000
• Education and health services: 240,000
• Leisure and hospitality: 499,000
• Other services: 99,000
• Utilities: 11,000
• Transportation and warehousing: 98,000
• Government total: 244,000
• Total: 3,675,000   

Wow. The real "spell," of course, involves the proposed investments in "shovel-ready"/New Deal Projects like roads, bridges, "public infrastructure," federal buildings, water projects, rail, and mass transit); in technology and communications projects like expanding Internet access and upgrading medical information systems; and in health, education, and public safety programs by helping state and local governments pay teachers, police, and firefighters.

Will it work?

Critics suggest that the money would be better spent if funneled directly into the private sector. Although economics is hardly my forte, I personally think it has a chance.   First, at least 90% of the new jobs will be private sector jobs. The government may be paying the bills, but it will be private companies doing the building, the programming, or whatever. Handing money to people is less predictable. (I know that if the government handed me a check right now, I would use it to pay bills, and in the unlikely chance anything was left over, out it in my puny savings account for next month's bills.) Second, it's diverse, unlike Bush's "plan": give money to defense contractors to first destroy other countries' infrastructure and then to rebuild it. Even those of us in "other services" might have a chance to watch some of the money slip through our fingers.

I don't much like the idea that the government has to stimulate the economy, but what do you expect at a time when major corporations and institutions (automakers, airlines, banks) make bad business decisions and put profit before productivity...and are rewarded for their screw-ups with a bailout. (Where's MY bailout? I have made some horrible financial decisions in my lifetime.)

But I do like the idea that these steps to fix the economy are already in the works, whether they work in the short term or not, because I like what will be produced along with those jobs:  safer bridges, better schools, reliable communications, and a more efficient health care system. Because when our infrastructure crumbles, how are we any different from a developing nation? We need to build ourselves back up, one brick at a time.

        

My son used to call himself a vegetarian, because he didn't eat meat. (Fast food burgers do not count as meat.) I thought of him more as a Breathairian, however—those people who claim that they don't need food or water to survive, only some restorative life force from the sun or, in his case, anything electronic—since he also despises most vegetables and fruit. Despite my best efforts his diet for several years has been mostly from the dairy and the grains and cereals families: pizza (crust and cheese, no sauce), mac and cheese (is that neon orange powder dairy?), grilled cheese, oatmeal, pancakes, and...well, you get the idea.

He has since added some more adventurous and usually heavily breaded items like popcorn chicken and a fish stick if there is lots of mustard involved. But if it weren't for vitamins and peanut butter, I don't know that he would have become the rapidly growing, thriving specimen he is today. Since school lunches often include the dreaded meat, vegetables, and fruit, he often gets the the alternative choice and old standby, PB&J. Now that is threatened.

King Nut as Typhoid Mary

According to the Centers for Disease Control, there have been 491 cases of Salmonella Typhimurium, leading or contributing to seven deaths thus far. Hardly any part of the U.S. has been spared: 43 states have confirmed reports. New Hampshire, where we live, is one of those states, with 11 confirmed, related cases. Now, the CDC is fairly certain that we only need to worry about foods containing King Nut products from Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), based in Blakely, Georgia. As the CDC website reported, "[The King Nut] facility, which is no longer producing any products, has expanded its recall to include all peanut butter and peanut paste produced at this plant since July 1, 2008. Peanut butter and peanut butter paste was not sold directly to consumers but was distributed to institutions, food service providers, food manufacturers and distributors in many states and countries. Peanut butter and peanut paste is commonly used as an ingredient in many products, including cookies, crackers, cereal, candy, ice cream, pet treats, and other foods."

My favorite Austin peanut butter crackers were part of the recall, which makes it a simple matter to just stop buying those until the recall is over. The list of recalled products on the Food and Drug Administration's website seems to be growing rather than shrinking, which seems to make little sense if the company has stopped shipping and begun recalling its products. Surely they have a list of companies to whom they sold their goods between July 2008 and now, and have notified those customers.

Yet as recently as Saturday, January 24, new products were added to the recall list. This suggests to me that perhaps we have now started hearing from the companies who bought from the companies who bout from PCA. Do these products get cut like illicit drugs, diluted and adulterated, mixed in with who knows what to make more product from less? (Anyone who has eaten a peanut butter cracker can attest that the "peanut butter" is certainly not the same gooey delicacy we dip out of the jar for PB&J but something closer to brown grout.) Presumably the paper trail would thin out with each transaction.

I Have a Sandwich, and I'm Not Afraid to Use It

The writer in me goes immediately to the What if? possibilities. Could a rogue nation, terrorist cell, or evil blackmailing saboteur paralyze a nation by purposely tainting one of its favorite and heretofore trusted standbys? Could the country be dangerously threatened simply by making thousands of people sick, and killing the very old, very young, and already compromised? Distribution would be easy: think about those peanuts on airplanes. We already know peanut butter goes into schools and other large cafeteria facilities, and that Americans are addicted to snacks. Then there are  I am not alone in my imaginings. (People with peanut allergies could come forward and take over until the recovered...)

The mother in me goes in a different direction: Will he ever eat PB&J again? And if not, what else can I try?

        

Without a doubt the most brilliant person, bar none, I have ever had the privilege of knowing was Marjorie Williams, whose opinions were unfailingly rational,
well informed, and incisive, delivered with a deliciously wry wit. ...<< MORE >>