Archive for November, 2009
Interview with Carly Fiorina: She Wants to Reboot California
Monday, November 30th, 2009He Can’t Take Another Bow
Monday, November 30th, 2009The Power of the ‘O’
Monday, November 30th, 2009She does not need a last name, nor does she need an introduction. Her candor has engendered her into people’s lives. She is more than an icon. In many respects she is a movement. The woman who spotted such talents as Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, and Rachel Ray is throwing in the towel.
Yes, you heard me correctly; Oprah is throwing in the towel and ending her show in 2011. The powerhouse of daytime television announced an end to giveaways in return for a break from 25 seasons on the air. Many have referred to Oprah as being in a category of her own. For more than two decades Oprah has drawn audiences from around the world, breaking boundaries about what topics can be addressed on day time television, empowering women to speak about issues once deemed taboo, and transforming afternoon talk shows from barely topical to substantive.
Aside from the evident entertainment factor, Oprah has served, not only as a strong and fearless female figure, but also as a news conveyor. Many women who are too busy with their early morning routine to even listen to FOX or CNN rely primarily on Oprah’s afternoon program for relevant news. True, obtaining information from a talk show host is not equal to actually watching broadcast news or reading The Wall Street Journal. However, Oprah is able to reach audience demographics that basic news channels cannot access. She connects with the everyday woman, the young girl insecure with herself, the single mother raising two children, the independent female. Without Oprah, who will bridge these demographics?
Oprah’s decision to gracefully exit daytime television leaves many things in limbo. One thought is that her absence will leave room for new female contenders. Maybe Rachel Ray’s morning show will become the new talk show of the day. But there is still that soon-to-be-empty slot that soccer moms gravitate toward after picking up their children from school. Who, if anyone will take O’s place?
After learning of Oprah’s decision to end her talk show the first thing that came to mind was that this loss could lay the groundwork for a new, intellectual female contender. The second thought to enter my mind: what if Tyra rises to the top? If Ms. Banks becomes the proxy, I fear the worst for our gender. I hope that my concerns are quelled by a new female icon that stands for intellect and independence, rather than implants and “no you did-ints.”
******
Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science. She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.
Sarah Palin and the Media: A Love Story
Monday, November 30th, 2009As of Friday November 20, a Google search of the words, “Sarah” and “Palin,” in that order, produced a results page of 8,510,000 hits. Compare that to Joe Biden’s 2,150,000 and even John McCain’s 6,730,000. And to think that just 18 months ago, the name Sarah Palin was barely known outside the cold confines of the hockey-loving state of Alaska. Then McCain had to go and pick her to be his running mate.
What happened in the following months is a story that all Americans know and maybe love, but have definitely not grown tired of talking about. Frankly, to not have heard the tales of Palin you’d have to be well, dead. With the exception of Barack Obama, rarely does a politician ignite such a firestorm in the press. And rarely does a candidate attract such a united flock of conservative supporters and good ol’ average Americans. Not only that, but Palin managed to elicit attack after attack from those in the media.
But in the year since the end of the presidential campaigns, the Palin love-fests and hate-fests have continued. Her critics in the media however, haven’t been without help. During the campaign she gave them a sometimes on, sometimes off conservative, pro-life hockey mom-turned politician. After the campaign, she practically handed them their own ammunition by resigning as governor of Alaska. Her new autobiography “Going Rogue” isn’t helping things either.
Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Thomas Frank recently called Palin a “whiner,” writing “now her knack for self-pity is on full display in her book.” The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan wrote, “It [Going Rogue] resembles not so much a memoir as a work of magical realism…Palin has a long and documented record of saying things that are empirically untrue but asserting them as if her own imagination is the only source of objective reality.”
Those two snippets are only a very tiny fraction of the skepticism in the media right now directed at Palin’s book, Going Rogue. But is this cynicism really surprising? Before the book was even published, rumors circulated that it contained nothing more than petty vindictiveness and revenge against the McCain’s staff for mismanaging the campaign and muzzling her every chance they got.
Since the book’s release, those rumors have proved to actually be somewhat accurate. Of course, Palin would probably never call it “revenge” per se, just revealing the facts. For example, she accuses the McCain campaign of making her pay $50,000 in legal fees during the vetting process, keeping her away from the media and not adequately preparing her when she was able to do interviews, and not defending her during the expensive clothing debacle, among other things. Palin even takes a few shots at Katie Couric, saying the CBS anchor was badgering, condescending and biased during that infamous interview.
