Photo Courtesy of Rick Reinhard/Children’s National Medical Center

As the last days of December waned, Lisa P. Jackson and the Environmental Protection Agency had a lot to celebrate. They made it through 2011.

They held their ground against a continued barrage of attacks by lawmakers—who did their best to denigrate the agency and render it toothless. They weathered a surprise walk back by the President on the smog initiative, which had to make them question if they had ample support to get their agenda accomplished. (It should be noted that the EPA is slated to receive about 1 percent of the 2012 Federal discretionary budget, a reduction of 12.6 percent.)

Working to back proposals for a clean environment were Representatives Jan Schakowsky, Donna Edwards, Henry Waxman and Senators Barbara Boxer and Thomas Carper. Advocates on the ground included Hollywood luminary Robert Redford, weighing in on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and “regular mothers”—who took their cue from Moms Clean Air Force—rolling up their sleeves and making sure their voices were heard.

On December 21, I live Tweeted the press conference held by Jackson, to announce the long awaited standards that would definitively limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from the coal- and oil-burning powered plants situated around the country.

It hasn’t been easy. Despite testimony from a slew of health officials and organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Lung Association, pushback has continued based on the premise that regulations are an economy killer, or that the supply of electricity is at stake. During her presentation, which was held at the Children’s National Medical Center, Jackson once again drove home that the Mercury and Air Toxics standards (MATS) would avert “up to 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks” per year. In addition, it will prevent “130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children” annually, while cutting down on the need for emergency room visits.

The primary goal of the twenty-year fight was to impact mercury emissions. Being flanked by physicians created terrific optics as Jackson spoke emphatically about mercury as a neurotoxin that negatively impacts the developing neurological systems of fetuses and young toddlers. She pointed out that one in six children are subject to neurological issues.

Professor Teresa Clemmer, who spoke to me at length prior to the release of the new rulings, had this response to the long awaited announcement:

“My reaction to the news is that this is a day to celebrate because EPA has finally taken a much needed action to regulate toxic emissions from the sources that emit the lion’s share of them. Considering the direct health benefits of this rule from controlling toxics, as well as the co-benefits from controlling particulates, this rule could prove to be one of the most important legacies of the Obama administration.”

Jackson, who is the mother of a son with asthma, pronounced the rulings as a “great victory for public health, especially the health of our children.”

Needless to say, in 2012, the fight will continue.

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force.

I was nonplussed that Glenn Beck was being solicited to appear in front of a Knesset committee.  Aside from what I consider to be Beck’s outlandish television persona and skewed politics, I didn’t get why an Israeli representative would be reaching out to a talking head. Beck’s attacks on George Soros, the progressive Jewish financier who survived Nazi-held Hungary, had prompted four hundred rabbis to publish a letter in the Wall Street Journal demanding that Fox News sanction Beck for “repeated use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery,” and defamation of Soros.  On deadline for other stories, I decided to ignore it as another example of Beck’s showmanship.

Two days later, I got a second e-mail—an “FYI…” This time, it was accompanied by a new press release, with an invitation to speak directly with Beck or Danon.  The new pitch explained that “Beck, a strong supporter of Israel,” would be advising the Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee” on ways to partner with friends of Israel in the United States to defend the country’s right to exist.”  Following were biographical blurbs.  Beck was described as “one of America’s leading radio and television personalities,” and attributed his “quick wit, candid openness and engaging personality” to the numbers behind the “highest rated radio program in the United States.”  Danon’s resume established his current role as the Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, his Chairmanship of the World Likud Organization, and the committees he oversees.  It related bills that he has introduced and stated that he was a “proponent for the continuation of building throughout Jerusalem,” mentioning that he had participated in laying a cornerstone of a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem.

An examination of Danon via his website gave an overview of his political platform, which includes the points that Israel should annex a designated part of “Judea and Samaria,” and his suggestion to send African migrants to Australia.  Also prominently displayed is a video of Danon being interviewed by Beck on Fox News.  Danon turned up at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington, D.C., where according to The Washington Times, Israel was a hot topic.  He also wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, published on May 18, entitled “Making the Land of Israel Whole.” In it, he advocated annexing “the Jewish communities of the West Bank, or as Israelis prefer to refer to our historic heartland, Judea and Samaria.”

