I got a call from Kathie Shelley, who used to be "the" Democratic lawyer in Susquehanna County. She'd received a call from a lawyer in Philadelphia working for the Obama campaign and trying to put together lead attorneys in each of Pennsylvania's counties. This is preparing for the November election, and as Kathie has retired, she wanted to give him my name. Sure, no problem, I said.
So once again I'll be the lawyer on the spot for the Democrats on election day. That's fine; I've done it before. It will be interesting to see if there's more activity on election day here than there was in 2006. It will also be interesting to see if Barack Obama's historical candidacy will resonate in this still-quite-conservative county.
Of course, you would think there would be a Republican lawyer doing the same thing, just for the sake of parity. But you would be wrong, and really quite silly. This is Susquehanna County -- the Republicans don't need to worry that any of their sizable number will be messed about by election day antics. What they don't seem to understand is that among their sizable number are quite a few people who will vote for the Democratic candidate in some races. There are hard Republicans here, and soft ones. It will be interesting to see how the numbers break out when all the votes are counted.
And that's my job: to make sure that all the legitimate votes get counted. It's actually quite an honor.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
A Quick Check
I know at least one person checks this blog because that one person reminded me recently that it was STILL SNOWING on my masthead, and even in Susquehanna County, we do get summer. Fair comment. [Changes have been made. -- Ed.]
So while I'm waiting for today's torrential rains to abate long enough for me to take a more summery photo for the masthead, here's a quick check of my thoughts on the current political scene.
1. Who's this woman in Massachusetts who cares enough about one-upsmanship in political signage during the annual Fourth of July parade that she had to write in to the Independent? I mean, if people did what she said they did (or, rather, if they did what she wants people to believe they did -- her command of a coherent narrative style left me a bit confused as to what she was alleging actually happened), then sure -- bad on those Carney supporters. But the whole thing is hinky. Supposedly she's writing out of a sense of patriotism and community nostalgia. But who actually cares enough to write to the paper of a community you've already left? And where was she when Don Sherwood was shtupping some woman in D.C., then (allegedly) hitting her, then (allegedly) paying her off as settlement of a civil action? What I'm trying to say is, Chris Carney isn't responsible for every action -- misguided or not -- of his supporters, but Don Sherwood is responsible for who he [fill in crude verb of choice].
So this woman can claim that she's not partisan, that she's just complaining about how some over-zealous political supporters were behaving badly. She can even say she would have written the exact same letter if it had been Hackett supporters blocking the Carney signs. But until she produces the letter to the editor she wrote two years ago to say that Don Sherwood has besmirched the good name and reputation of his loyal supporters in Montrose when he behaved so egregiously . . . she's got no credibility with me.
2. I'm an Obama supporter.
I'm a long-time subscriber to The New Yorker magazine.
I thought The Cover was funny.
But I can see why others didn't. Whatev.
Here's what does surprise me. Why aren't I allowed to think it's funny? I had people telling me that it WASN'T funny, that it WAS offensive, and that no one {liberal/Obama-supporting/with a conscience/with a pulse} could possibly think it acceptable. Only I am liberal/Obama-supporting/have a conscience/and have a pulse. And I'm also pretty certain it's not me who has a problem here.
For one thing, "they" can't articulate precisely why I should be offended by The Cover. In the space of ten minutes, I heard on two different liberal leaning radio programs (Air America and Here and Now) that The Cover was offensive because it wasn't realistic ("Michelle Obama has never worn her hair like that!") and that The Cover was offensive because it was too realistic ("satire is extreme; this wasn't extreme"). Well, make up your tiny minds!
For another thing, all that outrage seemed awfully convenient. I swear the pundits listen to each other and react accordingly. Would the one person who did think it was funny get ostracized by the others? Is there some sort of punditry punishment for mavericks?
And "their" certainty was so odd, as if they'd established the offensiveness of The Cover by irrefutable Aristotelian logic, Venn diagrams, and reductio ad absurdum arguments straight from their high school debating clubs. I half expected someone to say "Q.E.D." with a flourish of the hand. And isn't that ironic, because I'm pretty sure The Cover was mocking precisely that rush to judgment, that certainty without proof, that -- well, reductio ad absurdum. As I saw it, it was saying, "If everything everyone has said about the Obamas were true -- she's got militant ties, he's a secret Muslim, she's too black for America, he's not black enough, etc., etc. -- here's what you'd get."
