The Feisty Liberal

My 30 Day News Fast—Over in Five Days

2012-02-11T09:38:00.000-08:00

I admit defeat. I lasted all of five days trying to avoid the news and politics, and honestly, it made me even more anxious, knowing that I was missing important information and online conversations. It also revealed the extent of my passion for current events and politics, so maybe it’s time to explore some paying opportunities in that realm, work on a campaign, or attend some democratic or progressive meet-ups here in New York City.

The first couple days were tolerable as I focused on the tasks at my day job and listened to soothing soundscape music on Music Choice instead of tuning in to NPR in the mornings while getting ready for work. In the evenings, instead of turning on Hardball with Chris Matthews as soon as I walk in my apartment, I turned on jazz or swing music, cooked some dinner then sat down to watch actual TV shows, study French, or read a nonpolitical book—Secretariat is the one currently on my nightstand.

I have avoided all my usual websites and blogs, but on Facebook I couldn’t help skimming the headlines peppering my news feed and catching snippets of comments. It took much willpower to not click on the headlines to read the story or engage in online conversations. I was so tempted though as I glimpsed the raging war on women's healthcare and the growing controversy surrounding the access to contraception as well as results from the last round of GOP caucuses and primaries. Still, my resolve held.

However, yesterday that resolve dissolved as I desperately needed my news fix. I received in the mail Thursday a complimentary/sample copy of a bi-monthly paper titled The Progressive Populist. I took the paper with me on the bus Friday morning and read some of it on the way into the office.

The question I now ask myself is: Why am I avoiding something that even though it often makes me crazy, I thoroughly enjoy? What am I gaining by depriving myself of information? I’m like my father—it’s one extreme or the other, when we both should aim for approaching goals or lifestyle changes in moderation. Obviously, I have a passion for politics and current events. I sometimes wish I’d had this passion at a much younger age; I may have been a political science major in college or went to law school or studied some element of public policy.

Still, my life’s trajectory has brought me where I am today, and it has been an interesting trajectory. I dislike being disengaged in current events; it’s not who I am, so I am going to reengage, yet not to the extent I was previously. Plus it’s too important to not pay attention. I can always choose to tune out the unpleasantness that arises from the media at times when it is needed.

Along the lines of not depriving myself of news, I am also no longer going to deprive myself of simple joys and experiences, or even indulgences here and there. If I want to do something, I will do it; if I want to purchase something, I will buy it. There will be no more saving clothes or perfume for special occasions only.

Thursday night I spent a small fortune on an Anne Fontaine pale pink blouse and camisole (actually more similar to a tank top) made of soft light-weight cotton knit fabric (French cuffs on the blouse) and decided I was going to wear them to work on Friday. I felt like a million bucks. I never splurge on myself this way, but I deserve it every now and then. Plus 20% of my purchase went to help the New York Women’s Foundation raise $2,100.

These days I wear my Donna Karan Cashmere Mist perfume almost daily. These are simple indulgences that make me feel great, and add a touch of beauty and pleasure to my life. So, instead of a news fast, or any fast for that matter, I will once again turn my focus to current events and politics, in moderation.

I hate to admit failure, and I thought this exercise would lead to some interesting insights and blog posts, but it did not; in fact, all I thought about was what information I was missing. I tried intentionally shunning the news and it wasn’t particularly good for me. I can avoid the news when that is not my goal, like on vacations and on weekends with the kids, but having tried to make an effort, it proved to be a highly unsatisfying experience. Last night, I had a date with Chris Matthews and thoroughly enjoyed it.

A 30-Day News Fast—Time to disengage, for a little while...

2012-02-06T12:51:00.000-08:00

Per Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary Office Edition:
fast v. - To eat sparingly or to abstain from all or certain foods–fast n.

I need a break from politics and current events; I definitely do. I must confess that I have an addiction—to the news. I listen to NPR while I’m getting ready in the morning, I read political blogs all day long between work projects and tasks, and then I get home at night and watch three to four more hours of news programming. It would be different if I were employed in a field that required I be tuned into news all the time, but none of the work I do—administrative, acting, writing—demands that of me.

My immersion in news, political news in particular, has engendered anxiety and anger, much anger. I am sensitive by nature, prone to being overly empathetic to the plight of others, and a dismal failure at disguising my feelings. I react quickly due to my sensitivities, especially in response to actions and statements I perceive to be unjust, bigoted, or mean. This either sparks a self-righteous rant or confines me to seething silently in agony because of repressing negative feelings.

I am addicted to politics and the news so have decided that radical action is necessary. I am commencing a thirty-day fast—not from food as per the above definition—from politics and news. I have discovered that when I visit my sister Barbara’s home for the weekend and am engaged in activities with the kids, I am rarely connected in any way to news and feel more relaxed.

Prior to the Christmas holiday this past year, I was experiencing severe pain in the back of my head on the right side below my ear. The pain lasted for several weeks, so finally I scheduled an appointment to see my doctor, two days before my departure to Indiana. Those of you who have read my book, Rebirth, or who know me personally, know that in December 2003, I went to the doctor five days before my trip to Indiana for the Christmas holiday. Three days later, I was diagnosed with leukemia and in the hospital. Although that Christmas was ruined for everyone in my family, the fact that I had seen my doctor days before getting on the plane, most likely saved my life.

One can understand how I would be hesitant to once again see a doctor right before my Christmas vacation. I feared that because the headache had been ongoing, it could be a tumor. Secondary cancers are late-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy treatment. Though I do not dwell on that possibility, the thought of developing a secondary cancer is always lurking in the dark recesses of my mind. Still, it occurred to me that this could be serious, so I scheduled an appointment with my PCP, who recommended we schedule an MRI for right after the holidays.

What happened over the last two weeks of December 2011 is that I relaxed. I read a few political blogs between checking emails every other morning, but that was the extent of my attention to the news. Instead, I spent time with my parents, my sisters and their kids, and friends. I disengaged from the news, which I do when I am away from my home. The headache had disappeared by the time I returned to New Jersey. I still went in for the MRI that had been scheduled, just to make sure nothing was wrong and all was fine.

Over the past month, my addiction has become even more intense, especially since this is a presidential election year. Anger and tension are my daily companion. I did not survive cancer to be angry or anxious all the time. My goal over the next thirty days is to avoid the news, engage in activities that bring me pleasure, expand my mind and experiences, and become more centered emotionally. This experiment is being conducted to see how the quality of my life evolves without exposure to the negativity emanating from the 24/7 news cycle.

It’s not that I intend to shun the news for the rest of my life; I couldn’t. I take pride in being informed about current events and feel that as a citizen of the world it is my responsibility to be aware of what is happening. Still, this break will be good for me, and I will occasionally blog about my progress and challenges.

This news fast won’t be easy. Yesterday, not twenty minutes after having decided to commit to it, I was on my iPhone, clicked on my HuffPost app and nearly opened an article about Rick Santorum. I caught myself and immediately closed out of the app. My behavior is so automatic and I check various sites often for updates that I don’t even think about what I am doing. This news fast may prove challenging, but it may also prove to be quite beneficial.

President Obama was Right to Use the Recess Appointment

2012-01-10T12:16:00.000-08:00

Republicans in Congress and conservative media pundits are so outraged by President Obama’s recent recess appoints: a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Why the hypocritical indignation from conservatives when George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and their hero, Ronald Reagan, all used recess appointments much more liberally than President Obama has since he took office January 2009?

Ronald Reagan – 240
George H.W. Bush - 77
Bill Clinton – 140
George W. Bush – 171
Obama – 28

GOP outrage is because President Obama ignored a little political maneuver called a “pro forma” session. As explained in the Washington Post last Friday: Every three days or so, a lone senator enters the chamber and gavels in a seconds-long pro forma session; a bipartisan agreement mandated that the sessions would proceed “with no business conducted.” With the Senate in session, critics argue, the president is prohibited from exercising his power to make recess appointments. Some also note that neither chamber can adjourn without the consent of the other. Lawmakers left for the holidays without such an agreement.

This tactic—which Democrats used during the George W Bush years—are merely used to obstruct federal appointments. Right now there are a large number of vacancies in federal judiciaries and departments because GOP lawmakers refuse to allow an up or down vote on them. A Talking Points Memo post rightly stated that “This has frustrated progressives and good government advocates who worry that the executive branch has become riddled through like Swiss cheese with vacancies and can’t function properly.”

President Obama had every right to make these appointments, pro forma session or not. Plus Obama supporters, who have been sorely disappointed in the way the president has capitulated to Republicans time and time again, welcome this bold move. Ezra Klein asks in his Wonkblog on the Washington Post website: “In a year when the Obama administration is unlikely to get much through Congress, these vacancies make it harder for them to do more through executive action, too. In some ways, then, the question isn’t why they’re making these controversial recess appointments, but why they’re limiting themselves to appointing four of the 202 nominees languishing in the confirmation process.” 202 nominees waiting for confirmation is shameful.

The New York Times recently reported that the White House and Senate Democrats say the experiences of Mr. Obama’s nominees had become intolerable. In the two years that Mr. Bush had to contend with a Democratic Senate, 740 of his 981 nominees for civilian positions were confirmed, a rate of 75 percent. During the 112th Congress, 285 of Mr. Obama’s 503 civilian nominees have been confirmed, or 57 percent, according to Senate statistics.
Pro forma sessions are only one way that Congress is allowed to obstruct. The filibuster is another handy little weapon the minority in the Senate can wield, which they have used with increasing frequency in recent years, to prevent an up or down vote on important legislation. Filibuster abuse has made the Senate completely dysfunctional. The filibuster is not necessarily bad because it gives the minority party a voice, a way to make sure their interests are not completely ignored. However, the use of this tactic was set up by the founders of this country to use sparingly and in special circumstances, one being impeachment. Republicans have been particularly tenacious using this procedure, both in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

It is amusing to hear people disparage the Democratic-led 110th Congress, the one in session during the last two years of George W Bush’s second presidential term—the one that conservatives called the “do-nothing” Congress (though isn’t that what everyone calls Congress these days?). Yes, Democrats were in charge, but they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto, so many of their initiatives could not be passed. Once Obama took office in January 2009 and Democrats had a majority in Congress, in charge of both chambers, they unfortunately still lacked enough votes to override GOP filibusters, many times due to members of their own party, the Blue Dog coalition.

If a senator wants to filibuster, make him or her filibuster; make them stand up in front of the Senate and talk, even it if it is for days at a time. If our senators weren’t so lazy, they would insist the filibuster be used the way in which it was intended, which would almost guaranteed there would be significantly fewer filbusters or filibuster threats.

Filibusters are commonly associated with senators who engage in prolonged, and perhaps irrelevant, floor debate to prevent the adoption of a measure or nomination that is favored by the majority. In fact, today’s filibusters almost never involve actual continuous floor speeches — today’s filibusters are largely silent and often occur before a proposal even reaches the Senate floor. These ploys, when used repeatedly as political games and one-upmanship endangers our democracy because it obscures from the American populace which legislators are to blame and who to hold accountable; more importantly, effective governing is impossible in such an environment.

Secret holds are another way for senators to derail legislation. Here again, because this is done anonymously, there is no way for voters to hold their elected officials accountable. The Brennan Center for Justice’s December 2010 report on “Filibuster Abuse” documents the history of and provides great detail about filibuster and holds abuse in the Senate. The writers offered several suggestions for the 112th Congress, but their ideas have largely been ignored as is evidenced by the continued dysfunction in Congress.

American government can work; it is imperative that it work. Yet so many aspects of it need reforming. That reform could be initiated by addressing how to eliminate, or at least use sparingly, parliamentary tactics like filibusters, holds, and pro forma sessions that are used more frequently to do nothing more than obstruct the majority and stifle any legislation a president tries to advance, or to fill vacancies in the many federal departments that are woefully understaffed, and in many instances, lacking a department director. We can only hope for the sake of our country that someone starts addressing the abuse of these political strategies.

Filibuster Abuse - Brennan Center for Justice

My Only 2012 New Year's Resolution: Be More Fearless

2011-12-31T08:01:00.000-08:00

In 2001 while residing in Cincinnati, I auditioned for The Movement, a made-for-television movie produced by Dreambuilder Celebration and sponsored by Procter & Gamble that was aired in January 2002. At the initial audition, I was called in for one of the leading roles that of Jayni, a young social worker or homeless shelter volunteer (I can't recall which). As I picked up the sides laid out on the table for this character, I noticed sides for Young Mrs. Wallington, a school teacher. Mrs. Wallington was another main character, but she was a retired school teacher. Young Mrs. Wallington was a supporting character, but I thought it would be wise to audition for that role as well, so I scooped up those sides and prepared for both while sitting in the waiting area.

When I walked into the room, the director and producers were all there. I did my read for Jayni, they gave me some adjustments then I read again. Before I left, I asked them if I could also read for Young Mrs. Wallington. The director responded that this was only a small supporting role in a flashback scene. I told him that I didn't care and that I'd really like to read for it, so they granted my request.

A couple days later, I received a call from my agent saying that I had a call back for the role of Young Mrs. Wallington. 'That was a good call on my part,' I thought.

When I arrived at the call backs, I scrutinized the ladies they were casting for both old and young Mrs. Wallington. I was trying to determine which older women I most closely resembled. The stressful aspect of this call back was that they were casting each role on the spot. As I watched the older actresses being eliminated, I was assessing my chances of being cast as her young counterpart. In the end, the woman I most thought would work with my physicality did not get the role. The woman who was cast, I felt looked nothing like me; however, I was determined that my assessment would not interfere with my audition.

Next, the director came out and informed us that all the Jayni candidates would be considered for Young Mrs. Wallington as well. 'Great,' I thought, 'my competition just doubled' (there were eight Jaynis and eight Young Mrs. Wallingtons). So began the most grueling audition I've experienced to date.

Prior to reading for the role (every round) each of us was positioned next to retired Mrs.Wallington so that the director and producers could examine our physical similarity. As the elimination process began, the pressure began to build. Those casting brought us all in at once, after having discussed who would not be advancing to the next round, and dismissed those they did not want to see again. To say it was nerve-wracking as the names were read is an understatement. I did not want to hear my name.

The first audition round included all sixteen us, after which four Jaynies and four teachers were eliminated. In the next round, two Jaynies and two teachers left the group, which left two actors for each role. They cast the role of Jayni first then Young Mrs. Wallington. The two of us being considered for Young Mrs. Wallington were waiting patiently outside the room to hear the decision. My competition was an attractive young woman who was probably eight years my junior.

Finally, the director appeared and looked at both of us. My heart was racing and the tension was mounting. He turned to me and said, "Deborah, we'd like for you to play the role of Young Mrs. Wallington." Inside I was jumping up and down and screaming in jubilation, but on the outside, I remained cool and calm because the woman who did not get cast was sitting right next to me. However, once she left, I let loose, thanking them all for the opportunity, and as I walked to my car, basking in the euphoria of having landed the role. (I later found out that they'd auditioned actors in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington and Louisville, and that knowledge made me feel even more honored to have been cast and prouder of my accomplishment.)

It was because I dared ask to read for that supporting role that I had the opportunity to perform it. That was the last time I asked to read for a role for which I was not brought in to audition. In the years since, I've left many auditions thinking I would be better suited for different roles yet have not had the courage (or even the thought) to request to read for them while in front of the casting directors.

Asking for what we desire is difficult for most of us. Sometimes, we feel we do not deserve what we would like—a promotion, a raise, a role, a date, an interview, you name it. In my case, I don't want to hear the word "no" or feel the sting of rejection (I get rejected enough at auditions).

Fear of not having enough money is also a major factor in determining what I pursue and to what extent I pursue it. Money is a barrier that prevents many people from pursuing their passion, but it need not be with a little planning. I am a financially responsible person, and if I want to focus more on acting and to travel globally, I need to figure out how to make those happen within my financial security boundaries so that I'm not freaking out about my money situation.

I have always professed to being a cautious risk-taker which has served me well, up until now. Goals and dreams have been met to a certain degree and at a certain level over the years, but it's time to "up the ante", as they say (whoever "they" may be). To do that I will need to be more audacious and self-confident (even if I am only acting "as if").

This year my one resolution is to be more fearless by taking more risks in pursuit of all my goals, asking for what I want, and refusing to take "no" for an answer. I hope to report positive results on December 31, 2012.

May 2012 be a happy, healthy, prosperous, and fearless year for you, dear reader. Happy New Year!

We the People and Occupy Wall Street

2011-12-04T09:41:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Constitution and the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement are two topics that seem to be endlessly talked about and debated by politicians, media pundits as well as among friends and family – oftentimes with those possessing vastly different ideological leanings, but that’s what makes it interesting.

Two articles I read recently about these subjects reinforce how I view them, and I’d like to share with everyone. That doesn’t mean I expect everyone to agree with me, but I’m offering some ideas to contemplate. One piece is about the Constitution being inherently progressive and the other about why the OWS movement is a positive force for our country.

If there are articles or opinions you would like me to read that either support or refute my point of view or what these authors write, please fell free to send them to me by adding a link or referencing them in the comments section below.

Constitution is inherently progressive – Politico.com

“Our original Constitution was not perfect. It wrote women and minorities out and condoned an abhorrent system of slavery. But the story of America has also been the story of a good nation conceived in liberty and equality, eventually welcoming every American into the arms of democracy, protecting their freedoms and expanding their economic opportunities.” ~John Podesta and John Halpin

“Occupy Wall Street”: Approved! By Suze Orman – Huffington Post

My thoughts: These are people tired of the status quo. They are tired of seeing Wall Street getting bailouts and suffering no legal consequences from bad, sometimes even illegal, decisions that cost taxpayers a lot of money. Yet where is the help for millions of Americans whose homes are being foreclosed on or that are underwater, or where are the loans to small businesses?

This protest movement may not have a structured agenda yet and may never, but the OWS movement is making the country aware of the way big money interests and our government officials are deeply intertwined, and that’s a positive start. Getting money out of the political process is the biggest step we could take to change the system. The OWS movement is working because special interests and politicians beholden to those interests are demonizing and trying to discredit it.

Suze Orman, in her post supporting OWS, refers briefly to special-interest tactics against it: “When you feel threatened, work overtime to marginalize the threat before it establishes traction.”

OWS is definitely gaining traction and opponents are trying to marginalize it as well as police forces around the country using increasingly brutal tactics (one of which is pepper-spraying non-violent protestors) to discourage the right to assemble and free speech.

Read Orman’s entire post here: “Occupy Wall Street!” Approved

Careful What You Wish For...

2011-11-17T14:04:00.000-08:00

“You know what the most incredible thing would be?” I asked my friend Yvonne one day at Cigna when we were at lunch in the fall of 2001. “Right when I am getting to leave for New York, Cigna eliminates my job and I receive four-months of severance pay!” I never thought in a million years that it would happen, mainly because the managers seemed so helpless without us assistants.

Four months of salary would definitely be a helpful financial cushion as I started my new life. I had decided earlier that year, after my positive experience meeting Lanford Wilson, that it was time for me to make the move to the New York market. I wasn’t getting any younger and if I were going to do it, it had to be then. So I started planning for a move to take place at the end of August 2002. Once I had set the end goal, the stars began to align in my favor.

I was cast in two films (one of which still occasionally pays a small residual fee) and a commercial that cemented my membership in AFTRA—I had to join the union. These jobs expanded my resume to include film and commercial work. I was also networking and collecting names of people I could call on once I arrived in New York as resources in the industry as well as for familiarizing myself with the city.

My plan was taking shape, as I researched apartments, neighborhoods, casting directors, agents, theatre companies, anything I needed to get my life started there. It was a bit intimidating because the financials of it all made me very nervous. How would I ever afford to live in that area and pursue acting, too? I began searching for temp agencies and marketing and promo jobs, whatever work I might be able to do that would allow me the flexibility to audition during the day. The financial fears made me ask: would I be ready to move at the end of August?

The summer of 2002, I ventured to Puerto Rico for a very memorable and exciting vacation with some of my closest friends. The day I returned to the office at Cigna, there was a nationwide conference call that required participation of all the assistants. I thought it was going to be the run-of-the-mill technology call outlining process changes for submitting RFPs or organizing policies.

What we discovered was that Cigna planned to downsize in the upcoming months. There would now be one assistant per region. Instead of my region having a couple assistants in Cleveland and a couple in Cincinnati (servicing Columbus and Indianapolis) there would be one assistant working all four offices. The offers would be made to those they wanted to retain and the rest would be let go with severance packages.

I sat there holding back a gleeful smile, knowing all the other women were panicking because they were about to lose their jobs. Unbelievable, I thought. This is exactly what I had wished for—the timing couldn’t have been more perfect.

When the call ended, I nearly ran to Yvonne’s cubicle, plopped down in the chair next to her desk and exclaimed, “ You are not going to believe what just happened!”

I told her and she responded excitedly, “Oh, my God, it’s meant to be!”

“I know!” I replied.

The only fly in the ointment was that I was one of two top-ranked assistants in the region. I didn’t want them to offer me the job because if they did and I turned it down, I would not receive my severance—at least that was my understanding. So I had to do some quick thinking. I decided honesty would be the best policy, so I called my manager, who was located in Philadelphia, to explain my situation to her.

I am very thankful for her. She made sure that I was not offered the job. I left Cigna at the end of August 2002 and headed to the Northeast on August 31, crying as I drove away from Cincinnati. As excited as I was to be starting a new life, I was sad to leave my friends and my sister Karen, who had been my apartment mate the previous nine years. Plus the unknown is always a little scary. Still my wish came true and now there was no backing down or delaying my departure date because I didn’t have the lure of job security to prevent me from pursuing my dreams. Once my wish was granted, I was then responsible for doing something about it, rather than ignoring it.

It’s been an adventure these last nine years. It was a positive move, for so many reasons. So a word of caution: careful what you wish for, it may come true.

Baby Steps: My Key to Achieving Goals

2011-11-10T13:07:00.000-08:00

“ Honey, you want to go to the john and get one of those glasses before you leave, you look like you could use a drink.”

That was my closing line of The Moonshot Tape. Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Lanford Wilson* clapped and smiled then rose from his seat, walked over to me, and hugged me warmly. He had loved my performance, which I’d just given in Ovation Theatre Company’s (OTC) warehouse where we built our sets, stored props and costumes, and often rehearsed. This had been a private performance for Mr. Wilson, along with my Ovation colleagues and a couple of my closest friends, by special invitation. I would go on to perform this 55-minute solo show a week later during Ovations’ two-week run of An Evening with Lanford Wilson. We staged four of his one-act plays during Cincinnati’s Lanford Wilson Theatre Festival in May of 2001.

After the performance - Lanford Wilson giving me feedback.

It takes a great deal of courage to get onstage and perform alone for that length of time, but I did not find that courage overnight. It took years of accepting bigger and more challenging roles to be comfortable (or as comfortable as one can be) in a solo performance situation.

I did not begin acting until I was twenty-three. By that age, many of the young actors I was studying with had been performing for years—on stage and in front of the camera—in grade school, high school, and college. I struggled with confidence—and still do to some degree—because I let all their years on the boards or in front of the camera intimidate me. Still, I wanted to be an actor, so I pushed through the fear and insecurity.

My first time on stage was a production of original one-acts in Bloomington, Indiana, that took place in a tiny, freezing theater—actually a warehouse. I memorized my lines and my acting partner’s and basically responded by rote, not engaging in the moment to moment actions and emotions based on what my acting partner was giving me. Learning how to react appropriately, develop my inner monologue, and trust in the moment all developed over years of training and experience.

As I took on leading roles in plays, I learned to connect with the other actors and to trust that my lines would be there when it was time for me to speak. I didn’t have to think ahead to what my next line would be, but rather merely listen to what was being said to me. Acting is reacting. Plus knowing what you are thinking as someone is talking to you onstage is like in life…we always have thoughts running through our minds; so it is the same onstage, which adds to the life of the character.

I was cast in my first two-person play as Aurelia Plath in Letters Home the summer of 1992. It was scary but I managed to tackle it pretty well for a novice actor. Once I left Indiana University, I moved to Cincinnati where I was involved in community theatre prior to co-founding OTC, a semi-professional company. My first audition landed me in the role of Vera Claythorne, the leading lady in Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians. The video performance of that play is a testament to how significantly my acting has improved since then.

Shortly after Ten Little Indians,I was involved in a fifties/sixties-style musical review that East Side Players orchestrated before their production of West Side Story. I’d always wanted to sing in public and knew I had a decent voice, but again, lacked the audacity to do it (except for a talent show in eighth grade, where, with some of my girlfriends as back-up singers, I sang “The Rose” and “Midnight in Memphis” from The Rose soundtrack, and that was along with the actual recordings).

I found the courage to audition for the revue and got cast. A few months later, I performed the role of Grace Farrell in Annie in which I sang a solo and some duets. That eventually led to my being cast as the Witch in Into the Woods, and I loved, loved, loved playing the Witch—one of my favorite roles. (Thank you, Lisa Hall Breithaupt.)

My performance trajectory is as follows: supporting roles followed by leading roles then two-person shows—one (Parallel Lives) that included an eight-minute monologue and my playing fourteen different characters, eventually culminating in my one-woman performance of The Moonshot Tape. The revue, led to musicals then to cabaret performances that I wrote and performed—two to three sets per show. My acting and singing solo performances were built on the foundation of taking risks with more challenging and scarier projects over time. When I succeeded at each level, I moved on to the next one.

Meeting, performing for, and receiving excellent feedback from Lanford Wilson was the pivotal moment in my decision to make the move to the New York City area to pursue acting professionally, which I’d wanted to do for ten years. Once my mind was made up, I set the wheels in motion, and how they turned in my favor. That story is for an upcoming post. Stay tuned…as the saying goes: be careful what you wish for…

* Lanford Wilson (April 13, 1937 – March 24, 2011)

Back to the Stage

2011-10-28T11:56:00.000-07:00

I will be back onstage for the first time since the summer of 2003 when Isle of Shoals Productions, Inc.'s Romeo & Juliet opens November 3. This absence has been mostly by choice. I have auditioned for very few plays since my cancer treatments, and the acting work I have booked has been in film, commercials, and television. I was recently cast in the role of Lady Capulet. It has been amusing that a number of people have suggested I might be Juliet by asking: “Are you playing Juliet?” While that question is flattering, I am way past the age of being cast in that role, considering that Juliet is 14—16 in the adaptation in which I am performing. However, I play mothers well, although Lady Capulet is hardly the ideal mother. She had very little involvement in the daily upbringing of Juliet; the childrearing responsibilities were designated to the nurse.

