I am catching up on my Sunday Morning news shows via podcast.  In the July 12th Meet The Press, I had one of those surreal moments that seem as if they can only happen in political discussions.  Former Bush advisor and Republican strategist, Karen Hughes, participated in the roundtable discussion.

When referring to Obama's G8 performance, she said, "They [the G8] kicked the can down the road with respect to global warming..."

Wow.  That takes solid steel cajones coming from a Bush advisor.  Kyoto ring a bell, Karen?

Sheesh.  No wonder folding laundry seems suddenly appealing.

Having studied African American literature, part of which included reading the writings of Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Director of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and American Research at Harvard, I was shocked to read headlines of his arrest earlier this week.

After reading the circumstances surrounding the arrest, I quickly jumped to the same conclusion Barack Obama professed at the end of his news conference on health care.  The police responded properly to a call from a concerned neighbor about "big, black men breaking into a house."  They questioned the suspect(s).

And then things got stupid.

According to the arresting police officer, Sgt. James Crowly, Gates was uncooperative about providing his identification and accused him of racism.
Words were exchanged.  Gates made reference to Crowly's mother saying, "I'll speak with your mama outside," when Crowly asked him to come onto the porch (where Crowly then arrested Gates for disorderly conduct).

If I know police officer behaviors in this type of situation (and I do), many officers would respond to belligerance with a show of authority and demonstration of force.  Crowly did so by arresting a middle-aged man who had proved that he was in his own house, essentially for pissing him off.

Then Obama jumped into the mix (click the link for the video) when asked a specific question by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times:  "Recently," she said, "Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home...What does this incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?"

Obama gave, as usual, a nuanced answer.  He stated two potential issues with his opinion up front: He is Gates's friend and he didn't know all the facts.  He then went into a summary of what he did know and said, while he didn't know what role race played in the incident, he had three opinions:

1. Any of us would be pretty angry if we treated as Gates was in his own home.
2.  The Cambridge police "acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
3.  Apart from this incident, there is "a long hisotry of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportianally."  He called such incidents a sign that race remains a factor in this society.

My only quibble with Obama's statement, assigning all of the stupidity to the police, was remedied in his comments in a Nightline interview where he said "everybody should have settled down and cooler heads would have prevailed."

After that LONG intro, let me add my two bits.

First, I believe that the police officer did act in an inappropriate and uninformed manner...especially if his major "damage" was the comment about his mama.  White Americans do not understand such comments within their racial and historical context.  Verbal insults to family and person are a common form of teasing called "the dozens" among African Americans.  In charged situations, one often reaches for sarcastic humor.  And as one commentator put it, "This was the supreme humiliation for Henry Louis Gates, because he has achieved a rarefied status and the considerations that are usually afforded to him went right out the window when the officer arrested him. In a minute, that cop erased all that Gates has had to work through to get where he is."

Conversely, Gates acted in an inappropriate manner by assuming the police officer's motives were racial.  Despite his personal history as a black man in America (which undoubtedly includes instances of overt racism), Gates should have had a "cooler head" and discussed the issue more rationally.  Yes, he was tired.  Yes, he had just gotten back from a long overseas journey.  And still, it would have gone better if he'd bitten his tongue.  Because I believe his comments and challenging of Crowly's authority "erased" all of Crowly's hard work to be a good, middle-class cop.  The status that Crowly is used to as a police officer was challenged by an angry, privileged black man (which tells me class as well as race were likely in the emotional mix.)

Third, the media's narrow reporting of Obama's comment about stupidity, without giving the full context and disclaimers of his remarks, perpetuates the sound bite downfall of true news in our society.  Everyone has a point to make and they want to make it using a few, out of context, words and get on their way.

That's not news.  It's faux news.  And it's not fair to Gates, Crowly or Obama.  Nor is it fair to the people who swallow today's news pill and think they understand what happened.

The solution?  Reading.  Watching full responses to questions. Studying our history and what informs our opinions and reactions.  Looking at both sides and trying to grasp the views from each pair of shoes involved.  Not accepting a sound bite or headline as telling the broader story.

What a wonderful day!  I got the chance to drive down and play golf with Dad and our friend, John Gould.  I say our friend since John was complaining about only having one friend (Dad) and I graciously volunteered to be friend #2.  By the end of the outing, Sally had agreed to be friend #3, but David declined to be friend #4.

One of the things I love about playing with these two fine gentlemen is the camraderie and laughs.  No one gets a free pass from the teasing and yet everyone cheers everyone else's successes.  The highlights of this round were John's birdie, Dad's and my (and John's) multiple pars, and a rather amusing slip of the tongue by yours truly.

