The State of NJ is in Crisis Mode

Living in NJ does not mean “affordable living,” but instead implies that there will be some type of “standard of living” that should permit someone to actually LIVE here.

Alas… after a string of inept politicians making blanket promises about how they will fix what’s broke, leaves the residents of this state feeling less than amicable towards them.  Aren’t all politicians sneaky, manipulative liars?  Oh, then it’s just in NJ.

So, bearing that in mind, the current governor (name omitted to spare him further shame), who led the parade in blanket (unkept) promises, is thinking he may have a chance at re-election.  What drives a rusty nail in the already infected wound is that he’s probably correct.  For as much as everyone (me included) in my state complains about what’s going on (remember “McGreevy-gate”?), not many are willing to stand up and say, “TAKE A HIKE, YOU POLITICANS, YOU!” by voting for SOMEONE else.

It’s a novel concept… trust me… as I live in one of the most democratic states in the union, who professes to be VERY VERY blue, yet falls into the pit of deep despair followed by erraneous tax hikes and other forms of financial bleeding from the residents.

Most recently, or rather, somewhat recently, the governor was able to get passed this furlough act in which all state workers would partake in “unpaid” leave days.

FUN-O.  If I were contemplating working for the state, the first thing I’d ask for are days off in which I wouldn’t get paid.  Nice.  What a novelty.

However, these people are the ones who are processing necessary paperwork… for US!  The Department of Education, who needs to process teachers’ licenses for new graduates (though, it COULD have held off on any “history education” people until I found a full-time job, but Noooo), most specifically.  Several years ago, I applied for my elementary education license (uh, like I would know what to do with little kids) and I had to wait (but not as long) about 3 months.  I was told that since I already possessed a license (7-12th grade), that I would take less time.

I used to wear a t-shirt (in the 80s, might I add) that read, “Welcome to New Jersey, now go home!”  I’m guessing I need to find it and dust it off.  Not only has the traffic increased, the taxes skyrockets, home prices plummeted (if you’re trying to sell, like I am), and all sorts of other crazy things (attributed to the economic circus we’ve been in for the past several months)… moving to NJ requires a family trust, unlimited funds, and a job that doesn’t furlough its workers, cut their pensions, or lessen the amount of employees so that the fat cat corporate bullies can take hunting trips to London or fly their entire administrative staff, their families, close friends, and sororities/fraternities to Vegas for a $2.5 million “corporate workshop.”

When will ANYONE jump up and scream, “BULLSHIT!!”… and make these politicans accountable to US… as the Social Contract (written about by Rousseau, Locke, and other Enlightenment philosophes) states… the people will trust their government with protecting their basic needs as long as the government does not abuse their position.  When the people feel that the government is no longer protecting their rights, they have the right to revolt.

Hello, people… I think a little governmental protest is needed… and not just a sign-holding-chant-fest by college students and stay-at-home moms, but EVERY group…minority, majority, left, right, and center.  We need to pull these politicans from their nice warm beds and tar and feather them, just as the American people did at the onset of the American Revolution.  Let them know that they work for us, and we will not be lost amidst piles and miles of red tape, bureaucratic bullshit, and broken promises.

And people wonder why I am so anxious to LEAVE Jersey.  Live here for a while and try to not get aggravated by the crap going on here…

 

Thanks for listening. 
-Herstory07.wordpress.com

Post election thoughts

I posted this over at summerfever a couple of days ago, and decided to repost it here and try to get this going again.  Maybe I can get my cohorts back over here too, and if there is anyone else out there who would like to contribute, leave a comment or send me an email.  summerfever08@gmail.com.

 

I have been called out. Apparently, as the token Republican in this corner of the blogosphere, someone actually wants my opinion on the election. Perhaps in dribs and drabs I can do that, because my opinion is so far flung that it would take all day to go through everything which is probably why I have pretty much kept my mouth shut this election season.

First of all, although I have been a Republican since I fell in love with Ronald Reagan while in college, at that time switching my registration from “Democrat” in support of him, I am hardly a fan of the Republican party these days.  Not only that, I have never liked John McCain at all.  In fact I really hated John McCain and to me he was always a Democrat in Republican clothing.  So to speak.

So to reiterate, I can’t stand McCain.  I have no idea how in God’s green earth he ever won the nomination.  Either the ballot box was stuffed with votes from Democrats who figured the Republican base would not get fired up for him, or everybody bought into the nonsense that he was the only Republican who could beat Hillary, who was the presumptive nominee for a long time as you recall.  My choice in the primaries was Romney.  And I think if he had gotten the nod for VP more Republicans would have gone for McCain, if for no other reason that his keen financial insights, experience and ideas. 

As for Sarah Palin, when her position on the ticket was announced, I was irate.  I was incensed that it wasn’t Romney.  Furthermore, coming at that time when all the talk was about Hillary NOT being on Obama’s ticket, I thought the only reason she was chosen was her sex.  She may or may not have been qualified to be in that position, but she certainly was not the best choice.    The fact that she was only there because she was a woman was debasing to me.  I grew to think she was pretty cute,  and that she has more experience that Obama, albeit not in Washington, but still…if she was the best McCain could come up with, that didn’t say much for his ability to choose good people to surround himself with.

As it turns out there was a black man running for President whom I greatly admire and whose candidacy excited me.  No, I am not talking about Obama.  I am talking about Alan Keyes.  I have always admired Dr. Keyes, and I wish more that 33,000+ had noticed that he was running.  Anyway, since he was the American Independent Party candidate (why is it nobody ever talked about the other black man on the ballot?)(probably the same reason nobody ever talked about Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas in historical terms…wrong party affiliation) I am totally thinking that I am going to change my registration to the American Independent party.  The Republicans have just turned into a bunch of idiots, and the Democrats are just a bunch of power-gluttons who will embrace any and every fringy, radical idea or group just for the numbers.  

I am kind of a status quo kinda gal.  I like small government, low taxes, strong defense, secure borders, laws that stick, a safe and clean environment, good education and looking out for widows, children and those who can’t look after themselves.  I can’t stand all the blustering to change things that shouldn’t be changed.  I can’t stand putting the rights of animals before those of people.  I can’t stand the idea that human life can be considered disposable, no matter what stage of life it is in.  I can’t stand the idea that slowly, but surely, ideas that were once radical and repulsive are being mainstreamed and that society is losing its ability to make judgments and stand up for itself.  I hate that the biggest things that have given us rules, stability, and strength as a Nation over the last couple of centuries- God and family- are openly mocked and derided.

As for George Bush, he never stood a chance.  From election day forward, people said he wasn’t their president and talked of impeachment.  The weekend after 9/11 we were in Stanford (as in Stanford University) and there were already people on the corners protesting the war.  The war that wouldn’t even start for more than 6 more months.  

