So where do we go from here....

...and what in the world will we find to blog about?

Seriously though, now that the initial glow is beginning to fade and we all realize that Barack Obama is not the Second Coming of Christ, the real work is ahead of us.

Just a few thoughts: As someone who is closer to the end than the beginning, I spent some time remembering the things we've been through in the past 40 years. We lived through the Civil Rights Movement, the murder of a president and a senator, Kent State, the Vietnam War, the Cold War ... all the things I mentioned yesterday.

I can't help but believe the seeds we planted in those days are sprouting now. Not blooming yet. Sprouting. They're going to grow, those seeds, and it will hopefully grow into a beautiful blooming tree, one that will help shade us from some of the cynicism and hopelessness that has become so much of the national character.

That began in the 80s, by my memory. The national ethos was all about greed, acquisition and power. It was a backlash against the ethos of the 60s. While many people think of George Michael and Pat Benetar, I remember the unwarranted invasion of Grenada and the taunting of the Soviet Union by Ronald Reagan that more than once brought us to the brink of nuclear conflict. I remember that gay people were just beginning to crack open the closet. I remember union busting and human values being translated into corporate values. Women no longer left the home for the workplace by choice. It became an expectation. Kids were left in day care while the mothers adopted the very male values of power and competition. Hedonism was the call word of the day.

Hate became socially sanctioned in those days. It was no longer okay to be racially prejudiced against African-Americans and other Black people so other prejudices took its place. Gay people, Hispanic people and Vietnamese people were at the top of the list. As that lost acceptability, it turned to body size and social position. The harshness of judgment seeped into the commentary of the day. It was just a bit more cloaked and subtle.

The 80s were hardly all about bleached blond hair, layered clothes and drug dealers on speed dial.

It is largely that foundation that we are working with now. Somehow we have to find a comfortable balance between the extremes of the 60s and the extremes of the 80s and 90s. Cultures frequently overcompensate and go from one extreme to the other before coming back to a middle ground.

Now we have the chance to find that balance and create a society in which equality isn't an ideal on paper - but a living reality. We have the opportunity to accept diversity in a way that's not merely politically correct tolerance but true and substantial acceptance. Beyond that, we can learn to embrace them and learn to work with them for the benefit of all people.

It won't be easy because belief systems are usually the hardest to change. There's a lot of emotion and identity wrapped up in our belief systems. It will require a level of vigilance that few of us are accustomed to adopting. It means challenging ourselves to get into alignment with this new stage of social evolution. The magnitude of these changes can't be overstated.

If nothing else, the entire process should provide interesting blog fodder. We'll all have new thoughts over the next several months as we begin to see the changes.

I'll look forward to reading them.

So what are your thoughts?


~*

President Obama...

President Barack Obama

I have lived long enough to see several major historic events. I watched the country fall apart and begin to heal when JFK was murdered. I watched the Civil Rights Movement. I watched the first human being land on the moon. I've watched political assassinations, the war in Vietnam, Kent State, the horror of the Cold War years. I have watched a culture begin to dig itself out of the quagmire of heartless bigotry.

Never, ever, did I think I would live long enough to see a Black progressive elected president.

He did it! He did it with integrity, honor, truthfulness and a commitment to a higher ideal.

Congratulations, President Obama!

The world feels like a safer place.

~*

We All Need To Be Inspired....

"I can choose peace, rather than this."
A Course in Miracles

This morning, I was talking with someone about Obama. Well, we were talking about Obama.

One of the things we discussed peripherally is how all of us need to feel inspired by others. No matter how much we claim to be entirely self-contained, that we are all islands, the need to hear words that inspire, read ideas that make us feel hopeful and to live lives that have purpose ~ all of it matters.

Tonight, I watched Obama's TV special and could feel and see the inspiration he provides. People legitimately like him. It was evident in the way they looked at him, the way they talked to him. It wasn't about cheering or turning the interaction into a rally. He's someone they would like to sit down across a table and have a good conversation with.

I was especially impressed when he talked about healing the nation.

It touched something within many of us. This country has been through a lot in the past eight years. What Bill O'Reilly has glibly called "The Culture War" has been an ideological war. It has left scars. Most people (including me) felt and still feel somewhat hopeless about it. Obama makes it seem possible that it might get turned around.

No easy fixes though. No instant solutions. This is damage that runs deep and has become so pervasive that I don't think anyone can wave a magic wand and make it all better. It will take years to turn it around, if that is what American people decide to do.

It will take a lot of willingness to be open, to be able to see a new point of view and embrace it. Creating a national character that includes, as Mario Cuomo said in 1984, love and compassion will have to be a conscious choice.

Barack Obama will be a good beginning but he isn't where it ends. It will require all of us, all of us who are willing, to adopt a new way of life and thought. It will mean reaching outside of the self (and self interest) to include others as part of our human community in a meaningful way. It will take prayer for those who pray, determination from those who are strong and a willingness to inspire by those who are so gifted. We will inspire by the beliefs we hold and the behavior we choose. We will choose by the kind of society we create. Every single day. It will mean challenging ourselves on all levels, doing the internal work necessary to be a part of a national evolution. It will require a willingness to give up harshness and duality, aggression and power-over, the belief that every person is on his or her own, that human value is determined by utility and monetary wealth.

It will be the foundation of the metaphorical village, creating both personal attitudes and public policies that encourage togetherness, the end to separation and simply choosing to love.

That is what it will take after election day, after the votes have been cast and counted. Every single one of us can choose to be a part. I hope we do.


