News opinion 2008-05-27 Andanh.com

Hot button issues Tue, 27 May 2008 10:53:39 -0500
Sometimes your best defense in politics is to take offense. Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to take that tack when she condemns “sexism” in media coverage of her campaign as “deeply offensive to millions of women.” In an interview with the Washington Post’s Lois Romano, she criticized the “vitriol” from “misogynists” along her quest for the presidency. She complained that media discuss the race factor much more than gender, even though “every poll I’ve seen (shows) more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman (than) to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on, either.” Does she have a point? You can bet your “Hillary Clinton Nutcracker” - on sale at many airport souvenir shops - that she does. I don’t begrudge the New York senator one bit for feeling upset about some of the more extreme insults she has faced, even though she knew what she was getting into. She’s hardly new to controversy. Still she aspires to be regarded as a strong, historic leader in the mold of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, except from the political left. Instead, she’s often ridiculed by pundits and other wiseacres as a political version of the maniacal and murderous spurned lover played by Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.” Not that Obama’s path has been free of racial indignities. There’s the Marietta, Ga., bar owner, for example, who has been selling T-shirts that proclaim “Obama in ’08” beneath an image of Curious George, the cartoon monkey, peeling a banana. Mike Norman, the barkeeper, says the shirts are not meant to be racist. He just thinks it’s cute, he says, that the Illinois senator and the children’s book character “look so much alike.” Right. Just be careful where you wear yours, Mike. Remember, for example, the jerk who held up a sign saying, “Iron my shirts,” during a Clinton speech in New Hampshire? The mischief was dismissed within days as the work of a boneheaded prankster. But, as Clinton supporters have pointed out, if a white man had waved a sign at an Obama rally saying “Shine my shoes,” we’d still hear the national uproar. Clinton may have a point when she says we have not talked as much about gender in our national media chatter as we talk about race. The double standard grows out of a fundamental difference in demographics and political psychology: Obama, presenting himself as an agent of change, benefits from transcending race. Clinton benefits from using gender to give her campaign the gloss of a higher cause - and a cover-up for her past political baggage. Many women I talk to, including some who oppose her politics or personality, admire her gumption. They sympathize and empathize with her struggle to walk the thin line between opposing nurturing mommy and strong daddy roles that a male-dominated world calls on her to play. As a result, we have seen the hailstorm of perceived slights or cheap jokes aimed at Clinton help give her a boost with many women who see in her public humiliations some of their own. All of which makes the endless debates over what is worse - racism or sexism - irrelevant to Obama as he closes in on the Democratic nomination. The big question for his campaign is how they can treat Clinton and her supporters with the dignity that will keep them in the Democratic camp for the general election. The last thing their party needs is a replay of the embarrassing 1980 scene at the National Democratic Convention, in which then-President Jimmy Carter practically chased his defeated challenger, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, around the stage, trying in vain to get a handshake for the television cameras. As both candidates figure out their endgame, we are again hearing talk of Obama and Clinton as running mates. As a Band-Aid for the party’s wounds, it could be the most effective alliance since John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960. But, as an alliance of two very different personalities, it could be as bad as some of the other bad political match-ups of candidates who hardly seemed to know or like each other very much. Even if she’s not Obama’s running mate, it would benefit Clinton’s political future to work with visible enthusiasm for Obama’s election, even if she privately hopes he loses. She could return to the Senate and build her status as an elder stateswoman, unburdened by blame for Obama’s loss as she prepares for a run in 2012 or even 2016. Either way, Obama has shown a historic ability, despite bumps in the road, to transcend the nation’s vexing racial divide. If he’s the nominee, he’ll need all the help he can get to bridge the gender divide, too.

