'Grey's Anatomy' Shocks; Subtely Raises Awareness About War in Syria

It has surprised audiences with tales of exploding bombs, cold-hearted shootings, and disastrous plane crashes. But last week, longtime ABC drama Grey’s Anatomy did something truly shocking--and important. The episode titled “She’s Killing Me,” aired on April 4, continues to follow the personal and professional lives of the main cast of characters, but this time with a key difference. As the surgeons of Grey-Sloan Memorial Hospital go about caring for patients, they have the additional task of training two Syrian surgeons in battlefield trauma medicine. The surgeons were flown out of the war zone in Syria to learn from a highly qualified team of American doctors. To begin the process, the Grey-Sloan team assembles what it deems are basic tools, but quickly discovers that the Syrian doctors have far fewer tools to work with. Numerous scalpels are removed off the surgical tray, and looks of confusion and surprise take hold on the American doctors’ faces as one of the Syrian surgeons turns off the lights and holds a flashlight over the simulated patient.

A Syrian surgeon holds a flashlight over his patient to provide light for surgery

Grey’s Anatomy is not known for subtlety, typically showcasing overly dramatic, often utterly improbable story arcs that involve disaster after disaster mixed with personal triumph and despair. Nevertheless, last week’s episode serves as a shockingly subtle and extremely effective public service announcement about the ongoing, escalating war in Syria. By visually demonstrating the hardships faced by Syrian doctors trying to keep their patients alive--patients that include many children--Grey’s Anatomy undoubtedly called the situation to the attention of millions of fans and perhaps demonstrated a new way in which art can raise public consciousness and affect social and political change.

A clip of the episode is available here.

Bill Clinton: Representative or Opportunist?

Last week, I wrote an editorial urging people to celebrate Senator Rob Portman for coming about on the issue of gay marriage. This week, I wonder if Bill Clinton deserves the same consideration. On September 21, 1996, Bill Clinton quietly signed a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal law. This law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) makes it legal for states to not recognize gay marriages even if they are validly performed under the laws of a state in which gay marriage is legal. The law also denies federal marriage benefits that are given to straight couples. Now, 17 years later, Bill Clinton came out to say that DOMA is unconstitutional and urge the Supreme Court to overturn it. Although they are both involved in politics, Bill Clinton and Rob Portman are two fairly different people. Portman is a conservative, a Republican senator whose son came out of the closet two years ago and helped him turn around on the issue of gay marriage. Bill Clinton is a liberal, a democrat who has been around gay people and had gay friends since 1968. Clinton is also the first democratic presidential candidate to court a gay vote. Nevertheless, unlike Rob Portman, who stood against the party line in publically announcing his support for gay marriage, Clinton “resolved not to get burned” in an election year. He signed DOMA in the middle of the night without a public ceremony to avoid drawing attention to it. His supporters acknowledge and applaud Clinton’s evolution, citing the courage it takes for a President to admit that something he did while in office was unconstitutional. Others claim that Clinton’s latest anti-DOMA statements are as self-serving and opportunistic as his support of DOMA was in 1996. The reality is that the country was not ready to support gay marriage in 1996. Even in 2013, it is arguable that the majority that supports gay marriage is slim (with only 53% in favor). Bill Clinton signed a law that was representative of the attitude of the country at the time, and that is what a leader of the United States, a representative republic, is elected to do. Clinton now supports gay marriage, echoing the attitude of the rest of the country. On the other hand, our Constitution is built with certain safeguards to avoid the creation of a tyranny of the majority. Our history is full of defining moments in which we have created greater protections for minority groups and opinions. It seems to me that Bill Clinton chose politics over conscience. Twice. Though I believe that Bill Clinton sincerely supports marriage equality in 2013, I doubt he would have spoken out in its favor if public attitudes weren’t as open and accepting as they are. Perhaps it is his job to speak for the public only when there is majority support for what he’s saying, but a politician is not a puppet either. Politicians, presidents especially, are elected to represent the people, but also to lead.

