My readers over the years have been some of the most encouraging people in my life. Lately, I've received a couple of nudges: "Julie, are you ever going to blog again?" and "Are you okay, I haven't seen you update your blog in ages." I can't tell you how nice that is when it happens. I hardly get over to blogs any more with all the social media short-cuts like Twitter updating and Facebook statuses (or is it stati?). I haven't given up on blogging though. It's just that right now, my life needs to be shielded from too much public scrutiny. When I get to the "other side" of the biggest hurdle in my life, I'll share much more freely (retroactively) because I have SO MANY IMPORTANT THOUGHTS ABOUT ALL OF IT. :) Or, more like, I'll be happy to catch you up on what you missed if you want to know.
In the meantime, here's a little bit of what's happening that I can share.
As I get nearer to 50 (I'm 48 right now), I find that I'm not afraid of that number at all. 40 was a bitch, 41 was downright depressing. But somehow, as I look ahead to 50, I'm excited about it. I'm ready to do the things I'm meant to do, which will include surfing.
I'm officially at the end of the homeschool years. My youngest two have opted for fulltime enrollment in the local high school starting in the fall. I'll have three kids essentially out of the house (two at Ohio State). That means only the dog and I will be home sipping tea and clicking the keyboard (or at least, I'll be doing those things and Rocky will be hogging the only pool of sunshine that leaks through the windows).
Brave Writer is growing... again. For some reason, speaking invites are tumbling into my in-box so I see planes in my future as well. The other day I was scrolling through my 8000 emails (I do not possess the will to delete) and felt this surge of gratitude for all the wonderful families I know through my business. For instance, in some cases I'm teaching the third, fourth and in one case, sixth child in a family. Incredible. And what commitment! No wonder we get tired or burned out or anxious about the outcome of all those years invested.
I've had a few people ask me how I feel about Obama, now that he's been doing his thing for a year. I still believe in the guy. You know why? He's doing just what I hoped he'd do when elected. So let me let you in on why I voted for Obama in the first place. It wasn't healthcare or Iraq that made me vote for him. The reason I walked dozens of miles and made hundreds of calls on his behalf? Barack Obama demonstrated to me his commitment to transcending the polarization of politics in America.
So what's happened? Both sides got even more polarized. The progressives want Obama to bully the R's and get his agenda passed (enough bi-partisan discussion they say!). The right tags Obama as socialist, dangerous and completely unworthy of negotiation. All the while, Obama won't give up his original vision: transcending the debate and expecting both sides to work together. It blows me away, frankly, that he still believes it's possible for two sides to create solutions they can both support. Obama hasn't forgotten his pledge to bring America together. It's not surprising that that commitment is being tested in the most extreme way.
This is what I like about Obama though. It's what made him a different candidate. It's what makes him a president I continue to admire and follow. The House vote on HCR is slated for Sunday. I look fwd to seeing how it all plays out. I think the year long debate was entirely appropriate.
And that's it from West Chester! Would love to hear how you all are doing in comments if you want to share.
Love,
Julie
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Politics. Show all posts
Friday, March 19, 2010
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Waking up: The shift from one point of view to the another
My Facebook set of friends is one of the more diverse bunch of people I've run across online. That's because suddenly my past and present have collided in conversation in ways that would never happen if we limited our relationships to in-person contact. So what's happened is that my high school friends, who knew me mostly as a short, a-political, theater student without much of a religious agenda, are interacting with my college friends who knew me as this zealot who shared the Four Spiritual Laws with anyone stuck in a bank line with me. My missionary and Vineyard friends are interacting with my liberal theological graduate school buddies. My homeschool momma friends are talking to my business networking friends here in Cincy. And of course, my Obama campaign colleagues are talking to my rightwing radio pals from bygone years.
And like me, many of my friends have gone through significant shifts (either a deepening of loyalty to their original commitments, or a radical reassessment which led to a new, changed point of view).
I respect all of you (even when we disagree). I wouldn't keep you around on my FB if I didn't! In fact, I have kicked a few off my list when they've crossed that invisible line called "Coerce Julie back to what is good for her and tell her she is going to hell if she doesn't listen."
So here's the thing. For years (over 20), I adopted a point of view both politically and theologically that was rooted in a set of assumptions (these assumptions were handed to me with care and conviction, and they were based on the core doctrines of evangelicalism at the time). I remember once saying to Don Carson (some of you will remember him), the head of our Campus Crusade chapter at UCLA, "Why are you telling me that predestination as a theological tenet has to be believed in order to be a Christian? I haven't even had time to think about it yet." I had the same reaction to inerrancy (Is this really necessary to be a Christian? Can I think about it a bit?), to the doctrines of heaven and hell. I still remember saying at my first Bible Study at Kappa Kappa Gamma that I didn't like the idea of hell, after all, that would mean all my Jewish friends from high school and step relatives were going there... and I couldn't quite *get* that. I mean, it was one thing to believe in heaven and hell when you grew up in La Canada or Pasadena, where everyone you knew was Protestant. But what happened when you had to include people you loved, A LOT, in that number?
I found myself suddenly in conflict: to belong meant to adopt (uncritically, really) the values and doctrines that enabled me to remain a part of the community (this new, great group of people who were so much fun to be with), or I could reject those tenets and not be in the group, not have the love, worship, prayer, moral values, and community Christianity offered. So adopt I did (and worked to learn the apologetics for these tenets) and from then on, made it my chief aim in life to save those I loved and those I hadn't yet met from hell.
But time has a way of tugging at the tangled threads. The intellectual conflicts, the theological discrepancies, the arguments online with people I genuinely grew to love about splitting hair differences... how did these show the compassion of Jesus or the relevance of spirituality in a globalized world of diverse expressions of reality? It hurt to think Christians couldn't even agree on very basic ideas and would be cruel and critical of each other arguing over what amount to technicalities, many times.
The rightwing vision of politics has also walked in lockstep with the evangelical vision. Since we grew up knowing we couldn't criticize theology (who could ask if Jesus really rose from the dead with a physical body or if the Bible has mistakes, and stay in an evangelical church?), we are also equally beholden to rightwing politics as naturally right, clear. If someone speaks with conviction, we tend to adopt that point of view as long as it leads us back to reinforcing those original tenets we were told to adopt (our membership in the community is at stake if we challenge those tenets - ask me how I know this).
To inhabit someone else's point of view, to give it weight, to care about its interior logic is not one of the values of evangelicalism. We are taught to convert people to our point of view and to understand theirs only enough to change their minds. We spend countless hours reinforcing our own beliefs in community contexts, privately, listening to sermons and tapes, reading books, listening to music. We adopt these views as our own, but from within the safe protected context of like-minded people (and we elevate those with more education as leaders as a way to tell us that we are thinking critically, to help us navigate the pesky incongruity or penetrating question of someone from the outside). We suppress our own questions. We avoid The Jesus Seminar or Richard Dawkins, because they are dangerous.
This is not to say that there aren't brilliant men and women on the right or in the conservative evangelical movement who have dug deep and have spent time drawing conclusions that they feel are both intellectually sound and honest. There are. I've read them, met some of them. What I reject today is that so many people have adopted their thinking second-hand. (To be fair: on both left and right, though I am less versed in how this happens on the left - what I have seen is much more arguing over nuances on the left - a chief value of theirs is dissent!)
If you haven't sat inside the point of view (letting it be "right" for awhile, looking for its logic, how it hangs together, how it creates a worldview that coheres and supports a vision of life and happiness for the one who holds it), you can't actually know if yours is true (or at least, "true enough" for your life). It's one reason I attend a black church. I was sick of secondhand reports about what black leaders are doing and saying or not doing and saying. I was sick of the myopia of white church that thinks reconciliation means having a sister church that is black, or getting more blacks to attend your white church. I wondered what the black community had to say about it. I wondered how they experienced America, and the church, and "truth" from their experiences.
