A champion for a new age

Watching Barack Obama's 30-minute commercial last night, and being so deeply impressed once again by his grace and strength, compassion and vision, a parallel came to me out of Silksinger, so I want to share a brief passage with you and explain a little bit what this candidate means to me, what this potential presidency means to me. It might seem a little overwrought to you, but I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

So, for context, there is a character in Silksinger named Hirik, a young faerie who dreams of becoming a Djinn's champion like Magpie Windwitch. He's keeping his dream a secret as he works his way across the great Sayash mountains (the Himalayas) as a mercenary on a dragonfly caravan, trying to reach the city of Nazneen, where he plans to search for the lost Djinn called the Azazel. During the journey, the threat of devil attack looms. . .

Well, he told himself resolutely, if he wanted to be champion, he would come to know plenty of devils -- they would be his life, in large part, as he worked to rid the world of them like the Magruwen’s champion did.

But it wasn’t all about hunting and capture, being champion. A new age was dawning, and the return of the Djinn meant the awakening of wonder, as it had been awakened halfway round the world in Dreamdark. The new age would be about magic and purpose and beauty. About building. Not just clinging on to the tattered hem of the ancient world, but making a new one. And how he wanted that!

The thing is, Hirik is a lad who wants to be champion for the right reasons. He has a vision for a bright new age for his people, and he wants to help make it a reality. He's not in it for the glory or the title; he's not in it just for himself. Corny or not, that's how I see Barack Obama. He has a plan and a vision, he has the brains and the temperment and the goodness to lead this country to a new era: an age of green, sustainable energy, and a huge new economy based on green, sustainable energy; a new age of diplomacy and regaining world respect; renewed respect for our Constitution and our civil liberties here at home; a new rise of the American middle-class, like the one we saw after WWII, with good jobs created and protected here, with a move toward affordable health care and college tuition. Barack Obama believes all this is possible and more, and I believe he will fight tirelessly to accomplish these goals, to make America stronger -- "not just clinging to the tattered hem of the old world, but making a new one."

McCain belongs to the old world, Obama to the new. When you watch Obama speak, he exudes hope and strength. McCain and Palin? They exude something very different: sarcasm, devisiveness, and lies. Their entire campaign is based on lies and mischaracterizations, attempts to deceive their supporters with rhetoric. They cry "terrorist!" and "socialist!" and suggest Obama is not a legal US citizen; they've got a plumber on the campaign trail now saying that an Obama presidency would signal the death of Israel -- so egregious a claim that even a Fox News reporter finds it frightening (video #1 below). I listen to their rallies, and they spend all their time on the attack, repeating lies that have long ago been discredited. There is a nastiness to everything they say, a sneering kind of bitchiness. McCain puts dismissive air quotes around "health of the mother," on abortion issues, and mocks Obama's concern for the environment on nuclear power (video #2 below, and this one astonishes me -- he actually says, mimicking Obama, "It has to be safe. . . environment. . . blah blah blah--" He actually says "blah blah blah," dismissing the idea of environmental safety in the most belittling way, and the crowd goes WILD. Just WILD. Like they're dogs that want to rip the damned environment apart with their teeth. Wha. . .? *Laini confused.*)

I tend to be a fatalist about the environment, believing that humanity lacks the will to come together to save this planet from the greed of corrupt corporations, or to stop the merciless onslaught of poverty and population explosion that make the environmental crusade seem like such a lost cause. But I do believe that Barack Obama genuinely still believes there's hope, and how magnificent would it be to be a part of the generation that finally sets out to do what needs to be done, to try to keep Earth habitable by our undeserving selves? Because that IS what this is about. This whole "environment blah blah blah" isn't just about polar bears and spotted owls, it's about the air we breathe and the water we drink, it's about the fragile balance of all life on this planet - including US. One candidate cares deeply about it, the other mocks it.

