With Hillary, It’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

The Ninteenth Century fantasy by R. L Stevenson epitomized the idea that people can have two personalities. In two, back-to-back days, before our eyes, Hillary Clinton changed from the peace-making Clinton into an i.e.d. It showed to me a want of diplomacy. There is that higher road to be traveled. She obviously feels she must do something to deal with the advantage held by Barack Obama in the style, or “words” department. Her judgment told her to mount the attack on the campaign flyer that was so offensive, and her method was angry mommy.

Hillary is a handsome woman. But she has not done handsome. She began by denigrating “words”, and I said “Whoa, Hillary! Whoa!” Then she makes nice with her opponent. Now she makes nasty. The language of diplomacy, mediation, tact, along with the style of the poetic teacher is required in a job that confronts a wildly differentiated world of people and cultures.

Running the gamut of an election campaign, receiving the beating of a multitude of pig bladders, or whatever else the gamutees have in hand to punish the runner, can have a liberating effect, if you survive the punishment. Now is the time, at this late date when others have fallen, to show the best you can do. Hillary Clinton is faltering, and may soon fall.

I am sorry to see it. I wish she had the fortitude to give back in kind, lighting stylish backfires instead of throwing volatile language on the conflagration. And done it with a smile. A resource devoutly to be wished.

There goes the “dream ticket”!

Empathy for Mrs. Obama

The reaction Michelle Obama received was unwarranted. The negative reception of her words about her pride in country is due to nothing other than the inability of people to empathize with her. Empathy is the ability to walk in another person’s shoes, so to speak. A visualization of her situation. Most have a deficit of empathy.

Who has not seen that respect for the U.S. has diminished over the globe? That damaged reputation can be exploitated. It’s the “ugly American” again. A source of “shame”?

My empathic response tells me that Mrs. Obama has been suddenly brought onto the domestic stage from obscurity, and she is having strong feelings of a new strangeness in her situation. She knew the black experience, and her kids will. But everything is now positive—her husband is, unbelieveably, going to be president! What a fast track to be on! What woman in that situation would not have the powerful stirrings of a new and strange pride, and in such a short time? She is now a public figure. Her speaking is of some great consequence! Has she been sharpened by extensive speaking over the past year? No! Her husband has honed his stump speech over more than a year and a half.  She has not done that. Her pride is newly gained. And she has elevated it to a great height. Can’t anyone see that? It’s so simple.

Do I myself have a knee-jerk pride in America? My pride is thoughtful. I have a reasoned pride. Do I have a reflexive pride that is a short circuit between heart and salute, leaving out the brain? No! Have there been alternative stimuli, giving me pause, that have caused me to reflect on the meaning to me of the United States? Oh, yeah! You betcha! And what might have caused that pause for reflection before I responded with pride or its alternative? I’ll give you one guess. Mr. Decider-in-Chief who has read two Shakespeares and has been mercilesslessly and legitimately lampooned. I am ashamed that our electorate, his constituency, along with the circumstances in the Supreme Court that gave him the office of president, did not have the competence to judge him before his election. Some of our legislators deserve a shame-upon-them. My pride would increase if someone could be elected who could speak with a sense of style that Americans deserve in their head of state, representing us eloquently on that global stage.

There is a context for her words that the “opposition” has indignantly sniffed at. Who in their most sane mind can identify (empathize) with the critics, who reveal that they lack MUCH! And play a political game that is so much blather. SHUT UP!

Ralph Nader’s declaration to run for President

I arose before a very large audience in a very large auditorium on the campus at Indiana University in 1950 (or thereabouts) where Ralph Nader gave a speech. I asked him if he would consider running for president of the U.S. He dismissed the idea because of his “Nader’s-raiders” type of work, which was driving big business and industry nuts. He was a muckraker in the vein of a Michael Moore, and still may be.

On “Meet the Press” (2-24-200 today he announced his candidacy again, for the second time in recent years. Tim Russert asked him if he would be a spoiler and wreck the Democrat party’s chances as he did in the last election which made Bush the president instead of Al Gore. Nader cited a bunch of culprits who bore the only responsibility for that debacle. Not he! It was believeable, convincing.

He presented in a nut-shell statement his agenda, and it was all encompassing in the failures of both the Democtrat and Republican parties.

