RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Body Shaming Black Female Athletes Is Not Just About Race Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=33264"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME</span></a>   
Tuesday, 21 July 2015 08:12

Abdul-Jabbar writes: "We have established a definition of beauty so narrow that almost no one can live up to it. Women struggle to fit within the constrictions of social expectations of thin, youthful, sexuality as constricting as a Victorian corset."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE/Getty)


Body Shaming Black Female Athletes Is Not Just About Race

By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, TIME

21 July 15

 

We need to rethink our ideals of female beauty

erena Williams won her 21st Grand Slam title at Wimbledon this month. This marks the 17th time in a row that she has defeated Maria Sharapova. Yet Williams, who has earned more prize money than any female player in tennis history, is continually overshadowed by the woman whom she consistently beats. In 2013, Sharapova earned $29 million, $23 million of that from endorsements. That same year, Williams earned $20.5 million, only $12 million of that from endorsements. How’s that possible? Because endorsements don’t always reward the best athlete. They often reward the most presentable according to the Western cultural ideal of beauty.

I know, you think this article is about racism. It’s not.

Misty Copeland just became the first African-American woman to be named principal dancer at the American Ballet Theatre. But when she was 13, she was rejected from a ballet academy for having the wrong body type. As an ad featuring Ms. Copeland put it, summarizing the responses she received early in her career: “Dear candidate, Thank you for your application to our ballet academy. Unfortunately, you have not been accepted. You lack the right feet, Achilles tendons, turnout, torso length, and bust.” At 13? That criticism of her body being too muscular and “mature” has followed her throughout her career. “There are people who say that I don’t have the body to be a dancer, that my legs are too muscular, that I shouldn’t be wearing a tutu, that I don’t fit in,” Copeland said in response.

What do these two highly successful athletic women have in common? They seem to endure more body shaming than their white, less successful counterparts.

(Still not about racism.)

In her novel, The Bluest Eye, Toni Morrison writes, “Along with the idea of romantic love, she was introduced to another—physical beauty. Probably the most destructive ideas in the history of human thought.” Morrison’s assessment of social ideals for physical beauty as destructive is harshly accurate. We have established a definition of beauty so narrow that almost no one can live up to it. Women struggle to fit within the constrictions of social expectations of thin, youthful, sexuality as constricting as a Victorian corset. We display these paragons of beauty from billboards and magazine covers and Victoria Secret ads with the full knowledge that because of the use of photo-enhancing, lighting, makeup, and other morphing techniques, the women shown are as real as the CGI-created Hulk in the Avengers movies.

There’s plenty of evidence showing how harmful this beauty standard is to society. The typical American woman spends about $15,000 on makeup over a lifetime (if that same money were invested into a retirement plan, it would give her about $100,000 at age 70). Even though Americans spend the most on cosmetics in the world, we are ranked only 23rd in one list of “satisfaction with life.” In a futile effort to fit this mythical ideal of beauty, millions of American women torture their feet with high heels, undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgeries, starve themselves, and make themselves physically and mentally miserable—all over an imaginary ideal they didn’t even create.

OK, I lied: Some of the body shaming of athletic black women is definitely a racist rejection of black women’s bodies that don’t conform to the traditional body shapes of white athletes and dancers. No one questions the beauty of black actresses such as Kerry Washington (Scandal) or Lupita Nyong’o (12 Years a Slave) because they fit the lithe image perpetuated by women’s fashion magazines. The body shaming of Williams and Copeland is partly because they don’t fit the Western ideal of femininity. But another cause is our disrespectful ideal of the feminine body in general.

The bigger issue here is the public pressure regarding femininity, especially among our athletes. It’s a misogynist idea that is detrimental to professional women athletes and to all the young girls who look up to these women as role models because it can stifle their drive to excellence, not only on the playing field, but in other aspects of life.

The problem became even more evident in 2014 when the Russian Tennis Federation President Shamil Tarpischev called Venus and Serena Williams “the Williams Brothers,” a statement for which he was fined $25,000. As a result of this widespread attitude, whenever Serena Williams wants to go out incognito, she says she wears long sleeves to cover up her signature muscular arms. Outside the fanboy world of Xena: Princess Warrior and Wonder Woman, a muscular woman is generally not the ideal.

