Barack: Better than Bitter?

First off, I'm terribly sorry I never did a SOTU commentary for 2008. But seriously--did you see it? Uninspired--and uninspiring. I was terribly disappointed. The President didn't even do his now-expected annual shout-out to heroes that make the United States and the world better places for all of us to live. By the time he was done, I just didn't feel like there was anything there to get excited about. But I suppose all of this belongs to a different post altogether. Now, to the topic at hand:

So I'm sure you've heard by now that Senator Obama said something about small-town Pennsylvanians, and Senator Clinton said things about what he said, and some people are offended and some people aren't and a lot of people don't even understand what's going on. How's that for a summary? Anyway, here's what Obama actually said (about small-town Pennsylvanians dealing with economic problems, speaking in San Francisco):

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." [Click here for the link.]

When, shockingly, some people didn't think this was the most profound and enlightened political statement ever, here is how Obama responded:

There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at a town hall-style meeting at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through."

"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country." [Again, here.] [emphasis added]

This was supposed to be considered an apology, apparently, to anyone who was offended by the Senator's "phraseology." Not his meaning, understand, but the words he used. And then there was the most recent Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Alas, I was unable to watch the original, but I have watched segments, and I quote from the debate transcript, found here. Anyway, this is what our friend Barack said when questioned about his comments (again) during that debate:

"And so the point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change and it doesn't, then, politically, they end up focusing on those things that are constant like religion.

"They end up feeling this is a place where I can find some refuge. This is something I can count on. They end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns, where traditions have been passed on from generation to generation. And those are incredibly important to them. And, yes, what is also true is that wedge issues, hot-button issues, end up taking prominence in our politics.

"And part of the problem is that when those issues are exploited, we never get to solve the issues that people really have to get some relief on, whether it's health care or education or jobs." [Yeah, I added more emphases.]

So what's the big deal? Well, I guess I count as someone who thinks Senator Obama's comments were offensive. And not just the words, but the meaning as well, because I feel the exact same way about the original statement and his two attempts at clarification. Why would I care about what Obama thinks about small-town Pennsylvanians? As far as I can tell, he just said Pennsylvania because there's a primary there really soon and this was a misguided attempt to make his comments extra-relevant for that state. It seems based on his clarifications that he thought his comments were true of small-town Americans writ large. That's me. He was talking about me. That is why I care.

Now let's look at this statement for a minute. Doesn't it look as though he's trying to explain the small-town voter to folks in San Francisco? "It's not surprising..." He seems to be trying to justify the attitudes and voting habits of small-town Americans. Because all small-town Americans have the same attitudes and voting habits? Because they need justification? Really? Obama's attitude is one of, "Of course they are bitter. Of course they cling to guns. Of course they cling to religion. Of course they are racist or hyper-nationalist or what have you. You would be too if you were like them, from a small town and economically struggling."

You see, in Senator Obama's mind, all of these characteristics are indelibly linked to one another. Remember, he says that this is something "everybody knows is true." There is no room for argument or discussion. He believes that issue has been resolved, and is simply trying to connect with the small-town American by letting us know that he understands why we are the way we are.

But who says? Who decided that we Americans living in the less densely populated areas of the country are a voting bloc? Would we achieve voting autonomy by moving to a large city? Like San Francisco, maybe?

I guess the first thing I'd like to dispute is that being from a small town (or environs) means that we do the things that Obama listed. Cling to guns? When I think of "clinging" to guns, I think of militia groups that are fearful of the UN shadow government or something. If you think honestly about the people you know from small towns (like me), how many of them own guns? (Not me.) Why do they own guns? Do they cling to them, or just own them? Do they love their guns more when the economy is bad? What possible connection could these two things have with each other?

Okay, stepping back for a second, I thought of something. My dad has a friend who was out of work a couple of years back, and still doesn't have a high-paying job. He hunts to feed his family, because they literally can't afford to have meat all the time otherwise. Meat is expensive. So yes, I guess this guy might appreciate his gun (and bow) more in difficult economic times. But I feel like that's not what the Senator meant. Oh, and P.S., where is there a whole lot of gun crime? Oh yeah, in the cities and, for school shootings, usually rich suburbs.

