Brad Warthen's Blog

Some things that I 'watch with horror'

First, a warning -- I've posted some disturbing images at the bottom of this post. They are painful to look at. If you wish to avoid them, do not scroll down!

Following up on my Sunday column, it occurs to me that it might be helpful to elaborate a little more on the proper meaning of "watched with horror." If you'll recall, the NYT used that phrase to refer to such practices as scanning telecommunications for terrorists without proper authorization, and imprisoning supposed terrorists at Guantanamo.

In the column, I gave examples from history of things that are more properly "watched with horror," if the words are to mean anything -- the Holocaust, the firebombing of Dresden, and the like. I included some from recent years -- genocide in Darfur and 9/11 -- but perhaps not enough. I can make it much more immediate than that.

The terror attacks in Mumbai are certainly something I "watched with horror," both from a personal and geopolitical perspective. Just days before it happened, my Dad had been reminiscing about having Shore Patrol duty in Bombay during his Navy career. That meant digging sailors out of some pretty sleazy dives, but it also meant staying at the Taj Mahal hotel. It was a shock to have that place suddenly in the news, and for something so horrific.

Two weeks ago, my brother was over there on business -- and of course, he would have been a target had he been there still. As my father would have been, long before. That was underlined for me in a sidebar piece the WSJ ran Friday, accounting for the employees of various international firms in Mumbai.

Stan Dubinsky from over at USC sent me an e-mail that had been sent out by Hesh Epstein, the Chabad rabbi here in Columbia, about the young Chabad rabbi and his wife killed by the terrorists -- presumably for the "crime" of being Jewish. I took a lecture course a couple of years back given by Rabbi Epstein (about Jewish beliefs regarding the Messiah, it was fascinating), and was deeply impressed by his devotion and scholarship. If it had been Hesh over there instead of that young man and his wife... the tragedy would have been far more personal. As it is, it's bad enough.

Too much personal? Then consider the overall death toll, and the geopolitical implications -- India is blaming Pakistan, and both countries have nukes.

I think what got me to thinking about the personal angles was Nicholas Kristof's column yesterday (beware the image if you follow the link!), which I chose this morning to put on tomorrow's op-ed page, and which started like this:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Terrorism in this part of the world usually means bombs exploding or hotels burning, as the latest horrific scenes from Mumbai attest. Yet alongside the brutal public terrorism that fills the television screens, there is an equally cruel form of terrorism that gets almost no attention and thrives as a result: flinging acid on a woman’s face to leave her hideously deformed.

Here in Pakistan, I’ve been investigating such acid attacks, which are commonly used to terrorize and subjugate women and girls in a swath of Asia from Afghanistan through Cambodia (men are almost never attacked with acid). Because women usually don’t matter in this part of the world, their attackers are rarely prosecuted and acid sales are usually not controlled. It’s a kind of terrorism that becomes accepted as part of the background noise in the region...

This is something I "watch with horror," without even having to see it. Unfortunately, I DID see it, in a photograph with Kristof's column online. And it wasn't the first time I've seen such images. I had run across the ones you see below (with their original captions) a week or two ago when I was looking for something to go with a previous Kristof column, and had searched the AP archive for "Pakistan" and "women." The images all moved on the wire earlier this year.

This is the kind of thing that I believe the phrase "watched with horror" should be reserved for. And that's my point in posting these images. I almost put them in the paper, but I thought Kristof's column communicated the horror fully enough. As you know, one thing I use the blog for is to post things I don't put in the paper. Maybe I was wrong to balk at doing that. But as hardened as newspapermen are supposed to be, I hesitate even now to post them here. And yet, these pictures aren't as bad -- that is, the injuries aren't as recent -- as the cases Kristof wrote about.

Kristof and his wife received the Pulitzer for reporting on the democracy movement in China years ago. He deserves another one for telling these women's stories -- as he has done for the powerless (so often women) in Darfur and elsewhere. By horrifying decent people everywhere, he performs a great service.