But I thank God and George Bush for preventing another 9/11.  And for getting Saddam Hussein out of power.  I grew up thinking what if?  What if we had the nerve/insight/power to remove Hitler before the Holocaust happened?  Or Stalin?  Or any other murderous dictators for that matter?  So here we have a President with the nerve/insight and power to do just that in our day and is he elevated to hero status?  Hardly.  I am not a huge fan of Bush’s.  He got a lot wrong especially with immigration issues that affect us greatly here.  And I am not a fan of war and Americans dying.  But the war isn’t his  thing.  Congress approved and funded and continues to approve and fund it. Without the full support of Congress the longest Bush could have prosecuted the war was three weeks max as a rogue. ( I happened to take a Constitution class while working on my masters degree.)  

That’s all for now.

I remember now

Yes, it’s been a while since I’ve posted here.  I hope you can forgive me.

While reading the Western Civ text for the fall course that I’m teaching, I came across a few statements that brought back to my memory exactly WHY I began to be such a big religious skeptic.  It reminded me of the Western Civ 1 class that I had taken all those years ago and how it caused me to question things–like Christianity, the afterlife, and sin.

Last night, the statement went something like this… The early Christians stayed away from pagans because they did not want to be influenced in a negative way.  Isn’t that the truth… Then, I began to remember things my professor said as well as things I found while reading:  Christianity came after Judaism which came after the pagan and naturistic (nature-bourne) belief systems.  Catholic priests would conform Catholic holy days to that of the local pagan holy days in order to easily assimilate these people into the “Catholic fold.” 

I grew up an Italian-Irish-Jew in an Italian Catholic household, attending Catholic school at an early age, regularly attending CCD, and receiving most of my sacraments.  Then, my mother ripped us out of the Catholic Church and brought us elsewhere.

During my time as a Catholic, I do not EVER recall knowing that Jesus was Jewish.  I had always believed (and was never corrected) that Jesus was a Catholic.  Why wouldn’t he be?  He was the guy hanging on the cross over the altar, reminding us through the stations of the cross that was displayed on each wall of the church, that he was sent from Heaven, by his holy Father, lived and performed miracles while on Earth, was crucified, died, and buried.  On the third day (Easter), he rose from the dead and gave us everlasting life. (Stand, sit, kneel)

I remembered thinking about the complexities of the Catholic religion while sitting through a mass at school last year.  I tilted my head to the side and wondered what relevance it all had on life.  Would my life change if I did not bow my head to the cross?  Or, if I didn’t take communion (which I never did, btw).  What about nuns?  Priests?  How did we, as a civilization, change our religious rites from respecting nature and the elements to kneeling before a cross, weeping and gnashing our teeth, hoping that the God who represents the cross will have mercy upon our souls as we all follow Father So-And-So in repeating the “Our Father.” (Stand, sit, kneel!)

A lot of questions began to arise… and one day at lunch, I questioned the Priest-in-Charge about somethings that were bothering me.  In turn, he gave me the antiseptic response of “…it says in God’s holy word” without answering my question.  I think my question was, “Why do people need to ingest the wafer, as a representation of Jesus’ body, and wine, as Jesus’ blood if the Bible says in John 3:3: “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 

This was one moment in a lot of moments in which I have questioned mortality, religion, and the afterlife.

Often, I wonder WHICH religion is the RIGHT religion… meaning, how do we know which one will get us into Heaven or give us a fulfilling afterlife? 

 

My mother has never liked my inquisitive nature.  When I was a child, she would tell me to be quiet because I never stopped asking her questions.  As an adult, she more or less does the same thing, except when it relates in any way to (HER) Christianity, I am told the following “You cannot make me question MY God.”

I never wanted HER to question her God… *I* want to question HER God.   However, since her God isn’t taking interviews, I have to settle with just throwing occasional questions into the vast forever of the Internet, hoping that perhaps God has high-speed.

Of all the things that Christianity IS (good AND bad), what bothers me the most is HOW it tries to make every OTHER religion into the “bad” guy (like the early Christian leaders tried to do with the non-Christian/pagan/polytheistic religions)… claiming to have the sole right to brag about “Biblical” events such as… Creation… the Great Flood/Deluge… the Diaspora of Jews in and out of exile… miracles and magic… when it doesn’t have sole ownership of those stories since many early civilizations told stories of men with superior strength (Hercules, Samson)… of the Great Deluge/Flood (Epic of Gilgamesh, Noah)… of trials and tribulations mixing scant vestiges of historical information with mythology and the like.

How do Christians know they are going to heaven while the remaining people are supposed to burn in hell?  Are ALL Christians going to heaven?  Or, are there certain groups?  Does God even care about the institution of church? Or is he/she concerned with compassion, love, respect and honor?  What about the Calvinists? (I’m still worried about them…) 

So, if Christianity IS the only sacred religion… what will happen to the Jews?  They share the Old Testament, and Judaism is the stepping stone to Christianity… would it be fair to condemn the Jews to an eternity of suffering?  Haven’t they suffered enough?  Or, the Muslims… with their Five Pillars of Faith [Shahadah (profession of faith), Salah (ritual prayer), Zakah (alms tax), Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca)] and their Sharia (laws)?  Is it fair for the Muslims who are NOT radical extremists bent on blowing up the United States in a permanent manner… to be labeled infidels and condemned to an afterlife of pain and suffering?  If we go there, then we can’t forget Hindus, Buddhists, primal indigenous as well as African traiditional and diasporic religions, the Sikhs, the Juche, those who practice Spiritualism, Taoists, Baha’i (-ists), Jainists, Shintos, Cao Dais, Zoroastrians, Tenrikyos, Neo-Pagans, Unitarian-Universalism, Confucianism, Hare Krishnas, Rastafarians, or the Scientologists.  If we include the Scientologists, then we HAVE to include the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Peyotism, and various Pagan religions, Wicca, Zen as well.  Lest we forget… Angostics, Gnostics, and Atheists, too.

So, now that I’ve covered (nearly) everyone… who’s god is the RIGHT god?  Which religion is the RIGHT religion?  If there IS a right religion and god/godess, then someone needs to let us know soon.

Perhaps, religion is nothing more than a cultural thing we have in common. We all believe in some sort of higher power that created the earth, heavens, people, and other living creatures.  The God/god/goddess can be benevolent, angry, vengeful, spiteful, bitter, loving, compassionate, and nurturing.  Most of the stories are the same (i.e. biblical mythologies) and some of the “laws” are similar.

We hold onto our religion, I believe, because we need to–it is some part of who we are, who our ancestors were, and may define what our future generations may become.  Religion cannot stand alone… it needs people, culture, society, rules and regulations…

But, is that what religion is truly about?  Is it a person journey or a communal right?

off topic

The other day I observed science instruction in action and realized that for all the bashing that belief in God takes from people who believe in science that it takes just as much faith to believe in science sometimes as it does in God.

You believe what you’re taught to believe (raise up a child in the way that he should go…) but it all takes trust in something you cannot see, touch, or prove more times than either would like to admit.

good-bye, hello

An interesting thing occurred to me today while I was considering Senator Rodham-Clinton’s failed presidential bid and the idea of sexism.

