Yes, it is disconcerting to hear that Barack Obama spoke admiringly of Ronald Reagan. For many people, particularly African American people, (remember the myth of the "welfare queen"?) the Republican President doesn't bring back cheerful memories.
But should we really care? My gosh, can you think of the truly awful men and women he or another candidate might have used as a role model?
It's late, and we won't.
It must be painful for the candidate to hear the black author Shelby Steele comment that whites are choosing him because he is a bargainer, a blank slate on which to write, a person who doesn't really know himself. Whites find the racial problems tiring, and so they welcome a black candidate who seems not to have lots of racial baggage.
I have to say that I wondered, as I heard Marti Moss-Coane chat with Steele, if he was correct-or if this was another example of a generational divide. On one edge of the chasm-those who still advocate for identity politics. On the other side-a generation who sees, and hears in Obama, a commitment to seeing the other persons point of view.
We'll find out-hopefully not too soon. No reason for this race to end in Nevada!
PS: I'm going away to NewYork for a few days, so won't be posting, probably until Monday.
Remember on Monday why we have a vacation-time to volunteer, to serve, to remember we are a community.
vendredi, janvier 18, 2008
mercredi, janvier 16, 2008
Vox pop?
We've been hearing about the crushing weight on the middle class (let's not even bring the poor into it) for decades. It seems like every year or so there is another well-researched rant on the subject of economic inequality-the huge gap between the wealthy and...most of the rest of us.
So what I'd like to know is: why did it take us so long to get angry about this? We know many people are suffering as the price of gasoline heating oil goes sky high and homes are in foreclosure and the economy is contracting. We've known wealthy folks are making huge profits and we are not.
But we seem to have a predisposition to believe the playing field is level when it is not. And we seem to want to believe our government has our best interest at heart when the people who have the power often don't.
Is this the year for a populist Prez? I doubt it. I doubt a lot of independents would vote for Mike Huckabee, or for John Edwards.
BUT it may be the election when the middle class finally finds ITs voice--and roars.
So what I'd like to know is: why did it take us so long to get angry about this? We know many people are suffering as the price of gasoline heating oil goes sky high and homes are in foreclosure and the economy is contracting. We've known wealthy folks are making huge profits and we are not.
But we seem to have a predisposition to believe the playing field is level when it is not. And we seem to want to believe our government has our best interest at heart when the people who have the power often don't.
Is this the year for a populist Prez? I doubt it. I doubt a lot of independents would vote for Mike Huckabee, or for John Edwards.
BUT it may be the election when the middle class finally finds ITs voice--and roars.
mardi, janvier 15, 2008
Who heard her scream?
Think about how many times you see a picture of a lovely teenage girl-or a young woman on the home page of your Internet provider. It seems as though we've had a spate of such pictures recently. Viewing their photos, the smile beamed at the camera, the wide eyes, the radiance of youth, one can't help but feel a connection to them.
They aren't up there because they are sportswomen or volunteers or politicians yakking about a gender gap. These are women who have been murdered, usually in some awful way.
Of course, middle-aged and older women are killed, too, by psychotic criminals, or furious husbands, or lovers. They just don't have the sex appeal of the pretty teenager or 20 something. It is shocking to say that-but it is also true.
We have a semi-erotic attachment to violent death here in the US, particularly the violent death of women.
As Bob Herbert reminded us in a Tuesday NYT editorial, we are a society that tolerates a frightening level violence against females.
I am still grappling with the awful fate of Maria Frances Lauterbach and her eight month old unborn baby. They are still looking for her alleged assailant.
Why was there no one in the Marine at her base at Camp Lejeune to protect Lauterbach? Wasn't there anyone who saw the threat posed by her alleged murderer? Where were her parents, her superior officer, clergy, psychologists?
Why haven't we find better ways of protecting women in danger? In a country with our social networks, we ought to find the situation appalling-particularly in the Marines, a community where discipline and order are essential. But if a society condones such hatred, then even its "sanctuaries", aren't safe. So it proved for Maria-and for her child.
They aren't up there because they are sportswomen or volunteers or politicians yakking about a gender gap. These are women who have been murdered, usually in some awful way.