There's nothing positive, nothing hopeful or beautiful or uplifting about the McCain campaign, just this pervasive nastiness, with its ever-present undertone of racism. "He's not like us." It's not just the campaign, of course, it's the supporters, but this is part of my point: what do you want to be a part of? Do you want to be part of "building the new age," or of "clinging to the tattered hem of the old"? Part of the movement of hope? Or the campaign of lies and sarcasm and insidious McCarthyism?

Please don't leave me a comment supporting McCain. I honestly don't want to hear it, and I don't want to spend my day being frustrated or carefully phrasing replies. Your vote is your business; I'm not telling you how to vote, I'm just identifying what to ME are the two camps one can choose at this critical point in our nation's story.

If you didn't see the Obama commercial last night, it's video #3 below. It's part I, but there's a link in the bottom that allows you to click through to the rest of it as you go. Four families are featured as a way of illustrating his plans on the economy, health care, and other issues for helping working people. It's very moving, and honestly, there was a swelling in my heart as I watched it, this unmistakably buoyancy of hope. Here's a man who understands, and who cares, and who actually wants to be president for the right reasons. It isn't often a politician comes along who has the good heart and altruism to want to change the world for the better AND the strength of character to make it happen. Such a man is before us now.

Videos
Video 1 -- Joe the Plumber with Shep Smith on Fox:
Video 2 -- McCain on "safe for the environment blah blah blah":
Video 3 -- Obama commercial:


[P.S. This still is not my post on being liberal. That's yet to come.]

To discriminate or not to discriminate?

After a nice, frivolous post about gigantic hats, it's time for another serious post. The election is only twelve days away (though we already voted. Yay!) and as you probably know, it's not big hats that are foremost on my mind. I'm only trying not to inundate my blog with politics. A nice ratio of frivolity to politics must be maintained! But today's a politics day. I'm going to write about gay marriage. Thankfully, this has not been trotted out as a major wedge issue in this election -- with one huge exception. Californians have to vote on Proposition 8, the "Protect Marriage" initiative which would amend the California Constitution to specify that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I don't know that I would have written about this issue if I had not happened upon a blog post in support of Prop 8, written by an earnest young Mormon woman in California, who sincerely did not believe that what she was espousing was discrimination. She wrote:

"Please understand that I do not discriminate against same-sex couples. I feel everyone has the right to choose what they want to do. But for religious reasons, I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, and nothing else."

Umm.

discrimination = treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Anyone who is against gay marriage, it is your right to believe whatever you want, but do not be deceived by church rhetoric that this is not discrimination. It is the very definition of it. By telling yourself you support civil unions but not marriage, you might feel righteous and open-minded, like you have resolved an important conflict between civil liberties and religious beliefs, but you have resolved nothing. You are discriminating. And yes, my presidential candidate and his running mate espouse the same discrimination, and this bums me out, but the fact is: because of the pervasive religiosity of this nation, a president can not WIN who favors gay marriage. That is what sickens me most.

However, I am very proud to say that our Democratic Senate candidate, Jeff Merkley, supports gay marriage. Not just civil unions, but marriage.

I imagine that people like the young woman who wrote that post cannot understand why the gay community is not satisfied with their tremendous largesse at being willing to allow them civil unions. Why is this not enough? Why must they agitate for marriage?

I'm not going to try to answer this question for the gay community, but I am going to answer for myself, as a married person who is not religious. What is marriage to me? It is the highest expression of love and devotion one human being can make to another. It is powerful. As George Eliot once said, "What greater thing is there for two human souls that to feel that they are joined for life?" This is human and highly personal; it is powerful. To me, it has nothing to do with God. Whether you are religious or not, marriage is an extraordinary commitment of love and trust.

If you are against gay marriage: who are you to tell anyone else that their love is only worth a "civil union"? If you are voting for Prop 8, you should imagine your single vote as keeping a couple from making the ultimate commitment of love to one another. Casting a vote in privacy, it goes too easy on you. You should have to stand up and object at a wedding, perhaps a wedding between lesbian life partners who've already spent forty years together and raised a family. You should have to stride to the front of the church and stand between them, tell them they don't deserve it, and while you're at it, tell them how much better you are, how much more righteous and entitled. Marking a ballot is too easy; it's cowardly. To take away someone's rights, just like that?