If sexism is something we would like to stamp out in our public arena then we should stop calling Senator Rodham-Clinton, “Hillary.” We’re not her friend, family member, or co-worker. We don’t refer to the Junior Senator from Nebraska as Ben, we don’t refer to the Governor of New York as Bill, and we don’t refer to the Chief Justice as John. We should start by granting the Junior Senator from New York the same respect we afford the Junior Senator from Nebraska. This goes for Condoleezza Rice as well, she’s Secretary Rice or Dr. Rice but she should never be, “Condi.”

A part of this is because Senator Rodham-Clinton was First Lady and in that enjoyed a bit of celebrity putting her into the ranks of one-named people like Oprah, Madonna, and Nedenia. Additionally, it’s easy – with her husband on the trail with her – to distinguish her by calling her, “Hillary.” However, if our goal is equality we should either start treating her the same as the other candidates in this respect or become mired in confusion figuring out which John we’re talking about.

I’m not as worried about the language being used to describe her – the references to pimping and her being called a, ‘bitch’ because those are signs of inherent classlessness on the part of the speaker and not a reflection of the media or the populace as a whole. Nedenia has pointed out that the American people stomach sexism easier than they do racism but I think we need to focus more on the more pervasive forms of sexism – such as the demeaning practice of referring to someone by their first name as if the person was a child or beneath us. In the interest of full-disclosure I refer to my students as Ms. Family-Name and Mr. Surname, or just Family Name and Surname. I also have the annoying habit of allowing them to call me by my first name.

Washington being the ugly person’s Hollywood, we need to stop talking about how the candidates dress. Obama’s lapel pin and the discussion about it being ridiculous took a great deal of press time, but Ross Perot hasn’t gotten done with the pie chart showing how much time we spent talking about Senator Rodham-Clinton’s clothing, hair, make-up, and accessories. Part of this is justifiable, perhaps, from a communication standard – if they were causing a distraction or were inappropriate. However, Senator Rodham-Clinton’s wardrobe choices seem less worthy of discussion because there wasn’t a point where she was inappropriate – even when she showed a little cleavage in the Senate. Had she won the nomination, she would have been elected president and we’d have the honor – get ready because this will offend you – of being the first nation led by a woman who didn’t grow up with a pork chop tied around her neck. Margaret Thatcher, I am talking to you!

When Dr. Rice was dressed more to be on the set of a Matrix movie and less to be conducting negotiations for the most powerful republic on Earth it was worthy of discussion. Justices O’Connor and Bader-Ginsburg’s choices in regard to the cut and ruffle on their robes was the cause of article when they were both on the bench. Speaker Pelosi has been the topic of many articles regarding her style and manner of dress; some of these articles even had a point.

Men have their clothing discussed, I have read many articles about how both President Bush and President Clinton wore cowboy boots instead of shoes – perhaps they need them wading through their own bullshit all day long – or how Vice-President Cheney went to Auschwitz dressed for a duck blind instead of a memorial service. When the aforementioned presidents were running for office there were also articles about how the style and quality of their wardrobes improved as the campaigns progressed and they morphed from backwater governors into nominees for the presidency.

Another aspect of this is when someone is being honest about a fact it needs to be allowed into the discussion and when they are inappropriate it needs to be discussed how it was inappropriate. Yes, Senator Rodham-Clinton parlayed her tenure and celebrity as a First Lady into a Senate seat. Yes, she ran on selectively using parts of her husband’s administration – of which no one can deny she was an active and valuable part. Tearing down pundits for that reduced the moral authority of those wanting to then tear them down when they called her a, “bitch,” and, “pimp.” You also cannot be guilty of reverse sexism, if a man does it and its wrong then its wrong when Tina Fey does it as well.

Finally, women in politics are judged more on how their children turned out than men are. We didn’t see this because Chelsea – while enormously protected by her parents and is inaccessible to the press – is clearly a bright, well-adjusted and trouble-free child. If Betty Ford or Lady Bird Johnson been running we’d have heard a lot more about the children and how a bad mother would have made a bad President. Geraldine Ferraro saw this in 1984 – its where I started to think on her as an idiot. Someone should have paid more attention to Jenna and Barbara. The ability to raise well-adjusted children is a fair indicator of someone’s ability to lead because parenting is the hardest thing a person can do – or at least we’d see their ability choose a good partner to work with or to hire the right people to help them. Donald Rumsfeld, I’m talking about you!

I draw a lot of parallels between Governor Romney and Senator Rodham Clinton and another would be running on their record. Had Romney run as the Governor of Massachusetts he had been, instead of the automaton rolled out for the campaign trail he may have won. Senator Rodham-Clinton should have picked a narrative that would have won and stuck with it, the biggest failure was the constant floundering on biography. She should have come out and reminded us that she had been a First Lady who was a valued political partner who worked hard for her husband’s agenda at home and abroad. American voters, for good or ill, place a great deal of value on biography and narrative in disproportion to the value they put on policy and record. Senator McCain and Senator Obama, while having excellent policy positions, understood this beat her on that in the primary or would have in November.

If Senator Rodham-Clinton had come out and ran with that ball she would have seen a lot more early touch-downs instead of just picking them up at the end. The rules are different for women but one thing I learned from my debate coach in college was that once you have won by the rules set out for you and then beat them on the rules set for others you can rewrite the rules, and run the world on your terms. Her tenure as First Lady was filled with success and failure; it was a great learning experience. Absent her vote on the Iraq War, her tenure in the Senate has exceeded expectation – and showed her maturity as a leader as she’s worked with the same morons who impeached her husband. Finally, if women – especially those in politics – are to be judged by their children no one is better poised to take on the world having raised Chelsea Clinton.

There are other parts we need to work on as an electorate and media consumers – because they only produce what we consume – but these are where we start. Good-bye, Hills. Hello, Senator Rodham-Clinton.

Also posted at Urban Oasis.

a disservice to women

Okay, I’ll admit it: I was a Clintonista. I was looking backward instead of forward under the duress of the Bush Bedlam. I know Hillary Rodham-Clinton would make a fantastic chief executive. I don’t think much of her husband and subscribe to the conspiracy theory that her husband was the charisma that sold people on voting for him, what they were buying was Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Vice-President Gore and Senator Rodham-Clinton are not natural politicians but they are master legislators and I believe they were the brains behind any success of the Clinton years. They were the ‘wind beneath his wings,’ and unfortunately their political and personal reputations are tied to his and in his conceit and caprice he’s ruined them both. It’s Shakespearian in scope and tragedy; if the fate of the Republic hadn’t been tied to it I would have found it beautiful – in a literary sense. Gore and Rodham-Clinton made the man who, ultimately, destroyed them.

However, I became reacquainted with a young woman I knew in high school. She introduced me to Barack Obama and the more I learned, the more I believed – understood – that this was the man who could take up the Democrat’s banner and lead them to victory in November. His ideas resonated with my values – even as a right-leaning moderate – and on areas where I would disagree with Senator Obama I have been struck by his refusal to pander to conventional or popular opinion. Before my Republican friends get to uppity about this conversion she is also responsible for my affinity for Newt Gingrich and Christie Todd-Whitman.