Cling to religion? Are people from small-town America more religious than people from the big city? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. And let's be honest about the image Senator Obama was probably trying to conjure for the San Francisco crowd: wild-eyed, red in the face bible-thumpers who think that Jesus was the actual author of the Constitution and that America is a Christian nation (freedom of religion applies to those other people). C'mon, Senator, we know that's what you meant. And for the record, small town resident does not equal Fundamentalist. Ask the Methodists or the Brethren or the Eastern Orthodox or United Brethren or Catholic folks in my neck of the woods, for example. In fact, "not Fundamentalist" might be one of their more similar traits to one another.

Cling to antipathy toward people who aren't like them? So being from a small town makes you a racist, or otherwise bigoted? There you have it: small-towners are haters. Good to know. I've been going about this all wrong. This explains why the small-town church I attend at school opened it's building to an entirely immigrant, Spanish-speaking congregation that had formed and needed a meeting place on Saturday evenings--the best time for them to meet based on the schedule at the factory where they all worked. It also explains why some members of the congregation attended the Spanish services and tried to get to know some of the members of the congregation. Because they hate people who are different. And they are afraid of immigrants. Oh wait...

Anti-trade? There's a difference between being anti-trade and being opposed to trade practices that disproportionately disadvantage American workers and cause them to lose their jobs. But Senator Obama clearly thinks that being from a small town means that people like me can't tell the difference. We're just not skilled enough to make the distinction. Perhaps if we moved to the city...

That covers most of the small-town issue, I hope, so let's move on to the bitterness thing: disillusionment with the government equals bitterness equals turning to guns/faith/family/community. What the Senator is saying is that the reason anyone (from a small town, at least) votes the way they do about gun issues, participates in religious observances/adheres to a religious faith, cares about their family, or is involved in their community is that they harbor bitterness or resentment toward the government. I don't think that whether someone wants to be able to use a gun to shoot deer has anything in the world to do with whether a person feels ignored by the government. I'm pretty sure they'd feel the same way and vote the same way whether they think Washington is listening or not. Whether people have religious faith is, as far as I can tell, utterly unconnected with whether they think politicians care about what they think. And let us all hope that we will continue loving our families and serving our communities even if we get no assistance, economic or otherwise, from the folks in our nation's capital.

If they feel that they have no political voice, folks will get frustrated. No problem there. But that doesn't mean they change their political views. It might mean that they change their political party, at least for one election. Because if one party doesn't listen, another might. That is a different thing. And that is what should interest Barack Obama.

The big question I have is, why? Why does Senator Obama continue to characterize everyone from a small town in these terms--clingers, haters? Apparently, we're not worth the effort of nuance. It takes too much time to make distinctions between the hunter and gun-crazed militiaman who wants to overthrow the government, the person of faith and the raging fringe Fundamentalist who confuses Christianity and Republicanism (Pat Robertson?--Oh wait, not from a small town, is he?), the Klan member and the individual trying to navigate the rocky shoals of immigration and trade laws.

Not only that, but the Senator just as clearly believes that small town voters can't be trusted to vote about the issues that are really important. That is, health care, education, and jobs. Other issues are not really important, and thus should not be dispositive, according to Obama. (Of course, people from big cities never vote based on such "other issues.")

Senator Barack Obama's statement lumped all small-town Americans together in an undifferentiated mass. It alleged causal and relational connections where none exist. What he said was simply untrue, and yet he stands by it, because he believes it was true (and that everyone knows it). And he also believes that he can (and should) define the important issues for us. That is what is offensive.

The Michigan Primary -- A Lost Cause????

So since it's been nearly 6 months since anyone posted anything here, I thought I'd try to break the silence. Hope no one minds that the subject is Michigan politics.

With less than 90 days to go, Representative Martin Griffin (D-Jackson) is trying to push legislation to cancel. To read more, click here http://blog.mlive.com/citpat_extra/the_skinny/

What do you think of this idea? Or of the primary situation in general? Or the party rules regarding when states can hold primaries?

