I'm To Blame

(Author's Note: I began writing this on the morning after the 2012 Presidential election. Writer's block took over and I have not been able to find my voice until today, January 10, 2013. This is pieced together from two days that were only two months apart in time, but a world apart in mood and mindset.)

Over the years I've had many arguments about politics. It started at the dinner table, when I, an impressionable teen and my father, a close-minded  redneck (as I thought then) would come to blows over some new, radical idea I'd read, or heard about at school.

We would argue, and it often got unpleasant for the rest of the family, but I never thought it was wrong to argue about these matters. They seemed like important conversations, even though I usually left feeling young, stupid and thoroughly confused.

I remember reading an article in Reader's Digest in about 1977. It was about Ted Kennedy's son, who had his leg amputated because of cancer, I believe. The pictures showed a handsome teenage boy, a beautiful family, and told of young Edward's plucky courage and positive attitude. I came to the dinner table with the heartwarming story of this newest tragedy in the long list of family tragedies, and how Senator Kennedy seemed like such a good man. I was especially intrigued by his pet issue of socialized medicine.

All of my sisters probably remember that dinner and his reaction. It was explosive. My father ranted at my shallow, uninformed opinions and the abysmal state of education, when a reasonably bright girl could be fed a dose of pure Communism and not even be aware of it. I, knowing he was right about the shallow and uninformed part, continued to defend the principle of helping the poor and trying to prevent the future predicted by the senator, when people would be dying in the streets of treatable conditions, while doctors chose to only treat those with insurance.

I'm sure I had other heated discussions about politics and social issues in my youth, but this is the one that I remember best. I remember even better a few weeks later, at a larger family dinner at my grandmother's home, when I tried to broach the subject with my mother's parents and brothers present (I naively thought they would be sympathetic to my cause). I remember that my father wasn't present - another inducement to launch into my "new" idea.

I think I said something totally objective, as in: "I think the country's problems would be solved if we only had socialized medicine."

Was I in for a surprise when my beloved grandmother spoke first: "Michele, let's not discuss politics at the dinner table."

Pardon? If not at the dinner table, then when? I thought. Conversation moved on to other matters, like Auburn football and who had seen whom at church and other more important matters.

Dinner broke up, the women went into the kitchen and the men took over the dinner table. Eschewing the card games and dominoes on the living room floor, I boldly marched my 13 year-old self up to the table and started listening to my Uncle Howard telling a story about someone who left their truck gate open after filling the bed with watermelons. One of the most entertaining storytellers of all time, I waited until he was done, then jumped into the conversation.

"So, don't y'all think Ted Kennedy is right about socialized medicine?"

Another uncle, one of my mother's younger brothers, made a pained face and looked down at his hands. Yet another uncle, who had gone through a brief hippie phase and seemed at the time a potential ally, stared at me blankly. Uncle Howard cleared his throat and adjusted uncomfortably in his chair. And the first response to my question came from the unlikeliest person, my granddaddy. With me he was always kind and  encouraging, although I knew he had a bit of a temper. With no sign of irritation, however, he looked right at me and said, mildly:

"My-chele, it's considered rude to discuss politics and religion in company."

Being called "rude" in my grandmother's house was the stuff of nightmares. He didn't say I was rude, but he implied that my desire to discuss politics was, and the effect was the same. I was horribly ashamed and spent   the rest of the afternoon quietly (probably a first) pouting.

By the time I reached college I'd decided that the rule of polite society - the one that dictated that arguing about politics and religion was bad form - was just a bad rule. Debating with friend and classmates led to some of the most exciting and satisfying conversations of my early adulthood.

But in recent years, I've become reluctant to engage in those satisfying arguments with other adults. Too many times in the past few years, I've had friends and acquaintances react to my statements of opinion with derisive statements indicating that, since they disagreed, it would be rude for me to continue. In the interest of "live and let live" and "don't make waves," I saved my choicest statements for the captive audience at home - my children.

Many people are unable to tolerate opposing views being aired too close to their own safe space. I was given the cold-shoulder treatment at a neighborhood gathering by answering a direct question about who I was supporting in the presidential primaries. When I asked the man later why he drifted away, if he was uncomfortable discussing the election, he remarked something to the effect that politics had no place at happy hour. I defended myself by reminding him that I'd answered a question, not solicited his vote, but he said that it was all the same to him. Parties are supposed to be about fun, he said.

