Last night I watched the election results along with millions of others. When Pennsylvania and then Ohio went for Obama, I felt this was looking good. Little by little, the results moved across the United States and the numbers began to add up. Finally it was clear that when the polls closed on the West Coast, Obama would be our next president.
When California, Oregon and Washington came in, I cried. I didn't expect to do that. But I felt an overwhelming rush of pride in this nation in which I was born and where I grew up, raised my own family and always believed was special. The people had voted, and it was overwhelmingly to move in a new direction.
I listened to the commentators talk about what it meant. Some of them still didn't get it. Chris Matthews asked why would Obama have run a 50 state strategy? Why contest all 50 states when he wasn't going to win some of those states? There was an answer to that question and it came when Obama gave his speech.
But first another speech had to be given and it was from John McCain who showed graciousness and generosity of spirit as he told his followers to support this new president. McCain has been like two men all the way through this election. Last night, the good John McCain, the one a lot of us wanted for president in 2000, that man showed up to tell us he is still there. I felt warmth for him, but seeing the anger on the faces of his supporters told me a lot of them didn't feel that same thing.
Tom DeLay was evidence of more of that negative thinking. Nancy Pelosi will run the country, he told MSNBC with his usual nasty way of talking. The crowd listening to McCain would have been more ready for that kind of talk then what McCain said. They were mad that Obama won.
Will people like that really come together to support Obama for the good of the country? Will the Right engage in more of the negative, self-defeating tactics they used against Bill Clinton and whose distraction led to the inability (of Congress and President) to deal with the rising al Qaeda and bin Laden? Already there is a group out there, online, who have a petition up to impeach Obama before he even gets in office. Never underestimate the willingness of some to cut off their own noses out of spite.
Finally last night, Obama and his family came onto the platform in Chicago, and he gave his first speech as president-elect. He was somber, happy but made clear the work has just begun for him and the country. He took seriously what he has before him even in that moment of victory because as he said, it was never about just winning. It was always about being able to fix the problems in this country.
Obama gave the answer to why it was a 50-state strategy. It was to be the president of all the people. He wants to work for those who voted against him and those who voted for and supported him. He does not see one part of the country as the only thing that matters. He doesn't see us as red and blue but as the United States. He said he will tell us the truth about things and will work to make us all strong again. I believe him and I cried again.
We all won last night. Some of us just don't know it yet.
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Spreading the Wealth
One of the fear tactics to try and get people to not vote for Obama is he's a socialist, a Marxist, and will take all of your money to give to someone else. (Kind of like Alaska does when it takes our money in paying for gasoline and give it to its citizens as welfare reverse income tax.) You would think Obama had only run for the presidency to turn this country over to Russia. Hey, it's not him who has put the United States into hock to China!
When it comes to taxes, which nobody likes much, Obama's plan is to tax the richest Americans at a higher rate than they are today and to lower the tax rate on the working class (those making under $250 or 200,000 a year net). He's not doing this because he hates the rich. Obama is looking for programs that will work.
Those of you who fear the increased taxes for those making a lot of money, don't forget the other part of this was a tax cut for the middle class. Since taxes seem to be all some care about. Check out this page for how Obama's proposal (Congress does have to agree) would impact you-- What's your Obama tax cut?. Go down the page and click on the button. Yes, when he gets in, things could change as he sees actual figures, finds out what might now be hidden, but this is the plan.
Obama said we have to rebuild our infrastructure as China is doing to make themselves competitive in the 21st century. He said when we look around us, we don't see anything to show for our current deficit. If we are going to borrow, it should be for things we can see, things that help us compete in the world where we either will be competitive, or we will lose even more ground economically. You cannot be competitive with rhetoric. It takes real actions.
Study McCain's promises, and the truth is he will either have to raise taxes, to carry through his promises, or increase our deficit even more. This is why a lot of economists have embraced Obama's plan. Palin is even worse. She doesn't even know what McCain's plan is as she said we can't possibly cut Defense during a war and McCain already said he would cut Defense where it comes to waste.
McCain has several things he proposes which will increase taxes on the small business owner which he is supposedly so concerned about-- like his medical plan that would lead to more taxable income and the small business owner pays payroll taxes, workman's comp, and transit tax on that increase. For small business owners, who have provided health insurance, their taxes will go up more under McCain than under Obama.
There is a reason for increasing the tax rate for the richest. It is a practical one not hatred of the rich (that is so Rush-ian. The irony is for all his talk about class warfare, it's Limbaugh and his ilk who have done the most to try and make that happen during this election even more than usual. Put down scientists, put down educated people, put down artists, put down some parts of the country as un-American if they don't vote Republican. While they are doing that, Obama talks well about all groups with trying to understand them and figure out what will help their problems.
Obama, and anyone who studies economics for awhile, knows that the middle class is the engine driving this economy. When people in the middle cannot afford to buy things, everybody is hurt. Frankly, the richer you are, the less a tax increase impacts what you can afford. You might have a few less luxuries, but Obama is not talking a confiscatory increase. He's talking of going back to what it was in 2000 before Bush began his descent into financial madness.
Can we ignore the deficit? Keep borrowing from China? Obama has said he will go over government programs to try and eliminate those that don't work (McCain says the same), but policies that involve simply cutting programs won't do enough. Many of those programs will involve job cuts if they happen putting more people out of work.
When he was in the Senate, Obama worked with Coburn from Oklahoma to get through put the government budget online for Google searches. This makes what the government spends transparent, which is what Obama says should be true.
All government spending is not bad for the economy. You build a new bridge, you create jobs. What if we improved our railroads like some other countries? Not only would goods move faster across the country but more people might find the train a pleasant way to travel, and it uses a lot less fossil fuel than any alternatives. It will take improved and new rail lines to make that happen. Obama says this is the kind of thing where government can help and private enterprise might not have the clout or money right now.
Have you gotten that email that claims all our deficit problem is due to programs for illegals? The email uses as sources blogs, some conspiracy sites, as it pulls together a lot of figures (some maybe added in three or four times, all speculation to start). If you look at any government figures online for where money goes, you see the email's figures don't hold up, but a lot of people will never look beyond what they want to see-- they want to solve this problem at no cost to themselves. I do not believe that is possible, not after the eight years of neocon rule.
The accusation that spreading the wealth is bad is ridiculous as all taxes spread the wealth. McCain is not talking about ending taxation nor ending progressive tax rates. He has said in the past that the rich should pay more. It is just logical. He doesn't dare say it now nor mention Alaska's ultimate spread the wealth program which basically is socialist as Palin now thinks is so bad but as she increased that dole to increase her popularity in Alaska (then applied for massive US earmarks as getting the revenue from us wasn't enough; she still wanted us to pay for any infrastructure up there).
Taxes pay for programs, roads and military that we as individuals cannot do. Where did some Americans forget this? This election you again heard McCain repeating the old mantra-- you can better manage your money than the federal government can.
If someone doesn't believe in government, you should not elect them to be at the head of it. They will only make sure it fails. Elect someone who believes in government programs, sees the good they can do, and makes sure they do it.
A lot of people who fear taxes so much just don't realize that there are many ways to have less money like inflation, job losses, investments that suddenly lose value, a crumbling economy. Wise taxation, fair use of the funds, being careful what programs are funded, getting rid of those that don't work, those are ways to make this a better nation for all of us. Prosperity that leaves behind most of the country isn't going to make it better for anybody in the long run.
When it comes to taxes, which nobody likes much, Obama's plan is to tax the richest Americans at a higher rate than they are today and to lower the tax rate on the working class (those making under $250 or 200,000 a year net). He's not doing this because he hates the rich. Obama is looking for programs that will work.
Those of you who fear the increased taxes for those making a lot of money, don't forget the other part of this was a tax cut for the middle class. Since taxes seem to be all some care about. Check out this page for how Obama's proposal (Congress does have to agree) would impact you-- What's your Obama tax cut?. Go down the page and click on the button. Yes, when he gets in, things could change as he sees actual figures, finds out what might now be hidden, but this is the plan.
Obama said we have to rebuild our infrastructure as China is doing to make themselves competitive in the 21st century. He said when we look around us, we don't see anything to show for our current deficit. If we are going to borrow, it should be for things we can see, things that help us compete in the world where we either will be competitive, or we will lose even more ground economically. You cannot be competitive with rhetoric. It takes real actions.
Study McCain's promises, and the truth is he will either have to raise taxes, to carry through his promises, or increase our deficit even more. This is why a lot of economists have embraced Obama's plan. Palin is even worse. She doesn't even know what McCain's plan is as she said we can't possibly cut Defense during a war and McCain already said he would cut Defense where it comes to waste.
McCain has several things he proposes which will increase taxes on the small business owner which he is supposedly so concerned about-- like his medical plan that would lead to more taxable income and the small business owner pays payroll taxes, workman's comp, and transit tax on that increase. For small business owners, who have provided health insurance, their taxes will go up more under McCain than under Obama.
There is a reason for increasing the tax rate for the richest. It is a practical one not hatred of the rich (that is so Rush-ian. The irony is for all his talk about class warfare, it's Limbaugh and his ilk who have done the most to try and make that happen during this election even more than usual. Put down scientists, put down educated people, put down artists, put down some parts of the country as un-American if they don't vote Republican. While they are doing that, Obama talks well about all groups with trying to understand them and figure out what will help their problems.
Obama, and anyone who studies economics for awhile, knows that the middle class is the engine driving this economy. When people in the middle cannot afford to buy things, everybody is hurt. Frankly, the richer you are, the less a tax increase impacts what you can afford. You might have a few less luxuries, but Obama is not talking a confiscatory increase. He's talking of going back to what it was in 2000 before Bush began his descent into financial madness.
Can we ignore the deficit? Keep borrowing from China? Obama has said he will go over government programs to try and eliminate those that don't work (McCain says the same), but policies that involve simply cutting programs won't do enough. Many of those programs will involve job cuts if they happen putting more people out of work.
When he was in the Senate, Obama worked with Coburn from Oklahoma to get through put the government budget online for Google searches. This makes what the government spends transparent, which is what Obama says should be true.
All government spending is not bad for the economy. You build a new bridge, you create jobs. What if we improved our railroads like some other countries? Not only would goods move faster across the country but more people might find the train a pleasant way to travel, and it uses a lot less fossil fuel than any alternatives. It will take improved and new rail lines to make that happen. Obama says this is the kind of thing where government can help and private enterprise might not have the clout or money right now.
Have you gotten that email that claims all our deficit problem is due to programs for illegals? The email uses as sources blogs, some conspiracy sites, as it pulls together a lot of figures (some maybe added in three or four times, all speculation to start). If you look at any government figures online for where money goes, you see the email's figures don't hold up, but a lot of people will never look beyond what they want to see-- they want to solve this problem at no cost to themselves. I do not believe that is possible, not after the eight years of neocon rule.
The accusation that spreading the wealth is bad is ridiculous as all taxes spread the wealth. McCain is not talking about ending taxation nor ending progressive tax rates. He has said in the past that the rich should pay more. It is just logical. He doesn't dare say it now nor mention Alaska's ultimate spread the wealth program which basically is socialist as Palin now thinks is so bad but as she increased that dole to increase her popularity in Alaska (then applied for massive US earmarks as getting the revenue from us wasn't enough; she still wanted us to pay for any infrastructure up there).
Taxes pay for programs, roads and military that we as individuals cannot do. Where did some Americans forget this? This election you again heard McCain repeating the old mantra-- you can better manage your money than the federal government can.
