What I've gathered about Iran...

I've been taking notes about Iran. The country, the people, the culture, the religion, and mostly notes on what people have been writing about Iran. And there's been a lot of commentary on the place.

What's all the buzz? Well, besides the fact that America and parts of the rest of the world are feeling uneasy with Iran's fascination with nuclear energy and the production of uranium- a mere curiosity, they say, we are also a little befuddled. While we had our eyes so focused on Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein from power, we forgot to keep watch to see who was coming in our peripheral vision. We would have seen Iran creeping into our blind spot and we would have quickly adjusted our mirrors. At least I hope that would have been the case.

Of course, I lost the scrap piece of note paper where I was jotting down all of my ideas....but my main finding was this: Iranians are much smarter than we think. Much of our discomfort and tension surrounding the United States' relationship with Iran is centered around bad communication and an inability to compromise and work out a deal. The U.S. needs to negotiate, while still getting the job done. Now, I'm not saying we need to back off and leave them alone, or sit and drink coffee and turn a blind eye. I'm just saying that we might need to play their way, in order to get anywhere.

From what I've read, (a significant percentage of my week's reading came from my aunt's copy of the June 1, 2009 Newsweek that I swiped for reading on the Metro commute into the capitol) the Iranians are amazing at bartering. Now I know first-hand that the Middle East is the hub of trade...in 2006 I studied in Amman, Jordan and I left the souq (marketplace) several times with more than I ever intended buying.

However, the kind of bartering I am speaking of one of perfection. Elite and premeditated, it is not trade out of necessity, but out of common interest. Therefore, the transaction does not require speed or any sort of deadline. Instead, it demands patience, intellect, understanding, rhetoric, and a uncanny level of insight of the other party. This is harder to come by, but must be what America and Obama strive for.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Bringing us Back to the Basics: Health Really Matters

            The new word around town is that, with the present economic slump in the United States, if you don’t feel any anxiety, then you don’t have a pulse.

            “Frankly, recently with the recession, we joke that if you don’t feel stressed, then you are not alive,” said Helen Darling, the director of the National Business Group on Health (NBGH) in Washington D.C.

            Wednesday, the NBGH released data from its most recent study, surveying the health of its members who work at companies of 2,000 or more employees. Darling shared what, in her eyes, is good news: people are more focused now than ever before on living healthy lifestyles.

             The press conference discussion, held at the National Press Club, was heavy with data (each attendee received a large printed survey packet highlighting the research figures), but may not be as conclusive as it seemed.

            The survey, titled “The Recession’s Toll on Employee’s Health,” profiled a group of 1,500 employees, covering a variety of personal health topics including exercise, diet, clinical and emergency medical care, insurance, prescription drugs, and psychological health. What the NBGH wanted to know was: how could companies help people in their desire to form healthier life habits?

            “Healthcare is more of a priority than a year ago,” Darling said. “And we are very happy to see that, I might add. It’s really saving and living a healthier lifestyle that makes people’s priority list.”

            When the NBGH surveyed its sample group, the survey showed that there was a 34 percent increase in exercise among the employees within the past year. Since 2008, there was also a 46 percent increase in healthy eating habits.

            Darling noted that this increased focus on health is filling a void within the American population. The United States Department of Labor states that the unemployment rate is now at 15.8 percent, as of May 2009. The statistics continue to look bleak.

            “It’s one thing to lose a job in a bubble economy, it’s another to lose a job in this economy,” said Darling.

            Yet, on the upside of things, without a job, many people found that they have more time to focus on healthy behaviors such as exercising and making healthy eating choices.

            “You want to take care of yourself now so that stay healthy in the future,” Darling said. She reasoned that people are willing to take care of themselves because they realize that focusing on health now, could keep the doctor bills to a minimum down the road. And that’s always good when you have very little cash.

             “Exercise is a silver bullet,” said Darling multiple times. “I know I sound like I’m a wild woman on the subject, but it really is. You can just walk around the block at no charge.”

            However, the validity of Darling’s happy “Pollyanna diagnosis” of the increased health of the American people could be short lived. Dr. Patricia Rieker, an associate professor of psychiatry and sociology at Harvard Medical School, specializes in public health. She said that the NBGH survey shows accurate trends in health; however, they aren’t really portraying the whole picture. There is data missing.

            “Everyone values their health,” said Rieker. “The problem is (as I argued

In my book, Gender and Health: The Effects of Constrained Choices and Social Policies) that they lack the opportunities and options to pursue health.”