Why not?

I suspect because our ideal woman continues to be the vulnerable woman unable to defend herself against a man. On one hand, this conforms to the social norms of the man as the strong protector and the woman as the childlike, weak dependent. (Hence, all the “romantic” portrayals of men swooping up women in their arms and carrying them to safety or bed.)

On the other hand, it discourages those men and women who don’t want to follow that traditional but narrow definition. I’m reminded of that powerful scene in the second season of True Detective when detective Ani Bezzerides (Rachel McAdams) explains why she carries so many weapons: “Could you do this job if everyone you encountered could overpower you? I mean, forget police work. No man could walk around like that without going nuts. The fundamental difference between the sexes is that one of them can kill the other with their bare hands.” Perhaps the muscular, athletic woman symbolizes physical and mental self-sufficiency, which threatens the cozy ideal of beauty as soft, fragile, and weak.

This beauty standard translates in sports to women being more concerned with a marketable image than athletic ability. Tennis pro Agnieszka Radwanska is 5 feet 8 but only 123 pounds. This is a conscious decision by her coach “to keep her as the smallest player in the top 10,” he told the New York Times. “Because, first of all she’s a woman, and she wants to be a woman.” Tennis pro Andrea Petkovic, ranked 14th, said she hated seeing photos of her bulging arms whenever she hit a two-handed backhands. “I just feel unfeminine,” she said. “I don’t know — it’s probably that I’m self-conscious about what people might say. It’s stupid, but it’s insecurities that every woman has, I think … I would love to be a confident player that is proud of her body. Women, when we grow up we’ve been judged more, our physicality is judged more, and it makes us self-conscious.”

This reluctance to push themselves physically because they reduce their marketability as women results in some women athletes never striving to be the fully realized athletes they could be. This same mentality of holding back to fit the social mold of a “lady” makes women less competitive in the job marketplace, too.

Sharapova, at 6 feet 2 and 130 pounds (Williams is 5 feet 9 and weighs 150 pounds), admits that that she wishes she could be even thinner: “I always want to be skinnier with less cellulite; I think that’s every girl’s wish.” (Is it? Should it be?) She says she does no weight training. “I can’t handle lifting more than five pounds. It’s just annoying, and it’s just too much hard work. And for my sport, I just feel like it’s unnecessary.” Yet she’s been beaten 17 times in a row by someone who has added that muscle necessary to excel. Does she want to be the highest-paid female athlete or the best one?

“I sing the body electric,” Walt Whitman wrote in a poem from Leaves of Grass. In it, he expresses Renaissance delight over the physical body as a source of pleasure, spirituality, and achievement. If Americans are to similarly celebrate the body, we must questions our ideals of physical beauty and overcome the brainwashing to make sure they are healthy, not just convenient marketing tools to create insecurity to sell products. The fact that these ideals of what constitutes beauty have changed throughout history tells us that they aren’t all hardwired into our brains. By broadening our ideals of beauty, we can encourage females of all ages to confidently strive to reach their full potential. We can, and shall, overcome.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Says He Heroically Avoided Capture in Vietnam by Staying in US Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Monday, 20 July 2015 12:26

Borowitz writes: "Presidential candidate Donald Trump revealed a little-known episode of personal heroism from his youth on Saturday, telling an Iowa audience that he narrowly avoided capture in Vietnam by remaining in the United States for the duration of the war."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)


Trump Says He Heroically Avoided Capture in Vietnam by Staying in US

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

20 July 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

residential candidate Donald Trump revealed a little-known episode of personal heroism from his youth on Saturday, telling an Iowa audience that he narrowly avoided capture in Vietnam by remaining in the United States for the duration of the war.

“The Cong were after me,” Trump said, visibly stirred by the memory. “And then, just in the nick of time, I got my deferment.”

The former reality-show star said he had never shared his record as a war hero before because “I don’t like to boast.”

He said that he only disclosed the episode now because “the way this nation treats our deferment veterans is a disgrace.”

Trump complained that he received no official commendation or medal for his heroism, calling the lack of recognition “shameful.”

“Those brave Americans who, like me, avoided being captured by not serving at all—we are the true heroes,” he said.