Why now, I would ask. That was not discussed. But I believe that he has waited so long because he may have wanted to hear the candidates out before deciding that they now can be judged to have revealed their shortcomings.

Just as  in his speech at IU so long ago, he was speaking the views that I and all true progressives would support. I believe that he should be included in a three-way debate with Clinton and Obama. I WANT TO HEAR THAT DEBATE! It would be a good test of the two main candidates and have a sharpening effect on the cutting blade of the Democrat platform or agenda that will dispose of the corrupt and incompetent undergrowth of the Bush administration. Let them deal with the heretofore under-discussed issues spanning all the problems we will confront.

It’s not for him; it’s for us! For our own good! PICK HIS BRAINS in a crucial meeting of minds!

BUT…! People in politics are not that creative, courageous, curious—liberal, progressive, free. Perhaps he would be too tough to handle for ultra-sensitive candidates who have too much at stake. But they have not gone far enough to live up to their oft declared first interest in us, “we the people”.

Nader does not favor the two-party system and its philosophy of producing a majority winner—that’s clear. A philosophy I believe in if I can conclude that all the issues were adequately discussed and debated. Most now will call for an end to the debates. I believe, after hearing the views of Nader this morning, that calling an end to debate now will be prematutre, against our own best interests.

What Do Red-Yellow-Green, Stop-and-Go Lights Do?

Those government lights force pure democracy on everyone who comes up to them. Here we have a lesson in, and a demonstration of the central core of civilization and living in peace. Then along comes a scofflaw, acting like a usurper, facist pig with a Hitler ego who commits a coup d’etat  and, saying “To hell with your democracy; I’m the boss here and I am now the government.” They are the bozos who are crying, “Get the government off our backs!” (Guess who!)  And this criminal thug, or would-be suicide bomber, runs the red light, or tries to speed through the warning, loop-hole yellow light, consequences be damned! The mindless drunk. The high testosterone youth, or party girl, or greedy paparazzi—I think that translates to “sand fly” or “flea”, some kind of parasite. The old duck who shouldn’t be driving. The cel phone addict. The—well, the list is long. Driving is a dutiful skill and requires full attention and hard work and a lot of cooperation—the democratic spirit. (I am not holier than thou. But I give myself hard, finger-shaking lectures to renew my acquaintance with first principles.) What’s your excuse? You name it.

It’s anti-democratic behavior, and, therefore, un-American.  Same with all the signs of democratic government, speed limits, red stop signs, etc. There are plenty facists among us. Everybody’s in danger. (I get insulted for driving the speed limit in a 55 mph zone!) And we call ourselves a democracy! Most do not know the operational definition of democracy. I have just given a micrcosmic one.

You can calculate one gauge of the level of democracy we have achieved by looking at the traffic report and each individual’s traffic record. There is mayhem everyday reported on the traffic report. The TV traffic specialists never bother to look at yesterday’s police reports and give us a summary of the causes for yesterday’s roadway mayhem. That would be different!

Digression:

I also have a beef with the weather reports. So-called “meteorologists”—they have to have proper credentials to style themselves as “meteorologists”—have a more difficult time thinking creatively about their functions. They should be giving us proper understanding of the jargon they use. Educate us! They might also give us a bar or line graph of the weather trends over the past # of days, weeks, months, years, decades. Educate us about changes in trends, if possible. They should also be sparing with the cartoon weather and give us the satellite, or other big-picture weather more often.

Dear Sen. Clinton, I would like you to—

    —turn around three times and click your heels, saying “There’s no place like the White House … There’s no place like the White House … There’s no .. (etc. etc….)” But the magic will only operate to get you out of the magic city of Oz and “home” again in a place you once called home, only if you are truly transformed by doing some things differently.

There is much in your presentation that can be firmed up, and should be because I would like you to give Sen. Obama an opponent that will be his equal in some things. I like you both, as do millions of others. I wanted to split my vote at the caucus. Mainly I want to hear the issues debated again, with increased intensity of focus, to sharpen my perception of your differences on the issues. And I DO want an articulate and eloquent President, for a change, if I am going to have to listen to her/him for one or two terms. Sen. Obama already has the “words” pretty good. I enjoy his speaking very much. I am old enough that one of you may be my last president. I want it to be a pleasure to listen, not a grinding ordeal.

