Tag Archives: women
"If you're hoping to speak with theological authority, you don't get to just pronounce": A Reflection by Sarah Morice-Brubaker
Filed under POLITICS
DON'T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL by Louise Annarino
DON’T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL
Louise Annarino
June 25, 2012
Democratic republics in the West did not emerge in full blossom overnight; nor will they in the East. The seeds of power within people must be planted in good soil and be kept moist despite periods of drought. Those who feed the country’s growth are ever in danger of being choked by weeds. Egypt’s journey, and that of other nations seeking some form of democratic republic, is our own.
As we watch the Egyptian military generals write and rewrite laws to secure their power base in the face of shared power with a president and parliament not of their choosing, let us recall the first parliaments in England which were made up exclusively of the privileged few, heirs to the original land barons granted fiefs by their king for military service to protect and defend his crown, and more importantly, his crown jewels. The king was loath to part with his landholdings which generated his wealth. The barons agreed to supply a percentage of crops, minerals, forest, game and resources to the king in exchange for permission to act as lord over the serfs who were attached to the land, and to supply troops whenever called upon to do so by the king. In this way, both the king and his barons grew excessively wealthy. Sound familiar?
In 1215 King John agreed to the Magna Carta, the great charter, which gave legal rights to the Barons and Earls and mandated that the king listen to them and follow their advice. Before the Magna Carta the king called a parliament at his whim with no legal obligation to follow the barons’ advice. The Magna Carta granted no rights to the serfs; but, merely became a tool of the landed gentry (who had personal armies supporting them) to control the king in order to protect their own interests. Sound familiar?
In 1265, following a war between Henry III and Simon De Montfort, De Montfort briefly established a parliament which also included burgesses, representatives from each county,city and town until Edward I, who killed De Montfort in battle, called is first parliament in 1275 which included churchmen,two knights from each county, and two commoners from each town ( the house of burgesses). Since 1327 parliament set the pattern we know today: House of Lords, House of Commons, Monarch.
It took another hundred years to establish that Parliament’s House of Commons controlled granting money raised through taxation to the king (usually to wage war); and wrote statutes creating the law of the land, replacing the writ to the king for favor system of an earlier day.
Overthrowing the leaders of countries does not necessarily mean more power to the people. It took great Britain several hundred years and a civil war to do so. The United States, copied Great Britain’s lead, replacing the monarch with a president. The House of Lords became our Senate; the House of Commons our House of Representatives. There are those who pressured newly-elected President George Washington to accept the appellation Your Majesty. He insisted on Mister, in a new nation where all men are considered equal. And so we say, Mr. President when addressing him.
The U.S. shortened Great Britain’s time-line: 1776 – Declaration of Independence, 1789 – Constitution and first 10 Amendments ratified, 1789 – Judiciaries Act passed, 1803 – Marbury v. Madison. Hopefully, emerging democracies can shorten the time it takes to become nations of law and not men, and avoid civil war. Building a strong middle class will help.
The industrial revolution which began in the 1500’s with the guild movement solidified in 1760-1850. It is no coincidence that the movement to end serfdom occurred on the same time frame. Prior to industrialization in England, land was the primary source of wealth. “The landed aristocracy held enormous powers [through] the feudal system. However, a new source of great wealth grew from the Industrial Revolution, that which was derived from the ownership of factories and machinery. Those who invested in factories and machinery cannot be identified as belonging to any single class of people (landed aristocracy, industrialists, merchants). Their backgrounds were quite diverse, yet they had one thing in common: the daring to seize the opportunity to invest in new ventures. It was these capitalists who gave the necessary impetus to the speedy growth of the Industrial Revolution.”1
In the United States, the Industrial Revolution made the North economically stronger than the South, which barely maintained a landed gentry system on the backs of slave labor and that of poor white sharecroppers. The bloody rise of labor unions prevented this quasi feudal-serf system from taking root in the North. Despite fighting a Civil War to end slavery, and the efforts of labor unions, we still see vestiges of the old feudal system within our economic institutions, policies and practices both north and south. Since the election of our first African-American president those differences in how we choose to govern ourselves have become more overt. Ohio and Wisconsin, as well as every other state,thanks to ALEC, are fighting to protect unions, not just to protect the unions but to protect all workers from being reduced, once again, to serfdom. 2
In China, Thailand, Guam, Africa and all over the globe multi-national corporations are locking in workers for excessively-long shifts, with little or no pay. Human trafficking in workers, slave or forced labor, is on the rise world-wide in every imaginable industry including my favorite – chocolate. 3
What is the connection here? It is that human beings seek power over their own lives. Money is power, so they seek money. The reason taxes are a big deal to both Tea Party Republicans and Liberal Progressives, The US Chamber of Commerce and the churches, Wall Street banks and non-profit organizations, Democratic and Republican parties, the upper class-middle class- and poor is because money buys power. Money bought the King. Money bought the Corporations. Money bought the politicians. We all want money because we all value power. Why? Power brings freedom: the freedom from want, the freedom of choice over need, the freedom of association, the freedom to say no just because we want to do so. If we truly believe we are all entitled to be free, then we must also believe we are all entitled to enough money to feel power over our own lives.
