Archive for the 'Politics' Category

On Money: Why there might still be a tomorrow

September 30, 2008

Despite today’s screaming banner headlines in the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal, the “bailout bust” may not be the end of the world as we know it:

According to the venerable and highly visible Lou Dobbs (at cnn.com) —

Economist after economist, with whom I’ve spoken, CEOs, they acknowledge that there are far better ways to deal with the issues confronting our financial system than this bailout. And it’s absolutely obscenely irresponsible of House Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, Treasury Secretary [Henry] Paulson, President Bush, Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate; for these people to be clucking about like hysterical — so hysterically. It really must stop…

[The Republican and Democratic leadership] don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re trying to ram this thing down the people’s throats and Congress. And those House Republicans and House Democrats who voted against this bailout deserve a great, great expression of thanks from the American people. Absolutely.

And, at the end of trading today, the Dow had regained nearly two-thirds of yesterday’s historic losses. So go figure. Somebody with money out there seems to think there’s something to invest in, even if it’s only Warren Buffett.

Sigh… What to do, what to do. From the vantage point out here in Dusty Corner, it doesn’t look like there’s a single “safe” place to put your money (including under the mattress). Some friends and fellow blogsters are obsessively consulting their portfolios, figuring out down to the decimal point just how much they’ve lost over the last few days, but that seems pretty masochistic to me. (But then, I refuse to weigh myself every day, too. Why should a mere number determine how I’m going to feel about myself?)

Anybody remember the old Garry Moore Show, which existed if for no other reason than to give the world Jonathan Winters and Carol Burnett? I remember as a kid watching a “Wonderful Year” segment featuring a then-unknown actress-singer singing a bluesy “Happy Days Are Here Again” while using her diamond earrings to pay for champagne. The year they were celebrating? Sometime around 1929. The singer? Barbra Streisand.

I kind of feel that way, but there’s a precedent for that. A few years ago, I got a really scary medical diagnosis, a largely untreatable condition that could turn fatal. (Too hard to explain. Some other time.)

I remember the doctor — who had the personality of a piece of cardboard — patting me on the shoulder on the way out of his office. I walked to and got in my car, called The Spouse and blubbered the results to him, and then had a good cry. And then — I dried my tears, put on my seatbelt and GOT ON WITH MY LIFE. Short of taking to my bed for the duration, which sounded boring, there was nothing else to be done. And, so far, I’m fine.

So break out the champagne. I still have a few diamonds left. My life remains whole and good. This too shall pass.

David Foster Wallace on worshipping

September 24, 2008

I’ve only read writer David Foster Wallace around the edges, mostly in newspaper articles and book extracts, but the tributes published in the wake of his recent suicide, at age 46, have made me want to hear more. The Wall Street Journal has published a version of a Kenyon College commencement speech he gave in 2005 that is really mind-bending in its simple power. In it, he decries what he calls “default-setting” thinking, in which we place ourselves at the center of the universe and therefore at odds with just about everyone and everything else:

[I]f you’ve really learned how to think, how to pay attention, then you will know you have other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, loud, slow, consumer-hell-type situation as not only meaningful but sacred, on fire with the same force that lit the stars — compassion, love, the sub-surface unity of all things. Not that that mystical stuff’s necessarily true: The only thing that’s capital-T True is that you get to decide how you’re going to try to see it. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. You get to decide what to worship…

Because here’s something else that’s true. In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship — be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles — is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. [Emphasis mine.]

If you worship money and things — if they are where you tap real meaning in life — then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already — it’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power — you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart — you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.

Look, the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful; it is that they are unconscious. They are default-settings.

We’re now harvesting the grapes of wrath for a decade or more of worshipping money and power on an unprecedented level, and the entire nation is in danger of being “eaten alive” by it. And the saviors who are coming forward sound suspiciously like the charlatans who got us in this mess in the first place.

Wallace knows, or knew. He knew that, in light of such huge forces over which we have so little influence, we have only our personal freedom to exercise:

The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the “rat race” — the constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.

That “infinite thing” we have lost may be our very selves, or our futures, or our children’s futures.

Update: Wallace’s family talks about his last days.

Election 2008: Why shouldn’t we all get along?

September 11, 2008

My blogging tastes are, to say the least, far-ranging. In addition to my midlife friends, I keep up with a number of political, media, fashion, health, religious, sports (alas, it’s true) and even fat-acceptance (FA) bloggers. And if what is happening in some of the FA blogs and blog groups is any indication, it’s a sad, sad time out here on the old Web.