First, when you speak to a crowd, stop the aimless meandering about the stage. Take firm postures here, then there. Be fully aware of how you stand and confront the issues as you confront the voters.

Second, stop the undefined gestures, the limp, aimless waving of the hands. If you can, put on a wireless mike pinned to your dress to get away from having to handle the mike.

Third, stop shouting into the microphone. Let it do the job of amplification while your voice speaks in a normal tone.

Fourth, regarding the voice, lower the pitch to a contralto, getting away from the screaming Mimi type. As I have said before, Obama has a pleasant baritone.

Fifth, do not continue to wave at familiar faces in the crowd, putting your presentation on an interpersonal basis. Do that later, after you have spoken. For the speaking moment, you are elevating your address to everybody in the nation. And you do not need to be smiling all the time.

Sixth, do not minify, play down, underestimate the “words” of the speech, as I was very disappointed to hear you do. What the President does is what all teachers do: communicate. Words are the stock-in-trade of leaders. AND THE PRESIDENT IS A TEACHER. I think you derailed your campaign somewhat by taking that tack. Obama uses word well; give him his due. So you must backtrack quickly. You should be conscious of the attempt to be eloquent. Eloquence is the result of a marriage between head and heart, passion and intellect. The ancient rhetorician, Cicero, spoke of the “lights of speech”. Now what do you suppose he was referring to? The metaphors, similes, analogies, and all the language devices that seem immediately brilliant, surprising, creative, attention getting. Such things illuminate, light up, the point with which they are associated. Never underestimate the power of such devices to persuade.

Seventh, stop your personal applauding all the time. Stop the continual, positive nodding of your head. Occasionally, yes, but all the time?

–Well, I will go on to the substance.

In that regard, here is what I would like to hear you say: clarify a vision of your operating procedures in contrast to the incumbent. How will you gather about you the intellectual strength of the people in the nation? How will you put people to work on the issues, so that all will have a stake in our collective future? What are the essential issues? Get that powerfully organized. One by one tick them off and give a succinct summary of your solution after you have given a succinct statement of the problem. Be clear and forthright.

It’s how you say it. That’s my main thing.

Whoa! Hillary! Whoa!

We have a runaway horse and carriage here. Somebody grab those reins! I sense a disasterous crash is imminent. And it’s no accident. Hillary! Don’t attack the words! By attacking “words” you have paid a great compliment to your opponent. You have recognized what he is doing is the horse pulling his carriage, and you are not competing in this race if you feel you are behind him in the words department. A president’s stock in trade is words. The words are the contents of the mind. They stand above the deeds, which you say is your strength. Most of us do not see what you are doing or have done. How would we know? Unless you tell us, but when you do tell us, make it sound real good. And as you do would your deeds legislate for the whole world? Are you the model of a great citizen? How does your mind work at processing problems toward solutions? Not so much “what” as “how”! Please do not underestimate the strength of a leader in his power of the use of language to move people.

After the Bush incompetence as a model of communication, I welcome any leader who is a model of persuasion in the use of words. What a magnificent change that would be! When you speak to the nation, your speech is a language link to those whom you would direct and solve problems. THAT’S WORDS! I crave eloquence in our presidents. Look at the sorry model of speaking now in office. The butt of much satire. A regular cartoon character. A truly sad creature. You must be wary of how the political cartoonists will caricature you. I lived in West Texas for some years. There is there only a charm West Texans can appreciate, but it does not have national currency.

With your current turn of direction, you have gone over the hill and around the bend, and soon out of sight. Find a speech writer, or a bunch of them, who will give you a colorful set of words, not window dressing, but words that do justice to the breadth and scope of the vision you may have for our future as a great nation.

Discussion and Debate — Not Conversation

The deliberative mind is a problem-solving mind, which is a species of thought that must be cultivated through experience and training. It should flourish in the rich soil of democracy. In fact, any definition of democracy should and must turn on the definition of group discussion, which is the heart and soul of “democracy”. It is the one and only civilized precedure that will eventuate in a democratic society. Look for its markers everywhere, and if you see them, you will also see a peaceful society. This process solves conflict by peaceful means, person to person, person to society, and society to society.

