It’s been almost three weeks since the May 9^th news of the Shriver —Schwarzenegger split.  I was working late and first saw the report on my Twitter feed.  I clicked on a link and read the terse joint statement.  After twenty-five years of marriage and four children, the couple was “amicably separating.” They were living apart while they worked “on the future” of their relationship.  The following day, the New York Times had a short article, deep into the first section, with the curious headline, “Schwarzenegger and Wife Say They Are Separating.”  I found it very strange that Maria Shriver’s name was omitted, and that she was relegated to the simple nomenclature of  “wife.”  The piece pointed out that Shriver had been instrumental in pushing Schwarzenegger over the top in his 2003 quest for the California governorship.  How?  By specifically defending him against allegations in the Los Angeles Times, detailing incidents of groping and inappropriate sexual behavior by six women in the Hollywood community.

My reaction to the breakup was shock, yet I was not totally surprised.  Throughout the years, my own opinion about their bond was always in the realm of incredulity.  I just didn’t get it.  The totally disparate politics would have been too much for me to get past.  The standard response to the coupling was the sexual attraction card. I didn’t relate to that either. Schwarzenegger’s thick-necked, cartoon muscularity struck me as totally unappealing.  I remember reading an interview with Shriver where she related that Schwarzenegger had once told her not to depend on him for all of her happiness and fulfillment.  The concept had validity, but it didn’t come across as very friendly.

With the revelation that Schwarzenegger had fathered a child born five days after his youngest son with Shriver, the story moved to the front page.  Those looking for a reason to explain the sudden divergence of paths got an unambiguous one.

In response to the scenario, everyone will bring their own emotional histories and perceptions to the table.  Some have criticized Shriver for not giving more credence to Schwarzenegger’s accusers back in 2003.  They have portrayed it as the “stand by your man” syndrome.  Others have pointed out that the dynamics in a marital relationship are never that easily dissectible.  Elizabeth Edwards and her choices were a case in point.

Shriver has been doing activist work in the field of women’s concerns.  She created The Women’s Conference, has been on the front lines speaking about Alzheimer’s disease, and has promoted equality for those with special needs.  She has written numerous books addressing these topics.  She has spoken movingly about the death of her best friend — her mother.  She became an orphan when her father died in January of this year.  With the premature demise of several cousins, loss is not new to her.

I remember her wedding.  It was the same year as Caroline Kennedy’s nuptials, and five years following the Charles and Diana extravaganza.  Like other women across the country, Shriver has evolved from a bride — to a woman who has transversed decades of life experience.

Shriver’s next steps will be closely watched.  How will she deal with her grief, sacrifices, adjustment, and entering a new phase of life?  Yes, she has money, famous friends, and plenty of connections — but at the end of the day, she’s another woman approaching 60, trying to redefine her life.

Schwarzenegger’s concept of not basing your happiness and security on any one person makes solid sense.  However, I doubt that Shriver expected to learn that lesson in such a difficult and exposed way.

A recent op-ed discussed the ambivalent feelings Shriver had about relinquishing her broadcasting career when Schwarzenegger took office.  Shriver recently posted a video on You Tube, asking other women to speak about how they deal with transition.

At this point, Shriver no longer has to bow to convention.  It’s been clear in other circumstances that she has her own voice.  Now, she may feel totally liberated to use it.  She has a strong example of resilience from her mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, to build on.  I look forward to seeing the contributions that she will be making to society, and the new horizons she will be pursuing.  Her high profile puts her in a place where others will look to her as an example.

I don’t doubt that she will find her footing, and come out stronger on the other side.

This article originally appeared on the women’s health site EmpowHER.

Health care costs wouldn’t be so high and there wouldn’t be so much concern about the cost of a public health care plan if so many Americans weren’t so sick.

Right?

On Monday, the New York Times reported on the hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic waste being dumping into the nation’s water supply by coal-fired power plants. In the article, “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of the Waterways“, Charles Duhigg reported:

“For years, residents here complained about the yellow smoke pouring from the tall chimneys of the nearby coal-fired power plant, which left a film on their cars and pebbles of coal waste in their yards. Five states — including New York and New Jersey — sued the plant’s owner, Allegheny Energy, claiming the air pollution was causing respiratory diseases and acid rain.