Trump’s tale of valor appeared to move many members of his audience, some of whom waited in line after his speech to thank him for his lack of service.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Review of Arts and Letters and Prison: A Visit to the Sweat Lodge Print
Monday, 20 July 2015 12:21

Brown writes: "Back in the go-go days of 2011 I got into some sort of post-modern running conflict with a certain declining superpower that shall remain nameless, and shortly afterwards found myself in jail awaiting trial on 17 federal criminal counts carrying a combined maximum sentence of 105 years in prison. Luckily I got off with just 63 months, which here in the Republic of Crazyland is actually not too bad of an outcome."

Barrett Brown. (photo: Nikki Loeher/Daily Beast)
Barrett Brown. (photo: Nikki Loeher/Daily Beast)


Review of Arts and Letters and Prison: A Visit to the Sweat Lodge

By Barrett Brown, The Intercept

20 July 15

 

The Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Prison

ack in the go-go days of 2011 I got into some sort of post-modern running conflict with a certain declining superpower that shall remain nameless, and shortly afterwards found myself in jail awaiting trial on 17 federal criminal counts carrying a combined maximum sentence of 105 years in prison. Luckily I got off with just 63 months, which here in the Republic of Crazyland is actually not too bad of an outcome.

The surreal details of the case itself may be found in any number of mainstream and not-so-mainstream news articles, from which you will learn that I was the official spokesman for Anonymous, or perhaps the unofficial spokesman for Anonymous, or maybe simply the self-proclaimed spokesman for Anonymous, or alternatively the guy who denied being the spokesman for Anonymous over and over again, sometimes on national television to no apparent effect. You’ll also find that I was either a conventional journalist, an unconventional journalist, a satirist who despised all journalists, an activist, a whistleblower, a nihilistic and self-absorbed cyberpunk adventurer out to make a name for himself, or “an underground commander in a new kind of war,” as NBC’s Brian Williams put it, no doubt exaggerating.

According to the few FBI files that the bureau has thus far made public, I’m a militant anarchist revolutionary who once teamed up with Anonymous in an attempt to “overthrow the U.S. government,” and on another, presumably separate occasion, I plotted unspecified “attacks” on the government of Bahrain, which, if true, would really seem to be between me and the king of Bahrain, would it not? There’s also a book out there that claims I’m from Houston, whereas in fact I spit on Houston. As to the truth on these and other matters, I’m going to play coy for now, as whatever else I may be, I’m definitely something of a coquette. All you really need to know for the purposes of this column is that I’m some sort of eccentric writer who lives in a prison, and I may or may not have it out for the king of Bahrain.

Over the last couple of years of incarceration, I’ve had ever so many exciting adventures, some of which I’ve detailed in the prior incarnation of this column, “The Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Jail.” I’ve watched two inmates get into a blood-spattered fight over the right to sell homemade pies from a particular table. I have participated in an unauthorized demonstration against an abusive guard and been thrown into the hole as a suspected instigator. I’ve shouted out comical revolutionary slogans while my Muslim cellmate flooded our tiny punishment cell in order to get back at the officers who’d taken his Ramadan meal during a search. I’ve found myself with nothing better to read than an autobiography by Wendy’s Old-Fashioned Hamburgers founder Dave Thomas, and read it, and found it wanting.

I’ve stalked a fellow inmate who talks nonsense to himself all day due to having never come down after a PCP trip, suspecting that he might say something really weird that I could compare and contrast with the strange William Blake poems I’d been reading and thought this might be a funny idea for an article, and I was right, so do not ask me to apologize for this, for I shall not. I’ve been extracted from my cell by a dozen guards and shipped to another jail 30 miles away after the administration decided I was too much trouble. I’ve spent one whole year receiving sandwiches for dinner each night, but the joke’s on them because I love sandwiches.

I’ve read through an entire 16th-century volume on alchemy out of pure spite. I’ve added the word “Story” to the end of every instance of prison graffiti reading “West Side” that I’ve come across thus far. I’ve conceived the idea of writing a sequel to the Ramayana but abandoned the project after determining that the world is not prepared for such a thing. I’ve been subjected to a gag order at the request of the prosecution on the grounds that the latest Guardian article I’d written from jail had been “critical of the government.” I’ve learned all sorts of neat convict tricks like making dice out of toilet paper, popping locks on old cell doors, and appreciating mediocre rap. I’ve managed to refrain from getting any ironic prison tattoos and feel about 65 percent certain that I’ll be able to hold out for the two years left in my sentence. And I’ve read Robert Caro’s four-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson over the course of a month, in the process becoming something of a minor god, beyond good and evil, unfazed by man’s wickedness.

