I worked at the polls on Election Day, a volunteer with the Obama campaign, collecting data for Get Out the Vote efforts.
- People started lining up at the polling place around 4am. There were about 200 people in line when the polls opened at 6am.
- I was at a polling place that housed 3 precincts. Once inside the room with the voting booths, the room was well organized, but the facility didn't allow for 3 separate lines, which slowed things down.
- There were voter assistance advocates there, but not until later in the day. I can't say that they didn't help, but there were quite a few people who didn't know where they were suppose to vote and many found, after waiting in line for a long time, that they were at the wrong polling place.
- I wish that technology had been access able to look up voter registration & polling places. There is a web site from the Secretary of State's office where registration can be confirmed. This would have been much more efficient than calling the hotline number, waiting on hold for up to 10 minutes, to get the same information.
- After the early morning line dwindled, there was a steady stream of voters, but only short waits. After 9am, I don't think that anyone had to wait more than 30 minutes. I wish that our polling process could be more efficient that a 30 minute wait seems exceptional and too long, rather than a good thing.
- 80 year old men and women in walkers shouldn't have to wait in line for a long time. Nobody should.
- I was in a precinct that was about 99% African-American. The atmosphere was exuberant. It was exciting to be a part of this.
- Around noon, a poll worker at one of the other precincts said in a loud voice: I have a new voter here who needs some help. Can you lend a hand? Everybody stood up & applauded. This continued for the rest of the day. It was awesome!
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
06 November 2008
05 November 2008
Transformation
There have been many pivotal, maybe even transformative, national and international events that have occurred during in my lifetime. I was born during the waning days of Eisenhower's presidency. I don't remember JFK's assassination for what it was on a national level but for the phenomenal event of my father moving the television into the dining room for the latest news updates and for my brothers jumping over chairs, nearly knocking over my younger sister's high chair, to turn off the TV when Ruby shot Oswald.
I remember the shock of hearing of King's assassination during an interruption of a favorite TV show -- I think it was Bewitched -- and my sister waking me up in tears to tell me about Bobby Kennedy being killed two months later. The nuns at school, their eyes red and puffy, led us in prayers for most of the next morning. I can remember these event, and they are not without impact on my life, but they weren't significant in a personal way.
Beginning around age 10 I began to read the paper on a regular basis and one of my favorite things was Howard K Smith's Commentary at the end of the evening newscast. The Vietnam War was going on and I knew about hippies and radicals and student protests in far away places like Berkley and not so far away like Kent State. I remember my older brother, a college student, telling me that I better start paying attention because the Republicans had done something really stupid at a hotel in Washington and it would be big news. This angered my father, an avid Nixon supporter and staunch Republican, very much. I watched the television coverage of Nixon walking across the White House lawn to the waiting helicopter and waving one last goodbye in August of '74. A teenager by then, I knew that this was a momentous -- and somewhat frightening event to adults -- to see a President both disgraced personally and be disgraceful of the honor of his office. But still, these events were remote, contained to the nightly news and morning papers.
As I ended high school and began college, it seemed that I had several friends who wanted to brand themselves as like the 60’s radicals but failed to ever find an identity of their own. They wanted to fight against the mainstream. We found our heroes in the idea of those who rebelled in the '60s and were somewhat disappointed that we had not been born a few years sooner so that we could have self-righteously worked for truth and justice and good in the world. So that we could have made a change.
But, even as we expressed wistful regrets that we had somehow missed the big happenings of the Baby Boom era that we were still a part of, we understood the feelings of Alex's friends gathered in The Big Chill: that it all might have been for naught. We weren't so arrogant to believe that we could have made it better, but we lacked a sense of calling and purpose that we saw in our older boomer peers. They were selling out, so we just got stoned, had fun, made ourselves into our images of philosophizing intellectuals, did nothing more radical than act as escorts at Planned Parenthood clinics, try to support the small population of Middle Eastern students at our university who were being spat upon and jeered in '79 - 80, or lamely protest US intervention in places like El Salvador.
After graduation, many of my like-minded students -- a small minority of the university by any count -- rushed to law school, or to get MBAs, or into corporate America. Still, as we took our places in the mainstream adult world, I think that a few of us felt that we had missed out, that fate, the chance of birth had played a trick on us, depriving us of an experience, a sense of community perhaps, that we never had the opportunity to experience. We didn't get our 'moment'.
Through the Reagan years we moaned about the Moral Majority and trickle down theories. We watched in horror as the Challenger blew up and thought that this might be our generations 'Where were you when ....' event. We never dreamed that a little less than 20 years later something far more inconceivable than a spacecraft malfunction would be seared into our brains and that everybody would feel empathy for the iconic New York City.
I watched Apollo missions and Neil Armstrong walking on the moon. I threw away the slide rule that had been handed down by a sibling since a calculator was now the required tool in science and math. I witnessed the birth of personal computer era with a Tandy, a K-Pro, and an Apple II and parlayed my typesetting skills on a Wang into a jobs as a computer operator, then trainer, then software developer. A new profession for which few had studied allowed me access to a career that I never would have imagined when I nearly failed a college computer class when I carelessly dropped hundreds of punch cards and almost didn't complete my final project. A revolution was happening every day and while I knew it was significant, I was swept up in the steady wave of changes.
It doesn't seem so revolutionary when you are in the midst of constant cultural change; it is difficult to step back from when you are living it. It isn't easy to see that things are dramatically different. I thought that an experience of 'a moment' was something that would be lost to me and my peers.
Until last night seeing Barack Obama addressing the nation in Grant Park.
"This campaign was never about me', Obama has said. "It's always been about you". November 4th, 2008 was a defining, transformational moment, a demarcation between the past and whatever is to come.
This morning I was thinking what my Dad would have thought about Obama's election. I am doubtful that, if he were alive, he would have voted for Obama. I think he would have had immense disagreement with the Bush administration, but I think he would have liked John McCain. But....he would have been watching the midnight speech. I think he would say that he understood the exuberance of African-Americans and he would have compared it to how he felt as a Catholic when John F Kennedy was elected. Although miles apart economically, like my Dad, Kennedy was Irish and Catholic, and he opened doors for all who had been called 'mics'. There is a bond in the shared commonality of those who have suffered from racial discrimination that my father would have understood.
He also would have understood how much harder it has been for African Americans, and for a country as a whole that continues to struggle with the ugliness of slavery in a society of the 'free'. He would have understood the enormous significance of people of all stripes -- religiously, economically, socially, racially -- coming together to elect Barack Obama. No matter what he might have thought about the Democratic policy platform, he would have loved the fact that this was made possible by contributions of money and time by individuals, the real average Joes, and Joses, and Janes that make this country great. An army of volunteers believed that this is America and things could be different if we tried. Obama said last night that it is an American Creed "Yes I Can".
Yes, we did. This is our defining moment, and it is a glorious one. And, now, we continue with the hard work that is the responsibility of every citizen in a democracy.
I remember the shock of hearing of King's assassination during an interruption of a favorite TV show -- I think it was Bewitched -- and my sister waking me up in tears to tell me about Bobby Kennedy being killed two months later. The nuns at school, their eyes red and puffy, led us in prayers for most of the next morning. I can remember these event, and they are not without impact on my life, but they weren't significant in a personal way.
Beginning around age 10 I began to read the paper on a regular basis and one of my favorite things was Howard K Smith's Commentary at the end of the evening newscast. The Vietnam War was going on and I knew about hippies and radicals and student protests in far away places like Berkley and not so far away like Kent State. I remember my older brother, a college student, telling me that I better start paying attention because the Republicans had done something really stupid at a hotel in Washington and it would be big news. This angered my father, an avid Nixon supporter and staunch Republican, very much. I watched the television coverage of Nixon walking across the White House lawn to the waiting helicopter and waving one last goodbye in August of '74. A teenager by then, I knew that this was a momentous -- and somewhat frightening event to adults -- to see a President both disgraced personally and be disgraceful of the honor of his office. But still, these events were remote, contained to the nightly news and morning papers.
As I ended high school and began college, it seemed that I had several friends who wanted to brand themselves as like the 60’s radicals but failed to ever find an identity of their own. They wanted to fight against the mainstream. We found our heroes in the idea of those who rebelled in the '60s and were somewhat disappointed that we had not been born a few years sooner so that we could have self-righteously worked for truth and justice and good in the world. So that we could have made a change.
But, even as we expressed wistful regrets that we had somehow missed the big happenings of the Baby Boom era that we were still a part of, we understood the feelings of Alex's friends gathered in The Big Chill: that it all might have been for naught. We weren't so arrogant to believe that we could have made it better, but we lacked a sense of calling and purpose that we saw in our older boomer peers. They were selling out, so we just got stoned, had fun, made ourselves into our images of philosophizing intellectuals, did nothing more radical than act as escorts at Planned Parenthood clinics, try to support the small population of Middle Eastern students at our university who were being spat upon and jeered in '79 - 80, or lamely protest US intervention in places like El Salvador.
After graduation, many of my like-minded students -- a small minority of the university by any count -- rushed to law school, or to get MBAs, or into corporate America. Still, as we took our places in the mainstream adult world, I think that a few of us felt that we had missed out, that fate, the chance of birth had played a trick on us, depriving us of an experience, a sense of community perhaps, that we never had the opportunity to experience. We didn't get our 'moment'.
Through the Reagan years we moaned about the Moral Majority and trickle down theories. We watched in horror as the Challenger blew up and thought that this might be our generations 'Where were you when ....' event. We never dreamed that a little less than 20 years later something far more inconceivable than a spacecraft malfunction would be seared into our brains and that everybody would feel empathy for the iconic New York City.
I watched Apollo missions and Neil Armstrong walking on the moon. I threw away the slide rule that had been handed down by a sibling since a calculator was now the required tool in science and math. I witnessed the birth of personal computer era with a Tandy, a K-Pro, and an Apple II and parlayed my typesetting skills on a Wang into a jobs as a computer operator, then trainer, then software developer. A new profession for which few had studied allowed me access to a career that I never would have imagined when I nearly failed a college computer class when I carelessly dropped hundreds of punch cards and almost didn't complete my final project. A revolution was happening every day and while I knew it was significant, I was swept up in the steady wave of changes.
It doesn't seem so revolutionary when you are in the midst of constant cultural change; it is difficult to step back from when you are living it. It isn't easy to see that things are dramatically different. I thought that an experience of 'a moment' was something that would be lost to me and my peers.
Until last night seeing Barack Obama addressing the nation in Grant Park.
"This campaign was never about me', Obama has said. "It's always been about you". November 4th, 2008 was a defining, transformational moment, a demarcation between the past and whatever is to come.
This morning I was thinking what my Dad would have thought about Obama's election. I am doubtful that, if he were alive, he would have voted for Obama. I think he would have had immense disagreement with the Bush administration, but I think he would have liked John McCain. But....he would have been watching the midnight speech. I think he would say that he understood the exuberance of African-Americans and he would have compared it to how he felt as a Catholic when John F Kennedy was elected. Although miles apart economically, like my Dad, Kennedy was Irish and Catholic, and he opened doors for all who had been called 'mics'. There is a bond in the shared commonality of those who have suffered from racial discrimination that my father would have understood.
