incipit vita nova

McCain - Almost Ronald Reagan

I Google "McCain" and in the middle of the page, here are the news results (after last night's debate).

McCain's manoeuvring in financial crisis might have backfired - 4 hours ago

Republican presidential candidate John McCain took a political risk this week by slowing high-stake negotiations on the largest government bailout in US ...

Canada.com - 6770 related articles »

McCain's slips are showing - Toronto Star - 6371 related articles »

Biden Says McCain Suffered "Fatal" Loss in Debate - ABC News

I am googling this in Southern California and my first two featured results are Canadian sources?  Like they're going to favor a "conservative" candidate.  They might as well go check out Pravda.  And the top news ABC has is JOE BIDEN'S commentary on the debate?

Barack Obama made one point last night extremely clearly.  It was a true point and one I have never heard a political candidate bring up before so clearly.  Conservatives who've never examined the Federal Budget might want to have a look and realize that for every dollar any corporation pays in Federal income tax, individual taxpayers are paying $5 or $6.  That makes any conversation of reducing the corporate tax rate moot.  It isn't necessary.  They aren't even paying the 11% that McCain suggested right now.  Now, if it were flat 11%, and they had to pay THAT, it would be preferable, since some are paying an effective tax rate of ZERO.  I understood the point that lovable Lindsay Graham had about his South Carolina constituents -- he told people that if corporations weren't overburdened it would help to preserve their jobs.  Yes, this is somewhat true.  But small businesspeople don't get huge tax breaks.  Humongo corporations do.  And we can see what an entire large sector of them at all levels have accomplished over the last 15 years of rampant greed and insanity - teetering on the brink of another worldwide depression.  Who gets to pay for it?  Us-bo.  Not them-bo.

But maybe not.  On a personal level, I have always liked John McCain.  His "maverick" statements aren't made-up PR fluff.  Hardcore conservatives do like Sarah Palin, too.  John McCain did win last night's debate, and he got very close to some Reagan-like moments.  When he said how much he admired Ronald Reagan, it was sincere and believable.  When he said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw three letters: K G B, I thought, "That's Reagan-worthy!"

I do want John McCain to win.  I was sitting gape-jawed as Obama was taking nearly the same positions as McCain, over and over, and saying things that were absolutely against his ultra-liberal base.  He sure didn't sound like he was about to buck and run out of Iraq.  He made only the tired point that "Afghanistan is the real war" and he repeated the old complaints about the war in Iraq being undertaken for the wrong reasons, that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war, etc.  Which, today, does not apply.

Fox News had a panel of supposedly "undecided" voters that they questioned in - of all places - Las Vegas.  The "undecided voters" were clearly dominated by trained Obama supporters who were echoing the Obama campaigns talking points.  One of these gals said she thought McCain was "uncertain and bumbling."  Right.  That must have been the other, You Tube debate she watched.  Another said that "McCain talked only about the past.  I want to hear what will happen in the future."  First off, that's not true, and McCain's weak point was not presenting a clear vision for the economy and being pretty vague about taxes and spending cuts.  He did, when pressed, state he'd go for a spending freeze, with the exception of defense, Veterans and "entitlement programs."  This is weak, and we need somebody to go with a common-sense, Reaganlike program of just doing the right thing and exhibiting leadership.

Which is not going to come from professional politician Barack Obama.  I'm sorry.  I wanted to like Barack Obama and I have decided that I definitely DO like Michelle Obama.  She is a healthy, brilliant woman and I think she's a good deal.  I think under other circumstances (less desperate to be the Big Cheese), Barack Obama could be a better leader.  But all he obviously gives a damn about is becoming President, and he acts like he sees himself in the White House already.  He is right on the edge of the typical pompous ass Dem Candidate Demeanor.  He was gracious in the debate, although as it went on, every time they showed his face while McCain was speaking, he was smirking in aggravation against his opponent.  I was watching for this, because it's always an irritating trait and never speaks well for the candidate.

And McCain - I was not sure if he could do it or not - he did it.  He didn't smirk, he didn't make stupid expressions - he kept his cool.

