It's About Franken Time

Last year, my boyfriend looked up the closest House and Senate races in "winable" states and donated to the Democratic candidates. He donated enough to get invited to all the fancy parties and two nights ago, we went to a Los Angeles victory party for Al Franken, the junior senator from Minnesota. It was hosted by Skip Brittenham, one of the most powerful entertainment attorneys in the business, known for his acquisition and merger deals (like Pixar/Disney) but who also still represents stars like Tom Hanks. His lovely wife Heather Thomas is best known for her starring role on the TV show "The Fall Guy" with Million-Dollar Man Lee Majors.

Their house is on a tree-lined street in Brentwood (between Westwood and Santa Monica) behind an unassuming wall that unless you really thought about it, would never suspect was the entrance to park-like gardens and an iconic and beautifully appointed Hollywood mansion. After depositing the car with one of the dozen valet guys, we went inside. The theme was a country fair. The tables were covered with red and white checkered tablecloths and held jars stuffed with sunflowers. There was cotton candy, popcorn and fried chicken. Clusters of red, white and blue balloons rose from ribbons tied to the ground. A clown on stilts juggled balls and a temporary tattoo artist awaited customers.

We got a couple of beers and decided to explore the grounds. Big beautiful dahlias and bright geraniums lined the lawn while huge trees canopied above. An ivy covered fence revealed the entrance to a tennis court. I snapped a few photos of us there but had decided that it wouldn't be kosher to photograph the whole house and lawn – even though I desperately wanted to! We decided to make our way towards the house. As we approached, we recognized our host who we both had looked up on the Internet. "There he is!" my guy said and Skip turned to shake our hands. We thanked him for having us and asked about the back gardens. He said "go on through the house, there are more people back there."

As we went through the door, we were asked by a man if we had wristbands – obviously the demarcation of who is allowed entry to the VIP party – and my boyfriend simply replied "Skip told us to go on through." And so we did. The house was amazing! Although we could only see a small portion, it was immediately recognizable as one of the Spanish Colonial Revival mansions that were so popular in the 1920's and 1930's. It was magnificently understated with its terra cotta tile floors, arched doorways, vaulted ceilings with rustic wood beams and Moorish detailing in the columns and windows. It was decorated in reds and yellows, Persian carpets, Mission revival furniture and filled with paintings and Chihuly sculpture. Absolutely gorgeous!

It opened up onto a tiered garden in the back. Umbrellas at tables and flowers were reflected in the swimming pool and beyond, the hills of Santa Monica and the ocean. We walked towards the small group of people gathered around tables on a small lawn. We immediately recognized Kevin Nealon (also of Saturday Night Live fame) and Jason Alexander (from Seinfeld). Looking at name tags, we picked out several big-time industry players including Thomas Schlamme (more commonly known as Tommy Schlamme) – a ubiquitous TV director and producer of The West Wing. Then, standing by himself at a table, I saw Martin Sheen.

Being a huge fan of The West Wing, I walked over and said hello, told him I was a fan of his and loved the show. We must have chatted with him for about twenty minutes. He even offered to get us drinks at one point! He was sweet and gracious and interesting. I always suspected that he was given his anti-war convictions and political activity, but he was truly delightful. He asked where we were from and when my boyfriend said he was Kurdish, he told us about accompanying a UCLA professor to Syria on an archaeological dig – he found a dog's jaw bone – and all the lovely Kurdish people he'd met. He then told us how he met Al Franken 30 years ago on Saturday Night Live. He was the guest host, Apocalypse Now had just come out, and Al Franken was a regular writer and performer on the show. Interestingly enough, the governor of California at the time was Jerry Brown who is running for the office again in the upcoming election. Martin says he's endorsing him.

We eventually excused ourselves to allow other people to talk to Martin and discussed which other celebrities to meet. None seemed nearly as alluring nor as approachable. As we were sitting there, I recognized a woman I'd had in an acting class many years ago who is now on SNL as well. I said hello and she introduced us to her party, Ariana Huffington and her daughter! My boyfriend was now officially starstruck. Finally, we were ushered back out front. Al was eventually going to give a speech and needed to mingle a bit with the non-VIP crowd. Still marveling at our good fortune, we were able to meet Jason Alexander and his wife, who borrowed a pen from me, before recognizing Garrison Keillor (Prairie Home Companion), Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC political analyst) and late-comer Conan O'Brien.


We joined the crowd around Senator Franken for photos and snapped one with him. Then, the speeches began. A few friends told funny anecdotes about his long road to Capitol Hill and one made a pointed observation that Franken is the only senator (who isn't married to a former president) to win on his first run. Martin read a speech prepared by Norman Lear who was there momentarily but must have decided he was too old to stand around for three hours. Before he started, Martin stammered a bit for effect and then said "I want this house!" to a big applause.

Then Al told a good story about being criticized by his opponent for taking "Hollywood" money. He noted that his opponent was taking money from big oil and big pharma and big tobacco and how all of these industries wanted something, nay expected something, in return. The Hollywood money, by contrast, was coming from his friends. People who wanted nothing in return, just to support a man they believe in. Then, he shared some of his time on the Hill so far and how he's made inroads with Republican senators by telling stories about the Hollywood people he knows. Turns out, no one is immune from being starstruck. Lastly, he promised to fight for health care reform and a public option. The number one cause of bankruptcy in America is health care and 2/3 of those people have health insurance.

After the speeches, there was a raffle and we won an autographed picture of Senator Franken being sworn in by Joe Biden. I took a picture of Franken autographing it. I turned around and saw another actress friend of mine. What a surprise. We chatted for a bit and then she took a picture of us with Martin Sheen who was now being mobbed by fans. At some point, Martin asked what kind of food there was. People pointed and asked him what he wanted. He said "all of it!" But he couldn't leave, he was mobbed. I took off and grabbed a Caesar salad, a box of popcorn, plate of fried chicken and corn on the cob and brought it back to Martin. He said he need a soda and as I spun off, he shouted "Coke, with ice!" I brought back two. He was very grateful. We said our goodbyes and said had been a pleasure to talk with him. He agreed. On the way out, we took a caramel apple for the road. The party was over. Now, as the buttons said, "It's finally Franken time."

I'll take hope over fear any day

Today on Marketplace, Kai Ryysdal was speaking with Edward Miguel who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is called "Economic Gangsters." Miguel's commentary on the new appointment for health secretary was focused on how difficult Republicans might make it for Obama's administration to get heath care reforms passed in congress.

One has to wonder if there are more than economic ideology differences at work on either side. Even Rush Limbaugh said about the stimulus plan: "I don't think it's designed to stimulate anything but the Democrat Party." Recent economics research suggests Limbaugh may be right on the politics.

Miguel says that in a recent economic study he conducted in democratic Uruguay, people who directly benefited from government programs enacted during a similar economic crisis were "15 percentage points more likely to voice support for the political party implementing the program." It's certainly not surprising that people would vote for a political party that has made their life better. And isn't that the whole point?

Republican majorities in Congress passed the largest expansion of federal government health spending in decades with the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003, with strong support from President Bush.

The party who bangs the small government drum and cries "socialism!" at the mention of government funded programs? Did they pass this legislation to secure the votes of elderly Americans in the 2008 election? This explains all the animosity, finger-pointing and name-calling towards Obama by the Republicans. They're peeved because the Democrats are poised to steer this ship in a direction the American public might actually be happy about and want to continue on. They're pissed because their guy fucked up and they couldn't come up with anyone genuine enough to make us believe they care.

If Obama's reforms work, it's not just the economy that will get a boost. People will recognize the role government played in their ability to secure benefits like health insurance and reward his party at the ballot box later on. Millions of Americans who came of age in the Great Depression became loyal Democrats for life, rewarding the party that created the New Deal. President Obama promises a new set of programs, starting with the stimulus and extending into health care and beyond.