On Monday I would have said that, “Senator Rodham-Clinton did not win the nomination.” On Wednesday I said, “Senator Rodham-Clinton lost the nomination and the weighty reverence and gravitas afforded her as a former First Lady.” No one can deny her influence, her intelligence, but at this juncture I would question her political acumen. In contrast when Governor Mitt Romney found himself in a position where his party’s nomination was out of reach he stepped aside, endorsed his rival, and moved to unify his party. He could have made waves about the bigotry he experienced as a Latter Day Saint, but he decided to live to fight another day. He has a future in his party – if McCain doesn’t select Romney as his Vice-President, Romney will certainly find himself offered a seat in the cabinet (if McCain reaches the White House).

Senator Rodham-Clinton made a critical error when she did not acknowledge that Senator Obama had won the nomination fight, congratulate him, and step aside. Her error will cost her part of the eighteen million Democrats who did not vote for her and it could cost the Democrats in November. She didn’t have to endorse him right away and she didn’t even have to be happy about it. What she did not need to do was act as if the fight would go on. It was her job in that moment to show leadership and move her party forward to November. A party that is mired in the bog of in-fighting always loses: she has positioned the Democrats – as Nedenia would say, “to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.”

When her supporters started chanting, “Denver.” She should have stopped them. When her supporters, when she herself, talked of the popular vote she should have stopped this. The metric by which nominations are decided is delegates – super and pledged. Senator Rodham-Clinton had no problems with the rules when the worked for her but as she saw the nomination slipping away she started shifting how things should be done, in her opinion, and every time Obama surpassed her in those metrics the song changed. As someone who leans right on many, many things this reminded me of 2000 in Florida. A tragedy in the eyes of those who lean left and an example, for those of us who lean right, of a time when the Democrats found the rules inconvenient and tried to change them to fit their purposes. The Republicans know this and McCain’s words spoke to it on Tuesday night well before Rodham-Clinton gave her speech noting that, “party elders” had chosen Obama as if the rules had been changed in the middle of the game. I would be surprised if Rodham-Clinton had much a future in her party after this election – especially if Obama loses. If that happens I would lay the blame squarely at her feet. Hopefully the voters are paying attention and realize what is happening and when feelings are assuaged the Democrats can move forward together, united.

Nedenia pointed out that I would probably have been unhappy – incredibly immature – had Rodham-Clinton clinched the nomination. I parried with two things, first Nedenia herself had said that if Obama wasn’t the nominee would, “vote for Clinton and like it.” President Bush has appointed two new justices, one being the Chief Justice, to the Supreme Court. How many would you like John McCain to appoint? How much do women enjoy having control over their reproductive health and would they mind that much if their freedoms were whittled away in that area by a McCain appointed justice? Justice Scalia has over a half-dozen kids, I’m sure one of them has a law degree and could sit on the bench with him. If not there are Scalia clones on benches across the Republic waiting to move up to the big leagues.

The second thing I pointed out was that Obama has been gracious throughout this process. Yes, the press was harder on Rodham-Clinton but she conducted and presented herself as the incumbent candidate – our “once and future Queen, and was treated like an incumbent. When Senator Rodham-Clinton won, Obama congratulated her. When Senator Obama won we would hear – if we heard anything – how the state in question didn’t matter, how caucuses aren’t fair (although agreed upon before the election began), and how that state leans Republican in general elections. Had Clinton secured the nomination on Tuesday I am confident that Senator Obama would have made a gracious speech – not unlike Romney’s – throwing his support behind her.

Rodham-Clinton said, “I am not making any decisions tonight.” That is her prerogative, unfortunately for her, the voters and party elders had made their decision using the rules and frameworks that initially worked for her and everyone agreed upon before the election started. I am shocked that Rodham-Clinton lost – but mainly because I saw her as smart, organized, and disciplined while her campaign was none of those things. Is this really who the feminists want as their standard bearer? Is this the example of a woman’s leadership that I am supposed to put above that of leadership provided by men? A person who is too petty to acknowledge that the nomination is not hers? A person who is too petty to acknowledge that her opponent had won one state or another?

Beyond my hope, my argument, that the first woman to win her party’s nomination and the White House not be another politician’s wife or daughter but be a politician in her own right like Jeanette Rankin or Ella Grasso, I hoped that the first woman to be nominated by a major party would either play by the same rules as the men and win or out class them. A coworker scolded me vigorously on Monday for saying that Karl Rove’s politics were a designer-imposter version of President and Senator Clinton’s methods was agreeing with me by Wednesday. Feminists have been telling me for my whole life that I am physically stronger than a woman but in every other measure women are superior to me – especially in their ability to inspire and lead people. I always found this argument anti-egalitarian and Senator Rodham-Clinton proved this with her non-concession on Tuesday.

Yes, we have a long way to travel in this country in regard to how women are treated in politics. Women have led countries where their rights are few and barriers are plentiful. How we discuss women in politics needs to be discussed frankly and without repercussion so that learning and appropriate behaviors will ensue. Senator Rodham-Clinton did see sexism on the campaign trail but it did not prevent her from winning the nomination. The most remarkable thing about this election was that Senator Rodham-Clinton out-did the men at their own game at many turns and though she lost she played the game as well or better than most. Questioning their clothing and womanhood, their motherhood, or even just stories about those things and others that we wouldn’t run on men will phase out as quickly as we stop consuming them – the media is, after all, a business.

I have to disagree with the idea, though, that people have a problem with women leaders in this country. From Jodi Rell in Connecticut to Janet Napolitano in Arizona, people in this nation are led by women of both parties not beholden to or encumbered by a spouse and represented in legislatures by many more – most notably Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. While Speaker Pelosi is the daughter of a mayor and congressman from Baltimore, Maryland that gave her no boost in her quest for her seat representing San Francisco, California. The American people are ready for and comfortable with women leading them. Ella Grasso taught us that you did not need a man to move into the governor’s mansion and Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful woman in the Republic and has done it being a fashion icon.

Sexism played a part in Senator Rodham-Clinton’s fall as well as her rise but to do Senator Rodham-Clinton justice, to do women justice we have to look at what she accomplished and what she did not accomplish through the same lens we examine the accomplishments and failures of the men who ran as well. When Biden and Dodd dropped out it we didn’t hear their failure was based on age or a bias against men with white (or no) hair. When Romney dropped out we heard only a whimper about Mormonism. When Richardson dropped out we didn’t pin his failure on his Hispanic background. When Edwards dropped out we didn’t blame it on his made-for-TV hair. When Kucinich dropped out we didn’t attribute his lack of success on seeing UFOS or being a magical dwarf (and there-by ineligible for the presidency). To pin everything on her gender does a disservice to Senator Rodham-Clinton and undermines what she accomplished. It also does a disservice to women and undermines them as well.

Also featured at Urban Oasis.

