Why did he do it?

I have to admit I'm worried about the Senate race here in Maine. Since moderate (and very popular) Republican Olympia Snowe is not running again, her seat is up for grabs. This would be the perfect time to get another Democrat into the Senate. Unfortunately, Angus King, a former (very popular) governor, insisted on running as an Independent, rather than as a Democrat. This decision will certainly split the Democratic vote, since some people will undoubtedly vote for Cynthia Dill, the Democrat who won in the state primary in June. I can't believe all that many Republicans will vote for King, despite his emphasis on being a successful entrepreneur who understands the problems of small businesses (which is what makes up the vast majority of business in Maine). He makes the following statement on his web site:

"Dealing with both of these issues – jobs and the debt – would not be easy in the best of circumstances, but is practically impossible in the current toxic political atmosphere. We simply have to start talking to each other and put aside the partisanship and constant bickering that dominates today’s Washington. The urgent reality is that the American people can no longer afford a broken Congress. This is an historic moment for America which, if met with honesty and courage, can reset our course for prosperity and opportunity."

I'm sorry, but this is laughable. This is exactly what Olympia Snowe tried to do -- to work with the other side of the aisle in a bipartisan way, to get things done -- but she got no support from her own party, and could not, with a clear conscience, go along with some of the Democrats' positions. What on earth makes Angus King think he can be more successful at reaching across the aisle, when somebody from that party could not move those intransigent folk?

I think it's pretty clear by now that the dream of bipartisan cooperation is exactly that, a dream, and needs to be replaced by good old-fashioned party unity, Democrats working together to get things done despite the Republicans' refusal to compromise. Which means, quite simply, that we need to get more Democrats into the Senate and the House. We definitely need to keep control of the Senate. If Angus King's decision to run as an Independent loses that important seat to another Republican (Charlie Summers by name), I will be really pissed at Mr. King.

Politics as usual

I have tried to watch parts of both National Conventions, but in both cases the sis-boom-bah rah-rah-rah atmosphere pretty much did me in. Often I found myself hitting the mute button when I couldn't take anymore of a particular speaker -- and always when some new singer started screaming at us (why have entertainment?!) -- I'd turn to my book, or my dinner, or even slip into the study to write some more at my computer, until a check of the screen showed me that somebody new had taken the stage. Then I'd give the new speaker a couple of minutes, to see if something new was being offered, or if it was the same old same old. For example, at the Democratic Convention I felt that far too much time was given to speakers in support of women's rights. Thought we should have heard from just one pro-choice advocate (and one who would not keep using the word abortion, as that word is such a button-pusher -- Democrats who do not favor abortion can live more easily with the word 'pro-choice' than they can with the 'a' word), rather than a parade of women who kept assuring us that we women could lose our right to choose if Romney is elected. Polls have made it clear that such social issues are low on the list of priorities for most Democrats, and even for most Republicans, though not necessarily for many Fundamentalist Republicans.

And there were lots of Hispanics -- often women -- as well as blacks, who all emphasized how various policies of President Obama have benefited the group they belonged to. Frankly, if I were a white male Democrat I think the Convention would have almost had me feeling left out! We needed to hear from more of those "white bald men," that one commentator said made up the Republican base. There have to be some of those guys among the Democrats, too!

I was impressed by all the Hispanics speaking at the Republican Convention, virtually everyone of them an illustration of the Successful American Dream. But of course, most Hispanics in this country are no more Big Success Stories than are most whites, and I felt like the plight of regular Joses was as missing from the Republic perspective as that of regular Joes.

Indeed, David Brooks, the conservative commentator who joined the PBS Newshour anchors Judy Woodruff and Gwen Iffil at both conventions, and whom I in general respect and admire as a highly intelligent, articulate, and reasonable, not fanatical, conservative, made the statement at one point that he felt the Republican Convention had been too individualistic, and I agree with that completely. The Democratic Convention then bent over backwards to emphasize the opposite concept, that of success-through-cooperation. This is not a bad concept to emphasize, but I got tired of hearing it.  Especially since, as stated by both the commentators Shields and Brooks, and some of the people interviewed outside the convention hall, what is most on most people's mind right now is the economy, and the President's plans for same. We needed to hear more about those issues. The successful bail-out of the automobile industry is a good story, but it's too bad there couldn't have been more such stories; that one got sort of played into the ground.

