If you are not familiar with the case itself, Castro is accused of not only repeatedly raping the three women he allegedly kidnapped and held as prisoners in his home — Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus — but also repeatedly terminating their pregnancies in a violent manner.

RHReality Check reported details that kidnapping victim Michelle Knight shared with the police:

“Survivor Michelle Knight told police that Castro had impregnated her through rape on at least five occasions, and had starved and beaten her, resulting in the termination of those pregnancies.

Cuyahoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty vowed to charge Castro with aggravated murder for each of those alleged forced miscarriages. He said he would consider whether to bring charges that could carry the death penalty.”

While these actions may seem warranted by many who are outraged by not only the kidnappings but also by Castro’s alleged brutal treatment of the women, many people also question the reproductive repercussions this potential prosecution could set off when it comes to pregnancy termination rights for the women of Ohio. It becomes a legal double edged sword.

Before I go on with more facts of the case, I wanted to interject my personal opinion. I am pro-choice. I fully believe women deserve the rights and freedoms to control their body. Whether this is pregnancy, birth control, or plastic surgery. As long as the woman is making their own choices, I support them.

If a man, or any other person takes that choice away from any woman in question, I take big issue with this. Huge issue with it actually. Personally I would love to see the Cuyahoga County prosecutors office make an example of Ariel Castro. But, actions like the possible murder charges against Castro for allegedly causing Knight’s miscarriages have legal costs in the long run.

RHReality Check spelled out the details of Ohio state law:

“Under Ohio law, the penalty for aggravated murder is death or life in prison. As in all death penalty states, capital punishment is reserved for the most heinous murders. Aggravated murder does not carry the death penalty in Ohio unless the government proves that the offense had at least one aggravating factor. The relevant aggravating factor for Castro, the one that could tip his sentence from life in prison to death, would be the fact that he inflicted these unlawful miscarriages in the course of a kidnapping. (Killing in the course of a kidnapping is both a criterion for aggravated murder and an aggravating factor that makes an aggravated murder punishable by death.)”

While it obviously would be up to a jury to decide whether or not Castro is guilty, this discussion raises this issue — can a person be charged with aggravated murder as part of an “unlawful pregnancy” case?

In the wake of this news Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of the National Advocates for Pregnancy Women, spoke out:

Ohio prosecutors announced that they are considering bringing aggravated murder charges against Ariel Castro for the “unlawful termination” of Knight’s pregnancies. The fact that prosecutors across the country are using the same kind of fetal murder laws as the basis for arresting pregnant women themselves requires us to consider some uncomfortable questions.

Blue Star Families’ 2013 Military Families Lifestyle Survey, recently released on Capitol Hill, is the fourth annual survey to poll military families to identify and address the most pressing family-related issues. This year more than 5,100 military family members responded to the survey. This is not a short questionnaire, having taken it myself, I can tell you it took time and consideration. These are not frivolous questions; they concern the very real issues facing military families in this, our 11^th year combat operations.

The key concerns identified were military pay and benefits, changes in retirement benefits, spouse employment, deployment impact on children, educational, opportunities for children, transition services when leaving the military, deployment tempo (known as OpTempo) issues related to combat stress, the rising number of suicides, and educational opportunities for service members.

While these issues all appear to be separate, many of them are interrelated. For instance, issues of military spouse employment have a direct impact on family finances, as well as educational and job opportunities for parents and children.

One of the panel members, Angie McDaniel, discussed at the report’s release the issues she had when her son attempted to transfer schools (again) when her Navy spouse was moved. During one of their moves, the school their son would have been attending was not meeting his needs and he had to be home-schooled. When transferring to yet another station, they discovered that his new school district was not home-school friendly and told him he needed to repeat his entire ninth-grade year.

Although all of his testing results and curriculum were present, the new school district made life very difficult for this young man. This could have impacted his future education, especially as consideration of any scholarships to college would have been questionable.

Some families in this situation that do not wish to put their children into public school that might not meet their needs would prefer to put them into private school. Without the spouse having a job, this is often completely out of the question. When our children are moving and attending different schools (in Rich McDaniel’s case the third high school in four years) this is a significant stressor on the children and the family.

Additionally, 38 percent of the respondents stated that their local school was not aware of the experiences of the military children in that school. These include deployment, reintegration of the deployed parent (in National Guard this could be both parents) back into the family after deployment, moving schools and lack of knowledge of the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children. Unfortunately, tracking the data of where military children, active duty and National Guard/Reserve, are going to school is hit or miss, school district by school district.

