Now what? A note to my co-Liberals.

We the people have elected our first black president. There is no way to convey my pride in our country right now. It wasn't that long ago that I was thinking "I love this guy but there's no way."

And BTW, I'm aware of the real concern that he won't live to be inaugurated, a concern I hear not only from African-Americans but from people generally my age and older who remember JFK, MLK, et al. Powerful leaders who want to change the balance of power risk their lives, and we need to remember to be grateful to Barack Obama and his family for their willingness to take this risk for the sake of all of us.

I also want to remember to be grateful to everyone who gave so much money and time to get Obama elected. We all "own a piece of this thing" and that's the other historic thing here. We elected not only a black man, but a man who ran his campaign in an historically different way, a man who worked within his party but also outside the party Machine. He found ways to reach us directly, to work around the Big Media filter. He convinced us he was worth supporting directly, worth our real involvement in the political process. He relied on us, not on the traditional sources of money and support. And he did this by fanning, not our fears but our hopes, however cheesy that sounds now. That's historically significant, too.

Now what?

I think it helps to ask what needs to be undone from the last eight years. It's easy to start listing specific wrongs that need to be righted, there's something more important.

The worst thing was the divisiveness, the utter lack of respect for people who think differently. We liberals tend to focus on all the insults levied at people who are educated, live in cities, are not Conservative Christian, are gay, etc., etc. And we want to blame the Right for this intolerance. We can talk about who is to blame for the divide, but we need to be careful not to do the same thing.

And it's not just about supporting congressional leaders who will "reach across the aisle."

I'm hearing liberals saying things like "I don't understand how anyone could support McCain/Palin." OK, fair enough. But we need to get that question answered. We need to find out. Listen. Listen. Listen. We need Obama to lead the healing, but it won't happen unless we do our part down here on the ground.

Our candidate won. We won. There are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, are really afraid of what comes next. We are faced with a choice. Do we just force our agenda and our worldview on the other nearly-half of the country? Or do we try to stitch this country back together into a place where difference is appreciated, where we all -- even those people, the conservative Christian, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-Guantanamo, etc. people who live in counties with no Starbucks -- are real Americans entitled to be treated with respect and to participate in the public discourse.

This happens -- or doesn't -- down here in our daily lives.

advisors to obama

the obama campaign is asking for participation in defining the issues. here's my quickly put-together list:

economy: we have a societal interest and obligation not to let the bottom drop out, i.e., we need to ensure that those who are most vulnerable have real choices. this includes those who have made bad choices (and gotten in trouble) in the past but are now wanting to work hard and build a decent life. jobs are not the answer in all cases -- we need a focus on entrepreneurship. many who will never climb a corp ladder can make a good living legally being self-employed, but this requires some training and support. our economy will be stronger when more people work for themselves and fewer work for walmart.

troops: we need leaders who will not waste the lives and service of our troops. we need to support them when they return by providing health care (including mental health care) for service-related problems. and other benefits -- we need to keep our promises to them. we need to honor them, even if the war was wrong (which it was). we need to honor them with something other than empty words.

foreign relations: we need leaders who understand the value of diplomacy and can use something other than threats and violence. treating others with respect is about who we are, not based on who the others are, and can be surprisingly effective.

criminal justice: we are in a dangerous time, when there is such a degree of unfairness that large segments (often non-white) are in an enemy relationship with the police, and both sides contribute. this is unsustainable. the mafia arose because of a lack of trust in govt. gangs arise for the same reason. justice needs to be both fair and perceived as fair.

guantanamo: we need to close gitmo now. we need legislation which eliminates the possibility of this sort of thing happening again. we need to abide by international conventions. we need to lead in this area. we need to do the right thing because of who *we* are.

climate/environment/energy: we need to recognize that the days of cheap gasoline are over. we need to rid ourselves of the addiction and move toward sustainable energy policy. in the meantime we need to ensure that the largest share of the burden doesn't fall on those least able to afford it. we need to take climate and environment into the calculations of cost.