Why should any potential bigot get to cast a vote on another person's civil liberties at all? This shouldn't even be on the ballot. What do you think would have happened if voters were allowed to decide on interracial marriage back in 1948, rather than the Supreme Court of California? For the record, 60 years ago the California court found in Perez v. Lippold that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. But it wasn't until 1967 that the US Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia finally struck down all race-based restrictions to marriage.

As with interracial marriage, gay marriage should not be a matter of public opinion, but of civil liberties -- to be decided by courts based on the document wherein our freedoms are written and guaranteed. That document? Not the Bible, people, but the Constitution.

However, Prop 8 is on the ballot, and 77% of funding for the "Yes on 8" campaign is coming from the Mormon church. I know there has been a vocal contingent of Mormons who have opposed their church's involvment in this issue, and I commend them for their willingness to speak out. I can only imagine it isn't easy. And of course, it's not only Mormons and other religious groups who will vote Yes on 8, it's all manner of folk who think their personal beliefs should govern others. Some relevant quotes by Mark Twain:

"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul."

"In religion and politics people's beliefs are almost always gotten at second hand, and without examination."

Marriage is a human instititution and predates Christianity. Why then should Christianity be the arbiter of all marriages? We are not all Christian, and in America, we should not be beholden to the church for our freedom. And that is certainly not to say that many gay and lesbian Americans are not Christian or do not want a Christian marriage ceremony. I would just suggest that the churches decided for themselves whether they will allow the marriages within their own institution and not try to influence laws and enforce their own beliefs on all Americans. Because when churches enforce their beliefs through law, that is theocracy. Saudi Arabia has that. Malaysia has that, and I just read that Malaysia is trying to outlaw tomboys because girls dressing like boys is against Islam. Who do we want to emulate in our liberties?

So please, if you are in California, vote against putting discrimination into the California Constitution. Vote no on 8.

By the way, immediately after reading that Pro-8 blog post, I made a contribution to the Human Rights Campaign, which works for GLBT equality.

And to lighten up the mood a little in parting, a last Mark Twain quote:

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Snort!

[Updated to add a link to this beautiful post about love and family. Which made me think. I've been ruminating on a post about what it means to me to be liberal. Does anyone else want to write a post about what it means to them to be liberal or conservative? Say, Tuesday? Anyone?]

Wrapped in the flag

Can someone reassure me that the McCarthy witch hunts could not happen again in America? I'd like to think they couldn't, but that doesn't mean some Republicans aren't trying to foment the same kind of fear and rage that was stirred up back in those days. Like, the heinous and despicable Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota):
Basically, what I think she's trying to do is conflate "liberal" with "anti-American," and Chris Matthews sort of goads her out into saying something truly extreme. Does she really think that members of Congress should be "investigated" to determine whether they are or are not anti-American? Well, I've seen this lady in action on Larry King a couple of times, and I think she's crazy, so I'm not going to put it past her.

I think that the vast majority of Americans do not agree with her, and that this miserable tactic of hers is going to fail, and fail big time. In fact, she just may have screwed her own chances for reelection. Since the Hardball show, her opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg has seen an awe-inspiring influx of $620,000 in campaign contributions!!! In just a few days! I don't know so much about fund-raising, but I'm fairly sure that that is a HUGE take for a few days in the life of a congressional challenger.

I hope this response serves as a message to Republicans that Americans do not want accusations of anti-Americanism right now, but a positive commitment to change. Check out this powerful response from someone investigated during McCarthy's crusade:
This might be William Mandel; not sure, but WELL SAID.

Read the below quotes and ask yourself, did Thomas Jefferson hate America? James Madison? Huh. Who'd have thought the founding fathers were so anti-American!

Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible. ~ Sinclair Lewis 1935

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.– Thomas Jefferson

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. – Herman Goering (Scary, Michelle Bachmann, you sound like you've been reading from the Nazi playbook.)

What luck for rulers that men do not think. - Hitler

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. – Voltaire

When the government fears the people it is a democracy....when the people fear their government it is tyranny... - Thomas Jefferson

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. - Samuel Johnson

During times of war, hatred becomes quite respectable, even though it has to masquerade often under the guise of patriotism. - Howard Thurman

Patriotism is the veneration of real estate over principle. - George Jean Nathan

If there be one principle more deeply written than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. - Thomas Jefferson

The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated. – William Ellery Channing

BEWARE THE LEADER WHO BANGS THE DRUMS of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know ? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. - Anonymous

If you like Katharine Hepburn, here is a 10-minute speech that she gave back in the McCarthy era:

More agreeing to disagree -- on the wedgiest of all wedge issues

But before we reach the political portion of our post, here is a little something for those readers not so interested in my political views. Books, books, and more books! The Cybils nominations have run wild, and now I and my fellow nominating panel members have our work cut out for us. This wee stack is just a first bite out of a list of over 130 eligible titles in the Fantasy & Science Fiction category, so far (nominations open until the 15th). Eek! You know what would be great? A cabiny getaway somewhere either snowy or beachy, for the sole purpose of reading through this list. Yum.

Okay, now to the agreeing to disagree topic. Thanks for all the supportive comments. And thanks too to the Republicans who voiced their opinions. I know it's not an easy thing to do in a forum where you feel like you're in the minority. However, I'm turning off comments to this post, and here's why: if I don't, I'll be checking for comments all day, wondering what people will say. I posted this briefly last night, then after about an hour decided to take it down until I had reread and considered it some more. This morning I wasn't sure if I would post it. But here's why I am: because in that hour or so that it was up, a blogger read it and emailed me this morning, and I didn't even read her email yet, because seeing it filled me with dread. Not because it will be uncivil; it won't. She and I maintain a civil discourse across a great divide, and I respect her for that. But I got that feeling of dread (really, I felt it physically, in my stomach) because I was afraid of finding the judgemental religious attitude that I, as a non-religious person, see as un-Christian. The inhumanity, the "let-them-eat-cake" attitude toward the poor. And, I'm guessing, the punitive attitude toward women and girls who find themselves pregnant.

When I was a teenager, I had very little empathy. I had been lucky my whole life -- not wealthy but comfortable. No one in my family had been sick or injured. We had enough to eat, new clothes when we needed them. I had two loving parents, my own bedroom, and we even got to travel. I read Ayn Rand in high school and thought, "Yeah, some people are just worth more than other people." I, of course, was one of the "some." And in that time, I thought women should be responsible for the choice they make to be sexually active and have to live with the consequences. And because I have grown, I can now look back and admit that I thought it with an air of moral superiority. It was never a religious matter for me. I just wanted everyone to be strong and responsible. I still think that would be nice. But what if being strong and responsible was, for me, a matter of luck, of being born into a loving, supportive family, and having access to education? Having been lucky, I can only take partial credit for who I am as a person. Someone who is unlucky and rises above circumstances, they can take full credit for themselves. I have a more nuanced world view now than the Ayn Rand-influenced elitism of my youth, and I can see that there are people who are neither lucky nor strong enough to rise above overwhelming circumstances. And there are people who are strong and responsible who still make mistakes, or don't make any mistake and yet find themselves in a tough situation. Can we strive to see the complexity of the human experience and try to help people rather than punish them?

So I write about this topic from the place of someone who has been in those judgmental shoes and know how it feels to stand there. And I know that it is possible for people to grow empathy, because I did. My world view now is not at all what it was when I was 18. And I want to post this because it's about a mind being changed where one wouldn't expect it: out of the evangelical church. I think it's important. It pains me a little to turn off comments, because like all bloggers, I crave me some comments, but I just think it's best for today if I'm going to get any work done. And, selfishly, I don't want to feel any more of that dread I felt when seeing I'd gotten an email response to the topic.