I didn't watch the much-admired speech by Michelle Obama, because I feel I already "know" President Obama to the extent I need to know him. I already admire his intellect, his courage, his integrity, his idealism combined with pragmatism, his coolness under fire. I don't need to have him "humanized" for me by his loving wife. But I was very glad I caught Bill Clinton's speech. It was invigorating and inspiring -- as well as frequently amusing -- while at the same time answering some of those questions that hadn't been answered, or even addressed, by anyone else so far in the convention. Clinton took on the issues of our national debt -- which got a great deal of play at the Republican Convention, but almost none at the Democratic, even though polls show many Americans are very concerned with lowering the debt -- he took on the question endlessly asked by the Republicans: are we indeed better off than we were four years ago (individually, maybe not, but as a nation, given how bad things could have been, yes) -- and he gave some specific examples. And he took on various lies of the Republicans, particularly those of Paul Ryan, and shredded them. He surely helped the Obama campaign enormously with that speech.

And I discovered Elizabeth Warren! Her speech was a pleasure to listen to. She struck me as a tells-it-like-it-is lady with class and a heart. We will surely be hearing more from her.

In a little while we will be hearing from President Obama himself. He has a history of giving terrific speeches. Let's hope this one is a doozy. And then, thank God, the Convention nonsense will be over.

On listening to those campaign speeches

I am certainly not an economist, and often don't understand the discussions on the financial sector that I hear on the various news programs I listen to. But this is something I do know: nothing grows forever. This is a fundamental law. Something is "born" -- whether it be a planet, a biological species, an individual tree, or animal...or a nation, a national policy. It grows, sometimes slowly (like over eons), sometimes quite quickly, it matures, and eventually growth slows, eventually what begins to take place is the opposite of growth: signs of aging, illness, erosion, deterioration of one sort or another, depending on what the thing is. And, eventually, there's death, the end of the whatever. If it's not a complete death -- as in the case of most nations in the world -- it's the death of whatever is the current culture within that nation, so that what then begins to grow is a different version of that nation.

And this is what happens to absolutely everything. And yet, everybody is yelling: we need more growth, we've got to come up with ways to get the economy growing again. Building and buying more cars, more houses, more clothes, more electronic gadgets...an economy based on more and more (in other words, growth) of absolutely everything simply cannot continue forever. The planet, staggering under the weight of billions of people, more and more of whom are insisting on the same kind of economic growth that the industrialized countries have long taken for granted and insist must continue unfettered for them...well, the planet will simply buckle.

And yes, I do realize that plenty of other people have pointed this out before, beginning with 1972's The Limits to Growth, by Donella H. Meadows et al, continuing through the same group's updates of their original work, published in 1992 and 2004. A 2010 study entitled "A Comparison of the Limits of Growth with Thirty Years of Reality" concluded: "The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features… [of the Limits to Growth's] ‘standard run’ scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st Century."* So they've said it, these environmental and social scientists, based on their computer simulations and mathematical calculations, and I'm saying it, based on observation and common sense. But is anybody listening?

I honestly think President Obama, in his early pushing of alternative forms of energy, was acknowledging the limits to the growth of oil consumption as the backbone of our energy policy. But now he's singing the same song as everyone else, because that's what people want to hear, and this is an election year: we gotta grow, grow, grow...and quickly!  No time for research and development, no time to gradually get new kinds of industries, that would be aimed at more sustanable forms of energy, up and running.

And yes, I also know that this is what much of the "green" movement is all about, that there is a "sustainable growth" movement, both here and in Europe. But it's painfully small and lacking in power, compared with the hysterical push for unfettered growth.

So what do you supposed a collapse of the global system will look like?