My Lady Capulet is independent and a bit headstrong; definitely not a woman subservient to her husband. Though she is a product of and adheres to the cultural mores of the Victorian era (in which this adaptation is set), she has a mind of her own as well as a sense of humor. I love that I was cast in this role for my reemergence on the stage because it is a perfect one for me.

Tonight is our first preview performance. This week has been a bit rough technically, slogging through the orchestration of light and sound cues and set changes. The previews will be essentially dress rehearsals with an audience. Yet in all the years I have been doing theatre, productions amazingly come together in the end, no matter how chaotic or stressful tech week may be.

Lance Hewett, my director, is a joy to work with. He has given the actors enormous creative freedom to experiment with acting choices and to make suggestions; I don’t think I’ve heard him give one line reading, which is quite refreshing. Of course, if he thinks something does not work or isn’t true to the character, he lets us know.

The cast is quite talented, especially for one with so many young actors, most of whom are in their early to mid twenties. I get a kick out of listening to them talk to each other, and yes, I’m one of the older members of the cast, but that’s okay. The generation gap isn’t too wide, and they are all funny, smart, lovely people. Chelsea, who plays Juliet, is adorable. It’s easy to portray her mother, and perhaps my interpretation of Lady Capulet is too loving and attentive to the teenage Juliet, yet that act of maternal betrayal remains.

I have been asked if I am nervous to perform onstage again. I am a little nervous, but in a good way. Nervous energy helps me to focus and be in the moment, especially when I know people who are in the audience—family, friends, co-workers. Right now, while I am writing this and thinking about it, a twinge of unease is churning around in my solar plexus. I think if I weren’t nervous, I’d be worried. One of the greatest actors of all time, Sir Lawrence Olivier, experienced intense anxiety before every stage performance. So if Olivier had to fight nerves, then I am struggling right there with the best of them.

Sometimes, I think my need to be out in front of an audience, acting or speaking, is a form of self-torture because there is always a slight element of fear simmering beneath. Some may call it narcissism, and in some instances, perhaps it is; but I see it more as the intense desire to express myself, whether through a character or as a cancer community or political issue advocate. As someone who as a child was shy and didn’t speak her mind and rarely took center stage, once I found the courage to do it, I discovered a freedom of expression I never knew existed.

Some of my need for recognition stems from the desire to please and be liked, but at the same time, it is scary to put your talent and ideas out in the public, where there is the possibility to be criticized—sometimes harshly. Not everyone is going to love or like what you do or say, but to do it anyway, to take a risk, is brave, and has many times reaped personal and career-related rewards for me. Despite the fear, it's the love of creative expression and the desire to communicate that drives me to take the stage or approach the podium.

So yes, I am excited to be back onstage again. Who knows what will happen out there in front of a live audience. I’ve definitely experienced my share of mishaps onstage, and I will try to share a few of those in a future post because they are worthy of retelling. The unknown of what may happen between actors onstage is frightening, yet thrilling, and ultimately, an adventure. My next adventure begins tonight and runs through November 20.

For performance and ticket information, click Romeo and Juliet - Isle of Shoals Productions, Inc.

Encounter a Bad Cop...Fight Back!

2011-09-30T10:35:00.000-07:00

Right now in NYC there are protests going on downtown on Wall Street. These are peaceful gatherings to protest the influence corporations have on our government. There have been several documented instances of police brutality and abuse, which is inexcusable behavior in a country where free speech is allowed.

Lawrence O’Donnell has been highlighting these abuses on his nightly show on MSNBC and because of this and the fact that people have captured abuse by law enforcement officials on camera, finally the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau will be investigating these instances (in particular a pepper spraying incident).

The vast majority of police officers in this country are honorable public servants who protect the citizens in their communities, but every now and then one of them turns out to be a bad apple—power hungry and inclined to abuse their position. I had an experience with a couple bad cops in December of 1999. I want to tell my story because the abuse I suffered could happen to anyone, and I want people to know they can and should fight back.

I was so upset, that I wrote the Chief of Police, the Judge Executive,and all three County Commissioners of Covington, Kentucky, as well as the State Attorney General. Here is the letter:

Dear Colonel Bosse:

At approximately 12:30 a.m. Sunday morning, December 12, 1999, I had an encounter with Officer M. J. * (badge #016_*) and his partner. I hope these names and numbers are correct—I cannot read them very well on the citation (of which I’ve enclosed a copy). Officer J cited me for “reckless driving”. This citation I must take issue with because I feel it is a flagrant abuse of police power.

The following is what occurred between myself and the officers: I had pulled away from the curb after allowing five cars to pass so that I could proceed west on Robbins. I continued along with the other five vehicles, all of which were approaching the intersection (Robbins and Madison) and turning north (right) onto Madison. We had a green light. Officer J was heading east on Robbins and attempting to turn north (left for him) onto Madison. I did see the officer as he approached the intersection, but I assumed that Kentucky law was the same as Ohio and that vehicles turning left at an intersection must yield the right of way to either vehicles that are going straight or turning right.

I do not know what possessed Officer J to continue his left turn. Both of our vehicles were moving at a slow rate of speed, so I proceeded into the intersection because I assumed that the officer would yield the right of way to oncoming traffic. He did not.

The officer did not have the siren on to indicate he needed me to yield to him (if that is in fact what he needed, which obviously it was not because he had plenty of time to stop and harass me). He said that I caused him to have to go into the lane of oncoming traffic (which was non-existent at that hour) and also claims that there was a near collision between our vehicles. There was no near collision. The lack of traffic and the slow rate of speed gave both vehicles ample time and space to avoid any type of collision. Had I been going straight, he probably still would have pulled out in front of me.

Are policemen not subject to the same traffic laws as the rest of us? I feel that for some reason he decided he was going to teach me a lesson. (He picked a fight with the wrong woman.) What I want to know is why he felt compelled to pull out in front of me? I posed this question to him and he gave no response. Instead he replied, “ Oh, since you saw me, I’m going to cite you for reckless endangerment.”

He states that because I saw him start to turn in front of me and didn’t yield him the right of way, that I was endangering him. Well, in my opinion, he was endangering me by pulling out in front of me. I am so appalled by this entire situation.

I have the utmost respect for police officers, who put their lives on the line for us every day, but when a situation like this happens (and more often we hears stories of policemen abusing their power) it makes people lose faith and trust in law enforcement officials. Officer J could not even look me in the eyes as he was giving me this lame explanation as to why I was receiving this ticket. He told me: “well, you can refute it in court.” To which I responded adamantly, “ Oh, officer, I will see you in court!”

I am not a “reckless driver” and my 17-years driving record demonstrates that—it is impeccable. Please feel free to check with the states of Indiana, Ohio and Georgia. If I deserved this ticket, I would pay it immediately. However, this is a grossly blatant power play by Officer J. It is unfortunate that I have no witnesses and it is my word against these two officers, but I feel I was unfairly cited—most likely from a man with a fragile ego. This entire situation is so wrong.

I am sure that these officers will not even receive so much as a slap on the wrist for this incident. However, I feel that this should be made part of their records in case someone else encounters this type of injustice with them and takes time to report it. You may just see a recurring pattern of behavior. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I thought you should be made aware of this situation.

Sincerely,

Deborah Ludwig

In early January 2000, I showed up in the Covington court to dispute my case. I didn’t care if I lost; I was going to fight it. The cop did not show up (coward). I stated my case and it was dropped. (Although I must admit the judge was pretty dense as well; I’ll not go into the details, but I was less than impressed with him.)

I was so relieved to win. It made me realize more than ever that we must fight against that which we feel is unjust. It takes a lot—and I mean a lot—for me to fight back or complain about something, but my track record winning those fights is 100%. The moral of my story: where you see injustice, fight back!

* Name and badge number changed

Blood Cancer Awareness Month...Sharing My Story and Some Information

2011-09-26T09:23:00.000-07:00

Originally posted on HarryDaniell's site September 22, 2011

June 1, 2004

As the day wore on and the time approached for Barbara’s stem cells to be transfused into me, sorrow replaced anxiety. I am losing a part of me as her stem cells replace mine and begin producing her blood in my body. My blood type will change from O- to O+, which is Barbara’s blood type. This changing of blood type is somewhat unsettling to me. However, I also view this day as one of rebirth—another birthday to celebrate. It is extraordinary how this whole bone marrow transplant process works. It is truly miraculous. And not only is this a physical rebirth, but because of all the self-reflection and positive changes I’m attempting to make in my life, it is a spiritual and emotional rebirth as well. So despite feeling melancholy over what I am losing, there is excitement and anticipation about what I am gaining. I thank God for the new stem cells that will generate new and healthy blood in my body and grant me a second chance at life.

Around 3:30 p.m., Dr. Hsu administered the blood transfusion. The transplant was a slow, intravenous infusion through my catheter of the bone marrow collected from my sister Barbara. My friend Karen B was already stationed at my bedside and my sister Karen waltzed into the room just minutes before the doctor began the procedure. The transplant, which took all of twenty minutes, was uneventful except for an intense scratchiness in my throat caused by the preservative in the blood. I was given Benadryl prior to the transfusion, which quickly sent me off to la-la land. Meanwhile, my sister and friend sat vigil, watching my blood pressure rise and fall—sometimes significantly—on the monitor. The nurses assured them that this was normal. ~ Excerpt from Rebirth

I am a leukemia survivor. September is Blood Cancer Awareness Month, so I am sharing my story in order to put a face to those who have had, or are currently living with, a blood cancer diagnosis. I was diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) December 18, 2003. I went through four rounds of high-dose chemotherapy (for which I was hospitalized 4-5 days each time) and total body irradiation twice a day for four days prior to my bone marrow transplant, which took place June 1, 2004.

Overall, I dealt well with chemotherapy. I did not experience vomiting, mouth sores or any major infections. My discomfort was mostly due to extreme fatigue and some nausea. And of course, I lost my hair, which I thought would be devastating, but it wasn’t. I knew it would eventually grow back, and it was rather interesting because how often does a girl get to see what she looks like bald?

As my doctors and I began discussing BMT, additional drama was injected into the situation because my bone marrow donor match was my sister Barbara who was pregnant with her second child. Rarely is a pregnant woman an acceptable stem cell/bone marrow donor, and there is very little information available about pregnancy and bone marrow donation, which made this an even more difficult, agonizing decision for her and her husband. They knew this would greatly increase my chances for a successful outcome, but what impact would it have on their unborn child?

In the end, twenty-eight weeks into her pregnancy, she agreed to do the bone marrow harvest. A needle was inserted into her hipbone about seventy times in two hours with a spinal only. To ensure the baby was not put at additional risk, she opted not to have general anesthesia, which is normal protocol for a bone marrow donor during a bone marrow harvest. She saved my life that day; she is my hero. And today, that baby is a gorgeous, healthy, smart seven-year-old boy named Andrew.

Andrew at 1 month old (with me)

Andrew and I (present day)

Going into chemo, radiation, and transplant I knew there had been considerable advances in the treatment of blood cancers over the past few decades, and that knowledge gave me hope. Blood Cancer Awareness month is a time to focus more intensely on educating the public about the types of blood cancers, providing information about cancer research and the need for funding said research, and highlighting the resources available to survivors and their families as they navigate their way through treatment and recovery.

Harry’s September 15 post outlined some statistics related to blood cancers and survival rates, and while survival rates in some blood cancers have increased substantially, there is still much work to be done to eradicate cancer. Maintaining funding levels for cancer research is vitally important, and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) provides millions of dollars every year toward research and the development of new medications. Gleevec, FDA approved in 2001, and Sprycel, approved in 2006, are two therapies proven quite effective over the past decade in treating chronic myelogenous (or myeloid) leukemia.

In 2008, when I first heard about Sprycel, I was talking to my oncologist about it and he informed me that Sprycel had also been found to be effective in treating ALL when the Philadelphia chromosome is present. I thought that was pretty amazing—that a drug found effective in treating one type of leukemia was then found to be effective treating another one. The added value of drug research is that these therapies are often found to treat multiple diseases—Gleevec is now approved to treat ten different cancers.

In these tight economic times of government budget cutting, it is vital that cancer research be funded adequately so that advances in the treatment of blood cancers will continue to result in improved survival rates. Light the Night is one program (of many) the LLS has implemented to raise money that is then allocated toward cancer research and patient services and education programs. Next month, I will be posting in more detail about the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and their Light the Night program. Stay tuned…

Preventing Voter Fraud…or is it Voter Suppression?

2011-09-09T11:55:00.000-07:00

Something sinister is happening in this country, mostly unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans. TPM has compiled stories and will continue to provide ongoing coverage about voter suppression and voter fraud. Many of these articles reveal voter suppression efforts disguised as those to prevent voter fraud. Voter fraud is pretty much a ginned-up controversy as there are few documented cases of it in the U.S., and yet legislation that resembles voter suppression is being considered in states across the country.

Rolling Stone Magazine recently ran an article explaining this well-organized strategy to prevent voter fraud. Some of the laws being proposed and implemented affecting a citizen’s right to vote are: imposing new restrictions on voter registration drives, decreasing the number of days for early voting, requiring government-issued photo IDs, and preventing ex-felons, including non-violent offenders, from voting even after they have paid their dues and served their time.

Women and minorities fought for years to gain the right to participate in the voting franchise. They and like-minded white men worked tirelessly to eliminate property ownership and literacy requirements, poll taxes, and other barriers to voting, as well as ending the hateful Jim Crow laws—which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally abolished. Because of their tireless and oftentimes violent struggle, the following are questions that legislators intent on passing these types of laws need to answer:

1.) Shouldn’t we expand the right and make it easier to vote as opposed to erecting barriers to it?
2.) Shouldn’t we encourage more citizens to participate in the electoral process?
3.) Isn’t the right to vote a fundamental component of democracy?
4.) Shouldn’t prisoners who’ve served their sentences and paid their dues be given the right to vote again?
5.) This one is specifically for Governor Rick Perry of Texas: You won’t accept a college student ID as a valid voting document, but a gun or concealed weapons license is sufficient?

Yes, only eligible citizens should be allowed to vote, but the claim of rampant voter fraud in the U.S. is blatantly false, so the quesiton becomes: what is the real objective of these restrictions and regulations? Onerous rules that make it difficult for the elderly, the poor, and the young to exercise their right to vote undermine our democracy. American citizens in the 1800s and the early to mid 1900s went to prison, endured beatings, were raped, and even murdered trying to gain the right to vote.* Today, too many Americans fail to exercise their right to vote, don’t appreciate it, or take it for granted, and this is a travesty because millions of people around the globe would love to be able to cast a vote, making their voice heard.

Americans should all be paying attention to this issue, especially knowing the obstacles our ancestors overcame to gain enfranchisement. Sadly, the mainstream media is not covering these attempts to restrict voting rights, but it is too important to ignore.

* This link details the history of voting rights in the United States, beginning in 1776 when Abigail Adams asked the Continental Congress to support women's rights up until the present day. It's worth reading.

The Feisty Liberal Returns: Focusing on My One-Third

2011-09-02T11:32:00.000-07:00

I was having cocktails with some friends last night and we started discussing politics. One of the ladies asked me if I was still blogging, and I replied in the affirmative. The other woman asked me what the name of my blog was, to which I responded: “At one time I titled it The Feisty Liberal but changed it a while back to something less provocative: Deborah’s Pages.” The women looked at me and both chimed in, “Yes, that’s pretty dull.”

We had a good laugh, but I don’t want to be dull. When I arrived home, I changed the name back. This episode made me rethink how I want to express myself going forward: do I want to play it safe or take some risks? By changing the blog’s name to one less polarizing, I was reverting back to my “nice girl” persona who wants everyone to like her. My people-pleasing tendency was winning over my desire to openly express myself. I was playing it safe.

The Feisty Liberal makes an immediate ideological impression, be it positive or negative. Although some conservatives may never read the blog because of the title, I hope they will because maybe they will learn something from me; and if they disagree, I want them to feel free to state their case in the comments section, albeit in a respectful way, because I may learn something from them.

It is scary for me, who has always wanted to be liked and accepted, to do anything that would make anyone dislike me. However, I’m not a little girl anymore. I am a woman who has ideas I am passionate about and want to share them. The most frightening aspect of daring to express my opinions is that people will openly disagree with me or send hate emails to me. However, that fear is lessening because those things have already happened on my blog, on Facebook, and on political blogs. As a result, my skin is slowly getting thicker.

I commented on an article on Huffington Post recently and received a response that was rife with hostility, disparaging words, and expletives. I was offended at first, then amused, and finally decided he (or she) deserved a response from me. When I clicked on the comment to respond, curiously it had been deleted. I was disappointed because what I would’ve liked to have written to the troll is: “Wow, this hateful response clearly demonstrates that you are part of the divisiveness and incivility problems in this country.”

Lively debate should be encouraged, but the nastiness that is prevalent on these sites is not productive to political discourse or problem solving. Civility is absent. Most people who comment on these sites remain anonymous, and this anonymity provides a wall to hide behind while they spew their hatred. More people would be willing to express their views openly if it weren’t for the vitriol that inevitably follows in many instances. It takes courage to share ideas and opinions with the world, and in order to do that fear must be conquered.

I was at a seminar about a year ago conducted by Rhonda Britten, founder of the Fearless Living Institute and best-selling author. There are two statements she made that evening that have stuck with me (and I’m paraphrasing some of it):

1.) Her definition of happiness is full self-expression.

2.) Focus on your one-third. Remember: One-third of the people will love you; one-third will hate you; and one-third won’t care, so focus on the one-third that loves you.

It’s time to focus on my one-third and to express myself fully, even though I still have anxiety about doing that. The anxiety lessens the more often I share my ideas, and maybe one day I won’t care how people respond. I will be able to read opposing views and nasty responses, acknowledging that there will always be disagreements, yet all the while remaining in a place of equanimity, knowing that at least my one-third is with me.

How are you fearless?

Who is your one-third?

September is Blood Cancer Awareness Month

2011-09-01T08:06:00.000-07:00

December 18, 2003
At about 5:30 p.m., Dr. Alter entered my room, and I knew immediately the news was going to be life changing. He sat down and informed me that the bone biopsy came back positive for leukemia. A jolt of panic surged through my entire body. I took a deep breath, pursed my lips together, and tried to hold back the tears. I parted my lips slightly and released my breath slowly. I glanced at Barbara, and clearly, she was upset. I had suspected as much, but actually hearing it was shocking.

Dr. Alter informed me that Dr. Stuart Goldberg, my oncologist, would be in later to talk to me more in depth about what I was facing and the treatment options available. He also said that another bone marrow extraction would be performed the following day because the one today had produced no marrow and that is needed to determine the type of leukemia I have as there are several varieties.

~ Excerpt from Rebirth: A Leukemia Survivor’s Journal of Healing during Chemotherapy, Bone Marrow Transplant, and Recovery

That is the day I began my blood cancer education, in particular as it pertained to acute lymphocytic (also known as lymphoblastic) leukemia (ALL). It was determined a few days later that I had adult ALL. ALL is the most common form of blood cancer found in children and today has a cure rate of about 90.8% for children five and younger, per the National Cancer Institute. Long-term survivor statistics aren’t quite so rosy, about 66%, when factoring in all ages. I am seven years post-bone marrow transplant and consider myself quite fortunate.

Blood cancers include leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, myelodysplastic syndromes, and myeloproliferative diseases. Within each of these cancers there are several variations.

Over the next month I will be posting information about blood cancers that the reader may find useful. I am an Advocacy Network and First Connection Volunteer and speaker for The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS), the largest voluntary health agency dedicated to blood cancers. The organization’s mission is to cure leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and myeloma, and improve the quality of life of patients and their families. The LLS is a terrific resource for patients, caregivers and health care professionals.

A list of additional national cancer charities and foundations can be found on the Resource4Leukemia site.

Finding Inspiration from a Movie

2011-08-31T15:29:00.000-07:00

“He laughs at fear, afraid of nothing. He does not shy away from the sword. He cannot stand still when the trumpet sounds.” ~ Penny Chenery Tweedy, owner of Secretariat, the 1973 Triple Crown Winner

These are the words Diane Lane (as Penny Chenery in the movie Secretariat) speaks as the viewer watches in a moment of silence, a brief reprieve from the pounding of hooves on the track and the cheering, screaming fans in the stands, waiting for Secretariat to storm around the final bend at the Belmont Stakes to secure his 1973 Triple Crown win. Chills run up my spine then the silence breaks as Secretariat rounds the turn toward a record-breaking 31-length victory. To this day, no horse has come close to his margin of victory or his record.

I did not see the movie when it opened in 2010, but purchased it recently from On Demand. I watched it and when it ended, immediately watched it again. The horse, the owner, the trainer, the jockey, the groom, the secretary…these people made an amazing team. The story of Secretariat is more than just that of an exceptional horse, but also one of a woman determined to see her father’s life's work through to the end despite the obstacles. Ms. Chenery was determined, confident, persistent, resourceful, loving, supportive, and demanding when necessary. She was an example to her children that if you have a dream or a goal you do not back down, which is a valuable lesson for anyone.

Sometimes it is easy to give up or become discouraged when setbacks occur or people refuse to help or provide needed support. In the end, it is only ourselves who can make sure we stay on track. Fear of failure, rejection, or the unknown are the biggest reasons people do not take the risks involved in changing careers, moving to a different city, pursuing a romantic interest, traveling around the world, or any other adventure.

I am a calculated risk-taker, I wish I weren’t quite so calculated, but I like to know where I’m headed; I always have a game plan. Still, if I could just get past the fear of rejection—my biggest fear—I might be more confident approaching casting directors and agents in order to potentially move my acting career along faster. I don't have a fear of rejection at auditions (I'm used to that by now) but it's the fear of asking for what I need or want: representation or more auditions. I am working to overcome this fear and am always encouraged when I hear a phrase or quote that truly resonates with being fearless, and the above quote does just that: Don’t be afraid, don’t shy away, and don’t stand still.

On My Mind: Women, Drug Testing, Teachers Unions, and Hurricane Irene

2011-08-26T13:42:00.000-07:00

Today is National Women’s Equality Day. We’ve come a long way, baby, but there is still a ways to go. The U.S. Congress designated August 26 as “Women’s Equality Day” in 1971 to commemorate the 1920 passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. Women should never take that right for granted.

Florida finds drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Previous studies in Idaho and Michigan have come to the same conclusion. Wasteful spending and more bureaucracy…aren’t these the very things conservatives say they are opposed to?

Stop Demonizing Teachers Unions
Richard D. Kahlenberg’s review of Terry Moe’s book, Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, is an excellent rebuttal to Moe’s assertion that it is the teachers unions that are the main cause of decline in the U.S. education system.

An excellent education system is vital to the success of this country and to future generations, and ensuring it should be the goal of educators, school administrators, and policymakers. Scapegoating the teachers unions is unproductive, though that's not to say the unions can't be improved upon or reformed. Kahlenberg writes: “The American South, which largely lacks collective bargaining for teachers, has student outcomes that are worse, not better, than the North. Finland and Massachusetts—both heavily unionized—score at the top of the world and the top of the nation, respectively.”

Furthermore, when only 17% of charter schools perform any better than public schools, there is no reason to pour money into charters at the expense of public schools. Poverty, segregation, and parental involvement all factor into educational outcomes, too.

Hurricane Irene is headed our way. I was at Duane Reade a little while ago and there were several people standing in line waiting to pay for jugs of water and boxes of bottled water. Everyone’s preparing to be homebound this weekend. The NYC transit system (subway and buses) will come to a halt at noon tomorrow. Good luck to my friends in the northeast and southeast. Stay safe and dry!

The Debt Ceiling Deal: Little Compromise and Bad Policy

2011-08-16T14:17:00.000-07:00

“I got 98% of what I wanted,” Speaker John Boehner boasted to CBS news, “so I’m happy.” 98% does not meet the standards of a compromise. I don’t know what planet President Obama or any of our congressional legislators, Democrat or Republican, are living on when they say that the austerity bill just signed by the President is a bi-partisan compromise. It absolutely is not.

The vast majority of Americans wanted to see some tax increases in this agreement too, or at least some corporate tax loopholes closed or tax subsidies decreased on large corporations and the wealthy. Anyone who thinks we will return to prosperity solely through cutting spending is living in a fantasy land. Most credible economists say there need to be both spending cuts and tax increases. Yes, we spend too much, but we also lack revenue.

Unemployment is a huge problem at the moment, a much more urgent one than deficit reduction. Astonishingly, there was no extension for unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed in the bill just signed. People need money to spend. When people spend, they create demand and demand creates jobs, but when people don’t have money to spend there is no demand and therefore no reason for businesses to hire.

What we have witnessed over the past few weeks is the Tea Party crowd wanting to wreck our government. This is what happens when you put people in government who hate government: they work to make government ineffective, incompetent and corrupt. The Wrecking Crew is a book I highly recommend that outlines perfectly what is happening now, how the “shrink-government” strategy began and how it has slowly evolved and expanded, hidden mostly from public awareness for decades. (Starve-the-beast is astonishing in its focus and deliberateness, and that’s what they achieved in this agreement: defund government so that it can’t work.) Remarkably, this victory is still not good enough for the Tea Party.

One solution that would be effective in raising revenue, but is highly controversial in our “no-tax” culture, is to let all the Bush tax cuts expire. If we do this, the U.S. Government would have $4.4 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years (which is the amount it will cost the government to make these tax cuts permanent). Make no mistake, this would be a hit on the middle class, and I would be one of those in the middle class hardest hit due to my income level. However, I’m willing to take that hit if it means preserving programs that protect the most vulnerable citizens and allowing government agencies to effectively do their oversight jobs. Still, I see this tax increase as less harmful as all the austerity measures currently proposed.

While the Tea Party may have started out as a grass roots movement with good intentions and wanting to rein in spending, they have been co-opted by right-wing groups who are funding extremist candidates who will further those groups’ radical agenda. It is one thing to cut spending responsibly, it is a whole other matter to decimate programs that help people, making it harder to find the resources to feed and educate their children and to spend money which stimulates the economy; or to eliminate agencies that protect our water and air quality and ensure the safety of drugs, food, and other consumer products. Taxes are what we pay to exist in a civilized society.