If that is true, then I hereby announce that I am not qualified to go to a party. If adults cannot listen to one another's opinions - on a wide range of matters, not just an election or a piece of legislation - then, in my book, they are not truly adults.I marvel that people who can have extensive, restrained discussion and disagreements about the relative strengths and weaknesses of their favorite or their least-favorite sports team, reject the idea that people can also have extensive, restrained discussions and disagreements about matters of policy or philosophy. But I digress, as usual.

Ultimately, in the name of getting along with a wide range of people, I have often bit my tongue rather than pick up the thread of a discussion and try to take it to the next level of analysis. Few people who know me well are unaware of my opinions and the thought processes I employ to arrive at them, but I don't always say what I'm thinking or try to convince another to think differently. This blog was, at one time, a place where I spoke freely, but even this platform was not safe from the slings and arrows and social consequences.

So keeping my mouth shut hasn't helped me, and it clearly didn't help advance my views in the last election. Like a coward, after being de-friended, literally and figuratively, I piped down for a while. Let the politicians, journalists and opinion-makers reach the confused masses and help Joe and Jan Q Public see what should be done to reverse the terrifying course sown which our government is taking our country. The politicians, journalists and opinion-makers are probably better insulated from the ill-will of their critics. I found I was too cowardly to become a true social pariah.

That was a mistake. My silence, my "keep your own counsel" attitude that so many others adopted as well, was one of many reasons why President Obama was re-elected. In my effort to protect my children from having a mother with enemies for neighbors set the worst kind of example for the very ones I thought to protect.

If all I cared about was social standing, this would already be a tragedy. But new friends appear, new books re-inspire, and children often tell you the truth about yourself when you least expect it.

The real tragedy is not fighting to save this country, my country and yours, for our children. I didn't campaign for or against issues that matter to me and will greatly impact their future. I didn't use my God-given talents or resources to try to reach others and perhaps give them something new to think about. I truly feel responsible for the outcome of the election. I have to answer to my children for my silence and passivity, while they look forward to a future that practically promises them a lifetime of uncertainty and insecurity.

The election amounted to nothing. We have the same president, committed to spending our way out of certain disaster, and a split congress intent on protecting their own hides while they dodge their responsibilities with more energy than they ever spend doing their jobs. As the "fiscal cliff" approached, leaders proposed turns and detours, but no meaningful, permanent changes of any sort that would help to avoid very bad economic policies from  bearing toxic fruit.

I may suffer, you may suffer, but we voted for this. Or by not voting, we let it happen
.
But it is our kids will pay. They will pay when our federal debt becomes unserviceable. They will pay when the safety net programs, like Social Security and Medicare, go broke, and their generation has to support a huge, aging population by some means we can't even guess at now. They will pay with lost opportunities, as America continues to lose it's hold on global economic leadership. They will pay by never knowing the value of the capitalist principles that once made us a great nation of creators who were also workers, and workers who were encouraged to be more. The will pay by coming of age in a world where their capabilities are never tested, because government has told them that they will take care of them; government will educate them, give them a computer and a cell phone, underwrite their housing, pay for their health care, and if they still fail, government will give them more aid, and foot the bill for their inevitable mistakes. No need to learn how to work hard or take care of themselves - that's a useless, old-school way of thinking.

They will pay by never knowing the meaning of American exceptionalism. The concept has been deemed offensive, not taking into account the feelings of people who didn't succeed. They will pay because the social justice activists succeeded in appealing to our Christian charity and sense of right and wrong, and declared that the innovators and builders and creators and risk-takers were evil and just as dependent on the government as the welfare recipient.

Our kids will pay by growing up in an America that is not about hard work, or achieving difficult goals, or defending individual liberty, or respect for privacy on personal matters, or working through tough times by changing the behavior that got you there, or honoring the Constitution as the best instrument of social justice ever created.

My kids will pay because I chose to be silent. I let a little social disapproval stop me from speaking from my brain and my heart. I have helped deliver them into a future that is very, very different from the one I would have chose for them. My desire not to offend friends or cross swords with people I care about has not served me well. No friendship is worth the sense of guilt I feel toward my children. Any argument, no matter how unpleasant, is better than the shame I feel today for not working harder to prevent this outcome.