            The NBGH addressed this problem, by saying that it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the opportunities are available to people and to encourage them to take advantage of health programs through special incentives and benefits.

            “In difficult times, all benefits take on more value,” said Darling. She argued that people would utilize free or low-cost programs such as company gym memberships, nurse hotlines, generic and mail order medications, and free employee psychology sessions. Darling stated that instead of foregoing care in the present recession, people needed to manage their care. And employers should help them with that.

            But are employee benefits the only factor affecting people’s ability to get healthier? Rieker argued, “The question then becomes--which people?  That's why income, race and class are important to know.  Those with the greater resources and options always take advantage of trends and encouragement to make healthier choices.”

            The NBGH said that it did not pay attention to factors such as race, gender, annual income, or prior health issues because none of these things had a significant impact on the data.

            “We had very little difference in responses from people due to ethnicity or geography. The disparities are fairly insignificant when you work at large employers. It’s fairly homogeneous,” said NBGH survey conductor, Karen O. Marlo, the director of benchmarking and analysis at Institute on Health Care Costs and Solutions.

            There may be little variance amongst the sample group that the NBGH surveyed in their study, however, it is important not to forget that they are surveying people who have retained their jobs throughout the economic slump—which is a lot to say, nowadays. Therefore, their profile sample is not accurate of a random sample of the U.S. population. Factors such as family size, savings, family support, education, geographical location, and ethnicity can play a key role in determining how a person views health and its priority in their lives.

            This means that we should not brush aside the notion that factors such as race influence a healthy lifestyle, merely because the NBGH report says so.

            But Rieker doesn’t argue that employers could do more for their workers. She said, “Of course there are many ways that employers can contribute to health with a variety of policies from work load, participatory decision making, cafeteria choices, anti smoking campaigns, on-site day care, ‘green buildings,’ easy access to exercise facilities and family friendly policies.”

            Darling credits her organization’s push for greater employer participation in health status as part of human nature.

            “It’s getting back to Basics,” said Darling, “Paying attention to what matters.”

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Mirrored in Reflections

This article is a rewrite of the original. I wrote it to reflect a different approach to reporting on the same event. Below is the “oppression story,” focusing on the death of Edwards’s father and the symbolism of this event in the rest of her life. The previous story that I wrote last week was the consensus story: it was from the official perspective and less opinionated than the one below.

             “He will not walk, he is brain dead. He will not walk, he is brain dead,” Elizabeth Edwards said, lifting her eyes off the page of her new memoir that she read aloud to an audience of 300 people Thursday night at the Willard Hotel in downtown Washington, D.C.

            Edwards chose to begin her book talk on Reflections, by focusing on the stroke that hospitalized her father in 1990. She emphasized the shock that she felt upon discovering her father’s mortality.

            Edwards describes the picture of her father that forms in her mind from childhood: a man of extremely fit physique with rippled muscles that could do everything and be everywhere at once; a man who was a hero in everything that he did.

            Of course this is the little girl in Edwards, creeping to the surface. The little girl who idolized her father and saw him in his outward perfection. As Edwards reads out loud from the pages of her book, the crack in her voice and the tears in her eyes are reminiscent of her years of innocence, but not just as a young girl. She is really nostalgic for something else she has lost. Yes, her tears are formed with the memory of her father’s limp body, as he lay in the hospital bed, immobile. But they are also shed for the fairy-tale life she no longer believes she is living.

            “Sometimes when we face hurdles in our lives, we just want to turn around and go back to the life we were living before,” said Edwards, speaking from her experience. “Sometimes our lives are not the straight lines we expected.”

            Although, in context, this quote is directly referring to Edwards’s struggle with her father’s illness and the doctors’ hopeless diagnosis, the words seem more relevant to Edwards’s present family life—something that she is hesitant to discuss and, quite frankly, avoids at all cost.

             (Edwards refused to speak to several news outlets including the Associated Press while in Washington, due to the media’s refusal to comply with her request to avoid discussing her husband’s infidelity.)

            The scene that Edwards reads, while waiting at her father’s bedside, is emotion packed with more feeling and meaning as she reads it now, than there ever was back in 1990 at the time of the event. Now, as Edwards describes her efforts to drench her face in cold water in order to rid her body of the heat that threatened to suffocate her, it is impossible not to see a parallel between her fear and disbelief at that time in the hospital and her similar disbelief and humiliation at the discovery of her husband’s indiscretions.