This, I concede, is a true "agree to disagree" issue, the wedgiest of all wedge issues: choice. Though I support choice, I would never try to convince someone who is anti-choice to change their mind. I honestly see where they are coming from, believing in protecting the sanctity of life as they see it. I get it. I don't disagree that abortion is ugly and that we should be working as a society to make it as rare as possible. Where pro-choice people disagree with the anti-choice movement is that we want to work toward making abortion rare by providing education, birth control, and reproductive rights and services to all men and women. We want to clear the miasma of shame away from sex, and allow girls and women to make sexual choices (for and against) from a position of power, self-respect, and information. And when mistakes are made and accidents and crimes occur, we want girls and women to be able to choose how to deal with those mistakes and accidents and crimes in the way that they deem best for themselves. We think people should have sovereignty over their own bodies, not be held hostage to another person's ideology.

Okay. Here are some things I've long thought, but never expected to find expressed articulately by a former high-profile evangelical Christian:

"And I’d say something else about the choice issue. I am pro-life. I haven’t changed in that regard. If people read my book, Crazy for God, they’ll see that I’ve gone left, if you want to put it that way, in many, many areas, but not that one. But I actually believe that if your interest is not ideology and ideological purity, but rather abortion itself, i.e. you want more or less abortions, that the medical and social programs that Barack Obama is talking about for our country, in terms of care of women and children and families, improvement in education and possibilities for all Americans, actually will result in less abortions. So my interest in the abortion issue is that I think abortion is a tragedy. My interest is not the politics of it, as in always appearing to vote for the person who has the correct ideology.

And so, I think there’s a choice for Americans interested in this issue who are like me, pro-life, and that is, do you want to choose ideological purity attached to a party that will so destroy our economy and all the social programs that there will be more abortions, i.e. as there have been through the Republican-controlled years, when they’ve been talking about this issue for thirty years and done nothing about it for actually helping women and children, or would you rather have a president like Barack Obama, who you disagree with on this one ideological point, in terms of what you might call the theology of the issue, but whose program would practically result in a more conducive environment for families to prosper, for people to have children, for kids to go to school, for women to be taken care of? And I would rather vote for a person who’s going to do the job rather than just have the correct ideology."

That's Frank Schaeffer, lifelong Republican, son of the late evangelist Francis Schaeffer, and erstwhile McCain supporter -- I don't know enough about him to know what other issues I'd agree or disagree on, but the above is excerpted from an interview from Democracy Now! and I strongly recommend reading the whole thing. It's powerful stuff. But his argument about choice, well, it's completely what I think. You can be against abortion and still vote Democrat, unless your ideological identification is what's really important to you, and not the actual lives of people. If you actually want to see a decrease in unwanted pregnancy, you vote Democrat, because it's Democrats who want to educate and equip people to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Going hand-in-hand with that is -- bonus -- providing reproductive care for all women, including pre-natal care. And hey, while you're at it, health care for children!

From Schaeffer in another article:
I am an Obama supporter. I am also pro-life. In fact, without my family's involvement in the pro-life movement it would not exist as we know it. Evangelicals weren't politicized until after my late father and evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer, Dr. Koop (Reagan's soon-to-be Surgeon General) and I stirred them up over the issue of abortion in the mid-1970s. Our Whatever Happened to the Human Race? book, movie series and seminars brought the evangelicals into the pro-life movement.

Fast forward...

In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil company's interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a pro-life Republican Congress that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers.

The so-called evangelical leadership -- Dobson, Robertson et al. also played the pro-life community for suckers. While thousands of men and women in the crisis pregnancy movement gave of themselves to help women and babies, their evangelical "leaders" did little more than cash in on fundraising opportunities and represent themselves as power-brokers to the craven politicians willing to kowtow to them.

Fast forward...

