Crushed

I admit it, I was wrong. I had heard stories of Bill Richardson's inappropriate actions in politics, but I chose to ignore them. I had a political "crush" on Bill. There, I said it.

I like him for his experience in energy, border issues, and foreign relations. I liked his stance on getting the hell out of Iraq, and I loved his idea that all teachers should receive pay raises. I let my guard down--I let him infiltrate my emotions and tossed my criticism aside. Shame on me.

I would say shame on him--but, really, he just acted as all politicians do. I would still vote for him as commerce secretary--I would rather see him in that position than Obama's chosen National Intelligence Director, Dennis "I supported the Indonesian Army in their quest to massacre the East Timorese" Blair in his position, or Cowboy Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary.

But then, nobody asked me.

Where's the Outrage?

Our folks told us, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. I am reminded of this during this year's election. It strikes me that if you don't have anything nice to say about your "chosen" candidate, you will choose, instead, to say something nasty about the alternative. It reminds me a lot of middle school. Typically, we are at our most insecure and vulnerable when we are "blossoming' into maturity. Middle school girls suck. I know--I was one of them. Because they are so obsessed with hating themselves, they strike out at everyone else. If you can't feel good about yourself--at least you can feel better about NOT being THAT girl. I think its time that we get rid of the broken two party system. The atrocities and dishonesty that we will tolerate these days are amazing. Introducing alternate parties would not only reduce the amount of "I'm supporting X because Y is even worse"; it would also eliminate the need for electing the opposite party for president to reduce the threat of "too much power" of the other party. Imagine, if we had libertarians and green party candidates in congress. We wouldn't worry about one party having enough votes for a filibuster. Our debates are a joke. They used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters--a bi-partisun group. Everyone was invited to participate. Unfortunately, in 1988, the Bush and Dukakis campaigns drafted a joint "memorandum" outlining what topics could be discussed and how the questions would be presented. The League was outraged and refused to succomb to demands from the candidates. Unfortunately for the American people, this resulted in the creation of the "Commission for Presidential Debates". The "Commission" is actually a corporate-sponsored consortium of former heads of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The result? Only major party candidates are invited. Both candidates agreed with the "bailout" not because it was a good plan or a good idea--but because they didn't want the other party to get the upper hand--well what if there were more than two choices? Could candidates actually do things that they thought important rather than because they were afraid of losing votes?

Citizens were outraged because our politicians were not holding the bankers and investors "accountable" for the recent debacle. My question is why should we expect them to hold Wall Street accountable when we don't hold politicians accountable? Sure in extreme cases we "stick it to them" by voting for the opposite party--but during elections we willfully listen to promises that we know won't be kept. We say things like "oh I know they won't do everything they say, but that's just politics. Why? Why have we let things get so out of control that candidates will say anything to get elected? It is estimated that 5.8 billion dollars will be spent for this campaign. That's a ridiculous amount of money to see who can put on the better show. That is what it seems to me. The most money gets the most media time and the most votes. What is the connection? I think of it this way... I take tests well. I learned at a very young age that I had a knack for cramming for tests. Because of this talent, my grades have always been excellent. A few years ago, I met someone who did not have this talent. This guy could remember every fact he'd ever learned--and actually understood the concepts on which he was tested. I can't remember something I learned yesterday. Unfortunately for this friend of mine, I look much better on paper. I will get scholarships and jobs- but I can admit that he is actually a better biologist. It seems that it's the same for politicians. There ARE honest people out there--even a few honest politicians (look at Dennis Kucinich)--but because they are honest, they will never get the big positions. Think about this--despite the record-breaking fundraising that the Obama campaign has done--only a quarter of it comes from small donors. And the rest? Well we'll probably find out based on his policies should he get elected. The worst is that because Obama refused public financing and proceeded to raise so much money---election reform is probably dead for another 10 years or so. Did somebody say Change?

But then again, we may never find out. A recent interview granted by Stephen Spoonamore (who is a conservative republican McCain supporter) outlines how the GOP used electronic means to subvert the 2000 and 2004 elections and plans to do the same in 2008. Spoonamore names names and outlines procedures. Google it to learn more. Is it true or just some disgruntled conservative causing trouble? I can't say for sure, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but we can't hold an election these days without charges of fraud or disenfranchisement. To top it off, the highest percentage of eligible voters to actually cast a vote in recent years was 64%! We'll see if we can top that this year--by all accounts we should.

