Stand by Your Woman

Gender has become an important factor in today's presidential race along with race. I find it interesting that both Hillary's and Michelle's husbands have spoken out in the traditional way lately to protect their women--to stand by them if you will.

Michelle Obama has been on the campaign trail in behalf of her husband for months. She has come under attack as we know for her comments on being proud of America for the first time in her life. Barrack recently warned the media and others to "lay off Michelle." Hillary Clinton, of course, has been under attack continuously for her strong and tenacious campaign and her unwillingness to lay down the gauntlet and surrender the race. Bill has been a staunch defender of his wife and is now railing that she has been treated unfairly just for running. Both men seem to reflect an age that we thought we had passed--the need for women to have their spouses shelter and protect them. After all, they are both college educated, professional women who have successfully combined career, marriage, and motherhood for years without assistance.

Perhaps it is the men who need to "lay off" and let these terrific women speak for themselves.

The Forgotten Thirty

I was shocked yesterday to read a story in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette about a woman named Dianne who died recently after living fifty-eight years of her life in an iron lung. I had not actually realized, with today's modern medicine and ventilators, that any such people were still alive. It seems this woman had contracted polio when she was three years old, had gotten her education while being confined to her iron lung, and died when a power failure (plus a back-up generator failure) recently occurred. The newspaper reported that some thirty people were still using iron lungs.

Both my husband and I remember the days well in the 1950's when polio was the fear of every parent in America. The rumors were rampant about how polio might be contracted. Both of our mothers believed that not having us swim with a large number of other children was best. In addition, my mother believed in the value of at least a two-hour rest or nap each day as a preventative against tiredness. My mother-in-law also added some fear of eating bananas to her list of "no's" during this time. This fear was probably greater than the fear of the Russians and atomic annihilation. We all knew children who either died or, like Dianne, were confined to a wheelchair for life or an iron lung.

Evidently Dianne had published a children's book in her lifetime about a wishing star named Blinky. We can only hope that today Dianne is free from the physical confinement of her lifetime. We would like to think of her as a wishing star also.

Unintended Consequences

One of the continuing sad stories in the news today relates to the Chinese parents who lost their only sons or daughters in the recent earthquake. Of course, we all know of the Chinese policy set in place years ago to limit the population of the country by requiring its citizens to have one child only. Many of these parents of only children have doted on them and made tremendous sacrifices for their child to get a good education. The children have literally been "the apple of the parents' eyes" as well as the hope of grandparents as well. As with most Chinese families, the children's task was to take care of their aging parents later. Now, many families are experiencing multiple emotional losses. The government never counted on this unintended consequence in their one child policy.

Now it appears the government has issued a statement indicating that parents who lost their child (or whose child was disabled) in the earthquake are now free to have another baby. The statement strikes me as cold and calculating since we all know that a new baby cannot possibly replace the loss of an already living child. Many parents will likely be too old to be able to conceive again. The tragedy is great on so many levels.

Three Graces Dancing in the Moonlight

My husband and I have struggled three years now to sell a home in the small college town where I taught twenty-two years. We were, therefore, elated the middle of February to receive a verbal offer, followed by a formal one, for a sale. Unfortunately, the offer was contingent upon the prospective buyer's being able to sell his house near Fayetteville, Arkansas. After waiting three months, we were all beginning to lose hope when I got the big idea: we would trade houses. After all, he needed more space for his growing family, and we needed less. While we are still happy that we have moved in this direction, we have also struggled with the decision.

I lay awake in our empty home last week wondering if we had made another mistake; it seems that we have made a series of bad decisions since 2004. We should be debt free at this time of our lives, yet--due to the decisions of our own making as well as the housing market failures--we still owe a lot of money for houses. Is this what we call "dark grace" I wondered. It's the type of grace that we struggle with as God teaches us His will and lessons that we could not otherwise learn. As someone has joked recently, it is always darkest before the true night comes. As the apostle Paul reminded us in the Scripture, we see through a glass darkly in this life. We grope around as lost as possible many times seeking the light only to find more shadows.

As I paced about the house in the middle of the night, I noticed the nearly-full moon shining through the shadows of the trees. I believed God was giving me some of His "prevenient grace." It has been defined the grace that precedes real grace.

I then felt a transcendent sense of His peace. His true love had arrived as the three graces danced in the moonlight of my mind.

