Oct 8, 2009

Usury country: Welcome to the birthplace of payday lending—By Daniel Brook (Harper's Magazine)

A shop window advertising payday loans.Image via Wikipedia

On a whitewashed church pew in Johnson City, I sat alone as James Eaton stood over me delivering a sermon. It was a Monday, and this was Eaton’s office. One of the inventors of payday lending—the business of making small, short-term loans from retail locations at steep rates—Eaton operates out of a converted service station, with a tarp sign in red and white: here’s where it all started. east tennes see’s first, oldest & finest. He had suggested we conduct our interview in his reception area, on the pew he brought up years ago from his wife’s childhood church in Alabama. I balanced my coffee cup perilously on the green-felt pew pad as I listened to him enumerate his own good works—his donations to a Bible college, his support for a rural congregation of evangelical Harley-Davidson enthusiasts. Eaton’s homily was heartfelt, if meandering and peppered with such biblical malapropisms as Jesus having “healed those leopards.” As he preached, customers kept trudging in past us to the counter, where they wrote postdated bad checks and walked away with twenties at several hundred percent interest, all transacted above a vast American flag dangling from the countertop.

“Good to see y’all!” Eaton greeted each customer, his chirpy voice cracking with enthusiasm. “Good to see you too,” generally came the more muted reply.

In his sermon, Eaton recounted a real-life Christmas Carol.“We opened up just before Christmas,” he said. “A grandmother brought a little girl in here, holding her hand. And I cashed her a hundred-dollar check, and I looked down at the little girl. I said, ‘Now what’s Santa Claus going to bring you for Christmas? What’s he going to put under your tree?’ And the grandmother looked at me and said, ‘Mr. Eaton, we had to decide whether we would put up a tree this year or the little girl would get a present.’ And I said, ‘I understand, I grew up that way.’ But I felt sorry. I took money out of my pocket and I said, ‘Go get that little girl a Christmas tree. Every little girl deserves a Christmas tree.’ They go off. The very next day here’s the woman pulling up with a Christmas tree sticking out of the back end of her car. The funniest thing, she comes in here, ‘Mr. Eaton, I don’t have anything to decorate the Christmas tree.’ So back in my pocket, handed her some more money, she goes on her way. That little granddaughter is cashing checks with me today.”

“She manages one of your stores?” I asked.

“She comes in and cashes checks,” he clarified.

It was to be a two-hour oration. As I sat on the pew, sipping my coffee and taking notes halfheartedly, my eyes wandered from the American flag behind Eaton to the poster over his left shoulder: Martin Luther King, preaching to the masses at the March on Washington. The best-known trope of King’s address that day was, of course, his famous “dream.” But King began his speech with a very different metaphor. “In a sense,” he said,

we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. . . . A bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

In King’s broader vision, the creditors were not simply the descendants of slaves but all Americans living in poverty, whose nation had made them promises long past due. Months before his death in 1968, King began planning a second march on Washington that would serve as culmination of a Poor People’s Campaign, an inter racial movement of blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans, as well as Appalachian whites. “When we come to Washington in this campaign,” King declared, “we are coming to get our check.” Rallying striking sanitation workers in Memphis just a few days before his assassination, King declared that “it is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis and a full-time job getting part-time income.” But in the decades since King’s speech, working full time for a part-time income has become the fate of greater and greater numbers of Americans. In fact, the U.S. minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has never regained its 1968 value. The average income of a full-time worker at Walmart, today the nation’s largest private employer, is only slightly more than $17,000 a year. Fully 47 percent of Americans now report living paycheck to paycheck.

During the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, the race-based legal oppression of slavery was replaced with the economic bondage of sharecropping—a race-neutral system that ensnared blacks and whites alike. In his short lifetime, King helped lay waste to more legal barriers, those of racial segregation, but in the past twenty years a new, race-neutral form of economic exploitation has arisen in their place. This twenty-first-century sharecropping is called payday lending; and each indentureship under it begins, fittingly enough, with a bad check.


Like many payday-lending pioneers, Eaton came out of the credit-bureau business, back when credit bureaus would keep tabs with the local department store on who had fallen behind on bills. When that industry was consolidated nationally, Eaton began looking for another line of work. He settled on short-term loans—cash today to tide a worker over until payday, offered at triple-digit annual interest rates. Eaton took out a second mortgage on his house and opened up Check Cashing, Inc. on December 2, 1991.

“I ran a little bitty ad in the paper in the personals section,” he told me. “We will hold your check till payday.”

A few weeks later, the son of an old colleague from the credit-bureau business flew into town to offer him a job. “He flew up here on that little private plane right then to try and hire me,” Eaton explained. Between customers he chatted with the well-heeled visitor, but Eaton, with his promising new business venture, wasn’t looking for work.

“Three or four weeks later he called. ‘James, I want to come up there and find out what you were doing again. I have been thinking about that and I’m interested in it.’ I said, ‘Allan, you come on up.’ So he flew back in. And we was opening up our office in Kingsport. He spent the day with us up there.”

W. Allan Jones, the jet-setting visitor, went on to found Check Into Cash, the first of the national payday-lending chains. With a knack for marketing, Jones rechristened the transaction Eaton called “check cashing” as “the payday advance.” It was Jones who saw the potential to expand someone else’s business concept into a coast-to-coast empire. Jones saw how payday lending could be to finance what McDonald’s is to food.

In the early 1990s, there were fewer than 200 payday lending stores in America; today, there are over 22,000, serving 10 million households each year—a $40 billion industry with more U.S. locations, in fact, than McDonald’s. Today, Jones’s company, based in his hometown of Cleveland, Tennessee, is the second or third largest of its kind. With 1,200 stores in thirty-two states, it is roughly equal in size to Virginia-based Check ’n Go but smaller than South Carolina’s Advance America, founded by the director of scheduling and advance in the Clinton Administration, William Webster.

Getting a payday loan is, in Check Into Cash’s trademarked phrase, “Quick, Easy, and Confidential.” The only paperwork required is a two-sided form with blanks soliciting contact information about the customer, her spouse, her landlord or mortgage holder, and three acquaintances in the area. An applicant need only fill out the sheet, show proof of employment and a bank account, and then write a bad check, dated her next payday, for the loan amount plus the fee. (In Tennessee, typical advances range from $50 in cash for a $58.82 check, to $200 for a $230 check.) On that next payday, the customer cashes her paycheck and buys back the check in cash for its face value.

Such is the process in principle, but seldom does it work out that way. When the next payday arrives, most borrowers can’t afford to repay, so they extend the loan until the following payday by paying another finance charge. (In Tennessee and many other states, a borrower technically cannot “extend” the transaction, but lenders make it a trivial process to pay back the loan and immediately take out a new one, adding another finance charge on top.) Like a sharecropping contract, a payday loan essentially becomes a lien against your life, entitling the creditor to a share of your future earnings indefinitely. Even the industry- sponsored research cited on the Check Into Cash website shows that only 25.1 percent of customers use their loans as intended, paying each one off at the end of their next pay period for an entire year. Government studies show even lower rates of customer payoff. North Carolina regulators found that 87 percent of borrowers roll over their loans; Indiana found that approximately 77 percent of its payday loans were rollovers. This is hardly surprising, of course: if your finances are so busted that a doctor visit or car repair puts you in the red, chances are slim that you’ll be able to pay back an entire loan plus interest a few days after taking it out. “On average,” Jeremy Tobacman, a Wharton professor who studies the industry, drily put it, “payday borrowers seem to be over-optimistic about the future.”

Once caught in the cycle, the borrower faces a choice each payday—pay Check Into Cash $30 or pay Check Into Cash $230. Unlike conventional loans, in which the creditor issues the debtor a lump sum to be repaid with interest in installments over time, the largest single transfer in a payday loan goes from debtor to creditor. With payday lending, the “debt trap” is not a figure of speech: the loan is actually structured as a trap.


In 1997, Tennessee became the nineteenth state in the union to explicitly legalize payday lending, which before then had operated in a legal gray area. Allan Jones and his family donated more than $29,000 to state legislators during the run-up to the vote. As in other states, the industry used a clever rhetorical strategy to cast interest-rate caps, or usury laws, as a form of government paternalism. Legislators, they argued, should grant their constituents the autonomy to make their own financial decisions. The idea that certain constituents needed their representatives to take care of them for their own good so clearly echoed themes from the state’s past that no one had to explicitly connect the dots. Industry representatives highlighted the race-neutrality of payday lending to corral votes. “They hired a Noah’s Ark of lobbyists,” Steve Cohen, a state senator, memorably remarked to the Associated Press. “They hired a black lobbyist to get black votes. If we’d have had a transsexual, they would have hired a transsexual lobbyist.” By creating the appearance of a multiracial coalition against government overreach, they presented the deregulation of usury as a latter-day civil rights issue.

In the peroration of the “I Have a Dream” speech, King lists a series of improbable places where freedom one day will ring, among them “the Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.” Today, under Chattanooga’s Lookout Mountain sits a strip mall whose tenants include a Check Into Cash. On Friday, October 31, 2008—the ultimate payday, the end of both a week and a month—I loitered in the parking lot and watched customers file in on their lunch hours to extend their loans. Since payments are due on the customer’s actual payday, and branches are rarely open before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., there is inevitably a crush at lunchtime. A mix of black and white, young and old, the customers drove everything from a dented sedan with a Chattanooga Housing Authority parking permit to a spotless Nissan SUV. When I asked the African-American woman in the SUV about her loan, she politely brushed me off: “I don’t want to talk about that. It’s personal.” Jack Atkins, a pockmarked white man driving a minivan, told me he’d been a customer for about a month. “It’s been working out for me,” he said.

