Who Decides What We Read?

I've been in something of a frustration mode lately. I was recently fortunate enough to meet with a literary agent to discuss a book project I had been working on since the summer. At that meeting, we discussed the fact that a family member already had a book contract to write a biography of his long ago relative. "I don't think the market can support two books about X," the agent told me.

After having spent two seemingly futile days in archives in Washington, I was tired and vulnerable, and I caved without much of a struggle. My response was something along the lines of saying that I felt relieved.

The agent and I kicked around a few other potential book ideas, and I left his office with the promise to send him a proposal for one of them.

A few weeks after that meeting, I e-mailed a friend about what happened. Her response was interesting. She works in a library dedicated to people who have lived in the White House, and she observed how many multiple books there are in the library on the same subject. How, she wondered, could this agent determine that two books could not be written about the same person?

How indeed? Just who does determines what we read?

Because I still see myself as a struggling writer (my definition of no longer struggling is when my writing earns enough to cover the research trips and pay my bills), I am sensitive to books that get published and reviewed. In the last few years, I have spotted a very disturbing trend. Authors who know editors of influential and widely circulated, and widely respected, publications will have their work reviewed - everywhere! A good example is the latest work by Joan Didion, whom I hate to give any additional press to, because she has had more than enough. I've read about her in Vanity Fair. She was on the cover of New York Magazine. The New Yorker reviewed her book, as did the New York Times, the Washington Post, and goodness knows who else.

I am sorry for Ms. Didion's pain. I fully understand the need to emote and work through hurt and grief, and I definitely know that writing offers that outlet better than other media. But do I have to be inundated with the details of her life story and her daily habits? Isn't there a limit to the exposure?

It is difficult to break into the clique that arbitrates what we will have available to read. Only by getting beyond the more obvious suggestions of reading options and digging deeper into the great variety of what is published through university presses, small independent publishing firms, and the mid-list books of trade publishers that get little attention can we move beyond the books that are hyped and thrown at us.

Through one of my Twitter feeds, I happened upon an interesting article in the New York Daily News: "The Most Overrated Books of 2011." This blogpost says it all, and more succinctly than I just have, too. (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/node/126739)

A Hodgepodge of Thoughts on Capitalism and its Oppressors

I was in New York the week before last - the week that included the Thursday when the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators planned to "act." Their actions, according to the paper that Thursday morning, included taking their message to the subways, and ultimately converging at the southern tip of Manhattan in and around Battery Park and the Brooklyn Bridge. Their appointed hour for gathering was 3 p.m. - which ended up being about exactly the time I was due back at Union Square from my museum jaunt further uptown.

I wondered if the demonstrators were going to converge on the station and put me in harm's way. I wondered if I would feel safe joining them for a short period just to relive my own days of protest in the early 1970s when I marched on behalf of Soviet Jewry in front of the Soviet embassy in Washington. And I wondered if I should get off the subway one stop sooner and just walk the rest of the way to Union Square.

I decided I would take my chances, and rode into the Union Square stop. All was quiet. No phalanx of police officers underground. No groups shouting slogans. Not even the nearly ubiquitous musicians who set up in the spaces where the yellow line and the green line meet and then go their separate ways.

On street level, I emerged just in time to see the protestors marching in an orderly fashion along the Square (see photo). But just a few blocks to the south, I could hear the police whistles, sirens, and louder chants. By 5:00 p.m., according to the local news, thousands were converged at Battery Park, and warned they would be arrested if they blocked traffic across the bridge. Photos showed lines of cars backed up for miles. I wanted the protestors to comply and not create problems; it would only diminish their message.

As I have learned from previous trips to New York when events in that city make national news, the "local take" is far more nuanced than what we in the rest of the nation hear. Those who live and work near Zuccotti Park are ready for the protestors to go home. A few were photographed holding signs that read, "Occupy a Desk." Workers were interviewed about how they were inconvenienced in trying to get into their office buildings. At Macy's a few days later, I heard someone tell a friend that her neighbors can't even walk their children to school because of the demonstrations.

