Blaming the Victim

---

---

I've been following politics most of my life.

I understand how the game is played and how one side or the other is apt to use things — appropriately or inappropriately — to score points in political campaigns.

That is how it was with the alleged "war on women" that the Democrats used — admittedly, effectively — against the Republicans in 2012.

Sexism is like racism — in the sense that it really does no good to deny that it exists. Clearly, it does exist — but it isn't the exclusive domain of one political party. That's where propaganda comes in.

To assert that it is the domain of one side or the other renders the accuser no better — indeed, probably worse — than the accused, for the accuser gives in to the very prejudice that supposedly is being decried.

Right here in Dallas recently, we had a blatant example of how sexism is not limited to a particular party — or, for that matter, a particular gender.

A district judge — a Democrat named Jeanine Howard who is unopposed in her bid for re–election this year — issued a ruling in a rape case that was nothing more than a case of old–time victim blaming and shaming. Howard sentenced the defendant, now 20 (18 at the time of the assault), to probation.

"He is not your typical sex offender," she said.

The victim, a 14–year–old girl, "wasn't the victim she claimed to be," Howard said and imposed an incredibly light sentence on the girl's rapist, who had confessed to the crime.

Howard also suggested the crime was not a rape because the victim apparently was not a virgin, that she had been promiscuous and had given birth to a baby. Really. The judge might just as well have said the victim asked for it.

By Howard's logic, any female who has had sexual intercourse cannot possibly be raped — even if she says "no," which, apparently, the victim in this case did. Several times.

(The victim did consent to intercourse away from the school grounds, but the young man attacked her at school.)

Also, the victim and her mother both say she has never been pregnant. Not that that should matter — except, apparently, in Howard's courtroom.

Meanwhile ...

In Montana, an astonishingly lenient sentence for rape handed down by a district judge in that state has been overturned. G. Todd Baugh sentenced a former teacher to one month for raping a 14–year–old student — who later took her own life.

Baugh said the victim was mature for her age and asserted that she was "probably as much in control of the situation" as her attacker.

CNN's Carol Costello wrote an opinion piece on the two cases that was posted on CNN.com (she may have delivered it on the air, too; I seldom watch CNN anymore so I don't know). She wondered — a bit naively, I thought — "Is America really clueless about the meaning of rape?"

I think the answer to that is that a certain portion of America has always been clueless about sexual assault — and probably always will be. Costello never mentioned Howard's political affiliation; the Dallas Morning News did. She never mentioned Baugh's political affiliation, either. I tried to find it, but I couldn't.

Perhaps Montana is one of those states where judicial candidates run nonpartisan campaigns. That really isn't the point, though.

The point is that, regardless of what Americans may have thought would be the outcome of electing the first nonwhite president in the nation's history, a post–partisan America is one of those achievements that is easier said than done.

America has always been a nation of laws, but it is a lot easier to change laws than to change minds. It takes time, and I'm not speaking about the inevitable disappearance of a generation because attitudes tend to be handed down from one generation to the next.

I don't know how old Howard is, but I have seen pictures of her, and I know she isn't of Donald Sterling's generation. Hillary Clinton is much closer, I'm sure, and we heard allegations today from Monica Lewinsky that the former secretary of State blamed the women around her husband — herself included — for the affair.

As long as offenders are given that kind of pass, any improvements in gender relations (and racial relations, for that matter) will be cosmetic at best.

Twisting Slowly in the Wind

---

---

There have been many tragic stories coming from Egypt in recent weeks, but the most tragic may well have been the report of the sexual assault and barbaric beating of CBS correspondent Lara Logan.

Reports of attacks on foreign journalists have been fairly common, but Caroline Glick writes, in the Jerusalem Post, that "the most egregious attack ... took place ... when ... Lara Logan was sexually assaulted and brutally beaten by a mob of Egyptian men."

I can't argue with that.

CBS, Glick goes on to say, "took several days to even report the story, and when it did, it left out important information. The fact that Logan was brutalized for 20 to 30 minutes and that her attackers screamed out 'Jew, Jew, Jew' as they ravaged her was absent from the CBS report."

Glick tells a tale of journalistic cowardice and misogyny that makes the attack on Logan seem virtually inevitable, and she begins her column with the bewildered questions that many people no doubt were asking after word of the attack began to spread:

"The Western media have been unanimous in their sympathetic coverage of the demonstrators in Egypt," Glick writes. "Why would the demonstrators want to brutalize them? And why have Western media outlets been so reticent in discussing the significance of their own reporters' brutalization at the hands of the Egyptian demonstrators?"

Such questions distract from the facts. This wasn't some kind of uncontrolled response to persecution. The mob wasn't angry about unfavorable representation in the media. What happened to Logan was a crime, and the people who were responsible should be treated like criminals. No one should justify their acts because their acts cannot be justified.