I held my tongue and silenced my blog because I didn't think it mattered. I didn't think the country would vote to continue the policies and actions that have sent us speeding toward this social and financial precipice. I didn't think you needed me to tell you what is patently obvious about the state of the world - that the change we needed isn't the change we got. I figured everyone knew that, and would vote in accordance with that knowledge. It also hurt to be called a racist for opposing the president's policies. I don't think that opposing the bad policies of the president makes me racist. But being called one hurt me, showing how thin-skinned I really am. I know I'm not racist, but if I offend like one, then I'm better off just keeping quiet.
My fear was stronger than my commitment. The fear of being called a tea-bagger and a right-wing Christian extremist for my views on the second amendment and the sanctity of life were stronger than my commitment to those views. Even though I never took part in any tea party activities and don't deserve the title of Christian or extremist, the brush is very broad in the name-calling business, and I feared being labeled and having that label reflect badly on my kids.

Well, I'm still not sure if I am strong enough to handle the criticism, but I will blog again, and I'll blog honestly. That means that Polite Ravings will be about what I want it to be. If I want to write about housework and stupid dogs, I will. If I want to write about news and politics, I will. If I start out writing as the Domestic Diva and end up sounding like Chicken Little, it's my blog and I don't have to be the ditzy, disorganized housewife every time I take it in my head to write. If freeze-dried journalists and Kardashians can broadcast their opinions, so can ditzy housewives.

To the friends and family who don't like Polite Ravings with my strong opinions and critical judgments of current events, do yourself a favor and don't read me anymore. I won't be trying to spare your feelings or apologize for mine. I welcome your comments of disagreement, and would enjoy them even more in person, perhaps around a dinner table with a good bottle of wine at the ready. I don't mind being called wrong. Just don't tell me what to write, or not to put it on Facebook, or suggest that you would read my writing, if only I would just remain light and humorous all the time. Here's your PSA: I won't.

And to the children, mine and yours, who are inheriting this mess, and the future we gambled and lost with a check written on their future earnings, I can only say Mea culpa and I'm very, very sorry.

The Four Republicans: Bitter Opponents or a Useful Team?

I'm feeling a little schizo, now that I've committed myself to starting a new blog for my political, theological and philosophical opinions.  I've been working on so many ideas, I can't seem to stop and create the vehicle for these ideas. So I am once again inflicting my serious opinions on my humor-seeking Polite Ravings audience (hi to you two up in the balcony!)


But after watching the returns from the Republican primary in my home state of Alabama, I can hardly keep my thoughts on cute squirrels at the birdfeeder or the growing dog hair piles. I realize most people outside of the deep south weren't that tuned in to the voting in Alabama and Mississippi yesterday, but in this confusing race for the Republican nomination, I was pretty intrigued.


Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, came in as the unexpected winner in both states.  He beat Newt Gingrich, who formerly represented Georgia and was thought to have a homefield advantage, and Mitt Romney, who is as un-southern as they come, and was thought to have no clear advantage other than his war chest. Ron Paul spent no meaningful time or money in either state, and finished with about 5% of the vote in both states.


Lacking anything intelligent or helpful to say after Santorum's gleeful speech, the pundits immediately began discussing the various strategies for and against whittling this down to a one-candidate race. If you want to know the different plans suggested by these talking heads trying to fill airtime, you were probably tuned in, so I won't repeat them. Better analysis can be found at Real Clear Politics or Politico, if you need a dose of expertise.


While reading a few of the articles, one of my daughters (who are both home sick today) came downstairs to get medicine and a hot drink.  We began discussing the results and I got off on a tangent, which is the same thing as a lecture by my kids' standards, and I stumbled on a brilliant idea for the Republican strategy.


No one should drop out.


The very fact that no one candidate represents a majority of the Republican electorate could be construed as an strategic advantage for the GOP, for the remainder of the primary calendar. 


If a single, preordained candidate is shoved down the collective throats of the divided party, you could easily end up with a bunch of disaffected voters who decide to sit out this time around. No retired general making an impassioned speech at the convention will make it palatable to a dovish Ron Paul supporter to cast his vote for hawkish Rick Santorum. No GOP official can construct a party platform that will help Newt Gingrich's visionaries embrace Mitt Romney's plodding march to the center. None of the candidates have it within their power, influence or personality to unite the party.


Only one candidate can do that:  President Obama.


With only one rival to focus on, the president has a rather simple job. Spend his considerable financial and political assets attacking that one rival on their most vulnerable weaknesses. Depending on the opponent, that could be described as difficult and expensive, or cheap and easy.