Fatistician and Worth Your Weight, both fellow WordPressers, tell of defections from the FA community due to the increasing political nature and resulting rancor of some recent conversations. Lindsay of Babblebits explains:

With the upcoming elections going on in the States, people are getting more and more political in their blogs… There has been entirely too much drama in both of the [FA] feeds about who should and shouldn’t be in them, and both of them have had minor s–tstorms brewed when someone got removed from each of them.

Hel-lo? These are fat-acceptance bloggers, women (mostly) who want to feel good about themselves at any size and who want others to feel the same way, and yet they’re being sidetracked from their original mission by presidential politics. They came together for a sense of community, and that community is being threatened.

As Fatistician says, “The fatosphere is supposed to be this safe space to discuss fat issues and make everyone feel warm and fuzzy.” And all of a sudden, for some members of the community, it no longer is.

Oh, I know. Marx (or Lenin or McCartney or somebody equally divisive) said something about everything being political, but I just don’t think it has to be this ugly. I would like to think we’re all grown-ups out here. While wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth ranters seem to invite equally rabid responses, I would hope that a well-reasoned post on any subject would invoke an equally well-reasoned reply.

But, alas, this is the Wild Wild Web. People can get their dander up over a comma splice out here. So we all continue to hit the Publish button and hope that we won’t be seriously misconstrued. But, somehow, we are.

I’m trying very hard not to promote any political opinion, mostly because I haven’t made up my mind. I daily get ultra-right-wing e-mails from my retired brother-in-law, as well as left-leaning tracts from my childhood friend in California. I glance over them, and I delete them. I watched the conventions, mostly on CSPAN to avoid the live punditry. I read the papers, and I even check in from time to time with both Fox and MSNBC.

And I gladly read my friends’ political comments on their blogs, which, for me, add to their personal richness and character. Your passion is always attractive and admirable, whatever the subject. I’ve even commented on some of my favorite posts in what I hope is a responsible, reasoned way.

If I offend, please forgive me. That would never be my intent. Americans indeed have a big decision to make in the coming months, but we don’t have to permanently alienate each other in the process.

Note: This article is cross-posted at MidLifeBloggers.

It’s a good day to be a girl

September 5, 2008

On this very Friday morning, Sarah Palin is hitting the campaign trail with John McCain, Barack Obama is sending out his A-list girl-posse to blunt their efforts, and Condi Rice is the first U.S. envoy to visit Libya in more than 50 years.

We rule.

I finally wade into the Sarah Palin fray, sort of

September 5, 2008

In my wide-ranging wanderings around the Web, I have found a few blogs that leave me absolutely flat-footed and slack-jawed with awe at their rich thinking and writing. The Dame Domain is one of them. (She and I are both contributors to MidLifeBloggers, which both thrills and terrifies me. I’m not worthy!)

Amid all the yammering about Sarah Palin, the GOP and the RNC, hers is one blogpost that made me sit up and take notice. Only the Dame could combine Palin, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine and the game of chess into one VERY original commentary.

About blogging: Are women bloggers taken seriously?

July 31, 2008

Sigh… As usual, I’m late to the debate. In a recent issue of Newsweek, technology columnist Steven Levy pointed out the lack of women and minorities in any substantive list of top blogs and bloggers, and argued for some sort of remedial action. (Oh, great. Affirmative action on the Internet. That’ll be a walk in the park!) Levy’s concern was sparked by a well-publicized comment by Keith Jenkins of the Washington Post:

My fear is that the overwelmingly [sp] white and male American blogosphere, hell bent (in some quarters) on replacing the current ranks of professional journalists with themselves, will return us to a day where the dialogue about issues was a predominantly white-only one.

Their argument has Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute (who ain’t timid, I’ll warn you) breathing fire in an article in the New Republic Online (I know, it’s Bill Buckley’s Conservative rag, but I tend to sniff a lot of flowers in the media bouquet). She argues for the Web as a haven for the voiceless: Read the rest of this entry »

Your Girl in London: The American primaries

June 6, 2008

I just returned from three days in Stratford and Oxford to find that the American political landscape had significantly shifted. (Funny, I didn’t see any headlines about it in the English countryside.) Most of the Brits I’ve talked to have certainly heard of Hillary (and more so her husband) but they’re not sure who this Obama character is. “I’m not sure, either,” I tell them. “But I expect we’ll find out.”

