We share our lives, but live in different worlds

I haven't been up for blogging much this week because my aunt passed away. I thought I'd share a column I wrote for the Star-Gazette in Elmira, N.Y., last year.

The sad part of it is that between the time that I filed this piece in early May 2008 and the time it was published June 1, Wendy Thibeault of Cortland was murdered by her husband, Randy. The couple were acquaintances of my wife and I. He was convicted in March and is imprisoned in Attica. The epidemic of domestic violence continues.

Here's the column:

We share our lives,
but live in different worlds

• Men may not mean to strike fear in women, but they do.

The woman slept soundly, alone in her bed.

A dark figure slipped into the room. The man crept closer, reaching out.

She awoke with a start. Fear flashed across her face as she coiled back. Adrenalin pumped into her veins.

Then, the face looming over her snapped into focus.

"Oh my God, you scared me."

"Sorry," I said. "I was just trying to get the remote."

That'll teach me to sneak up on a black belt, even if it is my wife.

But aside from the dangers of a potential backfist strike, seeing the look of fear and panic in the face of someone I loved, I had to ask myself: "Why have men and women become such enemies?"

It's a question that has taken me 10 years to learn to ask.

It was 10 years ago that my wife, Amy, took her first karate lesson. I remember the day she took the test for the lowest grade belt — yellow. She had been so nervous she wouldn't let me go to cheer her on. When she came home, she popped open a beer and relaxed, satisfied to have made the cut. She had started her journey, and I was happy for her.

While I've never taken a formal karate class in my life — running had been my athletic passion — Amy's journey into martial arts and self-defense became my journey, too. In the years that followed, I watched many belt tests. I made friends with her instructors. I heard stories of women who had been attacked and the fears many women face constantly. I skimmed through the books Amy used for self-defense classes that she left around the house.

Before all this, I was probably like most men, unaware that women may share their lives with us, but live in an entirely different world. As Gavin DeBecker explains in his book, "The Gift of Fear," men very rarely worry that someone could hurt them. But a woman can feel that threat almost constantly.

That's because of men.

When I crept up to the bed to snag the remote, I had triggered one of the iconic fears for women — that of a man standing over them as they sleep, about to attack. There are lots of similar images: the man following the solitary woman on a jogging path, the man slipping a drug into a drink, the man staring through a window. For more of such images, check out the Lifetime Movie Network.

The media generate many of these images and sell them for a quick buck. Women are beaten, raped and abused on television for entertainment. At the end of the story, the bad guy usually loses but only after a celebration of his violence. I can't help but think there are some men who watch these images, taking notes, planning what they would do differently.

Now, this is why I am so impressed with Amy. Not only does she despise the images of violence on television, she has found a way to help women fight back against this culture of violence. She teaches women how to stand up for themselves, how to be alert to danger signals, how to escape and survive. What instructors of karate and self defense do is important, but it's only half the job.

To put an end to violence against women — either from a stranger or from a domestic partner — men must accept their responsibility. Because, sadly, if all women were to stand up tomorrow and declare violence against women must stop, it would still continue. But if all men also declared violence against women must stop, it would stop.

Could it be that simple? Let's try this. I ask that all men reading this column to promise to not hurt or threaten women. OK? Done.

No, it isn't that simple. Although many of you who read the previous paragraph might have shrugged and said, "Sure, no problem," there are some of you who are the problem. Some of you recently put that look of fear and panic into the face of your wife or partner. And when you did it, you felt satisfaction. You figured you were winning whatever conflict you were in. But what you must understand is that when you create that reaction in the face of someone you are supposed to love, it has nothing to do with love, but with power and control.

Some of you may even think you can make that promise but in weaker moments become the insistent, the obsessive, the stalker, the controller. You can't understand why the object of your desires just can't see how perfect your life together will be. And you are probably on an express train into a world of trouble. If you read "The Gift of Fear" — and all men really should — you might recognize yourself. And there are other men who just don't realize how dangerous the world can be for a woman.

No, ending violence against women is not as easy as just asking for everyone to make a promise. But doesn't it seem so wrong that it can't be?

So then, if we can't get the ideal of all women standing up against violence and all men standing up against violence, let's try something else. What if all those — men and women — who are willing to see the danger that must be faced, took a stand? That might make a difference.

At the very least, men and women wouldn't be enemies, but allies.