When we are without money for too long we feel powerless as a result. It is this feeling of being powerless which brings out our racism, sexism, homophobia etc. Those who feel powerless resent others who seem to be acquiring power. Hidden in our psyche is the racist belief that an African-American has no business being so powerful when white men now feel so powerless. That is the crux of this election. Even Roman Catholic bishops, losing esteem and power over their flocks due to their misogynist attitude toward women and their cover-up of pedophilia within their ranks are fighting for power by attacking President Obama. Even Christian church leaders accustomed to financial power and preaching its attainment as a Gospel truth, which fell apart in the recession, are attacking President Obama. They have no qualms viciously attacking him, trying to knock him off his game. Unfortunately, his game is governing this country we all love.
What can we do? We can stop attacking people who want power, who want money, who want to feel safe; who cannot feel truly free without these things. We all want these things. We all want freedom.
We can stop attacking each other lest we all end up “Humpty Dumpty”. 4 Despite British and American love of freedom, and each country’s Civil Wars to establish equality among all its citizens and clearly unified governance, neither would suggest civil war as a positive step. We can learn from these past divisive periods. History does not have to repeat itself around the globe, nor within our own borders. We can stop being so afraid that we needlessly try to knock one another off the wall. We can recognize that there is enough wealth to share so that all feel powerful and free.
We celebrate freedom in this country without understanding its roots. No banker, no corporate executive, no shareholder, no priest nor bishop, no Tea Bagger, no liberal, no politician, no judge, no citizen will feel free until they feel financially secure. This was the beauty of a strong middle class; it made everyone feel free. It was an imaginable state of being for the poorest citizen aspiring to move higher through education and hard work; and for the richest executive who fell from grace, a safe place to land. Without a middle class, no American feels free.Not the wealthiest, not the poorest, and not the middle class.
To America and to the world a message of freedom: Build and protect the common man’s wealth, the middle class. The BRITISH COMMONWEALTH is a not a fluke. American economic success since the Civil War is not a fluke. Stop seeking to be excessively wealthy; instead, seek to build wealth within the middle class, a commonwealth within and among nations. With commonwealth comes common power. With such a sense of power comes a sense of freedom and peace. The Eurozone is struggling with this concept as I write.
Look at what Britain accomplished. Look at what the U.S. accomplished. Those lessons will serve us well. this is what President Obama has been trying to remind us. Destroying the middle class destroys our commonwealth, pushes Humpty Dumpty off the wall; and, neither all the king’s horses nor all the king’s men can put us back together again. Life is too fragile for such nonsense.
1. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/2/81.02.06.x.html
2.http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm “Presently, about 700,000 children and women are trafficked around the world annually. The UN says that profits for this trafficking amount to approximately $7 billion a year (Anti-Slavery International).”
4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty “In 1648 Colchester was a walled town with a castle and several churches and was protected by the city wall. The story given was that a large cannon, which the website claimed was colloquially called Humpty Dumpty, was strategically placed on the wall. A shot from a Parliamentary cannon succeeded in damaging the wall beneath Humpty Dumpty which caused the cannon to tumble to the ground. The Royalists, or Cavaliers, ‘all the King’s men’ attempted to raise Humpty Dumpty on to another part of the wall, but because the cannon was so heavy ‘All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again’. In his 2008 book Pop Goes the Weasel: The Secret Meanings of Nursery Rhymes author Albert Jack claimed that there were two other verses supporting this claim. Elsewhere he claimed to have found them in an “old dusty library, [in] an even older book”,but did not state what the book was or where it was found. It has been pointed out that the two additional verses are not in the style of the seventeenth century, or the existing rhyme, and that they do not fit with the earliest printed version of the rhyme, which do not mention horses and men.”
Filed under POLITICS
PIRATES AT THE HELM?
PIRATES AT THE HELM ?
Louise Annarino
June 1, 2012
As Fathers’ Day nears I have been thinking about the fathers of America and what they are thinking about our presidential candidates. Polls show that the largest group of Democratic candidate President Barack Obama’s supporters are women; the largest group of Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s, white men. Clearly, the patriarchal position of Republican policies and legislative agenda does not sit well with most women. Also, President Obama’s record abounds with efforts to empower and protect women and their children. Men who think they can offer platitudes to women are sadly mistaken, and will not gain women’s support by returning them to second-class citizenship.
But, it is the men who cause me to ponder. One would expect strong support for a president who is hands-on seeking out and destroying the enemies who attacked us on 9/11, who works hard to assure our military and veteran’s have our full support and gratitude; who repeatedly asks congress for approval and support to rebuild our bridges, ports, roads, airports and infrastructure; and who seeks legislative reform to bring home companies which have moved off-shore, rebuild our manufacturing platform, gives tax breaks to small business etc. to encourage economic growth. Since President Obama took office we have only moved forward with an on-going increase in productivity, job retention and creation, GNP, and a reduction in unemployment. They must understand that slow and steady growth which is sustainable over the long term is best for our economic stability as the world’s economic powerhouse. While currency values fall worldwide, the U.S. dollar remains strong.
