Who You Gonna Call?

Here’s something that might finally put you over the edge. Presidential hopeful John McCain reported at a recent fundraising event that "When I have a question about something that's going on in the world, I call Dr. Henry Kissinger and he is able to connect the dots for me."

Let’s just hope McCain’s poll numbers continues to plummet. All we need is that fucking war-criminal Kissinger back in charge of foreign policy. McCain went on to say that Kissinger is “one of the only people I've ever known who can connect the entire scenario for you in a way that you understand the completeness of the challenge."

McCain said that he also consults with Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleberger, Robert Kagan, and Bill Kristol. (That list was only “slightly to somewhat fucked-up” until we got to Kristol.)

Now seriously, what does it mean when a 2008 presidential candidate admits that Henry Kissinger is his primary foreign policy advisor? I think it means we (the people, the country) need to worry.

Why? Let’s start a list detailing the major liabilities of Dr. Kissinger:

1. He is probably wanted in several countries for war crimes--something that often hinders one’s travel plans.

2. He helped keep the Vietnam War going on for 4-5 years for no logical reason. The morality of that has always escaped me.

3. East Timor….again, very serious ethical and moral questions.

4. Kissinger spends most of his time stammering and babbling to Charlie Rose—who seems to be the only other person, besides McCain, who will listen to him. .

5. He knows more about the Congress of Vienna than he knows about the 2008 world. And this my friends, is a serious problem. Let me clarify.

Doesn’t the choice of Kissinger really show that the 72 year-old McCain is past his time? I think it does. Maybe McCain ought to be talking to some foreign policy experts who better understand Islam, globalization, markets, international gender issues, and human rights (something Kissinger has had problems with).

Henry Kissinger is 83 years old. Even if one is willing to grant him some credit for his diplomacy during the Nixon administration (China, Middle East), I truly don’t believe he has a lucid grasp of the contemporary world.

The United States needs a modern, enlightened foreign policy. Instead, Kissinger’s manta would probably be, “What Would Metternich Do?”

George Bush talks to God, McCain talks to Kissinger……you figure that one out!

It's Really a Simple Question Folks

As many of you have probably already read, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace (shown at left), denounced gays this week as "immoral." He compared gay acts to adultery and said the army should rid itself of these terrible individuals. In order to drive gays from the armed services, he seeks to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell policy,"

Pace was immediately criticized by many groups and individuals. The Human Rights Campaign was quick to condemn his statements as was Republican Senator John Warner. The Virginia senator said specifically, "I respectfully disagree. . . that homosexuality is immoral."

Nice job Senator Warner....a clear and concise answer to a simple question--are gays immoral?

Now....do you want to know why those of us on the left are so concerned about our current crop of presidential contenders? Here is the reason. After Pace's moronic statements, the leading Democratic candidates have all been asked to comment. Here are some of their answers--please read carefully:

Senator Clinton, when asked if gays were immoral responded with the following statement:

"Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country, and I want make sure they can."

Wow, that's really a strong pro-gay statement isn't it--"I'm going to leave that to others." The Clinton spinmeisters immediately realized there might be a problem. Later in the day, the New York senator--or her staff--made some amends by stating:

"I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world."

In the meantime, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, when asked about Pace's comments on whether gays were immoral gave this quasi-definitive statement:

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

What the hell does that mean? When asked later, Obama maintained that the main issue should be who was willing to sacrifice their life for their country. Which again, seems like it doesn't really deal with the question of gay morality.

Okay, now behind Door #3 we have John Edwards. In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, the former senator was asked the same question.

BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the don't ask, don't tell policy. First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?

EDWARDS: I don't -- don't share that view. And I would go -- go further than that, Wolf. I think the don't ask, don't tell is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy.

BLITZER: Is the don't ask, don't tell policy immoral?

EDWARDS: I think the don't ask, don't tell policy is wrong. It's not working. I think what it's done, effectively, is kept us from having some of the most talented people we could have in our military. It's caused -- caused more problems than it's solved. And it ought to be changed.

By today (Friday) both Clinton and Obama were till trying to spin their weak responses. While both candidates finally agreed that that being gay was not immoral, it seemed to take a while.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who spent most of yesterday on the phone with both camps, was relieved and a little mystified that he had to fight to elicit the statements."I hope that we have learned moving forward that, at the end of the day, all that American voters expect, whether they are gay or straight, is clarity from the candidates," he said.

So by the end of the week, all appears to be well. But several things concern me.

1. The answer should have been clear, obvious, and easy--NO, gays and/or the gay lifestyle is NOT immoral. It shouldn't have just rolled off the tongue--no thinking involved. Pandagon reported that:

"Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace’s views."

2. Both Clinton and Obama are still trying to out-triangulate each other. When will this end--and when will either, or both of them, start talking straight.

3. Finally, John Edwards looks better and better each week.

News Items of Interest

SDS is Back Again!
In New York City on Monday, about 100 students, all members of SDS New York, occupied an Armed Forces Recruiting Center for two hours. The occupation ended when 20 students were arrested by the NYPD. The students were charged with criminal trespassing.

At approximately 11:15 am, a large contingent of New School SDS members left the New School Graduate Center (65 Fifth Avenue) heading south. The column weaved its way through lower Manhattan, arriving at Chambers and West Broadway--where they connected with another march, this one originating from Pace University. The two columns streamed west on Chambers and entered the recruiting center which 25 students occupied for about two hours. Recruiters in the facility slammed and locked the doors to their offices, apparently to avoid interaction with the students--effectively closing the center for the duration of the occupation. Outside, dozens of additional protesters stood with signs chanting: “Troops out now,” “No justice, no peace. U.S. out of the Middle East,” and “Stop the war, yes we can. SDS is back again.”

comment: This is wonderful! What more can I say. These sorts of protests should be taking place all over the country. And we really need to do something about these military recruiters.


American Historical Association Opposes Iraq War
Members of the American Historical Association have ratified the “Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession.” The vote was 1550 (75.61%) in favor and 498 (24.29%) opposed. Two persons submitted incomplete ballots. The number of voting members represented 14.67% of the AHA membership.