*Turner, Graham. A Comparison of the Limits of Growth with Thirty Years of Reality. CSIRO Working Paper Series, (2010). Available at: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf

Calling a spade a spade

The situation in Syria, or rather the world's response to the situation in Syria, is such bosh. Words, words, words. According to this national spokesperson and that, what the Bashar Assad regime is doing is "totally unacceptable." Yeah, so? So what are we going to do about it? Nothing. Wring our hands and say the murder of innocent women and children must stop. Yeah? Or what?

I keep hearing people saying there's the danger of civil war in Syria. What do they think has been going on for months now?

I am not saying the United States should rush in where angels fear to tread. I am as tired of our being embroiled in one military engagement after another as everyone else is. And we certainly should not do anything unilateral; any action should be made in conjunction with the global community. We cannot be the police of the world, particularly not of that part of the world, where we are almost universally despised.

But I would like the stupid, hypocritical talk to stop. We, Europe, everyone else, are apparently going to let those poor people just get ground down by their ruling faction; no Arab Spring for them. Let's stop pretending our "sanctions" are going to force Assad to bow out; let's stop pretending there is anything we can do, short of military intervention, which no one wants to commit to. Members of the Arab League are apparently slipping weapons to the opposition, helping them to that extent. That may be the most we can hope for. The rest of us are going to wait to see what happens. So let's do that, and stop talking about it!

Just imagine...

Well, it really is a shame about Mr. Cain. The accusations of sexual harassment are coming fast and furious now. The analysts on shows like PBS's Washington Week and Inside Washington have been saying for some time that he doesn't have the money, or the organization, to go all the way in the presidential race (and what kind of democracy is it in which having plenty of money is a primary requirement for running for president?)...not to mention the fact that his 9-9-9 tax proposal has come in for lots of criticism, being pronounced too simplistic by most economists. (Its simplicity is of course what appeals to people, since people prefer simple answers and solutions, even when the problems they seek to address are complex).

And now we have these accusations, which certainly won't help him, though apparently many people are still giving the man the benefit of the doubt, because they like him so much.

But here's what really makes it all such a shame. I was really enjoying the idea of two black men being the ultimate candidates for president. Who would doubt we had made progress in the area of racial relations then? Of course, those Republicans who dislike Obama at least partly because he's black wouldn't be thrilled to have a black man as their party's candidate, but if they still voted for Cain -- I'll take this black man over that black man -- that would surely represent progress! And that would mean two black presidents in a row! I don't agree with most of Cain's policy stands -- of course, since I'm a good Democrat and he's a good Republican -- but I would at least derive satisfaction from that historical precedent being set, were he elected.

The "experts" are still saying Mitt Romney is the most likely Republican candidate to go up against President Obama. It really will be interesting to see what develops over the next couple of months.

Walking in the other guy's moccasins

One thing I really like about my local PBS television station is that I'm able to get not only BBC World News, but Deutsche-Welle News (in English), and just recently they've started running an English-language news program from Japan (with incredibly detailed descriptions of the various problems at the stricken power plant). I like hearing about what's happening in the world from a perspective other than American. For that matter, I like hearing about what's happening in the rest of the world! Except for disasters like major earthquakes and tsunamis, we hear very little about the rest of the world on our network news.

For example, I've been learning a lot about the German economy during the recent economic crisis. They're doing much better than we are, in terms of recovery, mainly because their economy still depends so much on exports, and the things they export -- especially cars -- have continued to sell. On the other hand, I have become familiar with how desparate the economic situation is in Spain, in Portugal, and in Ireland.

And I've been learning about German politics. Of course I knew before that Angela Merkel was Chancellor (well, actually no. I knew she headed the government, but I think I thought she was, maybe, the Prime Minister. Which she essentially is, but in Germany the position is called the Chancellor); but I doubt I would ever have known that her very popular Defense Minister, Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, was forced to resign when it came out that he had plagiarized much of his doctoral thesis. I was somewhat surprised, but pleased, to see that so many people thought that was important enough to merit his leaving office. ("It calls into doubt his integrity," one person said). I couldn't help wondering if the same thing would happen in this country. Would people think it was that important?

