:: Love, EU-Style

A special Valentine’s Day investigation from the European Parliament’s news service.

They can ask this sort of thing and come away unscathed… I shudder to think of what we’d learn if we asked equivalent questions to our members of Congress – well, the GOP ones, anyway.

...(A guide to the acronyms and abbreviations is at the end of this post)...

Love may be as important as the air we breathe but talking about love is not always the easiest topic. We usually leave it to poets and singers, and not to politicians. But on the occasion of St. Valentine's Day, 14 February, a day celebrated in many parts of Europe, perhaps they too can have their say. With some trepidation, we spoke to some MEPs about love.

1. If there was a European Charter for Love, what should be in it?

Katalin Lévai (PES, HU), author of the bestseller "Pillow-book": Mutual understanding and respect. Love is not only about sensual pleasures, but it is also about a spiritual and intellectual togetherness, otherwise desire dwindles away. Frédérique Ries (ALDE, BE): Please, no charter! Love is allergic to paragraphs and annexes.

Christofer Fjellner (EPP-ED, SV): Love should not be bound by any borders; any more than goods, services, capital or people.

Zita Plestinská (EPP-ED, SK): Love never fails. If we managed to put this idea into practise, the world would become much nicer. Then the Charter could replace many EP resolutions.

Henrik Lax (ALDE, FI): Live with your loved one as if every day you are together could be your last.

Genowefa Grabowska (PES, PL): There should be no age limit...nor should it contain any sanctions. It has to be based on persuasion and faith...Maybe the Slovenian presidency could introduce a Charter of Love.

Roberta Alma Anastase (EPP-ED, RO): Nowadays, people do not use the word love in public speeches, however, our existence is based on feelings, particularly on love. The European Union is a space where thoughts, feelings, attitudes are encouraged to flourish openly. I think this charter already exists and it is to be found in every one of us.

2. Would you like to share any good tips about romance and love?

Katalin Lévai: Be sincere from the very beginning. The one who acts a role will eventually fall.

Astrid Lulling (EPP-ED, LUX): You cannot organise or plan romance and love. It happens or it does not!

Frédérique Ries: For eternal love, admire and be admired and surprise, always. Boredom poisons love.

Genowefa Grabowska: The more you love the more you expose yourself to suffering. But suffering enriches us. Every grandmother has a drawer full of advice because she has been in love so many times. But her granddaughters will never listen to her, because they would prefer to learn from their own experience.

Henrik Lax: Enjoy the romance, but do not take any serious life decisions until you know whether it is love or something else.

3. What "says it best" on Valentine's Day: chocolate, flowers or something else?

Roberta Alma Anastase: Chocolate and flowers are good, especially if mixed. However, the most important thing is to be sure the person you love is there for you.

Katalin Lévai: A good book is the most valuable of all, if it is accompanied by a flower, then my heart warms.

Genowefa Grabowska: If I was cynical and materialistic I would expect my husband to give me a red car, because I like red cars. But I am not, so what I would like to get is a red rose.

Frédérique Ries: Give yourself, that's the real present and not only on 14 February. Give your time, your imagination and your heart - there are infinite possibilities for wonderful surprises.

4. Are you planning to do anything special for Valentine's day?

Astrid Lulling: Valentine's Day only became fashionable when I was already over 40. But one can always dream, so why not hope that a good friend will take the initiative for a lovely surprise.

Christofer Fjellner: Yes, I will spend it with my girlfriend, Cecilia. Since I spend so much time in Brussels - and to much time in Strasbourg - spending time with her is always - in some way - special.

Henrik Lax: "No, I will be in Kiev, far from my wife whom I met 43 years ago. I will send my warmest thoughts and feelings to her and all my family.

Guide to acronyms and abbreviations: PES, Party of European Socialists (center left); ALDE, Alliance of Liberal Democrats (center right); EPP, European People's Party (right wing); HU, Hungary; SV, Sweden; SK, Slovakia; FI, Finland; PL, Poland; RO, Romania; LUX, Luxembourg.

Read more!

:: Invisible Woman

There has been some chatter lately about why a certain swath of the population really, really dislikes Hillary Clinton. I mean REALLY, to the point of distraction, without reason, dislikes a woman they have never met, who has never personally harmed them and who does not kill people or kick puppies. Stanley Fish spent several column inches detailing the kind of comments he gets when he opines about Hillary. It is the vicious and irrational nature of the comments that has him perplexed.

My mom has one explanation for the Hillary hatred. She thinks there is a huge latent discomfort, even hatred of Hillary Clinton, because she refuses to become invisible. Older women in our society, especially older white women, tend to fade into the background. They are no longer sex objects and are therefore supposed to take their rightful role as unobtrusive grandmothers. There are not many roles (or rules) for a woman who continues to be productive long after she has stopped reproducing.

