Journalists Home

I missed my bus today.

Every morning as I get ready, I have the news on the television. I like to hear about the weather and I think the audible sounds help stimulate my bunny Blackberry. Of course, I have no proof that the noise is good for him, but I like to think I am doing my part to avoid bunny-brain atrophy.

Anyway, like I said, I like to hear the weather and other local news, so I usually watch the NBC or CBS affiliate. Today however, the most compelling stories were on ABC's Good Morning America. So compelling that I sat down to watch the news and finally left my apartment just in time to see my bus roar down the street as I waited on my floor for the elevator to arrive.

What was so compelling? GMC showed footage of the two young journalists who were imprisoned in North Korea coming off the plane and into the arms of their loving and relieved families.

Euna Lee and Laura Ling (younger sister of journalist and former "The View" co-host Lisa Ling) were safely back in the United States after 140 days of imprisonment. Tears ran down my cheeks as Euna hugged her 4-year-old daughter and husband. Wouldn't you know it, I had already put on my make-up, so I was trying to dab my eyes so I wouldn't get streaks down my face, but Bare Minerals (which I just recently began using) is actually quite forgiving and I just left my face the way it was.

Anyway, I digress. I do not know if it is because they are Asian or women or Asian women, but this story makes me choke up every time I hear or read about it. Maybe it is because I keep thinking about a little girl not knowing what was going on, but just that her mommy was not there. Maybe it is because North Korea's Kim Jong Il is so darn unpredictable and seemingly kind of crazy.

Ling did not focus on how scared they must have been. She did briefly mention worrying about being placed in a hard labor camp. I would think there were darker things I would have been afraid of imprisoned by myself (they kept both women separated). She said they were called into a "meeting" and were led into a conference room. I can imagine being so afraid of the unknown. After nearly 5 months, where are they taking me? What fate awaits? And then as the door opens, seeing President Clinton. I think I would have lost it. I probably would have collapsed in tears of relief and pent-up anxiety. Ling said as soon as they saw the former President, "We were shocked but we knew instantly in our hearts that the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end, and now we stand here, home and free."

President Clinton was the diplomatic envoy that got the two women out of North Korea. He looked good. Distinguished, proud, but suitably humble and very Statesman-esque as he followed the women off the plane and embraced his former Vice-President Al Gore and shook the hands of the family and well-wishers.

Of course now the media is buzzing about potential repercussions. Everyone has been very careful to separate this "humanitarian" mission from any sort of official diplomatic message or position from the current White House. Relations with North Korea are tenuous. Clinton went to Pyongyang at the behest of Kim Jong Il. Mix into that morass the three American hikers who were arrested in Iran, possibly for spying. How does Clinton's humanitarian trip influence Iran's perspective of America in these types of situations?

And of course, the other big story this morning was about George Sodini of Bridgeville, PA who shot up a gym leaving 3 dead, 15 wounded before committing suicide. Apparently he had written about his loneliness and killing plans in his on-line journal. I wonder if anyone had been reading it, and if so, did they think he was just blowing off steam? It is difficult to determine sometimes what is just "venting" and what may be a real cry for help. Ah...but that is fodder for another post.

There is so much to be concerned about...but for now I am going to be happy for Euna and Laura. That they are home, safe with their families. God bless.

Almost

Barak Obama is the President-Elect of the United States.

Wow.

Honestly though, it is not quite as great as, “Hillary Rodham Clinton is the President-Elect of the United States!” However, it is almost as great.

Listening to Obama’s galvanizing, gracious, and pragmatic acceptance speech, I can almost dismiss the ever-so-faint whiff of regret that America is not celebrating the election of its first female President. Almost. It remains, just a shadow of an aftertaste, but it remains. What if a woman had been elected President of the United States?

We came close…closer than we have ever come before and perhaps that is good enough…for now. Another rung placed on the top of the ladder…one step further. But it hurts, still, to have come so close; and yet that proverbial glass ceiling, for all its cracks, remains relatively intact. It functions as it always did: as a barrier.

Many people of color are thrilled with Obama’s win. They feel they can “really” tell their kids that in America, you can be anything you want to be. I am a person of color. I, too, feel a sense of pride and the hope that comes with newly open doors. But, then I think of the little girls. Will their eyes shine as bright? Will they inhale that confidence, the same way as little boys…so it becomes their truth? So intrinsic that it becomes part of their very being? Or will there be that tell-tale whiff (or did I just imagine it?) that intimates, “But maybe not you. You’re a girl.”