we need to bring back a respect for science, math & other courses of study. we are losing our edge.

we need leaders who will encourage dialog not division. we need to remember how to listen to each other. debate is important.

listening in business, politics & government

i'm getting to be a big fan of craig newmark (the craig in craigslist.org) who posted this video recently about participatory democracy. he talks about inspiration, leadership, customer service and learning in business, politics and government.

he recommends that obama appoint not only a chief technology officer (as planned) but also what i would call (even if it is a terrible name) a chief listening officer who would have the president's ear and be responsible for keeping his/her ear to the ground, knowing what's going on, doing what newmark calls good customer service: listening and acting on it, listening and acting on it, listening and acting on it . . .

transparency

here's a thought i thunk:

there is a movement among progressive types toward more transparency or visibility into the doings of governments and corporations.

the current admin seem bent on having more visibility into the lives and doings of private citizens.

hmmm.

september 10 mindset

heard on npr today that obama is accused of having a "september 10 mindset."

ummm, that was when maybe we could have done something to prevent it, right?

responding to gas prices

either these gas prices will motivate us to curb our consumption and find saner solutions that our grandchildren can respect, or we will use them as justification to make some really bad decisions such as: build more nuclear reactors (mccain), lift the ban on off-shore drilling (bush), etc.

the differences between the candidates are clearer by the day.

bush's choice is to blame democrats and wonder ". . . how high oil -- how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it" oops. didn't mean to mention oil prices when blaming dems for gas prices.

january 09 isn't going to come fast enough.

what i wish i were hearing about energy costs

just home from a trip to boston. drove up, flew back. gas prices are painfully high, though i suppose we'll think soon enough that $4.00/gallon doesn't sound so bad.

in theory, i understand that we need these high prices and this pain to motivate a less destructive way of life. what i hate is that, in yet another way, the burden falls hardest on those who can least bear it, while exxon made $40 billion profit from our pain last year, is on track again so far this year, and is now selling off its gas stations because there's not enough profit there.

here are some things i'd like to hear from our leadership:

• this crisis was inevitable and if we'd had good leadership, we'd have done something to prepare, but we didn't.
• there is nothing (sane) we can do to get our old gas prices and lifestyle back. those days are gone.
  
• we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, for reasons relating to national security.
• we need to reduce our dependence on all oil, for reasons relating to our planet.
• this will require some serious changes.
• we need to help the folks on the bottom, especially, for both economic and compassionate reasons. the price of gas is awfully close to minimum wage now.
  
• we need better local public transportation options. now would be good. i've tried using the bus system in asheville for getting around, and it's generally complicated and unnecessarily inefficient. boston, on the other hand, and even tiny ithaca . . .
  
• we need better distance travel options. trains are a great way to travel, but from asheville, i have to come/go through greenville, sc in the middle of the night, and unless i'm going to a city with good public transportation options, i'm stuck once i get there. (a nod to my friend chris ahrens who died last year, but to the very end, argued for passenger rail in our area)
• both local and distance public transportation will have to be subsidized or provided by governments, for the good of all of us, and we can't wait until the demand is high enough to make it profitable. we need investment in it first, so that it works, so that it can be understood as a workable option, so that demand can go up enough to support it.
  
• we need natural light and air in our homes and workplaces, so we're not spending so much on the artificial kind. we need better building design.
  
• for what we now call "the cooling season," we need well-placed trees to protect our homes from direct sunlight. trees that lose their leaves in the winter so the sun warms us in "the heating season." or if we have direct sunlight, what about solar options or green roofs?
• we need heating systems that work room by room. if the baby's room needs to be warmer, great, but we shouldn't have to heat the living room and kitchen all night.
• we need to cut down on how far things are shipped across the country, which means learning how to buy local -- not as a rigid rule, but as a factor to consider. i already pay more for organic, partly because i like supporting organic farmers. i willingly pay more to shop at town hardware, because i like supporting local business. i can start paying better attention to the local angle.
  