The pay and benefits questions were asked before sequestration hit the news. The general survey consensus was that this would only have added to the number of respondents stating this was their chief issue. The retirement benefit changes, for those of us approaching retirement, are seen as a slap in the face, a diminution of 20 years of service during wartime. It can also be seen as a violation of the contract, the contract that service members signed when the oath was sworn and the service member and his family began their years of service. Sequestration will affect federal and Defense Department employees the most. Many of these employees are military family members or retirees and they are facing 11 days of furlough before Oct. 1. This is indeed a pay cut for military families.

As for issues related to employment for National Guard and Reserve families, Staff Sergeant Jennifer Hunt of the U.S. Army Reserve recounted that while her spouse’s first deployment was strongly supported by his employer, the same may not be the case following this second deployment. Many military families have encountered employers who are reluctant to hire a National Guard/Reservists if they can find civilians who can do the job. Sequestration is striking here as well, as National Guard/Reservists are finding it increasingly difficult to go to the schools that they require to do their jobs in the military properly.

Sixty-eight percent of military spouses who responded to the survey felt that being a military spouse had a negative impact on their ability to pursue a career, for which many have studied and worked. Sixty-one percent of these respondents were not working but 52 percent wanted to be. Job market alignment (in other words right job for right person) was cited by 80 percent as the reason they weren’t currently working. They might be under-qualified, over-qualified, can’t find jobs in their fields in their current duty station, find hiring freezes in the government, or myriad other reasons work remains elusive.

The survey also covered issues related to post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury or combat stress, and suicide. Unfortunately, issues of stigma (or at least perceived stigma) still prevent some service members and family members from seeking help.

A panelist, Col. Anthony Henderson USMC, currently serving in the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a special assistant to support transition and reintegration of military families into the community, who has had prior command experience, discussed his surprise at the experience he recently had with his son.  As a commander, Henderson has discussed suicide and suicidal ideation with his troops, family members and staff, but he was shocked to realize that his own son had very little information on signs to look for or what to do if a friend appeared to be contemplating death by suicide. This drove home the very real issue of training for family members as well as service members. The continuing issue and concerns with mental health professionals not accepting new Tri-care (military health insurance) patients is of great concern to all of us.

A public policy issue question was that of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Most of the respondents said there was no impact on their service member’s ability to do his or her job or desire to reenlist or stay in the military. Most also said it had no impact on their service member’s morale, mission readiness or national security.

Karen Francis is a writer and military spouse in the Washington, D.C. area and is the Military Families Editor for The Broad Side. Karen is the principal of KFVA Virtual Assisting, a company that provides freelance writing and editing services.

Welcome to Debtorville.

The number of U.S. adults with student loan debt has increased by a whopping 70 percent in the last eight years, and the average amount of has doubled to over $20 thousand dollars. Aggregate student loan debt in this country now exceeds $1 trillion. It’s the second largest debt of U.S. households right behind home mortgages.

Why so huge? A big reason is that college students pay way higher interest rates on their loans – serviced by the big banks – than the banks themselves spend to borrow from the Federal Reserve. The government charges students more than four times as much. And it’s about to get worse. If Congress doesn’t act by July 1, this summer student loans will skyrocket. Interest rates will jump to nine times higher than the rates for the biggest banks-the same banks that destroyed millions of jobs while getting big taxpayer bailouts.

The numbers are bad for everybody, but they hide another basic fact. The face of college debt is increasingly female. With their earnings at only 78 percent percent of men’s, women are more likely to go into debt in the first place and then take longer to pay off the their loans.

Credit cards are the method of choice – or desperation – in financing a college education for way too many female students. A study by Smith College on student finances found that women are more likely than their male counterparts to have credit card debt over $5,000, make their payments late, and not pay their balances in full. For women of color it’s even bleaker: if they resort to credit cards their rates can reach 20%, much higher than those for whites.

All that debt is a definite drag on the economy. Because of the loans 75 percent of these students and families say they’ve made personal or financial sacrifices. According to report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York they’ve postponed marriages, delayed car purchases, put off buying houses, and been forced to stop saving for retirement.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has introduced the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act to stop the fleecing – by canceling the increase and forcing the feds to give students the same rate the big banks pay for their money. The online petition supporting her bill has more than a quarter of a million signatures. But will it be enough before the June 30 deadline? Not likely. As of mid-May, the bill has exactly zero senate co-sponsors.

Maybe it’s time for a ’60s-style student uprising — but this time instead of occupying college hallways, they ought to occupy the halls of a Congress that favors big banks over struggling students.

You can hear Martha Burk’s radio commentary here.

Photo Credit: Morguefile

McTaggert was notified just two days before the president’s appearance that he’d been chosen to give the introduction. His employer, Ellicott Dredges, was already in the throes of preparing for the presidential visit as part of Obama’s Jobs and Opportunities Tour. It was a big deal for the company to bring  Obama in to speak. Company employees worked frantic 16-hour days to move machinery and equipment around so that there would be space to hold the event.