It starts to become clear, now, what the truth is behind the ugly rantings of Rush Limbaugh. He has said that he hopes the socialistic policies of Obama will fail but contends that he doesn't mean he wants our economy to fail. In the middle of an economic crisis, two wars and impending environmental doom, how is it possible for our President's "policies" to fail without it also adversely affecting everyone in America?

Socialism is a red herring. It's nothing more than a scary word that most Americans don't understand but have been taught to fear. The Republicans have usurped the word and are attaching it to anything Obama does. What is really going on is that the Republicans are afraid that Obama's policies won't fail and that they will make better the lives of millions of Republican Americans who may reward the Democrats with votes for years to come. This is why he can't be trusted.

We should be frightened, Limbaugh says, of someone who is this popular the world over. (Would he say the same thing if he was the subject of so much adoration and optimistic enthusiasm?) Obama is only trying to improve our lives so that we will continue to support him! We should fear a politician who cares what we think, a man who calls for hope, hard work and thoughtful, intelligent solutions.

Naturally the party that was willing to manufacture information about the threat Iraq posed ito launch a costly and unsupported invasion and occupation would be suspicious of someone who seems to be doing what is best for Americans. The same people who ran on a platform of staying in Iraq and Afghanistan for as long as necessary are now criticizing Obama for staying for two more years, calling him a war monger. They are continuing their ever so effective campaign tactic of calling the other guy exactly what they are.

Both parties will tell you that the other lies, cheats and steals to win and has ulterior motives. It seems that by politicians' own admission, none of them can be trusted to care about us. So let's say that all politicians only care about their careers, their party and their reelection and whoever speaks for either party is a willing and eager accomplice. Let's agree that both sides are equal in their motives – pursuing their own ideology at whatever cost to the American people. We are left with two parties, one that is pushing fear and another that is pushing hope. Which do you think will be more productive for our country and our souls? The Republican party is apparently led by Limbaugh, a man who believes our President is violating everything we hold sacred and intends to turn us into a slave state. He preaches fear and hatred and divisiveness.

The other, the Democratic party, is currently led by a Obama, a man who preaches hope and our ability to make the world a better place. He asks us to look into the future and imagine the world we want to live in and then work with each other to make it so. The more the Republicans try to expose the ugliness behind the motives and tactics of the Democrats, the more it just shows us how untrustworthy all politicians are. What they don't understand is that the election of Obama was not about a man, it never is. Americans don't vote for people, we vote for ideas, we vote with our hearts. Fear will never win out over hope. If they tear down Obama, the only thing they can accomplish is to tear down our belief in the government. If they do that, the result will not be Americans rushing to the polls to vote Republican. It may, however, prompt the even more feared specter of a third-party candidate swooping in and stealing our attention and our loyalty. Then things will really get interesting.

The possibility for miracles

It was September when I moved into the little apartment upstairs at my mother's house. Her husband is a quiet and reserved guy, an electrical engineer who builds circuit boards by day and reads electrical engineering magazines at night. We share an intellectual curiosity and can talk about things that my mother is not interested in. He pores over my National Geographic magazines and we swap podcasts and talk about the latest scientific discoveries.

The election was really heating up in September as Palin has just been thrown into the ring. Every night at dinner, my mom and I would compare notes on what stupid thing Palin had said that day or what incredible thing was going on in the Obama campaign. Her husband reacted to our conversations but didn't comment, which is not unlike him. I wasn't sure that he was on our side and got the sense that my mother even, didn't know who he had voted for. An early voter, he'd already sent in his ballot but as a registered Republican our mailbox continued to receive propaganda from McCain campaign and the NRA (even though there are no guns in our house). It went on like this for months.

After the election, in a casual conversation about Obama, my mom's husband finally broke the silence and remarked on something my mother said about Obama being so smart and precise with his words. "That's why I voted for him," he said, "because he's a nerd and it's about time we had a nerd in the White House." It's not just that he's intelligent, although that by itself is a major coup for intelligent people everywhere. It isn't only that he's incredibly well spoken, weaving together powerful imagery and wise quotes from leaders past with inspiration and ideas that will rebuild our country. What makes Obama stand out is that he is intellectually curious. He doesn't make decisions based on a personal feeling, religion or party politics. As President of the United States, he will pursue the ideals that our country was founded on with the zeal of a scientist on the verge of discovery. He'll consult experts, examine all the facts and surround himself with the best and the brightest to make the decisions that will shape our future.

During the process of appointing his cabinet, I rejoiced in each nomination reacting with "yes" "right on" and "of course." The assault on reason (at least in the White House) has finally subsided. Many nominees are more qualified than their predecessor and in some case more qualified than all of their predecessors. Many are people who are leaders in their field and are already running labs or schools districts or organizations in that capacity like Dr. Steven Chu for Energy Secretary, Eric Shinseki for Veteran Affairs Secretary, James L. Jones for National Security Advisor, Arne Duncan for Education Secretary and Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services Secretary.

My father, an insufferable sexist, had infuriated me after the election by positing that Obama won because he's "young and handsome" just like Kennedy and that's what "the women" want. I reminded him that women alone didn't get Obama into office and his theory didn't explain Eisenhower, Reagan or Bush Sr. Months before, my dad he said that Obama was capable of doing as much for this country as FDR, but now his inner cynic was trying to tell him that he was just a hot guy who duped the ladies.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with one of the couples living next door, a four-tour-Afghanistan Army Ranger veteran and his 8-month pregnant wife. They had been out shopping for a couch and remarked on how difficult it was to get help anywhere. No one working at the shops cares about the customer, they said. I agreed, having just been to Radio Shack where I waited patiently for my receipt while the boy at the counter watched a TV show on a screen behind me. I said these people were lucky to have jobs and maybe Obama will inspire people to get to work. The vet said he was a pretty political person but had voted "the other way" and was still in the 12-step grieving process. He said people whom he's met said they voted for Obama because he's black and they wanted to make history and he thought that was ridiculous. True, I said, "but these are the same people who voted for Bush because they thought he'd be fun to have a beer with." Ha, ha, the Vet laughed, "That guy IS a partier!"

But when I told him about how Obama had revamped the White House site with a blog and weekly video address to the nation, that he's going to post all legislation that he signs five days in advance to allow for comments from us, and that he wants to hear what we want him to do in office -- opening up forums on topics like health care -- I got his attention. I then told him that Michelle Obama plans to focus on helping veteran's transition back into their lives after returning from war, a cause she has already devoted years to. "I didn't know that," he said, "wow, I'll have to check that out."

While many people have been writing off Obama's popularity as a fan reaction to a novel candidate, other people were quietly rooting for the guy with the big brain to make it to the White House. On Marketplace yesterday a critic of Obama, David Frum author of "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," said he thought his stimulus plan is bad but acknowledged that the problem Obama brings up is real and no one on his side of the fence has offered a solution. "We said the Bush economy was the greatest story never told. We dismissed those who disagreed as 'whiners.'" But in reality, wages are stagnant and health care costs are rising to "devour potential wage increases." To me, that is what makes Obama so exceptional. Like a scientist, he talks about issues plainly and factually. He wants to fix what's broken and is willing to consider the best solution. He knows the power of collaboration and utilizes the latest technology to open up his administration to anyone with a good idea. You disagree with his ideas? Fine, let's hear yours.

And so it begins, the most exciting presidency in fifty years. Obama is awakening the American public from our cynical slumber, imploring us to believe once again that we can do anything. Not by saying that he'll be a better president than those who came before him but by asking us to believe in ourselves, instead of a politician. Yesterday, I watched a video about the Youth Ball where a young woman said, "I hope he doesn't disappoint us and not turn out to be this god." But our disillusionment comes from a misplaced belief that once we vote in our leaders, our job is done. A feeling that we are entitled to be taken care of by our government that is, like a parent, in charge of our well-being and has no right to be questioned. This is not a parent-child relationship; this is a government of the people, by the people.

Obama said yesterday in a statement, "On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright -- it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more." It's a stroke of genius. It's not a matter of whether he'll disappoint us; it's a matter of whether we'll disappoint each other. Obama is already, every day, making miracles. He makes it easy for me to reach out to my neighbor, a person I'm friendly with but have opposing political views from, and invite him to participate in his government.

I vividly remember watching Obama's nomination speech. I drank down every word like the thirstiest person in the world. For the first time in eight years, someone that the world was listening to was speaking the truth about the challenges that our country and our generation face. I nodded and said "that's right" out loud like I was in a Baptist church. My inner skeptic tried, a few times, to caution me against too much enthusiasm but it didn't work. He has returned the presidency to what it is meant to be, a leadership position and we are the people he's leading. We are the people that are going to perform the miracles. He is the leader that will inspire a generation to think differently about its government and its role in the world than any before. There's a photo gallery of the people that will work in the White House and I'm struck by how youthful the group is and how few are career politicians. I feel that these people are as enthused as I am about the future and also believe in the possibility for miracles.

Why Sarah Palin won't be our Vice President

"I have a question for the women in the audience," the Alaska governor began, "Are you willing to break the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America?"
What a cruel joke for a woman who is against everything I believe in – environmental reform, animal rights, a woman’s right to choose, the importance of education, peace, and freedom from persecution – to surround herself with feminists and ask me to help her break the glass ceiling.

It took women 50 years to get the right to vote after freed slaves did. Fifty years! These were women married to politicians, raising their children and running their homes and yet it was easier for white men to view a black man – whom only a few years was considered property – as a citizen than the women they shared a bed with. I bring this up because it’s vital to understand the deep-seated fear and resentment men had for women wanting the vote (and by proxy, full citizenship). They must have viewed us as children, demanding something that we could neither understand nor be trusted with. But in 1917, Montana (who had given women the right to vote) elected the first woman into Congress, three years before the Constitution was amended.

Nearly a hundred years later, there are still far too few women in Congress. Out of 535 members, only 90 are women: 16 of 100 senators are women (two of them are from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, both of whom I’ve met!) and 74 of 435 representatives are women. So it really irks me when I read about "Palinmania" in The New York Times, describing how popular Sarah is with the "dudes." They paint their chests and shout Maverick and "marry me" at her rallies. They say they prefer Palin over both Obama and McCain as if she’s running for president! A few are quoted as saying men have screwed things up enough, maybe it’s time to let a woman run the country for a while. While I couldn't agree more, I find it difficult to believe that these dudes felt this way when Hilary was running or that they’ve ever spent a minute in their lives thinking about the gender inequality in politics. No, because the Joe Six-Packs say Sarah's different, she's "their kind of woman."

The feminists have always said that in order to be regarded by men, a woman has to be sexually appealing, non-threatening and assume, in some way, the role model of wife and mother. But if she wants to be taken seriously, she can't be seen as using her sexuality. Maybe that explains the glasses? They say "I know I'm hot but I want you to take me seriously, okay? [wink, wink].” She certainly has that over Clinton who, as formidable as any man, didn't advertise her role as mother and was more concerned about being seen as qualified instead of sexually appealing. Many of these men said they came to the rally just to look at Palin, because she's so beautiful. I'd like to point out that this is not sexism by the other candidates or by the media, this is pure unadulterated sexism from the American public. What could be more dismissive than supporting a candidate because she's a VPILF?

The strategists that picked Palin specifically wanted a good-looking woman because they intended to play the gender card. People tend to be more sympathetic to an attractive woman and they're less likely to rip her apart (or expose her flimsy credentials). Despite what her supporters think, the reaction to her has been quite kind compared to the way Hilary Clinton was treated or even the way Nancy Pelosi is talked about these days. Women are crucified for being tough and attacked for being soft, but less so if they're pretty. I'm so tired of reading the public's comments about how Palin is being "picked on," a phrase that is decidedly sexist in its assumption that she can't take it. The charge that the media has unfairly focused on her appearance and clothing is completely unfounded. No one cared about her wardrobe until they discovered how much it cost and her attractiveness has been made an issue because the more we learn about her, the more we believe it's the reason she's a candidate. She thinks her family life has been delved into more because she's a woman. Really? We haven't heard about Obama's interracial parents, his mother leaving him with his grandparents, getting food stamps while going to medical school? We haven't heard about McCain's affair and leaving his crippled wife for another woman who just happens to be filthy rich?

A female supporter remarked at the same rally that she trusts Palin because she’s a mom. In any corporation in the country, the fact that she has five kids including a disabled newborn, would subject her to possible discrimination over a fear that she wouldn't have enough time for her job. When most women take six months to a year getting their full energy back after having a baby, Palin's running all over the country like Superwoman. No one's afraid she might exhaust herself or neglect her baby or her husband or her job? Such a curious exception to what is practically a rule in the working world. I met a woman who, while presenting her thesis for business school, was asked how she planned to start a business with a baby (she was pregnant at the time). If Palin were truly getting the sexist treatment, questions like this would be asked without impunity. While I have the utmost respect for the job of mother - and most of my girlfriends are mothers - I hardly think it is an automatic qualification. Andrea Yates, Deanna Laney and Dena Schlosser, all God-fearing Christian mothers, killed their children. I'm just saying, think before you speak people.

What bothers me most though is simply that Palin is the first female nominee on a presidential ticket. How utterly unfair that after all these years (the first serious female contender for president was in 1964) we should get a woman like her. Hilary Clinton was a serious candidate – smart, savvy, experienced, well spoken – and she deserved it as much as anyone. I would have been proud to call her my president but not this woman. She sounds like a third grade teacher who hasn’t spent a lot of time speaking to adults and if she doesn't have an answer to a question, she blames the question! She’s either as dumb as she appears or she’s feigning it in that “math is haaaaard” way that girls do when they first discover that boys are threatened by girls that are smarter than they are. Either way, it’s behavior unbecoming a woman promising to break the glass ceiling for all women. Men are threatened by women who are smarter than them which means the only woman capable of breaking the ceiling is as smart as the men around her and isn’t afraid to show it.

When I watched John McCain announce her as his running mate during the Republican convention, I thought it was a stroke of genius. I imagined all of his advisers in a room after the Democratic convention thinking that they didn’t have a chance in hell. How could McCain possibly compete against the youth, optimism, intelligence and charisma of Obama? We all heard that sucking sound when Hilary was pulled out of the race, though, and in that vacuum they decided to bring in a woman of their own. But unlike Hilary, this woman would be pretty and approachable in a fifties housewife kind of way and she’d be a real woman with a lot of kids and strong views against abortion. They also imagined, I’m sure, that if she literally had never been to Washington, she wouldn’t have any enemies there or anyone who really knew her background. Plus, they thought she’d be easy to manipulate.

The Republicans don’t give a shit about women. Oh sure, they’re happy to use the fire of pro-life conservative women to get elected but once in office, they don’t do a damn thing about it. The irony is, Roe v. Wade would probably have a better chance of being overturned if there were more women in office, or in the courts, because women care about this issue. Pro or against, it affects us profoundly. Out of 110 Supreme Court Justices that have sat on the bench in our history, only two have been women. Plus, since 1990, the number of female Republican representatives has been dropping. While women in state and U.S. congresses were split evenly then, now Democrats make up 69% of the women in state legislatures and 70% of the women in the U.S. Congress. When the Democrats had a black man and white woman as their top contenders for President this year, the Republicans had a bunch of white men. They weren’t looking for the candidate that would make the best Vice President; they were looking for someone that could help them win. They’re using Sarah Palin, exploiting her "aw shucks" ignorance and her bald-faced ambition, to try to win an election as if what happens after that is meaningless.

The flip-flopping that Palin's doing right now on whether or not she's a feminist further demonstrates that the strategy isn't working. The Republicans don't know how to position her and because of it we haven't a clue who she really is. At a rally a few days ago, Palin appeared onstage with a number of high-powered feminists who previously supported Clinton. The fact that NOW (National Organization of Women) has already endorsed Obama hasn’t stopped these women from aligning themselves with a candidate whose most fervent supporters want to take us back into the dark ages. So they too prove to be sexist by backing a candidate simply because of her gender and basically reversing their support on every major issue. During her Katie Couric interview, she answered the question about whether she's a feminist with a decisive "yes" but now she doesn't want to be labeled. The public thinks she's being asked the question only because she's a female and isn't that sexist?

Yes, she's absolutely being asked the question because she's a woman, but no, it's not sexist. Let's not pretend that gender neutrality is possible in this highly critical and personal arena. Equality is being treated with the same respect and being offered the same opportunities without rewards or punishment based on race, gender, etc. I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. We women are being asked to consider her despite her shortcomings, which can only mean that she intends to represent us in a way that a man can't. Besides, if she were really an intelligent leader, she would jump at the opportunity to educate us on what being a feminist means to her. She could say that being a feminist does not mean subscribing to a single political doctrine because that would be saying that all women are the same. (Clearly, we are not.)

She could say that being a feminist means taking the women's role as creator very seriously and that is why she cannot condone abortion. I would respect her if she could articulate a position, any position, even if I didn't agree with it. She could outline for us how she has promoted and stood up for women's rights – in the same way that she exposed corruption in the government and negotiated a pipeline in her state, which I also haven't heard her speak cohesively about. She wants to break the glass ceiling, so what's wrong with asking her how she's going to help me do it too? One editorial suggests that we haven't heard anything intelligent from Palin because the Democrats haven't asked her any real questions and suggests that they're being sexist by not engaging her. I say bullshit. I say she's had plenty of opportunities to say something worth listening to and has failed miserably. While sexism definitely contributes to the gender gap in political representation, it isn't the reason Sarah Palin won't be our Vice President.

That isn't to say this has been easy for me. I'm a dyed in the wool feminist who would probably draw blood to defend Palin if I saw some of the crap she's putting up with in person, but I also cringe at everything that comes out of her mouth. Clearly, we need more women in politics to choose from for these roles. One theory for the inequality is a lack of candidates. If nothing else, Sarah Palin has shown us that being a gutsy and attractive woman and mother are enough to run for office. So perhaps she will inspire women all over the country to get their names on the ballot. I'm planning for a woman president in 2016 but let me make one final note. People forget that we've already had quite a few women in the White House, the First Ladies. Many of these women have worked just as tirelessly for our country as their husbands and some have made enormous contributions. While it's not an elected position and they don't get paid, they also get very little credit for their efforts so I'd like to thank them now.

Do we really hate each other?

Holy mackerel, every time I’m about to post about what’s going on in the election, another ridiculous thing happens. Why just this week…
- Famous conservatives jump ship to endorse Obama.
- Colin Powell, the only man in the White House who didn’t want to invade Iraq, endorses Obama and is dismissed by McCain because he's got the support of plenty of other military folks.
- Joe the Plumber turns out to be a fraud in every way but Palin's still chanting his name at rallies.
- The McCain camp continues to call Obama a terrorist and supporters at a rally in Minnesota held signs comparing him to Charles Manson.
- Palin is suddenly a feminist and shows up at a rally with a cadre of Clinton supporters despite the fact that NOW and Hilary herself have endorsed Obama.
- A Republican club in California mails out a racist anti-Obama flyer and makes one of their members cry for 45 minutes.
- Palin makes an appearance on SNL and Alec Baldwin, who made fun of her on Bill Maher only a week before, tells her she’s hotter in person.

I mean, you can’t make up stuff like this! It’s juicier than any TV show. Once again, this election has brought out the worst behavior and the ugliest thoughts of the Americans. But here's what’s really disturbing to me. Last night I saw these videos from the Alfred E. Smith annual charity dinner that all these people were at: McCain, Obama, and Hilary Clinton. It's traditional during election years for the candidates to roast themselves/each other, so John McCain gets up there and makes jokes about replacing his staff with Joe the Plumber and hiring him to work on his seven houses while Barack Obama makes jokes about his middle name really being Steve and how he wasn't really born in a manger, and they both joke about Hilary voting for McCain. They make jokes about Acorn registering Mickey Mouse and are all cracking up at each other; they can barely contain themselves.

So here they are, really, making fun of all of us for getting sucked into the bullshit: Democrats versus Republicans, us versus them, everyone calling each other ignorant and stupid and even the candidates call us names. And all the while, this is just what they do to win. It doesn’t mean anything. McCain doesn't REALLY think Obama is a terrorist; it's just a campaign tactic and Obama knows it. They oh-so-casually make stuff up about themselves, relying on the fact that we'll use it to make assumptions about how they'll govern. But while Americans are hating each other and fighting over this stuff, these guys go to a fancy dinner and have a laugh about it. At the end of the day, they're all buddies and they’ll still be running our government no matter who ends up as president.

Noam Chomsky said in an interview that if anyone is undecided, they should just vote Democrat because most people’s lives improve when a Democrat is in office. It’s that simple. Unless, he says, your personal beliefs are more important, in which case, vote that way. Then he said something else, about how public policy isn’t based on what the people want anyway. Politicians don’t talk address issues that are important to us, they talk about issues that are important to business and sometimes they just happen to be the same thing. For example, he says, health care has been the number one issue for the voters for decades. It’s a horrific system, totally broken, and another embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world that has already socialized their medical system.

Here we are being brainwashed, repeating “socialism is bad” without most people even understanding what it means. We have already socialized parts of our government and taxes are a form of socialism that, in fact, enable the American Dream and McCain knows that as well as Obama. Socialism is a red herring, it's just a campaign strategy to get elected. The reason health care is on the agenda this year, says Chomsky, is because big business is finally complaining about it. When GM says it’s cheaper to make cars in Canada because of the outrageous cost of providing health care in this country, lawmakers start to listen. See, the fighting isn't real. They just pretend to fight and disrespect each other so they can get into office. The two parties, Chomsky says, are really two branches of the same party, the business party.

I just finished watching Why We Fight, which is totally excellent and I highly recommend it. One point made in the film – which was also discussed at length in Gore’s book, Assault on Reason – is where was the fighting when it really mattered, when our Congress was deciding whether to go to war? The truth is, there wasn’t any debate. Republicans largely voted for it and Democrats mostly voted against it but they didn’t convene for a week or two to hash out the details and make sure this was the right thing to do. Not only that, they gave Bush the power to decide all of that for himself! They totally circumvented the checks and balances and said “Sure, the President can do whatever he wants in Iraq with our permission,” and sent us war with no budget and no exit strategy.

See, here’s what I think. I think people are angry, and rightfully so. We inherently know we aren’t being represented. We can’t trust our government and frankly, we don’t know whom to trust. We’re seeing our lives get worse and don’t know how to make them better. We see other people’s lives getting much better and suspect massive corruption, but aren’t sure if laws have been broken or if those people are just smarter than we are. We might also understand, although it’s difficult to admit, that for the last fifty years this country has taken whatever its wanted from the rest of the world and we’ve prospered even as we’ve fallen behind in education, health care, industry and infrastructure. The anger, though, has mistakenly been directed at each other as if all of this is the fault of people who don’t believe in God, people who hate gays or Jews or blacks, people who abort babies, drug addicts, perverts, socialists, because it must be someone’s fault, right?

This is, I must admit, the main reason that I support Obama. It's been a very long time since a politician has been so positive. He has managed to keep his head above the negativity and continue to call for togetherness and understanding. It's also a major reason that Colin Powell endorsed him. He says this country can't afford to be torn apart and I agree completely. Of course, the internet amplifies the negativity with its continuous critique and rehashing of every moment. Now a negative event doesn't happen once, it happens thousands of times. And people don't seem to need much encouragement for joining in the fray. But it makes me wonder yet again, if we are as backward as we appear. After all, we're about to elect a black man as our president, so clearly we are a progressive society no matter what the candidates or the media lead us to believe.

I had to post this

It's too funny how easily situations reflect each other, further evidence that humans keep playing out the same dramas, just with different players.



Replace "hobnobbing with crooks" with "pallin' around with terrorists." I also love the reference to The Penguin's "enthusiastic fans." Tee hee.

The real Joe Six-Pack

My mother, who usually doesn't care about politics at all and sighs when I get to talking about it, has become engrossed in the presidential race. She's never been accepted by her mother-in-law and when she heard her on the phone going on and on about how sweet Sarah Palin is, it galvanized her. "Did you see the debate?" she asked me? "What professional person talks like that?" My mom, who works for the Navy, says she'd be laughed at or fired if she conducted a meeting winking at people and talking like a hillbilly. Her in-laws support McCain because he's NRA even though "they don't own a gun and never have" but they live in rural Oregon and that's the kind of thing people there are into. "Do you know Palin didn't even graduate from college?" my mother asks. I tell her that I know she went to six colleges but didn't realize she never got a degree. "AND," my mom goes on, "She got a GED from high school. She's a drop out!

"They're finally getting into that business about she and her husband being part of that radical organization that wanted to secede" she continues. What an embarrassment this woman is. The Europeans were horrified when they saw the debate. All the Euro-cred we got in nominating Obama went right out the window when they saw the local yokel on the TEE-VEE talkin' straight, "you betcha!" And they thought Americans only talked that way on the Dukes of Hazzard, boy were they wrong.

During the last debate, my mom kept mimicking Palin saying "There you go, Joe, talkin' 'bout the past agin." "All McCain talks about is the past," she continues, "Vietnam and Reagan and PRESIDENT HOOVER?! Who was even alive when he was president?" She throws up her arms. "He has terminal cancer!" she says, "The doctors have only given him three years to live!" It does seem ludicrous that he would be seen as fit to serve, especially given the extreme stress and aging that even the youngest presidents endure. I couldn't help but cringe as McCain repeated every speech from the first debate, verbatim. On and on again about the war and his service in the military. It's literally all he has to talk about. Obama on the other hand, seemed like he was genuinely finding new words to answer each question, and he did actually answer the questions.

After the debate, we watched as everyone shook Obama's hand and snapped their photos with him. McCain was awkwardly walking around the room with his skeletal wife. Together, they look like the walking dead, he looks like he's been stuffed. "Oh, she's lovely," mom added when Michelle Obama started greeting audience members. When Obama went to shake McCain's hand, he pointed at his wife and Obama shook her hand. My mother gasped in horror, "He won't even shake his HAND," she says and continues about how we're going to find out just how racist this country is.

This, though, was the kicker. The next day, she read this news story about a 10-year old who crashed a van in Tennesee going about 90 mph. In the back of the van were his two siblings and parents who were popping pills, snorting coke and drinking. The dad, wore a T-shirt that said, "Buy this dad a beer." "That's Sarah Palin's Joe Six-Pack!" she said and laughed hysterically. "That's who's supporting Failin and McSame, ha ha ha."

Talking about an evolution

I’ve been thinking about religion lately, mulling it over for the last year or so. When I saw Bill Maher’s film Religulous on Saturday it inspired me to finally write about it. I enjoyed the film and while I think it was a bit unfocused and incomplete, it brings up an excellent point. Bill Maher makes a case that religion is an outmoded social structure based on myth and superstition that we can no longer afford. Al Gore says in his book The Assault on Reason: "We are currently faced with the urgent task of accelerating our own psychological, emotional, intellectual and spiritual evolution in order to see over the internal walls that may have served some useful purpose ages ago but are now merely obstacles that prevent us from securing the new path we must take." Eckhart Tolle, in A New Earth, says we must “evolve or die.” Watching, in Religulous, the way people defend their creation myths to the point of insisting that man lived with dinosaurs and refusing to believe the same myths had been repeated in civilizations for over 50,000 years before the Bible was written, makes me wonder if many wouldn’t rather die.

Religion, as a means of government, is an archaic idea that has been replaced by every advanced nation in the world with reason, law and social responsibility. Religion, as the quest for meaning, is not archaic – human beings will seek the answers to how we got here and what our purpose is for as long as we are in this world – but religion no longer satisfies the quest for these answers. Eckhart Tolle is one of the most popular new age writers of our time and while he frequently quotes Jesus in the book, he is clearly promoting an agnostic philosophy. The dictionary defines an agnostic as “one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.” I love the use of the word ‘refrain’ here. It suggests that precisely because the desire to know about our origins is so strong, we may be tempted to accept easy answers as truth. Tolle cleverly uses the quotes of Jesus to illustrate that he and other spiritual leaders were ahead of their time, teaching a Zen philosophy, and because they were not understood have been misinterpreted and their words misused to further the careers of religious leaders. He no doubt also knows that many Christians are searching for answers beyond their religion and will find comfort in the references to Jesus.

Tolle says that we are in the midst of the great awakening and spends most of the book explaining that in order to evolve, humans will have to free themselves from the grip of the ego. To do it, we must become aware of the insanity of the ego and its control over our thoughts and actions. By being aware, we become present and no longer operate unconsciously. He describes how the ego, when it feels that threatened, grows in power and become increasingly insane. This is what I think is happening now. The religious institutions of the world, fueled by ego, are severely threatened by their declining relevancy in our global culture and are reacting in a fanatical way to survive. Bill Maher says in the film that 16% of Americans do not subscribe to a religious doctrine, the largest percentage in the history of one of the most religious nations on earth.

‘Unconscious’ is how Tolle describes the unenlightened. They are not bad or stupid or inferior, they simply have not yet awakened the part of themselves that is their true being. They are living through the mind and the ego. Unconscious might also be how Maher would describe faith – often referred to as “blind faith.” Religulous humorously demonstrates the absurdity of the “truths” accepted by followers, truths that not only vary from church to church but also contradict truths by other religions. The most frightening thing about faith is that it cannot be questioned without terse rigidity and suspicion. Maher says, once the word faith is spoken, conversation stops. I read, in one article about the film, that Americans would rather vote for a Jew, a black, a woman or a homosexual than an atheist. For all the prejudice in the world, Americans find a person without belief in the talking snake, the virgin birth and the second coming of the messiah, as anathema. Is it because people without “faith” are not likely to take anything at face value? Is because they question everything? Is it because it is assumed that their lack of belief in God means they a lack of belief in anything?

Atheist comes from the Greek word áthe, which means godless. The dictionary defines atheist as “a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a deity or divine beings” but defines godless as “wicked, evil and sinful.” How can anyone believe that a person who doesn’t believe in god is wicked? Both of my parents are atheist yet they went to church growing up. Their mothers were fairly devout as women of that generation tended to be. Half of the kids became atheists and the other half, became born again so I grew up in the conflict of religion as my father said it was stupid and my aunts told us we were going to hell. They tried to save my brother and me by leaving bibles in our rooms whenever they came to visit.

But despite the lack of god in our lives, we were raised in a very strict and moral way. There was no drinking, no swearing, no lying and no smoking in our house. We couldn’t watch television, eat junk food or have friends spend the night in our rooms. We lived on a steady diet of exercise, studying and health food. I have always been hardworking, honest and fair. My born-again relatives, on the other hand, were petty and judgmental, they home schooled their kids and restricted contact to only their church congregation, they lied and swindled money from my grandparents and fought amongst themselves about who was most worthy of their charity. They always appeared to me to be the worst kind of people, the kind that preach good but aren’t themselves.

It wasn’t difficult to see the hypocrisy of religion then and it isn’t difficult to see it now. Our President says God told him to run for office and has often used this religious calling to justify his actions which include an unprovoked invasion of a country (that some liken to a holy war and that has left more dead than the ruthless dictator we overthrew), unlawful detention (and alleged torture) of hundreds of innocent people and the erosion of civil liberties promised to us by our intentionally non-religious government. This President who claims to use God and religion as his guiding force is on track to become the least popular president in our history. Odd considering his devout beliefs!

It is easy to understand how 2,000 years ago a belief in god might have been requisite to establishing a set of rules but it seems to me an ancient idea that a person who doesn’t believe in god has no moral code! Religion has never succeeded in getting everyone to agree on a moral code. Nor has it ever succeeded in keeping people from committing sin. So it can be argued that it isn’t an effective method of social control, advancement or enlightenment at all. In addition, governments such as ours were crafted with a level of insight and lucidity not shown in any organized religion. Our founders specifically designed a government based on reason that protects the welfare of people by establishing universal beliefs that determined laws of fairness. As Bill Maher so aptly asks in the film, “Do we really need religion to tell us not to kill people?”

A friend of mine says that I’m not an atheist because atheists are certain that there is no mystery to the universe, no grand design, just a swirling mass of matter bumping into each other. Each of the major religions are also certain that their story is the right one and their way is the right way, making their followers equally rigid in their view of others. This is what makes religion so dangerous in today’s global culture. Religious followers have made it their purpose to judge others and decide who is deserving and who is not, who is sinful and who is not and who is good and who is not. There simply isn’t room on this planet for this kind of nonsense, for fighting over creation myths, gods, messiahs, promised lands, second comings, Armageddons and end times. Maher says his belief is “I don’t know!” but Tolle describes it more like “We couldn’t possibly know.” I wonder why we need to know. Clearly, the creation of the universe and everything in it is beyond our comprehension. We can't even comprehend what we don't know! Enlightenment, then, comes by becoming aware of the temptation to accept a limited truth and instead gain a greater acceptance of the unknown, become more patient with things we don’t understand and learn to appreciate the miracle of life as it manifests within us and around us at every moment.

The evolution has already begun. There are over a million organizations dedicated to positive change, fueled by believers, atheists, agnostics and seekers alike. Some religious leaders are breaking from the establishment to speak out against war, stand up for the welfare of animals and advocate for a better relationship with nature. Scientists and activists are starting to talk about the need for a spiritual aspect of the green movement and in the quest for human and animal rights. In online profiles, included in the list of religions that you could be is the choice “spiritual,” a broad term that says, “I don’t subscribe to a religious doctrine but I am on an individual quest for meaning.” I think the term will soon be broadened to also imply a desire to live in greater harmony with the environment and a need for peace.

The film, The 11th Hour, compares what is happening to our environment as a reflection of what is going on inside us. We have lost our connection to nature and have caused others and ourselves great suffering as a result. But nature is not just leaves and grass and the birds we sometimes get a glimpse of, nature is life. We are life. The life force, what people call god, manifests through all of us as a single being. To choke the life out of other living creatures, no matter how small, is to be truly unconscious and disconnected from the collective miracle of life. My mom just told me a story about her friend’s neighbor who bought the house next door and ripped out all the plants. The yard had been beautifully landscaped but was now just an expanse of dirt in the front. After about a year, my mom’s friend knocked on his neighbor’s door to find out what “his plan” was for it. The neighbor replied, “Nothing. My wife doesn’t like plants.”

When I was growing up, I attended many different churches with friends and relatives. I got to sample quite a few and as an adult found myself curious enough to keep going whenever an opportunity would arise. I went to Tibetan Buddhist services with a boyfriend, Catholic services with my dad and his second wife (I know, bizarre!), and when in D.C. as a college student, went to the oldest Baptist church there. Each time I remember thinking that what was being said was fairly unremarkable, but what was amazing was the energy in the room. Hundreds of people together, shaking hands and meeting their neighbor, bowing their head in silent contemplation, giving their full attention to another person. These were remarkable and uncommon experiences in my life. The other outlet for this kind of community gathering, the town hall, Al Gore says we've lost. Now instead of people getting together to discuss issues, the direction of our world is communicated to us as a one-way conversation. The first time I went to yoga, I recognized that a class contained the incredibly powerful elements of church, which I think explains the rapidly growing popularity of yoga. In each class I’ve taken in more than ten years of practice, the teacher asks us to be thankful for the privilege of being able to do yoga and for a full hour and a half we mindfully turn our attention inward.

The evolution of religion has taken us from god-fearing people who believed god was angry or happy with us based on the weather. We made ritual killings and other sacrifices to appease the gods. Later, that type of religion was considered barbaric. At another point in time, there were special priests who said that only they could speak to god and they would translate for us. Later, we came to regard that type of religion as elitist and a way to control the people. The Jews suggested that people could speak directly to god, that we didn’t need priests, and they were banished for it. Now, people gather in churches or pray in groups or home alone, believing that god is listening. Bill Maher says, isn’t it ridiculous to think there’s a guy somewhere listening to all of us murmur about our lives?

We’re certainly getting closer to the truth but I say, isn’t it time for another evolution? One in which we finally turn our focus inward and stop talking to an external god. Let us be released from the bondage of our collective insanity and recognize the life force in all of us. We are part of a whole that is much bigger than ourselves. We’re like the blood cells in a body sitting around trying to figure out how we got there and what we’re supposed to be doing. I'm not saying we should stop seeking answers but it seems to me that science, not religion, is doing that. And for everything that scientists say they have found an answer to, hundreds more things are revealed that they don't understand. The mystery only grows with exploration. That applies to our bodies and our brains as much as our planet and our universe. We’re trying to figure out what makes the universe tick instead of simply being a part of it. We’re busy launching wars and choking the life out of on various other parts of the whole because we don’t understand ourselves. Clearly, the answers are not out there, they’re in here.

Building a more secure world, with guns

The industrial war machine is one of those things that the people in power like to say is too complicated for us, mere citizens of the world, to understand. I've heard that wars boost the economy, or at least that's what we're told in the U.S., although I imagine it only works if your country is involved in a war elsewhere. War on a nation's own soil doesn't seem to boost anything except the death toll. The U.S. had made it a special kind of a habit to be continuously involved in a war somewhere, anywhere but here.

Our country has been at war with one country or another since its inception with only short 5,10 or 15 year breaks, not including all the covert activities. In fact, the longest period of "peace" was after the Civil War, probably only because we were too broke and had too few young men to fight anyone. Not since the Civil War has there been war waged against the U.S., which probably makes us one of safest countries on the planet. We've never been invaded and yet our military spending far exceeds that of any other country. The entire world spent $1.2 trillion last year and the U.S. accounted for almost half of that. Apparently, though, we're so rich that it doesn't even constitute 4% of our GDP, putting us pretty low on the list of spending as a percentage of GDP. North Korea tops that list at a whopping 22%, yikes!

In the last two years, the U.S. has tripled the number of tanks, helicopters, missiles, jets and warships sold to the international community. At about $32 billion (so far this year), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the $583 billion we're spending, but likely represents quite a hike for the buyers. The biggest sales were to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq and Pakistan. The Pentagon says the deals are to solidify relationships and make the world safer. We can only assume the arms to Afghanistan are to help fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda but 2008 has been the deadliest year yet for U.S. troops there. We've already lost more soldiers this year than all of last year so the proliferation of weapons doesn't appear to making anyone safer. (Poor Australia has probably had to stock up because they're sitting next to Indonesia, which is now a terrorist hot spot.)


Just as I don't believe violence as a strategy leads to peace, it's also hard to believe that having more weapons in the world makes it a safer place. Even a child could figure that one out. It does, however, seem to ensure that there is always a war going on. It would be difficult to wage war on your neighbors without weaponry. Selling our technology to other countries also ensures the need to keep innovating better weapons, to stay ahead of the curve, thus keeping the war machine alive. We have managed to lose far less soldiers in each war but the death toll remains frighteningly high for those whose country we occupy. The U.S. does not keep that count and the whole world is trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. The figures inhabit a terrifying range of 90,000 to 1.5 million civilians and combatants. The Bush administration maintains the lowest number, of course. "Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure" of 29,000 per year making our occupation more dangerous than Saddam's.

This latest round of wars, however, are different for the U.S. than previous ones. For one thing, we don't really know who the enemy is which makes it difficult to determine whether we're succeeding to defeat that enemy. Especially as this new kind of war seems to generate a steady supply of new enemies as it progresses; more effective war insurance! Another difference is the number of people who die from non-combat related causes. I just read that 16 soldiers were electrocuted to death because of faulty wiring in their living quarters. One while taking a shower, another while washing the humvee! The contractor responsible, KBR of Houston, who I have no doubt is boosting our economy, was paid "despite the problems, and was hired as recently as 2007 to repair its own faulty electrical work." Finally, because of the duration of the war and the relatively low death toll, most of young men and women are coming home and are physically handicapped and/or mentally damaged. What will be the long-term effect on that generation?

How do we know that the weapons we're selling to those countries will not fall into enemy hands and be used against us? How many times have we supported governments that have later become our enemies? We all know the story of how Osama Bin Laden came to power in the aftermath of being trained by the U.S. as a rebel to fight the Soviet invasion. Haven't we learned that lesson yet? It seems like the best way to defeat an enemy would be to disarm them by stopping the flow of weapons in their direction. Is that not something the international community is capable of?

No, apparently not. Russia and other European countries are also vying for big ticket sales to India and Brazil. In addition to the numbers above for "sophisticated" weapons, the U.S. also sells less sophisticated weapons and those numbers are already $96 billion this year, up from $58 billion in 2005. Then, added to that is the $4.5 billion in aid given to countries to buy weapons (presumably from us) and doesn't include the weapons we give away. According to this article, "The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded." Expanded? Clearly, the world is buying because we're selling, not the other way around.

Again, I ask: Isn't it possible that the world would be safer if the U.S. didn't sell weapons to everyone else? It seems that we are in a unique position to stem the flow but the response from the Pentagon is if they don't buy from us, they'll buy from someone else. But countries are buying from us because we make the best and because we're selling. And what exactly would be the harm in the arms being bought from someone else? I would love to know. I think Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he told a congressional committee Wednesday that the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan. "We can't kill our way to victory," he said, "and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation."

No worse than the other guy

Sunday morning, someone asked me if I'd read the front-page article about Sarah Palin in the New York Times. "It read like an op-ed piece," she said, "not like a serious news article." Curious, I went home and read it, a five-page “expose” on Palin’s dealings with colleagues as gathered from "60 Democrats and Republicans." I didn't think it was very interesting, frankly, and it only confirmed what I already thought: This woman is not a contender for our highest office. (Although now she is reminding me more of Nicole Kidman's character in To Die For than Dolores Umbridge.)

What I found more interesting than the article, though, were the 1,051 comments (before commenting was closed). There were three types of responses. Those from people who already didn't like Palin and this just confirmed it, those who weren't sure what to think and are now horrified and those who think Palin is unjustly being crucified by the liberal press. The last category is of the most interest to me because it exposes the questions.

Some people simply cannot tolerate the ugliness of politics and I am one of those people so I understand that they may feel compelled to stick up for the person they feel is being picked on. But Sarah Palin seems to be a bully in every sense of the word, not someone to feel sorry for. It is precisely seen as one of her strengths, like it was for Hilary Clinton, a woman who can fight with the men. Then there are those who say the article is just a gossip piece and scoff at the Times for spending so many resources to only come up with this. I have to agree with this although I’m inclined to believe it’s because Palin doesn’t have much to offer but gossip. Mayor of a town only twice as large as my high school and governor of a state the size of the county I grew up in, it’s hard to believe she has much substantive experience to really dig into.

This isn't a news story, just a waste bin of mindless small town gossip. You could write a story like this about every mayor in America.
— White River, Arkansas

I'd love to point to Mayor Villairagosa in Los Angeles who has tackled issues the magnitude of which are actually comparable to those of a higher office. But what I find most troubling is the pervasive belief that all politicians are corrupt. An alarming number of comments sarcastically feign horror at a politician who "hires friends" and "fires enemies" and so in that regard, she is no different than Obama.

I am a registered Democrat and don't see Palin as being any more or less qualified than Obama. They both have huge experience holes. I do believe that the transcendent issue of our time is ENERGY. She seems to be the only person in the group of four who understands how to truly produce more energy.
— Bill, Pennsylvania

Sarah Palin is no worse than anyone on the other side. In fact, I think she may be better. So I will vote McCain with her on the ticket.
— Roy Pendergraft, San Antonio, Texas

Do you think your favorite Democrats are different or better???
— S charles, Northern, NJ

I actually interpreted what was being questioned is how one comes to BE labeled a friend or an enemy, not whether it makes sense to hire friends and fire enemies. Can you imagine the new ads for McCain/Palin: "No worse than the other guy, maybe even better." I suppose it is naïve of me to expect something better from the President but I don’t intend to simply relinquish the standards of our government laid down by our constitution because “that’s just the way people are" and refuse to believe that this type is behavior is required in our current government.

Well it appears that Palin runs a very tight ship. I am not at all surprised about the findings in this article. I am a teacher and my previous school underwent a change of guard in my last year. When the new principal came in she brought new cronies, new policies, and singled out her favorite teachers. Some of the teachers deserved the accolades and some didn't. Some policies were absurd, some weren't. Most of the cronies were incompetent.

The bottom line is that business is not as professional as anyone would like to make it seem. Especially in the government. Taxpayer money is the easiest checkbook to throw around. I'm not letting Palin off the hook, I'm just not surprised. A lot of people get jobs because they "know" somebody.

I'm sure we have all been victims of workplace unfairness at some point or other. I'm sure most of us have even participated in it. Most of this behavior is human nature. Do I think Palin will act any differently if elected to the White House? No. Do I think that she will be the first president or vice-president to use her power to get back at people? No again. I don't want Palin in office at all. But this article isn't making me like her any less. I'm more concerned about her policies.
— Toussaint, NY

While I agree that corruption is not a new idea, it’s certainly not ideal. We’re supposed to have a choice here! Are we not? And while I’ve been in really frustrating and annoying work situations where incompetent people were rewarded, good ideas were shot down and people played dirty, I fought them. I didn’t just say “that’s the way it is” and go about my business. To my detriment, perhaps, but I didn’t vote those people into their positions and the future of our country was not at stake. To compare the Vice Presidency to a teacher’s job or my marketing job is a joke. To say that it doesn’t matter how she behaves only what she produces is also absurd. I learned first hand that no matter how good a person’s direction, it is meaningless if we cannot learn to achieve these things in a way that is respectful and that builds roads and bridges to more progress.

Several readers suggest that the Times has yet to do such in-depth reporting on Obama, because surely they would find the same kind of gossip about him. Some simply dismiss the Times as pro-Obama and say they "will do anything to make this woman look bad." Two readers end by saying "no wonder your stock is tanking" and "look at your revenues," suggesting that the paper is going bankrupt because of their unfair reporting. Isn't it contradictory to accuse the paper of being biased and then making reference to their financial status? If fairness were truly the bottom line, their finances wouldn't matter.

It is nice but who is reading your paper, only the people who would rather vote for a pig than for a Republican. Have you ever done such a lengthy research on Obama's record?
— Igor Dolgachev, Ann Arbor, MI

I look forward to seeing similar in depth investigation of Joe Biden and, for that matter, Barack Obama.
— Dennis from the Bronx, NYS

You know there are times when I really feel like just saying goodbye to the NYT! You cannot simultaneously deride her lack of experience and also meticulously cut up her record. I am not saying that she is the most experienced but I have never read an article like this as critical of Obama or excoriating him like you did Palin. Your bias is so clear it is despicable.
— tom, Bronxville, new york

i will donate $1,000.xx to the charity of JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL's collective choice if they can point me to a New York Times story in the last twelve months similar in tone, depth, length and quotes from critics about either Senator Obama or Senator Biden.
— michael schrage, cambridge

Clearly, it isn't more in-depth articles people want, they just want the bashing to be even. Don't make Sarah Palin look bad if you aren't going to equally discredit the other candidates. Is it really our desire to see all of our candidates dragged in the mud until it’s impossible to believe in a leader that we can respect? It's funny because I doubt these people are as upset about McCain bashing Obama because that's just fair politics for one candidate to trash and lie about another. I, for one, am more upset about our presidential candidates engaging in this type of behavior than I am the press. The press has always been inflammatory. I might be wrong but I thought it was their role to ask the brazen questions and uncover the truth, not to present a fairly balanced scorecard of all candidates with equal amounts of ugly and pretty. Our candidates, however, are supposed to convince us why we should vote for them. It is NOT their job to slander the other candidates.

In another article about the investigation into a firing by Sarah Palin that several Republicans are suing to halt, one of the attorneys says:
"There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it."

Good lord! It's no wonder the public is so confused, these people can't stop talking out of both sides of their mouths! They want the investigation to stop because they think it's going to unfairly affect the election? But they ALSO think it's somehow totally unrelated and the public doesn't need to know the truth about her until AFTER the election? I am sickened by the ever-present reference that politics is inherently dirty and, according to the above quote, the OPPOSITE of fair. It seems to confirm that people really believe there is no difference between any candidate, they’re all corrupt egomaniacs, so it really is a mere popularity contest. If it doesn't matter what a person stands for and what they've actually accomplished, it only comes down to is whether you personally think they're neat. Which is so interesting in light of McCain's claim that the Obama supporters are just a bunch of glassy-eyed sycophants, implying that his supporters are meat-and-potatoes issues people. From the fainting spells the Republicans are having over Palin I'd say the opposite is true, but of course she wasn't in the picture then.

I just watched the Sarah Palin special on CNN: sorry, but I can't see anything wrong or that would disturb me - seems to be just a fine woman, and with a spine! So would you please stop bashing her now?
— Richard Streiff, California

I agree. I’m tired of hearing about her! On another note, I caught a little speech by Jill Biden who comes across as a truly lovely person — genuine, likeable and intelligent. She is the perfect antidote to all this ugliness.

Back to school

It's well into September already and I only posted three measly times last month, my all time low. I intend, this month, to get back on track. It's so hard to do. Everything worth doing has be done all the time: eating healthy, exercise, loving your friends/partner/family, forgiving yourself, writing and even gardening. Without practice and dedicated attention, these things wither - body, relationships, mental health, passion and the plants. I'm settled now, for the time being, in the suburbs. I have a one bedroom apartment to myself and although it's quite nice, I'm still very aware of not wanting to get comfortable, or maybe to not get too used to not having to work. What if making a living is like those other things and without practice I will cease to do it?

The suburbs are dreadful and even my mother thinks so. She's here because of me. In 1980, my parents got jobs in this area and bought a house in the place they could afford that was also a good area to raise kids. Many of the parents of the kids I went to school with left when the kids graduated. The others, like my mom, still work for the Navy and have to stay until they retire. Many stay here after retirement but a lot of them are anxious to go somewhere else. The food is dreadfully average and if you ask a barista if they have organic milk, they look at you like you just vomited. It's always been Republican country but the demographic seems to have changed. People drive huge SUVs with license plates that say "LUVRKIDS," right next to a sticker of a little girl praying. Many of my friends don't believe the stories of people here chopping down mature trees and paving the front yard in order to park the boat, RV or 4-wheelers there. Every night someone buzzes by one of those "mini motorcycles" and we can hear it coming for ten minutes before it passes by. It's a concrete paradise! Some of the American flags in the yards are bigger than the one at the USA gas station.

I went to the Farmer's Market on Saturday and made a lot of new friends. It wasn't as fun as the one in San Francisco but that's to be expected. One of the vendors told me that more people are coming to these days, that it's in vogue. The checker at Trader Joe's told me more people bring their own bags these days too. So I'm encouraged by that. I brought home from the Farmer's Market, the sweetest tomatoes, the crispiest cucumbers and the tastiest chard I've ever had. I also found pastured eggs (for half as much as they are in San Fran), raw milk cheese and homemade avocado cilantro hummus (yum!). I'm going to try the yoga studio soon and check out the new pool at the community center and, yes, I'm going to blog about something interesting. I'm kind of floored over this Sarah Palin thing and still formulating what to say about her except the fact that she is Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Ironic, considering that she tried to ban the Harry Potter books from the library in the town she was mayor of.


Dolores Umbridge, if you don't recall, is the woman who showed up from the Ministry of Magic in the last film and dismantled everything that was good about Hogwarts. Under the guise of spreading the truth, her main objective was to put to bed the rumors that something bad was about to happen. She took over the Dark Arts class and banned the useful books that actually taught magic and insisted that they instead study from these 1950's style books with innocuous illustrations. She took over the school and fired teachers that she didn't like and established hundreds of rules limiting the freedom of the kids, including free speech and the right to assemble. It's precisely what Sarah Palin has already done in her "leadership" positions.

Umbridge, played with delightful malice by Imelda Staunton, was adorable. She smiled and wore pink and had an office decorated with kitties but behind closed doors was not above torturing students to get to the truth. Nor was she above pitting the students against each other, turning them all in to spies, or lying to get what she wanted, kind of like what Sarah Palin did at the Republican Convention. See, most people don't really want to know the truth, they WANT to believe what they're told. You can tell them out-and-out lies and they won't look it up online to see if it's true. Even if it's later revealed to be a lie in the media, they'll chalk it up to the fact that the press is liberal (another Republican "distortion") or liars themselves.

The good news is that Dolores Umbridge was eventually sacked, after people started to believe Harry that you-know-who was back, but things got really bad before that. The bad news is that the religious right doesn't watch Harry Potter movies (magic is evil) so they won't see for themselves how dangerous Ms. Palin aka Ms. Umbridge is. Nor will their children learn the valuable lesson of how important it is to think for (and stand up for) yourself. The one thing I know most people can understand, however, is the potential for malice in politics. Just because Palin is on McCain's team, recruited to help him win, doesn't mean she's on his side. Look what happened to Kennedy! All I'm saying is that McCain should watch his back, I wouldn't trust that woman. If I were McCain, I would be sure to resist seduction by Palin and I sure wouldn't go hunting with her.