I am reminded of a scene from the Jack Lemmon–Sissy Spacek film "Missing," in which an American has disappeared during a coup in Chile and his father, played by Lemmon, and his wife, played by Spacek, try to find him.

Lemmon believes his son must have done something to lead to his arrest, and he keeps asking people to tell him what it was. Then a native scoffs at the idea. "You Americans," he says, "you always assume you must do something before you can be arrested."

"Isn't that the way it usually works?" Lemmon asks.

"Not here," the man replies.

And that isn't the way it works in Egypt, either. I've read many reports on the attack on Logan, and I have found not a single word that suggests that she was doing anything other than her job when she was attacked. Meanwhile, the men who did this to her have been protected, their faces blurred to hide their identities in broadcasts of videos showing Logan with her assailants just before the assault.

Here in America, there are still people who think a woman brings such an assault on herself, usually by dressing and/or behaving provocatively. But even if Logan was wearing a short, tight skirt and a low–cut blouse and grinning suggestively at the men who attacked her, that would not make what was done to her all right — by any stretch of the imagination.

Logan's attack presents an ugly picture, and it tells a twisted and shameful tale of media coverage in foreign lands. Many foreign journalists have been intimidated by their treatment in the Middle East, and they have been eager to avoid rocking the boat.

The absence of courage among Western journalists has been, to use the most charitable term possible, disappointing.

But what this says about the treatment of women is, if anything, even worse, because it isn't the kind of thing that is confined to Egypt or other places teetering precariously between freedom and repression. The subjugation of women is often tolerated in supposedly free nations.

In essence, journalists (who have always been willing to risk their lives to bring the news to their readers and listeners — but who could usually count on a certain amount of support and protection from their employers and governments in return) are being left to, in the words of Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, "twist slowly in the wind."

That may be an unfamiliar sensation for many journalists. But the women in their ranks have long felt that way in Egypt and elsewhere.

What happened to Logan may yet yield some good things because it shines the spotlight on the appalling treatment of women in Egypt. As Jeff Jacoby writes in the Boston Globe, "Perhaps the most shocking thing about the despicable sexual attack on CBS correspondent Lara Logan ... is that to those who know Egypt, it wasn't shocking at all."

Nearly three years ago, the BBC reported that 83% of Egyptian women — and nearly all foreign visitors — had been subjected to some form of sexual harassment. The BBC called it "Egypt's cancer."

Mary Rogers wrote about sexual harassment at CNN.com nearly four months ago.

While I'm on the subject, a good place to begin moving past the "socially acceptable bigotry" (in Glick's words) that is permitted to exist would be to start calling that attack what it was.

I don't mean to insert a note that is too frivolous for the subject, but I have long been a fan of the late George Carlin — and I particularly enjoyed his observations about language.

Carlin didn't care for euphemistic language. He said Americans had invented a "soft language" to help them avoid dealing with reality, and he was right. Sometimes, as he pointed out, the euphemisms were fairly innocuous — like saying "bathroom tissue" instead of "toilet paper." No harm, no foul, right?

But sometimes euphemisms are used to hide really ugly truths, and this case seems to be loaded with euphemisms like that.

If Logan was sexually assaulted (by approximately 200 men, I have heard) and the attack went on for 20 or 30 minutes, she was raped.

I know the Wall Street Journal disagrees with that. The Wall Street Journal, quoting an unnamed source, insists that she was not raped. But could such a thing really be possible?

"Sexual assault" sounds like it was not as bad as it almost certainly was. It makes it sound like it involved everything but penetration (which wouldn't be particularly good, either, but some people could use that distinction to minimize what happened).

It sounds to me like the attackers were in a frenzy. How many blows would have been required to render Logan unconscious and then strip the clothes from her body? Are we supposed to believe that her attackers suddenly stopped after fondling Logan and said to each other, "Stop! We can go no farther. We are already guilty of sexual assault. If we go past this point, it will be rape."

Let's call it what it was — rape.

Even if, technically, only one of Logan's attackers committed the rape. Or two. Or three.

Wouldn't anyone who stood by while someone else committed a rape be guilty of, at the very least, being an accessory?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the fine points of the law so I could be wrong. But it would be consistent.

See, "sexual assault" is rather broadly defined and is often used interchangeably with "rape." But "sexual assault" could mean a lot of things.

"Not all sexual harassment is physical," Jacoby writes. "[B]esides groping women's bodies, grabbing at their clothing, and indecent exposure, it can also include blatant ogling, sexual catcalls, and stalking."

And, for the "I'm–too–sexy–for–my–shirt" naysayers, Jacoby has this: "More than half the Egyptian women reported being molested every day. And contrary to popular belief, most of the victims were wearing modest Islamic dress."

Different jurisdictions have different definitions for rape — or statutory rape. And they don't necessarily have to include intercourse. Even if Logan was not violated (which I still find doubtful), her assailant(s) could be charged with rape.