So three years ago, when Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant’s air emissions, environmentalists were overjoyed. The technology would spray water and chemicals through the plant’s chimneys, trapping more than 150,000 tons of pollutants each year before they escaped into the sky.

But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of waste water containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.

‘It’s like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them instead,’ said Philip Coleman, who lives about 15 miles from the plant and has asked a state judge to toughen the facility’s pollution regulations. ‘We can’t escape.’

Even as a growing number of coal-burning power plants around the nation have moved to reduce their air emissions, many of them are creating another problem: water pollution. Power plants are the nation’s biggest producer of toxic waste, surpassing industries like plastic and paint manufacturing and chemical plants, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data.”

If the air pollution caused by coal-fired plants has already been linked to chronic asthma and COPD, just imagine the result of ingesting large quantities of the same toxins in your drinking water.

In an article for Care2.com, Melissa Breyer reported on the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s Disease.

A study by eminent oncologists Dr. Leonard Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden concludes that there is a link between “the world’s biggest selling herbicide, glyphosate (commonly known as Roundup, marketed by Monsanto), to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer.”

The following video clip is from the documentary “The World According to Monsanto” which took an in-depth look into the bio-chemical companies impact on agriculture, the environment and health.

And while we’re discussing Monsanto we certainly can’t forget their efforts to bury the truth about rBGH (bovine growth hormone) in milk.

There are many, many more instances of links between toxic waste and disease but I think that you get the picture.

Corporations have been dumping toxins in the water, air and food supply with impunity. The American public has grown sicker which has in turn driven up health care costs. Health care insurers are profiting from this illness. And now the corporate lobbyists and insurance industry spin machine are waging a full scale assault on health care reform.

Dear Members of Congress and President Obama,

if you really want to reform health care please take a comprehensive approach to this problem. How can you not pass health care reform with a public option when the government agencies which were supposed to protect the environment, agriculture and public health have failed us so miserably.

The previously cited New York Time article shows that the Riverhead International Coal Plant in Macon GA has been cited for 124 violations, paid $0 in fines and hasn’t been inspected since 1979. 1979 – 30 years ago.

Let the teabaggers and birthers rant, rave and spread lies about “death panels” but don’t give in to the insanity.

Americans can diet, exercise, visit the doctor and take all the pills we want. But if the biochemical and power industries continue to poision the air, water & food, we will grow sicker and sicker. Health care costs will both bankrupt consumers and increase the federal deficit. And in the end, we will die. Those without health care coverage will just die much quicker.

Congress must pass health care with a public option and if you want to reduce costs take on the corporations that have contributed to this crisis. Fine them. Shame them if you have to. Expose them for the greedy, heartless profiteers that they have become.

How dare Wellpoint sue the State of Maine to ensure that it is guaranteed a profit!

Enough is enough.

originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation

Finally, the health insurance reform debate turned its focus — albeit briefly — on women and girls. About time. Women make most of the health care decisions in American families, and because of our longevity we tend to use more health care services as well. Further, because a persistent wage gap deprives many women of fair pay, women also have a harder time paying for health care and health insurance. And, to add insult to injury, insurance is typically more expensive for women. Without commonsense reform, insurance companies could continue the discriminatory practice of gender rating, and women could continue to pay monthly premiums ranging from four percent to 48 percent higher for individually-purchased health care plans than men. FLOTUS Michelle Obama’s first foray into the health care debate was quite welcome, and could not have come at a better time.

Enjoy a clip, and read the full text below.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

With First Lady Michelle Obama leading the charge to put the struggle for work/life balance front and center, the issue is finally getting top-level attention. Although both men and women in American society are overstretched (working two weeks longer per year than their Japanese counterparts and several weeks more than Europeans), it is women who bear the greatest burden of trying to be all things to all people. Stress is prevalent as women strive to parcel out portions of time to the spouse, children, aging parents, their communities, and lastly…themselves.