I spent two years reading pro-choice literature, getting inside the mindset that saw being "pro-choice" as the higher morality (yes, they do feel that way!), as the obvious right belief system that is more compassionate and ethical than the alternative. I did this after we had been actively involved in Operation Rescue. I also wish pro-choice people would spend time understanding the radical commitment of those engaged in civil disobedience to stop abortion, too.
What's happened to me, then, is that I got tired of secondhand news, theology, sociological commentary. I stopped buying into the scripts I'd been handed and became unwilling to defend something just because it had always been "true" in the community I loved. If I had one piece of advice for those who can't quite grasp what it is that's happened to me, I'd say pick the thing you are most afraid of (the thing you most don't want to be true) and go read about it. Meet someone who holds that viewpoint and let that person influence you. Invite their ideas into your living room, care to understand the world from inside someone else's mind. If you do that for a little while, yes, you will change. But your compassion will also grow, and your insights will be yours, and your spirituality will deepen.
I'm also conscious of the fact that there is so much I can't possibly know well enough to make adequate judgments (how could I ever say if global warming is real or not? I'm not a scientist, have no training or tools to evaluate the arguments, can't come close to making a real case that isn't some watered down version of someone else's). So I hold my current "positions" with some guardedness, knowing that I'm a few arguments away from another shift. But I'm no longer afraid of getting it right or wrong. I love the process, and I feel privileged/relieved/blessed to have been able to leave behind the need to vilify "the other" in order to protect my point of view. (That doesn't mean I won't criticize the other, but I hope I do it knowing that I could again shift my point of view if the facts that I understand warrant it.)
Peace.
And like me, many of my friends have gone through significant shifts (either a deepening of loyalty to their original commitments, or a radical reassessment which led to a new, changed point of view).
I respect all of you (even when we disagree). I wouldn't keep you around on my FB if I didn't! In fact, I have kicked a few off my list when they've crossed that invisible line called "Coerce Julie back to what is good for her and tell her she is going to hell if she doesn't listen."
So here's the thing. For years (over 20), I adopted a point of view both politically and theologically that was rooted in a set of assumptions (these assumptions were handed to me with care and conviction, and they were based on the core doctrines of evangelicalism at the time). I remember once saying to Don Carson (some of you will remember him), the head of our Campus Crusade chapter at UCLA, "Why are you telling me that predestination as a theological tenet has to be believed in order to be a Christian? I haven't even had time to think about it yet." I had the same reaction to inerrancy (Is this really necessary to be a Christian? Can I think about it a bit?), to the doctrines of heaven and hell. I still remember saying at my first Bible Study at Kappa Kappa Gamma that I didn't like the idea of hell, after all, that would mean all my Jewish friends from high school and step relatives were going there... and I couldn't quite *get* that. I mean, it was one thing to believe in heaven and hell when you grew up in La Canada or Pasadena, where everyone you knew was Protestant. But what happened when you had to include people you loved, A LOT, in that number?
I found myself suddenly in conflict: to belong meant to adopt (uncritically, really) the values and doctrines that enabled me to remain a part of the community (this new, great group of people who were so much fun to be with), or I could reject those tenets and not be in the group, not have the love, worship, prayer, moral values, and community Christianity offered. So adopt I did (and worked to learn the apologetics for these tenets) and from then on, made it my chief aim in life to save those I loved and those I hadn't yet met from hell.
But time has a way of tugging at the tangled threads. The intellectual conflicts, the theological discrepancies, the arguments online with people I genuinely grew to love about splitting hair differences... how did these show the compassion of Jesus or the relevance of spirituality in a globalized world of diverse expressions of reality? It hurt to think Christians couldn't even agree on very basic ideas and would be cruel and critical of each other arguing over what amount to technicalities, many times.
The rightwing vision of politics has also walked in lockstep with the evangelical vision. Since we grew up knowing we couldn't criticize theology (who could ask if Jesus really rose from the dead with a physical body or if the Bible has mistakes, and stay in an evangelical church?), we are also equally beholden to rightwing politics as naturally right, clear. If someone speaks with conviction, we tend to adopt that point of view as long as it leads us back to reinforcing those original tenets we were told to adopt (our membership in the community is at stake if we challenge those tenets - ask me how I know this).
To inhabit someone else's point of view, to give it weight, to care about its interior logic is not one of the values of evangelicalism. We are taught to convert people to our point of view and to understand theirs only enough to change their minds. We spend countless hours reinforcing our own beliefs in community contexts, privately, listening to sermons and tapes, reading books, listening to music. We adopt these views as our own, but from within the safe protected context of like-minded people (and we elevate those with more education as leaders as a way to tell us that we are thinking critically, to help us navigate the pesky incongruity or penetrating question of someone from the outside). We suppress our own questions. We avoid The Jesus Seminar or Richard Dawkins, because they are dangerous.
This is not to say that there aren't brilliant men and women on the right or in the conservative evangelical movement who have dug deep and have spent time drawing conclusions that they feel are both intellectually sound and honest. There are. I've read them, met some of them. What I reject today is that so many people have adopted their thinking second-hand. (To be fair: on both left and right, though I am less versed in how this happens on the left - what I have seen is much more arguing over nuances on the left - a chief value of theirs is dissent!)
If you haven't sat inside the point of view (letting it be "right" for awhile, looking for its logic, how it hangs together, how it creates a worldview that coheres and supports a vision of life and happiness for the one who holds it), you can't actually know if yours is true (or at least, "true enough" for your life). It's one reason I attend a black church. I was sick of secondhand reports about what black leaders are doing and saying or not doing and saying. I was sick of the myopia of white church that thinks reconciliation means having a sister church that is black, or getting more blacks to attend your white church. I wondered what the black community had to say about it. I wondered how they experienced America, and the church, and "truth" from their experiences.
I spent two years reading pro-choice literature, getting inside the mindset that saw being "pro-choice" as the higher morality (yes, they do feel that way!), as the obvious right belief system that is more compassionate and ethical than the alternative. I did this after we had been actively involved in Operation Rescue. I also wish pro-choice people would spend time understanding the radical commitment of those engaged in civil disobedience to stop abortion, too.
What's happened to me, then, is that I got tired of secondhand news, theology, sociological commentary. I stopped buying into the scripts I'd been handed and became unwilling to defend something just because it had always been "true" in the community I loved. If I had one piece of advice for those who can't quite grasp what it is that's happened to me, I'd say pick the thing you are most afraid of (the thing you most don't want to be true) and go read about it. Meet someone who holds that viewpoint and let that person influence you. Invite their ideas into your living room, care to understand the world from inside someone else's mind. If you do that for a little while, yes, you will change. But your compassion will also grow, and your insights will be yours, and your spirituality will deepen.
I'm also conscious of the fact that there is so much I can't possibly know well enough to make adequate judgments (how could I ever say if global warming is real or not? I'm not a scientist, have no training or tools to evaluate the arguments, can't come close to making a real case that isn't some watered down version of someone else's). So I hold my current "positions" with some guardedness, knowing that I'm a few arguments away from another shift. But I'm no longer afraid of getting it right or wrong. I love the process, and I feel privileged/relieved/blessed to have been able to leave behind the need to vilify "the other" in order to protect my point of view. (That doesn't mean I won't criticize the other, but I hope I do it knowing that I could again shift my point of view if the facts that I understand warrant it.)