A major role was played by a relatively new group, Historians Against the War (of which I am a member). For the past few decades, academic groups have felt they should not get involved in these sort of partisan political activities. I guess some still believe students are not supposed to know that we have political views!

comment: Yes, I actually WANT my students to know that I am a passionate political creature with strong opinions. They don't have to agree with me--and most of them don't. But I will not become an ideological eunuch just because some spineless administrators are afraid some student might be offended by my views!


Now It's NORTH Dakota!
Here we go again. The North Dakota Senate is poised to hear a bill, HB 1466, which would ban all abortions in the state. And this proposed ban is even more extreme than the beaten-down South Dakota ban! There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the woman AND the ban would impose criminal penalties on women and their doctors.

The bill would also allow the Attorney General to implement a ban on abortion regardless of the status of Roe v. Wade. Performing an abortion would become a Class C felony in the state. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota is monitoring the situation. Go to their website for news and other information.

comment: I don't know what else can be said about these assholes. They clearly will not accept the fact that the public opinion tide appears to be running against them. Oh, I almost forgot though, God is on their fucking side isn't she? We just need to keep working.


Kroger Does the Right Thing
The supermarket giant Kroger said last week that "medication is a private patient matter" and that it will fill all requests for emergency contraceptives. The controversy began when a customer in Atlanta was apparently denied the "morning after pill" at one Kroger store.

Several other pharmacy chains have made the same pledges, including CVS, Rite-Aid, and Walgreens.

As we should have expected, there was a statement from the "critics" who said that this contraception "encourages promiscuity and unprotected sex...." blah, blah, blah, blah.

comment: Good for Kroger. This shouldn't even be an issue should it? If these bastards are allowed to pick and choose whom they serve--aren't we really back to the days of Jim Crowism? If they don't have to serve women, maybe they can refuse service to African Americans.....or overweight people....or the handicapped. Where does it end?


This Is Sick
This isn't really news, but it seems creepy enough to report. I first read about this on Feministing--and it's weird. Purity Balls are where teenage girls are escorted on "dates" by their fathers! During the balls themselves, vows are exchanged, cake is served, and the elaborate ceremony leads to some sort of abstinence-until-marriage pledge by these young ladies. The fathers, in turn, promise to protect the chastity of their daughters.

comment: This seems really sick to me. I can't even write about it anymore. What the fuck is going on in this country? Here in Minnesota, Planned Parenthood has a wonderful program called Teen Council. These are groups of hard-working, dedicated, and passionate high-schoolers who go into schools and talk to their fellow students about sex education. It is a fabulous program (I will blog more about them in a future post). Now, wouldn't you rather discuss healthy sexual relationships with your peers--instead of making some kind of sick "pledge" with your dad?

On the Sexualization of Girls

A psychology professor friend emailed me a recently published copy of the American Psychological Association’s Task Force Report on the Sexualization of Girls. While the findings may not be startling news to many, the report makes for fascinating reading. Let me offer a few quotes/conclusions:

"Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualization of women.”

"In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed (in the media) in a sexual manner (dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (used as decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.”

Specific examples are even presented:

-Skechers “naughty and nice” ads that features Christina Aguilera dressed in schoolgirl pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop.

-Bratz dolls (see picture above) dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas.

-Thongs sized for 7-10 year olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink-wink”.

And the report’s “Consequences” section was what we might expect. The research linked sexualization with “three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed moods.” In addition, frequent exposure to these media images that sexualize girls and women also affects how girls conceptualize femininity and sexuality.” The study finds that girls and women heavily exposed to these stereotypes are the ones that place an emphasis on “appearance and physical beauty” and tend to make those traits the focal point of their value system.

Other societal problems stemming from sexualization include:
-fewer women entering science, technology, engineering, and math
-increased rates of sexual harassment and sexual violence
-increased demands for child pornography

Now here is the one that really concerned me…and the one I want to rant about for a few minutes: “Exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attraction may make it more difficult for some men to find an “acceptable” partner or fully enjoy intimacy with a female partner.

Yes, men and boys are also deeply affected by the sexual objectification of girls and women. How many American dads take the time to teach their young boys about the sexual problems that women face day-to-day? Isn’t it about time that men start doing their part to change the way society objectifies women? This is not just a women’s issue—it’s a societal issue.

I see college-aged men (boys actually) each and every day, and they appear unwilling to even consider this an important issue. They rationalize their fraternity-like behavior with a variety of excuses:

-Advertisers and/or the ubiquitous “market” can do whatever it pleases.
-It’s just those feminists complaining again, why do they hate men anyway?
-Girls aren’t really affected by that sexual objectification stuff. And this is a fascinating one because the guys generally get one of the young ladies in the class to agree. The interesting thing is that the female who they use as their spokesperson is, more often than not, a young lady with low self-esteem that says whatever the boys want.

What can men do—plenty? Here are some of the things that I think important, and I would appreciate comments from other men (and women) about we (especially white men) can do to help stop the sexualization of young girls and women.

1. Question your buying choices. Don’t buy products that advertise using female sexual images and stereotypes. And don’t shop at establishments that use this form of cohesion.

2. Question the media--especially the ultra-sexist sports media. Just because you like football doesn’t mean you need to accept the objectification of women in beer ads and other marketing ploys.

3. Listen to women—they live with this crap every day. And when they try to help…listen. Try to understand by shutting up, not getting defensive, and not being so egotistical as to think their concerns are about us.

4. Call out other men on their sexist behavior, jokes, and other crude antics. Speak up against the locker room mentality that seems to dictate American male actions. This one is difficult….”they might not like me anymore.” But what’s really more important? Think about it.

5. Encourage every young girl that you know to study math and science. And convince as many as you can to NOT try out for cheerleading; and to QUIT using makeup.

6. Understand white male privilege. If we fail to own and accept that privilege, we will never understand these sexualizing issues. Just because white males SAY they don’t feel privileged, doesn’t mean they aren’t!

7. And once and for all…..there is no fucking reverse sexism. This is the biggest crock of shit that the fratboy-types attempt to impose on a compliant male public. As one writer so persuasively argues, “The fact that an individual man can be harmed by an individual woman does not override an entire misogynistic social system.”

8. Stop whistling, gawking, drooling, and staring at women. Leave them the fuck alone.

9. Act like an adult with some class.

10. Start becoming part of the solution.

Carry Me Back to Ole Virginny

Gentlemen.....Confederate jewelry. Doesn't it just give you a warm and fuzzy feeling? Mother's Day is coming up--and how about a gift for that significant other!

Buddy's Book's and Bait is pleased to present a new contributor. Our friend Chet Brinkley will hopefully be writing many more columns in the future. Today, Chet comments on a topic we started several weeks ago....the South and the Confederate flag.

My lovely partner and I recently visited our dearest friends, who in late 2005 decided to leave Minnesota for the warmer climes of Virginia. This might seem like a perfectly sane decision, but here’s the deal: he is black and she is white. And while Virginia may not be Mississippi, make no mistake: it’s still THE SOUTH. More than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education we may have made significant strides toward addressing segregation, disenfranchisement, and unequal opportunity, but we still have a long way to go. If you need to be reminded, just go visit an interracial couple in Virginia, where every joint departure from your home necessitates a strategic defense plan.

I accompanied my friend to the lumber yard the first morning of our visit. He is retired, well-educated, dignified, and a peaceable, affable fellow who just wanted to order some building materials. Yet we no sooner made our appearance than the fellow behind the counter looked up and his demeanor changed immediately. His two associates down the way who had been engaging in spirited banter stopped talking and glared at us for the first full five minutes of our transaction. I started wondering if my shower hadn’t taken. Later that night I was talking with my friend and asked him if I’d been imagining things. He replied, ‘I’m so glad you noticed.’ Am I just an overprotective liberal with an overdeveloped imagination enabling an African American friend who’s been forced to live his entire life on the defensive? Absolutely not.

The next morning we went to the supermarket, and while the woman behind the bakery counter cheerily fetched loaves of bread and pastries for all the other white customers in the store, she had my friend get his own. That night, in an effort to get something nice for my NASCAR-loving, salt-of-the-earth neighbor back home who was plowing the snow off my driveway while I walked around in shirt sleeves, I visited one of the omnipresent “NASCAR” shops in town. One can’t really quite make a living selling only toy cars, racing caps, key chains and bumper stickers, so the store had to diversify its stock with NFL merchandise and “Southern” paraphernalia. My “favorite” was a bumper sticker that read, “I Have a Dream” and featured the White House with a rebel flag flying overhead. Another depicted a mosquito with stars and bars wings quipping, “Send more Yankees. They are delicious.”

All the arguments about “heritage” and “culture” are a big, stinking pile of shit. The Confederate flag wasn't around long enough to embody much of anything except secession. But since the so-called federal government allowed Southern whites to terrorize their black neighbors after 1877 and didn’t start taking white supremacy seriously until two Jewish boys got killed with James Chaney in 1964, Southerners are used to speaking or hearing unapologetic defenses of racism. And it’s not like the North has much room to feel superior.

So what kind of life do my friends expect to have in small-town Virginia? I’m proud of their resolve to live there. They are a wonderful addition to any community. I know any local citizen who can, after seeing a black man with a white woman, calm down long enough to actually engage his/her brain will see they are wonderful, charming, warm-hearted people. And there are actually more black professionals in their current zip code than my friends ever met here in the Twin Cities. So perhaps I shouldn’t be so concerned. The guy behind the counter at the lumber yard eventually thawed and treated my friend like an actual human being. Another supermarket employee came over and engaged us in neighborly conversation after his coworker’s snub. But I’d feel better if I hadn’t seen that tattered rebel flag hanging from a house about half a mile down the road from where my friends live.

Friday Cat Blogging

This is Lexie. She is Buddy's sister and basically Queen of the Household. We adopted Lexie when she was about 9 months old. The people moving out of a next-door apartment just left her--and she came to our place. So I guess you can say that she actually adopted us. That was around 1991 (I think), and we have had her ever since. She is a sweet cat! Lexie is friendly, well-mannered, and she puts up with Buddy's roughneck and sometimes rude behavior.

She does look a little stoned in the first picture below.

Pink Stop Signs

In the past few months, I have had several serious conversations about using the word partner or domestic partner instead of wife. I am an advocate of using partner, but it doesn't flow naturally in my conversations--I have been trying, however.

But, if there is anything to make me work harder and harder at using the term, it's the right-wingers--and thanks to Pandagon for first posting this. Yes, read the following comments (the bold emphasis' are mine) from a fundamentalist group in Maine. Now I plan to use domestic partner every chance I get. And I will plead and beg all my friends to also use the term.

-What are "domestic partnerships?": The more accurate phrase is homosexual partnerships. The phrase "domestic partner" is a legal fiction created by homosexuals and non-married people who think they are entitled to the same benefits and recognition from society that marriage receives.

comment: Wow, legal fiction! Here are some of their other ideas!

-While it MAY BE legitimate for government and business to honor an employee's spouse and children with this benefit, it is not right for our institutions to honor sodomy in this way. The practice of unhealthy lifestyles should not qualify anyone for societal benefits.

-Anytime a law like this fails to distinguish between civilization-forming sexual practices and civilization-destroying sexual perversions, then "special rights" are being created.

-It (a domestic partners bill) is designed to create a successful court case in the future for homosexuality. Same-sex marriage is the pot full of gold at the end of their rainbow. This bill will continue to lay the foundation for equality of sexual practices if it becomes law. Moral sex must be equal to immoral sex for the public to accept same-sex marriage. That is what this bill is about: giving immoral sex the same support as moral sex in the law. If this were not the case, then a prohibition of immoral sexual practices would be included in the definition of "domestic partner." It is not. Therefore, this bill is unjust ... and certainly not Christian.

This bill allows elderly sisters to get benefits, therefore it will be a proper law if passed, correct?: A square stop sign painted pink instead of red is still a stop sign. It is not, however, a lawful stop sign simply because the sign features the word "Stop." A lawful stop sign is a red hexagon, by law. If businesses and the state want to honor elderly celibate sisters with 10 weeks of unpaid leave then they should say that this is what they want to do. That isn't what they are saying. They are saying that immoral and unhealthy sexual practices are irrelevant to the definition of "partner" and couple.

The goal here is same-sex marriage. Make no mistake. This is like the state saying that the color and shape of a stop sign are irrelevant to the effectiveness of a stop sign. It is like allowing the road department to put up square pink stop signs as well as normal stop signs. This is redefining and making a wreck out of family and marriage in Maine.

comment: What a fucking great idea--pink stop signs. I love it! I am going to write to my national and state leaders and propose just that!

I thought I elected a representative who would think for himself. Why is the media so powerful? Many politicians often think about the next election. Many are hoping to be elected to higher office. As America has moved away from common sense on matters related to family, marriage and human sexuality -- and as we have decided to create a much more permissive culture -- those among us who wish to be powerful learn quickly that they must accept drinking, drugging, gambling and pansexuality.

comment: I am also for pansexuality--whatever it is. Would someone please let me and my domestic partner know? Can you have moral or immoral pansex next to a pink stop sign? And would that be civilization-forming or civilization-destroying sex? Just wondering.

Celebrate Women's History Month

Emma Goldman, (1869-1940)
anarchist, feminist

Emma Goldman was a legend in her own lifetime. She was an opponent of established authority, war, and totalitarian government. In short, she was the most famous rebel of her day. A passionate activist and charismatic speaker, Goldman committed her life to radical causes in Europe and the United States. Goldman was one of the most notable and influential women in modern American history, consistently promoted a wide range of controversial movements and principles including freedom of thought and expression, radical education, sexual freedom and birth control, and an eight-hour day. Goldman's advocacy of these causes, which many deemed subversive at the time, helped set the historical context for some of today's most important political and social debates.

Born in a Jewish ghetto in Lithuania, Goldman immigrated to the United States when she was sixteen. She quickly realized that for a Jewish immigrant, America was not the land of opportunity that had been promised. America, for Goldman meant slums and sweatshops where she earned her living as a seamstress. She became attracted to anarchism not only because it promised to replace capitalism with worker cooperatives, but because anarchism espoused atheism, free speech, and freedom from sexual inhibition.

Emma Goldman became a formidable public speaker and a prolific writer. Her whole life was devoted to struggle and she was controversial even within the radical and anarchist movement itself. She was one of the first radicals to address the issue of homosexuality, she was a fighter for women's rights, and she advocated the virtues of free love. These ideas were viewed with suspicion by those who placed their faith in the cure-all solution of economic class warfare and they were denounced by many of her contemporaries as "bourgeois inspired" at best. Goldman believed that birth control would alleviate human misery by reducing the burden of large families on the poor and giving women of all classes sexual freedom. And she was a pioneer lecturer on the subject. Having actually practiced as a midwife and a nurse, and attended a conference in Paris where birth control methods were discussed frankly, Goldman was familiar with modern methods. In 1916 she was arrested for violating a law that forbade giving out information about contraceptives. To many Goldman embodied the "New Woman"—independent, unmarried, and sexually emancipated.

In the early days Goldman also supported the idea of propaganda by deed. In 1892, together with Alexander Berkman she planned the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, who has suppressed strikes in his Homestead Pennsylvania factory with armed guards. They believed that by killing a tyrant, a representative of a cruel system, the consciousness of the people would be aroused. This didn't happen. Berkman only managed to injure Frick and was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Her defense and aid of Berkman made Goldman a marked woman and her lectures were regularly disrupted by the authorities. In 1893 she was arrested for allegedly urging the unemployed to steal bread and was given a year in prison She was also implicated in President William McKinley's assassination.

From 1908 to 1917 Goldman spoke throughout the United States on behalf of the anarchist cause and edited the anarchist journal Mother Earth until 1916. Through her lectures and writing, she helped introduce American audiences to Henrik Ibsen, Bernard Shaw, August Strindberg, and other European playwrights, whom she admired for their advanced social ideas and spirit of rebellion. To mainstream Americans, however, Goldman was known as a demonic "dynamite eating anarchist". She toured the States, agitating and lecturing everywhere she went. She was hounded for much of her life by FBI agents and was imprisoned in 1893, 1901, 1916, 1918, 1919, and 1921 on charges ranging from incitement to riot to advocating the use of birth control to opposition to WWI.

During World War I, Goldman was arrested and sent to prison for having organized an anti-conscription campaign. Afterward, along with other anarchists, she was deported to Russia in 1919. J. Edgar Hoover, who directed her deportation hearing called her one of the most dangerous women in America. Although an early supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, Goldman became disillusioned with party rule and the suppression of free speech she encountered there. Her book, My Disillusionment with Russia (1923), was one of the first serious critiques of the Soviet system. She left Russia and spent the rest of her life in Europe and Canada. In the 1930s she made three trips to Catalonia during the Spanish civil war and enlisted support in England on behalf of the Spanish Republic.

The plus side to deportation meant that Goldman got a free ticket to Russia where she was able to witness the Russian Revolution at first hand. Goldman had been prepared to bury the hatchet of mans conflict with anarchism in the 1st international and support the Bolsheviks . However, in 1919 as Goldman and Berkman travelled throughout the country they were horrified by the increased bureaucracy, political persecution and forced labour they found. The breaking point came in 1921 when the Kronstadt sailors and soldiers rebelled against the Bolsheviks and sided with the workers on strike. They were attacked and crushed by Trotsky and the Red Army. On leaving Russia in December 1921, Goldman set down her findings on Russia in two works - 'My Disillusionment in Russia' and 'My Further Disillusionment in Russia'. She argued that 'never before in all history has authority , government, the state, proved so inherently static, reactionary, and even counter-revolutionary. In short, the very antithesis of revolution.

Her time in Russia led her to reassess her earlier belief that the end justifies the means. Goldman accepted that violence as a necessary evil in the process of social transformation. These views were unpopular among radicals as most still wanted to believe that the Russian Revolution was a success. When Goldman moved to Britain in 1921 she was virtually alone on the left in condemning the Bolsheviks and her lectures were poorly attended. On hearing that she might be deported in 1925, a Welsh miner offered to marry her in order to give her British Nationality. With a British passport, she was the able to travel to France and Canada. In 1934, she was even allowed to give a lecture tour in the States.