Susan Jolliff was on her lunch break from her $8.96-an-hour job in quality control at Intersign, which manufactures vinyl signs for motel-room doors. As she left Check Into Cash, she stuffed a stack of twenties into her wallet, rattled off her phone number to me, and rushed into the supermarket. We spoke the following week. Jolliff had taken out her $175 loan three months earlier, after her wallet was stolen with the remainder of her stimulus-package tax-rebate cash in it. The company by now had more than recouped its principal in finance fees, but still she was unable to pay it off. “I figured it would take maybe a month,” she said. “Maybe rewrite it once and then pay it back. But no. We get a bonus at work every month, and the last couple of months it’s been kind of low, but hopefully next month . . .”

But she harbored no malice toward Check Into Cash’s employees. “As far as the people who work in there, they’re nice as can be,” she said. So nice, in fact, that a few weeks ago when an employee accidentally re-loaned Jolliff the full $205 instead of the $175 principal, Jolliff courteously corrected her. “‘Oh no, I’m supposed to get one seventy-five and you’re supposed to get thirty,’ I said. ‘You better watch that or you’re going to be in trouble.’”

Steven Winslow, who worked for a year as a store manager for Check ’n Go after dropping out of a clinical-psychology graduate program, explained that these chummy customer relationships are carefully cultivated by the payday-lending chains. We met at a Check Into Cash store near the Knoxville private school where he teaches, appropriately, drama and personal finance. At store-manager training, he told me, the mantra was “Your repeat customer is your lifeblood.” Managers were encouraged to be on a first-name basis with their customers, to ask after their families.

The first few times a customer came in, Winslow said, he’d make small talk about their kids. Soon they wouldn’t even look him in the eye. “It’s a person in desperation crossing their fingers that they can pretend this will work,” Winslow said. And when it invariably doesn’t, the borrower feels tremendous shame and guilt. But the store manager feels anger, too. “It was my money. You take it personally in that you’re responsible for taking this company’s money and giving it to somebody, [and then] your job is on the line on the basis of Joe Blow’s pay history—their habits, their character, their integrity, their decision, their choice, their difficulty, their crisis, their tragedy.”

What Winslow described was lives disintegrating in time-lapse, with a new shot snapped every two weeks. Maybe the customer started bringing in a family member or a friend, who would spot the cash to pay the loan and then get it back after the re-loan transaction. If a customer fell behind on payments, Winslow’s staff would start making up to twenty collection calls a day to the debtor’s home and workplace, as well as to her friends, landlord, boss—anyone who got listed on that first innocuous form. Other customers, to save face, would take out a loan from another payday lender to pay the first. “Once you’re borrowing from Check Into Cash to pay Advance America to pay Check ’n Go, it’s just a matter of time,” he said. “You go to the second lender, it’s game over. It’s game over.”


Like just about everything in Cleveland, Tennessee—a city of 40,000 that is either in the middle of nowhere or, as the locals say, “halfway to everywhere”—the Bald Headed Bistro is owned by Allan Jones. And as with his other holdings, the Bistro is not an anonymous line on some enormous balance sheet but aspires to be a projection of the man’s very essence. Its decor purports to channel the rustic ambience of Jones’s ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and its name pays homage to Jones’s hairless pate. The men’s room walls are decorated with framed photos of the regulation-sized football field he built in his back yard. I climbed atop an itchy cowhide barstool and asked the bartender, a student at a local evangelical college, if this was the nicest place in town. By far, he told me. “The next closest place is Outback.” The restaurant is so nice, in fact, that members of the Cleveland City Council come over for dinner each Monday after their weekly session. The restaurant, he said, caters to “people of that area.”

The local gentry did, in fact, seem well represented at the tables, but there were also patrons who looked far less affluent, perhaps out celebrating special occasions. The weathered gentleman in one couple, who looked to be out for a night away from the kids, sported a giant USMC forearm tattoo. At another table, an older woman was dressed for dinner in an orange University of Tennessee T-shirt.

Whether or not they are Check Into Cash employees—or customers—everyone in Cleveland, Tennessee, is indebted to Jones. Anyone who patronizes the library, which resides in a converted Victorian that Jones donated to the city, has him to thank. Jones paid to renovate the bandstand on the courthouse square, and he also owns and maintains Cleveland’s most historic building, Craigmiles Hall, a Gilded Age opera house where, Clevelanders will proudly tell you, John Philip Sousa played once. Even Ron Haynes—a local legal-aid lawyer who refuses to eat at the Bistro and swears he would sue Jones, if Jones hadn’t gotten Tennessee’s legislature to write the payday-lending law in such a way that made it impossible to do so—cuts him a check at the end of each month; like the rest of downtown, his legal-aid office is a Jones-owned property.

Jones himself resides on a 400-acre horse farm on Anatole Lane, out at the northern edge of town. For decades Cleveland’s elite lived on Centenary Avenue, a block of stately homes quite close to downtown, but after Jones began building his estate in 1993, Cleveland’s entire executive class relocated to Anatole, ideally situated between the airstrip for private planes and the Cleveland Country Club. I drove up to Anatole hoping to get a glimpse of the Jones mansion and football field, but little of the compound was visible from the road. The entrance to Jones’s property is monitored by a gatehouse whose pointed metal dome suggests a king’s palace in the Brothers Grimm. Many surrounding homes are built in a style one might call Plantation Revival—columned white monstrosities like something out of Gone With The Wind.

Such Deep South style is almost as ahistorical as the Mitteleuropean guard tower: on the eve of the Civil War, Bradley County, of which Cleveland is the county seat, was 90 percent white (as it remains today). Tennessee’s plantations and slaves were largely elsewhere, spread out in the flat, cotton-producing region near Memphis. When secession came, Bradley County voted to remain in the Union, and it was dragged out only by the western, slave-holding part of the state. Cleveland had very little to do with the old inequality; Allan Jones has ensured that it will have everything to do with the new inequality.


The Check Into Cash headquarters are near downtown, in a former shopping mall that Jones bought out of bankruptcy in 1998. When I walked into the corporate reception area, the first thing I saw was a photo montage, shaped like a United States map, from which Allan Jones’s face stares out amid piles of cash. From there I was taken in to meet the company’s president, Steve Scoggins. A compact man in a brown sweater-vest, Scoggins gave me a tour of the vast cubicle farm as he laid out the demographic logic of the company’s store siting. The marketing company Nielsen Claritas breaks down American consumers into dozens of niche markets, he said, and Check Into Cash’s targets are in demographic #44: “Homespun Families,” which forms a subset of the larger “Mass Middle Class” category. Forty-fours have a median household income of $40,351; they eat at Shoney’s, enjoy NASCAR, and watch The 700 Club. “Financially, they’re a strong credit market,” a Claritas poster in the offices declared. Alongside this poster hung two maps of metropolitan Phoenix, coded to show where high concentrations of 44s live. “We locate almost exclusively in retail strip centers,” Scoggins explained. It’s just a matter of identifying the 44s, finding their local strip mall, and setting up shop.

I tried to push Scoggins to discuss the distressing predicament in which his customers invariably end up. His own industry research, I pointed out, showed that only one-quarter of payday-lending customers are consistently able to pay off their loans when they come due. Why, I asked, do customers think they can pay back the loan when the vast majority of the time they can’t?

“I don’t know,” Scoggins said. “I don’t try to pretend to understand how our customers think.”

As the Community Financial Services Association, the payday-lending industry’s trade and lobbying group in Washington, puts it, “payday advance customers represent the heart of America’s middle class”—a terrifyingly accurate statement that testifies to the financial instability of all but the most affluent Americans. Unlike with check cashing, the market for payday loans isn’t the underclass. The 28 million Americans who have no bank account (a number that includes 20 percent of African Americans and Latinos) don’t have the checkbook with which to write the necessary bad check. Millions more are ineligible for payday loans because they’re unemployed or are paid off the books.

Most of the 10 million households with payday loans are young families headed by adults who graduated from high school but not college; one of the few surveys of payday-lending customers showed that roughly two-thirds of them are under forty-five, and a similar proportion have children living at home. In the Cleveland headquarters, Lynn DeVault, who sits on Check Into Cash’s board of directors, gave me an admirably clear-eyed assessment of the typical borrower. “The customer is early thirties,” she said. “They make thirty thousand, thirty-two thousand dollars of income—and they have no savings. And they’re at a very critical point in their life: they may have just bought a house or maybe they just have their first child entering school [and they] really need money for things like a band instrument.” It’s an enormous market, as Judy Powers, another executive, told me: “Nationwide the savings rate now is like zero percent. And it’s because expenses have just gone up and up and up, wages have not kept pace, and people don’t have anything extra to put away.”

A disproportionate number of Claritas’s 44s work in manufacturing, construction, or transportation—jobs like factory worker, auto mechanic, and truck driver—and are concentrated in the Deep South, across the Midwest heartland, and along the Appalachian spine. The traditional American dream of family and of home ownership surely has great resonance. These are many of the same people who, despite flat or flagging incomes, kept buying bigger houses through the infamous “liar loans.” The payday loan, too, is a liar loan of sorts, though the relevant lie is told not to the banker or mortgage broker but to yourself: that you’re still making it, you’ve hit a brief rough patch, everything will work itself out soon. You end up at the payday-lending office only if you have caught at least a glimpse of prosperity, and are desperately trying to keep this mirage in view.