He also would have understood how much harder it has been for African Americans, and for a country as a whole that continues to struggle with the ugliness of slavery in a society of the 'free'. He would have understood the enormous significance of people of all stripes -- religiously, economically, socially, racially -- coming together to elect Barack Obama. No matter what he might have thought about the Democratic policy platform, he would have loved the fact that this was made possible by contributions of money and time by individuals, the real average Joes, and Joses, and Janes that make this country great. An army of volunteers believed that this is America and things could be different if we tried. Obama said last night that it is an American Creed "Yes I Can".
Yes, we did. This is our defining moment, and it is a glorious one. And, now, we continue with the hard work that is the responsibility of every citizen in a democracy.
04 November 2008
03 November 2008
A few words on Joe
I'm
...Cam the Commentator
...Cam the daughter
...Cam the wife
...Cam the sister
...Cam the mother
...Cam the friend
...Cam the mother
...Cam the salesman's daughter
...Cam the banker's daughter
...Cam the worker
...Cam the IT Program Manager
...Cam the taxpayer
...Cam the thinker
...Cam the hard worker
...Cam the concerned citizen
...Cam the home improvement generalist (including plumbing)
...Cam the art appreciator
...Cam the movie fan
...Cam the feminist
...Cam the tuition paying parent
...Cam the gardener
...Cam the community volunteer
...Cam the reader
...Cam the writer
...Cam the Hoosier
...Cam the savings account owner
...Cam the homeowner
...Cam the commuter
...Cam the observer
...Cam the lousy housekeeper
...Cam the business analyst
...Cam the programmer
...Cam the amateur photographer
...Cam the traveler
...Cam the (small 'd') democrat
...Cam the foodie
...Cam the farmer's market patron
...Cam the thoughtful
...Cam the politically aware
...Cam the multifaceted, won't be pegged by an occupation, campaign spin weary, everyday AMERICAN ..... AND I VOTE!
Don't tell me that you represent me, John McCain, if you think that we can be defined by only our professions. Don't treat me with disdain and pretend that I am naive -- or worse -- stupid if I support your opponent.
Oh, by the way, I've been meaning to tell you for weeks. The word is 'pundit', not 'pun-dent'.
...Cam the Commentator
...Cam the daughter
...Cam the wife
...Cam the sister
...Cam the mother
...Cam the friend
...Cam the mother
...Cam the salesman's daughter
...Cam the banker's daughter
...Cam the worker
...Cam the IT Program Manager
...Cam the taxpayer
...Cam the thinker
...Cam the hard worker
...Cam the concerned citizen
...Cam the home improvement generalist (including plumbing)
...Cam the art appreciator
...Cam the movie fan
...Cam the feminist
...Cam the tuition paying parent
...Cam the gardener
...Cam the community volunteer
...Cam the reader
...Cam the writer
...Cam the Hoosier
...Cam the savings account owner
...Cam the homeowner
...Cam the commuter
...Cam the observer
...Cam the lousy housekeeper
...Cam the business analyst
...Cam the programmer
...Cam the amateur photographer
...Cam the traveler
...Cam the (small 'd') democrat
...Cam the foodie
...Cam the farmer's market patron
...Cam the thoughtful
...Cam the politically aware
...Cam the multifaceted, won't be pegged by an occupation, campaign spin weary, everyday AMERICAN ..... AND I VOTE!
Don't tell me that you represent me, John McCain, if you think that we can be defined by only our professions. Don't treat me with disdain and pretend that I am naive -- or worse -- stupid if I support your opponent.
Oh, by the way, I've been meaning to tell you for weeks. The word is 'pundit', not 'pun-dent'.
02 October 2008
Just ONE question
Only two questions about global poverty have been asked in the history of modern presidential debates.
It's a shocking figure and in 2008, at the next Presidential debate on October 7, we need debate moderator Tom Brokaw to ask John McCain and Barack Obama Just ONE question on their plans to fight global poverty.
I just took action with the ONE Campaign and you can too. Please consider adding your name to the petition here.
Since this blog is supposedly about books -- though I haven't written much about books in recent months -- I'll refer you to a previous post here if you're interested in books on issues about global poverty and efforts to eradicate extreme poverty.
It's a shocking figure and in 2008, at the next Presidential debate on October 7, we need debate moderator Tom Brokaw to ask John McCain and Barack Obama Just ONE question on their plans to fight global poverty.
I just took action with the ONE Campaign and you can too. Please consider adding your name to the petition here.
Since this blog is supposedly about books -- though I haven't written much about books in recent months -- I'll refer you to a previous post here if you're interested in books on issues about global poverty and efforts to eradicate extreme poverty.
18 September 2008
10 September 2008
Some Words You Should Know
What do the following 921 words have in common?
A, able, about, Abqaiq, abuses, accept, accolade, accomplish, achieve, achievement, across, actual, actually, add, administration, admire, admit, adversity, advocate, afraid, after, again, against, ago, agree, Alaska, all, allies, alone, already, also, alternative, although, always, am, America, American, Americans, Americas, among, an, ancestry, and, another, answer, any, appear, April, Arabia, are, aren’t, army, as, ask, assure, at, authored, average, away, baby, back, bad, banners, basic, be, beautiful, became, been, before, began, believe, belonged, better, between, Biden, big, bigger, billion, bitterly, bless, both, boy, brave, break, bridge, bring, Bristol, broke, brokers, brought, budget, build, built, burden, business, but, buttons, by, caliber, call, came, campaign, can, candidate, cannot, can’t, captives, careers, carrier, carry, catastrophic, Caucasus, cause, cell, certain, certitude, chairman, chairmen, challenge, champion, change, character, chef, chief, children, choice, chosen, chuck, citizens, city, clashing, clean, clear, clearly, cling, cloud, coal, columns, come, comfortable, commander, commentators, commercial, commitment, committee, common, community, company, compassion, competing, competition, confidence, confident, confront, Congress, consider, control, convictions, could, council, count, country, courage, create, crowd, crucial, culture, current, cut, dad, dangerous, dangers, daughter, day, deal, death, decades, deeds, defeat, defend, Defense, delay, delegates, deliveries, democratic, dependence, dependent, deploy, despite, determination, devoted, didn’t, dignity, directly, discovery, divide, do, does, doesn’t, dollar, done, do-nothing, don’t, door, down, dramatic, draw, drilling, drive, driving, each, earmark, earth, easy, eBay, economic, economy, education, either, eldest, elect, election, elementary, elite, end, energy, enlisted, entire, entrenched, equally, Eskimo, establishment, ethics, European, even, every, everything, evil, exactly, except, excuse, executive, expect, experience, experts, explain, extra, face, facility, fact, factories, fades, fairness, faith, family, far, farm, farmer, farther, fear, feelings, fellow, few, fields, fierce, fifth, fight, fighting, filled, finally, find, fine, first, fisherman, five, flash, focus, followed, followers, food, for, forced, foreign, forfeit, forget, forty, forward, fought, found, four, San Francisco, friend, from, fuel, gal, game, gas, gentlemen, geothermal, gifted, girls, give, go, goal, God, goes, going, good, good-ol, got, govern, government, governor, grace, graver, great, greatest, Greek, grew, grin, groups, grow, guards, guess, gulf, guns, guts, guy, habber-dasher, had, half, hallway, Hanoi, hard, harm, Harry, has, hauled, have, having, he, He, healing, hear, heard, heart, heath, heather, heating, hedge, Hell, help, her, herd, here, high, higher, high-flown, him, himself, his, His, history, hockey, home, hometown, honesty, honorable, honored, hope, hour, house, how, hundreds, hurricane, husband, I, idealism, if, I’m, imported, in, income, increase, independence, infantry, inflict, infrastructure, ingenuity, inside, insisted, inspire, integrity, interest, interests, interrogations, intimidate, into, investments, involves, Iran, Iraq, is, isn’t, it, I’ve, January, jet, jobs, John, join, journey, joys, Juneau, just, Kasey, keep, kids, kind, kind-hearted, knew, know, knows, ladies, laid, Lancaster, landmark, large, last, lately, later, lavishes, law, lay, lead, leader, leader, leadership, learned, leave, led, lesser, lesson, let, lieutenant, life, lifelong, lifetime, lights, like, listening, little, littlest, living, lobbyists, long, look, lose, lost, lot, lots, love, luxury, machine, made, major, majority, make, man, many, massive, mate, matter, maverick, may, maybe, mayor, McCain, me, means, measure, media, meet, member, memoirs, memorials, men, mercy, message, met, Mexico, Michigan, might, millions, mind, mingle, Minnesota, miss, missions, Missouri, Moe, mom, money, monopoly, more, most, mother, move, Mr., much, muddle, my, myself, name, named, nation, natural, nearly, necessary, needs, nephew, network, never, news, next, night, nightmare, no, nomination, nominee, north, not, nothing, noticed, now, nowhere, nuclear, Obama, observed, of, off, office, Ohio, oil, old, on, once, one, only, opened, operator, opinion, opponent, opportunity, opposition, or, order, organizer, other, our, ourselves, out, oval, over, overcome, overlooked, owe, own, package, pain, parents, parties, party, passed, past, path, pattern, pay, paychecks, payroll, Pennsylvania, people, perfectly, perhaps, permanent, Persian, personal, petroleum, pin-hole, pipeline, Piper, place, plan, planet, plans, plant, pledge, plot, political, politicians, politics, pollsters, possible, power, powerful, powerless, powers, praise, prayer, preconditions, prefer, presidency, president, presidential, prices, primary, print, prisoner, private-sector, privilege, problem, produce, producing, production, profile, project, promises, promising, promote, proof, prospect, protected, proud, PTA, public, pull, pundits, put, al-Qaeda, quickly, quite, quo, quote, racer, raise, ran, rather, read, readily, realize, really, reason, recalls, record, reduce, reform, refused, Reid, relentless, religion, reporters, request, reserve, resolve, resources, responsibilities, return, revenue, rhetoric, rid, right, roar, run, running, Russia, said, Sally, same, Saudi, say, schools, Scranton, seals, season, section, security, see, seek, seem, seen, self-dealing, self-designed, Senate, Senator, sent, September, servants, serve, service, serving, share, sheer, shook, short, should, shuffled, shut, side, sight, signed, simple, since, sincerity, single, sister, sits, six-by-four, slope, small, small-town, snow, so, solar, solve, some, someone, sometimes, son, sort, sought, sources, speak, speaker, special, special-needs, specific, speech, speechmaking, spending, spends, spirit, squalor, squarely, stadium, stakes, stand, standing, starting, state, station, status, steel, step, still, stirringly, stood, story, strategic, strength, strike, strong, struck, studio, Styrofoam, sudden, suffered, summed, summoned, suppliers, supplies, support, supposed, sure, surplus, survival, suspended, take, talking, talks, tax, taxes, taxpayers, tend, terrorist, than, thank, thanks, that, the, their, them, there, these, they, they’re, thing, this, those, though, thought, threat, three, through, throw, thumbs, time, to, today, Todd, told, Tom, tomorrow, tonight, too, took, top, torturous, tough, toward, town, Track, treasury, Trig, troops, true, Truman, trying, turn, turning, two, typical, under, uniform, Union, united, unlikely, unqualified, up, upright, ups, us, use, using, usual, valves, Venezuela, very, veto, vetoing, vice, victory, Virginia, vital, voters, walk, want, wanted, wanting, wants, war, was, Washington, wasteful, waters, way, we, we, weapon, week, welcomed, welcoming, well, went, were, were, we’re, west, we’ve, what, when, where, wherever, which, while, white, who, whoever, who’ll, who’s, whose, why, will, Willow, wind, winning, wisdom, with, within, without, woman, women, won, won’t, word, wore, work, workers, working, works, world, worried, would, writer, wrote, year, you, young, your, you’re, Yupik
Like LIPSTICK, the above words are apparently off-limits since they were included at least one time in Sarah Palin's convention speech.
