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?


~*

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? :)


~*

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.

~*

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.

~*

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?

~*

A Political Post....

I just spent a few hours watching the Rick Warren special at Saddleback Church during which he asked questions of both presidential candidates. Some of the questions were very good and I picked the most revealing one (in my opinion) to ask everyone at the end of this post.

It's probably no surprise that my thinking is more in alignment with Senator Obama than Senator McCain - although I agreed and disagreed with some of the answers from both of them.

I agree with Senator McCain on pro-life issues but felt only one aspect of the pro-life debate was addressed. Pro-life isn't just about abortion. It is about the death penalty, war and a whole host of issues that involve respect for life. I can't agree with him that sending troops to foreign lands to die for US business interests is in any way "pro-life". I also do not believe that the death penalty in any society that has institutional racism and classism can ever be "pro-life".

I disagreed with Senator Obama about Clinton's "workfare" program. I believe it is little more than indentured servitude.

I disagreed with both of them on the definition of marriage. I support same sex marriage.

Of course, those are just a few things. There's much more but I won't bore everyone with my personal political views. :)

The question I thought was best - and most revealing of worldview and mindset was the following - which I also ask all of you:

Does evil exist? If so, should it be ignored, negotiated with, confronted or eliminated?

~*