FLOTUS and the Punchline

Sadly it has been two years since my last post... That is embarrassing as "a writer." For the three of you who follow my blog for reasons passing understanding, I am sorry.

I write today to talk about this election. 2016. What a year. Aging rockers gone. Mass shootings left and right. Race relations about as bad as they have been anytime post-Reconstruction. There are days I really do not know where to begin. Like Mugatu in Zoolander, "I [really] feel like I am taking crazy pills." The answers to our problems seem so simple, but as our great country is filled with complexity and differing points of view it is not so easy to reach out and touch those answers to our challenging questions.

I have personally been pretty quiet in this election cycle. I have let comedians and columnists do my talking for me. Since these campaigns are something out of Monty Python or The Running Man this has worked out okay. Alas, as I am arrogant enough to think my opinion may affect someone's vote so here I go nonetheless...

I was standing in an airport in Kansas City coming back from a wedding when I was moved to tears listening to a Democratic town hall. Senator Sanders made a plea about the importance of treating drug addiction like a medical condition (it is) instead of a criminal indulgence. He was The Guy in my opinion--although twenty years too old and not quite presidential enough. He was the third party candidate we deserved. He is not a Democrat... rather an independent like myself. He also knows what Aleppo is, which I consider a plus. He committed to running as a Democrat during the primary so his message would reach more people. If he actually runs as an independent who knows what the electoral math looks like right now? I would like to read that poll... Where is Joey Lucas when we need her?

So, I will be as brief as my "post-Seminole victory/four beers deep/have to be at work at 4:30 in the morning" mind will allow me to be. Secretary Clinton is not my candidate. Though she is prepared (probably more than any candidate ever), smart, and dedicated, she is perhaps a little too establishment for my taste. She is just not my first choice, but she has my support. I think she will get the job done. She is more conservative (particularly on foreign policy) than she paints herself and will hopefully meet Congress halfway to get some things done. And since she is not brown-skinned (subconsciously I think this has been an issue for a lot of people these last eight years), maybe Congress actually works with her for the next four to eight years instead of allowing sour grapes to roadblock governance and duty.

Legislators, we sent you to "the constitutional seat of power" so please act like you know what that means and do your job. I have seen 7-11 employees more dedicated to their tasks than you.

No, this election has been about a reality TV star. Why is that not the end of the discussion? That alone. Period. The End.... President Kardashian? President Richie or Hilton? President Puck? President Cowell? President Snooki? Do any of those sound valid? Then why does "President Trump" to 46 % of likely voters in this country? For what it is worth I had to run a Google search to check some of those names because I do not waste my precious time watching people who are famous for doing nothing on TV within their "reality."

What is scary to me about a Trump presidency is that his being a good or bad president is equally bad for the country as a whole. As the lovely Maxie put it: "He would be a ruler, not a leader." Now, I was not wild about Senator McCain or Governor Romney and their politics, but I was not concerned that their selection would turn our country into some version of the Hunger Games in a matter of months. They would have gotten some work done; I might not have agreed with some of it, but I feel like their zeal for country was in the right place. They actually consider the implications of their actions on a local, national, and global scale.

I have a good idea of what the country looks like under establishment types. More of the same. Maybe not as much gets done as we would like. Maybe there are some victories for the wealthy and the working classes. A few people in the middle get left out... Maybe there are some breakthroughs in education or environmental policies. But overall? Nothing great. Big deal. Four more years and we get to have another say.

With a President Trump, I feel like Crash Davis in Bull Durham trying to catch Calvin LaLoosh: "I don't know where it is going to go." And that is something we need to take seriously. We don't know. It is anyone's guess... Maybe it is prosperous for all. Maybe he does not roll things back 50 years. Maybe President Trump will be inclusive. Maybe he balances the budget, reduces the debt, admits that global warming is a thing, and solves the crisis in Syria. Maybe. But I do not think so. And even if I did I would not risk it, because the potential downside far outweighs any upside. What if his behavior has all been an act to get the gig? I have read that he is completely different in private meetings with donors and business-people. Which would make this all even worse, because we would be electing more of a manipulator than we thought.