Why must I work harder, better and faster than my male counterparts to get to the same level they inhabit? Will it be all the sweeter to reach that level? To surpass it?

I realize these are not new questions. All minority groups have gone through and continue to go through this morass of questions. Women, people of color, people of a different religion, political party, of different abilities, that speak different languages, of different sexual orientation, people that hold on to a different value system than the majority of their neighbors.

Does the opening for one of us mean an opening for all? I wish…I yearn that this is true. That we can build on one another’s successes. The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gave black men the right to vote. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. But then I see Proposition 8 passed in California, thus making it illegal for people of the same sex to be married. And I wonder, “Are we almost equal? One step forward, two steps back?” And it hurts my heart.

So this election victory of Barak Obama’s and the agents of change who envision a better world and have reached out to grab it with both hands…your victory…our victory…it is bittersweet to me.

And part of me wonders why I cannot enjoy the fruits of this victory? It means a great deal regarding how we see ourselves, how we identify ourselves as a nation. Why dwell on the negative? The “almost” of it all? Will there always be this sense of emptiness? This feeling that no matter how much is accomplished, that it is never enough? That does not sound healthy.

Then the other part of me argues that it is this part – the one that remains unsatisfied, that strives for more and for better, that will keep our nation and its people on the right track, moving forward. Progressing. So perhaps what is perceived as “negative” is not really negative at all. It is the refusal to rest, because we know we can do better. We can achieve more. It is the part that will ultimately crack that ceiling, made of glass but dense as concrete, into a million shards. And the daughters of the generations who follow will live as if it had never existed. But each will have her own shard, an heirloom reminder of what their grandmothers and great-grandmothers fought, sacrificed, and lived for.

Congratulations, Barak Obama. Congratulations, America.

We’re almost there.

Almost.

Palin Pain

Am I the only one who is worried about Sarah Palin? On the campaign trail, she has been attacking the Presidential candidate from the other party (which apparently is the job of the V.P. candidate), trying to tie him to terrorists and asking, “Who is this guy who does not think like us? Who does not share our values?”

Huh?

That “guy” has been on the campaign trail for almost two years now. That “guy” has gone through a highly competitive primary election process to win the nomination of his party. He has been screened and vetted and has weathered scandal (i.e., Reverend Wright among others). He has written two books and numerous books have been written about him.

I’ve got a better question the American people should be asking. Who the heck is Sarah Palin?

Is she a hockey mom who happened to have the grit, charisma and intelligence to hold the highest office in the State of Alaska as she appeared to be at the Republican Convention? Or is she the fumbling, seemingly clueless and in-over-her-head neophyte as she appeared in her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric? Or perhaps she is a one-issue (energy) Republican automaton spouting canned answers to unrelated questions and a bit snarky when feeling defensive, as she appeared in the V.P. debate with Joe Biden.

Will the real Sarah Palin please stand up? Please stand up! (My humble apologies to Eminiem). A bit ironic as McCain is currently getting flak for not securing permission by the Foo Fighters and other artists to use their songs in his campaign.

And if permitted, a follow-up question. Why is it that when transparency through media access is being courted by everyone else involved in this election, Ms. Palin has been tucked away? Her media and public appearances carefully vetted? Inaccessible when everyone else is begging for media attention? (At this point, I picture The Rock with his signature well-groomed eyebrow raised in askance.)

Then there is the conclusion of the recent investigation by the Alaskan bi-partisan commission that began before McCain announced Palin as his V.P. pick. They determined Palin violated an Alaska’s ethics law by abusing her Executive power by firing a State official for personal (familial) reasons, although there were no recommendations for sanctions or criminal prosecution. There are also the stories coming out of Alaska about how Palin’s modus operandi when stepping into a new position seems to be getting rid of those she perceives (accurately or not) as threats and hiring people loyal and grateful to her, although they may not have been as qualified.

I am also concerned about her naked ambition. I think her nickname is “Sarah Barracuda” for a good reason (as I am SweetlyDemure for a good reason). It was pointed out to me that all politicians are ambitious. But, I hope most people go into politics because they want to make a difference, to make changes to improve the lives of their constituents; and their aspiration for higher office is to be in a better position to affect those changes. This may seem naïve, but I am hoping they at least start out this way.