The one thing I continue to have trouble with, though, is the German language. When German speakers start talking their voices are quickly muted to make way for the English translator's voice, but you still hear a few snippets. And I'm sorry, but that is just the most incredibly ugly language. Here are all these reasonable, well-meaning people espousing perfectly reasonable ideas and opinions, and they all sound like angry Nazis.

It was interesting, seeing how all the various political leaders took a real bashing from their own people as the result of the economic crisis; 'twern't just Mr. Obama. In England they actually got rid of the head guy (Gordon Brown), people have been very unhappy with Sarcozy in France, especially after his government raised the retirement age, to save money; and in Germany, Merkel's popularity has steadily slipped. People have to have someone to blame, and it's easier to zero in on the country's very visible political leaders, than on the invisible people who really caused the problems.

So anyway, I'm having my horizons expanded. Thank you, public television.

Mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore

And now Libya. And Bahrain. It is truly amazing.

Of course, they keep talking about the "peaceful" protests in Egypt that resulted in Mubarak's ouster; but as a matter of fact, according to the health minister, 365 died, and over 5,000 were injured. So it would be more accurate to say there was relatively little blood-letting, for a revolution. But still, even with the dead and wounded, the results were pretty darned impressive.

Libya looks to be more bloody, since so far the army is not supporting the people, as it did in Egypt. Except for those two splendid air force pilots who flew their planes to Malta, rather than "just follow orders," and fire on their own people. And the government of Bahrain is also not going gently into that good night. But despite the violence being aimed at them, in both countries, the people are still protesting. That takes both courage, and a true feeling of desperation. And it is fascinating and impressive to behold.

And yes, yes, don't we wish we'd left Iraq alone, and maybe the same thing would have happened there...

Ah, but what comes next?

My, we do live in interesting times, don't we? I watched the protests in Tunisia with amazement, was especially amazed that the marching and shouting and street violence actually resulted in the much-despised president "stepping down," as they say, and leaving the country. A popular uprising, in that part of the world, actually toppling an unpopular government.

And now we have Egypt, which is even more aston-ishing. The country as a whole has enjoyed greater prosperity than Tunisia, but there are still many people unemployed, many of them young and educated, chaffing at having that education, and not being able to find a job (the same problem that exists in Tunisia). And so very many people living in gross poverty, on the equivalent of $2 a day, I heard on a news analysis program. And a government that has been a tiny bit more tolerant of self-expression, but not if it includes criticism of the government.

Then, thanks to mass communication, the Egyptians are able to watch the successful uprising in Tunisia -- hey, if they can do it, why can't we -- and a few hot-headed young men, who always seem to be the ones to lead insurrections, take to the streets, and the powder keg is lit.

I think how the French Revolution must have started in just this way, with the common people finally having had enough of their dire circumstances in juxtaposition with the wealth and luxury of the aristocracy, and the indifference of the government. In fact, that seems to be the recipe for "revolution": the bulk of the people living wretched lives, with no sense that the government gives a damn about them. A few brave souls start shout-ing, marching, and all the lemmings join in. Then the mob mentality sets in -- there's violence, destruction, and the powers that be get scared. Inevitably they bring in the police/army -- the guys with the guns. But if the guys with the guns have any sympathy at all with the protesters -- as seems to be the case in Egypt -- or if the protesters are in sufficient numbers, and of sufficient desperation -- the government may be out of luck.

Of course we all learn about this stuff in school -- for some of us, a hundred years ago -- but now we're able to watch it being played out on our television screens. We are able to watch history being made, as we did with the moon walk, the assasination of Lee Harvey Oswald (I remember passing through the living room, glancing at the television, which had been left on all-but-constantly since Kennedy's assasination, and actually seeing Oswald gunned down), the Vietnam war, or for that matter the Iraqi war, during which we were given practically a blow-by-blow. Television really is a remarkable thing.