Meanwhile, Beck is planning an August 24 rally in Israel with the tagline of “Restoring Courage.”  The video (2:00) featured on his Israel page calls for uniting behind “a holy nation under siege”— intoning that it will be “a global event like none other in history.”  In addition to tuning in to this event via Glenn Beck television, Beck has partnered with two tour providers, the only ones “who are offering travel packages that include tickets” to the event.

Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY), chairwoman of the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee, in a June interview with The Jerusalem Post said, “Glenn Beck is on the fringe.  He doesn’t represent the Democrats’ or the Republicans’ views. It’s unfortunate that he’s getting this publicity.”

While other nations witness how divisive American politics currently is—with Beck having been at the forefront of much of the over-the-top rhetoric—it remains to be seen why Israel would allow itself to be a staging ground for his extreme brand of political theater.

If it is because his thinking is a perfect fit for those on the far right of the Israeli ideological spectrum, we can all prepare ourselves for even greater struggles around philosophy and values.

Spearheading these activities is the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT).  They have been at the forefront in reaching out to religious congregations to demand answerability for the American sponsored torture that became normalized after the events of September 11.  They operate under the banner, “Torture is a Moral Issue.” Although NRCAT began as a short-term campaign, it moved into building a long-term organization.  Currently, they work to: engage faith-based groups to end torture of U.S. held detainees; terminate torture in American prisons; encourage United States policies that persuade other countries to halt their use of torture; work to end anti-Muslim sentiment in the country.

I contacted their Executive Director, Rev. Richard L. Killmer, with a list of questions via e-mail.

Was United States sponsored torture an issue before 9/11?

NRCAT was created in January 2006. The use of prolonged solitary confinement was—and still is—common in our prisons.  Rendition for torture occurred.  And there were other areas of concern as well, like The School of the Americas. After 9/11, however, techniques, like water boarding, which everyone had previously agreed were torture, became an acknowledged part of U.S. interrogation policy.

There are people who come out of the military who maintain that torture is neither a moral nor viable way to secure information.  However, the capture of Osama bin Laden once again ignited the debate as to whether torture brings results.  In addition, General Petraeus, in his recent confirmation hearings to be the head of the CIA — when asked about “enhanced interrogation techniques” replied, “I do think there is a need at the very least to address the possibility.”  Why do you think the leaders of the nation continue to be off track on this?

Torture is wrong.  This is an absolute moral principle.  Our leaders sometimes forget this.  Further, we know that torture has direct negative effects–both on our ability to obtain good information and on our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda recruiting.  In their efforts to address unrealistic hypotheticals, our leaders sometimes forget these facts as well.

In the beginning of the month, NRCAT co-hosted a panel featuring Juan Méndez, torture survivor and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment for the United Nations, to discuss accountability under the law.  What were the takeaways?

The United States has a moral and legal obligation to address its past use of torture.  It is shocking that a former U.S. President has admitted to authorizing the use of torture, yet there has not been an independent, bipartisan investigation of our past use of torture.

Indefinite detention, solitary confinement, medical experiments involving torture, and closing down the Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay have been some of the malignancies NRCAT has been tackling.  How much traction do you feel has been achieved to date?

One of the high points of the Obama presidency came on his second day in office when he issued an Executive Order establishing the Army Field Manual as the standard for all interrogations and requiring that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) be granted access to all detainees.  Unfortunately, since then we have not made permanent the ban on the use of torture or the requirement that the ICRC be given access to all detainees.  Further, we have not yet achieved any measure of accountability for the use of torture.

The group has also taken a stand about prolonged solitary confinement in prison, underscored by the reports about Bradley Manning‘s treatment.  Is torture in American prisons limited to the use of solitary confinement?

No, although it is a major, and particularly dangerous way that prisoners are mistreated.  Overzealous use of restraints, beatings, sexual abuse, and other forms of mistreatment also occur in U.S. prisons.

Are you disappointed with the performance of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder on torture? How could they be doing things differently?

We are grateful that President Obama issued an Executive Order banning torture.  We wish he also would support accountability for torture, and would work more aggressively to pass legislation making permanent the steps he took to ban torture.

As a follow-up, I talked to Killmer by telephone.  Despite his packed schedule, he took the time to drill down deeper on his answers.  My first inquiry was to get more clarification on his thoughts about Obama’s efforts to create a different climate on torture.  Killmer reiterated his belief that Obama’s actions in 2009 had altered the landscape.  He said, “From everything that we can tell, the policy has changed.”  He continued, “We are disappointed that Guantánamo hasn’t been closed.  It’s an awful symbol to the world.” Killmer opined that Obama had tried, and that the fault was with Congress.