The grand vision would be to found a society composed entirely of deliberative minds which have mastered th art and science of group problem-solving, discussion, the ultimate peaceful society.
It has a nomenclature, and that is the first order of business, to answer this question: what are the component parts of problem-solving that would yield the best solutions to our problems? Discussion has a process. If you haven’t had the course, then let me give something here that, perhaps, for the wise, will be sufficient.

1. Identify the problem by brainstorming. Make a list, and from that formulate a succinct statement of the problem.

2. Brainstorm all the solutions to the problem. Make a list. Do not begin the evaluation at this time. All suggestions should be dignified by withholding evaluation until the next step. A good leader can keep the group on the track. And anyone is welcome to take a leadership role. Leaders should arise from the on-going process. Leadership is emergent.

3. Evaluate each solution for advantages and disadvantages. List each advantage and disadvantage. Once the list is made, begin the evaluation.

4. Evaluation should produce the one best solution. which still may not be perfect, but the best on which the group can achieve consensus. CONSENSUS is general agreement. CONSENSUS should be the goal.

5. All along the way, great sensitivity for social-emotional needs should be exercised to keep the group working together. There is a kind of leadership for this one aspect that might be discovered in the course of the discussion. There are process, or task leaders and social-emotional leaders who can assist in the achievement of consensus on the one best solution.

PROBLEM-SOLVING is not accomplished by a “conversation”. Everyone is talking about a conversation these days. The worst offenders are the political candidates. That process described above is a dynamic group process of hard work and a concerted effort which, if failing, can fall into conversation (idle chit-chat with personal goals superseding the group goals).

How do you handle the recalcitrants? The social-emotional leader, if you are lucky to have one, might notice the individual’s inability to cooperate and step in. Can that person be saved and learn how to work in groups?

If you have the awareness of all those things, from training and experience–or maybe you are a group genius who may have intuited all that– you’d be surprised at how well you will be perceived in your work, political, or other groups. Most university communication faculties offer courses in group processes. I would think that anyone training for law, diplomacy, education–well, the list is endless for the uses of training in group processes.

A Potpourri of Thoughts

Can you empathize with nearly anything? I can, and do, often. For example, I empathize with my electric razor as it clips the stubble, seeing the screen engage the hair. I big part of empathy is visualization, having a visual experience of what is happening. Try it with the functions of the internal organs. Visualize yourself undergoing experiences of all kinds, wanted and unwanted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ideology is simply mind-set, which Obama talks about and applies to the Bush regime. Through ideology, you can speculate anything you want into existence, no matter how insubstantial. Language is a minefield of ideologies. You’ve seen how carefully one must step through it. You have to have a good mine detector with you: the right questioning probes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At any stoplight intersection, you should see pure democracy at work: at that point, at that time we are all in this together. The government street, the government light system, the government painted pavement lane and turn markers, the government curbing and sidewalks, the government speed signs, the government maintenance, and the individual driver government-licensed choosing to abide by all the government rules. Let’s all act civilized by obeying the rules and laws. Let’s not ever except ourselves from what is civilized.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Human beings are considered a part of the hydrosphere, not the atmo-, bio-, or geo-spheres. I saw somewere that we should drink 1 oz. of water per pound of body weight.  Maybe I heard that wrong. Do you know what that would entail? Maybe they said we have that amount in each pound of body weight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is there a level of prudence in driving a car that is lower for the young than it is for the older driver. I contemplated that while driving down a mountain side. How would you measure “prudence”? I equate prudence with a higher level of awareness and circumspection. That higher level is a function of experience, much of which comes with age, or special training.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you judge people’s I.Q. from their body weight? You can if volition is a component of intelligence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is the essential function of ego?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How does life work? All living things have hit upon a strategy for survival through mutually beneficial interactions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Randall Robinson, a major deliberative mind. <randallrobinson.com> “The U.S. does so little with so much.” “You can’t quell people who know their story.”   –Wisdom. Intelligence. Eloquence. Erudition.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you see any evidence of the incompetence to come before the election that brought in the Bush administration?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The books recommended by viewers of PBS Bill Moyers Journal, books that the newly elected president should take with him to the White House:

A People’s History of the U.S. (Zinn);
Collapse (Diamond);
Atlas Shrugged (Rand);
The Shock Doctrine (can’t read my writin’–??);
Three Cups of Tea (?);
The March of Folly (Tuchman);
A Christmas Carol (Dickens);
All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten;
The Clash of Civilizations and the (?) of World Order;
Where Have All the Leaders Gone? (Iacocca);
Command of Office(???).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forgiveness is the abandonment of some right of revenge, of retribution. (Desmond Tutu) (so that you can invite the perpetrator to show remorse and restore the relationship.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn’t it interesting that it’s the Democrats who have produced this race-gender innovation? They previously produced the Rainbow Coalition about color, now joined by the gender coalition. The Republicans, it seems, are going to stick to ageism as their traditional offering.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A lot of scratching won’t remove the itch. Scratching is not a cure.

Beauty Pageants and Dog Shows: Wild Hair #5

Let’s have a beauty pageant like they have dog shows. The contestants may come from any nation, any jungle, any sex, any sexual orientation, any economic class, any age, any color, any profession or occupation, any category of intelligence, any handicap–in short, any demographic category. The judges will have leave to check out any part of the anatomy hands on as it stands, or has the contestant jog about the arena. There will need to be a  pedigree book for each person with the requisite lineage named as many names as have been determined to vouch for heritage.  In fact, every breed shall be represented. No breakdown of categories by function shall be allowed except by alphabetical order according to the last name where that can be distinguished. Let them compete all together for model person of the globe.

How is it justified to compare the exquisiteness of one breed compared to another to find best in show?

What have we lost? Body Wisdom, Health Care!

I had a blister on my face. I just let it go, out of some deep knowing it would go away on its own. I had read about the military doctors before “modern medicine”. For the many wounded they would say, “Let him stew in his own juices.” Many of the body’s own defense mechanisms take time for healing. Nowadays, with “modern medicine”, we can have at hand the all-too-ready quick “commercially advertised” fixes. My facial blemish just went away, with time.

The sad case of a young actor who recently died of an overdose might be the poster-boy for quick fixes that go against the grain of body wisdom, learning self-preservation. One ought to be able to empathize with one’s own body, assisted by thoughtful reflection on, and consideration of the problem. I was able to recall my experiences with the nutritional literature I subscribed to and do for myself what any normally intelligent person can. It’s tough when you can think that medicine knows something you do not know. But trust yourslf to know, or know how to find out. And always check your motivation level: how much do you want to live? How long do you want to live? What must you move yourself to do to make your answer happen?

Are our medical practitioners as oriented to body wisdom as they ought to be? How many would take the time to explain body wisdom approach in each case? Do they have a vested (unspoken) interest in the full waiting room or are they prepared to work for preventative medicine? As they are, more so in England, where the pay system is different because of health care innovations.

Any talk of improving medical care in the U.S. should note what differences will be made by a national health care system. (See Moore’s Sicko.) Preventative measures will make us all more healthy by making self-reliance and personal responsibility a greater factor and more prevalent. A Brit doctor has an added vested interested in keeping people out of the waiting room. Much of the preventative literature came out of the British press.

Two of the most prominent issues in the current campaign should point to two of the most important obligations of government in a world class democracy of which we often boast, HEALTH and EDUCATION. Prima facie evidence of best government practice. Which party can deliver the goods?

We are nearly all of us amateur eaters, where we should be professionals. We are nearly all of us amateur tenants of a body where we should be professionals.

Look at that body. Do you see pride of ownership? Or do you see a slumlord?

Hillary Clinton and Misogyny

I was listening to a progressive, radio talk show. A lady was allowed to speak by the imperious host who plays off the calls of phone-ins, using them like the bird in badminton. At least he (selectively) asked the most important, five-word question any reporter should be a master of, and so very rarely heard. (Most ask half-assked questions.)

The caller said she hears much misogynistic treatment of Hillary Clinton.

“How do you know that?” (Five words few reporters use.) “Give me an example!” The imperative mood. Commanding.

“I can’t put my finger on it. But I hear it and my husband hears it, too.”

I knew immediately what the two of them on the radio did not. Most people fail at understanding the elements of verbal and nonverbal behavior. That’s where the answer lay. Tone of voice. Facial expressions. Body orientation. In language, signal words. What do you hear people say? Hillary is an unlikeable person,

“Why do you think people say they do not like you, Sen. Clinton?”