Today when I listen to Obama speak (and to his remarkable wife, Michelle) what I hear is a world view that actually nurtures life. Obama is trying to lead this country to a place where the intrinsic worth of each individual is celebrated. A leader who believes in hope, the future, trying to save our planet and providing a just and good life for everyone is someone who is actually pro-life.

Amazing.

At the root of this issue, we want the same thing: an end to unwanted pregnancy. (That is what we all want, right? I think that the Right gets so blinded by ideology on the issue that they maybe forget that that is the goal. They just want to stop the practice of abortion, and not address the real problems that lead to abortion.) Democrats are addressing the issue in a pragmatic way, working for real results, while Republicans are facing it in an ideological way -- choosing to judge and shame and punish women rather than actually address the reality of sex and pregnancy. They fight for abstinence-only education despite all evidence that it is ineffective; they even flaunt a poster-family for its ineffectiveness during this election. WE want real education and available birth control because these things DO work. Abortion is ugly. Nobody is on abortion's side. We're on the side of women. Helping them. Not punishing them, not shaming them. What's more important: feeling righteous, or working for positive change?

While phone-banking, I've had people tell me this is the only issue they vote on. I also had a long and thoughtful discussion last week with an anti-choice person who was at the point of seeing that there are so many issues in this election that will affect our nation is such massive ways, that to vote just on this one issue is. . . well, it's sort of anti-American. It's choosing your ideology over your country. It's choosing the warmonger over the war-ender, it's choosing God over America. And a lot of religious people make no bones about the fact that they choose God over America. If Barack Obama made that assertion (which he has not), wouldn't the Right be flinging that all over the place, foaming at the mouth? Hello, the whole Reverend Wright thing? But when Christian Fundamentalists choose God over country, it's okay? What gives? (In the first article linked above, Schaeffer says he believes the fundamentalists have effectively already seceded from the U.S., that they are working toward a different future -- Armageddon -- than those of us who want to build the best possible America; that fundamentalism is, at its core, anti-America. I'll go further to say it's anti-Earth.)

Another fascinating thing and link. This is from an article by Dr. Robert Burton, former chief of neurology at Mt. Zion-UCSF, and it's about "being certain." He actually wrote a book called On Being Certain which I have not read. What he points out here that I find so interesting is:

"Feelings of absolute certainty and utter conviction are not rational deliberate conclusions; they are involuntary mental sensations generated by the brain. Like other powerful mental states such as love, anger and fear, they are extraordinarily difficult to dislodge through rational arguments. Just as it’s nearly impossible to reason with someone who’s enraged and combative, refuting or diminishing one’s sense of certainty is extraordinarily difficult. Certainty is neither created by nor dispelled by reason."

Holy cow! He goes on to say how studies have shown that when people are questioned about their staunch political beliefs under MRI, it is not the prefrontal cortex of the brain (the reasoning faculty) that "lights up," but the limbic system -- the center for emotional processing! According to the study, "both Republicans and Democrats reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted.” Again I say: Holy cow! Beware of certainty, even in (especially in) yourself. Do you really believe what you think you believe? Or do you just assume you do? If you think deeply about it, does it hold up? People get very defensive when they find they can't explain or justify their beliefs, but I wish more people would ask themselves, in privacy, and be more rigorous with their thought. And hey, do research. Try to reach a reasoned conclusion. This is what's so cool about being human -- we can Google! (snort!)

Read the article if you have the time; he says a lot more about the dangers posed by extremely "certain" people. You know, the kind who "will not blink," who are "resolute" and are not moved to change their minds when presented with facts? Yoiks. Verrrrry interestingly, he discusses a study that concludes that "incompetent people tend to overestimate their own skill level; fail to recognize genuine skill in others; and fail to recognize the extremity of their own inadequacy." Sound like any president we know??

I [heart] smart people.

Agree to Disagree?