Irum Saeed, 30, adjusts her scarf as she poses for a photograph at her office at the Urdu University in Islamabad, Pakistan, Thursday, July 24, 2008. Irum was burnt on her face, back and shoulders with acid thrown in the middle of the street by a boy whom she rejected for marriage 12 years ago. She has undergone plastic surgery 25 times to try to recover from her scars with the help of Depilex-Smileagain Foundation in Lahore. Smileagain is an organization that helps burn victims to reintegrate into society through medical and psychological support, sometimes employing them as beauticians at Depilex beauty centers. Irum is one of the 240 registered victims of Smileagain's help list in Pakistan. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

Shameem Akhter, 18, poses for a photograph at her home in Jhang, Pakistan, Wednesday, July 10, 2008. Three years ago three boys threw acid on her. Shameem has undergone plastic surgery 10 times to try to recover from her scars with the help of Depilex-Smileagain Foundation in Lahore. Smileagain is an organization that helps burn victims to reintegrate into society through medical and psychological support, sometimes employing them as beauticians at Depilex beauty centers. Shameem is one of the 240 registered victims of Smileagain's help list in Pakistan. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

Attiya Khalil, 16, poses for a photograph at her home in Lahore, Pakistan, Wednesday, July 9, 2008. Attiya's face was burnt with acid thrown by relatives of a neighbor boy whom she rejected for marriage around 3 years ago. She has undergone plastic surgery three times to try to recover from her scars with the help of Depilex-Smileagain Foundation in Lahore. Smileagain is an organization that helps burn victims to reintegrate into society through medical and psychological support, sometimes employing them as beauticians at Depilex beauty centers. Attiya is one of the 240 registered victims of Smileagain's help list in Pakistan. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

Does the gender of lawmakers matter to YOU?

Just got a post-election e-mail from the Southeastern Institute for Women in Politics, which had also hit me with releases a number of times before Tuesday. Here's the gist:

Congratulations to all of the brave female candidates running in South Carolina and their support teams. Women made progress in the South Carolina House of Representatives, increasing their numbers from 13 to 17, though still down from a peak of 20 in 1992. Women were elected across South Carolina to local offices including solicitor and the first female mayor for Cayce, Elise Partin.

While South Carolina women offered for federal, state and local offices in record numbers during the 2008 election cycle, fewer than hoped succeeded at the polls in November.

The list of winners includes 10 incumbent representatives and 6 newcomers:

Candidate	Seat	Party
Anne Peterson-Hutto Chandra Dillard Deborah Long Cathy Harvin* Gilda Cobb-Hunter* Jenny Horne Joan Brady* Nikki Haley* Rita Allison Shannon Erickson* Vida Miller* Wendy Nanney J. Anne Parks* Laurie Slade Funderburk* Patsy G. Knight* Annette D. Young* Denny Neilson*	House District 115 House District 23 House District 45 House District 64 House District 66 House District 94 House District 78 House District 87 House District 36 House District 124 House District 108 House District 22 House District 12 House District 52 House District 97 House District 98 House District 56	D D R D D R R R R R D R D D D R D

The Challenges Ahead

No women were elected to the South Carolina Senate, returning that chamber to an all-male bastion not seen in more than 30 years. South Carolina is also the only state in the nation lacking women in its senate.

The Southeastern Institute for Women in Politics, a non-profit organized to attract, encourage and train women to run and win, delivered hundreds of thousands of email messages about available candidates in an effort to create visibility for female candidates. Biographies and responses to specific questions were posted on the Institute's website to help educate South Carolina voters regarding choices.

Members of the Institute's board of directors vowed to move into the 2010 and 2012 election cycles aggressively, beginning with recruitment and training as early as February, 2009.

---

Support the Institute. Become a member today.
Interested in future training events? Tell us about it.

And I find myself wondering. Does it make a difference to YOU that there are no women in the Senate, or that there are four more in the House? If so, why? If not, why not?

I ask because I just don't generally think in these terms. If the best candidate is a woman that's who we endorse. If not, we don't. We certainly wouldn't choose a candidate BECAUSE she's a woman, any more than we'd reject her on that basis. Nikki Haley was a stronger candidate that Ed Gomez. Margaret Gamble was strong, but not as strong as Nikki Setzler. Based on the evidence, I guess you'd say we're more likely to endorse a candidate on the basis of whether his/her name is "Nikki," rather than gender.

Gender doesn't matter any more than party, in terms of determining which is the better candidate.

Not that I don't believe men and women are different. I noticed a while back that they are. In fact, when folks try to equate gender issues to race issues, I tend to object by saying, "Boys and girls are different; black people and white people are not." I'm not arguing necessarily for doing like Will Stockdale in "No Time for Sergeants" and saying I don't notice whether it's a man or a wawmun; I just see a lieutenant.

But I'm not recalling offhand when gender ever caused me to pick one candidate over another.

The Flame of Alaska?