After being sentenced last January I released a statement reading:

“Good News! — The U.S. government decided today that because I did such a good job investigating the cyber-industrial complex, they’re now going to send me to investigate the prison-industrial complex. For the next 35 months, I’ll be provided with free food, clothes, and housing as I seek to expose wrongdoing by Bureau of Prisons officials and staff and otherwise report on news and culture in the world’s greatest prison system. I want to thank the Department of Justice for having put so much time and energy into advocating on my behalf; rather than holding a grudge against me for the two years of work I put into in bringing attention to a DOJ-linked campaign to harass and discredit journalists like Glenn Greenwald, the agency instead labored tirelessly to ensure that I received this very prestigious assignment. Wish me luck!”

In fact I had no intention of doing anything of the kind; it was merely the same manner of idle bluster that I’ve been putting out to the press for years now because I’m a braggart. Actually I was hoping to just sort of relax and maybe catch up on my plotting. But a month later, when I arrived at the Fort Worth Correctional Institution to serve the remainder of my sentence, the place turned out to be an unspoiled journalistic paradise of poorly concealed government corruption and ham-fisted cover-ups. Even so, I was still reluctant to grab at even this low-hanging fruit. I’d spent the 18 months prior to my arrest overseeing a crowd-sourced investigation into that aforementioned “cyber-industrial complex,” a subject which, although important, I also happen to find personally distasteful; the research end involved going through tens of thousands of emails stolen by Anonymous from the toy-fascist government desk-spies and jumped-up quasi-literate corporate technicians to whom the American “citizenry” have accidentally granted jus primae noctis over several Constitutional amendments. I hate all this computer shit and was actually a little relieved when the FBI finally took me down, thereby sparing me from the obligation to read another million words of e-Morlock jibber-jabber about Romas/COIN and Odyssey and persona management and whatever else the public is just going to end up ignoring until it’s too late anyway.

So I was disinclined to sully the rest of my incarceration vacation by having to memorize a book of Bureau of Prisons policies and court rulings on due process rights for inmates to see which ones are being routinely violated by the prison administration, and then run around secretly interviewing inmates and getting copies of receipts and making Freedom of Information requests and all that. After all, there already exists here a clandestine network of inmates who do all of this and more, and who routinely make significant discoveries ranging from procedural violations to outright criminal conduct by staff and administrators — and, naturally, all of these documented revelations are generally ignored by the incompetent regional reporters to whom the inmates occasionally send such materials. As I happen to know some of the 3 or 4 percent of U.S. journalists and editors who are capable of doing their jobs, I figured I’d just hook one of them up with the prisoner in question, hope that some instance of wrongdoing gets exposed in print, take more than my share of the credit, put out a victory statement reading, “No one imprisons Barrett Brown and gets away with it! Mwah ha ha!!” or something to that effect, and then spend the rest of my sentence doing whatever it is that I do for recreation.

In late March I put my awesome plan in motion, using the inmate email system to follow up with a journalist I’d provided with contact info for one of the inmate researchers and reiterating that the fellow had documented evidence of corruption within the Bureau of Prisons. Then, an hour later, my email was cut off. After a couple of days of inquiry I was pulled aside by the resident head of security, a D.C. liaison by the name of Terence Moore, who told me he’d been the one to cut off my email access, as I’d been “using it for the wrong thing,” which he clarified to mean talking to the press. When I sought to challenge this plainly illegal move by turning in the BP-9 form to begin the Administrative Remedy process that inmates are required to exhaust before suing the federal official who’s violated their right to due process under what’s known as a Bivens claim, the prison’s Administrative Remedy coordinator simply failed to log it into the system for over a month, finally doing so only after the matter had been brought to the attention of the press; finally on June 4 he deigned to register receipt of the BP-9, thereby belatedly starting the clock on the 20 days the prison is allotted in which to address one’s grievance — and then he failed to respond even by that illicitly extended deadline.