Organ Grinder

Do you see the Clinton/Obama picture?  It offends me, a lot.  I usually wouldn’t say “a lot” but I wanted to start off right, while injecting myself into the sophomoric tête-à-tête, by pointing out that it is two words, not one and commonly construed as poor form to be used in writing and if we’re going to be in poor form for our arguments, why not the presentation of said argument as well? 

 

I’ll tell you why, after a brief and likely unnecessary ramble to frame my point. 

 

First, politicians are jerks.  They are pompous windbags.  I would call them, “assholes” but really that doesn’t fit because they are quite often the whole ass.  I expect that they cheat on their spouses, harbor homosexual tendencies, do or have done drugs, lie, do shady things on their taxes – if they file at all, and intentionally run over cats with their cars.  I would call them, “douche bags,” but in my virginal naiveté I don’t really know what a douche bag is or does.  Don’t tell me, I’ll ask Wikipedia later if I really want to know.  I have a feeling that I don’t. 

 

Second, each presidential cycle I pick two candidates to support – one from each major party when they are both running more than one.  In 1996, I will admit to liking Bob Dole – it was uniformed and based on having lived in Kansas for a year.  In 2000 I liked Senators Bradley and McCain because they had an aura of principled decision making and party bucking that I find endearing.  In 2004 I liked Governor Howard Dean for the Democrats because, oddly enough, my conservatism liked how Vermont had loosened up under his tenure as Governor and provided freedoms and civil liberties to her citizens.  In 2008 I toyed with idea of supporting Senator Dodd – it was a Connecticut connection but also one based on his Senate record and eventually settled on Senator Obama.  I’ve always liked Senator McCain and I had a hard time believing that the same people who crucified Senator Kerry as a ‘flip flopper’ were supporting Governor Mitt “Mittens” Romney and the rest of candidates had me asking, “who let the dogs out?” as Mittens did in the District of Columbia. 

 

Third, in my first article for this website – under the false impression this was going to be a site for discussion instead of defamation.  Had I know that we’d have a masthead mocking two people I happen to respect and have made valuable contributions to the Republic I would have just kept my articles on my own site.  Yes, this is the United States of America and we are entitled to our own opinions and the free expression thereof, but we are more persuasive when we stick to discussing policies and legitimate issues and not devolve into the kind of garbage that kind of masthead represents.  It’s not even a good one. 

 

Now, to my point: I supported Senator McCain and Senator Obama because, despite other faults, they would run principled, disciplined campaigns and we’d have a discussion about the issues facing the republic instead of going for the childish tit-for-tat that has been the hallmark of every election I can remember going back to Mondale mocking Reagan’s age in 1984. 

 

Out of respect for the other authors on this page – respect they’ve decided not to show me – I didn’t mock Reagan, I strayed from delineating his faults and foibles.  Google knows that I could dig up more than enough throw at them as can be done about anyone who has ever opened themselves up to running for and holding public office.  Does that help us?  Does it make us better informed?  Does it move the republic forward?  Honestly, we are the richest and most powerful nation on the planet – or we were – and choosing the person who will lead us is serious business.  This discussion should not only be done respectfully but it should be done substantively.  I say this with a heart full of love: people who want to recast the dime with Reagan’s visage, rename the most inappropriate things after him, and react to him in ways reserved for John Lennon, Elvis Presley, and Renea Gernant have little to no room to mock Obama’s supporters over their devotion to him, his ideas, or movement.  After all, it is modeled after Reagan’s (oddly enough).

 

If I bring up a politician or other public figure you can think of negative and positive things to say about them.  For every shady contributor, quirky supporter or radical my candidate is associated with I could probably throw three more back at you.  Does that untangle the mess of campaign finance, provide health services, or rebuild crumbling infrastructure?  No, but it does push us apart so we don’t trust each other enough to sit down and discuss what is wrong with America and how we could remedy the problems.  Sure, I am guilty of this if anyone is.  In 2004 I was able to throw together some excellent ads and jokes with Senator Kerry as the butt – he is caricature waiting to happen and the most ridiculous candidate the Democrats have fielded since Gerry Ferraro – making me wonder if she didn’t run because she was busy. 

 

As an example of what I am talking about I will bring up how Chaos Bean eats an Oreo Cookie.  Chaos Bean twists it apart and the licks it, loudly, until the white filling in the middle is gone, and then discards the chocolate parts.  I think this is a disgusting way to eat a cookie especially the ineffably sublime Oreo Cookie.  When we lived in Connecticut I could avoid seeing her eat the cookies but I couldn’t avoid hearing it – it was like something out of Poe.  She will counter that I eat Oreos in an equally disgusting manner – if not more.  She disapproves me dunking them into my milk and then eating them when they’re soft citing the chocolate residue that would find its way to the bottom of my class and my need to keep more milk in the cup than would be drunk to ensure I had enough milk to cover the cookie.  We never to get the part where we should be discussing that beyond disgusting methods of eating what we are eating is disgusting.  It’s lard, sugar, and little chocolate cookies. 

 

A better example happened today when my friend Casey, who is usually able to make more cogent arguments lost her head and started yelling at me (when someone raises their voice at me I actually hear organ grinders) when I stated that Terry McAuliffe shouldn’t criticize the Presidents Bush for being a part of the Carlyle Group since he was.  I was trying to make a larger point that we shouldn’t criticize something as ‘bad’ if we are participating in it ourselves – or in the case of politicians: it’s bad for the person I support if it is bad for your politician.

 

I’m pretty sure that I will be asked not to write for this page any longer.  However, wherever and however I write from now on I will take the tone that Senator Obama and Senator McCain have publicly stated they strive for: respectful, based on facts and focused on policy.  Sure, the company they keep and personal lives do inform us about who they are and how they might lead.  However, we can discuss that and everything in a manner that is respectful and topical.  I know that I would hate to be denied a job because of my family – who are for the most part illiterate, iniquitous, unhinged, and (worst of all) boring.

 

As for Senator Obama being “less filling,” or light on policy specifics, I would contend that the intelligentsia of the Democratic Party and the left-leaning bloc in this country support the Senator.  Perhaps we’ve studied all the candidates and settled on one that is really smart and has ideas that align with our values and vision for the republic.  I would assume that of Senator McCain’s supporters as well.  I’ve written this else where, but in response to the idea that Senator Obama has secured the nomination of the Democratic Party and a following because he is African American is not entirely specious – the novelty of his race perked up our ears and what he was saying was eloquent but if he wasn’t saying anything we wouldn’t have kept listening.  Despite eight years to the contrary: the President being able to ‘speak pretty’ is not a bad thing. 

I think its more important to examine why a message of change and hope are resonating with the electorate rather than make fun or dismiss it.  In fact, being called a kool-aide drinking fanatic has only underscored the reasons that I support Senator Obama – which goes beyond my facetious distrust of Senator Rodham-Clinton.  Besides, Nedenia said that in the event Senator Rodham-Clinton secured the nomination I would, “vote for Clinton and like it.”    