Peace.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Is it ironic....
that during the Bush years, the Republicans oversaw the multiple fronts of the so-called "War on Terror" (the one thing I would never want to trust a Republican to oversee given their myopia, inability to see "the other" and their "bomb first, ask later" style of international diplomacy), while we are now in the Obama years, and suddenly the Democrats are in charge of the largest money crisis since the Great Depression (honestly, my conservative roots still make me a bit queasy turning over that power to the gov't, despite wanting to trust the president on this one)?
Seriously.
It's like a big cosmic joke.
Seriously.
It's like a big cosmic joke.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Why Rush is Wrong (by David Frum, Newsweek)
Why Rush is Wrong
I confess: I listened to Rush for ten years. I saw the light and haven't listened for the last ten (except when it seems to be a moment to remember). This is an astute argument for how Rush Limbaugh represents his own interests more than those of conservatives (and the true ones still garner my respect).
I confess: I listened to Rush for ten years. I saw the light and haven't listened for the last ten (except when it seems to be a moment to remember). This is an astute argument for how Rush Limbaugh represents his own interests more than those of conservatives (and the true ones still garner my respect).
On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.
Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.
But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise—and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
I dreamt of this day a year ago: President Obama
I distinctly remember discussing this moment online with friends, the audacity to imagine that Obama wouldn't just secure the nomination, but that he might, gasp, win the presidency and survive to give the State of the Union address. Tonight felt like a dream - a fantasy come true (and when does that happen in life? Not so often). As he entered the chamber, with all that anticipation building, I felt a welling of joy that in my lifetime, I get to repeatedly witness the bursting forth of hope, optimism and change.
It felt fitting that after my post on peacekeeping vs. peacemaking, the "not state of the union" speech would talk about recapturing our integrity and values through ending the war, through rejecting the practice of torture. It takes guts to focus on peace, rather than war. Obama will leave 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and will bring home the forces in 19 instead of 16 months. Yet even with that news, the tone and agenda of tonight's speech had that "peacemaking" spirit about it. We need to contend for the things Obama promised: better education, health care and rebuilding our economy through investing in America.
It was pure joy to see Hillary in her bright, euphoric (even) magenta jacket with a smile as wide as the China Sea, being kissed on the cheek by her former rival. It was incredible to watch Michelle glide into that chamber - sheer class; to behold Ruth Bader Ginsburg up on her feet, looking so happy. Then it was finally time for Barack to enter: The President of the United States - well, reality shattered illusion and what I had only imagined became solid, sure, and better than hoped for.
A campaign of hope pays off in a time of struggle and doubt. Obama's uncanny sense of timing (when he ran, his campaign message and spirit, his ability to read this moment without guile, bitterness or even petty blame) may be his greatest unsung gift. We trust Obama as much for his intuitive sense of what "now" demands as we do for any plans that he puts forward. Obama "gets" us. That's why we trust him.
Tonight felt like a mirror ball's glittering reflections dancing all over our country, reviving our energy and renewing our joy. Much needed, I'd say.
Oh, and the prez? He speaks English with elegance, too. It doesn't get much better than that.
It felt fitting that after my post on peacekeeping vs. peacemaking, the "not state of the union" speech would talk about recapturing our integrity and values through ending the war, through rejecting the practice of torture. It takes guts to focus on peace, rather than war. Obama will leave 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and will bring home the forces in 19 instead of 16 months. Yet even with that news, the tone and agenda of tonight's speech had that "peacemaking" spirit about it. We need to contend for the things Obama promised: better education, health care and rebuilding our economy through investing in America.
It was pure joy to see Hillary in her bright, euphoric (even) magenta jacket with a smile as wide as the China Sea, being kissed on the cheek by her former rival. It was incredible to watch Michelle glide into that chamber - sheer class; to behold Ruth Bader Ginsburg up on her feet, looking so happy. Then it was finally time for Barack to enter: The President of the United States - well, reality shattered illusion and what I had only imagined became solid, sure, and better than hoped for.
A campaign of hope pays off in a time of struggle and doubt. Obama's uncanny sense of timing (when he ran, his campaign message and spirit, his ability to read this moment without guile, bitterness or even petty blame) may be his greatest unsung gift. We trust Obama as much for his intuitive sense of what "now" demands as we do for any plans that he puts forward. Obama "gets" us. That's why we trust him.
Tonight felt like a mirror ball's glittering reflections dancing all over our country, reviving our energy and renewing our joy. Much needed, I'd say.
Oh, and the prez? He speaks English with elegance, too. It doesn't get much better than that.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The World Reacts
In case it isn't entirely obvious by now, I spend a lot of time wandering the Internet. I have a couple of forums where I post quite regularly that have nothing intrinsically to do with politics. Yet the week following the election seems to have prompted so many reactions! The other day, while I was reading this serious post of marital pain on one board, the Aussie writer took a paragraph out of the middle to say, "And let me just take a moment to say 'thank you Americans for voting in Barack Obama!' We were so thrilled to watch it happen and feel hopeful that the United States will be a place we can look to for leadership again." She went on to say that it blew her away that we really did it - really elected a black man.
Then I visited another place I post. Same thing. Canadians, Brits, Aussies all weighing in on how glad they are that we Americans got it right, that we took the chance to restore our reputation, that we offered them a vision of what it looks like to embrace our ideals.
Yesterday, a friend sent me an email with a note from her young-twenties daughter who is working in Rwanda. Elizabeth's goal is to empower women through her organization: AfricaGrassroots. I was completely amazed by her report of how her friends in Rwanda reacted to the news of Obama's election... but even more, I couldn't believe what they had to say about McCain!
Then I visited another place I post. Same thing. Canadians, Brits, Aussies all weighing in on how glad they are that we Americans got it right, that we took the chance to restore our reputation, that we offered them a vision of what it looks like to embrace our ideals.
Yesterday, a friend sent me an email with a note from her young-twenties daughter who is working in Rwanda. Elizabeth's goal is to empower women through her organization: AfricaGrassroots. I was completely amazed by her report of how her friends in Rwanda reacted to the news of Obama's election... but even more, I couldn't believe what they had to say about McCain!
Elizabeth is returning from Rwanda in a few weeks. They stayed up to watch the elections and the next day, she sent out this email to some friends. I thought you would enjoy, and appreciate, what she said.Maybe there is something to that "light on a hill" imagery we keep hearing about. It's a great country, isn't it?
I spent the very early hours of this morning sitting in front of a TV with about 10 Rwandan friends who stayed up the whole night to watch all the results come in. They screamed and cried tears of joy and pride when Obama won.
But surprisingly, their favorite part of the whole evening? McCain's speech!
They watched in wonder and amazement as McCain spoke highly of Obama and said that we need to now come together as a country to support him. They said "Can you believe this?? The loser is now supporting and congratulating the winner! He is telling America to come together as one country to support the new president, even though he lost!! Could you imagine if something like this happened in Africa!! Only in America!!"
Friends from across Rwanda called me all morning to say congratulations- and some just screamed into the phone and I couldn't understand a word of what they were saying.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of suffering and violence going on across the border in Congo right now. Today's victory and celebration of freedom provides a stark contrast to the daily reality of brutality and oppression in so many places in Africa.
Living in a country free of violence is such a luxury.... we should never forget how truly lucky we are.
Love from Kigali,
Elizabeth"
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Vote
What makes us all equal is the right to vote. Today's the day. Exercise your right, follow your conscience.
Thanks for all the wonderful conversations over this election season with me. Thanks for reading along when you disagreed, for engaging the ideas I offer, for considering the points I raise.
I love this country; I love its ability to reinvent itself. I'm moved this morning thinking that Obama has made it this far and could only achieve that dream in America. France wouldn't do it. We have shown a remarkable willingness to grow, transform, and reach out to the common good. To judge a person not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. That day, that dream is fulfilled.