From customers in such straits, Allan Jones has amassed a fortune, which in 2005 was valued at half a billion dollars. The profit margins are similar to those in conventional banking, but as with fast food, payday lending derives those profits from innumerable small-value transactions taking place at thousands of outlets. The business works according to the classic logic of deregulation. Profits on loans of a few hundred dollars can be significant only in a regulatory environment in which anything goes. If customers weren’t trapped—if they really paid off their $20 or $30 finance fees at the end of one pay period—payday lending wouldn’t be profitable at all.


When I finally had the opportunity to sit down with Allan Jones in his office, he immediately sized me up. “Did you wrestle?” he asked. I did not, as it happens, despite my low center of gravity—my height and weight are (I would later learn) almost precisely those of Jones himself during his high school glory days on the mat. Today, he is rotund and neckless, like a snowman. His office resembles somewhat the dark and sumptuous lair of a railroad baron circa 1889, channeling that bygone era when every square inch of a proper room needed urgently to be adorned with something, anything. A palm-in-chinoiserie urn stood along one wall; in a corner sat a coffee table with a photograph of Jones and President George W. Bush. Behind Jones’s desk sat a scale model of one of his jets, a Cessna Citation II, alongside two faux Frederick Remington equestrian statuettes and an oil painting of a fox hunt. Magnetic in his television ads, Jones was fidgety and disheveled in person. His open-collar white shirt with monogrammed waj cuffs was splashed with a reddish-brown stain somewhere along the coffee-to-barbecue-sauce spectrum. The downturn in the economy was weighing on him. “I’ve laid off my horse trainer,” he said. “I’ve really had to cut back.”

Jones needed to swap his son’s Audi for his own Ford F-150 pickup truck, and he offered to bring me along. As we drove through Cleveland, Jones mumbled a stream-of-consciousness narration—rattling off his acts of munificence as if they spoke for themselves. Jones knew I wrote frequently about architecture, so he was particularly keen to show off his works of historic preservation. The bandstand on the courthouse square, he told me, was renovated from the original blueprints at a cost of $75,000. He bragged, of Craigmiles Hall, “I own one of the most photographed buildings in Tennessee.” A self-described “Cleveland State dropout,” Jones didn’t consider himself anything so lofty as an architect; but Jones as architect—as the hidden hand that designs the spaces in which people live—was everywhere evident on Cleveland’s streets. Jones pointed out all the trees he’d donated, often just a few years beyond spindly saplings, which lined many of the roads. “I donated all these trees. I hope they remember me when I’m gone,” he said.

The intended highlight of my tour, I soon discovered, was to be the Jones Wrestling Center at Cleveland High School. Inside this vast hangar of a building, two dozen boys sparred on mats, learning to master a new takedown. “Move your leg like a windshield wiper,” their coach instructed. Jones gave me a brief tour, beginning at the Wall of Fame, where his own exploits—1972, second in state in the 155-pound weight class—were immortalized along those of others, including his son. We continued on as he showed off the other choice features of the million-dollar facility: in the visitors’ locker room, for instance, a flat-screen TV broadcasts a live feed of the Cleveland team warming up. “We’re gonna make you watch us warm up,” Jones said. “We’re gonna intimidate the hell out of them.”

For someone who lives in a gated 400-acre compound, Jones remains extremely accessible to the people of Cleveland. He attends all the wrestling tournaments, the Friday night football games, and the annual Halloween block party. Never, he says, has an irate customer confronted him—not once. He called information in front of me, on speaker phone, to demonstrate that his home number was listed. Jones and his family are so unaccustomed to criticism that when the Ohio state legislature recently cracked down on payday lending, delivering sharply worded speeches against the industry, his eldest son, age twenty, was deeply shaken. “It’s still affecting him,” Jones said. Being the son of Cleveland’s richest citizen and leading philanthropist—the kid with the regulation-sized football field in his back yard—he had never seen anyone come out swinging at his father. “He grew up here in the epicenter of it, and everybody is fine with it,” Jones assured me.

Up in Ohio, Jones said, industry critics tarred him as a predatory lender who targets minorities, as if this were some kind of civil rights issue. But Jones knows better. “Black or white is immaterial. Credit is green. Capital is green.”


During my afternoon with Allan Jones, one of the only times he betrayed any emotion was when he asked if I knew about Tall Betsy, the Halloween character he invented. He began to recite a poem:

Your bones, she’ll throw in that ole well
at Arnold School, and no one will tell
your parents. They’ll worry and fret.
They’ll search all over for you, I’ll bet.

So go home early on Halloween night
and November 1st, you’ll be all right.

“Who wrote that?” I asked when he was finished.

“I did,” he said, and then clarified: “I made it up. I just had somebody put it to a rhyme.” Jones said his mother had told him about Tall Betsy when he was a child to teach him about the importance of punctuality, but he had embellished the tale. He created a Betsy costume and wore it at his daughter’s birthday party in first grade, and it was such a hit he began to dress up—in drag, on stilts—each Halloween in front of his Centenary Avenue home. One year, a local news reporter asked him the story of Tall Betsy. “I was a young guy, a single dad,” he told me, “and this girl was good-looking, so I started trying to keep her there, and I started making this shit up as I went.”

Jones recently decided he’s too old to dress up, so at dusk on October 31 each year, his Tall Betsy getup is displayed in the foyer of Cleveland’s history museum, in front of the conference room he endowed. I joined the townspeople’s pilgrimage to view the relic. A grandmotherly, red-headed docent told the tale of Tall Betsy at fifteen-minute intervals—first to a fidgety first-grader in a Hawaiian shirt and then to two angelic blonde sisters whose bearded father sported a camouflage hat. Between shifts, I asked the docent the origins of the tale. Betsy was a real woman, she insisted. She only mentioned Jones as “the man who brought back Tall Betsy,” as if he were reviving a town tradition, not making one up out of whole cloth.

From the history museum, I paraded with the crowds to Cleveland’s downtown for the annual block party, another creation of Jones’s. With thousands of children mobbing Centenary Avenue each Halloween to see him in character, Jones, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, saw no choice but to create a second town tradition as a distraction from the first. “This thing got so big that all my neighbors got mad,” Jones told me. “So I created the block party . . . to try to get them the hell off my street.”

Downtown, I found the streets packed with trick-or-treaters and their parents walking down “Treat Street” to gorge at the M&M Snackfoods tent. Independent vendors along the periphery hawked two- dollar barbecue sandwiches and deep-fried Oreos. A country act and a classic-rock cover band performed on the live-music stage set up in front of the courthouse, whose roof was patrolled by armed police. Jones had told me to look for him downtown—“I’ll walk around in a Tall Betsy sweatshirt, just kind of blend with the crowd”—but he must have blended in well, because I never saw him.

It was a poor people’s march of sorts, though not of the sort that Martin Luther King envisioned. Most locals were grateful that their economy is as bountiful as it is—Cleveland has two Walmarts, after all, in a rural South full of one-Walmart towns. Unlike in the rest of America, brutal inequality has been a permanent feature of the local landscape. On the eve of the Civil War, the North was three times wealthier than the South and yet the South had two-thirds of the nation’s richest men. In a 1929 edition of the daily Cleveland Banner, there ran a full-page ad that could almost be republished today: to “Northern and Eastern manufacturers contemplating locating in the South” the city promised a ten-year tax exemption and the “best of labor conditions.”

Each year, the rest of the country looks a little more like Cleveland. In 1949, Tennessee’s poverty rate was twice that of California. Today, they are equal. During the civil rights era, when middle-class Californians from Berkeley came to the South for sit-ins and voter-registration drives, they were shocked—and rightly so—by the poverty they saw. But today Berkeley, a capital of our laissez-faire tech and finance economy, was as of the most recent census the second most unequal city in America, right below Atlanta. The South, with its “right-to-work” laws and consequently meager rates of unionization, is no longer a region apart; once an aberration, its low-regulation, high-inequality economy has become a model for the nation.

One can laugh at Allan Jones’s petty acts of charity—the $75,000 bandstand, the saplings by the interstate entrance ramp, the high-tech wrestling gym—but as a nation we have come to rely on private acts of generosity to meet our basic needs. Rather than tax Bill Gates enough to stock our school libraries, we tax him at a lower rate than his secretary and hope he finds it in his heart to donate some books. Increasingly, the schools in our wealthier districts set up “local educational foundations,” funded by parents and local businesses, so that when a student in the district takes up the tuba, the instrument is purchased by the fund; whereas for a student in a poor district to do the same, her parent has to buy it—perhaps by taking out a payday loan. During one of his fits of hometown boosting (“Cleveland’s a great little town!”), Jones even suggested that I move there myself. Only later did I realize that, in a sense, I already had.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Student Sex Column Movement - Nation

A flummoxed woman swats away the stork with he...Image via Wikipedia

The 1996 launch of "Sex on Tuesday" at the University of California, Berkeley--birthplace of the 1960s national student activist movement--triggered the campus newspaper sex column phenomenon.

Within a few years, the sex column had spread to campuses across the country, becoming the "most publicized, electrifying, and divisive phenomena in student journalism," in the words of Dan Reimold, leading expert on the student newspaper sex column.

Reimold estimates that "during any given semester more than 200 sex and dating columns are being published in U.S. student newspapers, magazines, and online outlets.... What's most important here is perspective. In the mid-nineties, the number of student sex columns: zero." In addition to increasing student readership, the proliferation of student sex columns has drawn national attention, like a 2002 New York Times profile of student journalism's most famous sex columnist, Yale's Natalie Krinsky, whose most popular "Sex and the (Elm) City" articles drew hundreds of thousands of hits.

"We're not Generation X--we're Generation Sex," one student columnist quipped to Reimold during the course of research for his upcoming book, Sex and the University: Celebrity, Controversy and a Student Journalism Revolution.