I’ve since learned that this sort of thing is common here, and that in fact I was lucky to get my grievance officially acknowledged as received at all; I’ve seen copies of forms that have yet to be logged five months after being turned in to the unit staff. That would be problematic enough anywhere, as it constitutes denial of access to the courts. But it’s especially despicable at an institution like this, which includes a medical unit for inmates who require ongoing treatment — because to the extent that they don’t actually receive that treatment, the only recourse is to pursue the Remedy process so that their complaints won’t simply be tossed out of court on the grounds that they’ve “failed to exhaust” that process before going to the judge. I’ve included copies of the relevant documents in prior columns and will continue to provide updates as I take my case to the regional office, the national office, and finally to the courts, as of course it will be interesting to see whether or not the BOP takes due process seriously or, barring that, is at least willing to buy me off with a carton of Marlboros.

In the meantime, I continue to have neat adventures. Last month one of the American Indian inmates invited me to attend their weekly sweat lodge ceremony, which is held in a fenced-off area that each federal prison is required to provide for ritual use by the Natives. The next morning I showed up at the appointed time and, having determined that it wasn’t an ambush, I began helping the 20 or so resident Indians break up tree branches for fire kindling, something I did very much with the air of a five-year-old who believes himself to be “helping Daddy.” Next we built a large bonfire (I assisted by staying out the way and being good) by which to heat up several dozen large rocks that would be used for “the sweat.” The fire-making process was expedited by strategically placed crumpled-up sheets of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, which I gather is not a strictly traditional aspect of most shamanistic ceremonies. As if to acknowledge this, one of the Indians declared, “The one good thing the white man ever did was invent paper.” Naturally all eyes were on me, and I knew that this might be my only chance to win them over. “We didn’t invent it,” I blurted out. “We just stole it from the Chinese.” This produced appreciative chuckles all around. “I got a laugh out of the Indians!” I thought exultantly, my triumph so complete that I was unbothered by the fact that what I’d said wasn’t really true.

By and by we crawled into the lodge, a wood-and-canvas structure with a dirt floor, in the middle of which had been dug a pit to hold the heated rocks that would be providing the extraordinary heat we would need to sweat out our sins. The flap was then closed from the outside, leaving us in perfect darkness, and thereafter began the first of the 15-minute “rounds” of the sweat ceremony, which consisted of all manner of tribal songs, entreaties to the spirits, and sometimes just discussions and announcements. At one point my sponsor, a Lakota, declared that although superficially white, I might nonetheless have an “Indian spirit.” It was one of the nicest things anyone had ever said about me, this polite supposition that I might not really be descended from the fair-skinned race of marauding, treaty-breaking slavers whose Novus Ordo Seclorum had been built on a foundation of genocide. But insomuch as I’d spent the bulk of the ceremony not in prayer, but rather in a state of neurotic concern over whether or not my self-deprecating comment from an hour earlier about whites stealing paper could have perhaps been a bit more crisply phrased, I’m afraid my spirit would seem to be Anglo-Saxon after all.

Although undeniably majestic, the ceremony was also something of a disappointment. I had gone into the thing hoping that I might mysteriously know exactly what to do — how to pass the peace pipe and all that — and maybe even start singing old Cherokee songs that the eldest of those present would barely recall having heard from their own grandfathers. Stunned, the Indians would collectively intone, “He shall know your ways as if born to them,” this being the ancient prophecy I had thereby fulfilled, and then I would unite the tribes under my banner and lead the foremost of their warriors on a jihad against our shared enemies, as Paul Muad’Dib did. Instead, the Indians had to remind me several times not to just stand up and start walking around during the ceremony.

I’m currently in the midst of another adventure, having been placed back in the hole two weeks ago after a suspicious incident in which staff singled me out for a search of my locker and found a cup of homemade alcohol, or “hooch.” Next time, then, we’ll take a look at life here in the Special Housing Unit, or SHU, as the hole is more formally known, and where I expect to spend some 45 days. And when I get back, there better not be any more Republican presidential primary contenders. You don’t need three dozen slightly different variations on right-Hegelian nationalist populism from which to choose. That’s just excessive.