i recently heard mike farrell quote john o'donohue, saying that the duty of privilege is absolute integrity.

we who are privileged need to make choices others can't make. we all need to do what we can to create the world we want.

i'm no energy expert. these things won't solve everything. i just want us to think about all this, have a real conversation and go in a sane direction. for a change.

bush, a very successful president

this from will durst at 23/6:

Say what you will about the President, he knows how to turn the switch that greases the gears of the Republican Party Cash Machine. Oh sure, he may have an approval rating lower than a puppy-eating cobra, but this puppy-eating cobra lays the golden egg. The last seven years have been very very good for America's wealthy which means the wealthy still like George Bush very very much and they will pay very very good money to hang out and have their pictures taken with him. He's not only a rich person, he's a rich person's rich person.

so, sure, not all extremely wealthy people make these choices based solely on economic self-interest, but still.

durst's post is about mccain's relationship to bush and money, but it gave me a way to understand what i perceive to be bush's continuing pride in the job he has done/is doing. maybe it's not cluelessness. if the people around him around him are genuinely delighted with his presidency, then he can see himself through that lens and continue to feel good about it, despite . . . well, everything. which is how he appears to me: self-confident, pleased, laid-back, spending his lame-duckness the way seniors who've done well spend that last bit of high school.

non-coverage of the issues about florida and michigan

i'm feeling frustrated with the coverage of the decision yesterday. a month ago, howard dean gave jon stewart a better explanation of what the issues are/were. here's a nugget but the clip is enlightening, hilarious and smart. jon stewart is a funny, funny man.

we're gonna find a way to seat them at the convention.

[jon: . . . how can you seat them when their results don't count?!]

it's a little hard but we're gonna do it.

first of all, you can't win without michigan and florida in the general election.

second of all, ya gotta be fair to the campaigns, not just the voters in florida and michigan.

third of all, ya gotta be fair to the other forty-eight states who did what they were supposed to do.

it's gonna be quite a juggling act but we're gonna do it.

the mainstream media are happier to report the expressions of frustration and division without covering the issues. sigh. once again, i get better news from the daily show.

special math

reuters' jon decker on delegate math, and hillary's claim that she is winning the popular vote.





". . . and i think that what she would like to do in these last remaining contests is put her over the top on the popular vote count so she doesn't have to use this special math."

the special math is the math that ignores caucus states, which obama won and where there is technically not a vote. i think it's not so much the math that's special but the twisting of language.

isn't this reminiscent of "depends on what the definition of 'is' is"? or scalia saying waterboarding is not cruel and unusual punishment because, though it may be cruel and unusual, it's not technically punishment. ah, lawyers. this is gonna be fun.

happiness and politics

wall street journal reviewed a book yesterday: how to be of good cheer by arthur c. brooks. wsj: "Those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative, [brooks] says, are twice as likely to say that they're very happy as those who identify themselves as liberal or very liberal."

while there may be other reasons, may i just point out that this is based on 2004 data?!?!

as eric says, being in the middle of gwb's administration may not have made conservatives happy, but it did make liberals pretty miserable.

that aside, are conservatives happier? if so, are there reasons which i can believe? hmmm.

what i'd really like to know is this: is there a relationship between happiness and the tendency toward complex analysis (vs. black/white thinking, or clarity, depending on your viewpoint). seems to me that's one of the things that differentiates liberals and conservatives. we liberals generally find it impossible to put our positions into 5-word bumper stickers. and it makes some sense to me that this tendency to analyze might make us more aware of what's wrong.

does this make logical sense? what else?

electability silliness

clinton's recent position, which nyt's bob herbert calls "He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!" is not only offensive, it's silly. i don't know what the actual numbers are, but see if you don't agree:

are there really enough voting, non-conservative, non-chauvinist racists out there to make him unelectable?

think about it:

don't the majority of these people lean to the right? aren't they more likely to be under the gop umbrella, not likely to vote for any liberal or progressive? if so their vote is not "lost" because of race. paint obama white (or substitute hrc) and they still wouldn't vote dem.

of the ones who are left, how many of these people would vote for a woman? as commander in chief, remember.

eliminate the ones who talk a lot but don't actually vote.

compare what's left with the number of independents and republicans who thought mccain looked pretty good until they saw obama, plus all the shiny new voters, and the argument that he's unelectable falls apart completely.

delegates

what's all the fuss about these underclad delegates?

noticing racist statements

many of us who are white and privileged fail to notice things like this. From a usa today article on hillary:

I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, . . ."

umm, four problems right off the top.