The attraction of a sex column is simple: most college students-- honestly, most people past puberty, period--are either a) having sex; b) talking about having sex; or c) all of the above. Entertainment is usually a key reason behind the publication of sex columns, but the writing is not all about fun. These controversial pieces have proved battlegrounds for the rights of the student press and "appropriate" subjects for publication (ironically, only increasing their popularity and fueling the movement).

Frank LoMonte of the Student Press Law Center points out that "sex is one of those red-flag subjects," especially on conservative or religious campuses, whether in the form of sex columns, explicit pictures or other writing about sex. At private institutions where students lack First Amendment protections, this can lead to direct censorship--hundreds of copies of a Wagner College newspaper running a sex column in 2003 were yanked from the stands, as was a 2004 publication at La Roche College, a Catholic institution, that advocated teaching safe-sex practices.

Other times, the controversy at a private or public institution is confined to angry letters to the editor or university administration, such as a letter from a parent (self-described as "no shrinking violet and certainly not a prude") expressing his shock at "the whole total lack of any self respect, self worth or religious morality" he felt was exhibited by a University of West Florida sex columnist, whom he also believed to be "emotionally disturbed and quite possibly mentally challenged."

Despite the constitutional right to freedom of the press, occasionally state universities and even state legislators have attempted to put a stop to sexual content they've found inappropriate. Reacting to cover art depicting a woman's breast and a column on oral sex in publications on two state-funded campuses, in 2005, Republican Arizona state legislator Russell Pearce, added a provision to the state budget that would deny funding to student newspapers. Mark Goodman of the SPLC told a local paper that, in twenty years of work on student press issues, this case about sex in the student press was the first time he had ever seen a state legislature attempt to bar student newspaper funding.

In the most recent incident, this spring University of Montana law professor Kristen Juras attempted to get the Montana Kaimin"Bess Sex" column censored, even contacting state legislators in her efforts to get the paper's funding pulled.

Reimold told me that for 90 percent of sex columnists, the only "political" point they are trying to make is that sex is OK and something we should talk about. Bess Davis of "Bess Sex" agrees that "sex really has nothing to do with politics...that's just an impression built up by the media," and views her column as serving a purpose in opening up discussion in an underreported subject. Yet her column attracted the ire of Juras, who "has a history of advocacy for extremist Christian and right-wing causes," writes Bill Oram, former editor in chief of the Kaimin, such as her position as adviser for the student Christian Legal Society, which sued in 2007 when the Student Bar Association denied it funding due to the group's exclusion of gay students from leadership positions and voting. And in Arizona, it was Pearce (described as "ultraconservative" by a Democratic representative) and his Republican colleagues attempting to censor student papers, with vocal dissent from Democrats.

Politics are part of the equation, yet it's not an issue of a simple left-right political divide--liberal media beyond the campus level have done comparatively little quality sex journalism, while even the comprehensive sex education courses the right wing loves to hate are rarely particularly progressive, sex-positive or comprehensive. Reimold conceptualizes the resistance to student sex columns as an authoritarian and protective parental mindset that reacts against "the student generation taking back control of the sexual messages targeted at them." This rings partially true; after all, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the '60s was also about student activism versus the control of the administration and older generation. But--again, as in the '60s--antagonism stems from fellow students as well.

At its core, the sex column phenomenon is a radical progressive movement in the sense of pushing against traditional silence and the status quo, which is a source of concern for many administrators, parents and even students. Challenges to the columns stem from a conservative mindset--whether that be political, religious or cultural. Given that the Republican Party has become increasingly dominated by the religious right and the issues of the conservative culture wars, with sex smack at the forefront, these columns become politicized in a way the columnists themselves don't necessarily intend. With abortion, abstinence programs and same-sex marriage making up three of the right's key issues, the statement that "sex is OK" becomes even more politically charged when the sex in question is generally unmarried and occasionally queer.

Though Dartmouth College is a private college, its liberal speech policies and commitment to free expression have allowed sex columns to flourish uncensored in both the mainstream daily and progressive alternative newspaper, presenting an opportunity to look at columns published on the same campus in one politically neutral and one explicitly liberal venue. Furthermore, Dartmouth (known as the "conservative Ivy" and also known for the far-right newspaper the Dartmouth Review) demonstrates the storm fellow students can cause.

The sex column entered the pages of the Dartmouth Free Press in 2004, when senior Sheila Hicks, sexual leftist and host of the campus radio sex talk-show, "In Your Pants," encouraged readers to send "the questions you probably wouldn't ask your parents or your clergy members" to Dartmouth's liberal, progressive and alternative biweekly. Clint Hendler, Free Press editor in chief during the latter half of Hicks's tenure, saw the column as "a way to put a thumb in the eye of campus elements who found a ready outlet in the Dartmouth Review for rather churlish and reactionary takes on steps taken by the administration and others to support safe sex and LGBTQ culture." Unsurprisingly, given the aesthetic of the paper, sex columnists for the Free Press tend to be more clear about having explicit political and activist motivations than those on campuses in general.

Heather Strack asserts in the Free Press, "A sex column is a significant statement of female rights. Not only am I a female columnist, but I am writing about a topic considered taboo and improper for a woman." Women are the main target of abstinence/purity movements; thus, even if most columnists do not state this as unambiguously as Strack, the campus sex column is not only about students seizing control but about hearing underrepresented voices. Though men are readers in equal numbers, the sex columnist is a (straight and queer) female-dominated profession, with a small minority of queer men.

Sex columns vary widely and don't always include feminist motivations; some focus on love and relationships, while others have more casual concerns. They can promote exploration of gender and sexuality, or reinforce a heteronormative mentality. However, by and large, student sex columnists have higher standards for inclusive, woman-positive sex journalism--and better access to a venue willing to publish this material--than their off-campus counterparts. Isabel Murray, feminist columnist for the Free Press, takes Cosmopolitan to task for its heteronormative, male-pleasure-oriented approach, while pointing out that it and similar women's magazines are nonetheless the only noncampus media addressing female sexuality (explaining why until recently it was the most read magazine among college women).

People are downright uncomfortable with the concept of female sexuality: even at Dartmouth's SexFest, where Murray managed a table, she was struck by how "hesitant and disturbed" people seemed by her dental dams and a two-dimensional model of a vagina--far more so than by the condoms and three-dimensional plastic penis. The most controversial Dartmouth sex column took heat for dealing too explicitly with female sexuality.

The Dartmouth, the campus daily, jumped onboard in 2007 with a sex column in its student life pullout, the Mirror. Reaching a wider, more varied audience, the launch of Abi Medvin's "The Friday Quickie," followed by an installment of Zachary Gottlieb's regular column in the Dartmouth on "Sex-ploring the Sex Fest," quickly sparked a guest student column condemning the "unwholesome discussion of sex" as attacking his and other students' values. The author further denounced progressivism's practice of bringing "into the limelight everything once deemed taboo." (Ironically, unlike the Free Press columnists, neither Medvin nor Gottlieb identify as progressive.)

Despite this early hostility, Mirror sex columns mostly avoided attacks by steering clear of touchy subjects--little queer content and certainly none of the discussion of fetishes found in the pages of the Free Press. In retrospect, "Sandra Himen," the last Mirror sex columnist, regrets steering away from serious issues due to concerns that she might "ruffle feathers." But Himen can be forgiven since she followed on the heels of a columnist who showed how severely Dartmouth feathers can be ruffled when you don't shy away from the graphic--Aurora Wells quite literally drew a diagram of a vagina for her fall 2007 how-to column on oral sex, "Aurora's Guide to Eating Out." One letter to the editor from an alum expressed "extreme digust [sic], displeasure and disappointment at your choice to print the obscene and borderline-pornographic article."

The opposition to Wells's column is oddly reminiscent of a similar flurry over decency that occurred at Dartmouth... fifteen years prior. In 1994 Spare Rib, a now-defunct feminist magazine, published a special "Sex Issue" that included--oh déjà vu--diagrams of female genitalia. Matthew Berry of the also-defunct student Conservative Union at Dartmouth, which attempted to get Rib's advertisers to withdraw their support, called the issue "soft-core porn" and posited that "Spare Rib's staffers "will eventually mature and look back with embarrassment." Sorry to disappoint: former editor in chief Claire Unis (now Benjamine) has no regrets, and she still considers as ludicrous the outcry over diagrams you could find in Grey's Anatomy (the medical book, not the TV show). More disappointing is the fact that the same debate is being replayed after the turn of the millennium.

Besides finding Wells's column unappetizing, Zachary Gottlieb and Lee Cooper, another student columnist, complained about the double standard that they allege would never allow a man to publish instructions on giving blowjobs--even if the Mirror published it, Cooper claims, the author would be accused of misogyny and sexual harassment. As mentioned, college sex writing is female-dominated, and Reimold and the female columnists interviewed agreed that one reason for the dearth of male sex writers might be that women are permitted to get away with more.

On the other hand, Cooper and Gottlieb did little to dispel prejudices about male writers' misogyny, if one exists. Gottlieb titled his idea for a potential article (perhaps in a poor attempt at humor), "How to Blow Me Like a Well-Trained High-Class Prostitute, Young '11 Girls," leading to a letter to the editor from a Dartmouth medical student disturbed by "two male opinions screaming bloody horror with undercurrents of misogyny." Moreover, Gottlieb's and Cooper's assertions are not substantiated by any Mirror policy decision or campus experiment; they simply assume this hypothetical column (which no male was seriously attempting to write) would have encountered such a reaction.