~*

A Social Conservative Against Proposition 8

Today is the "Write to Marry: Blogswarm for No on 8" which is being sponsored here. Please visit.. and add your own post if you choose to write about this.

So far, I am one of the few social conservatives who has spoken out against Proposition 8.

There are many reasons for that, some are the standard "I know gay folks who are really cool" and "it's wrong to hate" reasons.

Both of those reasons are valid. They're just not the reasons I decided to take a stand against it.

I've never been one to believe personal feelings are necessarily a valid reason to create public policy. I'd rather look at the big picture and try to determine the long range social implications.

Most would agree, I suspect, that marriage creates stability in any society.

Most would agree, I suspect, that three important characteristics of any value system would be courage, character and commitment. That is something that's sorely lacking in this particular society and has been for a long time. Look at the marriage statistics. While I haven't researched it at this very moment, if I'm not mistaken, 50% of marriages result in divorce. That creates a root instability as children grow up without two parents. It has created a cheapened view of commitment, essentially saying "I'm only committed as long as it feels good".

So how in the world does it make sense to tell 10% of the population (perhaps more) that their courage, their character, their commitment to each other, shouldn't be recognized when so many complain about this very same breakdown in social values in traditional marriages?

There seems to be a misconception that gay people are only in relationships for sex and lust. (Actually, that is why I prefer the term "gay" to "homosexual" which implies that it's all about sex.)

Gay people's relationships are the same as straight people's relationships. They love the same way. They fight the same way. They want the same things. They value the same things. They want stability, just like straight people. They want commitment. Just like straight people. They want rights. Just like straight people.

To imply that their relationships are less valid, simply because they are not like "our" relationships (an erroneous belief anyway) can be described in only two ways ~ discrimination and judgement.

It has been said that choices are be made from two foundational feelings: love or fear.

We can choose love ~ or we can choose fear. Discrimination and judgement come from fear. Acceptance and inclusion grow from love?

Which would you rather choose?

~*

What's this socialism thing?

After watching last night's debate and the introduction of "Joe the Plumber", I began listening to some of the reactions. Throughout the day today, I also listened. Talk radio, television and even my trip to the DMV this morning provided me with an opportunity to hear what people are saying.

Many people seemed to be afraid that Barack Obama was about to introduce socialism to the US. Their voices shook and their eyes clouded over. When pressed to define socialism, they couldn't. They painted word pictures of a Stalinist state, grey and colorless, a drone-like state. A lot of it was outdated Cold War rhetoric.

I began to search Google for an academic definition of "socialism". I found a few but most were so heavily propagandized that I couldn't cite them. As someone who has written for a good long time (over 40 years), I recognize how language is used and the implications of one word being chosen over another.

To put it in very simple terms, socialism is a political and economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.

Now that hardly sounds like anything Obama has in mind. Obama has never suggested getting rid of private property. Nor has he suggested that all wealth be redistributed. He has said that those who make over 250K a year will experience a tax increase. So I wish people who have not done their research would stop connecting anything Obama is doing to the now thoroughly demonized socialism. That is a word being thrown about willy-nilly without definition to generate fear among an anti-intellectual population which has been brainwashed into believing predatory market freedom equals real freedom. As I've said here before, your ability to choose between red shoes and blue shoes doesn't constitute real freedom. That's market freedom. Think about it.

In my opinion, Obama is offering policies that would bring the US into alignment with the rest of the industrialized world. The US is the only industrialized, first world country on the planet that doesn't have a health care plan for all citizens. It is the only first world country that doesn't provide an affordable education to all its citizens. It is the only first world country that still has a death penalty.

Real freedom is the right to have a job, health care, housing and food. That is civilization.

It really is time to get rid of predatory capitalism and put it in its proper perspective. Capitalism is great for non-essential products and services. If you can make a better DVD player than me, I'm all for it. Capitalism, in its highest form, encourages creativity and innovation. Survival should not be a competitive event. It shouldn't be a crap shoot when it comes to feeding the children.

As far as I'm concerned, the time has come for someone like Barack Obama. The last eight years, which were really a result of eight years of Ronald Reagan have made this nearly feudal state acceptable. It's really time to turn that around and become a respected member of the world community.

Do you agree? :)


~*

They can't be serious....

So John McCain said Barack Obama is a decent guy, a good family man and an all-round fine fellow in response to some ignorant woman who called him an "Arab" and that makes McCain a candidate for sainthood?

I can't believe it!

The sad thing is that if it weren't so utterly pathetic, it would be comical!

~*

Pocket full of peace....

Well, I can't say I will never write another political post here but a break from it might be a good thing.

Just this morning, I became aware of how absorbing it can become ~ and the feelings that come along with it are overwhelming. Aggression. Either/or thinking. Winning and losing. That's so completely what I am not about that my center feels sideways, even though these issues are very important.

In my deep, dark and distant past, I was so politically involved that it consumed most of my life and energy. It didn't matter what it was, as long as it was political. It felt exciting. Thrilling even. Anticipation and expectations. Believing we could change the world, one by one. We did. We changed the world. But there was a cost.

Now it exhausts me. I care.. but it's important to keep all of this in perspective.

Today I have a strong desire to be some place like this:


A place to collect some good thoughts, some good energy and maybe even some good food.

....some good music... and certainly a good book!


Just a reminder to all of us to keep focused on the things that are really important. In the end, all of this political stuff comes and goes. It's just dukkha... samsara. As my old grandma used to say, "In 50 years we won't remember any of this."