And, it is the men who cause me to ponder when they seem unwilling to consider how President Obama explores changes which will transform how we educate their children. I realize rich men need not be concerned; they simply send their children to the best schools money can buy: low class size, highly paid and trained staff, broad extracurricular opportunities, readily available tutoring and support services. But even working men, whose children attend public schools in overcrowded classrooms, with poorly paid staff who must use their own money to enrich classroom activities, who must deal with those unruly and emotionally stressed children of poverty without anyone’s support; men who must pay for their children to play sports and engage in other extracurricular opportunities out of their unemployment checks who oppose this president. Why do such men, such fathers, oppose what is in their own best interest, and the interests of their wives and children?
Do they believe Mitt Romney, who as Governor of Massachusetts plunged that state to 47th. in the nation in jobs creation will do better as president? Do they really believe that a man who made his living by destroying the livings of men like them will protect them and their families? I am sure his equity firm made companies more profitable. He did so by eliminating union and non-union workers, reducing wages of workers who remained, stopping workers’ health care coverage. Once the company was profitable, however, his company withdrew those profits to repay the bank loans he had used to buy the company in the first place. Then, he used what profit remained to repay his investors and pay himself the fees to which he was entitled. Often, he had to sell off the equipment needed to continue production.
Finally, the company he tells you his equity firm made more profitable had to file bankruptcy. Since there were no longer assets, nor sufficient equipment to continue to create worth there was no means to pay retirement benefits to the workers who lost their jobs. The companies eventually closed. The bankruptcy court approved termination of retirement benefits for people who had worked their whole lives for the company.
This is how Mitt Romney became a self-described successful businessman and multi-millionaire. I don’t call that success; I call that legal piracy. Like a pirate his money rests in off shore accounts one would need a map to discover. He’s not telling; not even disclosing his prior tax returns. Is this what makes him appealing to men? Do they all want to play pirate? Do they all think if they follow Romney they will become wealthy, too. Do they want a pirate at the helm of our Ship of State? At what cost to their women and children? At what cost to their country, and mine?
Filed under POLITICS
WANT PRIVACY OR PROTECTION?
WANT PRIVACY OR PROTECTION?
Louise Annarino
April 3, 2012
I hesitated over the original title of this piece – Want Privacy or Protection? Shoot a Police Officer. I worried some readers might not understand the ironic tone it is meant to impart to my words. The NSA and others may be trolling the internet for just such a word pattern. The following three stories jumped off the page and struck me down today and I believe the title is apt, if absolutely disgusting. But, the thought was so distasteful I could not use the words “Shoot a Police Officer” even though that seems to be where this analysis takes us. Writers should be fearless; but, also responsible.
1.U.S. Supreme Court rules that jailers may perform invasive strip searches for even minor offenses. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Albert Florence, who faced strip searches in two county jails following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine that he had, in reality, paid. “Florence, who is African-American, had been stopped several times before, and he carried a letter to the effect that the fine, for fleeing a traffic stop several years earlier, had been paid.” Nevertheless,officers handcuffed him and took him to jail. Mr. Florence had already passed through metal detectors, submitted to pat down searches, had his clothing searched, and showered with delousing agents at 2 jails. But Justice Kennedy insisted being in the jail population, for whatever reason, justified such an invasive search. Further, he stated that the court must defer to the judgement of corrections officers “unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11682964-418/supreme-court-strip-searches-ok.html
2.Indiana Governor Republican Mitch Daniels signed into law Senate Enrolled Act 1 which allows homeowners to shoot police officers entering their home. Proponents argue that the law is meant to keep police safe! But, “Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson, a former police captain, says the bill would create an ‘open season on law enforcement’.” http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23/indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officers-into-law/
3.The Georgia legislature passed bill criminalizing abortion after 20 weeks with no exception for rape or incest. “Commonly referred to as the ‘fetal pain bill’ by Georgian Republicans and as the ‘women as livestock bill’ by everyone else, HB 954 garnered national attention this month when state Rep. Terry England (R-Auburn) compared pregnant women carrying stillborn fetuses to the cows and pigs on his farm. According to Rep. England and his warped thought process, if farmers have to ‘deliver calves, dead or alive,’ then a woman carrying a dead fetus, or one not expected to survive, should have to carry it to term.” Following a firestorm over this remark, the Act was amended to allow abortion in those situations considered “medically futile”, i.e. one in which a woman’s life or health is threatened. However, mental or emotional health,including suicide,mental illness etc are specifically excluded. And, “In order for a pregnancy to be considered ‘medically futile,’ the fetus must be diagnosed with an irreversible chromosomal or congenital anomaly that is ‘incompatible with sustaining life after birth.’ The Georgia ‘fetal pain’ bill also stipulates that the abortion must be performed in such a way that the fetus emerges alive. If doctors perform the abortion differently, they face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison. http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/314-18/10765-at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-qwomen-as-livestockq-bill
The above decisions are not occurring in a vacuum; they are, in fact, related. Each situation addresses our right to privacy, and our right to feel secure in our own homes and in our own skin. Each involves some form of government intrusion. It is ironic that these decisions are made and supported by Republicans legislators and judges who generally stand for a citizen’s right to privacy and protection from government intrusion. The very group which attacks ObamCare insurance requirements as intrusive, and unconstitutional.