Furthermore, the rhetoric about double standards ignores the importance of sex writing for women to assert themselves against mainstream patriarchal sexual messaging. This commentary and the reaction to Wells's article (which included comments on the popular IvyGate blog that used "lesbian" as an insult) demonstrate precisely why an article discussing female and queer sexuality serves a greater need than one on girls' giving blowjobs. People complained about being flat-out grossed-out by what in reality is a fairly vanilla sexual practice.

Censorship attempts notwithstanding, student sex journalists have a better platform from which to write what they choose for a general audience than traditional, restricted "real world" media. They can decide to thoughtfully address taboo topics like BDSM, fetishism and orgies, as Virginia Dalloway did in her Free Press column, without a conventional bias that automatically demonizes them as outside "normal" sexuality. (Dalloway points out that 11 percent of men and 17 percent of women have tried bondage.) Shinen Wong, a Free Press queer sex and sexuality columnist, says he received the most positive feedback from straight men for his articles rejecting the macho masculinity of the "tyranny of the dominant cultural script" as "bullshit." These Free Press columns demonstrate the potential power of a sex column for furthering a progressive agenda. While sex columns can be whitewashed and heteronormative, they can also live up to their subversive potential in having significant political and social ramifications.

In addition, Reimold found that sex columns influence the rest of the newspaper by "getting sex out of the closet." National and campus sex and sexuality issues, such as LGBT rights, gender identity, abortion, birth control, STIs and sexual assault, gain recognition as significant, acceptable topics. After the sex column's introduction, the frequency of these types of articles increased in the Free Press and the Dartmouth; examples include Mary Novak's "The Battle Over Birth Control: Screwing Over Students"; Andrew Lohse's "Sexism, Heteronormativity, and the Review," where the former Review-er criticizes the right-wing campus paper's anti-sex "Sex Issue"; and "The Sexually Passive Dartmouth Girl": "Sometimes you just wanna be pounded. That's what it comes down to."

The right-wing culture war, with its interest in controlling sex and sexuality, continues undiminished since Obama's election, meaning that columns informed by a feminist or queer ethic still have plenty to push back against. Reimold predicts that in the next years we will see increasingly risque pieces becoming the norm. Already the popularity of the sex column has spurred the development of entire college sex magazines that provide a more in-depth, varied level of sexual expression, expanding into poetry, art and extended nonfiction.

This summer Dartmouth saw the launch of a journal of gender and sexuality, Sir & Madam (ahem... S&M), with articles and creative writing covering YouPorn, being a drag queen, a preteen girl's awakening of sexual desire, and the rainbow of gender and sexuality. Regardless of accusations of unwholesomeness, sex doesn't seem headed back into the campus closet anytime soon.

About Alex DiBranco

Alex DiBranco is a former Nation intern, freelance writer, and poet based in New York City. Her major interests include sex-positivism, queer issues, feminism, atheism, and studying the Religious Right
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Rural Health Care, the Public Option and the Opt Out Compromise - Nation

A South Dakota farm during the Dust Bowl, 1936Image via Wikipedia

posted by Christopher Hayes on 10/08/2009 @ 10:32am

The latest health care legislative compromise being floated is one in which states would be allowed to opt out of offering a public option. Chris Bowers lists the problems with the proposal here. Ezra's more sanguine.

I suppose if someone put a gun to my head and the options were no public option or an opt-out compromise, I'd opt for the latter. (I should point out we're not at the gun-at-the-head stage yet). But it's also important to point out just how perverse the results of this compromise would be.

Red, rural states would almost all probably opt out and yet it's rural America that needs the public option the most. As the Center for Community Change points out in a new report [PDF] people who live in rural areas are a) more likely to be underinsured, because fewer people receive insurance from their employers and b) live in markets where there is essentially no competition. In Alabama one health insurance company has 90% market share, in South Dakota, it's two companies. It's under these circumstances where the public option is most needed. In fact, I was talking about this issue with a health care wonk (who works for the government and so can't go on record) and she went so far as to put it this way:

My point is that the public option is probably valuable in this debate, but not for the people fighting for it--precisely for the people not fighting for it. This is important for rural areas where there is little or no managed care in the health insurance exchange (since the public option would be offered within the exchange anyway).

Would be nice if folks like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Max Baucus could be made to understand this.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

In South Korea, an Effort to Defend Unwed Mothers - NYTimes.com

Our Lady the Unwed MotherImage by joguldi via Flickr

SEOUL, South Korea — Four years ago, when she found that she was pregnant by her former boyfriend, Choi Hyong-sook considered abortion. But after she saw the little blip of her baby’s heartbeat on ultrasound images, she could not go through with it.

As her pregnancy advanced, she confided in her elder brother. His reaction would sound familiar to unwed mothers in South Korea. She said he tried to drag her to an abortion clinic. Later, she said, he pressed her to give the child up for adoption.

“My brother said: ‘How can you be so selfish? You can’t do this to our parents,’ ” said Ms. Choi, 37, a hairdresser in Seoul. “But when the adoption agency took my baby away, I felt as if I had thrown him into the trash. It felt as if the earth had stopped turning. I persuaded them to let me reclaim my baby after five days.”

Now, Ms. Choi and other women in her situation are trying to set up the country’s first unwed mothers association to defend their right to raise their own children. It is a small but unusual first step in a society that ostracizes unmarried mothers to such an extent that Koreans often describe things as outrageous by comparing them to “an unmarried woman seeking an excuse to give birth.”

The fledgling group of women — only 40 are involved so far — is striking at one of the great ironies of South Korea. The government and commentators fret over the country’s birthrate, one of the world’s lowest, and deplore South Korea’s international reputation as a baby exporter for foreign adoptions.

Yet each year, social pressure drives thousands of unmarried women to choose between abortion, which is illegal but rampant, and adoption, which is considered socially shameful but is encouraged by the government. The few women who decide to raise a child alone risk a life of poverty and disgrace.

Nearly 90 percent of the 1,250 South Korean children adopted abroad last year, most of them by American couples, were born to unmarried women, according to the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs.

In their campaign, Ms. Choi and the other women have attracted unusual allies. Korean-born adoptees and their foreign families have been returning here in recent years to speak out for the women, who face the same difficulties in today’s South Korea as the adoptees’ birth mothers did decades ago.

One such supporter, Richard Boas, an ophthalmologist from Connecticut who adopted a Korean girl in 1988, said he was helping other Americans adopt foreign children when he visited a social service agency in South Korea in 2006 and began rethinking his “rescue and savior mentality.” There, he encountered a roomful of pregnant women, all unmarried and around 20 years old.

“I looked around and asked myself why these mothers were all giving up their kids,” Dr. Boas said.

He started the Korean Unwed Mothers Support Network, which lobbies for better welfare services from the state.

“What we see in South Korea today is discrimination against natural mothers and favoring of adoption at the government level,” said Jane Jeong Trenka, 37, a Korean-born adoptee who grew up in Minnesota and now leads Truth and Reconciliation for the Adoption Community of Korea, one of two groups organized by Korean adoptees who have returned to their homeland to advocate for the rights of adoptees and unwed mothers. “Culture is not an excuse to abuse human rights.”

In 2007, 7,774 babies were born out of wedlock in South Korea, 1.6 percent of all births. (In the United States, nearly 40 percent of babies born in 2007 had unmarried mothers, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.) Nearly 96 percent of unwed pregnant women in South Korea choose abortion, according to the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs.

Of unmarried women who give birth, about 70 percent are believed to give up their babies for adoption, according to a government-financed survey. In the United States, the figure is 1 percent, the Health and Human Services Department reports.

For years, the South Korean government has worked to reduce overseas adoptions, which peaked at 8,837 in 1985. To increase adoptions at home, it provides subsidies and extra health care benefits for families that adopt, and it designated May 11 as Adoption Day.

It also spends billions of dollars a year to try to reverse the declining birthrate, subsidizing fertility treatments for married couples, for example.

“But we don’t see a campaign for unmarried mothers to raise our own children,” said Lee Mee-kyong, a 33-year-old unwed mother. “Once you become an unwed mom, you’re branded as immoral and a failure. People treat you as if you had committed a crime. You fall to the bottom rung of society.”

The government pays a monthly allowance of $85 per child to those who adopt children. It offers half that for single mothers of dependent children.

The government is trying to increase payments to help unwed mothers and to add more facilities to provide care for unmarried pregnant women, said Baek Su-hyun, an official at the Health Ministry. But the social stigma discourages women from coming forward.

Chang Ji-young, 27, who gave birth to a boy last month, said: “My former boyfriend’s sister screamed at me over the phone demanding that I get an abortion. His mother and sister said it was up to them to decide what to do with my baby because it was their family’s seed.”

Families whose unmarried daughters become pregnant sometimes move to conceal the pregnancy. Unwed mothers often lie about their marital status for fear they will be evicted by landlords and their children ostracized at school. Only about a quarter of South Koreans are willing to have a close relationship with an unwed mother as a coworker or neighbor, according to a recent survey by the government-financed Korean Women’s Development Institute.

“I was turned down eight times in job applications,” Ms. Lee said. “Each time a company learned that I was an unwed mom, it accused me of dishonesty.”

Ms. Choi, the hairdresser, said her family changed its phone number to avoid contact with her. When her father was hospitalized and she went to see him with her baby, she said, her sister blocked them from entering his room. When she wrote to him, she said, her father burned the letters. Last year, about three years after the birth, he finally accepted Ms. Choi back into his home.

“That day, I saw him in the bathroom, crying over one of my letters,” she said. “I realized how hard it must have been for him as well.”
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

In First Lady’s Roots, a Complex Path From Slavery - NYTimes.com

Cover of "Slaves in the Family"Cover of Slaves in the Family

WASHINGTON — In 1850, the elderly master of a South Carolina estate took pen in hand and painstakingly divided up his possessions. Among the spinning wheels, scythes, tablecloths and cattle that he bequeathed to his far-flung heirs was a 6-year-old slave girl valued soon afterward at $475.