Take Newt Gingrich, for example.  He has multiple marriages to exploit, and would give the USA it's first known First Lady with mistress credentials. Obama can counter Newt's claims of $2.50/gallon gasoline as pandering without proof.  Though he rose to power after the Republican revolution of the 1990s, he was later sanctioned by his collegues for ethical misconduct. These stories and others will make for excellent targets for President Obama's supporters and Super-PACs.


Mitt Romney doesn't have the dirty laundry of the former Speaker, but as the grandfather of Obamacare, we can expect lots of ads depicting the former governor of Massachusetts as a big-government Republican who actually approves of the president's signature legislation. His public gaffes that bring attention to his wealth and status (firing and laying off employees, owning multiple Cadillacs, having friends who own NASCAR teams) invite contrast with Obama's in-the-trenches days as a community organizer. And Mr. Romney has committed some very public flip-flops on hot-button issues, which the Democrats will have a field day capitalizing on. He is seen as an accommodating Republican governor in a very liberal state, and many of his accommodations lend themselves to scrutiny, if not lampooning.


Rick Santorum, with his penchant for going off-script, is a veritable candidate covered in targets. Because he talks like I do, without a final thought in mind that helps him stay on topic and out of trouble, he is truly a candidate wearing the matador's cape.  Name an issue and he's said something that can be edited and spun to make him sound insane. Birth control, educational choice, war with Iran, border fences and college snobs - he can make his own common sense sound like drivel if he is allowed to keep talking.  President Obama and his supporters can complete their opposition research in about 5 minutes - Santorum has left a trail of tittilating tidbits that will make for excellent fast-paced, cutaway-and-caption ads and crazy-sounding sound bytes.


Ron Paul probably can't get to the level of a one-on-one campaign against Obama, so imagining that battle and how the ad wizards and spin doctors would handle it is probably a true exercise in futility. Sen. Paul is so different from any candidate we've had in recent history, the options for opposing him are limitless. For sheer tenacity and consistency, he should be admired and given a hearing. Disagreeing with him is one thing - but mock him at your peril.


So there is not a Teflon candidate among these four. They all have flaws, weaknesses and tendencies to say more than necessary and talk when they should listen. Several columnists have attempted to assemble the perfect nominee from the best of each man's parts, but that only yields a non-existent Frankenstein.


Assuming the supreme Republican goal is to make Obama a one-term president, then I suggest that all the candidates stay in the race, if possible, until the convention.  As long as the Obama campaign and the PACs supporting it have multiple opponents on diverse fronts, their battle will be expensive, indirect and tiring.  With the convention 5 months away, the President and his supporters must expend capital and effort trying to cover all bases. They have to refute charges of candidates they will never face in the general election. (Sidebar:  They are already doing this, quite expensively, with an ad targeting Sarah Palin, who is not on the ticket or likely to be. Why go to the expense when the HBO movie reportedly discredits her sufficiently for his supporters' purposes? Truthfully, I don't have a clue.)


There is much speculation that this four-way race and the associated unpleasantries are bad for the GOP, and hurt the party in the eyes of independent voters. There are those who say that this is the nastiest primary season ever. But since they always seem to say that, and one never knows how different people measure nastiness at different times with different contributors, it's hard to credit that assertion.  


Others claim that it is preferable for the Republicans to vet each other, so that all of the potentially toxic stuff will be old news by the time the President begins campaigning in earnest. I don't know whether that point outweighs the idea that the party is tearing itself apart, which is just one of the inflammatory terms used to describe this long primary season. I'm inclined to believe that it will take more to hurt the GOP than this nasty nominating process, but for dissenting opinions, look no further than your nightly news. Or check out what our friendly neighbors in Canada think of the matter in this piece from CBC.ca:

Some speculate a continued battle among Republicans could weaken the party overall, as Democrats sit back, gird themselves for victory and watch the attack before a candidate is named - finally - at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla., in August.

Or, in the words of David Axelrod, chief strategist for the President,  

“While they’re destroying each other, we’re building a campaign nationally.” (link to The Hill article here.)