Sorry, I still think it's funny. And I really thought Jon Stewart was right on target, pointing out that it's odd how the Obama campaign got upset that The Cover showed him as an Muslim Extremist, because Muslim Extremists are the ones who get upset about cartoons. If you want to watch the video clip, it's here.
3. I was asked, recently, why I thought Obama should be elected and how his election would help quilters. (Hey, I have other facets to my life -- and I post more about quilting, too!) Here's what I replied:
The current administration has dug a pretty horrible hole for us within the global community, and that's affecting us at home more than people realize. The dollar is down against the Euro, the Asian currencies, and so forth -- that, in turn, is making all us poorer in the global economy. Given that we've been lured into complacency about gas guzzling cars and energy inefficient consumption, that means one thing: LESS MONEY FOR BUYING FABRIC. (Sorry for the yelling...) A stronger US economy starts abroad, and if we can pull that off, we can spend more at home.
Obama gets it that we have to start mending fences abroad. More internationalism, less cowboy/military action. Let's impress our neighbors abroad that we're smarter than the 43rd president. Let's encourage investment in the US -- heck, let's export more American-designed fabric! (And American ingenuity, know-how, creativity, and complexity -- we've got a great product once you stop our national leaders from waving guns around.)
Obama also gets it that we all work hard and need a break at home. I think he'll do a much better job of supporting us as busy professionals. Look at his position on the reformed G.I. Bill legislation -- that's support for the folks who've made such monumental sacrifices for our country. Let's get them home, provide them with mental health services and job placement and education, and a sense that we know we've asked far too much of them, so it's our turn to give back. And if Obama -- and not McCain -- thinks that's important for our nation's military, then I think we can guess which candidate will do a better job supporting our nation's quilters. (Not that those are mutually exclusive groups, you understand. I have no doubt there are loads of military quilters.)
Finally, McCain lost his gadfly cred when he backed Bush in Iraq and at home. Obama is bucking a long-standing tradition of politics as a backroom business. He believes this nation can do great things again, and he's made me believe that as well. I think he can pull it off, but even if all he does is restore a sense of urgency and excitement about the presidential election, and governing the nation as a whole, he's done us all a great favor. If we can sleep at night knowing our government is not all a bunch of horses' derrieres, then that means we'll be better rested in the morning. And you know what a well rested quilter means, don't you? A more consistent quarter-inch seam. Say it with me: Yes, we can!
Well, has anyone noticed how Barack Obama is being received abroad? Not too shabby, hunh? When you can impress the prime minister of Iraq, King Abdullah of Jordan, the US troops, and the German public, you're doing something right. So, my answer might have been tongue-in-cheek, but it might also have been prescient. How awesome would it be if we had the guy that everyone thought was cool and impressive? They might even like us a little, again.
So while I'm waiting for today's torrential rains to abate long enough for me to take a more summery photo for the masthead, here's a quick check of my thoughts on the current political scene.
1. Who's this woman in Massachusetts who cares enough about one-upsmanship in political signage during the annual Fourth of July parade that she had to write in to the Independent? I mean, if people did what she said they did (or, rather, if they did what she wants people to believe they did -- her command of a coherent narrative style left me a bit confused as to what she was alleging actually happened), then sure -- bad on those Carney supporters. But the whole thing is hinky. Supposedly she's writing out of a sense of patriotism and community nostalgia. But who actually cares enough to write to the paper of a community you've already left? And where was she when Don Sherwood was shtupping some woman in D.C., then (allegedly) hitting her, then (allegedly) paying her off as settlement of a civil action? What I'm trying to say is, Chris Carney isn't responsible for every action -- misguided or not -- of his supporters, but Don Sherwood is responsible for who he [fill in crude verb of choice].
So this woman can claim that she's not partisan, that she's just complaining about how some over-zealous political supporters were behaving badly. She can even say she would have written the exact same letter if it had been Hackett supporters blocking the Carney signs. But until she produces the letter to the editor she wrote two years ago to say that Don Sherwood has besmirched the good name and reputation of his loyal supporters in Montrose when he behaved so egregiously . . . she's got no credibility with me.
2. I'm an Obama supporter.
I'm a long-time subscriber to The New Yorker magazine.
I thought The Cover was funny.
But I can see why others didn't. Whatev.
Here's what does surprise me. Why aren't I allowed to think it's funny? I had people telling me that it WASN'T funny, that it WAS offensive, and that no one {liberal/Obama-supporting/with a conscience/with a pulse} could possibly think it acceptable. Only I am liberal/Obama-supporting/have a conscience/and have a pulse. And I'm also pretty certain it's not me who has a problem here.
For one thing, "they" can't articulate precisely why I should be offended by The Cover. In the space of ten minutes, I heard on two different liberal leaning radio programs (Air America and Here and Now) that The Cover was offensive because it wasn't realistic ("Michelle Obama has never worn her hair like that!") and that The Cover was offensive because it was too realistic ("satire is extreme; this wasn't extreme"). Well, make up your tiny minds!
For another thing, all that outrage seemed awfully convenient. I swear the pundits listen to each other and react accordingly. Would the one person who did think it was funny get ostracized by the others? Is there some sort of punditry punishment for mavericks?
And "their" certainty was so odd, as if they'd established the offensiveness of The Cover by irrefutable Aristotelian logic, Venn diagrams, and reductio ad absurdum arguments straight from their high school debating clubs. I half expected someone to say "Q.E.D." with a flourish of the hand. And isn't that ironic, because I'm pretty sure The Cover was mocking precisely that rush to judgment, that certainty without proof, that -- well, reductio ad absurdum. As I saw it, it was saying, "If everything everyone has said about the Obamas were true -- she's got militant ties, he's a secret Muslim, she's too black for America, he's not black enough, etc., etc. -- here's what you'd get."
Sorry, I still think it's funny. And I really thought Jon Stewart was right on target, pointing out that it's odd how the Obama campaign got upset that The Cover showed him as an Muslim Extremist, because Muslim Extremists are the ones who get upset about cartoons. If you want to watch the video clip, it's here.
3. I was asked, recently, why I thought Obama should be elected and how his election would help quilters. (Hey, I have other facets to my life -- and I post more about quilting, too!) Here's what I replied:
The current administration has dug a pretty horrible hole for us within the global community, and that's affecting us at home more than people realize. The dollar is down against the Euro, the Asian currencies, and so forth -- that, in turn, is making all us poorer in the global economy. Given that we've been lured into complacency about gas guzzling cars and energy inefficient consumption, that means one thing: LESS MONEY FOR BUYING FABRIC. (Sorry for the yelling...) A stronger US economy starts abroad, and if we can pull that off, we can spend more at home.
Obama gets it that we have to start mending fences abroad. More internationalism, less cowboy/military action. Let's impress our neighbors abroad that we're smarter than the 43rd president. Let's encourage investment in the US -- heck, let's export more American-designed fabric! (And American ingenuity, know-how, creativity, and complexity -- we've got a great product once you stop our national leaders from waving guns around.)
Obama also gets it that we all work hard and need a break at home. I think he'll do a much better job of supporting us as busy professionals. Look at his position on the reformed G.I. Bill legislation -- that's support for the folks who've made such monumental sacrifices for our country. Let's get them home, provide them with mental health services and job placement and education, and a sense that we know we've asked far too much of them, so it's our turn to give back. And if Obama -- and not McCain -- thinks that's important for our nation's military, then I think we can guess which candidate will do a better job supporting our nation's quilters. (Not that those are mutually exclusive groups, you understand. I have no doubt there are loads of military quilters.)
Finally, McCain lost his gadfly cred when he backed Bush in Iraq and at home. Obama is bucking a long-standing tradition of politics as a backroom business. He believes this nation can do great things again, and he's made me believe that as well. I think he can pull it off, but even if all he does is restore a sense of urgency and excitement about the presidential election, and governing the nation as a whole, he's done us all a great favor. If we can sleep at night knowing our government is not all a bunch of horses' derrieres, then that means we'll be better rested in the morning. And you know what a well rested quilter means, don't you? A more consistent quarter-inch seam. Say it with me: Yes, we can!
Well, has anyone noticed how Barack Obama is being received abroad? Not too shabby, hunh? When you can impress the prime minister of Iraq, King Abdullah of Jordan, the US troops, and the German public, you're doing something right. So, my answer might have been tongue-in-cheek, but it might also have been prescient. How awesome would it be if we had the guy that everyone thought was cool and impressive? They might even like us a little, again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