She [Hillary] was never the "pretty" or "cute" one, and at this advanced age of hers as a woman, she has refused to become invisible. How dare she! She is going against the everybody-knows popular wisdom about what women in their 50's are supposed to be doing, looking like, saying. She is supposed to be INVISIBLE. And when someone, any age or gender, goes against what we know should be the proper role, it makes us uncomfortable. And when voters are uncomfortable, they instinctively vote NO. I've worked on many issue campaigns, everything from the ERA to zoning issues in a specific community, and the single consistent theme for something losing is the voter telling the pollster, "I just am uncomfortable voting for this...No, of course I don't understand it, but somehow or other it makes me uncomfortable; therefore I will be against it."

This phenomenon is not lost on the Clinton campaign – her very first campaign ad was titled Invisible. Read more!

:: Kate Michelman Jumps the Shark

Kate has a new pro-Obama statement, and its kinda freaky, in a pod-person sort of way...

Kate's new pro-Obama statement is, well, kind of weird.... see for yourself. Its called "Believing Again" (note: emphasis added and formatting condensed).

The question I have been asking myself and others during my entire life in public policy and throughout this 2008 presidential Campaign -- the question which tens of millions of women and men have also been asking -- is how do we best bring America together in shared purpose, prosperity and, especially, equality.

[snip]

[Like John Edwards] Barack Obama is also calling our nation to the greatness that we all want but that we're uncertain we can still achieve. Others talk about greatness and they even say all the right words, but they do not bring those words to life. Their words do not grab us by the arms and pull us along together.

[snip]

And when I endorsed John Edwards I also knew that Barack Obama shared every one of these concerns, and over the course of Barack's own campaign, the nation has come to believe in him just like I always have as well.

Senator Obama is not just prepared to lead ­ as our beloved Teddy and Caroline Kennedy have said, he is prepared to lead in a way different than we have seen for decades. Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him. And that difference is all the difference. That difference separates just any president from a great president; and right now, we need a great president.

Barack Obama will be that great president. He will bring us all together. And together, we will change our country. During these past many years, we have lost the sense of what we could do together, who we could be, what was possible. That's changing. And Barack Obama is the one changing that. With him, greatness is again within reach.

First of all, if she always believed in Barack, she should have endorsed him and not Edwards. I guess she just didn't believe in him enough.

Second, what is with the cult-language? I realize that "he will bring us all together" is a main campaign message, but coming from a woman who was at the nexus of one of our most intense (and sometimes violent) cultural conflicts, this sounds bizarre. I guess it depends on what she means by "us." If she's thinking "us" doesn't include the folks over at National Right to Life, the National Council of Catholic Bishops and the neanderthal base of the Republican party, okay maybe. Because I'm certain they're not going to jump into bed with Kate no matter what Barack tells them.

"With him, greatness is in reach" - she sounds like a televangelist or mega-church preacher. Does she really expect people to just swallow that without any specifications about what this "greatness" might entail? Annexing Poland and Czechoslovakia, perhaps?

Third, what is with that "our beloved Teddy and Caroline" crap? She's a hair's breadth (or hare's breath, if you like) from calling Barack our Dear Leader. When was the last time you heard any American call any living politician, in all seriousness, "our beloved"? Freaky.

Last, the most interesting part of her whole statement is this: Barack will lead "Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him." This, my dears, is the Big Clue. Kate sees herself as part of Barack's circle, in a favored position "beside him"; she wouldn't have such a place next to Hillary. Hillary doesn't need Kate to shore up her feminist credentials - she has her own achievements. But Barack - he needs Kate beside him. He makes her feel valuable. She is a bigger fish in that pond.

In other words, Kate has invalidated everything she preached while she ran NARAL. For years and years she told us that a solid record of standing up for women's rights was of paramount importance in deciding which candidate to support. Now, just because Barack made her feel good about herself, she has thrown away the ideals she championed throughout her career.

Kate is capping off her career by telling us that the principles she fought for aren't so important after all. What a sad way to slide into irrelevance. Read more!

:: Come Look

Check this out. It is really cute.

"I was like....... ..... .. why?" Love it. Read more!

:: Kristof: We're Not Ready for a Feminist President (Part Two)

Nicholas Kristof says our country isn't ready for a feminist President... and that's okay.

The most disturbing part of today’s contribution by Nicholas Kristof to the New York Times’ daily dose of anti-Clintonism (Who Is More Electable?) is this:

Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.

And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up.

Moreover, my hunch is that a conservative woman like Margaret Thatcher may have a better chance of being elected than a feminist with a distinguished record of standing up for women’s rights. For the same reason, Senator Obama probably has a better chance than a black candidate who emerged from the civil rights movement.

