Gazing at Vampires

why we're (well, ok, I'm) transfixed:

Vampires: There But For Grace

Vampires, Anglo-Saxon Style

The Lure of the Bad Boy

Vampires and Humanity

Heads Up (um, necks out!)

Heads Up (or necks out?)

A new topic is on my horizon. It's high campaign season and I've been writing a lot about politics. I'm always interested in policy, process, personalities and public perception so this will be an ongoing topic for me.

As the tabs above suggest, I have other interests, as well. Given the intensity of the election and the enormity of the things we face as a nation, I'm wasn't sure I'd get to other subjects before November.

I have had another personal interest in mind for the past week, though, so perhaps I will get to it before I expected. Let this be a warning that the subject matter is vampires. Yes, vampires. Or, to be more precise, the Anglo-Saxon fixation on vampires....

here.>

Insulting Everyone, Now That's Elitist

I was forwarded an interesting article today on "Why People Vote Republican". The general idea was that this psychologist was examining how "elitist" liberals don't get why people vote Republican. And if they would just figure out that Republicans understand something liberals don't - that people need a way to see themselves as part of a bonded group - they might start winning elections. I gather that the author was trying to show that he can value the perspectives of both ends of a spectrum. He made sure to call out liberals on their elitism for not seeing the good ole Republican way, while he seems to support the liberal agenda.

I'm a liberal, I suppose, and I thought the article was insulting to people of all stripes. As a liberal, it's not that I don't see the need to have a tribal identity, it's that I think anyone who wants to participate should be included, regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, sexuality, etc.

And I know Republicans who are more about fiscal responsibility and keeping government out of our private lives, than they are about identifying with a religious moral code.

The difference between myself and the Republicans I know tends to be that I think government should have services to protect the most vulnerable amongst us, because humans tend to be so self-oriented they will not give up their desires for the sake of others whom they do not know. We can detach and be unconcerned about the suffering of anyone who is not known to us personally. The farther away, the less their suffering is meaningful to us. It's the size of our population that urges me to think government has a role, as the vulnerable tend to get segregated into groupings where they're stuck together without the resources to help themselves. I see it as a social contract to keep us operating at our best so that we keep our tribe as functional as possible.

I could go on, but I think that's really the big difference between most liberals and most conservatives. The religious fundamentalists on the right are fringe and the communists on the left are, as well. Yet, sociologist, psychologists, political pundits, etc want to define us in the extremes. Oh, well. Maybe it's not liberals who are elitists, maybe it's sociologists, psychologists and political pundits. You know, that old projection thing. They couldn't possibly be doing that, could they?

Ugh. When Will We Learn?

Today I was directed to two Salon.com articles about Michelle Obama. The first is about her rear end. Yes, a woman wrote and took up space on a news site about the First Lady-Elect's butt. The second is a lament that she is being pushed to sublimate her strong, professional self for the less threatening role of mother.

I was asked my opinion. Well, such mixed feelings.

On the first one: sheesh, we haven't been talking about the details of Laura Bush's body for the past eight years. And it's not like she was a waif. So, what the hell? This article was specifically about celebrating a black woman's butt. Will we be celebrating the black Mr.'s you-know-what next? I get that women feel dehumanized and oppressed via objectification. Black women have been at the very bottom of the social ladder and definitely get the worst of it.  But you don't crawl up by celebrating another woman's body part. Celebrate the person. Obama ran as the best person for the job, not the best black person for the job. Michelle supported his campaign. Not to forward the acceptance of a big butt, but because she thought her husband was a gift to this country. People really need to rise above their neuroses.

On the second, I couldn't even read it. Again, women have to rise above if they are to rise at all. The fact is that the Obamas are a team. Obama has just been elected to the single most demanding job in the country and they have two young daughters. Of course, as a loving partner and mother, she will scale back her work outside of the home to steer her family safely through one hell of a transition. If she were president, he would do the same. It's not about gender, it's about family. As a team, they decided to support him going for and executing this job. I don't get the sense that for one moment, she considers herself having given up anything. Nor is it likely that she couldn't resume any level of work that she chooses. They are to be commended as a model for a healthy family.

As for the idea that her role as an advisor is being played down for gender reasons, that's also patently absurd. It's not that she's a woman. It's that she wasn't the one elected. We've been through this. When Hillary was running everyone was concerned about the 2-fer that seemed inherent. It was a drag on her chances. Not for gender reasons, but because the spouse didn't campaign on his agenda and we didn't elect him. The highly influential relationship of a spouse makes it much more difficult for the electorate to put aside suspicions about what kind of damage can be done by an overly-aggressive spouse. (can we talk Health Care Reform setback?)  A spouse is so different than other staff members that are hired for the administration. You can't really fire them. That said, they always have some sort of influential role and it's up to the couple to find the balance. Everyone needs to just accept that and get on with things. But I definitely don't see it as a gender issue.