I have been very sensitive to the original message of those who formed the movement. It is a reminder that extreme wealth in this country is concentrated in the hands of a very few, and that wealth gives a tiny minority access the rest of us don't get - regardless of what we are allegedly supposed to receive according to the idealism of our political documents. It makes me think of the message I tried to inculcate into my children - not to believe what I sometimes think is the Great American Lie - "liberty and justice for all." We do not have liberty and justice for all, but we have to find a way to fulfill the ideals on which we set up a republic. The "occupiers" are trying to remind us that there is still much work to be done.

But they have diminished their message by their refusal to focus on one or two key issues and persistently drive those points home. An acquaintance of mine attended some working sessions in the early days of the movement. He was impressed with the occupiers' dedication and their orderliness. What I'm hearing now is the adult version of elementary school "group work," which eschews leadership and tries to forge a watery consensus. The group needs definitive leaders to hone and drive home a message, or it will be drowned out by a nation with an incredibly short attention span.

One object lesson about the 1% versus the 99% comes from a story carried earlier this week by Yahoo! Finance and the Christian Science Monitor (see David vs. Goliath fight ) about a cease and desist letter that Chick-fil-A has sent to a Vermont kale grower who screen printed shirts reading "Eat More Kale."

Chick-fil-A's attorneys claim that grower Bo Muller-Moore has infringed on the chicken chain's intellectual property by using a phrase close to its "Eat Mor Chikin." Well, first off, Mr. Muller-Moore knows how to spell, and second, I'm hard pressed to see how people are going to confuse chicken with kale. Finally, I doubt that Mr. Muller-Moore is going to franchise his kale business nationwide.

Just for the heck of it, I checked on the Chick-fil-A web site to see how many locations they have in Vermont. ZERO! So, I wonder how the company can justify that a kale grower is going to dilute its brand. Actually, I wonder why the dairy industry hasn't gone after Chick-fil-A for using Holstein cattle in its advertising, thus diminishing the perception that cows give us milk.

Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A, strongly espoused his Christian principles - to the level that he makes a big point of not being open on Sunday. One would like to think that the corollary to those views is not to oppress those who are [financially] weaker and less able to defend themselves. There is a whole lot more in Scripture about the powerful abusing the weak than there is about observing the Sabbath.

I fired off a letter to Chick-fil-A letting them know that if they persisted in demanding that Mr. Muller-Moore suspend his kale promotional campaign that they would lose a customer. I haven't heard back, other than to get the perfunctory auto-response.

That's okay. I can occupy a seat at Wendy's or Panera Bread instead.

The Marketplace of Ideas

I made it to the National Book Festival last week. A little iffy, since my husband was one of those RIF-ed by the state budget issues affecting state employees in our state, but we decided that this was important enough for me to attend.

Like last year's event, which was my first, I found this year's Festival (the first time it went for two days - well, technically, one and one-half) intellectually stimulating. It is the rare opportunity to step out of the daily humdrum and move into that rarefied atmosphere where authors talk to interested audiences.

I have had my share of talking in front of interested audiences this last year and a half - having had the wonderful opportunity to talk to audiences interested in our nation's First Ladies, and particularly those who are interested in hearing about the nation's youngest First Lady, Frances Folsom Cleveland.

The fact that book reading is still something of a dying art is encapsulated in a remark I overheard Washington Post reporter and author, Joel Achenbach, say to some friends of his who were seated in the row in front of me: "This is not a bad turnout. And these people buy books."

Perhaps David McCullough, who came as close to being classified as a "keynote speaker" as any of those who spoke this year, summarized it best, when he strongly asserted his views that the ability to discuss and research and read others' works was part of what is essential to keeping a democracy thriving and healthy.

Indeed it is essential to keeping us healthy - a point that McCullough also made sure to make as the last speaker in the "History and Biography" pavilion on the Mall at the festival's close on Sunday afternoon. He observed that on the day after the 9/11 attacks, he entered the offices of James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and asserted that the book festival needed to be kept alive, if for no other reason than to assert that we are a nation that does not tell others how to think.

This comment drew rousing applause by the audience, but in reviewing the speakers in what I will call the "non-fiction" pavilions (History & Biography, and Contemporary Life - where I spent all of my time at the Festival), I noticed that there is a subtle undercurrent that suggests a train of thought that we should be following. There is an overemphasis on looking at the issues that face Black America, an obsession with the Civil War, and an almost morbid fascination with those who have faced serious battles with disease.