Killmer mentioned that NRCAT has repeatedly called for a commission of inquiry to bring back recommendations for safeguards, which he believes to be very important.  “How did a good nation go to the dark side?” he asked,  “How did it happen?”  He continued, “We want the President to give us leadership and laws.  An Executive Order can be changed.”  Despite his appreciation and acknowledgement of Obama’s efforts in 2009, when we discussed the President’s stated desire to “look forward, not back,” Killmer’s response was a flat out, “That’s naïve.  You have to look at past behavior.  He’s wrong.  Repairing the brokenness, redemption, healing—you need the accountability.”

In discussing Bradley Manning, who has been in solitary confinement for nine months, Killmer spoke about the work that NRCAT is doing in prisons across the country “where at any given time there are 32,000 prisoners in solitary confinement.”  They are engaged in changing this situation via legislation.  In Maine, their activist campaigns have reduced those institutional numbers by 50 percent.

The NRCAT site is set up with model e-mails for action steps.  On the home page there are calls for both a “Commission of Inquiry” and an investigation into the use of solitary confinement.  Five days after General Petraeus stated that enhanced techniques could be considered in a “ticking bomb” scenario—NRCAT sent out a letter asking people to write to the President, asking that he and General Petraeus immediately reaffirm their opposition to torture and abusive interrogation techniques.

With their nationwide network, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture has taken away the excuse for being silent in the face of injustice.

Photo Courtesy of the NRCAT

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.

Illustration courtesy of Marcia G. Yerman.

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

The tweets were starting to come in, speculating on what the topic would be.  It wasn’t long before the capture of Osama bin Laden was put forth.  The announcement that had been slotted for fifteen minutes dragged to almost an hour.  When the President went live before the country, the shock element had diminished.  The news was intense nonetheless, as I listened to the details given during that first recounting of events.

After hearing to the pundits react and opine on what effect his death would have on America, I went local for my information.  I turned on the all news, all the time station, NY1.  It had kept me close to the pulse of the city during 9/11, and it didn’t disappoint at this renewed juncture in the story line.  While the major networks were focusing on crowds outside the White House, NY1 had trucks on site at Times Square.  They led with the account stating that people, in a spontaneous reaction, were headed to Ground Zero on foot —including a group of firemen.

I received numerous calls the next day, from people outside of New York, wanting to know how I felt about Osama bin Laden’s death.

I made my own call on Monday, to the first person that came to mind when I heard the announcement.  She had lost her young nephew on that clear September day.  The image of her sitting on the steps of my old building telling me about his death is still indelible.  “How are you?” I asked her.  “It’s very bittersweet,” she told me.  “But it doesn’t bring him back.  My heart still hurts.”

In 2001, I lived in Manhattan’s East 20s.  By September 12^th, the neighborhood was plastered with images and descriptions of missing people.  A few blocks west, the Sixty-Ninth Regiment Armory on Lexington Avenue had been converted into a support center for bewildered families dropping off DNA samples from their loved ones’ hair or tooth brushes.  Two avenue blocks west from my front door was the Coroner’s office, where remains were being identified.

The air wasn’t as acrid as it was at Ground Zero, but it was still strange — and would remain so for weeks.  As people migrated uptown by foot, I could see them from my window.  An army of dazed ants, walking away from the scene of destruction.

My 7-year-old son was at school, up in the 90s.  After seeing the second tower fall, I told the administrators to keep him there until 3 p.m.  Since we were so close to the Empire State Building, I wasn’t taking any chances.  At that point, anything was possible.  When he finally arrived home at 5 p.m. after a two-hour bus ride, he was confused and fearful — like the rest of us.

There was plenty of anxiety and paranoia in the following year.  Eventually, it began to dissipate.  As the notices came down, the empty apartments of those who weren’t coming home were rented. The floral offerings in front of the local firehouse disappeared. There was a slow normalization.

But some things didn’t change.  Seeing an airplane overhead in the city’s sky still makes me nervous.  More than two sirens wailing in tandem raise the hairs on the back of my neck, reminding me of the succession of fire engines racing down Second Avenue as I walked my puppy early that morning.  When I see a fireman now, on the scene loaded down with heavy equipment, I always react the same way. Oh my God.  They carried that stuff up all those floors at the Twin Towers.

People have been bandying about the word closure in response to the death of bin Laden.  I think in the currency of cycles: time passed, changes that have occurred, looking back, shifting forward.  My first grader is now thinking about college. I live in a different part of town. Both my parents have died.