Palin’s account of all things 2008 may indeed be what really took place, even if McCain staffers deny it. But if the former vice presidential candidate is really concerned about being treated unfairly in the press, maybe writing a book to settle old scores and make accusations wasn’t the best or smartest move.
On the flip side, should the Associated Press have assigned 11 reporters to fact check the entire book? No, because a news outlet like the AP should be focused on reporting the book like they would any other political memoir. Not doing so does indeed display bias. Nor should Newsweek have put Palin on the cover in running shorts. Agree with her politics or not, Palin should receive the same respect as any other vice presidential candidate.
But should Sarah Palin really be surprised? In a word: No. Once she made the decision to go ahead with the book, she should have prepared herself for the media onslaught; just as she should have when she was announced as McCain’s running mate. Despite this, news outlets like the AP are giving her reason after reason to accuse them of bias and unfair treatment.
Sarah Palin is, to be sure, a great American. But as we’ve seen in the last 18 months, being a great American does not always make for great leadership, nor does it qualify you for public office. The media should cover her for exactly what she is- former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate (even if she does have over 8 million Google hits!). That seems to be enough for her millions of supporters; it should be for the media too.
******
Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University. She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.
Women’s Issues are Everyone’s Issues: Breaking Out of the Glass Box Supported by So-Called Women’s Groups
Monday, November 30th, 2009Women engaged in the realm of public policy and politics are often be inundated with questions or information related to “women’s issues.”
I have received a number of questionnaires from various political organizations over the years. I opened one the other day and was surprised to see, that by the very questions asked, women were set back years — no decades — by what was inside.
In supposed support of women, this self described women’s group showed their true colors with their single-minded focus on a left-leaning social agenda rather than the real advancement of a diverse thinking set of women candidates across the political spectrum. For example, in their so-called promotion of “women’s issues,” questions related to abortion rights, gay marriage, and expansion of subsidized government programs made up the bulk of the Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire for the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC). These issues are clearly their litmus test to whether you are a candidate who “supports women.” We all have strong opinions on these issues, but by using those three issues as the standard bearer for what constitutes “women’s issues”, this group and groups like them have done a tremendous disservice to the same people that they are supposedly trying to help.
Through their limited focus, these groups trivialize women and their significant role in getting things done in the public sphere through what I call a Cindy-Lou Who approach to dealing with women in politics. Remember when Cindy-Lou Who woke up while the Grinch was stealing her Christmas tree in the “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas?” In that story, after telling the young child a fib about taking the tree away to be fixed, the Grinch takes his large, bony hands and pats Cindy-Lou Who on the head, gives her a drink of water, and sends her back to bed.
That is what these so-called women’s groups, these self proclaimed gatekeepers of what constitutes women’s issues, are doing to women. They are essentially patting us on the head and telling us to trust them and their motives— because it is they who know the issues that define what it means to support women. Through their distinct political agenda, these groups insinuate that while women’s viewpoints are important for a certain defined group of issues, they are really not necessary for other critical issues of the day. This quiet sexism is brought to you directly from the people trying to sell the idea that they are the arbiter of which candidates support do or do not support women.
Unfortunately, these women’s groups do not seem to understand that almost 50% of jobs in our country are held by women and 40% of families say that the major earner in their household are female. Clearly, what constitutes “women’s issues” has changed.
Women are concerned with issues across the spectrum: how we can get our economy back on track, how we can educate our kids to have their best opportunity to succeed, how we can reform our healthcare system to ensure families have affordable healthcare which they control, how we can help those in need with a safety net as opposed to a safety web which ensnares them into further dependence, how we can ensure safety and security in our communities and our country; how we can make sure government is not making empty promises which will overburden future generations, and the list goes on and on.
Where were the ideas of economic freedom and economic opportunity on the agenda for the National Women’s Political Caucus in their political candidate questionnaire? Where were the questions about challenges that women business owners face in small business start-ups which are the mainstay of Main Streets throughout the country? Where were the questions of supporting our women in uniform who are protecting our freedom’s every day?
