With the buzz surrounding the verdict on the Isiah Thomas' sexual harrassment case, I suppose it is just about time for our friend Al Sharpton to plant his face on our television screens. What does he want now? An apology for Thomas' apparent permission for use of the word "bitch" between members of the same race.

First of all, there are far worse words that one can use if one has bad feelings about someone. The word itself is rather benign. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following:
1) a. The female of the dog;
b. The female of the fox, wolf, and occasionally other beasts.
2) a. applied opprobriously to a woman; strictly, a lewd or sensual woman. Not now in decent use but common in literature. In modern use especially a malicious or treacherous woman; of things: something outstandingly difficult or unpleasant ("son of a bitch.");
b. Applied to a man (not common);
c. A primitive form of lamp used in Alaska and Canada.
3) Combinations and attributes, as (sense 1) bitch-puppy, -whelp; (sense 2) bitch-baby, -clout, -daughter, -hunter, -son; bitch-daughter (obs.), the nightmare; bitch-fou a. (Sc.), as drunk and sick as a bitch, `beastly' drunk; bitch-goddess, in William James's phr. (see quot. 1906); cf. success sb. 3.
4) A mining instrument used for unscrewing rods or recovery of broken rods.
verb
1) a. To frequent the company of lewd women;
b. To call anyone "bitch;"
c. To behave bitchily towards.
2) a. To hang back (rare);
b. To spoil, to bungle. Also as "botch;"
c. To grumble, to complain.

Of course, the "lewd or sensual woman" definition is the source of the sexual harassment suit against Isiah. However, my bet is that his use of the word about Ms. Sanders in reality was as a "malicious or treacherous woman."

What does Al Sharpton have to do with any of this? Besides to ride on the coattails of a public spectacle and create more public anger than already exists?

In the late 1980's and 1990's Sharpton's presence was important in bringing justice to Brooklyn gang members who took part in racially-motivated beatings. Sharpton played a critical role in the way hate crimes are viewed and managed in this country. His experience as manager for James Brown gives Sharpton a public marketing angle in trying to raise public awareness. He was instrumental in the 1986 Howard Beach protests when three African-American men were assaulted by a white mob. Sharpton also raised awareness and staged protest in the 1989 Bensonhurst attacks on four African-American teenagers and the subsequent shooting of one of them.

His methods, however, sometimes create more public unrest, anger and violence. It is common for him to accuse his target first in the public eye without having investigated to see if there is validity to his accusation. This type of "trial by press" incites rage and sometimes violence.

Perhaps the most famous of these is the 1987 case of Tawana Brawley, the then 15 year old woman from Wappinger's Falls who fabricated an elaborate racially-motivated abduction and sexual assault. There was glaring evidence that she had not been kidnapped or harmed. In fact, witnesses saw Brawley at parties during the time that she was ostensibly "missing." Under the leadership of Rev. Sharpton, the investigation became a witch hunt against members of the police and local government. Given the nature of the evidence, it is likely Sharpton and his team suspected the abduction was a fake. Yet, they pressed on, harming many innocent people in the process.

The incident did catapult Sharpton's public image and made him the celebrity he is today.

So why does this man now choose largely benign name calling as his rally point for action? Is the use of words like "bitch" and "ho" cause for public demonstration and outrage? Are there so few issues deserving of our attention that we must get riled up over this?

Or is Sharpton merely coasting? He thrives on media attention and seeks it wherever he can find it. But, perhaps our dear Reverend is no longer courageous enough to tackle the larger issues which gave him that celebrity in the first place.

When Czar Alexander commissioned Carl Faberge to decorate an egg as his Easter gift to the Empress Marie, in his wildest dreams he would not have imagined what my family does each year at Easter time. 