The current history-in-the-making is fascinating, but also unsettling, because most of the people involved in the yelling, marching and stone-throwing are not in any way pro-American. Even though they are vehemently against their current governments, they are just as vehemently anti-American. It is going to be very interesting, seeing how the world proceeds to change.

If you don't like the new law, shoot somebody

I have just been reading on Yahoo news about the shooting of Representative Giffords in Tucson (I don't have access to television news on Saturdays until the 10 p.m. news on the Fox channel). I am just so sick of living in a place where people get pissed off, so grab their guns and go out and shoot a bunch of innocent people. And even more sick of living someplace where this is tolerated -- with just the same old mumblings about "this terrible tragedy," -- including by such people as Sarah Palin, who has actually displayed on her web site, in the cross-hairs of a gun, "targets" of elected officials whose political stands she disagrees with -- with nothing being done to make it less likely that such a thing will be repeated.

The irate sheriff of Pima County is so right when he excoriates the political "vitriol" that is being tossed about in this country, with hatred of those with opposing viewpoints being proclaimed from radio and television shows (and web sites). Then some mentally unbalanced person responds to that message of hate, which he has heard repeated over and over, by grabbing the gun he has no business having, and going off to shoot somebody, preferably several somebodies. And still the gun lobby triumphs, with their stupid insistence that "Guns don't kill people, people do." Yes, but if those wretched people didn't have such ease of access to guns, they wouldn't be able to shoot any 9-year-olds to death, would they? I have to stop; I'm too angry. THIS JUST KEEPS HAPPENING.

The painful politcal process

I'm feeling very confused and frustrated about the health care reform bill. Where exactly are we? I'm a big believer in making ones voice heard, but to whom should I be writing, to voice my opinion? I fear writing my two senators is a waste of time. I very much like both Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe -- have voted for both, even though I rarely vote Republican, because they are women who really care about the people they are trying to serve; they are not just into playing the political game. This was demonstrated by Snowe's good faith attempt -- the only one from her side of the aisle! -- to try to work out a bipartisan compromise on the health care reform bill. But ultimately she could not bring herself to vote for the bill that was passed by the Senate, and I certainly doubt she will vote for any consolidation of it and the House bill that was passed.

Since my senators have to be viewed as a lost cause on this (I did, by the way, write to both of them back in the fall, when the Senate bill was still being worked out, and I thought voicing my opinion might possibly do some good), I was all set to send letters to all the Democrats in the Senate, urging them to vote for health reform NOW, saying you're not going to get the perfect bill; nobody's going to be completely happy; but we really must at least start the process of change now, and it's up to you because the Republicans are just going to keep saying no to everything but caps on malpractice suits (as if that would take care of the problem). But then it occurred to me that, besides the fact that a letter from a non-constituent is not going to carry much weight (I knew that from the get-go, but thought at least somebody would be hearing my voice), there was the fact that I wasn't sure where in the process we were. Would it make more sense to write to all the Democratic Representatives? But my god, there are far too many of them; I couldn't afford the postage.

The bill-consolidation process is where I'm assuming we are at present, though I'm not sure. President Obama came out with his version recently, and I thought, isn't this a little late? Has his proposal just muddied the waters, or provided options that most Democrats will find satisfactory? Are the Democrats going to try to combine his proposal with the two already-passed bills, or just use his? This is what I mean when I say I'm confused. I know there's talk of using the legislative "trick" called (misleadingly) "reconciliation" -- which the Republicans are objecting to mightily, even though most legislation passed using this "trick" has been Republican-backed legislation -- but I'm not clear as to what piece of legislation would be submitted to that process!

After hearing that several of the largest insurance companies had an extremely lucrative year in 2009, while covering ever-fewer people, and that they are now proposing premium increases of as much as 39 per cent, I wondered how on earth people could be so resistant to reform. Those guys need to be held in check so bad. I have long held that the insurance industry in this country is a racket anyway. Health care should not be a matter of profit and loss, any more than education should be. This is why I was supportive of a public option, which was included in the House bill that passed, but dropped from the Senate bill (and, presumably, will not appear in any consolidated bill). But I wouldn't refuse to pass reform legislation, just because that particular feature was not included. Come on, guys, let's do something now!

