Today on Public Radio International's morning show, The Takeaway, host John Hockenberry, Detroit Free Press columnist Rochelle Riley, and I discussed how to avoid family fights during Thanksgiving. As I mentioned on the show, some amount of discord may be inevitable this year: from health care to climate change to gay rights, we're living in a particularly political time.

Like in War Games, the only way to win a political argument amongst relatives is not to play. But while you can head into Thanksgiving dinner determined to avoid any conversations about sensitive topics, you can't count on other members of your family to do the same. So if you want to keep the peace, you have a choice: you can either halfheartedly agree with whatever offensive (to you) nonsense (to you) that Aunt Sally is spewing, or you can try to artfully change the subject.

Of course, you could challenge Aunt Sally directly on her views about climate change, health-care reform, or whether or not H1N1 is a global conspiracy perpetrated by the pharmaceutical companies. Some families love nothing more than battling it out over turkey and mashed potatoes. For those who don't, we've provided a list of five all-important holiday dodges to get you from a dangerous topic to a less offensive one, still guaranteed to elicit a lot of opinions:

1) Health Care: Health care is not only incredibly complex and divisive, it can lead to discussions of an even more volatile topic, abortion. Instead, try to steer any medical conversations toward Charla Nash, the women who was brutally injured in a chimp attack. Nash's tragic story incorporates elements of health and medicine—she's currently living at the Cleveland Clinic full time, hoping for a face transplant; in the mean time she's relearning how to live without hands or a face. There's enough in her story to keep your family talking for hours.

2) Gay Rights: When someone starts to discuss the fight for gay marriage, talk about Adam Lambert: his humble beginnings on American Idol; his guy-on-guy kiss at the American Music Awards. By keeping the topic in the realm of pop culture, you may actually be able to have a low-stakes debate about gay rights. As Lambert himself pointed out, women have been performing similar stunts at award shows for years. Is this different? Discuss. And when things get too heated, switch to comparing the merits of Ellen vs. Paula.

3)  Sarah Palin: No matter how people feel about Palin, credulity that Levi Johnston is somehow still something of a celebrity is a point on which most Americans can unite. Bring up his Playgirl spread and watch the conversation go from politics to pornography.

Playgirl.com

4)  Barack Obama: President Obama is a unique position to anger both liberals and conservatives, both of whom feel he's on the wrong path. Michelle Obama, with a 63 percent approval rating, is a much safer subject. And her initiatives as first lady are all family friendly: starting a garden, supporting military families, wearing Banana Republic and J. Crew on a public stage.

5) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: No matter how you feel about the war, you have to respect the service of the men and women serving overseas. Focus on that—then show your family the amazing online videos of soldiers reuniting with their dogs after serving a tour of duty: 

 6) Climate Change: Al Gore's recent appearance on 30 Rock will only lead to debates about whether Gore is an eco-savior or a false prophet and whether 30 Rock is still funny. Instead, bring up the meteorological styling of the tornado-chasing, Balloon-Boy-launching Henne family. Not only will everyone have something to say, chances are their family will make you appreciate how normal yours really is.

This is not how we recommend behaving every other day of the year. It's important to stand up for your beliefs and to be able to defend those beliefs articulately. But Thanksgiving is a different story: the level of discourse never gets beyond arguing over the very basic facts (Obama: Secret Muslim or not?), and very rarely will you change someone's mind over dinner.

Of course, if you are gay, or Sarah Palin, or a solider, it may be impossible not to get passionate—and personal—before the turkey is even out of the oven. But save for those situations, it's probably not worth taking on your sweet, frail, and totally sexist 86-year-old grandfather in a battle of oratory skill.

In other words: feel free to stand up for what you really believe in, but don't try to be a hero. Accept your family for the lovable, well-intentioned, ill-informed bunch that they are, pour another glass of wine, and try to make it through the night unscathed. 

When all else fails? Mention Twilight and let your teenage cousin do the rest.  