While none of these topics are, in and of themselves, inappropriate for inclusion in a book festival, it becomes something of a question mark when there are multiple entries that fit into this category. The " Big C" has captured a lot of attention, and perhaps I should simply write off the fascination with issues of race and the Civil War as part of the homage being paid to the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. However, in my middle-aged naivete, I would still like to believe that there is more beyond the literary horizon than this narrow band of topics covered in this year's festival.

Last year's festival, the first which I attended, energized me beyond description. The range of topics was much more expansive, covering everything from the new biography of Cleopatra to a presentation on the possibilities offered to our society by the wonders of engineering. Former First Lady Laura Bush spoke (her memoir having just been published), a fitting inaugural to my first attendance, since the book festival was initially her idea - taken from something she had started in Texas when she was that state's first lady.


We are a nation of far-reaching ideas - still ever optimistic and hopeful. As I noted on the survey I returned to the Library of Congress, the title of the event is the "NATIONAL" Book Festival, and I hope this Atlantic-to-Pacific scope will be remembered as activities get under way to secure next year's speakers.

The Brave New Business World

For the first time, in a very, very long time, I attended a women's entrepreneurship conference that had actual businesswomen there - not just a bunch of service providers representing a host of government programs. Naturally, the event was hosted by government agencies - the SBA and the Federal Reserve - and it was attended by a White House appointee for small business issues (I never did get her complete name).

The world has changed drastically since 1993, when I started what has probably been the most successful of my many business ventures - a management and marketing consulting firm. Bill Clinton was in the White House then (worth noting that he was also a Democrat, like the current 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue occupant), and we were moving toward full employment, a budget surplus, and a sense that Ronald Reagan's "morning in America" was still at full sun.

I rode the wave of extended prosperity as long as everyone else did, well into the early months of 2001, even though the few hiccups that started showing up in the summer of 2000 were accurate warnings of things to come. During my consulting heyday, none of my clients showed any interest in finding out how to get contracts with the government. None of them asked me if there might be grants that could help them move their business along. None of them agonized over hiring another one or two employees because of what the cost of additional employer-provided health care might do to their bottom line. And, for the record, none of my clients were big enough to even rate on the Fortune 1000 list, let alone the Fortune 500 list, but they were solid, small and medium sized firms that offered good value and were reliable providers of their respective products and services.

What I heard at the seminar today bothers me tremendously. For several years now, I have heard business owners be encouraged to seek federal contracting opportunities - because the federal government is now the biggest buyer of EVERYTHING (emphasis is today's speaker's).

I listened to qualified business owners, with solid business plans and proven track records, tell about being turned down for loans - even SBA guaranteed loans. I wonder what would have happened if one of my flagship clients from the 1990s were to apply for an SBA loan today - that was how he was able to get his one-man operation financed to expand and bring in two additional professionals and a host of para-professionals. (Uh, I think they call that job creation.)

I heard highly placed government officials suggest that the only way to navigate the maze of federal programs is by finding a "specialist" who can assist with that process. When I asked why that was necessary - why a competent and experienced businessperson could not handle the application process herself - I was told that a "specialist" can help open the doors.

There did not seem to be any facet of business operation that did not have some potential tie back to a federal opportunity.

Back in the 1970s, when I was taking my Economics courses, I recall our professors showing us graphs that depicted what happened when the private sector had to compete with government for goods and services: prices went up; the cost of capital went up; and the private sector became less profitable. This was not anti-Keynesian rhetoric. It was basic economic theory.

I don't think Econ 101 has changed that much. The women in my break-out session got right to the heart of things: cut the red tape; fix the tax code; fix Obamacare; and tell government to get out of the way. Over half of the room applauded at those statements.

I'll borrow from Herman Cain, who said this during the Republican debate the other night: "I know how Washington works. It doesn't."

No, Washington doesn't work, but the rest of us do - or we'd like to, if we could count on government getting out of the way, and freeing the rest of us to get down to business.

Notes from the Nation's Heartland

Kansas is not really flat. Granted, it does not have the heart-stopping steepness of the Appalachians. Neither does it have the awe-inspiring vistas of the Rockies or the breath-taking views of the Alaskan mountain range, but Kansas's rolling meadows and softly-capped hills provide variation to the landscape and a vista that stretches out for miles.