Where is the outrage? We, as a country, have settled. We have settled for a pseudo-democracy. We have settled for corruption and corporate welfare. We have settled for presidents that can't run a baseball team and war-mongering profiteering vice-president. We have forced John McCain to choose a moron like Sarah Palin in order to please his base and get the "ignorant white woman vote." We have forced Barack Obama to spend millions on a cheesy public service announcement in order to reach the Budweiser-lovin baseball fans. What a country.

Gardening Lessons

This past Friday, I spent a good part of the day engulfed in the smell of rotting vegetable matter. This was the first year I had been able to have a veggie patch, and I certainly had a lot to learn. There is a pretty short growing season here in Flagstaff. The average last frost date is June 13 and the average first frost date is September 21. Nighttime temperatures reach below freezing for about 60% of the year. This is not a hospitable environment for many vegetables. To combat this problem, Isaac made me a PVC greenhouse. We were skeptical about its utility--but I must say, it definitely lengthened the growing season for us. Unfortunately, a week or so ago, the "real" cold snap happened. Temperatures dipped into the 20 degree range at night. Although we had about 10 lbs of unripe tomatoes and 11 juvenile cantaloupes left in our little plastic-covered paradise, we awoke one morning to disaster. Cell walls crumbled under the freeze thaw--and our harvest was unexpectedly halted. I remember my mother warning me about such an event. But like most things my mother told me--it didn't register until it happened to me.

For days I couldn't return to the site of the disaster. It was depressing. Our tomato plants were covered in fresh green fruits. The romas that I had grown from seed were just now rewarding me for all my painstaking care. Finally, on Friday, the smell escaping from the plastic blanket could be ignored no longer.

It should have been depressing--chopping down my little army of nutrient suppliers--but instead it gave me a warm feeling. I couldn't help but think about next year's garden and how all these reclaimed nutrients would be used. I love compost. There is something so satisfying about it. I wasn't counting on the amount of work it would take to chop down my tomato/squash jungle into a usable composting form. These were this year's sacrifices for next year's abundance. Recently Isaac and I have been discussing our final wishes for our flesh after we pass on. I suggested that I might just want my ashes to go in a compost pile. I love the idea of recycling those nutrients--my nutrients. Would I make good compost? Perhaps thoughts for another blog. So for the hours I worked, I reflected on my gardening lessons.

The biggest lesson--one that I seem to have to relearn over and over--is that its imperative to thin out vegetation or fruit. I have a really hard time with this one. It makes me sad to pull up baby shoots--and forget about picking off green fruit so that the others will develop more quickly. I should be good at it. I believe in evolution--I know that survival of the fittest is a universal truth. I guess there is too much bleeding heart liberal in me. I started to wonder if maybe Conservatives made better gardeners. People who feel that we shouldn't provide aid to the less fortunate should be good at gardening. I bet they are relentless "thinners." They may not produce many tomatoes--but the ones they do are big and juicy. That brings me to the contradiction though--in both liberals and conservatives. Why is it that conservatives believe in "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" and that people get what they deserve--but yet are against abortion? Here I am--can't thin out my tomato crop because I feel that they all deserve a chance to .. to.. to.. become my lunch --but I stand firmly on the side of a woman's right to choose.

One day, I hope to master the art of gardening. I will never understand politics.

misplaced aggression

Lately, I've been on a rampage about politics. I've realized in the past few days that perhaps my frustration is a little misplaced. Politicians are politicians. Some are better than others, some are just plain evil. I really can't expect things will change.

I'm really just frustrated with the American people. I hear the things that people say, "Obama's a muslim" "Obama will take our guns away" etc--and I just can't take it. I can't believe the lack of ability to think among our population. I really feel like we are speciating as humans.

I'm going to go ahead and post this now--but I will edit it later so stay tuned.

Get over it!

I am REALLY tired of journalists criticizing Nader for running again. Finally, I lost it when the High Country News blog posted this letter to Nader
http://blog.hcn.org/goat/2008/02/26/dear-ralph/

You can read my comment on the blog--or I have pasted the text here

Dear Marty,
I am sorry that your decision in 2000 troubles you because you obviously made it without firmly understanding or firmly believing in your actions. It is clear that you did not listen or comprehend the message of Ralph Nader's candidacy, but only got caught up in the frenzy of your peers--much like you seem to be caught up in the current rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Your letter to Nader evokes for me the image of a scorned college student who is embarrassed "the morning after" passion got the best of them. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.