The scenes of jubilant New Yorkers in midtown celebrating raucously on Sunday night made me feel uncomfortable.  The quiet dignity that the President brought to town on Thursday, when he visited with first responders and 9/11 families, felt more fitting to me. When he laid a wreath of red, white, and blue flowers at the “Survivor Tree” — a callery pear found in the debris that was nursed back to health and replanted — the journey had come full circle.

Unlike closure, a circle is fluid.  It means that sometimes the events of that September are a distant thought.  At other moments, the experience of being on the subway or walking through Grand Central Station can bring me to thoughts of terrorism.

As a New Yorker, I have lived through a piece of history.  September 11^th was our Pearl Harbor.  The death of Osama bin Laden means that a very important piece of something is over.  However, the rest of the equation lingers.  It’s alive.  It’s palpable.  It’s in my blood.

Image Courtesy of RVR Associates

Feeling like an accountant during tax season, I crammed as many panels, symposiums, and events into thirty-one days as possible.  There was never a dearth of concerns to be examined.

I heard Dr. Cissa Wa Numbe, Secretary General UNA of DR Congo, speak with emotion about the dire situation for girls and women in his country.  He related how a dying woman had implored him to “please make sure the world knows what is going on here.”  He referred to himself as the “voice of the voiceless,” as he described “girls and women who will never recover.”  He relayed how the Congolese army, which is charged with protecting the population, was raping women and girls.  “Our girls are dying,” he said. He implored his listeners, “Talk to your government.  We need help.”

On March 8, Sanctuary for Families presented “Sex Trafficking in New York: Prosecuting Traffickers, Confronting Demand.”  Taking on the part of the equation too often shied away from — men’s demand to buy sex — the panel hammered out points about why New York City is a focal destination for the sex trafficking trade.  For the attending audience, the term “abolition” was not a novel concept.

Two days later, Dr. Nawal El Saadawi, the renowned Egyptian activist, doctor, and writer spoke at the Women in the World: Stories and Solutions Summit.  She was honored the following week at a small gathering hosted by the Women’s Media Center.  In that intimate environment, El Saadawi shared insights from seventy-nine years of living.  Her story of writing her prison memoirs on toilet paper, with the eyeliner pencil of a fellow prisoner, was an indelible image.

That weekend, a panel convened in front of a full auditorium at the Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art, to discuss the new book Sexual Violence against Jewish Women during the Holocaust.  Moderated by Gloria Steinem, it featured co-editors Dr. Sonja M. Hedgepeth and Dr. Rochelle G. Saidel.  Along with other guests, they considered the connection between the gender violence during the Nazi era, and the current conflicts where rape and genocide are intertwined.

I tweeted and wrote pieces about several of these events, while taking notes for future articles.  The last Saturday in March, I joined a group of New York City based women who had come together for a WAM! one-day conference. The emphasis was on “gender equity in media access, representation, participation, and ownership.”  The question remained, “How do stories get out, and why are they marginalized?”

Jennifer Pozner, Founder of Women In Media and News (WIMN) and the author of Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth about Guilty Pleasure TV, was on site.  We spoke about her book, which she described as being “for everyone who wants to understand how influential media is today, and why.”  Pozner wrote the book to “provoke a deeper conversation about the range of dangerous commercial and ideological messages that are being foisted upon women, under the guise of reality.”  She said that regressive messages create “a vision of the world where women have no choices — and don’t want any.”  Her text, which includes a resource guide and chapter on how individuals can transform media, has been taught at Princeton University. When Melissa Harris-Perry introduced Pozner to an audience, she stated that Reality Bites Back was doing for today’s culture what The Feminine Mystique did in the 60s.

Also present was Deanna Zandt, media and political tech geek who recently published Share This! How You Will Change the World with Social Networking. Zandt outlined how in the past, all conversations were run by gatekeepers — usually white men.  She told me that the Internet has dismantled power structures, and that women finally have an opportunity to shape conversations in ways previously impossible.  However, she did make it clear that not all boundaries would be dissolved, and that without vigilance, there was the possibility of reproducing the same off-line hierarchies.

A round table of women bloggers started their panel by parsing that weekend’s New York Times article, “Washington’s New Brat Pack Masters Media,” which mentioned women solely as relationship companions to those profiled.  Their dialogue questioned if the female blogosphere was really a resurgence of female journalism.  Andrea Plaid asked, “Whose voice gets heard and for what reason?” — and urged “empowering our own space and shifting the ideas of what is media.”  Lori Adelman said, “My words can stand and I have power.”  Amanda Marcotte added, “Now you can be an irritant. It’s equalizing.  The Internet gives community and scale.”