Maybe we should limit the talk of both campaigns to the following subjects and not worry as much about specific word choice as about the substance of the candidates' stances:
BANKING, BILL OF RIGHTS, BUDGETS, CHILDREN, CHILDCARE, CLIMATE CHANGE, COMMUNITY NEEDS, THE CONSTITUTION, DEFICIT SPENDING, DIVERSITY, EARMARKS, ECONOMY, ENERGY, EXPERIENCE, FACTS, FAIR TRADE, FAIR TRIALS, FMLA, FINANCIAL MARKETS, GLOBAL DEBT RELIEF, GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS, HEALTHCARE, HUMAN RIGHTS (including those of men, women, and children), IMMIGRATION, INNOVATION IN THE MARKETPLACE, JOBS, LAW, LEGALIZING MARRIAGE CONTRACTS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS, LOBBYISTS, MORTGAGE CRISIS, MILITARY, PEACE, POLICY POSITIONS AND PROPOSALS, POVERTY, POWER (ABUSES OF), PRO-LIFE/PRO-CHOICE & REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM ISSUES, SECURITY, SCIENCE FUNDING, SCHOOLS, SPECIAL-INTEREST GROUPS, STEM-CELL RESEARCH, SUPREME COURT, TAXES, TERRORISM, THE RULE OF LAW, WALL STREET, WAR, WORLD OPINION.
Some other topics may be undertaken with extreme caution: CHARACTER, HONESTY, HYPOCRISY, INTEGRITY, TRUTH, SPIN. In these cases, it is better to let your words and actions about the issues speak for themselves.
News Flash John McCain and the Republicans: this election IS about the issues!
Bulletin to Barack and the Democrats: Keep it focused on the issues! Palin is NOT the issue.
A, able, about, Abqaiq, abuses, accept, accolade, accomplish, achieve, achievement, across, actual, actually, add, administration, admire, admit, adversity, advocate, afraid, after, again, against, ago, agree, Alaska, all, allies, alone, already, also, alternative, although, always, am, America, American, Americans, Americas, among, an, ancestry, and, another, answer, any, appear, April, Arabia, are, aren’t, army, as, ask, assure, at, authored, average, away, baby, back, bad, banners, basic, be, beautiful, became, been, before, began, believe, belonged, better, between, Biden, big, bigger, billion, bitterly, bless, both, boy, brave, break, bridge, bring, Bristol, broke, brokers, brought, budget, build, built, burden, business, but, buttons, by, caliber, call, came, campaign, can, candidate, cannot, can’t, captives, careers, carrier, carry, catastrophic, Caucasus, cause, cell, certain, certitude, chairman, chairmen, challenge, champion, change, character, chef, chief, children, choice, chosen, chuck, citizens, city, clashing, clean, clear, clearly, cling, cloud, coal, columns, come, comfortable, commander, commentators, commercial, commitment, committee, common, community, company, compassion, competing, competition, confidence, confident, confront, Congress, consider, control, convictions, could, council, count, country, courage, create, crowd, crucial, culture, current, cut, dad, dangerous, dangers, daughter, day, deal, death, decades, deeds, defeat, defend, Defense, delay, delegates, deliveries, democratic, dependence, dependent, deploy, despite, determination, devoted, didn’t, dignity, directly, discovery, divide, do, does, doesn’t, dollar, done, do-nothing, don’t, door, down, dramatic, draw, drilling, drive, driving, each, earmark, earth, easy, eBay, economic, economy, education, either, eldest, elect, election, elementary, elite, end, energy, enlisted, entire, entrenched, equally, Eskimo, establishment, ethics, European, even, every, everything, evil, exactly, except, excuse, executive, expect, experience, experts, explain, extra, face, facility, fact, factories, fades, fairness, faith, family, far, farm, farmer, farther, fear, feelings, fellow, few, fields, fierce, fifth, fight, fighting, filled, finally, find, fine, first, fisherman, five, flash, focus, followed, followers, food, for, forced, foreign, forfeit, forget, forty, forward, fought, found, four, San Francisco, friend, from, fuel, gal, game, gas, gentlemen, geothermal, gifted, girls, give, go, goal, God, goes, going, good, good-ol, got, govern, government, governor, grace, graver, great, greatest, Greek, grew, grin, groups, grow, guards, guess, gulf, guns, guts, guy, habber-dasher, had, half, hallway, Hanoi, hard, harm, Harry, has, hauled, have, having, he, He, healing, hear, heard, heart, heath, heather, heating, hedge, Hell, help, her, herd, here, high, higher, high-flown, him, himself, his, His, history, hockey, home, hometown, honesty, honorable, honored, hope, hour, house, how, hundreds, hurricane, husband, I, idealism, if, I’m, imported, in, income, increase, independence, infantry, inflict, infrastructure, ingenuity, inside, insisted, inspire, integrity, interest, interests, interrogations, intimidate, into, investments, involves, Iran, Iraq, is, isn’t, it, I’ve, January, jet, jobs, John, join, journey, joys, Juneau, just, Kasey, keep, kids, kind, kind-hearted, knew, know, knows, ladies, laid, Lancaster, landmark, large, last, lately, later, lavishes, law, lay, lead, leader, leader, leadership, learned, leave, led, lesser, lesson, let, lieutenant, life, lifelong, lifetime, lights, like, listening, little, littlest, living, lobbyists, long, look, lose, lost, lot, lots, love, luxury, machine, made, major, majority, make, man, many, massive, mate, matter, maverick, may, maybe, mayor, McCain, me, means, measure, media, meet, member, memoirs, memorials, men, mercy, message, met, Mexico, Michigan, might, millions, mind, mingle, Minnesota, miss, missions, Missouri, Moe, mom, money, monopoly, more, most, mother, move, Mr., much, muddle, my, myself, name, named, nation, natural, nearly, necessary, needs, nephew, network, never, news, next, night, nightmare, no, nomination, nominee, north, not, nothing, noticed, now, nowhere, nuclear, Obama, observed, of, off, office, Ohio, oil, old, on, once, one, only, opened, operator, opinion, opponent, opportunity, opposition, or, order, organizer, other, our, ourselves, out, oval, over, overcome, overlooked, owe, own, package, pain, parents, parties, party, passed, past, path, pattern, pay, paychecks, payroll, Pennsylvania, people, perfectly, perhaps, permanent, Persian, personal, petroleum, pin-hole, pipeline, Piper, place, plan, planet, plans, plant, pledge, plot, political, politicians, politics, pollsters, possible, power, powerful, powerless, powers, praise, prayer, preconditions, prefer, presidency, president, presidential, prices, primary, print, prisoner, private-sector, privilege, problem, produce, producing, production, profile, project, promises, promising, promote, proof, prospect, protected, proud, PTA, public, pull, pundits, put, al-Qaeda, quickly, quite, quo, quote, racer, raise, ran, rather, read, readily, realize, really, reason, recalls, record, reduce, reform, refused, Reid, relentless, religion, reporters, request, reserve, resolve, resources, responsibilities, return, revenue, rhetoric, rid, right, roar, run, running, Russia, said, Sally, same, Saudi, say, schools, Scranton, seals, season, section, security, see, seek, seem, seen, self-dealing, self-designed, Senate, Senator, sent, September, servants, serve, service, serving, share, sheer, shook, short, should, shuffled, shut, side, sight, signed, simple, since, sincerity, single, sister, sits, six-by-four, slope, small, small-town, snow, so, solar, solve, some, someone, sometimes, son, sort, sought, sources, speak, speaker, special, special-needs, specific, speech, speechmaking, spending, spends, spirit, squalor, squarely, stadium, stakes, stand, standing, starting, state, station, status, steel, step, still, stirringly, stood, story, strategic, strength, strike, strong, struck, studio, Styrofoam, sudden, suffered, summed, summoned, suppliers, supplies, support, supposed, sure, surplus, survival, suspended, take, talking, talks, tax, taxes, taxpayers, tend, terrorist, than, thank, thanks, that, the, their, them, there, these, they, they’re, thing, this, those, though, thought, threat, three, through, throw, thumbs, time, to, today, Todd, told, Tom, tomorrow, tonight, too, took, top, torturous, tough, toward, town, Track, treasury, Trig, troops, true, Truman, trying, turn, turning, two, typical, under, uniform, Union, united, unlikely, unqualified, up, upright, ups, us, use, using, usual, valves, Venezuela, very, veto, vetoing, vice, victory, Virginia, vital, voters, walk, want, wanted, wanting, wants, war, was, Washington, wasteful, waters, way, we, we, weapon, week, welcomed, welcoming, well, went, were, were, we’re, west, we’ve, what, when, where, wherever, which, while, white, who, whoever, who’ll, who’s, whose, why, will, Willow, wind, winning, wisdom, with, within, without, woman, women, won, won’t, word, wore, work, workers, working, works, world, worried, would, writer, wrote, year, you, young, your, you’re, Yupik
Like LIPSTICK, the above words are apparently off-limits since they were included at least one time in Sarah Palin's convention speech.
Maybe we should limit the talk of both campaigns to the following subjects and not worry as much about specific word choice as about the substance of the candidates' stances:
BANKING, BILL OF RIGHTS, BUDGETS, CHILDREN, CHILDCARE, CLIMATE CHANGE, COMMUNITY NEEDS, THE CONSTITUTION, DEFICIT SPENDING, DIVERSITY, EARMARKS, ECONOMY, ENERGY, EXPERIENCE, FACTS, FAIR TRADE, FAIR TRIALS, FMLA, FINANCIAL MARKETS, GLOBAL DEBT RELIEF, GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS, HEALTHCARE, HUMAN RIGHTS (including those of men, women, and children), IMMIGRATION, INNOVATION IN THE MARKETPLACE, JOBS, LAW, LEGALIZING MARRIAGE CONTRACTS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS, LOBBYISTS, MORTGAGE CRISIS, MILITARY, PEACE, POLICY POSITIONS AND PROPOSALS, POVERTY, POWER (ABUSES OF), PRO-LIFE/PRO-CHOICE & REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM ISSUES, SECURITY, SCIENCE FUNDING, SCHOOLS, SPECIAL-INTEREST GROUPS, STEM-CELL RESEARCH, SUPREME COURT, TAXES, TERRORISM, THE RULE OF LAW, WALL STREET, WAR, WORLD OPINION.