Easter morning for us means "egg fights."  When my father was a young boy, he and his friends would gather, each holding his respective egg competitor.  The boys would then knock the eggs against one another (round side to round side or pointy side to pointy side).  The egg that broke was the loser and would be forfeit to the owner of the winning egg.  The winning boy would go home with several gems.  Competition was fierce.  Dad tells us he would treat his egg with wax in order to gain advantage.

For as long as I can remember, we've held these contests every Easter.  No longer do we give up our eggs to the winner, but there is surely a sense of competitiveness at the table and beforehand.  We sneak to the refrigerator prior to the day and test eggs with our teeth.  By the time breakfast arrives, we've already chosen our eggs.

Several years ago, during our pre-Easter coloring session, someone cut a photo from a newspaper and glued it to his egg.  This launched yet another tradition.  Instead of simply coloring or decorating our eggs, we now create an egg community each year.  We use feathers, pom-pons, pipe cleaners, eyes, pens, paint and other materials to create characters for the Easter table.  The new recruits are then photographed and placed in our egg archives.

Here are some of our eggs from this year.  Happy Easter!

"Desire is the source of grief." - Vidura

About a year ago we lost my mother.  Lost.  As if she went someplace and we were not able to find her.  She had been right there, in her ICU bed, dialysis catheter in place.  Monitor pads attached to her chest.   Her body was skinny.  Hollowed out by the invading cancer cells. All but her eyes, which communicated her spirit and her overwhelming intelligence to her last moment.  She was almost not there, but there nonetheless.

She'd always wanted to be thin.   

Before we knew;  before she saw the yellow tinge in her eye, she'd been on the Atkins diet.  She was so happy.  She'd lost a few pounds.  She thought it was the diet.

"Wow.  I've found a diet that really works."  Yes, that diet found her.  Found, by pancreatic cancer.

It was three years ago today it found her. And now, she's lost.  

But is she?

My niece, Sophia, lover of all things Dora the Explorer, imitates Swiper the Fox, one of the characters on the show.   Swiper teaches Sophia (and any other child) that if she does not want someone to find something, she can simply throw it up in the air over her shoulder, and shout "you'll NEVER find it NOW!"

Of course, we smart adults know that the thing is on the floor behind our precious child. We smart adults could find it whenever we wanted to.

But when it comes to death, to losing someone we love, we are all fans of Swiper the Fox.  They're gone.  Lost.  Gone is our status of smug smart grown-up.  We're all two years old.  We don't think to look over our shoulders.  We'll never find them now.

The Kahunas of Hawaii believe that each time we touch someone we love, it creates a thread between us.  A physical attachment.  A trail of breadcrumbs.  

Why don't we think to follow that trail?  Why won't we tug on those threads?

Swiper and his pals have been working overtime these past few weeks.  At least five people for whom I care very much have lost a loved one. 

J and S lost fathers, both suddenly.  One died almost instantly after he received a dose of a chemotherapeutic agent for his lung cancer.  The other, in his sleep. 

L and P lost children not yet born.  Just shadows on an ultrasound.  But there were many threads there.  Big breadcrumb trails.

MT lost one dear friend. Too young he was found by cancer.  Too young he is lost. "He leaves a void that is indescribable."

We'll never find them now.

But really, it's just the Swiper trick.  They're right here.  They're attached to us by the threads of our countless touches and innumerable shared laughs.  Even though we've thrown them up over our shoulders and have said the magic words,  they're not lost.

We can't lose them because they are right behind us.  Right there... can't you see?

Namaste. 

Recently, the Saint Luke School in Brookfield, WI cancelled an American Girl charity fashion show that was to be held at the Catholic school. Proceeds from the event were earmarked for construction of a new playground and a refurbished library. The school nixed the event after learning of American Girl's support of Girls, Inc.

Girls, Inc. formerly known as The Girls Clubs of America, support programs which inspire girls to be "stong, smart and bold." Apparently, these are goals which go against the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Saint Luke School cites "acceptance of lesbianism" and "support of abortion rights" as reasons for their decision. St. Luke's pastor writes, "our integrity is not for sale."