In his will, she is described simply as the “negro girl Melvinia.” After his death, she was torn away from the people and places she knew and shipped to Georgia. While she was still a teenager, a white man would father her first-born son under circumstances lost in the passage of time.

In the annals of American slavery, this painful story would be utterly unremarkable, save for one reason: This union, consummated some two years before the Civil War, represents the origins of a family line that would extend from rural Georgia, to Birmingham, Ala., to Chicago and, finally, to the White House.

Melvinia Shields, the enslaved and illiterate young girl, and the unknown white man who impregnated her are the great-great-great-grandparents of Michelle Obama, the first lady.

Viewed by many as a powerful symbol of black advancement, Mrs. Obama grew up with only a vague sense of her ancestry, aides and relatives said. During the presidential campaign, the family learned about one paternal great-great-grandfather, a former slave from South Carolina, but the rest of Mrs. Obama’s roots were a mystery.

Now the more complete map of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors — including the slave mother, white father and their biracial son, Dolphus T. Shields — for the first time fully connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency.

The findings — uncovered by Megan Smolenyak, a genealogist, and The New York Times — substantiate what Mrs. Obama has called longstanding family rumors about a white forebear.

While President Obama’s biracial background has drawn considerable attention, his wife’s pedigree, which includes American Indian strands, highlights the complicated history of racial intermingling, sometimes born of violence or coercion, that lingers in the bloodlines of many African-Americans. Mrs. Obama and her family declined to comment for this article, aides said, in part because of the personal nature of the subject.

“She is representative of how we have evolved and who we are,” said Edward Ball, a historian who discovered that he had black relatives, the descendants of his white slave-owning ancestors, when he researched his memoir, “Slaves in the Family.”

“We are not separate tribes of Latinos and whites and blacks in America,” Mr. Ball said. “We’ve all mingled, and we have done so for generations.”

The outlines of Mrs. Obama’s family history unfolded from 19th century probate records, yellowing marriage licenses, fading photographs and the recollections of elderly women who remember the family. Ms. Smolenyak, who has traced the ancestry of many prominent figures, began studying the first lady’s roots in earnest after conducting some preliminary research into Mrs. Obama’s ancestry for an article published in The New York Times earlier this year.

Of the dozens of relatives she identified, Ms. Smolenyak said, it was the slave girl who seemed to call out most clearly.

“Out of all Michelle’s roots, it’s Melvinia who is screaming to be found,” she said.

When her owner, David Patterson, died in 1852, Melvinia soon found herself on a 200-acre farm with new masters, Mr. Patterson’s daughter and son-in law, Christianne and Henry Shields. It was a strange and unfamiliar world.

In South Carolina, she had lived on an estate with 21 slaves. In Georgia, she was one of only three slaves on property that is now part of a neat subdivision in Rex, near Atlanta.

Whether Melvinia labored in the house or in the fields, there was no shortage of work: wheat, corn, sweet potatoes and cotton to plant and harvest, and 3 horses, 5 cows, 17 pigs and 20 sheep to care for, according to an 1860 agricultural survey.

It is difficult to say who might have impregnated Melvinia, who gave birth to Dolphus around 1859, when she was perhaps as young as 15. At the time, Henry Shields was in his late 40s and had four sons ages 19 to 24, but other men may have spent time on the farm.

“No one should be surprised anymore to hear about the number of rapes and the amount of sexual exploitation that took place under slavery; it was an everyday experience, “ said Jason A. Gillmer, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University, who has researched liaisons between slave owners and slaves. “But we do find that some of these relationships can be very complex.”

In 1870, three of Melvinia’s four children, including Dolphus, were listed on the census as mulatto. One was born four years after emancipation, suggesting that the liaison that produced those children endured after slavery. She gave her children the Shields name, which may have hinted at their paternity or simply been the custom of former slaves taking their master’s surnames.

Even after she was freed, Melvinia stayed put, working as a farm laborer on land adjacent to that of Charles Shields, one of Henry’s sons.

But sometime in her 30s or 40s, census records show, Melvinia broke away and managed to reunite with former slaves from her childhood on the Patterson estate: Mariah and Bolus Easley, who settled with Melvinia in Bartow County, near the Alabama border. Dolphus married one of the Easleys’ daughters, Alice, who is Mrs. Obama’s great-great-grandmother.

A community “that had been ripped apart was somehow pulling itself back together,” Ms. Smolenyak said of the group in Bartow County.

Still, Melvinia appears to have lived with the unresolved legacy of her childhood in slavery until the very end. Her 1938 death certificate, signed by a relative, says “don’t know” in the space for the names of her parents, suggesting that Melvinia, then in her 90s, may never have known herself.

Sometime before 1888, Dolphus and Alice Shields continued the migration, heading to Birmingham, a boomtown with a rumbling railroad, an iron and steel industry and factories that attracted former slaves and their children from across the South.

Dolphus Shields was in his 30s and very light skinned — some say he looked like a white man — a church-going carpenter who could read, write and advance in an industrializing town. By 1900, he owned his own home, census records show. By 1911, he had opened his own carpentry and tool sharpening business.

A co-founder of First Ebenezer Baptist Church and Trinity Baptist Church, which later became active in the civil rights movement, he supervised Sunday schools at both churches, which still exist today, and at Regular Missionary Baptist Church.

“He was the dean of the deacons in Birmingham,” said Helen Heath, 88, who attended church with him. “He was a serious man. He was about business.”

He carried his family into the working-class, moving into a segregated neighborhood of striving black homeowners and renters. In his home, there was no smoking, no cursing, no gum chewing, no lipstick or trousers for ladies and absolutely no blues on the radio, which was reserved for hymns, remembered Bobbie Holt, 73, who was raised by Mr. Shields and his fourth wife, Lucy. She said the family went to church “every night of the week, it seemed like.”

He carried peppermints for neighborhood children, Mrs. Holt said, and told funny stories about his escapades as a boy. But his family struggled.

His first wife, Alice Easley Shields, moved around after they split up, working as a seamstress and a maid, and two of their sons stumbled.

Robert Lee Shields, Mrs. Obama’s great-grandfather, married Annie Lawson in 1906 and worked as a laborer and a railroad porter but disappeared from the public record sometime around his 32nd birthday.

Willie Arthur Shields, an inventor who obtained patents for improving dry cleaning operations, ended up working as a maintenance man, Mrs. Holt said.

As for his ancestry, Dolphus Shields didn’t talk about it.

“We got to the place where we didn’t want anybody to know we knew slaves; people didn’t want to talk about that,” said Mrs. Heath, who said she assumed he had white relatives because his skin color and hair texture “told you he had to be near white.”

At a time when blacks despaired at the intransigence and violence of whites who barred them from voting, from most city jobs, from whites-only restaurants and from owning property in white neighborhoods, Dolphus Shields served as a rare link between the deeply divided communities.

His carpentry shop stood in the white section of town, and he mixed easily and often with whites. “They would come to his shop and sit and talk,” Mrs. Holt said.

Dolphus Shields firmly believed race relations would improve. “It’s going to come together one day,” he often said, Mrs. Holt recalled.

By the time he died in 1950 at age 91, change was on the way. On June 9, 1950, the day that his obituary appeared on the front page of The Birmingham World, the black newspaper also ran a banner headline that read, “U.S. Court Bans Segregation in Diners and Higher Education.” The Supreme Court had outlawed separate but equal accommodations on railway cars and in universities in Texas and Oklahoma.

Up North, his grandson, a painter named Purnell Shields, Mrs. Obama’s grandfather, was positioning his family to seize the widening opportunities in Chicago.

But as his descendants moved forward, they lost touch with the past. Today, Dolphus Shields lies in a neglected black cemetery, where patches of grass grow knee-high and many tombstones have toppled.

Mrs. Holt, a retired nursing assistant, said he came to her in a dream last month. She dug up his photograph, never guessing that she would soon learn that Dolphus Shields was a great-great-grandfather of the first lady.

“Oh, my God,” said Mrs. Holt, gasping at the news. “I always looked up to him, but I would never have imagined something like this. Praise God, we’ve come a long way.”

Jim Sherling contributed reporting from Rex, Ga. Kitty Bennett contributed research.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Iraqis on U.S.-Created Councils Feel Vulnerable as Pullout Looms - washingtonpost.com

A young girl walks through the war-torn cityImage via Wikipedia

Iraqis on U.S.-Created Local Councils Feeling Vulnerable as American Pullout Looms

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, October 8, 2009

BAGHDAD -- Weeks after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, as parts of the capital were still smoldering, American soldiers and diplomats turned to men like Hassan Shama and Omar Rahman Rahmani in their quest to plant the seeds of representative democracy.

In Baghdad, Iraq's capital, they held impromptu neighborhood caucuses to appoint district and neighborhood advisory councils. The local government bodies were given no official charter, lawmaking power or public budget. In the years that followed, as the capital became a bloody battleground and the country descended into near-anarchy, council members were among the U.S. military's staunchest allies. They provided information about extremists, offered insight into Iraqi society and gave American-imposed security measures a veneer of Iraqi legitimacy.

As U.S. troops have sharply disengaged from Baghdad in recent months, local representatives say they are feeling powerless and abandoned. The Iraqi government has taken no steps to hold elections for the councils, and the Baghdad provincial council is culling them of members it deems unqualified or unfit for service.

