Thursday, July 25, 2013

Her Marriage to Lose

Huma Abedin is in Charge of her Decisions*


The problem is not her, it's him.

Huma Abedin’s husband, New York City Mayoral Candidate Anthony D. Weiner is in the middle of a second media lashing, but Abedin should not be.

Weiner recently admitted in a press conference with his wife by his side that he exchanged more salacious text messages with additional women after being snarled up in a sexting Twitter scandal that cost him his seat in the House in 2011. Sydney Leathers, 23, has come forward as one of the women he sent sexually explicit messages to under the pseudonym “Carlos Danger.”

But despite all of this, Abedin stood by him, making her own remarks at the press conference on Tuesday night. "Anthony’s made some horrible mistakes, both before he resigned from Congress and after. But I do very strongly believe that that is between us and our marriage."

She appears to be a fiercely loyal woman who is ambitious when it comes to what she wants and a successful husband might be something she's checked off on her list.

Not too long ago, prominently in the 50s and June Cleaver 60s, women stood by their men without saying anything at all. Sacrificing themselves for their husbands' success. At pseudo-aristocratic schools, for example, women were mocked for playing the "waiting game" in college, to graduate or not graduate, as long as they were headed for matrimony. A top notch Art History education doesn't matter just as long as she has dinner on the table by 7 O’clock. A Wellesley College professor like the one played by Julia Roberts in Mona Lisa Smile might have said exactly what she did in the movie:

“The perfect likeness of a Wellesley graduate, Magna Cum Laude doing exactly what she was trained to do. Slide. A Rhodes scholar. I wonder is she reciting Chaucer while she presses her husband's shirts. Slide. Heh, now you physics major's can calculate the mass and volume of every meat loaf you ever make. Slide. A girdle to set you free! What does that mean?... What does that mean?... What does it mean?”

Abedin is that Mona Lisa smile: A woman who has put her husband first before her career. A painful sacrifice? Yes. But hey, don't we all want our significant others to be successful?

It's also the “age old” traditional sacrifice that women have publicly shunned, but privately accepted; and then later on, endured those consequences. Especially a politicial wife.

Putting it simply, we all make some sacrifice or take what others might say is a foolish step for love. Brilliant women of the 50s stay at home with pots and pans; and in our time, Carrie Bradshaw's play for Mr. Big in Sex and the City made her seem foolish in some viewers’ eyes (secretly, don't we wish more men would do foolish stuff for us).

Instead politician’s wives, like Abiden, hear about the “mistakes” they’ve made from their woman peers that end up plastered in headlines like, "The Public Humiliation of Huma Abiden” and “The good wife? Oh, give us a break!” to name a few. It is completely unnecessary commentary. Seriously.

This agitated energy is again lost in a prosecution storm to publicly embarrass her even more for drawing a line in the sand. Yet, it seems to infuriate pundits. Lisa Bloom of CNN/HLN wrote,

“Isn't it time to call the spectacle of the suffering political wife, standing by her man in the media glare as he admits to his latest sexual offense against her, what it really is: spousal abuse?" ... "We have the right to say that we will not enable this anymore; we will not endorse it; we will not bless it just because it is her 'choice'."

The so-called media prosecution should aim itself at Weiner. And help voters figure out whether or not he is fit to run for office regardless of whether or not he's received public calls by actors (Alec Baldwin), rivals (NYC mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio) and media (the New York Times editorial board) to step down.

In her remarks, Abiden said it's been a few years since the first scandal and through “a lot” of therapy they have learned something. Not all women would have made Abiden’s decision to stand beside their men, but in 2013, exposure of these sexting, prostitutioning or canoodling scandals have forced political wives to be more present and more public than they want to be.

Today, Americans are in the ripe newness of successful watchdog adulterous political failures and it's carving out a new niche for commentary, not for going after the politicians, but instead after their spouses.

Since it's no longer 1950-something, just let women make their own personal choices and not get so "pundit-fied" about it.

What do you think?

*Photos by NPR.org and NYPost.com

Thursday, July 18, 2013

You Can't Bring Skittles to a Gun Fight

Why Zimmerman Provoked Martin by Actively Profiling Him


They say that you can't bring a knife to a gun fight, which means that if you're going to get in to a fight at least let it be a fair one. But in the Trayvon Martin case -- the suggestion is not that Martin was prepared to fight (he did not have a weapon on him) or was even looking for one -- fairness was not the reality. Martin had Skittles and a soft drink in his hand, and George Zimmerman was carrying a gun.

Allegedly, Zimmerman, who was recently acquitted in the killing of Martin said that he was attacked by Martin and shot him to defend himself. Martin was walking through a Sanford, Fla. community neighborhood on the evening of February 26, 2012 when Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman got out of his car to follow Martin. Zimmerman said that the two got in a physical fight and that's when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

The star witness for the prosecution in the case, Rachel Jenteal, Martin's friend, said it plainly: "He was just trying to get home."

Someone who is just trying to get home should not be profiled at all and certainly not in the same fashion as someone who is actually criminally suspicious. In order for a police officer, which Zimmerman was not, to stop someone they must have reasonable suspicion that the person has or is in the process of committing a crime. But here, that's not the issue. The issue is is active profiling provocation? And is it sufficient provocation that it rises to the level of aggression?

If a defendant is charged with murder and claims self defense, then the defendant, in this case Zimmerman, is saying that he or she was not the first aggressor: 'I did not start the fight, I was attacked.' Legally, however, the first aggressor is the person who started or provoked the fight and the jury has to decide who that was based on the order of events leading up to the fight. The first aggressor, in most cases, cannot claim self-defense and the defense wants to establish that the defendant was not the first aggressor. However, if the evidence points to the defendant being the first or original aggressor, the only way he or she can reclaim self-defense and "get off" for a legally justifiable homicide is if they withdraw from the fight and are attacked again.