I think about the words used to describe political contests: battleground, victory, campaign, fight, challenge. It would be difficult to write about the election without war analogies. (I have to say I haven't seen "gird" used in a while and I thank the Canadians for bringing it back.) I think these four candidates should have a look at one of those old movies where one lone guy has to fight against a coordinated team. The outnumbered guy has to be very careful, conserve his energy and only strike when he can be assured of landing a punch. The team can hang back, driving their opponent to make tactical mistakes due to confusion or exhaustion. Doesn't this sound like a good strategy?


Likewise, each GOP candidate can choose just one or two areas of the President's record to focus on for the remainder of the primary season.  Romney can pick apart the  ridiculous budget's wasteful spending and marginal job growth; Santorum can concentrate on policies that have disenchanted the Christian right and traditional values voters; let Newt work on energy independence and problems associated with implementing new energy technologies before they or the markets are ready; and let Ron Paul be in charge of showing how Obama's cabinet and regulatory authorities are crippling economic growth.


If they can all afford to stay in until August, imagine the wear-and-tear they can wreak on the President's campaign. Like the man who dies from a thousand paper cuts, four candidates needling away at the administration's many failures may do more damage than one fallible nominee stuck duking it out, mano-a-mano, in the permanent media spotlight.  


Even if the party and the candidates decide to shuffle, redeal and name a nominee before the convention, they can at least take heart in the other recent comment about the GOP primary by David Axelrod:  “I do think it’s easier to raise money when you have one opponent." So I ask:  why make it "easier?"


This is a very strange primary, where different candidates have bounced in and out of favor, attracting scrutiny and criticism as they rise, and as they sink, they are disdained or ignored. It's kind of like watching the arcade game called Whack-A-Mole, though not quite as fun.  But if these guys can just take a few more whacks over the next five months, they may wear their opposition down.


And this voter's advice to the Republicans candidates - if they are listening.

Save It For After the Election

Two alarming developments in political news this week:

Thursday, with a transportation bill awaiting a vote in the Senate, the president called on some democrats to sway their vote on the Keystone XL Pipeline amendment.  He reportedly promised them that he'd deal with Keystone after the election, but wants it quashed for now.  He got his wish.

Senate republicans are to be commended for their tenacity and unwillingness to let this pipeline disappear from the legislative agenda. It could easily be argued that it could find a better piece of legislation to piggyback on than this roads and highways funding bill. However, it seems that the executive branch has decided to play politics to impede legislation that doesn't appease his base  until after the election.  In other words, the Do-Nothing Congress got their orders from the Do-Nothing Executive: save it until after November.

In an international development:

After meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, two subtly different versions of the outcome were reported by the two sides.  That isn't unusual, since all leaders spin, but Netanyahu's later comments to his home press were much more disturbing.  According to HotAir.com, President Obama proposed a deal to the Prime Minister of Israel, offering special bunker-bursting bombs and other specialized weaponry in exchange for a promise that Israel won't act against Iran's nuclear program until after the US election.  The weapons deal had been negotiated earlier, but the suggestion that delivery would be conditional on waiting for the November 2012 election is a new wrinkle.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney denied the allegation, but Israel's PM is standing by his story.

Consider yourself warned: if both of these allegations are true, our president is clearly more worried about retaining his power than in upholding the duties of his office.

Atlas Shrugged; Eric Merely Stomped His Mighty Foot

When the mythical Atlas found the burden of carrying this heavy planet and all its thankless, lazy inhabitants to be too great, he gave Earth the old heave-ho.   And who can blame him?  His brother Prometheus was off playing with fire, and we all know what the rest of the Greek gods were usually up to - why did Atlas have to work so hard for no thanks?  (Obviously, he'd never hung out with a group of stay-at-home mothers, or he'd have been informed that the lowly Earth woman transformed her "unthanked" status to martyrdom in a few short decades.)

The timeless symbol of Atlas carrying his spherical burden was adopted by the author/philosopher Ayn Rand to symbolize the silent struggles of the producers and creators in society, the people who carry the slackers, suckers, users, takers and various other lazy types on the back of their productive efforts.  She named this magnum opus of her philosophical vision Atlas Shrugged.  For most readers, it is either a life-changing piece of work or the worst book you've ever not finished.  I fall into the first category.

My aunt Jan recommended I read Ayn Rand's works of fiction in the order they were written, so I did.  I liked Anthem, loved The Fountainhead, and became inspired by Atlas Shrugged.  Her work informed many of the opinions I hold today, and in the 30 years since reading them, I've never seen a time when her predictions and observations were more relevant.  I re-read Atlas Shrugged last summer, mostly to make sure that I wasn't just imagining all the political and cultural similarities between her dystopic story from the 1950s and my evening newscasts.  I wasn't.  She was spot-on with her predictions.