Vote! It's your most basic right.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Oh that media, choosing the winner again
I got an email last night (they are coming in droves now) telling me what the media refuses to report about Barack Obama. It was such a relief to know that there are emailers out there doing the job the media refuses to do!
Why I remember when George W. Bush ran, he got no coverage. All that nefarious stuff that Al Gore did and said as a public servant was completely overlooked as they prized his every move. Meanwhile, Bush was overshadowed, ignored and made fun of for his DUI's and his alcoholic past. The press was unrelenting in expecting us to see what a dangerous executive he'd make. That's why Bush lost! The liberal media was against him, totally. I mean, Al Gore owned the media that year. They loved him! That's why he's been our president for eight years. Right?
Wait, what? Bush won? Twice?
That can't be right. How did a conservative squeak out a victory in the hostile media environment that shredded his character and never cut him a break while fawning over Al Gore and John Kerry?
Oh yeah. Maybe it really is voters who elect presidents and the media that reports on campaigns.
This whole line of reasoning (that the media is liberal and hostile to conservatives) is absurd, of course. The media follows the story. Oh sure, the various networks give it their spin. Fox News and MSNBC will treat the stories differently. Rush Limbaugh and NPR don't usually share the same interpretations of events. But the news media is all about news cycles and grabbing headlines. They are about advancing whatever will hold the viewers' attention. They want ratings!
The idea that somehow a Republican like McCain can't get a break in the news cycle and is being attacked while Obama gets a pass is utterly laughable! Let's review a bit shall we? Obama, during the primary season, was viciously attacked for things his pastor said in three sermons out of 20 years of preaching. Those clips and the media's incessant need to interpret for America what that might mean about Obama took well over a month!
Every possible tag that has been applied to Obama has been repeated without filter since he began his campaign. At one point, Fox News used the term "terrorist" together with Obama's name over 50% of the time. Even Obama's "fist bump" with Michelle after he won the nomination was referred to as a "terrorist fist jab."
That's how the media gives Obama a pass?
Now they want to label him a Communist or a Socialist. Yeah, there goes that media again. Applying terms of endearment to their favorite candidate: socialist Obama.
Meanwhile, let's look at McCain. After Obama gave his nomination acceptance speech at the DNC, less than 24 hours later, McCain stole the news cycle with his mavericky selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. She made him the most interesting candidate for over a month. The press accommodated the McCain campaign's outrageous need to protect Palin from interviews, press conferences and ordinary, routine interaction with the media, not even challenging that strange behavior, but giving them the benefit of the doubt for weeks.
McCain's heroism has been celebrated any time he is mentioned. A deep reverence for his service to our country has made some on the left think the media refuses to criticize McCain. McCain was expected to be a gentleman in his campaign, and long after he gave up "sticking to the issues" and instead went for character attacks, most of his coverage still treated him as a fully respectable candidate.
For nearly 20 years now, rightwing talk radio and Fox News have given a voice to the once silent conservative platform. Those powerful media tools have been critical in dispensing the talking points of the right, of balancing what was likely a left-leaning media prior. George Bush would not have won two terms if the media were exclusively liberal and hostile to all things conservative.
So it's pointless to throw up an 11th hour critique of the media as the last ditch effort to derail Obama's likely win next week. Obama is ahead for several reasons, not the least of which is that Bush has been an unmitigated disaster in the White House.
The ideal conservative candidate, the born again Christian, the man sent by God to lead our nation in the wake of the sinful and liberal Bill Clinton, the one who understood true conservatism and could both energize the stagnating economy and protect us from our enemies... this man who WON TWICE and represented the ideals of Republicans (even in spite of their constant complaints that the media is hostile and liberal) has proven to be the worst president in history.
Hmmm. That might be why Obama looks like a real change... an opportunity to do something - anything - else and see how that works out.
Obama is not the media's darling any more than Bush was. He is America's choice because right now, who he is, what he says, and how he presents his ideas is winning the news cycles.
President Elect Obama - you might want to practice saying it. It's looking pretty good for him right now. (And if you are voting for him, go do it today! Get that vote banked in Ohio.)
Why I remember when George W. Bush ran, he got no coverage. All that nefarious stuff that Al Gore did and said as a public servant was completely overlooked as they prized his every move. Meanwhile, Bush was overshadowed, ignored and made fun of for his DUI's and his alcoholic past. The press was unrelenting in expecting us to see what a dangerous executive he'd make. That's why Bush lost! The liberal media was against him, totally. I mean, Al Gore owned the media that year. They loved him! That's why he's been our president for eight years. Right?
Wait, what? Bush won? Twice?
That can't be right. How did a conservative squeak out a victory in the hostile media environment that shredded his character and never cut him a break while fawning over Al Gore and John Kerry?
Oh yeah. Maybe it really is voters who elect presidents and the media that reports on campaigns.
This whole line of reasoning (that the media is liberal and hostile to conservatives) is absurd, of course. The media follows the story. Oh sure, the various networks give it their spin. Fox News and MSNBC will treat the stories differently. Rush Limbaugh and NPR don't usually share the same interpretations of events. But the news media is all about news cycles and grabbing headlines. They are about advancing whatever will hold the viewers' attention. They want ratings!
The idea that somehow a Republican like McCain can't get a break in the news cycle and is being attacked while Obama gets a pass is utterly laughable! Let's review a bit shall we? Obama, during the primary season, was viciously attacked for things his pastor said in three sermons out of 20 years of preaching. Those clips and the media's incessant need to interpret for America what that might mean about Obama took well over a month!
Every possible tag that has been applied to Obama has been repeated without filter since he began his campaign. At one point, Fox News used the term "terrorist" together with Obama's name over 50% of the time. Even Obama's "fist bump" with Michelle after he won the nomination was referred to as a "terrorist fist jab."
That's how the media gives Obama a pass?
Now they want to label him a Communist or a Socialist. Yeah, there goes that media again. Applying terms of endearment to their favorite candidate: socialist Obama.
Meanwhile, let's look at McCain. After Obama gave his nomination acceptance speech at the DNC, less than 24 hours later, McCain stole the news cycle with his mavericky selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. She made him the most interesting candidate for over a month. The press accommodated the McCain campaign's outrageous need to protect Palin from interviews, press conferences and ordinary, routine interaction with the media, not even challenging that strange behavior, but giving them the benefit of the doubt for weeks.
McCain's heroism has been celebrated any time he is mentioned. A deep reverence for his service to our country has made some on the left think the media refuses to criticize McCain. McCain was expected to be a gentleman in his campaign, and long after he gave up "sticking to the issues" and instead went for character attacks, most of his coverage still treated him as a fully respectable candidate.
For nearly 20 years now, rightwing talk radio and Fox News have given a voice to the once silent conservative platform. Those powerful media tools have been critical in dispensing the talking points of the right, of balancing what was likely a left-leaning media prior. George Bush would not have won two terms if the media were exclusively liberal and hostile to all things conservative.
So it's pointless to throw up an 11th hour critique of the media as the last ditch effort to derail Obama's likely win next week. Obama is ahead for several reasons, not the least of which is that Bush has been an unmitigated disaster in the White House.
The ideal conservative candidate, the born again Christian, the man sent by God to lead our nation in the wake of the sinful and liberal Bill Clinton, the one who understood true conservatism and could both energize the stagnating economy and protect us from our enemies... this man who WON TWICE and represented the ideals of Republicans (even in spite of their constant complaints that the media is hostile and liberal) has proven to be the worst president in history.
Hmmm. That might be why Obama looks like a real change... an opportunity to do something - anything - else and see how that works out.