In 1936 Berkman committed suicide, months before the outbreak of the Spanish Revolution. At the age of 67, Goldman went to Spain to join in the struggle. She told a rally of libertarian youth Your Revolution will destroy forever [the notion] that anarchism stands for chaos. She disagreed with the participation of the CNT-FAI in the coalition government of 1937 and the concessions they made to the increasingly powerful communist for the sake of the war effort. However she refused to condemn the anarchists for joining the government and accepting militarisation as she felt the alternative at the time was communist dictatorship.

Goldman died in 1940 and was buried in Chicago not far from the Haymarket Martyrs whose fate had changed the course of her life. Emma Goldman has left behind her a number of important contributions to anarchist thought. In particular she is remembered for incorporating the area of sexual politics into anarchism which had only been hinted at by earlier anarchists. Goldman campaigned and went to prison for the right of women to practice birth control. She argued that a political solution was not enough to get rid of the unequal and repressive relations between the sexes. There had to be massive transformation of values--only that transformation would change society and the lives of women.

Emma Goldman Quotes
-If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal

-The most violent element in society is ignorance.

-It is safe to say that no other superstition is so detrimental to growth, so enervating and paralyzing to the minds and hearts of the people, as the superstition of Morality.

Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

A critical piece of Minnesota legislation will be the topic of the day—and frankly, I have been looking to write more on Minnesota-Twin Cities news and events.

House bill 537 (now in committee) is the “Runaway and Homeless Youth Act.” Actually, a similar statute was adopted last year—but wasn’t funded…..go figure! But this biennium, the bill would be funded for $8 million. And it would be money well-spent. This Act would finance a number of needed programs for homeless and runaway youth:
--street and community outreach
--drop-in centers
--emergency shelters
--supportive and transitional housing programs

I reiterate.....this is extremely important legislation! According to the 2003 "Homeless in Minnesota" survey conducted by the Wilder Research Center, there are over 22,000 runaway and homeless youth in the state. And figures from The Bridge shows that every night, there are more than 500 homeless youth in the state—most of them in the Twin Cities. Yet, there are only about 70 shelter beds in the metro area.

Just who are these young people who find themselves on the street? They are not losers, troublemakers, or misfits. They are kids with problems, and most of the time they simply don’t know what to do or where to turn. A supervisor at one emergency shelter said that they, “see youth and families from all backgrounds and walks of life, dealing with everything from common parent-teen conflicts, to abuse or neglect, to mental health issues or substance abuse.”

And many are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. A Wilder survey of youth served by District 202 found that over half had experienced discrimination or verbal abuse due to their sexual orientation—mostly at school or in another public place. Some even at home. In addition, 25% of all homeless youth report that they have engaged in survival sex to meet their basic needs.

To make this just a little more personal, here are several examples of youth who utilized the services of The Bridge:

--Bill and some of his friends get picked up by the police after curfew and taken down to the curfew center. One by one, each of his friend’s parents arrive to collect them, but his mom isn’t answering the phone. When she finally does, she’s drunk and announces that he can stay just where he is as far as she’s concerned. But he can’t. The curfew center’s not set up for that. The police bring him to The Bridge, where he arrives tired, angry, and afraid.

--Referred to The Bridge by a school counselor when he learns of her plan to commit suicide, Mary won’t let us contact her parents. “Please don’t call,” she says. “I can’t ever face them again.” From a deeply religious family, she’s an athlete, a straight-A student, with college and career all mapped out. But yesterday she discovered she was pregnant. She feels her life is over.

--A young man shows up at the door. He’s about 16, speaks only a few words of English, and looks like he’s been on the street for long time. He has no money, belongings, or identification. Unable to get a job or a place to live, he wants to find a way back to Mexico to return to his family.

--Grades just came out and Robert knows there’s going to be trouble at home. Sure enough, he and his father nearly come to blows. He’s been trying to do better in school, but he just can’t seem to concentrate. Now he’s grounded. “Forget this,” he thinks, as he heads out the door. “You go out that door, don’t even think of coming back!” his father shouts. A few days later, Robert shows up at The Bridge, wondering what to do next.

--A young woman arrives. Born as a boy and christened “Robert,” Margaret has always felt herself to be a girl. Now a teen, her parents have disowned her and she has fled the ridicule of her small town. She doesn’t want to live on the streets, but it seems like the only option.

We can do much better here in Minnesota—we must fully fund this bill. As the Star-Tribune wrote in a February editorial, “surely this bill will pass, for the alternative is ominous. It involves leaving runaway and homeless youth in the cold….” Actually, it will leave them both cold and on the streets and make them perfect candidates for long-term homelessness. Let's rescue them now while we can. Call, write, or email your state representative now!

Did We Miss An Opportunity?

As most of you have read by now, at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot."

Most of us on the left pay little attention to the harpy Coulter. As Atrios wrote yesterday, she is very predictable, and not worth getting excited over. Atrios did point out one problem, however. While she is clearly an unapologetic homophobe and racist--Coulter continues to secure media appearances!

After her comment, the Edwards camp issued a standard response about hateful language and diversity. Edwards said all the right things and even took the opportunity to beg for some much-needed campaign money, or Coulter Cash as it is being called. Howard Dean also issued a statement saying there is "no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comment."

But I am feeling that we on the left missed an opportunity here. Trouble is, I'm not exactly sure what should have taken place--but I still sensed an underlying hesitation to actually defend/support/endorse gays and lesbians.

Yes, all the correct positions came from official liberal voices--and I know there is a campaign going on. But there was no effort to make this a moment when the left would speak out on homosexuality, on inclusion, on gay marriage, on America becoming a better society. This might have been one of those instances when we could have advanced those issues--educated the public. Coulter handed us something and I think we fumbled it just a bit.

My worry is that the Democratic powers-that-be, and even many of the leftist blogging community, remain afraid of this issue.....or maybe somewhat homophobic themselves. As one blogger wrote--and I wholeheartedly agree with her--"calling someone a faggot is still considered the worst insult ever." Is that true?

Again, I apologize for not offering some clever solution. But it is about time we on the left treat this as a unambiguous human rights problem. And in order to do that, we need to stop running from the issue.....we need to stop believing that being called gay is an insult.

Ann Coulter helped us out this weekend, but the Democrats/left didn't do enough with it. The blogging community offered comment-after-comment castigating Coulter and calling her everything from a bitch to a skank--and worse. But while we laughed and congratulated ourselves for receiving a gift.....we might have missed a chance to teach some people that being homosexual is normal and nothing to be ashamed of. When will we start advancing those positions?