There is good reason for Kansas, and its neighbors Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, to be called the nation's "breadbasket." One home-made Kansas sign informs passers-by that one Kansas farmer feeds 127 people, or as the sign puts it, "126 people + you."

Fields of corn and soybean stretch along these miles of unimpeded vista, and they are just as breathtaking as the higher elevations of mountains that challenged the earlier settlers who braved the journey and lived through blistering hot summers and bitterly cold winters to transform the land into productive agriculture.

This year's corn crop will be down a little bit - Kansas, especially, has been hit by early flooding followed by miserable drought. The thermometer passed the 100 degree mark while we were there. Yet, even with the weather challenges that this year's farmers, and every year's farmers, face, we will have a phenomenal crop - thanks to the biotechnology that goes into seed production and today's agricultural practices.

Corn and soybeans are staples of the American diet. Hybrid corn finally became acceptable to farmers in the late 1950s. Soybeans are an even newer addition to American agriculture. We transform our diets as we find newer ways to produce abundant crops more economically.

In urban areas, well-fed people disparage corn-based products and the widespread use of soybean products in processed foods. In an age of plenty, it is easy to forget that 80 years ago, our national "breadbasket" experienced a horrific, long-term drought that could have easily brought our government to its knees. People are more tolerant of joblessness than they are of hunger, and it is noteworthy that our government was not overthrown during the Dust Bowl years.

Farming has always been a risky business. It is still one of the most dangerous occupations around, and the demands on farmers to use more expensive inputs and larger machinery force them to look for ways to increase yields and productivity. Much of this economic pressure comes from the government's cheap food policy - the same policy that prevented the overthrow of the government in the 1930s when food and money were scarce. Recent testimony before the Senate Ag Committee, holding field hearings in Wichita, KS, underscores the importance of a crop insurance program that reduces farmers' exposure to the very weather events that will reduce this year's corn yields.

On the East Coast, where I live, the politics of food has intensified. Discussions center around pushing for more locally-produced foods in school cafeterias, hospitals, and restaurants. Arguments abound regarding the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup over the use of cane sugar as a sweetener. Even the root causes of obesity generate heated discussions, although to me the answer to that one is fairly simple: eat less and move more.

In the meantime, Kansas farmers, and those in the neighboring states, faithfully plow and plant year after year. It is they who keep us sufficiently sated that we can argue the fine points over a meal, but maybe it's time we remember who brought the food in the first place.

An Open Letter to President Obama: To Create Jobs, Make the Federal Application Easier

Dear President Obama:

On Monday, August 15, when you were on the hustings in Iowa claiming that we needed to fix government, my husband and I found out just how "fixed" government is.

My husband had applied for three open federal positions, and was interviewed for none of them. For two of those positions, he was told that while he was rated as "qualified," others were rated as "well qualified," and these individuals were therefore the ones being considered.

Now, I will admit to a certain bias where my husband is concerned, (although I am sure that both he and our children will tell you that I mince no words when I think he could do something my way, er, uh, better than the way he is doing it), but I saw the job description and I know what he can do. When it comes to technical skills, he was more than qualified. What had to have made the difference between "qualified" and "well qualified"? I strongly suspect those who were given this latter designation were already employed in the federal government, knew the federal reporting systems, and could check off those skills on their applications. In other words, a "well qualified" person is an experienced federal paper pusher.

With regard to the last of the three applications, he was told that his application was kicked out because he had failed to attach his transcript, and had, instead, attached his resume twice. Now, I quote from a post on GovernmentExecutive.com about a memo former OMB Director Peter Orszag sent out regarding streamlining the federal hiring process: Agencies also are required to revise the job descriptions for the 10 most common positions they hire for and rewrite them in plain language; put in place plans to inform candidates through USAJobs about the status of their applications throughout the entire hiring process; and demonstrate that they have involved hiring managers in every step of the process. (Bold & italics mine.)

At no time was my husband informed through this so-called "hiring process" that his transcript was not attached - his application was simply thrown out as "incomplete." So much for communication during the hiring process.

That process, rather than being less opaque and more transparent has become more impossible to navigate than ever. Between the two of us, we put in 40 hours (the equivalent of a standard government-employee work week) and $21+ on a book to try to twist, turn, manipulate, and force a square peg into a government round hole (seems like it's a rabbit hole) of an application process. There were a whole lot more productive things I could have done with the time I wasted.