As this photo indicates (alas, that's just a cardboard cut-out, and not the real Obama), I have made no secret of my political sympathies. It honestly never felt like I made a "decision" to be open about my politics here. Being a liberal is a gigantic part of who I am -- there's no way I could have a personal blog and leave that out. In writing about specifics here lately, I knew I ran the risk of alienating some readers who are not liberal, and of course of just boring other readers who are not interested in politics. But I never for a second considered abstaining from giving my opinion. And I never, never, never "agreed to disagree."

In a recent comment, a reader informed me she is going to stop reading my blog because I express my views in a way that is distasteful to her. (And please do not contact this blogger with any negative comments; please.) She also said, "Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?" So I want to be clear: I never agreed to that! I reserve my right to disagree! I believe that the conservative policies of the Republican party are destroying the country that I love, and I am not okay with it, and I won't shut up about it. I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. I don't capture people and talk at them. Even when I phone-bank, I don't try to talk Republicans out of their beliefs.

This reader has every right to stop reading me. If a blog I visited came out as Republican, I might stop reading it too. What I wouldn't do is leave a comment that in any way questions their right to post their opinion in their own personal forum. I'm sure this is not the only reader I've lost; she's just the first one to tell me. And of course I'm sorry to lose any reader, but this election is so important to me, and it's so much of what I think about and talk about in my "real life" that to pretend like it's not going on would just be weird.

So, what's up with this "agreeing to disagree" thing? I think it's basically just a fear of conflict, an unwillingness to engage in debate. In my experience, the people who want to "agree to disagree" are often the people who can't back up their position with facts or solid arguments. And, frustrating as it is, that is their right. Just as it is my right to assert my opinions. Especially here in my own little space. When it comes to religion, I can agree to disagree -- as long as the "other side" is not trying to force their beliefs on me or anyone else or make them into law. But when it comes to the erosion of civil liberties, the mauling of the Constitution, the overturning of environmental protection laws, the unlawful invasion of other countries, and so many other things. . . I assert that I DISAGREE. I do not think all opinions have equal merit. The handful of climate scientists in the world who deny global warming do not balance out the thousands who say it is fact. And so it is with other issues. Just because there are two sides to an argument, doesn't mean they are equally valid.

I am a Democrat, I am a liberal. I believe the path the Republicans are leading us down is not only wrong but potentially calamitous. It's a weird thing, having an invisible readership in a place like a blog. I don't want to insult readers. Despite what this blogger says in her comment, I think I've been pretty careful only to criticize a) party leadership, and b) the really hateful supporters, like the crowds at recent rallies, and the people I myself have spoken to while phone-banking who have been powerfully negative and racist. Any other Republicans who find themselves here, I may not agree with your politics, but it has not been my intention to be personally insulting. To be perfectly honest, I DO feel disdain for people who believe Obama is a terrorist. And I feel contempt for senators who vote against health benefits for children, and for small-town mayors who make women pay for their own rape kits, and for presidents who lie us into wars. But I don't feel contempt for the ordinary people who are civil to me on the phone, whatever their party, and I don't feel disdain for ordinary Americans exercising their rights in a respectful way, no matter who they vote for. Nor do I "agree to disagree."

So that's what I have to say about that. Moving on. In other "news," look at the cute bracelet I bought yesterday at the beach:
Jim's mom has been in town, and yesterday we went out to our favorite stretch of the coast, from Manzanita down to Tillamook, and it was a gorgeous day, blue sky, not much wind. lovely lovely. Smooch:
See that aqua jacket? Jim found it for me at a thrift store the other day; doesn't it set off my hair perfectly? He's such a good shopper. He even found some stray pieces of Lemon Federalist stoneware at the antique store in Wheeler yesterday:
Lemon Federalist are our "everyday" dishes -- we got our set at another antique store, maybe five years ago, and we're missing some pieces, like the teapot. But thanks to Jim's black belt in shopping, not anymore!