I think Sarah Palin has the potential to wipe the floor with Joe Biden (although Mr. Biden was more to the point in his commentary last night than I've ever heard him - maybe he really can slow that torrent of language down if he knows he has to).

Does this matter?  Well, I thought that McCain was seriously treading into Reagan-like territory.

This isn't the EXACT poster - the images in the background were more clear.  The exact poster is at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley in the gift shop.  It's framed next to the Jelly Belly portrait.  I made this poster, as one of my first "art jobs," in 1980.  Dat right.  I was 18 years old.

I wasn't at all politically inclined.  As a matter of fact, I was kind of scared of (not-yet) President Reagan.  I thought he was old and scary and I believed the publicity - that he was crazy and would push the nuclear button immediately, destroying us all.  But hey, they paid good money (at least enough for me to pay 2 school bills).  And it was exciting to do a real thing that would be reproduced.  As I said, there was a California version first and I think this one is probably copied or adapted.  And it's not exactly "original."  I did exactly what I was told, arranging the images (church, flag, etc.) in the background in the order I was instructed.  I did like his cool cowboy hat.

Now I get misty-eyed thinking of President Reagan.  I took my daughter and some other kids to see the Reagan Library, which is an extremely cool, non-pompous place.  They have a conference table (it could be like the Cabinet room - I'm not sure) where you can watch videos and learn about what happened during his Presidency.  One video shows him walloping Gorbachev's ass.  I.e., at these summits, it visually illustrates to you that, far from being a "dumb cowboy" or "senile" or "too old," President Reagan was much more vigorous and active than his younger Soviet (Russian) counterpart.  It shows him walking around in his suit, towering over Gorbachev, who is bundled, troll-like in this thick Russian coat and fur hat.  He did what many of us in the business world have sometimes done, if we're able.  He physically manipulated the situation so he had the upper hand, and he used body language to indicate to Gorbachev that he wouldn't back down from his positions.  And - y'all should know who won the Cold War by now.

The "Sovs" are back.  I have always been a staunch anti-Communist because Communists are godless, hateful, racist and obviously evil.  Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro are all Communists.  They're on the cover of Pravda right now (not in Russian - I'm sure there's more and worse in the Cyrillic edition).  Last week when we looked in class, the English version of Pravda was featuring "the military might of Iran."  This week, it's a visit and chitchat with Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.  "Russia laughs at NATO's face" is one headline.  Another is "The World Should Unite Against the USA."

Yeah, our good buddies.  And it's all George Bush's fault!  No - it's not.  But if you ask me who I'd rather have face these guys down - Barack Obama (who doesn't seem to be aware of what President Reagan did, and how he did it - I could see him on the reverse side of those subtle body language facedowns) or John McCain, my answer is very clear.  And, should something happen to Mr. McCain?  Sarah Palin or Joe Biden?  Talk all the irrational smack you want about her.  The Russians are AFRAID of her right now.  They are making fun of her glasses and using Reaganlike terms about her ("moose-hunting wild woman").  They were afraid of President Reagan too, as they were utterly unafraid of President Carter.  Mr. Nobel Peace Prize.  I'd rather save lives than get THAT any day.

Ms. Professional!

Here ya go - Jillian and Dorothy had this on the news this a.m. and neither they nor Steve thought it was a very good idea.  Photographer Jill Greenberg used lighting tricks that she's publicized heavily to make John McCain look like a horror movie monster.  Those on both sides of the campaign will probably try to misstate what she did - don't look to conservative commentators to emphasize how disgusted the magazine that hired her is.  Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote the article that the photo was used to illustrate, said that she "betrayed" The Atlantic.

My students have been discussing the election.  As young people, most of them will be voting for the first time in this election season.  Students have questioned whether their vote counts, and argued passionately for each ticket.  On both sides, issues of "media" have arisen.  But I think that the strong reaction from the publication does indicate that yes, some minimum standards still exist.  Gross unprofessionalism isn't tolerated or rewarded in any truly professional media publication or outlet.  Here are some more descriptions and images of the photographer's use of her talent.  Her website is called - no kidding - "The Manipulator."  This ugly photo is her main photo (and current claim to fame) - and right now it says "i'll have my girl kill roe v wade".

