JUST AN ORANGE

The Friday Politic ~ throwing trancendence out the window

The running mates have been decided. The conventions are over. Sprint to the finish line: decide who to vote for. I’m looking for a good write-in candidate.

I liked everyone’s speeches, for the most part, speaking of the candidates, their wives, and their VP picks. Rudy Guiliani was a kick in the pants to watch. Wow, vitriol delivered with a chuckle. Actually it was all good entertainment for me, from Bill Clinton carefully extolling the virtues of his presidency while trying to sound like he was really talking about Obama (we know differently) to Sarah Palin rockin’ the Republican house all the way down(!) I was thoroughly entertained and amused.

But, oh yeah. Forgive me, it must be all those hours of watching The West Wing, but I forgot myself for a second there: politics is supposed to be more than amusement and entertaining spectacle. (We have the media coverage of politics for that.) I’m not sure I can vote for either party in good conscience. I certainly don’t have the religious fervor with which each party proclaims their ideas because pragmatism is a necessary component of getting things done. I’m casting a vote for some pragmatism!

C.S. Lewis said something about the “ideal” that I really like: Idealism can be felt and even talked about, but cannot be lived. Add that, with a dash of wanting to be the people/party in power, and life gets a little bit tricky inside the beltway and out.

But as I wait to see what happens, with my own vote nonetheless, at least, at the very least, I’ll be entertained.

THE FRIDAY POLITIC ~ transcendence is in the eye of the beholder

Where to start? I am experiencing a case of either hardly anything to say vs way too much to say. And either way, one could get into trouble without the help of say, tone of voice, facial expression etc.

Oh, the limitations of the internet.

Let’s start with Mr. Obama who “misspoke”, one could say. Whether misspeaking means saying what he didn’t mean to say, saying what he didn’t mean, or saying what he shouldn’t have said, that’s open to debate. I’d like to say that we could be helped with a few more commas in this transcript, if only for some visual clarity, so let’s add some, just for fun.

So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter,

they cling to guns,

or religion,

or antipathy to people who aren’t like them,

or anti-immigrant sentiment,

or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.

I read the transcript of his entire remarks. I think Obama’s point was that government has failed people. But it came out sounding like these people’s beliefs and positions are a) wrong and b) could be changed if only government really did it’s job.

What did he really mean? I don’t know. But it didn’t sound good, especially in front of a room full of donors, who probably do not cling to antipathy to people who aren’t like them. Instead they will throw money at them in hopes of distracting them from their emotional, unthoughtful positions. Good.

Next up: The FLDS debacle.

Let me make something clear: I am not for underage marriage or coercion of minor girls into marriages and subsequent pregnancies. And if child abuse is indeed taking place, that unequivocally needs to be stopped. But I can’t help but feel there is a level of religious persecution here. Whatever the case may be, it isn’t being handled well.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, my religious and family history has polygamy as a part of it; the Church stopped the practice some time ago. However, I am embarrassed by members of my own faith whose reactions have been, at times, snide and without compassion towards the situation. There is a way to indicate that we are not a part of this group without being degrading to, or poking fun at, those with whom we share a heritage, whether we are comfortable with it or not.

If one is striving to be Christ-like, one must balance understanding and mercy with justice; without understanding, there can be no mercy, nor will there be justice.

the FRIDAY POLITIC ~ because one can’t be transcendent all the time

I haven’t really followed the presidential campaign, because sometimes you need a break. I have listened a little about China’s crackdown in Tibet. China, where the Olympics will be held this Summer. The Olympics being one of few events on the world stage where the competition is (usually) healthy and on some level, boundaries of culture, race, ethnicity, etc., are overcome for a least a little while.

So. Here is China stomping brutally and fatally all over a people and their culture, then getting ready to turn around and welcome the rest of the world to its doorstep. Watch carefully to see them wipe off their boots before they reach the door.

I’ve been wondering, should we protest these Olympics? I understand that there are complexities in the Geo-political relationships around the world, and that things have to be measured and situations and consequences taken into account. And maybe avoiding the Olympics is the wrong thing to do, because we need to connect with the Chinese people, themselves, and this is an opportunity to do that.

That may be the best way to get the government to change. The pressure needs to be exerted on the inside as well. You can’t isolate all of those people from the rest of the world, and expect that one day they will realize they’d like more freedom, if they can never see it.

This is what I have a problem with: Our country probably won’t even have a serious discussion about these Olympics. Not because of any other issue, except this one: We’re too concerned with our economic relationship with China to put it in jeopardy. So, we’ll just not worry too much about Tibet.

I don’t have a problem taking economics into account. And there is a good argument that China is becoming more open out of economic necessity, which has other results. I just wish money were not the first compelling reason to do or not do whatever it is. Alas, in so many things, the bottom line is the motivation.

The FRIDAY POLITIC~because one can’t be transcendent all the time

Not really anything astounding here this week. I was utterly disheartened by the news of a certain governor of a prominent state where I recently lived. Mostly I was sad for his three daughters and his wife. Not a lot of sympathy for him. Only that his dad made him cry over a bad move in a Monopoly game when he was seven years old. And that is a sad thing.

It appears the moral crusader was also a vindictive one, and hence, doesn’t have a lot of people even wanting to stand by his side, not many friends. And, while he may deserve it, that’s sad, too.

There was a little buzz in Washington DC as all three candidates for President of the U.S. went back to the Senate to pass some bills, and be friendly with one another for at least a few hours. And friendliness is always a good thing. We could use a little bit more of that, and a little less of the other stuff.

That pack of scoundrels

tumbling through the gate

emerges

as the Order of the State.

-Stanley Kunitz

The FRIDAY POLITIC ~ because one can’t be transcendent all the time.

If you’re a parent, you’ve done it. Your child has threatened to do something you have forbiden and you’ve misjudged the strength of your own enforcement abilities against the situation. You say no. Your kid does it anyway. The consequence is levied. You pat yourself on the back. Way to follow through!

Only wait. Suddenly a conundrum presents itself, and you’re stuck. You realize the punishment has unintended consequences that seem a little harsh. In fact, it now seems rash, and utterly unthoughtful. You got caught in the moment. You made a tactical mistake. You’re tempted to back down. But if you do your child only learn that you don’t follow through, and in some odd way, ends up rewarded for the very behavior that was the cause of the situation in the first place. What do you do?

And so, the Democratic National Committee finds it’s self in this very parenting conundrum.
The situation as I understand it is this, in a nutshell: Florida and Michigan scheduled primaries. The DNC said they were going out of turn and that the states’ delegates wouldn’t count in the nominating process at the Democratic Convention. The states went ahead and held their primaries anyway. Now voters feel disenfranchised. And with no clear front runner, Clinton and Obama are, naturally, at odds over the solution.

Clinton says the delegates should be seated. Of course she does. She won both states. Obama has a problem with that, because the DNC asked the candidates not to campaign in the states, which they agreed to, and his name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. He says he followed the rules, and shouldn’t be punished for that.

Some suggest a do-over in June, but because of the closeness of the primary, that seems like Michigan and Florida get a chance to have more influence on the decision in the end, and is that fair? Seems like more of a reward than a punishment. And even then, who pays for it?

Poor Democrats. This could be your year. If you can manage not to stumble on the rug as you go out the front door.