What we have here is Elizabethan Theatre. Boys took the roles of the girl, or woman. Some of the best Brit comedy comes from males dressing as women and putting out the falsetto voice. (See “Monty Python”.) Outrageous! Not “Shakespeare in Love” where the girl imitates a boy imitating a girl. A woman for the first time in American political history is playing the role of President in a campaign, Commander-in-Chief. The male sounds and language coming out of her mouth is strange to many, tough, hard edged, commandeering, domineering, emphatic. It tells me that most people do not accept the accustomed presidentail language and posture coming from a woman, and they also did not know until now how the male presidents made their noises sound  male. By contrast do we learn. Obama’s voice has a pleasant baritone that goes a long way to persuade.

There are many more dimensions of presentation that lead to misogyny. How much and how long have North American women been kept out of political discussion as a “family value”? The “Suffragettes” made bold sounds and demands not too long ago. Men made the same slights then that we hear now, not always verbally. Mostly by the snorts of paralanguage and a wave of the hand.

I believe that the atmosphere most putting Hillary’s bid in peril is the over-arching sounds and smells of misogyny, and the signal word is, “Unlikeable”.

Clinton-Obama Debates

Hillary Clinton wants more debates. Barack Obama has demurred. If Obama is having growing success and starts now to duck for cover—to no longer rock the boat—then that may indicate something about his character. If he stays away from debating, playing it safe, what does that tell you? Some would say, playing it smart. I would say that, taking away the opportunity for both to enlarge and widen their views and socialize their visions, and cheating the voters of refining their understanding of the world through the eyes of their future leader, that would be a great loss in a critical and unprecedented election year.

Livid at “SUPER DELEGATES”!

Then we have the aristocrats in the Democrat Party. We must no longer say the “Democratic” Party. Not proper grammar and not proper labeling! Would you believe?! I just am catching on to something that’s been around and I missed. Just now realizing: upper-crust Democrats have finagled themselves into being the political bosses of the Democrat Party. I am ashamed, after all the ideals of the Party I subscribed to over the years. That’s not “liberal”, “progressive”, egalitarian! Such wangling I have always expected from the Republicans. I am disillusioned. I expect the two candidates to speak out against “SUPER DELEGATES”. Screw them! Who do they think they are? Our nannies? Guardian angels? Holier-than-thou Saviors? Watchdogs?

Huckabee for President? Nah!

If there is a man who wants to become President so he can get rid of the Internal Revenue Service and enshrine a god in the U.S. Constitution, who would be the people to listen to him, adopt those views, and help him get elected? He certainly puts a benign face on revolutionary proposals. He would starve this nation for want of liberty and revenue. That ultra-conservative, radical segment of our body politic, so-called evangelicals—militant, crudsading zealots—knows not what they do. I call them the American Taliban who would do here what was done in Afghanistan. We all saw the chopping blocks, the merciless whippings, the subjugation of the female gendered hidden in their black costumes. Who knows what other un-American crap they would foist off onto this society if they ever had the upper hand. However, I feel safe in saying, there is no chance at all that they will ever achieve their ends in the U.S.

Well, …… ?

So many every election vote against their own best interests because they are like the guy interviewed on David Broncaccio’s program, suffering with his eviction notice and voting Republican. (Do you understand the connection between those two? You should.)

McCain should be tarred with the same brush. He said that liberty was bestowed on us by our creator, not by government. That is an affront to liberal thinkers. That is a signal that he, too, would enshrine a god in the U.S. Constitution. I respect McCain for his service to this country. Much of his appeal is on that basis, war hero. But he has all the policies of the politically bankrupt Bush crowd.

On the other hand,  to be fair, I am sure he did not say we would be in Iraq for a hundred years, but only see Iraq as a work in progress and be a concern for a hundred years. He was misunderstood and the words have been twisted for political points scored. Nevertheless, he should not be elected because he is same-old, same-old. (And I am not referring to an ageism issue, although there is that consideration.).

Black, White, Woman, Man

White woman, black man. Why should race cause a greater divide than gender in the minds of the electorate in the coming election? Race and gender are probably both equal opportunity causes for divisions among voters. Is racism more subtle than sexism?