Whom do I call?

Second Tuesday

Oh, I do love to vote. That is the time I feel my most patriotic, glad to be living in a country where the people can say who or what they prefer, without fear of having their fingers cut off or being blown up at the polls. All those people who say why bother to vote, all politicians are alike, nothing ever changes anyway, blah blah blah are 1) wrong and 2) missing the point. Yes, most politicians are cut from the same basic mold because it takes a certain kind of person to go into politics, just as it takes a certain kind of person to go into teaching, or electrical engineering, or nursing, or riding rodeo. And the nature of politics, especially in a democracy, is such that change usually does come slowly -- it's not like the emperor, or Herr Hitler, declares this is how it's going to be starting tomorrow -- and that change is rarely perfect, rarely exactly what any group or individual wants. The name of the game in our political system is compromise, has to be in such a big, wildly diverse country.

If you vote, you're at least putting in your two cents' worth, and those pennies can add up.

Here in Maine we had several referenda on the ballot. I'll admit to being disappointed that the majority of Mainers voted yes on the "people's initiative" that had put us in the national spotlight, the initiative to overturn the law passed by the legislature in the spring making same-sex marriage legal. I had been so pleased when that law passed; to me it was evidence that I did, indeed, live in an enlightened state, that acknowledged that same-sex couples existed, loved one another, often stayed together for many years, and were entitled to the same legal rights and protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

However, opponents of the law immediately set to work getting an initiative onto the November ballot that would overturn the law. And obviously the majority of Mainers, at least Mainers who vote, agreed with them. The outcome wasn't even that close, at 53% voting Yes, to overturn the law, 47% voting No. While Maine is in many ways a liberal state, certainly much more so than either Texas or Colorado, the states I was living in before I moved back here, it would seem that many Mainers still harbor a deep aversion to, fear of, homo-sexuality. I myself don't "get it," because I am hopelessly hetero-sexual, but at least I acknowledge it as a reality that has been around as long as heterosexuality has, and that isn't going to go away. And I also acknowledge that people involved in long-term homosexual relationships should have the same right to leave their retirement or Social Security benefits to their "partners," as Mr. & Mrs. Smith next door.

Ah, well, the people have spoken, with there vote. See, it can make a difference.

Warning: political rant

Sometimes the ignorance and gullibility of large swaths of the American populace fill me with despair. The current shouting matches taking place all across the country concerning the health care reform bill are a good case in point.

First there is the nonsense about what Sarah Palin calls the government death squads. When you get old somebody from the government is going to come around and ask you how you want to die. Actually, if you think about it rationally (which those people who will believe any scare tactics the wealthy insurance companies care to throw at them, all too often fail to do), this wouldn't be a bad idea. Americans persist in pretending they're never going to die, when as a matter fact death is the one indisputable fact of life; and it would be much better if people made proper arrangements for this fact before it was too late and their families were stuck with making heart-wrenching decisions with no guidance. However, that's not the point. The point is that the bills before Congress propose nothing of the sort. They propose including payment to doctors for counseling on end-of-life care. If you become incapacitated do you want everything possible done to sustain life, or do you want, instead, a living will? At what point do you want all aggressive therapy to stop, and hospice care to take over? Etc., etc. None of this would be done by govern-ment "bureaucrats," but by doctors, who are, after all, sworn to "first, do no harm." They wouldn't be encouraging you to let yourself be euthanized, they would be encouraging you to think intelligently and sensibly about these important matters while you're still in good enough shape to make the necessary decisions.