If someone doesn't believe in government, you should not elect them to be at the head of it. They will only make sure it fails. Elect someone who believes in government programs, sees the good they can do, and makes sure they do it.
A lot of people who fear taxes so much just don't realize that there are many ways to have less money like inflation, job losses, investments that suddenly lose value, a crumbling economy. Wise taxation, fair use of the funds, being careful what programs are funded, getting rid of those that don't work, those are ways to make this a better nation for all of us. Prosperity that leaves behind most of the country isn't going to make it better for anybody in the long run.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Financing Campaigns
McCain is once again criticizing Barack Obama for not taking taxpayer financed campaigning with its accompanying government limitations. He repeated it again after Obama put out his great half hour infomercial. How unfair that Obama would have money for that, that Obama would spend so much money to win this election or so goes the Republican whine.
Obama is running on the support of people people like my family who have given more money than we ever have to any candidate. We have given money when we could have spent it on pleasures for ourselves. We did it because we thought it was too important to hold back. This is true of many families across this nation. The call has gone out that if we want to make a change, we have to do it.
When we gave that money to the Obama campaign, we wanted it to be for things like the infomercial and as many ads and campaign events as he can afford. When this election is over, we want Obama's campaign to be like this old saying:
"Life is not a journey to the grave with intentions of arriving safely in a pretty well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming ... WOW! What a ride!”
The Republicans have made accusations that the election is being bought. If it is, it's from people all around this country. We gave it for him to use; and if he ended up with a lot left over, we'd be disappointed. Spend it all and if we lose, let it not be because any of us held back. This is a time to put it all out there and hope it's enough.
The Republicans, surprisingly enough, have found fault with Obama for not accepting taxpayer money for this election. But what is he running on if not taxpayer money? Money freely given because of belief in the cause.
The kind of campaign Obama has run, sticking to the issues, pointing out where McCain has been wrong but not going into the mud, that has proven to us that our money has been well spent.
If there is anything frustrating, it is that we are also funding John McCain's even though we don't believe in anything he or Palin stand for. Now that's the real thing to question.
I thought the infomercial was great. I was fortunate enough to watch it with Parapluie. Farm Boss had a business trip planned for California which gave the two of us a chance to get together for an overnighter, time to watch female oriented movies. We had fun and got in watching the infomercial while we did.
Obama's program didn't give new information (other than that he has read to his girls every single Harry Potter book); but it brought up the problems our country is facing. Maybe for someone who is undecided or hasn't been paying attention, it will have reassured them about what Obama is running to do.
Obama is running on the support of people people like my family who have given more money than we ever have to any candidate. We have given money when we could have spent it on pleasures for ourselves. We did it because we thought it was too important to hold back. This is true of many families across this nation. The call has gone out that if we want to make a change, we have to do it.
When we gave that money to the Obama campaign, we wanted it to be for things like the infomercial and as many ads and campaign events as he can afford. When this election is over, we want Obama's campaign to be like this old saying:
"Life is not a journey to the grave with intentions of arriving safely in a pretty well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming ... WOW! What a ride!”
The Republicans have made accusations that the election is being bought. If it is, it's from people all around this country. We gave it for him to use; and if he ended up with a lot left over, we'd be disappointed. Spend it all and if we lose, let it not be because any of us held back. This is a time to put it all out there and hope it's enough.
The Republicans, surprisingly enough, have found fault with Obama for not accepting taxpayer money for this election. But what is he running on if not taxpayer money? Money freely given because of belief in the cause.
The kind of campaign Obama has run, sticking to the issues, pointing out where McCain has been wrong but not going into the mud, that has proven to us that our money has been well spent.
If there is anything frustrating, it is that we are also funding John McCain's even though we don't believe in anything he or Palin stand for. Now that's the real thing to question.
I thought the infomercial was great. I was fortunate enough to watch it with Parapluie. Farm Boss had a business trip planned for California which gave the two of us a chance to get together for an overnighter, time to watch female oriented movies. We had fun and got in watching the infomercial while we did.
Obama's program didn't give new information (other than that he has read to his girls every single Harry Potter book); but it brought up the problems our country is facing. Maybe for someone who is undecided or hasn't been paying attention, it will have reassured them about what Obama is running to do.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The problem with the Republican party and McCain
As a break from my writing about politics, I had said I'd like to share now and then views from others. The following is something my daughter wrote in an email and shared with me. I might add I agree with all she says.
As a bit of a disclaimer, I'm a life long Democrat, but I consider myself an Oregon Democrat and I think that is a little bit different. Oregon has a long tradition of voting more the person and less the party. We are a relatively liberal state (depending on the issues) that often voted Republican. Our best governor in recent history was a
Republican. We've had many good Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle - good people that I respected regardless of their party affiliation. I may not have always agreed with them on every issue, but I knew they voted on their principles and had logical reasons for their positions.
It has been many years, though, since I have felt that I could vote for a Republican candidate. What happened to the true conservatives that took care of the environment, believed in responsible (not necessarily small) government and minding their own business when it came to personal issues?
I am dismayed by the Republican Party's rejection of intellectuals and education. This is not only my view. Read David Brooks and Christopher Buckley (son of William F. Buckley Jr.) just to name a couple. I feel that the Republican party has been hijacked by the neo-conservatives who want to use the U.S. military to shape the world to their view and the Religious Right. Using their agenda of fear and
"God, guns, and gays" they have grabbed a lot of power and consolidated huge amounts of money in the pockets of a few.
I have watched with dismay as the mantras that all taxes and all government are bad have gutted our school system, our libraries, public safety, and our infrastructure. As our schools have declined, roads and bridges disintegrated, and libraries closed, businesses have left our state or decided not to come. How can they get good employees to move here when we rank 49th in the country for number of school nurses (just to name one recent statistic)? Foreign businesses are moving their factories out and taking good paying jobs with them. How is this good for business or pro-business?
John McCain says that he stands separate from the Republican Party that has gotten us where we are now, maybe that was once even true. But his nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice-President says otherwise now. She stands firmly in both the neo-conservative and Religious Right camps. Just the thought of her as President sends chills down my spine. As a woman, I am insulted by her pick. There were many intelligent women who would have made good Vice-Presidents (Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snow, Christy Todd Whitman, etc.) but they would not have satisfied the Religious Right because they were too moderate and believe in individual choice and minding their own business.
Palin says she stands for cleaning up government, but after only 22 months as governor she is already embroiled in abuse of power investigations and possible wrong doing in per diem billing. They say this is only about politics, but these
investigations were started before she was even on the national radar. She completely lacks intellectual curiosity. I am tired of our national leaders sounding like B Western actors. I want someone who can speak intelligently about all the issues, not just the ones on the script. I could go on about this for hours. I feel very strongly that she is a horrible choice for our country. If John McCain really believes in putting country first, why did he put her on the ticket?
John McCain said that he thought this election was going to be about personality and character. I wanted to disagree with him and focus on the issues, but after some thought, I think he's right. Character does matter. I didn't like Bill Clinton when he originally ran (I voted for anyone else in the primary) because I thought he lacked good character and look how that all ended up. And I am not impressed by John McCain's character. I'll just skip, in the interest of good manners, the personal stuff about his marriages, but suffice it to say that he has not been any more of an exemplary family man than was Bill. I will, however, discuss my feelings about other aspects of his character.
John McCain, by his own admission, says he makes snap decisions, gut decisions, and then has to live the consequences of those choices. Well, that might be fine if you are only making decisions for yourself, but when you are President of the United States of America we all have to live with the consequences of your decisions. We've had "shoot from the hip" and "I've looked into his soul and feel I know the man" for the past 8 years and I'd like something different.
John McCain came from a privileged background as the son and grandson of admirals. He was a legacy into the Naval Academy, but instead of making the most of his good fortune, he squandered it. He has bragged, on more than one occasion, that he graduated at the bottom of his class, as if that is something of which to be proud. And that goes back to what I said earlier about the rejection of education and intellect.
Whatever his personal feelings are, he has let his campaign run a very nasty race. You can say that both sides are horrible, but a non partisan analysis of the ad campaigns of both candidates noted that 100% of John McCain ads in the last two months were negative as compared with 30% of Barack Obama's. And when Obama supporters or the media came out with things like Bristol Palin's pregnancy, Obama and Biden leaped all over them and denounced that tack at once.
When John Lewis compared the negative tone of the McCain campaign to the civil rights issues of the 60s, the Obama campaign came out immediately that day renouncing that stand. It took a negative backlash from the public before John McCain began reining in his supporters and he still hasn't done anything about
his running mate. (You know, she said recently that from the podium she
couldn't hear the comments like "Kill him". I might believe her if I hadn't heard her respond at one rally to similar cries "Wow, you guys really get it." I didn't read this on the internet, I heard it myself on the radio.) Presidential campaigns always get a little nasty, but this one has been pretty bad, and it takes a lot of gall to say your opponent's campaign is running a dirty race while yours is robo-calling and saying he pals around with terrorists. I also can't believe that John McCain would use this kind of tactics when they were used against him in 2000 by the Bush campaign. I think that it says something about his character.
I feel it is one thing to try to make your opponents' platform look bad and your own to look good. That's campaigning, I'm not crazy about it but I understand. But it quite something else to out and out lie about what your opponent plans to do. I feel that one of the things that has really bothered me about the Republican brand in recent years is their tactic of saying the same thing again and again regardless of its truth (like the "Bridge to Nowhere" schtick). It's like they believe that if they say it often enough we will be stupid enough to eventually believe it. I'm seeing a lot of that coming from the McCain campaign and I'm tired of it.
I feel that John McCain lacks the good character that I would like to have in my candidate for President. I'm sure we will never agree on all the issues, but as I said earlier, sometimes the heart of the person matters just as much.
***********************************
As a bit of a disclaimer, I'm a life long Democrat, but I consider myself an Oregon Democrat and I think that is a little bit different. Oregon has a long tradition of voting more the person and less the party. We are a relatively liberal state (depending on the issues) that often voted Republican. Our best governor in recent history was a
Republican. We've had many good Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle - good people that I respected regardless of their party affiliation. I may not have always agreed with them on every issue, but I knew they voted on their principles and had logical reasons for their positions.
It has been many years, though, since I have felt that I could vote for a Republican candidate. What happened to the true conservatives that took care of the environment, believed in responsible (not necessarily small) government and minding their own business when it came to personal issues?
I am dismayed by the Republican Party's rejection of intellectuals and education. This is not only my view. Read David Brooks and Christopher Buckley (son of William F. Buckley Jr.) just to name a couple. I feel that the Republican party has been hijacked by the neo-conservatives who want to use the U.S. military to shape the world to their view and the Religious Right. Using their agenda of fear and
"God, guns, and gays" they have grabbed a lot of power and consolidated huge amounts of money in the pockets of a few.
I have watched with dismay as the mantras that all taxes and all government are bad have gutted our school system, our libraries, public safety, and our infrastructure. As our schools have declined, roads and bridges disintegrated, and libraries closed, businesses have left our state or decided not to come. How can they get good employees to move here when we rank 49th in the country for number of school nurses (just to name one recent statistic)? Foreign businesses are moving their factories out and taking good paying jobs with them. How is this good for business or pro-business?
John McCain says that he stands separate from the Republican Party that has gotten us where we are now, maybe that was once even true. But his nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice-President says otherwise now. She stands firmly in both the neo-conservative and Religious Right camps. Just the thought of her as President sends chills down my spine. As a woman, I am insulted by her pick. There were many intelligent women who would have made good Vice-Presidents (Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snow, Christy Todd Whitman, etc.) but they would not have satisfied the Religious Right because they were too moderate and believe in individual choice and minding their own business.