In her closing keynote, Zandt referenced how Rebecca Traister, writer on politics and gender for Salon, had underscored the impact of the Feminist blogosphere in her trenchant book Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election that Changed Everything for American Women.  While elucidating the internecine power struggles in the feminist community, many of her insights pointed to the impact of the new media writers. Traister specifically emphasized how “the Internet gave feminism something older women could not: an expansive new life and more abundant points of entry.”

Yet, regardless of generation, women have a tough row to hoe when it comes to getting traction on the kind of stories they want to write and get published.

I recently spoke by telephone with Ariel Dougherty, the National Director of the Media Equity Collaborative.  She told me that she sees the primary problem as mainstream media not recognizing “women’s issues as core issues.”  She noted that the Global Media Monitoring Project had found that only 24 percent of international stories are devoted to women’s issues. In a recently written post, Dougherty pointed out the failure of MSM to appropriately and accurately frame a story — thus giving disinformation to the general public.  The resulting bottom line, as Dougherty emphasized, is that “people are then completely misinformed.”

In Daring to Be Ourselves, a compilation of quotes by women interviewed by Feminist.com founder, Marianne Schnall, I took some solace in the section entitled “Women and the Media.”  Not that I didn’t already know that there was a major problem.

Jane Fonda states clearly:

“I think that the news can be more enlightening, richer, and more-in-depth about things that matter to women…Whether it’s Social Security, bankruptcy laws, the economy, the wars—they’re never looked at through a gender lens, and they all impact women differently than they do men…and we’re the majority of humanity.  So it’s as though people who do news now act as thought current events are gender-neutral, and they’re not.  They’re not.”

Echoing the frustration of those who are consistently endeavoring to cover the “unglamorous” stories of women with narratives that need to be highlighted, Isabel Allende reflects:

“The media could do a much better job, that’s for sure—especially the media that targets women.  Women’s glossy magazines, women’s TV series and programs, with few exceptions, are disgusting.  Human rights?  They couldn’t care less!  Their message to women is all about consumerism, looking sexy, and pleasing men in bed. And yet they have the potential to make profound changes for the better in women’s lives.  In the rest of the media, there are some great advocacy journalists and programs, but they are few.”

Without a concerted effort, the status quo will not change.  The coverage of women’s issues should not be a one-month a year affair.

Image Courtesy of RVR Associates

Scanning the Table of Contents revealed that it would be more of a look through than a read.  There was an essay by Gloria Steinem about women politicians who were “actually minding the store,” accompanied by pictures of Barbara Lee and Barbara Boxer. It pointed to the media deficiency in covering female representatives of substance.  I read it first.  Since it was at the back of the book, I worked my way to the front, leafing through a series of layouts for clothing and shoes—many with four figure price tags.

Ad after ad showed women in their 20s and 30s wearing styles, makeup, perfume and accessories designed by the big names—Prada, Valentino, Armani, and Calvin Klein. They were rather interchangeable, except for the one that stopped me dead in my tracks.

It featured a photograph of the 1970s top model Lauren Hutton, clearly free of airbrushing in a portrait that presented her as defiantly older.  She sported a bold necklace on her lined neck and rings on her hands—which clearly showed the wear and tear of time and a life lived.

Currently 67, Hutton forged a new path in the modeling world.  With asymmetrical rather than classic features and a trademark gap-toothed smile, she snared a groundbreaking contract with Revlon cosmetics in 1974. She became the face of Ultima II, inking a deal for $200,000 a year for twenty days of modeling work.  It paved the way for future “supermodels.”

Here she was again, in 2011, surrounded by pages of commercially flawless babes. Boldly and knowingly looking into the camera, she demands to be experienced on her own ground.

I had to smile.

Lauren Hutton by Jack Pierson for Alexis Bittar

Photo courtesy www.alexisbittar.com

]]> http://www.mgyerman.com/2011/03/05/lauren-hutton-%e2%80%93-still-a-trailblazer/feed/ 1 http://www.mgyerman.com/2011/01/01/a-lesson-from-joseph-sebarenzi-for-2011/ http://www.mgyerman.com/2011/01/01/a-lesson-from-joseph-sebarenzi-for-2011/#comments Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:02:54 +0000 Marcia G. Yerman http://www.mgyerman.com/?p=1197 As a writer who covers women’s issues and human rights, I am fortunate to meet many people who are on the cutting edge of working to effect change in the world.