Obama is not the media's darling any more than Bush was. He is America's choice because right now, who he is, what he says, and how he presents his ideas is winning the news cycles.
President Elect Obama - you might want to practice saying it. It's looking pretty good for him right now. (And if you are voting for him, go do it today! Get that vote banked in Ohio.)
Monday, October 27, 2008
Andrew Sullivan's Top Ten Reasons Conservatives should vote Obama
You have to read these if you are on the fence and a Republican or Independent:
Sullivan's Top Ten.
Here's a taste:
Sullivan's Top Ten.
Here's a taste:
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.And here's Obama's "closing argument" for he campaign. It's awesome. Listen all the way through. Man, we are lucky to have this guy.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
It boils down to one thing: Obama has a message
In February, an email pinged my in-box. If you want to volunteer for the Obama campaign, come to the meeting tomorrow night at _______ church downtown. With less than 24 hours notice, thousands of residents (black, white, old, young, Democrat, Republican, Independent, rich, middle class, poor, educated, un-educated) crammed themselves into the old church against the snowy, icy backdrop outdoors. The energy in that room buzzed, chants broke out spontaneously, friendships were instantly formed.
Nine months later, I've tallied it up. I've made thousands of phone calls for Senator Obama. I've walked dozens of miles and have knocked on hundreds of doors. I've had countless conversations with undecided voters here in Ohio, in the southwest of Ohio, specifically. I have a good understanding of why people love Obama, why they find him inspiring, an answer to their needs as Americans, why they feel that their hope in his leadership is justified.
Obama drew people like me because he represents something new on the political stage. He does for progressive politics what Reagan did for the conservative agenda. Instead of the progressive agenda being some scary version of leftwing radical morals and high taxes, Obama helped people like me see that compassionate care (shared responsibility) for our communities combined with protecting individual freedoms is the best way to govern.
We do that by prioritizing the needs of the middle class because it is the middle class that keeps our economy healthy and strong. The middle class also operates from a core of values that creates the energy to preserve and strengthen our institutions (like our schools, churches, local government and social services, including fire fighters, police, medical care and so on).
The notion that we can rely on big corporate executives to take the initiative to ensure that their incredible wealth would "trickle down" to the workers has been proven patently false (note the economic fiasco of the last month coupled with the fastest growing gap between top end incomes of executives and wage workers in their own companies). The issue isn't whether or not to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor.
The issue is whether we can afford to make the middle class bear an increasingly large responsibility for the services they require when their incomes and opportunities are not growing at a rate comparable to their needs or the costs of these goods.
It's not okay to allow the market to determine everything. It can't govern our morality. It won't! As one of my professors used to say, "Businesses do what businesses do. They are about making money, not about being a philanthropy, or being interested in clean water or air. That's not what they do."
It is absurd to assume that a business that is making money is the most likely to create jobs in America. As we are seeing, many of those "jobs" are disappearing overseas for the sake of the business's health, not for the sake of the health of America's middle class.
Government, when done right, is supposed to foster opportunity to create wealth while providing services that take into account the real needs of its citizens. We've spent too long on the side of the pendulum where the creation of wealth (particularly for the few) has meant the neglect of our other moral obligation: the care of the citizens who have helped to generate that wealth.
If you live in a city where lay-offs of plant closures have occurred, you know what I'm talking about! You can't watch 2,000 people lose their jobs and expect the grocery stores, home mortgage lenders and gas stations to survive. You can't expect those schools to retain their funding.
We live in an interconnected way that is so fragile, any one change can throw a community into a dangerous spiral. On the other hand, our interconnectedness is an opportunity for inspiring partnership to create new ways of stabilizing and protecting our communities if we could see beyond our own private dreams.
Senator Obama represents that kind of thinking for people like me. And naturally, he says it better than I can:
Obama has stayed steady and calm, has stuck to the issues, has continued to talk about uniting us rather than dividing us.
I'm sick of the spurious attacks, the smears and suspicions that are hurled by those who won't vote for Obama. I can't help but think that the ones who are afraid of him are merely unconsciously (or in some cases consciously) afraid of a black man in office. But for my money, this is the man who's passed the test of leadership. After 8 miserable years under GW Bush, it's time to give Barack Obama's vision a shot.
It's time to flip the script. The Republicans have had their chance... and have blown it. It's time for change.
November 4 can't come fast enough!
Nine months later, I've tallied it up. I've made thousands of phone calls for Senator Obama. I've walked dozens of miles and have knocked on hundreds of doors. I've had countless conversations with undecided voters here in Ohio, in the southwest of Ohio, specifically. I have a good understanding of why people love Obama, why they find him inspiring, an answer to their needs as Americans, why they feel that their hope in his leadership is justified.
Obama drew people like me because he represents something new on the political stage. He does for progressive politics what Reagan did for the conservative agenda. Instead of the progressive agenda being some scary version of leftwing radical morals and high taxes, Obama helped people like me see that compassionate care (shared responsibility) for our communities combined with protecting individual freedoms is the best way to govern.
We do that by prioritizing the needs of the middle class because it is the middle class that keeps our economy healthy and strong. The middle class also operates from a core of values that creates the energy to preserve and strengthen our institutions (like our schools, churches, local government and social services, including fire fighters, police, medical care and so on).
The notion that we can rely on big corporate executives to take the initiative to ensure that their incredible wealth would "trickle down" to the workers has been proven patently false (note the economic fiasco of the last month coupled with the fastest growing gap between top end incomes of executives and wage workers in their own companies). The issue isn't whether or not to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor.
The issue is whether we can afford to make the middle class bear an increasingly large responsibility for the services they require when their incomes and opportunities are not growing at a rate comparable to their needs or the costs of these goods.
It's not okay to allow the market to determine everything. It can't govern our morality. It won't! As one of my professors used to say, "Businesses do what businesses do. They are about making money, not about being a philanthropy, or being interested in clean water or air. That's not what they do."
It is absurd to assume that a business that is making money is the most likely to create jobs in America. As we are seeing, many of those "jobs" are disappearing overseas for the sake of the business's health, not for the sake of the health of America's middle class.
Government, when done right, is supposed to foster opportunity to create wealth while providing services that take into account the real needs of its citizens. We've spent too long on the side of the pendulum where the creation of wealth (particularly for the few) has meant the neglect of our other moral obligation: the care of the citizens who have helped to generate that wealth.
If you live in a city where lay-offs of plant closures have occurred, you know what I'm talking about! You can't watch 2,000 people lose their jobs and expect the grocery stores, home mortgage lenders and gas stations to survive. You can't expect those schools to retain their funding.
We live in an interconnected way that is so fragile, any one change can throw a community into a dangerous spiral. On the other hand, our interconnectedness is an opportunity for inspiring partnership to create new ways of stabilizing and protecting our communities if we could see beyond our own private dreams.
Senator Obama represents that kind of thinking for people like me. And naturally, he says it better than I can:
The audacity of hope.Barack Obama has spent the last twenty months proving that he is so committed to that philosophy, nothing that has been thrown at him has derailed his primary message. He's fleshed it out in position papers, speeches, townhalls and debates. He's written books. He's been interviewed on every major network and 60 minutes. He's done hundreds of press interviews.
That was the best of the American spirit, I thought—having the audacity to believe despite all the evidence to the contrary that we could restore a sense of community to a nation torn by conflict; the gall to believe that despite personal setbacks, the loss of a job or an illness in the family or a childhood mired in poverty, we had some control—and therefore responsibility—over our own fate.
It was that audacity, I thought, that joined us as one people. It was that pervasive spirit of hope that tied my own family's story to the larger American story, and my own story to those of the voters I sought to represent.