Palin says she stands for cleaning up government, but after only 22 months as governor she is already embroiled in abuse of power investigations and possible wrong doing in per diem billing. They say this is only about politics, but these
investigations were started before she was even on the national radar. She completely lacks intellectual curiosity. I am tired of our national leaders sounding like B Western actors. I want someone who can speak intelligently about all the issues, not just the ones on the script. I could go on about this for hours. I feel very strongly that she is a horrible choice for our country. If John McCain really believes in putting country first, why did he put her on the ticket?
John McCain said that he thought this election was going to be about personality and character. I wanted to disagree with him and focus on the issues, but after some thought, I think he's right. Character does matter. I didn't like Bill Clinton when he originally ran (I voted for anyone else in the primary) because I thought he lacked good character and look how that all ended up. And I am not impressed by John McCain's character. I'll just skip, in the interest of good manners, the personal stuff about his marriages, but suffice it to say that he has not been any more of an exemplary family man than was Bill. I will, however, discuss my feelings about other aspects of his character.
John McCain, by his own admission, says he makes snap decisions, gut decisions, and then has to live the consequences of those choices. Well, that might be fine if you are only making decisions for yourself, but when you are President of the United States of America we all have to live with the consequences of your decisions. We've had "shoot from the hip" and "I've looked into his soul and feel I know the man" for the past 8 years and I'd like something different.
John McCain came from a privileged background as the son and grandson of admirals. He was a legacy into the Naval Academy, but instead of making the most of his good fortune, he squandered it. He has bragged, on more than one occasion, that he graduated at the bottom of his class, as if that is something of which to be proud. And that goes back to what I said earlier about the rejection of education and intellect.
Whatever his personal feelings are, he has let his campaign run a very nasty race. You can say that both sides are horrible, but a non partisan analysis of the ad campaigns of both candidates noted that 100% of John McCain ads in the last two months were negative as compared with 30% of Barack Obama's. And when Obama supporters or the media came out with things like Bristol Palin's pregnancy, Obama and Biden leaped all over them and denounced that tack at once.
When John Lewis compared the negative tone of the McCain campaign to the civil rights issues of the 60s, the Obama campaign came out immediately that day renouncing that stand. It took a negative backlash from the public before John McCain began reining in his supporters and he still hasn't done anything about
his running mate. (You know, she said recently that from the podium she
couldn't hear the comments like "Kill him". I might believe her if I hadn't heard her respond at one rally to similar cries "Wow, you guys really get it." I didn't read this on the internet, I heard it myself on the radio.) Presidential campaigns always get a little nasty, but this one has been pretty bad, and it takes a lot of gall to say your opponent's campaign is running a dirty race while yours is robo-calling and saying he pals around with terrorists. I also can't believe that John McCain would use this kind of tactics when they were used against him in 2000 by the Bush campaign. I think that it says something about his character.
I feel it is one thing to try to make your opponents' platform look bad and your own to look good. That's campaigning, I'm not crazy about it but I understand. But it quite something else to out and out lie about what your opponent plans to do. I feel that one of the things that has really bothered me about the Republican brand in recent years is their tactic of saying the same thing again and again regardless of its truth (like the "Bridge to Nowhere" schtick). It's like they believe that if they say it often enough we will be stupid enough to eventually believe it. I'm seeing a lot of that coming from the McCain campaign and I'm tired of it.
I feel that John McCain lacks the good character that I would like to have in my candidate for President. I'm sure we will never agree on all the issues, but as I said earlier, sometimes the heart of the person matters just as much.
Friday, October 24, 2008
McCain on foreign affairs
When Joe Biden once again earned his reputation for speaking off the cuff and not thinking how his words might be taken, he said the young Obama presidency would likely face some type of world test, manufactured or real in its first term. John McCain knew just what to do with those words-- morph them into something they were not and use them to his own advantage. Choose me. I know how to handle it all.
Due to being a POW (what does that teach you about fighting a war or tactical strategies?), having walked through a Baghdad bazaar and said how safe it was (ignoring his need to wear a bulletproof vest, ignoring gunship helicopters overhead, ignoring that those in his party bragged how they could buy a rug for $5. You think the merchants liked that price?), and because McCain was so right about Iraq and how easy that war would be, we should pick him as the next war president. Assuming we have forgotten he was actually wrong and assuming we want a next war, what about foreign affairs? You know the kind where you don't bomb bomb bomb Iran.
Foreign affairs isn't just about tactics and strategies for fighting wars (actually those are generally done by generals). It's also about getting along with our neighbors. It's about communication skills. How effective can someone be who sees even their own country as them against us? Can McCain help us deal with other world governments? He has a reputation for getting furious at anyone who doesn't agree with him. How's that going to work with diplomacy? How will other leaders see him? Will they even want to work with him?
We already know how the rest of the world sees Obama. They like the idea of the United States choosing him. Won't that make his ability to work with them easier? And I don't mean terrorists. Terrorists aren't running world governments. Ahmadinejad may sound like one, but he was voted into office and his first term as president expires in 2009 when he will have to run again. Actually the religious leaders determine most of Iran's major policies and currently that would be Khamenei.
The accusation that Obama would sit down with terrorists is more about a political gotcha at home than any possibility of it happening. What Obama said is he would engage in talks with leaders of unfriendly countries. This doesn't mean give away our country to them.
Recently, we haven't had a president capable of doing more than photo-ops after the negotiating was done. With Obama, that could be different. Isn't the ability to focus, as he has shown he can do throughout his lifetime, going to be a help in any negotiating? What about McCain's inability to focus?
Likely we could excuse his not remembering about Czechoslovakia no longer having that name or even mixing up the Sunnis and Shiites. That does tell you, however, that he, like Bush, feels no need to understand the history of any other people-- probably barely knows his own if it isn't the date of a war; but what is this all about? McCain meant his gaffe about not meeting with the Spanish leader. It's a little hard to understand why he would offend an ally of the United States, a country that has every right to expect we would treat them with respect. But McCain's staff says he meant what he said that he would not meet with Spain's leader. '
It boggles the mind. He won't meet with the Spanish leader because why again?
McCain's whole emphasis is not on his ability to work with other countries. He has trashed Europe's system of government, acted as though Arabs are inferior beings and after that, he expects to sit down and talk to any of them? No wonder he said he would not. The average age of European leaders is 55 which might also make communication more difficult for a cold war thinker (and if you don't think McCain has a Cold War mentality, you haven't been paying attention to how he operates) who is not only much older but more set in his ways-- and wants it his way or no way.
None of that matters to McCain because he wants to be a war president. He seems to see solutions in terms of wars. He might have done it with Russia too if he had been president when Georgia was attacked. We are all Georgians? What did that mean? McCain believes in wars but not in paying for them. This is where we came in, isn't it?
Some think logic is why he wouldn't authorize an attack on Iran. We are already militarily stretched too thin. We can't afford another war when we aren't paying for the ones we have. There is no proof that McCain operates from facts or logic. His slapdash way of picking Palin proves that he jumps without thinking.
Where it comes to war, for all we know, with all his talk of we must have victory, he is still fighting the Vietnam War. If the American people don't get this now, they will if he gets in a position of power. His running mate won't see a problem with it either. She operates off her concept of religious dogma.
For those who say he wouldn't start another war. All he has to do is attack and the war will be on if it's Iran. It sounds crazy. It makes no sense. Neither did what he said about Spain.
Egrets, geese and ducks in the photo all have to get along in the same pond. Our world pond is a lot smaller than it once was. McCain says he's the experienced one. What have his experiences taught him and how will they impact his choices if he gets to be president? Can we afford McCain's kind of thinking, his loose cannon temperament; or do we need what Obama offers-- even temperament, good judgment, skilled organizational abilities, respected abroad, and someone able to focus to get along both in our own pond as well as the world's?
After the divisiveness that McCain and Palin have been sowing at home, their ability to work effectively even here will be questionable-- let alone overseas.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
If it's not about issues, what is it about?
Christopher Hitchens, as he endorsed Barack Obama for president, wrote an article-- Christopher Hitchens in Slate where he said what I have been thinking. This election, it's not so much about the issues. It's more character and temperament.
When I knew I would be writing pretty much every day for the month ahead of our election, I planned to briefly cover the character of both (and their running mates) and then hit on their differences in the issues.
My intentions changed as the campaigns more clearly took form. I watched the news, read newspaper and magazine articles and it soon became clear that this time the issues, much as they matter to me, are taking a backseat. If someone says they will lower taxes but you can't trust anything else they say, why would you believe them on that?
I believe that this presidential election is about character. Can we trust what these people say they will do? Then, even if they want to do something, do they have the temperament to make it happen? A president, unless he acquires the powers of a dictator, can't run things by himself. Even if they have good intentions, what are their capabilities for bringing change to a government that has become caught up in greed and power struggles?
The man who I have faith in for his character and temperament is Barack Obama. I think he can get it done, that he will stand up and fight for what he believes is right. I won't and don't agree with him on all issues but do on most of them.
It is not like I have no issues that matter to me. Becoming energy self-sufficient, developing new sources of energy, creating and encouraging jobs that give families decent livings, working out a health care plan for us all that keeps costs down, teaching people that they can't keep borrowing to fund their lifestyles, a viable education system that benefits all levels of society, balancing the federal budget, improving our infrastructure, not fighting wars overseas without a security reason that we can clearly see, cutting waste in government.
There are other issues that Obama does not see as I do, but matter to me, and I'd like to see happen. For instance, I'd like to see gays have the right to marry. This is a matter of fairness. I don't say all churches should have to recognize their marriages, that's religion, but marriage itself is a government recognized contract between two people who come together sexually to form a family unit. Why should gays be denied that? Call them all contract licenses and do what is right for the future generations.
I would like to see abortion limited to the first four months of a pregnancy when it is purely the mother's preference, another month or so when it is about birth defects and after that, only danger to the life of the mother would allow an abortion. The idea of partial birth abortion is no different than infanticide to me; but I want women to have that first part of their pregnancy to have the choice, and it is one of my bedrock issues.
(Incidentally, they claim that Obama liked the idea of infanticide and voted against a bill in Illinois that would have banned it. As is usually the case with what 'they' claim, what Obama said is he voted against a bill that would have limited abortions unfairly. There were already laws on the book to protect a baby born alive.)
I also would like military, assault rifles banned. I believe in the right to go armed, in increased concealed weapon permits, in responsible gun ownership, and don't want anybody taking my guns.
I would like to see our national parks strengthened and in some cases enlarged. I think the environment should be a priority. Earth is our mother and through caring for the earth, we insure our own survival. This isn't about protecting every possible variant of a squirrel, but commonsense protection of animals and habitat. It's not just a physical cause but emotional and spiritual.
On global warming, I think we need more research on what we might have to do to protect our cities along the coasts and what about the possibility of massive storms inland? Are we prepared for what might be coming? It makes sense to me to limit carbon emissions, do what we can do, but this may be something we can't stop. Be prepared.
I would like to see our country buckle down and face the reality that the government can't keep borrowing even to fund good programs. We have to be frugal as a people and as a government, start paying down our debt, have good trade policies that are fair but recognize this is a world market. I don't want freebies. I want chances.
There are issues that matter to me and some of them are on Obama's list; some not, but it's his character that makes me believe he will do something about changing the direction of this country. I think he can stand up against the Nancy Pelosis and the left wing of the Congress when they want things without paying. He has said we have to be more responsible economically. I believe he means it.