Al Gore had the benefit of hindsight when he created "An Inconvenient Truth". I wonder if his hindsight included the fact that the Clinton administration refused to outline a timetable to reduce U.S. carbon emissions while Gore was in the Whitehouse. I wonder if his decision to hold his tongue while promised public land use reforms fell by the wayside keeps him awake at night just as your 2000 presidential vote.

Meanwhile, it certainly wasn't hindsight that impelled Ralph Nader to take on the automobile industry to fight for tougher safety standards, and drive the creation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. It wasn't hindsight that made Nader question the use of DDT on Princeton campus only to be told that Princeton had some of the world's best biologists and if they didn't feel that it was DDT killing the birds, then who was Ralph Nader to question them. It wasn't hindsight that caused Nader to question mortgage lending practices back during the 2000 election--no, not hindsight. Nader has an incredible ability to identify a problem before the rest of the country even recognizes it. His major downfall is that once that problem is identified, he won't rest until he has made progress toward fixing it. Nader's message in 2000 was that the American people were being sold to the highest bidder by corrupt politicians nestled deep in the pockets of big business. His message was that the two party system is leaving us with effectively no choice. His message was that we shouldn't feel that we "owe" our vote to anyone, but rather, that they should earn it. That was his message in 1996, 2000, 2004, and now in 2008. He is running for president because he believes in what he says. He is not swayed by whiners who can't make a decision without the media telling them how to make it. He is not swayed by lawsuits by the Democratic Party. One only needs to look at Nader's record to recognize that he isn't easily swayed.

I only wish journalists like you had the same courage of your convictions.

If you do not want to Vote for Nader, by all means, do not. It is exactly that right for which he is fighting.

You should have thought of that before!

Ok, I told myself I wasn't going to blog about politics for a while, but I have something on my chest that needs to get out.

This morning I heard a story about how the democratic party was in a tizzy over whether or not to count the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Some folks (mostly supporters of Hillary Clinton) say that it is disenfranchising the voters of those states not to seat those delegates. Ok wait, I remember this battle months ago where the Democratic National Party made the decision to punish these states for moving their primaries up. At that point, the respective states made the decision to do it anyway (don't they feel stupid now--they would have had more of an effect on the race if they had waited). So that's when the discussion of voter disenfranchisement should have taken place. Seriously, I wonder if this wasn't a ploy to ensure Hillary's election. "Yeah guys, we're just going to boycott those states--nudge nudge wink wink" It's ridiculous to me. They (the states) flipped the National Party the Bird so they lost their ability to seat their delegates--period!

The same goes for the people who are registered with a non-mainstream party. (I hate the term 3rd Party because it just perpetuates the idea that a 2 party system is natural). When I registered as a Green Party member in New Mexico, the nice elderly lady that was taking my application told me that registering as "Green" meant I couldn't vote in the primaries--did I understand? Of course. It was my decision. Its not like I was forced to register as Green because I was a woman of short stature or due to ethnicity--I had the choice and I made it. I don't get to vote for the NRA president--why? Because I'm not a member. I don't vote for Governor of Pennsylvania--why? Because I chose not to live there. Make a decision and stick with it already. We aren't guaranteed the right to choose the candidate from a particular political party by the constitution--you're supposed to pick a party based on your interest in it. Instead of meddling in the mainstream parties' business why don't you spend your energy getting your own party candidate?

Group Mentality

I just finished watching "An Unreasonable Man" the documentary about Ralph Nader and it got me all fired up about politics again (and it made me really dislike movie maker Michael Moore). i recognize that if I wasn't a Nader fan at the start, I would just have passed the documentary off as Nader propaganda--but how can you ignore what this man has done and accomplished in his life. How can you ignore the irony of the "Change" chants of todays presidential race in light of Nader's campaign? Here is a man that was talking Global Climate change in the 2000 election. Here was a man who was talking about corrupt lending practices in the mortgage industry in the 2000 election! To what country do I have to move in order to get a man like Nader as the leader? He is criticized for being ego-centric--seriously what politician isn't? Here is the man who brought us consumer protection--who brought us air bags--and what will he be remembered for??? "Spoiling" the election for Al Gore. Al Gore who uses other people's work in his own documentary and is hailed as a hero. Are we forever going to be slaves of the media? Sadly, the answer is --most likely.