As I cruised the Web, I found myself nodding at what media blogger Nancy Nall said in her summary of the campaign:

I’m thinking what happened to Hillary is what happens to people who live in a human cocoon, surrounded by ass-kissers and pillow-plumpers who either a) spend all their time covering their own; or b) telling you what you want to hear.

But I was especially interested — and saddened — by NYTimes columnist Judith Warner’s commentary juxtaposing Hillary’s decline with the ascendancy of “Sex and the City”: Read the rest of this entry »

Your Girl in London: A case of rape

June 1, 2008

The Washington Post has a disturbing story on an aspect of British life that I wasn’t aware of: “According to government statistics, only 5.7 percent of rapes officially recorded by police in England and Wales end in a conviction.”

Solicitor General Vera Baird, who oversees criminal prosecutions in England, estimated that [only] 10 to 20 percent of rapes are brought to authorities’ attention. According to government figures, 14,000 cases a year are reported and 19 out of 20 defendants walk free…

Thousands of victims each year once chose not to go to police because of shame, women’s advocates say. Now, the advocates say, the bigger reason is that rape victims feel the system is stacked against them.

Why the low conviction rate? Surveys commissioned by the police forces found a “‘culture of skepticism’ in the justice system when it came to rape cases, and recommended shifting the focus from seeking reasons not to believe the accuser to gathering evidence to support the charge.” (For a U.S. comparison, see this Wall Street Journal response.) Read the rest of this entry »

Your Girl in London: The new face of London

May 26, 2008

Theodore Dalrymple, one of my favorite contemporary essayists, beautifully sums up the unique face of modern London:

London is now the most ethnically diverse city in the world — more so, according to United Nations reports, even than New York. And this is not just a matter of a sprinkling of a few people of every race and nation, or of the fructifying cultural effect of foreigners… Walk down certain streets in London and one encounters a Babel of languages. If a blind person had only the speech of passersby to help him get his bearings, he would be lost; though perhaps the very lack of a predominant language might give him a clue…

A third of London’s residents were born outside Britain, a higher percentage of newcomers than in any other city in the world except Miami, and the percentage continues to rise. Likewise, migration figures for the country as a whole — emigration and immigration — suggest that its population is undergoing swift replacement. Many of the newcomers are from Pakistan, India, and Africa; others are from Eastern Europe and China. If present trends continue, experts predict, in 20 years’ time, between a quarter and a third of the British population will have been born outside it, and at least a fifth of the native population will have emigrated.

What he says is literally true: When I walk down the streets here, I am as likely to hear a foreign language as I am English, and much of the English I hear is strongly accented. We have very little to compare with it in the US, outside of New York City. Read the rest of this entry »

Your Girl in London: Is it really over?

May 8, 2008

I may be on the other side of the pond, but I can hear the death knell from here: Is Hillary really finished? The NYTimes, which endorsed her early on as I recall, seems to be of that mindset here and here. (Notice the baby she’s holding in the second picture. Even a cute kid can’t even help her.) All the pundits, the Times says, are beginning to line up against her, leading off with Tim Russert — Tim Russert?! Since when is HE the Godfather of American political thought?

As adamant as Mrs. Clinton appeared on Wednesday [before West Virginia], several advisers said that how long she would stay in the race was an open question. Some top Clinton fund-raisers said that the campaign was all but over and suggested that she was simply buying time on Wednesday to determine if she could raise enough money and still win over superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who could essentially hand Mr. Obama the nomination.

It was just a few months ago, February I think, that I told my ultra right-wing conservative brother-in-law (to his horror) that he’d better get used to having Hillary Clinton around, because I didn’t see anything stopping her. What did I miss?

Time Magazine online lists five (only five?) mistakes she made in her campaign, the biggest mistake being that she misjudged the mood of the nation: she ran like an incumbent (I think she THOUGHT she was an incumbent) instead of picking up early that this election (like most, in my long experience as a voter) was about change. Plus she had some pretty dumb people working for her.

If this election is about change, then how is a weary electorate going to look at an aging (and allegedly cranky) John McCain in comparison with the imperially slim and usually unruffled Barack Obama?

The Brits are actually quite interested in the American race, although the whole delegate thing and the Electoral College is a mystery to them (and to me, come to think about it). We had an interesting conversation with a couple at a Covent Garden cafe Saturday about Obama’s viability. PM Gordon Brown, the man insisted, is a Communist, and the 20,000 jobs he’s allegedly created for the British economy have all been in government. “You don’t grow unless the economy helps create wealth, and you don’t create wealth by putting in more government jobs,” he insisted.

We’ll be back in time for the National Convention, which should be a real circus this year.