McTaggart believes he was chosen because he was the administrator for a government grant intended to improve their machine shop. The president toured the facility, which has been manufacturing dredges for more than a century, and saw the new equipment Ellicott was able to acquire as a result of the grant — part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

On stage, Obama’s focus on reigniting a thriving middle class received a warm welcome from the crowd of about 500 people. As he proudly ticked off indicators of his administrations economic accomplishments (shrinking deficits, healing housing markets, booming American energy, thriving auto industry, etc.), he was cognizant of the areas still needing attention and improvement.  Obama said corporate profits are at an all-time high, but families “haven’t seen their take-home pay rise for nearly a decade … It’s good that companies are profitable. I want you to be profitable. I want you to be taking a little more home in your paycheck.”

He highlighted three areas of focus to help that happen:

1. Making America a magnet for good jobs,
2. Giving workers the education and skills needed to do those jobs
3. Ensuring that working hard leads to a decent living.

Ellicott Dredges struck him as a great example to follow to achieve these goals. Obama praised them for having “a set of core values … [that has] seen you through an era of enormous change.” He was moved by their impulse to “grow not just a business, but a community, and by doing that … growing our country.” He was impressed with the quality of the machines, the hustle of the workforce, the vision of their leaders and their products being sold in more than 100 countries.

McTaggert agrees, and is proud of his work there. He thinks Obama learned a lot during his visit. The president asked many questions of the workers he met. Touring Ellicott Dredges demonstrated up close that manufacturing in this country is vital.

McTaggart believes that when people think of manufacturing  many visualize big hulking shells of factories — empty of employees and full of outdated machinery. That couldn’t be further from the truth, and McTaggart was happy Obama was seeing first-hand how modern their plant is and how they’ve put their grant money to good use. He was pleased to see the president getting his hands dirty and seeing the facts. “That’s what it’s all about,” said McTaggart. “The president has got to be in touch with manufacturing. If he really wants to support jobs, he’s got to do this stuff.”

In his speech, President Obama pledged to help “these kinds of success stories take root all across the country … [by boosting] our efforts to help businesses export more of their goods and services.” To that end, he claimed that exports are at an all-time high, and that more than a million export-supported jobs have been added since he took office.

He wants to keep the efforts going by focusing on rebuilding infrastructure — roads, bridges, airports and ports. He held up Ellicott Dredges, a company that built dredges that  helped dig the Panama Canal, as an example. “[It] literally helped create our global economy, because that was one of the first connectors that started to allow us to ship goods and cut the distances that integrated the world economy.”

When asked about lessons learned from being at the same company for so long, Obama quoted Ellicott Dredges’ 50-yeard employee Myrna LaBarre — “ ‘Be honest, be helpful, accept your mistakes and improve upon them, be good to people, keep a good sense of humor, have the best work ethic possible, and handle the good times and get over the bad.’ ” The president stressed that this recipe for success truly represents who we are. “That pretty much sums up everything. That’s who we like to understand America to be, who we are as Americans.”

McTaggart was thrilled to hear the president focus on LaBarre’s words. His children, 17-year-old Brendan and 15-year-old Andrea, sat beside him on the stage, and he wanted to tell them to listen. Then he said with a laugh that he decided against it because he thought, “If you’re 15 feet away from the President of the United States and you needed to be told to listen to him, you have bigger problems.”

“It is this simple. Life can be this simple. Be true to some very basic ideas. To have that espoused across all walks of life as if it’s truly a common goal is brilliant,” McTaggart said.

McTaggart added, “I would thank [the president] because … Obama really believes in helping people and is coming from the right place. I get a sense that he’s in this for the right reason and is really doing his best. I don’t think I can do any better given the realities of inheriting an office with a massive recession and a couple of wars. [Probably] 95 percent of his attention is taken up with things out of his control, and he’s really passionately pursuing making a difference. Doing something to make things better. To help people, and I’m not being eloquent, but there’s no eloquence there because it’s pure idealism. He needs to be thanked.”

Aliza Worthington grew up in Brooklyn, NY, and now lives in Baltimore. She began writing in 2009 at the age of 40. Sometimes her writing follows The Seinfeld Model of “no learning, no hugging.” Other times it involves lots of both. She blogs about Life, Liberty and Happiness at “The Worthington Post.” Her work also appears in Catonsville Patch, Kveller, and has been featured in the Community Spotlight section of Daily Kos under the username “Horque.” Her writing has also landed in the “Winner’s Circle” on Midlife Collage twice. Follow her on Twitter at @AlizaWrites.

Image via Aliza Worthington with permission

Whitewatergate

Nannygate

Monicagate

Weinergate

Our political shorthand for an inside-the-beltway crisis made it across the pond for Camillagate!

Why, this week, even Disney had to deal with Princess Meridagate!

And, of course, the latest — Umbrellagate!