Lets talk about Michael Moore for a second--the "crusader" against injustice. "The Unreasonable Man" shows clips of Moore in the 2000 election touring with Nader and raging on about how the lesser of two evils is still evil. And then in 2004 saying how Nader just needs to go away and how it was all his fault that Bush was in the whitehouse. What principles are you standing on exactly, Mr Moore? The Sewer Rat policy of abandoning ship when times get tough? Yeah, its ok to regret decisions you've made in the past--but at least own up to them. Don't bow down to the group mentality of blaming Nader.

This whole group mentality thing has been on my mind lately as well. The political troubles in Kenya have continued to plague my thoughts. Its amazing how much more we are affected when we have an emotional relationship to a place. I know what's happening in Darfur is terrible and tragic--but I've never been there. I've never met the people there--so I have to admit to not being as affected by that crisis. It's sad--but true. Anyway, Isaac and I were discussing the crisis in Kenya and I was saying how I felt that this ability to turn on our neighbors and brutalize them--must be an instinct in all of us. There are so many instances of this happening--in so many different situations. It's a really frightening thought. Even if its not physical violence--we all have that instinct to exert power over another to our benefit. Some of us can fairly successfully control it--but I feel that there might be a trigger in all of us that makes us snap. Isaac had an interesting theory related to this idea of the group rather than the self. He felt that once you can claim membership in a group--rather than acting as an individual--you can justify doing unspeakable things. People have done it on behalf of religion, tribe, ethnicity, political beliefs. It something I would like to flesh out a bit in the future--but I got to thinking about this with Michael Moore.

As long as the group of Liberal Democrats got together to blame Nader for stealing the presidency--it was ok for someone like Moore to be a hypocrit. As long as I'm not alone, I can justify. My membership in this group makes it ok. Because I'm a woman, I can justify voting for Hillary Clinton even though I don't agree with her--its much easier to just be part of a group than to actually think for myself. My political leader tells me the election was stolen--therefore I can turn against my neighbors and friends and stone them to death--I am acting on behalf of a group now. Very disturbing.

Raelian

I was listening today to Diane Rehm and she was interviewing E.J. Dionne who just wrote a book about politics and religion. He's an unabashed liberal, but also a fairly devout Catholic. He makes the point that being a liberal does not preclude being religious--even though many liberals are distrustful of religious sects--making all of them out to be right-wing conservatives.

There isn't any reason why a liberal couldn't be religious. The problem is that most religions are so hypocritical and, in my view, cult-ish. I don't feel like there is anything missing in my life because I don't subscribe to any religious views. I'm comfortable with thinking that I'll be fertilizer when I die. I don't even like having to tell people whether I'm agnostic or atheist--can I be neither? I really don't give it enough thought to make the choice. I don't deny others their right to believe in something--which some would say makes me agnostic--I'm not denying that a higher being exists--but I'm not denying it because I'm not really thinking about it at all. I frame my thoughts on religion with the frame of other people--I don't ever put the scope on myself and examine my own beliefs very thoroughly--and I'm ok with that.

There is one religion that has captured my interest--Raelian. This "religion" was started by a French guy who says he was visited by Aliens on December 13, 1973 who explained to him that this race of aliens created all life on earth--through DNA technology--and that they were mistaken for gods. This is intelligent design taken to its extreme. Aside from that--the religion is fairly innocuous. They are accepting of all races, all sexual preferences, they feel that sex out of marriage is cool, and they are very pro science (for obvious reasons). I can get behind this religion in a way, because I feel that humans don't belong on earth. Whereas Raelians believe all life was created by aliens--I think they got it wrong. I think only the humans were placed here. And we don't fit. We don't adapt to our surroundings like other members of the Nature Club. The Raelians are pretty wacky--building an embassy to welcome the aliens back to earth when they return--but is that really any more wacky than the Vatican? Is the fact that a race car driver from France had a vision--any wackier than what the Mormons believe? Here's the thing, it just so happens that my birthday is December 13, 1973--maybe I know something the race car driver doesn't....

a country I have loved

I'm going to take a little time to comment on the situation in Kenya. I had the opportunity to spend a semester of college in Kenya back in 1995. I fell in love with the country, with the wildlife, and with the people. Most of all with the people of Kenya. After the program was over, I traveled both with friends and alone throughout the country and had very few negative experiences. Once I had someone reach into my pocket at a nightclub. I'm sure he was disappointed to discover this mzungu (white person) was traveling light.