The sight of Egyptians protesting against their corrupt government certainly was stirring for many pro–democracy types, including those who aren't especially worried about whether freedom really is inclusive.

But, as Miranda Devine writes in Australia's Herald Sun newspaper, a free Egypt will mean nothing to its women ...

... And it will mean even less to its foreign visitors.

Surely, there must be some way for justice to be served — and for Egypt's newfound freedom to have real meaning.

Let's stop hiding behind words. Let's say what we mean and mean what we say.

And let's take a resolute stand against this kind of behavior, wherever we find it.

The Final Days

In just a few days, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls to decide who will finish Ted Kennedy's term in the U.S. Senate.

It has been virtually an article of faith that the Democratic nominee, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, would win the seat with little trouble. That was a logical assumption. After all, Kennedy was elected nine times by Massachusetts voters (including a special election to complete his brother Jack's unexpired term), and he never received less than 58% of the vote.

Until recently, Republicans talked a good game, insisting that an upset was possible. But now, with the finish line in sight, it appears that an upset may be a little more than a possibility — a fact that is dawning on observers who, not too long ago, tended to believe the race was in the bag for Democrats.

Considering Massachusetts' political history, that wasn't an unreasonable conclusion. But, as the old saying goes, that was then and this is now.

• Jessica Van Sack of the Boston Herald reports that the latest Suffolk University/7News survey shows Republican Scott Brown holding a four–point advantage.
  
  "Although Brown's ... lead ... is within the ... margin of error," Van Sack writes, "the underdog's position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos," who called it a "Brown–out."
  
  Independents appear to be fueling this upset–in–the–making. The survey shows nearly two–thirds of independents supporting Brown, reflecting a trend that has been showing up in national polls in recent months. Democrats in general have been losing the support of independents.
  
  But most observers didn't think the defection of independents would be as pronounced as it appears to be in Massachusetts.


• Yesterday, The Rothenberg Political Report moved the race to the "Toss–Up" column.
  
  "Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C.," says Rothenberg. "Brown has 'won' the 'free media' over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election."


• Byron York of the Washington Examiner writes that a Democratic strategist laments that "the bottom has fallen out of [Coakley's] poll numbers" and has concluded that she is "destined to lose."


• Political reporter Steve Kornacki, who wrote earlier this month that a Republican victory was not going to happen, now writes in his blog that "Brown may actually win." But he urges readers not to "overreact ... This will probably be a very good year for the GOP. But their 'revival' will only last as long as the economy is in the tank."
  
  Given the stubbornness of the double–digit unemployment rate, that might be much longer than either Kornacki or the Democrats would prefer.


• Kennedy's widow, Vicki Kennedy, isn't sitting idly by. As CNN.com reports, she has been hitting the airwaves in commercials that began airing today, pleading with Massachusetts voters to keep the seat in the Democratic column.
  
  Mrs. Kennedy, more than anyone else (with the exception, perhaps, of the late senator's first wife and their three children), knows that health care reform was her husband's lifelong goal, the reason he wanted to have someone appointed to take his place between the time of his death and the special election, and that the election of a Republican to his seat could well put it on the legislative back burner for another 15 to 20 years.

The final days of this campaign will be a sight to see.

A House Divided

The Los Angeles Times' "Top of the Ticket" blog focuses today on Barack Obama's declining approval numbers.

The results of one survey — from CNN.com — seem to be particularly vexing, for both CNN.com and the writers for the Times.

CNN.com reports a "split decision" over the Obama presidency at the one–year mark — the raw numbers actually give a slight edge to those disapproving, 48% to 47%, but when you consider there is a three–point margin for error, a whole range of actual outcomes becomes possible.

The point, CNN.com, which has been among the most enthusiastic of broadcasting's Obama cheerleaders, grudgingly acknowledges, is that "the economy by far remains issue No. 1 with Americans." Therefore, CNN.com concludes, "The dominance of domestic issues in importance is most likely a contributing factor to the slight dip in Obama's overall approval rating."

This doesn't surprise me, and I don't really feel it should surprise anyone else, either. I was writing about the perils of prolonged unemployment before Obama took the oath of office.

About a year ago, I wrote about how being out of work robs people of their dignity and makes them feel powerless. More people are out of work today than in January 2009, and when people feel powerless, they lash out at the party that is in power.

So I'm not surprised that the public opinion surveys are picking up two definite trends — persistent upticks in disapproval, persistent declines in the approval numbers — even though both CNN.com and the Los Angeles Times seem shocked and awed by this revelation.

Contributing to the drumbeat that disturbs Democrats is a report from Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in the Wall Street Journal. Quinnipiac's latest survey confirms CNN.com's conclusions: "A year into his presidency," Brown writes, "Barack Obama gets a decidedly mixed report card from the American people. His ratings are trending lower and for the first time as many Americans rate his job performance negatively as positively."