So.. for those of us who are so caught up right now, I hope we'll honor our inner peace as well. It's just as important as trying to create peace externally.

~*

As an aside, I am open to book recommendations right now. I have an appointment upcoming at the DMV. A book will be essential company.

~*

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter....

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." — Sarah Palin, to donors Saturday at a private airport in Englewood, Colo.

Sarah Palin made this idiotic statement Saturday because apparently at some point, Barack Obama shared planet space with 60s revolutionary William Ayers, one of the founders of the Weather Underground.

I'd hate to think that any of us, especially those of us who were politically active would be nailed to the cross because of someone we might have been in the same room with at some point in the distant past.

But let's go a few layers deeper on this.

Twenty-first century capitalism requires a docile, compliant population, subject population. "Consumer" is put forth as the ideal type, as the model for individual and mass self-identification. It is the population Sarah Palin continually appeals to.... "Joe Sixpack". Her homesy, folksy presentation is generally directed at those who barely graduated high school, who can be found sitting on his or her couch, drinking beer, watching TV after working at some unappealing, soul-crushing job all day. He or she is strictly a consumer.

A consumer is not a conscious creator, not an activist, nor a real decision maker. Instead, consumers are deferential recipients of someone else's wares and services, someone else's choices or a pre-selected range of choices, someone else's ideas or permitted spectrum of ideas, of someone else's rules and manipulations.

But he's the hero in a market society.

And every hero has to have a nemesis, every type its antithesis. When all else fails to strike fear into a compliant population, someone starts throwing around the word "terrorist".

Yes, terrorist. The demon in consumer heaven, disrupter of law 'n' order, killer of innocents, movie villain supreme.

The terrorist... bullets sprayed indiscriminately... bombs exploding like prehistoric meteors. Consumer serenity shattered.

No wonder someone like this most manipulative woman would start throwing a word like that around to win people to her side. No substance, no validation. She is appealing to emotion.

The terrorist: murderer, plunderer, marauder, pirate, bogeyman, barbarian.

The terrorist is as mysterious as he is menacing because he devotes, even sacrifices, his life to something beyond his material interest, to something transcending his own personal gratification. To an idea. To a cause. A nation. A people.

Not that I am condoning terrorism. That would be a violation of everything I stand for, everything my life is about. Hopefully, that is stating the obvious.

But in this case, I am calling "baloney" because the definition is completely arbitrary. Even Ronald Reagan said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It all depends on the politics of the time. The US has a long history of turning freedom fighters into terrorists when they no longer serve its own ends.

So is William Ayers a "terrorist"? I am aware of the fact that he engaged in some destruction of property.. but I am not talking about malicious vandalism. I'm talking about terrorism. I'm not even saying he's a nice guy. He was a lousy tactician. I'm saying he is not a terrorist. Do I think the Weather Underground expressed themselves politically in a good way? No. But that's a tactical discussion. Simply. I don't believe William Ayers fits the standard and accepted definition of a terrorist.

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. (Operational definition for the Central Intelligence Agency)

Sarah Palin is engaging in her own form of ideological terrorism. She is deliberately stringing words together in such a way as to strike fear in her target demographic. I happily call her on it and challenge her to come up with some substantial evidence that Barack Obama has engaged in anything even close to "terrorism" and how being in the same room with someone who was a 60s revolutionary (there were thousands of us in those days) is a serious concern.

~*

Debate night....

It's debate night.

This is going to be an interesting one. Ordinarily I don't watch these things because it's all so much showmanship and transparent manipulation that it bores me silly.

Still... this one could be good!

Will you be watching?

~*

Steal this Meme... Politics

FranIAm, a blogger I've recently discovered, offers up this meme. Please be sure to read hers, too! And feel free to steal it and let me know if you decide to do it so I can link you here. It includes seven political questions for Obama supporters.


~*
1) What is your name (nickname, whatever you're comfortable sharing), your age (range), gender, occupation, income bracket (range), how you identify (gay/straight/whatever)? Married/Single/Divorced? Kids (how many)?

Chani, 56 yo, female. The rest of it is irrelevant. Hopefully my ideas will have some merit, regardless of my position on the social grid.


2) What are the most important issues to you in this presidential election and why?

Foreign policy, education, health care and economic equality. They are most important because I believe any country is only as civilized as the way it treats all its citizens. I also consider it very important to know how that country will behave in relation to the rest of the world.


3) Why do you think voters should vote for Obama/Biden, what differentiates this ticket from McCain/Palin?

Basically the truth of the matter is that there's only a hair's difference in packaging between the two of them. They are all wealthy people who will protect their own class interests. At the same time, I do think of Obama as being a Kennedy-like Democrat who does consider economic equality to be important. His voting record substantiates that. He can inspire with his words and ideas. He is someone who can impact the culture by changing thinking. He will be a softening influence who may begin to smooth some of the rough edges of US culture.

Ultimately, I think the senatorial and congressional elections are probably more important than the presidential election.


4) If McCain/Palin wins this election, where do you see our country going in the next four years?

I don't think it will be a "disaster". I'm not usually given to that kind of hyperbole - but definitely don't think there will be any positive change. If McCain's actions over the past several years are any indication, he will engage in a very dangerous foreign policy. Anyone who can joke about bombing other countries is not someone who is in touch with reality.

Sarah Palin is particularly scary. She, in my opinion, completely lacks compassion for all living beings. She's as hard as stone, seems mean-spirited and I have the feeling she would be the object of many, many scandals. She would be an embarrassment on the world "stage".