And then there's all the milarky about how if we're not careful we'll have a terrible, uncaring health system like they have in England and Canada -- whose citizens are now expressing anger at how those systems are being misrepresented by the ads here. My English friends Ann and John had two children and didn't pay a dime to have them. As Ann said to me, "I can't imagine going through child birth, and all the adjustments connected with having a baby, and coming home to huge hospital bills as well!" Both she and John have leveled criticisms at the NHS on occasion -- like any system it is not perfect -- but both are basically highly supportive of it, as are most of the citizens of the U.K. But because we are, as a country, essentially ignorant of what life is like in other countries -- unless something happening in another country impacts the U.S., or U.S. citizens, or is a natural disaster like a tsunami or an earthquake, network news does not report on it -- we don't know that the scare ads we are seeing all over the television simply do not represent the experience or attitudes of most of the people living under these systems.

And then there are those people yelling, you're going to have this public option plan at the expense of my Medicare! Excuse me, are they not aware that Medicare is a "public option" government-run plan, exactly the kind of thing they're objecting to? Where do people leave their brains when they leave home?

There are legitimate things one can base objection to the bills on, perhaps how-do-we-pay for-this being one. The simple, and logical, answer to that would be: we raise taxes. All the countries with excellent health care systems have higher taxes to pay for them. They have accepted the idea of the shared burden of higher taxes, in order to have the shared benefit of good, reliable health care that does not force anybody to declare bankruptcy, because of their med-ical bills, or to go without medical care, because they can't afford it.

But Congress is scared to death to come out and say, 'we'll have to raise taxes, but it will be worth it.' I think it's a mistake for President Obama to insist that only the very rich should be taxed. Those guys should perhaps bear the lion's share of the burden, but it should, again, be a shared burden. My taxes help pay for improved roads, and I get to use those improved roads. My taxes should help pay for an improved health care system for everyone...including me.

The other side of the aisle

Having commented on the Democratic National Convention (DNC), I feel I should do the same for the Republican National Convention (RNC). I actually watched more of the latter than of the former, since I wanted to hear what the opposition was saying.

Patriotism was the big theme of the convention (its official slogan being “Country First.”) While the DNC concentrated on what was wrong with this country -- the watchword there being “Change” – the RNC concentrated on the valor and sacrifices of our servicemen and women, past and present, with the thread always leading back, of course, to John McCain’s service record. I have absolutely no problem with honoring and thanking those people who serve in such a way that the majority of us don’t have to, but I didn’t see how all this had anything to do with a presidential campaign. And I thought way too much time was given over to McCain’s POW experiences. I don’t think there’s anyone in this country who doesn’t acknowledge McCain is a bona fide war hero. But does that automatically make him good presidential material?

Very interestingly, the big night seemed not to be the last night, when Senator McCain spoke, but the night before, when his high-energy running mate made her highly effective speech (my, but the crowd did love her). One statement of hers really got me: “And I have never been ashamed of my country.” This, presumably, was in response to Michelle Obama’s controversial statement months ago that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. But...our treatment of the Indians doesn’t make Governor Palin feel the least bit ashamed? The fact that for many years (until government stepped in) we were working children as young as five years old 12 hours a day in factories – that isn’t something to be ashamed of? Or our treatment of blacks prior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s? Our incarcerating during World War II thousands of loyal American citizens who happened to be of Japanese extraction doesn’t make the governor feel the tiniest twinge of shame? Or the fact that right now millions of Americans avoid going to the doctor because they have no medical insurance, and if a medical catastrophe strikes it can completely ruin a family financially...this is something to be proud of?

It could be argued that Governor Palin wasn’t around for, and therefore had nothing to do with, most of the “shameful” situations I mention above. And therefore, she has no reason to feel shame for them. But...what if she had been around then? As many people were, who objected to, were ashamed of, and fought against, the conditions I’ve cited. And who were, without exception, demonized by the status quo. Would Governor Palin have been able to feel ashamed of her country then, at least of some of the conditions it was tolerating? Or what about the last situation I mention above, the health care situation in this country, this “richest country in the world.” Isn’t that condition shameful?

