My Heroine

I've been sick in bed for the last three days...and during one of my brief ventures out to eat, I watched a short documentary on HBO about Helen Thomas. It's playing "On Demand" and I strongly encourage you all to watch it. I've known who she was for most of my adult life but never knew her personal story. The film was an eye-opener.

Here is a clip I found from a recent interview with her that gives a peek into some of the material she shared in the HBO film:




Helen is living proof of how someone can be rational and passionate, able to straddle the apparent gap between them. For 57 years she was a reporter and believes she never revealed her liberal bias. Now she is a columnist for Hearst, and she is free to say, in print, exactly how she feels about people and issues.

She confesses in both the film and the above interview, that she has always had opinions, that she is passionate, a liberal, and has gone her own way. She blazed a trail in journalism for women, never had a family, married at 51, and was/and is totally dedicated to her career of asking hard questions.

Helen Thomas is a role model for all of us. At 88, she inspires me to believe that at 60, I still have much to contribute in the years ahead. She has survived hate mail, Bill O'Reilley, and George Bush. She supports Obama, but is skeptical and prepared to ask him hard questions as well. She may be a liberal, but she doesn't suspend her critical thinking skills to be one.

Here's hoping she will be blessed with many more years to share her public commentary. She is a model of positive aging, living by one's ideals, and the benefit of passion and purpose.

Rational Passion

This weekend, Glen Greenwald wrote a series of posts here on Salon.com that got my attention. I read his columns intermittently but have been a philosophical fan of his since his book How Would a Patriot Act?. That book examined the constitutional assault by key provisions of the Patriot Act and the attempts to marginalize anyone as unpatriotic if they opposed some of the draconian measures enacted under it. Glen is about as liberal/progressive as they come, and is one of the few within my political base who has been willing to lead a public charge against some of Obama’s policies. One of the others in that league is Paul Krugman, a hero of mine.

But on to Glen and some thoughts he triggered in me today. In his post yesterday, Greenwald called the media to account (specifically, David Brooks) over their agenda to preserve the status quo and their special place of influence. A New York Times columnist quickly accused Glen of “shrillness”. In a response to the label, Greenwald wrote:

One is guilty of the sin of "shrillness" if one: (a) argues that there is something fundamentally -- rather than marginally -- wrong with our political and media establishment and/or (b) fails to use suitably restrained, muted and respectful language when expressing those critiques. Thus, one is "shrill" if one says that George Bush committed felonies by spying on Americans without warrants and torturing people and should be treated like any other accused criminal (rather than saying: "Bush might have circumvented some legal constraints and gone a little too far in trying to keep us safe"). One is "shrill" if one says that establishment journalism, at its core and by design, is principally devoted to serving the interests and amplifying the claims of the Washington establishment (rather than saying: "Journalists could do a better job of reporting some stories"), etc. etc.

"Shrillness" – the first cousin of "Unseriousness" – is the conceptual instrument used to deter and (when that fails) demonize those who view the political and media establishment as corrupt at its core. It's a way of
demanding that everyone just calm down, avoid impetuous and inflammatory language, and stop acting as though there's anything seriously wrong with our political and media elites:

Sure, they've made some mistakes; nobody's perfect. But it's not as though there's anything to get excited or angry about. And fine: there are some narrow disagreements among people of good faith and some small problems here and there that require some modifications -- little things like torture, chronic high-level lawbreaking, immunity for the political class (juxtaposed with the sprawling prison industry for ordinary Americans), rampant domestic spying, sky-high walls of government secrecy, full-scale economic meltdown, massive and growing inequities in wealth, endless wars, sleaze and corruption oozing from every Beltway pore, complete media complicity with all of it -- but there's no reason to get all indignant or agitated by it or act as though crimes are being committed or radical changes are needed or anything.

By definition, only people who are "shrill" would do that.

Here’s what hit me when I read this: those are the same tactics that are consistently used against women who take any position against the establishment. Men aren’t shrill unless you are trying to feminize them, which instantly discredits them. For still, in 21st century America, one of the quickest ways to discredit someone is to feminize (in a negative way) their opposition to policies or ideas, as “shrill” and irrational. And isn’t this another way of attacking the passionate, the forces for substantive change?

So it got me thinking, are rationality and passion — which is often intense and insistent — opposite forces? Is more accomplished with cool rationality that doesn’t directly take on the issue, or passionate arguments that make it abundantly clear what is wrong and what should be done about it?