If all the rest wasn't enough, I think that qualifies this woman as officially insane.  Of course The Atlantic is responsible for hiring her.  Obviously, whoever assigns photo work is aware of what a maniac she is, and before the results occurred, probably thought they'd get either a funny or "hard-hitting" photo.  She's done a lot of covers, and seems to be able to restrain from making people look like monsters on most occasions.  In terms of "manipulating," she's got one cover of Howard Stern that makes him look about 22 years old.  So there ya got that for that.

I don't know what to say.  I actually feel badly for The Atlantic.  Not only is this whole type of thing not to my taste, it's kind of shameful that somebody with a good career like this would blow it over an election - No matter what anybody's politics are, the deal is - if you don't like somebody, don't vote for them.  No matter what, there will be another opportunity in four years' time.  And try being aware of your local representatives, too.  Why people rant and rave like this over the Presidential election while letting nutburgers and maniacs get reelected for years and years is beyond me.  This photographer is also known for this - making toddlers cry by baiting them with candy to make her idiotic "political" points.  I don't know if she's naturalized, but several web sources refer to her as "Canadian."  Way to go.

You know, psychologically, I've given the tendency to extreme overreaction among some people, who get hysterical in their day-to-day lives over political candidates, some thought.  I don't "get" it, but it's probably a similar human behavior to extreme religious fervor, although it's applied to politics, and it seldom accompanies actual religious fervor.  People were all lathered up about Hitler too, in pre-war Nazi Germany.  People swooned, went over his every word, and applied every epithet in the book to his political opponents when he still had them.  They drew cartoons - and soon enough, began to apply the fear and hatred toward racial, ethnic and other groups when the actual political opponents died and went away, either due to natural or Nazi causes. 

How irrational is this woman?  Why does she consider abortion (yes) the most important thing in the world?  Our world is cruel enough to women and children - it doesn't help to beat a drum in favor of something that is not really positive for anybody.  Women still make a fraction of what men make to do the same jobs, most abortions really are promoted by MEN who don't want to pay child support or have 18 years of responsibility for a baby, and check out these statistics:

Nearly 11 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,551 victims) than were killed by male strangers (142 victims).

Sixty two percent (963) of female homicide victims were wives or intimate acquaintancesⁱ of their killers.

There were 331 women shot and killed by either their husband or intimate acquaintance during the course of an argument—nearly one woman a day.

More female homicides were committed with firearms (52 percent) than with all other weapons combined. Of the homicides committed with firearms, 76 percent were committed with handguns.

In 88 percent of all incidents where the circumstances could be determined, homicides were not related to the commission of any other felony, such as rape or robbery.

I first came to understand this during the Laci Peterson case, when everyone was so upset that a husband would kill his beautiful young wife, shortly before she was about to deliver his first child - a little boy that had already been named Connor.  This was simply the first time this behavior had been brought to light in a personal way - her picture and the story was something everyone could relate to.

Here is another statistic:  On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day.

I did a lot of thinking, because the current election is bringing two very real, very serious and very negative human trends to the fore:  racism and sexism.  Sexism is often overlooked.  Just as lynching was overlooked until - after the efforts of many brave people giving their lives - it at last became something 99.9% of people would abhor, speak out against, and not allow.

According to this complete, professional academic survey, between 1882 and 1951, 4,730 people were lynched in the United States: 3,437 Negro and 1,293 white.  The survey begins with stating that the United States has a long and shameful history of domestic violence, of which the most shameful part was racist lynching. 

Lynching was a behavior applied to a "weaker" opponent by angry, hate-filled murderers.  It was covered up, denied, and justified for many generations.

The point I'm trying to make is - it took many years for people to recognize the scourge of racism.  The main leader who was able to finally make that point, and finally break through to the majority of people, gave his life in service of the effort:  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  The people who are documenting crimes against women and children - our law enforcement and nonprofit organizations and activists, are following Dr. King's methods for nonviolent change.  But the change has still not occurred. 