Some other topics may be undertaken with extreme caution: CHARACTER, HONESTY, HYPOCRISY, INTEGRITY, TRUTH, SPIN. In these cases, it is better to let your words and actions about the issues speak for themselves.
News Flash John McCain and the Republicans: this election IS about the issues!
Bulletin to Barack and the Democrats: Keep it focused on the issues! Palin is NOT the issue.
06 September 2008
Post Convention Ramblings....
I'm stealing this .... with attribution:
The McCain-Mooseburger ticket. I don't always agree with his snarky comments, but Bill Maher always makes me laugh.
Both Sides invoked Truman:
Sarah Palin talked about the Missouri Habadasher. Joe Biden quoted Harry S Truman this week, too: "when someone said 'Give 'em hell, Harry', he said 'I'm not going to give 'em hell, I'm going to tell the truth and they will think it is hell!' ". See the clip here beginning at timestamp 2:52. (found posted by Kay In Maine at White Noise Insanity). Truman, a Democrat, was selected as VP as a compromise and was not considered very experienced or qualified for the job during a time of war. Who knew that he would have to make the decision to drop the atom bomb or appoint four Supreme Court justices?
Witty, biting snark attacks
How many times do we need to hear the lipstick joke? A soccer mom, but tougher? Do they really think that "Soccer Mom" or "Hockey Mom" is a voting category? Perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about because I never felt that as a mother of a Cross-Country/Track athlete that I was part of some sort of monolithic voting block or special interest group. But maybe that was because I have hay fever and rarely stayed for the entire meet. At least Palin's pit bull comments were in a nicer spirit than the other snarky remarks made by her and the also-rans on Wednesday night. Am I so biased that I didn't notice that same tone while watching the Democratic convention?
Deriding community organizers? What happened to Bush 41's 1000 points of light? Weren't they community organizers? I think someone who advocates for others -- people out of work, people without health care, people living in substandard housing, people who look to others to help them find resources to help themselves -- these community organizers are the people who work in the trenches throughout our country. It isn't the same experience as building a hockey rink for your town, but it isn't unimportant. It isn't a shallow job. It isn't something that one does for fame or fortune or because it is a posh job. It's damn hard work, regardless of what your cause is. For the Republicans to scoff at this type of work, especially when so much of it is done by faith-based organizations (like the organization Obama worked for) is hypocrisy and, derogatory to those without ready access to the same avenues of power that many in some classes of society have.
A sound bite adding to the rhetoric from the Dems': "My friend John and George Bush are joined at the hip. And we need a hip replacement." - Joe Biden
Witty? Certainly. But I hope that Biden followed it up with facts. It's funny to watch the pundits and comedians poke fun at the politicians. But I don't want an entertainer in the Oval Office -- or someone who is intent on belittling the opponent in order to grab the headline. How can we not demand that our candidates behave civilly? It doesn't make them folksy and just like me or Average Joe Citizen. It makes them petty. And mean. It's the kind of behavior that I would repremand my child for.
I agree with Obama's statement: this election -- as is every election -- is too important for the candidates to waste time making trivial, bickering snipes at each other. If you know about an objective analysis of issues discussed in each speech, leave the link in the comments.
Fact-Checking
About that jet: "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay," she told cheering Republican delegates at their convention last week. True, but she left out that it never sold on eBay. And so state staffers had to broker a deal with a buyer" It has been reported that it was sold at a loss to the Alaskan government.
This link cuts through some of the rhetoric from Wednesday night.
For a humorous twist on fact checking comments by the right wing, including their new folk hero. Watch this clip from Jon Stewart.
Sexism in News Coverage
I will agree with the Republicans that some of the reporting has been sexist. But, I don't think that it is because Sarah Palin is a Republican. Asking about her experience is legitimate; to suggest that it is sexist is cynical, political, empty speech. And it's political bullshit to suggest that people in the Senate have NO experience and that they are all lazy 'do-nothings. How convenient to overlook the fact that the Democrats have had the majority for only 2 years and to ignore that it is a slim majority.
Is asking about whether her kids are too young for her to be VP sexist? It isn't sexist that we ask female candidates. It is sexist that we don't ask men. What is more sexist than the question is the societal expectation and social norm that women should be the primary caregivers. It isn't just the press that thinks this.
A better question would be: "How does she do it?" not "How can she do it?". Although I know many men who co-parent or are the primary caregiver, and I know that men are impacted as well by work/family balance issues, when I look at the women I work with -- across all levels of education & skills -- it seems like it is the women who continue to bear most of the responsibility for raising their families and keeping things running smoothly in the home. I know many people struggling with the balancing act that do want to know how she manages these issues, rather than imposing the view that she can't govern because of her children.
What I think is an even more subtle form of sexism -- or maybe it is anti-feminism -- are the photos of Sarah Palin's shoes. Did you notice these photos posted in the few days following the announcement of her candidacy?
Although it appears to have been taken down, there was one photo -- maybe a crop of the photo with her & McCain's feet -- that only showed her shoes. I immediately wondered if it wasn't to stress that she dressed like a conservative lady, the antithesis of Hillary's pantsuits. How ridiculous!
I almost expected to see Podiatrists for Palin signs!
Why would I care about what shoes any of them are wearing?
Conventional Propaganda
Political conventions are carefully crafted shows -- the Greek-revival columns reminiscent of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of King's I Have A Dream Speech; the 9/11 footage (which I'm glad that I missed); the personal bios of the candidates and their wives (ahem one for Cindy, not for Todd?) -- and, whether you agree with them or not, they are meant to be exploitative, to create an image, an ambiance, a brand, a visceral reaction. That is the nature of propaganda. The conventioneers -- teary-eyed one moment, enthusiasticlly smiling and applauding the next -- make for good television. Neither party passed up the chance for a multi-day infomercial.
Don't let either party get away with thinking that the American public is so stupid that they will only go for the sound bite. If you haven't yet made up your mind on the facts, make an informed decision in the next 60 days by reading the candidates' stances on the substantive issues on their individual websites: www.barakobama.com, www.johnmccain.com. Read about those issues from other sources, too; not just the sources that you typically agree with.
It's no secret to readers of this blog which candidate I support. If you are going to vote -- whether for Obama or McCain -- make an informed decision. And if you're not going to vote and you're eligible to do so, don't complain about the next occupants of the White House to me!
The McCain-Mooseburger ticket. I don't always agree with his snarky comments, but Bill Maher always makes me laugh.
Both Sides invoked Truman:
Sarah Palin talked about the Missouri Habadasher. Joe Biden quoted Harry S Truman this week, too: "when someone said 'Give 'em hell, Harry', he said 'I'm not going to give 'em hell, I'm going to tell the truth and they will think it is hell!' ". See the clip here beginning at timestamp 2:52. (found posted by Kay In Maine at White Noise Insanity). Truman, a Democrat, was selected as VP as a compromise and was not considered very experienced or qualified for the job during a time of war. Who knew that he would have to make the decision to drop the atom bomb or appoint four Supreme Court justices?
Witty, biting snark attacks
How many times do we need to hear the lipstick joke? A soccer mom, but tougher? Do they really think that "Soccer Mom" or "Hockey Mom" is a voting category? Perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about because I never felt that as a mother of a Cross-Country/Track athlete that I was part of some sort of monolithic voting block or special interest group. But maybe that was because I have hay fever and rarely stayed for the entire meet. At least Palin's pit bull comments were in a nicer spirit than the other snarky remarks made by her and the also-rans on Wednesday night. Am I so biased that I didn't notice that same tone while watching the Democratic convention?
Deriding community organizers? What happened to Bush 41's 1000 points of light? Weren't they community organizers? I think someone who advocates for others -- people out of work, people without health care, people living in substandard housing, people who look to others to help them find resources to help themselves -- these community organizers are the people who work in the trenches throughout our country. It isn't the same experience as building a hockey rink for your town, but it isn't unimportant. It isn't a shallow job. It isn't something that one does for fame or fortune or because it is a posh job. It's damn hard work, regardless of what your cause is. For the Republicans to scoff at this type of work, especially when so much of it is done by faith-based organizations (like the organization Obama worked for) is hypocrisy and, derogatory to those without ready access to the same avenues of power that many in some classes of society have.
A sound bite adding to the rhetoric from the Dems': "My friend John and George Bush are joined at the hip. And we need a hip replacement." - Joe Biden
Witty? Certainly. But I hope that Biden followed it up with facts. It's funny to watch the pundits and comedians poke fun at the politicians. But I don't want an entertainer in the Oval Office -- or someone who is intent on belittling the opponent in order to grab the headline. How can we not demand that our candidates behave civilly? It doesn't make them folksy and just like me or Average Joe Citizen. It makes them petty. And mean. It's the kind of behavior that I would repremand my child for.
I agree with Obama's statement: this election -- as is every election -- is too important for the candidates to waste time making trivial, bickering snipes at each other. If you know about an objective analysis of issues discussed in each speech, leave the link in the comments.
Fact-Checking
About that jet: "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay," she told cheering Republican delegates at their convention last week. True, but she left out that it never sold on eBay. And so state staffers had to broker a deal with a buyer" It has been reported that it was sold at a loss to the Alaskan government.
This link cuts through some of the rhetoric from Wednesday night.
For a humorous twist on fact checking comments by the right wing, including their new folk hero. Watch this clip from Jon Stewart.
Sexism in News Coverage
I will agree with the Republicans that some of the reporting has been sexist. But, I don't think that it is because Sarah Palin is a Republican. Asking about her experience is legitimate; to suggest that it is sexist is cynical, political, empty speech. And it's political bullshit to suggest that people in the Senate have NO experience and that they are all lazy 'do-nothings. How convenient to overlook the fact that the Democrats have had the majority for only 2 years and to ignore that it is a slim majority.
Is asking about whether her kids are too young for her to be VP sexist? It isn't sexist that we ask female candidates. It is sexist that we don't ask men. What is more sexist than the question is the societal expectation and social norm that women should be the primary caregivers. It isn't just the press that thinks this.
A better question would be: "How does she do it?" not "How can she do it?". Although I know many men who co-parent or are the primary caregiver, and I know that men are impacted as well by work/family balance issues, when I look at the women I work with -- across all levels of education & skills -- it seems like it is the women who continue to bear most of the responsibility for raising their families and keeping things running smoothly in the home. I know many people struggling with the balancing act that do want to know how she manages these issues, rather than imposing the view that she can't govern because of her children.