Are those that complain about Michelle Obama's decision to focus on her children during this overwhelming experience of being thrown into the world spotlight is a bad one? Are they suggesting that she should ignore the family needs? We're talking two young girls who will find that play dates come with Secret Service units and every move they make comes with a swarm of Papparazzi. I'd be disappointed in them as parents if they didn't decide that Michelle should focus on them for a while.

I'm certainly sensitive to the oppression of women, and particularly black women who really do have it worse than anyone in this country. Still, I'm always disappointed at how successes are celebrated. We think it's some kind of movement forward that a woman with a big butt is First Lady. But the very thing that indicates that we haven't moved forward is that we're focusing on her butt. We scream for gender equality, but we don't actually celebrate feminine qualities. We want empowwerment, unless it's the power to choose something we derisively call 'traditional'. Tradition isn't necessarily bad. Not valuing all the roles played to carry out the needs of society is what we need to fight against.

We need to see the Obamas as role models. Will we learn from them? They have risen to prominence because they ignored all the things that people tried to use as weapons of oppression. We need to keep on ignoring it. Note when the weapons are successful and work to neutralize them. But when they aren't, leave those weapons in the decaying battlefield to be buried in the sands of time. Otherwise we're only pointing them at ourselves.

Upon Some Reflection

I've done some resting and reflecting and not a whole lot of writing. What is it I want to write about now? As the tabs above make obvious, I'm interested in the topics of politics (which covers a lot of ground from civil rights to economic theories to governance styles and foreign relations....), vampires (as a symbolic study), Lyme Disease (as a public service) and parenting (well, just because I am one and it's a wild ride.)

During the election, my writings were heavy on the politics and that balance is likely to change now. Two political topics that are currently still on my mind though, are economic theory and constitutional law. Of course, the economy is on everyone's mind. I've done some studies of it while getting my MBA and it's been of interest to me for a while. Particularly because two of the premises on which economic theories have been built have always seemed absurd to me. In recent years, though, there has been a new school of though that has challenged these theories. I'd like to see a transformation of how we treat economics at the governmental policy level, so I'll try writing about that from time to time.

Constitutional law is not something I've had more than a fleeting interest in before. Certainly, we've seen a lot of constitutional issues come to the fore with the Bush Administration. Bush's actions have defnitely spurred me to read parts of our founding document again, specifically the Bill of Rights. But what has really motivated me to write and explore and learn about this revered piece of work is Sarah Palin's gross misinterpretation of it.

I'm not saying she's willfully misinterpreting or she's cognitively impaired. But, I can imagine she's never actually studied it. I went to schools all over the country while growing up. My father was in the Air Force. He retired as I entered my sophomore year in high school and we moved into his mother's house while he went back to college. My grandmother lived in New Canaan, Ct., a very wealthy town with a well-endowed school system. We had a planetarium in the high school and a fully operation television studio, along with a course catalog larger than some colleges. By all accounts, I lucked into a top-tier education. Still, I barely remember studying the constitution. Certainly, we read it, but I don't recall debates about interpretation or teachings about different schools of thought or competing governance philosophies of the founders. As an adult, I could vaguely tell you about the Bill of Rights, but couldn't have listed all of them. For all of Palin's charisma and eagerness, she didn't come off as an intellectual. So, I'm guessing she never went beyond what she was told in school and may have absorbed in her political sphere. Never applied her own critical thinking. (Let's hope so anyway, because for all the interpretation there might be, no one would agree with her characterization of the 1st Amendment.)

So, on the politics front these are the topics I'll continue writing about. I'm sure there may be other things that crop up based on current events. But I hope you'll join me in re-reading and studying the Constitution of the United States of America. This way, we're intellectually armed the next time a candidate makes her own claims about what it says or an administration violates it.

I'll have to a little studying up first, so expect to some vampire voyeurism in the meantime....

Rest and Reflection

Again today, I feel this is not a partisan time. The votes have been cast. In some cases they are still being counted, but the political statement has been made. As a country, we opted for someone with a different nature, more of an advocate than a monolithic warrior.

Yesterday, I made a few hours of Get Out The Vote phone calls. I went to the polls with my 9 year old daughter and her father (he wins the award for phone-calling stamina. He's been a GOTV Beast in the past couple of weeks.) She proudly helped me cast my vote and put the ballot in the scanner. We came home and relaxed for a while before I went out and watched the returns with a small group of women friends. I was up until about 3 am. This is a lot of stimulation for me. Today, I am exhausted.  I need to rest. Yet, I can't help but reflect.