1.In the early 70’s I was a social worker at The Ohio Reformatory For Women, a maximum security prison. I had been hired under a minority recruitment program to address racial issues within the prison, given my field of graduate study. I believe prison officials hired me to avoid hiring an African-American while getting credit for a minority hire. They had no intention of addressing racial issues. I was warned the approved Racial Justice Program I organized was not to be implemented even though it had been officially approved;the approval was for “show only”. Despite this warning, I conducted race relations training for corrections officers, taught a course in Black History at the school, ran racial mediation groups for Black and white inmates, emceed a Black Culture awareness group using local Black achievers once a week, set aside a Black media/book center within the library etc. I was fired 8 months later for “teaching these N*****s they are human beings”.
At Christmas time each social worker was handed a polaroid camera to take a single photo of each inmate which she could then mail home to her family. We were admonished to take a good shot because we were allotted one shot per inmate, no matter how bad that shot was. I warned the corrections officer overseeing the operation that I am a horrible photographer and he could be sure I would screw up at least one photo. “One shot, Annarino! That’s the rule,” he responded. I did fairly well until my camera slipped and I cut off the head of one woman. Let’s call her “Sally”. We looked at one another in horror. She had nothing to send home to her children, no Christmas gift. I explained to the officer, and I took a second shot. I placed the headless photo in the trash can. When the administrator arrived and asked the corrections officer how things went, he informed her I had taken an extra shot, which she demanded I return to her. I had already given the good shot to Sally. She was told she could have only one photo and must return the second shot. I searched the can, but could not find the bad shot, hoping it would be accepted in place of the good shot. Sally insisted she had only the second photo.
The corrections officer was told to take Sally into the bathroom to do a strip search. Sally begged me to do it instead, preferring a woman over a man. Other inmates indicated to me by “sign” that he was not one a woman should be alone with. I reluctantly agreed to do it. I was told to check mouth, throat, anus and vagina. Seriously? How could a Polaroid hide there?
Once inside the bathroom, Sally went immediately raised and pressed her hands to a wall, feet spread and pulled back. Obviously, this was not her first time. I explained I had never done such a thing, and had no need to do it as I accepted her word.
Sally insisted, “You must do it. They will ask you, and if you say you didn’t they will send him in. Please don’t let him near me. You have to help me.”
“OK,” I replied, but you have to tell me how to do it.”
So, Sally instructed me in the proper way to do a strip search. I did the pat down along her right and left flank, top to bottom and back up. Then the inside seams of her legs,the frontal cross and down then up. I used as light a touch as possible, apologizing every few seconds. Sally indicating it was OK, not to worry. I thought I was finished, but Sally then advised me I still had to do the internal search. She removed her dress and undergarments over my protests, insisting I had to finish it or “he” would. She opened her mouth so I could peer down her throat. I looked for a Polaroid photo hiding inside her throat! This was absurd. Drugs? Maybe. Photo? Crazy. Sally then spread her legs so I could reach inside her vagina and anus.
“NO! If that useless photo is so important you would hide it in your vagina or anus, you can keep it! No one deserves this disgrace for a stupid photograph; not you, and not I.”
Outside the bathroom the administrator and corrections officer waited. I snarled at them, “It is done. There was no photo. Never do this to anyone on my caseload again.” I later told the inmates on my caseload to never get into a situation requiring a strip search! I would never do another one.
I know that prison security is always an issue, for protection of both the corrections officers and the inmates. Drugs, weapons, contraband of any kind pose a threat. But, and Justice Breyer would agree, corrections officers ought to have a reasonable suspicion someone may be hiding something which threatens security before conducting a strip search. Reasonableness should be a matter for court review. The 5 Justices, all Republican appointees, have abdicated their judicial oversight responsibility, failing to protect an innocent citizen, Mr. Florence, from jailhouse abuse. We can’t simply rely on the sound judgment of prison workers. Ask Sally.
2.When can a citizen shoot or kill a police officer for simply doing his job? Anytime according to Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), Indiana. The law he signed was passed in response to a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision. “According to the Evansville Courier Press, an Evansville resident fought a police officer who followed him into his house during a domestic dispute call. ‘The state Supreme Court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence. In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment,’ the court said. ‘As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.”
In this case, the court acknowledged police sometimes enter a home unlawfully, recognizing those situations where warrantless entry is justified, but expecting that safety of both police and citizen is best served by reducing conflict levels when passions are raised. This is much different than the prior case, where a calm citizen, is in custody and control, within the confines of a jail – not in his own home. In the home setting,police officers are in the dark as to possible weapons and their location. They were responding to a volatile domestic violence situation, the threat to harm someone was the very basis of their intervention. It was a fluid enterprise. In this case, the court did not abdicate its role. It reviewed the facts and found no police misconduct. It did its job. As did the police.
This was not satisfactory to the Indiana’s legislature, nor its governor. Although Gov. Daniels almost vetoed it because it could lead to killings of police and citizens. This law, like the Stand Your Ground laws in Florida and elsewhere are loopholes for citizens to kill citizens, and for citizens to kill police officers while claiming self-defense. Indeed, in Trayvon Martin’s murder, the killer has not been asked to plead anything, even self-defense. Merely asserting the law’s existence has been enough to avoid Mr. Zimmerman’s arrest. There are many people out there who think no police officers have the right to enter homes or property, even if there is a warrant. There are people who believe police have no right to enforce laws designed to preserve safety and security for all citizens, who believe their victims are not entitled to police protection, whose gun purchases or possession cannot be regulated because it takes away their right to bear arms. When did the rights of bullies become paramount? If this case winds it way to the U.S. Supreme Court, how will it rule? I dread the thought. People have a right to be secure in their homes. Right? Privacy rights are sacred.