While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman’s lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment.

Overall, the report says, the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms. And those harms loom larger for women in their 40s, who are 60 percent more likely to experience them than women 50 and older but are less likely to have breast cancer, skewing the risk-benefit equation. The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 74, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69.

Michael Goldsmith, the baseball fan who penned the NEWSWEEK My Turn column that became a game-changer for major league baseball, died this week at the age of 58.

Goldsmith suffered from and finally succumbed to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. Also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, the degenerative condition robbed the Hall of Famer of his life and robs 30,000 Americans at any given time of their ability to walk, speak, and eventually breathe. It's a rare disease—striking two out of 10,000—but a brutal one, agonizing for those who suffer from the disease and those who love them.

Gehrig is the most famous face of ALS, but it was Goldsmith who suggested, in a NEWSWEEK My Turn column that ran on Nov. 1, 2008, that baseball join the fight in a more public and organized way:

Major League Baseball has never taken comprehensive action against ALS. Defeating ALS will require the same type of determination, dedication and drive that Gehrig and Cal Ripken demonstrated when they set superhuman records for consecutive games played. With this in mind, why not make July 4, 2009, ALS-Lou Gehrig Day? Dedicate this grim anniversary to funding research for a cure; every major- and minor-league stadium might project the video of Gehrig's farewell, and teams, players and fans could contribute to this cause.

The column soon caught the attention of  The New York Times and MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, and the plan Goldsmith envisioned was put into action. On July 4  this season, the 70th anniversary of  Lou Gehrig's "Luckiest Man" speech, players wore commemorative patches. ALS groups sold awareness buttons, and ballparks played video of Gehrig's noble farewell on the JumboTrons. Goldsmith was honored at Yankee Stadium that day, throwing out the ceremonial first pitch. His family later recalled how much he savored that experience—despite his being an Orioles fan.

Selig issued a statement about Goldsmith's passing, saying he was "deeply saddened" and offering his condolences. Game 5 of the World Series, played last night in Philadelphia, was dedicated to Goldsmith's memory.  Throughout the game, fans were encouraged to donate to ALS charities by visiting the MLB blog 4ALS Awareness. According to the George Vecsey, who wrote about Goldsmith's NEWSWEEK column in the Times, "Commissioner Bud Selig said Goldsmith believed in the power of one person to make an impact, and he promised that Goldsmith’s aspirations would continue to be honored."

It would be a tribute to both Gehrig and Goldsmith and a testament to the enduring power of sports, teamwork, and camaraderie if baseball took that "comprehensive action" Goldsmith suggested. It's worth noting that the Philadelphia Phillies, who are currently trying to battle their way out of a 3-2 deficit against the Yankees in the World Series, have raised more than $11 million in the past 25 years through their charity work with The Greater Philadelphia ALS Society. A baseball-wide campaign to actively fight ALS and support those who suffer from it would go a long way to aid the cause and to bring back some lost dignity to America's pastime.

Aside from being a baseball fan, Goldsmith was the Woodruff J. Deem professor of law at Brigham Young, and a husband, father, son, and brother. We at NEWSWEEK offer his friends and family our deepest sympathies.

As part of NEWSWEEK's Good Hair Week, senior writer Allison Samuels discussed Zahara Jolie-Pitt and the politics of natural hair and interracial adoptions. Her article, which implored the Jolie-Pitt parents to pay more attention to Zahara's hair, and its follow-up were much discussed at NEWSWEEK and on the Internet. We invited three bloggers to offer their own opinion on the topic. -KD

I once wrote about my natural hair:

My hair is nappy. It is coarse and thick. It grows in pencil-size spirals and tiny crinkles. My hair grows out, not down. It springs from my head like a corona. My hair is like wool. You can't run your fingers through it, nor a comb. It is impenetrable. My hair is rebellious. It resists being smoothed into a neat bun or ponytail. It puffs. Strands escape; they won't be tamed. My hair is nappy. And I love it.