The looming demise of the local councils -- at least as the Americans established them -- is an ominous sign of the brand of democracy that is likely to reign in Iraq as the Americans depart, council members say. They worry that constituents will no longer have grass-roots representation and that power will become far more centralized in the hands of a few.

Council members, who in recent years became top targets of insurgents, are among a growing number of Iraqis who feel that the impending American pullout will leave them exposed and helpless.

"I never expected we'd come to this point," said Shama, the head of the Sadr City District Council. "The U.S. Army and the U.S. Embassy have abandoned us. After six years of very hard work, we're worthless. They call us agents, spies for the Americans."

Security 'Is Not Stable'

The U.S. military withdrawal began in earnest in June, as American troops were ordered to pull out of cities as part of a security agreement with Iraq. The troops who remain in urban areas are tasked almost exclusively with training Iraqi forces. Although departing American units are leaving behind a country that is drastically safer than at the height of the fighting, many Iraqis who worked closely with them say they fear the withdrawal will unleash a new bloody fight for power.

Nadam Naim, another member of the Sadr City council, said her days as a public servant are numbered. The petite woman, who lives in the northern portion of the vast Shiite district, never leaves home without a handgun given to her by the previous U.S. brigade commander responsible for Sadr City.

"The security situation is not stable," she said in a whispered interview after a recent council meeting during which much was discussed but little was accomplished. "If the Americans leave, I will ask for refugee status. Even if I don't get refugee status, surely I can't stay here. I have many enemies because I work with" Americans.

The nine district and more than 100 neighborhood advisory councils were formed hastily at a time when the Iraqi government and its security forces were dismantled or paralyzed.

Rahmani, a British-educated Iraqi living in western Baghdad's Adhamiyah neighborhood, found work as an interpreter for U.S. forces and was soon tapped for a position on the district's council.

"We didn't have the perfect democracy," he said. "There was no media, no electricity. But I said to myself: I don't care if I have to cooperate with the devil. I have to rebuild my country."

Over the next six years, U.S. military officials attended district and neighborhood advisory councils regularly. They solicited input from council members when doling out billions of dollars in reconstruction funds. U.S. commanders made them the headliners at ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects funded and overseen by Americans.

Council members gave U.S. soldiers a window into the shifting dynamics in Baghdad neighborhoods, many of which became besieged by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

In predominantly Sunni neighborhoods such as Adhamiyah, which in recent years have been largely neglected by the Shiite-led provincial and national governments, U.S. commanders served as advocates and intermediaries, bringing in municipal and ministry officials to tackle problems identified by council members.

"They used to come to our meetings, and they had all the power in their hands," Rahmani said. "Now we don't have any power."

Rahmani visited the Bush White House last year as part of a delegation of local Iraqi politicians. When he got his turn to shake George W. Bush's hand, he said, he told the president that democracy in Iraq was not taking root.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government and the Baghdad provincial council, also led by Shiites, seemed uninterested in working with the local councils, Rahmani said he told Bush.

"Every party is working in Saddam's shadow," Rahmani said, referring to ousted president Saddam Hussein. "Everyone wants to be a Saddam. Everyone wants power in their own hands."

Disbanding the Councils

The district and advisory councils nominally fall under the Baghdad provincial council, whose president in recent months has taken steps to disband some of the councils and ordered a review to determine how many members are unqualified.

Kamil al-Zaidi, the president of the provincial council, said the local councils suffered from a lack of talent because most qualified residents had fled the country ahead of the war. "They were formed in a rush after the collapse of the regime," he said in an interview.

Many of the members handpicked by the Americans aren't educated and have full-time jobs outside their council duties, said Zaidi, who belongs to Maliki's political slate, known as State of Law.

U.S. officials say they haven't abandoned the council members.

"I'm going to remain involved with our Iraqi partners," said Col. Tobin L. Green, the brigade commander responsible for Sadr City. "If the Iraqis want to change the local government structure, they will."

A senior American diplomat who has worked with several councils said some members have expressed disappointment as the U.S. military has disengaged from local politics in Baghdad.

"My walking into a room will no longer represent a possible assistance project," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, as is standard for most interviews with U.S. diplomats. "It would have been strange for people in Baghdad to think that we would be here indefinitely."

Shama said he wants political asylum in the United States. Sitting behind his wooden desk in the U.S.-rehabilitated council building, he said he has no hope that Iraqi troops will keep the peace when the Americans pull out.

"Right now, the militias are waiting behind the wall," he said. "When they know the U.S. is out of the city, they will come back and eat the Iraqi army alive."

Special correspondent Aziz Alwan contributed to this report.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Pakistanis Balk at U.S. Aid Package - washingtonpost.com

How fast you want to go?Image by Edge of Space via Flickr

By Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 8, 2009

The Obama administration's strategy for bolstering Pakistan's civilian government was shaken Wednesday when political opposition and military leaders there sharply criticized a new U.S. assistance plan as interfering with the country's sovereignty.

Although President Obama has praised the $7.5 billion, five-year aid program -- approved by Congress last week -- Pakistani officials have objected to provisions that require U.S. monitoring of everything from how they spend the money to the way the military promotes senior officers.

Their criticism threatens to complicate the administration's efforts in the region, where Pakistan's assistance is seen as crucial to the war in Afghanistan.

"Obviously, it demonstrates we've still got work to do," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the Pakistani criticism.

On Wednesday, Obama convened his top national security officials to discuss policy in Pakistan and its role in the developing strategy in Afghanistan. A senior administration official described the three-hour White House meeting, which coincided with the eighth anniversary of the Afghanistan war, as "a comprehensive update on the situation" in Pakistan, including an "intelligence and counterterrorism assessment, as well as an assessment of the political and diplomatic situation."

With Taliban attacks on U.S. and NATO forces planned and launched from within its borders, an al-Qaeda sanctuary in its tribal areas and a nuclear arsenal whose security is of international concern, Pakistan is the most strategically important country in the region.

When Obama concluded his first strategy review in March, he praised Pakistan's newly elected civilian government and proposed a sharp increase in military and civilian aid. Since then, the administration has tried to overcome decades of mistrust between the two countries, to calm Pakistan's fractious politics and prop up its faltering civilian institutions. U.S. military officials have carefully cultivated their counterparts in the country's politically powerful military, encouraging them to fight militants with whom they have long been allied and to submit to democratic rule.

The White House has been encouraged by the Pakistani government's decision to challenge the Taliban within its borders. The Pakistani army fought the Taliban this spring as the group pushed toward the capital, Islamabad. It then pursued the fighters into the Swat Valley. The army also has been preparing for a push into al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries along the border in South Waziristan. With the government's tacit approval, U.S. missile attacks launched from unmanned aircraft against high-value insurgent targets in the border area have brought what a senior administration official called "a real degradation of al-Qaeda."

As White House strategy sessions on Afghanistan began last week, administration officials contrasted what they described as a worsening situation there with a better-than-expected one in Pakistan, which has been rattled by one political crisis after another in recent years.

"Many in Washington were not prepared for this," one senior official said of Wednesday's outbursts in Islamabad.

A senior U.S. military official said that the relationship with Pakistan is "still positive" but that "we need to understand the sensitivities better." The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The Pakistani media reported mounting anger over the aid bill within the military on Tuesday, when Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the army chief, met in Islamabad with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan. The terms set in the bill were described as "insulting and unacceptable" by one publication. On Wednesday, the dispute was the subject of a special debate in the Pakistani Parliament.

"Not a single Pakistani can accept the [aid legislation] in its current form," said Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan of the Pakistan Muslim League, a leading opposition party.

In a statement issued after a meeting with top military commanders, Kiyani expressed "serious concerns" over the legislation and said that Pakistan had the right to analyze and respond to all threats "in accordance with her own national interests."

For its part, the cash-strapped Pakistani government of President Asif Ali Zardari appears caught between its desire for closer relations with the United States -- and the resources that relationship promises -- and the political liability it entails.

Pressed during the debate, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani said the aid provisions should be discussed "as long as desired" by Parliament. Saying he was closely consulting with the military, Gillani declared that the aid package "is neither a contract signed with the U.S. administration, nor is it binding on Pakistan. It is the legislation of the U.S. Congress, and it is we who have to decide whether to accept it or not."

U.S. and Pakistani officials said that the government was on board with the aid package and that accommodation could be reached with the political opposition. They suggested that the criticism was part of what one senior Pakistani official close to Zardari called an "orchestrated campaign" by elements within Pakistan's military and its intelligence service opposed to civilian control of foreign and defense policies. The army had been "completely briefed" in advance about all elements in the aid package, the official said, describing the military's alarm this week as disingenuous.

Pakistani political analyst Hasan-Askari Rizvi said that the language in the legislation could have been "more diplomatic and softer" but that the bill had become a vehicle for unrelated disputes. "If the Pakistani government, the opposition and the military cannot come to a consensus," Rizvi said, "then it is going to create problems for the ties between the U.S. and Pakistan."

The bill, named after its chief sponsors, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, triples the amount of U.S. economic assistance to Pakistan, which has long been overshadowed by military aid.

Obama was an original sponsor of the measure, first introduced when he served in the Senate, and the bill is the centerpiece of his administration's development efforts in Pakistan. Its passage this year was stalled when House members, recalling a lack of supervision over billions of dollars given to Pakistan during the Bush administration, insisted on stricter monitoring provisions. The version that ultimately emerged from a conference committee and was approved last week mandates regular administration certification that Pakistan is adhering to a wide range of requirements.