Here’s something I wrote in a “comment” section about Palin after watching the V.P. debate:

It was sooooo irritating and frustrating watching that VP debate! Palin could have been in a room talking to herself and it would have looked exactly the same. They could have just spliced Biden and Ifill in later. Ugh. Let’s talk about economics and the candidates’ plan in this time of crisis…then we get Palin’s canned lecture on energy. Whaaat? It was literally painful.
And the response of the American people? A higher percentage of them think she’s ready to lead. Huh? Were they listening to the same debate? I think people heard her tone of voice, a few folksy platitudes and her canned, rehearsed rhetoric and did not realize that she was not answering the questions put to her.
The worry for the Dems was that Biden would come across too bulldog-ish and if anything, he was too soft. He should have put a little more pressure on her, it might have rattled her a bit. In fact, Palin came across as confrontational and kind of snarky when she made the “white flag” comment in response to Biden’s call for a timetable to get the troops out of Iraq. (One of the few times she actually responded to something!) And also when she corrected Biden on the mantra “Drill Baby, Drill” or whatever. Hello, she couldn’t even get the name of the General leading our troops in Afghanistan correct and Biden didn’t rub her face in it…he didn’t even mention it. I think she called him “McClennan” when it’s “McKiernan.” Bleh. And after some fact checking, he (McKiernan) did say that the surge tactics used in Iraq would not work in Afghanistan (like Biden pointed out and Palin contradicted).
Another telling moment occurred when the candidates answered the question about the (Constitutional) role of the V.P. I seriously wonder (I’m not being facetious) if Sarah Palin has read the Constitution in its entirety. Cheney’s attempt to “expand” the VP position to the Legislative Branch and still maintain Executive Branch privileges is ridiculous and clearly contrary to the whole idea of separation/balance of powers. Ugh. (For those who didn’t see the debate, Palin was for Cheney’s unconstitutional and self-aggrandizing illogic and Biden answered quite correctly that the VP role in the Senate is clearly drawn in the Constitution and that the role of VP is firmly situated in the Executive Branch).
A final thing worth noting was Palin’s answer to Katie Couric about what VP she admires the most. She said George HW Bush because he learned as VP and “moved on up” (or something like that). No matter what happens in this election, she’s in it for 2012, I’m sure. That woman is ambitious. Ambitious and inexperienced and (perhaps?) too ignorant to know she doesn’t know enough. Either that or her ambition far outweighs any concern about that. No matter which way it is, it’s scary for us, the American people. (FYI, Biden’s answer was Lyndon Johnson).

Sarah Palin concerns me. I think Matt Damon likened her nomination as a Disney movie gone absurdly bad. Let’s keep the movies in Hollywood (and Alaska) where they belong and out of Washington, D.C. There is enough absurdity going on there already.

The New Yorker Cover Controversy

The cover of The New Yorker is causing quite a controversy. The cover shows a characature of Barak Obama in muslim dress and Michelle Obama looking like a member of the Black Panthers holding a machine gun. They are giving each other a fist bump. In the fireplace, the American flag is burning and above the fireplace is a portrait of Osama bin Laden. The title of this piece: "The Politics of Fear."

Now, I believe I understand where The New Yorker editorial board was coming from. They saw it as biting political humor. Satire. Poking fun at our absurdities. And they are correct.

How absurd to think that the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States is a terrorist and hates America. How ridiculous to believe this Baptist church-going man is Muslim. How silly to think he was raised in a terrorist camp and/or is a terrorist sympathizer when he went to Punahou School in Hawaii.

How have the American people become so fearful? I thank the government for instigating it and the media gets the assist for perpetuating it. Make the people so afraid that they will not ask questions, demand reasons or think critically about the unsubtle erosion of their civil liberties. In attempting to protect the very ideals we cherish, we have allowed ourselves to be stripped of those same rights. After all, if we think, question or demand accountability from our government, WE WILL DIE!

The policies approved by our Legislature in the mis-named Patriot Act, the Administrative dictates from the Executive Branch and the capitulation by the Courts have all been a disservice to us, the American people. The people who are supposed to love freedom and liberty. As Tony Benn says, it is much easier to control a frightened, uneducated populace than a healthy, vibrant, knowledgable one (or something like that).