My take? Passion is essential to moving humanity forward. Yes, there can be a dark side to passion (Hitler is a prime example), but to negate passion, to label it as “shrill” and female, ensures that society stays stuck in its dysfunctionality. Passion can be rational when the ideas and positions undergirding it are well thought out and logical. A well-honed argument in support of an ideal that is expressed dispassionately may appeal to the intellectual elite, but it won’t do much to mobilize the masses or bring about transformative change. Martin Luther King, Jr. was passionate in holding America accountable for how it lived its ideal of “equality”. As LBJ was said to have told him, enacting legislation to right the wrongs of racism, required a mass revolt against the status quo. You don’t get that kind of movement from a dispassionate argument at a debate lectern.

I’m frankly tired of the bad wrap that passion gets when it is expressed on the Left (interestingly, I don’t hear that epithet hurled at Rush, or Boehner, or Palin). I’m really pissed that it is disloyal and “shrill” to hold Obama or the Democratic leadership accountable for enacting a progressive agenda. If progressives abandon their passion for accountability to progressive ideals, then we are no better than the cult of personality that surrounded the last president. We must develop rational, progressive, supportable positions and then we need to passionately mobilize large blocks of the American people to speak out, to hold their elected officials’ feet to the fire. If we Liberals abandon passionate, outspoken support for our ideals, we are doomed.

Competence Counts

At last I chose. I’ve vacillated for months. But today, I chose my candidate. Then I sent some money. This helped me decide:

“…I'm not alone in wishing for a nation run by someone [Hillary] whose desire for our well-being is passionate but whose actions on our behalf also exude bedrock competence, someone who lacks any flash whatsoever except the flash that keeps a person assiduously doing the hardest things in life. In New Hampshire and all across the country, many female voters seem to be thinking along the same lines.”

The NV debate pushed me in her direction and away from Obama as well. When asked about his greatest weakness, Obama confessed that he isn’t an operations guy, he can’t keep track of a paper for longer than 2 minutes. He does the ‘vision thing’. He is a ‘transformational leader’. He hires good people who do all that management stuff. He declared that it is not his job to run the government. Ding, ding! Been there, seen that (for the last 7 years).

I was about Obama’s age in the early ‘90s. I was as naïve, as ‘experienced’, as full of hubris as he is. I wanted to transform health care. I had a vision. I could articulate it. People lined up to follow me. I was an executive of a large organization hired specifically to be a ‘change agent’. I failed. Spectacularly.

Coincidentally, Hillary was trying to do the same thing. She failed too. We both learned some very hard, very public lessons: transformational change is seldom a fit for large organizations or government. If you attempt it, it is one of the most difficult things you will ever do and it requires constant, hands-on intervention by the top leadership. You are setting about changing mindsets, culture, systems, processes. Due to its scope, it rarely succeeds. To quote an old manaagement professor, 'the organization always pushes back and it almost always wins'. Given Obama's loose use of the term, it is clear he hasn’t tried it. Community organizing, passing bills in a state legislature aren't even remotedly the same. What's scary, is that he thinks he knows how to do it. His near-dismissal of anyone who challenges his belief, his denigration of those who have actually done the grueling work to create change, borders on arrogance. It is certainly naive. You can only get so far on charisma. The 'American People' won't do the work. Personally, I’m not anxious to let him use the presidency as his training wheels.

Here’s how political and institutional change really works: you use insider’s knowledge and accumulated chips to get things done (see the movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War”). It is painstaking work. It is incredibly frustrating. It is slow. I hate it.

As an alternative, you could seize unilateral power to dictate solutions — I believe that is the model Dick and George like best. Think about that.

But if you want to make substantial change in government and policy, you must be willing to endure the almost soul-sucking battles fought on the inside. You do what Hillary has done: you slog through for years, learning how the wheels turn and who you want to be beholden to you. When the day comes, you call in your chips. That’s the political process. That’s what LBJ learned to do. He was masterful at it. All those civil rights we have today came from the work of experienced politicians who took risks, knew how to cut a deal and which buttons to press. Activists are necessary, but not sufficient. In a democracy, the political process has to seal the deal. I hate that reality. But that IS reality.

Like Hillary, I’m impatient. I want change faster than I’m gonna get it. I alienate people with my passion and my willingness to bust some balls (which is not very feminine of me, is it?). The organization, the society, the status quo always pushes back. So you damned well better have the fortitude to fight hard and not give up. She has proven her mettle for 35 years. You can dismiss that if you want to. But it deeply pisses me off that when you spend your life positioning yourself to get the big things done, the younger generation dismisses your experience, your wisdom, and opts for ‘change’. Pardon me, but they don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. I was one of them once. I learned that the ideals of youth take the wisdom and experience of age to ‘make it work’. The challenge is to hold on to your ideals for 35 years. I have. Hillary has.