The Associated Press reports that Obama admitted to People magazine, in an interview last week, that he has not brought the country together.

Thanks for that update, Captain Obvious — as one of Obama's longtime media supporters, Maureen Dowd, labeled him in her recent New York Times column about the near–miss terror incident on Christmas Day — which, interestingly, grabbed people's attention but does not appear to have played much of a role in either of those poll results.

Forty years ago, when President–elect Richard Nixon talked about bringing the country together, he was speaking mostly of healing the wounds inflicted by the Vietnam War. There are more sources of the wounds today, but the still open, still bleeding wound of excessive unemployment affects more Americans directly than any other.

In spite of the bad news coming from these polls, the administration gets a warm fuzzy from Mark Mellman in The Hill. Mellman wishes Obama a happy anniversary — even though his actual anniversary in office is still a week away.

"All Americans can remain proud of electing a president whose father was a Kenyan immigrant," Mellman writes, adding that it "speaks to the goodness of our nation."

He also insists on offering built–in excuses.

First, he reminds readers of Mario Cuomo's "famous distinction between the poetry of campaigning and the prose of governing."

Obama, he says, "has handled this transition well, though a few of his supporters have found it more jarring." I'd say it's been jarring for more than just his supporters — or simply "a few" of them. "Their expressions of disappointment," Mellman continues, "reflect a failure to comprehend the implications of Cuomo's critical distinction."

Mellman also provides some cover for the administration through the words of a song from "Jesus Christ Superstar," which is appropriate, I suppose, given the many references to "The One" in the 2008 general election campaign.

"He’s a man, he’s just a man ..."

Mellman reminds readers (well, I presume it is a reminder — I never read it myself) that he predicted a year ago that Obama's approval ratings would be below 50% by now.

"Barack Obama is a special and extraordinary talented president, but he is just a man," Mellman writes, "buffeted by the same political forces that have afflicted his predecessors and will bedevil his successors."

Well, the house remains divided. As president, Obama must do something about that because, as Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Look For the Silver Lining

The latest jobs report came out today, and CNN.com says it was disappointing "[b]ut there was a small glimmer of hope as well."

That glimmer of hope? "The payroll number for November was revised to a net gain of 4,000 jobs. That's the first increase in jobs in nearly two years. The government had previously indicated that 11,000 jobs were lost in November."

At that rate, we'll make up the ground that has been lost since the recession began by, oh, 2218. Of course, that doesn't allow for the jobs that will be made necessary by population growth in the next two centuries.

Some of the more optimistic economic forecasters expected job growth to return, but, as Neil Irwin reports in the Washington Post, "the economic recovery still is too weak to lead employers to add to their payrolls."

Nevertheless, Irwin, like many of those who like to make excuses for the Obama administration and the Democrat–controlled Congress, readily shares his with the readers.

"Part of the job losses may have been due to colder–than–usual weather; construction employment fell by 53,000 jobs, more than in recent months, and that sector is more sensitive than most to the weather."

Hmmm. Well, I don't know what the weather is — or was — like where you are. Yes, it was cold in December. It always is. But I don't recall it being as cold in December here in Dallas as it is today. As I write this, the current temperature in Dallas is 17° (wind chill is 1°).

Will the weather be the scapegoat next month as well? If so, maybe that is an indicator of just how fragile everything really is.

"One positive sign is that the number of temporary jobs rose by 47,000 jobs. Employers, it would seem, are reluctant to add permanent workers, but — faced with higher demand for their products — have little choice but to bring on temps. That could presage broader job creation in the future."

Seems to me the most telling statement in Irwin's article comes at the end:

"A broader measure of unemployment, which includes people who are working part time but would prefer a full–time job and those who have given up looking for work out of frustration, edged up to 17.3 percent, from 17.2 percent."

What Would FDR Do?

There are a couple of things that stand out in my memory of last Thanksgiving:

• The terrorist attacks on Mumbai.


• The anticipation of the Barack Obama administration (accompanied by speculation that Obama's former rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, might be his secretary of state).

Here we are, a year later, and I'm seeing articles about a president who has been dead for more than half a century, Franklin D. Roosevelt. What gives?

Well, I guess it's only natural for thoughts to turn to FDR. He was elected to deal with the Great Depression, and Obama was elected to deal with the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression.

For Democrats, there is no president who can match FDR's achievements. He rescued the nation from an economic calamity, and he led the nation to a victory in World War II that he missed seeing by a matter of weeks.

Yesterday, I wrote about an article that found fault with Obama's Thanksgiving proclamation when compared to Roosevelt's.

Today, Stephen Herzenberg writes, in the Pittsburgh Post–Gazette, about the steps FDR might have taken to breathe new life into the economy.