When women’s groups try to put “women’s issues” in a neat little glass box tied up with a bright pink bow that promotes the political agenda of the left rather than focusing on solving the real problems our country are facing, they are missing the point and missing a real opportunity for women to have a positive impact on moving our economy, our policies, and our political debates forward.
We owe to the women, and men, of this country a broader view of what constitutes women’s issues. Women’s issues are everyone’s issues. Everyone’s issues are women’s issues. It’s about time that these so-called women’s groups advance their thinking toward a new understanding of what issues women care about.
It is the perfect time for conservative women to challenge the premise of the past view of women’s issues and set the record straight for the so-called “women’s groups” out there. We need to break out of the box that the left has tried to put women in and break into a better understanding that women’s issues cannot be separated out. Conservative women, have a real and special opportunity in today’s political environment to change the debate and cut through the hum of the same ‘ol message and the same ‘ol messengers. It is time for us to put an end to the idea that left leaning groups corner the market on women’s issues or women candidates. It is up to us to bring forward good ideas, good solutions, good candidates, and good messages to show very clearly that women can be, should be, and are engaged in discussions and debate on a broad spectrum of issues—not just those the so-called “women’s groups” have defined for us.
Rather than being confined to a set group of litmus test “women’s issues” by interest groups with a specific political and social agenda, the real opportunity for women candidates across the political spectrum is our ability to reach out to persuade voters by speaking on important and relevant issues with a unique solution-oriented perspective and communication style which add tremendous value and differentiation to the various debates throughout the country.
That real potential for women engaged in ALL issues will have a positive impact on our state and our country in ways our grandmothers and all the women who walked before us only imagined possible.
******
Laura Brod is a State Representative in Minnesota where she serves as ranking Minority member of the Tax Committee, and is a member of the Health Care Policy and Finance Committees, and the General Finance Committee.
Ten Reasons Public Won’t Buy Senate Health Care Plan
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009The Fine Art of Criticizing Sarah Palin’s Intellectualism
Monday, November 23rd, 2009Healthcare for the Masses Becomes Disdain for Women
Friday, November 20th, 2009I remember my dad calling me into my parents’ bedroom. I could tell from the look on both of my parents’ faces that something was wrong.
“The biopsy wasn’t benign,” he said. “Your mom has been diagnosed with breast cancer.”
It’s one of those moments you’ll never forget, but one that you convince yourself never happened. My world was rocked. My mom was young, only 45, healthy, no family history of breast cancer, and ironically, my dad was a general surgeon who had taken care of thousands of breast care patients. She had taken all the necessary precautions, but we couldn’t escape the reality.
Fortunately for my mom, they had found the cancer very early. So early, in fact, that she didn’t even need chemo or radiation after she had surgery. It’s been a long road for my family, and after this initial spot, she’s been watched very closely. Mammograms have picked up pre-cancerous cells two more times. She’s only 52 now and thankful beyond belief for her good health.
So when I heard about the latest release from the government task force not recommending mammograms until age 50, I shuddered to think what would have happened if my mom waited to have a mammogram until she was 50.
My heart drops just thinking about that possibility. What if they hadn’t caught it so early? Unfortunately, that is the risk that it seems the government task force is willing to take. The motto today seems to be “healthcare for the masses” without protection and care for the individual. The American Cancer Society has publicly opposed the government task force’s suggestion to raise the recommended mammogram age, but the task force has responded by claiming that they have women’s best interests at heart. They argue that the cases of breast cancer for women in their forties are few.
Well, the cases aren’t as “rare” as we’re being led to believe. We’ve all heard of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The namesake and inspiration for the breast cancer awareness organization, Susan G. Komen, died from breast cancer. At age 36.
The American Cancer Society is not the only opponent of the government task force; both Republicans and Democrats came out in a fury yesterday challenging the recommendations. Breastcancer.org argues that the new recommendation will decrease the breast cancer survival rate by 3% is a measure designed solely to cut costs. They argue this is a recommendation that would help the masses but hurt the individual.
If an impartial medical site is calling this government recommendation a sign of healthcare rationing, how can we sit back and watch? Is this recommendation really good for women and their families?
This leads to the biggest question of all: Will this recommendation affect insurance coverage of mammograms? The task force and the Department of Health and Human Services both claim that this will not lead to policy changes, but the opposite seems to be true. More mammograms lead to more biopsies, which leads to more hospital visits, which inevitably equals greater cost. In a time when lawmakers are trying to figure how to pay for billions in healthcare expenses, what costs will they cut? How can we, in good conscience, accurately conclude that this line of thinking is not a precursor to government rationing of health care?