3.Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (see 2 above) blames President Obama for the debate over women’s right to privacy, but admits his party’s response could have been better. In an interview with Reuters, he stated “Where I wish my teammates had done better and where they mishandled it (women’s preventive health care) is … I thought they should have played it as a huge intrusion on freedom,” Daniels told Reuters. Maybe he should talk to Governor Nathan Deal (R) from Georgia, before HB 954 is signed into law. It appears Georgia’s Republican legislators are happy to invade a woman’s privacy. Not so, Gov. Daniels meant health insurance coverage decisions are an intrusion; not health care itself.
While president Obama advocates for women’s right to make their own health care decisions and reminds us in a recent video supporting Planned Parenthood: “For you and for most Americans, protecting women’s health is a mission that stands above politics, and yet over the past year you’ve had to stand up to politicians who wanted to deny millions of women the care they rely on and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a women and her doctor.” President Obama recognizes something Georgia Rep. Terry England (R) does not, when he reminds us “Let’s be clear here — women are not an interest group…The are mothers,daughters, sister and wives.” He recognizes woman’s right to privacy within her own skin.
Will the U.S. Supreme Court recognize a woman’s right to privacy? that is the basis of Roe v. Wade. A woman’s right is recognized until the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. That time-line is being shortened by neonatal technology. This is why the Georgia law and laws in other states limiting what is considered a legal abortion, require a method resulting in a live birth. Such language is not included to protect women or fetal health and safety, but a political maneuver to challenge Roe v Wade. It is not a medical consideration, but a political one.
If Republicans really believe in privacy rights, how can they not believe in a women’s right to make a legal medical decision with her doctor; not, with the legislature, nor with the police. Will miscarriages now be subject to court review in Georgia? Will doctors who cannot abort a fetus and maintain its survival be criminally charged? The law says they will. Will courts who hear challenges to such laws trust women and their doctors as easily as Justice Kennedy trusts jailers?
Filed under POLITICS
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
COLLATERAL DAMAGE
Louise Annarino
March 18,2012
Watching flood water inundate Hebron, Ohio his week reminded me of the 1959 flood which caused my family’s evacuation from our Newark, Ohio home. Our street lay between the railroad tracks and the Licking River, in a neighborhood where Italian immigrants displaced Germans who had come before them. It was rich in culture, if not in cash.
The Sisters sent us home from school early that morning to be with our families as the water continued to rise and flooding seemed certain. My 12 year old brother Angelo joined other neighborhood men and boys at the levee, filling sandbags to hold the rapidly rising river at bay. It was January, the ground still frozen, and the rain steady. It was cold.
My Mother had put her huge soup pot on the stove and was making enough beef stew to feed half the population of evacuees. She was ready for anyone who was forced to flee and needed shelter until the water receded. Dad called every hour or so to check on us; his restaurant open as an emergency station for local police officers, state highway patrol, National Guardsmen and fire personnel. He would be there throughout the ordeal offering hot coffee and meals to our rescuers.
While Mom hummed and cooked I packed every suitcase or satchel with clothes for my three brothers. I layered 6 year old Michael in every item I could fit over him, sat him on the couch with a few toys and told him to be ready to put on his coat because we would be leaving soon. I packed six month old Johnny’s diaper bag, dressed him in several layers, and prepared extra blankets to wrap him up when they time came. I knew we were leaving because the water was rising all around us; the sand-bagging temporarily safeguarding the few nearest streets.
Mom insisted I was overreacting when I piled every jar of baby food in the cupboard into brown grocery bags. While I was listening to geography on the radio, Mom was listening to the numbers of persons made homeless. It was not clear to either of us, each of us listening so hard, what we must do. I insisted we leave; Mom was determined to stay. Dad had told us the Army Corps of Engineers guy warned him that our entire south-end would be under water and we needed to prepare to leave. So, we prepared. When Mom called to tell the radio announcer she was offering our home as a shelter with plenty of hot food and a place to be warm and dry, she finally understood no one would be coming to our house. As she spoke he aired her information directly to his audience. When he asked her to provide the address for people, she told him and he responded to my satifaction, “Lady, you are in the evacuation area! You need to get out of there as soon as possible.”
Within minutes Angelo ran in announcing the levee was leaking and sure to break open, so everyone was fleeing. Things got serious then. Mom decided Michael still would need a birthday cake on his birthday the next day and began packing flour,sugar,cocoa,butter,eggs and vanilla. She filled containers with water, gathered milk and juice, fruit and vegetables. An Army ‘duck’ was patrolling the street,a soldier shouting from his bullhorn, “everyone, evacuate immediately…IMMEDIATELY!” We were ready, but need transportation. Dad had our only car. Luckily, Dad arrived within minutes, just behind the army personnel who had allowed him permission to enter our sealed-off neighborhood. He ran to the basement, turning off the gas, water and electric to avoid potential fire or explosion as water began rising in the basement. We were not able to put all we had packed into the car. Dad quickly prioritized food and water, baby supplies, the many layers of clothes we were wearing, and extra blankets. We were each allowed a pillow, but no toys. My new Shirley Temple doll, the love of my life,was to be left to fend for herself. I was crushed. I cried all the way to Grandpa Annarino’s house, where we would be staying. He lived on some of the highest ground in Newark.