I shudder to think of any Supreme Court justices they might appoint.


5) Economically, where do you think this country is today and how do you think Obama/Biden can make a positive impact?

I think this country has become economically predatory. There seems to be little concern for the well-being of people in other countries or the more vulnerable in this country. The elite here have more money in their banquet budgets than most people earn in a lifetime.

Capitalism, by its very nature, is predatory. It's okay for non-essential items because it does encourage creativity but when the right to education, health care, jobs and housing are a competitive sport, something is wrong. Seriously wrong.


6) In the past 8-years, how do you think this country has changed under the Bush regime? Have you been affected by these changes? If so, in what ways?

I haven't been that affected but that doesn't matter. If any of us are affected, all of us are affected. I've seen people all over the world who have been impacted - whether it's by corporate irresponsibility, the export of market culture to other parts of the world or irresponsible military action, it all comes down to the same thing: The US has become a bully nation. There are many countries in the world that are terrified of this one... with just cause.

The cultural changes during the Bush Administration are really an extension of the Reagan years. Greed is good. Prejudice is acceptable. Social Darwinism. That all started in the 80s.

At least Reagan had a personality. He was a kind of affable "guy next door", if not terribly bright. I can't say the same for the Borg-like Bush administration and certainly can't say that for GWB, whom I consider to be a complete buffoon.


7) I have read that Palin is considered the new voice of feminism, which is offensive in my opinion. Of equal concern are her views on abortion and the removal of books from libraries. I'd like to know what you think about all of that and how you feel about McCain choosing Palin as a running mate. And what kind of message you think that sends to women?

If Palin is the new voice of feminism, Gloria Steinem must be wretching and Betty Freidan must be flipping in her grave! There is nothing "feminine" about Sarah Palin. She has used the label of feminism to justify her own raw ambition and as an excuse to adopt all the worst attributes of masculinity. Feminism is all about honoring the feminine, the nurturer, the hearth tender. It's about women, not about women behaving like men.

Honestly, I don't think McCain realizes what he's gotten himself into with her. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed. If he had been, he would have realized that she is far too aggressive, far too bombastic, far too unappealing to really do his campaign any good. If I'd been his campaign manager, I would have talked him out of it. It was a short-sighted and rather idiotic move. While the novelty of it may last for a while, the newness will wear off and people will see it for the transparent move it is.

If McCain/Palin uphold the Patriot Act, they don't need to do anything else regarding the other issues. Since 9/11, this has become a national security state with the domestic intelligence agencies (such as the FBI and NSA) having the power to violate the Constitution at will. In the name of national security, the CIA and other intelligence services continue to violate the sovereignty of other nations.

~*

Weekend: Just a Bunch of Random Stuff.....

Does anyone like the lampshade in that picture above? I used to hand make those in the 80s and still have a bunch of them around the house. Arthritis has taken over my fingers too much to make them now ~ but I certainly did like doing it.

How about that interview with Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson? There's something to be said for research and a comprehensive understanding of world and domestic politics. She seems to lack both. She didn't know what "the Bush Doctrine" is! She can receive all the briefings in the world for now - but if she doesn't have a context to put it in, she'll just keep flubbing up.

Last night, a friend and I went to Chipotle for dinner. Not too impressive overall but the conversation was reasonably good. As usual, we talked about religion most of the evening. Even when we disagree, we're fairly good about staying balanced with it - and it's a welcome refuge to spend four or five hours with someone who shares my cultural point of view.

Chipotle though. We won't go again. In general, I don't like "order it here and pick it up over there" restaurants but especially didn't like that they asked my name when I ordered and then handed me a little flashing gadget that beeped loudly when my food was done. The food was okay but nothing exciting and I really didn't like that beeping thing - or being asked to identify myself in a fast food joint.

Meh~

I like my anonymity.

It's finally cooling down! It was cool enough last night for a light jacket. Not being a hot weather person, this is my season coming up.

Now I have to order more clothes. It takes weeks for them to get here. Which card should I max out this time? Citibank or Wamu?

Okay. So all of this is totally random, irrelevant and insignificant flotsam. That happens sometimes. Even around here. :)

One more thing: Perhaps a bit sensitive but not intended to be offensive or confrontative. There are two of my favorite sites that I can no longer visit because of the page loads. Sure, I can rezd them in Google Reader but I can't comment - and there's just no pleasure in it without being able to comment. The loads are very, very slow and all the ads have to load in before I can see the text. The ads bounce and some of them are actual videos. I like y'all - but don't like being marketed to so aggressively. I want to read what you have to say but that's the operative phrase: what you have to say ~ so you might want to check your page load and make sure people can get in. If any of you want to know from me whether your page load is too long, leave a note and I will tell you privately. Thanks. :)

Hope everyone has a peaceful weekend.


~*

Compassion for those we don't like....

It's a hard one. Really.

For the past week or so, I've gotten lost in my own "dislike Sarah Palin very strongly" club. (I won't say hate because I don't hate her. I just disagree with her on the most fundamental things.) I've allowed her to become a focal point for everything I dislike in US culture. To listen to her speak sets my teeth off - particularly since she has a voice that could shatter glass. Like a cat being dragged through a knothole in the fence comes to mind. I mean - truly - I don't like the woman. I don't like what she stands for and I don't like who she chooses to be.