The things you learn about candidates from reading their books. Despite the length of those columns I wrote after reading Barack Obama's and John McCain's chronicles of their early years, obviously there was much I didn't have room to get into, including a lot of stuff that each candidate's respective detractors like to point to.

Obama had his dope-smoking years, a period of rebellion in which I think he was self-consciously trying to emulate Malcolm X in his wild, self-destructive period -- although being careful not to go too far, of course. (We both read the Autobiography in high school in Hawaii. I found it interesting; Obama saw it briefly as a guide to being a "black man in America," something he had to practice to learn.)

John McCain, having been a Naval Aviator, was less inhibited. He had Marie, the Flame of Florida. And others; that name just stood out. She apparently was an exotic dancer who performed for the fliers at Trader John's, their favorite Pensacola after-hours locale. Ensign McCain dated her for awhile. She was "a remarkably attractive girl with a great sense of humor." He made the mistake once of taking her on an impulse to a party given by a married officer. (The single junior officers seldom socialized with the married couples. There was a good reason for this.) She was "a good sport" about it, but was clearly out of place among the Eastern Establishment-educated wives:

The young wives she was about to meet would be decorously attired and unfailingly genteel. Marie was dressed somewhat flamboyantly that evening, as was her custom.
... Marie sensed that the young wives, while certainly not rude to her, were less than entirely at ease in her presence. So she sat silent, not wishing to impose on anyone or intrude in the conversations going on around her. After a while, she must have become a little bored. So, quietly, she reached into her purse, withdrew a switchblade, popped open the blade, and, with a look of complete indifference, began to clean her fingernails.
... A short time later, recognizing that our presence had perhaps subdued the party, I thanked our hosts for their hospitality, bid goodbye to the others, and took my worldly, lovely Flame of Florida to dinner.

I like that line, "as was her custom..."

Kathleen Parker believes the crusty old sailor who once romanced the Flame of Florida had a similar motivation for choosing Sarah Palin -- another remarkably attractive girl with a great sense of humor -- to go with him to the party those Republican stiffs held up in St. Paul. Only this time, the date was the hit of the party. They particularly liked the part where she took out her switchblade and sliced and diced the Community Organizer with it.

But perhaps we're reading too much into this.

Photos I did NOT use with 'Palin and sexual attraction' column

Being a responsible editor and all, I resisted the temptation to choose any of these pictures when I was looking for art to go with Kathleen Parker's column on the theory that McCain picked Palin because... well, because guys can't think straight in the presence of a good-looking woman.

An excerpt from the column in question:

As my husband observed early on, McCain the mortal couldn’t mind having an attractive woman all but singing arias to his greatness. Cameras frequently capture McCain beaming like a gold-starred schoolboy while Palin tells crowds that he is “exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief.” This, notes Draper, “seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful.”

It is entirely possible that no one could have beaten the political force known as Barack Obama — under any circumstances. And though it isn’t over yet, it seems clear that McCain made a tragic, if familiar, error under that sycamore tree. Will he join the pantheon of men who, intoxicated by a woman’s power, made the wrong call?

Had Antony not fallen for Cleopatra, Octavian might not have captured the Roman Empire. Had Bill resisted Monica, Al Gore may have become president and Hillary might be today’s Democratic nominee.

But they didn't -- resist those women, that is. Guys seldom do. Certain things make us stupid, and Kathleen maintains this was one of those things.

Hey, but at least I resisted using these pictures, right? That shows that there's still such a thing as decorum in a family newspaper.

Of course, I did save them, to share with y'all. Don't tell the ladies, though, guys...

p.m. is wrong about Tina Fey

Sometimes p.m. -- a.k.a. Weldon VII -- and I agree on things, but I've got to him he's totally wrong with this recent comment:

Palin is a lot better looking than Fey, bud, at least when Fey tries to look like Palin. I noticed that when they were on stage together briefly. The actress herself might not have wanted to face Palin alone.

No, this blog isn't going to turn into one of those that puts up pictures of babes from the pop culture in order to artificially inflate its traffic. But I thought someone should stick up for the lady in question, shown at right as herself. And yeah, I know you said "as Palin," but still. No doubt Ms. Fey is better-looking as herself than Ms. Palin would be as Fey.

You know what, I'm just thinking I'm going to get it trouble on this either way. Being gentlemen about it, let us just say they are both quite presentable.