The President spoke on August 2 about how spending levels in the bill are near that of the Eisenhower era. That’s supposed to be a good thing? That does not bode well for 21st century America. We are a vastly different country than we were in the 1950s. James K. Galbraith states clearly why these funding levels will be difficult: “the proposed cuts would reduce discretionary public spending as a share of GDP to what it was before the government had any major role in transportation, housing, education, safety, health, medical research or environmental protection. To where it was before the NIH or the CDC, before HUD, before the EPA, before OSHA, before the Department of Education. This is a false promise: those cuts cannot and will not be found.”

Cuts sound great in the aggregate, but not so good when people start discovering the specifics because when a program that has benefited them is on the chopping block, it’s not so great anymore. In the end, al of us will have to make sacrifices. You can’t decrease the deficit by solely putting the burden on the backs of the middle and working classes and the poor, and if for no other reason, because it is morally reprehensible to do so—especially to the poor. We are better people than this.

Parting note:

The biggest issue in all of this (that is missing in the discussion) is the influence of money in our political system. Our elected officials have been, and are, bought by Wall Street and the wealthy who have been influencing and writing legislation over the past 40 years (actually, since the founding of our country) to benefit themselves by gaming the system. I recommend 13 Bankers if you want all the gory details (and fault is attributed to both Republican and Democratic Administrations).

One recent example of this is the intense and expensive lobbying efforts by the financial industry (who received huge taxpayer bailouts if you recall) against the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. These lobbyists have worked tirelessly to weaken the bill, making future bailouts of “too big to fail” institutions a virtual guarantee come the next financial crisis, and mark my word, there will be another one. In fact, some of the “too big to fail” banks are even bigger now than they were in 2008 due to consolidations. Coincidentally, the Center for Public Integrity reported on Wall Street’s continuing lobbying efforts Tuesday, August 2.

Money in politics and elections has corrupted our whole system. The amount of money poured into election campaigns is disgusting. Think of the good that money could do if special interests and corporations weren't spending it buying and bribing politicians. Do you think your $50-$100 donation gives you the same access and influence as someone who donates $10,000, $100,000 or a $1,000,000? It does not, so how do we change the system? That’s the question to keep asking.

Give me a Break!

2011-08-03T08:59:00.000-07:00

This is a travesty. 4000 FAA workers have been furloughed, air traffic controllers and airplane inspectors are not being paid yet they are using their own credit cards to cover travel and hotel expenses to get to inspection sites to make sure customers are safe. Tens of thousands of other workers in construction and support services related to the industry are affected as well. This is all due to haggling over a $16.5 million cut in subsidies to small rural airports. What is this stalemate costing U.S. taxpayers? $30 million a day, and could cost us over $1billion in lost revenue by Labor Day. So what does Congress do? Congress goes on break for a month. Give me a break!

Interestingly enough and not surprisingly, there appears to be union-busting efforts underway in this legislation. I’m not averse to cutting subsidies, but leave the labor negotiations for another time. FAA financing ended last month and now airlines are unable to collect taxes on ticket sales. So the airlines are aren’t collecting taxes, but they are not passing that extra revenue onto customers in reduced fares either.

If Congress had been responsible, they would’ve passed a clean funding bill and when they returned started working through all the issues. This impasse has increased unemployment, it has further burdened the government with loss of revenue, and it is potentially threatening the safety of airline passengers (though government officials claim we are safe).

One commenter put it very well: “Welcome to the new America. We won't tax rich people but you can work for nothing. As an extra benefit we won't collect all of those taxes that Airlines are still collecting. Anyone flying in the next few weeks? Hope you have a safe trip as airlines can police themselves!”’

Well, I’m flying tomorrow night. Good luck to me!

Raising the Debt Ceiling and the Deficit Reduction Debate

2011-07-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

Americans care about jobs. They also care about deficits, but at the moment, not nearly as much as they care about job creation. People understand what it is to have a job or to be unemployed, but when discussing the details of deficit reduction their eyes start to glaze over. The Washington elite believe that deficit reduction is foremost in the American psyche and so our leaders refuse to get serious about job creation, and are instead focusing on deficit reduction, refusing to raise the debt ceiling until they get their way (this is mostly on the Republican side). We need to reduce the deficit, no one is debating that it is not necessary, but it should be done when the economy is on better footing. However, since our elected officials are focused on deficit reduction, that will be the topic of this and future posts.

The biggest untruth some legislators are spouting is that deficit reduction and fiscal health will come only from either the spending side or the revenue side. Deficit reduction will not happen with either of these extreme approaches, at least not without inflicting much pain on our most vulnerable citizens or stifling job creation through exorbitant taxation. Most economists agree that it will take a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to achieve deficit reduction of the magnitude needed; anything else is a blatant lie. All of us, including the wealthy, are going to have to suck it up if we want to restore fiscal health to this country for posterity’s sake. Sadly, the prospect of future prosperity looks very bleak in today’s divisive political climate.

Democrats (though not all) are at least willing to put programs on the chopping block, some of which do not even need reform yet but will at some point down the road (e.g. - Social Security is fully solvent through 2036; and thereafter pays out at about 75%). Republicans, on the other hand, refuse to consider any deal that provides for revenue increases – even the elimination of ethanol subsidies and tax loopholes for big oil producers. They also balked last week at figures the President presented that were a 6:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases—I reiterate that ratio: 6:1. In prior years, this would have been a huge victory for conservatives, but oddly now it is not.

This past weekend, GOP leaders refused a deal that included lowering tax subsidies for military bands and the Pentagon’s sponsorship of NASCAR to promote military recruitment. Defense spending can no longer be a sacred cow, especially when taxpayers are funding these types of ancillary military programs. Defense spending must be on the chopping block as well as social programs. Cold war weapons and bases continue to be funded that are no longer essential to our security, but we keep pouring money into them because the U.S. military-industrial complex has an insatiable appetite and must be fed. Sen. Tom Coburn (R - OK) has said as much: “We should start by taking common sense steps like freezing defense spending until the Pentagon can pass an audit and remove all nondefense spending from the Pentagon's budget. Our nation's military leaders understand the need to cut spending. Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible.”

There are numerous policy decisions made and legislation passed over the past 40 years—by both Republican and Democratic administrations—that have contributed to the mess we are in today. (To learn more about this, I recommend 13 Bankers by Simon Johnson and James Kwak, which you can find a link to on my March 9 blog post.) During the George W. Bush administration, Republicans raised the debt ceiling seven times without any type of austerity deal on the table, so to believe they’ve suddenly become fiscally prudent deficit hawks is disingenuous. Their intransigence in this debate is due to a Democratic president leading this country, and they want to see him fail; they’ve said as much publicly, many times.

Even when he adopts policy positions Republicans have held in the past, they suddenly reverse their position and are now against it. There are fascinating policy reversals going on: mandates in health insurance reform were at one time a Republican idea, as was cap and trade. Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post in May how the Republican Party is defined by their opposition to the president’s agenda.

There are several deficit reduction proposals, spanning the ideological spectrum, that have been written over the past couple of years. They all offer at least some ideas that reasonable people can agree on, but when leaders draw a line in the sand and say "we won’t raise taxes" or "we won’t cut entitlements", the country is at an impasse. When Republicans in Congress are pressured to sign Grover Norquist’s (President of Americans for Tax Reform) Taxpayer Protection Pledge, it ties their hands when revenue increases make sense for the fiscal good of this country. It is highly irresponsible for elected officials to sign such a pledge.

Norquist came up with this “no-tax increase” idea when he was a mere teenager. In Lori Montgomery’s article “Running in the red: among GOP, anti-tax orthodoxy runs deep” she writes: The germ of the pledge came to Norquist, he said, when he was 14 and thinking about a teacher’s comment that no one knows who his or her congressman is. If republicans were known as the party that never raised taxes, he recalls thinking, they would be spared “millions of dollars explaining to you who they are and what they stand for.” They could just “stand up and say, ‘I’m the Republican.’ And you go: ‘He won’t raise my taxes and he won’t steal my guns. Got it.’”

It’s brilliant in its simplicity, but toxic to running a country. One could deduce that Norquist and promoters of this pledge want to encourage Americans to remain fourteen-year-olds, to reject the critical thinking that is necessary to understanding why it might be prudent to raise taxes, close tax loopholes, reform the tax code, and yes, incentivize companies to keep jobs here in this country by refusing to provide subsidies and tax cuts to those that move jobs overseas. No offense to bright and responsible fourteen-year-olds (yes, they are out there), but the GOP seems to want people to think like teenagers, to be oblivious to the GOP starve-the-beast ideology and how it has negatively impacted the country, and continues to do so. (For more information on this, I recommend Thomas Frank’s The Wrecking Crew.)

In upcoming posts, I will explore the spending cuts and the tax revenues that might enable us to make progress reducing the deficit. People love the idea of spending cuts, except for when they involve programs that benefit them. The bottom line is all of us are going to have to suffer a little pain, even those at the top, though even if we raise their top income taxes a measly 4%, they still wouldn’t feel the pain that middle-, working-, and low-income Americans would experience.

The question is: are Americans truly ready to make the cuts and accept the tax increases that are necessary to provide a solid economic future for our children and grandchildren? If so, we the people are going to have to push our leaders because they seem impotent to act…they are posturing and engaging in political theater, and it’s disgraceful. Republicans need to negotiate. Their “it’s our way or no way” stance is not what the majority of Americans want or need; they want and need compromise. President Obama has offered up some of the Democratic base’s sacred cows (much to the base’s chagrin), now it’s time for the GOP to do the same.

As Jared Bernstein writes on today's Huffington Post: It's not Obama's debt ceiling, it's America's

What’s your take on Washington’s inability to compromise?

Note: I have stopped the Weekly Rant because it was too much to keep up with.

My Take on the GOP Presidential Debate in New Hampshire – June 13, 2011

2011-06-16T13:23:00.000-07:00

The big takeaway from Monday night’s GOP presidential debate was that all seven candidates think President Obama has done nothing positive for this country. (I refute that notion here in my October 28, 2010, blog post.) The candidates stayed on point attacking Obama and his policies at every turn, yet remained quite deferential—unsettlingly so—to each other. Even former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, at moderator John King’s encouragement, refused to defend and elaborate on the “Obamneycare” comment he’d made the day before on a Sunday talk show (of course, Pawlenty was standing right next to the former Massachusetts governor, so perhaps he was a bit intimidated). I have to believe that all the candidates received strict instructions from the “powers that be” (RNC/Tea Party leaders) to play nice with each other and go after Obama instead. We know how disciplined most Republicans are towing the party line; I wish I could say the same about the Democrats (but that’s for another post).

I managed to force myself to watch the first twenty-two minutes of the debate—which was really not a debate because there was very little policy disagreement between the participants. Once Herman Cain declared capital gains taxes should be eliminated (they are currently taxed at a modest 15%), I’d had enough. The anti-tax policies embraced so fiercely by these candidates would create even bigger deficits than we have now. In fact, Tim Pawlenty’s tax proposal has been widely debunked by most economists as a complete fantasy (especially his overly-optimistic 5% annual growth numbers).

Michele Bachmann’s proposal to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency is even more astonishing. Are American supposed to ensure that their own water supply is not contaminated by toxins? Or that the soil and natural resources surrounding them aren’t being destroyed and polluted by manufacturing companies, power plants, or nuclear reactors? This type of oversight should be under the government’s purview, not an individual’s. The policies and ideas these candidates are proposing are naïve and dangerous, and my hope is that the vast majority of Americans are tuned in enough to realize this.

Andy Ostroy summed up the marriage equality issue on Huffington Post Tuesday morning: “On the subject of gay marriage, all candidates hypocritically said they'd support a Constitutional amendment outlawing it despite all firmly believing in states' rights. I guess when it comes to gays, government knows best.” Herman Cain’s bigotry was on display as he spewed anti-Muslim comments and embraced racial and religious profiling. I wonder if he has the same disdain toward “militant” Christian fundamentalists who terrorize abortion doctors, or even white terrorists the likes of Timothy McVeigh?

Not one of the GOP’s candidates had a credible plan for creating jobs. They merely repeated the general Party-line mantra of lower taxes and less regulation. Anyone paying attention over the past five years or so realizes that regulations have not been enforced in the finance and energy sectors (the big two where we consistently see problems). The Massey Mining disaster, the BP oil spill, the financial meltdown of 2008—these disasters didn’t happen because of too much regulation; they happened because regulators weren’t doing their jobs: either they were being paid not to regulate, were offered future jobs with these companies if they looked the other way or wrote false positive reports, or were completely unqualified for their oversight or department head appointments in the first place (remember Michael Brown, “Brownie”, of Hurricane Katrina fame?).

There seems to be too little regulation in this country, though many people strongly refute that claim. Perhaps the bigger issue is that current regulations are not being enforced. (I recommend reading 13 Bankers for a detailed history of financial industry deregulation over the past forty years.) Corporations and right-wing ideologues (and some Democrats) believe industries are capable of policing themselves; we’ve see that this is blatantly not true. Greed seems to nearly always trump right action in the end, and usually to the financial detriment of the majority of working and middle class people, while more often than not the ones responsible for the devastation go on living their privileged lives, facing little or no retribution for their actions.

Today, a mix of capitalism and socialism is what we have in this country, and people like it, whether they are willing to admit it or not. In a February 2009 Newsweek article “We’re all Socialists Now” the author writes that: “The U.S. government has already—under a conservative Republican administration—effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.” It is further written: “We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.”

It would be interesting to design an experiment around these government haters– one that includes only them because I don’t want to be part of that experiment—where government is not involved in any aspect of their lives; where they completely fend for only themselves and their families – no “free ride” of any sort for them. I wonder how long they would remain happily living in that type of society.

Turning the focus now to job creation and balancing budgets, Romney and Pawlenty have dismal records. As Robert Gibbs stated in an interview on MSNBC: “Mitt Romney, whose state of Massachusetts ranked 47 out of 50 in job creation when he was governor, would have ranked 48th if it weren’t for Hurricane Katrina,” and he stated that Tim Pawlenty had “6 billion dollars in deficits as he was turning out the lights on the way out to run for president.”

This country has many problems, and yes, the deficit must be tackled, but right now creating jobs and getting people to work should be more important than deficit reduction. Fareed Zakaria presented a solution at the beginning of his show GPS on CNN this past Sunday that involves both the government and the private sector by addressing our vast infrastructure problem. We can put people to work repairing our crumbling infrastructure. This is not only a good place to start, but a necessary job that must be done, if nothing else to ensure the safety of the American people as they travel on roads and bridges and through tunnels.

After reading about and assessing these GOP candidates for myself, it is more important than ever for President Obama and congressional Democrats to step it up and show how they differ from their Republican counterparts. Because honestly, as much as the right wants to claim Obama is a socialist and his policies are destroying this country, he has embraced many conservative ideas, and like conservatives, has been very friendly to Wall Street and the wealthy—extending all the Bush tax cuts and allowing financial reform legislation (Dodd-Frank) to be watered down. Sadly the banks are still too big to fail.

The President has continued many Bush-era policies to the dismay of progressives, particularly expanding the war in Afghanistan as well as The Patriot Act. He hasn’t fought for Main Street the way we had hoped. He vowed to stand and fight beside union workers during the 2008 presidential campaign, but where has he been during the protests in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, etc.? Instead, he has pretty much stayed out of the fray and kowtowed to Wall Street interests, just as Republicans do.

There is not much difference between centrist Republicans and Democrats these days…the main trend we see are conservatives moving further to the right, thus pushing centrist policies toward the right. Progressives are the ones making all the compromises and it is frustrating. We feel taken for granted by our leaders, and we are, we have been.

It is way past time for President Obama to step up his game—more action and less soaring rhetoric. He needs to stop playing into the conservative myth that “trickle-down economics” is the answer. Clearly since the Reaganomics experiment, we’ve seen that "trickle down" is not the answer to achieving broader prosperity and lower deficits. David Stockman, Reagan’s first-term budget director, has even discredited supply-side economics.

I will vote for Obama because the Republican alternatives are too frightening. However, unless I see some action on his part in the passing or supporting of policies that create jobs and benefit American workers instead of corporate fat cats, his campaign won’t receive another cent from me.

The Weekly Rant (My wrap-up of the week's good, the bad, and the ugly headlines)

2011-06-04T08:51:00.000-07:00

This week’s rant starts with the usual list of items that are positive and praiseworthy. (Due to the Memorial Day weekend, I did not post a rant last week.)

1. Congratulations to Jill Abramson – The New York Times' first female executive editor. Ms. Abramson is a Pulitzer Prize winner who joined The Times in 1997; she had previously worked at The Wall Street Journal. She has been managing editor at the NYTs since August 2003.

2. Not much truly impresses me, but someone who can speak two or more languages—that impresses me, and research finds it is good for your brain.

3. And more brain power: belief effects healing.

4. The Last Mountain is an important documentary highlighting the detrimental effects of mountaintop mining in Appalachia. Mountaintop mining is devastating to the environment and consequently to the health and well-being of the Appalachian people. The Last Mountain is playing in NYC this weekend and is scheduled for limited release throughout the country.

5. HHS’s rejection of Indiana’s Medicaid Plan (their defunding of Planned Parenthood) is a small victory of sorts for the women of Indiana. My hometown paper even published an op-ed (May 23 edition) about Governor Daniels’ and Republican legislators careless disregard for women’s health in the state.

6. One way to counter the Citizens United ruling: shareholders. Shareholders may be the key to holding corporations accountable and transparent with where they spend their political campaign dollars…sounds like a good first step to me.

There was plenty to rant about over the past week, and though it was hard to narrow it down, I limited it to the following:

1. NJ Governor Christie made the news this week a couple times. One, for abandoning the 10-state initiative in the Northeast that was a cap-and-trade system to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants (another of his short-sighted, lacking-in-vision policy decisions); and two, for using a state police helicopter to attend his son’s baseball game (whether legal or not, it looks highly hypocritical for someone who is always preaching fiscal responsibility). [Note: he did end up reimbursing the state, saying he only did so because the issue was becoming a distraction.]

2. Virginity checks conducted on protestors in Egypt - are you freaking kidding me???!!! When, when, when will these stupid men understand women don’t have to maintain their virginity until they are married….men sure as hell don’t over in Egypt, or anywhere else in this world, for that matter – I guarantee it. This double standard is disgusting and only perpetuates male dominance over women. In some of these countries, men are granted “temporary” marriages by imams that allow them basically to have premarital sex (religion-sanctioned pre-marital sex for men) with prostitutes or some unwilling virgin….ugh!!! This just makes me want to scratch their eyes out. These men are pigs. Whew…I feel a wee bit better after that rant.

The exploitation of women and children is ubiquitous, and why is it so difficult to stop? These stories of forced prostitution of children and women are heartbreaking. One commenter on the NY Times web site put it quite succinctly: “Unless parents, or others, who sell children, brothel owners who buy them, "customers" who abuse them, and the corrupt police who look the other way are all confronted with long sentences handed down quickly, there is little to deter child trafficking.”

3. Arts funding is being slashed in some states. It’s amazing to me that people don’t recognize arts jobs are “real” jobs and they contribute to a city’s, a state’s, a country’s economy. Republicans are desperate to cut funding for arts organizations but fine with continuing taxpayer subsidies for big oil and gas and coal companies, agribusiness, and ethanol producers? Stunning…

4. A revealing look at our country’s crumbling infrastructure…the report card is shocking, but there are solutions to this critical problem if our leaders can find the political will.

5. The May jobs report released today was bleak, with unemployment rising to 9.1%. Legislators need to stop focusing on the long-term deficit (though it will need to be addressed eventually) and turn their attention to job creation—that’s what Americans desperately need and what they want. Robert Reich offers some solutions that should be implemented.

The (lame) quote of the week:

“I can’t say with certitude lewd photo wasn’t me.” ~ Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

Lucky Seven...Years since BMT

2011-06-01T06:25:00.000-07:00

Andrew & I - Christmas 2010 in Tell City, IN

Today I celebrate my second birthday. I am seven years old. The anniversary of my bone marrow transplant is always a time for celebration, even if it’s only me celebrating. It is amazing to me that it has been seven years because I remember so much of it quite vividly, yet at the same time, it seems an eternity ago. So much has happened in those seven years since I wrote the following:

Excerpt from Rebirth:
June 1, 2004 - Tuesday, Transplant Day (Rebirth Day) Day 0

As the day wore on and the time approached for Barbara’s stem cells to be transfused into me, sorrow replaced anxiety. I am losing a part of me as her stem cells replace mine and begin producing her blood in my body. My blood type will change from O- to O+, which is Barbara’s blood type. This changing of blood type is somewhat unsettling to me. However, I also view this day as one of rebirth—another birthday to celebrate. It is extraordinary how this whole bone marrow transplant process works. It is truly miraculous. And not only is this a physical rebirth, but because of all the self-reflection and positive changes I’m attempting to make in my life, it is a spiritual and emotional rebirth as well. So despite feeling melancholy over what I’m losing, there is excitement and anticipation about what I’m gaining. I thank God for the new stem cells that will generate new and healthy blood in my body and grant me a second chance at life.

Around 3:30 p.m., Dr. Hsu, another physician in Dr. Goldberg’s oncology group, administered the blood transfusion. The transplant was a slow intravenous infusion through my catheter of the bone marrow collected from Barbara. Karen B was already stationed at my bedside and Karen waltzed into the room just minutes before the doctor began the procedure. The transplant, which took all of twenty minutes, was uneventful except for an intense scratchiness in my throat caused by the preservative in the blood. I was given Benadryl prior to the transfusion, which quickly sent me off to la-la land. Meanwhile, my sister and friend sat vigil, watching my blood pressure rise and fall, sometimes significantly, on the monitor. The nurses assured them that this was normal.

I’ve always been a little superstitious about the number seven—in a good way. I was born on the 7^thand 7 is believed to be God’s number—there are many references to it in the Bible. There are many references throughout history about the origins of lucky number seven. Many of my family members’ birth dates are multiples of seven: my nephew Andrew was born on the 14^th and he will be 7 in August. He is my life marker since BMT because in a way Barbara gave birth to both of us in 2004—she was my bone marrow donor while pregnant with him. There is a very deep connection between me and that little boy, who is gorgeous and smart and funny.

I feel lucky and so blessed to have not just lived, but thrived these past seven years. I don’t know why I survived and other cancer survivors I’ve known did not. All I know is that my life is a gift, and with that gift comes a responsibility to give back. I also try to enjoy and appreciate every day I’ve been granted since my cancer diagnosis. I wake up every morning, giving thanks for another day on this glorious planet, even when I’m highly disgruntled with current events in this country and around the world.

Even if suffering through an illness is not one’s fate, not one of us is guaranteed tomorrow, so don’t put off doing activities, taking trips, or being with the people who are most important to you; or taking a risk to accomplish a long-desired goal that you have been too scared for one reason or another to pursue. Life is scary; taking risks is scary, but I’ve more often times than not found those risks to be more than worth it.

I heard someone the other day say that life is not fair, and asked why do bad things happen to good people? Life is not fair—bad things happen to good people and wonderful things happen to terrible people; sometimes there seems to be no justice. However, and as much as I want justice, fairness and equality to prevail, it’s not the justice that matters. What matters is how you play the cards you are dealt. Do you fall apart and live with anger and fear, or do you embrace [accept] what is and figure out how to live your life in the best way possible for you and for those who interact with you at any given moment?

One of my favorite stories that Thich Nhat Hanh includes in his book The Miracle of Mindfulness is Leo Tolstoy’s “Three Questions.” Versions of the story vary slightly, but it is summarized below an the excerpt from Rebirth.

April 6, 2004 – Tuesday

In The Miracle of Mindfulness, Thich Nhat Hanh recounts a story by Tolstoy about an emperor searching for the answer to three questions:

1. What is the best time to do each thing?

2. Who are the most important people to work with?

3. What is the most important thing to do at all times?

The answer is this:

Remember that there is only one important time and that is now. The present moment is the only time over which we have dominion. The most important person is always the person you are with, who is right before you, for who knows if you will have dealings with any other person in the future? The most important pursuit is making the person standing at your side happy, for that alone is the pursuit of life.

Often we forget that it is the very people around us that we must live for first of all.

To this day, seven years later, I try to remember the answers to those questions and to be present whether I am with work colleagues, friends, or family members, especially those nieces and nephews whom I was not sure I’d live to see grow up, or even see some of them born. Lucky number seven…it has been for me anyway.

The Weekly Rant (My wrap-up of the week's good, the bad, and the ugly headlines)

2011-05-21T09:58:00.000-07:00

I always like to start out with a bit of praise.

Joan Goble (Global Goble) awarded Teacher of the Year!
I offer congratulations to my friend Joan who is an incredible asset to the public education system in this country. She was recently awarded Teacher of the Year from the Indiana Small and Rural Schools Association.

To learn more about Joan and her inspiring story, see the March 14 post on my blog.

Eric Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General is going after Wall Street, finally!
“Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic.”

“..an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole.”

“Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the US Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government.”

The Nation article, referenced above, reveals why Americans should insist on getting money out of politics and banishing the revolving door from government jobs to private-sector jobs and vice versa, particularly those government jobs that involve oversight and regulation.

Rants:
Children in strollers do not belong on escalators.
There is a reason the signs above escalators read “no strollers”: it is dangerous! On Wednesday, May 18, I nearly witnesses catastrophe for one toddler. The parents were right in front of me on one of the down escalators at the Port Authority. Their toddler was sitting in the stroller, the handles of which were being held by the father. The stroller wheels got stuck at the end of the escalator, and the dad couldn’t push it off. Instinctively, I grabbed the stroller handle and with as much force as I could muster, pushed the dad and the stroller off. The mother, father, and I were all in a state of panic.

I looked at the couple and strongly admonished them, “This is why you don’t put strollers on escalators. Take the kid out, fold up the stroller, and carry both of them down, or up, the escalator!” I walked away from the shaken parents, shaking my head in frustration.

I see this careless behavior repeatedly on escalators in New York, especially going in and out of the subway at Port Authority and Grand Central. People do not realize what a danger this is to their children. That little boy could’ve have been seriously injured, or worse. His parents and the people behind them on the escalator could’ve been injured as well, if people started piling up because the stroller was stuck at the end of the escalator and people couldn’t get off.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves, and I am glad I said something to those parents. I usually hold my tongue, but in this instance, I couldn’t refrain from saying something. Maybe in the future, they will look for an elevator or take the child out of the stroller before proceeding onto an escalator.