There is a third alternative: revolution. And some days, I crave that option. Some days, I think it might be the only way to save ourselves. But revolutions are not begun by politicians. If you want change without revolution then you’d better be looking to someone who can navigate the corridors of power. Who can play hardball while building political alliances. Someone who knows what levers to pull. The challenges facing this country are so huge, so complex, that nothing will be accomplished quickly. But if you are a novice, you’ll get nowhere singing kumbaya and giving great speeches. The largest accomplishments of our era were made by people who were insiders and over 40: FDR and LBJ. They had plenty of enemies and no illusions. JFK’s vision, while grand, only became reality through the work of a career politician, someone today’s generation would disdain.

If Barack and his minions, who are looking more and more like a cult of personality, want transformational change, then they should remain activists. We need them to stir the pot and build a large-scale movement for a specific agenda, not just ‘change’ and ‘non-partisanship’. Revolutions are painful. Obama and his troops will have to sacrifice, they will have to step into the streets, they will have to serve. But I do not believe they are ready to run a government, not based on their few, small-scale accomplishments.

Oh, and one last thing: Obama gave an interview yesterday in which he praised Ronald Reagan as a transformational leader and extolled Reagan’s skill at getting people to follow his vision. What’s wrong with this picture?

So, Hillary’s my candidate. She’s imperfect. Sometimes I want to thrash her. Sometimes she shows poor judgment. But I’m now prepared to fight for her, warts and all. And if she loses the quest for the nomination? I’m a Democrat. I’ll work my ass off for whoever we choose. And yes, that includes Obama.

Living And Dyeing...or Not

I knew I was making a statement, but I didn't actually intend on doing that at the time. Turns out, we maturing feminists are now facing the next frontier ...to dye, or not to dye? And some of us have crossed over to the scary land of silver locks.

Kreamer describes her personal odyssey in her new book, Going Gray. It is an insightful commentary on the emotional and psychological struggles women face as they consider going "natural" as a choice. And there are many...struggles, that is.

We women seem to have a whole lot of our identity wrapped up in our hair -- it's style and color. It may be one of the most crucial attributes other than our weight in forming our sense of ourself and projecting who we are. Any woman who is aging, is wrestling with physical changes that continually challenge your self-assurance. Getting older is difficult for men and women alike. But aging women have always known that our value drops much more steeply and quickly than an aging man's. As Ms. Kreamer discovers, it is very difficult for gray-haired women to progress professionally, unless they are in a few isolated career choices. I'm fortunate - I'm a health care professional working with a large number of older adults, and my gray hair has brought credibility (though it creates other problems with my younger patients, who often see me as an authority figure to resist). But there was a time when I worked in the business world and there is no question in my mind that I would never have survived that culture with my spikey silver hair. Never.

One critical area she explored was men's attitudes toward dating women with silver hair. In surveys they reject them. In reality, when confronted with one, she found much broader acceptance than she expected. My own experience says it's a mixed bag. Middle class men, on the whole, are more accepting. Men with money? Not so much. The more successful and economically secure the man, the more he seems to want a woman as accessory - younger, overtly projecting sexuality, with a color-full head of hair (think Fred Thompson, not that I'd have anything to do with him....eewww). But who knew that younger men seemed turned on by silver hair? Though I'm not convinced that it isn't part of some sort of weird Oedipal conquest-thing.

Graying is often equated with "letting yourself go", which is a sad commentary on our society's view of older women. Perhaps the image of a dumpy gray-haired woman who has decided she is sick of the grooming grind, is legitimate. I've seen a goodly share of those matronly women who epitomize my own grandmother in her black granny shoes. But there does come a time when, no matter how much you invest in the masquerade, everyone knows you're not 30 anymore. Or even 40. You aren't fooling anyone and it costs a fortune in time and money to pretend that you are. Personally, I think there comes a point when you look desperate and pitiable. I saw two women who epitomized that at dinner last night. In their late sixties or older...one with stark black hair, one brilliantly red hair, they sat with a man with snow white hair. Instead of projecting the beauty of an older woman, they both looked harsh and artificial.

It's all about attitude in the end. Do you have style? Think you're attractive? Believe you're valuable? Carry yourself as a wise woman with something to offer, to not be missed? That's sexy ..and being gray stands out, shouting to the world that you have the confidence to be yourself. Some days I think about going back to brown, but it quickly passes. I have no tolerance for the investment required and more importantly, I want to see who I really am as I grow older.