It wouldn't matter much to me what John McCain said about any issues. If you think it does to you, please read this article from Rolling Stone. Anybody who plans to vote for that man needs to know who he is: Make-Believe Maverick.
Frankly, I think that McCain is a Jekyll and Hyde. If you saw him at the Al Smith Dinner, he was funny and charming-- so by the way was Obama. The next day McCain was out there with robo calls implying Obama is a terrorist wantabe. McCain seems to change into different people, and that is not the kind of person to put in the White House.
This election is about character. When all that McCain can dig up about Obama is an old relationship with Ayers, a pastor who was over the top, a businessman who wanted to befriend Obama for power, and none of these people impacted Obama's policy positions today, nowhere was he charged with ethical violations; then I think it's good he worked with and knew them. Having a leader in the White House who is naive won't serve us well in this day and age.
Obama has come through a lot, and I have more trust in his judgment for the fact that he has. I won't like everything he does. That's life. I hope that we, who support him will support him if he is elected to do what is right and understand this is no time for revenge. It's a time for moving ahead, for facing changes that the world forces upon us, and a time for justice.
When I knew I would be writing pretty much every day for the month ahead of our election, I planned to briefly cover the character of both (and their running mates) and then hit on their differences in the issues.
My intentions changed as the campaigns more clearly took form. I watched the news, read newspaper and magazine articles and it soon became clear that this time the issues, much as they matter to me, are taking a backseat. If someone says they will lower taxes but you can't trust anything else they say, why would you believe them on that?
I believe that this presidential election is about character. Can we trust what these people say they will do? Then, even if they want to do something, do they have the temperament to make it happen? A president, unless he acquires the powers of a dictator, can't run things by himself. Even if they have good intentions, what are their capabilities for bringing change to a government that has become caught up in greed and power struggles?
The man who I have faith in for his character and temperament is Barack Obama. I think he can get it done, that he will stand up and fight for what he believes is right. I won't and don't agree with him on all issues but do on most of them.
It is not like I have no issues that matter to me. Becoming energy self-sufficient, developing new sources of energy, creating and encouraging jobs that give families decent livings, working out a health care plan for us all that keeps costs down, teaching people that they can't keep borrowing to fund their lifestyles, a viable education system that benefits all levels of society, balancing the federal budget, improving our infrastructure, not fighting wars overseas without a security reason that we can clearly see, cutting waste in government.
There are other issues that Obama does not see as I do, but matter to me, and I'd like to see happen. For instance, I'd like to see gays have the right to marry. This is a matter of fairness. I don't say all churches should have to recognize their marriages, that's religion, but marriage itself is a government recognized contract between two people who come together sexually to form a family unit. Why should gays be denied that? Call them all contract licenses and do what is right for the future generations.
I would like to see abortion limited to the first four months of a pregnancy when it is purely the mother's preference, another month or so when it is about birth defects and after that, only danger to the life of the mother would allow an abortion. The idea of partial birth abortion is no different than infanticide to me; but I want women to have that first part of their pregnancy to have the choice, and it is one of my bedrock issues.
(Incidentally, they claim that Obama liked the idea of infanticide and voted against a bill in Illinois that would have banned it. As is usually the case with what 'they' claim, what Obama said is he voted against a bill that would have limited abortions unfairly. There were already laws on the book to protect a baby born alive.)
I also would like military, assault rifles banned. I believe in the right to go armed, in increased concealed weapon permits, in responsible gun ownership, and don't want anybody taking my guns.
I would like to see our national parks strengthened and in some cases enlarged. I think the environment should be a priority. Earth is our mother and through caring for the earth, we insure our own survival. This isn't about protecting every possible variant of a squirrel, but commonsense protection of animals and habitat. It's not just a physical cause but emotional and spiritual.
On global warming, I think we need more research on what we might have to do to protect our cities along the coasts and what about the possibility of massive storms inland? Are we prepared for what might be coming? It makes sense to me to limit carbon emissions, do what we can do, but this may be something we can't stop. Be prepared.
I would like to see our country buckle down and face the reality that the government can't keep borrowing even to fund good programs. We have to be frugal as a people and as a government, start paying down our debt, have good trade policies that are fair but recognize this is a world market. I don't want freebies. I want chances.
There are issues that matter to me and some of them are on Obama's list; some not, but it's his character that makes me believe he will do something about changing the direction of this country. I think he can stand up against the Nancy Pelosis and the left wing of the Congress when they want things without paying. He has said we have to be more responsible economically. I believe he means it.
It wouldn't matter much to me what John McCain said about any issues. If you think it does to you, please read this article from Rolling Stone. Anybody who plans to vote for that man needs to know who he is: Make-Believe Maverick.
Frankly, I think that McCain is a Jekyll and Hyde. If you saw him at the Al Smith Dinner, he was funny and charming-- so by the way was Obama. The next day McCain was out there with robo calls implying Obama is a terrorist wantabe. McCain seems to change into different people, and that is not the kind of person to put in the White House.
This election is about character. When all that McCain can dig up about Obama is an old relationship with Ayers, a pastor who was over the top, a businessman who wanted to befriend Obama for power, and none of these people impacted Obama's policy positions today, nowhere was he charged with ethical violations; then I think it's good he worked with and knew them. Having a leader in the White House who is naive won't serve us well in this day and age.
Obama has come through a lot, and I have more trust in his judgment for the fact that he has. I won't like everything he does. That's life. I hope that we, who support him will support him if he is elected to do what is right and understand this is no time for revenge. It's a time for moving ahead, for facing changes that the world forces upon us, and a time for justice.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Last debate this year
Despite thinking I would not, I did watch the last presidential debate. I knew it wouldn't change my mind. I suspect it didn't change anyone's mind. If you skipped it, there wasn't much you missed.
John McCain is still pouting that he didn't get ten town halls with Barack Obama. If he had, he said the campaign would have remained more civil. That doesn't make any sense to me, and I doubt it did to Obama but he didn't use it to attack McCain for being immature.
Goaded into it ahead of the debate, McCain brought up Ayers and ACORN which is what Obama clearly wanted as it gave him a chance to give the answers he has given so many times other places but maybe there would be some watching who wouldn't have watched him elsewhere. He has said he worked with Ayers. His connection to him was through education, a reputable committee who has helped Chicago's education system and he named who else was on that committee. He repeated that what Ayers did was despicable. He does not consort with terrorists as has been implied by Palin. He didn't bring up her close connection (sleeps with it) to the secessionist Alaskan group.
Obama did not attack McCain about his own praise of ACORN at one of their meetings only two years ago where McCain basically said all Americans should care as much as those people did about helping others. Now ACORN is being made the scapegoat if Obama wins because of them submitting paid registrations that clearly won't qualify for voting rights but did earn whoever collected them money.
Obama's answers had already been heard probably at least by anyone who does not carry around a Curious George stuffed monkey with Obama's name on it. I would have to assume McCain has not bothered to watch the videos of the kind of people who are attending those rallies. If he was, I don't think he'd have said he was so proud of his fans. Some of them have behaved in ways that won't help this country or themselves even if they think they are clever and are patting each other on the back for how clever.
There were times Obama could have attacked but he let it go as not worth it. One that comes to my mind was when they were asked if their Vice Presidential picks were good choices. McCain defended his pick ignoring everything that is negative, repeating all the false statements about her; and then saying yes, Joe Biden would be okay as president but he's been wrong about a lot and cited Gulf War I.
Well maybe Biden was and maybe he was not. Were there ways to resolve that without going to war? Might an administration that was better at diplomacy ahead of time, let Hussein know what would happen if he entered a neighboring country? I don't know the details of Biden's objection to authorization for that war; so can't say more about it but it was a perfect time for Obama to bring up issues about Palin's lack of knowledge, but he didn't do it.
It is possible that Obama really will have the ability to bring together the two parties when it is time to govern. If he doesn't feel a need to go for the gotchas, I don't think that's about lack of strength but more deciding where it matters enough to do it. Someone who can think ahead of time goes beyond the moment to where something leads. Clearly those arguments didn't lead to where he needed to go.
Watching the debate, I kept wondering why McCain kept referring to autism instead of Down's Syndrome when he was saying how much Palin knows about having a disabled baby. Claiming she is an expert based on having a four month old baby doesn't make sense. She hasn't begun to learn what that means from her own experiences. She might have done work with this cause previously, maybe the family has a history of such children (I don't know) but the fact she has a four month old baby certainly does not make her an expert even on Downs and from where did the autism come?
McCain showed his slim connection to reality when he discussed the campaigns and how they have been run and blamed Obama for what John Lewis said, thought he should have apologized for Lewis going too far. This was quite a disconnect to reality.You have a campaign that has people yelling out kill him and you think that Lewis saying what he did went too far? McCain never acknowledged that his fans were out of line and claimed he always stops them. He did twice but the rest of the time he and Palin appear to not hear what they don't want to hear. Palin has never rebuked any of them but nodded like yes, that's right.
There is no comparison to the difference in how these two campaigns have been run. There have been no threats on McCain's life at an Obama rally. Obama has never called him a liar. Obama has not stirred up emotions with suggestions that McCain is a traitor for picking a vice president who was connected to a group who wants to secede from this nation. When at Obama rallies, people even booed at McCain's name, something that is pretty mild in comparison to what we have heard coming from those McCain/Palin rallies, Obama has put out his hands and said we don't need that.
Obama doesn't go for the kill, but we are talking about our own country and people here who think they are being loyal to it. Some will never come around, but a need to get gotchas probably won't serve the next president well even if it might satisfy viewers of the debate who want some payback-- on both sides.
Hopefully all the viewers, who are still open to making a choice, saw the ideas and temperament from Obama that will persuade them of what I believe-- Obama is the right choice for our next president.
John McCain is still pouting that he didn't get ten town halls with Barack Obama. If he had, he said the campaign would have remained more civil. That doesn't make any sense to me, and I doubt it did to Obama but he didn't use it to attack McCain for being immature.
Goaded into it ahead of the debate, McCain brought up Ayers and ACORN which is what Obama clearly wanted as it gave him a chance to give the answers he has given so many times other places but maybe there would be some watching who wouldn't have watched him elsewhere. He has said he worked with Ayers. His connection to him was through education, a reputable committee who has helped Chicago's education system and he named who else was on that committee. He repeated that what Ayers did was despicable. He does not consort with terrorists as has been implied by Palin. He didn't bring up her close connection (sleeps with it) to the secessionist Alaskan group.
Obama did not attack McCain about his own praise of ACORN at one of their meetings only two years ago where McCain basically said all Americans should care as much as those people did about helping others. Now ACORN is being made the scapegoat if Obama wins because of them submitting paid registrations that clearly won't qualify for voting rights but did earn whoever collected them money.
Obama's answers had already been heard probably at least by anyone who does not carry around a Curious George stuffed monkey with Obama's name on it. I would have to assume McCain has not bothered to watch the videos of the kind of people who are attending those rallies. If he was, I don't think he'd have said he was so proud of his fans. Some of them have behaved in ways that won't help this country or themselves even if they think they are clever and are patting each other on the back for how clever.
There were times Obama could have attacked but he let it go as not worth it. One that comes to my mind was when they were asked if their Vice Presidential picks were good choices. McCain defended his pick ignoring everything that is negative, repeating all the false statements about her; and then saying yes, Joe Biden would be okay as president but he's been wrong about a lot and cited Gulf War I.