Disparaging Comment of the Day about General Douglas MacArthur:

“He’d like to occupy a throne room surrounded by experts in flattery; while in a dungeon beneath, unknown to the world, would be a bunch of able slaves doing his work and producing the things that, to the public, would represent the brilliant accomplishment of his mind. He’s a fool, but worse, he is a puking baby.”

         — Dwight Eisenhower

              (Quoted by Jean Edward Smith, Eisenhower in War and Peace)


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Jimmy Carter, Superstar Print
Monday, 20 July 2015 11:51

Clift writes: "How Carter rebuilt his reputation in the wake of his failed one-term presidency, and provides the model for what President Obama should do once he leaves office."

Jimmy Carter. (photo: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)
Jimmy Carter. (photo: Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)


Jimmy Carter, Superstar

By Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast

20 July 15

 

How Carter rebuilt his reputation in the wake of his failed one-term presidency, and provides the model for what President Obama should do once he leaves office.

f there were a Guinness World Record for books signed in a single sitting, it would probably go to Jimmy Carter. Hundreds of people queued up in a line that snaked around the block at Washington’s Politics & Prose bookstore last week. A sudden downpour sent some scurrying into storefronts along the way, but the line moved quickly as the former president affixed his “J Carter” on book after book with assembly line efficiency.

Carter didn’t leave office a rich man. His peanut warehouse in Plains, Georgia, which was held in a blind trust during his presidency, had fallen into disrepair. Writing books is how Carter makes his living, and 35 years after leaving office, he’s promoting his 29th book, A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety, a look back at his rural beginnings, his improbable road to the White House, and his even more improbable post-presidency.

For a group of adoring fans, Carter is something of a cult hero now, his post-presidency wildly more successful than his single term in the White House. And that’s no accident, says Les Francis, a former Carter White House staffer.

“I believe that once he got over the 1980 election, Carter decided that to repair his reputation and his standing was going to take exactly the same determination and relentless drive it took for him to win the White House,” he says.

Where Carter's comeback from crushing defeat and near financial ruin took years to overcome, President Obama will leave the White House in January 2017 with a huge advantage that neither of his Democratic predecessors had. An historic figure and a proven writer, Obama’s memoir will command a hefty advance, as will Michelle Obama’s, which means the couple will be pretty well set financially and freer much sooner to raise money for their post-presidential programs and causes than either Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were when they re-entered private life at the same age, in their mid-fifties.

Obama, who will be 55 when he leaves the White House, won’t have to write 30 books like Carter, and he won’t have to hit the speech circuit with the same zeal as Clinton, who, at 54 in 2001, had never made serious money. Though Hillary Clinton’s lament that her family was “flat broke” upon leaving the White House was an offensive exaggeration considering the couple’s earning potential, the Clintons did have millions in legal fees they had to pay down before building their now very handsome nest egg.

Obama's popularity has not reached 50 percent for some time. How he is regarded after he leaves the White House depends a lot on the next president. If a Democrat is elected, it will be seen as an affirmation of the Obama presidency. If a Republican wins the White House, it could be seen as a repudiation of Obama and a presidency that veered off course and fell short of expectations.

With either outcome, Obama will have a lot of unfinished business, and to the extent that he can burnish his presidency through acts of public service, the prototype is the Carter Center. Originally modeled after Camp David as a place where warring factions could come together to mediate conflicts, the Carter Center in Atlanta is a major player in international peacekeeping, election monitoring, and global health issues.

Established by Carter after he lost to Ronald Reagan in a landslide in 1980, it is the vehicle through which Carter transformed his image. And it is the prototype upon which the Clinton Foundation and the George W. Bush Library continue the signature efforts of the presidents that bear their name. The success of Carter’s post-presidency boosts his presidency as well, says Francis, who believes, “People will ultimately view the Carter presidency in part through the prism of his post-presidency.”

Most Americans, if asked what Carter has done with his life since leaving the White House, might know that he teaches Sunday school, he builds houses through Habitat for Humanity, and he works for international peace and health. These activities are who he is, and it is this authenticity that explains his popularity in the autumn of his life.