Sadly, I have kept in touch with very few of my Kenyan friends. I knew Kikuyu, Luo, Masai, Samburu, and Swahili peoples (probably more whose tribes I did not learn). I had no idea an election could cause these people to turn on one another. I knew a little of the dispute--the dislike of Kikuyu and there were certainly hints of government corruption, but perhaps it was my youth and my naivety that allowed me to envision this country as a peaceful, tribal, melting pot.

Its hard for me to reconcile these two images. On one hand the image of our school "caravan" arriving into a town with a bunch of white people in land cruisers greeted by smiling children and adults shouting "wazungu!" On the other hand, in some of these same villages into which we traveled, neighbors are taking up crude weaponry and killing the "other."

Where is the breaking point? How much hunger, injustice, pain must one suffer before he is ready to kill? In this country, most of the educated are so disenchanted and disgusted by politicians it is hard to imagine organizing a manhunt on one's behalf.

As sick as it seems, sometimes I am envious of such people. Not the killing or the violence, but the passion that they must feel for something.

My memories of Kenya have been changed forever. It has been so long, I don't know if I'll be able to look back and see with newly found hindsight that this current situation has been a long time coming. I hope not. I hope very soon peace will be restored and I will be able to understand these terrible events.

Mortgage "Crisis"

Ok, as I stated in the introductory post, I recently bought a house. Yes, I bought just before the "bubble" popped. I swear, with my luck, people should have paid me NOT to buy. Anyway, now as we hear 75 times a day, the mortgage industry is in crisis, foreclosures are on the rise, and our new fed chairman has lowered interest rates AGAIN. How does this help me? Not a bit.

Here's the situation. I got two loans when I bought my house. One for 80% of the value and one for 10%. The mortgage broker told me that I could refinance in 9 months and consolidate the loans into one because "housing prices in Flagstaff are guaranteed to go up." I'm not sure why I listen to these people---lesson to all you out there who have not purchased a house--if you are smart enough to program your VCR, chances are, you're smarter than the average real estate agent or mortgage broker! Do not take their words for anything. Not only that, but he talked me into an interest-only loan for the 80% which means I haven't built up any equity--wise choice, genius!

So now that home prices in Flagstaff have gone down, there is no chance I will be able to consolidate the two loans--so what about just refinancing the bigger of the two loans? Well the problem there is that there is a chance that the value of the home has dropped so significantly, that what used to be an 80% loan, is now a somewhat larger percentage--so I would need to come up with money to make it equal to 80%--plus I would owe the previous loan company the difference. So I thought maybe I could pay off my smaller loan with my mutual fund money and then refinance the bigger loan. Wouldn't you know it, now the stock market is plunging into the depths of hell and if I sell my mutual funds now, my return would be less than ideal.

So what's a girl to do?

Politics of Fear

I can't resist talking about politics since the airwaves are jammed with the upcoming election.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I'm not ashamed to say it. One of Nader's phrases that resonated with me was "Vote your hopes, not your fears." Call me naive but I really respect that sentiment--especially in the primaries. One of the things that always bugged me about the Democrats post Election 2000 debacle was their insistence that people like me lost the election for Al Gore. But rather than come to folks like me (whacko liberals) and ask us what it was that we didn't like about Gore's campaign and how could they bring us into the fray--they chose to use guilt and fear. "If you don't vote for the democrat in 2004, you'll get another 4 years of Bush." Ok, so most of us did and look where it got us. Why? Because the republicans are way better at fear mongering than the democrats. Be afraid of the flip-flopper--he might actually re-think a bad decision one day.

But now, with the 2008 election approaching, fear is the dominant force again. First it was "don't vote for Hillary, she'll never win the general election." I admit, I probably had that thought--but it took a back seat to my general dislike for her. Thanks to the media--who couldn't wait to pit a woman against an African-American--we overcame that fear. Then, it was Hillary's campaign that joined in the "fearleading." Even though Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are WAY more qualified and WAY more suited to lead this country--we can't vote for them because they are second tier candidates--they don't have a chance to win the nomination--the media says so. So many people interviewed in Iowa and New Hampshire leading up to the caucus and primary said "well, I really prefer Biden, but I'll vote for Obama because he had a better chance at winning." or "Bill Richardson is obviously the most qualified, but I'm going with Hillary because she has more money." Voting their fears. I fear my chosen candidate won't have enough support--therefore I vow to make it so. I'm not going to go into the media's role in all this--that will be another day's rant.

When did our hopes take a backseat to our fears? How did this happen? Don't tell me 911--because it started way before that?