I’ve always had trouble with the “my country right or wrong” attitude, and it’s all-too-often accompanying attitude, well, if you don’t like how things are, go somewhere else. The United States, for all its wealth, power, physical beauty, and yes, warm-hearted, generous, hard-working people, has done plenty of lousy, bad, shitty things, just like every other country has. And, like others of my ilk, I don’t think a willingness to point out when the country is doing something unacceptable indicates a lack of patriotism. What it indicates is an acceptance of the (very American) idea that things can always be made better. And should be.

As to other speakers, I did think Rudy Giuliani got in some good hits about Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois state legislature. That’s the kind of real information I like to hear about candidates (and I’d say it’s pretty damning for Obama). But then Giuliani got snide. As Sarah Palin was snide. Oh, preserve me from snide. (And isn’t it amazing, my Spell Check knew how to spell Giuliani.)

I was very impressed with Mike Huckabee as a speaker. He was not snide, but relied on affecting personal anecdotes to get his points across. For example, his description of how poor his family was, when he was growing up, followed by the statement (which got tremendous applause, and rightfully so): “I’m not a Republican because I was born rich, I’m a Republican because I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life poor, waiting for the government to save me.” He is way too conservative for me, but I like the man’s style.

And that’s enough about politics for a while. Everybody vote.

Politics as usual

When I first announced this blog to family and friends, my friend Clifford – who was one of my father’s oldest friends (they’d known each other since seventh grade) and thus, clearly, of a very different generation – begged me to please stay away from politics. As might be expected, he and I differ considerably in this area, but I know what he meant. Who needs a lot of ranting about politics, when we all have our own opinions on the topic anyway, and are not likely to be swayed by a few paragraphs in an online blog. People who read politically-oriented blogs are usually reading “rants” that agree with what they already believe.

But I feel compelled to say something about the Democratic National Convention. I support Barak Obama – like many people, I want something as different from the past eight years as possible, and besides promising change Obama is very smart, articulate, seems to be good at collecting good people to advise him.

But. I was really rather put off by the convention, especially by the final night in the football stadium. It all smacked too much of “showtime” for me.

I didn’t watch every minute of the convention, but I certainly watched more than I ever have before. In general, I’m not interested in lofty speeches – talk being cheap and all – and I’m not much interested in spectacle. So political conventions have never had an allure. But in this case I wanted to see who showed up, who had what to say. I admit to being impressed by the couple of turncoat Republicans they trotted out, who announced that, despite being loyal Republicans, they were voting for Obama. I don’t really intend that to be as snide as it may sound – I’m all for people voting for the individual, not just slavishly following party lines.

I was also impressed with Obama’s wife, but I pretty much hated the little video on her, hated the fact that there was a video on her. In fact, this was part of my objection to the convention as a whole: it was all one big, carefully directed and edited movie. (I also hate the fact that there is so much emphasis on a candidate's family. We're electing the person, not the wife and 2.3 kids. But this is not just an element of the Obama campaign; it's across the board. Think how many people didn't vote for John Kerry because they didn't like his wife.)

I missed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech, which I regretted, and regretted even more missing Joe Biden’s speech, since I know very little about him. I was surprised by the huge, lengthy ovation that Bill Clinton received, and would like someone to explain it to me. I voted for the man twice because I preferred his politics to those of his opponent, but at the personal level I think he’s proved himself to be a real sleaze, and a dishonest sleaze at that. So why does he seem to be so popular? (P.S. More than once during his speech I muttered, “this guy is good, he’s good.”) I sat through several Regular Joe speeches, by people who had found that working hard and playing by the rules does not necessarily insure that ones life is secure, and therefore I am voting for Barak Obama.

Which actually takes me to my biggest problem with the convention, and maybe with the campaign in general. The suggestion that, with all the things that are wrong, all the problems the country is dealing with, Obama is our Savior. If the man gets into office, he won’t be able to accomplish many of the things he wants to; he certainly will not be able to bring about miracles. That’s the reality of politics. Why do people persist in believing otherwise? Or insist that a candidate assure them otherwise? Barak Obama has proved, in his meteoric rise, to be a savvy politician, and someone who knows how to inspire people with hope. He is not God. Think how disappointed people are going to be when that fact is brought home to them.