This past October, I was invited to moderate a panel at the Pages and Places book festival in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  The talk was titled, The Remains of Death: Society in the Wake of Catastrophe.  Although the dialogue covered ground that included genocide, war, and natural catastrophe—it was in fact a hopeful conversation.  The human capacity to rebuild what has been devastated by cruelty and destruction is indomitable.

One of the presenting speakers was Joseph Sebarenzi.  I was previously not familiar with his story of survival during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.  My introduction to him came through his memoir, God Sleeps in Rwanda: A Journey of Transformation.  As I turned the pages, I came to know him.  I felt as if I were with him from the moment in 1973 when his mother first explained that hatred existed between the Hutu and Tutsi, to his final departure from Rwanda. He returned to his country, where he served as the Speaker of the Rwandan Parliament, from 1997 to 2000.  That final year, he was forced to leave his homeland to escape an assassination plot.  The reason? He spoke the truth to power.

When we met the night preceding the event, I told him how profoundly his book had affected me.  His quiet demeanor belied the internal strength of a man who had lost so many to the mass killing—including his parents and seven siblings.  Yet, as he often says, “No suffering should derail us from who we are.”

Social justice is his mission. Part of the work that Sebarenzi is currently doing concentrates on “moving toward forgiveness and reconciliation.” Armed with numerous degrees including a Ph.D. in Law and a Masters in International and Intercultural Management, Sebarenzi is on the faculty of the School for International Training, where he teaches conflict transformation across cultures. His personal experience informs his teaching on cyclical violence borne from enmity, and victimization based on race, religion, and ethnicity.

Sebarenzi outlines reconciliation as involving several components. They encompass acknowledgment, apology, restorative justice, empathy, reparation, and forgiveness.  He points out that in addition to dealing with the past, all insights must be accompanied by “forward-thinking vision.”  He envisions a new model of leadership where peace education and understanding “nonviolent conflict management” is essential to the worldwide community.  He writes,

People do not awake one morning and say, “I am going to kill my  neighbor because he is a different color from me” (or practices a different religion from me, or belongs to a different ethnic group).  The path to genocide begins long before the first shot is fired or the first machete is swung.  It builds slowly, first by categorizing people.  One group becomes “us”; the other becomes “them.”

Embracing forgiveness on a personal level, as well as a national and community level, is integral to Sebarenzi’s philosophy.  He writes, “I was once asked by a student, ‘Can you forgive the people who killed your parents?’”  He responded that it “was the genocide that was unforgivable, not those who perpetrated it.”

Traveling his singularly difficult road, Sebarenzi learned about letting go of his own anger and bitterness. While visiting prisons where Hutus accused of murder were being held in horrendous conditions, he came face to face with the mayor of his village—previously a close friend of his family.  The man had been accused of instigating the order to kill all the Tutsis of the community, so that none would remain retaining a legal claim to their land.  Witnessing the depth of the mayor’s suffering, he was able to acknowledge him as a person in need.  He gave him money for food. Seberenzi pinpoints this pivotal experience as the moment when everything changed and crystallized for him.

Sebarenzi recognizes that forgiveness doesn’t replace justice.  He states, “It does not let the perpetrator ‘off the hook.’”  Rather, it lets you off the hook because your life is no longer governed by the injustices you have suffered.”  As he concludes, “We all have the power to set ourselves free.”

Moving into 2011, it is a valuable concept to consider.

Civil War Soldier, Michael Schwenke of 56th NY Infantry. Photo courtesy of HBO

It is a given that before a person is equipped to be part of a military fighting machine, he or she must be trained—physically and mentally.  What is not explicit is that upon a return to civilian life, there is no preparation for re-entry into the previous rhythm of life.

Hopefully, with voices demanding to be heard, the public, lawmakers, and other agencies will listen to the urgent calls to action that must be heeded.

The current situation for veterans is not new, just different. This Veterans Day, HBO is debuting a documentary entitled Wartorn: 1861-2010. Through interviews, personal letters and journals of soldiers, photos and archival footage, the 68-minute film traces post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) back to the Civil War.  At that time, survivors were labeled as hysterical, melancholic, or insane. In fact, it is noted that “after the Civil War, over half of the patients in mental institutions were veterans.”  In World War I, the condition was referenced as “shell-shock.”  During World War II, the term “combat fatigue” was euphemistically employed.  (Included in Wartorn is a scene with a group of World War II vets sharing their stories for the first time.  One man explains, “I had no one to turn to. No one understood.” Another reveals, “You’re just not coming home the same guy you left.”)