Powerful men who commit adultery or rape or pay for prostitutes – same old, sad story

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former IMF chief, who resigned his post May 18, 2011, was indicted yesterday for sexual assault of a hotel maid.

Arnold Schwarzenegger admitted to fathering the child of a housekeeper who was in his family’s employ.

The John Ensign affair gets more revealing and tawdry by the day, revealing more people complicit in his deception—Senator Tom Coburn, for one.

To family-values hypocrites, some words of wisdom:

1. Practice what you preach.

2. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Gail Collins nails it this week in her column “The Year of Living Adulterously” and Rachel Maddow addresses this issue in a segment from her May 17 show.

Personally, I could care less if a politician or celebrity or anyone else for that matter commits adultery. What I do care about is if they profess to possess strong family values and disparage others for marital indiscretions then it is exposed that they are engaging in the exact type of behavior they are railing against. This revelation of hypocrisy is when a private life becomes fair game.

And the secret money will continue to pour in…
In “Is the New Republican Super Pac Legal?”, Republican lawyer James Bopp states it quite bluntly: telling Danny Yadron of The Wall Street Journal that he expected opposition from campaign finance reformers and that it didn't matter. "The Supreme Court doesn't care, and I don't care, and the [Federal Election Commission] doesn't care," Bopp said, "No one that matters cares."

There will never be decent campaign finance reform in this country, because Bopp is right: No one that matters cares. This is why our entire system is corrupt. We do not live in a democracy; we live in a plutocracy cloaked in the disguise of democracy, and it’s been structured that way since the founding of our country.

In his book The Great Turning, David C. Korten writes:

Once independence was won, the colonial elites who inserted themselves to take control of what had been a self-organized rebellion turned their attention to securing their hold on the institutions of government. The human rights that had been carefully delineated in the earlier Declaration of Colonial Rights, and the principle that all men are born equal and enjoy a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so elegantly articulated in the Declaration of Independence, fell by the wayside. The focus shifted to securing the interests of industrialists, bankers, and slave-owning plantation owners and assuring that the powers of government would remain in the hands of white men of means. Empire morphed once again into a new form but remained true to the essential organizing principle of domination. What the founders brought forth is best described as a constitutional plutocracy with an agenda of imperial expansion.

Korten's book is an interesting read on the history of empire over the past 5000 years, and he offers solutions as to how we can change the direction of the world from that of empire to earth community, engendering healthy, sustainable communities and saving the environment, and thus our planet.

Newt Gingrich pulled a Sarah Palin.
Newt is whining that the media is distorting his “exact words”; words quoted in context, not manipulated. He bemoans that he wasn’t prepared for David Gregory’s interview on Meet the Press on May 15 (though he has been on that program 35 times) and accused Gregory of asking him “gotcha” questions. Oh, Newt…you’re not a media novice, so quit playing the victim.

Cancer Cuts Save Money, Cost Lives: Nancy G. Brinker writes in her post on Politico: “These women don’t just disappear because funding for early detection is cut. Eventually, they’ll show up at our hospitals with late-stage cancers that have a lower chance of survival and are five times more costly to treat.”

This is a major fail on the part of republican policymakers. Cutting funding for low-income and young women is short-sighted and cruel, but it’s happening all across the country. This collective attack on women’s health is stunning, and even more stunning are the women taking part in the unraveling of Roe v. Wade.

The H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is a façade since this is already law and has been since 1976 with the Hyde Amendment…this just makes it more difficult for private health insurance plans to offer abortion coverage to women and may force IRS involvement in personal medical decisions. This is legislation devised by people who profess to believe in small government. This type of legislating is anything but small; it is about as big as it gets when government can interfere with very personal medical decisions.

Quote of the week:"You know I've always said the hallmark of an honest conversation starts with, 'If you quote me directly utilizing videotape of my comments in context, you're lying'." ~ Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Daily Show, Gingrich segment - May 18

The Weekly Rant (My wrap-up of the week's good, the bad, and the ugly headlines)

2011-05-14T15:29:00.000-07:00

This week’s rant begins with shout-outs to General Motors, Senator John McCain, and the Senate Finance Committee.

General Motors plans to hire 4000+ employees. After filing bankruptcy and restructuring, GM is now ready to create new jobs and bring back some old ones. The Wall Street Journal reported that “The latest hiring plan is in addition to several announced over the last year to bring back around 9,000 laid-off workers and hire some new employees. It would mark the first significant new hiring for the Detroit auto maker since it emerged from bankruptcy in 2009.”

Senator John McCain wrote an op-ed against the use of torture in the Washington Post on May 11. Senator McCain is right on this issue. I just wish he’d been a bit more vocal about it over the past year or so as Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, et al were praising and encouraging the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (a euphemism for torture in many instances).

Oil Executives were beckoned to Capitol Hill where they were grilled about their need for billions in taxpayer subsidies by the Senate Finance Committee. "Businesses should make a profit -- that’s what drives our economy -- but do these very profitable companies actually need taxpayer subsidies?" asked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), as he kicked off Thursday's hearing. "Energy incentives should help us build the energy future we want to see -- not pad oil company profits."

Finally, there is push back on these unnecessary tax breaks…these companies have more money than God yet are begging for corporate welfare. The Big Five—Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips—made about $34 billion in profits the first quarter of 2011, up 42% from a year ago. I think they are doing okay.

This hearing is probably a big show for the Democrats but at least it exposes the audacity, hubris, and greed of these CEOs and this industry. What about shared responsibility? It’s okay for the government to cut money for Pell Grants for poor college students but not for rich oil titans?

The rant

Newt Gingrich jumped into the 2012 presidential race this week. Let the fun begin. This man is not fit to be preseident, and though he claims to possess morality and decency (he's a changed man) and cloaks himself in religion, his questionable past and his distateful comments about anyone who disagrees with his ideology, demonstrate anything but morality and decency. The man is nothing more than a demagogue who would set women’s, minorities’, homosexuals’ and workers’ rights—basically a vast majority of Americans’ rights—back to the dark ages. The New York Times outlines Gingrich’s intolerance of those who hold opposing views from his in “Mr. Gingrich’s Intolerant History” while Talking Points Memo compiled their own list in “Newt Shall Rise Again: Gingrich’s Greatest Hits (Against Obama).”

The Mike Huckabee Fixes American History (Video) is now for sale. It is an animated video series for children and touted to be an unbiased look at American history.

Seriously, how unbiased can this video series be? It’s put together by someone who spews right-wing religious ideology to his supporters on a daily basis. His goal appears to be that of whitewashing and rewriting history, similar to what the school board members in Texas did last year when they voted to rewrite content in the history and economic textbooks from which their children will be taught. If we do not examine the dark parts of our history, how will we ever learn from our mistakes and not repeat them? Our students should be challenged to think critically, to be subjected to various points of view, along the entire spectrum of left to right, but more importantly, they should be presented with facts.

History is always written from the victor’s point of view, but what about the losers? What stories are told or remain of their struggles? Unfortunately, many Americans refuse to face the dark side of our history. I don’t understand why many of my fellow Americans are afraid to examine our ugly and violent past where atrocities were committed against Native Americans, blacks, poor immigrants, the Japanese, women—I could go on. Let’s make this country better; not take it back to the 1700s, 1800s, or even before the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which appears to be the direction many of our elected officials want to steer us. Rewriting history is not going to make us “exceptional,” except perhaps in our imaginations.

GOP Freshmen On Medicare Attacks: Let's Let Bygones Be Bygones

If the Democrats fail to use the House GOP’s votes to turn Medicare into a voucher program to their electoral advantage, the Dems truly have no spine or guts. The House GOP Freshmen sent a letter to President Obama that requests: “We ask that you stand above partisanship, condemn the disingenuous attacks and work with this Congress to reform spending on entitlement programs."

Mr. President, reject their request outright. When has this group EVER risen above partisanship? They have shown their true colors to the electorate now let them pay the price.

Residents in Michigan are being disfranchised. The most insidious and underreported tactic currently being used to get budget deficits under control is happening in Michigan. The mainstream media (excluding Rachel Maddow) and most elected officials are not talking about this attack on democracy—at all. Thanks to a new Michigan law, the governor can appoint an emergency manager to have total control over a municipality or school system deemed to be in dire financial straits. This is one of the most undemocratic, un-American actions taken by any government official in this country, and one of the most dangerous. If this continues to happen in towns across Michigan with little or no push-back, guaranteed it is going to start happening in other states across the country.

This disfranchisement of the people goes against everything for which our democracy is supposed to stand. As Gary Brown, Detroit council president pro tem, says: “It would be the end of the democratic process as Detroiters know it. You'd basically have a dictator that's not accountable to the citizens of the city of Detroit."

Quote of the week: John Stewart on Sean Hannity’s outrage about rapper Common performing at the White House :

"This isn't even fun anymore. It took longer to play that clip than it did to find it."

Watch Stewart’s Daily Show clips to see what the quote is referencing.

The Weekly Rant (My wrap-up of the week's good, the bad, and the ugly headlines)

2011-05-06T14:00:00.000-07:00

The first weekly rant commences with congratulating President Obama on finishing the job that President Bush started in 2001. My conservative friends may take umbrage with this, but if Osama’s demise had occurred under Bush’s watch, he would’ve gotten the credit for it, too. Lawrence O’Donnell stated quite succinctly: “President George W. Bush had 2,686 days to catch Osama bin Laden; President Barack Obama got that job done in 831.”

The picture below is one of my favorites as it shows the President and his national security team in the Situation Room watching events unfold in Pakistan. One can sense the tension in the room.

Photo courtesy of White House photographer Pete Souza.

Americans who refuse to give President Obama little or no credit for finding bin Laden, need to understand that this was a carefully planned mission over eight months, where intelligence was collected, surveillance was conducted, and the Navy SEALs participated in practice sessions to make sure all details were in place. Even during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama stated his Pakistan policy.

This clip, courtesy of MSNBC, reminds us that capturing bin Laden was not exactly a priority of the Bush administration; Bush said publicly that bin Laden was not really important anymore, going all the way back in 2002. Is it really a shocker that he wasn't captured then? It was more important to go after Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq over non-existent nuclear weapons (and I’m not excusing Democrats from this either…they were part of this debacle, too).

And to those accusing the President of being weak on foreign policy, Robert J. Elisberg writes in a recent post that slow, patient, thoughtful actions are often the best, smartest way to do things, rather than swaggering on top of cars with a bullhorn or a flight deck papered with banners.

Lastly, I can always count on Stephen Colbert to offer his hilarious take on events and comments from political pundits.

Other issues of importance this week:

The GOP continued their assault on abortion rights with this week's HR 3 vote – Do legislators understand that abortion is legal in this country? They are doing everything they can to undermine and make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, to receive preventive health care (through their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood), not to mention the horrific redefinition of rape legislation being proposed. The National Women’s Law Center outlines these issues quite well. If you care about women’s reproductive rights and health care, start paying attention and be sure to contact your senators, representatives, and state legislators because it is at the state level that many draconian bills are currently being constructed (more on that to come).

Finance reform is taking further hits as Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) get caught in legislative crosshairs. In a recent New York Times op-ed it was written: “The bureau (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) has one purpose: to shield consumers from unfair, misleading and deceptive lending. The purpose of the Republican bills is twofold. One is to deprive the agency of the power to fulfill its mission. Another is to attract campaign money.”

The GOP is trying to block Elizabeth Warren from being appointed to head up the bureau and it is apparent that Wall Street, Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats fear this woman, and rightly so. She is looking out for consumers, she’s intelligent, and she knows the corporatists' games.

Congressman Paul Ryan’s proposed budget and attack on Medicare seems to be getting little traction, mainly because a huge majority of Americans hate it, as it appears to be an attack on the elderly, the handicapped, and the poor. Jonathan Chait wrote this week in The New Republic that Medicaid is a bare-bones program throwing a lifeline to people who are in bad shape. Cutting Medicaid may be the politically easiest way for Ryan to clear budget room to preserve Bush-era revenue levels, as Medicaid patients have little political clout. But it is, well, deeply immoral.

A more centrist alternative to Ryan’s budget has been proposed by The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the People’s Budget.

Wisconsin voters are fighting back against the Governor’s anti-labor legislation with recent electoral wins for Democrats, and signatures continue to be gathered for the recall of several GOP state legislators. (Republicans are also attempting to get enough signatures to recall three Democratic state legislators.)

A Texas teacher provided the perfect example of the type of educator not needed in the classroom.

Lacking compassion – drug testing welfare recipients: I know many people support this, but it is short-sighted, mean-spirited legislation. First, there is very little evidence that the vast majority of people on welfare are taking drugs (probably no more than in the general population). Second, making those who need financial subsidies pay $35 for this test is heartless…these people are scraping by on very little income and that $35 could pay for food or medicine for them or their children. And even if they are taking drugs, what about their children? Should the kids suffer? This type of legislation merely feeds the myth, stereotype, and stigmas associated with low-income families.

Finally, the quote of the week:

“But there can be no doubt that justice, for the families of the 9/11 victims, was agonizingly delayed because the Bush team took a megalomaniacal detour to Baghdad.” ~ Maureen Dowd

The Weekly Rant Debuts Friday, May 6

2011-05-04T14:30:00.000-07:00

The Weekly Rant will be a new segment on my blog starting Friday, May 6, and will be a wrap-up of the week’s headlines—the good, the bad, and the ugly. There are numerous issues that are screaming for the public's attention, and I am unfortunately unable to adequately blog about all of them due to lack of time. Therefore, The Weekly Rant will include a brief shout-out highlighting one to three positive events or news items followed by a list of stories that I think are important and underreported in the MSM.

I am increasingly frustrated by what I see happening around our country and the world, and want to shed light on various issues because I know the vast majority of people do not spend their days as I do reading and watching news. I will post articles from various sources, but as my worldview is from a liberal perspective, the majority of my research will be gleaned from websites and blogs that cater to an audience who embrace ideas that are center to left on the political spectrum. I always back up my point of view with facts and references, so if anyone feels the need to refute anything I write please be prepared to back it up and please, keep it civil. (I monitor all the comments.)

This is my way to release some of the frustration I feel on a daily basis as I watch the chipping away of civil rights, the attacks on organized labor and workers rights, the corruption of our political system, and our country’s slide increasingly toward plutocracy. Yes, that’s my new favorite word—plutocracy.

Until Friday…

The Perfect Gift

2011-04-28T13:37:00.000-07:00

April 21, 2004
11:25 p.m.
I shouldn’t have done it, but tonight I retrieved one of my transplant books and reread it. The pre-transplant section includes suggestions for “Getting Your Affairs in Order.” I don’t have a will, and even if I did, I don’t have a thing to bequeath to anyone. But it made me think. My family would need to know the location of my life insurance policy, I want “The Prayer of St. Francis” and “Amazing Grace” sang at my funeral, and I want to write a message to be read to family and friends after the sermon. (This is the performer in me—even my funeral will be a production!) The passwords of e-mail and various financial accounts need to be shared with family. The addresses of friends who don’t have e-mail (or whose information is not stored in my cell phone) need to be noted so that in the event of my death, they can be contacted. And the most important loose-end is Aidan. I am his godmother, and I long to remain a presence in his life. As a Catholic, he will celebrate many sacraments as he grows into an adult and beyond, and I want to be sure he receives cards and messages from me on those special occasions (as well as high school and college graduations) regardless of my presence in this world.

Thinking about all of this has made me incredibly sad, and I’ve been sobbing for almost two hours now. Part of me wants to organize all of this information, and another part feels that if I do, then I am preparing to die. On the other hand, if I don’t put these things in order and I do die, none of my wishes will be known. I don’t want to die and I’m afraid that by doing these things I’ll be saying, “Okay, I’m ready,” and I’m not ready, and I’m so scared.
(Excerpt from Rebirth)

I posted the above journal entry on my blog the following day and shortly thereafter received a box in the mail from Karryn, a co-worker from my Cigna days in Cincinnati. I opened the package and inside was a floral filing box, about 5” x 9” x 12”. I removed the top and saw that the box was filled with greeting cards—probably more than fifty— for every occasion, even for Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Penance and Reconciliation, and graduations. Karryn had read my blog post and decided that I needed a supply of cards.

I never did prepare all those cards with notes to Aidan in the event of my death. I couldn’t make myself do it, mostly because I refused to envision a future in which I was absent from his life. I suppose had my situation gotten worse and death looked inevitable, I would’ve written the messages and given the cards to his mother for safekeeping.

I have nearly exhausted that supply of cards. I used all the Baptism ones for Andrew, Grace, and Alexa (I had to purchase one for Nathaniel), but this is the first Communion one I've needed. Aidan, who was about sixteen months old when I wrote the above entry, is now eight and will make his First Communion this weekend. It is not only an important day for him, but also a joyous milestone for me: In April 2004 I did not know if I’d live to see him receive this sacrament, yet here I am, seven years later, still an integral part of his life.

I haven’t spoken to, seen, or even corresponded with Karryn in many years, but I will always treasure her gift of greeting cards; it meant the world to me. She saw a need and filled it. During that turbulent and uncertain time, it was the perfect gift.

What perfect gift have you received?

Writing to Heal - Part II

2011-04-25T13:30:00.000-07:00

“I feel as if I have healed myself with my own words. I am making myself well. Writing is my cure.” ~ Carole Buvoso (diarist, writer, director)

The above quote reflects my sentiments about writing, especially during my leukemia treatment period. I was writing to heal/cure myself, so when I designed my journal writing workshop for cancer survivors, I named it Writing for Your Life, because I felt I was indeed writing for my life.

In a workshop last fall, one of the writing exercises I assigned was to write about "an unresolved issue or a person who has hurt you whom you need to forgive." One of my participants had brought her laptop with her because she found it easier to record her thoughts and feelings this way. I suspect, like me, her brain kicks into overdrive and it is easier to keep up with her thoughts via a keyboard than with a pen. I could hear and see her clicking forcefully away on the keys, indicating to me that there was purpose and intensity to what she was typing.

Once the exercise was finished, she leaned back in her chair, ran her fingers through her hair and exclaimed, “Wow, you are right, that was cathartic!” I smiled. I have always found writing to be emotionally cathartic, though curiously, that is one benefit of expressive writing that Professor James A. Pennebaker and other researchers have found little evidence of, unlike the evidence of physical benefits such as reducing stress and blood pressure, decreased pain and increased health in cancer patients, fewer days in the hospital, improved mood and cognitive function as well as improved liver and lung function, to name a few.

Perhaps it is more difficult to assess or measure the emotional health benefits of expressive writing, but I read and hear from writers (of journals and blogs) all the time about how writing is an effective means of dealing with emotional stress. I’ve experienced it in my writing for years. Sometimes it takes as little as one time to write about a hurtful or stressful event and I feel infinitely better; then at other times I may have to write about a topic for months, as the issue surfaces repeatedly, disturbing my emotional equilibrium.

I found myself many years ago over a three month period writing constantly about a manager who made me feel insecure and incompetent. I would leave the office every evening seething with resentment. I felt I could do nothing right. Finally, after months of writing about my frustration and anger, it hit me: I must stop taking this personally. This person behaves this way with everyone, and he doesn’t even realize it. Finally, when I started standing up for myself and pushing back, our relationship began to change. My manager was unaware of how his actions were impacting me adversely. Admittedly, I allowed him to negatively affect me, which is something I know I have control over. However, until he was made aware of how I felt, he couldn’t make the necessary changes and I couldn’t expect him to—he’s not a mind reader.

I am a big believer that people treat us the way we allow them to treat us. Writing exposed the lack of confidence I possessed to stand up for myself, and how I was allowing someone else to adversely affect my emotional well-being. Furthermore, I examined how he behaved with everyone, not just me, and discovered this was not personal, that he did not hate me. Writing provided me a way to vent my frustrations and anger without having to involve another human being…though I must admit I did do a little of that, too. I'm all about expression—written or verbal.

I have used my blog as a journal as well. As referenced in my March 24 post, I recently came upon the article, “Writing to OvercomeTrauma,” on the Military Officers Association of America website. It discusses how soldiers in Afghanistan (or in any overseas mission) use blogging to “take control of their emotions.” Army National Guard Capt. Benjamin Tupper says it has played a part in his PTSD recovery. The article further states that writing is a common outlet for service members and veterans dealing with traumatic and stressful experiences. One of the largest blogging sites by American service members, MilBlogging.com, listed 2,763 military blogs in 44 countries, as of October 2010.

For cancer survivors, some blogging communities can be found on the following sites: Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Survivor’s Network and CaringBridge. To find other topics organized around blogging communities, I suggest using Google search.

Obviously, I am a big proponent of writing as a means to heal both emotionally and physically. For more information on the healing benefits of expressive writing, you can read my recent article, “Journaling Through Cancer” in the March/April issue of Coping with Cancer magazine or my book Rebirth provides a practical example of how I used writing to heal during my cancer treatment and recovery period. All you need is a pen and a notebook to get started. Happy healing!

Journaling Through Cancer

2011-04-06T10:50:00.000-07:00

My article, "Journaling Through Cancer," is in the Mar/Apr 2011 issue of Coping® with Cancer magazine.

Excerpt from article:

Numerous studies have confirmed that expressive writing produces health benefits, such as a strengthened immune system, increased lung and liver function, increased cognitive function, reduced stress and blood pressure, improved mood, decreased symptoms of arthritis and asthma, and increased well-being in cancer survivors. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if the writing topic is positive or negative. Healing benefits are derived as long as you involve the emotions. Therefore, journaling is a wonderful self-therapy tool, though not a substitute for professional help, if necessary.

Read the entire article here.

My Lanford Wilson Tribute

2011-03-31T12:12:00.000-07:00

With Michael Morehead and Lanford Wilson, reception at Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park (May 2001)

Rarely is an actor on my level presented with the opportunity to work directly with or perform for a playwright she greatly admires. I fell in love with Lanford Wilson’s work when I auditioned for the role of Sally Talley in his Pulitzer-Prize winning play, Talley’s Folly, in college. The role went to an MFA student, but from that time on, I longed to tackle the role of Sally.

This audition ignited my desire to acquaint myself with Wilson's body of work, so I purchased many of his plays. I bought a hardback anthology of one-act plays when I was 27 and serendipitously discovered Wilson’s one-woman play, The Moonshot Tape, which was the last play in the book. I was riveted by this complex, deeply flawed, yet vulnerable character and longed for the chance to conquer her harrowing monologue (in performance it timed out to about 55 minutes).

The play revolves around Diane, a famous short-story writer who has returned to her hometown, Mountain Grove, MO, after a long absence to help her mother settle into a nursing home. While in Mountain Grove, she stays at a dumpy motel and is interviewed in her room by a high school reporter for the school paper. Jackie Demaline, theatre critic and writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer, summed up the story briefly in her critique of the show: “The eager, invisible interviewer has dutifully submitted a list of innocuous questions along the lines of “How has growing up in a small town prepared you for living in a large urban city, or not?” As Diane swills vodka and chain smokes, her stream-of-consciousness answers deepen into an outpouring that’s more than the kid bargained for.”

Diane - The Moonshot Tape

Ovation Theatre Company

Photo by Rich Sofranko

Diane's tough, devil-may-care attitude disguises deep emotional scars and resentment from years of sexual abuse at the hands of her stepfather and a longing to be loved and protected by a mother who didn’t know how to love or protect. The character is vastly different from me and my family experience which is what attracted me to her and is what made the character exciting to explore. Our similarities were grounded in being creative, small-town girls, longing to escape the confines of our rural communities. After reading The Moonshot Tape, I vowed that somehow, someday, somewhere I would play Diane. I had absolutely no idea how I was going to accomplish that, but I was committed to making it happen.

In 1997, as I was forming Ovation Theatre Company with my four partners (Lisa Hall Breithaupt, Scott Sponsler, Joe Stollenwerk, and Mark Sumpter), I was cast in the role of Sally Talley by Michael Morehead. Talley’s Folly was performed at Village Players, a community theatre in Ft. Thomas, Kentucky. The entire experience was wonderful—the beautiful story, working with two talented men: Mike and my leading man, Ed Cohen, and all the designers and technical crew. Before Talley’s Folly opened, I gave Mike a copy of The Moonshot Tape and told him that I wanted him to direct me in it someday.

With Ed Cohen in Talley's Folly

Village Players

Four years later, May of 2001, not only did Mike direct me in Moonshot Tape, but I had the privilege of doing it with Ovation Theatre Company, the company I’d helped create. Ovation staged four of Lanford Wilson’s one-act plays during the Lanford Wilson Theatre Festival. The following plays were also staged in Cincinnati during that time: Talley’s Folly by Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park (celebrating Lanford’s twentieth anniversary of receiving the Pulitzer Prize for that play), Sense of Place by Ensemble Theatre of Cincinnati, Redwood Curtain by Know Theatre Tribe and Burn This by IF Theatre Collective.

Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park hosted a reception, a few days before the opening of Talley’s Folly, for Lanford and his long-time collaborator and director of most of his shows, Marshall Mason. I met both men that evening which led to Lanford coming to Ovation’s warehouse to see my rehearsal (our show did not open until the following weekend, when Lanford would be back in New York). Marshall had told me that The Moonshot Tape was one of Lanford’s most personal pieces, so we should make sure to get him to a rehearsal; so we did. Thankfully, I was performance-ready. It was a private performance for him as well as a few select friends of Ovation.

I was terrified at first but quickly found my groove, alone there in the performance area. It was an amazing and exhilarating experience. Afterwards, Lanford gave me a huge hug and much praise, then even offered a few acting notes. It was a pivotal moment for me. Mr. Wilson’s praise was the validation I needed to find the courage to take the leap to pursue acting in the New York City market.

Ovation rehearsal space...after performing, getting notes from Lanford Wilson.

I will always be grateful for my encounter with him; he will never know what a positive influence he had on me. Unfortunately, I was never able to professionally capitalize on that moment, but I will forever treasure it.

One week ago, March 24, Lanford Wilson passed away from complications of pneumonia. He was only 73. There were wonderful tributes written in the New York Times and many other publications, but I felt compelled to write my own tribute to a man who helped change the trajectory of my life—giving me a much-needed boost of confidence.

Thanks for the inspiration, Lanford.

Corrections made 04/01/2011: Village Players is in Ft. Thomas, KY; I'd written Ft. Mitchell. The day of the reception has been brought into quesiton, so I've changed that as well.