The news media is supposed to ask the tough questions and ferret out truths, rather feed their own capitalist hunger and flash provocative (and misleading) headlines, play overly dramatic music and basically scare us into listening to them. If we don't, WE WILL DIE! The New Yourker was poking fun at them...and at us...through publishing this cover. How easily the American public allows itself to be manipulated by a frowning leader and a few minor chords accompanying a scary headline.

The fist bump in the picture is obviously a reference to the "terrorist fist bump" controversy a few months ago. Some political pundit mused aloud if the fist bump referred to a terrorist message. Probably the same person who thought t.v. chef and talk show host Rachael Ray was giving a message to her terrorist peeps by wearing a printed scarf. Don't these people know that if they have these thoughts they should keep it to themselves? I believe it was Mark Twain said something like: it's one thing for people to think you're a fool, it's another to open your mouth and remove all uncertainty. But these people get paid to start these idiotic rumors. Bleh. Worse yet they're on "news" stations. Double bleh.

For these legitimate and thoughtful reasons, I believe The New Yorker ran its cover. To point out our absurdities when there is any mention of the Middle East. To highlight our knee-jerk reactions to the words "muslim" or "terrorism." The New Yorker probably sees it as their job, maybe even their mission to point this out to us.

But even though I understand all this, I still find the cover in poor taste. Perhaps satire needs to be biting and shocking, but my initial reaction when I saw the cover: Too soon. Too close. In proximity, emotionally and in time. Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for President. A part of our populace truly believe he is muslim or is tied to terrorists. No one makes 9-11 jokes in New York City. Because it is too soon.

In order for it to be witty and funny there needs to be some distance. We don't have that distance yet. But perhaps this cover has helped create some of that space. If that is the case, then perhaps it was the right call after all.

Dazed and Confused

I do not understand why Barak Obama has refused public campaign funds. Here are my issues:

1. Earlier in his campaign, Obama promised, if he became the Democratic nominee, he would use public funds and would encourage/challenge his Republican counterpart to follow suit. Now Obama is going back on this promise. Why?

The two main reasons I can think of are both unflattering.

One reason might be that he did not realize how "broken" the system was when he made the original promise. If this is the reason, it makes him look like a political neophyte. Inexperienced. A babe wandering in the woods versus a savvier more knowledgable opponent who knows the landscape. This reason also opens the door to all the questions about Obama's inexperience. Yes, Chicago local politics is not like Honolulu local politics, but c'mon...it's not like being seasoned on the national and international stage. Obama has not served a full term as a U.S. Senator, and most of that term has been spent campaigning.

The second reason may be that Obama did not realize how much more money he can raise if he refused to take the public funding and once he saw that fundraising power, he opted for what he felt would give him the edge over McCain (co-papa of some of the most significant campaign finance reform legislation of our time, even though much did not pass). If this is the reason, Obama looks opportunistic and willing to compromise his "beliefs."

2. I have listened to Obama's reasoning regarding this issue. If I understand him correctly, he is not taking public funding because it is a "broken" system. Well, this raises more questions for me than answers. Does taking private funding eliminate the corruption? Not necessarily. Big business, conglomerations and the like can contribute heavily to Obama's campaign. Will Obama feel less indebted to them because they gave him money directly rather than through the Democratice Party (aka soft monies and slush funds)? I do not think so. Does Obama think so?

And frankly, the only way he could probably get around that is to promise not to accept more than a politically "nominal" amount from any contributor like Ralph Nader or Jerry Brown have in past elections. I have not heard Obama say anything like that.

Furthermore, is Obama saying that public financing of elections is so irrevocably broken that he cannot function at all within its tenents? How does refusing public monies (and its subsequent restrictions) serve to fix or heal the "broken" system? Public campaign financing was supposed to be the great equalizer. Even the playing field. Why not agree to use only public air time? No "purchasing" tv time for political ads. Obama could have called for that and asked McCain to join him. It would have put McCain in a tough spot, because he has served as the champion for reform in this area. Why not do that? You see what I mean about more questions than answers.

I am confused. Someone who understands, please explain it to me, because I do not get it.

"Sicko" Inspiration

I saw Michael Moore’s film “Sicko” this past weekend. This film spotlights the state of health care in America with special emphasis on the effect of insurance companies. How many of you love your HMO?