We now have the terminology and psychological insights to recognize the problem.  But are we doing any better?  When interviewed, General Peter Chiarelli, the Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army who is working to stem the rising tide of suicides states, “You’re fighting a culture that doesn’t believe that injuries you can’t see can be as serious as injuries you can see.”  In reality, Chiarellli points out, these are hidden wounds as serious as losing an arm or a leg.”  He adds, “We’ve got to get them off the battlefield.”

Suicides among veterans expanded by 26 percent from 2005 to 2007. That doesn’t include the veteran deaths that were the result of high-risk behavior.  More than 1,000 Vets in California under the age of 35 died after returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan between 2005-2008. Author and journalist, Aaron Glantz, succinctly outlined this problem in his article, “After Service, Veterans Deaths Surge.”  He wrote that the “figure is three times higher than the number of California service members who were killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts over the same period.”  He drilled down on the lack of response from the government when he appeared on the “War and Peace Report” hosted by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now.

What’s actually being done in a nuts and bolts way to support veterans? I checked in with America Works of New York, which serves veterans by offering psychological and substance abuse counseling, health insurance guidance, interview and resume preparation, and ultimately job placement. America Works is a for-profit company that is 100 percent performance based.  The staff saw an upsurge of veterans into their program approximately three years ago.  In 2008, they applied to the federally funded entity “Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program,” and were contracted to place 160 homeless vets in jobs within a year.  They reached their goal and got a follow up three-year contract.

The founders of America Works, Dr. Lee Bowes and Peter Cove, have taken their “work first” model, which originated in 1984, and tailored it to the needs of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan—at least one in ten of whom are unemployed.  In the 18-24 demographic the stats drop to one in five unemployed, as many enlistees join the service directly from high school—and are looking for a civilian job for the first time.

The facts put out by America Works explain that nationwide approximately 154,000 veterans are homeless each night. Foreclosure rates in military towns have been on the upswing of four times the national average.  In 2008, over 1.3 million vets were living in poverty.  Almost one million were unemployed. Over a third of incarcerated veterans have screened for PTSD.  In the New York City homeless vet population, approximately 85 percent is comprised of those who served in Vietnam and Korea.  Many vets move to New York, looking for services and employment they couldn’t find at home.

While I was at the offices of America Works, I had the opportunity to dialogue with Retired Navy SEAL Captain Pete Wikul, Vice President of America Works of Washington D.C.  Wikul served over 39 years in the U.S. Navy and was the “Bullfrog”—a title given to the longest serving Navy SEAL on active duty.  He shares the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize with all the Peacekeeping Forces who served in Lebanon from 1948-1988.

Outspoken, with lots of personality, Wikul was emphatic about the need to heal suicidal vets.  “That’s what I want,” he told me.  His figures related that seventeen to thirty-four vets commit suicide daily. “It is estimated by veteran suicide counselors that perhaps as many as three times as many veterans have taken their own lives than the number who died in the Vietnam War.”  He said, “The first greatest sin of this country was slavery.  The second is how it treats its military vets.”

For Wikul, the problem lies with the individual’s separation from the service.  He penned an op-ed with Bob Kerrey outlining the need to prepare vets for rejoining civilian life.  Wikul had definitive opinions on the crisis.  “The nation is responsible,” he said.  “I fault our political leaders.”  Referencing the lip service paid to the needs of veterans he emphasized, “I want to see the line item in the budget.  It’s the lawmakers that hold the purse strings.”  As a man used to accomplishing his mission, his frustration was palpable.  “We need analysis, and than a cure for this social ill.” Wikul recommends the America Works mantra of “work first and a rapid attachment to work” as a great leveler, and the way for an individual to maintain his/her self-esteem.

