Supreme Court – Don't Gel Too Soon

Notorious RBG: the Gift of Her Story with Thanks to Her, Irin Carmon and Shana Knizhnik

Notorious RBG cover - book by Irin Carmon — Notorious RBG cover – book by Irin Carmon

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an enormously compelling figure. How do I know this? Authors Irin Carmon and Shana Knizhnik have given us the gift of this book, that’s how. Described by the New York Times as “a cheery curio, as if a scrapbook and the Talmud decided to have a baby,” it is a lively, engrossing, humanizing introduction to a revered figure.

Born in 1933, six years before World War II, she remains, at 82, very much a part of our present, and our future. Hers are the shoulders so many of us stand upon, proud of what we’ve fought for for today’s young women and men, parents and professionals, teachers, truckers and temps — all of it so much less than she faced down and conquered. For all of us.

Beyond the exploration of her remarkable intellect and judicial virtuosity, Carmon reveals the warmth, spirit and personal moments that transform an icon into a person. Her unlikely close friendship not only with Justice Scalia but also with his family, is intriguing, of course. The genuine partnership she shared with her husband Mary for 56 years is a unifying thread through much of the book; the story of his last days one of the most moving.

Of course, threaded through the narrative are the legal and policy changes she championed and often brought from idea to reality — and, in recent years, fought, not always successfully, against the reversal of some of them. From her days at Harvard Law School to those on the O’Connor Court, the impact of her passion and intellect is clear.

So. If you want to have fun and be inspired at the same time, or need a gift for anyone who cares about women, or law and policy, or just loves a great story, this is it. (Full disclosure: I DO know Irin but I never expected to write about the book until I read it. Couldn’t help myself….)

Facing the Political Future: a Sadly Personal Perspective

I’ve been hiding from the news, which is weird since I spent most of my life as a journalist. I’m not sure though, that after 8 agonizing years of W and then 6 frustrating ones with President Obama (much of it not his fault) I can face what the next congress will do.

Do you remember the various, endless Clinton hearings? Even more than the impeachment battle, the moment that I keep remembering was deeply personal: Sen. Alphonse D’Amato questioning Deputy Chief of Staff (and my longtime friend) Harold Ickes, whose father, also Harold, had been Secretary of the Interior in the Roosevelt Administration, and credited with implementation of much of the New Deal.

His father, D’Amato told Harold, would have been ashamed of him.

I had worked with Harold when we were all young, so along with political anger came real pain that, beyond the issues, he had faced such very cruel personal grandstanding.

That’s not important in policy terms and is probably mild compared to the harshness that any witnesses at the pending, inevitable deluge of hearings under a Republican congress will face: two years of destructive power escalating the politics of obstruction to that of destruction. Beyond what that will mean to our country, poor people, women, immigrants, ACA users, voting rights, Supreme Court nominations, and the jeopardy we face around the world, none of which will receive much attention except as political weapons, it’s just not something that will be easy to watch, especially for an unrepentant dreamer like me.

Obvious Child: So Much More than an “Abortion Movie”

My hands were shaking as I left the theater. Obvious Child is not traumatic, exactly, it’s just so real. There’s even a line about “old men in black robes.” You already know the story. What you don’t know — can’t know — until you see the film is that the story is just a frame upon which to hang a remarkable set of truths, some painful, some still painfully true, some funny and touching and surprising.

At first I wasn’t even sure I liked our heroine, Donna. She was careless and immature (but also lovable and self-deprecating) and — funny. Of course in some ways she had to be. These circumstances can’t be picture-book or the movie is propaganda instead of the affecting work of filmmaking that it is.

I am closer to her parents’ age than to hers, so the role that they, particularly her mother (SPOILER ALERT) played was especially moving, as she told her “kitchen table abortion” story and, when it counted, flattened the wall that had kept mother and daughter apart for so long. It was a stark reminder not only of the realities that all women share, but also of what women my age knew to be true when we were young: termination of an unintended pregnancy was a risk to our lives. A risk many of us fear has returned.

Right now, today, we face assaults on all sides: contraception, equal pay, voting rights, civil rights and of course, abortion. The quiet, sometimes funny, sometimes incredibly sad, journey through this film evokes grief over the threats we know are emerging with more and more power. It’s one woman’s story from one wild night to shock to truly loving families and friends who can’t quite compensate for the crisis to the inevitably sad, lonely moment as the procedure unfolds to the life that lies ahead.

The difference, the reason Obvious Child is so much more than “that abortion movie” is that it offers characters we come to love, a crisis we all recognize, a family clearly a product of the open child rearing that many of us chose over the stratified parenting we experienced as well as loving, truth-telling, strong friends and fully-developed principal characters with depth and, under all that irreverent Millennial camouflage, deep sensitivity and honor.

Sonia Sotomayor: A Blogger Tour (of Sorts)

What do Sonia Sotomayor and Elle Woods have in common? Plenty, according to a wonderful post by the ever-original PunditMom. That's just one of many, of course. I'm offering here a kind of tour – mostly of women whose views are notable in one way or another.

At the ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss offers – and debunks, the four most likely knocks on Judge Sotomayor.

We all love Culture Kitchen's Liza Sabater. This time she's outdone herself in several intriguing (and some fun) posts on the nomination. Meanwhile, Jill Tubman's post on "sexist attacks" appears both at New Agenda and Jack and Jill Politics. There's a video conversation at Laura Flanders among Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Jose Perez who's a lawyer with Latino Justice.