            It is easy for an outsider to see why an event that would have a great affect on any daughter would have an even greater impact on Edwards, because of the intensity of her respect for her father. This respect that Edwards described over and over again was symbolic of her trust and stability in life that the stroke shattered. The mirage dissolved and in its place, a dying man lay sprawled out before her.

            Edwards saw the failure of her father’s health as a way in which her faith had failed her. She described her religious beliefs before her father’s accident as strong and determined to believe in a god she could pray to and trust to provide for her needs and answer her prayers. She believed in a god who protected the innocent.

            “My vision of my god was a god to whom I could pray. That was clearly not the case,” said Edwards.

            Not anymore, anyway. After her father’s hospitalization, Edwards said that she really struggled with her faith and the cliché human question: why do bad things happen to good people? But it appears that after her long struggle, she simply threw in the towel.

            “There was no one to blame but nature,” noted Edwards, saying that although she could have easily decided to peg her accusations on God, she chose not to.  Instead, Edwards said that she had to readjust her idea of god. This is something that she continues to do as life changes and evolves. Therefore, she seems to think that God changes as well. It’s convenient.

            Taking advice from Bill Moyer’s Genesis program, Edwards said that she found her own answers to her questions. Edwards said, “I realized that you don’t have the God you want, you have the God you have.

            “I realized that I had a God, instead, who promised me salvation if I lived a good life,” said Edwards. She admitted that this may not synch with everyone’s set of religious beliefs, but they are hers.

            So recently, when her fairy tale marriage lay before her in ruins, Edwards chose to find her own answers, just as she had back in 1990.

            Her answer then was to fight for her father’s life, and it worked. Confident that her father’s “brain dead” diagnosis was incorrect, a surprising perspective considering her husband’s affiliation with the Democratic Party, Edwards told the doctors they were wrong and she refused to take her father off life support. He later went on to live 18 more years, regaining his ability to speak, walk, drive, and even dance again.

            Her answer now, is perplexing. “You can’t just find out someone else’s recipe for change,” Edwards said. “You have to find your own answers.”

            So she has decided to treat her husband’s affair with a level of professional resilience that borders on denial.  She says that no situation is ever perfect, however, if you readjust your expectations, you can still live a “majestic life.”

            “Until the day that I think I’m perfect I am not going to expect perfection from others,” Edwards said.

            Despite her husband’s actions, Edwards said that she still believes she married the right man. Exemplifying her theory of acceptance, Edwards devoted only a small portion of her book to her husband’s affair and refused to play into the media’s desire to resort to “yellow journalism.” Edwards sees it as unnecessary. Or it’s just easier not to face the fact that her self-made faith failed her once more.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

New Plan Vying for the Limelight in Finance Reform

Washington, D.C. (5/27/2009) -- John L. Thornton, Chairman of the Brookings Institution and co-chairman of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation (CCMR), stated that the CCMR’s recommendations for the Obama administration, are not part of a fix-all plan.

            “We are under no illusion that this is the only answer,” said Thornton. “We are trying to make a substantial contribution to the discussion.”

            In a press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., the CCMR,  a non-partisan, independent research center released a new comprehensive report titled, “The Global Crisis: A Plan for Regulatory Reform.”

            The report, physically resembling a one inch bound book, contains 57 recommendations, summed up by the committee members in four critical objectives. These objectives include: Reducing systematic risk through regulation; increasing investor protection and market stabilization through further disclosure; defining accountability lines and transparency for consumers by creating a unified regulatory system; viewing these regulations on a global level and implementing an effective system of international financial oversight.

            “Our work is based entirely on empirical data,” said Thornton, recommending a need for Federal intervention on market regulation, especially when it pertains to anything directly affecting systemic risk.

            This recommendation hits a particularly tender spot in American politics, at a time when U.S. policy making is leaning towards increased federal power with the democratic majority in the Senate. Under the Obama administration, the republican representation in on Capitol Hill is suspicious of further governmental power, especially in financial regulation.

            But the CCMR committee members argued that increasing federal power would only level the playing field and ensure that all financial institutions were operating under the same regulations. And there was no one in the room willing to play the devil’s advocate.

            “That’s the problem with present economy; there is too much ill-defined responsibility,” said Hal S. Scott, Nomura Professor and Director of International Financial Systems at Harvard Law School. Scott offered federal regulation as the answer to overarching accountability to avoid “continued problems of the past.”