Special correspondent Shaiq Hussain in Islamabad and staff writer Ben Pershing in Washington contributed to this report.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Suicide blast kills 17, injures 63 in Kabul - Dawn

2008 Indian embassy bombing in KabulImage via Wikipedia

KABUL: A suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle outside the Indian Embassy in the bustling centre of the Afghan capital on Thursday, killing 17 people in the second major attack in the city in less than a month.

The blast occurred a day after the war entered its ninth year and as President Barack Obama was deliberating a request by the top commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal for up to 40,000 more troops. Opponents of a troop increase want to shift focus to missile strikes and special operations against al-Qaeda-linked groups in Pakistan.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack – the second against the Indian Embassy in the past two years – and specified that the Indians were the target.

In New Delhi, India’s Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the driver of the sport utility vehicle ‘came up to the outer perimeter wall of the embassy in a car loaded with explosives.’ Three Indian paramilitary guards were wounded by shrapnel, Rao said.

Rao did not say who the Indians believed was responsible for the attack, which occurred about 8:30 a.m. along a commercial street that is also home to the Interior Ministry.

However, the Afghan Foreign Ministry said the on Thursday attack ‘was planned and implemented from outside of Afghan borders’ by the same groups responsible for the July 2008 suicide bombing at the Indian Embassy that killed more than 60 people.

The ministry statement made no mention of Pakistan. However, the Afghan government blamed Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence for the 2008 bombing at the Indian Embassy as well as involvement in a string of attacks in the country.

US officials suspected the 2008 embassy bombing and other high profile attacks were carried out by followers of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a long-time Afghan militant leader whose forces are battling US forces in eastern Afghanistan from sanctuaries in the border area of Pakistan.

In Islamabad, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Abdul Basit, condemned Thursday’s bombing.

‘Whenever terrorist activity occurs it should strengthen our resolve to eradicate and eliminate this menace,’ he said. Basit called allegations of a Pakistani role in the Kabul bombing ‘preposterous.’

The Taliban did not say why it targeted the Indian Embassy. India and Pakistan, archrivals since the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent, are competing for influence in Afghanistan among rival ethnic groups. India maintains close ties with the Tajik community, and Pakistan with the Pashtuns, who form the majority of the Taliban.

Thursday’s blast was the deadliest attack in Kabul since Sept. 17, when a suicide bomber killed 16 people, including six Italian soldiers and 10 Afghan civilians, on a road in the centre of the capital.

The Interior Ministry said 15 civilians and two Afghan police officers were killed in Thursday’s blast. At least 76 people were wounded, the ministry said. President Hamid Karzai, the US Embassy and the United Nations mission all condemned the attack.

After months of relative calm, the Afghan capital has been shaken recently by an increasing number of suicide attacks and roadside bombings that began in the run-up to the country’s disputed Aug. 20 election. The attacks usually target international military forces or government installations, but Afghan businesses and civilians are also often killed or injured.

Police sealed off the area after the blast.

The Indian news channel CNN-IBN cited Jayant Prasad, India’s ambassador in Kabul, as saying the blast caused ‘extensive damage to the chancery.’ He said the bomb was so powerful that it blew off some of the embassy’s doors and windows.

The explosion also damaged a line of shops between the embassy and the Interior Ministry, shattering glass and rattling buildings more than a mile away. A huge brown plume of smoke was visible in the air as ambulances raced to the scene and carried away the wounded.

A European police officer assigned as an adviser to the Interior Ministry and an Afghan interpreter were slightly wounded by flying glass, training spokesman Andrea Angeli said.

A 21-year-old Afghan man, who gave his name only as Najibullah, said he had just opened his shop when the explosion went off, knocking him unconscious. When he awoke, he said, he couldn’t see anything because of dust and debris.

‘Dust was everywhere. People were shouting,’ Najibullah said. ‘You couldn’t see their faces because there was so much dust.’

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

MPs pass juvenile abuse statutes - The Phnom Penh Post

Logo of the Sam Rainsy Party in CambodiaImage via Wikipedia

PARLIAMENTARIANS voted unanimously Wednesday to approve articles of the Kingdom’s draft Penal Code that would criminalise negligence and abuse of children, breaking from several days of heated partisan debate over other aspects of the proposed legislation.

Articles 337 and 338 in Chapter 5 of the new code state that parents or guardians who damage the health of their children aged under 15 years could face prison sentences of two to five years and fines of 4 million to 10 million riels (US$958 to $2,395).

In more serious cases, when juveniles die of starvation or other causes, prison sentences may stretch to 15 years.

Hy Sophea, a secretary of state at the Ministry of Justice who addressed the National Assembly on the Penal Code on behalf of the government, explained that the penalty for death due to starvation will only apply in the case of parents who have the ability to provide for their children but do not.

“If a person is simply too poor to provide for their children, that is not a violation of the law,” he said.

Cheam Yeap, a lawmaker from the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, said that an important aspect of implementing the new Penal Code will be educating Cambodian citizens about the new provisions relating to child abuse and other offenses.

Cambodia is still a developing country, but raising awareness about the criminal code needs to be a high priority for government institutions, parliamentarians and civil-society groups,” he said.

Mu Sochua, a lawmaker from the opposition Sam Rainsy Party, said that she supported the articles passed Wednesday because they will bolster the rights of vulnerable children, though she added that dire levels of poverty remain a threat to child welfare in Cambodia.

“We are happy to pass a law that pressures parents to take responsibility for their children, but children in Cambodia still face many other problems,” she said.

“Many are victims of child labour, trafficking, exploitation and poverty, and we estimate that 50 percent of juveniles quit school before they reach grade nine.”

Samleang Seila, the executive director of Action Pour Les Enfants, a child-rights group, said that he had not yet seen the newly passed articles, but he said that he worried about the lack of protections for civil-society groups who work on behalf of abused children.

“So far, there has not been any law that has authorised shelters and legal guardians to represent children,” he said, noting that shelters currently have no power to keep abused children when families ask for their return.

Thun Saray, president of the local rights group Adhoc, was more optimistic about the newly approved articles, though he emphasised the need for local authorities to follow through on the law’s provisions.

“I think it’s a good idea to imprison people who abuse young children, but we remain concerned about the ability of law enforcement to enforce these provisions,” he said.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY JAMES O’TOOLE
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

We need to be certain sacrifice of lives in Afghanistan is justified - Times Online

DeathImage by tanakawho via Flickr

There could be few bleaker visions posing the question “Is it worth it?” than those of the shattered, maimed and broken young soldiers rushed on stretchers into the operating theatre of the British-run hospital in Camp Bastion, Helmand.

What imagined nirvana of good Afghan governance would justify the loss of his legs to the double amputee? However may “development and stability” explain to the young soldier his missing lower face?

And what of the wives, mothers or children of the three dead British soldiers carried into “Rose Cottage”, the hospital mortuary, on Thursday? What possible outcome in such a faraway land could mollify their loss and leave them less grief stricken?

None, of course, for all are casualties of war in their own different ways and casualties of war, like victims of crime, seldom get to sit on the jury in deciding a war’s worth.

Yet the question “Is it worth it?” should haunt the rest of us over the coming week more so than usual because of two events. First, it is a near-inevitability that within this time the 200th death of a British soldier in Afghanistan will occur.

There is a certain rounded resonance to the figure of 200 dead soldiers: a suggestion of milestone or even meaning. You can almost imagine the graves in the mind’s eye — ten rows of twenty.

Predictably, the 200th death will provoke a transient flare of interest, followed by various assertions by soldiers, true enough, that their morale in Helmand is strong, that 200 is just a number, and that they are motivated by abstract concepts such as a sense of craic, professionalism and espirit de corps that will keep them fighting on in the face of increasing casualties and the absence of any notable improvement in Afghanistan for some time to come.

Their voices should be heard. It should also be noted, though, that British soldiers are getting killed and wounded in greater numbers in Helmand than ever before.

Forty-seven have been killed during the past four months of 19 Brigade’s tour — a higher count than that of any previous brigade during the standard six-month deployments. Forty-one of these soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs, which suggests that the Taleban, utilising cheap explosive and circuit materials to deadly effect, are fighting their war in a more cost-effective fashion than the coalition with its mass expenditure.

We should not necessarily be prepared to have our soldiers lose their lives in such numbers indefinitely, even should they be prepared to do so, without asking two more questions. Is the fight necessary? Has it a reasonable chance of advantageous conclusion?

Critics of the war suggest any number of countries that pose terrorist threats to Western interests, some greater than that posed by Afghanistan. Alternatively, the war’s supporters offer a doomsday scenario in which a failure of the coalition mission results in a new round of civil war and the re-establishment of large-scale terrorist training facilities in the Pashtun south, which will disseminate an al-Qaeda-based ideology and skills at a rate far beyond the capabilities of localised radical cells already in Europe.

Assuming that you accept this latter argument and can stomach the level of British soldiers’ deaths, then you will likely see any chance of an advantageous conclusion stand or fall in the second key event of the week: the presidential election of August 20.

There is little of the brave hope that accompanied Afghanistan’s last presidential election. Already the run-up to this one has been dogged by widespread allegations of fraud. Outside the main urban areas in the south there is a chance that Taleban intimidation will deter huge numbers of Pashtun voters from visiting polling stations at all.

There are fears that a second-round run-off could provoke a new cycle of nationwide ethnic violence. And even should President Karzai win a second term of office alongside his warlord running-mates the future will look far from secure.

Personally, I could just about stomach seeing those wounded soldiers on Thursday by holding on to the fraught hope that even a modest form of stability and peace may yet unfold as a result of their efforts in Afghanistan.

But if, eight years on from the first deployment of British troops here, the presidential election tangles the country into an even greater level of insecurity then I am almost sure that I could no longer believe that the price is worth it or success achievable.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]