It's NOT Education....It's Insanity

Kudos to Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. He recently turned down $600,000 in federal abstinence-education money “because new rules would limit how much recipients could talk about contraception or sexually transmitted diseases this year. “

Bill Smith, vice president for public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S., a group that promotes comprehensive sex education said that: “It seems to me there is some sanity returning to the notion that sexuality education is about public health and not about hyper-moralism and ideology,” he said.

Sanity is the key word here—and it is something that the Bush administration lacks. We know there are few (if any) scientific data to support abstinence-only sex miseducation. But of course many of Bush’s primary supporters don’t think too highly of science anyway, right?

We also know that abstinence-only miseducation must depend on lies and misinformation to even convince those few neanderthals to actually continue their support. A federally funded program in 2004 found that over 80% of abstinence only curricula "contained false, misleading or distorted information."

The ironic thing about Bush and the anti-science crowd is this--it isn't enough that they are trying foist this crap on Americans.....but they are also attempting to export this nonsense abroad. Conservatives have been trying to "force its anti-condom agenda" on the rest of the world.

Yet, evidence/data shows (there's those nasty "scientific" words: evidence and data)--that by age 18, 70% of young people in the United States have had sexual intercourse. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth--a nonprofit organization devoted to sex education, suggests that "less than 10% of Americans are virgins on their wedding night."

So who are these abstinence-only until marriage programs aimed at? We all know the answer don't we:
--These puritan moralists want us to stop having sex (ain't going to happen).
--They dislike the fact that women are now making their own decision and choices on sexual issues and birth control (deal with it).
--They dream of a return to "real men" days when young males could act like cavemen (or fraternity pledges), drag imaginary virgins to the alter, and then keep them at home cooking and cleaning while they play golf and screw their secretaries (keep dreaming).

If and when I run for office, I have the perfect plan to rid the country of abstinence-only programs. I would propose that ONLY AMERICAN MALES be required to take the abstinence-only miseducation instructions. That's right, females need not enroll, they could be as sexually active as they want.

Can you imagine what our male-dominated Congress and statehouses would say about this? How about all those NASCAR dads out there--they don't really want abstinence for Johnny and Biff.....only for their daughters. The abstinence money would be cut in no time!

That's my plan--sounds like it would work doesn't it?

Celebrate Women's History Month

Several years ago, in order to commemorate Women's History Month, I compiled some short biographies on a number of notable and extraordinary American women. I posted those bios on my class webpage where I teach. While I feel a little guilty republishing materials that I wrote two years ago--I think these brief narratives are still extremely relevant (besides, my students didn't read them anyway). These are all women that I find inspiring--and I hope my own young nieces (and nephew) will read about these remarkable women instead of wasting time on presidents, generals, and other stale defenders of the capitalist status quo.
dew


Alice Paul (1885–1977)
suffragist, feminist leader, founder of the Congressional Union

Alice Paul (pictured above) was an ardent fighter for women’s rights. She organized one of the first major marches in Washington, D.C. in 1917 on the eve of Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration. Paul used more radical means for her crusades, such as staging hunger strikes and picketing the White House, and she was arrested numerous times. After women won suffrage, she turned her attention to other rights. She founded the National Woman’s Party and drafted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1923. She worked for its passage into the 1970s, although it never became a law.

Alice Paul was born into a Quaker family in Moorestown, New Jersey. Raised in an intellectual and religious environment, she graduated from Swarthmore in 1905 and then attended the New York School of Philanthropy (later Columbia University School of Social Work), the University of Pennsylvania, and a training school for Quakers in Woodbridge, England. While in England she served as a case worker for a London settlement house. It was there were she was enlisted by England's militant suffragists Emmeline and Christobel Pankhurst. Her education as an activist was solidified through a series of arrests, imprisonments, and hunger strikes. She quickly and adeptly learned how to generate publicity for the cause and how to capitalize on that publicity.

On her return to the United States in 1910, she earned a Ph.D. in sociology and then began her rise in the American suffrage movement. In 1914 she co-founded the Congressional Union, an organization dedicated to seeking a federal constitutional amendment for woman suffrage. In 1916, she founded the National Woman's party. She led pickets at the White House and Congress and despite America's entry into World War I she refused to abandon her radical tactics. She and her colleagues were arrested and imprisoned; they engaged in hunger strikes and endured forced feedings at the hands of authorities. Ultimately, President Wilson made a federal suffrage amendment a war measures priority, a stand he had previously refused to take. Paul was a pivotal force in the passage and ratification in 1920 of the Nineteenth Amendment.

In 1923, Paul proposed an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. It took some time, but by 1944 Paul had secured acceptance of an era plank in the platforms of both major political parties. She continued to provide inspiration to new generations of women's rights activists until her death in 1977.

Throughout her life, Alice Paul remained personally conservative and professionally demanding of both herself and her colleagues. She did not relinquish power readily nor could she be easily persuaded to depart from the methods and tactics she had learned from the Pankhursts in England. But her vision for women always transcended her conservatism and rigidity. "I think if we get freedom for women, then they are probably going to do a lot of things that I wish they wouldn't do," she said shortly before her death. "But it seems to me that it isn’t our business to say what they should do with it. It is our business to see that they get it."

Poverty

Some disturbing news from the national poverty front......the “percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high.” And closely connected is another statistic which we have become accustomed to hearing—the differences between the haves and the have-nots continues to rise.

This current report, based on 2005 census figures, shows that the number of “severely poor Americans” has grown by 26% since 2000. And while we continue to hear about the strong national economy; "wages and job growth have lagged behind, and the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries."

Is this really a surprise? Economists and other writers on the left have been saying this for the past decade--but few listen.

Something else the good old USA can be proud of….."over the past two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults and families among 31 developed countries." This data comes from the ongoing Luxembourg Income Study. Timothy Smeeding, who worked on that study and now heads the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University said of the United States, “It’s shameful…we’ve been the worst performer every year since we’ve been doing this study.”