Image via WBSM.com

But on the 40th anniversary of the actual Watergate hearings — the ones prompted by the break-in to the Democratic Party headquarters ordered by President Nixon as he was trying to gain re-election (remember CREEP?) — 2013 Republicans are trying to convince us that the current woes of the Obama administration related to Benghazi, the IRS and the Associated Press are Obama’s Watergate moments.

Leading the walk down the Obama-is-worse-than-Nixon memory lane is conservative columnist George Will, who claims that President Obama’s “lawlessness” deserves a criminal investigation, while contending that poor, poor Richard Milhous was just misunderstood and should have remained in office, planting the seeds of a possible Obama impeachment in his readers’ minds:

“It remains to be discovered whether the chief executive is guilty of more than an amazingly convenient failure to superintend the excesses of some executive-branch employees beyond the Allegheny Mountains. Meanwhile, file this under “What a tangled web we weave” … .”

This isn’t the first time someone like Will has waxed nostalgic for the days of Nixon, hoping that we’ll forget that presidentially directed criminal activity like breaking into the opposing political party’s headquarters to plant listening devices isn’t quite the same thing as an administration subpoenaing reporters’ records to quell the conservative attack on a commitment to finding terrorists. But in classic political shell game form, the Obama administration now stands accused, among other things, of overstepping First Amendment bounds. I’m not saying I like what the Department of Justice has done, but can we all take a step back and see the full picture that includes the Republicans’ role in possibly forcing the DOJ’s hand, rather than just one “breaking news” snapshot on the full timeline of the story?

The news cycle trifecta the President has found himself in this week certainly isn’t good, but unless there is more (and it’s looking like the Republican ideas about Benghazi are unraveling by the minute) we are a long way from Obama being the Democratic equivalent of one of the most politically corrupt politicians of our time.

With the rush to label every criticism of a president as a “scandal” and dubbing each one with the suffix “-gate,” also means we’ve perspective on Watergate’s historical significance, and that the word “Watergate” was shorthand for the presidentially directed criminal activities of Nixon and the subsequent cover-up that sent a variety of government officials to prison.

I’m not saying all the other “-gates” we have had through history constituted acceptable behavior (note to politicians – please don’t ever send Twitpics of your privates again. KTHX!), but as we are “celebrating” the 40th anniversary of the Watergate hearings, we should remind ourselves what the word “Watergate” stands for (aside from the name of a luxury condominium complex in Washington, D.C.) –  a constitutional crisis about what to do when a president commits criminal acts. So far, none of these other “-gates” come anywhere close.

Seriously, Republicans? you can do better than making a mountain out of an umbrella.

But given the attraction to the word, I have to wonder — would another break-in at the now-infamous residential hotel be Watergate-gate?

Joanne Bamberger is the publisher and editor-in-chief of The Broad Side.  She was formerly known around these internet parts as PunditMom, but now she is trying to be herself. She is the author of Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America (an Amazon.com bestseller and now available in E-book form!). She was recently awarded the Campaigns & Elections Magazine/CampaignTech 2013 Advocacy Innovator Award.

Image via Wikimedia Commons/National Archives

A lot has already been written on Jolie and her decision. For the most part, people are in agreement that her decision makes sense for her. And that last part, “for her,” must be stressed to the women who are in the process of making their decisions or those who will soon be sitting in their doctor’s office being told they are high risk and carry the faulty genetic marker.

I’ve read pieces that call into question the science, hope that Jolie becomes a voice for breaking up the monopoly on the BRCA test itself and far more who fawn over Jolie’s courage. Yet, rare in the pages and pixels spilled over Jolie’s decision is any real framing of what it is to sit where she sat and make that decision.

Yes, the science sucks. The choices women who carry the BRCA gene and have a family history suck even more.

A woman I know, a friend of a friend named Brenda, made this decision a few years ago. So I went to her with my questions as I wonder about any science that says the best way for women to prevent breast cancer is to amputate their breasts. Local newscasts have featured women who stated they decided on double mastectomies because they did not want to live in fear of breast cancer.

And as I read Brenda’s email, I realized an appreciation for that fear.

The alternative for those who have both the BRCA gene and a history with breast cancer is monitoring. This is what she describes as the alternative to a double mastectomy:

Annual mammograms alternating with an annual MRI at a cost of $500 with my good insurance (so screening every six months) as well as a clinical breast exam from a doctor every six months. That’s only breasts. Someone who is BRCA+ also needs ovarian cancer screening, of which there are no good options, but they usually go with transvaginal ultrasound and CA125 blood test, and clinical exam, every six months. With two appointments every six months for breasts alone, plus one for ovaries twice a year, and follow-ups from mammograms that may require more X-rays, ultrasounds, and biopsies, one appointment certainly runs into the next. It becomes a full-time job. And there is something we call “scan-xiety,” which is worrying about the test before it happens, and after it happens before you get results. Your life becomes about worrying about your breasts. Not so much watching for “if” you will get cancer, but “when.” And all that work for what? Catching it early? BRCA1 cancers are often triple negative, meaning they have no hormone receptors that can be treated with drugs to prevent a recurrence. Catching it early is no guarantee you won’t die from it. We have a saying… that choosing surgery is choosing to have mastectomy without the side of chemo.