            Committee members noted that a past push for a financial council is no longer the most advantageous route of action.  Scott said that when a council in involved there are too many people working together with too many differing opinions.

 (The committee witnessed this in the development of their own plan, as they attempted to collaborate amongst their 25 members to reach a consensus to produce the final document of recommendations discussed at the press conference.)

Scott noted that a council can be an affective form of regulation when it is monitoring function of financial institutions. In this situation, there is a great need for collaboration between entities. However, when it comes to dealing with these institutions on an operational level, Scott believes that someone has to take responsibility. And for Scott, and much of the CCMR committee, that someone is the Feds.

One main item on the agenda for the CCMR is their recommendation for the listing and trading of certain standardized high-volume Credit Default Swaps (CDS’s) during exchanges. This would provide the government with greater transparency and liquidity of CDS markets, as well as a greater assurance to the American people of a presiding system of “checks and balances.”

The CCMR committee believes that within the CDS regulation reform, there needs to be a privacy clause: keeping the activity of hedge funds private, while at the same time, opening its dealings up for criticism and reprimand, should the federal government notice suspicious behavior that could be potentially compromising to the U.S. economy.

“Our plan dove-tails very well with Obama’s call for greater transparency,” said Glenn Hubbard, the Dean of Columbia Business School and co-chairman of the committee. Hubbard said that the committee has presented the Obama administration with the plan and it is keeping them updated on its development.

Hubbard added that he is optimistic that policy makers will embrace the bold reform, saying that when it comes to regulation, the Obama administration is using the word “encourage,” where the committee is using the word “require.” The words are a few degrees different in severity, but on the same page.

As far as the average American citizen goes, the CCMR’s recommendations may not appear to have any great immediate influence on day to day life. That being said, the committee hopes that the plan will increase economic stability, which would decrease the likelihood of future regulatory failure. It would highlight greater counter party positions, making them more apparent for the average citizen.

“There would suddenly be much morel light out there,” said Roel Campos, the partner in charge of Cooley Godward Kronish’s Washington, D.C. office and the fourth member of the panel representing the CCMR. He referred to the effects of the plan as creating a “new dawn” in the American economy.  Making the argument that consumer and investor psychology is a more important factor in economic stability than it appears in the process of policy making.

When people have more confidence in the economy in both the present and the future, they are more willing to invest. This may seem like a no-brainer, but it is vital to economic stability and will inevitably be an important factor in any plan for regulation reformation.

The CCMR continued to push its endorsement of government intervention in economic regulation, concluding with the idea that it is necessary for the federal government to be involved with increased regional regulation dialogue between the United States and other countries.

Scott said, “Since these are international agencies, regulations should exist at the highest level…the federal government should have the last say.”

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Meghan's Not the Only One...She Just Happens to Be in the Limelight

 

New York Times' Op-Ed. columnist, Judith Warner, writes in this morning's NYT:

 

"You can’t afford to tweet about licking Stephen Colbert’s face, or to call the Republicans “an awesome party to be part of,” as though the party of Lincoln were some kind of super-fun co-ed fraternity.

You can’t do these things because they’re just stupid and, when you’re already a sitting duck, particularly one who at some point in her career could very well rise to make a valuable contribution, you just can’t afford to look stupid.

You can’t because you end up sounding like a much younger, much dumber (which you’re not), much less savvy (which you are) version of Sarah Palin — whose candidacy was the one topic that you declared, smile dimming, off-limits to Colbert."

I've met Meghan McCain. Last fall I made a feeble attempt to support the political party that I thought I was voting for in the 2008 Presidential elections. One of the only other girls in my sorority with republican tendencies joined me volunteering down at the Boston Headquarters for the Republican Party.

(I did end up voting McCain, after much inner debate-- but at the time, I was both unenthusiastic about parts of his campaign, as I was timid to 'come out of the closet' as a campus republican at a very liberal Boston University).

Casey and I got dressed up in our cute little skirts, cardigans, and pearls (which we believed made us look very appropriately conservative) and headed down to Boylston Street. One of the perks of volunteering on this particular day was the chance to meet presidential candidate John McCain's daughter, Meghan, as she toured through the Boston area. 