1. working, hard-working americans = white americans?

2. having hard-working white americans as a base doesn't exactly describe a "coalition"

3. many non-white people who have been left out or who have not seen any candidate worth supporting are coming into the process, participating. this is a good thing. the base is changing, and some of us white folks need to let loose our sense of entitlement to center stage.

4. i was surprised that there were so many white and so few non-white celebrants at asheville brewing tuesday night. it occurred to me that we were celebrating separately, and might need to look at this. but the point for now is that there are a great number of white people supporting obama, at least around here, and not just young ones, either.

i think this kind of statement is not-so-subtly racist and divisive. i point it out, not to attack hillary's character, but to call attention to the racism we caucasians need to be careful to notice.

obama wins nc!

obama victory party at asheville brewing co. last night. i didn't stay to hear the final indiana result, but it was great to be in an enthusiastic crowd hearing him speak (via tv). abc has great pizza, too.

i finally did get down to hq yesterday, from whence i was sent out to be a signboard. this was actually fun. honks and waves are great, but i love even more the quieter little grins, thumbs-ups and slight nods from passing drivers. makes me feel we're onto something here and are just acknowledging the connection.

of course there were rude passers-by, but we just dusted off our shoulders and reminded ourselves of who we are. i decided to send good thoughts or silent blessings to each car that passed -- that was kind of fun, too. many ways to try to make the world a better place.

lessig

oh! oh! oh! larry lessig might run for congress! check this out. it's so amazing to see smart non-aggressive knowledgeable people who can talk like this actually thinking of running........ lots of fresh air these days!

civics under the radar

earlier this week, i finally got around to writing that open letter to heath shuler about immigration and fear. i posted it, mailed it around to some, and sent it to the wnc for obama list. in response, i've gotten the kindest feedback and suggestions -- and had some great email exchanges with others in the area. which points to something else that is happening with the obama thing:

we are connecting with each other, and that's important, but we are also educating each other.

the hype accusations bother me. this isn't hype, but i don't think what's happening here is obvious. we truly are becoming a more educated electorate, but much of it is going on under the radar (online). we're trading thoughts and ideas, not just "isn't he great?" while cnn is reporting on our responses to her sneeze and his nose-blowing, we're debating immigration, healthcare, etc. -- and the major media can't see it. they don't have a way to measure it. but that's ok. the major media's power is slipping. we're not there yet, but we have the internet now, and we're communicating more directly.

much was made about the supporter who couldn't name obama legislation, but the irony is that overall we know more about legislation than we did a few months ago, and we're learning at a clip, listening deeply, testing our logic and opinions . . .

isn't this great?! i think this is why obama and his supporters keep surprising the pollsters.

all this civic education benefits obama because he stands up to scrutiny. but it also benefits us, and it benefits the country.

good stuff.

iraq strategy

doesn't it seem like the "stay the course in iraq" contingent is using the logic of
the beatings will continue until morale improves . . . ?

i mean, aren't we finally admitting that we made a terrible mess for bad reasons, but we argue that we're going to keep doing what we're doing (which made the mess) because the only alternative we can see is to walk away? are our options really that limited?

i don't think we should just walk away. what about our responsibility to clean up the mess we made? (yes, saddam made some of it, but we destroyed the country and need to look at our own part.)