As much as others and I think the science is flawed, it is sadly the best we have available. And when you are making decisions about your future, you make the best decision you can with the best information you have.

When I’ve been talking with others about Jolie’s decision, I keep saying, “If it were me, I have no idea what I would do.” After reading Brenda’s description of what monitoring entails, I am leaning more and more towards saying, “Yes, I would lob them off!”

Being a feminist and a student of science can be difficult. On one hand, removing ones breasts despite the hyper-sexualized world we live in is an empowered move. It says, “F*^!  you, my life is worth more than saving my breasts. I am more than a body part.” On the other hand, they are body parts and I want science to be past what feels like a medieval procedure. I want science to prevent cancer without us having to remove body parts.

Jolie’s courage to share her story, just as Christina Applegate did previously, will influence other women’s decisions. I also hope that Jolie takes her activism to the cause of breast cancer awareness and prevention. Applegate has a foundation that supports women and assists them in obtaining MRIs. Breast Cancer Action was an early critic of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and asks us to “Think Before You Pink.” I hope she lends her voice to those of us discussing the pending Supreme Court case that will rule on whether or not a company can be the sole provider of a test that asks women to make life-or-death decisions.

Lastly, I hope we get to see her toting around her Amazon grandchildren at movie premieres in the far future. Because you know they are going to be as kick ass as she is.

Contributor Veronica Arreola writes the blog Viva la Feminista, where she tries to navigate and understand the intersection between feminism, motherhood and her Latinadad. You can follow her on Twitter @veronicaeye

Image via Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons License

Okay. That last one is actually an actress from a television show called Scandal that has recently exploded in popularity.

The first three, though? Those are scandals that likely won’t see closing curtains for a while. They are capturing the lion’s share of the national media’s attention, not to mention all of Congress’ billable hours. But fear not, dear reader. Scandals are raging in plenty of other countries. You know what they say about misery loving company.

1. American to Be Booted From Russia on Suspicions of Spying. A U.S. diplomat has been labeled persona non grata in Russia. The Russians believe an American was trying to infiltrate the country’s security forces to recruit double-agents/spies. Authorities claim to have found the suspect with a “spy arsenal” of disguises and large sums of money. American officials dispute that the man is affiliated with the CIA, deny that he was recruiting spies, and claim that Russia has manufactured the incident to stir up anti-American sentiment. You can probably find further details at a cineplex near you in twelve to eighteen months.

2. Japanese Mayor Justifies Use of War-Time Sex Slaves. Before and during World War II, Japan’s military forced Asian women into prostitution for members of the country’s armed forces. Earlier this week, the young, male mayor of Osaka proclaimed that such forced conscription was necessary to “maintain discipline.” Toru Hashimoto, co-leader of an emerging conservative political party, referred to the women as “comfort women” and disputed that they provided their services as a result of coercion. Historians say up to 200,000 women, most from the Korean Peninsula or China, were forced to have sex with Japanese soldiers in military brothels. Hashimoto argued that it should be “clear to anyone” that the system was “necessary” to help the soldiers “get some rest.” South Korean and Chinese officials criticized the comments, and cited them as further evidence of Japan’s rightward political drift. You can find further details inside Todd Akin’s brain.

3. Turkish Court Fingers State Officials in Murder Conspiracy. In 2007, an Armenian journalist named Hrant Dink was murdered. Dink was an outspoken critic of Turkey’s treatment of the country’s approximately 60,000 Christian Armenians, as well as its diplomatic standoff with neighboring Armenia. He was shot in broad daylight in front of his newspaper’s office building in Istanbul, sparking public outcry and protests. Many believed the killing was yet another conspiracy-orchestrated, politically motivated murder, but in 2012 a criminal court convicted just two men of the crime. An appeals court has ruled that the men did not act alone, paving the way for a retrial that could implicate state officials. You can find further details on the European Union’s list of “Why Turkey Probably Shouldn’t Make The Cut.”

4. Daughter Whines About Table, Dad Loses Job. A senior Mexican official has lost his job after his daughter tried to use his name and position to shut down a bistro that did not seat her at the table she wanted. She somehow managed to get officials to raid the bistro after her seating disappointment. The brouhaha became an embarrassing distraction for the government, which is apparently taking abuses of power more seriously. In a lovely twist, the fired official was the attorney-general for consumer protection. You can find further details in the diary of any member of the Kardashian family.