So, therefore, we obviously had an agenda. I am sorry to say that my priorities may not have been in the  right place, however, my reaction to Meghan McCain was surprisingly similar to Judith Warner's. Meghan seemed to me to be just like any other young adult, college student exploring life. In essence: she didn't really have herself pulled together...yet. 

I emphasize the yet, here, because what  twenty-five year old really does have all of their ducks lined up in every area of their lives? (I'm not twenty-five yet so maybe I should withhold my judgement...) Ok, some kids seem to have the full package, but I would argue that underneath their outward perfection, they are still struggling with the same issues and learning the same lessons that everyone else is. They are simply putting a heck of a lot of energy into masking their immaturity. So, yes, Meghan McCain is young and perhaps stupid at times, but only because she is human. And on top of that, she is in a unique position that puts her in the public eye; something that most young adults in their twenties don't deal with.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Photo courtesy of www.topnews.in 

Still Their Cross to Bear: American War Veterans Fight to Keep Their Memorials

Washington D.C. (5/21/2009)--Seventy years ago, a group of World War I veterans erected a seven-foot tall veterans’ memorial in the Mojave Desert Preserve. The white cross, seen by The Veterans of Foreign Wars as a universal symbol of gratitude for military service, is now under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

            The National Press Club in Washington D.C. held a Media Advisory meeting Thursday to shed light on the issue and its upcoming Supreme Court Case, Salazar, et al. v. Buono.

            According to Major Joe Davis, the director of public affairs for the Washington Office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Frank Buono, a disgruntled former employee of the National Park Services (NPS), took offense to the cross memorial because of its presence as a religious symbol on government property. Buono joined forces with the ACLU in 2001 and filed a suit for the removal of the cross, claiming that it violated the establishment clause.

            An audience of about 25 people listened to the panelists argue that the memorial should be restored to its location where they believe it belongs. There was no representation by the opposition from the ACLU or the plaintiff.

            “This is something unusual,” said Kelly Shackelford, the founder of the Liberty Legal Institute in Texas. Shackelford, representing the veterans in the case, alluded to the ACLU’s attack on a war memorial as a bit out of character. The ACLU would not normally attack a historical monument. It’s “something near and dear to the hearts of veterans and their families and I believe a majority of the American people.” Historically Shackelford has fought cases to protect first amendment rights, religious freedom, and family values. 

            The Mojave Desert Cross was erected in 1934 and is one of five lawsuits that the Liberty Legal Institute cites as the result of recent attacks on veteran memorials. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with both sides of the argument, voting twice to allow the memorial to remain and twice to remove the religious object from public property. This upcoming vote could be a historical tiebreaker.

            The solemn faces of the veterans sitting in the audience revealed little physical reaction to Shackelford's remarks, however, the continuous swallows of many of the men and women in the room revealed that they were repressing quite a bit of inner emotion.

            Colonel Jim Sims, the national senior vice commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart emphasized that the issue here is not merely the removal of one memorial from federal property. It is about a much larger issue regarding the amount of honor and respect paid to those who have served our country. 

            For Henry and Wanda Sandoz, however, the fate of the Mojave Desert Cross has a slightly different significance. Mr. Sandoz, a small man in a wide-brimmed cowboy hat and a deep southern drawl, has been the unofficial caretaker of the memorial since 1984 when he gave his word to his dying friend Riley Bembry that he would maintain the memorial that Bembry built. The present threat to the cross does not just symbolize a lack of respect for fallen heroes, but it is also reminiscent of history.

            Over the past 25 years, Sandoz said that he has watched the memorial be torn down four times-- although he considers these incidents acts of sheer vandalism and, therefore, not of the same nature as the present circumstances.

            Now the U.S. government wants to take it down for good. When asked by the press if he got discouraged and why he didn’t just allow the memorial to be deconstructed, Sandoz was adamant in his reply.

             “I told them ‘hell no!’ because I put it (the statue) up to stay. I am a Christian person so for me to say that, I meant it,” said Sandoz.

            Colonel Sims voiced the consensus of the panel that the upcoming Supreme Court date in October will set a precedent for veteran war memorials. It could also have a large impact on the multitude of memorial sites within the region surrounding the nation’s capitol.

            Colonel Sims pointed out that there are religious symbols inscribed on almost every one of the gravestones in the nearby Arlington Cemetery, to name just one of the military tributes within the Washington D.C. area.

            Shackelford asked that if this particular Mojave Cross located out in the middle of nowhere is unconstitutional, then what is the federal government going to do about every other religious symbol on government memorials all over the United States? Will they be torn down as well?