People like this photographer may not realize that, if they truly believe in nonviolent change and a better life for everyone, including women and children, that they cannot achieve this by applying the same brutal and brutalizing methods to people that they think are in opposition to them.  We are still "okay" in our society with more women being murdered in one year by their spouse or boyfriend than were lynched in the entire lynching era described above.  We are "okay" with the chilling statistic that the number one cause of death for pregnant women in this country is - homicide.

We have still not addressed the root issue of genuine peace.  President Reagan was not wrong when he promoted "peace through strength."  Black people were at last protected from lynching when lynching was forcibly stopped.  Lynching stopped when everyone realized - not just for moral reasons, but for real-world practical reasons - that it wasn't going to be "okay" any more.  That last lynching party that got turned in - they discovered to their dismay that their friends who lied and protected them weren't going to do it any more.  Now, there are movies like Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? that show KKK racist lynchers as the beasts that they are.

In a way, serial killer slasher movies actually may help, if the killer is caught, stopped, and punished.  It at least shows that the behavior is off-limits, and people have a cathartic experience of realizing that this is not the way to go.

But our country is so far down the River De Nile that people who state they are "progressive" are obsessed over matters like "the right to choose" while women and children are paying with their lives every single day, in agony and fear - for just having the misfortune of being born female.

Yes, in my personal life, I have experienced this very thing.  I am the survivor of rape - and I was raped by a person in a position of authority over me in a situation where most people would have "assumed" they would be perfectly safe.  I know how the people who were molested or raped by pedophile priests, scoutmasters or school coaches feel, let's just say that.  After living a "normal" life, without daily experiences of people pigeonholing me as whatever stereotype they had of "blonde woman," I experienced gross sexism in the science fiction field, and I experienced the bizarre circumstances surrounding my friend Alan Rodgers' divorce and custody battle -- with a person so bizarre and twisted that he thought he both could, and should control my actions, thoughts and personal choices.  Someone who could bleat about being the defender of women and children who clearly, was domineering and controlling in a way seldom seen - extending beyond his immediate family to virtual strangers - with no problem whatsoever exploiting, harassing and threatening a female, a teen, and a special-needs baby that had no relation to him at all.  His pals lathered up about "defending a dead baby" knowing literally nothing about the situation at all.  All of them: male.  All, one might say - misfits, or not the highest coconuts on the tree of life.  And I've had to fight like somebody who was the first minority player on an all-white sports team. 

Not that I object to that - I have to fight just the same as everyone else, but this situation points up that women are by no means as "far along" as many might think.  People still do not truly comprehend the seriousness of the matter.  I didn't receive abuse, suffer rape, or get targeted by a rabid psychopath because I "asked for it."  I got it because I was female, and in the wrong place at the wrong time.  This is very much what happened, and still happens, to the victims of racist violence.  The overwhelming majority of them were just walking in the wrong place at the wrong time, when a mob of angry, insane and violent monsters came by and destroyed their lives and threw their families into turmoil and grief.  Or, for example, Jamiel Shaw, whose promising life was cut short by a gang member hunting for somebody to kill - a solution can't be found to this situation, because people have to continue to try to blame Jamiel and lie about him.  It's "blame the victim."  She made me do it.  He made me do it.  It's her fault.  It's his fault. 

We are not so far along - not at all.  Peace through strength.

   

Those Who Forget History

It's amazing the number of crude, poorly-thinking, irrational people in their 50's and 60's I know.  I had the "Clarence Thomas is a moron" conversation and "There are two 'flat-earthers' on the Supreme Court" conversation with a Caucasian woman in this age group (with a law degree, also).   Had this person ever read anything Clarence Thomas had ever written?  No.  Was the person familiar in detail with any of his decisions?  No.  I thought the "flat earth" statement was serious until I realized it was a commonly-hurled insult against Justices Thomas and Scalia.  Justice Thomas, in this parlance, is apparently an illiterate Negro lackey of Whitey.  Justice Scalia believes the Earth is flat because he is a Catholic.  Like Cardinal Richlieu, apparently Scalia is acknowledged as a brilliant, yet "evil" Catholic.  Not one of these people has ever read anything, really, that either has ever written nor has any real idea of what either might or might not think or what their reasoning was.