A look at the American Girl line of dolls and products reveals a wholesome, culturally inclusive line of dolls, clothing and books. These aim to teach young girls about women from different eras and backgrounds. Also available are dolls made to resemble a particular person or recipient. The American Girl website offers a "Fun for Girls" section, which, at first blush, might be construed as pro-lesbian. Turns out it's an activity board which features quizzes and ideas for raising money and other empowering activities for girls.

The Girls Inc. website contains information about domestic violence against girls as well as encouragment of activism for Title IX, among other issues. It, too, provides internet activities for girls and young women to encourage leadership and independence. There is even a stock market game which teaches girls about investment.

Certainly the mission of Girls Inc is in line with that of American Girl. And American Girl is right to give financial support to Girls Inc. even if it is viewed by the Catholic Church as a "pro-lesbian" group.

This action by Saint Luke School essentially forces the hand of American Girl to decide which group is more worthy of its support: The Catholic Church or the "pro-lesbian" Girls, Inc. group. I thought about this question, and came up with some observations:

 

 


So it looks like Lesbians: four;   the Catholic Church: zero.  

What would the American Girl do?

Apologies for the abysmal resolution of my table.  Does anybody know how to make it work better? 

This week in Citizen of the Month and  also by Miss Tanya, we've read about the Target pharmacist in Missouri who refused to fill a prescription for emergency contraception based on his own religious beliefs.

Target has made it clear that this action does not represent institutional policy.  That a pharmacist with these beliefs must send the customer to another pharmacy "in a timely manner."  Timely.   

This story is not surprising.  There are loads of self-righteous people all over this country.  And they don't just work at Target.  

It's fine with me if a pharmacist, anywhere, does not wish to use emergency contraception.  It's fine if an Orthodox Jew does not wish to eat a bacon double cheeseburger.  It's fine if George Bush does not wish for his daughters or his wife to have an abortion.  

Religion is an intensely private phenomenon.  When a person holds a strong belief, he holds it.  He does not throw it or launch it.  He may be inspired to teach it and hope that others want to hold it as well.  But our passing judgment on others based upon our own beliefs goes against the teachings of any religion I can think of.

And having institutional policy which passes judgement on people who make moral choices outside of a particular faith is just as reprehensible.  But it happens.  A business owner has every right to run his or her business in the way that he or she wishes.  If Bill of "Bill's Video" thinks that certain movies are not acceptable, he will not have them for rental.
 
If we are lucky enough to live in a place where there is more than one business of that type, we are free to take our business elsewhere.  But there are many places in this country where there are no such choices.  There is ONE pharmacy.  There is ONE bookstore.  There is ONE movie theater.  Increasingly, large companies are taking over small towns.  No longer are there boutique, locally-owned stores for clothing, appliances, grocery.  There is TARGET or WAL-MART.  One stop shopping.  What this also means is that ONE company controls all of the goods sold in some areas.

And there are plenty of people who were raised in these places who believe that this is the only way to live.  They think that there is a part in the movie Eyes Wide Shut where the screen goes black for about a minute.  They think there is no such book as Farenheit 451.  Some women think there are no options when they have unwanted pregnancy. 

And that is here in this country.  Right under our noses.  We, who pride ourselves on free speech and freedom of expression.  We who have inconceivable wealth and natural resources.  We wage war on other nations when we think they are too closed-minded.   

Does this improve our society?  Is conformity better than individuality?  How would it feel to enter a store and to see only one brand of any given thing?  Or to go to the store and never find the one thing that you want, since they don't carry it? And neither do any of the other stores in the area since they are all owned by the same corporation. 

This is happening.  It's going on right now.  So each time you hear about a Barnes and Noble merger with a smaller bookseller, think about the books that will no longer be available. There is only so much space in a store.  Or when the Beatrice food giant acquires another smaller company.  Fewer choices there.

What can we do?  I have no idea.  Any thoughts?