Obama has stayed steady and calm, has stuck to the issues, has continued to talk about uniting us rather than dividing us.
I'm sick of the spurious attacks, the smears and suspicions that are hurled by those who won't vote for Obama. I can't help but think that the ones who are afraid of him are merely unconsciously (or in some cases consciously) afraid of a black man in office. But for my money, this is the man who's passed the test of leadership. After 8 miserable years under GW Bush, it's time to give Barack Obama's vision a shot.
It's time to flip the script. The Republicans have had their chance... and have blown it. It's time for change.
November 4 can't come fast enough!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
13 days left after this long slog to the White House
Here's a photo that I think deserves to be seen (Obama resoled these once on the campaign trail already and was due for another resoling.... interesting contrast to Sarah Palin's $150K wardrobe in the news today.)
HuffPo writes:
Indeed, the story (Palin's wardrobe expenditures) could not come at a more inopportune time for the McCain campaign. During a week in which the Republican ticket is trying to highlight its connection to the working class -- and, by extension, promoting its newest campaign tool, Joe the Plumber -- it was revealed that Palin's fashion budget for several weeks was more than four times the median salary of an American plumber ($37,514). To put it another way: Palin received more valuable clothes in one month than the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. A Democrat put it in even blunter terms: her clothes were the cost of health care for 15 or so people.(about $2000 per day of her campaign since the announcement on August 29)
I found this set of photos through Daily Kos. Callie (photographer) traces Obama's journey from before he announced his candidacy to the DNC. The photos are gorgeous and the moments she captured, indicative of the man I have come to admire.
Sometimes pictures do speak more loudly than any words can.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Fairfield Ohio: Effigy of Obama hung... People I'm scared!
I have not wanted to believe that racism was this deep or that close to the surface in our own neighborhoods! For those of you out of state, Fairfield is the town over from ours. It's where my son goes for math tutoring, it's where our favorite big supermarket, Jungle Jim's, is located, it's where a large number of our friends live. This is an ordinary middle-class suburb outside of Cincinnati, not Appalachia.
I'm horrified by both yard displays (it is despicable to depict John McCain as a member of the KKK). The other display (and subject of this local news report) that features Obama swinging from a tree, however, really frightens me. The Jewish star on his head, the name upside down, the middle name across the ghostly body, all hanging from a tree... these images really scare me. To think that the owner of the home was reported to have said that this is a "white Christian nation" and he doesn't want a black man running it... What does that really mean? How far will these kinds of people go to be sure that doesn't happen?
And just when I was feeling heartened by the enthusiasm for Obama in my own neighborhood (out of 75 doors knocked on Sat., I made 32 contacts and 25 were for Obama!). Unheard of in GOP land...
If you pray, pray for Obama's safety. My God. What is wrong with us?
I'm horrified by both yard displays (it is despicable to depict John McCain as a member of the KKK). The other display (and subject of this local news report) that features Obama swinging from a tree, however, really frightens me. The Jewish star on his head, the name upside down, the middle name across the ghostly body, all hanging from a tree... these images really scare me. To think that the owner of the home was reported to have said that this is a "white Christian nation" and he doesn't want a black man running it... What does that really mean? How far will these kinds of people go to be sure that doesn't happen?
And just when I was feeling heartened by the enthusiasm for Obama in my own neighborhood (out of 75 doors knocked on Sat., I made 32 contacts and 25 were for Obama!). Unheard of in GOP land...
If you pray, pray for Obama's safety. My God. What is wrong with us?
Friday, October 17, 2008
My professor, Adam Clark, mused on FB this a.m.
Adam is wondering why Democrats are forced to distance themselves from sixties radicals but Republicans never have to distance themselves from sixties segregationists.
Yeah, I wonder that too!
Yeah, I wonder that too!
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Obama: Yeah, more about him
So the biggest news is that canvassing and phone banking have become a heckuva lot more fun now that Obama is winning (leading) in Ohio. Last weekend, Liam, Caitrin and I hit eleven houses in a row (in West Chester, yes way!) that were Obama fans. Our neighborhood has seven Obama/Biden yard signs and three McCain/Palin. I can't remember a single Kerry sign in all of West Chester, last time. The tide is turning.
Even while it's clear that Obama is leading in the polls, there's a certain element in the voting population who still believe that Obama is a dangerous, alien, terrorist-affiliate. These friends become strained and even hostile toward me when they see my t-shirts or buttons or Facebook status updates. With all the thousands of words Obama has written and spoken to the press, with his record public for all to see, with his hours of youtube clips available, with his detailed policy papers easily downloaded from his website, there are still voters who believe that he is going through all of this exhausting hassle (mostly without a hitch) to hide a nefarious agenda to take down the United States of America once in office. I find that charge (that he's the "beast in Revelation," that he's a secret Muslim, that he's tied to foreign terrorist organizations - or even domestic ones!) utterly outrageous.
Meanwhile, these same voters (often conservative Christians) believe that McCain represents safety (a safe bet) - a man who cheated on his hospitalized wife, married Cindy before divorcing his first wife, has a pro-choice record in the Senate until he switched to a conservative posture for this election, not much of a notable Christian testimony and selected arguably the least qualified vice-presidential candidate in American history. How is he the safe bet? How is Obama the risk?
I thought it might help to read a bit by Obama himself and what he says about his Christian faith. I'm going to post quotes from his own book over the next week or so so you can read what he writes himself (instead of all those crazy email forwards filled with deliberate misquotes and lies).
In the midst of economic challenges, this church continues to take love offerings any time a minister visits from out of town, they sing joyfully and pray enthusiastically. Sometimes just the mention of economic hardship during prayers leads the women holding my hands to a flood of tears, yet they come back every week, ready to praise God again. The black church has been a gift to me. It is the first time I've experienced the merging of both community identity and individual faith.
One of the reasons I find Obama's candidacy not only timely, but truly revolutionary (on par with the work done by MLK Jr.) is that Obama is able to be a president to all of us in a way that perhaps no president before him has ever been. He brings with him an intimacy with ideas, attitudes, and both white and black cultures that will shape and inform how he governs. His sensitivity to the diversity in himself has led him to be sensitive to the diversity of opinion in America. I strongly recommend reading his chapter on Faith in The Audacity of Hope next time you get coffee at Barnes and Noble. Find out what he says for himself. Don't take someone else's word. We've never had a president able to relate to so many in history. That doesn't mean we haven't had good presidents. We just haven't had one with this unique set of experiences that will help Obama to be a bridge of understanding between a stunning variety of backgrounds, socio-economic conditions, international relations and racial experiences.
Today a college friend sent me a message on FB gently chiding me for my Obama enthusiasm. He told me he has a bumper sticker that suggests who to vote for: "Coldest State, Hottest Governor." Really? Is it possible to be so flip this year, with the economic crisis, the war in Iraq still raging, with a fraudulent executive team leaving the country in shambles and a tattered Constitution?
If you are feeling nervous about Obama, take the next few weeks to read his own writings. Get to know him. Don't just watch the sleazy attack ads or trust some forwarded email. Read Obama's own words. Think about what he says he plans to do for America, what his vision is. Then make your decision.
Edited to add: Susan asked in the comments for verification of the McCain affair/divorce and I wanted to include this article from July from the LATimes: McCain's Broken Marriage Fractured Other Ties as Well.
