Voting Rights

On this day 90 years ago, women won the right to vote in the U.S., when the 19th amendment became the law of the land. Since I know a lot of uppity women, it's hard for me to believe that our female ancestors put up with the nonsense as long as they did, but obviously they were much more patient than I am. It's also easy for me to wonder about their attitudes since I'm sitting pretty on this side of history.

I'm not the only one. Many, many women take the right to vote for granted. It may be lack of interest, but I hope you know the history of women's suffrage in this country.

Drawing depicts a hunger strike; from The Suffragette, 1909

Not only did it take eons before women won the legal right to vote in every state, many women were arrested when they marched, demonstrated or staged non-violent protests in favor of a woman's right to vote. While in jail, some women resorted to hunger strikes to protest their arrests, only to find they were often force-fed, a fairly horrific practice in the early 20th century. There weren't I-Vs then, so the practice involved running tubes up a woman's nose and pumping food into her stomach. Some women died as a result.

Given what these women endured just to earn the right to vote, we should pay them the respect of exercising that right. Do you know a woman who isn't registered to vote? You can do it online now. It's quick and it's easy, so you don't have an excuse. The second step is to study up on the candidates. Before most elections, local newspapers will print election guides telling you where candidates stand on a variety of issues. Finally, find out when election day is and VOTE! It doesn't take very long most of the time, and nowadays you may be able to vote early and avoid lines or send in a mail-in ballot and avoid lines altogether.

Happy Equality Day!

Funniest. Show. Ever?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I'm a huge fan of the Daily Show and already think our democracy may rest solely on the genius and talent that is Jon Stewart. Now comes this opening bit from Monday's show that is one part humor, one part analysis and one part sheer insanity.

If you ever encounter anyone who tries to argue any redeeming value in the idiocy that is Fox*, please point them to this. I especially like the logic in the idea that they must be evil or stupid at Fox. If you can honestly argue for a third alternative, I would welcome hearing it. Sincerely.

*I cannot in good conscience refer to Fox as "news" since I was an actual journalist for 10 years. What they do can only be classified as "entertainment programming." (Not that I find anything they do entertaining.)

Ground Zero

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
From the preamble to the Bill of Rights

I think it's interesting that the first members of the U.S.

Congress took the time to explain why they were putting together the first amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

They probably thought people would wonder why they were adding to a document they'd ratified less than two years prior. This part is especially telling: "...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...." Wish our current members of congress had equally strong feelings.

There is a lot of talk these days about making changes to the U.S. Constitution again. In some cases, members of congress are advocating repeal of certain amendments, or parts of certain amendments. Most people who think these ideas through to their logical conclusions will see the unintended consequences of such action.

But especially troubling to me is how many Americans are forgetting what is in the Bill of Rights, in particular, the first amendment.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment has been interpreted quite broadly over the past 220+ years. The government tries to stay out of religion and pretty much allows you to say what you'd like to say. We have a lot of freedom to express ourselves in this country, with notable exceptions (pornography, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

But lately I've been disturbed the the number of people who feel that it's quite okay to prohibit "the free exercise thereof" when the religion being practiced is Islam. As a Christian woman, I have some very strong opinions about the way women are treated in that religion, particularly as expressed by members of the Taliban. As a follower of Jesus Christ, I have theological differences in their understanding of the nature of God. But as an American, I recognize the rights of American Muslims to practice their religion as they see fit, as long as it does not harm others or break the laws of the United States.

A recent poll shows that 68% of Americans are opposed to the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." I imagine a lot of this sentiment has to do with concerns about the building being in such close proximity to the World Trade Center site. Anyone who has been to New York knows that the area is filled with churches, synagogues and even a mosque already. (There's a current mosque four blocks from Ground Zero that pre-dates the World Trade Center.) What is the harm in one more?

If the concern is because the 9/11 terrorists and the 9/11 planners were/are Islamic, why are we blaming the entire religion for the acts of a few? (There are more than a billion Muslims in the world.) No one blames Christians as a whole for the acts of Timothy McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers, even though their actions were motivated by their Christian faith. What is the difference?

This country has long been identified as a "Christian" nation since the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian, so perhaps Americans feel that freedom of religion only applies to other Christians. I'm forced to reach this conclusion since Americans are trying to stop Muslims from building new mosques all over the country, not just at Ground Zero. I'm hard-pressed to understand how any American can justify their opposition to any place of worship, but they do.

Sadly, this is becoming a political issue that is driving a wedge ever deeper into the partisan divide. On one thing we should still be united, regardless of party, gender, race or religion: the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps it's time to re-read it.

Literacy Helps

Agree or disagree with him - you have to admit that it's nice to have a president who actually talks to the people he represents. Case in point, today's Washington Post Op-Ed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html

You may not like what he says or his ideals, but at least he's following through on one campaign promise: more transparency.

It's been a very difficult week for the new president. He's nominated several folks to key posts who have tax problems and some have "lobbyist" problems, too. With sky-high approval ratings, there was only one way to go.