Writing to Heal - Part I

2011-03-24T19:23:00.000-07:00

“Writing to heal” is a phrase and title of books, articles, and workshops I see repeatedly in my research about the health benefits of writing. I have personally experienced those healing benefits—emotional, spiritual, and physical—throughout my years of journaling, but especially during my cancer treatments from December 2003 through December 2004. (Five years later, my journal of that time became my book, Rebirth.)

When diagnosed with leukemia on December 18, 2003, I knew that my journaling would be an essential weapon in my healing arsenal. I used it to record all my medical information so that I could refer back to my notes should I have any questions or concerns; to assess the pros and cons of different treatment protocols; and to explore my emotions, which spanned the spectrum of fear, sadness, anger, joy, and hope. I wrote about dreams and goals and strategized plans for the future. I detailed my experiments using self-healing techniques such as guided imagery, affirmations, meditation, and prayer.

However, the greatest benefit came from mustering the courage to face past hurts and resentments, some that occurred decades ago that were still negatively affecting my life, mostly unconsciously. I was given many books about how biography can become biology, how holding onto past hurts and resentments can adversely affect our health. There is much research in this area, and though I’m not convinced I caused my leukemia, as a self-professed control-freak, this was a very empowering idea because if I made myself sick, then I could make myself well.

So I set out on, what I refer to as, the archeological dig into my past; much was uncovered. The entire essay, “I’m Enough,” is in Rebirth. Following is a brief excerpt:

Three childhood memories particularly stand out as contributing to my fractured ego: my best friend rejected me after she became a cheerleader, which translated in my mind to my no longer being popular or pretty enough to be her friend; a boy commented that my nose was big (I had no self-consciousness about my nose prior to that moment); and a friend’s grandmother gave me a backhanded compliment about how attractive I was at fifteen in spite of my “having been such a homely child” (I’d been homely?). These unkind actions and comments sparked the obsession with my appearance, which only intensified as I transitioned from grade school to high school. Reading fashion magazines and watching glamorous celebrities parading around on television made me achingly aware of my physical inadequacies. I longed to be one of the beautiful people and thus began a two-decade quest for the perfect makeover.

This quest included years of exercising, not out of the joy of moving my limbs and generating health but rather, to achieve a svelte, sculpted body. I failed at many diets because it was absurd for me to be on a diet in the first place.

Writing has always been an emotionally healing exercise for me, whether I was working through a conflict with a family member or friend, mending a broken heart, mourning the loss of a coveted role, or emotionally reeling from that tragic day on September 11, 2001. Writing was my emotional life-line through leukemia treatment and recovery. I named my journaling workshop for cancer survivors Writing for Your Life because during leukemia treatments I felt I was writing for my life. Furthermore, as my interest has grown in the field of writing and healing, I’ve discovered research conducted over the past two decades that support what I have experienced myself.

James W. Pennebaker, Professor of Psychology, at the University of Texas, Austin, is widely accepted as the father of successful studies of the effects of writing on health. Some of the health benefits that he and other researchers have found include: reduction of blood pressure and stress, strengthened immune system, improvement in cognitive functioning, improvement of mood, improved lung function and liver function, decreased symptoms in asthma and arthritis, decreased pain and increased health in cancer patients, and fewer days in the hospital.

Writing is not only a tool for navigating through a physical illness, but it can help a person deal with the emotional upheaval associated with a traumatic event. For instance, in October 2010 the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) posted on their web site an article by Stephanie Rodrigues Melson, “Writing to Overcome Trauma,” that reveals how writing and blogging* have helped servicemen and women deal with the emotional and physical stressors of combat, or of working in a war zone, and how it is a form of therapy. MilBlogging.com, one of the largest blogging sites for American servicemembers, listed 2,136 military blogs in 44 countries as of October 2010.

I am a huge proponent of writing about one’s experiences, of transforming internal energy and thoughts into external expression. The healing benefits of expressive writing will be explored during my Creative Writing Workshop at the OMG! NYC 2011 4th Annual Cancer Summit for Young Adults on April 17. There will be a presentation followed by written exercises. As an added treat, Lisa Bernhard, journalist and co-host of The Stupid Cancer Show, will stop by to share her experiences with writing and healing. For information about the conference (April 16-17), visit OMG2011.org.

*James W. Pennebaker cautions that research on the benefits of writing have not included blogging.

If interested in reading more about this topic, check out Dr. Pennebaker’s article Writing to Heal.

Stay tuned for Part II…

Joan Goble – A Small Town Teacher with Global Reach

2011-03-14T12:39:00.000-07:00

Photo: Dec. 28, 2010 - Mom's retirement party; Me, Joan Goble, and Mom (Nancy Ludwig)

“My little school system of Cannelton, Indiana, has not only given me the opportunity to see the world, but given me the tools and the support to share the world with my students!" ~ Joan Goble

A blond-haired woman walked into the back room of the Perry County News office in Tell City, Indiana, where my mother’s retirement party was taking place on December 28. I recognized her instantly. It was Joan Goble whom I met at my book event/signing at the public library on December 19, 2009, and have since become friends. I smiled, she smiled and when we got to each other, hugged. Joan is a fellow cancer survivor; she has chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

March is Women’s History Month, so I wanted to profile at least one (of the many) women I admire. Joan was kind enough to answer some questions for me. Reading her answers, I discovered what an amazing, inspirational woman she truly is; I had no idea. She is a teacher—a transformational teacher who has implemented ways to inspire and challenge her students with innovative projects that have led to international collaboration opportunities and travel. She is not only an example of the kind of educator U.S students deserve, but also a reminder (to legislators and superintendents across the nation) that we cannot afford to lose teachers of her caliber.

INTERVIEW
Deborah: How long have you been teaching and what made you want to go into that profession?

Joan: I have been in the teaching profession now for 32 years. I have taught at Cannelton Elementary for 30. As a child growing up I was always in awe of my teachers. I totally respected them and wanted to please them. I had great teachers throughout my school years, and they inspired me. I felt that they made a difference in my life so I wanted to make a difference too. I had debated between going into the medical field or the teaching field. As a freshman in college I made the decision to become a teacher.

D: What grade do you teach now; in the past?

J: My first real job was substitute teaching for a year, all grades. That is how I landed my job at Cannelton Elementary. I had substituted quite a bit for Cannelton and when a job opened up that summer I was offered one. It was a third grade position. I held that position for 28 years. My school system is very small. We only have one class per grade, so I was THE third grade teacher at the Cannelton School System for those 28 years. I think third grade is such an exciting grade to teach. Children of that age are just starting to really think beyond their classroom and are so eager to learn.

When our school became an "online" school in 1996, I decided to start an after school media club. I began working with older students up to sixth grade. I found that I enjoyed working with them just as much. Then, two years ago the 5th grade teacher retired, and I asked if I could replace her. I did, and I totally enjoy it.

D: You teach in a very small community, how has that impacted you as a teacher with regards to the resources the Cannelton school system has?

J: I love teaching at Cannelton. I feel that even though we are small, we have made our voices heard. We Cannelton teachers all involve our parents and community in the education of our students. As in the old saying, "It takes a village to raise a child," I think that includes the education of children as well. Cannelton is very proud of its school system and so there has always been a lot of support. I have felt that first hand many times over the 30 years I have taught here. Any time my Media Club has needed support from the community it has been there 100 %. I know that we could not have achieved what we have without that support.

D: The population of the city of Cannelton was estimated as of July 2009 to be 1,130. How many students are in the school system?

J: Cannelton Elementary has one class per grade, and the average class size is around 20. The Junior/Senior High School is the same as far as size of classes. I am not exactly sure of the whole entire school system's size, but I would say it averages around 260 to 280 students, maybe more some years. (Joan was right about the size.)

D: You have developed several programs for your students. What are they and how did you go about implementing them?

J: Our school has had many programs set up for the students to get involved in. One program that our school was involved in that helped us to make a connection with other schools not only in Indiana, but nationally and even internationally, was the state program called The Buddy System. This program, beginning in the very early 90s, allowed our school to not only become an online school, but gave every student in grades 4-6 an online computer to use. It was the beginning of networking, and we were in on the ground floor for Indiana public schools. At that time I taught third grade, which was not a part of the program, but I benefited as well due to all of the teachers getting an online computer.

Then in the summer of 1996, I went to a summer class on using the Internet in the classroom and I was hooked. The following year I decided it would be nice if our school had a Media Club, so I started it that year. We mostly connected in online projects where we could collaborate with other schools.

Our first collaboration was with a school in Australia on a research project about trees and forests. That project has led to many connections with schools around the world. Unfortunately, the Buddy Project has lost state funding and is no longer around, but it definitely gave our school system a basis for future collaborative projects.

I am mostly a project-based teacher. I love to involve my students in active learning, so anytime I can involve them in a project where they can take ownership for the process, as well as the product, I go for it. Examples include many online projects/websites. There are many that are my favorites, but I will share a few here.

One that continues to this day to give us learning opportunities, and "fame" even, is "Our Wonderful Moon Tree." It is really involved, but in short it allowed us to make connections with NASA in paying tribute to Moon Trees, living monuments to the Apollo Space Program. It was also written about in a BBC article that also aired on BBC radio in 2005. Last month, the story appeared in USA Today. It mentions our school and our involvement in initiating the search for all of the Moon Trees.

Another project that helped us to broaden our horizons beyond Cannelton, beyond Indiana and even beyond our nation's borders, was TENAN: The Endangered Animals of the World web project. I worked with Rene de Vries, a teacher from the Netherlands, to create this project. Schools from all over the world were invited to research endangered animals from their regions and send in their reports for us to publish. TENAN was active from 1998 until May 2007. We had to end it for various reasons, mainly due to our schedules becoming too busy—not enough time to devote to keeping the project active. It broke both of our hearts, but we had to. However, we have kept it online because we feel it has been and continues to be a good resource for students.

One great opportunity that was a direct result of this project was when the United Nations Environmental Program contacted us (Rene and myself), inviting us to send a delegation of our students who worked on TENAN to the UNEP Millennium Children’s Conference on the Environment in May 2000. This is also an excellent example of how the community of Cannelton, and really all of Perry County, Indiana, supported us. We were able to raise enough money to send 9 students to this conference held in Eastbourne, England. Rene was able to send 11 of his students too. Not only was it a thrill to get to see England and meet students and teachers from nearly 100 countries, we were able to meet our partners in the project for the first time. We had worked for over two years on this project and finally students from each school could meet face to face!

Because of my work in online shared learning, collaborative projects, I have been given many opportunities to share what I have done and learned with teachers in Indiana, several states in the USA, and I have also traveled and presented in London and Brighton in England, Copenhagen, Denmark, several parts of Japan including Tokyo and Asahikawa, and even traveled and presented in Tianjin, China. My little school system of Cannelton, Indiana, has not only given me the opportunity to see the world, but given me the tools and the support to share the world with my students!

D: You also volunteer and are involved in your community outside the school?

J: Yes, I have been on our Perry County Museum board since 1998, a board member of the Perry County Animal Shelter since 2008 and am currently the Secretary. For ten years I was on the board of We the Youth of Perry County. I have served on various other county committees, most recently the committee for the 50th Anniversary Memorial Service (a wonderful event) of the 1960 Plane Crash.

D: You are a cancer survivor. How did you discover you had CLL and when?

J: The cancer was a shock...totally had no idea. I had gone to the doctor because my left leg was losing some muscle mass. Several doctors looked at it and some tests were ordered, then finally a CBC (Complete Blood Count) was done to see what that might show. There was no evidence of muscle damage in the blood, but it showed a critically high white blood cell count. I was then sent to a specialist (oncologist/hematologist) who did more blood tests and diagnosed me with early stage CLL. That was in late August 2009. I am in what is called the "watch and wait" stage—no treatments at the moment. Every four months I go back to the oncologist and he does a CBC, checks my lymph nodes, and asks questions to see what symptoms I may have.

D: How has that impacted your day-to-day life?

J: I would have to say mostly it has made me take better care of myself. I am more aware of my body and try to keep myself from getting sick. It is a challenge, since I work with children every day. I try to keep my stress level as low as I can, and I use (and have my students use) hand cleanser constantly to keep colds and flu at bay. I try to enjoy each day that I am well.

D: How is your support system?

J: My support system is great. First I have my family...my husband and my two children are very supportive, and patient! At home I can have my days when I just want to whine and feel sorry for myself and not worry about the consequences. I get it out of my system and no one at work or out and about is the wiser. (Well, until now that is...ha ha!)

At work I have much support as well. I have not told my students of my illness because I feel there is no need to worry them. I also have, of course, friends like you and the online friends I have found at the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, as well as a wonderful Facebook group, CLL (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia).

I highly recommend to anyone with any kind of illness like this to find a group online to join. There is a lot of love and support out there, and it can be so comforting and reassuring to know that you are not alone in fighting the good fight!

13 Bankers is a Must-Read

2011-03-09T13:17:00.000-08:00

“Never before has so much taxpayer money been dedicated to save an industry from the consequences of its own mistakes. In the ultimate irony, it went to an industry that had insisted for decades that it had no use for the government and would be better off regulating itself—and it was overseen by a group of policymakers who agreed that government should play little role in the financial sector.”

From 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown by Simon Johnson & James Kwak

I have been a reading machine since Christmas, devouring books mostly on the economy, the financial system, politics, and history. (I am currently reading Pulitzer-Prize winning author Stacy Schiff’s biography, Cleopatra.) Every now and then I feel compelled to share a book I’ve read and promote it because it either exposes the truth, it inspires or angers me, or it sparks me to take action. 13 Bankers by Simon Johnson and James Kwak is one of those books—it is insightful, factual, well-researched, and it made my blood boil.

Johnson and Kwak detail how Wall Street and Washington have become inextricably linked over the past 30 years; how money has corrupted elections and policymaking; how our government serves the interest of corporate elites and the wealthy, allowing them a place at the table to write legislation deregulating their industries and formulating tax codes that enrich themselves; and the authors expose the “revolving door” between Washington and Wall Street.

I highly recommend this book. It reveals the ugly truth about for whom it is the American government really works. Too many Americans (including our elected officials, on both sides of the aisle) have bought into the myth that what’s good for Wall Street is good for America, and as we’ve seen, that is definitely not true, especially now that we have attained the widest wealth gap in the history of our country. It’s time our government started working for all of us, not only for those at the top of the economic food chain.

Following are some excerpts that may entice you to seek out this book, read it, and take whatever form of action (within the law, of course) you feel appropriate. One of those actions would be to support and promote campaign finance reform. The amount of money spent on elections in this country is obscene, not to mention corrupting.

Excerpts from 13 Bankers:

“…Reagan made deregulation an ideological crusade. But his central message, as he said in his first inaugural address, was that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Reagan fought this battle on many fronts. He cut taxes in an unsuccessful attempt to “starve the beast”—force government to shrink by cutting its funding. He cut funding to regulatory agencies…He installed people who had no interest in regulation at the head of major regulatory agencies. …he set the tone for both Republican and Democratic administrations that would follow.” (p. 71)

“A second source of Wall Street’s political power was its ability to place its people in key positions in Washington. As the big banks became richer, more of their executives became top-tier fund-raisers who could be tapped for administration jobs. This consistent flow of people from Wall Street to Washington and back ensured that important decisions were made by officials who absorbed the financial sector’s view of the world and its perspective on government policy, and who often saw their future careers on Wall Street, not in Washington.” (pp. 92-93)

“At the top of the major commercial banks’ wish list was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was finally achieved in 1999. By that point, the separation of commercial and investment banking had been severely weakened by a series of Federal Reserve actions that allowed commercial banks, through their subsidiaries, to underwrite many types of securities; in addition, the new business of derivatives fell outside of Glass-Steagall altogether and commercial banks such as Bankers Trust and J.P. Morgan were among the pioneers in that market.” (p.133)

“What is more remarkable is that the policies of the Bush administration were largely carried over into the Obama administration, despite the enormous policy differences between George W. Bush and Barack Obama on almost every issue. This is because by 2009, the economic policy elite of the Democratic Party was fully won over to the idea that finance was good.” (p. 185)

NOTE: Johnson and Kwak also author the blog The Baseline Scenario. It’s an excellent source of up-to-date information regarding financial reform as well as “what happened to the global economy and what we can do it about it.” Recent posts I liked are:

“A Healthy Financial System Cannot Be Built On the Expectation of Bailouts”

"Disinformation about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau"

My Love-Hate (Mostly Hate) Relationship with Auditions

2011-03-02T15:09:00.000-08:00

Photo: Diane in The Moonshot Tape - Ovation Theatre Company
Photo credit: Rich Sofranko

Saturday, walking to One on One studios to attend a class with a television and film casting director, for one brief moment, I felt the urge to turn around and flee, to just blow off the class, even though I had paid $125 for the 90-minute session. I had spent the week preparing the scene and felt confident about my choices, yet a feeling of dread hung over me. I am much more comfortable these days than I’ve ever been in the past when auditioning, yet there remains a slight twinge of fear—fear of completely messing up, fear of making a fool of myself, fear of not being as good as the other actors in the room.

Fear—hate it. Yet despite the fear, I forged forward. The last time I attended one of these classes, it went very well. What I like about attending class at One on One is that all the actors are talented. There isn’t an obvious gap between the beginners and the pros, mostly because the One on One staff screen actors (audition and interview are required) before allowing them to become members, then a one-time membership fee must be paid.

I arrived a few minutes early. The class size was small—eight of us. The casting director had a very warm personality and she gave us excellent feedback on our work. We each got up and performed our scene on-camera (with a reader) and then were given adjustments before doing the scene again.

These classes and meetings are ways for me to introduce myself to industry people, and since I do not have a legit agent, it behooves me to meet as many casting people as possible, especially those who are casting television series and movies because that is where my real interests lie. These sessions are also a way to stretch myself and take risks with the character choices I make.

Taking risks is scary, but it is in the very taking of those risks that we grow and discover what we are truly capable of doing. After each small victory, we become increasingly confident to attempt something even scarier. A couple examples from my life of when baby steps led to accomplishing larger goals were performing a one-hour, one-woman play and writing and singing cabaret.

The confidence to perform solo began with being cast in leading roles. There was Vera Claythorne, in Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians in 1994 followed by Rita Boyle in Prelude to a Kiss in 1995. Then came the opportunity to perform in two-person shows: the first (and one of my favorites) as Sally Talley in Talley’s Folly and then with my dear friend Lisa in Ovation Theatre Company’s (the company we founded with three other friends) inaugural production, a two-woman play titled Parallel Lives: The Kathy & Mo Show. In that show, I braved a harrowing monologue that was nearly 10-minutes long. That monologue provided me the experience of commanding the stage myself—no one else was there to save me should I forget a line or lose my train of thought.

Then in May 2001, a dream came true; a spark of creative desire ignited eight years earlier suddenly became reality: The opportunity to play my dream role, Diane in Lanford Wilson’s The Moonshot Tape, was going to happen. This one-woman, one-act dared me to own the stage for fifty-five minutes. It was the scariest yet most exhilarating challenge I’ve undertaken to date. Other challenges coming in at a close second are publishing my book, Rebirth, and performing cabaret shows.

The cabaret performances started their evolution years before the actual ones took place. I auditioned for some musicals after my first year in Cincinnati and was cast in Godspell (I sang a solo), My Fair Lady and Working (in the chorus), Annie as Grace Farrell (one solo and some duets; I wanted the role of Ms. Hannigan desperately, but that role went to Lisa, who is mentioned above) and finally Into the Woods as the Witch, the most amazing musical role I have ever worked on (bestowed upon me by, you guessed it, Lisa). That role cemented my confidence as a singer and my longing for further singing opportunities.

I’d always loved the old standards and felt drawn to the music of Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, Sarah Vaughan, Rosemary Clooney, and Peggy Lee, to name a few. One evening, while my friend Robin and I were at The Cabaret, a small club located in Over-the-Rhine, just north of downtown Cincinnati, I mustered the courage to sing, while the singer booked for the evening was on break. I requested the accompanist play Linda Ronstadt’s version of Someone to Watch Over Me. I was quite nervous but made it through the song beautifully, not one weak note or crack in my voice. When I returned to my seat, a gentleman at the next table asked me if I was going to sing again. I told him no; but from that moment, I was hooked.

So over the next year, I booked a couple performances at The Cabaret, where I sang two short sets during each performance. Finally, I decided to expand to a larger venue, Upstairs at Carol’s, and with the help of some of my genius marketing friends – Karen, Nelson and Lori—drew some sizable crowds and expanded my show to include three sets of music. My last cabaret performance was in Cincinnati in 2002 with my friend Joe. I did the first set, he sang the second set, and we performed the third one together.

So with these achievements under my belt, why am I not doing those things here and now in New York City? Granted, I have been less than enthusiastic taking the initiative to make contacts and pursue jobs the way I should, lacking the intensity that I see in other actors; or developing my own projects the way I did in the past. Excuses are plentiful: “I went through cancer, then I wrote a book (and I love writing, too, so I do that on a regular basis), I am a volunteer with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and have developed a journaling workshop for cancer survivors and caregivers. My life is extremely full. I have myriad interests, so my focus is all over the place.” Still, I long for those meaty, leading performance opportunities of yesteryear.

It's not that I haven't worked in acting since 2002 because I have. I've done stage, commercials, and independent films, but for a couple of exceptions, not at the level I had hoped to work. It’s now or never time to up my game—time to meet as many casting directors as possible, submit myself for all projects of interest, and seriously network with other actors. I'm even writing a cabaret performance for possible staging this fall.

In this insane business, I’m largely responsible for my progress, or lack thereof; I get in my own way. I must say yes to more auditions, even if I’m not overly excited about them. For example yesterday, I had an audition for a low-paying commercial. The audition was an open call, which I hate—I prefer to have a scheduled appointment. To top it off, I was submitted for the role of a person battling incontinence. (Oh how quickly one goes from being the young mom to the incontinence sufferer!)

Surprisingly, I had a blast in the audition—it was funny material and the casting director loved me. Here was a chance to meet a casting director as well as practice auditioning and making interesting choices with the copy. Each experience should be about learning something useful for future auditions, expanding what I am capable of doing, and building confidence. The casting session I approached with a negative attitude, ended up being quite a wonderful experience; just like on Saturday when I was feeling less than enthusiastic about my class, yet it was great. I even received a response from her after I sent her an email thank you on Monday. That has never happened.

Maybe things are looking up. Regardless, I’m trying to adjust my attitude and see every audition as a chance to perform because then maybe I won’t hate them so much. I’ll keep putting myself out there, taking chances, even at the risk of falling flat on my face. No risk, no reward—that’s what I’ve consistently discovered over the past fifteen years. My love-hate relationship with auditions will not end immediately, but I hope soon to feel more love for them than hate.

What do you have a love-hate relationship with? What is holding you back in achieving your goals?

Thank you, Sylvia Plath

2011-02-09T13:42:00.000-08:00

The third Writing for Your Life workshop for cancer survivors concluded Monday evening. This one posed some challenges as we canceled once due to inclement weather and another time due to a death in my family. The group was smaller than usual though it was supposed to be the largest to date. I even gave a one-on-one session the evening of January 24, so the usual group dynamic was lacking. I felt bad for the participants because they missed out on the camaraderie and support inherent in a larger group. Still, I believe what I had to share was of value—and healing.

Writing has been an essential tool for healing my emotional and spiritual wounds ever since I commenced journaling in 1992. For nearly two decades my journals have been constant companions, seeing me through romantic vicissitudes, career struggles, moves to various cities, extraordinary achievements, moments of deep sorrow and conflict, and my leukemia treatment and recovery period, to name a few.

In 1992, during my years at Indiana University studying theatre, I was cast in the role of Aurelia Schober Plath in the play Letters Home. (At age 26, I was cast as a 67-year-old woman* – only in a college environment or community theater would that happen.) The play was adapted from the book Letters Home, a compilation of poet Sylvia Plath’s letters to her mother (Aurelia) from the time she left for Smith College in 1952 until she committed suicide in 1963. This full-length play was the first time I performed a two-person show. I had minimal onstage experience but was determined to prove I was more than capable of tackling the role.

Thrilled to be cast, I enthusiastically dove into my research, reading the book, Letters Home, in its entirety and hungry for information, devouring any other resource materials I could get my hands on. One day in the book store I discovered The Journals of Sylvia Plath, a small paperback that cost $6.95. This inexpensive gem further illuminated Sylvia’s life and the relationship with her mother.

I was mesmerized by Sylvia’s prose and the way she utilized language to describe and convey every nuance of her surroundings and people, her torment trying to compose the perfect poem, her fragile emotional states (they were many) when rejected by publishers or lovers, her distress when anyone criticized her work, her vacillation between bliss and despair during romantic affairs, especially her desire for fellow poet, Ted Hughes, whom she eventually married. She adored him, but a few years later, they separated. The discovery of Sylvia’s rich, intense inner life and how she recorded it all in elaborate detail intrigued me, so I decided to begin my own writing journey.

A few days later, I purchased my first journal and used it to jot down thoughts and ideas I had for creating the role of Aurelia. The picture on the cover of that journal was Georges Seurat’s pointillist masterpiece Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. Having an almost-minor in art history, I knew this painting well and thought it was gorgeous, so I scooped up the journal and paid for it. A white ribbon marker was attached to it, which would later prove to be an accomplice in the slow unraveling of a five-year relationship. (Darn those page markers, but that’s another story.)

I share an excerpt from that first entry here:

June 9, 1992 (Tuesday) - Since I have been studying Sylvia Plath’s life—reading her letters, poetry, and journals—the desire to record my feelings and the events in my life has intensified. The way she expresses herself and the eloquent language she uses, composing impeccably structured sentences and possessing an extensive vocabulary sparks a bit of jealousy in me, for I’ve always thought writing a story, play, or a novel would be so gratifying.

Doing this play has me totally consumed with knowing Sylvia, even though I play her mother, Aurelia. But what better way to portray a mother than by knowing her daughter intimately? Sylvia’s life (as well as Aurelia’s) was fascinating, and I feel extremely fortunate to have this opportunity. Tomorrow I start memorizing Act II.