My eyes were drawn to an observation that, because Congress is under pressure with unemployment continuing to rise, "momentum is building for a federal tax credit that would give companies an incentive to hire new employees."

I found this interesting because it is something Obama proposed during the presidential campaign last year — but, as PolitiFact.com points out, it was not included in the stimulus package.

So, what seemed (to me) like a logical and potentially beneficial approach to the problem has never been tried. It remains where it has been since Obama first mentioned it on the campaign trail — on the drawing board, an untried theory.

From what I have been able to gather, the proposal was nixed by Democrats in Congress. But it was Obama's promise so PolitiFact.com regards it as a broken promise. If the tax credit proposal had been part of the stimulus package, would it have made a difference? Herzenberg writes that Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff says "the real appeal of a job–creation tax credit may be that it 'beats doing nothing.' "

The psychological impact of a tax credit notwithstanding, though, Herzenberg writes that, when compared to the things FDR did to combat joblessness in the 1930s, the proposal "looks like, well, nothing." It didn't look like nothing on the campaign trail, but, admittedly, that was a year ago. Millions of jobs have been lost since then.

The question that can't be answered, though, is whether as many jobs would have been lost if the administration and the Democrats in Congress had been more proactive about unemployment.

As far as the jobless are concerned, Democratic efforts to stem the tide now — whether in the guise of a much–ballyhooed jobs summit or any legislative measure — amount to little more than last–minute scrambling designed to save their jobs. But they may be able to do better than that by learning from what FDR did.

In the 1930s, Herzenberg writes, Roosevelt "championed the 'Big Four' social policies:

• "a minimum wage to lift purchasing power at the bottom;


• "a law strengthening workers' rights to unionize, laying the basis for the emergence of America's middle class through manufacturing unions;


• "unemployment insurance, which enabled jobless workers to feed their families; and


• "Social Security, which enabled the elderly poor to avoid destitution and increase their consumption."

"So far, what is Washington offering as the Great Recession's Big Four?" Herzenberg asks. "The Big Zero."

Herzenberg tries to be fair, pointing out that the Democrats have been devoting a lot of time and energy to health care reform, and he concedes that the reform plan will yield benefits to the economy in the decades ahead. But the issue now is reinvigorating the middle class, which has been brutalized by the recession.

"There are some ideas kicking around the margins that can help shape what today's Big Four might look like," he writes, adding that some "would update elements of the New Deal."

The problem, writes Jeanne Sahadi for CNN.com, is that all the strategies that are being considered for encouraging job creation have downsides.

But that may be the inevitable result of the dithering Congress and the administration have done on this subject all year. They've squandered precious time, but time is running out for the Democrats, who have operated on the false assumption that their triumphs in the 2006 and 2008 elections entitled them to congressional majorities indefinitely. No one knows what will happen in the 2010 midterm elections, but poll numbers suggest Democrats are losing the support of independent voters who were so crucial to their successes in the last two elections.

They may be able to regain the support of some of those independents if they pass health care reform, but as long as unemployment continues to go up, any such gains will be temporary. And the electorate is likely to be in a sour mood by November 2010.

Patriotism

I must possess an odd brand of patriotism. I never thought I did when I was growing up, but now, in the early years of the 21st century, it has become increasingly clear to me.

Maybe my mind processes things in ways that others do not.

A few years ago, I heard arguments from Republicans that suggested I wasn't supporting the troops if I wasn't supporting the war in Iraq — and, therefore, I wasn't patriotic.

George W. Bush and the Republicans set themselves up for criticism when they smugly and self–assuredly told Americans that there were stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and they were aimed at America. It was easy to frighten Americans in those days. The September 11 attacks were still a fresh memory.

But it never was that simple for me.

My counter–argument was that I was supporting the troops, that it was possible to support the troops and oppose the policy they were required to carry out.

It is the same — in my mind — as a law that is passed by the state legislature. I may not agree with that law. In fact, there may be some in law enforcement who do not agree with the law. But it is their job to enforce the law.

Policy makers and policy enforcers are rarely, if ever, the same people.

For a long time, that attitude seemed rare, almost nonexistent, but in the last couple of years, I have seen more and more people who feel that way.

Barack Obama's trip to Copenhagen last week to lobby — unsuccessfully — for the 2016 Olympics to come to Chicago has produced the flip side to the patriotism argument.

"Whenever President Obama has traveled overseas and offered pointed and direct assessments of the United States, some of them critical, Republicans have ripped him for criticizing America, saying a president should always defend the United States," writes Roland Martin for CNN.com.

"So I want to hear the explanation by these so–called patriots of their giddy behavior over the United States losing the 2016 Olympic Games."

It is a valid complaint, and it is one to which I tend to feel vulnerable — to a degree.

But the facts are more complicated.

For starters, I am not a Republican, but one does not have to be a Republican to disagree with a Democratic president. I know independents and Democrats who did not think Obama should make the trip to Copenhagen, and I am one of them.

Yes, I have criticized Obama when I felt he made mistakes. But I have never joined in the chorus that has accused him of being anti–America. And I don't believe anyone who wants to bring the Olympics to America can be anti–America.

I've never really understood the anti–America argument. I am not so cynical that I believe someone who hates this country could run for its highest office, fool a majority of its adults and be elected to lead it when his real objective was to destroy it.

Americans on both sides of the political spectrum can be quite superficial, but most aren't that gullible that they would willingly hand over power to a smooth–talking shyster or truly believe others had done so. Are they?

Having said that, yes, I was critical of the decision to go to Copenhagen. But I didn't mind if Chicago was awarded the Olympics for 2016, and I was not glad Chicago lost its bid to host the Olympics. I simply felt Obama had more important things to do right here.

The decision to go to Copenhagen has set off a firestorm of sorts. In Commentary, Jennifer Rubin wrote that Obama received a lesson in the "limits of egomania." Clarence Page observed, in the Chicago Tribune, that Obama's "magic" has its restrictions. For others, like Edward Luce of Financial Times, the fruitless trip breathed new life into questions about Chicago cronyism.

Clearly, there are many ways to look at this. And I am inclined to think Martin is right when he urges those who have celebrated the loss as Obama's loss to "turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic." It was a loss for America.

But Obama set himself up for all this — in the exasperatingly casual way that he so often does. And that may be the thing about him that many Americans find refreshing. He doesn't do things in the typically presidential way.

But not everyone finds that reassuring. In fact, some were alarmed that Obama wasn't content to delegate the authority for that task to his wife and remain in Washington while the unemployment rate went up and his health care plan became watered down faster than the Titanic.

Obama became president during the greatest economic crisis this country has faced in three–quarters of a century. A president can't choose the conditions that exist when he takes office, but he can choose how he will respond to them.

Filling out his NCAA brackets or making the rounds of the late night talk shows or presiding over a couple of beers and a "teachable moment" or traveling to Copenhagen may seem worthwhile, but they lack the urgency of rising unemployment. At some point, a president must decide what his priority will be.

After that, worthwhile (but lesser) goals must be turned over to others.

I believed last week — and I believe today — that Obama needed to make joblessness his priority.

Good (?) News About Bad Times

Earlier this week, CNN.com posted an article from Theresa Tamkins of Health that suggested that "a shaky economy might actually be good for your health."

Tamkins cites several studies that show that, in the past, mortality dropped and longevity went up during hard times. She focused much of her discussion on the Great Depression — what she describes as "the mother of all economic bad times" — but she observed that the same has been shown to be true, at least in terms of mortality, in regard to recessions in the 1980s and 1990s (obviously, it is still a little early to be reaching conclusions about longevity).

---

Researchers estimate that around that time, a year with a 5 percent drop in the gross domestic product was associated with a 1.9–year gain in life expectancy, while a 5 percent rise in the GDP lowered life expectancy by about one to two months.

---

During recessions, Tamkins writes,

• People tend to smoke less.


• People tend to drink less.


• People tend to drive less.


• People tend to eat out less.

All four can be explained as cost–cutting measures, just as they are today. Health benefits probably weren't considered.

Of course, people didn't know nearly as much about the ill effects of smoking during the Great Depression as they do today. Prohibition was still in effect in the first years of the Depression so it's hard to make blanket assertions about drinking habits during that period. Also, in those days, fewer people owned cars.

I wasn't alive during the Great Depression so I don't know how much dining out was affected, but my guess is that it was considered something of a luxury.

Another contributing factor, apparently, is that, during hard times, people do healthy things that they can control, like eating better and exercising. Well, some people do.

Tamkins acknowledges that "[s]uicides did increase during the Great Depression, but they made up less than 2 percent of deaths during that time."

Well, the monthly employment report comes out tomorrow. We'll find out then how many more folks can expect to live longer — and poorer — lives, thanks to the economy.

Getting Ahead of Ourselves

I know we're all eager for the recession to be over.

Most economists say the recession began in December 2007, which means that the economy has been in the toilet for more than a year and a half. It's been just about a year since the economic meltdown that really sent things into a tailspin. Nationally, unemployment has been higher than 9% for the last couple of months — and we'll get an update tomorrow.

We could all use some good news.

But it seems a little premature for CNN.com to be wondering "Who should get credit for a recovery?"

Maybe, as Chris Isidore suggests, there really is "a growing sense that the economy is now in a recovery." As one of the millions of Americans who is out of work, I devoutly hope it is. And maybe we will see evidence of that when the monthly jobs report comes out tomorrow.

That's the real key, isn't it? Most Americans won't feel that things are getting better until they can see a shift in the jobless pattern. For the last year, the economy has been losing jobs in the hundreds of thousands every single month. The days when job losses in five figures were alarming are nothing but a distant memory now.