 

Finally, I have great respect for the other authors of this page and while I am terribly offended by their poor choice of masthead I mean them no disrespect.  If I’ve been rude please know that it was entirely intentional but to illustrate the point.  Maybe our mothers admonished us not talk about politics and religion because they feared we wouldn’t be able to do it well, politely and as coherently as we can discuss the French toast at Palette on Fillmore or the most recent episode of The Tudors. 

 

Spritopias is one of those who can’t, teaching writing and American History in Arizona.  His other writing is filled with rage and written in crayon can be found at Caustically Optimistic and Urban Oasis.  

Separation of Church and Political Elections

Could we actually separate the two as innocuous bystanders and still be friends?  I dunno, I’m afraid to find out.

Recently, John McCain denounced any attachments to John Hagee and Rod Parsley (mostly John Hagee) because of their outlandish statements about Jews and Catholics.  (And, might I say, Mr. Obama might stand to learn a lesson about aligning one’s self with radical religious groups…  Rev. Wright included.  OK, I don’t believe that Wright’s sermon was given to us in the proper context.  I understood full well what he was driving at with his comments and also believe and know that the media cut apart the sermon so that we’d only get to see the inflammatory parts.  I was always taught to read the paragraph before and the paragraph after, just in case there’s more to the story.  I do, however, believe that during a presidential election, it is IMPERATIVE and especially SIGNIFICANT to do things right and draw as little skepticism towards oneself.  In other words, do not walk around in neon green with a big pink boa unless you want people to notice EVERYTHING that you do.)

So, Hagee made some crazy comments about Jews and Catholics?   Really…?

It’s not surprising.  Let me enlighten you a little…
When I grew up IN a Pentecostal Non-Denominational Church (meaning, no overseeing hierarchy of leader-like pastors, no committees or subcommittees, no business-like structure with official letterhead or checks), I heard many a sermon, especially by our 2nd pastor (Pastor Screams Alot) denouncing the Catholic Church as a cult that is controlled by child-molesting perverts who worship a man (i.e. idol) instead of GOD. (There’s also a LOT of scripture that they used to backup their statements… like something about false idols and another thing about worshipping man and homosexuality and temple priests, etc.

Granted, Pastor Screams Alot was in charge of that church over 20 years ago.  And, at the time, the majority of the church were former Catholics with familial ties to the Catholic “establishment.” My family, for instance, emerged from a LONG line of Old World Catholics who went to Latin mass (even if you didn’t understand a thing), attended Catholic school, and was baptised/communionized/confirmed like GOOD little Catholics. We also contributed to ”Catho-robics” by continually standing-sitting-kneeling.   However, for whatever reason, the ex-Catholics (my mother included), disenchanted by the pull of the Catholic Church began to seek elsewhere… beginning to agree that the Church was some sort of cult that would drag your soul to hell in a big fat handbasket.  In the beginning, I used to BEG my mother to take us to the Catholic Church in town.  She refused.  She said that we could no longer associate ourselves with Catholics–as friends or family.  In fact, she took EVERY opportunity (and still does) to make sure that EVERY Catholic knows that their church will not bring people to heaven, but will instead drag them to the pits of hell.  (She will drive that point home, too.)

Hey… aside from sitting with Father Smokes-Alot and Father Drinks-Only-Expensive-Scotch in confessional, being a Catholic wasn’t so bad.  Masses were shorter than Pentecostal services (which could last up to 2 or more hours at a time).  You were given relative freedom to participate in the “free will” thing without some red-faced man pacing at the pulpit while screaming (and spitting) about how you NEED(ah) to escape(ah) the strangle-hold of sin from your life(ah) so that YOU can receive(ah) ever-lasting life(ah) and sit(ah) at the right hand(ah) of God(ah). 

These sermons fed on the fear that humans have of the afterlife.  Is there one? Is there not?  When we die, where do we go?  Do we get another chance to change our evil-wicked ways?  Or, are we doomed to eternity in hell?

It was all of the shame, guilt, fear, and intimidation, minus the very little of God’s true love shining on your head and that overall koombahyah tingling good feeling running through your bones, that scared people into never stepping into a Catholic Church.  (“We are free from the binds that tie you,” my mother used to say.) 

Being screamed at, chastized, accused of being a harlot (oh, yeah, YOUTH GROUP WAS FUN), and other not-so-fun things really wears on a person. Personally, it didn’t do a hell of a lot for my self-esteem.

In turn, it took MANY years of this screaming, “YOU NEED GOD!” mentality to yank the desire to return to the Catholic Church right out of my body.  Eventually, I was COMPLETELY finished with this thing called church– Pentecostal, Catholic, altogether.  And, for as much as the conservative right would disagree, some churches can literally brain-wash you into thinking that YOU are right because YOU are doing God’s will…

We can draw many similarities here–

Pentecostals like THAT group are much akin to the Jehovahs we are constantly shooing away from our front doors.  (Minus the holidays vs. no holidays issue.)  Both groups are seeking to gather souls in accordance to their religious beliefs.  Both groups promise ever-lasting salvation IF you follow the tenets of their belief-system.  Both shame you for sin and error, but also give you a chance at redemption.  Jehovahs are always willing to sit and talk to you (usually without screaming) in order to wear you down until you have nothing left and relent, giving in to their plan, and becoming a tie-wearing-bike-riding-backpack-wearing-walking-in-pairs Jehovah.  Tried… AND true.

Yet… there were also many sermons preached about the intrinsic evils of Mormons, Jehovahs, Agnostics, Atheists (naturally), and other non-born-again-by-this-particular-church’s-standards-of-being-saved thing… that gave a person (most, at least) a feeling of superiority over OTHER religions.

“I don’t LIKE the Muslim religion, but I don’t think I’d hate a Muslim,” my mother say yesterday.

Five years ago, she would’ve said, “All Muslims are sinners and will burn in hell.”

Yesterday, she added to her comment, “…it’s just that they’re sinners and will spend eternity in hell if they don’t get themselves ‘right.’”

What DOES right mean?  Can anyone actually… BE right?

Back to politics.

Since the first European settlers stepped foot onto the unbastardized shores of the Americas, they brought with them religion.  The goal of Spanish conquistadors was to conquer THEN convert.  The French brought priests with them on their exploratory voyages.  The English reform groups were cast OUT of England/Britain following the death of Elizabeth I, reverting back and forth between Catholicism and Protestantism.  No native person would have stood a chance against these three powerhouses.  And, in turn, no native person DID stand a chance.  If disease did not kill them, it was the power of God’s almight sword, in the hand of God’s army, that would slaughter infidels.

Isn’t that the story of the world?  I could probably come up with a list of a hundred events that occurred because one group thought that their religion was mightier than the other’s.  And, for the record… wars, conflicts, and strife most always have religious undertones: Spanish Armada (1588): English Protestants vs. Spanish Catholics;  Serbia-Herzegovina with the Muslims vs. Catholics; the Salem witch trials: Puritans and those accused of evil-doing. There’s always an “infidel” and the “righteous.”  Are American politics beginning to lean in that manner as well?