Now, I know Michael Moore has his critics. Notice I said I saw his “film” and not his “documentary.” While Sicko has documentary elements, as a whole I saw it as more of a personal call to arms rather than a Frontline production. Critics say Moore cherry-picked many of the statistics he used. I believe it. They say Moore’s own point of view influences his filmmaking. That’s true. They say his self-aggrandizement gets in the way of the facts. That might be a bit of an overstatement, but there is some legitimacy to that, too.

All the criticism however, does not mean this film is not powerful, heartfelt and sincere. I was not surprised that this film moved me. Frankly, I would have been surprised if it had not. Tragic stories of death and struggle. Of pain and helplessness. Of overcoming all the hurt and loss. Stories of heroic fights against insurance companies and bureaucracies that ended in the death of a loved one. The tears, frustration, anger and resilience of their families. I expected to be moved by all of that. And I was.

What I did not expect was to be inspired. To have my inner self and my core values lit by the burning flame of belief in untainted democracy, the connectedness of humanity and the passion for righteousness.

Moore interviewed some really interesting people. I have a new hero. His name is Tony Benn. He has been involved in British politics for decades and he rocks my socks. The content and meaning alone of what he says is powerful, but when accompanied by his passionate, sincere delivery…well…it just takes his ideas and ideals to a whole other level.

Benn talks about how good leaders are recognized by the people, as in, “Wow, look at the good things this leader has accomplished!” He said great leaders are not recognized by the people, instead the people say, “Wow, look what WE have accomplished!” He goes on to talk about how it is easy to govern a frightened, cynical, demoralized populace and much more difficult to govern an educated, healthy and confident nation.

America has become a frightened, cynical and demoralized nation. We are afraid of terrorists, so we give up our civil liberties. We are afraid of losing our homes and health insurance, so we stay in jobs that leech the life out of us. We are cynical; there is a pervasive feeling that nothing can change our circumstances. No matter what we do or say, we will not make a difference. Just look at how many eligible voters actually vote in our country. Our fear, our cynicism serves to demoralize us.

But Benn has an alternate vision. He sees the power of true democracy. He sees how it equals us, how it connects us and how it behooves us to be a moral people…not in the “my God is better than your God” way; but a society working to protect the voiceless, the disenfranchised and the powerless is a moral issue.

Which segues nicely to another individual interviewed by Moore in Cuba – Che Guevara’s daughter, who is a doctor there. She spoke so eloquently and so genuinely about how each life is precious and worthy. That providing care and offering dignity for each individual is a purpose worth fighting for and worth personal sacrifice.

I am not doing these people justice with my questionable memory and inelegance. And I know this comes across as socialist. But why is that a dirty word in America? The movie points to other areas where we readily accept these “socialist” ideals: police, fire departments, libraries, parks, public school.

When the people making decisions about what tests and treatments we can and cannot have, and what specialists we can and cannot see is a for-profit business subject to shareholders, there is an undeniable, colossal conflict of interest there. It seems rather obvious and straightforward to me.

When over 50% of families declaring bankruptcy do so as a result of injury or disease in there is something wrong. People should not lose their homes and what they spent a lifetime building because they got sick or were hurt in an accident.

Are we going to remain fearful and demoralized and sit here and do nothing, or will we become educated, strong and proactive? Will we storm the castle gates demanding health care for all our citizens? Our government is no longer scared of us…the people. They are scared of not getting contributions from big businesses and conglomerates. We need to once again become the people that cause decision-makers to shake in their little Brooks Brothers suits. We will no longer be manipulated and frightened so we stay quiet and hope no one notices us.

We need to get in touch with those buried revolutionary roots of ours. We need to remember that some ideals are worthy of the fight and sacrifice. We need to have confidence in the power of our voices. Methinks it is time for America to have another revolution.

Viva la revolution!

Democratic Nominee

Ambivalent. Yup, I think that is how I feel. Ambivalent.

Dictionary.com defines ambivalence as follows:
1. Uncertainty or fluctuation, esp. when caused by inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite or conflicting things.
2. Psychology. the coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.

Barak Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee and Hillary Clinton is out of the race. It's fairly accurate to say that I have positive and negative feelings about this.

