"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.
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
A more humane president
I wish I could think of something else besides the election and the economy but I can't. Arriving at the Farmer's Market on Saturday, I noticed that the Republicans have now joined the Democrats in handing out buttons and flyers. The Democrat Club has had a presence the last few weeks, several white-haired ladies sitting behind a table of Obama-Biden buttons, but on Saturday there was a horde of young men, in suits, handing out Republican literature. They looked like stock brokers. I immediately had this feeling that I needed to be declaring my affiliation, something I normally keep somewhat private with people I don't know. I went over to the women and bought a button, affixing it to my bag. One lady handed me a flyer to vote YES on Prop 2. I already know all about it, I said, and added that the Humane Society has just endorsed Obama. They have never before endorsed a presidential candidate and posted a detail analysis of his voting record and support for animals:
"The board of directors—which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them."
It may not mean much to some people but I say that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals (and the earth). And so does Obama. He said "I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." Humane Society and Amnesty International are my two charities, the ones I give the most money to and am the most active for. I realized this weekend that they essentially do the same thing, except one for animals and one for people. They fight to end suffering. What I like about both organizations is that they have excellent communications, informative websites and easily understood missions. They are surprisingly unsentimental, given the subject matter, and never condemn. Instead, they rely on the facts to speak for themselves. They understand that if suffering doesn't bother you, no amount of sensationalism is going to change that. If suffering does bother you, only the facts and an easy call-to-action are necessary. Amnesty International "neither supports nor opposes any political party or any candidate for public office and Amnesty does not seek to influence elections" but instead seeks to inform the public about their core issues and encourage them to influence policy. I have to say that the focus by these organizations on the welfare of people and animals is such a welcome respite from the hatred that infuses politics.
The recent behavior of Americans on the McCain-Palin campaign trail has really sickened me. I continue to find it sadly ironic that while we fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, people in this country are constantly trying to reverse our own progress and take us back into the dark ages as well. Had we not "waved the white flag of surrender" in Vietnam all those years ago, McCain might have died in a prison cell instead of coming back a war hero. Had radical women like Hillary Clinton not won out all those years ago, Palin would not be qualified to be a VP candidate because she would be denied the right to vote. Let's not forget how highly volatile these issues were when they were happening! So how is it possible that the people who support these two think they can deny gays the right to marriage, women the ability to terminate their own pregnancy and Obama the respect of a man running for The President of the United States? I refuse to believe that this country contains more hate and anger than it does hope and pride. The country I live in was founded on and has lead the world in many ways to becoming a more humane place and will continue to do so.
"The board of directors—which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them."
It may not mean much to some people but I say that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals (and the earth). And so does Obama. He said "I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." Humane Society and Amnesty International are my two charities, the ones I give the most money to and am the most active for. I realized this weekend that they essentially do the same thing, except one for animals and one for people. They fight to end suffering. What I like about both organizations is that they have excellent communications, informative websites and easily understood missions. They are surprisingly unsentimental, given the subject matter, and never condemn. Instead, they rely on the facts to speak for themselves. They understand that if suffering doesn't bother you, no amount of sensationalism is going to change that. If suffering does bother you, only the facts and an easy call-to-action are necessary. Amnesty International "neither supports nor opposes any political party or any candidate for public office and Amnesty does not seek to influence elections" but instead seeks to inform the public about their core issues and encourage them to influence policy. I have to say that the focus by these organizations on the welfare of people and animals is such a welcome respite from the hatred that infuses politics.
The recent behavior of Americans on the McCain-Palin campaign trail has really sickened me. I continue to find it sadly ironic that while we fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, people in this country are constantly trying to reverse our own progress and take us back into the dark ages as well. Had we not "waved the white flag of surrender" in Vietnam all those years ago, McCain might have died in a prison cell instead of coming back a war hero. Had radical women like Hillary Clinton not won out all those years ago, Palin would not be qualified to be a VP candidate because she would be denied the right to vote. Let's not forget how highly volatile these issues were when they were happening! So how is it possible that the people who support these two think they can deny gays the right to marriage, women the ability to terminate their own pregnancy and Obama the respect of a man running for The President of the United States? I refuse to believe that this country contains more hate and anger than it does hope and pride. The country I live in was founded on and has lead the world in many ways to becoming a more humane place and will continue to do so.
Friday, October 10, 2008
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."
"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."
Friday, October 3, 2008
A freedom-fighting power-grabbing maverick
A few thoughts on the debate last night:
1) The whole maverick thing is baffling to me. The dictionary defines a maverick as a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates. Our current president is a maverick and look where that has landed us. McCain keeps talking about Obama's liberal voting record and wondering how he can possibly "reach across the aisle from that far left." I wonder, how does a maverick reach across the aisle? It would seem to me that a maverick doesn't give a fuck about the aisle at all, or about bridging differences. Palin said that she never compromised when she was governor, somehow things just worked out and she also said that McCain would give up nothing to accommodate the bailout plan. Both of those sound like statements made by a person who gets what they want (what THEY want) no matter what. No one likes compromising but we all know that to get anything done in politics (and in life), compromises have to be made. And with a nation as ideologically divided as we are right now, I sure don't want someone in office who is going to tell us all to fuck off while they get their way. Last but not least, let's have a chuckle over her description of herself, McCain and the rest of their camp as a "team of mavericks." Sounds like an oxymoron to me, a team of individualists? Interesting.