It does kind of stink that Biden, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson won't be on the Democratic ticket, but is that a reason to give up the election? I could maybe see not having a primary if most of the Republicans weren't going to be on their ballot either.

Things I Like about Summer

1. No classes, which means:
a. no homework
b. no students
c. no grading
2. Three whole months of vacation, aka research
3. Openning windows to get rid of that nasty, stale air
4. Margauritas are much yummier when it's hot out
5. Fewer undergrads = fewer lines and easier parking
6. Have I mentioned that there aren't any classes?
7. Sunshine
8. Grass under my toesies, not where I live, but elsewhere
9. Egg salad sandwiches
10. Followed closely by potato salad (my grandma's is the best ever)
11. My mum's garden
12. Summer clothing
13. Reading something because I want to
14. Ice cream (a new place openned by work, it's going to be a lovely summer)
15. Freezy pops, the kind in the little plastic tubes
16. Grilling
17. Saturday mornings, lying in bed with the windows open listening to the birds sing and kids play
18. Going home from work and changing into a skirt and flip-flops
19. Dandelions
20. Wading in any reasonably clean and non-stinky body of water
21. Corn on the cob
22. Strawberries

State of the Union Rundown 2007: Can you feel it?!

I know what you were thinking. She's going to let us down this year. The State of the Union will come and go, and there will be no posting. This all-momentous speech will be as dust in the wind, and what will we remember it by?

Just kidding! Seriously, though, this one did sneak up on me. But not to fear, for NBC pulled through and once again provided live coverage available online to those of us (un)fortunate enough to be without a television set. So here are some of the highlights, lowlights, and soft moodlights of SOTU 2007:

Predictably, most people are honing in on the whole war in Iraq. The news media is all about dissecting the "new strategy" and the expected non-binding resolution from Congress saying they don't like it. Granted, it is a big deal, but all this fuss misses a major, huge, and otherwise enormously important thing that happened during the speech tonight.

PRESIDENT BUSH ASKED FOR $1.2 BILLION TO FIGHT MALARIA IN AFRICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you realize how huge this is? Do you realize how many people malaria kills every year? Do you know how cheap it is to prevent this disease? Do you have the capacity to comprehend how many lives can be saved with $1.2 billion dollars??? A couple of quick facts: 1) Every 30 seconds an African child dies of malaria--more than one million child deaths a year. <http://forum.nd.edu/global-health-issue/facts>; 2)"A mosquito net treated with a long-lasting insecticide costs less than US$4....we already have highly effective and well-tolerated antimalarial drugs (artemisinin-based combination treatments; ACTs) to replace those drugs such as chloroquine that have fallen to resistance. These cost less than US$1 per child treated. Less than US$20 would guarantee a poor African child access to life-saving interventions." <http://www.scidev.net/Opinions/index.cfm?fuseaction=readOpinions&itemid=341&language=1>

Needless to say, I believe this particular request of the President should be applauded (and complied with). Also, kudos for the call to raise Darfur awareness. Promotion of alternative fuels was also a good thing, especially with emphasis on research and technological breakthroughs. We need to find an energy-efficient method of producing ethanol.

Since it would be ridiculous (and inappropriate) to ignore Iraq, I'll say a few words. First of all, you will recall me yelling at the radio when we went to war against Iraq. I would have voted no. But here's the catch: once we are engaged in an armed conflict, the calculus changes. Political discussions are always important in a democracy, but at some point people have got to shut up about how we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place and figure out what to do with what the President called "the war we're in." There are, of course, competing theories about what exactly it is we should be doing at this point. As it stands, we are "surging." Will this work? I have not the slightest idea. I only know this: I hope it does. And if it does not, anyone who gloats about it is a disgusting human being, because the failure of the surge would be the failure of the Iraqi state, the deterioration of an already chaotic and violent situation, and a tragic spike in the number of troops--and Iraqis--dying. Can any decent person seriously be pleased about being "right" if these are the consequences?