            Mark Seavey from The American Legion agreed that the attack does not make sense.  He then accused the ACLU of attempting to ultimately “secularize all parts of American Life.” Seavey, who returned from serving in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2005, said that the Ninth Circuit of the Appeals Court has been a “keen and willing ally of the ACLU.”

            In 2005, The Ninth Circuit of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision to enforce the injunction against the memorial, covering the memorial in plywood until the time of intended removal. Subsequently, Liberty Legal appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the case this fall.

            In an act of precaution, Major Davis deliberately pointed out that American veterans and Liberty Legal are not calling the ACLU or the U.S. Congress “the enemy,” per se. They are merely fighting against an ideology and not an entity.

            “They (the ACLU) are just dead wrong on this particular issue,” said Davis.

            Shackelford added that he believes that the ACLU is so “blinded by their fervency that they don’t care about the collateral damage to veterans.”

            In the event that the Liberty Legal Institute Loses the Supreme Court Case, Shackelford felt that the results would be devastating.

            “The decision will wreak incredible havoc and hostilities towards veterans,” said Shackelford.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Photos Courtesy of www.christianpost.com and www.ericreedphoto.blogspot.com

Acceptance is Everything

Washington D.C. (5/22/2009)--It didn’t matter if you were a democrat or a republican; Elizabeth Edwards’s message to the American public seemed to be universal. When Edwards spoke Thursday night at the Willard Hotel in downtown Washington D.C., she warned women not to grow up expecting a fairy tale life. Instead, she said that life is all about making adjustments and being willing to “accept the new normal.”

            Sharing her struggles and her life coping skills by reading excerpts from her new book, Resilience, Edwards allowed herself to appear human to the three hundred people in attendance at the event sponsored by the National Press Club.

            “Sometimes when we face hurdles in our lives, we just want to turn around and go back to the life we were living before,” said Edwards, speaking from her own experience. “Sometimes our lives are not the straight lines we expected.”

            Edwards openly shared examples of situations in her life that have forced her to find a way to survive on her own. She did warned people, however, that they could not simply use her experience as a recipe for dealing with their own problems. Everyone has to figure it out for themselves.

            “You can’t just find out someone else’s recipe for change,” Edwards said. “You have to find your own answers.”

            When her athletic father suffered a stroke and was diagnosed as “brain dead” in 1990, Edwards was struck for the first time with feelings of intense grief. Edwards read from her book sections describing her panic when she received news from the doctors that her father would never walk again.

            Edwards said that she realized for the first time that she didn’t have to take one doctor’s viewpoint as reality. Instead, she learned to use skills that her father had taught her to realize that no situation is ever perfect, however, if you readjust your expectations, you can still live a “majestic life.”

            Edwards’s father lived eighteen years after his initial diagnosis predicted his death and eventually improved to the point where he was able to drive and speak—both accomplishments he was supposed to be unable to achieve.

            Edwards said that it was a good thing her beloved father wasn’t perfect and that she was able to see this through his illness, because as a witness to his struggles, she was able to learn that resilience is possible no matter what the circumstances are, no matter the imperfection.

            The death of Edwards’s sixteen year-old son, Wade in 1993, was a major obstacle that Edwards said forced her to re-evaluate her faith, as well as her perspective on life. Losing a child is never easy, as was noted by many of the audience members during the question and answer section of the meeting, but Edwards said that she was eventually able to accept Wade’s death and stop blaming God.

            Taking advice from Bill Moyer’s Genesis program, Edwards said that she found her own answers to her questions. Edwards said, “I realized that you don’t have the God you want, you have the God you have.” She wanted a God who wouldn’t let innocent people die. Edwards said that she had to accept the fact that innocent deaths occur due to human choice and are not always God’s will.

            “I realized that I had a God, instead, who promised me salvation if I lived a good life,” said Edwards. She admitted that this may not synch with everyone’s set of religious beliefs, but they are hers.

            After the death of her son, Edwards continued to face the challenges of life as a politician’s wife and as later as a breast cancer patient.

            “A political spouse has a completely derivative existence,” stated Edwards. Being truthful with her audience, Edwards said that her husband, John Edward’s, political career as a senator and presidential candidate is really the only reason anyone knows who she is.