Of course, middle-aged and older women are killed, too, by psychotic criminals, or furious husbands, or lovers. They just don't have the sex appeal of the pretty teenager or 20 something. It is shocking to say that-but it is also true.
We have a semi-erotic attachment to violent death here in the US, particularly the violent death of women.
As Bob Herbert reminded us in a Tuesday NYT editorial, we are a society that tolerates a frightening level violence against females.
I am still grappling with the awful fate of Maria Frances Lauterbach and her eight month old unborn baby. They are still looking for her alleged assailant.
Why was there no one in the Marine at her base at Camp Lejeune to protect Lauterbach? Wasn't there anyone who saw the threat posed by her alleged murderer? Where were her parents, her superior officer, clergy, psychologists?
Why haven't we find better ways of protecting women in danger? In a country with our social networks, we ought to find the situation appalling-particularly in the Marines, a community where discipline and order are essential. But if a society condones such hatred, then even its "sanctuaries", aren't safe. So it proved for Maria-and for her child.
lundi, janvier 14, 2008
Smokescreen
Hillary may be a lot of things, but she isn't stupid. Her comment about how the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have become law without President Lyndon Johnson was seen as a swipe at the memory of Martin Luther King. Having read it over and over again, I truly doubt that's what she meant. Why would she seek to minimize King's legacy?
Instead the statement felt irrelevant and confusing-or a glimpse into Clinton' s compulsive desire for the Oval Office. It lacked the cheerful malice of Huckabee's attack on the Presidential candidate who just happens to be a Mormon-don't they believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?
If you get in their way, the Clintons can be scary. If they don't watch the tendency to wage a war of destruction by surrogate at anyone who stands in the way of something they desire, then we may forget all the good things Hill and Bill (separately) have done-not just for African-Americans but for America.
Instead the statement felt irrelevant and confusing-or a glimpse into Clinton' s compulsive desire for the Oval Office. It lacked the cheerful malice of Huckabee's attack on the Presidential candidate who just happens to be a Mormon-don't they believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?
If you get in their way, the Clintons can be scary. If they don't watch the tendency to wage a war of destruction by surrogate at anyone who stands in the way of something they desire, then we may forget all the good things Hill and Bill (separately) have done-not just for African-Americans but for America.
samedi, janvier 12, 2008
A quadrennial mirror
LancasterOnline.com
Believers have a lot riding on their votes
By Elizabeth
Published: Jan 12, 2008 12:01 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA -
The 2008 presidential primaries have only just begun, but it is by no means too early for people of faith to ask themselves how their beliefs will or will not influence the votes they cast.
One thing is certain: We will make those determinations in a social setting that has undergone a quiet but profound revolution, offering new hope along with entrenched challenges.
Watching the two leading Democrats as they are swept up in a wave of social change long in coming, it is almost impossible not to be deeply moved.
Regardless of who wins in November, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are powerful icons. Their very prominence is the fruit of our long national struggle for racial and gender equality, a struggle underlined and echoed in our country's religious history.
As joyful as it is to see us move beyond the racial and gender polarization of the past, let's not kid ourselves: We still have a long way to go.
Although a formal religious "test" for public office is prohibited by the Constitution, various factions will undoubtedly be applying an informal one.
Sorting out religious differences is more likely to be a concern for Republican voters, particularly evangelicals.
Mormon practitioner and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has already come under scrutiny. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has an uneasy relationship with the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, also may have to field some uncomfortable questions.
Though no one questions the religious commitment of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, his decision to declare a Christian Heritage Week in Arkansas and his push to restrict abortions and get medical insurance for children living in poverty, among others, also are controversial because they seem to blur the line between church and state.
For various reasons, at least in this primary season, the specific beliefs of the Democratic candidates are not as likely to be hotly debated.
That is partly because Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards are comfortable — to one extent or another — talking about how their religious beliefs affect their lives.
Not only is their faith part of their campaign rhetoric, its threaded through their biographies.
Yet their party's sometimes-awkward embrace of belief and nonbelief, ardent secularists and equally convinced people of faith may prove nettlesome to some conservative Democrats and independents.
As believers grapple with how much their beliefs should influence their votes, they must move with discerning caution in seeking direction.
Shining a spotlight on Jesus and his relationships, the Gospels provide principles and guidelines rather than laws.