Ed Bond is a (former) copy editor at the Star-Gazette and an adjunct faculty member of the journalism department at Ithaca College. His commentary appears periodically on this page.

City:

State:

Section: Opinion

Page: 12

From: Staff

Source: Staff

Publication: Star-Gazette

Waiting for the other shoe to drop

From the AP:

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees , in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

"The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

"An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund ."

... But as I read this, it just sounds like yet another in a long string of ethical complaints against Palin. Surely it would be not more than a nuisance to someone who has battled in the public spotlight for a while. This can't be the big scandal on the horizon that may have prompted her to quit.

I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. The full story will probably emerge as she withdraws from Alaskan government.

Roots of democratic change

I just found this passage from an AP story on Iran's political turmoil fascinating:

The cleric got tears in his eyes as he spoke of how Islam's Prophet Muhammad "respected the rights" of his people. He said the founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "would always say that if the system is not backed by the people, nothing would stand."

It is significant to me that the cleric, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, invokes the name of Khomeni, a man vilified for years in the United States.

That reminds me yet again, that if there is to be democratic reform in Iran, it needs to be IRAN's version of democracy, a version they struggle to create on their own, rather than one imposed on them by outside forces.

Highway philosophy

A bumper sticker spotted by Amy during our drive back from New Jersey:

"Don't believe everything you think."

Makes you think ... again ... doesn't it?

Re: Contact Form Submission

I'll be off line for a couple of days, but I just got an e-mail from state Sen. George Winner, so I thought I'd share it. Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?:

"I've heard from many of you over the past several weeks on the Senate leadership standoff -- in support and in strong opposition.

"While the leadership issue has been settled, for now, the more important (and more difficult) work of ensuring far-reaching changes in New York government remains ahead of us.

"So I'm glad for this chance to provide an update.

"First and foremost, please know that I've appreciated your participation. I'm grateful for your input, and I'm glad that we've had the chance to share some direct give-and-take during this important time in New York government.

"As I've said to you before, we're trying to dramatically change the longstanding culture of Albany politics and government -- in ways that many of you have been demanding for years -- and it's not coming easy.

"Most importantly, I'm glad that you've been paying attention. That's critical at the moment.

"Because now we need to pay attention to New York government like never before.

"The newly reconstructed Senate Democratic leadership means one thing for certain: We've returned to one-party, one-region, downstate control of New York government.

"That concerns me. This year's state budget -- the largest tax increase in state history, billions of dollars in new spending, no upstate job creation initiatives, you name it -- still stands as proof that upstate New York's taxpayers, employers, workers, and families don't get a fair shake in a state government under one-party, one-region, downstate control.

"Our communities can't afford to return to the kind of state government that we witnessed during the first six months of 2009 and that produced the last four weeks of standoff in the Senate.

"But now there's one real difference, which gives me hope. Our effort since June 8th to bring far-reaching reform to the Senate has given true momentum to enacting the kind of legislative changes that good government advocates have been demanding for years.

"Next week, the newly reconstructed Senate Democratic leadership has pledged action on the broad reforms we've put in motion since June 8th.

"Now we have to hold them to their word.

"We have the first chance we've ever had to remake the Senate -- to take power away from the leadership, to create a climate of cooperative action, and to ensure that upstate New York communities always have the voice in New York government they deserve.

"That's my No. 1 goal in the days ahead.

"You've told me that New York government needs to change, and I agree. We're trying, and I'll keep doing my best to keep you informed. I hope that we can stay in touch.

"It's been good to hear from you. Thank you for your interest, your patience, and, most of all, your willingness to share your own opinions and suggestions."

NYS Senate George Winner
53rd District

Hooray! It's over

So, the man who started it all, freshman state Sen. Pedro Espada, has rejoined the Democrats to end the stalemate.

Doesn't seem like anybody got anything out of this crisis, except Espada, who has now won the title of Senate majority leader.

For all the damage that has been done, in the end this seems like the entire affair was coordinated to expand Espada's power.

I am grateful the crisis is over - except the looming battle over lieutenant governor - but am left with a bad taste in my mouth at seeing the ugliness our state legislators are capable of.

Why I write this blog

As I've become more wrapped up in talking about the crisis in Albany, I had to step back a second and ask whether it was worth all the time and energy I was putting into this issue.

Then I was reminded of the two principles that I wanted my blog to bring into public discussions of the issues: compassion and reason.