I heard Hillary's concession speech and thought it was amazing. She hit all the right notes in throwing her support to Obama and in thanking her supporters by acknowledging the importance of what she (and they) was fighting for...and that it was not for naught. That their sacrifices and efforts on her behalf meant something. She was strong, gracious and nothing like the right wing's media pundits tried to portray her as: a shrieking, nagging wife. She was a viable candidate for President of the United States and they kept saying all American's would hear when she spoke was, "How many times have I asked you to take out the garbage." Bleh.

I know she was not the perfect candidate. She is institution. She is party machine. She began as the First Lady fighting the health insurance companies and ended up being the Senator who took contributions from those same insurance companies. She voted for the war in Iraq; and never publically acknowledged that was a mistake. But she is also savvy, has a vision and seems to genuinely want to provide all Americans with the same benefits and advantages she has had in her lifetime. The same can be said of Barak, too. I also believe he is savvy, has a vision and is genuine in his beliefs.

But his inexperience keeps rearing its head and getting in my face. When one applies for a job, the interviewer uses past experiences and behavior as the best indicator of how the candidate may act in the future. It is all he or she has to go on, since we don't really have Deloreans with flux capacitors. I know Hillary Clinton can handle criticism and legislative wrath. I know she can handle herself with international leaders. I know she can work with both sides of the aisle ( at least to some extent). I do not know these things about Barak Obama. He may very well be able to do them, but then again, maybe not.

Obama's crew has shown it can win campaigns. Does this mean he can be the CEO of the United States of America? I wish campaigning had more to do with one's ability to execute the duties of President. Great campaigners can be lousy leaders and vice versa.

And so I am ambivalent.

Under Pressure

Former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona testified at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing to advocate that his former post be made more independent and less subject to political influence. Apparently (try to contain your shock here), the current Bush administration exerted a lot of political influence over what the Surgeon General('s office) could say or not say. To the point where the President had to be mentioned at least three times per page of any speech. Bleh.

Now, one of the great things about science is that there is a scientific community. Any results you get and any conclusions you form in the course of your work gets published and the whole community can poke and prod and validate or dismiss your claims. And because of all of this, there is a certain weight and deferential acceptance that comes with scientific findings for society at-large. It seems to have worked relatively well.

But now, how can we put our confidence in "scientific conclusions" if what we are told has been altered, omitted or just plain made up by political forces? Apparently this kind of influence has always been wafting around the Surgeon General's Office (Clinton fired Dr. Jocelyn Elders), but not to the degree that the Bush administration has taken it (see ma, we're number one in something!) Bleh.

Dr. Carmona said he was not allowed to say that comprehensive sex education was the most effective route, because the Executive Office was pushing abstinence-based education only. He also was not able to attend or speak at events for children with disabilities, because that was a cause for the other political party (i.e., Special Olympics is a Kennedy project).

Yet, the statement from the White House says that they are not allowing politics to influence science (hello, global warming) and that if Dr. Carmona did not feel he could express himself while in office, it is his own chicken-clucking fault. Okay, so they did not use the term "chicken-clucking," but you get the flavor of the statement. Bleh.

Seriously, what is up with this myopic vision by the White House. Are they so insular, so brainwashed by their own propoganda that they truly feel the Emperor is super fly in his fancy threads? How often, how loudly must we yell, "HE'S NAKED!" before someone hears and does something about it? Or should the rest of us just be glad that there is a term-limit on the office of President? Double bleh.

Patriotism (or lack thereof)

Yesterday was America's Independence Day. My country . . . by birth and by choice. Being third generation Asian-American (sansei), I grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance, singing all those military hymns (I actually had an LP of them) and living in a household that believed in the American Dream.

My father grew up on a sugar plantation on the Big Island. My mother was raised on a small farm on O'ahu. They were the generation that saw what happened when there were no labor unions securing workers' rights (and the struggle and sacrifice that ensued in trying to establish them). When having white skin meant getting a job with an influential firm that did not bother to interview people of color for management positions. When civic responsibility and giving back to your community was expected.

No wonder I turned out to be such a liberal socialist! I have no idea what happened to my sisters who are conservative Republicans and actually voted for GWB . . . twice! Bleh. After numerous mind-numbing, head-banging "conversations," it seems my hope must rest with the next generation, my nieces and nephews, to think for themselves and not succumb to their parents' ignora...uh...misguid...er...views. Yeah, okay, views.