A brief scan of the usajobs.com web page suggests that there are over 10,000 federal jobs open. Now, this may only represent less than 1/10 of 1% of the 13.9 million unemployed Americans, but unemployment stats are like the difference between a recession and a depression - if it's happening to someone else, it's a recession; if it's happening to you, it's a depression. We're depressed.

President Obama, you announced that you will make a major speech in September to lay out a major jobs programs. Here's a thought: start by cleaning up your own house to make federal jobs more accessible to qualified, non-federal applicants - strip out the specifics in the application that are related to federal reporting systems and paperwork, concentrate on the skills that an applicant brings to the job, and put real people instead of a computer back into the selection and review process. Oh, and by the way, jobs in rural areas? Government employment has historically been a door opener for careers for people from low population sections of the country (the ones, by the way, that did not turn out for you in large numbers in 2008).

Better yet, maybe you need first-hand experience in what it takes to fill out a federal job application. If things continue the way they are with others as in this household, you'll get your chance in November, 2012.

On the Eve of My 31st Wedding Anniversary

On the eve of my 31st wedding anniversary, I offer the following thoughts regarding marriage and the potential for marital longevity:

1. Marriage doesn't get any easier. If you are still in the first decade of marriage (or the 2nd decade, for that matter), and keep waiting for marriage to get easier, forget it. You and your spouse will continue to change; you will each age; you may have health or physical problems develop that were not there in the early years; family members will die; family members will aggravate you; children will get older. With every new day there is another adjustment to make.

2. Find something you like to do together. Shared time is what creates a sense of bonding. Even if the "thing you do together" is eat dinner while watching "Jeopardy," it's the time you spend with each other, shutting everything else out that is important.

3. Create space for separateness. A good marriage should celebrate the phrase, "Vive la difference!" Being with your clone is no fun, and it's no challenge.

4. Don't expect the arguments to stop - just expect the topics to be different. There is absolutely no way that two people are always going to agree on everything, and sometimes one of you feels more passionately about something than the other and insists on getting his/her way. There are also the sore, unresolved issues from years and years that resurface - and when they do, they are crying for a resolution. Look for resolve, and then resolve to move on.

5. Compromise can be overrated. Sometimes compromise is damaging rather than conciliatory. On certain matters - where you live, how money is spent, the size house you have, whether or not you take a vacation - someone may have to give in. But the one who gained the concession(s) needs to acknowledge the yielding made by the other.

6. Stay physical. It's one of the primary perks of putting up with the foibles of another human being in the same bed/bedroom/house.

7. And remember, love is not a feeling, it's a decision. Ditto for forgiveness. No comment necessary.

Marriage and Love

(See my daughter, Pastor Julia Seymour's, blogpost, "Faith, Grace and Hope," http://lutheranjulia.blogspot.com/, July 20, 2011.)

Reverend Ron Hamman initiated a strong reaction with his column in the Mat-Su Valley (Alaska) Frontiersman, entitled, "Faith, what the Bible says about a modern controversy." His initial comments related to an Alaska case regarding a woman's accusations about marital rape, and then digressed into a commentary on divine judgment of America.

My daughter eloquently exegeted on the Scriptures cited by Rev. Hamman, so there is no need for me to repeat what she has said. I refer my readers to her blog (see link above).

My interest in commenting on the nature of sex within marriage is to take a deeper look at what that relationship can be in the best of circumstances. Christian teaching often fails to dig more deeply into its Hebraic roots, and so I like to go back to the Hebrew Scripture and study how something, in this case marital sex, is rendered linguistically.

The first time that marital sexual relations is mentioned in Torah is Genesis 4:1, and the verb used is the same verb that means "to know." It is typically rendered, "Adam knew his wife." Hence, there is the suggestion that sex is an intimate act, the result of a closeness where one so much understands and comprehends the other that the phrase, "the two become one," is realized in the fullest, almost metaphysical, sense of that phrase.

Isaac consummates his relationship with Rebekah by taking her into his mother's tent (Gen. 24:67), and he was comforted - the suggestion here that marital relations are tender and mutually enjoyable.