So, as you skim through my blog postings you may notice the variety of subjects and wonder how I pick what I write about.

My hope is that my allies in these discussions are compassion and reason. So, therefore, my enemies are hatred and stupidity.

I believe Albany fits into the second category.

Paterson's move to pick Lt. Gov.

So, the Republicans are already promising to put up a legal fight over the move by Gov. Paterson to name Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor. That's too bad, only because it means this will just be another drawn out fight.

Paterson had some very good points to make as he announced this decision:

1) Without a lieutenant governor, we would not know who was in charge if something happened to Paterson.

2) The crisis in government is worsening an already dire economic situation.

3) He makes the astute argument that even though the constitution doesn't say he can do something doesn't mean he can't legally do it.

Paterson seeks to end this crisis through an action that he hopes will establish a precedent. Sometimes it is through actions taken in a political crisis that we are given the chance to define how government is supposed to work. See Marbury vs. Madison, where the concept of judicial review was established.

The idea that there should be a way to replace a lieutenant governor is entirely reasonable. However, Paterson seems to be trying to achieve this through direct appointment without seeking any review or support of the legislature. This is why, in my earlier blog, I suggested that a lieutenant governor be picked through some bipartisan means, such as a commission. My hope was that a replacement could be found that all sides could be comfortable with and avert another crisis.

However, within hours of his announcement, Paterson had Ravitch sworn into office and will attempt to preside over the state Senate this afternoon. However, the Republicans have already swung into action, taking legal steps to try to block the appointment.

Again, this is just more needless bickering that would be resolved if the constitution was clarified with an amendment.

At the federal level, when the vice presidency is vacant, the president can nominate a replacement, who then must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. This system allows for both sides to review, question, make comment and vote on such an appointment before a nominee takes office. New York doesn't have this system, and it really needs it to avoid such a crisis.

Breaking news: Paterson to name a lieutenant governor

From the New York Times:

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson will name Richard Ravitch, a former chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, as lieutenant governor in a televised speech he has scheduled for late Wednesday afternoon, according to an administration official.

... But the governor’s move is sure to be highly debated. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, the state’s top legal officer, said this week that such a step would be unconstitutional and would entangle “the governor in a political ploy that would wind through the courts for many months.”

There is no provision in the New York State Constitution that provides for filling the office in the event of a vacancy, though some in Albany have pushed a legal theory that state law would allow the governor to name someone to the post.

...

Well, interesting solution, Mr. Governor. Let's hope Mr. Ravitch will prove to be an official who can work with both sides of the aisle.

If he's a choice both parties can work with, we may be close to an end to this fight.

If not, it's going to drag on even longer with suits and countersuits over the legality of this move.

I'm hoping this will help bring an end to this circus.

You're welcome, New York

So, in my blog Tuesday, I finally waded in with an opinion about the New York state Senate stalemate. I filed the blog about 10:30 a.m., which included the line, "Either way, whoever it is who can reach across the aisle and find a solution to this crisis will have the gratitude of the voters." And I made some suggestions about the real problem I saw, the vacant lieutenant governor's office and the constitutional weakness that caused this crisis.

I also e-mailed my blog to state Sen. George Winner and posted it on the Star-Gazette Web site.

Then, that afternoon, the state senators announced that they were making progress on a deal to share resources and leadership. This announcement followed a meeting with Gov. Paterson, but clearly it was my blog posting that was the catalyst for the breakthrough. Even though they are not using my solution, I can't help but take the credit.

You're welcome, New York.

I'll pause now to give some of you time to realize that I'm kidding.

Paterson is scheduled to give a speech at 5 p.m. today, and we should pay attention. Perhaps there will be a resolution to this crisis after all.

By the way, this morning I actually got a response from George Winner. Here it is:

Dear Mr. Bond:

Thank you for your e-mail and for sharing the link to your July 7th blog post on the Senate leadership change. I appreciate having your input.

Your suggestion as to the joint selection of a Lieutenant Governor, while well thought out, would be unconstitutional as per opinion of Attorney General Cuomo.

Thank you again for sharing a few thoughts, and I hope that we can stay in touch on the issue of changing New York government.

Sincerely,

NYS Senator George Winner
53rd District


I'm grateful to get a reply, and if the Democrats and the Republicans finally have a power sharing arrangement, that's all I need to see for now.