Holding my breath

Sometimes as I'm making my way through the scores, often hundreds, of e-mails I get in a day, I sometimes wonder who the people sending me some of these press releases think is going to be interested?

An example:

Economists Grade Presidential Candidates
A to F on 10 Issues Vital to Women
 
Audio Press Conference This Thursday, Oct. 23

A network of more than 40 economists from across America have graded McCain and Obama on 10 issues vital to women, from taxes to retirement security and pay equity. 

Noting the importance of economic issues in a time of financial crisis, the report finds the candidates’ stands on several issues give valuable insights into how they would handle the crisis.  The report card also gives an overall composite grade.

AUDIO PRESS CONFERENCE

Economists' Policy Group for Women's Issues

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23

1 PM EASTERN TIME

SPEAKERS
Professor Nancy Folbre, Chair.  University of Massachusetts Amherst; staff economist, Centre for Popular Economics; author Family Time: The Social Organization of Care and Who Pays for the Kids?; MacArthur fellowship for pioneering work in economics.
Professor Randy Albelda.  University of Massachusetts Boston; Vice-President, International Association for Feminist Economics; coauthor Glass Ceilings and Bottomless Pits:  Women’s Work, Women’s Poverty and Unlevel Playing Fields:  Understanding Wage Inequality and Wage Discrimination. 
Professor Robert Drago.  Pennsylvania State University and University of Melbourne;  co-founder and chair of Take Care Net; past president, College and University Work-Family Association; moderator, Workfam newsgroup; past Senior Fulbright Research Scholar; author of four books, including Striking a Balance, and over 70 articles.
Dr. Lois B. Shaw.  Senior consulting economist, Institute for Women’s Policy Research; previous research positions, U.S. General Accounting Office and Ohio State University’s Center for Human Resource Research; co-editor Warm Hands in Cold Age: Gender and Aging.
     # # #

I mean, I saw the headline and actually scrolled down to satisfy my extremely low level of curiosity as to what a group of feminist economists or whatever choose to say in connection with such a publicity stunt. And if I weren't a blogger always on the lookout for the offbeat, I wouldn't even have done that.

Then I saw that they were merely trying to whet my appetite for something coming up on Thursday.

Come ON, people! Who is going to put this on a calendar and tune in two days from now??? Who is sitting there thinking, Golly, I wonder which candidate will get the higher grades?

Sarah's gams, or, Our nation's descent into fetishism

The last few weeks, I've noticed a kind of image moving on the AP wire that I don't recall having run across in the annals of photojournalism vis-a-vis presidential campaigns.

Each time I see one of these, I go, "legs!," because, well, that's the sort of thing I notice. But then, trying to explain what on Earth caused a photo editor to post these (I understand fully why the photographer shot them, but it seems to me more like the sort of thing he would keep to himself, or just share with the guys), I think, "It's gotta be the shoes." I figure maybe there's a fashion angle to which I am oblivious. That would be acceptable to women, and therefore the sort of thing an editor might dare to post. I mean, I've read that Sarah Palin has had an impact on the eyewear industry; maybe there's something special about her shoes to which I am oblivious.

But nope; it's not about the shoes. In fact, no excuse is offered for shooting Sarah Palin in a way that it would never occur to the photog to shoot Joe Biden. Here's the caption:

Republican vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, stands at the lectern during her vice presidential debate Thursday, Oct. 2, 2008, in St. Louis, Mo. (AP Photo/Don Emmert, Pool)

I guess, despite all these decades of being bludgeoned by the sensitivity crowd, boys will still be boys. I mean, I knew that, but most of us don't SHOW it show so blatantly.

Breathless over Sarah, but not the way Kathleen Parker meant it

You may recall that in my commentary on Kathleen Parker's "Palin-should-drop-out" column, I wrote:

Kathleen is able to cite her initial defense of Sarah, then her breathless tension watching her and hoping she wouldn't screw up. And that's something I can't possibly identify with -- worrying about someone's performance because I'm a member of the same demographic. Maybe I'm too self-centered. But I have had to accept that black folks do that with Obama, and women do that with Hillary Clinton and/or Sarah Palin, depending on their proclivities. When I see a white guy out there succeeding or failing, he's on his own as far as I'm concerned. I might agree with him or I might not, but it won't have anything to do with which restroom he uses or what boxes he checks off on a census form.