Looking at the issues from another perspective is Ryan Berg, a 28 year-old California based vet, who spent seven years in the Marine Corps.  He joined up because he chose not to be in an academic situation immediately after high school.  He wanted to be a leader.  He currently attends UC Berkeley on the GI Bill, where he is completing a four-year degree focusing on communications. He is the Founding Editor at WhatFits.org, whose mission is to “help build lasting veterans’ communities across the United States.” In addition, they house a news and opinion blog dedicated to the movement of building “real community” among the returning veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Berg has become proactive in seeking to build a “community” of veterans that is modeled on the support structure that was forged during time of service.  He described how during deployment, there was a “life saving mechanism borne out of the group experience.”  He believes that this core essence needs to be translated into a new language—to help vets adapt back into civilian life.  “The important thing to remember,” he said, “is that there is a specific sensibility that needs to be connected between vets.  We need support from those who are like us, people who have come out of the same experience.  We’re learning what this new mission we are on is. We need to feel as influential in civilian society as we did in the military.  We need the care of each other in order to start the new mission. The mission of coming home is a task we aren’t used to.”

For Berg, the most powerful prescription a veteran could receive is that of “community.”  He qualified it as follows: “It’s when we have a group of people that hang out and speak to each other in a different way, because of our lives. Whatever stage we are at in our coming home process, life begins to matter more as we speak the same language to others who are like us.” He continued, “It’s kind of like a family. Thinking about what’s next. It’s about guys and girls talking to each other. It’s the platoon mentality. It’s everyone having each other’s back.  Getting a veteran into a mental health appointment is nearly impossible without the encouragement of another vet.”

The need to connect to others who understand a shared history was repeatedly articulated in Wartorn.  The common denominator pointed to was the refrain “No one except a soldier can understand what a soldier has to endure.”

In 1946, William Wyler directed The Best Years of Our Lives, which won the Academy Award for that year’s top picture.  It told the story of three servicemen from the same small town trying to pick up the threads of their previous lives. Samuel Goldwyn decided to produce the film after he read an article about the difficulties experienced by men returning from World War II. The topics of familial disconnect, estrangement, and unemployment are captured in the scene below when former Army Air Force Captain Derry, who is afflicted with nightmares, wanders through an aircraft boneyard.

At the beginning of Wartorn, there is a visual quote by Homer from The Odyssey.  It reads, “Must you carry the bloody horror of combat in your heart forever?”

1861, 1946,  2010.

The time to do something is now.

One of the speakers, also a member of the Board of Directors, was Carly Fiorina.  By this time, she had served at Lucent

© Courtesy of Carly for California, Inc.

Technologies.  (Her tenure there is examined by Scott Woolley in an 10/15/2010 article for Fortune entitled, “Carly Fiorina’s troubling telecom past.”) She had completed her run as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (1999-2005), a period when she was considered one of the most powerful women in business.  Her accolades included making the Forbes list of the thirty most powerful women in America (2001) and the description as the “first woman” to lead a Fortune 20 company. After she resigned and wrote her book, Tough Choices, Fiorina picked up a stream of speaking engagements. She appeared at a 2006 women’s business conference where I was present, offered as a role model for women in business. There was a subtext implying that sexism can sabotage women when they get up into the ranks and play with the big boys.

At the in 2008 event, she was billed as the CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises.  Her presentation included a lot of business jargon, mixed in with information about how creating opportunities for those in need would help create a market for “us.”  She referred to it euphemistically as “enlightened self-interest.”  For those who may not have caught the core of what she was suggesting, she reaffirmed that helping women become self-empowered was beneficial because, “It’s good for us.”  “Us” cut a wide swath, which I construed to include the West, the United States, and American business.

Shorty afterwards, she signed on as the “economic spokesperson” for the John McCain campaign.  When I would see her appearing on news shows as a talking head, I would recall that day. Her repeated gaffes took center stage, from her suggestion that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin had the smarts to be a CEO of a major corporation—to the bag of worms addressing  health insurance coverage that pitted Viagra vs. birth control pills.  By 2009, Condé Nast Portfolio had listed Fiorina as one of “the 20 Worst American CEOs of All Time.”

Now, having won the California Republican Senatorial primary—with the help of $5.5 million of her own money—Fiorina has positioned herself as the one to straighten out California’s fiscal problems.  Some people are looking at her past performances, as well as her currently held opinions, for what type of Senator she would be.

As the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina laid off 30,000 people.  When she left the company, she received $21 million in severance pay.  She opposes Net Neutrality, a woman’s right to choose, and same-sex marriages.  She supports the death penalty and the Arizona immigration law.

When Californians focus in on the election, just sixteen days away, they will need to parse out who Carly Fiorina is and what she stands for.  As someone who ascribes to the philosophy of doing “what’s good for us,” it’s important for the state’s voters to determine if they would fall into her category of “us”—or “them.”