The next day, despite every adult’s protest, but to the delight of us children Michael blew out the candles on his birthday cake. The adults opined it was a waste of precious water and eggs; the kids opined it was the best cake ever. We were safe. Mom and I were contentedly happy women. After dropping us off, Dad had talked his way past the guards telling them he had forgotten to turn off the gas and he would just be in and out.He rescued Shirley and the long leather coat he had recently given Mom as a Christmas gift.
I asked Dad about a report I had heard on the radio that the reason Newark flooded was because the flood gates were opened at Buckeye Lake, allowing the lake water to flood those of us living downstream. Dad explained that the property values around the lakeside were so much higher, the decision was made to flood the poorer neighborhoods near the river, where property values were very low. It was clear to me what was going on. This protected the rich people who had summer homes at the lake, at our expense. We were collateral damage. This was not simply Mother Nature, but politics.
While I watched the people living in Hebron trailer parks, on a low-lying area near the river, drag soaked sofas out into the yard to dry in the sun and shovel mud out their front doors I did not need to ask myself, “Why is it that the poor are always hardest hit?” They are positioned to suffer the brunt of any natural disaster. Their homes are built on land the rich can afford to avoid. They can’t afford rental insurance. They have nowhere to run when things get tough. They cannot afford to hire clean-up companies; they are on their own. They cannot afford to miss work; recovery stretches into weeks, not days. The suffering of the poor is disproportionate to their loss when compared to the loss suffered by insured homeowners, or the rich whose neighborhoods are so well protected.
I am not pointing this out as a declaration of class warfare. I knew from an early age that the well-being of my class was already threatened by those with money and power who would always protect themselves at my expense. I was chosen by the powerful and rich to suffer the possibility of becoming collateral damage. Now what would you call that? While Gingrich, Santorum, Romney and Paul decry the collateral damage caused by American drones they continue to espouse policies which would cause collateral and direct damage on our middle class and on our poor.
Is there a Republican war on women? No, women are merely collateral damage in the war on President Obama and the Democratic Party, Is there a Republican war on immigrants? No, immigrants are merely collateral damage. Is there a Republican war against gays? No, the LGBT community is merely collateral damage. Is there a Republican war against universal health care? No, health care for all is merely collateral damage. Is there a Republican war against labor unions, union and non-union workers, immigrant and female workers? No, workers are merely collateral damage. I think Republicans truly believe this. Some collateral damage to Americans is permitted to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and just to destroy the presidency of Barack Obama, who is dedicated to ending the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war here at home against the 99% of Americans.
No more collateral damage, please.
Filed under POLITICS
FEAR AND LOATHING: A Tribute to Rush Limbaugh
FEAR AND LOATHING: A Tribute to Rush Limbaugh
Louise Annarino
March 9, 2012
Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Have you had a man put his hand up your skirt an drag you along by pulling on your pubic bone? Have you been walking along campus with 2 friends and been pulled away and thrown to the ground by a group of young men; your friends escaping while you were held down kicking and screaming as 3 of the 6 men tried to rape you? Have you been stopped at a red light when a man runs up and jumps into your car and reaches for you, running the light at top speed to dislodge him from your front seat? Have you been cornered, shoved and punched by a man when you were alone doing research in the library stacks? Have you been hunted down like prey until you were running through the streets walking home from the law library at 3 a.m. where you had been preparing for moot court the next day; saved by a neighborhood dog who attacked the man so you could reach your apartment door? Have you been warned by a judge that your client’s husband is asking how to find you, has a gun, and is threatening to rape or kill you? Have you been called a “f…ing bitch” by a defendant whose deposition you are taking? Do you carry the photo of a rapist in your purse and look at it daily to memorize his face because prison officials and police have warned you his letters threatening to rape and kill you upon his release from prison are deadly serious? No? well, I have. The climate of hate against women is strong; and Rush Limbaugh increases its strength every day.
To all those who describe his most recent verbal attacks against specific women as a matter of “free speech”, you are dead/rape wrong. I am a writer, a teacher, a lawyer. Words are my trade. Free speech is the love of my life. What Rush has done is NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. Assault “placing another in fear of bodily harm” is not protected speech. It is a crime. Mr. Limbaugh has placed Ms. Fluke and American women under threat of bodily harm. Those of us who have experienced the results of misogyny, are well aware that sexual attacks are not based on lust, but on anger, anger directed against women. People like Rush Limbaugh use women as targets for anger because they see us as “the weaker sex”, easy victims. Rush stoked that anger for several days, and continues to do so despite an apology for 2 words. He has not apologized for stoking hatred against and causing fear in women. He has given people license to attack, threaten, rape and even kill women. For years he has done so, in a more general way, using words to describe strong women who defy his perception of what a woman should be like (weak and easy to manipulate) as “feminazis”. But, in this case he has directed his threat at a very specific woman; lying about her to make her weaker and easier to victimize. His followers have taken up his cause. Even Barbara Walters tells us to “just change the channel” because people could come after her and those on THE VIEW. Really? Rush Limbaugh’s behavior is nothing like what Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, Roland Martin, or Keith Olbermann were disciplined for. Too strong for you? Read my 1st paragraph.