I was yanking all of my iron tee shots to the left.  As John and I left the tee box, I allowed as to how I used to always slice the ball.  "But now," I said, "I'm more of a hooker."

Then I put my finger on my lips and said, "Hmmm...I don't think that came out quite right!"  I'm sure I'll hear about that one on future outings for years to come.  The only downer of the day was that we were supposed to be joined by my sister-in-law, Donna...and she couldn't make it at the last minute.  (We missed you, Donna!)

Given that I drove for 3 hours today, I also got the chance to catch up on my podcasts.  On one recent "This Week with George Stephanopolous," Senator Lindsay Graham was on.  George (just easier to type than Stephanopolous...it's not that I know him on a first name basis) asked Senator Graham about his opinions on the healthcare reform bills currently being marked up in the Senate and the house. 

Not once, but twice, Graham responded with the Republican talking points that a public health plan was "socialized medicine" and would lead to a "bureaucrat standing between a patient and healthcare."  Two comments.

1.  I fail to see how a public health plan that allows choice between current health plans and the public plan is "socialized medicine."  Nice buzzword designed to drum up fear of a European style of medical care (a type of care that few Americans bother to research enough to know that even if Graham's falsehood were true, it wouldn't be as bad as the hype).  But it's not true...socialized medicine implies a single payer system where the payer is the government.  And that's not going to happen.

2.  I don't know about you, but I currently deal with a pretty good health plan.  And even so, there's a bureaucrat standing between me and proper healthcare on occasion.  It's an insurance bureaucrat, but it's a bureaucrat all the way.  Again, another bogeyman designed to instill fear rather than a legitimate argument against a choice of the government plan.

As an adjunct, I should mention that I was intrigued by one idea being floated by Senator Max Baucus of Montana--co-op healthcare instead of a government run program.  I'll have to read more, but it seems like it may be a reasonable compromisel 

(See, I'm a Democrat and I'm not for socialized medical care...how can that be?)

Enough.  Off to the couch to rest up after my glorious day of golf.

I just read a very interesting article by a man who wrote the book (literally)on Fish.  An advocate of eating this healthy alternative to beef and chicken, he's coming to see that many of the fish we consume are either not good for the environment because they're farmed, or not sustainably fished right now.

He ended the article by talking about his new personal guidelines for eating fish.  One of them is "not to let perfect become the enemy of good."  I found his statement really resonating in my head around two things:

1.  The up-in-the-air status of my liver resection surgery (due to my surgeon being in the Ukraine and my oncologist having questions about the strategy).

2.  The DOMA brief filed by the Department of Justice against the plaintiffs (and supporting the Defense of Marriage Act) and its relationship to President Obama's stated aims of repealing DOMA and "Dont' Ask, Dont' Tell."

Trust me, these all work together!

Taking the Obama administration first, I just emailed a friend that I'm not surprised that Obama is doing some foot dragging on these issues.  I doubt seriously that he read, let alone made suggestions for improving, the relatively offensive brief.  But I do believe there's been a conscious decision by his administration to let the culture wars die down in order to accomplish more pressing and far reaching agenda items.

In other words, he's not letting perfect (sticking with everything you've ever said without prioritizing and/or changing your mind) be the enemy of good (accomplishing the most important reforms first and letting others do some brewing before they come to fruition).

In terms of my surgery, there is some question by my oncologist whether or not this strategy (staged liver resection and rfa ablation for those tumors too deep to remove) is the best route, or even feasible.  Remember, he's a generalist and I went last week to see a specialist...so it's reasonable that he has questions.  Even admirable.

And at the same time, I believe that surgery will end up being my best, if imperfect option.  There's a belief that tumors will recur from rfa treated metasteses.  Okay, but that's down the road.  And who knows what will be at the forefront of the battle against colon cancer then?

I don't want perfect to become the enemy of good when it comes to my health, healing and hope for cure.  It's how I've dealt with this challenge from the beginning.  Using the best information about this complex system known as Laura Morefield, I choose.  Subject to change as new information comes in.  Trusting my medical team.  But mostly, trusting my own inner, God-given voice.

I got a brief, inadvertant earful of Rush Limbaugh today--shouting in the echo chamber that Obama needed to immediately denounce the elections in Iran and back off from any attempt to negotiate peacefully with the Ahmadinejad.  I haven't watched, but I am relatively peaceful with my assumption that Fox was trumpeting much the same theory.

It reminds me of the Bush administration's "Oops" on the election of Hamas in Palestine.  The administration pushed for elections and then, when the "wrong guys" were elected, they protested it wasn't fair.

(Ah, the irony.)

I don't pretend that Iran's elections were fair.  The press was suppressed.  There are reports of voter fraud.  The elections exist primarily to provide the appearance of democracy while validating the choice of religious leaders.