Meredith and Marcus don't care for Barack Obama.  You know - that guy that's supposed to "offer hope" for "change" and "reach out to all the young people."  Not too many of my students were that enthused about Obama, either.  It feels like he's being forced on people in the same crude, repetitive way that these ideas about Justices Thomas and Scalia are repeated over and over.

It's no wonder people talk about many others being stupid, and not having the mental capacity to understand the issues or vote for the appropriate, best-qualified candidate.  Meredith was asking about President Bush, and I'd had the pleasure of visiting with a gentleman in Denver who had been part of a Presidential support team during the last five Presidential administrations.  This gentleman described President Bush much as a friend of mine, who'd been assigned to White House duty in support of the President for the US Army for four years.  The military support team believed the President was an honest, courteous man.  He was well-liked and respected by those who were around him daily.

But - go on the internet or even on TV, or look at bumper stickers.  He's a "war criminal" and a "terrorist."  In addition to being wholly-evil, President Bush is at the same time - functionally illiterate and a "retarded cowboy!" 

I reminded Meredith that the exact same, or nearly the exact same words and terminology were used about President Reagan.  There were international protests against the US from time to time, including many burnings of President Reagan in effigy.  President Reagan, rather than being identified as slow, stupid or retarded, was called senile and out-of-touch.  At the same time, he was also an unsophisticated, ignorant, murderous - here you have it again - yes, "cowboy."

There's an east coast-west coast hatred in this country.  We also suffer from propaganda of others who strongly oppose our country and want money and power that is currently held here.  Just check out the new online Pravda.  Sadly, it looks like their prediction of the imminent collapse of the European Union two months ago, did not come true.  All they did was invade Georgia.

The point of this is that it's all lies and BS and it doesn't even much change!  It's the same exact stuff heard 25-30 years ago.  When I was young.  The hated man at that time was President Reagan.  He was the "unAmerican" man destroying our country's so-called "values" (whatever those are in this parlance, are beyond me).

Of these bad-talking individuals, how many have read this?  As they berate and denigrate Justice Clarence Thomas (the individual objected to the two "flat earther" justices use of "natural law" to back their decisions - I guess that's a drum beat also).  I attempted to explain that the foundation of Dr. King's reasoning that enabled the American Civil Rights movement was "natural law" - for example, a righteous man did not have to obey an unjust law, and in some cases, was bound to nonviolently resist such a law - that Dr. King was a great American, but also a great citizen of the world - one of the very greatest of all. 

Those who forget this history.  How can they be defenders of civil and human rights?  They respect no one.  They don't even have the courtesy to learn any facts before they condemn, denigrate and criticize, and they talk about leaders as if they were in the next trailer over and were having an affair with their cousin and fighting about it on Jerry Springer.

No Clue

I stumbled upon Nick Mamatas' insightful, interesting discussion of Presidential candidate Obama's comments about the bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.  He emphasized the point that people living in troubled circumstances quite wisely have stopped trusting politicians of any type.  There's always HOPE, of course.  Hard to see how hope could come from any politician -- there's only a couple types of people more self-promoting and self-interested than politicians and that would be an awful lot of writers and their editors.

Nick mentioned Nickeled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich, a book that I was forced to teach for one semester about four years ago.  Having worked with homeless families for about 15 years of my not-that-long life, I found the book puerile, facile and depressing.  I experienced unpleasant memories of the book's horrid introduction, in which Ehrenreich lunches with her editor and conceives the project and they are crowing about what a great idea it was, and she thinks to thoughtfully mention that they're eating a fancy lunch while the "po folk" she'll be "living with" for her project wouldn't ever get a lunch like that.

The book doesn't overcome the introduction; it repeats, amplifies and elaborates on that original condescending theme.  Like many books "about the poor," it's incredibly condescending, blind and exploitive.  It continues to be assigned to many students in both first-year English classes and introductory sociology classes.  Sociology, as a discipline, is so terrifyingly confused and bizarre that students in it could well complete the entire major with absolutely no clue about anything anybody might do, or not do, under any circumstances.