A retired general surgeon and former professor of surgery shared his experience yesterday. He told the story of his own daughter, another young woman diagnosed with breast cancer in her 30’s. He has performed hundreds of mastectomies, seen the devastation of breast cancer in his own family, and seen improvements in medical technology to detect, prevent, and treat breast cancer. When asked what he thought about this new recommendation, he responded simply: “This is a measure designed to help poor women die faster.”
As a young woman, the reality that my friends, my family, and I may not have the ability to take the proper precautions to be screened early for breast cancer frightens me terribly. Mind you, medical professional and cancer experts still recommend breast cancer screening at age 40 for women with no family history.
Is this new recommendation by the government task force what is really good for women? In my mom’s case her healthy history and medical knowledge gave no indication of a risk of breast cancer. Why in the world would she have had a mammogram before age 50 with no risk factors? If it hadn’t been medically recommended, she wouldn’t have. I can’t imagine what state of health she’d be in today.
It’s easy to sit back and let the lawmakers do their job on Capitol Hill, but when the decisions they make have life and death implications, we must not be silent.
This recommendation is the government’s thinly disguised attempt to put in place a justification for rationing healthcare once they implement their stated goal of socialist reform. As a young woman, I urge us all to consider the long-term implications of these government policies on our individual health. Do we want the bureaucrats in Washington dictating how we deal with life threatening conditions like breast cancer? As the daughter of a breast cancer survivor, I cannot support these reckless recommendations that have been made with complete disregard for individual women.
******
Holly Carter is the Executive Director for the Network of Enlightened Women.
The Rise of the Conservative Woman
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009Lives Lost for the Sake of Political Correctness? An In-Depth Look at Fort Hood
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009Is this the end of a politically correct state of mind? That is the question that some are now confronting in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre. Since the shooting, many officials have argued claims of Nidal Hasan’s involvement with a recognized al Qaeda individual. According to American Officials, U.S. intelligence agencies were aware, months prior to the November shootings, of Hasan’s successful contact with a radical Yemini-American with ties to al Qaeda. Yet, such evidence did not prompt the FBI to further investigate Hasan’s suspicious activities. In fact, federal authorities dropped the examination of Hasan’s communications, all together, after deciding that the e-mails warranted no further action.
How can conversations between a spiritual adviser to several 9/11 hijackers as well as a subject if continual federal investigations and an Army Major with an already suspiciously keen interest in Islamic extremism not be suspect?
In a speech given at The Heritage Foundation last week, former Homeland Security Advisor to George W. Bush, Frances Townsend, spoke on this very topic. In her remarks she touched on whether political correctness contributed to the lack of further investigation into Hasan. According to Townsend, while information sharing has proven successful in post 9/11 society, the events at Fort Hood exemplified a weakness in the chain of transparency.
“We need to persuade people with the facts,” said Townsend. “I am not suggesting profiling, but we cannot be intimidated by a culture of political correctness.”
Townsend has a very valid point. Facts are facts. Allowing political correctness to get in the way of providing evidence, and possibly prevent mass casualties, is a sign that the pc movement has gone too far. More could have been done, were it not for people’s fear of being labeled as ‘profilers.’
There is a continual squabble among lawmakers and government officials about what was known prior to the shootings, where the information went, and why nothing was done earlier. However, some remain reluctant to admit that they sat on such information. In my opinion, the facts still add up to valid suspicions and to claim otherwise is foolish.
As an Iranian-American I am not spared from racial stereotyping. Throughout middle school I faced immature comments about the affiliation of my last name, and in high school, post 9/11, I received the occasional question, “Are your family members terrorists.” While I did not take such comments to heart, I can empathize with subjects of ethnic profiling. Nidal Hasan’s behaviors prior to the Fort Hood massacre were more than red flags. They were indicators of instability, and on that front alone, should have been brought into question. Understandably, officials will naturally exemplify more caution when investigating an individual of Muslim decent. But, is it not more important to risk the opinions of peers for the lives of 13 innocent individuals? No more lives should be lost as a result of the pc movement.
******
Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science. She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.