A subsequent word used in the contexts of Jacob with his wives Leah and Rachel; Jacob's son, Judah, and his wife; and Boaz with Ruth is translated as 'cohabit,' (Hebrew, boh). The word is a variation of the same verb meaning "enter in" or "come into," a more graphic depiction, yet also suggesting a mutual sharing.

What is perhaps most interesting in looking at these stories is that the idea of marital love is introduced very early in Genesis, with the stories of Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob's love for Rachel. In fact, it is notable to realize that the writers of Genesis make a point of addressing the fact that Leah was "unloved," and that as a result, Jacob often abstained from performing his "marital duty."

Perhaps no other Hebrew Scripture text better depicts what marital relations is all about than the Song of Songs, a text that has so embarrassed various church leaders throughout the centuries with its graphic depictions of mutually enjoyed physical love that they have been compelled to declare it a description of the Deity's love for Israel, rather than own up to the reality that the Scriptures' writers and compilers believed that the inclusion of text that conveys the depth of emotional and physical attraction mutually shared by a man and a woman was an important part of building a community of faith.

I would say that it is a safe conclusion that G-d's intention for marital love is one of mutuality and respect, and that this thread of shared intentionality is found in the earliest of biblical texts. As it is not an easy thing to call law enforcement and accuse one's husband of rape, I would suspect that even in the absence of witnesses, there has been a profound violation of the mutual respect and compassion that should be the foundation of marital life.

Reverend Hamman does quote the Pauline injunction that husbands and wives should share their bodies, but there is a key verse lacking in his argument: a husband has an obligation to reverence and care for his wife as he would himself. Indeed, the husband is to love his wife as he would himself. Here, too, we can find historical texts to reinforce the responsibility that a husband has toward the care of his wife and acting with concern for her well-being - starting in the marital bed.

Once again, Hebrew Scripture offers additional food for thought. The Torah portion for July 23, Matot (Numbers 30:2 - 32:42), talks about vows. In biblical times, a man's word was inviolate. If he made a vow, he was required to keep it. In ancient Hebraic wedding ceremonies, the man made all the promises. He promised to care for, protect, and nurture the woman he took to wife. If Rev. Hamman would like to approach the Scripture literally, then this text is an excellent place to start. A Christian man who fully honored his vows to "love, honor, and cherish" would never be in a position to be accused of rape or domestic violence.

In fact, Rev. Hamman could easily have made a very different point in his column on faith - and that is the requirement that a man has to love his wife as he loves himself. This is a command that is threaded throughout the whole of the Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament writings, and every translation renders that command the same way.

A Hidden Gem in the Ozarks

Marshfield, Missouri, is a little town, about 30 miles northeast of Springfield, tucked into the Ozark plateau. Its gently rolling hills and rural nature remind me of the lower Piedmont region of North Carolina, the state I call home. But just as the Missouri hills offer a variety of geological riches, including quartz and the agriculturally important limestone, Marshfield likewise offers gifts to those who love history and enjoy the company of like-minded aficionados.

I discovered this semi-hidden treasure last week, when I responded to an invitation to accept the Ella Dickey Literacy Award at the Marshfield Cherry Blossom Festival. I will confess an initial skepticism when I received an e-mail from one Nicholas Inman, telling me that I had been chosen for such an honor. My biography of the nation's youngest first lady, Frances Folsom Cleveland, titled "Frank" (for the name she used in childhood and with family), has enjoyed, shall we say, modest sales - although my publisher has kindly characterized the numbers as "not too shabby." But even though I wasn't wholly convinced by the information I had uncovered via some Internet sleuthing, I had a sixth sense that this festival was legitimate and that it was a trip that I should make.

The easiest way to try to describe the Cherry Blossom Festival to a neophyte is to say that it brings together the descendants of the nation's presidential families, but the reality of the event actually defies description. The festival is one part history, one part book festival, one part religious revival, one part racial healing, and one part show business. It is a homo sapien version of a banana split, a concoction of seemingly unrelated flavors that, when enjoyed together, provides an overwhelmingly pleasant taste sensation greater than eating each individual ingredient alone.