Quite simply, Mr. Kristof asserts that there is too much sexism in our culture to allow a woman to become president – except perhaps for a conservative woman such as Margaret Thatcher, who would disavow feminism and actively reaffirm the traditional power status quo.

Mr. Kristof suggests something similar of Senator Obama – that an African-American candidate who lacks a history of standing up for African-American rights is more palatable to whites than one who has directly challenged the status quo. The fact that Senator Obama has no notable accomplishments with regard to civil rights (other than the fact of his candidacy for President) is apparently an asset in this election. That is backhanded praise indeed.

What disturbs me his tacit acceptance of this situation. Instead of encouraging people of good will to recognize and oppose sexism, he treats it like an immutable fact of life. If we don’t challenge it now, how will we ever reach “the right time” for a female President? We already lag behind many countries around the world.

I posted the following comment at the Times in response to the column; I reproduce it here because it never saw the light of day though a comment I posted later showed up. The Times isn’t very timely or careful about posting readers’ comments. Perhaps they are still getting used to the idea.

----------------------

After months of feeling enthusiastic about the prospect of Senator Clinton becoming president, I am finally being worn down. It may be that Mr. Kristof is correct in saying that this country is too steeped in misogyny to elect a woman to its highest office.

Only Senator Clinton is said to have “just” seven years of experience because she was first elected to public office in 2000. The assumption is that the other 28 years of her 35 year career were spent being “just” a wife, an ornament, a figurehead who “poured tea” in exotic locales. I am told that her substantial, demonstrable achievements outside of elected office simply “don’t count.” Yet no one suggests that Mitt Romney’s experience saving the Salt Lake City Olympics or Senator McCain’s experience as a soldier “don’t count” because they didn’t hold elected office at the time.

Only Senator Clinton is criticized for the personal moral failings of her spouse. I am told she should not become President because her husband’s past infidelity would tarnish the White House. But no one suggests that Senator McCain should not become President because he would bring to the White House a spouse who publicly admitted to (and apologized for) drug abuse and embezzlement at a difficult time in her life. No one suggests his moral character is compromised because of the actions of his wife.

Only Senator Clinton is described as someone who would be “nothing” or “nowhere” without her spouse. I frequently hear that her only real achievement is her marriage to a successful man. Yet no one suggests that Senator McCain, whose political career flourished only after he married an heiress whose father bankrolled his campaigns, would be nothing without his wife. No one suggests Mitt Romney would be nowhere if his father had not been a beloved governor.

Only Senator Clinton is posited as ineligible for the office of President because a family member held that office (Andrew Sullivan, for example, recently wrote a column suggesting her candidacy violates the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution). But members of the Kennedy family are regularly praised for their family’s commitment to public service, and Ted and Caroline are praised for “passing the baton” of JFK and RFK to Senator Obama. No one suggests that future Kennedys should be barred from office because of that family’s disproportionate representation in national politics.

Only Senator Clinton is regularly derided by commentators in the mainstream media, such as MSNBC or the op-ed pages of the Times, for being an “emasculating,” “castrating,” “cold,” “imperious,” “witchy” harridan who is injurious to male self-esteem. But no respectable commentator would dare mock Senator Obama using pernicious racial stereotypes, or suggest that his success comes at the expense of Caucasian America. Instead, such an action would be resoundingly and rightly condemned.

Only Senator Clinton is said to be a “disgrace” to other women because of her actions within her marriage (meaning, because she did not divorce her husband over his infidelity). No one suggests Senator McCain is a “disgrace” to other men because he cheated on and subsequently divorced his first wife after she suffered a disfiguring and debilitating car accident. Senator Clinton’s behavior as a wife is considered integral to her moral character, while Senator McCain’s behavior as a husband is considered tangential or meaningless.

It is has been deemed unimportant – even by certain well-known feminists – that no candidate except Senator Clinton has a track record of working on issues that pertain to gender equality such as the disproportionate level of violence directed at women by men, the dearth of social and governmental support systems for women who choose to give birth and raise children, the degradation of women in the media and the impact this has on the self-esteem and safety of young girls, the trafficking and enslavement of women to supply the demand for commercial sex work, and the myriad gender issues pertaining to human rights and international development. But the fact that a President Obama would make a positive contribution to the self-esteem of young African-Americans is regularly (and rightly) recognized as a feature of his appeal.

Unfortunately, this list could go on and on. The fact that I am learning to face is that very few people – including few “progressives” - actually care if women face prejudice, ridicule, insults, threats of violence or actual violence simply because they are female. Very few people care if women aren’t treated fairly.