5. Israeli Prime Minister Likes Expensive Haircuts, Etc. Just as Israel was getting ready to swallow the painful pill of austerity measures, a watchdog group has released a report stating that taxpayer funds have been used to support increased costs and expenses incurred by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s household. The list of expenses includes his three residences ($1.5 million) and monthly charges for cleaning services ($27,000), food and hospitality ($11,000) and personal expenses such as hairdressers and makeup ($1,450). Each of those figures represents a dramatic increase over charges from 2009. Netanyahu’s office defended the price tags, insisting that the money was spent for official events. This isn’t the first time this sort of scandal has touched Netanyahu. Earlier this year, he was forced to cancel a state contract when it was revealed he was spending $2,700 for his favorite ice cream. You can find further details in Mariah Carey’s contract hospitality rider.

6. Activists Jailed In Bahrain For Insulting King. Six activists posted Twitter messages that allegedly insulted Bahrain’s King Hamad. They have since been sentenced to a year in jail on charges of “misuse of freedom of expression.” The convictions and sentences come as part of a broader effort by the kingdom to stifle protest and dissent. You can find further details in the thesaurus under “antonyms for freedom.”

Remember to check back next here week for the latest edition of ”6 Things You Need To Know Right Now.”

Image via iStockphoto/Les Cunliffe

Democrats can claim consistency. When Bush Administration departments were caught politicizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and using partisan litmus tests to fire U.S. attorneys, Democrats cried foul. Republicans then were mostly silent. All it took for the GOP to figure out that government must remain neutral was a despised Democratic president.

Details about the current IRS imbroglio continue to emerge. Whether it was a coordinated attempt to hamper conservative groups or a few rogue employees who blundered terribly, there must be accountability.

Singling out groups based on politics is wrong, plain and simple. A vast federal government can succeed only if career workers remain apart from partisanship. The IRS, the Justice Department, all branches of government have a duty to treat people equitably regardless of their political persuasion.

But let’s be clear about the crime, mistake or whatever you want to call it. The IRS did not err by strictly scrutinizing groups with “tea party,” “9/12” and other conservative-sounding terms in their names. It erred by strictly scrutinizing primarily groups with those names. In an ideal world and with far better funding, the IRS would strictly scrutinize every applicant for tax-exempt status.

Not having to pay taxes is a precious gift from the American people, but it comes with strings attached. Those who cannot abide by the strings should not receive privileged status. Yet many tax-exempt organizations get away with breaking the rules, and the problem has only worsened since the U.S. Supreme Court’s flawed Citizens United decision.

The 501(c)4 category, named for the IRS code section that applies, is meant for groups that “promote social welfare [and] should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.” The gray area is in the word “primarily.” In theory, such groups must limit how much they work to influence elections. In practice, many skirt the edges, fooling only the willfully blind enforcers at the IRS.

Because such groups may keep a lot of their donor information secret, they have become sort of like money-laundering operations for partisans who prefer their names not be associated with their politics. The most notorious example is Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove’s group that so heavily spent millions supporting conservatives and attacking progressives leading up to the 2012 election without disclosing who really was paying the bills.

The same problem spills into 501(c)3 groups like churches and charitable nonprofits. They face stricter rules about politicking, but they frequently straddle the line. Some churches flagrantly cross it, defying the IRS to do something. It rarely does.

If there was any good in the IRS’s targeting tea party groups, it was that it might have been a sign that investigators finally had grown spines about enforcement.

Surely, their spines once again are mush. Seemingly every politician rushed to the podium to damn the IRS. Its leaders are forced out as punishment. Congress and the Justice Department launch investigations. Under such strain, it is exceedingly unlikely that vigorous investigations into any nonprofits will continue. Rather, the IRS will keep its head low.

If you have ever thought about promoting social welfare, doing a little politicking on the side, and helping some rich friends conceal their donations, there has never been a better time to found a nonprofit.

Don’t look for Congress to fix things. Better funding for tax collectors is a non-starter in the current political environment. Lawmakers cannot even agree that disclosure of who is buying elections is a good idea.

The best solution would be to do away with tax-exempt status all together. Estimates vary, but the cost runs to tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars. If these groups started paying taxes and donors stopped writing off their gifts, it would fill a substantial part of the deficit.

In return for paying their taxes like everyone else, those groups could do all the politicking they want.

Christian Trejbal is a member of the board of directors of the Association of Opinion Journalists and chair of the Open Government Committee. Overcoming graduate degrees in philosophy, he worked as an editorial writer at The (Bend) Bulletin and The Roanoke Times for more than a decade. In 2013, he and his wife moved to Portland, Ore., where he writes freelance, pursues a couple of book projects and provides public policy analysis. Or, as his wife prefers to say, he is a stay-at-home dude. Follow him on Twitter @ctrejbal.