What I think is an even more subtle form of sexism -- or maybe it is anti-feminism -- are the photos of Sarah Palin's shoes. Did you notice these photos posted in the few days following the announcement of her candidacy?
Although it appears to have been taken down, there was one photo -- maybe a crop of the photo with her & McCain's feet -- that only showed her shoes. I immediately wondered if it wasn't to stress that she dressed like a conservative lady, the antithesis of Hillary's pantsuits. How ridiculous!
I almost expected to see Podiatrists for Palin signs!
Why would I care about what shoes any of them are wearing?
Conventional Propaganda
Political conventions are carefully crafted shows -- the Greek-revival columns reminiscent of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of King's I Have A Dream Speech; the 9/11 footage (which I'm glad that I missed); the personal bios of the candidates and their wives (ahem one for Cindy, not for Todd?) -- and, whether you agree with them or not, they are meant to be exploitative, to create an image, an ambiance, a brand, a visceral reaction. That is the nature of propaganda. The conventioneers -- teary-eyed one moment, enthusiasticlly smiling and applauding the next -- make for good television. Neither party passed up the chance for a multi-day infomercial.
Don't let either party get away with thinking that the American public is so stupid that they will only go for the sound bite. If you haven't yet made up your mind on the facts, make an informed decision in the next 60 days by reading the candidates' stances on the substantive issues on their individual websites: www.barakobama.com, www.johnmccain.com. Read about those issues from other sources, too; not just the sources that you typically agree with.
It's no secret to readers of this blog which candidate I support. If you are going to vote -- whether for Obama or McCain -- make an informed decision. And if you're not going to vote and you're eligible to do so, don't complain about the next occupants of the White House to me!
09 August 2008
To the f*ckwit who stole the Obama campaign sign in my yard:
You can venture 45 feet up my driveway and then scamper like a mountain goat 15 feet down a steep ravine to steal my sign, but you CAN'T STEAL MY VOTE OR SILENCE MY VOICE!
I know that it isn't very kind of me, but right now I really hope that you ran into the poison ivy! May that 3-week miserably itchy rash remind you that what you did was wrong in a country where one of our basic rights is FREE SPEECH. Perhaps you've forgotten that just like some of the present leaders in Washington. I'll defend your right to your political positions, but you do not have a right to trespass on my property in an attempt to silence mine.
BTW -- just like the previous 4 signs that have been taken from my property -- I'll replace it. Each time I do I make another campaign contribution. So I guess I shouldn't call you an asshole; instead, I should call you a campaign contribution stimulus package!
I know that it isn't very kind of me, but right now I really hope that you ran into the poison ivy! May that 3-week miserably itchy rash remind you that what you did was wrong in a country where one of our basic rights is FREE SPEECH. Perhaps you've forgotten that just like some of the present leaders in Washington. I'll defend your right to your political positions, but you do not have a right to trespass on my property in an attempt to silence mine.
BTW -- just like the previous 4 signs that have been taken from my property -- I'll replace it. Each time I do I make another campaign contribution. So I guess I shouldn't call you an asshole; instead, I should call you a campaign contribution stimulus package!
07 July 2008
Red City -> Blue City
2004 RED
Visual evidence of change in political contribution patterns in one metro area.
Map grabbed from Huffington Post.
See campaign contributions in your area here
2008 BLUE
Visual evidence of change in political contribution patterns in one metro area.
Map grabbed from Huffington Post.
See campaign contributions in your area here
01 June 2008
Presidential Reading Recommendations
In today's New York Times, several authors were asked to recommend books to the 3 current Presidential contenders. Michael Pollan's recommendations are pertinent to anyone concerned about the environment and justice issues:
As a lover of literature, I enjoyed Gary Wills recommendations the most. Can one ever go wrong with Samuel Johnson, regardless of the era or political crisis of the day? (See page two of the article).
You can read the entire article -- including recommendations from a diverse group of writers such as Junot Diaz, Barbara Kingsolver, Scott Turow, John Irving, Steven Pinker, and a most succinct response from Gore Vidal -- here.
Cross-posted at EcoJustice08.
I would urge the three presidential candidates to read — or reread — two books from the 1970s that could help them confront the deepening (and now deeply intertwined) problem of our food and energy economies. Long before either climate change or the obesity epidemic were on the national scope, Wendell Berry’s “Unsettling of America” made the case for a way of life and a kind of agriculture that might have averted both — and could still make an important contribution to solving these problems. In “Diet for a Small Planet,” Frances Moore Lappé shone a light on the wastefulness and environmental costs of meat-eating, predicting that humanity’s growing appetite for meat would lead to hunger for the world’s poor. Together these two visionary writers — who fell out of favor during the cheap-food and cheap-energy years that began in the ’80s and are just now coming to a calamitous close — still have much to say about the way out of our current predicament.
As a lover of literature, I enjoyed Gary Wills recommendations the most. Can one ever go wrong with Samuel Johnson, regardless of the era or political crisis of the day? (See page two of the article).
You can read the entire article -- including recommendations from a diverse group of writers such as Junot Diaz, Barbara Kingsolver, Scott Turow, John Irving, Steven Pinker, and a most succinct response from Gore Vidal -- here.
Cross-posted at EcoJustice08.
31 May 2008
Like Making Sausages
There is an old adage that politics is like making sausages: best not to watch. As clever as that saying is, and perhaps despite the frequent truthfulness of it, I couldn't help but think today, as I watched the DNC's Rules Committee's proceedings, that it didn't apply. It was good to watch, to see our democratic process at work. I am not a political activist or a party insider, so I found today's televised proceedings interesting and informative. I was glad that I had a chance to see the process at work. There are some that will disagree with me -- and healthy debate is part of a healthy democracy and should always be encouraged -- but I think that, while I only partially agree with the final outcomes, the right actions were taken.
Perhaps I'm more of a rules stickler than I like to let on, but I think that it is important that we have rules in place before a process occurs in order to govern it. You shouldn't make it up as you go along. Without rules, there is chaos. Still, the decision made last year to not seat the delegates elected by the voters of Florida and Michigan was not the correct one. Especially in the case of Florida, where the Florida Democratic Party was forced to an earlier date by a legislative act by the Republican-dominated legislature, the "punishment" of Florida Democrats was not just ill-advised, and ultimately ineffectual, but it was morally wrong of the DNC to take away the voice of Democrats in the state. I am disappointed that I never heard any of the committee indicate that they were wrong in making that decision, although I suppose, the fact that there was a hearing is an acknowledgment that there was a wrong that needed a remedy. At one point today -- and I do not recall who said it -- it was mentioned that it wasn't thought that the refusal to seat the delegations would matter. This should not have been part of the consideration in last year's ruling; every election is important and the party shouldn't have assumed that there would be a presumptive nominee by Super Tuesday. To think that, even though it has been the reality in past elections, is truly to discount the importance of voters in a majority of the states in the Union.
That said, there are rules in the Democratic National Party to allow 1/2 votes of delegates, which is what the DNC Rules Committee agreed to do: apportion delegates based on the vote, as recommended by the Florida Democratic Party. As to the argument of 'let every vote count', they were counted. Primaries are NOT an election of a candidate, but an election of delegates to the nominating convention. It is not about the candidate that gets the most votes; it is about the candidate that gets the most delegates. This is precisely why they cannot consider those who might have stayed away from the polls; they didn't exercise their right to vote and therefore there is nothing to count. You cannot assume the will of the non-existent voter. They didn't vote; they were not a 'voter' in this primary election. Those who think that the votes in Florida have not been counted perhaps should go back and review a high school civics textbook.
As for Michigan, the circumstances were a bit different, but I think the fundamental principal is the same. I am glad that the Michigan delegates will be seated and in keeping with the Democratic Party's rules, it is appropriate to seat them at 1/2 vote. What I think was incorrect in the decision today was that they allocated any votes to Senator Obama. While it is reasonable to assume that supporters of Senator Clinton would not have voted 'Uncommitted' when Clinton was on the ballot, one cannot assume that the other votes were for Obama. There were several other candidates on the ballot at the time of the Michigan primary. One can no more ascertain the mind of the voter selecting 'Uncommitted' than one can assume what someone who didn't show up at the poll might have voted if they thought their state primary was more than just a beauty contest. I think it would have been best if they had reinstated the delegates and let Clinton have her delegates based on the percentage of votes that she received. The uncommitted delegates should have then been allowed to make a determination in the same manner as the so-called super delegates. It isn't the ideal situation, but it is a better way than trying to guess for whom those votes were intended.
What I do think the Rules Committee did correct today, as flawed as the proposals were, was to accept the proposals of each state's committee. In the end, it is up to the states' committees to have their delegates to the nominating convention, so it is appropriate that their proposals, worked out within their organization, be agreed to by the national committee. It is the right thing to do, despite the fact that, in the case of Michigan, the methodology for determining the distribution of delegates was flawed. As Alice Huffman, a member of the Rules Committee stated, (after her proposal for seating the Florida delegates at 100% failed), the decision, while not ideal, was the next best thing. She was heckled by some in the crowd, including one person who yelled that it was lipstick on a pig. I could write at length about a feminist take on that comment but will save it for another time.
Ms Huffman, in commenting that it is not a perfect world, is correct. The essence of politics is compromise. It has to be, especially in a diverse party like the Democratic Party. We all should be heard; there shouldn't be assumptions about what might have happened if things had been different; concessions need to be made. That's what it's about. It is like making sausages: kind of unseemly, and in an ideal world sausages wouldn't be so high in the bad kind of fats, but you don't get such a bad tasting product in the end.
Perhaps I'm more of a rules stickler than I like to let on, but I think that it is important that we have rules in place before a process occurs in order to govern it. You shouldn't make it up as you go along. Without rules, there is chaos. Still, the decision made last year to not seat the delegates elected by the voters of Florida and Michigan was not the correct one. Especially in the case of Florida, where the Florida Democratic Party was forced to an earlier date by a legislative act by the Republican-dominated legislature, the "punishment" of Florida Democrats was not just ill-advised, and ultimately ineffectual, but it was morally wrong of the DNC to take away the voice of Democrats in the state. I am disappointed that I never heard any of the committee indicate that they were wrong in making that decision, although I suppose, the fact that there was a hearing is an acknowledgment that there was a wrong that needed a remedy. At one point today -- and I do not recall who said it -- it was mentioned that it wasn't thought that the refusal to seat the delegations would matter. This should not have been part of the consideration in last year's ruling; every election is important and the party shouldn't have assumed that there would be a presumptive nominee by Super Tuesday. To think that, even though it has been the reality in past elections, is truly to discount the importance of voters in a majority of the states in the Union.
That said, there are rules in the Democratic National Party to allow 1/2 votes of delegates, which is what the DNC Rules Committee agreed to do: apportion delegates based on the vote, as recommended by the Florida Democratic Party. As to the argument of 'let every vote count', they were counted. Primaries are NOT an election of a candidate, but an election of delegates to the nominating convention. It is not about the candidate that gets the most votes; it is about the candidate that gets the most delegates. This is precisely why they cannot consider those who might have stayed away from the polls; they didn't exercise their right to vote and therefore there is nothing to count. You cannot assume the will of the non-existent voter. They didn't vote; they were not a 'voter' in this primary election. Those who think that the votes in Florida have not been counted perhaps should go back and review a high school civics textbook.