When I was 20 I swore I would be a woman who aged gracefully and embraced the lessons that life offered. I wanted to wear my experience with pride, not deny I'd ever had any. I did not want to be one of those women who looks perpetually frozen in time rather than a woman whose persona is timeless. Some days that takes more effort than others. But if you can't show the world who you really are -- gray hair and all -- then maybe you can't show yourself either.

Sleeping With Men …An Unintended Consequence

I’m all for sleeping with men, really I am. At least for 30 minutes or so. And I’d like them to be around in the morning. But in-between, I’d like to sleep alone thank you very much. Now the evidence is in: Sleeping the night with a man, can have unexpected consequences ...that may not be so good for women. It’s a dirty little secret too. Many of us have moved out ...of the bed, or the room... though it seems few of us are telling anyone about it. C’mon, tell the truth. You secretly wish he'd sleep elsewhere, but be around for on-demand cuddling, don't you. For men though, either you’re in or you’re out, so to speak.

As is often the case with coupling, men often appear to benefit more. They are healthier and happier if they are married, regardless of the state of the relationship. Women? Not so much. Maybe it’s because we don’t sleep. Surely you’ve read the headlines on sleep deprivation and poor quality sleep. The list of bad outcomes is long and getting longer: depression, obesity, high blood pressure, cardiac disease, poor performance, memory problems …not to mention crankiness, homicidal tendencies, and sleep-walking through sex.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t sleep worth a damn with someone else in the bed. I want to, I really do. I have fantasies about how lovely it would be...I go through spells of craving company. But then reality intrudes. I toss. I turn. I lie there and fret. I feel guilty.

I have motherhood to thank, it seems. Until my first son was born you could have put an air-raid siren outside the bedroom door and I would have slept through it. Now? I can hear the freakin’ cats breathing. I’ve tried tossing them out, but they scratch at the door and howl, which is no improvement. Tossing out a man is even more complicated. They rant and accuse you of disloyalty, frigidity, and disinterest. Nope. I just want a good night’s sleep. Repeatedly.

Who decided we were supposed to sleep together anyway? Can’t we just have rotating conjugal visits — your bedroom on weeks 2 and 4 and my bedroom on weeks 1 and 3? We could post a calendar so we’d know when to clean the sink, change the sheets, and freshen the candles for ‘visitation week’. Just so it’s understood that there is none of this staying-the-night stuff.

I'm leaning toward the Victorian Solution — big houses with separate bedrooms for husband and wife and all the privacy you'd ever need. Free of Victorian morality, we can have plenty of sex…tip-toe down the hall, spontaneous, illicit-feeling sex, which can be the best kind. Maybe coupling in the 21st century would improve if we incorporated His and Hers Victorian-style retreats. We all might have better sex, better memories, fewer heart attacks ... and less guilt!

Women Who Run With The Wolves

Am I the only one who remembers this book? Surely not. When I first read it, more years ago than I willingly admit, I instantly identified with the parallel drawn between female wolves and Wild Women. No, I don't recall details -- I'm very bad with details -- but I do recall that I felt fierce, and strong, and primed to howl at the moon.

Like now.

The alpha female in a wolf pack is fiercely protective of her young, her pack. Seems to me it's the right blend of gentleness and ferociousness. Some prefer the elephant model, but the image just doesn't resonate.

Which takes me to Hillary. You know exactly who I mean. She's compassionate...and ferocious and is prepared to bare her teeth. Mostly, we don't like that. The 'we' of which I speak, is women, not men. I'm troubled at the vitriol slung at her by women, especially the well-educated and priviledged. While I'm deeply ambivalent about some of her policies and positions, the woman is prepared to kick ass any time, any place. Some would say she is too 'male'. Maybe. But I'm a pragmatist. The world I'd like to navigate through is not the one we have since GW Fuckup has diddled it for 6 years. I don't think isolation is the answer and neither is kumbaya -- the Kucinich solution. We tried that in 1939. Ooops.

Ken Burns reminds us of what may be required - toil, sacrifice, community, perhaps a "Village". What I do know is that age -- that other taboo as it applies to women -- teaches some of us lessons. Hillary is nothing, if not a quick study. My instincts tell me she's gotten wiser, more savvy, more pragmatic. Short of a revolution ...and that's not comin' people ... we need smart, pragmatic, compassionate, agile leadership that can 'hunt' if required. Maybe a wolf is just the thing.