My experience teaching the book was that most students were disgusted by it as well.  They were working low-paying jobs while putting themselves through college.  They quite easily said, "Well, you can't live on your own if you have that type of job."  Ehrenreich of course ignores that people live together, pool their efforts and income, and they participate in the broader community, which enables them to survive on low/poor wages. 

Because most people don't know about the publishing community, the average student doesn't read that introduction and wince at the egotistical, self-congratulatory back-scratching and shameless butt-kissing between Ehrenreich and her Henry Holt editor:  basically two people who are entirely too thrilled at what a genius idea they've had.  Sheltered, protected students might actually buy Ehrenreich's premise that she is "brave" for working jobs and living in the same situation as millions of Americans of all ages, colors and genders.  For about 3 weeks - that was her longest tenure on any of her low-paying, otherwise-known-as shit  jobs.  She worked at Wal-Mart, at a convalescent home, at a Dennys and another restaurant, and as a cleaning person.  How brave!

It's a horrible book.  I found myself embarrassed often as I read it.  By the time I got to the chapter where Ehrenreich attempted to portray the malnourished pregnant young woman who was cleaning houses as the Little Em'ly of the Evil Capitalist Empire -- while not interceding on the real young woman's behalf and cutting loose from the whole situation as soon as possible -- I was disgusted.

We really have had literature pointing up with dignity and grace the lifestyles and humanity of people who have to work hard jobs for low pay.  The examples are actually numberless, because truly great writers - Faulkner, Steinbeck, Dickens, Twain, Cather, and even Upton Sinclair - not a great writer but a reasonably thoughtful one - all take these people's lives and treat them with the respect that human beings deserve. 

It is by this type of writing that the world has been able to change for the better.  Not writing like Nickeled and Dimed.  This type of thing confuses students.  It makes them think that parroting their instructors' idiot instructions is somehow beneficial too the world.  It denies individuality and dignity, making the people featured in the book into moronic, helpless -- heck, the way she portrays a lot of these people, they are made to seem almost mentally disabled in their torpid apathy.  She can barely remember their names and can't manage much more than half a paragraph about anybody other than herself.

I want to say that I think this type of thinking, writing and work is a thing of the past.  Only upper-class, privileged people would think that such a feeble "experiment" would accomplish anything except further exploiting the people who are already exploited in so many ways.  I want to say that whatever economic upheavals we have in our world, that there is beyond a doubt, something different and better in store. 

I've taught this book this semester.  Into the Wild, by Jon Krakaeur.  Usually, the book is presented as being about Chris McCandless' controversial journey into nature and his tragic death.  The sub-theme is, of course, classism and materialism, community, family and values.  Everything Amy has always ever written about.  Chris makes his own family several times on his travels, having been so deeply hurt and disillusioned about his own family's dysfunction and materialism.  Chris burns his money a couple of times, and gives his college fund to Oxfam.  Chris abandons his beloved (good gas mileage, old, trusty) car to hoof it as a leather tramp.  Chris works at McDo's.  Chris works for Wayne in the grain business.  He drops out of society and joins the alternative society at the Slabs.  He follows his dream and goes "into the wild." 

I cannot say how much more profound, how much more compelling, how much more thought-provoking is this story - Jon Krakauer's writing, investigating, and storytelling, Chris' own story, the stories of his family and friends and the many people he encountered - is than a cheap, greedy, exploitive book like Nickeled and Dimed.  How sheltered are these students that they could call this shallow, self-centered woman "brave" for cleaning houses or walking to work, missing some meals or eating poor meals, for no longer than 3 weeks at a time?  No wonder "education" is a mystery in this country, and people have some type of thought that any politician is going to do anything to change their lives that's not negative.