Well maybe Biden was and maybe he was not. Were there ways to resolve that without going to war? Might an administration that was better at diplomacy ahead of time, let Hussein know what would happen if he entered a neighboring country? I don't know the details of Biden's objection to authorization for that war; so can't say more about it but it was a perfect time for Obama to bring up issues about Palin's lack of knowledge, but he didn't do it.
It is possible that Obama really will have the ability to bring together the two parties when it is time to govern. If he doesn't feel a need to go for the gotchas, I don't think that's about lack of strength but more deciding where it matters enough to do it. Someone who can think ahead of time goes beyond the moment to where something leads. Clearly those arguments didn't lead to where he needed to go.
Watching the debate, I kept wondering why McCain kept referring to autism instead of Down's Syndrome when he was saying how much Palin knows about having a disabled baby. Claiming she is an expert based on having a four month old baby doesn't make sense. She hasn't begun to learn what that means from her own experiences. She might have done work with this cause previously, maybe the family has a history of such children (I don't know) but the fact she has a four month old baby certainly does not make her an expert even on Downs and from where did the autism come?
McCain showed his slim connection to reality when he discussed the campaigns and how they have been run and blamed Obama for what John Lewis said, thought he should have apologized for Lewis going too far. This was quite a disconnect to reality.You have a campaign that has people yelling out kill him and you think that Lewis saying what he did went too far? McCain never acknowledged that his fans were out of line and claimed he always stops them. He did twice but the rest of the time he and Palin appear to not hear what they don't want to hear. Palin has never rebuked any of them but nodded like yes, that's right.
There is no comparison to the difference in how these two campaigns have been run. There have been no threats on McCain's life at an Obama rally. Obama has never called him a liar. Obama has not stirred up emotions with suggestions that McCain is a traitor for picking a vice president who was connected to a group who wants to secede from this nation. When at Obama rallies, people even booed at McCain's name, something that is pretty mild in comparison to what we have heard coming from those McCain/Palin rallies, Obama has put out his hands and said we don't need that.
Obama doesn't go for the kill, but we are talking about our own country and people here who think they are being loyal to it. Some will never come around, but a need to get gotchas probably won't serve the next president well even if it might satisfy viewers of the debate who want some payback-- on both sides.
Hopefully all the viewers, who are still open to making a choice, saw the ideas and temperament from Obama that will persuade them of what I believe-- Obama is the right choice for our next president.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Disconnected from Reality
Over and over we see something proposed by politicians with no connection to whether it makes sense or how it will be made reality. Their suggested programs might sound good, but how do we pay for them? Nobody says.
Then there are the campaigns where supposedly small town people are better than big town people. Why? Nobody says.
In his campaigning John McCain has said he knows how to capture Osama bin Laden and will do it when he's president. So he has held it back as a secret to wait to get elected? Who believes he would do such a terrible thing as to withhold such information just to get elected?
Where it comes to money, the biggest disconnect with reality is with taxes, which nobody likes, but it's always a key voting point for Republicans. McCain tells us he will balance the budget in 4 years but how? Nobody says.
Let's look at a big talking point for McCain and Republicans. The rich should not have to pay a higher tax rate than the poor. Their apparent logic is if I make $300,000 a year (that's net not gross) and someone wants me to pay an extra say 4% on my taxes, I am going to be hurt as much by that increase as if I made $50,000 a year.
I understand it'd be nice for everybody to pay the same flat rate, no deductions, but let's look at this logically. Those making $50,000 are probably barely covering their expenses now. Their concern is putting healthy food on the table, getting gas to get to their jobs, keeping a roof over their family's heads, paying for unexpected medical expenses, handling escalating utility bills. A cut in their available income won't be about not taking a trip to Europe this summer. It will cut into their basics.
Isn't there a disconnect from reality to imagine our government (or us) can keep borrowing money without thinking about paying back? The Federal Government is paying interest every year amounting to $406,000,000,000 or $.22 of every tax dollar. How can we do anything about problems like infrastructure with that kind of interest payments? Take it on faith?
From what I understand, this disconnect began with Lyndon Johnson where he didn't try to balance expenses with paying. We have seen it flower completely under GW Bush with the Iraqi war that isn't even calculated into the budget. Now they, President and Congress, casually promise $700 billion to bail the country out of this financial meltdown (although nobody is sure it will work) but even if it does, how do they pay for it? Did you hear any talk about that?
If you are one who supported George Bush, perhaps still do, if you voted for him twice, if you still buy into the reason we are fighting this war is so we don't have to fight it here, how did you plan to pay for it?
If you are favoring John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are even willing to see us potentially fight more such wars around the world, and here comes another disconnect. Even if you are right and they are all justified wars, did you think those will come for free? And then there is the other leap of faith to believe people who haven't had democracy, who actually favor a theocracy, can be converted by guns. Okay, suppose it works, still who pays for it? Did you think it came for free: Cost of Iraq War.
This carries over into ordinary citizens and how we run our lives. So we buy a house we can't afford but have faith we will be able to someday. Why? What is supposed to make that possible? The loan officer said it was okay? Didn't we need to think what made sense to us?
How much of this thinking comes from religious ideas that lead to magical thinking where some divine being steps in to fix whatever goes wrong. Have you watched the Sarah Palin tapes where she talks of the African (for wont of a better word) witch doctor who anointed her and she believed led to her being elected governor and now possibly onto higher offices?
Palin, just as GW Bush had earlier, seems to believe she is on a mission for god. God is delivering this election for her and some, who maybe even read this blog, might agree with that idea.
I saw the tape where some from her church in Alaska compare her to Esther in the Bible sent out to save her people. Never mind that Christians are not being persecuted. It's thinking that is disconnected with reality and totally about faith. There is no test for this faith. Reality only gets in its way. Would god actually think someone totally unprepared to be president, with no real information on the problems ahead, was the best for the job? Take it on faith.
And now some pastor at an invocation at one of their rallies claimed that if McCain/Palin lost it would damage god's reputation. He wasn't kidding.
With that kind of thinking, whatever happens, it's not your doing. God wanted it to happen. This kind of disconnection from reality leads to thinking you can fund this or that (but not health care for all Americans-- magic only goes so far) and not pay for it through taxes. I don't remotely excuse the Democrats or Republicans from bringing us to this point. They both will and have done it.
Our problem is not just an abstract one of government. When I was growing up, there was a thing called Lay Away. You would find something you liked but you wouldn't take it home. You would pay so much money down on it and when you had it paid off, you got it. I have done that with dresses I wanted back then. It was before the days of the magic credit card that has led many to acquire debts that they will never be able to pay off in their lifetimes.
Telling the American people and Congress that the party is over won't be popular-- no matter who is our next president-- if that leader is connected to reality.
The following is part of an email from a friend called The Great Consumer Crash of 2009 by James Quinn, Senior Director of Strategic Planning, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania:
"The steroid of choice for the American consumer has been debt. We have utilized home equity loans, cash out refinancing, credit card debt, and auto loans to live above our means. It has been a fun ride, but the ride is over. We can't get steroids from our dealer (banks) anymore.
"After examining these charts, it is clear to me that the tremendous prosperity that began during the Reagan years of the early 1980's has been a false prosperity built upon easy credit. Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt. The leading edge of the baby boomers turned 30 years of age in the late 1970's, just as the usage of debt began to accelerate. Debt took off like a rocket ship after 9/11 with the President urging Americans to spend and Alan Greenspan lowering interest rates to 1%. Only in the bizzaro world of America in the last 7 years, while in the midst of 2 foreign wars, would a President urge his citizens to show their patriotism by buying cars and TVs. When did our priorities become so warped?"
Then there are the campaigns where supposedly small town people are better than big town people. Why? Nobody says.
In his campaigning John McCain has said he knows how to capture Osama bin Laden and will do it when he's president. So he has held it back as a secret to wait to get elected? Who believes he would do such a terrible thing as to withhold such information just to get elected?
Where it comes to money, the biggest disconnect with reality is with taxes, which nobody likes, but it's always a key voting point for Republicans. McCain tells us he will balance the budget in 4 years but how? Nobody says.
Let's look at a big talking point for McCain and Republicans. The rich should not have to pay a higher tax rate than the poor. Their apparent logic is if I make $300,000 a year (that's net not gross) and someone wants me to pay an extra say 4% on my taxes, I am going to be hurt as much by that increase as if I made $50,000 a year.
I understand it'd be nice for everybody to pay the same flat rate, no deductions, but let's look at this logically. Those making $50,000 are probably barely covering their expenses now. Their concern is putting healthy food on the table, getting gas to get to their jobs, keeping a roof over their family's heads, paying for unexpected medical expenses, handling escalating utility bills. A cut in their available income won't be about not taking a trip to Europe this summer. It will cut into their basics.
Isn't there a disconnect from reality to imagine our government (or us) can keep borrowing money without thinking about paying back? The Federal Government is paying interest every year amounting to $406,000,000,000 or $.22 of every tax dollar. How can we do anything about problems like infrastructure with that kind of interest payments? Take it on faith?
From what I understand, this disconnect began with Lyndon Johnson where he didn't try to balance expenses with paying. We have seen it flower completely under GW Bush with the Iraqi war that isn't even calculated into the budget. Now they, President and Congress, casually promise $700 billion to bail the country out of this financial meltdown (although nobody is sure it will work) but even if it does, how do they pay for it? Did you hear any talk about that?
If you are one who supported George Bush, perhaps still do, if you voted for him twice, if you still buy into the reason we are fighting this war is so we don't have to fight it here, how did you plan to pay for it?
If you are favoring John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are even willing to see us potentially fight more such wars around the world, and here comes another disconnect. Even if you are right and they are all justified wars, did you think those will come for free? And then there is the other leap of faith to believe people who haven't had democracy, who actually favor a theocracy, can be converted by guns. Okay, suppose it works, still who pays for it? Did you think it came for free: Cost of Iraq War.
This carries over into ordinary citizens and how we run our lives. So we buy a house we can't afford but have faith we will be able to someday. Why? What is supposed to make that possible? The loan officer said it was okay? Didn't we need to think what made sense to us?
How much of this thinking comes from religious ideas that lead to magical thinking where some divine being steps in to fix whatever goes wrong. Have you watched the Sarah Palin tapes where she talks of the African (for wont of a better word) witch doctor who anointed her and she believed led to her being elected governor and now possibly onto higher offices?
Palin, just as GW Bush had earlier, seems to believe she is on a mission for god. God is delivering this election for her and some, who maybe even read this blog, might agree with that idea.
I saw the tape where some from her church in Alaska compare her to Esther in the Bible sent out to save her people. Never mind that Christians are not being persecuted. It's thinking that is disconnected with reality and totally about faith. There is no test for this faith. Reality only gets in its way. Would god actually think someone totally unprepared to be president, with no real information on the problems ahead, was the best for the job? Take it on faith.
And now some pastor at an invocation at one of their rallies claimed that if McCain/Palin lost it would damage god's reputation. He wasn't kidding.
With that kind of thinking, whatever happens, it's not your doing. God wanted it to happen. This kind of disconnection from reality leads to thinking you can fund this or that (but not health care for all Americans-- magic only goes so far) and not pay for it through taxes. I don't remotely excuse the Democrats or Republicans from bringing us to this point. They both will and have done it.
Our problem is not just an abstract one of government. When I was growing up, there was a thing called Lay Away. You would find something you liked but you wouldn't take it home. You would pay so much money down on it and when you had it paid off, you got it. I have done that with dresses I wanted back then. It was before the days of the magic credit card that has led many to acquire debts that they will never be able to pay off in their lifetimes.