On the other hand, I struggle with that tendencu because she is a product of her environment, just like I am. Just like most of us are. It's unlikely that she stood before the mirror one day and made a conscious decision to be who she is. She didn't sculpt herself from raw clay. She is a product of her environment, her culture, her upbringing and her spiritual conditioning. So far in her life, it's worked for her so I doubt she's done a lot of serious self-examination or made a deliberate choice to be the way she is.

So.. where I'm going with this is that I am trying (really trying) to find a place of compassion for her, to ferret out the good in her so that I can stop feeling the way I do. It's toxic for me, toxic for my environment, toxic for all of us - when one of us chooses to so strongly dislike someone that it overrides our compassion and commitment to our own values.

I'm sure she loves her kids. I'm sure she, no matter how much I disagree with her, cares about her country. She's not Mugabe. She's not Milosevic. She's not Hitler. She's a (in my mind) misguided person with some really screwy values. I'm sure she cares about something I care about - although it would probably take hours and hours of conversation between us to find that one kernel of likemindedness. We'd both have to dig and we'd both have to make a strong effort. Looking at it objectively though, even if we were trapped on an elevator together with no other options for company, I don't think she'd like me all that much, either - so that conversation would probably not take place.

Not so deep within me, I know that my non-acceptance of her as a person is just the flipside of what I perceive she does herself. I'm so rooted in my own sense of righteousness that I can't make room for her or her thinking. I "other" her because it's safer and easier than trying to find any commonality.

I know that's not good. This isn't really about Sarah Palin, although she's an expedient example. It's about me. It's about everyone who finds themselves trapped in "othering" behavior.

So.. what do we do when we find someone who so perfectly exemplifies everything that we find distasteful?

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this.

~*

As an aside, I found this link in someone's comments. It is one of the best articles I've seen yet on the topic of Sarah Palin. The comments attached to the article are good, too.

~*

Wow.

I woke up to one virulent nastygram this morning! That happens on occasion here, especially when I state opinions about US politics. The "love it or leave it" folks come out of the woodwork.

The writer implied (again - it's getting dull) that as a cultural dissident in this country, I have no right to complain about politics. I've made it clear in the writer's mind that I "hate" this country and everything it stands for. There was all kinds of talk about loyalty, duty, patriotism and the fact that I have forfeited my right to say a word! He ended with "try doing and saying the things you do and say in your beloved Thailand. See where it will get you."

It was a long nastygram. Several hundred words. I'll give the writer this much: he was articulate. He didn't use a bunch of filthy language. Most of the nastygrams I get are written in all caps with really stupid grammatical errors. They're full of vulgarity. Usually they are unsigned. This guy signed his name and gave me his email address. For that reason alone, I will probably reply to him.

I try to appreciate the nastygrams as much as the praise. After all, it is someone taking the time to share an opinion with me and that in itself has value.

But let me address this "I have no right..." issue. I do have a right. For several reasons.

I live on this planet. At least for now. I may be getting old but haven't gone to the Other Side yet. What the US does affects the rest of the world. Look at any country in the world and tell me it's not impacted by activities, political and geopolitical, of the US. I will never fall back on the "I was born here" argument because I think it's cheesy and has no substance. The fact is that we are all stuck on this planet together, for better and for worse.
Secondly - and perhaps most importantly - my history has included all sorts of activities which I believe will make the US a better place for everyone - in the US and without. If I didn't care about American people, there are plenty of other things I could have done with my time. I could have gone shopping more, partied more and feathered my own nest for the past 30+ years. I could have used that energy to my benefit only. That would have been praised quite highly in this culture. After all, I would have been (as my macroeconomics instructor in college said) "looking out for my own self-interest and maximizing my own potential".

Huzzah!

I've seen a lot of changes in the landscape over the past thirty years. From peaceful protests in the early 70s to protests now that are met with excessive police presence, arrests and violence. Watching the alternative press cover the protests in St Paul is very frightening. (I might add that there's been very little coverage in the mainstream press - including MS-NBC, CNN and, of course, Fox.) I've seen people bullied into sitting it out because they're afraid for their jobs, their families and their physical well-being. People are afraid of speaking their minds on email, on blogs, on talk radio shows and in the press. All of this in the name of "The Patriot Act" which, if you choose to take the time to read it, I guarantee it will scare the hell out of you.

I am not afraid to speak my mind. Maybe I just have nothing to lose and perhaps the fire in my belly is just too strong. These things matter to me. People matter to me. The idea of any nation putting dangerous policies into place and exporting them all over the world scares the hell out of me and I'm going to speak up about it. I've spoken up about Sarah Palin because I believe she would be a disaster for this country. In a higher position, she'd be a disaster for the world. Anyone who would say the war in Iraq is "God's will" and pressure a librarian in Wasalla to ban certain books, firing her when she wouldn't comply, is someone to fear. Look at the fact that she may have used her position to get her sister's ex-husband fired from his job as a state trooper. She whined during her RNC speech about having to give POWs any rights. Is that someone who deserves power? I don't think so! She's a scary lady, one who makes John McCain look like a pussycat in comparison. I will continue to speak out about her.

So if anyone wants to disagree with me, please feel free. If anyone wants to challenge my ideas, please do. If anyone has an opinion or belief system that is different than mine, I want to hear about it. But don't ever tell me I "have no right" to speak up about US politics.

You're dead wrong!

~*

My Last Sarah Post....

Sarah Louise Heath Palin in 1984

I promise. This will be my last post about Sarah Palin. Ordinarily, I don't get involved in this stuff but also recognize that US politics do have an impact on the rest of the world. In that respect, I reserve the right to make comments. :)

This post actually began as a comment on someone else's site and I decided to follow it up here.