Throughout the years, I have used my journal in various ways:

To record events in my life—the good and the bad;
To set goals and strategize ways to achieve them;
To deal with and work through challenges and issues; it has been an excellent problem-solving tool;
For exploring my emotional life; clarifying thoughts and feelings;
To brainstorm creative ideas, whether for acting, directing, singing or writing—or whatever;
To record inspirational quotes and passages and write about why these touched me or resonated with me;
To preserve letters (copies) that I wrote or that I received (originals);
To record news events that would provide historical context for posterity’s sake.

These are only a few examples of how I use my journals. I have completed twenty-one journals to date, and all of them have proved to be effective tools for self-discovery and providing insight. They are a place where I can pour my thoughts out onto the page when I feel unable to talk to anyone about what it is I’m feeling or going through, especially late at night when I refuse to impose on anyone. The journal is my friend—an accepting, nonjudgmental companion.

As I prepare for upcoming journaling workshops, I plan to include posts in The Feisty Liberal about the healing benefits of journaling or expressive writing, types of journaling, tips for journaling, resistance and blocks to writing, and writing prompts and resources for anyone interested in starting or expanding their own writing journey.

I owe a huge thank you to Sylvia Plath. Her creativity, zest for life, and passion for the written word as well as how she honestly and fearlessly confronted raw emotions are what inspired me to start a journal and to continue journaling throughout the years.

If you keep a journal, who or what inspired you to start? When? Where? I’d like to know.

* I am unable to verify Aurelia's age in the play, but this is the number that sticks in my mind.

Death of a Loved-One Sparks Introspection and Wonder

2011-02-04T08:22:00.000-08:00

My Uncle Al, 77, passed away on January 26 after two months of fighting side effects from a “uniquely effective, but uniquely toxic” medication, Amiodarone. Amiodarone is an antiarrhythmic medication that affects the rhythm of heartbeats. He was hospitalized for weeks (including over the Christmas holiday) then transferred to rehab as his health seemed to improve, but eventually found himself back in the hospital sicker than before. In the end, his quickly deteriorating condition, aggravated by internal bleeding in his lungs, was more than his body and spirit could bear.

Once notified of his passing, I started discussing travel arrangements with my sister Barbara who lives in New Jersey, too, and we booked flights for last Saturday from Newark International to Dayton, Ohio. Barbara secured a rental car at Dayton International and she, her four-year-old-daughter, Alexa, and I drove to Cincinnati to stay with our other sister, Karen, and her family. Mom and Dad arrived the next day, so Karen had a full house (she had insisted we all stay at her home).

We drove to Centerville together on Sunday afternoon to attend the visitation. A look of pleasant surprise lit up my cousin Tracy’s face the moment we walked in the room. He, his brother, Mike, and their mother, Aunt Addie, had no idea that Barbara and I would be flying in from New Jersey. I wasn’t sure I would be able to go due to the price of flights as well as possible inclement weather, but both the transportation and weather gods pulled it off without a hitch.

Both days, Sunday for the visitation at the funeral home, and Monday for the funeral at the church and the military internment at Dayton National Cemetery was quite emotional, especially moments when I witnessed my aunt and my cousins and their families shedding tears. Uncle Al was a gentle and compassionate man. I can’t recall him ever raising his voice. Growing up, all the cousins on my dad’s side of the family were very close. Each Easter when Grandma Lucy was still alive, we would gather together for an early dinner and afterwards play a game of kickball or softball; later, my dad would get out his guitar and all us kids would sing along while he played.

This past weekend further reinforced how extremely blessed I am, not only to have my immediate family, but also my extended one. What an amazing group of people. All this made me think of the complete randomness of my even being on this planet at this exact point in time; it sparked many thoughts about evolution.

How the Earth Was Made is one of my favorite History Channel shows – I bought the two- hour DVD a couple years ago, I liked it so much. 4.5 billion years is the generally agreed-upon age of the Earth by the scientific community. This is what they refer to as “deep time.” As I watched it last week (the History Channel aired it again), I started contemplating the concept of time, especially how it only exists once we arrive on this planet, or rather, once we are conscious of it. Think about the billions of years that have transpired before those of us currently living on this planet arrived. It’s awe-inspiring.

I know that my wonderful life is in large part due to the time when and the place where I was born, as well as to the parents who created me. I was born in 1966, a white female, in a small town in the Midwestern United States, to loving parents who struggled day after day to make sure their children had a better life than they did. I hit the jackpot in life compared to so many others in this world.

What if I had been born in a place where hunger and disease are part of one's daily existence or in a country where women are property and honor killings are par for the course if they do anything to bring shame on their families – even if they are the victim of rape? How different my life would be. The trajectory of our lives is largely, though definitely not completely, determined by the circumstances in which we start out.

Life and death are inextricably linked. Once we are born, the only guarantee is that someday we will die. What we do between birth and death is what counts, regardless of our circumstances; yet, we can always offer compassion to those who are less fortunate than us. One of Uncle Al’s virtues was a kind, compassionate heart.

The silver lining of attending a funeral is that you get to reconnect with family. It’s a mournful occasion, yet a celebration of the deceased’s life. We will miss Uncle Al, but the memory of his smile and the positive way he touched all our lives will endure. I am a better person for knowing him. Rest in peace, Uncle Al.

Leap, and the Net Will Appear

2011-01-27T07:42:00.000-08:00

“Well, Wendell, you’re just going to have to leap and trust that the net will appear—because it will.” From Deadly Spin by Wendell Potter

Something must change. I didn’t survive cancer to be sad and angry all the time. Yet sadness and anger have been a large part of my daily experience over the past year or so. Much of this is due to the fact that I am an overly empathetic, sensitive person who is intensely affected by the hostile political environment and dismal economic climate in this country. The world seems rife with corporate greed, malfeasance and self-interest; politicians influenced and bought by corporations and their lobbyists (mainly Wall Street, oil companies, health insurance companies); misinformation abounds; facts are ignored and there is an attempt from some quarters to white-wash and rewrite history; and there is an astonishing lack (or so it seems) of compassion for fellow Americans, especially for those who are among the long-term unemployed and anyone living in poverty, even children.

Last week, the news that the FCC allowed the Comcast/NBC merger to go through was a huge disappointment. The last thing this country needs is more media consolidation, where varied and dissenting voices are stifled. Corporate consolidations have increased over the past decades, not only in media, but also in the financial and health care industries, leading to less competition and a not-so-free market, as large companies ingest smaller ones or merge with less profitable ones.

This consolidation process mocks the very idea of “free markets” and “competition.” Consolidation creates monopolies, and where there are monopolies, there is no competition. What people ignore or refuse to realize is that all these mergers and acquisitions are concentrating greater and greater amounts of wealth into the hands of a few individuals at the top of the economic food chain at the expense of the vast majority of Americans—mainly middle class Americans. And no one even talks about poverty anymore. My emotional balance is being assaulted by all this negativity, and sadly I’m allowing it to happen.

I know I should disconnect from watching and reading the news, but I am addicted to it. I long to wallow in blissful ignorance, to shun all the negative events happening in the world, but I can’t. To do that would be irresponsible, I think, because there are so many issues that I feel passionately about—health care being one of them. I’ve been following Wendell Potter’s campaign to help clarify the debate around and promote health care reform. Mr. Potter is a senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy. He is also an author and used to be the head of PR for CIGNA Healthcare.

I spent some of last Saturday morning reading a couple chapters in Wendell Potter’s book Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks out on How Corporate PR is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans. Because he was the head of PR for CIGNA Healthcare for many years, he possesses much credibility when it comes to revealing that industry’s tactics, especially with regards to denying medical claims and rescinding coverage.

Mr. Potter is also intimately knowledgeable about how the PR industry spins corporate messages (he admits to being a master at it), uses propaganda and misinformation to influence public sentiment, and spends money (oftentimes for organizing front groups disguised as “grass roots” campaigns – sound familiar?) to the detriment of the welfare of the American populace. (I recently finished 13 Bankers, which tells much the same tale only in the financial industry, but that is for another post.)

I was reading the chapter titled “An End Too Soon,” about 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, who had survived leukemia twice, only to need a liver transplant, which CIGNA refused to cover, saying it was “experimental.” They finally agreed to pay for the liver transplant after considerable negative publicity. Unfortunately, the child died the day they agreed to pay for it – too late. Anyone who can read this chapter without shedding a tear or being angry has no heart—and her tragic story is only one among thousands.

I was nearing the end of the chapter as I turned to page 172, where Mr. Potter was recounting how he had decided to leave CIGNA and was seeking the council of an ex-CIGNA colleague, Margie Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell left CIGNA to become the director of development at a clinic that provided free health care to the poor. He confessed to wanting to leave the company, but didn’t know if he had the guts to do it and didn’t have any idea what he would do to earn a living even if he did (his position with CIGNA was quite lucrative).

Margie responded, “Well, Wendell, you’re just going to have to leap and trust that the net will appear—because it will.” I couldn’t breathe for a moment; as I read her statement, it felt like a lightning bolt struck me. This was a huge wake-up call, one I haven’t felt since my leukemia diagnosis seven years ago. There was my motto in the pages of this book; words I so needed to be reminded of at that moment. The only other place I’d seen this phrase was in Julia Cameron’s book, The Artist’s Way. I adopted “Leap, and the net will appear” as my motto after reading Cameron’s book in 2001, and have repeated it and written it often to muster the courage to move forward.

I’ve known for a while that I need to make some serious changes in my life, though I’m not prepared to reveal them just yet. Life is precious and too short—I know this all too well, as I could have died seven years ago; yet I lived. I feel that I’ve accomplished a lot in the past seven years, but there is still so much more to do; but I feel stuck. I am held hostage to my fears—fear of not having enough money, fear that maybe I’m not smart enough or talented enough—again, that not being enough.

I wrote about this very thing during my illness in 2004; it’s chronicled in my book, Rebirth. I did get past my neuroses of not being pretty enough and the obsession with obtaining physical beauty. Today, I’m fine with how I look, aside from bags under my eyes and some cellulite on my thighs, but overall, I’m pretty satisfied with my appearance. Conquering the other fears, sadly, may prove more difficult.

My 2011 resolution is to find the courage to take the steps necessary to make that leap, knowing that the net will be there to catch me. The net has always been there for me when I’ve made my mind up to do something – I’ve experienced it repeatedly in my life, so why would it be any different now?

It’s time to find the courage, to trust, and to eliminate the sadness and anger, because these negative emotions only add to my sense of helplessness and paralysis. Hope and positive feelings have always helped move me toward right action. I can’t effect change, be it in my own life or for the greater good, from a place of anger; it must originate from a place of hope and compassion, especially compassion for those with whom I strongly disagree. It’s time to leap.

Together We Thrive--Tucson & America

2011-01-13T11:56:00.000-08:00

Bravo, Mr. President! At last night’s memorial at the University of Arizona for the victims of Saturday’s massacre in Tucson, President Barack Obama gave a speech to honor, to comfort, to encourage, and to heal. He made reference only a few times to the divisiveness in our political dialogue, never pointing fingers at one side. He spoke in broad terms, appealing to our better nature. I’m sure conservatives don’t have the warm, fuzzy feeling I have about it, and I will admit that had this same speech been made by President George W. Bush, I would have listened to it with much skepticism. Yet I would have given him credit for at least trying to further the conversation as long as he then led by example and encouraged his Party to do the same. (That’s now what I expect of President Obama.)

There are a few sentences/ideas in President Obama’s speech that particularly resonated with me. (Please accept my apologies if they are paraphrased or spliced together.)

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

The President was speaking metaphorically, but this should be taken literally as well. Too often these days our political opponents speak in gun metaphors: Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat, reload,” Joyce Kaufman’s “If the ballot doesn’t work, bullets will,” and Sharron Angle’s talk of “Second Amendment remedies.” Even President Obama said: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we’ll bring a gun.” Most of this is merely heated political rhetoric, yet it appeals to the very worst in us, not to mention it can encourage unbalanced, mentally ill people to harm and kill their fellow citizens.

Words have consequences, yet most likely Jared Loughner’s assassination attempt on Congresswoman Giffords was not related to any ideology or incivility. The young man’s writings and ramblings are all over the ideological spectrum. However, that does not mean we shouldn’t take this moment and examine how it is we—not only the politicians and media, but all of us—communicate with and talk to each other.

A couple days ago, I was online reading The Drudge Report and came across a link to a post that was trying to make, unsuccessfully, an equivalency between gun metaphors on the right to a Daily Kos writer (a liberal) who used the words “dead to me” in a post about his congressperson who voted against the health care bill. This phrase has a completely different meaning than “don’t retreat, reload” or “if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”

The phrase “dead to me” implies that a person is going to ignore the very existence of someone else; in essence, that they don’t matter any longer; it does not mean “I’m going to kill you" or encourages someone else to commit violence. Whereas the phrase “if ballots don’t work, bullets will” is active; the speaker of these words is encouraging followers (irrespective of intent) that if they don’t like the way our democracy works (someone whom they oppose is legitimately elected to office) they should take up arms against that elected official. Or do they mean to shoot the people who voted for that person? This is the discourse that must stop because it is dangerous.

Should we cease having spirited political debates, even arguing? Absolutely not, and that isn’t even possible. But we can temper how and what we say so as not to rile people into a frenzied state of angry name-calling and derision. I would add to this that guns have no place at political events. Any person who brings a gun with them is threatening elected officials and their staff who are there to speak to constituents. The only reason someone would bring a gun, making it visible to others in the crowd, is to intimidate. (And I don't believe that the shooting in Tucson is an example of why guns should be allowed at these events, which I'll elaborate on in a future post.)

“We can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country.”

This one is important to me. Every time I hear a conservative talk about “real America” or “real Americans” I cringe. As an educated, liberal feminist who lives in the Northeast (despite my Midwestern roots), I am not considered a “real American” by many of these people. To be clear, all of us care about this country, we just have different ideas as to how we maintain its greatness and make it better—for everyone.

This demonizing of people who think differently than we do is harmful. It also prevents us from listening, which I am guilty of doing. If we constantly frame our opponent as the enemy, there is no way to engage in a rational discussion. Still, there is real hate and evil out there and dealing with that is a challenge. For me, from my perspective (others may feel differently about this) how do I resist despising members (or more accurately, the actions of said members) of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas who take their anti-gay protests to soldiers’ funerals (and were planning to protest at the funerals of the Tucson shooting victims)? To me this is beyond despicable; it’s morally reprehensible, disgusting behavior regardless of the moral high-ground they claim to possess.

The only way I can even remotely understand their irresponsible and callous behavior is that they live in great fear and are completely incapable of empathizing with their fellow human beings; they cannot see past this fear to recognize the pain they are inflicting on others (people they don’t even know) who are already suffering from the death of a loved one. I can only conclude that the Westboro family must believe in a hateful, vengeful God, which is quite different from the God I believe in.

President Obama’s words last night were those of unity. It is a noble goal, but perhaps unrealistic. Over the past few days the narrative between left and right has grown more toxic, as some on the left have inferred Jared Loughner may have been spurred on to kill by hate-speech from conservatives, and conservatives in turn shooting back that the left is trying to politicize this tragic event. Just this morning I read that the two-year-old Civility Project is disbanding. It’s too bad that it never gained traction, not even with members of Congress – only 3 members signed on.

Last night, the President did not point fingers, but rather said, “If, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse let us remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.” This is what we need to do as a nation. Words matter and they have consequences.

I’ll conclude with President Obama’s statement: “We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I believe that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.” Yes, it is, Mr. President. Yes, it is.

Shooting in Tucson

2011-01-09T10:49:00.000-08:00

Saturday, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot at a community event she held outside a Safeway in Tucson, AZ. 14 people were wounded (though that figure continues to change) and 6 killed, including Federal Judge John M. Roll, Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman, and 9-year old Christina Green.

Today, the facts are still unfolding and the shooter’s motive remains unknown. What we do know:

1.) Congresswoman Giffords remains in critical condition after a 2-hour surgery yesterday to remove a bullet from her head;

2.) The remaining wounded are out of the ICU;

3.) 6 people are dead, including a child, Christina Green;

4.) Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is the shooter and is in custody;

5.) Mr. Loughner has a criminal record and history of mental instability, is a Pima Community College dropout, and was rejected by the army;

6.) There may be another person involved; so far he is only a person of interest;

7.) Mr. Loughner bought a semi-automatic weapon about a month ago and that was the weapon used in this massacre.

Initially, I had planned to write a scathing indictment on the irresponsible, violent rhetoric that dominates our political dialogue. Then I realized that we don’t have a motive yet so will refrain from pointing fingers at this time. However, regardless of the motive behind this shooting, this case presents the opportunity to address some important issues: the responsibility of leaders and the media with regards to the words they use to communicate and promote their ideology (left, right and in between) and gun control.

On December 3, I posted a piece about the need to take my tone down a notch. I am committed to being part of the solution, not the problem.

Rally for Girls' Sports!

2010-12-08T06:25:00.000-08:00

The National Women’s Law Center is rallying today to support girls’ athletics. They asked bloggers to write about their involvement in sports and how it positively affected their lives. The question they asked: What did you win by playing sports? The following is an excerpt from The Accidental Feminist, an essay I wrote that was to be included in a friend’s anthology about feminism. Although she abandoned the project a couple years ago, I’m glad to be able to share a portion of my essay in this post.

What did I win by playing sports?
My journey starts with Title IX. Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 states: No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid. Athletics has created the most controversy regarding Title IX, but its gains in education and academics are notable, as more and more women are receiving post-graduate and professional degrees. Before Title IX, many schools refused to admit women or enforced strict limits.

I was six years old when Title IX became law. I had no idea that it even existed until I was in college; or that it was largely due to this that I was able to be a junior high and high school athlete; or that I was allowed the same opportunities to participate in athletics as the boys in my school. I’m not even sure I was aware that sports participation for girls in schools had been an issue at the time. What I did know was that I loved competing. And until I reached the age of ten, I could beat almost every boy in my class in sprints. That did change some once I was in high school, yet I managed to claim the girl’s track MVP title all four years. My sisters excelled in athletics, too. In fact, I recall my father telling me at one time that the high school football coach told him that he wished we three girls were boys.

Title IX paved the way for young girls to actively participate in organized sports, which I believe builds strength, confidence, and an eagerness to engage in competition, not shy away from it. We compete every day, in one way or another. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose, but I believe this about competition: When you lose, you pick yourself up and try again. This attitude has helped me to overcome obstacles and persevere in the face of tragedy. I face rejection constantly as an actress, but I have developed a thick skin (though admittedly, not as thick as I’d like). I know that if I attend enough auditions, I’m going to book jobs, so I keep doing it. I am a cancer survivor, and I wholeheartedly believe my competitive (or perhaps my fighting) spirit and the refusal to give up helped me regain my health.

The opportunity to compete empowers you to believe you can meet the goals you set. Because I was able to compete with members of the opposite sex at a young age, and then able to compete like them in the sports arena, I always felt women were as valuable as men. I was as competent, as smart, and as capable of accomplishing and doing anything they could. And so, my first foray into actively pursuing equal opportunities, where I saw girls blatantly excluded, occurred during my eighth grade year at St. Paul’s Catholic Grade School in Tell City, Indiana.

St. Paul’s housed grades K–8. Part of that Catholic education included attending Mass once a week during the school day. At that time, all the acolytes were boys. When I was in eighth grade, my friend Mariah and I decided that we wanted the opportunity to be altar servers, so we asked Father David Coats if we could do this. We felt that it was unfair that the boys could participate in the service this way and we couldn’t. Father Coats, being well ahead of his time, agreed that we should be able to serve. His decision caused quite the uproar.

The boys in our class were terribly upset that we would dare infiltrate their male domain, so much so that they called a meeting about it, which Mariah and I attended. In the end, we were allowed to serve. Mariah and I were the first girl servers at our church. After that, several other girls decided they wanted to try it, too. I only served once or twice, and that was during the school week, not during weekend Mass, but we’d made our point, and we were satisfied. Today, I’m encouraged because wherever I attend Mass, I often see girl servers, which perhaps will be an impetus for change (hopefully sooner rather than later) in the Catholic Church regarding women’s ordainment as priests. But that discussion is for a different essay.

Title IX allowed me to discover my potential, not just as an athlete, but also as a human being. Participating and excelling in athletics prepared me for dealing with and conquering life’s challenges and gave me the confidence to live life on my terms and to follow some of my dreams, no matter how unrealistic they may seem to others or how scary they may be to me.

Ladies, how has participation in athletics positively impacted your life?

Taking a Cue from Ghandi: If I Expect Civil Political Discourse from Others, I Must First Practice It Myself

2010-12-03T12:54:00.000-08:00

Sitting around the table, enjoying the Thanksgiving feast spread before us, I found myself embattled in a heated discussion about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, his being a short-sighted (for killing the ARC Tunnel project) belligerent bully, who while slashing state law enforcement and education funding, gave big tax breaks to his rich buddies (a billion dollar tax break to those earning over $400,000 a year); and then on a different topic, wholly dismissing the statement that Social Security was a huge Ponzi scheme, which is a major conservative talking point these days. (Side note: I refute that assertion here with an article in Fortune magazine and on PolitiFact as to why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.)

Shamefully, I admit that the loudest and most emotional tone, accompanied by a few strategically placed expletives here and there for color and emphasis, came from me. I find it nearly impossible to sit idly by and listen to opinions with which I adamantly disagree; I immediately interject my point of view when the other person starts speaking. I know this is bad behavior, but I just can’t help myself—mouth opens and beware: smoldering nervous energy and “justifiable” outrage explode, unleashing my wrath. I am overly emotional about certain issues because I take them so personally, even if they do not affect me directly. Maintaining equilibrium and calm in the face of confrontation and opposition is one of several self-improvement exercises I’ve been working on lately; obviously, my bullish Thanksgiving behavior proves I have a ways to go to achieve that goal.

Civility in our political dialogue has been disintegrating for over a decade now (probably longer; I’ve just been acutely aware of it in that timeframe, as I have become more politically aware). I’m as guilty of contributing to all the verbal chaos as the next person. The one place, however, I am not contributing to it is in the blogosphere. I read political blogs daily and the discourse can get quite offensive with accusations of Nazi, fascist, communist, socialist, jerk, stupid, idiot, fraud, and the slurs go on—yes, it’s pretty disgusting. No wonder our political leaders are so divisive in their rhetoric: that’s what it appears the American people want—at least that’s what one would perceive from those who troll and comment on political blogs.

Tuesday The New York Times published an op-ed, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt” about this very issue. What Julie Zhuo writes about is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time: "Obscurity encourages hateful, inflammatory comments on blogs; one feels safer and becomes far less inhibited when not required to reveal their identity." If people were required to post their photo, I guarantee the discussion on these threads would be infinitely more civil and constructive rather than rife with the current name calling and insults.

When I decide to post a comment about an article I’ve read, I make sure there is something of value in it. That’s not to say now and again I won’t inject a bit of snarkiness if deserved, but I try to refrain from the truly offensive. Fortunately, it appears per the op-ed previously mentioned that many online forums are looking for ways to strike back at offensive posters: blocking anonymous comments, requiring registration with a name and email address in order to use the site, even allowing users to rate the comments.

This nation is becoming ever more divided ideologically and it is going to destroy us. Problems cannot be resolved at the extremes of left or right, nor should they be. The issues facing us domestically and internationally are formidable (or seem to be) and will require reasonable and rational people working together. The solutions will require compromise, not all liberal or all conservative ideas, but the best ideas from both sides—and yes, there are good ones on both sides of the political spectrum. (I'll address these in a future post.)

One of my New Year’s resolutions is to practice more civil dialogue when discussing politics, or any topic that upsets my emotional balance. To do that, I need to breathe deeply in order to remain calm; listen to others so that I really hear their side of an argument and take in what they are saying, acknowledging that I’ve heard them; then make my arguments in a calm yet direct manner, backed up by cold, hard facts. If we are going to solve the world’s problems, or at the very least alleviate some of them, our discourse must be respectful. If the quality of these conversations does not improve, the cacophony of competing voices will drown out any solutions there may be, and gridlock (which seems to be Congress’s modus operandi these days) will continue to be par for the course in American politics.

Mahatma Ghandi said: “Be the change in the world you want to see.” I want honest, rational and calm political debate, so I must be honest, rational and calm in my speaking and writing about issues important to me. My first New Year's resolution: Respectful political discourse will start with me.

High-Risk Health Insurance Exchanges Have Been Enrolling Since July

2010-11-19T15:03:00.000-08:00

The New York Times recently reported that the new high-risk health insurance pools have not met enrollment expectations. These are the new insurance pools developed for people with pre-existing conditions (Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan – PCIP). $5 billion was appropriated for these pools and yet only around 8,000 people have enrolled since the July 1 effective date. The Times article highlights one patient for whom these insurance exchanges have been a lifeline—he needs a bone marrow transplant (a procedure with which I am intimately familiar) and now will be able to get it.

This lack of awareness about the exchanges is one more example of President Obama’s and the Democrats’ messaging failure regarding the benefits of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The lack of enrollment is cause for concern for both Democrats and Republicans according to The Times article: “Although Republicans opposed the health care law as a whole, they have long embraced high-risk pools as an answer to the plight of the chronically uninsured.” Furthermore, “Senator John McCain of Arizona called for vast expansion of the pools and House Republicans in this year’s campaign reiterated the call in their “Pledge to America.”

One of the reasons cited for tepid enrollment figures is lack of awareness (I didn’t realize that these exchange were operational, and I consume various forms of news media multiple times a day). Other factors include the requirement that participants be uninsured for at least six months and the cost. Per Kaiser Health News, monthly premiums range from $140 to $900, with the average ranging from $400 to $600. I expect some premiums will exceed $900, having experience with the individual health insurance market myself.

Currently, every state is operating a PCIP, whether funded by the federal or state government. These were set up as a bridge to coverage until 2014 when insurers will be required to accept all applicants. And while coverage in these exchanges can be costly, for those who can afford to buy it, access to health insurance will allow them to get the ongoing care their chronic or acute illness requires and could prove potentially life-saving.

As of November 7, Pennsylvania has achieved the highest enrollment of any state in these plans. About 1,600 people are enrolled. This is attributed to the state’s online application process and a reasonable monthly premium of $283—a flat fee regardless of age or medical condition.

The goal now is to increase participation in these plans. There is no marketing and advertising budget for the PCIPs, so other tactics are needed to raise awareness. Strategies include making sure that providers are telling their patients about the PCIPs and that health officials are disseminating information to hard-to-reach target populations, establishing more affordable premiums, and offering additional plan choices.