** I just remembered one of the other hilariously sad things about the book.  Ehrenreich sort of "comes out" in various circumstances, telling her co-workers that she's a writer, and she's writing this book.  Seldom does anybody express any particular surprise or interest - a phenomenon or speculation that takes up 5-10% of most chapters.  She attributed their lack of interest to a variety of things -- typically that the people are too dumb to read, downtrodden, or socially-deprived to know how special they are, to be covered by a special person like her "looking out for their interests."  If she were not a woman, the term "wanker" would totally fit.

Torpor to Terror: Part II

It's always cool how the internet can orient us to people we've never met in person - giving some different insights and perspectives.  For example, based on certain online venues, one might think most SFWA members are . . . let's see . . . what's the right word?  Boobs?  Incompetent putzes?  Schlmiels?  Kvetching failed SF writers living in caves, huts, or trailers without utilities?

Here's a newish member who's not in those categories:  Lee Goldberg.  I was just informed yesterday that this gentleman actually ran for SFWA office in recent memory.  I think "silent majority" has a very different meaning for the organization than many might assume.

So busy bee here has some books to cook, and orders to fulfill on behalf of the incoming SFWA President, Russell Davis -- I should add -- on behalf of the whole organization.  Seems to me this could be a good "bridge" year, which will encourage more qualified candidates to run for office in the future.  I guess sometimes it takes a huge mess to draw people's attention.  If the mess hadn't occurred, I wouldn't have run for Treasurer, that's for certain.

Some really amazing comments regarding the Nebula Awards (via Tempest Bradford) -- and from out here in happy land, a warm and happy feeling to see that genuinely fine writing received the awards.  I'm not 100% certain what this project is that Tempest mentions, but it sounds worthwhile.  If it is something meant to prevent people from grabbing others' body parts, that is definitely okay with me.

And:  I already told Andrew Burt I regretted his feeling badly in the wake of the SFWA election and thanked him for the numerous projects he has done over the years for the organization.  He did congratulate Russell Davis on his win via the "private" SFWA message boards.  But I saw this the other day and I can't help it.  It supports Prof. Casil's suspicion that there may have been some negative classroom moments here and there.  According to the blogger, Eric Roth, SFWA is one of the "nerdiest organizations" ever.  Ayup.

Barack Obama: Great Speech

This is a picture of one of Barack Obama's classmates from Hawaii, who now teaches second grade at the same school.

I just listened to Barack Obama's speech (a link to the full text of his speech regarding race) responding to the controversy arising from the angry comments of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. 

Barack acknowledged the racial divide in America.  He discussed anger and rage on both sides.  His presentation of his personal story should have inspired any who were listening.

This is what I have to say about this:  I am the daughter of a Jew, who has always "passed," all my life.  Because racial/ethnic divisions are cast in a color framework by most, many people of color regard me as monolithically "white," just as many white people regard people of color as monolithically "black," or "brown."  Barack said that he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown his white grandmother.  He said that we have to face these challenges head-on and talk about them, not sweep them under the rug.

"And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American," he said.

So, he just earned my vote.  Bless you, Barack.  Keep going, keep strong.

And Jamiel Shaw's parents are on the news right now, speaking of their experience on Jamiel's behalf.  I cannot believe what they've been through, or the courage and dignity they are showing now.  His death won't be for no reason.  Out of the tragedy, great good will come.

Happy Birthday II

Death to Hippies!  Cartman is right.  Hippies were the last American generation to be free of information. They used manual typewriters.  They passed around dog-eared copies of the Anarchist's Cookbook.  Look at this -- fricking NPR -- National Burnout Hippie Radio.  I was looking for the info. that Reagan did not cut "welfare" because I know he jiggered with the rules but it didn't reduce any expenditures or participation.  After reporting relatively correctly on Reagan's film career and the Hinckley assassination attempt - the article veers into ketchup-sucking madness - well yeah, everybody knows that Reagan's trickle-down economics and tax cuts didn't work, with, as NPR points out, "a deep recession" and "millions unemployed."  In 1979, yeah! (hint: Pres. Reagan was not President in 1979, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning resentful peanut farming former hippie Pres. Carter was).

Hippies.  "Feminist-forward-thinking?"  These creeps are the biggest chauvinists of all.  Sure, Pres. Clinton really stood for women's rights.  Snrf! It was all about getting sex from compliant, willing partners on birth control pills. 