That was a long presidential campaign. We're in the midst of huge crises. It has been emotional and ground-breaking. The election of Barack Hussein Obama is historic, of course. It is cathartic. We pride ourselves on the principle in one of our founding documents that "all men are created equal" while not mentioning that in the same document some men were considered less than human. Were being bought and sold and treated worse than animals. It has been a shameful hypocrisy we have not come to terms with fully. By lifting up someone from within that oppressed class to the highest office in our land, we begin, yes begin, to transform. It's a beautiful thing, though the process can be painful.

We didn't elect this man because of the color of his skin, though. We elected him because of the color of his mind. His way of being. It's not simply his extraordinary accomplishments. it's the lens through which he sees the world. He doesn't define someone with an opposing point of view as an enemy. He sees that person as someone to hear out and keep talking to. Someone from whom he might grow. He doesn't define our country's richness by the measure of it's monetary wealth. He defines it by how we treat the least amongst us and what we do for each other. In short, he is not fear-based and he doesn't incite us to act based upon fears. He is faith-based and he inspires us to step forward from faith. He is willing to express his grandest self and he encourages us to do the same.

I see this election as one reflecting a new generation, not necessarily one about race relations. At 45, I was technically born in the last of the Baby Boomer years. I straddle two generations. I can hear the different ways the people on either side of the generational divide speak and how they visualize human relations. McCain and Obama epitomized those differences. Obama talks about working while McCain talks about fighting. It is the difference between seeing everything, even conflicts, as a challenge to be faced together rather than another battle to be fought. People die in battles. People achieve through work. Battles are wearying, work is rewarding.

This has nothing to do with partisanship. Someone who believes in Trickle Down Economics, for instance, can readily employ a rhetoric of working together rather than a "fight, fight, fight" mantra. A strong leader can speak with those that threaten us without condoning or encouraging the threat. I would implore all of us, from all points on the political spectrum, to sit back and consider the tone of the campaigns. Recall the language that was used. Look at the body language of the two candidates - particularly with their families - and reflect upon the fact that The People came out in record numbers to choose the Advocate, not the Warrior. (I can't even count the number of people who are excited to have such an obviously fucntional and loving family in the White House. How long has it been?)

The Advocate works to resolve conflicts through a process which seeks truth and reconciliation via an impartial jury. The Warrior resolves conflicts by killing those he perceives to be his enemies. In a Warrior Campaign, the candidate assumes the moral authority to destroy his opponent through character assassination. The ends justify the means. In an Advocate Campaign, the candidate assumes that he must present his case, let all voices about it be heard, and leave the judgment to the jury/electorate. The advocate works against actions and behaviors not against people. In my estimation, the new generation (exit polls showed that support for McCain increased with age) just told us that they are tired of the Warrior Way. They don't think it's serving us well. They see the world through a different lens than the previous generation. They know we're part of a global community. They know that the struggles facing the human race must be worked on as a unified whole. We must all stop and listen to each person and each country make their case. We must stand up to objectionable behaviors whilst pushing for people to work together, which can only happen if you don't vilify them. We have chosen Advocacy.

Advocacy is not easy. In comparison, war is an simpler construct. More lives are lost, but defining the path of action is straightforward. By choosing Advocacy we've chosen a much harder piece of work. So, today, let's get some rest. Let's reflect on what this election has meant. Let's prepare ourselves for the work ahead. Before we can even begin the work of problem resolution, we have to learn a new process. A new way of engaging. Gather your energy. New ways require a lot of will. It's no longer a matter of "Yes, We Can", now it has to be "Yes, We Will." Let's all get ready for it......

Political Writing

Here's what I've been writing about in Politics lately:

She Can't Say

"Why Do Liberals Hate Sarah Palin?"?

"Health"

A Step In the Right Direction

Talk Them Down!

Palin: Power-Seeker

Qualified

The Confidence Game

Politicking: Why Are Lies Acceptable

Debate #1 Observations

Mixed Feelings

Wait A Minute!

Economies, Eggs and Baskets

How Best to Invest $700billion

Why Are We Giving Them $700billion?

Is Obama An Empty Suit?

A Deregulated Economy

Jury Nullification

James Carroll Writes About John McCain's Honor

Fact Check Before Blathering

Look, politicians work hard to paint their opponents in the worst possible light. It's your job to confirm the claims or least understand the context before blithely passing on misrepresentations.  Things are usually not as simple as they want you to believe. Over the years, the site I've found to be very unbiased is FactCheck.org. So, check your facts before you blather.

I'll periodically post links to issues that come up here. Including ones that call out the candidates I favor. But I heartily recomend that you bookmark the site and use it as a resource.

1. Did A Democratic Congress Cause Our Financial Crisis?

2. That Obamanation book is, apparently, an abomination itself.

3. Obama Got Who Would Lose with Privatized Social Security Wrong