To the question: "How would Jesus vote?" the answer probably is: Jesus, who lived in an occupied land under the rule of an empire, wouldn't vote.
In the Gospel according to Luke, Luke told spies who tried to entrap him into just such a dispute about secular and religious power to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:25).
Yet as citizens of a democracy, we are entrusted with the responsibility of shaping our nation's course.
While we don't have Gospel specifics, we do see that Jesus' own standard seemed to be one of integrity, the coherence of belief and of action.
How salutary it would be for our candidates, as well as for ourselves, if we ask them to try harder to attain that particular standard.
How wonderful it would be if we demand that they cease the backbiting and snide attacks, bringing civility back to the public square.
If we were to do that, of course, we'd have to apply the same lens to our own behavior.
In this fluid cultural climate, we are forced to ask ourselves not only how we judge a candidate's character, but also how we see ourselves.
Will we be part of perpetuating the old walls of division? Or will we dare to reach across the boundaries that keep us from truly knowing each other, knowing that we will be changed in the process.
The presidential primaries are not solely about the aspirations of a group of fascinating but imperfect public servants.
It also is about our own.
Elizabeth
Believers have a lot riding on their votes
By Elizabeth
Published: Jan 12, 2008 12:01 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA -
The 2008 presidential primaries have only just begun, but it is by no means too early for people of faith to ask themselves how their beliefs will or will not influence the votes they cast.
One thing is certain: We will make those determinations in a social setting that has undergone a quiet but profound revolution, offering new hope along with entrenched challenges.
Watching the two leading Democrats as they are swept up in a wave of social change long in coming, it is almost impossible not to be deeply moved.
Regardless of who wins in November, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are powerful icons. Their very prominence is the fruit of our long national struggle for racial and gender equality, a struggle underlined and echoed in our country's religious history.
As joyful as it is to see us move beyond the racial and gender polarization of the past, let's not kid ourselves: We still have a long way to go.
Although a formal religious "test" for public office is prohibited by the Constitution, various factions will undoubtedly be applying an informal one.
Sorting out religious differences is more likely to be a concern for Republican voters, particularly evangelicals.
Mormon practitioner and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has already come under scrutiny. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has an uneasy relationship with the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, also may have to field some uncomfortable questions.
Though no one questions the religious commitment of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, his decision to declare a Christian Heritage Week in Arkansas and his push to restrict abortions and get medical insurance for children living in poverty, among others, also are controversial because they seem to blur the line between church and state.
For various reasons, at least in this primary season, the specific beliefs of the Democratic candidates are not as likely to be hotly debated.
That is partly because Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards are comfortable — to one extent or another — talking about how their religious beliefs affect their lives.
Not only is their faith part of their campaign rhetoric, its threaded through their biographies.
Yet their party's sometimes-awkward embrace of belief and nonbelief, ardent secularists and equally convinced people of faith may prove nettlesome to some conservative Democrats and independents.
As believers grapple with how much their beliefs should influence their votes, they must move with discerning caution in seeking direction.
Shining a spotlight on Jesus and his relationships, the Gospels provide principles and guidelines rather than laws.
To the question: "How would Jesus vote?" the answer probably is: Jesus, who lived in an occupied land under the rule of an empire, wouldn't vote.
In the Gospel according to Luke, Luke told spies who tried to entrap him into just such a dispute about secular and religious power to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:25).
Yet as citizens of a democracy, we are entrusted with the responsibility of shaping our nation's course.
While we don't have Gospel specifics, we do see that Jesus' own standard seemed to be one of integrity, the coherence of belief and of action.
How salutary it would be for our candidates, as well as for ourselves, if we ask them to try harder to attain that particular standard.
How wonderful it would be if we demand that they cease the backbiting and snide attacks, bringing civility back to the public square.
If we were to do that, of course, we'd have to apply the same lens to our own behavior.
In this fluid cultural climate, we are forced to ask ourselves not only how we judge a candidate's character, but also how we see ourselves.
Will we be part of perpetuating the old walls of division? Or will we dare to reach across the boundaries that keep us from truly knowing each other, knowing that we will be changed in the process.
The presidential primaries are not solely about the aspirations of a group of fascinating but imperfect public servants.