So right out of the gate he's proven he isn't perfect, which everyone knew anyway. But even with these stumbles I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a while because he's already done two things:

1. Reinstated the rule of law and remembered that a key part of his job is "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
2. Talked to me like I'm intelligent.

Chess and Checkers

I used to play chess with my older brother when I was a kid. I finally gave up because he was much, much better at thinking five or 10 moves ahead. I was pretty much limited to two or three moves ahead. In my own defense, I was young – 10 or 11 when he first taught me to play – and my brother is four years older than I. But I much preferred to play Checkers, a game that doesn’t require you to see very far ahead. My inability to look at the options on the Chess board ensured that I always lost; in many ways it meant I was never even in the game.

I’m getting that same sense as I watch President Obama play rope-a-dope with the Republicans in Congress. The current issue at hand is the stimulus bill the president wants Congress to approve in the next three weeks. Since they are in the minority in both houses of congress now, Republicans are left with one tool at their disposal to have any influence at all in the political process: the ability to filibuster and prevent a cloture vote in the Senate. As Democrats know from past experience, it’s a small tool at that.

The difference this year as in the previous eight, 12 or several dozen years is that President Obama says he wants bi-partisan support for the bill. He has asked for input from Republicans in order to get their support. They could suggest a few compromises and show that they want to work for the good of our country, to help restore our tattered and broken economy. But to do so would mean to tacitly accept that their ideology is failed. So instead, Republicans have come back to the president and told him the only way they would accept the stimulus package is if it is a Republican plan. In other words, no compromise – just do things our way.

At first this seemed completely strange to me. How could any politician think they could have influence in this circumstance against a president who is enjoying over-the-top approval ratings and after being completely routed in the last general election? It didn’t make any sense. Then I realized that the only upside for Republicans as a party is if the plan fails. If they backed a failed plan, then they cannot claim the high road; but if they stood in vehement opposition to a failed plan, well, they were the visionaries who saw the disaster that lay ahead. It’s in their best interest to cling to partisanship. It doesn’t matter that our country is going to hell in a hand basket economically, if they can find an upside politically, they’ll use it.

This is not to say the Republican Party is any worse than the Democratic Party when it comes to partisanship. I’m sure Democrats would be doing something similar if the shoe were on the other foot. I just had a hope that we could put it all away, at least for a week or two, in the best interest of our country. Sadly this isn’t the case.

Certainly President Obama is aware of this. He went to Capital Hill today and did something highly unusual for a new president: he met with the entire House Republican Caucus and asked them to come to the table. It was a pretty gutsy move and it remains to be seen whether any in the minority party will cross the aisle when it’s time for the final vote. Unfortunately they seem to be playing from the Karl Rove playbook and trying to win today’s news cycle instead of looking at the big picture.

Republicans might try to present a better plan ideologically. A few have said that we need more tax breaks for large corporations. Sure, it’s more of the same George W. Bush policies that embroiled us in our current mess, but at least that’s consistent. But to be honest, there’s no upside for Republicans to present an alternative either.

If I were a Republican congressman or senator, I’d look beyond today – or even next week or next month. I’d be careful to avoid any appearance of partisanship, if at all possible. Because when it’s all said and done, the American people won’t blame the president if there is a successful filibuster in the Senate and the stimulus bill doesn’t move forward. The people will blame the obstructionists. Right now, anything that stands in the way of getting our economy back on track is considered obstructionist.

President Obama is playing chess and Republicans are playing checkers.

The Escape Plan

Not that I think that I need one, but it's always nice to have options in case something truly unexpected happens next Tuesday.





Special note to the Shafer family: I guess this disproves that whole "Starving Canadians" rumor!

Politics and Passion

Thank God Barack Obama has a cooler head than I do. He's demonstrated throughout this long march to the White House that he doesn't rise to the bait. He doesn't get upset or bothered when people attack him - even when the attacks get personal. I wish I were as even keeled. I have a hard time keeping my passion in check when someone questions ideas near and dear to my heart. Today my passion spilled over at work.

One of my colleagues started attacking the Democratic party - claiming they and they alone are responsible for the disastrous financial mess we are in, even though they've been the party in power at all levels of U.S. government for most of the past decade. Sure, there have been small areas of Democratic governance, but for the most part, the Republicans have controlled the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. My colleague tried to imply that Bill Clinton was responsible for the problems in our financial markets. Bill Clinton? He hasn't been president for almost eight years.

I told him he needed to occasionally watch somthing other than Fox News. At least I was able to get him to admit that he didn't watch anything except Fox News. He also said he was scared of an Obama presidency and that Sarah Palin is qualified to be vice president because of her vast executive experience. At that point, I knew there was absolutely no point in arguing with him because he had no ability to debate logically. Of course, we can disagree on political issues and exactly the best way to run a country, but when you begin to vilify someone saying he "scares you," you've headed off the logic track and into crazy land.