As for Michigan, the circumstances were a bit different, but I think the fundamental principal is the same. I am glad that the Michigan delegates will be seated and in keeping with the Democratic Party's rules, it is appropriate to seat them at 1/2 vote. What I think was incorrect in the decision today was that they allocated any votes to Senator Obama. While it is reasonable to assume that supporters of Senator Clinton would not have voted 'Uncommitted' when Clinton was on the ballot, one cannot assume that the other votes were for Obama. There were several other candidates on the ballot at the time of the Michigan primary. One can no more ascertain the mind of the voter selecting 'Uncommitted' than one can assume what someone who didn't show up at the poll might have voted if they thought their state primary was more than just a beauty contest. I think it would have been best if they had reinstated the delegates and let Clinton have her delegates based on the percentage of votes that she received. The uncommitted delegates should have then been allowed to make a determination in the same manner as the so-called super delegates. It isn't the ideal situation, but it is a better way than trying to guess for whom those votes were intended.
What I do think the Rules Committee did correct today, as flawed as the proposals were, was to accept the proposals of each state's committee. In the end, it is up to the states' committees to have their delegates to the nominating convention, so it is appropriate that their proposals, worked out within their organization, be agreed to by the national committee. It is the right thing to do, despite the fact that, in the case of Michigan, the methodology for determining the distribution of delegates was flawed. As Alice Huffman, a member of the Rules Committee stated, (after her proposal for seating the Florida delegates at 100% failed), the decision, while not ideal, was the next best thing. She was heckled by some in the crowd, including one person who yelled that it was lipstick on a pig. I could write at length about a feminist take on that comment but will save it for another time.
Ms Huffman, in commenting that it is not a perfect world, is correct. The essence of politics is compromise. It has to be, especially in a diverse party like the Democratic Party. We all should be heard; there shouldn't be assumptions about what might have happened if things had been different; concessions need to be made. That's what it's about. It is like making sausages: kind of unseemly, and in an ideal world sausages wouldn't be so high in the bad kind of fats, but you don't get such a bad tasting product in the end.
05 May 2008
live blogging Obama
Obama isn't on stage yet. Thousands of people standing in Indianapolis in American Legion Mall -- IN THE RAIN. And Stevie Wonder is singing !!!!!
AWESOME!!!!!!!!!
Updated: I can't say I saw Senator Obama, but I could hear him! Local news stations are estimated that there were 21,000 people in the Mall, a park in downtown Indianapolis about 2 blocks long (1/4 mile long) & 1 block wide.
I think this little guy had one of the best seats in the house.
Well worth standing for 2 hours & walking 1.35 miles in queue to get into the park area about 500 feet from our car! Everybody in Indiana & North Carolina: GO VOTE TOMORROW.
AWESOME!!!!!!!!!
Updated: I can't say I saw Senator Obama, but I could hear him! Local news stations are estimated that there were 21,000 people in the Mall, a park in downtown Indianapolis about 2 blocks long (1/4 mile long) & 1 block wide.
I think this little guy had one of the best seats in the house.
Well worth standing for 2 hours & walking 1.35 miles in queue to get into the park area about 500 feet from our car! Everybody in Indiana & North Carolina: GO VOTE TOMORROW.
26 April 2008
Hate Mail
That is how I categorize the multiple pieces of anti-Obama mail I have received in the last week. One needs to look closely to see whether it is from the Republicans or not. Why does Obama's opponent think that she can blast him for not being truthful about lobbyists when she has received so much funding from them? Talk about being elitist: does she think that the Democrats in this state that hasn't been considered in campaigns for over 40 years are too stupid to see through such political tricks?
I used to be a Clinton supporter. I'm glad that I am not registered in a state that voted early.
GO OBAMA!
I used to be a Clinton supporter. I'm glad that I am not registered in a state that voted early.
19 March 2008
To Form A More Perfect Union - Washington & Obama
I've been mulling over writing a post about tolerance and about how so much of what one hears or reads in the media seems determined to separate and segment different segments of our society into monolithic voting blocks. I wanted to write about how because race and gender are important in our world, they are important in this election as well. But, we are not just our race. We are not only our gender. We are not defined by one characteristic, be that race, or gender, or sexual preference or creed or political party.
But, instead of my words, I offer you instead these words, one a letter from a founding father, the other a speech from one, who, whether he wins the election or not, is one of today's leaders.
The letter from George Washington in response to Moses Seixas
To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island.
Gentleman,
While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and happy people.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
G. Washington
1790
From the Barack Obama's speech, "A More Perfect Union"
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
....
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”
....
I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
B. Obama, 3/18/08
The persistence of intolerance is a sad part of our history, but tolerance is part of our American heritage. Reclaim it!
See Obama's entire speech here. Read the text of the speech here or here.
To learn more about the history of Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI, the oldest synagogues in America and one of our oldest symbols of religious freedom, click here.
But, instead of my words, I offer you instead these words, one a letter from a founding father, the other a speech from one, who, whether he wins the election or not, is one of today's leaders.
The letter from George Washington in response to Moses Seixas
To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island.
Gentleman,
While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.
The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and happy people.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.
G. Washington
1790
From the Barack Obama's speech, "A More Perfect Union"
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
....
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”
....
I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
B. Obama, 3/18/08
The persistence of intolerance is a sad part of our history, but tolerance is part of our American heritage. Reclaim it!
See Obama's entire speech here. Read the text of the speech here or here.
To learn more about the history of Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI, the oldest synagogues in America and one of our oldest symbols of religious freedom, click here.
13 November 2007
$1/Day, Child-headed Households, 28 Million, A Continent Dying....Don't Look Away: Part II
I wrote yesterday that I would post a list of books about global poverty, the UN Millennium Development Goals, and Africa. These are books that I have read or am in process of reading. There is much more information out there. Reviews are from Amazon's web pages (linked).
On global poverty:
The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Times Jeffrey Sachs, Penguin, 2005.
Ending Global Poverty: A Guide to What Works, Stephen C. Smith, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005,
What One Person Can Do, Sabina Alkire, Church Publishing, 2005.
Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty, Muhammad Yunus, Public Affairs, 2003.
On the AIDS crisis in Africa:
A Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa (CBC Massey Lecture) Stephen Lewis, 2006, House of Anansi Press
28 Stories of AIDS in Africa, Stephanie Nolen, Walker Publishing Company, 2007.
There Is No Me Without You: One Woman's Odyssey to Rescue Africa's Children, Melissa Fay Greene, Bloomsbury, 2006.
On African Politics:
The Fate of Africa, Martin Meredith, Public Affairs, 2005.
Long Way Gone: Memoirs of A Boy Soldier, Ishmael Beah, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
On global poverty:
The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Times Jeffrey Sachs, Penguin, 2005.
From Publishers Weekly:
Over 18 chapters, Sachs builds his case carefully, offering a variety of case studies, detailing small-scale projects that have worked and crunching large amounts of data. His basic argument is that "[W]hen the preconditions of basic infrastructure (roads, power, and ports) and human capital (health and education) are in place, markets are powerful engines of development." In order to tread "the path to peace and prosperity," Sachs believes it is encumbant upon successful market economies to bring the few areas of the world that still need help onto "the ladder of development." If there is any one work to put extreme poverty back onto the global agenda, this is it. (Mar 21).
Ending Global Poverty: A Guide to What Works, Stephen C. Smith, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005,
"We have an opportunity, in this generation, to reduce global poverty, both through acts of charity and by working as citizens to influence public policy. Stephen Smith offers reliable information, stories of success, and good advice on how to get personally involved in this important fight. Read it, and then take action. " --David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World
What One Person Can Do, Sabina Alkire, Church Publishing, 2005.
What Can One Person Do? confronts a poverty-stricken world, and with clarity of purpose offers practical steps to create lasting change.
Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty, Muhammad Yunus, Public Affairs, 2003.
It began with a simple $27 loan. After witnessing the cycle of poverty that kept many poor women enslaved to high-interest loan sharks in Bangladesh, Dr. Muhammad Yunus lent money to 42 women so they could purchase bamboo to make and sell stools. In a short time, the women were able to repay the loans while continuing to support themselves and their families. With that initial eye-opening success, the seeds of the Grameen Bank, and the concept of microcredit, were planted.
On the AIDS crisis in Africa:
A Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa (CBC Massey Lecture) Stephen Lewis, 2006, House of Anansi Press
"We have an opportunity, in this generation, to reduce global poverty, both through acts of charity and by working as citizens to influence public policy. Stephen Smith offers reliable information, stories of success, and good advice on how to get personally involved in this important fight. Read it, and then take action. " --David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World
28 Stories of AIDS in Africa, Stephanie Nolen, Walker Publishing Company, 2007.
From Booklist:
Nolen puts a very human face on HIV/AIDS in Africa, verbally and visually. A photograph accompanies each of the book's 28 personal histories (one subject stands for one million infected people in sub-Saharan Africa). The faces in the photos appear no different than faces of everyday Americans, but that appearance belies the horrific reality of lives shredded by devastating disease.
There Is No Me Without You: One Woman's Odyssey to Rescue Africa's Children, Melissa Fay Greene, Bloomsbury, 2006.
From Publishers Weekly:
Not unlike the AIDS pandemic itself, the odyssey of Haregewoin Teferra, who took in AIDS orphans, began in small stages and grew to irrevocably transform her life from that of "a nice neighborhood lady" to a figure of fame, infamy and ultimate restoration. In telling her story, journalist Greene who had adopted two Ethiopian children before meeting Teferra, juggles political history, medical reportage and personal memoir.
On African Politics:
The Fate of Africa, Martin Meredith, Public Affairs, 2005.
From Booklist:
Meredith is a journalist, biographer, and historian who has written extensively on modern African history. His massive but very readable examination of African history over the past century unfolds like a drawn-out tragedy. Of course, the arrogance and ignorance of European masters planted the seeds of many of Africa's current problems. But Meredith refuses to let Africans off the hook for the endemic violence, corruption, and political repression that plague so many African states. While he pays tribute to icons like Mandela and Senghor, his contempt for the venality and worship of power that has characterized so many leaders from Nasser to Mugabe is palatable and justified by extensive documentation.
Long Way Gone: Memoirs of A Boy Soldier, Ishmael Beah, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
From Publishers Weekly:
This absorbing account by a young man who, as a boy of 12, gets swept up in Sierra Leone's civil war goes beyond even the best journalistic efforts in revealing the life and mind of a child abducted into the horrors of warfare. Beah's harrowing journey transforms him overnight from a child enthralled by American hip-hop music and dance to an internal refugee bereft of family, wandering from village to village in a country grown deeply divided by the indiscriminate atrocities of unruly, sociopathic rebel and army forces....Told in clear, accessible language by a young writer with a gifted literary voice, this memoir seems destined to become a classic firsthand account of war and the ongoing plight of child soldiers in conflicts worldwide. (Feb.)