A recent UNICEF/United Nations survey found some of the same trends. In fact, according to the UNICEF data, children in Great Britain and the United States have a lower quality of life than children in the 21 wealthiest countries of the world. The numbers showed that the United States ranked at the bottom because “of its higher infant mortality, lower immunization rates, higher number of deaths from accidents and injuries before age 19, and more children reported fighting in the past year or being bullied in the previous two months.”

How do you suppose the conservative, free market zealots are going to respond to these reports--if indeed, they respond at all? Some distinct possibilities:
1. It’s the kid's own fault--bad life choices.
2. More tax cuts for the rich might help.
3. These kids should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
4. The parents screwed up.
5. Gay marriage….yes, that’s the problem.

I suppose if I say anything more, I will hurt the troops. But as my friend Peter says, the problem with these poor and poverty-stricken children is that they aren’t fetuses. If they were, the people in power would help them! That's right, the current morons are really only interested if you are a fetus or of military age—anything in-between and you are on your own.

Heath Care Embarrassment

Related to the poverty story above, most of you have probably already read about the 12 year-old Maryland boy who died this week from toothache complications. The Washington Post ran the story on Wednesday.

The fact is, the young man didn't die really from the toothache--he died because this fucking country doesn't provide the most basic health care services to its most vulnerable citizens.

Deamonte Driver had a toothache that led to an infection. That infection spread to his brain. The original problem could have been remedied with an $80.00 tooth extraction. But it seems that Deamonte's mother works a low-wage job that doesn't provide her with health insurance (big surprise). Ms. Driver's children were eligible for Medicaid benefits, but dental care under that program is extremely difficult to secure--most dentists in Maryland do not accept Medicaid because of "low reimbursement rates."

A study done several years ago suggested that uninsured adults were more likely to die prematurely than those with health coverage. Wow, who would have guessed? Sorry to be so cynical--but read the study's press release and you will begin to understand the tremendous disadvantages that the poor and uninsured must endure.

And yet, all Congress can do is talk about why big government shouldn't get involved.....how universal coverage will not work....how the welfare state will make us all weak and dependent....how Canadians have to wait five years to get a doctor's appointment....and how taxes will go up if we give everyone health insurance coverage.

And while our elected representatives argue--a young man died because he and his poor family couldn't get a simple, cheap, medical procedure.

In the meantime, the cost of the illegal occupation of Iraq keeps adding up--right now it is somewhere in the vicinity of $405 billion. Yes, that's billion dollars.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. 1917-2007

I think I was about 23 years old at the time. Just out of college and still trying to decide what to do with my life. Actually, I knew what I wanted to do—I wanted to be a historian…..yes, a historian. But I still lacked both the self-confidence and desire that one needs to make that long-term PhD commitment.

Anyway, Arthur Schlesinger had just published a new biography on Robert Kennedy—and I was excited. Even though I had little money (I don’t think I had a job at the time), I immediately went out and bought a hardcover copy—1066 pages in all.

While Robert Kennedy was my primary interest, I was also captivated by Arthur Schlesinger, the historian. While becoming a real historian remained a fantasy for me, at least I had a role model. Schlesinger was not only a historian, but he was a certified, unabashed liberal who had worked in the Kennedy White House. I could pattern my life after this guy. Hell, he might have even been a New York Mets fan!

One day, while absorbing parts of those 1066 pages, I decided it would be nice to get Schlesinger to autograph the book. I knew I couldn’t go to his office in New York City—so I wrote him a letter. I said I admired his work (especially this book), and I would really appreciate an autograph. I wasn’t expecting a reply.

Then, about three weeks later, I received a small envelope from “The City University of New York.” Inside was neatly folded, small piece of stationary addressed to me with the following quote and signature:


”I have no expectation that any man will read history aright who thinks that what was done in a remote age, by men whose names have resounded far, has any deeper sense that what he is doing to-day.” --Emerson

With best wishes

Arthur M. Schlesinger



I was stunned….happy…ecstatic. That piece of paper remains one of my most cherished possessions. A few years later I had it laminated and it still graces the pages of that RFK biography. I won’t be so dramatic as to say Schlesinger’s response inspired me to become a historian—but I think it might have helped just a little.

I actually met him about fifteen years later at a history conference. He was just as I had expected—wearing his little bowtie and gleefully talking about FDR’s foreign policy. I swear, when Schlesinger talked about his hero FDR--the room got brighter, the sun came out, and smiles appeared on people’s faces. I think history was fun for Arthur Schlesinger. I think he enjoyed it and relished the opportunity to teach it to others.

Dr. Schlesinger passed away last evening. He will be missed.

Happy Birthday Major Taliaferro!

I would like to thank my good friend Taber Akin for this submission. During the summer months, Taber is a site guide at Historic Fort Snelling. His portrayal of Major Lawrence Taliaferro is supreme....and his knowledge of the subject matter is absolute. And I am so pleased that Taber remembered this historic Minnesota birthday.

Born on 28 February 1794, Lawrence Taliaferro (pronounced Tolliver) can truly be regarded as one of Minnesota’s founding fathers. Taliaferro was here before Minnesota became a state and served the area and country for 19 years as a United States Indian Agent. Taliaferro is rarely mentioned in Minnesota history books, but he did extremely important work and should be remembered as one of the state’s leading historical figures.

Major Taliaferro was appointed as the United States Indian Agent for the St. Peter’s area in 1819 (this would soon be the site of Fort Snelling). He had been serving as an ensign in the 1^st Infantry and resigned to accept the Indian Agency post. Taliaferro assumed his duties shortly after the arrival of the 5^th Regiment of the U.S.Infantry under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Leavenworth. The Taliaferro--Leavenworth relationship was strained from the start as each had different ideas on how to deal with frontier issues. But that relationship was short-lived as Colonel Josiah Snelling soon replaced Leavenworth. Snelling and Taliaferro—who may have served together on the Niagara frontier during the War of 1812—interacted famously. Their amicable military/civilian bond during the next decade helped to make Fort Snelling one of the most successful and efficient posts on the western frontier.

Under the direction of Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, Taliaferro was ordered to establish an Indian Agency among the local Dakota and Ojibwe nations. In fact, Calhoun’s instructions serve to illustrate Washington’s goals at the time. He stressed three objectives:
1. Enlargement and protection of the fur trade;
2. Permanent peace on the frontier by securing control of the tribes;
3. Keep foreign nations out of the area.