But neither do I pretend that we in America arrived at the perfect pinnacle of democracy out of the gate.  We've had plenty of voter suppression over the years.  In some cases, outright voter fraud.  And we didn't start out with democracy...we grew into it over a period of many, many years.  We grew into it with bloody revolution, bloody civil war, bloody confrontations over civil rights.

Why, oh why, does it surprise us when other folks have to stumble their way through protests, revolution and civil rights before they become a representative republic? 

I guess the answer is, it doesn't surprise all of us.  Just those of us who think they have all the answers, and all of those, perfected.

For a great column on this same topic, see Slate's opinion piece by Anne Applebaum.

I finally broke 100 on the golf course for the first time after my colon cancer surgery.  Yaay, me!  I credit Dan for giving me the great advice on Saturday that I really needed to keep focused on balance as I was addressing and hitting the ball.  We got out for an early round today and I put his advice to work.  Very, very cool.  I even got a birdie on the 7th hole.

As for the second barrier, I read a very interesting opinion piece by Jacob Weisberg in last week's Newsweek.  Admittedly, Weisberg's history is left of center, at least judging by the publications for which he's written.  The article addresses the issue of what the Republicans need to do to get back in the game on a nation-wide level.  Given that Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are the two most vocal (and most heeded?) voices of the GOP now, Weisberg argues for...well, balance.

I love it when themes dovetail.

He suggests that "It's past time for the GOP to abandon Gingrich-era, pseudo-libertarian antigovernment rhetoric and to accept the social consensus behind progressive taxation, retirement security, action to slow climate change and a government role in health care. It also might want to quit defending torture. It needs to move to a neutral or big-tent approach on most social issues, the way Democrats did with gun control and the death penalty."

I agree that such a strategy would serve the Republican party well, not just in garnering them new members and more votes, but also in terms of, as Weisberg says, aligning them with the social consensus of the majority of Americans.

Then, imagine if Democrats in Congess did the same thing; if they joined together on a middle path, less idealogical and more pragmatic.  Good golly, we might just find ourselves fixing the country's problems insteac of busily assigning blame to those other guys (whomever they might be from your perspective.

Now there's a barrier breaking approach.

I've got three things buzzing around my mind this vle-post chemo day.

1.  Newsweek's Redesign:  Having concluded that "news" is being covered by the 24/7 blogosphere and news channels, Newsweek has been in the process of reinventing itself as a news outlet.  Instead of being a "current news" delivery device, they've moved in the direction of offering commentary, in-depth interviews and profiles.

I like the thinking very much but believe they will be better able to engage their audience in this new format if they break things up a bit more.  Intersperse commentary (and woo Quindlan back for heavens' sake) with more in-depth articles.  Sprinkle the social commentary fluff-stuff throughout the magazine instead of saving it for the end.  A few little tweaks and Newsweek may be onto something.  Sorta wish Meacham had been in charge of the automotive industry this last decade or so.

2.  My at long last viewing of Shut up and Sing, a documentary about the Dixie Chicks and the "long road" they took to come back from lead singer Natalie Maines' off the cuff comment in London, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, that she was embarassed that the President of the United States was from (her home state) of Texas.

The backlash from that comment (mainly from Country Music fans and the stations that used anti-Chick backlash to whip up some publicity) was brutish, ill-informed, and (as it turned out) dead wrong about the war being the right decision.   

The film follows these three incredibly talented performers as they navigate the fallout of Maines' comment and their subsequent choices.  There are some interesting nuances to the argument about free speech.  It seems like the producers of the film were all for Natalie's free speech but not so much for the free speech of those who disagreed with the Chicks.  I've been there, to a much lesser degree, when I wrote about abortion rights and came home to a hateful call on my message machine about being a baby killer.  It's hard to support someone's right to free speech when it gets personal.

3. Jon Meacham's interview with President Obama.  In it, Obama describes his process for deciding to surge troops in Afghanistan.  Listening to the way he approached the problem--taking into account historical contexts and lessons learned by other super powers who ventured there, gathering together people from every agency with something to add to the discussion, listening and asking questions, then demanding answers before making a decision--how refreshing in a Commander-in-Chief. 

Those Dixie Chicks, they were right on. 

After breakfast at Pacific Whey Cafe this morning, I had the opportunity to settle in with my online LA Times and get caught up on some of the latest political news.  I had heard rumblings (via Facebook, a smidgeon of Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and an email from an anti-prop 8 group) that President Obama has been taking stances that are increasingly unpopular with the left wing of the Democratic Party.