Am I sensitive? Of course, and you should be also. you should be sensitive for the sakes of your daughters, grand-daughters, wives and girlfriends, mothers and sisters, cousins and aunts, even your grandmother. Most disturbing to me are the women who defend Rush Limbaugh. I can understand that men may not feel the fear of a Rush-triggered assault; but, women? Thank Goodness we have a president with empathy who can cross the divide between men and women, as he crosses so many divides in this country. For his daughters and his wife, he tried to ease the fear and the pain Rush Limbaugh caused Ms. Fluke. He understood that Rush assaulted her and all women when he asked Ms. Fluke, “Are you OK?”
I have shared my fear and disgust, hoping that when you listen or participate in a discussion of free speech and Rush Limbaugh you will feel what I and millions of women feel…utter disgust that our lives are held so cheaply! But not by President Obama; never by President Obama.
Filed under POLITICS
A MAN'S WORLD BUT A WOMAN'S HEAVEN
A MAN’S WORLD BUT A WOMAN’S HEAVEN
Louise Annarino
February 24, 2012
“It’s a man’s world but a woman’s heaven,” Sister Robertine, Vice Principal and teacher of Latin would tell us girls as she took on the uncomfortable task of teaching girls’ religion class our senior year. It was clear she found comfort in such an idea. I had noticed her on many occasions staring down the Principal, Fr. MacFarlane, arms akimbo, the rosary beads hanging from her wide black belt shaking with passion. It was she who would tell me, “I’ll speak to Father about it” when I complained about a school policy or procedure I believed unfair to us girls. Later, when Father altered his position, I knew whom to thank; although, he never acknowledged Sister’s role in the matter. I wondered why he was called “father”, but she was called “sister”. Was she not his equal? Should she not be called “mother”?
Sr. Canisia was a master of power plays. She would stomp about the classroom shouting “Maozeedung!” as she stalked us from behind, trying to teach us world history. When she became utterly exasperated she slammed her fist against the blackboard, then picked up her pace and stomped about, stopping to push aside a desk to wake up a bored student. One such day she suddenly heard footsteps on the stairs. Since Father’s office was directly beneath the classroom, she listened for those footsteps. We all did. She rushed to her desk, put a finger to her mouth and said quietly, “NOT ONE WORD!”
Father strode into the classroom without knocking on the closed door, eyebrows and voice raised he asked, “What is going on here? We are trying to get some work done downstairs!” Her head hanging low Sister meekly replied, “I can’t do a thing with these heathens today, Father. They are simply uncontrollable. SIgh.” As Father began his lecture, Sister looked over the class, her glaze hardened against any potential traitors who would challenge her version of events. None dared. Father left, humphing and harrumphing. Students resumed breathing; and Sister smiled in triumph. She had pulled one over on him. She noticed my deepening grin and her eyes began to twinkle, recognizing a comrade in arms.
As the male caretakers of morality allow themselves to be used by the Republican Party to distract voters from the true sins of the world – poverty, joblessness, lack of health care, racism, sexism, homophobia, destruction of the environment – I think about those nuns who demonstrated feminism in action to teenage Catholic school girls. Their only comfort was a belief heaven awaited them. I wanted that heaven on earth for women, as it existed for on earth for men. I was unwilling to wait until after my death for equality.
Every nun in our high school had a Ph.D. or was working on a Ph.D. Yet, the only fields then open to women were nursing, teaching or secretarial work. A few were librarians or social workers. They had no other comfort than a belief the future would be better. And that belief fueled the girls whom they taught. We became lawyers, doctors, bankers, plumbers, carpenters, engineers, astronauts, and politicians. Heaven became possible on earth. But, not easy, never easy.
The male domination of the world continued. Men “allowed” us a few slots, and continued to believe in their natural right to dominate us. They refused to change the structures, policies and systems which met their needs and supported their success. The needs of women, especially, those with children, required a change in policies, structures and systems which men fought at every turn. In fact, without readily available birth control, most women could never have taken the stage alongside men. There is no need to rehash what we have each experienced for ourselves – women’s struggles to succeed in a “man’s world”. Those who do, do so because of the support of strong men who are not threatened by women’s equality, and with the support of other women. Women have little trouble admitting to ourselves that we cannot do it alone. We are genetically and chemically programmed to work in tandem with those around us, building communities of support within our families and within the larger family of man. We are strong supporters of the 99%.
It is no mystery that the male morality police have been seeking to stop our access to birth control as a means of restricting our options for escape from their dominance and control. They do not like our insistence on assuring the welfare of human beings as they seek wealth and power around the globe. Women cry out against wars. Women cry out against hunger,poverty,racism, homophobia,environmental degradation. They see the connection between such sins and the lack of a possible heaven on earth for anyone else.They cry out to protect their children,and every woman’s child. Face it; we women get in men’s way, and they have had enough! They are angry because they think that the more we have the less they can get. We expect them to share their toys; they want to take their marbles and go home.