Is the perpetrator of sexism more aware of the sexism expressed than the racism expressed by racists? On the verbal (language and speech) level, it is probably easier to suppress sexist speech than racist speech. On the nonverbal level of comunication, it is nearly impossible to suppress racist or sexist communication since most people have not been educated (made aware) about the many dimensions of nonverbal behavior that can affect a relationship. Word habits catch more attention than deed habits which escape notice more easily. Word habits are more susceptible to conscious control. Many fewer people are racist or gender bigots in speech than in the other cultural habits of the nonverbal types which remain open as markers.

Once, at a social gathering of people sophisticated in communication, I joined a small, mixed-race group for social chat. The second I spoke the words, “you people”, I could have cut my tongue out for my “insensitivity”. I knew what I had done: opened the racial divide through stereotyping. I had considered myself color blind. I was set on the trail of learning that “political correctness” is equivalent to “cultural astuteness”. The goal of life as a citizen in a “melting pot” nation is to become culturally astute, and you cannot swear that away.

Is it possible that if one is racist, then that one is probably also a sexist? Is prejudice selective, as a function of intelligence, education and knowledge? Probably racism and sexism become matters of intellectual choice and rationalization among the more learned, with the choice to be sexist or racist affirmed or condemned, aloud, in saying so, let there be no doubt. Thus the reasoning process weeds out some racism and some sexism among the learned while sexism and racism runs rampant in the majority of sexists and racists. That implies that some people do not choose to be prejudiced for causes other than learning, such as heritage, socialization experiences, models.

Where do you get your race and gender in the first place? That should be ‘nuf said. But it ain’t. There are more genders than are implicit in basic, physical sex differences. There are many subtle shades of race beyond color. The wannabes and the don’t wannebes! The boundaries are fuzzy, not strict, and thereat are many opportunities for choice, once the situation has been clarified by intelligence and intellectual effort.

Now, about Obama and Clinton. With an awareness that can transcend sexism and racism as an active knowledge and skill, one might choose the candidate on the true basis that the candidates themselves have said that they would prefer to be selected. Such a voter would be able to look beyond the matters of gender and race. I have heard many commentaters suggest that Obama has been able to be perceived as colorless, and Clinton as genderless. Those sensitive to the race and gender signs and signals can separate out the professed policies from the racial or sexist. Obama clearly has made himself a candidate with an appeal beyond what could be attributable to black culture. Only once did I hear a commentator refer to his black tones derived from the gospel preached with an “amen” corner. I hear it and become aware of a part on his experience. I heard a white woman, Hillary, attempt to speak that dialect, once.

But nearly always I hear the Harvard education, the work experience on the street, the legalese of lawmaking, the allusions from experience with historical literature. When they, other blacks, say he is not black enough, I do not know their meaning. That is blacks talking to blacks and I am just overhearing it. So I am to stay out? If I ventured an opinion, I might be told told off, as I was before. I should be allowed to give my opinion so that I can be constructively criticized, and I do have an opinion.

I have concluded that Obama will be a change in this way. CHANGE: The black perspective will have the bully pulpit. CHANGE: He will elevate the level of articulateness to a height for which we have been starved for eight years by a person who brags he has read two Shakespeares. People should want the highest level of diction at the top, a stratosphere where eloquence might be attained on the world stage! CHANGE: That will change the generally conceded low estate to which our government has fallen.

I have concluded that Clinton will be a change in this way. CHANGE: She can present herself and the office of the president of the United States with a magnifence that will turn around world opinion. CHANGE: I believe there are feminine qualities that will be more useful in diplomacy and military matters, such as care for the vets and their families, and ending the war. CHANGE: She would not be the one to have a “bring-it-on” false bravado and appearances in military uniform at mocked up photo ops on decks of warships with nutsy banners. CHANGE: She would not appear only in front of selected invitees to artificial political events. CHANGE: Her appointees will be chosen on the merit of the experience and special knowledge That will be a monumental change. CHANGE: She has the drive, diplomatic experience and the intellect to do it.

CHANGE: In both cases, world diplomacy is where the greatest change needs to take place.

My mind is evenly divided between them, mirroring the national poll numbers. If I had to vote at this moment, I would vote for . Our caucuses are tomorrow night. What will I do? I like Hillary’s health care plan better. I am more familiar with her stance on Iraq. She is the stronger on education because she has been more explicit on early childhood and college education support and innovation. I think she has advocated a new G.I Bill for the vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. I was a beneficiary of it after WWII.