Let's look at the analysis this way: You can't bring Skittles to a gun fight, you're just not prepared. But if you are carrying a gun, then you're prepared to fight.

When Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin because he was suspicious of the teenager he intended to take some kind of action. Zimmerman called the police, but did not wait for them to arrive nor did he say that had Martin engaged in any criminal action. According to court documents, he made up his mind that he would pursue Martin rather than wait for the police: "Fucking punks," Zimmerman is recorded as saying before leaving the car, "these assholes always get away."


Get away from doing what? Was Martin engaging in criminal activity? No, there is no evidence of that. The "assumption," as John Guy stated, was that Zimmerman believed Martin was doing something bad, yet there was no evidence of that. Only Skittles, oh yes, and Arizona Iced Tea.


So, what does all this have to do with starting a fight. It has to do with human instinct and the mind set of the person. Being pursued by someone is not fun. It's scary, and the instinct is to turn around and face it or run. The aggressor initiates the fight by finding a way to pick the fight. And active profiling is picking a fight, you're asking for confrontation.

Based on interviews with Rachel Jenteal, Martin was a "loving guy" who would not hurt anyone (there was testimony from Zimmerman's trainer that he was "soft," but, at what point was he fearful because he followed Martin at night with a gun). An altercation occurred as Martin probably felt as though he had to defend himself from a "crazy ass, c******."  And Zimmerman shot him.

According to a report from NAACP President Benjamin Jealous (on CNN), Zimmerman had a history of profiling people. But as it was probably too prejudicial, this fact was not entered into evidence. A history or record of profiling is some form of provocation. Provocation is aggression. Aggression is not self-defense. It's just like bringing a gun to fight someone carrying Skittles: you know you can't lose.

What do you think?

*Photo credit nydailynews.com

Sunday, July 7, 2013

DOMA, the Voting Rights Act and Me

Up until a few days ago, I did not think that gay rights could affect me. My reasoning was narrow: I'm not gay.

But, when I read the New York Times breaking news alert on my BlackBerry, (yes, I STILL have a BlackBerry) that the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, I wondered what does this milestone really mean. I thought, okay, gay people can legally get married...in some states, but not all states. And...

I didn't think this way brutishly, I just did not fully engage in the magnitude of what it meant for gay people. After all, to be honest, I had had mixed feelings about Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act just days before DOMA.

Historically, the Court seemed to plainly say (with respect to the Voting Rights Act): we are in touch with what civil rights meant to the country in the 50s and 60s, 70s and 80s and 90s, but today, it doesn't mean the same thing anymore. Constitutionally, the Court said: we find that the right to vote for minority people is held to a lower level of scrutiny than it did in the 50s and 60s, 70s and 80s and 90s; it falls below the strict scrutiny standard, and floats somewhere between intermediate scrutiny and the rational basis test. (the strict scrutiny standard gets the highest level of review in which the challenging party must show the Court that there is a greater compelling government interest than that fundamental right -- voting is a fundamental right, marriage is not).

To me, it seemed as though the Court was taking away one right and giving another. Substituting decades of a necessary freedom to the impingement of another. As if, both rights could not co-exist or one suddenly became more important, more popular than the other. I was confused. The gay community was granted a right not guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet, simply, the right to vote was deemed constitutionally guaranteed and amended for all persons (African-American men were guaranteed the right to vote with the passage of the 15th Amendment; women earned the right to vote under the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920), but taken away. The ruling was a reversal of sorts and yet, extremely hypocritical.

Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League, wrote about the meaning of the Shelby County v. Holder, the case permitting the establishment of Voting Rights Act for The Grio:

"There is no “unalienable right” more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote.  Yet, last week, the Supreme Court made a tragic decision by ruling that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. For the purpose of providing stringent remedies where appropriate, Section 4 established a formula to identify those areas in the country where racial discrimination has been most prevalent.  Section 4 is the foundation upon which Section 5 stands, which requires states or local governments with a history of voting discrimination to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures.  While the ruling did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required, it held that Section 4 can no longer be used – virtually rendering Section 5 ineffective unless and until Congress creates a new formula to determine which states and counties should be covered by it."

The White House issued a statement on the reversal of Shelby County v. Holder. President Obama suggested that while the Supreme Court acknowledged that "voting discrimination still exists" their ruling turned a blind eye to justice. 

Frankly, I thought about black gay persons. Does this mean that they can marry (in some states) but they might be hassled for legally casting a vote in other states? That in some future context, they have the right to legally marry in that state, but not to inextricably vote? This overarching justice by the Court still seemed as though it would not reach all persons.

I covered the Pride Fest Parade here in New York and was present for a press conference where Harry Belafonte, an award-winning African-American actor and activist, was honored as one of the parade's Grand Marshals. Belafonte, who is not gay,  spoke about injustice in the gay community and quoted Dr. Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail: "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." But Belafonte did not use the word civil rights to describe the gay community's struggle for equality, he instead, referred to it as human rights.

I began to wonder: weren't gay persons asking for a civil right too? Are the benefits that come with the right to marry considered a civil right or a human right? Is there an astute difference?


Regardless of whether the Court ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, the gay community might understand, like I do, that equality comes in bits and pieces. And this fickleness, without parallel comparison, proves that we have a lot more in common than I thought.

What do you think?