And of course, no trip to the coast is complete without a stop at the Tillamook Creamery for full-fat icecream!
It may be full-fat, but at least the portions are really dainty:
As if that wasn't bad enough, today we stopped at Cupcake Jones. Ohhh. I need to get back to the gym! My schedule has been so disrupted lately. Woe is me. . .

Them

Who are they, these people who are voting for John McCain, who are cheering wildly for Sarah Palin, and who are even hollering out "Kill him!" about Obama at Palin rallies (to which she says nothing). Who are the people that believe Barack Obama is a terrorist, because of his name? Here are some of them in this scary video:
I have heard a lot of first-hand stories recently about educated people who believe Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist (yes, even a lot of educated people believe that is the same thing).

How is it possible not to develop an "us/them" mentality in the face of this willful, hateful ignorance?

some video distraction + more thoughts from the phone banks

Goodness. I just swiped this video off Janette Rallison's blog. It's produced by Dove and it shows the makeup and then Photoshop alterations that go into getting one billboard ad:
I guess it's from their "campaign for real beauty," a part of which stresses self-esteem education for girls. Sounds good and all, but I can't shake the feeling that it's still just an advertising gimmick. In any case, the video is interesting. I've been known to Photoshop myself a bit. I'll have to try that neck thing. Snort!

Here's another one, called "Onslaught" showing what girls are bombared with daily:
Interestingly (and in Dutch, so I can't read it) here is one produced by Greenpeace that seems to be saying that Dove products are responsible for deforestation. Well, I guess nobody's perfect, eh Dove? It's a bit unsettling, and mimics the style of the last ad exactly, including the music:

Anyway. Those distracted me for a few minutes this morning, so I thought I'd spread the distraction.

Phone-banking was much better last night that last time! I got plenty of hang-ups and "not interesteds" of course, but nothing nasty. Whew. And I did get a lot of undecided voters who were willing to chat. Yay! It makes me happy when someone is willing to engage, when they care. I don't understand the not caring, but there are still a lot of people who don't believe that "politics" affects their own lives. It does! It does!! Some years ago I read a book by the late, great Molly Ivins that went into showing how even the most minor of Bush policy decisions was affecting Americans in life-and-death ways. One that stands out in my memory is cutting funding to LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) that subsidizes heating bills in cold climates. When Bush cut that funding -- and nobody heard about it at the time because it was overshadowed by 9/11 stuff, the best camouflage the administration could ever have hoped for -- seniors literally froze to death in their apartments. Here in America. Politics is a big part of our lives -- but an era of prosperity had lulled so many Americans into thinking nothing bad could happen to them here, and into believing their government would never mistreat them. So they stopped paying attention, and the Bush administration has gotten away with murder.

Anyway, thankfully, no racial slurs or horrible comments last night. The phone bank was full, the energy was good, and many people spared a few moments to talk about their concerns -- most of which arise from the Republican candidate's nasty attack ads, which are all lies. And get ready for more of that from McCain, everybody. A month of seriously ugly Republican politics is getting underway. A McCain campaign chair in Virginia yesterday appealed to the lowest element of voters in a newspaper column in which he claimed Obama's platform includes tax-breaks to NAMBLA members (that's a pedophilic organization, if you don't know), and raising taxes for "free drugs for Obama's inner-city base." Yeah, you heard that right. The McCain campaign is now claiming Obama gives tax breaks to pedophiles and wants free drugs for his "base," who of course must all be drug addicts because they're, you know. . . black. Anyone still planning to vote for McCain, I hope you will seriously consider the character of the man you want in the White House.

We have a chance for a new era in America, a choice between: a bright, hopeful, articulate man who knows the Constitution inside and out and will fight for the middle class and work hard to bring home our troops and restore America's world standing. OR a crusty, nasty old codger flinging the vilest sorts of lies around, appealing to racism in voters, muttering "Horseshit" under his breath in the debates, and probably still singing "Bomb Iran" and chuckling about it.

That's all from me for today, with this aside to Oregonians: Merkley/Smith debate Thursday at 7 pm on NBC. Cheers!