Telling the American people and Congress that the party is over won't be popular-- no matter who is our next president-- if that leader is connected to reality.
The following is part of an email from a friend called The Great Consumer Crash of 2009 by James Quinn, Senior Director of Strategic Planning, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania:
"The steroid of choice for the American consumer has been debt. We have utilized home equity loans, cash out refinancing, credit card debt, and auto loans to live above our means. It has been a fun ride, but the ride is over. We can't get steroids from our dealer (banks) anymore.
"After examining these charts, it is clear to me that the tremendous prosperity that began during the Reagan years of the early 1980's has been a false prosperity built upon easy credit. Household debt reached $13.8 trillion in 2007, with $10.5 trillion of that mortgage debt. The leading edge of the baby boomers turned 30 years of age in the late 1970's, just as the usage of debt began to accelerate. Debt took off like a rocket ship after 9/11 with the President urging Americans to spend and Alan Greenspan lowering interest rates to 1%. Only in the bizzaro world of America in the last 7 years, while in the midst of 2 foreign wars, would a President urge his citizens to show their patriotism by buying cars and TVs. When did our priorities become so warped?"
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
how we treat the weakest among us
It is nothing new that some humans glory in power over others. When Jesus was speaking in what is called The Sermon on the Mount, he said how you treat the weakest is how you treat me. There are several ways you can take that statement, but one is that he saw the connection between us all as souls united beyond the physical to one big organism.Have you ever seen a quaking aspen grove? It looks like it's a lot of separate trees; but in reality, it's one organism under the ground. The trees come up from that same root structure. If humans recognized this about ourselves, we'd treat 'others' differently, if for no other reason than simple selfishness.
Instead, we see it as them against us. This damages our ability to deal with any kind of crisis when it's constantly a bad guys against good guys and gotchas are the only way to win. John McCain and Sarah Palin have been taking this to the nth degree, but it's been here in many forms for a long time.
Do anything to win and then say we will all work together? How exactly does that work when you have done all you can to character assassinate the 'other'?
On a deeper, even more poisonous level, it impacts how we see something like torture. Some people, even those who claim to be most religious, feel torture is not only all right, but approve of it: America the Global Pioneer of Torture. Does this thinking come out of shows like 24 that glorify torture as how the good guys win?
Countless times I have heard the reasoning that torture is okay because what if your loved one was kidnapped and a bad guy had them and you could get the bad guy and torture him to save your loved one, then you'd do it-- which translates into justifying government torture as a valid tactic. That example is so full of shit (pardon my French) that I can't repeat it without some cursing.
That example is not where torture has been happening. We are not talking about one person doing it but about a government policy, fishing expeditions where Bush either gave or allowed to be given the orders to do it.
Who have been the victims of torture? Many were released later as mistakes. Some were combatants caught up in a net and forced to confess to a crime that they may not have even known what it was but would say anything to finally get relief. There were those who, under torture, told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and here's where they are-- except they were not there. Torture probably led to some of those orange alerts for planned terrorist attacks that were never planned but someone had to say something to stop the pain.
Get it! Torture does not work except in movies! Torture is sadistic and it's the bad guys who do it or should be. Torture is about taking advantage of the weak and brutalizing someone because you can. It's ordering someone to do that to another human being thereby dehumanizing both. It's about some feeling empowered because they can order such done. It has also probably made trials in any real court of law impossible because of the abuse of what has been a civilizing set of rules and for what?
When McCain first ran for president, he was against torture. He knew very well that it doesn't work from first hand experience. It seems that was before he saw the polls and began his hedge. Might not be okay for the military to torture but might be okay for the CIA (so turn over prisoners to the CIA?). Did he lose his honorable stance in order to make points with a key voting block? In this country, especially in the South, it's a big deal to be pro-torture, a winning issue: Southern Evangelicals and Torture.
The irony is those who think this way often call themselves Christian while they are condoning torture as a perfectly valid approach to fighting terrorists who also torture. Christians? As in following who? "Whatever you do until the least of these, you do unto me." Matthew 25:40
Barack Obama's unequivocal statement on torture from October 4, 2007:
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It’s time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It’s time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values."
So where do you stand? There is a choice to make. Who are we as a people?
From Farm Boss, for anyone interested in more information on quaking aspen groves: biogeography
From Farm Boss, for anyone interested in more information on quaking aspen groves: biogeographyMonday, October 13, 2008
What are we creating?
To be honest, I don't know who John McCain is. Hero? Prey? Anti-hero? Predator? Erratic, solid leader? Is he a today's Beowulf? I just don't know, but I know he has stirred up something that is pretty ugly. He didn't create it, but he has tapped into it.He began this process in choosing Sarah Palin as his vice president without caring if she had the ability to actually be president. He felt or maybe knew she would arouse the extremists of his party. Palin also didn't create what we are seeing at these rallies, but she calls out to it and clearly is excited by it. McCain is the responsible one though as he is the one the Republican party chose to run for President. What follows during his campaign is his responsibility.
I am one of those people who typically reserves judgment on people, and likes to think they mean well-- until I am proven otherwise. This crowd that McCain and Palin have aroused, that's hard to see anything positive about it: Anger is Crowd's Overreaching Emotion at McCain Rally.
Do we generate emotions in others because of our own attitudes? Do we draw to us those who are like us?
Senator McCain arouses these people's sense of being wronged, stirs up their anger and fear by suggesting they don't know who Obama is. Then last week he was himself booed when he tried to cool it off. His crowd didn't want to hear that Obama was a decent family man and someone not to be feared if he was elected president. McCain has been creating a whirlwind of negative drama. Is there any stopping that?
McCain and Palin say we don't know Barack Obama. Usually what they have been saying is the opposite of what is true. What if we do know Obama, his temperament, those who he has drawn to him, his mistakes, his successes, but it's McCain and Palin who we don't know?
So who is John McCain? He's been a senator a long time but how many voters really know him? Have people not taken seriously enough his famed vicious, out of control temper, his ego, his own lies or exaggerations? We now know how he responds in emergencies-- running off this way or that, reacting like a drama queen; but there is another way he responds and it is the one voters better fully be thinking about.
How much of what we think we know about John McCain came from him and the collegial environment in the Senate where they protect each other? He catered to the media to get them to like him and overlook what they might have seen. Watch this video and think long and hard about what you are seeing:
How many people have we heard saying they love McCain, including Joe Biden. And yet... yet, there is this to understand. What is this instability when he runs from solution to solution, from idea to idea. There is this out of control rage. There is something more.
McCain is saying that we can't trust Obama because of a casual relationship with someone. What
about McCain's casual relationships? Like this one: John McCain and his liking for rich and sometimes shady friends visits the yacht of suspected (at that time) con man. McCain was there for to celebrate his 70th birthday in Montenegro with Ann Hathaway, her Italian boyfriend, Raffaello Follieri, and someone else.At this time Follieri had not yet been indicted but the investigations were ongoing. Why was McCain there? Tip: it wasn't working on an education committee. Follieri's connection was to a lobbyist that you will have heard of if you have listened to McCain try to explain his Fannie Mae connections away-- Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager.
Entering the yacht is the same McCain who partied with Charles Keating before his indictment. This is the one criticizing Obama for working with Ayers? There has never been any evidence that Obama had a friendly relationship with Ayers, that he vacationed with him, but there is with McCain and many who have less than savory reputations.
Okay, taking a deep breath and remembering a recent phone conversation with my daughter. She was telling me that they had their second Obama/Biden sign stolen from their yard. They live on a street where all the signs are McCain/Palin. They have now put up a third Obama sign. She has her children assigned with the responsibility to bring them in at night to try to prevent this one's theft. If McCain followers want to take them, they will at least have to do it in daylight.
As we talked, she added something which I think is very true and fits this idea I have been considering. She said we can't let ourselves think on them too much. When we do, we are giving them energy, our energy.
I know that it's true. Don't let anger at them fester inside us. Do what we can, stay informed, act when we feel it is right, but then release the results and let the emotions go because anger is what they are seeking to grow. When we become angry, aren't we building their power?
Obama said in a recent rally of his own that anger is easy to generate, but what does it do for the problems we are facing?
There are those who are trying to gain power by pulling negative energies to themselves. When we feel angry, we are adding to their power and losing our own.
We, who see the needs in the world so differently, need to center on white light, loving energy, and positive actions, building a contrasting power that swells up as it grows, that can show a better way even to those who are hate-filled because of their fear and mistaken in their belief that anger gives them power.
Anger doesn't give us what we want. There is another way. We need to illustrate it through our lives, and when we feel ourselves losing our own focus, take some time to get it back. If that's not easy for you right now, watch this video: The Shift. There is another way.
(It seems I should not have to add this but, I understand, that not everybody who is going to vote for McCain/Palin is like that crowd in the video tape. They aren't all racists, nor all being fooled into thinking a tenuous connection some years back means Obama is a secret terrorist. Some are voting for what they see as logical reasons. I think they are wrong, but that's America, that we can all make our choices for ourselves-- not be led or manipulated by someone else into a choice that goes against our own long-term, best interests for a strong nation and a good place for our grandchildren to raise their own families someday.
The photos are chosen because they are reflections from vacation this summer.Taking time to reflect is what we all need to be doing. The first is Sprague River, Oregon; the second in the Lamar Valley, Yellowstone Park.)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Who is a hero and how do we know?
No problem in knowing who the hero/predator is on this cover to the DVD for Troy. In life, particularly the political realm, it's not so easy. Masks often disguise someone's identity. Playing roles is popular in politics. Life doesn't divide up so tidily as there are many dimension to humans. Then add to the difficulty, some would see all predators as being bad guys; so predators might feel they had to hide their nature in a world where the ruler isn't chosen through physical combat but by reasons that sometimes defy logic-- like fun at a barbecue or just like you.So, considering predators where it comes to our political parties, Republicans probably see themselves as predator/meat eaters (once you define this as not good guy/bad guy) as they would identify Democrats as prey. Over and over in comments other places, I see Republicans referring to Obama as being a wuss, who Putin would roll right over (when they aren't scared Obama is a bad man).
Those Republicans seem to believe that's true of all Democrats (well maybe not Hillary). Their fear is Democrats won't protect us nor will they stand up for the country. Their logic ignores the fact that our biggest terrorist attack came under a Republican watch, and that our full-scale entries into WWII, The Korean and Vietnam Wars were under Democrats. Still the belief is real that Republicans will defend the country, and Democrats will bend over, cringing and beg please don't hurt me too much.
The Republican says, Grab the world around the throat and demand what you want from it, you wuss!
The Democrat says, We must make the world a better place; so that all are happier and live better lives. Who do you think you are, Caligula?
Republican (thinking it's likely an insult but unsure) sneers, ELITIST!
The last person who the right wing decided was tough enough to stand up to Putin saw, when he looked into the Russian leader's eyes, a soul mate. How sweet, how tender, but were they? Might Bush being a predator explain some of what he did where it came to torture and establishing gulags? Come on, is he really of the same material as Putin (who is as feral as they come)?
This will offend the right, but I see Bush as manipulated and used by those with much keener minds and wills than his own. Even with the power of the presidency behind him, the Secret Service to protect him, Dick Cheney to run the country, a father who had been a predator, Bush is what he has always been-- prey. Because he denied his nature, he was ineffective prey.