2) When she started the Reagan quote that "freedom is always just one generation away from extinction," it made me think about watching the mini-series John Adams, and how concerned our founders were about freedom. It's what our country was founded on, why people fought and died and why the constitution was so vital to establishing the new government. What they warned against and what our government is set up to prevent is a consolidation of power. They knew that unchecked power is the single biggest threat to freedom. We've seen that freedom eroded by the unchecked power of Bush and the most indicting examination into the record of Sarah Palin is how she has wielded power in ways that go beyond the boundaries of her office. But then she continued, saying that "We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream" and there was something about the use of the word blood that made me think "yes, but we do pass it to them in a stream of blood." Her and McCain's rants about how we're WINNING in Iraq but those damn liberals want to pull us out waving "the white flag of surrender" before we've had a chance to really fully kick some ass made me queasy. Fighting for freedom to me means fighting against the corruption of power in our own government, not killing people thousands of miles away.
3) Speaking of power, did you catch this statement by Palin? "I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." I don't know what the last half of that is supposed to mean but holy shit, the woman's already power-grabbing and she's not even there yet! Did you see the twinkle in her eye when she said it? They're combing the constitution looking for loopholes that extend the executive branch even farther into the other branches than Bush did. God help us. She's a shark in the skin of a kindergarten teacher (with the vernacular of Ned Flanders) determined to have history remember Dick Cheney as a pussycat.
4) Last but not least, Palin said many times said government should get out of our way and let us live our lives but still believes it has the authority to deny gays the right to marriage? Actually, I was pretty dismayed that this was one of the only issues both parties agreed upon. How does shrinking the role of government and defending freedom fit into a belief that people should be denied the legal right of union? She said "Ameerican peeople" eleven times in the debate but I still don't believe for a second that she cares one iota about me. And what about her confusion between government and Wall Street? She mentioned the greed and corruption on Wall Street every time she made reference to how government has failed us. Unbelievable that she still can't make sense of the issue. You can't say you stand for smaller government and bash the players running the deregulated markets at the same time, jeez!
Biden, I think, came across like a guy just as capable as Obama of being president, who has his own opinions but is also committed to supporting Obama's agenda. He seemed comfortable and natural while Palin was running on such a high level of adrenalin, I thought she might collapse at the end of it. Did anyone else notice how red her eyes were? I guess she's probably been practicing twelve hours a day for a week and hadn't had much sleep. About half-way through, the whole thing turned into a big love-in with those two swapping comments about how much they admired and respected each other. Biden was definitely under her spell. Did you see Palin's husband hovering over her shoulder at the end when she was chatting with Biden? Hilarious! He doesn't trust her any further than he can throw her and, I'm sure, rightfully so.
1) The whole maverick thing is baffling to me. The dictionary defines a maverick as a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates. Our current president is a maverick and look where that has landed us. McCain keeps talking about Obama's liberal voting record and wondering how he can possibly "reach across the aisle from that far left." I wonder, how does a maverick reach across the aisle? It would seem to me that a maverick doesn't give a fuck about the aisle at all, or about bridging differences. Palin said that she never compromised when she was governor, somehow things just worked out and she also said that McCain would give up nothing to accommodate the bailout plan. Both of those sound like statements made by a person who gets what they want (what THEY want) no matter what. No one likes compromising but we all know that to get anything done in politics (and in life), compromises have to be made. And with a nation as ideologically divided as we are right now, I sure don't want someone in office who is going to tell us all to fuck off while they get their way. Last but not least, let's have a chuckle over her description of herself, McCain and the rest of their camp as a "team of mavericks." Sounds like an oxymoron to me, a team of individualists? Interesting.
2) When she started the Reagan quote that "freedom is always just one generation away from extinction," it made me think about watching the mini-series John Adams, and how concerned our founders were about freedom. It's what our country was founded on, why people fought and died and why the constitution was so vital to establishing the new government. What they warned against and what our government is set up to prevent is a consolidation of power. They knew that unchecked power is the single biggest threat to freedom. We've seen that freedom eroded by the unchecked power of Bush and the most indicting examination into the record of Sarah Palin is how she has wielded power in ways that go beyond the boundaries of her office. But then she continued, saying that "We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream" and there was something about the use of the word blood that made me think "yes, but we do pass it to them in a stream of blood." Her and McCain's rants about how we're WINNING in Iraq but those damn liberals want to pull us out waving "the white flag of surrender" before we've had a chance to really fully kick some ass made me queasy. Fighting for freedom to me means fighting against the corruption of power in our own government, not killing people thousands of miles away.
3) Speaking of power, did you catch this statement by Palin? "I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." I don't know what the last half of that is supposed to mean but holy shit, the woman's already power-grabbing and she's not even there yet! Did you see the twinkle in her eye when she said it? They're combing the constitution looking for loopholes that extend the executive branch even farther into the other branches than Bush did. God help us. She's a shark in the skin of a kindergarten teacher (with the vernacular of Ned Flanders) determined to have history remember Dick Cheney as a pussycat.
4) Last but not least, Palin said many times said government should get out of our way and let us live our lives but still believes it has the authority to deny gays the right to marriage? Actually, I was pretty dismayed that this was one of the only issues both parties agreed upon. How does shrinking the role of government and defending freedom fit into a belief that people should be denied the legal right of union? She said "Ameerican peeople" eleven times in the debate but I still don't believe for a second that she cares one iota about me. And what about her confusion between government and Wall Street? She mentioned the greed and corruption on Wall Street every time she made reference to how government has failed us. Unbelievable that she still can't make sense of the issue. You can't say you stand for smaller government and bash the players running the deregulated markets at the same time, jeez!
Biden, I think, came across like a guy just as capable as Obama of being president, who has his own opinions but is also committed to supporting Obama's agenda. He seemed comfortable and natural while Palin was running on such a high level of adrenalin, I thought she might collapse at the end of it. Did anyone else notice how red her eyes were? I guess she's probably been practicing twelve hours a day for a week and hadn't had much sleep. About half-way through, the whole thing turned into a big love-in with those two swapping comments about how much they admired and respected each other. Biden was definitely under her spell. Did you see Palin's husband hovering over her shoulder at the end when she was chatting with Biden? Hilarious! He doesn't trust her any further than he can throw her and, I'm sure, rightfully so.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Stretching for peace
I found myself in a yoga class tonight, here in the suburbs, and it occurred to me that I've been in a yoga class every September 11 since 2001. I think unconsciously I gravitate towards a place, towards people, that I know are peace-loving. It's a funny term, given Bush's constant use of "freedom haters" and "freedom lovers" when he should have been talking about peace. Freedom doesn't mean much when people are killing and dying for it. Anyway, I find it interesting that yoga is always the same. In every country, in every town, a yoga class is always about finding inner peace and radiating it out to the world. Yoga has become one of the largest counter-culture communities in a world that prefers war and violence to peace and love. It is amazing web of individuals who travel all over the world spreading that message of love and peace. Even if the towns are different from one another, within the walls of a yoga class, everyone is the same. A woman in the class had on a shirt that said "My religion is simple, my religion is kindness." Her husband's shirt simply said "peace." It was exactly the place to be on this day.
Just as the past seven years have been, the week was filled with irony as "In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes." Whoa, the second largest source of revenue? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. It sheds quite another light on the idea that this country is addicted to oil. Even more ironic is our pal Palin's comment in an interview tonight that she is ready to lead and in fact, ready to be president! She says "“You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.” What kind of reform is she talking about I wonder. Moral reform? I think that's the platform George W. Bush rode in on and look where that got us. Enron, Guantanamo, and now this, "a culture of ethical failure, a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."
Reports describe government employees taking gifts and accepting vacations, having sex with and taking drugs with oil company employees. Sounds fun! All this while taking in the second largest haul for the government. Suddenly people are wondering if pushing for offshore drilling is such a hot idea and Palin's talking about drilling in Alaska. This is one of those stories that makes me think, finally, people will hear the truth. Finally, people will see what a mess Bush has made. Palin called them "blunders" as if someone tripped over the dog or spilled milk. I wouldn't describe what's happened in our country for the last seven years as a series of blunders, I'd call it a culture of ethical failure.
Just as the past seven years have been, the week was filled with irony as "In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes." Whoa, the second largest source of revenue? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. It sheds quite another light on the idea that this country is addicted to oil. Even more ironic is our pal Palin's comment in an interview tonight that she is ready to lead and in fact, ready to be president! She says "“You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.” What kind of reform is she talking about I wonder. Moral reform? I think that's the platform George W. Bush rode in on and look where that got us. Enron, Guantanamo, and now this, "a culture of ethical failure, a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."
Reports describe government employees taking gifts and accepting vacations, having sex with and taking drugs with oil company employees. Sounds fun! All this while taking in the second largest haul for the government. Suddenly people are wondering if pushing for offshore drilling is such a hot idea and Palin's talking about drilling in Alaska. This is one of those stories that makes me think, finally, people will hear the truth. Finally, people will see what a mess Bush has made. Palin called them "blunders" as if someone tripped over the dog or spilled milk. I wouldn't describe what's happened in our country for the last seven years as a series of blunders, I'd call it a culture of ethical failure.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)