A whopping 87 percent of polled women would like more equilibrium between the competing areas of their lives. Two professionals, at the highest echelon of achievement, have entered the conversation with their new book Womenomics. Co-authors Katty Kay (BBC) and Claire Shipman (Good Morning America) have subtitled their insights, Write your own rules for success; How to stop juggling and struggling and finally start living and working the way you really want.

The writers posit that “womenomics” will benefit the “entire working world,” and that there is a “brewing workplace revolution.” They point to the benefit of flexibility over promotions, the value of time as the “new currency,” and espouse a phrase redefining the old “having it all” as “The New All.” Kay, the Washington correspondent and anchor for BBC World News America, is the mother of four. Shipman, the senior national correspondent for ABC News’ Good Morning America, is the mother of two. The women undertook the book in response to a confluence of factors. It was a reaction to The Harvard Business Review article “Off-Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success” by Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce, “The Opt Out Revolution” by Lisa Belkin, and their own career conflicts.

The genesis of the book was explained to me when I spoke to Kay by telephone. We discussed if the book’s pointers could be relevant to women who did not have college degrees and were not climbing the “corporate ladder.” Kay maintained that all women are looking for more control over their schedules. For her and Shipman the “New All” took on the meaning of enough professional success balanced by time and freedom.

Most of the statistics in the book reflect the demographic that Kay and Shipman set out to interview and study. Nationally, women hold 57 percent of the Bachelor’s Degrees and 58 percent of all graduate degrees. 46 percent of management is comprised of women. As for the overall workforce, women are approaching the 50 percent mark.

Women stepping up to the plate and asking for what they want, and getting employed on their terms is the ideal. A frequently quoted authority in the book is Dr. Kathleen E. Christensen of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which funds studies on families and the workplace. Christensen has given the modern women’s role in family life a new nomenclature: “The meaning maker.” She explains, “It’s the women who basically cultivate and sustain the rituals in the family.” This applies to women whether they are climbing a corporate ladder or working in lower paying service jobs. Christensen said, “Employed women increasingly feel more entitled to say, ‘I need and I want to work in a certain way.’” She pointed to the fact that “the one-size-fits-all workplace doesn’t work.”

Some employers are getting the picture. The Continental Airlines reservations department in Houston has allowed 600 agents to work form home. 25 percent of the staff gets an extra day off per week, on a rotating basis. Studies have shown that a majority of flextime workers have improved productivity and greater commitment to the job.

Regardless of a women’s level or field, the commonality lies in how to handle the stress that comes with juggling combined responsibilities. The Mayo Clinic’s article, ”Work-life balance: Ways to restore harmony and reduce stress” includes many of the same pointers outlined in Womenomics. Following are some of the quandaries that Kay and Shipman believe are problematic, and their proposed remedies.

• The inability to say no because of the need to please.
Women should keep a list of top commitments, and let go of saying yes to avoid conflict. Buzz phrases such as, “My schedule won’t let me take that on” or invoking the “family policy” clause (which includes the sanctity of date night, child’s rehearsal, parent birthday) are simple ways to side step unwanted obligations.

• Work Smarter
Recognize that time is a critical commodity. Use it to zone in on top concerns. When you compile a list, it must reflect what is most essential. Focus on the top five, and accept that you can’t get it all done. Set a big picture goal for the month, and even for the year. Make “assume control of your schedule” a mantra.

• The Tyranny of “Professional and Domestic Perfection”
Delegate, and be aware of when what you are achieving is “good enough.” Set limits. That includes tech boundaries as well. Cutting back on constant e-mail perusal and Blackberry usage can free up time for relationships.

During the election, candidate Obama frequently reflected on the strong females in his life. As Kay said to me, “You have a President whose wife gets it.” Since taking up residence in the White House, Michelle Obama has publically advocated for sick leave for parents, flexible work hours, and on-site childcare.

The “womenomics” theory of “writing our own rules for success” and getting past “internal obstacles” can give us a foothold on ratcheting down the pressure. In the meantime, let’s hope the marketplace gets in step with the realization that productivity, loyalty, and retention goes up with family-friendly policies.