Obama’s ‘sweetie’ comment was overboard Tue, 27 May 2008 10:53:40 -0500
So what CAN you call someone today? When Barack Obama used the word “sweetie” in addressing a Detroit TV reporter last week, it made national headlines. He was scolded by the media. Fingers wagged. Tongues clucked. “Uh-uh-uh,” the conscience-makers said, “you’re stepping over the line.” And maybe he was. But where is the line? I’ve been thinking ever since this happened about the things we call each other when we call each other, and it seems they are all bad at one point or another. For example, “honey.” This is OK when it comes from your grandmother, your aunt or the chain-smoking, lipsticked, old blond waitress in Las Vegas who says, “Honey, pass me that ketchup bottle, will ya?” But from a politician, a business associate or a stranger on a bus, it’s bad. How about “babe” or “baby”? This seems OK when it comes from your grandmother, your aunt or the bad-haired record producer with sunglasses on the other side of the booth who says, “Great take, babe” or “Baby, you’re a star!” But from a politician, a business associate or a stranger on a bus, it’s bad. How about “sugar” or “gorgeous” or “cutie pie”? Again, these are OK from your grandmother, your aunt or the 80-year-old immigrant dressmaker who says, “OK, gorgeous, are you ready for your fitting?” But from a politician, a business associate or a stranger on a bus, they’re bad. How about “kiddo”? This is also OK from your grandmother, aunt or the old professor who puts his arm around you and says, “Listen, kiddo, the world is a tough place.” But from a politician, business associate or stranger on a bus, “kiddo” is demeaning, right? And is the professor allowed to put his arm around you? It seems pretty clear that only grandmothers and aunts can say anything they want to people - especially women. But this issue is hardly gender-specific. Men are bothered by certain catch words as well. For example, “bro.” If a white guy calls a black guy “bro,” eyebrows will raise. If a young man calls an older man “bro” same thing. But if two young guys are talking sports at a bar, they can toss around “bro” like a football, and no one will care. What about “buddy”? If a homeless man asks, “Buddy, can you spare a dime?” they’re liable to write a song about it. (I think they did.) But if the guy sitting next to you at the office says, “Hey, buddy, you mind not squeaking in your chair so much?” you want to slug him. I read once that Babe Ruth used to call people “ jidge,” which was actually what people called him, and thus he avoided having to remember anyone’s name. It also had the benefit of not being insulting, because, hey, if it was good enough for the Babe, why not you? Besides, titles can make you stumble. Dennis Archer and I met many years ago - before he became mayor of Detroit - in the bathroom at a charity event. We lined up next to each other at the, uh, facilities. I introduced myself as “Mitch,” he did the same as “Dennis.” We did not, given the circumstances, shake hands. But ever since then, whenever I see him, I have never been able to call him “mayor,” even though decorum might suggest it. I keep remembering that bathroom. And to me, he will always be “Dennis.” And let’s be honest, some people don’t want to be addressed in the proper manner. I know lots of women over 40 who, if you call them “ma’am,” might tear your head off. They would rather hear “sweetie” than “ma’am.” “Ma’am” means they’re old, whereas “sweetie” just means you’re a jerk. So I guess it’s like that old comic routine from the ’70’s. “You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Johnny ... but you doesn’t have to call me Johnson.” I never knew what that meant. And I don’t know what to call anybody.

Childhood obesity Mon, 26 May 2008 22:54:00 EST
One of every two of today's overweight children will develop Type 2 diabetes, and researches are grimly predicting that such children are at great risk of living as much as 20 fewer years than their parents.

Blaming newcomers Mon, 26 May 2008 22:55:00 EST
Though it wasn't expected that South Africa would easily or quickly recover from generations of oppressive white-minority rule, the xenophobia and the violence that has erupted recently in poor black townships around Johannesburg shocks the consciousness.

As summer beckons, read about freedom's start Mon, 26 May 2008 22:55:00 EST
The commencement speeches are over. The diplomas have been handed out. The audiences have disregarded the principals' plaintive pleas to hold all applause. The primal whoops, crude yells, and inevitable intonations of, "You go girl!" that echoed across the auditoriums as the graduates strode across the stages have now fallen silent.

What about Mary Jo? Mon, 26 May 2008 22:56:00 EST
In all the effusive praise about Teddy Kennedy and his accomplishments, one set of initials is strangely missing -- MJK.