06 November 2007
Election Day Reading
I sat down this evening to read Thomas Paine's Common Sense, but instead, read Paine's Rights of Man (1791, 92).
Paine's arguments for the right to choose one's government, 215 years later, seem self-evident, so obvious as to make one wonder how society did not universally accept the natural rights of man. Yet, it wasn't universally accepted in Paine's time. The purpose of Paine's work was a defense of the necessity of the French Revolution as an assertion of those natural rights. In his work he called for the establishment of a British constitution, an act that lead to his being tried, in absentia, for treason.
From Paine's Rights of Man:
The news tonight claimed an 'surprise upset' and a 'landslide' in local election. I didn't vote for the victor, and I don't understand his campaign which was more 'against' a specific situation than 'for' anything. But, how I feel is irrelevant now that the election is over.
I arrived at my precinct polling place 50 minutes before the polls closed. The electronic voting machine indicated that I was the 288th voter today. I don't know how many people are in my precinct, but I suspect it is far more than 288. Aren't those who abdicate their right by not voting allowing themselves to be 'knaves and fools'? Aren't they truly the fools, rather than those only thought to be by those who usurp power? By putting your trust in the voting process, you are part of the process of constituting a government, a process that people were willing to die for, a right that people elsewhere are denied.
Paine's arguments for the right to choose one's government, 215 years later, seem self-evident, so obvious as to make one wonder how society did not universally accept the natural rights of man. Yet, it wasn't universally accepted in Paine's time. The purpose of Paine's work was a defense of the necessity of the French Revolution as an assertion of those natural rights. In his work he called for the establishment of a British constitution, an act that lead to his being tried, in absentia, for treason.
From Paine's Rights of Man:
When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.
We have not to review the governments which arise out of society, in contradistinction to those which arose out of superstition and conquest.
It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.
The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
The news tonight claimed an 'surprise upset' and a 'landslide' in local election. I didn't vote for the victor, and I don't understand his campaign which was more 'against' a specific situation than 'for' anything. But, how I feel is irrelevant now that the election is over.
I arrived at my precinct polling place 50 minutes before the polls closed. The electronic voting machine indicated that I was the 288th voter today. I don't know how many people are in my precinct, but I suspect it is far more than 288. Aren't those who abdicate their right by not voting allowing themselves to be 'knaves and fools'? Aren't they truly the fools, rather than those only thought to be by those who usurp power? By putting your trust in the voting process, you are part of the process of constituting a government, a process that people were willing to die for, a right that people elsewhere are denied.
20 April 2007
Colbert & Penn & Pinsky & Poetry
A million giggles..... Meta-Free-Phor-All. Colbert's tribute to National Poetry Month.
And to think that some say that poetry is dying.....
Loved the reference to Pat Benetar! Loved all this.
As Spicoli would say "Oh Yeahhh!"
And to think that some say that poetry is dying.....
Loved the reference to Pat Benetar! Loved all this.
As Spicoli would say "Oh Yeahhh!"
02 December 2006
Breathing Space
My office is located in one of the most beautiful office parks (an oxymoron if ever there was one) that I've ever seen. Lots of green grass and trees. Two lakes at the edge; just beyond, a river. Not much traffic: the lay of the land is such that it hides the nearby expressway. Only now that the last leaves have fallen can I look out and see other buildings and an apartment complex. Nothing hints that this is located in a busy city of over a million people. It is a good thing to have beauty so readily at hand during the day. It makes it a tranquil place to pass the time, if one needs to be at work in an office building that is.
Sometimes, though, in the course of business, I need to be at my employer's other offices. Unlike my regular work location, there aren't any nearby trees or greenspaces to camouflage the city. Like my office, there is water nearby: the building sits adjacent to the bank of a river. And, though in a much different way, one can look out the window and see a breathtaking landscape, it isn't the same. When I sit in the 'guest' office, I look at a marvel of an urban cityscape. I have always looked in awe at the skylines of the great American cities -- Chicago, San Francisco, and the daddy of the them all: New York. But, I can't look out that window, gazing across the river at what is there without seeing what isn't there. You see, the river is the Hudson, and the office is directly across from lower Manhattan.
I've been to New York a few times since 9/11 and have stood in silence at the WTC site, trying to re-imagine the space as it had been. I last saw the towers about a month before the attacks, while staring out the window at Newark International, waiting to catch a plane. On 9/10, I saw a photo taken of my son a few months earlier, sitting in the same airport, the towers in the distance rising above the planes on the tarmac and the river and the other buildings. He is looking the other way, the photo's background one that should have remained inconsequential, just a part of the steel and glass skyline, not something that was a symbol of anything, not something that would, beginning the next day, forever dominate that snapshot. They were just buildings, impersonal concrete, no thought given to the commerce that occurred there, the people who worked and would die there. It wasn't until this fall, five years later, that I had looked at the Manhattan skyline from the New Jersey shore. My mind's eye kept trying to fill in where the towers had stood.
Shortly after that last trip to NJ, I was browsing at the library at church. Perhaps I unconsciously thought about the scenery that I had looked at for the preceding week as I looked for something to read. Maybe that is why I picked up Rowan Williams slim volume Writing in the Dust: After 9/11.
Rowan Williams, now the Archbishop of Cantebury, was two blocks away from WTC attending a meeting when the planes hit. This book, written in the weeks immediately after the attacks, is his reflection on the meaning of that day and what he suggests should have been the appropriate response to the events of 9/11. The title, as Williams writes in the epilogue, refers not only to the dense dust he was surrounded by after the buildings collapsed, but also to the temporary nature of his reflections. "This isn't a theology or a programme for action", Williams writes, "but one person's attempt to find words for the grief and shock and loss of one moment. ...[I] hope only that they may help to take forward someone else's mourning. ".
What strikes me though, having read the book twice through in one sitting, is that these words should not be temporary; or at least, they are not ready for dissolution yet. They are as relevant today, while we are embroiled in the war in Iraq with no easy or clear-cut way out of the mess we have made, as it was in the days immediately following the terrorist attacks on WTC and the Pentagon.
Williams first writes of the nightmare of being in the area of the attacks, of escaping only to feel the rumble of the second tower collapsing, and breathing in the thick debris-filled air. He writes of a void, "the emptiness and anaesthesia", in the midst of terror and death, but how we shouldn't be eager to fill that void too quickly, with easy answers. He writes of the perversion that would make someone do such an incomprehensible act, how it couldn't be in the name of religion despite the terrorists' claims. He warns of what he calls the "great lie of religion: the god who fits our agenda". He contrasts the truly heroic actions of the responders, working for the secular goal of community health and safety, with the wrongly self-proclaimed heroism of the religious zealots who hijacked the planes. And, in his first chapter, Williams calls for a 'breathing space' to consider what happened and how we should respond.
It is this idea of a breathing space that Williams returns to throughout his reflection, encouraging a breathing space to understand what happened and to know an appropriate response to and punishment for such unspeakable violence. We need breathing space to know how to move forward and prevent such angry violence from happening again. We need breathing space to speak of, and maybe to redefine, our belief in God. That is what he wrote at the end of 2001; I don't know if he was right, but I do believe that if our country had done what Williams suggested, we might not be in the current situation in Iraq.
At the time Williams was writing this, America had just begun the campaign in Afghanistan. Williams writes of the decision to go to war, questioning whether it was an act of 'just war':
A good deal of the moral capital accumulated during the first days and weeks has been squandered. From a situation where Muslim nations, even Iran, expressed shock and sympathy, we have come to a point where the shapelessness of the campaign leads Muslims to ask whether there is any agenda other than the humiliation of an Islamic population. We may think this an outrageously wrong perception, but it becomes -- or should become -- a rather urgent factor in calculating how to restore a sense of lawfulness that would sustain some coherent action to punish and to secure a future that will be more settled and just for everyone.He continues:
But terrorism is not a place, not even a person or a group of persons; it is a form of behaviour. 'War' against terrorism is as much a metaphor as war against drug abuse. It can only mean a sustained policy of making such behaviour less attractive or tolerable. As we've been reminded often, this is a long job; but there is a difference between saying this, which is unquestionably true, and suggesting that there is a case for an open-ended military campaign. (p. 37).
We could ask whether the further destabilising of a massively resentful Muslim world and the intensifying of the problems of homelessness and hunger in an already devastated country were really unavoidable. We could refuse to be victims, striking back without imagination.By attacking a country that was not the attacker, Williams reasons, we have only deepened the gulf of misunderstanding between the West and the Arab world:
The hardest thing in the world is to know how to act so as to make the difference that can be made; to know how and why that differs from the act that only releases or expresses the basic impotence of resentment. (p46-47).
Every transaction in the developed economies of the West can be interpreted as an act of aggression against the economic losers in the worldwide game. However much we protest that this is a caricature, this is how it is experienced. And we have to begin to understand how such a perception is part of the price we pay for the benefits of globalisation. (p. 55)The most important point, though, in Williams brief book (at approx 70 pages, it's really a long essay), is that it is important to understand the misuse of symbols. Symbols, Williams writes, can be manipulated, and abused to the point where it is the symbol one supports, rather than the reality behind it. Just as the twin towers became, for al-Qaida, a twisted symbol of Western greed and gluttony, the towers or the terrorists can be a symbol of our fear, and hatred of others we do not understand, veiled behind the symbol of an outrageous act.
So, there is a particularly difficult challenge here, to do with making terms with our vulnerability and learning how to live with it in a way that isn't simple denial, panic, the reinforcement of defenses.( p 57).
'Using other people to think with'; that is, using them as symbols for points on your map, values in your scheme of things. When you get used to imposing meanings in this way, you silence the stranger's account of who they are; and that can mean both metaphorical and literal death. Death as the undermining of a culture, language, or faith, and, at the extreme, the death of tyranny and genocide. ...The collective imagination needs the outsider to give itself definition -- which commonly means that it needs somewhere to project its own fears and tensions.It's tough to think of the WTC towers as a bad symbol, but that isn't what Williams was suggesting, and I don't mean it either. Rather, Williams means that anything, when reduced to a symbol can be negative, representing only the distillation of our own misinformed interpretation. It's like the flag: it can be a symbol of patriotism, of loyalty to one's country. But, it can also represent the bullheaded idea of 'my country as I see it, my country right or wrong, my country as my agenda'. Here is where we get caught in symbols and they begin to define us, rather than the other way around.
Living realities are turned in to symbols, and the symbolic values are used to impression the reality. At its extreme pitch, people simple relate to the symbols. It is too hard to look past them, to look into the complex humanity of a real other. (p. 64-65).