Major Taliaferro’s primary responsibility was to serve as the government representative on the frontier while building and maintaining positive relationships with the Dakota and Ojibwe Indians. Then there was the other task--regulating the fur traders. That is where Taliaferro’s job became frustrating, to say the least. The American Fur Company was a powerful presence in the area and Alexis Bailly operated the local factory. Taliaferro tried to enforce federal laws as required, but ran into problems with Bailly and the American Fur Company on a regular basis. Most of the difficulties centered on the smuggling of illegal liquor into Indian trading posts.

Unlike many other federal Indian Agents, however, Taliaferro was never employed by a fur company, never succumbed to the economic pressures and bribes from the fur traders, and surprisingly remained loyal to both the government and the American Indians he represented. The constant conflicts between the AFC and Taliaferro lasted until he resigned.

Records show that Taliaferro had a very positive relationship with the Dakota and Ojibwe Indians whom he worked with. Little Crow called Taliaferro "No-Sugar-in-Your-Mouth" for his skills in dealing candidly with the tribesmen, and his ability of not making promises which he couldn't keep. Taliaferro even built a council house just west of Ft. Snelling in 1823 where he received Indian visitors and mediated in local affairs. Both the Dakota and the Ojibwe would travel along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers to the fort to seek advice and to ask for charity and favors. The Ojibwe continued to visit Taliaferro even after they were assigned a different agent—that’s how much he was respected.

Taliaferro was also able to exert his influence by carefully distributing supplies like food, gunpowder, tobacco, and whiskey. The Indian Agency employed a blacksmith and armorer, John Treaty, who would repair Indian guns and traps. Since the Indians relied heavily on these supplies and services, and since those services could be stopped at any time, this helped promote peaceful relations between all involved parties. In addition to employing an armorer, Taliaferro also had a translator, Mr. Scott Campbell, who was essential to conducting the day-to-day business of the agency—as Taliaferro didn’t speak Dakota, Ojibwe, or French. Having a translator on site demonstrated Taliaferro’s respect for the Indians which he served.

In 1828 Taliaferro married Elizabeth Dillon. But like many whites on the frontier, he also fathered a child with a Dakota woman. That child, Mary, was born in the summer of 1828. Records indicate that she was raised in Minnesota, attended the Lake Harriet Mission School, and was represented by Taliaferro himself when asserting for “Half-Breed” rights. Mary held claims in an 1837 treaty, and was married in 1863 to a soldier from Fort Snelling.

Taliaferro was also, notably, the owner of a slave named Harriet Robinson, who would later marry famed freedom suit plaintiff Dred Scott. It is unknown exactly how Taliaferro came into ownership of Harriet, but what is known is that she worked as a servant in his home. As Justice of the Peace in the territories, Taliferro would have officiated at the marriage ceremony of Dred and Harriet—a marriage which many historians believe gave additional credence to the Scott's claim to freedom.

Major Lawrence Taliaferro faithfully represented the American government to the Indian tribes in the region—working tirelessly on behalf of the Dakota and Ojibwe. After being reappointed six times and working through four presidential administrations, Taliaferro finally resigned in 1839. His reasons for leaving included his continuing strained relationship with the fur traders, ineffective Federal Indian policy, and recurring illness. After leaving the area, Taliaferro and Elizabeth returned to her home in Bedford, Pennsylvania. He served in the Quartermaster Corps from 1857 to 1863 and died in 1871.

Renoir

I’m sure everyone has at least briefly considered what they would do if they won the lottery. Aren’t you just amazed at those folks who say they would still go to work every day? After winning millions of dollars, they would continue getting up at dawn, going to some crappy job, and coming home exhausted and miserable.

Well I sure as hell wouldn’t—and I don’t even have a crappy job. What would I do though? I think my post-lottery life would be a simple one. I would travel….and wherever I found myself, I would do the following:
--spend long hours in cafes reading and viewing the local people/culture
--sip coffee and drink Kir Royals
--eat expensive and exotic food
--go to art museums

* I would not wish to embark on these journeys without my lovely partner, who is a perfect travel companion
* I would also need some sort of radio to listen to New York Met games

Sounds decadent--and that is just what I would be seeking. Helping my fellow man......well, I might get around to that at some point; but I think "self-indulgent" and/or "hedonistic" would serve me well for a while at least. The cafes, food, and coffee are self-explanatory. And if you are unfamiliar with a Kir Royal, you should really try it sometime.

But the art museums—yes, I simply adore art museums. This weekend, my lovely partner and I traveled to Chicago for a few days of rest and relaxation. While in the Windy City, we went to its wonderful art museum—and we were not disappointed.

I think the reason I love art is that I know little about it. I don’t have to understand or interpret it. I don’t have to take notes on what I see, nor do I have to give a lecture or explain it to someone. I can simply gaze at a painting and enjoy it. I could sit for hours looking at one work of art—which is something everyone should try (especially some of my students--many of whom cannot sit for five minutes without checking their cell phone, or laptop for instant messages. These caffeinated collegians ought to forced to sit before a Renoir for at least two hours, it would do them good).

And because I became interested in art later in life—I have lots to see.....lots of catching up to do. Currently, I am most enamored with 19^th century art. In the U.S.—the Hudson River School and some later Gilded Age artists like John Singer Sargent. And in Europe, the Impressionists. So as a tribute to art--here are a few of my favorites from the Art Institute of Chicago.

It is this Renoir (Two Sisters) that I could gaze at for hours. Again, I am not sure what it is about this work--maybe the vibrant colors, or the brushstrokes....but I love the painting. Several other Renoir's also made their way onto my "favorite" list this weekend. Women at the Piano, and Young Woman Sewing both caught my attention. And as I mentioned earlier, I will not even attempt to explain these paintings--that would force me into some sort of teaching-mode. Suffice it to say, I like Renoir....I enjoy looking at his works....I am not sure why....and I don't care to figure it out.

There were several other Chicago prints that were memorable. Husking Bee by Eastman Johnson is a exquisite depiction of 19th century farm/rural life in New England.

And we were also lucky to catch this van Gogh, Starry Night over the Rhone River, which was included in a special exhibit.