Last night, I listened to her speech and was taken back by several things.

One of the things I realized while listening to her is that she is completely out of touch with anything outside her small sphere. The real struggles of real people in real cities and real homes across the country are so vague to her that it would be like trying to explain physics to a water buffalo. She simply doesn't get it. Not once did she mention homeless people, the mortgage crisis, poverty (and yes, Jon-Jon, it even exists in Alaska!), or any other social issue that the rest of us deal with on a daily basis. Not once did she mention anything she has done for other people that didn't ultimately serve herself.

She was snotty, competitive, snide and snarky. Her speech had a constant undertone of sarcasm. It didn't make her look clever or smart. It just made her look mean. She didn't come across as anyone I would like to meet, even for a short period. Something tells me that no one with similar ambitions would dare to cross her. Her nickname "Sarahcuda" or "Sarah the Barracuda" is probably not far from the mark.

She reminds me of a "type" - and we all knew those types in high school. The hard-driven, ambitious types who would eat their young to get what they want. They stepped over their "collateral losses" and never looked back. They always got their way - if not by persuasion, by bullying.

I bring this up, not because I want to be snarky about Sarah Palin. I bring it up for a larger reason.

These types of people tend to influence popular culture. Certain types of behavior become acceptable in a culture, cued by its leaders. In the same way Ronald Reagan made lack of compassion and prejudice acceptable, Sarah Palin will make sarcasm, raw ambition and lack of compassion acceptable. Anyone who is not like her ~ with similar values and aspirations in the world ~ will be ignored - or even worse, "Othered". Anyone who doesn't fit into her very narrow view of the outside world will be bullied or silenced.

She's Dick Cheney with a vagina.

She is not a good role model for young women.

My opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

~*

Cheap and Tawdry.....

I guess I have something to say after all.

For the past few days, there has been a glut of speculation, rumor and tawdry discussion about Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin, who is covering for the other, whether the baby is really Sarah's or is it Bristol's, her husband's former DUI and a whole assortment of totally inappropriate discussions about the private lives of these people.

Just so we're clear: I don't agree with their politics. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

And I never thought I'd be defending them. On the other hand, this kind of discussion about their personal lives and perhaps even (shock!) human flaws has turned a political election into an episode of "Dynasty" or "Dallas". Okay. I'm dating myself but I don't know the current prime time soap operas. "Desperate Housewives"?

Barack Obama was right. Families and kids should be off-limits. They didn't choose to run for any elected office and we shouldn't be gossiping about them. That's what it is ... gossip.

Anyone who's been around the Internet for a while has probably seen the phrase "ad hominem attacks". Attacking someone on a personal basis usually just shows that the attacker can't argue the issues. It's a playground tactic that has no place in an adult activity - such as electing a president.

'Nuff said.

~*

No way, no how, no Palin!

I'm not buying it. This is the most transparent move I've ever seen!

Yes, I know. I'm getting too political around here. The fact is that I'm becoming a bit too interested in these machinations. Or perhaps it's just been that I've been trapped in the house for three days because of the heat outside.

Still, there are a few political thoughts I have about McCain's choice.

Picking a woman who hunts, has a lifetime membership in the NRA, eats moose burgers and can keep up with the boys is hardly going to appeal to anyone's desire to see a more feminine influence in world politics. He might as well have picked Margaret Thatcher! (Well, if she was American anyway :)

If he'd really wanted to take some risks, he should have selected Condoleezza Rice as his running mate. At least she has real foreign policy knowledge and experience. She speaks ghu-knows how many languages and has a very, very solid understanding of international politics. I might not agree with her political positions but, Gawd, is she ever smart! She's a brilliant woman and would have had a real impact on the election.

Sarah Palin? Yawn-oh-rama! I'm a social conservative and can hardly stay awake for that woman! Geez! Britney Spears to Ruth Ginsburg!

This really raises an important issue though, one I am beginning to consider seriously. It's not a new phenomena certainly but one worth mentioning anyway.

Politics should not be about personalities. It should be about policies and governance. It doesn't matter whether someone is Black, white, male, female, Hispanic, gay, straight or transgendered. It shouldn't even matter if she's an arthritic old Thaiphile with a blog on the Internet. Seriously. It doesn't matter.

What matters is the kind of policy positions he or she supports. What direction do they want to take the country's foreign policy? What are his or her domestic policies? It's not a question of what he or she says from the lectern during a speech, either. What's their history? In the case of the senators, what has their voting record been on key issues? Who are their allies?

Does anyone remember John McCain and his birthday cake three years ago? While Katrina devastated New Orleans, he was eating birthday cake with George Bush. Does anyone remember McCain's rather putrid joke about bombing Iran?

History is telling.

The key issue for me is the one articulated by Mario Cuomo in the speech I posted a few days ago:

"We believe in a government strong enough to use words like "love" and "compassion" and smart enough to convert our noblest aspirations into practical realities."


Where does your candidate stand?

~*

Democratic National Convention Speeches... Yawn

Is anyone else finding the Democratic National Convention to be rather lukewarm? I haven't heard a single speech yet that inspires me. Just a bunch of Horatio Alger stories and very, very safe comments, even from Dennis Kucinich. It's becoming a bit hard to remain interested.

I love a powerful speech, one that is stirring and challenging. I tried to remember back to the last speech of that nature I heard from a politician.