In fact, Americans have become so conditioned to six–figure job losses that my guess is that, if we do see job losses that drop below six figures in tomorrow's report, it will be hailed as evidence that the recovery is under way — even though the report may still show the economy losing jobs, not adding jobs.

At the moment, though, that is hypothetical.

The issue of assigning credit for a recovery is not a frivolous ego exercise, Isidore points out. "[K]nowing what policies worked, and which ones need to stay in place, could keep the recovery from stalling out."

Ah, but there is the catch. Americans haven't concluded that the recovery has begun.

In fact, CNN.com reports that "[n]early nine in ten Americans say the country's still in a recession."

CNN's Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser quotes CNN Polling Director Keating Holland, who says, "Economists may be speculating that the recession is over, but don't tell that to the American public."

The point is that perception is reality. And perception of the masses is more important than the perception of the few. If you have any doubts about that, I suggest that you consult George H.W. Bush.

The recession that occurred on Bush's watch was relatively mild, by historical standards, and economists proclaimed that a recovery had begun months before the 1992 election. But when Americans went to the polls, they voted for Bill Clinton. The historical indicators that a recession was over weren't evident in their own lives.

As I say, I know we're all hungry for some good news. But let's wait until there really is some good news before we start celebrating.

All That You Can't Leave Behind

---

I found this on YouTube today.

---

Tonight, mourners have gathered in Boston to pay homage to Ted Kennedy.

It is closed to the public, but it is still being televised on CNN and C–Span. It has been alternately moving and amusing to listen to the eulogies from both Democrats and Republicans. As vilified as Kennedy was in life for his liberal leanings, it has been enlightening to listen to people like Orrin Hatch and John McCain speak with genuine affection for a friend.

But, as I have been reading the articles on the internet — and viewing videos like the one I have posted — it has occurred to me that Ted Kennedy, like Richard Nixon, has one Achilles' heel that will be with him as long as there is an American history that is chronicled in the history books.

For Nixon, it was Watergate. For Kennedy, it was Chappaquiddick.

It was inevitable, I suppose, that Kennedy's death would bring another round of discussions about that incident.

The Week reported that "Kennedy's name was Google's top search term the day after his death, but Mary Jo Kopechne and Chappaquiddick were Nos. 2 and 3."

And some writers, like Michael Scherer in TIME, mentioned it only in passing. Scherer referred to it as one of Kennedy's "darkest moments."

Howie Carr of the Boston Herald briefly brought up Chappaquiddick in a general article that recites all of Kennedy's shortcomings.

There has been much talk in tonight's memorial for Kennedy of the late senator's love of humor. Tom Blumer writes, for NewsBusters, that Chappaquiddick was one of his favorite topics.

To be sure, some people defended Kennedy. Melissa Lafsky speculated at The Huffington Post that Kopechne, "a dedicated civil rights activist and political talent with a bright future," might have "felt it was worth it" to trade her life for Kennedy's career.

Boy, that sparked a debate.

Rick Moran responded, in American Thinker, that it was "maybe the most amazingly shallow, myopic, and ultimately self–centered sentence ever written."

Perhaps that is unduly harsh. Personally, I believe that, unless one possesses the selflessness of a soldier, who knows he might at any moment have to sacrifice his life for others, no one is ever prepared to die at the age of 28.

So I thought Lafsky's article was interesting but a little preposterous.

Especially when I consider Eliott C. McLaughlin's survey of media experts for CNN.com, asking if Kennedy's political career could survive a Chappaquiddick in the 21st century — "in the era of blogs, talk radio and 24–hour news cycles."

It's a fair question. The media has changed considerably in 40 years.

I remember, at the time, that Chappaquiddick was overshadowed, to a great extent, by Apollo 11 and its historic trip to the moon. If we could return to July 1969 and everything else was the same — but talk radio, blogs and 24–hour news were part of the media mix — I agree that Chappaquiddick would be a source of continuing discussion — even as the lunar module was descending to the moon's surface.

Heck, with split–screen technology, both stories could be covered simultaneously.

And I think Kennedy's career might well have been over. But I'm thinking from the perspective of one who has just been through an election year in which reverence for political dynasties was brought into question. In 1969, Kennedy, I believe, benefited from a reservoir of affection that Massachusetts had for John and Robert Kennedy and the Kennedy family.

We may find out in the months to come whether that reservoir still exits as Massachusetts chooses a replacement.

Did I Make a Mistake?

A few days before the Fourth of July weekend, I received an e–mail from an individual who works for Salon.com.

He told me that he had seen my blog on the internet, and he enjoyed reading what I had written. He specifically mentioned a couple of articles I had written that he liked. He wanted me to sign up with Open Salon, where my blog posts would be automatically posted and would be available to a wider audience.