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons.

First posted at JedMorey.com

Hysteria over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s lap band surgery has coupled with coverage of Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries’s interview in which he admitted, “I don’t want larger people shopping in the store,” has turned into what I’d like to call America’s latest round of bigotry:

Weigh-cism.

Not that fat shaming in America is anything new, but this recent round calls attention to a unique brand of judgment that, like blaming and shaming the poor, finds acceptance in that the problem is understood to be preventable and rectifiable, and as such, a legitimate form of prejudice.

Whereas, the poor could simply decide to get a high paying job through hard work and chutzpah, the overweight need simply to avoid saturated fats and bad carbs. Lay off the fast food, brother, and the slings and arrows stop. Just get yourself some organic kale and run it through your Nutribullet. What’s that you say? You can afford neither organic produce nor antibiotic and hormone free organic free-range chicken? Well, it’s your own fault for taking those two minimum wage jobs after getting your MBA from Harvard. Who does that?

The HBO Documentary The Weight of the Nation looks at the connection between poverty and obesity. The rising level of obesity in this nation coincides in a synchronized level with the rising gaps in economic disparity. Ironically, obesity is a big money-maker: medications for diseases linked with obesity like heart disease, diabetes and sleep apnea are cash cows for the pharmaceutical industry.

The link between obesity and poverty is inarguable. The causes, however, are what can be in dispute. There is a lack of availability for healthy food options in poorer areas. Farmer’s markets and produce stands find their homes in affluent areas; in our poorest areas, cheap and fatty foods dominate in the prominence of fast food restaurants and hot dog trucks. It comes down to the resources available to different pockets of the population.

Anthony Iton, Senior Vice President of Healthy Communities, The California Endowment, suggests that in analyzing the death certificates for patterns in the causes of death, “your zip code matters more than your genetic code.” In fact, the nine poorest states in the US rank within the ten highest in obesity. In short, we can’t address the problem of the rise in our overweight children and the fact that in some segments of the population, the upcoming generation will have a shorter life expectancy than the current generation for nearly the first time in nearly 200 years, without taking a serious look at the economy.

Yet, there is a roadblock when it comes to addressing this issue in any realistic fashion in part because of the collective attitude Americans have about personal responsibility. In these tight economic times, the programs for the poor are often the first things to go. Case in point, sequester cuts made to the FAA were quickly reversed when the impact was seen in flight delays and long waits. The unseen wounds made by the sequester cuts that will take time to manifest in ways we can measure are those made to the poorest among us, the social safety nets like funding for Head Start, public housing subsidies, unemployment insurance, veterans services, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

The way to alleviate any guilt for such blatant preference for economic support for those who need it the least is to either ignore it, or in a more sinister and manipulative way, to blame those in need. To take away the victimhood of the victim is not only good politics, but effective marketing. We can see it everywhere from the rants of right-wing talk show media to the status updates of listeners who pretend to outrage at welfare recipients who game the system, while in the same breath defend corporate corruption as smart capitalism. If it’s their own damn fault, I don’t have to feel bad about ignoring the solution. And I certainly don’t have to accept taking responsibility to contributing to the problem.

In this way, it’s encouraging to see Chris Christie take affirmative action on his weight issue. While the left makes derisive commentary on his figure and the right speculates about whether or not this will increase his chances for a Presidential nomination, I wonder if someone with the power of political office who understands and has experience with this problem can help bring attention to it. Whether the attention leads to jokes and the collective dismissive sweep of the hands or realistic discussion of solutions remains to be seen. In the meantime, I’ll be boycotting Abercrombie & Fitch.

(Not that I could fit into those jeans anyway.)

Jaime Franchi is a freelance writer living on Long Island. Her work can be found on Salon.com, Milieu Magazine, Punchnel’s, and soon in the New York Times “Motherlode” blog. www.JaimeFranchi.com. Follow her on Twitter at @Jaimimimama.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Bob Jagendorf

Of course, I’m referring to the latest social media sensation: Charles Ramsey, the man who is a hero for his Good Samaritan role in the rescue of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight from the Cleveland home of Ariel Castro where they had been held hostage for years.

Articles and memes abound about Ramsey’s first comments to the media when describing what happened on May 6:

But you know he’s not the only African-American who has this manner of speech, and who has been the subject of some ridicule. Others include Sweet Brown and Michelle Clark.

Some will argue that this Internet attention actually celebrates Ramsey’s heroism, rather than mocking it. I’d suggest it’s a little of both: a sensational story told by an easily sensationalized guy.