This article previously appeared on Empowher.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Have you heard the latest phrase from the McCain-Palin stomp speech? It consists of two very powerful words. “I’m angry.” To place the statement in context, Palin has said, “There is anger about the dealings of insider lobbyists, anger about the greed of Wall Street, and there’s anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite, and there is anger about voter fraud.” McCain has himself said, “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”

However, the issue I have with the “angry” statement is this: What are all these angry people supposed to do with their anger? The election is not until November 4th. Until then, are folks to let their anger simmer until it boils over into something ugly? God forbid McCain actually loses the election— then what are they to do with their anger? Are they to do as some extremists in the McCain-Palin crowd have suggests when they shouted “Off with his head,” Kill him! Get him!?”

McCain may want to say that he is utterly appalled, and state that he totally rejects Congressman John Lewis’ reference to John Wallace, in his condemnation of McCain’s campaign rally etiquette. However, the fact is, if McCain refuses to fiercely and immediately— on-the-spot—denounce such statements that come from the crowd at his campaign rallies, he is inadvertently condoning them.

I believe that that Congressman John Lewis—in his statement that “McCain and Palin were sowing seeds of hatred and division”— was simply saying that to allow such unbridled anger and hatred to bubble up and fester is dangerous, and has the potential—if unchecked—to lead to violent acts on the part of some. The campaign has a responsibility to not incite it, allow it or condone it.

Instead of pulling back on the rhetoric that solicited very troubling outbursts at their rallies last week, McCain and Palin decided to step-up the intensity this week by launching a new “You’re angry and I’m angry too” campaign slogan. It’s an interesting approach, but is it the right approach?

I believe that how individuals conduct their campaign is an indication of how they’ll conduct their presidency. Since its inception, the tone and tenor of the Obama campaign has consistently been one of hope and inclusion—focusing on what unites us, not divides us. Yes, the Obama campaign is pushing back against the McCain attacks with attacks of their own. However, within the last few weeks, the entire tone and tenor of the McCain campaign has grown increasingly cynical and mean-spirited—even inciting the “angry mob” effect at its rallies.

Maybe McCain hopes history won’t repeat itself in his case—or perhaps he just doesn’t know— but historical precedence demonstrates that the “angry” candidate doesn’t win.

Six months ago, Obama referred to some small town Americans as “bitter.” As a result, he was lambasted, labeled an elitist and suffered a dip in the polls as a result. Now, McCain and Sarah Palin are stirring up their crowds by proudly proclaiming “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”

Hey, I understand. We all get angry. Judeo-Christian teaching instructs us to “be angry but sin not.” So fine—McCain, Palin and their audiences have every right to be angry—that’s fine. It’s the “sin not” part of the equation that worries me.

Reviews are in on the McCain vs. Obama Debate…

Obama strikes back on McCain’s Iraq policy…

Is Healthcare a Right or a Responsibility?

Joe Biden on NBC’s Today Show…

Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the debate…

CNN Post Debate…

If there is one thing that really gets under my skin, it’s John McCain referring to EVERYONE as “my friends” – It feels condescending to me. Last night he said, “My Friends” twenty times….

McCain seems to be a little ADD trying to answer this Environmental questions…I do like what Obama had to say.

Also See:

Fact-Checking the Debate

From The Mahahblog…

Flipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC, it seems on the whole a consensus is forming among the bobbleheads that this debate was not a “game changer.” McCain needed a “decisive win,” Wolf Blitzer says, and he didn’t get it.

McCain was less dismissive of Obama as in the first debate — I don’t believe he said Obama “didn’t understand” this time — but he still seemed condescending, and I don’t think this is helping him.

New York Times…

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama provided enough direct answers or personal, emotive moments during Tuesday night’s debate, according to three audience members who posed questions to them, though Mr. Obama won quite a bit of goodwill by staying afterward to shake hands and sign autographs while Mr. McCain left.

MyDD…

A few initial impressions. First, and most important, John McCain failed to make the most of this opportunity — one of his last — to fundamentally change the direction of this race. Nothing, and I mean nothing, occurred tonight that will put McCain back in the driver’s seat of this campaign, let alone help him retake a lead.