I. Hate. Hippies.

Happy Birthday!

I'll be.  Andrew Sullivan referred to something I know to be true:  if Hillary Clinton continues with "dirty tricks" to destroy Barack Obama, people will be completely disgusted.

This may well be a watershed moment in American politics.  It may be the moment morally and intellectually bankrupt hippies release their deathgrip on our entertainment, our media, our hearts and our minds.

Of course I am the one with the Cartman "I HATE HIPPIES!" refrigerator magnet.  Bill and Hillary Clinton are former hippies, you know.  And they could not better represent the problems of that generation.  Yeah, I'm one to talk.  The rehab, or "BFD" generation.  That's me. 

"It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future," Sullivan said.  If the dirty tricks win.

For some unknown reason, people associated with the Clintons appear to be unable to recognize this.  Sullivan says, "If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be."

Hello?  What is this?  A moral argument dissociated from political party?  Andrew, you must be joking.  Don't you know that the "Clintons are good and help black people," (Wasn't Bill Clinton the "first Black President?) and that, oh gee, "Reagan cut welfare because he lectured about 'welfare queens'."

Oh, really. President Clinton pursued and signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, or Welfare Reform Act, into law in 1996.  President Reagan lectured frequently about these issues.  Policy changes during his administration resulted in no spending reductions, and growth in "welfare" program participation.  The same is true of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. True conservatives know this because they tend to look at actual program expenditures and statistics, as opposed to news reports on "The Daily Kos" asserting facts like "Reagan thought ketchup was a vegetable!"

I believe welfare is considered an economic prop to corporate profits by Republican administrations, and probably by Clintonian Democrats.  But then, I don't talk to irrational hippies anymore, anyway. 

At least give Barack a chance.

Re-Tard-ED

I don't generally visit any type of political website.  But due to the new visitors reading about Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I found this post from 2006 from the Daily Kos diagnosing President Bush (and VP Cheney, Karl Rove and whomever else - probably Don Rumsfeld) with "Narcissistic Personality Disorder."  What's the disorder for people who focus their entire lives, spending perhaps four or five or more hours a day, trashing the same political figures they could just vote "no" on during the next election?  Or - spend those hours . . . doing something?  Like something constructive?

Even worse, this person is referencing Jon Krakauer's atypical book, Under the Banner of Heaven.  It's a chilling story of Mormon extremist brothers who slaughtered the estranged wife of one brother in a hideous, gruesome crime.

It must be nice, that your life is so devoid of problems that you think any political figure elected in our country has this disorder.  I guess old Abe Lincoln was right on the edge of it, right? 

This is more like it:  The Feroze Golwolla Story.  Someone involved in this tragic cult visited my website today.  My heart goes out to this family as well.  It sounds as if this man is a crafty enough criminal that he may not be brought to justice for his crimes against the young people that are discussed on the web page.  If you're involved in a crazy situation that "makes no sense," where behavior is being manipulated and many lies are being told, have a look at this story.  See if you see anything in common.  Or wait - no - go back and look into how George W. Bush is that way.  Unbelievable.

Here's a link to someone accusing ALL liberals of having the disorder. And there was another article accusing Barack Obama of the same; it's been removed (I wonder why?).  To armchair diagnosticians out there -- while politicians certainly have large egos, and some of them have antisocial personalities or lack consciences, that isn't NPD.  People with NPD have very sick, twisted egos that are stunted and immature.  No one who really had the full-blown disorder could be a politician and stand for office, and remain there.  They cannot tolerate criticism of any kind, and will go to extremes (yes, Virginia, even more extreme than - I know it's real real hard to believe - than George W. Bush) to avoid it.  It takes a big ego and a tough hide to be a politician in the U.S.  It's unlikely someone with the fullblown disease would ever be elected to a major state or national office (local politics - another matter - it tolerates all types of fruits and nuts).

Greetings, Gentlebeing!

I can't make Flickr work.

Oh, well.

Do open in larger window.  Do use free web badge if you like.  He can't wear it, but you can!