For months I’ve been deleting emails proclaiming Obama to be a Muslim extremist supporter and such.  And, for more months than that, I’ve had to listen to the Conservative Right bitch and moan about McCain not being conservative enough for their tastes.

And, then the “battle of the errant pastors” began with accusations, video clips, denunciations by political candidates, and the like.

I recall a thing called “Separation of Church and State.”

According to this website, “The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business.”

Ok, sounds about right.

Elsewhere, I found this, the Danbury letter, written by Thomas Jefferson on 1 January 1802 and in it Jefferson writes, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

In building this “wall” of separation, Jefferson gave away a hint about his OWN spirituality.  As stated in an article called, “The Mythical “Wall of Separation”: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church-State Law, Policy, and Discourse, the author Daniel L. Dreisbach wrote, “Jefferson was inaugurated the third President of the United States on March 4, 1801, following one of the most bitterly contested elections in history. His religion, or the alleged lack thereof, was a critical issue in the campaign. His Federalist Party foes vilified him as an infidel and atheist. The campaign rhetoric was so vitriolic that, when news of Jefferson’s election swept across the country, housewives in New England were seen burying family Bibles in their gardens or hiding them in wells because they expected the Holy Scriptures to be confiscated and burned by the new Administration in Washington. (These fears resonated with Americans who had received alarming reports of the French Revolution, which Jefferson was said to support, and the widespread desecration of religious sanctuaries and symbols in France.)”
 

So, let’s face facts.  For as much as we’d like to see a separation during THIS campaign (free from radical Born-Agains pointing fingers at everyone else OR radical comments from ministers/pastors/priests that are inflammatory and possibly “dangerous” for the candidates), I don’t think we’ll see it.

Aside from disassociating themselves from errant Church leaders, these men will be challenged by the Far Right (Uber Conservative Christians) and Far Left (Uber Liberal Non-Christians… or whatever they consider themselves to be)… and my bet is that both will profess the LOVE of God and will want to impart it onto their people (flock).

Just keep this in mind:  Obama has to work like hell to shake off the baggage he has brought with him.  In turn, McCain needs to be careful, if HE wants to win, that the Far Right Ubers do not point their fingers and scream that HE will goto hell unless he mends his errant ways.

(In other words, after I rambled on and on like this for ONE point: The presidential election is not that much unlike my childhood–fear of God, fear of Christian people accusing you of NOT being Christian-enough, apprehension that SOMEONE will label you something that makes you uncomfortable, and uh… shame and guilt.  But, I think the shame and guilt will come from Hillary’s camp more than from anywhere else.)

By the way, one last thought: If Obama bends to the GUILT and embarassingly RIDICULOUS threats of Billary to make her the VP of Obama-land, then he will get what he deserves.  They are ONLY threatening him so that they can wiggle their way into the White House again… and pave the way for her to transition into the role of president by showing the world (stand back, this gets big and loud)….

THAT SHE IS WOMAN, HEAR HER ROAR!

I, however, am not convinced that she is THE woman to do any job of the sort.  I’m not even glad that she made NY her home.  She’s not a NYer.  *I* am more of a NYer than she is.  Don’t forget, I come from four generations of NYC stock…  She’s just a tag-a-long.

Signing out while mostly coherent,
Herstory07 

What’s in a name?

Republican, Democrat, something else?  How do we choose the party that best reflects our position?

I can go way back in my personal political journey.  My dad was a very decided “decline to state.”  He said that was because the ballot box was sacred and private and his affiliations were none of anyone’s damned business.  His mother had been a Democrat and his father a Republican, and they used to have knock down drag out fights back in their Depression Era kitchen…plates flying, the whole shebang.  That taught my father one thing…keep it to yourself.  

My foreign born mother registered as a Republican when she became a naturalized US citizen in 1952.  Her advice came from her father…an Austrian born man who woke up as an Italian one day after WWI threw his part of Austria to the Italians.  A man who later found himself a card carrying Fascist from “the first hour” because of his job, not his political beliefs.  A man who served nobly, spent most of WWII as a British prisoner of war in Africa, and was later knighted by the (then) monarch of Italy for that service.  He told her (pre-war his job had him sailing to America every three months) that what he had seen was that in America, those with the money ruled, and the Republicans had the money, so be a Repubilcan.  Interesting way to choose sides, no?  Like it’s a dodgeball game, or as if your party affiliation determines your ability to put food on the table…perhaps it did in Fascist Italy.  So far, we haven’t gone there in this country.

No, here it is often quite superficial.  She’s a woman.  He’s black.  He’s handsome.  He’s too old.  He’s a snappy dresser.  She’s wearing a pantsuit.   Are we dating them, or entrusting our health, welfare and security to them?  I have known people who literally have no idea why they belong to the party that they do. My mother-in-law is a perfect example of that.  She is a Democrat.  A bile-spewing hater of Republicans.  But she is a Democrat because she grew up in a poor Irish immigrant ghetto and was told that she had to be a Democrat.  It was like being Irish, like being Catholic.  She was also a Democrat.  Democrats would look out for you, take care of you and no need worrying your pretty little head, just vote for ‘em.  She doesn’t actually agree with or support anything Democrats stand for, hasn’t for years.  But that doesn’t matter.   Did I also mention that she is also extremely bigoted?  You can imagine my inner giggles listening to her last winter  while she watched the showdowns between Hillary and Obama.  She said that she would “never” vote for a woman to be President.  She snorts and scoffs at the idea of voting for a black man. 

But I think I’m digressing a bit from where I wanted this to go.

I grew up wanting to do my own thing and be my own person.  If my parents said right, I went left.  I they said no, I did it anyway.  If they didn’t like someone, that was a good reason to date them.  So naturally when I first registered to vote, standing in line at the DMV with my mom, I checked Democrat.  No idea why, except that warm feeling inside that it was pissing my mom off a bit.  And Tom Bradley was a Democrat.  He was the current mayor of LA, the first Black Mayor Of LA.  It was tres chic to like him because he was the First Black Mayor Of LA.  And of course there was Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown.  The hippy governor, the lover of ubercool Linda Ronstadt.  And of course he was a Democrat.  That was it.  My three reasons for registering as a Democrat: piss off mom, show I was cool enough to hang with the black mayor, and idolatry of the Rock Star Governor.  This, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that 18 -year olds should NOT be allowed to vote.  I was a straight-A student, going to one of the most prestigious Universities in the country, never in any trouble, no drugs, etc.  AND YET I had that kind of silly and superficial reasoning.  

While I was in college, however, the 1980 presidential election approached.  I had limited perspective.  I knew what was going on, of course, but my information was filtered through a haze of classes and finals and keggers and a part-time job and juggling boyfriends.  But somewhere along the line I actually listened to Ronald Reagan speak.  I listened.  And I heard him.  