Even while it's clear that Obama is leading in the polls, there's a certain element in the voting population who still believe that Obama is a dangerous, alien, terrorist-affiliate. These friends become strained and even hostile toward me when they see my t-shirts or buttons or Facebook status updates. With all the thousands of words Obama has written and spoken to the press, with his record public for all to see, with his hours of youtube clips available, with his detailed policy papers easily downloaded from his website, there are still voters who believe that he is going through all of this exhausting hassle (mostly without a hitch) to hide a nefarious agenda to take down the United States of America once in office. I find that charge (that he's the "beast in Revelation," that he's a secret Muslim, that he's tied to foreign terrorist organizations - or even domestic ones!) utterly outrageous.
Meanwhile, these same voters (often conservative Christians) believe that McCain represents safety (a safe bet) - a man who cheated on his hospitalized wife, married Cindy before divorcing his first wife, has a pro-choice record in the Senate until he switched to a conservative posture for this election, not much of a notable Christian testimony and selected arguably the least qualified vice-presidential candidate in American history. How is he the safe bet? How is Obama the risk?
I thought it might help to read a bit by Obama himself and what he says about his Christian faith. I'm going to post quotes from his own book over the next week or so so you can read what he writes himself (instead of all those crazy email forwards filled with deliberate misquotes and lies).
"...I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the center of the community's political, economic and social as well as spiritual life; it understood in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather it was an active, palpable agent in the world. In the day-to-day work of the men and women I met in church each day, in their ability to "make a way out of no way" and maintain hope and dignity in the direst of circumstances, I could see the Word made manifest. (Audacity of Hope 207)I attend an inner city black church here in Cincinnati. One of the startling features of weekly attendance is to listen to the pastor mention the church members who need prayer at the end of each service. My very first week, we were asked to thank God that one of the women members was yet with us, as she had been car jacked at gunpoint (placed against her temple) the night before and yet survived (never mind that she lost her car). Since that first, shocking week, I've heard of teenage boys who've been gunned down, neighborhood shootings, and other tragic deaths. I've also listened to sermons devoted to urging the congregation to get "legal insurance" to protect themselves against the likely need for fair representation against our city's police, unfair job firings and the notorious "driving while black" syndrome.
In the midst of economic challenges, this church continues to take love offerings any time a minister visits from out of town, they sing joyfully and pray enthusiastically. Sometimes just the mention of economic hardship during prayers leads the women holding my hands to a flood of tears, yet they come back every week, ready to praise God again. The black church has been a gift to me. It is the first time I've experienced the merging of both community identity and individual faith.
One of the reasons I find Obama's candidacy not only timely, but truly revolutionary (on par with the work done by MLK Jr.) is that Obama is able to be a president to all of us in a way that perhaps no president before him has ever been. He brings with him an intimacy with ideas, attitudes, and both white and black cultures that will shape and inform how he governs. His sensitivity to the diversity in himself has led him to be sensitive to the diversity of opinion in America. I strongly recommend reading his chapter on Faith in The Audacity of Hope next time you get coffee at Barnes and Noble. Find out what he says for himself. Don't take someone else's word. We've never had a president able to relate to so many in history. That doesn't mean we haven't had good presidents. We just haven't had one with this unique set of experiences that will help Obama to be a bridge of understanding between a stunning variety of backgrounds, socio-economic conditions, international relations and racial experiences.
Today a college friend sent me a message on FB gently chiding me for my Obama enthusiasm. He told me he has a bumper sticker that suggests who to vote for: "Coldest State, Hottest Governor." Really? Is it possible to be so flip this year, with the economic crisis, the war in Iraq still raging, with a fraudulent executive team leaving the country in shambles and a tattered Constitution?
If you are feeling nervous about Obama, take the next few weeks to read his own writings. Get to know him. Don't just watch the sleazy attack ads or trust some forwarded email. Read Obama's own words. Think about what he says he plans to do for America, what his vision is. Then make your decision.
Edited to add: Susan asked in the comments for verification of the McCain affair/divorce and I wanted to include this article from July from the LATimes: McCain's Broken Marriage Fractured Other Ties as Well.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campbell Brown calls on McCain Campaign to end Sexism
in their treatment of Sarah Palin. Great twist. Campbell Brown has stepped up to the plate a few times in the last few weeks. Good for her.
“Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment,” said Brown. “This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters… Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one.”
HT: Notes From Off Center
“Tonight I call on the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower that will wilt at any moment,” said Brown. “This woman is from Alaska for crying out loud. She is strong. She is tough. She is confident. And you claim she is ready to be one heart beat away form the presidency. If that is the case, then end this chauvinistic treatment of her now. Allow her to show her stuff. Allow her to face down those pesky reporters… Let her have a real news conference with real questions. By treating Sarah Palin different from the other candidates in this race, you are not showing her the respect she deserves. Free Sarah Palin. Free her from the chauvinistic chain you are binding her with. Sexism in this campaign must come to an end. Sarah Palin has just as much a right to be a real candidate in this race as the men do. So let her act like one.”
HT: Notes From Off Center
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Harry Truman
"The underlying differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties boils down to a very simple thing. The Republicans believe that the power of the Government should be used, first of all, to help the rich and privileged people of this country. With them property comes first. The Democrats believe that the powers of the Government should be used to give the common man some protection, and a chance to make a decent living. With the Democrats the people come first.
"The Democratic Party is a political organization that has a heart--it cares about the people--it cares about all the people, rich and poor alike. The Republican Party is ruled by a little group of men who have calculating machines where their hearts ought to be.
"Sometimes the Republicans aid their clientele by special favors--like the rich man's tax cut bill which was passed by the 80th Congress over my veto--or like their attempts to give away the Nation's oil resources to all the big oil interests.
"Sometimes the Republicans aid their special friends by doing nothing--by a philosophy of each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. That's why they've fought such measures as minimum wage laws, social security, and the protection of the right of labor unions to organize. All these things and others like them have been opposed by the Republicans."
Harry S Truman
October 6, 1952
I don't know if this is a true quote for Truman. I've tried to find it on the Internet for confirmation but to no avail. I read it in the comments section of an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Regardless, I thought it worth discussing. I agree with the overarching theme - that the Republicans seem to believe that providing for and protecting the interests of those with property (and wealth) is better for the rest of us than looking out for the common person in the middle and lower classes. The rhetoric goes that when you give monetary breaks to those who create jobs, they will pass along the wealth to the consumers and to their employees which will in turn foster healthy economic growth.
That's not what happens, as we can see by the ever expanding gap between what CEOs of corporations earn versus the wage earners they pay at the low end. I found this information from 2005:
Also, don't you find it scary to think that we've been urged to tie our retirement earnings to the stock market rather than retaining our social security?
"The Democratic Party is a political organization that has a heart--it cares about the people--it cares about all the people, rich and poor alike. The Republican Party is ruled by a little group of men who have calculating machines where their hearts ought to be.
"Sometimes the Republicans aid their clientele by special favors--like the rich man's tax cut bill which was passed by the 80th Congress over my veto--or like their attempts to give away the Nation's oil resources to all the big oil interests.
"Sometimes the Republicans aid their special friends by doing nothing--by a philosophy of each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. That's why they've fought such measures as minimum wage laws, social security, and the protection of the right of labor unions to organize. All these things and others like them have been opposed by the Republicans."
Harry S Truman
October 6, 1952
I don't know if this is a true quote for Truman. I've tried to find it on the Internet for confirmation but to no avail. I read it in the comments section of an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Regardless, I thought it worth discussing. I agree with the overarching theme - that the Republicans seem to believe that providing for and protecting the interests of those with property (and wealth) is better for the rest of us than looking out for the common person in the middle and lower classes. The rhetoric goes that when you give monetary breaks to those who create jobs, they will pass along the wealth to the consumers and to their employees which will in turn foster healthy economic growth.
That's not what happens, as we can see by the ever expanding gap between what CEOs of corporations earn versus the wage earners they pay at the low end. I found this information from 2005:
Something's not right. And I don't know why we think that the Republicans will be motivated to fix it.