And because we finish with the one that is different than all the rest. He is a bully and a buffoon. He is rude and mean. He is what we teach kids not to be in elementary school. He is a hairdo. He is an actual punchline. The joke? Whatever you want it to be. He is unrealistic and uninformed. He has no plan, no gravitas. He is in no way, shape, or form presidential. And that is it...that is the ballgame. For me anyway. I have met kindergartners and labradoodles whom I feel would be better off with state secrets and launch codes than the Republican nominee for president. In fact, I was fitting a ten-year-old for a pair of spikes today who was inquisitive, respectful, and compassionate (the wheelchair competition of the 2013 NYC Marathon was streaming in the shop and he could not believe they pushed those wheels for twenty-six miles with only their arms). He would have my vote... Now. Not thirty years from now. Now.

The choice is obvious. And while I do not think you need a 33-year-old barista to help you with your vote, I hope you think about some of these things when you punch your ballot on Tuesday. I do not think we are actually heading toward doom and gloom, but I think a vote for Secretary Clinton keeps us on a strong path into the 21st century and beyond. Furthermore, as my friend and professor Mark Zeigler often said, "No election in my life has made me change the way I live from day to day," I think it is important to vote for the candidate who is going to help everyone as much as they can especially those who need that help the most. This country is part of a community after all and most of us in our neck of the woods are doing just fine. So vote for the person who is going to look out for everyone everywhere...

Thank you for taking a few minutes to read this. Our time is the among the most precious commodities we have...I hope this post was worth yours. All the best to my conservative, liberal, and independent friends.

We're for freedom of speech everywhere

"We're for freedom of speech everywhere. We're for freedom to worship everywhere. We're for freedom to learn for everybody. And because in our time, you can build a bomb in your country and bring it to my country, what goes on in your country is very much my business. And so we are for freedom from tyranny, everywhere, whether in the guise of political oppression, or economic slavery, or religious fanaticism. That most fundamental idea cannot be met with merely our support. It has to be met with our strength. Diplomatically, economically, materially. And, if Pharaohs still don't free the slaves, then he gets the plagues or my cavalry, whichever gets there first.... No country has ever had a doctrine of intervention when only humanitarian interests were at stake." 

This is not at all something I take lightly.  The loss of any human life should not be taken as such, and when there is a systematic approach to taking human life the only action for a super power is to see that those taking life should be stopped and held responsible. The above quotation was written by Aaron Sorkin during season 4 of "The West Wing" where a genocide was taking place (think Rwanda) in a small African nation. This was President Jed Bartlet's response in the episode entitled 'Inauguration: Over There.' For months I have been looking for anyone in the our government to take any interest in the the thousands of lives lost in Syria, so much so that I was even hopeful that some Republican presidential candidates would step to the plate to ask the current commander-in-chief to act. So I was quite pleased last week when the Syrian government tentatively agreed to allow the United Nations to step in with a cease-fire. That said, the government was still attacking its citizens a week before the agreement was to "take hold." (USA Today, 7 April 2012) 

My position on intervention might surprise some of you as I am sure most of you see me as a bleeding heart liberal who doesn't think American fighting men and women and their guns should ever step foot in a foreign country. Certainly that has been my position since the Iraq war started in March of 2003 and "ended" in May of 2003. Unlike some hypocrites and panderers in Congress I really was against the war and never was for it. Afghanistan is another issue... The appeasing attitude of hate held by the Taliban created an atmosphere ripe for al-Qaeda to murder a few thousand of my fellow citizens so I will always be for (for lack of a better word) the war in Afghanistan; especially since we screwed it up the first time around in the 1980s. It is time we get this one right, and I do not care how long it takes. We do need to realize though that it is a country dominated greatly by regional tribalism and perhaps our brand of democracy does not have to be theirs as well--different strokes for different folks. 

Back to Syria. The AP is reporting today that "the U.N. Security Council voted Saturday to expand the mission to 300 members in hopes of salvaging an international peace plan marred by continued fighting between the military and opposition rebels." Apparently the "onus" is on Syria, but at a certain point we need to say enough is enough. Even though as one of my Facebook friends Jon Paul pointed out that we won't intervene in a country's affairs if they don't have natural resources we require for our day to day lives, we certainly should when humanitarian issues are at stake. I expect more out of my government, my President, and my fellow Americans--call me pie in the sky and naive, but that is just out I feel. 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h7LPUIN4gT_afX0Q_Viu7GsRPn4g?docId=678f23fb4d554e23bc2a836cca979f86