Nevertheless I will continue to volunteer and contribute to Senator Clinton’s campaign and hope that she will be our next President.

Read more!

:: Kristof: We're Not Ready for a Feminist President (Part One)

Nicholas Kristof uses lousy logic to claim Obama is more electable than Clinton.

Nicholas Kristof's column today in the New York Times is called Who Is More Electable. It counts towards their quota of presenting at least one anti-Hillary Clinton opinion column per day. Mr. Kristof argues that Hillary is less electable that Barack Obama in a match up against John McCain. For the first installment of today's three part commentary (I woke up seriously early this morning), let's recount and dispatch with his main points.

It's not hard to do:

- Kristof argues that Obama is more electable because he has won more states than Hillary thus far. This is comparing apples and oranges, since caucuses are designed to determine the preferences of the party faithful, not all registered and self-identified Democratic voters. It is also immaterial, since presidential elections aren't won by a count of states; they are won by a count of electoral votes, and the states Obama won have far few electoral votes than those won by Hillary.

- Kristof argues that the endorsement of Obama by Susan Eisenhower means Republicans will vote for him. First of all, who cares about Susan Eisenhower. Ron Reagan Jr. was a Democrat while his dad was in the White House; it didn't indicate that Republicans wanted to cross party lines and vote Democratic. The fact is that when faced with a vehemently anti-choice candidate such as McCain versus a pro-choice Democratic candidate, plenty of Republican women cross party lines. Or call themselves "independents" to save the trouble.

- Kristof cites two polls that show hypothetical match ups with McCain beating Clinton by a percentage within the margin of error, while Obama beats McCain by a percentage within the margin of error. First of all, big deal - the difference is so minor as to be statistically insignificant. Second, we've already seen how off the polls can be when attempting to determine the level of support for Clinton.

- Kristof displays an alarming ignorance of presidential politics by claiming Obama is more electable than Clinton because he as done better in notoriously red states. He doesn't seem to grasp that red states and called red states because they traditionally - some without exception - vote Republican. It doesn't matter that Obama did better than Clinton in Idaho or Alabama, because he will not carry those states. It does matter than Clinton did better in the crucial battleground state (like red states, they are called "battleground" for a reason) of Florida.

- Kristof again compares Obama to JFK, a weird claim. I won't even go into that because its so deeply weird, except to say that the same claim by Teddy and Caroline (and Patrick - don't forget Patrick!) proved to be unpersuasive in the Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts (where Clinton beat Obama by 10 points).

I don't know why Mr. Kristof writes about a topic he clearly knows little about. Hubris, I guess. Lots of people think they can play "political strategist" just because they have an opinion.

He does such a good job reporting and analyzing international affairs, especially the ways policy decisions affect vulnerable people. I wish he would stick to that – it is so very needed.

On domestic politics, he's worse the useless.

... to be continued.... Read more!

:: More on Obama and Abortion

Where does Obama stand on bans of certain abortion procedures?

I am still hot on the trail of actual proof that Obama is fully pro-choice.

This is an important question. Feminists should not be asked, by the Obama campaign or by other feminists, to take on faith the Senator's support for our core issues. There are currently 16 Democratic Senators who are not 100% pro-choice; one is almost entirely anti-choice (Ben Nelson of Nebraska). On the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Congressional Scorecard, Obama is rated 100%, but he has not been in the Senate long enough to vote on 7 of the 14 issues they track. And we all know about the non-votes he made in Illinois.

Regarding bans on certain abortion procedures, check out this statement by Obama, made in answer to a question about "partial birth" abortion shortly before the Iowa caucuses.

"I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother's life or severe health consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues."

His use of the phrase "severe health consequences" raises the questions of what he thinks of as "severe" and how the government is supposed to go about defining it. Is it a Congressional matter, or something to be taken up state by state? What if the definition of "severe" changes with the elected officials from year to year - how will doctors stay on the right side of the law?

How will we deal with the consequences - doctors who err on the side of caution and refuse to help women even though their physical or mental health will be compromised? Do we want elected officials or doctors telling us that no, you can't have an abortion because carrying to term will only give you high blood pressure, but not necessarily cause a stroke? There are already cases like this in Europe and Latin America; in Poland, for example, a woman was refused permission for an abortion even though carrying to term would render her blind. She did carry to term, and she did go blind as a result. Being blind was not considered to be a "severe" enough consequence; the woman, her husband and her several children disagree.

Beyond this, as a matter of law and of medicine, what is the relevance of there being "large" or "broad" agreement on this issue? Individual rights are protected by the Constitution, not by popularity contests. Medical decisions are determined, ideally, by the person directly involved and the medical professionals of her or his choice. Whether or not a hundred thousand people approve of the decision should not enter into the matter.

Read more!