- CEO compensation is out of orbit: At the 350 largest public companies, the average CEO compensation is $9.2 million. Compensation for oil and gas execs increased by 109 percent between 2003 and 2004.
- In 2004, the average CEO received 240 times more than the compensation earned by the average worker. In 2002, the ratio was 145 to 1.
- These levels of CEO compensation are not the norm for the industrialized world. Typically, CEO pay in other industrialized countries is only about onethird of what American CEOs make.
- Highly-compensated CEOs are not being rewarded for performance with the interests of shareholders in mind, the “textbook” explanation of CEO compensation, according to an extensive body of research and reporting.
- After-tax profits are booming and corporate America can easily afford to offer fair wages and benefits to rank and file employees. Unfortunately, while CEOs have enriched themselves, middle-class families have taken hard hits to their paychecks, their health coverage, and their pension plans.
Also, don't you find it scary to think that we've been urged to tie our retirement earnings to the stock market rather than retaining our social security?
Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama's foreign policy judgment
In light of Sarah Palin's interview with Gibson last night and this a.m., everyone is talking foreign policy. One pressing question may be: How can Obama address our international concerns when Illinois can't see a single foreign country from any of its borders?
Andrew Sullivan today offers a run-down on the foreign policy judgments Obama has offered over the last year. Each one had been "smacked down" as being misguided... until Bush decided to adopt them himself.
Andrew Sullivan today offers a run-down on the foreign policy judgments Obama has offered over the last year. Each one had been "smacked down" as being misguided... until Bush decided to adopt them himself.
The Bush administration - when guided by the saner forces within it such as Gates and Rice - eventually follows Obama's advice. In that sense, Obama has been president for quite a while already. And proving he could be a shrewd, pragmatic and prescient one.Read it all. Discussing foreign policy is not a quiz to see if you know the right policy answers based on your party's established viewpoint. It's a question of keen interest, thoughtful reflection, investigation into the dynamics of each region and how they impact each other and our national security, filtered through superior and sober judgment. One reason I'm an Obama fan.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Saturday, September 06, 2008
60 days to go...
And my email and facebook message box is filling up. Even though it's been obvious that I've thrown my support behind Obama for months, friends, Internet contacts, former neighbors, even family are asking me why.
A good question. Having voted Republican every single election except my first (when I liked Carter better than Reagan), it's surprising for some to discover that I'm not only disgruntled with Bush and co. but that I've jumped the fence to whole-heatedly back a Democrat, to work for Obama's campaign, not just to vote for him.
Over the next little bit, I want to talk about why I've switched teams and how Obama helped me to do so. I also want to ask in all sincerity some questions of our undecideds and Republican-leaning readers. I hope you'll share.
We've only got a few weeks left to decide this thing. We've got to get it right. McCain or Obama will be our next president. Not Biden. Not Palin. (Barring tragedy) The most important question to ask between now and then has to be: "Is it right to give another four year chance to the Republicans after 8 years of Bush?" (Bush, who lied about intelligence, WMD's, Iraq's role in terrorism, who has violated the Geneva convention in using torture against our prisoners, and who has allowed the economy to tank.)
One of the things Americans are good at is holding those they elect accountable. That's why congress swings from Democratically controlled to Republican and back. That's why it's hard for one party to win back-to-back-to-back presidential elections, if the incumbent has dropped the ball.
We expect better and we are anxious about empowering any one person or party with too much faith, too much trust, too much power!
This election ought to be a blow out for the Democrats. And it may yet be. President Bush has the lowest approval rating on record (29%). We have a struggling economy (record highs for unemployment just yesterday and the Dow struggling) and an unpopular war. That's usually enough.
But the difference maker this time is that there is an unacknowledged anxiety around electing a black man (just to point out - half black and half white). I'm running into it more and more. I heard from a CA friend recently who wrote to me that she thinks Obama is a terrorist! Really? Like the U. S. gov't. would allow a known terrorist (a convicted terrorist) to run for president?
A local friend of Jon's told him that he could never cast a vote for a "black man." On my canvasing route last week, I ran into the "But how can I trust Obama?" meme several times. I have yet to hear anyone ask that question of McCain (the "can he be trusted?" question), yet his campaign, vice presidential candidate and current president with whom he has proudly voted 90% of time have all lied directly to the American people. Somehow McCain's "trustworthiness" is not an issue.
The widespread, unrelenting, willful ignorance of the electorate as relates to Obama can only be explained by the unconscious anxiety that a half black man creates in white voters. Fortunately, the under 30 set seem oblivious to skin color. They love Obama and they can't relate to McCain.
I invite you over the next couple of weeks to share your thoughts and to think about why Obama is the better choice for president over McCain and his Republican party, no matter how "maverick" he wants you to believe he is. My aim is to at strip away the mischaracterizations of Obama that persist, to give reasonable support to how a conservative could vote for a democrat this time around and to expose the hypocrisy of the Republican party. Should be fun. :)
A good question. Having voted Republican every single election except my first (when I liked Carter better than Reagan), it's surprising for some to discover that I'm not only disgruntled with Bush and co. but that I've jumped the fence to whole-heatedly back a Democrat, to work for Obama's campaign, not just to vote for him.
Over the next little bit, I want to talk about why I've switched teams and how Obama helped me to do so. I also want to ask in all sincerity some questions of our undecideds and Republican-leaning readers. I hope you'll share.
We've only got a few weeks left to decide this thing. We've got to get it right. McCain or Obama will be our next president. Not Biden. Not Palin. (Barring tragedy) The most important question to ask between now and then has to be: "Is it right to give another four year chance to the Republicans after 8 years of Bush?" (Bush, who lied about intelligence, WMD's, Iraq's role in terrorism, who has violated the Geneva convention in using torture against our prisoners, and who has allowed the economy to tank.)
One of the things Americans are good at is holding those they elect accountable. That's why congress swings from Democratically controlled to Republican and back. That's why it's hard for one party to win back-to-back-to-back presidential elections, if the incumbent has dropped the ball.
We expect better and we are anxious about empowering any one person or party with too much faith, too much trust, too much power!
This election ought to be a blow out for the Democrats. And it may yet be. President Bush has the lowest approval rating on record (29%). We have a struggling economy (record highs for unemployment just yesterday and the Dow struggling) and an unpopular war. That's usually enough.
But the difference maker this time is that there is an unacknowledged anxiety around electing a black man (just to point out - half black and half white). I'm running into it more and more. I heard from a CA friend recently who wrote to me that she thinks Obama is a terrorist! Really? Like the U. S. gov't. would allow a known terrorist (a convicted terrorist) to run for president?
A local friend of Jon's told him that he could never cast a vote for a "black man." On my canvasing route last week, I ran into the "But how can I trust Obama?" meme several times. I have yet to hear anyone ask that question of McCain (the "can he be trusted?" question), yet his campaign, vice presidential candidate and current president with whom he has proudly voted 90% of time have all lied directly to the American people. Somehow McCain's "trustworthiness" is not an issue.
The widespread, unrelenting, willful ignorance of the electorate as relates to Obama can only be explained by the unconscious anxiety that a half black man creates in white voters. Fortunately, the under 30 set seem oblivious to skin color. They love Obama and they can't relate to McCain.
I invite you over the next couple of weeks to share your thoughts and to think about why Obama is the better choice for president over McCain and his Republican party, no matter how "maverick" he wants you to believe he is. My aim is to at strip away the mischaracterizations of Obama that persist, to give reasonable support to how a conservative could vote for a democrat this time around and to expose the hypocrisy of the Republican party. Should be fun. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)