Well, I found myself breathless at times during the debate -- whenever Mrs. Palin was speaking -- and was really glad when the whole thing was over. But it wasn't because I wanted to see a woman succeed. And it wasn't because I wanted to see McCain's running mate succeed (his choice of Mrs. Palin is one of the few things about McCain I disapprove of). And it wasn't because she's a babe. (even though she was cute, when she wasn't grating.)

No, it was that phenomenon that comes over me when I'm watching a movie or a TV show, and something's about to happen that will be enormously embarrassing to the character on the screen, and even if you don't like the character (although it's worse if they're likable), you cringe, because you don't want to see it. You get embarrassed for the human race; you empathize no matter how much you try not to, and it's painful.

And the awful part is that you see it coming. Often at such moments, I leave the room. Life is painful enough without having your nose rubbed in contrived discomfort.

As I was typing the above, I was struggling to come up with an example, but one just hit me: I've never watched the American version of "The Office," but I'm a big fan of the BBC original. I say that in spite of the fact that the entire second season was just excruciating; David Brent got worse and worse. But in that case, I had to keep watching.

I had to keep watching the debate, too, on account of it being my job. But in the end, it went fine for all concerned. But I was tired, from all the breath-holding.

Kathleen Parker says Palin should drop out

I thought y'all might want your attention drawn to the Kathleen Parker column on today's page (our first syndicated column in the hallowed space previously reserved to editorial board members) in which she concludes:

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

But you should really go read it and see how she gets there. Wanting to make sure readers did that, I didn't put the slam-bang conclusion in the headline. I DID put it in THIS headline, on account of the blog being all about provoking discussion.

An interesting thing about the column: Like Nixon going to China, you sort of needed a "conservative" (which I put in quotes because that oversimplifies Kathleen, but in this context it's about widespread perception) woman to say this, assuming it needed saying. Sort of like nobody but fellow veterans could have criticized John Kerry's service in the war.

Kathleen is able to cite her initial defense of Sarah, then her breathless tension watching her and hoping she wouldn't screw up. And that's something I can't possibly identify with -- worrying about someone's performance because I'm a member of the same demographic. Maybe I'm too self-centered. But I have had to accept that black folks do that with Obama, and women do that with Hillary Clinton and/or Sarah Palin, depending on their proclivities. When I see a white guy out there succeeding or failing, he's on his own as far as I'm concerned. I might agree with him or I might not, but it won't have anything to do with which restroom he uses or what boxes he checks off on a census form.

That's why it took Kathleen to write this piece. For my part, I haven't had any particular expectations of Mrs. Palin. Y'all know what I thought when I first saw her, and all she had to do was give a reasonably competent convention speech to exceed my expectations.

But that's me. What do you think?

Carol Fowler: An uptick explained

Before I left the office last night, I glanced at my stats page in Typepad and noticed something odd: I was getting a lot of hits from Google on a year-old post headlined "Carol Fowler and the Dark Side" (which, now that I look back at it, was an odd headline for the subject).

Later that night, I realized why -- the quote from Ms. Fowler on Politico. Sheesh. What a bunch of nothing -- my post last year was more interesting.

Folks, compared to the usual overheated rhetoric from Democrats of a certain persuasion about those of us who oppose abortion, this was nothing. When I heard the quote on TV (my wife watches TV news, even local "if it bleeds it leads" TV news, usually when I'm not in the room; but there I was trapped in my recliner holding a grandbaby and begging somebody to pop in a DVD -- I ended up staying up way too late to rewatch "The Graduate"), I thought sure it would be something provocative. When I heard, "Choosing someone whose primary qualification seems to be that she has...," I thought the next thing would be a reference to some distinguishing feature of female anatomy. But when I then heard, "...n’t had an abortion," I could not freaking believe that someone was making an issue of it.

Come on, folks -- at least what Don said was offensive, and I was fairly dismissive of that meaning anything, either. As any rational person who knows the way human beings talk with friends would be.

Anyway, that explains the uptick in interest over Carol Fowler. Again, sheesh.

And again, I will urge the partisans: Get over it. Democrats, quit your whining about "Swiftboating," which, I'm sorry to tell you, is not a real word, much less something for you to keep wetting your pants about, expecting the GOP to do it to you at any minute. That "quit picking on me" pose doesn't work on anybody but your whiniest base. (And Barack, dismissing the GOPpers for acting hurt about "lipstick," then whining yourself about "Swiftboating" is about as petty as I've heard you get.)

And Repubicans, get over your crying about the lipstick and the Fowler remark and the mean media and the pregnant daughter and the rest.

And then let's try to have a grownup election, OK?