it's not the military's responsibility, nor is it within the military's expertise to rebuild a country, which is what iraq needs to be stable, and what we should do if we want any hope of a non-puppet ally there. we should rebuild infrastructure and support economic and political structures which benefit the iraqi people. even after all the iraqi people we've killed, we have a chance to leave the country better than we found it in at least some ways, and if we do, we may be able to regain some of that lost world opinion. (which matters)

this work will require some tools and skills that the military is not designed to possess, and that our current administration does not use, for whatever reason.

but the adage if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail can be expanded:

if you have lots of tools but only believe in the hammer . . .

or maybe

it's hard to build stuff with only a chainsaw

open letter to congressman heath shuler

U.S. Representative Heath Shuler
512 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Shuler:

I am one of your constituents. Not long ago, i received your taxpayer-expense mailing. Because of the way our mail had been dropped onto the table, i first saw the back, with its large letters: Congressman Heath Shuler is Securing Our Borders. i laughed and wondered why we cared to keep out those people from Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina.

But since that initial giggle, i have wanted to write to beg you to take a different position, not only on this issue, but in general.

Immigrants, legal and otherwise, can be a problem. They can be terrorists, gang members and deadbeats (as can our own citizens). But that is not the whole story, and it is not an accurate picture of the effect of immigration.

Immigrants also keep this country going in important economic ways: they take the jobs we don’t want, work hard and become entrepreneurs, creating more jobs. Immigrants also make a strong showing on the other end of the economic scale, in the high-tech sector. My husband brings income into Western North Carolina through work he does for companies (two started by immigrants) located elsewhere in the U.S., and we actively use this income to support local businesses. My husband has colleagues from around the globe, and our country needs them, with their strong math/science/tech backgrounds, entrepreneurial spirit and international perspective. The immigrants i know are also lovely, interesting, educated people, many with families, who will be hurt by anti-immigrant hysteria, as will our country. This is a dangerous path.

i beg you not to get on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, or at least to stop leading it. I beg you not to encourage more "us and them" thinking. With our economy heading into the toilet, we need to pull together, not establish scapegoats.

Illegal immigration may be a problem, but is it the most important problem?

There are so many areas where we need strong leadership: the Iraq debacle, Guantanamo, economy (short-term and long-term), Patriot Act, education, healthcare, environment, racism in our criminal justice system, our standing in the world, etc.. Please don’t focus on immigration.

The immigration issue is a cheap way to tap into our fears. Leadership by fear can be effective, but there is another way, and it is the way of people who go down in history as heroes.

I understand that fear-leadership may seem politically expedient, but please examine carefully what is happening with Barack Obama’s campaign. He is tapping into hope and a desire to make the U.S. strong in its integrity, compassion, courage and fairness. He calls us to live up to our ideals. We are responding in unprecedented numbers. We are weary of fear-leadership.

Obama is calling us to our best selves. He is inspiring us to be involved in the process. We are responding with our money, our time and our enthusiasm, providing the most active primary support this country has ever seen. Please take note: this well is deep. And while some of his supporters may be caught up in hype, most of us are listening more deeply and watching the issues. We know what kind of senator he is. We know what he sponsors and authors. See, for example, this blog post which is being widely read and circulated on the WNC for Obama list.

We don’t yet know who will be our next president, but in any case, we will need strong leaders in congress. Please be one of them. Make your constituents proud. You were elected because we wanted meaningful change from the disastrous 109th congress. It’s not too late to set yourself up in this position, but you must be a hope-leader, not a fear-leader.

Best regards,

Kathy LaMotte
Asheville, NC

828-230-7185

obama/clinton record on proposed bills

if you are believing the claim that obama is just hype, check out this excellent post from dailykos on obama vs. clinton sponsor/author record in senate and what it says about them.

why i support obama

ok, here's a quick list, thrown together this morning:

1. participation: he is getting people involved in the political process, many participating in primaries/caucuses who have never even voted. citizen apathy is more dangerous to our country than terrorists.
2. principles: he understands how to state a principle, then apply it to various situations.
   
3. national big picture: this is a man who has spent real time, as opposed to making gestures, working with and on behalf of those on the bottom of our society and who can also "bark with the big dogs." he gets it.
   