Several of the events center around the uniqueness of having so many presidential descendants together in one room, ranging from a descendant of Washington's family to a cousin of Bill Clinton's. The addition of a few authors, history devotees, impassioned advocates for racial healing, actors from yesteryear's family-oriented television programming, war heroes and well-known politicians, topped with a significant dollop of committed local residents demonstrates that, at her best, American can still be a successful melting pot society.

I had the singular pleasure of sitting next to the eldest grandson of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt during dinner one evening and engaging in a stimulating conversation that ranged from the current economic conditions to the occasional enjoyment of a cigarette. Clinton's cousin had recently met people that I have known for several years through my work. Harry Truman's nephew responded enthusiastically when I mentioned why my mother had considered Truman to be a great and courageous president. I shared knowledge of the Confederacy with a descendant of Jefferson Davis, who is also related to the Rutherford B. Hayes family. Speaking of Jefferson, descendants of the Tom & Martha and Tom & Sally sides were both present, and they bear an uncanny resemblance to one another, as well as to their distant ancestor, Thomas Jefferson. And I was finally able to meet, in person, the Cleveland grandson with whom I have exchanged several delightful and fun-to-read e-mails.

Remarkable is too bland a word to describe the Cherry Blossom Committee that organizes and executes this event. People open their homes to the invited attendees, transport them to and from the airport, take guests who speak to nearby colleges and schools to their venues, and make sure that it all happens seamlessly. Everything is done with warmth, genuine hospitality, and smiles. The food, too, is excellent. (I would list the first names of everyone who helped to make our stay so fabulous, but I am afraid I will forget a name!)

This is an annual event that takes place at the end of April. I've already marked my calendar, and God willing, I will be back next year.

The Politics of Hunger

Years ago, an agriculturist told me that all hunger was political. "There is enough food to feed the entire world," he asserted, knowledgeably. "If people are going hungry, it's because their leaders are using food as a political weapon."

The statement was made in the context of hearing yet another report about the 'starving children in Africa.'

Now, I have to wonder what my friend would say when he reads about hunger right here in America. We are a nation that has a cable network dedicated solely to the preparation and consumption of food. Even as general readership declines, the publication and purchase of cookbooks abound. True, some of this may be nothing more than the beauty of a well-framed food picture in a book, artfully placed on a coffee table, but it also says something about our almost insane obsession with eating.

Yet even as we see the affluent, or at least those who can marginally afford it, engage in various forms of foodaholism, we also know that people are dumpster diving because of how much edible food is discarded. Lines at soup kitchens have lengthened, and appeals to restock food pantries have come with more frequency as shelves empty more quickly than at any other time in recent history.

If hunger in a society is a gauge of that nation's leadership, what does hunger in America say about us?

First, it says we have our priorities greatly skewed. Visitors to food pantries will tell you that given the choice of rent, utilities, medicine, and food, they will cut the food to assure that they aren't homeless, freeze, or get even sicker. Housing that is safe isn't always affordable, but given the choice, I guess I, too, would go with hunger pangs over the fear of gun violence in my neighborhood. We have no competitiveness in the provision of utilities, and anyone who has completed Economics 101 can tell you that monopoly pricing is the highest type of per unit pricing for a good or service. I'll address medical care below.

Second, we believe that people who are facing financial hardship have brought their problems on themselves. The Great Recession, an interesting euphemism for what is really and truly a serious economic depression, should tell us otherwise. Many of those who are out of work followed all the rules - got up every morning, went to work, invested in the recommended 401Ks, and believed that home ownership was the way to go toward long-term security. We bailed out the banks, and bailed out on individuals. So, how do we punish them for their failure to be 'productive' in society's eyes? We make it difficult for them to eat.

Third, let me return to health care. We are the only industrialized nation that does not ensure proper, preventive care for every single citizen. We reward people with chronic diseases by covering the costs of their treatment more than we reward young mothers for taking their infants to the medical provider for routine check-ups and vaccinations. We punish people who contract diseases that have nothing to do with lifestyle (certain types of cancers being a case in point), and then bend over backwards to provide treatments for conditions that are potentially preventable. (Viagra, anyone?) Obamacare, for all of the excoriations from the right, still does not move us in the direction we need to go with regard to providing complete, affordable, preventive care. I'm not even sure it's a stable baby step. In the meantime, would those who are receiving care under Medicare or Tricare or Medicaid or are covered under the care offered to Members of Congress please stand up?