Beyond that, McCain had some serious optics problems during the debate. McCain’s lurking in the background was truly Cheney-esque, and that’s just not a good likeness for the GOP nominee. And McCain’s extreme derisiveness towards Barack Obama, unwilling to call him by name, instead only calling him “that one,” seriously undercuts the notion that McCain can be a cool operator on the world stage. Note also that Obama’s jokes did connect with the audience — he got a nice chuckle towards the end of the debate when he said that Michelle could easily list all of the things he doesn’t know — while the only laugh McCain earned during all of his botched jokes over the course of the debate was from Tom Brokaw.

As for memorable exchanges, Obama speaking about his mother stands out in particular, though this retort to McCain, which Josh caught, was highly effective as well.

So.  What did you think?  Let me know in comments.

See more from this young man here.

Now they’re upset because PBS’ Gwen Ifill, who is scheduled to release a book in January which analyzes the new era of black political leaders (obviously including a section on Barack Obama), is moderating tomorrow night’s Vice Presidential debate.

They want Sarah Palin to appear on Oprah. They don’t want Sarah Palin to be questioned by Gwen Ifill.

Hmm!

Let me see, the neocons are trying to discredit both Oprah Winfrey and Gwen Ifill.

What do Oprah and Gwen Ifill have in common?

?????

Still Thinking …….

Still Thinking …….

Ah yes, they’re both members of that evil, elitist, left wing media.

Well, if Sarah Palin is worried about Gwen Ifill being biased she can always ask John McCain to sit in the audience. That way he’ll be able to run up on the stage and answer any questions that he feels are too hard for Sarah to handle. After all, Sarah has been listening to Joe Biden since she was in the second grade and seems to be in awe of his experience.

This is getting to be too ridiculous

Related posts:

Ifill’s Book Is No Secret.

Oprah: Sarah Palin Can Come On My Show After The Election

Should we give the people’s money to the failed banks, and hope they don’t continue to fail?  Or, give the people’s money to the people, and know they will spend it, buy homes, pay off mortgages and debt?  Give the people the opportunity of really having the American dream.

This is from a comment on a post I did on the Bailout for The Care2 Election Blog.  It makes a lot more sense to me than what is being offered now.  What do you think?

From Care2 member Laura C…

Yes, we resent it and have good reason. Those in power taking high salaries from us are never made to pay. The following email some of you may have received. It is the best idea I’ve heard and should be sent to every congress person and the president.

Now here is the idea of how to save the economy ………

I’m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I’m in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a ‘We Deserve It Dividend’.

To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000 bonifide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a ‘We Deserve It Dividend’.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let’s assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage, housing crisis solved. Repay college loans, what a great boost to new grads Put away money for college, it’ll be there Save in a bank, create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car, create jobs Invest in the market , capital drives growth.

Pay for your parent’s medical insurance, health care improves Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean, or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we’re going to re-distribute wealth let’s really do it…instead of trickling out puny rebates.

If we’re going to do an $85 billion bailout, let’s bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here’s my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn’t.

Can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion ‘We Deserve It Dividend’ more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
And all those who lost jobs when these companies folded will have a new financial beginning!!!!
Is there a better plan than this?????

And, this is what I think…

I was thinking the same thing. It not only would be better for the people of this country (both struggling and not)…But, it kick starts the economy almost immediately. It seems a total no brainer, AND it’s a guarantee election win for the person who suggests it. This money would trickle UP much faster than anything would ever trickle down (we know trickle down does not work).

There is no way the economy wouldn’t make a quick recovery with a plan like this. It’s a win win for the entire country. WHY DOESN’T ANYONE SEE THAT? Is it because of all the money given to politicians from financial institutions? That’s the only explanation I can think of. I’m so sick that our government is willing to use 800 Billion of our tax dollar for something that (I don’t care what they say) really doesn’t affect or help the average American. Invest in the people of this country.

This is the perfect opportunity for REAL CHANGE!!! Why is Obama not taking advantage of this opportunity to help the entire country? Why is he just following along with a Bush plan for the economy??? Why is he agreeing with McCain??? What kind of change is he really offering? I will vote for him…But, I am VERY disappointed in him.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  With all this money, why can’t we bail out the people first, and let the people bail out the banks?