4. international big picture: he gets it that we've thrown so much away and with our current attitudes/policies are fanning the flames of terrorism rather than addressing them. he gets diplomacy. he understands the appropriate role for our country in the world -- enough of the rogue elephant policies!
   
5. smart people: he has smart people around him, advising him
6. war: he was opposed from the start. i'm working on my judgmental attitude, but i don't yet understand how anyone's support for it could have been anything but either a political sell-out or stupidly blind (lots of us regular people were not fooled by fear-mongering, the WMD argument nor by the 9-11=Saddam drumming). Neither selling out nor being duped in a matter this important is evidence of good leadership ability.
7. race: his presidency might allow us to finally take an honest look at the role race and racism still play in this country, something which will continue to dog us until we face it.
   
8. campaigning: he is trying (even when he fails) to demonstrate that a "decent" campaign can win. note that not all criticism is "attack."
   
9. by and large, his proposals make sense to me even when i disagree, so he doesn't seem to be simply going with what's politically expedient.
10. he has real leadership skills -- he inspires, educates, explains, listens, convinces -- he treat us like intelligent people who care, rather than fearful sheep -- he actively reaches out to those he disagrees with -- he is playing to our hopes, dreams, aspirations, rather than to our fears.
    

thoughts on pacifism

last night, on the way home, i listened to a talk, in which the speaker made several points to which i wish i could have responded, so here are the responses i wish i'd made:

she recounted a conversation with a pacifist in which she asked whether he would call the police when threatened, he said no, she complimented him on his consistency and asked whether he understood that he benefited from the fact that his neighbors were willing to call the police, and he said yes and it disturbed him every day.

she evoked the "what about hitler?" question and said that quakers were not really against violence because the taking of life by God is ok, and therefore the question is only to whom we're willing to give the life-taking authority.

this seems so small to me.

to believe in God, i don't have to believe that we die because God takes our lives, and i don't in fact believe this. God is not puppet-master, controlling every detail, in my view. death is a natural end of life. the end of life by natural means is not an act of violence. Though it can be horrible, it's not killing, not murder. there are differences.

i can be a pacifist who believes in God, without contradiction. sorry.

the hitler question always comes up in pacifist discussions, and different people resolve it different ways, but i say it's unfair to demand that the framing of the question start where it does. this framing may be interesting, but it shouldn't be the central question, or we'll never learn the real lessons available here.

there are interesting parallels to the abortion question: given this situation (which likely could have been prevented, but let's not talk about that) what do we do?

in fact, i think i would respond to most of what she said with the argument for putting more of our energy into preventing the situations from occurring.

we have wars because we recognize no other tools for solving international problems, because we have leaders who stir up our fears, because we have invested in war-making rather than peace-making. we have put our faith in our military strength.

military response is not a quick, last-minute response, though it can seem so. the truth is that it takes long-term and expensive investment to be prepared to act in the moment. there is no quick peacemaker response either, but what do we invest in peacemaking? what would it look like to build a peacemaking force comparable to our military? to study effective peacemaking, invest in it, train for it, build public support for it, build its reputation internationally, etc.? that's worth a little thought, isn't it?

instead we ask the peacemakers to take this set of facts and declare what we would do. what if we turned that around and put the other side on equal footing: assume no military, no department of defense, no budget, no millions in annual r&d funding, etc. -- now here comes hitler, what do you do? with this set of facts, the military solution would be ineffective as well.

when the military succeeds, we say that's proof that the military is necessary and good.

when diplomacy succeeds, we generally don't see it.

when the military fails, we say, well, we need a bigger stronger military.

when diplomacy fails, we say diplomacy doesn't work.

does this make sense?

oh come on

i usually like reuters' reporting, but in an article today:

Obama, an Illinois senator, and Clinton, a New York senator, have waged a bitter duel for the Democratic presidential nomination, competing for votes from coast to coast after splitting the first four significant contests.

this is a bitter duel?

obama song

Obama yes, we can song