             For that reason, she said that it was really important for her to find a hobby or an activity that was hers and no one else’s. So Elizabeth Edwards became a furniture collector—something she had always been interested in ever since she was growing up and her mother ran a thrift store. When Edwards could no longer fit the furniture she bought in her own home, she opened her own shop and called it The Red Window.

            Hobbies aside, Edwards, who is also an attorney and practiced law for 17 years, said that she is actually most proud of her role in life as a homemaker. Providing her children with a safe, accepting, and loving environment has proven to be Ms. Edwards’s most important role in life.

            Despite her husband’s infidelity, which Edwards chooses not to dwell on, she said that she still believes she married the right man. Exemplifying her theory of acceptance, Edwards devoted only a small portion of her book to her husband’s affair and refused to play into the media’s desire to resort to “yellow journalism.” Edwards declined interviews with the Associated press for this exact reason: the AP refused to refrain from questioning her about her husband’s mistress. Edwards sees it as unnecessary.

            “Until the day that I think I’m perfect I am not going to expect perfection from others,” Edwards said.

            Instead, Edwards noted that her husband of 30 years remains the center of her life and she, the center of his. His careful attention to her needs after Edwards was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer has meant a great deal to her.

            Together, Edwards said that she and her husband are raising their children to “learn to have wings.” Edwards believes that her role as a parent is to set an example for her children. For this reason, Edwards had remained public about many of her personal struggles and problems. To Edwards, it was important for her children to see that she is not hiding away just because she has incurable cancer and she is not crying in a corner because her marriage is imperfect.

            In fact, Elizabeth Edwards was doing the exact opposite. She opened herself up to the public in a manner that allowed for anyone to put themselves in her shoes. By doing so, she grabbed the attention of America.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Photo Courtesy of www.babble.com

The Sound of DC.

If I were to evaluate my expectations for  summer 2009 based on one of the five senses, my first day interning in Washington DC would be exactly what I had envisioned...just like it sounds.

Beginning with the clickety-clack of hundreds of high heels hitting the pavement, my day was starting off exactly how I had pictured it for the past half year. The moment I stepped out of my uncle's Monte Carlo Chevrolet , I became one of the masses headed into the capitol for the 9-5 work day. My new grey suit itched a bit as I headed down the escalator and tapped my Smart Card, pushing my way through the Metro system turn styles. Beep...clunk, clunk. Much smoother, I noted, than the Boston "T" system that I am accustomed to.

 The Metro shot out of no where and slid to a smooth stop directly in front of me...almost noiselessly. Suited bodies marched onto the train like military men. I followed, sheepishly pulling off the Banana Republic tag still attached to my pants. Itchiness resolved. 

"It's very quiet this morning," said the tanned, farmer like gentleman sitting beside me, with whom I had not initiated conversation. "I think they are all still asleep." Yup, I thought, so let's let them sleep. I smiled, however, and the man seemed satisfied with my response. He was a nice guy, I just didn't really feel like talking. My attention was focused on soaking it all in: the people, the atmosphere, the vibe of the men and women who run our capitol. Okay, maybe not THE men and women who run our nation- their preferred mode of travel is by limo or private vehicle- however, the backbone of Washington rides the Metro every morning and every evening. No I am one of them. 

The train whizzed quickly along the blue line, through Rosslyn, Metro Center, and finally arriving at Capitol South. I gingerly stepped off the train and, pretending I was a regular, I headed off with a determined air in the same direction as the kid who was walking in front of me. He was my age and dressed in a suit coat and tie...he was probably interning like me, right? Wrong. He got on another train and I turned around and retraced my steps.  

Faux pas numero uno. Oh well, I brushed it off- I'm new to this.

Standing at the top of the Metro stairway, I turned towards Independence Avenue. It was a straight shot to the Senate Building, the Library of Congress' Jefferson, Madison, and Adams buildings, as well as the Capitol Building across the way: my summer lay before me. I went to find a Starbucks. 

Rejuvenated with caffeine- which my close friends know is nothing but a code name for a "Venti Non-fat Vanilla Chai Latté"- I headed to the front steps of the LOC (Library of Congress) to meet my fellow NJC interns and start our tour. The steps of the colossal building, fashioned after Italian Renaissance architecture, were already occupied by a group of protesters. Carrying signs reading "Save our Babies" and "Though Shalt Not Kill" posters, about twenty people wearing red t-shirts posed a somewhat difficult obstacle to maneuver. My chai latté and my heavy brief case made me totter on my high heeled shoes. I should have left these ones in Vermont where they'll just sit in my sister's closet. 