First case in point has to do with a gay man, Dan Choi, formerly a member of the U.S. Military, who was dismissed from the service after outing himself on the Rachel Maddox show.  Rather than reverse or hold the decision by the military to oust Choi, Obama indicated (through White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs) that the best approach is for Congress to pass legislation making Don't Ask, Don't Tell as obsolete as it deserves to be.

Obama's critics on the left were frustrated by this position, seeing it as a reversal of his stance during the campaign.  I personally would prefer that he overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell by Presidential fiat...but there were a lot of fiats from the last guy in the White House that I didn't like so much.  So maybe Obama has a point about making the law of the land come from our legislators rather than our President's whim.

Second case in point, Obama's refusal to make all of the photos from Abu Ghraib public.  The criticism from the left here is that Obama promised a more transparent government.  Again, I can see that this may feel like more of the same old, same old--another cover up under the title of "in the interest of national security."  However, I also remember how inflammatory the pictures we've already seen were to the Arab world...and I don't think that releasing more such photos will assure that part of the world's citizenry of our good nature and intentions.

Last, but not least, Obama's decisions to modify Bush era Military Tribunal regulations rather than start from scratch with a new system.  He proposed 5 changes to the rules:

1.  Statements coerced by torture will not be admissable.

2.  Restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence, making it encumbent upon the prosecution to prove the worth of the evidence rather than the defense to disprove the worth of the evidence.

3.  Enhanced ability for the accused to choose their own legal representation.

4.  Protection of the basic rights of those who choose not to testify.

5.  Military Tribunal judges can establish the jurisdiction of their own courts (no idea what this last one means, but it's in the press release...even Gibbs couldn't edify us with what this last rule change accomplishes).

I lean more in line with the critics on this one.  When Bush first came up with the Tribunals, I was writing for The Signal in Santa Clarita and came out strongly against them as not worthy of a country where we are supposed to adhere to the rule of law; provide for fair and just trials; allow the accused to confront his accusers.

Gibbs defended Obama's decision as "in the best security interests of the people of the United States."  Unfortunately, Gibbs and Obama are following eight years of a guy who said, "Trust me, I've got this."  And then consistently dropped the ball all over the globe.  So when the new administration says, "Trust us, it's in your best interest," well, it sounds a bit hollow.

How much better it would have been for Gibbs to say, "Look, if we don't revise these rules and ask for a 120 day continuance for the 9 cases currently pending, we will have to let some folks go free that we strongly feel should be punished for their actions against our nation.  We would not be in this position if the prior administration hadn't made a policy of warehousing prisoners of war without due process.  We've reversed that policy and now we have to live up to our promise to keep America safe while upholding the rule of law."

Ah well.  Gibbs is learning, too.

As I ruminated over these three decisions, and especially over the emphasis by the White House Press Corps on Obama's seeming to go back on his campaign platform, I found myself thinking back over the Bush years.

And remembering that one of the things that I least liked about Bush II was his bullheadedness; his mulish refusal to change his opinion even in the face of hard facts.  So maybe, boys and girls on the left, it's not such a bad thing that we've got a President now who is willing to look at facts, situations and options...and change his mind.

I am working my way through the winners for Best Picture (as awarded by the Academy of Motion Pictures).  Yesterday's film was The Life of Emile Zola, and I was lightly mocked (and the film much maligned as boring) by my viewing companions.

I will admit that the film has the sort of schmaltzy feel (aided by the over the top score) of its era.  It was released in 1937, so some of the acting is what we'd describe as overwrought today.  The inital life of Zola is less interesting than his transformation at midlife to successful writer from starving artist.  The film really hits stride when Zola (played by Paul Muni) finds himself confronted with the choice between righting an injustice or resting in his comfortable status as a man of letters.

He chooses to fight injustice, championing a man unjustly convicted of treason (Captain Alfred Dreyfus played admirably by Joseph Schildkraut).  He does so at great cost to himself, his reputation and his wife.  Which makes the story that much more inspiring to me.

A few quotes from the movie may illuminate why I fell in love with this old sleeper:

"We of France, who gave the world liberty, shall we not now give it justice?"

"What matters the individual if the idea survives?"

"The world must be conquered, but not by force of arms.  But by ideas that liberate--then we can build it anew for the humble and the wretched."

"He had the simplicity of a great soul."

"He was a moment of the conscience of man."

That last one really gets me.  And the first one, too.  We've spent a lot of time, us Americans, telling the world in recent years how democracy can offer freedom, wealth and a way out of tyranny.  Where we've dropped the ball (with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, for example) is in the realm of justice.  Justice cannot be found in courtrooms where the accused have been silenced or tortured, where they cannot have access to evidence given against them, where their advocates are unable to obtain detailed information about such evidence.

The Life of Emile Zola reminded me of that truth...and it plays, especially in the trial scene, perilously close to home.