Talk of a movie has been bantered about at least since I read the book in the early 1980s.  I gave up on seeing it actually happen long ago.  When The Brangelina were discussed as leads and producers, I figured I'd never be willing to see it, even if it did get made.  (That casting was all wrong, IMHO.)

 But lo and behold, in February the announcement came that the film (without Brad and Ang) had not only been made, but was being done in three parts, with part one premiering on "Tax Day" of this year - April 15th.  (Read all about the amazing struggle to bring this story to the screen here.) However, because of limited studio backing and no big stars to drive publicity, the film was originally only slated to open in five cities.  One of those cities was Chicago, so back in February I informed Eric that I'd be driving there to see Atlas Shrugged on opening day.

Eric, who did read the book and takes an engineer's view that it says in 1000+ pages what he could have said in 150, was interested that a movie was on the way, but not ECSTATIC about it, like me.

"You can wait until it comes to South Bend," he blandly intoned, as he attentively watched what appeared to be miniature EKGs all over his laptop screen.

"You are joking, of course," I said, with a nervous giggle.  Surely he couldn't believe this was one of the rare occasions on which I'd accept "no" as an answer.

"No, I'm not joking," he dangerously responded.  "There's no reason you have to see it on opening day."

As if I needed a reason.

This very conversation occurred late last year as well, regarding another obscure movie I'd been waiting to see, called "The King's Speech."  It opened on December 10th, as I recall, in limited release.  I'd wanted to ride to Chicago for the opening, but Sargent. Moneypincher of the Delayed Gratification Police cleverly used my own profound lectures against me.  Because I'm not a small child, his words were infuriating, but since I've managed to teach our girls a few lessons in the wisdom of not spending money impulsively, I sucked it up and figured I could wait until after Christmas, at least.

But he should really, really know better than to mess with me where Colin is involved.

 I finally did get to see "The King's Speech" on January 21.  It still wasn't showing in South Bend at that time, but I was fortunately in another town (Podunk, Alabama), where it had been playing for several weeks.  Just to make sure I registered my displeasure, I saw it 3 more times once it finally premiered here in Bedrock (in February).  I made sure to splurge on large popcorn and all the trimmings at each visit.  I estimate I spent an extra $50 by not seeing it in Chicago opening weekend, so I made my point.  Or so I thought.

"You've waited 30 years to see Atlas Shrugged made into a movie, what's a couple more weeks?"

Now Eric is undoubtedly brilliant, but you'd have to agree, he's not too bright.  I immediately went into my special patented seething/pouty mode:
too tired to cook, forgetting his good shirts in the dryer for days, staying up late and falling asleep on furniture, loudly stumbling into bed at 3 am and greeting him with icy toes on the back of his shins.  I had 2 girls' nights out this week.  Just to make sure I was getting my point across, on Thursday, when he was expecting a nice, home-cooked meal, we had hot dogs.  When it comes to Eric, nothing says, "I don't give a rat's fanny what you eat," as well as hot dogs.  They are only loosely defined as "food" in his book, and he has yet to find a wine pairing that works.  If he was being forced to eat hot dogs, he knew he was fighting a losing battle.

I was granted his blessing to buy tickets online that very night, and all four of us are heading to Kalamazoo, Michigan to see the 2:55pm showing today.

I hate to have to resort to such underhanded schemes to get my way, but hey, "Who is John Galt?"

Link to the movie's homepage at www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com .

Today's Rants: My (Long) Short List

Since this is destined to be one of my busiest days in a life full of impossibly busy days, I thought I'd take a break first and clear my head with more coffee while I type out a brain dump.  I have a lot on my mind today.

I'm disturbed that I'm not more motivated to decorate for Christmas.  My neighborhood is already a twinkly feast for the eyes.  My front door looks so stark and fallish, with my pitiful turning-leaves wreath that I just put up last week.  I'm sticking to my guns, though, and waiting until sometime next week to fold to the peer pressure and drag out the red and green.


I'm concerned that my heretofore roomy jeans have become very snug.  It's clearly a problem with my outdated laundry appliances.  My washer opens from the top, for Pete's sake!  Plus I've been told there is a connection between old dryers and sudden shrinkage.  I'd better not complain too loudly, or I may get appliances instead of diamonds and spa treatments for Christmas. 