The great irony is this — many white people laugh at black vernacular because they think it’s ignorant, when in fact, it’s actually white ignorance about black vernacular that lies at the heart of the joke. With little understanding of the origins, intelligence and cultural value of black vernacular, it can be easy to mistake it for an unsuccessful attempt at Standard English. In that light, black speech can come across as charming, child-like, hilarious, or even offensive.

As Americans, we hear a lot about the many things slavery took away–things like freedom, dignity, family, and wealth. We need to know about those things. However, white folks also need to understand that three hundred years of living and dying in bondage did not happen in a cultural vacuum. Slaves developed rich cultural traditions, especially around religion, music, and language.

While our high school teachers drilled into us the importance of proper grammar and vocabulary, the reality is that language is alive and ever-changing. That’s why it’s hard to read Shakespeare and nearly impossible to read Chaucer. It’s why we don’t say “thee” and “thou” anymore, and it’s why “ain’t” and “bling” now appear in the dictionary. It’s also the reason that enslaved Africans, when thrust into their English-speaking bondage, did not speak a precise copy of the language they heard from the mouths of their captors.

Inevitably, slaves blended Standard English with the many African languages they either spoke themselves or were introduced to over the course of the slave trade. This kind of blending typically simplifies grammatical structures in language. We see this especially in verb conjugations such as that used by Charles Ramsey when he says “It’s” instead of “There were” in the phrase, “It’s some mo’ girls up in that house.”

Consider also that slaves had only limited access to Standard English. They didn’t, after all, sit around chatting over tea with their overseers (those men probably didn’t speak it very well anyway). In addition, a systematically enforced illiteracy denied them access to the written word. Without the corrective of written language, transmission of language becomes less specific, with the proliferation of substitutions like “wif” for “with” and dropped endings like “mo” for “more.” In the context of an evolving language that communicates effectively, these alterations aren’t errors, they’re simply changes that reflect the given circumstances.

You may be thinking, “But that was a long time ago, why doesn’t Ramsey learn ‘proper’ English now?”

I can’t speak specifically for Ramsey, but I can point out that slavery continued for three hundred years. That’s a lot of talking. It’s certainly plenty of time to develop a rich oral tradition that serves not just as a means of communication, but as an important source of cultural identity and pride.

Black vernacular can be inspirational and participatory. We see this in call and response patterns that still characterize political and religious speak today. It can also be double-voiced, which means it’s intended for two audiences: often a black insider and a white outsider. It is intentionally and creatively indirect, with “yo’ mama” jokes providing just one small but popular example. And finally, it is subversive. Since black vernacular evolved under extreme stress, with its speakers under constant surveillance, it carries with it an awareness of a listening third party, one the speaker will invoke or evade as necessary.

We can see Ramsey’s awareness of a third party in both his 911 call and in his initial live interview. He references McDonald’s early in both. On the call he gives the address then says, “Hey, check this out. I just came from McDonald’s right?” Similarly, at the beginning of the interview he explains that “I heard screaming. I’m eating my McDonald’s.” Rather than a hilariously irrelevant piece of information from an ignorant neighbor, this savvy tidbit offers up an alibi to police or other officials who will eventually overhear these conversations.

Ramsey appears to recognize himself as at risk in a racially charged situation where a distressed white girl has called 911 in the presence of a black man (who also happens to have a record of domestic violence). While he sets up the story for the reporter (it all started when I was eating my McDonald’s and I suddenly heard screaming), he communicates a slightly different narrative to police who might eventually overhear (a white girl started screaming but it didn’t have anything to do with me because I had just come from McDonald’s and was minding my own business eating my food on the porch).

Later, Ramsey makes his awareness of the racialized narratives around black men more explicit when he says, “Bro, I knew something was wrong when a pretty little white girl ran into a black man’s arms.” Again his statement is double-voiced. For a black audience, this statement is a joke that he punctuates with, “Dead giveaway!” For a white audience, the statement is a veiled accusation about how racist stereotypes unfairly represent black men as dangerous to white women. While people in the background laugh at the joke, the white reporter hears the accusation and runs away.

In light of all this, it doesn’t make sense to ask why someone like Ramsey doesn’t make more of an effort to learn “proper” English. If his speech is part of his identity and serves as a positive signifier for his community and its history, why would he want to give it up? And why should he?

Ramsey’s grammar reminds us that abducted Africans brought their languages here and blended them with that of their captors. His animation illustrates a long tradition of story telling in a culture that suffered centuries of forced illiteracy. His content shows his social and political savvy as well as his ability to speak to two audiences at once.

If Ramsey’s interview entertains you, I think that’s okay, just as long as we see that entertainment not as an accident of stupidity but as a product of the richness and artistry of living language.

Deb Werrlein is a literacy advocate and tutor for dyslexic learners. She is a freelance editor and writer who blogs at Small House Big Picture.

Image via Clarion Ledger crime beat blog