I want to be proud of my country. I think in many ways, I am. I mean, every country has its faults, its skeletons, right? It's not like we committed genocide. Oh. Well, it's not like we enslaved another race. Oh yeah. Well at least America never put her own citizens in internment camps. Uh. Hmm, well at least we hold true to and protect our civil liberties. Geez. Vehemently oppose torture? Take the lead in safeguarding our environment? *Sigh* What was the original point of this paragraph again?

Seriously though, I feel part of the reason I am so critical is because I still believe. I have not given up hope. There is a part of me that wants to waylay the cynicism and revel in the proverbial cock-eyed optimist perspective. To believe this country can live up to its highest ideals. (Cue crescendo of patriotic music now.) (SweetlyDemure frantically tries to swat cynicism away.) In political science it was all about deconstructionalism. Perhaps it is time to start constructing. To create a new paradigm. Civil discussions. The respectful exchange of ideas. Hmm...guess I better start working on my nieces and nephews now...

Me Likes the View from My High Horse

A friend recently forwarded me an e-mail that is supposedly a quote from Jay Leno about a Newsweek poll saying 67% of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69% are unhappy with the performance of the President. Basically the e-mail asked the question, "What are we so unhappy about?" We have electricity, running water, shelter and over 95% have jobs. We can travel freely. We have access to hospitals and technology for entertainment as well as to improve our quality of life. We do not live with a constant barrage of bombs in fear for our lives.

Then Leno (allegedly) goes on to say that Bush guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11 (and then proceeded to alienate almost all other countries by wanting to play by his own rules and manipulate them the way he tries to manipulate the American people...aka if you are not for us, you are against us); and that he cut taxes to get the economy out of recession (hello, when Clinton left we had a surplus); and basically kept all us spoiled, ungrateful brats safe from terrorists (debatable at best). (Obviously parenthetical comments are my responsive tidbits).

I started typing a response to my friend, the sender of this e-mail, but then realized it was getting quite lengthy and the tone was, shall we say, a bit agitated. I knew she did not mean for me to get riled up about her e-mail, so I decided I would not respond to her directly and instead, my verbal vomit will appear here, where people do not need to continue reading this if they choose not to. Yes, I believe in choice!

This e-mail is such a great example of the problem I am having with this seemingly pervasive perspective by Americans. I love this country. I agree that we are spoiled. We (meaning me) are not as thankful as we (I) should be for all the wonderful things that come with being a citizen of the USA and being middle class (and geez, discussing class issues needs its own post). But some people are equating ungratefulness, disloyalty and lack of patriotism with the desire to question our leaders and the subsequent demand for accountability. That to voice dissent is equal to telling our military, "screw you." But isn't that what being American is all about? I contend that it is distinctly un-American (to use this awkward but ubiquitous term, after all have you heard of anyone being un-Irish or un-Pakistani?) to demand quiescent compliance and unquestioned admiration for leadership (political and otherwise) in order to prove you love America and are loyal to her. Criminy*, we'd still be an British colony if that were true.

We (as I am part of that 2/3+ that are unhappy with this President's actions) also know this is the President that assured us there were WMDs in Iraq and later we find out critical information was ignored and disregarded because it did not fit into his pre-existing plan to go after Hussein. He made Hussein the face of the terrorist attack (or at least Cheney did when he did the media circuit) which we now know belonged on Bin Laden and Al-Quida. All but one of the airplane hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian, but we did not invade Saudi Arabia. The Bush family have a long, lucrative history with the Royal family.

This is the man that authorized the illegal wiretapping of Americans, condones torture (under the guise of his Attorney General) and wants to take away most of our civil liberties (via the Patriot Act, Guantanimo and the like). I could go on and on regarding the Kyoto Protocol, the premature declaration of us having "won" the war in Iraq, etc. but I'll safe that for a future rant.

We do not live in a world of only black and white. It might make things easier if we did, but oversimplification has its deficiencies (as we have seen in the Bush administration). Yes, black and white exist here, but so do the many shades of gray. Some of us live in the gray. We're still part of the spectrum while acknowledging that black and white live there, too. Cheney lives in the gray...after all according to him, he's not part of the Executive Branch, right? Guess he didn't get the memo.

*I used the exclamation "criminy" because I thought it was a British exclamation (wouldn't that have been so clever given the context?), but I looked it up and it's actually derived from Italian, but I still like it, so I decided to leave it in.