Starting in January 2011, patients residing in the 23 states where the HHS is running the high-risk pools will be able to choose between three plan options: a standard plan, an extended plan, and a heath savings account plan. Kaiser Health News reported that HHS plans to lower premiums by about 20% in 2011.

The Republican plan to repeal the health care reform legislation is short-sighted and damaging. There are many positive changes in the legislation, despite it being less than perfect. The Congressional Budget Office has demonstrated that it will decrease health care costs over the next ten years and hospitals and employers have already changed their policies to reflect the new law. It will be a huge waste of dollars and effort if they have to to go back and revise these plans once again should repeal be successful.

Congressional repeal seems unlikely. The more likely scenario is to defund portions of the legislation. This would be harmful not only to patients, but also to the bottom line of companies and hospitals working to reshape their health care culture and who have already made significant investments in implementation.

There are pressing domestic and international issues that need to be confronted and resolved, so to spend time rehashing the entire health care debate would be folly. Still, we have a fractured and costly health care system, and this is the first time since Medicare was enacted that anything of this magnitude has been achieved to help expand coverage to the uninsured and underinsured and commence addressing rising costs. Therefore, the goal should be to work together to make the bill better rather than repealing it entirely only to replace it with much of what is already in there; repeal would be a waste of time, energy, and resources.

Americans like to proclaim we have the best health care system in the world, but statistics do not support that fact. We rank low in both infant mortality rates and life expectancy. We may very well have the best technology in the world, but if people don’t have access to it, what good does it do them? We spend more per capita on health care than any other country in the world with outcomes that, in many instances, are not better.

Americans who have employer-paid health insurance or can afford it on their own have no idea what it is like to struggle to pay for medical coverage or to get very sick and fear that you won’t receive the needed treatment. I know exactly how that feels, so I can speak credibly about this subject. I will continue to speak out about the need for even more health care reforms because what we got in the March 2010 legislation was mostly insurance reform.

I would like to hear your ideas for reforming health care, and something other than just tort reform. While tort reform is important, it is not the “be all end all” of bringing health care costs down. Medical lability accounts for about 2% of total health care costs, so tort reform alone will do very little to cut expenditures.

Mandates, insurance exchanges, and tax cuts to small businesses are all ideas in the current health care legislation that have been supported by Republicans in the past. Democrats had to compromise on what they wanted in this bill, but that was not good enough for the political right—as I’ve stated before, the Republicans’ idea of compromise is for Democrats to give up all the components that are important to them and enact only the ones favorable to conservatives. That’s not governing; that’s dictating.

These high-risk pools are supported by both Democrats and Republicans; it’s important we do what we can to make them work for Americans who need medical coverage. If you know someone with a pre-existing condition who is uninsured, please let them know about these high-risk insurance exchanges. You may just save a life.

Joe Miller: Spell it Exactly Right!

2010-11-11T14:34:00.000-08:00

What a guy! Yes, let's disfranchise people because they don't know how to spell Murkowski. Some spellings that have been encountered by election officials include “Merkowski," "Murkowsky," and "Murcowski.” My guess is most people would know for whom the voter intended to cast their ballot.

Alaska Senate Candidate Joe Miller is challenging the legitimacy of many write-in ballots for his opponent, incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski. During an interview today, Miller said that his campaign's efforts right now were about making sure the integrity of the election is upheld, and that Murkowski should be held to the exact-spelling standard.

Interestingly, 89% of the write-ins counted so far spelled "Lisa Murkowski" perfectly, placing her just slightly above the margin needed to win, if these percentages were to hold up exactly for the rest of the count.

"When Murkowski announced this campaign two months ago, she knew the statute required proper spelling," said Miller, citing her TV ads that used spelling-bee scenarios to impress the matter upon voters. "In the middle of the game, the Division of Elections decided to change the approach, that a different standard would be applied, one that's never been applied to a write-in campaign."

Mr. Miller makes a valid point. I’m all about fairness, so I don’t like tactics such as changing the rules mid-way through a campaign—it reeks of favoritism and entitlement.

This is exactly how I felt about Michael Bloomberg changing the term-limit law for NYC mayor so that he could serve a third term. Now he wants to reverse it back to two terms. The whole “what’s good for me isn’t good for everyone else; I’m a billionaire so I get to set the rules, or at the very least, buy my election” is distasteful and arrogant. And I actually think Mayor Bloomberg is a pretty decent mayor, I just don’t like some of the decisions he’s made and tactics he’s used because he has the financial means to do so.

However, I digress from the issue here which is that spelling should not disqualify votes as long as it is apparent whose name it is on the ballot. If it is clear for whom the voter intended to vote, as is apparent in the above examples, spelling shouldn’t matter. It is more important to not disfranchise voters, so spelling rules like this one in Alaska should be eliminated. Of course, if one’s writing is illegible or the spelling is completely off, that’s another story; but a few wrong letters should never disqualify a vote.

The Right to Vote

2010-11-02T08:25:00.000-07:00

At 5:37 a.m. I rolled out of bed, made a pot of coffee, threw on some clothes, ran a comb through my hair, poured a to-go cup of coffee, and set off for my polling place, a mere four blocks away. It was a crisp 37 degrees outside and still dark, but I felt energized as I walked down the street, knowing that regardless of the election outcome today, I had taken my right to vote seriously and did my civic duty. My polling place opened at 6:00 a.m., and I was the first one of the day to cast a vote.

I returned to my apartment, showered and got ready for work. Before I left, I picked up my copy of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States by Alexander Keyssar. It’s time to reread it. In fact, I think every American should read this book. It details the struggle for and obstacles to universal suffrage in America. The road to enfranchisement for immigrants, Native Americans, African Americans – all of whom were men, and then finally, to women was paved by the perseverance and struggles of various groups in a land where once only white men who owned property were granted a voice at the ballot box.

As each successive group was granted the right to vote, they found their vote blocked by onerous laws enacted by the governing elite: poll taxes, property ownership rules, literacy tests, and numerous other means to disfranchise voters. It is a turbulent history, with many steps forward taken to advance the cause only to find those steps being forced back by legislative barriers.

As a woman, I am indebted to my foremothers who fought long and hard to ensure I have a voice in my government today. I often feel frustrated that the wealthy, special interests, and lobbyists (and not all of these groups are bad when their influence and power is used for the greater good) seem to have a bigger say in policy or who is elected than the rest of us. But that isn’t necessarily true; money doesn’t always guarantee electoral success.

However, these moneyed interests can make it harder to know the truth because they are able to expend large sums of money on deceptive and negative advertising. Yet as citizens, it is our responsibility to sift through the misinformation and discover what the facts are. Unfortunately, too few people are engaged in our democracy and thus, will never take the time to dig deeper than a sound bite aired in an advertisement or spewed by a political pundit or news personality.

Today, November 2, 2010, it is estimated that 40% of the population will cast a vote in these midterm elections – 40%! That is pathetic. 40% of Americans will be electing who leads us, at least for the next two years. But even more disturbing, is that there are governors races going on, and what most Americans don’t realize is that the outcome of these governors races will determine redistricting in 2011 for the next ten years. Redistricting, or gerrymandering, is used to make sure districts remain largely in the hands of Democrats or Republicans. Both parties are guilty of using it to their advantage, to make sure their party is “safe”. But what that does is make elections less fair, less democratic because in certain districts, Republicans will never win and in others, Democrats will never win. How is that good for democracy?

There is a lot riding on these midterms. If people do not exercise their right to vote, they cannot complain when policies are made that they do not support. If you don’t vote, please refrain from making noise. It is important to be an engaged citizen—but very few people are. The right to vote was worth fighting for, so please don’t take it for granted. Too many people around the globe do not have that right and would cherish it; so vote. Weather shouldn’t be an issue because I saw on the news this morning that most of the country will be experiencing sunshine. And if you have a chance, pick up a copy of The Right to Vote. It will give you a new appreciation for being an American who is guaranteed this precious Constitutional right.

Progressives, We Shouldn't be Disappointed in Obama and Here's Why

2010-10-28T18:42:00.000-07:00

I am as guilty as other progressives of feeling disappointed in President Obama. He was supposed to transform our system economically and socially and get us out of those damn wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and close Guantánamo. From our point of view, he has capitulated way too much to Republicans and their ideas without garnering support from them for his initiatives. Our expectations were sky-high. We should've known that transformative change takes time, lots of time.

It’s fascinating the different lenses from which Conservatives and Liberals (and I'm generalizing to some extent) view Obama's policies: Conservatives scream accusations of “far-left socialist” policies, while Liberals bemoan that he is ideologically center-right, and many elements in his legislation have been. Both sides are wrong: President Obama is center-left ideologically, but he is definitely no socialist.

Given the financial disaster and the two wars that greeted him upon entering office, and the fact that a Republican minority in Congress has been hell-bent on opposing every piece of legislation he has tried to pass—even ideas that they in the past have supported—plus the added headache of Blue Dog Democrats not towing the Party line (like Republicans do for their Party; and I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but Republicans are loyal to the Party), it is amazing the President has achieved any legislative accomplishments. Yet he has, and it’s a pretty impressive list.

A friend of mine last week alerted me to an article published in Rolling Stone Magazine about President Obama’s achievements. I went online to search for it and found “The Case for Obama” by Tim Dickinson. Mr. Dickinson writes:

“This president has delivered more sweeping, progressive change in 20 months than the previous two Democratic administrations did in 12 years. 'When you look at what will last in history,' historian Doris Kearns Goodwin tells Rolling Stone, 'Obama has more notches on the presidential belt.' ”

“In fact, when the history of this administration is written, Obama’s opening act is likely to be judged as more impressive than any president’s—Democrat or Republican—since the mid 1960s.”

Some of the President’s achievements include (and this is hardly an exhaustive list, just some highlights from the article; for more specifics, please read the article—it's worth it):

1.) Health care reform, though far from perfect, is a start, and will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans over the next decade;

2.) Financial Reform, again, far from perfect, but a start; and within this legislation there was the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Credit Card ACT, and banks can no longer gamble federally insured deposits on high-risk investments;

3.) The last combat brigade has left Iraq, although 50,000 troops remain there in advisory and training capacity as well as private contractors, who will be there for who knows how long;

4.) The Recovery Act has been a success regardless of how the opposition wants to spin it; “more than 16 million jobs would have been lost without the interventions of TARP (passed by the Bush Administration), the Recovery Act and the Federal Reserve”; and because of this success, quite a few Republican senators, congressmen, and governors who opposed the The Recovery Act are now requesting stimulus funds and talking credit for job creation in their states;

5.) Three extensions of unemployment benefits;

6.) A package of loans and tax cuts for small businesses;

7.) A tax cut for 95% of Americans (Did you know you got a tax cut? It’s been coming out of your paycheck. See “For Obama, the Tax Cut Nobody Heard Of”);

8.) Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act;

9.) Appointed two female justices to the Supreme Court, bringing the current total of women to three (that’s huge!);

10.) By executive order, all federal agencies are required to reduce their carbon emissions by 28% over the next ten years.

There are numerous other legislative achievements Dickinson covers in his article. As I read it, it made me feel more empathy for our President because he has been unjustly demonized by the right and gotten very little credit from the left for all these victories, much of which are his and the Democratic leaders’ fault. They have failed dismally to communicate to their political base, much less the general population, how these policies have and will benefit average Americans.

It is appalling to watch how Obama and the Democrats have been pilloried for trying to make this country a better place, and even more appalling that they seem impotent to fight back to make their message reverberate above the far-right and far-left cacophony of politicians and pundits.

Admittedly, I see the world through a liberal lens, but I try to remain open-minded to other ideas. We have to be open because the country and the world are diverse on so many levels; there is no one ideological solution that will please everyone. To be fair, President Obama has incorporated ideas from the left and the right into his legislation. Unfortunately, listening to Republicans in Congress their idea of compromise is the President relinquishing all his ideas while incorporating all of theirs. Compromise for them is enacting legislation that is purely conservative—anything less is not worth supporting. That’s the stance they’ve taken over the past 20 months and that’s wrong; it neither moves the country forward nor helps solve problems. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said today that if the Republicans take over the House, there will be no compromise. I guess nothing will get accomplished over the next two years and that’s a damn shame.

November 2 will come and go, and on November 3, it is expected that at least in the House of Representatives the Republicans will be the majority. Perhaps this is a good thing because now Republicans will be held more accountable for their obstructionism. They will need to start leading instead of just saying “no;” they will need to work with the President, and he with them. All members of Congress need to put the American people’s lives ahead of their political ambitions; they need to reform campaign finance laws and set term limits. Their legislation will not be ideologically pure or perfect—nor should it be—but hopefully there will be some elements in it that most people can find to support.

I’m an optimist, so I like to think Mr. Boehner will rise above his childish proclamation of “no compromise.” Doing nothing will neither help this nation nor the Republican Party come the next election cycle—the presidential election of 2012 (at least I hope they wouldn't be rewarded for doing nothing).

Now get out and vote!

The Disappearing Middle Class: New Data Released October 15 by the Social Security Administration Shows Further Decline in Wages

2010-10-25T13:39:00.000-07:00

“The story the numbers tell is one of a strengthening economic base with income growing fastest at the bottom until, in 1981, we made an abrupt change in tax and economic policy. Since then the base has fared poorly while huge economic gains piled up at the very top, along with much lower tax burdens.” ~ David Cay Johnston

On Tax.com today, David Cay Johnston writes about the recent Social Security Administration report that outlines wage stagnation and decreases over the past decade—some results comparing figures from 2008 and 2009. Astonishingly, this report garnered little, if no, media coverage when it was released on the 15th. Following are a few highlights:

1.) The number of Americans making $50 million or more, the top income category in the data, fell from 131 in 2008 to 74 last year; yet the average wage in this top category increased from $91.2 million in 2008 to an astonishing $518.8 million in 2009.

2.) These 74 people made as much as the 19 million lowest-paid people in America, who constitute one in every eight workers.

3.) Only 150.9 million Americans reported any wage income in 2009. That put us below 2005, when 151.6 million Americans reported wages, and only slightly ahead of 2004, when 149.4 million Americans held at least one paying job.

Johnston’s report is quite detailed with PDF charts referenced throughout the piece. I found this report on Huffington Post. The Huff Post article also includes a heartbreaking video segment from this past Sunday’s “60 Minutes” about the 99ers, people who’ve been out of work for 99 weeks or more. Some statistics from the “60 Minutes” segment:

1.) 20% of the unemployed in America have college degrees

2.) The 9.6% unemployment number does not take into account those no longer looking for employment or the underemployed (those who have taken on part-time jobs), which brings the number closer to 17%

1.) 1/3 of the unemployed have been out of work for 1 year

These dismal figures make it difficult for me to understand those who rail against their fellow Americans as being lazy or spoiled because they need unemployment compensation to help sustain themselves and their families. There is currently 1 job for every 5 applicants, and a record number of Americans are now using food stamps. I am constantly saddened by the seemingly increasing lack of compassion in this country.

Johnston, in his report, sums up (at least two elements, I think) quite accurately that is the cause of much of this income disparity and current economic suffering: U.S. Tax policy over the past 30 years and America’s infatuation with wealth and those who possess it. Johnston says:

“It is the latest, and in this case quite dramatic, evidence that our economic policies in Washington are undermining the nation as a whole. We have created a tax system that changes continually as politicians manipulate it to extract campaign donations. We have enabled ‘‘free trade’’ that is nothing of the sort, but rather tax-subsidized mechanisms that encourage American manufacturers to close their domestic factories, fire workers, and then use cheap labor in China for products they send right back to the United States. This has created enormous downward pressure on wages, and not just for factory workers.

Combined with government policies that have reduced the share of private-sector workers in unions by more than two-thirds — while our competitors in Canada, Europe, and Japan continue to have highly unionized workforces — the net effect has been disastrous for the vast majority of American workers. And of course, less money earned from labor translates into less money to finance the United States of America.

This systematic destruction of the working class and middle class has come during an era notable for celebrating the super-rich just for being super-rich. From the Forbes 400 launch in 1982 and Robin Leach’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous in 1984 to the faux reality of the multiplying Real Housewives shows, money voyeurism has grown in tandem with stagnant to falling incomes for the vast majority. There has also been huge income growth at the top and the economic children of income inequality: budget deficits and malign neglect of our commonwealth.

This orgy of money exhibitionism has created a society in which commas — it takes three to be a billionaire — count more than character. We have gone so far down this path that we bailed out bankers, allowing them to keep the untaxed wealth in their deferral accounts and, with a few exceptions, retaining shareholder value, while wiping out investors in General Motors and Chrysler as a condition of their bailouts. And while autoworkers had to take severe pay cuts, bonus time on Wall Street is at new record levels.”

Conservatives like to throw around terminology such as “class warfare” and “redistribution of wealth” and “socialism”; well, they should examine their policies because those policies encourage class warfare against the middle and working classes, and especially the poor. Furthermore, their policies create a corporate socialist class. When corporations can reap the profits from a capitalist system, yet receive taxpayer bailouts and are allowed to use tax loopholes and shelters to avoid paying their fair share, the result is corporate socialism. There have to be better solutions than merely redistributing wealth upwards (in the form of bigger tax cuts) while cutting social services for the needy, especially in a recession, and slashing funding for public education.

I’ll be researching some solutions over the next few months. I love this country and feel it’s time for me to get involved in order to somehow help save it from corruption, moral decay (in the sense people stop caring about personal and civil rights, or each other), and plutocracy.

I value democracy—true democracy, where my one vote holds as much weight as a corporate tycoon’s vote does, not her/his millions in campaign contributions, which I cannot compete with. Do you value democracy? If so, think long and hard about the choices you make next Tuesday in the voting booth—that assumes you care enough to vote.

PolitiFact.com - Helping Voters Make Informed Decisions

2010-10-21T10:23:00.000-07:00

If you’re like me and rarely let negative political ads sway your voting decision, PolitiFact.com may not be a necessary site for you to visit. However, if you are curious (as I am), demand to know the accuracy of political ads (I do), or are searching for a bit of political entertainment (some of the findings will cause a chuckle), this Pulitzer Prize-winning site is the place to turn. I am a huge fan of this site, and in particular, its Truth-O-Meter.

The Truth-O-Meter scrutinizes political ads—from all political parties—and rates them as True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False, and Pants on Fire (a statement that is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim). The Pants on Fire scale is a burning flame that illuminates an egregiously false assertion—I love it.

Other features on the site include the Obameter that tracks President Obama’s campaign promises and the Flip-O-Meter that rates the consistency of public officials and the issues they say they support: No Flip, Half Flip, and Full Flip. There are also articles such as Cookie Cutter Ads from Coast to Coast, detailing how candidates across the country are using identical lines such as “privatizing social security”, “career politicians”, “cutting medicare”, etc.

PolitiFact is one of many platforms out there for helping you make an informed decision when you vote as well as for keeping public officials honest and holding them accountable. Accurate and honest information, backed up by facts, is vital in a democracy.

PolitFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times. Researchers and reporters from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in Washington.

Walking a Thin Line: Voter Intimidation to Justify Preventing Voter Fraud

2010-10-20T09:22:00.000-07:00

Talking Points Memo reports today that the Department of Justice is investigating allegations of voter intimidation in Harris County, Texas. This is an example of voter intimidation in the name of preventing voter fraud. Overzealous and oftentimes untrained poll watchers can easily overstep the boundaries of their oversight duties.

The interesting point about this is that despite the ginned-up rhetoric we hear about rampant voter fraud, there is very little evidence to support that claim, as many conservative groups seem to declare. In fact, one study by the Brennan Center found that a person is more likely to get struck by lightning than impersonate another voter at the polls.

So what is voter fraud? Per The Truth About Voter Fraud study, “Voter fraud” is fraud by voters. The study goes on to state: "More precisely, “voter fraud” occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system. This sounds straightforward. And yet, voter fraud is often conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with other forms of election misconduct or irregularities. Moreover, these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters."

It is undemocratic to use intimidation to disenfranchise legitimate voters, though admittedly and shamefully, tactics (poll taxes, literacy tests, property ownership requirements, etc.) to disenfranchise certain groups have been utilized since the founding of our country. We must be more vigilant in protecting our fellow Americans' right to vote - and yes, it's that important.

Progressives, Please Save Conservatives From Themselves: Vote on November 2!

2010-10-14T12:42:00.000-07:00

I have become increasingly anxious over the past few months as I see, read, and hear candidates for public office—mostly from the Tea Party crowd—spewing ignorant, hateful rhetoric and embracing extreme policy positions. Most of these people neither have the experience nor the education to hold political office, which is blatantly clear, as most barely have an understanding of the Constitution they claim to hold so dear.

What is even more frightening is that seemingly reasonable and moderate Republicans are embracing these candidates. I realize people are angry and scared, and for good reason—this country is in the crapper and won’t emerge from it any time soon. But we are an impatient people and must remember how we arrived at this point. To expect President Obama in less than two years to turn around the Bush Administration’s mess (that took 8 years to create) as well as decades of deregulation and some bad legislative decisions from previous Administrations (Democrats included) is unreasonable. Yet now, not two years into his presidency, we want to put the same people back—actually worse people—into office who steered us into this economic train wreck? Right…that’s the intelligent thing to do. We’ve barely given President Obama’s policies time to work.

I had planned to write a post enumerating the extremist positions of some of these far-right candidates who in my opinion are grossly incompetent, unqualified, and morally abhorrent. However, on October 11 on The Huffington Post, Mitchell Bard penned the piece I’d planned to write. His detailed outline of these candidates’ policy positions and personal views is so thorough I’m merely reposting it. The Tea Party candidates he profiles (and these are only his top 10) are:

1.) Christine O’Donnell (DE) - Senate

2.) Ron Johnson (WI) - Senate

3.) Sharron Angle (NV) - Senate

4.) Rand Paul (KY) - Senate

5.) Joe Miller (AK) - Senate

6.) Ken Buck (CO) - Senate

7.) Carl Paladino (NY) - Governor

8.) Dan Maes (CO) - Governor

9.) Linda McMahon (CT) - Senate

10.) Marco Rubio (FL) - Senate

We hear daily about the “enthusiasm gap”— that because Democrats believe Obama did not produce a progressive enough agenda we are so disheartened and demoralized that we will not show up at the polls. This assessment is true to some extent, but if Democrats stay home on November 2, extreme candidates such as the ones listed above—maybe not all, but some—will move into the House of Representatives and/or the Senate. These Tea Party candidates are not interested in compromise or working for the good of the people. They are ideological purists and as such will create even more obstruction than there has been in Congress over the past two years. These Tea Party Republicans will most likely even refuse to work with mainstream Republicans.

Furthermore, if Republicans take over both houses of Congress, it is likely that absolutely nothing will get accomplished in the next two years except for possibly the barrage of lawsuits and investigations against the Obama Administration the Republican leadership has promised its constituents. (Please note: The Obama Administration could’ve done the same thing, and should have, to the Bush/Cheney Administration, but they chose to look forward. Leave it to Republicans to play dirty, especially when any criminal action they think the Obama Administration has committed, pales in comparison to Bush’s illegal wire taps, torture policy, lying about weapons of mass destruction that plunged us into the Iraq War, etc. I could go on, but won't.)

As stated previously, I get it that people are angry and scared, but these far-right candidates are not the answers to our problems. Yes, those in power right now aren’t doing such a stand-up job either, as Republicans and some Democrats have refused to work together to pass needed legislation, and both parties are beholden to their corporate funders and lobbyist supporters. Money buys influence. Big business runs our country, and the American people need to wake up to that fact before it’s too late and we are slaves to corporate masters. The ever-increasing takeover of government by big business interests and the issue of campaign finance reform must be addressed, and soon, because our democracy is rapidly becoming a sham. Furthermore, if the people listed above and those like them are the best America has to offer, God help us.

The Battle that Never Ends: Taxes

2010-10-03T13:06:00.000-07:00

The debate on taxes is one that is never-ending, and with the approaching 2010 midterm elections the partisan rhetoric is escalating from the left and the right. The most hotly debated topic is the 2001 Bush tax cuts: should they be allowed to expire, extended for everyone, or only extended for those making less than $250,000 a year (for a couple), $200,000 (for an individual)? President Obama prefers the latter option, and under this option the higher tax rate would only apply to income above $200,000/$250,000.

The Economic Growth and Reconciliation Act of 2001 was passed using the “reconciliation” process (remember that dirty word during the health care debate?). It is a fact that President Bush dropped the top tax rate to 36% and then also raised the top tax rate up to 39% with an effective date of January 1, 2011. I imagine they wrote the legislation this way thinking that they were going to have a permanent majority and that there would be a Republican President elected in 2008 who would make those tax cuts permanent. Well, it appears that a Democratic President may spoil those plans. To be clear, President Obama is actually not the one raising taxes; rather President Bush and the Republicans in charge during his Presidency scheduled these tax cuts to expire December 31, 2010.

I referred to these 2001 Bush tax cuts specifically as the “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy” in my September 11 post because it is these tax cuts for the wealthiest 2-3% that when anyone mentions cutting back to Clinton-era levels, basically 39%, Republicans scream bloody murder. I will restate my assertion that trickle-down economics is a huge myth the American electorate has bought into, and it has encouraged many of them to vote against their interests for decades.

If you want proof of this assertion look no further than the latest report of the ever increasing income gap between the rich and the poor, the fact that a measly 3 million jobs were created during the last Bush Administration (as opposed to 23 million under Clinton), and jobs continue to be outsourced to other countries. Some politicians argue that banks need these tax cuts in order to lend. That’s a load of garbage: Banks are currently sitting on $1.8 trillion of uncommitted cash reserves. They should be lending, not hoarding. They are not helping to create jobs; in fact, even after being bailed out by American taxpayers and complaining about the financial reform legislation, Wall Street is prospering. If Obama’s financial reform was so awful (and as far as I’m concerned, it didn’t go far enough; Glass-Steagall should’ve been re-enacted), why are these guys still making out like bandits?

Americans are angry for many reasons – some legitimate, some not so much. However, one reason they are angry is because they saw the corporations bailed out but where was/is all the help for Main Street? Where are the jobs? Much more could have been done, but Republicans decided they did not want to help Main Street America. President Obama’s stimulus bill (not to be confused with TARP, which was passed by the Bush Administration in 2008 before Obama took office) was deeply watered down to make it more palatable to Republicans, yet it did not garner any of their votes in the House and only 3 in the Senate.