However, I would still insist that by having no provision in our state constitution to replace our lieutenant governor there is a serious weakness in our government. Somehow that needs to be fixed before the next crisis arises.

And now for something completely different

My neighbor suggested that my blog on the U.S. Senate on Monday should be sent to N.Y. state Senator George Winner. "You know, that part about engaging across party lines to get something accomplished? What a concept."

Agreed, something needs to be done to break the logjam in Albany. But on Monday I was addressing the issues of a functional political body. The state senate has not been functional since the Republican coup on June 8 made possible when two freshmen Democratic senators switched sides.

One of those rogue Democrats switched back, creating an even worse situation of a 31-31 tie. Since then the situation has degraded beyond dysfunctional into toddlerlike playground tantrums. One side even declared a quorum and passed legislation just because an opposing senator snuck into the chambers to get a drink. This was followed by debate that did not seem to rise above the level of "Am not!" and "Are too!"

It has been painful to watch and harder even to come up with any useful commentary about the situation. What can one say when the grownups act so childish?

OK, I will say this to the senators: This is not the reason we sent you to Albany. You are wasting your time, our time and our money. Important legislation sits and rots while you conduct a fight that has trademarks of the battle in Lilliput from Gulliver's travels over the proper way for one to crack an egg.

The state comptroller is seeking an opinion on withholding pay and expenses for senators, I hope he succeeds.

But the real problem is that New York has a serious problem in its constitution.

On Monday, the attorney general ruled that the governor cannot appoint a lieutenant governor to break the tie. The office has remained vacant since Patterson ascended to governor after Spitzer resigned in disgrace. And that is turning out to be a serious flaw in the constitution.

Here's my suggestion:

The two sides need to negotiate a way to select a lieutenant governor who can break tie votes and resolve the crisis. Perhaps for this one time that should be done through arbitration or a nonpartisan commission. I would hope that they could find someone who both sides would be comfortable with, who can break the logjam and allow the work of passing legislation to resume.

They would do this as a one-time deal with the understanding that this would be followed by a fully vetted amendment to the state constitution that would allow for a lieutenant governor to be replaced, perhaps in some sort of nonpartisan way.

Either way, whoever it is who can reach across the aisle and find a solution to this crisis will have the gratitude of the voters.

In the meantime, Wednesday is July 8 and will mark one month since the coup. If they still cannot find a solution, it will be an ignominious anniversary. More and more New Yorkers will join in the cry of "Throw them all out!"

Welcome to the Al Franken generation

David Broder had a good column in today's paper that explained that even though the Democrats now had a filibuster-proof majority with the election of Al Franken to the Senate, they shouldn't go it alone without Republicans.

I have to agree.

Yes, now that the Dems have reached the magic number of 60, they could theoretically pass anything they wanted over Republican objections, but that is not practical nor is it reasonable.

For one, the Dems would have to stay absolutely in lock-step with each other for them to go it alone. Second, they would all have to stay healthy, and two of their Senators, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are ailing.

Third, the achievement of absolute rule over a minority is not the aim (or shouldn't be) of American politics. We went through six years in which not only was the government tightly controlled by the GOP, but was tightly control by a small, petty faction within the GOP.

We don't need to see the government once again ruled by one party who plays hardball to the point that the other side cannot breathe.

Politics should be dynamic, with room to include ideas from all sides to make deals and shape a legislation that has the interests of common good in mind. You can't do that if you have shut out an entire political party.

It was through a perfect storm of political good luck that the Democrats have been able to seize so much power. However, the American public did not shift so far to the left to make it possible. The Dems just made a strong enough argument to the middle that the public bought it.

Conservatives, moderates and liberals/progressives still hold the same ratios within the electorate, and they will all be watching the Democrats who have taken charge and judge whether they rule with compassion and reason.

Thank you, Great Britain

We have friends, a newlywed couple, visiting from out of town this weekend. The wife is one of my wife's closest friends, who grew up with her. Her husband is an Englishman from Yorkshire, who she met in New Orleans.

And today is the Fourth of July. This morning, as I was getting out the American flag, I said to myself, "I hope Jerry doesn't mind." Jack asked me why that mattered, and I explained that Jerry is British.

But then I told Jack, as I brought the flag outside, "Actually, in a way, we owe the British our thanks."

Why?

