Posting news of the eight US troops reported killed in Afghanistan today in the deadliest month of fighting since this war began, I had what one might call a slip of the eye.

Reading the Associated Press report, I read the following

I was struck by seeing the capitalized ‘W’. As a guy who deals in words and phrases, this jumped out at me. Upon further inspection, the ‘w’ in question had not been capitalized. But in my mind, the trail had been blazed.

After eight years, it’s hard to continue to think of this as “the war in Afghanistan.”

People may think of such phrasing as an afterthought, merely an arbitrary use of long-form language. But it’s not. It’s a spelled-out phrasing that softens the reality of the blood being spilled on both sides. “The war in Afghanistan” sounds heroic; adventurous in the way Lawrence of Arabia does. “The war in Afghanistan” sounds noble.

A control of Language is power and in this instance, it’s being made just long enough, just soft enough, to keep us from doing the wartime mathematics that shortening and capitalization tends to bring about.

The Afghan War.

The Afghan War? It still sounds kind of interesting because ‘Afghan’ is kind of fun to say–like Aflac, but not–but the ending–war–is so abrupt that it adds a splash of cold reality and to the whole thing. Just say ‘the Afghan War’ aloud. Sounds a lot more serious all of a sudden, right?

In reading, it’s somehow more ominous. The Afghan War. Capital ‘w’ wars are so much more historic, so much more factual and lack that triumphal feel.

(Of course the exception here is World War II, but that’s due to: using ‘world’ before war–which only helps add to the theatrical element, being a sequel, America not having to sacrifice any of its land, two atom bombs, America emerging as a superpower and the suppression of what really, really went down until long after the whole thing was well over. But I digress.)

Capital ‘w’ wars have winners ans losers and consequences. Capital ‘w’ wars can define legacies. And they totally lack the righteously expeditious qualities of a war in Afghanistan.

But this isn’t a righteous expedition. It’s a War.

This is the Afghan War. It’ll be in textbooks and everything.

--JONATHAN PITTS-WILEY

NOW president Terry O’Neill finds it troubling that President Obama only hoops with the fellas. There are those that fear an all-boys culture is being cultivated in the White House and that’s not a good thing. If a woman’s good enough to run ball, then she should be able to do that. I’m fairly confident I know several ladies who would catch wreck in White House pick-up ball.

On a more serious level, O’Neill finds it troubling that, while women make up 52% of the voting population, they are only 7 out of 22 possible cabinet-level positions. That concern is also reasonable. There’s nothing intrinsic to being a woman that should prevent them from being able to do cabinet-level work.

I don’t have any  problem with any of above. I do, however, furrow my brow at the following O'Neill comment:

Huh?

Firstly, does she mean to assert that there is something intrinsic to being a woman that would better qualify an individual to make prudent decisions? Are these so-called “masters of the universe”–who women might have been better alternatives to–examples of what every man is or merely a personality type commonly seen in the upper reaches of Wall Street in an industry historically dominated by men (men who are predominantly white and of the Anglo-Saxon crust)?

Exactly who is O’Neill talking about?

When juxtaposing “women” against “masters of the universe,” a reader might reasonably infer that she is speaking about all men in such a way that implies men lack the ability to be reasonable. And while I’ll refrain from using something akin to a reverse discrimination argument, I do find it entirely interesting that a NOW president would craft a statement in that way. O’Neill may have a very particular group of people of whom she’s speaking, but she fails to clarify it and the analogy becomes more muddy–and seemingly of a blanket nature–when it is made in relation to those who keep the political counsel of a biracial man from Chicago by way of Hawaii.

On a more basic level, I find the Wall Street analogy troubling because it seems to overlook the nature of greed and exactly what part it had to play in this economic crisis.

Wall Street is most certainly a preppy macho enterprise in complexion. But the thing that culture pursues–money and unspeakable wealth–awakens something that I can’t appoint as only belonging to men. Money is prey and those on Wall Street are its insatiable predator. In many dangerous and tragic ways, Wall Street is a place for the shrewd but not the reasonable. Like most predators, those who participate often times do not know–or care–when enough is enough.

Does O’Neill mean to assert that women who had risen to the heights of a brutal and predatory culture would have known when to call it quits in the midst of prosperity because they were women?

O’Neill’s initial points are spot-on and absolutely should not be lost in this discussion. Gender equality is improving but there is still a long way to go. Casual and seemingly informal interactions among colleagues have professional ramifications and the fellas have to be mindful of such things.

But Ms. O’Neill should mind her analogies as well.

--JONATHAN PITTS-WILEY

The Senate has finally passed its anti-gay hate crime bill and President Obama will certainly sign it, no doubt to much fanfare. In the words of Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese, it'll be "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation" for LGBT Americans. And at this seemingly historic moment, the burning question for people who think gay folks should to be treated like full citizens ought to be this: So what?

I wrote my first story about the Senate’s anti-gay hate crime bill more than a decade ago. What struck me most then holds true today: It’s a nothing bill. All these years of lobbying and cajoling (and donating to) the Democrats, and this is the best they can do for gay civil rights? A tough-on-crime law that adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of things it’s really, really illegal to attack somebody over? At best, the bill scores the symbolic victory of the Senate acknowledging gay people as something more than a threat to straight marriages. At worst, it puts another club in the hands of a broken criminal justice system that will use it, as always, to beat up on young black men.

Hate crimes are not a criminal justice problem. Cops and courts have their place, but they aren’t a panacea. We like to think if we just “get tough” on social problems we don’t want to meaningfully address, it’ll go away. But that hasn’t worked for drugs, it hasn’t worked for teen pregnancy or STDs, and it’s not gonna work for hate, of gay people or anybody else. Fixing those things takes a lot more work--work we don’t want to do.

The Senate’s bill (passed, fittingly, as an attachment to the conference report outlining the Pentagon’s budget) broadens the definition of the existing federal hate crime law to include disability, sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. (Race, color, religion and national origin are already in there.) It also makes it a federal crime to attack military personnel because of their job.

Supporters named the measure after Matthew Shepard, the young Wyoming man who’s brutal murder caught the nation off guard back in 1998. As me and other Root writers have noted, an uncounted number of black young people have since been tortured, killed and driven to suicide for being queer; not to mention the grisly violence transgender people in urban communities face routinely. Those crimes don’t make national headlines--even within the gay community--and the victims thus don’t qualify as hate-crime poster children. Which is the first sign that there’s not much honest about the discussion.

If the Senate and gay rights advocates alike want to actually deal with hate, then let’s do so. Let’s support real conversations in schools about sexuality and fund gay-straight alliance clubs, so they exist not just in tony neighborhoods but in the poor communities where hate crimes happen. Spare us the lobbying budget for a hate crime bill and instead fund gay community centers and outreach programs in those same poor neighborhoods. In sum, let’s actually engage the hate in question, not just make more crimes for prosecutors to tally.

--KAI WRIGHT

Actor Michael Kenneth Williams, best known for playing Omar Little, Barack Obama's favorite character on HBO's "The Wire," is jumping into the political fray with an endorsement of sitting New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:

Williams' Obama-centric pitch mixed a few metaphors, but made a point:

Obama has been burning up the fundraising circuit in 2009, making 21 appearances worth over $20 million for the Democratic party and various Democratic candidates. After a $30,400 per couple dinner and two other fundraisers in New York City, the president is set to stump for Corzine Wednesday afternoon, before hitting events for Connecticus Senator Chris Dodd and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick later this week. No telling if he'll throw the love back at Omar when he hits New Jersey.

--DAYO OLOPADE