Sadly, Supreme Court Unlikely to Find Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage

As the Supreme Court gears up to hear oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry tomorrow, I think of adjectives such as historic, courageous, and just to describe the potentially wide-sweeping decision that the Court may render to legalize same-sex marriage across the country. However, I’m not very optimistic about such a decision's chances. I worry that despite all the momentum there has been in advancing same-sex marriage rights, there hasn’t been enough of it for the Court to jump on the bandwagon. The Supreme Court tends to be reactionary, preferring to solidify change toward the end of a social movement instead of being on the front line. It is an institution outside of the democratic process and works hard to avoid usurping power away from voters. Many argue, and I agree, that gay marriage is a Constitutional issue that doesn't belong to the whims of voters, but I doubt the Court will easily see things this way. In the wake of a nationally divisive case like Roe v. Wade, which Justice Ginsberg describes as "mov[ing] too far too fast," the Court may be extremely reluctant to take the same kind of activist action again. Popular referendums in the last election that, for the first time, upheld or legalized same-sex marriage in 4 states after 29 states amended their constitutions to ban it may signal to the Court that this social movement is in its infancy and is best left in the hands of democratic mechanisms. There are many other arguments on both sides of this debate as well, but it’s anyone’s guess which ones the Court will find most persuasive. Despite what the justices often claim, they do not live in vacuums and consider controversial legal issues far in advance of when the issues first officially come before them. The justices then make the law far more often than they “find” it. I hope they find that gay couples are equal to their straight counterparts and make law to support that conclusion, but my instincts tell me they aren’t there yet.

Stop Bashing Rob Portman

Lay off Rob Portman! He did a huge, great thing by coming out in support of gay marriage—the only sitting Republican senator to do so. Ever. 

Maybe he would have never done so if his son wasn’t gay, but why should that matter? Channeling a personal experience into activism is not self-serving. It’s how most of us go about discovering what causes to champion in our daily lives. We often don’t understand something until confronted with it head-on. Consider the number of HIV activists in the gay community. How many of them worked so hard for the cause before they became infected?

I am not arguing that as a senator—and as a human being—Rob Portman shouldn’t soul search and champion causes that aren’t part of his personal experience. As a U.S. senator, he’s tasked with the responsibility of doing the right thing for all citizens, not just the ones he can personally relate to. I hope he understands that and will act accordingly. There is no reason, though, to attack a man who arrived at one right thing because he’s had a personal encounter with it.

Wow!

“Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry,” The New York Times reported this morning.

“[C]onservative groups said the White House had informed them that [President Bush] would soon endorse efforts to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage to be between a man and a woman,” The New York Times reported nine years earlier, on February 5, 2004.

I still remember the boy who sat in his room 10 years ago following the twists and turns of the Lawrence v. Texas case, Rick Santorum's subsequent hateful comments, and George W. Bush's divisive campaign against gays across America. That boy never imagined that progress and change would happen so quickly, if they would ever happen at all.

Today, that boy is a man who is proud of his country and its leaders and knows that everyone he loves is one step closer to the freedom and equality promised to all Americans.

State of Disunion

Considering that President Obama used his State of the Union address to call on Congress "to put the nation's interests before party," it is surprising that he chose the same platform to say--for the first time in one of his SOTU speeches--that "the state of our union is stronger."

For years I have wanted Obama to echo the words of George W. Bush and tell the public that the state of the union is strong. Sure it always felt hollow when Bush said it, but it was a rhetorical device that evoked hope even in its absence of truth. Obama finally gave me what I've wanted for years...

...and left me entirely pissed off.

Though we have made some progress on the economy, energy and cutting the deficit, most of those achievements were accomplished only after months of political mudslinging and often coming within inches of completely toppling the economy. This shows--as Obama reflected at the start of his speech--that our union is anything but "stronger." It is fractured. Divided, even. The ideological split currently plaguing Washington seems to have been outmatched only one time in our history: During the Civil War.

I am not suggesting that the current divide is as powerful or traumatic as the Civil War was. However, the current divide hinders progress, discourages political participation by the 'average Joe,' and weakens America's position internationally.

No no, Mr. Obama. Methinks that our union is anything but "stronger" at the moment.

Faith

Faith is a powerful thing. For those who believe. To them, faith provides enormous amounts of comfort even in the most dire circumstances. I do not have (much) faith. Nevertheless, it holds power over me because it is such a mystery.

I grew up attending private Jewish schools. Though my parents were never particularly religious, they believe in God, and it was important to them to instill a sense of Jewish identity in their children.

For a time, I had faith. Then things changed. I grew up and learned about the state of the world, and I saw powerful examples of suffering right in my own family.

My grandmother spent 30 years as a prisoner of a broken body. For a long time, she led a mostly joyless life.  When my sister was young, she barely escaped alive from her abusive ex to become a struggling single mother of two kids. Just when she'd finally gotten on her feet, many years later, a reckless driver hit her car. For over three years now, she's been in constant pain and is barely able to walk as a result of that accident.

My grandmother believed in God. My sister still does. So does the woman in my office whose thirty-something year old son who just died of cancer.

I cannot wrap my mind around how these people--and so many others--believe in God's love and kindness in the face of such awful hardships. Perhaps I should admire them for their convictions and humility, but, for now at least, I am simply mystified.