I can’t tell you everything he said or everything he campaigned on.  But I grew up in one important respect when I heard him.  He touched a nerve inside me.  Not a silly girl nerve.  He hit a nascient chord – one that reverberated when someone spoke with conviction on something that made sense to me and (gast) actually sounded like I could have said it.  Something that resonated with my upbringing and deep rooted, if buried, beliefs.

What was that?

Back up for a minute.  For 18 years I lived in a cocoon.  A family/faith/friends cocoon.  I went to Catholic School for 12 years, and my life revolved around my church community in one way or another.  At that time, abortion was a big deal since Roe v Wade was a new thing, having gone into effect right before I started high school, I think.  Anyway.  The fact is that for 18 years I heard and was taught certain basic things. Then I went to college and everything was upside down from that.  It was sex, drugs and rock n’ roll all the time.  Abortion wasn’t a bad thing…it was birth control and sororities even had secret abortion funds for girls who needed it.  Movies, music, everybody I met, even my all friends, seemed to move on to this freer, more liberated way of thinking and living their lives.  Everything I had been taught was bad was actually ok.  Everything I was taught was good and right was mocked and scorned.  So many ideals I had grown up with seemed to fall away from me and seem like they didn’t exist at all outside of my little family and church.  Nobody even went to church or would admit to any kind of faith or beliefs.  Again, it was just something to mock.

Until I heard Ronald Reagan talk.  He was a clarion above the din of confusion and contradiction in my life.  He wasn’t just expressing his faith, and standing up for his beliefs – he was taking on unpopular positions.  Embracing them.  Showing what it was like to have courage and strength.  And he showed me that it was okay to be myself, and to believe what I knew was right, no matter how unpopular that position might seem.  He was a leader.  That is what I want from my president again.  I want a leader.  I don’t want someone who govern according to the latest polls, that may or may not even be accurate.  I want a leader with a clear vision, a clear goal, a clear set of beliefs.  I want a leader to lead from those positions.  And I want those positions to come from a desire to make this a better, stronger country – not from a desire for personal power.  Certain things in life are intrinsically good.  Things that build up, that promote life, protect our freedom and our sovereignty – those are the values I cherish.  

Those years before Reagan was elected were rough.  I recall going to a jobs assembly my senior year, and they basically told us there are no jobs.  You’ll never get hired and forget a career.  Reagan didn’t turn things around right away, but turn them around he did.  I also recall when we bought our first house here in San Diego in 1984, with something like a 18% interest rate.  The builder bought down the loan so it was only 15% the first year, and going up 1% for a few years.  And that was considered a good deal.  Within a couple of years we refinanced that loan 2 or 3 times because the interest rates suddenly started plummeting.  It was awesome.  Jobs came back, inflation halted.  Even the cold war eventually subsided.  Reagan wasn’t just a good solid man, he was a leader who facilitated some great things.

Of course my mother-in-law hates him.  Because he was a Republican.

We’ve Found Him

I don’t self-identify as Republican regularly anymore and I don’t self-identify as a Democrat either – like many in my generation I avoid labels for myself as I fastidiously attach them to others.  All of my, ‘third party friends,’ revel in their shenanigans and are quick to slap a, “Republican,” or, “Democrat,” label on someone and rest in the assurance of being a member of a political movement that has no negative consequences from a legislator or executive’s decision but also lack the ability that members of larger political movements unless you count the Green Party’s affinity for not one, but two terms for George W. Bush.  People my age, after eight years of Bill Clinton and almost as many of George W. Bush, are looking for not just inspirational leadership but leadership at all. 

 

There is a lot of discussion for a need for another Reagan here on this blog and in other circles a need for another Kennedy.  What is it about Reagan and Kennedy that inspire to pine for them, long after their administrations are over and their accomplishments and disappointments have been dissected by the distant, backward glance of History?  I would submit that it was their ability to communicate, inspire, while commanding respect at home and around the world.  Some may argue that their policies and ideas did this as well but most Americans – and probably people everywhere – aren’t as plugged into political discourse as they are to the presentation of politics.  It’s the inspiration, the willingness and ability to communicate and sense of respect for the office and person of the Presidency that our elders are pining for and our peers long to see. 

 

This is why we’re so connected and active in the candidacy of Senator Obama.  Sure, he’s young and hip, handsome too – his wife is smart and beautiful and his children are adorable.  Senator Obama has inspired us to contribute and participate in his candidacy because of his willingness and ability to communicate with us, being in touch with our vision of the future and realities of the present while deftly avoiding the urge to pander.  He has treated his rivals with respect and comportment while his main rival has outdone herself in reminding those of us who cut our political teeth in the Clinton years what it was like, why we don’t want to return to it, and that she wasn’t a victim but a willing participant in the bomb-throwing Nineties.  As a (female) co-worker put it, “She’s outdone herself in fulfilling every negative stereotype about women and reminding the Republicans why they didn’t like her in the first place.”  Senator McCain, while revered by many in our age group just isn’t what we’re looking for in a president – but none of the Republican candidates this cycle were. 

 

Then there is the question of the ability to command respect at home and abroad, which has been diminished, if not scoffed at, by the current President.  One of the most important tasks the next president will face will be repairing relationships with our allies, neighbors and building relationships with countries with whom we disagree.  Is sitting down with the Iranian government so odious?  Does anyone even remember why we’re antagonistic towards Havana?  Reagan sat down with the Soviets; he had them to the White House.  Nixon went to China.  

 

Hamas might be a violent political group, perhaps even terrorist – but beyond the fact that they are the only group providing basic services to Palestinians and they’re the democratically elected government – something our government pressed for – and above all the goal, at least in his rhetoric, of our current president has been democracy for everyone everywhere.  Even as a Hebrew with Zionist predilections of my own has trouble understanding why approaching Hamas is so difficult for our administration.  The parallels to our own revolution and Hamas are stronger than between Hamas and bin Laden.   While I am not comfortable dealing with an organization that has used terror and violence as a policy vehicle I am more uncomfortable with rejecting a democratically elected government because we don’t like it. 

 

I’m still puzzled why a meddlesome democratic regime with the ambition of possessing new and more sophisticated nuclear weaponry would begrudge another democracy from wanting the same capabilities.  If the United States, currently led, were on my doorstep I would want nuclear weaponry as well.  Beyond the argument that we should at least talk to ‘these people’ there is the tiring in my age group – and I suspect others – of the ‘gotcha’ politics of yesteryear; Senator Clinton’s husband pursued détente with ‘these people’ and Senator McCain has supported these ideas outside his own quest for the White House. 

 

In looking for our hero, our Reagan or our Kennedy, we’ve found Obama.  Sure, someone deride his supporters as a kool-aide drinking cult full of dewy-eyed dreamers predicating their beliefs on the fuzzy concepts of, ‘hope,’ and, ‘change.’  Setting aside the fact that the more educated, established part of the electorate is supporting Obama – as well as those of us who will be footing the bill for the past sixteen years – we’ve seen what the Republicans can do and we’ve seen what the Clintons can do.  We’re looking for something else; we’ve found him. 

 

Posted By Spritopias