As always, I come back to Mario Cuomo and his keynote speech to the DNC in 1984. I've linked it here so that you can either listen to it or read it, whichever you choose. I really encourage you to take the time to listen. Get a cup of something and give it ten or fifteen minutes.

But if you can't, I offer this excerpt. Read it. Seriously. You'll like it! This is a speech that is just as applicable today as it was in 1984.

On behalf of the great Empire State and the whole family of New York, let me thank you for the great privilege of being able to address this convention. Please allow me to skip the stories and the poetry and the temptation to deal in nice but vague rhetoric. Let me instead use this valuable opportunity to deal immediately with the questions that should determine this election and that we all know are vital to the American people.

Ten days ago, President Reagan admitted that although some people in this country seemed to be doing well nowadays, others were unhappy, even worried, about themselves, their families, and their futures. The President said that he didn't understand that fear. He said, "Why, this country is a shining city on a hill." And the President is right. In many ways we are a shining city on a hill.

But the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the President sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there's another city; there's another part to the shining the city; the part where some people can't pay their mortgages, and most young people can't afford one; where students can't afford the education they need, and middle-class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.

In this part of the city there are more poor than ever, more families in trouble, more and more people who need help but can't find it. Even worse: There are elderly people who tremble in the basements of the houses there. And there are people who sleep in the city streets, in the gutter, where the glitter doesn't show. There are ghettos where thousands of young people, without a job or an education, give their lives away to drug dealers every day. There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city.

....

Maybe, maybe, Mr. President, if you visited some more places; maybe if you went to Appalachia where some people still live in sheds; maybe if you went to Lackawanna where thousands of unemployed steel workers wonder why we subsidized foreign steel. Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President, if you stopped in at a shelter in Chicago and spoke to the homeless there; maybe, Mr. President, if you asked a woman who had been denied the help she needed to feed her children because you said you needed the money for a tax break for a millionaire or for a missile we couldn't afford to use.

Maybe -- Maybe, Mr. President. But I'm afraid not. Because the truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that this is how we were warned it would be. President Reagan told us from the very beginning that he believed in a kind of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. "Government can't do everything," we were told, so it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity will do the rest. Make the rich richer, and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.

You know, the Republicans called it "trickle-down" when Hoover tried it. Now they call it "supply side." But it's the same shining city for those relative few who are lucky enough to live in its good neighborhoods. But for the people who are excluded, for the people who are locked out, all they can do is stare from a distance at that city's glimmering towers.

...

We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America. For nearly 50 years we carried them all to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence. And remember this, some of us in this room today are here only because this nation had that kind of confidence. And it would be wrong to forget that.

So, here we are at this convention to remind ourselves where we come from and to claim the future for ourselves and for our children. Today our great Democratic Party, which has saved this nation from depression, from fascism, from racism, from corruption, is called upon to do it again -- this time to save the nation from confusion and division, from the threat of eventual fiscal disaster, and most of all from the fear of a nuclear holocaust.

That's not going to be easy. Mo Udall is exactly right -- it won't be easy. And in order to succeed, we must answer our opponent's polished and appealing rhetoric with a more telling reasonableness and rationality.

We must win this case on the merits. We must get the American public to look past the glitter, beyond the showmanship to the reality, the hard substance of things. And we'll do it not so much with speeches that sound good as with speeches that are good and sound; not so much with speeches that will bring people to their feet as with speeches that will bring people to their senses. We must make -- We must make the American people hear our "Tale of Two Cities." We must convince them that we don't have to settle for two cities, that we can have one city, indivisible, shining for all of its people.

...

We speak -- We speak for young people demanding an education and a future. We speak for senior citizens. We speak for senior citizens who are terrorized by the idea that their only security, their Social Security, is being threatened. We speak for millions of reasoning people fighting to preserve our environment from greed and from stupidity. And we speak for reasonable people who are fighting to preserve our very existence from a macho intransigence that refuses to make intelligent attempts to discuss the possibility of nuclear holocaust with our enemy. They refuse. They refuse, because they believe we can pile missiles so high that they will pierce the clouds and the sight of them will frighten our enemies into submission.
...

We -- We must ask ourselves what kind of court and country will be fashioned by the man who believes in having government mandate people's religion and morality; the man who believes that trees pollute the environment; the man that believes that -- that the laws against discrimination against people go too far; a man who threatens Social Security and Medicaid and help for the disabled. How high will we pile the missiles? How much deeper will the gulf be between us and our enemies? And, ladies and gentlemen, will four years more make meaner the spirit of the American people? This election will measure the record of the past four years. But more than that, it will answer the question of what kind of people we want to be.

We Democrats still have a dream. We still believe in this nation's future. And this is our answer to the question. This is our credo:

We believe in only the government we need, but we insist on all the government we need.

We believe in a government that is characterized by fairness and reasonableness, a reasonableness that goes beyond labels, that doesn't distort or promise to do things that we know we can't do.

We believe in a government strong enough to use words like "love" and "compassion" and smart enough to convert our noblest aspirations into practical realities.

We believe in encouraging the talented, but we believe that while survival of the fittest may be a good working description of the process of evolution, a government of humans should elevate itself to a higher order.

We -- Our -- Our government -- Our government should be able to rise to the level where it can fill the gaps that are left by chance or by a wisdom we don't fully understand. We would rather have laws written by the patron of this great city, the man called the "world's most sincere Democrat," St. Francis of Assisi, than laws written by Darwin.