Hmmm...what else? I'll believe the saving of Social Security and the elimination of the national debt when I see them. Health care reform is important, but I'm skeptical about this tax cut scheme (what about the people who make enough to not qualify for assistance, but not enough to pay that much in taxes?). NCLB is generally terrible and should not be renewed (at least, not without some serious amendment, and even then I'm not sure it's salvageable). Just say no to school vouchers. And of course, the single greatest disappointment for me in this speech was the failure to address the people of Iran and distinguish them from their oppressive government. Engaging the people is essential!

Best mood-lighting moment: immigration reform. Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. I said it last year and sadly, I turned out to be right. But we have a different, Democratic Congress this time!, you protest. Doesn't matter. Half of them will be too busy running for president to even vote on bills, let alone develop the sort of nuanced immigration reform package that would both mean something and actually get passed.

It was clear that President Bush's favorite parts of this speech came at the beginning ("Madame Speaker"--more on that shortly) and the end (yea, heroes!...and inviting Dikembe Mutombo was a nice touch, you have to admit). Over all, even though it was hard work, I think he did a decent job of laying out an agenda that was meaningful while playing on those initiatives for which there was bipartisan support. Again, whether any of these will come to pass is an entirely different question.

Now for some extra-SOTU commentary. First, I enjoyed all the camera shots of members of Congress snoozing during the speech. I could just imagine media folks--"hey, Senator Obama just nodded off! Zoom in!" Secondly, Nancy Pelosi was classy. I have never been (and probably still am not) a huge Nancy Pelosi fan. Still, although she did seem somewhat self-conscious (I would be too!), I thought she pulled of the first woman speaker thing admirably this evening. And thank you, Speaker Pelosi, for wearing a suit that was not black or navy or gray. (Did you notice that the President's suit was totally navy blue?! I wasn't expecting that. Always keeps me on my toes...)

Senator Jim Webb gave the official Democratic response to the SOTU. I respect a good Jacksonian Democrat. I don't agree with everything he said, but I certainly appreciate his comments supporting the average working American and the reminder that economic statistics can tell more than one story.

And that's a rap. Another year, another State of the Union...what did you think?

Edit: You can read the text of the SOTU here and the Democratic response here.

The Cinderella Complex

Recently, the Hallmark channel has been playing ads for a new Christian romance novel movie adaptation. They've already done three in the series; each and every one has made me want to puke. Seriously, what is it with Christian novels and the promotion of that blasted Cinderella complex? For that matter, what is it with Christian culture in general that promotes this sort of mass delusion amoung women? Falling in love and getting married is not the solution to life's problems, in fact somedays I wonder if it isn't the cause of alot of them.

I think that most Christian novels can be divided into two catagories.
1. Beautiful, kind, gentle (insert various fruits of the spirit and Proverbs 31 adjectives here) woman meets man. Woman falls in love with man, but knows it can never work. Woman leads man to God. Man falls in love with woman and they live happily every after.
2. Beautiful, emotionally troubled (insert the same adjectives here) woman meets man. Woman finds God. Man falls in love with woman and they live happily ever after.

Of course there are a few variations on this theme and complications thrown in so that you can tell at least some of them apart.

Why do these authors insist on fostering this culture of delusion? Women who go around their whole lives waiting for Prince Charming to rescue them from whatever they hate about their lives are bound to be disappointed in any man. And isn't it a heck of a lot of pressure for a guy to have to fix everything? I kind of wonder if maybe that's why so many women complain about committment-phobic men. I'd be committment-phobic too if someone expected me to fix their life.

So that's just my little rant for the day. I better quit before I get too bitter. :-)

Election 2006...BEFORE Election Day (novel idea, I know)

To understand how truly I am behind the 8-ball in posting this, you should know that I voted about a week and a half ago. That's right, absentee. Speaking of which, the whole process of getting an absentee ballot in small town (read:village) America is awesome. Interest groups send applications out every election cycle, so I filled one out. It was the one from the MEA, not from the Republicans. Not that I have anything against Republicans per se, but the pamphlet was screaming about how Michigan conservatives needed to stand up against the RADICAL LIBERALS who were trying to force us all into GAY MARRIAGES and make everyone undergo ABORTIONS as a qualification for CITIZENSHIP while offering AMNESTY to ILLEGALS.