Thinking about the judge's environmental record? There's a brief exploration by Karen Murphy at SuperEco. Want to review more newsy discussion? Professor Kim Pearson, at Professor Kim's News Notes, has a nice early review. Jezebel has a survey with a little more attitude, too.

Jen Nedau provides a review of the record and some thoughts beyond and Jill Filipovic a nice exploration of differences of opinion and the judge's underlying value.

Finally, at Tech President, Nancy Scola offers, as usual, an original perspective: just how has the White House put the nomination out, and with what ammo? It's pretty interesting.

This is just a sprinkling of what's out there; add your own in the comments and I'll include them too.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg; This Is Sad

I'm not a Supreme Court junkie any more, but I think it's pretty tough not to be an admirer of Justice Ginsburg. Hearing today that she has pancreatic cancer is very sad; her charm, grace and humor make her a special icon on the court and off. A great intellect and long-time advocate for civil liberties, women's and reproductive rights, she is a respected Associate Justice who is also looked upon fondly by most who know her.
We can only hope that, like Steve Jobs, she's able to get the kind of care that will give her several more years, which would benefit not only those who love her, but also the rest of us.

TINA FEY, SARAH PALIN, HOME PERMANENTS, AND THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

When I was a kid there was a thing called a "home permanent*." It was a hair treatment that made your hair curly (horrifying to girls like me who ironed their hair and wrapped it around orange juice can sized rollers [or real orange juice cans] to keep it straight.) One of the most visible products was called Toni Home Permanents and its ad campaign was at least as popular as a great Saturday Night Live catch phrase.

Yup. It asked "Which twin has the Toni?" That’s a photo of the print version on the left. The idea was that one twin had a fancy salon permanent and one curled hers at home with Toni, but you couldn’t tell the difference. Of course, any kid who ever had a sleepover at the home of a friend who’d just done a "home permanent" knows that the chemical smell was gross (and if I remember correctly you couldn’t wash you hair for a couple of days) and their hair was often substantially more dry and brittle than the "salon permanent" girls’. In fact, there was a difference.

Every time I see Tina Fey being Sarah Palin I’m reminded of that. The McCain-Palin campaign is asking us to believe that when you spend upscale salon money it’s mostly for snob appeal, because all you need is a Toni and your bathroom sink, and you’re just as gorgeous. In this context though, the comparison is different — and ironic. If you saw Chevy Chase being Gerald Ford or Phil Hartman as Ronald Reagan or Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton, the impressions were great, but you always knew that the real guy was smarter, and more serious, than the comedian. No trouble knowing which "twin" was which. But with Tina and Sarah, it’s reversed. The brains, and the class, go to the comic, not the politician. The girlfriend of a young friend, asked if she was jealous about another woman in his circle, responded that she’d only worry "if he was hanging around with Tina Fey." Her intelligence, class and charm are that attractive. It’s pretty clear that she’s smarter and probably knows more about what’s going on in the world than The Candidate and, for many of us, appears better equipped to serve as Vice President. Many conservative pundits seem to agree. And many Alaskans. And liberals. Several posts, and tweets, from strong progressives, have described a "cringing" sense of discomfort when watching her stumble.

So what thoughts, and emotions, do we bring to this spectacle tonight? What do we, who support her opponents, consider as we watch alone, or with like-minded friends at debate-parties or with tweeters on #Debate08? From here, it’s complicated. Angry at her searing convention speech, but sad to see her stumble so pitifully in the Couric interview; fearful of what could happen if she and McCain win, furious that she’s trying to stall the Alaska report about her alleged abuses of power, and, in my case at least, completely detached from the fact that this woefully inadequate candidate happens to be female, we hope the battle is fought on competence and capacity, not gender and one-liners. Mostly, we’re aware that the copy is far superior to the original, and that the smart, attractive version of the candidate isn’t the one who’s going to be there tonight.

*I just looked it up on Wikipedia and apparently there still are things called home permanents but who uses them?? No clue.

HOPING FOR A DIFFERENT ENDING: “RECOUNT” ON HBO

I can remember reading Doris Kearns Goodwin‘s wonderful No Ordinary Time, about the World War II years in the White House: FDR, Churchill, Eleanor – it’s a wonderful, inspiring story and forever changed my understanding of leadership. I read the book on tape, mostly in my car. As I came to the book’s end, and the death of President Roosevelt, I drove around so that I could finish it. All the while, I kept hoping — "maybe this time he won’t die." Totally irrational but still – that was what I felt And I didn’t feel it again until tonight, as I watched Kevin Spacey, Tom Wilkinson, Laura Dern and Denis Leary in HBO‘s Recount, the story of the 2000 presidential election battle in Florida.

Reviews have reminded us that the story has been "altered" for dramatic reasons even though it’s presented as a docudrama. There may be more drama and less docu than historians would wish, — but the basic reality is there – and from the perspective of 8 years and the traumas of the Bush Administration, very painful to watch. In some ways it’s like watching a car accident about to happen – in slow motion — and not being able to do a thing to stop it. Here’s a little bit of it:

Continue reading HOPING FOR A DIFFERENT ENDING: “RECOUNT” ON HBO