We believe -- We believe as Democrats, that a society as blessed as ours, the most affluent democracy in the world's history, one that can spend trillions on instruments of destruction, ought to be able to help the middle class in its struggle, ought to be able to find work for all who can do it, room at the table, shelter for the homeless, care for the elderly and infirm, and hope for the destitute. And we proclaim as loudly as we can the utter insanity of nuclear proliferation and the need for a nuclear freeze, if only to affirm the simple truth that peace is better than war because life is better than death.

We believe in firm -- We believe in firm but fair law and order.

We believe proudly in the union movement.

We believe in a -- We believe -- We believe in privacy for people, openness by government.

We believe in civil rights, and we believe in human rights.

We believe in a single -- We believe in a single fundamental idea that describes better than most textbooks and any speech that I could write what a proper government should be: the idea of family, mutuality, the sharing of benefits and burdens for the good of all, feeling one another's pain, sharing one another's blessings -- reasonably, honestly, fairly, without respect to race, or sex, or geography, or political affiliation.

We believe we must be the family of America, recognizing that at the heart of the matter we are bound one to another, that the problems of a retired school teacher in Duluth are our problems; that the future of the child -- that the future of the child in Buffalo is our future; that the struggle of a disabled man in Boston to survive and live decently is our struggle; that the hunger of a woman in Little Rock is our hunger; that the failure anywhere to provide what reasonably we might, to avoid pain, is our failure.

...

That struggle to live with dignity is the real story of the shining city. And it's a story, ladies and gentlemen, that I didn't read in a book, or learn in a classroom. I saw it and lived it, like many of you. I watched a small man with thick calluses on both his hands work 15 and 16 hours a day. I saw him once literally bleed from the bottoms of his feet, a man who came here uneducated, alone, unable to speak the language, who taught me all I needed to know about faith and hard work by the simple eloquence of his example. I learned about our kind of democracy from my father. And I learned about our obligation to each other from him and from my mother. They asked only for a chance to work and to make the world better for their children, and they -- they asked to be protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves. This nation and this nation's government did that for them.

Now, it will happen. It will happen if we make it happen; if you and I make it happen. And I ask you now, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, for the good of all of us, for the love of this great nation, for the family of America, for the love of God: Please, make this nation remember how futures are built.

Thank you and God bless you.

~*

Gays in the Military....

Last night, I sat and watched the Republican YouTube debate. As always with these things, I have an outsider's view and often find myself agreeing with both sides. As someone who in US terms would be described most accurately as a fiscal liberal and a social conservative, there are things said that I agree with wholeheartedly and some things that sound like drivel. And that's on both sides of the political spectrum.

The debate posed about gays in the military offended me horribly, both as a social conservative and a community member. I can't imagine anyone justifying the marginalization of any segment of the population, especially when it's based on false data. In common terms, I call that "propaganda".

One of the candidates stated that he believed the "don't ask/don't tell" policy was correct because most people who join the military are "conservative" and subscribe to "Judeo-Christian values".

That's garbage.

Most of the people who join the military are minorities and poor people. There are campaigns used by the military to draw them in, promises of college funds and benefits. Many people see it as a way out of poverty and that's an entirely valid reason to choose it.

Why not present it that way? Honestly.

When social conservativism becomes nothing more than a tool to marginalize and discriminate against members of the population, whether it be religion or s*xual orientation, it is wrong and loses its credibility. It is a misapplication of the entire concept. Social conservatism is about traditional values which has almost as many definitions as "blue". What are "traditional values"? Whose values?

Do those values really represent a majority of people in the community? I would say not. If traditional values would loosely be defined as "character, commitment and courage", how can it be seen as courageous, good character or a sign of commitment to imply that an entire segment of the population is lacking those things so completely that they should not be permitted to serve?

Not only is that infantilizing, it is bigotry. The implication then is that gay people are unable to understand appropriate behavior, that they can not control their s*xual impulses enough to work in a group with those who are unlike them. It also perpetuates the idea that gay people want to "recruit" straight people as though it is some bizarre competition where those with the most members at the end wins?

I call that "ignorance". It is no more and no less ignorant than creating social policy based on ethnic stereotypes.

What say you?
~*

Ghost in the Machine...

Ordinarily, I stay as far away from US politics as humanly possible while still residing in this country but Bush is truly dangerous!

When I saw that Thomas and Jil In Pattaya had both mentioned his revealing statement of a few days ago, I just had to pipe in:

"Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country’s destiny."

Does he ever stop making an ass of himself? Why isn't someone monitoring him?

There are times when I wonder if he stands at the podium, drunk on more than just power. (Some friends of Bill W. probably understand where I'm going with this.) The most talented novelist on the planet couldn't invent this guy.

But let's give him this much: At least he is stating openly what most of the world thinks, thattes that the destiny of this country is to rule and colonize any nation it pleases. That has been a mainstay of US foreign policy for nearly as long as I can remember.

Given the strategic location of Iraq, I'm not surprised it's a target, either.

Nothing about this surprises me beyond the fact that Bush is permitted to fill the airwaves with his ranting, raving and egotistical declarations of his greatness. It reminds me of another former world leader whose name all would recognize but I am not going to state outright.

And most American people remain in Consumer Heaven, choosing between their blue shoes or red shoes while the rest of the world quakes in its boots.

Any comments?

~*

On another note: Has anyone seen the news story about The Big Donor Show? This gets my newly invented "Most Tasteless Thing I've Ever Heard" award. More on this in another post.

~*

Peace,


~Chani