It also is about our own.
Elizabeth
vendredi, janvier 11, 2008
Hillary tears up-a defeat for American women?
There's a lot of hyperbole going around in this winter of our discontent. Perenially bewildered by the Clintons, political pundits have spent a good part of this past week examining a few minutes in New Hampshire, when candidate Clinton actually seemed to be close to shedding a tear.
Although she makes what I think is a very helpful point in her 'blog post from yesterday (see link), Judith Warner is also guilty of contributing to the plethora of navel-gazing essays and interviews on this fleeting phenonemon.
It's ok to feel empathy for a tired woman. I would hope that in this more enlightened age, we'd feel some empathy if John/John or Mike or even Rudy came close to tears. It would be darned good for the country if these very macho males felt secure enough to get a little emotional without worrying that they'd be watching themselves tear up (almost) for years afterwards on Fox or CNN...or Oprah.
If candidate Hillary cries again, the press will vivisect her.
Another wet-eyed moment would signal typical Clintonian artifice, they will claim. Weakness. An impending nervous breakdown.
I read Warner's piece right after a piece on the 20 year old pregnant Marine who complained about the alleged advances of a higher-up, and apparently paid the ultimate price. Two lives lost-a mother-to-be and her child.
Don't tell me women are playing on an equal field now, and we can examine a candidate on the merits. But also, don't assert that to be critical of her is to be unfair or sexist.
Fact is, I won't be judging Clinton by an emotional moment in a coffee shop in New Hampshire. I'll be wondering how she proposes to protect women much more vulnerable than her when they risk not just their careers, but their very lives.
Although she makes what I think is a very helpful point in her 'blog post from yesterday (see link), Judith Warner is also guilty of contributing to the plethora of navel-gazing essays and interviews on this fleeting phenonemon.
It's ok to feel empathy for a tired woman. I would hope that in this more enlightened age, we'd feel some empathy if John/John or Mike or even Rudy came close to tears. It would be darned good for the country if these very macho males felt secure enough to get a little emotional without worrying that they'd be watching themselves tear up (almost) for years afterwards on Fox or CNN...or Oprah.
If candidate Hillary cries again, the press will vivisect her.
Another wet-eyed moment would signal typical Clintonian artifice, they will claim. Weakness. An impending nervous breakdown.
I read Warner's piece right after a piece on the 20 year old pregnant Marine who complained about the alleged advances of a higher-up, and apparently paid the ultimate price. Two lives lost-a mother-to-be and her child.
Don't tell me women are playing on an equal field now, and we can examine a candidate on the merits. But also, don't assert that to be critical of her is to be unfair or sexist.
Fact is, I won't be judging Clinton by an emotional moment in a coffee shop in New Hampshire. I'll be wondering how she proposes to protect women much more vulnerable than her when they risk not just their careers, but their very lives.
jeudi, janvier 10, 2008
Moderation is sexy
I have to admit that I really like the New York Times columnist Gail Collins. She is funny without being snarky, like Maureen Dowd. This column about why Hillary won in New Hampshire tells us that the political press is just as clueless as we are-which is kind of fun. Heck, I think they are having the time of their lives.
But stuck in between the gentle jibes at Hillary, Fred, John and the state of South Dakota is a significant comment about Barack Obama and his exhortation to politeness.
This country is sick of the hostility of the past seven years. It continously seems, whether Democrat or Republican, as though one party would do anything to keep the other one from any legislative achievements. As the members of Congress achieve their petty little gotchas, the economy tanks, global warming surges, and the Middle East boils.
Learning to talk to, instead of around or behind one another, is actually a big part of the solution.
So, yes, in his own moderate way, Obama is bringing sexy back!
But stuck in between the gentle jibes at Hillary, Fred, John and the state of South Dakota is a significant comment about Barack Obama and his exhortation to politeness.
This country is sick of the hostility of the past seven years. It continously seems, whether Democrat or Republican, as though one party would do anything to keep the other one from any legislative achievements. As the members of Congress achieve their petty little gotchas, the economy tanks, global warming surges, and the Middle East boils.
Learning to talk to, instead of around or behind one another, is actually a big part of the solution.
So, yes, in his own moderate way, Obama is bringing sexy back!
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)