The Art of Negotiation

Our three-year-old grandson, Cole, who lives in Seattle has already learned the art of negotiation. Whenever his mother tells him "no" to a particular request, his reply is "Let's talk about it."

We are hearing a lot in the news the past few days about the conflict between McCain and Obama regarding whether to negotiate freely with Islamic terrorist groups or not. I guess I am, once again, in the middle on this argument. On the one hand, I have hated the elitist attitude of the Bush administration for the past seven years. The word "no" has been used strongly and repeatedly as diplomacy, negotiation, and talk have been suggested. It has been bluntly stated by Bush many times in recent years.

On the other hand, I have just completed a non-fiction book entitled The Siege of Mecca by Yaroslav Trofimov which has reminded me of the centuries of enmity between the Islamic culture and Western culture--and even the enmity among the different religious elements of society. I, like thousands of others who would like to have peace, debate the question of talking to those who oppose our presence in the Middle East so strongly. Could anything be accomplished through such a process? I tend to belief it could cause no harm.

One cannot fail to see the irony, however, of the Bush administration's recent visits to the Middle East with now a completely open attitude toward forming a Palestinian state. Is he really that interested in appeasing the Palestinians, or is he simply looking toward his own legacy should that goal be accomplished under his watch?

The art of negotiation is obviously a very difficult process. A resounding "no" rarely accomplishes a goal, yet a "Let's talk about it" attitude can often lead to unwise concessions. Even three-year-old children know that.

"Stand and Deliver" or "Sit Down and Shut Up"

I liked a column that I read last week in the newspaper suggesting that if the President could be appointed to the position, Hillary Clinton, hands down, would make the best President of the three remaining candidates. I tend to agree and am one of the many still in America today to believe she should remain in the race. Having been through the many controversies and discussions in the early 1970's, and following, regarding the role of women, I do not take well to the voices, predominantly white male ones, who are calling for Hillary to "sit down and shut up." I ask those who are doing this to respond to this question, "Why are you so afraid for the race to play out until June 3 and perhaps beyond?" If allowed this chance, I believe that Hillary still has the opportunity to "stand and deliver." Why should the voices we as women have worked so hard to achieve the past thirty-five years be squelched? What harm is done in allowing the race to continue?

It appears the most liberal wing of the Democratic party is petrified that Barrack Obama will make a fatal mistake within the next two weeks and Hillary will win the nomination. If we truly believe that debate on the issues is positive and democratic by its very nature, the process must continue. The media and other talking Democratic heads have already crowned Obama the nominee, even Times magazine. Were Obama to stumble and fall and Hillary win the nomination, many of the political gurus like Richardson, Kennedy, and Edwards will perhaps regret their decision to support Obama. Let's let the people decide, not the media and other political leaders.

The Caucasian Card

I guess New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd was the first to use the term "the Caucasian card" when referring to Bill Clinton's role in this year's presidential race. One cannot escape the ironies connected to the accusation that Bill has introduced race into the contest.

It was just a few years back when Bill was having his two heart surgeries that people were looking ahead to his possible funeral and discussing the massive outpouring of love from the African-American community at his death. After all, he was an enigma as far as traditional Southern politicians have gone through the years. He actively supported civil rights and appointed many African-Americans to important offices. After completing his presidency, he chose Harlem for the location of his office much to the delight of many African-Americans. Why has he suddenly become anathema to his former ardent supporters?

Some would say the monolithic falling away of African-American support began with Bill's use of the words "fairy tale" in discussing Obama's candidacy. Later, he was to remind the press and voters that Jesse Jackson had won in South Carolina in previous elections because he was black. He later spoke of the fact that the Obama campaign always planned to use the race card in the election process. In other words, he began to play the victim for the first time instead of the victor.

Clinton's introduction of the Caucasian card has unfortunately contributed to a nearly monolithic defection of African-Americans to Obama. It could very well be that these voters actually believe Obama is the best of the three candidates; it could be that they are simply proud of what he has been able to do thus far against two Caucasian candidates. Regardless of their motivation to vote almost unilaterally for Obama, it is sad to see Clinton's legacy with the African-American community dissipate. When the New Orleans type band follows his casket, way into the distant future playing "When the Saints Go Marching In," we hope Bill will have somehow recovered the trust and reverence of African-Americans who felt betrayed by the Caucasian card in the 2008 election.