Despite my assessment of Bush, I would not expect predators or prey to be all in one or the other political party (whether good or bad). Would they naturally gravitate to one or the other? I don't know but kind of doubt it as many things determine whether someone is a Republican or Democrat, issues that wouldn't give away the person's nature. It usually takes some thought to figure out if a leader is predator or prey and then are they good or bad-- effective or ineffective--unless like Putin, it's out in the open and obvious to anyone.
As a Democrat my whole life, when I am evaluating candidates, I will always look for a strong, wily, good, and determined predator to be able to deal with the world as it is. If he has to play a little rough, as long as he stays honorable, I don't mind at all.
Obama has the social sensitivity, the goodness, and yes, effective predator skills to make my voting for him an easy call. He doesn't have to posture or pose. He just is. You see it in his eyes, his organization, his confidence, his focus, how he carries himself, the ideas he's thought through. He knows his territory and sees the problems ahead of time. I think some undecided voters do see his predator nature (without naming it), but it scares them because he's different from them. If he was of the prey species, they'd be more comfortable.
I understand some of you will not be comfortable with this idea of labeling humans as predator or prey, but think about it a bit. Next time you watch a political debate, watch a rally, listen to a speech, ask yourself-- predator or prey? Then add effective, ineffective, good or bad. The combination of effective predator and bad is the last thing we want in a leader (Putin).
Before George bush, I'd have thought that if we have to choose a 'bad' leader, if it is chosen for us, then hope it's prey; but after him, I am not so sure. What we want is someone who knows who they are and is good at it. There are times in history where choosing a leader who is effective, good prey might be the right choice. The worst is someone who wants to be one thing, hasn't developed the skills for what they actually are and then postures, poses and is fooled by those who know exactly what they are.
What about the hero as a leader? Is that for whom we should be looking? Heroes are defined by being courageous, people of brave deeds, noble qualities, who perform heroic acts. To be a hero takes doing either something phenomenal or a lifetime of heroic actions. One deed doesn't tell you anything because one of the ironies of life is the same person can do something heroic beyond imagining and turn right around and do something equally evil.
We have been told to vote for John McCain because he is a hero. Is he? Was he? To help you fully decide, read this from Rolling Stone on the Make-believe Maverick. (the link to this informative and fascinating article came from GYMA). Whatever else John McCain is, he's not boring.
In terms of literary metaphors, the problem with McCain as hero is, even by his own telling, he was shot down on his first mission or thereabouts. What he did was not fight but rather resist and refuse to be released when he could have been (something I now wonder about given his now revealed propensity for lying). In terms of archetypes, McCain is the noble martyr, not the hero. If we take his own story, he suffered for his friends, for his country. This is like the Christ or say Prometheus.
What about predator or prey? He's certainly been aggressive enough for how his temper overflows. Does coming across as rude and nasty, running a sleazy campaign, no ability to stay focused, no concrete plan, make him possibly a lousy predator? Or is he prey who was thrust into the role of hero by his family and his own experiences but he was never able to truly live up to it? That alone could make someone into the nasty person he clearly has been recently as he heads into Gollum territory.
Voting for someone, who is supposed to be a hero, can be dicey and most especially if he turns out to be prey where you then have to look around for who is the predator running the actual show.
Well, what can I say, this is the writer's mind free-associating and looking at these characters. It does relate to the obstacles voters face in assessing who will make for a strong leader in our particularly turbulent time.
Whether you do think in terms of predator and prey, hero or villain, don't count on the media to help figure it out. The media won't or can't tell. It is driven by a need for constant excitement, for stirring things up. It's up to us to watch as they debate, interact with others, speak out, write, live their lives, and run their campaigns. Right now, running their campaigns is our best clue before they end up in office, and we all figure out what they are but it's too late.
I think, like the Spartan king, Leonidas, Obama has developed the skill set that he needs to do this job. He stays focused, he is directed by good purposes. Some fear his power because they aren't used to an effective predator in a power position.
We haven't had such a fully developed person running for the presidency in my lifetime. Barack Obama is the total package (which doesn't mean he is perfect or has not made mistakes.He's no Messiah despite how some want to milk that to add to the fear of others). He's a person who is highly skilled for these times. I hope this country doesn't lose its opportunity as it's now as much about us as about him.
Just had to add this piece from another article which I thought interesting as an evaluation by David Brooks, not a liberal, as to how he saw Obama:
"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So I say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say."And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception." David Brooks
After reading comments in the last blog, I wanted to add one more thought. Darlene wrote that people might go in and out of being predator or prey in a lifetime. That could well be.
What I feel most concerned about is that we not find ourselves with a culture turned into ineffective prey by those who want to feed on those weaker than themselves. I think this would worry people in both parties. This can be avoided by strong education systems, by an economy that is fairly run where all have a chance to rise up based on their abilities.
Ideally such a culture would be teaching how to be the best at what someone is; so that whether it's by nature prey or predator, they operate in their effective zone (maybe switching into another operating mode, if they can, when it's required) and thereby make the most of their true nature.
There is nothing wrong or weak about prey when it's effective, but trying to be something someone is not by nature leads to failure. It's a pretty advanced way of thinking though and could schools do such in a culture such as ours that often mistakes aggression for being effective.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Seductress or Smalltown girl?
Masks, like the hero or martyr, the seductress or good woman, can fool us. It takes being aware they exist to effectively recognize them, assessing who the people really are behind those masks. The following came in my email and fit well into something, on which I have been thinking-- archetypes.
Debbie Ford wrote this explaining the Seductress. I think it's worth reading. From Debbie Ford's Shadow Blog her email newsletter:
Debbie Ford wrote this explaining the Seductress. I think it's worth reading. From Debbie Ford's Shadow Blog her email newsletter:
*************************
Is she a Smalltown girl or a Seductress?
After my first and only political Shadow Blog, I received more mail from my readers than I've received in my entire career. Thank you for your overwhelming response. Obviously, my message gave voice to what many of you were already feeling. I apologize once again to those of you I've offended. (If you were offended by the last one, don't be a masochist. Close this one now as you're certainly going to be offended by this one as well.) Even at the risk of losing more of my readers, I feel compelled to continue to share my views on the upcoming election because we've got one of the best shadow figures -- literally -- that we've seen in a long time. And being a shadow lover, I just can't pass it up. We're all very lucky that this election gives us an unprecedented opportunity to see the shadow in all its disguises and all its glory. I would be remiss to ignore it. This week, like most of you, I sat glued to my TV watching the Vice Presidential debate. Within three minutes and after the first wink, I became fascinated once again with Sarah Palin. I asked myself, "What is the deal with this woman? Why is she winking at me? Is she flirting with me?" I had to take a deep breath because I noticed this queasy feeling growing in the pit of my stomach.
Then it flashed before me. I recognized her. I had met her before, in many forms, and here she was again. All of the sudden, it dawned on me that the reason I was having this reaction is because Sarah Palin is the living expression of The Seductress, one of the 20 masks, the faces of the wounded ego, that I outline in my latest book. Of course I felt disturbed -- she was working me right through my HDTV!
In Why Good People Do Bad Things, I suggest that those who don the mask of The Seductress are after one thing and one thing only: to make themselves feel better about who they are by getting whatever they might be after. Birthed out of the fear that they are not good enough, loved enough, or smart enough, they search until they find suitable targets to trap in their energetic webs -- in the case of Sarah Palin, first the citizens of the great state of Alaska and now the entire country.
I consider The Seductress a predator because her main goal is to feed on the self-esteem of others in order to soothe her own emotional wounds. The Seductress literally throws out an energetic hook by being kind, loving, interested, sexual and, in this case, folksy -- luring her victims closer, all the while planning her next move. She spends her time thinking about how she looks, how others will perceive her, how she can win, and how she can get more of what she's after. The Seductress' "catch" enhances her inner perception of herself and covers, at least for the moment, the enormous pain and self-loathing that are stored in her psyche.
In my book, "dangerous, poisonous, and venomous" are the qualities I use to describe The Seductress because her main attack is disguised in love and, in this instance, service. Her signal broadcasts in all directions, sometimes loudly and at other times as a soft whisper: "I will give you some love and take care of you if you give me your power. I am going to make you feel better about yourself if you give me some control. I am going to tell you everything you ever wanted to hear if you just make me the next Vice President of the United States of America."
Can we as a nation afford to fall under the spell of Sarah Palin and give her what she wants? I would suggest that the cost is too high for all of us. No amount of twisting ("Oh Joe you're going backwards again," she croons) will be able to distract us from who she is, what she believes, what she's really after, and what it would cost us if she and McCain are elected. This is not a beauty or a personality contest. This is not a time to pick someone because of their smile, their style, their charisma, their down-home cloak, or their biting tongue. Instead, this is a time to dissect who Sarah Palin is -- her views, her experience (or in this case her inexperience), and how she lives her life. She will, if elected the next Vice President, be a role model for our daughters, sons and future generations. We must look at her carefully, behind her smiling, cute, winking persona. We must take off her very hip glasses (not her clothes, gentlemen!) to see what's hidden there. We must ask ourselves, "Does this woman have the ability to govern the greatest nation in the world?"
Although many will argue that we must stop focusing on Palin, it's vital that we take a closer look because she is a microcosm of the narrow, outdated views of the Republican Party. I'm not even going to talk about her choice to drag her four-month-old special needs child around the country to big events to prove that she's a good mother except to ask if she had a healthy baby, would she be dragging it around all night? You do have to wonder since most of us mothers know that their child shouldn't be in big public places with tens of thousands of people at 10:00 at night.
Instead, let's look at her choice to use her sexuality to lure innocent voters and hearts into her web. Rather than choosing to reflect the brilliance, the smarts, the power, or the merit she must obviously possess (even if hidden from view from some of us), she winks and flirts, reinforcing all the things for which women are mocked and not taken seriously in the political arena. Can you even imagine powerful female leaders like Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, or Margaret Thatcher winking at an audience? Here's what I'd like to say to Sarah Palin right now, from one pretty woman to another: Stop it! I know you want to take away our right to choose but do you really have to minimize our equality just to get votes? (And for those who of you who are now mad at me and projecting on me, for the record, I have never winked at an audience, although maybe I should try it since she's getting 15,000 people at her events.)
The choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate tells us loud and clear what kind of man "the maverick" John McCain is. Is he someone who diligently seeks to find the best person to take his place in the unfortunate circumstance of his death? Is he the kind of man that surrounds himself with brilliant thinkers of tomorrow who promise to take us out of the dark age of war, hate, and economic disaster? Or is he the kind of hungry politician who would sell his and his nation's soul just to win? We should all take a big exhale because John McCain's shadow has been exposed. He has proven not to be the hero of our time but instead an egocentric opportunist in search of the ultimate power. In one of the most important decisions of his political career, he picked an inexperienced woman because he believed that she could help him win over the Hillary Clinton voters. We all know this. Does he really think American women are that stupid? That we can't see the motives behind this irresponsible choice?
And on a final note, if you're not convinced that she would not be the best choice, Sarah Palin told us all loud and clear Thursday night, looking straight into the camera, that the only thing that matters is that we win this war. Not that we bring our troops home safely. Not that we heal the hatred that permeates our world. She didn't speak of justice, fairness or the good of all people. Because she is a good Seductress, all she wants is to win.
My friends, we must join together to pull off the blinders for those who are sucked into the trance of this now very famous and potentially very dangerous Seductress. If you're not registered to vote, register today and make it your duty to find just one unregistered person to invite into this most important election.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Second Presidential Debate
In my view, Barack Obama won this second presidential debate on substance and his overall view toward what needs to be done in the difficult times through which we are going. This election will be my twelfth time to vote for a United States President, and I have never felt so positive about any of the others for whom I have voted.