The Library of Congress was breath taking. As the largest library in the nation, they receive over 22,000 items per day and they only keep around 11,000 for display. The large domed vestibules are intricately decorated with murals, etchings, engravings, and sculptures chiseled out of marble. Every aspect of the LOC represents an element of American history. Thomas Jefferson's entire collection of books- almost seven thousand volumes (this number may not be accurate) are sitting on shelves in the new library room on display in the Jefferson building. The most striking feature of the facility is the fact that we, the American people own the library. Therefore, as a student, I could request to read one of those very books that Jefferson gathered for his personal collection.

The LOC left me a bit tired from dodging stray elementary school students who had wandered off from their tour groups, so I quickly made a dash for the door when we were released for lunch. Out under the tame May sun, I went off to grab my first capitol lunch. 

Walking the Talk?

"You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a gay staffer." CNN reports tonight, quoting the director of a new film that's really shaking things up (and naming names)...

Kirby Dick includes this line in his new film titled Outrage that outs gay/homosexual politicians in Washington D.C. Mr. Dick actually says that the film does not actually "out" people, but merely reports on hypocrisy on capitol hill. Over a three year period of time, Mr. Dick's research team found hundreds of politicians who vote against gay rights in our country's legislature, however, they are actually gay themselves.

Mr. Dick says that this is hypocritical and harmful to thousands of gay Americans. For this reason, he is not afraid to show his film and he believes that it will actually aid the gay rights movement. 

But what about those names that Mr. Dick is including in his film? I am told that most of these people are not flamboyantly gay, and yet they are now exposed in full light to the American people. Yeah, so these people have the right to live the way they want to live...no doubt about it in my mind. And yes, perhaps they are voting in a hypocritical manner. But what politician isn't hypocritical? These people have the right to their privacy. And even if it is hurting their own future, it is their decision as to whether or not they want to change that. I think that the film could have been made without exposing the names of closeted homosexuals. The film is powerful, but when does that power over step its bounds and infringe on personal issues?

What about the reporters? Should we have reported on this hypocritical trend long ago? Or have we been tactful and respectful (despite tabloid reporting) and refrained from outing anyone? Are we to be reprimanded or applauded? 

I have no idea how much of this information on politicians' sexual tendencies is apparent to the public eye; I have no idea how many reporters knew certain politicians voting against gay rights who were actually gay themselves. I am totally clueless. But I do know that if it was me, I would want to make the decision myself. Just like announcing my wedding some day, or the birth of my first child. That is something that is mine and I want it to come from me. 

Amahoro & Ubumwe!

Translated, these two words in Kinyarwanda (the Bantu language of Rwanda) mean "Peace and Unity."

Plain and simple, the words are straightforward, yet, what they stand for is something almost impossible. It is a Utopian world that I have yet to see. I would argue that very few countries in this world today have achieved such significant degree of universal peace and unity amongst their people. It's something that we will strive to attain all of our lives. It is part of our humanity--our journey in life. As long as we are on the path towards this thing, we are good to go. 

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about the country of Rwanda in Africa. I knew that the 1994 genocide in Rwanda was devastating. I say "I knew" this (as if I could ever really know...I couldn't)  because I had been listening to stories about the country since high school. I had also read about it in several biographies. Then my 17 year old sister, Sarah, decided to go there this past February 2009. Now, the Rwanda had my full attention. Perhaps I should have cared more seven years ago when my high school started the Rwanda Educational Partnership with the country, but I can't look back. What matters is that I am discovering what matters now. 

 With a population growth rate of almost 3%, the country of Rwanda has one of the highest densities on the continent. With over forty percent of its population under the age of 14 years old, it is also a country of children. Children who have stories, many of which are stories of astonishing gravity for ones so young. 

These are the stories that I want to tell in my summer documentary. To correct myself, I will not be telling these stories myself. I will only be the vessel through which the stories are told. I am not a professional...ironically, I am more familiar with being in front of the camera than behind it. This piece--however scrappy and crude on my part--will be organic and a creation that is formed on its own, without constraints. 

The students from Harwood Union High School and the people of Rwanda are going to do all of the talking. I am just there to observe this unique relationship between a rural school in the Green Mountains and a similarly green country in Africa. The story is woven together by the fibers of relationships; friendships formed between people who are different...but not nearly as much as they thought.