For those reasons, I would like to see a co-presidency, as much as that can be achieved in the present election. It doesn’t much matter which of the two has the top office. We might have the two working in tandem, like a two-horse hitch pulling the load equally, even under our present constitutional constraints, if it were not for something called “EGO”. One of them would be let down. Which would be the more gracious? Hillary, or Barack?

Debate Innovations

In addition to the reforms I suggested previously, we should have a reporter used as a summarizer, a clarifier of each debaters position on, say, health care, a summary from a disinterested point of view of any section of the debate, to the satisfaction of each debater, just to get it right. That is the best test of any good active listener, which every reporter should be. Just make a simple statement of what was said. “Did I get it right?” Don’t ask a question. Just report the content. Do that for each candidate statement, and move on to the next set of statements.

That procedure would certainly help the listeners/viewers.

The reporters should also be able to frame a debateable proposition, a resolution, clarifying the proposal for a policy of action by the deliberative body (Congress). The president usually makes proposals to be enacted by the legislators. What should be the policy (policies) we should enact to mitigate, for example, global warming?

We should insist that these debates among candidates for office be more efficient, productive, illuminating.

The journalists have not done the job.

The Ticket: Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama

As I thought, the two candidates looked awful good together in the debate of 1-31-08, and it is going to be a very difficult choice for nearly everybody. They appeared to be more in harmony with one another, chewing on their minor differences. I thought there’d be a question about it, and it was the final one. It was so obvious, I thought, and I’m not so damn unique.

I would like to see them run together, and it doesn’t appear to me at this time which is the top of the ticket. BECAUSE! Because I envision the offices of president-vice-president evolving into a co-presidency, sharing the ceremonials and legals. A different use of the office of veep may be in the offing. They can and should work more closely together in a division of labor and as an expansion of the checks and balances. No more shadow presidential functions, as at present, with Cheney a sinister figure in the background pulling levers of political action out of view.

Journalists as “Debate” Moderators

I wish I could find the right words for the opprobrious behavior of the journalistic habits that deleteriously affected the progress of the “debate”. Poor Wolf! Out of his element! He insisted on coming between the interactions of the two candidates, interposing new questions before each candidate had a chance to respond to the previous speaker’s remarks, which is called a clash of views that constitutes “a debate”. GET THE DAMN JOURNALISTS OUT OF THE DEBATE BUSINESS!!! That is not their province. Am I the only one who hates to hear the journalist sputtering in the background attempting to gain control of the interchange. Wolf announced there’d be no rules. I guess that means time rules, also. I have seen only two attempts by candidates to put the moderator in his place. They should have asserted more leadership about the procedures, and responsibility and self-control for such elements as the time.

Nearly everybody does not know the distinctions among the forms, debate, conversation, discussion. Only one candidate used the word “discussion”: Hillary. A very brief glimmer, but then lost again in “conversation”. A conversation is aimless; a discussion is not. A discussion has a formal sequence of functions, as does debate. And though those functions are formally identifiable by research observers, they are functions that people in a discussion, without awareness, may go through, in order to solve a problem. If the people in a discussion have an awareness of the functions in advance, as part of their education (which currently is grieveiously missing), the solving of problems can be very efficient, less conversational and aimless and harmful to human relations. Tch! Tch!

More important, if they know the functions involved in a discussion or debate, then they are able to pick up on those functions not operating, being ignored, or slopped through, for every one of the functions is absolutely necessary for group problem solving.

Personally, when I find myself in any group discussion, I have work very hard to keep myself under control, and self-control is one of the functions. I see people operating with no awareness of what they are doing to destroy any opportunity for a meaningful, useful, practical, and democratic  outcome for all the time they are investing.  Education is missing, and needed. For everyone in a democratic society.  The totalitarians are everywhere wreaking havoc on group processes.

You who wish to be top operators in public discussion can inform yourself by reviewing or studying (Googling) the topic of “group dynamics”. Actually, and ideally, every “citizen” should be so desirous.

Journalists, do your thing, but do not step out of your most valuabe role as conduits for the news. And those who ask you to step out of your basic role to moderate a forum, are fools. And you, journalists, are fools to accept.

You are the copper wire, not the electricity.