In the end, the stimulus was too small to be as effective as it could have been – many economists have said the same. But that’s what Republicans wanted because now they can claim it didn’t work, yet there is plenty of proof that it did work, that the economy would’ve been in much worse condition today without it. Unfortunately, the stimulus wasn’t big enough, and people are still hurting.

Politicians are all talking deficit reduction. That’s laudable, but they will only achieve deficit reduction through cutting spending, cutting some taxes, and raising other taxes. No politician will tell you this because it does not win elections. There is no way to reduce the deficit through tax cuts only – it won’t happen; I can’t find proof of when tax cuts have ever reduced deficits when there wasn't spending cuts involved as well, but there is evidence to prove the opposite.

Republican leaders are inconsistent when it comes to deficits – they are against them when it will benefit the middle and working classes (e.g. - paying unemployment benefits, funding education and poverty-reduction programs, assistance for homeowners, etc.) yet could care less about deficits when caused by those glorious tax cuts. One of the problems with the GOP's "Pledge to America" is that there is no statement as to what programs would receive spending reductions to pay for their proposed tax cuts. Would they cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, what?

Linda Beale, a law professor, on her blog A Taxing Matter states the following in her September 15 post, The hypocrisy of most deficit discussions:

“But the deficit created by the Bush tax cuts doesn't make sense. It is based on "trickle down" economics--the view that if the rich get richer, everybody else will do well too. But that hasn't been the case. Since 1980, the rich have gotten immensely richer, but most Americans have hit stagnation, with real wages not sharing at all in the productivity gains that have made corporate managers multimillionaires. The productivity gains, that is, have gone to the people at the top, and the people at the top have hoarded them, supporting tax policies that give themselves huge tax cuts.

Tax cuts--especially for the wealthiest people and corporations--do not make sense. That money is as likely to be invested overseas as in the US, and overseas it does nothing but contribute to the job drain. Corporations purchasing new equipment with the 100% expensing may buy that equipment from China or India or Korea--again, pushing jobs overseas and doing nothing to stimulate the local economy, but costing the government the tax expenditure that could have been used for public infrastructure projects instead.”

Beale also discusses the impact of decreased taxes on capital gains in her August 31 post, Dealing with the Sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts (Part V in a series)--dividends at capital gains rate

“Most of the result was just more money in the pocket of the richest Americans who own most of the financial assets, and that money in the pocket was as likely to be invested in offshore bank accounts as put to work supporting a new business here in the US. The dividend tax cut didn't even lead to much in the way of dividend payouts--except perhaps for firms whose managers and directors saw a chance to benefit themselves. Even if those expiring tax cuts are not renewed with new tax legislation, it is not likely to have much of an effect on companies' dividend policies.”

Then in the Washington Post article, Five Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts, it was written that “the government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts.”

It is a fact that only about 2-3% of small business owners earn over $250,000. Under sharp questioning from Bob Schieffer on CBS News’s “Face the Nation,” Mr. Boehner admitted that only 3 percent of small businesses would pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s proposal. As the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation recently reported, 97 percent of the taxpayers with business income would get a cut under Mr. Obama’s plan.

Granted President Obama has sky-rocketed the current deficit, but that has been to counter the economic mess the country was in when he took office. Deficits aren’t always bad in the short-term when they are meant to stimulate the economy; that being said, they must eventually be paid for. It is long-term deficits we should be concerned about. Economists Paul Krugman and Robert Reich (among others) are in agreement on this.

Lastly, taxes are not “permanent.” They should be raised or lowered to support the needs of the times. This is the history of our U.S. tax policy, which can be found on the U.S. Treasury Department website. However, it is curious that in the history portion of “Fact Sheets: Taxes” there is no information provided after the 2001 Bush tax cuts. I’ll leave you to make your own conclusions about that omission.

My biggest beef with Congressional Republicans and some conservative Democrats is their obsession with extending tax cuts for the richest Americans while cutting spending on programs for the middle class, the working class or the poor, and especially the long-term unemployed, who need monetary help during these difficult times. When there is 1 job for every 6 applicants, the refusal to approve or delay extending unemployment compensation is selfish and heartless (as Republicans did this past summer). I know people who have been unemployed for a very long time, and they are neither lazy nor freeloaders.

The question then becomes, what is the right tax policy for America? How can we decrease the deficit? Where can we cut spending and eliminate waste and fraud? I’ll be offering some ideas in my next post.

Get Swabbed!

2010-09-25T15:35:00.000-07:00

“Get swabbed!” was the directive printed on all the promotional materials for the DKMS and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) bone marrow donor drive held today (September 25) at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan. I knew I wanted to volunteer to work this event the moment I received the email inquiry for volunteers from the LLS. As a blood cancer survivor who was lucky enough to have had a sibling bone marrow donor, I am acutely aware of the patients who are not so fortunate.

I was one of the volunteers situated at the information tables—the first area where potential donors stopped before being tested. Our job was to make sure they were not already in the registry, that they met certain criteria, and that they understood both methods for donating bone marrow: the peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) draw (approximately 70-80% of collections are performed this way) and the bone marrow extraction (approximately 20-30% of collections are performed this way).

We also had to inform them that they would be on the registry until age 61 and that they are donating to any searching patient who matches their tissue type. After visiting our table, they proceeded to registration and testing. Testing involved swabbing the inside of both their cheeks with cotton-tipped swabs. These swabs will be sent to a lab for HLA testing and entered into the Be The Match Registry (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP)). Donor data is entered in anonymous form and all information is confidential.

Per the NMDP, only 3 out of every 10 patients will receive a transplant that could save their lives. I was so inspired by those who showed up today, and especially pleased at the number of black and Hispanic people who were there, because it is these populations that are sorely underrepresented in the registry.

I encourage all of you to get swabbed; be a bone marrow donor. This afternoon, a young woman who works for DKMS said, “Imagine if everyone in this country were in the registry.” Yes, imagine! If I could, I would be in the registry, but I’ve had cancer, so I cannot; though that is not true for all cancers, as there are exceptions: cervical, breast, and bladder (stage o) and cured skin cancer.

If interested in becoming a bone marrow donor, or if you want to help in some way, here are some ideas per the DKMS brochure:

Sign up to be a bone marrow donor online
Donate $65.00 to sponsor a donor (I did this today) – DKMS is a National Donor Center. DKMS does not charge the $65.00 registration fee, so they rely on the generosity of supporters – every dollar counts!
Organize a bone marrow drive in your community, at your office or school
Encourage family members and friends to register with DKMS (I’m doing this right now – hint, hint)
Help DKMS raise funds by holding an event, raffle, etc. in your community

Those who know me, and are familiar with my history, understand how much the work of DKMS, Be The Match, the LLS and other cancer organizations means to me. Again, I encourage you to consider becoming a bone marrow donor. You never know whose life you may save, and to them, your generosity and courage will mean the world; you will be their hero. I guarantee it!

Health Care Reform Six Months Later

2010-09-23T10:24:00.000-07:00

Today, six months after the passage of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (March 23, 2010), the following provisions go into effect. Regardless of political affiliation, I think we can agree that these provisions are positive. What are they? Check out the bullet points below and for further information and details, visit the White House website or healthcare.gov.

Ban on lifetime limits
Bans insurance companies from dropping your coverage when sick (aka “rescission”)
Parents can cover young adults up to age 26 on their insurance plans
Prohibits discriminating against children with pre-existing conditions
Restricts the use of annual limits
Cover recommended preventive services without charging out of pocket costs
Provide an opportunity to appeal coverage decisions
Guarantee enrollees their choice of primary care provider

Many other provisions and other regulations don’t take effect until 2014. While this is mainly health insurance reform, these are important first steps to actual health care reform. These are protections for all Americans, and these are protections that would disappear if the Republican leadership has their way. There is a lot of misinformation out there surrounding these reforms, and some of the fault lies with Democrats who have done an abysmal job of explaining to the American public how the Affordable Care Act will impact their lives positively. Still the Democrats have at least tried to do something to help the millions of uninsured and underinsured people in this country, while conservative leaders have just said “no”.

What is interesting is that there are many elements in this Act that had Republican support in past years: the mandate for everyone to purchase coverage (which I agree with because if everyone is required to purchase coverage (much like car insurance) then the risk is spread out among the old and the young and the sick and the healthy). Now the young and healthy may balk at this, but many young and healthy people end up with chronic diseases and cancer. If these individuals are uninsured or underinsured, the cost of their care is placed onto other insured people or result in increased hospital costs. It behooves all of us to partake in this system because you never know when you may need it.

Other Republican elements in the legislation include tax cuts to small businesses so that they can purchase coverage for their employees, young adults up to age 26 being covered under their parents’ plans, and ending the practice of rescission. In fact, the plan the Obama Administration and Democrats passed is very similar to the one Republican Mitt Romney implemented in the state of Massachusetts when he was governor. You can read about how Republicans in their “Pledge to America” are proposing to change the Affordable Care Act by replacing some of its provisions with their own, ones that are basically identical to those in the current legislation.

As a cancer survivor, I know firsthand how expensive cancer treatment can be and how vital good insurance is. My story is a cautionary tale (scroll down to middle of the post dated February 2008 to read it). I was lucky in so many ways; many other patients are not.

Here are some additional links to check out:
Happy Birthday Health Reform – Six Months Old!

The Health of Reform (A report card)

New health care changes are only the beginning

New health Care Reform Rules Debut September 23

Comment to a Facebook Exchange - Political

2010-09-11T08:56:00.000-07:00

Since there is so much for me to write about in this response, I decided to post it on my blog as opposed to posting a really long comment on Marc's wall.

Response:
Both parties have created the economic mess we are in now. The biggest mistake Bill Clinton made was repealing Glass-Steagall, which was a New Deal era law that separated banks from securities institutions. Also the loosening of lending criteria for home ownership led to all kinds of scams on the part of lenders and financial institutions holding those loans as well as encouraged people to buy homes who could not afford them. (I'm simplifying all of this due to time constraints, but you get the point).

George W. Bush started two wars, pushed through major tax cuts for the wealthy (under "reconciliation" - yes, that dirty word) and provided a huge giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry with Medicare Part D "reform", all of which were unfunded and costing trillions of taxpayer dollars over a decade. Plus our former President kept both wars off the books to make the budget look better, which President Obama hasn't done. It makes me ill to hear Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility and transparency. They have no credibility on this.

President Obama and the Democrats are at least trying to do something about it. All the Republicans have done is say no to everything - even when policies they have supported, and do support, are included in legislation to garner their votes - health care reform is one example. The only thing Republicans offer are tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts, especially for the wealthy. Tax cuts for small business owners are a good thing, as the majority of small businesses are where jobs have been created recently. But only about 2% of small business owners make over $250,000, so whatever you are hearing about how eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy will hurt small businesses, this is just not true. Reverting to pre-Bush era tax levels for the richest in this country, will allow for additional revenue needed to get us back on track economically, though that is far from the only strategy that will accomplish this goal. Still, trickle-down is huge myth that the American people have been buying into for decades. All one has to do to find the proof of this is to look at the earnings gap that has been going on for decades.

And a far as trust...I trust government (led by the right people, of course) more than big business any day to ensure the American people have certain protections from unscrupulous business leaders. A corporation's only goal is to make a profit, so they don't care if they eliminate jobs or send them overseas as long as their bottom line increases and they make money for their shareholders. They are looking for tax loopholes and locating their companies offshore so they don't have to pay taxes. We have seen time and time again how they have to be regulated because when they are not, or regulations are ignored, they can cause a great deal of destruction - the BP oil disaster and the lack of oversight by the Minerals Management Service is one example of this. We are returning to the robber baron days and increasingly finding ourselves in a plutocracy where big business and the wealthy are the ones setting the rules and buying off regulators.

I highly recommend Thomas Frank's "The Wrecking Crew." Frank details how because Conservatives hate government so much they have systematically tried to destroy it every time they are in power. All you have to do is look at the corruption, cronyism, and incompetence of the Bush administration to see that this is true, and Mr. Frank has ample examples of this strategy going back decades to support his conclusion.

Lastly, taxes are the price we pay in this country for decent infrastructure, police and fire services, public transportation, SS, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment insurance, environmental protections, food safety, and a social safety net for those who need it. Compassion is becoming a thing of the past in this country and it is very sad. The thinking of "as long as I'm okay and my family is okay, I don't care what happens to anyone else" seems to be the trend in the collective conscience of this country. If it is, I feel sorry for us.

It took a long time to get us into this mess, and it is unreasonable to believe we will come out of it any time soon. We are an impatient people, looking for short-term solutions at the expense of long-term prosperity. What no one is saying, or has the guts to say, to the American people is that it will take a lot of sacrifice and yes, tax increases to get our economy back on track. But that kind of talk is deadly to any election campaign.

I've had my say and will not be responding to any further comments. Believe me there is so much more I could say but I neither have the time nor the energy.

Peace!

Action Project - August Update

2010-08-05T12:24:00.000-07:00

It’s definitely summertime—the lazy, hazy days of summer when it’s acceptable to slack off on our goals and simply relax and enjoy time with family and friends. Not that I am, or any of the Action Project participants are, slackers, but the updates were rather short this time—excluding Lisa H’s. I opted to not conduct any journaling workshops during the summer and will readily admit to wanting as much freedom from commitments as possible. Also, sadly, I have failed to meet my exercise goals this month. Still, I do try to walk to and from the Port Authority and the office daily, and always take the internal stairs at the NFL, where they occupy five floors of the building.

Creatively, I’ve been more productive. I have been writing—blogging and working on my next book—and even submitted to She Writes’s Passion Project contest. The winner will receive expert advice from various publishing and marketing professionals on how to write a compelling book proposal in order to garner interest from a traditional book publisher. I submitted a pitch for and an excerpt from my next book project.

On July 16, I had new headshots taken and on the 19th and 20th, I filmed a TV pilot in which I was cast as the main character’s mother. Now I am preparing for a 12-day vacation to the Midwest to visit family and friends and am very much looking forward to it.

Okay, enough about me. How are the ladies doing?

Diana
I have no updates other than I was on vacation in Florida for seven days and enjoyed every bit of it. I have given up on the diet and am just trying to get myself in better shape.

Rhonda
I'm still losing weight without even trying as hard as I used to. The gym has helped tremendously; I feel much better and possess extra energy! I've lost 2 1/4 inches off my waist and mid section since joining five weeks ago. I've taken my caloric intake from 1400 down to 1200, which I feel is my biggest achievement. During vacation, I only gained 2.5 pounds and have already dropped that. (Yeah!) So to date, I'm very happy to report my weight loss is 31.4 pounds and that makes me smile.

Katie
I am currently working on some doable avenues for expanding my network and client base. I keep in the back of my mind that my marketing is just going to have to take a back seat to family business. So whatever I can accomplish in an hour or two, I accomplish. The rest will have to wait!

Lisa H
When I started with Weight Watchers online this past May, I wanted to lose the five pounds I had gained between my surgery in March and the middle of May. Well by the beginning of July I had lost the five pounds, but after all the Fourth of July festivities I had gained it back. It is unbelievable to me that you can gain five pounds in four days and then it takes six weeks or longer to lose it.

I have come to the conclusion that between 148 and 153 pounds is where my body is naturally going to stay, considering my lifestyle and without starving myself. So, I've decided I am going to be okay with it. However, I will still need to watch my serving sizes and make good food choices so that I don't go above 153.

I weighed 170 pounds when I first started Weight Watchers back in May of 2009. My plan was to lose 30 pounds, dropping to 140. It is not going to happen. 147.8 is the lowest weight I have been able to achieve then it shifts back up. But, I'm okay with that.

Lisa sent an update the following day:

I was at a small get-together with some friends last night and had an “a-ha” moment about my weight gain since my surgery in March: It wasn't the surgery. During my recovery time from the surgery I had my yearly appointment with my general practitioner and because I'd lost 22 pounds, my labs showed that I was taking too much thyroid medication, so she lowered it to 75 mcg from 100 mcg. I didn't like that because I remembered every time in the past when it had been lowered, I'd gain weight. This thought hit me when a lady at the party said she had forgotten, with her new job and all that was going on in her life, to take her thyroid pill for the last three mornings. Just her mentioning that made me think about my doctor lowering my dosage. I had forgotten all about my thyroid issues while recovering from surgery and having three additional procedures in the process.

I then remembered that when I joined Weight Watchers for the first time several years ago, the leader stayed afterward and talked with us “newbies” individually. When she found out I was on thyroid medication and estrogen patches, she said, "I'm not being negative, just realistic. You do realize you have a double whammy against you from the very start?" (I didn’t at the time.) She went on, "I don't want you to get discouraged when your weight drops twice as slowly as someone else's. Because of the thyroid medication and the estrogen, though not impossible, it will be harder to lose weight. A person not on these medications will lose 1 to 2 pounds a week—maybe more; whereas you may lose less than a pound during the same time.”

She was right. I had been maintaining my weight around 148 pounds from October 2009 until mid-April 2010, and I couldn't figure out why having bladder surgery would make me gain five pounds. I knew I hadn't changed my healthier eating habits, and I had not exercised much to begin with. At least now I know what the real problem is and that lessens the confusion about my recent lack of weight-loss.

Joan
School starts today (August 2). I can’t sleep. I am beginning my 30th year at this school and am anxious to get started and into a routine.

As for exercising, up until this past week I have been doing low impact aerobics every day since last month's update. I have been too busy getting my classroom ready this past week to exercise, so I plan to get back to it, hopefully Wednesday evening (August 4).

My weight is holding between 120 and 125 pounds. I am also eating more fresh fruit.

I have been experiencing some pain in my back (not muscle pain). It is a discomfort on the right side of my abdomen that I have endured for several years. I visited my gynecologist today, and she suggested I keep a diary of what I eat. I started it tonight. I might need a colonoscopy and/or an upper GI.

Good news: the chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is not bothering me—as far as I can tell. I see my oncologist on September 4.

Thanks, ladies. Enjoy the rest of summer. Here’s to congratulating all of you on your successes and a-ha! moments. Please note, I did not receive an update from Lisa B this time.

The Electoral College: Reform It or Eliminate It

2010-07-28T08:46:00.000-07:00

I agree about the need to reform the Electoral College. However, the solution that the state of Massachussetts is currently considering is another all-or-nothing allocation of electoral votes. Politics Daily's Christopher Weber outlines this proposal on today's site. Currently, the candidate who wins the majority of votes in each state receives all that state’s electoral votes. In the aforementioned proposed legislation, the candidate who wins the national popular vote would receive all the state’s electoral votes.

My solution—which I write about in my book, Rebirth*—is to either get rid of the Electoral College completely and adhere to the popular vote; or split the Electoral College votes based on the percentage received by each candidate. For example, if a state has 10 electoral votes and one candidate receives 60% of the popular vote and the other candidate receives 40%, award the 60% winner 6 EC votes and the other candidate 4 EC votes. This is a more representative and fair distribution of the popular vote than the winner-take-all allocation we currently have, or that is being proposed by some states.

I have other ideas about reforming our election and campaign processes, too. (You can read these in my June 25 post, The United States of Plutocracy.)

What ideas would you have for reforming the U.S. election system?

* I veer into the political some in my book because during my cancer treatment it was a Presidential election year.

Easily Manipulated; Quick to Judge

2010-07-21T12:39:00.000-07:00

The story of Shirley Sherrod is riveting. Ms. Sherrod is the USDA worker who was recently asked to resign over her comments about a white farmer in a speech she gave to the NAACP in March. Yesterday on CNN when I first heard the portion of her speech that Andrew Breitbart posted on his blog BigGovernment.com I was appalled. I thought: “Good God! What in the world was she thinking saying something like that?” I rushed to judgment.

But as the story unfolded throughout the day, it became apparent that her statement had been taken out of context and manipulated to imply that she was a racist and held these sentiments in her current position at USDA. What we have discovered is that she was using this story to show how she overcame her own prejudices to go on to work for all people who needed help, regardless of race.

Andrew Breitbart is the conservative blogger who posted the segment from the video of her speech. He says he did this to prove his position that the NAACP and its supporters are hypocritical in their calling out racist elements in other groups such as the Tea Party. I've no doubt there are racists in the NAACP; unfortunately, racial biases still exist and probably always will to some degree. Mr. Breitbart now claims to have received this edited segment from a reader of his blog. Still, Mr. Breitbart should have viewed the entire video before posting this seemingly damning portion of it; it was irresponsible on his part. To blatantly lie about someone's intent, as this reader did who sent the clip to Breitbart, is despicable.

The fact that the USDA, NAACP, the White House, and countless Americans (including myself) rushed to judge this woman demonstrates how irresponsible media and political discourse have become. In the haste to request Ms. Sherrod’s resignation, the facts were not checked. One statement taken out of context just to prove a moral equivalency (a false one at that) cost this woman her job, and I'm sure immense amounts of anxiety, frustration, anger, and sadness.

There is no moral equivalency to be found when you take a portion of a speech that was not about promoting racism or bigotry, but actually about the opposite: overcoming racism and bias and using it to move forward and help all people. Instead, a story of redemption was turned into something ugly. The point Ms. Sherrod eventually made was that she realized her work wasn’t only about helping black people, but rather helping poor people.

Life situations, especially negative ones, can and should be turned into teachable moments. These experiences can help, inspire, and enlighten others. We all have experiences of which we are not proud, but if we grow from them, why not be able to offer our wisdom to others? If we are brave enough to put our stories out there, we should not be disparaged and pilloried and have our words manipulated into an outright lie, particularly when we are trying to communicate a positive message.

The heroes of this story are Shirley Sherrod, for fighting back against this injustice, and Eloise and Roger Spooner, the white couple she helped (in 1986) and whom she referred to in her speech. The Spooners have come out publicly in support of her, saying that Ms. Sherrod kept them out of bankruptcy and is considered a "friend for life."

In this age of the Internet and when video, audio and photos can be easily edited to support an agenda--be it conservative, liberal, or anything in between, we must take what is fed to us with a grain of salt. This is especially so when it is highly inflammatory and can destroy reputations and lives. Have we become so mean-spirited and ideologically driven in this country to accept this kind of media manipulation?

Alas, too often I find that I jump to conclusions and judge without knowing the facts. I do this because what is reported fits into my worldview. It’s easy to get sucked into and outraged by stories that reinforce what we believe; it’s more difficult to remain objective and maybe, eventually, learn something. Happily, the USDA, NAACP, the White House, and the media are beginning to right this wrong that they helped to perpetuate.

Ms. Ludwig Goes to Washington – Part II

2010-07-09T14:14:00.000-07:00

American Cancer Society - Cancer Facts & Figures 2010:
This year, about 1,529,560 new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed, and 569,490 Americans will die from cancer.

Me by the Capitol before heading to the Hart Senate Building

June 16, 2010 (Wednesday)
We (the OVAC participants) sat at our tables preparing for the following day's legislative meetings and trying to digest all the information the various panelists and speakers had given us to help in reaching our goal to secure increased funding for cancer research and prevention in the budget for FY 2011. We were given an overview of how the budget process works and what challenges we would face when approaching our legislators about said funding requests. What we learned was disheartening.

Here are some of the facts:

1.) There is mandatory (untouchable) versus discretionary spending;

2.) Within the discretionary piece, there is military spending which is an “untouchable”;

3.) The President submits his proposed budget and then Congress’s goal is to appropriate funding below his numbers, not above them.

I ended Part I by addressing the budget items that are untouchable: Social Security, military spending, Medicare, and Medicaid. The dollars needed for the entitlement programs and the U.S. military-industrial complex are staggering and is what I find most disturbing about trying to find the money for other worthwhile “discretionary” projects, research, and programs. Here is a partial breakdown of the FY 2010 budget:

Overall budget 2010: $3.55 trillion
Social Security: $695 billion [mandatory]
Medicare: $453 billion [mandatory]
Medicaid: $290 billion [mandatory]
Department of Defense: $663.7 billion
(Includes Overseas Contingency Operations)
[While this is under discretionary spending, it is an untouchable.]
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: $163.6

For additional FY 2010 budget information click here.

The amount of the budget that is discretionary (excluding military spending) is quite small, which is why the budget will never be balanced, nor will the deficit be decreased without reducing the items comprising a larger portion of the pie. The mandatory expenditures won’t be touched. (Not that there aren’t ways to reduce these entitlements—without privatizing them—but that is for another post.) However, on the discretionary side, military expenditures can definitely be cut.

The United States military-industrial complex is continuously fed whether its programs, weapons, machinery, and bases are needed in the current global environment. The United States is still stuck in a Cold-War mentality in many ways regarding military funding. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) are all trying to tackle the issue of runaway defense spending. You can read why in these two articles: Sen. Colburn Tackles Runaway Defense Spending and Why We Must Reduce Military Spending.

Another area of military spending that is breaking the bank is what is paid to contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend billions on no-bid contracts. Taxpayers should be outraged. Really? Government contracts should be required to go through a bidding process to ensure taxpayers are not overpaying for services. In addition to these no-bid contracts, there are vast amounts of contractor fraud and waste, not to mention the billions of dollars that cannot be accounted for, which is an absolute travesty.

But this post is not a referendum on the wars; it is to demonstrate how out of balance spending on some programs is compared to other critical programs. It amazes me that our legislators, especially Republicans, have no qualms about spending billions of dollars on the military or huge tax cuts for the wealthy, yet scream and pull their hair and become fiscally responsible when large sums of money are designated for health care and education programs that would truly benefit all Americans.

To reiterate, 569,490 Americans will die of cancer this year. Not to diminish their service to our country because they are absolutely heroes and their families are bearing a huge burden that most other American families are not, but the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003 total about 5,400. Our leaders are fighting a “war on terror” but there is also another form of terrorism in this country, and that terror is “cancer.” Cancer research and funding truly deserve to be a priority.

President Obama has made a commitment to cancer research funding. Our leaders should take a long, hard look at where dollars can be cut in the military budget (areas not affecting the safety and preparedeness of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan) in order to save more American lives from cancer. We can talk about cutting earmarks, waste and fraud within the Labor, HHS and Education budget until we are blue in the face, but that will account for a very small portion (I believe 1% was the number that was shared with us, but I've been unable to verify it), which will not get us where we need to be. Regardless, we must do more: 570,000 Americans dying in one year of cancer should be unacceptable. We can do better.