So, is a bad thing that I look at the skyline of Lower Manhattan and re-image the outline of the towers? No...as long as I hold that symbol as something to make me think about what happened, and not just how I might have reacted to it initially. It is the moral and spiritual thing to do; the right thing. To quote Williams again:
What use is faith to us if it is only a transcription into mythological jargon of the mechanisms of that inhuman grief that grasps its own suffering to itself as a ground of justification and encloses the suffering of others in interpretations that hold it at a safe distance?We are beyond taking a 'breathing space' now with the war. If we had in the initial days, or even sooner, the conditions in Iraq may not have deteriorated to the state they are in now. A louder voice would have been crying out sooner regarding the steps taken to put ourselves in the middle of a war in the Middle East. But are we not all to blame for not listening to those who were the loud voices, not to blame for not hearing them, for not being reflective instead of reflexive?
And Christian faith? Can we think about our focal symbol, the cross of Jesus, and try to rescue it from its frequent fate as the banner of our own wounded righteousness? (p 72-73).
We need to evaluate all symbols and sloganeering that we encounter. What is really meant by a War on Terror? What is meant by an 'axis of evil'? How can we move beyond stereotypes, to foster true understanding with others elsewhere in the world? While that might not answer the question of how we pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, it might help us post-deployment with finding the path forward.
Book Review: Hell and High Water
Hell and High Water: Global Warming -- The Solution and Politics -- And What we Can Do Joseph Romm. William Morrow, 2007.
I so wanted to give this book a hearty recommendation. Its topic is one that I am very interested in --I think we all should be concerned about the global warming and need to take individual grassroots-level action to help find remedies. I was curious by the subtitle. Besides being one of the longest subtitles I've come across recently, I was concerned that the book might do a little over-reaching in it's purpose. And that was confirmed as I read through it.
Romm's book presents a worse-case scenario for the implications of society not doing anything to curb the effects of global warming. This book presents lots of well-footnoted facts -- facts I've read elsewhere, ones I find convincing, although I do not have the technical background to refute any scientific flaws that may exist. In addition, Romm's book is a analysis of what hasn't been done by our government to implement means of reducing activities that are leading to global warming. It is this part -- the attack on politics -- where the book disappoints. While Romm is good with presentation of the data supporting the global warming trends, he relies more on unsupported (although not untrue) and suggestive attacks on the current administration, than on persuasive argument to convince the reader that the government is not doing enough to enact needed legislation. (Note: I'm not a supporter of the Bush administration, and can't disagree with Romm's premise, so bear with me here....)
Most of the facts on global warming have been presented elsewhere (Gore's recent movie, An Inconvenient Truth comes to mind although it is not the only example), so Romm isn't adding anything new to the body of knowledge for the lay reader who is aware of the situation and the overwhelming support in the scientific community for the need to address causes of global warming trends. But, Romm's writing slants so much to attack -- at points even seeming to contradict the point he is making. (e.g., at one point Romm writes of how a government representative made a statement which contradicts his (Romm's) point in the previous chapter, but then states that they only agreed as a delaying tactic, not because they sincerely want to believe there is a problem.) I think that it is here that Romm could have been most effective if he hadn't relied on attack-ad style tactics and hyperbole. He isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe the facts about global warming that the US government is burying our collective head in the sand. But shouldn't that be the point? If not, he is no better in advancing arguments for correcting the situation than the vocal and attention-grabbing mouthpieces of some oil companies who manipulate the data to disprove Romm's scientific allies. The data about global warming is convincing enough that he should have changed the tone here. Instead, a reasoned voice is one that is more likely to be heard and to encourage action.
Another way in which the book disappoints is that it is very slim on the 'what to do about it' portion suggested by the title. A few paragraphs in the closing chapters is all that is presented. As someone interested in the topic who has read enough to convince me that something needs to be done, I was looking for something that would give reasoned, valid options for moving forward, rather than finger pointing.
I'm tired of divisive politics. I don't think the issue is so one-sided that we can only blame one political party -- I don't see the other political party stepping to the forefront on this either.
The chapter, "Missing the Story of the Century", did grab my attention though. Romm makes the point that as news media seek to 'balance' stories, they often give equal footing to both sides of the debate despite the preponderance of evidence. This is a different twist on the lament about so-called 'media bias', and I think that Romm has a valid point here. If the overwhelming number of scientists agree with the data on global warming and are in concurrence as to the root causes, why does the media give equal footing to those who oppose such data, including those that may be funded by the same industries that have the most to lose if we impose stricter governmental regulations? Romm uses the example of a recent (2005) segment on Meet the Press where there were four experts discussing avian flu. Romm's point was that all were in agreement regarding the potential for a catastrophic bird flu outbreak, yet there are some who might disagree with the likelihood of such an occurrence. His point, specifically, is that the press wouldn't think to have an opposing view since the majority concur; yet with global warming, they always give air to those who disagree. This may explain why studies show that few Americans think there is concurrence among scientists on global warming, while there are also studies that show that the majority of scientists do concur. I don't know what the solution is -- what percentage constitutes a majority opinion that dictates that we should listen to flat-earthers, regardless of the topic? Romm doesn't offer a solution either, and I'm not sure that Romm's reasoning behind the equal opportunity media time is because the media doesn't want to be blasted for bias. This chapter could easily be a book; I'm sure that this isn't the only topic where this is occurs.
While the above paragraphs might make you think that I wouldn't recommend this book, that isn't completely accurate. I think that Romm adequately lays out the facts regarding global warming trends, environmental impact of melting polar ice, and the reasons why we should reduce CO2 emissions (and sign the Kyoto treaty). He does make an argument about the dissembling actions of our government, although he seems more interested in painting the Republicans with a broad brush as 'bad guys' than in honest debate about how we should go about changing the situations and what types of economic plans we should have for doing so. He just seems to have taken on too much in one small book to make a strong case for how to change the problems -- both politically and technologically/environmentally.
TWO NOTES: 1) If you are interested in a concise Q&A regarding environmental issues and how to defend against contrarians, check out this link. Courtesy of Rev Sam at Elizaphanian.
2) Some in the blog universe have posited recently that it's important to disclose if a copy is a review copy. Here is my disclaimer in case you didn't notice the 2007 pub date indicated above. I received this book as part of HarperCollins' FirstLook program. Disproving, at least in this one case, the opinion that only positive reviews are done by bloggers when the book is free.
I so wanted to give this book a hearty recommendation. Its topic is one that I am very interested in --I think we all should be concerned about the global warming and need to take individual grassroots-level action to help find remedies. I was curious by the subtitle. Besides being one of the longest subtitles I've come across recently, I was concerned that the book might do a little over-reaching in it's purpose. And that was confirmed as I read through it.
Romm's book presents a worse-case scenario for the implications of society not doing anything to curb the effects of global warming. This book presents lots of well-footnoted facts -- facts I've read elsewhere, ones I find convincing, although I do not have the technical background to refute any scientific flaws that may exist. In addition, Romm's book is a analysis of what hasn't been done by our government to implement means of reducing activities that are leading to global warming. It is this part -- the attack on politics -- where the book disappoints. While Romm is good with presentation of the data supporting the global warming trends, he relies more on unsupported (although not untrue) and suggestive attacks on the current administration, than on persuasive argument to convince the reader that the government is not doing enough to enact needed legislation. (Note: I'm not a supporter of the Bush administration, and can't disagree with Romm's premise, so bear with me here....)
Most of the facts on global warming have been presented elsewhere (Gore's recent movie, An Inconvenient Truth comes to mind although it is not the only example), so Romm isn't adding anything new to the body of knowledge for the lay reader who is aware of the situation and the overwhelming support in the scientific community for the need to address causes of global warming trends. But, Romm's writing slants so much to attack -- at points even seeming to contradict the point he is making. (e.g., at one point Romm writes of how a government representative made a statement which contradicts his (Romm's) point in the previous chapter, but then states that they only agreed as a delaying tactic, not because they sincerely want to believe there is a problem.) I think that it is here that Romm could have been most effective if he hadn't relied on attack-ad style tactics and hyperbole. He isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe the facts about global warming that the US government is burying our collective head in the sand. But shouldn't that be the point? If not, he is no better in advancing arguments for correcting the situation than the vocal and attention-grabbing mouthpieces of some oil companies who manipulate the data to disprove Romm's scientific allies. The data about global warming is convincing enough that he should have changed the tone here. Instead, a reasoned voice is one that is more likely to be heard and to encourage action.
Another way in which the book disappoints is that it is very slim on the 'what to do about it' portion suggested by the title. A few paragraphs in the closing chapters is all that is presented. As someone interested in the topic who has read enough to convince me that something needs to be done, I was looking for something that would give reasoned, valid options for moving forward, rather than finger pointing.
I'm tired of divisive politics. I don't think the issue is so one-sided that we can only blame one political party -- I don't see the other political party stepping to the forefront on this either.
The chapter, "Missing the Story of the Century", did grab my attention though. Romm makes the point that as news media seek to 'balance' stories, they often give equal footing to both sides of the debate despite the preponderance of evidence. This is a different twist on the lament about so-called 'media bias', and I think that Romm has a valid point here. If the overwhelming number of scientists agree with the data on global warming and are in concurrence as to the root causes, why does the media give equal footing to those who oppose such data, including those that may be funded by the same industries that have the most to lose if we impose stricter governmental regulations? Romm uses the example of a recent (2005) segment on Meet the Press where there were four experts discussing avian flu. Romm's point was that all were in agreement regarding the potential for a catastrophic bird flu outbreak, yet there are some who might disagree with the likelihood of such an occurrence. His point, specifically, is that the press wouldn't think to have an opposing view since the majority concur; yet with global warming, they always give air to those who disagree. This may explain why studies show that few Americans think there is concurrence among scientists on global warming, while there are also studies that show that the majority of scientists do concur. I don't know what the solution is -- what percentage constitutes a majority opinion that dictates that we should listen to flat-earthers, regardless of the topic? Romm doesn't offer a solution either, and I'm not sure that Romm's reasoning behind the equal opportunity media time is because the media doesn't want to be blasted for bias. This chapter could easily be a book; I'm sure that this isn't the only topic where this is occurs.
While the above paragraphs might make you think that I wouldn't recommend this book, that isn't completely accurate. I think that Romm adequately lays out the facts regarding global warming trends, environmental impact of melting polar ice, and the reasons why we should reduce CO2 emissions (and sign the Kyoto treaty). He does make an argument about the dissembling actions of our government, although he seems more interested in painting the Republicans with a broad brush as 'bad guys' than in honest debate about how we should go about changing the situations and what types of economic plans we should have for doing so. He just seems to have taken on too much in one small book to make a strong case for how to change the problems -- both politically and technologically/environmentally.
TWO NOTES: 1) If you are interested in a concise Q&A regarding environmental issues and how to defend against contrarians, check out this link. Courtesy of Rev Sam at Elizaphanian.
2) Some in the blog universe have posited recently that it's important to disclose if a copy is a review copy. Here is my disclaimer in case you didn't notice the 2007 pub date indicated above. I received this book as part of HarperCollins' FirstLook program. Disproving, at least in this one case, the opinion that only positive reviews are done by bloggers when the book is free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