I'm pretty good at keeping the attacks from getting personal, but I can't keep my temper in check when someone turns illogical. I walked away and refused to engage after that. My colleague apologized later in the day for being so vociferous in his arguments, and I told him: "No problem; I'm a big girl and I can handle a disagreement." I have to admit, I also made a crack about being able to stand up to him because his arguments looked a lot like the BYU defense against TCU last night. It brought snickers from the other male colleagues. Hey, I can score points and hold my own with the boys.

Maybe I let my passion get the best of me at times, maybe I can't always keep my cool and have to walk away before my head explodes. At least I know a little bit about self-preservation.

On Polite Discourse

Last night's third and final debate didn't seem to be the game-changer McCain and the GOP were hoping for, even though it was probably his best performance and Obama's worst. Unfortunately for McCain, it solidified the "angry old man" image that he's aquired over the last few weeks. Sure, he was always an older American, but there's a big difference between being older and being old. My grandfather, God bless him, was a funny, warm older American until the day he died - just days away from his 97th birthday. He was never an old man. John McCain has become the stereotype of the pants-above-the-navel, nasty, screaming geezer waving at the young whippersnappers to "get the hell off my lawn." His kitchen sink approach to last night's debate just added to that impression.

No one really cares about Bill Ayers. Obama was eight years old when the Weather Underground was in its heyday. If we were all condemned for the people we served on boards with, people we sat in church with, people we have simply known throughout our lives there wouldn't be ANYONE qualified to be President of the United States.

No one cares about ACORN. They're trying to get people to register to vote. Sure, there will always be idiots who register as "Mickey Mouse" or "Jack Bauer" but do those idiots try and vote as "Mickey Mouse" or "Jack Bauer"? There is zero evidence that they do. I'd like to point out to all the folks who are coming unglued by the fake voter registrations: It isn't a crime to fill out a fake voter registration; it's only a crime if you vote under a fake name.

These arguments aren't working because people are far more worried about the economy. Barack Obama has proven to be the calm voice of reason during these turbulent times. Every time they say he's lightweight, try to associate him with terrorists, try to paint him as inexperienced - it all backfires because his own demeanor belies these attacks. He is thoughful, educated, intelligent and likeable; he seeks the counsel of many smart people from varied backgrounds; he listens. These are qualities that Americans are craving because they have been so sorely lacking in our executive branch over these last eight years.

Americans want a change - not just from ideology, but from temperament, too. Frat boy leadership failed; now it's time to try to let the geeks rule.

Why it took me so long to write about it...

This year the presidential race became personal for me for the first time. I started out a little conservative in my younger days, but as I've grown older, I moved more to the center. Over the past eight years, I've driven decidedly to the left side of the political spectrum. A lot has to do with the way the Bush administration ran the constitution of the United States through a figurative paper shredder, the way they started a pre-emptive war on false pretenses, the way they pushed our standing in the world into the gutter, and finally, the way they ran our economy into the ground in order to line the pockets of their cronies. This is the worst kind of politics and should be condemned by all - left, right and center. There's no excuse for it and I can't abide with anyone who tries to defend this behavior by claiming it was necessary to protect our security. That idea is laughable on its face. We are less secure and far more vulnerable now than we were seven years ago in the wake of 9/11.

In 2000, I voted for Al Gore. I was sure he would win - and except for the Supreme Court crowning of King George - he did win. But no use rehashing that argument. What's done is done. I was disappointed, but I didn't think it was the end of the world. (What did I know?) I also voted for John Kerry in 2004. Again, I accepted the results, even though I was angrier and more disappointed than I had been four years earlier.

This time, it's personal. I started supporting Barack Obama last fall; yup, a year before the election. I had already decided to vote Democratic - the Republicans had blown any opportunity to put checks on our joke of a president - and looked at all of the different candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. I considered Hillary Clinton. I even thought she'd be a pretty good choice if my choice didn't earn the nomination. But I ultimately decided there were too many negatives about her. Plus, everything I read about Barack Obama just made me like him more. Usually I find that I like politicians less as I discover more about them. I put my money where my mouth was and started donating to his campaign.

I have to be honest, I didn't think he'd win the nomination (I thought Hillary Clinton would win), but I thought I'd send him some cash to help him make his case to the American people. As the Democratic primary wore on, I was more and more anxious. After Super Tuesday, I knew he could win, so it made the long primary months even more hair-raising. I got angrier and angrier with Hillary Clinton as the long primary process continued, but in the end, it was probably the best thing that ever happened to the electoral process: more vetting of the candidates, more democrats registered to vote and more attention paid to the issues and the race at large.

The longer it went on, the more entrenched I became in the process. I read lots of political blogs. I watched election coverage on TV. I donated time and money - and lots of mental energy - to getting Barack Obama elected. So I just have a very hard time being objective about this election. I love writing about politics and what's going on in the world, but I just couldn't take a step back until now. And probably the only reason I can do that now, is that our long national nightmare seems to be near its conclusion. Sure, it will take years to try and rebuild this country after the mess that the Bush administration has left in its wake. Hey, they could do even more damage since it's still 3 months until Inauguration day. But January 20th is circled on my calendar. (And not just because it's my sister's birthday - sorry, Elizabeth.) January 20th is LIBERATION DAY.