Obama's intelligence, his ability to use facts, his farsighted thinking all came though in this debate even more than it does in his speeches. Yes, he goes uhm, he doesn't have every answer ready the second the question is asked, he thinks about his answers, his words, but that's the thing. He does think.
This man truly has the most promise in his character, his emotional capacity, the most intellectual ability to carry out his ideas of any of those many candidates when sometimes I have voted for the lesser of evils. Not this year. I know I won't agree with every approach he will take, maybe not all of his ideas, but, to me, it's crystal clear that he has the most ability to work through this extremely turbulent time in history-- of which I also have never seen the like.
That Obama even wants the leadership right now says a lot for his character. He could easily have waited and let things play out, picking up the pieces later, but he has come forward when the country most needs him. He has put himself out there and not at little risk.
As for McCain. I can't write about him at the debate. I saw Palin last week act civil at a debate and go out and try to incite violence against Obama. I watched at one of his appearances as McCain kind of smirked when someone called Obama a terrorist. Those two are trying to incite a terrible act by some twisted mind and nothing McCain could have done at this debate could make up for what he has tried to unleash.
I just hope the Secret Service is extra alert, and all of us who pray or send white light for protection need to do so for Barack Obama and his wife. There are troubled minds in this world, and this week it looked to me like two of them are running for the highest offices in this land. They would not themselves do a violent deed; but if someone incites it, they are part of the whirlwind that follows. I only hope McCain sees this himself and backs off from what he's been inciting, goes back to the issues that this country faces, but it does not look hopeful-- so people, who care, need to be sending out protection for Obama and his family.
Joe Klein wrote Embarracuda about how embarrassed the right should be over where the extremists like Sean Hannity have encouraged John McCain and Sarah Palin to descend. If John McCain had honor, he threw it away this week. How can he ever get it back?
Here's another on Palin; and if this suits you to think this woman might be our next president, you long ago probably stopped reading this blog: Washington Post's Dana Milbank on the pitbull unleashed.
Let's look at this Ayers connection which Palin has been spouting off about and which McCain hopes to use to turn the campaign around. Ayers was a terrorist in the Vietnam War era. Should he have done time in prison for his evil and misguided attempts to bring the Vietnam War to an end? Yes. Ayers still doesn't admit he did wrong. So even though he now lives as an exemplar citizen who teaches in a university and works on education issues, he's not a guy I'd want to know.
What does Ayers have to do with Barack Obama? Not much. Obama said he didn't know what Ayers did when he first met him as a college professor who had written books on education. Should he have researched him before he allowed a kick-off to his senate race to be in Ayers home? Not hard to say yes-- now. Obama has said blowing up buildings is bad. I would guess as president he will not blow any up.
Why is Ayers even an issue? Mainly to avoid talking about what is. Some of these people, who are cheering on Palin's divisive hate talk and McCain's sly innuendos, still are mad that we lost the Vietnam War. I would like them to understand something. It's over. We did not get out of Vietnam because of Ayers. It was because the war didn't make sense to enough people; but what the heck, golly gee, fear doesn't operate on logic.
If you look at people's connections with bad guys, you have McCain on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program. Or even worse, his connection to this: Why McCain's Time with Council of World Freedom Matters. Or McCain and Iran Contra.
When bringing up these fringe groups, how about Palin with the Alaskan Independence Party, to which she never was an actual member but her husband was, where as governor, she gave an address in 2008 praising them?
AIP is a group who favors Alaska's secession from the United States. Their originator died in a plastic's explosive sale gone bad. How innocent. Now coming from the Pacific Northwest where some also favor the idea of forming their own nation, I don't think the idea of secession is totally wacko, but what I do think is she claims she's a patriot! To whom? Did you know that group encourages their members to infiltrate the major parties to bring about their chance to cut themselves loose from the US. Not surprising they'd think that way with all their oil wealth, but back to the question: is it patriotic?
It's almost tragic what McCain has done to attain the presidency. He doesn't care about issues. He accuses Obama of doing what he himself has done (wanting to win at any cost). I guess when it's what is in your heart, it's what you see in the heart of others.
McCain and Palin hear their crowd's cheer when they say inflammatory things. They seem to be okay when their audiences accuse Obama of being a terrorist or yell kill him. Are they surprised that this is where their words lead? If they don't like it, they show no sign as they smirk and don't try to bring sanity to those in the crowds who have clearly gone into hatred. Those cheers are coming from their base. Will any of this work with Americans at large? I don't know, but I don't see how it can if voters stop to think at all.
We are facing a LOT of big issues but the character of the people we are voting for does matter! So while Sarah Palin wants us to worry that William Ayers was giving Barack Obama bomb making instructions instead of meeting at board meetings around the problems of education, while John McCain is only mildly amused when someone in his audience answers his question of who Obama is by yelling out terrorist, while that's going on, what about the real problems the country faces?
People, who say they don't know what Barack Obama would do about any of these issues, are the same ones who fear he's a secret terrorist, the same ones who think a vice presidential candidate, who brings up Ayers, based on an article in the New York Times she either didn't read, didn't understand, or assumed the crowd wouldn't know what it said, they are the ones who believe that woman is fit to be president. Why is she fit? Well she's a woman, isn't she? She's nasty and they mistake meanness for power.
In the debate John McCain said this is no time for on the job training. I guess except for his vice president who he doesn't feel is able to face a press conference as he, Obama or Biden can do. The sad part is the people who loudly applaud McCain and Palin are likely to be the most hard hit by what is coming.
Worth reading for what we might need to do and what's happening:
Yes, Obama won the debate, and it's because of his character, his steadfastness, his intelligence and because his ideas are more sound. If you don't already think so, I hope you will read some of the links above. And then think hard on what you want for this country.
Obama's intelligence, his ability to use facts, his farsighted thinking all came though in this debate even more than it does in his speeches. Yes, he goes uhm, he doesn't have every answer ready the second the question is asked, he thinks about his answers, his words, but that's the thing. He does think.
This man truly has the most promise in his character, his emotional capacity, the most intellectual ability to carry out his ideas of any of those many candidates when sometimes I have voted for the lesser of evils. Not this year. I know I won't agree with every approach he will take, maybe not all of his ideas, but, to me, it's crystal clear that he has the most ability to work through this extremely turbulent time in history-- of which I also have never seen the like.
That Obama even wants the leadership right now says a lot for his character. He could easily have waited and let things play out, picking up the pieces later, but he has come forward when the country most needs him. He has put himself out there and not at little risk.
As for McCain. I can't write about him at the debate. I saw Palin last week act civil at a debate and go out and try to incite violence against Obama. I watched at one of his appearances as McCain kind of smirked when someone called Obama a terrorist. Those two are trying to incite a terrible act by some twisted mind and nothing McCain could have done at this debate could make up for what he has tried to unleash.
I just hope the Secret Service is extra alert, and all of us who pray or send white light for protection need to do so for Barack Obama and his wife. There are troubled minds in this world, and this week it looked to me like two of them are running for the highest offices in this land. They would not themselves do a violent deed; but if someone incites it, they are part of the whirlwind that follows. I only hope McCain sees this himself and backs off from what he's been inciting, goes back to the issues that this country faces, but it does not look hopeful-- so people, who care, need to be sending out protection for Obama and his family.
Joe Klein wrote Embarracuda about how embarrassed the right should be over where the extremists like Sean Hannity have encouraged John McCain and Sarah Palin to descend. If John McCain had honor, he threw it away this week. How can he ever get it back?
Here's another on Palin; and if this suits you to think this woman might be our next president, you long ago probably stopped reading this blog: Washington Post's Dana Milbank on the pitbull unleashed.
Let's look at this Ayers connection which Palin has been spouting off about and which McCain hopes to use to turn the campaign around. Ayers was a terrorist in the Vietnam War era. Should he have done time in prison for his evil and misguided attempts to bring the Vietnam War to an end? Yes. Ayers still doesn't admit he did wrong. So even though he now lives as an exemplar citizen who teaches in a university and works on education issues, he's not a guy I'd want to know.
What does Ayers have to do with Barack Obama? Not much. Obama said he didn't know what Ayers did when he first met him as a college professor who had written books on education. Should he have researched him before he allowed a kick-off to his senate race to be in Ayers home? Not hard to say yes-- now. Obama has said blowing up buildings is bad. I would guess as president he will not blow any up.
Why is Ayers even an issue? Mainly to avoid talking about what is. Some of these people, who are cheering on Palin's divisive hate talk and McCain's sly innuendos, still are mad that we lost the Vietnam War. I would like them to understand something. It's over. We did not get out of Vietnam because of Ayers. It was because the war didn't make sense to enough people; but what the heck, golly gee, fear doesn't operate on logic.
If you look at people's connections with bad guys, you have McCain on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program. Or even worse, his connection to this: Why McCain's Time with Council of World Freedom Matters. Or McCain and Iran Contra.
When bringing up these fringe groups, how about Palin with the Alaskan Independence Party, to which she never was an actual member but her husband was, where as governor, she gave an address in 2008 praising them?
AIP is a group who favors Alaska's secession from the United States. Their originator died in a plastic's explosive sale gone bad. How innocent. Now coming from the Pacific Northwest where some also favor the idea of forming their own nation, I don't think the idea of secession is totally wacko, but what I do think is she claims she's a patriot! To whom? Did you know that group encourages their members to infiltrate the major parties to bring about their chance to cut themselves loose from the US. Not surprising they'd think that way with all their oil wealth, but back to the question: is it patriotic?
It's almost tragic what McCain has done to attain the presidency. He doesn't care about issues. He accuses Obama of doing what he himself has done (wanting to win at any cost). I guess when it's what is in your heart, it's what you see in the heart of others.
McCain and Palin hear their crowd's cheer when they say inflammatory things. They seem to be okay when their audiences accuse Obama of being a terrorist or yell kill him. Are they surprised that this is where their words lead? If they don't like it, they show no sign as they smirk and don't try to bring sanity to those in the crowds who have clearly gone into hatred. Those cheers are coming from their base. Will any of this work with Americans at large? I don't know, but I don't see how it can if voters stop to think at all.
We are facing a LOT of big issues but the character of the people we are voting for does matter! So while Sarah Palin wants us to worry that William Ayers was giving Barack Obama bomb making instructions instead of meeting at board meetings around the problems of education, while John McCain is only mildly amused when someone in his audience answers his question of who Obama is by yelling out terrorist, while that's going on, what about the real problems the country faces?
People, who say they don't know what Barack Obama would do about any of these issues, are the same ones who fear he's a secret terrorist, the same ones who think a vice presidential candidate, who brings up Ayers, based on an article in the New York Times she either didn't read, didn't understand, or assumed the crowd wouldn't know what it said, they are the ones who believe that woman is fit to be president. Why is she fit? Well she's a woman, isn't she? She's nasty and they mistake meanness for power.
In the debate John McCain said this is no time for on the job training. I guess except for his vice president who he doesn't feel is able to face a press conference as he, Obama or Biden can do. The sad part is the people who loudly applaud McCain and Palin are likely to be the most hard hit by what is coming.
Worth reading for what we might need to do and what's happening:
Yes, Obama won the debate, and it's because of his character, his steadfastness, his intelligence and because his ideas are more sound. If you don't already think so, I hope you will read some of the links above. And then think hard on what you want for this country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)