Because it was, in part, the British who taught us the meaning of freedom. Much of the American system government draws some of its inspiration from the British and the tradition of individual rights that can be traced all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215.

By the way, the backstory on that is that the King John who was forced to sign the Magna Carta is the same vilified Prince John who lost in his attempt the usurp the throne of Richard the Lionhearted. But then that pesky little Robin Hood upset his plans. What most people don't know is that later Richard died and John took the throne anyway.

Anyway, back to the American Revolution.

It was because of that tradition of freedom and a developing sense of democracy that the colonists in America saw themselves as deserving the full rights of other British subjects.

But when the Crown began to impose unfair taxes on the colonists - to pay the debts from the French and Indian War - the colonists cried "Foul!"

In a sense, our rebellion began out of a desire to restore fairness in an unjust system. At first, ours was not so much a revolution to change the world, but to restore a status quo.

But of course there was more to it than that. The influence of French thinkers, but also English thinkers like John Locke, inspired one of the great conclusions by a political body: "That all men are created equal."

Had we not had learned our lessons well from the British, through their democratic traditions and their period of unjust rule, we may not have reached that insight and we may not have become the nation we are today.

These are the times that test our souls

From the Washington Post:

Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth yesterday canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered corporate underwriters access to Post journalists, Obama administration officials and members of Congress in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.

"Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth said in an interview. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

... Another bad idea out of a newspaper marketing department.

To retain its integrity, a newspaper must maintain a firewall between its editorial/news side and its financial/advertising/marketing side. Too often, the public and, unfortunately, the marketing and advertising reps just don't understand why we need that firewall.

The first time I ran into this problem, I was a reporter in Corning, N.Y. The owner of a local scrapyard called up, upset because we had not done any news stories about him recently. "Well," I said. "What would the news story be about?"

He had no answer, but kept insisting that I do a story about his business. Finally, he said, "Look, I'll pay you to write it." (He didn't get his story.)

That's one of the most insulting things you can say to a journalist. To make a suggestion that you are doing it for the money betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what journalism is about. Yes, we get paid, but the pay scale is not what drives so many of us through years of J-school, freelance work, odd hours and working nights, weekends and holidays.

Most of us do it because we have been given a unique opportunity: To tell the truth.

But the public can't trust you to tell the truth if you are being paid by the newsmakers.

Unfortunately, so many of those who work on the business side of the newspaper do not understand this. Ten years ago, when the new publisher of the Los Angeles Times did not understand this concept, it lead to a scandal where the newspaper's magazine did an entire issue on the new Staples Center. The journalists at the Times did a dutiful job reporting on all aspects of the center, without realizing that the marketing and advertising departments had made side deals involving the newspaper in the sponsorship of the facility. "[The newspaper] sold ads with the assistance of the Staples ad staff -- and then planned to split the profits, allowing both parties to benefit from what was supposedly a pure editorial product."

This led to a near open revolt in the newsroom and a major investigative piece about how the scandal happened.

The upside on the Post situation is that they have a publisher who understands the importance of editorial integrity. These dinners were immediately canceled, and the marketing executive, Charles Pelton, immediately admitted his error.

I can't imagine how that meeting between Weymouth, Brauchli and Pelton must have gone. BTW, I find it interesting that Pelton had co-owned a firm that staged conferences before joining The Post two months ago. Someone should have put him through the paces about the firewall and journalistic integrity before he got to work.

But when these errors happen, the question is raised: "How can this happen?"

For newspapers and journalists, these are the times that test reporter's souls.

Newspapers are dying. Those that are not already closed or being sold are fighting for their very lives. The pressure to survive keeps climbing. In the drive to find new ways to generate revenue, newspapers are more often being offered Faustian deals.

One commentator says he was astonished that this plan had gone so far. But if you share a sheet of ice with someone, as that ice melts you are going to have to get closer to your companion on the other side.

And if you are standing on a melting sheet of ice, you are less likely to want a firewall.

As the world of journalism collapses, as newspapers close and more people turn online to get their news, journalism schools are in the midst of a shift: teaching aspiring journalists about the business of journalism, how to keep journalism a paying venture.

I keep hoping for some form of print journalism to survive, but it looks less likely. Let us hope that even if the melting sheet of ice - print journalism - does disappear that journalists will still find solid ground in other media.

But when we reach that distant shore, let's make sure we take the firewall with us.