Hillary Clinton is mum about her own radical ties Mon, 26 May 2008 22:57:00 EST
When Hillary Rodham Clinton questioned rival Barack Obama's ties to 1960s radicals, her comments baffled two retired Bay Area lawyers who knew Clinton in the summer of 1971 when she worked as an intern at a left-wing law firm in Oakland, Calif., that defended Communists and Black Panthers.

Tuition hikes deter progress Mon, 26 May 2008 22:57:00 EST
Recent media coverage leading up to Kentucky's presidential primary repeatedly focused on the state's lack of educational attainment in analyzing how voters were expected to cast their ballots.

Preventive war by 'green soldiers' Mon, 26 May 2008 22:58:00 EST
A preventive war worked out so well in Iraq that Washington last week launched another. The new preventive war -- the government responding forcefully against a postulated future threat -- has been declared on behalf of polar bears, the first species whose supposed jeopardy has been ascribed to global warming.

Where's Informed Decision? Mon, 26 May 2008 21:50:00 EST

Readers' views Tue, 27 May 2008 08:01 EDT
AMERICANS SHOULD WAGE REVOLUTION AT VOTING BOOTHS

The Minutemen who engaged British soldiers at Concord and Lexington, Mass., were untrained, would-be Americans living under an oppressive king. They never said, "No, we're not ready to fight. Let somebody else do the fighting. We need more training."

Instead, they gave the British their first licking, fighting for the freedoms we enjoy today.

Army Gen. David Petraeus told Congress recently that more training time is needed to bring the Iraqis up to speed. What nonsense. Bush and his circle of politicians have had more than five years to train the Iraqis. Moreover, U.S. soldiers undergo 16 weeks of training and are deemed ready for battle.

Only one more meaningful thing can be said about Iraq and the willful ordering of our troops into a nation that posed no threat to our freedom. Bush, who gave that order, should be impeached.

Kentuckians can trust McCain, not Obama Tue, 27 May 2008 02:04 EDT
Last month in my home town of Inez, Kentuckians got to hear some encouraging and inspiring words from Sen. John McCain. I am confident that voters can take him at his word, that his straightforward plan to help hard-working communities like those in Eastern Kentucky will do just that: help communities.

His straight talk and disdain for campaign gimmickry are refreshing, especially when his Democratic opponents consistently waver on their positions, depending which primary state they're in.

Case in point: Barack Obama has been traveling the country pandering to voters for too long now. Though I am confident Americans will reject his campaign promises on Election Day, it especially disturbs me when he turns his eyes on my home state.

In one example of pandering, Obama sent an inaccurate and misleading mailing to Kentucky voters saying that he supports clean coal. This smacks of a similar promise he made to Illinois voters in 2004, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate.

He proclaimed to Illinois voters then that "there's always going to be a role for coal" and, according to media reports, pledged support for Illinois coal miners. Since 2004, however, Obama has proposed taxing coal and played to liberal special interest groups, not the interest of his constituents.

Truth can be hard to pin down Tue, 27 May 2008 02:04 EDT
Lately, I have toyed with the simple notion of the truth and how it is applied in modern society.

The dictionary defines the word truth , in part, as a verified or indisputable fact, proposition or principle. This definition lends itself to a mathematical connotation -- as one might say two plus two is four -- the answer being then an undisputable and irrevocable fact.

Another definition, however, says truth is an obvious or accepted fact, a truism, a platitude. On closer inspection, this definition contradicts the first, and it's the reason for my confusion, especially during a major political window.

We throw around the word truth as if everyone fully understands its meaning. In most cases, the truth we desire is yielded from the first definition I referenced.

Your children may tell you the truth when asked about a person, place or situation, and if they do not, then they have lied. Witnesses in a court of law swear to tell the truth, and if they are found to be misrepresenting the facts, they have perjured themselves. These are instances of indisputable fact, that which is verified as true and exists without further appraisal.

Chinese Dir