The parallels for Obama would be teaching law and/or public policy at the University of Chicago, or Columbia University, his alma mater; devoting his time and standing to the initiative he launched in the White House, My Brother’s Keeper, extending his reach as the first black president in ways that perhaps were not fully available to him in the White House; and helping define America’s role in an ever-changing world while bridging the divides at home, which he largely failed to do as president.

Obama says he expects to live long enough to be accountable for the outcome of the historic nuclear arms control deal with Iran. He will have to be more of a team if a Democrat succeeds him in the White House. Carter was followed by twelve years of Republican rule, and Democratic presidents were wary of him as well. He has the history of being a lone ranger and not caring what others think of what he says or does, qualities that today’s voters admire and that together with his sheer longevity have made him a politician who overcame his presidency’s shoddy legacy.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Swiftboats McCain the Way Bush Swiftboated John Kerry Print
Monday, 20 July 2015 08:38

Cole writes: "The chickens of 2004 have come home to roost in the Republican Party. The Republican strategists around George W. Bush in that year decided to rip John Kerry's face off by attacking him, in accordance with Karl Rove's dirty tactics, at his strength."

Donald Trump and John McCain. (photo: Scott Olson/Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)
Donald Trump and John McCain. (photo: Scott Olson/Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)


ALSO SEE: Donald Trump Refuses to Apologize for
‘Absolutely Fine' Attack on John McCain

Trump Swiftboats McCain the Way Bush Swiftboated John Kerry

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

20 July 15

 

he chickens of 2004 have come home to roost in the Republican Party. The Republican strategists around George W. Bush in that year decided to rip John Kerry’s face off by attacking him, in accordance with Karl Rove’s dirty tactics, at his strength. Bush, who hid out from the Vietnam War in the Texas Air Reserve faced a decorated war hero in Senator Kerry. A campaign of falsehoods and vilication was gotten up against him by unscrupulous propaganda gangsters that questioned his heroism and his medals. Their charges were shown to be without merit, but they no doubt did hurt Kerry’s reputation and campaign with their falsehoods.

Now another Republican candidate is trying to swiftboat a decorated veteran. But this time the candidate is Donald Trump and the veteran is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). (McCain, by the way, defended Kerry in 2004; but then he had been the victim of Bushie dirty tricks in the 2000 primaries and knew the filthy ends to which they were willing to go).

Trump attacked McCain on Saturday in an act of petty revenge. McCain had complained of Trump’s demagoguery, saying he had “fired up the crazies.” Trump replied that McCain is a “dummy”, having been last in his class at Annapolis. Then yesterday at a conservative forum in Iowa, the moderator called McCain a war hero, and Trump replied, “He is a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

The problem with Sen. McCain is not that he isn’t heroic– he is. It is that he proposes US wars too often and too lightly.

It is worth noting that the only brush with the military Trump ever had came when he was expelled from middle school for behavioral problems at age 13 and was placed by his parents in the New York Military Academy in hopes that it could straighten him out (obviously it couldn’t).

There is no shame in having been against the Vietnam War (I was, too), the reason Trump gives for having sought student deferments. But people who haven’t been in war, in my view, are not in a position to question the valor of people who have. Someone who served in a war can be wrong about politics and then we should argue with them on political grounds. But if we weren’t there, we don’t know the test of character they faced and can’t speak to that.

Hanoi had among the most extensive anti-aircraft batteries of any city in the world when McCain was flying missions over it. That takes courage, so Trump is wrong that the senator only became heroic by virtue of being shot down. That he was downed shows how dangerous his multiple missions were in the first place.

McCain was in brutal captivity for 5 and a half years at the hands of an authoritarian regime. He was tortured. He declined an opportunity to leave his mates behind because his father was an admiral. Getting through all that takes courage. So too does getting over it and showing the resilience to go on to serve his country in the senate.

You can be against the war he fought in and still recognize heroism there.

Trump clearly spoke out of annoyance (he really, really dislikes being disagreed with or dismissed as unserious).

Trump is a one-man advertisement for campaign finance reform, socialism and banning casinos. Whatever circumstances made him a plausible candidate for president should be immediately changed to make sure that kind of thing never happens to our country again.

But in addition, I think all the Republicans who say they are outraged at Trump’s comments need to step up and apologize to John Kerry if they didn’t, as McCain did, defend him from the swiftboaters.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 Next > End >>

Page 2398 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN