The AP reported last night that Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, wants John Edwards to fire two bloggers on his staff because of past posts.  The bloggers, Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte, published posts on their site that strongly criticized the Catholic Church for its stance on homosexuality, abortion and contraception.  I myself have criticized the Catholic Church for the same reasons and, being baptized Roman Catholic (I am recovering as they say)—I feel I have a responsibility to criticize when I see a spiritual stance, or a dogma that hurts so many.  This gets to the point of what I wish to write about. 

Why on earth would Edwards take heed of Mr. Donohue’s demand and fire these young bloggers?  Not that he would, but Mr. Donohue’s suggestion is absurd to say the least.  If I were to fire everyone from my life who did something or said something contrary to my beliefs, or said something that I deemed rude and inappropriate—I would be a very lonely, stagnated, gal.  I run with a diverse crowd.  People around me, including my dear family (immediate and acquired) often say things that piss me off and offend me.  That, Mr. Donohue, is life.  And I am glad for it.  If I only gathered around me folks who thought the same way I do, said the same things I said, and behaved in the same way I do, I would never be challenged.  I would never be questioned.  And . . . I would never grow.  Stagnation kills, Mr. Donohue.  Furthermore, such a stance is not democratic and Edwards is running a democratic campaign, not, I am assuming, a dictatorship. 

Bloggers today are more than the simple odd counterculture group writing about their personal lives:  dates, relationship problems, music, TV and the like—they are, often, touchstones to the beat of the nation’s pulse. One should never confuse bloggers with news reporters.  We are not news reporters, but a hybrid born from the editorial persuasion united with the water cooler talker who reflects on politics, social issues, cultural issues, religious issues and the like.  Bloggers of this nature are passionate creatures; this is what makes their posts interesting and worthy of a read.  When campaigns embrace bloggers, they need to embrace the spirit of blogging.  If, for example, Edwards were to freak out over this non-controversy and fire these ladies—hiring, instead, writers who would tow-the-line in creating bland posts which offends none and moves even fewer–he would be a fool. Also foolish would be for political campaigns to avoid hiring any blogger who did not write passionate posts, or who never offended a soul.  Campaigns who do this want simple advertisers, not real voices who challenge the status-quo.  In that case, please avoid hiring true bloggers. 

harpowoman

Interesting related post: A look at John McCain’s blogger-consultant

Well, I read last night that the Bush administration has spent the last 6 years pressuring scientists to down play global warming by not allowing some scientists to give media interviews on their research. . .

Read: Lawmakers hear of interference in global warming science.

. . . Playing down research and rewriting key phrases such as “global warming.” There is a general feeling among some republicans that science has not proven that global warming is linked to human activity and increasing greenhouse gasses and, as Bush apparently believes, it is just too expensive to put a cap on greenhouse admissions. And if you remember, in his address to the Union last week, Bush did not use the phrase “global warming” but he said “climate change.” This is significant because “climate change” sounds far more like a natural, although worrisome, than “global warming,” which has been linked to human’s doing. “Climate Change,” rather, sounds like a phenomenon that is out of our hands. It is nature’s doing and nature will do what nature will do.

These two phrases do not represent the same thing but they are being used rhetorically to confuse the issue. This is vital. Why even good old Wikipedia has two separate entries, not one, detailing what is “Global Warming” and what is “Climate Change.” This is politics. If we equate “global warming” with natural “climate change,” we can keep on doing what we have been doing to the earth. The phenomenon could just be natural and we could just be experiencing a normal “warming” trend which, in the end, would amount to nothing. So let’s not get hot under the collar shall we???????

So, there is the question of politics in science. It was suggested by Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist from the University of Colorado, that science and politics are simply mixed, and that all sides of the ideographic spectrum “cherry pick” the issue: democrats make a bigger deal out of global warming and Republicans play it down because, I am assuming, of lobbying interests of big corporations that want to continue shooting greenhouse gasses and other pollutants into the air. Certainly Dr. Pielke is right, that science sponsored by the government or a certain company will often reflect that company’s or government’s ideology—we have to remember who is singing those paychecks and handing out those research grants. This is not to say that all science is tainted, it is a complicated issue. But as much as we would like to profess the pureness of science—science, just like everything else, can be skewed to fit the circumstances. “Facts” are not simply “facts.” This is why Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said that “I am no climate-change denier, [but] the issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized.”

Pleazzee—oh god the rhetoric! First, notice that Rep. Davis also, like Bush, used the phrase “climate change” and not “global warming.” It is easy not to be a “climate-change denier,” because climates do change—the questions are:  How fast and why?  Second, he changed the focus on issue as well, from the activity of repressing scientific research regarding Global Warming, to a political question regarding politicizing politics! I admit it was a graceful frame changing technique, done smoothly, but done specifically.

In the last six years, America has been asked to live in an either/or framework, as embodied in President George W. Bush’s 2001 statement: “You are either with us or against us.”  Frankly, this is very powerful rhetoric.  It has been known to create solidarity where there was none.  It can help create a sense of nationality, and to affect a call to arms.  But it is one of the most dangerous calls ever invented by humanity.  Cloaked in a guise of unity, the either/or call divides—neighbor against neighbor—nation against nation.  It is a division that quickly gives way to exclusion as it demands adherence to a singularity of thought and being, regardless of the consequences or correctness of the call.  It creates, simply, tragedy.  This is not an American call.  This is not an American ideal.  Regardless of past faults, the American call has always been a call for plurality.  The acceptance of difference, deliberation and democracy.  Democracy can’t exist in an either/or frame, nor can America demand or promote democracy using this mistaken call to division.  And yet, for the last six years, this is exactly what the current administration has tried to do.  And with this call, with this insistence, our nation has been divided against itself, divided against its allies, and tragedy has touched thousands.  Not only with the war in Iraq, but here at home in the United States.   

We have gone from a balanced federal budget to a skyrocketing deficit, which leaves Americans vulnerable to competing national interests.  As with all debt situations, we must ask ourselves, what will happen when our creditors come to call?  How will we repay our debts and at what cost?  Will more social programs, designed to help the least but still deserving citizens in our community, be lost in the shuffle?  Other issues hang in the balance as well.  The National Coalition on Health Care reports that approximately 46,000-48,000 thousand people are without healthcare in this country (See the NCHC Report ), and more people still rely on insurance policies that hardly cover costs when serious illness strikes.  We find ourselves at the mercy of private drug companies and medical insurance companies whose major concern is their financial bottom line—not the bottom line of a human life.   We also face a crisis with natural resources, such as our reliance on oil.  However, even with all the rhetoric from the current administration regarding the need to find alternative fuels, little incentive has been offered to car makers to change their designs or to convince Americans to embrace a new direction.  We are asked to use less gas, but are not asked to create new national habits.  This, in turn, impacts our environment.  Why, I find myself asking, have we abandoned our commitment towards lowering greenhouse gasses when it has become abundantly clear that we are negatively impacting our environment and contributing to global warning.  

There is, of course, the war in Iraq.  The most dividing of all issues.  How do we honor our new found responsibilities there and, at the same time, allow the Iraqis to take control of their own country?  How do you fight a war on terror, a war that has no set geographic location?  How do we rebuild international relations that have been polarized because of this “war on terror?”  

These and many more issues (cultural, economic, political, and international) demand not a division of interests, an either/or frame, but a community of conversation, debate, and the creation of new habits not only in Washington, but among all of us citizens.  The problem with the either/or equation is not only that it calls on us to make a choice between two polar opposites, but it suggests that there is an absolute end product, an end to the conversation.  Yet we know, from our own daily lives and realities, there can be no true end, only the hope of an end.  This hope propels us to create evolving solutions to evolving problems.  This is the hope, I believe, that results of the 2006 election articulated.  It is also the hope that Hillary Clinton offers us.  An invitation to continue the conversation is an invitation to end an either/or articulation.  Let’s ready ourselves for the challenge.  That is, after all, what democracy is all about. 

I wanted today to offer a review of sorts regarding Google’s new Book Search (currently in Beta). First, I must mention that for me ebooks are a wonderful.  Being a bookworm (books are the one thing I constantly try to hold onto), I do love the smell of the paper and ink.  I truly enjoy that musty smell one finds with a really old book. I also love imagining who had read and touched the pages before me.  What was the history of that book from author conception to the reader’s eyes?  For example, I recently got an older Kenneth Burke book from the library and while looking for a particular quote I knew would be in there, a pressed flower fell out onto the floor.  I made a book mark out of the pressed flower—somehow it made me feel good.  But the truth is, ebooks are wonderful.  I owned the first Rocket Reader

(NuvoMedia) in Grad school and loved it, absolutely loved it.  I found it versatile (I could also sink my own documents to it, as well as free ebooks I found at Project Gutenberg. I could add notes and bookmarks).  I read my first Dan Brown book for under two dollars, Angels and Demons, before he was discovered by the world.  Then I owned the RCA ebook and found that one less versatile, I had to update it over a phone line and such, plus there were lovely restrictions on the books, on book formats, and the books started to get more expensive.One thing before I get to Google’s new Book Search, I think it is horrible that ebooks are now becoming just as expensive as regular books.  I don’t get it.  Technically, they should be cheaper because you aren’t paying for printing costs, paper costs and binding costs.  Further, in order to create a paper book, you first need an “electronic” version—thus, the cost, in the end, should be cheaper.  Yet I am finding that this is no longer so, and it is a shame because if ebooks were really cheaper, more people might be using and reading them and we could save a few trees in the process.  Further, there are too many “exclusive” formats now, with each company coming up with their own format that can only work on their own product.  The fact that ebooks are not versatile enough to read on any type of reader is a drawback and one that has now stopped me from being a regular ebook reader.  But I digress.

One great thing about ebooks is that you can search them for a keyword or phrase.  As I am an academic type, this rocks.  And it was how I accidentally came across Google Book Search.    Google states on their website that Google Book Search offers you the ability to “search the full text of books to find the ones that interest you and learn where to buy or borrow them.”  For some books, the one’s where the copyright has expired or the ones where the publisher has given permission, you can read and search the entire text.  For books without copyrights, you can actually download (PDF) and print the book if you wish.  For other books, such as popular ones!, there may only be a “Limited Preview,” a “Snipped View,” or a “No Preview Available” option.  Largely, I found that most books offered a limited preview with a fairly large area of search possibilities (meaning that only a few pages here and there were blocked from viewing).  Finally, when viewing the book, to the right side of your computer screen, you find links to where you can buy the books or libraries that happen to carry the books. 

The fact that libraries are included was particularly nice as, for folks like me; I often find I run out of money to spend on books.  Writing a dissertation, I am buying a lot of books, but as our budget is not allowing me to buy all the books I need—I am finding the library a beautiful place.  Google’s new service opens the door to many possibilities.  Not only can I spend more time with a book, reading it and looking over the contents, before I buy it or check it out, it also aids in the process of finding those hard to find quotes in older books missing an index.  This is appealing to me.  For example, I had checked out, read, and taken extensive notes on Kenneth Burke’s Philosophy of Literary Form.   But yesterday I found I needed a note on what makes a tragedy that I had not taken down specifically.  I was doing a search, “Burke on tragedy,” and found the book I needed on Google Book Search.  It found my quote for me, and I was delighted.  I also had the info I needed to be able to cite the quote correctly.  This could have been a huge problem for me involving getting the book retransferred to my branch at the library again, and then checking out the book, and then going through the whole book again to find the quote.  In this case, Google’s Book Search did the foot work for me.So, I applaud Google’s effort here and I also will end by offering a list of where you can get free ebooks or check out ebooks to read:

Gutenberg 

University of Virginia Library’s Etext Center

The Net Library

And, of course, Google Book Search

Sorry for being gone so long. Oddly enough I had to move to Washington State in order to get a Florida like Wind storm with winds, in some places, up to 90 mph. Well, we lost our electricity for several days, froze our butts off, and cursed the winter. Given the choice between being without electricity in a Florida Summer or a Seattle Winter, I am all for Florida!

Well to make it up to everyone, I have created a tacky, and some might suggest poorly produced/with questionable content, video. My first post on YouTube! I hope you enjoy it.

R

I get more material from airports! From the spaces (the few that there are) allotted to smokers, to the hierarchal structure that airlines creates for their customers, the material sometimes feels endless. Just in time for the holiday traveling, I thought I would examine the latter.

On my last trip to Florida and back, I found myself cloistered into what I will call spaces of “flight class.” From purchasing my airplane tickets, to waiting to board the plane, to my experience on the plane, I found myself wound up in a tangle of capitalist division where I was one of the “second classes” of flying culture.

First, let’s start with the ticket buying process. I am not an “elite” anything. I do not have “points.” I do not belong to any special flying “club.” Nor do I own and utilize any of those special credit cards that make me a “gold,” “platinum,” or “preferred” member (more on this later). I am quite simply a woman looking for the best price I can find on tickets, which means I scan the internet for those “cheap tickets.” I used to go through the airlines, but I found that nine times out of ten they were more expensive than the internet sites. However, because of this need to find the most economical way to fly, I end up taking different airlines and do not accrue points for a later date. Even if I did accrue the points, I would be confused as to how, when, and under what conditions I would be allowed to use those points (oh the horror stories I have heard from friends and family on this account!). Nevertheless, my point is if you cannot afford to use the same airline every time you fly, you can’t earn their points (which they try to not let you use) and so you can’t earn the special favors or the elevated status of “preferred.”

Add this experience with the other cultural practices and you start to feel like you are nothing better than a piece of chewed-up gum under the shoe of, say, US Airways. Now I only pick on US Airways because they happen to be the airline I was stuck with on this flight. I could easily use many of the other airlines to make my points as the airline culture does not differ radically between airlines (although I do know some are not as “elitest” oriented as US Air). But US Air it was, and so they are the ones that will get the brut of my critical observations.

First I check in. Because I am not a “preferred” person or a first class flyer, I get little to no help. Although you can check in online, I avoid this as I once had a terrible experience doing it. So, it is to the long lines and the computer setup areas. Of course the “preferred” folks have the short line and get to talk to what one assumes is a live human being. Yet these “elite” folks are few, as their line is small. To the Airport culture, mirroring our everyday culture, the elite are a small population compared to the amount of gum-on-bottom-of-shoe folks.

After checking in and having a human person check in my bag, I walk to security where everything is scrutinized. Here there is no elite line (although I have seen in some airports a first class passenger line where the folks get the ‘royal’ security checkout); we are all in the same boat. I take off my shoes, coat, and watch and am grateful that I can keep my underwear and bra on. However one wonders about the bra. On this trip I was sporting an under-wire bra and if a metal nail file can be considered a weapon, what about the wire in my bra???? But I digress. After disrobing, showing the contents of my medication (unlike Rush Limbaugh, I keep the goods under my name), and re-collecting the under 4oz of hand sanitation liquid, toothpaste and cough syrup, I walk to my gate and am verbally accosted by US Air employees wanting me to apply for their special Visa card where I have to pay a yearly fee (privilege ?) of $99 for a variable APR interest of 18.24 percent. I am told that this card is a “special” card—one that will give me, immediately, 25,000 bonus miles once I put only 1 dollar on the card, that I will become a “preferred” person when I fly and I might get a free ticket for whomever I am traveling with. But they lost me at the $99 annual fee and the 18.24 interest rate. However, it is nice to know that elite status can still be bought even if it wasn’t inherited or bestowed divinely! Ah capitalism! But again, I digress.

I then wait for my “Zone” to be called. I am in Zone 5 and there are only 6 Zones so I know I have a long wait. The woman next to me asks me what Zone I am in while telling me, and see seemed delighted by this proclamation, that she is in Zone 1: “But you know, I bought this ticket ages ago and so I get to board after the first class.” Zones would make sense to me if they were arranged in such a way as to load the plane from back to front. But this is not the case as when I enter with my other zone 5 mates, I noticed that people are seated all over the plane—front, back, middle—and so it does appear as if my “zone 1” friend was right: “first come first serve!” It is simply another way to let you know how “preferred” you are in the grand scheme of “preferrededness.”

Anyway, as I sink into my rather small seat, I am indoctrinated with phrases of “preferrededness,” by the flight attendants to remind me of my gum-on-bottom-of-shoe status: “preferred members,” “elite members,” “first class passengers,” “star alliance network members” and so on. Each of these different members get special privileges such as, I am guessing, free headphones and an extra bag of those awful snack mixes!

The headphones are such a bloody scam! You pay to buy a pair of headphones that will ONLY work in their plane because of the two prong design (I have noticed that this 2 prong design is different for most airlines making the headphone non-compatible with other airlines). And here too I was reminded of my gum-on-bottom-of shoe place as one male airline attendant snuck a free pair of headphones to another male passenger while approximately 20 of us were waiting in line to use the bathroom. The passenger who received this gift saw that I saw the hand off and smiled sheeply at me: “go ahead” I thought, “take your free headphone . . . I think they are stupid anyway!!!!!”

This brings me to another “preferred” airline culture fact: there are only 4 bathrooms on a plane that sits approximately 160 people–two in the front of the plane and two in the back. The front bathrooms are saved for the first class folks (all 10 of them) and the back two bathrooms are for 150 non-preferred folks –that is a 75 to 1 bathroom ratio. Now, I was sitting next to a man who really, and I mean really, needed to use the bathroom. He saw the line of folks for the back of the plane and, pragmatically, went instead to the first class area to use the bathroom. He was quickly kicked out even though no one was using the bathrooms up front, and was forced to stay in line for the non-preferred, elite, US Air club and non-star alliance network bathroom. My bladder felt for him . . . the insanity!

Finally, when the flight was almost over, we were again bombarded with the opportunity to get that special visa card from our flight attendants who worked hard to sell the program and get us to fill out the application right then and there. Folks who were sleeping found applications sitting on their tray tables or laps (one attendant put an application on the lap of my poor bathroom man while he was sleeping). The implication was if we wanted the status, if we wanted to use a bathroom with relatively no wait, if we wanted to use the airport elite-preferred club, or get those miles, we will pay for that privilege. To not to pay, to not consent to the concept of debt, was at once equated to not being part of the group, not enjoying concepts of preferrededness, eliteness, star potential (as in their star alliance network) and other catch phrases coined to make one feel special and noted. As for me, I guess I will continue to be that gum-on-the-bottom-of-the-shoe flying passenger—I will just make sure to use the bathroom at the airport several times before I walk onto the plane for a long flight!

Good day good people,

Well, I am back from Florida and back from taking my oral exam/proposal defense.  I am delighted, and extremely relieved, to say that I passed the defense and have now advanced to candidacy. All that is left is for me to write my dissertation—the final hump in the long process, one I will most likely be sad to see end.  Florida was glorious—indeed it was like being home with the sun wrapping me in warmth and the ocean lapping at my toes.  I would like to thank my dear friends who put me up, took care of me, made me laugh and listened to my insane ramblings regarding my research and theoretical ideas.  All in all, the trip was crazy busy but rejuvenating. 

I will return to my normal blogging efforts starting next week–beginning with a deconstruction of airport culture just in time for the holidays!  I hope all of you dear folks are doing fine and well.  Let me know what you have been up to. 

Honk, honk

R

Make no mistake dear reader. We are going to witness a major power and worldview struggle here in the United States now that the democrats have take power of congress. The neoconservative Robert Kagan put it nicely when he said, in his work “Of Paradise and Power,” that:

“Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Immanuel Kant’s ‘perpetual peace.’ Meanwhile, the United States remains mired in history, exercising power in an anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable, and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might.” (1)

I do not think I am overstepping his quote to state that this worldview difference also exists between the progressives and the conservatives where the progressives would equal Europe in this equation, and the conservatives would take the place of the United States. Like Kagan, I am oversimplifying the issue, to be sure. However, this oversimplifying of issues is not entirely off the mark. The difference between those who hold a cosmopolitical view (many progressives) and those who promote a nationalistic ideal of military might (many neoconservatives) are in a tug of war for supremacy of their worldview here in the U.S. The question is which worldview best suits American interests and American ideology?

Because of this ensuing struggle*, an internal type of war is likely. Of course, both sides of the coin believe they are correct in their assertions. This is why G.W. Bush is trying to push through Bolton’s appointment, as well as the authorization of a domestic surveillance program—both of which can be said to symbolize his worldview. I have no doubt that Bush believes these are the correct steps to take, but I also firmly believe he is wrong. Again, it is a worldview, philosophic, difference. The neocons firmly believe in preemptive action, unilateral action (when others do not see things their way) and force. In a sense, they believe that one must control all contingencies in order to maintain the status-quo or to enact a “fix.” The progressives do not rule out these types of actions, however they believe in deliberation and dialogue first and force the very last. They also tend to believe that although it is good to be prepared for contingencies, and anticipate those contingencies, that you cannot control all contingencies—to think you can is not only a mistake but a dangerous mistake. Because of this, it is imperative to be flexible and receptive and not ridged. These two philosophies are two very different ways to tackle a problem with two very different underlining approaches.

As a progressive, I find myself more than frustrated that Bush in his address after the elections offered the lip service of bipartisanship but demonstrated, still, an inflexibility of action. Yes, Rumsfeld is leaving but I truly believe that if the elections would have gone the other way, he would still be with us. Bush stated that he had this planned earlier, but that he did not want to negatively hurt the troops or the elections with the discussion. He also protested that he could not make a statement about Rummy leaving until he had his replacement. Yet, the announcement came swiftly after the election went bad for the conservatives. Now he wants to push through his agenda even though voters have sent a clear message that they are not behind his agendas and want different tactics. But, as Bush has said in the past, he is not interested in what the “populists” say, he will do what he thinks is right. I often think that when not campaigning, he forgets that he is living in a democracy.

Eugene Robinson from the Post today ended his column, “Now the Decider Must Listen,” by stating that “Democrats were restrained during the campaign, which was smart. But now it’s time for them to ask those hard questions — and use their new power to compel answers. Even if they have to be unfashionably partisan about it.”

Robinson is partly right as the democrats must demonstrate that their worldview better suits American interests and American ideology. However, to be “unfashionably partisan” about it, to, in effect, utilize the tactics of the neocons and the neocons’ philosophy, would be a mistake. I am not suggesting that the democrats should be weak or should concede easily on important issues—that would be counterproductive indeed! What I am saying is that if we behave like the conservatives have behaved over the last 6 years (and more), we will not be demonstrating our worldview philosophy but theirs. The lack of flexibility, the adherence to straight party-line partisanship, is part of the reason the conservatives were voted out and the democrats voted in. We must, therefore, avoid lip service. We must act as befits our worldview. We must demonstrate through our actions and statements that our philosophy is not only effective, but beneficial for relations in the United States and relations with the rest of the world.

*this struggle is not new, to be sure, but because of our current circumstance, because we are at war, because there has now been an historic change in the senate, we will see this struggle more plainly and more in the open than before.

As we all now know this morning, the Democrats now has control of the House and depending on what happens in Virginia and Montana, we may have the Senate—but only time will tell there.

During the election reporting last night, I spent a good time switching between CNN, C-Span, Fox News (come on, I had to hear how they were going to spin all of this), and local news. From about 6pm to 1am I watched and listened and, on occasion, I yelled at my TV set as if it could hear me*. And one thing that I noticed was a consistency in response I heard from voters who called into the programs (C-Span), or were interviewed: I voted for the democrat (or independent) __________, because I was voting against __________.

On October 28th, Lance from Quietly Making Noise wrote an excellent post, A Crisis of Perception, where he said: “I have not seen the country vote for anyone in decades. We really vote against; against the lesser of the two evils or not at all.” To this I added my two cents, saying (and agreeing with Lakoff) that people vote their imagined identity, not the facts.

It seems, as both Lance and I suggested, when the people voted, they voted against what they didn’t want . . . not for what they wanted. They voted, as Burke might have said, “Thou Shall Not,” instead of “Thou Shall.”

This is a troublesome thought to me, as I sit here and watch the Democrats celebrate and dance. Indeed, I was dancing along with the Democrats, those little figures joyously celebrating inside my TV Box, until it occurred to me that because they got in power by the voters saying “Thou Shall Not,” they could be in for a lot of trouble in ’08.

Voters, at least the ones I heard last night, could not say specifically WHY they voted the way they voted, but relied on the general: “No more status-quo;” “We need a change;” “Enough corruption;” “Iraq must change.” But like a lot of the commercials we were indoctrinated with, specifics were lacking. In their defense, it is hard to divide the rhetoric of campaigns from the issues. But, if we only know what we are voting against, and not specifically what we are voting for, there is a problem.

Yes, it is good to know what you don’t want, god knows it is a step in the right direction, but you also must know what you want as well. Yet, if voters are fuzzy on the specifics of what they want, they are bound to be disappointed in what they get. We want change, that much is very clear from last night’s results, but what kind of change and can real change happen? Now that the Democrats have won, it is imperative that they get together and agree on an overall vision, and draft out specifics in their agenda. Next they must articulate this agenda clearly and directly to the voters who voted them in. Even if there is debate need on the specifics, a general vision must be solidified. If this does not happen, then when 2008 rolls around, democrats will be accused of not having a plan, of being wishy-washy on agendas, and having no direction. Getting the House was easy compared to what must be done now, as it is not enough to have the House (and hopefully the Senate) for only two years if we really want to enact change. They must hold their positions for a while, because change takes time.

I am now going to go listen to Bush’s press conference to hear his response and I might blog about it later. But remember, we must start to articulate what we want and not only what we don’t want. Let us work to create a vision before it is too late.

* (taking a note from Dave Away From Home’s use of footnotes – good idea Dave, thanks) I was especially angry at how voters voted to ban same sex marriage all over the country—and We say We stand for Liberty, Equality and Freedom for All in the United States—yeah right, my ass. We are just continuing a long line of exclusions and exceptions to our grand vision.
BREAKING NEWS: Rumsfeld’s is Resigning! Well, we are on our way.

The air in my space lacks congruency today. There are chaotic workings at present where the particles don’t seem to gel, preferring to ricochet off each other in an apparent lack of direction. There is, therefore, a kind of excitement where projection is not certain and certainness is not proclaimed. I am left without a space of focused concentration or landing.

This is due, in part, to the rising waters all over parts of the Northwest including my basement. It is due in part to the elections and my anticipation of the direction my fellow citizens wish to collectively take over the next two years. It is due in part to my pending oral exams and the amount of sustained reading I must endure with the hopes that retention also occurs. How odd that my basement retains water it was created to repel, and how my brain seeps out remembrances that it was created to retain. The irony is not lost to me. If I only had the secret of my basement.

So . . . concentration is shot to hell as I alternatively read a page, write a sentence, scan the internet and TV for news of the elections and river flooding. Here in the Northwest there is valid worry regarding the 8th district race between Rep. Dave Reichert and his democrat opponent Darcy Burner. The race has been far from polite and is one of those painfully close races. This is why there is great concern regarding the rain and flooding here – as if the flooding of one’s house was not enough in those parts most affected by the rains. Several voting areas are closed down because of the flooding and voters are being directed to go a mile to two miles away from their original voting places. One wonders if the rain and the flooding have become partisan in attitude. Of course not being able to speak to the water entity, one will never really know. But disenfranchising comes in many forms, purposeful and accidental . . . we simply reap or morn the results.

More reports of disenfranchising are pouring in throughout the country. In Virginia, with the painfully close race between Sen. George Allen and Democratic challenger Jim Webb, there are complains of fraudulent phone calls directing voters to wrong polling stations or intimidating them by insisting that they are not registered to vote in Virginia and so if they showed up, they would be “charged criminally.”

Voting machines are the cause of other forms of disenfranchising. At an elementary school in Cleveland, Ohio, all the machines were down for two hours. We are told that this school was in a predominantly black district. Why is it always in the poor districts, for the most part, that such things happen? Or, do we just not get informed about the machines that crash in the ‘rich’ areas? And one wonders why conspiracy lives on!

Then there are cases where we disenfranchise ourselves such as when South Carolina Governor Mark Sanfort shot himself in the foot as he forgot to bring his registration card with him when he went to vote.It seems that Sanfort is suffering from the same lack of concentration that I have today. I am just glad that I voted already, when my mind was cleared. Now I wait the outcome, contested or not. It looks like it will be a very long wet day.