I'm bothered by the fact that, despite my sincerest intentions, there are still random unfinished projects scattered all over the house.  Since Eric's been gone the last two nights, I thought it only sensible to drag a few piles and boxes of stuff into the family room (and dining room) (and living room), so that I'd have the necessary visual cues to help me remember to work on them.  So far I've started five projects and completed one, which leaves three untouched.  Even I must admit the "visual cues" system is not working anymore.  The lure of online Christmas shopping, the occasional Scramble challenge and therapeutic blogging means I'm spending most of my time with my back to the piles and boxes.  Clearly it is time to hire a personal assistant.


I'm relieved that the House Republicans are finally earning their reputation of logjammers who say "NO!"  Hey, Congress: get the current tax rates extended, deal with the question of unemployment benefits and insist on tabling all but the most critical spending bills until the new congress convenes.  Our currency is nearing collapse, inflation in consumer goods is getting downright scary and I can't find one single piece of news that points to stabilization.  So forget about a new, improved START treaty, "don't ask, don't tell," and the 2012 elections for the moment.  Congress, do your @^#$%*& job!


Okay, I'm feeling much better now.  And I'm about to take my very own excellent advice and do my jobs here at home.  Because I'm once again putting a moratorium on further blogging until I complete these tasks - the critical ones, at least.  And I'm working on a timely and meaningful holiday blog about how to tell the difference between small electronic devices without showing my ignorance.  It will be helpful to anyone out there who, like me, has tried to answer a phonecall on the remote.


See y'all when the piles are gone.

The Solution

Few who care about our country are completely satisfied with the direction that our government is taking us.  While we have much to be grateful for in the USA, we also have ample room for improvement.

However, if you watch the election coverage, (and sadly, I do), it is easy to get the impression that the whole country is spiraling out of control, and only the extreme, fringe elements are prevailing.  I find that notion to be poppycock.  The problems of this country are deep and complicated, decades in the making and years in the repairing, but hardly beyond the ingenuity and dedication of the American citizenry.  Clearly, our problems cannot be solved by any one person, as our president is beginning to figure out.

Furthermore:



Our problems cannot be solved by the Democrats.

Our problems cannot be solved by the Republicans.

Our problems cannot be solved by chucking the two-party system.

Our problems cannot be solved by dismantling our nuclear arsenal.


Our problems cannot be solved with health care coverage for all.

Our problems cannot be solved by prayer in schools.


Our problems cannot be solved by new Czars.

Our problems cannot be solved by more speeches, town hall meetings and television appearances.


Our problems cannot be solved by court decisions, new amendments, unfunded mandates or executive orders.


Our problems cannot be solved by leveling the playing field, affirmative action, increased diversity or wealth redistribution programs.

Our problems cannot be solved by erecting a fence or wall, or creating a national ID card, and we solve nothing by strip-searching grandmothers in airports.


Our problems will not be solved by a food pyramid, a new, improved food pyramid, better access to nutrition information or a national Food Police Force.


Our problems will not be solved by furtive intolerance of or legislated protection of particular religious sects.

Our problems cannot be solved by penalizing big oil, big banking, big pharma, or any other big industry that can afford the huge punitive fees used to fund so-called restorative programs.

Our problems cannot be solved by increasing the size, budget, power or authority of the federal government.


Our problems have been caused in large part because our apathy as citizens has allowed do-gooders and evil-doers alike unfettered access to the cogs and wheels that regulate our system of government. 

Our problems have also been caused by the idea that someone else should help us solve our problems, or better yet, take them over for us.  Lately, that someone else is the federal government.  The can-do attitude that typified American self-sufficiency is becoming a vestige of the distant past.


Our problems will not be solved by one election cycle, one political party, one man or woman, one bill passed or repealed, one clever ad or yard sign.

We can only begin to address and repair the many challenges facing this country by shaking off our apathy and doing our civic duty.


The solution is simple and elegant.  Vote.


Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd.  Excuses abound: yes, it's optional, it may seem pointless, you may be just one person, but the rest of us are counting on you.  It doesn't matter if we don't agree on one single candidate or issue.  The country needs you to care enough to make that small but very important effort. 

Call me if you need a ride or a babysitter.  


See you at the polls.