As I have mentioned in this blog before, I am unemployed and I have been hoping to use it to attract the attention of an employer. Open Salon sounded like a way to get some additional exposure so I agreed to sign up.

Now, I was already familiar with Salon.com, which is the parent site for Open Salon, and I knew that some top–notch writers have written articles about current events that have appeared there. But, in hindsight, perhaps I should have taken a closer look at Open Salon first. At least, that is what I find myself wondering now, about a week since I signed on.

Why am I wondering that?

Well, here's a rundown of the headlines on the articles that have been selected — apparently by the editors — to appear on Open Salon's main page today (by the way, it is currently about 2 p.m. Central on Friday, July 10):

• Becoming a woman, ending a relationship


• Just re–opened: Birds–eye view


• All my wife's Facebook friends are men: Should I be worried?


• New study: Vibrators are everywhere


• Are you all functioning alcoholics?


• Yes, there's a baby bird in my bra


• Prominent yogi offers to cure homosexuality with yoga


• British family loses dog, sprinkles urine over town


• An open letter to Sarah Palin


• What's real on "NYC Prep"


• In support of "indefinite detention:" Just imagine what Palin could do with it!


• A freelancer's defense of print


• My first TV writing credit — and my meeting with Alan Thicke


• Did GM damage the American bankruptcy system?

Now, let me be clear here. I have nothing against any of these articles. I haven't even read most of them.

And I will say that I have found most of the articles I have read at Open Salon to be literate and engaging. I've been writing most of my life, and I have a very high regard for the written word. With almost no exception, I have been favorably impressed with the skill of those who write for Open Salon.

But I have been writing this blog for nearly two years. As of this minute, I have almost 900 posts at Freedom Writing. And I have some regular readers who should have an idea what I am likely to write about. So I'd like to ask them something: How many of those headlines sound like headlines for articles that I would be likely to write?

I'm not gay nor am I transsexual. I certainly don't use a vibrator. I'm not an alcoholic. I'm not sexually dysfunctional, and I'm not married, so my wife's Facebook friends are of no concern to me.

I had a dog once, but he was struck and killed by an SUV when he darted into a street about 15 years ago. I didn't sprinkle his (or anyone else's) urine anywhere then. Indeed, I've never gone around any town sprinkling anyone's urine, be it human or canine.

I will concede that there are some stories that could have been penned by yours truly.

That "bird's–eye view" story is apparently about the reopening of the crown of the Statue of Liberty. I haven't read the article, but there is a drawing with the article that certainly appears to be the face of Lady Liberty — and, as readers of this blog know, I wrote about the reopening last weekend.

I have written about Sarah Palin — in fact, I wrote a couple of posts about her in the last week, since her stunning announcement that she will resign her position later this month.

I haven't written about GM's bankruptcy, but I have written about a number of economy–related topics. It's not outlandish to imagine me writing about it if I have something I want to say.

But, clearly, most of these subjects are just not my style.

And that has been typical of my experience with Open Salon. I'm not saying that there isn't a market for this kind of material. But most of it isn't the kind of stuff that I've been writing.

Before I ask you something else about Open Salon, I'd like to mention something I saw on the CNN.com website earlier today.

---

---

If you look closely, the headline on the article says "Do American care if Obama smokes?" The letter "s" would turn "American" to "Americans" and make it grammatically correct, yet in spite of several comments left by readers, no one at CNN.com has made the correction. It makes me wonder if anyone at CNN.com bothers to read the comments — some of them contain valuable tips for the copy editors.

CNN is a big company. Surely it employs a staff of copy editors.

This is of interest to me, you see, because I worked for almost 10 years on the copy desks of daily newspapers. It was not our function to gush over the prose (no matter how much we might admire what we read) but to catch mistakes — and typographical errors were just as important as errors of fact, even if they weren't as likely to lead to a lawsuit.

And typos in headlines seemed to jump out at you. If a copy editor permitted a headline typo to end up in print, there was hell to pay.

Well, this problem is not unique to CNN, but this is the most egregious example I have seen today. In its defense (and it is a weak defense, in my opinion), if CNN has reduced or eliminated its copy desk, it certainly doesn't appear to be the only one — in cyberspace or the real world.

But that's a subject for another time.

And now, back to Open Salon.

Open Salon allows people to send messages to the writers of these posts. That was something I wasn't aware of when I signed up. When I got my first message, I thought to myself (before reading it) that this might be an opportunity to have useful dialogues with people who could give me some constructive criticism that might help my writing.

But it turned out to be a come–on from a female (or someone posing as a female). This person appeared to be from overseas and appeared to be looking for someone to serve as her/his sponsor in this country.

I've received three more messages since I got that one. They've all been pretty much the same.

So I'd like to ask those who are reading this on Open Salon: Has that been your experience as well?