Okay, maybe it wasn't quite that bad. But still, over the top. I promise. So I used the MEA one instead. Last time I used the Bush/Cheney one. I'm an independent. I can do whatever I want.

Right, getting the ballot. So I take this application into the township offices in Clarksville, which are only open part time, and even then not everyone is there. I was hoping I could get the address of the township clerk, who I know, but she wasn't listed in the phonebook. In Clarksville when you send something to the township clerk, you send it to her house. Anyway, I walk in and the township treasurer is the only one there and I tell him what I need. He's like, "Oh, you can just leave the application on her desk. She'll get it tomorrow. I was afraid you were here to pay your taxes." You see, it was about 4:30 in the afternoon and he had already finished up his paperwork for the day. :) I love Clarksville.

So who did I vote for? If I told the whole internet, that would kind of defeat the purpose of a secret ballot, silly. But I will say that, true to form, I ended up with a mixed ticket. Very mixed. I even voted for a Green Party candidate. Fun times. But since I want to post about more than how I got my absentee ballot, I'll offer a few general observations.

Proposals
Michigan has five proposals this go-round. One of them is--I kid you not--a proposal to allow the hunting of mourning doves. Wow. You cannot convince me that this is a good plan. Now, I'm pro-hunting as a general matter...for things like deer. But mourning doves?! C'mon! It'd be different if they were overpopulated, but they're not. Plus, the consumption of mourning dove is not a viable food option. I'd need at least ten of those things to make a decent meal. It makes me think of Sylvester's dreams of Tweety on a platter. Tiny. The funniest part was the Republican/hunter's pamphlet that got sent out supporting the proposal. It had a deer on it! Nice big 8-point buck. Protect your deer hunting rights by allowing people to practice on mourning doves! What?! Without revealing my own vote (ha!), I would discourage others from supporting this proposal.

Another proposal is about eliminating affirmative action in Michigan. But for me, this proposal is not about affirmative action. It's about good form. The only reason this is on the ballot is because scheming people got a bunch of (primarily poor black) people to sign a petition wherein the proposal was billed as a "civil rights proposal." Most people thought they were signing something that was supportive of affirmative action. There were protests about the deception, but they were unsuccessful and here it is on the ballot. Bad form.

Indiana Politics
My Man Mitch (more recently referred to by some as The Dictator) has two years left to redeem himself in the minds of Indiana voters. As far as I can tell, this man with the promising campaign slogan has been a bitter disappointment to many.

To the great citizens of Indiana: Daylight Savings Time is not that hard. You'll adjust. And honestly, didn't you enjoy that extra hour of sleep Saturday night? Also, I have enjoyed many a mocking laugh at the expense of the candidate from around South Bend running the radio commercial complaining bitterly about LOSING an hour of sleep in October...and about the unspeakable tragedy that some counties near Chicago might be on a different time from the rest of Indiana. (Someone should send him a copy of the memo explaining that it was like that before.)

National Politics
I care less about which party controls the House and Senate than I care about a serious fruitbasket turnover of the members. Although a Democratic House might prevent more scary things from happening to public education. Maybe.

Did you like the part where the huge new wall between the US and Mexico, costing billions of dollars, is unfunded by the bill authorizing its construction? Yeah, me too.

Michigan's Governor
One final world about the gubernatorial race in Michigan: without taking a definite positDON'T VOTE FOR DICK DEVOS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, sorry. My fingers slipped. What I meant was: look seriously at the issues and vote your conscience. And I will not try to sway you in any particular direction. Happy voting! :)

P.S. Michigan Republicans should try getting a gubernatorial candidate named something other than Dick. Just a thought.

Shocker: Jerry Falwell is Inappropriate and Offensive while discussing Politics!!!

Sorry, guys. I wanted to be a little more highbrow with the next post, but I couldn't resist the tabloid impulse in this particular case. You have to read it to believe it...

Or not. Because it's Jerry Falwell. And somehow nothing he says really surprises me anymore. But you should read it anyway, and respond accordingly, and then maybe we can talk politics more generally. So here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060924/ap_on_el_pr/falwell_hillary_clinton_1

Enjoy!