I may love my hair. But common wisdom, even among people with hair just like mine, is that my hair isn't "good," at least as it naturally grows from my head. It needs to be tamed, preferably by straightening, but at the very least, especially in young children, hair like mine should be restrained somehow--in plaits or cornrows or something that hides its unruly nature. It should be shiny. You should be able to run a comb through it. All this in defiance of the natural properties of most black hair.

I suspect NEWSWEEK writer Allison Samuels follows this common wisdom.

Two weeks ago she sparked furor around the Net with an article taking Angelina Jolie to task for her daughter Zahara's allegedly uncared-for tresses. In the face of considerable backlash, Samuels didn't back down. In a NEWSWEEK online exclusive this week, Samuels answers her critics.

There is a lot I could challenge in Samuels's articles, but I will confine this post to one point: Samuels seems to embrace the notion, a gift of society's Eurocentric beauty standards, that tamed hair = healthy hair, and unfettered black hair = hot mess. What's worse, she wants little Zahara to learn to embrace this thinking, too--a terrible lesson for a girl with tresses that naturally feature fuzzy parts and curls that spring akimbo.

In a society with Eurocentric beauty standards, it is natural that hair common to people of European ancestry would be the marker for beauty, professionalism, and good grooming. And it is natural, though I think not good for us, that those of minority cultures have absorbed the standards of the dominant culture and adopted beauty rituals that support those standards.

This is why so many of us have memories of sitting at our mother's or grandmothers' knees, holding our ears, and listening to sizzling grease, as our hair was tamed into a straight, shiny, combable mass and woven into multiple neat plaits. Most of us remember this bonding time fondly. But, in reality, straight, shiny, combable, and neat are NOT markers of whether black hair is cared for or not. That so many of us, including Samuels, think these descriptors are related to hair health shows how much we have absorbed the idea that hair common to people of European ancestry is the norm by which all other hair must be judged. As I type this, my ginormous twist-out is shiny, but not straight, combable, or neat, And, I promise you, my hair is very well cared for.

Yes, I know that braiding has deep roots in African culture and is an ingrained part of black American culture. My beef isn't with plaiting; my beef is with the fear of the nap--the idea that unrestrained black hair, apart from other hair, is unacceptable. To many of us with natural hair, Zahara seems to be wearing a wash-and-go. But we are taught that black women can't simply wash their hair and go. Our hair has to be "fixed," made presentable. I think this hair hatred was born and nurtured right here in Western culture where the yardstick by which we judge our hair's beauty, health, and rituals of care is invariably a white one.

There is no way of knowing whether Zahara's hair is conditioned by scanning paparazzi shots. You can't assess its softness. You can't check for split ends. You can't see breakage. What Samuels is reacting to, I think, is the fact that Zahara's hair is "wild" and unrestrained. And black women and girls are taught that this isn't okay. It isn't pretty. It isn't proper. It isn't professional. It isn't ladylike.

I'll say this--I agree with Samuels that most little, black girls would NOT be comfortable wearing their natural hair loose as Zahara does. That is, in great part, because of the unrelenting messages they get, within and without our black culture, that their hair is inherently wrong. Must Zahara adopt these feelings of self-hatred to earn her black card? I like to think, as a black woman who has wrestled and come to terms with her own hair issues, my job is to help free the girls in my life from damaging self-hatred, not encourage it as a litmus test for fitting in.

My hair is nappy. It is soft and cottony, a mass of varying textures. My hair is fun to play with. I like to pull at the spiral curls and feel them snap back into place. My hair defies the laws of gravity. It reaches energetically toward the sky. My hair is unique. In a fashion culture that genuflects to relaxed, flat-ironed tresses and stick-straight weaves, my fluffy, puffy, kinky mane stands out. It is revolutionary. My hair is natural. It is the way God made it. My hair is nappy. And it is beautiful.

Winfrey Harris blogs at What Tami Said.

As part of NEWSWEEK's Good Hair Week, senior writer Allison Samuels discussed Zahara Jolie-Pitt and the politics of natural hair and interracial adoptions. Her article, which implored the Jolie-Pitt parents to spend more attention on Zahara's hair, and its follow-up were much discussed at NEWSWEEK and on the Internet. We invited three bloggers to offer their own opinion on the topic. —KD

I don't frequent the black-gossip blogs and forums Allison Samuels linked to in her first article (especially the ones that feel comfortable giving Maya Angelou "Ho Sit Down" awards), so I have not seen recent pictures of Zahara Jolie-Pitt's hair. The lone exception is the photo that accompanies Samuels's criticism, which even she acknowledges did nothing to help her argument. As Samuels has noted, Zahara's dad, Brad Pitt, made headlines in 2006 when he told Esquire that he and Angelina Jolie used Carol's Daughter products on Zahara's hair. He even mentioned the "beautiful luster" the products gave her hair and how "nice it smelled." Clearly the Jolie-Pitts are aware that their adopted Ethiopian daughter has hair that is different in texture from their own and needs to be taken care of, so why devote an entire article on this particular child now?

Samuels asks in her rebuttal, "Hey, if Maddox can get blond highlights and a Mohawk, Zahara can at least get a quick top knot and rubber band. Is that asking too much?"  Yes, it is. While a top knot would be a matter of taste, rubber bands are damaging to curly/kinky hair like Zahara's, which can be quite delicate and prone to breakage. I happen to think her loose hair looks fine in the recent pictures I dug up after reading Samuels's article. However, I realize that there are times when kids are out and about and their hair doesn't hold up. Should Jolie and Pitt whip out a comb every time the paparazzi follow them down the street?

Some people will always think that kinky hair in its natural state looks "uncombed," no matter what is done to it. Unless it is in an array of smooth, round, socially acceptable ringlets, the sight of a woman’s natural hair can be jarring for some people. With the exception of a brief period in the 1970s, natural hair has been mostly unacceptable socially, professionally, and (if they knew what was good for them) romantically for black women. In fact, a female relative of mine who attended a historically black college in the late 1960s once told me how women with Afros got a lot of "Hello, my beautiful black sister," from men on campus, but stayed in their dorms on Saturday nights while their counterparts with straighter hair went out on dates.

It is interesting that Samuels compares herself to Chris Rock, because he is seemingly averse to any substantive criticism of his documentary, "Good Hair," especially from dreaded bloggers. Many people saw special advance screenings and expressed their views online, favorable and unfavorable, minus any unnecessary personal attacks on Rock. Others avoided "Good Hair" altogether solely based on Rock's appearances on The View and The Oprah Winfrey Show, where he checked Oprah's hair for weave tracks and cracked that she "looked like a slave" in a childhood photo. Just as Rock's questionable "Men don’t care about hair" statement on Oprah rang false to many viewers (minutes later, he recounted running his fingers through the hair of former white, Latina and Asian girlfriends), Samuels's obligatory "natural hair—Afro, dreads, etc—is fine, if it’s maintained regularly," in her first article felt tacked on because that is true for all hair textures.

It's great that Samuels has fond childhood memories of getting her hair done, but many of us weren't that lucky. I remember holding my ears, shutting my eyes, and bracing myself as a sizzling pressing comb went through my hair so it would be "done." I remember going through the day in grade school with my braided style not quite holding up and being teased for having a "bird's nest" for hair. I remember what a big deal it was for me to get my first relaxer and the reaction of people, the tacit approval, after the deed was done. As for living in a "wash-and-go world," believe it or not, some black women and girls already live there! Hair that does not look "maintained regularly" to some is indeed... maintained regularly. I don't believe that Samuels meant to "attack" Zahara, but statements like “There will come a day” when Zahara will "realize unlike her younger sister, hers is not a wash-and-go world" made the tone of the article just seem off.

Are we all really "Team Zahara?" Sadly, when it comes to her hair, I don't believe so. It is true that black girls get far more pressure about their hair than other girls, and Samuels's articles are perfect examples. However, I think the little Zaharas of the world should have the same freedom with their hair that little Shilohs have to wear men's ties. It is the message that black natural hair is automatically "uncombed" and not "maintained" that is unacceptable—not Zahara Jolie-Pitt's hair.

Gainer blogs at 55 Secret Street.

Steve Phillips (AP Photo/Kathy Willens, File) 

Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely.

Who was the biggest loser after last night's decisive Game 5 of the National League Championship Series?  Not the Dodgers, who had to fly back to L.A. after losing the series to the 2008 world champion Philadelphia Phillies. Not even that guy who celebrated too much and fell off the roof of a taxi. The real loser is Chuck Todd, the Dodgers fan and NBC political correspondent who made a side bet with Philadelphia loyalist/ABC chief White House correspondent Jake Tapper. But while Todd and the Dodgers felt the sting of defeat last night, the Phils' victory may also be a victory for the women of Pakistan.

A little background: after some spirited Twitter smack-talk between Todd, Tapper, and Tapper's producer, Karen Armstrong, the two correspondents decided on a gentlemanly bet: if the Dodgers won, Tapper would grow out a goatee similar to Todd's. If the Phils won, Todd would have to shave his trademark facial hair. After agreeing on the bet, the men decided on an "opt out" clause: if the loser wasn't willing to mess with his mug (these are TV talking heads, after all), the loser would have to pay $1,000 to the charity of the winner's choice. And after lots (and lots, and lots) of goatee jokes at Todd's expense, winner Tapper is now saying he'd prefer to see the grand go to charity—a sum he plans to match.

Now, there's much to be said about how this bet (and the gleeful response it got in the media) just reinforces the insular, boys' club mentality of D.C. politics. But we love our Fightin' Phils, and love the stupid side bets baseball engenders, and are particularly pleased that Tapper is now using the interest generated from this stupid side bet to draw attention to a very worthy cause: Dr. Shershah Syed, a Pakistani ob-gyn who helps women with difficult and often life-threatening pregnancies.

The culmination of the bet—and Tapper's Twitter campaign to raise even more money for Syed—comes just as NEWSWEEK published a package on the ever-increasing violence in Pakistan, mainly coming from various arms of the Taliban. As you may recall, the Taliban is not big on women's safety, security, or dignity. The escalating tensions in Pakistan, and the increasing presence of anti-women, extremist military groups throughout the country, make it that much more important for women in the region to get compassionate and competent medical care. 

In a July column, the New York Times's Nicholas Kristof cited a U.N. statistic claiming that in Pakistan, a woman dies every 35 minutes because of problems with pregnancy and childbirth. He also illustrates some of Syed's big plans to help lower that rate:

With government support nine years ago, Dr. Shershah started a top-level maternity wing in a public hospital in Orangi, an impoverished Karachi neighborhood that by some reckonings is the largest slum in the world. The hospital now handles 6,500 deliveries a year—yes, 6,500—and accepts women from hundreds of miles away. Several years ago, a half-dead woman came from Baluchistan province—by camel.

In addition, Dr. Shershah is hitting up friends to try to build a new maternity hospital on the grounds of a former madrassa on the edge of Karachi. So far, he has built a wing to repair fistulas free of charge and to train midwives. He says that in five years or so, as the money trickles in, the hospital will be complete.

The National Health Forum, an American-based nonprofit that works to educate health workers, has set up a fund to help Dr. Syed reach his goals. It will receive whatever donations Todd, Tapper, et al. contribute. You can give, too: tax-deductible contributions can be made to Dr. Shershah Syed, c/o National Health Forum, P.O. Box 240093, St. Louis, MO 63024. Put: "Dr. Syed's project" in the subject line of the check. The phone number is 314-255-7409; e-mail is nationalhealthforum@gmail.com.