Well, women have had enough, more than enough. Women are careful with their anger, realizing the possible harm which could come to their beloved husbands, sons and grandsons;most of whom gave up male despotism decades ago. Women tread lightly.
But, women tread their way to the polls. Women vote. The 2012 election is vital at the local, county, state and federal level. Do we want anti-science climate change deniers on our school boards? Do we want right to work laws which lower wages for all workers while busting unions enacted in our state house? Do we want to protect insurance company profits by returning to days when a pre-existing condition effectively denied you coverage by electing congresspersons who would dismantle Obamacare?
Do we want to live in communities across the United States which would approve Jim Crow laws, restrict to right to vote, deny women access to birth control, demonize immigrants and assure the fulfillment heaven on earth for white men? Or, do we want equal opportunity for all? Do we want the promise of a future heaven on earth because we support every single person’s right to pursue happiness? We cannot elect those who tell us only the 1% have the know-how, the innate ability, and the wisdom to allow us to participate in their heaven. Don’t we really want our own heaven on earth? What arrogance to “allow” us what is our right!
Vote for President Obama, whose message of hope is not just for America’s sons, but for its daughters as well. Vote for President Obama, whose message of hope is not just for African-Americans or white Americans, but for all Americans. Vote for President Obama.
We women recognize voting for President Obama is not enough. we must vote for his support system. We must vote out those racists who undermine every move he makes on our behalf, simply because he is an African-American man. We must vote out those who undermine him simply to protect their golden parachutes. We must vote out those who undermine him simply to protect their excessive profits hidden in off-shore accounts. He is trying to rebuild this country to support ALL of us. we cannot elect those who undermine him simply because we are in their way. A man’s world and a woman’s heaven? Not for long, Not for long…
Filed under POLITICS
OUT IN THE OPEN
OUT IN THE OPEN
Louise Annarino
2-14-2012
Hopefully, this is the last time I shall have to discuss the Roman Catholic Church and the opposition of its Pope and its most conservative of Bishops to progressive political theory, and at times, to President Barack Obama.
I will not discuss the church’s theological positions. It is none of my business. Catholic women are not part of the church hierarchy and have no positional power within its ranks. Some may have personal power with particular members of the church hierarchy; but, personal power is ephemeral at best. Therefore, I am not entitled to any opinion on theological teachings. That has been clear since my baptism.
However, as an American, I am entitled to an opinion on its espoused political positions, and its corporate climate. I am also entitled to question whether as a religious institution it has any right to take a political position. Jesus’ response to his religious hierarchy “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s”, Matt 22:21, is not simply a basis for the separation of church and state; although, one could argue such. It was his brilliant repost to a group of rabbis trying to trick him into taking a political position, or to discredit himself as a rabbi. Jesus himself had made it clear he was not a political Messiah, John18:36. The Pharisee rabbis were trying to prove otherwise. The Roman Catholic Pope and Bishops would be wise to follow Jesus’ lead. They are not political Messiahs. They are behaving like Pharisees. Their objective is political and financial power, in the guise of religious freedom. No one has asked them to deny their religious teachings, or practice their faith as they see fit. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, President Obama adjusted the political and financial demands of women’s preventive health care to eliminate any possible religious entanglement argument. The church has been outed;it’s outcry was never about religion. It has always been about politics.When the Bishops met 7 months ago to prepare an attack on President Obama’s health care mandates, they behaved like Pharisees, trying to protect their turf from the President they view as the usurper.
Let’s be clear, a church hierarchy which has treated women and children as second class citizens and done little or nothing to protect them; and, has in fact attacked them with impunity ( witch hunts, pedophilia) posits it should be able to deny any woman, Catholic or non-Catholic, comprehensive preventive health care. Really? For, now that the issue of providing insurance coverage for such care is off the table, the only thing remaining is the health care itself. The Bishops’ continuing opposition is simply opposition to women’s comprehensive preventive health care, period!
Thank you, President Obama, for making it so clear. Now, let us ignore the Pharisees and move on.
At age 10 I wrote a letter to then-Senator John F. Kennedy, and received a personal reply. I sent him several pages listing American Catholics from pre-revolution through 1962 who had served America without becoming a tool of the Catholic church. Presidential candidate Kennedy was deemed an unacceptable candidate since many believed the Roman Catholic Church would try to use him to foster its own agenda, in violation of the separation of church and state. Senator Kennedy used my research in his debate with Richard Nixon. He was the first Catholic elected President of the United States.We know from history that it is dangerous to mix church and state. Millions have died over the centuries as the church imposed its will on the state. Many fled to the wilderness of America to avoid oppression resulting from merger of state and religion. President Kennedy had to overcome this perceived threat. Now, politicians struggle to affirm their willingness to be guided by religious institutions in matters of state. The backlash, should this not be prevented, has a long and bloody history. Women have never fared well under church dominated state action.
I am weary of those arguing the state is denying them the right to practice their religion. They have no right to force me to practice their religion! I have a right to the same comprehensive preventive health care as any other woman, no matter who is my employer; just as I have a right to minimum wage, unemployment benefits etc. Religious belief has no place in determining who is eligible for employment benefits.
annarino writes 