Congress is currently targeting for cuts programs that provide food stamps, overseas food aid, subsidized meals for preschoolers and their mothers, and although the subject of this blog is food, I will add that cuts are targeted for heating assistance as well.

If, as my friend pointed out years ago, leaders either provide or withhold food as a show of political power, what do the current proposals in Congress say about our leaders?

Life and Death on the Farm - Part II

June came to live with us ten years ago. David, the dairy farmer who gave her to us, believed she had an umbilical hernia that would keep her from being able to calve easily and nurse her calf. After a few months on our so-called farm at that time, a little patch of three acres, half of which was planted in three mobile homes, June's 'umbilical hernia' turned out to be nothing more than her own umbilical cord which had not yet fully healed. We named her 'June' in honor of her birth month, and kept her for her potential as a brood and nurse cow.

June had roots on our small landholding. She was the heifer of a Hostein dairy cow and "Shorty," a gorgeous red, milking Shorthorn bull that had been born on our farm, and who had been sold to David about two years before we acquired June. She was part of the last group of calves Shorty sired before he was turned into steak and hamburger. June had red and white patterning that reflected her mixed parentage.

From the time she first calved, June proved to be an outstanding cow. My husband taught our sons how to milk her, and I discovered the joys of honest-to-goodness cream. In fact, I became so spoiled, I refused to drink half-and-half, and I now drink my coffee black because I do not have real cream to put in it. My husband used June as a nurse cow to provide milk to bull calves he would buy from David. In the ten years we had her, she nurse a total of 55 calves - six of her own, and 49 others.

June's last calf, Little Bit, was born this past June. He exhibits his mother's markings, and the darker red of his red limousin bull sire.

There are times when I seem to have a sixth sense about things on this farm (although not always, as I will describe shortly). I noticed that June seemed to be resting at the edge of a wooded section of our pasture, but all of the other cattle were grazing. Cattle have specific times of the day when they rest and when they graze, and while one or two in a herd may occasionally graze or rest when all of the other animals are doing the opposite, there is a legitimate reason for the term 'herd mentality': the animals do things as a group. I kept an eye on June, figuring that perhaps her resting was just one of those occasional times when not everyone is doing the same thing at the same time, but when it was clear that she had not moved for nearly an hour, I pointed out to my husband that we needed to go and check on her.

What we found concerned us. It was clear from the manure piles that June had been in the same spot for even longer than the hour that I had been observing her. My husband tried to get her to stand, even putting some feed in a trough to encourage her to move (up to that point, June had always been the first one at the trough, earning her the nickname, "feed hog"). My husband and I frantically discussed all of the options: virus? hard metal disease? bovine flatulence?

We weren't prepared for the final answer: old age. June was, by bovine standards, an old cow, and it was time for her to go to the Great Pasture. This was not an easy thing to do because she was, maybe as much as our 14-year old dog (we're all getting old around here!), a family pet. I conveniently managed not to be home when my husband took care of things, but I still get upset, even as I write this post, about the fact that she is gone.

And when the sixth sense isn't working...

A week ago, I went outside and found a strange dog hanging around our yard. The dog, a female beagle, is marked almost exactly like our male beagle, so much so that I thought he had escaped his dog pen. But this dog was obviously female, and either nursing or about to give birth to pups. For some reason (that sixth sense again), I went over to our hen pen, and what I saw sickened me: feathers of one hen who was nowhere to be found, an eviscerated second hen, and one last hen, alive, but looking traumatized. This beagle showed no interest in the birds, so I suspect she was not the culprit, and I looked around for signs of entry into the pen, but saw none.

I left to go to the appointment I needed to keep, and when I returned an hour later, all of our hens were gone. We could hear yipping in the woods behind our house, sounds of a pack of wild dogs or coyotes. We heard those sounds for several days, until they finally quit, about two days ago. After living here for over two years, raising chicks for home chicken consumption and keeping hens for eggs, this is the first time we have had something or some things come and eat our birds. It's not unusual, and most keepers of backyard poultry have one story or another to share about similar events, but when it's your turn, you are painfully reminded of how farm living is often just one small step away from the more treacherous and primitive lifestyles of the hunter-gatherers of just a few generations back.